Does legalized, same-sex “marriage” break the law of chastity?

As I was doing research tonight for an article on the law of chastity, I came across something interesting that has to do with same-sex “marriage.”  Having been through the temple, I knew that the law of chastity is defined for us there, so I went to ldsendowment.org to get the exact text of the definition of the law of chastity.  It was then that I noticed the following:

Pre-1990 definition of the law of chastity

We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity. This I will explain. To the sisters, it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse (1) except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. (2) [Taken from this page.]

[Footnotes: (1) 1. The 1990 revision speaks of sexual “relations” rather than sexual “intercourse.” (2) 2. The 1990 revision does not have women and men covenant separately to keep the law of chastity. Instead, women and men simultaneously covenant to have no sexual relations except with their “husband or wife” to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded. This revision was no doubt made to streamline the ceremony. However, the new wording has the presumably unintended consequence of bringing same-sex marriages–if legalized–within the pale of the law of chastity.]

1990 definition of the law of chastity

We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity, which is that each of you shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.  [Taken from this page.]

Now, I have always assumed that the 1990 definition had a way out of permitting same-sex “marriage” in its use of the words “legally and lawfully.”  Essentially, I figured that “legally” meant it was permitted by the State and that “lawfully” meant it was according to the laws of God.  In other words, that a matrimony could not break the law of chastity with one another as long as their marriage was right with the State and also right with God.

However, I am no lawyer.    And I wonder if I am wrong in my assessment of the meaning of “legally” and “lawfully.”  I wonder if the temple definition could be used against the Church by church members, who, given the current marriage situation in certain States of the Union, decide to “marry” another church member of the same sex, legally (and lawfully?)  If the Church tries to take action against these members, saying that they are openly fornicating (breaking the law of chastity), and attempting to get them disfellowshipped or excommunicated, what would happen if these same members brought up the current temple definition of the law of chastity in their defense, stating that as they are married, they are complying with the law of God?  And if the Church disregarded such a defense, could these members take this to the law of the land (the State) and say, “Look at the definition of the law of chastity which we received in the temple and see that we have fully complied with that definition, thus, the Church is in error, not us?”

There is no doubt that the pre-1990 definition excludes same-sex “marriage.”  But does the 1990 definition do the same?  If it doesn’t, meaning, if the wording is not sufficient to exclude it, and if the temple definition can be used as a defense in a lawsuit, the Church may be in for some legal trouble should any members decide to engage in legalized, same-sex “marriage” or, perhaps, if any non-member, same-sex “matrimony” decides to investigate the Church and desires baptism without first divorcing.

Next Chastity article: The Law of Chastity: What It Is and What It Isn’t

Previous Chastity article: The many definitions of adultery

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Anarchy in action: congregational nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words “the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her.”

Jury nullification is more specifically any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, acquitting a criminal defendant despite the defendant’s violation of the letter of the law. This verdict need not disagree with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, but may disagree with an instruction, if given by the judge, that the jury is required to apply the law to the defendant if certain facts are found.

Although a jury’s refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of the statute. “Jury nullification” is thus a means for the people to express opposition to an unpopular legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the accused and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow merely the established law. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one’s peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

(Taken from the Jury Nullification entry of the Wikipedia. See the entire entry for more information.)

Jury nullification occurs when a jury judges both the facts of a case and the law it is based upon. In modern times it doesn’t occur very often, perhaps because juries are not aware that they have this common law right or power due to modern judges not informing them of the entire jurisdiction of a jury. In fact, judges often do the opposite and give them instructions that they must apply the law. However, the truth is that juries do have this power regardless of what a corrupt judge may say.

Congregational Juries

Our system of church government consists of judges, courts and councils, with witnesses and advocacy, but apparently without juries. However, as all appointments/callings must be approved by the congregation through common consent vote before an appointment/calling is solidified, in reality and practice the congregational members are the juries of the church.

Again, any calling in the church needs to be ratified by the congregational jury. A name is read and a call to ratify is made to the members, who raise their hands in approbation or in opposition, or who do not raise their hands, at all. A count is made and if the voice of the people (the majority) is for the appointment, it goes through. If the voice of the people is against it, it does not go through. In this way the congregational jury renders a verdict of their approval or disapproval of the various appointments/callings. We call this vote sustaining. Nothing in the church happens, nor can happen, without a sustaining vote of the members of the congregation, as that would be tyranny and a usurpation of powers, because all things must be done with the consent of the congregation.

Congregational Nullification

There is, however, another way that the congregational jury renders a verdict. Sometimes policies or instructions are handed out to the members from their leaders without taking a vote. For example, recent First Presidency letters read in sacrament meeting contained instructions to the members concerning the passage of a constitutional amendment on marriage (for California saints) and sacrament meeting behavior, specifically, not using visual aids or asking the congregation to turn to a scripture while giving a talk. These instructions are similar to those received by trial juries from the presiding judge concerning how they are to apply the law to the case. In both instances, neither jury is instructed that they can pass judgment upon the judge’s instructions and discard them if wisdom so dictates.

Many saints get offended when instructions they feel are overbearing or tyrannical come down from their leaders. To prove their point, they’ll sometimes take actions that end up pitting the church against them, such as taking a public stand against the church. This is not the wisest course to take and may lead to their being disfellowshipped, excommunicated or even them just leaving on their own.

The Lord has given us the means to nip all tyranny in His church in the bud via the law of common consent. Just as trial jury nullification exists as a common law right, it also exists as a right of the congregational juries. Simply ignoring all instructions deemed to be unjust, unwise, overbearing, tyrannical or humiliating nullifies the instructions. End of story.

Most instructions given today by leaders are called “counsel.” When members are asked to do something, usually that is the very word used: ask. Anybody can ask anything they want of you. Asking you to do or not to do something does not rob you of your agency. It also does not obligate you to do the thing asked. Like trial juries, congregational juries have the choice to obey instructions received by them from the leaders without another thought, or they can render the instructions null and void by ignoring them.

Anarchy in Action

Both congregational nullification and the raising of the hands in approval/disapproval during a sustaining vote is anarchy in action. Ultimately, always, the people decide all matters of the church. The leaders can do nothing without the consent of the people.

Taking the two examples given above, for those saints who agree with the First Presidency letter on the marriage bill, they can sustain the letter’s instructions by donating time, means and effort to that cause. For those saints who disagree with the letter’s instructions, they can ignore the petition entirely and donate no time, means or effort to it. Just as during sustaining votes, members do not campaign other members to sway votes in favor of or against particular church callings, campaigning need not occur for non-voting uses of the law of common consent. Everything remains peaceful, ordered and anarchic, each man, woman and child of the church casting a verdict on the instructions by their actions.

In the second instance mentioned above, congregational nullification can also occur, should the people think the instructions are unneccessary or unjust. Or, congregational ratification can occur should the people think the instructions are wise and timely. All that is necessary is that each speaker either obey the instructions and stop using visual aids or asking the audience to open their scriptures, or disregard the instructions and use visual aids and ask the congregation to turn to such-and-such a verse.

The bishop or other leaders may attempt to correct a single person who ignores counsel or instruction, but if that person continues to ignore the counsel, or if more than one person ignores the counsel and it becomes apparent that the congregation has passed a verdict against the counsel, by ignoring it, then congregational nullification has occurred and that counsel is now null and void. There is nothing a leader can do with a group of people who refuse to ratify an instruction by obedience to it.

In my own experience, eventually even the most power-tripping leaders will throw up their hands in frustration because peaceful, ordered, anarchic congregational nullification cannot be stopped. No one can be tried for ignoring counsel or petitions. There is no law against it in the church. There are only laws against sin.

Use of Common Consent Stops Tyranny

Jury nullification drives leaders up the wall with frustration, as it limits their power and control over a congregation, but it is one of the means the Lord has set up to stop tyranny in His church. Used as a proper check to usurpation of power, it properly balances the church and puts all saints, leaders and members alike, on equal ground.

So, the next time you receive instructions from your religious leaders you do not agree with, even after prayer and fasting, instead of publicly fighting them and becoming an apostate, instead of striving to get other members in your camp and pit member against member or member against leader, or instead of trying to win the leader over to your cause (which never works), just apply the principle of congregational nullification and ignore the instructions.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Anarchy in Education

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: The dissolution of the corporate LDS Church via “gay marriage”

Next Common Consent article: Apathy is not a problem, it’s a symptom and a solution

Previous Common Consent article: Power of the Law of Common Consent

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The dissolution of the corporate LDS Church via “gay marriage”

I’ve stayed out of all the online LDS discussions concerning what is termed “same-sex marriage,” “SSM” or “gay marriage,” after all, I’m an anarchist, so I don’t believe in government involvement in what I consider private affairs. The recent First Presidency letter read in California sacrament meetings asking California saints to do all they could to pass Proposition 8, which would amend the California constitution to have a definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, has sparked a lot of online talk among LDS. But I have remained silent.

However, my own belief and understanding has always been that the main reason why the Church (with a capital ‘C,’ indicating the corporate entity, not the lower case ‘c,’ indicating the baptized people of the Lord) is supporting this California constitutional amendment is that “gay marriage” may lead to the dissolution of the corporate Church.

Yes, I am aware of the moral and other reasons that the Church is putting forth for this push to define marriage, in documents such as The Divine Institution of Marriage, which is the Church’s latest press release concerning this issue (and thanks goes to the Faith Promoting Rumor blog for bringing this press release to my attention), but what has gnawed at me for a long time were the legal ramifications. What does this mean to the corporate Church?

The new Church press release briefly mentions some legal aspects of legalized same-sex “marriage.” Here are the two paragraphs devoted to this issue:

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished. (Emphasis mine.)

Apparently, I am not the only one thinking about the legalities of SSM. Just yesterday a LDS saint alerted me of a letter from a stake president who was asking for donations to pass the California Proposition 8. In that letter, here is what the stake president wrote:

The ramifications of this vote are wide-spread and numerous. In places where the definition of marriage has been expanded, institutions have been forced to accept and embrace alternate lifestyles or risk losing government privileges, including tax-exempt status. (Emphasis mine.)

My understanding is that the Church is incorporated in the state of Utah [changed from ‘Nevada’, see below] as a corporate sole, under 501(c)3 tax exemption. Corporations have got to obey the laws of the state in which they are incorporated, right? And states have the “good faith and credit clause” by which they respect and accept the judgments of judges made in other states, right?

So I can conceive of the corporate Church coming to the point where it has to pick sides: either obey the laws of Utah [changed from ‘Nevada’, see below] and keep its corporate charter and articles (and the corporation itself) intact while disregarding the Lord’s moral directives toward homosexuality, or obey the Lord’s moral commandments and disobey the laws of Utah [changed from ‘Nevada’, see below] , effectively opening up the possibility of forced dissolution of the Church.

Now, anyone who has sufficiently gone over this blog should know that I have no problems with the dissolution of the corporate Church. I feel that we should be a free-church, not a corporate state-Church. And I feel that we ought to voluntarily un-incorporate the Church, whether doing so ourselves or by using the services of certain free-church ministries.

But do I really believe that the Church will un-incorporate itself of its own free will? Of course, not. Corporations, like governments, tend to do everything in their power to perpetuate their own existence. However, legalized “gay marriage” may be just the thing that will force un-incorporation upon us, making us a free-church, and finally allowing the natural system of tribal anarchy to reign among the saints, in preparation of all that is prophesied to happen in these days.

If Prop 8 is defeated, and in my opinion, it will be, regardless of how much money is pumped into its campaign by LDS and others, what will happen to the corporate Church? Anybody versed in corporate law is welcome to respond and give his or her understanding as to whether legalized SSM may present a real danger to the life of the Church corporation sole or its tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status. As I am not schooled in corporate law, my understanding may be flawed. Feel free to correct me.

Liberty under a free-church

If and when the Church becomes un-incorporated, whether by its own volition or through government force, and we truly are a free-church, proponents of legalized SSM cannot use the law to force the church to accept homosexual arrangements, whether legal or illegal. Because a free-church is outside of the jurisdiction of State regulations, it essentially does not exist in the eyes of the State, therefore all religious pronouncements are of a completely private nature.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Anarchy in action: congregational nullification

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: How I get out of jury duty

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

How I get out of jury duty

I received my official jury summons this month. Every few years it arrives and each time I send the following letter back to them. I never hear from them again until a few years later, when I get another jury summons. Feel free to use this template if you want to easily get out of jury duty. Modify where necessary.

LDS Anarchist
123 Anarchy Lane
Anarchism City, Anarcho-State 12345-6789

July 11, 2008

Mr. Some Guy
Manager, Juror Services Division
Office of the Jury Commissioner
PO Box 123456
Anarchism City, Anarcho-State 12345-6789

Re; JID Number – 012345678

Dear Mr. Guy,

I have recently received a “Juror Summons” in the mail. This is my response to the Summons. In order to know if I am “qualified” to be a juror, I must complete the Juror Affidavit Questionnaire. I notice that I am expected to sign the Affidavit under penalty of perjury. In light of this fact, and to insure that I fully understand the legal terms being used on the Affidavit and the nature of the duty that may fall upon me in this matter, I will need your office to provide me with certain information.

1. In the Juror Affidavit Questionnaire section, question 1, I am being asked if I am a “citizen of the United States”. Please provide me with the statutory definition that you are using for the term “citizen of the United States” in question 1. Please include the source of the definition so that it may be seen in proper context.

2. In the Juror Affidavit Questionnaire section, question 4, I am being asked if I am a “resident” of Anarchism County. Please provide me with the statutory definition that you are using for the term “resident” in question 4. Please include the source of the definition so that it may be seen in proper context.

3. In the Juror Affidavit Questionnaire section (step 2) it instructs a person to sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury. Please provide me with your authority to compel me to affix my signature to any document (including the affidavit) under penalty of perjury.

You may mail your response to the address shown at the top of this page. I appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

LDS Anarchist

Thanks goes out to Original Intent for providing me this jury summons response letter which I’ve now used many times. It works every time and it feels good to assert my rights. Hats off to you guys.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: The dissolution of the corporate LDS Church via “gay marriage”

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: How the Lord will clean his church: a possible scenario

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The anarchic laws of D&C 98

I’m going to refrain from expounding these scriptures and just let them speak for themselves. If you take a good, long look at the following laws, you’ll notice that in order for certain parts of them to be complied with, you would need to be living in anarchy because under current governments, if you were to attempt to fulfill the letter of these laws, you’d end up in jail. So, as we can’t today follow their letters (their spirits being another matter altogether), what is the Lord trying to tell us about the future?

LAW OF JUSTIFICATION CONCERNING PERSECUTION FROM ENEMIES

The Lord said, “Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; but if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you. And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold. And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold; and these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out. And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands; and then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified. Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.” (D&C 98: 23-32)

LAW OF JUSTIFICATION CONCERNING PROCLAMATIONS OF WAR BY ENEMIES

The Lord said, “And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue; and if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord; then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people. And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation. Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.” (D&C 98: 33-38 )

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: My take on the FLDS raid

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: The role of agency in political systems

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The law governing confession

Confession and repentance are linked. Talking to the elders of the church (see D&C 58: 1), the Lord said, “Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.” (D&C 58: 42-43.)

This means that unless a man confesses his sin, he hasn’t truly repented of it, even if he forsook (stopped doing) the sin. The sin must be confessed before repentance is complete and before it is blotted out and forgotten by the Lord. This brings us to the all important question:

To whom are we to confess?

There are three classes of people to whom we are to confess, depending on the circumstances. There is the Offended Party, the offended party and also the non-offended party.

Confession to the Offended Party (God)

The first class is God himself.

If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her. (D&C 42: 92)

But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord. (D&C 59: 12)

Nevertheless, he has sinned; but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death. (D&C 64: 7)

All sins offend God and thus we are required to confess all sins to him in prayer. Sometimes, only God is the Offended Party, no other person being involved in the sin. Such “private sins” require only confession to God in order to obtain forgiveness.

Confession to the offended party (man)

Other sins, however, offend or hurt or cause damage to other people and we must also confess these sins to these people in order to obtain forgiveness from the Lord.

But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord. (D&C 59: 12)

If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her. (D&C 42: 92)

Reconciliation

If a man has sinned only against God and repents (confesses to God and forsakes the sin), God almost always forgives him.

There are those among you who have sinned; but verily I say, for this once, for mine own glory, and for the salvation of souls, I have forgiven you your sins. I will be merciful unto you, for I have given unto you the kingdom. And the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom shall not be taken from my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., through the means I have appointed, while he liveth, inasmuch as he obeyeth mine ordinances. There are those who have sought occasion against him without cause; nevertheless, he has sinned; but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death. (D&C 64: 3-7)

If a man has sinned against another man and repents (confesses to God and to the offended man and forsakes the sin), God almost always forgives him but the offended man is required to always forgive him.

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. (D&C 64: 10)

And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled. (D&C 42: 88 )

For all the non-death sins (see D&C 64: 7), the sinner becomes reconciled to God and to the offended party when confession to both parties takes place.

Confession to be done privately (in secret)

Whether confessing to God in private, personal prayer or confessing to an offended mortal party, all confessions are to be done in secret (privately.) Only the repentant sinner and the offended parties are to hear the confession.

And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled. (D&C 42: 88 )

If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her. (D&C 42: 92)

Even when confession takes place among un-offended parties (ecclesiastical authorities, which I’ll address in a moment), it is to be done privately, not publicly.

And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world. (D&C 42: 89)

Not forgiving confessed sin brings condemnation

The offended party is required to forgive the sinner who confesses his sin and asks forgiveness, no matter how many times this occurs.

And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled. (D&C 42: 88 )

If reconciliation does not occur after a genuine confession, the offending party commits sin and requires repentance (confessing the sin to the unforgiven sinner.) This law applies equally whether the unforgiven sinner is LDS

My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened. Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds. (D&C 64: 8-11)

or whether he is non-LDS

And again, verily I say unto you, if after thine enemy has come upon thee the first time, he repent and come unto thee praying thy forgiveness, thou shalt forgive him, and shalt hold it no more as a testimony against thine enemy—and so on unto the second and third time; and as oft as thine enemy repenteth of the trespass wherewith he has trespassed against thee, thou shalt forgive him, until seventy times seven. (D&C 98: 39-40)

As long as an offended party remains unrepentant of his unwillingness to forgive the repentant offender, his sins remain unforgiven by the Lord.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, my servants, that inasmuch as you have forgiven one another your trespasses, even so I, the Lord, forgive you. (D&C 82: 1)

Confession to un-offended parties (ecclesiastical authorities)

Only when a sinner refuses to repent, offering no confession of guilt to the party offended, are the ecclesiastical authorities to be informed of the sin.

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

And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled. And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world. (D&C 42: 88-89)

The purpose of reporting is two-fold: 1) to help the sinner repent of the sin by confessing to the offended parties (D&C 42: 92) and 2) to keep the church free from unrepentant sinners.

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

As the church is composed of repentant sinners (justified people), in order for it to remain justified the sinners that compose it must remain repentant. If the church ever becomes composed of unrepentant sinners (unjustified people), the church itself becomes unjustified.

A process, then, of cleaning house has been set up by the Lord. The unrepentant sinners are brought to the ecclesiastical authorities and if they repent by confessing and forsaking their sins, no judgment is pronounced upon them. If, however, they refuse to repent, they are cast out of the church (excommunicated), thereby keeping the church justified.

The law of witnesses

Although a man may be accused by someone of committing an unrepentant sin and may be reported to his ecclesiastical authority, he is always innocent until proven guilty. He need not respond to the accusations. Even if a bishop asks him point blank, “Did you or did you not commit such and such a sin?” he is under no obligation to respond to such questioning, whether he be innocent or guilty.

The onus is on the testimonies of the two or more witnesses. And these must be bona fide witnesses, having personal knowledge that a) he committed the sin and b) he did not repent of it by appropriate confession to the offended parties and by forsaking it. Hearsay testimony does not constitute a witness.

The ecclesiastical authority obtains jurisdiction as a judge only when there are two or more witnesses. Since the ecclesiastical authority is not an offended party and does not have personal knowledge of the unrepentant sins in question, he must rely upon at least two LDS witnesses who are shown to be trustworthy, otherwise no judgment can happen.

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

The only reason LDS should be reported to the ecclesiastical authority is because they do not repent. Merely having knowledge of a sin is not enough. A witness must have knowledge that the sin has not been confessed to the offending parties and forsaken.

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

One witness is insufficient to convict (or condemn) because it is merely one man’s word against another’s. But two or more LDS witnesses empower a bishop or other ecclesiastical authority to pass judgment.

Confession to a bishop without witnesses or inquiry is non-scriptural

There isn’t a single passage of scripture that states or even hints that to receive forgiveness a LDS must seek out his bishop and confess to him a sin he has committed if there are no witnesses testifying of his impenitence or if there are no inquiries regarding his spiritual state. Forgiveness of sin is granted by the Lord alone and hinges upon a person’s repentance (confession to the offended parties and forsaking of the sin) and whether the sin is a “sin unto death.”

Confession during trials

After a trial is set up and two witnesses testify and condemn the man, if he confesses, the judgment must be stayed. He is to be forgiven and all parties reconciled. This is the law.

Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also. Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me. And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation. • • • And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church; (Mosiah 26: 29-31, 35)

Only when he still refuses to confess, even in the face of witnesses, is his name to be blotted out.

Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward. • • • And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out. (Mosiah 26: 32, 36)

The special sin of adultery

Adultery, like other sins, requires confession to God and to the offended parties, in order to be forgiven. It does not require automatic confession to the ecclesiastical authority.

Only in cases of unrepentant adultery, where witnesses give irrefutable evidence of both the sin and the unrepentant state of the sinner, is the case to be brought to the ecclesiastical authority for judgment. This is the first time spoken in the scriptures. But if the adulterer or adulteress confesses, he or she is to be forgiven.

Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also. Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me. And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation. • • • And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church; (Mosiah 26: 29-31, 35)

But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; (D&C 42: 25)

However, if the man or woman is again taken in adultery, with witnesses testifying of both the sin and the unrepentant nature (lack of confession) and is brought to his or her ecclesiastical authority for judgment a second time, regardless of the second time confession, he or she is to be cast out.

But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; but if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out. (D&C 42: 25-26)

This is the two strikes and you’re out rule of adultery. It does not apply to those who commit adultery and then confess to the offended parties, never being brought by witnesses to trial. The rule applies only to adulterers and adulteresses who are dragged by witnesses to the ecclesiastical authority to be judged for their unrepentant nature and lack of confession TWICE. The first time, if they then confess, they are forgiven, but the second time, even if they confess, they are to be cast out.

When inquiries are made

Inquiries are made when people are desirous to be baptized, as to whether they have committed and repented of their sins. This is entirely scriptural.

Behold, verily I say unto you, that whatever persons among you, having put away their companions for the cause of fornication, or in other words, if they shall testify before you in all lowliness of heart that this is the case, ye shall not cast them out from among you; but if ye shall find that any persons have left their companions for the sake of adultery, and they themselves are the offenders, and their companions are living, they shall be cast out from among you. And again, I say unto you, that ye shall be watchful and careful, with all inquiry, that ye receive none such among you if they are married; and if they are not married, they shall repent of all their sins or ye shall not receive them. (D&C 42: 74-77)

Inquiries are also made for temple recommends and priesthood ordination. A simple “yes” or “no” to each question is a sufficient response. No elaboration is required.

Silence is also your right, should you decide to use it. Silence does not indicate that you are guilty, only of your unwillingness to answer the question. Both Alma and Amulek employed such a tactic (see Alma 14: 17) as well as the Lord himself, when he was questioned by the ecclesiastical authorities of the church of his time (see Matthew 26: 62-63; Mark 15: 3; etc.)

As all accused are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is upon the witnesses and judge, no one in the church has to prove his or her innocence. So, when faced with false accusations, it is within the right of every LDS to shut their mouths and remain silent.

Witch hunts: the danger of non-scriptural confessions

Witch hunts can and do happen in this day and age, even in the church. People in authority are naturally disposed to abuse it.

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. (D&C 121: 39)

Because of this, the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authorities was designed by the Lord to be established by two or more witnesses. If a bishop, a police officer or a Child Protection Services agent is anonymously tipped off that you are doing something sinful or illegal, the natural tendency is to view you with suspicion and to engage in a witch hunt and inquiry to get you to blab and reveal some dirt that can and will be used against you. Such people will use the garb of authority to intrude on your life and invade your privacy. This particular brand of tyranny is especially bad when ecclesiastical authorities engage in this practice because they are using their priesthood illegitimately.

The modern trend of ecclesiastical authorities is to obtain jurisdiction over members through voluntary confession of sins. The members are taught by their leaders that certain sins are bad enough to warrant a talk and perhaps discipline from church leaders and cannot be forgiven by the Lord unless the sins are first voluntarily confessed to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority.

It is understandable why leaders follow this practice. Obtaining witnesses is a hard, often futile process. Nevertheless, it is also the only scriptural way to obtain the jurisdiction to judge a member’s spiritual standing in the church. When the law of witnesses is circumvented, the ecclesiastical authorities set themselves up as both witness, judge, jury and executioner, as the sinner’s confession to them is thought to both establish jurisdiction and to convict (condemn.) This sets up a conflict of interest (the loss of impartiality) and puts an enormous amount of power in the hands of one man, power that was never meant to be there. It also conflicts with established scriptural order, as once someone confesses to a sin and shows remorse, they are to be forgiven, and thus no discipline could or should ever take place.

By obeying the proper protocols of repentance and confession and exercising one’s right to silence, as explained in the Lord’s scripture, such tyranny is nipped in the bud and all attempts at usurpation of priesthood authority will be quashed.

Previous Repentance article: Are we commanded to confess to ecclesiastical authorities without witnesses?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The tribal nature of the gospel

Those people who accept the gospel through faith, repentance, baptism and confirmation are automatically put into a tribe of Israel by the Lord, which tribe they ultimately find out when they receive their patriarchal blessing. In fact, the main purpose of a patriarchal blessing, or the only real unique feature of it, is that it names your tribe. Any other blessing given by any other priesthood holder may contain revelations on your past, present and future (prophecies), but all other blessings are to leave the naming of your tribe alone, as that is the jurisdiction of a patriarch.

Why the importance of being in a tribe?

Old Testament Tribes

From the Old Testament, we don’t know much about the saints who lived before Abraham, whether they were put by the Lord into tribes or not, but we do know that Abraham lived among people who were grouped into tribes or clans (the tribes of the earth.) So, tribes and clans are the norm of the world, unless a State is formed, which always has the tendency to shatter tribal allegiances. (See Book of Mormon Anarchy.)

Concerning church tribes though, we know that from Abraham came Isaac, and from Isaac came Jacob, and from Jacob came the twelve sons of Israel, who became tribes. These tribes were then enslaved by the Egyptians and later freed by Moses, who gave them a tribal law, the law of Moses, whereby they could live in tribal anarchy.

That tribal anarchy lasted only so long, until the tribes demanded that a king be anointed, turning the self-government which they had had into an earthly monarchy, like the nations around them. But, despite the change of affairs, they still remained in tribes, and continued to refer to themselves as part of a tribe, even to this very day. That, in itself, may not be so surprising, as it concerns the descendants of Jacob and their traditional designations, but after the gospel went to the Gentiles, during the times of the New Testament, the New Testament writers continued to stress the tribal nature of the gospel.

New Testament Tribes

There are only two types of tribes mentioned in the New Testament: the tribes of the earth, which, according to Matthew 24: 30, shall mourn when the Second Coming of the Lord occurs, and the twelve tribes of Israel. There is no mention of any other division of the people. Either you are one of the twelve tribes of Israel, or you are one of the tribes of the earth. This is how the text reads. The New Testament writers mentioned both past tribes (Old Testament), present tribes (New Testament) and future tribes (latter-day and last days.)

Some of the references to future tribes (post New Testament) are the following: The twelve apostles of the Lord are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, according to Matthew 19: 28 and Luke 22: 30; the 144,000 will be chosen among the twelve tribes of Israel according to Revelation 7: 4-8; and the future holy city of Jerusalem will have twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel written upon them according to Revelation 21: 12.

Furthermore, the General Epistle of James was written to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. (See James 1: 1.) These twelve tribes were church members, again emphasizing the tribal nature of the gospel and that all who enter it are put, by the Lord, into one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Book of Mormon Tribes

In the Book of Mormon, there is mention made that the Nephites and Lamanites were of some of the standard tribes of Israel: Lehi and descendants were of Manasseh, Ishmael and descendants were of Ephraim and Mulek and descendants were of Judah. But in addition to these standard tribes of Israel, the Book of Mormon people further divided themselves into seven, more particular tribes: Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites and Ishmaelites. This makes sense as the law of Moses, which was used by the Nephites, was tribal in nature, meaning that it was written and meant to serve tribes, even the tribes of Israel.

After the Lord’s visit to the American continent, the people all converted to the Lord and 4 Nephi 1: 17 makes mention that there were no more -ites in the land, but this doesn’t mean that they no longer kept track of who was of what tribe, merely that no one was called by the tribal or class distinctions, as they were all one people, even the children of Christ. Evidence that they still kept track of their tribal affiliations is found in 4 Nephi 1: 36-38, when they departed from their oneness and started calling themselves and others according to the tribal designations. This shows that even in times of great oneness, tribal affiliations were important.

The prophet Mormon, quoting the Lord Jesus (in 3 Nephi 30: 2), explained the great mystery, still not comprehended by the Gentile Christians of today, that when a Gentile converts to the Lord via faith, repentance, baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost, they are numbered among the house of Israel from that point on, meaning that they are no longer part of the “tribes of the earth” but are part of the tribes of Israel. As Israel is composed of twelve tribes, these Gentile converts are placed by the Lord into one of these tribes. This is why the General Epistle of James, written to the twelve tribes of Israel, applies to all members of the church, whether Israelites by birth or Gentile converts.

The great Jaredite prophet Ether, whose people had no affiliation whatsoever with the bloodline of the house of Israel, Israel residing in the Old World and the Jaredites residing in the New World, nevertheless thought it important to prophesy to the Jaredites (some of which prophecies are recorded in Ether 13) all about the house of Israel and their cities of Jerusalem, and especially the New Jerusalem which would be built up by the remnant of the seed of Joseph, who are of the house of Israel, upon this (the American) continent, and which would come down out of heaven. All of the Jaredites, from the time of Jared and his brother down to the time of Ether, were all part of Jareditish tribes, meaning part of the tribes of the earth, but those Jaredites who came unto Christ and converted renounced their wordly “citizenship” and became numbered among one of the tribes of the house of Israel, whether they lived before the time of Israel (Jacob) or afterward, it mattered not.

The principle, then, is that tribal affiliations naturally exist on this planet (when States do not exist to break them up) and these tribes and tribal affiliations are worldly, or the tribes of the earth. But the Lord, using the same natural order of tribes, chose for himself an earthly family to represent the tribal affiliations of his people, even the house of Israel. As the tribes of the earth have their own laws, so the Lord’s tribes (the twelve tribes of Israel) have their own laws, given to them by the Lord, their tribal Chief (or King.) Just as the lower law of Moses, given by the Lord, was tribal in nature, so the more excellent law of Christ, given by the same Lord, is tribal in nature.

Tribes in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is engaged in gathering the tribes of Israel. This is what missionary work is all about. Everyone who comes unto Christ, whether of the direct bloodline of Israel (Jacob) or not (a Gentile), is automatically numbered among the house of Israel. The keys to this gathering were delivered by Moses to Joseph and Oliver (D&C 110: 11) and are used by each successive prophet to direct the missionary work.

So, the scriptures taken as a whole, emphasize the tribal nature of the gospel. We, the people of the Lord, are not just numbered by the Lord among the house of Israel, we are numbered among one of the tribes of the house of Israel. All of this is in anticipation of the coming of “the kingdom of heaven” (D&C 65: 6) , meaning the system of government that exists in heaven, which is tribal anarchy.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Is Molly right?

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: Lakota independence—prophecy starting to be fulfilled?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Power of the Law of Common Consent

The law of common consent is explained in the following scriptures:

LAW OF COMMON CONSENT

“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)

Mosiah said, “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)

The Lord said, “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)

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

The Lord said, “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)

Now, how much power does this law give the people of the church? Here are some scenarios:

• Scenario #1: The bishop calls brother Smith to be the new teacher’s quorum adviser. A vote is called and 51% of the people raise their hand in opposition. Does Brother Smith become the new teacher’s quorum adviser?

• Scenario #2: The bishop calls sister Jones to be the new relief society president. 30% of the people raise their hands in approbation. 10% of the people raise their hands in opposition. 60% of the people do not raise their hands, at all. Does sister Jones become the new relief society president?

• Scenario #3: The president of the church claims to have received a new revelation from the Lord, which he reads in general conference. The contents are controversial. A vote is taken to approve of the revelation and add it to the scriptural canon. 60% of the people raise their hand in opposition. Does the revelation get added to the scriptural canon?

• Scenario #4: The members of the Green Leaf 3rd Ward are tired of their tyrannical bishop. They feel he is exercising unrighteous dominion as he attempts to micromanage everything. They want to remove him and decide, amongst themselves, to take a vote in sacrament meeting to that end. One is selected to propose the vote. During the next sacrament meeting, during the voting portion, brother Carlson suddenly stands up and asks that a vote be taken to determine whether bishop Young should be removed from his position over them. At the protest of the bishopric, brother Tenney stands up and seconds the motion of brother Carlson. A vote is taken and 70% of the people vote to remove the bishop (dissolve the bishopric.) Is the bishopric dissolved? What will happen to brother Carlson and Tenney, if anything, for their actions?

• Scenario #5: After the Carlson and Tenney affair has voted out the bishopric, brother Humphrey stands up and presents the name of brother Johnson as the new bishop, calling for a vote. Brother Johnson is a likable fellow and is voted nearly unanimously as the new (un-ordained) bishop. The people of the ward are adamant that they only want brother Johnson as their bishop and in the ensuing chaos that results when the stake president comes down to “set matters straight,” every non-brother Johnson bishop that is presented is voted down. Must the stake president accede to the wishes of the people, like Samuel, and ordain brother Johnson?

Next Common Consent article: Anarchy in action: congregational nullification

Previous Common Consent article: Is our procedure for sustaining a rubber stamp?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Deep Waters: Lehi’s model of the universe

I thought that I would do something new with this post. I will quote scriptures, ask questions about them and give answers according to my understanding. Hopefully, you will be able to follow my logic. 2 Nephi 2: 5-14 is my scriptural text. (I am publishing this article as a result of three comments I posted on another blog, which were met with confusion and disbelief. You may read the comments here: 1, 2 & 3.)

1) And the law is given unto men. (2 Ne. 2: 5)

1) Q–What law? A-The law that is given unto men (not necessarily the one that is received by them.) Q–Given by whom? A-“The law which the Holy One hath given.” (See 2 Ne. 2: 10.)

2) And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. (2 Ne. 2: 5)

2) Q–What does Lehi mean by “flesh?” A-He means mortality, or any mortal creation. Q–What does Lehi mean by “justified?” A-He means guiltless. Q–From what are men cut off? A-From the presence of the Lord (see v. 8), from that which is good (see v. 5), from things pertaining to righteousness (see Alma 12: 16, etc.)

3) Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. (2 Ne. 2: 5)

3) Q–What is the temporal law? A-The laws of physics given by God to all mortal creations, which ultimately lead to the physical death of all flesh. Q–What is the spiritual law? A-The spiritual laws of God, which ultimately lead to the spiritual death of all flesh. Q–What does it mean to be cut off by the temporal law? A-To die a physical death (separation of the spirit body from the physical body), which, if not overcome, results in us becoming devils and being cast into outer darkness. (See 2 Ne. 9: 9.) Q–What does it mean to “perish from that which is good” by the spiritual law? A-To become devils and be expelled into outer darkness (separation from the presence of God.) In other words, the end result of both the temporal and spiritual law, if not overcome, is the second death: expulsion into outer darkness.

4) Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. (2 Ne. 2: 6)

4) Q–What does “redemption cometh in…the Holy Messiah” mean? A-It means the resurrection from the dead, which is free and requires nothing of us to receive it. (It is unconditional.) Q–What does “redemption cometh…through the Holy Messiah” mean? A-It means forgiveness of sin, which is given on condition of repentance. Q–How is the Holy Messiah full of grace? A-He is full of grace in that he forgives sin. Q–How is the Holy Messiah full of truth? A-He is full of truth in that he causes the resurrection to happen. Q–Who is the Holy Messiah? A-He is Jesus Christ.

5) Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. (2 Ne. 2: 7)

5) Q–What are “the ends of the law?” Why does Lehi say “ends” plural and not “end” singular? A-The expression “ends of the law” refers to the bounds (D&C 88: 38 ) or limits of the law, the law itself proceeding “forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space” (D&C 88: 12) and being in the shape of a sphere (D&C 93: 30). There is not one “end” of the law, only “ends” because every point from the center of the sphere to the perimeter in any direction is one of the infinite “ends of the law.” The law, being the power of God, governs, gives light and gives life to the entire created universe which resides within its bounds, or “ends,” God himself being “in the midst of all things” (D&C 88:13) or, in other words, residing in the center of the sphere (the most holy place or the holy of holies.) Q–What does Lehi mean by “answer the ends of the law?” A-He means the answer or solution to the problem at hand, namely, that no flesh is justified by the law, therefore, all flesh must inevitably be expelled from, or placed outside of, the law (the sphere), in other words, they must be removed to “the ends of the law.” At the ends of the law is where the lake of fire and brimstone is located, and beyond that is outer darkness. As the sphere is a sphere of light, outside of that sphere is darkness, hence the name, “outer darkness,” in contrast or opposition to the sphere of inner light. The question is, essentially, “What can be done for all these creatures that they may not have to return (D&C 88: 32) to the lake of fire and brimstone and outer darkness from whence they originally came? How can they remain in the kingdom of light (glory) which God has created?” The answer is the atonement of Jesus Christ. Q–What happens to those who do not “have a broken heart and a contrite spirit,” unto whom the ends of the law cannot be answered? A-They return to the lake of fire and brimstone, to be delivered to the darkness which exists outside of the sphere of light. This is known as the second death.

6) Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. (2 Ne. 2: 8 )

7) Wherefore, he is the first fruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved. (2 Ne. 2: 9)

8 ) And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. (2 Ne. 2: 10)

9) Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. (2 Ne. 2: 10-11)

9) Q–What are “the ends of the atonement?” A-The bounds or limits of the atonement, the scope of which exactly conforms to the bounds and limits of the law, the course of the Lord being “one eternal round” and thus a sphere, like the law. Q–What does Lehi mean by “answer the ends of the atonement?” A-He means the answer or solution to the problem at hand, namely, how to answer the question, “What is to be done to those unrepentant souls who are not claimed by the atonement?” Lehi explains that “the ends of the law” will “answer the ends of the atonement.” In other words, these people will be delivered to the ends of the law (the lake of fire and brimstone) and beyond it to outer darkness. Q–What is the punishment that is affixed to the ends of the law? A-The casting of these souls into the lake of fire and brimstone and outer darkness. Q–What is the happiness that is affixed that is opposite to the punishment that is affixed to the ends of the law? A-It is the innermost location of the light sphere, the most holy place or the holy of holies, where God resides in the midst of his creations (the created universe.) It is the central location of the light sphere, being opposite in all ways to the outermost location, (the ends and outer darkness.) Q–Does removing the comma after “for it must needs be” change the meaning of the phrase, “for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things”? A-Yes. Q–What is a plainer translation of the phrase with the comma? A-“Because it needs to be this way, so that there is an opposition in all things.” Q–What is a plainer translation of the phrase without the comma? A-“Because there needs to be an opposition in all things.” Q–What is the difference between the two phrases, with comma and without comma? A-The phrase with the comma is explaining that the law necessarily is set up so that there is an opposition in all things, in other words, that the law itself is creating the necessary opposition in all things, whereas the phrase without the comma is explaining that an opposition in all things is necessary. (This is where most LDS stumble in the correct interpretation of this scripture. They read it as if there were no comma and thus miss the true meaning of Lehi’s words.)

10) If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. (2 Ne. 2: 11)

10) Q–What does the phrase “if not so” mean? If what is not so? A-If the law was not so. In other words, if the law were not set up to create the opposition in all things (outer darkness-inner light) there would be no opposition in all things. Lehi is explaining that the opposition in all things was created by God. It does not exist naturally. Q–What are the opposite conditions that could not be brought to pass if the law did not create an opposition in all things? A-Righteousness-wickedness; holiness-misery; good-bad.

11) Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. (2 Ne. 2: 11)

11) Q–What does Lehi mean when he says, “Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one?” A-He means that if you take away the creative act of God, in creating the opposition in all things through the law, which is his light and power, the natural state of things is to be “a compound in one,” both spirit and element being joined together as if they were one single substance. This is the state of things as they existed prior to creation. This is the state of things as they exist now in outer darkness, which is outside of the kingdom of God, or the created universe (the sphere of light). This is the state that we were in before God brought us into existence, or better stated, into a state of awareness of our existence, before he split our “compound in one” substance into two opposite materials: spirit matter (that which acts) and element or physical matter (that which is acted upon). Q–What is “it” in the phrase “if it should be one body?” A-It is the compound in one substance. Q–Why does Lehi refer to the “compound in one” substance as being “one body?” A-Two reasons: 1st, to contrast it to our own dual natures, as we have both a spirit body and a physical body and, 2nd, to contrast it to our current state of individuality. The compound in one substance literally was as one body, or a single mass of everything that is currently in the sphere of light, which is the kingdom of God. There was no individuality, nor even awareness of individuals, nor of anything else. Everything was the same as everything else, thus, without anything to contrast, it all was as a single body, all of it unaware that it even existed. Q–Why does Lehi state that “it must needs remain as dead” when later on he says, “having no life neither death?” Is this a contradiction? A-There is no contradiction. Lehi is explaining that the one body compound in one substance was useless in its compound in one state. It was good for nothing. It served no purpose. It was as dead, meaning it was like a dead thing, totally incapable of usefulness as it was not even aware of its own existence. It was literally “in the dark” as to any possibilities for expansion and progression. It had nothing to contrast anything else with, as there was no light to contrast with its darkness, no separate individuals to contrast with its singular, combined substance. With such material, nothing can be accomplished, not life, not death, etc.

12) Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. (2 Ne. 2: 12)

13) Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. (2 Ne. 2: 12)

12-13) Q–What is the meaning of Lehi’s words as written in verse 12? A-He is saying that if God had created the one body, compound in one substance, it would have been created for nothing, having no utility or serving no useful purpose, at all. Since God cannot create anything without giving it a purpose, a use, had he created such stuff, he would have ceased to be God. Lehi is attempting to explain that as God has not ceased to be God and as this stuff did exist prior to creation and still exists (as this is the material that God uses to expand his kingdom), then this substance is stuff in its natural, untouched or un-created state, that it is co-existent with God and co-eternal, but his complete opposite. (He has all power, it has no power, etc.)

14) And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

15) If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

16) And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

17) And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

18 ) And if these things are not there is no God. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

14) Q–Why does Lehi begin with the phrase, “And if ye shall say there is no law?” A-Because the opposition in all things is created by the law. Everything hinges on the existence of the law. With the existence of the law, you can then have sin, righteousness, happiness, punishment and misery, in other words, the opposition in all things. If there is no opposition in all things, it means there is no law given by God and if there is no law given by God, then there is no God, as the law is his power.

19) And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

19) Q–What does Lehi mean when he says that “all things must have vanished away” if there is no God? A-He means that God is holding all of creation together, in its created state, by his own power. If God ever loses his power (his honor, see D&C 29: 36), all created things will revert back to their previous, uncreated, one body, compound in one state. In fact, if any of the gods and goddesses (god-dom) ever cease to be a god or goddess, the same result occurs everywhere. This is why Lucifer necessarily demanded the honor of God in his pre-mortal bid to conquer the universe, so that the universe would not revert to its previous state. (See
Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?)

20) And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. (2 Ne. 2: 14)

20) Q–Lehi says that God created all things. Does that not include the compound in one substance? A-God created all things that are created and all things that are created have purpose. The compound in one substance has no purpose and is in the natural, un-created state. God did not create it. Q–What are the things to act and what are the things to be acted upon? A-When God split the compound in one substance into two materials, one was the fire or spirit, which was given the purpose (by God) to move on its own (that which acts) and the other was the brimstone, or physical element, which was given the purpose (by God) to be moved (that which is acted upon.) The physical element does not move on its own, it must be acted upon, or pushed around, by the spirit matter. This is why living things move around (because the spirit bodies move the physical bodies) but when the living things die, which means that the spirit bodies leave the physical bodies, the physical bodies just lay there, motionless, unless acted upon by other, authorized spirit matter. (Devils can possess living souls, with permission, or power granted, of the living souls, but once a person dies, devils are not authorized to possess the physical body of that dead individual. In other words, the free agent physical body won’t allow itself to be moved by devils, only by spirits whose authority it, the physical body, recognizes.) Both spirit and element are given agency (D&C 93: 31) by God from the get-go. The spirit moves of its own volition and the element moves not, or allows itself to be pushed around, of its own volition. As the Lord has said, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence (D&C 93: 30).” Both truth and intelligence (physical element and spirit matter) act for themselves, but truth (element) acts by allowing itself to be pushed around, or acted upon, while intelligence (spirit) acts by doing the pushing. The creation of the opposition in all things happens at the ends of the law, where the lake of fire (spirit) and brimstone (element) burns. If you could float just above the ends or boundary of the light sphere, so that your head pointed to the center of the light sphere and your feet pointed to the edge or ends of the sphere (the ends of the law), you being within the sphere, the ends of the law would appear to be a lake of fire and brimstone. This is the plasma bow shock that divides the outer darkness from the inner light. It is the lake of fire and brimstone that is where the compound in one substance is being converted, or split, into spirit (fire) and element (brimstone.) The flame of this lake “ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end” (2 Ne. 9: 16). The reason is that the lake is in the shape of a sphere, being at the ends of the law, and if you could follow it with your eye, although the sphere is inconceivably big, you would eventually see it curve upward. Also, as the creative act is continual, meaning that more compound in one substance is being split into spirit and element, the sphere is constantly expanding. (See Moses 1: 4, “my works are without end.”)

Final Question–What does this tell us about our own natures? A-It shows us why God is so obsessed with getting everything resurrected with a physical body. The physical aspect is as much a part of our original, un-split, compound in one natures as is the spiritual aspect. We cannot feel complete without it. This is why only spirit and element, inseparably connected, can receive a fulness of joy (D&C 93: 33-34). This is one of the reasons why Satan is miserable forever. The lack of a physical body creates a void. This is why Jacob explained that we would all become devils if there were no resurrection (2 Ne. 9: 9). If there were no resurrection, there would be no hope of ever getting that missing part of us back. As hope is a part of faith, if we lose all hope, we lose all faith, and Satan then would obtain all power over us and we would become devils just like him, as he also has no hope nor faith. This is why the resurrection has so much emphasis in the scriptures.

Next Deep Waters article: Deep Waters: Creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia and creatio ex deo are all true doctrines

Previous Deep Waters article: Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Is anarchism compatible with D&C 134?

quantumsaint asked me recently about my take on D&C 134. I told him that I would write about this topic in a separate post (this one.) In the meantime, I gave him a link to the Church Education System (CES) web site that contains the text of the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual Religion 324 and 325 that spoke of D&C 134. I had originally intended to use only section 134 as my text, but some of the things said in the student manual warrant attention, so I will use both articles for this post.

I consider D&C 134 to be just what it purports to be: “a declaration of beliefs” given by the Church leaders of that time so that their “belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general” might “not be misinterpreted or misunderstood.” It was simply their “opinion concerning the same.” (See the heading to Doctrine and Covenants section 134.) Each of the 12 verses of the article begin with the words, “We believe…” and that is how I view this document, as their belief. When analyzing the document for truth, I use the revelations found in the Standard Works to judge it. I do not use this document as equal in “measuring authority” as the other parts of the scriptures. It is not a revelation and does not purport to be one.

It is also apparent from the wording of the document, that it was meant to allay suspicion and to calm down the fears of non-members who thought that we were fanatics, obeying our prophet leader no matter what he said, even if those commandments were against the laws of the land.

The CES student manual gives a good historical summary of the document:

Historical Summary

A general assembly of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was held at Kirtland, Ohio, on 17 August 1835 to formally accept the collection of revelations to be published as the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. After the priesthood quorums and then the congregation unanimously accepted the revelations, “Elder William W. Phelps arose and read an article prepared by Oliver Cowdery, on marriage. This was on vote ordered to be published also in the volume with the revelations. Then President Oliver Cowdery arose and read an article, ‘Of Governments and Laws in General,’ and this likewise was ordered by vote to be published with the book of revelations. Neither of these articles was a revelation to the Church.” (Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 2:30.)

The article on government was included in that edition of the Doctrine and Covenants as a statement of belief and as a rebuttal to accusations against the Saints. “The reason for the article on ‘Government and Laws in General,’ is explained in the fact that the Latter-day Saints had been accused by their bitter enemies, both in Missouri and in other places, as being opposed to law and order. They had been portrayed as setting up laws in conflict with the laws of the country.” (Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 2:30–31.)

This declaration of belief has been included in editions of the Doctrine and Covenants since its proposal in 1835. When it was read and voted on, “the Prophet Joseph Smith and his second counselor, Frederick G. Williams, were in Canada on a missionary journey, and the Prophet did not return to Kirtland until Sunday, August 23rd, one week after the Assembly had been held. Since the Assembly had voted to have [the articles on government and marriage] published in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Prophet accepted the decision and permitted this to be done.

“It should be noted that in the minutes, and also in the introduction to this article on government, the brethren were careful to state that this declaration was accepted as the belief, or ‘opinion’ of the officers of the Church, and not as a revelation, and therefore does not hold the same place in the doctrines of the Church as do the revelations.” (Smith and Sjodahl, Commentary, p. 852.)

Certain statements of this document require modifiers or qualifiers to be true and I believe that the intent was to have the scriptures themselves be the modifiers and qualifiers, hence the use of certain general statements. The specifics of what is meant are found in the scriptures. The same technique was used in the U.S. Constitution, in which certain very general phrases were used, followed by specific phrases which modified and qualified (or explained the meaning of) the general phrases. Whoever wrote it (I will assume it was Oliver Cowdery) crafted every word with the precision of a lawyer writing a legal document. It is very well-written.

We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society. (D&C 134: 1)

First off, the past tense is used (“governments were instituted of God”) not the present tense. The implication, of course, is that there are no current governments that are instituted of God, including the U.S. government. Oliver probably had in mind those instances in the scriptures in which the Lord established the people himself. Since this verse is qualified by the scriptures, it can only refer to those governments which were instituted by God, and not to those which were not. He then switches to the present tense (“he holds men accountable”) when speaking of our relation to current governments. This is, of course, true. Once we reach the age of accountability, he holds us accountable for all our actions. The non-member who casually reads this will think that the Mormons are saying that all governments are good and have the approbation of God. The verse, though, isn’t saying this.

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life (D&C 134: 2)

This verse is also completely true. These rights are necessary for peace to exist, at least the peace of those who are so protected in their rights. (It is important to recognize that at the time these words were penned, slavery was legal in America. Although Oliver stated “to each individual,” the definition of the word individual probably did not include slaves. I’ll leave it at that.)

We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign. (D&C 134: 3)

Here Oliver starts talking about civil governments (the State,) explaining that the State needs the force of violence to make sure people obey its laws, otherwise people will opt out of paying taxes, etc., and the State will cease to exist. Oliver here isn’t approving of the State, he’s only stating the obvious. He also explains the best type of people to administer State laws: equitable and just people. These are the people who should be sought for and upheld. This is all true. He does not state, though, who should do the seeking and upholding. In other words, he does not state that the LDS should seek to support the State. But, the verse is sufficiently vague to get a non-member thinking that the LDS support the State, support the State’s violence, and are all for elections, etc.

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. (D&C 134: 4)

When talking of religion, Oliver uses the present tense (religion is instituted of God.) As with other portions of this document, the scriptures qualify and modify the statements, so that Oliver isn’t saying that all religion is instituted of God, only that there is a religion that is currently instituted of God (the LDS religion.) A non-member casually reading this verse wouldn’t catch the real meaning. The rest of the verse explains that States have no business in regulating religion, unless crimes are committed in the name of religion.

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience. (D&C 134: 5)

Americans had fairly recently gotten over a Revolutionary War, in which they broke with another government, so the key words here are “while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments” and “thus protected.” The message portrayed is that Mormons would be as patriotic as the original patriots who fought the British, if it came to it, but while government is just, we submit peacefully to it.

So far, these verses are compatible with anarchy. Then comes verse six…

We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker. (D&C 134: 6)

Way back then, the word anarchy carried a different meaning than it does now. English is not static and shades of meaning come and go with the passage of time. By consulting Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, we learn what anarchy meant to Oliver:

AN’ARCHY, n. [Gr. rule.] Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion. (taken from http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/anarchy)

AN’ARCHIST, n. An anarch; one who excites revolt, or promotes disorder in a state. (taken from http://1818.mshaffer.com/d/word/anarchist)

ANARCH’ICAL, a. Without rule of government; in a state of confusion; applied to a state or society. Fielding uses anarchial, a word of less difficult pronunciation. (taken from http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/anarchical)

AN’ARCH, n. [See Anarchy.] The author of confusion; one who excites revolt. (taken from http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/anarch)

The sense of these definitions is that anarchy was a state of confusion due to no laws or due to people disregarding laws. Anarchy was also associated with violence, or exciting to revolt, as Webster put it. (I suppose the American Revolutionaries were probably considered anarchs by the British, as they excited the people to revolt from the king.) Over time, anarchy acquired other shades of meaning, including, essentially, a non-coercive, cooperative society based upon only private laws, including customary laws, whether written or unwritten, as opposed to societies based upon coerced public or State laws.

Although the words anarchy and anarchism have acquired newer shades of meaning, most people still associate it with its initial shade and with a state of disorder and violence, instead of the peaceful, naturally-ordered society that is also called anarchy. General authorities-prophets, apostles, seventies and First Presidencies-still give talks and make statements using the initial shade of meaning of anarchy, to the exclusion of the new uses of the word. So, this must be kept in mind when hearing someone in or out of the church use the term anarchy in a negative way.

I won’t take the time to go through the rest of the document (verses 7-12). Oliver continues to carefully qualify some of his statements, such as saying in verse 8 that “crime should be punished” by the State but without giving the nature of the punishment. He only states that crimes “should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men.” Likewise, in verse 11 he explains that redress of wrongs should be appealed to the State “where such laws exist as will protect” men.

My conclusion is that Doctrine and Covenants 134 is entirely compatible with the modern understanding of anarchism and anarchy. Therefore, modern anarchists can accept it. But it is also compatible with statism, so statists can accept it. And, I think, that is the usefulness of the document, in that it can be used to calm people’s fears concerning the beliefs of LDS in respect to government. If Mitt Romney and other LDS who are running for office were smart, they would just point to this document when asked where their religion stood in its view of government.

Now, one last item… Under the section speaking of verse 1, the CES student manual has a paragraph about anarchy that needs to addressed:

Elder Erastus Snow explained: “Anarchy—shall I say, is the worst of all governments? No: Anarchy is the absence of all government; it is the antipodes [opposite] of order; it is the acme of confusion; it is the result of unbridled license, the antipodes of true liberty. The Apostle Paul says truly: ‘For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.’ At first this is a startling statement. Even the monopoly of the one-man-power as in Russia [the Czar], or the monopoly of the aristocracy as in other parts of Europe, or the imbecility and sometimes stupidity of a republic like our own, is far better than no government at all. And for this reason, says the Apostle Paul, ‘The powers are ordained of God,’ not that they are always the best forms of government for the people, or that they afford liberty and freedom to mankind but that any and all forms of government are better than none at all, having a tendency as they do to restrain the passions of human nature and to curb them, and to establish and maintain order to a greater or less degree. One monopoly is better than many; and the oppression of a king is tolerable, but the oppression of a mob, where every man is a law to himself and his own right arm, is his power to enforce his own will, is the worst form of government.” (In Journal of Discourses, 22:151.)

I bet that this paragraph is the reason why CES students who take this course suddenly get the idea that anarchy is evil. Growing up in the church, I often heard the phrase, “Any government is better than no government, at all.” Anarchy, according to this thought, is to be avoided at all costs. The end of the Nephite civilization, when everyone was raping and killing everyone else, would be the picture painted by this type of anarchy.

It is important to understand that the meaning of the word ‘anarchy” used by Elder Snow (and other church leaders, past and present) has none of the modern connotations. The anarchy he describes is equated with disorder and chaos. However, the modern shades of meaning can mean an ordered society, based upon private laws. Anarchy is the natural state, the natural order, in which each person governs himself and learns to peacefully exist with others through cooperation. This is why anarchists often say, contrary to Elder Snow’s remarks, that anarchy is order.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Abraham Lincoln

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: LDS make the best anarchists

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist