Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men

Preface

I can’t think of anything I’d want to do less than write this book. The idea first came into my mind as a result of a conversation I had with a family member. I was making a poor attempt at summarizing dozens of hours of research on a gospel subject, trying to persuade him to arrive at the same conclusion I had come to. He said to me, in effect, “You can’t just refer me to books I will never read. I don’t have time to study these things just because you say I should.” In that conversation and in subsequent others, I realized that people’s beliefs are not some simply binary switch, but a complex, multi-layered web; a mixture of facts, faded recollections, and highly charged emotions. Injecting new evidence—particularly conflicting evidence—into this web is like knocking a perfectly balanced, fast rotating drum. It’s really going to mess things up. It is not a light thing to wrestle with well-established belief systems. My relative was right, I could not expect people to consider significant changes to their belief systems without an exceptionally well crafted and succinct argument. Such an argument is very difficult to achieve in normal conversation. A book would be required both for the length of the content and also the degree of organization needed. I knew from the onset that I would need to revisit years of notes from gospel study—originally written for myself—to add the missing detail necessary for others. I knew I would have to reread a shelf worth of books and spend countless days googling topics on which I hadn’t taken complete notes. I knew I would need to spend significant efforts developing my ability to phrase things in a way that would allow honest evaluation without outright dismissal, tactfully dodging emotive landmines to permit rational thought to occur in a sea of trained predisposition.

I was and am completely inadequate to the task of writing this book. I was and am as equipped to write this book as I would be to design and build a rocket capable of reaching the moon. When the dual realization that this book was both necessary and as yet unwritten occurred to me, I halfheartedly began the effort, hoping that someone else was working on a similar volume and would publish it before I accomplished any significant writing. As desperately as I wished someone else would do it, no one did.

I began writing without any idea what these pages would contain or how they would be structured. Signs followed that convinced me that this work was commissioned by heaven. That being said, I am very well aware of my own deficiencies, and am positive that these have translated into more than a few typos, grammatical mistakes, and perhaps even a few inadvertent inaccuracies. I claim full credit for these. Notwithstanding, there is no doubt in my mind that the Lord wanted me to write this book, and that those to whom it is directed will be held accountable for what it contains. As this book came together, I pled with the Lord to spare me from having to publish it. I was shown what the outcome would be, and at the time it was a bitter cup for me to drink. I questioned whether it was worth it, when I did not expect any sizeable number of people to come closer to him as a result of reading it. He told me plainly that the purpose of this book was not to convert, although great pains had to be taken to make it suitable for that purpose. Instead, it was to lay the case out so plainly as to leave those to whom it is directed without excuse when the judgments he has foretold occur.

My simple desire is that it may be pleasing to God.

Introduction

I have learned that there are only ever two things that are worth preaching over. The first and greatest is to turn to God. This is commonly called repentance, as in “preach nothing but repentance unto the people.” Unfortunately, repentance has often been reduced to convincing individuals to commit or abstain from a list of things. This is wresting of the principle in more ways than can briefly be summarized, but an attempt has been made in the “Gospel of Christ” chapter.

The second topic worth preaching about is the tearing down of false traditions that prevent people from turning to God. Most are prevented from turning to God through a misunderstanding of what God is like (and what he is not like), what he is saying (and what he is not saying), and what his will is for us (and what it is not). One can only repent to the degree that they are free from false traditions. Therefore, one cannot preach repentance without preaching against false traditions.

Truth is a plant that doesn't compete well with the weeds of false tradition. Helping others see and overcome false traditions has been the task of messengers of God from the beginning of time. We are told in the Book of Mormon that one cannot come to a knowledge of the truth without the prerequisite removal of false traditions.

Joseph Smith taught that “to become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.” (TPJS, p 321.) For instance, Jesus spent the majority of his ministry doing just that. Ezekiel was charged.

God made clear that the purpose of pointing out false tradition was always to obtain the closer relationship with God that comes through repentance.

Conversely, remaining in false tradition causes the loss of light and truth.

False tradition is introduced when a people gradually becoming less in tune with God than their predecessors through disobedience and/or sloth. Eventually, all that remains of their chosen status are memories of the fruits of closeness to God that are no longer apparent. Through time, God's continuous living word is replaced by static recordings of past revelations. What God is saying is replaced by what God has said. At this key time, sometimes well-meaning individuals misinterpret, modify, or replace his sayings, all the while in an environment that, witnessed by the lack of continuous revelation, is devoid of the spirit making it difficult to discern the unauthorized changes. This is how false tradition and commandments of men are born.

Tradition is sclerotic. Tradition has a way of being promoted to something more than it is; it becomes calcified and entrenched into the culture. When it hardens in our cultural/collective memory, it becomes something more than it was originally intended. Tradition almost always becomes policy, and policies almost always become commandments.

In the church today, we see the result of over 150 years of tradition creation. Increasingly—particularly among the tech-aware youth of the church—traditions are uncovered as false. The outcome is predictable. As B.H. Roberts sagely predicted long ago, the youth throw out both church tradition and gospel truth (having associated them as one) as soon as cracks in the traditional narrative appear.

As Elder Roberts explained, avoiding this outcome requires a willingness to search out and let go of false traditions while holding fast to what withstands investigation.

The words of God through Isaiah describe what happens when traditions overcome revealed religion.

It is impossible to identify false traditions without questioning the origin and scriptural basis of our traditions. Yet, questioning traditions is exceedingly taboo in Modern Mormonism. It generates an immediate emotive reaction that prevents us from achieving many facets of spiritual growth. Self-judgment is the key to finding greater light and truth. It is the key to seeing our sins in scriptural warnings.

My hope is that, in some small way, this book can be one of the wonders of the Lord that renders void the supposed knowledge of the selfproclaimed sage and wise among us. They truly are a contradiction who, as the Pharisees of old, pay great homage to God with their lips, while their hearts are far from him. Though they are blinded to this fact by their acts of devotion to God, as they suppose, they are equally blind to the fact that their lives and works are an abomination before God.

Searching for Further Knowledge

The scriptures are replete with commandments to search out new truth. There is a finite amount of knowledge that is required before an individual can conquer the sins of this world. Joseph said, “Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 357.) If we have not yet come back into God’s presence, it is because we have not yet attained this saving portion of knowledge. Working out our salvation, then, consists of exposing ourselves to new ideas and correctly evaluating their truthfulness.

Evaluating candidate truth is neither easy nor fast. Mormon said, “Search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil” (Moroni 7:19). It is not a passive activity. Nor is it without casualty. New ideas can augment currently held beliefs (in the case of those that are correct), but they are equally likely to refute currently held beliefs (in the case of those that are not).

Peter taught that we should “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” (1 Peter 3:15) “A reason” implies that there are true facts, evidences, or observations supporting a given belief. Embracing a belief simply because someone else (a friend, family member, or church leader) maintains that belief is often not compelling enough to convert others or to maintain your own adherence during trials. We should not believe something just because we were told it by our parents. We ought not assume something is true if it is repeated enough. Those who are off the strait and narrow path far outnumber those who are on it. Truth always stands in the minority, and therefore will always be the exception to what is heard most often.

Instead, we should seek to follow the advice of men of God in the scriptures, who have invited us to “try the spirits.” “Trying the spirits” is an antiquated way to refer to an active search for truth. Salvation is not a passive activity. One must be anxiously engaged in discerning between truth and error if there is to be any hope for salvation.

We have no right to feel strongly about something for which we can not provide either charismatic or rational evidence. Feelings are insufficient. Emotion is not revelation. Instead, emotions tend to mirror prior held beliefs. When prior held beliefs are reinforced, the believer feels good. When prior held beliefs are contradicted, the believer feels bad (this is called cognitive dissonance). When truth evaluation is reduced to feelings, it becomes impossible to persuade, no matter how certain and clear the facts. Instead of debating the correctness or incorrectness of doctrine, which can be established through scriptural, rational, and historical investigation, one must defend against the feelings comments caused to those with status quo beliefs, whether or not those beliefs are true. The doctrine itself ceases to be the focus. Instead, the feelings of the believer become the focus. (See “Revelation.”) The natural man is an enemy to God; finding truth requires us to yield our emotive response—which is carnal—to the voice of the Holy Ghost.

We search in order to find two kinds of evidence: charismatic evidence and rational evidence. Charismatic evidence consists of experiences we have had that support a principle. In this category, we could place Paul’s witness of Christ: He saw; therefore, he knew. We could place Joseph of Egypt’s dream of the 14 years of plenty and famine in this category. In fact, the scriptures are full of visitations, visions, dreams, and voices that all serve as charismatic evidence for a particular idea. We should exercise extreme caution in considering emotional experiences as charismatic evidence.

Rational evidence is a historical, scriptural, or logical argument that supports or contradicts a given principle. Rational evidence can be evaluated absent of experience. Rational evidence is a powerful tool for disproving principles, since only one counterexample is needed to disprove something. But it has another more important use. While charismatic experience is how we gain unshakeable testimonies of truth, charismatic experiences come largely as the result of experimenting on God’s word. Without logical, scriptural, or historical reason to believe on a proffered principle, one will not have enough faith to experiment on it. Rational evidence provides a bridge between where we currently stand and where we need to stand in order to receive a charismatic witness.

We are testing the word when we refrain from considering a teaching true until the Lord proves it to us through a charismatic experience. Asking questions and doubting are essential to provide the real intent necessary to learn new truth through study and revelation. Since one cannot have faith in a false principle, the evaluation of potential truth is a task of utmost importance to those of faith, for the attempted exercise of faith in false principles will perpetuate ignorance, stall progression, and further delay a first-hand experience with God.

To find truth, you must be your belief system’s hardest critic. You must be informed. How can you satisfactorily persuade someone who does not believe you without being prepared to answer any criticism of your belief? If what you believe is true, seeking to contradict it can only improve your ability to persuade others. Of course, it will also lead to situations where you discover that what you previously believed is, in fact, false. While selfinvestigation will sometimes lead to disproving previously held notions, letting go of false beliefs draws one closer to God. Therefore, whether resulting in affirmation or disproof, honest questioning can only lead closer to God.

Sir Carl Popper wrote.

If one assumes that they lack knowledge, the next step is to seek it. If we want to learn more than we know, we will have to investigate points of view that don’t belong to us already. While it is possible that new knowledge exists outside the bounds of accepted truth, scriptural examples suggest it is much more likely that further light and truth will clash with what we already think we know than support it. However, this gives us no reason to fear reading or hearing information that doesn’t agree with what we believe. After all, if we believe man is fallen and God is perfect, we ought to understand that his revelation of our misconceptions is how we become more like him.

Fear of searching was not present historically. Consider the following.

Despite the historical record of church leaders advocating exactly that, we find ourselves in a paradigm that challenges us to not only avoid consideration of opposing positions, but to avoid even the idea of rational evaluation of our own position.

Searching for truth requires a willingness to investigate both sides of a position as objectively as possible. If you are merely arguing for your position, you cannot honestly say you are searching for truth. You do not know all things, and therefore you cannot ever be totally sure that you are right. If you aren't willing to be wrong about something, you can only go so far in your search for truth.

There ought not be any fear of losing what you already have—a rational mind will only replace a previous position with a more solid position. An open mind and a desire to know truth will only ever lead a person closer to God.

Fear of finding new truth is simply not well founded. As a camera focuses, the image becomes more clear. Although the view certainly changes, the progress is always a refinement. A focused camera picture represents only information gain, not loss. Perhaps this is why Nephi said.

Nephi himself was no stranger to uncomfortable new truth. His life was a constant barrage of paradigm shifts. These showed him that he could always confide in God, even if it meant abandoning things he previously thought were true, or blazing paths unfamiliar to his culture and heritage.

Knowledge of opposing views is absolutely necessary for two reasons. First, a rational position requires knowledge of both sides of an issue. For example, how could you honestly say that one variety of apple is the tastiest if you’ve never tried another variety? Second, you cannot effectively persuade others if you are not aware of why they believe what they do. Knowing your counterpart’s reasons for their belief is a two-fold benefit. First, construction of a persuasive argument on your part requires you to address their reasons for believing. Continuing with the apple example, how could you persuade a fan of golden delicious that granny smith is superior if you have never actually tried golden delicious? The strength of your position depends on your addressing their reasons for believing. Secondly, an intrinsic benefit of investigating your opponent’s position is the possible discovery that they are, in fact, correct. Just as you could possess evidences of your position that your counterpart had never considered, so could they. You could very well end up supporting their position should their evidence prove stronger than yours. Yet, such a situation is to be desired, not feared, for those in possession of greater truth have drawn closer to God.

In context of what is at stake, it becomes evident just how important it is to always welcome new truth. Nephi warned that in our day many would not be interested in more truth.

We are told that those who adopt this position will not be given any additional truth, and thus will never reach the point where they can come back into God’s presence. The attitude of satisfaction is damning. One way of wording this is that those who consider themselves wise will never accept new truth. Nephi’s declaration of the same is frequently used as a caution to those who study the gospel more than the usual cursory amount.

However, a careful reading will show that Nephi is not blasting the same acquisition of real knowledge he advocates for throughout his writings. Instead, he is condemning the feeling of supposing you know all there is to know. The Lord does not despise those who acquire knowledge. He despises those who assume they know something despite their ignorance. He despises those who think they know more than God, and ignore what he tries to teach them, assuming they already know what he wants. Nephi states that the antidote to the poison of pride is to “hearken unto the counsels of God.” (2 Nephi 9:29.)

In order to consider yourself a fool before God, and yet relentlessly seek and obtain further light and truth from him, you must adopt the difficult position of at once being perceptive and faithful enough to act on everything you have been taught thus far while also being ready at a moment’s notice to cast it aside in favor of greater light and truth.

Joseph stated that when individuals assume that their preconceived notions about the gospel encompass all there is to know, they will be sorely disappointed.

While spiritual stagnation is comfortable, it is also damning. It is easy and comfortable to live your religion when you assume that it will always be the same: your spiritual practices will never change, nor will the requirements of salvation. However, every saved person in the scriptures—every person with whom God made a covenant—was constantly subjected to principles that were beyond their previous comprehension despite their righteous lives. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac, Moses was astounded by things he had never before supposed, etc. This is because we are not like God. We possess the degree of glory associated with the degree of the law we live. If we live a Celestial law, we possess Celestial glory, Terrestrial law, Terrestrial glory, and so on (see D&C 88:20-35). In order to ascend to a higher degree of glory, we will always need to embrace a set of laws that we are ignorant of. If you live your current beliefs perfectly, and have not been brought back into God’s presence, your current beliefs do not possess the power to bring you back into God’s presence. Like it or not, this means you necessary do not possess the same beliefs as Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, Joseph Smith, and all other saved men. Therefore, coming up to a Celestial glory will require letting go of at least some of the things you currently hold as true. You cannot close yourself to ideas you perceive as contradictory to current beliefs and simultaneously let in further light and truth. God can only teach us a.

Not even Jesus himself possessed all there was to know in the beginning.

Those that believe that they already know all the doctrines necessary to be saved presume they know more than Jesus did, as he had to progress from one teaching to the next. They presume that, while Enoch and his city required hundreds of years to become Zion, they can do it with what little we have handed to us through Joseph Smith. Enoch learned new fundamental truths about God’s character after having been in heaven with God for generations. As the Lord said.

Frankly, no one knows everything there is to know. If Jesus, Enoch, and others still had a lot to learn, we should be very cautious in our assertions of what we “know” to be true. Otherwise, we fall into the category of those who think they are wise, which incidentally means precisely that we do not hearken to God.

It may seem difficult to imagine that thinking you know something and failing to hearken to God are the same. Yet, Jacob equates it to being deaf (2 Nephi 9:31) and blind (2 Nephi 9:32), probably because God continues to reveal new things to everyone as long as they continue to listen to him. Therefore, if you become set in your idea of the truth, you could only have become so by ignoring what God is continuing to say to you. Living revelation means constant revelation. We should expect to frequently displace our current understanding with something better.

You should not assume something is false simply because you have never heard it before. Anyone who does not believe they know everything ought to expect to hear something that they’ve never heard before, or something that contradicts what they have been told previously.

One way to discover further light and truth is to ponder problems that persist in the orthodox paradigm. Situations that fail to find a solution in orthodoxy are fertile ground for receiving revelation. Postman and Weingartner wrote.

As long as we are satisfied by our current understanding of what is true, we never really have a reason to marshal real intent, a necessary prerequisite to receiving revelation. President Uchtdorf said, “How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?”

Jesus taught we should be like children. Children are inquisitive. They never stop wondering and testing. They are never satisfied.

Abraham found himself unsatisfied in the orthodoxy of his time. He somehow noticed that there were greater blessings available to him than the theology of his father offered him.

Abraham clearly had heard stories that described religious experiences far exceeding those he observed in the religion of his father. Thus, he believed that there had to be a better system available than what he had experienced.

Nephi’s example underscores the importance of accepting the possibility that your understanding of what God wants is wrong. Nephi demonstrated this humility when he was willing to accept God’s command to slay Laban despite it contradicting his understanding of God’s commandments. He taught that we should not “set aside” God’s counsel on account of our “supposing [we] know of [ourselves].” (2 Nephi 9:28.) In other words, we ought to be willing to be wrong, and willing to have God correct us.

A proper response to an invitation from another to consider a different point of view should always be met with patient, unbiased consideration. Joseph displayed this attitude throughout his life, despite continuously accruing evidence that he knew more about God than anyone alive at the time.

Some respond to an invitation to consider a new point of view with anger.

Should you find yourself getting angry at such an invitation, it should serve as a signal that you have cut yourself off from the learning process, and have become one who thinks they are wise (see 2 Nephi 9:29, 42).

Anger is never a result of rational consideration of evidence. It causes God to withdraw the opportunity to learn more. We are taught plainly that we are not excused to become angry even when the novel position we are invited to consider is that our presumed righteous behavior is actually sin.

Consider that the mission of prophets is to call men to repentance. Therefore, we ought not to take offense at supposed messengers when they come calling us to repentance. We ought to expect it. We ought to thank them for it, because their works are good. It is the response of the offended, and not the message of the preacher, that is wicked.

Brigham Young gave a particularly good example of a righteous reaction to a new candidate truth. He said he welcomed anyone who thought they could prove his beliefs incorrect.

He was not alone. It seemed early Mormons had studied both their own positions and the alternatives enough to be confident in their choice to the point of not fearing opposing argument.

This is perhaps not surprising, as all of the early brethren were converts to the restoration, and had to have at one point been willing to listen to opposing views in order to have accepted the gospel. In today’s church, where almost half of members inherit the faith of their parents, this is not the case.

For most, unbiased evaluation of opposing views is particularly difficult. After all, no one wants to turn away from their life's work, or the legacy of their ancestors. The more that is sacrificed for a belief system, the less likely one is to abandon that belief system. The loss isn't all ideological, either. For example, suppose you were a General Authority. Discovering truth that compromised your temple recommend status would mean not only great social stigma and familial troubles, but also a great financial loss. The best strategy, then, is to detach the search for truth from our temporal and philosophical circumstance.

In order to maintain objectivity, one must adopt an anthropological attitude.

The anthropological attitude helps one suspend their cultural and experiential bias in evaluating new perspectives. The ability to unplug from the network of one’s observations and conclusions is absolutely vital in order to logically consider alternative possibilities.

Once candidate truth has passed anthropological assessment, previously accumulated observations and conclusions must be folded back in to evaluate whether they still hold.

Advancement in knowledge requires that one’s position be falsifiable. Falsifiability is defined as “the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment.” (Karl Popper.) In other words, falsifiability means that your belief can be proven wrong. If no counter evidence could ever be sufficient to convince you that your position is wrong, your position is not falsifiable. A belief that is not falsifiable can never be abandoned, and thus an unfalsifiable position is always the last position you will ever hold on any given topic. This is, essentially, damnation, because you limit yourself to the glory associated with the current law you live. You have drawn a line in the sand beyond which you are not willing to move, whether or not greater truth exists.

Falsifiability highlights the danger of dogmatic assertions unattached from specific evidences. Suppose one says “the church is true.” This is not a falsifiable statement. In order to make it falsifiable, one must define what “true” means and/or say why the church is true. Without a specification of what “the church is true” means, it is not falsifiable. Any attempt to assume a meaning (such as everything in the church is sanctioned by God) in order to provide a counterexample would result in the person saying, “but no one is saying that is what it means.” Thus, a rational argument cannot take place. If someone says “the church is God’s because he said so,” that becomes a falsifiable statement. If someone wants to show this is false, they must simply present revelation where God said it was not his church at a later date than the statement cited by the believer. Another example lies in whether you believe the current church president is a prophet of God. Without defining what a prophet is, whether he is or is not a prophet is impossible to prove.

A religion that cannot be proven false cannot be true. If you can think of no change in doctrine or policy that would cause you to conclude your religion is false, your religion cannot be true.

In the process of evaluating truth, candidate truth should never be dismissed out of hand. We dismiss candidate truth out of hand when we assume the church is the source of all truth. This belief is manifested when we refuse to consider material not officially sanctioned by the church. Sometimes, we dismiss candidate truth out of hand through association with terms that generate an immediate emotive response. For example, when we associate material with “apostasy,” do we immediately feel badly or set it aside? Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said there were “phrases that serve as an excuse for not thinking.” We must exercise caution and control our emotive responses. Vocabulary concepts can be a powerful means of thought control.

Dismissing a matter out of hand was specifically forbidden under the law of Moses. “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (John 7:51) How can one honestly evaluate whether a position is true without first hearing why someone holds it? “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” (Proverbs 18:13.)

The idea that truth can come from anywhere is not only true, but was once a founding principle of Mormonism. Joseph Smith wrote.

This principle endured at least into Brigham Young’s administration. It was a frequent theme in his sermons.

In Joseph’s day, and for decades thereafter, it was well established that Mormonism was not the source of all truth, but a collection of men and women who sought all truth no matter where it came from. As time has passed, many Mormons have shifted to assuming that the church is the source of all truth. One noted exception was Dr. Henry Eyring, the prominent scientist and father of President Henry B. Eyring. He took a position consistent with Joseph Smith. He recognized that he was “obliged, as a Latter-day Saint, to believe whatever is true, regardless of the source.” (Henry Eyring, “The Faith of a Scientist,” Bookcraft 1969, p. 31) He took the position that the leaders of the church do not define what the church is. Rather, truth defines what the church is: “The Gospel is not the people in the Church. The Gospel is not even the people who direct it. The Gospel is the truth.” (Henry Eyring, “The Faith of a Scientist,” Bookcraft 1969, p. 23.)

The idea that all truth belongs in the church is much different from the idea that all truth comes from the church. In the former, members are expected to evaluate candidate truth from any source, including the need to evaluate what is said by their leaders. In the latter, members are expected to reject anything as false unless they hear it from their leaders while also assuming everything spoken by their leaders is true.

The former was taught by Joseph Smith and, after him, Brigham Young.

The latter is taught by modern Mormonism.

It is a mistake to disbelieve something simply because it is not preached in the church or even that it is contrary to something preached in the church. The idea of the church as the source of all truth seems to have been created by President Harold B. Lee as the foundational idea behind his correlation program—placing the entire church in a hierarchical form under the president of the church. In the church, the correlation committee has the exclusive right to define what is true and what isn't, and members need not seek anywhere but in correlation-approved materials for what is useful in one's return to Christ. This invisible group of academically-trained theologians decide what is taught in CES classes, what appears in the church manuals, and what is allowed to be said at conference. The proclaimed purpose of this committee is to ensure that doctrinal errors do not appear in church settings, yet their material is fraught with errors and egregious omissions. They are the source of what “the church” teaches. They define orthodoxy.

The Lord taught in D&C 121 that an appeal to authority to convince of truth is unrighteous dominion. A principle should not be considered true simply because it is endorsed by the church or any individual or group within the church. Absent convincing arguments that withstand critical investigation, no principle ought to be accepted. Or, as the apostle John put it, “Dear friends, don’t believe everyone who claims to have the Spirit of God. Test them all to find out if they really do come from God.” (1 John 4:12, CEV.)

Orthodoxy is at odds with an open canon. It cannot co-exist with the expectation that God will yet reveal great things to the church and that he will reveal things never before revealed to individuals. Progress towards God is marked by invitations to do things you had either never before considered (as Moses was) or things you thought were previously wrong (as Nephi was when he was told to kill Laban). God will consistently challenge your paradigms. Ironically, orthodoxy is used as the measuring stick for apostasy, when the idea of a closed canon is itself apostate.

Orthodoxy is the antithesis of seeking truth from God. The latter requires a constant search for new facts, new observations, and new theories. The former “tenaciously defend[s] beliefs in the face of what would appear to be verified fact and plain logic...doggedly closing eyes and minds to ideas whose time has surely come.” (James Hogan, “Kicking the Sacred Cow”, p. 8.)

Joseph Smith not only preached to consider candidate truth from all sources—he also practiced it. One morning a man came into his house and introduced himself as Joshua. Joseph asked Joshua questions about his interesting ideas on religion. Despite obvious differences, he invited him to give them a lecture on his beliefs to assist him in his evaluation of what he was preaching. It took Joseph two full days of association with this man’s message to reach the point where he was willing to say his doctrine was incorrect. He did not dismiss Joshua out of hand. He listened and patiently evaluated his message.

Refusing to believe something is true is a sin called unbelief. Prophets of the Book of Mormon taught that unbelief comes when people dismiss candidate truth that contradicts the false traditions of their fathers out of hand.

In order to repent of unbelief, then, we have to be willing to consider that the traditions of our fathers, which we believe are correct, may be false. We must be willing to objectively evaluate what we are told by others, even if it contradicts what we already believe. Sometimes the only way God can help us overcome our false traditions is by sending true messengers that contradict them. When true messengers preach to us, it at first seems painfully contradictory to our false traditions. But, if we heed Jesus’ commandment to be like a child by considering the new doctrine, we will find that it makes more sense the longer we consider it. The longer a true doctrine is studied, the more it makes sense. The more a false doctrine is studied, the more it crumbles.

The Savior taught that true doctrine can be proven by the fruits it produces. He taught that it was both necessary and possible to prove candidate truth.

He taught that true doctrine taught by true messengers is always accompanied by signs.

Despite this truth being presented in the D&C, the New Testament (Mark 16:17-18), the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:24), and the temple endowment, some modern leaders have taught that signs are not necessary to evidence true messengers.

By showing fruit that could only come through God's approbation, Jesus showed he was a true messenger.

In attributing the fruits of examined doctrine, we need to be cognizant of common causes. Any member can cite a list of positive outcomes associated with a doctrinal point according to their understanding. The idea is that someone can’t challenge one of your beliefs if you have experienced blessings that you attribute to that belief. The weakness of this position is that it is possible that the blessings came from something else.

Blessings come due to obedience to the law upon which they are predicated. However, isn’t it possible that the blessings came from some sub-piece of the commandment we believe in? For example, if I believed in paying 11% tithing, would I not receive the same blessings as you do for paying 10% tithing? Yet, my belief in 11% tithing being a commandment is wrong. Perhaps the additional incorrect belief is benign. But what if the addition causes me to break God’s other commandments because of my following a false tradition? Jesus’ teachings showed this was possible. For example, what if the extra 1% of tithing prevents me from using that money to help the poor?

Another fallacy is non sequitor, or misattributing a conclusion to a given premise. For example, although God said the Constitution was inspired, it does not follow that he endorses everything the USA does, whether it is in accordance with the Constitution or not. However, modern Mormons invite investigators to pray about the Book of Mormon, saying that if God says it is true, everything the church does is endorsed by him.

This logical fallacy can also extend to conflating the source of blessings. What if in addition to paying tithing, I also did home teaching? Would I be correct in assuming that the windows of heaven were being opened because I was home teaching? Yet, the incorrectness of a theory doesn’t mean that nothing good can come of it. Home teaching may be a good thing even if it does not result in the same set of blessings predicated upon tithing.

One security in the otherwise uncomfortable position of considering that one’s evidences of treasured beliefs are in fact ascribable to another belief is that any experiences of value or true observations must still be accounted for in any replacement belief. “Disproving an opponent's premises does nothing to refute his conclusions.” (“Popper”, Bryan Magee, 1973, p. 42.) In other words, in searching for truth, there is no risk of losing anything of value—it all has to be accounted for in any change that occurs.

We all have positive experiences in the church. Yet, having a positive experience with a Muslim would not lead you to conclude the Muslim is part of the Lord's church, that there is only one such incorporated body, and that everything a Muslim does (including those things that had nothing to do with your experience) is sanctioned by the Lord. Any observations or experiences of value within a later-proved theory must be addressed in a replacement theory.

Jesus’ authority did not come from the church authorities of his day. Nor did it come from the fact that he was the Son of God. Jesus’ authority came through the provenance of his message. He spoke the words of the Father. Those who judged the truthfulness of his message based on earthly authority incorrectly rejected him.

We ought to assume that those who use the same false standards today will also reject God’s true messengers. If we reject true messengers, we too will be rejected.

Modern Mormonism teaches that that no true messenger will come without church recognition and church authority. Applying this standard would reject not only most of the true messengers in the scriptures, but Christ himself.

Every belief structure can be thought of as a map. Our observational experience is akin to the actual terrain. For whatever reason, most people of faith are not very apt at comparing their map to the surrounding terrain. Any difference in the two is contradiction.

Modern Mormons suppress contradictions to their model, but they aren't alone in the practice. This behavior is the result of confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance. Confirmation bias occurs when we see all evidence as support for what we already believe when some of it is actually evidence that opposes what we believe. Cognitive dissonance is a negative emotive response that occurs when our experiences contradict our belief system, causing us to flee from or ignore situations that do not support our belief system. We see examples of these phenomena not only in the way we selectively remember things, but also in the way we interpret evidence. This is why one scripture can be read that directly contradicts a tenet of someone’s faith, yet that person can contort it to fit.

It only takes a single contradiction or counterexample to prove an idea false. For instance, if I said all pigs fly, I would only need to find one pig that did not, in fact, fly, to show that all pigs do not fly. For a scriptural example, look at Sherem. He said that no man can know of things future, but also said that there should be no Christ, which he couldn’t possibly know unless men could know of things future (see Alma 30). Contradictions can be a powerful tool for discerning between truth and error.

Jesus repeatedly said, “ask and ye shall receive.” The restoration of the gospel occurred because a boy didn’t accept the answers he was given by religious leaders, but asked God directly. The Book of Mormon is punctuated by a promise that God will answer any sincere question. Beware of any who tell you not to ask questions or that certain questions are off limits.

Situations that fail to find a solution in orthodoxy are fertile ground for receiving revelation. Postman and Weingartner wrote.

In forming questions, we should be specific. Ill-formed questions yield less effective answers. They reveal the bias and/or ill preparation of the asker. For example, asking “is the church true” reveals that the asker errantly believes that either everything the church does is sanctioned by God, or nothing the church does is sanctioned by God. A better question would be to ask what is really wanted. As Heisenberg said, “We have to remember that what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our methods of questioning.” For example, “should I be baptized into the LDS church, given that at least some doctrines it teaches are true” is a much more effective question than “is the church true.” The Spirit has to answer your question: even if your question is ill-posed, he will tell you the answer that will bring you closer to God. The way we ask questions will inform what we believe more than anything else.

Every faith group has developed a vocabulary of words whose meaning goes beyond the ordinary meaning for outsiders. In the LDS church, words like authority, prophet, sustain, atonement, and apostasy have very different meanings than they do to non-LDS. A precise vocabulary is important. While it is easy to adopt the vocabulary of the status quo, we should strive to use more precise words.

There are experiences and situations that simply cannot be described with the status-quo vocabulary. Without a precise vocabulary, it is impossible to have a belief system that is falsifiable. Using an imprecise religious vocabulary limits the degree of thought and introspection that one can have. As an example, there are those in the church who think that the definition of “prophet” is “someone whose words you obey without question,” while some in the church define “prophet” as “someone who repeats words God spoke to him.” Say what you actually mean, and you will have a new source of questions to ask. A vague vocabulary makes for a vague and weak religion. Vague questions can only lead to vague answers. An articulate, precise question will lead to an articulate, precise answer.

Although unintentional, the verbal biases of LDS vocabulary have the unfortunate effect of preventing members from obtaining anything but a superficial and vague understanding of the doctrines and an inability to distinguish them from tradition. Loaded, biased vocabularies have the side effect not only of evoking negative emotions in response to critical thinking, but also of preventing such thinking in the first place through inability of expression. Parsing semantics will sidestep the emotive responses engrained in the broader unspoken definitions of common terms and open the door to a deeper understanding of doctrine and traditions. We see what we say, but we must learn to say what we see. Specificity in terms unfortunately brings negative responses from those who are not interested in more accurate expression, who will see your efforts of verbal precision as subversion.

We ought not assume an answer is the final answer. Alma taught.

God can only reveal as much truth to a person as they are prepared to receive. What happens, then, if one asks a question whose answer they are not ready to receive? God’s answer to such a person will be partial—it will consist of what they are ready to receive. To the person who is fully ready, the full answer will be given. This is one reason why two people can pray over the same question and receive two seemingly different answers.

God said, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” The Spirit can reveal something that is true in your “sphere” of understanding, but to someone who has attained to a different “sphere,” or a higher degree of knowledge, would be false. This concept is hard for some to accept, but consider a decimal point number as an analogy. Additional digits of precision are true, as are less digits of precision. However, to the engineer possessing the decimal of ten digits’ precision, the decimal of two digits’ precision is less true. Then there are those who round off and receive even less precision. Just as one could add digits of precision infinitely, God’s truth never ceases (even though there is a finite limit to Telestial knowledge).

Nephi experienced the progressive nature of God's law when God amended “thou shalt not kill” with some particulars that indicated, in the case of Laban, that it was indeed correct to kill. There was a higher law, an additional digit of precision. As an example, consider the group of disciples in the New Testament that had received the authoritative baptism of John, but had not yet received the baptism of the apostles. They recognized a higher law, and submitted to rebaptism to gain the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Because the degree of glory we enjoy in life is dictated by the degree of God's law that we live, we should always be willing and eager to receive further light and truth in order to expand and clarify the law we currently have. This will likely cause us to change what we are doing. To facilitate this process, we should always be willing to ask questions to further our understanding of answers we have already received—like a child. We should never judge someone who fully believes that their actions are in accordance with God’s word when we have received a different answer to the same question, knowing that it is very possible that they have progressed past us in knowledge. Instead, we should do as Nephi did when presented with his father’s strange claims of having a vision that contradicted Nephi’s understanding: we should pray and ask God. Even if we are not prepared for the answer, God will mobilize the necessary experiences in our life to bring us to the point where we can receive the same knowledge.

A true search for truth must be a consistent rational evaluation of new evidences, both those that support and those that refute currently held positions. In order to search for truth, then, one must be able to enumerate the reasons for their currently held beliefs. Anyone who preaches the gospel must already be able to give reasons for what they believe. Yet a surprising number of people both attempt to preach the gospel and defend their own beliefs without any substance at all. Instead, their entire argument consists of a few tired logical fallacies. These ineffective attempts fail to convert because one has no reason to pray with real intent until they believe it is at least possible that the new idea is true. Moreover, an individual whose beliefs are not substantiated cannot be convinced of higher truth, cutting themselves off from God’s messengers, because it is impossible to argue against an irrationally held position.

Asking questions is among the most important skills we must develop in our quest to know God. Good askers have confidence in God’s willingness to respond. They are suspicious of what others say. They realize that the vast majority of people have no idea what they are talking about most of the time. They are also suspicious of what they already believe they know. They are willing to be wrong. They are able to suspend judgment on an issue until more facts are gathered. Because their belief is constructed based on their observations over time, they expect that their belief will change as they make more observations.

Each principle stands or falls on its own. It is a false tradition to assume that because one principle is true, all principles bundled together by some person or group are also true. The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon does not imply that everything the church ever did or will do is inspired by God any more than the Constitution being inspired implies that everything the U.S. government did or will do is inspired. We must learn how to ask specific questions, which might have limited application.

We make a grave mistake when we assume that questioning leads to doubts. In reality, questioning not only leads to faith, but it is the only path that leads to faith, since faith cannot be had in false principles, and the only way to establish which principles are true is to ask God.

We ought to believe what we have found to be true, not evaluate what is true based on what we already believe. Moses’ journey closer to God was punctuated with moments where he learned things he had never before supposed. We are no different. We progress towards God not only by learning new things but also by rejecting old things we previously believed in that are false. If we limit our investigation to what we already believe to be true, we will never approach closer to God than we currently are.

Persuasion and Argument

Both in the scriptures and in our personal lives, it is clear that when God teaches, he employs persuasion. He follows the same law that he gives to all teachers.

God himself teaches this way, and he instructs all teachers to apply the same methods. Guileless persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love, kindness, and pure knowledge is the only way the gospel can be preached. The only other option is “to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men.” This is strictly forbidden. When that is done, “the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” (D&C 121:37.)

We are warned in this same section that.

We should carefully discern when teachers are using persuasion and when they are using unrighteous dominion. What are the hallmarks of unrighteous dominion? We are told in this revelation that exercising control or dominion or compulsion is unrighteous dominion. A true messenger will not preach the gospel by appealing to his authority (for example, a calling in the church) or by declaring a policy or program by edict. To do so would not only prove to everyone that they were not true messengers, but would automatically annul (if a man) his priesthood commission from God. Joseph Smith proclaimed that he never appealed to his authority in teaching the gospel, but that the goodness of the truth he taught was persuasive in and of itself.

What are the hallmarks of godly teaching? Persuasion, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, love, kindness, and pure knowledge, all without guile. Here we critically note that these characteristics inescapably connote an exchange of unaligned positions—an argument. Of what use is persuasion when two parties already agree? Of what use is longsuffering when the receiver of knowledge already understands? Why are gentleness, love and kindness required if the lesson only consists of a reminder of what is already known? Of what use is pure knowledge if the student already knows what the teacher knows? In what situation is guile employed, if not to convince? Teaching the gospel does not mean the rote recitation of what the student has already heard. This would require no persuasion. Teaching the gospel does not mean a one-way presentation of something new. This would be unrighteous dominion because a fiat demand to change does not include persuasion, longsuffering gentleness, meekness, or pure knowledge. These attributes require a two-way exchange.

Contrary to our modern aversion to the idea, argument, when done with persuasion, longsuffering gentleness, meekness, love, kindness, and pure knowledge, is actually the method for teaching the gospel.

While we ought to most readily associate persuasive argument with gospel teaching, the words argument and debate have a strong negative connotation in modern Mormonism. Modern Mormons identify rote recitation of what is already known or dogmatic assertion by those with a little authority, as they suppose, as gospel teaching. In reality, this is opposite of what it should be.

Imagine two Sunday school environments. In the first class, everyone sits quietly and listens to the teacher read the same lines from the manual that have been read in years past, or reads a conference talk that may not only be a repeat in terms of phrases and topics, but may in fact have been given in its entirety at least once before. In the second class, a class member disagrees with something that it said in the course of the lesson, citing historical evidence for her position. In which of the two classes would most modern Mormons rather be? The prevailing feeling in the first would be comfort, and in the second anxiety or perhaps annoyance and anger. The soundness of the position of the dissenter is not a factor in the reaction to her words.

As another example, imagine two different outcomes of a sustaining during sacrament. In the first, the presiding official reads the calling to be extended, and there is unanimous support out of deference to the authority of the presiding official. In the second, a member voices concern over the appropriateness of the individual. Discussion ensues. In the end, all concerns are vetted and the member is sustained. What modern Mormon would be comfortable with the second scenario? Yet, this is a scenario that repeated itself frequently in Joseph Smith’s day.

Having discussed how the gospel is taught through argument, we now move to a discussion of why it must be this way. If truth were selfevident, there would be no need for argument. All gospel teaching could be repetition of what we already know. However, many different groups believe many different (and opposing) things to be true, and the natural man—our best effort to know what is right of ourselves—is an enemy to God.

We are told what the antidote to man’s fallacious reasoning is: the Holy Ghost. Only by yielding to God can a man overcome his innate inability to judge righteously. Men are incapable, of their own accord, to know what is right and what is wrong. We need the intervention of God, and that frequently comes through the ministry of true human messengers.

The assumption of man that he possesses sufficient wisdom to discern whether some new thing is true or not is foolhardy. It is also antiscriptural. We are given countless examples of men like Moses who, having received more revelation in a life of faithfulness than most of us can even dream of, are left in subsequent visits to admit that they had never before supposed what God had just revealed.

Having found that, even among men and women spiritually stout enough to sacrifice and endure much more than we would today, members were generally unable to assess candidate truth properly, Joseph wrote a long editorial to the membership in the church periodical “Times and Seasons.” In it, he explained that throughout time it has been impossible to judge the veracity of acts or principles based solely on subjective personal opinion.

Joseph goes on to say that evaluating new possible truth by comparing it to some doctrinal creed, or the status quo of what the individual currently believes, is “preposterous folly,” “sheer ignorance,” and “madness”.

“Try the spirits,” but what by? Are we to try them by the creeds of men? What preposterous folly—what sheer ignorance—what madness! Try the motions and actions of an eternal being (for I contend that all spirits are such) by a thing that was conceived in ignorance, and brought forth in folly—a cobweb of yesterday! Angels would hide their faces, and devils would be ashamed and insulted... (History of the Church 4:572.)

Note that it is quite common in modern Mormonism to measure new truth against some creed such as a quote from an authority, a citation from the current handbook, a reference to a cultural norm, or an appeal to the “Articles of Faith.” None of these items, according to Joseph, ought to be used as a measuring stick. In fact, he says, even the scriptures are questionable because all the different sects cite the same volume of scripture to support their opposing view.

New truth cannot be evaluated through the lens of the current beliefs of an individual. Candidate truth can only be evaluated through individual revelation from God. For example, Joseph said the devil has an “angelic form, [a] sanctified look and gesture,” and that he even feigns “zeal...for the glory of God, together with the prophetic spirit, the gracious influence, the godly appearance, and the holy garb,” and that these would cause most who are judging of themselves to assume he was a heavenly messenger.

Most people would assume that any angelic messenger appearing with grace, godly appearance, and holy garb, would be a veritable heavenly angel. But they would be wrong. A man’s eyes, experience, and preconceived notions can certainly lead him just as astray in ascertaining truth in any other case as it could in determining whether the devil is a heavenly messenger.

Jesus taught, “Judge not according to your traditions, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24, JST.) It is not the false traditions of our fallen flesh that will teach us the truth of all things, but the Holy Ghost (see Moroni 10:5).

Now, if the only way to identify truth is to ask God, why does God view rational argument as so important in teaching that he revealed a commandment to describe it? In other words, if all that can be done to identify truth is to ask God, why bother doing anything but dictating a principle and ending with an invitation to pray? First, as any missionary who has tried the tactic knows, most people will not actually pray. Why would they, when they don’t believe what you are saying could ever be true? Second, even if they pray, their preconception of the falsehood of what you are saying will make it impossible to exercise real intent. Real intent is the belief that what is being prayed about is possible and the individual is willing to act on it if told it is true. Moroni explains that God will not answer prayers that are not offered with real intent: “And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.” (Moroni 7:9.) Lastly, even if an individual is able to marshal real intent, the more an individual clings to his preconceived notions, the more likely he is to conflate his own ideas with revelation from the Spirit. After all, discerning the Spirit is difficult. As Joseph stated, great care must be taken to ensure that the response an individual believes comes from God is actually from God.

Without gospel teaching in the form described by God in D&C 121, a person will not be equipped to evaluate candidate truth with unbiased real intent, and therefore will not be able to obtain revelation from God on whether or not it is true.

From this brief overview, we can distill a few takeaways.

Truth cannot be ascertained except through the Holy Ghost.

