Baby Ruth Is Made Of Poop

When I was a very young child, I happened to mention to a playmate that the tooth fairy had left a Baby Ruth candy bar under my pillow.

My friend was appalled. "Baby Ruth is made out of poop!" he declared.

I was just six years old at the time, and my friend Gary was not yet five, but that was still the craziest freakin’ thing I'd ever heard.

It turned out Gary wasn't kidding. Not only was he adamant about the feculent contents of a Baby Ruth bar, he was unwilling to consider even for a moment that he might have been mistaken.

"If Baby Ruths are made out of poop", I argued, "why would I eat one?"

Gary was serious. "You just like to eat poop."

The source of Gary's knowledge on the subject of this particular candy bar was impeccable: he got his information from his grandfather. Baby Ruth candy bars are made out of poop. Grampa said so, and that was that.

More than half a century has gone by, and I sincerely hope that at some time between then and now Gary has realized that his Grandfather was pulling his leg. But who knows? That kid was never interested in facts. Had I produced a Baby Ruth bar and offered him a taste, he would have recoiled in horror before I got the thing anywhere near his face.

Between the two of us, I was clearly the Baby Ruth expert, having eaten one just that morning for breakfast. But the more we argued, the angrier Gary got about it. What he really wanted was for me to admit that he was right. Finally he threw a Tonka truck in my direction and ran home in a huff.


How Important Is the Truth?

I've since met people fully grown who are as certain in their fixed beliefs as Gary was at four. Any missionary can tell you of people they've met who claim to know all about the Book of Mormon, yet have never so much as held one in their hands.

On my mission I had an impish companion who liked to have a sly bit of fun with these types. The following is an actual conversation that took place between my companion and one of these smug Missouri know-it-alls. We could tell early on that this guy was bluffing, so we had our fun with him.

Elder: "Have you ever heard of the Book of Mormon?"

Contact: "Yeah, I know all about your Book of the Mormons"

Elder: "Oh, you've read it?"

Contact: "Yeah, I read all of it."

Elder: "What was your favorite part?"

Contact: "Well, I didn't really have a favorite part. All of it was my favorite part. It was mostly okay, but I didn't really like any of it."

Elder: "What about the part where Brigham Young rode that buffalo across the plains? Did you like that part?"

Contact: "Yeah, that was pretty good."

Elder: "My favorite part was when Joseph Smith wrestled that grizzly bear."

Contact: "Yeah, that was my favorite part, too."

I have known people who have carefully examined our scripture then decided it was not for them. Those folks I can respect. The ones I have trouble with are those who put themselves out as experts on something they have no fetching clue about.

One of the most valuable things I ever learned came to me in the form of a simple question posed by a teacher. That question came to mind recently, along with my memories of the Gary incident, while I was engaged in a series of online conversations with an intractable acquaintance on Facebook. That question went like this:

“How important is it for you to learn the truth about anything?”

It would advance the cause of civility if we all took a moment to really ponder that question now and again.

How important is it, really...

...for you...

...to learn the truth...

...about anything.

Back in December I received some very positive feedback from a non-LDS reader who described himself as a liberal democrat. He had come across my blog and read my entries detailing LDS doctrine on war. The company he worked for had recently transferred him to Salt Lake City, and until he read my words, he had been under the impression that many of the Mormons he lived and worked among were bloodthirsty, warmongering yahoos.

My new friend had gotten this impression from the pap he was being fed by his coworkers who evidently were confusing their tribal political beliefs with the tenets of their religion. He was very happy to learn that Mormonism was not the mindlessly aggressive religion he had been led to believe. In fact, he was learning, it was quite the opposite. My blog was changing his opinion of Mormons and Mormonism for the better.

We emailed back and forth a bit, finding much to agree upon. We soon developed a mutual admiration for one another’s ideas, a liberal and a conservative finding common ground. Kindred spirits. Best Friends Forever.

Well, that love affair didn’t last long. A few months later my new-found friend was leaving strident posts all over Facebook decrying the awful tea party movement and declaring that those who attended such functions were motivated by nothing but racism.

When I responded in an effort to correct his obvious misunderstanding of the movement, he dug his heels in deeper and shot back with ugly personal insults totally out of character with the person I thought I had gotten to know. As with my childhood friend Gary, now that I disagreed with him, I was nothing but a stupid Stupidhead.


The Great Awakening

I happen to believe that the recent phenomenon that has come to be known as the “tea party” movement is just one manifestation of a bigger spiritual awakening taking place throughout the world.

But if you were like my online friend and tended to accept the conventional wisdom, you would assume that the tea parties were just some Republican party scheme.

The conventional wisdom is wrong.

The first national tea parties were organized in 2007 as a protest against Republican policies.

Mark Twain famously said “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

My liberal friend was sure of an awful lot of things that just weren’t so. Besides myself, several other constitutional conservatives who also happened to be LDS offered him links to sources intended to disabuse him of his prejudices and give him information he was clearly missing. But he flatly rejected all of these references. His own sources were telling him all he needed to know about the tea party, and if we couldn’t see it his way, we were the idiots. We, who knew something about the matter first hand, were the fools in his eyes.

The tea party, we explained, was not really a “party” in the political sense. Originally a mix of conservatives, libertarians, and disaffected leftists calling for a national protest in 2007, the modern tea partiers took their inspiration from the revolt of the colonists at Boston Harbor in 1773. Many were attracted to the constitutional principles advocated by presidential candidate Ron Paul, who decried the unlawful use of our military to engage in undeclared wars and nation building overseas.

