Memorial Day

Memorial Day was established to show respect to our war dead; those who died to protect the freedoms and lives of others.  Now it has become a "Hallmark" (as in the card company) day for florists and balloon shops to sell junk to decorate the graves of anyone and everyone.  It is now only a national day to remember deceased grandmothers and grandfathers.

 

Adding to the event does not make it better.  Instead, it changes the focus from those whose self-sacrifice and devotion to others is remembered, into a general day for the dead.  That's too bad.  I wish the focus remained narrow.  Those whose lives are currently in jeopardy should know that should they pay the ultimate sacrifice of their lives the nation will honor them.

 

I lost ancestors who fought in the American Revolutionary War.  Two great-great uncles (Owen and Paul) died during the first weeks of the Civil War in Northern Virginia.  My father fought and survived D-Day, and served during the Korean War as well.  He died in the 1990's, but is a veteran of combat and was honored at his burial by an honor guard and a flag-draped coffin.  I still have the folded flag presented by the honor guard to my mother.

 

There is someone in my home town who goes to my father's grave and puts an American flag on it every Memorial Day.  I do not know who it is and have never been there during Memorial Day.  However, I know it happens and I appreciate that someone knows he served his country while under German fire.

 

There is a family tradition that one of my ancestors was in Valley Forge.  I have not been able to confirm that.  They didn't keep good records, but after the nation was established it was possible for veterans to apply for land grants to honor their service.  Those who applied for land grants were better documented.  Still, I haven't been able to confirm the tradition.

All in all we owe a debt to those who have given us freedom that we cannot repay to them.  Sometimes when I contrast the devotion of those who sacrificed, to the profligate use of the freedom we have inherited, it worries me that we are squandering what took so great a price to confer.  We owe more to those who died to give us freedom.  We have an obligation to preserve it and hand it down to others as payment to those who sacrificed their lives.  Instead we are more interested in government becoming a tool to create financial benefits.  Freedom is being purchased away from us using both taxes and debt.  When it is gone, you have neither the freedom sold nor financial benefits promised in the sale; as the recently failed Soviet Block has proven for all history.

Constitutional Forum

At the invitation of the American Heritage School, I am going to participate in a forum this coming Thursday.  The school is located across the street from the Timpanogos Temple.  The announcement reads as follows:

Understanding Our Times Constitution Education Series

Community Forum, Thursday, June 3, 2010, 7:00 p.m.

American Heritage School, North Auditorium

736 North 1100 East, American Fork, Utah

Join us for our inaugural Community Forum, to be held this coming Thursday, June 3, at 7:00 p.m., free and open to the public. We have confirmed four very special guest panelists, including attorney and author Denver Snuffer, Marriage Law Foundation Director Bill Duncan, Professor David Moore of BYU Law School, and AHS Family Education Center Committee Member Larry Hilton. Come listen and ask questions on critical constitutional topics that are impacting our homes, communities, and nation. To have even one of these individuals for an event like this would be worthy of an entire evening. To have all four of them on a single panel is extraordinary and has the making of truly thought-provoking and life-changing experience. For more information on our panelists, please see below. The format for the evening includes brief opening statements by each panelist member, followed by open Q&A from audience members, on the three topics of “Sovereignty”, “Freedom of Conscience” and John Adam's statement that the Constitution was intended only for a “moral and religious people.” 

 If any of you are interested in this subject matter, the forum is free to the public.

(I'll be the one who hasn't shaved recently.)

Developing Your Faith

I've been thinking on the different kinds of questions I get, and what those questions reflect about the one asking. There are two conditions that cannot be overcome by me or any other person by answering your question.  The first one is your insecurities. The other is your curiosity. Your insecurities about whatever is going on in your life will not go away because you received an answer to a question.  Your curiosity will not be satisfied by hearing a spiritual experience recounted by another person.

Insecurities are a result of a lack of faith. You deserve them. You have not acquired knowledge yet. You have them as a gift, as a warning that you have not yet received what you need. Nor have you developed faith yet.  I've given you a post that repeats very important and true doctrine from the Lectures on Faith.  It is a blueprint for how you develop faith.  I cannot do it for you.  Neither can Joseph or Jesus Christ. Faith comes from within you, developed by the same process through which every man who has ever had faith developed it. There are no shortcuts, no independent conferral by sprinkling something on you, and no method different than what has always been required. To the extent I am able to explain the process, I have done so in The Second Comforter.  If you are still insecure, then you have not done what that book teaches you to do.  Getting an answer from me, or from any other man, will not replace the hollow feeling inside you springing from the absence of saving faith.

The scriptures are filled with spiritual experiences and doctrine. Adding another account to those already there will not benefit you nor bring you closer to developing faith.  It will not fill you. That is why my experiences have never been told. (Only in my testimony of the truthfulness of what I teach have I touched briefly upon my experiences.) The focus of all I have done is doctrine. Teaching correct principles will allow you to both govern and develop yourself.

Asking for details from my experiences will add absolutely nothing to you.  Those experiences will only weaken you.  It will also weaken me.  It will make me seem more than I am. It will cause you to surrender to another the responsibility devolving upon yourself.  You will only err in thinking that having another "spiritual story" to retell has made you closer to the Lord.  It doesn't happen that way.  Get your own spiritual experiences. Then, if you want more, keep them sacred. That is what I do. I teach principles. I do not reveal experiences.

I read many years ago about Abraham being the "friend of God."  I read also in the D&C about the Lord calling some early Saints His "friends."  As I reflected upon that word ("friend") I thought about what it meant ("friendship").  After pondering the word for many days, and observing the people around me, thinking about what I saw in society, and considered the sermons I heard in church, I reached the conclusion that there wasn't a "friend" of God upon the earth any longer.

As I considered the conclusion, I thought about it from God's perspective. What must it mean to a Heavenly Father who has no friend upon the earth. How must He sorrow over His children who have departed from friendship. The thought grew in me until I determined I would become the "friend" of God; not for my sake, nor for any benefit which may come to me because of it.  I thought of it only as a way to honor Him; to show Him that despite earth and hell there would yet be another "friend" of His upon the earth.

I have remained true to that determination from that time till now. It defines the choices I have made, the opportunities I have forfeited, the places I have been, and the doors which have opened.  I may not be much of anything in this world, but I do have a Friend whose love I value and whose companionship I cherish.  If I were to tell you all the details of that it would do you no good and would betray trust.

Asking about it is the clearest indication that you have misunderstood both the process and what I am trying to do to help others.

Answers to prayers

I was asked why it seems there are seasons when a person can't get an answer from God. Even when they have previously had wonderful contact, revelation, insights and blessings, there are times when nothing is coming from God. It appears to be unrelated to faithfulness or activity. Why, then, does God remain silent from time to time?

 

There are multiple reasons why this happens. It IS unrelated to God's love for the person.

The first and most common reason I have discovered is that you are already in possession of the answer. It was given to you by God and you have it, but you don't recognize it. It would be better to stop asking for an answer and instead ask to be able to see what you have already been given.

The second reason is that you need to struggle and make your own decision first, then to petition to know if the decision is right.  It is not always appropriate to defer all decisions to the Lord. You must develop the capacity to make sound decisions on your own.  The Lord will, of course, ratify the correct decision and warn you about the wrong one.  But you need to develop the ability to decide first.  (D&C 9: 7-9.)

 

Another reason, and perhaps the least common, is that the Lord knows that in your struggle you will eventually reach the correct decision. He must let you proceed on your own because the process of important.  Even Abraham endured this process.  (Abr. 2: 21.)  After he made the decision and traveled to the border, just prior to his entry into Egypt the Lord returned to him and prepared him for what he would encounter there.

 

There are also occasions wherein the Lord has determined to give you the answer, but you are not prepared for what is coming.  Therefore, you are put through experience to develop. During this time, you are moving toward the answer that you are being prepared to receive. Once the preparation is over, the answer follows.  It is possible that so much transpires between the request and the answer that you forget it was your petition to the Lord that set things in motion. Nevertheless the Lord was working to give you an answer all along.

 

There are occasions where the answer lies before you, and your path will intersect with the answer in the normal course.  The apparent silence from the Lord is really the answer - Stay true and you will find it as you move along.  These moments are what develop necessary patience. We are tempted to show ingratitude when these happen, thinking that it was our own ability which secured for us the answer, instead of the mercy of the Lord. That is a mistake. 

 

The final reason is that you are mistaken about your worthiness or standing before God and you need to alter what you are doing. In this instance it is likely that you get an answer, but the answer is that you are in need of repentance or change. The change needs to precede an answer. Never ignore a warning that you are out of the way; it may be the kindest response of all.  Get your life in order first, then the answer you seek will follow.  Ingratitude to the Lord is often the first reason for needed repentance.

 

These are the reasons I have found for those seasons in which an answer is not forthcoming from the Lord.

Personal Revelation

On the 13th of November, 1835, Joseph was instructing, and made the following comment (which has been often repeated:

"[I]f God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves."  (JS Papers; Journals Vol. 1, p. 98.)

This statement has been quoted as a basis to support the position that any person's revelation should NEVER be shared with another person; other than of course a revelation given to the church president.  The statement needs to be understood, however, in light of later statements recorded by Joseph in the same volume of the JS Papers.


On page 170 Joseph recorded that "angels ministered unto them, as well as myself."  A little further down on the same page:  "My scribe ...saw in a vision the armies of heaven protecting the Saints in their return to Zion."  Still on the same page: "The vision of heaven was opened to these also, some of them saw the face of the Savior; and others were ministered unto by holy angels, and the spirit of prophesy and revelation was poured out in mighty power."


On page 171 Joseph recorded that those who were present "spent the time in rehearsing to each other the glorious scenes that transpired on the preceding evening, while attending to the ordinance of the holy anointing."


On page 174 Joseph recorded that his brother, William, "saw the heavens opened and the Lord's host protecting the Lord's anointed."


On page 182 Joseph recorded that Zebedee Coltrin "saw a vision of the Lord's House-- and others were filled with the spirit and spake in tongues and prophesied."  Later on that same page, in footnote 361, this is included:  "Oliver Cowdery also recorded that 'many saw visions, many prophesied, and many spake in tongues.'" citing to Oliver's Diary for 6 Feb. 1836.


It is apparent that Joseph's comment did not result in these early Saints not speaking of the manifestations they received.  Nor did Joseph exhibit any disapproval or concern about hearing of others speaking of their spiritual manifestations.  His comment, therefore, needs to be understood in the context of the overall manner in which spiritual experiences were experienced and shared among the early church, even within a couple of months of the statement used to justify criticism of any person saying anything about any manifestation they received.


Oddly, I do not think anyone should share anything with anyone else unless the Lord, who gives manifestations, directs.  When He does, then I think objections are made at the peril of disrespecting the Lord's command.  (See e.g., Alma 8: 25; 3 Ne. 23: 9--where the Lord required some of what Samuel had said to be added to their scriptures which the Nephites had neglected to record.)

I am the Lord that smiteth

The people among whom Ezekiel lived were filled with sin; public and private.  The prophet was inspired to deliver a serious warning to them inasmuch as they could not learn by being taught correct precepts, but only by harsh judgment. His warning included this statement: 

"The morning is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not the sounding again of the mountains. Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee: and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine abominations. And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the Lord that smiteth." (Eze. 7: 7-9.)

I had a few thoughts about why and how such "judgments" could be easily be poured out upon us, as well.

From drug abuse to carnality, we are less civil and more dangerous as a population each year.  If you would like to see the Lord "pour out [His] fury upon [us]" you only need to shut off the electrical power in Detroit or Los Angeles at night.  We are filled with the savagery that will bring about our own punishment.  When the electrical grid fails in larger metropolitan areas of the United States, it will be Americans killing Americans, without any need for an invasion by an enemy.  God will not need to send a plague upon us. We become our own plague because of our wickedness.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when the New Orleans Police Department was unable to keep order, and the National Guard had not arrived yet, there were days filled with violence, rape and murder.  It did not take anything more than a brief lack of police authority before the population was plagued with criminal misconduct, violence and killing.

What more fitting a way to "judge thee according to thy ways?"  What more apt a manner for "recompensing thee for all thine abominations?"  It is our own choice to become our own undoing.  Amazing, really. 

Are our sins any less than that generation to whom Ezekiel spoke?  Americans have killed 40 million unborn (innocent) children.  Hitler, the great genocidal monster of the last century, only killed 6 million in his perversity.  We have selected the most innocent, and ended 40 million of their lives.  As Christ put it:  Truly we deserve a millstone hung around our necks and to be drowned in the depth of the sea for this wanton shedding of innocent blood. (Matt. 18: 6.)  

This great perversity is what we call a "right to choose," thereby clothing an atrocity in the words of virtue. We call evil good and good evil, and never take time to notice we fulfill prophecy as we do so. (2 Ne. 15: 20, using Isaiah 5: 20 to describe us and our time.) Freedom of choice, right to choose, tolerance, diversity, open and free are all words implying virtue. They justify suppression of truth, sexual misconduct, killing innocent unborn and curtailing freedom of thought and expression. We are hardly able to recognize good from evil, because everything destructive or debasing, advocated by those addicted to a perversity, is called by them good. And any who oppose these abuses are called evil, intolerant, oppressive, haters and ignorant.

