1 Nephi 13 & 14 commentary, using CTC’s view


On June 17th, 2008, Anthony E. Larson uploaded a post to this blog called, The Great and Abominable Church.  A couple of weeks later a visitor called CTC claimed that 1 Nephi 13 & 14 spoke of a literal great and abominable church that had yet to make its appearance and that much of both of these chapters was yet to be fulfilled.  He said he got this information from someone who he believed was a bona fide prophet of God.  CTC did not use a chronological approach to Nephi’s prophecy.  This made it easy for him to get around certain parts which posed problems to him as a future fulfillment.  But I’m not going to take that approach.  I’m going to read it chronologically and literally, and see where it takes me.

I’m doing this because it interests me, not because I subscribe to this view, so please don’t take this as my interpretation of this chapter.  As I’ve said before, my understanding of prophecy is that it is plain and speaks of real things, and also that it often has shadows or types.  When CTC first posted his comments, I did not respond, because I hadn’t taken the time to really look at 1 Nephi 13, to see if the fulfillment that we normally assign to it could be a mere shadow.  So, I remained silent and let others respond to him.  However, recently I have found myself mentioning time and time again about a coming future captivity of the saints, which brought to my mind what Nephi had stated in 1 Nephi 13, which then brought to my mind what CTC had written in his comments.

All of which leads me to this post, in which I look at these chapters and attempt to interpret them as if their literal fulfillment was still future.  So, let’s begin.

Chapter Thirteen of First Nephi

I will quote a part of the chapter, then give what is commonly assumed as its fulfillment, but as a shadow, and then I will give its literal future fulfillment.  I will try to convincingly show why the shadow fulfillment does not satisfy the prophecy, meaning why the prophecy is not fulfilled every whit by the shadow, necessitating a future, literal fulfillment.  I am using this as my Book of Mormon text.

The times of the Gentiles

and it came to pass | that the angel spake unto me | saying |

look |

and i looked | and beheld many nations and kingdoms | and the angel said unto me |

what beholdest thou |

and i said |

i behold many nations and kingdoms |

and he said unto me |

these are the nations and kingdoms of the gentiles |

This is obviously talking about the times of the Gentiles.  But which times?  The times of the primitive church with the twelve apostles, the times right after the death of the apostles, the times of Joseph Smith, the current times, or a future time of the Gentiles?  Nephi isn’t clear on this point, but I will interpret this as a future time.

The formation of a church

and it came to pass | that i saw | among the nations of the gentiles | the formation of a great church | and the angel said unto me |

behold | the formation of a church | which is most abominable | above all other churches | which slayeth the saints of god | yea | and tortureth them | and bindeth them down | and yoketh them with a yoke of iron | and bringeth them down into captivity |

Shadow past fulfillment: Some have stated that this is the Roman Catholic Church, a literal church, which would put its formation after the death of the apostles.  Others have stated that this is the “church” of science, a metaphorical church, which would put its formation after the Roman Catholic Church.  Others believe this is speaking metaphorically about all churches that are not the true saints of God, per the later verse of 1 Ne. 14:10, giving it a metaphorical “formation” and a metaphorical “captivity.”  These must all be shadows because they do not fulfill the prophecy every whit.

Literal future fulfillment: This a real church, not a figurative or metaphorical church.  And it exists among other, real churches.  It literally kills and tortures real saints—or sanctified people who have entered into a covenant with God, witnessed by baptism—and literally binds them, puts real iron yokes upon them and brings them down into literal (not metaphorical) captivity.

To literally fulfill this prophecy every whit, living saints of God must be present during, or after, the formation of this church, and they must be killed, tortured, bound, yoked with iron, and brought into captivity.  Also, there must be other, real churches present, which do not pertain to the abominable church.

This has not occurred, yet, for although there were people tortured, killed, put into iron yokes and brought into captivity, by various religious organizations in the past, these tortured souls were not saints of God, for the church of God was already non-existent by then and the saints and apostles were already dead.  Therefore, this prophecy must pertain to the future.

Devil, materialism, worldy praise

and it came to pass | that i beheld this great and abominable church |

and i saw the devil | that he was the founder of it |

and i also saw gold | and silver | and silks | and scarlets | and fine-twined linen | and all manner of precious clothing |

and i saw many harlots | and the angel spake unto me | saying |

behold | the gold | and the silver | and the silks | and the scarlets | and the fine-twined linen | and the precious clothing | and the harlots | are the desires of this great and abominable church |

and also | for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of god | and bring them down into captivity |

The previous commentary applies to this section, as well, for if the church of God is not present, in order for this abominable church to bring God’s saints down into captivity and destroy them, it cannot be fulfilled literally.

Many waters

and it came to pass | that i looked | and beheld many waters | and they divided the gentiles from the seed of my brethren |

Shadow past fulfillment:  The Gentiles of Europe are divided (separated) from the American Indians (Lamanites) by the Atlantic Ocean.

Literal future fulfillment: The Gentiles of Asia are divided (separated) from the American Indians (Lamanites) by “many waters.”  The term “many waters” refers to that body of water called by the Nephites, Irreantum, which is the Pacific Ocean.

And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters.  (1 Ne. 17:5)

The Spirit of God upon a man

and it came to pass | that the angel said unto me |

behold | the wrath of god is upon the seed of thy brethren |

and i looked | and beheld a man | among the gentiles | who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters |

and i beheld the spirit of god | that it came down | and wrought upon the man | and he went forth upon the many waters | even unto the seed of my brethren | who were in the promised land |

Shadow past fulfillment:  The European Gentile, Christopher Columbus, “believed himself chosen by God to find [a new] land and deliver the light of Christianity to the natives there.”  He sailed upon the Atlantic Ocean to the New World, all the way to the Lamanite remnant.

Literal future fulfillment:  A man among the Asian Gentiles (not necessarily a Gentile man, nor Asian) will have the Spirit of God come down and work upon him.  This man will be a holy prophet of God and will travel from Asia to North America, upon the Irreantum or Pacific Ocean, until he reaches the Lamanite remnant.

The Spirit of God upon captive Gentiles

and it came to pass | that i beheld the spirit of god | that it wrought upon other gentiles | and they went forth out of captivity upon the many waters |

Shadow past fulfillment:  European Gentiles (Puritans) leave Europe and their religious “captivity” for America to partake of religious freedom.  (Never mind that Europe was one of the freest places on the planet at the time.)  They travel over the Atlantic Ocean.

Literal future fulfillment:  Asian Gentiles are wrought upon by the Spirit of God, becoming saints of God, and leave Asian captivity, meaning that they leave the captivity of the tyrannical Chinese, North Korean and other communist regimes and dictatorships, which bind the people down in literal captivity.  They travel over the Irreantum (Pacific Ocean.)

The scattering of the Lamanites

and it came to pass | that i beheld many multitudes of the gentiles upon the land of promise |

and i beheld the wrath of god | that it was upon the seed of my brethren | and they were scattered before the gentiles | and were smitten |

and i beheld the spirit of the lord | that it was upon the gentiles | and they did prosper | and obtain the land for their inheritance |

and i beheld | that they were white | and exceedingly fair and beautiful | like unto my people before they were slain |

Shadow past fulfillment:  Lots of European Gentiles are in America.  The European Gentiles partially scatter the American Indians and gather them into reservations.  The European Gentiles take possession of Indian and American land.  Some prosper, some do not.  The European Gentiles are white, fair and beautiful.

Literal future fulfillment:  Lots of different Gentiles are in America.  An unnamed group of (European?) Gentiles fully scatter the American Indians, off of the reservations, and smite them, so that the Lamanites are completely landless.  The Spirit of the Lord comes upon a righteous group of (Asian?) Gentiles (saints) and they prosper and inherit the land.  This righteous group of Gentiles is white, fair and beautiful.

Former captors wage war against former captives; God saves former captives

and it came to pass | that i nephi beheld | that the gentiles | who had gone forth out of captivity | did humble themselves before the lord | and the power of the lord was with them |

and i beheld | that their mother gentiles were gathered together upon the waters | and upon the land | also | to battle against them |

and i beheld | that the power of god was with them | and also | that the wrath of god was upon all those | that were gathered together against them to battle |

and i | nephi | beheld | that the gentiles | that had gone out of captivity | were delivered by the power of god out of the hands of all other nations |

Shadow past fulfillment:  Many European Gentiles (in the American British colonies) are either deists or believe in God, Christianity and the Bible.  The American Revolutionary War ensues.  Despite hardships, lack of supplies, training, etc., the American Continental Army defeats the British.

Literal future fulfillment:  The Asian Gentiles (who are converted saints of God)—who left their Asian communist countries, who traveled over the Irreantum (Pacific Ocean), who are now living upon the land of America—humble themselves before the Lord and obtain the gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost.  Their mother countries (China, Russia and the rest) send warships upon the waters to battle them and gather together upon the water and also gather together upon the land.  Divine intervention (miracles of God) takes place and the armies of the mother Gentile nations, as well as the armies of all those nations who were gathered with them to battle the former Asian Gentile captives, are defeated by the power of God, and not by any power of man.

A book, the record of the Jews

and it came to pass | that i | nephi | beheld | that they did prosper in the land |

and i beheld a book | and it was carried forth among them | and the angel said unto me |

knowest thou the meaning of the book |

and i said unto him |

i know not |

and he said |

behold | it proceedeth out of the mouth of a jew |

and i | nephi | beheld it | and he said unto me |

the book | that thou beholdest | is a record of the jews | which contains the covenants of the lord | which he hath made unto the house of israel |

and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets |

and it is a record like unto the engravings | which are upon the plates of brass | save there are not so many | nevertheless | they contain the covenants of the lord | which he hath made unto the house of israel | wherefore | they are of great worth unto the gentiles |

and the angel of the lord said unto me |

thou hast beheld | that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a jew |

and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a jew | it contained the fulness of the gospel of the lord | of whom the twelve apostles bear record | and they bear record | according to the truth which is in the lamb of god | wherefore | these things go forth from the jews in purity unto the gentiles | according to the truth which is in god |

and after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the lamb from the jews unto the gentiles | thou seest the formation of a great and abominable church | which is most abominable | above all other churches |

for behold | they have taken away from the gospel of the lamb many parts | which are plain and most precious |

and also | many covenants of the lord have they taken away |

and all this have they done | that they might pervert the right ways of the lord | that they might blind the eyes | and harden the hearts | of the children of men | wherefore | thou seest | that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church | that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book | which is the book of the lamb of god |

and after these plain and precious things were taken away | it goeth forth unto all the nations of the gentiles |

and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the gentiles | yea | even across the many waters | which thou hast seen with the gentiles | which have gone forth out of captivity | thou seest | because of the many plain and precious things | which have been taken out of the book | which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men | according to the plainness which is in the lamb of god | because of these things | which are taken away out of the gospel of the lamb | an exceedingly great many do stumble | yea | insomuch that satan hath great power over them | nevertheless | thou beholdest | that the gentiles | who have gone forth out of captivity | and have been lifted up by the power of god | above all other nations upon the face of the land | which is choice | above all other lands | which is the land | that the lord god hath covenanted with thy father | that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance | wherefore | thou seest | that the lord god will not suffer | that the gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed | which are among thy brethren | neither will he suffer | that the gentiles shall destroy the seed of thy brethren | neither will the lord god suffer | that the gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness | which thou beholdest | they are in | because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the lamb | which have been kept back by that abominable church | whose formation thou hast seen |

wherefore |

saith the lamb of god |

i will be merciful unto the gentiles | unto the visiting of the remnant of the house of israel in great judgment |

Shadow past fulfillment:  The European Gentiles (now called American citizens) have a Bible—written by multiple authors, not a single Jew—which has been corrupted by that great and abominable church, you know, the Roman Catholic Church, or the science non-church, or the vast assembly of non-saint churches “church.”  That church.  Anyway, that church/non-church takes some plain and precious parts away from the Bible and then sends it out to all the European Gentiles, which then makes its way to America, since the European Gentiles have traveled there over the Atlantic Ocean.  And because of this faulty Bible, many of the European Gentiles stumble and sin.  But hope is not lost, for the Lord has a plan.

Literal future fulfillment:  The Asian Gentiles saints living in America have a book, written by a singular Jew, which contains a record of the Jews, the covenants of the Lord and many of the prophecies of the prophets.  This book is like the plates of brass, except it doesn’t contain as much information as the plates of brass.  It contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the testimony of all twelve apostles of the Lord.

When the book first appears, written by the singular Jew, it will go to the Gentiles, presumably to the Asian Gentiles who were in captivity, since they will be carrying the book.  After it goes to the Gentiles, the great and abominable church will be formed.  That church apparently will get a copy of the book and make drastic changes to it, taking out plain and precious parts.  Then they will publish the book far and wide, so that it ends up in every Gentile nation, including in America.

There will be, then, two editions of the book.  One which is pure, carried by the Asian Gentile saints living in America, and the other which is corrupted, carried by the other Gentiles (living in America and elsewhere).  Because of the corrupted version, many Gentiles stumble and sin.  But hope is not lost, for the Lord has a plan.

Another book, the record of the Nephites

and it came to pass | that the angel of the lord spake unto me | saying |

behold |

saith the lamb of god |

after i have visited the remnant of the house of israel |

and this remnant | of whom i speak | is the seed of thy father |

wherefore | after i have visited them in judgment | and smitten them by the hand of the gentiles | and after the gentiles do stumble exceedingly | because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the lamb | which have been kept back by that abominable church | which is the mother of harlots |

saith the lamb |

i will be merciful unto the gentiles in that day | insomuch that i will bring forth unto them in mine own power much of my gospel | which shall be plain and precious |

saith the lamb |

for behold |

saith the lamb |

i will manifest myself unto thy seed | that they shall write many things | which i shall minister unto them | which shall be plain and precious | and after thy seed shall be destroyed | and dwindle in unbelief | and also the seed of thy brethren |

behold | these things shall be hid up |

to come forth unto the gentiles by the gift and power of the lamb |

and in them shall be written my gospel |

saith the lamb |

and my rock | and my salvation |

and blessed are they | who shall seek to bring forth my zion at that day | for they shall have the gift and the power of the holy ghost |

and if they endure unto the end | they shall be lifted up at the last day | and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the lamb |

and whoso shall publish peace | yea | tidings of great joy | how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be |

Shadow past fulfillment:  The Book of Mormon, an abridged record of the Nephites, was written, and came forth to the Gentiles that were stumbling, by the gift and power of God, and in it is God’s rock, salvation and gospel, and it contains the many plain and precious parts that have been taken out of the Bible, as well as an abridgment of the ministry of the Savior to the Nephites.  Those during the time of Joseph Smith were blessed with the gift and power of the Holy Ghost as they sought to establish Zion.

Future literal fulfillment:  An unabridged Nephite record (not the Book of Mormon) will be written, to come forth to the Gentiles that stumble, by the gift and power of God, and in it will be God’s rock, salvation and gospel, and it will contain the many plain and precious parts that have been taken out of the book that is carried by the Asian Gentile saints.  In the Nephite record will be “many things” that the Savior personally ministered to the Nephites.  In other words, it will be an unabridged account of that ministry.  Those during the time of the appearance of this unabridged Nephite record will be blessed with the gift and power of the Holy Ghost as they seek to establish Zion.

Two records established in one

and it came to pass | that i beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren | and also the book of the lamb of god | which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the jew | that it came forth from the gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren |

and after it had come forth unto them | i beheld other books | which came forth by the power of the lamb from the gentiles unto them | unto the convincing of the gentiles | and the remnant of the seed of my brethren | and also | the jews | who were scattered upon all the face of the earth | that the records of the prophets | and of the twelve apostles of the lamb | are true | and the angel spake unto me | saying |

these last records | which thou hast seen among the gentiles | shall establish the truth of the first | which are of the twelve apostles of the lamb |

and shall make known the plain and precious things | which have been taken away from them |

and shall make known to all kindreds | tongues | and people | that the lamb of god is the son of the eternal father | and the savior of the world | and that all men must come unto him | or they cannot be saved | and they must come according to the words | which shall be established by the mouth of the lamb |

and the words of the lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed | as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the lamb | wherefore | they both shall be established in one | for there is one god | and one shepherd over all the earth |

and the time cometh | that he shall manifest himself unto all nations | both unto the jews | and also unto the gentiles |

and after he has manifested himself unto the jews | and also unto the gentiles | then he shall manifest himself unto the gentiles | and also unto the jews |

and the last shall be first | and the first shall be last |

Shadow past fulfillment:  The Bible written by multiple Jews went to the Lamanites.  Later, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price went to the Lamanites, and these last records established the truth of the Bible (as far as it is translated correctly), which is a record of the four apostles of the Lord, and made known the plain and precious parts missing in it.  Both volumes of scripture were established in one, by being bound up as a quadruple combination.

Literal future fulfillment:  The unchanged book carried by the Asian Gentile saints, written by a singular Jew, will go to the Lamanites.  Later, the unabridged Nephite record (as well as other records) will go to the Lamanites and will establish the truth of the unadulterated book that is carried about by the Asian Gentile saints, which is a record of all twelve apostles of the Lord, and will make known the plain and precious parts that are missing in the perverted edition of that record.  Both volumes of scripture will be established in one.

Chapter Fourteen of First Nephi

The whole of 1 Nephi 14 is still future, according to my understanding, but since I’m using CTC’s view to interpret the prophecy, I will try to bring up anything that may coincide with what I wrote about chapter thirteen.

Numbering

and it shall come to pass | that if the gentiles shall hearken unto the lamb of god | in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word | and also in power | in very deed | unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks | and harden not their hearts against the lamb of god | they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father | yea | they shall be numbered among the house of israel |

and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land forever |

they shall be no more brought down into captivity |

and the house of israel shall no more be confounded |

and that great pit | which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church | which was founded by the devil and his children | that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell | yea | that great pit | which hath been digged for the destruction of men | shall be filled by those who digged it | unto their utter destruction |

saith the lamb of god |

not the destruction of the soul | save it be the casting of it into that hell | which hath no end |

for behold | this is according to the captivity of the devil | and also according to the justice of god upon all those | who will work wickedness and abomination before him |

Shadow past/present fulfillment:  I suppose latter-day saints could interpret numbering among the house of Israel as fulfilled by getting their patriarchal blessings, which tell them what tribe they have been assigned to.

Literal future fulfillment:  Numbering is a tribal function.  I’ve already gone over this on this blog before, so I’m not going to elaborate on this topic again.  Let it suffice that my understanding is that this pertains to the future and has not yet been fulfilled in any part, whatsoever.

The great and marvelous work

and it came to pass | that the angel spake unto me | nephi | saying |

thou hast beheld | that if the gentiles repent | it shall be well with them |

and thou also knowest | concerning the covenants of the lord unto the house of israel |

and thou also hast heard | that whoso repenteth not | must perish | therefore | wo be unto the gentiles | if it so be | that they harden their hearts against the lamb of god |

for the time cometh |

saith the lamb of god |

that i will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men | a work which shall be everlasting | either on the one hand | or on the other | either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal | or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts | and the blindness of their minds | unto their being brought down into captivity | and also into destruction | both temporally and spiritually |

according to the captivity of the devil | of which i have spoken |

Shadow past fulfillment:  The times of Joseph Smith in which he restored many lost truths and layed the foundation of the kingdom is often thought as the great and marvelous work.

Literal future fulfillment:  The great and marvel work takes places after the numbering of the Gentiles among the house of Israel, therefore, it is still a future event.

The covenants of the Father to the house of Israel

and it came to pass | that when the angel had spoken these words | he said unto me |

rememberest thou the covenants of the father unto the house of israel |

i said unto him |

yea |

I don’t really need to comment on this.

Two churches only

and it came to pass | that he said unto me |

look | and behold that great and abominable church | which is the mother of abominations | whose founder is the devil |

and he said unto me |

behold | there are save two churches only |

the one is the church of the lamb of god | and the other is the church of the devil | wherefore | whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of god | belongeth to that great church | which is the mother of abominations | and she is the whore of all the earth |

Shadow past fulfillment:  Some use this scripture retroactively, to apply to the thirteenth chapter of First Nephi.  So, they define the great and abominable church as everything that isn’t the LDS church.

Literal future fulfillment:  The great and marvelous work, which is still future, will cause a division among the people, so that there are no longer a multiplicity of churches on earth.  Everything will either align itself with the great and abominable church, being absorbed by her, or join the saints of God in the now-called church of the Lamb of God.  The church of the Lamb of God will be using, if you remember, the Book of the Lamb of God.  In other words, that unchanged book written by a singular Jew, carried by the Asian Gentile saints, which contains the writings of the twelve (not four) apostles of the Lamb.  Just as Mormons are called Mormons because of the book they carry and use and believe, so the Lamb of God church will be called by the name of their main book.

Headquarters in the midst of Irreantum

and it came to pass | that i looked | and beheld the whore of all the earth | and she sat upon many waters | and she had dominion over all the earth | among all nations | kindreds | tongues | and people |

Shadow past fulfillment:  Bad (non-LDS) churches are all over the planet.

Literal future fulfillment:  The great and abominable church will be headquartered somewhere in the Pacific Ocean and will have global reach.

The church of the Lamb of God

and it came to pass | that i beheld the church of the lamb of god | and its numbers were few | because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore | who sat upon many waters | nevertheless | i beheld | that the church of the lamb | who were the saints of god | were also upon all the face of the earth | and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small | because of the wickedness of the great whore | whom i saw |

Shadow past fulfillment:  Good (LDS) churches are all over the planet.

Literal future fulfillment:  The church of the Lamb of God will have global reach, but small membership, due to the other church’s wickedness.

Gathering of the whore to fight the Lamb

and it came to pass | that i beheld | that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth among all the nations of the gentiles to fight against the lamb of god |

I ain’t gonna interpret this.

Power of God upon the saints and covenant people

and it came to pass | that i | nephi | beheld the power of the lamb of god | that it descended upon the saints of the church of the lamb | and upon the covenant people of the lord | who were scattered upon all the face of the earth | and they were armed with righteousness | and with the power of god in great glory |

Nor will I interpret this.  But do notice that at this point in the prophetic timeline, the covenant people of the Lord are still in their scattered state.

Worldwide wars

and it came to pass | that i beheld | that the wrath of god was poured out upon that great and abominable church | insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth | and as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations | which belonged to the mother of abominations | the angel spake unto me | saying |

behold | the wrath of god is upon the mother of harlots |

and behold | thou seest all these things | and when the day cometh | that the wrath of god is poured out upon the mother of harlots | which is the great and abominable church of all the earth | whose founder is the devil | then at that day the work of the father shall commence in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants | which he hath made to his people | who are of the house of israel |

Nor will I interpret this.  But do notice that only now, after there are wars and rumors of war everywhere, after the numbering, after the unabridged Nephite record and the record of the twelve apostles of the Lamb come forth, etc., only after all these things happen does the work of the Father commence in preparing the way for the fulfilling of His covenants with Israel!

The apostle John

and it came to pass | that the angel spake unto me | saying |

look |

and i looked | and beheld a man | and he was dressed in a white robe | and the angel said unto me |

behold | one of the twelve apostles of the lamb |

behold | he shall see and write the remainder of these things | yea | and also many things which have been | and he shall also write concerning the end of the world | wherefore | the things | which he shall write | are just and true |

and behold | they are written in the book | which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the jew | and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the jew | or at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the jew | the things | which were written | were plain | and pure | and most precious | and easy to the understanding of all men |

and behold | the things | which this apostle of the lamb shall write | are many things | which thou hast seen |

and behold | the remainder shalt thou see | but the things | which thou shalt see hereafter | thou shalt not write | for the lord god hath ordained the apostle of the lamb of god | that he should write them | and also others | who have been | to them hath he shown all things | and they have written them | and they are sealed up to come forth in their purity | according to the truth which is in the lamb | in the own due time of the lord | unto the house of israel |

and i | nephi | heard | and bear record | that the name of the apostle of the lamb was john | according to the word of the angel |

and behold | i | nephi | am forbidden | that i should write the remainder of the things | which i saw and heard | wherefore | the things | which i have written | sufficeth me | and i have written but a small part of the things | which i saw |

and i bear record | that i saw the things | which my father saw | and the angel of the lord did make them known unto me |

Shadow past fulfillment:  John the apostle wrote the Book of Revelation, which contains some of the things that Nephi saw and the Book of Revelation is found in the Bible, which was written by multiple Jews.

Literal future fulfillment:  John the apostle will appear in the future, with a mission to gather the tribes of Israel, as a Jewish Elias, meaning an Elias of the tribe of Judah, and he will come and restore all things pertaining to the Jews.

Q. What are we to understand by the little book which was eaten by John, as mentioned in the 10th chapter of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that it was a mission, and an ordinance, for him to gather the tribes of Israel; behold, this is Elias, who, as it is written, must come and restore all things.  (D&C 77:14)
As part of his commission, John will prophesy among many nations, kings, tongues and people.

And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud; and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was at it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire; and he had in his hand a little book open; and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, and cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth; and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.

And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write; and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,

Those things are sealed up which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer; but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said,

God and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

And I went unto the angel, and said unto him,

Give me the little book.

And he said unto me,

Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey; and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

And he said unto me,

Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.  (Revelations 10, Inspired Version)

It was for this reason that John was translated, that he might perform this latter-day work.

And the Lord said unto me:

John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.

 And I said unto him:

Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.

 And the Lord said unto me:

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.

 And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter:

If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom.   I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done.   Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.   And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.   Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired.  (D&C 7)

John, then, is the Jew, out of whose mouth the book, which Nephi saw in vision, would proceed.  He is the “hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” which will write this book.  Through John will proceed the record and testimony of all twelve apostles of the Lamb, and all the things which Nephi saw will be written by John, “and also many things which have been,” meaning that John will write things which preceded Nephi.  The writings of John in the Bible do not cover all the things that the angel told Nephi John would write, which would be written in the book that proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, which is called “the Book of the Lamb of God.”

And this is the very reason why the angel prohibited Nephi from writing the rest of his vision.  The Book of Revelation does not contain the vision that Nephi saw.  If anything, it only contains a part of the vision, or an abridgement.  Nephi could not write what he saw because it was not the proper time for that information to come forth.  When John re-appears on the scene, he will dictate the book that Nephi saw the Asian Gentile saints carrying, which will contain the full vision of Nephi, as well as the covenants of the Lord, many of the prophecies of the prophets, the testimony of all twelve apostles, a record of the Jews and “many things which have been.”  Yet, despite all that, it will still be less material than what the plates of brass contain.

John may, in fact, be the man who is wrought upon by the Spirit of God, who goes forth upon the many waters (Irreantum) to the promised land, who is followed by the Asian Gentile saints.  John may be that man among the Asian Gentiles, who preaches to them and gives them the book that he will write, which they will carry with them to the promised land.  John may be the very one who frees them from captivity, allowing them to leave their countries and come over the Irreantum to America.

Wrapping this up

Is any of this true?  Could our standard interpretation of these two chapters be mere shadows?  I will leave it up to the reader to figure that out for him or herself.  One thing is for sure, if 1 Nephi 13 has yet to be literally fulfilled, we know what the very first thing mentioned is: the formation of a great and abominable church and the death, torture and captivity of the saints.  Let us hope that none of the things I wrote above have any basis in prophetic reality.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

My letter to Prolife Christians about the HHS Mandate


Dear Pro-life Christians Against the HHS Mandate,

The Supreme Court has already decided that there cannot be a religious exception to a law that applies to all persons equally. They’ve already decided that while the Congress can’t legislate that you agree with abortion in your mind — they certainly have the power to legislate that you agree with abortion with your actions.

You might not remember it — but it was back in the 19th century when the LDS were deprived of their 1st Amendment right to freely practice their religion by the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act.  You probably don’t recall because you were too busy celebrating with the rest of the country that those pagan, polygamous Mormons “got theirs” for daring to insist that God wanted them to love more than one spouse at a time.

The church of jesus christ of latter day saints challenged it on the grounds that passing an anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional because consenting adults entering plural marriages was a matter of the religious practice and duty of a Mormon’s faith.

While the Supreme Court said it recognized that under the 1st Amendment, Congress could not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religionit argued that a law prohibiting polygamy doesn’t fall under that prohibition.  And they said that although the constitution didn’t expressly define “religion”, they quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in support of drawing a hard distinction between religion as a matter of belief/the mind and one’s actions that might flow from religious belief.

It was their opinion that while a matter of belief lies solely between a man and his God — the legislative powers of the state can reach actions [just not opinions] — despite the fact that beliefs inform action, and all action is predicated upon a corresponding belief.

The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion [plural marriages vs. murder — talk about “apples to apples”]:

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.  Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.  Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does.  Here, the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living.  He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law.  When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law.  And the breaking of the law is the crime.  Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed.  Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law.  The only defense of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted.  It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only.

[Reynolds v. United States]:

What all this means is — that as soon as the Supreme Court decided that those who believe in practicing polygamy could no more be exempt from an anti-polygamy law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief would be bound by laws against murder:

  • religion as a matter of belief and religion as a matter of practice was legally dichotomized
  • the state was given jurisdiction over your religion as a matter of action
  • you lost your case against a mandate that employers provide contraceptive and abortive birth control as a part of the Affordable Health Care Act.
I’m sorry — but I hear the world’s tiniest violin playing, “My heart bleeds for you” whenever I hear Pro-life Christians complaining about how a healthcare mandate for employers to cover contraception and abortive procedures:  “trashes their freedom of religious expression.”You’ve allowed the State already to declare its power to demarcate religion into the realm of “belief” and the “mind” [rather than a function of “practice” and of the “physical”] way back in the 1890’s.   Sorry — but this is a battle you’ve already lost when the Supreme Court upheld the right of the State to imprison LDS church leaders, confiscate their property, and terminate the church’s corporate charter — all because of the Mormon’s freely exercising their religion.

When all the other Christians sat back and applauded as the State passed laws prohibiting the free exercise of the Mormon religion — simply because of their hatred of men and women having plural spouses — the fate over this comparatively light matter of employers covering birth control in their health care plans was settled.

Sincerely,
A Mormon tired of hearing your whining

Next Article by Justin:  Lukewarm = Good for nothing

Previous Article by Justin:  The Unity of God

Wives, follow your husbands! – Patriarchy, androcracy and the egalitarian tribe


My text for this post are the following scriptural passages, written by the apostles Peter and Paul:

Peter: Wives, be in subjection to obedient and disobedient husbands

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conduct of the wives; while they behold your chaste conduct coupled with fear.  Let your adorning be not that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold, or putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.  For after this manner in old times the holy women, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands; even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do will, and are not afraid with any amazement. (1 Peter 3: 1-6 Inspired Version)

Paul: Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. (Colossians 3: 18 Inspired Version)

Paul: Wives, your husband is your head, submit and subject yourselves to him

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11: 3 Inspired Version)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the Savior of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5: 22-24 Inspired Version)

Androcracy

Androcracy is “rulership by the men.”  (From Webster’s 3rd Unabridged International Dictionary.)

Although there is little doubt that biblical patriarchy existed, what Peter and Paul taught under the gospel framework in the above scriptural passages was theological androcracy, not biblical patriarchy.  Patriarchy is androcracy with the added dimension of father-right.  Here are the definitions of patriarchy and patriarch, as well as matriarchy, from the same dictionary.

Patriarch

A patriarch is “the father and ruler of a family or tribe; one ruling his family or descendants by paternal right; –usually applied to heads of families in ancient history, esp. in Biblical and Jewish history to those who lived before Moses.”  The word comes from patri-, meaning father + arch, meaning a leader, chief.

Patriarchy

A state or stage of social development characterized by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and religious functions, the legal dependence of wife, or wives, and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line.  Patriarchy is distinguished from androcracy, or the physical and social supremacy of men in primitive society, patriarchy being held to involve, besides such supremacy, father right (adaptation of the Ger. Vaterrecht), or descent and inheritance in the male line.

Matriarchy

A state or stage of social evolution in which descent is reckoned only in the female line, all children belonging to the mother’s clan.  Such a system increases the mother’s social and political importance, making her the head of the family and the guardian of religious rites and traditions.  Hence, with many writers matriarchy means not only descent reckoned through the female line (called uterine descent, or cognation), but also rulership by woman.  Others, however, discriminate the rights and customs characteristic of uterine descent, as mother-right (adaptation of G. Mutterrecht), from the political or domestic supremacy of woman, known as gynecocracy, or gynocracy, “rulership by women,” or metrocracy, “rulership by mothers.”  Matriarchy in the narrow sense (that is, as “mother-right”) is found among many primitive peoples; whether it ever existed in the broader sense is disputed.

The priesthood is patterned after the egalitarian tribe

We modern LDS tend to view the the gospel in terms of only patriarchy and androcracy, but this view is only held because we are not numbered in functioning tribes.  The gospel, when lived tribally, encompasses patriarchy, matriarchy, androcracy, gynocracy, father-right and mother-right.  When taken out of the tribal context, some aspects of it manifest or dominate more, while others are suppressed, depending on the non-tribal culture we find ourselves in.  The gospel can be adapted to the cultures and societies of the world, but it is designed to be lived in egalitarian tribes.

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.

Tribal bishops

A man married to a woman acts in the office of a bishop.  The office of a bishop “is in administering all temporal things” (D&C 107: 68) and in being a common judge.  This is the duty of a husband, to provide the temporal (material) necessities of life for his wife and children, and to sit as a judge in his family.

His wife, as his helpmeet, may act as his counselor in matters of temporal administration or in judgment of family affairs, or may simply defer all judgment to him, allowing him to sit as a literal descendant of Aaron, without counselors.

The tribal bishop (with the single counselor) is superior to the church bishop because there is a covenantal bond between bishop and counselor.

Tribal bishoprics

When a man is married to two wives, the arrangement corresponds to a bishopric with two counselors.  The two wives are not equal to the man, just as a bishopric’s counselors are not equal to the bishop: he is the wives’ bishop (with responsibility to provide temporal salvation) and they are the husband’s counselors.  Because of the covenantal bonds between the man and his wives, this marriage bishopric is superior to a church bishopric.

Common judge

A husband in a tribe sits as a common judge of the wife with whom he lives and their children.

Higher judges the lower; lower judges the higher

The gospel principle set forth in the Book of Mormon of a system of higher and lower judges, the lower one judging the higher and the higher judging the lower, is based upon ancient tribunals (tribe-unals), or tribal judgment systems.

Higher and lower judges

When a man has more than one wife, his wives form a quorum or council of lower judges. Because common consent must reign supreme, the combined decision of his wives upon his head is the end of controversy concerning him. If a husband, a common judge, acts up the lower judges (the wives) can convene to decide the issue.

When a woman has more than one husband, her husbands form a quorum or council of higher judges. If she acts up, the matter can be taken before a council of her husbands, for judgment.

These are the true “courts of love,” for all these people are married to each other and are under covenant to love one another. They are superior to church higher, lower and common judges, as well as church higher and lower courts of love. The church courts are mere imitations of the tribal courts.

A jury of peers

In an egalitarian tribal system, the jury of peers consists of the husbands of your wife, or the wives of your husband. The modern jury of peers is inferior to the tribal peers, because there is no mechanism to link the peers together. In the tribal system, they all have a vested interest that justice and mercy be done, for they are all linked together through a web of marriage covenants.

Priesthood councils, presidencies and quorums

Every conceivable priesthood council, presidency and quorum is found within the tribal quorums and councils of husbands. Three husbands of one wife form a presidency. Twelve husbands of one wife who are free to travel, form a quorum of apostles (sent ones). Seven husbands of one wife who are free to travel, form a presidency of seventy. Seventy husbands who are free to travel form a quorum of seventy. 12, 24, 48, or 96 husbands form quorums of deacons, teachers, priests and elders.

The United Order

A woman who has multiple husbands essentially is married to multiple bishops, meaning she is married to men who are responsible for her temporal welfare. Her husbands form a bishopric quorum, or quorum of bishops, in which they share what they have with each other and with their wives and children, so that all have everything common. They are bound to the all the wives by covenant to care for them and thus are bound (or linked through her) to each other, also. In other words, this is the what the United Order is patterned after. The United Order binds men together by covenant to care for the poor and the needy and to dispose of their material possessions in their behalf.

Androcracy and patriarchy are found in egalitarian tribes

The egalitarian tribe is what Zion is based upon, nevertheless, an egalitarian tribe may or may not use the gospel as its tribal law. Just as a husband is free to “obey not the word” of God, so an entire egalitarian tribe is free to adopt or reject the gospel. But regardless of whether a husband obeys the word of God or rejects it, the gospel, being patterned after the egalitarian tribe, requires that wives submit or subject themselves to their husbands. This is a manifestation of androcracy. The husband is the common judge, the bishop. When there are multiple husbands, they constitute the high council, or higher judges.

When one husband lives with the wife and the other husbands live with other wives, the children of the one wife that lives with the one husband may be counted as posterity of the one husband, even though any of the husbands may have fathered the children and despite all husbands treating them as their own flesh and blood. But on the tribal records, all children may be written down as being fathered by the one husband living with the wife. This is a manifestation of patriarchy.

Gynocracy and matriarchy are also found in egalitarian tribes

When acting as a quorum or council, as a court, as a jury of peers, or when giving or withholding consent, the wives manifest gynocracy. All the children born to a woman are posterity of that woman and her lineage is recorded on tribal records. This is a manifestation of matriarchy or mother-right (uterine descent). If the woman lives with multiple husbands and not just one of her husbands, then uterine descent is the preferred method of recording lineage.

When a woman marries a man from another clan or tribe, she remains with her clan and her husband leaves his own clan to join with her clan, not vice versa. The gospel imitates this tribal function by instructing the man to leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his wife.

Gospel checks and balances

The gospel provides checks and balances to abuses that may result in relationships between men and women.  Although women are instructed to obey their husbands, even if the husbands are not themselves obeying the gospel, the law of common consent still applies.  Also, men are instructed to love their wives and to use only persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, unfeigned love, kindness and pure knowledge to influence their wives.  If any husband attempts to maintain his power or influence over his wives by virtue of his title of husband, or if he attempts to exercise control or unrighteous dominion over his wives, his authority as a husband is null and void and his wife is justified in withdrawing her consent from him.  But as long as that husband follows the gospel-prescribed way of influencing people, even if the man himself is an unbeliever, or was a believer in the gospel but has since departed from it, or even if the man believes in the gospel but his views of the gospel have become markedly different than the wife’s, she is still bound by the gospel to obey him.

Proper protocol: go through covenant lines of authority

Sometimes a woman is tempted to by-pass her husband and his divinely appointed leadership and go to an ecclesiastical (church) authority for direction.  She may feel justified to talk to her bishop, or perhaps even to her stake president, about her husband, because she feels that his beliefs about, and actions concerning, the gospel are incorrect.  She may feel that he is breaking his gospel covenants in some way, shape or form (even though he himself may not see them as broken).  Or, perhaps he no longer believes in the gospel.  Because of this, she may see him as a sinner and as a man no longer worthy of following, submitting and subjecting herself to.

If she goes to see the bishop or stake president for guidance and direction, by-passing her husband and tattle-telling on him, she will be guilty of committing sin.  Men and women are free to believe what they will and act however they want.  They are free to accept the gospel, modify the gospel or reject it outright.  As long as a husband is following the proper manner of influencing a wife, in other words, as long as there is no unrighteous dominion, the wife is to obey the husband.  That is the gospel law.  He can start drinking and smoking and swearing, he can start growing a beard and stop wearing ties, he can do all sorts of things that his wife may think are incompatible with the gospel, but as long as he is not exercising unrighteous dominion, she is bound by the gospel law to submit to his authority.

The reason why there is no gospel justification in holding a bishop or stake president’s authority above a husband’s is because the Lord considers the authority of a husband as carrying more weight than the authority of a bishop or stake president.  The bishop or stake president is under no covenant relationship with the man’s wife.  They have no vested interest in her.  They have not become one with her.  The husband, though, has become one with her and has a vested interest in her, and she in him.  Even without the priesthood, the husband still acts in the tribal office of bishop and common judge.  The Lord looks upon him as if he were an un-ordained priest, as if he possessed priesthood.  And the Lord fully recognizes the tribal authority of that man.

When a wife goes to a priesthood holder who has no covenantal relationship to her, for leadership and guidance, she shows by her actions that she has no respect for her husband’s tribal office, nor for the gospel law or their marriage covenant.  She disrespects both her husband and the Lord.

Proper priesthood protocol is to go through the lines of authority.  The first line of authority that a wife has access to is her husband with whom she is living.  This line is created by her covenantal relationship to him.  Her next lines of authority are all her other husbands, who do not live with her, but who also have covenantal relationships with her.  The next line of authority would be the wives of her husband, what some call the “sister wives.”  These wives are linked to her through covenants they have with her husband.  An ecclesiastical leader, who has no covenantal ties to her, is the very last line of authority she should resort to, and only after all tribal lines have been exhausted.

Not submitting is iniquity

Again, if a woman in such a situation, whose husband is not engaging in unrighteous dominion, does not submit to her husband, she commits the sin of rebellion and treason by ratting out his beliefs and actions which she believes are incompatible with the gospel to an ecclesiastical authority who has no covenantal relationship to her.  It is disloyalty and betrayal on her part, akin to cheating, by revealing family matters essentially to strangers and is unbecoming of a saint.  It also will create even greater problems in her family as now the ecclesiastical leader will often go on a witch-hunt and interfere in their covenantal connection.

If there are beliefs or actions that the wife doesn’t like, she and the husband need to work it out among themselves, and not drag persons who are not in a covenantal relationship with either one of them into the matter.  If there is genuine iniquity, it needs to be confessed to the offending party (the wife or the husband) and then forgiveness and reconciliation between the two needs to occur.  Ecclesiastical authorities are only to be called in for cases of unrepentant sins in which the offending party refuses to confess to a sin witnessed by two or more persons.  But in most cases a spouse should never testify against another spouse.  That would be an act of betrayal.

Speaking in terms of plasma theology, this would be like two planets linked to each other through a plasma column (the marital covenant) and one of them moves toward, or attracts, a third planet that has no plasma column linking it to the first two planets.  The resulting plasma interactions will cause disruption of the plasma column found between the first two planets.

Paul’s words

In a gospel-centered marriage, the man and woman have covenanted with each other, making them equals.  They have also covenanted with Christ, which binds both of them individually to Him.  This makes a triangle, with the husband, wife and Christ each taking a corner.

Paul’s words, though, about God being the head of Christ, Christ being the head of man, and man being the head of woman, creates a straight line of authority (a plasma column) : creating a patriarchy or androcracy.  What needs to be kept in mind when reading Paul is that this is only one frame of the picture.  If the full, tribal picture is not seen, if only the one frame is observed, it is understandable that the gospel may be understood as containing only patriarchy.  With only the single frame to see, patriarchy or androcracy dominates the view.

Paul’s words, then, must be viewed in light of the complete, tribal picture, that also contains matriarchy and gynocracy.  This makes it plain that the gospel is egalitarian in nature.  We cannot clearly see it now because we are not currently living in egalitarian tribes.

The head is the chief, which is the servant

In the gospel, the chief ones are to be the servants, by entrance into the priesthood.  So, when Paul says that the man is the head of the woman, it is because he is meant to be the servant of the woman.

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.  But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.  For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10: 42-45, emphasis mine.)

Here is the same scripture, re-worded a little different:

But Jesus called them, and said to them,

You [Twelve] know that they who are appointed to be -archs(a) over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.  But among you [Twelve] there shall be anarchy(b); whoever desires to become great among you [Twelve], shall be minister of you [Twelve].  And whoever of you [Twelve] desires to become the chiefest, shall be servant of all.  For even the Son of Man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.  (Mark 10: 42-45, emphasis mine.)

(a) “-arch” and “arch” defined: -arch Function: noun combining form. Etymology: Middle English -arche, from Anglo-French & Late Latin & Latin; Anglo-French -arche, from Late Latin -archa, from Latin -arches, -archus, from Greek -arches, -archos, from archein, to begin, rule. : ruler : leader  (Taken from Merriam-Webster’s Online Collegiate Dictionary.)  -arch [Gr. archos chief, commander, archein to rule. See ARCH, a.]  A suffix meaning a ruler, as in monarch (a sole ruler). arch, a. 1. Chief; eminent; greatest; principal.  (Taken from Webster’s 3rd Unabridged International Dictionary.)

(b) anarchy Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler.  (Taken from Merriam-Webster’s Online Collegiate Dictionary.)

So, whoever wanted to be great, was not be be great (they were to be the least) and whoever wanted to be first (chief, principal), was to be last (servant of all).  The priesthood, then, is not an archy, but an anarchy.  The order is reversed: whoever wants to be first must be last.  There are to be no rulers, only servants.

Follow the Brethren

Although many LDS find this annoying saying (“follow the brethren”) to be counter-productive to a gospel-enlightened life, it actually does have some basis in truth.  In a tribal setting, in which a wife is married to multiple husbands, her husbands form a tribal quorum of “brethren.”  If these men hold the Holy Priesthood, they also form a priesthood quorum.  It is this quorum of husbands, or council of husbands, that the wife must follow.  When meeting together to decide issues pertaining to this woman and her children, they form a council of husbands.

In the church, the saying “follow the brethren” applies to quorums, or men who hold priesthood together as a quorum, and specifically to the highest two quorums in the church: the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

In a tribe, the highest quorum that has anything to do with a wife, being bound to her by covenant, is the quorum of her husbands.  If she is in a monogamous relationship, then she is to follow her “brother” (singular husband) until such time as she gets another husband.  So, the only “brother” or “brethren” that the gospel requires to be followed (by women) is the council of husbands.  For the men, we are to “follow the sisters”, meaning that quorum or council of our wives that decides issues in tribal settings.

Conclusion

A tribal view of the gospel helps us to see it for what it really is.  There is no aspect of the gospel that we need be ashamed of.  It is completely egalitarian in nature and divine.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Parable of the Redemption of Zion (D&C 101: 43-62), Take Two: a Purely Planetary/Plasma Interpretation


Prophecy = Planetary Movements

It is my understanding that the heavenly precedes the earthly and that prophecy takes as its template what happens in the heavens: the movements of planets. Prophecy is merely the description of these movements and the plasma interactions that result from them.

The 1st Key

All true prophecy follows the same pattern: every element is some celestial body or plasma display—a star, a planet, a comet, etc.–and the imagery in the prophetic story is imagery seen in the heavens. So, for example, if the prophecy mentions a sword, it doesn’t mean that there is a real sword in the heavens (the sky or outer space) but that there are planetary movements and plasma formations that, when seen from Earth, create the image of, or look like, a sword. Again, it is merely the image of a sword, not a real, earthly sword. This is a key to understanding prophecy.

So, any prophecy is merely the movements of the planets and the resulting plasma interactions, converted into a story. To understand the prophecy, one must convert the story back into the planetary movements and plasma interactions.

Prophets Prophesy of the Heavenly

In any true prophecy of the future, the prophet is explaining what is going to occur in the heavens: the movements and plasma interactions of the planets.

Prophets Prophesy of the Earthly

After the planets go through their motions, fulfilling the elements of the prophecy, the same story then plays out here on Earth.

The 2nd Key

A second key, then, to understanding prophecy is that first comes the heavenly fulfillment followed by an earthly fulfillment.

Elements and Their Order: The 3rd Key

For a prophecy to be fulfilled, every element of it must be present, in the correct sequential order. If any element is missing or if any two elements are out of order, the prophecy is not fulfilled. This is a third key to understanding prophecy.

Why D&C 101: 43-62 is still future

When applying these three keys to the parable of the redemption of Zion, it becomes clear that this parable, which is a prophetic story, has not been fulfilled in any way.

Most people who comment on the parable assign a strictly earth-based meaning to it. Not possessing the first two keys, they fail to examine the past and present astronomical history to see if the heavenly aspect of it has been fulfilled. Had they used these keys, they would have quickly noticed that nothing even remotely similar to the parable has occurred in the heavens. This would halt their search for any earthly fulfillment, because the earthly must follow the heavenly.

By forcing an earth-only fulfillment, commentators must use the third key alone, but even here they often don’t turn it. If a prophecy contains exactly 10 elements, they will often accept 9 as its “fulfillment.” If the order is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, they will often accept 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6 and call it “fulfilled.” Coming close is their standard, not exactness.

For example, many people still believe that the first part of this parable (D&C 101: 43-51) was fulfilled in Independence, Missouri or in Nauvoo, Illinois, because the parable speaks of a failed attempt to build a tower, which everyone interprets as a temple, and the Missouri saints failed to build a temple. In the case of Nauvoo, some people also believe that the Nauvoo temple was not completed (either entirely or in the time designated by the Lord to be completed).

A simple look at the parable will show that neither interpretation is correct. Notice the sequential order and the number of elements:

  • 1st, the servants of the Nobleman plant 12 olive-trees, which Joseph Smith interpreted as being 12 stakes. (A tree is a stick of wood sticking straight out of the ground. A stake is a stick of wood sticking straight out of the ground.  To the prophetic mind, they are the same.) This never occurred during Joseph’s lifetime. (A number of stakes were established, but not 12.)
  • 2nd, the servants build a hedge around the 12 trees (stakes). This also never occurred.
  • 3rd, the servants set watchmen upon the hedge. This also never occurred.

The first three elements are completely missing from the Missouri and Nauvoo histories. There is no way around this, so interpreters merely ignore these elements and start with the 4th.

  • 4th, the servants begin to construct a tower but get no farther than laying its foundation. Joseph interpreted the tower as an observatory, distinct from a temple, but everyone else combines them together. His design for the Nauvoo temple called for a tower to be built on top of (in addition to) the temple. The parable only mentions a tower, not a temple. So, tower does not equate to temple, yet people routinely mix these elements up.

These first four elements of the parable are sufficient to show that neither Missouri nor Nauvoo fulfills the parable/prophecy. There are similarities to past and current events for some elements, but coming close is not the same as fulfillment. For example, some will see the City Creek Development as fulfillment of D&C 101: 49 (“Might not this money be given to the exchangers?”) Prophecy is based upon true patterns, so sure we’ll see aspects of prophecy repeated among men, but we shouldn’t be so quick to declare that “this is prophecy being fulfilled before our very eyes.” When we take one element of a 10-element prophecy out of context, it sets us up to miss the real event.

About this post

In my previous post, I attempted to interpret the parable of the redemption of Zion using key #3 alone, as an earth-only fulfillment. Halfway through my examination, I realized that the entire thing was evidently speaking of the planets and I thought to scratch out what I was writing and start all over again, this time applying the three keys, but I didn’t because I found the exercise fun and also because the information I had drawn out of the text interested me. Despite my attempt at using only the third key, I still couldn’t come up with a strictly earth-bound interpretation because my mind kept seeing the heavens move about and I ended up with a mixed bag: half earth-bound, half planetary. I found the post strange and wonderful at the same time, if not wholly accurate, and felt compelled to hit the publish button.

The very next day, I re-interpreted it according to the three prophetic keys and wrote out this post. Unfortunately, I had computer/Internet connection problems and I wasn’t able to publish this until today. What follows is what I believe to be the actual meaning of the parable, the real celestial events that the parable’s story was placed over. Unlike the previous post, these aren’t musings, but consist of my scriptural exposition of this parable.

Parable of the Redemption of Zion

And now, I will show unto you a parable, that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion.

The Planet EEAAOOAAEE

A certain nobleman

Nobleman is the massive Planet EEAAOOAAEE.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE owns Our Solar System

had a spot of land, very choice;

The very choice land is the empty space that makes up Our Solar System, such as the field that a man had, “and he sent forth his servants [planets] into the field [Our Solar System] to dig in the field [Our Solar System]” (D&C 88: 51.)

Planet EEAAOOAAEE speaks to Servant Planets; i.e., Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

and he said unto his servants:

Servants are planets located in the empty spaces between the various Solar Systems.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE commands Servant Planets to go to a Solar System

Go ye unto my vineyard,

Vineyard is any of the Solar Systems, where the bulk of the fruit (planets) are located. Servant Planets are to travel to one of these Solar Systems.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE commands Servant Planets to go to Our Solar System

even upon this very choice piece of land,

Servant Planets are to travel to Our Solar System.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE commands Servant Planets to plant Twelve Planet/Plasma Trees

and plant twelve olive-trees;

Servant Planets are to discharge plasma and/or rearrange the objects of Our Solar System, creating the visual image of olive-trees in twelve locations around Our Solar System. To do this, the trees must be “planted” on the Planets of Our Solar System. When the Planets of Our Solar System are properly arranged, they discharge plasma, creating the visual image of a tree coming from their poles. This can be accomplished with a minimum of six planets (two trees per planet, one out of each pole.)

Planet EEAAOOAAEE commands Servant Planets to set Moons around Twelve Planet/Plasma Trees

and set watchmen round about them,

Servant Planets are to discharge plasma and/or rearrange the objects of Our Solar System, creating the visual images of watchmen around the olive-tree plasma formations. The visual images of watchmen are moons that circle a planet.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE commands Servant Planets to build an Interplanetary Plasma Tube

and build a tower,

Servant Planets are to discharge plasma and/or rearrange the objects of Our Solar System, creating the visual image of a tower (plasma tube). The visual image of a tower can be formed by a stack of planets with a plasma tube connecting them.

so that a Planet Sun, set upon the Interplanetary Plasma Tube, can illuminate the space surrounding Our Solar System

that one may overlook the land round about, to be a watchman upon the tower,

Servant Planets are to discharge plasma and/or rearrange the objects of Our Solar System, creating the visual image of a watchman upon the tower. The visual image of a watchman upon a tower can be formed by a planet sitting atop a plasma tube.

so that when the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System come, they don’t destroy the plasma and planetary formations

that mine olive-trees may not be broken down when the enemy shall come to spoil

The enemy are Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System.

and capture the Planets of Our Solar System

and take upon themselves the fruit of my vineyard.

The fruit of the vineyard are the Planets of Our Solar System. If the Servant Planets have not accomplished their work by the time the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System enter Our Solar System, these Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System will break up the plasma and planetary formations of the olive-trees, hedge, watchmen, tower, and watchman upon the tower and will capture the Planets of Our Solar System.

Servant Planets enter Our Solar System

Now, the servants of the nobleman went and did as their lord commanded them,

The Servant Planets enter Our Solar System.

Servant Planets form Twelve Planet/Plasma Trees

and planted the olive-trees,

The Servant Planets discharge plasma and/or rearrange the objects of Our Solar System, creating the visual images of twelve olive-trees around Our Solar System.

Servant Planets form Planetary Rings around Twelve Planet/Plasma Trees

and built a hedge round about,

The Servant Planets discharge plasma and/or rearrange the objects of Our Solar System, creating the visual image of a hedge around the twelve olive-tree plasma formations. The visual image of a hedge is a planetary ring, such as the rings of the planet Saturn. It could also be an asteroid belt.

Servant Planets set Moons upon the Planetary Rings

and set watchmen,

The Servant Planets discharge plasma and/or rearrange the objects of Our Solar System, creating the visual image of a hedge around the plasma formations of the twelve olive-trees and also creating the visual image of watchmen upon the hedge. The visual image of watchmen upon the hedge is of moons orbiting the planet, on the outskirts of the planetary rings, as if the moons were set upon the rings. It can also be of planets skirting the edge of the asteroid belt.

Servant Planets form a Partial Interplanetary Plasma Tube

and began to build a tower.

The Servant Planets discharge plasma and/or rearrange the objects of Our Solar System, creating the visual image of the foundation of a tower. The visual image of a tower is of a plasma tube connecting two (or more) planets. A plasma tube between two planets that only goes part of the way up from only one of the planets (it doesn’t actually connect the planets) will look like the foundation of a tower and not a completed tower.

Servant Planets discharge Interplanetary Thunderbolts after forming Partial Interplanetary Plasma Tube

And while they were yet laying the foundation thereof, they began to say among themselves:

After the foundation of a tower image is formed, the Servant Planets discharge plasma between themselves, creating interplanetary thunderbolts (celestial sound/thunder).

Servant Planets discharge Interplanetary Thunderbolts

And what need hath my lord of this tower?

The Servant Planets discharge plasma between themselves, creating interplanetary thunderbolts (celestial sound/thunder).

Servant Planets discharge Interplanetary Thunderbolts for a long time

And consulted for a long time,

The Servant Planets continue discharging plasma between themselves, creating interplanetary thunderbolts (celestial sound/thunder) for a long time.

Servant Planets discharge Interplanetary Thunderbolts

saying among themselves:

The Servant Planets discharge plasma between themselves, creating interplanetary thunderbolts (celestial sound/thunder).

Servant Planets discharge Interplanetary Thunderbolts

What need hath my lord of this tower, seeing this is a time of peace?

The Servant Planets discharge plasma between themselves, creating interplanetary thunderbolts (celestial sound/thunder).

Servant Planets discharge Interplanetary Thunderbolts

Might not this money be given to the exchangers?

The Servant Planets discharge plasma between themselves, creating interplanetary thunderbolts (celestial sound/thunder).

Servant Planets discharge Interplanetary Thunderbolts

For there is no need of these things.

The Servant Planets discharge plasma between themselves, creating interplanetary thunderbolts (celestial sound/thunder).

Servant Planets discharge Interplanetary Thunderbolts

And while they were at variance one with another

The Servant Planets discharge plasma between themselves, creating interplanetary thunderbolts (celestial sound/thunder).

Servant Planets slow down their rotation and celestial movements

they became very slothful,

The Servant Planets begin to rotate and move in their orbits much more slowly, slowing down to a near standstill.

Servant Planets stop forming the Interplanetary Plasma Tube

and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord.

The Servant Planets no longer go through the spatial movements necessary to finish the creation of the visual image of a tower (a plasma formation).

Servant Planets stop discharging; afterward Disruptive Planets enter Our Solar System

And the enemy came by night,

The Servant Planets stop discharging interplanetary thunderbolts between themselves, so that there is no more celestial sound/thunder. The watchmen (moons) upon the hedge move off and away. The only visual images that remain when one looks upon into the sky are the twelve olive-trees, the hedge and the foundation of a tower. But even these displays of plasma are reduced in power, so that everything seems like it is nighttime and the heavens are asleep. In this setting, the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System enter Our Solar System.

Disruptive Planets break down Planetary Rings (that have no Moons skirting their edges)

and broke down the hedge;

The Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System break down the hedge (planetary rings/asteroid belt).

Servant Planets begin discharging and leave Our Solar System

and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled;

The Servant Planets begin to discharge wildly and begin moving again, leaving Our Solar System.

Disruptive Planets destroy planetary/plasma formations of Servant Planets

and the enemy destroyed their works,

The Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System destroy all the plasma/planetary formations created by the Servant Planets.

Disruptive Planets break down formation of Twelve Planetary/Plasma Trees

and broke down the olive-trees.

The Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System remove the plasma formation of the olive-trees.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

Why! what is the cause of this great evil?

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets. In this “conversation,” the Servant Planets are chastised for not completing the plasma tube (tower).

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

and set a watchman upon the tower,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets. In this “conversation,” the Servant Planets are chastised for not setting a planet atop the completed plasma tube (tower).

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

and watched for my vineyard,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets. In this “conversation,” the Servant Planets are chastised for not keeping the watchmen (moons/planets) upon the hedge (rings/asteroid belt).

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you?

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets. In this “conversation,” the Servant Planets are chastised for going into a low power mode, slowing down their orbits and rotations, reducing the energy field of Our Solar System.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off;

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets. In this “conversation,” the Servant Planets are told that had a planet been set atop the plasma tube (tower), it would have discharged, illuminating the space surrounding Our Solar System so that the approaching Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System would have been seen.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

and then ye could have made ready

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets. In this “conversation,” the Servant Planets are told that then Our Solar System would have gone into high energy mode, creating a strong plasma double layer.

Hannes Alfvén described a double layer as, “…a plasma formation by which a plasma, in the physical meaning of this word, protects itself from the environment. It is analogous to a cell wall by which a plasma, in the biological meaning of this word, protects itself from the environment.” (Source.)

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets. In this “conversation,” the Servant Planets are told that then Our Solar System would have gone into high energy mode, creating a strong plasma double layer, which would have repelled the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to the Servant Planets

and saved my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer.

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and the Servant Planets. In this “conversation,” the Servant Planets are told that then Our Solar System would have gone into high energy mode, creating a strong plasma double layer, which would have repelled the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Servant Planet Joseph

And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants:

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and one of the Servant Planets called Joseph.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

Go and gather together the residue of my servants,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” the Planet Joseph is told that it is to capture other Servant Planets in the area.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph is told that it is to capture small and medium sized Servant Planets in the area.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

save those only whom I have appointed to tarry;

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph is told that it is to not capture some of the small and medium sized Servant Planets in the area.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

and go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph is told to take the captured small and medium sized Servant Planets in the area to Our Solar System.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

and redeem my vineyard;

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph is told that it is to liberate Our Solar System from the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

for it is mine; I have bought it with money.

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph is told that the Planet EEAAOOAAEE owns Our Solar System.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land;

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph is told to leave at once for Our Solar System with the captured Servant Planets.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

break down the walls of mine enemies;

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph and captured Servant Planets are to break down the walls of the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System. This could be synonymous with planetary rings and/or the asteroid belt, or it could be referring to strong plasma double layers (which are like cellular walls) that have been formed by the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System. Whatever the planetary configuration or plasma formation they consist of, when viewed from Earth they will appear to man as walls in the heavens above.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

throw down their tower,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph and captured Servant Planets are to break up the interplanetary plasma tube that the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System have formed.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

and scatter their watchmen.

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph and captured Servant Planets are to scatter the moons (remove them from their orbits) of the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

And inasmuch as they gather together against you,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” it is learned that the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System may gather together, presenting themselves as a barrier to Planet Joseph and the captured Servant Planets.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

avenge me of mine enemies,

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph is told that it and the captured Servant Planets are to scatter any of the gathered Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System, removing them from Our Solar System.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land.

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. In this “conversation,” Planet Joseph learns that immediately after the Disruptive Planets Not From Our Solar System are removed from Our Solar System, the massive Planet EEAAOOAAEE and all its captive planetary entourage (planets, moon, comets, etc.) will enter Our Solar System and take control of it.

Planet Joseph discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet EEAAOOAAEE

And the servant said unto his lord: When shall these things be?

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet Joseph and Planet EEAAOOAAEE.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

And he said unto his servant: When I will;

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

go ye straightway, and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you;

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph.

Planet EEAAOOAAEE discharges Interplanetary Thunderbolts to Planet Joseph

and this shall be my seal and blessing upon you—a faithful and wise steward in the midst of mine house, a ruler in my kingdom.

Outside of Our Solar System, plasma discharges occur between Planet EEAAOOAAEE and Planet Joseph. Planet Joseph will be located in the center of the group of planets that will make up Our Solar System, and will become a ruling planet (a sun).

Planet Joseph captures the Servant Planets, enters Our Solar System and scatters the Disruptive Planets and their plasma/planetary configurations

And his servant went straightway, and did all things whatsoever his lord commanded him;

After many days all these planetary movements/plasma formations come to pass

and after many days all things were fulfilled.

What all this means

There are four groups of planets that are to enter our Solar System in the future.

Group One: The Servant Planets

These planets will cause great changes to our Solar System. After this group arrives we will see trees, a hedge and watchmen in the heavens, as well as the foundation of a tower, but no watchman upon the tower. In other words, they will not complete the Interplanetary Plasma Tube and ignite a Sun at the top of that tube.

Group Two: The Disruptive Planets

These planets will break up whatever has been formed by the first group and will cause the first group to leave our Solar System. This group will create an Interplanetary Plasma Tube but there will be no plasma trees and possibly no hedge, though there will be plasma walls erected. They will also cause watchmen to appear, though there will likely be no watchman upon the tower, as none is mentioned in the parable. So, like the first group, there will be no ignited Sun at the top of the tube.

Group Three: Planet Joseph and the Servant Planet Army

When this group enters, they will scatter the second group’s watchmen, break up the walls and throw down the Interplanetary Plasma Tube. They will cause the second group to leave our Solar System. The parable does not mention that this group builds anything, only that it will sweep away what encumbered the spot (the Disruptive Planets and their works.)

Group Four: Planet EEAAOOAAEE and entourage

The fourth and final group will enter Our Solar System and take possession of it, meaning that the massive Planet EEAAOOAAEE will capture everything found within the confines of our Solar System, including Planet Joseph and the Servant Planet Army which will be there awaiting the arrival of the fourth group.

Conclusion: this parable is a future prophecy

Group one needs to arrive and start doing its thing before the earthly part of the prophecy can even begin to be fulfilled. This group has not, yet, arrived. This parable, then, in its entirety, pertains to the future.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The World I See


In the world I see – you are stalking elk thru the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.  You’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life.  You’ll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower.  And when you look down, you’ll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty carpool lane of some abandoned superhighway.

This is the vision of a paleoanarchist. It is the vision of humanity without walls, without controls, without the Luciferian system that so enervates this world that even sensing it would be as hopeless for most as a fish sensing water.

This system has led to the crucifixion of the earth that we are currently witnessing.  For thousands of years, humans have screwed-up, trashed, and exploited our planet [the Church™ included], and now history expects you to clean up after everyone.  You have to recycle, bring your own bags to the grocery store, pay carbon taxes, account for every drop of used motor oil, and be left with the bill for nuclear waste, burned hydrocarbons, and land-filled garbage dumped generations before you were born.

Imagine you are witnessing humans at the dawn of agriculture.  We had just previously spent hundreds of thousands of years living in the paradise of hunter/gatherer tribes.  Humans neither sowed, reaped, nor gathered into barns because we took from the earth as we had need.  We were clothed as the lilies of the field — neither toiling nor spinning to make garments to cover our nakedness.  This Edenic lifestyle came to an end when Satan successfully employed mortals in implementing such things as sedentary agriculture, urbanization, monogamous family-units, exclusive rights to property, states, etc.  Such systems of domestication required a control-based relationship with the land, plants, and animals being domesticated – and, by extension, unrighteous dominion over humanity.  We can see that this, over time, has devolved to where every conceivable physical thing from food to land to genes to ideas are viewed as assets and property to be owned and controlled.  This system views animals as so-many pounds of protoplasmic tissues that can be fed and treated any way humans can conceive of.  Humans who view lower forms of life this way go on to view other people within their community, and other communities within the world, in similar terms.

Humans are approaching the beginning of the final phase of this narrative.  We now:

  • subsidize every cow in America and the EU with over $2.50 per day – for perspective that more than what three billion humans have to live off of each day.  One in five live [if you can call it living] on less than one dollar a day.
  • experiment with direct genetic engineering of life
  • murder 30 to 40% of infants thru abortion and fertility clinics
  • feed the average American 15 pounds of synthetic food additives every year
  • throw away 99% of consumer goods within six months of purchase
  • fluoridate 66% of the US public water supply
  • throw out 4 ½ pounds of garbage each day [per person, in America] – and for each can of trash you take to the curb, 70 cans of garbage were thrown out to make the stuff you threw out.

Satan is directing this trend until its culmination whereby life itself is a commodity and property of no greater or lesser fundamental value than any other asset that Babylon can sell or trade.  As state combines with state to form a prison planet – Satan will be approaching success in his mission to captivate a majority of the children of our Father.  Luckily, the Lord is moving as well.  We are currently in a mercy phase – wherein He is allowing events to unfold.  But soon, the time will come where we will see the Lord directly involving Himself in our affairs to set these things right.  The unified, Gentile LDS Church ™ will be broken-up – and perhaps then assimilated into the state.  These sects will be overrun with iniquity, and the Lamanites will rise up against the state/church and destroy them.  May I live to see you all in Zion.

As a side note:  I am weary to see that most Mormons associate Zion with the celebration of agrarian virtues – those who conceive a small-scale, property-sharing economy based largely on agriculture as providing the best model for a Zion community.  However, cooperation and trust are the key virtues of Zion.  Studying human society has brought me to the conclusion that hunter/gatherers [typically portrayed as the heartless loners] have higher levels of trust and cooperation within their communities than do agrarian, sedentary ones.  Hunting an elk takes a great deal more cooperation when compared to plowing, planting, and harvesting a field of grain.  People are attracted to the idea of an American farm family because of the independent, self-sufficient image it romanticizes.  When you labor hard to bring forth the annual crops from the soil – you will be much less likely to have those things in common than if you hunted and gathered as a tribe and therefore shared with all as a tribe.  The key to building Zion will not be found in the largest mistake in human history — i.e. the agricultural revolution.  It will be built by a return to Nature.  There must be a re-activation of our tribal functions, a return to seeking the best gifts of the Spirit, a re-implimentation of tribal relationships — which includes an active living of the law of chastity, connecting only with real human beings, along with a true understanding of body modesty, and ingesting a diet congruent with human physiology [hint: humans didn’t succeed on this planet by eating sugar and grains].

This is the world I see.

Next Article by Justin:  Cheerfully Doing All Things

Previous Article by Justin:  The Garment

The Parable of the Redemption of Zion (D&C 101: 43-62): a Series of FUTURE (not Past) Events


My text for this post is D&C 101: 43-62, which is a parable.  OWIW recently attempted to interpret it, followed by zo-ma-rah.  I thought I’d give it a try, too.  The following is what I noticed from the text of the parable itself.  I haven’t done any deep, scholarly studies, so much of it may be totally off.  Perhaps with more study, my views may change.  These are just some quick impressions I had as I read over it today.  It is not so much a scriptural exposition, as it is scriptural musings.  I also haven’t confirmed anything with the Spirit.  So, nothing to see here, just keep moving!  😉  Okay, I think that is enough of a disclaimer.  Here we go…

Parable of the Redemption of Zion

And now, I will show unto you a parable, that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion.

Nobleman

A certain nobleman

This Nobleman is obviously Jesus Christ.

Nobleman has a very choice spot of land

had a spot of land, very choice;

Where is the very choice spot of land? Applying the parable to the cosmos (plasma theology), it could be interpreted as being Earth. Applying the parable to the Earth (earthly things), it could be interpreted as being North and South America.

Nobleman speaks to servants

and he said unto his servants:

These servants start out obedient and end up disobedient (apostatizing), eventually abandoning the Nobleman’s land (dying?). The servants are not prophets, seers or revelators. They are priests. They possess authority to act in the name of the Nobleman, but cannot see afar off (they have no vision, or are not seers or prophets). All they can do is counsel among themselves and when faced with a question about why the Nobleman commands this or that, they can’t get answers (they have no revelation, meaning they are not revelators). Nevertheless, they are authorized servants of the Nobleman (priesthood holders).

Nobleman commands servants to go to his vineyard

Go ye unto my vineyard,

Where is the vineyard? On the cosmic scale, the vineyard could be the solar system, with the choice land being the Earth. Speaking of earthly things, the vineyard could be the entire planet, with the American Continent (North and South) being the choice land. At any rate, the servants must go to the vineyard, meaning that they were originally not in the vineyard. So, this may indicate that the servants are in heaven and are being told to go to Earth to begin their earthly probation and missions.

Nobleman commands servants to go to very choice piece of land

even upon this very choice piece of land,

Here we have a very choice piece of land. This is likely the same land as the very choice spot of land. Again, the servants must go to it, so they originally were not in the choice spot. So, again, this may mean that they are to be born on the American Continent/planet Earth.

Nobleman commands servants to plant twelve olive-trees

and plant twelve olive-trees;

According to Joseph Smith, the twelve olive trees are twelve stakes of Zion.  (See Twelve Olive Trees.)

Nobleman commands servants to set watchmen around trees

and set watchmen round about them,

The watchmen are not servants, but men hired by the servants to watch (see). These are prophets, seers and revelators. It is their job to see what is coming (the future) from afar off and to warn (prophesy to) the people of what they see (seership) and learn (revelation). The servants are to set (apart) the watchmen (prophets, seers, revelators) around the olive-trees (stakes).

Nobleman commands servants to build a tower

and build a tower,

This tower is not a temple, but is an observatory, as in an astronomical observatory. It may be set upon a temple or set alone, but its purpose is to be able to see afar off.

so that a watchman upon the tower can see the land around the very choice piece of land

that one may overlook the land round about, to be a watchman upon the tower,

In an earthly sense, the “land round about” the choice piece of land is the land round about North and South America. In a plasma theological sense, it is the “land” round about the Earth, meaning the planets and stars, comets, meteors, etc. The one watchman to be placed upon the tower is, again, not a servant, but a prophet, seer and revelator. In a plasma theological sense, he is to be an astronomer, just as Abraham was an astronomer, looking at the skies for any sign that the enemy is approaching.

so that “the enemy” (plural) doesn’t destroy the trees when they come (as prophesied)

that mine olive-trees may not be broken down when the enemy shall come to spoil

The enemy is a plurality of “baddies” and their purpose is to spoil the fruit of the vineyard. This part of the parable is a prophecy that: “the enemy shall come to spoil.” If they come and there is no watchmen (prophets, seers, revelators), no tower (astronomical observatory) and no watchman upon the tower (astronomer), the olive-trees (stakes) will be broken down.

so that they (the enemy) don’t take the fruit of the Nobleman’s vineyard

and take upon themselves the fruit of my vineyard.

“Themselves” indicates that the enemy is a plurality. This can be a plurality of astronomical objects whose close encounters with Earth will cause destruction. Or, speaking of earthly enemies, it could be a plurality of earthly enemies (mankind) who will attempt to plunder and rob and glut upon the fruit of the vineyard (Earth). Although most commentators would ascribe these elements to earthly things, plasma theology explains the imagery perfectly.

What is a vineyard composed of? Vines of grapes. And how are grapes arranged? In clusters, the grapes themselves being round spheres. If you look at the solar system, with its round planets orbiting a round sun, all of which are suspended, it kind of looks like a bunch of grapes. Add the invisible Birkland currents or power lines connecting all the planets, and we’d see the “branches” the grapes (planets) hang on.

The enemy is coming into the vineyard, meaning that the enemy is outside the vineyard, or outside the solar system. When they (the enemy) come in, their purpose is to spoil and take upon themselves the fruit of the vineyard. The fruit are the planets in this solar system, the grapes. A large object coming in from outside the solar system can capture planets (“take upon themselves”) or spoil planets (plunder, rob, destroy, harm).

The main concern is not for the fruit of the vineyard, which will be spoiled and taken upon the enemy, but for the olive-trees which are found on the choice spot of land (Earth). The Nobleman does not want these trees broken down when these enemies enter the solar system, hence these commandments.

If the tower is an astronomical tower, looking to the heavens for these enemies that are to enter the solar system and disturb the planets, this parable makes perfect sense. However, if we interpret it as a tower that is to be used to look at the land round about North and South America for mortal enemies, it doesn’t make sense. A tower can only see so far around it and no size tower can see the land masses around North and South America (Europe and other continents and islands.) However, an astronomical tower can see outer space, the planets, stars, sun, comets, etc. In other words, using a tower in this manner, it is possible to see extremely great distances.

If the vineyard is thought in earthly terms to be Earth, the imagery of the fruit of the vineyard is lost. What is the fruit of the Earth? The parable here is not talking of the fruit of the olive-trees (which would be olives), but the fruit of the vineyard. The olive-trees are located in the choice spot of land, which itself is located in the vineyard.

Anyway I look at it, my mind can only see this fitting astronomically.

Nobleman’s servants are obedient

Now, the servants of the nobleman went and did as their lord commanded them,

Here the servants (priests) go to Earth/North or South America (are born?) and start obeying the instructions.

Nobleman’s servants plant twelve olive-trees

and planted the olive-trees,

They plant 12 stakes of Zion.

Nobleman’s servants build a hedge around trees

and built a hedge round about,

If we take this literally, then the servant-priests build a barrier of defense (or a wall) around the 12 stakes. When was the last time you heard of a stake of Zion having a wall around it? These 12 stakes sound more like cities of Zion with city walls built around. This follows the pattern of Jerusalem and other ancient cities which also had walls built around them.

Nobleman’s servants set watchmen upon the hedge

and set watchmen,

The watchmen are prophets, seers and revelators. They are set (set apart) by the servants (who hold priesthood) upon the hedge (barrier or wall) surrounding the olive-trees (stakes/cities of Zion).

Nobleman’s servants begin to build a tower

and began to build a tower.

Now the servants begin to build the astronomical tower. So, far so good. They have been perfectly obedient servant-priests.

Nobleman’s servants ask each other questions while laying the foundation of the tower

And while they were yet laying the foundation thereof, they began to say among themselves:

The foundation of the tower (not the foundation of a temple) has not yet been fully laid when they start to ask themselves questions concerning all these instructions given by the Nobleman. Notice that they do not inquire of the Nobleman, but merely talk to each other in councils.

Nobleman’s servants ask each other why the Nobleman needs the tower

And what need hath my lord of this tower?

The servant-priests do not understand the purpose of the tower. They think it has as its purpose protection from mortal man and not an astronomical tower looking at the heavens.

Nobleman’s servants hold council for a long time

And consulted for a long time,

The servant-priests are not able to figure out the answer to their question. So they consult with each other in church priesthood councils as to what this tower is for. Perhaps they even consult with the “best minds” that they can find outside of their priesthood quorums.

Nobleman’s servants ask each other questions

saying among themselves:

They have lots of church councils in which they talk to each other, but they never talk to the Nobleman. They just talk among themselves.

Nobleman’s servants ask each other why the Nobleman needs the tower during this time of peace

What need hath my lord of this tower, seeing this is a time of peace?

Again, the only conclusion they can come to is that the tower is for a defense against some man-made enemy, but as they live during a time of peace, to them (and to the others they have consulted with), the construction endeavor seems like an enormous waste of the Nobleman’s money.

Nobleman’s servants ask each other if the Nobleman’s money could be given to the bankers

Might not this money be given to the exchangers?

Gee, I wonder who gave them that idea? Could it be the “best minds” that they had consulted? Could it be that those “best minds” whom they consulted consisted of exchangers (bankers)? Surely by giving the Nobleman’s money to the bankers and investors, the Nobleman’s money will be multiplied exponentially, making the Nobleman’s very happy.

This is a seemingly noble goal. Unfortunately, the Nobleman doesn’t care about making more money. His instructions were to use his money in construction endeavors so that the twelve olive-trees (stakes) would be saved from destruction when the destroyer comes. In other words, the servant-priests were commissioned by the Nobleman to spend money on specific construction projects he had authorized, not to make money with the Nobleman’s money and fund other, unauthorized projects.

Nobleman’s servants conclude there is no need for tower, hedge and watchmen

For there is no need of these things.

The servant-priests conclude their long church councils over the question of whether to proceed and conclude that based upon the present conditions among men (the great peace in the land), it would be wasteful to use the Nobleman’s money per his instructions and build a useless tower.

Nobleman’s servants have disagreements

And while they were at variance one with another

The servant-priests, though, are not united on the conclusion and disagreements ensue.

Nobleman’s servants slow down their work to a crawl

they became very slothful,

Instead of altogether stopping the work of building the tower, they slow the work of construction to a near stand-still. In their view, they will still complete the tower, but it will take many, many years and over time eventually the tower will be finished.

Nobleman’s servants disobey Nobleman and stop working on the tower and paying watchmen

and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord.

Finally, they stop the work altogether and change the plans of how the Nobleman’s money is to be used. They stop paying the watchmen on the walls and relieve them of their duties (no more prophets, seers and revelators) and no longer work to build a tower. The money is diverted to other purposes, such as giving it to the exchangers. Satisfied that they have made the wise decision, the servant-priests go to sleep.

The enemy comes at night while the Nobleman’s servants are asleep

And the enemy came by night,

Unfortunately, during the nighttime, while the servant-priests are asleep, the enemy enters the vineyard (solar system).

The enemy breaks down the hedge (which has no watchmen upon it)

and broke down the hedge;

The enemy wreaks havoc among the vineyard but also in the very choice spot of land where the twelve olive-trees (stake/cities) are located. The passage through the solar system (vineyard) of the enemy causes the hedge (barrier/fence/wall) that surrounds the twelve olive-trees (stake/cities) to be broken down, exposing the olive-trees to the fury of the enemy.

Nobleman’s servants awake, are frightened and flee

and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled;

In this commotion, the servant-priests wake up and, seeing the hedge in shambles and the destructive fury of nature’s elements upon the stake/cities, mortal fear comes upon them and they run away, abandoning the olive-trees (stakes).

Notice there is no mention of the watchmen upon the hedge. This is because there were no watchmen upon the hedge when the enemy comes.

The enemy destroys the work of the Nobleman’s servants

and the enemy destroyed their works,

The enemy’s fury destroys the works of the servant-priests. This refers to the money of the Nobleman that the servant-priests diverted to other projects, unauthorized projects. These projects, these extra works of the servant-priests are destroyed by the enemy’s fury. These are the works of men (the servant-priests), not the works of the Nobleman which he commanded the servant-priests to do in his name and with his money.

The enemy breaks down the olive-trees

and broke down the olive-trees.

The fury of the enemy also breaks down the olive-trees (stakes/cities of Zion), leaving the land desolate.

Nobleman calls to his disobedient servants and speaks to them

Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them,

Where did the disobedient servant-priests flee to? Did they just leave the olive-trees and go to another part of the choice land? If so, perhaps they are still alive. Did they leave the very choice spot of land (North and South America/Earth)? If they left the choice land and we interpret that as the American Continent, perhaps they are still alive in Europe or other continents. If they left the choice land and we interpret that as Earth, then they are dead, having left the Earth, or their mortal probation. In that case, when the Nobleman calls upon them, he is calling upon them in the spirit world and talking to them while they are disembodied spirits, having disobeyed his instructions.

Nobleman asks disobedient servants how the enemy was able to do this

Why! what is the cause of this great evil?

The Nobleman chastises them by asking them what caused this destruction. Was it the enemy that caused this destruction, or was it the disobedience of the servant-priests?

Nobleman chastises disobedient servants for not building the tower

Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also,

They did everything correctly, but they failed to build the astronomical tower.

(Also notice that the vineyard/solar system is only considered “planted” when olive-trees are planted/present.)

for not setting a watchman upon the tower

and set a watchman upon the tower,

They failed to set (apart) an astronomer-seer upon that astronomical observatory tower.

for not watching

and watched for my vineyard,

They didn’t watch for the vineyard (solar system). Their eyes were on the Earth, not on the heavens (planets, stars, etc.) They were focused on the conditions among men on Earth and not on the conditions found in the heavens, as was their commission.

and for falling asleep

and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you?

Lastly, they even fell asleep. Instead of continuing to pay the watchmen (prophets, seers, revelators) to be set (apart) on the hedge, they stopped paying them and let them go (released them). So, they had no more prophets, seers and revelators among them. The only ones available to watch upon the hedge, then, were the servant-priests, but even in this they were lacking, because they chose, instead, to just go asleep, leaving no one upon the hedge. This makes sense because there is no need for watchmen upon the hedge, as the entire land is at peace (they thinking only of the conditions among men).

Nobleman explains to disobedient servants that the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was still far away

And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off;

Here the Nobleman explains that had they placed a watchmen on the tower, the celestial enemy would have been seen entering the solar system (for the signs in the heavens, among the planets, would have been noticed), giving them plenty of heads up.

Nobleman explains to disobedient servants that the servants could have prepared for the enemy

and then ye could have made ready

Once the celestial signs were noticed, they could have made preparations to protect everything owned by the Nobleman.

Nobleman explains to disobedient servants that servants could have stopped the enemy from destroying the hedge

and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof,

They could have then used their priesthood power and authority to stop the enemy from breaking down the hedge (wall/barrier/fence) that surrounded the twelve olive-trees (stakes/cities of Zion).

Nobleman explains to disobedient servants that servants could have saved the vineyard from the destroyer

and saved my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer.

In fact, they could have then used their priesthood power and authority to save the entire vineyard (solar system) from the effects of the destroyer.

Nobleman speaks to his servant Joseph Smith, Jun.

And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants:

Now the Nobleman turns to an altogether different servant-priest, who is also a spirit in the spirit world, even Joseph Smith, Jun. (See D&C 103: 21.)

Notice that Joseph was not among the first group of disobedient servant-priests. This is the very first mention of him.

Nobleman commands Joseph to gather together all the scattered servants who still serve the Nobleman

Go and gather together the residue of my servants,

Joseph is to go back to Earth and gather all of the servant-priests of the Nobleman who were not disobedient. This is the residue of the servant-priests that didn’t run away (die).

Nobleman commands Joseph to take all the young and middle aged servants among all the faithful servants

and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house,

From among all the gathered faithful servant-priests, Joseph is instructed to take all the strong warriors, consisting of the young men and the middle aged men. (There is no mention of old men. Apparently the Nobleman wants no more to do with old men. Or, whatever old men of the gathered, faithful servant-priests are present, are to remain behind.)

leaving only those of young and middle age whom the Nobleman designates are to remain with the gathered body of faithful servants

save those only whom I have appointed to tarry;

Some of the young and middle aged men are to stay with the gathered servant-priests who are not going with Joseph (the old men).

and commands Joseph and young and middle aged servant army to go immediately to the vineyard

and go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard,

Joseph is to take this army of young and middle aged servant-priests and go to the land of the vineyard, meaning the very choice spot of land (Earth/North and South America). This priesthood army may consist of both returned-from-the-dead individuals (such as Joseph), translated individuals, as well as mortal servant-priests.

and redeem it

and redeem my vineyard;

The priesthood army is to liberate the vineyard (solar system), which is held captive by the enemy (celestial objects which have entered the solar system, capturing planets, etc.) They are the only ones who can perform such works, as it is beyond the technology of mankind. They will be able to do these marvels by using the power of the priesthood.

because it has been bought with money

for it is mine; I have bought it with money.

The Nobleman owns this solar system, so it is within his right to take it back from the usurpers who entered and spoiled it (foreign celestial objects.)

Nobleman commands Joseph and servant army to go immediately to Nobleman’s land

Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land;

The Nobleman again commands Joseph to immediately go to the very choice piece of land.

Nobleman commands Joseph and servant army to break down enemy walls

break down the walls of mine enemies;

Now Joseph receives specific instructions on how he is going to liberate (redeem) the vineyard (solar system) from the enemy. Apparently, the enemy (now written in plural form, “enemies”) has “walls” in the solar system. In other words, when looking up to the heaven, there will be plasma phenomena that, to the human eye, looks like walls. These walls must be broken down by the power of the priesthood.

Nobleman commands Joseph and servant army to throw down enemy tower

throw down their tower,

Apparently, the entrance of the enemy into the solar system will create a stacked plasma phenomenon which, to the human eye, will look like a tower. This tower must be thrown down by the power of the priesthood.

Nobleman commands Joseph and servant army to scatter enemy watchmen

and scatter their watchmen.

Again, to the human eye, gazing into the heavens, there will be either plasma phenomena, or physical objects, which appear to be watchmen, or things watching and protecting the enemy, guarding them, etc. These “watchmen” celestial objects must be scattered by the power of the priesthood.

Enemy to gather against Joseph and servant army

And inasmuch as they gather together against you,

Some of these celestial objects will be gathered together, creating dangerous plasma manifestations to the detriment of Joseph and his priesthood army.

Nobleman commands Joseph and servant army to avenge Nobleman of all enemies gathered against them

avenge me of mine enemies,

When this happens, Joseph and army is to use the priesthood against the objects.

so that immediately afterward (by and by) the Nobleman himself can lead the rest of his people to the land and possess it

that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land.

Soon (or immediately) afterward (which is what the term “by and by” means), the Nobleman will come with whatever is left of his house (saints, servants, prophets, tribes) and take possession of the very choice piece of land (North and South America/Earth).

Joseph asks the Nobleman when these prophecies will be fulfilled

And the servant said unto his lord: When shall these things be?

Nobleman tells Joseph it will be in his own due time

And he said unto his servant: When I will;

Nobleman commands Joseph and servant army to immediately go and obey his commandments

go ye straightway, and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you;

Nobleman seals and blesses his servant Joseph

and this shall be my seal and blessing upon you—a faithful and wise steward in the midst of mine house, a ruler in my kingdom.

Joseph goes immediately and obeys all of the Nobleman’s commandments

And his servant went straightway, and did all things whatsoever his lord commanded him;

After many days all the prophecies are fulfilled

and after many days all things were fulfilled.

Conclusion

The parable appears to have a dual fulfillment. It seems to me to be based, principally, upon plasma theology, dealing with things happening in the heavens. I’ve interpreted the servants, watchmen, earthly tower, etc., as all earthly elements of the parable, but even these may be celestial objects, for all I know. At any rate, what happens in the heavens also happens on Earth, so we may see an earthly counterpart and my interpretation of the servants, etc., as earthly men may be valid.

I will give it as my personal opinion that this parable has not, yet, been fulfilled in any part. I know that many think that the tower is talking of the temple and city of Zion in Missouri and I know that some believe the tower is the temple in Nauvoo, but none of these historical events fit perfectly into the parable, as I understand it. So, based upon this brief examination, I’d have to say that the fulfillment of the parable, every part of it, is still a future event.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Body modesty is not a principle of the gospel


This blog is going to have its 3rd birthday next month, October 7th, and since its inception one subject that I have intentionally avoided is the topic of body modesty. From what I’ve read on other Mormon blogs, I’ve always come to the conclusion that Mormons are, essentially, prudes. How, then, could I speak of my understanding of body modesty without offending the sensibilities of my audience? Hence the silence.

Recently, though, I was searching for information on the Maitreya and I came across a different Maitreya whose organization was seeking to change the laws of the land to put the sexes on a more equal standing. I found the legal arguments fascinating and began to write a blog post on just that topic alone. But then I stopped again, realizing that I was mentioning body modesty without going into any depth, as I probably should. It would inevitably come up in the comment section, but without a proper treatment in the post.

So, as is usual for me, after giving it sufficient re-consideration, I made a split-second decision and with a verbal, “oh, what the hell,” I’m now diving head first into this topic.

What I teach my children

I knew that eventually, as my children attended church, they would be taught by their Sunday school teachers and advisers that body modesty is a part of the law of chastity, so I have been especially careful that they are instructed on that law so as to be able to discern truth from error. (I have covered the law of chastity previously on this blog, so I won’t go back into that topic, but I’ll just say here and now that it doesn’t mention how one is supposed to dress.) They understand that body modesty is a man-made societal norm that changes over time to suit the conditions among men, their customs, cultures, climate, biases, preconceived notions and so on and so forth. It has no basis in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Wikipedia has an excellent entry on modesty and I don’t want to extensively quote from it, so please click here to read it and learn about how the standards of body modesty have varied and changed over time.

From here on out I will just use the term “modesty” with the understanding that I am referring only to “body modesty,” meaning that modesty which deals with the covering up of the body with clothing. Okay, back to what my kids are taught.

Heavenly Father’s rule of modesty

I teach my children to hold up the pattern of modesty given by their Father in heaven as the ideal standard. Usually, when my kids ask me a question, I’ll answer them with another question and have them figure out the answer themselves. In this case, I’ll do the same to explain the heavenly pattern:

Question: How does heavenly Father clothe us when He sends us here to Earth?

Answer: He sends us here naked, or clothed in flesh.

 

Question: Is any part of our physical bodies clothed or covered when we get here?

Answer: Yes, the male penis is covered by a foreskin and the female clitoris is covered by a hood.

 

Question: As the body matures into adulthood, does anything become covered?

Answer: Yes, the genitals and armpits of both sexes becomes covered in hair. The face of males also becomes covered in hair.

This is the standard of modesty I give my children. As long as you still have your pubic hair and clitoral hood and penile foreskin coverings, there is no need for shame, for you are dressed modestly.

Everything above and beyond that standard is man-made.

Moroni the naked angel

Said Joseph of the angel Moroni:

He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. (Joseph Smith-History 1: 31)

So, Joseph could see that Moroni was totally naked, except for the open robe he was wearing. Why in the world would God allow Moroni to show Joseph his nakedness? Didn’t he know that robes need to be tied closed, so that no one can see the chest and genital area? Why wasn’t Moroni ashamed to show his nakedness to Joseph?

Isaiah, the naked prophet

In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it; at the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. (Isaiah 20: 1-4)

Shouldn’t Isaiah have felt ashamed to show his nakedness for three straight years?

Our first parents naked

Adam and Even “were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

“And I, the Lord God, said unto Adam: Who told thee thou wast naked?”  (Moses 4: 17)

Let’s answer the question. Who told them that they were naked? Who taught them to be ashamed of their nakedness? Who originated body modesty?

LUCIFER: See–you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness. Quick! Hide!  (Source: The Garden.)

Satan did.

Why Satan told our first parents to clothe themselves

I think Bette Davis said it best:

“I often think that a slightly exposed shoulder emerging from a long satin nightgown packed more sex than two naked bodies in bed.”

She is right, of course. And Satan knew this from the beginning. It is his intention to have everyone break the law of chastity. If everyone were naked, the law of chastity would be broken less, not more. He needed to first cover our parents up and create the illusion of shame, so that the enticement of sin could allure people into uncovering “the sinful parts,” followed by the guilt of acting shameful.

Satan works by using secrets. Occult knowledge is secret knowledge. Secret combinations can only work in the dark. Devilish logic follows that genital parts must become “secret parts.” Thus, we have the (apparently) strange command of the devil to our first parents to abide by the principle of modesty!

Notice, though, that now the devil has made even the breast a “secret part.” Adam and Eve originally covered up only their genitals with fig leaves. Now, society will have us believe the exposure of the female (not male) breast is immodest.

The Lord looks upon the heart

But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. (1 Samuel 16: 7)

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.  (Hebrews 4: 13)

Such truth, though, is not very useful to the devil. So, clothing is used to entice, to create the illusion of sexiness, to flaunt power and prestige and money, to say I am better than you, more beautiful than you. It is used to create situations of judgment, so that mankind judges each other based upon what they are, or are not, wearing. It is used to despise the poor who cannot afford the better garments, or any garments, at all. Etc.

The Lord, though, uses clothing for other, righteous purposes. Clothing can protect from the elements, hence we find the Lord making coats of skins for Adam and Eve so that when they enter the fallen world they can survive. It can convey spiritual symbolism, hence the priesthood garment. And there are other righteous purposes, as well, that do not necessarily equate to “hiding one’s nakedness”, which was Satan’s deceptive intention for clothing. (Remember, the angel Moroni wore a robe that did not hide his nakedness from Joseph. What, then, was the purpose of the robe?)

Not all Mormons are prudes

For example:

LDS Skinny Dippers Forum

These are LDS who are “interested in chaste, wholesome, recreational nudity.” They have no problem with privately or publicly going completely nude. They are, however, most likely a very small minority.

The rest of the LDS are prudes, pure and simple, who quibble over the length of a sleeve or pant leg or skirt. Who are shocked when there is an exposed shoulder. Who cannot even conceive of a painting of a bare chest, stripling warrior whose nipple hasn’t been airbrushed out.

The audience of all modesty talks

The target of virtually all modesty talks is the female population. She is told how and how not to dress. She is taught this by her mother, by her Sunday school teachers and advisers, and by her priesthood leadership. All of this repression, if ever let out, leads to rampant breaking of the law of chastity (Satan’s plan). And if it isn’t let out, it leads to depression (again, Satan’s plan, the misery of all).

Guys, for the most part, hardly get a mention in modesty talks. I don’t recall ever being told I had to cover up my chest or nipples, or had to wear shorts below a certain length, or keep my shoulders and back covered, etc. Modesty oppression is mainly a girl thing.

Of course, the males get oppressed in other ways, such as the insistence on wearing white shirts, flaxen cords about their necks (ties), being clean-shaven and having short hair.

Legal public nudity is coming soon to a city near you

Now this brings me to that web site I spoke of above, about equalizing the sexes. If you click the below link, be forewarned that you will see pictures of top free men and women.

GoTopless.org

Here are some quotes from the web site:

Welcome to GoTopless.org! – We are a US organization, claiming that women have the same constitutional right to be bare chested in public places as men.

Maitreya, Rael, spiritual leader and founder of GoTopless.org states: “As long as men can be topless, constitutionally women should have the same right, or men should also be forced to wear something hiding their chest.”

Why a National GoTopless Protest day? Gotopless.org claims constitutional equality between men and women on being topless in public. Currently, women who dare to be topless in public in the US are repeatedly being arrested, fined, humiliated, criminalized. On SUNDAY AUGUST 22nd, 2010, topless women will rally in great numbers across the USA to protest this gross inequality in the law and will demand that their fundamental right to be topless be acknowledged where men already enjoy that right according to the 14th amendment of the Constitution (please see our exact legal argument on the right to be topfree for women under “14th amendment” in news section.)

Why in August? On August 26, 1920, following a 72-year struggle, the U.S. Constitution was amended to grant women the right to vote. And in 1970, as an ongoing reminder of women’s equality, Congress declared August 26 “Women’s Equality Day.” But even in the 21st century, women need to stand up and demand that equality in fact – not just in words. Note that in 2010, GoTopless will have a large rally nationwide in honor of the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment and Women’s Equality Day.

Why having GoTopless actions in cities where top-less freedom for women is already legal? Those programmed with puritanical values find it difficult to change. This “mentality hurdle” applies to both women and men.

How are we helping women? GoTopless is committed to helping women perceive their breasts as noble, natural parts of their anatomy (whether they are nursing or not). Breasts shouldn’t have to be “modestly” or shamefully hidden from public view any more than arms, legs or feet.

How are we helping men? GoTopless is also committed to helping men differentiate between nudity and sexuality. If the presence of a topless woman in public triggers a sexual impulse, it can easily be controlled in the same way men control themselves when they see a woman wearing a mini skirt or revealing ample cleavage. Men manage to appreciate these things while still showing respect! Choosing consciousness above hormones leads to a peaceful, respectful society providing additional freedom and beauty.

Why do you talk about femininity rather than feminism? In the past, women often had to act like men when fighting for their rights, so they repressed their femininity. Today, GoTopless women see their femininity as a powerful asset as they struggle for equal rights in a masculine-dominated world.

What happens on National GoTopless day? Across America, topless women and men peacefully rally in the streets, parks, on the beaches of their towns and cities. Topfree performances are given by various artists to honor women’s right to be top free, body painting is be available. Chalk street artists also paint Art works from Old Masters (or new ones) without any nipple censure. The aim is to convey that the sight of a top free women in public is as natural as the sight of top free men. Please write to us if you are an artist (performance or visual) who would like to participate in one of future events.

Participating cities for Go Topless Day 2010 are : Please see our news section to learn the details about the events in each city.

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

VENICE BEACH, CALIFORNIA

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

AUSTIN, TEXAS

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

OAHU, HAWAII

DENVER, COLORADO

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

14th Amendment to the US Constitution The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under law and properly interpreted it guarantees women the right to be top-free where men are allowed to be topfree. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions do not recognize that right, and there is a less stringent test in the courts (called intermediate scrutiny) for gender based differential treatment than for e.g., racial classifications (which are analyzed under what’s called strict scrutiny).

Our rights under the 14th Amendment guarantee and include the one to be top free where men are allowed to – We seek to see legislation (or court decisions where arrests are made for being top free) in all jurisdictions to make explicit what should already be understood as implicit within the meaning of equal rights.

Please see the above web site for information about the states and cities where being top free (or even totally nude, such as Portland, Oregon) in public is legal.

What will the LDS ever do?

In the changing legal environment, I wonder what the LDS will do if suddenly they find themselves living in a city where anyone can legally walk around stark naked or bare-chested. Our arguments about skirt length seem kind of silly faced with legal public nudity, as in the right to be nude. Will we be champions of people’s rights, or shame them all as sinners?

And what I really wonder is this: if this changing legal environment is setting the stage for the appearance of naked prophets and angels, are we going to be among those who reject them because of their immodest appearance?

Eyelids, necks and feet to the rescue

Don’t like what you see? Don’t like how that person is dressed? Don’t like it that a woman is going around topfree? Don’t like that that man or woman is walking around in the nude? Well, have no fear. God gave us eyelids with which to close our eyes, and necks with which to turn our head, and feet with which to walk away. This is the proper response.

Don’t make laws to force people to conform to your standards. Don’t make laws to remove people’s rights. Don’t do the devil’s work for him.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Anarchism


On September 14, 2008, Derek P. Moore made the following comment on this blog:

“Peter Kropotkin wrote the Anarchism article for the 1911 Encylopædia Britannica.”

Yesterday, I realized that the blog doesn’t really have any deep, scholarly explanation of anarchism and its history and so I started reading the anarchism entry in that Encylopædia.  I very much liked what I read and felt that it would be an outstanding reference post.  Should someone question me about what anarchism is and isn’t, I could just point them to the post (and you could, too, should you feel so inclined).  So, I am including it here, along with the entry on its author, Prince Kropotkin.

Entry on Anarchism from the 11th Edition (1910-1911) of the Encylopædia Britannica:

ANARCHISM (from the Gr. àv-, and àρχη, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government—harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions.  They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international—temporary or more or less permanent—for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary—as is seen in organic life at large—harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the state; nor would he be limited in the exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind.  He would be guided in his actions by his own understanding, which necessarily would bear the impression of a free action and reaction between his own self and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings.  Man would thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties, intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered by overwork for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great number.  He would thus be able to reach full individualization, which is not possible either under the present system of individualism, or under any system of state-socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular state).

The Anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a Utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have been taken as postulates.  It is derived, they maintain, from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already, even though state socialism may find a temporary favour with the reformers.  The progress of modern technics, which wonderfully simplifies the production of all the necessaries of life; the growing spirit of independence, and the rapid spread of free initiative and free understanding in all branches of activity—including those which formerly were considered as the proper attribution of church and state—are steadily reinforcing the no-government tendency.

As to their economical conceptions, the Anarchists, in common with all Socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility.  They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being.  The Anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress.  But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production.  Consequently, while combating the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the Anarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main support of that system.  Not this or that special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.

The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and modern history (Macedonian empire, Roman empire, modern European states grown up on the ruins of the autonomous cities), the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction of these monopolies.  The Anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life—the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and so on—as also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, state-supported religions, defence of the territory, &c.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny.  State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism.  True progress lies in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the centre to the periphery.

In common with most Socialists, the Anarchists recognize that, like all evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society is followed from time to time by periods of accelerated evolution which are called revolutions; and they think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed.  Periods of rapid changes will follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be taken advantage of—not for increasing and widening the powers of the state, but for reducing them, through the organization in every township or commune of the local groups of producers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the international, federations of these groups.

In virtue of the above principles the Anarchists refuse to be party to the present state organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood into it.  They do not seek to constitute, and invite the working men not to constitute, political parties in the parliaments.  Accordingly, since the foundation of the International Working Men’s Association in 1864-1866, they have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organizations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary legislation.

The Historical Development of Anarchism.The conception of society just sketched, and the tendency which is its dynamic expression, have always existed in mankind, in opposition to the governing hierarchic conception and tendency—now the one and now the other taking the upper hand at different periods of history.  To the former tendency we owe the evolution, by the masses themselves, of those institutions—the clan, the village community, the gild, the free medieval city—by means of which the masses resisted the encroachments of the conquerors and the power-seeking minorities.  The same tendency asserted itself with great energy in the great religious movements of medieval times, especially in the early movements of the reform and its forerunners.  At the same time it evidently found its expression in the writings of some thinkers, since the times of Lao-tsze, although, owing to its non-scholastic and popular origin, it obviously found less sympathy among the scholars than the opposed tendency.

As has been pointed out by Prof. Adler in his Geschichte des Sozialismus and Kommunismus, Aristippus (b. c. 430 B.C.), one of the founders of the Cyrenaic school, already taught that the wise must not give up their liberty to the state, and in reply to a question by Socrates he said that he did not desire to belong either to the governing or the governed class.  Such an attitude, however, seems to have been dictated merely by an Epicurean attitude towards the life of the masses.

The best exponent of Anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno (342-267 or 270 B.C.), from Crete, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, who distinctly opposed his conception of a free community without government to the state-Utopia of Plato.  He repudiated the omnipotence of the state, its intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual—remarking already that, while the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads man to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct—that of sociability.  When men are reasonable enough to follow their natural instincts, they will unite across the frontiers and constitute the Cosmos.  They will have no need of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public worship, and use no money—free gifts taking the place of the exchanges.  Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno have not reached us and are only known through fragmentary quotations.  However, the fact that his very wording is similar to the wording now in use, shows how deeply is laid the tendency of human nature of which he was the mouth-piece.

In medieval times we find the same views on the state expressed by the illustrious bishop of Alba, Marco Girolamo Vida, in his first dialogue De dignitate reipublicae (Ferd. Cavalli, in Mem. dell’ Istituto Veneto, xiii.; Dr E. Nys, Researches in the History of Economics).  But it is especially in several early Christian movements, beginning with the 9th century in Armenia, and in the preachings of the early Hussites, particularly Chojecki, and the early Anabaptists, especially Hans Denk (cf. Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertäufer), that one finds the same ideas forcibly expressed—special stress being laid of course on their moral aspects.

Rabelais and Fénelon, in their Utopias, have also expressed similar ideas, and they were also current in the 18th century amongst the French Encyclopaedists, as may be concluded from separate expressions occasionally met with in the writings of Rousseau, from Diderot’s Preface to the Voyage of Bougainville, and so on.  However, in all probability such ideas could not be developed then, owing to the rigorous censorship of the Roman Catholic Church.

These ideas found their expression later during the great French Revolution.  While the Jacobins did all in their power to centralize everything in the hands of the government, it appears now, from recently published documents, that the masses of the people, in their municipalities and “sections,” accomplished a considerable constructive work.  They appropriated for themselves the election of the judges, the organization of supplies and equipment for the army, as also for the large cities, work for the unemployed, the management of charities, and so on.  They even tried to establish a direct correspondence between the 36,000 communes of France through the intermediary of a special board, outside the National Assembly (cf. Sigismund Lacroix, Actes de la commune de Paris).

It was Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (2 vols., 1793), who was the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of Anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his remarkable work.  Laws, he wrote, are not a product of the wisdom of our ancestors: they are the product of their passions, their timidity, their jealousies and their ambition.  The remedy they offer is worse than the evils they pretend to cure.  If and only if all laws and courts were abolished, and the decisions in the arising contests were left to reasonable men chosen for that purpose, real justice would gradually be evolved.  As to the state, Godwin frankly claimed its abolition.  A society, he wrote, can perfectly well exist without any government: only the communities should be small and perfectly autonomous.  Speaking of property, he stated that the rights of every one “to every substance capable of contributing to the benefit of a human being” must be regulated by justice alone: the substance must go “to him who most wants it.”  His conclusion was Communism.  Godwin, however, had not the courage to maintain his opinions.  He entirely rewrote later on his chapter on property and mitigated his Communist views in the second edition of Political Justice (8vo, 1796).

Proudhon was the first to use, in 1840 (Qu’est-ce que la propriété? first memoir), the name of Anarchy with application to the no-government state of society.  The name of “Anarchists” had been freely applied during the French Revolution by the Girondists to those revolutionaries who did not consider that the task of the Revolution was accomplished with the overthrow of Louis XVI., and insisted upon a series of economical measures being taken (the abolition of feudal rights without redemption, the return to the village communities of the communal lands enclosed since 1669, the limitation of landed property to 120 acres, progressive income-tax, the national organization of exchanges on a just value basis, which already received a beginning of practical realization, and so on).

Now Proudhon advocated a society without government, and used the word Anarchy to describe it.  Proudhon repudiated, as is known, all schemes of Communism, according to which mankind would be driven into communistic monasteries or barracks, as also all the schemes of state or state-aided Socialism which were advocated by Louis Blanc and the Collectivists.  When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that “Property is theft,” he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense of “right of use and abuse “; in property-rights, on the other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the best protection against the encroachments of the state.  At the same time he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on.  He preferred to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest; and this he proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those who are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labour cheques representing the hours of labour required to produce every given commodity.  Under such a system, which Proudhon described as “Mutuellisme,” all the exchanges of services would be strictly equivalent.  Besides, such a bank would be enabled to lend money without interest, levying only something like 1%, or even less, for covering the cost of administration.  Every one being thus enabled to borrow the money that would be required to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any more a yearly rent for the use of it.  A general “social liquidation” would thus be rendered easy, without violent expropriation.  The same applied to mines, railways, factories and so on.

In a society of this type the state would be useless.  The chief relations between citizens would be based on free agreement and regulated by mere account keeping.  The contests might be settled by arbitration.  A penetrating criticism of the state and all possible forms of government, and a deep insight into all economic problems, were well-known characteristics of Proudhon’s work.

It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a Communist; and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedy, 1839).  It had also its precursor in America.  Josiah Warren, who was born in 1798 (cf. W. Bailie, Josiah Warren, the First American Anarchist, Boston, 1900), and belonged to Owen’s “New Harmony,” considered that the failure of this enterprise was chiefly due to the suppression of individuality and the lack of initiative and responsibility.  These defects, he taught, were inherent to every scheme based upon authority and the community of goods.  He advocated, therefore, complete individual liberty.  In 1827 he opened in Cincinnati a little country store which was the first “Equity Store,” and which the people called “Time Store,” because it was based on labour being exchanged hour for hour in all sorts of produce.  “Cost—the limit of price,” and consequently “no interest,” was the motto of his store, and later on of his “Equity Village,” near New York, which was still in existence in 1865.  Mr Keith’s “House of Equity ” at Boston, founded in 1855, is also worthy of notice.

While the economical, and especially the mutual-banking, ideas of Proudhon found supporters and even a practical application in the United States, his political conception of Anarchy found but little echo in France, where the Christian Socialism of Lamennais and the Fourierists, and the State Socialism of Louis Blanc and the followers of Saint-Simon, were dominating.  These ideas found, however, some temporary support among the left-wing Hegelians in Germany, Moses Hess in 1843, and Karl Grün in 1845, who advocated Anarchism.  Besides, the authoritarian Communism of Wilhelm Weitling having given origin to opposition amongst the Swiss working men, Wilhelm Marr gave expression to it in the ‘forties.

On the other side, Individualist Anarchism found, also in Germany, its fullest expression in Max Stirner (Kaspar Schmidt), whose remarkable works (Der Einzige and sein Eigenthum and articles contributed to the Rheinische Zeitung) remained quite overlooked until they were brought into prominence by John Henry Mackay.

Prof. V. Basch, in a very able introduction to his interesting book, L’Individualisme anarchiste: Max Stirner (1904), has shown how the development of the German philosophy from Kant to Hegel, and “the absolute” of Schelling and the Geist of Hegel, necessarily provoked, when the anti-Hegelian revolt began, the preaching of the same “absolute” in the camp of the rebels.  This was done by Stirner, who advocated, not only a complete revolt against the state and against the servitude which authoritarian Communism would impose upon men, but also the full liberation of the individual from all social and moral bonds—the rehabilitation of the “I,” the supremacy of the individual, complete “a-moralism,” and the “association of the egotists.”  The final conclusion of that sort of Individual Anarchism has been indicated by Prof. Basch.  It maintains that the aim of all superior civilization is, not to permit all members of the community to develop in a normal way, but to permit certain better endowed individuals “fully to develop,” even at the cost of the happiness and the very existence of the mass of mankind.  It is thus a return towards the most common individualism, advocated by all the would-be superior minorities, to which indeed man owes in his history precisely the state and the rest, which these individualists combat.  Their individualism goes so far as to end in a negation of their own starting-point,—to say nothing of the impossibility for the individual to attain a really full development in the conditions of oppression of the masses by the “beautiful aristocracies.”  His development would remain uni-lateral.  This is why this direction of thought, notwithstanding its undoubtedly correct and useful advocacy of the full development of each individuality, finds a hearing only in limited artistic and literary circles.

Anarchism in the International Working Men’s Association.—A general depression in the propaganda of all fractions of Socialism followed, as is known, after the defeat of the uprising of the Paris working men in June 1848 and the fall of the Republic.  All the Socialist press was gagged during the reaction period, which lasted fully twenty years.  Nevertheless, even Anarchist thought began to make some progress, namely in the writings of Bellegarrique (Cœurderoy), and especially Joseph Déjacque (Les Lazaréennes, L’ Humanisphère, an Anarchist-Communist Utopia, lately discovered and reprinted).  The Socialist movement revived only after 1864, when some French working men, all “mutualists,” meeting in London during the Universal Exhibition with English followers of Robert Owen, founded the International Working Men’s Association.  This association developed very rapidly and adopted a policy of direct economical struggle against capitalism, without interfering in the political parliamentary agitation, and this policy was followed until 1871.  However, after the Franco-German War, when the International Association was prohibited in France after the uprising of the Commune, the German working men, who had received manhood suffrage for elections to the newly constituted imperial parliament, insisted upon modifying the tactics of the International, and began to build up a Social-Democratic political party.  This soon led to a division in the Working Men’s Association, and the Latin federations, Spanish, Italian, Belgian and Jurassic (France could not be represented), constituted among themselves a Federal union which broke entirely with the Marxist general council of the International.  Within these federations developed now what may be described as modern Anarchism.  After the names of “Federalists ” and ” Anti-authoritarians” had been used for some time by these federations the name of “Anarchists,” which their adversaries insisted upon applying to them, prevailed, and finally it was revindicated.

Bakunin (q.v.) soon became the leading spirit among these Latin federations for the development of the principles of Anarchism, which he did in a number of writings, pamphlets and letters.  He demanded the complete abolition of the state, which—he wrote—is a product of religion, belongs to a lower state of civilization, represents the negation of liberty, and spoils even that which it undertakes to do for the sake of general wellbeing.  The state was an historically necessary evil, but its complete extinction will be, sooner or later, equally necessary.  Repudiating all legislation, even when issuing from universal suffrage, Bakunin claimed for each nation, each region and each commune, full autonomy, so long as it is not a menace to its neighbours, and full independence for the individual, adding that one becomes really free only when, and in proportion as, all others are free.  Free federations of the communes would constitute free nations.

As to his economical conceptions, Bakunin described himself, in common with his Federalist comrades of the International (César De Paepe, James Guillaume Schwitzguébel), a “Collectivist Anarchist”—not in the sense of Vidal and Pecqueur in the ‘forties, or of their modern Social-Democratic followers, but to express a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the Labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution of labour, Communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself.  Social revolution, the near approach of which was foretold at that time by all Socialists, would be the means of bringing into life the new conditions.

The Jurassic, the Spanish, and the Italian federations and sections of the International Working Men’s Association, as also the French, the German and the American Anarchist groups, were for the next years the chief centres of Anarchist thought and propaganda.  They refrained from any participation in parliamentary politics, and always kept in close contact with the Labour organizations.  However, in the second half of the ‘eighties and the early ‘nineties of the 19th century, when the influence of the Anarchists began to be felt in strikes, in the 1st of May demonstrations, where they promoted the idea of a general strike for an eight hours’ day, and in the anti-militarist propaganda in the army, violent prosecutions were directed against them, especially in the Latin countries (including physical torture in the Barcelona Castle) and the United States (the execution of five Chicago Anarchists in 1887).  Against these prosecutions the Anarchists retaliated by acts of violence which in their turn were followed by more executions from above, and new acts of revenge from below.  This created in the general public the impression that violence is the substance of Anarchism, a view repudiated by its supporters, who hold that in reality violence is resorted to by all parties in proportion as their open action is obstructed by repression, and exceptional laws render them outlaws.  (Cf. Anarchism and Outrage, by C. M. Wilson, and Report of the Spanish Atrocities Committee, in “Freedom Pamphlets “; A Concise History of the Great Trial of the Chicago Anarchists, by Dyer Lum (New York, 1886); The Chicago Martyrs: Speeches, &c.).1

Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction of Proudhonian “Mutuellisme,” but chiefly as Communist-Anarchism, to which a third direction, Christian-Anarchism, was added by Leo Tolstoy, and a fourth, which might be ascribed as literary-Anarchism, began amongst some prominent modern writers.

The ideas of Proudhon, especially as regards mutual banking, corresponding with those of Josiah Warren, found a considerable following in the United States, creating quite a school, of which the main writers are Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Grene, Lysander Spooner (who began to write in 1850, and whose unfinished work, Natural Law, was full of promise), and several others, whose names will be found in Dr Nettlan’s Bibliographie de l’anarchie.

A prominent position among the Individualist Anarchists in America has been occupied by Benjamin R. Tucker, whose journal Liberty was started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer.  Starting from the statement that Anarchists are egotists, strictly speaking, and that every group of individuals, be it a secret league of a few persons, or the Congress of the United States, has the right to oppress all mankind, provided it has the power to do so, that equal liberty for all and absolute equality ought to be the law, and “mind every one your own business ” is the unique moral law of Anarchism, Tucker goes on to prove that a general and thorough application of these principles would be beneficial and would offer no danger, because the powers of every individual would be limited by the exercise of the equal rights of all others.  He further indicated (following H. Spencer) the difference which exists between the encroachment on somebody’s rights and resistance to such an encroachment; between domination and defence: the former being equally condemnable, whether it be encroachment of a criminal upon an individual, or the encroachment of one upon all others, or of all others upon one; while resistance to encroachment is defensible and necessary.  For their self-defence, both the citizen and the group have the right to any violence, including capital punishment.  Violence is also justified for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement.  Tucker thus follows Spencer, and, like him, opens (in the present writer’s opinion) the way for reconstituting under the heading of “defence” all the functions of the state.  His criticism of the present state is very searching, and his defence of the rights of the individual very powerful.  As regards his economical views B. R. Tucker follows Proudhon.

The Individualist Anarchism of the American Proudhonians finds, however, but little sympathy amongst the working masses.  Those who profess it—they are chiefly “intellectuals”—soon realize that the individualization they so highly praise is not attainable by individual efforts, and either abandon the ranks of the Anarchists, and are driven into the Liberal individualism of the classical economists, or they retire into a sort of Epicurean a-moralism, or super-man-theory, similar to that of Stirner and Nietzsche.  The great bulk of the Anarchist working men prefer the Anarchist-Communist ideas which have gradually evolved out of the Anarchist Collectivism of the International Working Men’s Association.  To this direction belong—to name only the better known exponents of Anarchism—Elisée Reclus, Jean Grave, Sebastien Faure, Emile Pouget in France; Enrico Malatesta and Covelli in Italy; R. Mella, A. Lorenzo, and the mostly unknown authors of many excellent manifestos in Spain; John Most amongst the Germans; Spies, Parsons and their followers in the United States, and so on; while Domela Nieuwenhuis occupies an intermediate position in Holland. The chief Anarchist papers which have been published since 1880 also belong to that direction; while a number of Anarchists of this direction have joined the so-called Syndicalist movement—the French name for the non-political Labour movement, devoted to direct struggle with capitalism, which has lately become so prominent in Europe.

As one of the Anarchist-Communist direction, the present writer for many years endeavoured to develop the following ideas: to show the intimate, logical connexion which exists between the modern philosophy of natural sciences and Anarchism; to put Anarchism on a scientific basis by the study of the tendencies that are apparent now in society and may indicate its further evolution; and to work out the basis of Anarchist ethics.  As regards the substance of Anarchism itself, it was Kropotkin’s aim to prove that Communism—at least partial—has more chances of being established than Collectivism, especially in communes taking the lead, and that Free, or Anarchist-Communism is the only form of Communism that has any chance of being accepted in civilized societies; Communism and Anarchy are therefore two terms of evolution which complete each other, the one rendering the other possible and acceptable.  He has tried, moreover, to indicate how, during a revolutionary period, a large city—if its inhabitants have accepted the idea—could organize itself on the lines of Free Communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food and clothing to an extent corresponding to the comfort now available to the middle classes only, in exchange for a half-day’s, or a five-hours’ work; and how all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by every one if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations pursuing all possible aims—educational, literary, scientific, artistic, sports and so on.  In order to prove the first of these assertions he has analysed the possibilities of agriculture and industrial work, both being combined with brain work.  And in order to elucidate the main factors of human evolution, he has analysed the part played in history by the popular constructive agencies of mutual aid and the historical role of the state.

Without naming himself an Anarchist, Leo Tolstoy, like his predecessors in the popular religious movements of the 15th and 16th centuries, Chojecki, Denk and many others, took the Anarchist position as regards the state and property rights, deducing his conclusions from the general spirit of the teachings of the Christ and from the necessary dictates of reason.  With all the might of his talent he made (especially in The Kingdom of God in Yourselves) a powerful criticism of the church, the state and law altogether, and especially of the present property laws.  He describes the state as the domination of the wicked ones, supported by brutal force.  Robbers, he says, are far less dangerous than a well-organized government.  He makes a searching criticism of the prejudices which are current now concerning the benefits conferred upon men by the church, the state and the existing distribution of property, and from the teachings of the Christ he deduces the rule of non-resistance and the absolute condemnation of all wars.  His religious arguments are, however, so well combined with arguments borrowed from a dispassionate observation of the present evils, that the anarchist portions of his works appeal to the religious and the non-religious reader alike.

It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the penetration, on the one hand, of Anarchist ideas into modern literature, and the influence; on the other hand, which the libertarian ideas of the best comtemporary writers have exercised upon the development of Anarchism.  One ought to consult the ten big volumes of the Supplement littéraire to the paper La révolte and later the Temps nouveaux, which contain reproductions from the works of hundreds of modern authors expressing Anarchist ideas, in order to realize how closely Anarchism is connected with all the intellectual movement of our own times.  J. S. Mill’s Liberty, Spencer’s Individual versus The State, Marc Guyau’s Morality without Obligation or Sanction, and Fouillée’s La morale, l’art et la religion, the works of Multatuli (E. Douwes Dekker), Richard Wagner’s Art and Revolution, the works of Nietzsche, Emerson, W. Lloyd Garrison, Thoreau, Alexander Herzen, Edward Carpenter and so on; and in the domain of fiction, the dramas of Ibsen, the poetry of Walt Whitman, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Zola’s Paris and Le travail, the latest works of Merezhkovsky, and an infinity of works of less known authors,—are full of ideas which show how closely Anarchism is interwoven with the work that is going on in modern thought in the same direction of enfranchisement of man from the bonds of the state as well as from those of capitalism.

1 It is important to remember that the term “Anarchist” is inevitably rather loosely used in public, in connexion with the authors of a certain class of murderous outrages, and that the same looseness of definition often applies to the professions of “Anarchism” made by such persons.  As stated above, a philosophic Anarchist would repudiate the connexion.  And the general public view which regards Anarchist doctrines indiscriminately is to that extent a confusion of terms.  But the following résumé of the chief modern so-called “Anarchist” incidents is appended for convenience in stating the facts under the heading where a reader would expect to find them.

Between 1882 and 1886, in France, Prince Kropotkin, Louise Michel and others were imprisoned.  In England, Most, one of the German Anarchist leaders, founded Die Freiheit, and, for defending in it the assassination of Alexander II. at St Petersburg, was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment with hard labour.  After this he moved to the United States, and re-established his paper there in New York, in May 1886.  During this period there were several Anarchist congresses in the United States.  In one at Albany, in 1878, the revolutionary element, led by Justus Schwab, broke away from the others; at Allegheny City, in 1879, again there was a rupture between the peaceful and the revolutionary sections.  The Voice of the People at St Louis, the Arbeiter Zeitung at Chicago, and the Anarchist at Boston, were the organs of the revolutionary element.  In 1883, at Pittsburg, a congress of twenty-eight delegates, representing twenty-two towns, drew up an address to the working men of America.  The programme it proposed was as follows:—

First, Destruction of the existing class rule by all means, i.e. energetic, relentless, revolutionary and international action.

Second, Establishment of a free society, based upon co-operative organization of production.

Third, Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the productive organizations, without commerce and profit-mongery.

Fourth, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and equal basis for both sexes.

Fifth, Equal rights for all, without distinction of sex or race.

Sixth, Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting on a federalistic basis.

This, together with an appeal to the working men to organize, was published in Chicago, November 1883, by a local committee of four, representing French, Bohemian, German and English sections, the head of the last being August Spies, who was hanged in 1887 for participation in the Haymarket affair in Chicago, 4th May 1886.  This affair was the culmination of a series of encounters between the Chicago working men and the police, which had covered several years.  The meeting of 4th May was called by Spies and others to protest against the action of the police, by whom several working men had been killed in collisions growing out of the efforts to introduce the eight hours’ day.  The mayor of the city attended the meeting, but, finding it peaceful, went home.  The meeting was subsequently entered by the police and commanded to disperse.  A bomb was thrown, several policemen being killed and a number wounded.  For this crime eight men were tried in one panel and condemned, seven—Spies, Parsons, Engel, Fischer, Fielden, Schwab, and Ling—to death, and one—Neebe—to imprisonment for fifteen years.  The sentences on Fielden and Schwab were commuted by Governor Oglesby to imprisonment for life, on the recommendation of the presiding judge and the prosecuting attorney.  Ling committed suicide in jail, and Spies, Parsons, Engel and Fischer were hanged, 11th November 1887.  On 26th June 1893 an unconditional pardon was granted the survivors, Fielden, Schwab and Neebe, by Governor Altgeld.  The reasons for the pardon were stated by the governor to be that, upon an examination of the records he found that the jury had not been drawn in the usual manner, but by a special bailiff, who made his own selection and had summoned a “prejudiced jury”; that the “state had never discovered who it was that threw the bomb which killed the policemen, and the evidence does not show any connexion whatever between the defendants and the man who did throw it,” or that this man “ever heard or read a word coming from the defendants, and consequently fails to show that he acted on any advice given by them.”  Judge Gary, the judge at the trial, published a defence of its procedure in the Century Magazine, vol. xxiii p. 803.

A number of outbreaks in later years were attributed to the propaganda of reform by revolution, like those in Spain and France in 1892, in which Ravachol was a prominent figure.  In 1893 a bomb was exploded in the French Chamber of Deputies by Vaillant.  The spirit of these men is well illustrated by the reply which Vaillant made to the judge who reproached him for endangering the lives of innocent men and women: “There can be no innocent bourgeois.”  In 1894 there was an explosion in a Parisian café, and another in a theatre at Barcelona.  For the latter outrage six men were executed.  President Carnot of the French Republic was assassinated by an Italian at Lyons in the same year.  The empress Elizabeth of Austria was assassinated in September 1898.  These events, all associated by the public with “Anarchism,” led to the passage by the United States Congress of a law, in 1894, to keep out foreign Anarchists, and to deport any who might be found in the country, and also to the assemblage of an international conference in Rome, in 1898, to agree upon some plan for dealing with these revolutionists.  It was proposed that their offences should no longer be classed as political, but as common-law crimes, and be made subject to extradition.  The suppression of the revolutionary press and the international co-operation of the police were also suggested.  The results of the conference were not, however, published; and the question of how to deal with the campaign against society fell for a while into abeyance.  The attempt made by the youth Sipido on the (then) prince of Wales at Brussels in 1900 recalled attention to the subject.  The acquittal of Sipido, and the failure of the Belgian government to see that justice was done in an affair of such international importance, excited considerable feeling in England, and was the occasion of a strongly-worded note from the British to the Belgian government.  The murder of King Humbert of Italy in July 1900 renewed the outcry against Italian Anarchists.  Even greater horror and indignation were excited by the assassination of President McKinley by Czolgoscz on the 6th of September 1901, at Buffalo, U.S.A.  And a particularly dastardly attempt was made to blow up the young king and queen of Spain on their wedding-day in 1906.           (ED. E.B.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY.—William Godwin, An Enquiry concerning Political Justice and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness, 1st edition, 2 vols. (1793).  Mutualism:—John Gray, A Lecture on Human Happiness (1825); The Social System, a Treatise on the Principles of Exchange (1831); Proudhon, Qu’est-ce que la propriété? 1er mémoire (1840) (Eng. trans. by B. Tucker); Idée générale sur la révolution (1851); Confession d’un révolutionnaire (1849); Contradictions économiques (1846); Josiah Warren, Practicable Details of Equitable Commerce (New York, 1852); True Civilization (Boston, 1863); Stephen Pearl Andrews, The Science of Society (1851); Cost, the Limit of Price; Moses Hess, “Sozialismus und Communismus, Philosophie der That” (on Herwegh’s Ein-und-Zwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz, 1843); Karl Grün, Die soziale Bewegung in Frankreich und Belgien (1845); W. Marr, Das junge Deutschland (1845).  Anarchist Individualism:—Max Stirner (J. K. Schmidt), Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum (1845) (Fr. trans., 1900); J. H. Mackay, Max Stirner, sein Leben und sein Werk (1898); V. Basch, L’ Individualisme anarchiste (5904).  Transition period:—J. Dejacque, Les Lazaréennes (1851); Le Libertaire, weekly, New York, 1858-1861, containing L’ Humanisphère (re-edited at Brussels, Bibl. des temps nouveaux).  Anarchist Collectivism of the International:—The papers Egalité, Progrès (Locle), Solidarité; James Guillaume, Idées sur l’organisation sociale (1876); Bulletin de la fedération jurassienne (1872-1879); A. Schwitzguébel, Œuvres; Paul Brousse, Le Suffrage universel (1874); L’ État à Versailles et dans l’association internationale (1874); newspaper L’ Avant-garde (suppressed 1878); Arthur Arnould, L’ État et la révolution (1877); Histoire populaire de la commune (3 vols., 1878); César de Paepe, in Rive gauche and La liberté (1867-1883).  Many others are in the Comptes rendus of the congresses of the International Working Men’s Association.  All these ideas, conceived as a whole, may be found in Bakunin’s Fédéralisme, socialisme et anti-théologisme, published first in portions under the names of L’Empire knouto-germanique, Dieu et l’ état, The State-Idea and Anarchy (Russian), and only now reproduced in full in his Œuvres (Paris, 1905 and seq.); Sozialpolitischer Briefwechsel (1894); Statuts de l’alliance internationale (1868); Proposition motivée au comité central de la ligue de la paix et de la liberté (1868).  The famous Revolutionary Catechism attributed to Bakunin, was not his work.  Biographie von Michael Bakunin, by Dr M. Nettlan, 3 large vols., contains masses of letters, &c. (hectographed in 50 copies; in all chief libraries).

MODERN ANARCHISM.—The best sources are the collections of newspapers which, although compelled sometimes to change their names, were run for considerable lengths of time and are appearing still: J. Most, Freiheit, since 1878; Le Révolté—La Révolte—Temps nouveaux, since 1878; Domela Nieuwenhuis, Recht voor Allen, since 1878; Freedom, since 1886; Le Libertaire; Pouget’s Père Pèsuard; Réveil-Risveglio; see Nettlan’s Bibliographie.  These papers and a great number of pamphlets are indispensable for those who intend to know anarchism, as the works published in book form are not numerous.  Of the latter only a few will be mentioned:—Elisée Reclus, Evolution and Revolution, many editions in all languages; “Anarchy by an Anarchist,” in Contemp. Review (May, 1884); The Ideal and Youth (1895); Jean Grave, La Société au lendemain de la révolution, many editions since 1882; La Société mourante et l’anarchie (1893); L’Autonomie selon la science (1882) La Société future (1895); L’Anarchie, son but, ses moyens; Sébastien Faure, La Douleur universelle (1892); A. Hamon, Les Hommes et les théories de l’anarchie (1893); Psychologie de l’anarchiste-socialiste (1895); Enrico Malatesta, Fra Contadini, transl. in all languages—Eng. trans. A Talk about Anarchist Communism, in “Freedom Pamphlets” (1891); Anarchy (do. 1892); Au café and many other Italian pamphlets, as also several papers started at various times in Italy under different names: F. S. Merlino, Socialismo ò Monopolismo? (1887).  Pamphlets, reviews and papers by P. Gori, L. Molinari, E. Covelli, &c.  The manifestos of the Spanish Federations contain excellent expositions of Anarchism; cf. also many books, pamphlets and papers by J. Lluñas y Pujals, J. Serrano y Oteiza, Ricardo Mella, A. Lorenzo, &c.  John Most, the paper Freiheit, of which a few articles only have been reprinted as pamphlets in the Internationale Bibliothek (“The Deistic Pestilence,” “The Beast of Property” in English); Memoiren, 3 fascicules. F. Domela Nieuwenhuis, Le Socialisme en danger (1895); C. Malato, Philosophie de l’anarchie (1890); Charlotte Wilson, Anarchism (“Fabian Tracts,” 4); Anarchism and Violence (“Freedom Pamphlets”); Albert Parsons, Anarchism, its Philosophy and Scientific Basis (Chicago, 1888); The Chicago Martyrs: Speeches in Court; P. Kropotkin, Paroles d’un révolté (1884); Conquest of Bread (1906) (1st French ed. in 1890); Anarchist Morality; Anarchy, its Philosophy and Ideals; Anarchist Communism; The State, its Historic Rôle; and other “Freedom Pamphlets”; Fields, Factories and Workshops (5th popular edition, 1807); Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution (1904).  Modern Individualist Anarchists:—B. Tucker, the paper Liberty (1892 sqq.); Instead of a Book, by one too busy to write one (Boston, 1893); Dyer Lum, Social Problems (1883); Lysander Spooner, Natural Law, or the Science of Justice (Boston, 1891). Religious Anarchists:—Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Yourselves; My Faith; Confession; &c.

The best work on Anarchism, and in fact the only one written with full knowledge of the Anarchist literature, and quite fairly, is by a German judge Dr Paul Eltzbacher, Anarchismus (transl. in all chief European languages, except English).  Prof. Adler’s article “Anarchismus” in Conrad’s Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, vol. i., is less accurate for modern times than for the earlier periods.  G. v. Zenker, Der Anarchismus (1895); and Prof. Edmund Bernatzik, “Der Anarchismus,” in Schmoller’s Jahrbuch, may also be mentioned—the remainder being written with absolute want of knowledge of the subject.

A most important work is the reasoned Bibliographie de l’anarchie, by Dr M. Nettlan (Brussels, 1897, 8vo, 294 ff.), written with a full knowledge of the subject and its immense literature. (P. A. K.)

Entry on Prince Peter Kropotkin from the 11th Edition (1910-1911) of the Encylopædia Britannica:

KROPOTKIN, PETER ALEXEIVICH, PRINCE (1842-), Russian geographer, author and revolutionary, was born at Moscow in 1842. His father, Prince Alexei Petrovich Kropotkin, belonged to the old Russian nobility; his mother, the daughter of a general in the Russian army, had remarkable literary and liberal tastes. At the age of fifteen Prince Peter Kropotkin, who had been designed by his father for the army, entered the Corps of Pages at St Petersburg (1857).  Only a hundred and fifty boys—mostly children of the nobility belonging to the court—were educated in this privileged corps, which combined the character of a military school endowed with special rights and of a Court institution attached to the imperial household. Here he remained till 1862, reading widely on his own account, and giving special attention to the works of the French encyclopaedists and to modern French history. Before he left Moscow Prince Kropotkin had developed an interest in the condition of the Russian peasantry, and this interest increased as he grew older. The years 1857-1861 witnessed a rich growth in the intellectual forces of Russia, and Kropotkin came under the influence of the new Liberal-revolutionary literature, which indeed largely expressed his own aspirations. In 1862 he was promoted from the Corps of Pages to the army. The members of the corps had the prescriptive right of choosing the regiment to which they would be attached. Kropotkin had never wished for a military career, but, as he had not the means to enter the St Petersburg University, he elected to join a Siberian Cossack regiment in the recently annexed Amur district, where there were prospects of administrative work.  For some time he was aide de camp to the governor of Transbaikalia at Chita, subsequently being appointed attaché for Cossack affairs to the governor-general of East Siberia at Irkutsk. Opportunities for administrative work, however, were scanty, and in 1864 Kropotkin accepted charge of a geographical survey expedition, crossing North Manchuria from Transbaikalia to the Amur, and shortly afterwards was attached to another expedition which proceeded up the Sungari River into the heart of Manchuria.  Both these expeditions yielded most valuable geographical results.  The impossibility of obtaining any real administrative reforms in Siberia now induced Kropotkin to devote himself almost entirely to scientific exploration, in which he continued to be highly successful.  In 1867 he quitted the army and returned to St Petersburg, where he entered the university, becoming at the same time secretary to the physical geography section of the Russian Geographical Society.  In 1873 he published an important contribution to science, a map and paper in which he proved that the existing maps of Asia entirely misrepresented the physical formation of the country, the main structural lines being in fact from south-west to north-east, not from north to south, or from east to west as had been previously supposed.  In 1871 he explored the glacial deposits of Finland and Sweden for the Russian Geographical Society, and while engaged in this work was offered the secretaryship of that society.  But by this time he had determined that it was his duty not to work at fresh discoveries but to aid in diffusing existing knowledge among the people at large, and he accordingly refused the offer, and returned to St Petersburg, where he joined the revolutionary party.  In 1872 he visited Switzerland, and became a member of the International Workingmen’s Association at Geneva. The socialism of this body was not, however, advanced enough for his views, and after studying the programme of the more violent Jura Federation at Neuchâtel and spending some time in the company of the leading members, he definitely adopted the creed of anarchism (q.v.) and, on returning to Russia, took an active part in spreading the nihilist propaganda.  In 1874 he was arrested and imprisoned, but escaped in 1876 and went to England, removing after a short stay to Switzerland, where he joined the Jura Federation.  In 1877 he went to Paris, where he helped to start the socialist movement, returning to Switzerland in 1878, where he edited for the Jura Federation a revolutionary newspaper, Le Révolté, subsequently also publishing various revolutionary pamphlets.  Shortly after the assassination of the tsar Alexander II. (1881) Kropotkin was expelled from Switzerland by the Swiss government, and after a short stay at Thonon (Savoy) went to London, where he remained for nearly a year, returning to Thonon towards the end of 1882.  Shortly afterwards he was arrested by the French government, and, after a trial at Lyons, sentenced by a police-court magistrate (under a special law passed on the fall of the Commune) to five years’ imprisonment, on the ground that he had belonged to the International Workingmen’s Association (1883).  In 1886 however, as the result of repeated agitation on his behalf in the French Chamber, he was released, and settled near London.

Prince Kropotkin’s authority as a writer on Russia is universally acknowledged, and he has contributed largely to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Among his other works may be named Paroles d’un révolté (1884); La Conquête du pain (1888); L’ Anarchie: sa philosophie, son idéal (1896); The State, its Part in History (1898); Fields, Factories and Workshops (1899); Memoirs of a Revolutionist (1900); Mutual Aid, a Factor of Evolution (1902); Modern Science and Anarchism (Philadelphia, 1903); The Desiccation of Asia (1904); The Orography of Asia (1904); and Russian Literature (1905).

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Biblical Anarchism

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: Spicing up your church experience

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

Was John the Baptist on Dope?


Here is the protocol for conferring either of the two priesthoods:

1. Call the baptized, worthy male by name.

2. State the priesthood authority.

3. Confer the priesthood.

4. Ordain to an office.

5. Close in the name of Jesus Christ.

John the Baptist, though, who should have known better, did everything wrong.  Here are his errors:

Conferred priesthood on unbaptized men

Neither Joseph Smith nor Oliver Cowdery were baptized when they had the priesthood conferred on them.

Try getting your bishop to give you permission to confer the Aaronic priesthood on any unbaptized man.  See if he’ll authorize it. He’ll probably say something like, “Sure, I’ll authorize it, just as soon as he’s baptized.”  The principle is well established: first comes baptism, then comes priesthood.  If you attempt to reverse the order, every bishop, stake president and GA will INVALIDATE the conferral.

Did not call the men by name

Both Joseph and Oliver agree that the angel merely began his conferral by stating, “Upon you my fellow servants.”

Try conferring the Aaronic priesthood upon someone and start the ordinance by saying, “Upon you my fellow servant,” without stating the person’s name and see if the bishop or other presiding elder doesn’t stop you short and tell you to do it again, as the first time was INVALIDATED by your lack of specifying who you were talking to.

Conferred priesthood upon two men at once

This appears to be the only instance of one man conferring the priesthood upon two men simultaneously.  The conferral of priesthood ordinance is a uniquely personal experience.  One ordinance per person, not one ordinance per two people.

The next time two young men are ready to receive the Aaronic priesthood, try conferring them both simultaneously and see how quickly the bishop stops you.  If it doesn’t become instantly plain that you performed an INVALID ordinance, it will as the years go by and you are never allowed to perform another ordinance of record.

Did not state the priesthood authority

In the words of Joseph, the angel said,

“Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.”  (See JS—H 1: 68-74)

Normally, an Aaronic priesthood holder would say something like, “…by the authority of the Aaronic priesthood which I hold” or something to that effect.  According to Joseph, though, the angel didn’t state that he held this priesthood, at all.  He only stated which priesthood he was conferring.

Try conferring the Aaronic priesthood without stating your authority and see if it flies.  Chances are, those around you are going to tell you to perform the ordinance again because it is INVALID unless you state the authority.

Did not state what priesthood was given

If we take the words of Oliver, the angel said,

“Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!”  (See JSH Footnote)

Normally, when conferring the Aaronic priesthood, an Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood holder would state which priesthood is being conferred, Aaronic or Melchizedek, but notice that according to Oliver, the angel only stated “this Priesthood and this authority” without specifying which priesthood was being conferred.

Try conferring the Aaronic (or Melchizedek) priesthood without actually stating which priesthood you are conferring and see if you are not told to perform the ordinance again because the first attempt was INVALID.

Did not ordain to an office of the priesthood

Now, technically, you don’t have to ordain to an office of the priesthood, but it is the protocol to do so when the priesthood is conferred.

Did not close in the name of Jesus Christ

Instead, he opened in the name of Messiah.   Christ is from Greek meaning “Anointed One” and Messiah is from Hebrew meaning “Anointed One,” so, since they mean the same thing, he essentially used the name of Christ, but he did not use Jesus’ first name.

Try opening prayers and ordinances with “in the name of Messiah” (and without any other closing use of the name of Jesus Christ) and see if you are not accused of performing the ordinance INVALIDLY.

Even More Unorthodox Stuff

Conferred Priesthood of Aaron upon non-descendants of Aaron

These were two Gentile men who were not descendants of Aaron.  One of the peculiar things about the Aaronic priesthood is that is was only intended for Aaron’s literal descendants.  The Priesthood of Aaron was not for the Levites, nor for the other tribes of Israel, only for Aaron and his sons.

The priests must be Aaron’s sons (Num. 16: 3-10, 40; Num. 18: 1) and free from all important bodily blemishes or infirmities or diseases.  (BD: Priests)

Additionally, Joseph had a bodily blemish from the operation he had when an 11-year old child, which also disqualified him.

Conferred Levitical Priesthood upon non-descendants of Levi

Again, we have two Gentile men receiving Levitical priesthood, or priesthood that pertains exclusively to the tribe of Levi.  Aaron and Levitical priesthood is the same, except that Aaron and sons held the offices of priest and high priest while the non-Aaronite Levites held lesser offices of that priesthood (like teachers and deacons.)

The terms Aaronic and Levitical are sometimes used synonymously (D&C 107: 1, 6, 10), although there are some specific differences in the offices existing within the Levitical Priesthood. For example, the lesser priesthood was conferred only upon men of the tribe of Levi. However, within the tribe, only Aaron and his sons could hold the office of priest. And, still further, from the firstborn of Aaron’s sons (after Aaron) was selected the high priest (or president of the priests). Thus Aaron and his sons after him had greater offices in the Levitical Priesthood than did the other Levites.  (BD: Aaronic Priesthood)

A high priest of the Melchizedek priesthood can officiate in all the offices of the lesser priesthood, but neither Joseph nor Oliver were high priests of the Melchizedek priesthood when they received the Priesthood of Aaron from the angel and baptized each other (a power associated with the office of a priest of the Aaronic priesthood.)

The angel’s instructions: baptize each other

Joseph said that the angel “gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.”

This means that an unbaptized man baptized a man into the church of Christ.  Today, were this to happen, the authorities of the church would INVALIDATE the baptism and would insist that the man be re-baptized by some baptized man who held at least the Aaronic priesthood.  By today’s standards, then, Oliver’s baptism was INVALID.

Continuing this logic, if Oliver’s baptism was invalid, then he was still unbaptized when he baptized Joseph, which, by applying the same standards of today, would make Joseph’s baptism INVALID.

As all baptism in the church is traced to the authority obtained by Joseph and Oliver from this angel, this would mean that all church baptisms are INVALID because protocols were breached from the very beginning, starting the church off on the wrong foot from the get-go.

The correct (modern) procedure is to baptize first, then confer priesthood.  Had the angel baptized one or both of the men first, then conferred the priesthood upon the one or both of them that was baptized, or instructed the one baptized and conferred to baptize and confer the other, the protocols would have remained intact.

The angel’s instructions: ordain each other

Said Joseph, “Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.”

They were instructed to ordain each other to the Aaronic Priesthood.  Not to an office of the Aaronic Priesthood, but to the Aaronic Priesthood.

Another curious thing is that Joseph stated that the angel “ordained us” before they baptized each other and then commanded them to ordain each other after they baptized each other.  This would make a double ordination.

INVALID any way you look at it

By modern LDS standards, the Aaronic priesthood ordinations of the non-Aaronic, non-Levite, physically blemished Gentiles, Joseph and Oliver, and their subsequent baptisms and ordinations (of each other), as well as those of all the other people who received baptism and authority to baptize from their hands, on down through the generations of the church, are all invalid.

So, was John the Baptist on dope when he was sent by Peter, James and John to confer priesthood authority on Joseph and Oliver?  Certainly the above list of evidences would be typical actions of one who abused substances.  Such “turning of things upside down” may bring into question whether John was even sent by Peter, James and John, as was his claim!  Perhaps he was just acting alone and doing his own thing?

Even more evidence of drug use

Joseph, an eyewitness, stated, “a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light.”  And Oliver, another eyewitness, stated, “the angel of God came down.”  So, we know for a fact that John was high during this event.

An alternate interpretation

May I offer another interpretation that could possibly explain all the strange behavior listed above?  Consider the following scripture, which speaks of John:

For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.  (D&C 84: 28)

Now, think for a moment.  Who goes around trying to overthrow governments? That’s right.  John the Baptist was obviously an anarchist!

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist