Emphasize that ordinances are symbols, not ends of themselves

/in , /by

reform-banners21

Stop teaching that LDS temple and ordinances are required to make it to the Celestial Kingdom and start emphasizing that these things are important symbols which aid in salvation and eternal union but are not a requirement for it per se.

Reasoning:

In Joseph Smith’s vision of the Celestial Kingdom given in D&C 137:1–10, Joseph sees his brother Alvin (who was never baptized) in the celestial kingdom, with Adam, Abraham, Christ, God and Joseph’s parents. He marvels how his brother could be in the Celestial Kingdom seeing he was not baptised— and is told essentially that God knows people’s hearts and that all with good works and desires go to the Celestial Kingdom regardless of religion or ordinances.  D&C 128:13–18 teaches that temple ordinances (specifically baptisms for the dead are made in “similitude” or symbols of heavenly things, “that which is earthly conforming to that which is heavenly” (v.15).  My article Eternal Progression, Degrees of Glory, and the Resurrection: A Comparative Cosmology, correlates the work of many modern mystics who give similar descriptions of the afterlife/resurrection and detail how our placement is not dependant on physical ordinances. Common sense & conscience dictate that D&C 76:51 & John 3:5 are speaking of the principles of which baptism symbolizes as a necesity to entering the kingdom of God. (Death of the Mortal Body and carnal nature are needed to enter the kingdom of God. See the gnostic pearl for insight into the deep symbolism involved in the “water” of immersion, as a symbol of cleansing and re-entering the womb of creation.)  Nowhere in our scripture is it taught that temple sealings are needed to exclusively save our dead, but that a “welding link of some kind or other” (or sealing) is needed in order for us to be perfected as a group. (“For we without them cannot be made perfect, neither them without us” v.18).  Our current teachings have created a multitude of conference talks, songs, plays and anecdotal experiences which suggest that God keeps the righteous (and all non-mormons) out of the celestial kingdom until Mormon’s do their temple work. They also often senselessly believe that God somehow keeps families and couples apart in heaven. (As if some invisible being or force restricts them from being together or forbids them from being considered a couple or family?)  This irrational and unscriptural belief drives many from Mormonism. Our traditions also lead people to believe that baptizing infants is blasphemy, but yet baptising 8 year olds (who are also quite ignorant and innocent compared to an adult) is the difference between being able to enter the Celestial Kingdom (unless temple work is done for them). These silly beliefs and practices come from the inability of the lower (temporal) priesthood to see the deep symbolic principles of the higher (spiritual) priesthood which these “outward ordinances” point to.

Most religions have some sort of ancestor veneration and worship. Most religions as well as LDS scripture teaches that the dead are aware of the living and in fact influenced by our actions. LDS temple worship provides a venue for deeply spiritual ancestor veneration. LDS people believe our family history work aids in identifying and tying family lines together for both this life and the next. This richly rewarding spiritual experience is what should be taught and emphasized. Teachings which suggest temple sealings are “required” for heavenly reward go against scripture and conscience and should be eradicated.

Stop being dishonest concerning a witness of Jesus Christ

/4 Comments/in /by

reform-banners8

LDS members and Apostles need to stop bearing false witness by being dishonest concerning their witness of Jesus Christ, God and the truth of the church. When someone is called as a ‘witness’, their job is to witness what they have seen, felt and experienced—plainly, honestly and without misleading innuendo.

Reasoning:

The purpose and calling of an Apostle was according to the Bible, and is according to modern scripture, to be a special witness of the Resurrected Lord Jesus Christ to all the earth. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were given this title early in church history, because they witnessed that they saw Christ in vision (see D&C 76). In the case of our present “apostles”, if that witness is a first hand visual witness as was the case for Christ’s original apostles they need to proclaim that witness clearly and honestly. If it is a witness only by the Holy Ghost, this also needs to be proclaimed clearly and honestly.

I have observed first hand many leaders and members of the church (including apostles). Talk about their ‘witness’ of Jesus Christ in a manner which led us to believe that they had possibly seen Christ in vision, but then say the experience was ‘too sacred to share’.  This is dishonest, and we should have none of this mysterious and deceptive language. If God is a completely honest God as we believe him to be, then when he calls someone as witness of Him, he NEVER would then swear them to secrecy or tell them to speak in hushed muted terms concerning the experience. That’s not a witness. It is an absolute contradiction to call oneself a witness of Christ and then not proclaim the specifics of that witness while pretending that somehow the experience was too sacred to talk about or that you are sworn to secrecy after “being called” to be a witness! If you are called as a witness… witness! The current practices of LDS apostles in this regard tend toward evil and need to be reformed to accord with complete openness and honesty.

The same goes for the testimonies of church members.  We have a cultural practive of hinting at our experiences in testimony meeting in ways that lead others to believe they were more than they were. We also have developed a cultural tendency of saying we “know” this or that when in fact we actually only believe or have faith in it.  This actually causes a lot of guilt, shame, confusion and contempt. It is dishonest of us to redefine the word know to mean believe. It is also unscriptural. Alma says in Alma 32:21 “faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true”.   If you have not seen God, you should not stand up in front of the congregation and say “I know god lives”, that is a lie, you should say “I have faith and hope that god lives for such and such reasons. The Brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon teaches us how we should differentiate faith and knowledge.

19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.
20 Wherefore, having this perfect knowledge of God, he could not be kept from within the veil; therefore he saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him. (Ether 3:19–20)

By saying we “know” God lives or we “know” the church is true, we are effectually saying by the definitions in our own scripture that we no longer need faith because we are redeemed from the veil. At the very least, we are reading into our experiences and claiming that they say universal or objective things about truth that they dont, and it’s time we as a church stop promoting it as a cultural practice of both leadership and members.

Also:

Stop manipulating people into thinking every church related spiritual experience or emotional reaction to spirituality is proof that “the LDS church is true”. Care must be taken in the way we frame arguments for our faith.

Reasoning:

Much like the intrinsic human experiences of love or infatuation, the “burning heart” or spiritual awakening is experienced by members of most religions. These experiences can connect people to a religious tradition and seem to typically yield good fruits but can easily be used to manipulate people into cults. When we use manipulation techniques to suggest to youth that spiritual emotions or a burning heart, prove the Mormon church is the only true one, these individuals will likely be bitter when they find people of many, many religions experience them. (see this youtube video for many such examples)   Many ancient and modern religions promote better systems to explain the phenomena of spiritualism in terms of spiritual connection, activated endocrine glands or spiritual centers attached to the human nervous system. (see this wikipedia article on kundalini)

Our current system of gaining a “testimony” is manipulative. If members or investigators “feel the spirit” during a discussion of Joseph Smith or while reading the book of Mormon, we ask them to accept this as proof that Mormonism is the only true church. If they “feel the spirit” while listening to a general conference address, we ask them to accept this as proof that these men are called of God and essentially everything any of them say is the word of God. This is synonymous with asking people to kiss someone or hold a baby or view a sunset and then asking them to accept these good feelings as testimony that the one involved is their only love or that the LDS church is God’s only true church and thus all its tenets are true. We need to stop manipulating people into drawing man-made conclusions which aren’t necessarily true, from their very personal spiritual experiences.  See ‘Is The LDS Church the Only True Church? Understanding Religion and Truth‘, for a detailed exegesis on how religious truth relates to religious pluralism and real truth.

Watch the following video to see how impossible and dangerous it is to believe that spiritual emotional confirmation can serve as the sole basis for testimony.

Elder Dallin Oaks spoke yesterday at a multi-stake fireside on Jan 23rd in Seattle.. A youth in attendance asked him if they should seek to have an “Alma the younger” type of experience and get a personal witness of Christ. His answer was refreshingly honest and direct. He told them that neither he nor anyone in the 1st presidency or Q12 have ever seen Christ, had a vision, or supernatural experience. He reaffirms that the basis for the Q15 testimony is no different than the typical member.

Just after the 30 minute mark. The question is asked. The response that I transcribe here is starting at time mark 31:38:

“I’ve never had an experience like that and I don’t know anyone among the 1st Presidency or Quorum of the 12 who’ve had that kind of experience. Yet everyone of us knows of a certainty the things that Alma knew. But it’s just that unless the Lord chooses to do it another way, as he sometimes does; for millions and millions of His children the testimony settles upon us gradually. Like so much dust on the windowsill or so much dew on the grass. One day you didn’t have it and another day you did and you don’t know which day it happened. That’s the way I got my testimony. And then I knew it was true when it continued to grow.”

Brigham Young was almost exclusively referred to as the President of the Church, never as a prophet and he actually made many public statements saying that he was specifically not a prophet. For example: ” I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don’t profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser;” Brigham Young, Sermon, July 26, 1857, JD 5:77. Brigham also made it very clear several times that he had not seen Jesus. For example: “I cannot bear the same testimony of Jesus that I can of Joseph, because I never saw him with my natural body. Peter, James and John etc., were apostles of Jesus, they were called and ordained by him, so they could testify of him, but they could not testify of Joseph as I can. –Brigham Young, June 27, 1854, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young 2:809.

When called before congress to testify in the Reed Smoot hearings, President Joseph F. Smith similarly testified that “I have never pretended nor do I profess to have received revelations”. His testimony was that he was unsure if he had been inspired or not and compared his experience as the prophet of the church to the “same as any Methodist, Protestant, or preacher”

I had come to the conclusion long ago that none of the Apostles had reasons to believe beyond what they publicly taught. It always seems that when they dodged the occasional probing questions about seeing Christ, that they were deliberately trying to be vague and let people believe what they wanted to believe. I’m happy to see Oaks owning up to reality with a clear statement.

If you pay close attention, you will find that none of the modern apostles even say that they are special witnesses of Christ anymore. The phrase used now days is “special witnesses of the name of Christ”.

Oaks has gone on record several times explaining this. He quotes D&C 107:23 – “The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world” and then says “This is not to witness of a personal manifestation. To witness of the name is to witness of the plan, the work, or mission such as the atonement and the authority or priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which an apostle who holds the keys is uniquely responsible to do. Of course apostles are also witnesses of Christ just like all members of the church who have the gift of the Holy Ghost”

There are accounts of supernatural experience both among some early apostles and more modern members…

Descriptions of the experience can also be found in the annals of the membership. Here we find a description from the journal of Parley P. Pratt.

My dear  wife [Thankful Halsey Pratt] had now lived to accomplish her destiny; and  when the child  was dressed, and  she  had  looked  upon it and embraced it, she ceased to live in the flesh.  Her death happened about three hours after the  birth  of this  child  of promise. A few days previous to her death she had a vision in open day while sitting in her room. She was overwhelmed or immersed in a pillar of fire, which seemed to fill the whole room, as if it would consume it and all things therein; and the Spirit whispered to her mind, saying: “Thou art baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost.” It also intimated to her that she should have the privilege of departing from this world of sorrow and pain, and of going to the Paradise of rest as soon  as she  had fulfilled  the prophecy in relation  to the promised son. This vision was repeated on the next day at the same hour, viz:­ twelve  o’clock. She was overwhelmed with a joy and peace indescribable, and seemed changed in her whole nature from that time forth. (Autobiography of  Parley P. Pratt, Salt  Lake City:  Deseret Book Co.,  1972.  p. 166; italics  added.)

President Lorenzo Snow also relates the choice experience of his rebirth:

Some two or three weeks after I was baptized, one day while engaged  in my studies, I began to reflect upon the fact that  I   had  not  obtained   a knowledge of  the  truth  of  the work … and  I  began  to feel very  uneasy. I   laid aside my books, left the house, and  wandered around through the fields under  the oppressive influence of a gloomy,  dis­consolate  spirit,  while an indescribable cloud  of darkness seemed  to envelope  me. I had been accustomed, at the close of the day, to retire for secret prayer, to a grove … but at this time I felt no inclination to do so. The spirit of prayer had departed and the heavens seemed like brass over my head. At length, realizing that the usual time had come for secret prayer, I concluded I would not forego my evening service, and, as a matter of formality,  knelt as I was in the habit of doing,  and in my accustomed  retired place, but not feeling as I  was wont  to feel.

I had no sooner opened my lips in an effort to pray, than I heard a sound, just above my head, like the rustling of silken robes, and immediately the Spirit of God descended upon me, completely enveloping my whole person, filling me, from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet, and 0, the joy and happiness I felt! No language can describe the almost instantaneous transition from a dense cloud of mental and spiritual darkness into a refulgence  of light and  knowledge, as it was at that  time imparted  to my understanding…. It was a complete baptism­ a tangible immersion in the heavenly principle or element, the Holy Ghost; and even more real and physical in its effects upon every part of my system than the immersion by water; dispelling forever, so long as reason and memory last, all possibility of doubt. …

I cannot tell how long I remained in the full flow of the blissful enjoyment and divine enlightenment, but it was several minutes before the celestial element which filled and surrounded me began gradually to withdraw. On arising from my kneeling posture, … I knew.’  that He had conferred on me what only an omnipotent being can confer – that which is of greater value than  all the  wealth  and  honors worlds can bestow. That night, as I retired to rest, the same wonderful manifestations were repeated, and continued to be for several successive nights. The sweet remembrance of those glorious experiences … impart[s] an inspiring   in­fluence … and  I  trust  will to the close of my earthly  ex­istence.

(Biography – Family  Record of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Eliza R. Snow,  Salt Lake City: Deseret  Book Co., 1884, pp. 7-9; most italics added.) http://jesus.christ.org/teachings-of-jesus-christ/born-of-the-spirit-baptism-by-fire

We have examples of the baptism of fire in scripture, we find them infused in the testimonies of several of the early saints. Are there modern day occurrences of being born again?

 From James:

I wanted a spiritual experience, so I prayed and fasted the next day, Sunday. I broke my fast because we were invited to eat at someone’s house that night.  On Monday I decided to do as Enos and Nephi and fast and pray all day. I went out into a bungalow and prayed vocally for as long as I could. When I couldn’t think of things to pray about I read my scriptures. I prayed until the afternoon, but nothing happened. I was really discouraged. That night I went to my … friend’s house to talk about things. He gave me a blessing.

The next day was Tuesday. … I decided to give it another go. I broke my fast and went out to the bungalow to pray again. I prayed for about an hour and this happened:

From my journal:

I knelt down and was praying to the Lord with all my heart that I might receive evidence that what I was doing was right.    I could feel the spirit in my chest and my face was tingling.  While   feeling this I pleaded that I might have greater evidence.  All of a sudden I felt power come into my body.  As Nephi said it consumed my flesh.  So much so that I felt that my hands were out stretched and my chest was pulled up and power surged through me like I have never felt in all   my life. It was so powerful that I could hardly control myself.  I   felt like I was being shocked with energy.  I knew it was the energy of God.  I felt His power!

At the time I wasn’t sure what had happened, but it wasn’t long after that Heavenly Father began to help me understand that I had experienced the baptism of fire.

Put a greater emphasis on service, humanitarian work and giving

/in /by

reform-banners7

Put a greater emphasis on service, humanitarian work and giving. (I think we’re making progress?!)

Reasoning:

It’s funny how quickly people sense whether you are trying to sell them something. We need to focus a lot more on the newly added 4rth mission of the church “care for the poor and needy“, and realize this is the number one way to “perfect the saints” and “proclaim the gospel”.  Missionaries need to spend a lot more time doing humanitarian work; a FAR greater percentage of tithing money needs to go to humanitarian work; and more of our “worship” needs to revolve around humanitarian work. Each stake should have the authority to decide how to implement this, but there needs to be less preaching and more doing. I believe the successful millennial religion will not be one of belief, creed or preaching, but one of good works which goes out and does the work of civilizing the world.

We spend way too much time preaching about how different we are from Christianity and the world (Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, restoration, our creeds, etc..) instead of just taking our neighbor’s hands and leading them with our amazing organized structure, to serve humanity in meaningful ways.

-One idea is to accompany each “fast sunday” with an activity where the stake gets together to DO something with that fast offering money. Perhaps assemble kits of some kind, perhaps a service project to serve someone in the stake, perhaps volunteering at the local shelter. Whatever it is, if people see something being DONE with the fast offering money, they will give more, and be more spiritually fulfilled.

-Another idea is to change relief society and priesthood from a “lesson” of faith, to a “council” of doing. It should be neighborhood people getting together and counseling on how to improve the neighborhood and the family. After a short message, the meeting could serve as a brainstorming session for the monthly fast offering service project, or ideas on how to serve neighborhood families.

-Another real need to put a far greater percentage of our tithing money into humanitarian work (and disclose what that percentage is).

Teach and encourage the practice of economic equality through the Law of Consecration

/in /by

reform-banners6

Teach and encourage the practice of economic equality through the Law of Consecration in its proper framework under the United Order. Completely ignoring this law separates the church from the heavenly organizations which helped to found it. Failing to even teach (let alone practice) this system robs the church of possible heavenly blessings and puts us on par with other Christian organizations which preach the Christian gospel but are not practicing the New Testament system (Acts 2:44) which remedies economic inequality—the single largest cause of social instability & collapse.  See D&C sections 42, 51, 78, 82, 104. see also Enrichment L.

ALL General Authorities, Area Seventies, Stake Presidents and Bishops should be required to live this simple law of binding oneself to the median income of one’s particular social demographic.

Reasoning:

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. (D&C 49:20)

14 Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld. (D&C 70:14)

33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:33)
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me… 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 29 …every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. (Matt 19:21–30)

New testament scripture and the LDS Doctrine and Covenants contain one of the best systems imaginable for creating an organization that not only avoids corruption, but assures that organizational power is given only to the most selfless of individuals. You simply force the leadership (first and foremost) to self-sacrifice more than anyone else in society. The primary tool for doing this is the law of consecration. In this system, those who wish to be leaders must give up all their earthly possessions, and join an economic order of complete equality. Their good example then encourages others to do likewise.

The Doctrine and Covenants make it clear that “Zion” or a Utopian/heavenly society cannot be established unless it attempts to the best of its ability to live a form of economic equality. In LDS scripture this system was called the United Order (D&C 51:2–3; 105:3-5, Enrichment L). In its early stages, the system is especially essential as a social framework for vetting leadership, integrating converts, immigrants, and the raising generation. According to LDS scripture, relative economic & social equality is still THE absolute requirement to the founding of the heavenly church on earth— or a lasting Utopian society like those which exist in the higher dimensions (D&C 38:27). The church will remain “under condemnation” for as long as obedience to this law goes completely untaught and unattempted. LDS implementation of this order has always been over-complicated and corrupted (because it was manipulatively forced on poor members; and rarely actually required of the wealthy leadership). A simplistic form of this order/system can be begun at any time, by any person, with the following simple common sense teaching.

Willingly bind yourself to live a comfortable lifestyle somewhere near the median income of your chosen demographic.

This divine rule has nothing to do with how much an individual actually makes in income, per se—it simply regulates how much an individual can spend on themselves. It dictates that saints (especially those who wish to be leaders) live median income lifestyles regardless of their income—and invest excess income in ventures which help their posterity and build the community, instead of spending it on selfish pursuits, expensive housing or a lavish lifestyle unequal from the average of their community. (A practice which God’s true Saints throughout the world always live regardless of which church they belong to.) This simple rule of social equality is detailed in scripture to follow these simple steps…

  1.  According to the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, the foundation of the United Order is a ward/stake institutionalized credit union (a bank whose members are sole shareholders. see D&C 51:8–15; 104:68; 124:70). Were the Church its own kingdom (political nation), this bank might be considered a Central Bank. However I don’t think the character of the financial organization has much baring on the spirit of the law—and church instituted financial organizations are probably only best in under-developed parts of the world where stable, trustworthy banks are hard to come by. For most current LDS members the following instructions concerning the utilization of “excess income” can just as easily be implemented by using a bank or credit union of each member’s choice.
  2. Worthy members keep their “excess income” in the credit union or trust (just like most normal Americans do). Of particular importance is excess land & real-estate.  (D&C 42:33–36; 3 Ne 26:19, 4 Ne 1:3, Acts 4:32–34)
  3. Worthy members voluntarily bind themselves to live at a median income which approximates the median income for their area and circumstances. (see D&C 51:3). For example, the median income for a family with 2 children in Park City utah is about $77,000/year (this goes up radically with more children). Members agree not to spend on themselves more than this amount in a year even if they have it. The exact amount and details of this fixed salary are for the individual to decide with the Bishop/Stake President. Excess income goes into the credit union/trust/order/etc. Caveats and details of what constitutes “excess” stay loosely defined and are ultimately left up to the individual to decide, with counsel as desired from spiritual leaders. (Or political leaders once the religious order becomes a true kingdom)
  4. Here’s where a fully functioning united order varies with a typical credit union. Members with excess income agree to allow the credit union to annually invest their “excess” (increase) into worthy pursuits which make money while working to lift up the poor (every member who makes less than the median income—according to their need). This can be managed just as a modern credit union does, lending money to worthy business startups, education funds, social projects or even home purchases). As a peripheral-endeavor, each credit union should be encouraged to capitalize cooperative social projects which employ the poor (ie. fund bonds in cooperation with political entities, if possible). Those shown to be good with money should be in charge of the lending process according to accepted modern banking standards. (FDR’s new deal/CCC, ZCMI, Deseret Industries, and many other historical cooperative ventures can serve as important historical analogs to what works and what doesn’t. In many ways this scriptural system is not so different from typical modern social programs funded by taxes instead of a central bank. Indeed, the United Order is simply a mandate and formative template to create a system similar to some of the highly functioning democratic socialist societies who have become righteous enough to get it to work without widespread corruption & inequality.
  5. Special consideration must be given to focus on providing work and lifting all members to attain the median income range for their area and family size (especially convert refugees, immigrants and the raising generation).
  6. The countless considerations inherent in this system are to be worked out by those with experience in investment and banking. (Using free market principles as much as possible.) The enterprise would essentially mimic the socialistic practices of free-market governments or even modern banking/investment systems in general (there is essentially little difference except that the goal is to lift the poor, in addition to providing an inheritance/pension for members). The most fit and qualified individuals in these industries must be employed to solve problems and create safe and viable organizations. Free market trial and error are inevitable as Stakes and Region’s learn to make it work.
  7. The return on investment for the credit union assures retirement funds (an inheritance) for members of the order. (Just as is currently done with pension funds, except that the religious encouragement might create greater participation— and an emphasis is placed on helping the poor with profits).
  8. Religious (and one day political!) leaders are required by the church & society to be members of the order. To be an ecclesiastical leader or social servant (politician), one must prove they are willing to self-sacrifice enough to bind themselves to the median income–helping to assure that the majority of church leaders (& public servants!) are fairly selfless and dedicated to social equality. (This ends up being the societies best way to assure that social power, such as high callings or positions, is kept in the hands of those willing to self-sacrifice. It helps keep selfish people out of government)
  9. Just as the jizyah was a powerful factor in Islam’s regional growth & success, the United Order is Mormonism’s program to grow the church (D&C 58:8–11) while helping to promote social stability & equality. Through this program people (especially converts/migrants) are encouraged to live basic religious/social tenets of morality in order to be eligible for loans and good paying jobs on church/social projects. Bishops are scripturally mandated to be somewhat like loan officers. The system serves to motivate the rapid economic lifting and cultural/moral integration of immigrants and the lower classes into the middle class–as well as to minimize the economic disparity of the upper class.
  10. This is not communism, but a hybrid free-market/socialist system. I believe the United Order in LDS scripture is very similar to the modern banking and investment system coupled with metered democratic socialism. But the stark differences lie primarily in its goals, participation and management. The system is obviously inferior to the free market system when it comes to returning profit. If you personally covenant with God to not buy a lavishly expensive house, your motivation to work like crazy to make millions may be gone… and for this reason the system must not discourage members who don’t wish to join. But EVERY free or controlled market & monetary system eventually collapses under the weight of its own social inequality. This church program seeks to assuage the social and monetary collapse which result from inequality by giving non-monetary rewards to successful people who make the difficult selfless sacrifice to promote equality—namely they get to govern the investments funds/credit unions, raise the poor, govern wards, stakes and desirably they would be the only people considered for political office…

Failed early attempts to live the United Order (like failed national social systems) attempted to take from the rich and give to the poor without requiring appropriate labor or intelligent investment. And by allowing money to be managed by bureaucrats instead of those who have shown they are good with money by being the ones who made it in the first place. They were based on force and lacked balance, education, and common sense. They also lacked needed social or political support—being run and managed by church leaders instead of regionally successful business leaders. Successful LDS attempts, however, simply used excess funds to start or invest in business (such as ZCMI or Church Farms) which could then be used to employ the poor with an appropriate wage. These enterprises must be run by those who are good with money (which would usually be those who give the most money to them) NOT by local priesthood or church bureaucrats (who are notorious at losing/wasting people’s money). The church should only set up the system, and have local church leaders who sit on the boards and act as advisors to show board members where the greatest needs are. Bishops simply run the bishop’s storehouse and food pantry as currently constituted–and serve as or work with loan officers who can adequately judge the need/risk involved to lending to applicant members.

People typically over-spiritualize Consecration and the United Order. The truth is that it is obeyed by millions of people and in operation in thousands of communities and nations throughout the world. It seems the same spirit or philosophy which taught Joseph Smith, informed the ideas of many other economic reformers since as has created the foundation of economic equality and care for the poor which many nations practice. It is a very common-sense approach to community economic equality, not requiring a massive redistribution of wealth, and certainly not limiting the rich’s ability to do what they do best—make & manage money. It does require convincing the rich that it is in their best interest to not spend their money solely on themselves. Convincing them not to spend their money on huge houses or lavish living; but to invest it in their future, their children, and most importantly—their community. A society that masters the Spirit of the Law of Consecration will avoid the social collapse which comes from economic inequality, and selfish politicians. The rich in such a society are not robbed or abased–they are motivated to live a median income lifestyle by being encouraged to live the law so they can become the communities leaders, educators, civil servants, and money managers. They are taught to self-sacrifice and that sacrifice gives them power. Under the law, it is that self-sacrifice-dependent power which serves as the motivation for achievement and advancement in the society.  This in contrast to so many of our modern cultures where mansions, lavish living, sexual favors, and selfish, non-sacrifice-dependent power serves for motivation to upward social mobility & economic/political advancement.

Be completely transparent about church history

/in /by

Be completely transparent about church history. (we’re making huge progress on this!)

Reasoning:

I believe Mormonism has done itself an enormous disservice by pushing a “faith promoting” (sanitized and correlated) view of its history. By hiding the entirely fallible nature of Joseph Smith and other church leaders, we have perpetuated the false dichotomy of “either it’s all true or it’s all false”. It’s important for member to understand that prophets (those with the gift of revelation) are prone to big mistakes in learning to use their spiritual gifts. They can get mixed signals, and they can inject their own bias or even negative sourced material into their doctrines and revelations. If there are aspects of church history which seem like they may “destroy the faith” of some members, then that faith needs to be destroyed and replaced with truer reasoning. Everyone worships a God and follows a “personal religion” which is at least partly a projection of their own biases, cultural distortions and limited perspective. The unseemly aspects of church history help to break down those idols and misconceptions. The recent church gospel topic essays are a good start, but more needs to be done here. Really the only reason these essays and issues are causing so many to lose faith, is because there are so many who have been led to base their faith on false assumptions and untruths. These false assumptions and untruths need to be effectively addressed (which I attempt to do in these reform actions).

See the new church sponsored essays…

  1. First Vision Accounts November 20, 2013
  2. Race and the Priesthood December 6, 2013
  3. Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah December 16, 2013
  4. Book of Mormon Translation December 30, 2013

Reform exclusive truth & priesthood claims

/in /by

Reform Action #3 of 20   (see overview page)

Reform any unscriptural exclusive truth & priesthood claims.  D&C 10:67–68 says clearly “Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.” We need to take a hard look at the ways we might be ‘declaring more or less than this” in our teachings.  Specifically we need to reframe three completely unscriptural teachings.

  1. The teaching that Mormonism is the only true church . (this teaching is directly contrary to scripture)  Instead, our scriptures teach we are an extension of the the heavenly church, which is the actual ‘only true church’.
  2. The teaching that Mormonism’s priesthood is the only valid priesthood on earth. (also contrary to scripture)
  3. In general, we need to stop promoting false dichotomies in our truth claims (its all true or its all false). Do a better job at maintaining the multidimensional scriptural metaphors without imposing rigid church-wide interpretations for them.

Reasoning:

Teachings #1, and #2 above are completely contrary to revealed scripture, as explained in the following articles..

Re-examining what LDS scriptures say about the ‘Only True Church’ doctrine

The Priesthood of God & Its Relationship to the Only True Church Doctrine

Like good music, the scriptures are purposely written in metaphor so they can be interpreted differently depending on where an individual is in their life and ‘stages of faith’ progression. We need to stop “adding to or taking away” from those metaphors by creating such rigid institutionalized interpretations of those metaphors. For instance, the scriptures teach clearly that the temporal church and priesthood are a type, symbol, imitation or attempted copy of the ‘true and living church’ which exists in heaven (Alma 13:16, D&C 77:2, Matt 6:10, Heb 9:23–24, D&C 128:12–13, 52:14–see this article). A misinterpretation of D&C 1:30 and a handful of other scriptures have caused us to disregard (D&C 10:67–68, Moroni 7:16–17, Mark 9:38–40, etc.) which teach clearly that all who are repentant, moving toward Christ,  do good & preach Christ are part of “His Church”. (see this article: Re-examining what LDS scriptures say about the ‘Only True Church’ doctrine for an in depth look at the scriptural and doctrinal evidence).  Likewise D&C 86:8–10 (see also D&C 88:17–18, & Abr 1:4, 2:11) as well as a host of other scriptures show clearly that our traditional idea that the priesthood was “lost” during the great apostasy is not entirely true. (see this article for clarification or how Mormons are not the only one’s with valid priesthood and that the keys restored to us, deal with our particular mission only).  Reform our teachings to properly portray the church’s role in working WITH the other members of Christ’s “spiritual church” to help to gather all our Christian brothers together in Christ (Eph. 1:10, D&C 27:13).  Also reform our teachings on priesthood elitism to more fully align with the more humble approaches taught in D&C 121.  Root out and put an end to the cult-like practices which result from these misunderstood doctrines (persecuting and deriding other Christian churches because of our traditional teachings that they are part of the Church of the devil, marginalizing, demonizing and shunning those who leave our communion because of our false teachings that leaving the LDS church means going to a lower heaven than those who stay, raising our leaders to god-like status and vilifying those who speak against them, etc..).  See this video for details on many of our cult-like practices in need of addressing.

Stop promoting the false dichotomy of “either Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the Book of Mormon is true… and thus its all true, or it’s all false” (see here for examples). All church’s and earthly organization’s believe and promote both truth and error. At least three other major religious founders claim to have seen God and/or Jesus within a decade from Joseph Smith; Siyyid Shírází (Founder of Bahá’í Faith; 8 million adherents), Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad (Aḥmadiyya Muslims; 20 million adherents), Hong Xiuquan (prophetic icon of Chinese millennialism). Just because Joseph was given a dispensation of restoration, does not mean God did not give other prophets and religious founders dispensation’s of their own. Having multiple prophets and priesthood lines on earth HAS BEEN THE RULE for the entire scriptural record. Our suggestion that in our day things are ‘different’ and now God suddenly has ONE priesthood line on earth is an unscriptural false tradition based on pride. All prophets are fallible and run the risk of introducing negatively oriented material and concepts into their revelations, practices and doctrine, all receive revelations as they are able and reveal heaven as they see it “through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12).

The words of Christ to the Israelites (and Nephites) might well apply to us, when he says

“and they [my leaders] understood me not when I said other sheep I have that are not of this fold, and they too must I bring, that there will be one flock, one shepherd”. (John 10:16, 3 Ne 15:21)

And I command you [my leaders] that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of… (3 Ne 16:4)

Eliminate autocracy by balancing consensus rule (democracy) with guidance from ordained leadership

/1 Comment/in /by

Reform Action #4 of 20   (see overview page)

Reform governance in seasoned regions of the church, working to eliminate autocracy & “divine dictatorship” and implement the democratic principles revealed in our scripture. Restore the law of common voice where possible in the selection of many congregational-level callings. Do better at respecting difference of opinion and re-instituting the vote as a major form of decision making. (this does not necessarily apply in regions where the church is new).

Reasoning:

The law of common consent is delineated in the following sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. D&C 20:63–66, D&C 26:2; 28:13, D&C 38:21–27, D&C 102:5–19, D&C 104:71–85, —  More importantly the law of “common voice” (a form of democratic representative governance) is established in D&C 38:34; D&C 41:9, D&C 51:4, D&C 58:49, D&C 102:3,12; D&C 104:71–72; Acts 1:26, Mos 29:25-30. Voting is specifically prescribed in D&C 20:63–66; 102:5-8,12,19; Acts 1:26.  Church members are specifically instructed in D&C 124:144 to vote their “approval” or “disapproval” of chosen leaders — including those presented by revelation.  The Church political structure as delineated in the Doctrine and Covenants appears clearly to more closely resemble a representative ecumenical council where a perfect balance exists between decisions and policy coming from the bottom up according to what the spirit of God speaks to an inspired people and direction from the top down according to what God’s spirit whispers to the leading high-priesthood (see D&C 1:18–20). This order of government given in the D&C accords with the tradition of ecumenicism which historical texts suggest was passed down from the earliest Christian fathers to the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches. These systems helped serve as a basis for political democracy in the ancient Christian World. Our current LDS church system which demonizes religious democratic governance as uninspired is nothing short of religious totalitarianism and needs to reform to accord with Christian and LDS scripture. Our cultural and unscriptural practice of asking for a mock vote of “sustaining” or “opposition” (in which everyone is just expected to agree), instead of a true general vote of “approval” or disapproval” (preferably on multiple candidates), tends to discourage the democratic principles taught in our founding revelations (D&C 124:144).

Even the Didache or “The Lord’s Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, which is likely the earliest extant Christian writing yet found (likely written between 90AD – 150AD), has the author telling some unknown group of early saints to “appoint for yourselves, bishops and deacons…”

“Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers…” (Didache, from early Christian Writings. Roberts Translation. 150 AD)

It can be argued that every organization needs to find that delicate balance between democratic and autocratic control. The balance between top-down and bottom-up decision making. But it seems clear that LDS revelations strongly suggest that local church governance, was to be decided far more democratically than at present (decisions coming from the bottom up according to inspiration given to members), whereas top-down “revelatory” appointments were generally restricted to certain newly created quorums and appointments as well as possibly some specific quorums. The Doctrine and Covenants explicitly states that Bishops (D&C 51:12), church social workers, and church property managers (D&C 38:34–37) may be “appointed by the voice of the church“. Even though in new stakes it was common practice for them to be appointed by revelation through the head of the church (D&C 72:8, D&C 41:9), or “ordained by the direction of a high council or general conference” (D&C 20:67). D&C 102:8–12 specifically delineates the manner in which the church “high councils” were and are to be appointed by revelation of “unanimous voice” (v. 3) and “vote” (v.5) of a church council composed of various members assembled for that purpose. After organization, vacancies in the high councils were to be filled by a more autocratic “nomination of the president” (see v. 8-9. However that president was to himself have been elected democratically by vote of the council, or “chosen by the body” as it says in D&C 107:22).  [footnote: all of this only when a literal descendant of Aaron cannot be found, if found this office was to be primarily appointed and then passed from father to son. see D&C 68:19, 107:17 see also Redefining the LDS (Protestant) View of the “Great Apostasy”]

In LDS and Christian scripture, strictly autocratic structures are only prescribed in early formative periods of a dispensation or in periods of apostasy (1 Sam 8; Mos 29:25-30; Ether 6:22–24). Autocratic or totalitarian states in which decisions and policy only proceed top-down by a dominant, elite hierarchy are repeatedly criticized. Christ’s law strictly delineates that people are to be led by their own faith and agency, even if it is to their own destruction (D&C 101:78; Jacob 4:14; Ether 12:29; 1 Sam. 8:6–9).

Despite the fact that it was never really followed, the revelations in the D&C, as I read them, seem to suggest that even Stake High Councils were to be elected by some type of democratic, representative system. (Likely by lower ward council representatives and not by popular vote. See D&C 107. ) The High Council then would chose the Stake presidency (as a microcosm, they would follow the same direction given in D&C 107:22, where the presidency is “chosen by the body [of the council].”  The manner of choosing the Seventy is not specified, but using the scriptures I have so far presented we can assume they were to be chosen by democratic revelation given unanimously to the lower body (likely each Stake High Council choosing one representative to serve or by democratic unanimous voice of the council itself) rather than autocratically.

The evidence given in the Doctrine and Covenents and Acts 1:12–26 concerning how an apostle or “traveling twelve” was to be replaced are ambiguous. In the case of Judas’ replacement its unclear as to exactly who was to be involved in the vote. Acts 1:15 specifies that 120 believers were present for the vote presided over by Peter. But there is absolutely no indication as to whether only the eleven voted or some larger number of officials or even if all 120 took part.

I believe that the idea of church councils have and should embody the principles of democracy. Leadership assembles councils, which would ideally consist of individuals representing the heart and will of the people. The council should serve as the vehicle for democratically integrating the voice, will and needs of the people into the every level of church leadership and decision-making. The council also serves as unit which balances the democratic voice of the people with the autocratic direction of the leadership. Unfortunately decision making all too often does not occur this way in our Church. Instead leaders too often use scripture to justify a “divine dictatorship” where God’s authority is used to justify human decisions. (Contrary to D&C 121:41 & the 3rd of the 10 commandments.)

Leaders often forget scriptures which teach that the heavenly “Lord” is a face or archetype of an entire realm of completely equal individuals–a group consciousness which is unified in heart, mind and purpose (D&C 76:94–95, John 17:21–23, Moses 7:18). They instead pretend “the Lord” is a heavenly dictator whom they alone act as mouthpiece. The Doctrine and Covenants makes clear that church power is not to be derived or maintained this way (D&C 121:41–42). The scriptures specify that “power and authority” should not be maintained by virtue of priesthood office or position (ie. follow the prophet because he’s the prophet or leader because he’s the leader).  Furthermore, no priesthood decision in the Church is binding upon any member unless that member receives a witness and conviction from the Spirit concerning that decision (D&C 50:15–20, see Oahspe Chap 7 Book of Jehovah for clarification).  Emphasis on “following the prophet” discounts the scriptural directive to be an entire church of prophets (D&C 1:20). Policy should optimally be enacted primarily by the unanimous decisions of the councils gathered to represent the heart and will of the people (D&C 107:27–32).

The purpose of the Restored Church (and the work it is doing in heaven) is actually to “gather in one” the existing Christian churches into an ecumenical union (see D&C 10:64–69, 101:43-67, Eph 1:10, D&C 27:13, 84:100). Just as the ancient Church was meant to gather in a brotherhood of the existing Judaic synagogues, the order of the end-dispensation gathering is not simply to gather individuals, but Christian congregations into Zion. In order to do this a certain level of autonomy must be given to those converted congregations & their leaders. In the early apostolic church, the gathered congregation maintained its leadership structure under the Aaronic priesthood—but was now overseen and kept unified by the regional level (stake) High Priesthood & apostleship. This is why the early Church (as well as modern LDS revelation) specifically allowed/allows for Levites to lead congregations “without counselors”, with only their existing Aaronic Priesthood (See D&C 68:14–24, D&C 84:18, D&C 107:15–16,76).  This is also part of what made the early Church so successful, Jews did not necessarily need to disavow the old covenant (thus Peter & Paul’s argument in Gal 2 )—they simply needed to accept that a new covenant superceded it. In fact, they may not have even needed to be re-baptized… as a priest like John the Baptist with the Aaronic Priesthood legitimately possesses the needed congregational authority to baptize “throughout all their generations” (D&C 84:17–18, see also Abr 1:4, 2:11).  In regard to the present dispensation, we have completely lost sight of this anciently established order or gathering. Our overly-autocratic structure (and overreach of the high priesthood) has all but made the “gathering in one” of existing Christian congregations impossible (in our case entire Latin Catholic & Islamic congregations should  bring the most fruit; especially after the coming fall of Western Christian nations.). We must pay closer attention to the order presented in our scriptures in order to re-establish the less autocratic union/church of Saints presented in the Lord’s latter-day revelations. One which not only builds congregations from scratch, but seeks out existing Christian churches, properly authorizes their deserving pastors according to revelation (giving them the priesthood as well as two Elders from the Stake to act as helps or counselors), but then letting them lead their congregation according to the dictates of the Spirit. (All congregational authority falls under the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood except that of the Elders and High Priests who must give the Holy Ghost. The Elders & High Priest are to be managed and directed by the Stake President who is the actual president of the High Priest Quorum. The function of these quorums actually makes more sense if you think of them as being “apart” from any congregation.)

Overly autocratic coercion and manipulation always bring disunity. Disunity is the ultimate form of apostasy (D&C 38:27). Scripture suggests that God’s dictates on war, murder, government, priesthood availability, sexual practices and most aspects of morality change a bit according to temporal circumstances. But a unity in equality & love is the ultimate requirement of group exaltation (D&C 105:4; 38:27, Moses 7:18).

Restore the balance of power between stake and central church priesthood leadership

/in /by

Reform Action #5 of 20   (see overview page)

See the article The Principles of a Zion Community.

D&C 107 explicitly dictates that the “stake high council” is to be entirely “equal in authority” to the traveling twelve (12 apostles), first presidency & central stake in Zion. The church needs to obey this scriptural mandate for essential autonomy or balanced power of the “Stake” structure.  The revelations given to Joseph Smith on the Church political structure far more resemble the Evangelical government structures than the current LDS or Catholic hierarchies with a perfect balance of power between the Stake government and the central church government. Tight hierarchy is often necessary when an organization is young & unstable but just as Protestantism was the natural and destined progression of Catholic hierarchy, its now time for the church to follow our own scriptural mandates and reform our priesthood structures by bolstering stake influence and reducing centralization & institutionalization efforts from SLC (especially for seasoned/mature regions).  As well as expanding the influence of the patriarchal order of the priesthood.

36 The standing high councils, at the stakes of Zion, form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the quorum of the presidency, or to the traveling high council.

37 The high council in Zion form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the councils of the Twelve at the stakes of Zion. (D&C 107:36–37)

Reasoning:

Imbalance in central & local government structures promotes social instability and religious apostasy in regions where the general church membership is as spiritually mature as the leadership. The Doctrine and Covenants specifies that the Stake or “Standing High Councils of the Church” are to be “equal in authority” with the “Traveling High Council of the Church” (or “twelve apostles” as we call them–D&C 107:24–37). This is meant to create a perfect balance of power between local and central church leadership.  Our scriptures promote an ecumenical organization (Christian union or democracy) as revealed to Joseph and early American statesmen (multiple but equal states/stakes united in a union by a scriptural constitution-see D&C 107, D&C 101:80, D&C 109:54) — not an autocratic state.  The current over-centralized system which mimics ancient Jewish & medieval institutional monarchies or the pre-reformation Catholic system is expressly forbidden & forewarned of in our scripture ( 1 Sam 8, Mosiah 23:6–9, Jacob 5:48, 2 Ne 28:12–14; 1 Ne 13:4–9, Acts 23:1–5, D&C 123:7). At this point in our history this over-centralization in seasoned areas of the church has caused a disconnect & power struggle between LDS church leadership and certain spirit-filled aspects of the people.

The stake is a complete unit of the church and has the exact same power and authority (over its members) as the traveling twelve do over the church (D&C 107:36), but this balance is NOT currently maintained in the Church. Members universally have vastly more faith in the traveling “12 apostles” than the stake “12 apostles” (ie. the stake’s high council, see D&C 107 for clarification on our misuse of these titles). This has had a STRONG tendency to backfire as mature members see the follies of church leadership’s past mistakes. I dare say that currently stake High Council’s NEVER fulfill their “equal” role as a check and balance to centralized authority and autocratic dominion. The current general authorities of the church have been raised to celebrity and even demigod status. (Demigod: a person so important as to seem to approach the divine or be godlike in some way.) This leader-worship is a form of idolatry, which leads to apostasy when members learn of the follies of leadership. The current imbalance has members and local leadership expecting to be “commanded in all things” by Church Headquarters, which stems from an imbalanced emphasis on the source of spiritual power. In both political and religious hierarchical environments, when power structures become too lofty, cutting leadership off from equalizing human interaction with the populace— social instability, power mongering, leader worship and mass apostasy will always be the result. (This same political disconnect between leadership and the people is currently imbalancing the U.S. government structure as well.)

It can not be overstressed how detrimental the current idolization of the president of the High Priesthood (prophet), and traveling high council (12 apostles) is. Giving these men god-like status, and creating the idea in the mind of the youth that the majority of their words and actions are “the mind, and will of the Lord”, causes many to leave our communion when they are confronted with repeated contradictions and episodes of church history with prove how completely fallible and human they are. When a church or nation humbly asks their people to respect their leaders best efforts, it preserves the people’s agency. When a church or nation (such as North Korea, historical China, Egypt, Babylon or Medieval Europe) manipulates a people into obedience by an impressed belief that their leaders actions are synonymous with divinity—agency is subverted. An increasingly large number of members are becoming sensitive to this imbalanced, disregard of D&C 121:41 and are leaving.

Great sacrifice engenders great respect.  Christian/LDS scripture suggests the highest levels of heaven are justly filled with those who sacrificed and suffered the most on earth (as symbolized by Christ). Although they are undoubtedly wonderful people, current church General Authorities (who receive quite generous church stipends and overwhelmingly live in large east-bench SLC and Bountiful homes, with above-average incomes; sitting in their large throne-like chairs in General Conference), are quickly losing the respect from outsiders for their increasingly lack economic and organizational humility. If these good men would monetarily and authoritatively humble themselves, their example would go a long, long way in gaining & retaining church membership” (D&C 24:18–19, Luke 22:35, Luke 9:58, Alma 39:11–12).

We need to find effective ways to balance local authority with centralized authority… people need to feel like their agency & inspiration matters. (ie. led by agency through personal group revelation, not autocracy or some kind of “divine dictatorship”).

Find effective ways to get more input from members and ex-members on how things can be done “by common voice”. Find ways to establish how doctrinally “mature” an area is, thus dictating how much power “the traveling high council” should wield (they need more power in new areas–but less in mature areas).  This will be a very difficult reform to implement because the majority of those perceptive to this imbalance have left the church; and it is incredibly difficult to give back spiritual & political power once it has been centralized. Perhaps decentralization could be accomplished by using tactics similar to the following.

-invite more local leaders and even non-member guest speakers to speak at General Conference (so we hear a lot less from the 12, and a lot more from stake presidents and high counselors at General Conference). Continually stress the authoritative equality of a stake president to a general authority. We have got to find ways to stress the equality of local and church-wide leadership.

-tone down the blind obedience and groupthink rhetoric in church talks and curriculum.

-in the same way that mormon.org has put the stories of every-day LDS individuals in the hands of the investigator, lds.org/church curiculum needs to put more thoughts, revelations and writings of local individuals in the hands of the members. This problem of overcentralization has only began showing negative fruits since the advent of churchwide TV, magazines and internet… we need to use those same tools to balance over-correlation.

-just as is done withe the Ensign magazine, make lds.org more a forum containing the writings & works of every-day normal members (not just centralized leadership). Create stake versions of these media outlets–and encourage all members to submit material, in a way where they can receive valuable feedback from members and leadership. Have lds.org and the Ensign pull from the most popular stake articles–and invite these authors to give stake conference talks and even general conference talks.

-hang pictures of stake high councilors in seminary/institute classrooms, church publications and missionary discussion flip-books; not just the traveling twelve.

-somehow allow users to comment on general authorities (and local leaders) talks in forum in that they will read. This way they can have feedback as to those their talks offend, and ways which they are misunderstood or misspeak.

-stress the humanity and equality of general authorities. People know their neighbors are human and equal, but SLC authorities which few personally know are easily deified and idolized. Most LDS members believe these men have greater access to angels, God’s Spirit and God than a common member does. This type of idolatry can only lead to problems.

-allow general authorities to give talks in their native languages. (done!)

-the twelve need to go to far greater lengths to play down their own power. By believing it is OK to let people worship their “mantles of authority” they break God’s commandments (D&C 121:41), and create a system of inequality which eventually backfires; doing more harm than good.

-better teaching about the difference between priesthood and prophets is (see below for detail).

-create more and better tools to allow Stake Priesthood leaders to put messages into electronic forms of the Church Magazines (Ensign & Liahona) as well as stake email lists.

-Encourage Stake Councilors to rely on their own authority, and not use the words of “the brethren” to establish their authority. (Which actually lessens their authority.)

-Bring stake authorities together to vote on church policy.

-Effectively implement reform action #1, and reform action #3 will largely take care of itself…

Remove the doctrine of muted prophetic infallibility

/in /by

reform-banners4

Reform Action #6 of 20   (see overview page)

Remove the muted doctrine of prophetic infallibility from our scripture and teachings. (“Muted” meaning on the surface we say it’s not a doctrine we promote or believe, but we actually subtly promote it using muted language.) Church leaders and members often use the following excerpt from Wilford Woodruff’s Official declaration 1 (which aimed to end the church practice of polygamy) to suggest that God would never allow the church leadership to lead the church contrary to the will of God. Or in other words the prophet is infallible to leading the church astray.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty… (official declaration 1)

Reasoning:

The idea that “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray”, as delineated in (official declaration 1) is contrary to the principles of agency and directly contrary to the counsel of D&C 3:9–11 & D&C 20:32–33 and many other scriptures. D&C 3:9–11 explicitly teaches that if the prophet transgresses he will simply lose his [revelatory] gifts, be left on his own and “become as other men”.

10 But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work;

11 Except thou ado this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as other men, and have no more gift.

The infalibilty of our leaders to lead the church amiss or awry is also directly contrary to the government of the church laid down in D&C 107, where revelation dictates what is to be done, should the leader of the church or any president of the High Priesthood “transgress”.

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness. (D&C 107:82–84)

Note that in God’s revelation to Joseph there is ABSOLUTELY no intimation that God will kill remove the High Priest, but that the common counsel & twelve shall detect the transgression and as alluded to in D&C 68:33, record and testify of it before a “common counsel” of the church. The etymology of Acts 10:33 helps us to understand that the term “had in remembrance” means to bring up or mention or testify of the matter. After which their decision shall be the “end of controversy concerning him”.

Along with many other scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 107 not only suggest by revelation that divinity not only expects church leadership (including the High Priest who we often call “the prophet”) will sometimes “transgress” and lead others astray (Jer 50:6), but it also defines specifically how to deal with it when it occurs.

The very context of Woodruff’s statement is notably ironic. It turns God into an executioner of sorts who at some point in a church president’s uninspired leadership decisions, would take it upon himself to kill or “remove” that leader through some act. But the statement by Woodruff, made to legitimize the divinity of his decree for ceasing the church sanctioned practice of polygamy, immediately begs the question as to why “God” then allowed Joseph Smith to be “taken out of the way” shortly after instituting the practice in the first place! Shouldn’t Woodruff’s logic lead us to believe that if Joseph Smith was allowed to be ‘taken out of the way’ shortly after instituting polygamy, then it must have been because he was “leading the church astray?!”  So then why if Wilford Woodruff actually believes this concept of divine execution of leaders who lead the church astray,  didn’t he disavow polygamy from the earliest days of his presidency? WHY did he follow the practice until essentially forced by the government to disavow it, and then secretly continue to live it even after publicly disavowing it?

Scripture shows that this type of statement has been incorrectly typical of the church & political leaders of many dispensations (D&C 45:18; Alma 9:1–5), but is contrary to our founding revelations. (see D&C 121:37; 38:39, Jacob 4:14, Hel 13, ). Despite misconstrued arguments to the contrary, it is essentially a Mormon version of Papal Infallibility or the Divine Right of Kings.  If such a doctrine were ever part of God’s program, there would have never been apostasy during any past dispensation led by a president of the High Priesthood. Although it is comforting to our pride to think we are different; the scriptures warn that we are not (D&C 38:39).  The Doctrine & Covenants contains repeated warnings to Joseph, the early apostles and the early Saints that if they were unrighteous they could temporarily or permanently lose God’s favor. The scriptures suggest that the priesthood of EVERY dispensation falls into some level of apostasy from the moment it is established; because all men are fallible, and fallibility leads to loss of priesthood efficacy (D&C 121:37). As needed, prophets are commonly called from outside the popular priesthood to correct the course of both society and the church. Promises concerning the continuance of divine guidance and growth of the Church in scripture are always stated as being conditional upon the church’s righteousness.

Let the church vote on this doctrine (following the law of common voice), just as they should have been allowed to vote on polygamy & the priesthood ban on those of African descent.  Guaranteed, the Spirit will lead the people to decide that this statement and doctrine was a product of the times and should not be considered binding as doctrine.

D&C 1:20 and D&C 68:3–5 makes it clear that all members have the right to speak the “mind and will of the Lord” when moved by the Holy Ghost, not just the “prophet”. Each member has equal right to revelation, but no revelation is binding upon any other member unless the spirit causes that other person to receive it (D&C 50:19–24), and bind themselves knowingly and specifically to it by covenant. Thus church-wide, binding commandments must be voted upon and ratified “by the common consent of the Church” & major commandments are to be “received by covenant” after in initiate has received confirmation.

The idea that every doctrine or policy made by the prophet is “the mind and will of the Lord” is unfounded. The scriptures make clear that this applies only to things dictated “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost”(D&C 68:3–5), and the best way to determine if that was the case is to have the Church vote on doctrine to assure the Holy Ghost has confirmed the truth to the Majority of the members (D&C 50:19–24). The Lord does not micromanage humanity or the Church. LDS doctrine suggests that only the archetypical Lucifer operates in such a dictatorial manner. The Lord rules all humanity by their desires and agency (Alma 29:4).  A prophet declares his own highest truth according to the degree he has aligned himself with God’s Spirit on an issue, but all priesthood leaders must ultimately make policy which balances the desires and highest light of the people with their own highest light, or they invalidate their own priesthood  (see the difference between priesthood and prophets).

We must remember that the Church/Israel’s religious High Priest is the groups representative before God, NOT God’s representative to the group. Revelation coming through THE GROUP MIND (spirit) inspires the choosing of the priests, and the KNOWLEGE AND WISDOM they are able to reveal from God is dependent upon the righteousness and desires OF THE GROUP, not of God.