Congressman Paul warned of the impending financial disaster that would soon overtake us if we continued to see our mission as the policemen of the world, and warned that the federal reserve system was leading this country toward imminent financial ruin.

When the predictions of Paul and others came true regarding the collapse of the housing bubble, rising unemployment, and the banking "crisis", more American’s awoke to the awful situation brewing in our country. New tea party protests were organized in response to the first wave of banker bailouts orchestrated by the Bush administration, and to the dismissive attitude many politicians were displaying toward their constituents. Attendance at these functions continued to expand.

By April of 2009, it was apparent that the new Democratic president had every intention of continuing the unlawful policies of his predecessor, committing the people to bailing out still more banks and large corporations while stepping up the number of violations of civil liberties at home. The wars on foreign soil increased while the war against the people and their constitution continued here at home.

The tea party movement exploded as millions more Americans saw their freedoms being threatened by signs of an emerging police state, and this year when a health care bill was imposed with little opportunity for debate and in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the people, the tea party movement now resonated with a majority of Americans.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the tea party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. The move to restore constitutional principles over party loyalty was moving mainstream. The people were awakening.

The tea party movement is a rejection of the false religion of both major parties. That’s why I feel it typifies the spiritual awakening of America. The people are rejecting the false god of government.

Up until now most Americans have held out the false hope that if only the priests of their particular church/party were in power, salvation would surely come. But it never has. Tea partiers no longer worship at either the Republican or the Democratic churches, nor do they hold the priests of either religion in high regard.

The people are throwing off their superstitions. They recognize that America’s two biggest religious denominations are empty and false.

The people are rediscovering America’s secular scriptures, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which the two dominant churches have ignored and subverted for far too long.

The high priests of both denominations are terrified of the tea party movement, as it is loosening their grip on the faithful. Tea party voters will not support a candidate based merely on party affiliation; candidates must run on constitutional principles. As Gary North has written, “The Tea Party movement is a threat to politics as usual. If incumbents of both parties are defeated this November, this will send a wave of fear through the Establishment. The swing voters are no longer under control.”


The Spin Begins

And so a war of lies is taking place as both churches attempt to retain their members. The priests of the Republican church decided to try to get in front of the movement and mold it as their own. Sarah Palin is on record as stating that the Republicans should absorb the tea party movement, and Republican operatives have had some success in hijacking rallies in some states.

Fox News heavily promoted the tea party rallies last year, maneuvering their on-air personalities into postition as key speakers. This resulted in the Church of the Democrats being able to convince their adherents that the tea parties were mere cheap Republican hustles, and therefore not worth a serious look.

But this war of lies isn’t working, as polls show that four out of ten people who claim sympathy with tea party principles list themselves as democrats and independents.

Attempts by the neocon Republicans to keep their members docile and in line are failing because at every rally across the nation thousands of free DVDs are distributed that describe the essence of what the tea party movement is really all about. Once a person views these documentaries, the major churches no longer have him in their spell.


Going To The Source

The tea party movement has no real leaders, as it is made up of disparate groups of individuals united primarily by their love of liberty. But there is one man who has been called “the prophet of the tea party movement”, and that man is Alex Jones. A gruff young Texan, Jones is host of a syndicated radio show who is a thorn in the side of both the Republican and Democratic establishments because time after time he has exposed both factions as working against the interests of America.

Jones is also an accomplished documentary filmmaker, and he has encouraged viewers to make copies of his films and distribute them freely.

Two of his more recent documentaries, “Fall of the Republic” and “The Obama Deception” have been distributed by the tens of thousands to attendees at tea party rallies. The number of people who have seen his films online for free is conservatively estimated at more than 100 million.

These movies lay out for the viewer what has gone wrong in America, who is responsible, and how we can go about fixing it. (It’s worth noting that “The Obama Deception” doesn’t focus only on how Americans were deceived about Obama, but also how we were deceived about George Bush.)

Regardless of one’s political views, it would make sense that in any discussion of a given topic, the logical place to find information on that topic would be to go to the source. Alex Jones is as close to the source of the tea party movement as one can find as his films, broadcasts, and internet sites have become Information Central for all things connected to the tea party movement.

Yet when I suggested to my online friend that he check out this source he scoffed at the suggestion and snidely ridiculed me for it. His own sources, you see, had already conditioned him to believe that Alex Jones was a violent racist and a right-wing tool. I offered another favored source of truth, LewRockwell.com, and received a similar pecksniffish dismissal.

My friend continued to insist that the tea party movement was a collection of vehement white racists, and nothing more. They were a bunch of slack-jawed hillbillies angry only because there was a black man in their white house. That was all it was. He could see no further motive.

When asked to provide evidence of this pervasive racism, my friend provided links to commentaries by others equally as ignorant as himself. He spoke constantly of empirical evidence proving his claim, but never produced any.

I sent him a link to these videos which completely refute the widely reported claim that the words “nigger!” and "faggot!" were shouted at black congressmen at a Washington rally and that one of the congressmen, John Lewis, was spat upon while walking through the crowd.

A $10,000.00 reward has been offered for any evidence of such racism at that rally. I reminded my friend that there were hundreds of cameras present, so it should be easy for him to claim that ten grand.

He hasn't claimed it yet.

Here's a couple more videos o' them redneck tea party racists:



There is a glorious awakening taking place in America, yet my Facebook friend is completely missing the entire adventure because he continues to kneel at the altar of the beast, refusing to investigate any source not approved by his parochial gatekeepers. His sources are the high priests of the liberal faith, and they have spoken. He has been warned to keep his distance from this phenomenon, and not to look directly at it; for it is, they assure him, a vile, squalid, filthy thing.

