Follow and Receive

We should only "Follow" Christ. See, e.g., Matt. 4:19; 9:9; 16:24; 19:21; Mark 2:14; 8:34; 10:21; Luke 5:27; 18:22; John 12:26; 21:19.

Prophets are not to be followed; only "received" or, in other words, to be heard. See, e.g., Matt. 10:14; Mark 16:11; D&C 76:101. If sent by Him they testify of Him and not of themselves.

If you will not receive Christ's prophets and apostles, you will be condemned. See John 3:10-11.

But you are under the burden of determining whether a man is a true or false prophet, true or false apostle, because following a false one will condemn you. Christ will expose the false prophets and apostles. D&C 64:39. But that will be by-and-by, for they must be given their season to claim falsely to be prophets and apostles.

If you will not hear a prophet, you will be rejected. See D&C 1:14.

Those who claim you should "follow" them put themselves in the place of Christ. They are, in effect, a false Christ. We were promised they would come in the last days to deceive the "very elect" as false Messiahs. See, JS-Matt. 1:22.

The trial is underway. The world must choose correctly.

Incompatible

It is impossible to have religious freedom of expression and protection of gay rights without requiring the religious expression to include endorsement of homosexual conduct.

Can gay rights be protected without demanding churches stop denouncing homosexuality as "sin" or as "offensive to God" or "evil?"

If a church believes homosexuality is sinful, offensive to God and evil, but cannot say what it believes because law protects against "discrimination" against such conduct, how are the two reconciled? One must trump the other. One must be given priority over the other. Which? How?

Can a church be called "hateful" when it expresses its honest view that homosexuality is morally wrong and sinful without any legal protection against the "hate?"

Should we be free to hate?

If a Muslim hates a Jew, does he have the right to say it publicly? Advocate for others to likewise hate Jews?

Should ideas be free from legal control? If they are, will we see KKK rallies, jihadist news broadcasts, black liberation ministers advocating revolution, white supremacists denouncing "mud people?" Is that sort of fall out bad?  Bad in an absolute sense, not in a relative sense. Is foolishness portrayed as insight bad in a relative sense? That happens everywhere and all the time. Should the limits of free speech be nearly absolute?

The Supreme Court set a limit using the analogy of "crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" that results in injuries and even death. That analogy has been adopted to limit speech elsewhere by saying "hate" will result in injuries and even death, and therefore it is no different.

When it comes to freedom, however, there must be absolutes or freedom will continually be eroded and eventually lost.

We must allow people to say things we disapprove of, disagree with, resent and wish were never said. Tolerance has no meaning if we only permit things we like to be done, said or thought. The meaning of "tolerance" is to permit what I absolutely disagree with to be "tolerated." I don't have to love it, nor do I have to approve it. I only need to "tolerate" it.

If we "tolerate" it, is there an obligation to leave it unmolested, uncontrolled and uncurtailed by law? Whether that is homosexual conduct or condemnation of homosexuality.

The role of legislation is not to carve out ideas for suppression and punishment. Until someone actually assaults another, shouldn't he be able to think what he wants, and say what he thinks? If anyone assaults another it is a crime. Whether the crime was motivated by hatred of homosexuals, hatred of Jews, or Catholics, or Hindus, or Mexicans or Mudbloods or any other group, no one is allowed to assault another person. The crime consists in the act, not in the thought.

Thought should be as near to absolutely free as possible. No matter how peculiar or offensive, thought ought to be unrestricted. It is not possible to police thought without losing other freedoms.

Further Thoughts on the Holy Ghost

The purpose of the Holy Ghost is to convey truth, understanding and knowledge. Our reaction may be emotional, but the Holy Ghost is informational.

The information we obtain from the Holy Ghost checks emotions, and produces self-control. Paul explained that our flesh is prone to lusts (Gal. 5:19) and to “hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, …envyings” (Gal. 5:20-21). But the Spirit helps check those through self-control. A healthy appreciation of our limitations leads to “longsuffering, gentleness, …faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. 5:22-23) which are gifts produced as a byproduct of recognizing our weakness.

If there is a consistent experience produced by an encounter with God while filled with the Holy Spirit, it would be “dread” or “fear.” Comparing our fallen nature to the purity of God causes shame. (The language used by those who experience this include these accounts: “racked with a consciousness of your guilt”—Mormon 9:3-5; “Woe is me, I am undone”—Isa. 6:5; “a great quaking…they fled to hide”—Daniel 10:7; “an horror of great darkness”—Genesis 15:12.)

We become meek, temperate and long suffering with others as we comprehend how little we are in comparison to God. We have no reason to boast after we have encountered purity and intelligence. It is a fearful thing to come into contact with the Living God (Heb. 10:31.)

Intelligence is light and truth (D&C 93:36). Truth is knowledge of things as they are, were, and are to come (D&C 93:24). We clearly see our weakness when in contact with God (Ether 12:27). But the purpose of showing us our weakness is to cause “weak things become strong” (Id.). This “strength” does not produce bragging, assertiveness or boasting. To the contrary, it produces recognition, meekness and fear.

When an authentic encounter with God happens, the person will be filled with anxiety for the salvation of others. (See, Lehi’s immediate concern for his family: 1 Ne. 8:12; Enos’ desire for his brethren and his enemies, the Lamanites, who he viewed as “brethren” also: Enos 1:9, 11; the Sons of Mosiah, who after their own conversion could not bear to have any soul lost if they could convert them: Mosiah 28:3; and the Apostle Paul, who went from persecuting to proselytizing; among many others.)

The results are not magic. It is a natural progression based on knowledge and understanding. God shows us something, and we take it into account. We know more, understand more, and have a far more realistic recognition of what is happening here in this fallen world. Then, with that increased understanding, we look to contribute to saving souls (our own included). This is comforting, because it is real.

The frequent testimonies declaring that a person “knows” something is true because the speaker or writer was stirred with emotion is not enlightening, enlivening, increasing understanding, bestowing knowledge, telling us saving truths, or based upon an actual encounter with God. God awakens us from slumber; which can be distressing and even alarming.

But we need to awaken. And we ought to be alarmed.

(I have used the terms Holy Ghost, Spirit and Holy Spirit interchangeably. I have previously explained how I understand the terms are correctly used in scripture.)

Thoughts on Holy Ghost

The Holy Ghost can and does speak to everyone, Baptists, Lutherans, and Catholics included. C.S. Lewis could not have written and comprehended what he wrote and understood, unless the light of the Holy Ghost shown upon his mind. He declares the light of eternal truths in his writings. This is one of the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, or Comforter. 

Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice and judgment. (Moses 6:61) 

This is in contrast to the power given by Christ to lay on hands for the Holy Ghost. For power to do that, Christ touched (and must touch) the man given that power. When Christ actually gave power to give the Holy Ghost, the Book of Mormon account stresses repeatedly that He touched them: There is a difference between a visit by the Holy Ghost and having its presence always to be with you. "A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him." (D&C 130:23.) This difference accounts for the Holy Ghost being available to all, on the one hand, and the power to lay on hands to confer the gift given by those upon whom Christ has laid His hands, on the other hand.

Many people believe they have the Holy Ghost with them when their emotions are stirred, or they are thrilled by some appealing talk, comment, praise or flattery. However these incidents do not increase light and truth, comprehension or intelligence and are not the Holy Ghost. They are only emotional experiences. Emotional experiences can be replicated in a number of ways. Music, movies, television commercials, general conference talks, books, testimonies, prayers and any number of physical experiences can create tears, goosebumps, or other things that we have incorrectly associated with the Holy Ghost.

Very often the truth conveyed by the Holy Ghost is hard to hear, difficult to follow, and breaks your heart. Sometimes the truth is bitter. But bitter truth is better than pleasing lies and flattery. It is a profound misunderstanding of the "Holy Ghost" when a person concludes it can never convey a message that condemns, convicts or challenges you. Much of what the Holy Ghost will convey - light and truth - causes pain, provokes change and repentance because you are convicted of errors. 

Alma was tutored by the Holy Ghost and it convicted him of his sins. He described it as "my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror." (Alma 36:14.) "For three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul." (Id., v. 16.) He said "I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins." (Id., v. 17.) He repented because he received accurate information by the power of the Holy Ghost showing him exactly where he stood before God. This enabled him to repent and return to God. 

It is a mistake to conclude that only good feelings, reassurance and praise comes through the Holy Ghost. It is likewise a profound error to assume a message that challenges you, tells you bad news about your present mistakes, and warns you to change course is dark, evil or cannot be from God.

There is no organization controlling the Holy Ghost.

Missionaries quote Moroni 10:4, and admonish everyone to pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon is true. Investigators are promised that God will manifest the truth of it unto them "by the power of the Holy Ghost." These are unbaptized, unwashed, and uninitiated investigators who are told they can hear the Holy Ghost speak truth to them. The Holy Ghost does, can, and will speak to anyone.

The claim an organization has a franchise over the Holy Ghost is hollow. The idea the Holy Ghost can be controlled is false. The fact LDS Mormons are acquainted with the Holy Ghost means very little. That acquaintance does not distinguish Latter-day Saints, and it does not separate others from the Holy Ghost and its ministrations, no matter who they are.

The Holy Ghost does not thrill, it informs. It gives understanding. Thrilling music can rouse you. A great TV show can give you goose bumps. That is not the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost enlightens minds, it enlivens senses, it brings light and new and more complete understanding.

"The first Comforter, or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence." TPJS, p. 149. 

"No man can receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations. The Holy Ghost is a revelator." TPJS, p. 328.  

There are some people who have the Spirit with them in such abundance, that to be in their presence is to understand things better. Understanding, comprehension, light and truth—these are the effects of the Holy Ghost.

The word "apostle" means someone sent. An apostle of Jesus Christ must be sent by Him to claim to be His apostle.

Christ gave the power to baptize in 3 Nephi 11:19-21 by telling Nephi (and later others) He empowered them: "And Nephi arose and went forth, and bowed himself before the Lord and did kiss his feet. And the Lord commanded him that he should arise.  And he arose and stood before him. And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven. And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize." Christ did not touch them because it is not required for this authority to be given by Him. He only said to them, "I give you power to baptize."

Although the record does not mention any prior ordination, these disciples in all likelihood had been previously ordained. But when Christ came to the Nephites, He was renewing His church. All that was needed for Him to convey the power to baptize was (and is) for Christ to tell the recipient of the power that it is given.

"And it came to pass that when Jesus had made an end of these sayings, he touched with his hand the disciples whom he had chosen, one by one, even until he had touched them all, and spake unto them as he touched them. And the multitude heard not the words which he spake, therefore they did not bear record; but the disciples bare record that he gave them power to give the Holy Ghost. And I will show unto you hereafter that this record is true." (3 Ne. 18:36-37.)

The Book of Mormon does show how it was given: 

"And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles." (Moro. 2:2.)

Laying on hands for the Holy Ghost is an ordinance belonging to an "apostle" or witness to whom Christ has ministered and empowered. Acts 1:22; see also Oliver Cowdery’s February 1835 charge to the twelve found at DHC 2:192-198, reproduced in part below.

In our own dispensation the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was likewise an ordinance to be performed only by an "apostle" upon whom Christ laid hands: 

"An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize; …And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures…" (D&C 20:38, 41.)

Section 20 was given in April 1830 when the term "apostles" was not associated with an organized church administrative body. At the time the revelation was given, the likely candidates for properly claiming the title of “apostle” were Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris. These four previously had the heavens opened to them. They had seen the plates of the Book of Mormon, and heard the voice of God declaring a message to them. However, there were many others in the earliest days who claimed to be "apostles," and the term had no settled meaning in April 1830.

Today many Latter-day Saints associate the term “apostles” with a quorum that did not exist in 1830. Reference to this "quorum" could not have been the meaning used in Section 20. When this revelation was given, all the elders in the church called themselves “apostles” of Jesus Christ. That practice gradually changed after the quorum of twelve had been organized. Reinterpreting the term used in Section 20 because in 1835 there was an organization of a church quorum of twelve is not justifiable. 

Arguably members of an administrative body, even if given the honorific title "Apostles," would still need to qualify as "apostles" to have the power to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The quorum of twelve were chosen by the Three Witnesses and ordained as Apostles by them. Oliver Cowdery gave them a charge that imposed the same obligation on the quorum as would be expected of any “apostle.” Cowdery’s charge told them it was necessary to have Christ lay hands on them to complete their ordination:

"It is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven to yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony God will never suffer to fall, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven.  Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off your doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief; and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid his hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid his hands upon his disciples, why not in latter days? . . .  The time is coming when you will be perfectly familiar with the things of God. . . . You have our best wishes, you have our most fervent prayers, that you may be able to bear this testimony, that you have seen the face of God. Therefore call upon him in faith in mighty prayer till you prevail, for it is your duty and your privilege to bear such a testimony for yourselves." (DHC, 2:192-96, emphasis added.) 

LDS practice does not limit laying on hands to an apostle Christ has touched and given power. Nor do members of the quorum of the twelve receive the charge given by Oliver Cowdery to the first apostles called by the Three Witnesses.

Many people foolishly conclude that the Holy Ghost is telling them something is "dark" or "evil" if it causes discomfort, pain or disappointment. The emotional response should be separated from deciding whether it comes from the Holy Ghost, or if the message is truthful. Does it enlighten? Does it impart knowledge? Does it cause a desire to change? Repent?

About the Tree of Life

In response to an email about the Tree of Life in Lehi's dream, and the potential for John the Beloved to be directly involved in latter-day events, I responded with the following:

__________________________

During the time when their natural lives had ended, the ministry of the Three Nephites was not public.  They ministered to Mormon and to Moroni, but did not minister openly. This is a type of how John also will minister. I do not expect him to openly minister again. The challenge is for mortals to cope with the mortal condition, aided by ministering angels (one of whom is John, others include the Three Nephites, and the cities of Enoch and Melchizedek, and Elijah).  The list in Section 128 includes some of the identities.

But the point is that Mormon as a mortal ministered to mortals. Moroni as a mortal likewise did so. The Three Nephites ministered to the ministers. This is the pattern we see likewise with Joseph. Christ and various other ministering angels ministered to Joseph, and Joseph ministered to the believers.

The challenge is to elevate others without elevating yourself. The idea of having a strong leader with everyone looking to them for salvation is a demonstrably inadequate model. It did not work with Moses. It failed in the New Testament. It failed with Joseph. It will fail if used again now.

The successes are Enoch's and Melchizedek's. Both of them confined themselves to the role of preaching and teaching repentance. That's it. Repentance and faith in God. The meekness of Moses notwithstanding, he failed to bring Zion. The prophetic and productive work of Joseph the Seer notwithstanding, he failed to bring Zion. 

The challenge is to get people to take that step of partaking of the fruit. No one fed it to them. No one got the fruit from the tree, took it out to the wandering and wayward people and handed it to them. No one other than the individual themselves could partake.

We are left with the only approved tools:

-persuasion

-kindness

-meekness

-love unfeigned

-pure knowledge

THESE must typify the ministry of whoever will bring again Zion. Use of any other means will not succeed in allowing the individual to make their own choice to come and partake.

Freedom To Worship

I have written over 2 million words explaining my understanding of Mormonism. It has largely been an exposition of the scriptures to show how they anchor all my beliefs. The scriptures are a library of material about Christ, written by those who knew Him and had understanding given to them by Him. The value of scripture is directly related to the writers' proximity to our Lord's mind and words.

Not all scripture has equal value. The Book of Mormon has the greatest value because of its origin. Its prophecies are more relevant to us than those of the Bible

Other than the scriptures, the sources I trust most are approved or written by Joseph Smith, or his brother Hyrum, and others that include the earliest contemporary accounts of beginning LDS history. The further away the source is from the actual events, the less reliable they prove. There are some accounts that have become "history" that were not even written by a witness. They were fanciful recreations intended to promote belief in the religious systems that followed Joseph's death. They are not true.

Lately, more reliable source materials about early LDS history are available to the public for the first time. Older accounts written without using the new source material are unreliable and outdated. Defending LDS historical accounts using unreliable source material no longer persuades those who are well read in new material. I have tried to make a positive statement of what I have learned and how events can be better reconstructed using what is now available.

The contradictory clutter of post-Joseph contentions advanced by church apologists are neither consistent nor coherent. Those who prize these sources and find virtue in them have courage. I confess I lack the courage to trust myth without searching to discover truth.

Even after all I've written, I still have venomous critics who attribute to me the opposite of what I believe.
-Although I condemn plural marriage, I'm accused of wanting it.
-Although I abhor concentration of power in church leaders, I'm accused of seeking to establish my own organization to control.
-Although I spend my own money to teach and serve, I'm accused of somehow wanting to profit from these expenses I bear.
-Although I have told people to remain LDS if they are happy with their situation, I'm accused of driving people away from the church. (I really like Latter-day Saints. They are among the best people I know. If they follow their faith, they are upright, decent and moral people for whom I hold high regard. They only bother me when they ignorantly and vocally damn me for things I do not believe or advocate. Apart from that, I have no complaints.)
-Although I harbor no ill-will to any church authority, I'm accused of railing against them.
-Although I recommend we return to the original name for the priesthood, I'm accused of wanting to rename priesthood after myself.

As the Lord said, "blessed are you when men shall say all manner of evil against you FALSELY for my name's sake..." It seems I qualify. The critics do not bother to say what I actually advocate, choosing instead to spread false accusations suggesting I believe the opposite of what I actually believe.

The 11th Article of Faith declares:

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.

I believe this. I also claim this right. I appreciate the opportunity claimed by every "Mormon" sect accepting the Articles of Faith as part of their beliefs. When others want to attack this right, let's band together to oppose them. Let everyone be free in their beliefs and worship.

It should be no concern to anyone what, how or where I choose to worship. If I am wrong, that is between me and God. I am only sharing what I have learned with those who are interested. You are free to reject my beliefs. If you are right, then you should rejoice in the truth you have found and try to persuade others to see the truth as well.

No one should "own" a religion. It is morally corrupt to claim anyone can dictate what others believe, what they should believe, how they should worship or what they must do to satisfy a man's demand in order for God to offer salvation. If you think a Pope, or Priest or Prophet can save you, then by all means go get yourself saved, as you understand it. If I think only God can save me, and that too by the grace of Christ, then permit me to seek for my salvation at the feet of the Lord whom I worship.

If we are both deluded then let's permit each other the joy of our delusions without rancor or contention. You revel in what brings you hope and satisfaction, and allow me to do the same. If we are all wrong, the least we can be is accommodating and happy.

Because of our limited time in mortality, we will all know soon enough the answers to all the questions. While we are here, let's be courteous to one another. When at last we arrive, we can compare notes and see what other insights we can share with one another.

Until you have done what I have done, you cannot possibly fully understand my faith, and likewise, since your experience is foreign to me, I cannot possibly fully understand your faith. We ought to resign ourselves to peacefully allow one another the privilege to worship according to the dictates of our own conscience, and trust that we all take seriously the obligation to search for truth.

Assuming we all act consistent with our conscience, then why damn each other for our good faith beliefs and efforts? Why not be open, even with disagreements? Why feel threatened when someone understands our history, scripture, and God's will differently? When we allow one another the freedom of belief, an open discussion helps us understand the reason for a different view, and lets us reconsider our own views in a healthy, useful way. Over time we inevitably grow more unified by open discourse.

It arouses my curiosity when someone offers a new understanding of scripture. Curiosity is a very good thing. It is perhaps the most childlike thing about us; something Christ said was required for us to see His Kingdom. When we react in fear and anger at other religious viewpoints we are really submitting to the enemy of our soul. Fear is ungodly. Faith casts out fear. Can you imagine a child who refuses to consider anything new because they fear to hear about it?

We should allow everyone to state what they believe and why-- in THEIR own words. Redefining them, attributing motives they do not claim, or questioning their good faith can never lead us to an understanding of one another.