Shutting the mouths of false teachers


And..the church…had peace…save it were a few contentions concerning the points of doctrine which had been laid down by the prophets…  (Hel. 11:21-22)

And it came to pass that after there had been false Christs, and…after there had been false prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people…  (Words of Mormon 1:15-16)

…and their mouths had been shut, and…all these having been punished according to their crimes…  (Words of Mormon 1:15-16)

…there began to be much strife. But it came to pass that…many of [the] brethren who knew concerning the true points of doctrine, having many revelations daily, therefore they did preach unto the people, insomuch that they did put an end to their strife…  (Hel. 11:23)

In other words, for this post, in addition to the scriptures, I’m going to use my own revelations to correct the errors promoted by false teachers currently found among the saints.

There have only been three known churches of Christ

The first church of Christ was founded by Alma Nephi, when he baptized Helam (and also himself) in the waters of Mormon, followed by the subsequent baptism of the rest of the group.  This church was formed about 147–145 B.C. and began with about 204 people.  The account of its establishment is found in Mosiah 18.

The second church of Christ was founded by Jesus Christ during his ministry among the Jews.

The third church of Christ was founded by Joseph Smith, Jun., which was organized and established in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, USA, with six people, on 6 April, 1830.

Three verses of scripture mention an ancient church

Here is the first part of the entry of “Church” from the Bible Dictionary:

From the Greek, Ecclesia, meaning “an assembly called together.” The church is the organized body of believers who have taken upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ by baptism and confirmation.  To be the true church it must be the Lord’s church and must have His laws, His name, and be governed by Him through representatives whom He has appointed (3 Ne. 27:1–12; D&C 115:4).

This is true.  God Himself must recognize it as His church, it must bear His name, have His revealed word as its foundational text, be built upon His gospel and rock, and possess His priesthood.  Every latter-day saint understands this definition of the church.  So far so good.  Now let’s look at the next part of this Bible Dictionary entry:

In this sense, the church began with the days of Adam and has been on the earth among mankind whenever there were a group of believers who had the priesthood and revelations of heaven.

This is false.  If you take up the Standard Works, and look at the Old Testament (whether you look in the King James Version, or in the Joseph Smith Translation, it doesn’t matter), you will find no mention of any church during that period of time.  This is because there was no church of Jesus Christ during those times.  Prior to the establishment of Jesus Christ’s church in the Old World, and to the establishment of Alma Nephi’s church in the New World, the laws and ordinances of God were administered to the people tribally.  Continuing on with this BD entry:

The word church is used only twice in the four Gospels (Matt. 16:18; 18:17) but is frequently mentioned in Acts, the epistles, and Revelation.

This is true.  This is because Jesus organized and established a church among the Jews and it continued after His resurrection under the direction of His apostles.

The Old Testament uses the term congregation for church.

This is false.  The Old Testament uses the term congregation to mean “an assembly of persons” and more specifically, “an assembly of persons met for the worship of God, and for religious instruction.”  An assembly of persons, belonging to a tribe or tribes, meeting together to offer sacrifice to their God (to worship God) or meeting in a synagogue for religious instruction is not a church.  Nor does it constitute a church of Christ.  Such assemblies need not have entered into any covenant with God, witnessed by baptism, nor received any laying on of hands, etc., to congregate and worship or to receive and give religious instruction.  Thus, the Old Testament uses the term congregation, not church, for these gatherings.  More of the BD entry:

The word kingdom is often used in the scriptures to mean the church, since the church is literally the kingdom of God on the earth.

This is false.  The word kingdom means kingdom.  (Duh!)  A kingdom is “the inhabitants or population subject to a king.”  The kingdom of God, then, are the people that submit to the law of God as administered by His priests, whether it is administered tribally, or via the church of Christ.  Thus, in the Book of Mormon, we find that the Nephites, when they were established under kings—from the reign of first Nephi, who consecrated his brothers Joseph and Jacob as priests and teachers, all the way to the last Nephite king, Mosiah, who also had his consecrated priests—all Nephite kings had priests, for these patriarchal orders were patterned after the kingdom of God, and God Himself, who is the King of the Universe, has priests.  And these priests, in pre-Alma days, or in pre-Jesus days, operated tribally, administering the ordinances and laws of God to the people under a tribal protocol.  These tribal orders, then, were as much the kingdom of God as were the churches of Christ, which also had ordained priests to administer the gospel ordinances and laws.  Kingdom, then, can apply to both the tribal and church protocols, and does not automatically mean or indicate that a functioning church of Christ is present.

Here’s more of the BD entry:

The Book of Mormon, as it speaks of Old Testament events, uses the word church (1 Ne. 4:26), and the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of the church in Old Testament times (D&C 107:4).

The first part is true and the second part is a supposition.  It is true that Joseph Smith translated the Egyptian word found in 1 Ne. 4:26 into church, but this did not mean a church of Christ, but merely “an assembly of believers.”  In other words, a “congregation of believers.”  The Jews in the land of Jerusalem at that time cast out, killed by stoning and other means, or tried to kill all those who believed in this prophesied Messiah that would suffer and die for the sins of the world.  They in no way, shape or form belonged to any church of Christ.  But they certainly professed a belief in Moses and his law, and also the prophets (the ones that didn’t prophesy of Christ or of the Jews’ destruction, that is), therefore, this was a congregation of believers in Moses and the law and the prophets, but not in Christ, who attended the Jewish synagogue.  Joseph translated it as church, for a church is an Ecclesia, meaning “an assembly called together,” and that’s what this congregation was.  But this wasn’t a church of Christ, but merely a gathering under tribal authority and protocols.  Here is the scripture in question:

And he spake unto me concerning the elders of the Jews, he knowing that his master, Laban, had been out by night among them.  And I spake unto him as if it had been Laban.  And I also spake unto him that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass, to my elder brethren, who were without the walls.  And I also bade him that he should follow me.  And he, supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me.  And he spake unto me many times concerning the elders of the Jews, as I went forth unto my brethren, who were without the walls.  (1 Ne. 4:22-27)

Now look at the Bible Dictionary entry for Synagogue:

A Jewish meetinghouse for religious purposes. The furniture was generally simple, consisting of an ark containing the rolls of the law and other sacred writings, a reading desk, and seats for the worshippers. Its affairs were managed by the local council of elders, who decided who should be admitted and who should be excluded (Luke 6:22; John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). The most important official was the Ruler of the Synagogue (Mark 5:22; Luke 13:14), who was generally a scribe, had care of the building, and superintended the various services. There was also an attendant who performed clerical duties (Luke 4:20). The Sabbath morning service was the most important in the week and included a fixed lesson (Num. 15:37–41; Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21) and two lessons for the day, one from the law and the other from the prophets. A sermon was generally preached in explanation of one of the lessons (Luke 4:17; Acts 13:15). The existence of synagogues in every town in which Jews were living, both in Palestine and elsewhere, was a great help to the spread of the gospel, early Christian missionaries being generally able to get a hearing there (see Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:1, 10; 18:4), and the synagogue worship provided in many respects a model for early Christian worship.

Okay, so hopefully that explains the use of the word church in 1 Ne. 4:26.  So now to address D&C 107:4.  Here are the first four verses of that section:

There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.  Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.  Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.  But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The Bible Dictionary author supposes that this mention of a church in ancient days in “the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of the church in Old Testament times,” but that is just an assumption, a supposition, a mere guess.  There is no evidence, whatsoever, that any church of Christ was found in Old Testament times, whether before Melchizedek, during his times (and he was a contemporary of Abraham, who likewise mentions no church), or after him.  As the most ancient church of Christ established on this earth was the one formed by Alma Nephi on this American continent, this D&C verse may be speaking of Alma’s church.  It need not apply to anything more ancient than that.

Stephen’s testimony in Acts 7 also mentioned a church in the times of Moses, but again, this wasn’t a church of Christ, but a congregation of the tribes.  Non-KJV bible translations use assembly or congregation, instead of church.  Here are his words in the KJV:

This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel,

A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, saying unto Aaron,

Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. (Acts 7:37-40)

So there you have it.  There are only three verses in all of the scriptures that speak of a church in pre-Jesus or pre-Alma times, and two of the verses (1 Ne. 4:26 and Acts 7:38) are really talking of a tribal congregation or assembly, while the other passage (D&C 107:4) is speaking, in all likelihood, of either Alma’s church or Jesus’ church.  That is the extent of all the “evidence” for the existence of a church of Christ before Christ and Alma.

Nonetheless, as latter-day saints know absolutely nothing about the gospel administered tribally, to deal with the apparent operation of God’s priesthoods in antiquity, they have taken the church model and protocols and applied them to the past.  Even though there is no church mentioned or found in the ancient text, they, nevertheless, using their “church filters,” cause their eyes to see an ancient church everywhere, in every time period.  “It’s there, in the word congregation!  Or it’s over there, in the word kingdom!  Lo!  The church of Christ is everywhere!  It has been here since the very beginning!  This isn’t a restoration of the church of Christ that was established in Jesus’ day, but a restoration of the church of Christ from Adam’s time!  Our religion is that ancient!”  And so the sayings go.

How the false teachers use Abinadi and Alma

False teachers, working from the same false church-from-the-beginning reference point, have crafted a false narrative by superimposing the gospel as administered tribally upon the gospel as administered by the church.  Specifically, the application of Abinadi’s prophecy to Noah and his priests and people, by false teachers and false prophets—who attempt to use it as an example that God can, and does, use outsiders to correct and call the ministers of His church to repentance—is a misapplication.  Where these false teachers err is in their assumption that Abinadi and Noah and his priests and people were actually in any church of Christ.  They weren’t.  They weren’t living under church protocols, but under tribal protocols, which are different.

The only model that can be applied to the current church of Christ, founded by Joseph Smith, is a church model.  In other words, you must use a church example, not a tribal one, to show how the church of Christ is supposed to function.  So, we’ve got three churches: one founded by Alma the Nephite (the most ancient one), one founded by Jesus the Jew, and one founded by Joseph the Gentile of Ephraimite lineage.  You can look at the Nephite church, which begins with the baptism of Helam, or at the Jewish church, which begins with Jesus’ church, and apply those to the Gentile church, but you cannot turn to Abinadi and Noah and his priests and say, “See?  Abinadi wasn’t in the priesthood hierarchy and yet God used him to call them to repentance!”   So what?  There was a tribal protocol in place during that time that provided for that and Abinadi followed it precisely.

Tribal rights are passed on through literal lineage

Not all tribal functions have been revealed, as yet, but we do know a few things.  For example, lineage played a part in tribal priesthood.  Therefore, Aaron and his firstborn sons had (and still have) a right to the bishopric, by birth.  That’s a tribal protocol which is currently found in the church of Christ.  There is literal lineage (father to son) and priesthood lineage (priesthood father to priesthood son.)  In other words, priesthood rights can be passed on tribally, through literal seed (father to son, or for Aaron and all his firstborn sons), and that is a tribal operation, but also they can be passed on via the laying on of hands, from one unrelated man to another unrelated man.  The first man becomes the “priesthood father” of the second man, who becomes the “priesthood son.”  Thus, this conferral of priesthood by the laying on of hands is spoken of as having a lineage and seed.  So, I can trace my Aaronic “priesthood lineage” from the man who ordained me (who is my priesthood father), to the man who ordained him (my priesthood grandfather), and so on, back to Oliver Cowdery, and thus back to John the Baptist.  And so forth with the Melchizedek priesthood.

An example of the two kinds of seed (literal and priesthood) can be seen from the following scripture:

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations; and I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal. (Abr. 2:9-11)

Another example is of evangelical ministers, which is a tribal office that is currently found in the church (since we need it here until the tribal functions are fully restored) :

It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—the order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.  (D&C 107:39-40)

And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right; that from henceforth he shall hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people, that whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (D&C 124:91-93)

Not only were priesthood rights transmitted by birth under the tribal model, but so were gifts.  In the Nephite society, it was the seed of Jacob, all the Jacobite sons, who had a right to the gift to prophesy.  As such, any male Jacobite, filled with the Spirit, was duly authorized to preach repentance to anyone, including priests, teachers and kings.  As they were Jacobites—their surname being Jacob-Nephi—they were within the Nephite tribal congregations, therefore they weren’t from the outside.  Also, as they were Jacobites, they had a right to prophesy.

Abinadi was likely a Jacobite, descended from Abinadom.  Thus, he was fully within his rights to call these people to repentance.  The whole thing followed tribal protocols, but not church protocols, for under church protocols, we are not to command him who is at our head.

But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom; and thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church; for I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead. (D&C 28:5-7)

Also, the elders of the church are not to be taught by others, but are to be the ones who do the teaching.

Again I say, hearken ye elders of my church, whom I have appointed:

Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit; and ye are to be taught from on high.  (D&C 43:15-16)

So, God will not use outsiders to call any of the church elders to repentance.  God will only use church ministers to call them to repentance.  (This means that if you’ve been excommunicated, repent and come back in.  If you start calling any part of the church to repentance, that is evidence that you do not have the Spirit of God.)

Additionally, the record states that “there was a man among them whose name was Abinadi” (Mosiah 11:20), so Abinadi was actually a part of Noah’s people and kingdom.  So, he was in no way an outsider.

An affront to the king’s right to judge

After Abinadi gave his prophecy to the people, they were livid, and when king Noah learned of his words, he also was fuming mad, and he said,

Who is Abinadi, that I and my people should be judged of him, or who is the Lord, that shall bring upon my people such great affliction?  I command you to bring Abinadi hither, that I may slay him, for he has said these things that he might stir up my people to anger one with another, and to raise contentions among my people; therefore I will slay him.  (Mosiah 11:27-28)

The reason for all this anger was two-fold.  The first reason was because, under tribal prototol, it was up to the kings to judge the people.  King Mosiah later would say,

Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments… (Mosiah 29:13)

Also, when there was iniquity in the church, Alma went to the king to have him judge them, according to tribal protocol:

And he said unto the king:

Behold, here are many whom we have brought before thee, who are accused of their brethren; yea, and they have been taken in divers iniquities. And they do not repent of their iniquities; therefore we have brought them before thee, that thou mayest judge them according to their crimes. (Mosiah 26:11)

Secondly, it was the prerogative of the kings to call upon the prophets, priests, teachers and other leaders, as helps, in their mission of judging the people and establishing peace:

…behold, it came to pass that king Benjamin, with the assistance of the holy prophets who were among his people—for behold, king Benjamin was a holy man, and he did reign over his people in righteousness; and there were many holy men in the land, and they did speak the word of God with power and with authority; and they did use much sharpness because of the stiffneckedness of the people—wherefore, with the help of these, king Benjamin, by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul, and also the prophets, did once more establish peace in the land. (Words of Mormon 1:16-18)

This was the tribal protocol for just kings. And in the whole history of the Nephite people, there had only been just kings. Jarom said, “our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord; and they taught the people the ways of the Lord” (Jarom 1:7.) But Noah was an anomaly. He was an iniquitous king.  In the case of an iniquitous king, judgment reverted to the LORD under tribal protocol, but this had never happened before, for Noah was the first wicked Nephite king.

This is why Noah’s question is two-fold: “Who is Abinadi, that I and my people should be judged of him, or who is the Lord, that shall bring upon my people such great affliction?”  When Noah asks, “Who is Abinadi?” it isn’t because Abinadi is an unknown person, some passerby that happened to enter into the land, and it isn’t because Abinadi isn’t a part of the priests of Noah, like many of the false teachers like to assert.  No, what Noah is saying is, “Is Abinadi king, or am I king?  Who has the right to judge this people, him or me?”

Assuming that Abinadi was, indeed, a Jacobite (and if so, his name would have been Abinadi Jacob-Nephi), Abinadi had the right to prophesy, but this always happened with the king’s advance notice and approval, and under the king’s guidance, not out-of-the-blue, without any notification whatsoever to the reigning king.  So, king Noah felt affronted.

Additionally, the prophecy of Abinadi went contrary to what the king and his priests were saying.  They proclaimed celebration and prosperity, while Abinadi’s prophecy was of affliction and bondage.  Noah assumed, therefore, that as the people appeared to be prosperous and content, and they gave their common consent to all he did(!), that he must be a just king, and therefore Abinadi must be the one out of sorts.  Therefore Abinadi must be a false prophet.  And also the name of “the Lord” that Abinadi invoked must not be the real Lord, but a false god.  (This is why king Noah asks, “Who is the Lord?”)  Abinadi, then, was the obvious guilty party, under tribal protocol (assuming a just king, that is.)  And so he and his people did not believe the prophecy.  They thought it was all made up:

And it came to pass that they were angry with him; and they took him and carried him bound before the king, and said unto the king:

Behold, we have brought a man before thee who has prophesied evil concerning thy people, and saith that God will destroy them.  And he also prophesieth evil concerning thy life, and saith that thy life shall be as a garment in a furnace of fire.  And again, he saith that thou shalt be as a stalk, even as a dry stalk of the field, which is run over by the beasts and trodden under foot.  And again, he saith thou shalt be as the blossoms of a thistle, which, when it is fully ripe, if the wind bloweth, it is driven forth upon the face of the land. And he pretendeth the Lord hath spoken it. And he saith all this shall come upon thee except thou repent, and this because of thine iniquities.  And now, O king, what great evil hast thou done, or what great sins have thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of this man?  And now, O king, behold, we are guiltless, and thou, O king, hast not sinned; therefore, this man has lied concerning you, and he has prophesied in vain.  And behold, we are strong, we shall not come into bondage, or be taken captive by our enemies; yea, and thou hast prospered in the land, and thou shalt also prosper.  Behold, here is the man, we deliver him into thy hands; thou mayest do with him as seemeth thee good.

So none of this has anything, whatsoever, to do with Abinadi not being a part of the body of Noah’s priests, but this is how the false teachers would like to spin it.

Okay, so my point is that Abinadi acted under proper tribal protocols.

A brief aside

It is not my intention to fully expound this Abinadi episode, but I will point out a couple of things, before moving on to Alma’s actions.

First, Noah, priests and people were focused on the law of Moses, thinking that salvation came by it, and they discarded the Ten Commandments, whereas Abinadi pointed to the Ten Commandments, saying that those who obeyed those commandments would be saved.

The people essentially broke every single one of the Ten Commandments.  They all “became idolatrous” (Mosiah 11:6-7.)  That broke the Second Commandment.  The king and priests spoke “vain words” (Mosiah 11:7,11) to the people.  That might indicate that they broke the Third Commandment.  The king and priests did not work, but were “supported in their laziness” (Mosiah 11:6.)  That broke the Fourth Commandment.  King Noah “did not walk in the ways of his father” (Mosiah 11:1.)  That indicates that he broke the Fifth Commandment.  The people “did delight in blood, and the shedding of the blood of their brethren” (Mosiah 11:19) and also they consented to the death of Abinadi.  This broke the Sixth Commandment.  They had “many wives and concubines” (Mosiah 11:2,4,6,14) and spent time with harlots and committed whoredoms.  That broke the Seventh Commandment.  They returned from war with the Lamanites, “rejoicing in their spoil” (Mosiah 11:18.)  That might indicate that they didn’t just get their own stuff back from the Lamanites, but took (stole) additional things that the Lamanites possessed.  That would break the Eighth Commandment.  The high priests would “speak lying” (Mosiah 11:11) words to the people.  That would violate the Ninth Commandment.  Finally, king Noah levied a tax upon the people (see Mosiah 11:4,6,13.)  This would violate the Tenth Commandment (per the post, Thou shalt not “covet”.)

Second, despite breaking pretty much every single commandment of God, notice that Abinadi does not say to them that their priesthood was now null and void, that they had no more keys, that because of their apostasy and sinful ways, the “church was no longer true,” etc., as the false teachers like to spin it, but instead, Abinadi continues to recognize the authority of these corrupt priests to the very end, ending his sermon in this fashion:

Therefore, if ye teach the law of Moses, also teach that it is a shadow of those things which are to come—teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen. (Mosiah 16:14-15)

So, this was not a case of “Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man!” that the false teachers would like it to be.  Now, let’s look at Alma.

Alma, the priest of Noah

Alma repented of his sins, ran away when Noah tried to kill him, wrote the words of Abinadi, and then began preaching in private.

Keep in mind that the tribal protocols were still intact under Noah and his priests.  But Alma couldn’t return, because they would just try to kill him again.  He was now an outsider, but he still had priesthood authority.  He was also under the obligation to teach the people the truth of Abinadi’s words.  He couldn’t teach them tribally and then tell them to go back and submit to the tribal authority of Noah as believers in Christ, because once it came out that they believed as Abinadi did, they would likely be killed, as well. So, what was Alma to do?

The answer is that he used his priesthood to form a church of Christ.  Noah and his priests operated under the tribal model, so Alma used his faith to have his converts operate under the church model.  This would protect them from the oppressions of king Noah, for they could meet in secret, be baptized in secret and so forth.  On the one hand, they would still participate in tribal functions, under Noah and priests, as well as in church functions, under Alma.

The church rises, the tribe goes away

But notice that once the church comes into existence, Satan inspires the king to destroy it, so they run away.  Then they are found by the Lamanites and finally escape to king Mosiah.  King Mosiah, a seer with his own tribal priests, seeing that Alma’s immense faith has caused a church of Christ to be formed before Christ had come to establish it(!), starts to set in motion the cessation of the priesthood within the tribal protocols.  He turns the monarchy into a system of judges without priests, gives Alma full authority over the church and the ordination of priesthood, and hands all sacred items to Alma’s son Alma.  Alma the younger then becomes first chief judge, high priest of the church, and all priesthood is now centered in the church.  From this point on, the priesthood no longer operates tribally, but within the church of Christ, exclusively.  The church of Christ has full sway over which ordinances are salvific, and which are not.

This pattern follows with the other two churches, too.  The church established by Jesus had exclusive authority.  The church established by Joseph Smith has exclusive authority.  No ordinances are salvific without church authorization, for either of these three churches.  All those who claim that they can baptize without church authorization, using Mormon priesthood, and that those baptisms are legitimately salvific in the Lord’s view, are wrong.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints possesses the keys over all the ordinances of salvation, exclusively.

Three published revelations given to me

Okay, hopefully that covers the Abinadi-Alma point that is always brought up by false teachers.

As the cry of false teachers and false prophets is always the same—the church is apostate, the keys are no longer valid, the practices of the church no longer conform to the revelations, etc.—I am going to use Abinadi logic to deal with these assertions:

And it came to pass that after Abinadi had made an end of these sayings that he said unto them:

Have ye taught this people that they should observe to do all these things for to keep these commandments? I say unto you,

Nay;

for if ye had, the Lord would not have caused me to come forth and to prophesy evil concerning this people. (Mosiah 13:25-26)

Joseph Smith organized and established the church of Christ on 6 April, 1830.  I joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 19__, at the age of nine.  About a month before my baptism, I received a revelation from the Holy Ghost, in which the Spirit said to me:

“This [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] is the ONLY true church!”

This revelation was received while I was attending a Mormon church service for the very first time, and it was accompanied by a baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.  The meaning of the revelation was that the members of this particular church had valid ordinances of salvation.  In other words, that their priesthood authority was the only priesthood which was valid and authorized by God.

Now, all those who say that this church is apostate, or that the priesthood is no longer here, or some of it is missing, or the ordinances have changed, or that the keys are not valid, etc., and point to any point of time between 1830 and 19__, the year I received this revelation, are in error.  I say to them like Abinadi said to those priests:

Did the church become false at any time during this period from 1830 to 19__?  I say to you,

No, it didn’t;

for if it did, the Lord would not have caused me to receive a revelation that the church was true in 19__.

Now, either the church was true in 1830, and then became false, and then was restored back to true by 19__, or it has remained true the entire time, from 1830 to 19__.  As we have no record of any restoration that has occurred after Joseph Smith’s death, and, in fact, no such restoration will occur, except by the hand of the Josephite, then the church must have been true during this entire time.

So, that covers the period from 1830 to 19__, but what about the period since 19__?  Could there have been an apostasy since then?  Could the keys have been lost since the year I received that revelation?

No, because there is also this revelation, which I received in 2014:

Behold! Thus saith the Lord:

Thou shalt shut thy mouth, for none of my saints shall be authorized to speak against the leaders of my church, to criticize and correct them publicly, unless I send them. And thou shalt be sent, but the time is not yet, neither for thee, nor for any others, therefore, thou shalt heed these words and hold thy tongue.

Notice in particular that the Lord says, “the leaders of my church.”  Again,

Did the church become false at any time during this period from 19__ to 2014?  I say to you,

No, it didn’t;

for if it did, the Lord would not have caused me to receive a revelation that this was still His church in 2014.

So, this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still the Lord’s church, as of 2014.  And since 2014, there has been no indication from the Spirit, whatsoever, that the church has ceased being the Lord’s church, therefore, it’s still true, the keys are still here, the priesthood is still valid, and the Lord still recognizes it as His.

Anybody, then, who goes around saying this church no longer holds the keys, or is apostate, or does not have the priesthood (or not all the priesthood), or the ordinances have been changed or corrupted, or the Lord has rejected the church, and so forth—anyone who teaches such doctrine is a false teacher, because they go against these revelations of mine.

There is only one response that a false teacher can say to this, and that is, “These revelations are not true.”  But they are true, and this can be demonstrated by anyone praying to God about them.  God will tell any earnest seeker of truth that the above two revelations are true, and as they are true, these other phonies are false teachers.

Now, before I address the final point that false teachers always bring up, which is the fact that the practices of the church do not match the revelations of Joseph Smith in a great many instances, I will put up the third revelation, which is the tribal revelation, to show that this tribal doctrine and protocol, in which the kingdom of God was administered to the people tribally, is not something I made up on my own, but which was revealed to me by the Holy Ghost in 2010:

Be of good comfort, for verily, thus saith the Lord:

The priesthood existed before the organization of the church and is to serve both church and tribe. Although the tribes of Israel are not gathered, yet they are known to me, along with all the tribes of the earth.

For the Lord beholds no man alone, but sees the lineage of all families, of all the children of men, and of these lines form tribes.

I have yet to restore tribal functions,

saith the Lord,

nevertheless, the church ordinances of baptism, confirmation, administration of the sacrament, and priesthood ordinations, may be performed within a tribe, as tribal ordinances, under tribal authority or keys. Thus the priesthood may operate within a tribe, independently from the church, and within the church, independently from a tribe.

Nevertheless, thou shalt not substitute the church for the tribe, nor the tribe for the church.

Yet thou mayest establish thy tribe using these priesthood ordinances, and conform your tribal practices to the revelations of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun.,

saith the Lord.

¶ Because thou fearest to sin, thou shalt not administer of the sacrament at home to thy family, as a church ordinance, unless the bishop permitteth it.

For it is not meet nor right to establish a home church, apart from the body of the saints; nevertheless, thou art permitted to administer of the sacrament, as a tribal ordinance, to those that pertain to thy tribe.

For I require the saints of my church to meet together often, to worship me as a group, and thou shalt also worship me at all times, and the church is ordained and established unto this end,

saith the Lord.

Likewise the tribe is to worship me, as a group and individually. Wherefore, establish thy tribe, if thou wilt, using the priesthood, that ye may worship me as a group, in conformity to my revelations, given to my servant Joseph, that I may pour out my Spirit and gifts upon thee and thine, that thou shalt have no more cause to mourn and murmur concerning the meetings of my church. But take care not to go beyond the bounds I have set, until I have seen fit to reveal the tribal functions. Amen.

This shows that the priesthood “is to serve both church and tribe,” which means that before the churches established by Alma and Jesus, the kingdom of God was administered tribally, for that is what existed back then: tribes of Israel and tribes of the earth.

Two published revelations given to Joseph Smith

There are also two revelations which were given to Joseph Smith that show that the church still has all of its keys.  The first is:

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness. (D&C 13:1)

Those are the words of John the Baptist to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery when he gave them the Aaronic Priesthood. Notice that he says that that priesthood will remain on earth until the sons of Levi offer a sacrifice to the Lord in righteousness. Have the sons of Levi done this, yet? No, they haven’t. Therefore, this priesthood and all its keys are still here in the Lord’s church.

Here is another revelation of Joseph Smith:

Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers—for ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. (D&C 86:8-10)

This does not refer to the literal seed, but to the priesthood seed and priesthood lineage and priesthood fathers. So, the fathers of Joseph and Oliver were John the Baptist and also Peter, James and John, and Joseph and Oliver were lawful heirs, according to the flesh, for these priesthoods were conferred by the laying on of hands, of flesh and bone people, therefore it was done “according to the flesh.” Some people go way out in left field and think this scripture is speaking of the literal seed, or that Joseph and Oliver had priesthood rights by birth, from their mortal fathers, etc., but no such imaginary scenario exists, for they were Gentiles and had no right by birth to the priesthood, but via ordination by the hand of these resurrected personages. And so the lineage spoken of here is not the literal seed of Joseph and Oliver, but their priesthood seed. For example, owing to my priesthood lineage, Oliver Cowdery is one of my priesthood fathers. And I am one of his priesthood sons. And so forth. I am a part of his priesthood posterity.

Now, this priesthood (which includes both priesthoods) was to remain “until the restoration of all things.”  Again,

Has the restoration of all things occurred, yet?  I say to you,

No, it hasn’t;

therefore, this priesthood and all its keys are still with the church.

There is no getting around these revelations, neither mine nor Joseph’s.  If the false teachers are teaching correct doctrines, then both my revelations and also Joseph Smith’s are false.  If Joseph’s and my revelations are true, then the false teachers are in error.  It can’t be both ways.  As all these revelations are true, everyone can expect these two priesthoods, and their keys, to remain in this church until the restoration of all things.

These are the keys

As for what keys they have, this is what the Lord says about that:

For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times, which power you hold, in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation; for verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation, which ye have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you. (D&C 112:30-32)

So, it is to the Twelve and First Presidency that we should look as key holders.  Now, notice what they have done with their keys since the death of Joseph Smith:

The church is out of order

According to the law of expediency, the church leadership must operate according to what is expedient.  In the absence of the revelations of a seer (Joseph Smith or Joseph-Nephi) they are to use this law and their keys, to keep the work moving forward, building up the church upon the foundation Joseph Smith laid, until the next seer (Joseph-Nephi) arrives to add to the body of revelation and restore the rest of all the things.

Because of hinderment, and especially if the hinderment is continual, things can quickly get out of order.  So, let’s say you start with 10 numbered blocks, from 1 to 10, which Joseph Smith restored, and let’s say that there are, in total, 1000 blocks to be restored.  Those 10 blocks represent the foundation of the restoration of all things, as well as the foundation of the church, which was accomplished by Joseph.  The order is from 1 to 10, but even in Joseph’s time, there was hinderment, so, for example, the law of consecration and stewardship had to be put on hold, and we got a new revealed block, which was the law of tithing.  After Joseph’s death, the leadership, holding the keys, had to move the work forward as best they could, under whatever inspiration they could get.

But again, hinderment comes, for Satan opposes this work, and maybe the order must be changed a little, so that there is no halt in the work.  Maybe blocks number 4 and 5 get swapped.  Later, there is more opposition, and the law of expediency requires that to keep the work moving forward, blocks 2 and 7 must be swapped.  Maybe with so much opposition, block 10 must have its practice ceased, but the block must remain, so it is hid under block 9.  And so on, as time goes on the blocks get more and more out of order.  Yet they are all still there.

The uninspired man, and in particular the false teachers and false prophets, will say that this is not the true church, for look at all the blocks.  They are out of order!  They no longer conform to the revelations of Joseph Smith!  But remember, these are uninspired, false teachers.  They cannot see the hand of God if it was placed right in front of their blind faces.

And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God; while that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning. (D&C 85:7-8)

This prophecy cannot be fulfilled unless the house of God first gets out of order.  This is really, then, two prophecies: one of the house of God getting out of order, and one of the house of God being set in order.  Those who say: “That the house of God being out of order, or it not conforming to the revelations of Joseph Smith, is evidence that it is no longer the house of God” are false teachers, for this prophecy of Joseph Smith prophesies that the house of God will first get out of order, yet it still will be the house of God, for later on it (the house of God) will be set in order.  It never ceases to be the house of God during this process.  Therefore, all those who seek to “steady the ark of God” to restore order to it, are the ones who are uninspired.  The house of God getting out of order is a state which conforms to the revelations of Joseph Smith.  And the leadership, acting under the law of expediency, and getting this house more and more out of order, are acting under inspiration of God.

It was always the intention of God to have the house get all jumbled up, and then one day He had always planned that this guy, called a mighty and strong one, would come and set the whole mess right.  So, if you want to follow a false teacher out of this church, do it with the understanding that these people haven’t got a clue as to the workings of the Spirit.

A key to discerning the time of apostasy

When did the most ancient church of Christ (the one established by Alma Nephi) go into apostasy and cease to exist?  The answer is when God took away His twelve disciples.  (Later, under Mormon, it was when He took away all of His disciples.)  And when did the church established by Jesus among the Jews go into apostasy?

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants, concerning the parable of the wheat and of the tares:

Behold, verily I say, the field was the world, and the apostles were the sowers of the seed; and after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness. (D&C 86:1-3)

Once again, the answer is when the apostles were taken away. (The tares had been sown in the church while the apostles were still ministering, but only when they were taken away did the tares become capable of choking the wheat and driving the church into the wilderness.) And in our day, when will the church go into apostasy?

Now, I say unto you, and what I say unto you, I say unto all the Twelve:

And again, I say unto you, that whosoever ye shall send in my name, by the voice of your brethren, the Twelve, duly recommended and authorized by you, shall have power to open the door of my kingdom unto any nation whithersoever ye shall send them—inasmuch as they shall humble themselves before me, and abide in my word, and hearken to the voice of my Spirit.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.

Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth,

saith the Lord.

And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth,

saith the Lord;

first among those among you,

saith the Lord,

who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house,

saith the Lord. (D&C 112:14,21-26)

Again, the answer is the same: the day of vengeance, wrath, burning, desolation, weeping, mourning and lamentation will begin first among the Twelve apostles.  (And this day has not come, yet.)  So, when the Lord removes the twelve Gentile apostles, that is the day when the tares, which are already sown among the wheat of this church, will begin to choke the wheat. But as long as we have the twelve apostles among us, the church is not apostate, it still has the priesthood, the keys are still here, the ordinances are still valid, and so forth. Even my prophecies concerning the breakup of the church and of the descent into wickedness (by the tares of this church) bear out this principle, for the church breakup and wickedness of the tares only occurs when the quorum of the Twelve are taken out of the picture. So, all of this shows that a key to know whether this church is still valid in God’s eyes, is the existence of the quorum of the twelve apostles. If that quorum exists, the church is still true.  And since we do have the Twelve among us still, this (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is still the Lord’s church and believe it or not, all the expedient disordering that is being done with their keys is under inspiration of God.  So, hopefully this post will do something to help shut the mouths of the false teachers who are spreading lies among the saints.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Advertisements

I’ve changed my mind


I used to think that the latter-day saints could self-correct and bring the current church practices back into conformity to the revelations of Joseph, and to that end I advocated, among other things, the use of the law of common consent to put a stop to practices that went contrary to the scriptures.  (See, for example, Is our procedure for sustaining a rubber stamp?)  But over the years of this blog’s existence it has become apparent to me that the latter-day saints are incapable of self-correcting.  This used to cause me consternation, but I’m not worried about it anymore.  And neither should anybody else be.  There is going to be a major correction, but it won’t come from the body of the saints doing it of their own volition under inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  The saints need to be convinced to self-correct, but they aren’t convinced.  I certainly haven’t been able to convince anyone, or at least, not enough people, to make any difference.  But also, the leadership needs to be convinced that they need to self-correct, and once again, they aren’t convinced.

So, although I still recommend that everyone should conform their lives, as best they can, to the revelations of Joseph Smith, within the context of the current church practices, I no longer believe that there will be enough people doing that to alter the church course and bring it back into conformity to the revelations.  Therefore, here is my recommendation: don’t go against the keys.  If whatever you are doing is brought into question by the authorities, submit to those keys.  If they say, “Either you wear purple socks or you are out of here,” then by all means, wear purple socks!  Go to the Lord in prayer and say, “Well, this doesn’t exactly accord with Your written word in the revelations, but they have the keys which You gave them, so I will submit to those keys.”

Perhaps you will say of me, “That’s kind of a cop-out, don’t you think?”  Not really, though.  You see, I’ve got a new view of things, of how things are going to go down, or how the church correction is going to be effected.  Those who say, “I’m going to conform to the revelations as I see fit and understand them, these leaders be damned!” are not being led by the Holy Ghost.  But the Holy Ghost is most definitely leading me.  And if you don’t believe me, then ask God, “Is the guy who calls himself LDS Anarchist led by the Holy Ghost?” And if you are capable of receiving revelation, God will manifest to you that I am.  So, anyone, from any quarter, that says the LDS leadership has apostatized and their keys are null and void is either mistaken or telling an outright lie.  The keys are here.  The church is still true.  We, the LDS church, have the only baptism of John found anywhere on the earth, John having appeared and conferred this authority upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders, and spake unto him, saying,

Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?

And he answered and said unto them,

I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:

The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?

And they reasoned with themselves, saying,

If we shall say,

From heaven;

he will say,

Why then believed ye him not?

But and if we say,

Of men;

all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.

And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.  And Jesus said unto them,

Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. (Luke 20:1-8)

And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, and say unto him,

By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?

And Jesus answered and said unto them,

I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?

answer me.

And they reasoned with themselves, saying,

If we shall say,

From heaven;

he will say,

Why then did ye not believe him?

But if we shall say,

Of men;

they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.  And they answered and said unto Jesus,

We cannot tell.

And Jesus answering saith unto them,

Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. (Mark 11:27-33)

Also, there is the revelation (D&C 22) Joseph Smith received concerning non-church baptisms, so those who say a non church-authorized baptism is good enough to satisfy the requirements of the gospel are lying through their teeth, or deceived by the devil, or just misunderstanding the scriptures.  Whatever the case, they are in error and in need of correction.

Now, although the church practices do not fully conform to the revelations of Joseph Smith, that is not enough reason to warrant abandoning the ship or making claims of the leadership or membership apostatizing.  And, in fact, it turns out that no one is authorized to correct the leadership.  (See “Keep your mouth shut and hold your tongue!”  (Leave the leadership alone.).)

Again, let me be perfectly clear: 1) Anyone that claims the current LDS church is no longer God’s church is not inspired of the Holy Ghost.  Period.  This is still, indeed, God’s church.  2) Anyone that claims that the LDS church ceased being God’s church long ago, during Joseph Smith’s life, or right after he died, is not inspired of the Holy Ghost.  3) Anyone that claims that church ordinances performed without church authorization are binding as ordinances of salvation, is not inspired of the Holy Ghost.  4) Anyone that claims that the LDS church leadership no longer hold the keys, is not inspired of the Holy Ghost.  5) Anyone that claims that the LDS church’s departure from the precise conformity to Joseph Smith’s revelations nullifies their priesthood and church keys, is not inspired of the Holy Ghost.  6) Anyone advocating leaving the LDS church, or advocating that people not join this church, are not inspired of the Holy Ghost.  7) Anyone advocating that people who have left the LDS church are better off apart from it, or that they ought to stay where they are and not come back in and submit to the keys, is not inspired of the Holy Ghost.

Here is what the Holy Ghost will inspire a saint to do: conform to the revelations of Joseph Smith with exactness, but if the leadership of the church conflict with that conformity, then the Holy Ghost will inspire that person to conform to the keys.

The reason why the Holy Ghost operates after this fashion, or will operate after this fashion, is because the Lord already has the Josephite prepared to make the correction.  He will and must convince the world, right?  And how will he convince?  Through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, working mighty miracles.  The leadership is going to be convinced.  The church is going to be convinced.  The whole world will be convinced.  And the correction will be made seemingly over-night.  It will be the now convinced LDS leadership telling the people, “Yesterday that was how we did it, but today we have received new divine instructions, and we are now doing it by the book, even by the revelations of Joseph, with exactness.”  And the church will correct in an instant.

But not even the Josephite is authorized, or empowered, to make the correction now.  While in his weakness, he doesn’t and can’t convince anybody.  It’s just his word without any divine manifestations of heavenly approval in attendance, which word is just as good as anybody else’s.  So, for all intents and purposes, the weak Josephite is just like any other member of the church, completely useless to make any church corrections.

That being true, that the Josephite is powerless at this present time to correct the church, why in the world would anyone else think they could do it?

Once again, I want to be perfectly clear, so I’ll give more details: the Lord’s authorized servant, the Josephite, who will be the one to actually make the correction, 1) will be a man already in this church, but not in the LDS church leadership; 2) will not be someone who has been kicked out of the church; 3) will say the church or priesthood keys are still in and with the church; 4) will not advocate non church-authorized baptism or other ordinances as ordinances of salvation; 5) will not be against the current church leadership, at any point; and 6) will convince the church leadership (and entire church) by working mighty signs and miracles such as Moses did when he began his ministry, going to the elders of Israel to perform signs, so that they knew that the time had come for a course alteration (see Exodus 4.)  And then the church will correct.

Now, what happens after that, I do not know, for there is still the prophecy I received about the earthquake and the break-up of the church, which prophecy will come to pass, but how and when and in what order all these things will play out, I haven’t a clue.  And there are a whole mess of other things I’ve received concerning the future and the Josephite, which have me completely baffled as to how they will play out, but all this stuff is real, so it will happen when it happens, and that’s good enough for me.  Let it suffice that I am saying that I have prophesied a great many things, but none of them match the “church as currently organized has apostatized” scenario.  My point is this: I know my prophecies are real, so if you are following a man or woman who claims to be a prophet and inspired of God, and they are going against what I have prophesied or received in revelation, ditch ’em quick.  Don’t follow that person.  They are in error and you are in error if you believe them.  And if you don’t believe me, then ask God about my prophecies.  It doesn’t matter that you don’t know all of what I have prophesied.  Ask God and He will tell you that my prophecies are true.  And when He does, repent and come back in to the fold, and conform as I stated above, and wait patiently upon the Lord until He sends the Josephite to make the correction.

I swear I think I’m probably speaking to the wall when I write these words—for my experience is that people just refuse to ask God about me and my revelations and prophecies.  But those who do, get answers only in the affirmative (confirmations of their truth.)  So, I will try once again, and say that the Lord will not send any mere prophet to correct the church.  What we are looking and waiting for is a seer, not a prophet.  And he won’t be a mere seer, he will be a miracle-working seer, even the greatest miracle worker of all time.  So cast all these wannabe phonies aside.  There will be no church correction until this seer shows up fully empowered.

One last thing: those who are no longer members of this church, many of whom have good intentions and truly believe what they believe, who have been “excommunicated” not by the (now defunct) elder’s court, but by the high council, although this has been done in error, in contradiction to the revelations, nevertheless, these people, if they turn around and criticize and correct and ridicule (revile), etc., they are not inspired of the Holy Ghost.  As I see it, there is only one impediment found in the church questions, and that is the one dealing with the claim that they are seers.  But even there, they do have a seer stone (although they don’t know how to use it.)  But all other questions, concerning keys and beliefs and the revelations of Joseph and so forth, are reasonable to expect of a person who wants back in.  So, if these corrections from the leadership are not accepted, that ain’t the leadership’s fault.  But if the excommunicant believes the keys are here, and believes the revelations and the doctrine, and submits to the keys, but cannot accept that the leadership are seers, and the leadership won’t let them in for that single reason alone, then that ain’t that man’s fault, that comes upon the leadership’s head.  And the Josephite will correct that.

But from my vantage point, that is not what is going on.  These people who get “excommunicated” express views of unbelief on various important points, and no longer accept the keys.  My understanding (which may be entirely wrong) is that the leadership really isn’t so much concerned with the titles, “prophet, seer and revelator,” as they are with the assertion that they have the keys.  I can only suppose that if someone says, “I fully believe that the leaders have the keys, and I will submit to them, and I believe that they have the seer stone, and that they are capable of receiving prophecies and revelations for their respective callings,” I can only assume that if those exact words were said, that the leadership would let them back in.  But if a person says this, repenting and humbly accepting whatever correction is given to them, and the leadership still refuses to let them in, then that’s a horse of a different color.  But I don’t think that is what is happening, at all.  But even if that does happen, the saint should just continue to meet with the saints and wait for the correction to come via the Josephite.  He or she should not go on a mission to correct the leadership publicly.

Okay, enough of this pointless rant.  I usually only like to put up posts that contain new information, and this post doesn’t seem to have anything new (to me, at least), but I feel like it needed to be said anyway.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The USC Sucks, etcetera: Part 13 of an Open Debate—The NAC’s Article XIII (The Rules of the League)


Altering the pact

Article XIII. Section 1.  Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to by the voice of the citizens of the several States, for as it was the voice of the citizens of the several States that ordained these articles as the league pact for the States of this Confederacy, neither the several State legislatures and governors, nor the united States in Congress assembled, shall have power to alter these articles in any way, for such power and authority is reserved solely to the citizens of the several States, who shall wield it by their voice at whatsoever time they see fit.

Once the New Articles of Confederation (NAC) have been installed as the Supreme Law of the land, those who have been deposed of their positions of power in the former national government, and those who were seeking such positions, will unite in an effort to amend or alter the NAC to either bring the Confederacy back to a national government or otherwise to consolidate power into a singular head which can act as a king or as a president exercising kingly authority over men.  These men will prefer to alter or amend the NAC by a Congressional vote or by a vote of the State legislatures, because both Congress and the State legislatures are smaller groups of people than the general populace, and it is easier to bribe with money or promises of power, benefit and gain the 540 or so members of Congress, or the State legislatures, than the entire population.  The NAC anticipates an immediate push for amendment or alteration by these people, but puts this right squarely in the hands of the people of the States, making it impossible for it to be corrupted through closed-door deals.  Thus, conspiring men will have to convince more than half of the American people that altering the NAC is in their best interest.  The chances of that happening are slim to none.

It is possible to transfer an already captured bird from a smaller bird cage to a larger one or from a larger bird cage to a smaller one, for the captured bird is already accustomed to being in a cage and, being confined, can be fairly easily corralled into the new more confining, or less confining, cage.  In like manner, it is possible to cause a people living under an oppressive government to accept the alteration of the government into a more oppressive, or less oppressive, form, for the people are already accustomed to living under an oppressive government, and more oppression or less oppression are just degrees of what they are already used to.  In other words, the situation hasn’t drastically changed, thus the behavior of the people won’t drastically change, either.  But when you free the bird entirely from the cage, allowing it to fly off into the wild blue yonder, you’ve drastically altered conditions and no amount of coaxing will get the bird back in a cage.  Once out, it’s gone.  Similarly, if a people go from an oppressive government to a free government, it is next to impossible to get them to choose of their own free will to go back into oppression.  Once they’ve been acclimated to freedom, the only way to get them back under your thumb is through force of arms.

The NAC establishes a free government, not merely a less oppressive one than the former national government.  For this reason the push to alter the NAC must come almost immediately after its passage, before the population has time to acclimate to the new free environment.  I suppose the threat of war, through an exterior invasion, will be used as a fearmongering tool to try to cause the people to alter the NAC so that a president and standing army can be allowed, perhaps under the false guise of a “temporary measure.”  Whatever the strategy, these efforts to alter must come soon after the installment of the NAC.  If they wait too long, the people will never be able to be tricked into giving up their freedom and liberties again.

This section, then, is a safeguard against the re-establishment of tyranny and oppression in America.

The rules of the club

Article XIII.

Section 2.  All of the fifty States of the previous union, which was formed under the United States Constitution, are invited to enter this league by sending authorized delegates to the gathering at Liberty Bell at the day and time which has been appointed to sign them, and such signing will enter them; but if any of these fifty States neglect to send delegates at that time, yet desire to be admitted into the league afterward, they shall be admitted by the voice of the citizens of their States, first, by the voice of Congress, second, and upon them sending authorized delegates to sign the pact, third, all within a year’s time.

Section 3.  Apart from the fifty States which were united under the United States Constitution, no foreign State or nation shall be admitted into this league, except by the voice of the citizens of the several States, and the voice of Congress, and the voice of the citizens of said foreign State or nation, all within a year’s time; and if the voice of all these is for admittance, the foreign State or nation shall send authorized delegates to sign the pact before the year’s time has expired, and thus shall be admitted; but no foreign State or nation shall be admitted that has a king over men, or that exerts kingly authority over them, or that in any way violates these articles.

Section 4.  No State shall be removed from this Confederacy, except by the voice of Congress and the voice of the citizens of the several States, all within a year’s time. Any State which has been removed from this league shall be considered a foreign State and treated as such; and if the removed State requests re-admittance, the third section of this article shall apply.

The Confederacy established by the NAC is a free league, of free States.  Any State can voluntarily enter the league, and voluntarily exit it, whenever they want.  Peaceful provisions are provided to that end, making a repeat of the Civil War, or War Between the States, highly unlikely.  However, owing that the league is to be of free States, oppressive ones that exercise kingly authority over their people, and also monarchies, are banned from it.  This Confederacy is not to be patterned after the United Nations, allowing all sorts of oppressive regimes in, but an exclusive club of free governments.  If any nation does not make the grade, they are barred from entering.  If any member State turns oppressive, they can be kicked out.  The NAC does not play favorites and no State is indispensable.

Installing the NAC

Once America has decided to install the NAC, the only text that needs to be altered are the dates listed in the Preamble and Conclusion,

Preamble

Whereas the Delegates of Fifty of the United States of America in Congress assembled at Liberty Bell, Independence National Historical Park, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand Fifteen, and in the Two Hundred Thirty-Ninth Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain new articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the sovereign, free and independent States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia, in the words following, viz:

New articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia.

Conclusion

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord two thousand Sixteen, and in the two hundred Fortieth Year of the independence of America.

and also the listing of the States, according to which States choose to enter the pact.  Everything else can and should remain untouched, just as it is written now.  This allows for very easy installation, as whatever date chosen only needs to be one that occurs after the election and on a day and time that the Liberty Bell park is open to the public.

Peaceful government transitions codified

Article XIII. Section 5.  Recognizing that the Confederacy derives its powers from its constituent States, and that each State derives its Powers from its people, should the citizens of any of the member States of this Confederacy decide, by their voice, with or without the approval of their State government officials, to abolish the government of their State, or to remove their State from the Confederacy, or to revert their State to the previous form of government as a British Colony, or to alter their republican form of State government into some other form, this Confederacy shall acknowledge their decision as legitimate, valid, effective, final and binding, and shall consider them and their lands as no longer residing within the jurisdictional bounds of, and no longer part of, the Confederacy; and should they choose removal from the Confederacy, they shall be viewed as a free and independent State; and should they choose anarchism, they shall be viewed as a free and independent people and Territory; and should they choose to revert to British rule, they shall be viewed as part of Great Britain; and should they choose some other form of government, they shall be viewed as a foreign entity and nation.

The NAC includes the right to peacefully abolish, revert and replace, which is essentially the same text of the proposed amendment attached to the NAC, which amendment will allow the NAC to be installed.  As good a law as the NAC is, being far superior to the United States Constitution, or any other man-made law found throughout the world, this does not preclude the future existence of something even better, of ever greater wisdom, therefore the NAC provides for this contingency, too.

Final Conclusion of the 13 Parts

These thirteen essays adequately show the superiority of the New Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution, demonstrating to America that the Constitution is not the be-all and end-all of laws.  It certainly served its purposes for more than 200 years, and as far as man-made laws go, it was one of the most innovative, and far ahead of its time.  But it is an old man and it is time to put it to rest.  Nevertheless, the principles in the Constitution, which were not man-made, namely, the Bill of Rights, are carried over into the new plan (the NAC), for these were inspired of God, and must not be set aside.  And they have been expanded in the NAC, as if in an unabridged form.  Also, a few of the Constitutional innovations have been retained in the NAC.  But, other than that, the NAC is a new tool for a new millennium, to combat and eradicate a new group of tyrants and tyrannies, the march of which the Constitution has been unable to stop or even slow down.  But that is okay, because now there is the NAC, and it is fully armed and ready to deal with the current and future environments of tyranny.  So, let’s let go of the Constitution and replace it with the NAC.  Let’s let the NAC do its tyranny-destroying thing.  As it is unwise to enter a gunfight armed with only a knife, why should we fight the tyranny and oppression of today with a 200+ year law that the enemy has already figured out how to by-pass and corrupt?  That route only leads to defeat, slavery and totalitarianism.  The NAC offers an alternative future, one of victory, freedom and the destruction of tyranny.  It does so by offering a proper tool, one meet for the task at hand, even a modern tool for a modern problem, which, strangely enough, is really a set of exceedingly ancient principles, far older than the Constitution.  So the NAC is new only in the sense that we have never seen its like before, but in reality it is an older, extremely strong, street-wise man, who has been around the block more times than we can count, and the Constitution is the relatively new kid who is getting beat up by the neighborhood bullies.  The NAC man has returned from his lengthy walkabout and now sees and targets the bullies.  He’s ready and poised to kick some major bully butt.  Do we put forth our hand to hold the NAC back and say, “No.  Let the bullies continue to destroy the little kid.”  Of course not.  We pull up a chair, grab a bag of popcorn, and watch the action fly, cheering as the bullies get their comeuppance.

Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post. Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate. And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 6 of an Open Debate—NAC’s Article IV Confederacy vs. USC’s National Government


From the Articles of Confederation entry on Wikipedia:

On January 21, 1786, the Virginia Legislature, following James Madison’s recommendation, invited all the states to send delegates to Annapolis, Maryland to discuss ways to reduce interstate conflict. At what came to be known as the Annapolis Convention, the few state delegates in attendance endorsed a motion that called for all states to meet in Philadelphia in May 1787 to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation in a “Grand Convention.” Although the states’ representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were only authorized to amend the Articles, the representatives held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution.

So, they were supposed to fix the Articles of Confederation (AOC) but the nationalists among them decided to scrap the Confederacy that the AOC established and write something new, without authorization from their States, which thing would create a national government.  Most Americans say, “So, what?  The U. S. Constitution (USC) is the greatest political document in the world.”

You must look at the Constitution in this way

Those who defend the USC do so without understanding, for they do not separate the USC, which was written by the nationalists, from the Bill of Rights, which was a product of the minds of the federalists.  The nationalists who wrote the USC in secret wanted to impose a strong national (centrist) government upon the States and saw no need for a Bill of Rights to protect the people from the monster they were creating.  In fact, they argued that having a Bill of Rights would be bad!  Luckily, (or speaking more truthfully), by divine grace, God inspired the federalists to insist upon a Bill of Rights, which were added as the first 10 Amendments.  But the nationalists ever thought their creation (the USC) was perfect as is, without the Bill of Rights.

When you look at history, think about how abusive the national government has been, encroaching on the rights of the people just about every chance it has had.   Now, think about what is the only thing that has somewhat checked these tyrannical abuses of power.  Has it not been the Bill of Rights?  Yes, of course it has.  Now, imagine how history would have been different had those nationalist conspirators—who usurped their delegated States’ authority and wrote the USC in secret—had their way, and released it upon the American people without a Bill of Rights.  Can you imagine the horrors we would have had from the very beginning?  We see horrors among us today and say that the government has grown too large and too centralized, but this growth took hundreds of years to occur because of the restraints the Bill of Rights put upon government.  Without the Bill of Rights, government would have ballooned overnight and the horrors we see today would have existed two hundred years ago.

When you look at the USC, then, you must see it as its creators saw it: sans a Bill of Rights and about as perfect as mortal man could make it.  And that, in fact, is the problem with the USC.  It is man-made law, which God has said brings men into bondage, for this is what the laws of men have always done and been designed to do: to bring men into all types of bondage, so that men can rule over their fellow man and enrich themselves with other men’s goods.

So, all those who extoll the virtues of the USC are not praising the USC, for there is nothing particularly good about it, but their praise is for the Bill of Rights, which is cause for celebration.  And that is the part that was inspired of God.  For God needed to restrain this thing that had been created in secret, for a time, until, when it became the behemoth it now is, gobbling up every right and power it can find, God could work a work of restoration and bring us back to where we first went awry.

The NAC is a reset

It was always the intention of God that those delegates fix the AOC, but they didn’t do it.  So, God is going to fix the AOC with the NAC (or something like it), because God’s purposes are never frustrated.  In the end, He always get what He wants.  In this case, we are going to be taken back to a Confederacy, as if we were transported back in time to May 1787.  It is going to be as if those unfaithful delegates actually did their appointed job and corrected the AOC under inspiration of God.  It is going to be as if the USC never existed (save for all the history we had under it).  It will be a complete reset.

A Confederacy is superior to a National Government

The NAC’s Confederacy has token similarities to the national government established by the USC.  There is a bicameral Congress composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives.  There are two Senators per State and multiple Representatives per population apportionment.  But that is pretty much where the similarities end.

In essence the NAC is a pure Confederacy of States.  The Congress represents the States and their interests, not the people.  No one is popularly elected, like under the USC, but all are appointed by the State governments.  Nevertheless, there is interaction with the people because they (the people) get to approve or disapprove of all those appointments.  This corresponds, basically, to the law of common consent.  Thus, the NAC’s Confederacy has perfect legitimacy on all levels.

Unlike the USC, which has enormous powers, the NAC’s Confederacy has extremely limited powers that deal with State issues.  The Confederacy is mainly concerned with defense, but also has power to make treaties, regulate the border crossings of foreigners, provide a sound monetary source, a post office, resolve disputes between States, and little else.  This Confederacy, in fact, might seem weak on the surface, but it makes for an extremely dynamic and diverse society, which is fully protected from any foe, whether foreign or domestic.

The so-called “dynamic” American economy currently under the USC is but the symbol or shadow of the economy that would exist literally under the NAC.  The USC has the economy under a whole lot of restraints at present, yet it still chugs along “dynamically” (so-called).  The NAC, though, unleashes the full American economy, freeing it from its restraints, allowing the Lord to finally give the Gentiles a taste of what the Nephites had.  Everything becomes, or will become, literally dynamic, on all levels, in a never-ending spiral of (non-miraculous) prosperity.  (And yet, even this won’t be what God has in store for us.  But you have to start somewhere, right?  So, the NAC shouldn’t be considered the prosperity miracle, but just a set-up for the prosperity miracle which is to come.)

Again, the national government under the USC restrains, while the Confederacy under the NAC will set all things free of restraints.  Yet it also will keep us safe and secure, so there is no trade-off.  We need not choose between the security of the USC and the freedom of the NAC.  The NAC will secure us more fully than the USC does and will also give us greater freedoms, so it is superior to the USC on literally every point.

Secret combinations, political parties and special interests

Do you remember what happened a mere five years after king Mosiah did away with the monarchy and established a system of judges?  Sure, the people rejoiced in their new-found freedom, but a certain set of men were ticked off at this change of events because there was no longer a centralized position of power in the government from which to rule over men.  They wanted to be kings over men, but they couldn’t because king Mosiah changed the dang laws!  Everything was too decentralized for power hungry people to be able to control anything.  So, just five years into the reign of the judges, Amlici of the Nehors appeared on the scene:

And it came to pass in the commencement of the fifth year of their reign there began to be a contention among the people; for a certain man, being called Amlici, he being a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world, he being after the order of the man that slew Gideon by the sword, who was executed according to the law—now this Amlici had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him; even so much that they began to be very powerful; and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people.  (Alma 2:1-2)

In like manner, there are to be wicked and conspiring men among the Gentiles:

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you:

In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—  (D&C 89:4)

These same conspiring men, who have genetically modified our food, who have poisoned our water supplies, who have conspired to put toxic chemicals into our bodies and the bodies of our children, in the name of science and medicine, who have promoted sexual liberation and abortion that they might be able to farm human body parts (of the aborted children), etc., all for gain, fame, honors of men and power, these very same men (and also women) have a vested interest in the national government, for although it is not a monarchy with a king, it still nevertheless represents kingly authority over men, which is what these conspiring men need and desire in order for them to obtain their riches and dominion over men.

So, it should not come as a surprise that there will be intense opposition to the NAC once it starts to gain traction among the people.  And it should not come as a surprise that even after the NAC (or something like it) is installed as the Supreme Law of the land, that just a short time afterward there will be calls for it to be changed into something that allows for either a king-type of office or kingly authority over men.  In other words, these same men aren’t going to go away without a fight, and even after their power and control is taken away from them by the NAC, they will use every means in their power to re-gain the lost ground and powerful positions they had, even if it means conspiring with our enemies to wage war against America, to bring it back to a national government.

This means that on the one hand the NAC will destroy secret combinations and conspiring men, during the time that it is the law, but on the other hand, so all-pervasively destructive will the NAC be to tyranny that all would-be tyrants will be forced to use excessive measures to restore their thrones, so war will be inevitable under the NAC.  There will be forces both within our borders and also outside of them trying to take the NAC out.  Even if the conspirators in this country are all arrested and put down, the conspirators in other countries will not sit idly by and watch the great prize of America be literally snatched from their fingers by the NAC.

The NAC foresees all of this

Although it could be technically correct to say that the NAC’s Confederacy is weaker than the national government under the USC, the powers vested in the Confederacy by the NAC are specific and sufficiently powerful to deal with these conspiring enemies of the people.  The NAC already foresees that such secret combinations will exist, and that they will attempt to destroy the NAC and return the people to the USC, or to bring about an even stronger government, such as a world government, and the NAC plans for these conspiracies.  In other words, although the specific powers of the Confederacy are extremely limited, they are also extremely powerful and perfectly requisite in dealing with all enemies whether foreign and domestic.  Even if the entire world conspires against America under the NAC, and decides to wage war against us, the NAC provides for this contingency and will be able to see us through it.

The USC’s national government has no power to restrain conspirators

In contrast, the national government under the USC is a breeding ground for conspiring men and corruption.  Not only is there a continual push to consolidate all power under the executive branch (the President), for that is the office that most closely matches a king, but all branches of government routinely grab at whatsoever new power and authority they can steal from the people, representing the continuous manifestation of kingly authority over men.  Additionally, although having a real king would be magnificent to these evil people, they would really love to have a world king, and so they also push for world government and to do away altogether with the sovereign nation-state.  These things happen, or can happen, under the USC, because it is man-made and has no foresight whatsoever.  In other words, fore-sight comes of the Spirit of freedom, even the Holy Ghost, which is the spirit of prophecy and revelation.  Man-made documents can’t see the future and so must just guess as to what is actually needed.  Most times these guesses are all wrong because of the change in conditions that inevitably comes, which no one ever saw coming.

The USC doesn’t provide for conspiring men because why should it?  It was crafted by conspiracy and conspiring men, after all!  Why in the world would conspiring men put safeguards in the very document they are creating to make it impossible for conspiring men to take control?  The USC, then, as a creation of conspiring men, was designed to be a vehicle that could be used to control the States, not to free them or the people.  (The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, was designed to be a vehicle that could be used to control the USC.)  The USC didn’t make the States or their people any freer than they already were under the AOC.  Its sole function was to consolidate stolen State power in the hands of a few men (Congress, the Justices and the President) under the guise as this would make us safer or more protected, militarily, and also more prosperous if commerce could be regulated.

But all of this was just false propaganda playing on men’s fears.  This is even the tactic used by evil men today.  If you can instill a false fear in the population, you can make them give up anything, even their rights and privileges.

The NAC keeps State rights intact, the USC doesn’t

The States are sovereign and were ever meant to be.  Contrary to what people might think, God does not approve of sameness.  He likes diversity.  Thus a male is a male and a female is a female.  They are not designed or intended to be unisex, or the same.  Diversity is the name of the game in the divine economy of God.  “Sovereign States in a Confederacy” creates diversity among the States.  They become more nation-like under a Confederacy, while under a national government there is a certain conformity that takes place with much less diversity and no sovereignty.  The rights and independence and sovereignty of the States is fully intact under the NAC.  They can freely enter the pact and freely leave it, all done peacefully.

Not so under the USC.  The national government is over the States, just as kings were over men.  It is the same principle.  The national government, then, exerts kingly authority over the States and also over their people.  When a State tries to break away, we end up having a civil war or a war between the States.  Thus, the national government doesn’t give a hoot about the States or their people.  The Feds are in charge and as each day passes, they are more and more in charge, stealing authorities from both the States and their people.

But make no mistake about it, the States are just as tyrannical as the national government, and those in State governments are also trying to do what the Feds are doing, creating their own police state and trying to consolidate what they can steal from the people, under their own authority.  This is why the NAC doesn’t just abolish the national government, but also restrains the States from exerting kingly authority over men, like the national government does.

A final word

One more thing about Article IV that makes it stand out is the fact that Congress under the NAC is paid by their respective States.  In other words, Congress under the NAC won’t be able to vote themselves a pay raise.  Some States will pay more and some States will pay less, to their respective Representatives and Senators.  Thus, each State will get what it pays for.

In my next installment I will discuss Article V, which covers monetary issues.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post. Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate. And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment


An Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to peacefully abolish the Constitution, to peacefully revert to the Articles of Confederation, and to peacefully replace the Constitution with some other form of government, shall not be abridged. Each state shall allow its citizens to place a measure to abolish the Constitution, or a measure to replace the Constitution, on any state ballot, according to prescribed state laws and rules. Where no such laws and rules exist, a state shall create the same, so that its citizens may exercise these rights within one year of passage of this amendment.

In any given year in which the citizens of a majority of the states vote in favor of abolishment, Constitutional authority and jurisdiction shall be immediately revoked in said majority states. Those majority states which are mentioned in the Articles of Confederation shall revert to it, while those majority states not mentioned in it shall be free and independent. If the vote is, instead, to replace the Constitution with some other form of government, all the aforementioned majority states shall immediately be bound by the newly adopted form. In either case, the minority states shall no longer be bound by Constitutional authority and jurisdiction, but shall be free and independent, unless mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, in which case they shall revert to the former form of government.

The above proposed amendment allows Americans to exercise the rights to peacefully abolish their government, to peacefully revert to a former government, and to peacefully replace their current government with some other form. It takes its authority from the Declaration of Independence. That document asserts these very rights, but without the peaceful adjective, so that men must exercise these rights by bloodshed and force of arms. A more enlightened way of doing this is through the relatively peaceful means of ballot voting. The effect, in either case, is the same, except that in the peaceful latter case, nobody dies or is physically harmed in any way. Should any future generation of Americans feel the need to exercise their rights to abolish, revert or replace, this amendment will allow them to do it without loss of life or limb.

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Background on this post

My recent comment about the Josephite restorer bringing back the Articles of Confederation had me wondering about how this might be accomplished. One idea I had was that he could possibly introduce a Constitutional amendment, that would actually pass, which would allow a peaceful transition from the present Constitution to a new, revised (perfected) set of Articles of Confederation, authored by himself. As I wondered about this, I decided to try my hand at both re-writing the Articles of Confederation, so as to perfect them, and also at writing an amendment that would allow the smooth transition. This post contains my “proposed amendment.” The notes I took for The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) might be put up later, once I consolidate them into a single cohesive document. Feel free, anyone, to take this amendment, modify it as you please, and run with it. Who knows? Maybe the Josephite isn’t needed, after all, to accomplish this part of the task.

Note: I wrote another article on this very topic some years ago. See A basic right denied.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The doctrine against dissent


I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine. (D&C 38:27)

Unity is required of the saints

We are commanded to “be one” (D&C 51:9) in Christ, even “as [Jesus is] one in the Father” (D&C 35:2), for the gospel principle of unity is patterned after the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, “which is one Eternal God” (Alma 11:44). The required oneness is to “be perfect” (2 Cor. 13:11), the saints being commanded to be “of one mind” (1 Pet. 3:8), “of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32), “of one accord” (Philip. 2:2), of “one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity” (Mosiah 18:21), as “one body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5), being “united in all things” (2 Ne. 1:21) and “united in mighty prayer and fasting” (3 Ne. 27:1).

The “one body in Christ” refers to the church of God, meaning that the saints have a “duty to unite with the true church” (D&C 23:7), to worship as a group and “agree upon [God’s] word” (D&C 41:2). This is a physical gathering of saints in which they are to “meet together often” (D&C 20:55,75).

Just as the resurrection of the dead will dress the naked spirits again, restoring the body “unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy” (D&C 138:17), so the physically gathered church, or corporate body of the church, is designed to never be divided into schisms, so that it becomes “a whole and complete and perfect union” (D&C 128:18).

Such unity is only to be of like things, thus the saints have been taught by Paul “that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever” (D&C 74:5) and every man of the church has been commanded by the Lord to “be alike among this people, and receive alike” (D&C 51:9).

The commandment to be one makes dissenting behavior a sin

There are nine instances of the word dissent in the scriptures, all of which occur in the Book of Mormon. The word never appears as a noun, only as a verb. It is also always portrayed as a sin.

For the modern reader, using modern dictionaries, the idea of dissenting behavior being a sin makes no sense, whatsoever. A review of the modern definitions and the definitions at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon (taken from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) will quickly show why there is so much confusion on this issue.

According to the modern definition of the intransitive verb to dissent, it means “to withhold assent” or “to differ in opinion.” (Assent means “an act of agreeing to something especially after thoughtful consideration : an act of assenting : acquiescence, agreement”.) The verb has no religious connotation, however if we look at the noun dissent, we find that although it can be used generally to mean a “difference of opinion”, it also can be used more specifically to mean either “religious nonconformity,” “a justice’s nonconcurrence with a decision of the majority,” or “political opposition to a government or its policies.”

The current religious meaning (“religious nonconformity”) is a nonspecific version of what the word used to mean during the times of Joseph Smith. In Joseph’s time, to religiously dissent specifically meant “to differ from an established church, in regard to doctrines, rites or government.”

So, for example, if all the men who attend my ward dress in white shirts and ties (not because of church doctrines, rites or government, but just because that is the customary attire) and I attend wearing a blue shirt with no tie, I am guilty of nonconformity (and some might call it religious nonconformity since it is nonconformity to a custom that occurs in a religious setting), but not guilty of differing from the established doctrines, rites or government of my ward, for none of that gives a dress code for attending the ward. Dissent in the modern sense could be any religious nonconformity, regardless of how insignificant it is, whereas dissenting behavior in Joseph’s time specifically meant nonconformity to the doctrines, rites or government of an established church.

No one can righteously dissent from the true church of God

The scriptures brought forth by Joseph Smith teach that dissenting behavior is a sin, but this must be understood by the definition used in Joseph’s time. Here are all nine instances in which the word dissent is used in the scriptures, all of which are found only in the Book of Mormon:

And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah. (Alma 43:13)

And there were many in the church who believed in the flattering words of Amalickiah, therefore they dissented even from the church; and thus were the affairs of the people of Nephi exceedingly precarious and dangerous, notwithstanding their great victory which they had had over the Lamanites, and their great rejoicings which they had had because of their deliverance by the hand of the Lord. (Alma 46:7)

And now who knoweth but what the remnant of the seed of Joseph, which shall perish as his garment, are those who have dissented from us? Yea, and even it shall be ourselves if we do not stand fast in the faith of Christ.

And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words he went forth, and also sent forth in all the parts of the land where there were dissensions, and gathered together all the people who were desirous to maintain their liberty, to stand against Amalickiah and those who had dissented, who were called Amalickiahites. (Alma 46:27-28)

Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites. (Alma 48:24)

Behold, can you suppose that the Lord will spare you and come out in judgment against the Lamanites, when it is the tradition of their fathers that has caused their hatred, yea, and it has been redoubled by those who have dissented from us, while your iniquity is for the cause of your love of glory and the vain things of the world? (Alma 60:32)

And I write this epistle unto you, Lachoneus, and I hope that ye will deliver up your lands and your possessions, without the shedding of blood, that this my people may recover their rights and government, who have dissented away from you because of your wickedness in retaining from them their rights of government, and except ye do this, I will avenge their wrongs. I am Giddianhi.

And now it came to pass when Lachoneus received this epistle he was exceedingly astonished, because of the boldness of Giddianhi demanding the possession of the land of the Nephites, and also of threatening the people and avenging the wrongs of those that had received no wrong, save it were they had wronged themselves by dissenting away unto those wicked and abominable robbers. (3 Ne. 3:10-11)

Now there was one among them who was a Nephite by birth, who had once belonged to the church of God but had dissented from them. (Hel. 5:35)

All dissenters from the true church of God are sinners

According to our modern dictionaries, a dissenter is “one that dissents”, and since we know what it means to religiously dissent, that means that a religious dissenter is one that does not religiously conform. But in the time of Joseph Smith, a dissenter was “one who separates from the service and worship of any established church.”

The words dissent and dissenters, as found in the standard works, carry the meanings the words had during the time of Joseph Smith. So, when we read in the Book of Mormon that there were people in the church who dissented, it doesn’t mean that there was a difference of opinion or general religious nonconformity, but that those who dissented were advocating a change in the church’s doctrines, rites or government. And when we read of dissenters from the church in the same record, it does not mean that they were just people who had a difference of opinion, but that they were people who had separated from the church and had begun performing worship services that were different from those of the church.

Unbelief is the cause of dissenting behavior

Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe the tradition of their fathers. They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ.

And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened. And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church. And they were a separate people as to their faith, and remained so ever after, even in their carnal and sinful state; for they would not call upon the Lord their God. (Mosiah 26:1-4)

Although the above scripture speaks of non-members who never ended up joining the church, the dissenting process is the same for members of God’s church. Any believing member who chooses to begin to doubt the word of God will begin to dissent in his heart, meaning that he will begin to desire that the doctrines, rites and/or government of the church of God be changed (in conformity with his new belief system). This state of heart, in which the man spiritually separates himself from those who choose to not doubt the word of God, can lead to contention and disputations, and if not resolved by a restoration of belief (through repentance), ultimately will end in the member becoming a dissenter, so that he now physically separates from the body of the church and engages in worship services of another church or belief system. The Zoramites present a prime example of this process:

And it came to pass that as he [Korihor] went forth among the people, yea, among a people who had separated themselves from the Nephites and called themselves Zoramites, being led by a man whose name was Zoram—and as he went forth amongst them, behold, he was run upon and trodden down, even until he was dead. (Alma 30:59)

Now it came to pass that after the end of Korihor, Alma having received tidings that the Zoramites were perverting the ways of the Lord, and that Zoram, who was their leader, was leading the hearts of the people to bow down to dumb idols, his heart again began to sicken because of the iniquity of the people. (Alma 31:1)

Now the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites; therefore they had had the word of God preached unto them. But they had fallen into great errors, for they would not observe to keep the commandments of God, and his statutes, according to the law of Moses. Neither would they observe the performances of the church, to continue in prayer and supplication to God daily, that they might not enter into temptation. Yea, in fine, they did pervert the ways of the Lord in very many instances; therefore, for this cause, Alma and his brethren went into the land to preach the word unto them. (Alma 31:8-11)

We see from this that Zoramite dissenters had separated themselves from both the church of God and also the Nephite nation itself, creating a new religion which rejected the established doctrines, rites and government of God. This separation occurred because they stopped believing in the things of God, as taught and practiced by God’s church:

Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ. (Alma 31:16)

All dissenters from the church of God make the same claim: that the church of God is apostate and thus its doctrines, rites or government must be modified in order to bring it back into God’s good graces. This claim may be made because the church does not sufficiently change with the times or it may be made because the church has made a change that the dissenters feel was not authorized by God. When the saints of God inevitably refuse to permit the dissenters from altering God’s current callings, laws and ordinances to conform to a more modern philosophy or to a more ancient or earlier practice, the dissenters separate and do their own thing, becoming a law unto themselves.

Now, from the perspective of the church body, to dissent is to advocate heresy and thus a dissenter is an apostate heretic (someone who advocates heresy and has separated from the church), whereas from the perspective of the dissenter, the church is too corrupt (apostate) to improve and thus must be abandoned and perhaps even actively criticized and fought.

We see from this that both sides make, essentially, the same claim: that the other party is in error and refuses to be corrected.

Unrepentant dissenters must be silenced and cut off

Unbelief is an infectious plague, that if left unchecked will affect the entire church body, causing both spiritual and temporal destruction to come upon the church. Spiritual destruction happens because unbelief and dissenting behavior are sins, thus subjecting the man to the devil’s power and captivation. And temporal destruction happens because the church body no longer qualifies for temporal deliverance from the Lord, which requires unity.

Because of these real dangers to the church, when a dissenting voice is heard among the church, it must be silenced as soon as possible. Thus we read,

And it came to pass that after there had been false Christs, and their mouths had been shut, and they punished according to their crimes; and after there had been false prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people, and all these having been punished according to their crimes (WoM 1:15-16)

False Christs, false prophets, false preachers and false teachers cause people to doubt the word of God, creating dissenting behavior, which could grow into church schisms, in which people become dissenters, separating from the church of God. There are three valid (authorized) ways that men of God use to silence dissenting voices.

And there were no contentions, save it were a few that began to preach, endeavoring to prove by the scriptures that it was no more expedient to observe the law of Moses. Now in this thing they did err, having not understood the scriptures. But it came to pass that they soon became converted, and were convinced of the error which they were in, for it was made known unto them that the law was not yet fulfilled, and that it must be fulfilled in every whit; yea, the word came unto them that it must be fulfilled; yea, that one jot or tittle should not pass away till it should all be fulfilled; therefore in this same year were they brought to a knowledge of their error and did confess their faults. (3 Nephi 1:24-25)

So, the first way to silence false ideas and teachings is to have the high priests correct the errors, showing them their faults, so that such people repent of their sins and turn from their errors and become, again, converted to the true faith and doctrines and rites and government of God, confessing their faults. This first step allows people who made honest, doctrinal mistakes to self-correct and remain in safety with the body of the saints.

If, however, the false teachers do not repent, but persist in their dissenting behavior, endeavoring to preach and teach the same errors (heresies) to other members of the church, the high priests are required to shut their mouths by cutting them off from the church. Although the now non-member is free to preach as he sees fit to the members, excommunication removes his legitimacy in the eyes of the body, so that they may more readily see that the false teacher is in error, and thus should not be listened to.

Repentance, disfellowship or excommunication

In the modern church of God, the saints have been give three ways to deal with dissenting behavior: the leadership can correct the errors and those who dissent can repent and be restored to full fellowship, or, if the dissenter needs more time to repent and come to a proper understanding of the word of God, he may be disfellowshipped, so that he is not permitted to teach false doctrine to the church, until such time as he fully repents and becomes, again, a believer in God’s word, understanding it by the Spirit. Disfellowship really is for those who are still confused over the word of God, but who desire to come to an understanding that allows them to remain with the church. The last way is excommunication, which is for dissenters who refuse to repent or even acknowledge that they have done anything wrong.

The door is left open to return to the flock

Jesus told His twelve disciples, concerning the member of the church that was unworthy of partaking of the sacrament, because of transgression,

But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered. Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them. Therefore, keep these sayings which I have commanded you that ye come not under condemnation; for wo unto him whom the Father condemneth. (3 Nephi 18:31-33)

Excommunication, then, is a true principle of the gospel, one which must be performed on all those church members who do not repent of their sins after they have been admonished of them. Following this commandment keeps those who are in charge of regulating the church justified before the Lord, and also keeps the flock safer from the effects of false teachings and bad examples, which effects or fruit is spiritual and temporal destruction. The commandment to excommunicate unrepentant sinners was also given to the modern church, with the same promise of justification for the leadership if they obey the same.

And him that repenteth not of his sins, and confesseth them not, ye shall bring before the church, and do with him as the scripture saith unto you, either by commandment or by revelation. And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—verily I say, for this cause ye shall do these things. (D&C 64:12-14)

So, even if the judges (who are charged to judge whether the sinner will remain in the church) forgive the man who refuses to repent of his sins, and would rather release him without any discipline applied, doing so would break the commandment given to the leadership, of excommunicating (cutting off) unrepentant sinners. The only way to remain justified before the Lord is to obey the commandment and cut off all those who refuse to repent, regardless of what the sin is.

Nevertheless, after being cut off, they (the leadership) must keep an open door policy, allowing the dissenters who repent of their sins to come back into the fold.

A difference of opinion does not constitute dissenting behavior

Scriptural dissenting behavior deals only with church doctrines, rites and government. Some people, though, cannot differentiate between scriptural dissenting behavior and the modern, generic definition of dissent, which merely means “a difference of opinion.” So any censuring they see, of any kind, is viewed as morally wrong, a violation of one’s right to free speech, as put down in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The problem with that view, is that a church is not a public institution, but a private one, and like all private institutions, it has certain rules which its membership is expected to obey.

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship. (D&C 134:10)

A case in point: Korihor

In December of 2011, I wrote on the Times and Seasons blog the following:

Korihor was not a religious freedom advocate battling an oppressive central government.

Korihor was a liar couching his lies under the guise of belief. He did this because liars were punished, it being against the law to lie (see Alma 1:16-17.) So, he pretended to preach according to his belief. Everyone who heard him preach, knew he was lying, for he told blatant lies (see Alma 30:35) but pretended it was merely his belief. He was repeatedly bound and taken before the authorities because it was obvious to everyone that he was breaking the law by lying, but no one knew what to do with him because of his stubbornness in always couching it in belief, for the law had no hold upon anyone for their belief. In other words, atheists had freedom in their society, but not pretended atheists, only people who truly believed that there was no God. Korihor, though, from his speech, revealed himself to be a liar and showed that his intention was to merely deceive the people.

Now the text clearly shows that this was Korihor’s crime: lies. Repeatedly when questioned by Alma, the topic of lies is brought up. He is on trial for lying, or intentionally deceiving people, which was a punishable crime among them. The people of Ammon, who first bound him, “were more wise” (Alma 30:20) than those at Zarahemla because they were more righteous. The Nephites at Zarahemla could see that he was a liar and deceiver, but they just let him go about breaking the law and deceiving the people. Not so with the Lamanite people of Ammon.

Again, Korihor was bound and sent up to the authorities with testimony of his lies, for there must be witnesses. Nevertheless, they couldn’t do anything to him because he pretended he was entitled to his own beliefs, therefore, he was, each time, set free, outside of the lands that he preached among, until he finally came to Alma, who, through the power of God, put a stop to his destructive work of lies.

I could have worded that a bit better than I did, but it’s good enough for the point I am trying to make, which is that once you break the laws of a society, whether it is a public society like the Nephites or a private society like the church of God, you become subject to whatever penalty is attached to that broken law. In the case of religious dissenting behavior and dissenters, freedom of speech or of the press is allowed only insofar as you do not transgress the laws of God by your speech or writings. Once you are found promoting wickedness or falsehoods by your spoken or written words, the church has jurisdiction over you and also a responsibility to censure you (to shut your mouth) in the prescribed, scriptural manner (correction and repentance, disfellowship or excommunication). In public society, freedom of speech or of the press does not grant you the right to commit slander or libel.

What saints do when unrepentant sinners are around

We are free, then, to use our agency to do good, but when we use it to commit evil by our speech and the words we write, we come under condemnation of God and it is every saint’s duty to denounce and resist all the evils that are observed by them. This is why the witnesses came forth during the first trial of the original Mormon church:

And now in the reign of Mosiah they [the unbelievers] were not half so numerous as the people of God; but because of the dissensions among the brethren they became more numerous.

For it came to pass that they did deceive many with their flattering words, who were in the church, and did cause them to commit many sins; therefore it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church.

And it came to pass that they were brought before the priests, and delivered up unto the priests by the teachers; and the priests brought them before Alma, who was the high priest.

Now king Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church.

And it came to pass that Alma did not know concerning them; but there were many witnesses against them; yea, the people stood and testified of their iniquity in abundance. (Mosiah 26:5-9)

Now, I will unfold this saintly duty and peculiarity a little farther down in this post, as it cannot be overemphasized.

Pahoran wrote:

Therefore, my beloved brother, Moroni, let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God. (Alma 61:14)

But Jesus commanded:

But I say unto you, that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (3 Ne. 12:39)

Which instructions are the saints of God supposed to obey? Both. (I only mention this in case some commenter says, “But Jesus said to not resist evil! So Pahoran was wrong!”) I will not explain this seeming contradiction as that is not the topic of this post. Just suffice it to say that a saint typically does not shut his mouth at iniquity, unless the Holy Ghost constrains him not to speak.

The following instructions were given to saints:

And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.

And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.

And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.

And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.

If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her.

And thus shall ye conduct in all things. (D&C 42:88-93)

Who does the chastening? Who does the rebuking? Who determines who has offended publicly or in secret? Who delivers the unrepentant sinners to the law of God? The saints do. More on this later.

Re: those who learn and obey the whats only if the whys suit them

And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them (Abr. 3:25)

Doing all things that the Lord commands includes bridling the tongue (see James 3), which means that the spoken and written word must likewise be put under gospel constraints. Intentionally false (heretical) teachings, then, break the commandments.

Some people in the church say that mortality is a school to learn the things of God, as if it were knowledge that saved us. They emphasize that we ought not to be blindly obedient, but ought to obey rationally, with understanding of why we are commanded to do whatever it is we are commanded to do. They are more concerned with the why than with the what.

Such people, if they cannot understand the reason behind a commandment or doctrine, may end up openly questioning its divinity. In other words, they may start to propose a theory that the doctrine or commandment has a non-divine source and begin to teach it among the people. If confronted by a saint and told that the alternate teaching is heretical, the proponent may do as Korihor and say it is merely a belief or a hypothesis which may or may not be true, and that there is no harm in questioning things which may be false. In other words, he or she will claim, like Korihor, that this is not a teaching, but just an interesting idea: to consider that a doctrine or commandment or teaching of the church is man-made and not divinely given.

Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true….And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ…I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe. (Alma 30:24,26,48)

Such heresies come from putting knowledge before faith and requiring that one know and understand something before one will believe it to be true.

Although it is true that man is here to learn, he is only here to learn obedience to God.

And my people must needs be chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by the things which they suffer. (D&C 105:6)

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered (Heb. 5:8)

Separating goats from sheep is a gospel principle based on obedience

Obedience to the whats, not knowledge of the whys, is the deciding factor in determining where we go.

and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate (Abr. 3:26)

So God separates those who keep His commandments from those who don’t, and puts them into separate kingdoms. This is why the church is charged with excommunicating all those who do not repent of their sins. This separation, or division, is based upon the heavenly pattern. Just as there was a separation in heaven between the 1/3 and the 2/3, and the 1/3 were cast out, so here on earth more separation is commanded to occur, for those who transgress the law of God and do not repent.

But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted (Alma 42:22)

Once you break the law, the punishment is not immediately inflicted, but you are granted a space to repent, resulting in two sets of commandments. The first commandment is to keep the law, which, if you disobey, you then get a second commandment, which is to repent. Only when you refuse to take advantage of repentance and the atonement, does the law require that you be cut off from the church by excommunication.

Cutting off the people by excommunication furthers the work of division that the Savior spoke of.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:34)

Jesus gathers his elect into one body and then uses his sword to divide the sheep from the goats, and the wheat from the tares, pruning the body from time to time as fruit withers upon the branch, showing its true nature. In other words, the gospel net draws all sorts of fish into the church, and then it gets sorted, according to what type of fish it shows itself to be. If a man appears to be a sheep, or wheat, or good fish or fruit, he is to remain with the saints, but if he shows himself as a goat, a tare, rotten fruit or spoiled fish, he is to be cast out. The test of goathood, or tarehood, or rottenness is two-fold: does the man obey the commandments? If yes, he stays. If no, does he repent of his sins? If yes, he stays. If no, he must be cast off.

Pruning (excommunication) is to take place on an as needed basis, in order that the gospel tree does not perish.

Church trials

Before anyone can be excommunicated in this church, they must first be tried for their membership. As everyone is considered innocent before being proven guilty, the Lord has given in His scriptures the divine pattern of church trials and courts.

There are three types of church courts or trials that the scriptures speak of, and six types of judges.  The pattern is designed around checks and balances, in order that power is not concentrated in the hands of any one person or group and so that everyone who is accused has a fair, balanced trial, in which everyone’s rights are upheld.

The six types of judges

The witnesses

Two or three (or more) church members in good standing become judges when they act as witnesses. This is the law of witnesses and it is based upon the righteousness and holiness of a saint. It is the saints who will judge the nations and all things pertaining to Zion, for they are sanctified (holy) and are duly qualified to determine whether someone has transgressed.

The bishop

The bishop judges the good standing of the membership, and thus the saints, because a bishop is to receive an accounting of everyone’s stewardship.

The two elders

The two elders judge the case laid before them by the two or three (or more) saintly witnesses, the bishop attesting to their good standing. If there are sufficient witnesses, the two elders judge whether the accused has confessed and repented. If the accused refuses, then the elders pass judgment upon the accused, as required by the scriptures.

The church congregation

After the two elders come to a guilty verdict, they must lay the case before the congregation, which then must take a vote to sustain the action or oppose it. If the majority agrees, the decision is ratified and valid and the accused is excommunicated. If the majority disagrees, no action is taken. The congregation, then, judges the decision of the two elders, and decides whether it was correct or not.

The stake president

The stake president, like the two elders, judges the case laid before him by the witnesses and makes a decision concerning which party is right or whether both are wrong.

The high council

The twelve high council members vote to ratify (make valid) the decision of the president. If a majority does not agree with his decision, it does not go through.

The three types of church courts or councils

Bishop’s court or council

The bishop is to receive an accounting of everyone’s stewardship and is to know who is consecrating properties and moneys, or donating funds as tithing or fast offerings, etc., to the Lord. This gives him a unique perspective into who is and is not a wise and just steward. Nevertheless, his judgment and jurisdiction are not independent but only activate with just testimony.

And whoso standeth in this mission is appointed to be a judge in Israel, like as it was in ancient days, to divide the lands of the heritage of God unto his children; and to judge his people by the testimony of the just, and by the assistance of his counselors, according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God. (D&C 58:17-18)

And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church (D&C 42:32)

And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church. (D&C 107:72)

Because of this, a sinner who confesses to a bishop cannot be tried by the bishop, nor his testimony used against him, because the testimony is of a sinner, not a saint. In other words, only the testimony of the just (someone who hasn’t broken the laws) can be used in trials. Nevertheless, with just testimony, the bishop and bishopric are authorized to judge only whether someone is in good standing or not, and is contributing to the upkeep of the poor and the kingdom. In other words, the bishop’s jurisdiction deals primarily in temporal matters.

Elder’s court or council

The elders’ jurisdiction to judge is activated by witnesses coming forth and testifying of the wickedness of some member. The bishop, if available, is required to be present that he may attest to the good standing of the witnesses. If two witnesses in good standing testify against a member, that is sufficient to condemn. If there is no confession and repentance afterward, the elders must lay it before the members, to ratify the excommunication. The elder’s council is designed to be used for matters of transgression only, to try a person for his or her membership.

High priests’ court or council

This court, known as a high council, is to settle difficult and important matters, and like the other courts, only receives jurisdiction when two or more saints testify as witnesses. For example, if there is a property dispute, one saying that his property line extends 15 feet down the hill and his neighbor saying that it only extends 10 feet, the high council can be used to address these matters, if there are sufficient witnesses.

Scriptural patterns are no longer followed

The above are the scriptural patterns, which are no longer precisely followed. For example, the elder’s council has been completely done away with. Instead, the high council now tries the men of the church who have had Melchizedek priesthood conferred on them, and the bishopric tries everyone else, for membership. Nothing outside of transgression is brought to trial anymore. You can’t take a property dispute to the church courts and receive a judgment. Instead, everyone is told to settle the matter amongst themselves, or to use the man-made court system.

The checks and balances that were present in the three-court pattern have been removed and power has been concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Many of the rights guaranteed to all the members have been weakened or altogether removed. If we compare the scripturally revealed pattern of church courts with today’s current practice, it can plainly be seen that today’s practice and procedure makes the word of God, as written in the scriptures, of none effect, effectively removing the justice that was inherent in the original pattern. In other words, the current church court system is no longer based upon just principles, but is corrupt.

Church courts and the rights of a member

Disfellowship and excommunication is to occur in the church according to prescribed laws given of God in the scriptures. The procedure itself is divine and designed to preserve the rights of every accused member in the church, that justice prevail at all times. As I explained in another post, the Bill of Rights may be used in a church setting to protect one’s rights:

Because the Lord has approved of, or justified, the Bill of Rights, latter-day saints are fully authorized to include it as part of their scriptural canon. This is not to say that it is scripture, for it was not written by the power of the Holy Ghost, nor does it contain the revealed words of God, nevertheless, as an inspired and approved writing, it may be used to defend or safeguard one’s rights in a church setting.

The Fifth Amendment says,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The twelve high councilors are, essentially, a type of grand jury, charged with investigating the merits of any accusations, witnesses and evidence. Their duty is to judge whatever is presented to them according to the canonized word of God. Church courts, then, were intended by God to incorporate this principle.

An accused latter-day saint cannot be a witness against himself because according to the law of God, only church members in good standing can act as witnesses. A confession, then, is insufficient to convict. Church courts, as detailed in the scriptures, cannot use someone’s confessed testimony as evidence against them, yet that is exactly what is done today by the church bishops, and also for high councils (disciplinary councils), if the accused allows the testimony into evidence. Such practices are completely at odds with the word of God.

The Wikipedia says this about due process:

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Typically, “Due process” means 1) NOTICE, generally written, but some courts have determined, in rare circumstances, other types of notice suffice. Notice should provide sufficient detail to fully inform the individual of the decision or activity that will have an effect on his/her rights or property or person. 2) right to GRIEVE (that being the right to complain or to disagree with the governmental actor/entity which has decision making authority) and 3) the right to APPEAL if not satisfied with the outcome of the grievance procedure. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

The church court system is supposed to incorporate the principals of due process, requiring notice, granting a right to grieve and also to appeal. Current practice has kept these safeguards more or less intact. Now let’s turn to the Sixth Amendment.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

All of these principles are supposed to be incorporated into church courts. The trials are supposed to be speedy and are supposed to be public (when they are presented to the church congregation for a sustaining or opposing vote, which no longer happens). The jury, which is the 12 high councilors, are supposed to be impartial, which is often no longer the case. The accused is to be tried locally, in his branch, ward or stake, where the sins were allegedly committed. (Trials are still local, but accusations may come from outside of the branch, ward or stake, such as from Salt Lake.) The accused is to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. (This still happens.) The witnesses are to testify in front of the accused during the trial. (The law of witnesses, to my knowledge, has been almost completely phased out.) The accused has the right to call witnesses in his favor. (This is still allowed.) And lastly, one half of the high councilors that speak are to be the advocates of the accused. (This no longer happens.)

There is also the Seventh Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

All high councils were designed to be, in fact, trials by jury, requiring a ratification vote by the high councilors to validate the president’s decision. This is no longer the case. In current practice, the stake president can convict regardless of what the other men say about the case. Therefore, the right to trial by jury has been denied to the saints. But this right is found in the scriptural pattern, like the others listed above.

So, we see from this that the church court system, as detailed in the revelations, incorporates many of the same principles found in the Bill of Rights.

D&C 42 and D&C 102

The patterns of the two main court (trial) systems, the elders’ council and the high council, are given in D&C 42 and 102.

D&C 42:78-93

Section 42 gives the pattern for the elders’ council, which dealt specifically with transgression, beginning with verse 78 through verse 93.

Verse 78 states that every church member must obey the church commandments and keep their church covenants.

And again, every person who belongeth to this church of Christ, shall observe to keep all the commandments and covenants of the church.  (D&C 42:78)

Now, that is the standard (obeying commandments and keeping covenants). But what does the church do if it transgresses? The previous section (41) said the following, but did not give the procedure for how one should be cast out or judged unworthy:

He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you; for it is not meet that the things which belong to the children of the kingdom should be given to them that are not worthy, or to dogs, or the pearls to be cast before swine. (D&C 41:5-6)

So, the rest of section 42 gives instructions on what the church should do when someone transgresses, or how to go about casting him or her off. We learn in verses 80-82 that when there is transgression in the church, the transgressors are to be tried in a church court trial before two elders of the church, and that if there are two church witnesses, that the accused shall be (not may be) condemned, and that after condemnation the congregation is to be informed of the case and of the decision and they are to vote on the matter by the raising of their hands, the Lord expecting them to uphold the decision and testimony of the witnesses:

And if any man or woman shall commit adultery, he or she shall be tried before two elders of the church, or more, and every word shall be established against him or her by two witnesses of the church, and not of the enemy; but if there are more than two witnesses it is better. But he or she shall be condemned by the mouth of two witnesses; and the elders shall lay the case before the church, and the church shall lift up their hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according to the law of God. And if it can be, it is necessary that the bishop be present also.  (D&C 42:80-82)

We also learn that the bishop needs to be present, if possible.

The next verse (83) basically says that verses 80-82 is the pattern for all church trials for membership.

And thus ye shall do in all cases which shall come before you.  (D&C 42:83)

Verses 79-87 give the pattern for dealing with transgression in the church as follows: if a man breaks a law of the land, he is to be delivered up unto the law of the land, and if he breaks the law of God, he is to be tried in a church court.

Verses 88-89 explain that no member is to be tried in a church court unless he has offended someone and been confronted and rebuked and has refused to confess, repent and be reconciled. Also, that the first part of the trial is to take place in a private meeting with the elders, so that the accused has an opportunity to confess, repent and seek reconciliation, avoiding any judgment and embarrassment in front of the congregation. The second part of the trial (in front of the congregation) only takes place if the accused refuses to repent.

Verses 90-92 explain that public or open offenses require public or open rebuking, while secret offenses require secret rebuking.

Lastly, verse 93 says that this is the pattern in all things for behavior concerning rebuking, chastisement, offenses, confession, repenting, reconciliation, and church trials.

And thus shall ye conduct in all things.  (D&C 42:93)

D&C 102

Trials for membership due to transgression were designed by the Lord to be the jurisdiction of the local elders and congregation, since they would have much more knowledge about the individuals involved (accused and accusers) than would the high councilors and stake president, who potentially could live elsewhere, in another part of the stake. On the other hand, trials about other matters, such as property disputes and other similar matters, were designed by the Lord to be the jurisdiction of the high council because they would not have intimate knowledge of the details of the local disputes, and therefore would be more likely to be impartial judges, the outcomes not affecting them one way or another.

That said, let’s examine section 102. The heading to Doctrine and Covenants section 102 reads:

Minutes of the organization of the first high council of the Church, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 17, 1834. The original minutes were recorded by Elders Oliver Cowdery and Orson Hyde. The Prophet revised the minutes the following day, and the next day the corrected minutes were unanimously accepted by the high council as “a form and constitution of the high council” of the Church. Verses 30 through 32, having to do with the Council of the Twelve Apostles, were added in 1835 under Joseph Smith’s direction when this section was prepared for publication in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Although D&C 102 is not a revelation, it contains the information on how the first high council was organized and operated, which organization came of revelation, and which operation was given by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. So, although we don’t have the pattern dictated directly by the Spirit, we do have a recording of the pattern (the minutes) as witnessed by two men who were present when the pattern was shown. The minutes were later corrected by Joseph, so we can be sure they are reliable.

As I said before, the modern procedures for how church disciplinary councils are operated render the word of God of none effect, making modern courts fundamentally unjust. The error comes from a misreading of section 102, which gives the “form and constitution of the high council”, to be followed by all high councils.

Okay, so let me unfold the errors.

Modern church disciplinary councils operate under color of law

The following document,

Church Disciplinary Councils

gives the current procedures used in these courts. Here are a couple of quotes which manifest the errors:

“In a stake disciplinary council, the stake president is assisted by twelve high councilors. Their role is easily misunderstood. Uninformed persons are tempted to liken the high council to a jury. In view of the not well understood instructions in section 102 of the Doctrine and Covenants, there is also a tendency to view individual high councilors as prosecutors or defenders. Neither of these comparisons is appropriate. Members of the high council are present to “stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice’ (Doc. & Cov 102:17). In other words, they are to give added assurance that the evidence is examined in its true light and that the procedures and treatment of the accused are consistent with equity and justice. Their roles are illumination and persuasion, not advocacy or decision.” (Dallin H. Oaks)

“After hearing any additional comments from the high council, the stake presidency withdraws from the council room to confer in private. After consultation and prayer, the stake president makes the decision and invites his counselors to sustain it. The stake presidency then returns and announces the decision to the high council. The stake president asks the high councilors as a group to sustain his decision. The high council cannot veto the decision; it is binding even if it is not sustained unanimously.” (Church Handbook of Instructions)

Neither of these quotes is correct. Or, in other words, they are correct in that the modern church procedure operates as they state it does, but they are not correct in that the procedure they use is entirely at odds with the written word of God.

Here is what the section actually says,

Whenever a high council of the church of Christ is regularly organized, according to the foregoing pattern, it shall be the duty of the twelve councilors to cast lots by numbers, and thereby ascertain who of the twelve shall speak first, commencing with number one and so in succession to number twelve.

Whenever this council convenes to act upon any case, the twelve councilors shall consider whether it is a difficult one or not; if it is not, two only of the councilors shall speak upon it, according to the form above written.

But if it is thought to be difficult, four shall be appointed; and if more difficult, six; but in no case shall more than six be appointed to speak. (D&C 102:12-14)

So everybody picks a number out of a hat, from one to twelve. If the case is easy, just two men speak; if difficult, four men speak; and if really difficult, six speak. The rest do not speak, but just listen.

The accused, in all cases, has a right to one-half of the council, to prevent insult or injustice.

And the councilors appointed to speak before the council are to present the case, after the evidence is examined, in its true light before the council; and every man is to speak according to equity and justice.

Those councilors who draw even numbers, that is, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are the individuals who are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice. (D&C 102:15-17)

In behalf of

Now, here is where brother Dallin gets it wrong (and shame on him!, since he’s supposed to be a lawyer). The expression “to stand up in behalf of the accused” means “to stand up as an advocate of the accused.”

BEHALF, n. behaf. [See Behoof.]

1. Favor; advantage; convenience, profit; support, defense, vindication. The advocate pleads in behalf of the prisoner. The patriot suffers in behalf of his country.
2. Part; side; noting substitution, or the act of taking the part of another; as, the agent appeared in behalf of his constituents, and entered a claim.

AD’VOCATE, n. [L. advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.]

1. Advocate, in its primary sense, signifies, one who pleads the cause of another in a court of civil law. Hence,
2. One who pleads the cause of another before any tribunal or judicial court, as a barrister in the English courts. We say, a man is a learned lawyer and an able advocate.
3. One who defends, vindicates, or espouses a cause, by argument; one who is friendly to; as, an advocate for peace, or for the oppressed.

AD’VOCATE, v.t. To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal; to support or vindicate.

All of that is from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, showing that this is the very meaning of the phrase, contrary to what brother Dallin would have us believe.

The reason why brother Dallin and the other church leaders feel the need to wrest this scripture into saying something it isn’t saying is because they have transfigured the high council into something it was never intended to be: a church court dealing with transgression and trials for church membership. So, they cannot conceive of a righteous man advocating the cause of someone who could be an unrepentant sinner, like the lawyers do. (Jesus is our advocate with the Father only if we are penitent, for the impenitent do not have Him as their advocate.)  The thought of advocating impenitence, then, is understandably repulsive to them, so they simply interpret the scripture another way, to make it work according to their procedure. But the very words themselves do not fit.

High councilors could advocate the cause of the accused because these were not meant to be matters dealing with transgression, but merely “important difficulties.” In other words, disputes over this and that private matter. In such cases, the accused may be right, or may be wrong. The high councilors who were chosen by lot to speak, could put themselves in the place of the accused, for they weren’t attempting to excuse sin, but to show a private matter from the perspective of the accused.

Veto power

The CHI says that the high council cannot veto the stake president’s decision, but that is flat out wrong.

After the evidences are heard, the councilors, accuser and accused have spoken, the president shall give a decision according to the understanding which he shall have of the case, and call upon the twelve councilors to sanction the same by their vote.

But should the remaining councilors, who have not spoken, or any one of them, after hearing the evidences and pleadings impartially, discover an error in the decision of the president, they can manifest it, and the case shall have a re-hearing.

And if, after a careful re-hearing, any additional light is shown upon the case, the decision shall be altered accordingly.

But in case no additional light is given, the first decision shall stand, the majority of the council having power to determine the same. (D&C 102:19-22)

Here is the meaning of the word sanction, from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

SANC’TION, v.t. To ratify; to confirm; to give validity or authority to.

Thus, the twelve high councilors vote to ratify, confirm, give validity or authority to the stake president’s decision. Without such validation, the president’s decision is non-binding. That is what ratification is all about.

Unanimity is not required for ratification, only a majority vote. In other words, the majority of the council has power to determine whether the first decision shall stand, as well as whether there is no additional light given. The reason for the re-hearing is not because some councilors disagree, or even that one councilor disagrees, with the president’s decision, but because one or more of them think there may have been an error, meaning that the stake president overlooked something. This is why the section talks about additional light.

Impartiality

But should the remaining councilors, who have not spoken, or any one of them, after hearing the evidences and pleadings impartially, discover an error in the decision of the president, they can manifest it, and the case shall have a re-hearing. (D&C 102:20)

IMP`ARTIAL, a. [in and partial, from part, L. pars.]

1. Not partial; not biased in favor of one party more than another; indifferent; unprejudiced; disinterested; as an impartial judge or arbitrator.
2. Not favoring one party more than another; equitable; just; as an impartial judgment or decision; an impartial opinion.

Current church practice in church courts creates a conflict of interest. The witnesses who present evidence or who make accusations and bear testimony, are biased, but the high council and stake presidency is supposed to be unbiased and impartial. That requires that none of them can act as witnesses, nor make accusations. Any church court that has any of the councilors or any of the stake presidency acting as a witness or making accusations, in any degree of bias, cannot be called impartial and thus is nothing but a farce.

Guilty until proven penitent is a bastardization of the law

Another practice in the church court system is the assumption of guilt upon the accused. In the Lord’s law, every saint is innocent until proven guilty, but the modern church court procedure assumes the accused is guilty and thus that the accused, in order to be in God’s good graces, must confess his sin and show penitence before the council, otherwise the council will see him as an impenitent sinner, instead of as a penitent sinner, and will have to apply the penalty the Lord’s law requires. This practice makes all those who say they are innocent of any charges appear impenitent, even if they really are innocent.

Evidence alone is not enough

It is called the law of witnesses for a reason. Evidence of wrongdoing, without an eyewitness testifying, is insufficient. The witnesses are the saints and it takes a saint to condemn anyone. Also, every word must be established by two or three witnesses. So if someone in the church, for example, publishes some literature or book, but none of the saints are offended by it or bring up accusations against the author, the high council has no jurisdiction to lay charges against the author, nor does the stake presidency, nor the bishopric. Charges or accusations can only come from a saint’s testimony and it requires two saints’ testimonies for any of these men to obtain jurisdiction to bring a judgment against a member. The Lord made it this way because it is the jurisdiction of His saints to have the first and final word, judging both the nations of the earth and also Zion.

Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations.

For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.

And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.

And even the bishop, who is a judge, and his counselors, if they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be condemned, and others shall be planted in their stead. (D&C 64:37-40)

The saints are given free reign to judge all things, both inside and outside the church, including all the leaders from top (apostles and prophets) to the bottom (bishops). The word of two or more saints against any man, woman or child of age in this church condemns that person, regardless of his or her office.

Excommunication is supposed to be a congregational affair

Excommunication (cutting off a person from the church) is in similitude to the cutting off from the presence of the Lord which will happen to all the sons of perdition at the last day. Since that last act of cutting off is, in actuality, a spiritual death, even a second death, cutting off is representative of death. In other words, excommunication represents the death penalty, or capital punishment. Only those who do not repent receive this penalty.

The authority to inflict (the similitude of) death upon a sinner was never meant or designed by God to be in the hands of one man (a stake president) nor three men (the stake presidency), nor twelve men (the high council). The final decision was meant to be in the hands of the saints who make up the congregation.

But he or she shall be condemned by the mouth of two witnesses; and the elders shall lay the case before the church, and the church shall lift up their hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according to the law of God. (D&C 42:81)

Without such congregational ratification, we end up with secret trials like those of the Gadianton robbers.

Now there were many of those who testified of the things pertaining to Christ who testified boldly, who were taken and put to death secretly by the judges, that the knowledge of their death came not unto the governor of the land until after their death. (3 Ne. 6:23)

Let the saints do their duty

It is the duty of a saint to lay charges, make accusations and bear witness against all wickedness they see. If they see (scripturally-defined) dissenting behavior, they will resist it and seek to silence it. They are the Lord’s anointed and the only ones authorized to condemn; not the bishop, or high council or stake presidency. (See Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed.)

And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit iniquity, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ. (Moroni 6:7)

And if any man or woman shall commit adultery, he or she shall be tried before two elders of the church, or more, and every word shall be established against him or her by two witnesses of the church, and not of the enemy; but if there are more than two witnesses it is better. But he or she shall be condemned by the mouth of two witnesses; and the elders shall lay the case before the church, and the church shall lift up their hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according to the law of God. (D&C 42:80-81)

It is right and proper for them to prune the church and bear witness against unrepentant sinners. They would be remiss in their duty if they shut their mouths at the sight of wickedness. So do not harp on them or put obstacles in the way of their duty, otherwise they will end up condemning you.

The purpose of this post

I wrote this post to show that, according to the scriptural definition, there is no such thing as a sinless dissenter; that the church is commanded to be one; that dissenters should be silenced; and that excommunication is a divine principle. I never expected to get into the unrighteousness of current church court procedure. I never expected or intended to judge the courts and find them “wanting in the balance” (see Dan. 5:27). But I did and that’s that. Nevertheless, despite the courts being corrupt because they do not conform to the divine pattern, to dissent is still a sin, all dissenters still should be silenced, unrepentant sinners still must be cut off from the church and excommunication of unrepentant sinners is still a righteous thing to do.

The question that remains, then, is what do we do about the courts? How can they be reclaimed and made right and just again, according to God’s revealed pattern? What steps must be taken by saints, working in unison (as one in Christ) within the stakes and acting on the promptings of the Holy Ghost, to administer “judicial reform” and bring the courts back into conformity with God’s laws? I don’t, as yet, have an answer to these questions. But there is one thing that I am certain of: although the institutionalization of the current church court procedures, in defiance of the written word, poses an obstacle to change, God’s saints have power through faith to rebuke anything they deem offensive, and correct anything they deem incorrect, whether within or without the church, for it is their duty and prerogative to judge all things. So I guess it just comes down to this: will they also judge the church courts and find them wanting?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

AN ANARCHICAL VIEW OF THE KEYS pt. 2


NETWORK MODELS

When we want to obtain something from Heaven’s hand we have to first connect to the mind of the Lord and let His thoughts filter into our own consciousness, otherwise there is a high likelihood that the things received are not of God. The Latin word ‘data’ is a past participle of the verb ‘dare’ and translates as “Things given.” If we want to make sure that what we are getting is in fact coming from the Source of all good, it can be extremely helpful to have some type of network model. Man has devised many different types of network

Network Model for Working with God

Network Model for Working with God

models but all of them are characterized by the following components: a set of nodes, and connections between nodes. The nodes receive inputs, and process them to obtain an output. The connections determine the information flow between nodes. They can be unidirectional, when the information flows only one way, and bidirectional, when the information flows either way. The interactions of nodes through the connections lead to a global behavior of the network, which cannot always be observed in the elements of the network. This global behavior is said to be emergent. This means that the abilities of the network supersede those of its elements alone, making networks very powerful tools.

Network Models

Network Models

One very popular class of networks is an artificial neural network or ANN. This is a mathematical model inspired by biological neural networks in our body’s own anatomy. These artificial neural networks are used to model complex relationships between inputs and outputs or to find patterns in data. Artificial Neural Networks, especially those that are more closely based on the Central Nervous System’s Neural Pathways of the Lord, can help us to “make His pathways straight” as we are admonished to do by both Isaiah and John the Baptist (Matt. 3:3,Isaiah 40:3, Luke 3:4). Anyone who studies network systems will be familiar with mathematical equations where \scriptstyle K signifies some predefined activation function. Anyone who studies the Holy Scriptures will know that a pre-stood \scriptstyle Key is a similar concept. Enthusiasts in the field of computers will know that  \scriptstyle K is sometimes used to show that a data processor has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it can be easily over-locked to much higher frequencies. But do those same enthusiasts think to apply that practical knowledge in their Elder’s Quorums to enthuse themselves and their brethren with the Spirit of God and over-lock to the Most High frequency? We could look at network models in cognitive psychology, theoretical neuroscience, or even artificial intelligence, but ANNs and even the CNS will only get us so far in understanding spiritual matters. The ancient Jews had their network model known as \scriptstyle Kabbalah with its Tree of Life Diagram for explaining the “Condescension of God” and bestowing Keys. The Masons borrow heavily from the ancient Jews and we borrow heavily from the Masons.  But sadly, the Church Inc. has become better at storing than restoring. Great truths are locked away in mountain vaults and if ever they are brought out to see the light of day and benefit the general membership of the Church, the “Brethren” react with excommunications.

THEIR ARMS ARE TOO SHORT TO BOX WITH GOD

arms too short to box with godThere have been of late some increasingly heavy-handed and under-handed practices employed by Church leadership. The same secret cabals embedded in secular society have been even more openly brutal in their exercise of unrighteous dominion. Even when the worst they manage to do is to manage an army of potentially powerful servants of the Lord through spiritless management meetings, the outcomes are embarrassing to enraging for serious servants of the Lord like Alan Rock Waterman and his anonymous Bishop friend who exposed Saltican City’s latest training video for the vainglorious affront to God that it is. (see Pure Mormonism blog post Training Day) The die-rectors of the video were sure to coach L. Tom Perry and his little crew of actors to mention the word “Keys” as many times as possible. The editors of this P.R.iesthood Training/ Power Draining tutorial were sure to leave exactly 33 mentions of the word “Keys”. 33 is the degree of a Master Mason. 33 is the precise number of minutes that the lights went out at this year’s Super Bowl Mass Ritual. It is a literal and spiritual power failure that the secret combinations wish to perpetuate on us.

https://www.lds.org/training/wwlt/2013/priesthood-keys?lang=eng

If we desire to be men of God, our spiritual actions had better pack a punch. The earliest usage of the word ‘punch’ meant to puncture, so it carried that cleaving quality common to all keys. But by the late 16th century – right around the time that Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa was socially pressured into retracting some of his harder-hitting work in a similar manner to what Joseph Smith Jr. would do over two centuries later – this key-word, “punch” as a verb and its accompanying sign, “punch” as a physical action were somewhat corrupted. ‘Punch’ as a noun now signified “a blow with the fist.”  It still managed to retain a figurative sense of “forceful, vigorous quality” down through the centuries of the so-called Enlightenment. But unfortunately when we hear the word “punch” these days the first thing to enter or “puncture” our mind is typically a picture of brute force and secondly the vigor which is a quality which can only be imparted by the spirit. Thus evil magicians were able to triumph over good magicians.

How does such a terrible thing happen? It happens subtly. The second definition of the word ‘punch’ as a noun provides us with a key to understanding how our keys are effectively disabled by tricksters, traitors and tyrants. ‘Punch’ can also mean “a mixed drink”. This definition actually traces back to the most ancient Proto-Indo-European roots of the word. It is derived from Sanskrit ‘panchan-s’ through Hindi ‘panch’ meaning “five,” in reference to the number of original ingredients (spirits, water, lemon juice, sugar, spice). If we think about it there is a more subconscious reference going on here as well, because “five” is also the number of fingers on a man’s hand. It is funny to think how in current-day Christ-Shun culture we use the phrase “spike the punch” meaning “to add alcohol to a fruit drink.” The original recipe for true punch invariably held to by our ancestors until relatively recently already and always included alcoholic spirits. The five original ingredients of punch and the five fingers of the hand have symbolic reference to the five elements of water, fire, earth, air and lastly but most importantly, spirit which circulates throughout all the rest. At all Church functions the vital ingredient of spirit has been removed and more often than not even the fruit is reduced to a few thin citrus slices floating atop an artificially flavored concoction of kill-aid served up in a cauldron at cult-sure-all activities. Mormon style magicians love to substitute spirit with gobs of ice cream.

You might say it is my intention to restore some of the veil piercing power by spiking the punch bowl and getting this millennial paradisiacal party started. Let’s add some much needed, finely distilled spirits of such great men as Smith, Swedenborg, Agrippa, Wovoka, Tenskwatawa, Drew-Ali, Turner, Elijah, David, Moses, Alma, Moroni, etc. The Doctrine & Covenants, Section 121 verse 35, clearly affirms that our keys, through which the powers of heaven are meant to flow have been severely lessened only because we have listened to the vain teachings of this world and we fail to learn this “one lesson.” And what might that one lesson be? It is that we are the noble and great ones who Father Abraham witnessed gathered in council before this world ever was. WE ARE THEM AND THEY ARE US. We sojourn here below with only one thing standing between the mortal frame and its maker. That one thing is our individual portion of Holy Spirit taught in Sunday School as the Spirit Body being composed of the Light of Christ in all men and women. It is given freely but even so, it is up to us to maintain and cherish as the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is the Grand Truth behind the formula that follows in verses 36 and 37 of Section 121. – “The rights (keys) of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven.” Note it says “power[s]” (plural) and “heaven” (singular) because we are talking about many forms emanating out of one spirit. And when the scripture says that, “the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor hand-led only upon the principles of righteousness,” it is saying that we must see ourselves as they are if we want to be a conduit for inheriting their attributes. Continuing, we read that these attributes may be conferred upon us but that whenever we “exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls (unions of spiritual+physical bodies) of the children of men (including our own)….behold, the heavens withdraw themselves (this time it is expressed in plural form as heaven[s] since the very Hosts of Heaven are made up of the same substance as Heaven itself ); the Spirit of the Lord is grieved (this refers to the substance of spirit itself, which is one single source); and when it is withdrawn (that is, when it contracts or retracts from one particular space into another area for expression of itself), Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”

CAN I GET AN AMEN?!

“Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”

This phrase at the ending of Section 121 verse 37 is very interesting. Talk about packing a punch as well as a bunch of meaning! First it must be noted that these words do not appear as their own sentence within the text but rather they follow a comma stringing them onto the line of ideas laid out above. Why then is the word Amen written with a capital ‘A’? You may say that this is standard use of the word in the English language and you would be correct. But why? It is because Amen represents a name. Originally conceived of as the head of a trinity of gods in ancient Egypt, Amen or Amun was closely associated with the wind, but soon began to be identified with all other Egyptian deities. The organic ensuing virtual monotheism did not sit well with Pharoah Amen-hotep IV who changed his name to Akhen-aten and attempted to force everyone to worship the Aten (Sun Disk) for a period.

This historical scenario is essentially an earthly reenactment of the heavenly drama wherein Lucifer (Light Bearer) tries to overthrow God the Father and establish himself as supreme. God the Father is the Most High example of Pre-Stood Power in righteousness. If we think of Him as Amun, God of the Wind, we can see how the element of Air has a unifying effect upon all other elements. They all benefit from his perfect parenting approach. Air can cause the solid Earth to be enlivened by the softest caress or whip it into shape through the means of strong blasts. Air gently stirs the Waters in the ocean and in the firmament to keep them from stagnating and sometimes works them up into a frenzy granting them permission and power to crash and flood the stubborn land and its inhabitants. Air embodies spirit so effortlessly that it can fan a small flickering flame into a raging Fire or extinguish it if it so chooses. It is understandable that a fiery devil like Lucifer would feel himself superior to the more conforming elements of Earth and Water. To him they would seem so subservient. Not seeing the divine spark in all creation around him and feeling more than a little threatened at the fact that in spite of their humble subservient natures, both Water and Earth could easily snuff him out if so directed, it must have seemed logical to Lucifer’s archetypal male instinct to assert his personality fiercely. The narcissist made good on his threat to collude with metallic minions, especially gold and silver, in whose shiny surfaces he could see his twinkling self image reflected. And he bought up armies to oppress the land and navies to oppress the seas. For a time the wild child thought he had triumphed over the elements of Water and Earth as made specifically clear when his heart leaps like a flame and we hear him say, “Now is the great day of my power. I reign from the rivers to the ends of the earth.” After all, being a Prince of the Air was he not the Rightful Heir to the throne of all creation?

But if the Light Bearer pictured himself like in the distinct artwork of the Egyptian Amarna Period during Akhen-aten’s reign, with the Sun’s rays shooting straight and unbending, he was soon forced to admit that even in the purest form he could take he was still subject to bending when presented with a large heavenly body or even refraction when simply attempting to cut through water. Akhen-aten called himself the Son of the Sun and has been called “The First Individual” by bedazzled historians. Individualism has its proper place within the bounds the Lord has set, but sooner or later the Lucifer in all of us has to acknowledge his interdependence with every one of his brothers and sisters. With a realization of the equality of all things and our oneness with them comes great power. And so, Fathair chose the Spirit of Christ, the 5th Element as the One who could not only best glorify Himself, but also play a redeeming role for all the other three elements, feisty Fire included. We sometimes call spirit the 5th Element because it seems so beyond the realm of our understanding, but in truth Spirit is “The First” who Father said He would send. Father recognized that Spirit even pre-seeded Himself. So it wasn’t just that God the Father saw Himself in Jesus. He wisely saw Jesus in Himself. In the Millennium the entire Family can sit calm and enjoy the sitcom of life when they realize that Lucifer exists only as the comical prankster and flashy star of the show. Good old Lucile Ball may cause drama but she keeps things entertaining and she is such a sweetheart that in the end you gotta Love Lucy with the pure love of Christ. The Fresh Prince of Bell Aire can be a trouble maker but when viewed with love we see how he values the unity of the family as much as anyone, perhaps a little more than most since he and his counterpart Jazzy Jeff have experienced being cast out on numerous occasions.

The Pre-Stood promotes unity and peace not discord and destruction. For this reason, Lucifer is thrust out of heaven only to be sent early to Earth, that precise spot where all the “Good Sons of God” were waiting to receive an inheritance. The harmonic balance of proper Pre-Stood practices explain why Satan is cast to the sides of the bottomless pit and his dangerous nature bound for a million years only to be released again for a season. Why in God’s Name would YHWH do such a thing? Doesn’t He know how horribly and unworthily the Prodigal Son of the Morning has been behaving? The Tetragramaton knows exactly what He is doing as He proceeds through the eternal sequence of:

Yod    =    Foundation

Hei     =    Breath

Vav    =    Nail

Hei     =    Breath

Yod    =    Foundation

Hei      =   Breath

Vav     =   Nail

Hei      =   Breath

Connecting inhalation with exhalation, foundational building materials with thrusts of the nail, Amen, the God of the Wind and Architect of the Universe turns His invisible blew-prints into solid structures that can stand for eternity. That breath and spirit are in the similitude of one another as God the Father to God the Son should not be a big surprise since we all know that the cessation of breathing causes the spirit to withdraw from a body. But at Church there are many who call themselves teachers who do not comprehend these things and consider them interesting perhaps, but not pertinent to their salvation. If Jesus tries to tell them about Earthly things, they won’t believe it. So how can He possibly tell them about Heavenly things? And yet we go to Church every week and listen to them teach about the Kingdom and doctrines of salvation? Tell me; where is the righteousness in that? The scriptures say that “if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach.” (D&C 42:14) We could say that unless you are alive in the awareness of the infinite possibilities available through a simple connection between Spirit and breath, then you should keep your mouth shut and not counsel your brother and sister. Your careless verbiage and spiritually bad breath does serious damage. Maybe its time every man start learning directly from the Master instead of the sympathetic but cowardly Nicodemus types in the Church and in the Bloggernacle.

Jesus:  The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Nicodemus:  How can these things be?

Jesus:  Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
John 3:8-10

I am not writing to or for Priesthood Pretenders. For those tempted to not take the truths I am sharing here to heart just because they are not coming from a world/church authority or credentialed expert of any kind – for those tempted to write this off as a long-winded and useless tangent about aerodynamics, may I suggest you read an Uchtdorf talk.

“Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”

Such a fascinating phrase, and we’ve only just begun to discover the richness in this one little word – Amen! It turns out that Amen is itself a Key-Word of the Pre-Stood. Notice how it can be used to lock or to open, to seal or to separate. On the one hand we can and ought to use it to condemn unrighteous dominion; on the other hand we can use it to express agreement, as it is commonly used at the end of prayers. Pre-Stood Power is eternal and can not be destroyed or cease to exist. So, the “Amen” in this phrase does not refer to “the priesthood” in the slightest. Nor does it refer precisely to “the authority” since pre-stood authority is represented by keys which are to the powers inseparably connected, co-existing as eternal companions. Authority is digital in nature it can shut on and off but it never actually vanishes. In this scripture Priesthood = Spirit or Life-Energy which is shared collectively by all forms in the universe; ie. Yin, and Authority = Keys or Rights to use that energy which are held personally; ie. Yang. The “Amen” here only refers directly to “that man” who abuses his rights to the pre-stood.

LDSA identified this scripture as an exception to the norm in that it seems to conflate power with authority. But even though power and authority together really do form one pre-stood, the Holy Scriptures are linguistically designed to dissect and then reassemble concepts for the enlightenment of our minds. This scripture stays true to that teaching technique. So the “or” can be seen as equating priesthood with authority but simultaneously and more specifically its function is to lay down the law for “that man” who transgresses. Either his keys get disabled till he repents “or” if he persists with his wickedness through this life and on through the next and so on and so forth, the very form of his spirit-body begins to fragment to the point of absorption back into the native nothingness also known as outer darkness. That’s why those who slumber and wait for the resurrection to roll around are waiting in vain, waiting in vanity for Jesus to play not the central role He accepted but to take over the individual’s own personal role in God’s plan. In essence they are waiting for Jesus to become Lucifer. They will eventually wake up and come around but the scriptures say that it will take a longer time than in the case of the just who rise in the morning of the first resurrection.

When one who actually possesses the Key of Amen utters the phrase “Amen, to the priesthood of that man” directed with real intent towards another individual, the effect is actually one of loving kindness because it softens some of the more immediately destructive consequences of the abuser’s actions and neutralizes negative vibes for any of the innocent victims that the Key Master is able to take into his protective scope. Why should it be that such a sharp phrase, when uttered by a speaker who possesses a fluent command of the god-language of pre-stood, would have a positive effect even on the target? Because defense is the righteous use of the sword and the sword of defense, being a key itself, is always double-edged. Look up the verb defend and you will see it defined with a double meaning as it can be used to describe “protecting from an attack on” and or “speaking or writing in favor of.” The dual purpose of keys is shown as our minds easily see these two ideas to be one action in truth. As a true defender you must not think that you are simply defending a victim and deafeating the victimizer. This narrow view only allows for a narrow get away at best never a full resolution. Remember the line spoken by Jacopo to the Count of Monte Cristo:

“I swore an oath, and I will protect you. Even if it means I must protect you from yourself.”

We too have an Oath & Covenant to uphold, do we not? (D&C 84) If you have the mindset of inflicting wounds rather than performing spiritual surgery then your slices will lack the swiftness of godly justice and they will not go clean through. This can cause further harm and infection to all involved including your self. Truly hating the sin of unrighteous dominion requires a true love for that man found exercising it. Your goal is to exorcize it from the person detangling them from its cancerous evil if possible. And if necessary even unto the cleaving of body from spirit. Obiwan Kanobi told Luke that a light saber is a weapon of elegance and can not be used the same as a clumsy blaster. Jedi Master Jesus taught us to “resist not evil.” To Joseph he recommended:

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

D&C 121:43-44

This and other (s)wordplay techniques are displayed beautifully by Ammon, who spared the life of the King after he promised to grant Ammon’s brethren and his own son their freedom. In An Alternate View of the Keys LDSA wrote:

“Unrighteous dominion is dominion without the consent of the governed….the priesthood cannot be used without the consent of those it is intended to serve. It is their agency that authorizes the priesthood”

See, when a man is attempting to exercise more power than he has been authorized to handle, the effects are destructive, first to himself then to others. We are serving through severing. By loping off that portion of power which is in excess to the keys granted that man via the agency of others, we prevent the man from choking. But the loosed chunk of power doesn’t simply float out into space; it gets assimilated into the one who is acting as defender of the faith. Like Nephi, we will have to be prepared to take on the energy, even the negative energy, of that man and transmute it into energy that can serve the purposes of the Lord. If you lash out in hate then hate will flow into you from the one you wound. The pre-stood power belongs to all men and women and so, inseparably connected keys are had by each as well. This is why according to the workings of the Lord, “the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld” unless or until, as per D&C 70, verse 14, we are equal in temporal things, “and this not grudgingly.” Temporal things include administrative functions. So no more of this saying that LDS women are already so special they do not need the type of training that males require and therefore do not need the administrative keys of the priesthood. Funny how most wards would not function even in the mundane practices with which they busy themselves if it were not for the adept administration of the Relief Society.

The Prophet of the Restoration revealed the collective holding of pre-stood power through evenly distributed key-sets among the whole Family of God. Everyone has a right to the pre-stood power. The Armenians, who demonstrate a high concentration of the blood of Israel in the traditions they observe as well as their spirit, have a word ամեն pronounced aːmˈɛn that means “every“. Additionally it is used in the same form at the conclusion of prayers, much as in English. Another word which hints at the need for sharing the rights to the powers of Heaven among all men comes from a much more ancient source via latter-day revelation. This one also alludes to the significance of the heavy breath sound of the ‘H’ added to Abram’s name when God made him FatHer of the Nations by blessing him with seed through Hagar and SaraH. Joseph Smith said it was revealed to him that the Adamic language word for God was AHMAN, that the name for Christ was SON AHMAN and the name for mankind was SONS AHMAN. When once we as spirit children of God (Sons Ahman) took on physical form (Adam) in the Terrestrial World we still enjoyed direct contact with God so the Earth at that time was known as ADAM ONDI AHMAN (Adam in the presence of God). If we say, “Ahman to the pre-stood of that man” we are essentially saying, “The pre-stood belongs to All Men/Ahman….so don’t you be a Lucifer and try to dominate it.” A man who would step on another’s RTC (Right to Choose) needs to remember he is only acting as a man. If he would act in the name of AHMAN he needs to receive the ‘H’ (Holy Breath of Life) in the middle of his self important name after the manner of AbraHam. Only when a bullying boy grows a healthy respect for the oneness of All Men can God make A Man into A-H-Man.

Amen is key in our service to the Lord because from man’s perspective, where one thing ends another begins. And Amen is key in the work God does for us as a consistent connector because He tells us that, for Him, there is no beginning and no end to His works. (D&C 29:33) Heavenly Father and Mother are simply breathing and birthing. We can see how Amen corresponds to the Wind, Breath of Life and the Spirit in its special relationship with all things. We know that God can create things out of thin air, but have we ever stopped to realize how we do the same thing with ideas and words? We use a primordial form of the Amen Key – ‘Aum’. We pause and think a while and we fill the supposedly dead space with “Ummmm.” Then, magically the vibration helps us to pull the ideas out of thin air and push that air through our voice box for projection in the more dense form of word. Progressively denser forms can result from thoughts to words to action. Look at us! Aren’t we some little creators?

It is this ‘Aum’ or ‘Om’ with which Jesus often leads his sayings. We find them translated into English as “Verily” or sometimes “Verily,Verily” These initial Amens are unparalleled in Hebrew literature, because they do not refer to the words of a previous speaker but instead introduce a new thought. In the Old Testament there are three different modes of usage for the Amen, but it is always used either in response to the words of another or as a final subscript to a story or psalm. Jesus’ uses of the Amen Key in the Gospels break the rules of traditional Hebrew because whereas the Jewish idiom was only ever used with a backward reference to an earlier speaker or statement, Jesus used the word to affirm his own utterances, not those of another person. This unique usage of the initial amen, single or double in form, to introduce solemn statements of Jesus in the Gospels had no parallel in Jewish practice and most likely indicates that Jesus received this Key during His travels in India.

This key is very good for extracting things from the Aether or Akasha as it was called by the Hindus. Akasha is the spirit substance similar to air but inheriting qualities from each of the elements and able to manifest as any one of them. This is the two in one identity that Jesus tries to explain to Phillip and to the rest of us when He says “I am in the Father and the Father in me.” (John 14:11) I encourage the reader to take the time to study that chapter. Jesus proceeds to give another Key for working with Akasha. And here is the punchline….Akasha is one of the pancha mahabhuta or “five great elements.”  There is that number again.

PROTECTION AGAINST PRIESTHOODLUMS

The cuckolds who are running the CoJCoLDS (into the ground) maintain that:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the original Church established by Jesus Christ.”
(James E. Faust in General Conference – April, 2006)

But where do we get this idea that Jesus ever even founded a church after the manner of men? This is a Catholic crud of a creed that the Protestants never saw any need to protest. While it had become painfully obvious that the Vatican councils were not qualified to lead men to Christ, they unfortunately did not consider that perhaps Peter was no more meant for the task than the Pope. European Reformers never paused to think about the proper role of prophets and apostles any more than the apostate Christians and Jews before them. It was a scramble to collect the scattered keys from Saint Peter’s broken chain. Whoever could collect them all would win. Even Joseph got a bit carried away with his Modern-Day Mohammedean feat of fusing the best of Judaism and Christianity while refuting the more corrupt parts. The obsession with keys has continued and grown since the early days of the Restoration Movement; to the point where even the president of a low-lying branch on the Mormon Tree can feel lofty enough to come to a branch member’s doorstep and reprimand him for following the Lord directly without going through the proper channels of Priesthoodlum Leadership.

If this is the case with a branch president, what might we expect to find in the upper echelons? More often than not the wicked priest will not even dare come to you in your home, at least not at first. He wants to get you in his office because it is by virtue of his office that he maintains power and influence. This is his typical tactic and it reveals him to be in direct opposition to the will of the Lord regarding pre-stood practices put forth in D&C 121: 41. Always remember when someone seeks to exercise authority over you or your family by “virtue of the priesthood” you can turn off his office with a flip of the switch or flip of the bird. Keys are digital, locking and unlocking. Digitus means finger. The middle finger (according to the esoteric system discussed in part 1) contains the Compass (V) symbol of the Holy Pre-Stood. The Square (L) is located in the pinky finger on the left hand. And many of us will remember being told that some General Authority somewhere once said that a deacon holding the Aaronic Priesthood has more power and authority in his little finger than the Pope has in his whole body. I’m confident that most tyrannical Stake Presidents probably approximate a similar power level to that of the Catholic Cardinals. So when they try to make you “kiss the ring” you know what to do.

To “that man” who comes to your door, talking about the keys that he holds over you, I would ask if he has the keys to Your House? When he responds that he of course does not and is not speaking of literal but rather spiritual keys, then, pointing to Your Heart, ask “Do you hold the keys to this sir?” Borrow a line from Old Joshua who said, “As for me and my house; we will serve the LORD.” Watch as the “Big Man” shrinks before your very eyes. Gird up your loins man, fresh courage take. Look his goliath ego straight between the eyes and, if you love your brother, launch a smooth stone at the “place of the skull”. You must hit Goliath in his Golgotha to evoke the Authority of Christ. The stone must be smooth so as to be aerodynamic. And you must bring no more, no less than Five stones to the showdown. God has endowed a man with all he needs to defend himself and the best defense is Four Fingers and a Thumb – not clenched in a fist but palm forward, flat, smooth, the fingers close together, and the thumb extended.

Fear not repercussions from the upper echelons of the ecclesia. Echelon is the Latin letter ‘e’ and an uppercase ‘E’ is still nothing more than the Fifth letter. So it is only his ‘5’ against yours. And if you use your ‘5’ as a humble vessel for a power higher than the Saltican City, then you will surely triumph with a perfect ‘10’. They can only extract 10 percent at maximum. These imposters, dressed in the robes of the false priesthood, are often unable to even muster a full five. So they yell “Four!” as they take mocking shots at the visage of the poor righteous teacher. They prefer the elite status of country club members swinging for Devil and Country in the secret game of G.O.L.F. (an acronym for Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden.) Remember these are not pre-stood wielders only priesthood holders. Understand that the Boy’s Club has had its proficiency in pre-stood power severely weakened from years of service as squires, armor bearers for King Saul, whose armor young David declined to don. Their spirit bodies have atrophied from the meaningless, rubber-stamp gesture of constantly raising their arm to the square only to sustain squalid, squealing swine who revel in their slop, unlike the prodigal son who despised the shame of it and resolved to return to his Father’s House. If you and I wish to strengthen our spiritual sinews so that we may serve the Lord with all our might, we can not afford to squander our inheritance. The enemy wants you to raise your hand, he needs you to bow your head and say “yes.” Your enemy hopes you will become “yes men” as so many of your “brethren” have done, because in this way, when we concur, he can conquer.

Keys like golf clubs are only symbols of the divine mascu-linear energy which, as we have seen, is only ½ the Pre-Stood. Phallic phalanges grip their clubs and keys fruitlessly without putting holes and locks nearby. Even if the wives of the General Authorities are unaware, the Master Masons who direct the affairs of the Church are keenly aware that the power of the male is cut in half and will wither without the presence of a female companion by his side. Thus there is a strict policy among them to never remain unmarried for long even after the death of a spouse. To ask a woman for her hand in marriage is literally to ask her to lend a hand to the Great Work. Men who do not acknowledge that the female possesses pre-stood power independently from males will never fully magnify their own pre-stood potential. Little boys like to play with themselves. A man who mistakenly thinks he received his pre-stood power or authorization from the hands of other men will never fully activate the power within himself.

Locks and Keys Always Have and Always Will Go Together. One is Not Without the Other.

Locks and Keys Always Have and Always Will Go Together. One is Not Without the Other.

It is the mother who passes pre-stood power along to male offspring in the form of the cross (X) chromosome. The father plays an administrative role and passes along the ke(Y) chromosome which designates the child as another ‘key’ bearer. The boy will learn from both but will one day have to leave the mother and the father and cleave unto a wife if he is ever to learn how the lock (potential power) and key (latent authority) operate to release and reseal in Heaven and on Earth. In the case of female offspring, a double dosage of pre-stood power is deposited. The Xtra dose from the father is that which assigns her gender determining the placement of her power. Therefore, it is from the father that she receives her pre-stood power. But the young woman will not experience full unlocking of her divine potential until she joins herself to a young man. The woman is a gate through which all enter this world. The man holds the key to that gate. Both embody spiritual DNA from the Father as well as the Mother and so both may bestow pre-stood power. But it is the Father who decides in what capacity each new life will serve, whether as a priest or priestess. He is not, as many like to think, the sole dispenser of the pre-stood power; unless we are to see the work of the Father as hit and miss. Since when did an X signify a miss?  The world may address a divine daughter of God with the title ‘Ms.’ but she is no miss.

All this confusion and craze over keys in the latter days is so much male chauvinism. Pre-stood is explained as consisting of two parts – power and authority – but truly it is one thing. Power and authority are not separate things because one aspect serves no purpose without the other. Priesthood really is all things in one and out of it all things are able to manifest as distinct but interconnected forms. Love is the power of which all creation is made, and will is the authority by which all creation is made. Keys are essentially solidified will, so there are as many keys as there are creations or solid forms in God’s Kingdom. They are all protruding from “key spots” in the “all-in-one compound” which father Lehi attempts to describe in 2 Nephi 2: 5-14 and which we commonly call “nothing.” While inserted firmly into the “nothingness” a key reveals the potential locked deep within the dark. But if the will should come to see the “nothingness” as inferior or undesirable and cease to cleave to her, the sustaining embrace is broken. The form goes limp, the darkness, still trying to cleave together, cleaves itself shut and neither side’s potential is fulfilled in that area. This is what happens when men calling themselves “brethren” claim seniority and superiority over each other instead of living up to Jesus’ command to give as freely as they are given.

There is no point in trying to overstate that which was, is and ever will be pre-stood as separate concepts of power and authority unless your motive is to keep others under “lock and key.” It all fits and all belongs together. After the mental deconstruct which is necessary to comprehend the workings of the Lord, should one persist in keeping asunder what God puts together, then he is not worthy to use keys, not to latch or unlatch. If your church leader is not talking on the topic of the possibility for fluid interconnectedness of  “your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds” like King Benjamin did with his congregation it is probably because he himself stands in need of re-minding. Forgetfulness of these metaphysical principles is rampant in today’s world. But so is the re-awakening of millions around the globe. There is no good reason we should not be hearing and talking about it at Church.

We all suffer from fragmented psyches at some level. Re-membering means putting ourselves back together mentally. Failure to do so results in a furtherance of fragmentation from the realm of thoughts, to that of words, and finally in-deed. Unfortunately, the higher you go, the more you find that the leader is “No King Benjamin”. There are some sinister elements who seek to occult this knowledge of truth from the rest of us. To those elements functioning within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I issue an invitation to repent now before it is too late. You know that it is possible to divide Churches but you also know that you will have to divide so-called individuals to accomplish your devilish designs. You hope through diabolical doctrine to create a division in and among people. You know that the division you create will eventually yield a Division of Robots of the False Priesthood. But you know you can’t win them all. Have you paused to consider the remnant you cast aside? Your unrighteous dominion has made us grow strong as you steadily weaken. For he who seeks to divide the indivisible will suffer dissolution of his self. But channeling the immortal spirit of King Benjamin crying from the dust, “this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, re-member, and perish not.” (Mosiah 4:30)

I agree with LDSA that keys can be categorized as either active or suspended. However I do not agree that the President of the Church has all the keys activated. If they were activated he would act differently. Rather, I take Jesus at His word and can authoritatively paraphrase Him by stating that the First Presidency and other so-called priesthood leaders do not enter the Kingdom and have forgotten how to properly use their keys so they jealously keep others from going in. (Matt. 23:13) I agree with LDSA that keys can be misused to temporarily impede the work of the Lord. But I do not agree that serious magnifiers of the pre-stood power need be affected by the actions or inaction of “presiding authorities.” In fact I believe that for me to defer development of real pre-stood initiative upon the earth to a group of men who are obviously deferring to their own egos and by default to the kings of a culture of corruption would be in direct opposition to the cause of righteousness. Scripture is the progeny of Premonition plus Reason and she testifies plainly against the teachers of religion while telling of “men inspired of heaven” who will defy the power structure of those priesthoodlums who would hold the pre-stood power hostage.

This is of course a personal decision, as is everything in life. And we must be careful not to discourage anyone else in whatever path they may have chosen. But it is my understanding that many LDS men have not chosen but rather vacillate between the type of heavenly justification, which is prerequisite for pre-stood power activation and the worldly justification that plays into the Enemy’s plans. As LDS men who claim to believe in modern revelation and restoration era scripture we must be aware of the day to day decisions that place us personally in one of the two camps described in the very prophesies we are discussing. If we choose to postpone the carrying out of personally revealed directives from the Heavenly Headquarters the signal is likely to get jammed by interference from Radio Salticana. Standing orders are for standing armies and standing armies are for Evil Empires.

OVERcoming the NATURAL man means unleashing the SUPERNATURAL power of the pre-stood through our own bodies. MY DEAR BRETHREN, NOW IS THE TIME TO REACH OUT IN RIGHTEOUS ACTION WITH THE PRE-STOOD!