Trapped in the blinders of his false religion, my friend has eyes that cannot see. Where I delight in a delicious nougat center dipped in peanuts and covered in chocolate, my friend sees only poop.


How Important Is It?

I enjoy engaging in dialogue with those whose beliefs differ from my own because it nearly always results in my learning something new and useful. But in some conversations there comes a point where you discover that the other participant does not seek enlightenment, but only contention.

Such people are toxic to the search for truth. They waste time. They don’t care about facts, they only care that they win. And if they can’t win, they throw things.

Sometimes they throw insults, sometimes Tonka trucks.

Steve Allen once said that there are two kinds of facts: the kind you look up, and the kind you make up.

One way to tell the look-up facts from the made up facts is to go to the source. If you want to know what a guy believes in, ask the guy.

I don't require that anyone agree with my beliefs. You can politely point out what you believe to be holes in my religion or the flaws in my political philosophy. You can tell me you've found a hair in my candy bar. But don't ignorantly proclaim that my religion, or my philosophy, or my candy bar is crap. That is not how dialogue is advanced.

"How important is it for you to learn the truth about anything?"

Is it important enough for you to learn the difference between a candy bar and a stream of excrement?

If so, then let the conversation begin.

Baby Ruth Is Made Of Poop

When I was a very young child, I happened to mention to a playmate that the tooth fairy had left a Baby Ruth candy bar under my pillow.

My friend was appalled. "Baby Ruth is made out of poop!" he declared.

I was just six years old at the time, and my friend Gary was not yet five, but that was still the craziest freakin’ thing I'd ever heard.

It turned out Gary wasn't kidding. Not only was he adamant about the feculent contents of a Baby Ruth bar, he was unwilling to consider even for a moment that he might have been mistaken.

"If Baby Ruths are made out of poop", I argued, "why would I eat one?"

Gary was serious. "You just like to eat poop."

The source of Gary's knowledge on the subject of this particular candy bar was impeccable: he got his information from his grandfather. Baby Ruth candy bars are made out of poop. Grampa said so, and that was that.

More than half a century has gone by, and I sincerely hope that at some time between then and now Gary has realized that his Grandfather was pulling his leg. But who knows? That kid was never interested in facts. Had I produced a Baby Ruth bar and offered him a taste, he would have recoiled in horror before I got the thing anywhere near his face.

Between the two of us, I was clearly the Baby Ruth expert, having eaten one just that morning for breakfast. But the more we argued, the angrier Gary got about it. What he really wanted was for me to admit that he was right. Finally he threw a Tonka truck in my direction and ran home in a huff.


How Important Is the Truth?

I've since met people fully grown who are as certain in their fixed beliefs as Gary was at four. Any missionary can tell you of people they've met who claim to know all about the Book of Mormon, yet have never so much as held one in their hands.

On my mission I had an impish companion who liked to have a sly bit of fun with these types. The following is an actual conversation that took place between my companion and one of these smug Missouri know-it-alls. We could tell early on that this guy was bluffing, so we had our fun with him.

Elder: "Have you ever heard of the Book of Mormon?"

Contact: "Yeah, I know all about your Book of the Mormons"

Elder: "Oh, you've read it?"

Contact: "Yeah, I read all of it."

Elder: "What was your favorite part?"

Contact: "Well, I didn't really have a favorite part. All of it was my favorite part. It was mostly okay, but I didn't really like any of it."

Elder: "What about the part where Brigham Young rode that buffalo across the plains? Did you like that part?"

Contact: "Yeah, that was pretty good."

Elder: "My favorite part was when Joseph Smith wrestled that grizzly bear."

Contact: "Yeah, that was my favorite part, too."

I have known people who have carefully examined our scripture then decided it was not for them. Those folks I can respect. The ones I have trouble with are those who put themselves out as experts on something they have no fetching clue about.

One of the most valuable things I ever learned came to me in the form of a simple question posed by a teacher. That question came to mind recently, along with my memories of the Gary incident, while I was engaged in a series of online conversations with an intractable acquaintance on Facebook. That question went like this:

“How important is it for you to learn the truth about anything?”

It would advance the cause of civility if we all took a moment to really ponder that question now and again.

How important is it, really...

...for you...

...to learn the truth...

...about anything.

Back in December I received some very positive feedback from a non-LDS reader who described himself as a liberal democrat. He had come across my blog and read my entries detailing LDS doctrine on war. The company he worked for had recently transferred him to Salt Lake City, and until he read my words, he had been under the impression that many of the Mormons he lived and worked among were bloodthirsty, warmongering yahoos.

My new friend had gotten this impression from the pap he was being fed by his coworkers who evidently were confusing their tribal political beliefs with the tenets of their religion. He was very happy to learn that Mormonism was not the mindlessly aggressive religion he had been led to believe. In fact, he was learning, it was quite the opposite. My blog was changing his opinion of Mormons and Mormonism for the better.

We emailed back and forth a bit, finding much to agree upon. We soon developed a mutual admiration for one another’s ideas, a liberal and a conservative finding common ground. Kindred spirits. Best Friends Forever.

Well, that love affair didn’t last long. A few months later my new-found friend was leaving strident posts all over Facebook decrying the awful tea party movement and declaring that those who attended such functions were motivated by nothing but racism.

When I responded in an effort to correct his obvious misunderstanding of the movement, he dug his heels in deeper and shot back with ugly personal insults totally out of character with the person I thought I had gotten to know. As with my childhood friend Gary, now that I disagreed with him, I was nothing but a stupid Stupidhead.


The Great Awakening

I happen to believe that the recent phenomenon that has come to be known as the “tea party” movement is just one manifestation of a bigger spiritual awakening taking place throughout the world.