To evaluate truth, a man must pray with real intent. Real intent cannot be achieved without the individual considering that the candidate truth to be evaluated could possibly be true, and having faith that if it is true, they will reconcile their lives to it. For these reasons, God commands gospel teaching to take the form of providing a rational argument with the qualities given in D&C 121. Even when truth is prayed about with real intent, it requires mature discernment to distinguish between the Spirit of God and other conflicting sources, such as one’s emotions.

In context of the foregoing, it should be clear that teaching truth requires a rationally supported argument.

The Lord has said, on more than one occasion, “let us reason together, that ye may understand;” (D&C 50:10, see also Isaiah 1:18.) To reason is to consider logical arguments with the intent of coming to a conclusion. In order to be rational, the conclusion must reconcile all addressed evidences. Reasoning is a two-way process. The teacher can expect protests from the student, and must be prepared to respond to every rational reason the student might have to disbelieve the teacher’s message.

What does this look like in practice? We have a wonderful example of the Lord's persuasion of Nephi, who was commanded to slay Laban.

The exchange between God and Nephi is notable. It is a two-way conversation. God welcomes challenges to what he commands. He invites them. He is prepared to make counterarguments or, in some cases, to cede his ground. As God is, we must also “...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” (1 Peter 3:15.)

It is not enough to be in the right. A true messenger must be able to deliver his message skillfully enough that it stands as a witness, beyond reproach. A true messenger must ensure that, should the message be rejected, it is not due to the fault of the messenger. Providing a reason for what you posit is not an abstract activity. A skillful teacher must ground each teaching attempt in the context of the hearer. Jesus showed ample examples of this skill during his mortal ministry. Perhaps it is best summed up by Paul’s description.

By grounding his argument in the context of the beliefs of his audience, Paul was able to anticipate and address the concerns his audience would express that prevented them from believing his message could be true. This required Paul to know his audience. Ideally, this always consists of a two-way exchange. In practice this is not always possible, and gospel teachers have to anticipate—hopefully with the guidance of discernment through the Holy Ghost—what concerns their audiences have.

While new truth will sometimes be compatible with that which is already understood, it frequently opposes the extant beliefs of the hearer. In this case, before new truth is expounded, contrary false tradition must be addressed. Without incompatible ideas in the mind of the receiver, teaching the gospel would be easy and comfortable. However, because they almost always exist, preaching the gospel almost always consists primarily in disabusing the recipient of false tradition. This is both difficult and unpleasant. The prominent reticence towards direct confrontation with ideas comes at a great loss. Without uprooting false tradition, the individual’s ability to have faith on the Lord unto repentance is greatly limited.

This scripture does not overstate the importance of helping people (including yourself) realize that many of their preconceived notions are wicked and abominable. As the scripture states, false traditions prevent belief in the scriptures, belief in the prophecies of the prophets, faith in God, and repentance. It is not enough to skip over the false traditions people hold. False traditions will damn anyone who holds them. There are not other, more readily acceptable gospel truths that can be taught in hopes that the false traditions will work themselves out.

How can one directly address false tradition in the beliefs of others? God has commanded us not to contend with each other.

Yet, not all argument is contention. The word “argue” sometimes connotes anger and disrespect, and not just in modern context. Lehi explained to Laman and Lemuel that they were incorrect in assuming that Nephi's arguments towards them were motivated by anger.

Arguments, then, are not contentious by definition, but only when they are motivated by anger. Even here, we have to separate the subtle difference between anger and “sharpness.” Arguing truth for the purpose of persuasion can include sharpness (D&C 121:43). In fact, Jesus frequently employed sharpness. In one typical example, he said.

How would you react if someone called you a fool, full of wickedness, a hypocrite, and a murderer? Would you consider that contention? Yet, Jesus’ example shows it is not. While it is true that Jesus was gentle with the meek, he was also very sharp with the prideful. Joseph Smith said.

Jesus is the perfect example to follow. You can't emulate Jesus without arguing and, at times, with sharpness. Sharpness is often the only way to crack through false tradition, an ideological film that is almost always based on an inherited position (by definition, one not based on reasoning or evidences, but an emotive connection). It is very difficult to reason with someone who is arguing from an emotive position.

The definition of argue is to give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view. When argument is used in the literal sense of the word, the intrinsic motivation will always be persuasion. Argue is the best word to describe how one persuades: producing evidence; reasoning. In contrast, to contend means to strive in order to prove one's position is correct; to defend one's position in order to preserve it, or to oppose. All of these senses have at their heart the intent to remain in one's former position—not, as in the case of argument or debate, to seek out truth, even if it means letting go of one's former position. Contention, then, is not the presence of argument, but the lack thereof, where an individual refuses to give or receive reasons supporting a position.

Contention is about who is right, whereas debate is about what is right. Two persons who are unwilling to change their current position are unable to argue—unable to present evidence to determine what is right, they must take turns asserting who is right. They can only contend with one another.

Contention is enmity: the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something. It is a feeling, not a position informed by reasoning or evidences. It is a non-neutral, non-objective, emotional, irrational practice. It is a reaction against a position rather than a defense against the evidences or reasons behind that position.

Persuasive argument, as instructed in D&C 121, should consist in pure knowledge, that is, true facts. A person should be able to expound a position using scripture and, as Jesus did, common sense. Persuasive argument ought not to employ guile. Guile is sly craftiness. It is dishonest— not a lie, but an attempt to distract rational reasoning by distraction and device that draws attention away from a simple analysis of the issue at hand. There is a long list of these devices (called logical fallacies) that everyone interested in truth should be aware of. Among them are appeal to authority, appeal to common practice and appeal to tradition. None of these devices ought to be considered when evaluating truth. However, let’s address one example of guile in detail due to the frequency of its use: ad hominem.

An ad hominem is when someone dismisses a group of evidences or reasons because of their impression of the person who is giving the evidences or reasons. By labeling the person as incapable of possessing truth, they can be ignored without objective consideration of their evidences or reasons. Ad hominem is libel by label—an avoidance of the issue via an upfront dismissal of the person connected to the issue. In the church, this is done by labeling the person an apostate. For example, Michael Quinn was perhaps the greatest LDS historian of all time at the time of his excommunication. A professor of history at Brigham Young University, he had a lifetime of church service under his belt, was an associate and advocate of the brethren and close friend of Spencer W. Kimball who, in a blessing, promised him he would one day be an apostle. Yet, his two volume history on the church is openly dismissed as inadmissible, despite the fact that that the books are so well documented that around half of the text consists of footnotes to minutes of the meetings of the Quorum of the Twelve, First Presidency minutes, journals, and other official sources. Ironically, due to Quinn’s access to and diligence in studying those unavailable sources, his volumes continue to be the best source for their content. By ignoring Quinn due to his excommunication, an individual can completely avoid having to present evidence suggesting a position alternative to what Quinn's historical sources suggest without the burden of providing a rational argument for doing so.

For some reason, it is particularly easy to derail a modern Mormon from honest inquiry by employing ad hominem. It ought to be more difficult. After all, no one suggests that Ghandi’s movement was not as beautiful as it was effective, despite the fact that he was racist against blacks. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—whose entire program of peaceful resistance was borrowed from Ghandi—could evaluate the efficacy of Ghandi’s precepts on peaceful protests independently from Ghandi’s racism. Many, in turn, see the value of Dr. King’s teachings on civil rights despite his serial adultery. God holds us accountable to our acceptance of truth regardless of whether or not it is provided by an imperfect messenger.

Some may seek to avoid opportunities to argue truth with others. It is definitely difficult and unpleasant. Joseph described it as trying to split hemlock knots with a wedge made of corn bread and a pumpkin for a sledge hammer. However, it is not optional for a disciple of Christ who has covenanted “to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9). Beyond an obligatory condition of the covenant, refraining from sharing truth brings penalties upon one's head.

Though fear can be a motivator, the better reason for willingly attempting to help another overcome false tradition is love. Jesus taught that the greatest demonstration of love is to give one’s life for another, suggesting that love can be measured by what one is willing to sacrifice for the benefit of another.

Revelation

Joseph said.

Publicly available knowledge is insufficient to save. Rather, there is a discrete portion of knowledge that every person must obtain through individual revelation before they can be saved. Assuming that the general commandments are sufficient to save is a common error. It is not enough to simply follow the general commandments. What is publicly available is not sufficient to become like Jesus is. The Pharisees argued against Jesus’ teachings because they “ha[d] the law for [their] salvation.” He told his disciples to.

The purpose of what is publicly available is not to make someone like Jesus, but to bring them to the gate of personal revelation available through the Holy Ghost.

It is the “unspeakable” teachings revealed through the Holy Ghost that bring an individual to be like Jesus. Revelation through the Holy Ghost is the way appointed to take a man from his fallen state to the point where he receives the promise of eternal life. Nephi taught that this path is to “feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.” (2 Nephi 32:3.) He said these words—those that tell us what to do to come back to his presence in this life—come through the Holy Ghost: “if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.” (2 Nephi 32:5.)

Jesus taught quite plainly, particularly in the book of John, that a direct, real relationship with him was required for eternal life. The pinnacle of eternal knowledge comes as a face to face relationship with God himself. As John put it, this knowledge is one and the same as eternal life. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3) As Nephi, Joseph, and other prophets have taught, the way we come up to this experience is by following the words of God given to the individual by the Holy Ghost.

This path will lead a man to a face-to-face encounter with Christ, redeeming him from the fall. This experience of meeting Christ “in the flesh” is called the Second Comforter. What greater thing could Heavenly Father reveal to an individual than his son Jesus Christ? Some believe in the existence of this ordinance, but consider it to be either reserved for those of particular church office or otherwise unnecessary. This experience is not a voyeuristic endeavor, but a requirement to attain exaltation.

The possession of knowledge provided through revelation is not optional. It is the means by which a fallen man obtains eternal life. Although others who have attained more can show us the path they travelled to get to where they are, one man’s salvation is insufficient to save another man. Just as the Holy Ghost can only lead us to the point where Christ himself must teach us, the teachings and witnesses of men can only lead us to the point where the Holy Ghost can teach us. Remaining forever in dependence to another man for spiritual knowledge can never yield eternal life. Joseph taught that it is not sufficient for us to merely believe the expression of others' knowledge. He said.

Because all gospel progress relies upon one's ability to receive individual revelation, a correct understanding of revelation through the Holy Ghost is the single most important bit of knowledge to obtain in the gospel. As the conduit through which all knowledge is received, a misunderstanding of what revelation is, how it is received, by whom it is received, or upon what topics it can be received can damn a person more immediately than anything else.

Joseph taught that there is a discrete portion of knowledge required to be saved. What happens when an individual believes that God would never grant revelation on some bit of that required portion of knowledge? That person will be damned, because he can never acquire the knowledge necessary for salvation.

It is of utmost importance to understand a very simple fact: God will grant revelation on any truth. Put differently, “by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Moroni 10:5.) God will reveal all things. All means everything! Nothing is withheld. There were no caveats given here, and you won’t find any throughout scripture. In every case, the topics are boundless. There is no exception made for “things outside of your stewardship,” no exceptions made for doctrinal topics, and no exclusion of issues being considered by church leaders. You can know the truth of all things, including whether church policies are God’s will, whether or not the home teaching lesson is true doctrine, whether or not your neighbor ought to take the job she’s been mulling over, and whether Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

We are not only allowed to ask for revelation on any subject, we are commanded to. Besides all the explicit commands to ask, seek, and knock, we are also commanded to be like children. The boundless questioning best characterized by children is the type of attitude that brought about Joseph's first encounter with God. He read James 1:5 and really believed that God would not upbraid—or scold—him for his questions, no matter how taboo, unpopular, or indiscrete his questions might be. Do you suppose that Joseph would have ever had the faith to ask such bold questions (notably pertaining to the religion of his parents) if he had been taught that only his church leaders could pray about church doctrines being true or not? Perhaps this is one element of God's command that we should be like children. “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3.)

“All things” must necessarily include those things not currently known or understood. Many today are taught that it is only acceptable to question God when the answer is already known. For example, Elder Oaks once equated “seeking answers to mysteries” with “a strong desire to understand everything about every principle of the gospel,” which he called an invitation for Satan to lead the seeker into apostasy. “Everything” and “all” are synonymous, meaning that having “a strong desire to understand everything about every principle of the gospel” is exactly what God commands us to do! This position stands in direct defiance of God's word.

Meanwhile, the term “mysteries” merely means anything in the gospel that is not common knowledge. This can include both things that have never been revealed as well as things that have previously been revealed but which are presently misunderstood. Therefore, those who council you to avoid seeking the mysteries of the gospel is akin to someone telling you that you are not permitted to ask questions except when the answer to those questions is already known. Besides being illogical, this position stands in opposition to God's word on the topic, as he not only promises that mysteries will be revealed to those who are faithful, but also commands us (twice) to seek for the mysteries of God.

Further support for an expectation that God will reveal that which has not yet been revealed is codified in the “Articles of Faith”.

In yet another example, Nephi is told that all who search the mysteries of God diligently will be answered, and also that this is the duty of the Holy Ghost.

Some claim that God limits his definition of “all things” according to the church callings a person might have. These statements almost always inject legalistic phrases, such as “for the entire church”, that are not present in God's description of “all things.” For example.

Another example.

Recall that God makes no mention of “the order of the church” or “authority” when he defines all things. When an individual believes God will not tell him something, he will not be able to ask in faith. Nor will he believe if the revelation comes without asking. Suppose you were minding your own business one evening, praying for the welfare of a neighbor you knew was going through hard times. Suppose further that God unexpectedly answered your prayer for the welfare of that person by giving you a message on their behalf with the command to deliver it. Would you do so? Would you believe God, or would you assume it was all a figment of your imagination?

In reality, God would rather us not set limits on what he can reveal. We are promised that he “upbraideth not,” or in other words, does not balk at the topics of the questions we might ask him. What would have happened if young Joseph Smith presupposed that, because he was not a leader of a church, he could not ask which of all churches was true?

Instead, we are told that what a person learns from God is limited not by calling or stewardship, but by the heed and diligence an individual exerts to obtain all truth.

How well you obey what you have been told and how hard you search for more are the only limiting factors in what God reveals to you. Joseph reiterated this principle when he taught that “if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” (D&C 130:19.) This is not limited in any way by what your leaders do or don't know. It is totally possible for you or anyone else to know more than your leaders know. Some balk at this possibility, but the situation is guaranteed if you exercise greater heed and diligence in searching than they do. Joseph challenged others to learn more than he knew, if they could: “God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them...” If the most ignorant Saint exerts greater diligence and obedience than another, no matter whether the other be a Pope or a President, that ignorant Saint will soon be in possession of greater knowledge than the other. God does not tether what an individual can know to what level of knowledge his church leaders have attained—such defies the law of heaven.

Brigham Young echoed the same sentiment. He said.

If Joseph was right in teaching that there is a discrete portion of knowledge required to be saved, and an individual came to believe that God would never grant revelation on some bit of that required portion, that person could never be saved. This is why it is critically important to understand that God has not, does not, and will not ever limit the topics on which revelation can be received.

The Catholics have long believed that revelation that counters the tradition of their elders cannot be from God.

To claim that revelation cannot contradict tradition is to claim that leaders are infallible, a position that is overwhelmingly refuted by historical examples of repeated deviation of religious tradition from God’s revealed law. For example, Jesus showed through precept and example that the leaders of his time lived a tradition that contradicted God’s. When asked why his disciples “transgress[ed] the tradition of the elders,” “he answered and said unto them, ‘Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?’” (Matthew 15:2-3.) In this case Jesus was referring to God’s word as recorded in the scriptures.

Unfortunately, some in the LDS church take the same position as the Catholics.

Besides contradicting God’s word and logic, it seems rather ironic that any in the church would adopt a position that would discredit the experience of its founder by arguing the impossibility of anyone having a similar experience. Joseph’s “visions, dreams, and prophecies” strongly opposed the position of the constituted authorities of his time. God uses revelation to point out the false traditions that have been embraced contrary to the scriptures. Without allowing such corrections, an institution cuts itself off from God’s attempts to point out errors that have crept in.

The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that the Spirit supersedes man’s traditions. Nephi was taught why his understanding was incorrect in assuming that God prohibited all killing. He was commanded to kill Laban by the Spirit despite the tradition that killing was always a sin. King Benjamin openly credited his people’s access to the scriptures as having prevented their adoption of traditions that would have contradicted God’s word.

Merely having the scriptures was insufficient. They had to have them “always before [their] eyes.” Not only that, but they obviously had to believe that the scriptures held precedent to any innovations by their leaders. They had to take God’s word as a higher authority than man’s word, or words from men claimed to be God’s. To king Benjamin’s people, the scriptures were a primal source of truth, and men’s traditions and innovations were to be measured against scripture.

Although the scriptures can and should be used to separate God’s word from man’s tradition, they are not the supreme source of distinction. It is the Spirit—and only the Spirit—that can divide truth from error and reveal the truth of all things.

If we accept that men, even leaders, can be incorrect, and we know that the Spirit can and does reveal the truth of all things, we must accept that the Spirit can and will reveal to us discrepancies between the positions espoused by church leaders and God’s will.

The “great apostasy” occurred because church leaders made changes based on committee decisions instead of revelation. Unwilling to follow the doctrines as given by their dispensation head, they were unable to receive new revelation, and therefore substituted their own ideas for God’s word. As innovations and the commandments of men replace the commandments of God, the need for an individual to sift through the philosophies of men to reveal and reclaim the revelations given to the dispensation head increases. In short, the importance of personal revelation increases as the receipt of institutional revelation decreases.

The Book of Mormon describes how often Nephi and Lehi from the book of Helaman received revelation.

The Book of Mormon not only tells us that these two received many revelations daily, but that their knowledge depended upon those revelations. They are not alone in experiencing a high frequency of revelation. Jesus himself, our supreme example, said that God commanded him in all things. Such consummate guidance would surely require many revelations daily.

Are individuals who receive frequent revelations rare? The Book of Mormon is a wonderful experiment for this question. How often do we see God communicating with individuals in the Book of Mormon? If you were to highlight every passage that describes God communicating with individuals, you will find that almost every verse of almost every page is highlighted. The Book of Mormon is an overwhelming evidence that God is exceedingly willing—even anxious—to communicate to individuals through revelation. So why don’t we receive more revelations?

The frequency of revelation is diminished under certain circumstances. Nephi received the Liahona, which would give them instruction from time to time “according to the faith and diligence and heed which we did give unto [it].” (1 Nephi 16:28.) Alma later taught that revelation works the same way.

To heed is to take notice of. Diligence means persistent effort. Those who believe God speaks only infrequently, and that revelations are something exceptional and out of the norm will never exercise sufficient heed and diligence. Consequently, they will receive revelation far less often than they otherwise could. If you want more revelation, believe and obey the revelation you already have.

Unbelief in God’s expressed desire to give us many revelations dramatically hinders its receipt. Modern Mormons teach that revelation is infrequent and unnecessary.

If you believe that God will not give many revelations, you will not seek to have many revelations, and you will not believe them if you do receive them.

Nephi warned of those in our day who would state that we have enough revelation. “Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!” (2 Nephi 28:29.) Such satiety is a contrasting emotion to that expressed by the Book of Mormon prophets, whose desire for the word of God was never quenched. When left to choose between the modern examples quoted, and Lehi and Nephi, we must ask ourselves which example will draw us closer to the example given by the Lord? It is wrong to be satisfied in the consequences of living below our privileges.

If an individual believes that God does not want to be bothered with our questions, will he bother asking? Will God answer a question that remains unanswered? Jesus commands his followers to seek, ask, and knock an absurd number of times (see, for example, Matthew 7:7, D&C 11:5, D&C 4:7, Luke 11:9, D&C 6:5, 3 Nephi 27:29, etc.). Those who teach that God has limited how often he will give revelation, and encourage individuals not to ask, seek, and knock stand in opposition to Christ.

As described at the outset, there is a discrete quantity of knowledge that has to be gained via personal revelation in order for a man to be saved. You cannot get there through accumulating emotion, but rather knowledge. The exclusive mechanism designed to convey that knowledge is individual revelation through the Holy Ghost. Therefore, it is supremely important to understand what is and what is not revelation.

The 2014 priesthood and relief society manual quotes President Benson as teaching “We hear the words of the Lord most often by a feeling. If we are humble and sensitive, the Lord will prompt us through our feelings.” This is false doctrine.

Revelation is informational, not emotional. It consists of the conveyance of knowledge, intelligence, light, and truth. As Joseph taught, “This first comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence.”

Joseph taught that it wasn’t easy to recognize the Holy Ghost’s effect. He said that the key to learning to recognize the Holy Ghost is to notice when pure intelligence flows into you: A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.,) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus. (Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 151.)

Joseph indicated that at least some of the intelligence conveyed through revelation consists of predictions about the future. These predictions serve as signposts to validate the other instructions received in the same “sudden strokes of ideas.” Notice that Joseph omits the description of feelings as an indicator of the Holy Ghost or revelation. To Joseph, revelation was informational, not emotional. It is this information that is required to bring a fallen man up to the character of Christ, which is required to merit salvation. For, as quoted before.

The essentiality of personal revelation for salvation is the driving force behind the need for baptism. Baptism gives access to the channel through which God will teach us what we need to know to come up from our lost and fallen state to where we need to be to merit salvation. Nephi describes baptism as the entrance to the way or path to eternal life. The receipt of constant additional knowledge through the Holy Ghost advances us along this path, which culminates in a personal encounter with Christ.

This same journey is depicted in the endowment ceremony, where Adam and Eve progress along the path by heeding the light and truth they have already received, and receiving more. Never in the endowment does God send Adam and Eve feelings to advance them along this path. Instead, God sends messages consisting of new information that helps them become more like Christ.

One stumbling block that prevents recognition that revelation is not emotion is the concept that the fruits of the Spirit are “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.” (Galatians 5:17.) Therefore, one may conclude, if I feel love, joy, or peace (all feelings), I am receiving revelation and/or am under the persuasion of the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately, this common understanding is taken out of context and, as will be explained momentarily, has damning consequences. Because emotions are a product of the carnal natural man, they lead one in a course away from God by both encouraging ungodly behavior that feels good and by discouraging godly behavior that is difficult or painful. Receiving emotions as revelation blinds the individual to their true state before God: they both cannot see that they do not receive any or much real revelation and are shielded from the productive conclusion that repentance of false tradition or willful sin is required in order to receive real revelation.

When Paul uses the words love, joy, and peace, he is not describing what it feels like to have the Spirit with you. He is describing the works of one who is guided by the Spirit, and contrasting that to the works of one who is guided by the flesh.

Just as the fruit of the tree of life is not the iron rod, but the result of walking the iron rod, peace, love, and joy are the fruits received by those who respond obediently to the information conveyed by the Holy Ghost. Incidentally, Paul also describes the “fruit” of the Spirit in another letter, here again speaking of them as what a person guided by the Spirit will produce in their lives, not what it feels like to have the Spirit communicate something to you.

Emotion, peace, or love are not the voice of the Spirit. Rather, a person might respond with these emotions upon hearing the information communicated by the voice of the Spirit. Emotions are not the content of revelation, although they can be a reaction to it.

A telltale sign that a message is from God is that a person is edified afterward. What is edification? God told Oliver and Joseph.

In other words, you can know you were enlightened by the Spirit of truth, because your mind received instruction that you did not have before. Edification, then, is knowing more than you did previously.

The most pure and noble emotions can be summoned on demand, and then can evaporate just as quickly as they came, all without causing any lasting change in the person, all without effecting a change in that person's character. A mundane movie can elicit high emotion, but the effects are fleeting. Truth, on the other hand, changes people. It edifies them, because as a result of embracing it they become more like Jesus in thought, word, and deed. If it comes by any other way, it is not of God.

A misunderstanding that peace and love are the message from God leads men to reject the sizeable quantity of revelations from God that evoke negative emotions. Deep sorrow, fear, or distress are not signals that the message received is not from God. They are valid responses to real revelation. For example, the response of Lehi’s family upon reading the words on the Liahona.

Considering peace, love, and joy to always accompany God's messages is damning. Consider the prophets of the scriptures. How many messages did they receive from God that gave them peace, love, and joy? Isaiah described his horror when God revealed to him his nothingness. Moses collapsed in weakness after being in the presence of God. Isaiah certainly did not click his heels in joy when God instructed him to travel naked for three years as a sign to Israel. Hosea was instructed to marry a whore. Peter was shown how he would die ignominiously. Young Hezekiah, who had served God at great travail in a time of abhorrent wickedness, was told he would shortly die. All of these messages were from God, and none conveyed anything close to peace, love, and joy. If these men of God used modern Mormonism’s criteria for revelation, they would have dismissed God’s instructions to them as false revelation. They would have cut themselves off from God through disobedience to his word, being in open rebellion against God.

Negative feelings from revelation can come because God is revealing a difficult assignment to us, like asking Isaiah to go without clothing for three years as a sign to Israel. But it can also come because you are being presented with something that is so radically different to what you currently believe. Interpreting negative emotions as a negative signal from God assures that the most important revelations—those that call us to abandon our false idols and false traditions—will be rejected due to misinterpreting negative feelings as a negative sign from God. These negative feelings can be cognitive dissonance, a well-known and well-studied phenomenon that occurs when one's actions, beliefs, and understanding of truth jolt out of alignment, usually as the result of learning something new. If we believe that the purpose of individual revelation is to teach us the things we currently do not know, or point out the things about which we are mistaken, we ought to expect cognitive dissonance as a regular occurrence and a hallmark of spiritual growth. An absence of this feeling would indicate a lack of spiritual growth. The solution for it is to bring your actions and beliefs into accord with your newly expanded understanding of truth.

It is not negative feelings, but positive ones, that are a rare commodity among men of God in the scriptures. The Spirit led those men from one tragedy to another, not from one exuberant ecstasy to another. The treasure of these men was in heaven—found in a face-to-face encounter with angels and God himself—not on earth in the form of temporal happiness or worldly peace. Jesus said plainly that the peace he gives is NOT as the world gives. It is to be found in the personal promise of eternal life from him to you, a peace that can remain present even in a deluge of earthly discord consisting of immense personal suffering, insecurity, loneliness, and loss. This is the fruit of the Spirit: the peace that Abinadi felt as he delivered his last sermon, knowing he would be burned at the stake for doing so; the peace Peter felt even after Jesus told him he would be crucified for his ministry; the peace Alma and Amulek felt as they watched their converts burn at the stake and lay on the ground naked, bound for a seemingly interminable time; the peace felt by Paul as he endured several shipwrecks, privations, and trials before potentates, finally facing his death.

Treating negative feelings as a sign of displeasure from God, or assuming it signals the withdrawal of the Spirit, is tantamount to self-inflicted damnation. This is like a plant hiding from the sun—the result will always be a withering away from required nutrients for growth. God warned us against this gross misjudgment.

Although our reaction to God’s revelations frequently includes negative feelings, the fruits of these messages are something very different. They are what occurs when one heeds the message—not the fruit of hearing the message but of doing what the message says. The fruits of heeding even God’s hardest messages causes peace, love, and joy because they cause you to draw closer to God, whose companionship always produces those fruits.

An overfocus on emotion as a substitute for real spiritual experiences is not new. In 1981 the Academic Vice-President of BYU said.

Relying on emotions as revelation is an invitation to be led astray. After all, emotion is a carnal sense, and while the carnal senses, which also include sight and smell, are indispensible tools in our lives, they are channels loaded with deceptive noise from Satan and his followers. Korihor admitted that the devil deceived him by teaching him false doctrines that were pleasing to his carnal senses, and he taught them successfully for the same reason.

Thus we see that those who teach doctrine through “pleasing the carnal mind” are operating from the devil's playbook. Unfortunately, for over a century modern Mormonism has plied this tack in venues ranging from the sacred with temple movies to the public with television commercials and public films shown by missionaries and visitors centers. The construction of the Legacy theater in the now Joseph Smith Memorial Building was a pioneering effort in this agenda. President Hinckley instructed the director: “I want them to leave the theater crying.” 69 In fact, Bonneville Communications, one of the church's many businesses, has trademarked the concept of emotionally manipulating people into. They call it “HeartSell.” Recipients of appeals to the carnal mind should ask themselves, is it the Spirit or is it “strategic emotional advertising”?

Remember that revelation is the link that attaches us to God and instructs us on how to return to him. It is the most important concept of the gospel to get right, because it is the only thing that prevents us from getting everything else wrong. That is why Joseph said.

Perhaps foreseeing that this ancient tactic emotional misdirection would continue to be used in our day, Paul guided us to hearken to our spiritual— not our fleshy—guidance systems.

Note that he says that the carnal mind is enmity against God, or stands in opposition to him. He says the carnal senses cannot be subject to the law of God. This idea is paralleled by Alma who taught that you don't acquire revelatory knowledge through your feelings, but through the Spirit: “And I would not that ye think that I know of myself—not of the temporal but of the spiritual, not of the carnal mind but of God.” (Alma 36:4.)

Personal revelation prevents deception because the Holy Ghost “speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be” (Jacob 4:13).

Again, the Holy Ghost speaks. It projects informational ideas, not feelings.

In the scriptures, we are given countless examples of revelation received. None of them indicate the reception of an emotion or feeling. God describes the mechanisms of revelation in plainness.

The Spirit of truth teaches not by issuing a feeling, but by giving the word of truth. “Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;” (D&C 91:4.) It is truth and it is conveyed through words. Though revelatory ideas can come, as Joseph described, in a sudden rush, they are writable. You can translate those ideas into words.

The Lord does not say we should live by every feeling that proceeds from the mouth of God. He says.

Words come out of one's mouth, not feelings. Voices are heard, not felt.

Some may quip that God's voice and the Holy Ghost are two separate things. However, the Book of Mormon prophets would disagree. Mormon wrote.

After what manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God to Mormon? Through an audible voice. It would have been quite difficult to quote a textual sentence from God if all he was given was a feeling. When those purporting revelation produce no text, it is possible that, in reality, they merely experienced their own emotions and not a revelation from God.

Another popular misconception is to equate “still small voice” with a feeling, despite the fact that the phrase is not “still small feeling.” The phrase itself comes from the story of Elijah seeking God in a cave after much persecution. In response to his prayer, there was an earthquake.

Even the example from which the phrase is lifted plainly describes the hearing of an actual voice. It communicated information, in this case causing him to leave the cave. In modern times, Joseph described the still small voiced in our canonized scriptures this way.

Note that here Joseph attributes a paragraph of God's writeable word to the still small voice. To Joseph, the still small voice of the Holy Ghost was an actual voice that conveyed information. The detail here exceeds what an emotion or feeling could convey.

If you believed that God did not give much revelation, would you ask for it? If you believed that God limited what kind of revelation you could receive, would you believe revelations not fitting that description? Would you pray about doctrine if you didn’t think God allowed you to do so? Would you expect God to give you revelations about your day-to-day life if you did not believe such was necessary? Would you trust in what God says to you in revelation, even if it disagrees with something you've heard before? Would you believe God’s word to you, even if it is hard to hear and causes negative feelings?

I hope it is abundantly clear that the false traditions regarding revelation embraced in modern Mormonism will prevent an individual from hearing God’s voice and returning to his presence. Well did Jesus say about those who taught such damning doctrine in his day.

No Poor Among Them

One of the qualifying properties of Zion is that there be no poor there. Because our ability to achieve Zion is inescapably tied to our ability to care for the poor, our effort to achieve Zion can be measured by how much effort we expend in caring for the poor.

Care for the poor may seem to some to be an auxiliary commandment. After all, Jesus said that loving our neighbor was the second commandment, second to the commandment to love God. And yet, king Benjamin taught that “when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God,” suggesting that the way that we serve God is through serving our neighbor. Therefore, in a sense, there is only one real great commandment, and it has to do with caring for the poor. A significant indication of how well we are living the first great commandment is through analyzing how well we are living the second great commandment. Proverbs 14:31 suggests that the relationship holds in reverse as well: “He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor.” We can measure our love of God by the love we have for our neighbor, and we can measure our disobedience towards God by the degree of poor treatment that we dispense on our neighbor.

Jesus taught it this way.

These instructions appeared in the New Testament. Do they apply to our dispensation? It turns out that we have been directly commanded in this dispensation to care for the poor. The Lord said.

The Lord has been clear and repetitive in his admonition to care for the poor. It is one fulfillment of both the first and second great commandments. It is how he has told us he will interpret our fidelity to him. Modern Mormonism answers this charge through tithing and fast offerings.

D&C 119 provides a revelation on tithing. It reads.

God states that tithing consists of two phases. Those new to the law are to donate all surplus property to the church. Thereafter, they are to pay a tenth of their interest annually. It is important to note that those who have not donated all their surplus property to the church at some point in their lives do not live the law of tithing as given by the Lord.

The Lord said that “this shall be a standing law” forever, or that it would not change. It turns out that this commandment is not new. It was restored anew, but it existed in the same exact form at least since the time of Abraham. As Joseph restored to Genesis 14 in the JST, when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, “Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.” (JST Gen 14:39.) Clearly, one tenth of one’s interest is defined as one tenth of what God gives you over what you need. In other word’s, God has said that tithing is one tenth of your net income, not one tenth of your gross income.

The expenses authorized by this section 119 are not very clear. This passage enumerates what the Lord has authorized tithing to be spent on.

“The building of mine house.” The revelation does not specify what “mine house” means. Does it mean the group of people that follow God? Does it mean the Far West temple, the one temple that was the focus of the church in 1838 when this revelation was received? Does it extend to the many subsequent temples built after Joseph’s death? Does it include the thousands of chapels the church has built? Does it include any building the church builds? “The laying of the foundation of Zion.” What does this mean? “The priesthood.” What aspect of the priesthood requires property? “The debts of the Presidency of my Church.” Does this extend to future expenses?

From JST Gen 14, we learn that tithing in Abraham’s day was “for the poor” (JST Gen 12:38). Members donate tithing, estimated at over $7 billion per year with an understanding that their donation is the fulfillment of the commandment to care for the poor. How well does their understanding match reality?

The church has not published an accounting of the receipt or expenditure of tithing funds since the 60s when President Henry D. Moyle of the 1[st] presidency successfully lobbied President David O. McKay to cease the practice of providing an accounting of funds to the membership at each annual conference. However, private estimates of the amount donated are about $7 billion per year. Where does this money go?

Although a complete accounting is impossible to reconstruct, there are sufficient morsels of information that have been released that allow inference.

The largest recipient of tithing, according to Gordon B. Hinckley, is the operation of church universities: “[BYU] is the single most expensive entity funded by the tithes of the Church.” The church universities (BYU Provo, BYU Hawaii, BYU Idaho, LDS Business School, and BYU Salt Lake Campus) are a very expensive enterprise. Using actual BYU tuition rates and comparative private tuition figures published by BYU, as well as current enrollment numbers, we can estimate the tithing cost of the church universities at $1.1 billion. In addition to the church universities, the Church Educational System retains over 1,000 institute directors (see full list at institute.lds.org). Each director receives a significant salary in addition to perks such as a company car, a cost of living allowance, and a lifetime retirement at 30 years of service. The annual cost of the institute directors easily exceeds $10 million before counting the cost of those on retirement. Additionally, the church employs up to 24,000 lesser-paid full-time seminary teachers, which would cost a bare minimum of $600 million per year (assuming $24,000 per year salaries and conservative employer tax contributions). Thus, the CES annual budget is at least $1.5 billion per year, or 21% of tithing, and could be higher than $2 billion per year, or 29% of tithing.

After the CES system, the next highest tithing expense is most likely the salaries, benefits, and office space costs of full-time employees of the church (excluding CES). The church has not publicly released the number of workers it employs globally. However, a consideration of the number of entities and the work they do can assist in getting an idea of the order of magnitude of church employment. We typically think of the ecclesiastical employees who receive a salary for their work, such as the First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12, and the General Authorities. Each of these men also have secretaries. Also, there are over 400 mission presidents who are salaried and 25 area office staffs that consist of a collection of full-time employees to handle welfare, finance, facilities, etc. There are also facilities management personnel for the church buildings worldwide. Temple recorders are paid positions. There are also those who make garments, print scriptures and manuals, etc. There are a large number of professionals that provide support functions for church administration: lawyers, accountants, editors, programmers, electricians, janitors, and the like. Finally, there are the emeritus 70s, who receive pay and benefits for life.

Beyond the ecclesiastical employees of the church, the church wholly owns and operates an array of for-profit businesses. The employees of these operations are church employees. These companies include Deseret Management Corporation, Beneficial Financial Group, Bonneville International, Bonneville Communications, Bonneville Interactive Services, Bonneville Satellite, 35 different radio stations, KSL Television Station, Deseret Book, Excel Entertainment, Deseret Morning News, Hawaii Reserves, Polynesian Cultural Center, La'ie Shopping Center, La'ie Water Company, La'ie Treatment Works, Temple Square Hospitality and Temple Square restaurants, Zions Securities Corporation, Ensign Peak Advisors, Farm Management Corporation, Deseret Land and Livestock, Sun Ranch, Deseret Ranches of Florida, Deseret Farms of California, West Hills Orchards, Cactus Lane Ranch, Deseret Trust Company, LDS Family Services, Property Reserves Inc., and Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators (DMBA).

Again, quantifying the amount of money spent on these employees is not possible. However, to get an idea, we can consider the legally mandated financial information published by the LDS church in the UK. In 2012, the church in the UK had 188,029 members and spent 12,350,000 pounds on staff. This number did not include “missionary work,” the category which would tally the cost of mission president salaries and expense accounts, as well as associated employees at the area office, totaling about 7 million pounds. However, just using the exclusionary 12.3 million pounds number, that equates to sixty five pounds per member, or about $103 per member. This figure is the cost for local administration and does not include the army of lawyers, accountants, IT professionals, and General Authorities who are on the headquarters payroll. It likewise does not include any of the for-profit businesses, many of which are operated in the USA. However, it provides a very conservative lower bound. Extrapolating to the 15 million members reported by the church worldwide, we can estimate that LDS non-business salaries and benefits worldwide cost at least $1.5 billion per year, or approximately 21% of tithing.

Temples and chapels are another large item of expenditure for the church. The church publicizes the sparing of no expense in the construction of its temples. In the October 2012 General Conference, Elder Scott D. Whiting recounted how, during the renovation of the Laie Hawaii Temple, he watched a delegation of Church leaders indicate that certain parts of the construction would have to be redone. These included a large custom made stained glass window where a two-inch square was one eighth of an inch crooked and how several walls felt gritty to the touch. Elder Whiting later realized that the walls had always been intended to be wallpapered, and the small, crooked glass square was planned to sit behind a large potted plant. This level of exactness costs a lot of money to achieve. This is besides the materials themselves, which are lauded as being top of the line. On an open house tour of the Draper Utah temple, the tour guide showed me the astounding number of costly materials used to construct the 57,000 sq. ft. building. The abundant granite facing, counters and floor molding come from China. The wooden panels, doors, and molding come from Africa. The limestone floors are from France. There are over 35,000 hand-cut pieces of glass in the building. The church has not disclosed the cost of the Draper temple, though unofficial estimates are all over $100 million. The only temple whose cost has been partially disclosed is the Washington, D.C. temple, which leaders said would cost an estimated $15 million in the late 1960s, or about $88 million today. The D.C. temple is much larger than the Draper temple, but the materials used inside and out are significantly less costly than those in recent temples. The Preston England temple complex cost around $165 million in 1998, according to a Stake President there. The smaller temples are estimated to cost much less, around $16-20 million. Each temple has maintenance costs for the grounds, utilities, etc. that are considerable. Since 1998, the church has built or is building a total of 66 temples. Assuming the non-local contribution of each temple is $16 million (a conservative estimate), that equates to over a billion dollars, or around $62 million per year, excluding the cost of renovations or maintenance of existing temples. In total, the church could easily spend a billion dollars per year in temple operations and construction. This is at least 14% of annual tithing.

The church also builds about one chapel per day. According to the Zwick Construction (a firm that has built many temples and chapels for the church) website, a standard, US chapel costs 2-3 million dollars (excluding land cost and landscaping).Like temples, chapels built in the first world are built of considerably more expensive materials than in the developing world. If we assume that international chapels cost half what US chapels do (a very conservative factor), and that 1 in 10 new chapels are stake centers (also a conservative estimate), the church spends at least $400 million on new chapels per year. But what about the land cost? Although in some areas, like the UK, land costs exceed construction costs, we can conservatively estimate the cost of the land occupied by new chapels at 50% of the construction cost, or $200 million per year. It is harder to estimate utilities and renovation costs. However, the church is required by law to release financials for operations in the UK. From this information, we can gather that chapel renovations usually cost half what a new chapel would cost. We assume $200 million annually for these renovations, and for the sake of being conservative, ignore the costs of utilities and maintenance. This brings the total chapel cost estimation at $800 million per year. This is about 11% of tithing.

It is commonly understood in the church that one of the uses for tithing is to care for the poor. However, that is a false understanding. The LDS.org topics essay of “Tithing” does not list care for the poor as one of its uses.

President Monson recently explained that money spent on the poor in the church comes completely from fast offerings. The portion of tithing spent on the poor comes in the form of the humanitarian aid fund. In 2011, the church disclosed exactly how much money was spent in the preceding 26 years on humanitarian aid: $1.4 billion. This amounts to $53.8 million per year, or 0.76% of tithing per year.

In conclusion, approximately 29% of tithing goes to CES, 21% in ecclesiastic and administrative salaries, 14% to temple construction and operation, 11% to chapel construction and maintenance, 0.76% to humanitarian aid.

Fast offerings in the church are prescribed to be donated the first Sunday of each month. They are meant to be at least the amount of two consecutive meals, but generosity is encouraged.

The concept is that, by fasting, the funds saved on food can be reallocated to the poor in the church. Using publicly disclosed data from the church in the UK, fast offerings are around 10% of tithing donations, or approximately $700 million per year. Local units dispense fast offerings to the poor, and local leaders are encouraged to find people on whom to spend the donations. Funds that remain unspent at the local unit level are forwarded to the stake, where they can be reapportioned to other units in the stake. Like the bishops, stake presidents are counseled to find a use for the funds they have. If the stake has excess funds, they go to church headquarters. Although there is a mechanism for needy wards to obtain extra fast offering funds, it requires the approval of the stake president, the area president, and even the presiding bishop, meaning it is a very rare occurrence.

The Lord has never given a revelation on fast offerings. The doctrines pertaining to the concept of caring for the poor in relation to fasting are individual instructions, not connected to an institution. Both the commandment and the promised blessings are individual.

In principle, the church’s fast offering program could be used to facilitate mobilization of resources from affluent members to areas of the world that are more destitute. In practice, since the church’s fast offerings are encouraged to be consumed locally, and since it takes approval from the stake, area, and presiding bishop levels before funds can be obtained from headquarters, the fast offering program does not have many advantages compared to the scriptural practice of individuals directly donating their money to needy parties. In fact, given the abundance of all-volunteer organizations who care for the poor internationally, it could be argued that direct contributions through international charities have greater impact on the plight of the poor than traditional church fast offerings, which are almost guaranteed to be consumed locally in comparatively affluent areas.

Only 51% of the LDS membership lives in the first world. For the rest, poverty is a surprisingly ubiquitous condition. In 2013, I attended a meeting with LDS leaders and members from several stakes and districts in Guatemala, Peru, and Ecuador stated that most members in their units ate one meal per day consisting of perhaps some rice one day, a tomato another day, and a tortilla the third day. In Zimbabwe, interviews I conducted in early 2014 with the stake/district and ward/branch leadership yielded a consistent picture: the 90% unemployment in the country applied equally to the membership. Measured malnutrition rates in LDS children in these and other countries like the Philippines and Cambodia are staggering. In the developing world, making up 49% of church membership, many LDS children are starving. Several hundred die every year, while those who survive will suffer the ill effects of their childhood hunger during a lifetime of physical and cognitive problems that reduce or prevent workforce participation, increasing the probability that future generations will find themselves in the same condition. There are poor among us—millions of them.

According to the church, fast offerings are a local program. Unlike tithing, fast offerings are not sent to headquarters to be redistributed according to need. Instead, Bishops are instructed to seek out the most needy members in the congregation and offer them assistance. When Bishops cannot find members in need, they send the excess offerings to the stake. Stake presidents are in turn instructed to send those offerings to other Bishops in the stake whose needs exceed their donations. Funds are sent to headquarters only when there is surplus at the stake level. These funds do not necessarily get used on the poor at all, as “all donations become the Church’s property and will be used at the Church’s sole discretion.”

But what about tithing? As discussed, tithing represents some $7 billion per year in member donations. How much of that is spent on caring for the poor membership of the church? The basic answer is simple: none of it. President Monson said that the church’s welfare program is funded not by tithing, but by fast offerings. Some tithing is spent on the world’s poor through the humanitarian aid program. This aid comes in the form of disaster relief supplies, not in the normal course of life. The church revealed that $1.4 billion was spent in humanitarian aid over 26 years ending in 2011. This amounts to $53.8 million per year, or 0.76% of tithing per year. Why?

Recently, a couple traveled to the Philippines in order to volunteer to help rebuild from the natural disaster they had suffered. This couple was not only shocked by the first-hand witness of the poverty of active LDS members, but noted the extra helping of irony provided by a story told in General Conference six months prior. Elder Teh told the story of a widow having paid her tithing despite having lost her family and home in the earthquake. She was forced to live in a tent and go back to work in order to afford food. This couple happened to meet the widow from Elder Teh’s story and help rebuild her house. Six months after being mentioned in conference, the widow was still homeless, and only regained housing through the actions of people outside the church.

How is it possible that modern Mormonism can speak so often about helping the poor, and yet leave so much undone? How is it that members can skip two meals a month in the name of helping the poor, raising much more money than needed to provide the necessities of life for all members who struggle, yet those members still go without? How is it that members are so incredulous when presented with this information?

If tithing and offerings are not spent on the poor, what are they spent on? The gross majority is spent annually on buildings and salaries for church officers and employees. In order to spend money on the poor, one or more of those expenses would have to be reduced or eliminated. The church therefore judges subsidized education for first world members, salaries for full time ecclesiastical officers and professionals, and the building and maintenance of chapels and temples to be more important than the lives of the poor members of the church.

The prevailing belief in the hierarchy seems to be that the only responsibility they have toward the poor LDS is to act when doing so would also improve their spirituality. As Elder Oaks expounded upon the use of the pricey ointment on Jesus.

At least some of the brethren believe that what the church spends its money on is more important than caring for the poor because, well, other Christians without “priesthood power” can attend to that. There are two significant problems with this attitude. First, God has not described the building of temples, or the building of chapels, or the operation of heavily subsidized church universities, or full time stipends for ecclesiastical ministers, or a litany of church employees as the key to bringing Zion. Instead, Zion will come when people keep God’s commandments. Caring for the poor is one of those commandments.

Building modern temples, building chapels, providing nearly free education for North American LDS, and paying thousands and thousands of employees were never given as commandments. Chapels cannot be argued to be necessary for the advancement of the gospel. Joseph did everything he did without the aid of a single chapel. Temples seem justified. But it would be a mistake to assume that their presence is always an indication of God’s approbation. Jeremiah says otherwise.

Second, if the issue is focusing on what we can do as a church that no one else can, then why spend approximately $1 billion per year on subsidizing U.S. members’ education, when the U.S. government already provides programs that put an education within reach for all North Americans? Why spend billions per year on salaries for church officers and church professional employees? Are there really no members who would teach seminary as a calling for free or volunteer legal services for free? Is there a reason these people can’t support themselves while simultaneously offering their time to the church, as did King Benjamin? It seems that the rule of prioritizing the things that only LDS can do does not explain what the church does spend its money on as much as it justifies what it does not spend its money on.

When God’s basic commandments are ignored in order to build temples, will he honor them? As Paul said, “if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Tim 5:8) We focus so much on the idea that we cannot be spiritually saved without the salvation of our dead. However, we seem to ignore that we cannot be spiritually saved without the temporal salvation of our fellow LDS. “The rich cannot be saved without Charity, giving to feed the poor when and how God requires as well as building.” (Joseph Smith, 1 May 1842, Manuscript History of the Church.) Is it the existence of the building that sanctifies it, or is it God who sanctifies it? Will he sanctify a building that is built through opposition to his commandments? As God said through Jeremiah, a temple can’t be efficacious if those who attend it oppress the poor.

It displays great hubris and hypocrisy beyond measure for modern Mormons to pray in the most holy posture to ask the Lord to hear their pleas while necessarily ignoring the pleas of the poor in order to build the temples they pray in. The Lord says through Isaiah, referring to this very act.

We also are warned about this in the Book of Mormon.

When there are yet poor among us, and we build temples instead of caring for them, we cause LDS members to die by building temples. This is perhaps of what Nephi was prophesying of when he said.

It is because of our building fine sanctuaries that we rob the poor. In other words, we rob the poor when we build fine sanctuaries, or we rob the poor in order to build fine sanctuaries. Therefore, when we go to temples and “spread forth” our hands, they are filled with the blood of those we have killed and continue to kill in order to sustain our vain worship. God does not hear such prayers, and the offerers of such prayers bring down cursing instead of blessing on their own heads through their idolatrous hypocrisy.

Ironically, the claim is sometimes made that the purpose of dotting the land with temples is to make temples accessible to the poor, who cannot afford to travel to the temples already in existence. The preference of building temples that cost many times what it would cost to alleviate poverty among members is an example of the embodiment of the church policy to focus only on the spiritual welfare of members. But again, this is not an either or scenario. The church can provide both spiritual and temporal salvation to its poor members. Proposals have been made (and rejected) to convert a cruise ship or a large airplane into a temple. Such an approach would result in a tremendous cost savings that could be allocated to the poor while also providing them with the temple ordinances.

It seems appropriate to recall that the covetousness of the Saints in being unwilling to give their time, talents, etc. to the poor was what invoked the ire of the Lord in Kirtland.

The same argument could be made about the failure to achieve Zion in Missouri and Illinois. Joseph Smith implied this was a regular problem: “God had often sealed up the heavens because of covetousness in the Church.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 9.) This begs the question of how the Lord feels with us as an institution when we have many times more wealth than these brethren in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois ever dreamed of, yet our members are so poor they are actually dying (a calamity unknown to the early Saints).

In a time of great comparative poverty the Lord said.

What would he say now, when the church has tens of billions of dollars in equity, yet has failed to build Zion? Could it be because they continue to attempt to build Zion without eradicating the plight of the poor among us?

The various handbooks instructing Bishops and Stake Presidents on administering church welfare are clear in explaining that the purpose of the church welfare program isn’t about alleviating suffering: “The bishop provides welfare assistance to members to help them develop spirituality, become self-reliant, and learn to provide for others.” Self-reliance, or the ability of a member to provide for the needs of himself and his family without outside intervention, is the keystone of modern church welfare. However, the necessary precondition for self-reliance is the economic possibility of supporting yourself and your family. Unknown to most U.S. members, including far too many in church leadership, is the fact that in many developing nations, sufficient employment does not exist—no matter your training—to meet the needs of your family. For example, in most of Guatemala, even the most industrious may only be able to find work 3 days of the week, while one day’s wages are insufficient to purchase one day’s food. The same is the case in many parts of Mexico. In Zimbabwe, there are no real employment opportunities. These situations stress the limitations of the church welfare program under the current guidelines that instruct church leaders to avoid the situation where the church is being relied upon to provide the staples of life.

Of course, the doctrines provided by God to alleviate the poor are not limited by local economic circumstances. God instructed the Saints to physically gather into one place specified by revelation. They were instructed to buy up land and donate it to the church. The church then allowed the poor to work the donated land to feed themselves. The only resource that had to be provided by the church was limited training on how to farm and welfare for those very few who were physically or mentally disabled and did not have family that could provide for them. The system as prescribed cannot be fully implemented in modern Mormonism, since the gathering was ended by fiat in the early 1900s. However, buying farms in the developing world and allowing the poor to work them in exchange for the food that is produced on them would be a much closer approximation to the Lord’s instructions that the US-centric modern welfare system. It would certainly alleviate the concerns of the Brethren who have reservations about creating a system where members are not self-reliant.

Beyond the mechanical limitations of the program in the realities of economies outside of the first world, a deeper philosophical problem exists: Why is it acceptable for church leaders to receive a comfortable and guaranteed living while it is not acceptable for the poor to do the same?

The First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, all other General Authorities, and mission presidents receive money as a result of their callings. General Authority Seventies who have reached the age of 70 continue to receive benefits until death, despite a release from their duties, despite the church’s insistence that “There is no paid or professional ministry.” Until 1995, General Authorities’ salaries came not from their ecclesiastical work, but from their membership on the boards of churchowned businesses. After 1995, when General Authorities ceased to sit on such boards, there are only two possible ways of describing the money given to them. Either they are being paid for the ministry, which is priestcraft, or they are being paid for doing nothing, which would present an awfully hypocritical situation given the persistence of avoiding giving handouts to the poor. Why is it acceptable to stress that the poor not be given assistance without working for it, when we freely give many times the welfare budget of entire stakes in each paycheck to a seventy or apostle without any work requirement?

The scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon, teach plainly that ecclesiastical officers should support themselves. Alma “...commanded them that the priests whom he had ordained should labor with their own hands for their support.” (Mosiah 18:24.). We are also told that the priests received power and authority in their teaching as a result of their not being paid to do it.

King Mosiah also adopted this law: “Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want...” (Mosiah 27:5.) Leaders in the Book of Mormon did not use their many ecclesiastical responsibilities as an excuse not to support themselves. Alma explained how he supported himself despite his litany of responsibilities as the presiding officer of both the church and the government.

Neither workload nor physical age was used as an excuse worthy of earning the people’s support by King Benjamin, who not only led the church, but ruled the secular kingdom.

Arguments supporting the church’s paying clergy it found in the Book of Mormon, but unfortunately they are offered up by apostates and anti-Christs. Nehor, for example.

These behaviors are described by Samuel the Lamanite as becoming only a false prophet.

Even if church leaders will not support themselves with their own hands, couldn’t they at least reduce their standard of living? Does the average member of the church get a new luxury car every year, have multiple homes, have personal assistants, have a cook, a gardener, or expensive suits? The royalties they receive for their books should be sufficient alone to maintain an affluent standard of living. Why do they need lavish salaries to have sufficient for their needs?

The discrepancy between the living situation of many members and the poverty of other members is reminiscent of the description Amos gave of leaders at his time living in opulence while others lived in squalor.

How can we live so opulently when billions of the inhabitants of the earth and millions of church members live in dire poverty? How can modern Mormons not be repulsed by the contrast between the fineries of church leaders and the poor half of the church?

The Lord has commanded us to be one. Until we are one, we cannot be Zion. One way we can be one is by treating all our brothers and sisters in the developing world the same way we treat those in the first world. Throughout the scriptures, the Lord commands us to do exactly that. He indicates that it would not be right to treat one group of members better than another group.

Elder Glenn L. Pace once said, “There is a state of human misery below which no Latter-day Saint should descend as long as others are living in abundance.” This is a laudatory thought. We ought to be just as concerned about those Saints in the developing world as we are the Saints in our own ward.

Jacob strongly chastened his brethren because they thought they were better than the poor among them due to their riches.

Although it is doubtful that anyone will ever self-identify as thinking they are better than others, or as treating one group differently than another, Jacob gives us a clue of how to tell: Are you familiar with all and free with your substance? Or, do you partition more of your substance to some than others? Are their qualifiers placed on your giving?

Alma taught that we suppose we “are better one than another” when we turn our “backs upon the poor, and the needy” and withhold our substance from them. He said those who do so have set their hearts upon riches.

The Lord has indicated that if we are not equal, and we do not treat others equally, that he will withhold his Spirit. “Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.” (D&C 70:14.) We ought to pay strict heed, therefore, to whether or not we treat the poor among us as well as we do the rich.

One way modern Mormons treat the poor differently than the rich is in how we spend fast offerings. Estimated at $400 million per annum, only 2% of that goes to the developing world, where almost half of members live. About 25% of members in the developing world live on less than $1.25 per day in areas where the cost of food is not very different from the United States. The issue with the manner of distributing fast offerings is that the poorest nations house both the members with the greatest financial need and the members with the least ability to donate fast offerings. Without a globally equal standard of need, Bishops instead define need based on local norms. Thus, families in Zimbabwe are turned away from the few dollars in fast offerings the Bishops there have to spend per month because hunger is not a sufficiently emergent need in Zimbabwe, while a member in the United States can easily receive $1500 per month in aid to pay his mortgage when he is laid off of work. In places like Zimbabwe, the needs far exceed the welfare budget. Because of the nearly ubiquitous unemployment, nearly the entire ward is in need. In my interviews with leaders there, Bishops told me that they rotate their assistance allotment among perhaps 3 families each month. A month’s assistance consists of perhaps a 2 lb. bag of corn flour and a bar of soap. There are no bishop’s storehouses in the developing world. There is no budget available for medical needs, as even the most minor medical need, such as a course of inexpensive antibiotic treatment for chronic diarrhea, exceeds the ward and stake welfare budgets. Although there is a codified mechanism to gain access to welfare funds beyond the ward/stake fast offerings collected, the need must be clearly recognizable as beyond the norm for the local area in order to gain the required approval of Stake President, Area President, and Presiding Bishop. Thus, there is no direct mechanism to distribute fast offerings from affluent areas such as the United States to areas of great poverty. In short, fast offerings are not designed to alleviate poverty in the church, but rather to provide short term assistance in local congregations.

Would it really be so difficult to make the welfare budget like the ward budget, where all funds go to headquarters to be redistributed globally by ward size, instead of anchoring the offerings to the unit that donated them? This would not be as advantageous as allocating welfare budgets according to global weighted need, but it would be a change that could occur overnight and would be many times more efficacious (and equitable) than the current system.

Another way modern Mormons treat the poor differently is in the excuses they use not to donate to them. The biggest excuse is self-reliance. The counsel to be self-reliant is present in every manual discussing caring for the poor. In fact, it is listed first in order of duty before actually caring for the poor in every case. Self-reliance is a mantra of church welfare. For instance.

While there is nothing wrong with helping people avoid laziness, the mantra of self-reliance is based on the assumption that it is, in fact, possible to obtain self-sufficiency in all countries. The fact is—it isn’t. The United States has been an economically productive land since it’s inception. The modern reasons for this surround the value of our currency. It is not possible for all other nations, or even a majority of nations, to enjoy the economic prosperity we do. This is why their comments about the poor sound regrettably similar to Korihor, who was an antichrist. He preached that.

Unfortunately, about half of church members (and most church leaders) are from the United States, and have never experienced real poverty. Because the only poverty they have experienced has been from those who could work but choose not to, you hear church members saying the following about the poor.

“They are poor because they don't pay tithing.” “They are poor because they keep electing corrupt governments.” “They are poor because they are lazy and won't work.”

No one who has met these poor members, visited their homes, or even heard their story could say such foolishly arrogant things. The mantra of selfreliance is one possible fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.

Here, the false accusations are those above enumerated. The false slogan is “self-reliance.” Hypocrisy includes the fact that the Brethren receive salaries without working from the church, but they say it wouldn’t be righteous to give money to the poor without their working for it. Their programs leave the hungry soul empty. The idea of requiring 10% of a poor person’s income, in contradiction to God’s word on the subject, and withholding temple worship from those who cannot comply, can only be described as malevolent and insidious.

God did not ask us only to care for certain of the poor. He did not make it conditional. In fact, if he specified any group on whom we should have mercy, he said it was those who cannot repay us, those who will never be self-reliant.

There are those who say, “well, giving to the wretchedly poor is not a permanent solution. You are just fighting the symptoms.” Yet, no parent ever looks at a baby who has just soiled their diaper and said, “I will not change them because they will just dirty the new diaper as well.” God knows that the poorest people will never cease to be poor. Yet, he commands us to be liberal even with these.

God teaches that we should not give to others based on their capacity to give back. Rather, our generosity to those who cannot repay characterizes our generosity with God. “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.” (Proverbs 19:17.)

Another way we show preference to the rich in the church today is through how we spend on education. The church's universities and the perpetual education fund provide a staggering juxtaposition. President Hinckley said that “[BYU] is the single most expensive entity funded by the tithes of the Church.” (“Out of Your Experience Here,” October 16, 1990 BYU Speeches.) While we do not know how much tithing is spent on church universities, we can infer an estimate using BYU's comparison of tuition at comparable private universities at $24,000 per year per student more than BYU tuition, or over $1 billion per year for the more than 49,000 full-time students in church universities. That comes out to $96,000 in tithing per student assuming the student graduates in 4 years, a feat only accomplished by 31% of students at BYU according to US News.

The PEF costs roughly $1,000 per completed participant. Since inception in 2001, the program has only consumed around $60 million dollars. The PEF is not a grant program. Participants are loaned the money. They are required to pay it back at a healthy interest rate. Since every penny of that money came from interest on the donations from members earmarked for the PEF, no tithing has been spent on the PEF. During that same time, roughly $13 billion dollars in tithing have been spent on church schools.

While PEF entrants are required to complete a class on finance and choose a training program for which employment is available, there are no such requirements at church universities. In fact in 2014, 46% of graduates from BYU received degrees in fields for which there is little to no employment. PEF tuition is an interest-bearing loan, not a gift, and the terms of repayment are contracted prior to receipt of the money. Meanwhile, church university students are trusted to repay the church's substantially greater investment (around 100 times greater) in them without any interest and no principle. PEF students are held to strict timelines. BYU students are not rushed in any way.

Education is quite affordable in the United States, Canada, and Europe, where government subsidies and job opportunities in sensible fields mean that tuition can be repaid within a year of graduating, even if the entire degree was financed. In most countries where the PEF is a church member’s only hope at church education assistance, there are limited or no subsidies, and financing is not available. So with the church spending 100 times more per student with no strings attached, why would any member of the church choose to go through the PEF instead of BYU? Because they can’t afford to. Acceptance rates aside, BYU costs prohibitively more for international students than for first world students. International students must not only pay tuition, room, and board at rates that are many times higher than their native countries, but they also must come up with a $4,000 to deposit into a BYU-controlled escrow account in order to be admitted, which cannot be spent for tuition, room, or board. Finally, passing the English fluency requirement is usually only possible after years of expensive English classes, something only the relatively wealthy can afford. As President Hinckley once said, the exclusion of members who wish to go to BYU but cannot is an “injustice.” Yet, neither he nor his successor have done anything to make it more fair. Simply subjecting BYU students to the same terms as the PEF would be a marked improvement.

Joseph said, “God had often sealed up the heavens because of covetousness in the Church.” (TPJS, p. 9) Is there any wonder whether the church today is covetous? Do modern Mormons treat the poor members of the church the same as they treat the rich? No wonder Jesus said, “For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:25) If such is true for a man, what of an institution?

Modern Mormonism teaches that salvation comes in and through the temple ordinances (see “Temples”). Because of this, all aspects of the church point to the temple. Financial aspects of the church are no different. Because temples are taught as necessary to salvation, and because temples cost so much to build, it is understandable that the church puts so much emphasis on the acquisition of money.

Of course, the temple model for salvation does not require the army of professionals employed by the church, nor the smaller contingent of paid ministers employed by the church (CES, General Authorities, and mission presidents). Oddly, the annual combined cost of all church employees easily exceeds the cost to build and maintain temples. To labor for money in the name of building Zion is explicitly identified by Nephi as priestcraft: “the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish” (2 Ne. 26:31).

Nephi prophesied that “the Gentiles” would do exactly these things. Though modern Mormons comfortably shrug off this prophecy to the Catholics, it is unquestionable that the church’s actions fit the bill.

Has the church built many churches? The church breaks ground on one chapel per day. Have the leaders put down the power and miracles of God?

They have preached consistently that revelation is just your feelings, that only the unrighteous seek spiritual manifestations, that spiritual gifts are often from the devil, and that, contrary to God’s word on the subject, one should not actually seek the face of Jesus in this life.

Have the leaders “preached up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning?” They have truly set themselves up as the light of the world, proclaiming that revelation can’t be from God if it disagrees with them, that we should trust in them for salvation, that their opinions should be accepted as God’s word, and that a man’s allegiance to Christ is measured by his allegiance to them.

But have these teachings been demonstrably for the purpose of getting gain at the expense of the poor? If a poor man can obtain salvation directly from Christ, he does not need to worry about selling his house or working away from his family for years in order to obtain salvific ordinances from the church while the rich can obtain it without any such sacrifice. If a poor man can obtain salvation directly from Christ, he doesn’t have to go without food, medicine, or shelter to pay 10% of his already insufficient income to the church in order to finance ornate temples and luxury living standards for church employees. Turning the people away from Christ and towards themselves in order to maintain their dependence upon them is a literal fulfillment of 2Nephi 26:20, and it is particularly harmful to the poor, whose sacrifices to maintain membership in the system must far exceed that of the rich.

Therefore, there is no doubt that the following lament lays squarely upon the leaders of modern Mormonism as much as any other group.

The change of tithing from a one-time consecration with 10% of annual surplus thereafter to 10% of annual income with no consecration of surplus was a change made by fiat with the intent to bring in more money. Because God gave no revelation to change his standing law forever (D&C 119), this was and is a transfiguration of the holy word of God.

Changes to align church policy more closely to God’s revealed word would not need to be drastic (though many church employees would lose high paying jobs). For example, the church is already buying massive tracts of farmland. Would it be that much of a change to buy it in the developing world instead of the United States, and give poor members the opportunity to farm their own food? Simply by moving these land holdings to the developing world, the church could save millions of church members from poverty.

Other, more drastic changes, would be needed to bring about complete compliance with God’s word. He doesn’t provide a mechanism for priestcraft or for a for-profit church. He doesn’t provide for a way to have both rich and poor members.

He did not say, “my way is that the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor.” The way he has appointed is that the money flow from the rich to the poor. If this is true of individuals, should it not be true of the church itself? Does God approve of a rich church whose members are still poor?

In the end, it is abundantly clear that the model of the church is that salvation comes in and through temples and the paid personnel of the church, and therefore the objective of the church is to gain as much money as possible in order to finance the temple-church employee complex because, under this model, the more money gained, the more souls can be saved. As a result, the poor are disproportionately deprived of welfare that would otherwise be their due under the gospel, and also disproportionately deprived of the little they have as a result of priestcraft. While the church decides against proselyting activities that will only add poor members to the church, such as baptizing thousands of Africans who have petitioned for missionaries, the church infrastructure is filled with entities whose sole purpose is to get gain.

The article goes on to list Ensign Peak Advisors, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund whose sole purpose is to invest money for the church. Since this article was published, the church has accelerated the acquisition of real estate holdings, including the construction of a luxury apartment complex on the site of the new Philadelphia temple.

In the end, the following criticism from Moroni seems to fit well.

An undisclosed amount of church offerings are invested. For example, all donations to the perpetual aid fund are invested. Awards are made in the form of interest-bearing loans out of the interest on the principle endowment. Similarly, church leaders have built what they call a “rainy day” fund in the anticipation of a drop in tithes significant enough to disrupt the regular financial obligations of the church (salaries and rents). Michael Purdy, church spokesman, said.

In defense of this position, President Hinckley taught.

In this same talk he explained that.

We do not know what this fixed percentage is. However, we know at least some of the things that have been purchased as part of the rainy day fund.

Stocks. Ensign Peak Advisors is an investment company owned by the church. It’s sole mission is to invest church money. Ensign Peak Advisors employee Laurence R. Stay told the Deseret News in 2006 that “billions of dollars change hands every day.”

Real estate. In recent history, the church has accelerated its acquisition of real estate holdings. The City Creek Center, whose costs exceeded a billion dollars, joins with the construction of a large luxury apartment complex in Philadelphia and increases in ranch holdings in Florida. To date, the church owns more ranch land in the United States than any other private entity. It owns a chunk of Florida the size of Rhode Island in addition to large ranches in California, Utah, Nebraska, and Hawaii.

The rainy day fund seems like a good idea on the surface. Just as Joseph stored excess grain in times of surplus, the church can save up money and land in order to use it for good in a time of scarcity. Yet, the money is not surplus. We are surrounded both in and out of the church with those who do not have sufficient food to eat. This is not surplus money—this is money that is optionally assigned to investment rather than fulfilling the needs of the poor, including active LDS poor. We are taking food out of the mouths of members in order to invest it for future use. The question is, future use for whom? If the money comes from ignoring the plight of the poor in the developing world, is it any doubt that the proceeds will not be spent on the developing world?

The rainy day fund is respect of persons. It is saving for the benefit of members in the United States at the expense of international members. As with chapels, temples, and universities, it is another example of how the church treats developing world members differently than those in the United States.

The rainy day fund is a curious program when compared with the scriptures. It is based on many assumptions that are anti-scriptural. When needed, leaders assume that.

Money will still exist. God says it will not. “Your silver and gold will be thrown into the streets like garbage, because those are the two things that led you into sin, and now they cannot save you from my anger. They are not even worth enough to buy food.” (Ezekiel 7:19, CEV.) The stock market will persist. In light of recent regular crashes of the stock market in response to comparatively minor events, this is ludicrous even without considering relevant scriptural prophecies that suggest otherwise. Transportation mechanisms will still exist. God says they will not. “The highways are desolate, travel is at an end.” (Isaiah 33:8) Civil law and order will be sufficient to protect and distribute the goods. Isaiah says it will not.

Even if God approved of the idea of a rainy day fund, the likelihood that it will be of use when the events God has promised come to pass is essentially zero. All the stockpiled wealth will disappear in an instant, and the stored material goods will be mobbed by local vandals.

The Lord taught amply that his disciples were to give what they had to the poor, not store it up for themselves in a latter time of need.

In Luke 12:33-34, Jesus gives us an idea of treasure in heaven when he says.

Where is modern Mormonism's treasure? Is there any doubt that the heart of modern Mormonism is to be found in Babylon, where its treasure lies? It is certainly not to be found in alms to the poor.

The business model of investing to then later spend a share of whatever profits may come is antithetical to the model the Savior employed while on the earth. He took a boy's few loaves and fishes and distributed them among the hungry. After receiving all the crowd had to give, he made it enough to meet their needs. Their needs were met through faith in God and not security in the bank.

The Lord spoke derisively of those who would build bigger barns to store their amassed wealth instead of caring for the poor.

Let us remember that God has promised widespread destruction at our doors. Any one of these prophesied calamities will render our bigger barns worthless. Isaiah predicted that, in our day, the presiding officers of Ephraim would be drunk on delusion and craft a plan to avoid the suffering to precede the second coming not by righteousness, but by creating secret refuges.

The Lord told Isaiah that the leaders' attempts at avoiding the punishment coming would fail. This isn't surprising to anyone who has read the scriptures. Is a cattle ranch any good when darkness covers the earth for a long time? Will food deposits do anyone any good when God has taken our modern transportation away, or when men are encompassed by plague? Does it not go without saying that real estate holdings and stock market equities will be worthless when Babylon is fallen? The church may claim to preach the gospel, but it certainly does make decisions predicated upon its truthfulness. The only way these programs make any rational sense is if you completely ignore the fact that there are people who are dying now because of lack of very cheap intervention and you believe that the Lord delays his coming (see Matthew 24:48). Not only are we neglecting our brothers and sisters in Christ in order to build bigger barns, but we are building the barns knowing full well they will not be accessible when the prophesied destruction is poured out.

At the time of destruction, it will be righteousness (giving to the poor) and not storage (rainy day fund) that will save.

This covenant with death will surely fail, and when it does, the repercussion will be that God will not hear the cries of those who oppressed the poor in order to set up security for their own time of need. “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.” (Proverbs 21:13.)

And again.

And again.

And again.

The Lord's “rainy day” plan is to give to the poor—now—in whatever way we can.

Then, and only then, we will have a right to call on him for protection when the destruction comes, not as slothful servants who ignored his commission and counted on his prolonged absence, but as faithful stewards who anticipated his return.

Modern Mormons would do well to heed Mormon's warning to them, having seen our day.

While it is quite repugnant that the church withholds assistance to the poor who have no opportunity to work in the name of self reliance while giving salaries to General Authorities and Mission Presidents, it would be well if that were the only problem in the matter. What is more egregious still is that the doctrine of tithing has been modified to enable the extraction of money from the poor.

As detailed earlier, God states in D&C 119 and JST Gen 14 that tithing consists of 1) a one-time donation of all surplus property to God’s representative, and 2) an annual payment of one tenth of net income.

In today’s church, there is no mechanism for or instruction to give a one-time donation of all surplus property. There is instruction, however, to pay one tenth of one’s gross annual income, instead of one tenth of one’s net income.

As God said in D&C 119, and as is confirmed by the consistency of the law given to Abraham and that given through Joseph Smith, tithing as revealed in D&C 119 is to be a standing law forever. God himself said that it would not change. So how did modern Mormons come to practice a different law?

It is apparent that during Joseph’s life, the law was lived as written. The church newspaper featured an article that said.

Another contemporary source reads.

Less than two months after Joseph’s death, the brethren issued a proclamation demanding a one time payment of 1/10th of members’ property to the church, without exemptions for those who had already done so per D&C 119. That started an incessant shift to tithing as it is practiced today. In 1873, Orson Hyde preached that tithing was 1/10 of your income, instead of 1/10 of your surplus. In 1874, Orson Pratt preached that tithing was separate from the initial consecration commanded in D&C 119. In 1892, Joseph F. Smith publicly taught that tithing ought to be paid before the necessities of life. In 1899, Lorenzo Snow ended the practice of an initial consecration. In 1910, tithing on one’s income became a requirement to enter the temple.

As the Lord said through Ezekiel.

Today, the church constantly preaches that individuals must pay 10% of their gross income in order to consider themselves full tithe payers, and that this payment should come even if it means one cannot pay their bills.

This policy is obviously much more difficult for the poor than for the rich. The rich are no longer required to make a one-time consecration of their surplus. The church commands the poor to give what little they have to finance expenditures not authorized by God and for which the poor receive nothing on the one hand, and then refuses to support the poor on the other. All the while, the Brethren themselves do not work. Is it any question what Jesus would say about this, when he said the following about the rulers in his day?

Is it any wonder whether the church today is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy?

The leaders of ancient Israel treated the poor the same as the church does today. God called their actions “manifold transgressions” and “mighty sins.” He promised their destruction as a result. In Micah, God promises that leaders who neglect the poor will not have visions, prophecies, or answers to prayers, causing one to wonder whether the church’s neglect of the poor today might have something to do with the lack of prophecy, visions, and revelations from those who are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

As God said through Micah, it is as if leaders think that they can build Zion with the blood of the poor extracted through wresting the law of tithing, all while teaching the gospel for money. And yet, the leaders do claim that the Lord is among them, and that no evil can come upon them. The following two passages of scriptures are necessary reading on the topic, though they will be presented without commentary.

The Lord explained that the reason the Saints in Joseph’s day failed to attain Zion was because of their institutional neglect of the poor.

Notice how the Lord was explicitly saying this was not a problem with individuals, but with the church organization itself.

When the institution is failing to care for the poor, who is at fault? Certainly not individual members, who are donating substantial sums to the organization every year. The Lord said.

It is the leaders' responsibility to distribute the offerings given from the people to the poor. Ironically, the oft-quoted passage from Malachi used to chide poor members into paying 10% of their gross income to the church is actually directed towards the very priests who quote it. It is they who are robbing God by refusing to spend tithing and offerings on the poor.

The church leaders are commanded today to.

Are they? How can we be the Lord's church if he wouldn’t even call us his disciples? Jesus said that “a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven....It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:23-24.) If a rich man can’t get into the Celestial Kingdom, can a rich church ever become Celestial? Can a rich church ever bring forth Zion?

We are told in the Book of Mormon that if we do not care for the poor, God will not hear our prayers.

Perhaps this is one reason there is a drought of the word of God among the leadership of the church. Isaiah instructs us how we can again begin to receive institutional revelation. He notes how we pray to the Lord consistently and observe the rituals of our religion, as if we were doing the things we are meant to do. Yet, the Lord does not speak to us.

And he won’t, until we repent and care for the poor.

The Lord expects the church to take care of the poor, but he does not find that happening. As Isaiah prophesied.

Today, as an institution, we commit the same sins for which Sodom was destroyed.

Do you expect the Lord to deal with us any differently than he did Sodom?

In General Conference of April 2011, the Presiding Bishop said.

If true, how far the church has fallen in only 100 years.

Of course, we can still repent. How would the Lord have us repent? He has already told us: “Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” Will the church do this, or will it go “away sorrowful: for [it] had great possessions”? (Matthew 19:21.)

When Zion does come, it will come to the same type of people it always has: those with all things in common.

That people will not oppress the poor by manipulating tithing to take the little they have. That people will not treat members from the developing world differently than first world members by providing them second rate education programs and withholding the welfare program from them. That people will not pay their leaders to preach the word. That people will not engage in extensive for-profit business to get gain. That people will not be lying as they sing, “We've shared our bread with those in need, Relieved the suffring poor. The stranger we have welcomed in—Wilt thou impart thy store?” (“Bless Our Fast, We Pray,” Hymn 138.)

That people will be Zion.

The Preeminence of Joseph Smith’s Teachings

In the conference center at BYU there is a hallway adorned with portraits of the presidents of the church. The portraits include key developments from each president's tenure. President Lee's portrait includes a big book that says, “PRIESTHOOD CORRELATION.” President G. Smith's portrait has a Boy Scout medal. Gordon B. Hinckley's portrait has the Huntsman jet on it and a satellite dish. President Monson's has a printing press and some pigeons. The first painting, that of the prophet Joseph Smith, features only a portrayal of the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

Perhaps the artist did not think the Doctrine and Covenants was not significant. Or the many visitations of heavenly beings to Joseph. Or the revelation that informed us that God once was a man. Or the revelation of the three kingdoms. I can completely understand that, for someone like David O. McKay, the lack of significant developments during his tenure would necessitate a space occupier like a picture of his childhood home. I would expect the opposite problem with Joseph, that of not having enough space and needing to be selective. But one thing? God said that Joseph Smith was his spokesman to our generation. He was and is a really big deal.

Joseph was appointed to hold the keys of this dispensation. The Lord told him.

God told Joseph that his keys would not be taken from him until the Second Coming.

God said that our dispensation would receive his word through Joseph: “But this generation shall have my word through you;” (D&C 5:11.)

God gave the church a very singular commandment regarding Joseph, telling them to treat his words as God's own.

This was an exceedingly rare thing for God to say. There are no scriptures that indicate he's ever said it to anyone else. God also said that Joseph was the only one appointed to receive commandments and revelations for the church.

God told the church officers that it was Joseph's words that they should preach: “my servants, whom I shall call and ordain...shall go forth with my words that are given through you.” (D&C 5:11.)

Every promise listed here was made to Joseph. It was not made to the office of the president of the church, and it was not promised to the successors of Joseph. Perhaps knowing this would be the case, God instructed that “there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations” except Joseph Smith and those appointed “through him,” and that “ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments.” (D&C 43:1-7.) In spite of the clarity of these verses, modern Mormonism allocates what God said to Joseph to all other presidents of the church. It is important to note that we have no record of God doing so.

In a revelation recorded in D&C 124, the Lord said.

The prerogative of Joseph (by name) and his counselors (appointed by name) was to receive oracles —answers from God to questions pertaining to the whole church. The prerogative of the twelve, designed as an independent and equal quorum and not a subordinate feeder pool for the First Presidency, was not to receive answers to questions, but to preach the gospel outside of the stakes of Zion. To Joseph, oracles were revelations, not revelators. Joseph was told that through him the oracles would be given to the church.

Importantly, Joseph was told that the answers God had provided through him to questions regarding doctrine and church administration would be passed on, not the ability to receive oracles. This distinction is critical to understanding the importance of what God provided through Joseph.

Joseph’s dispensation was a body of oracles, not a perpetual process to receive oracles. An understanding of that fact places an inexpressible importance on the revelations Joseph received. Inasmuch as we ignore, misinterpret, or replace the oracles given by Joseph, we cut ourselves off from the kingdom of God and the blessings offered through the restoration.

The issue of succession is too complex to address here. Suffice it to say that Brigham Young’s succession victory over Sidney Rigdon at the hand of a majority public vote should not be viewed in the same light as the appointments that were made to the First Presidency during Joseph’s life. Every single one of the ten appointments to the First Presidency in Joseph’s life were made through explicit written commandment from God. The same applies for appointments to the Twelve. In none of the many appointments to the First Presidency during Joseph’s life did God select a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. The Quorum of the Twelve was not treated as a feeder pool for the First Presidency. Apostles had special jurisdiction limited to areas where stakes had not been organized. Their authority was equal (but separate) to that of a Stake President’s (see D&C 107).

It is rather odd that a God who thought it necessary to vocally enumerate each member of these quorums from heaven would suddenly make two radical changes: First, to the order of their appointment, as the Quorum of the Twelve was selected to lead the church by self-suggestion and a majority vote of the church; Second, to fill the office of the presidency of the high priesthood with members of a lower priesthood office—that of apostle—without an ordination to the higher office (Brigham Young was never ordained to be president of the church).

Brigham Young did not preside as the president of the church, but as the president of the quorum of the Twelve, the office which continues to preside over the church today, a role it has never been given in revelation. Prior to and up to Joseph’s death, the Twelve had no priesthood authority within any organized stake of the church. They could not organize a new stake, nor ordain anyone within an organized stake. They did not have the authority to call any stake presidents, any stake patriarch, the presiding patriarch, or even replacements to their quorum. Yet, somehow, they considered themselves to possess the authority to do all this and more at the moment of Joseph’s death.

Knowing all this, does an apostle (even one sitting as church president) have the authority to receive revelation that supersedes that received by Joseph Smith, a President of the High Priesthood ordained by God’s commandment? Joseph Smith said.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that no man, no matter his office, has the authority to teach doctrines that conflict with Joseph’s revelations.

If we are to believe and listen to God’s instructions, Joseph’s teachings ought to hold preeminence in Mormonism. They ought to be considered of chief importance. God’s words through Joseph are to us. They ought to be studied. They ought to be heeded.

Through Moses, a covenant was given to Israel It consisted of commandments and promises contingent on keeping them. While the full weight of God’s blessings cannot be obtained without a covenant from him, neither can the full weight of his wrath. Christians mistakenly think that the God of the Old Testament was more severe than the God of the New Testament. In reality, the curses that fell upon those who disobeyed God in the Old Testament were a consequence of breaking the covenant given from God through Moses. The New Testament does not contain the consequences of the people rejecting the new covenant offered through Christ, with the exception of the couple that disobeyed the law of consecration after having received it. The consequence for the general rejection of the covenant came after the conclusion of the accounts, and was every bit as horrific as anything in the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New, and he will consistently treat all who disobey a received covenant with the degree of penalty observed in the past.

There is a consequence of breaking a covenant.

This was well-understood in ancient times, as evidenced by the fact that the Nephites would allow their mortal enemies to escape unharmed if they swore a covenant that they would not return to fight again. Every time God extends a covenant, he also extends a cursing if the conditions are not met. For example, when God dispensed the gospel to Israel through Moses with a covenant, he said.

We see the results of the cursing played out in the death penalty and similarly steep consequences prescribed in the law of Moses. For example, in Ezekiel we read that the Pharaoh would be taken captive, beg for his life, and yet all his company would be destroyed, all as a consequence of breaking a covenant.

Jeremiah provided an example of the issuance of a covenant from God to the people and the consequence of their breaking it.

The principle of penalties for breaking a covenant are in just as much force today as they ever were in the past. This used to be taught in the temple with prescribed penalties for breaking the covenant of the dispensation of the gospel given to Joseph Smith.

One way we can break covenants is through changing ordinances. God has clearly expressed that no man—not even a church leader—has the right to change ordinances. In Malachi 1, the Lord blasts the priests for having changed the ordinances he had revealed to them.

The Lord states that, because they modified his ordinances, he would not bless them (verse 9), he would not accept their offerings (verse 10), and he would take the covenant from them and give it to another people (verse 11). The Lord always punishes those who have broken a covenant through changing the ordinances.

The sons of Eli changed the ordinances, and took greater than their portion from that which was dedicated to the Lord. In addition, through their syphoning off of the offering, they made the people loathe giving their offerings.

As we learn from the account of the sons of Eli, one consequence of changing the ordinances is that it trains men to “abhor the offering of the Lord” because they fail to receive God’s blessings despite their religious practice, as God does not bless men for conducting adulterated ordinances.

Isaiah described that the latter day people would change the ordinances and reject the covenant.

In the past, God unleashed terrible punishments upon those who rejected a covenant once offered. Will an unchanging God treat this generation any differently? “For thus saith the Lord God; I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant.” (Ezekiel 16:59.)

King Benjamin taught that his people were preserved from “dwindl[ing] in unbelief” because they had read and understood the scriptures. (Mosiah 1:5.) He defined unbelief as 1) not knowing what the scriptures say, 2) not believing what the scriptures say when you are taught them, and 3) allowing incorrect traditions to overrule what the scriptures say. Those who do not obtain, read, and understand the words God revealed to Joseph are dwindling in unbelief. They are in a state where they 1) do not know what God revealed through Joseph, 2) do not believe what God revealed through Joseph when someone teaches them, and 3) have replaced what God revealed through Joseph with false traditions.

In the church today, do we know what God revealed through Joseph? How many members have read “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith?” How many have read “Words of Joseph Smith”? How many study “The Joseph Smith Papers”? Do we fare any better as an institution? How do leaders regard Joseph’s teachings? Do they revere them as primal, or do they relegate them to history? How many times are his words taught in manuals or General Conference? Instead, we are warned not to pay attention to the differences between what he taught and what we are taught today. We are taught that only what is taught by today’s leaders is important.

Joseph Smith taught that it is not a light thing for God to reveal his word to men.

We have been taught what happens when we neglect to heed the light and truth that God dispenses.

To the degree we ignore or disobey God’s word as revealed through Joseph, we will degrade in our understanding of the truth and be cut off from the blessings associated with a higher law.

God commanded the Latter-day Saints to give head to Joseph’s words and warned them not to replace God-given revelations to Joseph with pretended revelations.

In the church today, we do just that (see “Prophet: Title or Description?”).

The Saints in Joseph’s day had already begun to take lightly the revelations God had given them. God said of them.

If this was said then, what must God think of today, when we have unprecedented access to God’s word through Joseph Smith, yet probably know it less than any of those who came before us?

Joseph’s special commission as the head of this dispensation was not without substance. As is the case with all dispensation heads, Joseph was given special experiences with heaven that provided him with uncommon knowledge about the gospel. His experiences were described well in an editorial he wrote for the “Evening and Morning Star”.

Joseph's life and teachings are perhaps the most proximate resource we have in getting to know Jesus. In order to draw closer to Jesus, you have to know him. And yet, Jesus is not wholly accessible. What the world knows about him is limited to the little contained in the Bible. He comes to those who seek him without limitation, but seeking him requires us to already know him, to an extent, creating a paradox. The role of true witnesses is that they serve as signposts along the way. Joseph Smith interfaced more with Jesus than any man we know of after his mortal ministry. While Peter, James, and John may have spent more time with him, their contributions to our understanding of him are limited in volume and subject to a host of factors that dilute their effect. These include cultural and historical context that is unfamiliar to us, as well as limitations in translation and preservation. In Joseph Smith we find a more proximate example of a saved man than, say, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. While we have very scant information on the life of the patriarchs, we have an almost constant record of Joseph's later life: not just of the spiritual high points, but of the seemingly mundane events. With these accounts we have many firsthand accounts of those who observed him in his day-to-day life, providing exterior frames of reference. We also have, of course, a very large body of recorded revelation that reveals much more doctrinally about God when placed in the context of the events surrounding them.

How much time do people in the church, from the president of the high priesthood down to the newest member, spend searching out the words of Joseph Smith—the words God gave him to deliver? What proportion of their time is spent on that source compared to others? It is odd that we would sing “Praise to the Man” while simultaneously completely ignoring what that man actually taught, not to mention that which God has commanded us to study.

It is beyond dispute that Joseph possessed the ability to ask and receive the oracles of God. In D&C 77 we have an example of how Joseph could ask God questions and receive categorical answers. For example, he asks (about John’s vision in the Book of revelation) “What are we to understand by the eyes and wings, which the beasts had?” In response, the Lord says, “Their eyes are a representation of light and knowledge, that is, they are full of knowledge; and their wings are a representation of power, to move, to act, etc.” (D&C 77:4.) What was a routine process for Joseph in obtaining revelation on seemingly any question is markedly absent from the experience of modern Mormons. Who among us today can ask questions like these questions and receive answers to them?

Modern Mormon leaders do not share the same experiences Joseph had. They do not have the visions Joseph had. They do not have the revelations Joseph had. They have not displayed the ability to ask questions and receive answers from God. Joseph was a dispensation head. Through him God revealed the gospel of Jesus Christ. Because of this, we can use the scriptures and the words of Joseph to vet modern teachings. John Taylor wrote.

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught.

When a man teaches that they have the authority to overrule revelation given through Joseph Smith, you can “set him down as an imposter.” When a man teaches that he is a higher authority than scripture, you can “reject what he has said, no matter who he is.” God’s word does not have an expiration date. What he said at any time in the past is just as valid today as it was then.

When there is a difference between what Joseph taught and what is taught today, you will have to decide who you will believe: the man who communed with Jehovah, through whom God said he would speak, who— though he be taken—would leave to us God’s oracles, or the man who says he stands above Joseph, yet who cannot speak of any of the same experiences, of whom God has not testified, who contradicts God’s words by saying that they are no longer valid, but without offering any revelations to back up the claim. When men pray for a revelation that contradicts what God already said through Joseph, you can be sure they will not receive it. When doctrines taught by Joseph Smith are removed from the doctrines of the church, you will have to decide who knows better: Joseph Smith, who received it from God, or a group of men who find that Joseph’s doctrine contradicts their tradition.

Some men teach that the words of a living prophet are more important than those of a dead one. God commissioned Jeremiah to provide an interesting test to a group of people called the Rechabites. God said.

God seemed very pleased that the Rechabites had preserved the commandment they had received for generations, and he blessed them for it. He also cursed those who had ignored the commandments received from prophets from generations past. That Zechariah preached the principle of the persistence of God’s word suggests this is a standing doctrine.

The past prophets hold just as much authority today as they did in their day. God’s word does not have an expiration date. If there is a contradiction between former prophets and current prophets, we must analyze the source of each message. In 1 Kings 13 we read of a prophet who was commanded of God to fast for a prescribed time. As the LDS chapter heading states, he was “led astray by a prophet” who convinced him to disobey the original commandment, claiming God had told given him a new commandment that overruled the previous one. God destroyed the deceived prophet, who refused to analyze the source of the new, contradictory commandment or ask God about it before accepting it. When men claiming to be prophets encourage us to act contrary to God’s commandments given by the former prophets, we are obligated to ask God to detect if we are being led astray, as was the deceived prophet in 1 Kings 13. Only then will we be taking measures to avoid substituting the philosophies of men mingled with scripture for the word of God received by the former prophets. Nephi warned that.

Joseph Smith possesses a unique claim as the head of the dispensation, the source of God’s word to this generation. As long as this dispensation stands, any “living prophet” ought to preach in favor of—not contradict—God’s dispensation of the gospel through Joseph Smith. True messengers contradict—not invent—false traditions, restoring teachings to their original, undefiled state. Their teachings should not contradict scripture, but support it.

Through Ezekiel, God summarized his relationship with the Israelites to that point. He said.

This passage serves as a fitting analog to the behavior of modern Israel in how they have treated the revelations of Joseph, and God’s response to them because of it.

The task of Joseph’s successors was to teach what Joseph gave them. How well they have or continue to do so is an open question. Joseph said “...if any man preach any other gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed...” (Joseph Smith, Historical Record 7:548.)

A brief survey of milestones in the administrations of Joseph Smith’s successors punctuates some of the very many differences in the gospel of modern Mormonism and the gospel restored by Joseph Smith. Brigham Young made plural marriage a general practice, created first presidency succession from the twelve, subjugated the authority of stake presidents, the seventy, and patriarchs to the twelve, banned blacks from having the priesthood, began the practice of ordaining children as teachers, deacons, and priests, created Adam-God doctrine and blood atonement. I am not aware of changes John Taylor made. Wilford Woodruff revoked the law of adoption, invented white temple clothing, and had the interesting experiences of receiving a revelation saying polygamy would never end, then a revelation that said it had ended, all without actually ending it. Lorenzo Snow changed the law of tithing, removing the initial consecration. In his defense, he saw that this was necessary to spur dwindling tithing receipts due to the continual abuse of asking for additional consecrations exercised by Brigham Young and others over the years when funds were low. Joseph F. Smith mandated the use of the word of wisdom as a commandment with some exceptions for the elderly and new converts, changed the sacrament ordinance from using wine to water, and ended plural marriage by fiat. Heber J. Grant modified the garment, significantly changed the endowment and changed the way men were ordained. George A. Smith issued a letter saying Brigham Young’s priesthood ban was a direct commandment from God without any evidence that it was. David O. McKay revoked the commandment to gather and began the building of many temples, mostly to keep members in their home countries. Joseph Fielding Smith created many volumes of writings containing the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, many of which the church has subsequently disavowed. Harold B. Lee created correlation, a program whose consequences are beyond what can be discussed here. Spencer W. Kimball modified the garment, reversed Brigham Young’s priesthood ban, refuted Adam-God doctrine, taught missionaries sales tactics, ended practice of the true order of prayer outside of temples, and removed the office of presiding patriarch. Ezra Taft Benson and Howard W. Hunter were incapacitated for most of their presidencies. Gordon B. Hinckley significantly modified the endowment ceremony as a result of surveys showing dissatisfaction with the contents and modified the structure and function of the seventies quorums. So far, Thomas S. Monson has modified the endowment ceremony and changed the classification of homosexual desires from a sin to acceptable.

The successors of Joseph Smith have ignored his oracles, and claimed his authority in spite of not receiving more revelation. Modern leaders not only fail to claim new revelation, but they claim that new revelation is not important.

Joseph once directed the following to the Apostles and members.

Would Joseph consider that those claiming to be his successors have remained true and faithful to what God revealed through him? Would he judge them faithful to the revelations of God? To the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants? Or, would he find that they have betrayed him and God by replacing, adding to, and removing the revelations for the commandments of men, as Jeremiah prophesied.

The figurative cisterns that hold the commandments of men are broken because their contents are not sound: they always change.

God is testing us to see how completely we will live his commandments as given through Joseph Smith. Individuals will only be taught the revelations in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon as we hearken unto what we have already received, which is currently hid up because of our unbelief in what God has revealed to us already.

God punished the Israelites with the removal of the higher blessings of the covenant when they rejected the covenant offered through Moses.

If, as a church, we have rejected the covenant offered by God through Joseph, what is our condition?

The Gospel of Christ

Joseph said that “a man could get nearer to God by abiding by [the Book of Mormon's] precepts, than by any other book.” (DHC 4:461.) The Book of Mormon and other restoration scriptures clearly lay out what the authors of the respective books label “the doctrine of Christ.” For example, Nephi writes.

According to Nephi, the gospel of Christ begins with repentance, baptism by water, and baptism by fire.

Nephi teaches that while baptism by water and fire are events, faith and repentance are processes—they must be practiced throughout life. Nephi teaches that we must continue to practice faith and repentance until God says to us that we have obtained eternal life.

Nephi is clear that there is no other version of the doctrine of Christ, and no other pathway to salvation.

Although much could be said about faith, we focus on the overarching purpose of faith: obtaining eternal life. We learn from Joseph that “faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen, and the principle of action in all intelligent beings.” (Lectures on Faith 1:9.) From Paul we learn that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17.) If we put these two statements together, we see that faith is believing in God's word enough to act on it. It requires, first, the receipt of God’s word, and second, action. As an example, a person exercises faith in baptism by hearing God's instruction about baptism, then repenting and being baptized, believing he will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost as promised.

Faith, then, is not mere belief, nor can it be exercised on commandments of men that are incorrectly assumed or purported to be God’s word. When men understand faith as mere belief, or when they attempt to exercise it on commandments of men, they engage in vain religion; their efforts will never bring them closer to God. At best, they distract them from those actions that would bring about salvation. At worst, they move away from God through beliefs and actions that are antithetical to the gospel of Christ.

Repentance means simply to move closer to God. It is to rid oneself of error in belief, or sin in action, through the acquisition of and reconciliation to knowledge from God. Repentance is not a matter of beginning a checklist of actions while omitting another checklist of actions. One must align their whole soul to Christ, which requires not only a reconciliation to one’s current understanding of God’s will, but to anything he might reveal to the individual in the future.

Note that here Jesus did not say “he that doeth what he believes to be the will of my Father.” Instead, he said he who does the actual will of God. Getting to know God is very different than completing a checklist of actions. It requires persistent revelation to acquire knowledge of what God is like and what he actually wants. That’s why Moses, despite being fully committed to God, came away from a conversation with him in such shock, having learned things he never would have supposed. The frequency of our surprise at the difference between what we thought we knew of God and his commandments and what he is currently teaching us through personal revelation is a good indication of our degree of repentance.

Many mistakenly believe that repentance is about desire and willpower. They believe that men sin either because they don’t want to abstain from sin, or they don’t have enough will to abstain from sin. This is, in reality, a distraction from the real problem. There is a reason that one main purpose of our mortal probation is to learn to distinguish between truth and error: it is difficult!

Our failure to choose what is true is almost always due to ignorance, not a lack of willpower. Human beings are rational beings. As we acquire knowledge, we act according to it. Our misconception that sin comes from a lack of willpower is tied to our misunderstanding of faith (see the definition above). When we acquire knowledge from God, and we have faith in him, we act according to that knowledge. If we act contrary to it, it is most often because we don’t really believe it. Therefore, our understanding has not become real knowledge, but is still merely belief. Acting against something you honestly know is so rare that it is called the unpardonable sin. Those in sin do not lack will power, they either lack knowledge, faith, or both. Those who spend their efforts to repent in willpower-gaining exercises will not make the same progress of those who recognize repentance as knowledge acquisition. Even those with incredible will power have moments of weakness, because will power is not constant. Knowledge, however, does not wane except through disobedience. If will power could make a man perfect, knowledge would not be required for salvation. But knowledge is required for salvation, and it is the key to repentance.

In the days of Alma there were a significant number of members who were sinning exceedingly. They were so wicked that “there were many witnesses against them; yea, the people stood and testified of their iniquity in abundance.” (Mosiah 26:9.) In response to Alma’s query about what to do about these people, God said that he retains the role of judge to decide who it is that is forgiven, since he is the one who paid the price.

God then gives Alma the answer to his question of what to do with members in sin. It is as powerful as it is simple.

God teaches plainly that if a man confesses and says they repent, they are to be forgiven immediately. Perhaps anticipating the innovation of stigmatic statuses (disfellowshipped, etc.), he gives only a binary status: a member of his church, or not. Perhaps anticipating the innovation of a prescribed one year waiting period for those whose status has changed, he identifies the switching between the two as instantaneous. To put some weight behind it, he says that those who do not accept the person's statement of repentance “hath brought himself under condemnation.” It is important to note that Alma immediately implemented these instructions. When we see the application of statuses beyond “member” and “non-member” or waiting periods associated with repentance, we ought to realize that these are innovations never defined in God’s word.

This understanding has implications for baptism. God never ordained a baptismal interview, and never prescribed most if not all of the baptismal requirements printed in “Preach My Gospel”. Jesus laid out the requirement for pre-baptismal repentance in crystal clarity, as well as providing a curse for any that modify that definition.

The use of the word “atonement” has come into vogue in modern Mormonism. We “apply” the atonement, and even “apply it generously,” as if it were soap. We “embrace the atonement” as if were a person. We “use” the atonement, as if were a tool. Yet, our subjects and verbs are erroneous. It is Jesus who forgives us, period. We do not apply his sacrifice, rather we apply to him, and he has power by virtue of his sacrifice to forgive us. We do not embrace the atonement. We embrace Jesus, through the veil, and receive greater light and knowledge that allows us to overcome sin and, in this life, re-enter his presence to embrace him face-to-face. We do not use his sacrifice. Rather, we emulate his example in sacrificing. Jesus saves us, not his atonement.

Modern Mormonism not only personifies Jesus’ action as its own entity, but it also transfigures it into mainstream Christianity’s “saved by Grace” construct. In place of Christianity’s simplistic “confessing Jesus,” modern Mormons “must accept the atonement.” Like a laundry machine, the church takes the sinner, puts him into the atonement, adds a sprinkling of “saving ordinances,” rotates him through a few years in good standing in the church doing his best, and out comes a Saint!

The limiting factor in repentance is not obtaining forgiveness! God has already paid the price. Forgiveness is given instantly whenever it is asked for. The limiting factor is acquiring and applying new knowledge so that the sinner forsakes sin permanently. It is incorrect to teach or believe that God will admit into salvation any that have not yet become like him. Obtaining forgiveness of one’s sin is not sanctification—it is only justification. To obtain salvation, one must become like Christ in every way. When God commanded us to be perfect, he meant it. Doing your best is insufficient. The plan of salvation is not a classroom where select members of the class get an easier exam because they asked the teacher or participated in extracurricular activities. The plan of salvation is like a classroom where no one is capable of passing the exam on the first round, but students are permitted to retake the class as many times as it takes for them to be able to pass because of an arrangement made between the teacher and the principle. The atonement does not provide a bridge over the requirements of salvation. Rather, it provides infinite “resets” on the process, until we finally learn.

Doing our best does not reconcile us to God. There is yet more to be done “after all we can do.” Jesus provides us greater space to repent and grow beyond what one mortal probation—an insufficient time for any of us—could provide.

Despite what is taught from the pulpit and in best-selling books, God cannot and will not save us in our sins. You must deny yourself of all ungodliness and have a perfect love for God before his grace is sufficient.

Mercy can satisfy justice in providing forgiveness to the sinner, but it cannot rob justice by providing the blessings of the obedient to the disobedient. In other words, mercy can provide justification, but it cannot provide sanctification. Only justice can provide sanctification, and justice requires perfection. As Joseph wrote.

There is no other way. One who does not keep the law God keeps cannot have the blessings God has. He instead provides the environment for us to acquire the knowledge to stop sinning, if we will seek him and believe what he teaches us.

Baptism by water by one who has authority from the church is currently understood in the church to be the gateway to membership in the church. As alluded to, there are requirements from church authorities for baptismal candidates. These requirements have changed much over time, with the most recent change coming in November 2015, when the church announced that children of practicing homosexuals would be barred from baptism until they reached the age of 18. However, before the church was legally founded in 1830, many were baptized unto repentance by the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood, which was restored in 1829. These candidates were baptized without a church and were not subject to any requirements except those given by Jesus in the Book of Mormon, namely to repent and believe in Christ.

Since the Aaronic Priesthood existed outside of the church prior to 1830, it holds that the Aaronic Priesthood can be held outside of the church. Since legal baptisms were performed by Aaronic Priesthood holders prior to 1830, it holds that anyone with Aaronic Priesthood can legally baptize outside of the church. While those thus baptized would not be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they would still be legal recipients of the covenant of baptism.

The wording of the ordinance is provided by Jesus in the Book of Mormon.

This wording (“having authority”) is the same used by Alma, but is probably unfamiliar to modern Mormons, who use the words “having been commissioned by.”

The history of the wording of the baptismal ordinance is interesting. The first mention of instruction comes from the “Articles of the Church,” the original source for D&C 20, read and sustained by the church on 9 June 1830, and printed in the church’s newspaper: “And the manner of baptism & the manner of administering the sacrament are to be done as is written in the Book of Morman [sic]” The instructions in the Book of Mormon are to use the phrase “having authority given me of Jesus Christ.” Thus, all original members of the church were baptized with this ordinance. The next mention is in the church’s newspaper in 1833, repeating the instruction in the Book of Mormon.

This account probably came from “Revelation Book 1,” a handwritten copy book of undated revelations received by Joseph Smith between 1828 and 1834. That source reads.

The next reference was the 1833 Book of Commandments, which reads.

The first change to the instructions—which were consistent with the Book of Mormon until this point and twice canonized by vote of the church (once in 1830 and once in 1833)—came in June 1836 when the reprint of the earlier “Evening and Morning Star” article was printed with the phrase change.

About this reprint, the JSPP editors state.

Whether intentional or not, Cowdery’s scribal error was not approved by Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, it was perpetuated in the 1835 D&C, which was prepared by Cowdery with no evidence that Joseph proofread the typesetting and changes before publication.

Joseph’s influence was limited to what he had received. The copy processes were largely out of his hands. In Revelation Books 1 and 2 (which the 1835 D&C editors did not have, at least initially) and the original run of “The Evening and Morning Star” contained the correct wording, but this was modified by Oliver in his reprinting of the series.

Though all of this has been available for discovery for over 150 years, and now explicitly written about in the Joseph Smith Papers Project, modern Mormons continue to perpetuate a modified version of the baptismal ordinance, an act that earlier church leaders argued made others’ baptisms invalid. Such would rightly argue that those baptized under an adulterated ordinance should be rebaptized with the ordinance in the form given by Christ.

Mormon.org provides a definition of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. It leaves out most of the gifts of the Spirit, stating that “the gift” is the constancy of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which is activated by the laying on of hands at confirmation, and wanes with disobedience to the commandments.

And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters; (Mosiah 27:25.)[The gift of the Holy Ghost's] internal fruits are faith, knowledge, wisdom, joy, peace, patience, temperance, long suffering, brotherly kindness and charity. Its external gifts are manifested in prophecies, visions, discernments, healings, miracles, power over evil spirits, speaking in various tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc. (First Presidency Counselor Charles W. Penrose, “Mormon Doctrine, Plain and Simple,” p 17.)And it came to pass that the Lamanites said unto him: What shall we do, that this cloud of darkness may be removed from overshadowing us? And Aminadab said unto them: You must repent, and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ, who was taught unto you by Alma, and Amulek, and Zeezrom; and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you. And it came to pass that they all did begin to cry unto the voice of him who had shaken the earth; yea, they did cry even until the cloud of darkness was dispersed. And it came to pass that when they cast their eyes about, and saw that the cloud of darkness was dispersed from overshadowing them, behold, they saw that they were encircled about, yea every soul, by a pillar of fire. And Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not, neither did it take hold upon the walls of the prison; and they were filled with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory. And behold, the Holy Spirit of God did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as if with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words. And it came to pass that there came a voice unto them, yea, a pleasant voice, as if it were a whisper, saying: Peace, peace be unto you, because of your faith in my Well Beloved, who was from the foundation of the world. (Helaman 5:40-47.)This manifestation did not immediately follow my baptism, as I expected....some two or three weeks after I was baptized...I began to feel very uneasy. I laid aside my books, left the house and wandered around through the fields under the oppressive influence of a gloomy, disconsolate spirit, while an indescribable cloud of darkness seemed to envelop me. I had been accustomed, at the close of the day, to retire for secret prayer to a grove...I had no sooner opened my lips in an effort to pray, than I heard a sound, just above my head, like the rustling of silken robes, and immediately the Spirit of God descended upon me, completely enveloping my whole person, filling me from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet, and O, the joy and happiness I felt! No language can describe the instantaneous transition from a dense cloud of mental and spiritual darkness into a refulgence of light and knowledge, as it was at that time imparted to my understanding. I then received a perfect knowledge that God lives, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and of the restoration of the Holy Priesthood, and the fulness of the gospel. It was a complete baptism—a tangible immersion in the heavenly principle or element, the Holy Ghost... (“Teachings of the Presidents: Lorenzo Snow”)For as sure as thou livest, behold, I have seen my Redeemer; and he shall come forth, and be born of a woman, and he shall redeem all mankind who believe on his name. Now, when he had said these words, his heart was swollen within him, and he sunk again with joy; and the queen also sunk down, being overpowered by the Spirit. (Alma 19:13.)Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:5-7.)For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost. And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive. (2 Nephi 31:17-18.)And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way....feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do. (2 Nephi 32:1,3,5.)You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half—that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost. (History of the Church, 5:499.)And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life. And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God}. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:19-21.)

After faith, repentance, and baptism comes endurance to the end. Most members believe that this means to simply continue as a faithful church member until death.

“The end” is not death, but the completion of the tests of mortality, a point that can (and ought) to occur prior to death, as in the case of Seth (D&C 107:43), Noah (Genesis 6:9), and Job (Job 1:1), whom God called perfect men. The confusion of the meaning leads many to conclude their journey before they have even begun, assuming that they have somehow qualified for something after death that they have not qualified for before death, despite the doctrine plainly taught in the Book of Mormon that death does not change our character or the degree of glory we have attained. Enduring to the end means proceeding in the tests of mortality until you have obtained the promise of eternal life from God.

The doctrines of calling and election and the Second Comforter are, therefore, a crucial part of enduring to the end. Calling and election is the event where an individual receives the promise of eternal life from God. The Second Comforter is the visitation of Jesus Christ to an individual.

These doctrines are taught plainly in scripture and in the teachings of Joseph Smith. Joseph explained the process of receiving these events.

And again.

God describes the process as follows.

It is also explained in the Book of Mormon.

These are experiences that can be had by all under the prescribed conditions, no matter their gender, calling, or status.

Joseph said that our power to “behold [God] face to face” depends “upon [our] diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him.” (Lectures on Faith 2:55.) Since it is a promise that God will come to every soul who fulfills the requirements, we can use it as a gauge of our spiritual progression. If we have not yet received a visit from the Lord, we can conclude that we are yet falling short on forsaking our sins, coming to Jesus, calling on his name, obeying his voice, and keeping his commandments.

The Lord described those who have obtained Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial glory. By matching our current experience, we can determine what degree of glory we have obtained. Receiving one’s calling and election is required for those who will come forth in the first resurrection to inherit Celestial glory (D&C 76:53-62.) They have obtained the presence of the Father (D&C 76:71). If you have not received your calling and election, and have not been in the presence of the Father in this life, you are not Celestial. Were you to die today, you would inherit a lower degree of glory. Those who are Terrestrial “receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.” (D&C 76:77.) If you have not obtained the presence of the Son, you are not Terrestrial.

Jesus himself said: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3.) If you do not know God, you do not have eternal life. If you do not know God here, why would you expect to be worthy to know him hereafter?

Joseph taught that many who assume they are saved are in for a terrible surprise.

The necessity of these experiences is witnessed of not only by scriptures, but by the teachings of Joseph Smith. He explained that without these experiences, it is impossible to endure the trials required of every soul to receive eternal life.

On another occasion he taught the same doctrine.

Because these experiences are intended to be the pinnacle of what men can obtain in life and the signal that God approves of us, one would expect that modern leaders would focus on these key experiences just as Joseph Smith did. As detailed in the chapter “Church History,” modern LDS leaders do not teach members to seek an audience with Jesus Christ. Instead, they teach members not to seek such experiences, suggesting that the idea that this must happen in mortality is a tactic of the devil.

Instead of teaching to literally seek the face of Jesus—a commandment given by the Lord himself—the brethren teach that we do this figuratively by seeking after the brethren.

Everything in modern Mormonism focuses on following the brethren for one simple, but secret, reason: the second anointing. The second anointing is an ordinance that, in Brigham’s day, was included in the endowment. As the authorization for endowments shifted from the church president to local authorities, the second half of the endowment was divided from the first, available only to those recommended by their Area Presidents on condition of a lifelong record of sacrifice for the church and dedication to the brethren. Apostles conduct the ordinance in local temples in the holy of holies or a sealing room set apart for the purpose. In this ordinance, a married pair is, among other things, sealed up to eternal life by the authority of the apostle. Thus, in the church today we see not only the figurative but literal fulfillment of Nephi’s warning.

These men act like “there is no God today” because they deny that God would personally promise an individual eternal life (a miracle, indeed), as they believe he will not do what he has given them the keys to do. They teach members to “hearken unto us” because that is the standard they use to judge whether they qualify for the second anointing. They disbelieve that Jesus would appear to lay members of the church, since he has not appeared to them (see “Witnesses”).

The evidence that this ordinance is not effective comes from an analysis of the sealing power manifested by those who have the second anointing and those who give it. Those who receive this ordinance are given the sealing power by the apostle. Just like the apostles themselves, they fail to do any of the things done by those with the sealing power in scripture. From their own admissions, even their healing blessings are no more effectual than those without the sealing power, or those without any priesthood at all.

Though it is true that Joseph used the sealing power to seal men to eternal life, he received it from God himself, meaning that God knew that Joseph would not seal anyone up to eternal life against God’s will. Modern leaders assume that they have the sealing power through Brigham Young. Yet, Brigham Young did not receive it from Joseph, as the sealing power never comes from a man, but always from God himself. Were it not so, Nephi would be liar when he said.

Additionally, Joseph Smith would have been forgetting his own sealing power when he said.

We all ought to repent and reconcile our course to obtaining our calling and election and seeing the Lord face-to-face.

Though the church was designed to be a tool to help save men, it never was and still isn’t the arbiter of salvation. Christ still employs no servant at the gate of salvation (2 Nephi 9:41). The blessings are available to all who come to him, independent of church status. The danger of assuming his role has been replaced with a church is that, should the church modify the ordinances or mix scripture with the philosophies of men, those who put their trust in the church will be prevented from coming unto Christ.

President Lee once taught.

When the scaffold builders ignore the architect’s blueprint, and instead design scaffolding according to their own imaginations, they will inevitably block the path of the building. God is still in control, and still offers every blessing to the faithful who, like Abraham, realize there are greater blessings available for any who will seek God directly.

Almost every aspect of the doctrine of Christ has been replaced, modified, or removed in modern Mormonism. However, institutional deviation from the gospel has never prevented an individual from obeying the doctrine of Christ. Our day is no different. Each aspect of the gospel of Jesus Christ existed or has existed outside of an institution.

Because no aspect of the doctrine of Christ is controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no changes to the doctrine of Christ made by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need prevent a disciple of Christ from obtaining all the blessings available to any of God’s children at any time.

Apostasy

The meaning of words can be very important. Words can convey a lot of meaning. They can influence thought or stop it. Apostasy is one such word. In modern Mormonism, once a person or belief has been defined as apostate, loyal members will avoid interacting with that person or thinking about the beliefs they hold. While scripture prescribes the identification of and treatment of apostates, scripture also shows that the mislabeling of true messengers as apostates has been a common occurrence that carries a heavy penalty. With such high stakes, an effort to understand the various definitions of apostasy is worthwhile.

The LDS church has defined apostasy in several public venues. Apostasy is defined on LDS.org as follows: “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.” “True to the Faith,” a book of short topical entries published by the church has the following definition for apostasy: “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.”

Interestingly, the church has a very different private definition. The church’s private handbook distributed only to leaders states.

Absent this description is any mention of Christ or his gospel. Instead, the charge is that of opposing the church, church leaders, or church doctrine, all of which have been shown in past instances to have been out of harmony with Christ and/or his gospel.

It is troubling that the private definition is the one that is used to charge and convict members of apostasy. The Oxford English Dictionary defines apostasy as the “abandonment or renunciation of one's religious faith or moral allegiance.” If the church prosecutes members as apostate whose only crime is to have opposed the church, church leaders, or church doctrine, doesn’t this mean that the church has defined their moral allegiance to the church and/or the brethren, and not to God?

Because the church offers two contradictory definitions of apostasy, perhaps the question of which is correct can be settled by an appeal to scripture. After all, Joseph Smith said.

There are two examples in the Book of Mormon of apostates who are excommunicated: Sherem and Korihor. In both cases, the crime of these individuals was to preach that there would be no Christ. They preached against “the doctrine of Christ,” which Nephi taught was faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, and seeking the face of Christ until you obtain it (see 2 Nephi 32). Sherem flattered the people by telling them that sin did not exist. He claimed to be living the law of Moses, but he was actually living something that had been drastically changed from the law of Moses as given by God. Korihor, meanwhile, preached “unto the people against the prophecies which had been spoken by the prophets...” (Alma 30:6.) He preached that there was no Christ and no atonement. He said that you could do as you please independent of God's law, and he preached contrary to what the scriptures said. He spoke against visions and revelation. In the cases of these men, apostasy was not defined as daring to disagree with tradition, the commandments of the elders, or pointing out the error of the elders. Instead, it was defined as preaching against the gospel of Christ in favor of the traditions of men. The Book of Mormon clearly supports the church’s public definition of apostasy.

There is another type for excommunication in the scriptures. This is the false type of excommunication, otherwise known as the stoning of the prophets. Many righteous men were subjected to this treatment, so many that Joseph Smith said.

Consider the following examples of the excommunication of righteous individuals. Which definition of apostasy was used to condemn them?

Christ. Jesus’ crime was that he preached the original law of Moses, which was very different from the adulterated version taught by the Pharisees. He publicly pointed out the hypocrisy and error of the church leadership. He went out of his way to teach against their traditions, proving from scripture that they deviated from God’s word. He told them they considered the commandments of men from their leaders to be greater than revealed commandments, and were thus wicked. Those who crucified God were the children of the devil, yet they truly believed they were doing God service. The church leaders cast him out for blasphemy and had him crucified—the highest ecclesiastical punishment they could render.

Abinadi. He publicly preached against his church leaders, quoting scripture to show that their actions and teachings deviated from God. Unlike Korihor or Sherem, Abinadi was not put on trial for the benefit of the people, but because Noah and his wicked priests were offended at his words and feared the response of the people if they, too, saw their wickedness, which they had till then successfully hidden. The leaders sought to cover their sins, gratify their pride and their vain ambition, and exercise control and dominion upon the children of men (see D&C 121:37). He pointed out their wickedness, and the wicked take the truth to be hard. Were the charges against Abinadi justified? Is quoting God’s word apostasy? If quoting scripture implicates leadership, is it the reader of scripture who has committed apostasy, or the leadership whose actions fit the sins described in scripture? Is not the punishment of someone for reading scripture at least as great a witness of the apostasy of a leader as anything else could be? Does truth cease to be truth when it implicates leadership? Abinadi did not commit apostasy. It was Noah and his priests who had deviated from God's word, not Abinadi. One can never be righteously charged with apostasy for quoting God’s word, no matter who it implicates.

Abinadi was given a way to avoid punishment. Noah told him he would be killed “unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.” (Mosiah 17:8). Gratify my pride or suffer the full extent of my power! Abinadi's response is the response of the many righteous who find themselves in this common situation: “Now Abinadi said unto him: I say unto you, I will not recall the words which I have spoken unto you concerning this people, for they are true...” (Mosiah 17:9.) Abinadi simply says, “what I have said is true, and I will not recant.” For Noah, and for all children of the devil, the question is whether or not his words are offensive. For Abinadi, and all servants of God, the question is whether or not what they say is true.

We could likewise analyze Stephen, Paul, Jeremiah, Zacharias, Isaiah, and many others who were cast out by the religious leaders of their day for “apostasy.” In the case of each of these men, the charges of apostasy exactly match the church’s second (secret) definition of apostasy. There isn’t a single example in scripture of that definition being used righteously, only to condemn true messengers from God.

The 11th Article of Faith states.

In the Book of Mormon “there was no law against a man’s belief...” (Alma 30:7.) These perspectives match with our accounts of Joseph’s treatment of church members. For example, when one man was disciplined for a difference in doctrine, Joseph argued in his favor, saying.

There are plenty of statements from subsequent church leaders that seem to reinforce the same principle of freedom of belief and expression in the church. For instance, President Joseph F. Smith explained.

More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated.

And yet, the Handbook of Instructions states that members who publicly disagree with church leaders should be excommunicated from the church.

The scriptural record unanimously provides support for publicly disagreeing with church doctrine or leaders when either is in error. The quintessential example is given in the opening pages of the Book of Mormon, where Lehi—a man without any office or authority in the Jewish realm—begins to preach against the wickedness of the church and its leaders.

With Lehi, the question was not whether Lehi had standing in the church he criticized, but whether or not his criticism was true.

Another lengthy but illustrative example is found in the book of Jeremiah. Not only does it provide one of very many scriptural examples of a righteous man criticizing his religious leaders’ errors, it also provides Jeremiah’s recalling to his subjects’ memories the example of a few exceptional leaders past who, instead of prosecuting those who criticized them, heeded their words and were blessed for it.

Another example is provided by the high priest Eli and the child Samuel. Eli, despite his wickedness, was humble and honest enough to admit his folly even when God chose a non-priest child of no authority before the high priest to tell him that God would punish him for his sins.

In every case, the criteria held to modern Mormons would have convicted as apostate nearly every righteous man in the scriptures. If we know that these men were not apostate, but in fact righteous, should we not consider that modern men quoting the same scriptures with the same message of repentance might actually be on the Lord’s errand, and not raging enemies of God?

Early leaders’ statements teach plainly that public disagreement with church doctrines or church leaders is not apostasy. Joseph Smith said.

Modern leaders would claim that they agree with this statement, provided members keep their beliefs to themselves. However, Joseph made it clear that this was not just an internal freedom. He never once punished a member for differing in doctrine. Instead, he supported those who disagreed with him. He said.

The church used to teach that we should not obey leaders or agree with them simply because they preside over the church.

Brigham Young echoed Joseph’s positions on this issue.

Elder Orson Pratt invited normal members to question what the brethren taught, stating that he would be grateful to have his errors pointed out.

Elder James E. Talmage explained that we should all be open to criticism of our positions. He said.

President Hugh B. Brown held a similar position. He taught.

President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. stated succinctly.

Clearly, the modern church’s positions have shifted from what these men stated. If God were to raise up a prophet from outside the hierarchy to call the LDS church to repentance, as he did with Jeremiah, Lehi, Isaiah, Hosea, Samuel, Abinadi, Christ, etc., they would be excommunicated: not for disobeying the gospel, but for preaching in favor of it, to the church’s condemnation.

The words uttered many hundreds of years ago by a prophet of God are just as fitting today at they were then.

The canonized instructions for church trials are provided in D&C 102 and D&C 42. Here we will briefly compare the execution of church trials in modern Mormonism to the scriptural instructions provided.

D&C 102 describes the roles of the Stake President (the judge) and the high councilors, who are split into defense and prosecution of the defendant.

Current church trials have a very different form. The handbook reads.

Elder Oaks described that an LDS church court is not actually a court at all.

Elder Oaks mistakenly claims that half the council does not advocate for the defendant. It is defined as defense, support, or vindication. The sample sentence provided by the 1828 Webster's is “the advocate pleads in behalf of the prisoner.” A literal reading of the scripture matches trials as they were held in Joseph’s day, but contradicts the current implementation.

The church has also removed the veto power of the high council. In D&C 102, there are two veto mechanisms provided the high council. The first is to demand a retrial, a right of each member of the high council. Second, a “majority of the council” has to agree with the decision in order for the Stake President's decision to stand.

The church has recently claimed “[Disciplinary] Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.” This is not true. A string of recent communications have been initiated by General Authorities. Recent excommunicant Denver Snuffer wrote.

The New York Times reported that, in the case of Rock Waterman.

If he did not resign he would face excommunication, he said the bishop told him, on orders from another official higher up — one of the church’s leaders known as an Area Seventy.

The same article reported that Keith Kloosterman had his temple recommend removed at request of a Seventy for posting a pro-gay marriage twitter post. There are plenty of other examples.

In defense of Jesus, a dissenting Pharisee attempted to correct the High Priest for unrighteously condemning Jesus without the requirement of hearing the defendant plead his case: “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (John 7:51.) Likewise, D&C 102 requires that the councilors hear “the evidences and pleadings impartially” (D&C 102:20). They cannot do so if they are under the understanding that the defendant is guilty before the trial has even begun, or if they do not understand that their duty is to independently decide the matter and vote according to their own understanding, not merely agree with the Stake President.

Ironically, Elder Holland recently made this statement.

There have been others like it. And yet, the recent excommunication of Rock Waterman, Denver Snuffer, and many other less-known individuals followed a generic pattern: Charges of apostasy for pointing out church doctrines that contradicted scripture, coercion in threats to cease writing or suffer consequence, lack of attempts to reason with the individual and show error in their positions, and an anti-scriptural predetermined court outcome. Church courts in modern Mormonism are vastly different from those described in the revelations. If the church’s current practices bear no resemblance to what God revealed, how can they be binding in heaven? After all, God said, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” (D&C 82:10.) They are courts of men, operating under the commandments of men.

In these types of proceedings, men are judged for their allegiance to the commandments of men instead of the commandments of God. This is a Pharisaical condition. As the Pharisees taught.

And again.

Just as in the days of Jesus, righteous men are prosecuted not because they have broken God’s word as revealed in scripture, but because they have broken the man-made traditions of the elders, that in many cases contradict the scriptures.

Jesus was tried for violating policy, not for violating commandments.

Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; (3 Nephi 18:32.)...If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear down on them? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better. I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by force or reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship. I am just as ready to die defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:498– 99.)For assuredly as the Lord liveth they shall see that the terrible one is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off; And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught. (2 Nephi 27:21-32.)

The only doctrine that matters in modern Mormonism is “believe anything the brethren say.” As with all organizations led by man, “The price of maintaining membership in the establishment is unquestioning acceptance of authority.”

You would think that one would have to rebel against Christ or his teachings in order to be considered apostate. When apostasy becomes a measure of allegiance to an organization or a group of men—both having proven exceptionally capable of deviating from God—instead of to Christ, the process of church discipline becomes a farce that is not recognized in heaven as anything but a glaring instance of taking the Lord’s name in vain.

The Leaven of the Pharisees

Much of the four gospels consist of Jesus attempting to counter the teachings of the Pharisees—the governing council of Jews whose traditions had in large part replaced God’s commandments. Several of Jesus’ parables targeted the Pharisees, such as the parable of the leaven.

Leaven is a foreign substance that, when added to a much more plentiful substrate, changes the properties of the substrate far beyond what the miniscule quantity of foreign impurity would suggest. Had Jesus been preaching in our day, he probably would have used the analogy of a virus, which takes over the host cell and converts it to its own purposes. Such was Jesus’ view of the doctrine of the Pharisees, which taught wickedness under the pretense of the revelations of God to Moses. The scriptures teach plainly that men’s words are not to be mingled into scripture.

The role of the Pharisees transitioned over time. At first, the Pharisees’ role was to interpret the scripture given to Moses. To back this claim, they referenced an unbroken chain of authorized appointments to office from Moses’ day to present. By degrees, the Rabbis’ focus shifted from preserving the original meaning of Moses to adding to God’s commandments by creating new traditions. In other words, while the early Rabbis assumed the role of interpreting Moses, the latter Rabbis assumed the far greater role of innovating Moses. While the former had at least the pretense of maintaining the word of God to Moses, the latter were free to create ad-hoc commandments detached from any literal connection to God’s word to Moses. By the advent of the Savior’s mortal ministry, the Pharisees’ modifications had poisoned the religion of the Jews to such a degree that Jesus was identified as an apostate for preaching the law of Moses in its original form. The people rejected Jesus because they judged him against their apostate religion—the result of hundreds of years of innovative nonrevelatory tradition—which they mistakenly understood to be the law of Moses.

Jesus came to fulfill the law of Moses, and he kept it through deliberate and careful effort despite the Pharisees’ constant attempts to get him to break it. On the other hand, he went out of his way to break the traditions of the elders, which added to, removed from, or replaced the commandment of God. To the people, who were blind to the difference between God's command and man's tradition, he overtly broke the law. He healed on the Sabbath, did not wash his hands before eating, ate with sinners, and plucked and ate wheat on the Sabbath.

The Savior is our best example of why we need to distinguish between God's word and man's word. He clearly explained the dangers of accepting man’s commandments as if they were God’s commandments.

One danger of accepting men’s commandments as God’s commandments is that the former shift the focus from one’s internal relationship with and attitude towards God and others to external, measurable practices. These practices are much like a hamster wheel, absorbing an infinite quantity of effort without bringing about any difference in the position of the person with God. They are vain practices that conflate effort with progress. Modern Mormons chronically fall into the same mistake, with endless checklists and “key indicators” that can be executed with perfection without ever bringing the performer closer to Christ. Consider, for example, monthly home and visiting teaching. Managerial oversight requires externally measured statistics, which fail to capture what is actually of importance: the immeasurable relationship of the person being ministered to with Christ.

The Pharisees overemphasized the outward commandments and significantly added to them with invented traditions. Their focus on tithing, fasting, and ritualistic rules distracted them from the weightier commandments that mattered much more: judgment, mercy, and faith.

Modern Mormons have replaced the immeasurable process of reentering the presence of God with many measurable commandments of men, such as the Word of Wisdom, whose modern interpretation would be completely unrecognizable to a contemporary of Joseph Smith (see “Church History” for more information).

Like the Pharisees, Modern Mormons overemphasize observance of outward commandments like tithing and temple worship while forgetting their purpose. They focus on the paying of tithing, not the spending of it. They focus on “doing” ordinances instead of rising up to the invitations they provide. They focus on providing these ordinances for the dead without being able to describe what benefit they themselves have received from them. They operate like cogs in a machine, endlessly writing checks and sitting through sessions without ever coming any closer to God. These distractions matter. There is no such thing as a neutral act. If something does not bring us closer to God, it occupies precious time that could be spent in that pursuit, and thus takes us further away from him. Joseph said, “While our hearts are filled with evil, and we are studying evil, there is no room in our hearts for good, or for studying good.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 217.)

The over focus on the external not only crowds out God’s commandments, but also provides a false standard for evaluating God’s approval. Outward appearances inflate the Pharisee’s perception of his true standing with God, providing ample opportunity for misjudging God’s true messengers. Jesus and his disciples were rejected by the Pharisees in part because they drank too much, fasted too little, omitted hand washing, and failed to live the adulterated Sabbath rules. Yet, in their perceived iniquity, they were actually aligned with God while their judges were not.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23:25-28.)

Would modern Mormons do any better? What if a preacher came drinking alcohol, not paying a “full tithe,” not wearing a white shirt, outside of the hierarchy, not being clean shaven, etc.? Would a modern Mormon believe that this person could possibly be a messenger of God? In much the same way as the Pharisees were exacting in their obedience to outward commandments and traditions, but were unbridled in their inward disobedience to God's commandments, modern Mormons bristle at someone who breaks the traditional mold and will deny them a temple recommend for breaking the commandments of men, but will allow those who are internally addicted to lust, or who are greedy, or judgmental, against which there are no temple recommend questions. We would do well to remember Jesus’ comparison of the Pharisee and Publican. The former checked all the outward boxes. He said he was more righteous than others, that he fasted twice a week and was a full tithe payer. Yet, it was the humble Publican, a self-described sinner, that Jesus said was the worthier of the two. Ironically, the temple recommend interview not only focuses on outward performances, but also requires one to certify their own worthiness. It is hard to imagine a process that could more diametrically oppose Jesus’ teachings.

A real and present danger of measuring inward righteousness by outward practice of tradition is that it provides incentive to game the system by devoting one’s attention to self-righteousness. Instead of calling individuals to private repentance, leaders are tempted to draw attention to the acts in which they can demonstrate their own progress. As the Pharisees.

Phylacteries—boxes worn containing written copies of scripture—and the borders of garments were both tangible symbols prescribed by Moses during prayer. Making broad phylacteries and enlarging the borders of their garments describes a visible over-emphasis of prescribed ritual—counterfeit righteousness. Of course, such self-aggrandizement doesn’t pay much of a dividend from heaven, as God knows their hearts.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter at all how many baptisms we've conducted, how much tithing we are bringing in, how many temples we've built, or how many ordinances we've performed. As a church or as individuals, the only metric that matters is whether we have obtained Zion and been redeemed from the fall and brought into God’s presence.

Jesus taught that the traditions of the elders not only distract men from seeking after and following God’s commandments, but also invariably come to replace and contradict God’s commandments. For instance, when the Pharisees challenged Jesus for not submitting to the man-made commandment of washing his hands, “he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3.) He went on to give an example of the tradition of Corban, which was used by the Pharisees as an excuse to break the commandment of taking care of one’s parents by claiming they would instead donate the money to the church. Pharisees invariably claim the authority to make such changes. However, in the absence of revelation, no man can contradict God.

Jesus taught that any who followed the Pharisees were doomed to their same fate.

Because their teachings led away from God (despite being understood to be the true form of worship), he taught that the Pharisees.

It is difficult for us to imagine how it could be that the teachings of our leaders could actually make us worse off than having never heard them. It is difficult for us to imagine God being angry with our leaders that are so revered by men. Although most of us would be quick to quip that “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ...” (2 Nephi 25:26) the question is not one of what we say but rather of what we do. The difference between our words and our intentions can often be found in our actions (or the lack thereof). James taught clearly that omission of action is sin: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17.)

Joseph Smith knew the importance of living one's professed beliefs. He was very familiar with those contemporaries and ancients who assumed the pretense of religion. In his normal illustrative manner, he taught I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the smooth-faced hypocrite. (Joseph Smith, DHC, 5:401).

Often, measurable outward practices are placed at a higher level of importance than internal charity.

Without works, no man can say that he has faith. Talking of Christ, rejoicing in Christ, preaching of Christ, etc. is all of no worth unless we are acting in Christ to bring to pass those things we are talking about. When it comes to the principles of the gospel, talking the talk without walking the walk is as contemptible to God as it is common to man. In James 1 we read.

Joseph frequently taught this principle by example. For instance, one day.

God described the priests in Ezekiel’s time as having.

Yet, were they widely recognized as wicked? Did they think of themselves as wicked? Or did they think they were honestly serving God in the way he had told them to, because they were fooled by the false traditions of their fathers? Recall that Jesus said that the men who killed him and his disciples thought they were doing God a service. Ezekiel's priests would probably say that they were teaching the law of tithing, and that it was a blessing for the widows to choose to pay their tithing as taught by the priests, even if it meant they would starve, because the Lord would bless them for it. And yet, their willful ignorance of the truth does not excuse them from being abominable in God's eyes.

Isaiah 58 contains a lament toward the house of Israel because they practiced the forms of religion yet their hearts were far from God.

Despite being sinful in God's eyes, the Israelites still practiced religion as if they were righteous and as if they were hearkening to the precepts of God. Paul described this blindness as having.

Such deception is only possible when the people fully believe that their vain forms of worship are in fact from God. They are daily praying to him, eager to learn his ways, yet they are abominable to him. Why? Because they ignore the commandments he gave through his prophet, and instead follow the traditions given of men that have replaced revealed religion. Their vain religion is of no effect, because you cannot receive blessings for following false commandments.

God’s rejection of those who practice abominations despite being very religious and ignorant of what they do is common throughout scripture. Amos criticizes the pious hypocrisy of the people, who worship but seemingly unknowingly are doing it wrong.

These people were making sacrifices daily and paying tithing at regular intervals, yet they were abominable before God because they were practicing their religion in ways that he had not appointed. It is not enough for men to simply keep commandments. They must be God’s commandments.

Isaiah focuses on the Israelites false practice of fasting. The apostate Israelites fasted regularly, yet because the revealed reasons for the fast (caring for the poor) had been forgotten and replaced by a man-made focus on the practice itself, it ceased to bring about the promised blessing of answer to prayer. Thus, the Israelites complained, “Why, when we fast, do you not notice? We afflict our bodies and you remain indifferent!” (Isaiah 58:3.) God spends the balance of the chapter reteaching them that fasting is not about the affliction of being without food and water, but about teaching the faster to be more merciful towards his fellows, “to share your food with the hungry, to bring home the wretchedly poor, and when you see men underclad to clothe them, and not to neglect your own kin?” (Isaiah 58:7.) Only by living the commandment as originally revealed can the participant receive the promised blessing: “Then, should you call, Jehovah will respond; should you cry, he will say, I am here.” (Isaiah 58:9.)

The Israelites' failure to receive the promised blessings of the true fast through living an adulterated version of the commandment illustrates how false traditions damage faith in God. Those who believe the commandments of men falsely attributed to God will find that they do not receive the blessings promised in scripture for obedience to the law. Instead of attributing their unbelief to those who taught them false tradition, they (believing their teachers are of God) disbelieve Christ, causing them to lose faith in the gospel and become atheists. Because of this, Satan can make great progress by convincing men and women that everything goes together in one: either everything church leaders teach is true, or everything they teach is false. Thus, he can overcome the positive witnesses received from living the as yet undefiled true commandments by focusing the person’s attention on the undeniable falsehood of man-made commandments while persisting the illusion that the philosophies of men are from the same source as the scripture with which they are mingled.

One challenge we have in seeing our own behavior in the behavior of wicked people in the scriptures is that the accounts were written by those who saw things as they really are. When Ezekiel writes that the priests “devoured souls” by taking the treasure and precious things, that is surely not the way the priests would have described it. For instance, King Noah's priests give us an account in their own words against which we can compare the account of Abinadi. Similarly, Laman and Lemuel described their counterparts in Jerusalem as good people doing good things.

We frequently see leaders in modern Mormonism justifying their actions in ways that indicate they see themselves as serving God, even when they are in the act of breaking his commandments. For example, Elder Oaks explained how he believes God would rather have the church spend hundreds of millions of dollars on multiplying temples rather than helping the poor. As with King Noah and Laman and Lemuel, modern leaders’ descriptions do not necessarily convey things as they really are. Rather, leaders’ words simply describe things as they see them. A better standard for judgment is found in God’s word, particularly as found in the scriptures.

The commandments of men are falsehood. By following them, we by necessity forget God, because we are overwriting his commandments with the commandments of men. We can choose to ignore the scriptural standard and examples of deviation from that standard, but that does not change reality. When our wickedness is finally brought to our attention, it will come as a great surprise. The shock will be as one who thinks they are the epitome of piety, only to discover in an instant their skirts on their face as a harlot in the act. The people do not realize their wickedness, and therefore will not understand God's punishment when it comes upon them.

Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it. And though they say, The Lord liveth; surely they swear falsely. O Lord, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return. Therefore I said, Surely these are poor; they are foolish: for they know not the way of the Lord, nor the judgment of their God. (Jeremiah 5:1-4.)

As Isaiah quoted, “Therefore are my people exiled without knowing why;” (Isaiah 5:13, Gileadi Translation.) They are so busy with the practice of their vain religion that it is outside their realm of possibilities to believe that God might find what they are doing abominable.

Why is it so difficult to see? One problem is they no doubt have positive experiences in their lives that they attribute to following the false traditions of their fathers. Few religions can maintain followers without some semblance of positive experiences. No doubt “faithful” Israelites had many positive experiences they attributed to following the Pharisees. Yet, those who followed Jesus recognized that the signs that accompanied his ministry were superior to those they previously received. Abraham probably could have been satisfied with the fruits of the apostate religion of his father, which was sufficient to occupy the intentions of an entire nation, but instead he read the scriptures and realized that the religion of Noah and Shem had greater blessings than the religion of his father could offer.

Satan’s followers succeed in ensnaring others by mixing truth with falsehood. It is the true portions of their mixture that generate the positive experiences that allow others to be ensnared into believing the false portions. There is nothing wrong with identifying things that are true and produce fruits. The danger lies in incorrectly attributing these fruits to the false traditions mingled with scripture. Positive experiences in an adulterous religion do not preclude greater positive experiences in a true one. The failure to understand this is one reason that so many Israelites, Abraham’s peers, and so many today are ignorant of their situation. Those who are in a religion that consists primarily of commandments of men distance themselves from God with every precept they are taught, every ritual practiced, and every tradition kept because, despite any portion of truth they may be exposed to, the overwhelming false traditions that come with it are sufficient to damn the individual to a far greater extent than any good that comes with the system.

Followers of Pharisees become “twofold more the child of hell” then those who were teaching them, meaning they are worse off for having met them—despite any minority truths imparted in the process—than if they had never met them: “...you prophets in Jerusalem...lead others to sin instead of helping them turn back to me.” (Jeremiah 23:14 CEV.)

The reason their truths are not worth their false traditions is because a pre-requisite to entering into a Pharisaical religion is swearing allegiance to leaders. This is, in effect, to cut oneself off from God’s word through scripture and personal revelation as the source of all truth in favor of the commandments of men. Such an act damns the follower to a Telestial glory. Followers of Pharisees seek them for truth instead of seeking God directly. They are blinded to the true meaning of scriptures by the incessant false interpretations from the Pharisees. They fill their lives with vain pretenses that do not draw them closer to God, and crowd out and contradict the commandments that would draw them closer. As long as they seek Pharisee leaders for truth, they will never wake up from their delusion.

Jesus knew how to discern between God’s commandments and man’s commandments. He was intimately acquainted with the content of the scriptures and used his knowledge to detect discrepancies between the Pharisee’s teachings and scripture. Joseph Smith taught that this strategy is just as valid in our day as in Jesus’.

Scriptural comparisons contradict Pharisaical authority claims. Pharisees are renown for quoting scripture out of historical or textual context (otherwise known as proof-texting). However, because their appeals to scripture do not hold up to scrutiny, their principle claim to authority is that of continuous succession. Though early Pharisees no doubt recognized the difference in power and authority between Moses and the elders of Israel that succeeded him, later Pharisees considered themselves equal with Moses, able to not only interpret the revelations received by Moses, but also to give additional council and even commandments that contradicted those given by Moses. In modern Mormonism, this passable authority that makes successors equal to the predecessors is known as “keys.”

Keys do not prevent leaders from leading a church into apostasy. The Pharisees at the time of Jesus had a valid chain of authorized appointments to church office from their founder Moses. Yet, they were woefully apostate.

Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees provide sufficient evidence that keys are insufficient to imply God’s authority. Jesus did not recognize the continuous appointment of leaders in the church as authoritative. Speaking of the Pharisees he said, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” (Matthew 15:13.) He did not recognize the Sanhedrin as planted by Heavenly Father despite their legal appointment. He openly rejected their pronouncements and pointed out their deviations from Moses’ revelations. Jesus showed that the traditions or commandments created by key holders are not the same as God commandments. As Joseph Smith taught, the pronouncements of men have no authority, even if those men and their followers claim authority.

Charles Penrose, counselor to Brigham Young, stated.

Jesus distinguished between God’s commandments and the traditions of the elders and showed that teachings of key holders, if contradictory to God’s word as given through a dispensation head, will lead the followers down to hell.

If keys were sufficient, why would heaven be shut to the rightful key holders? Why would the key holders' teachings prevent their followers from entering into the kingdom of heaven? Can someone who is barred from heaven lead you to heaven? Can one who is not sealed up to eternal life seal you up to eternal life? The leaders of such religions truly are the blind leading the blind.

They are blind because they have replaced his commandments with false tradition. Their followers are blind because they choose to emulate guides expecting outcomes that their guides themselves have never obtained. Of course, informing Pharisees of their error is nearly impossible, as the more faithful they are to their profession, the less willing they are to consider that they may be wrong. This is because they believe they already know everything needed for salvation, and that there is no true knowledge that they do not already possess. This allows them to dismiss anyone who contradicts their position as a sinner.

Pharisees have an inflated view of their own righteousness, and do not realize that they fit the historical pattern of previous apostate groups. They overestimate the authority they possess, and use it as an excuse to ignore “subordinates” who identify contradictions to the scriptures in their teachings. The Pharisees speak highly of past prophets while their deeds witness that they, too, would have rejected them, as they presently reject their teachings.

The Pharisees in Jesus’ day admitted they were the children of those who had rejected the prophets. Jesus made the point that they had not deviated from their parents' ways. Modern Mormons hold two mutually exclusive positions: they whiten the sepulchers of both Joseph Smith and their parents while ignoring the fact that their parents rejected him and were responsible for his death.

Jesus made the point that the Pharisees had not only inherited the traditions of their fathers—which opposed the teachings of the prophets— but also their behavior.

They were actively rejecting the present messengers of God (Zecharias was John Baptists' father), just as their fathers had rejected the former prophets.

Modern Mormons not only descend in tradition from their fathers who rejected Joseph Smith's teachings, but when God sends messengers who preach the gospel of Joseph, they cast them out of their churches and communities. Modern Mormons feign honor towards Joseph by recognizing him as the head of this dispensation and claim his calling as the source of their authority, all while rejecting his teachings in the same ways as their fathers.

Because God does not honor the authority of the Pharisees, they must cite things other than miracles and appearances of God and angels as evidence of their divine approbation.

Therefore, as Aaron entered into one of their synagogues to preach unto the people, and as he was speaking unto them, behold there arose an Amalekite and began to contend with him, saying: What is that thou hast testified? Hast thou seen an angel? Why do not angels appear unto us? Behold are not this people as good as thy people? Thou also sayest, except we repent we shall perish. How knowest thou the thought and intent of our hearts? How knowest thou that we have cause to repent? How knowest thou that we are not a righteous people? Behold, we have built sanctuaries, and we do assemble ourselves together to worship God. We do believe that God will save all men. (Alma 21:5-6.)

The Amalekite was saying: You couldn't have seen an angel, because we are righteous, and we don't see them, and you are less than us, therefore you couldn't have seen one. We don't need to repent, because we are righteous. Look at the chapels and temples we built! Plus, we meet every Sunday to worship God. How could he be displeased with us?

Pharisees think they are chosen by virtue of their pedigree, independent of their own righteousness or lack thereof.

Modern Mormons commit the same error by considering themselves a chosen people despite having failed to attain Zion or several of the easier commandments, such as caring for the poor.

Pharisees do not accept truth from anyone outside their leadership. They believe that they already know of all things that are true, and that nothing that they don't already believe can be of worth. They preach that any who believe differently than they do so out of wickedness or ignorance of the scriptures, ignoring any scriptures that controvert their position Pharisees believe that they alone possess the ability to correctly interpret scripture or know the will of God pertaining to doctrine. This is a very dangerous position, because it allows Pharisees to dismiss any scripture that contradicts them as being misinterpreted.

In modern Mormonism, this idea is expressed with the phrase “revelation for the church,” though, ironically, the position of leaders hasn’t been informed by revelation since the death of Joseph Smith. Instead, Pharisees cite traditional precedent—the commandments of men created by their predecessors—as the source of their positions. This reductive process takes the doctrine of the church further and further away from the doctrine of Christ as revealed by the dispensation head much in the same way as successive photocopies are less and less true to the original document. The succession chain features no more of the dispensation head’s revelations than the last leader had, with some portion removed or replaced by innovated tradition in each instance. The further along the process is, the easier it is for a man to exceed the spiritual knowledge of the Pharisees, obtaining greater power in the priesthood and obtaining experiences with God and angels by hearkening to the original revelations of the dispensation head instead of the repetitive and reductive philosophies of men mingled by scripture taught by the Pharisees.

Isaiah’s quoting the Lord’s use of the word “rote” is not coincidental. Repetition as a teaching technique of false priests is a theme throughout the Book of Isaiah.

For it is but precept upon precept, precept upon precept, measure by measure, measure by measure; a trifle here, a trifle there. Therefore, by incomprehensible speech and a strange tongue must he speak to these people, to whom he said, This is rest; let the weary rest! This is a respite! But they would not listen. So to them the word of Jehovah remained: Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, measure by measure, measure by measure; a trifle here, a trifle there, that, persisting, they might lapse into stumbling and break themselves, become ensnared and be taken captive. Therefore hear the word of Jehovah, you scoffers who preside over these people in Jerusalem... (Isaiah 28:10-14.)

The Pharisees must endlessly repeat the stories and sermons of their predecessor Pharisees, unable to expound the scriptures either for lack of revelation or for fear of exposing the error of their innovative traditions.

The doctrine of the Pharisees is a fluid one. It shifts when leaders respond to social trends, presuming they understand doctrine better than the dispensation head whose authority they claim without any of the associated revelations. It is not principle-based and it is not based on God's word. Instead, it can be represented as one simple commandment: whatever the Pharisees say, that do.

The inconsistency of the doctrines of the Pharisees was well known. Paul jabbed at them when he said.

The doctrine of the Pharisees does indeed toss its believers to and fro from one position to the opposite and back again like a flag in the wind. This is why Jesus was able to describe the Pharisees as.

Within the space of just a few years, the Pharisees were able to criticize John for fasting and abstaining from liquor and Jesus for not fasting and drinking. Modern Mormonism is likewise plagued by commandments that flip 180 degrees within short spans of time, the most recent being the church’s position on homosexuality, which has gone from being strictly sinful to being publicly admissible in less than ten years.

Pharisees will trump up religious reasons to dismiss justified challenges to their doctrine and authority. Although Jesus had committed no charge worthy of death, the Pharisees conspired to kill him for fear that his popularity would cause the Romans to deprive them of their power. Unable to prosecute him according to the law of Moses, they broke their own laws in trying Jesus. There have been many examples of recent church proceedings that broke God’s instructions for both the grounds for excommunication and the manner of holding a trial for membership.

Pharisees break God’s commandments through their traditions. Modern Mormons do the same. The example of tithing has already been discussed. Another example is obedience to the handbook of instructions instead of scripture. Modern Mormons consider the handbook to be the most relevant source of instruction in our day, and filter out personal revelation that does not agree with it. Today’s handbooks expand broadly beyond scripture and contradict scripture in many instances. The handbook takes precedence despite modern Mormons’ temple covenant to obey “the law of the gospel as contained in the Book of Mormon and the Bible.” There have been 27 versions of church handbooks since 1899. The principles taught vary vastly between editions. Church leaders admit the frequent changes, but erroneously characterize the changes as limited to programs and policy.

Pharisees love positive attention that comes by reason of their office. They love preferential treatment over those who do not hold their office. They love special titles. Jesus says we should not treat one man different than another. We should only show deference to God, who is the only one who can save us. If God's servants are to be different than others, it should be through their abasement and service to others, not through positive preferential treatment.

Pharisees are obsessed with money and exacting with debts. Pharisees find the principle that you cannot serve two masters to be a hard one, for they love the money they control by virtue of their office, the power it buys, and the feeling of security it provides.

In one application of the parable, the church leaders are the steward, the rich man is God. Jesus was saying that all men, including leaders, commit sin and fall short. He was suggesting that they should pardon those who owe money to them, knowing their master will be as exacting on them as they were to others. The Pharisees knew both exactly who he was talking about and what he was implying about their performance.

Modern Mormonism places significant emphasis on the modern version of the law of tithing, which exacts 10% of one’s gross income whether rich or poor. Failure to pay a full 10% of one’s gross income to the church strips a member of temple entrance rights. The application of Jesus’ parable to today would mean that leaders who require perfection of the law of tithing to enter the symbolic presence of the Lord will be held to the same standard of perfection in all things to enter into the actual presence of the Lord.

Pharisees seek to punish any who question their authority, claims, or beliefs.

In modern Mormonism, this persecution comes through the order of the Strengthening the Members Committee, an organization that searches out members who publicly disagree with church leaders and asks their stake presidents to discipline them.

Although Pharisees claim their persecution is because men are breaking God's commandments, some are—like Jesus—only breaking the tradition of the elders. The Pharisees judge unrighteously, rejecting true messengers using false standards.

Individuals who oppose the traditions of men are investigated by the Pharisees, not in order to evaluate whether their position is true, but in order to entrap the individual in charges of apostasy (see, for example John 8:1-6, Matthew 22:15-17, Matthew 19:3, Luke 11:53-54, and Mark 10:2.) In the mind of the Pharisees, there is no possibility that they are out of alignment with God, therefore any dissenter from their tradition is necessarily an apostate.

Even those faithful to the Pharisees would likely see the error in such accusations, therefore Pharisees conspire in secret to avoid negative public reactions to their evil designs. The Pharisees discussed in private councils how they could entrap Jesus, and they interrogated him in the middle of the night. In modern Mormonism, dissenters from the traditions of the elders are targeted in private leadership meetings. Investigations triggered by the Strengthening the Members Committee are done via private letters or phone calls to stake presidents and bishops. The body of the membership is only notified after disciplinary decisions have been made.

The Pharisees disbelieve miracles by their dissenters.

They do not accept miracles as witnesses of true messengers.

While the miracles Jesus performed were sufficient to convince Nicodemus that he was sent by God, they were insufficient to convince any of his fellows in the Sanhedrin. If the Pharisees witness the miracles with their own eyes, they ascribe the miracle to the devil.

Jesus said of the Pharisees: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:9.) What does it mean to worship in vain? It means to worship without any of the desired or expected effects. When your religion consists of the commandments of men, God does not recognize it. At best, it will produce none of the desired effects. More likely, your religion offends God and will result in cursings instead of blessings.

Sincerity, piousness, sacrifice and ritual are not hallmarks of the righteous. They are at least as popular among the misguided as they are among the righteous. We should be very concerned about our own status before God. We should revisit the scriptures, particularly the prophecies for our time. We should ask ourselves, “Lord, is it I?”

Whether our doctrine comes from men or comes from Christ matters. It is of especial importance in our day, when we face the fulfillment of the prophecies of what is to come before Christ’s return.

What will this division be? It will be those who listen to God against those who listen to men. Those who listen to men will resist the true messengers God sends to renew the pure gospel of Christ by direct commission from him.

Modern Mormons will find themselves without their idols and soothsayers, without their Babylonian goods that provide carnal security. The confidence they have placed in men will be shredded to tatters, leaving them to curse God and wish for death in overwhelming fear for shock at what has come upon them. When this promised destruction occurs, and Jesus will once again lament.

He will lament because those who do not recognize his voice, preferring the voice of the Pharisees, will not be gathered to places of safety, and will suffer through the destruction of the wicked. Before that day, there will be a bundling of the wicked and a gathering of the righteous.

How are they bundled?

The false traditions of the priests not only condemn them, but they make their bands strong because their ability to connect to God has been cut off. They have been taught to disregard personal revelation that contradicts the Pharisees. They have been taught to superimpose the traditions of the Pharisees onto the scriptures, preventing a literal interpretation of what they say. They have been taught that feelings are revelation, thus clogging the revelatory channel with false signals. They truly are blinded by the traditions of their fathers.

In our day, we can recognize the destruction as a herald that we are in the time prophesied by the Book of Mormon prophets. We can find in our present situation every quality of the last days they describe.

Prophets have described our day with precise clarity, and yet we ignore their call to repentance. We are surrounded by plain and abundant evidence that we are repeating the sins of the Pharisees, but we ignore it. We do so at the peril of our physical and spiritual wellbeing.

Similar to the claims of modern Mormons, the Jews believe that the rabbis today have authority from an unbroken line of rabbis going back to the establishment of the Pharisees. They have an unbroken line of authorized appointments from the Sanhedrin of Jesus' day until today. They believe that their council has authority from Moses, given to Moses from God. Yet, their teachings contradict Moses on almost every issue. In Hebrew, Matthew 23:23 says something very different from the KJV (which is based on a later Greek text).

The brethren sit in Joseph's seat. They invoke Joseph's authority, but teach innovations and traditions that contradict Joseph's words. Therefore, do according to what Joseph taught, not what they teach.

Prophet: Title or Description?

Joseph Smith taught that the attainment of knowledge and intelligence in this life is a factor of the diligence and obedience exerted by the individual. He taught that blessings come commensurate with obedience to God’s law. In contrast to this idea there is a notion that the receipt of a church calling automatically entitles an individual to spiritual gifts not previously obtained. Members would like to think that church leaders either receive some special gift upon selection, or that God specifically chooses men for leadership callings who already possess certain spiritual gifts. Bruce R. McConkie taught that the former assertion is false.

The falseness of the second assertion is by the fact that, according to President Joseph F. Smith, apostles since Joseph Smith’s death have been called by men and not by God.

The Lord said that it is the duty for the President of the church to be a seer, a prophet, a translator, and a revelator, just like Moses.

Note that God did not say that these gifts would be given automatically to the person deemed by the hierarchy to be the next president of the church (or, as the case may be, the next apostle). He said it was the duty of the individual thus selected to obtain those gifts. This is a description of a responsibility to obtain, not a description of a gift bestowed.

Though God charges the president of the church to become a prophet, seer, and revelator, and though history suggests the wisdom in voting for a man who already possesses these gifts, the concept that a man will be given the gifts of prophecy, seership, and revelation simply because he is ordained president of the church is not supported by scripture or history.

Brigham Young distinguished between the right to administer the church and the ability to obtain God’s word.

A seer is someone to whom God communicates through the use of “Urim and Thummim”—physical media into which a seer gazes. Urim and Thummim can mean the specific glasses used by Joseph Smith and ancient seers, but properly refers more generally to other objects used for the same purpose, such as Joseph’s seer stones and Joseph of Egypt’s goblet. Joseph Smith used both the Urim and Thummim and several seer stones. Though the church possesses several of Joseph Smith’s seer stones, none have been used since his death. Orson Pratt lamented the lack of the gift of seership in post-Joseph church leaders.

Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (Joseph Smith, DHC-5: 265.) In other words, one who prophesies can be called a prophet. One who does not, cannot. There is no such thing as a true prophet who does not prophecy. “There is no calling of God to man on earth but what brings with it the evidences of its authenticity.” (Brigham Young, JD 9:27.)

Do our leaders receive prophecy or receive revelation? Joseph F. Smith stated.

But is President Joseph F. Smith’s experience general among church leaders? There have been four canonized revelations to the successors of Joseph Smith: D&C 136, D&C 138, and Official Declarations 1 and 2. Brigham Young received D&C 136 on Jan. 14, 1847, nearly a year before he was sustained as President of the Church on Dec 27[th], 1847. According to church doctrine, he did not have the authority to receive revelation for the church at the time. D&C 138 was received by Joseph F. Smith on October 3[rd], 1918. He read the words in the section as a conference talk the next day. A few weeks later, it was “accepted” by his counselors, the Twelve, and the Patriarch. However, the section was not sustained by the church for another 57 years. The first official declaration is the manifesto of Wilford Woodruff, which was meant as a deceitful appeasement to the U.S. government—it did not actually end plural marriage. The second official declaration is a report of President Kimball lifting the priesthood ban. Most members assume that President Kimball received a revelation where God stated to lift the ban. Instead, President Kimball decided to lift the ban, and prayed that God would speak to him if that was not his will. In absence of a message from God, he lifted the ban. The claim of only four revelations over more than.

150 years does not make a strong case for the persistence of modern prophecy. The substance and circumstances of the four revelations weaken the argument further. More than half the current church membership has joined or been born since 1978, meaning that, even if the lifting of the priesthood ban was a bona fide revelation, most modern Mormons find themselves in the awkward position of preaching the need for modern revelation without ever having witnessed an example of it.

For fear of the implications, Modern Mormons rationalize away the lack of revelation by redefining the term to mean emotional impressions, supposing that the same God who dictated hundreds of pages of written revelation in less than 20 years of Joseph’s ministry now only communicates through feelings. The brethren do not think “something is wrong with or lacking in [them]” if “they do not receive frequent, miraculous, or strong” revelations from God. In fact, expecting such is “look[ing] beyond the mark.” Instead, it is “quite normal” to only experience God’s “customary pattern” of communication as “small an incremental impressions...over time.” These are not revelations, but opinions. Joseph Smith taught of opinions.

In the lack of prophecy from leaders today, we see the fulfillment of this prophecy from Isaiah.

Modern Mormons would here object by claiming that everything church leaders say is revelation from God. It is a mistake to assume this. The Lord said that the words of leaders are only his word when given by the Holy Ghost.

That this is not always the case is readily apparent. President Harold B. Lee said.

Elder B.H. Roberts taught similarly.

Some claim that impressions are the same as revelation. Modern Mormon leaders consider any impression they receive to be just as good as God’s transcribable voice.

Yet, President Joseph F. Smith would not consider Elder Oaks’ experiences as revelation.

Promoting one’s impressions to the status of revelation is indeed dangerous. Joseph Smith taught.

George Cannon said.

What are the implications of no revelation among leaders of the church after Joseph Smith? Joseph said.

Orson Pratt said about revelation.

If God does not change, and the restoration’s purpose was to bring Zion, and Zion is not yet here, shouldn’t we expect just as many revelations today as in Joseph’s day? Joseph described the reason for religious leaders' lack of revelation.

What about visions? God said “If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.” (Numbers 12:6.) Sidney Rigdon preached that visions were “one of the most important parts (of the Spirit’s work) in the salvation of men.” He said it was a necessary quality of any people of God, and that the lack thereof always signaled apostasy from God.

Lehi, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets of the scriptures were capable of teaching others how to come back into the presence of God because they had been there themselves and thus knew the way. In Lehi’s vision of the tree of life, it is not until after he reaches the tree of life that he attempts to lead his family there. Yet, none of Joseph’s successors have publicly claimed to have been in the Lord’s presence (see “Witnesses”). For instance, Brigham Young said.

Leaders’ lack of obtaining God’s presence does not imply that being in God’s presence is not important, as certain leaders have recently taught. God does not change. If it was important for men to be restored into God’s presence in the scriptures and during Joseph’s life, it is important now. Instead, the lack of experience in these men is a witness that they do not know the way.

Modern Mormons follow men who purport to lead them to a place they have never been themselves.

What is a blind guide, if not he who has never been to where he claims to lead others? There is only one outcome for blind leaders and their followers.

Our present condition is well described by the prophets of the Old Testament. Isaiah 59 describes in detail the reasons why a people would cease to receive institutional revelation. Isaiah proclaims, “surely Jehovah’s hand has not become too short to save, nor his ear dull of hearing!” No, it is not a changing God that has caused the silence, but a rebellious people. Isaiah says that it is our iniquities that have caused God to stop speaking to us. He says our “palms are defiled with blood” because we do works of evil. Our “lips speak guile” and our “tongue utters duplicity.” Instead of preaching the gospel, we repeat platitudes and self-praise. We “rely on empty words, deceitfully spoken.” These empty teachings are like “vipers’ eggs and...spiders’ webs” that bear no fruit and do not stand up to investigation: “whoever eats of their eggs dies, and if any is smashed, there emerges a serpent.” The teachings are hypocritical, preaching one thing and doing another “their cobwebs are useless as clothing; their fabrications are worthless for covering themselves.” “Their works consist of wrongdoing; they manipulate injurious dealings.” They have modified God’s word and therefore do not encounter God’s peace: “willfully denying Jehovah, backing away from following our God.” “They have made crooked their paths; none who treads them knows peace.” Having abandoned God’s word, we are left with ignorance and the consequences thereof: “havoc and disaster follow in their wake....They are unacquainted with the way of perfection; integrity is not within their bounds. We look for light, but there prevails darkness; for a glimmer of hope, but we walk amid gloom.” In place of wisdom we receive the philosophies of men. “We grope along the borders like the blind; we flounder like those without eyes. We stumble at noon as in the dark of night; in the prime of life we resemble the dead.” Instead of all this, we ought to be fighting for the cause of the poor and the oppressed: “None call for righteousness; no one sues for an honest cause.”

In Amos 8 we find another apt description of our present situation.

Not only do we find ourselves in a famine of the word of God, but the damage from the want of revelation seems disproportionately levied against our “fair virgins and young men.” Tech-savvy youth, who are more likely to find historical misrepresentations and fabrications, are among those leaving the church in highest numbers, with many losing all faith in God through having lost all faith in the church.

Throughout history, God’s silence has been interpreted as divine disfavor—an invitation to repent and request forgiveness in order to restore communication from heaven. The scriptures are replete with examples of people who, finding themselves in heavenly silence, assumed they had retained their standing with God, forcing the promotion of their own thoughts as God’s word in order to cover the consequence of their sins. In reality, the obvious thing to do was and is to ask God why he has ceased speaking, with the assumption that something is gravely wrong. Instead, “the people do not turn back to him who smites them, nor will they inquire of Jehovah of Hosts.” The penalty is that God ratifies his separation from the leaders.

Brigham Young erroneously taught that God’s silence in response to a question is not a sign of divine disfavor, but a witness that he trusts and will own any decision you make without his word.

Unfortunately, this principle guides those in the leading councils of the church today.

The Doctrine and Covenants demonstrates that questions of church administration occur with regularity. In the absence of revelation, the ideas of the leaders, usually with debate, are substituted as the word and will of God. First Presidency councilor Hugh B. Brown described how decisions are made by the brethren.

Feelings are used as if they were God’s voice. They need not be particularly notable feelings, just impressions or hunches. This is seen as just as valid as the actual voice of God. When God speaking is seen as a rare occurrence, and when leaders don’t think they need much revelation, deviate from God’s gospel is certain to follow; “without [revelation] we can neither know nor understand anything of God.” (TPJS, p. 205)

The understanding that the lack of revelation is a signal that God desires you to act on your own creates the perfect environment for deviating from God’s will and from God’s word as already received. This is the exact environment that enabled the great apostasy: men refusing to heed the revelations that had already been received, thinking they understood more about God than those preceding men who actually spoke with him. Seeking to obtain revelation to support a system that deviates from what God has already revealed will never lead to God speaking.

No man is entitled to fabricate God’s word in the absence of his giving it.

The results of acting under the auspices of God’s command without his having spoken are demonstrated in 1 Samuel 13. Here, king Saul—distressed with many Philistine armies threatening his meager forces—called for Samuel, who said he would come in 7 days, but didn't. With his army deserting, Saul offered a burnt offering himself. Samuel announced that God would remove the kingdom from Saul as a result (see 1 Samuel 13).

Modern Mormonism offers many examples of acting without God’s word. The first occurred during the succession crisis. Without acknowledging the possibility of Joseph’s death as a sign of divine disapproval, the Saints assumed that one of the several leaders campaigning to take over church leadership was divinely appointed to do so. Instead of inquiring of the Lord on the topic, they listened to speeches from each candidate and then took a vote, with the Quorum of the Twelve winning a majority. Since then, history provides a constant chain of decisions and changes made by man’s judgment without God’s word on the matter.

Because God’s word is not being dispensed, those in leadership must claim some other mechanism for the authority of their words. Nephi, foreseeing this, explained it as follows.

Today we see the claim to authority in terms of claims to keys or callings or unanimity of those in callings. One way church leaders justify making decisions without God’s word is through the understanding that God has given his authority to them to act without his speaking to them. In other words, “and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men; Behold, hearken ye unto my precept.” (2 Nephi 28:5-6.) The leaders refer to this paradigm with a repurposed term from the scriptures: “keys.”

Not even one true messenger in the scriptures ever claimed keys as a source of their authority. For example, Jesus came without any pretense to church calling or keys. Instead, when given the opportunity, he listed examples of miracles performed as evidence of his divine role.

In modern Mormonism, keys are incorrectly taught as the catalyst of the great apostasy. Yet, less than 100 years ago, apostle James E. Talmage and others instead claimed that the great apostasy came not from the loss of ephemeral “keys,” but because the ancient church supplanted scripture with council decisions and other worldly wisdom. The great apostasy was not the result of a loss of authority, but a loss of power. Ordinations still occurred. Offices continued. Vacancies were filled. However, even before the death of the apostles, the doctrine had become corrupted through the false teachings of leaders (see “The Great Apostasy” by James Talmage), despite their possession of “keys.”

The Catholics' claim to authority seems to be vindicated by history. They can trace their authority in an unbroken chain to a bishop who appears to have been legitimately ordained by the church established by Christ.

Priesthood lineage is not enough. When the membership of the church appointed men to declare what was doctrine who trusted in their own wisdom rather than obtaining the word of God (or leaving the word of God as it has already been revealed), apostasy followed. These men conducted councils where they decided what doctrine was and wasn't using their own learning. It is likely that they may have prayed about things, but God did not give them his word. They were left to assume that their feelings and impressions were God’s revelation to them. Yet—in a telltale sign of false revelation—councils were still necessary to settle the differing views. God’s revelation is self-consistent. Arguments are not necessary when men are led by God’s voice because he will reveal the same information to each council member. Thus the church of God was severed from the true vine and became nothing more than a shadow of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

True messengers do not charge those they serve to follow them. They, like Nephi, teach their people to seek God's word—not theirs—in order to avoid being led astray.

Confide in God, and do what he says. That will protect you from doctrines of devils and commandments of men.

If church leaders had the word of God, concepts proclaimed as essential for salvation by one leader would not be called unnecessary by another. What one leader called immutable doctrine from God would not be dismissed by later leaders as a limited and inconsequential policy.

If church leaders had the word of God, quoting it would carry far more weight than justifying their decisions based on keys. Instead, keys are considered sufficient to promote leaders’ opinions over scripture—the same mistake made by the church leaders that precipitated the great apostasy.

Using this reasoning, a normal member citing revelation through Joseph Smith can be overruled by the contrary opinion of a leader simply by virtue of keys.

Another way church leaders justify making decisions without God’s word is through promoting the unanimous decision of their councils to be equal to God’s revealed word. The church has repeatedly insisted that the leading councils of the church have authority to “establish doctrine” without revelation.

The church teaches that unanimity implies God’s revealed will, as if a group of men couldn’t agree without God’s intervention.

Unanimity does not equate to God's word. Consider how many times King Noah’s priests were in unanimous support of Noah’s wicked doctrines. Similarly, God's word can be spoken even if only one speaks it. Consider that Alma was right even though he was the only voice on the council of King Noah's priests.

What is quite remarkable about the assertion that unanimity equates God’s word is the frequency with which the brethren are not unanimous, and can only gain unanimity through sideways means. The minutes of the meetings of the brethren reveal unexpected tactics to achieve “unanimity.”

These include dissenting members’ abstinence from voting, sending dissenting members abroad, and exerting seniority in order to facilitate a unanimous vote.

In any case, to assume that the prevailing opinion of a group of men mirrors God’s will without his having spoken is to assume that the mind of man is equal to the mind of God, an assumption clearly refuted by scripture. Such an assumption guarantees that the laws of the church will follow the ever sliding moorings of society. Hence, that which is decided by a council of men in one generation will be replaced by that which is decided by a council of men in the next, with the small lag between the world’s standards and the church’s standards due to the previous generation status quo embedded in the aging brethren, rather than the undeviating standard of God’s word.

Attributing to God what came from a committee or your own mind is taking strength unto yourself. This was prophesied to happen in the latter days in Jacob 5.

Because we are “taught by the precepts of men,” “in many instances” we err in doctrine. (2 Nephi 28:14.) To assume that God does not give revelation today like he always has is to deny the power of God and the gift of the Holy Ghost. To listen to men who claim they have the authority to declare the word of God without God speaking it to them is to hearken to the precepts of men. This is exactly what Nephi was talking about when he said.

Without any new revelation, and with apparent disdain for the words of God through Joseph Smith, prescribed conferences and publications are filled instead with platitudes, gimmicks, and self-help advice. Recent conference talks feature less than 2 verses of scripture on average. Instead of turning to revelation, scripture, or the teachings of Joseph Smith, leaders instead quote each other in a reductive cycle. This repetition, predicted by Isaiah, is explained away by faithful members who notice it, and actually celebrated by leaders.

How can we approach Zion if our current teachings have not brought us there, and our future teachings will simply repeat our current teachings? If “a man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge,” as Joseph taught, how can we become saved if we receive less of God’s word with each passing generation of General Authorities, less versed in Joseph’s doctrines and the scriptures than the last?

Though church leaders have made valiant public assertions of the independence of God’s will from public opinion, the LDS church has been heavily influenced by public opinion through surveys, focus groups, and outside public relations consulting for decades. Many changes in the last few decades were catalyzed by public opinion polling, including the church’s logo, the subtitle to the Book of Mormon, the “I’m a Mormon” campaign, the change of missionary age, and the decision to remain in the Boy Scouts despite the latter’s pro-homosexual posture. Public opinion polling has catalyzed more than superficial changes. Societal pressure was the onus for the 1990 changes to the endowment ceremony and the recent litany of concessions to feminist progressives. This is not a new pattern, with history dotted with other similar examples such as the lifting of the priesthood ban, the repeated modifications to garments, and the cessation of plural marriage Most recently, the church has changed its position on homosexual marriage as a result of public opinion polling, and continues to survey members to reflect changing sentiments in leaders’ statements, doctrine, and policy.

The will of the Lord is not obtained through public polling or public relations consulting. Relying on PR firms and surveys as a surrogate for God’s word is at least a partial fulfillment of scriptural prophecies that speak of relying on mystics, soothsayers, and spiritists—experts sought after in ancient days as a more accessible avenue of obtaining advice than inquiring of the Lord. Just as ancient Israel relied on the arm of the flesh in the form of militarily mighty Egypt, the church is allying itself with the world—not only through the methods employed to survey the feelings of the people, but in the act of using popular will to supplant God’s commandments. What is right for God’s people is given by his word, not the opinion of the people. The dispensation of God’s word should not depend on whether a critical majority of church members will favorably accept it or not. Moses did not dispatch Aaron to poll focus groups to see how they would react to the Ten Commandments. After delivering them, Moses did not repeal them simply because the Canaanites found them offensive.

While some rightly point out that popularity with a fallen world can only be achieved by jettisoning foundational doctrines of the restoration, some hail the lack of persecution in modern Mormonism as a blessing and a sign of divine favor.

What is more important: the church's public image in a fallen society, or the transmission of saving (but unpopular) truths? Some would contend that popularity is necessary for preaching the gospel. Earlier church leaders would vehemently disagree.

Since 1890, leaders have contorted doctrine, misrepresented history, and wrested scripture to whittle the peculiarity of the saints into something appeasing to ever-changing societal sensibilities. This continuing chain has been and will continue to be ineffective to stem the negative rewards of abandoning God's standards—like all deals with the devil, the outcome is never as rosy as promised.

Protection from the world is given by God, not men. It is wrong to strategize in anticipation of societal pressure, making accommodations to the world even before they are demanded. Abandoning God's standards to gain perceived protection from earthly threats is uniformly decried in scripture and likened unto whoredom (see, for example Ezekiel 23:1-21, Hosea 4:1-19, Hosea 7:1-16, and Hosea 9:1.) Some would define this as apostasy.

We ought to fear God, and not manipulate the gospel in a bid to buy protection from persecution. Isaiah predicted the outcome of allying with the world, and we see its fulfillment unrolling today.

This pattern will continue as the church continues to allow society to dictate doctrine.

The scriptures tell us how God feels about attributing his name to the words of men. They say God has not sent the men who do so.

They say God is against these men.

They say God will reprove those who do so. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 20:5-6.) They say how God will reprove them, by calling real prophets to speak against them.

They say how words spoken in God’s name in vain have no strength, and should be expected to fall apart in due time.

They say we should not listen to these vain messages.

The nature and disposition of all men, including leaders, is fallen. Revelation is needed to elevate our thoughts to God’s thoughts. Joseph called the Holy Ghost “the mind of the Lord”. Without revelation, a leader’s opinion is almost certainly wrong. Countering God’s revealed word should only be considered with great trepidation and absolute certainty of new revelation. Supplanting God’s word with a man’s opinion is folly. “Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.” (Proverbs 3:5-7.)

Modern church leaders have received honors from world leaders, medals from U.S. presidents, honorary degrees from universities, have buildings and camps named after them, own multiple homes, and receive new luxury cars yearly. They are revered by their subordinates, take the chief seats in the synagogues, receive hero’s welcomes by members in their travels, and are treated to lavish birthday celebrations. None of this behavior is seen in the prophets of the scriptures. Joseph Smith was hated by at least as many members as he was beloved, and even among those who claimed to sustain him, the word of God delivered through him was difficult enough to accept that it was largely ignored.

Is this the pattern provided in scripture? Joseph Smith wrote.

True prophets have to hide from society or face pain or death as a result of hatred for the message they bear. True prophets do not preach easy messages that are compliant with modern sensibilities. They do not use popular gimmicks. They do not cry that all is well or that what we are doing is good enough. True prophets are not hypocrites. The Lord’s watchmen do not cry “tomorrow will be like today, only far better!” The Lord’s watchmen do not ignore the prophecies he has given of destruction by crying “peace,” erroneously assuming that the Lord is with them and will protect them. They do not say that the Lord delays his coming. True prophets do not teach for money. True prophets do not neglect the poor. True prophets do not feel threatened by others who are receiving revelations from God or visitations from God. False prophets do, because their competitors, like Jeremiah, Elijah, Isaiah, and Amos, receive true revelations and bear tangible fruits of being true messengers, posing a threat to their priestcraft.

Those who stand as prophets have an obligation to point out sin, and will be held accountable by God to the extent that they do not.

Ezekiel saw a day when the people would “seek a vision of the prophet; but the law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients.” (Ezekiel 7:26, KJV). Do people seek visions from the prophet today? Does President Monson give it? Do we receive the word of the Lord from our “ancients” (Elders)? Do priests speak the law? Or are we instead nourished on everchanging PR-firm-written policy?

They are a rebellious people, sons who break faith, children unwilling to obey the law of Jehovah, who say to the seers, See not! and to those with visions, Predict not what is right for us: flatter us; foresee a farce! Get out of the way; move aside, off the path! Cease confronting us with the Holy One of Israel! Therefore, thus says the Holy One of Israel: Because you have rejected this word, and rely on manipulation and double dealing, and on them are dependent, this iniquity will be to you as a perilous breach exposed in a high wall which suddenly and unexpectedly collapses. (Isaiah 30:9-13, Gileadi Translation.)

The word “prophet” is not a title, but a description. It is a term defined repeatedly and clearly in the scriptures, as is its opposite, “false prophet.” Modern Mormons are in the uncomfortable position of having to reconcile their tradition of equating the 15 governing men in the church to the description of prophet in an absolute absence of any of the associated gifts and responsibilities. These actions align very well to the scriptural description of false prophets.

LDS leaders after Joseph Smith have taught their own ideas and feelings as the word of God. They have promoted their own words and the decisions of their councils as equal to God’s word, and used this to rationalize a systemic turn away from the revelations given through Joseph Smith.

Church History

Although modern Mormonism deemphasizes the value of what Joseph Smith received from God in favor of what is taught by successors to Joseph Smith, God considered Joseph’s revelations important enough to preserve that he routinely appointed scribes to record the revelations and history of the restoration. We cannot live the doctrines of the restoration without knowing history. We cannot compare present teachings to what Joseph taught without knowing history. Our acceptance of Joseph’s teachings requires knowledge of church history.

Nevertheless, modern LDS leaders do not appreciate the importance of church history. Church leaders rose up in the ranks from lay positions. Like the body of normal members they were chosen from, church leaders do not know church history. Any expectation we may have for them to know more about church history than normal members do would come from some sense of obligation we would expect them to have in relation to their office. Yet, with frequent comments deprecating the value of church history, it is clear that, to today’s leaders, knowing church history is not a priority.

Church history ironically presents a record of not caring very much about the History of the Church. Joseph Fielding Smith, who served as church historian from 1921 to 1970, found that many important historical documents had not been collected and archived prior to his tenure, and built up an impressive collection that was donated to the church at the time of his death. Why didn’t any of his predecessors do so? Hyrum Andrus reported opening crates of church archive documents around 1965 that had been sealed since Nauvoo. Why did it take ten decades and the instigation of historians outside the church hierarchy to think that historic records from.

Nauvoo might be worth reading, or at least uncrating? Leonard Arrington—the church’s first historian chosen for his professional talent rather than church rank—was the first and only church historian to open the church archives to the public, something that one would assume would have been done much earlier. The Joseph Smith Papers Project is a landmark attempt to collect and publish every document created by Joseph Smith. It is the first historic project undertaken by the LDS church with an unbiased approach in mind. Still, it is perplexing why a church which celebrates Joseph Smith as a prophet would have waited until 160 years after his death to undertake to collect and publish his writings and speeches. Even then, the impetus for the project came largely not from the church, but from a private member who contributed substantial funding for the project.

In recent years, church leaders have taken an increased interest in church history in direct proportion to how much bad press has been garnered from omissions, alterations, and fabrications brought to light by ease of access due to the internet. Though the church has responded with a flood of historic materials, including essays on troubling topics, the persistence of omissions, alterations, and fabrications suggest that the new initiative is more about convincing members they need not investigate church history than it is about a clean, honest approach to the past.

In recent years, the church has determined through extensive surveys that unfiltered church history available online is a driving force in the loss of members in the tithing-crucial first world, particularly among younger members, who tend to be tech savvy. In response, the church recently quickly built a sophisticated search engine optimization (SEO) program. Search engines are designed to show users the websites most likely to contain what they are searching for. SEO is a business strategy to manipulate the search engine results from what the user wants to see to what the business wants them to see. From the church’s point of view, a search on “LDS finances” should link to LDS-owned websites that offer only church-positive information, not to Wikipedia or other objective discussions. The church has exerted great effort on ensuring that the first few results of a Google search return church-owned websites that contain only a church-positive relation of events.

SEO is only the most recent tool in a long-standing effort to withhold true history that challenges present traditions or suggests that church leaders past or present have made mistakes.

Elder Oaks has taught that facts that portray church leaders in a negative light should be omitted from church materials. He also taught.

On another occasion, Elder Oaks taught that.

Elder Oaks is not alone in his views. Elder Nelson has taught: “Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid.” President Boyd K. Packer was an outspoken critic of objective history. He wrote.

The policy of intentionally withholding history that contradicts church tradition has led to many examples of actively suppressed true history. For example, by the time correlation took over church curricula, plural marriage was something for which the church received only negative attention. You will not find mention of anything regarding Joseph Smith’s polygamy in church materials during the decades between correlation’s inception and the recent admissions in the church topics essays on LDS.org. In every location where you would expect some mention of topic, it is omitted. This blackout continued even into recent years. The D&C manual covers only verses 4-33 of D&C 132, conveniently skipping over the many verses that describe the polygamy of Abraham, David, Solomon, and Moses, Joseph’s authority to give women to other men, and the command for Joseph to practice polygamy. The manual never mentions Joseph’s polygamy, and only mentions plural marriage at all as a minor bullet point at the end of the lesson, with the instructions, “The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.” Similarly, the “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith” manual’s introduction states.

This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime.

Surely, even if the manual does not include quotes on plural marriage, this disclosure should say “taught and practiced” plural marriage? The perpetual avoidance of this topic has led to a condition where a surprising number of fully active, lifelong members were broadsided by the recent LDS.org essays that discussed Joseph Smith’s polygamy. These are members who attended seminary, attended BYU, served a mission, and still had never been told that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage.

Another example of hiding history is found in the suppression of research identifying changes to scripture. The open archives of the 1970s provided ample historical research material for graduate students at BYU. This period produced two works analyzing changes to the text of canonized scripture: “Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon, Comparing the Original and Printer’s MSS., and Comparing the 1830, 1837, and 1840 Editions,” and “Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants.” The church authorized both theses on condition that they remain unpublished and inaccessible to all except those cleared by church leadership. This policy was lifted after a threat to accreditation some years later over the access restrictions. “Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants” was briefly available by purchase on CD-ROM, but continues today to be accessible only in person at the BYU library, where 2 copies of the set are available for public view. It includes thousands of modifications to the text of the D&C—enough to occupy 3 massive volumes. Among these changes were a modification to the wording of the baptismal prayer, which originally took the form found in the Book of Mormon. This is a significant change that might impact every baptized member of the church, yet there is no mention of this change in any official publication of the church.

As detailed elsewhere in this book, the LDS temple garment has been dramatically modified multiple times since it was revealed to Joseph. The church has had Hyrum Smith’s temple garment in possession since Joseph Fielding Smith was president, yet no access to or reports of the original pattern or symbols have been given. We know from accounts given that nearly everything about the garment has been changed, and any sort of access to the original would reveal that immediately. Likewise, the temple ceremony itself is vastly different from the 1877 transcript, purportedly the first time the ceremony was recorded. The original transcript survived an attempted purge in the 1920s by apostle George Richards, thanks to a defiant St. George Temple President. The church still has this copy, yet it is not accessible to any outside of top leadership.

The policy of withholding history is not just a part of traditions among the brethren. It is codified in the “Handbook of Instructions.” The handbook’s definition of apostasy means that anyone who teaches church history without withholding history that incriminates current church practices or past or present leaders is considered an apostate and will be excommunicated. This was illustrated recently when Denver Snuffer was excommunicated for refusing to remove “Passing the Heavenly Gift” from publication. The book contains scriptures and quotes from church leaders that suggest a version of history that differs from LDS claims. The stake president who charged Snuffer with apostasy did not attempt to outline or correct any errors in the book, but merely maintained that the history presented was “in direct conflict with church doctrine” and “placed the church in a negative light.” Denver Snuffer was not the first member to be excommunicated for publishing true history, and he will not be the last.

As George Orwell said, “The most powerful form of lie is the omission.” Withholding true information assists only the perpetuation of disinformation, not the cause of truth. As the church historian that oversaw the window of open church archives put it.

Only truth can lead us closer to Christ. Faith cannot be had on false principles. Therefore, as Joseph stated “we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them;” (D&C 123:13.)

The church has been intentionally misrepresenting history since the tenure of Brigham Young. One historian has written.

One example of changes made to “suit the new order of things” was the revision of the excommunication of Thomas Marsh. Thomas Marsh was excommunicated for providing an affidavit that stated: A company of about eighty of the Mormons, commanded by a man fictitiously named Captain Fearnot [David W. Patten], marched to Gallatin. They returned and said they had run off from Gallatin twenty or thirty men and had taken Gallatin, had taken one prisoner and another had joined the company. I afterwards learned from the Mormons that they had burned Gallatin, and that it was done by the aforesaid company that marched there. The Mormons informed me that they had hauled away all the goods from the store in Gallatin, and deposited them at the Bishop’s storehouses at Adam-on-diahmon.

History supports the factual accuracy of this statement. As such, it is unclear why he was excommunicated. From other documents, it seems that Joseph Smith may not have been aware of the actions of or existence of Patten’s group (called Danites) at this time.

Most members will not recognize that Thomas B. Marsh was excommunicated for swearing out an affidavit correctly describing the pillaging conducted by the Missouri Mormons. Instead, they have been told that he was excommunicated over a dispute between his wife and another sister regarding milk strippings.

The first telling of the milk stripping story was in 1864 when George A. Smith. There is no contemporary evidence supporting this story. Furthermore, there is no mention of the issue in the Far West High Council minutes, despite Smith having said that Thomas Marsh “immediately took an appeal to the High Council, who investigated the question with much patience.”

Marsh requested rebaptism on September 6, 1857, addressing a large gathering in the Salt Lake City Bowery. The event was a critical one in the history of the succession of leaders in the LDS church. Prior to this time, in each case where an apostle had been excommunicated, they resumed their ranking at the time of reinstatement. At the time of his excommunication, Marsh was the president of the quorum. Following precedent, his reinstatement would make him the president of the church. In a public reply to Marsh’s request to be rebaptized, Brigham Young gave him a severe dressing down. Though rebaptized, he was not reinstated to the Quorum of the Twelve. The misrepresentation of Marsh’s excommunication has been perpetuated ever since, including by President Monson, and is even contained in the church’s history article on him.

Another perpetuated myth is that of Brigham Young appearing or sounding like Joseph Smith during his campaigning in the succession crisis. Like the milk strippings, there is no contemporary evidence that this event actually occurred. The first accounts occurred much after the fact in a time when there were significant reasons to justify Brigham’s succession claims. In both cases, the perpetuated accounts distract from a factual discussion of whether Brigham Young’s succession claims were justified.

Some quotes from Joseph Smith are published and republished despite the lack of any firsthand contemporary accounts. For example, the History of the Church states that Joseph said.

The doctrinal importance of this quote is significant, as it is the only source in Joseph’s words or in scripture of which I am aware that states that one who truthfully criticizes the church is committing or will soon commit apostasy. The History of the Church takes the quote from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 2, 1839, in Montrose, Iowa; reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards. The problem is that, although Wilford Woodruff was present at and recorded this sermon, his account does not contain this quote. Willard Richard’s Pocket Companion is the only source for this quote. Importantly, Richards was in England at the time, and therefore copied his account from somewhere else. There are many other examples of quotes attributed to Joseph Smith that have no contemporary support. For example, the church recently reprinted the following in a Priesthood/Relief Society manual.

The problem is that there is no contemporary source for this quote. Orson Hyde’s was an extemporaneous recollection at least 27 years after the fact. Various versions of this quote exist, all given decades after the fact, with no contemporary recording of the quote despite all or nearly all of Joseph’s Nauvoo sermons having been recorded. Because the church has repeatedly engaged in citation obfuscation, it is not easy to tell what quotes ascribed to Joseph were witnessed firsthand and recorded contemporarily, no quote from Joseph ought to be trusted unless it can be traced to the original source. The Joseph Smith papers, which has a free online portal, is the best resource at this point. Anything less than a firsthand contemporary account is not historical record, but uncorroborated hearsay from leaders proven to have engaged in intentional historical fabrication for church-promoting purposes.

In the case of another misrepresented historical topic—plural marriage—the driving factor seems to be a desire to avoid negative public opinion rather than strengthen otherwise weak authority claims.

From the first public teaching of plural marriage on August 29, 1852, until the so-called “Second Manifesto” in 1904 that marked the end of church-sanctioned polygamy, the doctrine occupied preeminence among the LDS faith. It is important to understand that to Latter-day Saints between 1852 and 1904, plural marriage was just as central a tenant of the gospel as baptism. The church's treatment of plural marriage is an example of how any central tenant could be handled in the future.

The official position has been and continues to be that the church did not sanction plural marriages after 1890 or that the only sanctioned ones took place in Mexico where it was legal. Both statements are untrue. Hundreds of plural marriages occurred with the sanction of the First Presidency in the United States and Mexico after 1890, with some even occurring after 1904.

Leaders from 1890-1904 and beyond had personal knowledge of hundreds of post-manifesto plural marriages, having been personally involved in many. Faced with significant public opinion ramifications, the church misrepresented plural marriage for generations after the 1890 manifesto, at first continuing plural marriages in secret despite public denials, then (after 1904) misrepresenting plural marriage as having ended in 1890 so as to vindicate leaders who said one thing and practiced another. For example, President Joseph F. Smith—a strong proponent of post-manifesto plural marriages—stated under oath in the Reed Smoot hearings, “There never has been a plural marriage by the consent or sanction or knowledge or approval of the church since the manifesto.” Apostle John Widstoe wrote in 1936: “Since that day [6 October 1890] no plural marriage has been performed with the sanction or authority of the Church.” After these first-hand witnesses of post-manifesto plural marriage had been replaced by the next generation, it is unclear to what degree leaders were aware that their statements were incorrect. BYU Historian Gustive O. Larson taught in 1958: “While Presidents Woodruff, Snow, and Smith maintained monogamous integrity of the Church, plural marriages were being performed secretly by two members of the Apostles' Quorum.” Stephen L Richards (First Presidency counselor) stated in 1961: “Since that time, entering into plural marriage has been construed to be an offense against the laws of the Church.” Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley stated in 1969: “Since that time [September 1890] the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned such marriage.” Apostle Mark E. Petersen wrote in 1974 that “the Manifesto put an end to all legal plural marriages.” Whether leaders after 1905 were aware of the falsehood of their statements or not, whatever ignorance church leaders had should have ended with the publication of Quinn’s 1985 report on the topic. This report was hand delivered to President Gordon B. Hinckley, who gave the author his permission to publish the document. Yet, years later, Hinckley made the following statement.

This statement is misleading at best, given the evidence that church leaders have not only openly broken the law with regards to plural marriage, but also committed perjury in denying having done so while under oath.

Church leaders have not corrected the facts regarding plural marriage in statements since then. The recent essay “The Manifesto and the end of Plural Marriage” continues many of the falsehoods, among them that the manifesto ended plural marriage, that the manifesto was a revelation, that only a “smaller number of new plural marriages” were performed between 1890 and 1904, and that these did not have church sanction. The church has published many articles stating that the 1890 manifesto ended plural marriage. The statement is made in at least four current church manuals.

President Gordon B. Hinckley, on national television, stated “In 1890, that practice was discontinued.” He made a similar statement in conference that same year. Even the timeline in the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith manual, which includes an entry stating Smith issued a “second manifesto on plural marriage (without describing what it was) states that Woodruff’s manifesto ended plural marriage.

What does it mean that church leaders were willing to abandon what they believed was a commandment from God essential for salvation in order to gain worldly power? If modern Mormons can call a commandment of God considered essential to salvation in 1890 “not doctrinal” 100 years later, are there any doctrines that are protected from modern sensibilities? Furthermore, none of the information in the essay is new. Why did it take over 100 years for the church to change its position on polygamy? Even without any effort on the part of the church, Quinn published his searching report of post-manifesto sanctioned polygamy in 1985. Why did it take 30 years for the church to make a statement on the topic, and then only making some half-truth concessions towards the truth?

Another example of historical misrepresentation is found in the publicly expressed reasons for substituting water for wine in the sacrament. In modern Mormonism, water is used exclusively for the sacrament instead of wine. D&C 27 is usually cited for this change. The heading for D&C 27 says.

In preparation for a religious service at which the sacrament of bread and wine was to be administered, Joseph set out to procure wine. He was met by a heavenly messenger and received this revelation, a portion of which was written at the time and the remainder in the September following. Water is now used instead of wine in the sacramental services of the Church.

Although the last line in the heading gives the impression that this section is the reason water is used instead of wine in the sacrament, this is simply not true. The church continued to exclusively use wine for the sacrament for over fifty years after this section was received. Sometimes the Word of Wisdom is cited as the reason for the change from wine to water. Yet, the change was not made until long after the Word of Wisdom revelation was received. The Word of Wisdom actually explicitly states that wine is acceptable to drink for the sacrament. The change came not because of D&C 27, or because of the Word of Wisdom, but in deference to the personal opinions of certain leading brethren, fans of the increasingly popular prohibition movement.

In this case, the misappropriation of the change to revelation shields church leaders from the charge that they changed a revealed ordinance to accord with social pressure.

Joseph’s use of a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon has long been an accusation against the official story. Images in church materials show Joseph reading directly from the uncovered plates. In response to the allegations, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote.

Joseph Fielding Smith dismissed this as anti-Mormon propaganda. Yet, the modern church has changed the narrative, admitting that the “anti” materials were actually correct.

Joseph Fielding Smith, as the church historian for decades, had full access to church archives. There is nothing that modern church historians have access to that Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t have access to, if he was willing to look. How is it that this information was only admitted recently?

The telling of the history of the Nauvoo temple is another example of how history in modern Mormonism is warped to avoid negative implications. The original Nauvoo temple has a rich history. At the time of the martyrdom, the temple was far from complete, with walls only about halfway to their final height and most interior construction not yet started. It took almost another year to finish the walls, with the attic still not framed and the roof not yet shingled. The Saints used the incomplete temple for Oct. 1845 general conference, despite the need for temporary floors to be installed in order to do so. At this time, the first dedication of the incomplete temple took place. In Nov. 1845, the unfurnished attic level was dedicated and repurposed for endowments until February 1846, when no more ordinances were performed in the temple. At this time, the Saints began moving west, with members of the 12 praying in the temple that the Lord would “bless their move to the west and asked Him to enable them to complete the temple and have it formally dedicated” as it was not yet “formally dedicated.” The day after this, the roof caught fire. Later, the floor suddenly cracked so dramatically that some smashed windows to make it out of the building. In April 1846, a general conference was held in the basement of the temple, as the other floors were still under construction. Mob persecution was so great that a secret dedication was held. After holding a public dedication (with $1 cover charge), Orson Hyde and Wilford Woodruff, the last apostles in Nauvoo, headed west. Unable to sell the temple as intended, they abandon it to the mob, who destroyed the interior the following month (June 1846). In Sept. 1846, the steeple was struck by lightning. In Oct. of 1848, much of the temple was destroyed by fire. Finally, the church was able to sell the temple in March 1849. Ten years later it was knocked to the ground by a cyclone. The stones of the building were used to build other buildings, resulting in not one stone being left upon another.

While the temple was dedicated many times, it is a stretch to say that it was ever completed. The temple was indeed used for ordinances long before the building was completed, but even these required the rigging of canvas to repurpose the attic, which had not been designed for endowments. Lack of sufficient donations for construction, settling floors, fires, and general lags in construction created a constant block to completion of the temple until it was finally “formally dedicated” long after the Saints had left Nauvoo. Still, the impression given in modern mentions is quite different from reality. Elder Cook’s recent account is typical, giving no mention of the delays or complications of building the temple, and featuring an ordering that gives the false impression that the temple was completed prior to the endowments being given.

President Monson glosses over the delays and gives the impression that the temple was in fact finished before they left. In reality, they were driven from their homes before the temple was anything close to completed.

Why aren’t leaders more straightforward in their accounts of the Nauvoo temple? As with many other examples of misrepresented church history, plain recitation of the facts raises undesired negative implications. The Lord gave specific promises to accompany the completion of the Nauvoo temple, and curses to accompany the lack of completing it by the appointed time. The leaders of the time knew this well. Orson Hyde stated.

Leaders today know that an admission that the Saints fled Nauvoo prior to the completion of the temple would draw attention to the possibility that the martyrdom marked something other than a routine succession of church leadership. The fulfillment of the curses promised in D&C 124 for failure to heed God’s commandments regarding the Nauvoo temple are not simply a historical chastisement—there are contemporary implications, and they are significant.

A modest number of honest mistakes are reasonable in a church composed of lay local membership. However, when General Authorities have stated that their duty is to purposefully manipulate history to preserve the reputation of leaders and make the story of the restoration more palatable to the public, all while maintaining the accuracy and transparency of church-produced history, the fine line between presentation and dishonesty is crossed.

Church leaders rely on church historians for their history. Church historians have been continually warned to only present church-positive narratives and evidences at penalty of their jobs.

And again.

Two public examples of the enforcement of this long-standing policy are that of Leonard Arrington and Randy Bott. Arrington was called as the church historian in the early 1970s. He presided over a decade of unprecedented open access to church records and objectivity in church history. He was rewarded with a non-public release and replacement. More recently, Bott, an award winning religion professor at BYU, was pressured to retire after providing a quote accurately representing the church’s historical view on the priesthood ban during a time when the church was going to great measures to distance themselves from that history.

The reticence of church historians to provide correct information to church leaders is apparent in official teachings. For example, in the October 2014 General Conference, Elder Nelson stated, “No Prophet has ever been elected.” Brigham Young himself said, “I was unanimously elected President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (Winter Quarters, Dec 27, 1847, Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Signature Books, 2009, page 267.) Every church historian should know the basic details of the succession crisis in order to know that Brigham Young was elected president of the church, let alone that the practice of voting on candidates for leadership began before Brigham Young and continued long after him. Yet, no one on the correlation committee corrected Elder Nelson. This is not an isolated occurrence. Historical errors riddle general conference talks and church manuals.

Church leaders perpetuate falsehoods in ignorance and will continue to do so until they view objective church history as valuable or until they reverse the precedent of disciplining church employees who publicize true history that happens to contradict the official actions and policies of the modern church. A first step is to realize and admit the errors they have made. Until active members value church history and stop relying upon church employees for their history, they will be blind to perpetuated historical falsehoods and historically contraindicated contemporary church policies.

The evolution of the word of wisdom is a wonderful case study in how doctrines can be created through historical ignorance. Abstinence from coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol is considered a hallmark of modern Mormons. The Bible dictionary defines peculiar as carrying “the meaning of the saints’ being the Lord’s own special people or treasure.”

Leaders have indicated that these restrictions are what makes modern Mormons peculiar. Abstinence from these materials has come to be understood as “the maintenance of an identity for the church separate from the world” (Edwin B. Firmage, “The Word of Wisdom: Mark of a Peculiar People,” Oct 1972), the thing that makes Mormons more like God than the rest of the world. In other words, church leaders teach that abstinence from coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol makes the subject more special to God, or more holy. For example, President Joseph Fielding Smith explained.

President Smith implies that use of these materials is just as effectual in preventing one from becoming part of a holy nation as immoral and unclean behavior. This belief is a part of the traditions of modern Mormonism.

From where do these perceptions stem? In the context of history, the current understanding of the word of wisdom did not come into place until 1930, when the word of wisdom as a temple requirement was added to the General Handbook of Instructions. Though pressures to make the word of wisdom a commandment existed even during Joseph Smith's life, these pressures were resisted over several successors to the presidency. For example, Joseph Smith continued to drink coffee, tea, beer, and wine at times (including wine for the sacrament) throughout his life. He had a stocked bar in the Nauvoo house, and drank wine on the day he died.

After Joseph's death, Brigham Young refused to endorse the idea of making the word of wisdom into a commandment. In 1861 he said.

In 1870 he said.

Brigham's successor John Taylor reiterated that the word of wisdom was not necessary for a temple recommend, but differed from his predecessors in suggesting that those who do not observe it ought to be ashamed of themselves. President Woodruff said.

In 1901, Apostles Brigham Young, Jr. and John Henry Smith argued that beer was not prohibited.

The transition from advice to commandment essentially began during the administration of Joseph F. Smith. In 1902, Joseph F. Smith suggested that drunkards be denied recommends, but that older or more subtle users should not be penalized. In making this change, President Smith did not cite any revelation. In fact, under oath to the U.S. Congress in 1904, President Smith indicated that he had never received a revelation as president of the church (see Reed Smoot hearings transcripts). In other words, President Smith elevated the word of wisdom from an unenforced, vague principle to a commandment required for entrance into the temple. The next year, the commandment was expanded to prevent any man from holding a leadership position if he did not obey the word of wisdom. Again, this change did not come via revelation, if we are to take President Smith at his word under oath to Congress. On 5 July 1906, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve began using water instead of wine for their sacrament meetings. President Smith speculated that.

Two years later, he made compliance with the word of wisdom a requirement for ordination to the priesthood, notwithstanding the fact that the brethren had used wine for the sacrament every Sunday in the temple until just 7 years prior.

It is clear from history that the word of wisdom was not a commandment until President Joseph F. Smith made it so without revelation. However, has the meaning of the word of wisdom always been the same? As previously cited, Joseph Smith's understanding did not seem to preclude the consumption of tea, wine, beer, or tobacco. He used all of these products from time to time from when the revelation was received until his death. In fact, the list of leaders just who consumed alcohol post-word of wisdom include (at a minimum) Joseph Smith (President of Church), Brigham Young (President of Church), John Taylor (President of Church), Brigham Young, Jr. (Apostle), John Henry Smith (Apostle), BH Roberts (President of 70), Anthon H. Lund (1st Presidency), Matthias F. Cowley (Apostle), Charles W. Penrose (1st Presidency), and George Albert Smith (President of Church). As already noted, wine was used for the sacrament until 1906, meaning that all leaders who participated in the temple sacrament (at a minimum the 15) would be included in this list. The names listed are all documented as using alcohol outside of the sacrament.

It is clear that leaders prior to President Joseph F. Smith's change did not believe abstinence from alcohol was a commandment from God. What about tobacco, coffee, tea, or otherwise? It turns out that the interpretation of several elements of the word of wisdom was highly disputed from the start. From the start, many were willing to put forth their diverse opinions on the matter. Early on, Hyrum Smith indicated that “‘hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;’ there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.” Here, he both admits to the confusion about the meaning of the imprecise parts of the word of wisdom, and gives his opinion of the same. Although our modern day traditions blind us to the ambiguity of the original revelation, Hyrum Smith’s documentation of the confusion surrounding the meaning of the revelation is understandable in a historical context. For example, when the revelation was given, the meaning of “hot drinks” was not necessarily a question of their temperature. The 1828 Webster’s dictionary indicates that this phrase was regularly used as a synonym for liquor, as liquor burns the drinker’s throat. In other words, it is completely possible that God did not refer to tea or coffee at all in the word of wisdom. As another example, the most likely definition of the “mild drinks” made from barley in the word of wisdom was beer, meaning that far from banning alcohol, the word of wisdom might actually endorse it!

The meaning of the word of wisdom was never canonized by vote of the church, or even cemented by proclamation of the 15. In fact, disputes about what it prohibited were common until the era of correlation. For example, President Lorenzo Snow emphasized that not eating meat was central to the Word of Wisdom in 1900. In 1930, Apostle John A. Widtsoe claimed that refined flour was contrary to the word of wisdom. Caffeine became another item that some said was against the word of wisdom, while others said it was not. Joseph Smith never received (and doesn’t appear to have asked for) a clarifying revelation on the word of wisdom. None of his successors recorded a revelation on the subject.

With knowledge of history, these changes could have been avoided. Instead, we have a worthiness test that has nothing to do with morality that excludes countless numbers of people from baptism and the temple simply for drinking tea and coffee, when early leaders did both without any loss of spiritual blessings. Jesus clearly taught that “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man.” (Matthew 15:10, Inspired Version.) The modern version of the word of wisdom is not only not God’s word, but teaches the opposite of God’s word: that somehow tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol spiritually defile you.

Historical knowledge prevents the loss of true doctrine. The doctrines of “calling and election” and “Second Comforter” are taught plainly in scripture and in the teachings of Joseph Smith, as detailed in the chapter “The Gospel of Christ.” Joseph called obtaining your calling and election “among the first principles of the gospel” (Words of Joseph Smith, 27 June 1839) and frequently preached it among public crowds.

Seeking these experiences is not optional for a disciple of Christ. We are commanded to seek the face of the Lord.

To know Christ is required for eternal life. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3.) How can you know someone you have never met? Jesus said we must actually receive him in order to know him.

Because one cannot have eternal life without obtaining these experiences, true messengers from God always commend others to seek Jesus.

You will not find mention of either of these doctrines in the teachings of modern Mormonism. When was the last time you heard a General Authority bear their witness of having their calling and election made sure or having received the Second Comforter? When was the last time you heard a General Conference talk that even referenced either of these topics? When have you seen them mentioned in church manuals? The “Gospel Topics” page on LDS.org does not list “Calling and Election” or “Second Comforter.” Nevertheless, General Authorities used to bear their witness of having their calling and election made sure and having received the Second Comforter. There used to be General Conference talks and Ensign articles on these topics They used to be described in church manuals.

What changed? Harold B. Lee’s correlation program formalized doctrinal creation, modification, and deletion via an outline of permissible gospel topics. It is probable that “Second Comforter” and “calling and election” were not on the original list. As the brethren who had begun leadership callings pre-correlation passed away, so did these topics.

In contrast to God’s word in the scriptures and through Joseph Smith, modern LDS leaders have not only neglected to teach the doctrines of the Second Comforter and calling and election made sure, but have actually preached against them.

The church persists in omissions, alterations, and fabrications for several reasons. First, the leaders are ignorant of objective church history. Second, they rely on church employees, who have a vested interest in hiding and misrepresenting church history to present the church and its leaders in a positive light. When church leaders believe that the Holy Ghost testifies of all truth but only church-promoting truth, it is not surprising that their policies of purposefully omitting, misrepresenting, and fabricating history to create a church-positive narrative continue.

These problems have no simple solution. To reverse the system now and interpret modern Mormonism within the context of true history would contraindicate many traditions in the church.

We should not fear true history. We must resist the pernicious tradition in the church that there is such a thing as non-faith-promoting history. All church history is faith promoting, no matter how disturbing, because the only thing it can displace is something that isn't true. Falsehoods can never save you. False traditions damn us. They prevent us from progressing towards God. You cannot have real faith in something that is false. Alma wrote, “If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” (Alma 32:21.) Even when it is painful, true church history will bring you closer to Christ through freeing you from false tradition. The efficacy of truth is not dependent on its source or how it is presented. Truth “is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;” (D&C 93:24). It is not things as we wish they had been. The heading in a chapter from the Joseph Smith priesthood manual says, “The gospel of Jesus Christ embraces all truth; the faithful accept the truths God has revealed and put aside false traditions.” Joseph taught “To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 5:554.) It is not false tradition, but knowledge that leads us to eternal life. Saul was probably very disappointed to find out that all his pre-theophany Phariseeism was actually leading him away from God, despite his contemporary beliefs to the contrary. Still, he recognized that what Jesus had told him—the truth—would draw him closer to Christ than all that Phariseeism ever did. He said, “I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” (Phillipians 3:8). Paul had no sacred cows, no false idols he wasn't willing to let go of when provided the opportunity to embrace knowledge from God that contradicted his traditions. Are you willing to embrace truth at all costs?

What Latter-day Saint can say that they are not interested in church history, when their very salvation depends on rooting out the many false traditions present in their understanding of the gospel, and when church history is so central to that end? This attitude is opposite of what Joseph demonstrated. He said, “When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom.” (History of the Church 6:477.)

Church history is vital to living the gospel of the restoration. Church history is the link to the gospel restored through Joseph Smith. Our familiarity with his teachings in the context in which they were given in a large part dictates at once the degree to which we can live the doctrines of the restoration and our capacity to detect deviations therefrom.

Modern church history has for decades matched Napoleon Bonaparte’s purported definition of history: “what is history but fables agreed upon?” He knew that “Whoever controls the image and information of the past determines what and how future generations will think; whoever controls the information and images of the present determines how those same people will view the past.” George Orwell said something similar but simpler: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” Ignorance of the past invites mistaken ideas about the present. One who thinks his forebears were righteous will seek God very differently than one who knew his forebears were wicked. The Lamanites consistently suffered from a mistaken idea of the righteousness of Laman and Lemuel.

In the New Testament, Jesus told the Pharisees that they had strayed away from the gospel by substituting the commandments of men for God's word. These Pharisees spent a lot of time studying the gospel and practicing religious ceremony. It was not for lack of effort that they missed the mark, but lack of focus. Had they spent only a little of that time studying their church history, they never would have been swept away by the traditions of their elders, which were contrary to the gospel. If we do not know the gospel as given through Joseph, we are just as incapable of noticing deviations from the gospel restored through Joseph as the Pharisees were of noticing deviations from the law given to Moses.

Without history we cannot know our religion, but only what it has become. With history, we can know what differences exist and where they came from. We can ascertain whether the spiritual fruits present today are different from those manifested in the past, and know what changes account for the difference in fruits. The purpose of church history is not to keep our testimonies strong, or in other words, reinforce our traditions. Rather, it is to seek the truth. The truth can and does disagree with our traditions. The descendants of Laman and Lemuel continued to believe that Nephi was a liar, that he stole governance, and that the people of Jerusalem were not wicked. All of these things could be disproved through accurate history. Apologetic history (“keeping our testimonies strong”) is a sure-fire way to dwindle in unbelief because it disconnects our current perspective from what was actually restored in the past.

As an institution, we need to repent of our ignorance and dishonesty, even if it requires a serious and reaching reevaluation of fundamental claims. God will not honor anything built on lies. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13.)

Temples

The book of Isaiah opens with a scathing rebuke of a people engrossed in blindness. They are spoken of as rebellious sons. He calls these people worse than dumb animals, totally incapable of an informed relationship with him. He calls them sinners, wrongdoers, perverts, and apostates. He says they are sick and diseased from their head to their heart to the soles of their feet, connoting that their gospel understanding, desires, and actions are wrong, from normal members to leaders. He says they are covered with bruises, wounds, and festering sores, intimating that despite the gravity of their condition, they aren’t aware of it. He says they are as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah.

Most Mormons shed off this condemnatory language as applying to some historical group, or some contemporary Christian sect. But the chapter continues, making the target of the rebuke more clear.

For what purpose are your abundant sacrifices to me? says Jehovah. I have had my fill of offerings of rams and fat of fatted beasts; the blood of bulls and sheep and he-goats I do not want. When you come to see me, who requires you to trample my courts so? Bring no more worthless offerings; they are as a loathsome incense to me. As for convening meetings at the New Month and on the Sabbath, wickedness with the solemn gathering I cannot approve. Your monthly and regular meetings my soul detests. They have become a burden on me; I am weary of putting up with them. When you spread forth your hands, I will conceal my eyes from you; though you pray at length, I will not hear—your hands are filled with blood. Wash yourselves clean: remove your wicked deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil. (Isaiah 1:11-16, Gileadi Translation.)

What religious group today practices temple worship? What group emphasizes the frequency of temple worship while de-emphasizing the purpose of temple worship to the point that they can be compared to dumb cattle who trample the court of the temple, unaware of the reason they are there? What group has special meetings on the first Sabbath of the “New Month”? What group “spreads forth” their hands in prayer in temple worship, pleading for the Lord to hear them? Only the Latter-day Saints.

Is it possible that modern LDS temple worship is viewed by God much differently than it is viewed by modern Mormons?

Anciently, there were two main purposes of the temple. The more common purpose, both in the number of occurrences and the number of people to whom it was available, was to participate in ordinances that typified reentrance into the presence of God. The more important but less common experience was to actually re-enter the presence of God in the temple. Everything in the temple pointed to re-entering God’s presence.

Over time, the wickedness of the priests caused a cessation of God’s appearances in the temple. The inevitable outcome of such a transition is a reconstruction of the intent of the practice. In this case, the ordinances that taught one what to do to re-enter God’s presence became the end instead of a means to an end. Thus, the ordinances that typified the appearance of God took precedence over the actual appearance of God, until finally the typifying symbolism was lost and the ordinances became practiced without a recognition of what they represented, let alone an attempt to actually obtain a visitation from God.

In Jesus’ time, the Pentecost proved to be a restoration of the purpose of the temple, although the structure itself was dissociated from the event due to the apostate rulers’ control of the actual temple. On that day.

This, Joseph taught, was an endowment of power from on high, designed to give the disciples power in the priesthood, manifested by outward spiritual gifts, before they went out to preach the gospel to the world. As First Presidency counselor Charles Penrose later taught, although the receipt of the gift of the Holy Ghost was an internal occurrence, it is always attended by outward manifestations of spiritual gifts.

Jesus had commanded them to await this “endowment of power from on high” before leaving to preach the gospel.

This pattern of endowment was renewed in our dispensation in 1831. On Jan 2, 1831 the Lord said.

In Feb 1831 he said.

In the same month he said.

This promise was fulfilled prior to the building of the Kirtland temple. On June 3, 1831, a conference began where many Elders experienced Pentecostal experiences. Here are several first hand accounts.

In January 1833, the school of the Prophets at Kirtland opened with Joseph's washing of the Elders’ feet. Fasting and prayer followed the ordinance, and the participants witnessed Pentecostal experiences. Zebedee Coltrin reported “many powerful manifestation [sic] of the holy spirit...the gift of tongues and the interpretation thereof.” In 1883, Coltrin reminisced that Jesus himself had appeared to the school of the Prophets.

From the preceding examples, we can see abundant evidence that a temple is not actually necessary to obtain an endowment of power from on high. Yet, the Kirtland temple provides a wonderful example that they can co-occur.

On June 1, 1833, the Lord said to Joseph.

The construction of the Kirtland temple took 3 years. During that time the Lord repeated that the Elders would be “endowed with power from on high; for, behold, I have prepared a greater endowment and blessing to be poured out upon them...” During this time, the twelve apostles were chosen. In Oliver Cowdery's charge, he told them that although they were meant to go to all nations to preach, “you are not to go to other nations, till you receive your endowment. Tarry at Kirtland until you are endowed with power from on high.”

Before the ordinances began, Cowdery prayed, “O may we be prepared for the endowment,—being sanctified and cleansed from all sin.” A few days later the brethren washed their bodies and anointed their heads with oil. Joseph then experienced the vision of the celestial kingdom recorded in D&C 137. Two days later, they sealed the anointings. These ordinances continued through the winter for all priesthood brethren (all ranks from deacons up). The ordinances themselves were not the endowment, but were tools to help the brethren prepare themselves through repentance so that the endowment could come. The understanding of the brethren that the endowment (not the ordinances) would bring power to perform miracles is captured in an article in the local paper: “They assure you, with the utmost confidence, that they shall soon be able to raise the dead, to heal the sick, the deaf, the dumb, and the blind...” Joseph Smith was teaching that those who followed the gospel would receive the promised spiritual manifestations.

Those going to preach this gospel would first have to obtain the spiritual manifestations before promising them to others.

The endowment came at the dedication services, when outwardly manifested signs were given in abundance to witness the internal dispensation of power through the Holy Ghost. The dedication came with reports of all sorts of Pentecostal activity: people spoke in tongues, angels were seen, prophecies were made, etc.. “The Savior made his appearance to some, while angels ministered unto others, and it was a penticost and enduement indeed, long to be remembered....” One man said he “saw the Spirit in the form of cloven tongues as fire descend in thousands, and rest upon the heads of the Elders...” David Patten said “the heavens Was opened unto them. Angels & Jesus Christ was seen of them sitting at the right hand of the Father.” Erastus Snow reported seeing angels. These types of experiences reoccurred at each of the subsequent rededications necessary for lack of available seating.

Since the Kirtland temple, not one Pentecostal event has been recorded in church history, despite over 150 years and nearly 150 dedicated temples.

On November 12, 1835, Joseph gave his own explanation of what the endowment was.

How is the endowment defined today? Instead of using Joseph’s definition, the modern church uses Brigham Young’s definition.

In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we read.

Under this definition, the actual divine presence is replaced by a “sense” of divine presence (or feelings instead of actual experience), and even that is relegated to the final part of the endowment, instead of the whole of it. In its place are informational ceremony and ritual. We have repeated the ancient pattern: Originally, the purpose of temples was to re-enter God’s presence. Now, ordinances given as a means to that end have become the entire focus of temple worship, with few if any remembering the original purpose of temple worship, let alone attempting to re-enter God’s presence.

Ordinances were not a part of any endowment in church history or scripture. The only time they are mentioned, as detailed above, is as part of the preparation of the individual for the endowment, not as the endowment itself.

Endowments are not about knowledge—they are about power. If you go to the temple to obtain knowledge, you are not obtaining anything that can’t be had without a temple. Of course, power can also be had outside of a temple, as it was given in the Pentecostal experiences of the meridian apostles and early saints.

While Joseph Smith’s endowment, like Jesus’ and all those who came before, was about power and experience with God, modern Mormonism’s endowment is about information. It is unclear how learning signs and tokens empower someone to teach the gospel by the Spirit in foreign lands. But this is no longer the stated purpose of the endowment. According to modern Mormonism, the things you are told and the things you are shown give you the ability to return to God’s presence after this life. There are no gifts, no angels, no tongues, and no manifestations of Jesus or the Father in this latter endowment. The word “endowment” seems to be the only commonality.

Joseph taught.

From the preceding we see that: 1) the ordinances of this dispensation must remain the same as those in prior dispensations, 2) the temple ordinances are to be “the same forever and ever,” and 3) when God gives these ordinances, he does so by sending Adam or other angels to reveal them to men. Furthermore, we can conclude that the temple ordinances prescribed by Joseph were received from angels—perhaps even Adam himself—with precisely the same format and content of prior dispensations.

Although these expressions by Joseph may seem contradictory to understandings today, it should be noted that Joseph’s positions were echoed by some early church leaders. Over 50 years after Joseph’s death, apostle Reed Smoot reported to Congress that “...the endowments have never changed and can never change; as I understand it; it has been so testified, and that Joseph Smith Jr., himself was the founder of the endowments.” The idea that Joseph was “the founder of the endowments” originates from our scriptures. The Lord told Joseph that “all things pertaining” to the temple would be shown him.

Since Elder Smoot’s comment in 1905, there have been significant changes to the temple ceremonies in the 1920s and again in 1990, with many minor changes before, during, and after that interval. The task of listing all changes since Joseph’s death is impossible since not all changes have been recorded. Still, the publicly documented changes would necessitate an entire book. Instead of listing out every documented change to temple ordinances, we will here highlight only a few to demonstrate the degree of changes made to the temple ordinances and the process by which these changes have occurred.

Of principle interest are the following questions: What portions of the ceremonies have been changed? Were these segments superficial, or did they concern the core of the ceremony (such as the covenants)? On what authority were the changes made? Did the changes come as a result of revelation, opinions from the brethren, or social pressure? If revelation, of what degree? Joseph taught that the manner in which God reveals the temple ordinances is through visitation of angels under the supervision (or participation) of Adam. Did an angelic visitation precede each change to the temple? If not, did an angelic visitation precede any of the changes?

The changes encompass almost every aspect of temple worship. For example, the gradations of the priesthood, robe dressing order, fashion, and timing, wording of the ordinances, and wording of the lecture were all changed in the 1920s. Before, during, and after those changes, covenants have been added, removed, and modified.

Although changes to the temple ceremonies began immediately upon Joseph’s death and have continued thereafter, the scope and frequency of changes did not increase substantially until the passing of the generation that knew Joseph. Contemporaries of Joseph attributed the temple ceremonies to God. It was seen as a one-time dictation, never to be changed. Brigham Young, for instance, felt the need to cast his changes as reversions to what Joseph had originally received in order to be credible. Wilford Woodruff said.

In time, the effort to cast changes as restorative was dropped. Instead of claiming changes restored the ceremonies to what was revealed to Joseph, changes were made to bring align the material with shifting doctrines and sensibilities. Ironically, it was President Woodruff—the same who earlier testified of President Young’s revisions having brought the material into alignment with Joseph’s instructions—who later made perhaps the first significant change to the temple ordinances dissociated from Joseph’s original instructions. By changing the sealing process from a link between living Saints and the exalted fathers (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others known to be saved) to links with genealogical fathers (father, grandfather, etc.), Woodruff obliterated the original doctrinal significance of sealing—a process that was intended to provide access for living members to the covenants made to the exalted fathers.

In his provided reasoning, we have a case study for how subsequent changes have and do come into play. In General Conference on April 8, 1894, President Woodruff stated.

There was no “thus saith the Lord” and no claim of angelic visitation. The motive was that he thought it didn’t seem right to seal a person to the fathers. His willingness to change the ordinance without even a minor attempt to review his own diary containing Joseph’s words on the subject suggests a shift from the opinion that Joseph was the authority on the subject of the temple ceremonies. Had he bothered to review Joseph’s teachings, he would have seen that sealing an individual to a father who does not possess the covenant of eternal life is as effectual as a freefalling man grabbing another who does not possess a parachute.

Like President Woodruff’s changes to sealing, subsequent changes (as far as documented) came as the result of individual ideas and council votes without deference to Joseph’s teachings. When historical transcripts of the endowment disagreed with modern innovations, concerns were addressed with claims to authority, not with claims to revelation, and without one reference to angelic ministration.

Temple changes seem to have been motivated by a limited set of factors. Many temple changes came because the brethren felt the changed material did not make sense. The temple ordinances written by Brigham Young and featuring an hour long lecture at the veil on Adam God doctrine were not in accordance with the more recent changes to the doctrine of the Godhead. Perhaps motivated by this inconsistency, Elder George F. Richards spent years of the 1920s revising the temple ceremonies. He made clear that the changes were his “own suggestion” as a result of careful study identifying areas that he thought needed changing. This was not a case of carefully studying historic manuscripts to detect deviations from Joseph’s endowment. As with President Woodruff’s changes, this was wholesale revision. After changes were suggested, they were discussed as a council, and unanimously approved. The pattern continued. Years later.

President McKay indicated that he thought his own modifications would make the temple easier to understand.

President McKay made no mention of angelic visitation or revelation. By his time, the pattern of changing the temple ceremonies to accord with the contemporary wisdom of men was well established.

Other changes were proposed to ease administrative burden. For example, on Jan 1, 1965, the church announced that patrons would no longer each be given a new name by revelation, but that the new name would be the same for each individual attending the temple that day in order “to facilitate record keeping.” In another example, it was proposed that ceremonies for the dead be shortened to decrease the time needed for an endowment. In 1989, the church stopped recording the names of proxies, witnesses, and officiators of ordinances to ease record storage requirements.

Still other changes have come as a result of surveys of member opinions. The most substantial of these were the 1990 changes to the endowment. In 1987, the church issued a survey to 3,000 members to ascertain their opinion on the endowment ceremony. As a result, the temple ceremonies were overhauled in 1990. Large swaths of the ceremony that were offensive to modern sensibilities were removed, such as a Protestant minister who is paid by Lucifer to preach false doctrine and the penalties associated with revealing the things patrons promise to keep secret. Covenants were changed, such as that made by women to their husbands. Elements of the ceremony, such as the physical exchange at the veil, and the words used in the true order of prayer, were changed. In 2005, the initiatory was further modified to remove any touching of the body of the patron by the worker, except on the head. The most recent set of films further de-emphasize the transgression of Eve.

In no case, it seems, were changes motivated by the suspicion that perhaps the ceremony had somehow deviated from the first written record from 1877 (which the church still possesses). In no case, it seems, were decisions made based on an assumption that the historical endowment was revealed by God. Changes were made without historical study or reference to the 1877 temple book. For example, President McKay observed that when considering whether.

Instead of obtaining God’s word on the subject, or withholding changes until an angel visited to indicate the way to proceed, or even bothering to check the historical record, the brethren have made changes based on their own feelings, wisdom, and contemporary societal pressure.

Through frequent small changes, tremendous differences have accumulated in the ceremonies. For example, it was by small changes that the initiatory washing was changed from the literal bathing of a participant in a bathtub as done in the Old Testament and Nauvoo to what is done today, where the patron receives merely a reference to the real thing. If it is sufficient to symbolically summarize multiple rites into one gesture, why not condense the whole endowment into one symbolic gesture? Obviously, that would not be valid. Who is to say, then, what degree of symbolic revision and condensation is valid?

These small changes seemed like a good idea to those who made them, without God’s voice and without deference to history, especially to Joseph Smith’s revelations. There is no historical evidence that suggests that the brethren responsible for the changes thought they were doing anything but God’s work. Ironically, among the men responsible for the changes, we see many interesting statements about the need for the ordinances and ceremonies to remain unchanged. It is unclear how the brethren who made the changes did not feel they were usurping God’s authority or committing apostasy. The same Wilford Woodruff who replaced sealing to the fathers with sealing to genealogical fathers wrote.

The same Elder Richards who spent two entire years transfiguring nearly every aspect of the temple ceremonies railed against Catholics’ changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling.

The same President David O. McKay who made many changes to temple ceremonies through his “personal convictions” said.

Through these means we have come to the point today that a temple patron from 1877 would not recognize the ceremonies as we have them today. They would not recognize the wording of the initiatory or the symbolic rituals. They would not recognize the garment. They would not recognize the wording, covenants, and symbols of the endowment. They would not recognize the sealing ordinance. In fact, it is hard to imagine just how foreign today’s temple would be to them. They would not even recognize the white clothing (an innovation of Wilford Woodruff begun on February 1, 1877).

The question is, does God recognize these changed ordinances? Apparently, Presidents Joseph Smith, David O. McKay, Wilford Woodruff, and Elder Richards would all say that he cannot, because the ordinances and ceremonies have been modified from what God gave to Joseph through Adam. Perhaps these brethren would quote Mormon 8:33, which asks “Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls?” The Lord has been very clear that unauthorized ordinances are an abomination to him. For instance, in Malachi 1, the Lord equates turning away from the ordinances he has revealed to despising his name. He clearly states he will not accept modified ordinances.

The Lord makes clear that when men defile his temple by changing his ordinances, he will punish them, not bless them.

If temples today are meant to be a continuation of what the Lord restored through Joseph, the contents of the ordinances must remain as they were revealed to him. If they have changed, there are only two possibilities: either they are a product of man’s invention and not revelation from God, or Joseph was wrong not only in teaching that ordinances never change and temple ordinances must be revealed from an angel, but also in his original instructions regarding the temple. If the first option is true, it must be concluded that the temple work of modern Mormons is not accepted by God, for, as apostle Charles Penrose said, “Christ will not accept the devices and ordinances and ceremonies ordained of men.” (Charles W. Penrose, “Mormon Doctrine, Plain and Simple,” p. 24) If the later option is true, it would indicate not only that Joseph made a tremendous mistake in what he said on the topic, but also that he had given a false revelation when he said that God said that the Lord would show him all things pertaining to the temple. Modern Mormons must choose which of these two scenarios is true.

Modern church leaders counsel members to “fix our focus on the temple. There we receive the highest blessings that God has in store for His faithful children.” According to them, exaltation is dependent, at least in part, upon obtaining and “remaining faithful to the ordinances and covenants of the temple.” This focus creates a lot of discomfort in members when analyzing the historical basis for such faith in modern temples. After all, one’s salvation and family is at stake. But is exaltation dependent upon the ordinances and covenants of the modern temples? Is the eternal integrity of one’s family at stake?

The scriptural basis for this focus is unclear. Perhaps most obvious is the point that if the temple ordinances are, in fact, the key to eternal life, which temple ordinances? Those that Joseph revealed, those that Brigham wrote in 1877, the very different ordinances we have today, or any version in between? If one is right, the others are not. From a different perspective, we note the absence of any requirement for temple ordinances in the scriptures.

LDS leaders quote Joseph Smith in an attempt to claim that temple ordinances are required for salvation.

But does this quote support the modern endowment? First, the ordinances of the Israelite temple at the time of Jesus were completely dissimilar to the modern endowment. If the Israelite temple ceremonies are “the ordinances of the house of the Lord,” then the LDS endowment is not, and vice versa. Second, the Israelites had long lost the fullness of the gospel by Jesus’ time. We know that Melchizedek keys are required for temple ordinances. Joseph taught that the Israelites in Jesus’ time no longer had even Aaronic priesthood keys. Thus, if Jesus’ exalted status came from his mortal reception of apostate temple ordinances from priests without keys, why would God need to affect a restoration? Why couldn’t mankind be saved through receiving apostate ordinances from Catholic priests without keys?

If Jesus did not receive the fullness of the priesthood by obeying the religious ceremonies of the Israelite temple, how did he get it? It turns out the answer lies in the quote from Joseph. The original quote reads much shorter than the elaborated version reprinted above and found in TPJS. The original quote is found in Wilford Woodruff’s diary from 11 June 1843: “if a man gets the fulness of God he has to get [it] in the same way that Jesus Christ obtain it & that was by keeping all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.” (See WOJS). In the doctored quote, the list for getting the fullness includes two things: keeping all the commandments and obeying the ordinances of the house of the Lord. A distinction is made between keeping God’s commandments and making and keeping temple covenants made in modern temples. Yet, the original quote has only one requirement: “keeping all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.” Although the word “ordinance” can mean religious rite or ceremony (how it is used in the church today), the 1828 Webster’s dictionary lists this as the last possible definition. The first definition is a permanent rule of action established by authority; In other words, God’s commandments are ordinances. The word “house” is commonly understood to mean the temple. Though the Lord does use this meaning in the D&C (see D&C 124:23, for example), he also uses the meaning “family.” The house of the Lord can mean a building, or it can mean a group of people. Since Jesus received the fullness of the priesthood through “keeping all the ordinances of the house of the Lord,” and since that cannot refer to the apostate and limited Israelite temple ordinances, “the ordinances of the house of the Lord” has to mean something other than “receiving the ordinances of the temple.” For instance, Jesus could have received whatever this refers to on the Mount of Transfiguration. So instead of the typical interpretation, “the ordinances of the house of the Lord” could simply mean, “the commandments kept by those in the family of God.”

When preaching against the priests of King Noah, Abinadi asked them if it was obedience to the law of Moses that brought salvation. The priests believed it was. Abinadi explained.

Although the law of Moses was a tool that could assist in obtaining what (or who) actually saves, it was not necessary or sufficient in and of itself. After all, there are saved beings like Abraham and Seth who never had the law of Moses. The same can be accurately said of temples. The temple itself can save no one. The ordinances in the temple do not save, either. It is Jesus, and only Jesus, that can save.

Though the temple can teach us how to come back to Christ, it cannot take us there. Nor can it be said that it is necessary to have access to the temple in order to make the journey. Jesus showed through his own mortal life that salvation is attainable without a temple.

Temples are a useful tool to help individuals come closer to Christ, but when they are adulterated in their ceremonies or become an end in and of themselves, they actually make the participants less likely to re-enter God’s presence than they would be without a temple. This is because, in addition to all the challenges of overcoming the natural man organic to this life, they must also overcome false traditions instilled in them through adulterated temple worship.

As for individuals, so for families. The spousal sealing ordinance is widely regarded as the means by which a couple becomes sealed for eternity. However, both in the wording of the ordinance itself and in leaders’ description of it, it is obvious that the modern temple sealing is conditional on the faithfulness of the couple to God. Thus, in order to obtain the unconditional sealing described in D&C 132:19, something more is required. Upon receiving a temple sealing, the couple possesses nothing more upon exiting the temple than they had upon entering: an invitation (already in the scriptures) to remain true and faithful with the promise that if they do so, eventually God will seal them together eternally. Would the same process still required of a couple after temple sealing not yield the same result for an unsealed couple?

Given that modern temples are not essential for salvation and do not provide anything unobtainable outside them, it is somewhat surprising that they are given pre-imminence in modern Mormonism. God gave Isaiah a vision of a time when men would cease to focus on dead ordinances, and remember that it is Jesus, and not temples, that saves.

In that day men will have regard to their Maker, and their eyes look to the Holy One of Israel, and regard not the altars, the works of their hands, nor look to things their fingers have made—the idols of prosperity and the shining images. (Isaiah 17, Gileadi Translation.)

Perhaps that day is soon upon us.

Endowments after the Kirtland temple did not feature an endowment of the Holy Ghost as witnessed by outward manifestations. However, one item patrons did receive post-Kirtland was instruction on the true order of prayer.

There was special power in this form of prayer, over and above normal prayer. This type of prayer is seen practiced by Jesus in 3 Nephi. Joseph called this the key by which you could ask and receive answers. Modern Mormons do not attribute much weight to the true order of prayer, as witnessed by its restricted practice as a semi-prescribed single prayer towards the end of the current endowment. It is not mentioned in talks about the temple as temple covenants and ordinances are, suggesting the possibility that modern Mormons understand it to be an unimportant piece of window dressing. Yet, despite the scope of changes to the temple, it is still illustrated in today’s endowment as the penultimate step in the dramatized return to God’s presence. Even in its current relegated form, it really ought to get more attention than it does.

In former days, the true order of prayer was a focal point of the temple ceremonies. It was one of only three pieces of temple worship that extended beyond the temple (the others being the garment and a much limited portion of the second anointing ordinance). Not only did temples once have dedicated altars in private rooms where individuals could go and engage in the true order of prayer, but chapels did as well. Some members even had dedicated altars in their homes. Patrons, not temple workers, were the voice of the prayer over the altar in the endowment until at least September 1965. They prayed according to what the Spirit told them to pray for, not a rote repetition of roughly the same prayer. There were multiple opportunities for normal members to voice a prayer in the true order.

Now, however, the altar rooms have been repurposed, patrons are not even allowed to kneel in prayer anywhere in the temple, temple workers offer up a repetitive prayer at the altar, and practice of the true order of prayer has been prohibited outside of temples.

For those who dare exercise the key of asking and receiving in their own homes, they will find some difficulty in that what they have been taught varies significantly with what was revealed to Joseph. First, they will find themselves dressed differently than their forebears. They will also find themselves using different words than their forebears. Although the fact that the current form is different from the original is well documented, the oldest known documented form is the non-public 1877 transcript, safely hidden away in the First Presidency’s vault.

When one is offering different key words in different clothing than prescribed by God, it is little wonder that what Joseph called the key to asking questions and receiving answers results in no special attention by God.

The modern narrative suggests that one of the main reasons the church builds temples is to perform necessary ordinances vicariously for the dead, enabling them to progress onward. However, Joseph’s described pattern was not for endowment ordinances to be performed for the dead, as we perform baptisms for the dead, but for the living to obtain election, and then seal their kindred dead to themselves. What good does it do to seal yourself to ancestors who themselves are not saved? What good does it do to seal them to you when you yourself have not been redeemed? This is like having a group of 10 people jump off a cliff without parachutes. They can link to each other as many ways as they choose, but unless they can tie themselves to someone who is still on the cliff, they will all likewise perish.

Joseph Smith never performed an ordinance for the dead outside of baptism. He did, on one occasion that I’ve found, state that the ordinances for the living would have to be done for the dead, but he did not describe the mechanism for how this was to be done. Joseph did, however, explicitly describe exactly who the work could be done for. He said.

Brigham Young, whose only claim of authority in temple ordinances came from his implementing what Joseph had given, began the practice of initiatories, endowments, and sealings for the dead. From the opening of the Endowment House in 1855 until Wilford Woodruff began proxy endowments in 1876, only living ordinances were allowed for all ordinances except baptisms, which resumed in 1856 after a 20 year pause. The pause began when the Lord said baptisms for the dead would no longer be acceptable without a temple to perform them in. In 1856, without a temple to perform them in, they were resumed.

Instead of building the Nauvoo temple, as God had commanded, and receiving further light and truth through Joseph on the nature and form of proxy temple work, the Saints were cast out of Nauvoo and made their best guess as to how it would work. Without instruction or permission from heaven, they multiplied temple “offerings” in the form of vicarious ordinances, with over 150 million endowments performed since 1876. Innovation of ordinances was not unknown in ancient Israel, but it was routinely condemned. God once said.

How applicable this scripture is to the current situation. The purpose of the temple—obtaining knowledge of God through re-entering his presence—has been replaced with multiplying “burnt offerings,” strange incense that God has not commanded. As Gileadi described.

The focus on multiplying ordinances is not an issue of actually completing work for the approximately 70 billion dead who have never received them as much as it is a mechanism of providing ample opportunity for patrons to return to the temple. Name shortages have been a staple ever since proxy work was changed from a mechanism for “saving” individuals known by the patron to a mechanism for getting the patron back into the temple repeatedly. To alleviate the problem, the church has employed many means such as limiting ordinances, allowing work to be done for those of known sinful life, and employing teams to scrape historical records for names. The vast majority of names come from this final source (76% according to George Fudge’s 1976 report).

If the ordinances of the modern temple are essential to salvation, what of the billions upon billions who never received them? Several decades ago, the brethren were informed that temple ordinances were not even keeping pace with the current birthrate, let alone putting a dent in the estimated 70 billion people who have ever lived. Every member of the church would have to do 1500 endowments over the course of their lives just to break even with the number of people alive today. But because active membership is about 1/3 of reported membership, that number is actually tripled. Some contend the work will be completed in the millennium. Even if the work were conducted around the clock without any breaks for eating, sleeping, drinking, or any other work, it would require 17.5 million people to complete the endowments for all who ever lived.

If the point of the modern temples isn’t to complete ordinances for the 70 billion dead (an impossibility due to time and information limitations), and it isn’t to see God in the temple (something not taught by the hierarchy in over 100 years), and if temple attendance does not provide an interaction with the Holy Ghost manifested by the outward signs that always follow, then what is their purpose? That only leaves the memorization of the lectures given, which simply does not require many trips to memorize and can easily be done at home. In reality, the point of attending for most people is either for service to the dead (which is not supported by scripture or Joseph’s teachings) or to receive emotional validation after being told how important it is to attend.

God Hasn’t Commanded Temple Construction When God wanted the Kirtland Temple built, he told Joseph.

Since Nauvoo, no revelation has been published where God commanded a temple to be built. Instead, according to the church architect, “the Church looks for sites ‘that would have prominence, be in an attractive neighborhood, a neighborhood that would withstand the test of time.’” Since Nauvoo, God has not specified the architecture of temples. Instead.

Instead of God revealing the design in a moment, it is designed through architectural research, sustainable practice, and unique design—a process that “can take up to two years.” Although “the First Presidency is involved and provides final approvals,” the process is bottom up, instead of top down, and no mention of revelation is provided.

The pattern of God specifying the location and layout of each temple he’s ever commanded built ended when Joseph died. Perhaps the most illustrative comparison is provided in the modern Nauvoo temple and the former Nauvoo temple, which was destroyed shortly after the Saints abandoned and attempted to sell it. While the modern temple is built in the same style as other modern temples, the original Nauvoo temple “contained two assembly halls, one on the first floor and one on the second, called the lower and upper courts.” It “had classrooms and offices in the attic.”

“Observers might have difficulty detecting differences between the” current and former Nauvoo temple exteriors. Every effort was made to create a façade that would be indistinguishable to most laypeople: “The stone on the outside of the new temple was carefully chosen to have, as nearly as possible, the same color and texture as the limestone of the original temple,” although it was from quarries states away from the original. “The new temple was not built with stone piled on stone and cemented, as was the original.” Instead, the stone is a façade attached to concrete walls. Every effort and expense was taken to ensure that the temple looked the same from the outside, even if it was completely different. “The interior of the temple, however, is a different story,” because it features a completely different floor plan than the one revealed to Joseph.

It is reasonable to wonder what the Lord thinks of temples built without his commandment, in forms he has not provided, with great lengths employed to lead those who don’t know any better to assume that all is as it was revealed to Joseph. Because this is a pattern that appeared with frequency in the Old Testament, there is no need to speculate.

Beth-el and Gilgal were not appointed places to sacrifice. Despite having the same form as worship at God’s authorized temple, God considered worship there a transgression. God shows us that when his people do not hearken to his words or his law, even though they engage in temple worship, it is not acceptable to him.

Unless temples are commanded by God, they cannot be his. Instead of worshipping him, temples built by the designs and commandments of men mock him and raise his ire.

Most members believe that wearing the garment entitles them to some sort of protection, as is promised during the initiatory. The question is whether the promise provided applies to any particular garment, or only the garment revealed to Joseph. If the garment has undergone similar changes as the temple ceremonies under similar circumstances, can we really expect God to fulfill the promises recited in the initiatory?

The original garment was a one piece, full body (to the wrist and ankle ) textile made of only white cotton, flax, or wool. It required being stepped into from the neck. It had tie strings to take out the slack. In 1894, the brethren decided to end the practice of cutting the marks into the garment through the shirt, reversing an instruction from Brigham Young, because “we think this unnecessary” (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith to Lorenzo Snow, Aug 31 1894). At that time, they also moved the garment marking from the veil portion of the ceremonies to the initiatory. During John Taylor’s administration the original garment material was replaced with a knitted fabric. In 1923, the collar was removed and the tie strings were replaced with buttons. The women’s garments were shortened to the elbows and knees. These changes came “after careful and prayerful consideration,” —not from the voice of God, but because “the living authority said we might.” Erroneously, the First Presidency claimed that “no fixed pattern of Temple garment has ever been given,” and concluded that they could change it without regard to Joseph’s garment. Ironically, the author of the commissioned temple instruction pamphlet wrote that same year that.

Just eleven years earlier, President Joseph F. Smith had said.

He reiterated in a joint First Presidency statement in 1915, “The pattern of the temple garment was given by revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith.” (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose to Arthur C. Smith.)

Apparently, there was some resistance to the significant changes of 1923. The temple instruction pamphlet recognized the changes from what God had revealed to Joseph, but assuaged concerns by citing the change as a valid use of authority by the brethren.

The “modified” garment, as it was called, was only permitted to be used outside the temple. Somehow in the minds of the people, it was wrong for a private member to fashion their own garment pattern, because it would “not [be] approved of nor accepted by the authority of God.” (Ibid.) At the same time, the modified garment, which came from men and not God, was somehow valid. In 1934, apostle John Widstoe dealt with the issue differently, at once admitting the garment was revealed to Joseph, but claiming that no changes had been made.

Widstoe contended, as many do with all temple changes, that the changes made do not affect the vital parts. After all, he reasoned, “It is [still] a covering for my body, representing covenants I have made. We make entirely too much of the so-called changes. There have been no changes to the ideas.” (Ibid). People using this line of reasoning are not surprisingly unable to enumerate the parts that are vital. The cognitive dissonance increases as these same people who contend that as long as the garment is a covering for one’s body (no matter how much or how little of the body) and represents covenants (no matter if those covenants change or not) it is still valid, also claim that any garment that covers the body and represents the covenants but is not prayerfully considered and unanimously approved by the brethren “desecrates the marks of the priesthood.” (Zina Card, Temple Instructions, 1923.) Thus, what is approved or abominable depends not on God’s word on the subject, but on whether the current brethren are currently favorable towards it or not. A telling example of dissent is found in then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Joseph Fielding Smith. One member wrote how on his 21 February 1964 visit.

Joseph Fielding Smith had inherited Hyrum Smith’s original garment, and thus knew firsthand what the differences were between modern and the original garments.

In 1936, the garments were modified again to include a sleeveless pattern. The brethren expressed reluctance to the change, but agreed to it “only because we have convinced ourselves that it will tend to bring” more adherence to the instruction to wear the garment day and night without rolling up the sleeves. As with previous changes, it seems to have been instigated by women who wanted to accommodate current styles. The brethren insisted that “we have not been able to see that we are yielding any vital thing in this slight change.” At this time the committee also recommended providing an explanation for the symbols on the garment, something not then provided. The brethren wrote.

The best interpretation which has come to us up to this time has been supplied by President McKay. It is as follows: A. The square: Honor, integrity, loyalty, trustworthiness. B. The compass: An undeviating course in relation to truth. Desires should be kept within proper bounds. C. The navel: That spiritual life needs constant sustenance. D. The kness: Revernce for God, the source of divine guidance and inspiration.

In 1965, the older garment used in temples was updated from strings to buttons, but not fully updated to the outside of temple garment. The full update to bring them into parity was subsequently made.

Over time, the garment marking process was changed. By 1979, all symbolism of the marking of the garment was lost. Instead of placing the garment on the patron and cutting marks into the garment, the garments were manufactured already containing the marks, which had ceased to be cuts and become mere embroidery. A December 1979 First Presidency letter announced the two piece garment, citing “due consideration” as the means of the change.

Like the 1877 transcript of the endowment, the church possesses an original temple garment (that belonging to Hyrum Smith). It could duplicate that garment to revert the modern garment back to the one that God revealed to Joseph. However, it defers to the opinions of Joseph’s successors, who never once claimed revelation in their changes, and the requirements of modern style and comfort, rather than trusting that God knew what he was talking about when he revealed the garment to Joseph. Those, like President Joseph Fielding Smith, who would prefer to wear the garment revealed to Joseph are prevented from doing so. They are not given the pattern, and even if they had it, they would be disciplined for creating and wearing the original garment.

If we are to accept that God honors the promises he offered with the garment revealed to Joseph with the current garment, we should also expect he will honor them with any set of underclothing, as the cut, cloth, manner of marking, and meaning of the garment have all changed. You would be hard pressed to change the garment more than it has been changed. Can the modern garment be viewed as anything but a mockery of God?

Modern Mormonism asserts that temple work for the living and the dead is the principle mission of the church to which all other ends and means are subordinate. Therefore, it is reasoned, we must build temples all over the world to facilitate access. History shows, however, that rather than having originated with Joseph Smith, this position emerged gradually as Joseph’s temple doctrine was forgotten.

To understand the development of multiplying temples, you have to understand temples not in their modern context, but how they were revealed in Joseph’s day. Then, temple construction was commanded one at a time, with specific purposes in mind. There was no general program for ordinances for the dead, except baptism. There was no endowment as we have it today. The purpose of the Kirtland temple was not to expose members to a symbolic lecture or to make promises to God. It was to provide a Pentecostal experience for outgoing missionaries. Similarly, the purpose of the Nauvoo temple was to provide a place for Elijah to return and restore the high priesthood and sealing powers. Temples were not spaces dedicated for repetitive experiences, but places set apart for an explicit one-time event. After all, the purpose of these events was to dispense knowledge that would empower the people to come into the consistent presence of God in the normal course of their lives. In contrast to the modern temple experience, this did not necessitate numerous buildings or numerous visits to buildings. In Joseph’s day, this experience was extended to geographically dispersed members through the physical gathering, not the building of many temples. With Joseph’s death, the purpose of the Nauvoo temple was lost. Brigham Young did not know or understand what had been revealed to Joseph about its purpose. He repurposed the attic of that temple to reveal the original version of the endowment we practice today. That endowment, which was carried to Utah, was not an event. It was a repetitive experience.

Where Joseph gathered the saints and brought them into access to revelatory events for which a temple had been constructed, Brigham sent out the saints to establish colonies to which temples could be brought to provide repetitive experiences. Even still, the tradition of gathering was strong enough that all saints were commanded to gather to and around Utah. Therefore, the idea of building a temple outside of Utah did not emerge for decades after the Nauvoo exodus. This changed with the Hawaii, Cardston, Mesa, and Idaho Falls temples, all overseen under the radical administration of Heber J. Grant, the first president of the church who had not known Joseph.

At the outset of President McKay’s administration, the idea of building temples outside of Utah-Zion was foreign. However, in an attempt to bolster flat conversions to the church, President McKay revoked the commandment to physically gather. International missionary areas had been burned over. Anyone willing to accept the gospel had already been converted and imported to Utah. As with many dramatic experimental changes during President McKay’s administration, building temples around the world was not about bringing temple blessings to global saints, but about increasing the number of converts, in this case by keeping strong members in their country of origin.

Today, the initial purpose of multiplying temples has been forgotten to history, replaced with a man-made doctrine that views the temples as ends instead of means.

Years ago, I attended the Draper, Utah temple dedication. The tour guide led us through the ornate building, describing various elements of the temple. The lavish wood panels, doors, and moldings are imported African cherry wood. The limestone coverings on the floor are imported from France. The white granite building exterior is from China. In modern Mormonism it is understood that expensive and ornate finishings are required in order for a temple to be acceptable to God. Church members were taught in the October 2012 General Conference that no expense is spared in ensuring that every aspect of the building—visible or not—is as perfect as possible with the example of an entire expensive stained glass panel that was replaced because a single small square was off by an eighth of an inch.

Perhaps to the surprise of many members, this perspective is very much an innovation. In 2015 dollars, the Kirtland temple cost $68 per sqft., the St. George temple cost $165 per sqft., the Manti temple cost $247 per sqft., and the Salt Lake temple cost $364 per sqft. Meanwhile, modern temples cost at least $1,400 per square foot. Clearly, there has been a change. When and how did it occur?

David O. McKay, who began the modern temple building program, was very intent on building inexpensive buildings. He wrote in his diary.

The change to expensive temples did not occur in the McKay administration. As near as can be seen, it did not happen all at once. The DC temple (1974 at $507 per sqft. in 2015 dollars ) and the San Diego temple (1993 at $553 per sqft. in 2015 dollars ) serve as trend points along the march to current temple costs. This tradition developed slowly over time. There was no one point where the church suddenly jumped from temples with the same cost of chapels (David O. McKay’s ideal) to what they cost today. Instead, it seems that the gradual building of more expensive temples predicated the development of a tradition that they had to be expensive. As that tradition developed, temples necessarily became more expensive. Thus we can contrast the inexpensive fake marble on the outside of the D.C. temple with the imported granite façade of the Draper temple.

With all this in mind, there are two problems with modern temple construction. First, there is absolutely no justified reason for such expensive construction materials and methods. If LDS temples from an equally wealthy church were acceptable to God at a much lower price tag in former years, why would they not be acceptable to him today, particularly when the difference could be used to help the poor? Second, given the tenuous historical support for post-martyrdom temple worship, the many modifications to Brigham’s ordinances, and the lack of any revelation from God commanding any post-Nauvoo temple to be built, can any new construction at all be justified?

These feelings seem to be echoed in prophetic scripture. It is easy for modern Mormons to condemn wicked King Noah. However, in doing so they unwittingly condemn themselves. When stripped of the defense of “the Lord wants us to build ornate temples,” it becomes apparent that modern Mormons also.

Of course, we also ornament our temples with gold leaf, exquisite furnishings, highest end carpet, Chinese granite, and African wood.

God accepted Nephi’s temple, though it was humble, and rejected Noahs, though it was elegant and spacious. God accepted the humble Kirtland temple, yet has not provided experiences in today’s lavish temples. Moroni’s words undoubtedly apply to today’s temple-building Mormons.

Some consider the presence of modern temples to be a sign of divine approval. Elder Oaks recently said, “There are now more than 140 operating temples, just one fruit of the restored gospel and of our prophetic leadership.” Does the number of temples, or the fact that we have operating temples, signify divine approval? God said, through Jeremiah, Don’t be fooled by those who promise you safety simply because the LORD's Temple is here. They chant, ‘The LORD's Temple is here! The LORD's Temple is here! (New Living Translation, Jeremiah 7:4.)

Were there historic peoples who were inciting the wrath of God and still had temples? In the Book of Mormon, king Noah had a temple, yet was in an apostate state. The Old Testament contains countless examples of people who not only were apostate despite having a temple, but who actually summoned his wrath because of their temples. In Jeremiah we read.

Temple worship in and of itself is not necessarily pleasing to the Lord. When we do not hearken to the ordinances God has given us, but replace them with the commandments of men, and build temples up to ourselves without God’s commandments, we anger God.

As we learn with king Noah, leaders who disobey God can cause the temple to become polluted.

God said that Israel’s “sins are making my holy temple unfit as a place to worship me.” (Ezekiel 8:6, CEV.) The people in Jerusalem, including the leaders of the church, could not see that their acts of worship in the temple were an abomination before God. Perhaps this was because they were investing so much time, energy, and money in the effort of worship that they were blind to the fact that the worship had not originated from God but consisted of the innovations of man. What was God's reaction to the abomination? He commanded angels to slay all men, women, and children except those who were “truly upset and sad about the disgusting things” being done in the temple (Ezekiel 9:4, CEV). God will unleash the same judgment on those who similarly defile buildings allegedly built to be his house in our day, and he will only spare those who are “truly upset and sad about the disgusting things” being done in the temple.

Follow the Prophet

It may surprise modern Mormons to learn that the church used to teach that we should not follow a man or assume what he has to say is true because of his priesthood position.

Brigham Young taught the same message on multiple occasions. He said that members had to vet everything he said with the Holy Ghost.

Since then, church leaders’ teachings on the subject have consistently shifted to trusting leaders no matter what they say or why they say it, a concept called “follow the prophet”.

To modern Mormons, “follow the prophet” is synonymous with “follow God.” To them, the words of the president of the church and other LDS leaders are one and the same with the words of God. This characterization applies to their words no matter the topic, and whether or not the words they speak actually came from God.

There are significant doctrinal problems with these assertions. Joseph said, “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such” (History of the Church 5:265). God’s word is only God’s word when it is God who said it. Someone who holds the office of prophet does not have license to invent God’s word. Any portion of their words that is not repeated from what they heard from God is no different than anyone else’s word. There is a great difference between: “I say what God says to me” and “what I say is God's word, whether he said it to me or not.” It turns out that we shouldn’t assume church leaders words are true, even in the rare event when they do claim to be speaking God’s word.

Some claim that the ordination of leaders elevates their words to equality with God’s words. If ordination implied correct doctrine, no previous dispensation could have apostatized. Both the ancient Israelites and the Catholic church were founded on legal ordinations. Yet, their leaders were able to lead them astray. Historically, Mormon leaders taught that church leaders—including church presidents—could lead the church astray.

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

Because any man, no matter his calling, is capable of preaching false doctrine, we should not assume that the words of any man, no matter his calling, are God’s words. Doing so is putting our trust in the arm of flesh.

Nephi said it is only when “their precepts [are] given by the power of the Holy Ghost” that we should “hearken unto the precepts of men.” We are under no obligation to accept something said by a church leader as true, until and unless the Holy Spirit testifies it is true. We have to ask God if it is true every time.

When faced with the contradiction of “follow the prophet” and “do not trust in the arm of flesh,” modern Mormons unfortunately side with the modern tradition instead of the commandment of God. In order to reconcile the two, they conclude that somehow church leaders are excluded from the arm of flesh, perhaps because they suppose that everything a church leader says is what God himself would say if he were present.

Church leaders are not infallible. They “often” speak without inspiration, and are capable of teaching damningly false doctrine. It turns out that exclusion of church leaders from “the arm of the flesh” is a modern construct. Early church leaders taught members to avoid trusting in leaders, and said that to do so was to trust in the arm of the flesh.

Those that heed every word of church leaders—whether they are from the Holy Ghost or not—are described in D&C 76 as telestial spirits.

Those who follow a leader instead of the Holy Ghost are accounted no better than liars, adulterers, and whoremongers. There is a difference between being “of” a messenger and receiving the gospel, the testimony of Jesus, the prophets, and the everlasting covenant. The former just means you listened to and trust a person. The latter means that you’ve taken the Spirit to be your guide. If one idolizes the messenger—no matter who the messenger is—or follows them instead of seeking God's word, they will not realize whether he is a true or false prophet, because they will not ask whether or not each of his messages contain God's word. Following God's word leads to eternal life. On the other hand, if a person focuses on a man instead of searching for God's word, they will be damned to the telestial kingdom. This doctrine was understood in the past.

We are charged by God to validate the truthfulness of what church leaders say. The Holy Ghost is the only source of truth that will never lead us astray.

If we deny the Holy Ghost and instead trust in the arm of the flesh in the face of a multitude of examples of false doctrine taught by leaders throughout history, we make a tremendous mistake.

Members of the church hear a constant stream of claims that the Lord will not allow church leaders to lead the church astray. This claim has been applied to the church President, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve. The claim seems to have originated with Wilford Woodruff.

When a principle states that something can never happen, showing that it happened just once is sufficient to prove the principle false. Though the modern discussion on the topic has been one sided, history provides for many contrary examples.

A modern example is found in Adam God doctrine. Brigham Young taught that Adam is Heavenly Father. Adam God was taught at the veil in the endowment ceremony previous to the 1920s changes. In October 1976 General Conference, Spencer W. Kimball said that the Adam God doctrine was an example of “false doctrine.” Bruce R. McConkie used this as an example of how the Lord permits false doctrine to be taught in the church.

He went on.

The foregoing quote makes two interesting points. First, like President Kimball, Elder McConkie believed both that it was possible for a church president to teach false doctrine and that Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine was one such example. Second, Elder McConkie taught that one can be condemned for believing church-taught false doctrine. He said that it can lead a member astray and cause them to lose their soul.

God not only allows false doctrine to be taught by church leaders, he allows them to teach doctrines that are so false that they will prevent those who believe them from obtaining salvation. This should not be shocking, as it is a pattern present in every previous dispensation. Jesus taught that some of the doctrine taught by leaders in his day would prevent those who believed it from entering the kingdom of heaven.

The Pharisees, according to Jesus, had reached a critical mass of apostasy: the false doctrines they taught were so poisonous that they overwhelmed any good the true doctrines they taught might cause. Their “traditions”—or those commandments they taught which were actually from men but passed off as if from God—were sufficient to cut off those who obeyed them from a connection from God. The commandments of men caused them to break the commandments of God, which repelled the Holy Ghost and any chance they had to return to God’s presence.

It was not just ancient church leaders who were capable of leading people astray. Ancient prophets were also known to do so. For instance, the LDS heading of 1 Kings 13 reads, “Jeroboam is smitten and then healed by a prophet from Judah—The prophet delivers his message, is led astray by a prophet from Bethel, and is slain by a lion for his disobedience...” It should be no surprise that a modern prophet, just like an ancient one, can say things that are incorrect. After all, in many instances, they speak according to their own “opinions and prejudices”.

In addition to being taught to trust in church leaders’ teachings whether or not they actually come from God, leaders have also taught that we should follow their teachings whether or not they are right. Marion G. Romney told the following story, which has been repeated on several occasions, including in the June 1981 First Presidency Message and in a recent Priesthood/Relief Society manual.

This passage is most certainly false doctrine. How can one hide behind the excuse of “following the prophet” when God has amply told them explicitly not to trust in men, and instead only heed what is taught by the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost will never lead you astray, but church leaders have taught, are teaching, and will teach false doctrine. Joseph Smith publicly preached against this pernicious doctrine, which apparently was already taught in his time.

A man is not saved through his allegiance to imperfect men, but through his seeking and following the Holy Ghost. True messengers will always act in ways to increase the connection between an individual and God, not in ways that inflate their role or make them a middleman in the process. True messengers do not seek for men to worship them, but for men to worship God. They do not consider themselves more holy than those they are called to serve and do not ask for special treatment.

One way false prophets encourage idolatry is by calling themselves “prophets” absent of any transmission of God’s word. This causes men to venerate the leader instead of God himself, because they are supplanting God’s word with man’s word. A recent conference featured a perfect example of this, when Elder William Walker encouraged us all to try to be more like President Monson so that we could be more like Jesus. “As we follow President Monson and try to be more like him, we will inevitably succeed in being more faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (William R. Walker, “Follow the Prophet,” April 2014.) Why not just encourage people to be more like Jesus directly? Are we to believe that somehow being like President Monson is a necessary waypoint in our journey to become like Christ? Contrast this with the following.

We are told that as we adore the president of the church, we are experiencing the adoration the Lord has for him.

There isn’t a single scripture advocating admiration, love, or reverence for church leaders. Idolotry means extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone other than God. When we admire, love, or reverence the president of the church or any other of the brethren, we are idolozing them. Modern Mormons throw lavish birthday celebrations for their idols. They stand when their idols enter the room. They call their idols “beloved.” They give “oath like indication[s] that [they] recognize” the words of leaders to be “legitimate and binding upon [them].” We care more about the man occupying an office than we do the presence or absence of God's word in what they say.

In modern Mormonism, pointing out the errors of leaders is an offense that can result in the revocation of temple access, release from callings, and even excommunication. For example, Elder Oaks has said, “It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.” Some fear that questioning teachings of church leaders is risking losing their connection to salvation. To such, the word of God provides reassurance in the face of fearful false claims that one’s salvation depends on unquestioning acceptance of the precepts of men.

Without evaluating the doctrines leaders espouse, you cannot truly search for truth because questioning anything that leaders say or do causes an emotionally charged mental block. Vacuous refusal to think is equivalent to blindly following whatever they say, and is equivalent to trusting in the arm of the flesh.

Those who believe that questioning leaders is a sinful offense sometimes cite Joseph Smith as the source of the principle. They quote him as saying.

What is lost in the removal of context is that this sermon was not directed to members—it was directed to the apostles in light of those from that quorum who had recently left the church. In the original account, Joseph continues.

Ironically, this quote used to teach unfailing and unquestioning support of the brethren was given by Joseph not to teach members to trust the brethren, but to warn the brethren of their tendency to rebel against God and the gospel as provided in the standard works. It was a fitting warning. As time would tell, the majority of apostles called during Joseph’s lifetime were excommunicated for apostasy.

Joseph’s teachings, in combination with the standard works, provide a unified argument that no leader is above reproach, that all members are subject to be called to repentance, and that the standard of measurement is God’s word found in the scriptures.

In his own life, Joseph actually invited criticism and rebuke. He was always willing to be taught. After being falsely accused publicly by his brother William, Joseph wrote.

We should feel humbled to know that the prophet of the restoration—a man who knew God better than any of his contemporaries or successors—would openly invite rebuke. Given his willingness to be censured despite his accolades, what should we make of anyone who commands unquestioning servility?

Joseph was not alone. Brigham Young taught that regular members had every right to correct errors in their leaders.

The pattern extends backwards in time. Paul exercised his right to correct error in Peter, who was his senior in the apostleship.

We do not have to rely on Joseph, Brigham, or Paul for this principle. The Lord himself taught it plainly. He said that the inhabitants of Zion will judge the apostles and prophets to see who are liars and hypocrites.

How will the inhabitants of Zion judge apostles and prophets if apostles and prophets are above reproach? Clearly, the Lord intends for members of the church to watch over the conduct of leaders. “The inhabitants of Zion” does not imply that this task is to be conducted only by members with special callings. That this responsibility is borne by normal members is underscored by the instructions the Lord provided for trying the president of the church for transgression.

The Lord put into the hands of normal members the ability to discipline the leadership of the church, a responsibility that necessarily requires the membership of the church to watch over the leaders and evaluate their conduct to ascertain whether it is in line with God’s will. Why would God give instructions on how normal members could remove a sitting church president for transgression if a) the president of the church cannot lead members astray and b) members are not meant to judge his execution of his office? Empowerment of normal members provides a both a check on the power of church leaders to stray from God’s will as well as an undeniable witness that they can stray from God’s will.

Though this concept is very far from the modern traditions that leaders are above reproach, it fits quite well into the seamless scriptural theme of the need for individuals to seek after and follow the Holy Ghost instead of relying upon men. For example.

Common non-scriptural innovations in modern Mormonism such as “don’t criticize leaders, even if it is true” and “follow the prophet” are mutually exclusive from the revealed principle of “judge your leaders and their teachings.” In this light, which should be retained?

While there is nothing wrong with treasuring any revelation from God vindicated by the Holy Ghost that might come through a church leader, this is a far cry from hero worship or idolatry. “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” (Luke 16:13.) Those who “follow the prophet” do not take the Holy Spirit to be their guide and will not surpass the telestial kingdom (see D&C 45:57, quoted above).

Witnesses

Witnesses are a supremely important factor in the gospel of Christ. Joseph Smith begins the first Lecture on Faith by explaining that it was by the testimony of those who knew God that the residue of men were inspired to seek after him, and made familiar with how to do so.

Paul echoes the same description of the pattern of divine witnesses, describing how before a man has faith, he has to become acquainted with the report of one who has already obtained the promised blessing.

Moroni also taught about the pattern of witnesses.

Angels come on account of individual righteousness to those who have risen to the level of righteousness that allows their ministry. The purpose of an angelic visit is to enable the recipient to teach those revealed truths to “the residue” who yet lack faith in Christ sufficient to receive angels. By heeding the witness of those who have received angels, the residue of men can give place to the Holy Ghost and become the kind of person to whom God sends angels.

As the foundation of how the gospel is preached, the concept of witnesses is sacred. The testimony of two witnesses was considered sufficient evidence for conviction of even the most serious sins under the Law of Moses. It is not surprising, then, that the Ten Commandments include the command not to bear a false witness. The penalty of breaking this commandment was death.

It is to the true witnesses in scriptures that we owe all that we believe about God beyond our own experience with him. For example, because of these witnesses, we believe that Christ lives, even if we have not yet seen him with our own eyes. Perhaps more importantly, because of the witnesses of men who have obtained blessings we have not yet obtained, we can both have faith that we ourselves can obtain them, and know the path to obtain them.

A false witness can lead us to exert much effort in a fruitless path, distracting us from pushing forward on the path to eternal life by luring us onto a dead end deviation. “A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.” (Proverbs 14:25.)

The danger of false witnesses is that they can lure the unsuspecting into practicing fruitless false religion under the guise of the real thing. These people are usually both the farthest from God and the least likely to realize it since their religious practices occupy such a great portion of their lives. There is no room for them to consider any alternatives. Isaiah and Nephi quoted the Lord as saying about these.

When men’s precepts take the place of eye-witness accounts of God, they are sure to both prevent people from interacting with God and prevent them from accepting course corrections from true messengers. This is why Jesus gave such scathing rebukes to the Pharisees. Jesus explained that the fruitless paths that they witnessed of were responsible for preventing many from obtaining greater interactions with God.

Nephi taught that this was not a condition unique to the past. He prophesied of our day when.

Teaching by the precept of men is what occurs when men accept as their teachers those who do not have experience with God. Such false witnesses teach the same precepts their predecessors taught instead of witnessing of their own experiences with God. They cite the authority of their office instead of a divine source of their message. They claim as revelation the results of the counsels of men. Although false witnesses may be well meaning, the consequence of heading them is the same today as it was anciently.

False witnesses are not always obvious. If a wolf were not wearing sheep's clothing, he wouldn't fool anyone. If the Lord will eventually cast out even the imposters who did mighty miracles, what of those who sit in the chief seats but offer no signs of their divine appointment? And why will they be cast out? Because they do not actually know the Lord. Knowing the Lord is the duty of every disciple of Christ, as it is the requirement for eternal life. But one group of members has a special responsibility to know the Lord face to face: Apostles.

Apostles represent a special witness because they are, by definition, eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. In all of scripture and church history, we only have two occasions where the qualification for being an apostle was given. The first is in the book of Acts where Peter specifies that Judas' replacement not only had to be among the over 500 who had seen the risen Christ, but also have had an eyewitness of his mortal ministry (Acts 1:21-22). This eyewitness allowed the apostles to bear powerful testimony, such as the following.

The second occasion was when Oliver Cowdery, ordained of God to search out the first group of twelve in this dispensation, gave to that group. He said.

Without an eyewitness, the testimony of an apostle ceases to be any more special than any other person who has received a spiritual witness of the Savior. This spiritual witness is certainly important. It can be sufficient to bring a newcomer to the gate of the gospel. However, without an eyewitness, a disciple’s ability to increase faith in Jesus Christ is limited. Specifically, the disciple cannot really say that they know it is possible for a man to stand in the presence of God in this life as they will not know anyone who has. They also cannot say with a surety that they know that Jesus lives. Nephi gives us an example of the power that comes with a true apostolic witness.

The only way someone who has not seen God can achieve such a powerful witness is by saying things that are intentionally misleading to create the false impression that an eyewitness has been achieved. Unfortunately, such a tactic is subject to cross-examination, and when unwound will surely take with it the credibility of anything else the false witness taught or testified of— including the reality of the resurrected Christ.

Some would attempt to minimize Cowdery's charge without citing revelation. However, Joseph himself reaffirmed this principle several times. For example, he told the apostles.

The understanding that seeing Jesus was a requirement for the apostleship was present for some time after the death of Joseph. For example, in 1883 Zebedee Coltrin recounted his eyewitness of the Father and the Son, which had occurred during the school of the Prophets in Kirtland. Coltrin recounted that.

Likewise, the minutes recording the ordination of new apostles echo Cowdery’s charge until around the turn of the century.

Modern apostles minimize the effect of obtaining an eyewitness of Christ. For example, when Elder Oaks was recently asked “Have you seen him and witnessed His baptism, His teaching, His healing the sick and lame, the mock trial, His Crucifixion, His Resurrection, and His Ascension,” he replied, “Where do you find that kind of ‘witness’ defined or even mentioned in the scriptures?” On another occasion, Elder Oaks was confronted with the claim that.

He responded by saying.

Elder Oaks revealed that, in his view, what is special about his witness is his assignment in the church, not his experience with God. In an unusually direct disclosure, President Boyd K. Packer described it this way.

President Packer frequently says that part of his special witness is that he knows the Lord. Yet, he has admitted that instead of from a face-to-face audience (or even vocal exchange), the way he got to know him is through feeling the cleansing effect of his sacrifice.

On another occasion, President Packer explained how, when called to be an apostle, he was surprised that he did not possess “an unusual, different, and greatly enlarged testimony and spiritual power.” Contrast what is implied in the following statements with what they actually mean, keeping in mind that when President Packer speaks of his “special” witness, he is testifying of the same experiences had by any member of the church who knows through the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is real.

It may be unthinkable to the typical member of the church to consider that the apostles’ definition of “special witness” is merely an assignment independent of an actual experience with Christ. Early apostles would certainly agree. Heber J. Grant’s reported anxiety of not having seen Christ shows that, at least at that time, an eye-witness of Christ was expected.

Had President Grant thought in terms of Elder Oaks’ position that it is the calling that makes a witness special, he would not have thought that his lack of an eyewitness made him unworthy of being an apostle.

As late as the turn of the century, official church sermons still featured apostles who testified of fulfilling the charge in both the New Testament and current dispensation to be an eyewitness of Christ. For example, Elder George Q. Cannon testified, “I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him.” On another occasion he said.

Such an eyewitness increases the hearer’s faith that Jesus not only exists, but that the hearer too can obtain an audience with the Savior in this life.

With the appointment of Elder Smoot, things changed. He was regarded as “reliable in business, but has little or no faith.” Instead of the charge to obtain the face of God, he was instead instructed to receive “the light of the Holy Ghost” from which to testify. At the same time, there was a clear schism in the quorum of the twelve between those who had obtained an eyewitness and those who had not. It was during this time that junior apostle Heber J. Grant reported being overcome with guilt because he had not obtained this witness. He said it haunted him every time he testified of the Savior. Another quorum member told him that he was a failure as an apostle until and unless he obtained an eyewitness, providing further pressure. Just two years prior to his death, President Joseph F. Smith wrote.

With President Joseph F. Smith’s death came the end of an era. The excommunication of Elders Cawley and Taylor helped Heber J. Grant overcome his cognitive dissonance. It was likely them he referenced when he wrote in his diary.

He told a tabernacle meeting in 1942 “I never prayed to see the Savior.” (Heber J. Grant Journal, Oct. 4, 1942.)

If the appointment of Elder Smoot marked the beginning of the abandonment of the ancient and modern apostolic charge, the tenure of Heber J. Grant institutionalized the deviation. Before, these men were charged that they were not really special witnesses until they had obtained an eyewitness of the Savior. Now, they were criminalized for having one, and publicly bragged about never seeking for it. President Heber J. Grant's effort to ease his guilty conscience did not end there. A sister wrote him asking about eyewitnesses of Christ. He replied, “I know of no instance where the Lord has appeared to an individual since His appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith.” Since President Grant was not only in attendance when his fellow apostles had made those admissions prior to 1900, but also knew these men intimately, this statement was either an unbelievable omission, or a flat out attempt to change history to fit the new standard.

Subsequent apostles continued the new standard (or lack thereof) for being an apostle. The new doctrine was that receiving an impression that Jesus was real was a stronger witness than actually seeing him and speaking with him. Somehow knowing of him superseded in importance actually knowing him. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote about apostles.

On another occasion, he provided the position of the modern brethren clearly: a witness of Christ need not by visual or include his visitation at all— that the Holy Ghost was a superior witness.

President Joseph Fielding Smith on more than one occasion reiterated the displacement of the ancient and modern requirement to see the Lord. He taught that the brethren had no duty to seek the face of the Lord. Instead, they would only see him “if occasion requires.” He wrote to his son after being an apostle for 38 years.

The brethren actively changed the definition of what made their witness “special.” It was their calling, they were told, that made their witness greater than anyone else who had an impression that Jesus was real.

Once changed, this new doctrine was spoken about as if it had always been that way. President Harold B. Lee reported that when he was sustained as a member of the Twelve, he was told, “Now you understand that you are now to be a special witness of that great event, meaning the resurrection of the Lord.” President Lee felt that since he had read the scriptures and felt that these people had actually lived, his witness was just as strong as Paul's, who had seen and conversed with the Lord. He said this was because his emotive impression was actually greater than what Paul had seen.

The idea that a spiritual witness is stronger than an eyewitness allows modern Mormon leaders to say things that imply that they have seen Jesus without, in their minds, being deceitful. In Bruce R. McConkie’s case, the foregoing quote seriously detracts from the impact of his widely lauded last testimony, where he said.

Knowing better than he knew then, according to Elder McConkie, would be impossible since he already had a spiritual witness, which—according to him—was stronger than an eyewitness.

We read in the scriptures that the Nephites, Paul, and others who had the privilege of touching the resurrected Christ had a transformative experience. They could witness that they indeed knew, not merely believed, that Jesus was resurrected. Today's apostles apparently believe that there is nothing special gained from an eyewitness. President Uchtdorf said, “You do not need to see the Savior, as the Apostles did, to experience the same transformation.” A recent conference presenter said “Our own testimonies of the Savior are framed by the testimony and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.” However, Joseph Smith taught that.

Elder Carlos Godoy said.

Yet, are we not clearly taught what it means when angels cease to minister to men?

If an absence of visible angelic visitation indicates such gross lack of faith, what of a lack of visible visitations of Jesus Christ?

The fact is that we have a total lack of witnesses of Christ in modern Mormonism. Not one apostle has testified of a physical audience with Christ in over 114 years. The last public testimony of visually seeing Christ was in the 1800s. The last public testimony of seeing Christ from an apostle in a non-awake state was Elder David Haight in 1989. There isn't a single member living who has heard an apostle bear a public eyewitness of Christ. Since the majority of the church joined or reached adulthood after 1989, most have not heard any apostle testify of seeing Christ at all—even in a dream.

The leadership for decades has engaged in all sorts of verbal gymnastics to explain this failure to fulfill their apostolic duty. Though their “testimonies” are carefully worded to give the impression that they have seen Jesus, they would still be technically correct if this were not the case. Of course, intentionally leading people on to think something that is not correct is bearing a false witness, a crime worthy of death under the law of Moses that also becomes coupled with using the Lord's name in vain if such a “testimony” is closed in the name of the Savior.

It is important to note that the brethren do not have any problem with members believing they have seen Jesus, even if that is not the case. Elder Oaks has said, “Lying is sinful, as it has always been....Lying is simply outside the range of permitted or condoned conduct by Latter-day Saints— members or leaders.” Yet, immediately after in the same talk, he claims that lying only means “asserting something that is untrue” and that this is “very different” than “not telling everything one knows.” Says Elder Oaks, “the obligation to tell the truth does not require one to tell everything he or she knows.” He continues, “Indeed, we may have a positive duty to keep many things secret or confidential. But this principle does not condone violating the ninth commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’ (Ex. 20:16).” (BYU Speech, September 12, 1993.) Therefore, in the view of Elder Oaks and possibly other church leaders, purposefully misleading members into thinking they have seen the Savior is not lying, as long as they don’t explicitly say that they have when they have not. Most of the brethren do not focus on the details of their special witness. Why? I suspect that they are worried that no one will consider their witness to be very special if, like President Packer, they admit that it is no different than any witness of the Spirit. However, we are told that the reason why they do not share details that it is too sacred a thing to talk about; that somehow you can be a witness without witnessing of anything. They are simply withholding that their witness is no different than the witness of any other member because they believe members are unable to appreciate the “specialness” of a witness which derives wholly from a calling, not personal experience.

Elder Dallin H Oaks has said.

President Packer goes so far as to claim that God has given a commandment that his special witnesses should not witness of what makes their witness special.

On another occasion he said, “Why cannot it be said in plainer words? Why aren’t they more explicit and more descriptive. Cannot the Apostles say more?” He claimed that this was “for a witness to be given in some new and dramatic and different way.” Yet, it would only be different from the neutered testimonies of post-1900 Mormonism, since testimonies of Christ from Adam until 1900 always contained a description of a visual and tactile experience with him.

Apostle Marion G. Romney said.

One would think that the answer to that question would be very simple yes or no. It is quite odd that the modern brethren would think that something that was the expectation before 1900 is somehow now too sacred to share, and even prohibited by God, when no revelation received by the church supports either assertion. The current principles of “a witness of the Holy Ghost is more special than an eyewitness” and “a visual witness is too sacred to share” add up to making it impossible for a member to know whether an apostle has seen Jesus or not, making his witness no different than any other member's, and not special in any way.

The entire canon of scripture is full of men who readily spoke about their experiences with Christ. How much less precious would the scriptures be without their words? How much less faith would we have in Christ if Thomas did not tell us he touched him? How much less powerful would be the Nephite account if they thought it was too sacred to share the fact that they were visited? How much less would we know about the Savior if we were not told that he took the time to touch each of the over 2,000 present in Bountiful? How much less powerful would the Book of Ether be if it did not contain the account of the Brother of Jared piercing the veil? And so on.

The principle of a true witness requires that you actually say what you have seen, that others might have faith, and tell how you obtained it, that others might do the same. How can anyone attain a visual witness of Christ if they do not believe it can happen? And why should they believe it can happen if the apostles—men whose very calling is to have obtained such a witness--do not claim to have seen Christ?

The scriptures are replete with declarations that God does not work in darkness. For example, Nephi tells us “that the Lord God worketh not in darkness.” (2 Nephi 26:23.) Isaiah gives us the word of the Lord speaking disparagingly about the wise men of the people “who contrive to hide their schemes from Jehovah! They work in the dark, thinking, Who will see us? Who will know?” (Isaiah 29, Gileadi Translation.) But the Lord does not work in a corner. He works his miracles in the open in order to increase faith.

Those who have seen must, according to the principle of witnesses, testify of that which they have seen. Otherwise, no one would have faith that the experience can happen, nor know how to obtain it. In 3 Nephi ch. 12, the Lord tells us exactly what we are to do after we see Him.

If the brethren have not seen Jesus, members have a right to know. The doctrine of Christ promises that those who repent sufficiently to receive the Holy Ghost after baptism will, if they continue to follow God's voice, encounter Christ face to face.

What does it say if we follow men who purportedly teach us the gospel, but have not yet attained the end of the gospel? Is that not like going through great sacrifice to attend a GED course where the teacher has not yet obtained a diploma? Could there be any more literal fulfillment of the Savior's parable, “Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?” (Luke 6:39.) Jesus taught plainly that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3.) That this experience is to occur in this life for the heirs of salvation is made plain.

Why would you receive teachers claiming to lead you in the way of life and salvation, who had not obtained it themselves?

Whether the brethren have seen Christ or not is beyond our ability to say, since they have not said so themselves. However, the fact that they do not declare that they have means that either they have not, or they are negligent in their duty to testify as a witness of Christ. If the brethren do not know Christ, they do not have eternal life. Why should anyone believe that following them will lead to a different end than they themselves have obtained? If their “special witness” consists of nothing but an ordination, and that ordination itself has been insufficient to bring them back into the presence of Christ, what hope can their followers have that their authority alone will be sufficient to bring them back into the presence of Christ? As the Savior said to the blind leaders in his day.

A similar question is posed in the Book of Mormon.

One unfortunate side effect of the inflation of the witness of the brethren is that they disbelieve others’ accounts of having seen the Savior. In their minds, if Jesus doesn’t come to them, being the most righteous among us, why would he come to anyone else?

This position is one of the many fulfillments of Nephi’s description of our time.

The next logical step, of course, is for the brethren to caution members against seeking an audience with the Lord, despite the fact that such is required for salvation (see “The Gospel of Christ.”) Of course, all of the righteous desire to see the face of our Savior, but the suggestions that this must happen in mortality is a familiar tactic of the adversary. To identify a worthy goal, such as to achieve exaltation, and then to use the desirability of that goal and people’s enthusiasm for it to obscure the new means the adversary suggests to achieve it. (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Boise, Idaho, June 17, 2105.)

False witnesses are not just a problem in modern Mormon leadership, but also within the body of members. The most prominent opportunity for false witness comes in testimony meeting.

Testimony is not a thing to be taken lightly. Alma reported that the Zoramites “did pervert the ways of the Lord in very many instances; therefore, for this cause, Alma and his brethren went into the land to preach the word unto them.” (Alma 31:11.) What was their grievous crime? It was the content and form of how they bore testimony in church meetings! This is what they said.

Modern Mormons utter their own Zoramite prayer: “I know the church is true. I know President is a prophet. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.” Children and adults alike ascend LDS Rameumtoms to offer up this selfsame prayer without even thinking about what they are saying.

How many members could present a case of how they know that the church is true, or what they mean when they say that? How many could point to a prophecy by the that shows that they are a prophet? When members testify that they know something, but they don’t actually have any evidence of what they are saying, they are bearing false witness. This happens all the time in fast and testimony meeting. For every principle that is testified of, the member ought to have a very good answer if someone were to ask, “how do you know?” There are certain phrases like “the church is true” that are far too ill-defined to be possible to know. If you say that you know something is true, you better have been told explicitly by God that such was the case, or at least have some anecdotal evidence. One cannot simply say that they know something just because they wish it were true, or because they trust someone else who says that they know. Mindless parroting is a false witness.

Far too often in the church, members cave to social pressure and a desire to belong, and bear a false witness. The following is an excerpt of a talk given by Russell Hancock, a counselor in the Menlo Park stake presidency, given 6 May 2012.

Modern Mormons—rank and file and leaders alike—ought to invest the significant effort required to obtain revelation from God on a subject. Until they obtain God's word, they ought to resist the temptation to lie in order to fit in, and simply remain quiet until they have something to testify of in truth.

The Lord’s Chosen People

God has always offered salvation to any individual or group who is willing to seek him. Through all generations of time, select few have accepted the invitation. In a show of godly mercy, God cascades echoes of the blessings of the righteous onto their less righteous peers and posterity. Without exception, the descendants of covenant fathers such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Nephites who witnessed the resurrected Christ, etc., gradually chip away at God's patient blessings by progressively apostatizing from the covenant made to their fathers until they are ripe in iniquity.

Unfortunately, the apostate descendants of covenant fathers always seem to consider themselves equally as righteous as their forebears. They are lifted in haughty pride and call themselves chosen, though God has said no such thing.

Throughout history, the ancestors of those who achieved a connection with God considered themselves a chosen people. The false sense of security brought by the erroneous idea that God could never abandon them despite their sins fostered a degree of wickedness that usually exceeded that of their Godless peers.

Perhaps the easiest to recognize example of this phenomenon is the children of Israel between the time of Moses and Jesus. Israel was a chosen people during this time. Yet, they were in an apostate state. The evidence of their chosen status was expressed in the invitation they had received to come up to the presence of Christ. This invitation—originally made through Moses—was still available to them through the generations, as evidenced by those individuals who obtained it.

A chosen status is therefore not an indication of acceptance by the Lord or a measurement of the righteousness of the people: Israel's kings were generally quite wicked, and their people were no different. Paul distinguished between the invitation provided and the fruits obtained by accepting it.

As he explained to the group of Gentiles he was addressing, there was a distinction between those who obtained the promise (that is, the promise of eternal life from Christ to an individual) and those who were of a “chosen” lineage. Paul argued that the same invitations available to the Israelites by lineage were available to the Gentiles—and that neither would prove of any use without the righteousness of the acceptor. Though Israel was considered chosen, in reality this identifier had more to do with the increased instruction they received from the righteousness of their progenitor patriarchs than it did with God’s approbation of their contemporary behavior, which was nearconstant wickedness.

A covenant people is a people with whom God has made the covenant of eternal life. Unlike other covenants, such as that God made with Aaron, the covenant of eternal life is not transmitted by virtue of descent. Nephi explained that individuals’ relationships with God are what causes the covenant to be offered.

With the Israelites, God offered the covenant, but it was not accepted. Through Moses he gave to them a set of laws that would bring them to Christ, both spiritually and literally. To them the invitation to obtain was extended. Did this make them special? The invitation was and always is unto all. The distinction was not in the lack or presence of the invitation, but in the presence of an expectation and an increase in the means to obtain it. The Israelites had a dispensation of gospel knowledge. They had the righteous example of Moses and other prophets who had obtained the presence of God. This is what made them different.

Being a chosen people simply means that there is an expectation and a means provided to rise to the fulfillment of the expectation. Being a chosen people does not mean that you are more righteous than anyone else. Consequently, it does not mean you are any closer to divinity than anyone else. In fact, a chosen people who reject God’s teachings fare worse with him than those who never knew him in the first place. A chosen people is not more righteous than others. They are merely expected to be so.

The Israelites were chosen and also generally wicked. At times, the Lord said very sharp things about them. For example, he stated they were as wicked as those who were not chosen people.

Although they were generally wicked, and were not a covenant people, the Israelites still had interaction with God at times. Their daily participation in religion did not create a covenant relationship with God. A people can be wholly devoted to religion and still not approach God.

In the Book of Mormon, we see the Nephites—who were the chosen people—utterly destroyed by the Lamanites. The wickedness of the Nephites was truly great: not only did their sins exceed those of the Lamanites in absolute terms, but they committed them against greater light and truth, having been taught the correct way and turned away from it. From the above points we see that.

A chosen people do not have greater blessings with God. They simply have an invitation from him to obtain such with an expectation to do so. A group can only become a covenant people if God actually makes a promise of eternal life to them as individuals. Covenants cannot be inherited from organizational ancestors. Where much is given, much is required. If a group has access to a greater portion of God's teachings, they are judged to a higher standard.

These principles stand at odds to what is commonly understood in modern Mormonism. That is, that the LDS are entitled to special blessings from God, and ever will be until Christ comes again, regardless as to how well they actually keep God’s commandments.

Jesus taught that signs will follow those that believe. He reaffirmed this promise in Joseph’s day on at least two occasions.

For I am God, and mine arm is not shortened; and I will show miracles, signs, and wonders, unto all those who believe on my name. And whoso shall ask it in my name in faith, they shall cast out devils; they shall heal the sick; they shall cause the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak, and the lame to walk. (D&C 35:8-9.)

Therefore, as I said unto mine apostles I say unto you again, that every soul who believeth on your words, and is baptized by water for the remission of sins, shall receive the Holy Ghost. And these signs shall follow them that believe—In my name they shall do many wonderful works; In my name they shall cast out devils; In my name they shall heal the sick; In my name they shall open the eyes of the blind, and unstop the ears of the deaf; And the tongue of the dumb shall speak; And if any man shall administer poison unto them it shall not hurt them; And the poison of a serpent shall not have power to harm them. (D&C 84:64-72.)

In Joseph’s day, members were expected to possess spiritual gifts: dramatic, undeniable external evidences of the power of God. The receipt of the Holy Ghost was taught to always bring spiritual gifts. Apostle Orson Pratt taught.

As modified as the endowment has become, some of the teachings on how true messengers are manifested have been preserved. True messengers always bring with them signs to identify God’s approval of their message. Echoing what we are taught in the modern endowment, Joseph Smith taught that true messengers bring with them the miracles the Savior promised.

If the miracles of gifts of the Spirit were always present in Joseph’s day, have they continued to be in our day? In modern Mormonism, we hear testimonies of questionable miracles, such as someone with a priesthood blessing gradually recovering, or a missionary learning Spanish through months of immersive instruction and practice. Yet, Jesus’ list did not include subtle miracles. We do not see examples of the Lord’s explicitly listed undeniable miracles: healing the sick, causing the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, the lame to walk, and invulnerability to poison.

God is not a changing God. If the manifestations of believers have changed from the time of Joseph, it can only be because the doctrines have changed since the time of Joseph.

Just as the presence of spiritual gifts is a witness of God’s approbation of the teachings offered, the lack of spiritual gifts is a sign of God’s disapproval of what is offered. At a minimum, one would expect these signs among the leadership of the church. Though we sustain leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators, they do not manifest any of these gifts, and haven’t since the death of Joseph (see “Prophet: Title or Description?”) Sidney Rigdon taught.

If the promised miraculous signs do not attend a religion, it means that the believers in said religion do not have the truth, and do not have salvation.

A lack of spiritual gifts shows a lack of faith. This is a shock to those who do not possess miracles yet consider themselves to have faith. They think they are exercising faith in God, but in reality their faith is in the false traditions of men.

As Moroni explained, if you are not witnessing the miracles of visible ministration of angels, healings, tongues, visions, prophecy, etc., you are not in possession of the gospel of salvation.

The opposite of faith is unbelief. Unbelief means refusing to believe, but in what? Faced with the implications of the lack of these promised gifts, modern Mormons have come up with three rationalizations. First, they claim that these gifts are had, but those who have them don’t speak of them. The issue with this rationalization is that—beyond the fact that it allows everyone to assume they are the minority in not having these experiences—it shifts the signs from an individual witness to a communal one. The presence of signs is a witness meant for each individual, not a group. Second, they claim that while these gifts may not be had among the lay membership, the brethren experience them.

Third, they conclude that, since modern Mormons are the chosen people, though their experiences don’t match the descriptions in scripture, the definition of the words in scripture must have changed. Many in our day deny that God has a reason to perform miracles, or that he wills to perform only subtle miracles. They conclude that when God says “heal the sick,” he means leave the sick to be healed by a doctor or natural, slow means; that when he says “gift of tongues,” he means to learn languages like any other student learns; and that when he refers to the healing of the deaf, the dumb, the blind, and the raising of the dead, he wasn’t serious. Instead of comparing the scriptures to their experience, they force their experience onto what the scriptures say.

Most accept the idea that the Gentiles spoken of in the Book of Mormon include the inhabitants of the United States. There are many passages that state as much. For example.

What is less understood is that the Book of Mormon authors also considered members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as Gentiles. This fact should be evident from the start of the Book, as the Title Page states that the Book of Mormon should “come forth by way of the Gentile.” Of course, the book came forth through Joseph Smith. Moroni said, “O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you” (Ether 8:8). Non-LDS Americans do not read the Book of Mormon. Therefore, it can be said that the only group to whom these things are shown are those who are LDS. Moroni was speaking to the readers of the Book of Mormon, which means that his appellation is used interchangeably with “members of the LDS church.”

Some would contend that Joseph Smith and other members of the church cannot be referred to as Gentiles because once someone joins the LDS church, they become part of the house of Israel. For example.

Interestingly, however, Nephi still calls those who repent Gentiles. And, as previously stated, the Title Page calls Joseph Smith a Gentile. Joseph Smith even stated.

The identity of Joseph Smith shows how church members can be both of the house of Ephraim and still Gentiles. The Book of Mormon tells us that Joseph is a descendent of Ephraim. Ephraim was the son of Joseph of Egypt, but also the son of an Egyptian woman. Therefore, Ephraim was both an Israelite and a Gentile. The Book of Mormon calls Joseph a Gentile even though it identifies him as a descendent of Ephraim. Mormons should consider themselves Gentiles and Israelites.

This labeling is exceedingly important. When Mormons understand that they are Gentiles, they can associate the warnings and descriptions of the Gentiles in the Book of Mormon with themselves. Instead of deflecting them to non-LDS Americans, they can repent from the sins predicted as seen and described by ancient prophets.

During the life of Joseph Smith, everything in the church aimed at one goal: establishing Zion, a tangible city of men and women who lived the Terrestrial law, a place where there are no poor and where everyone keeps all of God’s commandments. After Joseph’s life, successive changes shifted the goal posts: the commandments were modified, eradication of poverty was replaced with a program to regularly treat its symptoms, and physical gathering was abandoned.

The question today is: as an institution, are we progressing closer to Zion, or are we moving further away? Early leaders who lived through both eras juxtaposed the church under Joseph and the church after his death. George Q. Cannon, who arrived in Nauvoo as a British convert at the age of 15 and lived two years in close proximity to church leadership (his lived with his uncle, John Taylor), said the following.

Orson Pratt felt the same way. He noted that the trajectory of the Saints in Utah was not headed towards Zion.

There must be a reformation. There will be a reformation among this people, but He will plead with the stronger ones of Zion, He will plead with this people, He will plead with those in high places, He will plead with the priesthood of this church, until Zion shall become clean before him. I do not know but what it would be an utter impossibility to commence and carry out some principles pertaining to Zion right in the midst of this people. They have strayed so far that to get a people who would conform to heavenly laws it may be needful to lead some from the midst of this people and commence anew in the regions round about in these mountains. (Orson Pratt, JD 15:360.)

Apostle (later president) Joseph Fielding Smith wrote of his concerns both about how far from Joseph’s teachings the church had drifted in the preceding 20 years, and how far the church would continue to drift.

Members during Brigham Young’s tenure believed that they were only in Utah for a season, and that one day they would return to Jackson County to build Zion. Over time, this belief eroded into what modern Mormons believe: that Zion is not a physical city at all, but that we gather to Zion as we join and remain in the church in congregations around the world.

In reality, both views are incorrect. The truth contained in the scriptures, and understood by some few early leaders, is that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never had the charge to build Zion, and will not build Zion. Instead, Zion will be built by the Lamanites—a remnant of Joseph.

Third Nephi 21 is worthy of a significant study beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that it directly challenges many traditions in modern Mormonism, including the ideas that the LDS church will establish Zion, that the “marvelous work and a wonder” is something that has already occurred, that the United States will still exist as a country at the coming of Christ, and that the gathering of Israel has commenced.

Orson Pratt summed up this chapter this way.

None of these items on Elder Pratt’s list has yet occurred.

Some minority of the Latter-day Saints will repent from their false traditions, receive a covenant, and be numbered among the remnant of Jacob (see 3 Nephi 16:10-16), but most will be destroyed in the calamites the Lord has promised to bring at the conclusion of the space allotted for the Gentiles to repent.

Those who profess to know God’s name but do not really known Him and who have blasphemed against him in the midst of his house are those upon whom this judgment will fall.

While modern Mormons consider themselves the Lord’s chosen people, the scriptures suggest they are little more than a group doomed to failure whose singular achievement will be having preserved the Book of Mormon for the Lamanites to later accept.

We don’t have to guess how the Lord feels about the church. He has spoken about it several times in what we regard as scripture. In 1831, the Lord said.

The Lord said that there were people in the church attributing things to him that he had not said, and doing things in his name he had not commanded. He said that the church needed to repent or else they would be cut off. He said that those who claim their own words are God’s words, when the Spirit has not spoken to them, are condemned.

The Lord spoke again about the church in 1832. He said.

Here, the Lord said that those who do not receive revelation are not of him. He said that the church had taken the revelations that Joseph Smith received lightly, and for this reason were under condemnation. He said that this condemnation applied to every member of the church, and would stand until they repented and obeyed the Book of Mormon and other commandments from God through Joseph Smith. Do we as a people obey the Book of Mormon and other commandments from God through Joseph Smith more than those in 1832? This question is discussed in the chapter entitled “The Preeminence of Joseph Smith’s Teachings.”

In 1841, the Lord spoke about the church for the last time as recorded in our scriptures. He said.

Here, the Lord did not say the condemnation placed upon the church in 1832 had been lifted. Instead, he stated that the fullness of the priesthood had been taken away from the church. He charged the church to build the Nauvoo temple, and stated that if the task was not completed in a certain time, the church would be rejected with its dead. The Saints did not build the Nauvoo temple, spending their money on lavish brick homes and a Masonic temple instead of the Lord’s house. The Saints fled Nauvoo before the temple was completed. God never came to the temple, and he never restored anything in it. Additionally, the promised penalties fell upon them prior to the completion of the building, demonstrating that the temple was not completed in time to fulfill God’s commandment.

Joseph repeatedly warned that there was a time given by the Lord for them to build the temple, and, as the Lord said in D&C 124, if the Saints didn't fulfill the commission in time, they would lose the opportunity to gain the promised blessings.

In April 1842, the Prophet said.

This did not occur.

The three times God spoke on the subject, he indicated that the church needed to repent, that they were under condemnation, and that they were rejected with their dead. If any claims that the LDS church is the Lord’s church, they have the obligation of pointing out where he has reversed his position as clearly defined in the Doctrine and Covenants on three occasions.

Modern Mormons claim that God could never turn away from the LDS church. For example, Elder Holland recently wrote.

The scriptures and words of early LDS leaders disagree.

There are innumerable examples in the Old Testament of God rejecting his covenant people through their iniquity (see, for example, Jeremiah 12:7-17, Jeremiah 18:5-10, Isaiah 1:21-23, Hosea 1:8-9, Hosea 4, Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel 22:17-18, and Zephaniah 3:11). Modern Mormons do not dispute that when ancient people deviated from God after he established a covenant with them, they were cut off. They dispute that God would ever have a reason to cut the LDS off. They believe that the Lord has promised that the LDS church will continue in his graces until Christ comes again, a position that ignores that, by 1841, the Lord had already told the church that it was in sin, under condemnation, and rejected.

Early leaders understood that the Lord could cut off the church. They hastened to finish the Nauvoo temple after the death of Joseph for fear that they would be cut off for disobeying God’s command. Orson Hyde stated.

Heber C. Kimball taught that God could take the priesthood from the Saints through disobedience.

George A. Smith said the Lord could abandon the Saints in favor of another people.

There are many additional witnesses that the church can be cut off. The Lord said in D&C 63:63: “let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off.” If it was the inalterable destiny of the LDS church to usher in the second coming of Christ, why would Christ himself tell them it was possible for them to be cut off? If it was not possible for the church to sin sufficiently to be cut off, why would God say that it was possible? If it were not possible for the Lord to choose another people, why did Joseph threaten the Saints who were sluggish in responding to the commandment to build the Nauvoo temple.

If, once given, God cannot remove the keys because of disobedience or ordinances changed contrary to his word, why did Joseph Smith say.

In order to believe that God cannot cut off the LDS, one would have to disbelieve each of these statements from Joseph Smith and God himself. They are too plain to be misunderstood, and therefore must be somehow directly ignored.

The gospel was revealed through Joseph Smith. The kingdom was revealed by Joseph Smith. The gospel is not the church, and the kingdom is not the church. Neither the gospel nor the kingdom are the exclusive property of the LDS church. To the degree that the church turns away from the gospel as revealed through Joseph Smith, they turn away from the kingdom. Or, as the Lord said.

But if they [the Gentiles] will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel. (3 Nephi 16:15.)When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and covenant with an everlasting covenant, they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men; They are called to be the savor of men; therefore, if that salt of the earth lose its savor, behold, it is thenceforth good for nothing only to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men. (D&C 101:39-40.)

These Gentiles are the LDS: the only ones in the last days who have been called unto the everlasting gospel and have made an everlasting covenant with God. According to these scriptures, these covenant people will reject the fulness of the gospel that will be taken away and given to the house of Israel. When read in context, it is difficult to interpret these scriptures any other way.

Some modern Mormons would contend that God could not have cut off the LDS church, because if he had they would not have the benefits they enjoy as members of the church. They are ignorant of scripture, which voluminously attests to the general failure of people who have been cut off to notice.

Isaiah speaks of a people who are “weighed down by sin,” “forsaken Jehovah,” and “lapsed into apostasy,” yet they make “abundant sacrifices” in the temple, has “meetings at the New Month and on the Sabbath,” and “spread[s] forth [their] hands” in temple ordinances (Isaiah 1:4,11,14-15, Gileadi Translation.) They “importune me daily, eager to learn my ways, like a nation practicing righteousness and not forsaking the precepts of its God.” (Isaiah 58:2, Gileadi Translation.)

In 3 Nephi, chapter 27, the Lord gives the criteria by which we can determine that an organization is His church. First it must be called by His name. Second, it must be built on His gospel. Third, it must demonstrate the works of God (examples in 3 Ne. 26:11). While the LDS church fulfills the first requirement, its institutional neglect and active abandonment of the gospel as revealed through Joseph Smith suggests that the second criteria is not met. A Mormon from 1842 would not recognize the church today if he were teleported to our day. What about the third criteria? Does the church and its members bear the fruits of the gospel? On Sept 13[th], 2015 Elder Ballard praised the Utah South area. These are the accomplishments he lauded them for.

A nationwide polling service found Utah to be the most religious state. Three missions. Six temples with two under construction. The largest religious university in America. Vibrant institutes of religion programs associated with the great colleges and universities in the area. An expanding Missionary Training Center in Provo. Numerous ward, stake, and seminary buildings.v.

Where are the fruits? All of these items—all of them—are a result of how much money a people has. As demonstrated by the Israelites and by King Noah’s people, all of these characteristics can be demonstrated while being in complete apostasy from God. How many members of the church have been baptized by fire? How many prophesy? How many miraculously heal the sick, the blind, or the deaf? How many have seen angels? How many have seen God? Instead of being known for these fruits, Utah leads the nation in suicides per capita, porn use, and prescription antidepressants.

So many times, modern Mormons contest “But this is the Lord's church, therefore whatever it does must be sanctioned by God.” Wouldn't it be nice if we could point to the church's actions and say, “these match God's word, therefore this is God's church” rather than using the claim that it is God's church (a claim God himself hasn't made since before 1832 when he said this church was under condemnation) to justify actions that are contrary to God's revealed word?

Modern Mormons truly are dripping in pride about their supposed exalted status. Yet, the Lord has explicitly rejected them. Though their failure as an institution is sealed, the fate of each individual member is still at stake. Chuck Baldwin once said.

As the church continues to turn away in greater and greater degrees from the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, members must choose: will they align their actions and beliefs to God’s word as revealed in scripture, or will they join the church in drifting further and further away from God?

Only those few true followers of Jesus will be able to escape the calamity that is about to fall on the Gentiles, and be numbered among the remnant of Jacob.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The Book of Mormon is full of descriptions of our day, with the warning that.

The judgment to come upon the Gentiles is sealed and is coming fast. However, there is still time for individuals to repent and escape the calamities ordained for the collective whole. No matter how entrenched you were in the false traditions of men, you can be forgiven instantaneously if you will only seek God and seek to do his will.

This entire book is filled with instructions on what to do in context of what not to do, but for the sake of leaving on a constructive note, let us recap.

Stop listening to men. They don’t control your eternal salvation. Only God does that. Your task is to find and obey God’s word, not man’s word. The distinction is of utmost importance, and something that you need to take the responsibility for, because you will be held accountable.

Give heed to what Joseph restored. Read the Book of Mormon. Pay attention to what it actually says, and try to forget what you’ve been told it says. Study what Joseph wrote and spoke. Find it online. Find it in “Words of Joseph Smith” or “The Joseph Smith Papers Project.” Study the other scriptures. Don’t forget the Old Testament. So much of what those prophets taught applies today.

We have a limited amount of time before the Lord returns, and significant desolation will occur before then. Use your time for the weightier matters in order to prepare for that day.

Seek for the experiences you have not yet received, such as baptism by fire, an audience with Christ, and the promise of eternal life. Getting there will require a focus on yourself, your family, and your neighbors instead of outward checklists. Stop wasting time in the hamster wheel of temple ordinances, family history, and church callings.

It is of extreme importance that you do whatever you can to help the oppressed, wherever they are found. Seek out and help the poor.

Paying tithing as the Lord has revealed will provide sufficient funds for everyone to help the poor more than they currently do.

Help others break out of the bondage of false traditions. In speaking of what to be done to qualify for Zion, Zechariah was told: “These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor...” (Zechariah 8:16.) As you have been awakened, take efforts to wake up others: “...it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.” (D&C 88:81.)

Though time is short, be patient and long-suffering. Use wisdom and tact to teach others on their level to give them the greatest chance of listening.

To summarize it all: “Respect and obey God! That is what life is all about.” (Eccl. 12:13, CEV.) May God bless all of us to flee from false traditions, whatever they may be. Let us not exercise the fruitless religion of our fathers that brings.

AMEN.