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

Ideas for fighting gun rights infringement


Note: Due to recent anti-American voices, which seem to have reached a fever pitch, and I feel constrained, yet again, to write about gun rights infringement.

To all American gun rights advocates

I am addressing my words to everyone who is a gun rights advocate, not just to the latter-day saints (Mormons), so the intended audience is much wider than usual. Use any of these ideas as you see fit, in your fight to protect American rights.

Use the proper terms

Gun control is a misnomer, so never use it. Instead, begin a conversation with the term, so-called “gun control,” and then label it correctly as gun rights infringement. Continue to use the proper term for the rest of the conversation. Remember, so-called “gun control” is not about controlling guns, but about controlling people by infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.

Gun control advocate is another misnomer. When someone says they are a gun control advocate, call them instead a gun rights infringer. (It does not matter that the word infringer is not in the dictionary, everyone will understand its meaning. Sometimes creating a new word is the best option. Shakespeare did it many times, so can you. Besides, used enough times, you can be sure it will eventually make it into the dictionary.)

When someone says that he or she is an American in favor of gun control, refer to him or her ever afterward as an anti-American in favor of gun rights infringement, or just as an anti-American gun rights infringer. The term anti-American fits, for only anti-Americans attack or seek to weaken the constitutional protections of the rights of American citizens.

When referring to behavior that undermines the Bill of Rights protections, call it un-American. That is, after all, what it is.

These terms: gun rights infringement, gun rights infringer, anti-American, and un-American, make people immediately think of criminals and communists seeking to undermine or subvert the American system and way of life. Because they themselves make the connection between infringement and crime and anti/un-American and communist, these terms have a more powerful effect upon the minds of the people hearing them. Never, ever, label someone a criminal or communist or socialist or whatever, for if you do, people’s doubt will come into play and they will not believe the rest of what you say.

Use the terms undermining and subversion liberally in a conversation when describing actions that promote gun rights infringement. No one wants their rights undermined, nor does anyone want the Constitution subverted. These are descriptive terms that paint an immediate picture in one’s mind of spies trying to overthrow the government.

Use the term subversive as a label for anyone who promotes gun rights infringement. When a person calls someone else a subversive and describes their actions as subversive behavior, those that listen to the conversation immediately think of cloak and dagger stuff, such as an enemy trying to destroy the American way of life.

These terms are effective because they are based upon word associations. The words criminal, communist, spy and enemy, all pop up in people’s mind automatically, as soon as you start using these terms. Because they themselves do the associations, or because they themselves make the connections, or think of the associated words themselves, they believe them. Now, everything you say about the person you have just labeled will be more receptive to the audience listening in, for they now will view the gun rights infringer with suspicion.

Use “no infringement” as the standard

Never call so-called “gun control laws,” gun control laws. They must always be called, gun rights infringement laws. Everything must be brought back to the central issue: the infringement of unalienable rights.

Every gun rights infringement law on the books must be regarded and labeled as illegal. Never, ever refer to them as legal. They are all illegal, unconstitutional laws, and always refer to them as such. As long as people think of these illegal gun rights infringement laws as legal, they will be accepting of so-called “legal” gun rights infringement. People need to be presented with contradictory information, before they wake up out of their sleep. They must be presented with two, opposing “realities,” one side saying, “gun control laws are legal” and the other side saying, “gun rights infringement laws are illegal.” They must understand that there is no such thing as “legal” gun rights infringement.

“No infringement” must be the standard. Partial infringement is unacceptable. A full infringement of one’s right to life would be immediate execution. A partial infringement of that same right might consist of poison administered over time so as to shorten one’s life. Full infringement of the right to property would be taking it all, partial infringement might consist of taking only half. The right to liberty could be partially infringed upon by requiring that you be confined three days out of every week. Partial infringement of the right to free speech might be that your mouth be taped shut every Monday and Tuesday. If this all sounds absurd, it is because it is. Infringement is infringement, whether it is partial or full, and it is all unacceptable, tyrannical behavior. This same principle applies to the right to keep and bear arms.

Needs have nothing to do with rights

If a person wanted to administer poison to you, to shorten your life span from 75 to 65 years old, while telling you, “Oh, but you don’t need those last ten years of life!” would you let him? Does your right to life have anything to do with your needs? Are not your years yours, to do with as you want? Does the argument that you don’t need 50% of your property, or you don’t need seven days of freedom because four days is enough, or you don’t need to speak your mind on Mondays and Tuesdays, make it alright to infringe upon these rights? Of course not! So, in like manner, no one has the right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms because a person doesn’t “need” another gun, or more ammo, or a bigger and more powerful weapon. His or her needs have nothing to do with the matter.

So, toss the needs argument right into the trash from the get-go and keep the conversation eternally focused on the rights of man.

Get yourself some weapons and keep them

Get enough firearms and ammunition for every able bodied person of age in your family. Get the weapons you feel are appropriate, including so-called assault weapons. (Notice I used “so-called.”) Make sure your family is trained in their proper use and safety.

Bear your weapons

Rights that are not asserted will inevitably be encroached upon and eventually taken away. Firearms must, of necessity, be borne. In other words, when you go around town to do your daily business, go packing heat. Now, there may be an illegal law against that in your area. If so, then another strategy must be taken. But if there is no illegal law against that, start doing it, and keep doing it.

Educate your neighbors on gun rights

The best means to do that is the following document:

REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, Second Session, February 1982, Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Just print it out as a hard copy and hand it out or snail mail it, email it, or share it online using its 120+ share functions. The video, Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control World Wide, is also an excellent teaching tool to use.

Meet with other gun rights advocates

Your local gun and ammo supply store may be able to hook you up with other local gun right advocates. This is an important step to take in order to begin the formation of citizen militias.

Begin to form and regulate a local citizen militia

In conjunction with other local gun rights advocates, begin to form a local citizen militia. It is necessary that citizen militias be “well-regulated.” That of course means that everyone needs to possess weapons, perhaps of a specific kind, and also sufficient ammo, but it may also mean that everyone should have the means to communicate with each other, perhaps through ham radio or whatnot. Each militia will decide how best to regulate itself.

When meeting together as a militia, to conduct business, bring your weapons with you. Bearing arms is the key to gun rights (and all other rights) protection.

Do not keep it local. In other words, seek to establish other “chapters” of citizen militias in the regions round about, and work to have each local militia capable of communicating and working with other militias. This is all part of being “well-regulated.”

Citizen militias are for both local and common defense, so they need to be able to co-ordinate efforts with other militias.

Let the Bill of Rights be the common thread that unites all the citizens in the various militias, so that race, color, creed, customs, dress and all other differences are set aside. The only requirement to unite with a citizen militia ought to be that one be law-abiding. Law-abiding should simply mean that a person supports a “no infringement” stance on the Bill of Rights.

Expect infiltration. G-men get antsy about the prospect of an armed citizenry, and especially about organized, citizen militias, so expect that some undercover agents may be joining your group, to spy on it or even to sabotage it or create false flags.

There is safety in numbers and weapons

When these militias grow in sufficiently large numbers, they ought to meet out in the public, packing heat, in peaceful assembly, exercising two of their rights simultaneously: bearing arms and peacefully assembling. In fact, at every public protest or peaceful assembly, of whatever group, the armed citizen militia ought to be there as a show of force, in support of the people’s rights to protest and assemble.

In areas where there are illegal laws on the books, prohibiting or restricting the right to bear arms in public, several local militias could organize peaceful assemblies using this principle*, with thousands or tens of thousands of armed militia men in attendance, as a public demonstration that illegal laws that prohibit or infringe upon the bearing of arms should not be obeyed. This ought to be done quite frequently and only in large numbers, until the police decide not to enforce the illegal laws and they are removed from the books.

*Btw, in case this comes up in the comments, yes, I am fully aware that Ghandi, who was a supporter of this principle, wrote in Chapter XXVII, “The Recruiting Campaign,” in his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth:

“I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: ‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.’ The Commissioner referred to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. And I had to justify my standpoint as courteously as I could.”

Solutions for statists

These ideas of mine will appeal to those who do not look to the government to solve gun rights infringement, but for any statists who read this blog, who want to change the government via legislation, you may wish to use the Gun Owners of America lobby group as a tool. By becoming a member and giving them money, they will lobby Congress for zero infringement of gun rights. If enough people join them, and if they get enough money, perhaps they will make a difference. Here is their web site:

gunowners.org

I suggest the GOA and not the NRA, because the NRA does not appear to have a strict, zero infringement policy. They are as likely to lobby for partial infringement, as for no infringement, which would be a waste of money.

The other thing you can do is contact your representatives and senators and tell them that if they support any infringement on gun rights, you will not vote for them. Personally, such tactics seem useless to me, but perhaps they are worth a try.

To latter-day saints

Now I would like to turn my attention to the latter-day saints who might read this blog.

The Lord has given us a charge to befriend the Bill of Rights, therefore, any LDS in a governmental position of authority cannot justifiably violate the rights of any law-abiding citizen while performing government duties. This means that latter-day saint police officers, FBI agents, CIA officials, military personnel, border patrol and any other position of government authority, takes second seat to the Bill of Rights. Should you confiscate a law-abiding citizen’s weapons (and the definition of a law-abiding citizen is one who does not infringe upon the Bill of Rights) by command of a superior, you have broken your covenant with God to obey His commandments, which includes His words about befriending these Constitutional protections.

Righteous LDS are prohibited, then, from infringing on a law-abiding citizen’s rights, by God’s laws. They still have their agency, of course, and can choose to sin, but in order to remain justified before the Lord, they must obey this instruction.

The Lord has said that if we keep His laws, we have no need break the laws of the land. This does not refer to the endless laws on the books, but to those justifiable laws that maintain rights and privileges, which are in the Constitution, which are known as the Bill of Rights. That is all He meant by that. (For more information on all of this, see these previous posts: It is a SIN to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, Talking to myself and What the Lord has said about the Constitution.)

However, the Lord has also said that we are to be subject to the powers that be until He reigns. The question must be asked, then, what are the powers that be?

The applicable gospel principle is the voice of the people, as taught by the seer Mosiah:

It is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

The voice of the people are the powers that be that the Lord referred to. We are to be subject to the voice of the people, we are to observe the voice of the people, and we are to make the voice of the people our law, to do all our business by that voice.  This commandment is an actual law of the Lord and must be obeyed for justification before the Lord.

This means that latter-day saints are only justified insofar as they submit to the voice of the people. If that voice is for the government, then latter-day saints must submit to the government. If the voice ever turns against the government, then latter-day saints must submit to the people and stand with the people against their government. Those who do not submit to the powers that be according to this pattern and principle must remain unjustified before the Lord.

Mosiah also said:

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

Therefore, if the time ever comes that the voice of the people chooses iniquity by turning against the Bill of Rights, then destruction will come upon the people, from the Lord. But as long as the voice of the people is in support of the Bill of Rights, latter-day saints can only remain free by aligning themselves with that voice. And by extension, all latter-day saints who oppose the just voice of the people will find themselves brought down into captivity.

Therefore, based on these principles, it is possible for latter-day saints to engage in every idea listed above while remaining justified before the Lord, if the voice of the people is with them. Nevertheless, even if the voice of the people has not spoken, no latter-day saint is justified in violating anyone’s rights, whether acting under government or citizen authority.

Citizen militias in Nephite times

To more fully explain why the Bill of Rights is justifiable before the Lord, it is necessary to look to the Book of Mormon. The Bill of Rights was inspired by the Spirit of freedom (see Talking to myself), meaning that it embodies principles that align with laws that the Lord Himself had given to His people who lived on this land anciently.

The Nephites were organized, from the beginning, as citizen militias. Thus, we find Nephi using the sword of Laban to create weapons of war for his people, so that everyone was armed. In the case of the Nephites, they had both a right and a duty to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, they did not have a standing army. Whenever the Lamanites would invade their lands, the Nephites would stop their daily pursuits, take up their arms, and wage war. When the war was over, they would go back to their normal endeavors. (See The Strength of the Lord.)

The Nephites had no police force, only citizen militias. So, when Korihor was going around telling lies, which was a punishable crime in Nephite law, he was arrested by citizens. It was the citizens, not a police force, that was responsible for making sure that no one’s rights were infringed upon.

Mormon dissed the Nephites of Zarahemla because when Korihor first began spreading his lies there, the citizens did not arrest him, as was their duty. Instead, they left him free to roam about and deceive the people and he was able to cause many souls to sin. Later, he entered the land of Jershon, but the Lamanites who lived there arrested him because, according to Mormon, “they were more wise than many of the Nephites.” Later he went over to the land of Gideon and was again arrested by citizens (this time by Nephites.) Finally, he was arrested yet again and brought back to Zarahemla for trial and judgment.

No pacifism among the Nephites

The Nephites were operating under commandments of God, from the beginning, from the time of Lehi and Nephi, in which they were commanded to keep and bear arms. That they both kept and bore arms as a routine is shown by the fight between Nehor and Gideon, which began as two men talking religion and ended up with each one reaching for his sword, ending in Gideon’s death. Now, Gideon was a man of God, even a teacher in the church of God, yet he was armed, as were all the Nephites.

The law of the Lord, as given to the Nephites, is the same law that has been given to the latter-day saints, as recorded in D&C 98, which was given as the pattern for all Gentile nations to follow. (See D&C 98:38.) That section starts out by talking about justification before the Lord and befriending the Bill of Rights, which, as we know, includes the right to keep and bear arms. It then ends with a “fourth offense” warfare doctrine, giving latter-day saints warfare laws by which they might remain justified before the Lord. Thus, there is no pacifism in the section, nor was there any pacifism manifested among the Nephites.

The only so-called “pacifism” manifested in the Book of Mormon comes from the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who took an oath not to take up arms against their brethren (the other Lamanites). This was an exception because they had not previously entered into the same covenant the Nephites had entered into, in regard to the laws given to the Nephites, which included warfare instructions. In other words, the Nephites had to take up arms in defense of their country, according to the covenant they made, otherwise they would be guilty of breaking their covenant and sinning.

The Lamanites, though, did not have such restrictions, so after they had entered into their covenant to take up no arms against their Lamanite brethren, and had joined the Nephites, they could not break their first oath without sinning, so exception was made for them and they were excused from the typical covenant that every Nephite had to make as a citizen, according to the laws given to the Nephites, as revealed to them by the Lord.

That pacifism was not considered a so-called “higher law” by these Lamanites is evidenced by what they taught their children, for they did not teach their children to enter into the same oath that they did, but they taught them to take the Nephite oath and covenant. Thus, the children of these Lamanites, even the 2000+ stripling warriors, were not taught to be pacifists by their fathers, but were taught the same laws given in D&C 98.

Additionally, the Lamanite Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who had taken this oath, voluntarily supported the war efforts of the Nephites with their sons, with their money and with supplies, including retreating inward towards the center of the land so that the Nephite armies could battle the Lamanites, their brethren.  At one point, in fact, the Lamanites became so concerned with how the war was going, and the destruction of their new Nephite brethren, that they considered breaking their oath and covenant and taking up arms to defend the Nephite nation against the Lamanites.  None of this behavior can be labelled as pacifism.  So, why did they lay down their weapons and never take them again?  It was because of the oath they took, not because of the philosophy we call pacifism.

This shows that the Anti-Nephi-Lehies were an exception to the rule, manifested under a different set of circumstances and conditions, and to a different group of people, and was never meant to be taken as a pattern for the Gentiles. They were held up by Mormon as a standard of keeping one’s oath and covenant even unto death, and of brotherly love, but not as a standard or pattern for Gentile pacifism.

The Gentiles must obey the instructions given to them by the Lord, which are the same ones given to the Nephites, otherwise they will incur the displeasure of God upon them. Mormons, then, cannot justifiably be pacifists, in the sense of refusing to bear arms in defense of their country, like the king-men did. They may choose not to bear arms for individual or family circumstances, as explained in D&C 98, but when their people is threatened by any nation, tongue or people, if, after the third time of offering peace, the offering is not accepted by the invaders, they cannot justifiably refuse to take up arms. They must defend the nation, just as the Nephites had to.

Modern pacifism, then, is a philosophy of men, and is not of God. All Mormons who claim to be pacifists, and who claim that the scriptures justify pacifism for the Gentiles, or who lift it up as the standard for the Gentiles, or who denounce the law of God as written in D&C 98, denying gun rights, self defense and our duty toward common defense, is either in error, having not understood the scriptures, or is intentionally trying to deceive people.

Befriend the Bill of Rights

I bring all of this up to show latter-say saints that they can justifiably befriend the Bill of Rights. They can justifiably keep and bear and use arms. They can justifiably engage in warfare, self defense and common defense. They can justifiably form themselves into citizen militias. And so on and so forth. It is not sin to do these things, but righteousness, for this is all according to the word of the Lord, as given in the scriptures.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Unity of God


A uni-verse [the One-Story]; a tale being told:

The world does not consist of “things”, but of interactions — and it is the interactions that give the appearance of “things”.  All “things” are fundamentally a verb.  But the base-“stuff” of all creation [at the deep-down and far-in level] — the noun, is the same.  What makes the variety of created things that we can observe in the universe consists of the “verb” the one-thing is doing.

Like a whirlpool, we appear as a static-and-solid form — but what we are is actually quite dynamic-and-fluid.  Your body’s cells are in a constant process of dying-out and replacing themselves:  every  moment, every day, every month — year-by-year.  Most of what you “know” was experienced by cells that have long-since been sloughed and replaced with new ones.

When you eat or breathe — your cells [which are communities of atoms] are designed so that they will be put in close proximity to the food or air [which are also communities of atoms] under conditions conducive enough for the right kind-of chemistry to happen — and allow some of these atoms to trade places.

Your skin does not separate you from the world — it’s the bridge through which the external environment flows into you, and you into it.  Because of your skin, you have a definite form/shape that others can recognize, but [as the whirlpool is a constant flow of water] the whole world is constantly moving through you.  All the cosmic radiation, all the water, food, and minerals, all the air, even the feelings and sensations — are a stream of everything, flowing right through “You”.  And you spin that stream into a constant form — a wave that I can wave to, and call “You”.

This is why you can take the particles of my body, bury them in the ground, and have them go on to become:

  • the fiber of a toadstool
  • the lignin of an oak tree
  • the petals of a dandelion
  • the keratin of the hair of a rabbit
  • starch in a potato
  • O2 for you to breathe
  • and CO2 to buffer your blood

But none of that would cause the “Me” [the stream of consciousness and torrent of particles that you would have seen, experienced, and known as “Me”] to be lost.  When resurrected, I cannot get ALL of the particles that made-up my body — because during the decades of living, there were never any ONE set of atoms that were ever “mine”.

Some of the particles I “had” as a child already went on to become part of something/someone else before I even died.  And some of the atoms that “belonged” to me at the time of death were fertilizing a blade of grass before the time appointed for the resurrection.

“I” am not the particles of my body — I can’t be the “pieces” because those are constantly changing [even right now, at this very moment].  My cells are each a constant flow of atoms and electrons:  from the environment, through me, and back-out again.

“I” am this unique arrangement of nucleotides, amino acids, and minerals — a spell(ing) of alphabetic compounds [A-T-C-G; Met-Lys-Cys-Thr-Arg-Phe; C-H-O-Na-Fe-Ca-P].  The “Me” is the energy that informs [or gives form] to that dynamic stream [or flow] of particles — making them constantly appear as the continuous form everyone perceives and relates to as Me.

The power of the resurrection does not give me the same particles back — because those are irrelevant.  There never were any “specific pieces” that made me, “Me” anyway.  The power of the resurrection is the moment when my unique arrangement of particles is made physical again.

The Supreme Being [the Ultimate Doing], the principle verb:

“Being” is a verb word — and we are Human-beings, and God is the Supreme-Being.  God is that this-or-that one Actor or Actress who is being “God” — rather, God is the “verb” that we can all do [see The Doctrine of Identity].

Those who obtain the ability to do the works of God, to be the Supreme Being — will be the ones who have the capacity to reorganize their physical form and keep it in the kingdom of God.

On the other hand, those who fail to obtain this ability will lose all power to maintain the highly-organized state of “existence”.  Their physical body [the “pieces”] will go on to provide form for other creations, while their spirit/consciousness [the “energy” that informs the pieces] will be lost to entropy, becoming an indistinguishable bit of the cosmic radiation background.

Which category you find yourself in depends entirely upon which “spirit doth possess your body at the time that ye go out of this life,” because that’s the “same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world,” — whether that be

  • the spirit of the devil
  • or the spirit of the Lord

[see Alma 34:34-35 and A person, being evil, cannot do that which is good].

Works/Doings of the Flesh [which will have an end]:

now the works of the flesh are manifest
which are these

  • covenant-breaking
  • sexual misconduct
  • ritual impurity
  • indulging the pleasures of the senses
  • idolatry
  • use or administration of pharmakeia
  • enmity
  • contention
  • jealousies
  • fiery anger
  • partisanship
  • dividing into divisions
  • and sects
  • envyings
  • murders
  • intoxication
  • engaging in revelry and debauchery

and other things of like kind
of which I tell you now
as I have also told you before
that they which do such things
shall not receive inheritance in
the kingdom of god

[Galatians 5:19-21]

and

because their hearts are set
so much upon the things of this world
and aspire to the honors of men
[and] they do not learn
this one lesson —

that the rights of the priesthood
are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven
and that the powers of heaven
cannot be controlled nor handled
only upon the principles of righteousness
that they may be conferred upon us
it is true
but when we undertake to

  • cover our sins
  • gratify our pride
  • gratify our vain ambition
  • exercise control
  • exercise dominion
  • exercise compulsion

upon the souls of the children of men
in any degree of unrighteousness
behold
the heavens withdraw themselves
the spirit of YHVH is grieved
and when it is withdrawn

amen

to the priesthood
or the authority
of that man
behold
before he becomes aware of it
he is left unto himself
to kick against the pricks
to persecute the saints
and to fight against god

we have learned
by sad experience
that it is the nature
and disposition
of almost all men
as soon as they get a little authority
as they suppose
they will immediately begin
to exercise unrighteous dominion

[D&C 121:35-39]

Upon death, we will each of us find that the laws of physics which had [until that point] allowed us to:

  • force air into our lungs by manipulating air pressure differences between our chest cavity and the atmosphere
  • force gases to exchange at our lungs and tissues by taking advantage of the partial pressures of the various gases
  • prevent our bodies from going right through physical objects [including the ground] by relying on the electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons surrounding our body and the electrons surrounding the other objects
  • rob food of its low-entropy/high-energy value by chemically stripping the carbons and the electrons from the fats and starches and giving back out high-entropy/low-energy waste products
  • etc.

will have ceased to work “just so”.