But if you were like my online friend and tended to accept the conventional wisdom, you would assume that the tea parties were just some Republican party scheme.

The conventional wisdom is wrong.

The first national tea parties were organized in 2007 as a protest against Republican policies.

Mark Twain famously said “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

My liberal friend was sure of an awful lot of things that just weren’t so. Besides myself, several other constitutional conservatives who also happened to be LDS offered him links to sources intended to disabuse him of his prejudices and give him information he was clearly missing. But he flatly rejected all of these references. His own sources were telling him all he needed to know about the tea party, and if we couldn’t see it his way, we were the idiots. We, who knew something about the matter first hand, were the fools in his eyes.

The tea party, we explained, was not really a “party” in the political sense. Originally a mix of conservatives, libertarians, and disaffected leftists calling for a national protest in 2007, the modern tea partiers took their inspiration from the revolt of the colonists at Boston Harbor in 1773. Many were attracted to the constitutional principles advocated by presidential candidate Ron Paul, who decried the unlawful use of our military to engage in undeclared wars and nation building overseas.

Congressman Paul warned of the impending financial disaster that would soon overtake us if we continued to see our mission as the policemen of the world, and warned that the federal reserve system was leading this country toward imminent financial ruin.

When the predictions of Paul and others came true regarding the collapse of the housing bubble, rising unemployment, and the banking "crisis", more American’s awoke to the awful situation brewing in our country. New tea party protests were organized in response to the first wave of banker bailouts orchestrated by the Bush administration, and to the dismissive attitude many politicians were displaying toward their constituents. Attendance at these functions continued to expand.

By April of 2009, it was apparent that the new Democratic president had every intention of continuing the unlawful policies of his predecessor, committing the people to bailing out still more banks and large corporations while stepping up the number of violations of civil liberties at home. The wars on foreign soil increased while the war against the people and their constitution continued here at home.

The tea party movement exploded as millions more Americans saw their freedoms being threatened by signs of an emerging police state, and this year when a health care bill was imposed with little opportunity for debate and in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the people, the tea party movement now resonated with a majority of Americans.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the tea party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. The move to restore constitutional principles over party loyalty was moving mainstream. The people were awakening.

The tea party movement is a rejection of the false religion of both major parties. That’s why I feel it typifies the spiritual awakening of America. The people are rejecting the false god of government.

Up until now most Americans have held out the false hope that if only the priests of their particular church/party were in power, salvation would surely come. But it never has. Tea partiers no longer worship at either the Republican or the Democratic churches, nor do they hold the priests of either religion in high regard.

The people are throwing off their superstitions. They recognize that America’s two biggest religious denominations are empty and false.

The people are rediscovering America’s secular scriptures, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which the two dominant churches have ignored and subverted for far too long.

The high priests of both denominations are terrified of the tea party movement, as it is loosening their grip on the faithful. Tea party voters will not support a candidate based merely on party affiliation; candidates must run on constitutional principles. As Gary North has written, “The Tea Party movement is a threat to politics as usual. If incumbents of both parties are defeated this November, this will send a wave of fear through the Establishment. The swing voters are no longer under control.”


The Spin Begins

And so a war of lies is taking place as both churches attempt to retain their members. The priests of the Republican church decided to try to get in front of the movement and mold it as their own. Sarah Palin is on record as stating that the Republicans should absorb the tea party movement, and Republican operatives have had some success in hijacking rallies in some states.

Fox News heavily promoted the tea party rallies last year, maneuvering their on-air personalities into postition as key speakers. This resulted in the Church of the Democrats being able to convince their adherents that the tea parties were mere cheap Republican hustles, and therefore not worth a serious look.

But this war of lies isn’t working, as polls show that four out of ten people who claim sympathy with tea party principles list themselves as democrats and independents.

Attempts by the neocon Republicans to keep their members docile and in line are failing because at every rally across the nation thousands of free DVDs are distributed that describe the essence of what the tea party movement is really all about. Once a person views these documentaries, the major churches no longer have him in their spell.


Going To The Source

The tea party movement has no real leaders, as it is made up of disparate groups of individuals united primarily by their love of liberty. But there is one man who has been called “the prophet of the tea party movement”, and that man is Alex Jones. A gruff young Texan, Jones is host of a syndicated radio show who is a thorn in the side of both the Republican and Democratic establishments because time after time he has exposed both factions as working against the interests of America.

Jones is also an accomplished documentary filmmaker, and he has encouraged viewers to make copies of his films and distribute them freely.

Two of his more recent documentaries, “Fall of the Republic” and “The Obama Deception” have been distributed by the tens of thousands to attendees at tea party rallies. The number of people who have seen his films online for free is conservatively estimated at more than 100 million.

These movies lay out for the viewer what has gone wrong in America, who is responsible, and how we can go about fixing it. (It’s worth noting that “The Obama Deception” doesn’t focus only on how Americans were deceived about Obama, but also how we were deceived about George Bush.)

Regardless of one’s political views, it would make sense that in any discussion of a given topic, the logical place to find information on that topic would be to go to the source. Alex Jones is as close to the source of the tea party movement as one can find as his films, broadcasts, and internet sites have become Information Central for all things connected to the tea party movement.

Yet when I suggested to my online friend that he check out this source he scoffed at the suggestion and snidely ridiculed me for it. His own sources, you see, had already conditioned him to believe that Alex Jones was a violent racist and a right-wing tool. I offered another favored source of truth, LewRockwell.com, and received a similar pecksniffish dismissal.

My friend continued to insist that the tea party movement was a collection of vehement white racists, and nothing more. They were a bunch of slack-jawed hillbillies angry only because there was a black man in their white house. That was all it was. He could see no further motive.

When asked to provide evidence of this pervasive racism, my friend provided links to commentaries by others equally as ignorant as himself. He spoke constantly of empirical evidence proving his claim, but never produced any.

I sent him a link to these videos which completely refute the widely reported claim that the words “nigger!” and "faggot!" were shouted at black congressmen at a Washington rally and that one of the congressmen, John Lewis, was spat upon while walking through the crowd.

A $10,000.00 reward has been offered for any evidence of such racism at that rally. I reminded my friend that there were hundreds of cameras present, so it should be easy for him to claim that ten grand.

He hasn't claimed it yet.

Here's a couple more videos o' them redneck tea party racists:



There is a glorious awakening taking place in America, yet my Facebook friend is completely missing the entire adventure because he continues to kneel at the altar of the beast, refusing to investigate any source not approved by his parochial gatekeepers. His sources are the high priests of the liberal faith, and they have spoken. He has been warned to keep his distance from this phenomenon, and not to look directly at it; for it is, they assure him, a vile, squalid, filthy thing.

Trapped in the blinders of his false religion, my friend has eyes that cannot see. Where I delight in a delicious nougat center dipped in peanuts and covered in chocolate, my friend sees only poop.


How Important Is It?

I enjoy engaging in dialogue with those whose beliefs differ from my own because it nearly always results in my learning something new and useful. But in some conversations there comes a point where you discover that the other participant does not seek enlightenment, but only contention.

Such people are toxic to the search for truth. They waste time. They don’t care about facts, they only care that they win. And if they can’t win, they throw things.

Sometimes they throw insults, sometimes Tonka trucks.

Steve Allen once said that there are two kinds of facts: the kind you look up, and the kind you make up.

One way to tell the look-up facts from the made up facts is to go to the source. If you want to know what a guy believes in, ask the guy.

I don't require that anyone agree with my beliefs. You can politely point out what you believe to be holes in my religion or the flaws in my political philosophy. You can tell me you've found a hair in my candy bar. But don't ignorantly proclaim that my religion, or my philosophy, or my candy bar is crap. That is not how dialogue is advanced.

"How important is it for you to learn the truth about anything?"

Is it important enough for you to learn the difference between a candy bar and a stream of excrement?

If so, then let the conversation begin.

I May Have Picked The Wrong Weekend To Make That Announcement

Okay, I admit my timing could have been better.

This past Saturday morning, the first day of April Conference, I posted an entry on this blog wherein I announced that I would no longer be tuning in for LDS General Conference. (If you missed it, you can read that entry here.)

I concluded in that article that for me, conference had become dull and tedious, and had failed consistently to provide what most of us assume was its primary purpose; that is, the provision of new revelation directly from the heart and mind of God.

I felt it was time to admit that after some fifty years of watching General Conference, I have never heard nor witnessed a prophet or apostle deliver to the Saints anything resembling an actual revelation. What I felt I was getting was mostly pedantic lectures on the same recycled topics.

Apparently these musings of mine hit on something a lot of other latter-day Saints had been thinking. The comment section at Pure Mormonism began receiving letters expressing agreement, and my email box filled with notes from others similarly dissatisfied with their conference experience. Strangers re-posted my article on Facebook and RSS feeds, and it was discussed on other Mormon-themed message boards. By late that night more than a thousand people had visited this site.

That was on Saturday. By Sunday afternoon I was beginning to hear rumbles of disapproval over what was being seen by some as a blasphemous screed.

So what had happened between Saturday and Sunday?

Easter. That’s what happened. This year general conference fell on Easter.

By all reports (I wasn’t watching, remember), the Easter Sunday sessions were filled with inspiring testimonies of love and appreciation for the atoning sacrifice of the Savior. Any faithful member coming off of that emotional high and then faced with my flippant philippic would be understandably unsettled.

So before you begin selecting stones to lob my way, I’d like the opportunity to confront my accusers.

Allow me once more to clarify: I do not oppose general conference. I don’t wish it to disappear or to have it done away with. I thought I made clear that I think conference still contains much that is valid and useful. I do not deny that at times the speakers are inspired, especially when they are testifying of the Messiah.

I take a back seat to no one in my love and admiration for Jesus, and yes, I can tell when the spirit is communicating to me through another person. I fully appreciate when Church leaders remind me of the infinite love of Christ. I am as inspired and moved by such sermons as you are.


How I Spent My Easter Vacation

As on Christmas eve, Easter Sunday at our home is a day devoted to remembrance of the Lord. Connie and I long ago forswore the sugary trappings of the holiday. We don’t wake up to chocolate bunnies or marshmallow peeps at our house Easter morning.

We usually like to get in a devotional mood by watching one of the classic movies on the life of Christ, and in recent years we have been particularly moved by Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of The Christ. (Incidentally, if you are one of those Mormons who refuses to see this inspiring picture only because it is rated R, I encourage you to use the brain God gave you and stop living in a world of rumor and illusion.)

As I stated previously, Easter is a perfect time to listen to Cleon Skousen’s classic talk on The Atonement, and Connie and I listened to it together.

It isn’t often that general conference falls directly on Easter Sunday, and I rather regret that we did not tune in to hear the talks about the Savior. I’m sure it would have enhanced our Easter experience.

However, none of this diminishes my assertion that in a general sense, general conference is no longer what we long expected it to be. I still don’t see any reason to look forward to conference with breathless anticipation as if that event provides us with something we can get nowhere else. It is still bloated with filler.

