(Outdated/Archived) Mormons: Latter-day Gnostics?

1841, 1867, 1961 ... Jehovah = Father

2009-12-08T04:10:00.000-08:00

I don't know what I think about the Bible right now, today, but, I ran across these quotes, all authorized by LDS Church Presidents, supporting the view for which I was previously charged with apostasy in the modern LDS Church:

“We believe in God the Father, who is the great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father; yet he is our Savior, Redeemer, King, and Great Prototype;… and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.” – Times and Seasons 3 (1 November 1841): 578.

“Jehovah God, Thou Eloheim - Thy Son Jesus Christ” (BYA, 4 Aug 1867) - Brigham Young

“Jehovah, God the Father is one / Another His Eternal Son” (Sacred Hymns #262) - John Taylor

“Jehovah and his Son, Jesus” - (1 July 1961, Church News) - David O. McKay.

Today, the Church teaches that Jehovah is the same character as Jesus, a view primarily introduced and pushed by James E. Talmage, and unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Elder Nuttal's Journal vs. Lecture at the Vail

2009-06-22T23:15:00.000-07:00

I'd like to compare some things from these two texts, as well as throw in a little commentary of my own observations. I dare use HTML "table formatting" in a blog post, hopefully it works alright. I've tried to bold phrases and words to illustrate correlations in the left and right side:

Text from the Pre-1990 Lecture at the Vail:

[Preface to Lecture]

PETER: A lecture will now be given which summarizes the instructions, ordinances, and covenants, and also the tokens, with their keywords, signs, and penalties, pertaining to the endowment, which you have thus far received.

Text from Elder Nuttal's Journal, and my own Commentary in Italics.

It is important to realize the Masonic literary traits present in this preface. The Entered Apprentice Degree has a concluding lecture that begins with a "recapitulation of the ceremonies through which you have just passed" and explains "why you were caused to submit to the various ceremonies of your initiation." It also explains "what constitutes a Lodge, its form, supports, covering, furniture, ornaments, lights, jewels; how situated, and to whom dedicated," This first paragraph appears to be essentially someone's recollection of how the Entered Apprentice Lecture started, with the content of the Endowment ceremony applied to it. The reason I point this out, is that such Masonic language was common to Brigham Young's sermons, and it is therefore very likely that the recapitulation section of the modern lecture originated with Brigham in spite of it not being present in the journal.

Introduction

LECTURER: Brethren and sisters, the ordinances of the endowment as here administered, long withheld from the children of men, pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of time and have been revealed to prepare the people for exaltation in the celestial kingdom, where God and Christ dwell.

The deep meaning of the eternal truths constituting the endowment has been set forth in brief instructions and by symbolic representation. If you give prayerful and earnest thought to the holy endowment, you will obtain the understanding and spirit of the work done in the temples of the Lord. The privilege of laboring here for the dead permits us to enter the temple frequently, and to refresh our memories, and to enlarge our understanding of the endowment.

[Excerpt from the "Creation" Section]

As the creation of the earth progressed, you heard the commands and the reports of the persons representing the Gods.

If we are faithful, we shall enter the celestial kingdom and there hear and know the Gods of heaven. They are perfect; we are imperfect. They are exalted; we may attain exaltation.

Our spirits at one time lived with the Gods; but each of us was given the privilege of coming upon this earth to take upon himself a body, so that the spirit might have a house in which to dwell.

Michael, one of the council of the Gods, became the man Adam, to whom was given the woman Eve. However, as Adam he did not remember his life and labors in the council.

It is so with us all. We came into the world with no memory of our previous existence.

1. In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth. & putting Michael or Adam upon it. (I realize this isn't a very good match, but the statement here is actually corresponding to the recapitulation of the entire creation sequence.)

3. We were once acquainited with the Gods & lived with them but we had the privilige of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in.

8. And when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in.

(you may notice that paragraphs 3 and 8 both have significant commonalities with the same paragraph from the modern lecture.)

9. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child.

4. we did so and forgot all and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned.

[Conclusion of Lecture]

Brethren and sisters, you will have received this day the sacred ordinances of the endowment. The eternal plan of salvation for man, as he journeys from his pre-existent state to his future high place in the celestial kingdom, has been presented to you. You have covenanted to obey all the laws of the gospel, including the laws of obedience, sacrifice, chastity, and consecration, which make possible an exaltation with the Gods; and you have received the first and second tokens of the Aaronic priesthood and the first and second tokens of the Melchizedek priesthood, with the names, signs, and penalties of these tokens, except the name of the second token of the Melchizedek priesthood, which will be given you at the veil.

All this is done for the glory, honor, and endowment of the children of Zion.

Brethren and sisters, strive to comprehend the glorious things presented to you this day. No other people on earth have ever had this privilege, except as they have received the keys of the priesthood given in the endowment.

The pre-1990 Lecture at the Vail ends with this text:

These are what are termed the mysteries of godliness--that which will enable you to understand the expression of the Savior, made just prior to his betrayal: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent."

May God bless you all. Amen.

6. Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth

7. he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world.

Nuttal's Journal entry practically begins with this text:
2. these things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus made while in Jerusalem. This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

Complete Text from Elder Nuttal's Journal, in its original sequence, with sentences/ideas numbered. Bold sentences represent the areas that have been entirely purged from the modern Endowment.

1. In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth. & putting Michael or Adam upon it.

2. these things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus made while in Jerusalem. This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

3. We were once acquainited [acquainted] with the Gods & lived with them but we had the privilige of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in.

4. we did so and forgot all and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned.

5. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. how they were formed &c some think he was made like an adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. he was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth.

I believe the above concept was removed as part of the mainstream LDS Adam-God purge.

6. Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth

7. he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world.

8. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in.

9. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child.

10. it is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve-

11. this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other Men had the seed within him to propagate his species. but not the Woman. she conceives the seed but she does not produce it. consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father.

12. this explains the mystery of Moses's dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam & Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh. bones and sinews. but upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life.

13. Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit that was nesesary that they might be together that man might be. the woman was found in trans-gression not the Man-

So, I actually agree with making some changes to the above section; as I think Brigham wasn't quite on track with this as far as the process of procreation goes. It has interesting implications concerning Eve's relation to Adam which I'm hesitant to knock down or to bouy up. But I again want to point out the similarity to the Masonic EA Lecture. "It is said by Moses the historian..." and "This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings" are very similar to phrases from the Master Mason lecture "as the great Jewish historian, Josephus, informs us", and from the Entered Apprentice Lecture, "You have this evening during your initiation passed through many ceremonies which to you no doubt seem dark and unexplained, it becomes my duty to explain them." I wouldn't point out these vague similarities if it were not that they exist in roughly the same place in the corresponding ritual. As Masons commit these lectures to memory, these ideas would likely be springing to mind as a Mason writes a new lecture for a similar ritual. I am also unfamiliar with people, particularly those who believe in Prophets, referring to Moses as a historian.

14. Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks- this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood [Four lines without any writing on them.]

(This sentence #14 wasn't present in the correlation because it has been worked into the body of the Endowment as part of the explanation of the law of sacrifice, one of the only parts of the Endowment that contains blatant misinformation; Sacrifice didn't end with the death of Jesus Christ, but later, around 70 A.D. when the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed, and also, the explanation given about Adam doing things in similitude of the Son and calling upon God in the name of the Son forevermore is contradictory to Brigham's own theology. I believe this area of the Endowment was tampered with later, and prior to that, this statement resided in the Lecture at the vail rather than in the preamble to the Law of Sacrifice.)

15. Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written.

16. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit [glory] to Mary and she conceived

17. for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came.

18. I felt myself much blessed in being permitted to associate with such men and hear such instructions as they savored of life to me-

Hypothesis based on Textual clues in the Temple Endowment

2009-06-22T19:21:00.000-07:00

In the pre-1990 Endowment, there are two lines I'd like to point to as clues relating to a theory I have that the order of the Covenants in the Endowment has been switched around at some point in history:

ELOHIM: Jehovah, send down Peter, James and John and instruct them to give to the man Adam and his posterity in the Terrestrial world the law of consecration in connection with the law of the gospel and the law of sacrifice, and to cause them to receive it by covenant.
. . .

PETER: We are instructed to give unto you the law of consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the law of the gospel and the law of sacrifice which you have already received.

You will note the absence of mentioning the law of chastity, even though it has already been conferred at this point in the ceremony. My theory is that the original order of the Covenants put the law of consecration before the law of chastity, and that the law of vengeance was sandwiched in between them.

This would make more sense, because the law of chastity would be directly connected with the token used for sealings.

What do you think? Many early exposes have things quite mixed up; so I don't know how well they can be relied upon as a reference in this matter.

Training of Children

2009-05-05T19:38:00.000-07:00

I shall not subject my little children to such a course of unnatural training, but they shall go to the dance, study music, read novels, and do anything else that will tend to expand their frames, add fire to their spirits, improve their minds, and make them feel free and untrammeled in body and mind. Let everything come in its season, place everything in the place designed for it, and do everything in its right time. – Brigham Young

This quote, ironically, illustrates the reason I don't think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (among MANY other churches) is a suitable place for children to be brought up today. It indoctrinates them into false ideas, and does not give them the freedom and diversity of experience necessary for their well-being.

Additions to Ether

2009-05-05T11:51:00.000-07:00

[From the white river stone, probably on August 30 or September 1, 2007.]

Ether 6:12 And they did land upon the shore of the promised land. And when they had set their feet upon the shores of the promised land they bowed themselves down upon the face of the land, and did humble themselves before the Lord, and did shed tears of joy before the Lord, because of the multitude of his tender mercies over them.

6:12B And the brother of Jared went and built an altar and offered sacrifice. And he named the place Shadabekar, and he dwelt there for twenty days.

6:12C And on the seventh day after the [landing] of the vessels on [the shore] of the [promised land, they were] approached by the man Shem.

6:12D And Shem said unto them, I have seen in vision that [vessels] would come and that they would land upon the shore, and I have travelled to see, and behold! my vision is true, and for because of this I will join myself to you. And from that day forth Shem, and his wives and children, and their sons and daughters also, did become numbered among the friends of Jared and his brother.

6:12E And Shem did give an accounting of his people, and how they had come to be upon the land, and an account of their travels, which were many. And this account he did write. And behold, the writing of it was in a language that we knew not. And although we knew not the manner of writing, it being curious, we understood perfectly the speech with which Shem and his people did speak unto us.

6:12F And because he did write his account, I will not recount it here, for it is written already, and I do not doubt that we will learn to understand the manner of writing of Shem and that the record will become understandable to us after we have learned thus. And until then we do have a recollection of all that he has related unto us, and we know that it is exceedingly great, and that his faith was exceedingly great, and that God did lead his people as he also had led us, and that we were not alone, and when we had this knowledge, it was like fruit, most sweet unto our faith.

6:13 And it came to pass that they went forth upon the face of the land, and began to till the earth.

My Letter of Resignation

2008-12-09T18:38:00.001-08:00

Jeffrey Ryan Day
Birthdate: May 24, 1981
473 NE Winchester St.
Roseburg, OR 97470

Bishop Denton W. Herlan
{address removed}
Roseburg, OR 97470

This letter is my formal resignation from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it is effective immediately. I hereby withdraw my consent to being treated as a member and I withdraw my consent to being subject to LDS Church rules, policies, beliefs and 'discipline.' As I am no longer a member, you are hereby directed to immediately, permanently and completely remove my name from all records of the church.

I have given this matter considerable thought. I understand what you consider to be the 'seriousness' and the 'consequences' of my actions. I am aware that the Church Handbook of Instructions says that my resignation "cancels the effects of baptism and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male members and revokes temple blessings." I also understand that I will be "readmitted to the church by baptism only after a thorough interview."

I am not going to be dissuaded and I am not going to change my mind. You will therefore waive the standard 30-day 'waiting period' in acting upon this direction. I expect this matter to be handled promptly, with respect and with full confidentiality. After today, the LDS Church or its representatives are not to contact me other than providing a single letter of confirmation to let me know that I am no longer listed as a member of the LDS Church. I am not interested in meeting with a representative of the LDS Church nor in receiving any counsel at all in regards to this matter, and I will not respond to any invitations for such.

It has come to my attention that a 'disciplinary council' has been scheduled for December 4, 2008 at 8:30 P.M., at which time the Stake Presidency plans to consider disciplinary action in regards to me. Immediately upon receiving this letter, I have withdrawn all consent, express or implied, to being treated as a member of the LDS Church, which includes disciplinary councils. I am aware of the case law pertaining to such attempts, and if any action is taken after the receipt of this letter to bring disciplinary action against me, I may be required to seek legal action and immediately contact the news media to publicize such action, regardless of any other directions which are found in the General Handbook of Instructions.

The reasons for my resignation are diverse and complex. Almost all of them involve gradual changes which have crept into the Church. I do not blame these changes on any one leader or person. Some of them are a result of the LDS Church bending to the opinions popularized by conservative Christian denominations in order to gain acceptability and greater reception, some of them are the result of myriads of converts holding onto beliefs from their former faith without being given proper instruction, and some of them are more nefarious in their origin. My reasons can be divided into four major categories: 1) Systematic failure of the LDS Church to keep (or promote the keeping of) basic commandments; 2) Failure of the LDS Church to pass down all of the keys of the Temple Endowment; 3) Engagement in inappropriate political activity and unwise use of funds; and 4) Major idealogical changes. I have included a more specific list of some of my concerns on the reverse side of this letter. It was not any one of these things alone, but all of them together that led to my determination that the LDS Church is currently in a state of apostasy. I could at least tolerate membership in a Church that is ashamed of its own God or its own History, but when coupled with a failure to "love thy neighbor," I see no positive benefit from my continued involvement in such a group, and this conclusion accounts for my recent actions intended to preserve the fulness of the Priesthood, unsullied, for future generations.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Day

cc. President Jon Hopkins, {address removed}, Roseburg, Oregon 97470.

====

I will make a follow up post with a transcription of the reverse side of the letter.

Parting Ways with the Church

2008-12-06T14:23:00.000-08:00

On the night of Thursday, December 4, 2008, at about 8:20 P.M., Susie and I arrived at the Roseburg Stake Center of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with two witnesses, Neal and Elee Hadley, members of the Umpqua Valley Worship Group of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), in response to the letters Susie and I had been given informing us of impending consideration of disciplinary action. The Disciplinary Council for myself was scheduled for 8:30 P.M., and the one for Susie was scheduled for 9:30 P.M. Both of us had been charged with apostasy.

We had spent the entire day preparing for this. As we entered the door, we were asked to take a seat in the waiting area outside the High Council Room. Bishop Denton Herlan of the Roseburg Ward (our ward) was there with us in the waiting room. Also there was Bishop Rodney Grizzard, former Bishop of the Melrose ward (who was my first Bishop when I joined the Church), and is currently serving as Stake Executive Secretary.

After a few moments, we were informed that the High Council was ready, and Bishop Herlan and I were asked to enter the room.

Upon entering the High Council Room, every member of the High Council and Stake Presidency, fifteen men in dark suits, rose to their feet. I was taken aback by this, whispered to myself "That was weird," and then said "You're scaring me: Sit down." And, they did. The look on people's faces were mixed of what seemed to be concern and love and respect and confusion. I did not see a lot of "stern" looks, but there were one or two.

President Jon Hopkins asked if I would like to have Susie present throughout the entirety of the proceedings. I said Yes, and they invited her in. I took notice that they did not stand when she entered. She had a seat. I stood, and said:

"I have a couple of things I'd like to say before these proceedings continue any further," and, taking a stack of papers from my pocket, said "My beliefs square up to everything written here, and I would appreciate it if you would read this before placing any judgment upon me for my beliefs or actions." I divided the stack into two, and said "take one, pass them down." I accidentally omitted Bishop Herlan, as he was seated next to me, not in front of me, and upon my request, someone handed one back his direction. I then said, "Don't read these right now. I don't want to distract from what needs to happen here. Next, I would like to introduce to you the witnesses that I have brought with me." President Hopkins said, "At the appropriate point in the proceedings, we will ask them to come in." I responded, "I would really like to introduce them now. They've never been in this Church before, and they are waiting outside, and don't know what is going on at this point." President Hopkins, with a sigh, (seeing that I was persistent) said "Alright, bring them in."

I opened the door, and invited them to come in. Everyone stood upon their entrance.

I'd like to introduce Neal Hadley, and Elee Hadley. They are members of the Umpqua Valley Quaker Worship Group, and Elee has just been appointed... What is it again?" She responded, "The Clerk for the North Pacific Yearly Meeting."

I continued "And, one of the reasons I wanted to introduce them at this time, is so that they could witness me handing this letter to you, Bishop Herlan," upon which I handed him a sealed letter, "and here is a copy for you President Hopkins," and I slid another copy in an envelope across the table. "And, from Susie also", and Susie gave a letter to each of them.

"Should I read it now?" asked Bishop Herlan. "Yes," I said.

They both opened the letters, and after reading what must have been the first paragraph or so, President Hopkins looked up from the letter at me and said,

"Alright. This meeting is adjourned."

I shook hands with Bishop Herlan and High Councilor J. Lee Sharp, who was to our left, and said, "I wish I could shake hands with you all."

President Hopkins said, "You may if you wish." Everyone stood, and I walked around the room, and shook hands with all of them. I cannot remember everyone present, but I will do my best:

1. President Hopkins, President of the Roseburg, Oregon Stake.
2. President Vincent, Counselor in the Stake Presidency.
3. President Singer, Counselor in the Stake Presidency.4. J. Lee Sharp.
5. Jim Oliphant.
6. Bishop Powell.
7. Bishop Read, a former Bishop of Melrose Ward.
8. Dean Vincent.

(I can't remember the rest right now.)

After this, I left the room. Bishop Grizzard was in the waiting area, I shook his hand, and noted how quickly everything was handled, then we left.

Pending Disciplinary Council

2008-11-30T22:55:00.000-08:00

Today, this envelope was handed to me.

Here's what was inside:

My wife Susie received an identical envelope and letter addressed to her.
I will post follow up as events unfold.

RWW - This one's for you!

2008-03-08T20:52:00.000-08:00

... and for the rest of those who have been wanting to hear from me again. Thank you all for your concern, your prayers, and your support. For better or for worse, I have found that blogging specifically to a Mormon audience is utterly not worthwhile. The Mormonism of today has its truth already, and is not looking for any innovation whatsoever. Innovation would separate it from mainstream Christianity, and favor with mainstream Christianity is that which the Saints of today most deeply covet. Strong words, perhaps, but true: If not individually, then collectively.

I am forever the heretic because I believe that Jehovah is the Father, as Joseph Smith did, and because I side with Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff on certain issues which, according to Bruce R. McConkie, implies that I "have the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp" and that I "do not deserve to be saved." Why won't "our" apologists apologize for statements such as this?

(Side note: 2,555,000,000 years old. Hmm.)

And yet I believe! Well, I believe in something, and my beliefs are deeply intertwined with Mormonism. They may not be the Orthodox religion, but they are Godly, or, if they are not, then I have been deceived. But, I choose to believe that the Holy Ghost I have felt is real, that the answers to prayer I received about Joseph Smith are true. But I am not part of mainstream Mormon culture. They look at me funny. I scare some of them. They just don't know how to deal with me. And the more I endure, the more sick I feel when I hear their teachings. I mean their pet teachings, their naive teachings, not the truth. When they preach the truth it is still sweet, but the other things, the naive assumptions and philosophies of some of their most prominent men which they have blended with the gospel offends my spirit in subtle ways, and I would rather be in an environment more facilitative of my spiritual growth.

Is this selfish of me? I'd like to help them grow. I'd like to pitch in and teach, but I can't. My teachings are not permitted. So I feel saddened by it all.

If you like my posts, my thoughts, and want to hear more from me, or speak with me, please consider reading and commenting on my Masonic blog: Lodgical. Nearly everything I write there and elsewhere has personal religious significance to me. Even the articles I write for other organizations. If you have comments or questions to share with me of an overtly Mormon nature, or just want to chat, please contact me directly by email at jeffREMOVE_THIS_PART@storago.com

I want to talk. I have very little religious fellowship now. I am currently accepted as a sort of sojourner ("on the path") in the Jewish community, but that is not a place to deeply discuss my Latter-day Saint beliefs.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

In response to a post on "By Common Consent"

2007-04-06T17:09:00.000-07:00

How to Give a Sacrament Meeting Talk - An Open Letter to Converts

This is in response to comment #44 on this above mentioned post, whose comments have been closed for some time: Ronan asked: "'Can someone tell me whether “talk” is an American-ism or a Mormon-ism in this context? Do business people or academics “give talks”?'

I can give the answer to this: This is one of hundreds of little administrational/organizational things that Mormonism has inherited from the rich heritage of Freemasonry. When a person is assigned to speak in a Masonic meeting it is termed a "Talk." We also have "Short Talks" which are talked designed to be 5 minutes or less, which has in modern times ultimately resulted in the widely circulated "Short Talk Bulletin" which I presume was originally used to provide a filler talk that can be used when one has not been prepared, but currently is just interesting in its own right.

The reason the Freemasons use the word "talk" is because of this: As Masonry is not a religion or a church, the statements cannot really be termed a Sermon, although talks may often involve biblical symbolism, etc.

Joseph Smith - Hermetic Prophet

2007-01-31T20:05:00.000-08:00

I recommend everyone read this article. It's been around for a LONG time now.

Joseph Smith: America's Hermetic Prophet

To be sure, Gnosticism was always at core an independent product of primary, creative vision; by definition, devoid of this experiential ingredient there was no Gnosis.
Lance S. Owens

The Return of Mormon Gnostics

2007-01-15T18:14:00.000-08:00

My new Bishop has informed me, and this is almost verbatim, that he couldn't care less whether or not I post on the Internet, that I can continue to do so if I want to, that I know what is right and wrong, that I can use my own judgment, and that he doesn't have the time nor desire to bother reading the things I write.

God bless his soul. I feel comfortable enough now to bring back my blog. I will be more careful about what I say. I don't think I'll ever feel completely comfortable blogging my feelings again. But I will blog, nonetheless.

Checking for the Countersign

2006-12-11T03:35:00.000-08:00

Another little bit from my wife's GGGG Grandfather's journal. This one is fun:

A short distance from our camp stood a large tree. Here I was stationed with orders to let no one pass except he give the countersign. About 9 o'clock I heard two men approaching from toward camp. I knew by their voices it was our Prophet and his brother Hyrum. When they came in hearing distance, I hailed them, inquiring who they were. The answer was, "Friends." I bade them advance and give the countersign which they did over the muzzle of my rifle in true military style.

About two hours after this, I heard footsteps coming down the road. When in suitable distance, standing with my thumb on the cock of my rifle, muzzle of my rifle up, I called out, "Who comes there." All was silent; I stood there peering into the darkened road, expecting every instant to see the flare of some rifle. The sound began to move toward me. Then in a tone of authority, I ordered, "Halt!" Then I saw it was a cow. I stepped out of the road and let her pass without giving the countersign, thus giving the cow more leniency than I did the Prophet of God.

Danite Rites?

2006-12-11T03:28:00.000-08:00

On the first Monday in August [1838] an election [at Gallatin] was held. It was the lawful right of the Mormons to vote, but the Missourians swore the Mormons should not vote, saying they had no more right to vote than a "nigger." This was trying to free born American citizens.

The ballot box was guarded but the brethren thought to claim our rights and maintain them, so they voted, walked up and offered their votes; a fight ensued and six or seven brethren cleared out all those who opposed them. Thus was the starting of the shedding of blood in the Mormon war of 1838.

About this time I was invited to unite with a society called the Danite society. It was gotten up for our personal defense, also for the protection of our families, property and religion. Signs and passwords were given by which members could know the other wherever they met, night or day. All members must mend difficulties if he had any with a member of the society, before he could be received.

This is the earliest dated reference I have seen to signs and passwords being in use in Mormonism, and predates the first Nauvoo Endowments by four years. This account comes from a Journal by my wife's Great Great Great Great Grandfather, Lumon Andros Shurtliff.

Michael Servetus

2006-12-08T02:03:00.000-08:00

Some History from the Protestant Era:

"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory."
-John Calvin

On 24 October 1553, Michael Servetus was sentenced to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism. When Calvin requested that Servetus be executed by decapitation rather than fire, Farel, in a letter of September, chided him for undue leniency, and the Geneva Council refused his request.

On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva.

How true the saying is: They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me: they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

Blessed be the memory of Michael Servetus and all the other good and faithful men who died at the hands of such a wicked generation.

Mortal Ministry of the Savior ...

2006-11-24T01:22:00.000-08:00

After perusing The Mortal Ministry of the Savior as Understood by the Book of Mormon Prophets by Richard D. Draper at the suggestion of a reader here (going by the name of 'alma'), I feel impressed to say something about it.

Apologies to Richard Draper, but I don't think I've ever read a piece of work which denied or contradicted so many principles of the restored gospel in one fell swoop as this. Eternal Progression and any understanding of mans destiny seems to have been thrown out the window by Draper, who seems to have unclear goals in his essay. The absurd claim that Jesus "was neither man nor human but ever God" and that "He was different from all his mortal kin in that he was never man, and he was never human." introduces an ontological gap that elevates Jesus either above God himself, or casts him as some sort of a mule. I can't quite figure out which it is.

In attempting to harmonize what Draper seemed to consider obscure or easily misunderstood passages in the Book of Mormon, he appears to have spun an entirely new theology distant from anything present in Mormonism past or present, whether "orthodox" or not. This never becomes more clear than in his concluding paragraph:

The Book of Mormon witnesses that we worship a God who can be touched with both our strivings and failures, for he was indeed tried, tempted, and in this way filled with mercy and compassion. Though he was neither man nor human but ever God, he knew mortality and loved mortals, perfectly understanding them because of his experience.

Father in Heaven seems to have been forgotten in this scenario, and we have something left very similar to what one might find in a Protestant sermon. In contrast to this, I worship and serve God - meaning Heavenly Father. Anything short of this seems to be asking for trouble. Draper might try reading some of the amazingly clear passages in the Book of Mormon, instead of spinning theology from only the most obscure passages.

Do you agree? Disagree? Did you read the article in a different way than I did?

Thanksgiving update

2006-11-24T00:44:00.000-08:00

I've read through Ether 3... Actually I had completed this far a while ago, and had forgot to post the update here.

I am amazed at the striking differences between Ether and the rest of the Book of Mormon. I think there may be room here to show evidence of either a Caananite or other Pre-Hebrew understanding of deity, but with some doses of Christian language thrown in as well.

Another reading update.

2006-11-09T12:43:00.000-08:00

I've now read through Alma 13.

One comment: I must say that Abinadi's speech in Mosiah 15:1-5 is very odd, and seems to have very little or nothing to do with Mormon theology, unless the words are all redefined such that "Well, he said that but by using that phrase he really meant this." It sounds a bit like a description of modalism, though not sequential modalism. It is fascinating to me that modalism would have even been a concept at all in the B.C. years, let alone prevalent enough to have infiltrated the teachings given to believers of that time.

Reading update.

2006-10-24T17:03:00.000-07:00

I've now read thru Mosiah 1.

Hello

2006-10-19T15:45:00.000-07:00

Hello. If you've been reading my blog up until now, I apologize for it being down. If you were looking for something specific, you can email me and I'll send you the old information, or you can look it up somewhere else (like archive.org)

1 Nephi 17 - 22

2006-10-17T15:07:00.000-07:00

I continued reading through the end of 1 Nephi.

I've been thinking about inspired work and foundations suitable for a testimony. The thought has occurred to me that books and other works can be inspired without being true. For example: The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, The Wizard of Oz, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

They can touch you and teach true principles and yet be fiction. I wonder about how The Book of Mormon can be considered distinct from this.

While studying, the thought crossed my mind that perhaps Joseph had the visions, the visitations, everything as he said and but was unable to translate the curious characters on the Golden Plates, desparately looking to his trusty seer stone to try to gain contact again with those heavenly forces that had started him on his mission. Knowing a little about the Nephite culture from his visitation by Moroni (or was it Nephi? - this has been a historical question as well since the story was told both ways), he attempted to produce the translation, but didn't even refer to the plates during the process -- all the while praying for revelation to guide him as it had done in the beginning. What if the Golden Plates never were translated, but an original inspired book was brought forth instead? This would account for Joseph's readiness to revise it and correct doctrine in it in subsequent years, and his tendency to disregard many of its clear teachings (on the monotheism, the trinity and polygamy for example) in later work. Had he known it was lacking he would be eager to correct its shortcomings, otherwise it seems he would have let it stand. I read somewhere a sentiment that suggested that Oliver Cowdery believed in the Golden Plates but had also indicated that they were never translated, nor ever intended to be. Please understand, this is all a "What if?" consideration.

If this were true, it would not invalidate Joseph Smith's mission. The keystone of our religion is a Masonic term the full meaning of which evades the understanding of the modern reader of the Book.

So, I have a lot of questions.

Trademark on "Mormon" ???

2006-10-15T18:21:00.000-07:00

Although the Church thinks it has a trademark on the word Mormon, according to the "Rights and Use Information" posted on their own website and several other of their sites, it in fact does not, as a search of the US Patent and Trademark Office reveals that it was abandoned on May 2, 2006, after only being attempted from Sept 5, 2002.

Seems like an unfeasable thing to have a trademark on, since it is such a common term describing the whole religious movement, several branches, and is the name of an ancient Prophet.

1 Nephi 7 - 16

2006-10-15T16:38:00.000-07:00

I have continued reading in the Book of Mormon. For personal reasons I am now only sharing a SMALL part of my feelings and, for the time being, keeping the rest of my feelings on these chapters to myself, lest they should be mocked and turned against me.

1 Nephi 10:4 is an interesting prophecy.
1 Nephi 11:11 is one of the most clear visions of the Spirit of the Lord - seen in the form of a man.
1 Nephi 11:36 has some interesting connotations after 9-11. Good thing this isn't an Islamic holy book.
1 Nephi 14:7 - Wow, what an extent of agency is given.

1 Nephi 15:8-11 - Good technique to obtain proper interpretation of prophecies and scriptures.

1 Nephi 15:23-24 What an amazing promise. This is entirely contrary to the instructions my local leaders have given me, but I forgive them for their overlooking these important principles.

I notice that in the first fifteen chapters of the Book of Mormon, it has testified specifically of the importance of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Isaiah, The Gospels and Epistles in the New Testament, and the Book of Revelation.

1 Nephi 16:2b-3 .... wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center. And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

I've now read 36 pages, and there are 495 pages left to go.

Speaking of Copyright Violations...

2006-10-13T23:04:00.000-07:00

Saint Mina C.O.C. - Holmdel, N.J.

Holy Cow! Compare to lds.org

They did a good job removing Jesus ( ??? ) and the Welcome Message from the header.

The First Book of Nephi, Chapter 1 - 6

2006-10-11T23:15:00.000-07:00

I'm trying to do this with real intent, so I have to figure out what that intent is. I am being told that I am in doctrinal error, that I have been led down a path by the adversary that is not of God, and that I need to be led back into the truth. I therefore see part of my intent is to obtain correct principles from the Book of Mormon. In addition to obtaining principles from the text, I also need to figure out what God is trying to tell me with it on a personal level.

I'm going to type as I go along, so I'll have useful thoughts scattered throughout summary information. This will help me later to see what I've done in my reading and to keep track of location without getting too preoccupied with verse numbers.

The first thing I see right from the beginning is that Nephi is an ordinary guy. He has good parents, and has been taught by his father, he's also been through afflicition. He's decided to make a record of his proceedings. He doesn't at this point seem to be aware of his calling as a Prophet. But like Modern prophets, his Journals seem to have been grafted into the pseudo-canon of his time, once he did receive the calling.

Nephi says he's had a great knowledge of the Goodness and the Mysteries of God. I can relate to this in a big way, except that since my parents were not taught in the ways of God, I gained my experience of these things by way of good examples and many fortunate circumstances into which I have been placed throughout life, by the grace of God. My parents are "goodly" people, even if they didn't possess this knowledge to pass down to me.

I wonder about Nephi's specific meaning when he says "I know that the record which I make is true," and he makes it according to his knowledge... I wonder if this should be taken to means that it is a truthful account of the knowledge he has. Of course, it is certainly true on other levels as well.

Prophets preached repentance to the people, with warning that the great city Jerusalem would be destroyed. I'm an individual, not a city, so I need to be penitent myself, but I wonder about the city.

Lehi prayed with all his heart to the Lord. I don't know who the Lord is, but I am sure if he prayed with all his heart, that his prayer got to the right place.

Verses 6-7 show a pillar of fire and sights and sounds... I don't know if they are from God. The book doesn't say they are... but a subsequent struggle had by Lehi. If it was Of God, then I've felt those types of struggles too. Sometimes the Spirit can tell you something that is life changing. On the other hand, this could be Lehi's equivalent of a "bands of darkness" experience like Joseph Smith encountered in his First Vision. After casting himself on his bed, he was carried away in vision. So he's having a prophetic dream here.

The vision is of One being and twelve others following him. They are bright, and I suppose this is a vision of Christ and his Apostles (of some era or place) Either the first apostle, or Christ (not sure which) gave Lehi a book to read.

Lehi read the book and was filled with the Spirit. He read about the falling of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity. (I just saw a neat portrayal of the babylonian invasion and captivity a couple weeks ago in the Royal Arch Degree, so this is sort of visual for me.)

Lehi shouts praises to Lord God Almighty.

Nephi says he's going to abridge the record and not write everything that his father did.

In verse 19 we find out that Lehi found prophecies of Messiah, who was to come. The Jews cast him out and were angry with him. It is noted that this is a pattern for prophets ("even as with the prophet of old"). To me, this is a reminder not to reject those who prophesy in my day, or any prior day; to not repeat the mistakes of these early peoples.

Chapter 2

The Lord commanded Lehi to depart out of his homeland into the wilderness. He took nothing with him except "his family, and provisions, and tents." I can't help but wonder when a similar departing out is appropriate for people like myself. If God instructs one in a vision, I suppose.

In verse 7 Lehi builds an Altar of stones. This is always a meaningful event to me, as a Mormon as well as in the sense of old Masonic tradition (It being in similitude of the act that Father Adam Himself - whom I consider to be the First Stone-Mason, once performed.) I've built an altar, too. He made an offering and gave thanks. I try to do this on a regular basis, in a symbolic sense.

Lehi speaks a bit concerning Laman and Lemuel, and they murmer against their father. They repeated the mistake of the Jews at Jerusalem again (and so soon after) ...

Nephi (v16) has great desires to know the mysteries of God, and he prays to the Lord and is visited, his heart is softened and he does not rebel like his brothers did.

My desire is the same.

Nephi in v17 speaks to Sam and tells him what the Lord had manifested by the Spirit, and Sam believed. This is neat, because Nephi (an ordinary guy) shares the light he has received with Sam, who I presume gains a testimony of it and embraces it. Thus, Nephi engages both in receiving edification from his father and the prophets, as well as in edification of his brethren. Two things that I can relate to because I enjoy doing them.

He preached to Laman and Lemuel as well, but they didn't listen. The Lord (whoever that is) continues to speak to Nephi and direct him. This is good.

Although I don't (or haven't as yet, at least) have visions and hear voices of God, I do feel that I get blessed with knowledge and insight at some times to guide me. When I am obedient to these things, the Spirit proceeds to bless me with more of it. To me this obedience pattern is important. If you start to disobey things, pretty soon the Spirit will be withdrawn from you and stop giving insights (or it might be you that withdraws from the Spirit).

Nephi is given some information about his fore-ordained future.

Chapter 3

Now Lehi tells Nephi that he has been told to return to Jerusalem. Now Nephi does the hard thing. He essentially commits murder under the Lord's (whoever that is?) direction. This passage originally gave me no trouble. It still doesn't. I can relate to it. I have often been prompted to do the "hard thing" that others may perceive as wrong, but when you know for sure it is of God and you do it, you are blessed for it. But I have a friend who was eagerly baptized (prematurely) by some LDS missionaries and ended up dropping away from the Church mainly because of this one passage. It's not her fault, the missionaries pushed her and set a baptism date before she even assented to it -- they printed a program up ahead of time to persuade her into continuing. She joined because she thought they were well intentioned young men and she had a testimony of the principle of Baptism. She didn't have a testimony of this particular Church. Oops.

In connection with the authenticity of this book, my testimony is increased by the presence of this story. It is something that human beings would quickly edit out if they were trying to make a book of faith promoting experiences. I think it would get edited out in today's world, certainly. I hope people besides me have taken pause at this passage and deeply considered its moral implications, because breezing right past it would be a big warning sign to me about the person who was able to do so.

After this, Nephi proceeds to steal - seeming to break a second commandment in this task. I'm actually starting to wonder about this whole endeavor. I wonder if there was a more peaceful way it could've been handled. Nephi has crossed over some lines from which a human being can never return, taking the blood of another human is a serious thing, whether it is necessary or not.

Zoram makes an oath to stay with Nephi and company from that point on.

Chapter 5

Nephi has obtained the Torah (five books of Moses). To me this is a testament of the value of those five books. What an effort and what terrible means had to be taken in order to get those books. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers.

There was also a genealogy, showing that Lehi was a descendant of Joseph, who was sold into egypt.

Lehi proceeds to speak of the importance of the Torah... They are said to be "of great worth unto us."

Chapter 6

Nephi skips the genealogy. Probably wise for space but also unfortunate in a way, it would have been nice to see. Nephi here speaks HIS intent...

"that I may persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and be saved."

Wow, I wonder who these three Gods are? Just kidding. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has been a big area of my study, so it is interesting to see Nephi put such a precendence on this - of course he was a Jew, so that makes sense.

In verse 6, Nephi prohibits those who come after him from including anything like the Book of Numbers on his plates ;-)

Chapter 7

They go and get the Ishmaelites so that they can have plenty of women for a sustainable society.

Verse 14 feels like my situation.

"For behold, the Spirit of the Lord ceaseth soon to strive with them; for behold, they have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah they have cast into prison. And they have sought to take away the life of my father, insomuch that they have driven him out of the land."

Well, they returned to the tent. I see Lehi's vision is about to come up, but its time for me to head off to sleep. We're taking a hike tomorrow at the Middle Sister (Central Oregon Cascades). It's a long hike and we're way out of shape, so I fear we might die tomorrow, plus we're taking off at an ungodly hour in the early morning.

In conclusion on a spiritual side though, I don't know what to trust any more. I know the men at the council tonight were very wrong about their accusation that "the promptings of the adversary" are what was guiding me. They don't know my heart. They don't know what I've been through. I've been doing what God has intended for me to be doing. This is about the sixth time someone has told me I follow some "other Spirit." But it's the same Spirit that converted me to the Church. And it makes me saddened that these people (and not just these, but those who have told me this before, numerous times) are so mixed in their understanding of me. I must have a very elusive persona to get a grasp on. I think politics and culture are often confused with Spirit. I believe they feel the Spirit, and I know I've shared in that Spirit with them and others. They have even acknowledged places where I have been spiritual, yet they insult the Spirit that I feel. I haven't felt any other Spirit or any other God. God has been God and the Spirit has been the Spirit since day one. And if they ever expect me to come back into full fellowship in their ward, they will need to accept me for who I am, and acknowledge that they were wrong in this accusation, because I certainly have never felt any other Holy Spirit besides the one they claim is the adversary. I hope they are reading their own suggestions and their own words (practicing what they preach) when they talk about pride and humility.

I am at least humble enough to read the book they ask me, and to start when they ask me to. I asked them to read the testimony of Jesus given in the Gospel of Matthew and they declined. Although pride tempted me, I overcame it. I could have easily said "If you are trying to get the Spirit of the Lord into me by having me read the Book of Mormon, then there's no need to do that, because I've already invited it in." (Which is essentially what I was told about Matthew.) However, they did not reject reading it, they just procrastinated it to a later time. I hope they are blessed as they read the words of the Savior in that book.

Well, here I end on page 14, 517 pages left to go.

Psalm 110 and Disciplinary Result

2006-10-11T17:56:00.000-07:00

The chapter heading for Psalm 110 in the LDS edition of the Bible reads: "A Messianic Psalm of David—Christ shall sit on the Lord’s right hand—He shall be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

Read verses 1 and 4 (or the whole thing) here. Who is LORD? Who is Lord?

Half way through writing this, I left the house. I'm back now, so there's a total change of topic here:

I just got back from my disciplinary council. I'm on formal probation. I'm going to be reading the Book of Mormon as an assignment, hard copy, and blog about what I read, within the scope of these three questions.

1- Am I reading with real intent?
2- Likening it unto myself, not anyone else, but myself, what does it mean to me?
3- Why did the Lord inspire these prophets to write these things and have them delivered to me in this time?

I'll be reporting back here throughout the next 531 pages of my reading. (Plus chapter 12 from the Brigham Young manual somewhere in the midst of it.)

Beware of Pride

2006-10-10T14:57:00.000-07:00

I read "Beware of Pride" by President Benson a couple days ago, prior to my last meeting with the Bishop. It is a good talk. I know I can work on some areas in it. I think every member of the Church, including leaders, could learn a lot and become better Saints by applying the principles therein.

One point which President Benson emphasized is not allowing the fear of men to drive your actions, but instead, only the fear of God. Pride is here turned upside-down from the typical assumption of someone who "has everything" and views themself as on top of the world looking down. This type of pride being addressed is for those who are on the bottom, looking up.

I do not have fear of men as far as religion goes. I do have some sense of practicality, however. This may utterly confound some people as to my actions. I believe God knows the heart and mind of each of His people, and that He judges us based on those things. For this reason, Personal Integrity is of the utmost importance to me. If one receives knowledge (gnosis), and understands and feels it to be from the Holy Ghost, one is obligated to react to that knowledge with complete integrity. To turn away from that is to DENY the Holy Ghost, which is the only unforgivable sin. Jesus even went so far as to teach that people can deny him, and be forgiven, yet to deny the Holy Ghost can never be forgiven. This is what drives men of integrity like Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ himself, to become martyrs for the faith. Joseph Smith put it elegantly when he wrote the poetic lines:

I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen?
For I had seen a vision; I knew it,
and I knew that God knew it,
and I could not deny it,
neither dared I do it;
at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.
(Joseph Smith History 1:25b)

I know the terrible feelings that can exist within by failing to maintain internal consistency of truth in one's self. It is about the closest thing to Hell that I can imagine. To live in good standing in The Church is a worthy and laudable pursuit, as well as to be in good standing with one's own family is, but to do so at the sacrifice of this internal consistency or what is called personal integrity, is absolutely worthless and damaging. It is to live a lie, or to have purchased truth with a lie, to find that you are afterwards unworthy to wield it. Jesus taught, "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 10:39)

He goes on to teach,

40. He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

I've come to understand "in the name of" to mean "because he is called" (The NIV, I believe, is worded in a manner such as this), and this seems to be very close to the scenario presented to me on one matter which has weighed heavily upon me in the past, and does again now - the identity of Jehovah. I read it, "He that receiveth (accepts) the words of a prophet only because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward ..." Well, I don't want to lose my reward.

How many "hollow people" walk in the churches and even in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who have the image of a Saint and are accepted as one by their Brethren and Sisters but because of inconsistency in their soul and conscience live a hidden life of torment. Sadly, I think there are a few more than there should be. Peer pressure encourages people towards this hollow life, but only the individual can ultimately allow it to come upon themself.

We must not be afraid to admit our weaknesses to our Brethren, and to receive their aid, as genuine Brethren. I know they are willing to offer it.

I have good feelings in my heart if I do what is right. I will do what is right tomorrow evening; I dare not deny the Holy Ghost, and I will let the lots of the Earthly Kingdom of God fall where they may, it matters not either way. I must remain a good tree if I expect to continue to bear good fruit, and my leaders have indicated to me that I have born some good fruit, and that gives me hope for the situation, myself, and everyone involved. If I become a bad tree in order to stay in the Earthly Kingdom, I'll only get pruned out at the Day of Judgment, but if I'm a good tree, it doesn't matter where I am, I can continue to produce good fruit. I sincerely hope it may be within the Church, because although I believe that God judges fairly, I yet have fear that I may be unable to be sealed to my wife, and go through the rest of my life wondering if I will get to be with her after this life is over. I shall need to have stronger faith in this matter.

Disciplinary Council

2006-10-10T14:36:00.000-07:00

There is a disciplinary council scheduled for me tomorrow evening. My bishop asked me to keep confidential some things (I'm a little vague on identifying precisely what, probably specifics of how things proceed until such time as they might become a faith promoting experience.) but I wanted to let everyone reading know that is why there are some changes in the blog here and the type of subjects I'm posting about.

The charge brought against me has been "behavior that is consistent with apostasy and is unbecoming a member of the Church and Melchizedek Priesthood Holder," and it has been a result, as far as I can tell, entirely derived from this very blog (and various other postings around the web.) The lesson? If you don't want to have a disciplinary council, don't write the things I've written. Let this be a learning experience.

I will try to share here as much of the upcoming events as possible without violating any confidence that has been made in me, because, upon much thought I believe these things should not be kept in the dark — I certainly did not realize how serious and drastic these things would crop up to be (or that they would crop up at all), and others could inadvertantly step into the same circumstances.

In my experience, the formal notice of a council always includes a quote from the Church Handbook of Instructions indicating that the purpose of Church Discipline is to "save the souls of the transgressors by helping them repent." That statement would seem to reflect the idea that anyone being put subject to Church Discipline has somehow trangressed the law.

I have not to my knowledge transgressed. So I looked up the word Transgression on wikipedia, and found this:

In Latter-day Saint theology, transgression is an action that breaks a law, with or without the perpetrator's understanding. A transgression is not necessarily a sin. (See full article.)

So I guess I don't need to be able to understand what I've done to be wrong, and it doesn't even need to be a sin, in order to be considered a transgression. After reading this, I realize I already knew it, as Adam's transgression was done in a state of innocence, without knowledge of good and evil. (Although, interestingly, He knew the commandment not to eat of the tree.)

A Dream

2006-10-10T12:50:00.000-07:00

Last night, Susie had a dream that we were at Church, in the hall or right inside the door of the chapel. We were talking to the Bishop and he shook our hands and then he broke the tips of his fingers off into the sacrament tray that he was holding in his other hand. (His fingers were fluffy like bread on the inside.) She woke up slightly shocked and told me about it.

David O McKay

2006-10-09T16:58:00.000-07:00

"Ours is the responsibility ... to proclaim the truth that each individual is ... entitled to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly; that he has the right to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. ... organizations or churches which deprive the individual of these inherent rights are not in harmony with God's will nor with his revealed word."
--David O. McKay

Under President McKay, the Church approximately tripled the number of members and stakes (1.1 million to 2.8 million members, and 184 to 500 stakes)

President McKay spoke against communism due to its atheist underpinnings and the denial of freedom of choice inherent in such a system.

Here are a couple more important quotes from David O. McKay:

"If you will give your class a thought, even one new thought during your recitation period you will find that they will go away satisfied. But it is your obligation to be prepared to give that new thought" (1953)

And...

"True education seeks ... to make men and women not only good mathematicians, proficient linguists, profound scientists, or brilliant literary lights, but also honest men, combined with virtue, temperance, and brotherly love ... men and women who prize truth, justice, wisdom, benevolence, and self-control as the choicest acquisitions of a successful life" (1953)

President McKay was also instrumental in making the Temple rituals available to people in foreign languages, and in expanding and clarifying some portions of the Temple endowment.

According to Daniel W. Bachman, "David O. McKay, we learn, first explained the symbolism associated with the temple clothing by faithful Latter-day Saints."

Being a Freemason myself, I am familiar with several explanations of this symbolism, and for the benefit of those reading, I'd like to share the typical Masonic wording similar to what President McKay adopted, this being available openly on many Masonic websites (i.e. not considered part of the secret work):

The Square reminds us symbolically to square our actions, and the Compasses teach us to circumscribe our desires and keep our passions within due bounds toward all mankind.

The moral lessons associated with these emblems are deep and important, and what a blessing and demonstration of Divine Providence that the Latter-day Saints after going so many years without the majority of their men knowing the definition finally received a suitable one and removed some of the obscurity of these historic items.

Sealings

2006-10-09T14:39:00.000-07:00

“The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.”
--Orson F. Whitney

From the perspective of the wayward children, this appears to be a very curious teaching.

Copyright

2006-10-09T14:11:00.000-07:00

I don't know if it is legally enforceable (although I suspect it may be), but I do know that it is morally enforceable, and it has been on every page on this blog:

This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Articles posted on this web site may be freely transmitted and distributed for personal study however they are under copyright of their respective authors and any text or information obtained from them may not under any circumstances be used for official purposes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints including but not limited to disciplinary proceedings against or investigation of any person. This restriction is to protect the rights of free thought and expression of the authors as well as those who may leave comments on this work.

If you as a commentor, or as a friend of someone who has posted or commented on this blog find yourself being presented with material from this blog as evidence against you, please gently remind the person presenting it that they are using the material in an inappropriate way.

Suggestions for people thinking of violating this request: You could summarize or rewrite the material into your own words, and use that summary in lieu of verbatim material from the site. Also, remember that "fair use" law (I think so, at least) allows quotations of short amounts of material for the purpose of critical review or promotion of the material only (such as in a search engine index.)

Pendulum Dowsing

2006-10-07T13:34:00.000-07:00

I just read an interesting article on pendulum dowsing. Check it out.

If anyone chooses to engage in dowsing I would recommend some ground rules:

Never ask a question about a person's future by using this technique. At the worst case, the answer will subtly influence the actions and perceptions of those who have observed it, and it may become a "self-fulfilling prophecy." Although the answer may be true if a natural course of action ensues, a failed result created because knowledge alters the natural course could be misinterpreted as the dowsing technique being in error (blame transferred to the tool instead of to the dowser's own conscious or subconscious actions.)
Constantly think or speak the question itself, not the answer you want to the question. You want the question at the forefront of your mind, rather than "Yes" or "No."
Always remember that this is a reflection of your own subconcious, and secondarily allows possible expression of your connection to Deity or the elements. As such, you are likely projecting the answers yourself as you believe them deep inside. It is a technique of exploration of your inner knowledge.

Dowsing has been traditionally used for uncovering Yes and No answers, or finding locations of objects by the direction of the swing. Simple triangulation may be used to find a specific direction: If the pendulum swings left to right, and you wish to determine which direction it is, step forward a few paces. If the pendulum then swings far left to near right, you know the original direction was right, if it swings near left to far right, you know the original direction was left. This may be worth a shot next time you misplace your car keys, for example. Since you placed them somewhere, your subconscious mind probably knows exactly where they are.

The Burned-Over District

2006-10-06T23:17:00.000-07:00

Have you ever heard of the Burned-Over District of New York? Are you aware of "The Second Great Awakening" of which Mormonism was a major part (and one of the only surviving remnants to this date) ? This bit of American history, geography and culture has been fascinating me lately. There is a fairly good description on this site:

The Burned-Over District

And, an article on wikipedia about it and another on The Second Great Awakening.

What spiritual giants came from this time and place! Amazing.

Topical Guide Confusion

2006-10-04T00:43:00.000-07:00

Open up a copy of the LDS standard works, or use the online version. Look up in the Topical Guide, these two sections:

God the Father--Jehovah

Jesus Christ--Jehovah

Notice anything odd? It seems like the contents of these sections are intentionally reversed from what would be expected. Every reference under the "God the Father--Jehovah" section is a reference to Jesus Christ, and every reference under "Jesus Christ--Jehovah" is actually a reference to Heavenly Father. What's up with this reversal? Or does someone out there grasp this division between these verses in a way that I'm missing?

Judeo-Christian Tetragrammaton

2006-10-04T00:40:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it is useful to pull our heads out of the sand of our own culture and see what everyone else has to say. Here are two encyclopedia articles, one on the Tetragrammaton, and one on the divine name Yahweh/Jehovah. Yes, they're both on the same topic, with slightly different focus.

Enjoy!

So Abraham never dealt with Heavenly Father?

2006-10-03T23:38:00.000-07:00

See "One that slipped through correlation" over at By Common Consent.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has been studying the Godhead in depth. I think its interesting how most people are so naturally predisposed to recognize Old Testament Jehovah as Heavenly Father that it takes extremely careful scrutiny to realize it is inconsistent with the DIA doctrine.

I was particularly intrigued by Mark Butler (II)'s comment, #33, where he stated:

Perhaps the more interesting question is not the identification of Jehovah as the Son in the Old Testament, but the theological or doctrinal motivation for such identification. Jehovah as Heavenly Father sure seems to make a lot more sense. Why the apparent urge to turn Heavenly Father into an absentee landlord?

Here, Mark raises a very important question. What is the actual motivation behind the bizarre doctrinal shift? I have been speaking with several people lately and have been surprised to find that nearly everyone I know always assumed Jehovah was the Father, and when presented with the doctrine to the contrary either in Seminary or Sunday School have considered it to be an aberration, a quirk, something that sounds wrong and must be a mistake. Even people who by no means even attempt to be theologians naturally react this way. So what is the motivating force behind this unnatural and radically untraditional re-interpretation of scripture?

Request for Material on Eden

2006-10-03T16:23:00.000-07:00

I'm going to be putting together a book for publication soon. The subject will be the relics of the Garden of Eden in legend and scripture. It will be a compilation studying everything that has been purported to have been passed down from the Garden of Eden, or our first parents, Adam and Eve, including the symbolic meaning and importance of such relics.

If anyone knows any items of interest that you would like to see included in the book, please comment here or otherwise contact me and let me know.

Mormanity: Let No Corrupt Communication Proceed Out of Your Keyboard

2006-09-27T23:47:00.000-07:00

Jeff Lindsay had some interesting things to say over at his apologetic blog "Mormanity."

Mormanity: Let No Corrupt Communication Proceed Out of Your Keyboard

I don't typically link to apologists like this, but every once in a while they do hit something right on the head.

Progress

2006-09-26T23:32:00.000-07:00

I spoke with the bishop tonight. We had a good conversation and I feel that progress was made. I am feeling quite a bit better after that.

I want to apologize to any readers here who have taken what I've had to say too seriously. I tend to over-assert my position, to try to give my posts an edge, or a shock factor. While this is a useful blogging technique in some arenas, it doesn't seem to rest well with a lot of Latter-day Saints.

Authoritative Statements on Trusting Church Leaders

2006-09-26T02:54:00.000-07:00

President Joseph F. Smith said, "We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never." (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)

Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill." (Millennial Star 54:191)

"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves." (JD 4:368)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (JD 3:45)

"...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312)

"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']...said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: "Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;" (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

-

I have distinct feelings that I have been counseled in a manner incompatible with these many quotes. Either I am seriously misunderstanding my brethren, or they are themselves in the very error here spoken of.

Family?

2006-09-26T02:21:00.000-07:00

I feel hurt and frustrated. I thought the Church believed in promoting Families and bringing them closer together, and no matter WHAT the issue I can't understand Family being used as a wedge or "carrot" to try to encourage change in a person. Susie and I love the gospel. We are faithful and honest and we are happy with our lives. We hope some day to raise up children who are cultivated in the type of home we feel they should be provided with. We desire with all of our hearts and souls to be able to serve together in The House of the Lord. I want Susie to have the opportunity to receive her Temple Endowment. I want to be there for her. I want her parents to be there when she goes through as well. I want it to be to her a place where the comfort of family exists. After she receives her own Endowment, I want to serve with her so that we can enjoy that part of the core of our religion which it has to offer, so that we can relate to one another better, and so that we can be equally yoked.

Articles of Faith 1:11 says,

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Well, Susie and I desire the privilege of worshipping God in the Holy Temple, together, as a family. How? By our participation. Where? The Temple. What? God.

Because of what I have read I know that excommunication is sadly an increased possibility for anyone who engages in writing or publishing of any type in our Church. Many good people have been excommunicated for bad reasons. Many bad people have remained in the Church who were never excommunicated when they should have been. The problem when the Church excommunicates a faithful believer is that the believer is left distressed, often without very good Family support due to peer pressure to not affiliate with the individual (on spiritual matters especially). Furthermore, such excommunications serve no purpose except to degrade and damage the good name of the Church. They are an affront to the Lord because when they occur they show unrighteous dominion, and more people are spiritually hurt by even reading about these (I know I have felt hurt by it) than anyone could ever be saved by being put through the process. Additionally, those who have a Testimony of the Restored Gospel will not be put to silence because of the process of Excommunication. Taking for example D. Michael Quinn, he became more vocal and less censored in his publishing as a result of his excommunication. This seems to have been the case with some other people I'm aware of, as well.

If it ever came down to excommunication, I feel that I would stand according to the examples of the past, both in the Church: Jesus Christ, and Joseph and Hyrum Smith, or in Masonry: Hiram Abiff and Jaques DeMolay: To rather die than to lose my integrity. "Rare integrity, fortitude most grand." Joseph Smith was eloquent in his expressing this belief:

However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.

So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

Any true Latter-day Saint would rather give himself up to death than deny the things of the Spirit. This personal integrity policy is grounded firmly in scriptures: In fact, denial of the Holy Ghost is the unpardonable sin. The only thing that can never be forgiven in this life or the next. This is the type of condemnation that Joseph feared. Not man, but the condemnation of God.

I am sad and at the same time tired of seeing good and true men struck down from the Church when they could become instruments in the hands of God. If we strike out all of our best men, anyone who has any natural talents, God given gifts, that make them such a person as would considered relatively formidable in the formative era of our Church, how should we ever expect to grow greater, and perform and become all the things that have been prophesied?

kfdlajdlakjdfslkajsdflaskdjfalskjdf

Sorry, I'm just so frustrated. People need to wake up and stop shooting themselves in the foot. The Church is true, more true than most anyone could even know.

This is wasting my time... I really need to be working on other things. I was perfectly happy in the spirit, having a good family life and I don't know why people feel obliged to try to screw it up for me. I suppose persecution is given to us to make us grow.

I have never been able to feel a genuine Brotherhood left in the Church and that's part of the problem. We need to take the time to get to know each other, to really know each other. To compare, in my Lodge I feel genuine brotherly love. I would trust any of those guys with my life. I don't feel that I need to defend myself from them, but that I would trust them with my very life if it was on the line. The Church may have lost the concept of being "on the level" in our quorums and seems to be so cliquish now that it makes me feel sick to my stomach.

HELP ME, PLEASE.

Prophets Can Make Mistakes

2006-09-26T00:58:00.000-07:00

I've been studying the idea of infallibility because of my recent circumstances, and turned to the Bible to see what it has to say.

Interestingly, Moses, one of the first and greatest prophets and Aaron, the High Priest did not believe what God revealed to them and they had consequences for their disobedience (Numbers 20:12)

And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Ancient Israel's prophets were condemned, which shows that the prophetic office itself is not protected from error, even serious error:

But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

And Psalm 78 (read it) speaking in parable talks about our forebearers, the ancient Ephraimites and their repeated and persistent rebellion against God.

It is true, we have some special promises about our day, but those promises do not guarantee any type of infallibility, in fact the prophet Mormon admits his ability to have made mistakes in recording the scripture he wrote down:

And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Daniel H. Wells whom I believe was one of the Presidents of the Seventy (I may be mistaken in his exact office here) admitted that leaders could make mistakes and that we are not to pin our faith on another man's sleeves, EVEN the President of the Church:

It is our interest to keep aboard the ship Zion, and to continue our efforts to bring ourselves into subjection to the law of the Lord, that we may be the honored instruments in his hands of aiding to build up his kingdom on the earth. We can only do this by being faithful to the counsels of the servants of the Lord who are inspired to teach and lead us. He has placed them in his Church and kingdom to guide and direct us. We have not chosen these men—He has chosen them. They may be our selection too, it is very true, but the Lord has chosen them and he is responsible. But we need not pin our faith to any man's sleeve. No, we can go to the Bible, to the revelations of Jesus given in our day; and listen to the whisperings of the Spirit in our own hearts for the testimony of this being the work of God. The Lord will reveal to any faithful individual all that is necessary to convince him that this work is true. None need depend for that testimony upon others; all can have it for themselves, and that will be like a well of water within them, springing up to everlasting life, revealing to them the things of God, and all that is needful to make them wise unto salvation. They need not depend upon my testimony, or upon that of President Young or President Smith, nor upon anybody but God. He will direct the course of all who try to serve him with full purpose of heart. He will show them whether we are placed here properly, or whether any mistake was made concerning the calling of Joseph Smith. The testimony of the Lord will tell whether we teach things of ourselves or of the Lord; that testimony will tell its possessors whether the servants of God who stand here tell the truth about this work or not. They need be dependent upon none but themselves and the Lord for this knowledge, for the Lord is willing to give liberally to all, and he upbraids not. All the world may learn to know the Lord our Father, who is in heaven, and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent, if they will but take the course the Lord has marked out.

Charles W. Penrose taught:

Our testimony does not depend upon Joseph Smith; it does not depend upon Brigham Young; it does not depend upon John Taylor, or upon the council of the Twelve Apostles, which is now the presiding quorum in the Church. I pin my faith to no man's sleeve; I am a believer in the Scripture which says, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." I obeyed this Gospel because I believed it was true, through reading the Scriptures, which I was taught from my early childhood to believe in. When the sound of the Gospel reached my ears I believed; and having bowed in obedience to the ordinances, I received a testimony for myself of its truthfulness, and that testimony has never departed from me. I know by the power and gift of the Holy Ghost that God lives. I know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. I know by the same Spirit that God Almighty has sent his angels in these the last days to Joseph Smith and others, for the purpose of commencing this work of the restitution of all things. I know that work has begun to be ushered in. I know that the power of God is being manifested on the earth, that the same power which rested upon the former-day Saints, rests down upon the Latter-day Saints. I know that the former-day ordinances have been restored, and the spirit and the power thereof. I know it for myself, because I have experienced it and realized it. I know there is a way to approach the Eternal Father and learn of him. I know that those who seek aright in the way appointed, find an answer to their prayers, and that the promise made by the Savior is true: "Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." And in bearing my testimony to the truth of these things, I say what most of this congregation know, and what the great majority of the people throughout this Territory could testify to, as well as thousands more who are scattered upon the race of the earth, who are longing to gather to these mountain vales. We have not come here for the mere purpose of enriching ourselves in gold and silver, in flocks and herds, or houses and lands, things which perish in their handling, but to become rich in the imperishable things of eternity, which we can obtain here in the way appointed of God, and about which the world know nothing. People wonder why it is that the leaders of this people are still upheld by the unanimous voice and vote of the Latter-day Saints, and why it is that we have faith in them and cling to them, in spite of all that is said against them. They do not understand the secret spring that moves this work. The power that unites and guides us does not rest in any man or any set of men, neither in this wonderful organization, but in this eternal, unerring Spirit which God has shed forth in our hearts through obedience to the Gospel, by which we can approach Him and learn of Him for ourselves.

Brigham Young Taught:

Some may say, "Brethren, you who lead the Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am." I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, "If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are," this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.

Every man and woman in this kingdom ought to be satisfied with what we do, but they never should be satisfied without asking the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, whether what we do is right. When you are inspired by the Holy Ghost you can understandingly say, that you are satisfied; and that is the only power that should cause you to exclaim that you are satisfied, for without that you do not know whether you should be satisfied or not. You may say that you are satisfied and believe that all is right, and your confidence may be almost unbounded in the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ, but if you asked God, in the name of Jesus, and received knowledge for yourself, through the Holy Spirit, would it not strengthen your faith? It would. A little faith will perform little works; that is good logic. Jesus says, "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Even our current Priesthood and Relief Society manuals have a note inside the front that says to email or write suggestions for improvements to be incorporated in the future.

I must trust in God. Any man who would teach to have blind faith in the teachings of a human or any council of humans, no matter how good their track record has been, is extremely dangerous, and scripture and the words of prophets testify of this. I have not even given the best possible quotes here, just the first few I came across.

A long and interesting passage delivered by Brigham Young, Oct 6, 1855:

In all High Councils, in Bishops' Courts, and in all other departments for transacting our business, the Church and kingdom of God, with the Lord Almighty at the head, will cause every man to exhibit the feelings of his heart, for you recollect it is written that in the last days the Lord will reveal the secrets of the hearts of the children of men.

Does not the Gospel do that? It does; it causes men and women to reveal that which would have slept in their dispositions until they dropped into their graves. The plan by which the Lord leads this people makes them reveal their thoughts and intents, and brings out every trait of disposition lurking in their organizations. Is this right? It is. How are you going to correct a man's faults, by hiding them and never speaking of them, by covering up every fault you see in your brother, or by saying, "O, do not say a word about his faults, we know that he lies, but it will not do to say a word about it, for it would be awful to reveal such a fact to the people?" That is the policy of the world and of the devil, but is it the way that the Lord will do with the people in the latter-days? It is not.

This is a matter that seems to be but little understood by some of the Latter-day Saints, it may be understood by a portion of them, but others do not understand it. Every fault that a person has will be made manifest, that it may be corrected by the Gospel of salvation, by the laws of the Holy Priesthood.

Suppose that a man lies, and you dare not tell of it; "Very well," says the man, "I am secure, I can lie as much as I please." He is inclined to lie, and if we dare not chastise him about it he takes shelter under that pavilion, cloaks himself with the charity of his brethren, and continues to lie. By and bye he will steal a little, and perhaps one or two of his brethren know about it, but they say, "We must cover up this fault with the cloak of charity." He continues to lie and to steal, and we continue to hide his faults; where will it lead that person to? Where will he end his career? Nowhere but in hell.

What shall we do with such men? Shall we reveal their faults? Yes, whenever we deem it right and proper. I know it is hard to receive chastisement, for no chastisement is joyous, but grievous at the time it is given; but if a person will receive chastisement and pray for the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, that he may have the Spirit of truth in his heart, and cleave to that which is pleasing to the Lord, the Lord will give him grace to bear the chastisement, and he will submit to and receive it, knowing that it is for his good. He will endure it patiently, and, by and bye, he will get over it, and see that he has been chastised for his faults, and will banish the evil, and the chastisement will yield to him the peaceable fruits of righteousness, because he exercises himself profitably therein.

In this way chastisement is a benefit to any person. Grant that I have a fault, and wish it concealed, would I not be likely to hide it? And if the Lord would not reveal it I might cling to it, if I had not the spirit of revelation to discern my fault and its consequences. Without the influence of the Spirit of the Lord, I am just as liable to lie and abide in false principles, false notions, and unrighteous actions as true ones. It is so with you.

If your faults are not made known to you, how can you refrain from them and overcome them? You cannot. But if your faults are made manifest, you have the privilege of forsaking them and cleaving unto that which is good. The design of the Gospel is to reveal the secrets of the hearts of the children of men.

When men intimate to me, whether in public or in private, that their faults must not be spoken of, I do not know how worldly-minded men feel in similar cases, but like Elijah, when he mocked the priests of Baal, I feel to laugh and make derision of such men.

Do you suppose that I will thus far bow down to any man in this Territory, or on the earth? Do you suppose that I will suffer myself to be so muzzled that I cannot reveal the faults of the people when wisdom dictates me to do it?

I fear not the wicked half so much as I would a mosquito in my bedroom at night, for he would keep me from sleeping, but for the unrighteous, those who will act the villain and conduct themselves worse than the devil, to insinuate that I have not the privilege of speaking of their faults makes me feel like laughing at their folly. I will speak of men's faults when and where I please, and what are you going to do about it?

Do you know that that very principle caused the death of all the Prophets, from the days of Adam until now? Let a Prophet arise upon the earth, and never reveal the evils of men, and do you suppose that the wicked would desire to kill him? No, for he would cease to be a Prophet of the Lord, and they would invite him to their feasts, and hail him as a friend and brother. Why? Because it would be impossible for him to be anything but one of them. It is impossible for a Prophet of Christ to live in an adulterous generation without speaking of the wickedness of the people, without revealing their faults and their failings, and there is nothing short of death that will stay him from it, for a Prophet of God will do as he pleases.

I have been preached to, pleaded with, and written to, to be careful how I speak about men's faults, more so than ever Joseph Smith was in his life time; every week or two I receive a letter of instruction, warning me to be careful of this or that man's character. Did you ever have the Spirit of the Lord, so that you have felt full of joy, and like jumping up and shouting hallelujah? I feel in that way when such epistles come to me; I feel like saying, "I ask no odds of you, nor of all your clan this side of hell."

I have wise brethren around me who will sometimes say, "Don't speak so and so, be very careful, now do be cautions;" and I have been written to from the east; I have package after package of letters, yes, a wheel-barrow load of them, saying, "O, brother Brigham, I would beseech and pray and plead with you, if I only dare, to be careful how you speak. Would not this or that course be better than for you to get up in the stand, and tell the Gentiles what they are? Would it not be better to keep this to yourself?"

Do you know how I feel when I get such communications? I will tell you, I feel just like rubbing their noses with them. If I am not to have the privilege of speaking of Saint and sinner when I please, tie up my mouth and let me go to the grave, for my work would be done.

It was for this that they killed Joseph and Hyrum, it is for this that they wish to kill me and my brethren; we know their iniquity, and we will tell of it when the Spirit dictates, or talk about this, that, or the other person and conduct at the proper time.

There are people in our midst who grunt at this course, and at the same time have evils that I think are hardly worth notice, for I do not think that such persons will be good for anything even should they happen to get into the kingdom of heaven, though I suppose they are good in their place if we can find out where it is, but as yet I am ignorant of it; I presume that the Lord knows where it is, but I do not. I wish to say to the Elders of Israel, to all people, I shall tell you of your iniquity and talk about you just as I please, and when you feel like killing me for so doing, as some of the people did who called themselves brethren in the days of Joseph Smith, look out for yourselves, for false brethren were the cause of Joseph's death, and I am not a very righteous man. I have told the Latter-day Saints from the beginning that I do not profess much righteousness, but I profess to know the will of God concerning you, and I have boldness enough to tell it to you, fearless of your wrath, and I expect that it is on this account that the Lord has called me to occupy the place I do; I feel as independent as an angel.

Some of you have been brought before the High Council, charged with this fault and with that, and you say it is too much for you, that you cannot bear it. But you have got to bear it, and if you will not, make up your minds to go to hell at once and have done with it. If you wish to be Saints you must have your evils taken away and your iniquities exposed, this must be done if you remain in the kingdom of God. If you do wrong, and it is made manifest before the High Council, don't grunt about it, nor whine about your loving, precious character, but consider that you have none; that is the best way to get along with it. Myriads have scandalized me since I have been in this Church, and I have been asked, "Brother Brigham, are you going to bear this? Do you not know that such and such persons are scandalizing your character?" Said I, "I do not know that I have any character, I have never stopped to inquire whether I have one or not." It is for me to pursue a course that will build up the kingdom of God on the earth, and you may take my character to be what you please, I care not what you do with it, so you but keep your hands off from me.

If you are brought before the High Council, or before a Bishop's court, and it is proven before either of those tribunals that you are covetous, don't fly in a passion and become so excited that you are ready to burst. I may see fit to expose some men who have not paid their tithing; now if you are going to get nervous about it and are afraid of bursting, let me know, and we will slip and egg shell over you and your precious characters. What precious characters some of you had in Wales, in England, in Scotland, and perhaps in Ireland.

Do not be scared if it is proven against some, before the Bishop's court, that you did steal the poles from your neighbor's garden fence. If you did, it would be far better for you to get right up and own it, for you have in reality lost your character before God, angels, and men, and then refrain from such evils and try to establish a good character. It would be better for you to do that, than to become angry when your faults are made manifest. If it is proven before the High Council that you did steal a beef creature, don't get angry, but rise up and acknowledge that you did steal it.

If it is proven that you have been to some person's wood pile and stolen wood, don't be frightened, for if you will steal, it must be made manifest. Some one may say, "Why I did not think Saints were guilty of such deeds!" Nor I either. Such crimes are committed by people who gather with the Saints, to try them, to afflict and annoy them, and drive them to their duty. Do you not suppose that it is necessary to have devils mixed up with us, to make Saints of us? We are as yet obliged to have devils in our community, we could not build up the kingdom without them. Many of you know that you cannot get your endowment without the devil's being present; indeed we cannot make rapid progress without the devils. I know that it frightens the righteous sectarian world to think that we have so many devils with us, so many poor, miserable curses. Bless your souls, we could not prosper in the kingdom of God without them. We must have those amongst us who will steal our fence poles, who will go and steal hay from their neighbor's hay stack, or go into his corn field to steal corn, and leave the fence down; nearly every ax that is dropped in the kanyon must be picked up by them, and the scores of lost watches, gold rings, breast pins, &c., must get into their hands, though they will not wear them in your sight. It is essentially necessary to have such characters here.

After we had given the brethren such a scouring two or three months ago, about returning lost property when found, one or two men brought in two or three rusty nails of no value, which they had picked up; this was tantamount to saying to brother Sprague, "If we had found your purse, or if we had found Brigham's purse, we would see you in hell before we would return it." We wish to impress upon you the necessity of your bringing the ax you find, the hay fork, or any other lost property which you find, to the person who is appointed to take charge of such property, that the owners may again possess it. But if you should pick up a piece of rotten wood, and bring it to brother Brigham, or Dr. Sprague, with a show of honesty, and in derision of the counsel you have received, it would be like saying, "If we could find or steal your purses, you should never see them again. We are poor, miserable devils, and mean to live here by stealing from the Saints, and you cannot help yourselves."

Live here then, you poor, miserable curses, until the time of retribution, when your heads will have to be severed from your bodies. Just let the Lord Almighty say, "Lay judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet," and the time of thieves is short in this community. What do you suppose they would say in old Massachusetts, should they hear that the Latter-day Saints had received a revelation or commandment to lay "judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet?" What would they say in old Connecticut? They would raise a universal howl of, "How wicked those Mormons are; they are killing the evil doers who are among them; why I hear that they kill the wicked away up yonder in Utah." They do no kill anybody down there, do they?

As for the inhabitants of the earth, who know anything about the "Mormons," having power to utter worse epithets against us than they do, they have to get more knowledge in order to do it; and as for those enemies who have been in our midst, feeling any worse than they do, they have first to know more; they are as full of bad feeling now as they can hold without bursting. What do I care for the wrath of man? No more than I do for the chickens that run in my dooryard. I am here to teach the ways of the Lord, and lead men to life everlasting, but if they have not a mind to go there, I wish them to keep out of my path.

I want the Elders of Israel to understand that if they are exposed in their stealing, lying, deceiving, wickedness, and covetousness, which is idolatry, they must not fly in a passion about it, for we calculate to expose you, from time to time, as we please, when we can get time to notice you.

During this Conference, I do not want to think where the "Mormons" have been, and how they have been treated, but I want to think of matters that will make my heart light, like the roe on the mountains—to reflect that the Lord Almighty has given me my firth on the land where He raised up a Prophet, and revealed the everlasting Gospel through him, and that I had the privilege of hearing it—of knowing and understanding it—of embracing and enjoying it. I feel like shouting hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained, and to whom He gave keys and power to build up the kingdom of God on earth and sustain it. These keys are committed to this people, and we have power to continue the work that Joseph commenced, until everything is prepared for the coming of the Son of Man. This is the business of the Latter-day Saints, and it is all the business we have on hand. When we come to worldly affairs, as they are called, they can be done in stormy weather, if we attend to the kingdom of God in fair weather.

May God bless you. Amen.

Prayer

2006-09-26T00:12:00.000-07:00

Everyone reading this please pray for me and pray for my leaders so that they can see the impossible situation they are placing me in and that it is not a situation I have tried to place myself in. Pray to help them to realize that the things they are asking me about are not matters of faith, sin or righteousness, but matters of personal opinion and that their own words are equally applicable to the past leaders of the Church as they are to my own views. Pray for me to have humility and be able to love these men anyway with genuine brotherly love in spite of any differences we may have.

A friend pointed out to me today that their calling is to be a common Judge in Israel, and that they are neither called nor trained to be theologians or interpreters of scripture. If I can answer the Temple Interview questions with a sincere heart and in all honesty, then I have nothing to fear. God will protect me and everything will work out alright. As the Times and Seasons said in its headmast: Truth will prevail.

A Convert Trapped

2006-09-25T19:20:00.000-07:00

I was a convert to the Church in 1999. I believe in it wholeheartedly. But I feel trapped right now. The missionaries never taught me the strange doctrine upon which (among a couple other things) my temple worthiness is now being held in the balance. Why would the missionaries teach about Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost but not teach me that they believe Jehovah is Jesus? They taught me and I agreed with the things they taught, and because I agreed and gained a testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the principles they taught I was baptized. Now, I am being asked to accept that Jehovah is Jesus Christ. If there was no contradictory evidence I would have no problem with it, but there is a TON of contradictory evidence. I didn't make this stuff up. It isn't MY fault, THEY did it, the leaders of the Church who have written for years and years, and they are acting like its my own fault for believing their own writings. I am not pulling something out of my hat, I'm taking a standard Christian assumption that probably everyone has at some point or another. I don't understand. Any Jew, and any Christian who is not a strict trinitarian would agree with me. The missionaries did not teach me this deviation, I picked it up later when I started asking questions, it was the answer I got from my teachers and friends. But at that point, I was already a member, so I went along with it for a while, but as I read the scriptures and the writings of the prophets they do not all agree, there is a diversity in this teaching, and I don't want it to rest upon MY shoulders to have to state that I know an answer to it especially an answer that is as clearly wrong to me as saying that the sun isn't shining at noon.

I need to pray to God for comfort and to allow me to fully forgive not these men, but any who came before them and helped to make it so confusing for us today. They talk about me doing things that might lead one soul astray as though it is a wicked thing, while the official writings
are just as confusing and just as prone to leading people any direction on this matter. I kind of feel unappreciated because of it, I follow the patterns, I study scriptures like they ask me to, I pray, and then the answers I get they tell me not to have. I didn't put the answers there either. I guess I can't say that God did either, because they don't want me to write anything that "I know" they only want me to say that I'm thinking about or studying things, while at the same time everyone says "I know this, I know that" when bearing their testimonies. If I said "I'm thinking about the Book of Mormon being true, and I'm studying whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet." that would not be a testimony. I believe God answers prayers, and I believe I have been trapped by for some reason, and I don't think God would trap one of his children in such a situation.

ALL converts should be taught that the official position of the Church is that Jehovah is Christ before being baptized, so they are not faced with this impossible choice unwillingly. I fear the consequences no matter what I say. There is no right answer. This is the most confusing thing I've ever faced, and after wasting hundreds of hours on the subject over the past seven years, finally coming to a comforting and relievingly simple answer, I am now asked to go back into the confusing zone and to just pray about it. But my prayers were already answered, and if I pray more how do I know what to trust? How do I know what to think? What should I do?

If every convert were treated this way, the Church would be very small. I feel very small because of it. I also feel that these men although trying to be loving are also trying to avoid the situation because they are scared of it. I wish they would teach me instead of holding back my temple recommend in order to "threaten" (lovingly) me to change my belief. That is not how the missionaries taught me, they did not say you're going to hell if you don't believe this doctrine. They said here are the doctrines, try it out, pray about it, find out if it is true. If you find it out, be baptized. I thought threatening tactics of hellfire and damnation are gone with the various sects and denominations of protestant Christianity.

I have to go.

Altars to Sin

2006-09-25T04:18:00.000-07:00

Scriptures are echoing in my head, including Hosea 8:11-12, which is making more and more sense every day:

Because Ephraim hath made many altars to sin, altars shall be unto him to sin.
I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.

What is seen by men as "strange things" are indeed great things of the law of God. I try diligently and with real intent to be obedient to the commandments of God as they are made known to me by the Holy Scriptures, the Spirit, and the Prophets. Apparently I do not know what to believe, nor how to find out, because there is no way to trust the Spirit if it has lied to me in the past. I do not believe it has, I cannot deny what I've felt. But, I don't know what else to think. How can anyone know the truth?

Is the Church your rock?

2006-09-25T03:56:00.000-07:00

In the past, I have made what was perhaps a natural assumption that the Church was my rock: my sure foundation which could never slip away, but things like the meeting I posted about previously are a valuable reminder to me of the scripture:

2 Samuel 22:2-3:

¶ And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

I love God. I am happy that nothing in the world can ever take away my ability to communicate with Him who sitteth as the Judge Supreme.

The Inquisition Has Begun

2006-09-25T02:57:00.000-07:00

The Bloggernacle Inquisition that I mentioned back in July has begun - with me. All three members of my bishopric came over to my house tonight and spoke with me about concerns they have regarding my blog and other websites. I am not ashamed of what I have said here to date. This site represents my spiritual journey, not a static theological stance, and I am not in hiding. Let me reiterate a disclaimer similar to what I think I've said before: My views may change over time as I gain different spiritual insights and experiences, and nothing I say here should ever be taken as truth by anyone without them first backing it up with authoritative evidence from a reliable source and receiving a spiritual witness of it. Our discussion was long, and I will sum up briefly: They take issue with a few points on my blog, including my conclusions about Jehovah, and consider my inquiries regarding the theology represented in The Living Christ to be incompatible with sustaining the prophet.

However, I will not lie to escape out of a situation, and I feel compelled to answer with what is true according to my heart and conscience. The three points raised were mostly on Theology, Sustaining Leaders, and Apostate Affiliations:

First point:

Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; and do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?

Yes, I believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. This requirement makes no claims or attempts to assign names to them. And yes, I have a firm testimony of the restored gospel.

Second point:

Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

Absolutely and unequivocally he is, similar in authority to Moses, Abraham, or St. Peter, for example.

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

I do, and I welcomed them into my home to discuss these matters with me. Where I differ in interpretation of these last two statements is that I see the prophets as fallible mortal men who are inspired by God to do great things, and I am hesitant to agree that every letter or word spoken from the mouth of a prophet is utter and absolute truth. The latter position seems to be what has been asked of me, but how can one take such a view in light of the history of this Church and the various doctrines and views that have been held in favor at various times? If I were to accept infallibility, I would be required to say that the Church apostatized with Joseph Smith, because I believe Joseph to have by sheer sake of human nature made mistakes (although I am not sure if I could point out any particular). Infallibility is a bad doctrine, and can not be applied to modern prophets without great hypocrisy in not applying equal treatment to all of their predecessors in office. It seems that infallibility is not the precise understanding that these brethren are trying to move me towards, but I'm not sure what it is they want of me in this regard. I will pray about the subject.

The third point is the question regarding apostate affiliations, I believe it goes:

Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

No. My post about The September Six was cited as suspicious of sympathizing with an individual whose teachings and practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church. I have never spoken with Michael Quinn personally, (although I wouldn't mind having a chat with him at some future date,) so I think the term "affiliate" is entirely out of the question. I feel sorrow for Mike and the hard position he was in in his life. The only precepts of Michael Quinn that I agree with would be those that are positive spiritual insights and uplifting ideas regarding the Church, I do not put any type of a blanket endorsement on what Michaell Quinn has taught. There is nothing wrong in agreeing on certain or even several points with a supposed "apostate" individual, as Brigham Young taught that even Satan can teach the truth, and that we should pray for the wisdom that we may discern and receive that truth and reject the error. Certainly I would not back up any teachings or opinions of such an individual that would be attacking the Church in any way.

These men have declared that they come to me in love, and I sense that in a large portion they are genuine and sincere in this love. They shared with me that they actually enjoyed many of my posts and even learned some things from them, and that they have read "the good and the bad" and not focused solely on what was perceived to be the "bad" about my blogging. I know they together spent hours studying the things I have said, and have probably read some of my articles that no one else has ever even bothered to read. I am grateful for the care they are taking in my situation.

However, this is the second time now that I have been faced with accusations about my beliefs, and I don't know how much longer I can hold up.

Readers (however few you be): I apologize that I may not feel free to fully express myself from here on out. My personal feelings and thoughts of which I have been frank and open with you up until today are now being judged and scrutinized, and this is enough to strip anyone's ability to speak freely no matter how hard they try not to let it affect them.

I will continue to share the details of my discussions with the Bishop and his counselors as things proceed forward, and I hope it may be of some help to others who may find themselves in similar circumstances. To the Bishop and his counselors, whom I expect will ultimately read this as well: I hope it may help you relate to the feelings I have, to have ones ideas be placed under scrutiny.

If You Could Hide Kolob

2006-09-23T20:53:00.000-07:00

If you could hide Kolob in the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward with that same speed to try
To soften all the doctrines of Joseph's legacy,
And hide the precious things that are so plain to me,

Would it even make a difference; does it our God offend?
Or does it do a credit, as means to a good end?
Me thinks the spirit whispers, "Use honesty not haste,
For pure and holy beings are never double-faced."

The work of God continues, and Joseph's blood shall stand,
But will the Jew or Gentile receive the promised land?
There is no end to matter; there is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; there is no end to grace;

There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might;
There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light;
There is no end to union; There is no end to youth;
There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth;

There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.

On the state of Jesus

2006-09-22T14:47:00.000-07:00

This post is formulated from comments I made on a post over at Millennial Star.

Mortal death, a consequence of the fall, was due to Adam and Eve being required to leave the garden, thus they were no longer able to partake of the Fruit of the Tree of Life. (This fruit being the only thing keeping the Gods alive eternally, as it sustains their celestial bodies in a way that restores them or prevents them from decaying.) Lack of this fruit for any extended period of time would cause man to decelestialize: as the celestial sand in his veins is replaced with blood he becomes mortal. The fruit, the Tree of Life, and the positive consequences of partaking of this fruit are quite ancient concepts, perhaps as widespread as the story of a world flood.

My current view of MMP is this: You are born a mortal (I'll use telestial as an example word here). You die. If righteous, you are born a baby again but this time you have become perfected to the point that you are able to live sinless (I'll use terrestrial as an example word here). You die again. You are resurrected (as Christ) and now have a celestial, resurrected body. This same adult body goes on to become the Adam of your new world. You are sustained by the fruit of the Tree of Life.

I object to the idea that Jesus Christ could be sinless straight out of the gate. I believe Jesus lived a life as a sinner in order to become worthy of being sinless. If not, he would be acting as a prototype of the original Satanism (Denial of Agency), he never would have tasted of evil in order to know good, he would be like Adam and Eve before the fall, in a condition of innocence and lack of joy. The only way I see it working is that Jesus Christ was a sinner and earned his way to being Christ; Just as Adam was a sinner and also earned his way through that office and to eventually become exalted (a celestial being).

If Jesus was sinless out of the gate, it would had to have been due to his own choices in his mortal life on this earth and we too would have equal opportunity to be and remain sinless throughout our own lives and save ourselves without his help. (For we are all literal children of God, ultimately, both by Adam-God reasoning, or without it: For Adam himself would have been a literal offspring of God.)

How is such a sinless "Terrestrial" body (as I am calling it) created? By an exalted, resurrected Celestial being (like Adam) procreating with a mortal (like Mary). This creates sinless offspring. Why is Seth different? Because he is the consequence of a decelestialized, mortal Father and Mother (each having blood in their veins). Note, I am not saying anything here about Mary's own condition except that she at this point is mortal (subject to impending physical death).

Without considering Adam-God, the question becomes why can Adam, created by God, sin, while Christ created by the same process could not, and remained sinless? If it was only due to Christ's righteous choices, that's a lot of spirits to put up for gamble - what if it had gone wrong?

Was Jesus really sinless in the way we think he was? Jesus certainly must have made indiscretions, mistakes, and what we would consider sins, even in this mortal probation, but his Elder Brother (and Father by Adoption), had already suffered as a sacrifice on a previous earth so that all of Jesus's sins past, present, and future, could be forgiven with an attitude of penance.

If Jesus hadn't already completed one probation, and if it is indeed possible for God to father a sinless child in one step while allowing this child to retain its agency, why would he not just make every one of us sinless and eschew the whole programme?

Guestbook

2006-09-21T22:23:00.000-07:00

I'm curious what type of people are actually reading this blog? I'd encourage you to check-in by commenting on this post and telling a little something about yourself. Even if you do it anonymously and just let us know something about the type of person you are, that's great. Come on now, don't be shy...

How to Stop Terrorism - Fool Proof!

2006-09-19T19:14:00.000-07:00

I can't take credit for this idea, it came to me from a good friend, but it is brilliant! Ok, here's how it works: Many terrorists are operating under the principle that if they die as a martyr they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Most of these terrorists also have a law forbidding them to take pork into their body, as it is an unclean animal. So, the solution is to dip all of the United States (and allies) bullets in pork grease. They would not dare approach a situation where they might be shot with a pork bullet, because this would certainly prevent them from reaching paradise after this life. Problem solved. I have come up with my own addendum to this plan: Fill the walls of all passenger aircraft with pork grease so that in the event of an explosion the shrapnel would embed pork into the bodies of all on the plane.

Perhaps this is a suitable use for packaged weight watchers pork rines.

Divine Investiture of Authority, properly applied

2006-09-19T14:31:00.000-07:00

Spencer W. Kimball taught that:

"The priesthood is the power and authority of God delegated to man on earth to act in all things pertaining to the salvation of men. It is the means whereby the Lord acts through men to save souls. Without this priesthood power, men are lost."

Jesus Christ holds the Melchizedek Priesthood:

Hebrew 5:8-10

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

The Divine Investiture of Authority is the same thing as the Priesthood: God has given his authority to an individual (or group of individuals) to act in His behalf on the earth. It is evoked any time a priesthood blessing is given, and any time a sermon is preached by the Spirit. However, it does not give one avatar status as God: You retain your own identity.

Jesus was invested with authority to act in God's behalf, healing people, cast out devils, performing all sorts of miracles.

Difference between the Priesthood Authority which Jesus wielded and that that we ourselves may exercise? He had become perfect (perhaps in a previous probation,) and we have yet to do so.

Notes on greek words translted to worship in KJV

2006-09-19T13:09:00.000-07:00

Note: This post was created as a supplement to a comment I posted on Blogger of Jared's post titled "Worship the Father or Jesus?"

Proskuneo - "to kiss the hand to one"

Jesus:

Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 8:2, Matthew 9:18, Matthew 14:33, Matthew 15:25, Matthew 18:26, Matthew 20:20, Matthew 28:9, Matthew 28:17, Mark 5:6, Mark 15:19, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, Acts 10:25, Hebrews 1:6
Revelation 19:10 (Jesus; denied)
Revelation 22:8 (Jesus as an angel [messenger], or perhaps another sent in his behalf; denied)

God the Father:

Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8 - [God] only shalt thou *serve* (directed to Satan)
John 4:20 - Our fathers worshipped (presumably the Father, per next verse)
John 4:21, John 4:23, John 4:24, 1 Corinthians 14:25
Revelation 4:10, Revelation 5:14, Revelation 7:11, Revelation 19:4 (Possibly Adam? Compare Dan. 7)
Revelation 11:16 (Lord God Almighty)
Revelation 15:4 (Lord God Almighty)
Revelation 22:9

Satan, Idols or the Beast:

Matthew 4:9, Luke 4:7 (Satan)
Acts 7:43 (idols)
Revelation 9:20 (not worship devils)
Revelation 13:4 (the dragon, the beast)
Revelation 13:8, Revelation 13:12, Revelation 13:15, Revelation 14:9, Revelation 14:11, Revelation 16:2, Revelation 19:20, Revelation 20:4.

Other:

John 4:22 - Ye worship ye know not what.
John 12:20 (came to worship at the feast, generally)
Acts 8:27 (came to Jerusalem for to worship, generally)
Acts 24:11 (went up to Jerusalem for to worship, generally)
Hebrews 11:21 (generally, when blessing the sons of Joseph)
Revelation 3:9 (John, recipient of Revelation)
Revelation 11:1 (worship in the Temple, generally)
Revelation 14:7 (creator)

Sebomai

- to revere, to adore. devout, religious, worship
- also translated as devout (Acts 13:50) and religious (Acts 13:43)
- in relation to goddess Diana "worshippeth" in Acts 19:27

Matthew 15:9, and Mark 7:7 - But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines ...
Acts 18:13 - This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.

Eusebio

- act piously or reverently, dutiful regard or reverence
- (1 Tim 5:4 uses it as "show piety")

Acts 17:23 - For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Ethelothreskeia

- will worship
- misdirected

Colossians 2:23

Latreuo

- to serve for hire
- to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men, slaves or freemen
- to render religious service or homage, to worship
- to perform sacred services, to offer gifts

Acts 7:42 - idolatry - the hosts of heaven by way of the calf idol
Acts 24:14 - But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Philippians 3:3 - For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Thus, I have determined that Latreuo is the "worship" in the sense that most religious people today naturally use the word. Here is every New Testament verse using latreuo, and you will see that every one of them applies to God the Father:

Matthew 4:10
10. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Luke 1:74
74. That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

Luke 2:37
37. And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

Luke 4:8
8. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Acts 7:7
7. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.

Acts 7:42 [Note: This is a reference to idol worship]
42. ¶ Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?

Acts 24:14
14. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Acts 26:7
7. Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

Acts 27:23
23. For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,

Romans 1:9
9. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

Romans 1:25 [ idolatry ]
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Philippians 3:3
3. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

2 Timothy 1:3
3. I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;

Hebrews 8:5
5. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Hebrews 9:9
9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Hebrews 9:14
14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 10:2
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Hebrews 12:28
28. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

Hebrews 13:10
10. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Revelation 7:15
15. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Revelation 22:3
3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

I hope this is helpful in some way.

What to do with the humor...

2006-09-18T00:50:00.000-07:00

In order to keep my theological thoughts separate from my humorous and perhaps very commercially minded self promotion regarding the T-Shirt business, I have created a separate blog/site for the LDS T-Shirts. Future designs will go directly to that site instead of here, although they may perhaps show up in the rotating shirt display at the top. If anyone is really interested enough to keep an eye on the shirt designs (and would such an interest call one's mental sanity into question?), new additions are also available via an atom feed.

The advertisement of T-Shirts does now humbly bow-out of the post topics here, keeping this site pure for those looking for our classic thought provoking and ocassionally controversial posts.

Basic Beliefs

2006-09-17T11:19:00.000-07:00

I just took a quick cruise through the current rendition of the Basic Beliefs on the church's official websites. The section on Jesus said the following:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is Heavenly Father’s Only Begotten Son in the flesh. He is our Redeemer. Through Jesus Christ, Heavenly Father has provided a way for all people to become like Him and return to live with Him forever.

We love Christ. We worship Christ. He is our example and our Savior.

While the section on Heavenly Father said this:

Jesus taught that God is "Our Father which art in heaven" (Matthew 6:9). We call God Heavenly Father because He is the Father of our spirits.

As your Father, God knows and loves you personally. He wants you to find joy in this life and return to live with Him when this life is over. He has prepared a plan to help you do these things. It is the plan of salvation, a plan of happiness. It offers peace in this life and eternal life in the world to come.

It appears that they are indicating that Jesus is to be Worshipped but no mention of Worship is included in explaining God the Father. I can only conclude that in emphasizing monotheism and separatism over trinitarianism, the official position of the maintianers of the Basic Beliefs portion of the website is that Jesus is to be worshipped while Heavenly Father is not.

I may be overly ridiculous or simplistic here, but this is what an investigator may think when approaching the website. How would these statements look to a Muslim, or a Jew who is considering further investigation of the Church? (Taken together with the other strange notion that Jesus as Jehovah actually did everything they ever thought God the Father did for his people, this becomes stragely like Trinitarianism. Just... a different Trinity.)

Mormon Kabbalah

2006-09-13T11:37:00.000-07:00

The The Tree of Happiness, a Missionary "Flip-Chart" to help convert all your Mystic non-Mormon friends:

(You can buy this as a shirt)

Tabernacle Model

2006-09-12T10:44:00.000-07:00

I love the Old Testament tabernacle. We can learn so much from it, and it can serve to reinforce many distinct LDS doctrines and ideas that are unique from the rest of Christianity if we carefully examine its construction and the practices performed therein.

Here's a neat article on how to properly paint a Tabernacle model. Using the Bible to try to create an accurate Tabernacle model can be a great spiritual task. I've done it before, and I plan on doing a more accurate one sometime soon.

How the Gospel makes little girls cry.

2006-09-11T18:17:00.000-07:00

I just read this, and had to share a link to it:

Cold & Calculating: Warning Label for The Lamb of God

I think it is always important to consider the way the messages we teach and endorse look from outside and alternative perspectives.

T-Shirts

2006-09-11T15:41:00.000-07:00

To my regular readers: I hope you don't mind the T-Shirt display at the top of the blog now. We've been trying our hands at doing some unique Mormon-themed shirt designs, and want to share them with you because we feel you will be genuinely interested, so we have replaced one of our sponsored link blocks with this instead. I wish it were a little smaller, but it's not too bad... plus, it is listing genuine products designed by your friends here at Mormon Gnostics which makes it less of an advertisement and more of the thoughts and attitudes you are used to finding here.

Let me know if it seems too unruly and we'll move it somewhere else. And, if you like any of the shirts, please buy :)

Members of Utah Church are not "Mormons", FLDS leader says.

2006-09-08T14:47:00.000-07:00

From the FLDS Newsroom-

Members of Utah Church are not "Mormons", FLDS leader says.
29 August 2006

ELDORADO, TEXAS — Many news outlets are reporting on the recent arrest of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs.

Some media outlets have been very careful to describe Warren Jeffs as a "Mormon", "fundamentalist Mormon", or as the leader of a "Mormon sect." Other reports refer to Mr. Jeffs as a "fugitive polygamist sect leader."

Some may debate what the definition of a Mormon is, but terms like "Mormon Fundamentalist," and "Mormon Polygamy" are universally understood to refer to the nunmerous smaller groups basing their faith and history in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The following information may be helpful in further drawing the distinction:

Warren Jeffs is a Fundamentalist Mormon
Warren Jeffs is a member of The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and has had family in The Church for several generations.

Fundamentalist Mormons Practice Polygamy
Mormons began practicing polygamy in the 1840's, after a revelation was received by their prophet Joseph Smith, Junior. (Read history.)

In 1865, Brigham Young said: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." (Read full statement.)

There is No Such Thing as a "Mormon"
The term "Mormon Fundamentalist" is a nickname commonly applied to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and other groups deriving their origin from the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. There is no such thing as a "Mormon," nor are there "Latter-day Saints." The correct term to describe these groups is "food storage sects." The inclusion of the word Mormon is misleading and inaccurate.

Associated Press
The Associated Press Stylebook states, "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter-day Saint churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."

-

Warren Jeffs is currently imprisoned and unavailable for comment at this time.

-

Style guide note: When reporting about The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, please use the complete name of the Church in the first reference. For more information on the use of the name of the Church, go to our online style guide.

'Mormon' Morphology

2006-09-08T14:14:00.000-07:00

I normally don't link to "Anti" oriented sites, but this article is purely about naming vocabulary and quite frankly, they seem to have been spot on in making this point intelligently, and in citing their sources:

Mormon Coffee: 'Mormon' Morphology

To quickly reiterate, they study the following terms:

Mormon vs. Fundamentalist Mormon
The Church tries to deny FLDS and others the privilege of being called Mormons, or even Fundamentalist Mormons in the media.

Mormon vs. Latter-day Saint
The Church tries to prevent itself from being called the Mormon Church by the media, leaving the term as a nickname entirely useless.

Christian vs. Not Christian
In total irony, the "traditional" Christians are trying to define the word Christian, and we strongly reject their definition and insist that we be called Christians.

Equal does not mean The Same

2006-09-07T14:57:00.000-07:00

I keep running into the idea that equal somehow means clone. For instance, for two people to be perfectly equal, they must have the same strengths and weaknesses, be just as smart, just as strong, etc.

Hogwash!

I'll use a simple math equation as an example:

3 + 8 = 15 - 4

Now, does 3+8 look the same as 15-4? no, they have nothing in common except their equality. To take this into the realm of human beings, it's likely that two random people aren't exactly equal, but, it's also likely that they are much more equal than meets the eye. An old plumber-man could be totally equal with a young athlete . . . if you took all their attributes together. The old man might have great compassion, or be a brilliant mathematician (gee, that would make a cool movie ;) ) while the young athlete might not be very bright, or have harmful addictions to various substances that hurts his life more than being old hurts the first man.

That was just a very silly example, but it illustrates how we could be compared to the mathematical equation above.

In mormonism, I hear a lot about perfection - how Our Heavenly Parents are perfect, how we will be perfect if we make it to the highest glory, etc. And then, individual ideas of what it means to be perfect are superimposed onto these people - "Heavenly Mother would never hide out in heaven while her Husband took care of the kids", well, what if she is shy, and wants you to come to her? Is there something inherently wrong with that? Are all the shy people going to hell? or be "cured"? The same goes for a very long list of attributes. The saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure" comes to mind. One person prizes their ability to be neat and tidy, while the other prizes their ability to be detached from worldly concerns such as messes and cleaning. Take a look in any personality list, and start comparing the "bad" and "good" characteristics in each personality and you will find there are distinct similarities.

hundredth post, woo-hoo!

Jehovah, the Father of Jesus Christ

2006-09-06T19:08:00.000-07:00

The LDS Hymn Book from 1840
Title Page, and Preface:

These hymns were selected by the First Presidency for the use of the Saints.
I wanted to share Hymn #150, which gives a demonstration of the early LDS understanding of the identity of Jehovah:

How ought we to regard Jesus?

2006-09-06T04:23:00.000-07:00

In reading the 1854 Children's Catechism, I came across this question and answer, to which I fully agree:

With what feelings ought we to regard the Lord Jesus Christ, when we consider the love manifested by him to us?

We ought to feel towards him the warmest gratitude and love, and be ready to keep all his commandments and precepts.

I have often warned against the worship of Christ on this blog, but I want to also warn never to allow this to strip you of your feelings of gratitude and love towards Christ, which are desirable and acceptable to have. Of course, I also have similar gratitude and love towards Joseph Smith and many others, including membebrs of my own family, but Jesus, our Brother, went through tremendous suffering and even death for us, and we must never forget what he has done. Would we be willing to pass through that same type of challenge that he went through in order to help our Brothers and Sisters?

Jehovah = Father (in 1854)

2006-09-06T03:53:00.000-07:00

This is from the "Children's Catechism", published by Apostles Franklin D. Richards in 1854, available from online collection at BYU. It can be observed that at this point in time, Jehovah was still considered to be the Father, and Jesus Christ to be His Son, and that this was (correctly) taught to the children being raised in the Church at that time.

Did Jesus die Spiritually?

2006-09-06T00:53:00.000-07:00

Reading about the televangelist Kenneth Copeland I came across an interesting teaching of his: That Jesus Christ had died spiritually, as part of his atoning work for our sins.

I thought this was interesting... Mr. Copeland, I believe, suggested that this happened after his physical death, as he descended to hell.

I think I agree that he did die spiritually, except that it happened during the atonement process in the Garden of Gethsemane. Matthew 27:46

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

If "Spiritual Death" is a separation between Man and God, then this seems to have occurred. Not only that, but it seems that as the "wages of sin" are death, this would be the only adequate payment for sin - a spiritual death, not a physical death.

However, upon further study, I'm questioning the notion of spiritual death being equivalent to "separation from God" at all. I see a lot of scriptures about the second death or spiritual death being equated to a lake of fire and brimstone, and something that happens if someone dies while they are in sin, but not very much about separation from God being spiritual death. The standard verse people might quote is Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

However, I see this as clearly talking about the introduction of mortality into the world by Adam's transgression. The wages of [original] sin is mortality (physical death). Nothing to do with spiritual death at all. Wow, I really changed my mind half way through this post, or at least got myself confused. :-)

Psalm 78

2006-09-05T20:47:00.000-07:00

Psalms 78

1. ¶ Maschil of Asaph. Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
3. Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.
4. We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done.
5. For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children:
6. That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children:
7. That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments:
8. And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God.
9. ¶ The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle.
10. They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law;
11. And forgat his works, and his wonders that he had shewed them.
12. Marvellous things did he in the sight of their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.
13. He divided the sea, and caused them to pass through; and he made the waters to stand as an heap.
14. In the daytime also he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire.
15. He clave the rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the great depths.
16. He brought streams also out of the rock, and caused waters to run down like rivers.
17. And they sinned yet more against him by provoking the most High in the wilderness.
18. And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust.
19. Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?
20. Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?
21. Therefore the LORD heard this, and was wroth: so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel;
22. Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:
23. Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,
24. And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
25. Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.
26. He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind.
27. He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea:
28. And he let it fall in the midst of their camp, round about their habitations.
29. So they did eat, and were well filled: for he gave them their own desire;
30. They were not estranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouths,
31. The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel.
32. For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.
33. Therefore their days did he consume in vanity, and their years in trouble.
34. When he slew them, then they sought him: and they returned and enquired early after God.
35. And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.
36. Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.
37. For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant.
38. But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.
39. For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.
40. ¶ How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert!
41. Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.
42. They remembered not his hand, nor the day when he delivered them from the enemy.
43. How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan:
44. And had turned their rivers into blood; and their floods, that they could not drink.
45. He sent divers sorts of flies among them, which devoured them; and frogs, which destroyed them.
46. He gave also their increase unto the caterpiller, and their labour unto the locust.
47. He destroyed their vines with hail, and their sycomore trees with frost.
48. He gave up their cattle also to the hail, and their flocks to hot thunderbolts.
49. He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.
50. He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence;
51. And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:
52. But made his own people to go forth like sheep, and guided them in the wilderness like a flock.
53. And he led them on safely, so that they feared not: but the sea overwhelmed their enemies.
54. And he brought them to the border of his sanctuary, even to this mountain, which his right hand had purchased.
55. He cast out the heathen also before them, and divided them an inheritance by line, and made the tribes of Israel to dwell in their tents.
56. Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies:
57. But turned back, and dealt unfaithfully like their fathers: they were turned aside like a deceitful bow.
58. For they provoked him to anger with their high places, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images.
59. When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:
60. So that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which he placed among men;
61. And delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy's hand.
62. He gave his people over also unto the sword; and was wroth with his inheritance.
63. The fire consumed their young men; and their maidens were not given to marriage.
64. Their priests fell by the sword; and their widows made no lamentation.
65. Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine.
66. And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts: he put them to a perpetual reproach.
67. Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim:
68. But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.
69. And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.
70. He chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds:
71. From following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance.
72. So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands.

What an interesting parable (verse 2). I wonder when and what this is speaking of.

Review: Weaving the Visions

2006-09-03T21:35:00.000-07:00

Recently I've been studying on Women and religious Spirituality. Particularly, why don't we as Mormons know our Mother in Heaven? I checked out 'Weaving the Visions: New Patterns in Feminist Spirituality' from my local library, and it's a great book. It's a collection of essays about Feminist spirituality. Since it is a bunch of essays, if I don't like one of them, or am just not interested in the topic, I can skip it.

There aren't any essays by Mormon women included (so far at least, I'm only halfway through), but that doesn't mean the experiences of others isn't applicable. One of the Editors, Judith Plaskow, is Jewish, so that ensures a certain amount of Monotheism (Judaism is a lot closer to Mormonism than some would think) that other compilations concentrating on Goddess worship ignore (ie, "God" is also a Male figure, not just a Female one).

Essay topics include: Native American Traditions, Adapting Jewish customs and historical spirit to include women, Lesbian Nuns, Greek Goddesses, Ritual, Jungian Archetypes and so on. There are thirty three different essays, plus seven overviews / introduction / preface / etc.

Even though I don't agree with everything, or even a majority of what's in this book, I find most of it well written and thought provoking. If you have any interest in this subject, I heartily recommend it.

And, as a side note, I also checked out 'Restoring the Goddess: Equal Rites for Modern Women' and it was truly awful. I actually had to write a comment in the margin (shh, don't tell the librarian) to counter some of the things it was saying. (like stating that the bible commands child sacrifices)

Freedom

2006-09-01T22:09:00.000-07:00

I read this over at a Masonic Blog, and found it inspiring:

"Freedom dies under dogma. In a free society, no person or group or policy can be permitted to exist beyond scrutiny, criticism, even ridicule. When dogma gains enough power to punish those who oppose it, it becomes fanaticism. When dogma is invested with enough power to suppress opposition, it becomes tyranny. And when men are afraid to say what they think — however cockeyed or unpopular it may be – freedom has been violated, for it has been corrupted by fear."

I am proud to be a Mormon because our doctrine has such strong foundational principles relating to Freedom, especially Free Agency and religious freedom. For a religion to have support for religious freedom present at its core is very refreshing and makes a beautiful statement about its own security and self-confidence. I just hope we don't continue to lose sight of it!

Jewish Burial Shrouds

2006-08-30T22:45:00.000-07:00

I just put together a Google Notebook on Jewish Burial Shrouds. They are more than just a big sheet! Interesting to compare it to the Mormon burial customs.

Who gets worshipped by name of Jesus?

2006-08-28T10:09:00.000-07:00

I've been wondering this for some time, but no where is it made clearer to me than Moses chapter 1 and Moses chapter 4: Who gets worshipped by name of Jesus?

Moses 1-4 makes it abundantly clear that there is one God only whom we are to Worship (at least if we follow the example of Moses). It also sets forth Satan's plan and Jesus's plan in a very clear way. Satan goes by the names the Only Begotten, the redeemer, in other words, the Savior, Jesus Christ. It is his goal to have people worship him instead of the True God. Jesus Christ has a different goal. He wants people to worship and glorify the Father, the same as Moses insisted on doing.

When someone "Worships" "Jesus" it seems that they are demeaning the character of Jesus Christ by trying to "tempt" him to deviate from his Father's plan. Since he is not going to sin by accepting such worship, it leaves two possibilities: 1 - Satan presumes the role and gladly serves as an object of worship. 2 - Out of mercy of someone's ignorance of this, Jesus redirects the misguided Worship to God the Father.

The endowment, and Joseph Smith's first vision, among other accounts, teach us that at least in some cases, the first person ready to answer a prayer is Satan. Discernment is necessary to pass by Satan and arrive at God.

The Book of Moses, (The Joseph Smith Translation version of Genesis) is one of the first works Joseph Smith produced after the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. It must have had a large influence on early LDS theology. In making this inspired translation, Joseph was restoring many plain and precious things that had been lost from the Bible, and in comparing Moses with Genesis, one finds that the main thing removed was this information about the Council in Heaven, Satan's plan, Satan's attempt to undermine Moses's pattern of worship, etc. The theological statements here are amazing, and they constitute what was "plain and precious" in this case, because the remainder of the material (except for the information about multiple planets and possibly aliens) is largely the same as otherwise found in the Bible.

Worship God.

Mormon Gnostics Podcast

2006-08-24T04:46:00.000-07:00

I've just started a Mormon Gnostics Podcast to go along with this blog, and the first episode is 001 - Theology, Moses 1:1-23. Enjoy!

Mormon History

2006-08-24T00:36:00.000-07:00

Here is a snipped down version of the "historical" sequences from the "All About Mormons" episode of Southpark.

What errors exist in this "telling" of the story? I know of one offhand: Joseph's seer stones are pictured on the screen but they are referred to verbally as the Urim and Thummim. Joseph's stones were actually separate and independent of the Urim and Thummim.

Did Kenneth Copeland steal Brigham's fire?

2006-08-23T17:39:00.000-07:00

In 1989, Kenneth Copeland, televangelist and Pentecostal preacher, made some statements that seem to have stolen some of the fire from Brigham Young. Especially since they are statements that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today is hesitant to own up to.

Hear his statement in an MP3

Here is the first part of the quote:

"God's reason for creating Adam was his desire to reproduce himself. I mean a reproduction of himself, and in the garden of Eden he did that. He was not a little like God, he was not almost like God, he was not subordinate to God even."

Another interesting quote from Copeland, cited from his Wikipedia article:

"This is all a copy, it's a copy of home. It's a copy of the mother planet, where God lives he made a little one just like his and put us on it. And Adam is as much like God as you could get, just the same as Jesus when he came into the earth he said that if you have seen me you have seen the Father. He wasn't a lot like God, he is God manifested in the flesh. And I want you to know something, Adam was God manifested in the flesh, he was God's very image, very likeness everything he did, everything he said, every move he made was the very image of allmighty God"

Well, hmm... I guess one man's trash is another man's treasure.

God wants us to eat MEAT!

2006-08-14T23:16:00.000-07:00

1 Timothy 4:1-5

1. ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

God wants us to eat meat. People teaching to abstain from meat is here listed as kin to the doctrines of the devils. I have sometimes joked that the system I see ordained by God was the esablishing of a giant communal barbecue grill (in the Tabernacle of Moses), but maybe there's something to this, after all. The objection was raised to me that "meat" in Biblical language can refer to any type of food, but it is made clear in verse 4 that it is creatures that are referred to here. How does this sit with our own Latter-day Saint D&C 89...

D&C 89:12-13

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

This gives a bit of a mixed message. How could they be ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving, and yet it be pleasing unto God (or Jesus, or Joseph? Verse 5 refers to the Father third person) that they should not be used only (meaning, except) in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. Notice those are all ors. In winter and cold times we are to use meats. So we are actually given instruction here on WHEN to eat meat.

I'm interested in finding Seventh-day Adventist points of view on this, because of their own interesting dietary code, so I'll be looking that up later.

Pete Ashdown for United States Senate

2006-08-13T23:40:00.000-07:00

Pete Ashdown for United States Senate

For those who live in Utah... Read what this guy has to say! He has a blog also, just click "Blog" at the top of his site. He is brilliant. If I lived in Utah, I'd give him my vote.

Jim Harmston

2006-08-11T22:44:00.000-07:00

The "TLC Manti" fundamentalist sect has always intrigued me. Perhaps because I run across its material often in my own web searches because of a cross-section of interests. Their leader, Jim Harmston, seems to be a very unique individual. I want here to express a simple theory regarding his current position.

For those who are't familiar (and why would you be? I only learned this a couple days ago...) Jim claims to be the very embodiment of a reincarnated Joseph Smith, Junior. Yes, TLC's version of the MMP doctrine includes Multiple Probations, apparently quite rapidly, on the same earth. (My own view of MMP involves previous and future earths.)

I think I understand why Jim thinks he was Joseph Smith in a past life. It is a very natural outgrowth from the information he would have had to work with, from the beginning. The problem is that Jim has taken a few feelings, recollections, his sense, or gut instinct, which by itself was correct, and he has misattributed it. He perhaps at one time was blessed with a heavenly vision, but he has taken what was opened to his vision and developed a fiction surrounding it. While his particular fiction includes the substance of the vision, it is not the only scenario that would do so.

I may follow up more on this later. Pondering.

"The truth is not uplifting; it destroys."

2006-08-10T09:34:00.000-07:00

Michael Quinn has written about his experience with Boyd K. Packer:

Whether by design or as one of life's little jokes, Apostle Boyd K. Packer was the General Authority who interviewed me .... He lectured me for forty-five minutes, the highlights of which were these statements: "I have a hard time with historians ... because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."

I spoke of balance, perspective, context. He just shook his head and said, "You'll learn."

I did. And, as the saying goes, "The rest is history."

I am having a difficult time with the words that Elder Packer has allegedly spoken: "The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." The restriction on Historians is ridiculous, if applied. That is the type of nutty idea that makes Mel Gibson's father not believe the Holocaust ever happened. The first part is perhaps true, but I would say it differently: "The truth is not entirely uplifting; it also destroys." Destroying, or disorganizing is also an attribute of God, in addition to creating or organizing. Destroying is, in fact, an important process.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Hebrews 4:12

Remembering the September Six

2006-08-09T13:03:00.000-07:00

September Six - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Next month marks the 13th year since the "September Six" excommunications. I haven't read the works of all of these individuals, but I do recommend reading theh works of D. Michael Quinn and Avraham Gileadi. Gileadi was afterward rebaptized into the church. Quinn has not been, but remains a believing Latter-day Saint. (He possibly has not come back in because of his coming out about being gay, although I am not sure if that is the only reason.)

In celebration of their faith and scholarship, why not grab one of their books on a topic of interest to you at your local library or bookstore and give it a read?

Edit:

I found an interesting site and effort, Support Mike Quinn .net - check it out.

Fundamentalist Expose

2006-08-08T14:24:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while we hear about a "fundamentalist" group making some bold moves. FLDS has a Temple in Eldorado Texas, for example. And Jim Harmston's TLC group in Manti had a lawsuit a while back with some wives seeking repayment of their tithes and conesecrated expenses.

I noticed a lack of information about these groups on the web, so...

I'm calling upon EX-fundamentalists from TLC, the Cutlerites, or FLDS, to individually write an exposé. In doing so, I am not encouraging anyone to expose anything that would violate any solemn obligation that you have taken, but I think it would be interesting and important for the practices of these groups to be documented before they may be stamped out entirely for legal issues, and this important cultural phenomenon be lost forever.

The most information I have managed to obtain, is that the TLC group uses a White Apron, with the All Seeing Eye on it, for their "Church of the Firstborn", in contrast to the green apron used by the LDS Church. I am interested in as much detail as possible, and I would like to hear it first hand, and if emailed to me, your contact information and identity will be kept confidential unless you specifically tell me that I may share it.

My interest in this is threefold: 1) I am interesting in simply preserving information about these movements for historical purposes. 2) I am particularly interested in earlier sects and their differences in ritual practice from more recent sects, and current LDS practice. 3) To understand the motivations and mindset of people who would implement such a rite, and compare and contrast with early Mormon thought as well as modern Mormonism.

So, to reiterate: I want a separate Cutlerite Temple Expose, a True and Living Church Manti Expose, and a Fundamentalist LDS (Warren Jeffs) expose at the very least, from whoever can provide them. OFFICIAL information from those groups would actually be preferrable to information from their dissenters - of course, I doubt they will offer it.

Information may be submitted to me at my email address in my blog profile, or as comments to this blog post.

The Temple Garment

2006-08-07T02:43:00.000-07:00

Nicholas's previous post gave me an interesting challenge: To write something on the subject of the Temple Garment. I present here, an old drawing of a Masonic apron. I am currently trying to find the history behind this picture, however, I want to point out a few things: The apron is replete with some "working tools", the Square, Compasses, and Level. Compared to the modern Fellow Craft who is taught that his working tools are the Square, Level, and Plumb. The Fellow Craft in some jurisdictions is taught that his Apron is made into a Pocket in which to hold his working tools, although I have never before seen this visualized. The garment and the apron indeed seem to have been synonymous at some point, perhaps having become that way as part of a gradual process. If the "flap" at the top of this apron were to be folded down, it appears you would be looking at the following:

This would be the only time I have seen the symbols in a Masonic source oriented in the "L _ V" pattern. Fascinating. It is particularly intriguing that the locations of these working tools are over the correct side of the body, in comparison to the Temple Garment. However, the L is backwards of its ordinary position, giving some more credence to the antiquity of the layout used on the Allred gravestone. (see my earlier post on this reversal) This also gives a possible answer for the two decorative tassle's often seen hanging down in older Aprons. Perhaps they are symbolizing Jachin and Boaz the two brazen pillars set up at the entrance of King Solomon's Temple? (Look up Antique Masonic Apron on eBay or somewhere to see photographs of these tassles, they were once quite prevalent especially in Grand Masters aprons, etc., during a not too distant past.)

Well, maybe this answers something. But, now, returning to the Temple Garment... I have heard stories of the discovery of bodies buried by ancient tribes who have worn garments with markings or symbols on them. I have heard Hugh Nibley quoted as the source. I think I have even read it myself. I haven't seen any good photos, however, and so I wonder what types of markings these are. Certainly they are not too close to the current Temple Garment or else a bigger fuss would have been made over it. Nibley would have shown it, if the evidence was really so compelling. Instead, he merely referenced it as a similar curiosity.

We do get the following early Christian picture:

Hmmm, all squares, but no compasses or levels.

I don't know.

We have here, a drawing of the original garment, reported in 1882. I admit, it is probably not from the most reliable source. However, you will notice that the navel mark at this point was a round hole rather than another level/bar like that found on the knee. I have heard that the navel mark was traditionally either a round hole or an X, and that as it eventually become a sewn shut button hole, it took on the characteristic hyphen shape we have it in today.

This is shown to demonstrate that the markings on the Garments of the Holy Priesthood can and do change, even over a short amount of time. I am interested to know what other permutations of symbolic garments have existed in Christian history, and in other traditions around the world. I would like to see some pictures or illustrations, if any exist.

And now for some scripture to show how this relates to the Old Testament Tabernacle of Moses:

Exodus 28:42-43
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

And,

Leviticus 16:4
He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

Hmm... So, the Linen Breeches seem to be the closest thing in the Tabernacle practices to the modern Garment.

I have also heard stories about Adam's original garment, which was passed down through the generations of mankind. A legend or idea, which, along with some other Adamic hierlooms, is almost as amazing as the quest for the Holy Grail. Perhaps someone can fill in some details on this?

Prayer Circle History

2006-08-03T15:20:00.000-07:00

Prayer circle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Ritual prayer in a circle around an altar is not unique to Mormonism or even Christianity. Ritual ceremonies around an altar are common in paganism, and ritual prayer dances around an altar were practiced by early Christians, especially Gnostics, before the practice was condemned as a heresy by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D."

They mentioned Gnostics! :-)

Evolution of the Temple Apron

2006-08-03T01:29:00.000-07:00

WARNING - There are photos of LDS Temple Aprons further down in this post (not being worn) for historic and educational purposes, so if you are offended by that sort of thing (which you shouldn't be, because they are frequently displayed in the open to non-members during funeral services), please skip this post:

For Context, a Masonic Apron (Officer's Apron) from around 1800, and...

An Apron from around 1840. Joseph most likely would have been familiar with this style of Masonic Officer's Apron. Brethren are issued a plain Lambskin apron during their initiation, however, they are harder to find and date because they are often buried with the Mason, or destroyed after his death.

Here is a modern Masonic Lambskin Apron from 2003:

The size of the Masonic Aprons have been kept relatively uniform since early on, as the United Grand Lodge of England set a measurement standard for them.

Here is a vintage LDS Temple Apron from around 1930, placed over the top of the Masonic Apron in order to compare the size:

As you can see, the width has remained nearly identical. The height of the Temple Apron is slightly longer, most probably to accomodate a complete set of leaves. One will instantly notice that the color of this Apron is very different from that used presently in the Temple, but I assure you, the fabric is not faded (I checked under the wrinkled hems). It was indeed olive-green, almost gray, colored fabric, with green thread. Perhaps our American culture could not accept this olive color, and the thirst for greenery closer to our own heart caused us to ultimately select more beautiful (to us) fabric. The two colors compared side by side:

The 1930's apron compared to a modern LDS fig-leaf apron. I should note here that there are currently two styles, one with the leaf-edges cut, the other with the apron perfectly squared. However, the cut version is now different than the older pattern (the bottom corners are more "curved" rather than sticking down) The new Apron has deviated from the standard width, and is about an inch or more wider than the older variety. This particular straight-edge apron is also flawed as the fig-leaf pattern is not centered on the fabric, but off at least a half inch to one side:

The tie-strings have also been replaced with an elastic band and a hook, a change that has also occured in parallel in the development of modern Masonic officer's aprons.

The Apron, has several Biblical precedents:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
-Genesis 3:7

Also:

¶ And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work.
-Exodus 28:6

One understanding of the Ephod is that it was similar to a "cobbler's apron," and it was worn as part of the ceremonial clothing of the High Priest as he worked in Moses' Tabernacle.

Acknowledging the Biblical similarities in our modern Temple ceremony can help us realize the thread of truth that has existed throughout all history. Think twice when you ever hear anyone suggest that the LDS Temple has nothing to do with the Old Testament Temple, because that idea is wrong: It has everything to do with it. Look forward to more posts to help build testimonies through the customs of the Temple, instead of in spite of it.

Kashrut Status

2006-08-01T20:47:00.000-07:00

In Jewish Kosher law, the Kashrut status is basically the "type" of food or utensil. For example, if I cut a steak with a knife, that knife becomes a "Meat" item. If I slice cheese with a different knife, it becomes "Dairy." If an item is neither meat nor dairy, it is considered "Pareve."

The Jews, especially women, have a special ceremonial bathing that is done to become "clean" after menstruation as well as a special preparation before certain life events. The water they bathe in must be a natural body of water, however, they abide by the law by taking a certain amount of rain water and combining it with tap water. The tap water, therefore, picks up the symbolic status of rain water.

If a man comes into contact with a dead body, he also picks up the status of unclean, the status of the dead body, and must be cleansed before he may go about his regular business.

Interesting... I notice items picking up properties from the things they come into contact with. A useful idea. What I also notice, that I find humorous, is that both good and bad traits can be picked up. Rain water (good), mixed with tap water (bad) turns the tap water Good, not the other way around, while a dead body (bad), coming into contact with a live body (good) turns the live body bad. I just muse over this observation, how curious it seems.

Evangelical Pastor on Politics

2006-07-31T09:58:00.000-07:00

Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock - New York Times

I recently read this article which was heralded by Carla Golden on her blog and I felt impressed to share it with everyone who reads my blog.

Perhaps a Kindred Soul?

2006-07-27T22:32:00.000-07:00

I ran into a fellow named Ryan Mercer over at the Mousewax comic forum the other day. He says he's a Mormon Pagan. Turns out he's a Freemason, too. Although I consider myself more of a Gnostic, I share many ideals with some Pagans I know, so I figured his sites may be of interest to you, my beloved readers.

Ryan's Blog

Ryan's Site

Enjoy!

The Emerald Temple - Part I

2006-07-27T13:57:00.000-07:00

Note: This article is written from both the Mormon and Freemason perspective simultaneously, some parts may be applicable to one group of readers, and other parts to the other, while much of it will apply to both.

The Lion, The Tiger, The Bear. O My!

In looking at the Wizard of Oz, we will here examine both the book and the movie versions. If the symbolism contained within it is indeed a product of the collective unconscious, then we should consider it possible for the creators of the movie to have tapped into this same source to also create valid symbolism. We will, however, attempt to note the differences that exist between the two versions as they are presented here. This article will attempt to demonstrate significant parallels between this story and the LDS Temple Endowment, the symbolism of Freemasonry, and to the Ancient Israelite Tabernacle and Temple. I would welcome further comparisons to be introduced here, as there are probably numerous other tales and traditions that have been based upon these same archetypes.

The Farm in Kansas - Our First Estate - Condition of Darkness

In the book a storm was coming from the North and another from the South to form a Cyclone. Aunt Em went into the storm cellar. Dorothy was going to follow, but Toto ran and hid under the bed, so she went to get him. Halfway across the room, the house shook, "she lost her footing and sat down suddenly upon the floor." After this, the house rises into the air.

In the movie, Dorothy is returning home with Toto. She arrives and attempts to tell her Aunt and Uncle, and the farm hands, that Miss Gulch had whacked Toto with a rake. No one seems to be paying too much attention to her, and eventually Miss Gulch arrives to make complaint to the Gale family about the dog's misbehavior, and produces an order from the Sheriff to take Toto away and have him destroyed. Miss Gulch puts him in a basket and rides off on her bicycle, but Toto escapes, and returns to Dorothy's room through the window. Dorothy decides that she must run away before they come back to take him away from her. They go down a road, across a bridge, and come across Professor Marvel's wagon, proclaiming "Let him read your PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE in his Crystal," (also Juggling and Sleight of Hand). He has her close her eyes, as he takes a peek at the contents of her basket, and finds a picture of Aunt Em and the farm, and he proceeds to tell her what he 'sees in his Crystal' (the same genuine, magic, authentic crystal used by the Priests of Isis and Osiris in the days of the Pharaohs of Egypt), that Aunt Em is crying, and going to her room, dropping onto the bed with her hand on her heart. Dorothy decides she must go home right away, to which Marvel responds "I thought you were going along with me", and Dorothy and Toto depart. Back at the farm, we see the storm beginning to take its toll on the farm, as everyone hurries into the cellar. Aunt Em is calling for Dorothy, but Uncle Henry ushers her firmly into the cellar. Dorothy makes it into the house, the window of her room blows loose, hits her head, and she falls on the bed. After this, the house spins and rises into the air.

The Land of Oz

The Land of Oz is divided into four quarters, surrounded by a great desert, with the Emerald City at the center point. To the east is Munchkin Country, to the South is the Quadling Country, to the west is Winkie Country, and the North is the home of the Good Witch, details of this land are not specifically mentioned in the book, however we learn from later sources in the Oz series that it is Gillikin country.

Freemasons will be well acquainted with giving special significance to the South, West, and East, as well as a general silence given concerning the North, known as a "place of darkness" because in the Temple of Solomon, the Sun, being at the South at noonday, would not reach its rays into the Northern parts of the Temple. Masons may also note that the land of Dorothy's initiatory journey is Blue, as likewise the Three Degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry are sometimes referred to as "The Blue Lodge"

The color of Quadling Country to the South is Red, and it is home to the Palace of Glinda the Good. From other Oz material, we learn that the color of Winkie Country in the East is Yellow, and Gillikin country to the North is Purple.

And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen.

Exodus 28:8

Colors of the Clothing of the Priesthood

The four colors of the lands are the same as those worn on the sash of the High Priest in the Tabernacle of Moses: Scarlet, Blue, Purple, and Gold. At the center of which, is a city of Green, which happens to be the only distinctive color represented in the clothing worn by patrons of the Temples of the Latter-day Saints.

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:7

The York Rite of Masonry contains a similar progressive color scheme. The Symbolic "Blue Lodge" or Ancient Craft Masonry is commonly represented by Blue and Gold, The Chapter of Royal Arch Masons is Red, and The Council of Royal and Select Masters is Purple. Although Knights Templar is the usual body progressing beyond these, it is notably different in trappings from the preceeding bodies, and this authors believes it to be a newer innovation. Allied Masonic Degrees is an invitational body preserving additional and historical degrees, and green is its color. This is just one example of how these colors are applied in Freemasonry.

The Masonic lodge is said to have a Mosaic Pavement, emblematic of human life, checkered with good and evil. It is surrounded by a beautiful border called the "Indented Tessel", representing those blessings and comforts which surround us, and which we hope to obtain by a faithful reliance on Divine Providence which is hieroglyphically represented by the Blazing Star in the center. With the Wicked Witches in the East and West, and the Good Witches in the North and South, we have a checkered floor in the Land of Oz. It is surrounded by a great desert, and although it may not be called beautiful, it certainly would serve as a reminder of the blessings and comforts to be had inside the Land of Oz, by a faithful reliance on The Wizard of Oz, represented by the Emerald City in the center.

I would propose that Witches in the Wizard of Oz are representative of the Priesthood. One may note that all of the Witches are women. We will see more gender role reversals later in this study, and consider it at that time. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two priesthoods which can be used for Good: the Aaronic, and the Melchizedek. In the Temple, Satan appears to taunt Adam and Eve, and the patrons, and boasting, he gestures to his apron which he says represents his Power and Priesthoods. Priesthoods? Does this imply that these two priesthoods could be used for Evil, and perhaps already are being used in such a manner? Is this defiance of God's power be related to the unpardonable sin that causes Lucifer and his followers to become sons of perdition? On the other hand, he may be referring to entirely different priesthoods. Either way, a parallel is seen where two, be it Witchcrafts or Priesthoods, are for good, and the other two (or perhaps more, as Lucifer merely uses the plural) are for evil.

This concludes Part I of the Emerald Temple. The next part will be on the symbolic meanings of colors and characters in the Wizard of Oz.

There is no religion higher than truth.

2006-07-26T19:01:00.000-07:00

There is no religion higher than truth.
-Motto of the Theosophical Society

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was a Russian mystic who helped found the Theosophical Society in 1875. It is quite an interesting group, as anyone who has studied it or the works of its adherants can attest. Theosophy literally means "Divine Knowledge" (theos, sophia). The group is characterized by a sort of experiential attitude towards religion, an unwillingness to settle for falsehood, and encouraging 'free and fearless investigation' they are some of the most genuine seekers of personal revelation that I am aware of.

There is certain kinship or high-level compatibility I detect in her message and that of the early Latter-day Saints, and I sort of feel that "There is no religion higher than truth" could also have served very well as a motto for the pioneer Saints.

Is our focus still on personal revelation, seeking and believing truth, and rejecting falsehood, or have we outgrown this agenda? This is as much a personal question, as it is a corporate one.

Are the Latter-day Saints today willing to believe and defend the truth when it becomes known to them, or has our pride and vain glory caused us to swerve from this task?

Animal Sacrifice in Salt Lake Temple

2006-07-26T18:41:00.000-07:00

Although I don't have access to the source, it is alleged that Wilford Woodruff's Journal (1833-1898, December 18, 1857, vol. 5, p. 140.) says:

"Under the pulpit in the west End [of the SLC Temple] will be a place to Offer Sacrafizes. [sp] There will be an Altar prepared for that purposes [sp] so that when any sacrifices are to be offered they should be offered there."

Taking this in connection with Malachi 3:1-4,

¶ Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
2. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

And D&C 13:

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

I ask, has there aleady been animal sacrifice performed in the prepared place in the Salt Lake Temple, or will there be at some future time? What is the meaning of this, or are they even related at all? It certainly seems that animal sacrifice would be in the spirit of "restorationism", as an aid in restoring all things to how they were at first.

Into Nothing

2006-07-26T15:52:00.000-07:00

I recently listened to a friend of a friend speak about the spiritual side of Yoga. He has been working at it for 30 some years, and explained the basic sequence of the practice:

Yama, our attitude toward our environment.
Niyama, our attitude toward our selves.
Asana, body positions (what we usually think of as Yoga).
Pranayama, breathing exercises.
Pratyahara, quieting our mind and body.
Dharana, focusing our mind on a single object or thought.
Dhyana, meditating without being conscious of it, only knowing that you "are".
Samadhi, becoming one with everything or one with the universe.

According to Yoga, Samadhi is perfection - you can't get any better than blissfully being One for eternity. We are all endlessly reincarnated until we let go of our identity at which point ... into Nothing.

I have some problems with this. First, I don't think we were given the ability to be individuals or to think or grow morally strong if we were meant to melt back into the Divine.

I think this going back into the One was originally put forth to counter the idea that eventually this earth will be destroyed, and we as a race will have no lasting impact.

Yoga is certainly not the only religion or spiritual path that sees dissolving into the Universe as the final step to perfection, but is that the true path? Are there other ways to be eternally happy? In the Mormon religion, when we are old gods, with nothing left to do, will we let ourselves dissolve? Is the timeframe the only difference here?

Rape and Abortion - Changing with the Times?

2006-07-24T13:22:00.000-07:00

Spencer W. Kimball said:

"In the case of rape, if a woman becomes pregnant, she MUST NOT have an abortion. If she does she commits a greater sin than the one who raped her" (1975 film, "Very Much Alive").

The 1987 Relief Society Manual said on page 290:

"If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a
field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought
surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it
has come to light."

"... Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. ... he that killeth shall die." (D&C
42:18-19)

"Abortion is not defined as murder"
--1989 General Handbook of Instructions from the First Presidency, pg. 10-3

"a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion"
--General Handbook of Instructions, pg. 11-4

Have we become so anxious to be "politically correct", to love and forgive grave sins in recent times only because they are not perceived by the world population at large as morally wrong? I am surprised by the diverse counsel and mixed messages found on this issue in Church history. I am also shocked to consider that a young woman could commit such a serious sin, and be admitted into full fellowship and engage in Temple activity in such a short period of time (I'm guessing a year or less). Bloodshed was the very thing that disqualified David FOR LIFE from being able to participate in the erection, dedication, or practices of the Temple, and necessitated that his Son, King Solomon, instead be the one to perform this important task.

Please try to keep so-called "feminist" and political banter to a minimum here, I'm interested in primarily a doctrinal and historical discussion on this subject.

"Offerings Up" Signs to God

2006-07-24T13:05:00.000-07:00

Some historical background:

"if we have the garments upon us at all the times we can at any time offer up the signs"
--George A. Smith, Dec 21, 1854, Sunday, Nauvoo Temple, An intimate chronicle, p. 221)

"It is necessary for all who have been through the temple to meet in quorum, in order to become familiar with the signs and tokens, because they are the keys of the Priesthood, in this the seventh dispensation."
--Heber C. Kimball (1846) quoted by Catherine Lewis in her Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons, 1848, p.11

"Saturday Mar 7th, [1846, Nauvoo, Ill]
... at evening for the first time my family met together for prayer according to the Order of God in our priestly garments conversed together partook of the sacrament, offered up the signs and prayed and dedicated the upper room of my house for the purpose of worshiping our Heavenly Father. The good spirit of our God was with us and we felt blessed. There were 8 of us myself, Br. Horace Fish and Philo T. Farnsworth, Br. Fish's wife and daughter, Julia and Jane, Elizabeth and Mother Pulsipher making 8 in number ... In this company I saw by faith the beginning of a great and mighty kingdom when we should enjoy all the blessings of this life, riches, music, wisdom and the full manifestations of the holy priesthood unto the salvation of ourselves and all that pertain unto each of us ... This evening Philo declared his intention to be adopted to me and wished me to consider him my son."
--Franklin D. Richards, Diary

I find it interesting that they use the words "offer up" in relation to the signs. It is as though the signs are a gift given to Heavenly Father, and brings to mind images of him accepting them as tokens of our love and obedience. My question: What can we offer up to Father today to engage in such holy Worship, as our ability to offer up the signs as families and quorums seems to be quite stifled, presently? How can we engage in genuine worship as quorums?

Church seems to be so much about temporal needs and actual Worship of God is a subject many I think would find awkward or confusing. People may point to singing hymns or listening to talks as Worship, but I believe there is more to it than that. Also, worship should probably be focused, and I believe at best we currently seem to achieve diffused worship in Church (if at all), diffused in both purpose and direction.

At least a few other Churches seem to be a few steps ahead of us in root level spirituality, even if they may be lacking in doctrinal areas. So: What do you offer up in simple worship to God, as a family or a quorum?

Pre-Biblical History

2006-07-23T23:33:00.000-07:00

There seems to be some evidence mounting up for Pre-Biblical history that needs to be taken into account by Christianity and Mormonism. Our fellow blogger here at Mormon Gnostics, Nicholas, may post sometime in the future with a detailed account of his thoughts (hint, nudge), but I wanted to gather general opinion from anyone who wants to comment.

The Babylonian Epic of Galgamesh is one example of a story that either predates the Noah account, or shares a common source from it.

On a related thread, although Latter-day Saints believe the original Garden of Eden was in the present-day United States, the rest of Christianity believes it was somewhere in the middle-east, or possibly africa depending on who you ask. They are hard at work trying to find evidence. What happens if they DO find compelling enough evidence of human civilization in that locale at such a time period to make it the commonly accepted belief? Or, have they already?

As Latter-day Saints, how do we deal with this, or any other historical or archeological research that streches beyond what the Bible or Brother Joseph's own revelations would indicate is possible?

New Comments Feed

2006-07-23T14:21:00.000-07:00

I've hacked together a new comments feed mainly so that I can put a real "recent comments" in the sidebar. Blogger doesn't natively support this feature, so if anyone is interested in how I did it, please ask.

Will the real Savior please step forward?

2006-07-22T03:10:00.000-07:00

What thoughts or questions does this design bring to mind?

If you want this on a T-Shirt, we have made it available.

Sad Story - Leaving an Impact

2006-07-20T16:22:00.000-07:00

I have recently become aware that a few, if not many elderly people are deciding that they would like to be cremated, and have their ashes scattered for a reason that is utterly vile, in my opinion: They do not want any memorial to them so that their family or friends don't have to remember them, worry about them, or ever think about them again. They want to quietly disappear. To me, this feels worse than suicide. This seems like the desire to make zero impact on the world.

I can see positive thinking reasons why someone might choose cremation: To avoid unnecessary financial burden on the family. To avoid their grave being idolized for their accomplishments.

But if someone wants to be forgotten, that marks more than just their means of burial or disposal, it says something to me about their life itself. It seems to fly in the face of things like "When ye are in the service of your fellow men ye are only in the service of your God." If there is one type of Immortality we can count on, it is the immortality of the influence and effects we have on other human beings, especially our descendants. This is a positive and wonderful thing. We should try to maximize that, and by doing so, become obedient to the commandments, and glorify God. It seems selfish and greed to the extreme to not want to give to your fellow man, and to pass on leaving no place for your family to come for solace and closure.

I hope some people, even if they are young, will give their last wishes some serious thought in a selfless, not a selfish way.

If, or when I die, I desire to receive a Masonic funeral administered by my Lodge. I want my body to be prepared in proper and full Temple clothing by or overseen by a member of the Church, I will probably have a few particular coins to be placed under my tongue (just in case), and I require that my Masonic Apron be deposited upon the coffin according to the standard custom of my fraternity.

I want to be remembered by my descendants, and my friends. I want to make a difference in people's lives today, so that much of the future may be benefited in some small but exponential way by what I have or will accomplish.

Old people: Get it figured out, please. I can't chew out the people I know who convey these notions to me, but I can chew you out as strangers. Get it right, for your family and friends. The funeral is not FOR you. Its about you, but for everyone else. Don't steal that from them.

** EDIT: I forgot to mention, I want to be wearing black slacks and a black suit jacket with my Temple clothing, not the silly white ones they have taken up using in the Temple.

Godly Discrimination

2006-07-20T09:10:00.000-07:00

I recently read a sentiment over at By Common Consent where someone questioned the use of esoteric knowledge to achieve more effective Prayer, or to be higher on God's pecking order, I quote:

"While this may be the bargain one agrees to or accepts vis-a-vis the temple, it seems to cheapen the efficacy of prayer by the non-learned or non-endowed, or frankly non-member. In effect, prayer isn’t as powerful as it is marketed, but only for those who know the true manner and mode as revealed by esoteric sources. Here we see God layering one more level of discrimination between the “saved” and the infidel."
- Razorfish

Yes, in general, God does discriminate. Why wouldn't he? His discrimination is based on how obedient people are to His commandments and his laws. The people who do what the Holy Ghost prompts them to are more likely to receive future communications from the Holy Ghost. Non-Endowed? It is a gift available to ALL who will submit and become worthy for it. Non-Member? Baptism is a gift available to all!

This discrimination is not a prejudice based on who you are, where you were born, how much money you have, or anything of that manner. It is a holy discrimination based on how faithful and obedient you have been to Father's counsel. To think that God listens to and considers all prayers equally, even the prayers of someone deep in "sin", openly defying his law, and knowing it, would seem absurd to anyone: especially since the types of prayers this type of person may utter are more likely to be asking for things which are against the Will of God. If someone is a relatively "good" person, but are still not faithful in all things, it would only stand to reason that their prayers would match with God's will only so far, and that a person who is true and faithful in all things will pray for those things that God will regularly answer, either because they are His will, or as a blessing for your obedience.

So? If you want effective prayer: Be obedient to God. Listen to God. Ask God in a manner you know he approves of (For example: In the name of Jesus Christ.)

Family Altar Followup

2006-07-20T01:19:00.000-07:00

I am sorry that I disagree strongly with mullingandmusing #61, but my beliefs indicate that the Prophets and Apostles place us upon the track, and initiate us into our journey, but it is ultimately a road we must travel by our own initiative.

I strongly caution people against that type of blind faith which would lead one to take for face value current prophetic statements and forsake those long held (or short held) sacred ideas of generations past.

The best I can tell it: My religion is boundless. Limitless. There is no end to the knowledge I seek, and the more I acquire the thirstier I become for it. I choose not to stop at the face value of things, where most people do stop at face value. They have their way, and I don't blame them for it. If that is what they want, I respect that in them, and I think they are still fully capable of being worthy and good members of the Church, of attaining all the blessings of the Gospel. But for those of us who choose the other path, to explore deeper, and to try to live according to all the truth we can acquire, for those of us who feel our own salvation may even depend on such things, I will always feel a need to defend our position, because it is often threatened by the majority who choose not to partake. As for me, I am motivated to proceed down the strait and narrow path. Because I have this motivation, if I stop the search, I have denied the Holy Ghost and my faith becomes dead: That type of religion is dead to me.