zshallr

Yes, I watched it and enjoyed it. For the most part it was pretty accurate. The main argument is that it was to negative and did not give fair treatment to the "positives" of the Mormon church. My response? You can get plenty of the warm fuzzy stuff at regular Sunday meetings, missionaries discussions, hometeaching visits or anywhere else. It was nice to see something on the "other side" of the fence for a change which may tip the balance back to the middle showing true history and roots of Mormonism.

I just read the responses to my posts and got a chuckle out of them. I'm a member of the church that wishes I lived during the days of Joseph I suppose. Just like a person who would call them self a "Constitutionalist" with idea's of getting back to original government I'm much the same with Mormonism. I view myself as a "Restorationist" longing for the days when we get back to the roots of our religion. I use "Restorationist" because “fundamentalist” quickly puts me in the polygamy camp which I'm not. So I'm just a guy that takes everything I hear at General Conference, Stake Conference, Ward Conference or regular Sunday meetings and follows up. Not trying to pick a fight with the brethren or anyone else. I just like to ask questions and verify what I hear. I've found some remarkable stuff as I let go of the "traditions of my fathers" and really dig into what the scriptures say. Makes for fun research projects on one's spare time. I hope that's a good enough intro. No, I'm not a person that's been screwed by leadership as some suggest on previous threads. Just a person that likes to study and ask questions.

FATHERS USING THE CHURCHES MODEL IN THE HOME: As a father I would first instruct all family members to recognize me as infallible and incapable of erroring. I'd silence all those who strongly disagreed with me. If they continued to speak against my teachings I'd remove them from my house without a fair trial and without them having a chance to defend their position (because the verdict would already be decided). If anyone mentioned the teachings of family ancestors whom disagreed with me, I would remind them the ancestors are dead and I’m living. Using these teachings as my highest doctrine I would teach them to the priesthood holders of my family knowing that they too will someday be fathers and leaders. This would surely strengthen and secure my position with future generations because I would be the highest living authority in the family. I'd construct myself a half billion dollar house with a sentimental podium that I would address my family from. All spending and finances would be in total secret and under my full discretion. I would invest the excess funds as I saw fit without first disclosing or consulting family members and without considering the wants and needs of my family members. The children would all sing, or chant, follow our dad, follow our dad, follow our dad and we'll never be led astray. This would hopefully get the point across that I'm the way back to our Father in Heaven because if it is by my voice or the voice of God it is the same. Not some other guy, but me. Follow me. I'm the way and again it’s impossible for me to lead my family astray. Anyone in their right mind would see the loss of priesthood in such a home yet we put up and "defend" such teachings in the church. Those who still see fit to justify such teachings should read D&C 121 for a refresher.

Fallibility and Infallibility For there is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. (Ecclesiastes 7:20) In order to write a chapter on this subject, it is necessary to first define the terms. According to Webster's New World Dictionary, 1984-- Fallible: (a) liable to be mistaken or deceived; (B) liable to be erroneous or inaccurate. The first definition refers to people, and the second to information or concepts. Infallible:incapable of error; never wrong; reliable; sure; incapable of error in setting forth doctrine on faith and morals. There can be little doubt that certain principles are infallible, eternal and everlastingly true; but when it comes to mankind, there has been only One "infallible" person. The Catholics render even more inclusive definitions of infallibility: Infallibility: Wherever it shows itself in the structured life of the Church, whether in the teaching Church or in the hearing, believing, and confessing Church, infallibility is more than a simple, de facto absence of error. It is a positive perfection, ruling out the possibility of error and entailing necessarily a central fidelity to the Christian revelation in the doctrine taught and accepted by the Church. Infallibility is always primordially a gift of the Holy Spirit. * * * When the Roman pontiff in discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in accord with his supreme apostolic authority, defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he teaches infallibly by reason of the Spirit's aid proper to his special role as the center of ecclesiastical unity. (Catholic Encyclopedia 7:496, 497) Infallibility, the immunity from error that is claimed by the Roman Catholic church in all doctrines that pertain to faith and morals. The claim to infallibility assumes the positive and constant assistance of the Spirit of God to protect against the possibility of error. From a positive view, by virtue of this claim, the church must permanently teach the essential truths of God without fear of error. From a negative standpoint, the church assumes divine protection from ever receiving or teaching erroneous doctrines. * * * It is, by reason of the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals. (American Peoples Enc. 10:244) Catholics believe the Pope, be he saint or sinner, is preserved by God from leading the church into doctrinal error. This is referred to as his infallibility. (Religions of America, Leo Rosten, p. 43) They think that infallibility is not centered upon the righteousness of the Pope nor on the righteousness of the people, but on their position. They believe that the moment a person assumes that high office, a miraculous transformation shrowds them with some type of protection and perfection-- that infallibility comes with the office the man holds. Many people have mistakenly assumed that the doctrine of infallibility was adopted by the Catholic Church nearly 2000 years ago. And indeed they did debate, discuss, and argue about the doctrine for many centuries until it finally came to an acceptable vote in the year 1870--coincidentally just about 20 years before it began to be taught in the Mormon Church! Although the question of infallibility arose in discussions among theologians and was implicitly presumed to be present in the church by most of the Roman Catholic world, it was not defined as a tenet of the church until 1870. (Amer. Peoples Enc. 10:244) It must be understood that neither the Catholic nor the Mormon church believes that man himself is infallible--only that by virtue of his office he is protected from teaching error or from leading the church astray. The doctrine of infallibility was not even thought of in the early years of Christianity because of so much internal trouble with the constant flow of changing and contradicting doctrines. The weaknesses and faults of the church were too obvious for them to assume any kind of infallibility. Brigham Young described some of these problems: The principles of the gospel are perfect, but are the Apostles who teach it perfect? No, they are not. Now, bringing the two together, what they taught is not for me to say, but it is enough to say this, that through the weaknesses in the lives of the Apostles, many were caused to err. Our historians and ministers tell us that the church went into the wilderness, but they were in the wilderness all the time. They had the way marked out to get out of the wilderness and go straightforward into the Kingdom of God, but they took various paths, and the two substantial churches that remain--a remnant from the apostles, that divided, are now called the Holy Catholic Church and the Greek Church. You recollect reading in the Revelations of John what the angel said to John, when he was on the Isle of Patmos, about the Seven Churches. What was the matter with those Churches? They were not living according to the light that had been exhibited. Do the Latter-day Saints live according to the light that has been exhibited to them? No, they do not. Did the ancient saints live according to the revelations given through the Savior and written by the Apostles, and the revelations given through the Apostles, and left on record for the Saints to read? No, they did not. (JD 12:66-67) The Catholics have believed that the Pope cannot give bad counsel or lead anyone astray by virtue of the office he holds. They assumed that the leader of the Church would be protected by the power of God so that he could not make any serious mistake because the Lord would intervene to protect him. It sounds like a wonderful promise, but it is not so. Such a promise might be given to a man because of his worthiness, but not because he holds a high church office. Even those who have received the promise of their calling and election made sure, are still subject to making mistakes and errors in judgment. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The wise know too well their weaknesses to assume infallibility; and he who knows most knows best how little he knows." (The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, p. 11) It is said that the origin of the infallibility doctrine came through the-- . . . spurious quotations from Greek Fathers and Councils, which had been composed in the thirteenth century by a Latin theologian, probably a Dominican who had lived long in the East. This catena deceived St. Thomas Aquinas, who unsuspectingly embodied it in his theology; from which it passed without question into the dogmatic system [of the church]. (Cambridge Modern History, p. 718) It was a comforting doctrine which gave both Pope and church members a kind of self-security, assuring them that all was well. The one who did the most to get that concept adopted into the doctrine of the Catholic Church was Giovanni Mastai-Ferretti who was proclaimed Pope under the name of Pius IX. He was a better priest than a pope because he inherited too many problems from the three previous Popes. When he became Pope, the government was at its worst. The reforms he made were inconsiderable and unacceptable because the people were ignorant to their duties as citizens and they soon got out of hand. A close associate, Minister Rossi, was murdered, which caused the Pope to flee from Rome to the fortress of Gaeta. Pope Pius IX began a series of dogmatic pronouncements in 1854, beginning with the definition of the Immaculate Conception and later with the Papal infallibility. The latter concerned the privileges of Divine sanction over material possessions, entering into such principles as marriage, education, censorship of the press, ecclesiastical territory, and the enactment of laws. It was all summed up in both spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Pope. Concerning the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception-- The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin was her exemption from the stain not only of actual but of original sin. Later, it was enthusiastically championed by the Jesuits, some of whom forged documentary evidence in its favour, known from the place of its origin as the tablets and parchments of Granada. The fraud was discovered . . . not, however, till it had done its work. The scaffolding was removed, but the belief had advanced from the position of a disputed opinion to that of a doctrine which it was unlawful to criticize. (Cambridge Modern History, 11:713) The doctrine of infallibility was not quickly and easily adopted because of a surge of pamphlets from the opposition. The most important was one under the title of "The Pope and the Council" by Janus. Their object was to show that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was unknown to antiquity, in contradiction with history, and based on forgeries and misconceptions. . . . The forgeries, which they could no longer deny, had but stereotyped existing usage. . . . (Cambridge Modern History 11:719) The final definition of infallibility was voted on July 18, 1869, by 535 Bishops. There were 20 Bishops who were opposed to the definition, but they left Rome without voting out of reverence for the Pope. The definition is still debated. High Papalists, like John of Torquemada and Augustinus Triumphus, admit that it is still possible that the Pope could be a heretic. Even the Papal statements tend to show that the Pope is an individual, mortal person and should be recognized as such. Even by their own definition, the Catholic Church leaves room for later correction, additions or subtractions from what has been adopted under that umbrella of infallibility. Infallibility does not absolve its bearers from the responsible and often laborious task of searching out in scripture and in tradition whether or not a truth is definable, nor is it a guarantee that an infallible pronouncement may not later require further refinement or precision." (Catholic Encyclopedia 7:497) How strange that infallible doctrine may later "require further" corrections and changes! These "infallible" doctrines adopted by the Catholic Church must be accepted by unanimous vote of their Bishops, just as they must be accepted by a unanimous vote of the Apostles in the Mormon Church. For Catholics, Mormons, or anyone else to think they can change eternal, everlasting and unchangeable doctrines and principles, just doesn't make sense. The Apostle Orson Pratt explained the nature of true infallibility and its place in the Church: Where inspired officers, possessing power to obtain new revelation, have ceased, there infallibility has ceased, and there uncertainty and doubt must remain. Tell about the councils of the church of Rome being infallible! Who ever heard of any council being infallible where there were no prophets and revelators that could decide with a thus saith the Lord, and thus end all controversy? The Church of God never pretends infallibility upon any other grounds; yet, this apostate "Mother of Harlots" can, with one breath, call herself infallible and with the next breath deny new revelation. (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Orson Pratt, p. 38) The great variety of opinions which have torn asunder modern Christendom and bewildered the minds of millions, can have no existence in the Church of Christ; for there, all matters of importance are decided by revelation and not by creeds invented by human wisdom; there, the deep and hidden things of God are revealed by the Spirit of truth; there, rich treasures of wisdom and knowledge are brought to light; there, they have no need of uninspired councils to invent "Articles of Religion" to fetter the mind of