A friend of mine who goes by the name of Infinite Bob wrote to caution me about being prideful and dropped this unreferenced bombshell: “Thus Saith the Lord: ‘The current leadership of the church IS divinely inspired.’”

I wish that when he wrote that, he had provided the source of that quote. I have been looking for such an affirmation from God for many, many years.



Let Me Say This About That

Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t dispute anyone’s belief that the leadership is often inspired. I have witnessed inspiration in some of these men myself. What I was lamenting in my article had nothing to do with inspiration; I was lamenting the dearth of revelation of the kind that as a missionary, I taught my investigators was inherent in our Church. Revelation is an entirely different thing from inspiration. To borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, it is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.

To be sure, revelation is alive and well within the broad church membership. The Holy Ghost still operates within us all individually.

But amidst the plethora of personal revelation among the members of Christ's body, there is a clear paucity of institutional revelation, by which I mean any direct message from God to the body of the church as a whole, or even to the nation and world as was common with prophets of old.

To insist that this kind of revelation occurs all around us is to deny reality as well as the words of the ancient Prophets -and of Christ Himself- who sent us these warnings in an attempt to wake us to the possibility that all may not be particularly well in Zion. If something is amiss, the first step in restoring ourselves to God's good graces is to recognize that the Church as a people, and as an institution, may be in need of repentance.

This recognition of our collective failings requires humility. Humility does not come from continuing to insist we follow blind authority. That would be a definition of prideful traditions.

There are some who have insisted that listening carefully to every conference session results in substantial gains for them personally. I do not doubt that, and I appreciate such testimonies. I would never presume to question how others derive their spiritual sustenance. It’s certainly not my desire to steer anyone away from watching conference if that is their pleasure.

My position was simply that conference no longer works for me as a vessel for the promised meat of the gospel, and that it hasn't met those needs for some time. I further went on to posit some of the reasons why I thought that might be so.

Your experience may be entirely different from mine. But you ought not to claim that everything is the same as it always has been in the Church when it actually isn’t.

The following three statements were entered in my comment section by an anonymous reader. I feel they deserve a response:

First, this member quotes the following scripture as though it settles the question: “D&C 68:4 ‘And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.’"

If we took the meaning from this passage that the writer seems to attribute to it, the Church would be in chaos, for we would have to accept that every guy with the priesthood was the mouthpiece of the Lord at all times.

This early revelation was directed at four specifically named individuals who were about to embark on a mission to proclaim the newly restored gospel before crowds that would almost certainly be hostile. The Lord states in verse 2 that this is to be an example to all who have been ordained to the priesthood. When I was in the Mission Training Center we were taught that this passage could pertain to all of us.

Does this mean that every time I taught a discussion or related the story of the first vision that I would be “the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation?”

I wish.

You simply can’t overlook that qualifying phrase “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost”.

That clause is key.

It has been my observation that when one is moved upon by the Holy Ghost, it is usually sudden, unexpected, and rare. It is a strong and unmistakable experience, and it doesn’t always occur semi-annually on schedule. That term “moved upon” implies that something powerful is taking place beyond one's own control.

So here’s what we get to ask ourselves. Do we believe that every time a Church officeholder reads his talk off the Teleprompter that he is “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”?

More importantly, does God want us to believe that?

It’s possible.

There’s really only one way to know, and that is if the listener is completely in tune with the Holy Ghost himself. It is not enough merely to assume from a man's title that he is speaking “the word of the Lord” in “the voice of the Lord”. It is a lazy latter-day Saint who is content to assume that every heartwarming story and bit of folksy counsel uttered from the pulpit also comes directly from the mouth of the Almighty.

Better we should listen to Nephi’s advice and allow the Holy Ghost confirm it. Constantly. Every single time.

The writer continues: “God's servants do not have to declare their words to be revelation in order for them to be revelation.”

Well, yes they do. They may not necessarily have to use the precise words “thus saith the Lord”, but it’s usually some variant, such as “the Word of the Lord to Amos...” Or “Now hear the word of the Lord...”, or “hearken , O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high...”, or even “here’s something God told me to tell you you good folks.” Without some declaratory preface, how are we supposed to know it’s an actual revelation?

This writer adds, “I'm watching conference right now, and these talks are dripping with inspiration, revelation, and apostolic testimony.”

Inspiration and apostolic testimony, I have no doubt. But I have heard nothing about any new revelation.

Folks, we have to get over this syllogistic thinking. Syllogisms by their very nature lead to false conclusions, and this one is a doozy:

All revelation is inspired.
Conference talks contain inspiration.
Therefore, all conference talks are revelations.

You have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost for a reason, people. Learn to use your powers of discernment.


Is It Or Isn’t It?

In my essay I presented J. J. Dewey defining revelation as “something previously unknown,” a definition which one of my readers flatly rejected.

“That isn't the definition of revelation”, she insisted, “Revelation is communication from God and His spokesmen, regardless of whether or not we already knew it.”

“Find a revelatory source for your definition,” she demanded.

This reader would have done me a favor if she had provided scriptural evidence supporting her own contention rather than demand that I prove the obvious.

The word "revelation" does indeed pertain to making something known that was heretofore unknown or covered up. “By revelation He made known to me the mystery”, Paul told the Church at Ephesus. Revelation is derived from the word "reveal" which comes to us from the Latin word for "unveil", which means "to uncover".

I disagree with the reader’s claim that revelation is "communication from God and his spokesmen". It is communication from God through his spokesmen. All divine revelation originates with God; His spokesmen are not His equals, and cannot make up the revelations they impart to us. If the thoughts are their own they are not revelations, they are opinions. How many times did Paul himself make that clear?

When defining terms commonly used by the Prophet Joseph, I find it helpful to confirm their meanings as they were understood in his day. According to Webster’s 1828 edition (America’s first dictionary, and the prevailing authority in Joseph Smith’s time), revelation is “the act of disclosing or discovering to others what was before unknown to them.

The first English lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, defined revelation in 1755 as “communication of sacred and mysterious truths by a teacher from heaven.” All the major commentaries contain similar descriptions.

If you can read Dewey’s careful explication regarding what is and what is not revelation, and still come away without any understanding of the differences, then I submit that you have chosen to remain in deliberate ignorance. Don't forget that Brigham Young prophesied that the day would come when "this church will be led onto the very brink of hell by the leaders of this people." I wouldn't want to take it all for granted, would you?

How can we boast to the world that modern revelations are everywhere, but when asked for an example we cannot find even one?

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thess 2:11) In other words, “You want to keep fooling yourselves? Have it your way.”

Another reader wrote that I should not be looking for novelty in the words of the leaders and insisted that "revelation can be quite mundane".

I would suggest that if you are hearing something mundane, what you are hearing is not a revelation. You’re probably listening to a conference talk.

I May Have Picked The Wrong Weekend To Make That Announcement

Okay, I admit my timing could have been better.

This past Saturday morning, the first day of April Conference, I posted an entry on this blog wherein I announced that I would no longer be tuning in for LDS General Conference. (If you missed it, you can read that entry here.)

I concluded in that article that for me, conference had become dull and tedious, and had failed consistently to provide what most of us assume was its primary purpose; that is, the provision of new revelation directly from the heart and mind of God.

I felt it was time to admit that after some fifty years of watching General Conference, I have never heard nor witnessed a prophet or apostle deliver to the Saints anything resembling an actual revelation. What I felt I was getting was mostly pedantic lectures on the same recycled topics.

Apparently these musings of mine hit on something a lot of other latter-day Saints had been thinking. The comment section at Pure Mormonism began receiving letters expressing agreement, and my email box filled with notes from others similarly dissatisfied with their conference experience. Strangers re-posted my article on Facebook and RSS feeds, and it was discussed on other Mormon-themed message boards. By late that night more than a thousand people had visited this site.

That was on Saturday. By Sunday afternoon I was beginning to hear rumbles of disapproval over what was being seen by some as a blasphemous screed.

So what had happened between Saturday and Sunday?

Easter. That’s what happened. This year general conference fell on Easter.

By all reports (I wasn’t watching, remember), the Easter Sunday sessions were filled with inspiring testimonies of love and appreciation for the atoning sacrifice of the Savior. Any faithful member coming off of that emotional high and then faced with my flippant philippic would be understandably unsettled.

So before you begin selecting stones to lob my way, I’d like the opportunity to confront my accusers.

Allow me once more to clarify: I do not oppose general conference. I don’t wish it to disappear or to have it done away with. I thought I made clear that I think conference still contains much that is valid and useful. I do not deny that at times the speakers are inspired, especially when they are testifying of the Messiah.

I take a back seat to no one in my love and admiration for Jesus, and yes, I can tell when the spirit is communicating to me through another person. I fully appreciate when Church leaders remind me of the infinite love of Christ. I am as inspired and moved by such sermons as you are.


How I Spent My Easter Vacation

As on Christmas eve, Easter Sunday at our home is a day devoted to remembrance of the Lord. Connie and I long ago forswore the sugary trappings of the holiday. We don’t wake up to chocolate bunnies or marshmallow peeps at our house Easter morning.

We usually like to get in a devotional mood by watching one of the classic movies on the life of Christ, and in recent years we have been particularly moved by Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of The Christ. (Incidentally, if you are one of those Mormons who refuses to see this inspiring picture only because it is rated R, I encourage you to use the brain God gave you and stop living in a world of rumor and illusion.)

As I stated previously, Easter is a perfect time to listen to Cleon Skousen’s classic talk on The Atonement, and Connie and I listened to it together.

It isn’t often that general conference falls directly on Easter Sunday, and I rather regret that we did not tune in to hear the talks about the Savior. I’m sure it would have enhanced our Easter experience.

However, none of this diminishes my assertion that in a general sense, general conference is no longer what we long expected it to be. I still don’t see any reason to look forward to conference with breathless anticipation as if that event provides us with something we can get nowhere else. It is still bloated with filler.

A friend of mine who goes by the name of Infinite Bob wrote to caution me about being prideful and dropped this unreferenced bombshell: “Thus Saith the Lord: ‘The current leadership of the church IS divinely inspired.’”

I wish that when he wrote that, he had provided the source of that quote. I have been looking for such an affirmation from God for many, many years.



Let Me Say This About That

Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t dispute anyone’s belief that the leadership is often inspired. I have witnessed inspiration in some of these men myself. What I was lamenting in my article had nothing to do with inspiration; I was lamenting the dearth of revelation of the kind that as a missionary, I taught my investigators was inherent in our Church. Revelation is an entirely different thing from inspiration. To borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, it is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.

To be sure, revelation is alive and well within the broad church membership. The Holy Ghost still operates within us all individually.

But amidst the plethora of personal revelation among the members of Christ's body, there is a clear paucity of institutional revelation, by which I mean any direct message from God to the body of the church as a whole, or even to the nation and world as was common with prophets of old.

To insist that this kind of revelation occurs all around us is to deny reality as well as the words of the ancient Prophets -and of Christ Himself- who sent us these warnings in an attempt to wake us to the possibility that all may not be particularly well in Zion. If something is amiss, the first step in restoring ourselves to God's good graces is to recognize that the Church as a people, and as an institution, may be in need of repentance.

This recognition of our collective failings requires humility. Humility does not come from continuing to insist we follow blind authority. That would be a definition of prideful traditions.

There are some who have insisted that listening carefully to every conference session results in substantial gains for them personally. I do not doubt that, and I appreciate such testimonies. I would never presume to question how others derive their spiritual sustenance. It’s certainly not my desire to steer anyone away from watching conference if that is their pleasure.

My position was simply that conference no longer works for me as a vessel for the promised meat of the gospel, and that it hasn't met those needs for some time. I further went on to posit some of the reasons why I thought that might be so.

Your experience may be entirely different from mine. But you ought not to claim that everything is the same as it always has been in the Church when it actually isn’t.

The following three statements were entered in my comment section by an anonymous reader. I feel they deserve a response:

First, this member quotes the following scripture as though it settles the question: “D&C 68:4 ‘And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.’"

If we took the meaning from this passage that the writer seems to attribute to it, the Church would be in chaos, for we would have to accept that every guy with the priesthood was the mouthpiece of the Lord at all times.

This early revelation was directed at four specifically named individuals who were about to embark on a mission to proclaim the newly restored gospel before crowds that would almost certainly be hostile. The Lord states in verse 2 that this is to be an example to all who have been ordained to the priesthood. When I was in the Mission Training Center we were taught that this passage could pertain to all of us.

Does this mean that every time I taught a discussion or related the story of the first vision that I would be “the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation?”

I wish.

You simply can’t overlook that qualifying phrase “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost”.

That clause is key.

It has been my observation that when one is moved upon by the Holy Ghost, it is usually sudden, unexpected, and rare. It is a strong and unmistakable experience, and it doesn’t always occur semi-annually on schedule. That term “moved upon” implies that something powerful is taking place beyond one's own control.

So here’s what we get to ask ourselves. Do we believe that every time a Church officeholder reads his talk off the Teleprompter that he is “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”?

More importantly, does God want us to believe that?

It’s possible.

There’s really only one way to know, and that is if the listener is completely in tune with the Holy Ghost himself. It is not enough merely to assume from a man's title that he is speaking “the word of the Lord” in “the voice of the Lord”. It is a lazy latter-day Saint who is content to assume that every heartwarming story and bit of folksy counsel uttered from the pulpit also comes directly from the mouth of the Almighty.

Better we should listen to Nephi’s advice and allow the Holy Ghost confirm it. Constantly. Every single time.

The writer continues: “God's servants do not have to declare their words to be revelation in order for them to be revelation.”

Well, yes they do. They may not necessarily have to use the precise words “thus saith the Lord”, but it’s usually some variant, such as “the Word of the Lord to Amos...” Or “Now hear the word of the Lord...”, or “hearken , O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high...”, or even “here’s something God told me to tell you you good folks.” Without some declaratory preface, how are we supposed to know it’s an actual revelation?

This writer adds, “I'm watching conference right now, and these talks are dripping with inspiration, revelation, and apostolic testimony.”

Inspiration and apostolic testimony, I have no doubt. But I have heard nothing about any new revelation.

Folks, we have to get over this syllogistic thinking. Syllogisms by their very nature lead to false conclusions, and this one is a doozy:

All revelation is inspired.
Conference talks contain inspiration.
Therefore, all conference talks are revelations.

You have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost for a reason, people. Learn to use your powers of discernment.


Is It Or Isn’t It?

In my essay I presented J. J. Dewey defining revelation as “something previously unknown,” a definition which one of my readers flatly rejected.

“That isn't the definition of revelation”, she insisted, “Revelation is communication from God and His spokesmen, regardless of whether or not we already knew it.”

“Find a revelatory source for your definition,” she demanded.

This reader would have done me a favor if she had provided scriptural evidence supporting her own contention rather than demand that I prove the obvious.

The word "revelation" does indeed pertain to making something known that was heretofore unknown or covered up. “By revelation He made known to me the mystery”, Paul told the Church at Ephesus. Revelation is derived from the word "reveal" which comes to us from the Latin word for "unveil", which means "to uncover".

I disagree with the reader’s claim that revelation is "communication from God and his spokesmen". It is communication from God through his spokesmen. All divine revelation originates with God; His spokesmen are not His equals, and cannot make up the revelations they impart to us. If the thoughts are their own they are not revelations, they are opinions. How many times did Paul himself make that clear?

When defining terms commonly used by the Prophet Joseph, I find it helpful to confirm their meanings as they were understood in his day. According to Webster’s 1828 edition (America’s first dictionary, and the prevailing authority in Joseph Smith’s time), revelation is “the act of disclosing or discovering to others what was before unknown to them.

The first English lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, defined revelation in 1755 as “communication of sacred and mysterious truths by a teacher from heaven.” All the major commentaries contain similar descriptions.

If you can read Dewey’s careful explication regarding what is and what is not revelation, and still come away without any understanding of the differences, then I submit that you have chosen to remain in deliberate ignorance. Don't forget that Brigham Young prophesied that the day would come when "this church will be led onto the very brink of hell by the leaders of this people." I wouldn't want to take it all for granted, would you?

How can we boast to the world that modern revelations are everywhere, but when asked for an example we cannot find even one?

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thess 2:11) In other words, “You want to keep fooling yourselves? Have it your way.”

Another reader wrote that I should not be looking for novelty in the words of the leaders and insisted that "revelation can be quite mundane".

I would suggest that if you are hearing something mundane, what you are hearing is not a revelation. You’re probably listening to a conference talk.