The present, mortal environment does not respond to the informing commands of our spirit out of respect for our level of righteousness.  Rather, in His mercy, the Lord has commanded the physical elements here to allow us to push them around and force them — regardless of righteousness or our lack thereof.

They are presently voluntarily-submitting to God’s request — and this is why we are presently able to manipulate the elements that make up our mortal existence, according to a specific set of laws that we’ve observed, studied, and defined as “The Laws of Physics”  [see The seeds of the powers of godliness].

Upon death — God’s merciful probation with the physical elements ends.  The elements will again respond as they always have — according to the principles of free-agency, consent, and respect.  If we have not learned to command our will in the universe according to the principles of righteousness — then we will find ourselves in an awful situation in the afterlife.  For it will be impossible for your spirit [your “soul” or “consciousness”] to force the elements to do anything against their will.

You will find yourself with an insatiable desire to eat, the feeling of unquenchable thirst, the perpetual sensation of suffocation — but have no way to alleviate the feelings.  You will find yourself pulled-down by gravity into the central portion of the earth’s outer shell — a place of immense heat and crushing pressure, a “spirit prison” or hell [see Teachings on hell and the spirit world].

Once at the center of hell, gravity pushes you equally in all direction.  Therefore, your body will act like an astronaut’s does while in orbit.  You will have no power to move this-way or that-way.  There is nothing your spirit could “act upon” in order to move around.

In fact, the only way you will be able to “move” at all is by Satan moving you around [as he desires you to be moved] by pulling on the chains of hell attached to the base of your head [see How to receive what you ask for].

This makes you entirely subject to him — which is the very definition of “damnation”:

if they be evil
to the resurrection
of endless damnation
being delivered up to the devil
who hath subjected them
which is damnation

[Mosiah 16:11]

Works/Doings of the Spirit [which will continue in perpetuity]:

but the fruit of the spirit is

  • charity
  • joy
  • peace
  • patience
  • gentleness
  • goodness
  • faith
  • meekness
  • moderation and self-control

against such
there is no law

[Galatians 5:22-23]

and

no power or influence
can or ought
to be maintained
by virtue of the priesthood
it can only be by

  • persuasion
  • patience
  • gentleness
  • and meekness
  • and genuine love
  • kindness
  • pure knowledge

[…]
the holy spirit shall be thy constant companion
and thy scepter
an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth
and thy dominion
shall be an everlasting dominion
and without compulsory means
it shall flow unto thee forever and ever

[D&C 121:41-42, 46]

Divinity is found in being bound to the most, serving the most, and being connected to the most – not vice-versa.  The nature of reality, rather than being monotheistically ONE, is [on its basic, fundamental level] polytheistically MANY.  A plurality of intelligences.

The revelation of God in the scriptures is that the governing Power of existence is a Personage that relates to the universe with [what the Hebrews called] “chesed” – the loving-kindness and compassion of a God who relates to us with the level of intimacy that is only the result of “beriyth” – or a covenant.

God is not self-existent – for He does all things, including creation, through voluntary covenant with free entities.  Creation was an act of council – of covenant between free and independent agents.  This actually means that He is bound to all things.  And a “self-existing” Being is independent and cannot be bound.

This is why God could “cease to be God”.  Our heavenly Father is “God” because of the covenant He has bound Himself into, with us.  His covenant relationship with creation means He exists for/because of us – not Himself.  Likewise, all things exists because they have bound themselves in covenant with God.  That’s why those who breach the terms of this covenant return to “their own place” in outer darkness – where there is no existence.

Neither the elements of the universe, nor God, are self-existing or independent — because the existence of both parties is a covenant relationship with the other.  Both we and God are self-inter-dependent, one with another.

The unity of God, then, comes as a product – not as an ex nihilo starting point — but a result.  Faith, common consent, persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, charity, etc. are not some stop-gap measures or some temporary/transient states-of-mind that we can drop once we’re “with God”.

For even the Gods must have and keep faith and must persuade and cooperate – for these things are the very fabric of the trusting engagement and co-valent, covenant relationship between all things [see Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?].  At the very bottom [the root or base], Reality is plural and “God” is the unity, order, and cooperation that emerges from that.

Each of our Stories contributes to the Uni-story — One-verse in a Multi-verse:

The universe is a fragmented web, an ornate arabesque of energy, a flow of information that moves through all the variety of interconnected “things” – as wind or water moves.  And we are sym-phonic beings — and should not be content with mono-tony:  rows-and-rows of uniform, conformed, industrialized, factory-farmed, marketed, commoditzed sameness.

All of our “mono-“s [mono-theism, mono-culture, mono-gamy] share the common feature of being less robust and less diverse caricatures of a natural and diverse state of Reality.  All of our –archy’s and –ism’s are just temporary, arbitrary, and illusionary attempts to control things that are what they are because they are natural, diverse, and without someone to “rule” it all.

Statists want to see God as “ordered”, “ordering”, “imposing”, etc.  They pattern Him after the cosmic monoarch because they arise from cultures that were predominately monoarchy-s — and “chaos” or “undirected activity” is a problem that causes them anxiety and fight-or-flight stress.  But there is nothing to be feared from “chaos” — for it is only the unknown we fear when we look upon chaos, nothing more.

It’s not about a battle between “chaos vs. order” — that’s the wrong debate.  It’s about fearing the chaos or desiring the order — pitting one against the other.

LDS are at a bit of an advantage [theologically-speaking] over other Christians in this regard — because the creation of earth in our mythos is said to be an organization of “matter unorganized“.  Pre-existing material, arranged and put to good use.  In our creation myth — the Gods come into a space of chaos, and give it power — give it a purpose worth fulfilling.

But it’s not about “fighting” chaos with order or about embracing chaos “over” order.  For example, the family is an ordered unit.  The higher entropy [greater disorder, “chaos”] state would be for each of the members to exist as separate ego-islands, unto themselves.  Yet we order ourselves into families — and are protected against the effects of entropy by virtue of our organization as a community [called “family”].

And our brains aren’t active by virtue of having some “King Neuron” who runs the whole show — rather it has its strength according to the number of connections running between all the neurons together.

All enduring communities are organized in a more fractal, nature-like interplay and cooperation between the unique units.

I don’t want not to be “anti-order” — rather anti-archy: the imposed order, force, coercion, or compulsive order.  Any “-archy” is that linear, meccano-like corporate conformity and mono-tonous sameness.  It says to tie-up all your sticks into neater and tighter bundles, making sure they are all the same size and length — it’s strong like a brick-wall is strong.

Any an-archy says, let things organize theirselves as they will naturally tend to when they’re left alone — like the cellular cooperation within and between a body’s organs, like atomic cooperation between fundamental particles.  The life in this universe is absolutely built-upon the enduring qualities of such interactions and communities.

Human interactions, then, become less of an oppressive power-pyramid — and something more like a dance, something that we could imagine to be fun to experience with others [see Gimme some a that Mormon-hippie love, with a side of anarchy].

It works like nature does [which can seem “chaotic”, depending on how you look at it] — without an outside foreman being habitually obeyed by the “underlings”.

The very people who fear chaos and therefore try to use means of imposed order — end-up causing more chaos.  When order is imposed, when interactions are controlled — from above or from outside [out of obligation or “duty”] things get out of a natural equilibrium or balance — and get more out of control.

Until we end-up spending all our energy fighting to control what our attempts at control have caused.  These will always tend to dehumanize the very people it’s seeking to “serve” by “giving them order” — and those it tends to dehumanize most, are the ones who think they lead it.

When fear drives your actions — it doesn’t quite matter what the goal is, how noble or honorable it may be — fear is still driving, and it will lead nowhere worth going.

Next Article by Justin:  My letter to Prolife Christians about the HHS Mandate

Previous Article by Justin:  A person, being evil, cannot do that which is good

The Written Records


Jesus didn’t write any scriptures.  The apostles didn’t write the gospels down as things were happening.  They didn’t sit in that upper room during Pentecost, making sure they got everything written down so they could go out and organize the church of Christ based on the authority of their scriptures.

The point with written scriptures is that they must be understood as the product of believers in Christ organized as his church – not what believers in Christ need to use to become organized as his church.  The written records are the trail that’s left behind – not the hand guiding us through.

The scriptures are just printed ink on processed wooden pulp.  Destroy every copy of the written word of God – and it wouldn’t do a thing.  Because a group of believers in Christ would just produce more scriptures.  Only dead congregations, who have no real connection with God through the spirit of prophecy and revelation, would be scrambling – because they lack the ability to produce anything new.  They can only re-tell the stories they’ve inherited from a by-gone generation.

It’s essentially idolatry [see, Making an Image out of God] – to look at the image that’s pointing and cling to and serve it, rather than to Look, Follow, and Live [see, …and the labor which they had to perform was to look…].

The church of Jesus Christ is not established on scriptures:

A book cannot authenticate itself.  It takes an outside authority to do that.  Written records become “scripture” when the church of Christ covenants to be bound to that written record by common consent.  That means that the 66 books that make up the King James canon have authority as “the Bible” by virtue of the Catholic Church’s word alone – not by virtue of them simply being “the Bible”.

Further, you accept the English word-choice of the King James translation by virtue of the word of the Church of England alone – God did not dictate the creation story to Moses, or the epistles to Paul using 1611 English words.

The reason the King James text is also known as “The Authorized Version” is because, prior to its commission – there were many attempts by English commoners [i.e., not clergy or royalty] to translate the Bible into English [the language of the unlearned common-folk].  This threatened the power of the elites – who believed that the translations of the commoners did not, “conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.”

So, a new state-sanctioned English translation was commissioned that would render phrases in such a way as to justify and legitimize the hierarchical authority of the crown and of the church.  And it would be the only one “Authorized” by the state and the church for use.

Joseph Smith’s view of the bible:

  • It can be ambiguous,

“The teachers of religious understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”

This ambiguity in the meaning of revelations happens when interpreters make false assumptions about the Bible and then just start guessing away at the correct interpretation.

They’ll assume the scriptures are cryptic [that they’ll say “A”, when they really mean “X”], are relevant [that all the narratives can be applied as personal lessons], and are perfect [that there are no contradictions, missing pieces, or extraneous material].  Their guessing either takes place horizontally [applying the past to the present] or vertically [applying the physical to the spiritual].

The meaning of the word of God should not be guessed at in this way.  Guessing is what Laman and Lemuel did.  Guessing is what Judeans did with Jesus’ parables.  Guessing is what the brethren at Jerusalem did [see, And they understood me not, for they supposed].  The meaning of scripture [in a gospel context] has only one signified attached to it.  And there is only one way to “figure out” what it means –to ask God what it signifies.

  • irrelevant,

The Bible contains revelations given at different times to different people under different circumstances.”

The blessings promised in the scriptures pertain to the people to whom they were spoken.  The laws outlined in the scriptures were tailored to the conditions under which they were given.

For example, at Wheat & Tares I commented on the definition that “hot drinks” in D&C 89 means “tea and coffee”.  The standard interpretation used by the church in regards to verse 9:

and again
hot drinks are not for the body
or belly

[D&C 89:9]

says that Joseph and Hyrum Smith all told members that “hot drinks” meant “tea and coffee”.  Sounds pretty straight-forward.

But – so what if Joseph or Hyrum in fact did say that “hot drinks” meant “tea and coffee” to this-or-that member back in the 1830’s?  That’s all well-and-good because that’s what the saints were in the habit of drinking hot at the time the revelation was given.  Brigham Young reasoned:

I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned [in D&C 89]; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? Tea and coffee. We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee — the beverages in common use.

Now – to follow his reasoning – if the saints ended-up falling out of the habit of drinking tea and coffee hot and started drinking other things hot or started drinking tea and coffee cold — then the revelation still calls us to be guided by the general concept of avoiding the habitual drinking of hot liquids [rather than be bound to the specific conceptions of tea and coffee per se].

The revelation meant “tea and coffee” for them [because that’s what they were in the habit of drinking hot] — but it does not necessarily mean that for us today [if we get in the habit of drinking other liquids hot or drinking tea and coffee cold].

When the Lord said “Don’t drink hot drinks,” Joseph/Hyrum rightly took a look at what the saints were in the habit of drinking hot at that time — and they concluded that it was tea and coffee — so the leaders rightly taught the people to not drink tea and coffee.  But the interpretation of “tea and coffee” pertains to them – given under conditions where the people were in the habit of drinking tea and coffee hot.

  • transmitted erroneously,

I believe the Bible as it came from the pens of the original writers.  Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, and designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.”

If our understanding of some particular point of doctrine is based on a scripture that is the translation of a translation of a translation – that was taken from a copy of a copy of a copy – and somewhere along the line [there are centuries between the original and what we have extant, in many cases] a rendering was screwed-up [whether accidentally or maliciously] – then it may well reveal how weak some of our beliefs could be.

Our centuries long history and traditions of scriptural interpretation, some of Joseph’s wording choices in the Book of Mormon, and much our the temple endowment ceremony are all based on the scriptural renderings common at the time [taken from the King James English text].

I’ve heard people say that:

You’ve got to believe that God created the universe in six 24-hour periods because it says it right there in Genesis, ‘And the evening and the morning were the ____ day.’  The Bible clearly says ‘day’.

When, in reality, the Bible clearly says “yohm”, as it was recorded in Hebrew.  That’s a word that could mean a variety of things in English.

And even getting back to the original Hebrew can be more complex than it might seem at first.  The Meru Foundation found that the origin of the Hebrew characters lie in a series of ritual hand-gestures — or sign language.

Also, the Chronicle Project has found an alternate system for how the written Hebrew characters work, and publishes alternate, “original meaning” renderings of the Hebrew scriptures.

  • and incomplete.

Much instruction has been given to man since the beginning that we do not now possess […] to say that God never said anything more to man would be claiming a new revelation – because such a thing is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God.”

In The Concept of Race, in the Gospel, I wrote:

The best thing to do is to take it as granted that the current scriptural record we have in the Bible is a pretty incomplete picture concerning the affairs of God throughout the whole human race.  The Bible is the book that’s come by way of the Jew and is their record — and so we find that it deals primarily with Arabians [go figure].

Until the scriptural record is more complete — until we receive the prophets of the other nations, tribes, and people, with their prophetic records that will come forth from Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands, etc. — we cannot speak with certainty of how God has dealt with the other races and if there are promises made to them that we know that of.

Now, I’m not trying to say that we can draw no good lessons from our historical translations and traditions.  I’m not saying all current Biblical teachings should be repudiated.  Rather – it’s that any explicit meaning we’re going to gather from them ought to be accepted with the understanding that it comes skewed.  That the scriptures come to us as time-and-space artifacts of a particular culture – given in their language and suited to their circumstances.

What we have is just what we have.  It’s better to be honest about what we’ve got with our scriptural record — rather than try to pedestalize it into something it’s not meant to be.

Religions become concerned with ethical behavior and doctrine, and using the scriptures as an all-encompassing moral rule-book – instead of being concerned with changing people’s minds/hearts and how they view/experience their world, using the scriptures as a collection of stories that motivate believers to go live-out their own stories.

The problem with approaching religion as though it were a method of relaying ethics and doctrines from “the Good Book” is that ethics only teach us how to live as though you were one with your neighbor.  You learn the modes of action that imply a compassionate relationship with another person.  It offers you incentive to act in a certain way – but it cannot generate the genuine feeling of it.

While there may be certain ethical implications of having made a covenant with the fundamental Reality of existence – such things neither add to or subtract from current pool of human ethical wisdom.  It is not the domain of religion to lay down specific “hither thou shalt come and no further” guidelines for human behavior that transcendent time, space, culture, and circumstance.

Rather, religion is about providing the environment for people to experience the miraculous works of God and manifestations of the spiritual gifts.  Because once the experience is had – the very way in which a person approaches and experiences human problems/decisions will be altered.

The gospel is about that transcendent experience of a direct connection with God — one that smashes a hardened, left-brain sensation of being separate and opens a person up the fluid, right-brain awareness that all creation is a continuous and connected event that we are all a part of .

Next Article by Justin: The Revelation of God in Jesus Christ

Previous Article by Justin:  The Concept of Race, in the Gospel

(What R. U. Scared Of ?)

Split-brain Model of the Gospel: The Fall of Man


By the transgression of these holy laws:

[God] created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;

And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.  [D&C 20:18-20]

These holy laws” were not given to Adam and Eve while in the Garden of Eden.  The only commandments given to them before their Fall were to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and for Adam to remain with Eve:

And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”  [Moses 3:16-17]

and

And the man said:  “The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat.”  [Moses 4:18]

However, after the Fall, Adam and Eve were given new commandments that pertained directly to the worship of God:

And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.  And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord.

Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.  [Moses 5:4-5, 8]

So, here is where “these holy laws” were given — to Adam and Eve after their partaking of the fruit of the tree of good and evil and their subsequent removal from the Garden of Eden.

At this point, mankind was not carnal, sensual, or devilish because Adam and Eve were obedient unto these commandments [Moses 5:5], and they:

made all things known unto their sons and their daughters. [Moses 5:12]

They brought up their children in light and truth, and were thus innocent before God.  But:

And Satan came among them, saying:  “I am also a son of God”; and he commanded them, saying: “Believe it not”; and they believed it not, and they loved Satan more than God.  And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish.  [Moses 5:13]

So now we see the transgression of “these holy commandments” spoken of in D&C 20:18-20.  The sin of real idolatry entered in — and so:

Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through diobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.  [D&C 93:38-39]

Paradise:

Man did need to become a kind of animal that had a left-brain concept of a Self as being some separate, skin-encapsulated center of will in the universe.  We had to begin seeing ourselves as something not-God – something fallen away from Him, pretending that we are not one-in-the-same thing.

The Fall brought about by the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is how we could take this cosmic step back [or away, or down, depending on one’s perspective] and start to look at God from an outside perspective, see what kind of dance it is He’s doing – so we could do it too.

The Self [a left-brain, rational conception of “I”, a persona] is one-step removed from God because, though it represents the human wisdom to conceive of God — in order for humanity to gain that wisdom — they must begin to believe that they are somehow separate from God.  With this word “I”, reality splits – like the human consciousness is split, into the subject and the object, doers and doings, this and that.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [John 1:1]

represents the realization of the Word, “I” [who was, in the beginning, both with God and was God], that causes a concept of a separate Self to exist – instead of all things being continuous with God — one continuous happening — or Supreme Being.  The beginning of the human ability to conceive of God comes only when it’s been separated into this-or-that separate Self.

The only way for the mind to understand something is to name it [or to clothe it in language] – essentially taking a step away from it, pretend it’s not you for a moment and simplify it into a model [or personification] of the thing using the intellect.  The universe was created by the utterance of “I am” because this is the beginning of an existence that is separate from God.

So the isolation of the individual as a separate Self is a fiction that mankind has concocted – but then went on to forget that we did so.  It’s a story we’ve all have been telling ourselves – so we can turn around and look at God, as though that weren’t really us.  But this state of individualness is a great fiction – a story each one of us has created as a way to come to understand things by looking at them from the outside, as a way to experience God by pretending that He and us have no relation to each other.

Children and child-like cultures [what we’d label as “primitive” cultures] are still in touch with this paradise to the extent that they have not fully learned the illusion of Persona.

So though mankind did need to “fall” into a conception of their Self as separate existing centers of will surrounded by all of existence [the result of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil], they have no need to become carnal, devilish, or fallen man [the result of heeding the temptations of the devil, becoming subject to him].  The scriptures have examples of specific people or classes of people who work out their own salvation without sin and without the devil having any power over them:

Mortal children:

But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten; Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me; [D&C 29:46]

Faithful men and women of God:

Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men. [Alma 48:17]

Transfigured believers in Christ:

Therefore, that they might not taste of death there was a change wrought upon their bodies, that they might not suffer pain nor sorrow save it were for the sins of the world.  Now this change was not equal to that which shall take place at the last day; but there was a change wrought upon them, insomuch that Satan could have no power over them, that he could not tempt them; and they were sanctified in the flesh, that they were holy, and that the powers of the earth could not hold them. [3 Nephi 28:38-39]

All people during the duration of the Millennium:

And the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation. [D&C 45:58]

and

And in that day whatsoever any man shall ask, it shall be given unto him.  And in that day Satan shall not have power to tempt any man.  And there shall be no sorrow because there is no death.  In that day an infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; And when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and shall be caught up, and his rest shall be glorious. [D&C 101:27-31]

Fallen man became carnal, sensual, and devilish because when we left paradise — we forgot that this whole probation was really just a cosmic game of pretend.  When Satan lured humans into believing that the feeling of a separate Self was in fact the actual state of things — it created isolation, fear, and competitiveness.  We started to be “that guy” who starts taking the game of Monopoly a bit too seriously.  We start acting like life is something that we can master or one-up — like life is a bank that we can rob.  We exalt the Self above all else — we place our first allegiance to a fictitious feeling of Personhood.  We transgress “these holy commandments” because we see God as something “other“, and then try to make our Self love Him above all else.

The purpose of the devil:

And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children ofmen, or they could not be agents unto themselves… [D&C 29:39]

After Lucifer rebelled against the majority vote against him in the pre-mortal council, he lost all power [agency] and was going to be straight-away removed from the kingdom of God into outer darkness.  He thought up a purpose for himself and those who rebelled against the law of common consent — and proposed that he and his angels instead be cast down to earth to try and tempt the children of men because, as he reasoned:

if they never should have bitter, they could not know the sweet…

As this was the desire of one of His children, God rendered according to that desire and allowed the matter to be voted on by the rest of us.  We used our agency to chose to have an adversary be on Earth to tempt us.

We were “agents unto [our]selves” in heaven and voted to have Lucifer here doing this work among us – we gave him a purpose he wouldn’t have otherwise had.  God always honors the agency of all things [or He would cease to be God], meaning that everything must be done by the common consent of the governed – or in other words, the keys of the heavenly tribe must be honored, which is why “it must needs be that the devil should tempt” us here – otherwise, our agency expressed in the pre-mortal council would have been abridged or over-ridden.

So we have Satan, the great dragon, being:

cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.  And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” [Revelation 12:9-10]

and

…by the power of mine Only Begotten [agency], I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. [Moses 4:3]

Satan and his angels were cast down to the hell here on Earth, instead of straight into outer darkness — not because God needs a Satan-figure to fulfill the plan of salvation, but because God needs Satan here “that we might be agents unto ourselves,” or so that our vote and choice to have the devil here to tempt us would be honored.

Mortality is, for the most part, a hands-off period of examination.  God puts us in a learning environment and then sees what we do with it.  The Lord has stated that:

it is not meet that I should command in all things… [D&C 58:26]

God always prepares for every contingency, so even with Satan here [voted in by us], He prepared a means to save us from Satan’s power, should we have fallen into it – so we could then choose to be liberated by the prepared Savior.  Regardless of what men choose with their agency, the plan of salvation that God has prepared cannot be frustrated, with or without a devil among us.

The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil:

The primitive , child-like [innocent and unfallen] state of humanity experiences God as essentially all things in existence.  This natural state recognizes human life as something inexorably connected to all other things.  It’s the oceanic feeling that infants and animals [non-rational life] experience – purely right-brain, a divergent view of all things at once, a single spontaneous happening.  This is the right-brain, the mind’s Atlantis, the realm of visions and dreams, the lunatics and werewolves, unconscious, unreason – inspiration.  It is without concept of time, persons, distinctions, and morality.

However, a paradisical state of oneness with nature [and God] does not allow for a concept of God to exist because to be one with something means you cannot know or discern the difference between it and you.  You can’t look in your own eyes, touch your own finger-tip, taste your own tongue, etc.

Per our vote in the pre-mortal councils – it was decided that Satan would be permitted opportunity to try and to tempt mankind while on Earth.  In order for us to be agent unto ourselves, God designated a time in which Adam and Eve would be left unto themselves to allow Satan the opportunity to tempt them to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This fruit was forbidden by commandment during the duration of time God left Adam and Eve unto themselves to be tempted – to see if they would partake at the direction of Satan or await further instructions from the Lord.

This fruit had no magical properties to it – it was just a bitter fruit in a garden of sweet and pleasant to taste fruits.  Humanity lived in a state of uncontrasted existence.  They had no left-brain vision of contrast, distinctions, and separation.  The purpose of the fruit was to awaken them to an understanding of differentiation between things — to turn on their left-brain and cause it to start dividing the world into man and woman, pleasure and pain, light and dark, life and death, virtue and vice — this and that.

Partaking under the direction of God would have caused the Fall [left-brain consciousness and death] – but not carnality, sensuality, and devilishness.  We would have had death — but not hell.  Death [like apocalypse] seems scary, but it is also natural.  Death, in plainer terms, just means “a change of state“.  It’s the death of the old that births the new — the death of all our earthly ambitions, worldly ideas, and petty emotions so that we can be reborn as the highest manifestation of humanity — God as a human, or Jesus Christ.

You see, the relationship between humans and God is the relationship between humans and the realization of their highest Self.  Meaning that the only difference between God and humans is that humans still see a difference between God and humans [because they are using their left-brains to look].

We can our spend lifetime searching for salvation, enlightenment, the Philosopher’s Stone, the City of Gold, Atlantis, the Garden of Eden, the Fountain of Youth, etc. — when all the time, we carry it around in us:

behold, the kingdom of God is within you. [Luke 17:21]

Partaking, however, under the direction of Satan, caused left-brain consciousness and death, along with carnality, sensuality, devilshness, and hell.  Without God’s further instructions, the left-brain became awakened but then immediately darkened in captivity to the devil.

And if we remain in that state until mortal death — then we are damned, which means to be fully captivated by the power of the devil, fully subject to him — because we yielded in obedience to him:

that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.  For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.  [Alma 34:34-35]

and

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness [Romans 6:16]

Instead of being a tool used to take a step-back from a continuous and unified state of existence with God and nature, in order to gain wisdom of Him and the dance He is doing – the left-brain became the tower in which our unconscious, right-brain attention, the moon, and womanhood lay chained — hardened and atrophied.  The female power within every human [the lunatic power of the moon], constrained in the ring of the seven male stars of the classical liberal arts:

  • Arithmetic
  • Music
  • Astronomy
  • Rhetoric
  • Grammar
  • Logic
  • Geometry

Such power – the left-brain system of symbols and images — used to suppress a natural state of mind that had ruled for millions of years – next to the relative short period of man’s 6,000 year reign.  But the masculine pattern of control grows weaker amidst our current tumultuous times — when the right-brain, feminine dynamics may begin to re-emerge.

Redemption:

Whosoever will come after me, let [them] deny [their] self, and take up [their] cross, and follow me. [Mark 8:34]

Redemption from the Fall is about getting over the sensation of being a Self locked out from everything not-Self – of being only one Self who was flung into competition and conflict with every other object it can experience.  Humans have come up with many different systems to accomplish this project:

  • religion
  • psychotherapy
  • Zen meditation
  • yoga
  • hallucinogenic drugs
  • sensory deprivation
  • fasting
  • positive thinking
  • chanting mantras

The problem with every one of these systems is that getting seriously involved in any one of them just further boxes you into another elite group – another Self that sees itself as separate from the rest of everything not-Self.  You didn’t get out of the box, just made another one to jump into.

The out-of-the-box, right-brain consciousness experience of your Self cannot be made to happen by any act of your fictitious will because that perspective only validates the existence of the separate Self [unless of course the repeated efforts to be accidental on-purpose eventually reveal to you the futility of such efforts].  There is no way to internally manifest the will to get rid of the feeling of separateness as a Self.  That would be like trying to go to sleep – for in your trying, you mess the whole thing up.

It’s why moralistic preaching doesn’t work.  Focusing on behavior and doctrine only breeds good hypocrites [good actors] — people sermonized into shame, guilt, or fear – forcing themselves to behave as if they actually believed the things they say they do.  We make disciples by sitting around and talking – and then act surprised when our disciples go on to sit around and talk.

We work at trying to do things that would just be part of our nature [how we are] if we would soften our hearts in repentance.  God’s commandments are not instructions on behavior that will get the Spirit to work on us – they are descriptions of what results once the inner nature of a person is changed by the Spirit.

Churches are a problem too because currently, they aren’t communities.  They are groups of people trying to produce a community.  It’s backwards.  The church gathers because of their changed hearts and their connection to each other – it doesn’t gather in order to make those things happen.  The “ekklesia” was supposed to be the vacation or rest from the world – while we can’t think of anything better to do after three hours of church on Sunday than to get home and rest from it.

So — you can’t get rid of the fallen, left-brain, Self-sensation – so don’t try.  Take it, like any other feeling you have, as a feature of your total process – a wave of hot or cold, angry or sad.  Working to get rid of the Self is the ultimate act of Self-ishness – it simply confirms and strengthens the reality of the feeling.

This is what’s made me reevaluate what prayer is to me.  Any spiritual exercise [be it prayer, meditation, yoga, or whatever], when practiced in order to get some spiritual experience, only strengthens the fallacy that I am my Self.  Speaking “out there” to God as though He was only this separate entity that resides somewhere else in the cosmos just continues the Fallen fiction that my Person is something separate from God.

There is nothing wrong with praying just to pray – in the same way we listen to music just for the music.  You don’t worry about the value of it.  What’s the purpose of prayer – it has no purpose, and that is its purpose.  That may sound like Eastern, paradoxical nonsense – but think about what is the practical application of the universe — of billions of galaxies swirling around?  What’s the use of playing music [or any other art or game]?  If you play music to make money, or outdo another artist, or be a person of culture, etc. – then you aren’t really playing because your mind’s not on the music.  Things like games or art are a waste of valuable time and money that could be put into more practical applications – rather than making elaborate patterns or color or sound.  But what would we think of a society with no room for music and games, dancing and art?  Such a society would be surviving [biologically alive] – but to no end.

  • The universe is, at its core, an illusion [the Latin ludere], a play, or a ludicrous game of pretend.
  • It’s magic – being enchanted [the Latin incantare] by the song of images and measurements.
  • It’s meaningless, meaning it has no point unto itself.  Like a flower is meaningless – it’s all just dancing patterns of light and sound, water and fire, vibrations and rhythm, electricity and space.
  • The world is an amazing [amasian or lost in a maze] arrangement of letters – a spell [the Latin fascinum], or spelled with A-T-C-G, Lys-His-Met-Ala-Pro, C-H-O-N-P-Na-Cl-Au.

All of existence, then, is one thing, one shape, one happening.  Separate persons and events are merely arabesques is an over-all fractal pattern – which is all continuous with the whole created universe — all of it continuous with [or unseparated from] God.  A redeemed sense of reality.

You can return now to your separate moments, separate selves, and separate rooms — and know that separation for the imaginary [or image-based], feeling that it is.  You can go about your practical affairs again – but now with a new sense about it all.  There is no “You” who can get something out of this game – life is not a bank that you can rob.  Your Self is God attempting to look at itself from billions of points-of-view.

Next Article by Justin: On Not Having Polygamy for Polygamy’s Sake

Previous Article by Justin:  Two Plasma Interpretations of Portions of Revelation

Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender


This is a topic about which I have much more I could write and spend more time coming to understand personally — however, considering the general interest on LDS blogs over the topics of:

I thought it expedient to expound on what I currently understand the nature of these questions to be.  Each point could be illuminated on further if a reader finds any jumps in reasoning that they perhaps cannot follow.

Male/female gender vs. masculine/feminine aspects:

Every intelligence that was created from nothing by God chose a gender for itself at the point when it was made independent in that sphere in which God placed it.  This was its first “act for itself” – choosing to be either male or female in gender.

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. [D&C 93:30]

Masculine and feminine, however, refer to aspects of character – not to gender.  Whether male, female, or of no gender [things] – all aspects of existence may act in either masculine or feminine aspects, and thus may be considered as male or female.

The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God. [D&C 88:45]

The sun is considered as a male because it fulfills a masculine role of emitting light, while the moon is considered as a female because it fulfills a feminine role of receiving and reflecting light.

A better example of the distinction between gender and aspect/role is in considering Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost:

Personal harmony:

The Eastern concept of the yin and yang is a symbol for explaining the dance that goes on between the masculine and feminine aspects within each individual person.  Whether we chose to have a male or female gender as a personage – we are all comprised of masculine and feminine particles, aspects, and characteristics.

Just as an atom – though it contains some particles called protons [positive charge], some neutrons [no charge], and some electrons [negative charge] – may manifest [over-all] either a positive [e.g., sodium] or a negative [e.g., chlorine] charge.  And it is this over-all charge that allows the atoms to interact with each other and form the molecules of life [sodium+chlorine = salt].

Every person [whether created male or female in gender] contains in their make-up the masculine aspects [yang] – or those of creation, acting upon, the left-brain-mind, the right side, etc. and the feminine aspects [yin] – those of resting, yielding, the right-brain-heart, the left side, etc.  [See also, the Split-Brain Model of the Gospel]

When in balance within an individual person, the right-brain-heart will receive [feminine/yin] inspiration and the left-brain-mind will act upon [masculine/yang] that idea and be the tool that carries out the will.

The key to harmony in this system is for masculine and feminine aspects to be in balance.  It would be improper to ask the moon [feminine] to shine like the sun – or the sun [masculine] to reflect like the moon.  Each has its proper role, power, purpose, and way of doing things.  Activity must be balanced with rest.  Contemplation must be balanced with creation.  Etc.

The two cannot be mixed together or pitted one against the other – as though “on” could ever gain victory over “off” or vice versa.  The masculine and feminine are to come together and become one – joining together, but retaining the masculine and feminine aspects undiluted, untainted, and unmixed.

Tribal harmony:

The masculine aspect pertains to males by virtue of a male birth, and the feminine aspect pertains to females by virtue of a female birth.

Humans are not born into this world absolutely free.  That is not to say that I think we are slaves to some nature that we must overcome – nor do I think we are born in any way enslaved.  I simply mean that we are all limited.  The natural completion of any one human can only be found in the joining of two humans.  The natural completion of any two humans [a marriage couple] can only be found in the joining of them to God.  Man or woman [alone] know but one part of human nature.

The male is born into this world with the symbolic wand, scepter, or sword [covered by a hood].  This is God considered as a male.  It is the will that acts to bring about something from nothing [creation].  It is the tool to penetrate the mystery.

The female is born into this world with the symbolic cup and orb [again covered by a hood].  This is God considered as a female.  It is the sacred chalice of divine compassion.  It is the fertile soil yielding to and receiving the seed.

Husbands are [by virtue of a male birth] to act in the masculine aspect of a priest.  Wives are [by virtue of a female birth] to act in the feminine aspect of a priestess.

Males must embrace and magnify their masculine aspect – while at the same time honoring feminine-ness by loving their wives.  Females must embrace and magnify their feminine aspect – while at the same time honoring masculine-ness by yielding their consent to their husbands.

For there to be true equality between males and females, matriarchy must exist along with patriarchy and gynocracy must exist along with androcracy.  There must be a balance of power, and power must be shared – not concentrated in the hands of a few.

Women are to hold the keys of common consent by which they are free to authorize, validate, and direct the work of the priesthood.  Men are to hold the keys of the priesthood by which they are to act as the voluntary slaves of all and minister the gifts and powers of the Spirit.  Though wives are to submit to or follow their husbands – this is balanced inasmuch as the priesthood of the husband cannot be handled without the consent of those it is intended to serve [the servant must hearken to his masters in all things].  All things must be done by common consent, or else disharmony and tyranny result [rather the men or the women are at fault].  Men and women are judged by God according to how they use their respective set of keys and how they treat each other.

There is no need to consider the particular aspects of the feminine nature [or the male nature] to be a burden.  Nor do we have to somehow neutralize the difference between woman and man in the quest for some androgenous equality of andro-gyn-archy where we demand the sun reflect light and the moon emit it.

What we are to understand by the division of masculine and feminine natures is that man or woman [alone] are but half of a true person – just as a person’s flesh is incomplete without his/her spirit.  However, it is being half that allows the whole to be constructed without denying each part what it truly is.

What of Heavenly Mother?

All Gods, irrespective of gender, are masculine aspects – or are to be considered as male.  When they become the feminine aspect [the mystery, that which is penetrated], they enter the passive, sleep-state of outer darkness — and we do not relate to them here in the created universe.

The exception to this is Jesus Christ during his life on earth.  For though he was God, and therefore did not consider “Godhood” to be something he needed to cling to – he gave up or emptied himself of the masculine aspect of God, took upon himself flesh, appeared in human form, humbled himself in obedience to God, and suffered death on the cross to have his bowels filled with compassion for humanity [See Philippians 2:6-11].  Thus, for that duration of time, Jesus Christ [being God] was considered as a female while being a male personage.  However, thereafter he is seated at the right hand of God [masculine] and all humanity is subject to him [masculine] – and is therefore, as God, he is currently considered as a male.

The created universe [associated with the left-brain-mind/right side] is a masculine aspect, therefore – whether a God is a priest/king or a priestess/queen, He or She is considered as a male by humanity.  We refer to all of them as Gods [rather than Goddesses] – and we must relate to them as masculine, as in yield to the Spirit and submit our will, etc.

Outer darkness [associated with the right-brain-heart/left side] is a feminine aspect.  It is the mystery [a sea of “nothing”-ness] that is penetrated by the will [expansion of the sphere of light].  It is the passive state of non-existence that is contrasted to the active state of existence.

Thus, the Gods are all considered as males and we must relate to them in that way.  The difference in the offering of Cain [fruits of the earth] and of Abel [animal sacrifice] is that Cain could not act in faith towards God while approaching him as a feminine aspect [fertility worship].

As Gods, the purpose is to begin the Arthurian quest to drown in the cup of the Divine Feminine.  Once a God [whether male or female in gender] achieves this state of progression – they return to a state of passivity and rest in outer darkness.  The cycle of creation and expansion of this created universe must be balanced with the rest and withdraw of outer darkness.

The nature of all energy is a wave.  There is no static position in nature.  The full moon will be immediately replaced by the waning gibbous.  Once the moon’s light is altogether withdrawn — a new moon phase begins with the waxing crescent.  The sun goes thru similar phases of active solar activity and more quiet periods.  The earth wobbles on its axis to form seasonal intervals.  The sun moves thru the sky from the summer solstice to the equinox to the winter solstice and back.  Etc.

Eternal progression does not defy this natural pattern by being linear.  The course is one eternal round – or that of an undulating wave.  The kingdom of God is associated with “on” [yang, creation, left-brain, masculine] and outer darkness is associated with “off” [yin, rest, right-brain, feminine].  The point at which any God [male or female] reaches the crest of the wave – they pierce thru the created universe and begin the state of rest [as was counseled to be so since the beginning].

This state is the Divine Feminine, what people call the Heavenly Mother – this is God considered as a female.  This substance is what yields to the universal sphere of light [the seed].  This substance is what the power of creation [pro-creation] uses to bring something out from nothing.  Once any Goddess [male or female] reaches the trough of the wave – they become awake to their left-brain-mind and spawn a new universal sphere of light [a seed].

Outer darkness is, in every facet, the right-brain-heart of God – it is the Mother or Goddess – the waning or sleep state.

The created universe is, in every facet, the left-brain-mind of God – it is the Father or God – the waxing or active state.

This principle – explained in three tiers:

I.  As a person [rather born male or female], each of us must seek to harmonize the feminine and the masculine aspects inherent in our person.

This is done by subjecting the flesh [feminine] to the spirit [masculine] – and by placing the right-brain and the left-brain into their proper harmonious roles.

II.  As a marriage couple [who are made up of one male and one female], the wife and the husband must seek to harmonize the feminine and masculine aspects inherent in the role each one is to play.

This is done by women acting in the aspects of the feminine and men acting in the aspects of the masculine.  Wives [feminine] must follow their husbands [masculine].

III.  As the church of God [who are made up of the foundational unit of marriage families], we are all – as the bride of Christ – to seek towards harmonizing ourselves as the feminine with our masculine Bridegroom and Father.

This is done by all believers acting in the aspects of the feminine by relating to God only as a masculine aspect [even the Gods that are female in gender, i.e. the Holy Ghost].  The church [feminine] must subject its will to the will of the Father [masculine].

Next Article by Justin:  Zion will not be Established by Unrelated Persons

Previous Article by Justin:  Punishment

The Tribal Church


Rebecca [from the-exponent blog] once asked me:

In your ideal world, I’d assume there is no church outside of the family unit.  Is this the primary appeal of anarchy within the LDS context for you?

It is evidence of the “Catholic-ization” of the LDS church that members refer to the leadership in Salt Lake as “the Church” – as opposed to the group of believers that meet together.  Like the Catholics – I often hear LDS refer to “What the Church has said” about such-and-such or what “Our leaders haven’t taken a position” on such-and-such.  LDS will speak of “the Church” as if it is some entity completely removed and separate from the members.  Where was there ever a body without parts?  The church is the people who make it up.

The church is a tribe; your tribe is the church:

As LDSA outlined in the Wives, follow your husbands! – Patriarchy, androcracy and the egalitarian tribe post:

Because of the gospel’s tribal nature, the organization of the priesthood mimics that of the egalitarian tribe.  Bishops, bishoprics, counselors, common judges, higher judges, lower judges, high councils, presidencies, apostles, seventies, quorums, etc., all have their counterpart in egalitarian tribal organization.

The principle described here is entirely correct.  What most LDS understand as the church structure is actually a tribal structure.  Currently, the Gentile Mormon church uses the structure of wards and stakes with presiding bishops and presidents over congregations and quorums – however this is a mere copy [an incomplete/improper copy] of the tribal structure in which the gospel is designed to be lived — a structure of clans and tribes with presiding husbands and tribal elders.

This is seen as LDS refer to their local congregation as the “ward family”, their fellow-members as “brother” and “sister” so-and-so, etc.  This is also why even official Church™ policy is to acknowledge [in word at least – though not in deed], that the family is the central unit in the gospel of Jesus Christ, with the Church being only an appendage.

Therefore, the priesthood holder in the home is the central priesthood leader – and the church priesthood holders are appendage leaders – in other words they are secondary as compared to a woman’s husband.

Much of what is wrong in the LDS church originates with wives not considering their husbands to be their priesthood/church leader – which itself originates with the Church™.

In the eyes of the Church™, the husband is not a priesthood leader with keys – only a quorum member without keys.  Leaders have keys, and members do not.  Because, in the eyes of the Church™, husbands do not have keys – they could not leaders.  Quorum members report directly to quorum leaders, and as a quorum member, the husband is an agent of his quorum president.

This view is then passed on to the wife, so that when a wife thinks of a priesthood leader, she will think of someone who holds keys, such as a bishop or stake president.  Thus, it becomes that in the eyes of a wife, her husband is subordinate to the priesthood leaders found in the Church™.

This is why we find wives by-passing their husbands and going behind his back to a bishop or stake president [see comment #87 and #102 here].  Any LDS wife who does view her husband as her priesthood leader typically does so insofar as the husband is following the direction of the Church™ leaders.  An easy way to discern this is to have the husband do something different than what the church leaders council him to do [like baptize children or administer the sacrament without a bishop’s approval].  Then the wife’s true loyalties will manifest and she will likely side with the Church™ authority.  Only when there is conflict between a Church™ leader with “keys” and a husband without them can it be seen who a wife really believes her church leader to be.

The Church™ is actually a religion:

What most LDS refer to as “the Church” is, therefore, not actually a church at all [it not being bound by covenant bonds between members].  It is a religion.  When seen from the tribal point-of-view [where church = tribe], the church is an entirely new people-group, nation, or tribe separate from any of the nations or tribes of the earth – the church of Jesus Christ being the tribes of Israel.  A tribe is merely a form a human organization that is based on two features:   kinship and shared belief.  Where these two things exist, there exits a tribe.  Where one or both of these things lack, there is no tribe.

Currently, in the LDS church, we have shared beliefs, but not kinship.  We may call others in our “ward family” by the names “brother” or “sister” so-and-so, and we may tend to all be of the same tribe [that of Ephraim] – but most members will view their blood family [kinship] as distinct from other LDS.

The purpose of the restoration of the gospel in the latter-days was to convert a diverse assortment of people [from every nation, tribe, and people-group] into a new kind of people.  The vision is a tribe, united under the bonds of a new and everlasting covenant, and restored to the ancient Hebrew notion of a holy nation/separate people-group.  No matter what the former culture was, any converts are adopted into a new family – formed on the basis tribal covenant bonds and shared beliefs.  Status in this group is not determined be virtue of what you believe or how many people you could tell what to do – but instead by the covenants a person has assumed and how many people you serve.

Without both kinship bonds and shared beliefs, we are not fully organized as the Lord’s tribes of Israel.  Groups that are bound by only shared belief are referred to as “religions”.  When Adam was praying, after having been removed from the Garden of Eden, there entered the god of this world in answer to his prayer:

So, you want religion, do you?

Religion is what Satan has been offering as a substitute for tribal relationships with our Heavenly Parents, Jesus Christ, and our fellowman since the beginning.  It is religion and the associated creeds that have prevented humans from coming to Jesus and the Father individually – instead forcing people to jump thru hoops, observances, rituals, classes, advancements, programs, etc.  Satan will always give a people religion, and it will be largely based in the left-brain-mind, professing God with the mouth [the left-brain-mind words] but having [right-brain-] hearts is far from Him.

A religion is just a branded belief.  Two people can be of different religions – and still be of the same nationality, work for the same companies, belong to the same social groups, etc.  There is nothing really distinct between the two, other than what they are doing for a few hours on Sunday.

The LDS church has taken direct action to remove any of the original elements of being a separate tribe/people-group, which are an impediment to popular acceptance.  Distinctions are minimized to remove any conflict between LDS and the state they reside in.  Any commitment to public relations will cause any movement, idea, or product to become less distinct – to boil down further and further, trying to find a least common-denominator and mass appeal/acceptance.  This is the story of Correlation™ and it has been handled in detail elsewhere.

Joseph Smith said that he:

cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations [religions], because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth.  I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.

Establishing an institution with orthodoxy and checklists – and then requiring uniformity of belief/thought in order to belong to the orthodox religion is the way of the Christians.  They are bound together not by tribal family bonds but instead by their confessions of faith and their creeds.

If we really want to come up “into the presence of God, and learn all things,” then we’d be wise to seek out and avoid the creeds of religions that “set up stakes” and demand that we “come no further.”

Within such an institution, one will find that if he/she:

wants to have the manifestations of the spirit in the place where I go to church, then I had better go to a church where we share all things in common… When you attend a church which spends $3 billion on building a shopping/commercial center right close to the temple and exactly $[zero] on implementing the law of consecration, I would hazard a guess that the odds are pretty close to 3 billion-to-zero that an abundance of the gifts of the spirit are [not] going to [be] in that church.

So now you may say well there isn’t any church or group that lives with all things in common.  How about forming your tribal organization and getting on with living that way?  That is what I am going to do.

I want to live the full gospel of Jesus Christ. I am going to start by having all things in common in my tribe so I can claim the blessings God has offered to those who obey the law given for that blessing.

Truly, one can not do this within the LDS church.  Such blessings are found only in communal worship that adheres to the word of God, the spirit of expediency, and the law of common consent.  Currently, this can only be achieved within tribal organizations.

Two ways to grow your tribe:

The discussion on plural marriage at Wheat and Tares taught me that most LDS will consider any discussion on organizing multihusband-multiwife tribes as “communes for unbridled secret sex at night.”

However, a tribe is merely a form a human organization based on two features:   kinship and shared belief.  This is the earliest form of human community – predating cities, states, churches, and even recorded history.  Tribal affiliations exist naturally among humans – when states don’t exist to break them up.  God does not look upon an individual as an isolated creation, all alone.  He sees people as they are connected to everyone else.  He sees all the tribal bonds and recognizes the tribal affiliations – even if we ourselves are not even aware of them or allow their functions to remain dormant.

God and the gospel are tribal in nature – always working to connect humans together into His tribe [which is composed of the tribes of Israel].  Our lineage is plainly manifest to Him and so when we begin to act tribally, He recognizes the tribal authority because it has been there all along, among the other conventional things we place upon it [e.g. political affiliations culture, religion].  All that is necessary for us to obtain tribal authority is to exercise it.  If we just need to assert it, God will recognize/validate it because it really is there and has been there all along.  We just haven’t been aware of it or acknowledged it.

The steward of a tribe is free to grow/enlarge his tribe or allow it to stay dormant.  While I intertwine multihusband-multiwife marriage systems together with my tribal understanding of the gospel, there are functions of tribalism that can be activated currently with a one-husband:one-wife tribe. Tribal plural marriage is simply the means whereby a tribe grows or is enlarged horizontally.  In like manner, having children is the means whereby a tribe grows or is enlarged vertically.

Growing horizontally:

Tribes are grown horizontally as new adult members are converted and desire to join.  As tribes must be bound by both kinship and shared belief, once conversion to the gospel takes place [shared belief], he/she must then be married into the tribe [kinship] as a part of the other entrance ordinances, e.g. baptism.

Growing horizontally is a function of tribal missionary work.  This has been discussed in the comments of dyc4557’s CHI #5 post.  Currently, LDS missionary work is comprised of sending never married, non-father elders into the mission field – following the pattern of the celibate, Catholic priesthood.  These celibate elders are sent by an “across the board” calling of all 19 year-old young men – instead of having any elder with the desire to travel, and calling of the Spirit to preach the gospel, approach their bishops to obtain license to do so by church vote.

In the comments on that post, LDSA touches on some principles for initiating the preaching of the gospel from a tribal point-of-view.  Briefly, they include:

  • A married man with children having an advantage over a never-married, non-father young man with regards to relating to families [husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers].
  • Distraction not being an issue when a person goes on a preaching mission only when he has a desire to go and feels called to do so by the Spirit.
  • Leaving the length of a traveling mission open, instead of a fixed two-years, so that the Spirit can have flexibility in keeping a man in the mission field for short or long time periods.
  • Utilizing all married men within a tribe [the priests, bishops, elders, seventy, apostles, high priests, and patriarchs], who are under the same commandment to travel and preach when their circumstances allow, to open up a larger pool from which to fill a mission field.
  • Multihusband-multiwife tribes having less of a burden with traveling missionary work because when husbands leave to preach, wives and children will be taken care of by the tribe or other husbands.
  • Not leaving converts [harvest] in the care of others who, hopefully, will take care of them – instead, either sending these people back to the tribe or, after the mission is complete, returning with them to the tribe, so that tribal integration can be complete.
  • Marrying converts while still in the mission field so that, while there, a tribal missionary will have new tribal members to support him, giving him food, drink, clothing, shelter, and a family love and environment – fulfilling the commandment to travel with purse or scrip.  Also – retaining and building on the connection that a missionary makes with the converts he or she has taught.

Growing a tribe horizontally is essentially founded on multihusband-multiwife plural marriages.  It is this aspect that would likely make converting non-LDS into a tribe easier than converting LDS.  Many LDS come with cultural indoctrination [as both Americans and Mormons] that state-sanctioned monogamy is superior to any other form of marriage.  Polygyny is either valid insofar as it is state-sanctioned and First Presidency™-approved or was valid in the mid/late 19th century but is now just a relic of a less-enlightened time gone by.  Polyandry is completely unheard of or considered and makes a mockery of God’s ordered system of paternity [which is why most LDS will always use “polygamy” when they really mean “polygyny” – polyandry not even being a consideration for them].

Monogamy is not sin.  If one spouse [or both] has emotional needs that necessitate him/her requiring a spouse to commit to not loving any other people, then [if the other spouse is willing to submit to that] they may take vows of exclusivity upon themselves. These vows are ordained of God, as long as both persons consent, and are in accordance with the new and everlasting covenant revealed in D&C 132.  As I stated previously, there are functions of tribalism that can be activated currently with a one-husband:one-wife tribe – however such a tribe will be limited horizontally.

Polygyny is not sin given that a woman gives her consent to the husband to take additional wives [releasing him from any vows of exclusivity he may have been under] – he is justified in taking on additional wives, for it is marriage with consent and thus a marriage ordained of God.

Polyandry is not sin.  In the new and everlasting covenant, there are two ways in which a woman get take an additional husband:

Outside of the new and everlasting covenant, a woman [in the same manner as stated in the polygyny section] may obtain a second marriage thru the consent of her current husband or husbands.  This [like polygyny] is ordained of God insofar as all parties involved give consent.

Not giving consent to marry is the sin. When a man wishes to take an additional wife and his current wife or wives do not give their consent [which are the keys of this power], then they become sinners because they are forbidding him from marrying, making them not ordained of God.  Likewise, were a woman to desire an additional husband and her current husband or husbands do not give consent, then the husbands become sinners by virtue of forbidding her to marry.

This is the law of Sarah [in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage] and it is applicable to both men and women. “Wrongness” consists in forbidding marriage, which makes the person doing the forbidding not ordained of God – whether the forbidder is the state, the Church™, parents, or a spouse.

Growing vertically:

Tribes can also grow vertically.  This is done as married couples come together via sexual intercourse and provide physical life to children.  The two methods [horizontal and vertical] are related.  Just as parents are capable of loving more than one child with all of their heart – spouses are capable of loving more than one spouse with all of their heart.  Just as parents are commanded to have as many children as possible, not forbidding any spirits from entering their family – spouses ought to seek as many additionally spouses as possible, never forbidding one another from loving other people.

The Lord has commanded parents to be fruitful and multiply:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

The secret combinations of central planners all establish two children per woman as their goal.  They have achieved this goal in the countries referred to as “developed”, and they are approaching success on a global scale.  The reason being that two children [replacement reproduction] breaks the commandment to multiply and “fill” the earth with humans – only replacing the two parents with two children.  The scriptural minimum for the number of children per family would therefore be three, with there being no associated maximum.

They have used various tools to achieve their satanic goal.  One need only search [population control eugenics] in a search engine to find plenty of resources on the subject.  To be brief, they would include:  barrier and hormonal methods of birth control, drugged hospital birthing experiences, circumcision, bottle-feeding, abortion, vasectomies and elective hysterectomies, focusing on “equal” employment for women, reducing sperm counts thru administered chemicals and diet, and sterilants in food/vaccines/water/etc.

A tribe based on the gospel of Jesus Christ will never restrict themselves to a set number of children – utilizing hormonal, barrier, or surgical forms of birth control thereafter.  They will not plan their number of children around their desired lifestyle, but will plan a lifestyle around the number of children they have.  They shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord.  They will teach their children to read and write, having a language which is pure and undefiled.  They will teach their children diligently and freely to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands – before the age of eight [lest the sin be upon their heads and it be the cause of their affliction].  Then shall their children be baptized for the remission of sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.  They will engage in continual tribal rituals to strengthen the common morphic field that exists among disciples of Jesus Christ.

Next Article by Justin: The Will of God and Faith

Previous Article by Justin:  Tribal Rituals

The nature of authority: the Lord’s stewardship law


The word steward comes from stigweard, lit., a sty ward. Stigu means sty and weard means warden, guardian. A sty is a pen for swine and a ward is one who guards. A steward, then, is someone who guards or protects or is responsible for something that belongs to another or for someone that serves or pertains to another.

Originally, a steward in England, under feudal law, was “a household officer on a lord’s estate having charge of the cattle; later, a head manager in the administration of a manor or estate, presiding at the manorial courts, auditing accounts, conducting inquests and extents, and controlling the husbandry arrangements.” In general, a steward is “a man employed in a large family, or on a large estate, to manage the domestic concerns, supervise servants, collect rents or income, keep accounts, etc.”

Stewards are not owners

Stewards do not own the concerns which they manage nor are the servants which they supervise their own servants, but the servants of the steward’s lord. Thus, we find the Lord saying:

And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards; otherwise ye are no stewards. (D&C 104: 56.)

Stewards and stewardships are for probation

Obviously, the Lord owns everything, so He tests His children by granting them a temporary stewardship and then seeing how they act in it.

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

Rendering an account of one’s stewardship

At some point, every steward must give an account of his or her stewardship, both here on Earth and later at the day of judgment.

And verily in this thing ye have done wisely, for it is required of the Lord, at the hand of every steward, to render an account of his stewardship, both in time and in eternity. (D&C 73: 3.)

And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment. (D&C 70: 4.)

Good and bad stewards and their rewards

Depending upon what kind of steward we are here on Earth, so shall be our eternal reward. Those who are faithful, just and wise stewards get the top reward.

And whoso is found a faithful, a just, and a wise steward shall enter into the joy of his Lord, and shall inherit eternal life. (D&C 51: 19.)

And he that is a faithful and wise steward shall inherit all things. Amen. (D&C 78: 22.)

While those who are wicked, unjust and unwise stewards don’t get so much.

And in his hot displeasure, and in his fierce anger, in his time, [the Lord] will cut off those wicked, unfaithful, and unjust stewards, and appoint them their portion among hypocrites, and unbelievers; even in outer darkness, where there is weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth. (D&C 101: 90-91.)

Stewards possess authority

A stewardship (the office of a steward) comes with authority, or, in other words, a steward is given both authority and responsibility in order to manage the concerns of the stewardship. If you don’t have a stewardship, you don’t have authority. The authority of a steward is a set of keys, just as the original stigweard held the keys that opened the swine pens. These keys allow the steward to protect, guard, maintain and take care of the concerns in his or her care. Without such authority, a steward can do nothing.

In the case of a stewardship that supervises people, the authority of the steward is only valid as long as the people being cared for sustain him or her as their steward. In other words, there is a second set of keys held by the people who have claim on the steward as their steward and it is this second set of keys that allows the steward to operate in his or her office. Without the consent of these people, the steward cannot do anything in righteousness.

Parental stewardship

D&C 83 gives the order of parental stewardship as follows:

Verily, thus saith the Lord, in addition to the laws of the church concerning women and children, those who belong to the church, who have lost their husbands or fathers: Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance, until their husbands are taken; and if they are not found transgressors they shall have fellowship in the church. And if they are not faithful they shall not have fellowship in the church; yet they may remain upon their inheritances according to the laws of the land. All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age. And after that, they have claim upon the church, or in other words upon the Lord’s storehouse, if their parents have not wherewith to give them inheritances. And the storehouse shall be kept by the consecrations of the church; and widows and orphans shall be provided for, as also the poor. Amen.

Whoever has claim upon another for his or her spiritual or temporal maintenance is the concerns of the stewardship and whoever is responsible for the maintenance is the steward. Therefore, according to this revelation, parents are the stewards of their children and husbands are the stewards of their wives.

This arrangement does not go both ways. Children are not the stewards of the parents because they are not responsible for providing spiritual or temporal maintenance for their parents. Nor is the wife the steward of the husband because she is not responsible for maintaining her husband in his spiritual or temporal needs. If stewardship could go both ways, husbands could have claim upon their wives and parents upon their children. Although there may be many husbands who might love to relinquish their family stewardship to their wives and allow her to support him and their children, under gospel law it doesn’t work like that.

Children are also given stewardships

When children are old enough to obtain some responsibility, they may receive a stewardship from their parents. Perhaps they must take care of their room, keeping it clean and tidy, or their clothes, making sure they are folded and put away, or some household chores, such as sweeping, mopping, vacuuming, doing dishes, or, perhaps they are given a temporary stewardship over their younger siblings, looking over them and watching out for them while their parents are engaged in some other aspect of their own stewardship.

Stewardships in the church

Every church calling is a stewardship with responsibility and authority, and may be of a temporal and/or spiritual nature. The steward uses that authority to manage the concerns of his or her stewardship, which may include supervising, teaching, and/or leading people. So, for example, a bishop is the steward of the ward and the entire ward is the concerns of his stewardship. An elder’s quorum president is the steward of the elders quorum, which are the concerns of his stewardship. A Relief Society president is a steward and the society members are the concerns of her stewardship. A visiting or home teacher is a steward and the families or sisters being visited are the concerns. Etc.

Stewards and concerns likewise judged

Just as every steward must render an account of his or her stewardship to the Judge of us all, so the concerns of a stewardship will have to render an account of how they acted toward the steward. The steward is the Lord’s representative, empowered to take care of the concerns of the stewardship. Any interference with a steward’s divinely appointed duties is treated by the Lord as if it was done to the Lord of the steward Himself.

As long as a steward is acting righteously, meaning that he or she is acting in the stewardship in the following way—

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of [a stewardship], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—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; that he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.  (D&C 121: 41-44, re-worded a little.)

—those who have claim on the steward are bound by the Lord to use their second set of keys to authorize the steward’s own set of keys (his or her authority). If the steward is not authorized by the people concerned with his or her stewardship, yet is acting in righteousness, these people stand condemned by the Lord.

The principle is this: respect all stewards and stewardships insofar as they act righteously.

It is wickedness

Thus, it is wickedness to do away with a steward and stewardship granted by the Lord because this is how He tests His children. For example, some in the world would do away with the stewardship of the parents by granting the State stewardship over the children. This is wickedness. Others would do away with the stewardship of the husband, claiming that this diminishes the role of the wife. This is also wickedness.

Another form of wickedness is the interference in the operations of a steward’s duties. For example, no one is to perform the duties of the steward, other than the steward himself. If you do this, you interfere with the test, for the Lord appoints stewards and then steps back to see what he (or she) will do. Even if you think you can do a much better job than the steward, you are to step back, like the Lord, and let the man or woman perform, or attempt to perform, the duty. Another way to interfere is to withhold your authorization from the steward, so that he cannot perform the duties of his office and calling because you (the concerns of his stewardship) do not authorize him.

Finally, those who are not a part of the concerns of a stewardship, when dealing with a steward, should respect his or her calling, and recognize both the authority and responsibility that the steward has in managing his or her concerns. It is disrespectful and offensive both to the steward and to the One who appointed the steward to not recognize the stewardship, authority and responsibility that was given to the individual by the Lord.

Stewardships and equality

Stewardships are, by design, not equal. The Lord places one steward to preserve, maintain and increase a small amount of property, while another steward is placed over ten times as much. A pair of parental stewards may care for three children while a different pair may watch over ten. It is the inequality of the stewardships that adds to the test, to see what the children of God will do, both the stewards and those they look after.

Nevertheless, the gospel provides means whereby the unequal stewardships may become equalized. This is done through covenants.

Therefore, verily I say unto you, that it is expedient for my servants Edward Partridge and Newel K. Whitney, A. Sidney Gilbert and Sidney Rigdon, and my servant Joseph Smith, and John Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, and W. W. Phelps and Martin Harris to be bound together by a bond and covenant that cannot be broken by transgression, except judgment shall immediately follow, in your several stewardships—to manage the affairs of the poor, and all things pertaining to the bishopric both in the land of Zion and in the land of Kirtland; for I have consecrated the land of Kirtland in mine own due time for the benefit of the saints of the Most High, and for a stake to Zion.

For Zion must increase in beauty, and in holiness; her borders must be enlarged; her stakes must be strengthened; yea, verily I say unto you, Zion must arise and put on her beautiful garments.

Therefore, I give unto you this commandment, that ye bind yourselves by this covenant, and it shall be done according to the laws of the Lord.

Behold, here is wisdom also in me for your good.

And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just—and all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church—every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God. (D&C 82: 11-19.)

So here we have the Lord telling these nine stewards to bind themselves to each other by bond and covenant in their several stewardships, so that they become equal in both earthly and heavenly things.

For verily I say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand; and behold, and lo, it must needs be that there be an organization of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse for the poor of my people, both in this place and in the land of Zion—for a permanent and everlasting establishment and order unto my church, to advance the cause, which ye have espoused, to the salvation of man, and to the glory of your Father who is in heaven; that you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.

For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; for if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you. (D&C 78: 3-7.)

The equality spoken of in these verses is all-important, yet unobtainable except by voluntarily entering into covenants, including marriage covenants, with other stewards. The Lord then creates a perfect test by first giving out unequal stewardships and then explaining how to equalize everything, with attendant blessings should His children decide to use their agency to that end.

He who is appointed to administer spiritual things, the same is worthy of his hire, even as those who are appointed to a stewardship to administer in temporal things; yea, even more abundantly, which abundance is multiplied unto them through the manifestations of the Spirit. Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld. (D&C 70: 12-14.)

Stewardships are meant to be increased

Every steward is to maintain, preserve, care for, protect, guard and increase his or her stewardship. Thus, missionary work is based on the law of stewardships. And when we hear the phrase, “multiply and replenish the earth,” that is also the law of stewardships at work. And so, parents, if able, are expected to bring more children to Earth.

Keep this law in mind

It may be beneficial to keep the law of stewardships in mind when dealing with stewards, whether they are found in one’s family, in the church, or in the world at large. A proper understanding of this law may make it easier to accept the steward’s authority, and a corresponding proper action towards that steward may make it easier to live other parts of the gospel and to stay in the Lord’s favor.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

An alternate view of the keys


Note: This article is 22,421 words long. As a result, I highly doubt anyone will read it in its entirety, therefore I am hyper-linking all the section headings so that you can quickly jump to any section you may be interested in.

Section Headings

THE KEYS OF THE PRIESTHOOD

The current viewThe divine right of prophets and presidenciesThe divine right of kings (and of popes)The mandate of heavenAll of the above divine right theories are falseMore on the current view of the keysPriesthood is not authority; it is a languageDefining the keys requires the Doctrine and CovenantsThe meaning of the conjunction “or” in the scripturesKeys = authorityMore scriptures that use “or” as an alternative definition of the same thingPriesthood and authority linked togetherEveryone who holds the priesthood possesses keysBy the authority (keys) of the priesthoodActive vs. inactive (suspended) keysHow priesthood keys are to be usedPriesthood keys are a testWhen suspended keys should not be activatedSuspended keys are good for nothingImpeding the work of the LordGraph of current view of priesthood keysGraph of alternate view of priesthood keysA priesthood machineThe priesthood in motionPriesthood is useless without activated keysAn example of activated quorum keys

THE KEYS OF THE CHURCH

A second set of keysThe keys of the churchThe law of common consentAll things to be done by common consentLord upholds servants only if there is common consentThe consent of the governedUnrighteous dominionTwo sets of keysBoth sets are neededThe keys of the church validate the keys of the priesthoodThe divine purpose of the church keysThe keys of the church are absoluteGod uses keys to prove His peopleIsrael to be led by the keysOrdinations voted by churchLicenses voted by churchLicenses can be revokedExcommunications (and priesthood invalidations) by vote of churchWho decides?The proper way to use the keys of the churchThe sisters and the keys of the churchHow ecclesiastical abusers deal with the sisters

SPEKTATOR’S QUESTIONS

Spektator’s questions answeredAnswer to question #1Answer to question #2Background on Alma the elderAlma the elder, priest of NoahIniquity with consentEnter AbinadiAlma’s priesthood authorityAnswer to question #3The break up of the church and the loss of the keysAn earthquake will break up the churchBoth sets of keys will be lostAmmonihah reduxHow the broken up churches will make moneyProphecy of no more Gentile stakes will be fulfilledName changesThe blood of the saints will be spilledThe fulfillment of 3 Ne. 16: 10-15A repeat of the ZoramitesHow the Zoramites treated the poorBroken up Mormon churches will lack charityIsaiah’s prophecy of the broken up Mormon churchesEarthquake imageryThe reason for the earthquakeConclusionEndnotes

THE KEYS OF THE PRIESTHOOD

The current view

Chapter 14 of Gospel Principles, which is this year’s Melchizedek Priesthood manual, gives the modern, LDS teaching on the keys:

Keys of the Priesthood

There is a difference between being ordained to an office in the priesthood and receiving keys of the priesthood. President Joseph F. Smith taught:

“The Priesthood in general is the authority given to man to act for God. Every man ordained to any degree of the Priesthood has this authority delegated to him.

“But it is necessary that every act performed under this authority shall be done at the proper time and place, in the proper way, and after the proper order. The power of directing these labors constitutes the keys of the Priesthood. In their fulness, the keys are held by only one person at a time, the prophet and president of the Church. He may delegate any portion of this power to another, in which case that person holds the keys of that particular labor. Thus, the president of a temple, the president of a stake, the bishop of a ward, the president of a mission, the president of a quorum, each holds the keys of the labors performed in that particular body or locality. His Priesthood is not increased by this special appointment; … the president of an elders’ quorum, for example, has no more Priesthood than any member of that quorum. But he holds the power of directing the official labors performed in the … quorum, or in other words, the keys of that division of that work” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 141; italics in original).

To this we can also add the concept of suspension of keys.

Full provision has been made by our Lord for changes. Today there are fourteen apostles holding the keys in suspension, the twelve and the two counselors to the President, to be brought into use if and when circumstances allow, all ordained to leadership in their turn as they move forward in seniority. (Spencer W. Kimball, “‘We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet’,” Ensign, Jan 1973, page 33. Address delivered Friday morning, October 6, 1972.)

Here is an itemized summary of the mainstream, LDS understanding of keys:

  • Priesthood = Authority “Priesthood…is the authority given to man to act for God.” Anyone who has been ordained to the priesthood has this authority.
  • Keys = Power Keys constitute “the power of directing…labors.”
  • Only Prophet Holds All Keys (in Activated State) The fulness of (or all) the “keys are held by only one person at a time, the prophet and president of the Church.”
  • 14 Apostles Hold All Keys (in Suspension) “There are fourteen apostles holding the keys in suspension, the twelve and the two counselors to the President.”
  • Prophet May Delegate Some (Active or Unsuspended) Keys To Others “He (the prophet) may delegate any portion of this power, in which case that person holds the keys of that particular labor.”
  • Presidencies Receive Delegated (Active or Unsuspended) Keys All the presidencies of the church receive delegated keys, “the president of a temple, the president of a stake, the bishop of a ward, the president of a mission, the president of a quorum”, etc., each receives delegated, active keys.
  • Keys Do Not Increase Priesthood The “Priesthood is not increased by this special appointment; … the president of an elders’ quorum, for example, has no more Priesthood than any member of that quorum.”

To reiterate: according to this view, priesthood is authority, keys are the power to direct the official labors of the church and possessing keys (powers to direct official labors) does not increase priesthood (authority). For example, the prophet, who possesses every key in full activation, has no more authority (priesthood) than that of an elder who possesses none of the keys. Although authority is equal among all priesthood holders, power is not. Power, in the form of keys, is concentrated and centered at the top (the prophet) and is then disbursed to the various presidencies down below as he sees fit. The quorum member never receives any keys, whatsoever, unless he is called to a position that requires keys, such as a presidency. The only exception to this rule is the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, each member of which receives every key in suspension.

The divine right of prophets and presidencies

The mainstream view of the keys of the priesthood is a top-down perspective that resembles, and appears to be based upon, the doctrine known as the divine right of kings, which in turn was based upon the Roman Catholic doctrines known as papal primacy and papal supremacy. The latter two doctrines might rightly be termed the divine right of popes.

The British crown represented the establishment church system — the Church of England. Moreover, the king, by royal edict, was “lord sovereign head” of the Church. Even many years subsequent to the official separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome, Anglicanism remained thoroughly steeped in the tyrannical and despotic traditions of popery. In Rome, the pope was sovereign head of the Church; but in England, it was the monarchy. The “divine right of popes” was exchanged for the “divine right of kings.” (Peter Kershaw, Reemergence of the Divine Right of Kings, 1997, Hushmoney.org.)

Due to the similarities between it and the divine right doctrines, I will call the modern, LDS view of the keys the divine right of prophets and presidencies.

The divine right of kings (and of popes)

The divine right of prophets and presidencies can only be understood in light of the divine right of kings, so let’s briefly review some divine right of kings basics:

1. In every kingdom, the king’s power comes directly from God, to whom the ruler is accountable; power does not come to the king from the people and he is not accountable to them.

(The divine right of prophets and presidencies would be: “In the kingdom of God on earth, the prophet’s power (keys) comes directly from God, to whom the prophet is accountable; power (keys) does not come to the prophet from the people (church members) and he is not accountable to them.”)

2. In every kingdom, the king makes the final decisions on all aspects of government (including the church). Other people and institutions that exercise political power do so as delegates of the king, and are subordinate to him.

(The divine right of prophets and presidencies would be: “In the kingdom of God on earth, the prophet and presidencies make the final decision on all aspects of church government. Other people and institutions that exercise ecclesiastical power (the presidencies) do so as delegates of the prophet, and are subordinate to him.”)

From the above we can see the parallels between the divine right of kings (and of popes) and the divine right of prophets and presidencies. The divine right of kings, popes, prophets and presidencies are all, essentially, the same doctrine applied to different institutions. These theories can be expressed in the following way:

The Divine Right of Kings is “the belief that the legitimacy of nothing the king does can be questioned.”

The Divine Right of Popes is “the belief that the legitimacy of nothing the pope does can be questioned.”

The Divine Right of Prophets and Presidencies is “the belief that the legitimacy of nothing the prophet and presidencies do can be questioned.”

(If you wish to learn more about the history and doctrine of the divine right of kings, you can try Wikipedia, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or just do an Ixquick search. You may also wish to look up papal primacy and papal supremacy.)

The mandate of heaven

The Mandate of Heaven is a traditional Chinese philosophical concept concerning the legitimacy of rulers. It is similar to the divine right of kings in Western philosophy in that both sought to legitimize rule from divine approval; however, unlike the divine right of kings, the Mandate of Heaven is predicated on the conduct of the ruler in question. The Mandate of Heaven postulates that Tian (heaven) would bless the authority of a just ruler, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best. (Wikipedia entry for Mandate of Heaven.)

Modern LDS believe that if a prophet of God were to try to do something contrary to the will of God, He would kill the prophet. This stems from Wilford Woodruff’s statement, which is pretty much taken as scripture by all LDS:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

The God-will-strike-him-dead theory of how He deals with misleading prophets may also have derived from the following scripture:

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: 8 )

Of course, this theory flies in the face of the actual scripture that shows how a sinning prophet is supposed to be dealt with:

And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; and their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness. (D&C 107: 82-84)

Similar to the mandate of heaven, the divine right of prophets and presidencies leaves open the possibility of prophets sinning. But then it merges into the divine right of kings, leaving the actual removal of the prophet in the hands of God (instead of in the hands of the people, as called for in D&C 107: 82-84.)

All of the above divine right theories are false

There is no such thing as a divine right of kings, nor are there such things as papal supremacy and papal primacy, nor such a thing as a divine right of prophets and presidencies. These are all foolish and vain imaginations. And I will show it in this article. Nevertheless, although I am going to confine myself to exposing only the fallacy of the divine right of prophets and presidencies, these principles can be equally applied to kings and popes, too.

The strategy I will take in destroying the divine right theories is to expound upon the doctrine of the keys, for in my recent research into priesthood, it was the doctrine that showed the falsehood of those theories.

More on the current view of the keys

Before expounding on the keys, I must again list the itemized summary of the mainstream view because I need to make some refutations:

Priesthood = Authority “Priesthood…is the authority given to man to act for God.” FALSE. Priesthood, as explained in another article of mine, is a divine language. It is accompanied by authority, but is not authority, per se.

Keys = Power Keys constitute “the power of directing…labors.” FALSE. Keys are the authority of the Priesthood, not the power of the priesthood.

Only Prophet Holds All Keys (in Activated State) The fulness of (or all) the “keys are held by only one person at a time, the prophet and president of the Church.” TRUE.

14 Apostles Hold All Keys (in Suspension) “There are fourteen apostles holding the keys in suspension, the twelve and the two counselors to the President.” TRUE.

Prophet May Delegate Some (Active or Unsuspended) Keys To Others “He (the prophet) may delegate any portion of this power, in which case that person holds the keys of that particular labor.” SORT OF TRUE. What really occurs when keys are delegated is that the keys that the receiver previously held in suspension are now activated. In other words, they now have the right to use their keys. ALSO SORT OF FALSE. Saying “any portion of this power” is misleading, because keys are authority, not power.

Presidencies Receive Delegated (Active or Unsuspended) Keys All the presidencies of the church receive delegated keys, “the president of a temple, the president of a stake, the bishop of a ward, the president of a mission, the president of a quorum”, etc., each receives delegated, active keys. SORT OF TRUE. What really occurs when keys are delegated is that the keys that the receiver previously held in suspension are now activated. In other words, they now have the right to use their keys.

Keys Do Not Increase Priesthood The “Priesthood is not increased by this special appointment; … the president of an elders’ quorum, for example, has no more Priesthood than any member of that quorum.” TRUE. Every priesthood holder holds all the priesthood keys; it’s just that some keys are active while others are suspended. The prophet is an exception, for all his keys are active.

Priesthood is not authority, it is a language

Please see the previous article of this series for an in depth exposition of this principle. The relationship of authority to priesthood is that priesthood is accompanied by authority, or is inseparably connected with it. In one particular verse of scripture, because of this tight connection, priesthood and authority are even spoken of as being the same thing, but in every other verse of scripture, the two concepts are kept distinct. (Later on in this post I will address that one verse of scripture that links priesthood and authority together.)

Defining the keys requires the Doctrine and Covenants

The concept of priesthood keys is derived from but one verse in the Bible. Said the Savior to Peter:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 16: 19.)

Both the Catholic and Mormon churches agree that the above scripture is speaking of the keys of the priesthood, but that doesn’t say much about what constitutes keys, except that they are used to bind and loose, or, in the vernacular of a key, lock and unlock. Fortunately, Joseph Smith received many revelations which expounded on the doctrine of keys. So, it is to the Doctrine and Covenants that we must look.

The meaning of the conjunction “or” in the scriptures

Many of the scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants that mention the word “keys” also utilize the conjunction “or,” therefore, it is necessary to know the possible shades of meaning that “or” may have. Here is the entry on “or” taken from the American dictionary in use during the time of Joseph Smith:

or

OR, a termination of Latin nouns, is a contraction of vir, a man, or from the same radix. The same word vir, is in our mother tongue, wer, and from this we have the English termination er.

It denotes an agent, as in actor, creditor. We annex it to many words of English origin, as in lessor, as we do er to words of Latin and Greek origin, as in astronomer, laborer. In general, or is annexed to words of Latin, and er to those of English origin.

OR, conj. [It seems that or is a mere contraction of other.]

A connective that marks an alternative. “You may read or may write;” that is, you may do one of the things at your pleasure, but not both. It corresponds to either. You may either ride to London, or to Windsor. It often connects a series of words or propositions, presenting a choice of either. He may study law or medicine or divinity, or he may enter into trade.

Or sometimes begins a sentence, but in this case it expresses an alternative with the foregoing sentence. Matt. 7 and 9.

In poetry, or is sometimes used for either.

For thy vast bounties are so numberless, that them or to conceal or else to tell is equally impossible.

Or is often used to express an alternative of terms, definitions or explanations of the same thing in different words. Thus we say, a thing is a square, or a figure under four equal sides and angles.

Or ever. In this phrase, or is supposed to be a corruption of ere.

OR, in heraldry, gold. [L. aurum.]

(Taken from the entry of “or” found in the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language.)

The “or” word that concerns us is the conjunction “or,” which has five shades of meaning. But of those five, only the two shades marked in red text above can apply to the scriptures we are studying in this article.

Keys = authority

Okay, so let’s write out some scriptures.

D&C 107: 15 as it stands in our books

The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same. (D&C 107: 15)

The same scripture using or as a connective that marks an alternative, corresponding to either

The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and [either] holds the keys or [the] authority of the same.

INCORRECT SENSE. The above cannot be the meaning of the word or because we know that the bishopric both holds keys and authority, not one or the other.

The same scripture using or as an alternative definition of the same thing

The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the keys[,] or authority[,] of the same.

CORRECT SENSE. This is the only possible meaning of the word or in this sentence, therefore, KEYS = AUTHORITY in this scripture.

D&C 68: 17 as it stands in our books

For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same. (D&C 68: 17)

The same scripture using or as a connective that marks an alternative, corresponding to either

For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and [either] the keys or [the] authority of the same.

INCORRECT SENSE. The above cannot be the meaning of the word or because we know that the firstborn both holds keys and authority, not one or the other.

The same scripture using or as an alternative definition of the same thing

For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys[,] or authority[,] of the same.

CORRECT SENSE. This is the only possible meaning of the word or in this sentence, therefore, KEYS = AUTHORITY in this scripture.

More scriptures that use “or” as an alternative definition of the same thing

The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church— (D&C 107: 18)

The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments. (D&C 107: 20)

In the above scriptures, “higher” means “Melchizedek Priesthood” and “lesser” means “Aaronic Priesthood.” The word “or” is used, in these sentences, “to express an alternative of terms, definitions or explanations of the same thing in different words.”

Priesthood and authority linked together

Here is the one verse of scripture that links priesthood and authority together, using the word “or.”

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121: 37)

The last phrase, “Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” could mean, depending on how the word “or” is interpreted, “Amen to [either] the priesthood or [to] the authority of that man.” This could be a valid interpretation because priesthood could be referring to the rank and file priesthood holder who is not in a position of leadership and has no active keys (authority), whereas authority would be referring to priesthood leadership that holds active keys (authority).

On the other hand, “Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” might also be interpreted as “Amen to the priesthood[,] or the authority[,] of that man.” This interpretation equates priesthood with authority (priesthood = authority, meaning priesthood = keys.) It might be a valid interpretation because without keys, priesthood cannot be used for anything. That is not to say that priesthood literally is authority (or keys, as defined in D&C 107: 15 and 68: 17), but that they go hand in hand, just as “the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven.”

It appears that the Priesthood = Authority camp are basing their interpretation on D&C 121: 37, using the conjunction “or” to “express an alternative of terms, definitions or explanations of the same thing in different words.” Such a literal approach, though, comes into conflict with the scriptures that define keys as authority, because, if Priesthood = Authority = Keys, then that means that everyone who holds the priesthood possesses keys, which is not what our priesthood leaders are teaching. (They teach that only the leaders hold keys.)

Each person will have to come to his or her own conclusion as to the meaning of the word “or” in that verse.

Everyone who holds the priesthood possesses keys

When any man has either of the two priesthoods conferred upon him, he holds all the keys of that priesthood.

The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—to have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments. (D&C 107: 18-20)

This is the reason why keys do not increase priesthood. Priesthood already comes with every key. However, not all keys are active. Many of them are held in suspension, while others are active.

By the authority (keys) of the priesthood

All priesthood ordinances are performed by keys (authority). Whenever an ordinance is performed in which the authority is stated, it usually goes something like this:

“[Person called by name], in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the [Melchizedek/Aaronic] priesthood which we [hold/possess], we lay our hands on your head and ordain/bless [etc.]…”

Because keys = authority, it would be just as valid to state the following:

“[Person called by name], in the name of Jesus Christ and by the keys of the [Melchizedek/Aaronic] priesthood which we [hold/possess], we lay our hands on your head and ordain/bless [etc.]…”

Active vs. inactive (suspended) keys

What sets priesthood holders apart is the number, and type of, active keys they hold. Some keys are always active, regardless of what priesthood office is held, while other keys are active only while specific offices are held or when they are taken out of suspension (activated) by some else’s active keys.

Keys that are always active require no one’s permission to use them. Melchizedek priesthood blessings of comfort or of health fall into that category of keys.

Keys in suspension can be taken out of suspension in two ways. The first way is when a man is ordained to an office and calling that requires certain keys to be activated. During this ordination, he will be “given the keys” that pertain to that office. This doesn’t mean that he gets something more, it merely means that he now has the right to use some of the suspended keys he already possessed while he is in that office and calling. This “delegation of keys” is really just an activation of certain keys that he possessed in suspension. Nothing more.

The now-activated keys can be used by the newly called and ordained priesthood officer to perform the duties of his calling, as well as to temporarily activate the suspended keys of priesthood holders within his jurisdiction.

Temporary activation of keys by a jurisdiction officer is the second way that keys can be taken out of suspension. For example, the active keys for ordinances of church record (baptism, confirmation, etc.) are held by specific priesthood offices (bishops, stake presidencies, etc.) These men can perform the ordinances themselves using their active keys or they can give permission to other priesthood holders to perform them. No further ordination is needed, no further conferrals of priesthood or of keys. A simple, “okay” from the one holding the active keys of that office suffices. The man performing the ordinance is then authorized because his own set of suspended keys that pertained to those ordinances are temporarily activated by the active keys of the jurisdictional priesthood officer.

Thus, it is incorrect to say that one man holds keys, while another doesn’t. Just as it is said that the twelve apostles hold all the keys in suspension, while the prophet has active keys, so the same applies to all men who have the rights to the priesthood. All men, then, are on an equal playing field, having been given everything in the first ordination.

How priesthood keys are to be used

AND when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. (Matt. 10: 1)

The phrase used above, “he gave them power against unclean spirits” can also be translated as, “he gave them authority over unclean spirits.” As the authority of the priesthood are the keys, we could also say, “he gave them keys over unclean spirits.” With that in mind, let’s re-read that verse and look at the 7 verses that follow it.

AND when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them keys over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thadaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (Matt. 10: 1-8)

“Freely ye have received; freely give” (Matt. 10:8.) The apostles had received keys to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out devils. Jesus gave them these keys without them having to pay Him and then commanded them to use the keys. They were to likewise give these keys to others without receiving payment.

This principle of generosity, of sharing or giving the keys to other men, is according to the principle of charity. This is why the scripture says that men, to whom the rights of the priesthood have been conferred, are to “let [their] bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith” (D&C 121: 45.) They are to use their active keys to activate the keys of other priesthood holders.

Priesthood keys are a test

Why is only one man’s keys active (or three men in a presidency) while the rest of the quorum’s keys are in suspension?

The reason why the Lord “gives keys” to presidencies, meaning that these presidencies can actively use the keys themselves and also use them to activate others’ keys, is so that the presidents may learn charity and become ministers and servants of all. It is to provide an opportunity for the leaders to live the principle: freely you have received, freely give.

It is also to test the presiding officials, to see if they will be stingy and keep their keys alone active, or if they will activate everyone’s keys, or if they will activate only the keys of their friends and associates, their favorites. The Lord wants to see if His presiding officers will play favoritism and nepotism.

The genius of the priesthood lies in the unequal disbursement of active and suspended keys. The “giving of keys” is not designed to be a mechanism of control, but it can be used as one, thereby providing an adequate test to all presidencies. The Lord gives active keys to the presidencies and inactive keys to the rank and file in the priesthood quorums, and then sits back and sees what His leadership sons do. Do they use the active keys to abuse and control or to minister and serve? Are they stingy with the active keys or do they use them to activate all the others?

When suspended keys should not be activated

There is really only one condition in which suspended keys should not be allowed to become active: formal disciplinary action. If a man has not had formal disciplinary action he is innocent (for all are innocent until proven guilty by two or three witnesses—the law of witnesses) and should be allowed to have his keys activated.

Every member of the church, having been baptized and confirmed has received a remission of his or her sins and is therefore presumed to be justified. Likewise, a man or boy who obtains either priesthood has already been interviewed and found worthy (righteous or justified). If a man is accused of sinning after those ordinances, it must be proved by the testimony of two or three witnesses that 1) the sin occurred and 2) that the man is unrepentant. If all those conditions are met, a judgment occurs. However, if not all of the conditions are met (for example, there may be only one witness or there may be no witnesses, or only hearsay, or the man confesses and repents, etc.) then he is presumed to be innocent. Because of the presumption of innocence (the guiltless or justified state) there is no reason to withhold key activation of all priests who have no judgments against them.

However, in the modern church, the law of witnesses is not always followed and men are not always presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Often, the presumption is guilty by association, by the appearance of evil, by bucking Mormon cultural norms, etc., without any evidence of actual sins being committed. In such cases, keys activation is often withheld.

Suspended keys are good for nothing

It is through use of the priesthood that men become more Christlike. When men are baptizing, confirming and performing other ordinances, the Spirit can work through them to sanctify them. Prohibiting a man who has no judgment against him from using his priesthood is priestcraft.

(Priestcraft happens when a priesthood leader sets himself up “for a light unto the world,” becoming a false Christ or false Savior. Leaders engaging in priestcraft force priesthood holders within their jurisdiction to accept and obey their leadership counsel as if it were spoken by Jesus Himself, before permitting them to use their priesthood keys.)

Impeding the work of the Lord

Those who hold active keys can use them to impede the work of the Lord by making it more difficult for men to come to the Lord. They can do this by giving additional (extra-scriptural) requirements to the commandments of God, such as the Pharisees did. Some additional requirements could be, for example:

  • Baptisms only on one day of the week, or one day of the month (for example, scheduling all pending baptisms for the stake baptism day.)
  • Specific dress required for ordinances.
  • Specific beliefs required before ordinances can be performed (creeds).
  • Specific words required for ordinances (formalism).
  • Submission tests and power plays (deal-making: “you do this to demonstrate your loyalty and I’ll let you perform the ordinance.”)

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with baptizing on any of the seven days of the week, or at any hour of the day (even in the middle of the night!), but by using the active baptismal keys to narrow down the window of time in which baptisms may be performed, the one who holds the active keys to that ordinance creates an artificial hoop that one must jump through. If one wishes to be baptized on a different day or time and the active key holder will not permit it, this creates an artificial conflict in which the person must bow to the active key holder’s wishes or be labeled a rebel (a sinner), and thus now unworthy of baptism. The artificial requirement, then, in this example, has impeded the work of the Lord.

The keys of the priesthood are flexible enough to be used in this tyrannical manner so that the active key holder (the leader) can be properly proved.

Graph of current view of priesthood keys

The standard view of the priesthood keys (the divine right of prophets and presidencies) creates a pyramidal church hierarchy with one man at the top, fourteen men below him, multiple presidencies below them, and the vast multitude of quorum members at the bottom. Each level is subordinate to the ones above it, the top level being subordinate to no one but God.

In the divine right of prophets and presidencies, all priesthood holders are dependent upon the prophet and 14 apostles. No one holds all the keys except them, so, should the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve suddenly die, those keys go down to the grave with them, never again to be restored, unless God sends more angels. This organization, then, has a weak link at the top. Remove the top and everything else crumbles. Also, the presidencies “serve” the quorums by ruling them, or telling them what to do. This type of “service” is based on the Gentile kingdoms.

Graph of alternate view of priesthood keys

When a priesthood key is “given” in conjunction with a presidency, what is actually given is the right to use the keys of that presidency that are already inherent in the priesthood (for the priesthood itself already holds all the keys to preside) and to use the keys to activate, or take out of suspension, the keys held by quorum members in the jurisdiction of the presidency.

This alternate view creates an inverted pyramidal church hierarchy. The president serves the quorum by using his active keys to empower the quorum, meaning to activate the suspended keys of the quorum. He then empowers the quorum so that they can use their priesthood more fully.

As the graph shows, God, the prophet, and the apostles are the foundation of the priesthood, being below all and supporting all, like a building. Because every priesthood holder holds all the keys, some active, some suspended, God can call any one of His priesthood bearing sons to fill any position of this divine edifice. It is simply a matter of activating the keys inherit in the priesthood. There is no way weak link to such an organization because even if the prophet and apostles die suddenly, other priesthood holders can fill their place and every quorum and presidency can be reformed.

A priesthood machine

The priesthood is designed on a stacked, radial pattern, like spoked wheels stacked one on top of the other, their central axes connected. Each wheel of the machine is a quorum. The central point of a wheel is the one with active quorum keys, the quorum presidency. The connection between the axes is how keys are delegated from presidency to presidency. The spokes are quorum members who have suspended quorum keys. As long as the quorum members’ keys remain suspended, the wheels don’t turn and the priesthood machine comes to a grinding halt.

The priesthood in motion

Once the central point activates the suspended keys of the quorum, the wheel starts to turn. The priesthood begins to operate with authority (keys) and becomes useful in creating divine motion.

Priesthood is useless without activated keys

In the above illustrations, each stacked wheel is aligned at the central point. If we could see all the wheels (quorums) of the priesthood, we would notice that bottom-most wheel is the First Presidency. The wheel on top of that would be the Quorum of the Twelve. Etc. The bottom-most central point (the prophet) activates the keys of (delegates keys to) the central points above him (the presidencies) and the presidencies are supposed to use them to activate the keys of the spokes of their wheels. In an ideal situation, all of these stacked wheels would be turning, all keys activated. However, our situation is far from ideal and turning wheels may be few and far between.

On top of the gears of the priesthood machinery are the members of the kingdom, who benefit from all this priesthood service. Once again, the priesthood is seen as an inverted pyramid, or inverted hierarchy.

An example of activated quorum keys

The man who baptized Wilford Woodruff was, apparently, a mere member of an elder’s quorum, not an elder’s quorum president, not a set-apart missionary, just a rank and file quorum member. Nevertheless, it appears that back then, the quorum member keys were activated and they were free to use them to further the work of the Lord. Here is the account:

On December 29, 1833, Wilford Woodruff finally heard the gospel from authorized servants of God. He recounted: “For the first time in my life, I saw an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That was Zera Pulsipher. He told me that he was inspired of the Lord. He was threshing grain in his barn when the voice of the Lord came to him and told him to arise and go to the north, the Lord had business for him there. He called upon Brother [Elijah] Cheney, his neighbor and a member of the Church. They traveled sixty miles on foot…in deep snow, and the first place they felt impressed to call upon was the house of my brother and myself. They went into the house and talked with my brother’s wife, and they told her who they were and what their business was. They told her that they were moved upon to go to the north, and they never felt impressed to stop anywhere until they came to that house. When they told her their principles, she said her husband and her brother-in-law both were men who believed those principles, and they had prayed for them for years. They appointed a meeting in the schoolhouse upon our farm.

“I came home in the evening, and my sister-in-law told me of this meeting. I had been drawing logs from the shores of Lake Ontario (I was in the lumber business), and I turned out my horses, did not stop to eat anything, and went to the meeting. I found the house and the dooryard filled with people. I listened for the first time in my life to a Gospel sermon as taught by the Elders of this Church. It was what I had sought for from my boyhood up. I invited the men home with me. I borrowed the Book of Mormon, and sat up all that night and read. In the morning I told Brother Pulsipher I wanted to be baptized. I had a testimony for myself that those principles were true. Myself and my brother…went forth and were baptized—the two first in that county.”

Elder Pulsipher baptized Wilford Woodruff in a creek on December 31, 1833, and confirmed him on that same day. Three days later, Wilford Woodruff received the Aaronic Priesthood and was ordained to the office of teacher. This was the beginning of a lifelong ministry in the Lord’s service. Looking back on that day, he said, “My mission immediately commenced.”  (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff, 2004, pgs. 37-38.)

THE KEYS OF THE CHURCH

A second set of keys

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. (D&C 107: 1-4)

Notice that it was the church—not God, not the priests (which is a subset of the church), but the membership of the church itself—that changed the name of that order of priesthood. Modern LDS might find it a little strange that ancient church members were telling priesthood holders what to call their priesthood, yet there it is in our scriptures. And there is no indication that they sinned in the practice. So, we could ask, “By what authority did the church change the name of the priesthood?” That is the $64,000 question.

As explained previously, authority and keys are synonymous. In the scriptures, they mean and are the same thing. So, when we ask, “By what authority?” it means the same as asking, “By what keys?”

One thing is certain, the keys used by the church to change the name of the priesthood were not the keys of the priesthood. Only the men of the church who possess priesthood hold priesthood keys. Every other baptized member is without priesthood keys. That includes all the females, as well as all the males who have not yet had priesthood conferred upon them. The entire group of baptized and confirmed people, who make up the church of God, have received a set of keys separate and distinct from the keys of the priesthood.

The keys of the church

Hearken, O ye people of my church, to whom the kingdom has been given; (D&C 45: 1)

Lift up your hearts and rejoice, for unto you the kingdom, or in other words, the keys of the church have been given. Even so. Amen. (D&C 42: 69)

The people of the Lord’s church have been given the kingdom, which is defined as the keys of the church. Contrary to what the footnote to “keys of the church” in D&C 42: 69 and also the Triple Combination Index would have you believe, the keys of the church are not synonymous with the keys of the priesthood, but are a second set of keys given to every single church member, whether they possess priesthood or not.

The law of common consent

Church keys are exercised or manifested through the law of common consent, which in turn is based on the majority principle. This means that the people of the church vote on issues and whatever the majority decides, goes. This is known as the voice of the people.

All things to be done by common consent

And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen. (D&C 26: 2)

For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith. (D&C 28: 13)

I ought not to harrow up in my desires, the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto them according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction. (Alma 29: 4)

And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. (1 Samuel 8: 7)

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. (Mosiah 29: 26)

From the above scriptures we learn that in the church, the keys of the priesthood are subject to the keys of the church, and not vice versa. This is why we find the Lord commanding his prophet Samuel, who possessed a fulness of active priesthood keys, to obey the will of the people in all things. This is why we find the seer-king Mosiah commanding his people to make it a law among the people that only the majority decisions will stand. And why we find the seer Alma explaining that even God Himself is not exempt from this law, that God Himself gives whatever men truly desire to them, regardless of what it is. And finally, it is why we find the Lord commanding and explaining to His church that every church decision absolutely must be done by common consent.

Lord upholds servants only if there is common consent

Now, I say unto you, my friends, let my servant Sidney Rigdon go on his journey, and make haste, and also proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the gospel of salvation, as I shall give him utterance; and by your prayer of faith with one consent I will uphold him. (D&C 93: 51)

The principle is that the servants (those who hold priesthood) must hearken to their masters (the church), whom they serve. If the people say RIGHT and a prophet says LEFT, but then the prophet forces a LEFT upon the people, he transgresses because the Lord will only uphold (sustain) a prophet (or any other servant-minister) if there is common consent among the people. If the church withdraws its consent at any point, the Lord ceases to uphold the servant. Even if the servant has been obedient to the Lord in all things and is righteous, and it is the church that is wicked (which is the reverse of how it normally is), if the servant attempts to assert his authority over them (which the church has removed), he transgresses the law and the Spirit leaves him.

The consent of the governed

It all comes down to a principle known as the consent of the governed. This principle can be defined in the following way:

The Consent of the Governed means “that nothing the leader/ruler (king, pope, prophet, etc.) does is legitimate unless the people consent to it.”

The consent of the governed is a true principle that invalidates all divine right theories. Any king, pope, prophet, priest, president, leader, or ruler that claims legitimacy based upon divine approval, regardless of what the people say or without consulting the people, is a liar inspired by the devil. This is because God Himself recognizes the heavenly principle of the consent of the governed. In fact, He is the Author of it. In a word, He has termed it agency. A war in heaven was fought over whether this principle would continue to exist, or be replaced by a divine right doctrine. That war continues here on earth. Currently, the principle is still firmly in place, both in heaven and in the scriptures of the church of God. Legitimacy, then, is determined only by the people, not by God.

Unrighteous dominion

Unrighteous dominion is dominion without the consent of the governed.

If the Lord attempts to assert dominion without the consent of the governed, He engages in unrighteous dominion. The same applies to the servants of the Lord.

Why? Because the Lord’s authority is only legitimate with the consent of the governed (His creations). The instant that consent is ignored or withdrawn, the Lord no longer has authority nor power over those people, nor do His servants. The Lord’s almighty power is called agency, and consists of the agencies of everything He has created.

His dominion is without compulsory means, meaning that all things obey Him because they want to obey Him, not because they have to or are forced to. His almighty power comes from their combined agencies, freely and voluntarily obeying Him. Were He ever to try to force obedience upon any of His creations, He would lose respect and honor in the eyes of everything with agency (the created Universe) and would cease to be God.

Therefore, the priesthood cannot be used without the consent of those it is intended to serve. It is their agency that authorizes the priesthood, both ordinations and licenses.

Two sets of keys

There are, then, in effect, two sets of keys. There are the keys of the priesthood which come from the Lord and which are kind of like the Lord’s own personal agency. Then there are the keys of the church, which also come from the Lord, but which are sort of like the personal agencies of each member of the church. In the beginning, the Lord gave to us our agency and in like manner, both sets of keys come from Him, nevertheless, one set represents His Own Person, while the other set represents us.

Just as one man can’t fire a nuclear-armed missile because it requires two men with two sets of keys, which is a fail-safe mechanism, so both church and priesthood keys are needed to get anything done. The Lord’s keys of the priesthood are recognized by the entire Universe. Nevertheless, they only work with the keys, or say so, of the church they were designed to serve. If the church does not give its say so, or withdraws its consent, the Lord’s keys are powerless, for the Lord cannot override agency or He ceases to be God.

Those who obtain priesthood must likewise make sure that the agency of those they serve is never abridged in any way. If so, the priesthood keys of both prophet and presidencies become illegitimate.

Both sets are needed

Legitimate churches of Christ must possess both sets of keys. Once an understanding of the double set of keys is obtained, discernment among the Christian churches becomes fairly easy. For example, Roman Catholicism claims to possess the keys of the priesthood from Peter, nevertheless, they possess no keys of the church, for their priesthood does not operate by the common consent of their members. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is not a legitimate church of Christ and has not been legitimate for more than a thousand years, theirs being a false priesthood.

The breakaways from Catholicism, the Protestants, although restoring the keys of the church through the law of common consent, lack the keys of the priesthood. In the case of the Restoration churches, only the main body (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) possesses to this day, both sets of keys. All of the splinter groups that have broken off from the main body since the days of Joseph Smith to now have been a minority of members, meaning that they did not constitute “the voice of the people.” The keys of the church are only found with “the voice of the people,” therefore, all splinter groups are illegitimate because they lack one set of keys (the keys of the church.) Even though some of these groups have been properly ordained, their priesthood is invalid without the keys of the church.

The keys of the church validate the keys of the priesthood

The LDS church is not exempt from this divine principle. Although we claim that our ordinations have been correctly performed and that the keys of the priesthood have been transferred in an unbroken line, if the keys of the church are ever lost to the our church, meaning that there is no more majority voice, then the keys of our priesthoods won’t work, either. Nevertheless, while a majority voice exists in the church, through the law of common consent, even if the ordinations strayed from the prescribed, divine pattern, as long as the keys of the church continue to say those ordinations and ordinances are valid or legitimate, then the Lord recognizes them as valid or legitimate. It’s as simple as that. So, the LDS church is very safe from losing its two sets of keys, as long as the church keys are continually employed.

The divine purpose of the church keys

The keys of the church allow the members to authorize, disapprove of, or invalidate any church activity, calling, plan, institution, or plan. Members can wield these keys to add or remove scriptures from the canon, or even to reject new revelations. They can use them to modify any part of the church or priesthood organization or protocols, as demonstrated by the changing of the name of the holy priesthood.

The membership keys have near total jurisdiction over the conferral, ordination and licensing of priesthood, its keys and its ordinances. About the only thing church keys can’t do is remove priesthood from someone, as only God can do that, though using the keys members can invalidate a man’s priesthood and keys. The keys of the church, then, are the safeguard set up by the Lord to keep the priesthood in check.

Church keys balance out priesthood keys. Through the law of common consent the members are empowered to exercise their keys in either appointing or disapproving of priesthood officers and priesthood licenses. They can nullify anything coming from the priesthood, can appoint or remove officers, can revoke licenses and can even invalidate priesthood through excommunication. As priesthood holders must hearken to all things that the majority membership desires, the set of church keys, which is the kingdom that has been given to the members, is the first and chief set, even the master set.

This great authority and responsibility has been laid upon the members because they have agency, which must reign supreme. Also, this is wisdom in the Lord, for the members (the church) make up the greater part of the people (the voice of the people), while the priesthood leadership and other servants make up the lesser part, so the odds are in favor of the church choosing the right and the leadership choosing the wrong. (See Mosiah 29: 26.)

The keys of the church are absolute

I want to stress that the keys of the church, held by all baptized members, are absolute. What the members say, goes, in all things. This is why it was the church, and not the priesthood, that changed the name of the priesthood from “the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God” to simply “the Melchizedek Priesthood.” (See D&C 107: 1-4.) Even the priesthood of God is subject to the keys of the church. If church members today wanted to call the Melchizedek priesthood after some contemporary high priest, who they considered great, they have the right to do so and the priesthood leadership could do nothing about it except hearken to their word. If they did not obey the membership, they would be guilty of sedition and rebellion against their masters (the church), whom they are supposed to serve.

God uses keys to prove His people

Because the keys of the church can decide all matters, even within the priesthood itself, the church of God will be judged by Him according to how they use them. For example, members can use their keys to sustain minister-servant priesthood holders, who do not maintain power or influence by virtue of their office, or they can use them to sustain ecclesiastical abusers. If we have wicked leaders in the church, it is because we have a wicked church choosing and supporting the wicked leaders (Mosiah 11: 1-6), for the power exists to remove all wicked leaders in a heartbeat. It is as simple as raising a hand in opposition. You can’t get much simpler than that. The Lord has made it extremely easy to get rid of all the snakes in church (see 1 Nephi 17: 41) so that we are left without any excuse.

Just as priesthood keys are a test to priesthood holders, so church keys are intended to prove all church members. If the time ever comes when the keys of the church are used as a rubberstamp to approve of everything the priesthood desires to do and says, because of the titles of their offices, the keys will cease to function as a check on the priesthood. At that point, the church keys will convert the minister-servant status of priesthood into an honor of men, with celebrity status, allowing ecclesiastical abusers to take control of every priesthood office. If this were to happen on a church-wide scale, the voice of the people (the church) would be choosing iniquity, causing the judgments of God to come upon the church. (See Mosiah 29: 27.)

Israel to be led by the keys

The following verse is often misinterpreted as referring to only the priesthood keys.

Keep all the commandments and covenants by which ye are bound; and I will cause the heavens to shake for your good, and Satan shall tremble and Zion shall rejoice upon the hills and flourish; and Israel shall be saved in mine own due time; and by the keys which I have given shall they be led, and no more be confounded at all. (D&C 35: 24-25)

Israel is to be led by both sets of keys: the keys of the church and the keys of the priesthood.

Ordinations voted by church

No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church; but the presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests, and elders, may have the privilege of ordaining, where there is no branch of the church that a vote may be called. (D&C 20: 65-66)

Exception: where there is no branch of the church that a vote may be called.

Licenses voted by church

The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the church to which they belong, or from the conferences. Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference. (D&C 20: 63-64)

Licenses authorize a priesthood holder to perform the duty of his calling. Without a license, you can’t use your priesthood.

Licenses can be revoked

And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference; (D&C 124: 144.)

Excommunications (and priesthood invalidations) by vote of church

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)

The church can vote to cast out (excommunicate) members from the congregation. If the excommunicant was a priesthood holder, their priesthood is now invalidated for that congregation. Should they continue baptizing and performing other ordinances while an excommunicant, the church would not recognize the ordinances, priesthood and priesthood keys used as valid.

Who decides?

Let’s recap. Who decides who gets the priesthood? The church, by vote.

Who decides who gets what office of the priesthood? The church, by vote.

Who decides which priesthood holder receives a license to perform the duty of his calling? The church, by vote.

The proper way to use the keys of the church

The Lord hasn’t really given any specific instruction to the church on how to use their keys. D&C 121: 34-46 is probably the best rule of thumb to use when deciding whether a man or boy should a) get the priesthood, b) should be ordained to an office, c) should receive a license, d) should have his license revoked, e) should be removed from office or f) should have his priesthood invalidated (through excommunication).

The sisters and the keys of the church

Historically, the keys of the church have always been, essentially, in the hands of baptized women and children, as their numbers have made up the “voice of the people.” During times when plural marriage was practiced, the combined female vote was overwhelmingly more numerous than its male counterpart, but even during these monogamous modern times, the women of the church still control the outcome of any vote. In any given branch, ward, stake or district of the church, the women and non priesthood-holding children routinely far outnumber the priesthood-holding men. Numbered alone, even without including children, the female members typically make up more than 51% of any sized church congregation. This means that if the females of the modern church were to vote as a block, every decision would be decided solely by them, regardless of how the combined male vote was cast. Even if the men were to vote as a block to oppose the females, they still would be powerless to stop them.

Thus, the keys of the church have been placed firmly in the hands of the women of the church. This is by divine design, just as the keys of the priesthood have been placed firmly in the hands of the men of the church.

The female human being is a highly sensitive creature; some might even say hypersensitive. She is able to detect abuse quite easily and quickly. As she lives out her life in an atmosphere of continual subjection to authority—first to her parents, then to teachers, then to government and work authorities, then to her husband—she becomes accustomed to forever having to obey someone else. As long as that person is as kindly as Christ is, her nature is happy, but the slightest abuse suffered and she becomes miserable. Nevertheless, due to societal norms, a female isn’t often able to free herself from bondage to one or another authority figure.

Her entrance into the Lord’s church through baptism, though, is designed by the Lord to be an entrance into freedom. No longer is she a second class citizen, standing behind a man, but is on equal ground with men, having equal voting rights as them, and having, together with her sisters, the combined capacity to pull down all abuse and abusers by vote. No longer need she obey by virtue of someone’s title (father, husband, police officer, teacher, elder, president, etc.), but is free to discard one’s title altogether and obey only the Christ-like ones and vote down the devilish.

Because women often get the brunt of the abuse that goes around by tyrannical men, and because they are usually the first ones to detect it, the Lord has given the keys of the church to the sisters, so that finally the women are empowered to rein it in.

How ecclesiastical abusers deal with the sisters

The tremendous power of the keys of the church, wielded by the sisters as a voting block to end ecclesiastical tyranny, or merely to vote their conscience, even if it contradicts the leadership position, presents an insurmountable obstacle to would-be priesthood tyrants. There simply is no way around it. If the sisters wake up to the existence of the keys of the church and exercise their voting power, leadership positions lose all their awesome titular authority, terror and clout. The strategy, then, used by leaders, is to talk only of the keys of the priesthood and to never mention the keys of the church. Because no one can exercise a right they don’t know they have, as long as the sisters remain ignorant of this authority, given to them by the Lord, men are free to rule in the church as priest-king tyrants.

Many men believe that women scriptorians are few and far between and leaders know that even those who regularly study their scriptures will often go to their priesthood leadership for answers on scriptural questions. This presents a wonderful opportunity for a leader to give an answer that solidifies his own authority and her need to obey and sustain him, as well as her need to sustain her other leaders. In fact, the leadership has gotten to the point where they hardly use the word “vote” any more. The act of raising a hand for (not against) is now widely called “sustaining”—(while raising one’s hand against is called “not sustaining”)—and it is continuously taught that it is our duty to sustain our leaders (presumably by raising our hands for them). This means that a woman who raises a hand in opposition is not “sustaining her leader,” therefore, she must be sinning.

By getting away from the word “vote,” which has no stigma if you vote your conscience, for or against, and by using the word “sustain,” the leadership has invented a new sin and multiplied guilt and fear. Now everyone is afraid to exercise his or her church keys and the priesthood is free to engage in ecclesiastical abuse with nothing to hinder its progress.

Hopefully, with this article, the word will get out to the sisters that they need not fear voting their conscience. In fact, I’ll speak directing to you sisters:

Sustaining your leaders and voting in church are two different things. You are to vote your conscience and then, after the vote is counted, whoever is voted in is the person you sustain, meaning that your prayers and support should go out to that person. Raising your hand for any measure proposed by a leader is not sustaining him or her. Raising your hand for or against any measure proposed by a leader is voting. If the measure passes, it means that the voice of the people desired it to pass. You then sustain that measure or that person with prayers, faith and support, not because you are sustaining the person or measure (which, perhaps, you disagreed with), but because you sustain the voice of the people, who are the true leaders.

The same principle applies in life outside of church. Let’s say that there are two candidates for Police Chief and you vote for candidate #1. But after the vote is counted, the voice of the people elects candidate #2. Do you just ignore the new Police Chief’s authority and disregard his commands after he’s been sworn in because you didn’t vote for him? No, instead, you prayer for him and sustain him in his office, because you respect the voice of the people.

To use another example, consider the pre-existent vote that took place, where some went with Jesus and others went with Lucifer. Jesus had the voice of the people with him, yet Lucifer and those who voted for him were not considered sinners for voting against Jesus. It was only when they rebelled against the voting outcome (against the voice of the people) that they ran into trouble and were cast out of heaven.

In like manner, voting one’s conscience is no sin in the eyes of God. It is rebellion against the voice of the people that brings swift divine judgment. When your leaders say to you that you need to “sustain your leaders,” or if they ask you if you “sustain your leaders,” it may be wise to ask yourself who are your leaders? In principle, the only mortal leaders we are commanded to sustain or “hearken to in all things” are the people’s voice, meaning the majority vote of the membership. If you do this, you are in principle and in fact, sustaining your leaders.

So, vote your mind and conscience without fear of repercussions, for there are none. And use your God-given, innate ability to detect tyrants to discover them and vote them out using your keys.

SPEKTATOR’S QUESTIONS

Spektator’s questions answered

Spektator asked me three questions, which I decided to answer in this post.

Can a man who has ‘lost’ his priesthood through unrighteous dominion [be] able to ordain others? I have to think that it is not in keeping with God’s will that I can pass the priesthood on to another if I have not met the qualifications myself.

Secondly, Alma the elder received his ‘priesthood’ directly from God (Alma 18). Does God have the right to bestow the priesthood to whom He desires? I believe he does, but this does negate that absolute need for priesthood lineage.

Finally, does the Gentile Church really dispose of the priesthood when the scroll rolls? I go back to the blessing that Israel gave Ephraim – that he would be a multitude of nations – as an indication that we are both Gentiles and of the house of Ephraim. Your thoughts? (Spek’s three questions)

Answer to question #1

Can a man who has ‘lost’ his priesthood through unrighteous dominion [be] able to ordain others? I have to think that it is not in keeping with God’s will that I can pass the priesthood on to another if I have not met the qualifications myself. (Spek’s 1st question)

A man who has ‘lost’ his priesthood through unrighteous dominion can ordain others if he is authorized by the keys of the church, which are held by the people of the church and are activated by the voice of the people through the law of common consent. God’s will controls the powers of heaven aspect of priesthood, which is contingent on qualifications of the priesthood holder, but His will does not supercede the will of His people. As it is the will of God that the voice of the people is hearkened to, if the voice of the people say an ordination is valid, it is valid.

Answer to question #2

Secondly, Alma the elder received his ‘priesthood’ directly from God (Alma 18). Does God have the right to bestow the priesthood to whom He desires? I believe he does, but this does negate that absolute need for priesthood lineage. (Spek’s 2nd question)

Background on Alma the elder

In the land of Lehi-Nephi and the land of Shilom (Mosiah 9: 6), the righteous king Zeniff (Mosiah 9: 1) conferred the kingdom, just before he died (Mosiah 10: 22), upon Noah, one of his sons (Mosiah 11: 1). After becoming king, Noah turned wicked (Mosiah 11: 1-2) and caused his people to commit all manner of wickedness; of especial note is that Noah and his people began practicing polygamy with concubinage and whoredoms (Mosiah 11: 2), which was contrary to the commandment received by the prophet Lehi (Jacob 3: 5).

King Noah put down all the priests that had been consecrated by king Zeniff (which priests were after the order of Melchizedek), and consecrated new ones in their stead (also after the order of Melchizedek), prideful ones that likewise practiced polygamy with concubinage and whoredoms (Mosiah 11: 4-5, 14).

Alma the elder, priest of Noah

Alma was one of these new priests (Mosiah 24: 9). At the time of his calling, he was a young man (Mosiah 17: 2). Like the other priests, Alma’s lifestyle was one of laziness, idolatry and whoredoms. He used his priesthood to deceive the people with vain and flattering words so that they also became idolatrous (Mosiah 11: 7). His was a paid ministry, receiving his salary from the royal treasury, which was filled by a 20% direct tax laid upon the people’s possessions.

Iniquity with consent

In all of this wickedness, both Alma, the other priests and king Noah had the support of the people. The people did as king Noah and his priests did. When king Noah became a wine-bibber, the people did also (Mosiah 11: 15). There is no indication in the record of Zeniff that king Noah, Alma, and the rest of the priests did these things without the consent of the people. On the contrary, the record indicates that the people both sustained the king and his newly consecrated priests, rejoiced in their lying and flattering idolatrous doctrines, and participated in the riotous living (Mosiah 11: 14).

Enter Abinadi

Because of this iniquitous union between people and priesthood, in which there were no dissenting votes, only common consent to break the commandments of God, when the Lord sent Abinadi, a non-priest prophet, to deliver a divine message, it was looked upon as a disturbance of the peace of the people (Mosiah 11: 28). Both the people and the king were angry with Abinadi and both attempted to have him caught and killed (Mosiah 11: 26), because attempting to create discord and divisions in the people is subversive behavior and worthy of death. As further evidence, Abinadi’s non-priestly authority was even brought up (Mosiah 11: 27).

Abinadi escaped, but was sent back two years later with another message from the Lord. This time he was captured, imprisoned, publicly interrogated, judged and finally killed by fire, but not before he delivered his final message and teachings to the wicked priests and king.

Alma was among the audience of priests during this remarkable interrogation. He was astonished at Abinadi’s answers (Mosiah 12: 19) and was cut to his heart (Mosiah 13: 7). He saw Abinadi’s face shine, as did the people (Mosiah 13: 5), and was filled with wonder and amazement (Mosiah 13: 8). Although the priesthood records did not show that Abinadi possesssed priesthood, it was apparent to Alma that Abinadi spoke with authority from God, and not only that, he also spoke with visibly manifested power from God (Mosiah 13: 6.)

After Abinadi finished his speech, king Noah commanded his priests to take him “and cause that he should be put to death” (Mosiah 17: 1). Of all the priests, only Alma believed the words of Abinadi and he alone pleaded with the king to let Abinadi go in peace.

Instead, the king became even angrier and had Alma thrown out of the royal palace (Mosiah 11: 9) and then he sent his servants to find and kill him (Mosiah 17: 3), but Alma fled and hid himself. While in hiding, he wrote all the words of Abinadi (Mosiah 17: 4), then, after repenting “of his sins and iniquities,” began a private ministry among the people, in which he taught Abinadi’s words (Mosiah 18: 1-3.)

Eventually, about 204 people believed his words and he baptized them, forming a church of Christ. He then ordained 4 priests (after the order of Melchizedek) to teach the church. The church increased in size to 450 people with 9 ordained priests before they departed into the wilderness to escape king Noah’s army which he sent to destroy them.

Alma’s priesthood authority

Okay, Spek, now that we have Alma’s background laid out, I’ll answer your question.

First, let me state that I don’t believe that the scriptures support the view that Alma was an excommunicant. Mosiah 24: 9 states that Alma “was driven out before the king”, while Mosiah 17: 3 states that the king “caused that Alma should be cast out from among them, and sent his servants after him that they might slay him.” Neither of these verses strike me as a description of a formal excommunication procedure (in the modern sense.) This sounds, to me, like a forcible ejection from the palace, followed by some servants sent afterward to permanently keep Alma’s mouth shut. (In an ancient sense, this may have actually been the manner, under the law of Moses, or under a perversion of the same, to excommunicate a priest, namely, by throwing the man out and slaying him. As Alma was not killed, such an excommunication procedure was not brought to completion.)

Alma may have been removed from the palace so that a unanimous vote by the priests could take place in condemning Abinadi to death, for one dissenting vote in a capital punishment case may have nullified the procedure. The servants sent out later to slay him may have had the same purpose, that of prohibiting him from returning and casting a dissenting vote during the three days that Abinadi remained alive before a guilty verdict was passed. During this time, and afterward, while Alma remained in hiding for many days, there is no indication in the account that he was formally excommunicated (in neither a modern nor ancient sense), so I think it is fair to go under the assumption that he still retained his priesthood, being a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

But even if it is assumed that he was excommunicated, what we know of the modern priesthood shows that an excommunicated priest does not lose his priesthood, but is merely told not to use it. If and when an excommunicated priest is re-baptized, there is no re-conferral and re-ordination to the priesthood and its offices, but he is merely given a blessing in which he is told that his former covenants and privileges are restored, including his priesthood. This means that the voice of the church can invalidate an excommunicant’s priesthood for that particular church—which means that every single one of his keys goes into suspension—but has no authority to remove it. This may have been one of the reasons why Noah felt it necessary to send servants to slay Alma, so that he wouldn’t be able to use his priesthood among the people.

From the record, Alma’s priesthood lineage appears to be: from Zeniff (righteous) to Noah (righteous, then later wicked) to Alma (wicked, then later righteous).

The voice of the people supported Zeniff, so his priesthood was valid. The voice of the people also supported Noah, when Noah was righteous, so his priesthood was valid. Later, when Noah turned wicked, the voice of the people still supported him, so his priesthood remained valid. And the voice of the people supported Alma while he was wicked, up to the time he was thrown out of the palace, so his priesthood was valid until that time.

Nevertheless, Alma began a private ministry, in the which he established a church of Christ, which was separate and distinct from the church of Noah’s priests. This congregation of 204, and later of 450 people, possessed the keys of the church of Christ established by Alma, thereby validating Alma’s priesthood with their common consent. (The general population did not possess the keys of the church of Christ, for they were not a part of the church of Christ, but held to the law of Moses alone.)

So, we have a situation in which validly ordained priests after the order of Melchizedek (Zeniff and priests, Noah and priests, and Alma and priests) had established two different churches, one based upon the law of Moses alone, the other based upon the law of Moses plus the gospel of Jesus Christ. Both congregations sustained their priesthood teachers with the keys of their respective churches.

All of these priests (even the wicked ones—think back to what Lucifer said in the temple: “It is an emblem of my power and priesthoods“) had authority from God (Mosiah 18: 18), not just Alma, for they were all properly ordained and sustained by their respective congregations. The only difference was that Alma and priests also had the power of God with them (Mosiah 18: 17), for they purified their hearts and sanctified themselves before God, becoming priesthood made flesh.

So, although God does have the right to bestow priesthood upon whomever He chooses, priesthood lineage is consistently shown in the scriptures to be a necessary part of the plan of salvation, meaning that He uses an already ordained man to pass priesthood on, instead of doing it Himself. This follows the pattern and principle of “freely ye have received, freely give”, which allows an ordained man to serve his fellowmen.

Answer to question #3

Finally, does the Gentile Church really dispose of the priesthood when the scroll rolls? I go back to the blessing that Israel gave Ephraim—that he would be a multitude of nations—as an indication that we are both Gentiles and of the house of Ephraim. Your thoughts? (Spek’s 3rd question)

Yes. The Gentile Church will lose its priesthood in a couple of ways, the first being that they will lose the keys given to them.

The break up of the church and the loss of the keys

The loss of these keys appears to be connected with the break up of the church. (See 3 Ne. 6: 14.) At some point in the future, the united and centralized church of God (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) will become separate churches led by priests. (See 2 Nephi 28.) These priests will be after the order of Melchizedek, having previously been ordained high priests holding the calling of stake president in the former LDS Church. Each former stake president (now priest) will be autonomous, meaning that each one will preside over a separate and distinct Mormon church, not affiliated with any of the other Mormon churches of the broken-up LDS Church. When this prophecy is fulfilled, these priests will contend with the other priests who presided over the other former LDS Church stakes, for primacy and supremacy. Each will lift himself up as the new leader of the church, but none of them will gain the voice of the church (majority vote.) The corporate LDS Church will cease to exist, to be replaced by a plurality of Mormon churches, most of which will divide along former stake boundaries. Within some of the stake-like churches, there may be men who were bishops of wards (or presidents of temples) when the LDS Church broke up that will attempt to go-it-alone. They will form their own, smaller, ward-like churches, but most congregations will be as large as stakes were, for there will be the feeling that there is safety in numbers. Nephi’s prophecy applies to these bishops and temple presidents, as well, for they are also ordained priests after the order of Melchizedek. After the break up of the LDS Church, both the stake presidents and the few lone bishops will drop the titles stake president and bishop, which pertained to the former LDS Church, and call themselves simply priests, and they will drop the titles stake and ward and call their congregations churches, thus fulfilling Nephi’s prophecy to the very letter.

An earthquake will break up the church

The reason for the break up appears to be from an earthquake during some future general conference in which the general authorities of the church will be killed by a collapsing conference center. This will leave the affairs of the church in the hands of the stake presidents, who will begin bickering as to how to re-assemble the corporate and ecclesiastical mess and will end up going their separate ways. These men will divide up the assets of the corporate church among themselves, which include meeting houses, temples and businesses. None of these priests will be able to obtain a majority vote in their favor and the membership of the church will be divided among stake-like churches.

The Wasatch Fault is the largest, normal vertical fault in the world. It is also the likeliest fault to have a large, catastrophic earthquake of all the known faults within the interior of the United States. A big earthquake is expected to occur sometime in the next 50 years. It runs 240 miles long and passes through the Salt Lake region, near the cites of Nephi, Salt Lake City, Brigham City, Provo, etc. Almost 75% of Utah’s population lives near this fault. Liquefaction is also of grave concern for this area. Liquefaction is when the ground becomes mixed with water and acts like a liquid, instead of like a solid, kind of like quick sand. (Remember the Savior’s warning about houses built on sand falling.) When liquefaction occurs during an earthquake, it is the largest, most massive buildings that fall or sink quickest into the earth. Keep in mind that the conference center is gargantuan.

Each of the segments that make up the Wasatch Fault is capable of delivering around a 7.1 magnitude earthquake. That’s fairly large, but not large enough to destroy the conference center, which was built to withstand such seismic shaking. However, it may be that the earthquake that downs the center will simultaneously trigger another 7.1 earthquake in one (or more) of the surrounding segments, causing a ripple effect of catastrophic devastation, like multiple pebbles thrown onto a still water’s surface. The building, faced with two (or more) simultaneous 7+ magnitude earthquakes, their waves coming from different directions and intersecting, would be subjected to an unknown, but very large seismic magnitude. It is unlikely the conference center engineers constructed it with such a scenario in mind.

Both sets of keys will be lost

The loss of the keys of the priesthood occurs because the quorums of the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy will cease to exist, due to the deaths of their quorum members, leaving only the active keys used among the stakes. As there will be no unity among the priests, they will not be able to come to any agreement concerning the reconstitution of the general authority offices; therefore, the GA quorums will remain defunct.

The loss of the keys of the church will occur because no priest will be supported by the voice of the people (a majority). Only minority factions will be left to support this or that priest. Without the keys of the church functioning, the remaining keys of the priesthood will be invalid, for a majority of the membership will be against all other Mormon church priest leaders, invalidating their priesthood.

(Because stakes don’t have jurisdiction over other stakes, they cannot excommunicate members from other stakes or otherwise remove the names of the people residing in other stakes from the church rolls. For this reason, although the membership found outside of any of these churches will not be considered by them as bona fide members of the Lord’s church, technically they will still be on the records of one of these churches as baptized and confirmed people and will constitute a majority voice against those found within the church in question. The law of common consent, then, despite multiple apostate Mormon churches, will apply across the board to all churches, as if they were still one church. Nevertheless, the several churches inability or unwillingness to come to any agreement will be the death toll of the keys of the church, which must be wielded by a majority.)

This situation, then, will cause a complete loss of both Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods, meaning that no one Mormon church will recognize the priesthood of any other Mormon church, necessitating that the Lord step in and set things right (the great and marvelous work.) This second act of the Lord, though, will be accompanied by power (meaning the working of miracles.) The priests of these churches, seeking to keep their members, will then counsel them to not believe in the miracles that will be reported and witnessed by many people. They will use the former LDS Church assets they received in the break-up of the church to enrich themselves and their congregations, and will use their control of a temple (if a priest was lucky enough to gain control of one) and their meetinghouses as perks of membership in their particular Mormon church to attract new members and keep membership numbers high. Even the permissiveness of iniquity will be a drawing point, for, if you are taught that you can sin as much as you want and still be saved, attending church becomes a joy. The selling point of the only true priesthood will also keep members from straying and following “new prophets” among the people. Thus, these Mormon churches will quickly spiral down into all manner of apostate wickedness as detailed by Nephi’s prophecy.

Ammonihah redux

So, the LDS Church will be broken up after the fashion of the city of Ammonihah. Just as the Ammonihahites prided themselves at how invincible they were, only to end up being destroyed in one day, so the church will be broken up in one day’s time. An earthquake will be used because this is what earthquakes do best: break things apart. It will happen as a whirlwind (tornado), without warning and suddenly, taking virtually everyone, both priesthood and membership, by surprise. (Well, except for those who read this article…)

How the broken up churches will make money

Separate, individual churches, led by a priest, will no longer have access to the general church funds, as there won’t be any more general church, only separate and distinct Mormon apostate churches. Funding, then, will be of principle concern for the priests. A paid clergy will arise, ecclesiastical funding drives will occur, and the Mormon apostate churches will more closely resemble their apostate Christian church counterparts.

Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins. (Mormon 8: 32)

This doctrine of forgiving sins for money will introduce a plague of wickedness into the churches. As the break up will occur during an economic depression and work will be scarce, the churches will be used by the priests “to get gain”, for all want salvation, even in economic hard times. Worthiness will no longer be an issue for baptism, confirmation, entrance to the temple or ordination to the priesthood. Only how much money you have will be the question asked. All manner of iniquity will be acceptable to these churches, in their attempt to get gain. In fact, iniquity will be celebrated and even encouraged, for the more iniquity there is, the more money there is to be made.

Prophecy of no more Gentile stakes will be fulfilled

The law of tithing will no longer be observed according to revelation (D&C 119 and 120) and the prophecy found in D&C 119: 6-7 will be fulfilled for the scattered churches (which were formerly called stakes in the LDS Church), namely, that these churches will cease to be “stakes of Zion”.

And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you. And this shall be an ensample unto all the stakes of Zion. Even so. Amen. (D&C 119: 6-7)

Thus, Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the stakes never being removed, had view of the stakes established by the Indians, after the city of Zion is built, and not of the Gentile stakes established during the foundation movement begun by Joseph Smith.

Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken. (Isa. 33: 20)

Name changes

No longer called (legally) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which will be a dissolved corporation, the apostate Mormon churches will bear some other name, to distinguish themselves from the other apostate Mormon churches, bringing into view the curious passage in 3 Nephi 27: 1-12 about the name of the Lord’s church. This same Book of Mormon passage will be quoted to the apostate Mormon churches who will bear various and sundry names, including the names of men, by the prophets and missionaries bearing the new scriptures and fulness of the gospel of the Father. In other words, just as we LDS use the Bible of the Gentiles to preach to the Gentiles, so the new missionaries will use the Book of Mormon of the Mormons to preach to the apostate Gentile Mormon churches.

The blood of saints will be spilled

Apostate Mormon churches will kill or seek to kill the saints residing within their congregations. They will also kill or seek to kill prophets of God and missionaries sent to them, repeating the history of the Nephites after their own church of God had broken up (see 3 Ne. 6: 14.)

And there began to be men inspired from heaven and sent forth, standing among the people in all the land, preaching and testifying boldly of the sins and iniquities of the people…Now there were many of the people who were exceedingly angry because of those who testified of these things; and those who were angry were chieflythey who had been high priests…Now there was no …high priest that could have power to condemn any one to death save their condemnation was signed by the governor of the land. 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: 20-23)

In like fashion, the priests of the broken up Mormon churches, who had been high priests (stake presidents) in the unified Church, will become angry with the new preachers of righteousness and seek to kill them.

This is one of the tipping points (the death of saints, prophets and missionaries) that will cause the Indians to go through them and wipe them off the face of the earth. The broken up Mormon churches will be the most wicked people on the planet. They will also be the most prideful of all the Gentiles. Thus, they will receive the judgment of God first.

The fulness of the gospel of the Father includes, among other things, abundant manifestations of the power of God in the form of the gifts of the Spirit. When the broken up Mormon churches reject the fulness, they will be rejecting both new scriptures that will come forth, new prophets sent by the Lord, and also abundant miracles that will witness to the truthfulness of the message of the new scriptures and prophets. They will be left without excuse and will know with a surety that it’s all true, but will still deny and reject it. The saints in their congregations who repent and accept the fulness will be cast out or slain as troublemakers, inciting the anger of the Lord. The Indians will then be let loose upon the Mormon Gentiles, killing all those who refuse to be numbered Indians. (The saints, or repentant Gentile Mormons, who are cast out will go to the Indians and become numbered with them, becoming part of that Manassehite tribe.) These Manassehite Indians will then build the city of Zion, assisted by the Ephraimite Gentile Mormons who have become numbered with them. With the massacre of the unrepentant Gentile Mormons by the Indians, the church of the lamb of God (as it will then be called) will no longer be led by Ephraim, but by Manasseh. A Josephite prophet will be a principal player in all of this.

And now, behold, my son Joseph, after this manner did my father of old prophesy. Wherefore, because of this covenant thou art blessed; for thy seed shall not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book. And there shall rise up one mighty among them, who shall do much good, both in word and in deed, being an instrument in the hands of God, with exceeding faith, to work mighty wonders, and do that thing which is great in the sight of God, unto the bringing to pass much restoration unto the house of Israel, and unto the seed of thy brethren. (2 Nephi 3: 22-24)

The fulfillment of 3 Nephi 16: 10-15

And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them. And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.

But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel. And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them, and tread them down, saith the Father. But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel. (3 Nephi 16: 10-15)

The Gentiles spoken of in this scripture are the Mormon Gentiles. Not the Mormon Gentiles of today, but the ones who will be the members of the broken up Mormon churches. These people “shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth,” meaning that they will be the most wicked of all the Gentiles. This is a subset of the Gentile population and is defined as they who are considered “salt that hath lost its savor,” meaning baptized members of the Lord’s church. These wicked Mormons in these wicked, broken up Mormon churches, will both sin against the gospel of the Father, which they received through Joseph Smith AND reject the fulness of the gospel of the Father, which arrives later, after the break up of the LDS Church.

The Mormon Gentiles who repent will become numbered among the Indians (Manassehites) and survive the Indian invasion. The unrepentant Mormon Gentiles, though, will get slaughtered, and thus, their priesthood and its lineage will be wiped out. It is the prophetic plan to completely remove the priesthood from the Gentiles, in the day of restoration of the tribes of Israel, so that only Israel, and those who are numbered among Israel, possess priesthood.

A repeat of the Zoramites

Alma 31 contains a description of the Zoramites. The broken up Mormon churches will evolve into Zoramites and begin treating the poor among them in much the same way as the Zoramites did. This is another reason why the Lord will come out against them in His anger.

How the Zoramites treated the poor

And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel—therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart…And they came unto Alma; and the one who was the foremost among them said unto him: Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty, yea, and more especially by our priests; for they have cast us out of our synagogues which we have labored abundantly to build with our own hands; and they have cast us out because of our exceeding poverty; and we have no place to worship our God; and behold, what shall we do? (Alma 32: 2-3, 5)

Broken up Mormon churches will lack charity

The description of charity is the OPPOSITE of how the broken up Mormon churches will treat the poor:

And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. (Moro. 7: 45)

Charity suffers long, is kind, and is not easily provoked, but the broken up Mormon churches will have strifes, malice and persecutions:

And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts. (Morm. 8: 36)

Charity does not envy, yet the broken up Mormon churches will envy:

Yea, it shall come in a day when the power of God shall be denied, and churches become defiled and be lifted up in the pride of their hearts; yea, even in a day when leaders of churches and teachers shall rise in the pride of their hearts, even to the envying of them who belong to their churches. (Morm. 8: 28)

Charity is not puffed up, yet the broken up Mormon churches will be puffed up:

Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. (2 Ne. 28: 12)

Charity does not seek her own, yet the broken up Mormon churches will not notice any who are not rich and healthy like themselves:

Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not? (Morm. 8: 39)

Charity does not rejoice in iniquity, yet the broken up Mormon churches will very literally rejoice in iniquity:

Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity. (Morm. 8: 31)

Isaiah’s prophecy of the broken up Mormon churches

The prophecy found in Isaiah chapter 3 will be re-applied to the broken up Mormon churches: the Gentile hypocrites who profess to know the Lord. Like the Israelites before them, their prophet (vs. 2) will be taken away (vs. 1) by the Lord, they will be oppressed by their neighbors (vs. 5), including the neighboring Mormon churches, and behave proudly (vs. 5.) They will seek for a ruler of their broken up churches (vs. 6-7) because the unified church will now be ruined (vs. 6, 8.) Their wickedness will openly and publicly provoke the Lord (vs. 8 ) because they will “declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not” (vs. 9.)

Isaiah’s description of the broken up Mormon churches—they grind upon the faces of the poor:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of hosts. (Isa. 3: 12-15)

Isaiah’s description of the rich women of the broken up Mormon churches and the judgment of God upon them:

Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, the rings, and nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty. Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground. (Isa. 3: 16-26)

The Indians will wipe out the wicked men of the wicked Gentile Mormon churches, leaving women desolate and desperate to marry any husband, even if they have to share him with other women (in polygamy.)

Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. (Isa. 3: 25)

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. (Isa. 4: 1)

The only ones left alive after the Indians destroy the wicked among the wicked Gentile Mormon churches will be the penitent. These will become numbered among the Indians.

And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: (Isa. 4: 3)

But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel. (3 Ne. 16: 13)

Earthquake imagery

The scriptures have a lot of earthquake imagery in them, using words such as “tumble, shake, disturb, quake, earthquake, tremble, broken up, division,” etc. Let’s review:

Wicked Churches Must Shake

But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center. (D&C 10: 56)

For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet. (1 Ne. 22: 23)

For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed. (D&C 132: 14)

Voice of Angel Shakes the Earth

Ye are swift to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God. Ye have seen an angel, and he spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words; wherefore, he has spoken unto you like unto the voice of thunder, which did cause the earth to shake as if it were to divide asunder. (1 Ne. 17: 45)

And as I said unto you, as they were going about rebelling against God, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto them; and he descended as it were in a cloud; and he spake as it were with a voice of thunder, which caused the earth to shake upon which they stood;…And now behold, can ye dispute the power of God? For behold, doth not my voice shake the earth? And can ye not also behold me before you? And I am sent from God…And now Alma and those that were with him fell again to the earth, for great was their astonishment; for with their own eyes they had beheld an angel of the Lord; and his voice was as thunder, which shook the earth; and they knew that there was nothing save the power of God that could shake the earth and cause it to tremble as though it would part asunder. (Mosiah 27: 11, 15, 18)

But behold, the Lord in his great mercy sent his angel to declare unto me that I must stop the work of destruction among his people; yea, and I have seen an angel face to face, and he spake with me, and his vice was as thunder, and it shook the whole earth. (Alma 38: 7)

Voice of God Shakes the Earth

For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God. Yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake. And by the power of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley. Yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake; yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center. Yea, and if he say unto the earth—Move—it is moved. (Helaman 12: 8-13)

And at my command the heavens are opened and are shut; and at my word the earth shall shake; and at my command the inhabitants thereof shall pass away, even so as by fire. (Ether 4: 9)

Great and Abominable Church and Kingdom of Devil to Fall

But behold, that great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, must tumble to the earth, and great must be the fall thereof. For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish; (2 Ne. 28: 18-19)

The Lord Will Cause a Great Division

For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division among the people, and the wicked will he destroy; and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire. (2 Ne. 30: 10)

The First Division Is Among the Church

And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord. (3 Ne. 6: 14)

The Second Division Is Among Everyone Else

And the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; and thus they did destroy the government of the land. And it came to pass in the thirty and first year that they were divided into tribes, every man according to his family, kindred and friends; nevertheless they had come to an agreement that they would not go to war one with another; but they were not united as to their laws, and their manner of government, for they were established according to the minds of those who were their chiefs and their leaders. But they did establish very strict laws that one tribe should not trespass against another, insomuch that in some degree they had peace in the land; nevertheless, their hearts were turned from the Lord their God, and they did stone the prophets and did cast them out from among them. (3 Ne. 7: 2, 14)

The House Built on Sand

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matt. 7: 24-27)

Therefore, whoso heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock—and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand—and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and great was the fall of it. (3 Ne. 14: 24-27)

But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them. (3 Ne. 18: 13)

And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall. (2 Ne. 28: 28)

The Great and Spacious Building Will Fall

And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth. And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit. And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost. And now I, Nephi, do not speak all the words of my father. But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree. And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building. And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads. And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not. (1 Ne. 8: 26-33)

And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb. And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (1 Ne. 11: 35-36)

And the large and spacious building, which thy father saw, is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record, from the beginning of the world until this time, and from this time henceforth and forever. (1 Ne. 12: 18)

A conditional promise that house will not be broken up if the United Order obeys the Lord (and we all know what happened…)

I give unto you this privilege, this once; and behold, if you proceed to do the things which I have laid before you, according to my commandments, all these things are mine, and ye are my stewards, and the master will not suffer his house to be broken up. Even so. Amen. (D&C 104: 86)

The reason for the earthquake

But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts. But behold, that great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, must tumble to the earth, and great must be the fall thereof. For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish; for behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works, from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment. (2 Ne. 28: 17-23; see especially 18-19, in red bold type.)

The great and abominable church must tumble to the earth and great must be the fall thereof, for the kingdom of the devil must shake. Why? So that they which belong to it are stirred up to repentance. If the earthquake doesn’t happen, according to its timetable, they will not be stirred up to repentance. And if they are not stirred up to repentance, the devil will grasp them. And if the devil grasps them they will be stirred up (by the devil) to anger and perish. What will they be stirred up to anger against? The new prophets, the new scriptures and the fulness of the gospel of the Father which will be sent to them, according to the Lord’s timetable. The “for behold, at that day” phrase, in bold type above, signals the day when the fulness of the gospel of the Father is sent to them and rejected by the wicked among them (the vast majority). Fortunately, though, some will repent due to the kingdom of the devil shaking, allowing these repentant persons who now find themselves within one of the many broken up Mormon churches to more easily accept the new prophets, new scriptures and fulness of the gospel of the Father which will be sent to them. Were it not for this shaking of the kingdom of the devil and the tumbling to the earth of the great and abominable church, every last one of those belonging to it would reject the new stuff coming from the Lord, because they would follow their general authority leaders’ counsel of rejecting it. Essentially, the Lord is going to turn things upside down, or pull the rug out from underneath the members of His church’s feet, causing a division among His people, so that each man must make his own decision when the new good news is sent, instead of relying upon someone else. Nevertheless, the vast majority will still follow their new broken up Mormon church priests, as these priests will introduce false and vain and iniquitous doctrines, allowing all manner of iniquities in their churches, so that they become addicted to wickedness.

Why the leaders? Because when the marvelous work and a wonder commences, it will begin among the Lord’s house by causing the “wisdom of their wise and learned” to perish and the “understanding of their prudent” to be hid. The rulers and seers of the people are going to be covered by the Lord. Among the LDS, the general authorities are the wise, learned, prudent, rulers and seers. They shall perish in an earthquake and be hid (or covered) by the roof of the conference center falling upon them.

For behold, the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep. For behold, ye have closed your eyes, and ye have rejected the prophets; and your rulers, and the seers hath he covered because of your iniquity…Therefore, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, yea, a marvelous work and a wonder, for the wisdom of their wise and learned shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid. (2 Ne. 27: 5, 26)

Building the conference center (a great and spacious building) was unwise, not smart (unlearned), not prudent. The designers, planners and builders of that particular edifice did not know that it would one day collapse, leading to the dissolving of the corporate Church and the dividing of the members of the one church into many smaller broken up churches. Had they known this, they never would have built it. It was an error on their part, a grave mistake, but the Lord, knowing of the future earthquake, will use it to further His divine purposes. If and when that building does collapse, it won’t mean that all of these dead leaders were wicked men and that the judgments of the Lord were upon them. The Lord allows the consequences of stupid actions to follow.

2 Nephi 27: 27 begins the prophecies which speak of the priests of the broken up Mormon churches, which will descend into iniquity.

And wo unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord! And their works are in the dark; and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us? And they also say: Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay. But behold, I will show unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding? (2 Ne. 27: 27)

Conclusion

The good news is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still God’s church. The keys are still here, both of the priesthood and of the church.

The bad news is that it appears the Gentile priesthood holders are failing the test that the Lord has given to them in their handling of the keys of the priesthood. Instead of using the keys to serve their fellowmen, many are using them to aggrandize themselves and become rulers in the kingdom, patterned after the Gentile kingdoms.

Even more bad news is that it appears that the Gentile church membership is failing the test that the Lord has given in the handling of the keys of the church. Instead of keeping the priesthood under control and weeding out the snakes, the membership is lifting on a pedestal every man whose office they consider to be high, and thus choosing to support iniquitous priests.

The really bad news is that it looks like the Lord is going to put a stop to this madness quite abruptly, in the form of an earthquake, causing a division among His church.

The really, really bad news is that it looks like, according to prophecy, that this will have the effect of causing the current membership, who have a shiny, goody-two-shoes exterior and a rotten interior, to show their true colors, instead of all the current hypocrisy, so that every conceivable iniquity will be openly and joyously practiced in the broken up churches that come after the great earthquake.

The good news is that all of this is in preparation for new prophets, new scripture and more good news (the fulness of the gospel of the Father.) But this good news is only good for those who repent, accept the fulness and become numbered with the Indians. However, for those, the even better news is that the city of Zion will be built soon after these events start happening.

For us right now, though, considering the depths of wickedness that the broken up churches are slated to descend into, it may be time to count our blessings and enjoy the relative peace and tranquility that we have now in the unified church. Sure it’s lukewarm, but at least the worst that is happening is excommunication, not the murdering of saints…

Endnotes

Here are some additional thoughts inspired by this post.

Alma the elder was a polygamist with concubines. After hiding for many days and starting his own private ministry, who would be the first people he would trust to preach to? Probably his wives and concubines. The record states that he repented, but as he already had wives and concubines, his repentance probably didn’t mean he divorced all of them except his first wife, as that would have been sin, but he most likely kept his wives and concubines (in grandfather clause fashion) and merely preached monogamy from here on out per Lehi’s revelation.

The people who accepted Alma’s message would also have had plural wives, for they were led into the same sins as king Noah, therefore, this was a church of practicing polygamists who had repented and now were espousing monogamy, while still retaining their plural wives.

As the women’s liberation movement didn’t exist back then, and there were no feminists that I am aware of, culturally the wives would have stayed with their husbands even if their husbands changed religions (as Alma ended up doing), and followed their husbands wherever they led them, even if they did not get baptized themselves. But, I’d say it was a good chance that Alma’s wives and concubines converted to Alma’s new religion, for this was the culture anciently: for a woman to follow her husband and to cleave unto him.

King Noah and priests possibly changed the monogamous affairs of the kingdom to polygamy in order to quickly grow the population, to better protect themselves from the Lamanites that surrounded them. As plural marriage was permitted under the law of Moses, but not under the law of Lehi, this may have been presented as a return to the ancient way of doing things, before Lehi adulterated things with new revelations. More people also meant more industry and taxes. The people, both men and women, might have gone along with the new scheme because they recognized, like Noah, that there is safety in numbers. Active procreation, with wives, concubines and harlots, may have been actively preached over the podium and promoted by the government, as a wartime measure. King Noah and his people did not have the land protections of the other Nephite populations. They were dwelling right in the heart of Lamanite territory, so thinking out of the box may have been easier for them in their precarious position.

Monogamy may have been initiated by the Lord through Lehi among the Nephites to keep their numbers small, so that they would have to humble themselves before the Lord to get His protection from the warring Lamanites. With populations of similar size, the Nephites might have quickly forgotten the Lord and wiped themselves out in wars with the Lamanites far before their time. Or, perhaps they might have wiped out the Lamanites, which would have frustrated the Lord’s plans, as the promises of the Lord were that the Lamanites would forever dwell upon the land. A worst case scenario might have been a repeat of the Jaredites, with Nephites and Lamanites wiping each other out. Monogamy may have been the Lord’s way of both extending the lives of the Nephites and protecting the lives of the Lamanites. As for the Lamanites, who also practiced monogamy, the Lord seems to have blessed them with greater fertility, perhaps even the twin gene, and with greater strength, so that they multiplied and replenished exceedingly fast (must faster than the Nephites) and also were bodily stronger than the Nephites. All this so that the odds were intentionally stacked against the Nephites, to cause them to turn to the Lord for help.

Previous Priesthood article: The Priesthood

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

We are not doing our business by the voice of the people


See The voice of the people signifies a majority for background on this post.

Consider this: When we say we are 13 million members strong, we are lumping together both active and inactive LDS, including those inactives who no longer even consider themselves LDS.  According to the Law of the Harvest activity numbers, about 35% of the LDS membership is active worldwide (between 4 and 5 million).

What this means is that when we sit in sacrament meeting and raise our hands in a(n often unanimous) sustaining vote, we active LDS, representing the lesser part of the people, in other words, the minority, are doing the business, while the majority remains silent.

There are a few scriptural lessons to be learned here, taught by Mosiah:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.  And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.  (Mosiah 29: 26-27)

First, we, the active minority, are breaking the laws of God.  We are doing the business, not the majority.

Second, the scriptural principle is that it is common for us, the voting, active, LDS minority, to desire that which is not right.  That is a sobering thought that we might be kept in mind the next time we feel to criticize our inactive brethren.

Third, if the non-voting, inactive, LDS majority are choosing iniquity, as they are counted as the people of the Lord, still listed on the records and numbered by us, then the judgments of God must come upon us.

Should the inactives’ votes be counted?

We count inactive LDS as members of record by saying we have 13 million members, not 4 million members, so, if we see them as full members, shouldn’t we count their votes, too?

When someone is going to be called, should we send the Aaronic Priesthood around to the inactive members’ homes and ask them whether they approve or disapprove?  Maybe they could write down on a card their voting preference?  Or would this violate some scriptural principle that states they must go to a meeting to cast a vote?  By sending messengers to inquire as to how they vote, the church would then be doing its business by the voice of the people, complying with scriptural mandate.  Something to consider…

Votes of no-confidence

Or, perhaps the no-shows should be counted as no-confidence votes.  Before you say that there are no such things in the church, consider that you have three options when voting.  You can raise your hand for, you can raise your hand against, or you can leave your hand down.  What does leaving your hand down mean?  I think it can only mean a vote of no confidence. Likewise, if you intentionally do not attend a meeting in which a vote is taking place, that can also be construed as a vote of no-confidence.

Now, counting all the inactives who intentionally do not show up for church, and thus intentionally do not vote, as no-confidence votes, poses quite the problem.  A majority of no-confidence votes defeats a measure, calling or appointment, doesn’t it?  Can you imagine sitting in church when a sustaining vote is called for and you and 34 other people raise hands in approbation while the other 65 people keep their hands down?  Do you think such an appointment would go through?

Leaving the status quo as it is

Maybe there is no ideologic problem with leaving the inactives alone, not consulting them for votes, not counting their lack of participation as no-confidence votes, yet counting them as full-fledged members.  But I wonder if maybe our current practice is going to eventually get us into trouble with the Lord.

Previous Common Consent article: The voice of the people signifies a majority

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist