lds church – GatheredIn.One

Posts

Redefining the LDS View of the “Great Apostasy”

April 27, 2016/in Featured Posts, insights (sticky posts)/by MormonBox

In this article I hope to unravel some of the contradiction found it the current LDS perspective on the “Great Apostasy“, which I believe is for the most part a popular protestant view adopted by church leaders during Joseph Smith’s time. Instead of ‘great’ or universal apostasy, LDS scriptures seem to support a dispensationalist view of apostasy. In other words, at no time was there a world-wide or universal apostasy or loss of priesthood and truth. Instead God simply took those things from one people (Israel), and gave them to another (the Gentiles).

Despite their incredible wickedness God allowed Israel to be his ‘church‘ or archetype of how heaven operates to the world for a full 2000 years from Abraham to Christ. After Christ, only Israel fell into apostasy (was rejected by God) as the gospel and job of being Jehovah’s church or archetype passed to the Gentiles and Catholic Church. Joseph Smith’s ‘restoration’ heralds the message that the priesthood and truth is about to be taken from the gentiles (as they apostatize/are rejected) and given back to gathered Israel (Middle Eastern & Latin peoples). In the end, the renewal of the covenant and religious priesthood keys, is part of a repeated pattern wherein the God of Israel or the “heavenly church” takes turns establishing new covenants and symbolic systems with each of the world’s peoples at assorted key times and seasons of human history. (And has nothing to do with truth, priesthood, the gospel or church being taken completely from the earth.)

The Great Apostasy doctrine adapted by many early LDS leaders was a mixture of misunderstood LDS scripture with the concepts conceived by 16th century reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Thomas, John Knox, and Cotton Mather. It was a necessary pillar in the protestant idea of the universal priesthood of all believers, and was used to justify the protestant view of salvation without need for Catholic priesthood or apostolic succession. For early Mormon’s the doctrine was minunderstandingly seen as an effective backdrop to show a need for priesthood restoration and exclusivity claims. (Thinking the priesthood restoration to Joseph Smith was because it had been taken from the earth, instead of the truth, which is that it was only taken from Israel, was being restored to a new people & dispensation) However, I hope to show how adopting the protestant apostacy doctrine as we did has caused us to misinterpret our modern scripture/revelations as well as the bible, and actually weaken the LDS position. It causes many to lose faith in the WEAK, illogical, contradictory and inconsistent ‘God’ that this doctrine requires. As an example I offer the following logical contradictions and inconsistencies that are caused by mixing the idea of Protestant Universal Apostasy with LDS theology.

Why would divinity reject the religious priesthood (or keys) of the Gentile Medieval Church for their possible small succession breaches and doctrinal corruptions, when he supposedly continued to honor the priesthood of ancient Israel despite their enormous repeated succession crises, repeated disobedience, doctrinal corruptions with neighboring false religions, idol worship (including the temple promotion of the ashterah sex cults and the sacrifice of their children to Baal), as well as killing of the prophets and even their national destruction and captivity in Babylon?
If God’s priesthood and ordinances are so important, why did God wait nearly 2000 years to restore them after they were supposedly lost? If God’s church plays such a huge role in salvation, why has it always had such a minimal (or non existent) role in human affairs (according to the great apostacy model)? Why couldn’t God select a few people to go 2000 miles into middle of uninhabited Asia and reestablish his Church like he did with the early LDS Saints? If we think the devil would have destroyed any attempts, then doesn’t that make God weaker than the devil? Couldn’t He have preserved the church with his “matchless power” as He did over and over with the tiny (and usually wicked) nation of Judah? (Or as we suppose He did with early Mormonism.)
Why would God have ancient prophets prophesy that the gospel & kingdom would be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, and later command the apostles to preach his gospel to the ends of the earth— just to let that kingdom completely fail within a few hundred years? Didn’t he say to Peter “thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” (Matt 16:16–19). So why did the gates of Hell prevail within a few hundred years? Especially when history shows there were so many scattered groups of good (priesthood authorized) people doing their best to live this newly formed Christian faith throughout the history of the Gentile church.
Suggesting that the Catholic/Orthodox Church, which is by many standards the largest and most influential, globally civilizing church that the world has ever known, was completely rejected by God because of its numerous issues and evils (or in fact is the Church of the Devil as some have suggested)—requires the logical thinker to draw the same conclusions about the ancient Israelite religion, and also modern Mormonism when presented with the repeated episodes of internal conflict, church endorsed brutality, succession crises and doctrinal corruptions that each of these organizations have experienced.
LDS scripture suggests that God “restored” gospel knowledge and a new priesthood covenant to many different dispensations throughout the scriptural history (such as Abraham, Moses, Nephi and the Jaredites). None of these restorations were the result of universal apostasy. In each of these cases OTHER priesthood holders and ‘branches’ of the church existed simultaneously. What evidence is there that Joseph Smith’s case was any different?
Why does close examination of the most prominent scriptures which have been used to support a universal apostasy, show that they make little sense in such a context?

I believe these issues come from a misunderstanding of covenant theology & dispensationalism, and a fundamentalist interpretation of restorationism, history and scripture. Instead of seeing Biblical prophets as religious archetypes and messengers of a heavenly church, and seeing the Israelite and Christian priesthood covenants as divinely created symbols or shadows of what heaven is planning for the whole of society; fundamentalist interpretations get caught up in narrow-minded and overly-literal scriptural interpretations that end up destroying faith in god and dividing groups and distorting the heavenly system they are supposedly meant to display to the world.

As a beginning proof of divinity’s guiding hand in both the history of Israel and the European Gentile Church (which includes protestant Christianity), I offer this comparison of the unbelievable symbolism, historical typology, and repeated patterns displayed in the histories of Israel and the Gentile Church. In this article I will attempt to show those patterns as proof of heaven’s influence on human affairs, as well as taking another look at the scriptures used to uphold the misunderstood doctrine of universal apostasy. (This historical dualism concept comes from the recently “revealed” Jewish revelation, The Book of Ben Kathryn — and is suggested to be the key to unraveling Daniel’s 70 weeks prophesy concerning the Restoration of Israel and end of the Times of the Gentiles)

Timeline summarizing the historical correlations or types between the times of Israel and the times of the Gentiles. Redraw this to show correlations better.

Timeline summarizing the historical correlations or types between the times of Israel and the times of the Gentiles. Note the similarities in the upper timeline (spanning from Abraham to Christ), and the lower timeline (spanning from Christ to present). The following section will show how each “age” or “time” followed a divinely guided blueprint in order to create a group capable of having the largest possible impact on human evolution and history.

14 And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived (D&C 52:14)

The Divine Pattern of Western Civilization & Global Advancement

People tend to find meaning and patterns in the strangest things. Apophenia, which is the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data, is something I’m all too aware of. But as I’ve studied religious history over the last decade or so I have been amazed by the striking patterns and types that I myself (and thousands of others) have seen between the biblical narrative of Israel’s history and the Gentile Christian Dispensation. In my opinion, self fulfilling prophesy seems a far stretch to account for all the correlations. To begin with, as shown in the above diagram, both dispensations were started by a “King of Righteousness” known as a “Son of God” (Melchizedek vs. Christ). Both involved an early period of 12 closely related tribalistic factions. Both tribal groups were brought into special position and growth within a major southern global empire, only to later be enslaved by the arrangement (Joseph of Egypt vs Constantine of Rome). Both were freed from that arrangement about the same time that a spirit of legal codification swept the region. (The Mosaic code, with Hammurabi’s code and others matching with Justinian’s code, Sharia law and the host of legal codes which swept through the Germanic nations almost exactly 2000 years later.)

Both of these periods of codification (legal codes which strongly shaped the future of civilization) were accompanied by a type of imperial Holy War to help bring those legal codes to a larger populous. Joshua and Hammurabi’s conquest of the Holy Land and Mesopotamia corresponding to Belisarius’ and Muhammad’s conquest of the Mediterranean & Middle East (where Belisarius expanded the rising Christian Byzantine Empire to double its size). Just as Joshua’s conquest occurred nearly the same time as Babylon’s first major burst of expansionism, Belisuarius’ campaigns match very closely with the rapid growth of early Islam. The rise of Islam from Judaic & Christian roots in the 6th and 7th centuries AD, matching the raise of proto-Indo-Aryan religion out of Babylonian and Egyptian traditions 2000 years earlier. This indo-Aryan religion would go on to spread into Rome, Greece, Persia and India and was the base for the pantheons of Vedic/Hindu, Zoroastrian, Akkadian and Greek religions.

Each of these dispensations went through a centrally defining period of religious imperialism, where the religious leader began to anoint the emperor (Samuel anointing Saul in the case of Israel and Pope Leo II anointing Charlemagne in the case of the Gentile Church/Holy Roman Empire). Both of these religious empires shortly thereafter experienced a major schism. The division of the kingdom of Judah & Israel in the dispensation of Israel, and the Great East-West Schism which split the Roman & Eastern Orthodox Church. And not too long after that, both dispensations faced a radical destruction of their power and authority. Israel’s ‘Babylonian Captivity’ matching with the 70 year Avignon Papacy, called the ‘Babylonian Captivity of the popes’ by many. In both cases this destruction of power created a dissatisfaction with authoritarian/priesthood abuse and gave rise to a spirit of protestant or sectarianism. Ezra’s reforms matching those of Luther, where scripture was rewritten, translated and recanonized–accompanying fundamental shift in the way authority was viewed. In both cases this pluralistic religious sectarianism (called ‘Second Temple Sectarianism’ in Israel, or ‘schools’ by Josephus) seemed to accompany a similar spirit in the regional political arena where democracy and republics began to replace monarchies.

Also during this period, each dispensation went through a matching colonial phase where people from the region began to colonize the entire world. Although 15th-20th century European expansionism and colonialism is well known, fewer are aware of the massive Phoenician, Greek, Roman and Jewish colonial efforts which took place 2000 years earlier. Apart from the well known colonies of the Mediterranean, Britain, Scandinavia, Crimea, India and central Asian (Scythian) colonies, Mormon theology proposes that at least three distinct and influential colonies to non-eurasian continents or “isles of the sea” (2 Ne 10:21, Jacob 5) existed—suggesting that the Israel/Gentile Church pattern or analog may be even stronger than modern archaeology is willing to currently accept.

In my article Parallels between the Times of Israel and the Times of the Gentiles, I detail many additional types, patterns and parallels many of which are inevitably a product of confirmation bias, but given as a whole the correspondence is not easily dismissed. Indeed LDS and other restorationism scriptures are replete with allusions to the parallelism between dispensational ages. (see Ether 13:2–12, JS-Matt 1:32–33, 3 Ne 8, 2 Ne 21:1, D&C 113:3, Deut 8:15, Acts 3:22, 3 Ne 21:8–11, D&C 103:16, etc) By comparing the dispensation of Israel with the dispensation of the Gentiles, we can see how a Universal Apostasy in either of these dispensations makes little sense given scriptural and historical accounts. I think these strong parallels and the doctrinal contradictions which they help clear up are a solid reason to take another look at the scriptures which we use to support the old protestant Great Apostasy doctrine promoted in modern LDS theology. I propose that just like throughout the Dispensation of Israel, priesthood continued in the Catholic Church throughout the Dispensation of the Gentiles. However, much like the forerunner John the Baptist, Joseph Smith was one of many restorationism mystics who felt “called” to announce the End of the Gentile Dispensation and its coming fall (its fullness), and the restoration of the Lord’s covenant to Israel.

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

February 19, 2015/in Featured Posts, insights (sticky posts)/by MormonBox

45 “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood…” (D&C 121:45).

Like many modern books and movies I believe Lord of the Rings teaches an important gospel message. One of its central themes revolves around the idea that power corrupts—so it’s up to the strong and wise to keep it in the hands of the weak and humble until the time that it can be “cast down” by perfect equality and fellowship. I believe this message is very important when it comes to understanding Christian priesthood, and is a theme that runs throughout LDS scripture. In this article I would like to try and show that LDS scripture teaches religious priesthood is not so much a ‘power of God’ but a preparatory symbolic authority given to man by divine beings to test who will stay “humble as a hobbit” like Frodo and Samwise, verses who will be corrupted by its influence like Saruman, Boromir, Theoden, and the race of man.

I love the LDS Church, but I believe that since the days of the earliest Saints there has often been fundamental misunderstandings and misapplications of priesthood in the church which lies at the root of the division this topic has caused—whether it be the use of priesthood authority to to support our exclusive truth claims, or using arguments of priesthood to pressure people into doing things they don’t really feel good about… or even instances of using priesthood arguments to marginalize blacks, women or other groups.

On one hand, misunderstanding and misapplication seems to have has caused people to want a burden and obligation which no person should really desire. On the other hand, privilege and abuse have sometimes caused a thing designed to maintain equality — to promote exclusivity, elitism, inequality and division. Misunderstood principles like “the one true church” and “only true priesthood” doctrines have often turned an equality promoting symbolic responsibility into an inequality promoting honor & privilege. But assuming there is legitimacy in Christian or LDS priesthood, I believe scripture suggests it is part of a test given to religious leaders to find out who might be worthy of true authority in our next rounds of progression.

This article covers the following points using LDS & Christian scripture.
-Scripture makes it clear that the priesthood is not the power to do miracles or create worlds and should not be confused with that ‘power’ of God. (Accessed by faith, not ordination. Ether 12:16–22, Heb 11:5–40)
-The priesthood is not, and never was, needed to be a prophet, seer or revelator—otherwise how could you explain biblical prophetesses and the many non-levitical prophets? (Acts 2:17, Ex 15:20, 2 Kings 22:14, Isaiah 8:3, Heb 7:14)
-The priesthood is not, and never was, needed to heal; or perform any other skills said to be ‘Gifts of the Spirit’, given freely to all. (1 Cor 12:7–11)
-The priesthood was never entirely lost during apostasy. (see D&C 86:8–10; D&C 84:17–18, Abr 1:4, 2:11. ‘keys’ were simply taken from Israel and transferred to the Gentiles; now they’re being restored to Israel.)
-The higher priesthood has never been exclusive to one religion or people. (Many examples in scripture — Only the lower priesthood is fundamentally exclusive.)
-The priesthood should never be used to support or legitimize the only true church doctrine.
-The lower priesthood appears to be a symbolic authority to administer the offices, ordinances and symbols of salvation. (D&C 84:23–25)
-The higher spiritual priesthood invisibly governs all the religious and political affairs of the earth while maintaining equality and mankind’s self determination..(D&C 107:18–19)
-The lower, temporal or religious priesthood should not be confused with the higher universal spiritual priesthood it is was created to symbolize, copy and prepare for. (D&C 84:23–25, Alma 13:16–18)
-ALL priesthood IS a responsibility to active servitude in order to equalize inequalities. It’s proper use NEVER guarantees any special privilege, special standing, special respect, authoritative legitimacy, reward or power simply by virtue of its possession. If people desire this burden, then it is a sign that it is being misused, misunderstood and misapplied. (121:45-46)

Sauron, Satan, and the Corrupting Influence of Power

In the book/movie The Lord of the Rings, J.R. Tolkien walks us through a story which illustrates the corrupting influence of power. The story begins with the forging of the Great Rings of power. Nineteen of these rings are given to the leaders of earth to give them “the strength and will to govern each race”. But Tolkien teaches that in accepting these rings the leaders…

“were all of them deceived, for another ring was made. In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged, in secret, a Master Ring to control all others. And into this Ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life. One Ring to rule them all.”

With this master ring, Sauron begins to enslave the people of earth bringing about an apocalyptic war for freedom. In the quest to destroy this “Ring of Power”, Frodo and the fellowship are tested and tried as they battle not only the evil followers of Sauron, but the evil that the ring creates in the hearts of the heroes by its very essence. Gandalf summarizes Tolkien’s view of power with his words concerning the ring,

“I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand Frodo, I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.”

To Mormon’s & Christians this plot and what it teaches about power and authority might sound eerily familiar to the Biblical concept of Satan’s fall and plan for worldly dominion. In LDS and even general Christian theology it was the lust for power which caused the archetypal Satan to become a “the fallen archangel”—warring against all that is good. In Joseph Smith’s book of Moses (ch.4), it is explained that in the beginning Satan wanted the honor of redeeming mankind. As opposed to Christ’s plan of self sacrifice and equality— Satan’s plan was to use God’s power to “destroy the agency of man”, redeeming “all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost”. We can only assume from the context given in Moses 4:1–4, as well as subsequent biblical history that his plan was one of using “God’s” honor & authority to create a global totalitarian autocracy to coercively exalt all mankind (but especially himself and his crony power structure).

After his totalitarian plan is rejected, Satan rebels and comes to earth to carry out his plan anyway. Without the true secret to God’s political power or authority (which was self-sacrifice) he comes to earth and creates a false priesthood, which like Sauron’s rings of power, he uses to subtly manipulate, “deceive, blind and lead [people] captive to his will” (Moses 4:4). Satan’s goal seems to have been to either manipulate or trick people into obedience to his autocratic system through false pretenses (Moses 1:19–22), or as a last resort to do what the ancient Jews and many Christians still hope of their false Messiah. To come in power and glory dyed in blood, ready to force every knee to bow to his own egocentric concept of truth, order and righteousness (Rev 13, Dan 7). Just as Tolkien’s book details the corruption of earthly authority into what could be considered Sauron’s ‘false priesthood’, the Bible is–cover to cover–a story of the continual corruption of Jewish and earthly priesthoods into ‘Satan’s false priesthood’ of idolotry and autocratic domination.

In this article I hope to show that by upholding the only true church and only legitimate priesthood doctrines, Mormonism has unwittingly gone contrary to the democratic agency-promoting principles given in many of our own scriptures—and sometimes used the same manipulative tactics of Satan’s false priesthood to uphold autocratic power and authority. Something that we must eradicate if we are to play our key part in Christ’s true spiritual church.

The Difference Between Priesthood and The Powers of Heaven or Spiritual Gifts

Before going into other aspects of the priesthood I believe it’s important to cover what LDS scripture says the priesthood is, and is not. There are many traditional LDS beliefs and teachings which have contributed to the general pride that’s developed around priesthood in LDS culture. Some of this stems from the nearly ubiquitous misunderstanding that priesthood is the supernatural power of God ^[1a] used to create the world or do miraculous or supernatural acts, or that the priesthood is needed in order to be a prophet (one with the gift of prophecy), exercise divine power or be a religious icon like those idolized in Christian scripture. So why wouldn’t everyone lust after it, right?! If like a magical ring, it gives the power to to heal or to prophesy or to cast out devils or move mountains or split seas or be a leader, prophet, seer or revelator of course it would become a source of pride to those lucky enough to have it, and a source of envy to groups forbidden from it!

A careful examination of the scripture show that priesthood is neither needed nor said to uniquely give people power to do ANY of these things. The scriptures instead teach that Judeo Christian priesthood was simply a symbolic religious order, authority and responsibility which obligates the powerful aspects of society to be a metaphor of the heavenly church, and use one’s attained power for good, and to establish the level of equality needed for group exaltation– and a system to convict it’s holders when they twist it into something opposite its intent. The scriptures make it clear that all the supernatural powers of God are given equally to ALL WORTHY MANKIND (humankind) as “gifts of the Spirit” and are available “by faith” to all people regardless of gender, religion, color or priesthood ordination (see D&C 45, Moroni 7, and 2 Cor 12, 2 Ne 26:33, Lectures on Faith #1).

To confuse the priesthood (which is accessed only by ordination into a specific religious order) WITH the ‘powers of heaven’ or ‘power of God’ or gifts of the Spirit which scripture says are accessed by faith is like confusing the force of George Lucas’ star wars with the order of the Jedi who are trained to use it or Tolkien’s wizards/Istari order with the power or magic they have learned to access. After all, Christian scripture teaches that even Satan and his followers have learned by faith to use the miraculous divine powers, and his power is obviously not the same as the priesthood or order of God. Although mixing these definitions may seem a trivial debate in semantics — by perpetuating these unscriptural misunderstandings we inadvertently cause many to covet or feel excluded from a burdensome obligation of sacrifice that no one should desire.

There is simply NO scriptural support for the ubiquitous traditional LDS doctrine that the “priesthood” is the supernatural power God used to create the world and universe. There is no scriptural support suggesting priesthood has exclusive claim to any of God’s miraculous powers, except an authority or burden of responsibility to religious administration (servitude), to officiate in symbolic ecclesiastical ordinances and seal and symbolically bring a people into God’s presence. D&C 121:45 makes it clear that “That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven”, but the priesthood should not be confused for the “powers of heaven” or the “power of God” which D&C 88 teaches is “is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed”.

There are literally hundreds of verses of scripture proving these points, but I trust the average LDS reader can be convinced by reading just a handful. (see footnote ^[a] for more scriptural examples comparing priesthood with the power of God accessed through faith. see also The Difference Between Priesthood and Prophets , and Ether 12, Heb 11, TG; faith, D&C 88:7–13, 84:45-46, Moses 1:32, Jacob 4:9, Morm 9:17, D&C 29:30–31).

The priesthood is primarily a metaphor or symbol of a heavenly or spiritual system

Technically, priesthood does not even give people a right to authority or rule, per se. Much like Israel and the Christian Church in general, the scriptures teach that the priesthood was created to be an order of servitude and symbol or type of a heavenly spiritual system. A light to show the world how heaven operates. The true priesthood is not like Sauron’s ring, or some imaginary crown which mystically gives individuals God’s authority to rule over others — or to be God’s only revelatory mouthpieces or political regents. ^[1] Even Tolkien understood that such a system could only come from, and lead to evil. Joseph Smith, perhaps ironically, echoed this sentiment that religious priesthood was never meant to give men true power or authority over others. He wrote in revelation,

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only [but] by persuasion, long suffering, meekness… [and other Christlike attributes]” (D&C 121:45)

This was fairly clear in the Jewish religious system, as the priesthood was held only by Levites, and authorized its holders ONLY to work as priests in the temple. Prophets, Rabbis and many other Jewish political and religious leaders had no need for the priesthood. It was clearly only a responsibility to administer the symbolic outward ordinances of the religious system. With the advent of Christianity, the Church or congregation became the temple, and the symbolic managerial duties of the temple priests moved to ordained men of the congregation (1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:21; 1 Peter 2:5) . With the new covenant, instead of sacrificing animals and performing ordinances on behalf of the people, the priesthood was now to follow Christ’s example of sacrificing themselves and performing symbolic ordinances on behalf of the congregation and world (Romans 12:1–2; 15:16; Philip 2:17; 4:18; Heb 13:15–16). So even though early church records show a clear hierarchical administrative system ^[2] which was associated with priesthood, Christ’s teachings were clear that the Church was not to follow the world’s model of using that priesthood position to support and maintain the organizational hierarchy. (In fact there are many apocryphal sources which suggest Christ created a secret organization of women equal in importance to the men)

The system of heaven which Jesus came to teach was that power and authority came not from position but from self-sacrifice. Knowledge and self sacrifice were to be the “keys” or authority of the kingdom (Matt 16:13–20, D&C 84:19; 107:15). Ordination to an office was never meant to prove one’s legitimacy or give one person authoritative control over another. He taught that only by humbly serving others can we righteously create a hierarchy or gain privilege over the will of another. That no ordinance can truly give authority, the ordinance and priesthood office is a symbol pointing to the type of wise character and level of service which earns true power and authority over others while completely preserving agency. Take the words of Christ to his apostles in Matthew 20 for instance.

25 But Jesus called [his disciples] to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life… (Matt 20:20–28 ESV) ^[2b]

The narrative of Christ giving Peter the “keys” of the kingdom hit this point home. (A narrative strangely absent from every gospel but Matthew’s.) Instead of Christ ordaining Peter with a magical power that he could use to rule the church and do miracles to prove Christ’s legitimacy, he promises Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” after a lesson on faith and a “charge” not to flaunt the Messiah title to legitimize their teachings. It then states that Christ began then to teach in depth about self sacrifice before the religious elite,

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day… 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. (Matt 16:21,24–25)

The entire system of Jewish temple worship & sacrifice, culminating with Jesus coming to be judged and executed by the Jewish priesthood & Roman authorities can be seen as a clear symbolic teaching and example to show both the right way (by humble non-institutionalized example) and the wrong way (by means of religious or political authority) to lead man. The second and third temptations of Christ were an offer by Satan to get power and authority the wrong way. The Christian priesthood was not meant to give man the right or legitimacy to rule over others. It was instituted to give mankind a symbol of a heavenly system—and to teach mankind that true authority over others comes only through self-sacrifice. Heavenly authority is meant to maintain equality through the self-sacrifice and subservience of the leadership. To humble powerful people into being equal slaves and servants in Christ. This is why this responsibility of servitude is often only given to the most assertive and domineering (masculine) aspects of humanity and withheld from the humble or subjugated (feminine) aspects of humanity. That’s not to say women should not have priesthood authority, but instead that priesthood authority was an order and charge of humility given to the powerful, that they should abase themselves to be equals with the less powerful aspects of society. (see footnote^[2c])

In fact other revealed texts such as Oahspe 32/ch. 30 (God judges dominions) teach the scripturally supported idea that the cost of human leadership is that no leader can ascend to the higher realms of existence, until he has exalted or risen up all those who had become physically or mentally subjected to them! (see Matt 23:12) That is, that the responsibility and burden of both righteous ecclesiastical leaders or wicked despots was that they could not gain an exalted resurrection until they helped every one of their willing subjects ascend with or ahead of them! In Christ’s words, the first will be made last and the last will be made first. (Matt 19:30; 20:1-16, D&C 29:30)

… I show man not only the way of liberty, but the way of bondage. He shall know understandingly the ways of my dominions, and the judgment that is upon him. 32/30.20. And the same rules shall apply to every king, queen, emperor, and every other ruler in the world. 32/30.21. The resurrection in heaven of each and every one of them shall be with, and no faster than, those they ruled over on earth. 32/30.22. And they shall be responsible to all their subjects^[2d]…

LDS teachings commonly use arguments of priesthood to legitimize LDS authority as the only true church, and our General Authorities as Christ’s only true living prophets and apostles on earth. Our entire cultural system of giving General Authorities and priesthood holders the “chief seats in the synagogues” or always insisting “to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi” [President or Bishop in our case] is directly contrary to Christ’s teachings (see Matt 23:6–12; Luke 23:6, 11:43). Like the Pharisees of Jesus time, I believe we have slowly come to focus too much on priesthood as an eternal authority and honor to be desired instead of merely a responsibility to be shouldered. It has become a way to legitimize dominion and exert one’s own will upon others, instead of being a responsibility of public service which maintains equality. We forget that God respects self determination above all, and will never force compliance contrary to the voice and conscience of the majority. We too often seek to ‘talk up’ the priesthood when we should instead be focusing on the fact that earthly priesthood is a symbolic responsibility and burden that gives assertive individuals an obligation to service — and that service is the true source of heaven’s power (A power open to ALL worthy humankind.) Paul tries repeatedly in his New Testament letters to show the Jews that the Old Testament system and priesthood were types, symbols or schoolmasters pointing to heavenly systems and spiritual truths—not to be confused with the real thing.

10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. (Hebr 10:1 NIV)
5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” (Hebr 8:5 NIV)
23 That is why the Tabernacle and everything in it, which were copies of things in heaven, had to be purified by the blood of animals. But the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices than the blood of animals.
24 For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with human hands, which was only a copy of the true one in heaven. He entered into heaven itself to appear now before God on our behalf. (Hebr 9:23-24 NLT)
6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter [type/symbol] kills, but the Spirit [meaning behind the symbol] gives life. (2 Cor 3:6 NIV, compare NLT)

Latter day LDS scripture echoes the same sentiment,

16 Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order… (Alma 13:16)
13 …that all things may have their likeness, and that they may accord one with another—that which is earthly conforming to that which is heavenly… (D&C 128:13)

According to the LDS worldview, the ancient Jews looked “beyond the mark”, and twisted their religious system into an organization satanic enough to excommunicate and execute their own heavenly King (Jacob 4:14, 2 Ne 10:3). We also hold that the Catholics have their own record of priesthood abuse stemming from their belief that their priesthood is what makes them elected or chosen of God. Certainly, when a religion or mankind misunderstands temporal symbols given by heaven and creates an organization that manipulates people into a exclusivist leadership hierarchy fostering feelings of pride, subservience and inequality the true priesthood is corrupted. Just as declaring one’s self “the only true church” makes a religion run the risk of being part of the church of the devil, using any arguments of priesthood to justify our authority over others runs the risk of losing the true spiritual priesthood (D&C 121:37). Paradoxically, if Mormonism wants to be part of the True Church of God, it must never boast of being the only true church. If it wants to be worthy of the true priesthood, it must hide the tokens of that priesthood by never using priesthood as a reason for its authority or legitimacy. (For example: repeated talks on being the only true church or priesthood, talking up church apostles or leadership, or excommunicating those who challenge authority or repeated talks on “obedience to priesthood”, talks suggesting leaders, the “prophet” or General Authorities are unequal or superior to regular members, or manipulatively teaching that their priesthood “mantle of authority” deserves special respect and thus shouldn’t be questioned or challenged (ie. talks on not “steadying the ark”), instead of letting obedience, respect and submission to authority be a natural outgrowth of people wanting to follow their leaders because of the leadership’s humility, service and sacrifice).

The Two branches of Mormon Priesthood and what they symbolize

I believe LDS scriptures teach that the two branches of Mormon/Biblical ecclesiastical priesthood are a type or metaphor of two larger types of priesthood used by Higher Beings in the management of our world— The Aaronic or temporal priesthood and the Melchizedek or spiritual priesthood. In a way, I believe LDS scriptural teachings on these priesthoods are meant to reconcile the Catholic views on ministerial priesthood with the Protestant views of universal priesthood. The Mormon Aaronic or lower priesthood being a type or symbol pointing to the “temporal” priesthood or earthly authority of the earth’s religions & political organizations. The Mormon Melchizedek, higher or “spiritual” priesthood being a symbol of the “invisible” spiritual or universal priesthood which is used by heavenly/spiritual beings to rule ALL earthy political and religious affairs according to their agency. The earthly temporal lower priesthood like the temporal church, is supposed to copy that higher perfect heavenly system. Its primary purpose is to be a type, symbol or example and schoolmaster to the world.

Footnotes (↵ returns to text)

Much of our misunderstanding comes from the fact that the words “power” and “authority” can be used as synonyms in the English language. This was less the case in Greek, where δύναμις (dunamis), which is (miraculous) power or might is differentiated from ἐξουσία (exousia) which is the power to act or authority. ↵
A thorough read of scriptures compiled in our LDS Topical Guide topic on the ‘Power of, Priesthood‘ shows how commonly we try to use the ‘power of God’ synonymously with priesthood. In fact it would seem that any mention of God’s power, is often equated with priesthood. This however is reading into the scriptures something that is not there. Look for instance at the following examples showing that faith accesses God’s power, not priesthood ordination
-Moroni 7:37. The power to do miracles is gained by faith, not priesthood. “…for it is by faith that miracles are wrought… if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain”
Alma 13:3–29. The true high priesthood itself is gained by faith. “…being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works… And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith…”
D&C 46:10–29 1 Cor 12:3–31. Prophesy, Healing, Tongues, etc are Gifts of the Spirit given to all. They are not gifts of the priesthood. The priesthoods (bishop) responsibility is to manage or ‘discern all those gifts’.
Moroni 7:26. We are saved by faith. We become sons of God by faith not by priesthood. “…And after that he came men also were saved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the sons of God…”
D&C 84:31–34. Priesthood makes us the “sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom”. ie. Priesthood is an authoritative or administative power and responsibility for a dominion or fold of followers.
Abraham 1:2–4, 2:11 Priesthood is synonymous with one’s seed or posterity (dominion) and those who are adopted into that posterity. It is not synonymous with miraculous power.
-JST, Genesis 14:25–40. Faith, not priesthood gives priesthood holders power to do miracles “…that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course…”
Helaman 10:5–12, D&C 132, Matt 16:19. Using whats spoken of the miraculous powers given to the prophet Nephi in Helaman 10, in combination with whats said of the sealing ‘keys and power of the priesthood’ spoken of in D&C 132 its easy equate the sealing keys of the priesthood with the power to do miracles. But once again a careful reading shows this is reading into the text things not specifically said. JST, Genesis 14:30,32 specifically show that the miraculous power of this type of priesthood originates from faith, not from the priesthood itself. To suggest the power comes from priesthood and not the power of God accessed by faith is to suggest that this power is unavailable to those who do not hold these priesthood keys—something many scriptures show is not the case.

Some are tempted to use scriptures such as D&C 132:13–19, Jacob 4:4, D&C 88:13 which suggest that God created the world through “his Word” or the power of his Word, which is his law. But as already mentioned, we must not confuse God’s law for his priesthood. In its widest sense the law of the Most High God is the obviously the natural law (or the universal laws of physics) which science seeks to explain. It is this natural law (or the law of God) which holds planets in their orbits and makes everything in the universe move in its regular motions (D&C 88:13). Since the concept of priesthood seeks to typify the aspect of that law which pertains to governance, it seems to have been applied anciently to the laws of gravity which hold differing celestial bodies in orbits around the “governing stars” (see facsimile 2). But it is foolish to equate this ancient symbolism with the power to create worlds or do miraculous events. Arguments in this vein often boil down to symbolism and simple issues of semantics (or arguments over definitions). Although equating priesthood with Christ, or the Word of God, or God’s power may seem harmless, this definition has created an environment where temporal priesthood holders believe that by only virtue of an ordinance, they alone as a priesthood now hold the same power which creates earth’s and holds words in orbit—whereas women, pre-1978 people of African decent or anyone unable to obtain their religious priesthood, cannot hold that same power. This reasoning is a prideful distortion of the symbolism and the division it has caused is the direct result of our poorly applied distinction between priesthood responsibility for religious governance and the universal power of God or Natural Law. Religious priesthood is a symbolic responsibility of servitude or slavery meant to equalize mankind. Teaching it in any other light tends toward evil.

D&C 88:7–13 refers to the power which created and governs the universe as the ‘light of Christ’; D&C 84:45–46 shows everyone is given a portion of that co-creating spirit or light of Christ. Equivalent concepts are ‘word of my power’, Moses 1:32, ‘power of his word’, Jacob 4:9, Morm 9:17, ‘word of my power which is the power of my spirit’, D&C 29:30–31. See also Ether 12, Heb 11, TG; faith↵
add footnote detailing scriptures like D&C 1 and would to god we were all prophets, and heavenly system of equality↵
evidence shows this passed clearly into the catholic system↵
It is of special note that the use of the original Greek words for servant and slave in verses 26 & 27 refer to a table waiter and a bond servant respectively. Those who wish to be “great” (v. 26), must make themselves into diakonos (διάκονος) which is defined as a waiter or servant. Those who wish to be “first” (v. 27) before another must make themselves doulos (δοῦλος) which is defined as a slave or bond-servant. (In fact this is the word almost universally used in the New Testament in connotation to priesthood service.) ↵
From it’s beginning in the biblical narrative, the power hungry wanted it (see Ex 32), and then distorted it making it into a way to add to their power— and so Jesus made it into an object lesson for the world of their own wickedness. The Book of Ben Kathryn puts it this way “Behold why I have made such symbols: that at thy corrupting of them, thy heart may be revealed, and the evil known for what it is, made manifest to all mankind.” This is the object lesson in the priesthood being led to sacrifice lambs… to show what they, in their pride and arrogance, would do to Christ and all the humble activists like him through history. The Book of Ben Kathryn suggests that the true God of Israel is not properly portrayed in the Old Testament, and that He took the desire of the elite to practice the archaic religious customs of the time, and turned them into an object lessons” ↵
This is why Moses and Aaron were cursed to not be allowed to enter the promised land (because they, like the Jewish priesthood after them, took credit for God’s miracles of giving “living water” to Israel). This is why the Levites were not allowed to be counted in any of the national census in the wilderness (Numbers 2-4; 26:63-65), and why Christ made the same allusion to Judas the Levite who Christ knew “should betray him, who should be counted one of them by man, but was not of them” (GOHT 68:17-18). (see Acts 1:13–21; John 6:70–71, John 17:12, GOHT 54:17-24) In every age it is the “elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law” that kill the archetypal Sons of God (Luke 9:22). Like the lambs that they were commanded to slaughter, these are the one’s who bare the sin and guilt for a corrupted society. And these are the one’s who lose their exaltation until they make amends. ↵

Re-examining what the scriptures say about the “Only True Church” Doctrine

February 11, 2015/8 Comments/in Featured Posts, insights (sticky posts)/by MormonBox

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.
68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church (D&C 10:67–68).

Introduction

In this article I hope to prove from the scriptures that the “only true and living church” mentioned in D&C 1 and alluded to in other parts of LDS scriptures is actually a heavenly or “spiritual church” which the temporal or earthly church is commanded to align with in order to be numbered with—and NOT an exclusivist Christian sect as seems to have been established in some circles of Mormon tradition.^[def] I also hope to show in this and other articles in this series that Judaism, Christianity and Mormonism were created to be a symbols, archetypes and extensions of this heavenly church, which should seek to establish & bring forth a temporal version of the “true and living church” spoken of in D&C 1:30. The “only true church”, or Kingdom of god/heaven would be something earthly churches aspire to and lead people to, not an inherent right that comes with priesthood keys. The scriptures toward the end of this article hit the point home, and show that like Peter and other apostle’s constant misunderstanding of Jesus teachings—Joseph and modern church leaders may have also misunderstood and overlooked LDS scriptures which clearly teach that the “only true church” is a heavenly church instead of specific religious sect or denomination. A global spiritual brotherhood which all the good people and faiths of earth are destined toward if they follow the path of love and selflessness. It seems to this author that religious scripture, like good music and poetry, is made to be somewhat ambiguous on many issues, and cultures use that ambiguity to promote love and selflessness or egocentrism and pride. It is my hope that by looking at the following scriptural arguments that the LDS people might choose to focus on scriptures which promote religious pluralism, and not those which promote exclusivity and pride.

Outline of points covered in the article
-A church’s privilege of identifying as ONE with ‘One True Church’ which is in Heaven, is similar to an individual’s privilege of identifying as ONE with the One True God. Churches can use scriptures like John 17:20–23 & Psalm 82:6, & D&C 76:58–59 to show they are ONE with God, but is such a practice divisive and prideful? Lets explore this comparison and all the scriptures relating to the matter.
-Certainly the cultural overuse of the only true church concept in LDS testimonies too often follows the example of the Book of Mormon Zoramites. (see Alma 31:12–21)
-The Book of Mormon, Bible and Doctrine and Covenants teach that Christ’s one true church (as well as the church of the devil) are spiritual churches which transcend organizational and priesthood lines. (D&C 10:67–68, 1 Ne 14:10, Moroni 7:16–17, Mark 9:38–40, 2 Nephi 10:16, Matt 12:30, etc)
-The Doctrine & Covenants (D&C 10:67–68) clearly teaches the condition required to be part of Christ’s Spiritual Church (repenting and coming to Christ). Declaring more or less than that definition threatens Mormonisms’ membership in Christ’s one true spiritual church.
-A temporal sect or religion’s “trueness” or whether they can be classified as part of the “one true church”, depends on how well they copy, obey or “come unto” or act as an archetype of the spiritual church in heaven. (D&C 10:53–59,67–69)
-The separation of the wheat and the tares at the end of the age is synonymous with Christ’s separation of the Church of God and Church of the devil. The point of the parable revolves around the difficulty for humans to distinguish between the two. (see Matt 13:37–43, D&C 86:1–3, D&C 88:94)
-D&C 10:52–54 makes it clear that Christ’s spiritual church existed on earth before the restoration of the LDS sect. Joseph Smith’s church & priesthood were meant to “build up” and correct the already existing spiritual church on earth. And to be a symbol and archetype of the end-epoch separating and gathering process (see Heb 8:5;9:23-24;10:1; Alma 13:16).
-Mormonism should never boast of being the only true church until Messiah’s final gathering of all people and churches in One Body, and that universal brotherhood or kingdom is ready to “present to the Father”.
-Interpreting D&C 1:30 to suggest the LDS church is ‘the ONLY true church’, contradicts other scriptural evidence concerning the matter. We LDS people need to relook at the conditional nature of what the verse actually says–and stop using it as a pillar of exclusivity. (see exegesis of D&C 1:30)

Zoramitism in the LDS Church

As much as I love the good in Mormonism, it seems to me that many of us in the LDS church have focused too much on a prideful reading of D&C 1:30, and discount an abundance of scriptural information to the contrary, in order to support the tradition of being “the only true church”. Like the biblical Pharisees and Zoramites in the Book of Mormon, we sometimes twist the scriptures in a manner that makes us think that God has “separated us” and “elected us to be saved”, while “all around us are elected to be cast by [his] wrath down to hell” (or lower kingdoms until we do their temple work). Understanding the pride inherent in our doctrines is the first step in unraveling what I believe to be egocentric scriptural interpretations which crept into the church from its earliest days. The similarities between the Book of Mormon account of the Zoramites and the average Mormon testimony in Fast & Testimony Meeting should be enough to convict us and open our hearts to the need to look closer at what the scriptures teach concerning the only true church doctrine. For those unfamiliar with the story of the Zoramites, let’s read through Alma’s experience for some insight into this extremely prideful sect—one that LDS people don’t want to be like!

12 Now, when they had come into the land, behold, to their astonishment they found that the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did worship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld;
13 For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person.
14 Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:
15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.
16 Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.
17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.
18 And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.
19 Now it came to pass that after Alma and his brethren and his sons had heard these prayers, they were astonished beyond all measure.
20 For behold, every man did go forth and offer up these same prayers.
21 Now the place was called by them Rameumptom, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand. (Alma 31:12–21)

Although the beliefs of the Zoramites concerning the nature of God and Christ were different than our own, we come too close to sharing the same pride concerning salvation. Like all fundamentalist sects, the Zoramites saw themselves as a “chosen and holy people”. Like us, the Zoramites truly believed that their doctrines, divine election, (and likely priesthood & ordinances) made them the only true church, “elected by God to be saved”. They did not understand the following concepts taught by Nephi, and reiterated by Moroni, Jesus and other prophets—that until Zion is fully established & redeemed, the only true church is a spiritual church which transcends cultural and organizational lines.

The ‘Only Two Churches’ are ‘Spiritual Churches’ or Social Movements

I suggest the LDS concept of being the ‘only true church’ is promoted by a small handful of misunderstood scriptures. One example is Nephi’s vision of the two churches. In his vision given in 1 Nephi of the Book of Mormon, Nephi was taught that there are only two churches, the church of the Lamb of God (or the true church), and the church of the devil (the false church). This vision is often used to support the idea that there is only one true church on earth — however, since Nephi’s vision specifies that everyone on earth belongs to one of these two churches— it should be obvious that term “church” here is referring to a “spiritual” church or ideological allegiance and not just a temporal sect or ecclesiastical organization. Lets look at what the verse says,

10 And [The angel of the Lord] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Ne 14:10)

It should be apparent from the context of this verse, that the term “church” in this scripture, can not be referring to the most popular modern definition of the word church (which is a specific religious denomination). Since the verse says “there are save two churches only”, defining “church” as a denomination would mean there could only be two religious denominations in existence, and everyone on earth would have to be a member of one or the other.

As implied by the context and noted by other authors, the word church anciently, often had a much broader meaning than it does now (Hebrew qahal or edah; Greek ekklesia). For instance, in Greek texts it referred more broadly to a general assembly, or political association of people who bonded together and shared the same beliefs or loyalties. Scholars have noted that the modern concept of a church as a separate priesthood organization or religious denomination, didn’t exist among Jews of the first and second temple periods. Instead the differing religious groups or “schools of thought” as Josephus called them, were forced to work together to manage the Jewish theocratic state despite their conflicting ideologies.

In regards to Nephi’s vision of two churches, LDS apostles and church leaders have often misunderstood the scriptural use of the word “church” by arguing an inconsistent definition-— suggesting on one hand that the “church of the lamb of God” refers to a literal ecclesiastical organization (the LDS church and its ancient equivalent), but yet that the “church of the devil” refers to a figurative or spiritual church that transcends organizational lines. Others have tried to define the Church of the Devil in Nephi’s vision as the Catholic or American Evangelical Churches. However any interpretation to make either “the church of the Lamb of God” OR “the church of the devil” into literal Christian organizations or sects, contradicts the principle taught in Moroni 7 where he teaches that “every thing which inviteth to do good… is of God” and “whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil… is of the devil”.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. (Moroni 7:16–17)

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good… (Ether 4:12)

The idea sometimes pushed by early church leaders that every other Christian denomination BUT the LDS church was the Church of the devil would be a complete contradiction to Moroni’s words. How could Catholicism or protestantism for instance be the “church of the devil” when the devil “persuadeth no man to do good^[0], no not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him“! The idea is prideful and contradictory and has subsequently been abandoned by most modern LDS teachers. But at the same time, how could the LDS church be the “only true church” when according to Nephi and other scriptures THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHURCHES? According to Nephi’s vision, holding that the LDS denomination is the only true church requires all others to be part of the church of the devil, which as we will see in this article goes contrary to the words of Moroni, Christ’s and the Joseph’s Doctrine and Covenants. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that Both Moroni and Nephi for the most part taught a broad spiritual version of Christ’s true church. ^[1]

Is it any wonder that we are scorned as being a cult by other churches when we repeatedly infer that they are part of the church of the devil? (Perhaps some LDS members don’t realize it, but our insistence that we are the ONLY true church infers by definition that unlike us, all others are false!).

Note the two false ways many interpret scriptures concerning the ‘two churches’. But, to make either the Church of God OR the Church of the Devil into one particular organization, and thus the place all the rest into an ‘other’ creates a logical fallacy.

Early LDS Church leaders were not alone in their misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the “church” Christ taught. In the New Testament John and other apostles make this same mistake when they forbid a man who would not follow them, from casting out demons by Christ’s name and authority. Jesus rebuked them and teaches the same principle as Nephi and Moroni. No-one who does good in Christ’s name is of the devil—and the apostolic followers weren’t the only one’s allowed to act with Christ’s authority. Because all who do good in Christ’s name are part of Christ’s spiritual church.

38 John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone forcing demons out of a person by using the power and authority of your name. We tried to stop him because he was not one of us.”
39 Jesus said, “Don’t stop him! No one who works a miracle in my name can turn around and speak evil of me.
40 Whoever isn’t against us is for us. (Mark 9:38–40 GWT)

Nephi makes essentially the same statement using reverse logic later in his writings as he explains the nature of both the true church of Christ and the False church of the devil. (Christ also says almost the exact thing in Matt 12:30)

“Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.” (2 Nephi 10:16, see also Matt 12:30)

So Christ in one place says “whoever is not against us–is for us”, but in another place says (along with Nephi) “whoever is not for us–is against us” (see Matt 12:30). These statements are a complete contradictions if you try to define Christ’s church as a closed ecclesiastical organization. (see footnote 4) They can only be harmonized if you see them as a restatement of the same forced spiritual dichotomy used over and over in scripture which teaches that those who do good and are heading toward love are part of the spiritual church of God, and those who do evil and are fighting good are part of the church of the devil. And that every ecclesiastical church, sect, denomination, religion, person or nation is constantly aligning themselves with one or the other in everything they do–and will eventually have to chose allegiances in the heavenly or spiritual battle. Understanding this logic shows how the verses mentioned above support the idea of a spiritual church… and not just a temporal church.

The Good vs. Evil Dichotomy in Scripture

The binary or dichotomy of good vs. evil is taught throughout the scriptures. And perhaps nowhere is the idea that these terms transcend organizational lines taught better than in the parable of the wheat and the tares. In the parable the Master commands his servants to plant wheat in a field— but when it grows he find tares MIXED WITHIN the wheat. He tells his servants to allow them to grow together, least pulling out the tares, “ye root up also the wheat with them”. The meaning of this parable is explained not only in the New Testament but also in D&C 86 & 88, where we learn that that “the field was the world, and the apostles were the sowers of the seed” (D&C 86:2), the good seed are the children of Christ’s kingdom (true church), and the tares are the church of the devil or bad people and bad works that come from twisted doctrine (Matt 13:38, D&C 88:94).

37 …He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom [Christ’s true church]; but the tares are the children of the wicked one [ie. devil’s church, see D&C 88:94];
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matt 13:37–43, see also D&C 86:1–3)

Verse 38 (clarified in D&C 88:94) makes it clear that in this parable the wheat are the kingdom or church of Christ, and the tares are the ‘kingdom or church of the devil’. And the whole point of the parable is that it is hard to tell the difference between the two because they look so similar and grow together within each organization! Both the wheat and the tares exist within every religion, culture and kingdom. There are tares in “Christ’s Kingdom”, and wheat among the Gentiles. But it is not until “the end of the world” (end or close of the age in most translations) that Christ and his angels (not mortal servants) will separate the two; gathering the wheat into heaven and burning the tares with the stubble to prepare a new crop cycle. ^[2].

Footnotes (↵ returns to text)

Spiritual Church: A social movement. A state of being. A type of spiritual nature or character which binds like-minded people together. And organization which exists in heaven with which people can align themselves in thought and behavior.

Organizational or Temporal Church: A specific religious organization or denomination on the earth, bound together by specific ordinances, priesthood and leadership.↵
There are some who might be tempted to use D&C 35:12 to suggest that God only considers those who join Mormonism as “good”. It reads “And there are none that doeth good except those who are ready to receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth unto this generation.” This argument, however is difficult to support. Besides being an unreasonable twisting of the word good, first note that in LDS scripture “the fullness of my Gospel” is not usually synonymous with ‘the church’. In LDS scripture it has reference to a personal ‘witness’ of Christ (D&C 76:14), The Gospel taught in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne 13:24, 15:13; D&C 20:9, 42:12, and God’s covenant relationship with a people (D&C 39:11, 14:10, 45:28, 66:2; 1 Ne 10:14; 15:13, 3 Ne 16:10). This verse makes much more sense by looking at it as a restatment of D&C 10:52–69, which states that good people are open to new truths, and will not reject the good found in the Book of Mormon. ↵
Think how silly the words in D&C 18:20 would be in saying “Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil”, if every Church but the LDS Church was part of the Church of the devil. It would be like saying “contend against no church…. except for every other church”! Additionally, to use verses like D&C 33:4; 35:12; 82:6 which say “there are none that doeth good except those who are ready to receive the fulness of my gospel” to suggest that only those who join the mortal LDS sect are “good” is to completely twist their meaning. Much like the biblical verses such as Romans 3:10–12; Psalm 14:3, Eccl 7:20, Christian scripture repeatedly uses hyperbole to emphasize the idea that the mortal nature of all mankind is cursed, evil and bad—and the only one’s who God considers “good” are those who are charitable (1 Cor 13; Moroni 7), and humble enough to accept the revelations of heaven for the good they teach (Ether 4:10–12). These scriptures are obviously not saying that LDS sect members are “good” and all others are “bad”—they are using literary hyperbole to say that compared to God and the heavenly church, every person and church (including the LDS sect) on earth is bad unless they follow the Spirit of goodness (gospel) which emanates from their heavenly abode. ↵
During periods of extreme wickedness or apostasy, the tares choke out the wheat and drive the spiritual church of Christ out of a society and religions, and into hiding (D&C 86:1–3).

“3 And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness. (D&C 86:3)”

But this does not mean the Church (or wheat) is taken from the earth. If that was the case, the master would just burn the field! Being driven “into the wilderness” means the wheat, good people, or spiritual church of Christ, loses religious and political control, and are forced to hide themselves within the predominate apostate churches and culture so they won’t be destroyed by the tares (or church of the devil which has gained control of religious and political organizations). This is the meaning of the term “hid from the world with Christ in God” (D&C 86:9, see also D&C 88:66)

The ancient church of Christ and the modern LDS Church and priesthood are only a part of of a much larger work going on between the forces of good and evil in each society and religion. The tares choked out the wheat many times in the Jewish society between the times of Moses and Christ, just as they choked out the wheat many times in the Gentile culture which Nephi saw in his vision, and now in our time we are in no means immune from the possibility of the same thing happening to us!↵

Needed Reformation in the LDS Church – Specific Actions

November 25, 2014/10 Comments/in Insights & Ramblings/by MormonBox

I’m an active Mormon, and I care quite a bit about my faith (maybe too much!). As I’ve looked deeply at Mormon history over the last decade, it seems to me that Mormonism has changed doctrine and practice about as fast as the members overwhelmingly desired it (or social pressure required it) —and to me, this seems just as one would hope of a religion that professes to follow ‘the plan of moral agency’ (D&C 101:78; 93:31; Moses 4:3). I believe scriptures supports the idea that divinity gives a lot more leniency for religious leaders to make decisions than those leaders typically dare admit. And looking at the history of Judaism, Mormonism or Catholicism, it seems that major divisions and schisms occur when church leaders do not recognize growing demand for change in the people–or leaders refuse to govern according the agency of the people (or the dictates of the Spirit as given individually to the vast majority).