man; there the Holy Ghost takes the things of the Father and shows them by revelation unto the Church and there infallibility is indelibly and unchangeably stamped upon every doctrine, principle, ordinance and law of the Church. (Ibid., p. 26) The doctrine of infallibility applies only to revelation and doctrine, as Joseph Smith explained: "I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught." (TPJS, p. 368) Some members of the Mormon Church oppose infallibility as a doctrine, but accept it in practice. For example, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: This dogma sets forth the belief that the "Vicar of Christ" cannot teach error because he is promised divine protection from error . . . . infallibility is a fabrication devised by the powers of darkness to act as a counterfeit for revelation." (Religious Truths Defined, J. F. Smith, p. 183) Strangely, however, the same author--who opposed the doctrine under the name of infallibility--later taught it as a correct principle and practice: The time will never come when we will not be able to put confidence and exercise faith in the teachings and in the instruction of those who lead us. . . . Therefore it behooves us, as Latter-day Saints, to put our trust in the presiding authorities of the Church . . . . SAINTS SAFE IN FOLLOWING CHURCH AUTHORITIES. No man ever went astray by following the counsel of the authorities of the Church. (Doctrines of Salvation, J. F. Smith, p. 243) This has the identical ring as the Catholic declaration of infallibility! In the early years of Mormonism, infallibility of men was a doctrine repugnant to Church leaders, whereas fallibility of man was one of their central themes. For example, Oliver Cowdery, second Elder to Joseph Smith, wrote: But let him beware lest a blind zeal for party throws him off his balance, and he imbibe the idea that man, frail man like himself, has claims to infallibility! Remember that the great Creator never made an independent man, and with equal propriety we might add he never made an infallible one. (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 3, p. 522) According to Joseph Smith, only Jesus Christ was perfect: It is but just also to the Prophet to say that he made no claim for himself of either impeccability or infallibility. "Where is the man that is free from vanity?" he asked on one occasion. "None ever was perfect but Jesus," he continued; "and why was he perfect? Because he was the Son of God, and had the fulness of the Spirit, and was greater than any man." (B. H. Roberts, CHC 2:356) Benjamin Johnson, who lived in the Prophet's house, commented on the fallibility of Joseph Smith: And no man, seemingly, could make greater mistakes in selection of associates than did the Prophet; and this, with the many other things of which he was accused, his enemies held as evidence that he was a fallen prophet. And even the Lord not only at times admonished him for neglect of duty; but speaks of his "sins" and "transgressions", which would imply that he was not always equally enlightened and guided by inspiration. And in the earliest days he did so make mistakes that the Lord at one time withheld from him the keys of his calling. And he does not in his own history hesitate to say that after conversing with both the Father and the Son, and being administered to by holy angels, that he made great mistakes and was overcome in transgressions and sins. ("Benjamin F. Johnson Letter to Elder George F. Gibbs," Pioneer Press, p. 35) Years later George Q. Cannon wrote about the fallibility of President Wilford Woodruff and his counselors: President Woodruff is distinguished from every other one of us by the fact that he possesses the keys of the kingdom on the earth. He represents the Supreme authority. His voice to us, in its place, brings to us the voice of God. Not that he is God; not that he is infallible. He is a fallible man. His counselors are fallible men. The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. Infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible. But God is infallible. (Collected Discourses, comp. by Brian Stuy, vol. 4, Apr. 7, 1895) If the doctrine of infallibility were true, it means there is a special defense to the church that is given to the president or pope. It would never allow them to teach anything wrong; therefore, the church would never fall. But the Church of Christ did fall. The head of the Church of Jesus Christ is not exempt from temptations and weaknesses, and even has the potential to fail. Wilford Woodruff acknowledged: Brother [George Q.] Cannon spoke about the temptation of the evil one. There never was a people on the earth whom the devil was more anxious to tempt and to destroy than those who bear the Holy Priesthood. If anybody supposes that the First Presidency and the Apostles and leading men of Israel are not tempted, they are mistaken. If Jesus Christ was tempted of the devil for forty days and nights, do you suppose he would pass by these apostles and prophets? We are all of us tempted and tried day by day. There is no people that the arch enemy, Lucifer, is more at war against than these Latter-day Saints dwelling in the valleys of the mountains. (Coll. Disc. vol. 4, Sept. 7, 1895) The scriptures say that even the "sanctified," who should be Church leaders, appear to have no special protection. They all must "take heed" lest they too should "stumble and fall:" But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depa rt from the living God; Therefore let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation; Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also. (D & C 20:32-34) The doctrine of infallibility takes away the rights of men to make decisions and choices, even if they wanted to make a bad one. Henry D. Moyle gave some excellent advice: Examine any movement that may be brought into our midst . . . and if it attempts to deprive us in the slightest respect of our free agency, we should avoid it as we would avoid immorality or anything else that is vicious. (Conf. Rept., Oct. 1947, p. 46) When men attempt to place a protective infallibility upon their leaders, they do it because of their own mental laziness. There are at least three evils that follow such foolishness: 1. It takes away their free agency, and the leaders are forced to do what's right and teach what's right. 2. It retards the mental and spiritual growth of their followers who believe their leaders will tell them everything they need to think and do. 3. It replaces faith in God with faith in man--and what's worse, it limits and destroys power from God. Unfortunately, the infallibility doctrine persists within the LDS Church with greater rapidity now than it ever has. Notice the following statement by Elder Marion G. Romney. He is not talking about revelation or scripture, but rather about the awesome power placed upon the "united voice" of Church leaders. The united voice of the first Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve constitute the authoritative voice of the Church on any given doctrine, principle or practice of the Church. What they say as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here in person. This is the rock foundation of Mormonism. If it ever ceases to be the fact, this will be an apostate Church. . . . So I repeat again, what the presidency say as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here, and it is scripture. It should be studied, understood, and followed, even as the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and other scriptures. (Conf. Rept., April 1951, p. 90) It is interesting to note that the very criticism the Mormons have against the Catholic doctrine of the Pope's infallibility can now be applied to the LDS people themselves because of their strong dependence and faith in their "infallible" ecclesiastical head.

INIQUITY I want to share an experience in Elders quorum yesterday. The High Councilman taught lesson 22 “Temporal and Spiritual Labor” from the WW manual. The tone of the lesson was basically we should not labor as hard for our careers and worldly pursuits as we should for the church and God. Nearly every elder agreed but spent most of the class in justification of their present courses in life and their pursuit for wealth. One elder even said we should chase worldly pursuits so “we can pay more tithing”. I laughed as he almost directly quoted Brigham Young which Nibley captures below. God recognizes only one justification for seeking wealth, and that is with the express intent of helping the poor (Jacob 2:19). One of the disturbing things about Zion is that its appeal, according to the scriptures, is all to the poor: "The Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it" (Isaiah 14:32). Of course, once in Zion, no one suffers from poverty, for they dwell in righteousness and there are no poor among them (Moses 7:18). The law of consecration is a minimal requirement, for "if my people observe not this law, . . . it shall not be a land of Zion unto you" (D&C 119:6). Here our rhetoric engages in a neat bit of sophistry that has always been popular: Elders of Israel are greedy after the things of this world. If you ask them if they are ready to build up the kingdom of God, their answer is prompt—"Why, to be sure we are, with our whole souls; but we want first to get so much gold, speculate and get rich, and then we can help the church considerably. We will go to California and get gold, go and buy goods and get rich, trade with the emigrants, build a mill, make a farm, get a large herd of cattle, and then we can do a great deal for Israel." I have heard this many times from friends and relatives, but it is hokum. What they are saying is, "If God will give me a million dollars. I will let him have a generous cut of it." And so they pray and speculate and expect the Lord to come through for them. He won't do it: "And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thine own property" (D&C 19:26). "Let them repent of all their sins, and of all their covetous desires, before me, saith the Lord; for what is property unto me? saith the Lord" (D&C 117:4). He does not need our property or our help. (Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion, 53) I laughed again as another elder used this example. “Look at the general authorities who were very successful and wealthy before their call” as if their example makes it alright to pursue wealth, the American dream or a “GA resume”. It was almost as if the elders were saying that we must be successful and prove ourselves in the economy and corporate world and if we do good there we are primed for leadership and real church service. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Then our faithful steed in the bishopric said the following. “I endorse what’s been said about dedicating more of our time to the Lord verses the world. BUT…..he said, we should not come away from this lesson watching who drives up in a fancy car or who wears the name brand clothes. We should take this lesson and look inward not outward”. At first I kind of agreed but there was still something in my gut that was nagging at me regarding his response but I couldn’t put my finger on it. We should look inward but is it true that we should not look outward also? Then Moroni 6 came to mind which is the “Proclamation on the Church”. 1 And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it. 2 Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins. 3 And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end. 4 And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith. 5 And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls. 6 And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus. 7 And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit INIQUITY, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ. 8 But as oft as they repented and sought forgiveness, with real intent, they were forgiven. 9 And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done. Okay I thought, but all it says is iniquity. What’s the iniquity referring to in these verses? I started researching how iniquity was defined by the BofM prophets. I was amazed!!!!!!! After sitting in this class listening to the elders talk about what they viewed as “sufficient for our needs” I realized what the source of iniquity is. In every verse I read in the BofM iniquity always traced back to money in some regard which eventually results in affliction, wars, death and bloodshed (1 Ne 22:23; Hel 7:21; 12:5; Ether 9:10-11). I hope that everyone will read these references and others you may research while paying special attention to the word iniquity. Let me highlight one of the most condemning scriptures I read. 14 And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord. 15 Now the cause of this INIQUITY of the people was this—Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of INIQUITY, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world. (3 Nephi 6:14-15) So what I open up for discussion is this. If Moroni says that “they were STRICT to observe that there should be no INIQUITY among them; and whoso was found to commit INIQUITY, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ”. And now that we have a fairly good understanding of what iniquity is do we truly look “inward” and not “outward”. I think we must do both. Money wealth and vain things of the world is what destroyed Christ’s church as I’ve sited above and it will or already is destroying the latter day church. Now look at the vast gulf between members of the church (and more importantly leadership; compare D&C 84:86-91 regarding apostles) from a pure monetary standpoint. We have in this church some of the most rich and wealthy in the nation and the most poor and suffering. The gospel of Jesus Christ strictly forbids rich and poor in his church. We are to be equal at all times and in all places. Speaking of the latter day gentiles (that would be us) Joseph inserted this as part of the JST. 53 And the kingdom of God shall be taken from them, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; (meaning the Gentiles.) 54 Wherefore, on whomsoever this stone shall fall, it shall grind him to powder. 55 And when the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, he will destroy those miserable, wicked men, and will let again his vineyard unto other husbandmen, even in the last days, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 56 And then understood they the parable which he spake unto them, that the Gentiles should be destroyed also, when the Lord should descend out of heaven to reign in his vineyard, which is the earth and the inhabitants thereof. (JST Matthew 21:53) If the church is to be kept on a pure path then this INIQUITY spoken of must be taught against fiercely and without justification. I’m so thankful for the scriptures and in my life I’ve learned that they answer every question I’ve ever had. The restored gospel is true and speaks to our eternal salvation or our condemnation.

Dear President 1st Counselor If I didn't love you so much I'd be a little more than just mildly annoyed at how my wife's recent calling was presented and has since developed. Please allow me to explain my feelings and concerns. I believe I'm not wrong in my observations over the past 15 or 20 years that our dear church leaders at the ward and stake levels have succumbed to political pressures of sex equality and time expediencies to treat men, women, and children on an equal, one-on-one basis with little regard for the position of the husband/father as the head of his house. They also seem to have little discernment for how a calling might affect a home, a marriage, children with needs, etc. that no church leader could even guess at, let alone have substantial knowledge concerning. May I ask you a hypothetical question? If President Hinckley happened to knock on your door to visit you and your family, and you invited him to stay for dinner, who would call on someone to give thanks for the meal? It shouldn't take you long to answer, "Why, me, of course, since I'm the head of my family." That's the correct answer whether you're a stake president, a bishop, a teacher, or even an inactive non-priesthood holder. Church leadership authority has no bearing whatsoever upon God's hierarchy when dealing with and inspiring the on goings in a family. It's an established doctrine in our church that the husband is recognized by God as the ranking authority in every home on earth. He is God's oracle in this one-and-only enduring institution, for all other institutions, including the LDS Church, will have an end. The Handbook of the Church reiterates this doctrine by requiring that leaders consult with the head of house prior to issuing a call to any member of his house. Many leaders don't even attempt to conform to this edict, simply calling whomever they choose without speaking to the husband or father at all, especially if he is less active or a non-member, while many others make a poor attempt at compliance by having their executive secretary invite the husband, usually through the wife, to come to the interview also if he'd like. That's how I got invited; I declined to come with my wife, however, knowing how meaningless the trip would be. It's assumed that the husband will give his blessing, which he invariably does, because very few husbands will, in front of their wife, divulge any special circumstances that might countermand the leader's "inspiration" for issuing the call. I emphasize "inspiration" because I personally know. One woman who was given an "inspired" call to be the primary accompanist, which she laughingly stated she was willing to accept but for one glaring concern, she couldn't play a note on the piano. A phone call to her husband would have saved the bishop the ensuing embarrassment. In the case of a stake calling, deference is given to the bishop of the ward, as it should be, since the bishop might need the individual for another assignment in the ward, but deference is all that is required here since the stake president outranks the bishop. He can call any ward member he chooses, if he wishes to go over the head of the outranked bishop. But the head of house outranks even the president of the church in his home, and yet in too many cases he receives virtually no respect or deference from any authority. It's my belief that when a woman's services are sought by a ward or stake leader, her husband should be consulted as though he's a third counselor, since he's the only person who has near-total insight into the needs of the family that will be impacted. It's obvious that I'm very passionate about this subject. I've been in three bishoprics, twice as first counselor and once as bishop. I've observed and experienced from several angles how truly awesome and intimidating the power of a bishop or stake president is to an active, member trying to obey covenants. This is not an exaggeration; the power is very intimidating. I believe that, more often than we'd care to admit, the love we express to our leaders is really dressed up fear on masquerade. We'd like to speak out, to say what we really think and feel, but we don't dare. We're intimidated into compliance. We're told in general conference to never turn down a calling, and so we don't, often to the detriment of the family. In fact, I agree with that council, if the calling is offered according to the pattern set in the handbook and the temple. If the husband were given temporary status as a counselor to the leader and then sincerely asked to speak frankly about his home, wife and children, and then, after the leader has learned much about this particular home, yes, then if the leader and all three counselors agree, the call should be issued and should not be turned down. We give our leaders special titles, thus exacerbating an elitist gap that already exists between them and us that Christ Himself seems to frown upon (see Matthew 23). We call the bishop the "father of the ward," a title that suggests we should supplant the real fathers in the ward with this one "super inspired" father, which in turn engenders an almost worshipful respect for him. Whatever he does then with our family is okay since he's the new "father-in-charge." None of us wants to cross our file leader. To do so marks or flags us as mal-contents, and dams our potential for meaningful leadership or teaching callings since we don't "support unconditionally." Well, I've arrived at the station in life where I don't even want a leadership calling of any sort, so I guess I'm bolder than most, and bolder now than I've been in the past. In general, women respond somewhat differently than men do to a church calling. The zeal with which a faithful woman attacks a calling can be cyclonic, something to marvel at and get out of the way of. But it is often zeal without knowledge, restraint or due consideration for her other callings, which are to be a wife first and a mother second. The church calling should be third in importance, but more often than not is put into the first position. She justifies this convoluted rearranging of priorities by citing statements such as "magnify your calling," which means, of course, to "make it bigger or more grandiose" (of course she should magnify her callings, but duly consider which callings should come first and then magnify them first and most). Her zeal is then lauded and applauded by her "father of the ward or stake" because she has made him look good, and since he's God's representative each compliment smacks of God's own approval and her rearranged priorities are thus given the seal of justification. This feminine attitude is then reinforced from the pulpit by leaders who say things like, "if you want something done right, ask a busy woman to do it." So they do-ask some husband's busy helpmeet, I mean. To hit this problem head on, I'll call it what I believe it is, unrighteous dominion. We’ve arrived at a state in our church where middle management, ward and stake leaders, appear to think they're the ranking authority, in every home, since wards and stakes are made up of families, and that's all they're made of. The leaders are volunteers, working long hours selflessly serving the members, and to make one more step in a calling appears to be just too much. Also, since women today are equals in the marketplace, asking their husband for permission to call them is an affront to many of them. And so our bishops and stake presidents, in order to not offend the women, must necessarily countermand handbook and temple edicts and offend the men. There is no other way. So we must either change the handbook and temple covenants and succumb to the world or offend the women by complying, and since we don't dare offend the women, we’ve taken the tack of offending the men by exercising unrighteous “demotion" of their endowed position. The scripture says that "almost all" men, upon getting some authority, cannot do other than to "exercise unrighteous dominion" over their members" It doesn't say that some will, or that many will, but that "almost all" will. So when a region conference is held of all stake and ward leaders, one can look around at all present and conclude that nearly everyone there (almost all) is a leader who exercises unrighteous dominion to some degree over his ward or stake. God says it can't be helped, and my observation after forty years of church service and thirty four years of family service is that God is correct in this warning. That fact alone should send shivers up our spines and humility into our hearts. Of course, husbands are also leaders "with a little authority" whose propensity is to exercise unrighteous dominion over their families. The telling difference in this discussion, however, is that the father is the ranking authority, and as such is entitled to direct inspiration from God, which leaders must accept. And if defensively an indignant leader counters with "you have no right to put forth your hand to steady the ark," the husband merely needs to point out that his family is his ark, not the church's, and leaders have no right putting forth their hand to steady it. It must be this way so there is order throughout the kingdom--no individual can abuse another's stewardship without causing the withdrawal of a grieved holy spirit, and amen to the priesthood or authority of that man. On the other hand, righteous dominion elevates the position of the patriarch in the home, for, as Moses said, "I would to God that all men were prophets." Well, I've probably made more of this than I should have, but I think the First Presidency isn't aware of how blatant the non-compliance of their handbook is. Hugh Nibley once quipped that the calling in the church with the greatest potential for abuse and unrighteous dominion is that of stake president, perhaps the most unregulated position in all the church, where every idea that pops into the president's head can become the very voice of God from Sinai. In such a situation there is no need to counsel with heads of households about their families since "God has spoken" (I wonder, does such a stake president even consider that there are some 800 or 1000 men in his stake who outrank him in regards to dealing with individual families, except of course with membership issues)? I hasten to add here that I don't believe you three brethren fall into the category of leaders I'm speaking of here, I love you all, respect you all, am pleased that you are my stake presidency (especially pleased that it's finally' recognized that there are men with the spirit living outside town and I support and sustain you all. I also believe that this missive will in no way affect my standing in the stake. Otherwise, I will be fearful, as I have been in the past, to even begin to broach this subject. It's a compliment to you that I'm bold enough to write this now. I wouldn't have been this bold with any bishop or any other stake president, accept one, Stake President in Sandy, a fair man who I dearly love as I love you brethren. I should add President 1st Counselor that the Stake President phoned me and apologized for not understanding the scope of what you had asked my wife to do. I forgave him and explained that my concerns actually go beyond that, which I've explained above. We then talked for several minutes, reaffirming our long friendship, and he then did something that many others have given lip service to but don't seem to have the insight and humility to actually do. He asked me if I will watch him and point out any mistakes I might see him make, correcting him if I feel inspired. My eyes are filled with tears enough now as I write this, finally feeling that a leader really does care enough and know enough about the meaning of “being a servant rather than a commander" to in fact do what we preach and profess to believe. My relief is profound, the effect instead being one of wanting to support rather than find fault. I am now so disarmed that it'll be difficult to honor his wish for correction even if I should think he needs it. I know of no other leader who has put it that way, except both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who begged the people to not blindly follow their leaders, but to pray to God to see if they were leading in righteousness. We seem to be afraid now-a-days of admitting that a leader might err. I once had a stake president who demanded blind obedience. A good friend of mine was run right out of the church by him simply because my friend insisted on saying he sustained his leaders "in righteousness" when asked in a temple recommend interview. The stake president wouldn't allow that qualifier, as though my friend must support blindly, even in "unrighteousness." Joseph Smith said that any leader who demanded blind obedience had it in his heart to do evil himself. God bless a Stake President for understanding this. The time I endured living under the yoke of bondage in another Stake Presidents dictatorial and "GA campaigning" regime was excruciatingly frightening and trying to my faith, but was almost perfectly juxtaposed to the relief, joy and safety that I felt when I moved beyond his iron curtain into New Stake President's stake. I honestly felt as though I had escaped in a balloon over the hated wall. MISC. And first, it becomes an elder when he is traveling through the world, warning the inhabitants of the earth to gather together, that there may be built up an holy city unto the Lord, instead of commencing with children, or those who look up to parents or guardians to influence their minds, thereby drawing them from their duties, which they rightfully owe these legal guardians, they should commence their labors with parents, or guardians; and their teachings should be such as are calculated to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of children to the fathers; and no influence should be used with children, contrary to the consent of their parents or guardians; but all such as can be persuaded in a lawful and righteous manner, and with common consent, we should feel it our duty to influence them to gather with the people of God. But otherwise let the responsibility rest upon the heads of parents or guardians, and all condemnation or consequences be upon their heads, according to the dispensation which he hath committed unto us; for God hath so ordained, that his work shall be cut short in righteousness, in the last days; therefore, first teach the parents, and then, with their consent, persuade the children to embrace the Gospel also. And if children embrace the Gospel, and their parents or guardians are unbelievers, teach them to stay at home and be obedient to their parents or guardians, if they require it; but if they consent to let them gather with the people of God, let them do so, and there shall be no wrong; and let all things be done carefully and righteously and God will extend to all such his guardian care. And secondly, it is the duty of elders, when they enter into any house, to let their labors and warning voice be unto the master of that house; and if he receive the Gospel, then he may extend his influence to his wife also, with consent, that peradventure she may receive the Gospel; but if a man receive not the Gospel, but gives his consent that his wife may receive it, and she believes, then let her receive it. But if a man forbid his wife, or his children, before they are of age, to receive the Gospel, then it should be the duty of the elder to go his way, and use no influence against him, and let the responsibility be upon his head; shake off the dust of thy feet as a testimony against him, and thy skirts shall then be clear of their souls. Their sins are not to be answered upon such as God hath sent to warn them to flee the wrath to come, and save themselves from this untoward generation. Thirdly, it should be the duty of an elder, when he enters into a house, to salute the master of that house, and if he gain his consent, then he may preach to all that are in that house; but if he gain not his consent, let him not go unto his slaves, or servants, but let the responsibility be upon the head of the master of that house, and the consequences thereof, and the guilt of that house is no longer upon his skirts, he is free; therefore, let him shake off the dust of his feet, and go his way, but if the master of that house give consent, the elder may preach to his family, his wife, his children, and his servants, his man-servants, or his maidservants, or his slaves; then it should be the duty of the elder to stand up boldly for the cause of Christ, and warn that people with one accord to repent and be baptized for the remissions of sins, and for the Holy Ghost, always commanding them in the name of the Lord, in the spirit of meekness, to be kindly affectionate one toward another, that the fathers should be kind to their children, husbands to their wives, masters to their slaves or servants, children obedient to their parents, wives to their husband, and slaves or servants to their masters. (HC 2:262-64) (Joseph Smith, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 175-176)

HEREAFTER Christians in general, Latter-day Saints in particular, and most of the world’s religions, for that matter, have in common doctrines and teachings about life beyond mortality. All though I am LDS, most any Christian could substitute his own particular beliefs into the discussion which follows. When I inquire of my LDS “main stream” acquaintances about their beliefs with respect to what follows mortality, life after death, the conversation is typically as follows: Prophet: After you die, what are you expecting? What is the sequence of experiences that you expect to encounter? What lies hereafter? LDS: After I die, I will go into a part of the spirit world called Paradise to await my resurrection. When I am resurrected, I expect to be judged for my actions on earth and sent to one of three degrees of glory. Hopefully, I will qualify for the highest or Celestial Kingdom where I will live with God and the angels eternally. Of course, as a Latter-day Saint, I expect to become a God and do the creative works of God for my children just as my Heavenly Father has done for me. Prophet: Paradise is for you a part of the spirit world. The other part of the spirit world you call spirit prison. What is the distinction? LDS: Paradise is the resting place for the righteous while spirit prison is an opportunity for the unrighteous and those who have died in ignorance of the gospel to receive missionaries to teach them the gospel so that they too may repent and be saved. Prophet: Would you anticipate some element of opposition to be a part of that experience, or do you expect the glory of the angelic missionaries to be obvious and offer a clear and obvious choice to the inmates of the spirit prison. LDS: We know “there must needs be opposition in all things.” Prophet: Why do you believe that you will go to Paradise as opposed to the spirit prison? LDS: Because I am a baptized member of the Church of Jesus Christ. Prophet: As a baptized member of the Church of Jesus Christ, do you believe that you are now or that you will, by the time you die, be fully repentant, and therefore fully forgiven of sin, and therefore have reached perfection, and therefore have your calling and election made sure? LDS: No. Prophet: So you would expect all of that to go on in Paradise? Paradise, therefore has the elements of progression, learning, developing, and the perfecting of your faith? LDS: Yes, I suppose that would be true. Prophet: What about opposition in that process? Would you expect some opposition? LDS: Well, yes, I suppose that could be true and I would also expect that some personal progression and development may happen in each of the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial Kingdoms after resurrection and judgment. Prophet: So, one does not have to be “perfect” to be admitted into the Celestial Kingdom and progression, opposition, agency, therefore, may be eternal principles? LDS: Well, uh, I suppose one has to be perfect in some things, but we do not know all the details in this life. Prophet: Are you resurrected into a Celestial body if you are a candidate for the Celestial Kingdom? LDS: Yes, of course. Prophet: Would that not presume some sort of judgment before resurrection as opposed to after resurrection. LDS: Well, yes, but as I said, here in mortality we do not know all the mechanics and all the fine details. Many unasked and unanswered questions are raised in this interview, but we can see from it that we arrive very quickly at the limits of our understanding of the hereafter. Though the details remain fuzzy and we never quite get around to the specifics in Sunday School, we might be allowed to explore a few of the more obvious assumptions. Even the most devout religious people hardly expect to reach perfection before leaving mortality. Some form of life, progression, development, learning, missionary work, agency, change, opposition, judgment, grading and resurrection are all elements of the “hereafter.” If we consider the ramifications of recurrent mortality, may I ask which of the foregoing elements are not present in our present world? Think about it. Let me be the first to welcome you to the hereafter! I apologize for not being there to greet you upon arrival here in the hereafter, but I seem to have been a little late arriving myself. Come to think of it, most of you would not even notice my tardiness, having not yet arrived themselves. May I suggest that not everyone on this earth is a Telestial being until proven otherwise, even if they do look like everyone else. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Jared and his brother, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Benjamin, Mosiah, Ether, Alma, Captain Moroni, Samuel, Nephi, Christ, Peter, James, John, John, Mormon, Moroni, William, Martin, Joseph, Hugh, and all the other greater and lesser ringers I have failed to mention have all been down here in the midst of opposition doing missionary work among the captives of this world. Are the inhabitants of this world, prisoners of walls of stone, or walls of a counterfeit belief system? Are we prisoners of the flesh, or of the mind and spirit. Is this not indeed a spirit prison? How often we have observed the swarming masses on this planet going to and fro on the freeways, thither and yon in the market place to “work by the sweat of our brow”, or wandering about the streets and shopping malls without the slightest glimmer of critical faculty applied to their own eternal circumstances. We have often asked what purpose this existence serves for so many who are oblivious to its purpose. Why do so many endure the rigors of mortality, and so few come to eternal knowledge, wisdom, and understanding? What purpose does this serve for the vast majority? Why do so few realize the vision? What is the point? What is the purpose of such a world? To put it simply, this is a warehouse! All of God’s children have to be somewhere. None of God’s children have to do, perform, progress, achieve, accomplish, look, listen, or obey, but all of God’s children must be put somewhere. If we were to imagine ourselves in our LDS friend’s spirit prison, we would not even ask why there are so many people wandering around without purpose or direction. It is only for want of our own eternal “grid coordinates” that we even ask such a question. “In my Father’s house are many mansions,” said the Lord. Our last significant prophet clarified that comment for us. In His Father’s house are many way-stations, many inns or apartments along the traveler’s way. In straight forward terms, in the Father’s house are many warehouses. Welcome to the hereafter, family, for indeed, we are here! You may recall Hugh Nibley’s single-question, Honors class, midterm question: “Assume that you have been guaranteed a thousand uninterrupted years of life here on earth, with all your wants and needs adequately funded: How would you plan to spend the rest of your lives here?” Notice that it really is a “midterm” question, and just who here in hell would be asking that question – for heaven’s sake? If I were to answer that question, I would first recall another of Brother Nibley’s comments in Breakthroughs I Would Like to See, November 8, 1984: “Anything I discuss with anybody from this time on must be within the framework of the scriptures. Why? …The scriptures, with modern revelation added, are far more explicit and detailed than people realize. …Above all, we are obliged to – because there is no other framework available to appeal to.” With that in mind, I would answer: Look for messengers. Seek the further light and knowledge promised. Pray Always. Meditate on Gospel Principles and Doctrines. Repent and Forgive. Live the Gospel. Love one another as [He] has loved [us]. Be one with Him. Search the scriptures and especially the words of Isaiah and the Book of Mormon. Serve, assist, and call to your fellow travelers to do the same. Is that not the mission of a missionary? I am sure you will identify other important points. As we contemplate this short list, we can see the multitude of examples set for us by the prophetic ringers who have come among us countless times. Though they look like everyone else and suffer the same infirmities while they come to themselves in a hostile environment, yet they stand before us having prevailed. Having prevailed, do they not stand before us as the way itself? What better way to show us - than to simply, show us the way?

LDS CHURCH IN THE 177TH YEAR RIGHT NOW Christ’s church was organized in these latter days in the year 1830. Subtract that from 2006 and you get 176 years. As of the writing of this paper we are post April 6th which means we are in the 177th year right now. See if we have the same exact conditions in our nation and church as compared to the Book of Mormon record. It’s spooky to say the least. Is this book for our times or what? ALMAS CHURCH (lasted 177 years) Alma’s church was organized and established in 147BC (see Mosiah 18:17). Alma’s church was broken up or destroyed in 30AD (see 3 Nephi 6:14). That brings us to the fact that Alma’s church only lasted 177 years from it’s organization to it’s full stage of apostasy and destruction. The Book of Mormon record tells us that pride and boastings came about because of exceeding riches and prosperity (3 Nephi 6:10). It was a society of commerce with many merchants, lawyers and officers in the land (3 Nephi 6:11). Better known as capitalism, free enterprise or the American dream. People were also distinguished by ranks according to their riches “and” chances for learning (college) while others were not as successful in this market because of a lack of learning or opportunities for schooling (3 Nephi 6:12). The rest of this chapter tells us that it was the lawyers and judges (attorneys, supreme court judges etc) that prospered in this society (3 Nephi 6:13) and they caused the destruction of the Nephites federal government (3 Nephi 6, 7:6). This was the fulfillment of lawyer craft destroying the society however the people had been warned many years prior regarding the evil of such characters and business strategies (Alma 10:27, Alma 11 specifically vs 20). The church can never suffer inequality among its members and we learn that it was likewise broken up (3 Nephi 6:14-15). All of this because of iniquity which always leads back to pride, power, authority, riches and the vain things of the world which church members are strictly commanded to disallow in the church (3 Nephi 6:15 cr Moroni 6:7). Then we have a possible type and shadow for our future since the Book of Mormon is for our day and since all of these events seem to line up with our current society. They were in a state of awful wickedness and did not sin ignorantly but willfully, they had been taught correctly but willfully rejected truth (3 Nephi 6:17-18). There were two Presidents of the republic who were father and son named Lachoneus Sr. and Lachoneus Jr. (3 Nephi 6:19 ie Bush Sr and Bush Jr – our nation started with “George” Washington could it be that it ends with a “George” Bush? George Bush Jr is our third president with that name, who is our 43rd president. Collectively, Israel and Judah had a total of 43 named kings before it’s destruction). The younger Lachoneus is assassinated by the wicked politicians and lawyers (3 Nephi 7:1). In the rest of chapter six we learn that it was the lawyers and judges hay day even to the point of illegally murdering the prophets and never being punished which was their secret pact (3 Nephi 6:28). All this that they might have a king and destroy the liberty and freedom of their government (3 Nephi 6:30). After the government collapsed the Nephites all broke into tribes and hated one another “but” they were united on one point. They wanted their federal government back (3 Nephi 7:11). So we see that in the same year that the church fell into full scale apostasy the government of the land also failed in the same year. MIGHTY PROPHET WHO SEES VISIONS AND ANGELS ARISES (178TH - 179TH YEAR) This great prophet who was the forerunner for Christ among the Nephites was visited by angels, heard the voice of the Lord, was an eye witness and had power bestowed upon him concerning the ministry of Christ. He declared the doctrines of Christ to people that were hard hearted and blind in their minds. He preached boldly and with strong teachings. The people were angry with him of course for not being politically correct (cross reference to Helaman 13:25-29) and because he had more convincing power than orthodox priests and leaders of that day. Angels visited him on a daily basis. He was able to cast out devils and unclean spirits and even raised his own brother from the dead! He performed many more miracles. Still few were converted and denied following this great prophet. Those who believed him testified boldly to non believers and performed miracles themselves. These new members and followers of Christ through the prophet Nephi were baptized or possibly re-baptized. This prophet made no mistakes in the reckoning of years and the people did look forward with anxiousness to the signs of Christ’s appearance unto them. The people all disagreed about the signs and time of Christ’s coming despite the many signs that had been given. Then on April 4th 34AD (assuming usage of Hebrew calendar) the earth begins to become a complete disaster zone. Christ then appears at the end of that year (3 Nephi 10:18) which suggest that from start to finish it lasted many months. See 3 Nephi 7:15 – 3 Nephi 8:4 for sources on the above commentary. For the natural disasters see 3 Nephi 8:5 – 3 Nephi 10 CHRIST’S CHURCH (lasted 167 - 176 years) Christ’s church is organized all through 3 Nephi 11 up to chapter 27 which was 34AD. See specifically 3 Nephi 26:1 and chapter 27. In 4 Nephi 1:24-27 we know it was around 201AD – 210AD that everything “began” to fall apart which gives us about 167-176 years. What caused it’s eventual apostasy? 4 Nephi starts out with the people doing pretty well but then it turns mid chapter. In verse 23 we learn that the people had prospered and became exceedingly rich (here we go again, right). Pride, costly apparel, fine pearls and commonality or the united order had been abandoned (4 Nephi 1:24-25). They were big time church builders and must have had a chapel on every corner because there were “many” in the land (see also Mormon 8:28-37, 14:10, 22:23, 2 Nephi 26:20-21, 28:3&12, Alma 31-33, Mosiah 27:3). The church “professed” to know Christ but denied the more parts of the gospel (lunch room gospel, take what you want and leave the rest out). They gave sacred things to people that should not because of unworthiness (temple rights perhaps?). As brother Nibley has well stated this chapter points out that there were those who professed to belong to the church of Christ and them who really did belong. Well the wanta-bees of course persecuted the original twelve that Christ chose and who were extremely old at this point. The people hardened their hearts and were led by many false priests and false prophets “to build up many churches” (4 Nephi 1:23-34). Hmm….sounds familiar. Then comes a split in the church between the believers and the professed believers (4 Nephi 35-38). We are again reminded that there full focus was to build churches in verse 41. Riches were the name of the game (verse 43). It was a commerce, free enterprise, capitalistic society that was apparently booming (verse 46) just like the society in Alma’s church around the time of it’s destruction. LDS CHURCH WARNED OF DESTRUCTION Then not many years after Christ’s church apostatized we know exactly what happens to them according to Mormon and Moroni’s records. Mormon 8 is Moroni’s record to the latter day gentile church (LDS church) warning us against every single thing mentioned above which caused the failure of our Lords previous churches on this continent. Watch and learn from histories past is the message of Moroni. Power of God is denied, churches are defiled because of pride. The church leaders are very prideful and the members envy them (some day I’ll be a mission president or GA etc). Destruction and pollutions are seen across the whole earth (8:28-31). For money all your sins and worries will go away is the doctrine of these leaders (8:32). Again we find church builders like McDonalds builds restaurants (8:33). The scriptures are modified or transformed (8:33 see also 1981 scripture changes to LDS canon). Then Moroni gives his famous speech to the latter day gentile church (8:35-38). Note that the same exact words are used by Moroni to the latter day gentiles as were the words of Samuel the Lamanite to the Nephites. “Behold the sword of vengeance hangeth over you” (8:41 cr Helamen 13:5). We know what happened to the Nephites already and our D&C confirms this message (D&C 38:39) to us. And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be. (2 Nephi 32:7)

OUR SPIRIT AND THE HOLY GHOST Hollywood would have us envision our spirits being a transparent form of our bodies that floats through the air like Casper the Friendly Ghost. They portray it as something we can waive our hands through or even a form of ourselves that can walk through walls. While on some level this may have a limited amount of truth I think we are also being misled. This is my personal effort to understand more clearly what my spirit is as well as the Holy Ghost and how they might interact. Let me first suggest an assignment or experiment. EXPERIMENT: Find a mirror somewhere in your home and place yourself in a comfortable position in front of it. Find a clock or set a timer for 5 minutes (this experiment won’t take long). Now, look into that mirror but more specifically into your own eyes. Look deep into your eyes and search for the deepest part of your soul. Have a conversation with yourself and ask all the questions you want. Who am I? Where did I come from? What is my purpose? Why am I here? Go deep! My experience in doing this was somewhat uncomfortable and yet very thrilling at the same time. It was almost as if I didn’t know who I was. I was meeting a stranger but yet myself all at the same time. Perhaps this experience will be different for each person but please try this experiment before reading on. RESULT: I will come to the point of this paper and spend the rest of the paper explaining why I have come to the conclusion I have. I believe that the thing we call our spirit is nothing more than the “INTELLIGENCE” within us. I’m not sure exactly what that even is but I view it as the thing that gives us awareness, conscious, reason the ability to discern etc. It’s the little “I AM” that you conversed with while looking into the mirror. It’s what gives you identity in the eternal worlds. Perhaps while you were staring into the mirror you could feel that “you” existed and that everything “out there” also existed but it was outside of you. I suppose I could go on but I will leave this idea with each of you to explore within your own discussions between that little “I AM”. Let’s examine that preexistence story where it all began and which we hear so much about. 18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more INTELLIGENT than the other, yet these two SPIRITS, notwithstanding one is more INTELLIGENT THAN THE OTHER, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are TWO SPIRITS, one being MORE INTELLIGENT THAT THE OTHER; there shall be ANOTHER MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THEY; I am the Lord thy God, I AM MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THEY ALL. 20 The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah. 21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein MY WISDOM EXCELLETH THEM ALL, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all WISDOM and prudence, over all the INTELLIGENCES thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the INTELLIGENCES thou hast seen. 22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the INTELLIGENCES that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; 23 And God saw these SOULS that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were SPIRITS, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3:18-23) It seems that intelligences, souls and spirits are equivalent in this scripture. However did you notice that the spirits are gauged upon their INTELLIGENCE and from that the spirit is derived. Did you notice why God is God? Because he is more intelligent (Abr 3:21). Funny how Joseph Smith made similar comparisons. I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man; but it is impossible for me to say much on this subject. I shall therefore just touch upon it, for time will not permit me to say all. It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead,—namely, the SOUL—the MIND of man—the immortal SPIRIT. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 352) More scripture on the nature and existence of intelligence. 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 30 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 93:29-30) 30 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. 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light (D&C 93:30-31). God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says "God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam's spirit, and so became a living body." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 352) There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 353) The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 153) The mind we are possessed of, the being that is capable of thinking and reflecting, that is capable of acting according to the motives presented to it, that being which is immortal, which dwells within us, which is capable of reasoning from cause to effect, and which can comprehend, in some measure, the laws of its Creator, as well as trace them out as exhibited in universal nature, that being, which we call the Mind, existed before the tabernacle. (Orson Pratt, JD 18:297) The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth (D&C 93:36). Reminds me of Moses 1:39 where God says that his work and GLORY is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man or should I say intelligences? Could we rephrase it and say “this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of intelligences”? That is his glory after all. 18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. 19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. (D&C 130:18-19) The soul, spirit, mind or intelligence of man is eternal and this is what rises and stays with us in the resurrection. 7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your MIND; THEN you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. 9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. (D&C 9:7-9) The burning tingling sensations are byproducts of the new knowledge and only come after we’ve been enlightened. They serve as confirmations of the knowledge but are not to be mistaken as the Holy Ghost itself. The new knowledge and the conveyance of it is the Holy Ghost. In the school of the prophets at Kirtland, Ohio we learn that one of the attributes to having the Holy Spirit is simply to possess the same mind as the Father. Again a focus on intelligence. And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one; or, in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme, power over all things; by whom all things were created and made that were created and made, and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one; the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness—filling all in all; the Son being filled with the fullness of the mind, glory, and power; or, in other words, the spirit, glory, and power, of the Father, possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom, sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father, mediator for man, being filled with the fullness of the mind of the Father; or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father, which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments; and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all; being filled with the fullness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. (Lectures on Faith 5:2) Notice the focus on the mind and intelligence? That’s where it begins! Again Joseph shows us the ONLY effect of the Holy Ghost. There are two Comforters spoken of. One is the Holy Ghost, the same as given on the day of Pentecost, and that all Saints receive after faith, repentance, and baptism. This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has NO OTHER EFFECT THAN PUR INTELLIGENCE. It is more powerful in expanding the MIND, enlightening the UNDERSTANDING, and storing the INTELLECT with present KNOWLEDGE, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of iINTELLIGENCE; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure INTELLIGENCE. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 149) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost , whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (JST John 14:26). Notice how this shows functions of the mind or the little “I AM” inside of you? It brings back knowledge you had at some prior time because you are “remembering”. I want to reason more on the SPIRIT of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the MIND of man—the IMMORTAL PART, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the SPIRIT of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the SPIRIT of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the SPIRIT of man at all. God himself could not create himself. INTELLIGENCE is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. IT IS A SPIRIT from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the MINDS and SPIRITS that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of ENLARGEMENT. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of SPIRITS and GLORY, because he was more INTELLIGENT, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to ADVANCE IN KNOWLEDGE. He has power to institute laws to INSTRUCT THE WEAKER INTELLIGENCES, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that KNOWLEDGE, POWER, GLORY, and INTELLIGENCE, which is REQUISITE IN ORDER TO SAVE THEM in the world of spirits. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 354) It’s amazing how the prophet Joseph, the ancient prophets, the Lord and the scriptures use the words intelligence, spirit, mind, power, glory, knowledge so interchangeably. Hugh Nibley describes it this way. But here is the contrast. If he is nothing, then how about being so close to God. "But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld;…" Are we trying to escape the issue here by calling it spiritual? No, the spiritual packs a greater energy than the physical. Spirit is a form of energy, just as faith, love and joy are forms of energy. It's a real and substantial thing. The spirit is one of the real forces. We'll say a form of energy and let it go at that. "…for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him." He was carried up and he was in the presence of God. He was on another level, in another energy zone, and he could do it. As he says here, "…not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld;…I was transfigured before him" (verse 11). That's the transfiguration on the mountain. (Hugh Nibley, Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price, 12) And again… New converts often get the idea that having accepted the gospel, they have arrived at adequate knowledge. Others say that to have a testimony is to have everything they have sought and that they have found thereby the kingdom of heaven; but their minds go right on working just the same, and if they don't keep on getting new and testable knowledge, they will assuredly embrace those "wild, enthusiastic notions" of the new converts in Kirtland. Note what a different procedure Joseph Smith prescribes: "This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence [it is not a hot, emotional surge]. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile." For as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence. . . . The Spirit of Revelation is in connection with these blessings. A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, . . . thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation. This is remarkably like the new therapeutic discipline called "biofeedback." The emphasis is all on the continuous, conscientious, honest acquisition of knowledge. This admonition to sobriety and diligence goes along with the Prophet's outspoken recommendation of the Jews and their peculiar esteem and diligence for things of the mind. If there is anything calculated to interest the mind of the Saints, to awaken in them the finest sensibilities and arouse them to enterprise and exertion, surely it is the great and precious promises made by our heavenly Father to the children of Abraham . . . and the dispersed of Judah . . . and inasmuch as you feel interested for the covenant people of the Lord, the God of their fathers shall bless you . . . He will endow you with power, wisdom, might and intelligence, and every qualification necessary; while your minds will expand wider and wider, until you can . . . contemplate the mighty acts of Jehovah in all their variety and glory. In Israel today, there are great contests in which young people and old from all parts of the world display their knowledge of scripture and skill at music, science, or mathematics, in grueling competitions. This sort of thing tends to breed a race of insufferably arrogant, conceited little show-offs—and magnificent performers. They tend to be like the Jews of old, who "sought for things that they could not understand," ever "looking beyond the mark," and hence falling on their faces: "they must needs fall" (Jacob 4:14). Yet Joseph Smith commends their intellectual efforts as a corrective to the Latter-day Saints, who lean too far in the other direction, giving their young people and old awards for zeal alone, zeal without knowledge—for sitting in endless meetings, for dedicated conformity and unlimited capacity for suffering boredom. We think it more commendable to get up at five A.M. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o'clock to write a good one—that is pure zeal that tends to breed a race of insufferable, self-righteous prigs and barren minds. One has only to consider the present outpouring of "inspirational" books in the Church that bring little new in the way of knowledge: truisms and platitudes, kitsch, and cliches have become our everyday diet. The Prophet would never settle for that. "I advise all to go on to perfection, and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness. . . . It has always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries—new things—for my hearers." It actually happens at the BYU, and that not rarely, that students come to a teacher, usually at the beginning of a term, with the sincere request that he refrain from teaching them anything new. They have no desire, they explain, to hear what they do not know already! I cannot imagine that happening at any other school, but maybe it does. Unless we go on to other new things, we are stifling our powers. (Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion, 75-76) Perhaps I will refine this over time or find more to support what I’ve felt but I’ve learned a great deal on the spirit within me and the Holy Ghost. I hope it will help you or at least start you down a road of question and answers with that little “I AM”.

WHITE SHIRTS AND TIES In all my life as a member of the church I’ve never lived in a stake or ward where so much emphasis has been placed on the wearing of white shirts and ties. It’s the great emphasis that has caused me to write this letter more then the actual doctrine being taught, though in all honesty both concern me greatly. Constant reminders and hints are issued on Sunday’s when out of compliance. Remember the “hall monitors” in elementary school? That’s exactly what it’s like going to church and the bishopric are the ones taking names. Its asked and emphasized in temple recommend interviews at both the ward and stake level. Having answered “yes” to the question of whether I will abide by the dress code I can’t be sure if my recommend would actually be denied if I said “no”. The question being associated with temple recommend issuance, and side by side with other serious questions I can only conclude that my worthiness in the sight of local leaders may be strongly questioned should I say “no”. Through the years there have been many talks presented from leaders high and low on the topic to denote some sort of worthiness or purity before God. In these talks references to temple attire are cited for support. The temple is a drama enacted through plays and presentations. Many things in the temple are literal but sometimes symbolic. Peter, James and John for instance were in street clothes in the Celestial Kingdom when receiving counsel and assignment from the Lord on their mission to Adam upon the earth. It could denote purity and cleanliness but in no way should a person be restricted from temple attendance for being out of compliance at block meetings on Sunday. Christ entered the temple in his sackcloth as did Moses on mount Sinai and early pioneer members as they took out their first endowments and even up to the Salt Lake period. Why do we not remove 70% of our other clothing such as dark shoes, black suite coats and pants for Sunday attendance? A strict dress code shows nothing of worthiness or ones spiritual aptitude. In fact it reduces spiritual progression or focus with this false sense of worship that never bears fruit. I would suggest that humble ragged clothing would mean more to God, showing ones humility, than the other as Alma taught (which I will be getting to in a moment). The attire we have begun to emphasize is the official dress code of Babylon in our modern day. Presidents of countries and nations, movie stars and CEO’s of corporate America sport and even set the standard just as the business and religious leaders of Christ’s day did (Matt 23). These are things to “be seen of men” or serve as a way of “enlarging the borders of their garments” as Christ put it. Some have speculated that this is what is meant by Satan who “leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord” (2 Nephi 26:22). The Book of Mormon makes it clear that churches of the past and future will also make this same mistake by “robbing the poor” to build church houses and wear fine clothing (2 Nephi 28:12-13). My studies of Christ’s life and all the holy prophets indicate they were humble in appearance and did not reflect any form of worldly professionalism. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? (Matthew 6:25). I challenge anyone to show a single place where a strict dress code has ever been taught by holy prophets on a regular Sunday basis or at all for that matter? Going on, Christ’s discourse in Matt 23 is perhaps the strongest verbal assault of our Savior ever recorded. He even went so far as to say this to the finely dressed leaders; “That the publicans and harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you” (JST Matt 21:31). Can you imagine the Savior declaring these words to you? We must realize why he delivered such words to these leaders of profession and religion. One scholar captured it well when he said. There is a precedent for the bit of faking—a most distinguished one. Satan, being neither stupid nor inexperienced, knows the value of a pleasing appearance—there are times when it pays to appear even as an angel of light. He goes farther than that, however, to assure that success of his masquerade (given out since the days of Adam) as a picturesquely repulsive figure—a four-star horror with claws, horns, or other obvious trimmings. With that idea firmly established, he can operate with devastating effectiveness as a very proper gentleman, a handsome and persuasive salesman. He "decoys" our minds (a favorite word with Brigham Young) with false words and appearances. A favorite trick is to put the whole blame on sex. Sex can be a pernicious appetite, but it runs a poor second to the other. For example: We are wont to think of Sodom as the original sexpot, but according to all accounts "this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom": that great wealth made her people cruel and self-righteous. The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism. Longhairs, beards, necklaces, LSD and rock, Big Sur and Woodstock come and go, but Babylon is always there: rich, respectable, immovable, with its granite walls and steel vaults, its bronze gates, its onyx trimmings and marble floors (all borrowed from ancient temples, for these are our modern temples), and its bullet-proof glass—the awesome symbols of total security. Keeping her orgies decently private, she presents a front of unalterable propriety to all. As the early Christian writers observed, Babylon always wins: in every showdown throughout history, Satan has remained in possession of the field, and he still holds it. Its security and respectability exert a strong appeal: "When I see this people grow and spread and prosper," said Brigham Young, "I feel there is more danger than when they are in poverty. Being driven from city to city . . . is nothing compared to the danger of becoming rich and being hailed by outsiders as a first-class community." (Approaching Zion, 54-55) To quote Brigham Young again. It is the fashion in the world to embrace men in their faith, or a fine meeting house, or a genteel congregation, thinking, "O, what perfect order, and how pretty they look; how straight they walk to meeting, and how long their faces are during the services; how pretty that deacon looks under the pulpit; the people are so pretty, the meeting house is so nice, that we want to join such pretty people." Such feelings will take a people to hell. Embrace a doctrine that will purge sin and iniquity from your hearts, and sanctify you before God, and you are right, no matter how others act. (Brigham Young; JD 4:78) Brother Brigham is one of my favorite prophets because he never dishes out todays normal helping of rhetoric but always comes to the point. It seems Alma and his congregation were in line with his teachings and understood the danger of believing otherwise. And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely. (Alma 1:27) Perhaps normal every day clothes that were washed, clean and presentable? Another scholar who has written many books said this on the destruction of ancient Israel. Ironically, appearances of true worship persist in every stage of apostasy. Laying stress on outward observances is often a symptom of alienation from the true God. When false gods are the order of the day, people must scrupulously preserve the exterior of true worship, or all is lost. When people reach this point, they confuse righteousness with actively congregating and religiously performing ecclesiastical duties. In such worship, institutional convention may become the enemy of spontaneity, resulting in dead, stereotypical devotion. The writings of Isaiah, pertinent to our day, commence with his indictment of those who actively attended religious meetings, who multiply sacrifices at the temple. Because the outward form of worship remained strong among the Jews, Laman and Lemuel, who were in the land of Jerusalem were a righteous people; for they kept the statutes and judgments of the lord, and all his commandments (1 Ne 17:22). Laban was an elder of the church (1 Ne 4:22, 26), but his heart lusted after riches (1 Ne 3:25). In actuality, the people of Jerusalem had "changed their Gods" (Jer 2:11). Their land was desolated because they were committing abominations, "whoring after their idols" (Ezek 6:9). (The Last Days Types and Shadows from the Bible and Book of Mormon pg 13-14). I testify that the Book of Mormon is truly for our day, not only as a witness and a warning as President Benson coined but as a guide. He wrote a book (A Witness and a Warning) that was largely dedicated to Moroni’s message in Mormon 8. He clearly states that this chapter was to the LDS church and a study of it will confirm that. In there Moroni says this of our church. 35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing. 36 And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts. 37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted. 38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world? 39 Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not? 40 Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads? 41 Behold, the sword of vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer. (Mormon 8:35-41) You must be or have the “Holy Church of God” in order to pollute it from within as Moroni describes here. Notice also that Samuel the Lamanite said that the “sword of vengeance hangeth over you” (Helaman 13:5). He was speaking to the Nephites. Guess who Moroni is speaking too? Us, the latter day saints/gentiles (Who are the gentiles? The Book of Mormon is "to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile" (cover page of the Book of Mormon, written by the hand of Mormon) 1 Nephi 10:14; 13 (entire chapter); 15:13-17; 22:6-9; 2 Nephi 10:10-11; 26:20; 27:1; 29:3-13; 30:1-4; 3 Nephi 16:4-13; 20:15-27; 21:2-14; 26:8; 29:1; 30:1-2; Mormon 5:15; 5:19-22; 7:8; Ether 8:23; 12:22-28). This brings me to my final point and perhaps the story that will drive the point home. I reserve this illustration from the scriptures for last because the parallels to us today are frightening. After the onslaught of Korihor’s false doctrine and his deceived followers called the Zoramites, Alma immediately assembled his best team of missionaries in an attempt to save those that had been led astray. Those who followed Korihors teachings were primarily the upper crust and affluent. Alma says that the preaching of the word had a much greater tendency to lead the people to do that which was just, even more so than the sword (Alma 31:5). It was powerful in appealing to their minds which as Joseph taught is the only affect of the Holy Ghost (HC 3:380). Upon arrival of this missionary force to the Zormaites Alma was “astonished beyond all measure” at their manner of worship (Alma 31:19). Lets analyze their form. They did not keep the law of Moses, failed to pray in supplication to God daily, built synagogue”s”, which they congregated to only once a week. They had a pulpit or stand in the center high above the congregation which would only admit one person. A rehearsed prayer or testimony was given by every member which went something like this. We thank thee Heavenly Father that we have the truth and are members of the true church. We thank thee that we have been separated from the non members and we believe that we were chosen from the preexistence as the elect ones to come forth at this time. We believe that unless people believe our teachings and join our church that they will be cast down to hell by thy wrath. We thank thee that we are thy chosen and holy people. Again I site the words of Alma in response to this prayer. He was astonished beyond all measure. After this form of worship they returned to their homes never speaking of their God again until they had assembled themselves together again to the holy stand or pulpit. The prayer is remarkably close to any prayer or testimony meeting one might attend today. It’s funny that our own scriptures teach that non members who have not even received baptism may still be candidates for celestial glory (D&C 137). Yes, celestial glory! What was their focus? The next few verses tell us in Alma 31:24-28. Gold, silver, fine goods, boasting and pride, worshipping with their mouths while being puffed up, even to greatness with the “vain things of the world”. Verse 28 is dedicated to one thing only which is the topic of this letter. I quote: Behold, O my God, their costly apparel, and their ringlets, and their bracelets, and their ornaments of gold, and all their precious things which they are ornamented with; and behold, their hearts are set upon them, and yet they cry unto thee and say—We thank thee, O God, for we are a chosen people unto thee, while others shall perish. (Alma 31:28) Isn’t that interesting? They were to busy six days of the week in the pursuit of gold, silver, fine goods and the vain things of the world. But most of all Alma is sure to point out their clothing fads and that this is what their hearts were set upon. AND YET, he says, they would still pray to God with their prayers of vanity and self righteousness. Well, it gets worse. They were not just condemning themselves but the poorer part of the Zoramites were expelled from the temple and synogogues that they themselves had helped in building. Do you remember why? I do. After verse 28 and its description of worldly goods and before this next verse Alma calls it as it is, “gross wickedness” (Alma 31:26). 2 And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel— 3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart. 4 Now, as Alma was teaching and speaking unto the people upon the hill Onidah, there came a great multitude unto him, who were those of whom we have been speaking, of whom were poor in heart, because of their poverty as to the things of the world. 5 And they came unto Alma; and the one who was the foremost among them said unto him: Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty, yea, and more especially BY OUR PRIESTS; for THEY have cast us out of our synagogues which we have labored abundantly to build with our own hands; and they have cast us out because of our exceeding poverty; and we have no place to worship our God; and behold, what shall we do? (Alma 32:2-5) This should send shivers down our spines and humility into our hearts. How would an investigator feel if he came to church and Zoramite Mormons snubbed him because of the coarseness of his apparel? This is the attitude we breed among our members with such teachings and observances. There is great danger in teaching such doctrines and I feel as if we fall into the category of those Pharisees and Sadducees as opposed to the publicans and harlots. What if Christ came to a meeting in his sackcloth, “long hair” and “beard”? My heart breaks with such a thought because I could not say that I trust every member in my ward to welcome the Son of God in such attire or lack of being clean shaven and groomed. I write this letter anonymously for fear of reprisal or loss of temple attendance just as the poorer class of Zoramites received. Would I loose my temple recommend or be released from my calling for expressing such views? These are all serious questions I have and questions I vocalize anonymously for fear of what may happen. I pray that my feelings will be considered with an open heart and sincere desire of my local leaders to have real intent to listen to one in their flock.

WAR AND BLOODSHED - OUR CURRENT SITUATION This is an attempt to write down my thoughts on murder, war and killing in general. I’ve heard viewpoints from people of all different backgrounds and religions. Just about every person you talk to has a different take on it. I have tried to make sense of this from a scriptural and prayerful perspective because without God’s insight we are blind. In such an area where people are being killed on a daily basis like the Iraq war I think it shows an even greater necessity to seek his counsel in such things. Though there are many more citations I could provide I’ll start with a few from the scriptures and the prophet Joseph Smith to set the stage and serious nature of what we are discussing. For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man. (Ether 8:19) Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God; (3 Nephi 12:21) And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. (D&C 42:18-19) Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13) The unpardonable sin is to shed innocent blood, or be accessory thereto. All other sins will be visited with judgment in the flesh, and the spirit being delivered to the buffetings of Satan until the day of the Lord Jesus. (Joseph Smith History of the Church 5:391-92) Remission of sins by baptism was not to be preached to murderers. All the priests of Christendom might pray for a murderer on the scaffold forever, but could not avail so much as a gnat towards their forgiveness. There is no forgiveness for murderers; they will have to wait until the times of redemption shall come, and that in hell. (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith 221) In my discussions with others they say “I know but………” and the game of rationalization begins. You hear things like “they attacked us first” or “we have a right to defend our God, religion, land, country, wives and children even to the shedding of blood if necessary”. The famous title of liberty by Captain Moroni or George Bush’s reasoning, right? I’ll try to address these two later but for now I’m just trying to understand what the Lord has spoken regarding war and the shedding of blood. How many people in this world have killed or murdered Heavenly Fathers children? The number would quickly escape us were we to keep count. He is the most forgiving person we could ever know and he operates on certain rules. Here’s one that applies to our topic at hand. 23 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; 24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you. 25 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 hundred fold. 26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold; 27 And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out. 28 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. 29 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; 30 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. 31 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. 32 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. 33 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. 34 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; 35 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; 36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people. 37 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. 38 Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me. 39 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— 40 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. 41 And if he trespass against thee and repent not the first time, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him. 42 And if he trespass against thee the second time, and repent not, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him. 43 And if he trespass against thee the third time, and repent not, thou shalt also forgive him. 44 But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee. 45 And if he do this, thou shalt forgive him with all thine heart; and if he do not this, I, the Lord, will avenge thee of thine enemy an hundred-fold; 46 And upon his children, and upon his children's children of all them that hate me, unto the third and fourth generation. 47 But if the children shall repent, or the children's children, and turn to the Lord their God, with all their hearts and with all their might, mind, and strength, and restore four-fold for all their trespasses wherewith they have trespassed, or wherewith their fathers have trespassed, or their fathers' fathers, then thine indignation shall be turned away; 48 And vengeance shall no more come upon them, saith the Lord thy God, and their trespasses shall never be brought any more as a testimony before the Lord against them. Amen. Considering how many of Gods children have been murdered and killed it’s amazing to me how forgiving he is and how precisely he follows his own rules outlined above. Did you notice how much it actually takes before you are justified in “not forgiving”. Now most readers would say “okay it’s the fourth offense where the offender has not repented so we are justified in dropping our nukes and rounding up the tank squadron”. WRONG! Even on the fourth offense what is OUR action item? To take these offenses BEFORE THE LORD and if that person or people still don’t repent then THE LORD (not us) will avenge the wrongs or in other words HE will fight our battles. This reminds me of the manner in which the Israelites were delivered from Egypt and many other examples I will illustrate below. Even after so many offenses against us bloodshed is still not justified in Gods book. Remember the Zormaites? There was a split in this particular group and the poorer class among them became faithful followers of Christ after realizing their sins of murder. They laid down their weapons of war and entered a covenant with God never to commit murder again. Even in later wars they allowed themselves to be slaughtered by attacking armies rather than commit murder and bloodshed. As these Zormaites were allowing themselves to be slaughtered on the battlefield what happened? 23 Now when the Lamanites saw that their brethren would not flee from the sword, neither would they turn aside to the right hand or to the left, but that they would lie down and perish, and praised God even in the very act of perishing under the sword— 24 Now when the Lamanites saw this they did forbear from slaying them; and there were many whose hearts had swollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword, for they repented of the things which they had done. 25 And it came to pass that they threw down their weapons of war, and they would not take them again, for they were stung for the murders which they had committed; and they came down even as their brethren, relying upon the mercies of those whose arms were lifted to slay them. 26 And it came to pass that the people of God were joined that day by more than the number who had been slain; and those who had been slain were righteous people, therefore we have no reason to doubt but what they were saved. 27 And there was not a wicked man slain among them; but there were more than a thousand brought to the knowledge of the truth; thus we see that the Lord worketh in many ways to the salvation of his people. (Alma 24:23-27) It’s so amazing to me to see Gods law in action. Had both sides fought to the death there would have been far more bloodshed and no conversions to God in the process. Rather, more would have died and there would have been more people committing murder. Murder is playing with fire that could damn your eternal soul. This response by the Zoramites resulted in less killing and more people turning to God. We are assured that those who died were received unto God (Alma 24:26). And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things. (Alma 24:30) This story of the Zoramites reminds me of a conversation I had with my brother in law. We were talking about things that may come upon this nation such as foreign armies attacking etc. We were speaking hypothetically about our families being in jeopardy, children being killed or our wives being ravished. We both said we’d probably defend our wives and children even to bloodshed BUT we also agreed it would probably help us better on the other side if we did not kill such attackers and let God himself judge them. After all, this is what plays out for God on a daily basis when his children are being killed upon this earth. Does God come out of the heavens and rush the attacker with knives or guns on the spot? No! He deals mercifully and with justice on the other side. This is our blueprint. Going on, as we know the stints of righteousness in the Book of Mormon are short. Not many years later the people are in a grave state of wickedness. Alma gets his best team of missionaries together to preach the word among the wicked and blood thirsty people. Again the example is given between bloodshed and the word of God. And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God. (Alma 31:5) Well the people didn’t listen and they got their 14 year war just like they wanted. This was perhaps the greatest of all in the Book of Mormon next to the Jaredites. After this extremely long and bloody war what happens? You get more awesome missionaries (Nephi and Lehi) who preach the word of God, repentance (Hel 5:11), the rock of Christ (Hel 5:12), with power (Hel 5:17-19). Even when imprisoned they were untouchable and remembered of the Lord (Hel 5:21-50). More importantly they had mighty power in converting many souls. Hearts were changed, conversions occurred, forgiveness was granted, voices and ministering angels from heaven were received and more importantly something else that Captain Moroni or any other military operation failed at accomplishing. 51 And as many as were convinced did lay down their weapons of war, and also their hatred and the tradition of their fathers. 52 And it came to pass that they did yield up unto the Nephites the lands of their possession. (Hel 5:51-52) In the church we seem to admire and hold Captain Moroni on a pedestals and site many of the same title of liberties for going to war but we seldom mention the principles taught above. Captain Moroni’s creed was to defend the homeland (Alma 46:12), democracy (Hel 5:2), rights and privileges of your country and above all God and your families. Hitler called Germany the “motherland” and today we call it “homeland”. Hitler was a very religious man as is President Bush. I find these creeds extremely at odds with scripture when couched in the most serious crime of all. The shedding of blood! Much of these teachings are Captian Moroni’s or Mormon who is compiling the plates. Mormon was also a man of war set in the same picture of war and bloodshed as Captain Moroni. Perhaps Mormon’s role model or hero was Captain Moroni and maybe he named his son after him. Mormon lost his life in wars after disobeying a command from God to no longer help the armies of the Nephites (compare Mormon 3:16 and Mormon 5:1). Mormon’s son, Moroni who was also a military man lived out his days a lonely wanderer after all his kinsfolk had been killed. Though they were all good men doing the best they could in the circumstances they had placed before them I view Captain Moroni, Mormon and Moroni son of Mormon failures in their cause of warfare. Not hero’s as is generally taught and accepted in the church. They accomplished far less than the humble Zoramites, Alma and his team of missionaries or Lehi and Nephi. War is never as fruitful in the end and it sends more souls to the other side in grave danger of having committed murder which is potentially unforgivable without suffering blood atonement for one’s own actions when unrepentant (D&C 19:15-19; Alma 34:16; Luke 13:36). To bring this home I would like to insert and excerpt from a book called “May God Bless America: George W. Bush and Biblical Morality” by Joseph J Martos. George W. Bush is a religious man. A Newsweek cover story in March 2003 described his religious upbringing, recounted his spiritual conversion, and explained how his faith has guided what he says and does as president of the United States. A more recent book describes his spiritual growth and religious faith in greater detail. There is little doubt that he is sincere. Yet sincerity is not enough. A person can be sincere and also misguided. A person can be trying to do the right thing and yet be mistaken. A clear conscience is no guarantee of correctness. The history of Christianity is filled with people who thought they were right at the time. The early centuries are replete with individuals and groups whose sincere beliefs about God and Jesus were eventually judged to be heretical. In the Middle Ages, Christian nobles and knights were convinced that God wanted them to rescue the Holy Land even if they had to kill thousands of Moslems to do it. During the decades following the Reformation, Protestants and Catholics waged war on one another in the name of true religion. For over two hundred years, Christians in the American South believed that slavery was justified by the Bible. It is always easier to see the mistakes of the past than those of the present. Long after the events, it is not difficult to compare the beliefs and actions of Christians with the teachings and behavior of Christ, whom they claimed to follow. It is much more difficult to do this in our own time and in our own lives. We tend to think that if something feels right, then it is right. We also tend to think that society's approval is a sign of God's approval. Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this kind of thinking. Nor is this kind of thinking limited to Christians. Everybody does it. President Bush is no exception. He works hard to understand what America needs, and he tries sincerely to meet those needs. He devotes time to studying international issues, and he uses his best judgment to address those issues. But there is little evidence that the president or his advisors consult the Bible when formulating national and foreign policy. There is little to suggest that before making a decision they ask, "What would Jesus do?" Of all people upon the earth why are latter day saints so divided on such a serious matter? Same question with Bible believing Christians? The Book of Mormon is for our time as President Benson quipped. Do we understand it?