From the Right Brain of God and the Left Brain of Mr. S.

I write posts for this blog. And when I do I know and accept the fact that whatever I write can be picked apart and disagreed with right here next to my words. I like that. It isn’t because I like contention. I don’t. I like it because it helps us all to learn. Anything that is true can be seen as truth even when opposing information/ideas are viewed also.

Now you can comprehend and feel the truth of that simple concept. And other people can also. So when I read a blog which deals with spiritual and religious matter and there are no comments I wonder. Then I realize the author does not allow comments. Do they understand what I just wrote? Yes they do. And here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

This was the experience I had when I visited Denver Snuffer’s blog. I tried to comment and yet nothing is ever allowed to be seen by his audience. Why does he not allow comments?

The writer is like a magician, the modern trickster type not the worker of spiritual powers. The magician literally sets the stage so he can make the audience “see” what he wishes them to see. He spends many hours perfecting his illusion. His audience comes prepared only to receive a show. They have not taken the time to study all the ways the magician can produce effects which seem supernatural.

So it is with a post on religion. The writer has taken the time to build a structure which he presents as inclusive and grounded in truth. He spends time to make it believable. The reader might require hours, days or even weeks to find the flaws in the author’s post. And many readers will never actually see the lies for what they are. But if comments are allowed then there are those who know the scriptures and truth well enough to reveal the deception.

If it was just a magic show no harm is done. If you are speaking of the things of God and putting forth an idea as truth when it is actually deception it is a serious crime against your readers. True followers of God and Jesus do not do such a things.

I have praise for this LDSA site where people feel free and are free to disagree with anything they read here. I like this because I like the truth to be known.

There can be lots of excuses for not allowing the comments on your post be seen. But I believe they are all false. A writer could say, “I don’t want to foster contention.” You mean the way God fosters contention by giving everyone a mind and a mouth? So you believe that preventing others from expressing their ideas is being righteous?

What if I said, “There will be no commenting on this post.”? I think some one would be asking LDSA to revoke my status as contributor. In any case it is prideful. Yes Jesus did take and answer questions. Yes there were times when he challenged them to answer his question first or gave them an answer which defied their understanding. In this way he pointed out that they were not being honest in their questions or with their audience.

So in the spirit of pointing out truth and arming you against being deceived by a trickster posing as a man of God I take exception with a post I read from the desk of Denver Snuffer.
This is the post I read.

It was posted July 1st of 2012 and is entitled The Lord Delights in Chastity. A little background on Denver Snuffer. A web page called Mormon Podcast Stories says of him, “Denver Snuffer – A Progressive, Fundamentalist, Non-Polygamist Mormon Lawyer Who Claims to Have Seen Christ.” Well you can see he is getting some accolades and surely he has a following. He has written a few books about gospel subjects with titles like The Second Comforter: Conversing With the Lord Through the Veil and Passing the Heavenly Gift. I understand he is an active member of the LDS church.

If Mr. Snuffer allowed comments I would have addressed the issue there. But in studying this circumstance I have found a communication to us from the scriptures which I believe will help counter the lies perpetrated by Mr. S. This post maybe faulted as if all I am doing is trying to tear someone down. But if it is a sin to point out a lie when it is seen then I am going to sin. I write this that the truth may be known.

I had read parts of posts by Mr. Snuffer and thought some of what he said made sense. I became aware of this post when it was shared on FB. So when I read it I was stunned.

It is about polygamy. Mr. S quotes scripture and makes reference to historical events. But the scriptures which are left out and the facts of history which are left out create a deception for the readers. After he places this misinformation in the reader’s mind he then demonizes those who practice polygamy. And the icing on the cake is he uses fear to motivate his readers to not even think about acting on the principles of plural marriage. So misinformation, false accusations and fear are the cards played in his post. If you recognize those tactics then you know who the real author of this post is.

I will go over what I am talking about briefly. You can read the post yourself and see if I am telling the truth.

There are only two quotes from the scriptures in the entire post. Both in the first paragraph. And both are from Jacob chapter two. If you talking about polygamy and only quote two scriptures and they are from Jacob 2 you are not trying to communicate the truth. You are trying to lead your audience astray. This is exactly what Mr. S did. He said that Jacob’s sermon condemns taking multiple wives. In any one’s mind the term “taking multiple wives” and “practicing plural marriage” would mean the same thing. How can a prophet of God condemn that which God does not condemn? We could spend a lot of time talking about what Jacob chapter 2 says about polygamy and it has already been done right here on this blog. Justin can get you the reference. Thanks Justin. But suffice it to say the first paragraph is a communication calculated to deceive. So one paragraph one lie.

In the post Mr. S uses the following terms to describe the practice of polygamy by those other than Joseph: promiscuity, indiscriminate breeding, exploitation of women, abomination, whoredom, adultery, fornication, gratification, vanity, and foolishness. Well bashing plural marriage in that way is very popular in the LDS crowds these days. It is also very popular to do this among the famous and well loved of the world. Interesting how the LDS church and Idumea now have the exact same view on this subject. If you want to be in good standing with the governments of the world and well liked by the world you better be against polygamy. And Mr. S is totally against polygamy.

In the second paragraph Mr. S states that David lost his exaltation by offending the law of plural marriage. Really? Wow, how is that possible? The unpardonable sin is clearly defined in section 132:27 and it must include as part of it the shedding of innocent blood. David shed innocent blood when he had Uriah murdered to cover up David’s violation of Uriah’s marriage with Bathsheba. If David had just been intimate with Bathsheba and offended the law of plural marriage he could have repented and not lost his exaltation. Case in point Solomon did offend the law of plural marriage by taking wives which God did not want him to take. And yet the scriptures do not state that Solomon lost his exaltation. Okay paragraph 2 lie number 2. You will find that Mr. S is very consistent in that practice, lying that is.

In the third paragraph Mr. S communicates the idea that very often murders and violence are the fruit of those who live plural marriage. No percentages or numbers used he just states it as if it were common knowledge. Yes there are a few small sects of polygamists where violence and murder occurred. Do I hear you saying those LDS fundamentalist are not small groups? They might be seen as big in Utah but compared to the world population of Muslims, 2.1 billion (Christians in this estimate were 2 billion) the Utah polygamists are miniscule. Even if only 1 Muslim in 1000 practiced polygamy that would be 2 million people. The point is the groups where murder has taken place are by no means representative of people who live polygamy in the world today nor in the past. The words of Mr. S in this paragraph are just sensationalism. This communication is also calculated to deceive so I say he is 3 for 3 so far.

There is one more bit of misinformation that I will mention. Mr. S makes it seem as if Joseph Smith barely even practiced polygamy at all. He said Joseph’s plural wives were  “governmental”. “Governmental”? What is Mr. S alluding to? Perhaps he is trying to make us believe that Joseph Smith was like the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt. In ancient Egypt polygamy was allowed but not practiced much by the common folk since in their slave state economy they couldn’t afford more than one wife. However the Pharaohs did have multiple wives as a way of building ties to other kingdoms or ensuring an heir. So what is Mr. S saying? Is it that Joseph was a step above all other converts to the restored gospel, that he was one of the elites like the Pharaohs, designated to build up God’s family on the earth? Well here is the quote. You decide. “For Joseph, the multiple wives were governmental, sealed to him to construct the family of God on earth. Tying together lines of what was to be a single family, with himself as the patriarchal father of a new branch of the Family of Israel.”
I think that is exactly what Mr. S would have us believe, that Joseph viewed himself as one of the elite chosen by God to do things that if other men did it would be “a matter of lust and physical gratification.”
That is arrogant and completely contrary to the ways of God and at odds with the historical record. And I for one want the record to show that I testify that Joseph Smith had no such arrogance nor ever set a hypocritical double standard for himself. Mr. S passes on the lie that plural marriage was supposed to be for just a few select super righteous people. Yeah? So how does this work? Maybe it was just for those who claim to have had a vision of Christ or have written books.

Now you might be thinking that Mr. S did not demonize everyone who practiced polygamy as I said earlier because he didn’t demonize Joseph. Or maybe you were thinking about that strange episode of Teletubbies, hey let it go, they were all strange. But Mr. S did demonize even Joseph’s practice. He knows what he has passed on does not endear anyone to Joseph. It makes Joseph out as a hypocritical elitist. It causes division and malice between people. Surely it is that spirit of superiority which was the cause of murder among those mentioned.

But the truth is God is no respecter of persons. All are alike unto Him. If God commanded Joseph to practice it then He can just as easily inspire any man to practice it. And if it is inspired of God it is just as covenantal and sacral, and would not involve indiscriminate breeding of multiple women. Mr. S is not rehabilitating Joseph or helping him come clean. He is building a perversion of the real Joseph and placing a false concept into his mouth. Did Joseph deny practicing polygamy? You bet he did! If he had not they would have killed him even faster than they did. And there is no doubt that it was because Joseph did teach others his belief in plural marriage even polyandry that he was arrested and then killed while in jail. But what Joseph taught in private and we have to this day in the historical and scriptural records is the opposite of what Mr. S is leading people to believe.

Enough of discussing here what came from the left brain of Mr. S. You can read it yourself and if you are honest about it you will see that after the misinformation comes the accusations and then the fear mongering.

I now will talk about comes to us from the right brain of God and those He inspired to practice plural marriage. This is information which Mr. S did not want his readers to think about.

Many of you know about the split brain concept explained on this blog. It is here.
If you have not read it I suggest you do. You won’t be sorry for the time you invest to learn this concept.

The left mind uses words to communicate. That is it’s forte and its weakness. Language is not real life. It is abstract symbols used to convey meaning. It can not convey full reality. The right brain has no abstract symbols for written or verbal language. The right brain communicates in imagery, emotions and actions. In the scriptures we don’t have the full record of events and scriptures are all written so they are left brain communications.  But what we do have is very significant and by looking not at what was said or written about plural marriage but at the actions of the people who practiced it and God’s reaction to those actions we have a non verbal right brain communication.

Abraham

God spoke to a man and established his covenant with this man, Abraham. Abraham lived plural marriage. The promise of a numberless posterity and all the other promises of God to this man are being fulfilled. And it is not true that all people who have lived have an ever growing posterity. This is demonstrated in the last few paragraphs of the post.

Isaac

We have no record of Isaac, Abraham’s birthright son as having more than one wife. Isaac had born to him twin sons and he favored the older over the younger. And yet Isaac’s wife had revelation that the younger was to be the birthright son. As the years went by the older son did not value God’s ways yet Isaac did not of himself reconsider who should be the birthright son. To his credit after Isaac had been tricked into giving the younger son the birthright blessing Isaac though blind began to see the light.  So on the whole the record supports believing that Isaac may not have listened real closely to what God was saying. Or at a minimum for whatever reason God’s purposes had to be fulfilled through Rebecca, Isaac’s wife rather than Isaac being open to receive the inspiration. Isaac was not condemned but neither has he been highly praised by God. And again we don’t even know for sure that Isaac did not have other wives.

Jacob

God established his covenant with Jacob, Abraham’s grandson. Jacob had 4 wives. Jacob was highly favored of the Lord and all the faithful people of God have been invited into a tribe named for this man, Israel.

Moses

For the next 400 years we have no record of plural marriage as being outlawed by God. Yet we are given the account of a person born in the house of Israel nearly 400 years after Israel finding fault with polygamy. It is noteworthy that she had been born and raised in the state sponsored slavery of Egypt. This person was Miriam, Moses’ sister by birth. She found fault with Moses specifically because he had two wives. He had married an Ethiopian woman and also married Zipporah daughter of Reuel (also known as Jethro Priest of Midian). The Lord stated that he did not like Miriam finding fault with Moses and smote her with leprosy. She was healed after she withdrew the fault finding. Moses was praised by God as being like unto the only begotten. He was given the privilege of not tasting death but being translated and remained in his body to appear to Jesus on the mount of transfiguration. God has highly praised Moses ever since.

Children of Israel under the Law given to Moses

Moses’ life in Egypt and among the people of Midian was all done prior to the Lord altering the covenant to be under the law given to Moses. And yet even under that second law given through Moses God did not call polygamy an abomination or a whoredom. The opposite of condemning it God made it a practice that if a man’s brother died he was to take the widowed sister in law as a wife, in addition to his other wife/wives. That established the practice of plural marriage as widespread and not requiring any case by case special dispensation for its practice. The children of Israel for all their folly were loved and succored by God for 1500 years and much like the remnant of the Lamanites (who by the way also practiced and many still practice  plural marriage) the blood descendents of Jacob have been promised to be restored to righteousness in the last days.

Jacob’s in laws and Esau thrown in for good measure

But speaking of not requiring any special dispensation let’s look more closely at Jacob’s experience. Jacob was sent to live among his mother’s family because they were followers of God. This was to help ensure he married in the covenant. Unlike his brother Esau who married women from families who did not follow the ways of God as taught to Abraham. And yet even Esau had three wives (one of the wives might have been from a covenant people family in an attempt to please his parents. I couldn’t be sure and didn’t spend the time to verify it). And even though Esau wept bitterly about not getting the birthright blessing and Isaac said he had no blessing to give, the reality was Esau did get a pretty good blessing and was even promised that he would not be under Jacob’s yoke forever. Yes Esau did get mad and planned to kill Jacob but when the time came he repented and set aside his anger and loved his brother.
Back to Jacob’s experience. Jacob was married to Leah by the act of being intimate with her. If there were even any vows spoken by Jacob prior to the wedding night they were void because Jacob was speaking them in his heart and mind to Rachel. If they had a big party and ceremony it was still all under deception for Jacob. If the ceremony made them married then it would have easily been voided. But the act of being intimate with Leah would not be so easily brushed aside. But we have no record of anyone lodging any complaints about Jacob taking Rachel as a second wife nor any complaints when he took their handmaidens as wives also. So all these people on Jacob’s mother’s side had no problem with polygamy. It is only rational to believe that all those people were at liberty to practice polygamy.  And what is important to us is that God did not complain or condemn these people. He didn’t even condemn Esau who took wives without any hint of heavenly inspiration in the matter. Or was there? God did give Esau the miracle of being able to forgive and by all we know of the gospel that means he too was able to be forgiven which is just what Isaac’s blessing indicated. Esau’s descendents were many and are still among us. And as we all know God blessed Israel above measure.

Ruth

Ruth was married to a man who died due to a real big famine. Her mother in law said to her and the other widowed daughter in law, You girls are young still. Go to your home lands and you can find a husband who will support you. I am too old to marry so save yourselves. Ruth who was not from the tribe of Israel, said no and chose to stay with Naomi. She said your people will be my people. Kind of covenant entering thing huh? Ruth was blessed to become one of Boaz’s wives. Boaz said he would marry her to preserve the name of the dead in the land. This was surely a reference to the requirements of the law and would be a public explanation of why Boaz was taking another wife. A man of Boaz’s wealth in a time of so much famine was surely married and likely had several wives already. He was following the Lord’s law from Moses. Ruth and her mother in law were saved from starvation and Ruth was given the honor no only of having a child but of being one of the ancestors of Jesus. Ruth’s name has become synonymous with faithfulness and devotion.

Many people of the LDS believe that the practice of plural marriage must be done under the direction of a presiding authority. Why would anyone be surprised about this? The LDS believe that all blessings required for salvation must be received under the direction of an external presiding authority. I would say that is the defining characteristic of members of the LDS group. They do not trust themselves to be directed personally by God in matters effecting their salvation. For that reason none of the members of the LDS Church can be as Alma was.

But let us look at the record of events.

In the case of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, the generations of people in Jacobs mother’s family and 1500 years worth of the Lord’s people under the law of Moses who was it that received the revelation that it was approved of God to practice plural marriage?

The individuals who practiced it.

And what were the motivating circumstances? Here is some examples of the motivations which are known from the record.

The motivation is followed by the person’s name:

We want a child/Abraham and Sarah

We want more children/Leah speaking in behalf of herself and her handmaiden

I need a husband/Ruth

She needs a husband/God via the law given to Moses

I love her and she loves me/Jacob and Rachel.

Now we have read Mr. S’s teachings on why Joseph Smith took additional wives. Here is a review. Mr. S says it was “governmental” for the purpose of “Tying together lines of what was to be a single family, with himself as the patriarchal father of a new branch of the Family of Israel.”, very Pharaoh like to be sure. Time for a reality check. I do not tear down Joseph. Rather I lift up as Godlike the common desires of the heart of many righteous men throughout the ages of the world. They are desires placed there by God Himself. And no man under any circumstance should be using pressure or deception to have a woman marry him. Neither should any woman for that matter. I don’t care who did it unless it was a unusual revelation from God to do it (ie Nephi being told to kill Laban) pressure or deception in this thing will need to be repented of. I do not think for a second that Joseph’s was a desire for self aggrandizement or the pride of the Pharaohs and kings of the world. Just the honest love of a man for a woman and the desire to be a husband to her. A desire which God did not limit to just one person in either men or women. A simple and yet pure desire which has been vilified in our minds by all the devil has at his disposal. And yet I believe the historical record shows it was there in Joseph’s pure heart.

Joseph’s first polygamous wife was Fanny Alger. Before Joseph married Fanny she came into the house of Joseph and Emma as a maid at the age of 16. Joseph and Emma were 26. Sometime in her 18th year Fanny was forced to leave the house when Emma found out that Joseph had married her. This information is taken from this website and you can see the sources listed there. Fanny left the house in between 1833 to 1835. It was 5 years before Joseph took another plural wife.
Fanny Alger was not taken as wife by Joseph for “governmental” reasons. I respect the reason which I assign for the marriage. I believe God respects it also. And that is why He answered Joseph’s prayer on how the people in the Old testament were justified in practicing plural marriage. I think Joseph knew he loved Fanny and knew that Fanny loved him. He probably asked what to do about it and wondered if he could be allowed to marry her with God’s approval. So to the motivation list I add:

I love her and she loves me/Joseph and Fanny.

Now if you look at these motivations and see a bunch of people simply justifying themselves in committing whoredoms I am sorry for you. But when you read Mr. S’s post it is crystal clear that he wants his readers to view those who practice polygamy as self justifying men who exploit their wives and treat them like property and are bent on practicing an abomination and reducing their relationships to a whoredom. I am practically quoting him there. And you thought I was rough to call the man a liar? The post wants you to feel that people who choose to practice polygamy are just whoremongers. Mr. S especially wants you to feel that if you want to practice polygamy you are a whorermonger.

I believe Denver Snuffer’s post of July 1, 2012 was designed to have the effect of putting fear into the hearts of people who want to practice plural marriage. I believe without question that is the intent behind his post. I don’t even know if he is aware of it. But the true author of that post is very aware of it.

You might point to Pearl of Great Price Moses chapter 5 verse 3 to validate the idea that monogamy is the standard of God’s people from the beginning. It says, “3 And from that time forth, the sons and daughters of Adam began to divide two and two in the land, and to till the land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters.”

No that verse should not be viewed as the ways of God. Why? Because ten verses later the records says of these same people “13 And Satan came among them, saying: I am also a son of God; and he commanded them, saying: Believe it not; and they believed it not, and they loved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish.”

To be accurate you must say that the people who began “to divide two and two in the land” later “loved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish.”

The scriptures do not support the notion that monogamy has been God’s standard from the beginning. What we have been given in the scriptural record shows over 2,000 years of God giving His blessing to plural marriage among the largest group known of God’s people and Him saying no to one isolated branch which lasted for less than 1,000 years and in fact destroyed themselves by their pride.

Prideful and selfish people can not live the law which requires unselfishness in its deepest form. Pride and Selfishness continued does lead to becoming carnal, sensual and devilish. Selfish people can not even comprehend what the law is about. They accept lies about it and say it was a very limited practice with strict narrow limits. They see it as something which requires a license. A license is a grant from a ruling authority to practice an act which is sinful. Yes in the minds of those who see plural marriage as a sin they see a God who says, “Do not practice plural marriage unless I say so.” But God’s actions in the scriptural record show He allows all people to practice plural marriage unless he has told them not to.

Now would you like a left brain language communication of God proving that monogamy was not the way things started out?

“David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.” (D&C 132:38)

So if you believe that God was speaking there then it is clear that He said it was plural marriage which was from Him from the beginning of creation. That is even before the fall. Funny that Mr. S did not quote that verse.
Mr. S bashed Brigham Young for converting the principle of plural marriage into a mandatory practice for exaltation. He also bashed Brigham for bragging about his ability to get wives. Frankly that is something that can be repented of. But since plural marriage was there from the beginning how could it not be a principle for all people as soon as they will accept it? And is it mandatory? Nothing in all God’s universe is mandatory in terms of Him forcing us. In terms of if you want B you must do A that is the nature of existence itself requiring it. God simply puts it into words so we can receive His blessings if we are willing.
And in that way D&C 132:3 says “Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.” And what are the consequences for not obeying this law once it is revealed to us?  “And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—…Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation…And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent…” (D&C 84:54-57). It is a damnation(!), until we repent and then move forward again.

And as we read the left brain communication of the actions of the people and God’s reaction to their actions we see a pattern emerge. We see two different way of acting regarding this principle and two different results.

On the one hand we have people who in one form or another obey the injunction of the Lord in D&C 132: 32 “Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.” They practice some form of polygamy and their posterity remains in the earth growing forever. And many of them have continued to have their societies last for thousands of years.

Then you have people who are prideful and set up laws against polygamy. They set up governments of men none of which last for more than 1000 years because they become filled with secret combinations. The Book of Mormon covers a quite small portion of the earth and tracks three main groups of people. And two of them follow this path of setting up governments and being so prideful that they can not be trusted with any form of plural marriage. The result is that eventually all their descendents are wiped off the face of the earth and their family lines stop.

I do not trust a man who lies, falsely accuses and puts fear in to other people’s hearts.

One final note the name Mr. S does not refer to Denver Snuffer. It refers to Mr. Satan.

The Perfect LDS Church Member

On this the week of the semi-annual General Conference of the LDS church I would like to give an invitation to actually live without an archy over you. If you attend or participate in the LDS church you have two external powers over you. LDSA took pains early on in this blog to explain that anarchy as a societal structure was not the condition of confusion and chaos people have been taught to believe it is. Anarchy simply means that rather than humans having a ruling authority over them they ruled themselves from the light within.

Even now as you read this most people have doubts about the usefulness of living without an external ruling body over them. So they remain where they are. They might be pretty sure the government is not to be trusted. They might feel like they know the church has slid downhill spiritually. But hey the government is still letting me live. And the church is not preventing me from living the gospel. I can still draw closer to God in the church especially because I know what is up.

I saw this Youtube video and it got me to thinking about the reality of being a member of the LDS church.  Please watch it then we will talk about it.

Now you may say what you just saw and heard is an extreme example, that he is a real nut case. I beg to differ. He is simply being open to the actual state of his mind. He is in fact being a perfect Mormon in his political beliefs. Yes you heard me correctly. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you are commanded to have the exact same view as the man in the video.

Do we know world history? Do you know what was done under the laws of the nation of Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s. If you were told to by the government you were by law to get on a train taking you to a death camp. And once there you were, by law, to do whatever they told you to do. It was all legal. And if you were not one of those put on the trains you were by law commanded to help in making sure the individuals who were supposed to get on it were on it and did not escape. If you helped in hiding or protecting any such person you were breaking the law. And as a member of the LDS religion at that time in Germany you were breaking the commandments of the church if you didn’t follow these unconscionable laws of the Third Reich.

The church has not backed away from that stance. President Hinckley said we were commanded by the 12th article of faith to be that way. There is in fact a strengthening the church committee.  The church is spying on you in behalf of the government. The IRS receives a report on how much tithing you pay every year if they ask for it.  There is not one thing in all the facets or benefits you have as a church member that is not under the authority of the government. The work of all the priesthood quorums, Relief Society, Youth groups, home and visiting teaching, fast offerings, temple work , all your covenants and ordinances before God through the LDS church are 100% subject to review and approval by the government you live under. At any time if the government said to stop baptizing, stop sealing, stop meeting the whole church would obey under the direction of the 15 prophets, seers and revelators.

In the fight for liberty many people have become aware that the biggest threat to your liberty is from the government itself. Ezra Taft Benson said many people say they will wait till the church comes up with a program or the prophet gives specific instructions. Then he said, “Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution.”  The reality is the LDS church since at least 1890 will never set up a specific church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. And how can I say that? Because the LDS church is completely under the control of the US government and those controlling the government have no intention of saving the principles of the US constitution.

Obama did sign into law the act which gives any US president the power to take anyone’s life. But there are those who say I am going to keep on supporting the church which agrees with obeying such a government. Yes the church which does not speak out against such things but indoctrinates me and my children in obeying the will of the government no matter what that will is. Do we think that supporting even with just our attendance does not have an effect upon our spirit? Karma is real. The law of the harvest is real. It is operative even now.

Why on earth does the LDS church ever need to have people bow down to worship a graven image? Is Satan “the great deceiver” really that stupid to ruin the good thing he has got going now. He can extend his control over people and they think it is the inspired will of God from the mouth of a prophet. I do not think Satan wants anyone to stop attending the LDS church. I think he wants as many people as possible to be in that group.

Who Loves Ya Baby?

Back in the 1970’s there was a TV detective series named Kojak. Telly Sevalas played the title role. He was totally bald with a thin mustache and usually had a small lollipop he was sucking on. As I think about it this might be where Brad Pitt’s movie characters get their habit of constantly eating from. It’s a very similar effect. Besides constantly sucking a lollipop Kojak made heavy use of the phrase “Who loves ya baby?”

Now that you know how that quote entered the US popular culture let me explain what I plan to do with it. Each time I say the phrase Who loves ya, baby? I want you to consider the actions of the person or people just mentioned as an indicator of the quantity or quality of love they have for the people they acted toward.

So first let’s try and establish the “Gold Standard” of love.

Who loves you the most of anyone in the universe? You might have answered God and you’d be right. And of course by the term/title God we mean a group of exalted humans who are so united in all things, so much “one” as Jesus referred to in John 17, that it really doesn’t matter which of them was the direct Father and Mother of your spirit body. All of them are related to you. All of them are omnipotent, omniscient and they all have the same love for you. Each and every one of them will share everything they have with you and everybody else up there. Of all beings known to us none has a more hands off attitude towards your right to choose, your agency that God. In all He has ever done and said your agency has been preserved 100%.  Who loves ya, baby?

Heaven, the highest realm of the celestial kingdom. Wow think of it a place where there is no murder, no rape and every child is loved by all adults as if they were their own. It reminds me of the place in China I read about starting on page 167 in the book Sex at Dawn. You can download it for free right here.

The society are called the Mosuo and their group of about 50,000 people has existed for probably over 1000 years. Marco Polo reported about it when he passed through in 1265. The people were still living the same way in 1955. The only thing which has been partially successful in disturbing the peace of these people is the Communist Chinese government’s policy of enforcing monogamy laws via lies and terrorism. Yeah that same government who in the next few years attended to the death and murder of about 60 million of their own people in order to prevent them from using their agency. Who loves ya baby?

The most striking feature of Mosuo society is the fiercely defended sexual autonomy of all adults, women as well as men. There is no marriage as western culture thinks of it. And yet there is another kind of marriage. There is the freedom to be intimate with whatever woman or man you both agree to. The fidelity of this culture is their faithfulness to the agency of each person and the children these relations bring. Any attempt by a member of this culture to require exclusive sexual access to another person is met with intolerance as a very shameful act by the community. In any given night the sexually mature women all sleep in rooms with access to the outside. The women control who is allowed in. They can have several partners in one night or none. The strict requirement is that all of their lovers for the night must be gone by daylight. Also there is strict attitudes of not discussing the loves of the night. The adult siblings live in the same home and the brothers all care for the children borne by their sisters. The men are expected to not sleep in the family house but to go and be with women from other families. If a man is just not up to it he must sleep in another building away from the house. The word for father and uncle are the same. There is a word for mother but the word for aunt is literally “little mother”. The result is a place where there is not even a word for murder or rape. There are also no single moms and uncared for children. Each child is safe and loved in every home in the community. I said there is no marriage as the western culture considers it. Yet there is a joining or marriage of a very real sort. All men are married to all women. No man or woman is without sexual intimacy unless they desire to be without it. There is no competition. None of the women are owned by any man. None of the men are owned by any of the women. There is no divorce or broken homes. No jealousy nor loneliness of lack of intimacy. Who loves ya baby?

Now consider the western (western European and its descendant cultures such as US) culture Judeo-Christian monogamous marriage covenant and the culture it engenders. A covenant has been made to not have deep love for anyone except your spouse. If either spouse does start loving another person and desiring to be intimate with them it is grounds for divorce.

Notice I said if one spouse loves another person not if they have sex with another person? In fact if a spouse has sexual relations to someone other than the other contractual party of the marriage it can sometimes be forgiven if they can convince their contractual partner (spouse) that they didn’t love the other person. But if one spouse says they love the other person deeply and there has been no intimate relations but they will not “repent” of their love for the non contractual person the marriage will certainly be ended by the “innocent spouse”.

The divorce or separation (some legal jurisdictions do allow divorce) very often lead to single parent homes with all the attendant emotional scars of millions of children. Due to the inherent “risks” of marriage in these cultures many people have zero intimacy for the vast majority of their lives and some never experience this blessing for  their entire life. Rape is present if not common. Bitterness, hatred, endless legal wrangling in child custody and divorce matters is a huge part of this society. Huge amounts of resources in time and money are diverted to the legal, logistical  and emotional nightmares of these divorces and separations. And these divorces or separations often cause life long anger and even murder by one spouses in anger over their demands and expectations generated in the marriage contract. These are not isolated events which are only felt by a small minority of the population. All of us have people we know well or work with who have endured the pains and disastrous results of divorce. I had a work associate whose friend was always prone to have intimate relations outside his marriage. His loving wife finally took matters into her own hands got a gun and shot him in the back of the head. The point is it is not such an isolated event. Who loves ya baby?

What if you end up associating with a person who is kind to you. And you are kind to them and you both end up loving each other and wanting to be intimate? Does God frown on us loving someone so much that we want to be intimate with them? Did He frown on it when you started feeling that way toward your present spouse? As a rule through out the history of the world has God prohibited plural marriage? In case you are not sure the answer is no He did not. The ban mentioned Jacob chapter 2 of the Book of Mormon was the exception rather than the rule. Did you know that Joseph Smith taught and practiced polyandry (one woman having more than one husband)? Did you know it was a practice among the people generally until 2300 BC? Did you know it is allowed for in D&C 132? Do these fact make it appear that God also honors our sexual autonomy? Who loves ya baby?

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation (ever wonder what would happen if there were no hypothetical situations?). Suppose you have a friend who is married to another of your friends. So there are two married couples and they all are friends. We will call them couple A and couple B. No suppose one person from A has a lot of very natural association with a person from B. And these two realize they love each other so much they want to be intimate. They want to be the AB couple. Both members of the proposed AB couple still love fully their AA and BB spouse. And both the AB people honor the fact that they both want to retain and always be “married” to the normal spouse. So there is absolutely no thought of tearing apart a small family since they (AB) feel like part of a larger family.

Now imagine yourself as one of the AB couple. So you have someone you love in addition to your spouse. And that person loves you in addition to their spouse. So here is someone who is happy with you loving more than one person. They do not forbid you to marry. But your normal spouse does not give you that sexual autonomy even with some they know and “love”. Who loves ya baby?

Which person’s love is more like the love which God has for us?

And speaking of not being married like the Mosuo people mentioned in Sex at Dawn, I had a thought hit me on the answer of Jesus to the Sadducees regarding resurrection. This is found in Matthew 22 verse 30, Mark 12 verse 25 and Luke 20 verse 35. Because of the words in D&C 132:16 we are lead to think that the people mentioned in the three gospels are all second class non exalted beings or the servant class of those in the highest degree of the Celestial world.

 ”16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.”

As LDS I was always taught that Jesus knew the Sadducees were not going to be converted by His answer, their minds were made up, so He did not give them a straight answer. But the wording in Luke 20 is particularly striking. As I read it this time I could not help but believe that Jesus was not talking about second class angels.

 “35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

That part, “…they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world,…” sounds and feels to me like Jesus is speaking of the highest degree. The place where they continue to bear children. And with that in mind then look at what it says in Matthew 22.

“ 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Moroni was certainly worthy to receive the highest glory in the celestial world and he introduced himself as and angel sent from the presence of God. I think Jesus was talking about the real heaven, not a lower servant class people. I could be wrong but I have heard Jesus say some things which were just to mess with people’s heads when the people were not serious about knowing the truth. He wasn’t lying or misleading just planting a thought which could someday make them say, “Now wait a minute, maybe I have been looking at things all wrong.”

And in our Babylonian programmed personal lexicon the word marriage refers to an agency limiting legal agreement. So my point is the angels spoken of in D&C 132 might not be the same angels spoken of in the gospels. The angels referred to in the gospels  might be the exalted ones and in Jesus’ mind there is not “marriage” in the celestial kingdom.

Hey wait a minute what am I talking about? There isn’t any marriage in heaven. Jesus said it straight up. Exactly as the scripture reads it makes perfect sense as applied to those in the highest kingdom.

 “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage…”

“Given in marriage” is when the woman under the mosaic law gave herself to her husband as his property thus limiting her autonomy and preventing her from having another husband. According to Jesus’ own words that law was given for the hardness of the people’s hearts. In other words the men would not have accepted the celestial order.

And so the men also were entering into a non celestial legal agreement. If for no other reason it was non-celestial because it violated the woman’s agency. So when Jesus used those terms He was 100% accurate and the scripture correctly says there is none of that agency limiting garbage going on in the Celestial world.

You might counter with, “Yeah but the Lord referred repeatedly to “marriage” in D&C 132.”  Well he was talking to a bunch of Victorian Era prudes who could not comprehend being joined without an old testament like marriage.

That reminds me of when Gordon B Hinckley once said in giving counsel to the youth and young people of the church, “We do not want you to be prudes.” Haha So way too late for that wish.

The LDS from the time of Joseph on have been the prude’s prude!. But God did want them to enter into life long and in fact eternity long bonds of love. He had to work with what the minds of the people at the time could comprehend. Just like The Written Word post explained.

But no covenant God would be part of would destroy the agency for people to love more than one person. Who loves ya baby?

What do you say? Can we accurately refer to a society which allows all members to be intimate as having marriages? Or are they all just sealed to each other?

 Who loves ya baby?

PS  Some of you might be in the situation described above. You are ready to live plural marriage but your spouse is not. And you might feel like they don’t love you as they should. What to do? Or more importantly how can we view this in a way that does not paint our spouse as the “bad guy” and end up feeling less love for them? Because if we do that then we really are being influenced by a bad spirit.

I believe it helps to realize that most people love others as much as they can. And a love which is less than divine is the result of fear and not being “healed” as Jesus says.  So their healing to see it not as a fearful thing but a great blessing is what we should seek and pray for.

The Nature of God’s Love

INTRODUCTION

This is a long post but I want to cover a lot of bases so that more people might be helped by the post. I also make no reference to LDSA’s post which has a masterful explanation of God’s love and should be read for a fuller understanding of the scriptural basis for the ideas of this post. So that post is here. And if you don’t take time to read it just keep these ideas in mind, “All are alike unto God” and from the post this paragraph, “There is only one type of charity: God’s charity.  If you don’t have an overwhelming desire and willingness to share everything you have with everyone else, you don’t have charity.”

If as you read this you think you are in complete agreement and are therefore wasting your time reading it (and you might be right) I encourage you to skip to the last section entitled in bold letters THE TRUE NATURE OF LOVE OR THE NATURE OF TRUE LOVE. There was something I learned while researching this which I have not seen expressed elsewhere. I think it is very important to understand.

NEW DOCTRINE

I was recently made aware that there is an official LDS church policy/doctrine/tradition of the brethren stating that God’s love is conditional.

It appears that the church has not always had this as a doctrine/policy/tradition. In 1992 the Church News had a small article talking about God’s love and it quoted F Enzio Busche in a 1982 conference talk where he pretty much said God’s love is unconditional. You can read it yourself here.

In the February 2003 issue of the Ensign there was printed an article attributed to Elder Russell M. Nelson. The article is named Divine Love. You can view it here.

I don’t know how much earlier this was taught, but from this time on the church’s policy is that it does not believe God’s love is unconditional. The thesis statement says:

“While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.”

Now you may wonder what difference it makes whether the church calls God’s love conditional or if we believe it is unconditional?

God is love. If I have a distorted concept of His love then I have a distorted concept of Him. To become like God I must understand what He is like. Give a man the wrong blueprint and the structure will be wrong. And to take if even further I believe the concept that God’s love is variable towards us it will prevent us from obtaining eternal life.

DEFINITIONS

I am speaking of the love of one member of the God family for other members of that family or the love one human has for another human. And this requires that I explain that humans, all of us are children, actual genetic offspring of God and His relatives. In this mortal sphere humans are not yet perfected but there is no fundamental difference between the species of Gods and us anymore than there is a species difference between a 2 year old human child and the adults who procreated his body.

I will define love as this:

The person who loves desires all that is good for the people they love.

Unconditional means it is not subject to conditions. As applied to love it says there are no requirements for the one being loved to meet. This love is given regardless of the actions of the one being loved.

Do we have to define love? Yes we do because there are those who think love is something which in fact it is not. And I think we might see that this subject gets at a deep problem among many humans, especially LDS humans today.

So my definition means a person who has unconditional love “desires all that is good for the people they love” regardless of the developmental state, the mistakes, the choices or actions of the other person. Now God wants to share all that He has with all of us. But if we are not ready to receive it, it would be a detriment to us. I love my 6 month old son with all my heart. But I am not about to put him behind the wheel of an automobile. It would not be good for anyone.

One of my daughters took a religion class at BYU on Isaiah. She told us part of what she learned in that class, The instructor had taught her, “There is nothing you can do which will make God love you any less nor any more than He does right now.” That is not in harmony with the current teachings of the LDS church. But it may have been back when he said it. My daughter took that class in 1999.

The fact that there was a shift in doctrine/policy/tradition of the brethren on such a fundamental principle should give you cause to think about this.

VALENTINE FROM RUSSELL M. NELSON – ENSIGN 2003

Now let’s look closely at that quote from the Ensign. The thesis statement of the article says:

“While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.”

Now I see a major problem with that statement. The problem is that the statement is erroneously trying to conflate God’s love and God’s spiritual blessings. And this problem just gets worse as you read the full article. The thesis statement says that divine blessings stem from God’s love. And later in the article he places God’s love and blessings on the same footing by saying:

“Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional” can defend us against common fallacies such as these:…”

Do you see what fundamental concept of the gospel as preached by Joseph Smith is contradicted by this pairing?

AP NEWS FLASH SLC, UTAH This morning the LDS First Presidency announced changes in the wording of certain scriptures to be in harmony with the correlation committee’s doctrine.  Section 130 versus 20 and 21 will now read,

“20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 But when we obtain any blessing from God, it is predicated upon how high the level of God’s love is for us.”

How much God loves us does not determine whether we receive the blessings of the gospel. That is what imperfect mortals do. They limit how much they love others and then limit what they are willing to do for them. And when we conceive of God as having a higher or lower level of love for us based upon our actions we make unto ourselves a God who has one of the worst of mortal failings. All are not alike to such a being.

God established the conditions of obtaining exaltation based upon each of His children’s use of their agency. It is not based upon higher or lower levels of love which some believe God feels towards us. If it were then what of our agency?

If we look closely at that thesis statement it is very confusing.  It says:

”On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us… are conditional.”

Okay it says Father and Jesus feel higher levels of love for each of us but it is conditional. That means they don’t feel it for those who don’t meet the conditions. So how can they feel it for each of us? Why was it worded that way?

Elder Nelson quoted several scriptures to back up his doctrine. In none of the scriptures does it say that God will not or does not love people who do wrong or don’t honor Him etc. Here are some quotes from the Ensign article.

“If ye keep my commandments, [then] ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” 

I always thought that when a person quoted a scripture and placed a word in [brackets] that word was different, in fact it might be one word to substitute for a whole phrase, but it in no way changed the meaning. As I write these words it is about the 6^th draft of this post and I just searched the scriptures to see what the [then] replaced. I trusted “Elder” Russell M. Nelson that the scripture actually reflected a meaning of “then” or “therefore” or “in that case” or at least some other phrase which he replaced with “[then]”. You know what? I am upset. No, the word is disgusted.

The scripture is found only in the gospel of John chapter 15 verse 10. It has come to us without any words or phrase which the “[then]” would replace. It simply reads as follows:

“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.”

If Russell [Misleader] Nelson was on a debate team and pulled that stunt he would be torn to shreds for false quoting by the other side. If he was testifying in a court of law and pulled that stunt he would be guilty of perjury or lying. This is a blatant case of perverting the word of God. By placing [then] in there Russell [Misleader] Nelson has tried to change its meaning. As the scripture actually reads it indicates that abiding in God’s love is an action on the part of the person, that keeping the commandments is the action of abiding in God’s love. It has nothing to do with God’s love for us changing.

So if I do not abide in a house does that mean the house does not exist? God’s love continues regardless of whether we choose to place ourselves where we can experience it. It is so ego centric and immature to think that we mortals can control whether or not God loves us.

I know that each human and God also has the ability to choose to love a person without any regard to that person’s actions. And this is where I get people saying, “When someone does bad to you why would you want to love them?”

Eternal truth is constantly shining on us. As we respond positively and resonate with it (follow the promptings of that light) we feel peace and we receive more guidance. If we choose to go contrary to it we damage ourselves and diminish in our power and darken in our minds. We can’t ignore the truth that we are humans and that we need love and that love is good for us. So when we refuse to love others we are convicted in our hearts. When you love someone less, you know you are doing wrong.

I lived for years in an abusive marriage. God did not want me to remain in this marriage. But it was not necessary to decrease my love for my wife in order to act upon ending the marriage. She took a lot of things from me. Money, possessions, my good name, my future, 4 of my 5 children, my love of myself, my health, my self respect. All were gone because of her lies and emotional torture. I did get my self respect and my self love back once I stopped listening to her lies. But she never was able to make me stop loving her. And I never had to. Even when I found she was truly insane. Of course you can understand that made me have more compassion for her. But it didn’t change whether I could be around her. Due to the nature of her sickness I was told by a psychologist that barring an outright miracle she would never recover. He also explained she could easily decide to kill me without out any provocation on my part. So he strongly advised as little contact as possible for the rest of my life.

That is an extreme case. But it illustrates the fact that there are times when even, despite our love we can not allow ourselves to be around another human. As humans we are extremely susceptible to being effected by the communications and actions of other humans. So if you are around someone who is constantly telling you lies about yourself or about life or maybe they are tearing you down and destroying your faith you really can’t afford to subject yourself to that barrage of Satan inspired communications.

Which is precisely why I do not attend the LDS church anymore. Sometimes you need to leave the community to allow yourself to progress toward truth. And hopefully you do it before they pass around the poison kool-aid. But even if not there is time to get your head on straight after death. I hear it is harder though. My point is why wait and delay happiness and progression? I am sure God wants us to live and learn rather than allow someone to abuse us.

So although it does not fit the classic look of love, cutting off contact with someone or a group of people can actually be inspired of God. And yet to this day I do not leave my ex wife entirely alone. I still pray for her and at times send priesthood blessings and thought forms over the miles to help her along in her progress. No I am not carrying a torch for her because I don’t believe in limiting my love to one person and that includes women. I love all of them. And it is the same with men. But I also don’t believe it is a correct principle to stop loving a person, any person. That is the way I believe God is also.

There is an eyewitness account of this fact in the book Return From Tomorrow by George Ritchie. He saw a huge place where the spirits of men and women who had died were gathered in a never ending combat of hate and viciousness aimed at each other. Their emotions of  anger, hate, fear and guilt kept them locked in this battle. They needed no food and there was no physical contact being made so the conflict continued non stop. He was being shown these things by Christ who was with him. He asked the Lord why there was no help for these most wretched of souls? He was then made aware of the presence of large bright beings hovering over each of the benighted spirits on the plain. These great and loving spirits were so bright that George had not realized they were there before. He had just perceived them as the bright sky above them.   This is an example of how, although the people in hell seem to be totally cut off from God He is still feeling after them. Is this verified by the scriptures? Who says the scriptures contain all the truth of God? And where would be the justice if God made people suffer even when the price had been paid? I believe where there is suffering there is an opportunity for growth; otherwise God is a sadist.

I have heard the question asked, “Why do we want God to look that way?”, meaning why do I think it is important to believe God’s love is without conditions? As a mortal I have no real idea how close I am to knowing all the truths of God that I will need to understand and live in order to live with Him and be like Him. From my own experience I have seen how I thought I knew how things really are only to find out later that my understanding was so lacking and in some cases down right wrong. So if God’s love for me is conditional upon my actions and choices then what is the real state of it now? Since I don’t know exactly what I still need to change I have no way to measure where I am on the higher level/lower level of God’s love. That is doubt and uncertainty. Faith in God unto eternal life can not be built on such a foundation.

Back to the article.

“If you keep not my commandments, [then] the love of the Father shall not continue with you.”

Again there is no word nor words which [then] replaces in this scripture. It is in there courtesy of Russell [Misleader] Nelson. The phrase “the love of the Father” is not congruent to “God’s love for you” is it? The words “the love of the Father” would actually refer to our love for the Father.  Just as the white fruit in Lehi’s dream which is explained to be “the love of God” can not be equated exclusively to God’s love for His children. And is there anyone reading this who does not realize that it is only when we love a person that we can sense their love for us? And is there anyone who thinks we can cause God to decrease in His love for us? Yes there are plenty who will believe this lie.

Here look at my analogy. My teenage son asks to borrow the car and I say he can. And then I say now if you will do such and such then you will be safe and be blessed. Perhaps I am even inspired and stating a prophecy. This is what God always does when He tells us truths. So if my son does what I tell him he does in fact remain in a blessed state which we can refer as “the love of the Father.” And that accurately describes it because out of love for me he is keeping my sayings. It is a safe and blessed state. But if he disobeys me then it is he that has departed from his love for me. And he surely will think I don’t love him when bad things start happening.

But I am sitting at home waiting to see if my son will chose to trust in my word, perhaps again by a fatherly foreknowledge I already know he is getting into trouble. So when I become aware that he is disobeying me what is my reaction? According to Elder Nelson in such a case God decides to start loving us less.

But I know that is not what happens in my heart. If there is any change in my emotions it will be that  my compassion will increase and my desire for my son’s welfare will increase (more love) as I learn that he has not trusted my word and is in trouble perhaps even the car is wrecked.

It reminds me of Matthew 7:11 when Jesus  said, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” If I being a man know how to love then how much more God knows how to love?

Okay another quote from the 2003 article.

“If a man love me, [then] he will keep my words: and my Father will love him.”

This scripture may have been worded so as to work upon our minds as the Lord mentioned in D&C 19. But again we need to see the real scripture and not take big [M]’s word for what it is talking about. It is a misquote from John 14

Here it is:

“21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”

The scripture does not say if a man keep not His commandments then God loveth him not. That fact is sufficient to make the point of this post. But this 2003 article was spun so as to pervert the truth of God and yet in the attempt there are a couple of places where the scriptures quoted condemn the 15 seers of the LDS church. And this scripture is one of them.

Okay so lets venture into falseidealand and pretend that God does love us more if we keep His commandments or to use the church’s words, that God has a “higher level of love” for us if we keep His commandments. If that is true please note the even greater problem it creates for the leadership of the LDS church.

On 2 April 1843 in Ramus, Illinios Joseph Smith remarked about that chapter and verse. The remark was recorded in the William Clayton Diary and written also by Willard Richards at the same event. It was also placed in the D&C in section 130, verse 3.

“3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.”

What does such a belief say about the 15 apostles of today? None of which have ever claimed to have been visited in person by God. And there hasn’t been an apostle who did claim such a visit since John W Taylor, son of the 3^rd president of the church who was first removed from the quorum because he was in disagreement with the other 11 and then later excommunicated for continuing to practice polygamy after the manifesto.  And yet he claimed openly to have been personally visited by Jesus Christ. Are you thinking of Lorenzo Snow being visited by he Lord? It does not change anything since he was called as an apostle prior to John W Taylor so again the truth remains none of those called as apostles since John W. Taylor have claimed a personal visit of Jesus Christ. Since the first apostles of this dispensation were told their apostolic calling was not complete until they had received a personal visit by Jesus Christ it makes you wonder how the latter ones can claim to be true apostles.

So if Elder Nelson is correct that this scripture proves God’s love is conditional then wouldn’t the facts of the last 100 years prove that God the Father doesn’t love the seers of our day?

I am not saying that. The doctrine of the LDS church as applied to this scripture says it. For my part I believe God does love those 15 men and all of us without condition. When we receive a blessing from God even the greatest of all gifts the gift of Eternal life it is because we love God enough to trust in His Word.  Yes blessings are 100% conditional. But blessings and gifts of God come based upon obedience to law, not based upon the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for us. What that really means is that we are the ones whose choice to love God determines whether we will become like Him.

“I love them that love me; and those that seek me … shall find me.”

But I the Lord don’t love those who don’t love me? What the ?? Don’t we teach young children and teenagers to treat others nice and love them even if the other person is acting mean?  So what is this? We hold God to a lesser standard? He is less loving than a spoiled brat? Even typing the question seems blasphemous.

“God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

But those who do not fear Him He has no respect for? No that would violate the first clause. Again look at the wording “accepted with Him.” Does that mean accepted along with Him? And who accepts God as God? All of His creations with the exception of us, His children. And we are in the process of making our choice whether we will accept God as our God or not. That is the truth of the matter regardless of the way we interpret this scripture. Because God got to be God by His choices. And He has promised us the justice of it being our agency and our choice which will determine whether we are like Him and not the level of his love for us.

Is the problem here that these people don’t know the difference between love and acceptance? Come to think of it my fifth generation LDS ex wife did not know the difference either.  I am not jesting. This is dead serious. There are those who in all sincerity have been raised by parents who never gave love but always controlled their children (and their spouse) by giving or withholding acceptance. They do not actually comprehend true love since they were never given it by their mother. And if you think of it this is exactly what the church does to its members; it controls them by the offer of acceptance and the threat of withdrawing that acceptance.

Back to the article.

“The Lord “loveth those who will have him to be their God.”

Again the fact that He does love group “A” does not prove that He does not love group “B”.

Then we read this in the 2003 article:

“Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional” can defend us against common fallacies such as these: “Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …”; or “Since ‘God is love,’  He will love me unconditionally, regardless …”

My close friend and I have gone around and around on this. He asked at one point, “If God’s love is unconditional then what would be the motivation for being good?” Now the answer to that question is the real heart of why this doctrine is damning to our souls.

WHY OBEY GOD IF HE LOVES ME NO MATTER WHAT?

There are many possible motivations for obeying God and living a principle of the gospel. Most any motivation will be included in one of these groups.

Fear of punishment

Desire for personal gain or money

Desire for acceptance or praise

Sense of obligation or DUTY (perhaps a higher harmonic of fear)

A good result in your life, good feelings or even blessings (perhaps just a higher harmonic of personal gain here)

Your love for God and others which is one and the same

Which of these groups would enable you to claim the same inheritance as Jesus Christ? Which of the above motivations were involved when Jesus suffered the atonement and death on the cross?

There is no higher love than God the Father giving His Son Jesus to suffer and die for people who are in a sinful state. He acted upon that love before the foundations of the world. Has His love waxed and waned since?

Looking at the various levels of motivation we can see that all contain the element of fear but the last. Even the desire for good results or blessings means we are doing it out of fear that we won’t get these things if we don’t do it.

Can we rationally have faith to obtain His glory if we must be motivated by the threat of losing His love? Was Jesus motivated by the threat of losing God’s love? Or can it be that the greatest motivator possible is the fact that no matter what we do or have done He did and always will love us completely. Then the question of whether we receive His glory is whether we receive and reciprocate His love.

Telling some one that you will love them more if they obey you is what you do when you want to control them. When you use this carrot of love and stick of less love you don’t want an equal with whom you can share all that you have. You want a slave who is controlled by the fear of losing your love.

But if you give your love without price then it is up to the other person to make an unfettered choice to love you back. So by your love they are motivated to be as you are. Love is the greatest power of influence in all existence. If it were not, Satan would win and God would be toppled and cease to be God.

But the idea in the minds of humans that God’s love is variable will force them to resort to the motivation of fear. And that is why Satan wants it to be part of the doctrine of the LDS church.

And why do some people like the doctrine of God’s love being variable? Well I don’t know exactly but think of this. If I believe that God loves me completely no matter what I do, then I know without doubt that if I do not love Him and others in that way I am being unjust. The responsibility to love others as He loves me is then left to my personal choice. It means that when I have less love for one person here than another that I stand convicted in my conscience. But if I accept the belief that God has higher levels of love for some and obviously lower levels of love for others then I can be justified in being the same way.

I said something once to one of my daughters when she was 14 years old. I said, “I am going to tell you something and you can spend the rest of you life thinking about it. When we love some one all we can do is give them our love. That is our choice. And then we hope they will love us in return. That is their choice. If we try to force them to love us it will not make us happy because it is not love. Love is freely given or it is not love.”

Now if we think of how we might go about “forcing” or even pressuring someone to love us we can see that it amounts to the same concept of a God who will apply the threat of not loving us unless we obey Him. There are many who won’t believe me on this, but it doesn’t work. What you get in return is not love. And when you are trying to manipulate you are not giving love. Motivation by pure love is the most powerful of all motivations. Motivation by fear is what Satan has always done.

Injecting fear into our relationship with God destroys our ability to actually obey out of love.

THE TRUE NATURE OF LOVE OR THE NATURE OF TRUE LOVE

In researching for this post I received an inspired understanding of the nature of love, how it should be. I was then able to see how the Babylonian culture has perverted what real love is.

There are 4 words in Greek which mean love. The definitions of these words are all stated in terms of which group of people are loved in this way. The words are:

Agape – This love for your spouse and children. It is seen as unconditional and self sacrificing and compassionate. It can also be applied to all the world of people.

Eros – This is sexual or passionate love. But Plato explained that it can also be without physical contact, still based on the beauty and sexual appeal of the other person but with a respect and admiration of them as a beautiful creation or an ideal to be admired even if there was not partaking. The latter is the actual meaning of platonic love.

Philia – This is termed brotherly love and is viewed as having its main focus on the community. But family is also included. I will show you in a second why all of them overlap.

Storge – This is often not mentioned. It is a love that accepts a person as they are. It is used to maintain a love for the ruler even when he is a pain at times. But also a family member immediate or extended who is well know to be a jerk at times but this love accepts him so we are willing to retain him as a member of the family/community rather than abandon him and cut him off.

As I studied these something suddenly occurred to me. The four types of love do not apply to four different groups. And by viewing it that way we miss the point and meaning of the different types. They apply to 4 types of actions we take towards everyone. We need all 4 types at all times with each person. Eros with our children? Eros is based upon our sexuality but it does not require sexual intercourse. I love my brother and I hug him and even kiss him and admire his manly body (its easier to admire in that way than mine) but I don’t need to have sex with him. Same is true of my sons and daughters and nieces and nephews etc. They are sexual beings. I should admire and be aware of that. But it is of no blessing to them to be intimate with them so out of love I do not.  Love always responds to the needs of the person you love.

Here is an example of how it applies to a spouse. Yes we can see our passion and desire to be intimate with them coming in to play. But we can also in our agape see sacrificing our lives for them if needed. And on a daily basis we serve and act out of kindness in a philia type love for them. But sometimes even the best of spouses can be a jerk. And when that occurs we need to have storge love for them and not cast them out.

But see what we have been taught? How many of us have heard this? “If you ever have sex with another person our marriage will be over.”

Or imagine you and you spouse have some real close friends another married couple. You have known each other for years. You love the guy like your brother or maybe more than your brother. You never want to lose him as a friend. But what would happen if he and your wife fell in love and are intimate with each other? It would be the real common thing to hear someone say. “If he ever had sex with my wife I would want to kill him.” Or maybe you hear the not so cruel, “If he had sex with my wife that would be the end of our friendship.” Your friendship with who, your friend or your wife? And in all sincerity why?

So what happened to your agape, philia and storge love? They are totally wiped out by the over-emphasis on eros love. All types of love are made of zero strength by being made insignificant compared to our worship of eros. This is where eros has been perverted. The S&M and pedophile effects himself and those he directly touches. And there may be millions involved. But there are billions who have perverted love by believing the Babylonian enforced monogamy laws and the popular media’s version of one true love songs which are a denial of actual God given human nature.

And if we are willing to see it for what it can be then ask yourself what about the love which developed between your spouse and the other person? Why is it evil? The only evil is your selfish demand that they deny their love for each other. And what makes your love for your spouse good? A government marriage license? Please don’t insult us all by thinking anything like that. Oh you had an agreement a covenant to not love any other people in that way and you are enforcing that same promise on your spouse. Is this not part of the covenant with death spoken of in the scriptures? Now if your spouse is stopping their love for you that is a different thing. And it should be addressed. But as always if you are trying to force them even with a previous covenant then you are not acting upon love. No in fact it may be you who had stopped loving them first.

But there is nothing in our nature as humans which prevents us from loving fully, in every way, multiple people. And by maintaining all types of love for our spouse we can honor their right to love all others as they honor our right to love all others. And then we both honor the way God made us in His image. And I believe that is what God wants us to do. I believe that is the way God is.

Our Devotion to the Church.

In reading some of the comments on this blog I see this type of emotion.

I became a member of the Church, because I prayed and told the Lord that I wanted to find His true Church. I searched for the truth for many years. I’m a member of the Church now for many years. I love the church and the local leaders and my brothers and sister there. I love the prophet and the other general authorities. I have listened to them closely and served them faithfully. I have sacrificed much for my faith. I have done all in my power to fulfill all my covenants even to consecrate all that I am to the church. I have found out that the Church is even more true then I expected.

Reality is that as humans we are strongly effected by the contradicting ideas of the false doctrine which is now in the LDS church. I have seen people who are literally insane.

One of them I loved very much. She was my first wife.
I married her at age 23. We had a fairy tale romance. It was so wonderful. God blessed us so much. She saw a vision of light around the man who sealed us in the Salt Lake Temple. I adored her and for many years felt she was perfect. I was willing to do anything for her. But unknown to me or her she had a mental illness. By the time the mental illness got real bad about 20 years into our marriage she had me convinced that everything she said was true.
She told me over and over again how she was in tune with the spirit of God. She explained that she had lived a clean life and God was working through her. About 25 years into the marriage she convinced me that one of our 4 daughters had a real evil problem and we needed to force her out of the house. I went a long with it. This daughter was not even permitted to associated with her other adult siblings.
Then she convinced me that I had a serious problem and did not in fact love her, that I didn’t even know what love was. I resisted but eventually out of love for her I believed her and tried to figure out what was wrong with me. I remember during those last 3 years I would lay in bed after hearing 5 plus hours of castigation from her and pour out my heart to God. “Please Father Please something is not right. Either I am wrong or she is. I don’t care which I don’t care if I am right or not I just want to know the truth.”
She began telling me over and over again every few days that I had to repent. Then it became every day. Then it was multiple times a day. With long and unrelenting confrontational sessions she would keep me up till all hours of the night.
She began hitting me and slapping me. But I never got mad or yelled at her. I turned the other cheek on several occasions. I tried to never ever find fault with her. I loved her so much. We had been sealed in the temple. It was my dream to be with her forever. And as she had told me she had lived a virtuous life so I believed what she told me.
She told the ward members behind my back that I was an abusive husband and had been for years. She said this to the bishop and then to her lawyers. She said I needed to sign a post nuptial agreement to save our marriage. In it I agreed that if there was a divorce she would get 100% of my money from the high paying job and 100% of the retirement if I retired (which I was eligible for). And she would get the house (which was all paid for) and everything in it. In fact we had zero debts. And a years supply of food.
She said I had to fast which I did for days at a time. She said I had to get a second job. I was working 40 hours a week making over $100,000 a year but to show I loved her I got a second job making $13.75 an hour about 20 hours a week. All the new money I made went to fix up the house.
Why did I do all this because I was convinced she was “true”. The one and only true spouse for me.

You may be wondering where the money was all going if there were no debts and I was making such good money. Why did I have to spend all the money from my part time job to fix up the house. Just a second I will tell you why.
Well 12 days after I signed the post nuptial she convinced me that to save my soul I had to divorce her.
I was so sad. I felt I had lost my chance for eternal happiness. I moved out of the house into a tiny apartment (all I could afford on my part time job since she was keeping all the money I was making from the 100K plus job). But in just 6 weeks of being away from her lies and mental abuse I was able to open my eyes and see that it was her that had been abusing me. That she was not in any way inspired by God. She was so heinous in her viciousness I think the devil may be taking notes. And she is 5th generation LDS.
Oh the money. She had been writing checks every two weeks from our joint account to her Utah Community Credit Union which she had removed my name from just weeks before the post nuptial agreement. She stuffed away about $20,000 before the judge overturned the insane divorce decree.
So why am I telling you all this? It is a cautionary tale. It is true; every word of it. The point is when you love her so much you refuse to see how corrupt she is. You are sealed to her. It is in your belief that life eternal is to obey her and do all in your power to please her. She has told you that she is virtuous, everything she says is true, that she loves you but if you doubt her then you don’t love her.

But you do love her. You want everything she says to be true. You adore her so much. She was God’s greatest gift to you. You have been through so much together. She bore you children. She was your bride. She was always the most beautiful woman in the world to you. How could you ever comprehend leaving someone that you have sacrificed so much for? The more we sacrifice for anyone or anything the more convinced we are that it is a good thing.
I have no doubt that there are and have been through the ages men and women who have given their all to what they believed was the truth. And the more they sacrificed the more they were sure it was the right thing to do. Even to the point of doing some very irrational things.
I saw plainly that God had delivered me from a prison I did not know I was in. I am completely sure given the amount of control she had over me that if I had stayed with her she would have eventually convinced me that I needed to kill myself. And I would have done it unless God intervened.
So what has this got to do with you?
Babylon has a religion. Just as there is not a whole nebulous group of governments which constitute the present day Babylonian empire, so there is not a nebulous cloud of churches. Satan has picked the one church to infiltrate. And he has done it. After the death of the true witnesses of Christ (the original 11 and then Matthias and Paul and a couple others) Satan chose the remnant of the Christian faith to join to his then Babylonian Kingdom, the Roman empire.
Will he do it again? I don’t know to what degree. But he has already infiltrated the LDS church so deeply that the members are programmed to say and act upon this saying, “I don’t care what the brethren say, I will follow them because it is God’s true church.”
Should every member of Christ true church be saying, “I don’t care what the Brethren say, I will take the Holy Spirit as my guide and not be deceived.” Or maybe, “I will prove all things that any man or group of men say by the Spirit of God.”
Oh but you can’t do that I remember one of the Brethren said I am supposed to trust what they say more than what I get from God directly. He said that I “cannot communicate reliably through the direct, personal line if [I am]… out of harmony with the priesthood line.” (April Conference 2010 Dallin H. Oaks). So that means I can tell if I am listening to a false spirit by whether or not what I receive from it is in 100% agreement with what I hear from the Brethren. So if I think the Brethren might be wrong that is proof positive that I am in sin and cut off from the spirit of God and I am the one who is wrong.

Wow just exactly like my first wife. How clever.

Now my brothers and sister you know this is what you are being taught. Why then does anyone need to pray? Oh to get personal guidance right. But we can’t get personal revelation which would ever tell us if the church were in apostasy, can we?
Well don’t worry we have been told that the first presidency and the 12 apostles will never lead the members of the church astray.

By whom were we told that? By the voice of God? Is it in the scriptures? Is that what the Book of Mormon teaches?
Oh by one of the men who we are taught to trust above our own personal revelation?

Imagine you are told that there is an organization dedicated to the pursuit of truth and light. And then you are told that the leaders of this organization are all taught that if they disagree with the head of the organization then they are not capable of seeing the truth. Can you at least see the total lack of credibility such an organization has in reality? Or at least how anyone who follows the teachings of such an organization is prone to being mislead?

Yes don’t worry my 5th generation LDS wife told me she would never be lead astray also.

A parting shot. As long as I subjected myself to the constant indoctrination of my first wife God could never get the truth in to my head. There were countless times I had real strong questions and doubts. But each time I went to talk to her about them I was beaten down and threatened with my salvation if I disagreed with her. She would get angry and I feared her anger. I was used to doing what she said so I did not get chastised. I could see the obvious actions which would prove to any rational person that she was either evil or insane. But I did not act upon rational ideas. I acted on faith and love and a desire to always be with her. I acted on fear of punishment and desire for approval.

Epilogue

I have stopped going to the LDS church now for over a year. I have received my own tribal ordinances now. I did not know it before I did it but it freed me from the obligation to be under the thumb of the LDS leaders. I know God still guides me. I know he is pleased with me.

I can read what the LDS leaders are saying with a new perspective. Brother and sister it is pathetic what those men have substituted for the truth of God. God does have things He wants us to know and learn. But they will not come to you from the drunkards of Ephraim. You are being programmed to do what the Babylonian Empire Satan’s earthly government wants you to do. That is the main purpose of the church now. And they use access to the ordinances of salvation as the carrot and stick to keep you in line.  Sorry to tell you. Your wife is insane.

CHI #7

I believe this will be my last article on the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions. I have no desire to waste time trying to sort out all the things wrong with the current LDS Church’s policies and administration. The problems of the LDS Church will not be resolved from within.

I believe in the days ahead the LDS church will be broken up so that there will not be a legal successor to the high priesthood from within it’s ranks. Also prior to the physical gathering to build the Zion of God the Lord will send people inspired and authorized by Him to fulfill that work and those who have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide will not be deceived but will be able to gather with them.

I also believe it will be necessary for each currently active LDS to “detoxify” from the false mindset which now pervades the church, its practices and even its teachings. It has been spoken of by several on this blog how deeply affected we are by Babylonian traditions and that we have been for generations. This Babylonian mindset effects the way things of God are perceived among the members of the LDS church. I am convinced that the very context and intent of the gospel of Christ, even His own words have been perverted within our minds so that after years of being exposed to the teachings from the church it may be impossible to correctly understand His intent.

In order to brainwash a person you must deprogram them first. One of the required elements of the deprogramming is emotional stress. Brainwashers use fear, sleep deprivation and food deprivation to break down the status quo of a person’s mindset.

Cleansing the mind of false traditions can also be a positive thing. I think this is one of the reasons there were so many great and traumatic events prior to Christ’s appearance to the people in the Book of Mormon. I believe the future will bring similar events for a similar purpose worldwide.

I suppose we could cleanse ourselves of Babylon and receive the Spirit’s teachings by deprogramming ourselves through things such as extended fasting, tribal worship, cutting off contact with the Church and its teachings and other healing methods. I know some people who are doing these things. It might make it possible for them to not have to go through the group trauma coming upon the world. They will perhaps already be receptive to the truth that God will surely send and even now is sending. Such people might even be able to help others through the transition.

So much for the comments before the post. In this post I will discuss the portion of the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions regarding taxes.

Section 17.1.23 is in the chapter entitled Church Policies. This section is titled Income Taxes. It is directed at members of the church, what we call the rank and file of the church. But there is another section which speaks of taxes also. Section 14.10.1 is under the chapter called Finances. That section is called Tax-Exempt Status. It is speaking of the Church. Let’s look at these sections.

Section 14.10.1 Tax-Exempt Status

The Church normally is exempt from paying sales, property, income and other taxes because it is a religious organization. Church buildings and other property are to be used for the purposes of worship, religious instruction and other Church-related activities. Stake and Ward leaders ensure that Church facilities are not used for political, business, or investment purposes as outlined in 8.4. To do so would violate laws that permit tax exemption of Church property.
It is important that stake and ward leaders follow these guidelines to preserve the Church’s tax-exempt status. If one stake or ward misuses the Church’s tax-exempt status, other Church units could be affected.

Notice how this section is not talking about the church as the term is used by the Lord, meaning people who follow Him. The word Church is capitalized because it is a proper name. It is the name of a fictional person or what is called a corporation, the making of a body or person out of something that is not a person. The word Church is capitalized because it refers to the corporate (or incorporated) “church”. You, reading this, unless you happen to be as of this date Thomas S. Monson are not a member of the entity referred to as the Church. Your activities in the eyes of the CHI are not tax-exempt. I guess your activities don’t rise to the level of “of worship, religious instruction and other Church-related activities”. No, here is the section which is meant to direct your actions.

Section 17.1.23 Income Taxes

Church members are obligated by the twelfth article of faith to obey the tax laws of the nation where they reside (see also D&C 134:5). Members who disapprove of tax laws may try to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment. Members who have well-founded legal objections may challenge tax laws in the courts.
Church members who refuse to file a tax return, pay required income taxes, or comply with a final judgment in a tax case are in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church. Such members may be ineligible for a recommend and should not be called to positions of principal responsibility in the Church. Members who are convicted of willfully violating tax laws are subject to Church discipline to the extent warranted by the circumstances.

Now if you want to know the truth about the US income tax system I suggest you view this video.

I can sum up this video and several other books and articles written about the US income tax. There is no US law requiring any human to file or pay an income tax. There are tons of regulations which are enforced as if they were lawful but they are not legally binding upon real people. However what most people do not know is that the action of filing a tax return with the IRS has the effect of designating yourself as a “legal person” or in other words a corporation. And then they have a case against you according to their regulations.

But let us stay focused on what the CHI is doing. It holds the Church tm as free from income taxes while telling all us slaves that we better pay our income taxes or the Church will punish us. Is that what Jesus said to Peter when they demanded a tax to enter the temple? No He said it was evil, but He caused a miracle to pay the evil tax. Oh yes He said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Is your time and labor the property of the government? Why because they say so? Then you are a slave not only physically but mentally also.

In the CHI they have to work hard to justify this little section. I did not know the Articles of Faith were commandments or obligatory in nature. I don’t think they are. And then the CHI says to look at D&C 134:5. Yeah, lets look at that section. They are really grasping at straws here. In fact by citing this scripture they shoot themselves in the foot. Some comments I see seem to think this is a bad section because it strengthens the argument that we are slaves to the government. I say it does no such thing. Even though it was written by men and does not claim to be a direct revelation from Joseph Smith it contains excellent truth. Here is the first sentence from verse 5. It has the part they want you to see.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments;

Okay the portion prior to the comma is all the CHI and corporate Church wants you to see. But oops there is a stipulation there, “while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments;” Which is to say that when we are not protected in our inalienable rights from God rather than owing obedience to such a government the Declaration of Independence states it is our duty to throw off such government and establish a new one to secure our God given rights. That is clearly the message of D&C134:5 and Alma chapter 60 verses 33.

And I ask, “Have you and I been protected by the US government in our inalienable rights?” Does there remain in the US the right of freedom of religion that congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free practice thereof? And the second amendment that we may own (keep) and carry (bear) on our person a firearm (arms) has that not been infringed upon? Are we free to speak our minds even if it is in opposition to a government leader or policy or must we only do so in certain zones where no one can hear us? The answer to these and hundreds of other examples of the destruction of our liberties is no! Our rights are not being protected by this government.

During times of oppression God fearing men and women support and up hold people who fight against unjust governments and unjust laws. The true followers of God and Christ in the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry all honored their actions. They praised them from the pulpits and in public. They supported them and thanked God openly for men willing to risk their lives to stand for truth and liberty.
All true followers of God and Jesus Christ will support those willing to risk their comforts, thier homes and even their lives to fight against tyranny. Therefore anyone who agrees with the words of this section of the CHI is not a true follower of God.

What a joke to say “Members who disapprove of tax laws may try to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment”. Even the wording of the sentence is mocking us. You can try all you want to change things, but we know who is in power and we will do the bidding of our masters the international bankers to keep you enslaved to them. We will threaten you with being counted before God as unworthy if you don’t file your tax return.

HOW DARE THEY!? Who do they think they are to take something so sacred and holy as our relationship and standing before God and subject it to an unholy entity known as the IRS, the collection agency of the world wide secret combinations?

Why do they find it necessary to even mention obedience to income tax “laws”? The reason they mention it is because over the years the scriptures and the Spirit of God have lead some people to question the validity of the government’s claim to ownership of our time and labor. And rather than just say we believe in obeying the law, these writers go into a feeding frenzy of enforcing strict and total obedience in order that all might be enslaved.

When liars don’t want you to question them they bring out the biggest verbal threats possible. And so here the CHI writers don’t just mention tax laws it they slam it hard as can be. Look at this sentence.

Church members who refuse to file a tax return, pay required income taxes, or comply with a final judgment in a tax case are in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church.

That says if you refuse to file a tax return you are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church. Even the IRS says that not everyone is required to file a return. But this little section goes insane to the point of lying to say that all must file a return. Satan’s plan to coerce all to obey never had a better friend than the CHI. And there you have it.

And what is your tax money going to support, wars, airport strip searches and incarceration without due process and a host of other evils which have the effect to place you deeper and deeper in slavery? You are paying to put stronger and stronger chains on you.

The last note. If I knew someone who had been approached by some mafia thugs and they told him, “If you don’t pay us some protection money we will burn down your business.” I would not find fault with him for paying them money. I see paying the IRS or at least filing a return as protection money for many people. But you might be surprised how you could actually be free from paying them. I can’t guarantee that it would be comfortable for you. Fighting for freedom is rarely comfortable.

‘Round midnight

The title relates to two things. A jazz song by that name which is kind of a mournful blues. The title and the tune bring to mind things that happen at midnight which would not happen during the day.

The other reference of the title comes from the parable of the ten virgins. The bridegroom is said to come at midnight. Midnight during the time of Christ was not our same midnight of 12 am. The counting of hours was based upon the rising and setting of the sun. So midnight was literally the time farthest from the light of the sun in both directions. It was the darkest time of the night.

Just before a great light bursts upon us and we are delivered from the bondage of Babylon the night is going to get very dark. Mercifully the coming of the bridegroom did not wait all the way till the morning returned. The Lord tells us this when He speaks of the coming destructions and how that for yet a little while I hid my face from thee. Here is an example in Isaiah 10:24,25.

24 Therefore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt.
25 For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.

I understand this use of Zion to be a geographic reference to the American continent and not the coming kingdom of God yet to be established thereon. And this because as He said in D&C 112: 25,26:

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me,

We are not living at midnight. But I feel we are ‘round midnight. The conference center will likely fall within a few years. When that happens I believe there will be an unleashing of evil like we have never seen. And I am seeing more and more signs of the coming break up of the church right where I live.

But for your consideration I have a true story to relate. I have a personal friend who witnessed the beginning of a terrible series of evil acts perpetrated by a small group of people who were just following their “prophet”. The actions were those of abduction , extortion and then 5 counts of murder. The group was only about 4 or 5 people with just 2 or 3 of them directly doing the crimes and at least one more covering for them. I won’t go into all the details but you can view them here. But the real start of it will never be mentioned in a police blotter or news story or even in any books written about it (unless my friend writes one).

The “prophet” was Taylor Helzer. The crimes occurred in 2000 but had their beginning earlier. Taylor Helzer was an active member of the LDS church and had served a mission. In the late 1980’s my friend was a member of his ward. My friend was coming to the realization that much of what goes on in the church is not scripturally based. In short he realized that the church which Joseph Smith and Parley Pratt were members of was not the same church we see today. He began to question the mantra “just follow the brethren” and began thinking for himself.

Several years before the Helzer began committing the murders my friend was approached by Taylor Helzer at church. Taylor was a strong believer in the “follow the brethren” mindset. Taylor was pressuring my friend and telling him to get with the program and just follow the brethren. My friend then quoted a scripture to him. D&C 64:38,39

38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.
39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.

Taylor had never processed the idea that there could be false apostles or hypocrites among the “brethren”. My friend watched Taylor’s face and could be seen a total deconstruction of a mindset. A very huge paradigm shift. That was the beginning of Taylor Helzer’s flip from active Latter-day Saint to self appointed prophet willing to murder as directed by an entity whom he called “spirit”. An example of his being directed was given when he talked to the police about two people who were not directly involved in committing the crimes. He had not let them know what he and his brother were doing while the two helpers were providing a cover story for them. He told the police, “Spirit said that I should not let them be in here,”

Taylor Helzer’s purpose in the abduction was to get money to fund a plan to “Transform America,” by ushering in “a state of peace and joy” and defeat Satan. Part of the plan was to train Brazilian youth to kill 15 of the top leaders of the LDS church and then place himself as the rightful prophet and then go on to transform America.

This is a cautionary tale in two ways. One for ourselves personally. Watch yourselves. Be careful which spirit you list to obey. Years before the murders Taylor went into drugs and a lot of sexual sin. If anything in what you feel to do would be cruel or heartless to others it can’t be from God. That which doth not edify is not of God. I beg you to stay away from it.

Secondly it cautions us in that it presents a scenario which may very well be played out on a much larger scale in our days. The mindset which allows a person to turn over their agency to another person or group of people the is the perfect mindset for the devil to carry out his plans. All that is needed is to plant the right person as the one they follow.

These type of followers have no personal moral compass. It is so much easier to just do what you are told than to have to weigh it out in your mind and obtain an answer directly from God and to be sure it is from God. Most people will do anything to avoid having to use the muscle of their brain and heart.

As we look out across the millions of members of the LDS church and think of how many buy into the “just do what the brethren say” mindset and then contemplate how they might react when their paradigm shifts as the seers are covered, I believe we may conclude we are sitting on a powder keg.

How many of them might look to Mitt Romney newly elected US president (in that day) as the answer to the burning question in their minds which will be, “Who do I follow now?” But in more accurate terms is, “To whom shall I give my agency to now?”

Some of you may want to talk about the validity or lack thereof in this possible scenario. But more than that I would like to read your comments on what you are experiencing right now in the church. What do you see as you look out in this time ‘round midnight?

Do you see the portent of the absence of the gifts of the spirit in our meetings and lives? Moroni said this, “ And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief. And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one….” (Moroni 10:24,25)

Do you see members so caught up in the love of money so that it caused Moroni to say, “ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted”? Do you see what Moroni prophesied of by saying that “leaders of churches and teachers shall rise in the pride of their hearts, even to the envying of them who belong to their churches”?

A member of the church told me he had no concern about the future of the US since the Lord always had the prophets warn the people before their nation was to be destroyed and our prophets are not telling us that, so no worries. If you are thinking that way I suggest you read Ether 2:8-10.

It reminds me this from Isaiah chapter 6

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9  And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,
12 And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

When a patient is sick the doctor take his vital signs, temperature, blood pressure and pulse. What are the vital signs of the membership of the church where you are?

My brothers and sister in God. I have faith in God, that He will send one mighty and strong to lead us to gather to Zion. And until then I think I should continue to do all I can to get out of Babylon and establish what I can of Zion in my own life and those who will join with me. I have had a lot of things that could destroy my trust in God. But after talking them over with Him I have always resolved to increase that trust. Not to trust in men of the arm of flesh and not even in my own wisdom. But in the Father and the Son who is my Redeemer and Savior from all the fiery darts of the adversary.

CHI #6

The focus of this post is to examine the policies established by the CHI for the worthiness interview required for baptism.

Section 16.3.3 covers interviews for convert baptisms. Mission presidents are given the keys for administering baptisms of new members of the church over the age of 8 or for 8 year old children whose parents are not members of the church. The full time mission district or zone leaders are delegated authority by the mission president to perform the worthiness interviews for these baptisms.

Various scriptures mention the need to verify a person is truly repentant prior to being baptized into Christ’s church. The Lord does expect those who are seeking baptism to in someway demonstrate their repentant state. And it is a priesthood function to verify this. The process for this has become the baptismal interview.

This basically places the full time missionaries in the function of a judge “in Israel” or at least at the entrance into Israel. We are taught that certain sins are more grievous than others. Murder specifically has some scriptural precautions attached to it and is treated as a sin which the Lord does not easily forgive.

In my mind there are some real questions about whether the way we are taught about this is the way God views it. In the book of Alma the people of Lamoni were completely forgiven of murderous acts. You might accept that group because perhaps what they did  was done under a “legal” cloak.  I believe it is a very dangerous thing to think that because a thing is legal under an earthly government it is not murder, enslavement or theft before God. I suggest you read Many are Called But Few Are Chosen by H. Verlan Anderson to understand that. But even if that were true what about those Lamanites who came and began slaughtering thousands of Anti Nephi Lehis who were not even armed nor resisting? They seem to have been truly forgiven that very day.

I will only lightly cover that because it is not the focus of this section of the CHI and I do not feel adequate to treat it thoroughly with all scriptural statements taken into account.

Now to help clarify the CHI requirements for a convert baptismal interview I will break the sins listed into 3 classes. Each class requires a different level of approval before the candidate may be baptized. If this sounds to you a little like the instructions for an income tax form then you should ponder the significance of that.  The format here is not from the CHI but the procedures and events listed are.

Class 1 sins are all sins not covered in classes 2 or 3.

Class 1 candidates are approved by the interview of the missionary District or Zone leader.

Class 2 sins are if the candidate :

1. Has submitted to, performed, arranged for, paid for, consented to, or encouraged an abortion.

2. Has been convicted of a serious crime.

3. Has committed a homosexual transgression.

Class 2 events require the mission president to interview or he may on a case by case basis authorize one of his counselors to interview and then the mission president’s approval must be given before the baptism is allowed.

Class 3 requires the mission president himself to conduct the interview and receive approval of the First Presidency before the baptism can take place.

Class 3 sins are if the candidate:

Has committed murder

Has been involved in the practice of plural marriage

Has undergone an elective transsexual operation

Is currently on legal probation or parole

Under murder further instructions are given exempting cases of a police or military killings done in the line of duty. I wonder if that includes CIA employees who torture people or kill them as part of their job. Well surely torture is not murder just a serious crime or no not even a crime since they were obeying the 12^th commandment, I mean article of faith because it was done under the laws of the land (What land? Don’t confuse me with details!).

Regarding involvement in plural marriage two more subsections are cited. The first subsection relates to adults who have been involved. The other relates to children whose parents are practicing or did practice plural marriage.

As an adult you have in the eyes of the CHI committed a class 3 sin if you have previously taught, encouraged or practiced plural marriage. Remember this is as a nonmember we are talking about. The mission president must submit a request for approval to the First Presidency and it should include information about the person’s past involvement and his subsequent repentance.

So let me get this straight. A person who learns of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ must repent of having taught what Joseph Smith and every apostle up until 1890 taught and prove repentance for having taught it before he can be baptized? And of course the same applies to having encouraged or practiced it also.

Wow I am sure glad this high standard doesn’t apply to retaining church membership since as someone who has been sealed to two women (both living as if that makes a difference) I am obviously teaching by example and in fact practicing plural marriage. But we will see why I am exempt from any such punishment.

And now let’s look at the class 3 sin of involvement in plural marriage as applied to a child. This occurs when the candidate for baptism is a child of parents who have practiced or are practicing plural marriage contrary to the law. I take that to mean the civil law where the person is living.

The mission president may submit his request for approval to the first presidency when the following requirements are met.

1. The children accept the teachings and doctrines of the church.

Is this not required in the other classes of baptismal approval? (Hey lay off government regulations are notoriously redundant)

2. The children repudiate the teachings upon which their parents based their practice of plural marriage.

So that would be something found in the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants or the journal of discourses? No it could easily be something in Islamic law too! Yeah and as true blue Americans we all know that is all evil especially after 911. Yeah!

3. Minor children are not living in a home where polygamy is being taught or practiced.

Good thing for my children that they were already baptized when I married my second wife in the temple without cancelling the sealing to my first. But obviously that doesn’t matter since it is not against the law of the state. So is that all the CHI is concerned about? You might say no because is says also even if the doctrine is being taught in the home. But in fact this is exactly the language of the Official Declaration 1 which states we aren’t teaching and we aren’t practicing plural marriage.

I think we have to agree that this is all about bowing to the law of man. We can see that the application becomes extreme. Where do the writers of the CHI draw the line regarding teaching the doctrine of plural marriage as an eternal principle? That really doesn’t matter to them because the policy here it is all about bowing to the governments of men.

Now consider this fact. There are only a few nations where sex outside of marriage between adults is a crime. In fact to many people such a law is seen as a “gross human rights violation.” Although I don’t classify Satan as a person (he doesn’t have a body) I am sure he calls laws against extra marital sex as a violation of human rights (see Alma 30:18, 27).

So if a child lives in a home where the parents are not married but simply living together and having sexual relations then there is no restriction on that child being baptized. No letter to the first presidency stating the child repudiates the actions of his parents. And rightfully so. The child’s acceptance of the gospel of Christ is that repudiation.

But I see in this policy an extreme bias against a doctrine which was part of the restoration of all things but which the leadership of the LDS church is now trying to stamp out of existence. And all of this policy is in obedience to governments which outlaw God’s laws and make legal Satan’s laws.

I readily admit there are many things in this policy which could stand some scrutiny and no doubt the comments will explore them. I just picked on a policy which seems to really pick on some innocent little children placing them in the same class with people who have shed innocent blood. And I ask myself and you to what end?

CHI #5

CHI #5

Section 4 deals with missionary service. There are a tremendous amount of procedures and regulations which are used to enable the church to have 50,000 plus full time missionaries serving around the world. I am not going to pick through all of the minutia to try and judge what is scriptural and what is not. The majority of full time missionaries are young men aged 19 to 22. The guidelines address them and their situations especially.

There is something which caught my attention. Section 4.10 is under the heading of temple recommends. This is concerning the issuing of a temple recommend as the missionary is released. The procedure is different for the young missionaries as for senior missionaries. For young missionaries the procedure is when a missionary finishes his 2 year mission the mission president interviews him and takes his temple recommend. He is then given a recommend which is dated to expire in 90 days.

The CHI directs the missionary’s stake president and bishop to interview him, commit him to live his covenants and maintain his standards, get him a calling and monitor his progress at adjusting back to normal life. And then when they are convinced he is doing well, and being righteous they issue him a regular recommend good for two years.

I will give the church leadership total benefit of the doubt that they have good reason for this rule. Obviously there must be a problem in this regard.

Jesus said, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
I would say if a young man has truly just spent two years serving Jesus Christ he is not going to be at risk of committing transgressions to jeopardize his worthiness. Truly serving Christ is a good tree. It will not bring forth evil fruit.

What is happening? What is the corrupt tree which brings forth this fruit? I won’t try to answer that in detail. But there is obviously a corrupt tree somewhere. And to simply say that ’21 year old men are just that way’ or speaking the judgmental slur more overtly to accuse them of being inherently disposed to do evil, will truly hide the reality of the problem.

I believe there are at least two problems. First the rules missionaries are expected to follow are unnatural and external. Being cowered into obeying a set of restrictive rules by an organization that keeps close tabs on your behavior, I mean in some cases missionaries are required to call their leader every night to report they are in bed, is not righteousness. Righteousness is a choice freely made. Since it is not an exercise of agency it does not produce the blessings of being righteous.

Secondly what do we really think we are doing? God makes men and women a certain way. I believe 18 years of age is the time of maximum levels of sex hormones in a male (in some countries young men can serve missions starting at 18). He is the most fit and most eager to be wed. And we tell him to deny all these God given signals and become a monk while still moving among everyday life for two years. It is a recipe for tragedy. And I don’t mean just the tragedy of committing sexual sin on his mission. When you deny a healthy God given desire you must numb yourself to a sacred part of your soul. That does damage to your heart and mind. You think Satan doesn’t laugh his spiritual hind end off seeing all the damage which may extend for years for hundreds of thousands of young men?

I had never considered this a problem till I began looking at the reality of life. I was like many people in the church trying very hard to repent of being what God had made me to be. I was lucky to have the mission president I had so that my experience was probably much better. Yet it still did a number on my heart and mind.

From talking with other men who have served a mission I have seen that my two year mission was a departure from the norm. Not because I was so good and pure. I think I was as others my age. My mission president however was radically different in his views and actions towards us missionaries. He did not allow the white bible (missionary rulebook) to destroy his role as judge in Israel. On our mission the temperature got hot in the summer. He was asked what was the policy on wearing suit coats; optional after the 1st of May or anytime the temperature was above 90° or what? He said Elder I look at it this way, when it is hot and uncomfortable to have suit coat, take it off. And that was the rule.

We had Saturday as our preparation day. Our mission president was asked what were we allowed to do from Friday night at 9:30 till Saturday at 5 pm. He said Elders you are Melchizedek priesthood holders, you have made covenants with the Lord in His house. I expect you act like it.

That was his attitude toward the white bible and Salt Lake gave him static for it. We were one of the highest baptizing missions in the church and I know of myself pressure tactics and baseball baptisms were not practiced. We were not pressured or taught to have unreasonable goals for the number of discussions or baptisms in a month.

As I said my experience seems to be an exception to the normal missionary’s experience. I invite those with a different experience to comment.

For me adjustment back to non missionary life was nothing. A close friend of our family a few years my senior noted my relaxed attitude just one week after being home. He said, “Aren’t you nervous like you should be doing some missionary work right now?” Nope I wasn’t.

We might do well ask ourselves if it is wise to have a young man, who’s physical creation has prepared him be getting married at 18 or 19, deny those God given desires and become a monk for two years. What damage does it do to force ourselves to be numb to deep and sacred feelings? Is it in accordance with the scriptures? Is there anyone out there who has memories of how this affected them?

In case some may be thinking otherwise I am quite sure there was only one case of a missionary’s having to be sent home from our mission in the three years we had that president. And this was back in the days when we had about 450 missionaries per mission.

CHI #4 Institutional stigmatizing of divorced members

Section 3.5.2 regards marriage in a temple for time only.

To be married for time only in a temple is not required for salvation. It really is just a nice service the church offers. I do not agree with the rules the CHI sets up for allowing or disallowing a couple to receive a for time marriage in the temple. If you see the opportunity as an actual blessing of God associated with this practice then you should be even more bothered about the way the CHI regulates it.

The CHI states that for time marriages can only be performed when all 4 of these requirements are met.
The man and woman must both be sealed to spouses who have died.
They must have valid temple recommends.
Temple marriages are legal marriages in the country where the temple is located and the couple has sold their marriage to the state via the marriage license process (I am paraphrasing here but you get the idea and we have beat that horse pretty good in CHI #3).

I save the best for last.

Neither the man nor the woman has been involved in any divorce while a member of the Church.

I am sure there is a very logical reason why the Church wishes to stigmatize or simply categorically judge all church members who have divorced while church members as unworthy of this little blessing.

And perhaps it could be said that this policy is not a stigma upon divorced people. That it is only so the church doesn’t have to review each case of divorce to meet some special standard. But that makes no sense. All recommend holders are equally worthy right? Worthiness is a threshold principle not a matter of degrees. Maybe they don’t want complaints from former spouses etc. But again why deprive one member for the possible actions of another?

No I don’t think we can escape that this requirement of the CHI is a form of passing a negative judgment upon LDS who divorce. And even if you came up with a reason why you believe that it is not a form of passing negative judgment the reality remains that this rule works an evil. How?

Since there is no explanation whatever given and the policy is to be enforced by the judges in Israel without even a possibility for exceptions, it absolutely places a prejudice in the minds of those brethren. And this prejudice permeates the beliefs of the members of the church.

I think you can see it prevents righteous judgment by these men. Now if you believe that all divorces indicate evil doing on the part of both persons then you probably agree with this CHI rule. And if you are a member of the LDS church you may very well believe that. But can you see that such a belief runs 100% counter to the words of Christ? He said, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

As church members we very often believe that the prophets say, “If you will make your first concern the comfort, the well-being, and the happiness of your companion, sublimating any personal concern to that loftier goal, you will be happy, and your marriage will go on through eternity”. In fact that is a quote from Gordon B Hinckley. It was quoted in “Graduates Receive Challenge from Prophet,” Church News, 6 May 1995, 11. Did I get that wrong or did he say there would not be divorce?

Well that passes belief Gordon B. Hinckley did say that. But I will give President Hinckley some slack on this one and say he was not speaking as a prophet there. I say he was just making some remarks to graduates as a man because in a general conference session he spoke and said something a little different. He said, “If every husband and every wife would constantly do whatever might be possible to ensure the comfort and happiness of his or her companion, there would be very little, if any, divorce.” (The Women in Our Lives,” Ensign, Nov 2004, 82–85)

I have heard numerous LDS members quote that phrase as if it said, “there would be no divorce.” But he didn’t say “no divorce.” Good for President Hinckley for saying that even when we do all we can to be righteous, divorce is possible.

But President Hinckley’s carefully worded talk did not change the prevailing belief among LDS which is supported and strengthen by talks and counsel from priesthood leaders. We are taught to believe that if a man “would constantly do whatever might be possible to ensure the comfort and happiness of his” wife, there would be no divorce. I know I grew up (born in the covenant) thoroughly believing that.

But why did I think that? Well because I have been taught all my life about how special women are that they are just naturally more righteous than men. And so if you married a temple worthy sister and did all in your power to obey God and to please her and treat her well then divorce would not be a part of your life. This is discussed in the book Sex at Dawn as being a very strong Victorian age idea. And we all know it remains entrenched in the teachings of the LDS church. Well I really did believe it and counted on it to be true.

Even if your belief isn’t as extreme as mine was most LDS people still have incorporated in their beliefs a form of prejudice against members who divorce. It ends up in our minds that if there was a divorce both were at fault to some degree. It takes two to tango, we say. So when we see a prejudice against divorced people we feel it is justified. I of my own self know better, now.

Do you think a woman who is beat by her husband and screamed at and called all sorts of foul vicious names by him, a woman who is belittled and falsely accused by him hour upon hour, day after day and accused falsely before her fellow church members and priesthood leaders behind her back and then he lies to her adult children about her and turns them against her, do you think it is a sin for her to divorce him? What if he pulled a knife on her and told her not to come near him because she was so evil? What if he accused her of always praying to the devil and the devil was her best friend whom she loved and she had never ever prayed to God? Do you think she should be denied to be married for time in a temple because she experienced this and then he demanded she divorce him and she trying to please him did get a divorce from him?

I don’t believe she has done any wrong. But apparently the Church does. What do you think of such a woman?

Now what do you think if it was a woman that did those things to her husband? Do you find such a thing harder to believe than it being a man that did those things? It is a good check of your personal sex bias to answer that.

It may seem I have gone off on a tangent. But the point is the CHI has by this rule placed a bias in the minds of the judges of Israel against people who have been divorced. I think it is wrong. I think God thinks it is wrong.