Thus I offer the following as topics to think about. I don’t say any of these things to be divisive—to the contrary, as I read through LDS blogs and forums, I see way too much division and way too many people leaving the Church with very ill feelings. Its something I’ve given a lot of thought and study to, and as I’ve searched through the scriptures for answers I’ve come up with the following list of divisive traditions and practices which seem to go against our own founding revelations.

In my opinion, basically every major problem in the church boils down to this first two or three Reform Actions. I believe, power which has become too centralized and lofty for the progression of seasoned members, is at the root of every other imbalance mentioned in this article. (autocratic institutionalization can be great for coverts and new areas of the church, but it’s death to the 5th generational central stakes of Zion)

Note

These items now have their own section… and each Reform Action, its own post. See “needed reformation” menu.

Reform Action #1:

Remove the doctrine of muted prophetic infallibility from our scripture and teachings. 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. Read More>>

Reform Action #2:

Decentralize and pull down the power, which has become too lofty and autocratic for seasoned members. Church hierarchy needs to humble themselves monetarily and authoritatively. Restore the balance of power between Stake and central church priesthood hierarchy, according to the principles delineated in D&C 107, by bolstering stake influence and reducing centralization & institutionalization efforts from SLC for seasoned regions, and expanding the influence of the patriarchal order of the priesthood. D&C 107 describes a perfect balance of power between the Stake government and the central church government, this balance needs to be reestablished. Read More>>

Reform Action #3:

Reform governance in seasoned regions of the church, working to eliminate autocracy/unrighteous dominion and more properly balance agency and consensus rule (common voice). 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). Read More>>

Reform Action #4:

Reform the church’s unscriptural exclusive truth & priesthood claims. Stop promoting false dichotomies in our truth claims. Maintain the multidimensional scriptural metaphors without imposing rigid church-wide interpretations for them. Read More>>

Reform Action #5:

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

Reform Action #6:

Teach and encourage the practice of economic equality through the Law of Consecration in its proper framework under the United Order (essentially a hybrid form of free-will socialism). Completely ingnoring this law separates the church from the heavenly organizations which helped to found it. Failing to even teach (let alone practice) this system makes the church just another religious faction preaching supposed religiousness but not practicing a system which remedies social inequality—the single largest cause of social instability & collapse. See D&C sections 42, 51, 78, 82, 104. see also Enrichment L.

The Rest is Trivial.

Every other action in this article is trivial. Giving this author or any small group of people control to create “reforms” would be just as ineffective as the current status quo if it comes from an over-centralized bureaucracy. Most the below issues revolve around the institutionalization of the Church which has come as a result of its over centralization and autocratic power structure. They are just random ideas, and not actual dictates of how I think the church should be.

———————————————–

Reform Action:

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

Reform Action:

LDS Apostles need to stop being dishonest concerning their witness of Jesus Christ. Read More>>

Reform Action:

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.

Reform Action:

Stop excommunicating or marginalizing dissidents. Excommunication should conform strictly with the principles delineated in D&C 42:20–28 and D&C 102. Public or private differences of opinion are not grounds for excommunication. Witch-hunts should be avoided at all costs. The church is meant to be a ‘type’ or example of perfect government, there must be effective channels for group secession and re-absorption to and from the ecumenical union.

Reform Action:

Reform institutionalized temple worship. The current system of pressuring youth into temple initiation, and covenant making (without even knowing beforehand the full idea of what covenants they will be making) is morally wrong, and highly detrimental.

There are a lot of aspects of temple worship which need to change… Read More>>

Reform Action:

Greatly reform the teachings and strictures concerning sexuality, health and substance abuse in the Church. Leave the specifics to the patriarchal order where they belong.

Reform Action:

Take steps to decentralize the monetary system and allow stakes far greater latitude in deciding how much money to spend on structures (meeting houses, temples, etc) & programs. Do a better job of separating “for-profit” arms of the Church. The presiding bishopric, not the traveling twelve should be involved in these “temporal matters”.

Reform Action:

Create a system of activism and unsolicited volunteerism. Perhaps a system of self appointed callings? (or something to this effect).

Other Possible Points

-do not make the same mistakes concerning pushes for gender equality in the church as were made in regard to the issue of black and the priesthood. (suggesting doctrine supports the idea that God is against it or that it will never happen etc…)

-slowly expand women’s roles until full gender equality is achieved. Start with missionaries (done!), move to Ward Council (equal number of men & women). Then to church wide general auxiliaries. Then to issues of priesthood (see GOHT). Have Bishops/Stake Presidents and General Authorities wives assist in their callings and speak at meetings and General Conferences. Show in word and action that these are shared gender callings… that men are not called, couples who have achieved true oneness are.

-encourage original music and art in more church settings. (Ensign and Deseret Book are doing a good job!) Allow original and faith building modern music in sacrament meetings according to common consent.

-rename “worthiness interviews” to bishop “counsel sessions” or something similar. Do not ask yes/no inquisition-like questions, instead create an outline bishops can follow to rightly judge the ideas of the member’s understanding on certain topics. He can then give counsel and guidance according to their knowledge. Always holding the agency and personal revelation of the individual preeminent.

See also My reformational article dealing with more abstract doctrinal issues here…. https://gatheredin.one/2613/needed-reformation-in-the-lds-church/

On the Great Whore & Counterfeits in the Church.

November 19, 2014/in insights (sticky posts)/by MormonBox

I don’t like to label things as evil. I like the detached scientific view where everything on earth is working together in a balanced ecosystem according to natural laws– to “God’s” laws if you will. Each plant and animal follows the natural laws of instinct, and the fittest survive maintaining the balance. The lion is certainly the lamb’s enemy when the lion is hungry, but calling one of them good and the other evil is simply a matter of perspective. The fly would certainly be justified in teaching its children that the venus flytrap is a bad evil thing… but an intelligent human observer would likely not take sides. Christian scripture if full of division of Good vs Evil, but then later prophets of scripture seem to step in and upset those definitions.

In the ecosystem of people there are also Lions and Lambs, predator and prey, those acting and those being acted upon. It is a common thing for both these groups to use camouflage or deceptive and counterfeit tactics to fulfill their desires.

Call it what you will. I would like to draw two short parallels to counterfeits in sexuality and religion. Perhaps different than most articles on this topic, I would specifically like to use counterfeits in sexuality to make some points about counterfeits in religious orthodoxy and priesthood.

Sexual Counterfeits

There is a natural instinct for people to be attracted to each other, to explore that attraction, to eventually fall in love, to build a family together, to perpetuate the species and find self-fulfillment in serving and protecting offspring. Although there are exceptions, this is a fairly ubiquitous human instinct and emotional desire.

In that quest for each individual to fulfill the natural law (god given instinct), they often come across “predators” who are following their desires and instinct to manipulate others for their own gain. In terms of sexuality, we often hear the term “whore” (correctly or wrongly) used in religious contexts to describe aspects of this phenomena.

In the context of this article I would redefine a “whore” as male or female sexual counterfeit who tricks another into thinking they are following the natural law which would lead to long term sexual fulfillment, when in reality they are not. Not so much a prostitute, but an intentional or unintentional counterfeit; a deceit.

I think in the religious context of Latter Day Saints this definition is sorely needed. I hear so many voices calling attractive women a whore or “walking porn” or calling anything which leads to sexual thoughts, porn. Each person holding their own imaginary line of moral “correctness”. An outfit which would be overly modest at a beach becomes “walking porn” if it is in the mall. Or an outfit that would be considered puritanical in Western society becoming “walking porn” if it were in the Muslim world. Michelangelo’s “David” or the “Venus de Milo” are art to one and porn to another. I see it as inherently wrong to negatively label as whorish or “evil porn”, human bodies which nature has created. In my opinion the whore or porn stigma should not be attached to a person or object, but to a state of mind. Similarly scriptural “lust” should not be considered the emotion of sexual desire (a God-given desire), but the act of desiring a counterfeit which will never fulfill the natural impulse to fall in love, find sexual fulfillment or procreate and raise and protect offspring. Over-sexualized depictions in media are not “evil porn” because there is something inherently evil about the people, their bodies or even their behavior. But they often bring negative consequences when the voyeur is deceived into thinking they will achieve their desires of companionship and long term sexual fulfillment from people they will almost certainly never be able to court, love or have fulfilling relationships with. The deceptive illusion can cause people to habitually consume a substance which never actually fulfills their basic needs because it is an unobtainable illusion.

(I am not trying so much to speak to the morality of this issue, as much as I wish to use it to make my next point.)

Lust or “whorishness” can not be defined by dress standards. It is better defined as a male or female sexual counterfeit who tricks another into thinking they are following the natural desire for love, unity and family creation… when in reality they are not.

Religious Counterfeits

In certain LDS scripture the term “whore” is also used to describe “false” religion.

I think this term in light of the definition discussed above is incredibly important to LDS people, and in fact people of all faiths.

Just as a whore in a sexual context is one who deceives another into thinking they will help them fulfill their true sexual desires (but doesn’t), a whore in a religious context is one who deceives another into thinking they will achieve their spiritual desires but never fulfills. A religious “whore” is a spiritual counterfeit. An institution which feigns to be God’s bride, but isn’t.

Now this is where it gets tricky, because even more than with sexuality, everyone’s spiritual needs are different. Spirituality is deeply personal and is defined & fulfilled differently for everyone. Using the porn analogy, U.S. pornographers have institutionalized sex and sought to manipulate the world into thinking a certain body type and sexual style is superior. They have deceived many into thinking their sexual desires as dictated by the natural law can only be fulfilled with the sexual icons and behaviors they promote. Many fall for this deception and continually try to find sexual fulfillment by following their program. For some it works. For most it does not. The test is whether it brings long term joy and happiness to one’s life or leaves one feeling hollow, empty and unfulfilled.

In terms of religion this is something religious leaders must be careful not to do in a religious sense. Every person is unique and different, so when we institutionalize spirituality and suggest to people that our rigidly defined program is the one and only way for people to fulfill their deeply personal spiritual needs–we run the risk of becoming religious whores or part of the scriptural “whore of all the earth” who manipulates and captivates those who are just trying to be “good people”.

Every person is unique, but there are common spiritual yearnings within most people. Psychological and emotional needs which cause a yearning for and enjoyment of things like a sunset or beautiful vista. Holding a new baby. Walking through a forest. Connecting with people. The enjoyment of music. Having structure and bounds in one’s life. Connecting with books, ancient wisdom and the ideas of others. Unity with God. Religion is divinely given to mankind to fulfill these instinctual yearnings. But we must take care that in the institutionalization of religion, we do not allow priests or prophets, temples or templates to become porn or prostitutes who give the appearance of satisfying the spiritual yearnings of the people, but by their rigidity and dogmatism actually keep them from that fulfillment.

I dont say this to demonize religious activity or religious leaders any more than I would demonize a lion for doing what it does. But I do think this is an vital scriptural principle that all us Christians should be aware of.

Religious things can also become counterfeits, which

Religious institutionalism can also become counterfeit, and trick a people into thinking they are satiating their natural desire for spirituality… when in reality they are not.

The Example of Stephen

Just before Stephen was stoned by the orthodox Jews for denouncing their condition he made many profound statements. One of which was,

David found favor with God and asked for the privilege of building a permanent Temple for the God of Jacob… However, the Most High doesn’t live in temples made by human hands. As the prophet says
“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Could you build me a temple as good as that?” (acts 7)

Stephen wasn’t just saying that the Spirit of God had left the Jewish temple, he was saying it had left their religion and that their temple and all their ordinances had become man-made counterfeits. They had become porn and part of the “whore of all the earth”. They had allowed their symbols and rituals to morph from teaching tools into deceptive representations of the True God and His true temple—which are composed of the earth, a loving human heart and other natural creations built “without human hands”.

You see religion, ordinances and temple worship are all symbols (or schoolmasters) meant to point us to God and true spirituality. True spirituality is a state of being which is deeply personal and can not be universally taught with words or attained by human ordinances or sophistry. It’s like one’s natural instinct to join with another person and procreate an infant life. It’s a natural instinct to join with creation and co-create something special— your life.

No one can tell you exactly how to do that best. Hopefully loving parents, priests, prophets and leaders can point the way and use symbols and ordinances to help you build connections with the greater unseen reality outside our narrow human perception. But for some these sacramental powers which connect us to God and goodness might not come through church. They might not come through the temples built with human hands. Instead, they might come through God’s temple of the natural world. They might come through solace. They might come through the true natural sacraments of a kiss, a hug or holding a new baby. They might come through loving relationships. I believe these truths are woven throughout Christian scripture and ritual.

The Christian Religion is made to free the captives, not to make them feel enslaved.

Christ’s gospel was to preach freedom to the captives, not captivity to the free. Both sexual and religious counterfeits cause captivity by tricking our God-given instincts.

Conclusion

I write this because I see far too much whoring in the church. Not so much from those making mistakes in the areas of human sexuality… but from those who have made the church into an idol—those believing personal salvation lies in correlated institutionalism instead of through the common sense principles of goodness defined by “God” to everyone on earth individually though His Spirit. Those who mistake symbols, idealism and counterfeit-things for the greater reality these emblems are trying to convey. Those who think the Spirit of God dwells more fully in prophets and temples than in the stillness of each individual’s heart. I see far too many people leaving the church not for their own selfish reasons, but for the egocentric ideals and selfishness they feel coming from the increasingly institutionalized church.

Nephi suggests that the crowning attribute of the counterfeit “whorish” church is control over others. Those of the false church “bind”, “yoke” and “bring into captivity” the peaceable followers of God” (those just trying to be good people). In biblical times that control over others was maintained by literal stones thrown by the orthodoxy, but for us it may be metaphorical ones. It can be control maintained by self-righteous and manipulative comments or talks given by those in authority. It can be religious doctrines which threaten damnation for those who do not follow one denomination’s specific practices or ordinances. It can be lessons which involve manipulative “wickedness bashing” or demonization of groups or human tendencies or making standards into heavy burdens. It can be insensitivity to each person’s unique situation, or promotion of faith in a vengeful dictator Messiah or a totalitarian millennial kingdom. It can leaders and members who feel they need to bad-talk or use church discipline on other members who see things a little different from the mainstream. We need more Jesus in the Church. We need less phariseeism and less dogma. We need to give each other more freedom to personally work through what’s real and what’s counterfeit in this world. We need to allow ourselves and others the freedom to try to identify things from the church’s youth which may have been manipulative, misleading or more human than divine. We need to emphasize the divinity and prophetic abilities in all men—not just institutional leaders or religious founders. We need to realize that if in religious zeal we cast stones of dogmatic moral judgement it might be us that God labels the whore at the judgement bar. We need to identify the counterfeits in our lives and the counterfeits in our religion which pretend to give fulfillment but just aren’t doing the trick. We need to be understanding of the fact that for some people there is very little of God’s spirit in the symbolism of temples, scriptures or church ordinances–because Creation speaks to them in the truer thing these symbols typify. We need to hold preeminent the undefiled “pure religion” of selfless service mentioned by James. We need to find the Spirit in all of us and work together toward a communion thats real, genuine and fulfilling for all.

References: John 1:29/Rev 5:5, Acts 6:8–15, 7:1-60 (NLT), Jer. 23:23–24 | 1 Kings 8:27, Acts 17:24–28, John 4:24 | 1 Tim. 1:17 | 1 Tim. 6:16, D&C 88:6–13, 2 Ne 2:13–14,26, 1 Ne 13:5, 1 Ne 14:10–11, James 1:27, Gal 3:24–25, Heb 7:5–28, Heb 10:1–16

Thoughts on Spirituality & Religion (Part 1. Supernatural Experiences)

May 29, 2014/in insights (sticky posts), Insights & Ramblings/by MormonBox

All religions fit together in my worldview. Each seems to be a different perspective on pieces of the big picture.

I believe that “all truth can be circumscribed into one whole”. All religions fit together in my worldview. To me each seems to be just a different perspective or piece of the grand picture of human perception.

As I explain in my ‘What is Truth‘ article, I’ve spent a lot of time and energy in my life trying to figure out how all truth in this world fits together into one cohesive whole. To me, that seems to be the highest idea LDS people learn in our church, taught to us in our highest temple ordinance just before we symbolically pass through the “veil” into the presence of “God”. I’ve read a good amount of most of the world’s religious works. I’ve had visions of spirits, I’ve heard voices, I’ve battled demons, I’ve dabbled in the hidden mysteries, and I’ve done my best to investigate and integrate into my worldview the best parts of the world’s religions. I was raised in the LDS Church and always considered myself an “orthodox” Mormon, and bought into a subtly condescending attitude toward those with views dissenting from the mainstream. Like much of the world’s religious faithful, I always had a strong “testimony” that our way was not only the best way, but the only true way. But after the death of my father, I gained an insatiable appetite for information relating to religion and the afterworld… and after years of asking—and getting answers, I gained a picture of reality that turned out to be quite different than what I thought growing up. I think my understanding and “testimony” now is in many ways very different from most Mormons, but still similar in many respects.

My testimony now (the LDS term for one’s belief system) is complicated. It’s certainly not black and white and doesn’t correspond to the sound bites of any particular church. (Despite considering myself LDS, and loving the truths in our church). Although this entire site is basically my religious thoughts that I am laying out for my kids or anyone interested, I want to use this article to try and summarize and prioritize my beliefs in a way that might help people better understand me.

Unity As The Highest Ideal

I believe the highest ideal is unity. As I explain in detail in my article What is Truth, Is the LDS Church the Only True Church? article, I believe ultimate truth is an understanding of a thing from every possible perspective, and so statements of testimony like “I know my Church is True” distort the very concept of truth. Because to most people such a statement is paramount to making one’s church ‘better’ than all the others, or suggesting that it’s mostly free from the lies, half-truths, misunderstandings, issues and limited perspective which are an inevitable part of anything run by fallible humans. I believe the tenets of all religions contain both truth and error, and are perceived differently by every member. Rather than taking sides in debates concerning truth, epistemology or ontology, I love to see what others believe and figure out how their beliefs fit into the big picture. I haven’t met a lot of people that I can’t see the truth’s in their perspective. I like to talk to people from their perspective as much as possible and my experiences have taught me thats how angels speak to us. I love to try and enlarge the perspectives of others.

My Spiritual (Metaphysical? Supernatural?) Experiences

I think like many people I had experiences of synchronicity, and answers to prayers in my youth (starting at least in first or second grade), which really gave me a sense that there was a higher power. A sense that the natural world we typically interact with was only a small part of a larger unseeable reality. I had a pretty powerful experience when I first learned about my near-death at the age of two, when my head was run over by a car but I miraculously came back to life after a prayer from my mom. However, perhaps the first truly supernatural experience (from my perspective) I had occurred in about the 7th grade. Being raised in an active LDS family, I learned about Joseph Smith’s first vision growing up, but for some reason, it suddenly really resonated with me. I decided if praying worked for him to see god, it would work for me. I set up a day to go out and pray in a secluded place and see god, but ended up falling ill that day— to the point I spent a few days in bed. So I set my mind on another day some time later… but I strangely got really sick again. It was one of many strange examples of synchronicity which was hard to dismiss. To me, there seemed to be something very real to this God-thing. My apophenic mind found significant meaning in the fact that “God” (more on my view of that later) or some part of my subconscious self was fighting my conscious mind to prevent me from pursuing this experience. (More on my views of ancient and modern theophany experiences below…)

Strangely, that experience served as an important backdrop as I’ve talked with multiple people over the years (and read the accounts of many others) who have had visions and interactions with what they felt was deity (see wikipedia’s article on theophany).

A few years after the above experience I started reading the Book of Mormon for seminary. I got through the book of Second Nephi and became engrossed. I couldn’t put it down and read the rest of the book in a day or two. While reading the story of Ammon & Lamoni I had my strongest feeling-based metaphysical experience ever. I was so moved by the story that I knelt to pray and an overpowering warm/burning sensation overtook me that seemed to originate from my heart and radiate through my whole body. It was a classic kundalini experience or baptism of fire. It made me collapse on my bed and wonder if I was having a heart attack or something — but it was accompanied by incredible feelings of love unlike anything I had ever felt before. This was not simple emotionalism, it was a whole-body biological reaction to what I read. It was not simply like the warm-fuzzies we all feel when we watch a touching movie. It was far more visceral and biological, with feelings of ecstasy, warmth and enlargement in my brain and heart area. To put it quite frankly, it was much like having a completely unsexual heart-orgasm (not that I would have had ANY experience or clue what that even was at that age)–where my entire nervous system was lit up and I was spiritually united with some unseen reality. Feelings associated with that initial powerful biological and emotional outpouring lingered for days. I felt anointed and special. I felt connected to God and to that book, and I subsequently used that experience as an initial basis for a testimony of the LDS church and its living prophets. From that point on, I was a fully committed to Mormonism, yet at the same time I felt a connection to divinity that allowed me to define what Mormonism was to be for me—rather than having it fully defined by Mormon leadership. I felt a true unity with “god” and Mormonism and increasingly felt like whatever issues I saw I could get answers to resolve them.

(I’ve since learned that such biological/spiritual manifestations of spiritual experiences are not exclusive to any particular religion, and have been experienced and described for thousands of years by many different religious traditions. It is also referred to as the sacred anointing, baptism by fire or serpent fire of Jewish traditions & Kabbalah; and the coiled serpent, chakra/endocrine theory of Eastern traditions. see The Biology of Kundalini)

Seeing Spirits

Two months before my LDS mission, my father was killed in a freak accident, and the seclusion and isolation of my mission became a powerful catylist for me in desiring to really know what lay beyond death. This was the beginning of my dark night of the soul. When my dad died, part of me died. After this, religion no longer remained a cultural and social given in my life. I became a true student of religion, because I wanted to know what lie beyond the grave. And although I really didn’t have many particularly unusual spiritual experiences on my mission (apart from very regularly occurring emotional religious confirmations and a few psychic voices in my mind), soon after my mission I began to have a number of experiences with what scientist have haphazardly termed sleep paralysis (which involve dream-like “thought forms“, or spiritual visionary/dream experiences) as well seeing earth-bound spirits. In my first experience of this sort, I woke up in the twilight hours before dawn to what I thought was my mother (a female individual) sitting on my bedside with her hand on my leg. As I opened my eyes and became conscious of her presence suddenly realizing that this was not anyone I knew, the individual instantly flew on top of me as if trying to enter my body (at least that was my perception). Not that this apparition was really even particularly frightening, but that I was horrified by not being able to move—and at the reality and unfamiliarity of the experience. After a few horrifying moments of me futilely trying to scream and defend myself (but not being able to move or make audible noises), the being left and my biological eyes opened (more on that in a second). This type of experience occurred a number of times from the ages of about 21 – 28, and as time went by I got better not freaking out and appropriately dealing with, or interacting with the experiences until it ended.

As I go through my subsequent experiences in this next section, I think it’s important to note that all but one or two of my experiences with seeing “spirits” have occurred with my biological eyes closed in the hypnopompic state. It’s a difficult phenomena to explain and it’s easy to see why those who haven’t experienced it would suspect all such experiences are just a type of dream (which is certainly one way to look at them). In most of my experiences I am mentally “woken up” to see some apparition from my bed—only to be bewildered by the fact that afterwards I end up opening my physical eyes to find I was actually still physically “asleep”. And yet I’m not asleep and these seem to me, far different than lucid dreams— I am totally aware of both my thoughts and surroundings and before opening my eyes, I can somehow see things like the time on the alarm clock and room lighting—which don’t change at all when I open my eyes. In these experiences I am always sure I’m wide awake with eyes open, only to surprisingly find myself later opening my physical eyes to an identical scene & feeling. (There is absolutely no sensation of waking up, only of opening my biological eyes). From my perspective I am somehow “seeing” things through the “eyes” of my spirit (for loss of a better word). I know that sounds hokey and I don’t expect those who have not experienced this phenomena to understand— but that is absolutely the perception I have of the experience. In multiple instances I have looked out the window to see the dawning light on the horizon, and then when my biological eyes open afterwards—there is absolutely no difference to what I perceived of the scene before and after my physical eyes open. In fact, it is absolutely uncanny how often these experience occur exactly as a sliver of light appears on the horizon. Even if I am in a dark room with curtains drawn, they nearly always occur within a short period of twilight.

One instance in particular really solidified my belief that my experiences with seeing spirits are more complicated than dreaming or super-lucid hallucinations. Sometime around age 25 I had an instance where I was awoken by the spirit of a young teenager in my room (my impression was that this individual had died as a teen). He woke me up purposefully by walking up to me and waving his hand repeatedly in my face. I remained semi-conscious and just watched him as he walked through the wall toward the living room where my wife was sleeping that night. I sensed his intent to try and annoy my wife as well, and so as I opened my eyes to get out of bed and start heading toward the living room, my wife popped in the room a bit shaken and asked if I had just snuck up to her and woken her up by loudly whispering “hey!” into her ear. She got up immediately and looked both beneath and around the sofa, fully expecting me to be hiding just out of her view. When she realized it wasn’t me, she got scared and came into the bedroom to see where I was. (where I told her about my experience as well) I have had many experiences with seeing and talking to spirits both before and after this one, but this experience with my wife sticks out as the first which was objectively confirmed by another individual. It is also interesting to note that my wife also had an experience of “hearing spirits” when she was young. It was a strange and frightening experience for her, and had never been repeated until this night. [Because of its transient nature there can, of course, be little objectively provable scientific evidence of clairaudience or clairvoyance, so it deserves the skepticism it receives— but the phenomena has been documented for thousands of years, occurring to countless individuals; and my experiences certainly began to make me a believer.]

More Interaction with Beings

Since the shared experience with my wife, I’ve had many experiences where I am “woken up” (although my eyes are still closed), to some ethereal being standing near my bed, teaching me. (I can’t move my head and look at them because I’m not physically awake–only mentally awake). This has usually occurred after I’ve read something to make me sincerely ask heaven for answers to questions. The beings, (or sometimes just a voice) then give me lengthy, profound explanations which give me unbelievably clear visual and conceptual understandings of different topics. But then after I open my eyes and try to write down what was telepathically communicated to me, the vision and understanding fade and I fail to find the words to explain it. It’s a wild experience and in some periods of my life it’s happened with surprising regularity. Often the explanations will include scriptures or concepts which I don’t remember ever reading or learning, but when I wake up and look them up, they end up being legit verses. I’ve repeatedly considered the prevailing scientific explanation that these visions could just be a product of an insanely lucid imagination or a hallucinogenic mind, but as I’ve analyzed these experiences objectively from an agnostic/scientific perspective (and those of others) I believe it is more likely the other way around. (I don’t think current psychoanalysis of hallucinations can account for ‘group visions’, the experience where my wife was woken up too, or psychic premonitions that I’ve experienced (and occur regularly to millions of other people around the earth). As I’ve looked for answers, I think it’s more likely that both spiritual and hallucinatory experiences in general are connected to DMT’s ability to allow the brain to enter subjective states of consciousness wherein humanity is more connected to each other or some type of subconscious group memory and perhaps even to an intelligent infinite creation. (see Rick Strassman’s work at New Mexico school of Medicine, on the Pineal gland’s production of DMT, as well as the link between hallucinogenic drugs and higher states of consciousness. — Note, I’ve never taken illicit or hallucinogenic drugs/medications of any kind by the way, nor have I ever had a metaphysical experience I can remember of while taking any type of cold, flu or pain medication).

While my wife was pregnant, I had one experience where I believe I saw an apparition of the spirit of my unborn child in the same manner as the other spiritual manifestations I’ve seen; however in this experience when I opened my eyes, I could still faintly “see” (or better put, perceive with an extra-ocular sense) the outline of this infant-sized spirit which floated in front of me blinking her big beautiful eyes. Because of these experiences I believe in an afterlife (or at least a spirit-world or global mental realm of sorts, wherein we can subtly interact with the consciousness of the dead, unborn or extra-dimensional beings). I also believe in supernatural events, and certain extrasensory abilities of the human mind; despite the differences in perspective and obvious fraud and forgery existing in the world’s descriptions of these phenomena. I believe very firmly in an afterworld which houses the consciousness of the dead (Spirits & Angels). However, I believe that when we interact with this realm the visionary individual does so in a subjective way through their OWN consciousness (the mystic’s mind transformed raw channeled information into their own language, culture & even physical forms). At the same time I fully accept the possible validity of purely psychological explanations for paranormal activity; as long as they accept the idea of some kind of subtle shared global, or infinite consciousness. but I don’t believe that visions and experiences with this unseen realm are a viewing of a fully objective reality like our own. Attempts to view it as such run into issues both in my own experiences and in those of the thousands of others I have read of. There is an aspect of that realm that is far more subjective than our own. (I’ll explain this more later)

I think it’s also noteworthy to mention that I’ve never had any experience with seeing my deceased father in dreams or my night visions. I was woken once at my grandma’s house by a Spirit who I had the distinct impression was related to me, but I’ve never had anything like that happen with my dad, other than possibly feeling his presence or guidance during normal daytime activities. I would think, that if these experiences had to do with some kind of hallucinatory wishful thinking, that they would most certainly end up revolving around the one person who I always wished to talk with most beyond the grave? But nothing. Even despite having a small experience with another loved-one shortly after their death, where they told me something of what it was like there as well as some personal information I did not know about them before they died but later verified as true, I have never been woken at night by my father.

You can read the near-death and spiritual experiences of thousands of others on the sites I have featured in the After Death portion of this website. Read Part 2 to see possible explanations of these phenomena.

continued on page 2 –>

Posts

Redefining the LDS View of the “Great Apostasy”

The Divine Pattern of Western Civilization & Global Advancement

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

45 “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood…” (D&C 121:45).

Sauron, Satan, and the Corrupting Influence of Power

The Difference Between Priesthood and The Powers of Heaven or Spiritual Gifts

The priesthood is primarily a metaphor or symbol of a heavenly or spiritual system

The Two branches of Mormon Priesthood and what they symbolize

Re-examining what the scriptures say about the “Only True Church” Doctrine

Introduction

Zoramitism in the LDS Church

The ‘Only Two Churches’ are ‘Spiritual Churches’ or Social Movements

The Good vs. Evil Dichotomy in Scripture

Needed Reformation in the LDS Church – Specific Actions

On the Great Whore & Counterfeits in the Church.

Thoughts on Spirituality & Religion (Part 1. Supernatural Experiences)

Unity As The Highest Ideal

My Spiritual (Metaphysical? Supernatural?) Experiences

Seeing Spirits

More Interaction with Beings

Latest Blog Posts

Blogroll

Disclaimer

Tag Archive for: lds church

Posts

The Divine Pattern of Western Civilization & Global Advancement

45 “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood…” (D&C 121:45).

Sauron, Satan, and the Corrupting Influence of Power

The Difference Between Priesthood and The Powers of Heaven or Spiritual Gifts

The priesthood is primarily a metaphor or symbol of a heavenly or spiritual system

The Two branches of Mormon Priesthood and what they symbolize

Introduction

Zoramitism in the LDS Church

The ‘Only Two Churches’ are ‘Spiritual Churches’ or Social Movements

The Good vs. Evil Dichotomy in Scripture

Unity As The Highest Ideal

My Spiritual (Metaphysical? Supernatural?) Experiences

Seeing Spirits

More Interaction with Beings

Latest Blog Posts

Tag Cloud

Blogroll

Disclaimer