It should not surprise any of us if the Lord should shortly pour out His judgments upon us.  All it would take is a prolonged failure of the power grid and we would unleash on ourselves our own direful judgments.

Catch hold or cling

There are two different words used by Nephi regarding contact with the "iron rod" or word of God.  Joseph Smith translated the two words as "cling" or "clinging" for one, and "hold" or "holding" as the other.

 

The different word use raises the question of meaning.  If they meant identical things, then the same word would have been translated.  Therefore, there must be a reason for the different words.

 

Below are examples of the different words in the context of the record:   

 

I Ne. 8: 24, 30: 

 

  24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.

      •  •  •

 

  30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.

 

Some catch hold, then cling.

 

Some hold, then hold fast.

 

So the question becomes why the different description.  Both of these different approaches result in the persons reaching the destination, then partaking of the fruit.  But they are situated differently as they move along the process. Some are "clinging" and some are "holding" as they move toward their destination.

 

To "cling" implies something frantic, something charged with emotion, and something more desperate than to "hold."  "Holding" seems calm, thoughtfully committed and more methodical than does "clinging."  From this, I conclude that there are at least two kinds of people who will make their way to partake of the fruit of the tree of life in this world.

 

For one group, the process is unnerving, fearful and emotionally wrenching. They cling on despite earth and hell. They fight to retain their grip, and they make heroic efforts in the opposition they face. They cling because they cannot relent, cannot relax, and know they face peril as they live their lives daily. For them their hopes are kept despite all their fears. They cling because they desire more than the opposition can deter them.

For another group, the process is less emotional, but nonetheless filled with determination. They are not as charged with fear, but face what comes to them calmly and with the assurance that the Lord's word is in their hands and will be a refuge that will bring them to eternal life.

 

I think there is another, more likely possibility, as well. There is not two groups, but only one. From time to time everyone faces moments of difficulty. The only way to stay with the rod is to cling. Then the seasons change, the storm relents, and calm returns. During those times when life improves, the person can continue to hold and move forward, but they have purchased the season of calm by the things they have endured in faith. Now they know it is only necessary to hold on, and all things will come to them.

 

I do not know of a life that gets lived without challenge, difficulty and seasons of despair. I believe all of us will at times be required to cling, and at others have the ability to hold the course. Whether it is the one season or the other, however, at the end of the journey you will lay hold on eternal life.  Press on.

O that I had repented

National debt is nearly the entire annual gross domestic product.

 

The banking crisis in Europe is threatening to spread, and the US has committed billions to help prop up the imbalanced European socialist-democracies.

 

The money supply is shrinking at a rate comparable only to the years leading into the Great Depression.

 

I am reminded of the Nephites when they were denounced with these words: 

 

"O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?  Yea, behold, the anger of the Lord is already kindled against you; behold, he hath cursed the land because of your iniquity. And behold, the time cometh that he curseth your riches, that they become slippery, that ye cannot hold them; and in the days of your poverty ye cannot retain them."  (Hel. 13: 29-31.)

 

As our own riches become "slippery" so that we cannot hold onto them, I think we get a taste of what the Nephites were allowed to experience because they could not distinguish between those who taught the truth and those who merely led them about while blind.

 

The prophecy continued with these additional words of wise, and still relevant counsel:

 

"And in the days of your poverty ye shall cry unto the Lord; and in vain shall ye cry, for your desolation is already come upon you, and your destruction is made sure; and then shall ye weep and howl in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts. And then shall ye lament, and say: O that I had repented, and had not killed the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out. Yea, in that day ye shall say: O that we had remembered the Lord our God in the day that he gave us our riches, and then they would not have become slippery that we should lose them; for behold, our riches are gone from us.  Behold, we lay a tool here and on the morrow it is gone; and behold, our swords are taken from us in the day we have sought them for battle. Yea, we have hid up our treasures and they have slipped away from us, because of the curse of the land.  O that we had repented in the day that the word of the Lord came unto us; for behold the land is cursed, and all things are become slippery, and we cannot hold them.  Behold, we are surrounded by demons, yea, we are encircled about by the angels of him who hath sought to destroy our souls. Behold, our iniquities are great. O Lord, canst thou not turn away thine anger from us? And this shall be your language in those days. But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head. O ye people of the land, that ye would hear my words!"  (Hel. 13: 32-39.)

 

As always, the Book of Mormon remains the keystone of our religion.  A person can get closer to God by abiding its precepts than through any other book.

 

I don't think Joseph Smith wrote it.  I think he translated it.  I think it contains wisdom from an earlier, failed civilization that once inhabited this land.  I think their lessons should not be forgotten by us.  Because when we fail to learn them by precept, then we get to learn them by experience.  And some of their experiences were quite difficult.

The arm of flesh

When the church commissions an opinion poll and then, as a result of that poll, concludes that some program or position is popular, or would be accepted by the Saints without complaint - and then adopt that position in a public statement - has a "revelation" been received? I do not think so. I think an opinion has been obtained, and a policy or statement has been adopted.  Therefore, I do not think there is one thing wrong with disagreeing with the policy or statement.

When the church endorses something or some position, I do not think it is right to simply "fall in line" behind the statement without also thinking the same issue through and reaching my own conclusion.  The first question I ask myself is what the statement is, and does it imply a revelation from the Lord. 

I can think of two examples.  One was a public announcement that was heralded in the press. The other was the subject of a letter from the First Presidency read in sacrament meetings.  

The public announcement was regarding the housing and employment of homosexuals in Salt Lake City, using the force of government sanction to prevent an employer or owner of property from refusing to grant equal access or rights to homosexuals.  I've previously commented here in a critical way about that announcement.  This is an example of how I view things. 

Since the church's position on the matter had absolutely nothing to do with revelation, and the church did not make any attempt to claim the position came through revelation, I do not believe it is immune from question or criticism.  Indeed, the defense of the policy to the press involved a public relations/opinion poll driven justification.  It was expected to "resonate on the basis of fairness" with all those in the middle, and only offend those at the two ends of the spectrum.  This is opinion gathering to inform a position, then announcing the position because of the results of opinion gathering.  It is what a politician or a marketing firm would do.  It is not at all akin to a revelation, and should not command my respect.  I am under no obligation to alter my view based on what the church's opinion gathering has concluded.  If that were the case, then the church's ability to control everyone's thinking would be based only upon prevailing opinion at the moment.  This is the "tossed about by every wind" concern which Paul addressed in one of his letters.  (Eph. 4: 14.)  Shifting opinion is not revelation.  I am free to point it out, disagree with it, and explain my contrary view.

Another example is the letter from the First Presidency asking speakers in sacrament meetings to no longer ask those in attendance to open their scriptures.  No explanation was provided in the letter.  It was just an instruction to the Saints to no longer let sacrament meeting speakers tell those in the meeting to open their scriptures and read along. Perhaps it was as a result of someone being irritated by the noise of rustling scriptures.  Perhaps it was someone with a hearing aid, whose aid frequency was tuned to pick up the rustling so well that it drowned out the rest of the speaker's voice.  Perhaps it was because the meeting got delayed and disrupted by the folks struggling to find their scriptures, and open them up to the relevant page.  I can't say for certain.  But I did raise my eyebrows when the letter was read in advance to the High Council. 

My candid reaction to that letter was that it diminished the office of those who signed the letter by the petty micro-managing of opening the scriptures during a sacrament gathering.  I wondered in amazement that someone in the Church Office Building got the First Presidency to sign such a letter.  I wondered at how, with all that threatens us today, opening scriptures in order to read along in sacrament meetings managed to become so important that the First Presidency would write and send a letter worldwide to be read in the stakes and wards.  It was perplexity on stilts.

Beyond that my approach has been twofold:  First, I have NEVER asked anyone to open their scriptures in a sacrament meeting since then.  However, I have said in talks during sacrament that "I cannot ask you to open your scriptures and read along" in order to call attention to the policy.  I have also said, when teaching outside of sacrament meetings, that I was free to ask them to read along in their scriptures "because we are not in a sacrament meeting."  I do this to call attention to the policy.  I think to call attention to it is to cause people to wonder at the pettiness and inconsequential nature of a letter from the First Presidency addressing the opening of scriptures in sacrament meeting.

These are just two examples.  There are many.  As I have said before, I pay very close attention to the church, what is said and done, and how relevant or irrelevant some position, letter, emphasis or program is in an absolute sense.  I try to take it all in and reach my own conclusions.  Looking at it all, I am quite concerned.  Faithful, tithe paying and active, nevertheless quite concerned. 

I believe if enough people were similarly concerned that eventually the "opinion polling" might obtain reasonable results.  That is, the top would hear about reasonable concerns and learn of reasonable opinions, and then promulgate policies and send out statements accordingly.  That, however, will require a great effort to call attention to the things that matter most, and clarity in pointing out the things that do not matter at all. We fret over trifles while things are burning down all around us.  I wonder how long it will take for the polling to inform the Saints of the fire burning around them.

A message of warning

The Jews thought themselves favored of God.  They trusted that the land they occupied had been promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  They were the descendants of these patriarchs. The land had been promised to them. They had the priesthood, the temple, God's promise and a true religion.  They knew nothing could molest their peace.

The Lord commissioned Zechariah to deliver this warning to them:

"Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts.  Therefore it is come to pass, that as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the Lord of hosts: But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them, that no man passed through nor returned: for they laid the pleasant land desolate."  (Zech. 7: 9-14.) 

We can look at the Jews to whom this prophecy was delivered and see with clarity how they failed.  We can see through their false presumptions, foolish beliefs and evil ways.  We know how to correctly weigh them in the balance.

Imagine, however, if you lived among those people and shared their false presumptions.  Imagine that you believed, as they did, that they were chosen, promised that nothing would molest them.  Imagine you possessed a temple of God, true priesthood, and descended from prophets.  How would you react when a prophet came among you crying that you were wicked, oppressed the poor, the fatherless and the stranger?  Wouldn't you think Zechariah was wrong while all of you were right?  How can a message from a single person hold an entire nation of people accountable for how they respond?

I suspect it wouldn't be any easier for us to see our plight as it was for the Jews to see theirs.  I suspect our own harsh assessment of the failure of the Jews will be the very standard against which we will be measured in how we react to truth when it is declared among us.  I doubt we can distinguish between truth and error any better than they did.  But we pride ourselves on condemning them, and justifying ourselves.

The irony in all this is so thick you can hardly move.

How grateful I am to live at a time when there are messages received again from the Lord which can lead us to salvation, despite earth and hell, false messengers and fools, pretenders and charlatans.  Yet will the Lord keep His promise that before He does anything, He will commission a message of warning.  (Amos 3: 7.)

Why the occasional reminder (and she will probably do it again)

I can see my wife put up another reminder about the stuff I've written previously.  I can tell you why she did that.

Some folks presume that a brief post contains all of an idea that I have spent many pages setting out a full explanation for elsewhere.  They comment, challenge, criticize or contradict in a reply comment as if the whole of what I have to say about some topic is contained in the briefest of posts.  It is apparent that if the person had read what I've written elsewhere they wouldn't be making the comment they make here.

An example is the plural marriage notion.  I've spent pages and given both history and scripture to explain what my explanation is for the position I take in the book Beloved Enos.  There are persons who are obsessed with the whole plural marriage subject, and very well may be practicing plural marriage.  My comments and views probably threaten them, because I do not believe it appropriate to practice plural marriage now that it has been banned by both the law of Utah, law of the United States, confirmed by the United States to be prohibited, and abandoned by the church as a practice.

The keys which allowed the practice are addressed at length in Beloved Enos, and it would be too long a discussion to take the subject up here.  I anticipated that there would be those who practice plural marriage who would read what I have to say, and so I addressed their concerns in that book.  So when they want to have a discussion about the topic, this isn't the forum for that.  I've written my understanding before and it becomes apparent that the person(s) replying do not understand my position because they haven't read it.

I think my wife as Moderator gets somewhat exasperated with these comments, because they are something which she necessarily has to read before putting up and seem so contrary to the intent of doing this blog.  I get vicariously frustrated as well as we discuss it.

I worry that some very good folks, with great comments, are thinking that their comments are not welcomed.  That isn't true, of course.  What is true is that it is unfair and inaccurate to reach a conclusion about what I think or understand based upon the briefest of comments made on this blog.  The comments would need to be read in light of lengthy explanations provided elsewhere and fit into the context of what I've already explained, before it is fair to react as if you understand my position.  Some of you have taken the trouble to read what I've written and do understand a comment made here.  Some clearly have not.  Everyone is welcome to put a comment up in response to a post, but I'm not going to respond to all of them when the explanation is already provided elsewhere.

I hope that clarifies again the reasons behind the periodic reminders put up here.

Broken souls

I'm hoping to solve Ben's perplexity (raised in a recent comment), and give all those who come here something to reflect on at the same time.

 

There are those who are kept from active church attendance because they have read something about history or doctrine which has alarmed and/or discouraged them. There are those who, because of their circumstances, are embarrassed to come to church. There are those who are poor and ashamed, or they are living with the heavy burden of sin and choose to stay away from our meetings. Perhaps they suffer from depression or anxiety, have addictions and feel unclean and unworthy.  

 

I have home taught or spent time with people with all of these issues, concerns and experiences, and more.  They stay away because they do not feel welcome among us.  Many feel judged, some feel like they just can't abide hypocrisy, some are hurting and the church makes their hurt worse.

 

From the time I joined the church until today, I look for these people.  I volunteer to go and visit with them in every ward I have attended, in every stake where I have served, and across the Mission when missionaries have asked me to come help teach.  I was honored just a few days ago to meet with a man and his wife who are inactive, but who have a towering understanding of the church, gospel, its history, the scriptures and doctrine.  They have figured out a great deal more than either their bishop or stake president. As a result, I think the local church authorities are somewhat intimidated by their understanding, and the leaders cannot answer their questions.  It was, for me, a joyful visit and I hope to return again and talk with this wonderful Latter-day Saint couple soon.

 

I have met with people whose son committed suicide while attending a church-owned university because he was so lonely and isolated that his last desperate act was intended to end his life and rebuke those who had dismissed his pain.  I loved these people who spoke with me about their son's life and death.  They possessed a sensitivity to the feelings of others which can only be purchased at the price of enduring great personal pain.

 

I have close friends who struggle with addictions.  Some of these people struggle with things so haunting, so terrible a force in their lives that rising each day to face the coming fight takes greater courage than I can even imagine.  They are acting in faith at every waking breath, as they fight against a foe I do not comprehend and could not face.

 

I have helped women whose husbands are esteemed as church leaders, but the husbands' private actions are hellish and abusive.  Women who have nowhere to turn, because their husband IS the leader with jurisdiction over them.  No one will believe them because their "righteous" husband says they have mental or emotional illnesses. These women somehow manage to continue to serve their children and remain steadfast despite the hell they find themselves in.

 

It is not possible to set out all the different ways wherein the men and women I have met struggle.  It is a great privilege to know these people.  People whose insight into life and difficulties is far greater than I can begin to comprehend.  People whose strength is not even recognized, because others are too busy dismissing, belittling or judging them as "a thing of naught."  (2 Ne. 28: 16.)

 

I have marveled at how very much these broken souls, these discouraged people, these victims of our judgments who we have discarded or neglected are the very ones with whom I feel the Lord's presence and love as I have the honor of meeting and talking with them about the Gospel.  These are the ones He loves the most.  These are the ones with whom He associated during His ministry.  He associates there, still.

 

We have driven many of them away from activity in the church because of how we behave.  In turn, the Spirit does not dwell with many of the "righteous" and proud active Latter-day Saints because hearts have not been broken nor spirits made contrite.  We are made to think God favors us because we have worldly successes. We prosper. It is the successful, the financially well-to-do, the educated, the bank president, the lawyer and doctor whom we hold up as the model of a true Saint.  Read the resumes of those who are called to lead the stakes and missions of the church in each week's Church News.  We draw from a very narrow social gene-pool to find those who serve. They come from among those who have the financial resources in place to spare the time it takes to serve. In the process we get a 'Gospel of Success' mentality, right out of one segment of the Evangelical movement.

 

I am NOT saying that nothing good can come from the Stanford Business School.  I am NOT saying bankers are damned (though they are in truth damnable).  I am not talking about them.  I am talking instead about those broken souls whom I know the Lord loves, but who are not among us because of our own pride and haughty attitudes.

If we were to flood the wards of Zion with those whose hearts are broken, who mourn because of issues that weigh heavy upon them, and who feel that there is nothing in the church for them, but who look to Christ to lift them from their torment, we would be enriched by their homecoming.  In much the same way as the Prodigal was worthy of a feast, but the resentful but faithful son who stayed behind was not, so also are the riches of eternity reserved for the poor, downtrodden and broken hearted.

We are the poorer because of their absence.  Our wards are not informed by hearing of their dilemmas and struggles.  We are not what we could be if we were to make such people welcome - throwing our arms open to greet them.  We do not hear their struggle to keep a testimony after learning about some serious failing of a past leader.  We are not informed, as we should be, in our meetings and discussions. 

This is a lamentation, and not an explanation.  This is not the fullness of the subject, but merely a hint of what I know displeases the Lord about us.  It is not my responsibility to define fully the Lord's displeasure with us at the moment.  I can, however, assure you He is not pleased.  Some of what we think ourselves best for doing is not what He would want us to take pride in.  Our Lord's heart is broken still.  His ways are higher than ours because He values the least more than do we.

 

I cannot say more.  But I am left amazed at the hardness of the hearts of this generation who claim they are the Lord's.  Many, many will be told by Him to depart from His presence at the time of Judgment because they never knew Him.  They speak today in His name, yet they know Him not.  It would be better for them to not speak at all, than to toss about His name as the author of foolish, vain, proud and evil notions while claiming He agrees with such things.

Just a reminder - posted by the comment moderator (goddess)

The content of this blog presumes you are already familiar with Denver Snuffer's books. Careful explanations given in the books lay the foundation for what is contained here. If you read this blog without having first read his books, then you assume responsibility for your own misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the writer's intent. Please do not presume to judge Mr. Snuffer's intentions from a single blog post if you have not first read his books.  His ideas and beliefs are not fully laid out in a four paragraph post on a blog.

Men's hearts will fail them

Luke records Christ's first public sermon that occurred after His baptism, temptation, wedding and commencement of the public ministry.  He read from Isaiah about the commission He had received from God to preach.  (Luke 4: 17-19.)  After reading the verses, He proclaimed that He was the fulfillment of those verses.  (Luke 4: 20-21.)

 

He expounded on the verses adding that not only were they fulfilled, but He pressed on to explain how He would fulfill them in comments that were unrecorded.  However, those who heard could not help but be persuaded at His gracious words.  (Luke 4: 22.)

 

He moved from these verses in Isaiah to add His own prophecy about what they would eventually do to Him.  You will tell me: "Physician, heal thyself," He added.  (Luke 4: 23.)  He will be asked by them to do miracles among them as He will do in Capernum, but they will not be given such a witness.  He explains that not all of a prophet's works will be put to display before all people.  That some will see Him, but only have the testimony of others to learn of His works.  (Luke 4: 24-27.)

They were indignant at His comments.  It filled them with wrath.  They thought they should be given the same signs, the same proof, of His claim to Messiahship as He would put before others.  (Luke 4: 28-29.)  However, He explained to them that He would be without honor among those closest to Him.   (Luke 4: 24.)

 

The attempt of the congregation to kill Him failed.  He departed and went among more believing people, who heard Him speak with power from heaven.  (Luke 4: 30-32.)

 

What an interesting commencement of His public ministry.  Telling the truth among those unprepared to welcome Him did them no good, persuaded no-one of the truth, and resulted in His forced departure.

 

What can be said of those who would cast out of their congregation He who was greater than them all?  They thought they were making a bold statement about their fidelity to their religious traditions, and holding fast to the truth.  Instead, they were cutting themselves off from the lifeline sent to save them.

 

Irony is not a strong enough word to describe this singular scene.  It would be repeated throughout Christ's ministry among the hierarchy and leadership of His day, ultimately culminating in His death at their hands.  These were the only people who would kill their God.  (2 Ne. 10: 3.)  They were devout.  They were misinformed.  They were very religious, but entirely mistaken.

What happened on that first day of teaching was a microcosm of His entire ministry.  It is often the case that those who regard themselves as the "most religious" and "most correct" are capable of missing the truth sent to them by the Lord.  They prefer the Lord package the truth in one way, coupled with a written guarantee that the package will never fail them, while the Lord is always sending it in another, and requiring them to receive it when only their hearts can guide them into recognizing it.  It is little wonder, then, that our day is when "men's hearts will fail them" because they fear, and trust not the things sent to them.  (Luke 21: 26.)

Blood crying for vengeance

I was asked about blood crying for vengeance from the ground.  The question was how this reconciled with charity or forgiveness.

 

Blood "crying from the ground" is not the same thing as a person crying out for vengeance.  Keep the context in mind:  It is the blood which was shed upon the earth which cries out for vengeance or fairness or retribution.  Something unfair has occurred, and the cry of the blood "upon the ground" is a reminder of the injustice of it all.

 

The ground is a reference to the earth, which has a spirit, intelligence, and is able to communicate if a person were capable of listening.  It is a female spirit, and she regards herself as "the mother of men."  This earth is offended when the men who are upon her kill one another or engage in any form of wickedness upon her surface.  Below is her lament as she beheld the disorder and murder caused by that generation upon whom the flood was unleashed:

 

"And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?"  (Moses 7: 48.)

Even if the person whose blood was shed departed this earth forgiving those who made offense against him, yet would "the ground" cry out for vengeance because the earth has become filthy by reason of the killing which took place upon her.  She, as the "mother of men," regards the killing of men upon her as an abomination.  She cries out.  She is offended.  She wants righteousness to appear on her, as has happened before.  She longs that it be brought about again.  When, instead of Zion, she has the murder of men upon her face, it is so great a lamentation by her spirit that "the ground cries out for vengeance" because of the atrocity.

Be firm and steadfast!

I've said several times in several ways that we have an obligation to support the church's leaders and the programs of the church.  I believe that with all my heart.  The Lord is going to hold us all accountable.  No one is going to be relieved from their respective responsibilities.

 

Pay tithes, attend your meetings.  Keep a current temple recommend and use it.  Serve when asked to do so.  You will have a great influence on others for the good when you provide service. Not merely by what you say, but by the example you provide.

There is a great deal of unrest in the church.  Oftentimes the result is inactivity.  I believe that is a mistake.  If all those who continued to care about the Gospel persisted in attending meetings and serving, it would do more to help the church than drifting into inactivity.  Those who are sensitive to the troubles which beset the church need to be there, faithfully serving.  If only those who are blinded to the troubles remain active, then the organization becomes narrower and narrower, less and less aware of its situation, and prone to continue in a course that will discard yet more of what matters most.

 

I wish I could inspire thousands of inactive Saints to return to activity.  I know I have helped hundreds to return.  Those who are most troubled are the ones who the church can use right now.  Those who keenly sense that all is not well with Zion are the ones who need to be filling the pews.  Until they fill the pews they won't be filling the leadership positions.  And until they fill the leadership positions, there won't be any changes made to the course we are on at present.

 

If you love Zion and want her redemption, then serve her cause.  Faithfully serve her cause.  Don't sever yourself from her.

 

There is no question the Lord will hold accountable those who are in leadership positions for every word, every thought, and every deed.  (Alma 12: 14.)  They aren't spared.  This is why we should pray for them, uphold them, and do what we can to relieve them of the terrible burdens and consequences of being accountable for their callings.  (D&C 107: 22.)

 

When you withdraw from the church you cut yourself off from necessary ordinances, including the sacrament.  You imperil your capacity to keep the Sabbath day holy.  You limit your capacity to serve others.  Even a bad lesson makes you consider what the teacher and manual is ignoring, misstating or mangling.  You needn't be argumentative or unpleasant.  But by being there you have a time to reflect upon the subject being addressed by the class and to contemplate what that subject means to you.  Use it meditatively and gratefully.  It is a gift.  If you see more clearly than others, then thank the Lord for that and stop being impatient with your fellow Saint.

 

You are a gift to the church.  Your talents and your abilities belong to and were intended to be a part of the church.  Serve there.  Patiently and kindly.  You needn't start an argument in every class to make a difference.  Quietly going about serving and occasionally providing a carefully chosen insight is important and will garner you far more blessings than withdrawing and letting your light grow dim.

We're all in this together.  This is our dispensation.  You are responsible for helping it be preserved and passed along to the rising generation.  Do not grow weary in this fight.  We share a common enemy, and it is not the leadership of the church.  It is the one who stirs people up to anger.  (2 Ne. 28: 20.)

 

I'd like to open people's eyes only so as to permit them to save their own souls and those of others.  I would never want anyone to walk away from the church as a result of seeing its weaknesses.  Be wise, but harmless.  (Matt. 10: 16.)  Be patient with anyone's shortcomings, no matter whether they serve in the nursery or in the presidency of an organization.

Housekeeping

I'm going to do a bit of housecleaning.  Here's responses to questions I've been asked "off blog" so to speak:

I don't recall the Know Your Religion instructor.  He taught in a chapel on Creek Road in Sandy.  I went back to my journal and his name is not recorded there.

Covenant making requires cutting.  All covenants are made with cutting or blood involved.  God's covenant with Abraham, for example, involved a ceremony in which the animals which were cleaved apart were symbols of death as part of the oath for the covenant.  (Gen. 15: 8-18.)  The ceremony essentially referred to God proclaiming that the sacrifices or cutting should be done to Him, if He breaks the covenant He entered into with Abraham.  Paul referred to this as God swearing by Himself, since He could swear by none greater.  (Heb. 6: 13.)  Eliminating the gestures of cutting was significant in the sense that the necessity of sacrificing all things, including life, is necessary to lay hold upon eternal life.  Therefore although the principle remains the same for all, those who are not acquainted with that principle will never develop the faith necessary for salvation.  The ceremony used to include direct reference to it, but removing it from the ceremony does not remove it from the Gospel.

The opinion poll taken was of active LDS families in Canada and the US and involved approximately 3,400 families.  

Hugh Nibley was on the committee, but he withdrew after attending only one meeting.

I do not expect plural marriage to be revived in the church.

Not every question should be answered by me.  Go ask the Lord.  They are legitimate and He will answer.

Schism

Right now there is such a diversity of views among the political groups in the United States that there is potential for a national breakup.  States are talking about seceding from the Union.  Texas, which was an independent nation before it joined the United States, has always retained the right to secede.  Other states have discussed departing, and the reasons are diverse.  Taxation and profligate Federal spending motivate some.  Liberal issues motivate others, like Vermont, to want to leave in order to avoid conservative backlash.  Conservative issues motivate others, who believe the Federal agenda is just too reckless.

The problem of national politics is its "one-size-fits-all" approach to governing.  There is no room for diverse local populations to make independent decisions about their course of political development.  Originally the nation was intended to be loosely governed from the national level, where such minimal governance as was necessary would be provided.  National defense and interstate commerce were to be controlled to prevent invasion and internal warfare between the states.  But the states were to govern their populations as independently sovereign states whose authority sprang from their people.

When you move power to the national level alone, you then create a distant and oftentimes disconnected government which will take so much upon themselves in taxation and regulation that they alienate local populations throughout the country.  Taxes which would never be assessed at the local level are levied to impose policy decisions and programs which are not wanted by the local populations.  That continues until, as we see now, there is resistance from both sides of the political spectrum and talk about how oppressive the national government has become.

There's a lesson there about how humanity will react when they are forced to accept a one-size approach to a divergent local circumstance.  When there is only one approach tolerated, and others suppressed and controlled, then people will eventually rebel.  They will simply walk away from the benefits of national programs in order to pursue their own course freely.

It is always better to leave room for divergent approaches to divergent problems.  That was what the separate states were originally intended to accomplish.  A problem could be experimented with at the state level.  Kentucky could try one approach, Florida another, and Maine yet another.  If Kentucky's worked better, and Florida's was a disaster, and Maine's somewhat of a success but nothing like Kentucky's; then the populations of the various states could learn from what worked and what didn't.  They could debate based upon the outcome of various experiments they conducted in their sovereign territories.  Every one of them would benefit from the conduct of the other.  Now, with only a national approach to social issues, tax issues, educational issues, and health issues, failure is not acceptable.  When there is failure, the failed program is given more money, more personnel and more rhetoric to justify it.  It becomes a matter of politically-correct thinking and speaking; because if you don't believe in supporting some failed program then you are uncharitable, or racist, or bigoted, or ignorant, or worse.  Experimentation is not permitted and therefore failure is national in scope and expensive to endure.

It is always best to "control" as little as possible and to interfere with development of separate ideas as little as necessary.  This is true of government, and it is true of rearing children [after you have instructed them in the foundational truths], as well.  It is also true of churches, civic organizations and any cooperative human endeavor.  Cooperation through persuasion, meekness, kindness, pure knowledge and love unfeigned works, whenever it is tried.  (D&C 121: 39-42.)

Obeying God, Not Fearing Man

As the voice of the Lord conferred the sealing power upon Nephi in Chapter 10 of Helaman, this statement was made:

"And now, because thou hast done this with such unwearyingness, behold, I will bless thee forever; and I will make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works; yea, even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will." (Hel. 10: 5.)

This is not a commandment, but a statement.  It is a description of what kind of person Nephi was.  The Lord knew that even endowed with that power he "shall not ask that which is contrary to [the Lord's own] will."

How did the Lord know this about Nephi?  Because of what Nephi had done with such unwearyingness:  "for I have beheld how thou hast with unwearyingness declared the word, which I have given unto thee, unto this people. And thou hast not feared them, and hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments."

Nephi's prior assignments from the Lord had been done consistently, without letting criticism or threats deter him.  He said what the Lord asked him to say, without fear of those who opposed, threatened, or belittled him.  He had been "proven" and found worthy.  (Abr. 3: 25.)  Therefore, even though he may have been misunderstood or resented by his peers, he was approved and trusted by the Lord.

 How much better is it to be trusted by the Lord than to be popular with mankind! (Proverbs 29: 25.)  What a remarkable relationship this man Nephi must have had.  It makes one think that such a thing can only happen when a person is willing to follow in those exact steps.  (D&C 121: 20-21)

Obeying God and not fearing man is so rare a thing that when we do encounter it, we're likely to either misunderstand such a person or be offended by him.

Infallability's One-way street

[This is about foundational, indispensable, bed-rock doctrines involved in salvation.  It is not about trifling changes which can come and go at any time.  I'm talking about the big stuff, in the big picture, which will make-or-break salvation itself.]

 

Here's the destructive course that inevitably follows from the notion that the President of the church cannot lead us astray when foundational changes are made to the doctrine - we can only subtract from our body of principles.  We never can add back what we have subtracted.

 

To illustrate the one-way street problem you need only look at the changes to the endowment. The endowment is considered indispensable for exaltation and therefore part of the required, correct, bed-rock doctrines.  In 1990 it was changed to drop a character, eliminate dialogue, alter the manner of covenant-making and delete things considered distasteful.  I will not discuss details, although others have and you can find them if you look.  That isn't important to understanding the problem.  It is only necessary to know some things were deleted.

 

Suppose that in 2015 there was a consensus that the deletions were wrong and should be returned.  If you were to attempt to return them into the endowment, you would immediately raise these questions:

 

-Do all church members who received their endowment between 1990 and 2015 have to do them over again?

-Do all the vicarious ordinances performed on behalf of the dead between 1990 and 2015 have to be redone?

-If not, then why would a change be made, since it isn't necessary to redo the work already done?

 

Now suppose that you reach a satisfactory resolution to these questions, and as a result you change back and redo ordinances -immediately critics and others then raise these questions:

 

-Why did they change them if it was wrong to do so?

-How could they have been "inspired" if they made a mistake?

-Does this mean that the President wasn't a prophet; or, worse, a false prophet when he made this mistake?

-How can we ever trust the President again?

 

So, even if there were a consensus, a change that returns what was subtracted would be such a set-back to the institution that it could never be seriously entertained.  It could not happen without shaking the very foundation of the premise (inerrancy of the President) upon which correlation relies to control the church.

 

It would take a very different group of people, having a much higher tolerance for changes, and a greater capacity to tolerate human failings, before it would be possible to add back what has once been deliberately subtracted.  Such a radically different kind of Saint is unlikely to be produced without some rather dramatic changes to the population.  Of course, dramatic changes are what the Lord has always told us will come as a part of preparing the earth for His return.  (He calls it "calamity" in D&C 1: 17.)

 

Now I've used the endowment to illustrate the point, but the same principle works across the board with any bedrock policy, ordinance or teaching which has been deliberately discarded or adopted in place of something else by the church.  Once it has been set into place by the correlation process, it is put into concrete and cannot be moved without demolition.  Therefore, if we have made any mistake, discarded anything we should have retained, or neglected or opposed any teaching which the Lord wanted us to keep, He will use demolition to prepare us to receive it back again.  We can only subtract.  Fortunately for us, a caring God can (and will) add upon us still.  'Gotta break some concrete first, of course.  But He cares enough to do that.  (Psalms 94: 14.)  He's determined that we are to be added upon.  (Abraham 3: 26.)  Even when we prefer subtraction to addition.

Prophet, Seer, Revelator

I was asked this question:

"If the first presidency and the twelve really operate much like the lay members do, how then do you reconcile the MEANING of the words: Prophet; Seer; and Revelator. Aren't these gifts unusual and set apart for the highest positions of the church? Wouldn't one necessarily receive visions and dreams to qualify as a Prophet, Seer, or Revelator? How else would one SEE into the past, or the future, let alone clearly understanding the present? How do you reconcile the current revelatory state of the leadership with the meaning of the words, prophet, seer, and revelator?"

Inside the Church the current interpretation is that the "office" has associated with it a "title" set out in scripture.  The "office" of the President of the High Priesthood (D&C 107: 65-66) , who is the President of the Church, also bears the "title" of "prophet, seer and revelator."  (D&C 107: 91-92.)  The current interpretation of these verses is that the possessor of the office is entitled to the title of "prophet, seer and revelator" by virtue of office alone.  Therefore, nothing more is needed in current church usage other than possession of the office, which alone gives the possessor of the office the title accorded to the office.  So, no, our current terminology does not require something other than office.

It is possible to read the words of the verses differently, of course.  First, the words we have adopted as they appear in scripture are not actually "prophet, seer and revelator" but are instead: "a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet."  Those are different words and include in the phrase "a translator" in addition to "seer, revelator and a prophet."  We have dropped the word "translator" from the title we now use.

Second, it is possible that the following words may be viewed to mean something different than the way we currently read them, "to be like unto Moses— Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet,"  (D&C 107: 91-92).  They could be read to mean that before you fill the office of President of the High Priesthood you must first locate "a seer" who is also, by definition, "a revelator" and "a translator" who is undoubtedly therefore "a prophet" and, having found such a person, you are to sustain him into the office.  The office doesn't make the man, but the Lord makes a man into such an instrument, and having done so then the church is to put him into the office.  There are of course those who have these gifts.  Many of them have no church office involving priesthood, because they are female.  They may possess gifts, but they are disqualified for office.  Then there are men who possess such gifts, but they may be living in South America, serving in a small branch, and completely unnoticed by the leadership, and therefore, never called.

The problem with the second point is that it invites near chaos.  You would have dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of people who would step forward and make the claim that they are entitled to the office.  Ambitious men who are either deceived or, worse still, cunning and dishonest, would seek to gain the office to further their ambitions.  Such a parade of the deluded or the dishonest would be foisted upon the Saints every time the President died.  Therefore, no matter how much merit you may think the second interpretation holds, it would be far more problematic to implement than the current interpretation and method.

The advantage of the current system is that the man who fills the vacancy is distinguished by how long he has held the church's office of Apostle.  Generally that means an elderly man, often suffering from the decline of advanced years and poor health.  That means you are likely to have a man whose ambitions and exuberance are tempered by the maturity of age and the wisdom that comes from long life's experience.  It gives stability to the decision, as well as the person chosen.

If the second approach were to be adopted, then the choice would need to be made by the serving President before he left office (died), by making the choice of his successor as part of his official service.  This is the method that the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith. (D&C 43: 3-4.) Joseph attempted this, but the one he chose to succeed him died with him (his brother Hyrum). So the office was left vacant and we had to sort it out.

There is another method that we haven't tried, so far as I know.  That would be to use "lots" to choose from every male in the church.  This method was used to fill Judas' vacancy in the original Twelve in Jerusalem.  (Acts 1: 21-26.)  The description there is ambiguous, but was intended to be random, unpredictable and not just a vote.  It was a recognized way to choose someone.  (See, e.g., 1 Ne. 3: 11.)  It has been used to sort through the entire nation of Israel when all twelve tribes were assembled.  Someone had stolen an idol, resulting in the withdrawal of the Lord's Spirit from them in battle.  The result was defeat for Israel and the death of many men.  They needed to find the one who committed the offense.  So they had to choose from the entire gathering of all twelve tribes.   Beginning at the tribe level, they sorted through to find the right tribe (Judah).  Then proceeded to sort through the tribe to locate the larger family involved (Zarhites).  Then went through the family to find the individual involved (Achan).  The whole thing is in the scriptures.  (Joshua 7: 13-23.)  

Such a system was uncontrolled by man, done by lot, completely random, but produced the right person.  Left to God, it obtained God's answer.  Did with the sons of Lehi, and with the vacancy in the Twelve in the Book of Acts, too.  There is no reason why such a system wouldn't generate the Lord's choice today.  

If the President died without a successor having been designated, then random choosing using a lot system would put the choice in the Lord's hands.  But I suppose we don't have the stomach to try it, particularly when we already have a system that seems to work for us.

Your question raises the issue of "authority" or office on the one hand, and "power" or gifts of the Spirit on the other hand.  You should read President Packer's talk in last General Conference for a recent statement by a respected church leader on that subject.  I think I've commented on that talk enough already.  As I re-read it this week I was again stirred by President Packer's sagacity.  I believe he is being candid, honest and giving the Saints the absolute best advice and counsel he can at this time.

Interesting subject.  Something worth contemplating.  Perhaps there will come a time when we are able to implement the system in D&C 43. Or when we put the Lord's hand to work by using lots to choose a President.  Though I do not expect to see any change made during my life.