tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13423806248008943712024-03-19T01:48:19.611-07:00Pure Mormonism"We ought to obey God rather than men."
-the Apostle Peter, Acts 5:29Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger294125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-64198564563116126602024-02-11T01:19:00.000-08:002024-02-14T18:40:51.888-08:00The Earth Is Flat! (Maybe)<p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi14tHkA8FnPZo5fyc5ej2NN3OWR28mEMSMIMl9VwBrJItOsU6eYVP8ZneiHc70rL1IjZC1uhPMDwyIgKnC4lJUK-P-JMhLEZrpLXLeR4hRkXIMMZF6lqsPiv1rEa2tRzbC8lljMRdMUEJjws5ugqPBg_SdSOWMS_vkT5b110Gug6hItUhMER-qCUXjJdFa/s318/flat%20earth.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="159" data-original-width="318" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi14tHkA8FnPZo5fyc5ej2NN3OWR28mEMSMIMl9VwBrJItOsU6eYVP8ZneiHc70rL1IjZC1uhPMDwyIgKnC4lJUK-P-JMhLEZrpLXLeR4hRkXIMMZF6lqsPiv1rEa2tRzbC8lljMRdMUEJjws5ugqPBg_SdSOWMS_vkT5b110Gug6hItUhMER-qCUXjJdFa/w400-h200/flat%20earth.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><b>Previously:<i> <a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2024/01/we-are-against-state-of-israel-because.html" target="_blank">We Are Against Israel Because We Are Jews</a></i></b><p></p><div><b><br /></b></div><div>My detractors are certainly going to have a field day with the title of this one. "Did you hear? Rock Waterman believes the earth is flat!"<br /><br />Well no, that's not what I said. The truth is, I don't "believe" the earth is flat.<br /><br />I don't believe the earth is round, either.<br /><br />The fact is, I don't know what shape the earth is. How can I, when even the experts are not in agreement? Today, some have theorized that the earth might actually be more of an oblate spheroid, like this:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0zt9MPD3QwFCdEmiB2sKcYiBv4ae9w4feB1GXkfXPP3GgVHqFr71UblmUFiIzCnzJV2gpz3r60D6CQMytFm5OxAhOz0w7eP2VaroolMRIQ88cUIifcXKf6glRVfQwCTIuGB8l_sWlXDVQlRUW9iCDLsk4mYLX7Pef7-MjI_0KLie3uxIEpJv1T5o2Lje0/s460/Spheroid%20earth.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="348" data-original-width="460" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0zt9MPD3QwFCdEmiB2sKcYiBv4ae9w4feB1GXkfXPP3GgVHqFr71UblmUFiIzCnzJV2gpz3r60D6CQMytFm5OxAhOz0w7eP2VaroolMRIQ88cUIifcXKf6glRVfQwCTIuGB8l_sWlXDVQlRUW9iCDLsk4mYLX7Pef7-MjI_0KLie3uxIEpJv1T5o2Lje0/s320/Spheroid%20earth.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>Others surmise it might be sort of pear-shaped like this:<br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkpwpzILZf2v9FnD_3ny4szFGHN87OQn9C2YtSwpNJp4yqHnd7bNLVh0pux7Y4iUUkpUikuyyDuhhm3AYtX0WqY2L5fo03ehwSqXI8eRunntYjGB_WegTqCFz4Z4lU7CcqLvzoiFbT4E6vwwAhmLXh3Kjaz7QjJnmDU9GoeHnQx_eeC2G-IZ-zpgUjK0dz/s306/pear%20shaped%20earth%201.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="306" data-original-width="306" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkpwpzILZf2v9FnD_3ny4szFGHN87OQn9C2YtSwpNJp4yqHnd7bNLVh0pux7Y4iUUkpUikuyyDuhhm3AYtX0WqY2L5fo03ehwSqXI8eRunntYjGB_WegTqCFz4Z4lU7CcqLvzoiFbT4E6vwwAhmLXh3Kjaz7QjJnmDU9GoeHnQx_eeC2G-IZ-zpgUjK0dz/s1600/pear%20shaped%20earth%201.jpg" width="306" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Or this, which they also consider pear-shaped, though to me this looks more like a potato made of Play-Doh:<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA7fJcfeX6rL68djRU6Cmg1D7855IE9EcVM26t_PnR26biuMzxV4mGzqvDJb3iT5QU00bwIUqepfKq0oj_tbm272E5MBy9zpeyggpW0A7tt8FhX-DJ1gpFu7oentyEwVuiKDdigOM410Q_Arsz8gwA_72Dtwaklhq9qaV1juVXIxUCBigmf4A2t0_JlFlw/s474/pear%20shaped%20earth.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="474" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA7fJcfeX6rL68djRU6Cmg1D7855IE9EcVM26t_PnR26biuMzxV4mGzqvDJb3iT5QU00bwIUqepfKq0oj_tbm272E5MBy9zpeyggpW0A7tt8FhX-DJ1gpFu7oentyEwVuiKDdigOM410Q_Arsz8gwA_72Dtwaklhq9qaV1juVXIxUCBigmf4A2t0_JlFlw/s320/pear%20shaped%20earth.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Remember, these are the experts, the current mainstream scientists, not those wacky flat-earthers.<br /><br />So by now you may be asking, "what does all this have to do with Mormonism, anyway?"<br />Well, the reason I'm addressing the flat earth controvery is to illustrate a larger point which I'll get to soon enough, so stay with me. I'm going to demonstrate how discovering what is true and what is not true can be applied to some fundamental controversies currently taking place among Mormons and non-Mormons alike.<div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Believing Vs. Knowing</span></b></div><div><span>Epistemology is the philosophical discipline that asks the question, "How do we know what we know"? That's a fundamental question that almost no one asks when confronted with an idea that, on the surface, may seem utterly absurd. So when, for example, we hear someone tell us that the earth is flat, we tend to reject that premise out of hand because we <i>know</i> the earth is round. We never apply epistemology to ask ourselves <i>how</i> we know the earth is round. We just know it, that's all.<br /><br />In <a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-this-country-needs-is-lot-more.html" target="_blank"><b>a previous post</b></a> I spoke briefly about Rene Descartes, generally recognized as the father of modern Western philosophy. Descartes devised a set of rules by which a person could determine the truth about just about anything. Rather than try to prove that the earth exists or the universe exists, or even that God exists, Descartes first applied these rules to what has to be the most fundamental question of them all: "how do I even know that <i>I</i> exist?"<br /><br />Applying his own <b><a href="https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/03/31/descartes-rules-for-the-direction-of-the-mind/" target="_blank">Rules For The Direction of the Mind</a></b>, Descarte proved his own existence, resulting in the famous conclusion, <i>cogito,ergo sum</i>. or "I think, therefore I am." In other words, he knows he exists because he has the ability to <i>think </i>about whether or not he exists. Applying these rules also led Descartes to conclude that God exists as well. <br /><br />Rene Descartes is also famous for saying "doubt is the beginning of wisdom," which might strike the modern mind as being antithetical to his overall philosophy. But that's because these days people tend to think that doubting an idea that seems foreign to them means the same as dismissing that idea out of hand. Far from it. To doubt means to <i>question.</i> Question what? Well for one thing, you can do what Descartes did and question the very existence of God. <br /><br />A suggestion like that might horrify some believers, but trust me, God doesn't mind you questioning Him. Like Descartes, God also knows that doubt is the beginning of Wisdom, because sincere doubt leads to sincere questioning. He <i>wants</i> you to inquire about Him, not to simply dismiss His reality as unlikely. One way to ask is embodied in Janice Kapp Perry's song for children, <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNe3Ea3eyNI&t=30s" target="_blank">"Heavenly Father, Are You Really There?"</a></b> No formality required; just lie in bed and ask. That method of inquiry works for us grownups just as well as it works for children.<br /><br />So, to go back to our earlier analogy: W</span>hen I was first confronted with the proposition that the earth might be flat, my first reaction was "well, that's ridiculous. It's not flat, it's round." That was my skepticism kicking in.</div><div><span><br />But since I like to think of myself as a <i>sincere</i> skeptic, it would be wrong to simply dismiss that proposition out of hand, especially given the number of otherwise intelligent people who were beginning to take this apparently wacky thesis seriously. (I soon learned that virtually everyone I came across who was promoting the flat earth theory started out intending to disprove it, and were now its most ardent proselytes.) I knew that if I was to approach this topic intelligently I would have to apply epistemology to the matter, and ask myself "how do I <i>know</i> the earth is round?" And the answer to that question is that I only know it's round is because way back in the recesses of my childhood somebody told me it was round.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Ever since I was very young I've been repeatedly taught that the earth is round. That teaching was reinforced in every classroom I ever attended when the teacher pointed to California on the globe and showed me that is where we were right now, right there in Anaheim, which was so tiny the name of our town wouldn't even fit. So all my life it was a "given" that we live on a globe that is constantly spinning through space. I had no reason to question it, but now I have to admit that the only reason I "know" the earth is round is because everybody says so.<br /><br /></span>Well, I've been a grownup for some time now, and I have come to learn that "everybody says so" is no way to determine whether a thing is true or false. </div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>So again, if you want to know what I believe about the shape of the earth, I'll say this: "belief" is not the word I'd use. In the epistemology canon, </span>a belief is an attitude that a person holds regarding anything that they take to be true. Since I have no way of knowing whether the earth is truly flat or not, I can't say I <i>believe</i> it is. <br /><br />By way of illustration I have a firm belief that God exists because I have experienced Him; in February of 2007 I experienced the baptism of fire and felt His presence in me all the way through to my bones. That is my evidence that God exists, that He knows who I am, and that He loves me in a way that is impossible to describe. But like anything else, I can't transfer my personal experience to you. I can't use my experience to provide proof to you that God exists. Whether it's the shape of the earth or the existence of God, each of us has to make our own inquiries and come to our own conclusions.</div><div><span><br />As for whether the earth is flat, round, oblate, like a fruit, or like a lump of Play-Doh, I have no way of knowing. I've determined that I would have to have the powers of Superman and be able to fly far above the earth in order to get a proper look at it; I can't think of anything other than an experience like that to persuade me one way or the other, because the photos of the horizon provided by NASA were taken with fish-eye lenses, which give the false appearance of curvature. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>So is the earth flat? I remain a skeptic -which means I remain in the question- until I can figure out how to see it for myself. So I guess I don't <i>believe</i> the earth is flat, but I'm open to the possibility that it <i>might</i> be because to be frank, it no longer makes sense to me that the earth is a globe. After watching Eric Dubay's <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax_YpQsy88&t=1s" target="_blank">200 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Globe,</a></b> I don't <i>believe</i> the earth is a globe spinning through space at a thousand miles an hour. The globe earth theory, to me, now seems like the wackier hypothesis. Sorry, but I'm just not buying it.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Happily, I don't think my eternal salvation depends on my knowing the shape of whatever this thing is that I'm standing on. I realize that others feel this knowledge <i>is</i> somehow essential, but I see the whole controversy as an intriguing intellectual oddysey that I may engage in further sometime down the road. Or I may just wait until I die and find out then. As the late great rabbit hole chaser Mae Brussell was fond of saying, it's all food for thought and grounds for further research.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><b style="font-size: large;">Did Abraham Lincoln Free The Slaves?</b><br />No, he did not.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, I may not be able to offer an informed belief about the shape of the earth, but I can give you, without any reservations, my sincere belief that Abraham Lincoln was a cad. A monster, actually. In fact, I agree with Chuck Baldwin, who puts Abraham lincoln first on his list of a <b><a href="https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/4375/My-List-Of-Americas-Top-Ten-Worst-Presidents.aspx" target="_blank">America's Ten Worst Presidents.</a></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>History is another area where we can benefit from the epistemological query, "how do we know what we know?" Most of us have unquestioningly accepted what we learned in school, but by simply asking that simple question and then applying Descartes' rules and the Socratic line of reasoning, we can find out if what we think we know is the truth or not.<br /><br />My awakening to the sinister character of Abraham Lincoln first came while reading Lerone Bennett's<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFQrptIaF8dF-eQmi6wDVzfpt7itq3oAznbloMgvdgOtZEhSP5P0gKq1jkWBPUFZIaDPIYgW6ZA6y0YVSn3FL_d4nDbmHrH6owzfVPe7DfIed2M0o89uuCVkqYMuBO-0FqhQ9nlt4KOn48obiTmArUw19C1H5KRR81Agwtry7gW66t958kmA51cpRwoaCS/s346/forced%20into%20glory.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="232" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFQrptIaF8dF-eQmi6wDVzfpt7itq3oAznbloMgvdgOtZEhSP5P0gKq1jkWBPUFZIaDPIYgW6ZA6y0YVSn3FL_d4nDbmHrH6owzfVPe7DfIed2M0o89uuCVkqYMuBO-0FqhQ9nlt4KOn48obiTmArUw19C1H5KRR81Agwtry7gW66t958kmA51cpRwoaCS/s320/forced%20into%20glory.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>corrective history, <i style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham-Lincolns/dp/0874850029/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1707617073&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream.</a> </i>Far from actually freeing any slaves, Lincoln's fraudulent Emancipation Proclamation managed to keep slaves in bondage for at least two years after the proclamation was announced. Lincoln's proclamation allowed the Northern states to keep their slaves (yes, there were slaves in the North; in fact Union General Ulysees S. Grant kept two slaves with him on the battlefield to serve as his valet and cook). <br /><br />Most tellingly, that famous proclamation did not free any slaves in the Southern states. Not a single one. As for that "white dream" referenced in the title? That refers to Lincoln's hope of one day shipping all the negroes back to Africa and killing off the Indians so the American continent would be inhabited only by white people. We don't know if Lincoln would have been able to see that plan fulfilled because thankfully he was killed before he had the chance to implement it. <br /><br />Lerone Bennett was a black historian and one-time editor of Ebony Magazine, which back in the day was what Life Magazine was to us white folks. You can watch him discuss how lincoln really felt about the negroes infesting his country by <b><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?158187-1/forced-glory" target="_blank">clicking here</a>.</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhx30rYmfmh2_cvfPqhxyfvd_bc5pNKSg6Zojq2L6nPDYg4MU5in_VeqG2lpY7Drq-bit7ZBRX4loaoNZkiyXXrmahRA8tmLYPz6UZzv3F9cLL9iqLRhv27UONvLnCxAyYD4mqrCF36GTZC5pgkf0eI-0Gd3rI_-yR96ghhaA4R2l25t6q0c8ZZXRvx0KN/s474/it%20wasn't%20about%20slavery.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="474" data-original-width="474" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhx30rYmfmh2_cvfPqhxyfvd_bc5pNKSg6Zojq2L6nPDYg4MU5in_VeqG2lpY7Drq-bit7ZBRX4loaoNZkiyXXrmahRA8tmLYPz6UZzv3F9cLL9iqLRhv27UONvLnCxAyYD4mqrCF36GTZC5pgkf0eI-0Gd3rI_-yR96ghhaA4R2l25t6q0c8ZZXRvx0KN/s320/it%20wasn't%20about%20slavery.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Since then I've found that Lerone Bennett was far from the lone voice in this area. Many historians have awakened to the bill of goods sold to us by the court historians. Another book I own on this topic was written by another black author who wasn't fooled, the late Stanley K. Lott, who wrote <b><i><a href="https://www.researchonline.net/catalog/101364.htm" target="_blank">The Truth About American Slavery</a>. </i> </b>I also recommend Samuel Mitcham's <b><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wasnt-About-Slavery-Great-Civil/dp/1621578763/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1707614425&sr=1-1" target="_blank">It Wasn't About Slavery: Exposing The Great Lie About The Civil War.</a></i></b> No matter what you've heard or read, the war wasn't fought over slavery; it was fought over money; specifically Abraham Lincoln was in a panic over the Southern states no longer providing him the tariffs he depended on. I bought this book several years ago but I just found a free download in <b><a href="https://ia601507.us.archive.org/0/items/mitcham-samuel-w-it-wasnt-about-slavery-exposing-the-great-lie/Mitcham%2C_Samuel_W_It_Wasn%27t_About_Slavery_Exposing_the_Great_Lie.pdf" target="_blank">pdf format here</a>.</b> If you want to get right to the meat of it, jump to chapter XI, <b>"The Real Cause of the War."</b> You can also hear a forty minute interview with the author by clicking <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87VFb8acMnk" target="_blank">HERE</a></b>.</div><div><br />But if you really want a smorgasbord of offerings on this topic, Thomas DiLorenzo has written a slew of articles available at LewRockwell.com. I've pulled up a link to some of them <b><a href="https://www.bing.com/search?q=lewrockwell.com%20thomas%20dilorenzo%20lincoln%20civil%20war%2C%20slavery&pc=0P615&ptag=C999N0048ACBC712B44E&form=PCF604&conlogo=CT3210127" target="_blank">HERE</a></b>. You can also find quite a number of videos featuring DiLorenzo on Lincoln. Here's one where he proves <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_-U1YA978&t=6s"><b>the reason Lincoln started a war that killed 600,000 Americans</b></a> had nothing to do with slavery. If you can't invest the time for that video, here is Thomas DiLorenzo compressing <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOC9gkJmnZM" target="_blank">everything you need to know about Abraham Lincoln in just nine and a half minutes.</a></b><br /></div><div><br /></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYPG-IqxQOwwOu_ih7mkmU10YW8twg-J3xEFBy3MdeGn-gwQaMPo8VZkwxhX55wuljlGLf4j1GVkmqNW_EEKKKZphlbEggwHZndS6XIUG05geRpBd9oZN_n0C30cOyRgWa4wjmmfafsyaKOXFpgmsJSb5GbN86m16AFwsLYfT2UdPRI8B2oK1AI8GgZwoQ/s346/the%20problem%20with%20lincoln.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="229" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYPG-IqxQOwwOu_ih7mkmU10YW8twg-J3xEFBy3MdeGn-gwQaMPo8VZkwxhX55wuljlGLf4j1GVkmqNW_EEKKKZphlbEggwHZndS6XIUG05geRpBd9oZN_n0C30cOyRgWa4wjmmfafsyaKOXFpgmsJSb5GbN86m16AFwsLYfT2UdPRI8B2oK1AI8GgZwoQ/w133-h200/the%20problem%20with%20lincoln.jpg" width="133" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr></tbody></table><div>DiLorenzo's books are well worth owning. They include <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1707616663&sr=1-1" target="_blank"><b><i>The Real Lincoln</i></b></a>, <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Unmasked-Youre-Supposed-Dishonest/dp/0307338428/ref=sxts_entity_rec_bsx_s_def_r00_t_aufl?content-id=amzn1.sym.a36c3969-f821-4d5b-a8e8-be129cf4aa4a%3Aamzn1.sym.a36c3969-f821-4d5b-a8e8-be129cf4aa4a&crid=1SSZ5FGNG6YYU&cv_ct_cx=thomas+dilorenzo+books&keywords=thomas+dilorenzo+books&pd_rd_i=0307338428&pd_rd_r=530bb4c0-6d59-4b3e-a4ac-347c6827094f&pd_rd_w=SQlM2&pd_rd_wg=Is7nD&pf_rd_p=a36c3969-f821-4d5b-a8e8-be129cf4aa4a&pf_rd_r=MHY9RDARJNTVGPF0EB3Y&qid=1707616663&s=books&sprefix=thomas+dilorenzo+books%2Cstripbooks%2C184&sr=1-3-ef9bfdb7-b507-43a0-b887-27e2a8414df0" target="_blank"><i>Lincoln Unmasked</i>,</a></b> and his most recent volume, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Lincoln-False-Virtue-Abraham/dp/168451018X/ref=sxts_entity_rec_bsx_s_def_r00_t_aufl?content-id=amzn1.sym.a36c3969-f821-4d5b-a8e8-be129cf4aa4a%3Aamzn1.sym.a36c3969-f821-4d5b-a8e8-be129cf4aa4a&crid=1SSZ5FGNG6YYU&cv_ct_cx=thomas+dilorenzo+books&keywords=thomas+dilorenzo+books&pd_rd_i=168451018X&pd_rd_r=530bb4c0-6d59-4b3e-a4ac-347c6827094f&pd_rd_w=SQlM2&pd_rd_wg=Is7nD&pf_rd_p=a36c3969-f821-4d5b-a8e8-be129cf4aa4a&pf_rd_r=MHY9RDARJNTVGPF0EB3Y&qid=1707616663&s=books&sprefix=thomas+dilorenzo+books%2Cstripbooks%2C184&sr=1-4-ef9bfdb7-b507-43a0-b887-27e2a8414df0" target="_blank"><b><i>The Problem With Lincoln</i></b>.</a> Within these pages you'll not only learn the truth about our 16th president, but also why the Lincoln cult historians are still covering for him a century and a half after his death. And if you want to read Abraham Lincoln's actual sentiments toward people of African descent before those words were scrubbed from the history books, you may be interested in Lochlainn Seabrook's <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Unquotable-Abraham-Lincoln-Presidents-Quotes/dp/1943737185" target="_blank">The Unquotable Lincoln</a>.<br /></b><br />And speaking of going against the conventional narrative: before the internet was a thing I came across a stunning eye-opener of a film that I've had a hard time finding again, but <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omr3aoSwtZA" target="_blank">here's a fifteen minute clip from it</a></b> assuming I was able to get it to load properly. I don't know how long it will stay available, but that video led me to <b><a href="https://ia903003.us.archive.org/31/items/tbrahi/tbrccm.pdf" target="_blank">this jaw-dropping download</a> </b>that was originally published two decades ago and is now impossible to find in its print edition. I have no opinions to express about either of these items, not the least because bucking the official narrative on this is a taboo that can get a person arrested in some European countries. So make of it what you will. </div><div><br /><b style="font-size: large;">And Now We Come To The 'Mormon' Part Of Our Program (Finally!)</b></div><div>As I hope I've successfully demonstrated above, whenever you see or hear of something that sounds so absurd that it goes against everything you think you know, the proper response -especially if you notice that growing numbers of intelligent people are embracing that supposed absurdity- is to take a cue from the epistemological discipline and ask yourself "how did I come to know what I <i>think</i> I know about this topic?" Then follow the rule of skepticism and investigate to see if what you think you know can be verified as true. <br /><br />Another way I have learned to separate truth from error was by learning to think like a lawyer. Now, I get it if your understanding of "thinking like a lawyer" means to think in a way that is cunning and crafty, because goodness knows there are lawyers who behave in that manner. But thinking like a lawyer doesn't mean trying to twist the truth. It means working to <i>uncover</i> the truth, to suss it out, filtering all the false detritus until only the truth remains. To think like a lawyer, in a nutshell, means to follow the admonition of the apostle Paul: investigate all things, then hold fast to that which is true.<br /><br />So how do you do that? First, you learn to question <i>everything</i>, especially your own assumptions. Don't cling to your own favored prejudices, which is another way of saying keep your feelings in check. Don't get emotional about your opinions. These are not your living, breathing, children; they are only ideas you have lived with so long that in some ways they may feel like living "children" that you're reluctant to let go of. Wrong opinions are often based on emotion rather than independent truth. Let them go. Learn to depend only on reason, logic, and common sense when evaluating evidence, even if what you are investigating strikes you as unreasonable. A good lawyer does not simply dismiss the views of the other side; he learns his opponents arguments so well that he could argue his opponent's case. In other words, he trains himself to be able to see all sides of an issue, not simply his own. <br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZHzLWksYEbjAPeI_87_PfcALyYgFW-RUIb1Bndz88QSTI8cp9pNRznpf-DBKrERPIMEtk2xpXuwB1erz0g0pEGiaHSrxdtR7c5NDEGVa-PREwqTU66NGMwHysmh1X6y6oBMvqxeuzPVzn3NZhilMlCWlZ8I5v8gEiZnppoQuflXDrNtNa6lM8JajXMU3f/s1360/denver%20snuffer%20religion%20of%20the%20fathers.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1360" data-original-width="946" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZHzLWksYEbjAPeI_87_PfcALyYgFW-RUIb1Bndz88QSTI8cp9pNRznpf-DBKrERPIMEtk2xpXuwB1erz0g0pEGiaHSrxdtR7c5NDEGVa-PREwqTU66NGMwHysmh1X6y6oBMvqxeuzPVzn3NZhilMlCWlZ8I5v8gEiZnppoQuflXDrNtNa6lM8JajXMU3f/w139-h200/denver%20snuffer%20religion%20of%20the%20fathers.jpg" width="139" /></a></div>Denver Snuffer is a lawyer, which is one reason he was so perfectly positioned to put to bed the controversy over the Book of Abraham. You may have been aware of arguments made the past few years that the Book of Abraham was a fraud. Denver investigated the topic so thoroughly that he was able to show that the popular narrative had been proceding on a number of false assumptions. You can find a link to that video presentation in my post titled <b><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-book-of-abraham-controversy-finally.html" target="_blank">The Book of Abraham Controversy Finally Laid To Rest,</a> </b>but I recomend the book because it contains footnotes and sources. (the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Fathers-Context-Book-Abraham-ebook/dp/B09B7QL5ZB/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1707639407&sr=8-1" target="_blank"><b>Kindle</b></a> version is only $3.99.)<br /><br />This blog you are currently reading is chock-full of essays documenting my discoveries within the Church that were introduced after Joseph Smith's death, but that, upon investigation, are clearly undoctrinal. That's one reason they are so easily dismissed by our enemies. Although I embrace the Book of Mormon, the divine calling of Joseph Smith, and the core doctrines of the Restoration, I have come to discover that much of what I was taught growing up in the Church was based on what our scriptures warn us are <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/traditions-of-men?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>"the traditions of men."</b> </a> Asking yourself "how did I come to know what I think I know?" makes a very handy tool for figuring out whether some "doctrine" you cling to came from scripture, or from some faith promoting rumor you picked up in Seminary.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The Two Greatest False Teachings In The LDS Church Today</span></b></div><div>To begin, I will assume you believe as I do that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, appointed to that role by the Lord himself as revealed in D&C 124, D&C 112, and elsewhere. So here is the question: Given that Joseph Smith was a prophet, does it then naturally follow that any or all of the men who succeeded Joseph Smith as <i>presidents</i> of the Church were also appointed by God to be His <i>prophet</i> as well? Or is it possible they were never actually appointed as Joseph was or given the gifts and authority the Lord bestowed upon Joseph?<br /><br />I created a post on this platform that I believe proves that the authority these men claim is not the same as was given to the prophet Joseph, and that the method they claim to follow that asserts their claims is contrary to the very instructions God provided in the scriptures. That proof is contained <a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/04/why-are-you-still-calling-this-guy.html" target="_blank"><b>HERE</b></a>. If you have not read that piece already, I hope you will give it the epistemological test and ask yourself "how do I know what I think I know about succession to the presidency, and does what I think I know agree with the instructions the Lord Himself gave on that topic? Or do I just believe it because that's what I've always been told?"<br /><br />If we are going to go around admonishing each other of the importance of following the prophet, shouldn't we want to make <i>absolutely certain</i> that the man we are referring to actually was appointed by the Lord to <i>be</i> His prophet? </div><div><br /></div><div>Here is the second greatest false teaching in the Church today: It is widely taught that Joseph Smith was the one who originated plural marriage, and that he did so because he was instructed to do so by the Lord. Now the question: Can you provide any <i>contemporary</i> evidence to support that claim?<br /><br />Before you attempt to answer that question, allow me to direct you to the incredibly informative Youtube Channel hosted by Michelle Stone, titled <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@MichelleBStone/videos" target="_blank"><b>132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy.</b></a> Michelle has created a channel that has become Information Central for all things relating to the provably false claims that Joseph Smith originated and sanctioned plural marriage. This is where you will learn that far from promoting polygamy, Joseph spent the last weeks of his life attempting to stamp out that vile practice that had begun to take hold in the Church. His vigorous campaign to expose the true villains is very likely what got him killed.<br /><br />A few weeks ago I was a guest on Michelle's program, and if you want a decent introduction to what Joseph was really on about before he was taken from the earth, I think that interview is as good a place to start as any. Here it is: <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c6nco15cOFY?si=UaOLCUtnC0oVulRp" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><br /><br /></div><div>The number of faithful Mormons now coming to realize that we have been lied to about Joseph's role in polygamy is massive and growing, and like I said above, if you see a concept in opposition to a belief you consider already settled suddenly gaining acceptance on a large scale, it may be time to start asking yourself "how do I actually know what I know about this?" Lately, in addition to Michelle Stone, a number of skeptics have been uncovering incredible new findings. People like <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ripened-Mormon-Damns-America-Abortion/dp/B0CJLL2BF3/ref=sr_1_1?crid=MF3U6ANWKFQU&keywords=ripened+by+amberli+peterson&qid=1707634228&sprefix=Amberli+peterson%2Caps%2C193&sr=8-1" target="_blank">Amberli Peterson,</a></b> <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Revealed-Exploring-Alternate-ebook/dp/B09QZBRL37/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2DYP5MW3PLNYJ&keywords=Whitney+Horning&qid=1707634280&sprefix=whitney+horning%2Caps%2C181&sr=8-2" target="_blank">Whitney Horning, </a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h93WK32N0fs&t=10s" target="_blank">Jeremy Hoop, </a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/@robfotheringham2289" target="_blank">Rob Fatheringham</a></b>, <b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/242153379646010" target="_blank">Shanhi Buddy</a></b>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LnwGKg6nM0" target="_blank"><b>Justin</b><b> Griffin,</b> </a>and many others have, in the past several weeks, been digging through dusty tomes and discovering things about this topic we never knew before. So get ready for some bombshells to come. </div><div><br />At this stage, given all the information that is right out in the open and readily available, it seems to me that those who continue to stubbornly insist that plural marriage originated with Joseph Smith can no longer just claim simple ignorance. A more accurate word to describe such people would be <i>gullible.</i> You think I'm being too harsh? Check out just a few of the resources available from the six names I listed above, or just a few of the discussions taking place over at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6nco15cOFY&t=43s" target="_blank"><b>132 Problems</b></a> and decide for yourself.<br /><br /></div><div><b style="font-size: large;"> *****</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Notes & Asides:</u></span></b></div><div><b style="font-size: large;"><span><br /></span></b></div><div><b style="font-size: large;"><span>One Final Recommendation</span></b></div>If you enjoy going down rabbit holes as much as I do, you'll want to check out the latest series at <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2024/02/this-is-place-iv-lets-build-capitol.html" target="_blank"><b>Book of Mormon Perspectives</b>,</a> where the author is currently juggling more crazy possibilities than even I can keep up with, such as where did those impossibly intricate buildings come from? And what was Brigham up to on those curious trips he took to Boston? I'm particularly intrigued by the account of <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2024/01/this-is-place-ii-brigham-boston-and.html" target="_blank"><b>Brigham Young's connection to the prominent Jesuit Priest Pierre De Smet.</b></a> De Smet's close acquaintance with Brigham Young and his many conversations with him concerning the Rocky Mountain region, as the Knights of Columbus history gives the account, "probably determined the choice of the Mormon prophet, and led to the decision which ultimately settled the Latter Day Saints in the fertile lands they now occupy in Utah." <br /><br />Or you can just believe the traditional narrative, which is that Brigham had intended to take the Saints to California before deciding the Salt Lake Valley was close enough. It's your call.<div><br /><div> </div><div><div><div><br /></div></div></div><div><b><u>A Note To Readers:</u></b></div><div>This blog now <i>does </i>accept anonymous comments, which means you don't have to use your real name if you don't want to. Make up any fake name you want, but please don't post as "Anonymous" because that just serves to confuse others who may want to respond to your comment. </div><div><br /></div></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com39tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-21668123355799314862024-01-06T22:12:00.000-08:002024-01-21T16:30:13.606-08:00"We Are Against Israel Because We Are Jews"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-israel-scam-how-americas-christian.html" target="_blank">Previously: <i><u>The Israel Scam: How America's Christian Churches Bought The Con</u></i></a></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3f-knuhP-gJFCQ9e5zUrNI5D-vgXESOacthQpuIYSJZ02XauOxyqq-omo5L0iO2t_XspLMtN4-JeImJXzmHi4OWK5eEKlMhe1TggR2Ljxk9wxECwJv8XcM0ZVSQOsASkAB8o38ATF8FH7-u3lw7hjAK1sopTo3v5qH-LGbmD7Pjr2DK0AF9F2plnhI3KQ/s620/naturei%20karta%204.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="620" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3f-knuhP-gJFCQ9e5zUrNI5D-vgXESOacthQpuIYSJZ02XauOxyqq-omo5L0iO2t_XspLMtN4-JeImJXzmHi4OWK5eEKlMhe1TggR2Ljxk9wxECwJv8XcM0ZVSQOsASkAB8o38ATF8FH7-u3lw7hjAK1sopTo3v5qH-LGbmD7Pjr2DK0AF9F2plnhI3KQ/w640-h340/naturei%20karta%204.png" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">(This is part three of my series on <i><b>How Mormons Should View The War In Israel</b></i>. You can find the first two posts by clicking <b><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/10/how-mormons-should-think-about-war-in.html" target="_blank">here</a></b> and <a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-israel-scam-how-americas-christian.html" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a>.)<br /><br />I thought about captioning the above photo "A Group of Rabid Anti-Semites Protest Against the Holy State of Israel," but I was afraid the irony would be lost on some of you. Yet that would be no less ironic than what is taking place in the video below. See if you can spot the <i>actual</i> anti-semites in this clip: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0njOPNr8K0?si=B8fIDqEBt-D8AQ-8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> Why, you might ask, are the police -who purport to be Jews- beating up on the men in this video who actually <i>look</i> like Jews?<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRvYJnsefinJFlxkEUAP7486gKaYbP297WeVv25Afv-qu9QJMkiCkBzQIXe7QVWtoo8IEBCLUMYJdwUyGJpfwLm04dsEihB7u2K-0H5fkRQZwznrnAtEGgD1ou6dJeVHxofg4DElEMSCsvakGNyBoC1Mo9jY_2aCKre8Wh-BRlwu5bC_IiwsvQ_uDhMHyK/s500/zionism%20the%20real%20enemy%20of%20the%20Jews.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="338" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRvYJnsefinJFlxkEUAP7486gKaYbP297WeVv25Afv-qu9QJMkiCkBzQIXe7QVWtoo8IEBCLUMYJdwUyGJpfwLm04dsEihB7u2K-0H5fkRQZwznrnAtEGgD1ou6dJeVHxofg4DElEMSCsvakGNyBoC1Mo9jY_2aCKre8Wh-BRlwu5bC_IiwsvQ_uDhMHyK/w135-h200/zionism%20the%20real%20enemy%20of%20the%20Jews.jpg" width="135" /></a></div>The answer is simple. These officers represent the <i>state</i> of Israel, which was founded, and is still governed by, non-practicing Jews- people who are Jews by birth but who are disproportionately non-believers and atheists. These putative "Jews" purport to be the legitimate representives of worldwide Jewry and therefore cannot allow the world to discover that thousands of practicing Jews <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMsgA05VpQ0&t=2052s" target="_blank"><b>reject the State of Israel</b> </a>as a fraud and a counterfeit. In short, the <i>State</i> of Israel finds it necessary to <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUppu2OHVTY&t=2s" target="_blank">silence the voices who represent the <i>religion</i> of Judaism,</a></b> lest the fraud known as "Zionism" be exposed to the world. <br /><br />For although Judaism teaches that God had once covenanted with all the tribes of Israel (including the tribe of Judah) that this land was to be their inheritance, the religion of Judaism recognizes that thousands of years ago Israel and Judah broke that covenant; Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians, and the Jews were carted off to Babylon. Religious Jews recognize that God had <i>already</i> fulfilled his promise to allow the tribe of Judah to return to Jerusalem long ago. That happened about 350 B.C. when the Jews were allowed to return from their captivity in Babylon and rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />But about 70 years after the death and resurrection of Christ, the Jews were disbursed <i>a second time</i>, this time with no promise that they were to return. Nowhere in the teachings of Judaism do we find God ever telling the Jews they would have the right to retake Palestine after that final dispersion at the hands of the Romans. The Torah and the Tanakh both make clear that if Israel (meaning the descendants of all twelve tribes and not just the Jews) are ever to have their inheritance returned to them, it will occur when the Messiah comes in person, and not because the Rothschilds, the British Empire, and the United Nations conspired to hand the country over to them. I'd say it's a safe bet that <b><a href="https://rumble.com/v43lj6e-in-the-name-of-zion-1-the-rothschild-declaration.html" target="_blank">God does not employ the Rothschilds to accomplish His purposes.</a></b><br /><br />Due to latter-day revelation contained within the Book of Mormon, we now know that for some time God has already been gathering the descendants of Israel to a place He calls the <i>New</i> Jerusalem. The area that since 1948 has been misnamed "Israel" is not and never will be the "promised land" for the Jews. That ship sailed a long time ago. The modern-day State of Israel is a counterfeit and does not reflect the will of the Almighty.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">You may be under the impression that today the Jews in the Holy Land are fighting for their lives against the people who live in Palestine, but what you have not been told is that <b><a href="https://rumble.com/v3p9613-the-mystery-of-israel-solved-incredibly-shocking.html" target="_blank">this war broke out just in time to save the political prospects of the wildly unpopular Zionist President Benjamin Netanyahu.</a></b> That conniving opportunist sees this attack by Hamas as a Godsend -or he might have had he actually believed in God. <br /><br />As it happens, that attack turned out to be an opportunity for Netanyahu to rally the majority of the Jews in that area (and a good number of gullible Americans) to his support, since, as George Bush learned following 9-11, there's nothing like a contrived attack on the homeland to compel a people who hated their president one day to suddenly unite behind him the next.<br /><br />Although I am a devout believer in the Gospel of Christ as restored through Joseph Smith,<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJGFY-hXiT0oSxv2CaVvpU-R54d5b0LFDHg7lkFpka7dyu-ByPZJfKlRspLjXKrpCFBf3hpz1sgUSvmKh14aQVGXpMeu4qJ7SxY7F7GvkWQ7j4c5Al-butHvZzJS4Siz61RlyV5d8AOge_QAlsvmfchp_PWQpE18BL-9Fr0ye-WJTtcSgLLZr2XJ88pmJG/s436/Jews%20Against%20Zionism.webp" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="289" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJGFY-hXiT0oSxv2CaVvpU-R54d5b0LFDHg7lkFpka7dyu-ByPZJfKlRspLjXKrpCFBf3hpz1sgUSvmKh14aQVGXpMeu4qJ7SxY7F7GvkWQ7j4c5Al-butHvZzJS4Siz61RlyV5d8AOge_QAlsvmfchp_PWQpE18BL-9Fr0ye-WJTtcSgLLZr2XJ88pmJG/w133-h200/Jews%20Against%20Zionism.webp" width="133" /></a></div>I have long felt an affinity for the Jewish culture, as my mother's grandparents were practicing Jews from Eastern Europe before they were converted by Mormon missionaries following their arrival in America. As I also discussed <a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/10/how-mormons-should-think-about-war-in.html" target="_blank"><b>previously,</b></a> Irving Reichert, the prominent rabbi of San Francisco'sTemple Emanu-El, was related to, and a contemporary of, my maternal grandmother. In the 1940s said Rabbi was a founding member of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Jews+against+zionism&i=stripbooks&crid=1TVTCCT1Y6UCT&sprefix=jews+against+zionism%2Cstripbooks%2C166&ref=nb_sb_noss_2" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The American Council for Judaism </a> and one of the earliest "Jews Against Zionism." I suppose that's one reason I have a familial affinity for Judaism that is as strong as is my disdain for the evils of Zionism. The American Council for Judaism vigorously objected to the indefensible claim put forth by the Zionists that all Jews, by dint of nationality alone, had the right to force Christians and Muslims from their homes, farms, and vineyards so that the Jews could take possession of those properties for themselves:<br /><blockquote>"Judaism is a religion of universal values, not a nationality… nationality and religion are separate and distinct… <i>Israel is the homeland of its own citizens only, and not of all Jews.</i> Zionism was a philosophy of despair, without faith in the Enlightenment; it advocated the self-segregation of Jews just when they should be seeking integration." -<b style="font-style: italic;"><a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/american-council-for-judaism" target="_blank">Jewish Virtual Library</a> (</b>emphasis mine.)</blockquote>Sadly, since that report was published, Zionists have been doing everything in their power to<b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-tRrKeAfQ&list=WL&index=1" target="_blank"> hijack Judaism.</a></b> Like the good Rabbi said, "we are <i>against</i> the State of Israel <i>because</i> we are Jews." After the Roman armies left Palestine, some of the Romans remained behind and made Palestine their home. So did a good number of Jews, many of them now converted to Christianity as were the Greeks who were recognized as descendants of the lost tribes (see <b><a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-cor/10?lang=eng" target="_blank">1st Corinthians 10</a></b> where Paul reminds the Greeks that his fathers as well as theirs had passed through the red sea with Moses). <br /><br />Also living in that area and getting along fine with the Jews and the Christians for over a thousand years were a good many Arab people who, lest we forget, are every bit the descendants of Abraham as are the Jews and those Christians who trace their ancestry back to one or more of the "lost" tribes. So I have to smile whenever I hear Christians and Arabs derided as "anti-semites," since anyone whose people are descended from Abraham are de facto descended from Shem and are just as Semitic as the Jews claim to be. The point I'm going for here that there hadn't been much in the way of quarreling between these long-time residents until the Zionists started moving in and taking over.<br /><br />As the American Council for Judaism made clear in its declaration, Israel is the homeland of those whose ancestors have been living on the land for generations. Anyone, whether Jew, Arab, Christian, or otherwise who wished to move there and and buy a piece of property for themselves was alway welcome to do so. But as the Council asserted, the property belonging to the natives is not there for the taking simply because the descendants of one tribe of Israel showed up in 1947 and <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8" target="_blank">decided they are entitled to steal it.</a> <br /></b><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDvni62EFHNK0Avn8s1xElT3HE1B2WBDzz1-MtK_P80TSdWG_iXywMkRJsnfcE6SYiX9_tc61Dz0PjhKNrS9yYi-kGopui70oW22zd7JU41pYVy8qr8sGjM2TN6mYfAtlpcrvKtv3kKl7wgD305RsnK42oRtmaklAv6xLLAQoC4KsDhXQZrt3UIHEWsnF-/s1500/Wrestling%20with%20Zionism.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1000" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDvni62EFHNK0Avn8s1xElT3HE1B2WBDzz1-MtK_P80TSdWG_iXywMkRJsnfcE6SYiX9_tc61Dz0PjhKNrS9yYi-kGopui70oW22zd7JU41pYVy8qr8sGjM2TN6mYfAtlpcrvKtv3kKl7wgD305RsnK42oRtmaklAv6xLLAQoC4KsDhXQZrt3UIHEWsnF-/w133-h200/Wrestling%20with%20Zionism.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>If all of this business of Jews opposing Jews is unfamiliar to you, it's because your news sources are not telling you about what's really going on in Israel. While you are being propagandized to oppose the Palestinians, just below the radar <b><a href="https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=AwriiH5IGZhlgmkJ4IY0nIlQ;_ylu=c2VjA3NyBHNsawN2aWQEZ3BvcwMx?p=daphna+levit&vid=42f78c994d8c371842de5f535312c0b4&turl=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOVP.qnXsZdp0bZ7wWPHO30pujwEsDh%26pid%3DApi%26h%3D225%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6FS4MzBrjNA&tit=%3Cb%3EDaphna%3C%2Fb%3E+%3Cb%3ELevit%3C%2Fb%3E%3A+Another+Israeli+Wrestles+With+Zionism&c=0&sigr=Si2J_5w0dzM6&sigt=yMNLvf75avE_&sigi=zuf5qhP1H22K&fr=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&h=225&w=300&l=4154&age=1595624236&fr=yhs-ima-remarklist&hsimp=yhs-remarklist&hspart=ima&type=chrome-q1000136_1004q&tt=b" target="_blank">an intellectual civil war of sorts is brewing</a></b> between Jews whose God is YHWH versus "Jews" whose God is the State. Or, to borrow an apt description from John the Beloved in <b><a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/rev/3?lang=eng" target="_blank">Revelation 3:9</a>, </b>those "who say they are Jews but are of the synogogue of Satan." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">But none of that is really what I planned to write about today. Right now I want to talk about something else, which is...<br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Guess What? I Have Critics!</b> </span><br />I suppose it was bound to happen. I heard from more than one acquaintance who was concerned I might be headed down the path of leftism because it seemed to them I was siding with Hamas against Israel.<br /><br />Anyone who read part one of this series knows I believe Hamas is as despicable as the Zionist government of Israel, so of course that accusation is hogwash. But allow me to address this issue that presumes that because I feel sympathy for suffering children it somehow marks me as a left-leaning imbecile.<br /><br />Let's be honest: even the most moronic shit-Lib can be right at least once. So when the Zionist leadership in Israel announces <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x02rCeusCI" target="_blank">their plan to eradicate an entire race of people</a></b>, and then said leadership moves forward with those plans, I tip my hat to any group -even if they are my political opposites in every other way- who are observant enough to recognize that the government of Israel is corrupt and immoral.<br /><br />Where I part ways with some of these protestors is when they voice support for a terrorist organization like Hamas. Some people are just wired to believe that if one side is acting badly, the people on the other side must be the good guys. This is not the case with the debacle currently taking place in the Holy Land. As I said before, the Zionist government of Israel is wicked, vengeful, bloodthirsty, and brutal; but the government represented by Hamas is wicked, vengeful, bloodthirsty, and brutal as well. If there are any "good guys" in this conflict, it is the innocent Jewish and Palestinian people -especially the children-who are the victims of the "leaders" from both sides. Yes, Hamas are terrorists. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/18/israel-gaza-hamas-palestinians" target="_blank"><b>So are the Zionists.</b></a><br /><br />If I were demonstrating against the violence in the middle east, one thing I would <i>not </i>do is to carry around a flag that represents the government of Palestine. My sympathies lie with the <i>people</i> living in Palestine, both the Arabs and the Christians, not with those claiming to govern them, which is what the Palestinian flag represents. If I wished to express empathy for a people, I wouldn't wrap myself in the flag of the entity that is partly responsible for that people's suffering. <br /><br />One reason those on the left are failing to convince everyday Americans that what Israel is doing is wrong is that those demonstrators appear to be siding with Hamas. If they are truly concerned about the lives of innocent people, these demonstrators should make it abundantly clear that their sympathies lie with the innocent victims of this purposeful genocide, and not in any way with the terrorists on <i>either</i> side.<br /><br />Alas, I don't think very many of these young idiots are motivated by anything other than a desire to be part of whatever "the current thing" happens to be, because recently Ami Horowitz posted a video showing that a majority of students at one of our woke universities say they would support the killing of innocent people around the world so long as those innocent people are Jewish. Watch this short video and be appalled:<br /><br /> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nbm4mao4-k0?si=FQnKsZZUcWRjc8Ks" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Meanwhile, on another note...<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Morgan Deane Is Back<br /></b></span>The following surly response was leveled at me in last month's comment section:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><blockquote>"The worst mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust and your response is this nonsense. You reek of the stench of death and typify what Thomas Aquinas called the support of an evil peace. Repent, get out of your echo chamber, and love your neighbor enough to at least intellectually oppose their slaughter before you rant about their ethnicity and exhibit shallow both sideism and even more shallow prooftexts. Mormon repented of his oath and took up the sword to defend his people (Mormon 5:1). And anyone who uses Doctrine and Covenants 98 to stand by while Jews are butchered is no follower of Christ. So this is a typically pathetic post from Rock Waterman broadcasting from the sewer of the internet."</blockquote><p>Yowza. Sounds like somebody needs a nap!</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSKjnVPUyhYCROetBIjTBo7NGw_Cx0Ige3UqpciAu29Hz821sS0pucJboIy-F81XA7s2iFaC0rmGK_x0Q7zU06dTMUPwvoKSFjvXHxKCy-mblt2uoROQMgSbM07PQ9kqy8NNIqkeUOLbhB55RsjS_uiICzPeIs6b3SvC_5M5WjkqW31m4rIZ5rOHJ5csyk/s1350/interpreter%20morgan%20deane.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1350" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSKjnVPUyhYCROetBIjTBo7NGw_Cx0Ige3UqpciAu29Hz821sS0pucJboIy-F81XA7s2iFaC0rmGK_x0Q7zU06dTMUPwvoKSFjvXHxKCy-mblt2uoROQMgSbM07PQ9kqy8NNIqkeUOLbhB55RsjS_uiICzPeIs6b3SvC_5M5WjkqW31m4rIZ5rOHJ5csyk/w213-h320/interpreter%20morgan%20deane.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>This is not the first time I've been yelled at by Morgan Deane. Brother Deane is a latter-day Saint who will readily inform you that he holds a satchel full of university degrees in history, with a focus on ancient warfare. He has written a number of books and papers on military strategy as pertains to medieval Europe and Asia, so if you're seeking information about historic military battles, Morgan Deane is your go-to guy. He's also published papers dealing with <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-Battle-Book-Mormon-Interpreter-ebook/dp/B01MR80WWB/ref=sr_1_1?crid=139XNTVMA5IRN&keywords=interpreter+morgan+deane&qid=1704480754&s=digital-text&sprefix=interpreter+morgan+deane%2Cdigital-text%2C155&sr=1-1" target="_blank"><b>warfare in the Book of Mormon</b></a>, showing how the various battles were conducted and the strategies engaged in on both sides. I'd say Morgan Deane has a good knowledge of how various military strategies have been employed through the ages.<p></p>Unfortunately, Brother Deane appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the actual lessons to be gleaned from all those war chapters in the Book of Mormon. He and I butted heads about this back in the early part of this century when America's politicians took us into war against Iraq and Afghanistan. Morgan's position, in a nutshell, was that God clearly approved of these invasions, while my position was that the scriptures say otherwise. I maintained that Mormon and Moroni understood that the records they compiled would one day be in our hands, so they wanted to make certain that we did not make the same stupid mistakes their people did. They specifically told us that the reason they spent so much time on the wars that took place before the Nephites were completely wiped out was so that we, the latter-day gentiles, would have a firm understanding of two vital points when it comes to fighting:<p></p><blockquote>1. God's people have a right and a duty to defend their homes, their families, and their lands from invasion. We are therefore justified in repelling those who invade our homes and lands, even unto the taking of life if necessary.</blockquote></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><blockquote>2. God's people are never justified in going up into the enemy's lands to do battle. When we do that, the enemy is justified in repelling us for invading their homes, lands, and families, even to the taking of <i>our</i> lives. </blockquote><p>I originally got on Brother Deane's bad side when I reviewed an essay he contributed to an otherwise excellent book titled <i style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=war+%26+Peace+mormon&crid=2XHCJMQBUWGSA&sprefix=war+%26+peace+mormon%2Caps%2C159&ref=nb_sb_noss" target="_blank">War & Peace In Our Time: A Mormon Perspective.</a> </i>Deane's thesis was that "it was the bloodlust and general weakness of Nephite society that caused their failure," and not so much their disobedience in taking the war into the lands of their enemies. Here is what I wrote about Deane's contribution when I reviewed that book:</p><p></p><blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEintPCFGzZ9wb6kURBhMjEeRcb0aOrj2Gh8XjzLApke45gEYqNed1cPB0jnuU51gBHzboijhyt79LPPSqHUbdxVwOsu8K1tXCrYq2xEwStqm-zAdYQm11rYHbsIex7e7TA9mLVdcMW9_w7LSgznHwFaykpxt0iiPMG7uqkrG8jrc7pNqwnEAHr_YoBvJeYm/s1024/war%20&%20peace%20a%20mormon%20perspective.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="680" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEintPCFGzZ9wb6kURBhMjEeRcb0aOrj2Gh8XjzLApke45gEYqNed1cPB0jnuU51gBHzboijhyt79LPPSqHUbdxVwOsu8K1tXCrYq2xEwStqm-zAdYQm11rYHbsIex7e7TA9mLVdcMW9_w7LSgznHwFaykpxt0iiPMG7uqkrG8jrc7pNqwnEAHr_YoBvJeYm/w213-h320/war%20&%20peace%20a%20mormon%20perspective.jpg" width="213" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr></tbody></table>"Although no one would disagree that the Nephites' bloodlust was a salient factor in God's failure to support their cause, Mormon was emphatic that the dealbreaker was when his army went on the offensive against the Lamanites inside the Lamanite borders. That is when he resigned as their leader, and that's the moment he points to in Mormon chapter four as the reason God allowed the entire Nephite civilization to be destroyed.</blockquote><p></p><blockquote><blockquote>"But Deane rejects the idea that the Nephites' defeat was the result of their crossing over into Lamanite borders. He tries hard to fit his personal beliefs into the scriptures, and those beliefs are typified by the popular view that America's pre-emptive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Libya and Syria) are justifiable before God. His thesis doesn't work. He supports his position with an unfortunate reliance on a skewed interpretation of scripture and contexts. He points to examples where the Nephites were justified in conducting offensive maneuvers in order to defeat the Lamanites, without recognizing those offensive maneuvers took place on Nephite soil and not on the Lamanites' home turf.</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>"Deane's view is shared by quite a few latter-day Saints today, and its inclusion in this volume is helpful if only as an example of how far many of us will stretch God's word to match our personal views. I include myself among the ranks of the formerly deluded. Though I was spared from participation in the war in Vietnam, I was an outspoken cheerleader for that adventure at the time, and for decades after. I believed with all my heart that my brothers in arms who traveled thousands of miles from home to murder people they had never met were engaged in God's work. I defended that war and the politicians who directed it with a zealous fervor my children today find hard to believe, as they know me to be quite different from the lad I tell about in my stories. (For a peek into my admittedly warped psyche as a teenage chickenhawk, see my piece <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/11/dont-shoot-im-just-messenger.html"><b>"Don't Shoot, I'm Just The Messenger.")</b></a></blockquote><blockquote>"God does not justify nations going to war. That is Satan's arena. The Prince of Peace does not employ war to accomplish his purposes." </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><b>(</b><i>Pure Mormonism, posted May 25, 2013</i>, <b><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-do-we-keep-celebrating-disobedience.html">Why Do We Keep Celebrating Our Disobedience?</a>)</b></blockquote></blockquote><p>Were the Nephites permitted to retaliate against those who came against them? Of course they were. Unfortunately, what the Nephites wanted to do was massacre not just their attackers, but anyone who remotely <i>looked</i> like their attackers. And that's where the trouble comes in. One example among many in American history that demonstrate how these things can quickly go wrong was illustrated in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Washita_River" target="_blank"><b>the Battle of Washita River</b></a> in Oklahoma territory back in 1868. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">When You Washita Pawnee Star</span></b> (Sorry.)</p><p>The United States had entered into treaties with the various Indian tribes. However, a band of renegade Indians that included Pawnee, Cheyenne, Comanche, and Arapaho tribes had gone on the warpath and massacred settlers. The Cavalry headed by George Armstrong Custer was dispatched to find and capture these renegades. However, what the cavalry did instead was massacre an entire Indian village they came across, killing and burning everyone in it including women, children, and babies. <br /><br />That Cheyenne village had been at peace and was continuing to seek peace. They were not the source of the renegades who had been killing pioneer settlers. But that didn't matter. As General Sherman famously said, the only good Indian is a dead Indian. The cavalry couldn't find the actual bad guys, so they settled for the first group of Indians they came across. The massacre at Washita River was depicted in the film <b><i>Little Big Man</i></b>, and I include that scene below because seeing that horrible massacre take place -even if it is only a hollywood recreation- helps us to understand that justice is not served by seeking revenge against those who have done us no harm.</p><p> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vO_v1HtY2lw?si=DXZlcX4ptLjipDIT" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe> ;<br /><br />If we have any questions about the lessons God wanted us to learn regarding war, He spelled out His rules of war one final time in a lengthy revelation given to Joseph Smith in August of 1833. Note that the instructions the Lord gave to the Saints as recorded in section 98 of the Doctrine & Covenants are spoken by the mouth of the Lord Himself, and they are intended for our understanding and benefit still today. He has never rescinded nor modified those rules. Yet section 98 is the very revelation Morgan Deane so flippantly dismisses in his response to me above.</p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><p><b style="font-size: large;">Likening It Unto Our Day </b></p><p>So why, you may ask, am I belaboring this? Why am I spending so much time responding to one facile commenter because he cavalierly dismisses God's word and misunderstands what Mormon meant when he said he "repented of his oath?" </p><p>Here's why. I see Brother Morgan's position as illustrative of the problem we are witnessing among many Americans, latter-day Saints included, regarding the injustices taking place in Palestine today. Empathizing with those Jews who have been wantonly attacked by Hamas is one thing; supporting an evil regime that retaliates by murdering women and children who were not the ones who came against them is something else entirely. That is not justice; it is wickedness.</p><p>So let's take a quick look at the singular act that the prophet-historian Mormon tells us facilitated the final destruction of his entire nation, because I think it is instructive in this instance.<br /><br />We take up the story at Mormon chapter 3. This is about 363 years after Jesus had appeared among the Nephites. Three and a half centuries earlier the Nephites and the Lamanites were as one, and there was peace upon the whole land for some two hundred years. But that's no longer how it is. By this time the Nephites had completely turned from the faith, and the Lamanites were constantly nipping at their heels, invading the Nephites and plundering their lands. The Lamanites kept attacking the Nephites and the Nephites just kept on losing.<br /><br />Finally, after much fighting back and forth, there was a decisive battle in which the Nephites really mopped the floor with the invading Lamanites; it was for once pretty much no contest. The Nephites were the uncontested victors, thanks largely to the fact that Mormon himself was the general who led their defenses.</p><p>Well, after losing so many skirmishes and this time finally coming out on top, the Nephite warriors got all full of themselves and decided they should go up against the Lamanite people and settle this thing once and for all. "Cut them off from the face of the land," was the way they enthusiastically put it, which is a way of saying they intended to go on the offensive for once and wipe those filthy savages off the face of the earth.<br /><br />This bloodlust on the part of his troops so angered Mormon that from that moment on he vowed to no longer be the leader of the Nephite armies. If this was the way they were going to play it, they were on their own. Three times Mormon had delivered his soldiers out of the hands of their enemies and they never repented of their sins, but instead swore "by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle." They were no longer motivated by a sense of duty to protect their families; now they were driven by a bloody desire for revenge. <br /><br />Well now. It was one thing to fight against an army that has attacked you, but it was quite another thing to decide to go and massacre the families of the Lamanites, women and children who had never themselves come against the Nephites. God's rules say you are permitted to defend yourselves against an aggressor; but you are not permitted to <i>become</i> the aggressor. Yet here were the Nephite armies now determined to go into the borders of the Lamanites and wipe out every single man, woman, and child still living. The Lord told Mormon that because of this insane bloodlust on the part of the Nephites, <i>they</i> would be the ones who would be "cut off from the face of the land." <br /><br />And that's exactly what happened. As Mormon records, "from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as a dew before the sun." After ten years of back-and-forth battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites where the Lamanites were always the victors, on the day the Nephites prepared to make their last stand, only twenty-four Nephites remained alive, and one of those was Mormon's son, Moroni. Moments later all of them were dead except Moroni, whose life God spared so that he could preserve the record so we would one day know the horror that had taken place. <br /><br />Shortly before he was killed, Mormon tells us in his record <i>specifically why</i> the entire Nephite nation was annihilated: "It was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them."<br /><br />Morgan Deane seems to suggest in his comment that Mormon repented for having refused to take up the sword against the Lamanites, but that is not quite how the record reads. When the Nephites earlier vowed to wipe the Lamanites off the face of the earth, Mormon, in disgust, swore an oath to never again take up the sword on behalf of his people. Years later he tells us that he repented of that oath. Repented? For what? Did Mormon now wish he had participated in those attacks against the Lamanites? </p><p>No he did not. He was sorry for taking an oath before God that would have prevented him from standing in defense of his brethren at the final moments when the Lamanites were slaughtering the last of his people. The record is very clear that Mormon was repenting for taking an oath, not for failing to <i>go up against</i> the Lamanites. I have never been able to get Morgan Deane to recognize that fact. </p><p>Today we see a situation in the Holy Land that seems to parallel the crimes commited by the Nephites against their brethren the Lamanites. Because just as both the Lamanites and the Nephites were descended from father Lehi, so are the Arabs living in Palestine descended from father Abraham, same as the descendants of Judah. It is a travesty that for the past hundred years, those who claim the high ground are so enthusiastic about killing their cousins who have lived on that land for generations just so the sons of Judah can have the place to themselves. <br /><br />Brother Deane writes accusingly to me that "anyone who uses Doctrine and Covenants 98 to stand by while Jews are butchered is no follower of Christ."</p><p>I would agree, and this is why I use the word "facile" to describe Morgan Deane's method of arguing. One would be hard-pressed to find any instance where I have ever suggested it is proper to stand by while <i>anyone</i> is harmed in any way -in fact I frequently and vehemently raise my voice in opposition to such crimes. And how exactly does Morgan figure I would try to cite that revelation in order to justify people being butchered, anyway? I've seen Morgan Deane twist scripture to make it appear God agrees with his positions, but that's not the kind of equivocating I engage in.</p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Everything Old Is New Again</b></span></p><p>The parallels I see between the Nephites and the modern-day Zionists are quite apparent. After Hamas claimed responsibility for a vicious attack that killed 1200 innocent Jews, the Zionist government responded, not by seeking out the perpetrators of the attacks, but by <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67764664" target="_blank"><b>wiping out more than 20,000</b> </a>Palestinian men, women, and children living across the border in Palestine who had nothing whatsoever to do with that brutal attack against Israel. The terrifying persecution against the innocent continues to this day as those Palestinians who are not murdered outright are terrorized by Israeli police who <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o51k7p5Ii0" target="_blank">specifically seek out people who they know to be innocent.</a></b></p><p>Some of the luckiest people still alive in Palestine have been reduced to taking shelter at the zoo among the animals who are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdCR0l7lmdQ" target="_blank"><b>starving to death along with the humans.<br /></b></a><br />Meanwhile, Israeli government authorities <i>think</i> that as of two days ago <b><a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-fights-on-three-fronts-as-it-debates-how-to-end-gaza-war-1c74c512?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo" target="_blank">they may have finally killed a top Hamas leader</a></b> living in Lebanon (the government of Israel knows there have been no members of Hamas in Gaza since this whole thing started), but they can't really be sure it's him. And you may have heard the propaganda coming out of Israel that Hamas is hiding in secret tunnels under the hospitals. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/f-E7p-iJxkI" target="_blank"><b>That is pure hogwash</b>.</a> As for the stories of Palestinians beheading babies, that sensational nonsense was shown to have no basis in fact three days after the October 7th attacks, following Israel government authorities admitting they <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/12/middleeast/israel-hamas-beheading-claims-intl/index.html" target="_blank"><b>cannot confirm</b></a> the rumors. But I'm not sure Morgan Deane was paying attention when that news broke.</p><p>This is without a doubt <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e_woWJ3q8o" target="_blank">the most documented genocide in history</a></b>, yet so many Americans cheer it on because they believe, as so many Americans believed in Custer's day, that the innocent victims of this horror <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li85iFQX4-Y" target="_blank"><b>had it coming to them</b></a>. </p>The ancient Nephites were thoroughly convinced that they were the good guys, which allowed them to believe that taking revenge against women and children who did them no harm was met with approval in the sight of God. We see history repeating itself today in Israel, where hatred is now the order of the day. Here is a clip of one of many Israeli "experts" who advocates leveling the ground in Gaza and killing as many people as possible because, as he says, "The woman is an enemy, the pregnant mother is an enemy, and the first grader is an enemy":<br /> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sCug7kNJdOg?si=XcAHiR7d_QTZ8AlQ" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">I must be jaded, because outrageous talk like that doesn't even surprise me anymore; I've seen too many clips like this one. What really disturbs me at this point is seeing the children of those who are convinced they are "God's Chosen People" giddily making fun of the injured and dying children of their perceived enemies. If scripture is any predictor of what is to come, I wouldn't want to be standing anywhere near a proud, mocking citizen of Israel when Yeshua HaMashiach decides he has finally had enough. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QihoBuGRVwU?si=aPLQ_FpNIzF1Rxk3" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><p></p><p> **********</p><p><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>Notes & Asides</u>:</b></span></p><p>I have embedded quite a few links within the body of this post and I hope my readers will click on them all and have a look (they're the words highlighted in blue). Most of them link to videos that are quite short, and though I know most of you won't have time to delve deeper after making it throught this long screed, I hope you'll bookmark them for later. This is a topic that has interested me for decades, and now, when we are on the cusp of the endtimes, I think it's important to share what we know and help awaken others.</p><p>There is one link above in particular I don't want you to miss, and that is a video featuring American Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro. The full video is two hours long, but don't despair. If you simply start at around the 33:30 minute mark and watch for just ten minutes, you'll be absolutely gobsmacked at what you learn about the founders of this evil ideology. Of course, you can continue watching longer than ten minutes, but you'll probably have to stop frequently just to pick your jaw up off the floor. Here's a sample:<br /></p><blockquote><p>"Zionism, you could call it, it's a religion, a civic religion; it's a religion without God. What happened originally, the Zionists did not like being Jews. It's very simple: they did not like being Jews...They didn't want to be Jews because -no joke- they said Jews were disgusting, immoral, sick, ugly people. That's a quote! This is Jabotinsky, this is Herzl.</p><p>"You know, if Herzl would be alive today, we'd be able to dox him to be able to go and find the quotes he said on Twitter, on the internet and disqualify him and brand him as an anti-semite. Disgusting things about how he met a bunch of Jews by a party and they had dripping long noses...he really despised Jews.<br /><br />"Jabotinsky? He said that what he wants to become is the opposite of a Jew. Whatever a Jew is -just imagine what a Jew is- they asked him what a Zionist is and he said 'I don't know what a Zionist is, but take every characteristic of what a Jew is and imagine the opposite. That's going to be a Zionist. Jews are ugly, Jews are scared. Zionists are gonna be fearless. Jews are disgusting; Zionists are going to be charming.'"</p><p>"They got together and figured out a way to change Jewish identity so that the anti-semites will accept them...So they had to figure out a way to be Jews but to be non-Jews at the same time.</p><p>"Herzl said once the Jews change their character and become more like their persecutors, like the anti-semites, which is basically what he wanted; the last paragraph, the climax of his book, <b><i>The Jewish State</i></b>, says that as soon as Zionism gets off the ground anti-semitism will end...once we become Zionists everybody's gonna love us."</p></blockquote><p>Trust me, this is astounding stuff! If you haven't got time for the full two hours, at least fast forward to the 33 minute mark and catch nine or ten minutes; that's where Shapiro comes in:</p><p>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yMsgA05VpQ0?si=5dXWsss6cwRLTZ-5" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe> </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Two Books, Similar Titles</u></span></b></p><p>On the topic of the book <i><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Our-Time-Perspectives-ebook/dp/B0092UTBAY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=DFY8EURVJRU6&keywords=war+%26+peace+mormon&qid=1704595377&s=books&sprefix=war+%26+peace+mormon%2Cstripbooks%2C154&sr=1-1" target="_blank">War & Peace In Our Time: Mormon Perspectives</a></b>,</i> in spite of my one criticism I still highly recommend the book because of the contributions others of my faith have contributed to that volume. I have since become close friends with two of those writers, the father-son team of Ron Madson and Josh Madson. Connie and I were honored to stay with Ron and his wife a few years ago while we were traveling through Utah.</p><p>I also want to make the distinction between that book and another with a similar title that was published a few years later: <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Perspective-Chapters-against-Aggression-ebook/dp/B00R0PCCRM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1QWOTW9T0HH2G&keywords=war+mormon+perspective&qid=1704596027&s=books&sprefix=war+mormon+perspective%2Cstripbooks%2C168&sr=1-1" target="_blank"><i>War: A Book of Mormon Perspective</i></a></b> by Kendal Anderson. That book is flawless, but it may interest you to know that Morgan Deane publicly attacked the author of that one, too. The good news is that Kendal offers a pdf version to anyone free of charge at his website, <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/" target="_blank"><b><i>Book of Mormon Perspectives</i></b></a>. Simply go to the right side of that page and scroll down a bit until you see the image of the book, then click to download your free copy.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, if you go to Amazon and enter the key words "War," "Mormon," and "Perspective" it will bring up both these books plus one of Morgan Deane's <i style="font-weight: bold;">Interpreter </i>essays, this one<i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>titled <b style="font-style: italic;">A Vital Resource for Understanding LDS Perspectives on War. </b> You can grab the Kindle version of that for just 99 cents. And it's worth every penny!<br /><br />UPDATE January 14, 2024</p><p>Here's a video discussing the Zionist rampant propaganda. The Zionists don't want to eliminate only the Palestinians, they also hope to wipe out all Christians remaining in "their" land:<br /></p></div><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_YCQV_iUGRE?si=A5luuNUeURqifhRV" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-38868175119796315092023-11-12T15:36:00.000-08:002024-01-17T15:44:03.233-08:00The 'Israel' Scam: How America's Christian Churches Bought The Con<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhnHnYuk6IB6a8KWEd1JA5RmVeemU8jAT2cdtBGlU83rhcJuoy5ZRrOjzB7xZj3N4TNBhxbpuiaJS_6koTlmgL23aeGkvhXlYB9o4i5k2Sd-OObECpFE2W7ev0GaGgYsbM65LydMPILRsjwAv3u0xWmRz_QqEA9y9qI31bNZmNwuX7K3MkgMbeAoHNjJz3/s595/map%20of%20israel%203.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="595" data-original-width="389" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhnHnYuk6IB6a8KWEd1JA5RmVeemU8jAT2cdtBGlU83rhcJuoy5ZRrOjzB7xZj3N4TNBhxbpuiaJS_6koTlmgL23aeGkvhXlYB9o4i5k2Sd-OObECpFE2W7ev0GaGgYsbM65LydMPILRsjwAv3u0xWmRz_QqEA9y9qI31bNZmNwuX7K3MkgMbeAoHNjJz3/w261-h400/map%20of%20israel%203.png" width="261" /></a></div><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/10/how-mormons-should-think-about-war-in.html" target="_blank"><b><i>Previously:</i> <u>How Mormons Should Think About The War In Israel</u></b></a><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In my last post I discussed how hundreds of thousands of religious Jews condemn the current State of Israel as a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbFOj6eE9Nw" target="_blank"><b>blasphemy</b></a> against God. Zionism (the philosophy that birthed the political State of Israel), is, they insist, <b><a href="https://www.truetorahjews.org/mission" target="_blank">diametrically opposed to the religion of Judaism</a>. <br /></b><br />And they are right. The Jewish Torah is the Hebrew language equivalent to the Pentateuch in our bible, and the Tanakh is pretty much identical to the rest of our Old Testament. Those scriptures are clear that God does not permit anything resembling the "Jewish Homeland" that has been forced onto Palestine since 1947. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So how come so many Christians support a system of government that is so clearly opposed to scripture? And worse, why are Christian pastors able to completely ignore all the teachings of Christ and call for the wholesale slaughter of over half a million innocent men, women, and children?<br /><br />You might be interested in taking 41 seconds to click below and watch Pastor Greg Locke, a maniac who claims to follow the teachings of Christ, insist that <b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=231480386275095" target="_blank">"Israel should make the Gaza strip a parking lot by this time next week."</a> </b><br /><br />Sadly, Pastor Locke is not alone with those sentiments. There are many otherwise good Christian men and women who suddenly demand the blood of innocents simply because our politicians and media have so conditioned them. <br /><br />This raises the question: how did Christianity come to this? The answer lies in the fraudulent "bible" compiled by one Cyrus Ingerson Scofield. For many years Scofield was a nobody, a small time crook and forger who was repeatedly in and out of jail, a man who abandoned his wife and children to take up with a mistress, and who even conned his own mother-in-law out of her life savings <i>while he was in jail</i> by forging documents he mailed to her that convinced her he was onto a sure-fire investment that actually never existed. At some point this petty grifter was, oddly enough, recruited to join the exclusive Lotos Club of New York, where he was introduced to Zionists who needed a way to get Christians to support their fraudulent scheme of a "Jewish Homeland" and next thing you know Cyrus Scofield awarded himself a fake Doctor of Divinity degree and became the ministerial face of the Scofield Reference Bible. At this point, as <b><a href="https://rumble.com/vpftsv-c-i-scofield-the-man-the-myth.html" target="_blank">Scofield biographer David Lutzweiler</a> </b>concludes, Cyrus Scofield exchanged a life of financial swindling for the infinitely more lucrative life of theological swindling.<br /><br />The Scofield Bible was first published in 1909 and would have been little more than another edition of the King James translation of the bible, save for one difference. What set the Scofield Bible apart was that it was bolstered by loads of commentary and footnotes, so if a reader wanted a clearer understanding of a passage of scripture, they had only to look at what Scofield and his editors had to say about it in the margins. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The problem was that Scofield and his editors weren't so much providing a <i>clearer</i> understanding of a passage as they were "correcting" the original bible text so that it advanced a theology that the original had never contained. The Scofield Bible is where you'll find the absurd teaching of "the Rapture," that peculiar notion that just before everything gets too heavy, all the believers will be taken up to heaven so they won't have to endure the tribulations of this world. <br /><br />Never mind that in over 1800 years of scriptural exegesis, nothing like that had ever been taught before. Not by the early apostles, not by the any of the first and second century church fathers, not by any of the noted ministers and religious scholars of the Great Religious Awakening in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds, and not by Joseph Smith or even Alexander Campbell in the 19th century. Not by anyone. Cyrus Scofield alone came up with it, and the Christian world has not been well served by having that false hope of a miraculous rescue dangled in front of them. When have God's people <i>ever</i> been spared the horrors of this world? Never. <br /><br />Long story short, this bible of Scofield's became <i>the</i> bible of every believing baptist, fundamentalist, pentecostal, and evangelical congregation in America. It was promoted as scripture through the Moody Bible Institute and taught at the Dallas Theological Seminary, which meant that every pastor with a certificate of divinity has been passing Scofield's peculiar religious philosophy down to their congregations for the past hundred years. Pat Robertson, Oral roberts, John Hagee, John MacArthur -all the major TV and radio evangelists have been selling the Scofield interpretation of scripture to their viewers and listeners. It is this influence that has resulted in the common but false belief among so many Christians that "the Jews are God's chosen people."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It was years ago that I first came across a book by Joseph Canfield titled <i style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Scofield-His-Book/dp/1879998440/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2MQ9UR2KV8E2Y&keywords=the+incredible+scofield+and+his+bible&qid=1699732754&s=books&sprefix=the+incredible+scofield+and+his+bible%2Cstripbooks%2C157&sr=1-1" target="_blank">The Incredible Scofield and His Book</a>, </i>which not only uncovered the petty criminal background of Cyrus Scofield, but also exposed the faulty teachings contained in his study bible. (I wish I had hung onto that 1988 edition because today it's selling for $165.00!) <br /><br />It was also about that time that I saw a notice where some guy was offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who could show where the bible states that the Jews are God's chosen people. That got my attention because here I was in my thirties and all my life I had believed that to be true. No matter that I had access to latter-day scripture as well as Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the bible, I had just always assumed that somewhere in the scriptures was the plain teaching that declared the Jews to be God's chosen people. <br /><br />Well, I discovered that teaching was to be found nowhere in the scriptures. Neither God nor any of His prophets ever claimed that the Jews were God's chosen people. God had made a solid covenant with Israel, but it's quite a stretch to assume that "Israel" and "Jew" meant the same thing. <br /><br />On that note, if you want to upset your average Evangelical Christian today, you might remind him that Moses was not a Jew. Neither was his brother Aaron. Or Joshua. Many of the Old Testament prophets weren't Jewish either. Here's a short list of bible heroes most people think come from the tribe of Judah, yet do not:<br /><br />Moses-not a Jew</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Aaron-not a Jew</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Joshua-not a Jew</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Elijah-not a Jew</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Elisha-not a Jew</span></p><p><span>Deborah-not a Jew</span></p><p><span>Gideon-not a Jew</span></p><p><span>Samson-not a Jew</span></p><p><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Obviously Abraham wasn't Jewish either, but try telling <i>that</i> to your typical Scofield-toting Baptist.</span><br /><br />But I'm getting ahead of myself. If we're going to examine who the people were that God covenanted with in the Old Testament, we're going to have to take a trip through The Wayback Machine and get a bit of a refresher. I'll try to make it short: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Israel, Israel, God Is Calling </b></span></p><p>Before any Jews ever walked the land, there was Israel. And before there was an Israel, there were Hebrews, so our narrative will start there. No, let's start earlier than that; let's go all the way back to Noah.</p><p>One of Noah's sons, as you'll remember, was named Shem. Shem is the father of the family line known as Shemites, and just <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203&version=KJV" target="_blank"><b>nine generations after Shem</b></a>, Genesis introduces us to one of Shem's descendants, a man named Terah. Terah and his three sons traveled from their home on the other side of the Euphrates and settled in the land of Ur. Those already living in Ur referred to Terah and his family as "Ivir" which is anglicized as either "Eber," or "ibaru," meaning "crossed over." The name of that clan eventually came down to us as "Hebrews," or "they who crossed over." In this case the reference was to a family that had crossed over from beyond the Euphrates river. One of Terah's sons was named Abram. Abram, therefore, was a Hebrew.<br /><br />I said I was going to make this short, but I can't resist retelling this story:<br /><br />Terah was a wicked man; not only an idolator, but a manufacturer of idols. His son Abram was smart enough to realize that these idols made of stone could not possibly grant anyone's wishes, and he did not care to follow in the family business, which was the making and selling of idols. Rabbi Hiyya Bar Abba, a Rabbi from the third century, relates this account from the Genesis Rabbah:<br /></p><blockquote>"Terah left Abram to mind the store while he departed. A woman came with a plateful of flour and asked Abram to offer it to the idols. Abram then took a stick, broke the idols, and put the stick in the largest idol’s hand. When Terah returned, he demanded that Abram explain what he'd done. Abram told his father that the idols fought among themselves and the largest broke the others with the stick."</blockquote><p>After this act of blasphemy against the gods of the Chaldeans, Abram (later renamed Abraham by God) had to skedaddle, and he eventually ended up in Canaan where God promised him that his descendants would be more numerous than the stars in the sky. Skip ahead several years, and Abraham's wife, Sarah gives birth to Isaac. Isaac has a son named Jacob, and this is where things start to take off.<br /><br />God changed Jacob's name to Israel, and over time Jacob/Israel has twelve sons, whom he named, (in order of birth) Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulon, Joseph, and Benjamin. Israel also had a daughter; Her name was Dinah. But she was a girl so she doesn't count. </p><p></p><div><div>Okay then. Long story short, the second youngest son, Joseph, saves the lives of his brothers and his father and their wives and their children when Joseph rescues them from the famine and provides them all with the choicest tracts of land to live on in Egypt. This is hands-down the best story in the entire Old Testament, but I'm skipping over it in order to quicker get to my point. It's all there in Genesis chapters 37 through 50 if you haven't read it. (And I do know some of you have never gotten around to actually reading it from the bible; you are LDS, after all.)<br /><br />So, to continue. Many years later (some accounts say 215 years, others say 430), Jacob/Israel and his original twelve sons were long dead, Israel's numerous descendants (meaning the descendants of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulon, Joseph, and Benjamin) found themselves no longer guests of the Egyptians, but their slaves. It was a long and involved process for the Israelites to gain their freedom, but eventually God freed them so the Israelites were able to leave. This is where the story of Moses comes in, and all twelve tribes left Egypt behind and moved with all their stuff to settle in the promised land, which was the land that had originally been given to Jacob/Israel centuries before. So now the Israelites were back home once again.<br /><br />(By the way, it's worth noting that although Jacob's descendants referred to themselves "Israelites" ("ite" meaning "son of," as in <i>son of Israel</i>), that is not what the Egyptians called them. In those days other nations referred to the descendants of Abraham as <i>Hebrews</i>. That's one of the things you'll notice Cecil B. DeMille got right when he made the film <i>The Ten Commandments</i>. Moses and his people were always referred to as Hebrews, although if you're ever discussing that movie with another person, it's a sure bet that person will say it's a movie about how God freed the Jews.) </div><div><br /></div><div>That map you see in the upper left hand corner of this page approximates where the various tribes of Israel settled. Moses died before they arrived, and Joshua, Moses' successor, assigned each family their own tracts of land to live on, and all twelve families combined became known as Israel. </div><div><br /></div><div>So to recap: previously Jacob, the father of these tribes, came to be called Israel. Subsequently Jacob's sons and their families were known collectively as "the House of Israel" or more commonly just "Israel." From that time on, whenever God referred to Israel, he was referring to all 12 tribes of Israel combined. One of those tribes consisted of the descendants of Jacob's fourth son, the one named Judah. The area in the Southernmost tip of the land which Joshua assigned to the tribe of Judah to live eventually became known as "Judea" and the people belonging to that tribe were called "Jews."<br /><br />Jacob was a Hebrew. Therefore his children were also Hebrews. This particular family line of Hebrews came to be known collectively as "Israel." So even though all Jews are Hebrews, and all Jews are <i>of</i> Israel, not all Israelites are Jews. Only a relatively small percentage of Israelites are Jewish; just the ones who are descended from Judah. This is why it is incorrect to refer to Jews alone as if they are <i>the</i> Israel of the bible, as unfortunately many Christians do. <br /><br />You'll notice there's no tribe of Joseph on that map. That's because before he died, Jacob formally adopted Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh unto himself, afterwhich the descendants of Joseph were given all the blessings their father had obtained and the tribe of Joseph was henceforth referred to as either Ephraim or Manasseh rather than being known singularly as the Tribe of Joseph. Levi isn't on that map either, for the simple reason that Levi was not given a land inheritance because the Levites were to devote themselves to sacerdotal duties and were to be supported by the other eleven tribes.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Big Breakup</b></span></div><div>Now that all the Israelites were safely ensconced in the promised land, we settle into the rest of the Old Testament, with all the bible stories you're familiar with; David and Goliath, Samson and Delilah, and so on. All this took place mostly during the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, as all twelve tribes existed as one united Kingdom known as the Kingdom of Israel.<br /><br />But oh-oh, what's this? Upon the death of King Solomon there was a nasty dispute over who should now be king over Israel. When Solomon was alive God had repeatedly told him he was going to lose the kingdom of Israel, as Solomon repeatedly and blatantly "did evil in the sight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord."<br /><br />That was an understatement. God had twice warned Solomon <i>to his face</i> that he was headed for disaster, yet Solomon stubbornly continued to offer sacrifices to the pagan gods, including Moloch, the abomination of the children of Ammon. That was the last straw:<br /><blockquote>Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. <b><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2011&version=KJV" target="_blank">(1Kings 11:11)</a></b></blockquote><p>What a burn. Solomon's kingdom wouldn't be passed on to one of his many sons; it would be given to one of Solomons <i>servants.</i> <br /><br />So here's what happened: at one point Solomon had hired this new guy, Jeroboam, to be his servant and one day Jeroboam was out walking alone wearing an expensive new garment when he crossed paths with a prophet named Ahijah. The two of them were alone in a field and before Jeroboam knew what was happening, Ahijah grabbed Jeroboam's garment off his back and quickly ripped it into twelve pieces. </p><p><span face="system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Noto Sans", sans-serif, Arial" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"></span></p><blockquote>And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee. <b><a href="https://biblehub.com/kjv/1_kings/11.htm" target="_blank">(1st Kings 11:31)</a></b></blockquote><p>But Ahijah also told the startled Jeroboam he wouldn't be getting all of Israel; God would keep the tribe of Judah in Solomon's family for David's sake. And that's how it went. Solomon died and all ten tribes of the North chose Jeroboam as their king while Solomon's son, Rehoboam was left to rule over only the tribe of Judah and some of Benjamin way down at the Southern end of the country. <br /><br /> Here's what that map of Israel and Judah looked like after the divorce:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9nXa4E24fM6eQW7dq6kCQUJv2zFTEUlt6rHHIKqmWpBex7iwZ_nKg5u3SYM7T6JY_ku_IYUeB4bWL7xAksmbb_dld6kRrZHAP_flvi3IsF_1lno0-QkENj_qAQUFktxlhmCOtB7Ionrtv-NXNLzOsNnhFEhg4HUsWd8gVrIVpsvfa_9Ibu-GwUtpds_4n/s1800/map%20of%20israel%20two%20kingdoms.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1800" data-original-width="1275" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9nXa4E24fM6eQW7dq6kCQUJv2zFTEUlt6rHHIKqmWpBex7iwZ_nKg5u3SYM7T6JY_ku_IYUeB4bWL7xAksmbb_dld6kRrZHAP_flvi3IsF_1lno0-QkENj_qAQUFktxlhmCOtB7Ionrtv-NXNLzOsNnhFEhg4HUsWd8gVrIVpsvfa_9Ibu-GwUtpds_4n/w284-h400/map%20of%20israel%20two%20kingdoms.webp" width="284" /></a></div><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">(Note: Biblical scholars are undecided as to where Simeon was actually located on the map of Israel, or if it even existed with its own territory at all by the time of the division. Jacob's blessing to Simeon indicates he was pretty upset with Simeon and his brother Levi: "they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased. Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel! I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel” (<a href="https://www.bibleref.com/Genesis/49/Genesis-49-5.html">Genes<b>is 49:5–7</b></a>). So it's most likely the Simeonites, already by this time the smallest and weakest tribe of the 12, were scattered to live whereever they could find a place within the boundaries of the other tribes. It's worth noting that the tribe of Simeon is the only tribe Moses did not give a blessing to just before all the tribes were fixing to enter into the promised land. Also be aware that the actual placement of all the tribes on these maps is only an approximation; Simeon's whereabouts have never quite been known, so when it comes to drawing maps, that tribe is often placed near or inside of Judah's boundaries as an educated guess.)</span></p><p>This was the first time the Kingdom of Israel had a falling out, and it was a nasty one. From then on it was the tribe of Judah (the Jews) versus the rest of Israel. They fought each other all the time, which didn't do much to endear either kingdom to God. Meantime, the Lord called prophets in both the North and the South to call His people to repentance, but to no avail. Both sides had turned from their God. The prophets warned both kingdoms that God would use their enemies to destroy them unless they turned back to Him, and eventually that's exactly what happened. But not immediately, because God had made covenants with all twelve tribes of Israel collectively, and he always gives his children plenty of time to repent and turn back. <br /><br />Two things to note here: from this time forth, whenever the Lord referred to either the kingdom of Israel (which housed the ten tribes) or the Kingdom of Judah (which housed Judah and some Benjamites), he referred to them by their separate names. No longer were both kingdoms collectively known as "Israel." Only the ten Northern tribes were called "Israel." The Southern tribe was called "Judah." This is why it's incorrect to refer to the modern descendants of Judah as "Israel." They were once a <i>part</i> of Israel, but haven't been associated with Israel for thousands of years. The Lord certainly never referred to descendants of Judah as "Israel" in any of His dealings with them. <br /><br />Second, God did not favor one kingdom over the other; he was effectively turning his back on both apostate kingdoms because of their wickedness: “For the children of Israel <i>and</i> the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth." (Jeremiah 32:30)</p></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Assyrian Captivity Was No Picnic</b></span></div><div>So Israel and Judah fought and quarreled back and forth for quite some time until around 732 BC God put his spirit on the king of Assyria to exact punishment on the Northern tribes. Here's how the scriptures announced it in 1st Chronicles 5:26:</div><div><blockquote>And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day.</blockquote><p>And just like that, Tilgath-pilneser, king of Assyria, carted off 3/10ths of the kingdom of Israel. Ten years after that, Assyria had a new king, this one named Shalmanesar V, and he came back to the land of Israel and hauled off a few more of the Israelite tribes, and after him, the Assyrian kings Sargon and Sennacherib plucked away those Israelites that still remained in the area. It took twenty years of seiges and battles, but eventually most of Israel had been taken captive and carted off. The Assyrians didn't get the kingdom of Judah yet; maybe because Judah was too far to the south, or maybe God just wanted to give the Jews more time to get their act together, but eventually Judah fell as well, only it fell to a different enemy. </p>Here's what you get to know about the Assyrians: These were very clever kings. The vast land of Assyria was a mass of conquered and occupied countries, and the Assyrian king kept his captives from rebelling by first hauling them away captive and then dropping them some place very remote from their original homeland. They then further split their captives up so they were no longer living anywhere near each other, thus separating them from their fellow countrymen. <br /><br />This is what the Assyrians did with the Israelites, displacing them way up North in several different and remote locations beyond the Euphrates river. But then to make any chance of revolution even more difficult, they shifted captives from far off lands and moved them into the homes of other people they had taken captive. So, if say, any of the Israelites were to escape and make it back home, they would find an entirely different people with a very different language and culture living in their former houses and working their farms and vineyards. Even if an Israelite did manage to escape and make it all the way back home, "home" would now be a very different -and very foreign- country occupied by strangers. <br /><br />This process of relocating prisoners resulted in the Israelites being shipped off to live in various foreign lands among foreign peoples with whom they had nothing in common, not even the language. Other conquered peoples were transplanted into lands from where the Israelites had been taken, so now Judah's neighbors were no longer fellow Israelites, but complete strangers whose ways and culture the Jews found distasteful. The inhabitants were strangers in their strange new lands. As for the transplanted Israelites, the Assyrians made it difficult for them to maintain their former religious customs over the generations, and over time most of these captives all but forgot who their forefathers had been. </div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile, back in Judea the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and a few lucky Levites) remained pretty much as before. That was a close call, right? The Assyrians almost got them, too, but lucky for the Jews, they dodged that bullet. <br /><br />Well it was a reprieve, and not a short one, either. God really didn't want to see Judah punished the way the rest of Israel had been, so he sent several prophets, among them Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Ezekial, Joel, Jeremiah, and our own Lehi to warn the Jews that they too would be destroyed if they didn't repent. Then about 130 years after the fall of Israel, God had finally had enough:<br /><blockquote>"Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the Chaldeans, and into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he shall take it: And the Chaldeans, that fight against this city, shall come and set fire on this city, and burn it with the houses, upon whose roofs they [the Jews] have offered incense unto Baal, and poured out drink offerings unto other gods, to provoke me to anger. For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face, because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem."</blockquote><p>Wanna guess what King Zedekiah's reaction was when he heard the prophet Jeremiah deliver him that message? He locked Jeremiah up in prison, demanding to know "where do you get off prophecying that the Lord said he'll give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon and he will take it?" <b><a href="https://biblehub.com/kjv/1_kings/11.htm" target="_blank">(Jeremiah 32:3)</a></b><br /><br />Wanna also guess what happened next? The Lord gave the city into the hand of the King of Babylon who set the city on fire and burned all the houses to the ground and completely leveled the temple. In a word, the Jews got hit with a lot more destruction than the Israelites ever did.<br /><br />And guess what happened to Zedekiah? He was captured by the king of Babylon, his eyes were put out, he was loaded down with chains and carried off to Babylon where he remained in prison until he died. I think they call that Karma. </p></div><div>On the upside, the exile didn't last too long, and the Jews weren't scattered near and far the way the rest of Israel had been. According to <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Babylonian-Captivity" target="_blank">Britannica:</a> <br /></div><blockquote>Although the Jews suffered greatly and faced powerful cultural pressures in a foreign land, they maintained their national spirit and religious identity. Elders supervised the Jewish communities, and <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ezekiel-Hebrew-prophet">Ezekiel</a> was one of several prophets who kept alive the hope of one day returning home. This was possibly also the period when <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/synagogue">synagogues</a> were first established, for the Jews observed the Sabbath and religious holidays, practiced circumcision, and substituted prayers for former ritual sacrifices in the Temple. </blockquote>So unlike the scattered Israelites, the Jews managed to retain their culture and their religious traditions. While Israel was scattered all over creation, the Jews remained a united people despite having been taken captive. <br /><br />The good news is that some 66 years later, the Persians conquered Babylon, and Babylon's new ruler, Cyrus the Great, issued an edict allowing all the Jews to return home. Those who had not died off, along with the many who had been born during those years in Babylon, did just that, successfuly resettling in the old city of Jerusalem, and even rebuilding the temple. <br /><br />And that's where we find the land of Palestine at the time of Christ: all that was left intact of the once mighty nation of Israel were the descendants of that one lone tribe of Judah. As for the other tribes of Israel, the ones taken captive by the Assyrians, those people never did return home. Those descendants of Israel have come to be known as the ten lost tribes. But not to worry; the people of Israel did not simply evaporate. Their descendants are alive and well to this day, and God tells us he has not forgotten His promises to their fathers. The sons and daughters of Israel were scattered to dwell among the other nations of the earth, and latter-day revelations indicate that many of us today are descended from those tribes. </div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile, the Jews who returned to Judea still had a lot to learn about being tolerant. You remember Samaria? Samaria was a large part of the geographical area that had been occupied centuries earlier by the Northern tribes. Well, not all of the Israelites had been captured and carried off by the Assyrians; a number of stragglers had been overlooked and left behind, and when some of the other Assyrian captives from the hinterlands were moved into this area North of Judea, over time those captive foreigners intermarried with the remaining Israelites. Because the remaining Israelites retained some of their religious culture, they still practiced many of the old rituals just as the Jews had continued to do while in captivity in Babylon, and those Israelites even had their own temple in the North. Sadly, the Jews returning from their Babylonian captivity considered these "Samaritans" to be subhuman half-breeds that were below their notice. Jesus had to teach them that these neighbors to the North really were their brethren.<br /><br />Anyway, after Jesus' death and resurrection, just as Jesus had prophesied, the area that had been home to the Jews for centuries was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. The ancient historian Josephus claimed that 1.1 million people were killed during the siege of Jerusalem, 97,000 were captured and enslaved, and many others fled to areas around the Mediterranean. This resulted in what is called the diaspora, or scattering of the Jews into most of the known world. And that brings us back around to our discussion of the misleading theology of the Scofield Reference Bible.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">This Isn't Israel</span></b></div><div>Perhaps Cyrus Scofield's greatest sin was in how his study bible deliberately misleads the reader into thinking that every time Israel is mentioned in the bible, what is meant is "Jews." Keep in mind that for millions of unsuspecting people who have answered an alter call and been "saved," the first bible put into their hands is a Scofield bible. All they know about their newfound religion is what they take from a very flawed source, not to mention the distorted doctrine they learn from the preachers who teach from that source. <br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">As flawed as the original 1909 edition was, it contains nothing as egregiously incorrect as the more recent editions. Oxford University Press has always held the rights to the Scofield Reference Bible; Scofield himself was only the front man. And in modern times Oxford University Press has made an alarming number of "Improvements" to the best-selling bible of all time. As C.E. Carlson writes:</div></div><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;">Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of Scofield Reference Bible in 1967, at the time of the Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new footnotes to the King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to the Palestinians’ land to the State of Israel and specifically denied the Arab Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:</span><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span><br />“FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM BRINGS INEVITABLE JUDGMENT.” (page 19-20, footnote (3) to <a href="https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%2012.3">Genesis 12:3</a>.) (our emphasis added)<br /><br />This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism. But these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967 Edition of the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American churchgoers and students and is used by their leaders as a source for their preaching and teaching.</span><br /><br /><span>There is no word for “anti-Semitism” in the New Testament, nor is it found among the Ten Commandments. “Sin,” this writer was taught, is a personal concept. It is something done by individuals in conflict with God’s words, not by “nations.” Even Sodom did not sin — its people did. The word “judgment” in the Bible always refers to God’s action. In the Christian New Testament, Jesus promises both judgment and salvation for believing individuals, not for “nations.”<br /></span><br /><span>There was also no “State of Israel” when Scofield wrote his original notes in his concocted Scofield Reference Bible in 1908. All references to Israel as a state were added AFTER 1947, when Israel was granted statehood by edict of the United Nations. The Oxford University Press simply rewrote its version of the Christian Bible in 1967 to make antipathy toward the “State of Israel” a “sin.” Israel is made a god to be worshiped, not merely a “state.” David Ben-Gurion could not have written it better. Perhaps he did write it!<br /></span><br /><span>The Oxford 1967 Edition continues on page 19:<br /><br />“(2) GOD MADE AN UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE OF BLESSINGS THROUGH ABRAM’S SEED (a) TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL TO INHERIT A SPECIFIC TERRITORY FOREVER”<br /></span><br /><span>“(3) THERE IS A PROMISE OF BLESSING UPON THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND NATIONS WHO BLESS ABRAM’S DESCENDANTS, AND A CURSE LAID UPON THOSE WHO PERSECUTE THE JEWS.” (Page 19, 1967 Edition <a href="https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%2012.1-3">Genesis 12:1-3</a>)<br /></span><br /><span>This bequeath is joined to an Oxford prophesy that never occurs in the Bible itself:<br /></span><br /><span>“IT HAS INVARIABLY FARED ILL WITH THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PERSECUTED THE JEW, WELL WITH THOSE WHO HAVE PROTECTED HIM.” and “THE FUTURE WILL STILL MORE REMARKABLY PROVE THIS PRINCIPLE”(footnote (3) bottom of page19-20Genesis 12:3)<br /></span><br /><span>None of these notes appeared in the original Scofield Reference Bible or in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel DID NOT EXIST in 1945, and according to the best dictionaries of the time, the word “Israel” only referred to a particular man and an ancient tribe, which is consistent with the Bible text. See “Israel,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2nd (1950) Edition.<br /></span><br /><span>All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being really bad for those who “persecute the Jews,” reflects and furthers the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is considered “anti-Semitism,” and “anti-Semitism” is a “hate crime” punishable by law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could have written this footnote.<br /></span><br /><span>The State of Israel’s legal claims to Arab lands are based on the United Nations Partitioning Agreement of 1947, which gave the Jews only a fraction of the land they have since occupied by force. But when this author went to Israel and asked various Israelis where they got the right to occupy Palestine, each invariably said words to the effect that “God gave it to us.” This interpretation of Hebrew scripture stems from the book of Genesis and is called the “Abrahamic Covenant”. It is repeated several times and begins with God’s promise to a man called Abraham who was eventually to become the grandfather of a man called “Israel”:</span><br /><br /><span>“[2] AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE A GREAT NATION, AND I WILL BLESS THEE, AND MAKE THY NAME GREAT; AND THOU SHALL BE A BLESSING:”<br /><br />“[3] AND I WILL BLESS THEM THAT BLESS THEE, AND CURSE HIM THAT CURSETH THEE: AND IN THEE SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED.” <a href="https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%2012.3">Genesis 12:3</a>, King James Edition.<br /></span><br /><span>It is upon this promise to a single person that modern Israeli Zionists base their claims to what amounts to the entire Mid-East. Its logic is roughly the equivalent of someone claiming to be the heir to the John Paul Getty estate because the great man had once sent a letter to someone’s cousin seven times removed containing the salutation “wishing you my very best.” <a href="https://christianobserver.net/the-scofield-bible-its-powerful-effect-on-modern-christianity/"><b>(The Scofield Bible -Its Powerful Effect on Modern Christianity)</b></a></span></span></div></blockquote><p>Well, the good news is that there's a noticable shift in Christian churches today. Younger people are less inclined than their elders to have a knee-jerk reaction to support the state of Israel without question:</p><p></p><blockquote>Pastor Brian Zahnd of the Word of Life Church in St Louis, Missouri, is among a new breed of mega-church ministers who are rejecting hardline Christian Zionism in favour of a more balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.</blockquote><p></p><blockquote>Christian Zionism “is flawed theologically” and fails to heed the teachings of Jesus and Hebrew traditions. “One who takes the Bible seriously cannot use the Bible as a pretext for injustice towards other people,” Zahnd told Al Jazeera</blockquote><blockquote>What “pulls people away from the reflexive dualism that ‘Israelis are the good guys and Palestinians are the bad guys’ … is hearing <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/6/2/why-israel-is-angry"><b>stories from Palestinian people</b></a>” about life under the Israeli occupation, Zahnd said.</blockquote> <p></p><p>Well, I could go on and on with this topic, but I started out indending to discuss what we know about the whereabouts of the Lost Tribes. Looks like I'll have to put that off to next time. Meanwhile, given the times we live in, I think it's important for us all to not automatically assume everything we hear about the Middle East is the gospel truth. The fog of war is a birthing ground for incredible amounts of lies and propaganda. <br /><br />That said, Connie just came across the following video which I think is worth everyone's consideration. I'd like to see how Greg Locke, the pastor featured in the video I opened with at the beginning of this post, would react if he were to have this information. This is a video you won't find anywhere on the highly censored Youtube channels, I can tell you that.<br /></p><p>(Note: I strongly recommend you don't have this running with children in the room, for reasons that will eventually be obvious):</p><p><br /></p>
<script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/ua7ce7"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");</script>
<div id="rumble_v3qr3od"></div>
<script>
Rumble("play", {"video":"v3qr3od","div":"rumble_v3qr3od"});</script><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b><br /></b></u></span></div><div> *****</div><span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;"><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2024/01/we-are-against-state-of-israel-because.html" style="background-color: white;" target="_blank">
Next: <i>"We Are Against Israel Because We Are Jews"</i></a></span></span>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-64629312241167996042023-10-22T11:49:00.065-07:002024-01-17T15:41:10.894-08:00How Mormons Should Think About The War In Israel<p></p><div style="text-align: left;"><b><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtQJq86x6DffHRkPFfFtzknHdQqgyN8siA7l_jf2aLRRunjsd1plyjvf8OfgFGpjdkNv_tjHgbbLSQgeliYsfTS9L3bEE8b621T8fqUkWA6ByZiDlaXW7lVGIjTjO2ZoIYyBFdGbc8q91dw75gRdKb6j9HYCYstFkGrHKbpmsTKSc7cCkiXOulaiN8xnMi/s1200/Cemetery%20palestine.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="832" data-original-width="1200" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtQJq86x6DffHRkPFfFtzknHdQqgyN8siA7l_jf2aLRRunjsd1plyjvf8OfgFGpjdkNv_tjHgbbLSQgeliYsfTS9L3bEE8b621T8fqUkWA6ByZiDlaXW7lVGIjTjO2ZoIYyBFdGbc8q91dw75gRdKb6j9HYCYstFkGrHKbpmsTKSc7cCkiXOulaiN8xnMi/w400-h276/Cemetery%20palestine.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/10/abortion-and-book-of-mormon.html" target="_blank"><i>Previously</i>: <u>What The Book Of Mormon Says About Abortion</u></a></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8QkuuAZPEk" target="_blank"><b>Douglas Casey</b></a> recently described what’s happening in the Middle East as <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/10/karen-kwiatkowski/a-dogs-breakfast/" target="_blank"><b>"a dog's breakfast."</b></a> That's a 19th century British colloquialism you don't often hear these days, but I've never seen it used so aptly. No matter how disgusting the carnage before him, a dog will mindlessly attack and devour his chosen meal even it it utimately kills him. You can't pull a determined dog off or get him to slow down. <br /><br />So as we consider this current dog's breakfast of a mess in Palestine, let us begin with two undeniable truths:<div><div><br /></div><div>1. Hamas is wicked, vengeful, bloodthirsty and brutal. <br /><br /></div><div>2. The government of Israel is wicked, vengeful, bloodthirsty, and brutal. <br /><br />Neither side is willing to slow down or take a breath and consider the chaos they are causing. Both sides are wholly focused on only one aim: to devour without stopping to pause. <div><p></p></div></div><div>Notice I'm not blaming the Jewish or Arab people for this mess. On both sides, it is the people who are suffering and dying, not the leaders of Hamas and certainly not the Zionist government of Israel. The Arab people of Palestine did not elect Hamas to represent them, yet the payback for the initial attacks that have brought on this war are falling squarely on the heads of the people living in Gaza. In return, countless innocent Jews will be slaughtered. And on and on it will go, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-10-09/photos-israel-declares-war-bombards-gaza-after-hamas-attack" target="_blank"><b>back and forth, back and forth,</b></a> drawing entire nations into the fray as everyone assumes they must choose sides.<br /><br />So what should be our response as members of the body of Christ? <br /><br />That should be simple: God commands us in <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>Doctrine & Covenants 98</b></a> to "renounce war and proclaim peace," and to "turn the hearts of the Jews unto the prophets." Most importantly (and the part of that section most Mormons are wont to overlook), is <b><a href="they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them." target="_blank">verse 32</a>, </b>where the Lord makes clear that His people are not to go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people unless the Lord Himself commands them. What we definitely should not be doing is choosing to take one side over another in this war of annihilation. <br /><br /></div><div>And yet I'm seeing and hearing from devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ demanding retribution against the Palestinian people for a horror most of those people had nothing to do with. I hear some of my Mormon brethren cheering on the state of Israel with cries of "crush them!" "wipe them off the map!" "we should finish them once and for all!" and other alarming cries for revenge. <br /><br />Seeing these bloodthirsty calls for vengeance reminded me of why the prophet <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/morm/3?lang=eng#study_summary1" target="_blank"><b>Mormon threw down his sword</b></a> and refused to continue as leader of the Nephite armies. After a successful series of battles wherein the Nephites had successfully driven back their Lamanite attackers, they got all full of themselves and decided that merely driving the enemy back was not enough. They aimed to go into the borders of the Lamanites and completely destroy that entire civilization. "Cut them off from the face of the land" is how they put it. <br /><br />That's when their general called it quits. Defending against invaders was one thing. <i>Becoming</i> the invader and taking a war of vengeance into the enemy's borders was something else. It would result in the mass murder of Lamanites -including women and children- who had never come against the Nephites in the first place. Mormon simply would not have it. In case you don't remember what happened, this aggressive action on the part of the Nephites resulted in the complete annihilation of their entire civilization a mere ten years later. Today there are no Nephites on the American continent. But the Lamanites are still here. I'd say there's a lesson in there for us.</div><div><br />Now, I don't want you to get the impression I'm siding with Hamas in this controversy. When it comes to this war between the residents of Gaza and the pretend "State of Israel," as Mormons and as Americans we should not be rooting for either side. And as an American and a Mormon who has read the scriptural warnings, I also take that position as a descendant of Judah.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">My Secret Life As A Crypto-Jew</span></b> <br /><div>My maternal grandmother, Elsie Reichert, was five years old when she arrived at Ellis Island with her parents and siblings sometime in the late 1880s. Her family were Prussian Jews, come to America to escape the constant pogroms in the old world. Like many other Jews at the time, the Reicherts chose to hide their Jewish heritage right then and there. Being a Jew had become just too much trouble for a growing number of Eastern Europeans, and some of them simply gave themselves a new name when passing through the immigration process. A new country meant a new life; why not start out with a completely new identity as well?<br /><br />Unlike other crypto-Jews, Great Grandma and Grandpa Reichert didn't have to change their last name in order to pass as gentiles. The surname Reichert was a neutral cognomen; it wasn't a name like Feldman or Finkelstein that instantly marked one as being Jewish. Back in the old world there were Jews named Reichert to be sure, but there were also plenty of Germans with that same last name. Or maybe <i>all</i> those teutonic Reicherts were actually Jews secretly hiding their identities, who knows? I can only tell you that when I was young I was told that my mother's family came from Germany. Even that story was false; they came from Prussia.<br /><br />The fact that we actually derived from Jewish stock was unknown to us kids while we were growing up, although looking back there were plenty of clues I was too young to notice. But Grandma hid our true heritage from the family so well that I don't know if she herself even knew she was a Jew; it's possible her parents never told her. We kids found out after we were grown up, long after Grandma had died. My mother and my Aunt Rose were the family geneologists, and that's how the secret leaked out. As Aunt Rose cryptically put it, somewhere back in our family tree "there was a Jew in the woodpile."<br /><br />Under Jewish law and custom, if your mother was Jewish that makes you Jewish as well. Grandma Reichert Law gave birth to my mother, which under the law makes my mother Jewish. When I passed through my mother's birth canal in the Naval hospital at Oceanside, California...L'Chaim! I arrived in America an instant Jew! Although I embrace Mormonism as my religion, by birth I am considered to be of the tribe of Judah. That's how it works. <br /><br /></div></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;">This Land Ain't Mine</span></b></div><div>My reason for bringing all this up is that, like a lot of Jews (and an overwhelming number of evangelical Christians who have misread the scriptures), I bought into the fable that in these modern times God desired His people to return to their Jewish homeland. "This land is mine," goes the stirring <b><a href="https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-dcola-077&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-077&hspart=dcola&param1=1&param2=a%3Dgsp_dscjsshv012zx77x44akmoqsuw28tvxz135dxu_00_00_--x1-0036--%26cat%3Dweb%26sesid%3Df330b004-feee-4bb4-8385-9e69e1db811f%26ip%3D69.59.65.109%26b%3Dchrome%26os%3Dwindows%26pa%3D1351B06C9024%26sid%3D8311c573-79ec-4f99-b24a-a0842dd06f36%26abid%3D0%26abg%3D0%26et%3D1&p=exodus+song&vm=p&type=gsp_dscjsshv012zx77x44akmoqsuw28tvxz135dxu_00_00_--x1-0036--#id=1&vid=f2d4a6e17f2d34adbc5d4b3e10075ed2&action=click" target="_blank">song</a></b> from the 1960 film <i>Exodus</i>, "God gave this land to me." <br /><br />Well, no it isn't, and no He didn't. God allowed the Assyrians and the Babylonians to take it away from us thousands of years ago when Judah and the other eleven tribes of Israel rebelled against Him. As much as that song still plays on my emotions to this day, I now recognize it as simple propaganda. The fact is, this push to create a politically constructed homeland for the Jews in Palestine is antithetical to the will of God as clearly demonstrated in scripture. That is the stone-cold truth, and no amount of sentimental movie making is going to change that reality.</div><div><br /></div><div>As a descendant of the tribe of Judah, when I have a question about Jewish orthodoxy, I don't look to mawkish songs and movies for my doctrine. If I want to know whether God intended for the Jews to return to Palestine and push out its current residents, I'll look to the Torah, as these and many other orthodox Rabbis have been doing for decades: </div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGe8JCgsd7RHuqS6J6S__tKG5GKya_aig3CoJhTHOZYEfwRCdkYcz-aDav3r4zXaMF9HZ4O_s-axVcwnEOrUxJeiqWwT0_MSipoIRt0lv0t0AtWyoKpCKomuyqGHNGTyaoj2OTS4vxR2y72AbVbDEajat054xz8Zis121K1wDXvTNy0f8soHrsKxVcjlps/s1300/zionist%20have%20no%20right%20to%20rule.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="956" data-original-width="1300" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGe8JCgsd7RHuqS6J6S__tKG5GKya_aig3CoJhTHOZYEfwRCdkYcz-aDav3r4zXaMF9HZ4O_s-axVcwnEOrUxJeiqWwT0_MSipoIRt0lv0t0AtWyoKpCKomuyqGHNGTyaoj2OTS4vxR2y72AbVbDEajat054xz8Zis121K1wDXvTNy0f8soHrsKxVcjlps/s320/zionist%20have%20no%20right%20to%20rule.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCTp7iDFzzt41CsVinJQgedenoR1d_pGwGSDuTgd_W77aimTEciAfVeBwoFQvWNCzkut11UDER-AVek61LviLqRcwAlJNvnv2Yrwf07JbRFCL9SG8CPt_5ZsfxcWjC6pbhPGnCWMfUy1xrGrYMc6FZwW9jguiolgXhYsbvk3S4yHJ-Dh8K8PesuxUfo7E7/s1600/Free%20Palestine%20Naturei.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1063" data-original-width="1600" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCTp7iDFzzt41CsVinJQgedenoR1d_pGwGSDuTgd_W77aimTEciAfVeBwoFQvWNCzkut11UDER-AVek61LviLqRcwAlJNvnv2Yrwf07JbRFCL9SG8CPt_5ZsfxcWjC6pbhPGnCWMfUy1xrGrYMc6FZwW9jguiolgXhYsbvk3S4yHJ-Dh8K8PesuxUfo7E7/s320/Free%20Palestine%20Naturei.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn3SkyJUrKzsTskQto9hDCIHOBhZcsx-VnVk4oxVyNcZPZ70e6NGLZ-ceve-jisGMW1UGzRz_KJmvWt6jKJZ_yRTUV6aD7YtwgcNZAFZKba0H63SoHOFev2C7CsAO9_JxX8hHCxhmgMlWuzM9L9lK2_WF-itLzGcTumpdxHm-gUVQ7PTnrM_xssQhuBj_M/s2000/judaism%20rejects%20zionism.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1250" data-original-width="2000" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn3SkyJUrKzsTskQto9hDCIHOBhZcsx-VnVk4oxVyNcZPZ70e6NGLZ-ceve-jisGMW1UGzRz_KJmvWt6jKJZ_yRTUV6aD7YtwgcNZAFZKba0H63SoHOFev2C7CsAO9_JxX8hHCxhmgMlWuzM9L9lK2_WF-itLzGcTumpdxHm-gUVQ7PTnrM_xssQhuBj_M/s320/judaism%20rejects%20zionism.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>You may never have been told that hundreds of thousands of devout descendants of Judah assert that Zionism is diametrically opposed to Judaism. They recognize that the phony Zionist "State of Israel" is a violation of the covenant that all of Israel made before God, and have for decades worked to expose the fraud. A distant relative of mine, Irving Reichert, was the prominent Rabbi of San Francisco's Temple Emanu-El and he made headlines back in 1943 when <b><a href="https://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/where-do-you-stand-a-1943-yom-kippur-sermon-challenged-the-american-jewish-community-on-zionism/" target="_blank">he issued a Yom Kippur warning against the growing Zionist threat to Judaism. </a></b></div><br />This was a good five years before the United Nations decreed, without consulting God, that the land of Palestine was forthwith to be the new Jewish homeland. Rabbi Reichert was alarmed at how many American Jews were already being taken in by the smooth-talking promoters of Zionism behind that decree. Let's face it, even though the idea contradicted scripture, the idea of the Jews once again having a homeland of their own was very appealing. As for Zionism: who wouldn't be attracted to the idea of a return to Zion? "Zion!" The very name is familiar to all Jews from their scriptures; it evokes images of peace, protection, rest, and refuge. <br /><br />But Israel today is far from a place of refuge. And how could it be? The early founders of Zionism were not religious Jews, and they didn't have anything resembling a true Zion in mind. These early promoters were euphemistically known as "secular Jews," which is a nice way of saying they were Jews by birth but that they didn't practice the religion. Many of them were avowed atheists not motivated in the least by religious Judaism. For secular Jews, the <i>religion</i> of Judaism holds little appeal. What they wanted was a massive tract of real estate and the power that goes with being in control of a country. Theodore Herzl, Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin -these were all unbelievers tirelessy working to deceive the believers. Even the Prime Minister of Israel today is an atheist. His real name isn't even Netanyahu, it's Mileikovsky. "Netanyahu" is a made up name meaning "God has given us." This faker leads his followers into believing God has given him to them as some sort of modern messiah. This man who has the effrontery to incorporate God's name "Yehu" into his own is a liar and a mass murderer who will deserve his final reward.<br /><br />It should be noted that prior to the establishment of a political "state of Israel," there were already plenty of Jews, Arabs, and even <b><a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/who-will-stand-for-palestinian-christians/" target="_blank">Christians</a></b> living together in harmony in the Holy Land. In his 1943 Yom Kippur address, Rabbi Reichert made clear that he was in favor of continued opportunities for all persecuted and uprooted peoples of Europe to re-establish themselves in that area if that is what they want. Jews have always had the right to move to the Holy Land if they want to. They are simply prohibited by Torah from arriving in might, or as Jewish law puts it, to "go up as a wall" to claim a divine entitlement to be there, or to displace those already living in the area.<div><br />According to the Rabbi, individual Jews and their families were entitled to live whereever they could peacefully dwell, but for the Jews to establish a political nation was sinful and a violation of the religion of Judah. Rabbi Reichert reminded his followers that the basis of unity among Jews is <i>religion</i>, not political nationalism. He contended that Jews should and do consider themselves nationals of those countries in which they live, and those various lands their homelands. He saw the Jewish problem, tragic and appalling as it is, in the last analysis a part of the world problem. Eventually it will have to be settled in those countries where Jews reside. The creation of a Jewish state in Palestine will not solve the problem of Jews living in other countries, Reichert maintained. On the contrary, he said, it may well aggravate them.<br /><br />Well, the good Rabbi was certainly prescient on that last point. Relations between Jews and non-Jews the world over have never been worse than they have been since the creation of the State of Israel. And remember, Rabbi Reichert said all this eighty years ago, long before American Jews would ever suspect their beloved land of Israel would one day become a bloody war zone, or that members of their own tribe here in America would angrily demand the wholesale slaughter of Judah's neighbors.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>The Law vs. The Myth</b></span><br />Nearly everything the Zionists have proposed contradicts Jewish law as embodied in the Torah. If you want to have your eyes opened on this subject, just dip in anywhere at the website <b><a href="https://www.truetorahjews.org/" target="_blank">True Torah Jews</a>.</b> I particularly like the page that features <a href="https://www.truetorahjews.org/rabbinic-quotes" target="_blank"><b>Rabbinic Quotations</b></a>, which go as far back as 1050 A.D., all of which give the lie to the scam currently being perpetrated by the Zionist State counterfeiters. Here are just a few I've chosen that prove the Jews are not permitted to return to the Holy Land and there create a political state complete with armies and navies as they have now done:<br /><br />(Note: for those not familiar with Hebrew, "Eretz Yisroel" means "the land of Israel." "Yaakov and Esav" are "Jacob and Esau," "Mitzvah" is one's duty to obey God by behaving kindly toward others, "Hashem" means "the name" and is simply a common way some orthodox Jews refer to God so as to not risk profaning His name.) <br /><br />Rabbi Moshe Ben Nachman, the Ramban (1194-1270):<div><blockquote>The Ramban holds that permission granted by a gentile government for Jews to return to Eretz Yisroel does not nullify the oaths they have taken to obey Hashem.</blockquote>Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi, author of Kaftor Vaferach (1280-1366):</div><div><blockquote>The book Kaftor Vaferach, written in 1322, details the geography of Eretz Yisroel and discusses the great mitzvah to live there: "It was taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: Whoever establishes his residence in Eretz Yisroel, speaks the Holy Tongue, eats only ritually clean food and recites Shema morning and evening is guaranteed the World to Come (Yerushalmi Shkalim 14b). However, they must not go up with the intent of conquering until the end arrives, as it states in the end of tractate Kesubos: Do not arouse or awaken... Rabbi Zeira says: This teaches that Israel must not go up as a wall." (Kaftor Vaferach chapter 10, p. 197)</blockquote></div><div>Rabbi Yehuda ben Maharam Chalava (1300's):</div><div><div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="border: 0px; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="field-items" style="border: 0px; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded" style="border: 0px; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><blockquote>What happened to Yaakov with Esav will happen to us in all generations, and we must prepare ourselves with prayer and gifts, but not with war. Scripture has prohibited this under oath.</blockquote>Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Lehren, Jewish community leader in Amsterdam (1844):<br /><blockquote> We also believe in what Chazal say (Kesubos 111a) that one of the oaths that Hashem made Israel swear is not to rebel against the nations of the world, and <b>we are not permitted to take any action to come to the Promised Land. Even if we had 1,200,000 soldiers bearing swords and trained in warfare, we would not be allowed to ascend and conquer Eretz Yisroel;</b> rather we must wait and hope until Hashem desires to redeem us and bring us to the inheritance of our forefathers, and all the nations will see that Hashem Tzevaos [the God of Armies] is our Redeemer. (Emphasis mine.)</blockquote></div></div></div></div>Let me close out by sharing a recent twenty minute interview with one of my modern heroes, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, who succinctly summarizes the problems -and the great evil- represented by those who would convert the religion of Judaism into the force for destruction it has now become. <br /><br />Meanwhile, I'm not done with this topic. Come back to this page in a week or two and I'll discuss what became of the lost tribes of Israel. (Spoiler alert: they're not as lost as you might think.)<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U2H-F0HVKDY" width="320" youtube-src-id="U2H-F0HVKDY"></iframe></div><br /><div><div><div><div> *****</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Next:</i></b> <b><u><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-israel-scam-how-americas-christian.html" target="_blank">The Israel Scam: How America's Christian Churches Bought The Con</a></u></b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-70287805295668091082023-10-01T15:45:00.020-07:002023-10-18T11:14:31.109-07:00What The Book of Mormon Says About Abortion <p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix5bKmOoRkhoyZA2nxqNiQc2y54C3l8FooxS3jX5lJILXxvymcGQH4UIQVACN3RP8NWmfMewLPa40vf2KXEOLDWRrnQR8ykZwzvjdWDNksdOGBF7AaSdPpRcm9_DTsH338HtADWlqvEHJdm79P_M2ABnaG73mxZKu1LM5k-CZZYeIak0Anq8rd7OalPVvW/s1500/Ripened%202.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="998" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix5bKmOoRkhoyZA2nxqNiQc2y54C3l8FooxS3jX5lJILXxvymcGQH4UIQVACN3RP8NWmfMewLPa40vf2KXEOLDWRrnQR8ykZwzvjdWDNksdOGBF7AaSdPpRcm9_DTsH338HtADWlqvEHJdm79P_M2ABnaG73mxZKu1LM5k-CZZYeIak0Anq8rd7OalPVvW/s320/Ripened%202.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><b>Previously:</b> <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">This May Herald The Beginning Of The End For The Vaccine Scam</u> </span><p></p><p>Over the decades I've accumulated quite a number of books related to the Book of Mormon, but nothing I've ever read has prepared me for the information presented in the book you see in the illustration on the left. Kendal Anderson described this book as "groundbreaking," and the first review that appeared on Amazon, by one Kim S. Peterson (no relation to the author) simply says it is "the most important book sold on Amazon."<br /><br />I don't consider either of those descriptions to be hyperbolic. This is far and away the most incredible, most jaw-dropping exegesis on the Book of Mormon I have ever read. And I mean Ever. I hope every believer in the Restoration orders a copy of this book right now and reads it immediately. I believe it is essential that you do. A copy belongs in the home of every believer.<br /><br />Now, I know what you're thinking: "What are you talking about? The Book of Mormon doesn't mention abortion anywhere in its pages!"</p><p>Well the truth is, the Book of Mormon not only <i>does</i> mention the horrible slaughter taking place every day in America, it <i>screams </i>about it. Literally. What do you think Jesus meant all those times he spoke of the great numbers brutally murdered whose blood cries up from the ground? Who do you think he was referencing when he spoke of the cries of the slain "fair sons and daughters of this people"?<br /><br />Yes, the blood of innocent babies actually does cry up from the ground. Jesus can hear it even if we refuse to notice. As author Amberli Peterson reminds us, </p><blockquote>"The Hebrew word za'aq is translated by the English words 'cries out' - to shriek from anquish or a sense of danger. It is a distress signal.' This word for distress signal is mentioned frequently in connection with the land."</blockquote><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Breaking The Code</span></b> </p><p>The reason I could read the Book of Mormon countless times and never notice the clear and blatant warnings about abortion was because I was reading it wrong. I wasn't paying attention to the true meaning of the words being used. For example, in the account of the ancient Jaredites, when "secret murders" were condemned, I just automatically assumed those passages were describing wicked instances of political intrigue, as some line of rulers always seemed to be getting themselves assassinated by their enemies. And when the Nephites were later condemned for <i>their</i> secret murders, I just naturally assumed those murders referred to political power plays of one bad guy against another.</p><p>But in her book #<i>Ripened</i>, Amberli perfectly lays out the case that secret murders took place in ancient America on a massive scale, all for the purpose of getting rid of the evidence of what the prophets referred to as whoredoms and abominations among the people. These murders were called "secret" for several reasons, not least because these were murders that no one ever knew about other than the victim's mother (and perhaps one or two others who may have been complicit). A secret murder leaves no evidence, no call for an investigation, no missing person to report, and of course no trial. It's the perfect crime, and with the currently popular view in our day such murders aren't really crimes at all but actually rights to be joyfully celebrated, anyone who still has a concience would instantly recognize such murders as among the vilest of evils. <br /><br />Amberli reminds us that plenty of books exist today documenting the history of abortions in every civilization, going at least as far back as Babylon. The Greeks and Romans were probably the most thorough in documenting the practice, naming the toxic plants used as abortifacients, and containing instructions for inserting poison-filled pessaries into the uterus. Every civilization on earth knew the ways in which a woman could secretly dispose of an unwanted baby. The practice is as old and as wicked as human sacrifice, which is what it has really always been. </p><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-weight: bold;">Saints And Sinners</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">W</span>hat really caught me up short when reading this book was how thoroughly I misunderstood what the scriptures were trying to teach me when referring to the word "saints." I naturally assumed that when Jesus spoke of the blood of the saints crying up from the ground, "saints" referred to the slain Nephites who had been members of the church in that day. I could not have been more wrong. </p><p><span><br /></span>When Jesus appeared among the Nephites in 34 A.D. he repeatedly referred to "saints" as the ones whose blood had been crying out for vengeance. And as Amberli shows, "until Jesus used that word on the great and terrible day of destruction in 34 AD, the term 'saints' had scarcely been used at all in the record."</p><p>Amberli walks us through the definitive proof that when Jesus, Nephi, and Moroni referred to "saints" they were not referring to people like you and me. I could only do her argument justice if I quoted from the entire book, but here is a small sample of a conclusion she makes after citing all the relevant scripture verses supporting this conclusion:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">The term, “saints” is used in several different places in the Book of Mormon, but in the narrower context of a series of prophecies which this book will examine, the term “saints” is almost without exception, linked to blood. As in, “the blood of the saints.” Therefore, it is imperative not only to know who these “saints” are, but also why their blood plays very prominently in the prophecies of destruction. </blockquote><br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">Most people in today's world tend to equate the word "saint" with bearded holy men sprouting halos as portrayed in paintings and statues. But Joseph Smith, as with most literate 19th-century Americans, knew the meaning of saint as <a href="https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/saint" target="_blank"><b>Noah Webster defined it in his 1828 edition of the Dictionary</b>.</a> That edition reflects the contemporary lexicon of Joseph Smith, the translator of the Book of Mormon, and therefore can equip modern-day readers with a more historically accurate sense of the word in question. With that in mind, according to Webster's 1828, the definition of a saint is, </blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>"A person sanctified; a holy or godly person; one eminent for piety and virtue."</i></blockquote></blockquote><br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">This definition has been lost on most Latter-day Saints as we have become used to a much broader, and hence diffused meaning which has completely crowded out the narrower, more precise meaning, the meaning the word is given when used in prophecy: a person who is sanctified, holy, pure -and most especially innocent. In view of that, it can be said with certainty that all babies, born or unborn, are <i>sanctified, holy, and pure</i> and, thus, qualified to be labeled as saints. Especially considering their <i>wholly innocent</i> state, which makes them incapable of sinning until they reach the age of accountability. This is not to say that other groups of individuals do not qualify as saints under that definition, just that babies certainly do.</blockquote><p>I wish I could do this book justice by summarizing it here but there's just no way to duplicate the methodical scriptural proofs that Amberli provides without pretty much reprinting the entire manuscript. All I can do is encourage you to read the book and and see for yourself. But having read my feeble summary I'm sure some of you may be thinking, <span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">"is the author of this book <i>sure </i>those verses are referring to unborn children?" <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> </span></span></span></p>I understand your bewilderment. If you are the typical Mormon, like me you probably skimmed over those verses all your life thinking they were talking about the ancients who identified as members of the church of Christ in the ancient world. After all, aren’t <i>you</i> a member of Christ’s church today? And doesn’t that make you a “saint” here in these latter days? After all, the full name of our church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day <i>Saints</i>, is it not? Isn’t that label -”saint”- one we would expect the scriptures to use to identify any follower of Christ? <br /><br />Well, kinda. Sorta. Maybe. But it was never used in that regard in the Book of Mormon.<div><br /></div><div>Please pardon the following digression, but after reading <i>Ripened</i> I was very interested in finding out how it was the church I was raised in misled me into believing I was an actual "latter day <i>saint</i>" simply because I was taught to call myself one. That false assumption can be laid at the lap of Brigham Young after he took over leadership of the Church. Brigham used the term "saints" as though it were synonymous and interchangeable with "members," which it most assuredly is not. If followers of Christ in book of Mormon times were saints, the Book of Mormon would have called them saints. Instead, they were known as -are you ready for this? <b>"</b><i><b>Christians."</b> </i>(<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/46?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>See for example Alma 46: 15</b>)</a><br /><br />At the risk of digressing further, here's something else I found interesting: In Alma 14 we read of a group of helpless women and children -followers of Christ- who were burned to death in front of Alma and Amulek for no other reason than cruel spite by the governing authorities. Now, if anyone deserved to be called saints, wouldn't you think it would be these hapless martyrs? In fact, right there in verse 11 we are told that the Lord had received these victims unto himself in glory <i>and</i> that the blood of these innocents would stand as a witness against their sadistic executioners at the last day, "that the judgments of God which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath shall be just." </div><div><br /></div><div>And yet, for all that, the narrative never refers to these victims as <i>saints.</i> Why do you suppose not?</div><div><br /></div><div>I'll tell you why: because even though these poor victims were ultimately received in glory, they had not been sanctified by God or made holy at any time in their lives before they were murdered. The appellation "Saint" is not a mere title; it actually means something. It designates someone who has at some point actually been sanctified by God. It should not be something we toss around like a handy label or some dandy nickname. <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Time Out!</span></div><div>Okay, right now I'm going to do something completely unprecedented. I'm going to ask you to stop reading this blog, and immediately jump over to two other sites. You can come back here later, but what I have written below is very much a digression and nowhere near as important, nor informative, nor even a tiny bit as interesting as what you'll see in the two links I provide below. If you want, you can come back and finish this blog after you have feasted on what I'm about to provide you now. So go ahead, I'll be here when you get back. </div><div><br />The first link is to the blog <b>Book of Mormon Perspectives</b>, where the proprietor has provided a much better overview of <b>#Ripened</b> than I was able to come up with here. That blog is the one you should be reading instead of this one, and I really mean that. It's the place where you will <i>really</i> find out why the book is so important. Here's the Link:<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span><i><u><span style="font-size: medium;">Book of Mormon Perspectives: <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2023/10/upon-this-land-iii-bloodstained-nation.html" target="_blank">A Blood-Stained Nation</a></span><br /></u></i></span></b><br />The second link will send you to a video of a presentation that Amberli Peterson, author of <b>#Ripened, </b>gave last month on the date her book was launched. In this clip Amberli gives a fascinating overview of the contents of her book in a way that is much, <i>much</i> more informative than I was able to provide in my brief summary above, along with a description of the journey that brought her to this day. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="autoplay; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/870108253?h=9b5df7d8de&color=ef0000&title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="640"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Okay, Time In!</span><br />Still with me? Good. Back to my wandering digression:<br /><br />I was privileged to be able to read the manuscript of Amberli Petersos's book a month ahead of publication and I was so overwhelmed by its contents that I have spent the past few weeks scouring the writings and speeches of Joseph Smith in order to learn how often he himself referred to the fledgling members of the church as saints. Guess what I found in those sources? When Joseph referred to the members in his sermons he rarely referred to them as saints, but rather tended to refer to them as "this people." On those few times when he referred to "the saints" it was not because he believed the members had attained anything approaching sainthood, but rather he spoke in the context of encouraging "this people" on how to aspire to become saints. Newly converted members did not automatically become sanctified and made holy simply by dint of joining the church and moving to Missouri. <br /><div><br /></div><div>Sanctification was a process that necessitated direct involvement by God. There were particular requirements that individuals would have to meet before "this people" found themselves worthy to become what Joseph referred to as "saints in Zion." He taught that there would indeed be a gathering place for the saints, but not until a sufficient number of them had proven worthy to be sanctified and made holy so they were eventually able to gather. <br /><br />When referencing "the saints," I noticed that Joseph usually spoke in the future tense, not so much in the status of where the people presently abided. "The saints should be a select people," he declared, "separate from all the evils of the world; choice, virtuous, and holy." He further said that the Lord "was going to make of the Church of Jesus Christ a kingdom of Priests, a holy people, a chosen generation, as in Enoch's day, having all the gifts as illustrated to the Church in Paul's epistles and teachings to the churches in his day." In this sermon and others, it is clear that God had not yet accomplished that task with this particular people.<a href="The Lord was going to make of the Church of Jesus Christ a kingdom of Priests, a holy people, a chosen generation, as in Enoch's day, having all the gifts as illustrated to the Church in Paul's epistles and teachings to the churches in his day" target="_blank">(<b>History of the Church 4:570</b>)</a>. <br /><br />By contrast, the prophet Joseph openly acknowledged that mere membership in the church does not make a person a saint. Said he, "I shall speak with authority of the Priesthood in the name of the Lord God...Notwithstanding this congregation profess to be Saints, yet I stand in the midst of all [kinds of] characters and classes of men...Yes, I am standing in the midst of all kinds of people...We have thieves among us, adulterers, liars, hypocrites...The Church must be cleansed, and I proclaim against all iniquity."<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/60708/pg60708-images.html" target="_blank">(<b>History of the Church 4:588</b>)</a> </div><div><br /></div><div>That rebuke was issued by the prophet on the 9th of April, 1942, a full twelve years since the church was founded. Does that sound to you as though the members had yet been sanctified and made holy? Joseph had two more years to live before he was violently assassinated and there is nothing to be found in our history that would indicate that the people who called themselves "saints" had ever lived up to the title. The list of requirements that would have had to be met in order for the members to be made holy centers mostly around selflessness and unconditional love toward others, qualities that existed in some of the members -Joseph comes to mind, as well as Emma and Joseph's brother Hyrum and a few others. From my reading of Mormon history there does not seem to have been many who deserved to be called saints. And, I might add, within the LDS church today there seem to be even fewer still.<br /><br />In December of 1959 I found myself entered onto the rolls of the church at eight years old never having experiencing sanctification so far as I can recall. And yet I was constantly assured that I was an actual, bona fide <i>saint</i> of the latter days, deserving to be recognized as such. More than half a century later I'm beginning to suspect I ain't no saint.<br /></div><div><br />So let's think about how close the average member of the church is to truly being sanctified today. Well, it would appear from Joseph's teachings that if it happened to you, you would know it, as Christ Himself would have done the honors face to face with you the way Joseph assures us took place with actual saints in the past. Joseph often named Enoch as a saint, as well as "Ezekiel, John, Saint Paul, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the First Born." <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/47707/pg47707-images.html" target="_blank">(<b>History of the Church 3: 380-81</b>)</a> </div><div><br /></div><div><div>It was Brigham Young and others who later constantly -and incorrectly- referred to members of the church as saints. In contrast, when Joseph referred to "the saints" it was to encourage the members to understand what was required of them before they could <i>become</i> saints. A person can't just join the church and roll out of bed next morning all holy and sanctified. <br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>So Here's How It Happened</b></span><br />Let’s take a step back and look at how it came to be that members of the Restored Church took to calling themselves “latter-day <i>Saints</i>” when the vast majority of them had never actually earned the label.<br /><br />As far back as the days of Mosiah we learn that believers were collectively known as the Church of God, or alternately, the Church of Christ. (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/46?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>Alma 46:15</b></a>) Then centuries later when Jesus appeared among the surviving Nephites, those in the land of Nephi who were baptized in the name of Jesus were again called the Church of Christ (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/1?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>2 Nephi 26:21</b>)</a>. Nowhere in the narrative are any of these members of Christ's church referred to as saints.<br /><br />It is clear that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery picked up on the name of the church as given in the Book of Mormon, because in their subsequent writings they refer to themselves as belonging to the Church of Christ, even before the church was formally organized in 1830 (which, by the way, was completely appropriate; a formal autonym was not required for one to identify as belonging to the Lord).<br /><br />A year previously, in June of 1829, Oliver Cowdery was drawing up articles for the incipient church based on what was written in the Book of Mormon and according to instructions he personally received via the revelation in<b> </b><a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/18?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>D&C 18</b>.</a> It was from what we know today as <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/26?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>3rd Nephi 26:21</b></a> that Oliver obviously took the cue for the name of the 19th century iteration of Christ’s church that he and Joseph were in the process of forming, i.e. <i>"The Church of Christ.”</i> Indeed, when the church was formally organized on April 6, 1830, the Lord acknowledged the name in a revelation to Oliver Cowdery “that thou mightest be an Elder unto this Church of Christ bearing my name.” (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/21?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>D&C 21</b></a>)</div><div><br /></div><div>There was a bit of a problem with that name, however. There already existed other denominations in America that went by the name <i>Church of Christ</i>, and no really good way for the restorationists to distinguish themselves from those protestant sects. So at an 1834 meeting of the Elders of the church in Kirtland, Sidney Rigdon proposed that the name of the church be henceforth known as “The Church of the Latter-day Saints.” That motion was formally adopted by those in attendance. <br /><br />Sidney Rigdon was keen on referring to followers of Christ as “saints” because he had been a prominent preacher in the Campbellite movement, which was a group of frontier religionists looking to find an existing church that was patterned after that of the early Christians in the century following Christ’s ascension. Rigdon was attracted to Joseph Smith’s fledgling religious society because this one seemed to fit the bill. Rigdon’s proposal for changing the name to <i>Church of the Latter Day Saints</i> made sense to his fellow Elders in the Restored church of Christ because it would distinguish the modern latter day saints from the previous saints -those being the earliest Christians who lived prior to Christianity being co-opted by the medieval Catholic church.<br /><br />There never were any revelations showing that God approved of the name change promoted by Rigdon which eliminated any reference to the Lord Himself. Had Jesus not already asked the Nephites, “how be it my church save it be called in my name?” Rigdon did not seem to have considered that question.<br /><br />It should be noted that not every member of the church approved of the name change, either; in fact many ignored it, continuing to refer to themselves as belonging to the Church of Christ or the Church of God. Decades later, David Whitmer wrote, “we obeyed His commandment, and called it the CHURCH OF CHRIST until 1834 when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to ‘the church of the latter day saints,’ dropping out the name of Christ entirely, that name which we were strictly commanded to call the church by, and which Christ by His own lips makes so plain.” (David Whitmer, <a href="https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit" target="_blank"><b>An Address To All Believers In Christ, Richmond, Mo. 1887, pg 73</b></a>)<br /><br />Eventually, in April 1838, four years after Sydney Rigdon's genius idea for a name change, Joseph was told on April 26th, 1838 in Far West Missouri, “For thus shall my Church be called in the last days, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/115?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>D&C 115:4</b></a>) And so the matter was settled. In more recent times the Corporation of the President added a hyphen between the words “latter” and “day” so they could copyright the name.<br /><br />So, you might ask, why did God seem to acquiesce to that tag at the end that reads "of latter day saints?" Well, I think he didn't really care. Our God seems willing to allow his people to make their own choices and in this case as long as the first part of the name of the church included the name of the being we worship, why should the rest of it matter? The modern LDS church is free to call themselves whatever they want, and that includes going by the longest and most awkward name of a church in all of Christendom. At any rate, Oliver Cowdery seems to have understood that "saint" could describe either a heavenly being of any description (such as perhaps an unborn child?) or be used as a helpful appendage to the name of the church of Christ when he wrote that the name was “meant to represent the people of God, either <i>those immediately dwelling with Him in glory</i>, or those on earth walking according to His commandments.” (<a href="https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/28075" target="_blank"><b>“Saints–Again,” The Evening and Morning Star, June 1834</b>,</a> [emphasis mine].)</div><div><br />In the handful of revelations in which the Lord refers to the saints, those revelations don't strike me as an affirmation, but rather a subjunctive. In other words, "sainthood" was a possibility, not an established fact, much like the way the oft quoted -and ever misunderstood- subjunctive clause in D&C 1:30 wherein the Lord is thought by some to have declared the LDS church to be "the only true and living church on the face of the earth," <a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/02/misquoting-god.html" target="_blank"><b>a false teaching that was put to bed six years ago by McKay Platt on this very forum. </b></a><br /><br />In the end I agree with the author of <b>#<i>Ripened:</i></b> all babies are quite obviously sanctified before they are sent down here to join us. So although not all saints are babies, all babies do arrive here as saints:</div><div><blockquote>"There is no question whether they can be considered 'sanctified, holy, or godly.' Indeed, it is the very reason Jesus said we must become as little children. He does not say we should merely become like a child, but as a <i>little</i> child. A little child is in the purest, most holy state imaginable. When you hold a tiny baby in your arms, you know you are holding a being who is pure, freshly arrived from heaven, a brand-new human being so completely lacking in guile that it cannot even fathom what guile is. You are looking into the eyes of a creature that is as near to an angel as possible. Indeed, you are looking into the eyes of a saint.</blockquote><p></p><blockquote>"When Noah Webster defined the word in 1828, he wasn’t just pulling the meaning out of a hat. He understood the etymology, which unfortunately too few latter-day saints do. The first century <i>saints</i> (from the Latin <i>sanctus</i>) understood it to mean that by covenanting to follow Christ, they were sanctified by His blood, made holy, more perfect; or at least purified to the degree possible for a person constantly subject to sin.</blockquote><p></p><p></p><blockquote>"Absent our being sanctified (made holy) by the Lord, which He can do if we are prepared to let Him; the appelation 'saint' is otherwise suited to describe a person who has not yet completely arrived on this earth; one who is in a perfect state from the beginning; one who has been sent from heaven and is still in the process of being formed; one not yet tainted by sin. An unborn child."</blockquote><p></p>These days when I read the Book of Mormon, my translation of choice is the one intended to go out to the Jews, the version that goes by the title <a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+stick+of+joseph+in+the+hand+of+ephraim&i=stripbooks&crid=IEGW8HDGQW70&sprefix=the+stick+of+joseph+in+the+hand+of+%2Cstripbooks%2C158&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_1_35" target="_blank"><b><i>The Stick of Joseph In The Hand of Ephraim</i></b>.</a> For those unfamiliar with this fairly recent translation, it is an English translation that has been methodically prepared by Messianic Jewish scholars so that, wherever possible, the text retains appropriate Hebraisms in place of many of the English words that gentile Americans were familiar with in the 1830 English edition but that would have been unfamiliar to Jews. I favor this "Jewish translation" for two reasons: first, my family is descended from both Judah and Ephraim, and I have long had an affinity for Judaica;<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOOldS-fDrjq_FoOLtIuEGMtIth9AgfpHqUpqUGKQHP8j2JxBrWhB73crD_WdW8yKHMswyzMDbMiUrgXFZ45D5RCgvkJHE55QYHgK-mFH68smf8JAj-klTe-pifGgv5wMWGn_o6-4eJc0lbN1zgqJliyZzTLYO7lDqFwqzb33iV7Ln1t92uSvXgP6uyluM/s436/Stick%20of%20Joseph%20in%20the%20hand%20of%20ephraim.webp" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="289" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOOldS-fDrjq_FoOLtIuEGMtIth9AgfpHqUpqUGKQHP8j2JxBrWhB73crD_WdW8yKHMswyzMDbMiUrgXFZ45D5RCgvkJHE55QYHgK-mFH68smf8JAj-klTe-pifGgv5wMWGn_o6-4eJc0lbN1zgqJliyZzTLYO7lDqFwqzb33iV7Ln1t92uSvXgP6uyluM/w213-h320/Stick%20of%20Joseph%20in%20the%20hand%20of%20ephraim.webp" width="213" /></a></div>and secondly, I just like to think the Hebrew words are a bit closer to what the Nephites would have used in scripture than the later English words which have been handed down from the King James tradition. I also like this translation because it eschews Jacobian language such as "cometh," "receiveth," "sayeth," and so on which I have always found annoying because pronouncing words like that aloud makes me feel like I'm reading in the voice of Daffy Duck.<br /><br />We don't know what the Nephite word was that Joseph Smith saw when he was translating the plates that meant "to sanctify or make holy," but the Hebrew equivalent would have been <i>k'doshim</i> which translates into English as "made holy." When I'm reading <i>The Stick of Joseph</i> I find <i>k'doshim</i> a more satisfying word than <i>saint</i>, which comes to us from the Latin sanctus (sanctified) and the Greek <i>hagios</i> (set apart, holy). Whatever Nephite word Joseph saw on the plates that Mormon had used to denote innocent unborn children, the closest English word that came to Joseph's mind was <i>saint, </i>which in the Hebrew would have been <i>K'doshim</i>. I think most etymologists might agree that <i>saint</i> is the perfect word in English to denote a sacred, holy, unborn innocent child. <br /><br />Knowing what I know now, I have to admit to being embarassed for describing myself as a <i>saint</i> all these years, whether latter-day or otherwise. Strictly speaking, except for those who have actually been sanctified, these days I feel that word should really only apply to the true holy ones: angels, newborns, and yet-to-be-borns. <br /><br />At the same time, though, weak as we are, becoming a saint remains something we should all aspire to, since the blood of Christ does have the power to sanctify us if we’ll ever get serious enough to allow it to. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b> *****</b></span></div></div></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-70765926351120893972023-08-06T13:01:00.013-07:002023-08-07T11:17:51.259-07:00A Fountain Of Filthy Water<p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLDjlW6kO8B5qbhpm5R3OEM3rLXqQmBuTN7WhUoqArg9901djJarWCAvsAWAIiCGjTFPRAPCIjs8r2p2VDI2SHtIm_3cia_8M0ih_83zS29N9CSCAdTYgU5vNkZScudcGfm5N_u4hm_V-J-jomESeaOz957j99GfVMbO0MndW1QJzVJ2yW77V_nCGa2mWM/s328/fountain%20of%20filthy%20water.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="328" data-original-width="319" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLDjlW6kO8B5qbhpm5R3OEM3rLXqQmBuTN7WhUoqArg9901djJarWCAvsAWAIiCGjTFPRAPCIjs8r2p2VDI2SHtIm_3cia_8M0ih_83zS29N9CSCAdTYgU5vNkZScudcGfm5N_u4hm_V-J-jomESeaOz957j99GfVMbO0MndW1QJzVJ2yW77V_nCGa2mWM/s320/fountain%20of%20filthy%20water.jpg" width="311" /></a></div><br /> <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/06/this-may-mark-beggining-of-end-for.html" target="_blank"><b>Previously: <i>This May Herald The Beginning Of The End For The Vaccine Scam</i></b></a><div><br /></div><div><b>Almost everything you will find on this platform has been written by me; I like to keep things in my own voice so no one else gets blamed for the things I write. <br /><br />However, I have made a few rare exceptions in past years when I have come across something someone else wrote that expresses views or provides information that I felt deserved a wider audience; usually these are things I would have written myself if I had only been a lot smarter and a much better writer. In other words, stuff that would fall into the category of "I wish I'd said that."</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>So today, with his permission, I present the transcript of a talk Denver Snuffer presented last month at the Sunstone Symposium because what he said echoes my own views precisely -he has just done a better job of articulating them than I could have. The folks at Sunstone have not yet posted the audio of the talk online, but Denver did post the printed transcript <a href="https://denversnuffer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/A-Fountain-of-Filthy-Water.pdf" target="_blank">on his website</a>. The advantage of the transcript resides in the many footnotes which not only provide sources, but also further elucidate the points brought out in the talk, which is why, even if you have already heard the talk itself, you don't want to miss having access to the footnotes. Some of them are <i>very</i> revealing.<br /><br />Now, I'll be honest here: I had a heck of a time properly transcribing the footnotes, but they are all included below, except instead of the footnote numbers being properly raised, I had to put them in bold print. So at least you won't miss them. You may find a "cleaner" copy at DenverSnuffer.com, since over there you'll find actual page numbers (just over 19 pages, if you're counting). But not to fret; everything Denver said is here as well, so you won't miss anything. Comes down to your taste in font styles, I guess.<br /><br />So, if it was so difficult for me to transfer Denver's talk from his platform onto my own, why did I go to the trouble?<br /><br />First, Denver is not in the habit of widely advertising his work. You'll find it if you look for it, but he won't hammer you with reminders on Facebook like I tend to do. Second, I think this piece is too important -not to mention incredibly interesting- not to get widely disseminated. And there's a third reason I bothered to put this here: Simply stated, there are some people who regularly check out what's new on my blog but who, for some unfathomable reason, are not interested in anything Denver Snuffer might have to say. By providing a copy of this particular talk on my platform, perhaps I can have a hand in disabusing those people of their unwarranted prejudices. This one, I venture to say, will be of interest even to those who consider themselves "Never Snuffers."</b></div><div><b><br />So, to begin:<br /></b><br /><p></p><p><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">A “Fountain of Filthy Water”
</span></b><br /><i><span style="font-size: medium;">-Presented at the Sunstone Symposium by Denver Snuffer on July 29th, 2023<br /></span></i><br />I am pleased to return to Sunstone and to see it again exists in the form we
took for granted before Covid-19. I feel more welcomed here among you
intellectuals, doubters, apostates, and seekers than I do now among the active
Latter-day Saints. Like many of you, I see gaps, contradictions and falsehoods
in the claims made by the LDS church. But I also see many gaps,
contradictions and falsehoods in the critics of the LDS church. I’m a believer
in Mormonism as Joseph Smith defined it: “One of the grand fundamental
principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”
When it comes to Mormonism, renegade apostates are often that because they
have discovered some new, unpleasant truth about the LDS church. These
disappointed former saints are not evil and do not deserve being branded as
‘apostate’—but are in reality practicing a more correct form of Mormonism by
accepting more truth.
<br /><br />The theme discussed by this year’s Symposium presenters is “(Main)Streaming
Mormonism”—an effort by the LDS church to accomplish that objective is
certainly underway. But if you define “Mormonism” as Joseph Smith did; that
is: “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth,
let it come from whence it may.” Well, then all of you who welcome the truth
are Mormons. Even if that search has alienated you from the LDS church, or
(in my case) alienated the LDS church from you. If you seek for truth then you
are companions with Joseph Smith and “Mormons” as he defined it. [More on
that later.] </p><p>As for the LDS church, the hope to mainstream their organization has resulted
in two things happening simultaneously: First, the original form of Mormonism
is being abandoned. Second, political, social, economic and moral trends of
modernity are replacing it. Considering many of the titles chosen by presenters
at this Symposium, it should be apparent to us all that the present-day LDS
church is both threadbare and foolishly attempting to put patches of new cloth
on an old garment.<b>1 </b> The ‘traditional’ believer’s voices no longer dominate LDS
meetings, conferences and lessons. </p><p><b style="font-size: small;">____________________________________</b></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>[1]</b> Compare KJV Luke 3:36 (NC Luke 4:14).</span></p><p>But this is getting ahead of the matter. I should start with another part of this story that requires me to clarify some matters about which many of you will hold very contrary views. I am not going to defend my position on foundational matters. I’ve already done that in some 38 volumes currently in print. This is an hour-long talk, so here is a list of things I believe, but won’t be
defending here:<br /></p><blockquote><p> -First, that Joseph Smith was in contact with God and used by Them to
accomplish a Divine work. </p><p>-Second, that Joseph Smith was a devoted monogamist, faithful to his
only wife, Emma. Emma had the stronger personality and better formal
education of the two.</p><p> -Third, that Joseph Smith opposed plural wivery, did what he could to
discover it and eradicate it from Nauvoo, and believed that these secret
adulterous crimes would lead to the destruction of the church. </p><p>-Fourth, that it is wise, noble and virtuous to follow Joseph Smith’s
example and counsel, and foolish to hold him in derision and attribute
wickedness (including adulterous plural wivery) to him. Ultimately, those
who believe and trust lies regarding him will have reason to mourn.<b>2</b> </p><p>-Fifth, while Joseph Smith was at the head Mormonism, it was optimistic,
utopian, revolutionary and innovative. It was intent on reshaping the
world into a better, more egalitarian place.<b>3 </b></p></blockquote><blockquote><p>-Finally, Joseph Smith was not understood by the majority of those
living in Nauvoo during his lifetime.<b>4</b> Once Brigham Young ascended to
control over the LDS faithful, he implemented a different (although
arguably still utopian) form of Mormonism than what Joseph Smith and
God intended to accomplish with the restoration. </p></blockquote><p>_______________________________________ </p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2</b> “The ends of the earth shall inquire after your name, and fools shall have you in derision, and hell
shall rage against you, while the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous shall seek
counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under your hand. And your people shall never
be turned against you by the testimony of traitors, and although their influence shall cast you into
trouble, and into bars and walls, you shall be had in honor. And but for a small moment, and your
voice shall be more terrible in the midst of your enemies than the fierce lion, because of your
righteousness, and your God shall stand by you for ever and ever.” (Letter from Liberty Jail, found in
D&C 122:1-4; and T&C 139:7.) </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3 </b>As part of his presidential platform Joseph Smith proposed selling public lands to raise the money
to purchase slaves and free them from slavery. Had this been the course followed by the United
States the Civil War would have likely been averted, and the south would not have been bankrupt
from the emancipation of slaves. Capital would have allowed former slaves to be employed and paid,
making ‘share-cropping’ and the ensuing impoverishment of freed black manual laborers a chapter of
our history that never happened. The Civil War legacy led to carpetbaggers from the North
exploiting the impoverished South. Query whether the “War on Poverty” in the 1960s would have
been needed if freed African slaves could have been gainfully employed following their emancipation.
The Bureau of Land Management might not exist now, or would control far less Federal land. We
just do not know how great a price the United States has paid for rejecting Joseph Smith. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4</b> As Joseph said to the Nauvoo crowd during the King Follett Sermon on April 7, 1844: “You don't
know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never
undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history If I had not experienced what I
have, I could not have believed it myself.”</span></p><p>Joseph was constantly adding to the breadth, depth and width of a religion he
understood to have been both ancient and lost. He claimed to be a restorer, not
an innovator. When the text of Genesis says that man was formed “in the image
of God, male and female…” it only hinted at the truth Joseph would add about
mankind: “You have to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and be kings and
priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going
from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one:
from grace to grace from exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the
resurrection of the dead.”<b>5</b> Joseph taught we have not only God’s “image” but
also Their potential. Joseph held a much more elevated view of mankind than
did Christianity of the 1800s.</p><p>I prefer the optimistic, self-confident, revolutionary Mormonism of Joseph
Smith over the devolving form it has since assumed. The deformities have
multiplied and it now is lurching forward toward an unrecognizably abominable
form.<b>6</b></p><p>LDS Mormonism has not seen such radical changes as Russell Nelson’s since
Brigham Young’s reign. At one point Brigham Young’s agenda brought Utah’s
Mormonism into a violent, downward spiral that the US Army was sent to
dethrone him as governor. President Young hoped to employ Native
Americans as the “battle axe of the Lord,” but that came to nothing. A few
years later the Blackhawk War from 1865 to 1872 proved that ‘battle axe’ was
the Lord’s, and He wielded it against the Mormons rather than the gentiles.
Brigham Young did not take the hint when removed as Governor, and he
ignored the slap when the Natives made war against the Mormons. Likewise,
Nelson is ignoring the tremendous outflow of disaffected LDS now underway.
Instead of radically adopting bad ideas, the LDS church should just be truthful. </p><p>Truth need not destroy faith in God, in Joseph Smith, or in Mormonism. Once
the varnish is removed, keep digging and remove the veneer also. What you will
find is that the LDS church has warped even Joseph Smith as part of their false
narrative. There is sturdy lumber lying beneath the marketing veneer of
corporate LDS-ism. </p><p>_______________________________________</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>5</b> King Follett Sermon, April 7, 1844. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>6</b> The term “abomination” is defined in the Glossary of the Restoration Scriptures edition as: “The
use of religion to suppress truth or impose a false form of truth. It involves the religious justification
of wrongdoing. That is, something becomes abominable when it is motivated out of a false form of
religious observance or is justified because of religious error.” I use it in that sense.</span></p><p>There is a vast library supporting institutional LDS historical claims. The LDS
church has always been prolific-propagandists, whose effort to claim historical
support for themselves has been enthusiastic and overeager. It was, after all,
the saints who threatened to “exterminate” the Missourians first, but church
apologists have preserved that memory only in the form of a cruel order by
Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs. He was only a reactionary. </p><p>There were LDS apostles who strayed into bigamy and ‘spiritual wifeism’ in
England years before it became something they attributed to Joseph Smith.<b>7</b> The LDS reliance on William Clayton’s Journal is misplaced.<b>8</b></p><p>The Church History Library withholds many original resource materials,
including contemporary journals, diaries and letters from the public. Interesting
materials are becoming increasingly available that provide a valuable peek inside
censored, authentic LDS history.<b>9</b></p><p>Woodruff’s Official Declaration 1 was a lie, and the “Manifesto” was only to
mislead the ‘gentiles’ long enough to get statehood for Utah. The document
remains part of the LDS scripture canon as if it were an authentic renunciation
of plural marriage.</p><p>There is another library, not quite so prolific, written by LDS naysayers. They,
too, have been enthusiastic if not overeager. After reading both libraries, I’ve
reached the conclusion that both overstate their cases and wind up distorting who and what Joseph Smith was. As a result, I do not fit into the LDS church
and they properly excommunicated me. As they define “apostasy” I did that. I
apostasied. They have every right to define the terms for continuing
membership in their religious club, and I violated their terms. However, I do
not hold a virulent view of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, or whether
God was up to something beginning in the early 1820s. I believe that
something resulted in an inspired renewal of God’s commitment to help
mankind. For that reason many of you also have strong disagreement with me.</p><p>_________________________________________</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>7. </b>Brigham Young, Williard Richards and Wilford Woodruff said they got a “testimony” of plural
wives while missionaries in England. The origin of polygamy is far more likely from the Cochranites
of Saco, Main. Jacob Cochran thought “seven women shall take hold of one man” authorized sexual
license, and he disregarded traditional marriage as unnecessary. Nine of the twelve LDS apostles
served missions among these people. This, however, is beyond the scope of this talk.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>8.</b> For example, one critical passage originally read: “Gave instructions to try those persons who were
preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; no man shall have but one wife
at a time.” But was edited to instead read: “Gave instructions to try those persons who were
preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; <b>for, according to the
law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never
but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred
and I have constantly said</b> no man shall have but one wife at a time, <b>unless the Lord
directs otherwise.”</b> The edited version has been used by the LDS church without disclosing
these edited insertions, until the <i>Joseph Smith Papers</i> project disclosed a facsimile of the original.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>9.</b> See, e.g., <i>A Ministry of Meetings: The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson,</i> Signature Books in association
with Smith Research Associates, Salt Lake City 1993; <i>Candid Insights of a Mormon Apostle: The Diaries of
Abraham H. Cannon</i>,<i> 1889-1895,</i> Signature Books in association with Smith-Pettit Foundation, Salt
Lake City 2010; <i>In the President’s Office: The Diaries of L. John Nuttall, 1879-1892,</i> Signature Books in
association with Smith-Pettit Foundation, Salt Lake City 2007, among others.</span></p><p>I doubt anything I have to say will be welcome on either side of the ‘pro vs.
con’ LDS divide. But at least my voice is heard and even welcomed here.
Sunstone is still a valuable meeting ground for Mormons of every stripe.</p><p>As LDS Mormonism undergoes another metamorphosis, one question I think
should be asked is, ‘what is the role of religion’ any religion, in any society, at
any time in history—what role does it serve? To me the answer is to preserve
proven or traditional values, to stabilize society against rapid and often
disruptive change. Religion impedes new ideas from diverting society into a
potentially unwise detour from traditions that have provided stability.
Correspondingly, the greatest criticism of religion is that it interferes with
adopting fashionable, new ideas. It is inevitable that when “old flattop” comes
“grooving up slowly” with “hair down to his knees”<b>10</b> he challenges the status
quo, and provokes a chorus of churchgoing criticism.</p><p> “Changes” require you to “turn and face the strange,”<b>11</b> often leading to an
uncertain, unpredictable outcome. The voices urging change offend the
religions, all religions, because they oppose social stasis. A good lyricist has put
the matter both clearly and persuasively:</p><p> Come mothers and fathers throughout all the land</p><p> And don’t criticize what you can’t understand</p><p> Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command</p><p> Your old road is rapidly aging</p><p> Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand</p><p> For the times, they are a-changin’
<b>12</b></p><p><b>__________________________________________</b></p><p><b>10. </b><i>Come Together</i> by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. </p><p><b>11.</b> <i>Changes</i> by David Bowie. </p><p><b>12.</b> <i>The Times They are a-Changin'</i> by Bob Dylan.</p><p>Because LDS Mormonism is teetering on this brink, the Sunstone Symposium
this year is timely. It comes when most of you are cheering on this current metamorphosis of LDS Mormonism. LDS leaders have made more changes
since Russell M. Nelson ascended to the top than at any other time, excepting only
Brigham Young. Nelson embraces change, even advising his followers to “eat
their vitamins”<b>13</b> so they can keep up with his aggressive agenda. His wife,
Wendy Nelson, said his elevation would now “unleash” the changes he always
aspired to adopt.<b>14</b></p><p>All the recent LDS policy changes tell us where the leadership’s hearts lie: The
church longs to be far more “woke”<b>15</b> and popular, urging its adherents to prize
a “living prophet” and neglect the dead ones. Dead ones said things unsuitable
(or at least very uncomfortable) in the Brave New World where LDS
Mormonism awakens. And so we have Elder Haynie of the first quorum of the
seventy, telling the LDS faithful in General Conference, “unlike vintage comic
books and classic cars, prophetic teachings do not become more valuable with
age.” Elder Haynie added, “we should not seek to use the words of past
prophets to dismiss the teachings of the living prophets.”<b>16</b> That turns things
onto its head but will be necessary because LDS “living prophets” contradict
and ignore past prophets and even scripture.</p><p>Even the vocabulary of “living prophets” was an innovation during the
presidency of David O. McKay. Before then, the LDS leader was called
“President” and not “Prophet.” Opinion polling showed that LDS members
responded more readily when the word “Prophet” was used, and therefore it
got adopted in February 1955 by the LDS Deseret News and has continued in
use ever since.<b>17</b> Query whether now an ‘LDS Prophet’ could implement female
ordination by fiat—or if past teachings would prohibit such a change? It probably comes down to when Baby Boomer tithepayers will poll in favor of
making the change.<b>18</b></p><p><b>________________________________________</b></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>13.</b> “If you think the Church has been fully restored, you're just seeing the beginning. There is much
more to come. … Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest.
It's going to be exciting.” LDS Newsroom, 2018, <i>How Did the Church Change This Year?</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>14.</b> “I have seen him changing in the last ten months,” said Sister Nelson. “It is as though he's been
unleashed. He's free to finally do what he came to earth to do. … And also, he's free to follow
through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the
Church], he can do those things.” LDS Newsroom, 30 October 2018, <i>Latter-day Saint Prophet, Wife
and Apostle Share Insights of Global Ministry.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>15.</b> The term originated in the US black population and was adopted in general use following the Black
Lives Matter movement in 2014. The <b>Mirriam-Webster Dictionary</b> now defines it as a slang word
meaning: “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of
racial and social justice).”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>16.</b> <i> A Living Prophet for the Latter Days,</i> Elder Allen D. Haynie, LDS General Conference talk, April
2023 General Conference talk.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>17.</b> See D. Michel Quinn, <i>Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power,</i> Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1997,
p. 363. For an extended discussion of the matter see my book, <i>Passing the Heavenly Gift,</i> Salt Lake City,
Mill Creek Press, 2011, chapter 13, <i>Correlation: Controlling and Curtailing,</i> pp. 347-375.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>18. </b>See, e.g., Jeffrey Holland’s October 2006 LDS General Conference talk, <i>Prophets in the Land Again
</i>in which he refers to their focus group testing and opinion polling with these words: “I testify that
the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think
tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth.”</span></p><p>The Community of Christ has ordained women since 1984, and today five of
their twelve apostles are women. The LDS organization appears, from the
symptoms of recent behavior, to look with envy on that achievement. The
overtures are there: Russell Ballard’s May 1, 2015 talk at BYU (<i>The Essential Role
of Women</i>) mentioning how women have been allowed to weigh in on church
councils, from wards to the highest levels of church administration. Then
rewriting the temple endowment to put Eve into direct rather, than indirect,
contact with Elohim. The LDS patriarchy glacier clearly wants to melt and run
rapidly downhill, freed from the icy prison of its past. Homosexuality is no
longer grounds for excommunication.<b>19 </b>Some homosexuals serve in local
leadership positions.<b>20</b></p><p>In a gesture that was likely intended to keep more traditional Baby Boomer
believers to ‘hold fast’, Dallin H. Oaks spoke to the LDS youth in May 2023.
His talk was reported by Peggy Fletcher Stack on May 21, 2023. She reported
his talk included this advice: </p><p></p><blockquote><p>“Marriage is central to the purpose of mortal life and what
follows,” said Oaks. “We are children of a loving Heavenly Father
who created us with the capacity to follow his commandment to
multiply and replenish the earth.”</p><p>The power of creation is “one of the most precious gifts
we have in mortal life,” he said, but “central to that gift is the law
of chastity, the commandment that our powers of procreation be
expressed only within marriage between a man and a woman.”</p></blockquote><p></p><blockquote> Delaying childbearing, he said, “means fewer children born to grow up with the blessings of the gospel.”<b>21</b></blockquote><p></p><p>_______________________________________ </p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>19.</b> See, e.g., Russell Ballard’s talk, <i>The Lord Needs You Now!</i> “Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for
many people. The attraction itself is not a sin but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not
choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and
understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex
attraction]’” (<i>Ensign</i>, Sept. 2015, 29), quoted on the LDS website
(<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/individuals?lang=eng">https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/individuals?lang=eng</a>) in the answer to the
question “Is feeling same-sex attraction a sin?”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <b>20.</b> See, e.g., <a href="https://religiondispatches.org/openly-gay-mormon-appointed-to-lds-church-leadershipposition/">https://religiondispatches.org/openly-gay-mormon-appointed-to-lds-church-leadershipposition/</a> which discusses the call of a gay man to serve as ward executive secretary in a San
Francisco congregation.</span></p></blockquote><p><b></b></p><blockquote><p><b> 21.</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <i>Stop delaying marriage and start having kids</i>, <i>Dallin Oaks urges Latter-day Saints,</i> report of Peggy Fletcher
Stack in Salt Lake Tibune on the youth fireside talk by Dallin H. Oaks.</span></p></blockquote><p>There’s more than a little common sense to that advice. Catholicism has
lasted for two millennia in part because, although its clergy is celibate, its
members are traditionally quite fecund. Catholic teachings oppose abortion
and birth control, and emphasize having large families. The result is that over
the generations, Catholic membership numbers exceed 1 billion.</p><p>The one thing that almost all varieties of homosexuality fail to produce is
children. Homosexuality does not result in pregnancy and/or children.
Transsexuals do not reproduce. It will take only one generation of such sexual
non-productivity to “leave them neither root nor branch.”<b>22</b> Those Biblical
words are genealogical terms, and in context mean without descendants or
posterity. It is not a matter of ‘go woke, go broke’ but instead a matter of
‘empty wombs leaves only tombs.’ Any church, including the LDS, which
wants to survive the next century, will need a birth-rate well above the mortality
rate.</p><p>The theme that worldly popularity is antithetical to godliness appears early in
the Book of Mormon. Lehi saw but failed to notice, and Nephi both noticed
and described the meaning of filthy water:</p><p></p><blockquote> And the angel spake unto me, saying, Behold the fountain of
filthy water which thy father saw, yea, even the river of which he
spake; and the depths thereof are the depths of hell. And the
mists of darkness are the temptations of the Devil which blindeth
the eyes and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men and
leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost.
And the large and spacious building which thy father saw is vain
imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great
and a terrible gulf divideth them, yea, even the sword of the
justice of the Eternal God and Messiah who is the Lamb of God.
(1 Ne. 3:17.)</blockquote><p></p><p>Broad roads and large, spacious buildings are symbols of worldly success,
acceptance, popularity and vanity. Pretty much what we get in the values advocated by mass media, entertainment, current fashion and now well
represented in opinion polling among those aged 18-35.</p><p>____________________________________</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>22.</b> OC-Malachi 1:10; NC-3 Ne. 11:4; T&C 58:8.</span></p><p>In contrast, as Joseph Smith taught, there is a narrow pathway that runs
contrariwise and is to be preferred:</p><p></p><blockquote> [I]f one man cannot understand these things but by the spirit of
God, ten thousand men cannot. It is alike out of the reach of the
wisdom of the learned, the tongue of the eloquent, the power of
the mighty. And we shall at last have to come to this conclusion,
whatever we may think of revelation, that without it we can
neither know nor understand anything of God, or the Devil; and
however unwilling the world may be to acknowledge this
principle, it is evident from the multifarious creeds and notions
concerning this matter that they understand nothing of this
principle, and it is equally as plain that without a divine
communication they must remain in ignorance. The world always
mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of
God they considered to be false prophets, and hence they killed,
stoned, punished, and imprisoned the true prophets, and they had
to hide themselves in <i>deserts, and dens, and caves of the earth</i>, and
though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them
from their society as vagabonds, while they cherished, honored,
and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the
basest of men. (T&C 147:6, italics in original.)</blockquote><p></p><p> Joseph Smith was killed by the conspiracy of adulterous insiders, jealous
politicians, and mobs motivated by lies. They did not understand him or know
what he stood for. The LDS church today has essentially adopted those same
slanderous lies as their version of his biography. And many of you think him to
have been a pedophile and a liar. I disagree. In 1829 God predicted there would
be these opposing views:</p><p></p><blockquote>The ends of the earth shall inquire after your name, and fools
shall have you in derision, and hell shall rage against you, while the
pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous shall
seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under
your hand. And your people shall never be turned against you by
the testimony of traitors, and although their influence shall cast
you into trouble, and into bars and walls, you shall be had in
honor. (D&C 122:1-3; T&C 139:7.)</blockquote><p></p><p>I hold Joseph in high regard, believing he was a much greater spiritual presence
than what he claimed publicly—meaning he understated his visionary calling
and mission. He was a friend of heaven, and that alone vouches for his
character. I think I understand what heaven requires of a prophet. The
caricature believed to be Joseph Smith by the LDS church and many of those
attending this Symposium is not a fair representation of what is required to
have the heavens opened.<b>23</b> God does not entrust salvation of the souls of men
to the self-indulgent and sexually promiscuous.</p><p>Mormonism today seems to agree with one of the anti-Christ characters of the
Book of Mormon. It was Nehor whose message was:</p><p></p><blockquote>“preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God,
bearing down against the church, declaring unto the people that
every priest and teacher ought to become popular and they ought
not to labor with their own hands, but that they ought to be
supported by the people. And he also testified unto the people
that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they
need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads
and rejoice, for the Lord had created all men and had also
redeemed all men; and in the end, all men should have eternal
life.” (Alma 1:1.)</blockquote><p></p><p>The religion of Nehor is not only practiced by the LDS church, but also by
many of that church’s opponents. The many podcasts, websites and ministries
that are anti-LDS hope to be popular and supported financially by their
audience. In a sense they are part of broadening mainstream Mormonism by
the practice of anti-Mormonism. They contribute by advocating either the
futility of salvation in the afterlife, or that salvation is generally available
without any need to accept or acknowledge Joseph Smith’s contribution to
God’s work of saving us. “Mormonism” has therefore become an inadvertent
broad tent, being practiced even by everyone attending this Symposium. </p><p>________________________________________</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>23.</b> The established criteria is set out in scripture: “Verily thus says the Lord: It shall come to pass that
every soul who forsakes their sins, and comes unto me, and calls on my name, and obeys my voice,
and keeps all my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am, and that I am the true light
that lights every man who comes into the world, and that I am in the Father and the Father in me,
and the Father and I are one — the Father because he gave me of his fullness, and the Son because I
was in the world, and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.” D&C 93:1-4;
T&C 93:1.</span></p><p></p><p>Sincere Nehorists are preaching, teaching and crying “Lo here! And Lo there!”
inside these turbulent LDS competitors’ competition for consideration.</p><p> Any attempt to be part of a mainstream of thought is denounced in the Book
of Mormon. If there is a “truth” to be valued, then whether it is popular or not
the Book of Mormon prefers we follow that truth without regard to the
opinion of others:<br /></p><blockquote>For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built
up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over
the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the
eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and
the things of the world and to do all manner of iniquity — yea, in
fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the Devil — are they
who need fear, and tremble, and quake. They are those who must
be brought low in the dust, they are those who must be consumed
as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet. (1
Ne. 7:5.)</blockquote><p></p><p>Following truth in a lifelong quest to discover more light and truth rewards the
seeker. Popularity invariably pulls away from enlightenment and toward
decadence. “The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth.”<b>24</b> </p><p>_____________________________________</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>24.</b> Attributed to Laozi (Lao Tzu), who was an ancient Chinese Taoist philosopher believed to have
lived in the 6th Century BC.</span></p><p>Then there is this:</p><p></p><blockquote>Behold, the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and
the fine twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots
are the desires of this great and abominable church. And also for
the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God and
bring them down into captivity. (1 Ne. 3:19.)</blockquote><p></p><p>There is a lot of money in religion. The charitable impulse produces a great
deal. Gold, silver, silk and harlots are often where tithes and offerings wind up
among successful religious organizations. That is why today we have been
taught by the Lord to not gather tithes, but to distribute them locally and
immediately within fellowships to those with needs. Those needs include food, clothing, housing, transportation, education and medical needs. This precludes
the need for any Ensign Peak Advisors.<b>25</b></p><p><b>___________________________________________________</b></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>25.</b> This non-profit organization controls over $38 billion in an investment portfolio for the LDS
church and has been fined $1 million for dishonesty about its affairs. See the SEC release dated
February 21, 2023 titled: <i>SEC Charges The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Its Investment
Management Company for Disclosure Failures and Misstated Filings</i>, available at:
<a href="https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-35">https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-35</a></span></p><p>What about those “harlots” that creep in at the end of that list? How far does
that word extend? Are drag-queens contemplated as part of the harlotry?
Transvestites? Is the effort to popularize sexual dysphoria through such
institutionalized events as “Pride Month” included as “harlotry?” Can we
accept and welcome such conduct while adding “sin no more” tolerance, or
something else? If there were to be homosexuals in the final, actual City called
by the Lord ‘Zion,’ would they ignite in flames when the Lord appears in His
glory? What thoughts expand as we contemplate the “harlots” that are the
desires of this great and abominable church? Can we ever discuss the matter
without fear and loathing? Or are we doomed to damning one another because
we are too immature and foolish to talk honestly and candidly with one
another?</p><p>Frequently sexual dysphoria has an underlying traumatic cause.<b>26</b> Many
personality disorders are likewise the result of unresolved trauma.<b>27 </b>Certainly
the Bible and Book of Mormon have many triggering words. Religion can also
be the source of well-intentioned abuse. And good intentions alone cannot
repair the scars inflicted.</p><p>_______________________________________</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>26.</b> See, e.g., Colizzi M, Costa R, Todarello O. <i>Dissociative symptoms in individuals with gender dysphoria: is the
elevated prevalence real?</i> Psychiatry Res. 2015 Mar 30;226(1):173-80. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.12.045.
Epub 2015 Jan 23. PMID: 25656174; also sources cited there. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>27.</b> See, e.g., Lisa Firestone, PhD, <i>Dealing with Unresolved Trauma,</i> Psychology Today, March 2018,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/compassion-matters/201803/dealing-unresolvedtrauma</span></p><p>The anti-Mormons are often as abusive in their approach as the LDS church
they oppose. Benjamin Franklin said: “Half a truth is often a great lie.” When
the search extends only far enough to discover a justified criticism, the search
ought not end. Whatever your conclusion is about Mormonism, you are
probably wrong. Even the claim you are thinking for yourself is vain, as
Kathryn Schulz explained in her landmark book, <i>Being Wrong: Adventures in the
Margin of Error:</i></p><p></p><blockquote>Thinking for oneself is, beyond a doubt, a laudable goal. But there
are three problems with the idea that it is a good way to ward off
error. The first is that the glorification of independent thought
can easily become a refuge for holders of utterly oddball beliefs.
You can dismiss any quantity of informed and intelligent
adversaries if you chose to regard them as victims of a collective,
crowd-driven madness, while casting yourself as the lone voice of
truth. The second problem is (as we have seen), our own direct
observations and experiences are not necessarily more trustworthy
than secondhand knowledge. …
The last and most significant problem with the idea that we
should always think for ourselves is that, bluntly put, we can’t.
Every one of us is profoundly dependent on other people’s
minds—so profoundly that if we took seriously the charge to
think for ourselves, we would have to relinquish our faith in the
vast majority of the things we think we know. In his Confessions,
Augustine wrote that,</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote> I began to realize that I believed countless things which I
had never seen or which had taken place when I was not
there to see—so many events in the history of the world,
so many facts about places and towns which I had never
seen, and so much that I believed on the word of friends
or doctors or various other people. Unless we took these
things on trust, we should accomplish absolutely nothing
in this life.<b>28</b></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>___________________________________________ </p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>28.</b> <i>Kathryn Schulz, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error,</i> New York City, Harper Collins, 2010,
pp. 139-140</span></p><p>This explanation of the problem of proof, knowledge, and thinking for yourself
reminds me of the Second Lecture on Faith. But that is beyond the scope of
this talk.</p><p>Today the Lord has provided a way to practice Mormonism without the risk of
being subjugated to an insecure, insular hierarchy. Hierarchies eventually
succumb to the temptation to make the institution itself “God.” Today we are
asked to fellowship independently, joining together in our homes without brick
and mortar facilities. It is one small precaution against priestcrafts, which
always replace priesthood in hierarchical religions. They are described in the
Book of Mormon:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for behold,
priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light
unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world, but
they seek not the welfare of Zion. Behold, the Lord hath
forbidden this thing; (2 Ne. 11:17.)</p></blockquote><p>It may be forbidden by God, but priestcraft is the inexorable result of a
stratified body of believers where power and influence are concentrated in an
office. The LDS church was doomed to apostasy as soon as Joseph and Hyrum
were killed because offices of “President” and “Patriarch” could be occupied
by anyone. There was no need to wait for God to choose a suitable occupant.
A vote by common consent was considered enough to put a person in the
office. Over time the ill-defined concept of “keys” took center stage. Now,
even common consent is irrelevant because the “keys” (whatever you conceive
them to be) are held by the leader. Therefore the hierarchy feels comfortable
teaching that there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done
his work, and he hath given his power unto men. If you want salvation,
hearken ye unto my precept. The bloated, distended, swollen, but altogether ill-defined idol of “keys” has replaced the unknowable God described in the
Athanasian Creed.<b>29</b></p><p>Mormonism is no longer interested in gathering together believers to establish
a city of peace. Instead it is gathering together funds for a ‘rainy day’ and for
the payroll needs of far-flung interests of the institution. </p><p></p><blockquote><p>And behold, instead of gathering you, except ye will repent,
behold, he shall scatter you forth that ye shall become meat for
dogs and wild beasts. Oh how could you have forgotten your God
in the very day that he has delivered you? But behold, it is to get
gain, to be praised of men, yea, and that ye might get gold and
silver. And ye have set your hearts upon the riches and the vain
things of this world, for the which ye do murder, and plunder, and
steal, and bear false witness against your neighbor, and do all manner of iniquity; and for this cause, woe shall come unto you
except ye shall repent. (Hel. 3:4.) </p></blockquote><p>_______________________________________________________ </p><p><b></b></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>29. </b>The Creed was attributed to Athanasius (298-373 A.D.), Archbishop of Alexandria, however was
likely not written by him. The Creed includes the words, “Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and
such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The
Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.”
Similarly, the term “keys” used by the LDS church has vague, but prolific, lip-service given in
General Conference talks. In the end, it comes down to the right to exercise control and dominion
over the church membership.</span></p></blockquote><p>It becomes apparent that the Book of Mormon unequivocally denounces the
LDS church and her daughters. Despite what those who attend Sunstone or
post on the exMormon Reddit forum, to listen to Mormon Stories or Radio
Free Mormon, watch Shawn McCraney think of themselves, they are all
daughters of the LDS church every bit as much as the FLDS and Apostolic
United Brethren. Mormonism controls their content. It makes little difference
they are pro or con, they are still part of today’s Mormonism. They are all
comfortably situated in a ‘broad mainstream’ into which the LDS church’s
gradualism has been, and is, proceeding. </p><p>Joseph Smith hoped to welcome all into a friendly brotherhood of mixed faiths
peacefully co-existing. “Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the
Baptists, Methodists, &c., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with
error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and
treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'”<b>30</b> It was truth, not
sectarianism that mattered to him: “One of the grand fundamental principles of
Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” In that same
spirit, would Joseph Smith been willing to likewise acknowledge, “Has John
Dehlin any truth?” and answer, “Yes.” And would Joseph ask, “have RFM,
exMormon Reddit, or Shawn McCraney any truth?” and admit likewise, “Yes.”</p><p>______________________________________________________</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b> 30.</b> History of the Church, 5:517 (23 July 1843). </span> </p><p>Brigham Young twisted big-idea, broadminded Mormonism. He instituted an
integrated patriarchal and polygamous society that employed threats,
intimidation and murder to reign with blood and horror<b>31</b> in his Telestial
Kingdom. I spoke about that in a previous Sunstone Symposium<b>32</b> and will not
address that again here. Young’s leadership viewed outsiders or non-Mormons
with disdain as though they threatened his kingship. His fiery rhetoric helped
inspire the Mountain Meadows Massacre. While employed as LDS Church
Historian, Richard Turley acknowledged, “tough talk about blood atonement
and dissenters must have helped create a climate of violence in the territory,
especially among those who chose to take license from it.”<b>33</b> That would be the
apologist’s view, but more candor would admit that Stake President Isaac C.
Haight and other LDS leadership organized and executed the slaughter at
Mountain Meadows, even holding a prayer circle prior to the killing.<b>34</b></p><p><b>______________________________________</b></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>30.</b> History of the Church, 5:517 (23 July 1843). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>31.</b> As part of the Mormon Reformation, the “Home Missionary Program” was instituted to intimidate
the isolated saints. They were subjected to an inquisition to determine whether they were guilty of
sins worthy of shedding their own blood under Young’s doctrine of “blood atonement.” The first
four questions posed to church members were: “Have you committed murder, by shedding innocent
blood, or consenting thereto? Have you betrayed your brethren or sisters in anything? Have you
committed adultery, by having any connection with a woman that was not your wife or a man that
was not your husband? Have you taken and made use of property not your own, without the
consent of the owner?” For a complete list see Paul H. Peterson, <i>The Mormon Reformation of 1856-
1857: The Rhetoric and the Reality,</i> Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 15, 1989, p. 59, p. 70. Brigham
Young’s Reformation included a twenty-seven question interrogation put to all the saints by
inquisitorial Home Missionaries. These questions asked about issues such as “betraying your brothers
or sisters,” committing adultery or shedding innocent blood. These three sins were grounds for
blood atonement. The questions were designed to bring into the homes of every resident of the
kingdom the reality that their unfaithfulness may not be tolerated by the kingdom.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>32.</b> In the 2012 Sunstone Symposium I read an abridged paper titled <i>Brigham Young’s Telestial Kingdom,</i>
which was subsequently published with two other papers in the book <i>Essays: Three Degrees.</i> That paper
is available on my website denversnuffer.com to download.</span> </p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>33.</b> Ronald Walker, Richard Turley Jr., and Glen Leonard, <i>Massacre at Mountain Meadows: An American
Tragedy.</i> (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008), p. 25-27.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>34.</b> Before executing their plan, “The men sat in a circle off by themselves and began by praying for
‘Divine guidance,’ a sacrilege that only the passions of the time could explain.” <i>Id</i>., pp. 187, 189. </span> </p><p>Wilford Woodruff wanted to keep the polygamous practices in place but tried
to hide it from public view to get statehood. Congress, the President and the
US Supreme Court would not be placated, and when the Edmunds-Tucker Act
passed in 1887 both the church and its Perpetual Emigrating Fund were disincorporated. Woodruff yielded and by September 24, 1890, President
Woodruff knew the U.S. Supreme Court had found the federal campaign
against Mormonism to be constitutional. The church’s property was forfeited,
trustees had acquired title, and criminal prosecution for bigamy was lawful. In
the face of that pressure, the “Manifesto” was issued pretending the practice of
plural marriage was over.<b>35</b> It was a lie. The Manifesto was written by church
lawyers in response to the Utah Commission’s finding that plural marriages
were continuing in Utah even after the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Woodruff’s Manifesto denies the report. Later in 1890, when the abandonment
of polygamy made statehood at last possible, Mormonism reached a point of
“abandonment of its violent culture and the beginning of its selective memory
of a turbulent past.”<b>36</b> Polygamy continued, but went underground.</p><p>________________________________________</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>35.</b> It constitutes Official Declaration 1 in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>36.</b> D. Michael Quinn, <i>Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power,</i> (Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1997),
pp. 260-61. </span></p><p>From 1903 to 1907 the US Senate debated whether to seat Reed Smoot as a
member of the Senate. This was before Senators were popularly elected, and he
had been appointed by the LDS church-dominated legislature. During the Reed
Smoot Senate Confirmation Hearings, LDS President Joseph F. Smith testified under oath that the practice of polygamy had ended. Apparently, shortly after
that testimony, he took the step to officially end it and submit to US rule. That
change of direction was not merely submission to the government, but
Mormons changed culturally as well. The ambition to create an independent
kingdom turned to dust, and uber-Americanism became the new order of
things. Baseball, apple pie, Boy Scouts, pledges of allegiance, and hopeful
conformity into the American ideal was progressively how Mormonism
projected itself into the Twentieth-century. It worked. </p><p>Gordon B. Hinckley helped accelerate this assimilation using public relations
tools. Opinion polling and focus group testing informed LDS programs,
messages and even temple changes. Social science tools became the new form
of ‘revelation’ as the institution adopted social studies and marketing tools in
the quest for popular acceptance.</p><p>The unsteady course that the LDS church has followed over their history
resulted in a compromised, untenable message now that alienates everyone on
one issue or another. The message is as frayed and discordant as this:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>-Homosexuality is evil and God destroyed Sodom because of its
wickedness </p><p>-BUT, children are innocent before God </p><p>-HOWEVER, children raised by homosexual parents cannot be
baptized because of the malevolent influence of the parents until
after they leave home at 18 </p><p>-EXCEPT, we’ve changed our mind now that we think about the
unaccountability of children for the sins of their parents </p><p>-AND, now that we think about it, everyone has sexual fantasies,
so if you're queer and only fantasize then you’re not unlike the
typical Elders Quorum President who fantasizes about women he
can add to his harem in the afterlife because of D&C 132 <b>37</b> </p><p>-SO, we’re tolerant and accepting of everyone, and love queers,
but don’t approve of their behavior; ‘cuz God destroyed Sodom
after all…
OR, as discordant as: </p><p>-We teach that Joseph Smith lied about multiple wives </p><p>-We lied when we said publicly that we abandoned the practice</p></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p> -SO, we are just like Joseph Smith when we lie about multiple
wives </p><p>-AND, we’ve added it to our scriptures (even though it was a lie) </p><p>-BUT, we really now do want to stop that excess wivery thing so
Joseph F. will mail out a letter (and it’s not scripture), </p><p>-AND SO, now ‘all we have to do is take these lies and make
them true’
<b>38</b> </p><p>-THEREFORE, D&C 132 authorizing plural wives, and OD1
ending it will both remain LDS scriptures…
-BECAUSE we are just like Joseph Smith when we lie about stuff;
and that is how ‘modern prophets’ always act…</p></blockquote><p>_____________________________________ </p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <b>37.</b> The tragic legacy of polygamy lingers in LDS minds. See Carol Lynn Pearson’s The Ghost of Eternal
Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men, Pivot Point Books (July 12, 2016). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <b>38.</b> 38 See, George Michael, Freedom (lyrics) Columbia Records, October 1990. </span></p><p>I’m trying to understand their position and I think that represents a fair
retelling of it. Maybe not, but I’ve tried to pay attention and I’m not
deliberately mischaracterizing their message(s). It is an on-again/off-again
attempt to be traditional and untraditional, not too hot, but not too cold, firm,
but yielding when needed. If the LDS church is ashamed of its history, it would
be better for the institution and its members for the leaders to confess and
drain the infection than to deny and lie. I’m not suggesting that as an attack or
as an enemy. I’m sincerely trying to be helpful. I hate to witness the LDS
church failure now underway. If it is to be reversed, it can only come through
institutional confession and acknowledging errors—or what the scriptures term
“repentance.” </p><p>Wouldn’t we all be better off if there was one, consistent, unchangeable
message that was reliably stated across the centuries? You can disagree with it,
argue against it, reject or accept it but it should be knowable and unchangeable
if religion is serving its purpose.</p><p>If there was a broad mainstream of popular opinion in the 1920s, supported by
popular opinion, journalism and entertainment, (and there was) did the LDS
church fit in then? How about the broad mainstream in the 1950s? How well
did the LDS church adapt to the cultural changes of the 1960s? What about the
morass of today’s broad mainstream? Can today’s mainstream even be defined?
Can the same church attract membership from the ranks of Democrats and
Republicans, Green New Deal advocates, Black Lives Matter, NRA members,
Bill Maher, and Tucker Carlson fans? Probably not. If the organization is trying
to be all things to all people.</p><p>Probably so, if the message is a timeless statement of moral values that advises
people and lets them govern themselves. A religion needs to stand for
something solid, reliable and knowable.</p><p>Churches must understand that drifting along with the stream, choices need to
be made. It is impossible to float along rudderless without getting grounded on
one bank or the other. </p><p>As the Book of Mormon reminds us, popularity may be profitable, but it can
be morally hollow:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>O ye wicked, and perverse, and stiffnecked people, why have you
built up churches unto yourselves to get gain? Why have ye
transfigured the holy word of God that ye might bring damnation
upon your souls? Behold, look ye unto the revelations of God, for
behold, the time cometh at that day when all these things must be
fulfilled. Behold, the Lord hath shewn unto me great and
marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come at that
day when these things shall come forth among you. Behold, I
speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But
behold, Jesus Christ hath shewn you unto me, and I know your
doing, and I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts.
And there are none, save a few only, who do not lift themselves
up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine
apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions,
and all manner of iniquity. And your churches, yea, even every
one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.
For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine
apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the
poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted. O ye pollutions, ye
hypocrites, ye teachers who sell yourselves for that which will
canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye
ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not
think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that
misery which never dies? Because of the praise of the world? Why
do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer
the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick, and the
afflicted to pass by you and notice them not? Yea, why do ye
build up your secret abominations to get gain? And cause that
widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to
mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground for
vengeance upon your heads? Behold, the sword of vengeance
hangeth over you, and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the
blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any
longer. (Mormon 4:5.)</p></blockquote><p>The mainstream now more closely resembles the fountain of filthy waters
described in Nephi’s vision than a pure and healthy stream. The voice of
gladness Joseph wrote about in 1842 <b>39</b> has lost its vigor, and is not likely to be
heard again from the conference center pulpit. Thankfully, Mormonism does
not belong to a single franchise. </p><p>If Mormonism welcomes all truth from whatever source provides it, then
instead of debating fashion, politics and social causes, why not teach the
brotherhood of man, man’s eternal nature, doing good unto others? All this by
focusing on the crucified and risen Lord. </p><p>___________________________</p><p><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">39.</span></b> Letter of Joseph Smith written on September 6, 1842, in relevant part found in D&C 128:19-21;
T&C 151:15.</p><p> <b>The End</b> </p><p> *****</p><p><u style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Notes And Asides:</span></u><br /><br />I am informed that even though the folks at Sunstone have not yet posted Denver's talk online, there is a bootleg copy floating around, which you can find <a href="https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AOPeZWcR497gA2g&id=A79409FA5B9F7FE8%21980367&cid=A79409FA5B9F7FE8&parId=root&parQt=sharedby&parCid=55AE2D46BDA43D2D&o=OneUp" target="_blank"><b>HERE.</b></a> There is a brief Q&A following the talk which I found quite revealing. </p><p>For those readers curious to see the works I've included of other "guest bloggers" on this platform, probably the first would have been the series by J.J. Dewey titled <b><i><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/12/infallible-authority-chapter-one.html" target="_blank">Infallible Authority.</a> </i></b><br /><br />Growing up in the LDS Church I was taught that God had declared the LDS church to be "the only true and living church on the face of the earth." That turned out to be a lie; God never said any such thing. McKay Platt sets the record straight in <b><i><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/02/misquoting-god.html" target="_blank">Misquoting God.</a> </i></b><br /><br />The proprietor of the podcast Radio Free Mormon, presented an excellent overview of precisely how, following the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the Twelve executed an illegal coup d'etat which gave them complete control over the Church. I published the transcription of that expose in two parts which I titled <b><i><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-jesus-christ-was-ousted-as-head-of_24.html" target="_blank">How Jesus Christ Was Ousted From The Church Of Jesus Christ</a> </i></b>and <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/brigham-youngs-hostile-takeover.html" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Brigham Young's Hostile Takeover.</a><br /><br />There was also this short but astute essay, <b><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/06/uncomfortable-god.html" target="_blank">Uncomfortable God.</a> </i></b> In order to protect the writer's identity, I listed her only as "Cate." (just as an aside, the second commenter in the comment section at the end of that essay was from Denver Snuffer, who tells us the first thing he would do if he were president of the corporation that currently owns the Church.)<br /><br />In <b><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/09/speaking-truth-to-power.html" target="_blank">Speaking Truth To Power,</a></i></b> guest writer Ron Madsen shows us how much different things would have been if we had only followed Christ's admonition in the weeks following 9/11.<br /><br />Finally, in my piece titled <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-is-church.html" target="_blank"><i>What </i>Is<i> The Church?</i></a></b> I link to the work of Zo-Ma-Rah, who succinctly provides the definition few active members are even aware of. </p><p></p></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-85128788731856236042023-06-24T23:22:00.067-07:002023-07-05T12:53:28.321-07:00This May Herald The Beginning Of The End For The Vaccine Scam<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxX_veeg0emvdP9ibGkTtWLfceEk8Hu-02nO6sSzj3j-FU043j4UfqnS8RbOe35gH1cLBXjkJbu_i0Qcd5dNgQonwn55CDEXkOWW8UgfBaofum_z0IAI8ZGylmUxgC6ZilWDlzewGOzHUts-8fqWjLDODkzjERTYHf7eQhbYr3VobFl6UujOpsOMg5Yuo9/s225/statements%20of%20the%20first%20presidency.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="150" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxX_veeg0emvdP9ibGkTtWLfceEk8Hu-02nO6sSzj3j-FU043j4UfqnS8RbOe35gH1cLBXjkJbu_i0Qcd5dNgQonwn55CDEXkOWW8UgfBaofum_z0IAI8ZGylmUxgC6ZilWDlzewGOzHUts-8fqWjLDODkzjERTYHf7eQhbYr3VobFl6UujOpsOMg5Yuo9/s1600/statements%20of%20the%20first%20presidency.jpg" width="150" /></a></div><b><u><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/05/restoration-conference.html" target="_blank">Previously: <i>Restoration Conference</i></a><br /><br /></u></b><div><br />Perhaps the most nefarious thing LDS Church leaders have done since 1852 was when Russell Nelson, Dallin Oaks, and Henry Eyring issued an official statement<b> </b>urging all latter-day Saints to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, insisting that <b><a href="https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/8/12/22621678/latter-day-saints-lds-church-mormon-leaders-support-covid-vaccine-masks" target="_blank">these vaccines "have been proven to be both safe and effective."</a></b><br /><br />The first problem with that statement is this: the claim that the vaccines have been proven safe and effective was known, even at that time, to be demonstrably false. These vaccines were given emergency authorization precisely because no studies had been done that remotely established them as either safe <i>or</i> effective. They had never been tested, therefore never proven. <br /><br />The second problem is this: historically, every time the Church hierarchy has issued these statements, they become the official doctrine for the Church. Members of the Church have been raised to believe that such declarations were given to the president through revelation from God himself, because we have been taught that the voice of the prophet is the voice of God. Yet we know that God is not a liar.<p></p><p>President Russell Nelson, a former physician who was quite capable of researching the background of the Covid vaccine, would have known the vaccines have <i>never</i> been proven "safe and effective." The idea itself is laughable to anyone who has had even a passing familiarity with the vaccine's development. Nelson also most certainly knows that the general membership of the Church believes he was ordained to his position as president, and those members also believe <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/04/why-are-you-still-calling-this-guy.html" target="_blank">-mistakenly, it turns out-</a></b> that God ordained Russell to be His mouthpiece on the earth. <br /><br />Two years and thousands of deaths later, a growing number of people -Mormons included- are coming to realize that the Covid vaccine and its numerous boosters are turning out to have been quite dangerous. But thanks to a media blackout, not everyone has yet gotten the word. However, all that is about to change. The impetus for that change began less than a week ago.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Enter The Charlatan</span></b><br />As you are doubtless aware, a fellow by the name of Dr. Peter Hotez is one of the vaccine establishment's biggest cheerleaders and a tireless crusader against those who would dare question their efficacy. He would like to see every person in the world vaccinated, by force if necessary. Hotez is constantly on all the major news shows denouncing those who are questioning the safety of Covid vaccine as "dangerous conspiracy theorists." He positions himself as a selfless crusader for the good of mankind; but as it turns out, he has personally profited off the vaccines to the tune of tens of millions of dollars and is not too happy now that demand for his product has been tapering off. <br /><br />Podcaster Joe Rogan has a show that draws in excess of eleven million listeners per episode, a number many times the size of any news program. Well, not long ago Rogan had Peter Hotez on his show as a guest. Hotez, whose entire reason for being is to convince everyone in the world of the importance of getting vaccinated multiple times, took that opportunity to denounce the people who he claimed were spreading "misinformation" about the vaccine. This has to stop, Hotez declared. He insisted the science is settled and all the skeptics are dangerous and must be silenced, if not arrested and imprisoned for their crimes of holding unauthorized opinions. <br /><br />So next thing you know, Rogan invites Robert F. Kennedy, Jr on the show and we get a completely different take on the vaccine science. Kennedy, who is extremely well informed on the subject of vaccines, cited the voluminous evidence proving that Dr. Hotez and his ilk are, to put it kindly, all wet. It is <i>they</i> who are posing a danger to mankind.<br /><br />Rogan asked Kennedy if anyone has ever debated him on this stuff, and Kennedy replied, "No one will debate me." You can watch that full three hour interview <b><u><a href="https://rumble.com/v2ujfts-joe-rogan-interviews-robert-f.-kennedy-jr.-the-complete-unedited-interview-.html" target="_blank">HERE</a></u></b> and believe me, it's worth your time. <br /><br />So this is where things started to get interesting. After JFK, Jr's appearance on the Joe Rogan Show, Peter Hotez publicly complained that Spotify should take Rogan's show off the internet because it was full of lies and misinformation. So Rogan had an idea. He tweeted an invitation for Hotez to come back onto his show, this time <i>with</i> RFK, Jr so the two of them could hash it out, and he sweetened the offer with a $100,000 dollar donation to the charity of Hotez's choice. All Hotez has to do is simply come on the show and debunk Kennedy's allegations. Should be a piece of cake, right, since Kennedy's been doing nothing but spewing misinformation?<br /><br />Well, for some strange reason Hotez didn't want to take that opportunity. It didn't take long before Elon Musk pledged an additional ton of money for the charity and so did a slew of other podcasters, upping the donation amount to where the offer now stands in the millions of dollars for Hotez to give to any charity of his choice. (<b><u><a href="https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1670416300911349769" target="_blank">Click Here</a></u></b> for the list of who has pledged so far, along with the amounts offered.)<br /><br />Peter Hotez is connected to more than one children's charity, so you know he could make good use of that money. But how does Hotez respond to the invitation? Well, he made a series of lame excuses and when he ran out of reasons he started making like Ralph Kramden whenever someone called <i>his</i> bluff:<br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wK9odsWwfIo" width="320" youtube-src-id="wK9odsWwfIo"></iframe></div><br />The world is finally discovering that "Doctor" Peter Hotez is a transparent fraud. He is quick to call anyone who disagrees with him "misinformation specialists" but, like Dr. Tony Fauci, he seems unable to back up his claims with any scientific evidence. He's clearly afraid to go up against someone who might be armed with actual knowledge.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">This Should End It</span></b><br />So why am I saying this controversy may mark the nail in the coffin for the entire vaccine scam? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvI787YbkZpQqvmT_Yr7TEvr6OX2BZ-3UyD3rwGCUMr4GyG0I1T49duBmv2dMc67IR78yvZ2KBgoSRLAjJY6Tg599PfozQs5eJ42qY11dedAPARFQYTGjWD6KAAYE2ugZKsjTachR9V24rWgMh1thQcVhZBJbrhswD5oYvdBJD1N0fxgwNbaye2Qw6a5vs/s900/Health%20Expert%20conspiracy%20theorist%20hotez%20RFK.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="856" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvI787YbkZpQqvmT_Yr7TEvr6OX2BZ-3UyD3rwGCUMr4GyG0I1T49duBmv2dMc67IR78yvZ2KBgoSRLAjJY6Tg599PfozQs5eJ42qY11dedAPARFQYTGjWD6KAAYE2ugZKsjTachR9V24rWgMh1thQcVhZBJbrhswD5oYvdBJD1N0fxgwNbaye2Qw6a5vs/s320/Health%20Expert%20conspiracy%20theorist%20hotez%20RFK.jpg" width="304" /></a></div><br /> Because word is getting out. This offer made to Peter Hotez is all over the internet, and people are beginnng to wonder: Why is Hotez so obviously afraid to challenge RFK, Jr on the evidence? If Hotez has all the science on his side, he should be in a position to absolutely humiliate Kennedy just by citing the studies, right? Hotez should be able to easily slam Kennedy and all the other conspiracy theorists and misinformation specialists right into the ground once and for all, shouldn't he? So why won't Hotez take Rogan up on such a generous offer?<br /><br />I think Elon Musk said it best: "He's afraid of a public debate because he knows he's wrong."<br /><br /><div>Everything that happens from this moment on will only serve to awaken the masses to how thouroughly they have been bamboozled regarding vaccine efficacy. <br /><br />Now, this is key: this entire controversy could never have gained traction if Twitter was still under its old management, because the discussion would have been nipped in the bud by the censors at the old Twitter the moment Joe Rogan or Robert Kennedy spoke up in response. You may never have known there even <i>was</i> a dispute about the lack of science concerning Covid. But now? Now the story is never going away. It will only get bigger and bigger until every American with a brain comes to realize that the Covid vaccine and all its variants never were "safe and effective" but are actually demonstrably dangerous. Everyone, Mormons included, will finally be questioning the status quo, and that will be a good thing. As the Lord tells us in <b><a href="https://site.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/luke/12?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/luke/12?lang=eng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID=3010C89688443E3B-619FD996233541C0|MCORGID=66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS=1687670591&v=V01" target="_blank">Luke 12: 2-3</a></b>, everything that is done in darkness will eventually come to light. Nothing can be hidden forever; the truth will eventually be revealed.</div><div><br />Peter Hotez and everyone else who spews false allegations willy-nilly seems to have forgotten one thing: people with contrary opinions are no longer being silenced. You can't just continue to make outrageous claims and not expect someone to challenge you on them; you're going to have to put up or shut up. And if you shrink and cower like Peter Hotez, the whole world will know about it.<br /><br />But rather than my trying to explain this entertaining adventure myself, allow me to defer to this episode of <b>The Rubin Report </b>where you can see all the clips you'll need in order to realize that those who claim to speak for science on this issue are complete frauds. The episode below is 50 minutes with commercials, so if you have to skip the commercials, go ahead, but I implore you: please do not miss this. It's loads of fun to watch.<br /><br /><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1A7emkyYX68" width="320" youtube-src-id="1A7emkyYX68"></iframe></div><br />Also, if you want to enjoy some laugh-out-loud entertainment, here are traditional liberal comedians Jimmy Dore and Kurt Metsger making fun of Peter Hotez for all the times Hotez kept changing his story:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jO_cUrKprgA" width="320" youtube-src-id="jO_cUrKprgA"></iframe></div><br />Well, that's it for now. Except I guess it's worth noting for those who are not aware: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is running for President. Just like his famous father and uncle (for those of you who don't follow the news, that was Robert F. Kennedy and President John F Kennedy, both of whom were assassinated in the '60s), Robert Junior is running as a Democrat. Wanna guess how frightened the current Democratic establishment is about his candidacy? Well, seeing as RFK, Jr is a traditional democrat and the current crop are evil illiberal fascists determined to stamp out traditional liberalism, you would be right if you guessed the current crop are really, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKFmjL1A0vE" target="_blank"><b><i>really</i> scared.</b></a> Because they know that the legions of Democratic voters who still embrace <i>traditional</i> liberalism are very likely to favor a Kennedy for president over the doddering old disaster currently being pushed on them as their only choice. <br /><br />You bet they're frightened: you can see it in the way they are frantically trying to get you to look away. As you can see from Tucker Carlson's latest commentary, those attempts are not working. <b><u><a href="https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1672014260480901120" target="_blank">Click Here to see Tucker explain "Why Bobby Kennedy Is Winning</a>."</u></b><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><br /> ***** </div><div><b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Related Posts:</span></u></b></div><div><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></u></b></div><div><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/05/what-if-follow-prophet-could-get-you.html" target="_blank">What If 'Follow The Prophet' Could Get You Killed?</a></span></u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-brain-god-gave-you.html" target="_blank">The Brain God Gave You</a></span></u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b><u><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/10/what-in-world-is-going-on-with-church.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: medium;">What In The World Is Going On With The Church Leaders Lately?</span></a></u></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><u><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/04/why-are-you-still-calling-this-guy.html" target="_blank"><b>Why Are You Still Calling This Guy A Prophet Of God?</b></a></u></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />And on the futility of Americans dividing themselves into "Right" and "Left" political factions: <br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-this-country-needs-is-lot-more.html" target="_blank"><b>What This Country Needs Is A Lot More Liberals</b></a></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><u><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/10/dont-call-me-right-winger.html" target="_blank">Don't Call Me A Right Winger<br /></a></u></b><br /></span></div><div><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/10/what-in-world-is-going-on-with-church.html" target="_blank"><br /></a></span></u></b></div><div><u style="font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold;">Notes and Asides: </u><br />Robert F. Kennedy Jr is legal counsel with <b>Children's Health Defense.</b> If you would like to see why the Left really fears him, <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/" target="_blank"><b>watch the four minute video</b></a> on the front page of their internet site. <br /><br /></div><div>You can watch the entire 3 hours of the Joe Rogan Podcast with Robert F. Kennedy Jr that started it all <b><a href="https://rumble.com/v2ujfts-joe-rogan-interviews-robert-f.-kennedy-jr.-the-complete-unedited-interview-.html" target="_blank">HERE </a> </b>where someone has posted it on Rumble.<br /><br /><i style="font-weight: bold;">"Peter Hotez's War Against Science" (</i>as referred to in the Jimmy Dore/Kurt Metsger discussion above) can be found <a href="https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/cp/129308516" target="_blank"><b>HERE</b>.</a> Essential reading for understanding the sociopathic mindset.</div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Just today (Saturday June 24th) Comedians Rob Schneider and Jimmy Dore discuss all this stuff about RFK and a whole lot more (including what it's like to be traditional liberal comedians who reject today's woke Democratic party). Click <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVjXOUl68V8&t=2800s" target="_blank"><b>HERE.</b></a> </div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP_Lnaw0OLSs0CykwwZY1C8uEtsYM0D3pqyKz4YVBCRfsvwtKtCp3yU3CxOD4Yo3w20vAFBGvloymzK5oaw4tf1AUfXRBgGQff6Q63ZqZfO0Idh9fR9P3smwo5XxZiE3wlvCD-BN495Fi6K429dxnzwWoeydwr2MItAAKjFHCUXYA8B8d0J-InxcTHAI01/s480/The%20Burt%20Ward%20sessions.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP_Lnaw0OLSs0CykwwZY1C8uEtsYM0D3pqyKz4YVBCRfsvwtKtCp3yU3CxOD4Yo3w20vAFBGvloymzK5oaw4tf1AUfXRBgGQff6Q63ZqZfO0Idh9fR9P3smwo5XxZiE3wlvCD-BN495Fi6K429dxnzwWoeydwr2MItAAKjFHCUXYA8B8d0J-InxcTHAI01/w200-h150/The%20Burt%20Ward%20sessions.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />Please note (please, please, <i>please</i>) I'm continuing to post new content on my <i>other</i> blog, which is devoted to less serious topics (f'rinstance the horrendous singing of this guy pictured on the left). That blog is picking up readers, but you wouldn't know it because there is very little activity in the comments sections. Do me a favor and say something so I don't feel like I'm talking to myself over there, will you? You'll Find it by clicking<b><i><a href="https://aginghipsterdoofus.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"> HERE</a></i></b>.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>And finally I want to mention once again one of the more fascinating Mormon-themed blogs being written these days. The latest entry in the series <b><i>"The Beast Comes To Utah"</i></b> is up now at <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2023/06/the-beast-is-coming-to-utah-vii-bracing.html" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Book of Mormon Perspectives</a><i style="font-weight: bold;">. </i><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><u style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE July 5th 2023:</u><br />This is cutting it close, timewise, but I wanted to announce that there is a Remnant Young Adult Fellowship taking place near Teton National Park in Wyoming. Although they have already reached maximum capacity, they would still love to fellowship with others ages 18-33 over Zoom. Email <b><u><a href="mailto:Remnantyafellowship@gmail.com">Remnantyafellowship@gmail.com</a></u></b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-32474585451766672212023-05-21T10:34:00.005-07:002023-06-25T15:42:22.630-07:00Restoration Conference <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsJZYm6yyjnRRA6AeGpO8DNooyJgCp5AYyuu4fi9AJ07hbPaCwttQwmugZ-3sGP7jR4nmyhucZ3HHNpQ9vB2ojt7vg26R-hdWwhYsELyCAld6Hp_9W2bWl-Yu-CFUR1DOnXXWq1Uo3J1609QFFhchgn8kgSF_4gfmQSIJFvBkVkSG5odlQrH4SGlvyMw/s240/restoration%20archives.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="240" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsJZYm6yyjnRRA6AeGpO8DNooyJgCp5AYyuu4fi9AJ07hbPaCwttQwmugZ-3sGP7jR4nmyhucZ3HHNpQ9vB2ojt7vg26R-hdWwhYsELyCAld6Hp_9W2bWl-Yu-CFUR1DOnXXWq1Uo3J1609QFFhchgn8kgSF_4gfmQSIJFvBkVkSG5odlQrH4SGlvyMw/s1600/restoration%20archives.png" width="240" /></a></div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/03/zion-will-come.html" target="_blank"><b><u><i>Previously</i>: Zion WILL Come</u></b><br /></a><br /><br />Right now as I write this (Sunday Morning May 21st, 2023), the Restoration Conference held at Layton, Utah is currently taking place. These conferences are now being broadcast worldwide and you can join in and watch it at the link below:<br /><br /><br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EvmHsONIr0c" width="320" youtube-src-id="EvmHsONIr0c"></iframe></div><br />If you came in late, you will still be able to access the entire conference (as well as all past conferences) on the Restoration Archives Youtube Channel, available <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@restorationarchives" target="_blank"><b>HERE</b></a>.<br /><br />I'll be back with content of my own in a few weeks, but while I'm here I also want to mention the latest post at <b><i><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/" target="_blank">Book of Mormon Perspectives</a></i></b>, which has been delving deeply into evidence that LDS Church leaders are working hard at getting the Church into bed with the Globalist New World Order. It's no wonder the Book of Mormon warns us about how far from God the Church will stray in these last days. <br /><br />The particular series I'm referring to is titled <b><i><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2023/03/the-beast-is-coming-to-utah-resurgence.html" target="_blank">"The Beast Is Coming To Utah"</a></i></b> and though you'll definitely want to read it from <b><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2023/03/the-beast-is-coming-to-utah-resurgence.html" target="_blank">part one</a></b>, for now I recommend you dive right into the latest, shocking chapter which you can find <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2023/05/the-beast-is-coming-to-utah-vi-smart.html" target="_blank"><b>RIGHT </b><b>HERE.</b></a><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2023/05/the-beast-is-coming-to-utah-vi-smart.html" target="_blank"> </a><div><br /></div><div>For some lighter fare, I have posted new content on my other blog, <a href="https://aginghipsterdoofus.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"><b>Aging Hipster Doofus</b></a>, where you can sample disparate fribble about TV, movies, comics, and surf music from the '60s. My latest, added just this morning, is a shoutout to <a href="https://aginghipsterdoofus.blogspot.com/2023/05/in-praise-of-cheap-record-players.html" target="_blank"><b>the joy of owning a cheap record player.</b><br /></a><br />That's all for now. See you next time.<br /></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-17594604188404541772023-03-12T16:16:00.012-07:002023-03-16T20:47:31.155-07:00Zion WILL Come<p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN_4x2q4Ohw13N8MbUUJ9SFe89vDOxrAf4TgqqyqsG6Z9NRkjVvL-LvlMBTcA7vpp7iTt-_bnRQVePHUJP2ijlZOhYh-xPIMYhce5UGz3jWU2qC46wlCHibZDw5HPeoN_goCmS9VXD1bEy1AbWBBMFM-y-Y9q6AlszCxDv-POklO63iIh-AYZGiW42tA/s474/zion.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="316" data-original-width="474" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN_4x2q4Ohw13N8MbUUJ9SFe89vDOxrAf4TgqqyqsG6Z9NRkjVvL-LvlMBTcA7vpp7iTt-_bnRQVePHUJP2ijlZOhYh-xPIMYhce5UGz3jWU2qC46wlCHibZDw5HPeoN_goCmS9VXD1bEy1AbWBBMFM-y-Y9q6AlszCxDv-POklO63iIh-AYZGiW42tA/s320/zion.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2023/01/why-its-nearly-impossible-to-sue-lds.html" target="_blank">Previously: <i>Why It's Nearly Impossible To Sue The LDS Church For Fraud</i></a></b><br /><p>For lack of a better idea, I've cribbed the title of this piece from a talk given by Denver Snuffer in 2016 which you can listen to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmjEBK-Jgas" target="_blank"><b>HERE</b>.</a></p><p>What I want to address first is a silly rumor being passed around among the those in the Restoration movement. Don't worry, I won't be using any names. <br /><br />According to the gossip, a wealthy Provo doctor (the medical kind, not the Jill Biden kind) has spent 40 million dollars to purchase massive amounts of land in and around Lemhi County, Idaho for the purpose of providing God's people with a place to establish Zion and/or (depending on who's telling this story) for the building of a temple in that area.<br /><br />This rumor started with one guy who I won't name, and quickly spread until Connie saw it on a thread that was sent to her. I immediately pegged this story as false. Ridiculously false, in fact, for reasons I'll get to below. <br /><br />I happen to know this doctor. I'll call him "Stan." I assume Dr. Stan makes a decent living in his specialty, but I seriously doubt his practice has brought in forty million dollars. But then again, I've never asked him. <br /><br />Some years ago Stan and I had communicated by phone and email, but we had never met in person. Then one day Stan called me to say, "Hey Rock, this is Stan. My daughters and I are here in Sandpoint. Would you like us to stop by for a quick visit?"<br /><br />I excitedly responded, "Boy, would I!" <br /><br />"Well, we're at Safeway right now but we can come by in a few minutes. Can we bring you anything from the store while we're here?<br /><br />"Well actually, Stan, I have been craving a glazed donut so bad I was actually contemplating driving to the store to get one."<br /><br />"You want a donut?"<br /><br />"So bad I can taste it."<br /><br />So thirty minutes later I got to meet Dr. Stan and his two lovely daughters. And they brought me a donut which they refused to take my money for. And a sack of vegetables, for some reason. </p><p>That was two or three years ago. So to bring this story up to the present, immediately after I heard this rumor about Stan purchasing Zion, I sent him a teasing email: </p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>"Say Stan, as long as you have 40 million dollars to throw around, do you think I can get you to buy me another donut?"</blockquote><p>We spoke on the phone shortly after that and Stan admitted he was pretty miffed at having his name attached to a crazy rumor like that. He told the guy who started the rumor that it was 100% false, and of course reiterated the same to me. Unfortunately, once it left the lips of the first guy the rumor seemed to have speedily spread. Like Mark Twain said, "a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth has a chance to put its boots on."<br /><br />So, for the record, let's be clear: nobody is buying up land for the purpose of establishing Zion or a temple in or around Lemhi County, Idaho or anywhere else. <i>Especially</i> not Dr. Stan.</p><p>At least Stan is not the lone victim of such a rumor. In the past few years, the rumor mill has placed the coming Zion in Missouri (natch!); Mount Pleasant, Utah; The Hopi reservation, Challis, Idaho; somewhere in Montana; and Northern Idaho. I'm partial to that last one, because Northern Idaho is where Connie and I live now and when the call comes, having Zion located right down the street from us would suit me just fine. </p><p>The location of Zion is understandably one of great interest to a lot of people in the Remnant, as it certainly feels like the world is getting more wicked by the day. With the growing feeling that circumstances are closing in on us, I can certainly understand others' keen interest in knowing where the good people will end up so we can start making the physical preparations to at least move closer to where Zion is to be located. But the Lord is keeping that information to himself for now, so all we can do is prepare ourselves morally and spiritually to be ready. It will be the Lord who establishes Zion's whereabouts, and He is the one who controls the timeline. Since Connie and I are now in our golden years, with any luck we will have returned to the bosom of Abraham before that time occurs, because as far as I'm concerned, shuffling off this mortal coil would be a lot less of a hassle than packing up and moving again for the umpteenth time. Too bad about the rest of you guys. <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">What DO We Know About Zion, Anyway?</span></b><br />Admittedly, the topic of Zion has been confusing to a lot of people, so here is the little bit I understand about the topic:<br /><br />Zion will be established preliminary to the Lord's return in glory. If I understand correctly, there must be a dedicated temple for the Lord to return to <i>before</i> he makes his return in glory, because he cannot first set foot on the earth without everything he touches being consumed. This is a rather simple analogy, but I see the temple as functioning as a sort of stargate, a way for God to leave the dimension He resides in and enter into ours to begin the process of his return. I could be wrong, but that seems to me like an apt yet simple description regarding the how and why.<br /><br />Zion will be<b> </b>a place of refuge (<b><a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/45?lang=eng" target="_blank">D&C 45:66</a></b>) for God's people because that will be the place He governs from as king before the wicked are destroyed. This will be our safe place where none can get to us, as "he that fighteth against Zion shall perish." (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/10?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>2 Nephi 10:13</b></a>) If you're following current events, you can see having a safe place to live that is out of reach of the wicked might be a pretty nifty thing. I certainly understand why rumors get started, because some people just can't wait. As the Lord tells us in D&C 45, verse 70, the bad guys will know better than to even <i>try</i> to get at us once we're safely ensconced in Zion. That place, wherever it turns out to be, will be better than a bunker; the ultimate safe room: "it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand."<br /><br />As Denver Snuffer puts it, <br /></p><blockquote>"God will be the force with which the nations of the earth must contend if they intend to do harm to Zion, because it is <i>His</i> government, it is <i>His</i> handiwork, and it is an affront to <i>Him</i> to challenge His authority in attacking Zion." -<b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmjEBK-Jgas" target="_blank">Denver Snuffer, "Zion Will Come"</a></b></blockquote><p>So ease your minds, because<br /><i></i></p><blockquote>"It <i>is</i> going to come to pass<i>. </i>In your enthusiasm it would be better to demonstrate the virtue of patience as the Lord brings His work about than to exhibit the character flaw of impatience and enthusiasm in trying to bring about what the Lord intends <i>Himself </i>to cause to happen, because you cannot, <i>you</i> <i>cannot</i> give birth prematurely to a living Zion because it will choke and it will die because it is unable to be viable outside of the hands of the Lord. We <i>have</i> to wait on Him..." <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmjEBK-Jgas" target="_blank"><b>-ibid at 50:21</b></a></blockquote><p></p><p></p><blockquote>"...If you think that you can out-think the Lord and you can arrive at the right place and the right time, then go ahead and buy some farmland in and around Independence, Missouri and wait for the burning, because you're not going to be at the right place. If Independence, Missouri was where the Lord intended Zion to be, he wouldn't have told them in January of 1841 that he was going to make Nauvoo the corner of Zion. It is portable until it is fixed by Him. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmjEBK-Jgas" target="_blank"><b>-ibid at 1:08:28</b></a></blockquote><p></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">So What Do We Do In The Meantime?</span></b><br />In the meantime, we wait on the Lord. But while we're waiting, we prepare outselves: morally, spiritually, and physically. Store up what provisions you are able to, so your resources are not strained as times get increasingly difficult. Constantly show kindness to the people you interact with, so that you will be able to stand before the Lord with a pure heart. Most of all, be charitable. And what I mean by that is this: don't judge others just because you may not feel they are doing enough to bring about Zion. You focus on yourself and concern yourself only with whether or not <i>you</i> and your family will be ready to depart when the time comes. Do what you can to comfort others. If the only other person in your house is your spouse, try giving more attention to him or her than you do to yourself. Ask yourself what you need to do to become a more loving, outward-focused individual in your interactions, both with your friends and especially with strangers. If you only do that, you might be halfway qualified for Zion already. <br /><br />Also remember to have fun. In these increasingly stressful times there is still plenty to laugh about and enjoy. Do you have a hobby that doesn't cost much? Then find time to enjoy it! Start a blog and write about whatever interests you. Who cares if nobody reads it? Blogging is still free, so what's stopping you? At the very least it's a dandy way of keeping a journal about the things that interest you. That's what I did. I named my other blog <b><a href="https://aginghipsterdoofus.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Aging Hipster Doofus</a>. </b>Unlike this blog, that one is a depository for short bits of fribble that reflect my interest in 20th century popular culture.</p><p> And guess what? Nobody reads it!<br /><br />Perhaps one of the most effective ways to prepare for Zion is to give Zion-living some real-world practice. If you are not already involved with a local fellowship, by all means hook up with like-minded people. Zion fellowships have taken hold all over the world, with the largest concentration in the Rocky Mountain states as you would presume. If you can't find like-minded people, pull up the <a href="https://www.fellowshiplocator.info/" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Fellowship Locator </a> online. If you still can't find a physical group to gather with, there's still the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1533295653569304" target="_blank"><b>Fellowship of Christ Facebook Group. </b></a> Lots of fascinating discussions going on there.<br /><br />Keep in mind that the actual Zion will operate much like the Kingdom of God on earth; which is to say one won't require a background in Mormonism in order to belong. So if you live in an area bereft of other believers in the Restoration, not to worry. Cultivate friendships with your neighbors and begin to live as much as you can as if you were already part of the Kingdom of God. (See here for my three-part series titled <b><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-church-aint-kingdom.html" target="_blank">"The Church Ain't The Kingdom"</a></i></b> to understand what that entails. God's intention for his Kingdom of God on earth is very different than you may have supposed. <br /><br />Just because these are serious times, it's no time to take things too seriously. As important as it is to keep up with what the politicians are doing to us, it's even more fun to laugh at and mock them. Remember, the scriptures tell us we win in the end. If you are trusting on the Lord and doing everything you can to withstand the coming tribulations, you'll be alright. The worst they can do is kill you, and that just means you get to go home early. What could be better than that?</p><p> *****</p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>Notes and Asides</u>:</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><u>Fascinating expose at Book of Mormon Perspective</u></b><br />I've been gathering notes these past couple of months in order to blog about the odd collusion that's been going on between leaders of the Corporate LDS Church and elements of the Deep State, but it looks like I've been spared the trouble of writing about this issue. Just this morning the author of <b><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/" target="_blank">Book of Mormon Perspective</a></b> beat me to the punch. Not only did he get here first, he has provided a more thorough take on the topic than I ever envisioned.<br /><br />The piece is titled <b><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2023/03/the-beast-is-coming-to-utah-resurgence.html" target="_blank">The Beast Is Coming To Utah</a>, </b>and in one section he wrote about something I think might be pertinent to what I've discussed here today. As many people are aware, elements in the deep state and the federal government have for years been passing legislation making it increasingly impossible for ranchers and farmers to make a living off their own land. The ostensible goal of crowding these landowners out has been to "protect the environment" but what the enemy is actually doing is attempting to crowd all the humans into the cities where they can be more easily controlled, while keeping millions of square miles of useful land effectively under their own control. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This made me think: what if, at the Lord's return, he takes all that "government land" that was stolen by the modern Gadianton Robbers, and gives it back to the people to develop, farm, and live on? That would solve the question some people have wondered about, which is "if God's people move into an area to make it Zion, what about the people who already live there? Are they displaced?"<br /><br />The answer, of course, would be no. No one would be displaced except the globalist squatters who stole it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><u>My Other Blog</u></b><br />In case anyone is interested in exploring the content at <b>Aging Hipster Doofus</b>, here are the subjects of my most recent posts on that site:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><a href="https://aginghipsterdoofus.blogspot.com/2023/03/mr-acker-bilk-got-here-before-beatles.html" target="_blank">Mr. Acker Bilk Got Here Before The Beatles<br /></a></b><br /><b><a href="https://aginghipsterdoofus.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-very-first-rock-and-roll-record-1934.html" target="_blank">The Very First Rock And Roll Record Was Released In 1934</a></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><a href="https://aginghipsterdoofus.blogspot.com/2023/03/huh-and-mysterions.html" target="_blank">"Huh?" And The Mysterions</a></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">There's more to come. These things are brief and so and easy to write that I can knock one out every day if I want to. <br /><br />And I kinda do want to, so I hope you'll pop in now and then.<a href="https://aginghipsterdoofus.blogspot.com/2023/03/huh-and-mysterions.html" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank"><br /></a><br /><br /><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> <br /></span><br /><br /><br /></p><p><br /></p><br /><br /><br /><p></p>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-34943141968067739122023-01-22T13:18:00.031-08:002024-01-17T16:15:52.705-08:00Why It's Nearly Impossible To Sue The LDS Church For Fraud<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirhdq1LPT-gHfgkO5dEvXz6nKcBBfdW1rsxljmlafuWx-Zdpat3r8nyA-XnGAHcmF01zV_SST5D4JrhM2Cey79XNRU2c5rZ_gL0Enr9XpKfAecLFAJWOt5pczFF-S4JcL0GF2SBoRMKB_eNMAprhBWeGrCVDK3kMXZfb4UHjxNsIina9vQxypSqQEX8w/s474/tithing%20disclaimer.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="474" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirhdq1LPT-gHfgkO5dEvXz6nKcBBfdW1rsxljmlafuWx-Zdpat3r8nyA-XnGAHcmF01zV_SST5D4JrhM2Cey79XNRU2c5rZ_gL0Enr9XpKfAecLFAJWOt5pczFF-S4JcL0GF2SBoRMKB_eNMAprhBWeGrCVDK3kMXZfb4UHjxNsIina9vQxypSqQEX8w/s320/tithing%20disclaimer.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/12/heres-oldie-but-goodie.html" target="_blank"><i>Previously, a replay: </i>Did The Lord Choose Not To Anoint 'The Lord's Anointed'?</a></b><br /> <div>At the right side of this page you'll see a list of the ten most popular blog posts on this forum. I have nothing to do with choosing these rankings; the posts are selected automatically by the algorithm based on the number of hits. The all-time Number One post I ever wrote, <b><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too-much-tithing.html" target="_blank"><i>Are We Paying Too Much Tithing?</i> </a></b>has been read by more visitors to this site than any other, except for now and then when <i><b><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-corporatism-has-undermined-and.html" target="">How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ </a></b></i>would<i> </i>climb up and knock it off the top spot for awhile. So with around 600 visitors a day to this site, the piece on tithing has been seen by more people than I've ever even met in my life. It's fair to say that the information in that piece has had an effect. One effect it had was to get me kicked out of the Church if I didn't agree to take it off the internet.</div><div><br />Well, if you'll glance just over to your right you'll see it's still here. <br /><br />The gist of that piece on tithing -as with most of my articles- demonstrates how we Mormons too often accept false teachings about the doctrines of the Church from sources other than scripture. Most of the problems we encounter in the Church today are a result of taking our doctrines from fellow humans -what the scriptures call "trusting in the arm of flesh"- rather than going directly to the scriptures to see what the Lord had to say about things. A prime example is this: what we mistakenly refer to as "the law of tithing" was very clearly spelled out long ago by the Lord himself, yet we allow teachers and leaders -and even our parents- to convince us the Lord meant something else entirely.<br /><br />If you've read that piece, you'll recall that the Law of Tithing as spelled out by the Lord is very easy to obey, while the false teaching most members struggle with is often quite a challenge. In a nutshell, here's what the Lord requires: after we have covered all of our normal expenses, we look at what we have left, and then give the Lord a meager ten percent of those leftover funds. So if you've got, say, a hundred dollars left over after covering all your family's expenses, you give ten dollars for the care of those less fortunate. <br /><br />Easy-peasy, right? Yet the law as most of us were taught growing up in the Church is that we must give a full ten percent of our earnings to the bishop every month right off the top, <i>before </i>we pay our bills or buy our groceries. Not so easy, and certainly not very peasy. <br /><br />After reading that post for the first time, many devout members are hopping mad when they realize they have been tricked into overpaying, especially with the recent discovery that the Church has been sitting on well over <i style="font-weight: bold;">One Hundred Billion Dollars, </i>dollars that are not being used as the Lord directed, and apparently never will be. So folks sometimes ask me if it's possible for them to sue the Church for defrauding their families out of what can sometimes amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars over the life span of some marriages. </div><div><br /></div><div>So should you sue? Well, you can always try, but I think it will be a bit of an uphill climb. Before you attempt any legal challenge you'll want to be able to articulate what's called your "theory of the case," because if your first motion to the court is shot down by your adversary, your case will be thrown out before you even get a chance to argue it. The first thing the Church attorneys will do is claim your suit is frivolous, even in the face of mountains of evidence that you clearly overpaid. I'm the last guy to try to talk you out of seeking justice, but I think it would be wise to understand what you'll be up against.<br /><br />I've been thinking about this for some time now and I have been meaning to revisit this topic. In the original post I quoted from several early Church leaders who got it right as well as several later general authorities who got it disastrously wrong (current president Russell Nelson among them). So I wanted to come back to this topic because, as it turns out, there are additional quotes I was then not aware of or did not have access to. Happily, these sources continue to prove that Church leaders -at least in the early days- had a firm understanding of how much and how often the Lord expects us to tithe. <br /><br />Ironically, it's these rock-solid quotes that I think might make it difficult for an individual to claim the Church had defrauded him. One example of sources available now that were not available previously can be found courtesy the <b><i>Joseph Smith Papers Project. </i></b> That source and others provide further light on why I believe that <i>even though there is no doubt you may have overpaid by thousands or tens of thousands of dollars</i>, it would be very difficult to prove fraud -even though the fraud is palpable and undeniable. In other words, you're right. You <i>have</i> been conned. But you'll still have a hard time winning a judgement. <br /><br />And I'll tell you why in a few minutes, because in order to grasp the argument, you need to look at the information that has come out since I wrote my original piece. Thankfully, I didn't have to do all that additional research myself because recently Bill Reel, the diligent proprietor of the <b><i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/@MormonDiscussion" target="_blank">Mormon Discussion Podcast</a></i></b> recently laid it all out in a precise 43 minute Youtube video. This video is titled <i style="font-weight: bold;">Why Most Latter-day Saints Are Overpaying Their Tithing By Thousands Of Dollars. </i>Please watch it now, then we'll discuss it below<i style="font-weight: bold;">:</i><br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hlU0SmyVwtU" width="320" youtube-src-id="hlU0SmyVwtU"></iframe></div><br /><div>Now that you've watched that video, first things first. Give that thing a "like" so Bill gets some props for all the good work he put in on it. <br /><br />Now, down to business. After watching that video there should now be no doubt in your mind that everything you were ever taught in Church about paying ten percent of your earnings to the Church once a month was a damnable lie. But hold on...who was it who actually <i>taught</i> you that lie? <br /><br />As a child, I first learned it from my parents, and it was explained that way repeatedly by my primary teachers, and all the way up through Sunday School and Seminary. When I was quite young my parents dutifully taught me to set aside ten percent of my allowance, but that game didn't last long. My allowance was twenty-five cents, which you might think sounds measly, but for a five-year-old in 1956 that was pretty flush. So after I got my first allowance my mom helped me put 2 cents in a tithing envelope to give to the bishop the following Sunday.<br /><br />Guess what happened? I had already spent the rest of that quarter on Candy at Palm Pharmacy, and I looked at that envelope in the pocket of my Sunday pants and realized that if I kept those two pennies for myself I could use them to buy either two Tootsie Rolls or one Tootsie Roll Pop. Happily, my parents forgot all about their plan to take me to the bishop to turn in my tithing, so when I got home I closed the bedroom door, tore open the gray tithing envelope, and pocketed those two pennies. <br /><br />My brother might have ratted me out, but it turns out he had been quietly hatching the same plan. So Karl agreed he wouldn't tell on me if I wouldn't tell on him. On Monday morning we both went across the alley to Palm Pharmacy where I bought a Tootsie pop. I believe Karl spent the Lord's money on a piece of Bazooka Bubble Gum and a stick of red licorice.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho_Tm1mk4lPfOHP5rUOCY4J4sByO7vnEZ76k36NVNVuT5t2CMbiL4oIAuyv6gTRWD5y3qIQ9iAnoEMD2143X-GhFQYgwhYMuCHyI0WNkL4oO5Pkl-zRNe-l2q2eoZotrsiqcAY-yLEbk_LebpacumvL_6I10ZVAa9OZWH7kG1p63aZOwgC1ZQVhbEIkA/s800/tithing%20mission%20fun%20bank.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="611" data-original-width="800" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho_Tm1mk4lPfOHP5rUOCY4J4sByO7vnEZ76k36NVNVuT5t2CMbiL4oIAuyv6gTRWD5y3qIQ9iAnoEMD2143X-GhFQYgwhYMuCHyI0WNkL4oO5Pkl-zRNe-l2q2eoZotrsiqcAY-yLEbk_LebpacumvL_6I10ZVAa9OZWH7kG1p63aZOwgC1ZQVhbEIkA/s320/tithing%20mission%20fun%20bank.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Now, does anyone remember these things? This was a peculiarly Mormon savings bank available at Deseret Book. The bank had partitions inside and three coin slots in the top. So assuming your kids got an allowance of, say a dollar, the idea was they would put a dime in the tithing slot, a dime in the slot to save for their mission, and the other slot they could use to save up for anything they wanted. The first time I bought one for each of my kids, they dutifully put the appropriate coins in the various slots and felt really grown up turning the key in the lock and putting the keys in their pockets to make sure their money was safe. </div><div><br /></div><div>It won't surprise you to learn that the next day I went into their rooms to check those banks and found there was no money at all left in any of them. But there <i>were</i> plenty of candy wrappers laying around.<br /><br />My kids take after their father.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Now Where Was I?</span></b></div><div>Well, that was a pleasant trip down memory lane. But my point here is that "the Church" did not teach me that tithing was 10% of my gross, it was <i>members</i> of the Church -my parents, my teachers, and later some misguided leaders- who all stressed the importance of paying a tenth on my gross earnings, so that by the time I was 13 years old mowing lawns and babysitting (yes, I was a boy<i>,</i> and I was in high demand in my ward as a babysitter), and subsequntly at 16 with my first job as a dishwasher in the kitchen at the Anaheim Elk's Lodge, I was insidiously indoctrinated in how tithing was supposed to work. And I continued in that misconception all the way through adulthood and the first two and a half decades of my marriage to Connie before I finally realized I had adopted and promoted one of those seriously false traditions the Book of Mormon warns us about. <br /><br />But I didn't learn those false teachings from "the Church," if by "the Church" you assume I am referring to actual doctrines taught by Christ. Like many of us, I had spent my life confusing the actual doctrines taught by Christ with what we refer to as "the Church." Those are not anwhere close to being the same thing. The Church, as we learn from <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>D&C 10:67</b></a>, is the <i>people</i>. The <i>Church</i> means the <i>members. </i>And church members, as well as Church leaders, quite often get it wrong. Really, <i>really</i> wrong. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the video above, we learn that the early members of the Church fully understood what it meant to give a proper tithe, although in more recent times even general authorities tend to preach falsely about it. In my post entitled <i><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too-much-tithing.html" target="_blank">Are We Paying Too Much Tithing?</a></b></i> I quote an egregious example written by some guy named Aaron L. West in the Ensign magazine, which, I need not remind you, is the official Church magazine. That piece should have never been published, but I doubt Brother West has ever been reprimanded.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Making Up Doctrine Out Of Thin Air</span></b><br />See if you can guess who said this:<br /></div><blockquote><div>"We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation. That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing.</div></blockquote><p>I can see why you might have guessed that was Kamala Harris, but you'd be wrong. No matter how many times you read that paragraph it doesn't make any sense, so yes, you can be forgiven for thinking a convoluted, silly word salad like that came out of the mouth of our beloved Vice President. But nope. It's not her. <b><a href="https://www.deseret.com/2018/4/16/20643748/dowry-is-not-the-lord-s-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle" target="_blank">That was LDS Church President Russell Nelson hizz own self.</a> <br /></b><br />And guess who he was speaking to? A small group of latter-day Saints in Kenya, some of the poorest, most destitute Mormon converts in the world. Missing from that sermon of course was any mention of a revelation showing that God had reversed himself from His previous teaching that tithing is to be paid on <i>surplus </i>and surplus alone, and not on the lowly subsistence wages of people barely able to scratch out a living.<br /><br />I suppose there may possibly have been someone in that audience who earned enough to be able to claim a surplus, maybe some government hack or some guy sponsored by a globalist NGO. But this arrogant knucklehead Russell Nelson, now one of the richest multi-<b>B</b><i>illionaires</i> in the world, was lecturing all the members present, not just a fortunate one or two. This level of bullying seems almost unforgivable, but then what else can we expect from a guy who <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/02/have-you-voted-for-new-church-president.html" target="_blank">thumbed his nose at God in order to cheat his way into the office of Church president?</a></b></p><p></p><blockquote></blockquote><p></p>I hope you've already watched Bill Reel's video, because Nelson's lecture to those poor Saints is even more upsetting when compared to the words Bill introduces us to that were spoken by President Joseph Fielding Smith way back in General Conference 1907:<br /><blockquote>"Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the kingdom of God. I want to live to see that day, if the Lord will spare my life. It does not make any difference though, so far as that is concerned, whether I live or not. That is the true policy, the true purpose of the Lord in the management of the affairs of His Church." <b><a href="https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1907a" target="_blank">-President Joseph F. Smith, Seventy-Seventh Annual Conference, April 1907</a></b></blockquote><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/mormon-church-stockpiled-100-billion-intended-charities-misled-lds-members-whistleblower-says-1477809" target="_blank"><b>Thanks to a brave former Church investment fund manager</b></a> (that's right, folks; the Lord's true chuch actually employs a small army of investment fund managers!), we now know that the Corporation that owns the corporation that owns The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is today sitting on <i>at least</i> 120 Billion Dollars tax free, and some estimates suggest that number is much higher. That money is not being used to alleviate the suffering of the poor as the Lord commanded, but instead continues to be invested in the futures of other corporate powerhouses such as Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, making the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints many billions of additional dollars annually. And that's on top of the estimated 7 Billion dollars a year the corporation continues to rake in <b><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/mormon-church-earns-7-billion-year-tithing-analysis-indicates-flna939844" target="_blank">through members' tithing donations. </a><br /></b><br />Which makes you wonder why Russell Nelson traveled all the way to Africa to shake down a shabby group of poverty-stricken believers instead of reaching out to offer them help.<div><br /></div><div>It's also a very strong motivation for awakened members to wonder: why <i>shouldn't</i> I try to recover at least a portion of those overpayments I made to the corporation? <br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>The Answer Is In The Answer</b></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: medium;">By the late 1960's, members of the Church who were aware of the accurate statements that had been preached from the pulpit about tithing by our early leaders were confused by what they were hearing in modern times encouraging them to pay the Church ten percent of their earnings right off the top. Bishops were passing these concerns on to the Salt Lake City, asking the leaders to please provide a definitive answer: are the members supposed to pay ten percent of their monthly earnings, or is it ten percent of their surplus?</span><br /><br />So in 1970, the First Presidency issued this statement to all bishops and stake presidents:<br /></span><blockquote>"The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay 'one-tenth of all their interest annually,' which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this."</blockquote><p>Well, that clears things up, doesn't it? The trouble is, while that statement is absolutely true, the form in which the answer was given looks suspiciously like our leaders were deliberately attempting to obfuscate.<br /><br />Why do you suppose the First Presidency, right after properly quoting the Lord as saying tithing was "one-tenth of all their <i>interest </i>annually" -why do you suppose they felt it necessary to editorialize just a tiny little bit by injecting their view that the word <i>interest</i> "is understood to mean <i>income</i>"?<br /><br />Well, because it's true. In legal contemplation, the word <i>income</i> actually <i>is</i> understood to be synonymous with the word <i>interest</i>.<br /><br />The problem is that, like many words in the English language, that word "income" has undergone a subtle shift in meaning in the popular mind. So if you asked someone in Joseph Smith's day to explain the meaning of the word "income" they would most likely provide you with the description Bishop Edward Partridge gave in a letter to Newell K. Whitney in 1838: "If a man is worth $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10 of the interest would be, of course, $6."<br /><br />Well, that's almost clear, I guess. But some people would ask of this hypothetical man, "what does it mean the man is 'worth' a thousand dollars?"<br /><br />As Church historian Steven Harper explains, it simply means he owns a thousand dollars in savings or investments. At the time Bishop Partridge wrote that letter, if a man with 1,000 dollars savings parked that money in a bank, in twelve months time he would earn 60 dollars interest on that thousand dollars. That sixty dollars "interest" is the "income" his money earned, and his tithing for the year would therefore be six dollars on the man's total income. Yes, that's correct. He may be <i>worth</i> a thousand dollars, but his total income for the year would only be sixty dollars.<br /><br />And it's his <i>income</i> (a mere $60.00) that he would be paying his tithing on. Ten percent of sixty dollars is six dollars. According to the Lord's law of tithing. he would owe only $6.00 tithing for the entire year.<br /><br />Are you beginning to see how painless the Lord makes it for us to give an honest tithe? We are called on to make some hard sacrifices during our time on earth, but tithing shouldn't be one of them. Tithing is easy.<br /><br />So here's the problem: the word "income" has changed so much in the last hundred years through popular usage that if you asked someone today to explain what "income" means, he would most likely tell you income means "everything that comes in," or the totality of a person's wages. When the First Presidency issued that statement I think they were banking on people's misunderstanding of that word. I think they hoped the average member would continue in the belief that his income meant his total wages. I firmly believe that the Church lawyers they enlisted to craft that carefully worded statement by the First Presidency <i>wanted</i> the members to continue believing that tithing on their income meant paying ten percent of the amount listed on their paychecks. <br /><br />And that is why I don't think a lawsuit against the corporate Church would succeed. Because the courts <i>do</i> understand the meaning of interest even if you don't, and the only <i>official </i>statement the modern Church has ever issued on the meaning of tithing makes it very clear that the hapless tithepayer had it carefully spelled out to him by his Church leaders what precisely his obligation was, and if he wanted to pay the Church substantially more than required, he had every right to do so. The courts quite properly don't want to get involved in controversies between a religious institution and its members, and the First Presidency's statement on tithing gives any judge an easy out. <br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too-much-tithing.html" target="_blank"><b>In my blog post on tithing</b></a> I provide numerous examples from the courts explaining what "income" actually is, and you know that old adage that says ignorance of the law is no excuse? You can't voluntarily contribute thousands of dollars to your Church and then come crying to the courts that you didn't know what you were doing. The Church was completely up front in their definition. It was <i>you</i> who furnished your own foolish interpretation. In that same carefully worded First Presidency statement, you were told the Church leaves it up to the individual to determine what he owes in tithing. So if you chose to be ignorant the courts will conclude it was your own dumb fault. <br /><br />Another reason you might have difficulty prevailing in a case alleging fraud is that every step of the way you were signing off on it whenever you gave the bishop your tithing. Take a look at the picture of the tithing slip in the top left-hand corner of this page. The Church has it's own high-powered law firm at Kirton McConkie, and a few years ago they crafted an ironclad disclaimer explaining how, unlike the way it was previously, you don't have a say in where any of your donations to the Church end up. Here's how the fine print reads:<br /></p><blockquote>Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission. </blockquote><p>Translation: "This is our money now sucka, and we'll use it however the hell we want." </p><p>Take a look at the current tithing slip compared to the old one:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7x65nEjCOc-gWXHcr9dvXoAbV0MdhczyVVRFahL6Dk0hASdxS1nzjCfRpxoBfFdyp-c9J-zEUG7hunGxB7OWZYDkfNWPXP2IyMi4x2YWXNo5Z7ZRBlsF7n0eekM8HFrH4nYe_3ie0E6PfGyRrrO3kcCdxNWo9006SY0ts1z_aYWKys1-bmFqObvxTBg/s623/tithing%20slips%20then%20and%20now.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="579" data-original-width="623" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7x65nEjCOc-gWXHcr9dvXoAbV0MdhczyVVRFahL6Dk0hASdxS1nzjCfRpxoBfFdyp-c9J-zEUG7hunGxB7OWZYDkfNWPXP2IyMi4x2YWXNo5Z7ZRBlsF7n0eekM8HFrH4nYe_3ie0E6PfGyRrrO3kcCdxNWo9006SY0ts1z_aYWKys1-bmFqObvxTBg/s320/tithing%20slips%20then%20and%20now.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>You'll notice the former slip on the left had dollar signs in the boxes, implying that your contributions will be broken down and funneled to where you wanted your donations spent. The new slip on the right has fewer boxes and no dollar signs. This was by design. No matter what box you check, everything goes into the general fund and you don't have a say. End of story, fade to black. <br /><br />Do you think this change was made as a result of a revelation from the Lord? Or was it more likely to protect the corporation from being sued by some disgruntled member who objected to the Church investing his tithing funds in pharmaceutical companies whose untested "medicines" might possibly kill the child he had sent on a mission?<br /><br />But there's also something interesting on the old tithing slip, the one on the left, which specifically gives the Church carte blanche to decide how it uses donations you might have wanted to designate to the missionary program. If you thought your donations to the missionary program were somehow contributing to the support of some poor struggling missionary, boy are you naive! Unbeknownst to me, while my parents were scraping and sacrificing to support me on my mission, my beloved mission president, Graham W. Doxey (later promoted to become a general authority, natch) and his wife, and his children, housed for three years in the spacious mission home in Independence, Missouri probably never had it so good in their lives. While I was sleeping on a bug-infested mattress on the floor of a basement apartment in Plattsmouth, Nebraska, my parent's tithes to the Church were paying for every conceivable comfort for the Doxey family, including Christmas and birthday gifts for his children and anniversary gifts for Doxey's wife. And while I was out there, the Doxey's oldest son went on a mission to Japan which was fully paid for by the church, in part with the tithing my parents were paying on their gross earnings while at the same time struggling to send me a monthly check. <br /><br />Oh, and when Doxey's kid got home he got to go to BYU tuition free. Also housing, meals, and all other expenses were paid for by the Church. And did I mention textbooks? Those were all covered as well by the tithes of working members who struggled to put their own kids through school. <br /><br />But just to be sure I'm not just picking on Doxey's kid, every single child of every general authority in the church who wants to attend BYU gets to do so, with the same perks paid for from the tithes of the members. <br /><br />If you haven't already seen it, take a look at <a href="https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/lds-tithing-bare-necessities/" target="_blank"><b>Jonathan Streeter's blog post</b></a> exposing how every imaginable expense (and many you can't even imagine) are covered for mission presidents and their families by way of the tithing contributions of the members. Included are screen shots from the secret Mission President's Handbook. If this doesn't make your head explode in righteous fury, nothing will. </div><div>What these stunning revelations indicate is that the massive salary they call a "modest stipend" as well as unlimited perks provided to a mission president almost certainly continue when that mission president comes home and is promoted into the ranks of the general authorities. Virtually every desire of their hearts is paid for. If you think politicians are living high on the hog on money the IRS extorts from you, think about how well Church leaders are living off the money you shovel at them voluntarily.</div><div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNWvdWaNzmIqwI4XpvVokLZf6Izq0zqYTAz2a-FMm7f242AVHwywVztEXYoU_qWzZpuU7I8TU-iAvbJuRSkiHQ7ScV8ndt3l79QmKw4GB-ciM4tkZOAVNjjeTTYsDpXpJ-gv4ACXRNkdLYVgOkWkfZqvyELcoIA7RZE1rqrvXGRjp2eS0aX7NVA3la2w/s315/Church%20leader's%20living%20allowance.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="315" data-original-width="208" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNWvdWaNzmIqwI4XpvVokLZf6Izq0zqYTAz2a-FMm7f242AVHwywVztEXYoU_qWzZpuU7I8TU-iAvbJuRSkiHQ7ScV8ndt3l79QmKw4GB-ciM4tkZOAVNjjeTTYsDpXpJ-gv4ACXRNkdLYVgOkWkfZqvyELcoIA7RZE1rqrvXGRjp2eS0aX7NVA3la2w/s1600/Church%20leader's%20living%20allowance.jpg" width="208" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Remember, Kids! The Church has no paid clergy!</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Spiritual Malpractice</span></b><br />I don't want you to think I'm not in favor of disgruntled members attempting to sue for fraud. I'm all for it as I think there are legitimate grounds for doing so. As Jonathan Streeter correctly alleges in a more recent post, Church leaders are guilty, at the very least, of <a href="https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/voluntary-tithing-and-mis-informed-consent-part-2/" target="_blank"><b>spiritual malpractice</b></a>. They have taken advantage of the members' misinformed consent. Jonathan also has provided an <b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=351709349375136" target="_blank">informative video</a></b> that should be of assistance to anyone contemplating a lawsuit against the corporate Church. I feel it's important to learn from other's efforts as to what works and what doesn't. Last I heard, <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/james-huntsman-appeals-tithing-case-against-lds-church-says-jury-needs-to-decide-who-s-telling-the-truth/ar-AATuiz7" target="_blank"><b>James Huntsman's appeal to the 9th Circuit Court is still moving forward</b></a>, but Huntsman apparently has the financial means to fight this battle against the Church bureaucracy. Most of us do not. <p></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">There Is At Least One Thing You Can Do</span></b></p><p>If nothing else, you could at least stop being a sucker. You might want to consider what thousands of other believers have done and simply stop supporting the corporate Church with your hard-earned money. The law of tithing does remain a sacred obligation for those of us who still maintain a belief in the gospel as restored through Joseph Smith, so you most certainly are required by the Lord to give of your substance to those in need. But you would be a fool to believe you are pleasing God by continuing to throw your money at the corporate behemoth. That gluttonous fraud has betrayed God's trust and thereby severed the sacred contract. So just do what the rest of us do and give your tithes directly to those in need. And when you overpay, as most of us do anyway, you will be blessed because your sincere donation is benefitting living, breathing human beings in need, and not being diverted to the bulging stock portfolios of the Brethren. Jana Reiss, long-time Religion Editor at the Salt Lake Tribune, tells how she can honestly declare herself a full tithepayer even though she recently <b><a href="https://religionnews.com/2020/12/23/why-i-stopped-tithing-to-the-lds-church/" target="_blank">stopped paying tithing to the Church</a>. </b><br /><br />As foretold in prophecy, the Lord has set his hand a second time to gather His people. And as before, he is bypassing the Pharisees. Maybe it's time you got on board.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgatEDpXR2dazzNIXNsCXgq6rgrDu_Fcig1bhiWqQ_RsayvkMl67l3sZyhlZf9t7jnRrJarBWAEPts3SyrSxEhz_y-xVItTvd9n3rbLft-JNtfdN5sDQElVKzy9EaREMqEHzhI2DVhjC0DI_1VzRNn3MJsT9SGGtB6PqjRF2Un3V4ilEMD6dBe1mLPoLA/s459/Rescuing%20the%20restoration%202.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="459" data-original-width="459" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgatEDpXR2dazzNIXNsCXgq6rgrDu_Fcig1bhiWqQ_RsayvkMl67l3sZyhlZf9t7jnRrJarBWAEPts3SyrSxEhz_y-xVItTvd9n3rbLft-JNtfdN5sDQElVKzy9EaREMqEHzhI2DVhjC0DI_1VzRNn3MJsT9SGGtB6PqjRF2Un3V4ilEMD6dBe1mLPoLA/s320/Rescuing%20the%20restoration%202.webp" width="320" /></a></div><p><b> *****</b><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><u style="font-weight: bold;">Update, June 22, 2pm:</u><br />Bill Reel has just announced an upcoming live discussion on tithing where I'll wager a lot of what was presented here today will be discussed. Tune into the link below on Wednesday, January 25th at 5:20 PM. It looks like our old friend Radio Free Mormon will be on hand:<br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lFhEJToWHE" target="_blank">Mormonism Live: Tithing-What's In a Word?</a><br /><br /></span></p></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-59026374572205034832022-12-18T09:55:00.006-08:002023-01-21T18:51:31.145-08:00Here's An Oldie But Goodie: Did The Lord Choose Not To Anoint 'The Lord's Anointed'?<p><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/10/dont-call-me-right-winger.html" target="_blank"><i>Previously: </i>Don't Call Me A Right-Winger</a><br /><i><br />Connie and I had some new friends visit us last week who are relatively new readers of this blog and they told me they check in every day to see if there is anything new here. My intent is to post something new every month, but the last entry was posted in October and I'm currently recovering from cataract surgery in both eyes and probably won't be able to see well enough to write something before December ends, either. So I thought for now I would share one of my more important pieces in the event anyone else is stopping by searching for new content. This isn't new, of course, and I hate to come off as a one-note Johnny, but given the direction the current leaders are taking the Church lately, it might be a good idea to take a closer look at how they measure up to our founding prophet. </i><br /><br /><i>This piece was written when Thomas Monson was president of the Church, but everything here still applies. So, to begin:</i></b></p><h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">Did The Lord Choose Not To Anoint "The Lord's Anointed"?</h3><div class="post-header" style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div></div><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-4077263651098218330" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 898px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAJPdasDfoZlxkcyUqKZig9ZzceC2I50aZecRYdXs0_9VMbB_Pgu7SRrZ_otcX6V6DMW3zQaCVZUFyDGu7lYHfyuSFO7qCeikAbC7s5NC91rSTQP5-SWuUEg5VFlbWmbnJEBvWhZdoMoWk/s1600/general+authorities.jpg" style="clear: left; color: #336699; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAJPdasDfoZlxkcyUqKZig9ZzceC2I50aZecRYdXs0_9VMbB_Pgu7SRrZ_otcX6V6DMW3zQaCVZUFyDGu7lYHfyuSFO7qCeikAbC7s5NC91rSTQP5-SWuUEg5VFlbWmbnJEBvWhZdoMoWk/s1600/general+authorities.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></div><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/11/on-high-road-to-apostasy_20.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Previously: On The High Road To Apostasy</a></i><br /><br />I have a wonderful cousin who I love like the dickens, but she recently rebuked me online by writing "You are so deceived. I'd rather follow a prophet than someone who is disgruntled, leading others astray. I feel sorry for you."<br /><br />Well, I get that now and then. But when it comes from someone who hasn't seen me in more than a decade, I feel a correction is in order. So I would like to put my dear cousin's mind at ease and reassure her that I <i>do</i> follow a prophet; a prophet I believe to have been divinely appointed by Jesus Christ to be not only a prophet, but a seer and a revelator as well. This is a prophet I presume my cousin also looks to as divinely anointed: Joseph Smith, Junior.<br /><br />On a blog so boldly titled as "<i>Pure Mormonism</i>" you would think readers would be aware of my testimony of Joseph Smith and my devotion to the gospel of Christ he was instrumental in restoring. But it turns out that a good number of active members of the Church -some of whom know me personally- haven't actually read much of my words here, choosing instead to assume I have devolved into a nasty, unrepentant nonbeliever. So I guess a reminder that I remain devoted to the faith, and to the prophet who founded it, may be in order now and then.<br /><br />This prophet, Joseph Smith, is the only man our pioneer ancestors thought of as the prophet to the church, and he had that sole distinction among the membership throughout the entire lifetimes of the generation who knew him. Even though Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and others attained the office of president of the Church, Joseph Smith was the only one the 19th century Saints ever recognized as the prophet of the Most High.<br /><br />You can find numerous references to "the prophet" in the journals and writings of the Utah Saints, and even repeatedly in the Deseret News up through the turn of the century. And every time that term was used, it almost never referred to the current Church president, whoever that might have been. When "the prophet" was spoken of, it was in reference to Joseph Smith the martyr, and him alone.<br /><br />I think where I part ways with my cousin is that although I believe Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet, seer, and revelator, I am no longer convinced the same can be said of the men who currently manage the affairs of the LDS Church. And I think my reasoning on this is sound.<br /><br />If the Lord intends for us to revere these men the way we revere our founding prophet, shouldn't we be able to arrive at a testimony of <i>them</i> the same way we came to know of Joseph Smith's divine calling? Should we not, for instance, be able to fairly demonstrate that Thomas Monson has been anointed prophet, seer, and revelator by utilizing the same means and criteria that brought us to the knowledge that Joseph Smith was?<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Solving The Prophet Puzzle</span></b><br />Every missionary in my day was familiar with a talk by apostle Hugh B. Brown, <i>"Profile of a Prophet."</i> In this recorded talk, Elder Brown outlines the historic and scriptural criteria by which any of us should be able to recognize the appearance of a true prophet of God. It is a powerful and convincing talk, and at only 25 minutes long, well worth your time. You can listen to it <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjLEKcfqPZY" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />For the sake of brevity, I'll list the following characteristics Elder Brown outlines that should be evident in any man who purports to be a prophet of God:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">1. He will boldly claim that God had spoken to him. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">2. Any man so claiming would be a dignified man with a dignified message—no table jumping, no whisperings from the dead, no clairvoyance, but an intelligent statement of truth. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">3. Any man claiming to be a prophet of God would declare his message without any fear and without making any weak concessions to public opinion. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">4. If he were speaking for God he could not make concessions, although what he taught would be new and contrary to the accepted teachings of the day. A prophet bears witness to what he has seen and heard and seldom tries to make a case by argument. His message and not himself is important. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">5. Such a man would speak in the name of the Lord, saying, “Thus said the Lord,” as did Moses, Joshua, and others. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">6. Such a man would predict future events in the name of the Lord, and they would come to pass, as did those predicted by Isaiah and Ezekiel. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">7. He would have not only an important message for his time but often a message for all future time, such as Daniel, Jeremiah, and others had. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">8. He would have courage and faith enough to endure persecution and to give his life, if need be, for the cause he espoused, such as Peter, James, Paul, and others did. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">9. Such a man would denounce wickedness fearlessly. He would generally be rejected or persecuted by the people of his time, but later generations and descendants of his persecutors would build monuments in his honor. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">10. He would be able to do superhuman things—things that no man could do without God’s help. The consequence or result of his message and work would be convincing evidence of his prophetic calling: “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">11. His teachings would be in strict conformity with scripture, and his words and his writings would become scripture. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).</blockquote>Elder Brown's impressive outline had a great deal to do with my acquiring a testimony of Joseph Smith's divine calling. But that was not the only way I arrived at my testimony. I found ample evidence that Joseph Smith was called of God, because God himself acknowledged it. Here's one of the first revelations from the Lord signifying He had selected Joseph Smith to accomplish His purposes:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord." (D&C 3:9)</blockquote>Now, a cynic might conclude that since it was Joseph Smith himself who wrote those words, Joseph Smith could have been the one making the claim. Only a fool, it might be said, would accept that statement at face value.<br /><div><br />Well, I may be a cynic and a fool, but I also like to think I'm a seeker of truth. So I did what we are all commanded to do, and took that statement and others like it directly to the Lord for confirmation. What I received in answer to my prayers was a witness of the spirit that those words indeed came from the mouth of the Lord. Joseph Smith, I was assured, was indeed called of God to do God's work.<br /><br />We are charged in scripture <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/4.34" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">not to take any man's statement at face value</a>, no matter his rank or title. We are instructed to examine every single utterance that claims to have come from the Lord, then take that utterance to the Lord in prayer to get a witness through the Holy Ghost that the message did indeed come from Him.<br /><br />We rarely do that. We have gotten lazy, preferring to believe that our leaders somehow are incapable of leading us astray, even though the Lord has never given us that assurance, but has constantly warned us otherwise. Believing without question what management tells us is just so much easier than actually inquiring of the Lord.<br /><br />Our great failure as a people is that more often than not, once we receive divine confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true, we tend to accept everything else that is preached from the pulpit without thinking, even things that are taught that are contrary to what the Book of Mormon itself is trying to tell us.<br /><br />The apostle Paul directs us to "prove <i>all</i> things," then "hold fast to that which is good." The word "prove" means to test a thing, to evince by examination. The LDS Church in the 21st century seems to have formally abandoned that instruction. Indeed, the very act of testing, examining, or questioning certain teachings or practices within the Church in our day is deemed grounds for Church discipline, and even expulsion, according to the <i>Church Handbook of Instruction</i>. (Vol 1, pg 57; see also Jensen, <i><a href="http://justandtrue.com/?p=554" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Modern Apostasy</a>,</i> 2014.)<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Taking It To The Source</span></b><br />Some years ago I came to the realization that not everything I was taught growing up about my religion was entirely reliable. Some of it was error mixed in with truth.<br /><br />So in an effort to separate truth from falsehood, I realized I would have to set aside my entire system of fixed beliefs, and start over from scratch. So over time, as I re-read the revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants given to us through Joseph Smith, I made certain that each and every one of them was accurate. And I did so by asking God directly, "did you say this?"<br /><br />And each time I asked I got a clear witness. Yes, those words were the very oracles of God.<br /><br />Here are a few more verses affirming Joseph's role as God's mouthpiece in these last days. I asked about each one, and got the same affirmation:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments." (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.17?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">D&C 1:17</a>) </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ." (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/21.1?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">D&C 21:1</a>) </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Thou wast called and chosen to write the Book of Mormon, and to my ministry...And thou shalt continue in calling upon God in my name, and writing the things which shall be given thee by the Comforter, and expounding all scriptures unto the church." (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/24.1?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">D&C 24:1,5</a>) </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses." (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/28.2?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">D&C 28:2)</a></blockquote>Then there was this revelation given to the members of the church in 1830, which I found most instructive:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you <i><b>as he receiveth them</b></i>, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, <b><i>as if from mine own mouth</i></b>..." (D&C 21:4&5)</blockquote>I noted that members of the church back then were not told to follow or obey the counsel of the prophet, as I was being taught to do in regards to the president of the Church in my day. This revelation says we shall "<b><i>give heed</i></b> to all his words." To "heed" means to give consideration to, give careful attention, to examine and ponder.<br /><br />Quite a far cry from unquestioning obedience.<br /><br />Something else I noticed in that revelation: we are not instructed to accept everything Joseph Smith ever said as if it were gospel. Only those words he speaks <i><b>as he receives them from The Lord.</b> </i>It is only those words that come <i><b>"as if from mine own mouth" </b></i>that we are commanded to give heed to. While it is true that Joseph Smith, having seen and conversed with Jesus Christ and the Father, doubtless came away from that experience brimming with wisdom and insight; and while Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet personally ordained by God, not every utterance that ever came out of his mouth is to be accepted <i>ex cathedra</i>. Only those words he delivers <i><b>as coming from the mouth of God</b></i> are considered doctrinal. Which brings us to...<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Grand Daddy Of All Scriptures</span></b><br />All of us have our favorite scriptures. For most of us it's a direct quote from Jesus Christ, as well it should be. But there is one chapter in the Book of Mormon that we ought to take as our guide before we consider any other teaching of the Church, and that is <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/8" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">1st Nephi Chapter 8</a>.<br /><br />This is the chapter that teaches us that the only sure path to God is by holding to the rod of iron, the symbolic guardrail that represents the word of God. Therefore, nothing we read in our Sunday School manuals, nothing we're taught in Church, nothing we hear in general conference, is allowed to trump the actual word of God. Only our Lord's<i> actual words</i> as revealed through His prophets are the words we should be clinging to; anything not measuring up to the word of God fails the iron rod test.<br /><br />When we're trying to figure out whether some man's word is to be taken as God's will, it's not enough to simply rely upon what we were taught growing up in the church. We have to go to the source, and that source is the revealed word of God. Harold B. Lee, himself a former president of the church, delineated what he thought was the biggest danger facing the LDS church in modern times:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I say we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures. If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren't able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false -it is as simple as that. But the unfortunate thing is that so many of us are <i>not</i> reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think therein is one of our biggest dangers of today." </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The Lord has given us in the standard works the means by which we should measure truth and untruth. May we all heed His word: <b><i>'Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received,</i></b> which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, <b><i>to be my law to govern my church.'</i></b> " D&C 42:59 (<i><a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/12/find-the-answers-in-the-scriptures?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">First Presidency Message, Ensign, December 1972</a></i>. Emphasis mine.)</blockquote>So, are we to simply allow men in leadership positions to govern the church of Christ according to the policies and procedures they institute on their own? Or are they required to govern the church only in accordance with the instructions promulgated by God? We latter-day Saints have a sacred duty to make an important determination, and this determination should be made carefully and prayerfully: whether the men who succeeded Joseph Smith actually <i>are</i> his successors as authorized by God, or if they are there only because our vain traditions call for them to be.<br /><br />The way to get to the nub of it all is to seek God's word in the matter. It is not enough to simply accept the next guy in line as though he were appointed by God. We should insist on seeing evidence of that appointment.<br /><br />I had just begun to question my faith in church succession some years back, when Gordon B. Hinckley was president. In March of 2003, the president of the United States launched an invasion of a foreign country that had done us no harm, in violation not only of the constitution's separation of powers, but also in direct violation of the words of Jesus Christ, who declared in D&C 98:33 that his people "should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them."<br /><br />So I was looking forward to general conference three weeks later. We were finally going to hear an actual prophet of God lay into the civil authorities for an act of aggression every bit as unwarranted as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, or the German Blitzkrieg on Poland. This should be worth tuning in to!<br /><br />But when conference arrived and president Hinckley finally got around to addressing this topic at the final session, it was clear he wasn't going to act anything like a true Old Testament prophet speaking old fashioned truth to power. In fact, he admitted <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng&_r=1" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">he didn't know what to think</a> about this current war, but he was sure the whole thing would be over in a few short weeks. It was the most wishy-washy, non-committal, unprincipled, and uninformed pile of <i>nothing</i> I had ever heard come out of the mouth of a reputed prophet of God in my life. Caught me completely by surprise.<br /><br />Hinckley did offer one pertinent quote from Jesus,where the Lord commanded his people to "renounce war and proclaim peace." Then he spent the rest of his talk with a metaphoric shrug as if to say, "But hey, whatcha gonna do?"<br /><br />Thus began my first crisis of faith in modern Church leadership. So I went to the Lord to ask the question it had never occurred to me to ask before: is Gordon B. Hinckley your appointed mouthpiece on the earth?<br /><br />I don't want to put words in God's mouth, because he didn't answer me with an audible voice. But if I were to reconstruct the conversation in English, it might have gone something like this:<br /><br />"Is Gordon B. Hinckley your anointed prophet, seer, and revelator?"<br /><br /><i>Show me some of Gordon's prophecies and revelations and I'll give you my answer.</i><br /><br />"But he has never issued any prophecies or revelations."<br /><br /><i>Well then, there's your answer.</i><br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Follow the Whosit?</span></b><br />A while back, when re-reading 1st Nephi 8, I noticed something I had only glossed over in previous readings, then instantly forgotten. The prophet Lehi was describing a dream in which he found himself in a dark and dreary wilderness. Suddenly a well-dressed, important looking man appeared and bade him follow. Lehi would be rescued from the darkness, for surely this impressive figure -a man of God if ever there was one- would lead Lehi back into the light.<br /><br />But Lehi soon discovered it had been a mistake to follow this man, for he was only led further into the dark and dreary wasteland. Lehi found himself lost "for the space of many hours," until it occurred to him to call on God directly. Only then was Lehi brought into the light. Now he could see many things clearly, among them that rod of iron along the straight pathway to God's pure love. Lehi realized that the only sure path to God was not by putting his trust in any man, but instead to cling tenaciously to the word of God.<br /><br />As a devout believer in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, I can think of no more pertinent question in our day than to assess whether we are doing the Lord's will in following certain men, or if we are being misled. Even Joseph Smith himself lamented that the people were depending so much on him that they were becoming "darkened in their minds." (<i><a href="http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book/48" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book</a></i>, pg 51). If the prophet would issue such a warning to the people in his day to back off, why are so many Mormons so anxious to ignore that advice when it comes to Church leaders today?<br /><br />Brigham Young said something interesting:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question—Does a man’s being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the president of the Church. Suffice it to say, that Joseph was the president of the Church, as long as he lived:<b><i> the people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station by the voice of the people</i></b>. Can you find any revelation appointing him the President of the Church? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity; but <b><i>when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people</i></b>; though he held the keys of the Priesthood, independent of their voice.” (<i><a href="http://jod.mrm.org/1/131" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Journal of Discourses</a></i> 1:133 Emphasis added.)</blockquote>Joseph Smith was appointed by the Lord to be the Lord's mouthpiece. It so happened that Joseph was <i>also</i> elected by the people to preside over the fledgling church. Each of those positions is not the same as the other. Joseph just happened to have worn both hats back in the day; at various times acting as either prophet and/or president.<br /><br />But it could have easily been the case that while Joseph acted as the mouthpiece of the Lord, some other person -Hyrum Smith, for example, or Sidney Rigdon- could have been elected by the members and sustained as <i>president</i> of the church at the same time Joseph Smith was their <i>prophet</i>.<br /><br />So the thing we deserve to come to an understanding of in our day is this: how can we know if the president of the church <i>also</i> happens to be a prophet?<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>How About We Ask The Same Questions?</b></span><br />Obviously, to get an answer to our question we would use the same criteria we used when we came to a knowledge that Joseph Smith was ordained to be God's mouthpiece. We might first compare the current president to the list of qualifications apostle Brown taught would be recognizable in a prophet. Secondly, we would look for instances where the Lord has declared the modern president to be his mouthpiece, as he did numerous times in regard to Joseph Smith.<br /><br />Trouble is, we can find no instance where Thomas S. Monson has boldly made the claim that God has spoken to him. Neither has he declared he has received any messages "in the name of the Lord." Neither has president Monson predicted future events, or endured persecution, or met any number of the qualifications recognizable in a true prophet outlined by Apostle Hugh B. Brown above.<br /><br />Where do we find God's endorsement of Thomas Monson similar to the one given regarding Joseph Smith? We have no statement from the Lord telling us to "give heed unto all Monson's words and commandments which he shall give unto you, for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth."<br /><br />I looked for such an endorsement of President Hinckley, and those who came before him. And then when I got to Heber J. Grant, I read this bombshell from a letter President Grant had written to a Mrs. Claud Peery in 1926:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I know of no instance where the Lord has appeared to an individual since His appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith."</blockquote>Wait...WHAT?! I was always taught that the living prophet met with Jesus face to face on a regular basis in the upper room of the temple. And now here's one of those prophets admitting that not only has <i>he</i> never met or spoken to Jesus, but nobody he knows ever has either!<br /><br />I felt maybe the thing to do was track this all the way back to Brigham Young. Seeing as how Brigham was Joseph Smith's BFF, surely <i>he</i> had the authority to speak for God, and maybe at least I would learn that authority was somehow handed off to those who came after.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Trail Dead Ends</span></b><br />It turns out, though, that Brigham Young wasn't really all that close to Joseph Smith, for the simple reason they didn't spent much time together. Joseph lived in Nauvoo, while Brigham was constantly off laboring in the Eastern States and Great Britain.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>We have this idea that Brigham Young was Joseph's second in command, but the records don't support that. He wasn't a member of the First Presidency. The minutes of the Nauvoo High Council don't show him in attendance because he was not a member of that body. His association to Joseph Smith, to the extent it was significant at all, was in company with others, not the two of them alone. There were plenty of other men who had a closer association to Joseph Smith than Brigham Young did. <i>Plenty</i> of others.<br /><br />The myth that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were best buds was fostered by Brigham in the decades following Joseph's death, and developed over time into the official Church narrative.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 4px; position: relative; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizmDnXBfGwDvDRH9LvLPtyZJkDrLmDpfqXUoLRvulkLN4cuMwZGINILSD6JOcu2ITn24AKGUGrpR87SZzX00Zjf0VSjCRdyPqoWmqr7UWufCOPuId7CIIcIbm9lFQsLOgyRUgqepOgbeJe/s1600/Brigham-Young-and-Joseph-Smith-as-Smart-Object-1.jpg" style="color: #336699; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" height="326" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizmDnXBfGwDvDRH9LvLPtyZJkDrLmDpfqXUoLRvulkLN4cuMwZGINILSD6JOcu2ITn24AKGUGrpR87SZzX00Zjf0VSjCRdyPqoWmqr7UWufCOPuId7CIIcIbm9lFQsLOgyRUgqepOgbeJe/s400/Brigham-Young-and-Joseph-Smith-as-Smart-Object-1.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 11.88px;">"Say Joseph, do you mind if we get a selfie so I can prove I met you once?"</td></tr></tbody></table>More surprising, when one looks at the record, is that now and then Brigham Young would pop off with some astonishing admissions denying any role as God's anointed:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel." (<a href="http://jod.mrm.org/5/72" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">Journal of Discourses 5:77</a>)</blockquote>Like all Latter-day Saints at the time, Brigham expected that one day Joseph Smith's eldest son would take the reins of church leadership. Until then, Brigham would act as a sort of placeholder:<br /><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"What of Joseph Smith's family? What of his boys? I have prayed from the beginning for sister Emma and for the whole family. There is not a man in this Church that has entertained better feelings towards them. Joseph said to me, “God will take care of my children when I am taken.” They are in the hands of God, and when they make their appearance before this people, full of his power, there are none but what will say—“Amen! We are ready to receive you."</blockquote>Brigham Young had been president of the church for 13 years when he made the following statement in 1860:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The brethren testify that brother Brigham is brother Joseph's legal successor. You never heard <i>me</i> say so. I say that I am a good hand to keep the dogs and wolves out of the flock. I do not care a groat who rises up. I do not think anything about being Joseph's successor." (<a href="http://jod.mrm.org/8/64" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">Journal of Discourses 8:69</a>). </blockquote>Someone "to keep the dogs and wolves out of the flock" is exactly what Brigham proposed to be when he went before the assembly that day in August just weeks after Joseph and his brother were murdered. He indicated there would be no prophet to replace the one who had fallen.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Heretofore you have had a prophet as the mouthpiece of the Lord to speak to you. But he has sealed his testimony with his blood, and now, for the first time, are you called to walk by faith, and not by sight." (<i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Discourses-Brigham-Young-1832-ebook/dp/B00MI6ZV6M" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Complete Discourses of Brigham Young</a></i>, (1844, pg 20)</blockquote></div><div>That doesn't sound like a man who believed the mantle of the prophet had fallen on him. And sure enough, he goes on to propose something else entirely:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I ask the latter-day Saints: do you, as individuals, at this time, want to choose a prophet or a guardian? Inasmuch as our Prophet and our Patriarch are taken from our midst, do you want someone to guard, to guide and lead you through this world into the kingdom of God or not?"</blockquote>Brigham was attempting to persuade the crowd to reject Sidney Rigdon, the only member of the First Presidency left alive. But if he was hoping to be elected to the top position himself, he was talking them out of choosing him, too.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"All that want some person to be a guardian or a prophet, a spokesman or something else, signify it by raising the right hand."</blockquote>They must have been confused by the way he worded the question, because the record states no hands were raised.<br /><br />Brigham ended up suggesting that the best choice for governing the church would be to turn it over to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, acting together as a body. Not one man in particular, mind you, but the whole Twelve would make all the governing decisions as a group. So that's the plan the congregation voted to accept.<br /><br />Three years later, Brigham persuaded the saints assembled at Winter Quarters to elect him as president of the Church, which they did. Mind you, they did <i>not </i>anoint him their prophet, seer, and revelator. Brigham himself had told them, "You cannot fill the office of a prophet, seer, or revelator. God must do this."<br /><br />The people never did consider Brigham Young to be prophet, seer, and revelator for the church as was Joseph Smith. They sustained him as their president, the guy whose job it was to <i>preside</i> over the church, not receive revelations for it.<br /><br />Fast forward thirty years to Brigham Young's death, and now the Twelve are convened to decide what to do next. Brigham had ruled the church with such an iron hand, that once he was gone John Taylor convened the Twelve and said (I'm paraphrasing), "Let's not do that again. From now on, let's all twelve of us be the governing body as originally proposed so as not to risk having another dictator."<br /><br />And that's what they did. For three years, the Church was run by a twelve-man board of directors, with no president at its head. And then John Taylor decided maybe he would like to try his hand at presiding after all, so he got the Twelve to go along with him and at conference the people were asked to sustain him as their president. Not their prophet, just church president.<br /><br />In the Spring 2014 issue of the <i>Journal of Mormon History</i>, historian Edward Leo Lyman has documented the slap-dash, make-it-up-as-they-went methods by which the Quorum tried to figure out who should be the next in charge every time one of them shuffled off his mortal coil. (See <i><a href="http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1080&context=mormonhistory" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Succession By Seniority: The Development of Procedural Precedents in the LDS Church</a>).</i><br /><br />The way the apostles struggled to work things out over each series of "crises" makes for some fascinating reading. There was still no one in the church hierarchy operating as Joseph Smith had, receiving revelations from God, so they didn't know how they were supposed to handle things. The minutes of the meetings of the Quorum in those days show a lot of debate, infighting, alliances, and jockeying for position. About the only thing the Brethren were ever united on was their agreement that none of them wanted to see George Q. Cannon become president. He was almost universally disliked by his fellow apostles.<br /><br />By the 20th century, a popular narrative had taken hold in the church to the effect that ever since the death of Joseph Smith, there has always been "a living prophet" at the head of the church to guide us and instruct us in God's will. Nothing could be further from the truth. None of these supposed "prophets" ever conveyed a direct revelation to the members from which the saints could ascertain the will of God. Check your Doctrine & Covenants and you'll see. <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/06/where-did-oracles-go.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The oracles simply peter out</a> once Brother Joseph exits the scene.<br /><br />There is one more loose thread to this story. The "preferred narrative" most of us were taught growing up in the church states that before he died, Joseph Smith anointed the Twelve apostles to succeed him, and that he turned over to them all the keys and authority to act in the name of God. That part of our history isn't true either. But it makes an interesting tale.<br /><br />So sit back and get comfy; we're not done yet.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Who Needs Checks And Balances In The Lord's True Church?</span></b><br />LDS Church tradition claims the “Twelve” were given all the “keys” (<a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/03/training-day.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">whatever that is</a>) by Joseph Smith to control everything. This is said to have taken place in a meeting that was held on March 26, 1844. This claim is contrary to scripture, but has not stopped LDS leaders from insisting it is how the Twelve Apostles came to be in charge of everything “Mormon.”<br /><br />I say it is contrary to scripture because the great revelation on priesthood (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">D&C 107</a>) expressly <i>limits</i> the jurisdiction of the Twelve. Jesus Christ Himself, through revelation to his prophet, directed that the governing bodies of the church are to be co-equal in authority, in order that no single entity encroaches on the responsibilities and commissions of another.<br /><br />If you were to list them in order of importance of governing authority (and we shouldn't, because the Lord set them up to be co-equal branches), the list might look like this:<br /><br /> The First Presidency<br /> The High Council<br /> The Quorum of the Seventy<br /> The Quorum of Twelve Apostles<br /><br />The apostles would probably be last, because they had no governing authority within the church. Most of the time they weren't anywhere near Church headquarters, because the common name for the Twelve Apostles was the "Traveling Elders." These were the missionaries sent out to all the world to spread the gospel. They were only home occasionally before going back out again. The High Council, headquartered at Nauvoo, did most of the governing within the church, handling the day-to-day administrative affairs of the church.<br /><br />You may have noticed there is no High Council operating at Church headquarters anymore. That office simply disappeared once Brigham Young took charge of things. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Nauvoo-City-High-Council-Minutes-ebook/dp/B00ARIBZJU/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1483984959&sr=8-1" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Like it never existed.</a><br /><br />Under the Lord's plan, the Twelve have no authority within any organized stake. They are co-equal with the other bodies, but with very limited jurisdiction. Yet the Twelve today claim they get to own, control, operate and dictate to all other bodies and to every part of the church, both inside and outside organized stakes. All this because of a meeting that took place on March 26, 1844.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUq4MYJ0HGWAvOuFq5NmmO69-YM8SMJVM8e_FzewJg36BCSLHvluMiHM-g-KxFFyX9GEGZutDbOmjy3W-i-nubi9Ouka7iy5SPlBSwkV03C8AxZey8n2usKB9XTDU86yPFJcvzw0rTZyPz/s1600/Joseph+smith+papers+administrative+records.jpg" style="clear: left; color: #336699; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUq4MYJ0HGWAvOuFq5NmmO69-YM8SMJVM8e_FzewJg36BCSLHvluMiHM-g-KxFFyX9GEGZutDbOmjy3W-i-nubi9Ouka7iy5SPlBSwkV03C8AxZey8n2usKB9XTDU86yPFJcvzw0rTZyPz/s1600/Joseph+smith+papers+administrative+records.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></div>The meeting was held by a group known as The Council of Fifty, or more expansively <i>“The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgement in the Hands of His Servants.”</i> (See <a href="http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/administrative-records-council-of-fifty-minutes" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><i>Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records</i></a>, p. 45.)<br /><br /> The thing is, this council was not a part of the church. It operated <i>outside</i> the church; independent of it. And that's because it included both members of the church <i>and</i> non-members.<br /><br />It is important to recognize that the kingdom of God was <i>not</i> the church, and the Council of Fifty was<i> </i>not part of the church. It was separate. It was not a religious society like the church, but a civil organization newly organized in 1844 as a first step toward Joseph Smith's vision of an eventual civil and political “kingdom” belonging to God. Its intended purpose was to ensure that the rights of all people were protected, regardless of one's beliefs or religious affiliation. (I go into greater detail on the purposes of the Kingdom of God in <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/06/where-did-oracles-go.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">a previous post</a>.)<br /><br />Although the Council of Fifty kept minutes, the March 26, 1844 minutes make no mention of the Twelve getting to control everything, or getting any “keys” from Joseph Smith that day. In fact, there is nothing in the minutes to support the claims of the LDS Church that the Twelve were superior to every other church body, and in possession of all the “keys” (whatever that means).<br /><br />Because the minutes do not support the claims, the LDS Church Historian’s Office wrote an introduction and provided footnotes for the minutes of the 26 March 1844 meeting. The Historian’s Office<i> thinks</i> that is most likely the probable meeting when the “keys” were passed along.<br /><br />Their introduction begins on page 62, and the minutes run through page 72 of the volume titled <i>Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records</i>. If it were not for the Historian’s Office interjecting the claim into their introduction and footnotes, there would be <i>nothing</i> in the minutes of the meeting to support the claim that the Twelve got all the “keys” from Joseph Smith to run everything on that day.<br /><br />Essentially the Historian’s Office explains that missing proof does not prove it didn’t happen.<br /><br />If it did happen as the LDS Church claims, it is a pretty significant omission. But the omission from March 1844 is not the only proof that this important event did not happen. The story about “keys” got mentioned the following year, in minutes that should lay the LDS Church's claims to rest.<br /><br />The minutes of 25 March 1845 of the Council of Fifty meeting has an introduction written by the LDS Historian’s Office that attempts to support the traditional story thus:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Orson Hyde read to the council a two-page statement that he hoped to publish as part of his pamphlet on a 'farewell to Rigdonism.' The document concerned JS’s 'appointing the Twelve to take the responsibility of leading the church,' an event that likely occurred at a Council of Fifty meeting on 26 March 1844, and Hyde asked how many council members had been present on that occasion and could sign the document as witnesses. Rather than taking up Hyde’s question, the council briefly considered the content of Hyde’s account. After discussion, Young denied Hyde’s request to publish the document and instead instructed him to focus on Rigdonism in his pamphlet 'and let the Twelve alone.' " (<i>Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records,</i> p. 371.) </blockquote>This introduction is not really a fair account of what happened in the meeting or what was in the minutes. Here is what the minutes of that meeting say when it is mentioned the first time early in the meeting:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"> <u>Coun. O. Hyde</u> wanted information as to who were here to day who were present Joseph Smith laid the responsibility of leading the church on the Twelve. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> <u>The chairman</u> said E[lde]r Hyde would have to lay that matter over a little. (<i>Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records</i>, p. 375.)</blockquote>The reference to “The chairman” is to Brigham Young. There follows three pages of notes before the discussion returns to Hyde’s topic. Here is what the minutes say when Hyde’s topic is discussed later in the same meeting:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"> <u>Coun. Hyde</u> read a certificate which he had wrote for publication concerning prest Joseph Smith appointing the Twelve to take the responsibility of leading the church. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> <u>Coun. J. Young</u> moved that the last expression in the article, “so help us God” be left out.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> <u>Coun. Hyde</u> said he had wrote this article and submitted it to this council to find out how many of those here were present at the time it was done, and who can sign it as witnesses. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> <u>Coun. O. Pratt</u> was present when observations similar to those in the document were made by prest Smith; but would it not be carrying an idea abroad that this was the commencement of the authority of the Twelve. They had the same authority before the time referred to in the document. He should have no objections to the article going forth if the proper date of the authority and appointment was stated. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> <u>Coun. Hyde</u> gave further reasons why he had wrote the article and requested its publication. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> <u>The chairman</u> said he should not want the article to go into the history of [Sidney] Rigdon at all. He wants Er Hyde to write his farewell to Rigdonism and let the Twelve alone. He dont [care] whether the world know the authority and power of the Twelve or not, when the time comes they shall feel our power and we shall not try to prove it to them. In regard to Joseph’s remarks, he did not mention anything about the anointing; he said it was this council of fifty which had to bear the responsibility of establishing the kingdom in all the world." (<i>Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records</i>, pp. 378- 380.)</blockquote><div> The last remark by Brigham Young (“The chairman”) puts the matter to rest. There was no “anointing” and the “keys of the kingdom” were not given to the Twelve in any earlier meeting. Instead it was “this council of fifty which had to bear the responsibility.” Meaning that there was nothing uniquely given by Joseph Smith to the Twelve, but instead it was given to the “council of fifty.” The council’s members included both Mormons and non-Mormons. The LDS Historian’s Office adds a footnote to explain the troubling remark from Brigham Young that Joseph Smith “did not mention anything about the anointing” by explaining: </div><blockquote class="tr_bq">In his statement Young apparently was not affirming that no anointing occurred but clarifying that JS did not perform such an anointing in the late March 1844 meeting of the Council of Fifty. There is no evidence that any ordinance, ordination, or anointing occurred in any meeting of the Council of Fifty; (<i>Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records</i>, p. 380, footnote 598.) </blockquote><div>I want to make sure you caught that: There is no evidence that any ordinance, ordination, or anointing occurred in any meeting of the Council of Fifty!<br /><br />According to the LDS Historian’s Office, there was no ordinance passing the “keys of the kingdom” to the Twelve in the Council of Fifty! Nor was there an <i>ordination</i> passing the “keys of the kingdom” to the Twelve in the Council of Fifty! Nor any sort of anointing passing the “keys” to the Twelve!<br /><br />But the official tradition in the church today remains. The Twelve somehow got the “keys” in a meeting of the Council of Fifty sans ordinance, sans ordination, and sans anointing.</div><div><br /></div><div>You may ask yourself, “How did that work?” </div><div><br /></div><div>And the tradition has an answer. Here is the official way that the Twelve got their power in the March 26, 1844 meeting, according to the LDS Historian’s Office. I've highlighted the weasel words for you:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A significant event<i> <b>likely</b></i> occurred in this meeting, <b><i>probably</i></b> in the morning session, about which <b>the minutes are silent</b> but which council members discussed a year later in connection with a written summary prepared by Orson Hyde. Clayton’s brief note that JS spoke “on heavenly things, and many other important subjects” <b><i>likely</i></b> marks what was later referred to as JS’s “last charge.” This<b> <i>may have</i></b> been an extension of the charge relating the history, purpose, and rules of the council that was typically given to new members and that JS <b><i>may have</i></b> delivered in this meeting. (<i>Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records</i>, pp. 62-63. <u>Emphasis mine</u>.) </blockquote>That's a generous passel of "likely"s, "probably"s, and "may have"s in a paragraph ostensibly written by professional historians.<br /><br />I'm accustomed to reading raw historical data just as it stands. And when a historian deigns to describe a document to me, I expect him to stick to what is actually in the document he's describing, without speculating and forcing the data to conform to what he wants it to say.<br /><br />But because traditions of men now dictate that Joseph Smith <i>must have</i> turned over his authority to the traveling elders at <i>some point </i>in history; and because these particular court historians depend upon the corporate Church for their salaries and their pensions, they have apparently decided that this is the moment the invisible transfer of power must have taken place. They chose this moment in history to put words in the mouth of a true prophet of God, so that future "prophets" would have some officially sanctioned event to hang their hats on when declaring their authority to act in God's name. In the opinion of these company men, that meeting in 1844 simply had to be the time and place where Joseph Smith turned over all his authority to the Twelve. It just <i>had</i> to be!<br /><br />Yet there is absolutely no indication in the record that anything of the sort ever took place.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6MqrZBRhhpo_QrdkzjGwfXflo6-heEMPz165o2a04EoXsoOCApW0hTUbhHZBqb6V8kgehldef6CgJJltP8KSn-yE48aBvyXyHRUa61iOZZ92tPVNnkrLeGMIBFKKNVoh3kKd7fs0u_EC-/s1600/council+of+fifty+documntary+history.jpg" style="clear: right; color: #336699; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6MqrZBRhhpo_QrdkzjGwfXflo6-heEMPz165o2a04EoXsoOCApW0hTUbhHZBqb6V8kgehldef6CgJJltP8KSn-yE48aBvyXyHRUa61iOZZ92tPVNnkrLeGMIBFKKNVoh3kKd7fs0u_EC-/s320/council+of+fifty+documntary+history.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="216" /></a>Would you like to see what Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on this most momentous occasion, when the prophet of the Restoration reportedly rolled off all his authority onto the shoulders of Woodruff and his pals in the Quorum? The usually loquacious Woodruff apparently hadn't seen anything notable take place that day:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"26th A rainey day. I met in council with the brethren."<br /> (<i><a href="http://signaturebooks.com/wilford-woodruffs-journal-1833-1898-typescript/" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Wilford Woodruff's Journal</a></i>, Vol. 2, pg. 371, see also <i><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Council-Fifty-Documentary-History/dp/1560852240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481731308&sr=8-1&keywords=the+council+of+fifty" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The Council of Fifty: A Documentary History</a></i>, pg 34)</blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Lord's Version </b></span><br />We do have a record of the Lord appointing someone other than Joseph Smith to be a prophet, seer, and revelator to the church, and that was Joseph's brother, Hyrum. Hear the words of the Lord in this instance:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"And from this time forth I appoint unto him that he may be a prophet, a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph." D&C 124:94)</blockquote></div><div>In that same revelation, Jesus appointed Brigham Young to <i>his</i> place in the church:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council."</blockquote>And that's it. That is the only calling Brigham Young ever received by the voice of the Lord: director of the missionary program.<br /><br />This convoluted megillah showing how Joseph is imagined to have given the Twelve full authority to run the whole shebang is more than a bit of a stretch. Note the historian's obscure reference to Joseph Smith's "last charge" to the Twelve, a "charge" that no one has seen in writing, and that is now imagined to <i>maybe</i> be the "charge" Joseph "<b><i>may have</i></b> delivered in this particular meeting."<br /><br />So now “keys” are given by a “charge” to someone? In scripture, normally a “charge” is either an accusation or a warning. For example, as an accusation: I charge you with murder. (See, e.g., <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5%3A21-23&version=KJV" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Numbers 5:21</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+23%3A29&version=KJV" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Acts 23:29</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+tim+5%3A16&version=KJV" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">1 Tim. 5:16</a>; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.11-25?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">D&C 121:11</a>.)<br /><br />As a warning: I charge you to stay away from Sodom or be killed. (See, e.g., <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen+28%3A1&version=KJV" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Gen. 28:1</a>; E<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+19%3A21&version=KJV" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">xo. 19:21</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7%3A36&version=KJV" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Mark 7:36</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+16%3A23&version=KJV" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Acts 16:23</a>; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/35.16?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Alma 35:16</a>.)<br /><br />If the LDS Historian’s office admits Joseph “charged” the Twelve, but did not give an “ordinance, ordination, or anointing” then how was he charging them? Was he warning them? Or was Joseph accusing them? Either of these would not empower the Twelve, but would caution/accuse them against wrecking the “kingdom”—something which<i> </i>has happened.<br /><br />If you want to read a good example of Joseph Smith giving Church leaders a "charge," turn to section four in <i><a href="http://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith</a>. </i> This is the section discussed in <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/11/on-high-road-to-apostasy_20.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">my last post</a> on this forum. There the prophet goes on for eight pages charging members of the Twelve not to exalt themselves as had the fallen leaders these men were now replacing. He charged them to be humble; to not betray God, to not betray the church, to not betray their brethren; he charged them to <i>be careful</i>. That is the kind of thing we are used to reading whenever Joseph Smith issued a "charge" to the brethren.<br /><br />This is how Denver Snuffer explained the death of the Council of Fifty and the “kingdom of God” in a post on <a href="http://denversnuffer.com/2016/10/joseph-smith-papers-conclusion/" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">October 18, 2016</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The “kingdom of God” is not the LDS Church and the LDS Church is not the “kingdom of God.” They are separate. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>'Joseph Smith stated that the 'literal kingdom of God [that is, the Council of Fifty], and the church of God are two distinct things' as 'the laws of the kingdom are not designed to affect our salvation hereafter.' (</i>Joseph Smith Papers Administrative Records<i>, p. xxiii.)</i></blockquote>"So if Joseph rolled the 'kingdom of God' off his shoulders and onto the Twelve, it has nothing to do with giving the Twelve jurisdiction to assume complete autocratic control over the church. There was already a revelation in place (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">D&C 107</a>) that confirmed the role of the Twelve in the church to co-equality with the seventy, stake high councils, and gave them no jurisdiction within an organized stake. The assertion that the charge allowed them expanded jurisdiction contrary to, and in violation of Section 107 is not justified when the 'kingdom of God' and the church are two separate things. The 'kingdom of God' is 'not designed to affect our salvation' and therefore did not, indeed cannot, subjugate the church.<br /><br />"Further, even if you accept the charge given to the Twelve, rolled to them the 'kingdom of God,' they abandoned it: </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>'The final meetings of the council were held in the mid-1880s. Thereafter the council’s records appear to have remained in the custody of the Office of the First Presidency. In 1922 church president Heber J. Grant reportedly entrusted Joseph Anderson, who served as secretary to Grant and the First Presidency, to safeguard the records. In 1932 Grant and Franklin S. Richards–the last two living members of the council–met together and read through some of the Council of Fifty records. The minutes were also accessed in the late twentieth century. In 2010 the First Presidency transferred the Nauvoo-era record to the Church History Library.' (</i>Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records<i>, p. 6.)</i></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Thus died the 'kingdom of God' which Joseph Smith <i>probably may </i>have charged the Twelve to possess. They neglected the 'kingdom of God' because they were preoccupied with acquiring complete, unfettered control to dictate over the church and hold at defiance any who dared to challenge them. They reign over the Seventies and stake high councils with impunity. Their autocratic control holds the approximate 30% of those who remain nominally active in the church in complete submission.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"They have the 'keys of the kingdom'–which kingdom has lapsed into complete oblivion. But they’ve parlayed that into dictatorship over the other organization, the Church."</blockquote></div><div>The foundational claims of our religion can be tested by inquiring of the Lord. But the more closely the <i>authority</i> claims of the LDS Church are examined, the more groundless they become.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Restoration happened. Joseph Smith spoke with God and accomplished things only a prophet could accomplish. But that has nothing whatever to do with supporting the anti-scriptural claims by the Twelve that they have the right to complete ownership and control of a church that was founded through an actual prophet of God.<br /><br /> *****</div></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-30055213181388963792022-10-30T14:46:00.048-07:002023-06-24T12:41:57.495-07:00Don't Call Me A Right-Winger<div class="separator"><br /></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><b></b></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMkyi1zfVbEaJIQXa0OHFJegD6fsQLz9RIXICzbSwC7RW_FrnbNmXPzSFIvyBVZqRlamf_xTc1vclRn2Vcbo16Sh2qeREJRIf1-CTx-BZ1IbjYCXWTelSzjuZ2j7b8jXgFvt5iMTKQL1Glhgj7qT4pJ7vCNqAX1EBcuMwOuEkLHreeF8QzA39WzOj-eA/s614/John%20Foster%20Dulles%20Allen%20Dulles.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="614" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMkyi1zfVbEaJIQXa0OHFJegD6fsQLz9RIXICzbSwC7RW_FrnbNmXPzSFIvyBVZqRlamf_xTc1vclRn2Vcbo16Sh2qeREJRIf1-CTx-BZ1IbjYCXWTelSzjuZ2j7b8jXgFvt5iMTKQL1Glhgj7qT4pJ7vCNqAX1EBcuMwOuEkLHreeF8QzA39WzOj-eA/w320-h240/John%20Foster%20Dulles%20Allen%20Dulles.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>I have nothing in common with these two jerks</i></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/08/politics-and-religion-revisited.html" target="_blank">Previously: <i>Politics and Religion Revisited</i></a></b><b><i> </i> </b></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>In the introduction to <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/04/why-are-you-still-calling-this-guy.html" target="_blank"><b>a post I wrote back in April,</b></a> I noted my agreement with the many faithful latter-day saints who were troubled by the First Presidency's official statement urging Church members to submit to the government's mandate regarding Covid "vaccinations." </p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Someone over at the <i><b>Mormon Stories Podcast Group</b> </i>on Facebook commented on my position, saying that he didn't know who I was, but decided he needed to read no further since clearly the author of the piece (me) was just another ignorant right-winger.</p><p>I thought that was an odd thing for him to call me, because it had been the right-wingers in government who were trying to get me to comply with their unconstitutional mandates. My refusing to blindly go along with their dangerous demands doesn't make me a right-winger; it makes me the opposite of a right-winger, since historically right-wingers were always powerful members of the ruling class who tried to force others to bend to their will. It was always the right-wingers pretending to care about the little guy who were the ones trying to punish those who disagree with them.<br /><br />The right-wingers today, of course, are those who <i>claim</i> to be liberals, but whose actions and motives are opposite of what classical liberalism always stood for. Today's right-wing ideologues are people like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Fauci, and Gates; all of them controlling, power-mad elites just chomping at the bit to rule over the rest of us while demanding we don't give them any push-back. <br /><br />If you are confused by what I just said, it's probably because you've always believed "right-winger" was synonymous with "conservative." If so, you deserve to correct your thinking.<br /><br />In the political realm, right-wing regimes have <i>always</i> stood in direct opposition to traditional conservative and classical liberal values. It was always right-wingers in positions of power who saw the common folk as their enemy to be crushed against the rocks. As recently as the middle of the 20th century, when you heard the term "right-winger," it was tyrants like Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini who immediately came to mind. Americans who thought of themselves as conservatives would have never thought of themselves as having anything in common with Nazis and Fascists. <br /><br />If your political views align with America's founders and the constitutional protections they bequeathed to us, you should vigorously object to being called a right-winger because right-wing actions and policies are completely antithetical to what you believe in. Right-wingers have historically been dictators who stood for censorship, oppression, and the enslavement of the individual. Such suit-wearing demons never had anything at all in common with conservatives.</p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>So What <i>Is</i> The Difference Between Left And Right? </b>F</span>irst, a digression: <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-this-country-needs-is-lot-more.html" target="_blank">in a previous essay in this space,</a></b> I quoted author Jeffrey Tucker on what it used to mean to be a liberal. That definition was widely understood by everyone in this country for over a hundred and fifty years. Back then, everyone knew what it meant to be liberal, and that meaning was 180 degrees opposite of what that term has come to mean today: </p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"></span></p><blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">"To be liberal was to favor free enterprise and property rights, oppose slavery, reject old-world caste systems, loathe war, be generally disposed toward free trade and cosmopolitanism, favor the social advance of women, favor technological progress — and to possess a grave skepticism toward government management of anything." (</span><b>Jeffrey Tucker,</b> </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bourbon-Breakfast-Living-Outside-Statist-ebook/dp/B0041HXMNU/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ZQ1XJIV4J948&keywords=Jeffrey+tucker+bourbon+for+breakfast&qid=1667142775&s=books&sprefix=jeffrey+tucker+bourbon+for+breakfast%2Cstripbooks%2C154&sr=1-1" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; scroll-behavior: auto; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><i><b><span style="scroll-behavior: auto;">Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Status Quo</span>.)</b></i></a></blockquote><p>Check your concordances to see how often "liberal" was used in scripture to convey a desirable quality. Or pull up <b><i><a href="https://webstersdictionary1828.com/" target="_blank">Noah Webster's original 1828 dictionary</a></i></b>. As you can see, the <i>classical</i> definition of "liberal"(i.e. the longstanding use of the term as it was always understood from the beginning) bears no resemblance at all to those members of the ruling elite who call themselves "liberals" today. Instead, the qualities of classical liberalism are now observable in those who hold conservative values. <br /><br />Traditionally, most Americans, no matter what political party they aligned themselves with, considered themselves to have a liberal worldview, which is why liberals and conservatives were found in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Believe it or not, a person could hold liberal views in some areas and still be conservative in others, and vice-versa. In fact, we all should be both liberals and conservatives, otherwise we will not be in balance. For instance, you might embrace traditional, "conservative" values in your personal life while at the same time having a liberal outlook in your dealings with others. You might act to determine your own path in life while allowing others the free agency regarding how they will live theirs. In other words, Americans are supposed to believe in the Golden Rule. Unlike how things have unfolded today, political differences back then were usually not so important that they got in the way of your ability to love your neighbor. <br /><br />So if freedom-loving people were traditionally defined as liberals (and later, conservatives), what do we call powerful autocrats and authoritarians who would impose their will on others while censoring those who resist their rule? Those are the right-wingers; often very wealthy, but never satisfied with the amount of power they have. They're always desperate for more power then more again. <br /><br />These are the sociopaths who say to those beneath them, "do what I say or else!" To put a Mormon spin on it, Joseph Smith was a classical liberal, while Brigham Young was a right-winger. King Benjamin was a classical liberal, King Noah was a right-winger. Benjamin refused to tax his people or boss them around; Noah taxed his people heavily and would set you on fire if you dared to criticize him. <br /><br />Make no mistake: as politicians go, it is not just modern Democrats who have rejected the qualities of classical liberalism. Many Republican officeholders such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of that wicked cabal of Neocons who plunged this country into two senseless wars twenty years ago were clearly right-wingers as well, as we can all see in retrospect.<br /><br />This proves the danger that comes from regular people aligning themselves with a political party when they should be aligning themselves with correct principles. Because for so long conservatives identified as Republicans, they simply assumed Republican politicians were conservatives just like they were, never suspecting that those in leadership positions were in reality the right-wing devils they turned out to be.<br /><br />American conservatives, who in 2003 might have resisted the senseless calls for war if those calls had been proposed by a Democratic president, willingly championed the killing of innocents in foreign lands when those calls came from a president who was a Republican, and all because that fellow Republican told them it was right and proper and patriotic to do so. In retrospect, we can see how much better it would have been had we <a href="has revealed his worldview to be antithetical to the gospel of Christ, and is as much a right-wing oppressor as are Biden and Pelosi." target="_blank"><b>looked to scripture for our counsel instead of trusting in the arm of flesh.</b></a> Utah Mormons are finally realizing that their own Republican senator Mitt Romney is a dangerous right-winger. Ten years ago I warned my readers that Romney was <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/02/piss-poor-excuse-for-mormon.html" target="_blank"><b>a wolf in sheep's clothing</b></a> whose ideology is antithetical to the gospel of Christ. Boy, did I call it, or what?<br /><br />A right-winger can be identified by his or her desire to censor dissent in order to hold onto power at all costs. Again, I direct your attention to the recognized right-wing regimes of monsters like Hitler and Mussolini. If you have nothing in common with those dictators, you should stop allowing others to lump you in with them. <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Where Did The Term 'Right-Winger' Originate?</span></b><br />Near the beginning of the French revolution (this was in 1789, before the criminally violent Reign of Terror began), the newly formed French National Assembly met to hammer out a constitution. The purpose was to come to some kind of agreement on how much power the king would be permitted to retain and how much authority would be left in the hands of the people through their representatives.</p><p>Almost immediately the delegates on each side staked out their own territories in the assembly hall, with the anti-royalist revolutionaries choosing seats to the left of the presiding officer while members of the aristocratic class seated themselves on the right. Needless to say, the aristocrats had more to gain by seeing to it that the king remained fully in power, so the right-wingers advocated for the monarchy while the lower classes sitting to the left advocated for the king to have less power.<br /><br />As you can guess, it wasn't easy for these disparate groups to come to an amicable agreement on how France should be governed, and four years later the the whole enterprise had gone straight down the toilet (that's a French word meaning everything went to shit).<br /><br />It didn't take long before the easily duped commoners were enticed by a devil named Robespierre, who got his followers to round up all members of the nobility and put them to the guillotine. Unfortunately, this reign of terror didn't stop with just eliminating the snooty powdered wig set; pretty much everyone who suggested the guillotine might be too extreme a punishment for simply disagreeing with the mob ended up with their heads in a basket as well. <br /><br />Thus, by the time the French revolution was over, 17,000 French men, women, and children who made the mistake of feeling it might be better if everyone just calmed down a bit and and talked this thing out found themselves canceled by the woke mob. Quite permanently.<br /><br />So in the end the revolutionaries had become the ones ruling with fear and force and violence, which is to say they themselves became the spitting image of the right-wing ruling class bullies they were trying to rid France of. The chaos finally ended when somebody else with enough power to crush <i>that</i> revolution came to power, a self-indulgent little twerp named Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon, himself a wealthy and well-connected right-winger, crushed the right-wingers who had crushed the right-wingers that came before them. Which is how this always works.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">What About The Lefties? </span></b>You may have noticed I haven't said very much about left-wingers so far. That's because it's a useless distinction. Since right-wingers in high places have traditionally operated as a cabal of wealthy and powerful people intent on ruling over those they deem to be lesser beings, it would do well to recognize that throughout history virtually every so-called left-wing "revolution of the masses" has been funded and controlled by a wealthy right-wing cabal in order to finance the very chaos that they then heroically step in to crush. That is what has come to be known as <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/joachim-hagopian/power-elite-run-us/" target="_blank"><b>Hegelian Dialectics:</b></a><b> y</b>ou operate behind the scenes to create an uprising so violent that the people demand something be done to end the chaos, then you step in with your handpicked lackeys to rescue the nation from the disaster you yourself created, which always results in a more oppressive police state "for the safety of the citizens." Every seemingly "spontaneous uprising of the oppressed" -whether it be the French Revolution, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, or the George Floyd Riots- has been encouraged and co-opted by powerful individuals who used these incidents as a means of consolidating greater power to themselves.<br /><br />In other words, every left-wing revolution in modern times was actually orchestrated and financed by powerful people on the right, people who bore no relation to traditional conservatives or classical liberals; people who believe it is their inherent <i>right</i> to rule over everybody else. </p><p>One reason the French Revolution remains a perfect case study is that it has proven to be a microcosm for all the violent revolutions that came after. For instance, it was long claimed by some that the French Revolution was stage-managed behind the scenes by wealthy people who wanted the power of the throne for themselves, and who figured out a way to engineer the coup by getting the downtrodden masses to do their dirty work for them. The revolutionaries would dethrone the monarch, leaving a power gap which the secret elites would then fill with some charismatic "leader" under their own control.</p>For some time, Western historians tended to ignore the evidence presented by researchers such as the<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEiyp5Vrf9-hWwPtjAwjb98YguoQ0iI_tXC97r30nNpwbJUNPy1tWfqqfVtDMyplSjg7Y5konH-beEYO3yEELyRJ9JH0yaddqVEhw_FaJBrNCZC2nGEqu1U5yaGEN9Z-h55GERADjzz84Q-VrOVe-bDNO4AY8Mp9QBBRyfDi4CtsjXlXLLZVGLgVyruw/s295/memoirs%20history%20of%20jacobin%202.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="295" data-original-width="171" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEiyp5Vrf9-hWwPtjAwjb98YguoQ0iI_tXC97r30nNpwbJUNPy1tWfqqfVtDMyplSjg7Y5konH-beEYO3yEELyRJ9JH0yaddqVEhw_FaJBrNCZC2nGEqu1U5yaGEN9Z-h55GERADjzz84Q-VrOVe-bDNO4AY8Mp9QBBRyfDi4CtsjXlXLLZVGLgVyruw/s1600/memoirs%20history%20of%20jacobin%202.jpg" width="171" /></a></div><b><i><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Memoirs-Illustrating-History-Jacobism-Barruel-ebook/dp/B07CXZKFBB/ref=sr_1_6?crid=XBXSKHX9MRY5&keywords=abbe+barruel+memoirs&qid=1667164059&s=books&sprefix=abbe+barruel+memoirs+%2Cstripbooks%2C155&sr=1-6" target="_blank">Abbot Augustin Barruel</a></i></b> (a French priest who they ignored even though he was present during the revolution) and <b><i><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Reign-Terror/dp/1169710964/ref=sr_1_5?crid=1FF38F47TDCPR&keywords=nesta+webster+the+french+revolution&qid=1667164243&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIyLjU0IiwicXNhIjoiMC45MiIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&s=books&sprefix=nesta+webster+the+french+revolution%2Cstripbooks%2C147&sr=1-5" target="_blank">Nesta Helen Webster</a></i></b> (an English scholar they simply dismissed as a kook). These two, and others like them, provided documented proof that Robespierre was actually a front man for the semi-secret Jacobin Club, a group of wealthy upper crusties who were the real architects of the conspiracy to take over the government of France. Mrs. Webster even provided evidence that <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/10/lets-talk-about-conspiracies.html" target="_blank"><b>the Bavarian Illuminati</b></a> had been backing the Jacobins, which indicated a bigger conspiracy behind the conspiracy. These "conspiracy theories" were dismissed by most Western intellectuals, who felt it was all too incredible to pay any mind to.<br /><br />But then came Dr. James H. Billington, a Rhodes scholar who taught at Harvard and Princeton before serving 28 years as the Librarian of Congress. Billington had all the proper bona fides, and was highly esteemed by his peers. So when he published his massive tome on the French Revolution, the truth -that the revolution was not a spontaneous uprising by the lower classes but had actually been engineered by upper class elites acting in secret- could no longer be ignored by the stuffy intelligentsia. <br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDX5MJLlDOLtvxEHYhhsuL3dX0mZLvQfm1u0mXYlmNR3fIlNn3y5cr8wtbdueLo45iXbVl6OGLQa2MaAJWvsAbP_awKJGc5kBtItXIqJIeHUf7be11uabY7liGAENnlmGkSuadXYbZRKdTapOXAR9HM00xtspmluIlu6rMOw4L843OXwBzbPv4ba5Qhw/s500/fire%20in%20the%20minds%20of%20men.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="339" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDX5MJLlDOLtvxEHYhhsuL3dX0mZLvQfm1u0mXYlmNR3fIlNn3y5cr8wtbdueLo45iXbVl6OGLQa2MaAJWvsAbP_awKJGc5kBtItXIqJIeHUf7be11uabY7liGAENnlmGkSuadXYbZRKdTapOXAR9HM00xtspmluIlu6rMOw4L843OXwBzbPv4ba5Qhw/s320/fire%20in%20the%20minds%20of%20men.jpg" width="217" /></a></div>Dr. Billington's 677 page thesis, published in 1980 under the title<br /> <b><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Minds-Men-Origins-Revolutionary/dp/1138523585/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1VNWCYPYZ7XY0&keywords=fire+in+the+minds+of+men+by+james+billington+hardcover&qid=1666528547&sprefix=fire+in+the+minds+of+men+by+james+billington+hardcover%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.18ed3cb5-28d5-4975-8bc7-93deae8f9840" target="_blank">Fire In The Minds Of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith,</a></i></b> didn't stop at the French Revolution. Billington showed how the same pattern later resulted in the communist revolutions of Marx and Engels. Indeed, American Professor Antony Sutton had for years been compiling documents showing how Joseph Stalin could not have come to power in Russia had he not been <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=14NXO2NF74DJ4&keywords=wall+street+and+the+bolshevik+revolution&qid=1666528422&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjg0IiwicXNhIjoiMS41NiIsInFzcCI6IjEuNjgifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=wall+street+and+the+bolshevik+%2Caps%2C155&sr=8-1" target="_blank">secretly financed by American bankers</a>, </b>the same bankers who bankrolled <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Hitler-Antony-Sutton/dp/0945001533/ref=sr_1_1?crid=LYU3KDLWL065&keywords=antony+sutton+hitler&qid=1666528682&sprefix=antony+sutton+hitler%2Caps%2C163&sr=8-1" target="_blank"><b>Hitler's massive war machine</b>.</a> <p><b style="font-size: large;">How Conservatives Were Tricked Into Believing They Belong On The Right </b><span style="font-size: large;">T</span>he problem with adopting political labels -or worse, imposing such labels on others- is that meanings are fluid and often little understood. For example, while today the word "radical" has a negative connotation, that wasn't always so. As constitutional</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh4v7EUwd58hhbde-GPKy-5e3z-bdA9Lfq7rHBiqTyPBFBy15jPnSrscPzaAjRZakHMze2n5B0mUVxmhENE_OA3Z_h0IMOZYPL1c05ihI52TqBoCYNfiQZD3lQcPMOI5dsrOQUOHprMWlHmjVgVvoVIWVwIb-6gLlzZb7RIKC16eJcv0SUMeq7y36yaQ/s355/the%20radicalism%20of%20the%20american%20revolution.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="355" data-original-width="266" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh4v7EUwd58hhbde-GPKy-5e3z-bdA9Lfq7rHBiqTyPBFBy15jPnSrscPzaAjRZakHMze2n5B0mUVxmhENE_OA3Z_h0IMOZYPL1c05ihI52TqBoCYNfiQZD3lQcPMOI5dsrOQUOHprMWlHmjVgVvoVIWVwIb-6gLlzZb7RIKC16eJcv0SUMeq7y36yaQ/s320/the%20radicalism%20of%20the%20american%20revolution.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>scholar Gordon Wood has shown, America's founders were proudly radical in the true meaning of the word. The word "radical" means "root" (as does the word "<i>rad</i>ish," a vegetable that is pretty much nothing but a root). In contrast to the monarchies that had ruled all of Europe for centuries, the founders were attempting to <i>return to the roots</i> of proper government, such as had existed with the ancient Israelites. The law of Moses prized the individual's right to self-determination, which stood in contrast to the monarchies that had ruled all of Europe for centuries since.<p></p><p>One of the things the Founders were aware of was that the Israelites recognized God as their judge, their lawgiver, and their king (Isaiah 33:22). So for more than three centuries the Israelites did very well without an earthly king ruling over them. That was what made them a peculiar people: unlike all the nations around them, the Israelites had no king. <br /><br />But ask any kid in Junior High if he wants to be seen as peculiar and you'll understand the level of maturity held by the Israelites some three centuries after Moses. The Israelites didn't want to be peculiar, they wanted to fit in like everybody else. So about 360 years after escaping the tyranny of the pharaoh in Egypt, all the elders of Israel went before the prophet Samuel and told him they wanted to have a king like all the other nations. Samuel was perturbed and took this to the Lord, who told Samuel the people could have their king if that's what they wanted, but from then on things were really gonna suck. It's all there in <b><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&version=KJV" target="_blank">1st Samuel 8: 4-20. </a> </b>The elders said they didn't care, they wanted a king anyway, "that we may be like all the nations."</p><p>So that's what they got. All governmental control of the the people -authority that had previously been entrusted to God alone- was now in the hands of one man, Saul, the nation of Israel's first earthly king. So now Saul was the whole megillah: judge, lawgiver, the king all rolled into one. As all of history has shown us, no man who has ever held such unchecked power has ever exercised it justly. Israel suffered under their kings, as did every European nation since, all the way up until 1776, when the god-fearing American colonists decided to go back to their Godly roots. <br /><br />Now, the Founders realized that if they were to simulate a godly government where the power was held by the legislature, the judicial, and the executive, they were going to have to split those powers up between three separate groups because, as John Adams observed, men were not angels and could not be trusted to rule justly as God always does. </p><p>The constitution those men hammered out for us is not perfect, and it never was going to be perfect because, as John Adams again reminds us, <span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-size: 16px;">“o</span>ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.<span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-size: 16px;">”</span><span style="background-color: white;"> So in spite of the fact that the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government were created to provide checks and balances between themselves, the government is still not going to police itself. All three branches have to be carefully watched by a moral and religious people to keep them all in check.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">How The Right-Wingers Slipped In And Took Us Over</span></b> Regardless of whether Americans have voted for Democratic or Republican candidates, we have been gradually losing control of our own government for some time, with the slide accelerating since the end of World War II, just after the United States had triumphed over the right-wing governments of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. And that is largely because we unwittingly allowed two brothers who both happened to be overt Nazi sympathizers to be in control of America's National Security, one as the United States Secretary of State, the other as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The photo you see at the top left-hand corner of this page is a picture of those two villains. "Ironic" doesn't begin to describe the story you're about to read: almost immediately after America defeated the Nazis in World War II, we put two Nazi sympathizers entirely in charge of America's national security. You read that right: <i>entirely</i> in charge of America's friggin' <i>national security!</i><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoxoXrMWwLicxTC3RWgwclZzhSVjBU_EK4edfKVWczLuxB3uoZHkRu_ks2qqai4O59MLg-gBg_XzvSQ3T56YQs6FFa8rAWxHXO1-3sVgEmxMJkiP4dRFt1EYCJ8SkKun82EqVcm2Aw459PpPPA61NFe8xULG3dm0-Uz7Zk_z_0eH2qzpC6ObCCdENBDg/s500/the%20devil's%20chessboard.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="333" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoxoXrMWwLicxTC3RWgwclZzhSVjBU_EK4edfKVWczLuxB3uoZHkRu_ks2qqai4O59MLg-gBg_XzvSQ3T56YQs6FFa8rAWxHXO1-3sVgEmxMJkiP4dRFt1EYCJ8SkKun82EqVcm2Aw459PpPPA61NFe8xULG3dm0-Uz7Zk_z_0eH2qzpC6ObCCdENBDg/s320/the%20devil's%20chessboard.jpg" width="213" /></a></span></div><span style="background-color: white;">As documented by David Talbot, author of <b><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276174/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2S8KMX452M5X1&keywords=the+devil%27s+chessboard+by+david+talbot&qid=1667102037&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjk5IiwicXNhIjoiMS42OSIsInFzcCI6IjEuNTkifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=the+devil%27s+chess%2Caps%2C172&sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Devil's Chessboard</a></i></b>, throughout the 1930s John Foster Dulles "harbored sympathy for the devil himself, Adolph Hitler." A business partner of Foster (both Dulles brothers were heavily invested in German businesses) is quoted as saying John Foster Dulles believed "that Germany's position is morally superior to that of the allies." This is the man who eventually rose to power in the Eisenhower administration.<br /><br />We could talk all day about the stupidity of American politicians putting John Foster Dulles in charge of United States foreign policy, but I want to focus mainly on his brother, Allen Dulles, who was quick to see the advantages of colluding with Nazis both before and after the war. As Talbot writes,</span><p></p><blockquote>"Like his brother, Allen Dulles was slow to grasp the malevolence of Hitler's regime. Dulles met face-to-face with Hitler in the Fuhrer's Berlin office in March 1933. He was ostensibly on a fact-finding mission to Europe for President Roosevelt, but Dulles was particularly interested in determining what Hitler's rise meant for his law firm's corporate clients in Germany and the United States. As Dulles subsequently informed his brother Foster, he did not find Hitler particularly alarming. And he was 'rather impressed' with Joseph Goebbels, remarking on the Nazi Propaganda chief's "sincerity and frankness.'" </blockquote><blockquote><span style="background-color: white;">By the late 1930s Allen Dulles came to dismiss Nazi leaders as "Those mad people in control in Germany," but he continued to do business with the Nazi financial and industrial network.</span>'" -<b>David Talbot,</b> <b><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276174/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3D1H8805LHISL&keywords=the+devil%27s+chessboard+by+david+talbot&qid=1667156132&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjk5IiwicXNhIjoiMS42OCIsInFzcCI6IjEuNTgifQ%3D%3D&s=books&sprefix=the+devil%27s+chessboard%2Cstripbooks%2C173&sr=1-1" target="_blank">The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Establishment, Part I, Section 1</a>.</i></b></blockquote><p>Due largely to his business connections in Germany, after the war Allen Dulles snagged a plum government assignment to help with mop-up operations in that defeated nation. The irony is that the Dulles brothers had more in common with Germany than with their own country. Foster Dulles in particular was suspected of collaborating with the enemy. Lucky for both of them, Allen Dulles was uniquely placed to destroy any incriminating evidence so that no investigation could get traction against the Dulles brothers. As Stephen Edward Browne informs us, </p><p></p><blockquote>"Shredding of Nazi documents was a favorite tactic of Allen Dulles and his associates who stayed behind to run the occupation of postwar Germany. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg said that if Franklin Roosevelt had survived the war the Dulles brothers would have faced prosecution for war crimes. He also said that both Dulles brothers were guilty of treason, but FDR died and no one else had the will to challenge them. Allen Dulles was a cold man who had little or no empathy for others. Firms like Farben, Krupp, and Siemens got labor from the concentration camps. Himmler cut himself and the SS in by charging the companies for the labor. Dulles knew of the ongoing genocide in the death camps in Germany during WWII but did nothing to alert the U. S. Government. He went along with the official U.S. State Department policy of looking the other way. After the war, the WWII wartime alliance with Russia was dead and Russia and communism was the new enemy. Many of the Nuremburg defendants were released early due to quiet intervention by Allen Dulles, who worked with Nazis like spymaster Renhard Gehlen to help in the cold war against the Russians. Once he became director, Allen Dulles turned the CIA from an intelligence gathering organization into an action machine that overthrew foreign governments." <b>-Stephen Edward Browne,</b> <b><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/DEEP-STATE-RIDES-AGAIN-Establishment/dp/1733643605/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1YYD28OWLDBYW&keywords=browne+the+deep+state+rides+again&qid=1667121389&s=books&sprefix=browne+the+deep+state+rides+again%2Cstripbooks%2C152&sr=1-1" target="_blank">The Deep State Rides Again: How the Washington Establishment Continues to Try to Overturn the Will of the Voters.</a> </i></b></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIgi_skVy0VQ10adNaUd3iY2IiAHcu0wytQ6DWMNQO-WLViIo9Eib1O_co8zRNLI7gB3yulSQuJBc76dpCT2WZsDtSMTlbmCdftddXfw5x7lwwZDpTpGmk-3qjJduKz-y7bwqfzldYDLXIJJFj2Y1n0K_ouIwEa1RzWfg8TwfbQi_dqGKCTDxZ0YZ2iw/s500/blowback%20nazis.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="375" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIgi_skVy0VQ10adNaUd3iY2IiAHcu0wytQ6DWMNQO-WLViIo9Eib1O_co8zRNLI7gB3yulSQuJBc76dpCT2WZsDtSMTlbmCdftddXfw5x7lwwZDpTpGmk-3qjJduKz-y7bwqfzldYDLXIJJFj2Y1n0K_ouIwEa1RzWfg8TwfbQi_dqGKCTDxZ0YZ2iw/s320/blowback%20nazis.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>So, not only were the Dulles brothers <i>not</i> persecuted for war crimes, Allen Dulles managed to quietly sneak more than 1,600 former Nazi spies, scientists, engineers, and who-knows-whats into the United States and got them citizenship papers under the top secret <b><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-cia-and-the-nazis-a-retrospective-history/" target="_blank">Operation Paperclip</a>,</b> so that now these former Nazis could be hired to work for the CIA. Many of these newly minted U.S. citizens had been extremely devoted to Nazism, and some had been high ranking Nazi party leaders. Do you think these guys left their totalitarian ideology at the door when they went to work for the United States government? Of course they didn't. They continued to believe that the role of government is to control the people. Like Dulles, they saw the CIA as a means of bringing the world under America's control through clandestine means, so those who arrived with a Third Reich mentality didn't have to make many adjustments to their worldview. Never mind that before the war America was a constitutional republic. The CIA would work toward transforming America into an empire to be feared. As documented in Christopher Simpson's stunningly revelatory book <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Americas-Recruitment-Disastrous-Domestic/dp/002044995X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1596344128&sr=8-5/lewrockwell" target="_blank">Blowback: The First Full Account of America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Disastrous Effect on Our Domestic and Foreign Policy,</a></b> this clandestine operation has proven to be destructive in ways that most Americans are still not aware of. <p></p><p>Perhaps Allen Dulles' greatest success was the top secret <b><a href="https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm" target="_blank">Operation Mockingbird</a>,</b> wherein the CIA began a program to infiltrate all the major newspapers, TV, and radio outlets in America. They took control of the journalism schools with the result that now, several generations of journalism graduates later, the takeover of the mainstream media is complete. This was shocking news when it was first revealed by the <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCfTIapds0&t=2s" target="_blank">Church Committee</a></b> in 1976, but virtually no one has any doubts about it today. <b><a href="https://allnewspipeline.com/Operation_Mockingbird_Still_At_Play.php" target="_blank">Operation Mockingbird still remains in play</a></b>. Even as far back as the 1950s, </p><blockquote>"outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates. -Alex Constantine, <b><i><a href="https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKconstantine.htm" target="_blank">Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA.</a></i></b> </blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><span>Now Get Ready For The Punchline:</span> </b></span> </p><p>Both Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA were not wacky Left-wing Marxist members of the Democratic party like the CIA is filled with today. They were both registered Republicans. </p><p>Does that mean those guys were conservatives? Hell no! Not by a long shot. They were no more traditional conservatives than were George Bush and Dick Cheney. And there wasn't anything liberal about either of them, either. They were just straight up right-wing power hungry globalists wanting to reshape the world in their own image. And it's because of those guys that Republicans remain branded right-wingers to this day.<br /><br />The simple reality is that Dwight D. Eisenhower, Commanding General of America's Armed Forces during World War II happened to be a Republican, and Eisenhower was elected president about the time the Dulles Brothers' political stars were on the rise. Party membership was malleable in those days; one needn't take a hard ideological position one way or the other in order to claim membership as a Republican <i>or</i> a Democrat. It was more a question of how and where you were raised. It's quite likely the Dulles brothers came from a long family line of Republicans, so when they attained voting age they naturally gravitated to the Republican party too. That didn't make them conservatives. It just made them opportunists.<br /><br />Many East Coast Elites aligned themselves with the Republicans. You know the type: Harvard and Yale hoity-toity high society my-ancestors-came-over-on-the-Mayflower characters (think Thurston Howell the Third). Seven or Eight decades ago these establishment types landed on the Republican side, if only because that was the party a lot of these big money upper-crusties were brought up in. It all had more to do with family tradition than with rock-hard moral principles.<br /><br />Conversely (and this is also just a general rule), fifty to eighty years ago Democrat voters tended to hail from the working class. This is why it's useless to categorize anyone from back then as Republican/Conservative or Democrat/Liberal. John F. Kennedy was by all accounts an upper-class Eastern blueblood, yet he was a Democrat. And when he ran for the Senate he ran as a <i>conservative</i> Democrat. Something like that is so foreign to modern political discourse that most folks today wouldn't be able to wrap their heads around it. <br /><br />And as I pointed out <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-this-country-needs-is-lot-more.html" target="_blank">in a previous post,</a> </b>the most conservative member of the Senate from 1975 to 1985 was Lawrence P. McDonald, a lifelong Democrat. Just compare his voting record to any Republican senator at the time. You'll see that this Democrat was a <i>hardcore </i>conservative.<br /><br />Up until 1980, the overwhelming majority of rural southerners voted Democrat for no other reason than that was the way their mama, papa, granny, and grandpappy had always voted as far back as they could remember. Party affiliation was like a religion to a lot of American families. If you were a Baptist you always attended the Baptist church and if you were a democrat you always voted for democrats. Every single time. For generations of Americans this tradition was sacrosanct.<br /><br />Then suddenly, following the inflationary disasters brought on by the reckless spending under Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, a massive wave of southerners switched from voting Democrat to voting Republican, which helped sweep conservative Republican Ronald Reagan into the White House. This was a massive shift from members of a culture that had always blindly voted on straight party lines. But with their very livelihoods threatened, they had finally been shaken from their slumber into realizing that not all politicians had their best interests at heart. <br /><br />Meanwhile, it meant nothing at all for a Bond villain like Allen Dulles to identify as a Republican. He was neither a traditional conservative nor a classical liberal. He was just a hard-edged right-winger, every bit as dedicated to grasping for power as are the democratic politicians trying desperately to hold onto their positions today. The way Dulles got outed as a right-winger is this: liberal Democrats back in the 50s and 60s, (who were already beginning to drift away from the classical liberalism of the founders, but still astute enough to recognize skullduggery when they saw it) exposed the unconstitutional duplicity that Foster and Allen Dulles were engaging in. On the other hand, Republican <i>voters</i> by and large didn't notice because voters often are not in the habit of keeping a sharp eye on those they vote for; it's just human nature to trust your side to always be in the right. <br /><br />But when the Democrats realized the intelligence agencies had gone rogue, and that they seemed to be emulating the right-wing regimes of the Nazis and Fascists, they sounded the alarm and declared that the Republicans running the national security state were acting a lot like those right-wing Nazis we Americans had just got finished defeating.<br /><br />In time, calling a Republican a right-winger simply became a handy form of shorthand, an easy way to describe Republicans in general. And since the party of Republicans was the party most conservatives identified with, all conservatives began to be labeled right-wingers by their Democratic opponents. What I find surprising is the number of conservatives who readily embrace that label today. If you are a conservative and you refer to yourself as being a right-winger, I would encourage you to stop that nonsense right this very instant. And don't let anybody saddle you with that appellation against your will. Them there is <i>fightin'</i> words, Missy.<br /><br />And further, don't let party membership be the thing that defines you politically. What should define you politically is whether you favor oppression or whether you favor liberty; whether you wish to have the right to rule yourself or have powerful people in high places ruling over you. <br /><br />By any measure, John F. Kennedy would never be elected president today on the Democratic ticket; he would be considered way too conservative. The right-wing, deep state Democratic party of today would destroy him before he ever got to the primaries. And don't forget: it was Kennedy who vowed to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces because he could see they were were hijacking our Republic.</p><p> Here's Stephen Edward Browne once again:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Long before John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election to become president, the Dulles brothers, for the two terms of the Eisenhower administration, had formulated and implemented the foreign policy of the United States. <i>They</i> decided what needed to be done, <i>they</i> persuaded Eisenhower to approve whatever operation it was, and <i>they</i> then implemented that policy. Sometimes Eisenhower gave the approval willingly and at other times they had to work on him for a while, but in the end, he almost always went along. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State and Allen Dulles was the Director of the CIA. By the time Kennedy arrived in the White House Allen Dulles was used to formulating and implementing the foreign policy of the United States. </blockquote><blockquote>"Here we can see the beginning of what we now refer to as the Deep State. These men were unelected bureaucrats with too much power who thought they knew better than the duly elected leaders and were arrogant enough to defy the will of those leaders. Here are the denizens of the Deep State attempting to implement their policy in defiance of trivial aspects of life like the constitution and the will of the people or their elected leaders. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/DEEP-STATE-RIDES-AGAIN-Establishment/dp/1733643605/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1721OQRCW17DQ&keywords=the+deep+state+rides+again&qid=1667156359&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjc2IiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=the+deep+state+rides+again%2Caps%2C152&sr=8-1" target="_blank">(<b><i>The Deep State Rides Again, ibid pg 106-107) </i></b></a></blockquote>Right-wingers in office, regardless of what you have been told, have never had anything remotely in common with conservatism. Rather, they consist of the more powerful and entrenched politicians from both parties. But more insidiously, right-wingers are most recognizable as members of Washington's permanent bureaucracy, those who have never been voted into office by the people and therefore cannot be voted out. Right-wingers are quite literally the entrenched Deep State.<p></p><p></p><blockquote>"Having the government bureaucracy try to take over power from the existing leadership is not a new concept. This has been going on since the beginning of civilization. The Deep State in the U.S. consists of the crooked politicians, the FBI, the Justice Department, the intelligence community, the mainstream media, and a few others. With a few relatively minor differences, the current crop of bad actors from these same institutions are still at it. Now the U.S. intelligence community has grown to include over a dozen major intelligence agencies in addition to the CIA. And the Deep State is still trying to overturn the will of the voters. They still, a few generations later, have no intention of allowing democracy to work. They don't believe in our representative republic or our Constitution." (<b>-Browne<i>, The Deep State, ibid.) </i></b></blockquote><p>Before George Washington retired from government service (and it really was considered a "service" back then) his most important warning to posterity was that we should not meddle in the affairs of other nations. That was the wise counsel of our Lord when he told us His people were not to go up against any nation unless He Himself commanded us to. The dangers of meddling with others was also the forgotten message in the Book of Mormon. We are to let others run their own affairs. <i>We </i>are to remain neutral. <br /><br />Yet Allen Dulles lived by a completely different motto. He declared that "neutrality has increasingly become obsolete...it is an immoral and shortsighted conception."<br /><br />The Dulles brothers introduced policies into our government that continue unquestioned to this day. It's impossible to know how many millions have suffered and died because of the policies the Dulles brothers introduced to the world. They, and everyone who continues to believe as they did, are the immoral ones of this world. </p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>So Where Do We Go From Here?<br /></b></span>Allen Dulles is long gone, as are the Nazis he recruited to help run the national security state. But long before any of them retired, others just like them were recruited to take their places, until today, with very few exceptions, a virtual army of politicians and bureaucrats with Nazi mindsets and Fascist points of view continue to replicate in government. Don't let them fool you; yesterday's fascists have become the socialists and communists of today. There never was a dime's worth of difference between the nazis and the communists; they were all totalitarians. The far right and the far left were vying for control and now it looks like the far right and the far left have settled in and taken off the mask.<br /><br />Today the right-wingers have all moved over to the Democratic party. The Deep State has become solidly Democratic and they own the politicians who are the face of that party. But this modern brand of "liberalism" is just the phony disguise they wear to try to convince us all they are the party of compassion. These swamp dwellers apparently thought that by cheating their way through the last election they would remain in power indefinitely, so they made the grave mistake of no longer hiding their intention to rule us completely. When they rant and rave of about "democracy" being in danger, what they are really saying is they're afraid their <i>autocracy</i> is in danger of being overturned. <br /><br />Today it is the Democrats in office who barely hide their lust for power. Nearly every ostensible "right-wing" bureaucrat now boasts that they are democrats, that they are liberals, that they care only about the downtrodden and forgotten. Don't you believe them. They have taken total control of the government -at least they think they have. That's why the battle often seems so difficult; so long as the right-wing Nazi Fascists in government have control of the avenues of information and near control of both parties, they will continue to have the upper hand. They will continue to try to get the voters way down here below Mount Olympus, both liberals and conservatives, to fight among ourselves so we don't wake up and realize that evil people in high places have taken control of our government and want to rule over us on their terms. <br /><br />But all that may be changing. I'm optimistic that we may be on the verge of something resembling a national repentance. A massive populist uprising seems to be taking hold; where the people are coming to realize that the entire left/right political paradigm has been a scam to keep us fighting each other when we should be fighting the political machine. This populist awakening is occurring not just in America, but all over the world. Other nations have already flipped the switch by voting out those who would rule them through force. Can we accomplish something similar? Will we be able to peacefully turn this thing around and gently send these Deep State buzzards back into the bowels of hell where they belong?<br /><br />There's an election coming up. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. <div><p><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-this-country-needs-is-lot-more.html" target="_blank"><i>Related Post:</i> What This Country Needs Is A Lot More Liberals</a></span></u></b></p><p> *****</p><p><u><b>UPDATE Tuesday November 1st, 2022:</b></u></p><p><u>A bombshell report released yesterday by </u><i> </i><a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/" target="_blank"><i>The Intercept</i></a> has provided proof for what we have suspected all along: When it came to censorship, Twitter and Facebook have been taking their marching orders from the Deep State, particularly the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, with the FBI often used as their enforcement arm. The receipts were inadvertently left behind at Twitter when its top executives were fired. Read this important piece of investigative journalism <a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Addendum</u></span></b></p><p>In case you were wondering: If the Americans who fought the revolutionary war were the radicals, who were the conservatives? Well, those were the Tories, the ones who opposed the revolution and wanted America to remain under the rule of King George. These conservatives didn't call themselves Tories, of course, as that was considered a slur. They saw themselves as Loyalists, because they were loyal to the king. And they saw the revolutionary war not as a war for independence, but a civil war between the themselves and the radicals. The loyalists were the original American "conservatives."<br /><br />It's been estimated that 15-25% percent of the people living in America in those days held these conservative views and they hated the radical liberals who fought against their king. But since they were outnumbered by the radicals, most of them learned to keep their opinions to themselves. After the war most of them moved up to Canada around the area now known as Ontario, where they could remain under the benevolent protection of their precious King.</p><p>It should be noted that the key characteristic of a conservative in those days was that conservatives were opposed to change -pretty much <i>any</i> change. Conservatives wanted things to stay the way they had always been, and since the colonial conservatives had always been governed by a king, they wanted to continue to be governed by a king. Scottish philosopher David Hume (who died in 1776 so he missed out on all the excitement) was probably the most prominent name in the nascent Conservative movement, but he was not highly thought of by many liberals at the time. (So what else is new? liberals and conservatives seem to have been at odds since the beginning, even though yesterday's liberals are today's conservatives!) John Stuart Mill, also a philosopher but a classical liberal as well, said of Hume, <br />“regard for truth formed no part of his character.”<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #717070; font-family: helveticaregular; font-size: 17.5px;"><br /></span>Ain't that the way it's always been? Liberals and conservatives wasting energy maligning each other instead of uniting to fight against the powers that be, whether those powers be intolerant kings or intolerant politicians.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u style="font-weight: bold;">Notes & Asides & Additional Links</u> </span>If you found this essay of interest you'll want to be sure and check out <b><i><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/" target="_blank">Book of Mormon Perspectives</a></i></b>, beginning with the author's first essay, <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Gadiantons and the State </a> After that I recommend you keep going, as this author will take you deep, deep down the rabbit hole. The author is extremely prolific, so much so that I can't keep up. The most recent post I've read over there is titled <b><i><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u>D</u><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2022/09/vipers-v-demons-in-aliens-clothing.html" target="_blank">emons in Alien's Clothing</a></span> </i></b>and it is compelling! Everything on that platform will provide you food for thought for more than a week.<br /><br />I bought my copy of Dr. Billington's <b><i>Fire in the Minds of Men</i></b> back in 1982, long before the internet. It was quite fascinating, but it's a massive tome that took me quite a while to get through. Now I see that some guy has hosted a presentation in at least three parts of an hour or so each, so if you're the kind of person who prefers audio to text, you might want to take a look at it. I haven't watch it yet myself, but he seems to be reading large chunks (or maybe all) of the book and giving his analysis as he goes. Here's where you'll find <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mLq0_m4sLk&t=2770s" target="_blank">Part One.</a></b> <br /><br />Or, if you're short on time, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV1zMjtWAEg" target="_blank"><b>here's the four minute review</b></a>.</p><p>There's a plethora of recently published books on the Deep State, so if the topic intrigues you (and I hope it does) just do a search of the words "Deep State" and take your pick. I own the one referenced above as well as one by <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/American-Deep-State-Struggle-Democracy/dp/1442214252/ref=sr_1_6?crid=18I4STOYGXZZ0&keywords=deep+state&qid=1667161524&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIzLjg0IiwicXNhIjoiMy41NCIsInFzcCI6IjQuNjIifQ%3D%3D&s=books&sprefix=deep+state%2Cstripbooks%2C170&sr=1-6" target="_blank">Peter Dale Scott</a>, one of the last of the breed of great journalists. Both are well documented and heavily footnoted. Oh yeah I also own one volume of the three volume set by <b><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/History-Deep-State-Jeremy-Stone/dp/1983287334/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3PVB3C7WFUTFV&keywords=deep+state+jeremy+stone&qid=1667161714&s=books&sprefix=deep+state+jeremy+stone%2Cstripbooks%2C153&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Jeremy Stone</a></b> but I haven't read it yet so I can't tell you what I think. Check it out for yourself by downloading a Kindle sample. <br /><br />Some months ago I presented a concise discussion on the Bavarian Illuminati in a post I titled <b><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/10/lets-talk-about-conspiracies.html" target="_blank">Let's Talk About Conspiracies!</a><br /></i></b><br />I couldn't link to the comment at Facebook's Mormon Stories Podcast Group from the guy I who called me a right-winger because I have been banned by that platform and I can't get back in to look for it. Would you like to see the piece that got me banned? <b><i><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/06/this-is-not-gay-thing.html" target="_blank">Here it is.</a></i></b><br /><br />I have written several screeds against the recent wars the Deep State has led this country into, but I don't really have a favorite. (I wish everybody would read every one of them.) The first post I ever wrote on this blog was called <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/12/mormons-who-take-lords-name-in-vain.html" target="_blank"><b>Toby Keith and the Destruction of the Nephites</b>,</a> but another one I think may be chock full of information the two-parter titled <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/12/mormons-who-take-lords-name-in-vain.html" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">When Mormons Take The Lord's Name in Vain. </a><br /><br />Thanks for stopping by! Please leave a comment if you're so inclined. The number of comments have dried up in recent months and I'm not sure why. I guess everyone's too busy watching Youtube videos to comment on blogs anymore. At least that's what I've been doing with a lot of <i>my</i> time.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bourbon-Breakfast-Anniversary-Jeffrey-Tucker-ebook/dp/B081X6Z86P/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=bourbon+for+breakfast&qid=1628840610&sr=8-3" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; scroll-behavior: auto; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"></a><p></p></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-91130345757927263602022-08-14T15:01:00.007-07:002022-08-14T17:04:17.944-07:00Politics And Religion Revisited<p><br /></p><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template" itemprop="blogPost" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; min-height: 0px; position: relative;"><div class="post-header" style="color: #999999; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div></div><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-9014946172717583114" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 898px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWgiiq6ghCt8kInl5RYCKP1xB5E-ztkObyUpidNsAhNTD1BreJv1FiXCQj8VJ3n_I-fB-oROOf-rJszImq0J6r2nYgSEYU9ovXfbyMOGPkg3xcHKrEOVFCvL8pi0nmdDVAKrJgcL5DSRD1/s1600/ghandi+religion+politics.jpg" style="clear: left; color: #336699; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWgiiq6ghCt8kInl5RYCKP1xB5E-ztkObyUpidNsAhNTD1BreJv1FiXCQj8VJ3n_I-fB-oROOf-rJszImq0J6r2nYgSEYU9ovXfbyMOGPkg3xcHKrEOVFCvL8pi0nmdDVAKrJgcL5DSRD1/s1600/ghandi+religion+politics.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></div><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/06/this-is-not-gay-thing.html" target="_blank"><i>Previously: </i>This Is Not A 'Gay' Thing</a><br /><br /><i>This month I'm presenting a post I originally published on this site three and a half years ago, partly because this blog has picked up thousands more readers in recent months and partly because I think it's important in these times to discuss the political philosophy of Mormonism. But mostly because I felt it necessary to go over this information again as a prefatory introduction to a topic I had planned to address today. That one will have to wait until next month because I think the things addressed below will be helpful to review before we get into the heavier stuff next time. <br /><br />That being said, here is what I wrote back when I thought of politics as an entertaining amusement, before those in power brought us to where I believe we are today: on the cusp of the last days. That being said, below is the piece I wrote titled "Politics And Religion," originally posted January 20th, 2019:</i></b></div><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-9014946172717583114" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 898px;"><br /></div><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-9014946172717583114" itemprop="description articleBody" style="line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 898px;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Politics and Religion</span><br /></b><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">A friend of mine recently left this comment after I posted a sassy meme on Facebook:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;">"I love you and your theological writings, Rock -but try to stay away from any of your political commentary/sparring for the most part because it 'appears' you are entrenched in Trumpism..." </blockquote><div><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">That's not the first time someone has advised me to "stick with what you know," but in this case the writer is someone I dearly love and greatly admire. My wife and I were guests in his Utah home for several days a few years back, and he and his wife were incredibly kind to us. So if you think I'm going to light into my friend for that gentle rebuke, you're seriously mistaken. Where he and I are concerned, there is more that unites us than divides.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Still, my friend's comment got me to thinking that since this blog is devoted to my religion, it's high time I addressed the topic of how our religion properly intersects with politics. I sort of addressed something like this in </span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/11/mormons-should-stop-identifying-as.html" style="font-size: 14.85px;" target="_blank"><b>an earlier post</b></a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">, but I didn't touch on the reason </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">why</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> politics must be infused with the proper religious principles in order for our discussions in the public square to have any validity.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But first things first: let's get one thing out of the way, and that's this idea that I am somehow "entrenched in Trumpism." Here is the meme I posted that motivated my friend to call me out publicly:</span><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcVLHl6iPMnPCAaIyx3ok0XPRWnxbHsMtYq2Tyw3ep4OLU4aX78bbdXpnsj8Pu5yYZznd_Mrx-H2obUMPjIgGx34qcsgFmwkqrpxldbCRHBBarEeLOwyaKV1wW5LESBZHm1KenDElyYQw6/s1600/AOC.png" style="color: #336699; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcVLHl6iPMnPCAaIyx3ok0XPRWnxbHsMtYq2Tyw3ep4OLU4aX78bbdXpnsj8Pu5yYZznd_Mrx-H2obUMPjIgGx34qcsgFmwkqrpxldbCRHBBarEeLOwyaKV1wW5LESBZHm1KenDElyYQw6/s320/AOC.png" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="320" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">To that meme I attached a lighthearted jab: "It's okay if you're stupid, too, but that doesn't make you either factually or morally right."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Too bad I hadn't seen this three minute clip by Ben Shapiro, because he really pegs what's ailing this woman:</span><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZY338eaVycg" width="560"></iframe></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">My friend, who to my surprise actually approves of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's scheme to steal the earnings from people she doesn't know, has made an assumption about me that many people are making about a lot of political observers these days: </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">that if you criticize a member of one political party, your loyalties surely must lie with the other.</i><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Here's a novel idea: why not call out dishonesty and hypocrisy no matter which party it stems from? How about </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">not</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> submerging your identity by giving yourself over to a political party? In our everyday lives our personal traits are both liberal </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">and</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> conservative, so if we hope to avoid becoming insufferable, we deserve to consciously cultivate that balance of yin and yang in the political arena as well.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">I think I made it pretty clear in that my post titled </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/11/mormons-should-stop-identifying-as.html" target="_blank">Mormons Should Stop Identifying As Republicans</a></b></i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> why I feel it's a mistake for anyone -most notably Mormons- to align themselves with any particular party. When you do that, you will tend to be defensive about your own team, shutting yourself off to the possibility that </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">your</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> party or </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">your</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> candidate might be capable of wrongdoing. Factional loyalty is a sure way to miss out on what's true and what's false in the political sphere. That's a key reason why the founders warned against voters forming into what they called "factions," meaning a group of people who are united by the same beliefs, interests,
and passions. To pursue these common goals they disregard the rights of other citizens. (</span><b style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp" target="_blank">See the Federalist Papers, Chapter Ten.</a>)</b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">This prejudice in favor of one party over another is the very definition of </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">partisanship</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">, and blind partisanship toward almost anything,whether politics, religion, or even whether you went to </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7sLDziV2hs" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>the best high school</b></a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> will ever be a stumbling block to your search for truth. Those who are wise will mark you down as a fool and </span><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+14%3A7-9&version=NKJV" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>shun your company</b></a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">So let me make this clear: I don't give blind support to </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">any</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> politicians, no matter how well-intentioned, for the same reason I am not a follower of any religious leaders. I already have a king, Yeshua Hamashiach, so I look to no mortal to lead me.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Our scriptures warn us repeatedly that those who trust in the arm of flesh will be cursed. Psalm 146:3 gets even more specific when it warns us to "put not your trust in princes." When the psalmist refers to "Princes," he's talking about "rulers," which is what a good many politicians today fancy themselves to be: our rulers.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Look, I get enough cursings from people who respond to me on Facebook, so I'm not too keen on invoking further cursings from God. I'll continue to follow politics, but I'll do so with a healthy dose of skepticism toward </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">both</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> major political parties.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">This is not to suggest I'm not deeply interested in politics. I am, but mostly for the entertainment. And I'll get back to my feelings about Donald Trump in a minute. First, let's talk about this insanely erroneous idea that politics and religion are supposed to be mutually exclusive.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Political Philosophy Of Mormonism</b></span><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Yes, there is a political philosophy to Mormonism. Wanna know what it is? It's this:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;">"See that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually, for this is the law and the prophets." -Alma 41:14</blockquote><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">If that sounds a lot like The Golden Rule...well, yeah. Here's how Jesus put it in Matthew 7:12:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;">"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."</blockquote><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The purpose of the golden rule in the religious sphere is to instruct </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">you</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> on how to conduct </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">yourself</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> so that you will deal justly with others. But that doctrine necessarily operates in the political sphere as well, and the way it does is twofold: first, you're expected to see that those who govern in your name do so in a way so as to not other hurt people or take their stuff; and second, you're expected to keep an eye on those you've entrusted with governing, so you will be qualified to call them out every time they violate that rule.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">We can't force politicians to adopt our religious ideals, but we do have an obligation to elect public servants who will follow the golden rule. After all, don't they campaign on those basic principles? Have you ever seen a candidate for office promise the people that he would </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">not</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> deal justly? Have you ever seen one refuse to take the oath of office? That oath is an oath to protect and defend the constitution, a document wholly infused with the principles embodied in the golden rule.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In those instances where our public servants fail in their obligation to perform strictly in accordance with their oath of office, it is our duty to hold their feet to the fire. They have an obligation to abide by the golden rule even if they don't believe in it. If you fail in your sacred role of monitoring the rulings enacted by your public servants, you fail in your religious responsibility as well.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The golden rule is so fundamental to good government that every major world religion promotes a version of it. Here are just a few:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Judaism:</b><br />"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." [Sounds a lot like what Jesus said about this teaching being paramount over all others.]</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Islam:</b><br />"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Confucianism:</b><br />"Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire."</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Buddhism:</b><br />"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Baha'i:</b><br />"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not...Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Brahmanism:</b><br />"Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you."</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Hinduism:</b><br />"Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you."</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;"> <b>Jainism:</b> "A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "</blockquote><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">These religious tenets completely infused the societies represented by these religions. So did American society at one time, until the false teaching crept in that religion and politics should be kept separate. Make no mistake, however: unbending religious </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">dogmas </i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">have no place in politics. That's not what we're talking about here. As Mahatma Gandhi (a hindu who also embraced Jainism) insisted,</span><br /><div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;">"Religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality."</blockquote><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxarxkxq-6tA7M9om0zABJatds1cXOX4NokI1eCsOI1QOn8dSoBIZdp8WRw1RLMpnMmbnURApYqyOxTu8I9XdDrZG8kgY5gyE2E_E7TJQGdRoZVekB9IfakZIi0KSM9GBD_3FeJccVe7KU/s1600/THE-MIND-OF-MAHATMA-GANDHI-520x574.jpg" style="clear: right; color: #336699; float: right; font-size: 14.85px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="574" data-original-width="520" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxarxkxq-6tA7M9om0zABJatds1cXOX4NokI1eCsOI1QOn8dSoBIZdp8WRw1RLMpnMmbnURApYqyOxTu8I9XdDrZG8kgY5gyE2E_E7TJQGdRoZVekB9IfakZIi0KSM9GBD_3FeJccVe7KU/s320/THE-MIND-OF-MAHATMA-GANDHI-520x574.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="289" /></a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">And,</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;">"For me, politics bereft of religion are absolute dirt, ever to be shunned. Politics concern nations and that which concerns the welfare of nations must be one of the concerns of a man who is religiously inclined, in other words, a seeker after God and Truth." (<a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Mind-Mahatma-Gandhi-R-Prabhu/dp/8172291493/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=the+mind+of+Gandhi&qid=1547936280&s=Books&sr=1-2" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi</a>, R.K Rabhu and U.R. Rao)</blockquote><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">I could go on and on </span><a href="http://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/mind-of-mahatma-gandhi/religion-and-politics.php" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">quoting Gandhi</a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> regarding the importance of including religion in the public sphere. He was quite vocal about it on countless occasions. But you might wonder why I'm quoting a Hindu instead of quoting, say, Joseph Smith, since he is the founder of our faith?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The answer is simple: there are numerous citations by Joseph Smith affirming the necessity of religious principles infusing every aspect of our lives, but very few statements making the specific arguments Gandhi does. That's because in Joseph's day, there was no need to make those arguments. Just as in the days of America's founders, virtually no one was campaigning to keep religion out of the public square. Back then, it was a given that morality and religion were an essential part of political life. It has been only since the 20th century that some factions of American society have argued that there is no place in politics for principles borne of religion.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">To be sure, there were instances when Joseph Smith found religious principles overruled among the political class. President Martin Van Buren, a member of the Dutch Reformed Church with no particular animosity toward the Mormons, still refused to assist them in obtaining justice by way of </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">redress of grievance,</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> for reasons of political expediency. If Van Buren were to help the Mormons, he admitted, he would "go against the whole state of Missouri, and that state would go against me in the next election."</span><span face=""lucida grande", "lucida sans unicode", "lucida sans", helvetica, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-size: 15px;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">A Peoria Newspaper </span><a href="https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-prophet-and-seer/joseph-smith-goes-washington-1839-40" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">reported</a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> the prophet's stunned reaction:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. Smith said he was thunderstruck at this avowal. He had always believed Mr. Van Buren to be a high-minded statesman, and had uniformly supported him as such; but he now saw that he was only a huckstering politician, who would sacrifice any and every thing to promote his re-election. (<b><a href="http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/peor1838.htm" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><i>Peoria Register and North-Western Gazetteer</i>,</a> April 17th, 1840.</b>)[1]</blockquote><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">______________________________</span><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">[1]</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">The Mormons in Illinois, nearly all of whom were democrats back then, helped assure Van Buren's loss to the Whig candidate, William Henry Harrison. So sometimes the universe does bend toward justice.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>When Mixing Politics And Religion Goes Horribly Wrong</b></span><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">So why do we so often hear that politics and religion don't mix? Well, that's because politics and religion </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>don't</b></i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> mix.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But religion and politics does.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Allow me to clarify. The political sphere is enhanced by the infusion of just and honest religious principles, such as the Hebraic-Christian principle that all men are created equal. That phrase does not mean that all human beings have equal abilities, talents, skills, appearances, or (heaven forbid), outcomes. It means simply that all men are to be treated equally </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">under the law. </i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">That statement is self-evidently true because it is an idea that originated with God and not with men</span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">. </i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> What "equal under the law" means is that no person should ever be given a legal advantage or disadvantage over another. (Leviticus 24:2, Romans 2:11, Mosiah 27:3, Mosiah 29:38, Alma 30:11, etc.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">This was a radical idea in 1775, since throughout most of Europe, as well as the rest of the world, members of royalty could oppress, torture, or kill any of their subjects and never be held to account. By virtue of their bloodlines and the rank they held, these insufferable tyrants were </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">above</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> the law. The common folk were not. But in America, if a politician breaks the law, he is subject to criminal prosecution just like any other law breaker, and indeed there are numerous laws in place specifically tailored to punish official misconduct.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Richard Nixon did not believe this. He saw himself as some kind of elected emperor whose actions were above the law. In the famous </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF_mQwJ7wd4" style="font-size: 14.85px;" target="_blank"><b>interview he did with David Frost</b></a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">, Frost asked Nixon about the legality of Nixon's actions. The president replied, "Well, when the president does it, it's not illegal."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">He was wrong, of course. He eventually realized how wrong he was and resigned before he could be impeached and put on trial.[2]</span><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">_____________________________________</span><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">[2] </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Shortly after his resignation, Nixon's successor pardoned him before he had even been tried, let alone convicted, which was kind of odd, since a pardon is supposed to be granted <i>after</i> a person has been convicted. Pardons are also usually granted when a person has been found to be innocent <i>after</i> he's been convicted. In Nixon's case, Gerald Ford did his buddy an unprecedented political favor by pre-emptively declaring Nixon innocent before Nixon had even been formally charged with <i>anything</i>, which has to be some kind of legal precedent as far as I'm aware. So I guess maybe members of the elite class <i>are</i> above the law after all. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The mixing of politics and religion goes awry </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">when your political views become your religion</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">. Do you see the problem with political partisanship, when you begin to see your political opinions as inseparable from your religious faith? When Americans get to the point where they seem to be now, when they can see only the good in themselves, and only the bad in the other party or the other party's candidate, they're likely to either not notice the bad in their own, or to rationalize it away.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">This was no more evident than when the majority of my fellow Mormons supported Mitt Romney in his bid for the presidency. As </span><b style="font-size: 14.85px;">I <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/02/piss-poor-excuse-for-mormon.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">documented in this blog </a></b><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">at the time, Almost every promise Romney campaigned on was antithetical to the core teachings of the religion he espoused. Romney wasn't alone. Since at least the middle of the 20th century, Mormonism rightly reflected conservative American social values. Since the Republican party back then largely reflected those same values, Mormons (who used to be almost entirely Democrats) climbed onto the Republican bandwagon because, after all, to be a Republican meant you were a conservative.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">As time went on, the majority of Mormons remained largely conservative, meaning they continued to stand for smaller government and traditional social values that comported with the teachings of their faith. They still thought being Republican meant staying the course, but by the 1980s, the Republican party was heading the other way. Sorry if this bursts your bubble, but even Ronald Reagan was not the conservative hero the legends make him out to be.[3]</span><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">________________________________________</span><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">[3] </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Writes Sheldon Richman in <i><b><a href="https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan</a></b></i></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">, </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />"Ronald Reagan's faithful followers claim he has used his skills as the Great Communicator to reverse the growth of Leviathan and inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets. Reagan himself said, "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government."<br /><br />Yet after nearly eight years of Reaganism, the clamor for more government intervention in the economy was so formidable that Reagan abandoned the free-market position and acquiesced in further crippling of the economy and our liberties. In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Beginning with Reagan, the Republican party grew to stand for big government just the same as the Democrat party did, with Republican administrations soon presiding over deficits larger than anything the Democratic congresses were able to pass. You wouldn't have noticed if you weren't paying attention, because party leaders still hypocritically yammered on about shrinking government even while passing bills that made it grow ever larger. By the time George Bush II took office, all pretense was gone, as the NeoCon Statists were the real powers behind the throne. Bush took the country to war under false pretenses, and even <b><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160802001737/http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/12/mormons-who-take-lords-name-in-vain.html" target="_blank"><u>many</u> of the strictest constitutionists in the Church gave him a pass on his flaunting of the constitution</a></b> because, hey, he's one of us.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">By this time, false traditions in the Church had supplanted Mormonism's true teachings as revealed by God and promulgated by the prophet Joseph Smith. In that </span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/02/piss-poor-excuse-for-mormon.html" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>blog post</b></a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> I wrote about Mitt Romney, I documented how Romney's campaign promises not only were a betrayal of conservative principles, but completely and undeniably antithetical to the religion he claimed to believe in. I heard from a handful of readers who objected to my pointing to Mitt's numerous betrayals, but no one has ever shown me where I misrepresented his positions, or how those positions were not in conflict with the restored gospel. When it came to representing the Mormon faith, Mitt Romney was a wolf in sheep's clothing. He was no more a true Mormon than was the evil and designing </span><a href="https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/prophets-and-apostles-last-dispensation/additional-counselors-first-presidency/1-john-cook" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>John C. Bennett</b></a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> in Joseph Smith's day. If Joseph Smith were church president today, I believe he would withdraw the hand of fellowship from Brother Mitt Romney.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Nothing I wrote in that blog post was intended to imply I wanted to see Mitt Romney lose to Barack Obama. Indeed, I frequently spoke out against the Obama fraud. But my thesis in this forum was that a Romney presidency would be virtually indistinguishable from an Obama presidency. And I stand by that. If you're curious as to how things would have been for America if Mitt Romney had been elected, you need only examine the eight years we experienced under Obama. Things would have been pretty much the same under Romney, from the continuing escalation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the failure that is the Affordable Care Act, which Romney intended to model after the socialist debacle he had presided over as governor of Massachusetts.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The only difference I can see is that if Romney had won the presidential election that year, there wouldn't have been fools celebrating in the streets because they believed Romney would be making their car and rent payments the way they came to believe King Obama would. Otherwise, Obama proved to have governed the same way Romney had promised to. </span><br /><br /><span><b>The Trouble With Trump</b></span><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">As I mentioned before, I'm an equal opportunity offender when it comes to politicians. So before I really get into ragging on the insufferable insanity displayed by those on the radical left, let me say a few more things about Donald Trump.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">First, I'm starting to like this guy, because I admire a politician who doesn't rein in his thoughts. In fact, because he often blurts things out without filtering himself like most politicians, Trump is very likely </span><a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/11/21/thanksgiving-donald-trump-lies-honest-president/" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>the most <i>honest</i> president in modern times</b></a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">. He ain't no tippy-toe diplomat when dealing with his Democratic opponents, and I enjoy watching the left go completely bonkers every time he frustrates them. Donald Trump is the Walter White of politics, and everyone on the left is Gus Fring. Every time they think they've got him cornered and are about to finish him off, they find out he's been three steps ahead of them the entire time. Now that The Donald Trump Show is entering it's third season, I'm really starting to dig it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Still, there are plenty of reasons for conservatives and libertarians to remain agnostic about this president, and virtually none of them have anything to do with the silly accusations thrown about by atrabilious leftists screeching and wailing at his every utterance. And none of it has anything to do with his being a racist (he isn't), a misogynist (he isn't), or hyperbolic (okay, you got me there.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Below is a piece by fellow anti-Statist Laurence Vance going down the list of reasons why conservatives and libertarians should be keeping an eye on Donald Trump, and it largely has to do with the fact that in reality the guy is a liberal's dream. If only those on the left would stop taking their cues from CNN and actually examine his record, they might notice he's almost as much a Statist as they are. They'd be kissing his feet except for one thing: he was a liberal who ran as a Republican, and when he won, that put the Democrats out of power. Democrats liked being in power under Obama, and they had every expectation of remaining in power when Hillary took office. Trump put the kibosh on those expectations, and they will never forgive him for it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Vance wrote the following piece over a year ago, so it doesn't include all of Trumps recent fubars, such as his suggestion that the government should confiscate guns first and then allow due process later. Anyway, Vance opens with this paragraph, which comes close to echoing my own feelings. So if you want to know my current political views, this is pretty close:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;">"Before continuing I should state for the record that am not part of the “Never Trump” movement, that I despise the news media, that I would like to see America be made great again, and that I loathe Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders with every cell in my body. I did not vote for Trump, but that is because I don’t vote for anyone not named Ron Paul."</blockquote><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">He then goes on to dissent from the conservative love fest over Donald Trump. <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/laurence-m-vance/trump-a-libertarian-dissent/" target="_blank"><b>You can the full article here</b></a>. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">As I've pointed out many times before, the only political philosophy consistent with Mormonism is the libertarian philosophy -not to be confused with the Libertarian party, which is a political party, not a philosophy. That's why I recommend you read Vance's entire piece to see whether or not you think Trump's political philosophy is that much more consistent with Mormonism than modern conservatism has become. We already know modern Leftism is completely off the rails, but you might also want to think about whether the so-called "party of conservatism" is still worth aligning with.</span><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG3kgDWpIccDU9neCXfs6yV0zwVR0fB-H3L8R4V2e0D6suGwwzeO0tGJqRMdlE-M4T77pd06OkN5CrnXQvsnNvAC-8Lf_lzoKPZ5lUo4iGw-992aFxkHHmXsBxj3x7ObYrJQXOaXMI31lw/s1600/The+real+problem.jpg" style="color: #336699; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="746" data-original-width="750" height="397" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG3kgDWpIccDU9neCXfs6yV0zwVR0fB-H3L8R4V2e0D6suGwwzeO0tGJqRMdlE-M4T77pd06OkN5CrnXQvsnNvAC-8Lf_lzoKPZ5lUo4iGw-992aFxkHHmXsBxj3x7ObYrJQXOaXMI31lw/s400/The+real+problem.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="400" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">And while you're at it, here's some recent articles from principled libertarians questioning whether Trump is actually in control of his own presidency. (Hint, I wouldn't bet on it.) Every presidency -both Republican and Democrat- </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">at least</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> since FDR has been hijacked by what the Book of Mormon refers to as "secret combinations," men who combine in secret for the purpose of obtaining power and gain at the expense of the people's liberties.</span><br /><br /><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/01/ron-paul/trumps-neocons-reverse-his-syria-withdrawal-plan/" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Trump's Neocons</a></div><div style="font-size: 14.85px;"><br /><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/01/thomas-luongo/trump-walks-back-syria-pullout-as-noose-tightens/" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Trump Walks Back The Syria Pullout</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/11/no_author/trump-jfk-and-the-deep-state-part-q/" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Trump, JFK, And The Deep State</a><br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">And Now For The Fun Part</span></b><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_xhkN22uoRYg9jhnygGzvUydDhCISIxMe_9xbyHVZ9pojRZBOTlKz8UvUVZj2ccjn3JxRBs0JGDVYrAT3tk6XhvKdykP0z-8EepDF-ctbbNdJ2I3C0SaCRe8Gy4xNAp_I1UU38brfwiVN/s1600/Thomas+Sowell.jpg" style="clear: left; color: #336699; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="912" data-original-width="606" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_xhkN22uoRYg9jhnygGzvUydDhCISIxMe_9xbyHVZ9pojRZBOTlKz8UvUVZj2ccjn3JxRBs0JGDVYrAT3tk6XhvKdykP0z-8EepDF-ctbbNdJ2I3C0SaCRe8Gy4xNAp_I1UU38brfwiVN/s320/Thomas+Sowell.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="212" /></a></div>Sorry I made you wade through all that exposition, but I needed to put you through that to get you to here. The best -maybe the only- reason for following politics at this particular junction in our nation's history is BECAUSE IT'S FINALLY STARTING TO BE FUN! Those who would use the power of the State to impose their will on everyone else are, in the end, reduced to chirping nobodies put here to entertain the rest of us with their arrogant bleating.<br /><br />Yeah, I know I said all that stuff about paying attention and holding elected official's feet to the fire, and I meant it. But let's face it, For the time being I'm powerless to make parasitic slugs climb back into their holes, and so are you. Until election season rolls around every two years, there's not much we can do other than point and laugh at the wannabe tyrants scrambling to lord it over us.<br /><br />You can only vote Representatives out every two years, Senators every six, and presidents every four, but in the meantime you <i>can</i> still have some laughs at their expense. God made Adam that Adam might have joy, but he made politicians so we can <i>all</i> have joy. Indeed, it may be the only reason those fat-headed egotists have been put on the earth: so the rest of us can chuckle knowingly at their childish hunger for power.<br /><br />Besides, I don't expect there's anything I can do that will prevent the Statist juggernaut from eventually taking over and causing the collapse of the entire nation. But if things go as planned, I'll be dead in 12 or 13 years, and with any luck the collapse won't happen until after that. Of course, I'll be leaving my grandchildren behind to endure the bleak, dystopian future, but I can't do anything about it. Sorry, kids. Sucks to be you.<br /><br />Besides, according to the many near-death experiences I've read about, once we've shuffled off this mortal coil, this earth life begins to look like an illusion; essentially a testing ground where we are given the opportunity to develop our character. This is where we demonstrate our intention to conduct ourselves with integrity. What matters in the end, then, is only two things: 1) that we lived our lives according to the golden rule, and 2) that we pointed the finger of derision at anyone attempting to impose their will on others through force. Thomas Jefferson observed that "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." My method of choice for resisting tyranny is to make fun of would-be tyrants.<br /><br />As for those who attempt to use coercion against their fellow humans for the supposed "common good"? I think they're gonna end up flunking that test.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Mizz Alexandria Occasional Cortex continues to be the gift that keeps on giving. Every time she opens her mouth, she makes my day.<br /><br />Look, I'm not normally one to make fun of the mentally deficient. But when one of them comes out of nowhere and declares her ambition is to force all of humanity to bow to her will, I can't help but make fun of her. Mockery is the only tool I have in my arsenal, and by gum, I'm going to use it. As Mark Twain aptly observed, "against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand."<br /><br />Something else Twain said:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Suppose you are an idiot." </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Now suppose you are a member of congress."</blockquote><blockquote> "But I repeat myself."</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Three days ago Mizz Ocasio led a group of other freshman schoolgirls (and a camera crew, natch) all around the capitol building looking for Senator Mitch McConnell, whom she was convinced was <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/freshmen-dems-stumble-in-quest-to-confront-mcconnell-on-shutdown" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">hiding from her.</a> She didn't think to let him know she was coming, or he might have given her directions to his office. So she and her gal-pals wandered all around the place without a clue as to where his office was located, all the while letting everyone know how indignant she was that he was eluding her.<br /><br />Yep. Mitch McConnell didn't know anybody was looking for him, and these <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqDrQ8b6mNI" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Wamen </a>also didn't have the first clue where to look, so the logical conclusion is that the Senator was hiding, cowering under a desk somewhere in fear that she might find him.<br /><br />I tell ya, it's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PibiZBJUpJc" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Comedy gold.</a><br /><br />Hilarity aside, here's the problem with Young Miss A.O. Cortez: she has absolutely no understanding of basic economics. Zilch. I'm pretty certain she has never read Hayek's <b><i><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-Definitive-Collected-ebook/dp/B0048EJXCK/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=the+road+to+serfdom&qid=1547970251&s=Books&sr=1-2" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The Road To Serfdom</a></i></b> or Henry Hazlit's <i><b><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand-ebook/dp/B003XT60KO/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=economics+in+one+lesson&qid=1547969894&s=Books&sr=1-2" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Economics in one lesson</a>,</b></i> and I'm willing to bet she doesn't think she needs to. By her way of thinking, these men have nothing to teach her. That's how blindly arrogant she is. And that's also why she's fair game for ridicule. People who <i>want</i> to learn are capable of obtaining knowledge. Those who believe they already know it all will remain among<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdJlhEWlCyGpBLbn_iYoVvVZBnyiO6X1s17OxO_l_wEMFhRMp-0badaSfwizjYc15VoxhKYcIDGXrIE5BcRmWeXYZPuU0VdsiiKx0qtwbjR5gnndrCZSzS5ZlBzcq99nLSm28Enc1fQVmx/s1600/if-socialists-understood-economics-they-wouldnt-be-socialists-friedrich-von-7260300.png" style="clear: right; color: #336699; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="500" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdJlhEWlCyGpBLbn_iYoVvVZBnyiO6X1s17OxO_l_wEMFhRMp-0badaSfwizjYc15VoxhKYcIDGXrIE5BcRmWeXYZPuU0VdsiiKx0qtwbjR5gnndrCZSzS5ZlBzcq99nLSm28Enc1fQVmx/s320/if-socialists-understood-economics-they-wouldnt-be-socialists-friedrich-von-7260300.png" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="320" /></a></div>the dumbest creatures on the planet. And they'll always wonder why informed people are laughing at them -provided they are observant enough to notice.<br /><div><br />There's a bonus giggle you can sometimes get when mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez online. If you're like me, you'll get accused of being obsessed with her.<br /><br />Well, I <i>am</i> obsessed with her. No question about that. But there is this one guy, who I'll call Steve (not the same guy who chided me at the beginning of this post), who believed he was making a devastating point against me by posting an article from Huffpost titled, (get ready for it):<br /><br />"Conservative Men Are Obsessed With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Science Tells Us Why."</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />I should mention that the thing that triggered this silly idea that conservatives were threatened by Young Miss Cortez was a story fabricated out of whole cloth by the New York Times. A fake twitter account was created that was intended to demonstrate that conservatives were disturbed by a video showing Young Missy dancing for joy. In reality, no conservatives at any time expressed any kind of concern about the dancing congresswoman's video. Ever. As John Ward breaks it all down in his sardonic sing-song expose', the whole thing was concocted by leftists who didn't know enough about the conservative mind to understand that no one <i>would</i> care that a member of congress had been recorded dancing as a teenager. But that didn't stop every media outlet in the nation from picking up this fake story and running it with the requisite clucking of the tongue. The story went industry-wide before any of them figured out they'd been had. Most of them still haven't picked up on the scam.<br /><br />The whole thing is a telling anatomy of how fake news is created to make conservatives appear loopy and paranoid.<br /><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FPon3Lb1nck" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />But back to that Huffpost article. I combed through that piece and found no evidence cited that would tie anyone's obsession with Missy Cortez to <i>any </i>scientific findings. But the author, one Laura Bassett, did speculate that conservative men are <i>probably</i> obsessed with Cortez because they're <i>probably</i> threatened by her.<br /><br />My advice to Steve is that some people would do well to perform a bit of research before smugly insisting something is backed up by "science" when it decidedly is not. Lauren Southern, who <i>did</i> do her research, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLUMINLTNLE" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">demonstrates why</a> it's best to be skeptical of such claims.<br /><br />I'm thinking Laura Bassett, the author of that HuffPo piece, should have simply asked a bunch of men why they like watching videos of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. We could have told her it's because she <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqImFVsN728&t=30s&list=WL&index=80" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">says dumb things</a> that make us laugh. <br /><br />If anyone reading this knows of any conservative men who see A.O. Cortez as a threat, please let me know, because I've never met many real live dolts in person. I'm hearing Cortez aspires to be president some day. Dream on, Sister. I predict that Little Miss Nobody will be out on her butt within ten years, looking for work and wondering what happened to her dream of governing the next socialist paradise.<br /><br /><i>Threatened</i> by her? Well, I should smile.</div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjySCTzN0-I8d1nwcAGpWJM3i7kXfgQOSasuQWKS_A6K6s4KBOWgGDXdJauFfh_cbD0IYCVtwkqE3ME1k6wG2tM6vO10MGxqoVUD4Hsb5xz7-94_kq3ETsXZZgch5lRL6rOjfFeNjz9yhMo/s1600/singlehandedly+putting+an+end+to+dumb+blonde+jokes.jpg" style="color: #336699; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="748" data-original-width="750" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjySCTzN0-I8d1nwcAGpWJM3i7kXfgQOSasuQWKS_A6K6s4KBOWgGDXdJauFfh_cbD0IYCVtwkqE3ME1k6wG2tM6vO10MGxqoVUD4Hsb5xz7-94_kq3ETsXZZgch5lRL6rOjfFeNjz9yhMo/s320/singlehandedly+putting+an+end+to+dumb+blonde+jokes.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"><br /></div><b style="font-size: 14.85px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Politics Is For Lovers</span></b><br /><div><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Strictly speaking, not everything the lunatic left promotes is politics. Some of it, like that stupid marketing move on the part of Gillette, is propaganda designed to promote social engineering. That sort of thing has its place in the arena of "things worthy of ridicule," but it's not strictly politics. Politics implies the use of strategy or intrigue in the pursuit of power and control.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The current jockeying for power between Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi is a lesson in pure politics, and therefore worthy of observation. Other antics of the lunatic left, such as moronic Antifa members attempting to prevent free speech on campus, is not "politics," it's just evidence of the rising </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">idiocracy</a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">. But it's still fun to watch those young imbeciles at play, even if they don't represent the ruling class.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">This is certainly a golden age of political comedy for those keeping an eye on the ruling class, though. I don't care what you think of a border wall, whether you feel it's urgently needed, or whether you agree with Pelosi's claim that a wall on the</span><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN63OHfpnEQY1RtTiBCp-dN5r8mWhivYY2NDlzIOYBNKYzP6ztz0zZhG-8utf7z52dsFXDV3wagSnRkFXNy86hQp9fk1zH35r9dRpLscZiYtJeXDRri84-qVUrjCw0RdWVyqMGH9VVyxzo/s1600/cardboard+cutouts.jpg" style="clear: right; color: #336699; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="860" data-original-width="1146" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN63OHfpnEQY1RtTiBCp-dN5r8mWhivYY2NDlzIOYBNKYzP6ztz0zZhG-8utf7z52dsFXDV3wagSnRkFXNy86hQp9fk1zH35r9dRpLscZiYtJeXDRri84-qVUrjCw0RdWVyqMGH9VVyxzo/s320/cardboard+cutouts.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">border is somehow "Immoral." Watch the games they're playing with one another and you'll see that for Pelosi and Schumer, their adamant objections have nothing to do with the border wall at all. How do we know that? Because just a few years ago Those cardboard cut-outs known as Schumer and Pelosi, along with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, were all </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtKNxReJohs&t=124s&list=WL&index=100" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">clamoring for the same kind of border security</a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> as Trump is now.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">So what changed?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Politics. More specifically, the use of intrigue and strategy over who would ultimately end up with power and control.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Why do you think these leftists pretending to be liberals are digging in their heels over that wall when so recently they demanded this very action? Because if the wall gets funded, that will be seen as a win for Trump. It will represent the fulfillment of his biggest campaign promise, and will very likely translate into his re-election in 2020. That, in turn, will almost certainly result in a majority of Republicans taking over both the house and senate. If Trump gets his wall, the government will be in the hands of the Republicans again for a season. To Democrats, that would be horrible, in spite of the fact that if they're smart and stop pushing the unwashed masses into the arms of their opponents, they might easily win both houses and the White House back again within a very short time.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Because that's how it works. Carter, then Reagan. Then Bush, then Clinton. Then another Bush, then Obama. Then Trump, then very likely some dunderheaded Democrat. And then back again.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The pendulum always swings back. Most Americans have little brand loyalty when it comes to who's in office. They are quite easily swayed by political oratory. But politicians have no patience. They can't think that far ahead. If they could, they'd just chill and wait for the next pendulum swing.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Political power is </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">everything</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> to the ruling class. If they gain power, they win. If they lose power, it's counted a catastrophe for their entire party. For these people who have worked so hard to build up a system that will keep them in power, nothing is more important to them; not even the security of the nation.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">"I seek not for power, but to pull it down," Captain Moroni declared in Alma chapter 60, "I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Compare those words to the weak argument Nancy Pelosi gives in her attempt to hold onto power. Did you ever think about why she has tried so hard to force the cancellation of Trump's State of the Union Address? Well, think back to the last one, when Trump announced how well the economy had improved since he took office. When he announced that more black people were employed, that black unemployment had reached the lowest levels since 1972, the Congressional Black Caucus sat on their hands, refusing to join in on the applause for what should have been celebratory news.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Do you think Pelosi and any of the congressional Democrats want to see Donald Trump go on TV and trumpet even more victories that will only serve to make him more popular among black voters?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Not on your life. They're already seeing African-American voters waking up to the fact that even after eight years of The First Black President, nothing changed for them. The Democrat's promises to them have been exposed as hollow. If too many more black people abandon the party, the Democrats fear they'll be out of power for a very long time -at least until the illegals start voting.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Nancy's feigned concern over Donald Trump's safety during the State of the Union is an obvious red herring. Come on, now. We all know she's not concerned about Trump's safety. I can name you a dozen people off the top of my head who would be delighted if Trump took a bullet to the head. Pelosi's concern is merely political. The use of strategy and intrigue in the pursuit of power and control.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">I gotta say I enjoyed watching Trump checkmate her just prior to Pelosi and a bunch of fellow parasites embarking on a seven day trip to Europe which would have cost the taxpayers who-knows-how-many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Thirty minutes prior to departure, Trump pulled the plug on their use of military transports and personnel that those congressional slugs were counting on to take them on their European vacation. But Trump ruined it by reminding Nancy that the government was shut down and that she should know there wasn't money available for junkets. It's not as if Nancy Pelosi is a diplomat, after all. She's only a member of the House of Representatives, and there's nothing she could accomplish by meeting with foreign dignitaries. That's not her job. The whole thing was a snow job, an excuse to get out of town for yet another taxpayer paid vacation.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Trump also invited Nancy for the umpteenth time to come meet with him and hammer out a plan to end the government shutdown. Instead she was planning her escape from the winter cold of Washington D.C. The best thing about this is that the public wasn't supposed to know about this boondoggle and they got caught because Trump made sure the letter he wrote to Nancy hit all the papers. Pelosi and her cronies understandably didn't want the taxpayers knowing their servants were off on a fully paid vacation at the people's expense.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Busted, y'all.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">I swear this woman should have learned by now that you can't corner a guy who has been winning at the game of chicken long before he ever ran for president. This one's not like the others, Lydia. This is Walter White. The one who knocks. He will always be three steps ahead of you.</span><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"></div><div style="font-size: 14.85px;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Here's What I Find Funny</b></span><br />Since my last post, I've been asked by a couple of friends to cite some of my favorite sources for humorous political commentary, so this seems like a good place to share some of them.<br /><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-bottom: 0.5em; padding: 4px; position: relative;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig-WakgJxjfYHxfSxTcGlyc4kKyoAL_B4NvVoiM_bG5_1lZvp0ohAl2GNQDnQp0rwrhwGyv7ehXiMNYQw8uFM1bpXoBYGeGqj22v6jjSS-Vb2NNics6sjc5vaTYEx-Cn4uHOePVlJ6Zs-6/s1600/arguably.jpg" style="clear: left; color: #336699; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="293" data-original-width="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig-WakgJxjfYHxfSxTcGlyc4kKyoAL_B4NvVoiM_bG5_1lZvp0ohAl2GNQDnQp0rwrhwGyv7ehXiMNYQw8uFM1bpXoBYGeGqj22v6jjSS-Vb2NNics6sjc5vaTYEx-Cn4uHOePVlJ6Zs-6/s1600/arguably.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 11.88px; text-align: center;">There is such a thing as an intelligent liberal</td></tr></tbody></table>I'll start with one I included last time; not exactly humorous, but chock full of important information in seven short minutes. Let me preface this by saying I have many friends who identify as liberals, and I find them to be intelligent and well reasoned. It may interest some to know that one of my favorite liberals in the public sphere was the late atheist Christopher Hitchens. Naturally we had our differences, but the man knew how to make a cogent argument. When he wasn't opposing religious fatith, he could be spot on in recognizing folly. If all liberals were as reasonable and rational as Christopher Hitchens, liberalism would be on the rise instead of where it is now, sinking into an abyss of incoherent leftist babble.<br /><br />With that in mind, below is Dennis Prager explaining the difference between leftists and liberals:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tlIjMJBSnRE" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />I'll admit that one was more informative than funny as promised, but from here on out I'll try to feature videos and podcasters that bring the commentary with a smile.<br /><br />Greg Gutfeld can hardly keep it together with his description of how Nancy Pelosi's threat to cancel Trump's SOTU address backfired big time. Jesse Watters describes the situation perfectly "Nancy is petty, but Trump is pettier. Nancy went low, but Trump went even lower." Nine minutes of giggles and giddiness:<br /><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/odFs6qEv5XY" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />You're sure to enjoy this middle-class black woman who has never experienced want, but who is convinced White Privilege is actually a thing. Watch how she tries to "prove" her claim and ends up proving the opposite. 29 minutes of enjoying someone paint herself into a corner she can't get out of.<br /><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4Q_9JVFGGVU" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />The Amazing Lucas giddy over watching a leftist squirm after making a fool of herself. 8.5 minutes.<br /><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G1HSAXJz1mM" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />Same story, different podcaster. I couldn't resist; his joy is so infectious. 5 minutes:<br /><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cQBopAmefXo" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />There's nothing funny about this final piece, but I consider it essential viewing. This is the way Leftist do-gooders in Ocasio-Cortez's own backyard have succeeded in crushing the working poor.<br /><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0fsVI3EmUnQ" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />I could go on, but that's probably way more than anyone has time for.</div><div><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">I mentioned earlier F. A. Hayek's </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">The Road to Serfdom. </i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">There are two final things I wanted to share. First, at least for the time being you can get a kindle copy of </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">The Essential Hayek</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> absolutely free by </span><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Essential-Hayek-Donald-J-Boudreaux-ebook/dp/B00ZGSIJ7M/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=the+road+to+serfdom&qid=1547981169&s=Books&sr=1-6" style="color: #336699; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>clicking here</b>.</a><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> It should contain a decent summary of The Road to Serfdom as well as Hayek's other works. You can't beat that, since the physical copy is still listed at fifty bucks. Also, there is an update of sorts to </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">The Road To Serfdom</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> by a different author titled </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Rights-Road-Serfdom-Conservatism-Unbound-ebook/dp/B01KB8I1R4/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=the+right%27s+road+to+serfdom&qid=1548007082&sr=8-1-fkmrnull" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">"<b>The Right's Road To Serfdom: The Danger of Conservatism Unbound: From Hayek to Trump."</b></a> </i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> Here's a short excerpt from the description:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: 14.85px;">The conservatism that drives the American Right today prizes strong, authoritarian leaders who promise get-tough plans to vanquish problems such as immigration, terrorism, and middle-class stagnation. This focus on temperament rather than on individual liberty, pluralism, and free expression runs counter to the political philosophy of freedom that many conservatives believe they espouse.</blockquote><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">He may be on to something. Trump might be the right guy for now, but perhaps next time we can get a conservative/libertarian who's more intellectual; more calm and thoughtful. Too bad the country rejected Ron Paul when they had the chance, but part of me says that was America's last chance and they blew it.</span><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVVyCzfzrThMZ76Pom0UDkg4ygDa2A4k5H8ZALsu2lq83ztgmn_AxzHgVCs1HE9tgfs-GChzXgU1Vu50leFBraW19kn2OaLIVb3BPexsVCyVh6vgM9_GGi8fk4bLxAnjp2BHoR0nvY0NsZ9afTAsntfCTBDaqk3NQXvmUYNM68AfFSd9LU92OY2cgM_Q/s500/don't%20hurt%20people%20and%20don't%20take%20their%20stuff.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="311" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVVyCzfzrThMZ76Pom0UDkg4ygDa2A4k5H8ZALsu2lq83ztgmn_AxzHgVCs1HE9tgfs-GChzXgU1Vu50leFBraW19kn2OaLIVb3BPexsVCyVh6vgM9_GGi8fk4bLxAnjp2BHoR0nvY0NsZ9afTAsntfCTBDaqk3NQXvmUYNM68AfFSd9LU92OY2cgM_Q/s320/don't%20hurt%20people%20and%20don't%20take%20their%20stuff.jpg" width="199" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Final thoughts: I don't think it pays to be overly worked up about the fate of the world as long as you're keeping an eye on things. Don't get too caught up in the drama, though; leave the outrage to those for whom outrage is their daily bread. They are the ones who are trying to impose their will on the rest of mankind through force. They are the ones who want to hurt your neighbors and take their stuff. So </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px;">why not</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> make fun of them? Who is more deserving of ridicule than those who desire to get profit and gain through deception and coercion?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">We are certainly living in interesting times. Enjoy the show. Expose the calumny. Have a few laughs along the way.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">That's about all.</span><br /><br /><span>Peace, out. </span></div><div style="font-size: 14.85px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="font-size: 14.85px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="font-size: 14.85px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="font-size: 14.85px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 4px; position: relative; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpNVRqkdk8P0kOwadGsVlnDoHdvrNVtfJOBp9j_xYn_KyzShTmvGOZPkCc-KkgLA4oOqthoWi5M8qxiA4sHv330F92N0O20AJ0hpezdlvwdDb3fGQQTSLMTtTIab9_C6ke1MppvF23s4DI/s1600/5+things+socialists+will+never+understand.png" style="color: #336699; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="585" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpNVRqkdk8P0kOwadGsVlnDoHdvrNVtfJOBp9j_xYn_KyzShTmvGOZPkCc-KkgLA4oOqthoWi5M8qxiA4sHv330F92N0O20AJ0hpezdlvwdDb3fGQQTSLMTtTIab9_C6ke1MppvF23s4DI/s320/5+things+socialists+will+never+understand.png" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="273" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 11.88px;">That's six things, actually.</td></tr></tbody></table>Originally posted January 20th, 2019<br /><br /><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>Addendum:</u></span></b></div><div style="font-size: 14.85px;">So that's it. I actually chopped off quite a bit of this post near the end, partly because some of the links to videos no longer worked, partly because the information in those videos was dated, and partly because the post was getting too dang long (as usual). If you want to see the original in its fullness with all the comments, you can click <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2019/01/politics-and-religion_20.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>. Otherwise I recommend two other earlier posts, both concerned with discussing how modern Mormons could do better at keeping their politics more in line with their religion:<br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/11/mormons-should-stop-identifying-as.html" target="_blank">Mormons Should Stop Identifying As Republicans</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-this-country-needs-is-lot-more.html" target="_blank">What This Country Needs Is More Liberals</a> (Trust me, it's not what you think.)<br /><br />All this is prefatory to my next blog post, which I expect will be a bit more intense. Stay tuned.<br /><br /></div></div></div></div></div></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-49788306152501455192022-06-26T14:47:00.089-07:002022-07-20T17:14:42.191-07:00This Is Not A 'Gay' Thing<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjDZg0GrfOU1B0ScfDLcciydt43MaD2VTQMB5JoKqV8dC5wwYRt_HK82SqsBsUTQl8J_N_nsIlXw4hM7OU5SlnQ0aAWq99L_p9wAayKYgXxi92cAheR8wHTG-L9rXIuMOppliLkbulzJLc1piQ-pfF1t9TV1KQjgxaJDpOhfeOx1XTALK57HFPk3WRYQ/s334/Transexual%20child.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="151" data-original-width="334" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjDZg0GrfOU1B0ScfDLcciydt43MaD2VTQMB5JoKqV8dC5wwYRt_HK82SqsBsUTQl8J_N_nsIlXw4hM7OU5SlnQ0aAWq99L_p9wAayKYgXxi92cAheR8wHTG-L9rXIuMOppliLkbulzJLc1piQ-pfF1t9TV1KQjgxaJDpOhfeOx1XTALK57HFPk3WRYQ/s320/Transexual%20child.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/05/okay-so-church-has-been-hijacked-now.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Previously: <i>So The Church Has Been Hijacked -Okay, So Now What?</i></b> </span></a><br /><br />Recently more than one person called me "homophobic" because I shared certain clips and memes on my Facebook page. I suppose those who accuse me of being "phobic" of "homos" must assume I run screaming into my bedroom to hide under the covers every time my youngest son drops in for a visit.<br /><br />But never mind. I covered all that years ago in two separate posts. The first, <b><i><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-i-dont-care-if-youre-gay.html" target="_blank">Why I Don't Care If You're Gay</a></i></b>, was written during the controversy surrounding California's Proposition 8, and the other, <b><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-real-threat-to-traditional-marriage.html" target="_blank"><i>The Real Threat To Traditional Marriage</i> </a></b>was published following the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision which was announced seven years ago this very day. Anyone wishing to know my views on same-sex attraction or same-sex marriage need only avail themselves of those sources. (The latter is the first of a three part series, which I happen to consider among my best work on this forum. That series covers a lot of ground, culminating in the third part which describes how, since at least the middle of the last century, the LDS Church has effectively taken God out of a Mormon couple's marriage.)<br /><br />As to that baseless charge of homophobia: I've said nothing recently to disparage those with same-sex attraction, but I have taken some irascible digs at teenagers and young adults whose TikTok videos suggest their cognitive capabilities may not be quite up to speed. I'll be the first to admit that I like making fun of the mentally ill. And as we all know, a child's pre-frontal cortex does not fully develop until somewhere between age 24 to 30, after which time most of those insufferable wackjobs will have hopefully grown up and come to their senses. <p></p><p>Meanwhile, we can't expect too much from these juvenile jackasses other than to have a few yuks at their expense. In my day, teenage boys acted out by wearing wide-collared shirts, dorky looking scarves, and pants that were shaped like bells near the bottom. That's how we baby boomers signaled <i>our</i> rebellion. Today, members of the TikTok generation are good for a few laughs as we watch them make narcissistic online rants insisting they are trans-gender, non-gender, non-binary-gender, or other such consarned foolishness. Whatever the claim, they seem to always insist they are something other than what they are. I fully expect these misfits to one day be as embarrassed of their online performances as I am when I see old photos of myself looking like a total doofus. <br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxjl9k-DFhvyYxVvQ3V2eHB0wI_YoYbf3fZV0Sx8Hr82eZISDGBqV6zi-G15X04aPj_zGk37zRd5YY8bYtvonzliRxU_IQqJkw4_F9YZwSuzvteocokYYk8yyEP-_Epv3DZwFnK6RUwBzAdExc7XlVaHipZJxA01hDnoK_GfhtSUKnsIFPW_kXsrjgYw/s500/60's%20scarves.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="458" data-original-width="500" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxjl9k-DFhvyYxVvQ3V2eHB0wI_YoYbf3fZV0Sx8Hr82eZISDGBqV6zi-G15X04aPj_zGk37zRd5YY8bYtvonzliRxU_IQqJkw4_F9YZwSuzvteocokYYk8yyEP-_Epv3DZwFnK6RUwBzAdExc7XlVaHipZJxA01hDnoK_GfhtSUKnsIFPW_kXsrjgYw/w400-h366/60's%20scarves.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Don't laugh, ladies. This was sure-fire chick bait circa 1969</td></tr></tbody></table><p>However, what I am <i>not</i> keen on is adults -whether parents, counselors, or "medical professionals"- who take advantage of these confused and troubled kids by trying to convince them the reason they don't quite fit in is because they were either a male born into a female body, or a female born into the body of a male. <br /><br />Let me show you some examples of what I've been criticized for sharing. First up, here's a nine minute segment from Bill Maher, a progressive liberal who has decided Americans should <i>at least be discussing</i> the nonsense our society is currently awash in: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mMBzfUj5zsg" width="320" youtube-src-id="mMBzfUj5zsg"></iframe></div><p>Next is a one minute clip with Scott Newgent, a biological woman who was told that having transitional surgery to turn her into a man would solve all her problems. No surprise, it only made her problems worse, while adding ever more painful and potentially deadly problems to the mix. Scott is founder of <b><i><a href="https://www.trevoices.org/" target="_blank">Trans Rational Educational Voices,</a></i></b> an organization devoted to exposing the money-grubbing quacks who have grown rich permanently mutilating the bodies of confused and vulnerable children and teenagers:<br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xB4XyJLyY7s" width="320" youtube-src-id="xB4XyJLyY7s"></iframe></div><p>Here's another five minutes with Scott discussing how the insidious promoters of these irreversible procedures won't tell you about the permanent dangers inflicted on children who undergo "gender transition" operations.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RA0o_lxSXwI" width="320" youtube-src-id="RA0o_lxSXwI"></iframe></div><p>As you can see, none of this is about being gay. It has little to do with same-sex attraction and more to do with <i>self</i>-attraction. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzYr1QyjTW0" target="_blank"><b>Watch your typical young TikTok trans person.</b></a> What you'll often observe is raw narcissism typified by a tone of smug arrogance and emotional imbalance. And yes, narcissism is a bona fide mental illness, as catalogued in the <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness</i> (<b><a href="https://www.theravive.com/therapedia/narcissistic-personality-disorder-dsm--5-301.81-(f60.81)" target="_blank">DSM-5</a></b>). The apostle Paul sure knew what he was talking about when he reported to Timothy that in our day "men shall be lovers of their own selves" then went on to list additional traits describing the people of our day as "boasters, proud, without natural affection, despisers of those that are good, and lovers of pleasure." And that's just a partial list from 2 Timothy 3:2-5. Looking around at what we're seeing today, it would be hard to argue that Paul was mistaken.<br /><br />Teens and young adults with mental illnesses deserve real help, not affirmation from adults who grow rich by preying upon their vulnerabilities. <br /><br />But don't get me wrong; not all teenagers who find themselves wanting their breasts lopped off or their penises removed are batshit crazy. Most are just typical teenagers who, like all of us during those difficult years, go through a period where <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibq3ld087Y4&list=PLpBQN4l02ylq28VjraJBACn57KOxw5jEX&index=25&t=23s" target="_blank"><b>they feel uncomfortable with themselves</b></a><b>.</b> The difference these days, however, is that rather than being assured that what they are feeling is a normal part of adolescence, they are pulled in by people in positions of trust who try to convince them they need to undergo radical physical change. And<i> that</i> is the crime being perpetrated on these kids. <br /><br />If you google the words "Trans surgery regret" you'll find no end to the entries from people who dearly wish they had never bought into the con. Here is one story, by "<a href="https://twitter.com/TullipR/status/1536422533230206976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1536422533230206976%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnotthebee.com%2Farticle%2Fthis-heartbreaking-thread-from-a-detransitioning-person-shows-just-how-barbaric-wokeism-is" target="_blank"><b>TulipR</b></a>," a young man who was surgically altered to look like a girl. Warning: don't read this aloud in the presence of children. (Or then again, maybe you should.)<br /></p><blockquote>"I want to tell everyone what they took from us, what irreversible really means, and what that reality looks like for us. No one told me any of what I’m going to tell you now.<br /><br />"I have no sensation in my crotch region at all. You could stab me with a knife and I wouldn't know. The entire area is numb, like it's shell shocked and unable to comprehend what happened, even four years on.<br /><br />"I tore a suture four days post-recovery; they promised to address it. I begged them in emails to fix it. They scorned me instead. Years later, I have what looks like a chunk of missing flesh next to my neo-vagina. It literally looks like someone hacked at me. They still wont fix it.<br /><br />"No one told me that the base area of your penis is left. It can't be removed - meaning you're left with a literal stump inside that twitches. When you take Testosterone and your libido returns, you wake up with morning wood, without the tree. I wish this was a joke.<br /><br />"And if you do take testosterone after being post-op, you run the risk of internal hair in the neo-vagina. Imagine dealing with internal hair growth after everything!<br /><br />"What a choice... be healthy on Testosterone and a freak, or remain a sexless eunuch.<br /><br />"And that's something that will never come back and one of the reasons why I got surgery.<br /><br />"My sex drive died about 6 months on HRT and at the time I was glad to be rid of it, but now 10 years later, I'm realizing what I'm missing out on and what I won't get back. Because even if I had a sex drive, my neo-vagina is so narrow and small, I wouldn't even be able to have sex if I wanted too.<br /><br />"And when I do use a small dilator, I have random pockets of sensation that only seem to pick up pain rather than pleasure. Any pleasure I do get comes from the Prostate that was moved forward and wrapped in glands from the penis, meaning anal sex isn't possible and can risk further damage.<br /><br />"Then there's the dreams. I dream often that I have both sets of genitals. In the dream I'm distressed I have both. Why both, I think? I tell myself to wake up because I know it's just a dream. And I awaken into a living nightmare.<br /><br />"In those moments of amnesia, as I would wake I would reach down to my crotch area expecting something that was there for 3 decades, and it's not. My heart skips a beat every single damn time.<br /><br />"Then there's the act of going to the toilet. It takes me about 10 minutes to empty my bladder. It's extremely slow, painful, and because it dribbles no matter how much I relax, it will then just go all over that entire area, leaving me soaked.<br /><br />"So after cleaning myself up, I will find moments later that my underwear is wet - no matter how much I wiped, it slowly drips out for the best part of an hour.<br /><br />"I never knew at thirty-five I ran the risk of smelling like piss everywhere I went.<br /><br />"Now I get to the point where I'm de-transitioned, and the realization that this is permanent is catching up with me.<br /><br />"During transition, I was obsessive and deeply unwell; I cannot believe they were allowed to do this to me, even after all the red flags.<br /><br />"I wasn't even asked if I wanted to freeze sperm or want kids. In my obsessive, deeply unwell state they just nodded along and didn't tell me the realities, what life would be like.<br /><br />"And finally, there's dilation, which is like some sort of demonic ceremony where you impale yourself for 20 agonizing minutes to remind you of your own stupidity.<br /><br />"This isn't even the half of it. And this isn't regret either; this is grief and anger.<br /><br />"When I lost 1600ml of blood during surgery, it took days to get a blood transfusion. The surgery lasted 3 hours longer. They joked about the blood loss, too.</blockquote><p></p><blockquote> "F*** everyone who let this happen." </blockquote><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">This You Gotta See </span></b></p><p></p><p>Doubtless by now you've heard of Matt Walsh's remarkable documentary titled <b><i>What Is A Woman?</i></b> If you haven't, here is the trailer:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1ZPMS6cSYGQ" width="320" youtube-src-id="1ZPMS6cSYGQ"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>This documentary has already had the effect of bringing this topic front and center to the national conversation. At <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/what_is_a_woman" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Rotten Tomatoes </a>it has an audience rating of 97%. <div><br /></div><div>Wanna know what the critics rating is? Zero. <br /><br />That's because only four professional reviewers have bothered to watch it, which I guess is too few to register. Last I heard, three million people watched this film in its first week of release and believe me, its impact is already changing the national conversation. This is essential viewing. I found it a game-changer and I can guarantee you'll learn things from this film you never even suspected were true. <br /><br />In the meantime, if you feel like screaming at the screen in frustration, watch this 13 minute segment from Walsh's podcast last week where he analyzes a trans-affirming story presented in a Fox News Report. In this report, a couple insists they know their daughter is really a boy because she "told them." When did she tell them? Before she was even old enough to talk. It won't surprise you, then, to learn the child officially "came out" when she turned five:</div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vNzv3kU8f90" width="320" youtube-src-id="vNzv3kU8f90"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>I can tell you from personal experience why this poor kid's parents are out to lunch. When I was four years old, with Christmas on its way (this would have been around 1955), My favorite TV show, Captain Kangaroo, was saturated with advertisements for this amazing doll:</div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kx4_1cL4M2s" width="320" youtube-src-id="Kx4_1cL4M2s"></iframe></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Now today there's nothing unusual about a doll that drinks and cries real tears and wets her diaper, but back then the very possibility struck me as nothing short of magic. Technology had advanced to the stage where the Airforce was experimenting with jet engines, but none of us kids had ever heard of a doll that could actually pee! There had never been anything like it and I told my parents that was what I wanted for Christmas. For weeks I could talk of nothing else.<br /><br />My mother told me years later that my father, a gruff and burly Sergeant in the Marine Corps, was dead-set against his son getting a doll for Christmas. But Mom argued that my interest in changing and bathing a doll was adorable and "would help Alan to be a good father when he grows up." <br /><br />Turns out she was right about that. When I grew up and had children of my own, Connie changed their diapers when I was at work, but I had no problem changing them when I was home. I even bathed the little critters and never had to be taught how to do it. <br /><br />Anyway, I couldn't have been more thrilled when Betsy Wetsy appeared under the tree that Christmas morning. I immediately gave her a baby bottle full of water, and sure enough, in no time that water was flowing out a tiny hole between her little legs and soaking her little diaper! I gently and lovingly gave Betsy her first bath in the bassinette that came with her. And after that...well, after that I lost complete interest in Betsy Wetsy. <br /><br />Except for just one incident.<br /><br />When my parents weren't around, my brother Karl helped me twist Betsy Wetsy's head off so we could look inside and see how Betsy was managing to wet herself. Looking down the hollow cavity inside her body, we were both startled and amazed to see a collection of plastic tubes arranged in such a way that after the bottle was fed into Betsy's mouth, the flow of water took about a minute to fill up sufficiently so it would not flood out the other end all at once. It wasn't magic after all, just clever engineering.<br /><br />Having solved that mystery, and afterward filling Betsy's bottle with milk to see if the milk turned into pee when it came out the other end (it didn't), both Karl and I completely lost interest in my precious new baby. I had fed Betsy a bottle and changed her diaper two or three times, bathed her only once, then never went near that doll again. Betsy Wetsy ended up on a shelf in my sister Mary's closet, completely forgotten until the family moved to Hawaii when I was nine. No one even thought to bring that poor little orphan to Oahu with us.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The Christmas after that, what I desperately wanted was a Superman costume. And I got one.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">So what's my point? Just this: the thing that modern parents need to learn (and what my mother instinctively knew) is that most young boys want the experience of playing with girl's toys once in a while. Why? Because when boys watch girls playing, the girls look like they're having fun!<br /><br />I recall one afternoon when my sister Elsa and our cousin Suzette were at Suzette's house sitting on the bedroom floor playing paper dolls. I decided to join them. Suddenly Uncle Lloyd (my father's brother) came into the room and saw me there and boy, did he hit the ceiling! He ordered me out and told me boys don't play with dolls, not even paper ones. (I made a mental note at the time not to mention that I had once owned a doll of my own, and <i>my</i> doll knew how to pee.) <br /><br />So here's the thing: sometimes a young boy might announce to his parents that he wishes he was a girl. That doesn't mean he actually wants to grow up to be a woman; it only means he has noticed that girls sometimes do things that look like fun, and he wants in on it. There was a time when certain young girls were known for climbing trees and playing sports. The adults referred to these girls as "Tomboys," and no one thought anything further about it. Certainly no one proposed cutting the poor girl's nascent tits off to make her feel better about herself.<br /><br />Throughout my childhood I was skinny, frail, and withdrawn, with what one might call a "gentle" personality. Something of a misfit, I was often razzed at school and called a weirdo, a dork, a spaz, and even a homo. I'm just lucky I was born when I was because today some well-meaning school counselor might call me into her office and suggest I might be happier if I came to realize that what I really wanted was surgery that could turn me into a girl. <br /><br />Well, eventually I grew taller, packed on some muscle, and gained a bit of confidence. More than a bit, some would say, as for the past few decades I've become so secure in my manhood that I wear lava-lavas around the house and kilts in public -the same masculine style of kilt the lumberjacks wear. (There's a reason <b><a href="https://utilikilts.com/" target="_blank">Utilikilts</a></b> are manufactured here in the Pacific Northwest).</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK4nC8wfbIF09J6EPaVWfs90xznJ42R3_UOkZQfP6XXBGtyZWwHuP1JHU8WUoPHWx6uU96FFEgkmDr8AUHQIL0petovVYNGa8IqTc3bdsskPqkuKDvwgoqyPSWVaEF8j5DengPxvXvCU8TNiFC0zXmWDiJX5uWeO6vf56CVPvRW9-IC8Wj9J7KZiDP0Q/s4032/Rock%20&%20Josh%20Hawley%20in%20Kilts.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK4nC8wfbIF09J6EPaVWfs90xznJ42R3_UOkZQfP6XXBGtyZWwHuP1JHU8WUoPHWx6uU96FFEgkmDr8AUHQIL0petovVYNGa8IqTc3bdsskPqkuKDvwgoqyPSWVaEF8j5DengPxvXvCU8TNiFC0zXmWDiJX5uWeO6vf56CVPvRW9-IC8Wj9J7KZiDP0Q/w300-h400/Rock%20&%20Josh%20Hawley%20in%20Kilts.jpeg" width="300" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Here I am with another real man, Josh Vaughn, at Challis, Idaho</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />My wife is disabled, so often when we're in public together I'll end up carrying her purse for her without feeling the least bit like a sissy. And since I'm now the one who does all the housework, I'm lucky to have had a mother who taught me how to thoroughly clean, cook, wash dishes, and do the laundry. (I have male friends who honestly depend upon their wives to make them a sandwich!) I'm also a frickin' <i>master</i> at ironing, although ever since </span>we moved to rural Idaho there's not much call for that. <br /><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">In a word, Ladies, as my wife frequently reminds me, I'm quite the catch. (Except for the part where I recently turned seventy -which is something she also likes to remind me.) Anyway, what I'm getting at is this: there are, and should be, both masculine and feminine qualities in all of us. It's absurd for adults to detect a "feminine" characteristic in a young boy and instantly conclude it means he wants to be a girl, or vice versa. It's not only absurd, it's deranged. And dangerous, because children are impressionable, and too many kids these days are jumping on this ridiculous trend partly because "authority figures" confirm it to be normal. <br /><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Where To Watch <i>What Is A Woman?</i></span></b><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I have already recommended this documentary to several people, and one of the first things I heard was "I'd like to see it but I don't want to pay for it."<br /><br />Some of these same people wouldn't think twice about paying to watch a film in a theater, or for a monthly subscription to Netflix. But suddenly when it happens to be something that's not only highly entertaining, but also horrifying, they think it shouldn't cost anything? It does take a lot of money to make movies, you know. Even documentaries. <br /><br />The film is available by subscription at <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe-today-two" target="_blank"><b>The Daily Wire</b></a> so click on the link. And if you hurry, you can get 25% off. Is there anywhere else you can stream it from? Well, I have seen it posted on <a href="https://rumble.com/v183wyr-what-is-a-woman-full-documentary-matt-walsh.html" target="_blank"><b>Rumble</b>,</a> but I don't know how long it will stay up there. If you do find it on Rumble for free, I suggest you send a few dollars to the people who produced it to compensate them for their work. Trust me, this is well worth paying for. Still, if you're really intent on not contributing anything, you can always download it at Pirate Bay, you cheap bastard. (That's where I found it.)<br /></span><div><br /></div></div></div></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-5029205102167392462022-05-22T09:01:00.017-07:002023-04-01T02:58:52.939-07:00Okay, So The Church Has Been Hijacked -- NOW What Do We Do?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSfCzXDYDIK60YdUXsMEOYCI-8NdQYy6H5-H17izy4wpqgl4KEikS0LlU0Tx6aoPbVELhBNaDYwG3I4O7sx0tNFYtBn0ozejRFAKGICtR-YmMqGgwFVpedn0WUGS3dH1dTYP_f4qitHVIfSv60mHozK0djHRmsH1-Y5P1O8tQrrQAVXcQAl_ClWV5Cdg/s275/now%20what%202.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSfCzXDYDIK60YdUXsMEOYCI-8NdQYy6H5-H17izy4wpqgl4KEikS0LlU0Tx6aoPbVELhBNaDYwG3I4O7sx0tNFYtBn0ozejRFAKGICtR-YmMqGgwFVpedn0WUGS3dH1dTYP_f4qitHVIfSv60mHozK0djHRmsH1-Y5P1O8tQrrQAVXcQAl_ClWV5Cdg/s1600/now%20what%202.jpg" width="275" /></a></div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/04/why-are-you-still-calling-this-guy.html" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;" target="_blank">Previously: <i>Why Are You Still Calling This Guy A Prophet Of God?</i></a><br /><br />Last month in this space we discussed how Russell Nelson was never appointed by God to preside over the LDS Church. Neither have any current members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles been given keys and authority as prophets, seers, and revelators. None of these men hold any authority from the Lord to govern His Church. This accusation is <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/04/why-are-you-still-calling-this-guy.html" target="_blank">objectively provable.</a> </b> <p></p><p>This leaves faithful believers with a problem. For some years now, and especially more recently, astute members of the Church have noticed Church leaders have been <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/06/who-is-changing-doctrine.html" target="_blank">changing the doctrines</a> and teaching contrary to the scriptures. But they don't know what to do about it. "I can't just leave the Church" is a commonly heard lamentation. <br /><br />That's right, you can't. Not if you're a believer in the doctrines of the restoration as promulgated through the prophet Joseph Smith. Indeed, you can't <i>leave</i> the church because you <i>are </i>the church That's what the Lord Himself declares in <a href="https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fscriptures%2Fdc-testament%2Fdc%2F10%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D176489A42294D0DE-6DE2A9A1D5C8FDF7%7CMCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1653218475" target="_blank"><b>Doctrine & Covenants 10:68:</b></a> "Whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same <i>is</i> my church." That is the only definition of what the church is that you will ever find in the scriptures.<br /><br />So, what we commonly refer to as "The Church" isn't really the actual church at all. The church is the community of believers. The congregation. The assembly. The <i>ecclesia</i>. <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/07/my-testimony-of-church.html" target="_blank">You were never supposed to rely on an organization for instruction, and certainly not for your salvation.</a></b> Yeshua the Messiah intended for you to rely on Him and Him alone. The fallacy you were taught in Primary that you are to "follow the prophet" is pure poppycock, as is the false teaching that "the president of the Church can never lead the Church astray." There is no revelation from God even remotely suggesting such a heresy. <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/12/why-heed-prophetic-counsel.html" target="_blank">Joseph Smith himself rebuked the members for depending too much on the prophet. </a></b> The reason the Lord provided revelations <i>through</i> Joseph Smith was so that we would rely on no man for our salvation and instruction, but on His word as revealed through His appointed prophets.<br /><br />So, once you've spent your entire life as a member of the corporate institution known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and come to the shocking realization that said organization has been corrupted, what <i>can</i> you do? Simple. You just do what tens of thousands of believing Saints have been doing for the past few years: you embrace the <i>church</i>, but stop aligning yourself with and depending upon "The Church." In other words, you can remain a "Mormon" even while you let go of the institution that falsely claims to be in charge of all the Mormons. <br /><br />As many are becoming increasingly aware, the church of Christ is alive and well, and unlike the institutional LDS Church, <i>this</i> church community is thriving. You may not even be aware of us, because we have no leaders, no hierarchy, and no public relations department boasting about rapid growth and dubious financial acquisitions. This church is a movement that was prophesied <i>must</i> take place before the Lord returns, and there exists a book describing it titled <b><i><a href="https://www.rescuingtherestoration.com/book" target="_blank">Rescuing the Restoration: The Lord Sets His Hand a Second Time. </a></i></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEickcWQxmq3SK5dhHsIzYJc0c2Q8k5OH9pRFbc2LruasOshF07HqQStL2Xx4-87bt22kQs1HfANM9ojC1cLv5B_IhUKYy5ecGAvSzvrGBKxhtI5Y8pi-BJs4EJ3iJCXjZ25PsUfBnrmy0f0tFtCwFzYsCea1_qoULrs1FIKbEfq1Fxdhhv5sAOmJDzHRQ/s293/rescuing%20the%20restoration.webp" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="293" data-original-width="196" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEickcWQxmq3SK5dhHsIzYJc0c2Q8k5OH9pRFbc2LruasOshF07HqQStL2Xx4-87bt22kQs1HfANM9ojC1cLv5B_IhUKYy5ecGAvSzvrGBKxhtI5Y8pi-BJs4EJ3iJCXjZ25PsUfBnrmy0f0tFtCwFzYsCea1_qoULrs1FIKbEfq1Fxdhhv5sAOmJDzHRQ/w134-h200/rescuing%20the%20restoration.webp" width="134" /></a></div><p></p><p>So, if you are one of the many who are wondering where you could possibly land once you decide to let go of your false traditions, may I make a suggestion? Why not land with us? Why not rejoin the Restoration the Lord began through the prophet Joseph Smith? The Restoration isn't dead, though it does seem to have been on life support for awhile waiting for the community of believers to awake and arise. That has finally begun, and the body of Saints is coming back to health. <br /><br />This "movement" -for lack of a better word- is already worldwide. Just this past February a small group of this remnant convened for a conference in Boise for the purpose of reaching out to those who might feel disaffected by the corporate LDS Church. Seven persons spoke for 30 minutes each, and I hope you'll give them a listen. Here are the videos:</p><p>First up is Tausha Larsen with a pertinent ten minutes of introductory comments on how the Restoration has been in grave danger but the Lord is now working anew, setting his hand a second time:<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/71JylQQgoO0" width="320" youtube-src-id="71JylQQgoO0"></iframe></div><br /><p>Next comes Tausha's husband Adrian, who reminds us that "it's not a good idea to be dishonest in matters of salvation; it's not a good idea to prop up the organizational structure by putting words in Joseph Smith's mouth 30 or 40 years after his death and claim that he said it." Adrian shows us how there is reason for hope</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6tPTHT-2KD4" width="320" youtube-src-id="6tPTHT-2KD4"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Whitney Horning is the author of <b><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Revealed-Exploring-Alternate/dp/B09QP6QV8R/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1653222297&sr=8-2" target="_blank">Joseph Smith Revealed: A Faithful Telling</a></i></b>, with a brilliant investigation into the question of whether or not our founding prophet practiced plural marriage. (Spoiler Alert: he most certainly did not.)<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W_wYAXING0M" width="320" youtube-src-id="W_wYAXING0M"></iframe></div><br /><div>Doug Atwood lays out the Lord's proper pattern of sending servant prophets:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JLpJ_VgfdSE" width="320" youtube-src-id="JLpJ_VgfdSE"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Aaron Bishop speaks on the massive number of changes in LDS policy and doctrine just since Russell Nelson took over. Needless to say, none of these changes were the result of revelations from God, nor were members of the Church given opportunity to approve of these changes, as required by God's law for the church.</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zeyDcG5kKvM" width="320" youtube-src-id="zeyDcG5kKvM"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><br /><div>Lt. Colonel Matthew Lohmeier made national news last year after being relieved of duty for exposing how the U.S. Military is openly indoctrinating military personnel in Marxist ideology. In this presentation he tells how he gives speeches all over the country (mostly at non-Mormon events) yet <i>this</i> is the talk he wishes he could give to every one of those audiences. Here is "The Book of Mormon: An Interpretive Key To Current Events."</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZGZdqa0qhQs" width="320" youtube-src-id="ZGZdqa0qhQs"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><br /><div>"What Christ acquired through his suffering at Gethsemane was knowledge and understanding of everything you have, or will ever go through, or suffer. He understands." Denver Snuffer concludes this conference by speaking about some of the important things restored through Joseph Smith that today are being ignored by the institutional LDS Church. <br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9mvbrAOUdKk" width="320" youtube-src-id="9mvbrAOUdKk"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><u style="font-weight: bold;">Notes & Asides:</u></span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><u><br /></u></b><a href="https://www.rescuingtherestoration.com/" target="_blank"><b>CLICK HERE</b></a> for the home page of the Rescuing the Restoration Conference where you can read about who we are and what we believe.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.rescuingtherestoration.com/recordings" target="_blank"><b>CLICK HERE</b></a> to find all these videos on one page, including a brief Q&A session. <br /><br /><a href="https://www.rescuingtherestoration.com/resources-general" target="_blank"><b>CLICK HERE</b></a> for a list of general resources, including where to find a <a href="https://www.fellowshiplocator.info/" target="_blank"><b>fellowship</b></a> group near you. (The remnant movement is already worldwide.)<br /><br /><b><a href="https://www.rescuingtherestoration.com/resources-removing-the-stain" target="_blank">CLICK HERE</a> </b>for a downloadable transcript of Whitney Horning's "Removing the Stain of Polygamy From the Restoration" with footnotes and sources, and <b><a href="https://www.rescuingtherestoration.com/resources-removing-the-stain" target="_blank">CLICK HERE </a>f</b>or a list of additional resources on this topic accessible online.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.rescuingtherestoration.com/_files/ugd/b303c3_58001886dc974cc4a50786a1eb34d26f.pdf" target="_blank"><b>CLICK HERE</b></a> for a downloadable transcript of Aaron Bishop's talk, "A Closer Look at the Great Day of Change in the LDS Church" with footnotes and sources.</span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.rescuingtherestoration.com/_files/ugd/b303c3_58001886dc974cc4a50786a1eb34d26f.pdf" target="_blank"><b>CLICK HERE</b></a> for a downloadable transcript of Matthew Lohmeier's talk "The Book of Mormon: An Interpretive Key to Current Events" with footnotes and sources. <br /><br /><b><a href="https://restorationarchives.com/blog/index.php/2022/02/27/true-blue-mormon/" target="_blank">CLICK HERE</a> </b>for a transcript of Denver Snuffer's talk, "True Blue Mormon: Independent Faithfulness."<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Matthew+lohmeier&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS928US928&hl=en&tbm=vid&sxsrf=ALiCzsYd3ErBsBQnRnVXL0otho7h7iakCg:1653228413043&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU1qrio_P3AhWirmoFHSM1BxIQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1093&bih=422&dpr=1.25" target="_blank"><b>CLICK HERE</b></a> for a google search listing some of the many news programs and podcasts Matthew Lohmeier appeared on that resulted in his excommunication from government service.<br /><br /></span><div><span style="font-size: medium;">And finally, just a month after this conference was held in Boise, another conference took place in Lexington, Kentucky. The theme was "Hear and Trust the Voice of the Lord in the Storm" an apt topic for the times we live in. A few of the Boise speakers showed up to expound further on what they had presented in Idaho, along with a couple others we did not hear from previously. <a href="https://www.trustthelordinthestorm.info/" target="_blank"><b>CLICK HERE</b></a> to get access to those videos. <br /><br /><b><u>Additional Reading:</u></b></span></div></div></div></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/12/did-lord-choose-not-to-anoint-lords.html" target="_blank"><b>Did The Lord Choose Not To Anoint 'The Lord's Anointed'?</b></a><br /><br />As always, please comment below and SHARE this important information!</span></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-55200859432553790962022-04-02T18:12:00.037-07:002023-11-26T21:07:32.291-08:00Why Are You Still Calling This Guy A Prophet Of God?<p><span style="background-color: white;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1AVoc_dqJJyN7jv5H8Igj6y4ZXhVV5vTUXv7yXfqXMBUafCJaOGx566a0ieM0lxLKI-nOjNuphfme_DRmhRzjzOfepUP6tT2zLK_MxLTOaCvtUqg_046kOt8kWVmgpqK4w-dL-hGFgzqdHoX4nI4GBBUDMq8ebQM3-eBVYAkH_sovdYr1lGfTn4YFCg/s232/Russel%20Nelson%20really%20stern.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="217" data-original-width="232" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1AVoc_dqJJyN7jv5H8Igj6y4ZXhVV5vTUXv7yXfqXMBUafCJaOGx566a0ieM0lxLKI-nOjNuphfme_DRmhRzjzOfepUP6tT2zLK_MxLTOaCvtUqg_046kOt8kWVmgpqK4w-dL-hGFgzqdHoX4nI4GBBUDMq8ebQM3-eBVYAkH_sovdYr1lGfTn4YFCg/s1600/Russel%20Nelson%20really%20stern.jpg" width="232" /></a></div><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;"><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/03/reigning-with-blood-and-horror-on-earth.html" target="_blank"><i>Previously: </i>Reigning With Blood And Horror On The Earth</a></b></span></span></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Here's the thing: Russell M. Nelson was never called by God to lead the LDS Church. </b></p><p><span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><b style="font-size: 14.85px;">And I can prove it.</b></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But first, if you're new to this forum, here's what you get to know about me: I am a firm believer in the gospel of Christ as restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. I revere the Book of Mormon as true scripture and a literal record of God's dealings with a people He brought to this continent in ancient times. I am more devoted to "Mormonism" than at any time in my life. So despite what you may have been told, I am not an apostate. An apostate is a person who has turned his back on his beliefs. I have not; The restored gospel of Christ is central to my life.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Tens of thousands of your fellow believers have also recognized that Russell Nelson is a fake and a fraud. You may even know some of them. We can clearly discern this truth because Nelson and his cohorts have, by their very acts and admissions, copped to the fact that Jesus Christ, the ostensible head of the Church, never called, ordained, anointed, appointed, or in any way set apart any one of them to lead His church. If you find this hard to believe, keep reading. All the evidence will be provided below. </b></span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">What I will be presenting was previously presented here just after Russell Nelson took office as president of the Church. I was prompted to revisit this topic due to the many faithful members who have been deeply troubled ever since the First Presidency, in an official declaration last August, encouraged members of the Church to take the Covid vaccines, saying those vaccines were <a href="https://thenewamerican.com/print/the-vax-premature-deaths/" target="_blank">"proven safe and effective."</a></span></span><a href="https://thenewamerican.com/print/the-vax-premature-deaths/" target="_blank"><br /><br /></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Many devout members were disturbed by that statement, since those consulting the abundant scientific research were aware that the the only thing these vaccines have </b></span><i style="font-size: 14.85px; font-weight: bold;">proven</i><b style="font-size: 14.85px;"> to be is extremely dangerous to a large segment of the population. These faithful members have found it difficult reconciling the science with Nelson's obvious falsehood, since we have all been taught since childhood that "the prophet can never lead the church astray." </b><br /><br /><b style="font-size: 14.85px;">Yet, here was the First Presidency of the Church, led by the ostensible prophet, doing just that; leading the church astray. These concerned believers asked, "if the vaccines have been proven safe, why were they given approval only under the Emergency Use Authorization Act?" Those paying attention understood that medications so authorized have not, by their very nature, undergone anything close to the testing required to approve them as either safe </b><i style="font-size: 14.85px; font-weight: bold;">or</i><b style="font-size: 14.85px;"> effective for use on either humans or animals. Such a limited authorization assumes those taking them understand that by injecting these untested substances, they were assuming all the risk, and that neither the government nor the </b><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>pharmaceutical</b></span><b style="font-size: 14.85px;"> companies that produced them can be held responsible for any adverse effects, up to and including death. <br /><br />That's a gamble most intelligent people would promptly reject. </b></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;"><span><b style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">Yet Russell Nelson, who is a medical doctor and should know better, insisted these highly dubious injections posed no danger. <a href="https://ldtruths.blogspot.com/2022/01/pres-oaks-blasting-of-those-silly.html" target="_blank">He blatantly lied to the members of the Church when he issued that statement. </a>That lie was confirmed when the pharmaceutical company Pfizer was forced by the courts to release information they had hoped to keep hidden from the public for fifty years, by which time all victims of their untested vaccines would likely be dead, as would those responsible for the manufacture of these poisons. In that release, we learn that Pfizer </b><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px; font-weight: bold;">knew </i><b style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">their vaccines were dangerous, yet widely promoted them anyway. You can download that document <a href="https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf" target="_blank">HERE</a> where, beginning on page 9, you will find listed 30 pages of documented adverse and potentially dangerous reactions that Pfizer's own scientists have been fully aware of this entire time. </b><br /><br /><b style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">So one wonders: Where was the mantle of the prophet when Russell M. Nelson, Dallin Oaks, and Henry Eyring boldly encouraged every member of the Church to have these poisons injected into them because these poisons had somehow magically been "proven safe and effective"?</b><br /><br /><b style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">The answer, of course, is that no such mantle has been bestowed on this current crop of imposters. Joseph Smith had that mantle, but these usurpers most certainly do not. What we do know is that Russell Nelson, who has complete control over every cent you paid in tithing last year, <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MLHa4Epfb51gmQ7hjRWESWoefHgrTnnnVbdZz0fsH2M/edit#gid=1588691955" target="_blank">diverted over half a billion dollars of that tithing as investments in Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson,</a> the manufacturers of the "vaccines." </b><a href="https://bycommonconsent.org/" style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;" target="_blank"><b>Did they get your approval before taking that action?</b></a><b style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;"> In </b><a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/104?lang=eng" style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">D&C 104:71</a><b style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;"> God requires them to get that permission. He also requires you to keep your eye on what your "servants" are up to. Have you been shirking your duty?</b><br /><br /></span></span></span><i>(UPDATE April 4th, 2022: an eagle-eyed reader who is much better at reading investment portfolios than I am has informed me that the total investments in those pharmaceutical companies is $10.5 billion.)</i></p><b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">If you have never questioned the general authorities before, prepare to have your eyes opened, because God never bestowed upon them the authority they claim. They have not been "lying for the Lord." They have just been lying.<br /><br />And now, a caveat: since this post consists of two parts, it's a long read, so I don't expect anyone to take it all in in one sitting. But I do feel this information is important, so if you know members of the Church who are having difficulty reconciling the false traditions of men with the actual words spoken by Jesus Christ through revelation, I hope you will share this with them and encourage them to pray about what they are about to discover.<br /></span></span><br />So, to begin. Part One, "Who Died And Made <i>Him </i>Prophet?" was written in January, 2018, soon after Russell Nelson was installed as president of the Church. As you will see, God had nothing to do with that duplicitous event: </b><br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Who Died And Made <i>Him</i> Prophet?</span></b><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7TmkwmiNfVdeSh4S4znOLUtZCNLBznEAZ6Nb0DoPQSzJ2W4tqF9GboRKDzW0c3_3O6a_AyTvt9U2L_3jBEoaoHnvSvIsqg88zmVZWt2e-pKDoWxdy95jr81J8xb_gT73HQy0n-0TDENPIXSWGsx14IfaXmn6xn5YGWyyhS0aGgXB1iND2eiMiiU0rzw/s880/russell%20nelson%20first%20general%20conference.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="494" data-original-width="880" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7TmkwmiNfVdeSh4S4znOLUtZCNLBznEAZ6Nb0DoPQSzJ2W4tqF9GboRKDzW0c3_3O6a_AyTvt9U2L_3jBEoaoHnvSvIsqg88zmVZWt2e-pKDoWxdy95jr81J8xb_gT73HQy0n-0TDENPIXSWGsx14IfaXmn6xn5YGWyyhS0aGgXB1iND2eiMiiU0rzw/s320/russell%20nelson%20first%20general%20conference.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>With the recent passing of Church president Thomas Monson and the installation of Russell Nelson as Monson's replacement, I was curious to see whether this time the leaders of the Church would follow the instructions outlined by the Lord regarding succession to the presidency. This is an action not to be taken lightly, if only for the fact that since the mid-twentieth century, the man selected to be president of the Church is also considered to be the Lord's mouthpiece on the earth. So my feeling is, if they're going to pick a new president, they'd better get this one right.</span></span><p></p><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;">"<b>There have always been false prophets</b> and self proclaimed would-be leaders who have sought to establish their own claim to presiding authority...One's eternal salvation depends upon the ability <b>to recognize and know the true servants of God</b> -<b>those who are authorized</b> to preach His gospel and administer the sacred and saving ordinances thereof." </blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">That quote comes from a book by Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr. titled </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"><i>Prophets, Priesthood Keys, & Succession</i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">, published in 1991 by Deseret Book. Brother Brewster is also the author of The</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"><b> <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Doctrine-Covenants-Encyclopedia-Hoyt-Brewster/dp/088494669X/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1516859340&sr=1-6&keywords=hoyt+Brewster" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Doctrine & Covenants Encyclopedia</a></b>,</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"> a reference book I refer to frequently because Hoyt Brewster knows the D&C inside and out.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Hoyt is right about the importance of knowing how to recognize a true prophet from a false one. And he shows us one method the Lord gives us, by citing from the Doctrine & Covenants:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIEkNevZqMsm7L5kWlP5dwwzfX1Lp00rQ5Tg96cyxaijZ-mpX7PumYiw-WW1p5pv0HBZ7G0pcRCxhAYwOPqUHy4AyH7U3F_HVpqWV8az-txy0bRcpAm94lMOcEnYyPsRfuMAH7AC9byp2K/s1600/Prophets__Priesthood_Keys_and_Succession_.jpg" style="clear: right; color: #336699; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="430" data-original-width="285" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIEkNevZqMsm7L5kWlP5dwwzfX1Lp00rQ5Tg96cyxaijZ-mpX7PumYiw-WW1p5pv0HBZ7G0pcRCxhAYwOPqUHy4AyH7U3F_HVpqWV8az-txy0bRcpAm94lMOcEnYyPsRfuMAH7AC9byp2K/s200/Prophets__Priesthood_Keys_and_Succession_.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="132" /></a>"And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants <i><b>whom I have appointed</b></i> to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men<b style="font-style: italic;"> whom I have appointed</b>, they shall not be blest." ( <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/124.41" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">D&C 124:45-46</a>, quoted in Brewster, pg 50.)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">The indicator of a true prophet, then, consists of spoken or written evidence showing that man was actually appointed </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"><b>by the Lord</b></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">. We have scads of evidence, through direct revelation, affirming that Joseph Smith was variously appointed, anointed, and ordained by the Lord to be His special servant. I listed a dozen or so examples in a </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/12/did-lord-choose-not-to-anoint-lords.html" target="_blank">previous post</a></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-decoration-line: none;"><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/12/did-lord-choose-not-to-anoint-lords.html" target="_blank">,</a></b><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> so I won't relist them again, but here's another one I came across just last month:</span></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"Exalt not yourselves; rebel not against <i><b>my servant</b></i> Joseph; for verily I say unto you, I am with him, and my hand shall be over him..." (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">D&C 112:15</a>)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">It's clear from section 124 that in order for us to recognize God's true mouthpiece, we are expected to hearken unto the Lord's voice, which is always conveyed by the voice of one of His servants. Check your doctrine & Covenants. That book is chock full of declarations in the first person voice of the Lord, relayed to us through his chosen servant, Joseph Smith.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">So it stands to reason that if Russell Nelson has been called by God to lead the Church, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">somebody</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> should have received a revelation from the Lord saying so, and, </span><a href="https://zomarah.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/silent-revelations/" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>according to established protocol</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>,</b> shared that revelation with the members of the church.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">I haven't seen one of these revelations, have you?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: large; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>Bypassing God's Instructions</b></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">What I <i>have</i> seen over and over in recent weeks is unsupported assurances by Church leaders, Church public relations experts, and various Church apologists designed specifically to mollify any concerns Church members might entertain, in order that all can be confident that every part of the process has taken place, as the new president himself has declared, according to "the divine plan of succession put in place by the Lord Himself."</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">The January 23rd edition of the</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> <a href="https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695314/Elder-Stevenson-shares-firsthand-account-of-the-calling-of-the-new-prophet.amp?__twitter_impression=true" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>Church News</b></a></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> reports on one of many descriptions of this process, this one by apostle Gary Stevenson:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> "As the President of the Church dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and the mantle of leadership goes to the senior man and to the Quorum of the Twelve as a body. At this point the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles becomes the First Presidency until a formal reorganization takes place."</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">What is lacking in Gary's description is any mention of the Lord's involvement in this process. Did the Lord </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">ever</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> instruct the Twelve to dissolve the First Presidency? If so, where is the revelation calling for that action? Also, where did the Lord indicate that the presidency of the Church is to devolve to the senior apostle? And what revelation informs us that the Lord desired the Twelve Apostles to become the acting First Presidency in the interim?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Seems to me the Lord made it abundantly clear when the apostles were called that the Twelve were to have nothing whatever to do with governing the Church. But maybe the Lord changed his mind about that at some point I'm not aware of. Let's see if we can get someone to tell us where the Lord revised His will on the subject. </span><a href="https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-first-presidency-speaks-to-members-worldwide?lang=eng&_r=1" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>Maybe Russell Nelson can tell us</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">. He seems to have a handle on this:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"The Church today has been organized by the Lord Himself. He has put in place a remarkable system of governance that provides redundancy and backup. That system provides for prophetic leadership even when the inevitable illnesses and incapacities may come with advancing age." </blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Okay, Russell, you've got my attention. You say the Lord has put this system in place. Please tell us about that.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"The organization of the modern Church of Jesus Christ is patterned after His ancient Church. The divinely inspired structure provides a solid foundation for the functioning of the Church."</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Nelson doesn't appear to be providing any further insight as to God's direction in this matter, but he does tell us the system is patterned after His ancient church. Okay, so we know that the pattern Jesus used to appoint his apostles was by anointing them personally. That gels with His statements in section 124 above where he declares his authorized servants must be appointed by </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Him</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">. "You have not chosen me," he told the early apostles, "but <i>I</i> have chosen <i>you</i>.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Yet that is not the way things are done today, and Nelson has still told us nothing about how the Lord laid out the procedure for selecting a new Church president in modern times. The only thing Elder Nelson -excuse me, I meant to say "President" Nelson- said about the way it happened for him was his brethren in the quorum "placed their hands upon my head to ordain me and set me apart as president of the Church."</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Okay, but why <i>them</i>? Why didn't Jesus ordain you Himself? Didn't you just imply that the Lord handles these matters the same way he did with the ancients? Could He not have</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> at least</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> issued a verbal approval so everyone in the room could hear it and be sure they were ordaining the right guy?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> I'm not being flippant here. Russell just got done making two important points:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">1. This is Jesus' Church<br />2. All the living apostles gathered in the upper room of the temple and made a unanimous decision to reorganize the first presidency and choose to have Nelson serve as president of the Church.</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">These guys boast constantly of being prophets, seers, and revelators with all the gifts, abilities, authority, and "keys" that Joseph Smith possessed. We have plenty of evidence that the prophet Joseph was the conduit for numerous oracles -verbal communications uttered from the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself. So how come Nelson makes no mention of Jesus having any say in </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">his</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> "ordination"? If the Lord is not going to make an appearance at what the Brethren keep referring to as this most "historic" of occasions, when exactly </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">does</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> he communicate with these men?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">D&C 102, one of the key sections laying out how the church was to be governed, says this:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is <b style="font-style: italic;">appointed by revelation."</b> (verse 9.)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">So far, no one in the Church hierarchy has provided any revelation that would give us reason to believe the Lord chose Russell Nelson as his latest servant. All we know up to this point is what Nelson has told us about his colleagues choosing him, and that they were unanimous in their decision. That doesn't mean a thing without an appointment from God. Recall that Jesus makes it clear that </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; font-style: italic; text-decoration-line: none;">He </b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">will appoint his servants; it is not enough for Russell's pals alone to agree he gets to have the job. If we are to recognize Russell as a prophet, as Joseph Smith was, why won't Russell read to us from the revelation the Lord conveyed to him appointing him to his new office? There has to be one, right? So why is that important detail missing from every online account?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">All we've gotten from Nelson is a statement akin to "Jesus has not chosen me, but my pals in the Quorum have chosen me." Well, that just isn't enough. He can't get away with telling us the system has been provided by the Lord Himself and not be willing to show us the Lord's words on the subject. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">I watched the </span><a href="https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-first-presidency-speaks-to-members-worldwide?cid=HP_TU_16-1-2018_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyMAST_&lang=eng" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>entire video</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b> </b>where Russell Nelson and Todd Christofferson attempted to convince us this was taking place under the direction of the Lord, without either of them citing one single word the Lord said about it. We're clearly not getting any answers from these guys. Let's try someone else.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"><span style="font-size: large; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>Enter The Scriptorian</b></span><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTXAZNtetsUhTPkoDW4vTQsfPSL40P9uQ1c6yG7j3r0L_3jQJUHo1bD-VDcvt3CzMEy-1PVtCCtsM_d-bZt6ECrv5y20t5PLzB5TX6tQDYrd8qFZaggisybAb6VZybc5A1xTbZGQqiwkSv/s1600/Doctrines+of+salvation.jpg" style="clear: left; color: #336699; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1153" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTXAZNtetsUhTPkoDW4vTQsfPSL40P9uQ1c6yG7j3r0L_3jQJUHo1bD-VDcvt3CzMEy-1PVtCCtsM_d-bZt6ECrv5y20t5PLzB5TX6tQDYrd8qFZaggisybAb6VZybc5A1xTbZGQqiwkSv/s200/Doctrines+of+salvation.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="143" /></a></div>Former Church president Joseph Fielding Smith was one of the preeminent doctrinal scholars in the Church during the 20th century, and judging from the anemic crop being passed off as "scholars" today, one of the last of his kind. Surely he will be able to point to the scripture that shows the Lord designed a system whereby the senior apostle is automatically elevated to become president of the Church, won't he? In volume 3 of <i style="text-decoration-line: none;"><b>Doctrines of Salvation</b></i>, President Smith wrote,<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-decoration-line: none;">"There is no mystery about the choosing of the successor to the President of the Church. The Lord settled this a long time ago."</blockquote>Well, now we're getting somewhere! I can't wait for President Smith to tell us how the Lord settled the question. You've got the floor, Joseph Fielding Smith:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-decoration-line: none;">"The senior apostle automatically becomes the presiding officer of the church, and he is so sustained by the Council of the Twelve which becomes the presiding body of the Church when there is no First Presidency"</blockquote>Well, that just brings us back to square one. He still hasn't explained where we can find the Lord's instructions on this.<br /><br />We're used to seeing Joseph Fielding Smith pile on the citations to back up every teaching he expounds upon, but in this instance, just after he assures us that the Lord has settled the process, he fails to provide any citation proving that allegation. We are not any closer to solving the "mystery" of the choosing of the successor to the president of the church than we were before.<br /><br />We may as well quote the <a href="https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/succession-in-the-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Church PR department</a>, where they say pretty much the same thing as Joseph Fielding Smith did; and they're just as lax about providing scriptural attribution:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-decoration-line: none;">“Throughout the history of the church, the longest-serving apostle has always become the president of the church when the First Presidency has been reorganized,”</blockquote>Okay, we get it. This is the way it's always been done. But can someone please show us the original revelation from the Lord so we can understand the Lord's actual instructions about it?<br /><br />Uh-oh. Turns out at least one person is willing to go on the record and admit the emperor has no clothes. Earlier this month, a Church history professor at BYU spilled the beans to the <b><a href="http://universe.byu.edu/2018/01/08/prophetic-succession-a-sacred-careful-process1/" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">school newspaper</a>.</b> Here is a nugget of truth from professor Casey Griffiths, who is most likely about to lose his job:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-decoration-line: none;">"This is simply a historical precedent first set by President Brigham Young, and despite there being nothing in the Doctrine and Covenants about prophetic succession, this pattern of sustaining the most senior apostle as church president has been followed so consistently that it might as well be doctrine.</blockquote>Let that sink in. It <i><b>might as well be</b> </i>doctrine!<br /><br />Looks like we've found the problem. If we are going to accept the traditions of men over the actual doctrines of Christ, we may as well do whatever we want -and the leaders certainly operate that way today. It might as well be doctrine to baptize infants by sprinkling water on them, because, hey, the Catholic church has been following that pattern consistently for so long. Likewise, Mormons might as well let their clearly unauthorized method of choosing a new president continue as it has because this is the way we've been doing it like, <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">forever</i>, dude. So what does it matter if the Lord had a different pattern in mind? Who is <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">he</i> to tell <i>us</i> how His prophets are to be picked?<br /><br />Make no mistake about it. The Lord most certainly did provide a method for succession in the presidency, but it decidedly did not involve anyone in the Quorum of the Twelve. In fact, those twelve men, every last one of them, is specifically prohibited from having any governing role in the church whatsoever.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 4px; position: relative; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;"><tbody><tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKyKyRhfuwDq1S2W6q3lwn5Jv0GFRKzjUuxASAyG8mxD8IXSOs9lkvCKR6T_1YFxx35I9FsRHAtPAe8k9VGhRz3z0E9_TFVBQ6MTv1ClkTrodZsIIrBJ2YtzWA6XpFuXbafzYAft3WcYQK/s1600/teaching+for+doctrines.jpg" style="color: #336699; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="333" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKyKyRhfuwDq1S2W6q3lwn5Jv0GFRKzjUuxASAyG8mxD8IXSOs9lkvCKR6T_1YFxx35I9FsRHAtPAe8k9VGhRz3z0E9_TFVBQ6MTv1ClkTrodZsIIrBJ2YtzWA6XpFuXbafzYAft3WcYQK/s320/teaching+for+doctrines.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="213" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 11.88px;">Interested in false teachings in the LDS Church today? I can show you <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Teaching-Doctrines-Commandments-Men-Tradition/dp/1519103719/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517078420&sr=8-1&keywords=teaching+for+doctrines+the+commandments" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">a whole book</a> full of 'em!</td></tr></tbody></table><b style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">Dissension In The Quorum</span></b><br />Edward Leo Lyman is a historian of Mormon studies who spent over forty years studying the diaries and minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve. And what their words have to tell us about their experiences trying to sort out the succession mess belies the revisionist history the Church puts out today. Lyman is author of <i style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1080&context=mormonhistory" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Succession by Seniority: The Development of Procedural Precedents in the LDS Church</a></i>, published in the <i style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none;">Journal of Mormon History</i>,Vol 40, Issue 2 (Spring 2014.) As we can deduce from the title, succession in the presidency as we know it today did not arise from any scriptural directive, but it developed over time as the leaders adopted a series of gradual precedents.<br /><br />One thing that may surprise you from Brother Lyman's research is that following the death of Brigham Young, the one thing most members of the Quorum agreed on was they did <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">not</i> want the church to have another president.<br /><br />It might be necessary here to remind the reader that the Sunday School version we were taught about Brigham Young's ascension to the presidency is simplistic, to say the least. The story, as understood by the typical latter-day Saint, goes something like this: when Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon debated about who should be president of the Church. Brigham Young won.<br /><br />The reality is a bit more involved. In the first place, as the <a href="http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/category/episodes/radiofreemormon/" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>Radio Free Mormon</b> Mormon </a>broadcast thoroughly documented, it was not called a succession "crisis" because there was a shortage of claimants; it was called a crisis because there were<i style="text-decoration-line: none;"> so many</i> contenders with reasonably valid claims. But let's focus for now on the Sunday School/Primary description of what happened, the debate between Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon, because that debate is instructive.<br /><br />The debate was not over who should be the president, but who should be the "guardian" of the church until Joseph's eldest son, then 11 years old, came of age. Rigdon argued that as remaining member of the First Presidency, he should be the guardian. Brigham Young argued that with the deaths of two of the three members of the presidency, that body was effectively over. Kaput. Dissolved.<b style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">*</span></b> He insisted there would be no first presidency in the church any longer, but that the church would be better served if it were looked after by the entire quorum of the Twelve as a body rather than just one man calling the shots.<br />______________________________________<br /><span style="font-size: large; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>*</b></span><span style="font-size: x-small; text-decoration-line: none;">This is the genesis of the false teaching that somehow the Twelve are empowered to "dissolve" the First Presidency. The First Presidency under Joseph Smith was automatically "dissolved"-not intentionally, but by circumstance, when its two co-presidents unexpectedly left the planet. That dissolution occurred by itself, without any required input from the Twelve.</span><br /><span style="font-size: x-small; text-decoration-line: none;"><br /></span>There's more to it than that, and you can get a full account of the nefarious machinations of Brigham Young following the death of the prophet Joseph Smith by reading or listening to <b style="text-decoration-line: none;"><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-jesus-christ-was-ousted-as-head-of_24.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Apostolic Coup d'etat: How The Twelve Apostles, in a Breathtaking Power Grab, Assumed Absolute and Complete Control of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.</a> </i></b> I've provided links to both the audio presentation and the transcript of this two part series on my blog where you can find them by clicking <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-jesus-christ-was-ousted-as-head-of_24.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a> and <b style="text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/brigham-youngs-hostile-takeover.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">here</a>.</b><br /><br />What the saints ended up voting for (at least what they <i>thought</i> they were voting for) was for the church to be managed by all twelve apostles acting in concert, until Joseph Smith III could "take his rightful place among this people." It did not occur to anyone that Brigham Young intended to be president himself, and certainly no one voted for that.<br /><br /><b style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">Brigham Pulls A Fast One</span></b><br />Three years after the people voted to be governed by the Twelve, Brigham Young led the first body of saints to the Rocky Mountains. Then he returned to the remaining saints at Winter Quarters where he tried to persuade Wilford Woodruff to nominate him as head of a newly constituted First Presidency, with his obsequious cousin Willard Richards and his BFF Heber Kimball as counselors.<br /><br />Initially Woodruff resisted, saying he did not believe such a thing could be done without a revelation. But Brigham kept Wilford awake for two days and eventually wore him down, until eventually Wilford agreed to propose Brigham's name to the people, whereupon Brigham got himself elected by the Saints to be their presiding officer. The vote was far from unanimous, because many of the Saints and some of the apostles had not participated in the voting, having by this time left Winter Quarters and moved halfway across the country to the Rocky Mountains. When it was announced to the Utah saints that Brigham was now their new president, what could they do? The deed was done.<br /><br />Now mind you, Brigham never pretended to be a prophet; in fact he denied that possibility several times over the years. But he <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">had</i> been elected president of the church, and he presided over the saints with a "strong hand" until his death 33 years later.<br /><br />As Edward Lyman documents through the minutes of the quorum, upon Brigham Young's death it was decided by the Twelve that there should be no First Presidency, that it would be better to go back and adopt Brigham's original proposal, where the church was managed by the twelve apostles governing as a body. Why did the Twelve decide to forgo installing someone as president of the Church at this time? Because,<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-decoration-line: none;">"It soon became apparent that at least several apostles felt that Brigham Young had been too autocratic, particularly ignoring the possible role of other apostles of equivalent, if not senior, rank. George Q Cannon noted with some astonishment four months after Young's death that some apostles disapproved of some of Young's actions and had felt oppressed, but had not 'dared to exhibit their feelings to him,' partly because they did not feel he would give their feelings any heed. Some felt the church leader had 'transcended the bounds of the authority he legitimately held.'" (Lyman, pg 109-110.)</blockquote>So for a long time after Brigham Young, there was no First Presidency. What governing was required by the church was dealt with by the entire quorum. However, two years later, on September 6, 1879, John Taylor, the apostle next in line in seniority, decided he did in fact want to organize a new First Presidency with himself at the head, only to have his proposal shot down by the others. Not willing to give up the dream, Taylor renewed his proposal again the following month, only to see it rejected again.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-decoration-line: none;">"Forty-two-year-old Joseph F. Smith, who had been ordained an apostle on July 1, 1866, noted in his diary that he was astonished that the proposal was even made. He revealingly stated that the Twelve had debated the issue for nearly four hours after which the quorum members had concluded that most apostles opposed Taylor's move because they assumed that Church members were 'not only satisfied, but happy under the administration of the Twelve.' Smith clearly spoke for some others as well and may, in fact, have revealed the main persisting issue, when he admitted that he did not 'want to see repeated what had occurred in the church [under Brigham Young].'" (Lyman, pg 110-111.)</blockquote>A year after that -three years after the death of Brigham Young- John Taylor finally got to be president of the church. By this time the president of the Quorum acted as de facto president anyway, so the opposition weakened and the quorum more or less said, "what the hell, what does it matter?"<br /><br />This was the beginning of the pattern of succession to the presidency we have today, which was shaping up not as a result of any revelation from God (nobody had been receiving revelations for the Church since Joseph and Hyrum were taken), but simply as a matter of tradition and expediency.<br /><br />Years later still, as John Taylor's death became imminent, there was more conflict in the quorum, as some of the junior apostles claimed (correctly) that there was no reason Taylor's replacement as president had to be the most senior apostle. It could be any one of them. That was technically true; as long as the <i>custom</i> insisted an apostle was to take over the office of president, it could just as well be any one of them since the Lord had never declared <i>any</i> apostle, senior or junior, belonged in that office in the first place. They had made up their own rule without any input from God, so why not change things at will to suit their whims?<br /><br />Anyway, for two years following John Taylor's demise there was more delaying, infighting, and jockeying for position in the quorum. But over time things shook out and a new first presidency was installed with Wilford Woodruff at the head. From then on, <i>tradition</i> has dictated that the senior apostle always moved into the spot as president of the church. The Lord has never had anything to do with setting up this pattern. In fact, the argument could be made that the reason the Lord has abandoned the Twelve to their own devices is precisely because they have disobeyed his instructions and rejected their revealed duties in favor of assuming power and authority over the church which God had specifically denied them from the beginning.<br /><br />Way back when Joseph Smith was president of the church, he reminded the Twelve that they were prohibited from having anything to do with governing or administrating the Church. As the founding prophet cautioned a group of newly called apostles prior to sending them on their first mission:<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Dfu9tR6aNys-cN7PmUAoE25LT1IHYxmj9JhWL7cg_xuNMBXDZC9IVH_HLt_ZGGFOTLzoHA7qdmX8zN8_T6kWm9Bac0mnx-tL8E3by0WQyl_BtP-JXiYP1PuvBTV-UtuyZD6fP7lN09gS/s1600/Kirtland+Council+Minute+Book.jpg" style="clear: left; color: #336699; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="293" data-original-width="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Dfu9tR6aNys-cN7PmUAoE25LT1IHYxmj9JhWL7cg_xuNMBXDZC9IVH_HLt_ZGGFOTLzoHA7qdmX8zN8_T6kWm9Bac0mnx-tL8E3by0WQyl_BtP-JXiYP1PuvBTV-UtuyZD6fP7lN09gS/s1600/Kirtland+Council+Minute+Book.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-decoration-line: none;">"The Twelve shall have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes and there undertake to regulate the affairs thereof where there is a standing high council. But it is their duty to go abroad and regulate all matters relative to the different branches of the church." (Joseph Smith,<b><i> </i></b><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Kirtland-Council-Minute-Book-Collier/dp/0934964033/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516926824&sr=8-1&keywords=kirtland+council+minute+book" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b><i>Kirtland Council Minute Book</i></b>,</a> pg 112.)</blockquote>Conversely, the prophet cautioned the high council that they were to stay off the apostles' turf:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-decoration-line: none;">"No standing high council has authority to go into the churches abroad and regulate the matters thereof, for this belongs to the Twelve." (ibid.)</blockquote>This echoes D&C 107, a revelation where the Lord actually does lay out the duties of the leading quorums of the Church, and in that revelation the Lord tells the Council of the Twelve Apostles that they are given responsibilities "differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling." (D&C 107:23)<br /><br />So, how do the duties of the Quorum of the Twelve differ from the other leading quorums? Well, the First Presidency is a governing and administrative body within the church. The High Council is a governing and administrative body within the church. So where does that leave the Twelve? Answer: they are <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">not</i> a governing or administrative body within the church.<br /><br />The Twelve are "sent out" to be the Twelve <i style="text-decoration-line: none;"><b>Traveling</b></i> Councilors, to build up the church <i style="text-decoration-line: none;"><b>abroad</b></i>. That's why the apostles were so often in Great Britain; their role was to function <b style="text-decoration-line: none;"><i>outside</i></b> the perimeters of church headquarters. They were expressly forbidden from interfering where the Church had already been established. In case you're having trouble following all this, it means the Twelve were not permitted to run the church when the church was headquartered in Nauvoo, and they're not allowed to run the church now that it's headquartered in Salt Lake City.<br /><br />If all this goes against everything you've ever been taught about the way the church is supposed to be governed, I understand your feelings of dissonance. But these are the rules given to the Twelve by the Lord through revelation. You can find them in your scriptures.<br /><br />These instructions the Lord gave to the Twelve are not exactly followed by that quorum in the Church today. The Lord gave them no authority to dissolve the First Presidency, nor do they have any authority to reconstitute the First Presidency once they've dissolved it, nor can they fill it with three of their own. These are usurpations the Twelve have taken upon themselves, absent any authority from God to do so.<br /><br />I suppose the Lord Jesus Christ, who, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+13%3A8&version=KJV" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">the scriptures tell us</a>, is the same today, yesterday, and forever, <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">could</i> have later changed his mind about the duties of the Twelve and put them in charge of running the entire Church. He could have. But He didn't. If He had, we would have a revelation showing us the Lord had reversed Himself.<br /><br /><b style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">He That Learns Not His Duty Shall Not Be Counted Worthy</span></b><br />The Lord created two distinct high councils: a <i style="text-decoration-line: none;"><b>standing</b></i> high council, and a <i style="text-decoration-line: none;"><b>traveling</b></i> high council. Their duties do not overlap. The <b style="text-decoration-line: none;"><i>standing high council</i></b> was "appointed by revelation for the purpose of settling important difficulties which might arise in the church." That body was formed on February 17, 1834, and you can read all about it in D&C 102. At that time there was no quorum of Twelve Apostles in the church. That body was yet to be formed.<br /><br />That took place a year later when the Lord, through revelation, called for a <i style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none;">traveling high council</i> selected from twelve of the existing apostles. (The calling of apostle had existed from the beginning, when Joseph Smith was named the first apostle in the church.) The <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">Quorum of the Twelve Apostles</i> was a separate group consisting of twelve specifically called apostles set apart to travel outside the church, making them distinct from any members of the church who had been called apostles up to that time. So the "twelve traveling apostles" became a separate entity all their own, with distinct duties different from any other existing apostles.<br /><br />Joseph explained to these twelve men that their duty was to preach the gospel <b style="text-decoration-line: none;"><i>outside</i></b> the local boundaries of the church. This "traveling high council," also known as the <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">Quorum of the Twelve Apostles</i>, was formed on March 28th, 1835. This was one year after the creation of the <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">standing high council</i>, and five full years<i style="text-decoration-line: none;"> </i>after the church itself was formally organized. There had been missionaries sent out from the beginning, but the Quorum of the Twelve were given the authority to <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">only</i> do missionary work and nothing beyond setting up branches abroad. The Lord appointed Brigham Young to be the president of this newly minted traveling high council. This was the only calling the Lord ever extended to Brigham Young: director of the missionary program.<br /><br />Section 107 is known as the "Revelation on Priesthood" and in this revelation the Lord is making it very clear that His church was not to function in the hierarchical fashion it has developed into today. He designated four separate and distinct quorums, each with separate duties and responsibilities, while specifically stating that each quorum was "equal in authority" to the others. That is, the church was not created to be a top-down organization as it is today, but a flat structure with none of the leading quorums in authority over another. They were all equal in authority.<br /><br />There's a lot of stuff covered in section 107 (there are a hundred verses), but for our purposes here we're going to skip over most of it and focus on the relationship between four particular leadership bodies, then narrow that down to the two that are pertinent to this discussion: the body that had jurisdiction <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">within</i> the church, and the one that had jurisdiction <i style="text-decoration-line: none;">outside</i> the church. Grab your D&C and follow along with me while we look at the way the Lord lays it out.<br /><br />First, there's the First Presidency. Where does it come from? Is it supposed to be made up of former apostles?<br /><br />Nope. The prophet Joseph Smith reorganized the First Presidency several times during his lifetime, and not once did he cull from the Quorum of the Twelve to replace one of his counselors. Not one single time. Ever.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><br />Why not? Well, when the Lord describes the duties of the Twelve, you'll discover that if Joseph Smith picked one of them to be in the First Presidency, he would be removing that man from the important missionary calling given to him by the Lord, and assigning him different responsibilities. Remember, the Lord told the Twelve their duties would <b><i>differ from every other quorum</i></b>. The other quorums were tasked with governing the church; the Twelve were not.<br /><br />The Lord describes the duties of the Twelve in various verses, and it's clear they are not a governing body in the church, but instead are "sent out" into "all the world"-which means the world outside of Church headquarters. </div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Then we see something interesting. In verse 24 we discover that the Quorum of Twelve are equal in authority and power to the First Presidency. That's pretty nifty, because the Twelve deserve not to be dumped on, what with always being required to be away from home and all. I had always thought the First Presidency was in authority <i>over</i> the Twelve, but that's not so. Joseph Smith did not see his calling as any more important than anyone else's. He just had different gifts and differing responsibilities.<br /><br />Then we get to the Seventy, and their duty is to act under the direction of the Twelve, and to be available if the Twelve require assistance to fill the need for additional preachers and so on. But get this: even though they act "under the direction of the Twelve," the Twelve don't have any authority over them. The Twelve are not in charge of the Seventy. The Lord says right there in verse 26 that the Seventy form a quorum equal in authority to that of the Twelve. You see, the Seventy are also apostles, they're just a separate quorum of apostles. The actual title of this group is "the seventy apostles." Why? Because there were seventy of them.<br /><br />So we had the <i>twelve</i> apostles, and we had the <i>seventy</i> apostles. Separate groups, but equal to each other in authority. Neither group was in charge of the other.<br /><br />Finally, the standing High Council. This is the meat and potatoes of our quest, because if the next First Presidency after Joseph's was to come from any place, it would have come from the standing high council. Why? Because this is the governing body that has authority <i>within</i> Church headquarters in the same way the Twelve had authority <i>outside</i> church headquarters. And like every other quorum, the Lord affirms that the standing high council is equal in authority to the Twelve <i>and</i> equal in authority to the First Presidency. Again, no quorum was in authority over any other.<br /><br />The high council of the church was originally formed in Kirtland, Ohio. When Missouri became the center place of the church, that council moved to Missouri, and even though membership in the body came and went, the high council remained the central governing body to the church. Same thing when church headquarters relocated to Nauvoo. They retained their duties and responsibilities similar to those of the other governing body, the First Presidency, which they stood next to. If Brigham Young had not illegally abolished the high council, there would be a central high council governing the Church from Salt Lake City today, and Russell Nelson and his pals would not be the ones sitting around the board table at 50 East North Temple Street. They would be far away from there, handing out pamphlets in Constantinople and Timbuktu.<br /><br />In the final verse of section 107 the Lord issues a warning about any of the men in the various quorums who might be tempted to shirk his duty in favor of doing something else, and it is a pertinent warning that could be appropriately directed at every future church president from Brigham Young to Russell Nelson. "He that learns not his duty and shows himself approved shall not be counted worthy to stand."<br /><br /><b style="font-size: x-large;">Lying For The Lord</b><br />If you spend enough time digging around for explanations by Church authorities on why they believe apostles are entitled to install other apostles into the First Presidency, you'll eventually find someone attempting to rationalize this false doctrine by actually referring to -are you ready for this?- D&C 107! Here's the late David B. Haight:</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><br /><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lgfPCUpfjwc" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />Let's break this down:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"In 1835 the Lord gave a revelation on this matter that provides for orderly succession."</blockquote>Notice Elder Haight speaks in a very authoritative manner about the existence of a revelation, and even tells us the year it was received. But he doesn't actually cite the section of the D&C where that revelation can be found, making it nearly impossible for the listener to readily look it up to see if what he says about it is actually in there. That's too much of a risk for him. Haight had to be aware that anyone bothering to check up on his claim would quickly see that this particular revelation does not provide for any kind of succession at all, orderly or otherwise. He continues:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The revelation states that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is a body equal in authority to the First Presidency." </blockquote>Yes it does. But the revelation also states that the Standing High Council is <i>also</i> a body equal in authority to the First Presidency. How come he didn't bother mentioning that? He goes on:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"That means that when the president of the church dies, the presidency is dissolved." </blockquote><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Is that really what it means, Elder Haight? I wonder how you made that leap in logic. You have to really want this revelation to say something other than what it actually says in order to come up with that meshugganeh interpretation, David. Where the heck is there anything in there about dissolving the First Presidency? For that matter, where is there anything in that revelation that remotely refers to what happens when the president dies? Let's keep going:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"And the Quorum of the Twelve automatically become the presiding body of the Church." </blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Well, that was magical. The result Elder Haight needs to have happen just "automatically" takes place.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">That's quite a chunk of sophistry you've bitten off there, Dave. Let's recap it in the form of a syllogism in order to better grasp your reasoning:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">1. The Twelve are equal in authority to the First Presidency,</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">2. "Which means that" when the president dies, the presidency is dissolved,</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">3. Therefore the Twelve "automatically" become the presiding body.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> Nope, sorry, Brother Haight. I'm just not following your logic. Give us your final summation, if you will.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"This divinely revealed procedure...revelation from the Lord"</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Well hold on there. I don't think you've shown any evidence at all that the procedure you describe is divinely revealed or that it came through a revelation from the Lord, seeing as how all you did was refer to a revelation that doesn't say anything close to what you say it does. Come on now, Brother Haight. Don't you mean to say "this procedure is the result of a trial-and-error series of precepts that have developed over time?" Okay, wrap it up, please. You were concluding that this divinely revealed revelation,</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> "...for installing a new president of the church...has been followed to our present day."</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">That's partly true. It <i>has</i> been followed to our present day. It just hasn't been "divinely inspired," so you should have mentioned you made that part up.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: large; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>Why Didn't Brigham Young Think Of That?</b></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><div style="background-color: white;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">If D&C 107 contained even a modicum of evidence to support the claim David Haight attributes to it, don't you think Brigham Young would have cited it to bolster his own authority claims? What about John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and others? Wouldn't it have saved a lot of hassle on the part of those who had trouble justifying their right to dissolve and reinstall a new first presidency if only that revelation gave them the authority to do so?</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Here's historian Michael Quinn:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsZWfCaFQSqBjjIXqv0L-gJaPdpiALH5ahIxaSXGsnQLukTtv-QZ8mIcPkzHg_tFUuvyNrINGxwNrGnbGiYVUCOe7jdFWS2ub5h0qSBpRz5kmevTKThLPTFsusR248aoTJr0jZoaLurRJZ/s1600/Mormon+Hierarchy.jpg" style="clear: right; color: #336699; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="340" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsZWfCaFQSqBjjIXqv0L-gJaPdpiALH5ahIxaSXGsnQLukTtv-QZ8mIcPkzHg_tFUuvyNrINGxwNrGnbGiYVUCOe7jdFWS2ub5h0qSBpRz5kmevTKThLPTFsusR248aoTJr0jZoaLurRJZ/s320/Mormon+Hierarchy.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="217" /></a>Everyone in 1844, especially Brigham Young, knew the 1835 revelation did not mean what modern Mormons think it means concerning the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. That revelation certainly did not contain or imply what the LDS church's <i><b>Encyclopedia of Mormonism</b></i> now claims: "Further direction pertaining to the organization of the First Presidency was given in a revelation on priesthood in 1835. Three men were to be chosen and appointed, and ordained to that office by the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, 'and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church.' (D&C 107:22). </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">On the contrary, readers can examine that verse and the entire revelation in vain for such an alleged provision that the Twelve were to choose the First Presidency. No such statement existed in either the 1835 revelation or any other Mormon document. During Joseph Smith's lifetime,<b style="font-style: italic;"> the Twelve did not have the right to organize even a stake high council, let alone the First Presidency.</b>"<b style="font-style: italic;"> </b>(D. Michael Quinn, <i style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Mormon-Hierarchy-Origins-Power/dp/1560850566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517050972&sr=8-1&keywords=the+mormon+hierarchy+origins+of+power" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power</a></i>, pg 157-158).</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">When I first read that in Quinn's book several years ago, I could not believe the writers of that segment in the</span><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i> Encyclopedia of Mormonism </i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">actually altered scripture in order to make it appear God said something he never said. So I pulled volume two of the </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>Encyclopedia of Mormonism</b></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> off the shelf and opened it up, and sure enough, there it was: a complete fabrication inserted into their telling of verse 22, deliberately intended to deceive the reader. The authors of that contribution are J. Lynn England and W. Keith Warner. If anyone out there knows them, tell them I said they are blatant liars and deserve to be publicly shamed.</span><br /><br /><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">Who Is Authorized To Lead The Church?</span></b><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">When members of the Quorum of the Twelve today declare that the Lord provided the means for a smooth transition of authority from one church president to the next, they are being completely truthful. The only thing they neglect to mention is that the Lord deliberately leaves </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">them </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">out of the process.</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Jesus Christ, the head of the Church at the time, gave Joseph Smith the authority to appoint anyone he wanted to succeed him as president. Joseph chose his brother Hyrum. But later, Hyrum was murdered along with Joseph, so now what do we do?</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">I wonder if it had occurred to many people at the time, that by taking Joseph and Hyrum unto Himself, perhaps the Lord was trying to tell them something. Something on the order of "you don't deserve to have these men among you."</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">If the Saints had any sense at all, they would have realized the Lord was calling them to repentance. He already told them way back in 1832 that they were </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">all</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> under condemnation. <b>(</b></span><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.112" style="color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>D&C 84: 55-57</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>.)</b> Four years later he warned them of the cursings and judgments that would soon come upon them if they didn't straighten up right away. He said if they continued to ignore His warnings, they would be moved out of their place.<b> (</b></span><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/124.41" style="color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>D&C 124:45-48</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>.)</b> Those cursings and judgments took place soon after, and the people were indeed moved out of their place. But instead of repenting, every 24th of July Mormons in Utah make a holiday out of the way God allowed them to be moved out of their place, and treat it as if it were a cause for celebration.</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">In my opinion, and in the opinion of others I know, there is no need to be in a hurry to have someone preside over the church, at least not until they have repented and learned to govern themselves according to the commandments of God. But if there </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">was</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> a need for a new First Presidency to replace the last one, those men would properly come from within the standing high council, not the traveling high council as it is improperly done today.</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Of course, first we would have to reconstitute the high council, because one of the first things Brigham Young did was get rid of it. As you can guess, that body stood in the way of his ambitions.</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Michael Quinn noted that the </span><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i>Encyclopedia of Mormonism</i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">, which was published by Macmillan & Co. and therefore not strictly a Church publication, fudged on the truth about Mormon succession by citing section 107 while leaving out the pertinent part about the high council's qualifications. Yet a book published by Deseret Book the year before (the same book I cited at the beginning of this piece, </span><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i>Prophets, Priesthood Keys, & Succession</i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">) acknowledged the truth about the succession mystery:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"Thus in the developing days of Church government, the standing high councils stood in the line of succession."</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Yes, it's true. An item sold at Deseret Book actually contained something of value.</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">If we require further evidence that the high council should have been the logical place to look for Joseph's successor, we have the Lord's description of that body as "the cornerstone of Zion." He provided no equivalent description of the Twelve Apostles. And let's not overlook Joseph Smith's own endorsement when he addressed the high council:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"<b>If I should now be taken away,</b> I had accomplished the great work the Lord had laid before me, and that which I had desired of the Lord; and that<b> I had done my duty in organizing the High Council, through which council the will of the Lord might be known </b>on all important occasions, in the building up of Zion, and establishing truth in the earth."<b> </b><i>(<a href="https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-2-chapter-8" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">History of the Church, Vol 2, pg 124.)</a></i></blockquote><p>Did Joseph say anything in there about the Twelve Apostles being the body through which the will of the Lord might be known? Or that the Quorum of the Twelve would have a key role in the building up of Zion? No, he did not. So why in the world do the members today look to these goofballs for guidance? </p><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Widow Knows</span></b><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">It's no wonder Brigham Young had it out for Joseph's widow, Emma. He desperately needed her in his corner. Had she backed Sidney Rigdon, Brigham might have had an argument against that. Unfortunately for Brigham </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">and</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> Sidney, Emma had a firm understanding of why neither of them were qualified to take upon them the presidency of the Church. Here is how she explained it:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"Whereas it is the business of the First Presidency, more particularly to govern the church at Zion, and the members abroad have a right to that quorum from the decisions of the Twelve. Now as <b>the Twelve have no power </b>with regard to the government of the Church in the Stakes of Zion, but <b>the High Council have all the power</b>, so it follows that <b>on removal of the first President, the office would devolve upon the President of the High Council in Zion</b>, <b>as the first President always resides there, and that is the proper place for the quorum of which he is head</b>; thus there would be no schism or jarring. But <b>the Twelve would attend to their duties in the world and not meddle with the government of the church at home</b>, and the High Council in Zion and the First Presidency would attend to their business in the same place... </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"Mr. Rigdon is not the proper successor of President Smith, being only his counselor, but Elder Marks should be the individual as he was not only his councilor at the time of his death, but also President of the High Council." (Emma Smith to James M. Monroe, quoted in Newell and Avery, <b><i>Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith</i></b>, pg 206-207; see also Quinn, Supra, pg 160.)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">If you grew up like me reading only "Church approved" histories, you would be entirely unaware of the fact that thousands of members argued against Brigham Young's power grab, resulting in approximately half the population of the church refusing to follow the Twelve to the Rocky Mountains. Here is a former senior president of the Seventy, Hazen Aldrich:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"You will see by the Book of Covenants that the 12 are a traveling high council and are entirely out of their place in attempting to assume the First Presidency & dictate the affairs of the whole church." (Quinn, Supra pg 388, n.77)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Joseph's younger brother William, an apostle at the time and rightful Patriarch after the death of Hyrum, lambasted Brigham and the Twelve for their blatant usurpation of authority. Though he recognized the right of the Twelve to ordain patriarchs in the mission field, he denied they had the right even to ordain </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">him</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> as patriarch, because that authority was not theirs to bestow.</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"That 'the 12 had a right to ordain patriarchs in all large branches of the church abroad' I did not pretend to deny. But that they had a right to ordain one of their own number and place him under the direction of the presidency, or to ordain a patriarch to the whole church, <b>I do deny, and pronounce the position a false doctrine, and from the devil, to destroy the church.</b> It was a right thing that belonged to the first presidents of the church, [Joseph and Hyrum] and it is plain that the 12 had not this right or power over the church to act as first presidents, as their position and place in the church is<b> </b><b>defined by revelation </b>as a traveling council and not a local presidency." (William Smith, <b><i><a href="http://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100116.pdf" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Melchizedek and Aaronic Herald</a></i></b>, vol 1 March 1849.) </blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Emma wasn't finished, either. She had an effective argument for electing the president of the high council to the position of president of the Church. William Marks would have been Joseph Smith's clear choice;</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"According to the ordination pronounced upon him by Bro Joseph he [William Marks] is the individual <b>contemplated by him for his successor</b>. The Twelve never received any such instructions or commands or ordinations as would authorize them to take that office. <b>They were aware of these facts but acted differently</b>." (Quinn, pg 397, n.50)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Here's something else worth noting: when Joseph ordained his brother Hyrum to become co-president of the church, he was able to do so because Hyrum already held office as a member of the standing high council. Had Hyrum been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, it would have been inappropriate for Joseph to yank him out of his calling as a missionary and place him in church government. Hyrum had to hold the high priesthood inside a stake of Zion, or he could not have been given a calling having to do with governing the church.</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Unfortunately for the church, William Marks was not interested in becoming president. He did not posses the kind of blind ambition as Brigham Young. Nevertheless, Brigham wasn't taking any chances; he immediately did what had to be done to get Marks out of the way. Again, these sly machinations are fully documented in </span></span><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/brigham-youngs-hostile-takeover.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Brigham Young's Hostile Takeover</a></i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">.</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">We will never know how much different the church would be today had the members refused to "go along" with the Twelve as the Twelve began usurping power and authority the Lord had deliberately withheld from them by revelation.</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">We have a word for when a person substitutes his own will for the commandments of God. We call it disobedience. The Lord has told us that he is bound when we do what he says, but when we do not what he says, we have no promise. That applies to leaders of the Church as much as anyone else. Maybe even more.</span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">If all this is new to you and your head is swimming, I recommend </span><a href="http://salemthoughts.com/Topics/Succession.shtml" style="color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">this thorough list of sources and citations</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> for you to examine. It's a bit more orderly than my disconnected ramblings here, but I think it vital for every believer in the Restoration to look into the matter at this juncture if we are to awaken to our awful situation. <br /></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">I'll close by re-quoting the words from Hoyt Brewster that I opened this piece with, followed by a warning from Joseph Smith.</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"There have always been false prophets and self proclaimed would-be leaders who have sought to establish their own claim to presiding authority...One's eternal salvation depends upon the ability to<b> </b>recognize and know the true servants of God<b> -</b>those who are <b>authorized</b> to preach His gospel and administer the sacred and saving ordinances thereof." - <b><i>Prophets, Priesthood Keys, & Succession, pg 38</i></b></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"The moment we revolt at anything that comes from God, the devil takes power."<br /> -<b><i>Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,</i></b> pg 181</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> *****</span><br /><br /><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>PART TWO:</u> <br /><br /></span></b></div><div style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">Russell Nelson Is A Fake And A Fraud Who Stands In Rebellion Against God<br /><br /></span></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">The piece below, written prior to Russell Nelson receiving the sustaining vote of the membership of the Church, was originally titled <b><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/02/have-you-voted-for-new-church-president.html" target="_blank">Have You Voted For The New Church President Yet?</a></i></b> In it I discussed some of the </span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/02/have-you-voted-for-new-church-president.html" style="color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">things members should have considered before sustaining Russell M. Nelson</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"> as president and prophet, given his history of </span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/01/did-nelson-m-russell-take-lords-name-in.html" style="color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">open rebellion against God</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">. <br /></span><br />So let's begin:</div><div style="background-color: white;"><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX9eUMF3p5KwFRsXQILWK4sXld6bJYMEb8FitwC-x6IG2z9ytefYN_YvSc6i9z95HjOBOmZaFr0Gmik8UmvoT0DMyg7xkCJasG2rUUfzbARQmgTvg4Wn1moJ-mUQw0XkVx8NqZtdENTTHIKQcSRInIjrroZn3tPhzmB_45KAEVm0o3WgM-IfOF06BenA/s320/Russell%20Nelson%20Scheming%20hands.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="320" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX9eUMF3p5KwFRsXQILWK4sXld6bJYMEb8FitwC-x6IG2z9ytefYN_YvSc6i9z95HjOBOmZaFr0Gmik8UmvoT0DMyg7xkCJasG2rUUfzbARQmgTvg4Wn1moJ-mUQw0XkVx8NqZtdENTTHIKQcSRInIjrroZn3tPhzmB_45KAEVm0o3WgM-IfOF06BenA/s1600/Russell%20Nelson%20Scheming%20hands.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><span style="background-color: white;">Have you voted for the new Church president yet? </span><br /><br />I'm just messing with you, of course -the title of this piece is a trick question. You can't vote for the Church president because it's already too late for that. You can vote for the new prophet if you want to, but the presidential slot has already been snapped up.<br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">If we are to believe Jesus Christ (and I can't readily think of any reason why we shouldn't), you were supposed to vote for the president of the Church </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">before </b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">he was ordained to the office.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">You sadly missed your chance, because Russell Nelson jumped the gun and got his friends in the Quorum to ordain him behind closed doors before anyone in the church had a clue what those guys were up to. They didn't even announce their crime until two days later, and even then they couched it in terms they hoped would make it appear that everything was on the up-and-up.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">I'm certain they'll be giving you another chance to "vote" at the upcoming general conference in April, but by that time your vote for the president will be meaningless. A sham. A mere formality.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Why? Because any vote taken</span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> after</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> the ordination would be in violation of God's law.</span></span><br /><br /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">Missed It By <i>That Much!</i></span></b><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In my post titled </span></span><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/01/who-died-and-made-him-president.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">"Who Died And Made <i>Him</i> Prophet?</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">"</span></span></a></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> we looked at several reasons why Apostle Russell M. Nelson is unqualified to be president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based on the teachings of Joseph Smith and the clear revelations from the Lord. If you haven't read that one yet, I hope you'll </span></span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/01/who-died-and-made-him-president.html" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>hie on over there right now</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> because it will give you the groundwork you'll require to understand what follows.</span></span></div><div><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">What I failed to instantiate in that post was something that was pointed out the same day over at </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Radio Free Mormon</b><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none;"> </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">in a podcast aptly titled </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/01/radio-free-mormon-24-illegitimate-first-presidency/" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Illegitimate First Presidency</a></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">, and that is this: even if Russell Nelson </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">was</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> qualified to be president of the Church in every other way (and he would have had to have come from some place other than the Quorum of the Twelve for that to happen), he made one irreversible fubar: he was fool enough to get himself crowned King Of The Church without following the most important instruction Jesus Christ gave on the subject. </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">He failed to get the approval of the members <i>FIRST</i>.</b><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">This is no trivial thing. Every one of those men who met in secret that weekend with the intent to circumvent God's law in this matter seem to have forgotten the Lord's warning about their fate for such a clear breach:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"Ye shall see that my law is kept. He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, <b>the same is not my disciple</b>, <b>and shall be cast out from among you.</b><span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 13.5px;">” (D&C </span><span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: #202020; font-size: 13px;"> 41:4-5)</span></blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">According to Doctrine & Covenants section 20, before anyone can be ordained to an office in this Church -any office- he first has to be nominated and presented at a conference of the Church so the members have the opportunity to vote for or against him. Think back to the last time a new bishop was called in your ward, or when you got a new stake president. At your ward or stake conference, the nominee was presented for a sustaining vote, and </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">then</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> he or she was ordained to the office, assuming they got a majority of votes from the members (which these days always happens).</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">For the installation of a general authority, the appropriate conference would be the semi-annual General Conference, since those offices are </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">general </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">to the whole church, and not </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">local</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> to a particular stake or branch. I can understand why Apostle Nelson didn't want to wait until April to be voted on. The guy was already ninety three years old at the time the last president shuffled off his mortal coil. April was three months in the future; Nelson might have figured he could be dead by then, and there goes the big promotion.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Only one thing for Nelson to do: tell the Lord to "eat my dust," and go ahead without the vote.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">And that's how it happened that Russell M. Nelson, already unqualified to be president of the Church because for the past thirty-four years he was in the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, was nominated anyway </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">and then immediately ordained</b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> to that office before he could receive a sustaining vote from the members. That violated every procedure the Lord says he was required to follow, but he just ignored it all anyway and plunged ahead like a drunk Episcopalian.</span></span><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSb8pU190lG6gRaX_j22P0Dnhpst_xqz0tJyd1KUmi0gsOpXvKdxM7mHjTFMofdeOsnPW2gl_Tkb1m4-PyKcIhbNf-9hAs7gQuKK8Ck2WBEVAGjGbdR0hqtKiAX0cSu7yjMa0_3JlktA7g/s1600/Russell+Nelson+Now+is+the+day+of+my+power.jpg" style="color: #336699; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="605" data-original-width="960" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSb8pU190lG6gRaX_j22P0Dnhpst_xqz0tJyd1KUmi0gsOpXvKdxM7mHjTFMofdeOsnPW2gl_Tkb1m4-PyKcIhbNf-9hAs7gQuKK8Ck2WBEVAGjGbdR0hqtKiAX0cSu7yjMa0_3JlktA7g/s400/Russell+Nelson+Now+is+the+day+of+my+power.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="400" /></a></div><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Grab your scriptures and follow along with me while we look at why the Lord forbids this sort of thing.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Doctrine & Covenants section 20 consists of 81 verses primarily concerned with how the Church is to be governed, how meetings are to be conducted (Surprise! A lot differently than they are today), how people are called to offices, and the careful procedures that must be followed in the Church before a person can be installed into a particular office. Let's look at </span></span><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.63" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">verse 63</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the church to which they belong, or from the conferences."</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Okay, so what are "licenses," and why does someone in a church calling need one?</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Remember what we learned from our reading of </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-real-threat-to-traditional-marriage.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The Real Threat to Traditional Marriage</a></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">?</span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none;"> </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">A license is defined as </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>Permission</b></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">. "Permission to do something which would otherwise be illegal or unlawful."</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In the United States of America there is nothing </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>illegal</b></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> about preaching the gospel or holding office in a church. But it could be </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"unlawful"</b><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; font-style: italic; text-decoration-line: none;"> </b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">within a particular church </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; font-style: italic; text-decoration-line: none;">-</b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">that is, </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>against the established rules of that church</b></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">- for a person to pretend to hold office in that church, or to represent that church, unless he has followed</span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> the</b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i><u>lawful</u></i> procedures instituted by that church </b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">that would certify he has been given permission ("license") by the members of that church to hold that office.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">That's why section 20 is so precise in the matter of issuing licenses to those authorized to represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The procedure is further detailed in </span></span><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.64" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">verse 64</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference."</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">If you've ever served a mission, you'll recall that you were instructed to carry your ministerial certificate in your pocket at all times to confirm you were properly licensed </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">by your church</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> to preach the gospel under your church's bylaws. But before you got your license or your certificate, there was one crucial step that could not be overlooked: you still had to be ordained. And before you could be ordained to go forth and preach the gospel, the members of your ward had to be given the opportunity to vote on whether they agreed you should represent them or not. Verse 65 applied to you the same as it applied to the one who ostensibly called you to your office, the presiding officer of the whole church.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In fact, this procedure is required before </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">any person</b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> can obtain </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">any office</b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> in the LDS church, from patriarch to president, from stake president, to high councilor, to bishop, bishop's councilors, Elder's quorum president, Elder's quorum councilors, primary president, primary president's councilors, young men's presidencies, young women's presidencies, etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum, Simon says and Mother may I.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">There's a reason you're asked to raise your right arm so frequently in this church, and it's not just so the person sitting next to you can smell your armpit. This procedure is absolutely essential to obtaining any office in the church. Without it, the person taking office is acting unlawfully:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>"No person</b> is to be ordained to<b> any office </b>in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, <b>without the vote of that church." </b>(<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.65" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Verse 65</a>)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">I'm going to take a wild guess here that maybe -just maybe- there's at least one branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. And since Fake President Russell M. Nelson admitted to the whole church on January 15th of this year that he had gotten himself and his two counselors ordained to their offices </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i>before</i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> the members were given the opportunity to vote them into that office, he has committed fraud, and stands in defiance of Church law and rebellion against the Lord.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">There is nothing hyperbolic about this accusation. Let's recall again what the Lord said at the very end of the revelation on priesthood clear back in 1835: "He that</span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> learns not his duty</b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> and shows himself </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">not approved</b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> shall </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">not be found worthy to stand</b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">. Even so. Amen."</span></span><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;"></div><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;"></div><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Boy howdy, "Amen" is right. This so-called "First Presidency" that was formed last month is illegitimate because the principals who engaged in that charade ignored the lawful procedure that had been carefully laid out in scripture and which </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>must</b></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><i><b> be followed</b></i>. They are, by His word, unworthy to stand in the place they have presumed to put themselves.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span></span><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 4px; position: relative; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;"><tbody><tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_T2ZaLpm3VPKXqqQXEiZzrw7K6PdZ6NFvjN-J-OEcsZOpjYJCaMp4r7cdsZRIk1aeI3I9sA71HEXQN7c-Gq-MCXSHS-nK03bHXGhGeL7A5XIy2gUppp19U3QKZRJtDb0ohnoRZXVj6bQ-/s1600/First+Presidency.jpg" style="color: #336699; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="854" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_T2ZaLpm3VPKXqqQXEiZzrw7K6PdZ6NFvjN-J-OEcsZOpjYJCaMp4r7cdsZRIk1aeI3I9sA71HEXQN7c-Gq-MCXSHS-nK03bHXGhGeL7A5XIy2gUppp19U3QKZRJtDb0ohnoRZXVj6bQ-/s400/First+Presidency.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="355" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 11.88px;">The new First Presidency, before and after they sold their souls in exchange for the honors of men.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: large; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>Disobeying The Words Of The Lord</b></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/01/who-died-and-made-him-president.html" target="_blank">last month's post,</a> we showed how Nelson, Oaks, and Eyering claimed the right to take these offices in the First Presidency by dint of their having been ordained to those positions by other members of the Twelve. We also showed how the Lord makes it clear that anyone claiming to be His servant must be shown to have been </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">appointed by <i>Him</i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">. He repeats himself on that matter in several places, most notably section 124, verses 45 and 46. (Because of the importance of understanding this matter, it might do to </span></span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/01/who-died-and-made-him-president.html" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>review that post now</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> just to allow it to really hit home to you the extent of the fraud and usurpation that is taking place right under the noses of the members.)</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">There's a lot of interesting stuff in section 124. Here we have a revelation from the Lord given in January of 1841 where the Lord himself nominated men to virtually every important office in the church, from the patriarch, to the prophet, to all the members of the high council; in short, every office that was given authority to govern within the church, and also all the members of the Quorum of the Twelve, who were specifically </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">not </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">given authority to govern within the church.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">To me, there are a couple of things that stand out in this revelation. First, virtually every one of these appointees is referred to by the Lord Himself as "my servant." Isn't it odd that members of the Church Hierarchy today like to refer to themselves as "the Lord's servants," without ever having received a revelation where the Lord uses that term to describe </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">any</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> of them? For that matter, don't you think it's odd that no one can point to </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">any</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> revelation received by </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">any</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> president of the Church in your lifetime that has been conveyed to us in the words of the Lord Himself and by His voice?</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">No revelations. No prophecies. No instructions from the Lord indicating He has reversed Himself on the procedure He has commanded his leaders to follow. Yet on January 13th of this year, Fake President Russell M. Nelson went ahead and got himself ordained to the office of President of the Church in a manner that denied the members the opportunity to follow a commandment of God in this very instance.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Here is that commandment:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned." </blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Oh, wait a minute. I seem to have left out the best part:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, <u style="font-weight: bold;">or else <i>disapprove</i> of them</u> at my general conference.</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Don't you find that interesting? Here's a very long revelation where the Lord goes to substantial trouble to nominate a great number of people he would like to see fill the offices in the church, and yet at the very end he tells the people it's their choice whether they want these guys or not. Entirely up to them. <b>They have the right to nullify His picks.</b></span></span><b><br /></b><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">When some in the sectarian world accuse us of worshiping a different God than they do, I'm inclined to agree with them. Many of them worship a God who is a stern authoritarian who wants things done His way or he'll send them all straight to hell.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The God we worship is one who recognizes and honors our freedom to choose. We have a God who says, "These are my choices. But you're the ones who will have to live with them, so it's up to you who you want to fill these offices. Choose wisely."</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">And the most intriguing thing about it, in my view, is that this is a</span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> commandment, </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">not a suggestion. "You can vote for them or against them, but you have to vote one way or the other. You can't be wishy-washy about this, or try to hide your opinions."</span></span><br /><br /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">God's Word Does Not Change</span></b><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">I hear some say, "Oh, but we do things differently now." They are so hung up on "following the Brethren" that if the the guy who they are told is "the prophet" decides to act contrary to God's clear instructions, then that man has the right to do it because...well..."because he's the </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">prophet</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">, man, don't you get it?"</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But that's the problem, isn't it? "We do it differently now" is just another way of saying "we don't care about the procedure the Lord established for us to follow; nowadays we have our idols of flesh, and those are the gods we follow today."</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The fact of the matter is, we aren't allowed to do things differently. And happily, the doctrine has never changed, regardless of whether some in leadership have chosen to go rogue. As</span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> Radio Free Mormon</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> pointed out in his recent podcast, the Church website affirms that the Law of Common Consent remains in effect today same as it always has. This is from </span></span><a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>the current Church Manual</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> for Sunday Schools, Seminaries, and Institutes of the Church:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"Church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but <b><u>before</u> the officers may serve in their positions,</b> they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside<b>.</b> (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.60-67?lang=eng#59" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">D. & C. 20:60–67</a>; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/26.2?lang=eng#1" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">26:2</a>; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/28?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">28</a>; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/38.34-35?lang=eng#33" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">38:34–35</a>; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/41.9-11?lang=eng#8" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">41:9–11</a>; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.11?lang=eng#10" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">42:11</a>; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/102.9?lang=eng#8" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">102:9</a>; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/124.124-145?lang=eng#123" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">124:124–145</a>.)” (See McConkie, <i>Mormon Doctrine</i> pp. 149–50.)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Nothing has changed about this procedure, despite any hopes Russell Nelson may have that he can attain the office of the presidency ahead of the clock just to satisfy his own sense of urgency. Church law is supreme here, and no amount of wishful thinking or secret works of darkness can alter it.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The manual also provides us with another little known fact: all of the policy changes, "improvements," and new ways of doing things the Brethren have introduced in recent decades (especially throughout the administrations of Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson), have clearly been unlawful because they did not follow the procedure outlined in scripture:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/26.2?lang=eng#1" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">D&C 26:2</a>)."</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Do you recall being consulted when President Hinckley decided to commit billions of dollars in church funds to the building of a massive shopping center in downtown Salt Lake City? Do you recall being asked to give your consent for that expenditure, or were you instead just informed that the Church would be going ahead with that project without your approval?</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">How about the egregious November 5th <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-hidden-reason-for-policy-change-on.html" target="_blank">"Exclusionary Policy," </a></b>the shocking change that effectively reversed a key principle of the gospel and converted an essential ordinance into something the Magisterium could tinker with according to their whim? Was </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">that</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> shameful proposal ever brought up for a vote?</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In case you need a reminder, Russell Nelson was the very person who tried to pass off that insidious new policy change -a blatantly wicked new rule that prevented certain children from being baptized, </span></span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/01/did-nelson-m-russell-take-lords-name-in.html" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>as if it were a revelation</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> he claimed to have "watched" President Monson receive. This was the notorious November 5th "Exclusionary Policy" the leaders had intended to be kept secret, but when the members got wind of it, the cover-up machine went into high gear. The stated purpose of this policy is to prevent anyone under the age of eighteen from being baptized if they happen to be living with a parent who is in a 'same-gender relationship." And even after they turn eighteen they can never be baptized until they have gone through a brutal series of "priesthood interviews" requiring them to completely denounce their wayward parent.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Your personal opinions regarding homosexuality are immaterial in this matter, as are mine. What matters is that this policy flies in the face of the foundational doctrine of Christ, which is that </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">all</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> are commanded to come unto Him, and repent and be baptized. Nelson has tried to turn the gospel of Christ on its head by holding children -not just young children, but fully capable teenagers- accountable for the sins of a parent. And mark my words, it will not be long before Russell stands before the Lord at the judgment bar and has to answer for his part in the creation of this </span></span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/01/did-nelson-m-russell-take-lords-name-in.html" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>web of lies.</b></a><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Among all his many sins and iniquities, Russell Nelson is a blatant liar who tried to palm this controversial canard off as having been born of revelation.</span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> If</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> Jesus ever did reverse Himself on this most essential principle of the gospel, He would not have told the leaders to sneak it into the </span></span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/11/sacred-writings-you-are-not-allowed-to.html" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>secret operating manual</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> without anyone noticing.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Such a reversal would have required a written revelation which, after having been received by the prophet in the voice of the Lord, was subsequently submitted to the church, then prayerfully considered by the members for a witness of the spirit so they can vote on whether or not they believe that revelation actually came from God. I'm sure I don't have to remind you that none of these required steps have been taken. There hasn't been a revelation; you've never been shown one, and you were never asked to vote on the matter.</span></span><br /><br /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Case Of The Prepubescent Apostle</span></b><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Speaking of the wrong-headed treatment of children, here's a pertinent digression. You may not have heard of the time Brigham Young ordained his favorite son to be an apostle when the child was only eleven years old. This story is not in the "approved" Church histories because the folks who control your church's history do not want you to know about it. Charles Watson, who covered this strange episode in his PhD dissertation, noted that orthodox Church writers "gloss over or deliberately confuse the ordination date" dealing with this topic, and it's not hard to figure out why that is. This is another of those episodes in Church history that exposes Brigham Young for the </span></span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/brigham-youngs-hostile-takeover.html" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>conniving devil</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> he was, and it completely undermines Russell Nelson's claim that his own succession to the presidency is the result of a smooth and unbroken pattern established from the beginning by the Lord.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Here is what happened: Brigham's favorite son, John Willard Young, received his endowment just a month after his eleventh birthday, after which his father ordained him an apostle. Why would Brigham Young do this? Because he hoped he could turn the Church into a family dynasty controlled for all time by his own descendants.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Brigham was the one who had established the rule that apostolic succession (and by extension, succession to the presidency) would attain according to seniority. That is, the person who had been an apostle longer than any other (provided he could outlive those ahead of him), would become the president of the church upon the death of the most recent president.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In those days it wasn't necessary to belong to the quorum of Twelve to be in the running; you only had to have been made an apostle. There were many men who were ordained apostles who never served in the quorum, so seniority in the quorum wasn't the issue then. Brigham figured that by making his son an apostle at a very early age, there was an excellent chance that not long after he himself passed on, John Willard would be able to succeed him. So Brigham Young schemed secretly to give his own kid a substantial head start.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">And it almost worked. John Willard was only 55 years old when Lorenzo Snow's health began to fail, and that's when John Willard found himself next in line to run the Church.</span></span><br /><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; padding: 4px; position: relative; text-align: right; text-decoration-line: none;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ7YIOLZZytPVv3lgN7K3aMrGNkgyH2hIG6bl_N3pRNxCSlFNOYbQsEeWZOgMaPKjVZwykUhhcrKnrnGT98w85q3ecD1qGy_lIGQ0oo-y8qZIvnCc30k_56LLGp_QMNfrKsdvk_vq3doMh/s1600/John_W_Young.gif" style="clear: right; color: #336699; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="221" data-original-width="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ7YIOLZZytPVv3lgN7K3aMrGNkgyH2hIG6bl_N3pRNxCSlFNOYbQsEeWZOgMaPKjVZwykUhhcrKnrnGT98w85q3ecD1qGy_lIGQ0oo-y8qZIvnCc30k_56LLGp_QMNfrKsdvk_vq3doMh/s1600/John_W_Young.gif" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 11.88px; text-align: center;">The man who would be prez.</td></tr></tbody></table><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But I'm getting ahead of myself.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Brigham Young had changed the rules at least four times to reflect what he wanted to define as "seniority" in the quorum, and we can see he made these repeated refinements in order to nudge his own boy closer to the top of the ladder. In Joseph Smith's day, the only reason they ranked members of a quorum according to seniority (and this was true in the standing high council as well as the traveling high council) was so that each member of the quorum got his turn to conduct a meeting. It worked like this: the first meeting of a quorum would be conducted by the oldest member of that quorum. The next time they got together, the next oldest member was the one who conducted the meeting, and so on all the way down to the guy who was youngest in age. After that they started all over again with the guy who was the oldest.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">It didn't matter when you came into the quorum, or how long you had been there, or how long ago you had been ordained; it was all simply according to age. This process of seniority had no special import under Joseph Smith. It was just an easy way to determine whose turn it was on any given week to hold the gavel.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">After Joseph was dead and gone, Brigham Young decided to rank the apostles differently. Instead of seniority according to age, he announced seniority was attained by whichever guy could be shown to have been an apostle for the longest period of time.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Once Brigham made his own pre-teen bopper into a real live apostle with the intent of one day having him follow in his old man's footsteps and become the Grand Poobah of Deseret, Brigham still had that sticky problem of what to do with all those guys in line ahead of John Willard. Surely some of them would die off over time, but he still needed a way to nudge his own kid closer to the front. He did this by redefining the meaning of seniority once again. Seniority was now to be defined not simply by who was the longest </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">serving</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> apostle, but who had been the longest </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">continuing</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> apostle. That meant that if your apostleship had been interrupted for a time because, oh, maybe you left the church for awhile or had been excommunicated, then as part of that time out you stopped being an apostle. You could come back into the Church later, and you might even be able to resume your apostolic calling when you returned, but that line of service had been broken while you were on recess from the Church. As far as your ranking went, Brigham's new rule says you would have to start over.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">That meant the Orson Twins, Hyde & Pratt, would have to move to the back of the line, because they had spent a short time out of the church some years before. This new definition of seniority bumped Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt down the ladder of seniority, and automatically moved Brigham's son up two spots closer to the brass ring.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">And by the way, under Brigham's rules it still didn't matter that his son, John Willard, had never served a day in the Quorum. A man didn't have to be a member of the quorum to have seniority. He just had to have been ordained an apostle longer than anybody else.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But as you can imagine, the members of the Quorum of the Twelve were not very keen on this business of Brigham's pre-teen offspring being groomed for the presidency. But they were careful not to voice their opposition. One of them said something about it to Brigham once and Brigham promptly sent him away on a five year mission to Europe. (That's how Brigham got troublesome apostles out of the way; he punished them by sending them on missions.)</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The biggest problem the members of the quorum had with John Willard Young was that Brigham's favorite son was not exactly active in the Church. In fact, for most of his life he didn't even live in Utah, preferring the glamour of New York City to the dull life of a Mormon pioneer in the Utah desert. John Willard actually prospered in New York -at least for a time- by speculating on the railroads. Brigham's favorite son was addicted to the bright gaslights and posh attention he enjoyed as a high-living member of the city's upper class, and when he fell short of funds he was able to maintain that lofty lifestyle because his daddy funneled money to him that was "borrowed" from church member's tithes. As one account puts it:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Brigham Young’s dysfunctional relationship with John Willard was no mystery to church leaders. Apostle George Q. Cannon expressed his concerns regarding the misappropriation of church funds, particularly as they related to John Willard’s regular monetary allowance that came straight out of tithing funds. Apostle Joseph F. Smith was even more specific when he noted that John Willard’s “$16,000 per year [the equivalent of $100,000 today] from the tithing office for his support” was a blatant misuse of church funds. (Brad Hart, <i><b><a href="http://hartbrad.blogspot.com/2015/09/child-prophet-curious-case-of-john.html?m=1" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Child Prophet: The Curious Case of a Mormon Apostle.</a>)</b></i></blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Brigham's favorite son was known to New Yorkers to be something of a rake and a philanderer. Four of his five wives formally divorced him, and the fifth just up and left.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In spite of John Willard's complete lack of interest in Church service, his father Brigham, who had been constantly coaxing him to return to Utah, eventually got John Willard to come home by appointing him first councilor in the presidency of the Church. By then another of Brigham's sons, Brigham Young, Jr, was ordained an apostle too, so now there were two sons in the running, and Brigham Junior was actually given a place within the quorum. There were two more sons ordained apostles by this time whose names I don't recall; but anyway, Brigham Senior was hedging his bets in hopes of insuring that family dynasty. Brigham continued to pin his highest hopes on his favorite, John Willard, because due to his young age, this one had the clearest shot at the presidency before the other two did. With a little luck, and the statistical probability of a decent percentage of those above him dying off before John Willard even reached middle age, it looked as though young J.W would make it all the way to the top Church position in record time.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">For now though, as first counselor in the presidency, John Willard held the second highest position in the Church after his father. But his heart remained in New York City. He grew restless stuck in Utah. And in truth, he wasn't really needed in the role of counselor to his father. The current president was, after all, "Iron Hand Brigham," who rarely felt the need to consult with either of his councilors anyway. So John Willard eventually returned to New York without ever having been released from his calling. He still held the titular position of First Councilor in the Church, but he did it from New York, where he had his fingers in several iffy financial endeavors. As historian Todd Compton wrote,</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"In these he alternated between dazzling success and inability to fulfill his dreams and promises. One day he would be a millionaire (and he liked to live like a millionaire), the next he would be penniless. He quickly became chronically indebted and beset by creditors. He raised money with a golden tongue, but when his projects failed, many contributors felt betrayed." (<i>Todd Compton</i>, <b><a href="http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N04_125.pdf" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><i>"John Willard Young, Brigham Young, and the Development of Presidential Succession in the LDS Church."</i></a></b> Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 35, No. 4, pg 121)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">After Brigham Young's passing in 1877, John Willard continued to bide his time in New York, waiting for his turn to take charge of the Church. In my last post I discussed that lengthy period when the apostles decided the Church should have no president, but finally after three years, the members voted John Taylor in. When Taylor died there was another two year wait while the apostles bickered again over whether the Church should have a president, and if so, whether seniority should actually be the deciding factor because, after all, the Lord had never said anything about succession by seniority. (Or succession by apostle, for that matter.)</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Eventually Lorenzo Snow took office. Now there was only one man ahead of John Willard Young, and that was Franklin Richards. And then -O happy day!- Richards up and died. Now all John Willard had to do was wait out the elderly Lorenzo Snow, and then John Willard Young, long inactive, completely unqualified, and virtually unknown to most members of the Church in Utah, would finally be in charge of the whole shebang. The job of president came with one of those proverbial "modest stipends," and by this time John Willard could really use the money.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But unbeknownst to John Willard, the other apostles had been looking upon the possibility of Willard's ascension to the presidency with great apprehension. They foresaw a John Willard Young presidency as a disaster in the making. They were in a sweat over what to do about this ticking time bomb, and though Brigham Young was long dead, the Brethren were at first reluctant to tamper with the seniority rule Brigham had instituted years before. </span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Now by this time, you're probably wondering why the apostles didn't simply ask for a revelation from God as to what they should do about this dilemma. Silly you. No one in the Quorum </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">or</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> the First Presidency had received any revelations since Joseph Smith's untimely exit fifty-seven years earlier. They were on their own and they knew it, just as they had been on their own trying to figure out the procedure they should follow after Brigham Young reached his sell-by date.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Eventually, common sense prevailed, and recognizing that a John Willard Young presidency would very likely drive the church into ruin, they changed the rules of succession once again so that "Seniority" now meant more than just having been an apostle. You had to be the longest serving apostle in the quorum.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">When Lorenzo Snow's ailing body finally went bung in 1901, John Willard Young hopped a train from New York and was back in Utah five days later to take his rightful place as head of the church. Imagine his surprise to find he had lost his place to the apostle directly below him in seniority, Joseph F. Smith. No one had told him the rules had been changed, and daddy was no longer on the scene to throw his weight around. The Young family dynasty died right there along with Lorenzo Snow.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Now virtually broke, John Willard Young returned to New York and lived out the rest of his life as an elevator operator in one of New York's finest hotels -the very same hotel he had lived in back in his glory days when he was flush with cash. The sad postscript to this story is that the branch president of the church in New York City had to constantly take members aside and caution them against lending John Willard Young any money if he approached them.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">There's little doubt that it would have been disastrous for the church if John Willard Young had been seated anywhere at the table, let alone at the front. But this story illustrates how actually </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">uninspired</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> succession in the presidency has been throughout our history. The myth Russell Nelson repeated last month about the Lord having established the pattern by which succession in the presidency has "always" taken place, is just another in a long series of self-serving lies Russell Nelson is known for spewing; lies he tells to advance his personal ambitions.</span></span><br /><br /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">And Now For Something Completely Different</span></b><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Having said all that, here is the reality: Russell M. Nelson is entirely within his rights to claim the presidency, and he doesn't need the vote of the members to do so. He became the legally recognized president of the church the very moment Thomas S. Monson breathed his last.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">How is that? And why in the world would I seemingly reverse myself on everything I said in this piece so far?</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The key word here is "legally." He is the legal president. But he is not the </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">lawful</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> president. For that to happen he would have had to follow the rules of direction laid down by the Lord. He would have had to follow </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">lawful</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> church procedure. He hasn't done that, and I harbor no expectations that he ever will. But he is on safe ground legally.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Confused? In part three of </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><u><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-real-threat-to-traditional-marriage.html" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The Real Threat to Traditional Marriage</a>.</i></u></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> I went into some detail about the subtle differences in meaning between the words </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">legal</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> vs. </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">lawful. </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">You can also find a wealth of information on this topic in </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=LNMECwAAQBAJ&pg=PA340&dq=corporation+of+the+president+of+the+church+of+jesus+christ+of+latter-day+saints+articles+of+incorporation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyn_bCgcDZAhUKyGMKHTe5DcwQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=corporation%20of%20the%20president%20of%20the%20church%20of%20jesus%20christ%20of%20latter-day%20saints%20articles%20of%20incorporation&f=false" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">There Are Save Two Churches Only, Vol II</a>.</i></b><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But for purposes of this discussion, think of it this way: In general terms, </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">legal</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> refers to rules of procedure enacted by the civil legislature; I use </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">lawful </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">in these instances to refer to the rules of direction laid out by God.</span></span><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTeqWCv7X8ax03aDFYgnZxTPjM0vt1H4BhPVuCte1iEDdOfygjbt68b1XROUsTi-NFyPzXhZ1Q61_EYxeo4RDwKPpS2KAp7h1G5nM2W5u-HtTowJ-5MGWtn67cgm0LbQ_GDjdpUFqOuQKV/s1600/there+are+save+two+churches+only.jpg" style="clear: left; color: #336699; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="276" data-original-width="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTeqWCv7X8ax03aDFYgnZxTPjM0vt1H4BhPVuCte1iEDdOfygjbt68b1XROUsTi-NFyPzXhZ1Q61_EYxeo4RDwKPpS2KAp7h1G5nM2W5u-HtTowJ-5MGWtn67cgm0LbQ_GDjdpUFqOuQKV/s1600/there+are+save+two+churches+only.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></div><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Those who have read the articles of incorporation for </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> are acutely aware of this reality: Russell M. Nelson is the legal head of the Church, and under the corporate charter he is now the owner of all assets belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Note that I did not say he </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">controls</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> the assets of the Church; this charter makes him the </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">owner</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> of the Church. All the money, all the property, all the chapels and temples and schools and real estate and bank accounts. He personally owns it all outright. Upon the death of Thomas S. Monson, Russell Nelson became one of the richest multi-billionaires in the world. Do you think he cares what you think of his violations of church protocol?</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">This was not the way the Lord intended His church to be structured. And indeed, it wasn't like this until relatively modern times. In the beginning, the church was understood to operate under the direction of Jesus Christ. That pretense is still given lip service, but ever since Heber J. Grant converted the church into a corporation subject to the civil laws of the United States government, the president is the actual head, and the only limitations placed on him are those written into the charter.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Which is to say there are no limitations.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">If you were to try and sue the president for fraud, you would lose. Even if every single member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all over the world were to suddenly awake to their awful situation and filed a class action lawsuit against Russell Nelson for fraud and usurpation because he has failed to follow the laws laid out in the Lord's revelations regarding the way in which the church is to be governed, they would </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">all</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">lose</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">. He can't be convicted of usurping the church if the governing document of the corporation recognizes he has all power and authority over the Church.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Understand this: the courts do not care about our doctrines, scriptures, or beliefs. They don't care that our scriptures show that Jesus Christ is the head of this church. They won't litigate those matters. Those things are irrelevant in any suit at law. They are internal matters we are all entitled to bicker over, but they would not be considered matters for the courts to decide. If suit was brought against the President of the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there would only be one question before the court: did the president violate the terms of the charter?</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">When they examine the corporate charter they will conclude that no, he did not. According to the bylaws of the corporation, the president can do pretty much whatever the hell he wants.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">So, case dismissed.</span></span><br /><br /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">Catholic Pope, Meet The Mormon Pope</span></b><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Preventing church members from invoking their right to common consent was the very reason Heber J. Grant was persuaded to convert the Church into a corporation in the first place. This corporation provides the president the same protection that universal law gives to the catholic pope. The primitive Christian church, originally a body of believers with no hierarchy and no one to answer to except Jesus Christ, was hijacked by the Emperor Constantine and ultimately converted into a </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">corporation sole</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> with the Holy Pontiff holding all power and authority.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">A hundred years after the gospel of Christ was restored through Joseph Smith, Church lawyers discovered that obscure form of incorporation under which the Catholic Church had been operating for the past several centuries, and found it to be a perfect fit for converting the LDS Church into an institution that would allow for more expedient management. President Grant was persuaded to convert the Restored Church of Christ into what is now a creature of the state. To do this, he just cut out the middle man (the members) and lopped off the head (Jesus Christ).</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Just as the Pope literally owns the entire wealth of the Catholic church, and cannot be told what he can or cannot do by any of the estimated 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, so it now is with the Mormon president. Everything is his. All of it. To do with as he pleases, no questions asked.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">That's a lot of power in the hands of one man. And the Lord Jesus Christ was not the one who gave that power to him.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">You think Jesus Christ is still head of this church? He was once. When the church was first organized in 1830 it was </span></span><a href="https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705377259/BYU-Symposium-LDS-Churchs-first-legal-status.html" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>decidedly not organized as any kind of a corporation</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>.</b> Why? Because that would have placed Jesus Christ in a position subservient to man's law. Everything changed in December of 1923, though. Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the charter as having any controlling interest in the church. His name appears only in reference to the name of the corporation: "The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." He is never mentioned otherwise. Not once.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In fact, as LDS historian Daymon Smith points out in </span></span><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Book-Mammon-About-Corporation-Mormons/dp/1451553706/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519530208&sr=1-1&keywords=daymon+smith+the+book+of+mammon" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>The Book of Mammon: A Book About A Book About The Corporation That Owns The Mormons</b>,</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> the </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> itself</span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> </i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">no longer even exists as a legal entity.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Don't believe it? Try to sue the LDS Church. That name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" exists today only as a trademark belonging to Intellectual Reserve, Inc., one of many subsidiaries of the Corporation of the President. Any lawsuits directed against the Church would have to be worded as "</span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">John Doe v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">." If Brother Doe tried to file a cause of action against </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">, the court would not be able to find that entity. In legal contemplation, it does not exist.</span></span><br /><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJklNaHVPxXwTwr_snRkHzm1aSRu9ZM5SBId-m7Gj6wKKIVT3IL1iN5TZnys_mK6Pr1gHu2C3se-ycIXU80yu3AGZSN570P1XkkeF4D5Zll2C4ttblhuuskKWCoVly2OhEX_9txv3m3QKG/s1600/the+book+of+Mammon.jpg" style="clear: right; color: #336699; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="275" data-original-width="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJklNaHVPxXwTwr_snRkHzm1aSRu9ZM5SBId-m7Gj6wKKIVT3IL1iN5TZnys_mK6Pr1gHu2C3se-ycIXU80yu3AGZSN570P1XkkeF4D5Zll2C4ttblhuuskKWCoVly2OhEX_9txv3m3QKG/s1600/the+book+of+Mammon.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></div><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Someone once asked me what was the problem with the church being incorporated? Well, there are many reasons, as I've </span></span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/11/" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>detailed elsewhere</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>,</b> but let's ask a better question: if it was alright to convert the church into a corporation, why not call it "The Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? Why instead is it chartered as "The Corporation</span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> of the</b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i>President</i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The answer to that question is in the bylaws of the charter itself. The very reason the corporation was established was to take control of the church away from the members to whom it rightfully belongs. Here is the wording:</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">"[T]his corporation shall have power, <b>without any authority or authorization from the members</b> of said Church or religious society, to grant, sell, convey, rent, mortgage, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any part or all of such property."</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">And when it says "this corporation shall have power" what it is really saying is "</span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i>this one guy </i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">shall have power," because the president himself </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>is</b></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> the entire corporation. That's what is meant by "corporation sole." The entire corporation consists of one solitary human being holding all the power and all the authority.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">So of course, the law of common consent is out the window. And this allows the president of the corporation to make an end run around pretty much all the decrees mandated by Jesus Christ in scripture. Again, the United States government is not concerned whether Russell Nelson adheres to anything Jesus Christ commands of him. The only question that would ever be before the court is whether he violated the terms of the charter. If he were to cash out all the property of the church; sell every temple, every chapel, every school, every bank account, every holding, all of its investments, and then take all the proceeds to buy his own private country where he could live out his life as king of all he surveys, he would </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">still</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> not be in violation of the charter.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">He is, in law and in fact, the sole holder of title to everything in the LDS Church, including, of course, the title of president. It's all spelled out in that document. And he is protected in that claim. Not by God, mind you, but by the government of the United States. He is the President of the corporation, and no one can do anything about that.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">However...</span></span><br /><br /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">If He Wants To Be <i>PROPHET<u>,</u></i> He Will Need Your Permission</span></b><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Among the more fascinating things I've read as a member of the church is the testimony given by President Joseph F. Smith during the infamous </span></span><a href="https://archive.org/details/proceedingsbefor01unitrich" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">Reed Smoot hearings</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> before the United States Senate in Washington, D.C.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">President Smith was a reluctant witness, and answered only the questions he was forced to answer. But because he was under oath, he was obliged to answer honestly, and he did. He provided answers to questions he would rather not have been asked. Most church members have never been told about this testimony because the truthful answers President Smith gave do not fit well into the official narrative most of us were taught growing up.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Somebody made a five minute animation around a part of this testimony, and it's quite revealing because it shows that even as far back as the turn of the 20th century, most of the president's time was occupied with other than ecclesiastical matters.</span></span><br /><br /><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C144eMF4S50" width="560"></iframe><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">That's some interesting stuff, but there's lots more worth reading, including the incredible reveal where Joseph F. Smith, putative prophet, seer, and revelator for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comes out and flatly admits that "I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations."</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But here's the part of his testimony that is pertinent to our discussion here:</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. Are you a prophet, seer, and revelator?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. I am so sustained and upheld by my people.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. Do you get that title by reason of being president or by reason of having been an apostle?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. By reason of being president.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. Are not all the apostles also prophets, seers, and revelators?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. They are sustained as such at our conferences.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. They all have that title now, have they not?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. Well, they are so sustained at the conferences.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. I want to know if they do not have that title now.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. I suppose if they are sustained they must have that title.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. Are they sustained as such now ?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. I have said so twice, sir.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. Who were your predecessors in office as president of the church?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. My immediate predecessor was Lorenzo Snow.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. And his predecessor ?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. Wilford Woodruff.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. And his?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. John Taylor.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. Yes; go on back through the line.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. Brigham Young.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. Yes.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. And Joseph Smith.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. You are possessed of the same powers that they were possessed of ?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. Yes, I am supposed to be possessed of the same authority that they were.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. You believe yourself to be, do you not?</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. I think I do believe so.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. TAYLER. I do not know that there is any significance in your use of the word "think," Mr. Smith, but one hardly thinks that he has a belief. He either knows or does not know that he has a belief.</span></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Mr. SMITH. I think I do.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">President Smith was clearly not happy to have these questions put to him, but it makes you wonder: if the man has the gifts of a prophet, seer, and revelator, wouldn't you expect him to declare it boldly? His uncle, Joseph Smith, Jr. certainly did.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Joseph F here exhibits none of the qualities of his divinely appointed uncle. Indeed, he hesitantly admits that he </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">thinks</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> he is possessed of the same authority as Joseph Smith. He knows he is "</span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><i>supposed to be</i></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">," but when pressed a second time to assert whether he believes he does or merely </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">thinks</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> he does, he repeats "I think I do."</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">This is not the testimony of a prophet of God.</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">But what I want to get to is this: how are we to know whether the president of the Church is also a prophet, seer, and revelator? This is a vital question, because members of the Church the world over will soon be given the opportunity to vote on whether they know for a fact that Russell Nelson is that man. We can't </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">really</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> vote for or against Russell Nelson becoming president; that ship has sailed. But you will still be invited to cast that vote anyway, and more importantly you will be asked to vote to confirm your belief that this man has the gifts of a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. Therefore, you might want to carefully consider whether:</span></span><br /><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">1.) You can state categorically that you </span></span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">know</i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> the Lord has appointed him to that office and,</span></span><br /><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">2.) You can affirm that you <i>know</i> the Lord has given him those gifts.<br /><br />The corporate charter is silent on these questions. It does not tell us whether the current president is also a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator. In fact, none of those words appear anywhere in the charter. The president of the corporation is never referred to in the charter as the prophet, as we Mormons are wont to do. For all legal intents and purposes, that title is invisible and has nothing to do with the man's authority to run the Church.<br /><br />So if you intend to do your duty as required by Jesus Christ, before the next general conference session you are going to have to go to the Lord and ask Him for a witness and a testimony that Russell Nelson might be something other than simply the president of a corporation. You are going to need to find out if he is also the Lord's appointed prophet.<br /><br />Here's a handy template given to you by Jesus Himself to help you in your search for the kind of man you should be looking for:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood [in case you didn't know, that means the president of the church], is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses...yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church." (D&C 107:91-92)</blockquote></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">You'll note that the Lord doesn't tell us those gifts will magically appear in the guy you select <i>after</i> you sustain him. You're supposed to recognize whether he has the right stuff in him <i>before</i> you give him your sustaining vote.<br /><br />Remember, even Joseph F. Smith admitted under oath that he didn't really have the gifts of a prophet, seer, and revelator. He reluctantly copped to owning the <i>title</i>, but we know from his testimony under oath that was <b>only because the members affirmed he was a prophet</b>. That was the only validation he was able to give: "I guess I'm a prophet, because the members of the church keep saying I am."<br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">I have a sneaking suspicion that the only reason the members voted to sustain Smith as a prophet, seer, and revelator, was because they were allowed to assume God had already bestowed those gifts upon him as He had with Joseph Smith. But in Joseph F. Smith's case, they actually had no knowledge of whether any of it was true or not.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><br />Many years later, Gordon B. Hinckley was asked this same question by the religion editor for the San Francisco Examiner, and he used the same response as Joseph F. Smith did those many years prior:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Q: You are the president, prophet, seer and revelator of the Mormon Church?<br />A: I am so sustained, yes<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 14.85px;">.</span></blockquote>Again, the answer is not the bold proclamation one would expect from a true prophet. Hinckley's answer is evasive at best: I carry the title of prophet because the congregation voted to give me that title.<br /><br />Here is the lesson in all of this: Russell M. Nelson can cheat, and lie, and prevaricate his way into the presidency of the Church, and he can claim that title with or without your vote.<br /><br />But he cannot claim the title of a prophet, seer, and revelator<b> unless the members voice their agreement. </b><br /><br />Joseph Smith was a prophet, seer, and revelator. We can see the evidence he left behind in our Doctrine & Covenants. But every single "prophet" who came after him had to admit they were "prophets" only because the congregation said they were.<br /><br />I tend to think it takes more than that. I think that before a man can claim he is a prophet, somewhere along the line God Himself is going to have to make that call.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>So, What Are YOU Going To Do?</b></span><br />Three and a half years ago <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;">Russell Nelson had this to say</a>: "Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us."<br /><br />Can you honestly say that you have received a testimony that the calling of Russell Nelson is legitimate? Don't you think it's time you strove to find that out <i>before</i> you make any kind of oath in the presence of God that has the potential to be binding?<br /><br />The Lord is waiting for you to ask Him. Angels are standing by to take your call. Not every member of the Church will have the opportunity to vote in general conference, but all will have a chance to raise their hands in their upcoming stake conference to show the Lord that they "approve of those names, or else disapprove of them."<br /><br />The words of Joshua, one of those rare <i>actual</i> prophets, applies perfectly here. He told the Israelites --the bona fide people of God at the time-- that they could go ahead and worship their idols if they wanted to, "but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."<br /><br />Don't forget: whether you vote in favor, or whether you oppose, one way or the other you are still commanded to raise your hand.<br /><br />Scary, huh? You may not be able to wiggle out of this one. But I'm thinking it might be time to come out of the shadows anyway.<br /><br /> *****</div><div style="background-color: white;"><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">Share these posts with friends and family you think might benefit from them. </blockquote></blockquote><p style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;"> </p><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-decoration-line: none;"><u>Related Posts and Other Sources Pertinent to This Topic</u></b><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">:<br /></span></span><br />From <i>Pure Mormonism:<br /></i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/12/did-lord-choose-not-to-anoint-lords.html">Did The Lord Choose Not To Anoint The Lord's Anointed?</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/03/evil-speaking-of-lords-anointed.html">Evil Speaking Of The Lord's Anointed</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/12/why-heed-prophetic-counsel.html">Heeding Prophetic Counsel</a><br /><br /></div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/01/did-nelson-m-russell-take-lords-name-in.html">Did Russell Nelson Take The Lord's Name In Vain?</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/11/">The Hidden Reason For The Policy Change on Baptisms</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/01/who-died-and-made-him-president.html">Who Died And Made <i>Him</i> Prophet?</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-corporatism-has-undermined-and.html">How Corporatism Has Undermined and subverted The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/08/how-we-know-thomas-monson-is-prophet.html">How We Know Thomas Monson Is A Prophet, Seer, and Revelator</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/04/any-opposed-please-sit-down-and-shut-up.html">Any Opposed, Please Sit Down And Shut Up</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/10/181st-semiannual-bowl-of-pap.html">The 181st Semi-Annual Bowl Of Pap</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-jesus-christ-was-ousted-as-head-of_24.html">How Jesus Christ Was Ousted From The Church of Jesus Christ</a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/brigham-youngs-hostile-takeover.html">Brigham Young's Hostile Takeover</a><br /></div><div><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-tell-if-you-are-idolater.html">How to Tell if You Are an Idolotor</a><br /><br /><a href="http://the%20real%20threat%20to%20traditional%20marriage%2C%20part%203/">The Real Threat To Traditional Marriage, Part 3</a><br /><br /><b>From Radio Free Mormon:</b><br /><a href="https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/01/radio-free-mormon-24-illegitimate-first-presidency/">Illegitimate First Presidency</a><br /><br /><b>From <i>Kathleen Flake, Sunstone Magazine: </i></b><br /><a href="https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/the-reed-smoot-hearings-and-the-shaping-of-20th-century-mormonism/">The Reed Smoot Hearings and the Shaping of 20th Century Mormonism</a><br /><br /><b>From </b><b><i>Mormon Disclosures:</i><br /><a href="http://mormondisclosures.blogspot.com/2014/09/articles-of-incorporation-archive.html" target="_blank">Scans of the Original Articles of Incorporation</a><br /><br /></b><b>From <i>Book of Mormon Perspectives:</i></b><br /><b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">Throw Down Their Tower And Scatter Their Watchmen</a><br /></b><br /><u><b><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2022/03/they-seek-deep-to-hide-their-counsels.html" target="_blank">They Seek Deep To Hide Their Counsels From The Lord</a></b><br /></u></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com60tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-471611775036982652022-03-20T13:42:00.019-07:002022-03-22T19:57:18.176-07:00Reigning With Blood And Horror On The Earth<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggteSqkMYUC7Vhj6FtGApcccw-YB-r-8BqXL-DAeU0NpwZxKs8hsSp5j9qez3AzGqMoG-gNTZQlUtWiPobS3Aqgt2V_m8grL1h579RVbFkYDNQglphCy9Dd8-0pFF8VO3bvfPMk2FCWHRD7A12ovix8i2WX-9wpd4j8FH54prCiNaiQFVylZn63tHPQA/s267/dresden%20burning%20burnt%20as%20stubble.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="189" data-original-width="267" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggteSqkMYUC7Vhj6FtGApcccw-YB-r-8BqXL-DAeU0NpwZxKs8hsSp5j9qez3AzGqMoG-gNTZQlUtWiPobS3Aqgt2V_m8grL1h579RVbFkYDNQglphCy9Dd8-0pFF8VO3bvfPMk2FCWHRD7A12ovix8i2WX-9wpd4j8FH54prCiNaiQFVylZn63tHPQA/s1600/dresden%20burning%20burnt%20as%20stubble.jpg" width="267" /></a></div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/03/normal-isnt-coming-back.html" target="_blank"><i><b>Previously:</b></i> <b>Normal Isn't Coming Back</b></a><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/03/normal-isnt-coming-back.html" target="_blank">Last week</a> in this space I predicted war and famine for America in the near future. Those predictions weren't much of a leap, since our scriptures have warned us these things were coming. The only risk I may have took was presuming the times we are living in now may be the incipient End Times as prophesied in scripture. And I think the clues are pretty obvious that, yes indeedy, we're in them alright.<br /><br />Podcaster Steve Turley has a doctorate in theology and is a cogent political analyst as relates to biblical prophecy and current events. He, too, sees clearly what is coming:<br /><blockquote>"Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling for nothing less than World War III, and our feckless, incompetent Republican leadership looks like they're ready to give it to him. I'm not going to beat around the bush in this video: anyone, <i>anyone </i>who supports a so-called "no-fly zone" in Ukraine, enforced by NATO, is calling for World War Three. And hundreds, if not millions of people will be killed because of it." </blockquote><p>Please take 10 minutes and watch "<b><i>Zelensky Calls For World War III":<br /></i></b><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IW5hSdO-yKc" width="320" youtube-src-id="IW5hSdO-yKc"></iframe></div><br />Zelenskyy is effectively requesting that we commit suicide over Ukraine. And what was America's reaction: Right there in the hallowed halls of congress, virtually every one of our representatives gave a standing ovation to a foreign dictator, then immediately voted to send that dictator 13.6 billion dollar in "aid" because this foreign dictator is at war with another foreign dictator. And if you think that's weird, back in Ukraine, the Odessa National Academic Theater Orchestra is giving a concert in support of both peace <i>and</i> for a no-fly zone. As Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate' observe in the video below, that dichotomic wish would most certainly trigger the next world war. "So when they say they want a no-fly zone," Dore observes, "what they mean is 'let's start shooting down Russian planes.' That's not a call for peace."<br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DjDb-Q0-Sdg" width="320" youtube-src-id="DjDb-Q0-Sdg"></iframe></div><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Devil Is In The Details <br /></span></b>Most Latter-day Saints are familiar with Satan petulantly declaring that if he can't have his way, he will buy up armies and navies and reign with blood and horror on the earth. It looks like he's now found an even better workaround. Instead of buying up armies directly, he's persuaded politicians to furnish armaments to armies that might otherwise not be at war with each other. That's a pretty nifty scheme.<br /><br />As I touched on last week, the ruling class <i>needs</i> this war to keep going because that will make a lot of them very rich. Think about how unnecessary all this is: Vladimir Putin has already told Volodymyr Zelenskyy that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/" target="_blank">the Russian armies will leave Ukraine "in a moment"</a> once Zelenskyy gives assurances that Ukraine will agree to the following: declare Ukraine a neutral country, stop the bombing of it's own people in Eastern Ukraine, recognize those people's independence, keep its hands off Crimea, and demilitarize the brutal Ukrainian police state. <br /><br />Simple and sensible conditions, wouldn't you say? So why don't you ever hear any of that mentioned by the politicians who have just tossed another log on the inflation fire with that 16 billion-plus aid package? What do you think "aid" means, anyway? Did you think it means food and bandages? No. It means weapons and armaments, the sale of which will make many members of congress much richer than they already are. This has all been documented in several reports, all of which Russell Brand will be happy to direct you to:<br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KsI0zshzFnI" width="320" youtube-src-id="KsI0zshzFnI"></iframe></div><div><br /></div>Our ruling class has a pretty sweet gig when you think about it. First, they get paid by you and me through our taxes. Then, because they were given advance intelligence that this war was imminent (a war that you and I didn't see coming), they can take a portion of that money we paid them, and use it to buy stocks for themselves with Raytheon Technologies and Lockheed-Martin. <br /><br />What...? You thought that "aid" money was going to go straight to Ukraine to alleviate the suffering of the poor, put-upon Ukrainian people? You are so naïve. That 16-plus billion will be given directly to Raytheon and Lockheed and a hundred other armaments manufacturers who are making the <i>weapons</i> that will be sent to Ukraine. Do you think that will result in Putin backing down and leaving, or will he respond in kind? <br /><br />The more money given directly to the companies that traffic in blood and horror, the more huge dividends end up in the swelling bank accounts of your senators and representatives. Since these are the very people voting on how much tax money gets spent on "defense" (wink, wink), the sky's the limit. It's not going to subside anytime soon. <br /><br />And yes, there will be lots more money budgeted for those warpig corporations, because if there's anything we know about public servants, it's that they love making millions more on the side than they take home in salary. Those investments are guaranteed to keep climbing just as long as the ruling class can frighten you into believing that the big bad Russian boogeyman is "a threat to democracy" everywhere. It's called getting in on the ground floor. <br /><br />All it took was a simple vote of congress authorizing the purchase of weapons, and presto! Your freshman congressperson now understands why Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi just can't bring themselves to retire. As George Carlin famously observed, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it."<br /><br />The last thing your masters in Washington want right now is for Russia to withdraw, which they secretly fear could happen if Zelenskyy is allowed to declare neutrality from NATO. Meantime, they can feel secure safe in their belief that America itself doesn't have to go to war with Ukraine -at least for now. They figure America can fight this war by proxy, furnishing weapons to the poor saps wearing the uniforms of the Ukrainian army who will almost surely die holding ground they can never keep as long as they remain obstinately at their posts, convinced American troops will step in and save them at the last minute. <br /><br />These poor saps keep seeing all the dopes on American social media declaring "I Stand With Ukraine" and they think those social warrior numbskulls really are one hundred percent behind them. They have no clue those American keyboard cowboys are only virtue signaling.<i> </i>The average NPC is no more aware than a Ukrainian citizen is that the higher-ups in the U.S. State Department care nothing for the Ukrainian people.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixXEeAucCsUp7VdvN9iIRdiCBrNyTsz_C4QPawDvD0qHMNBO0Ylxu2VolWSnnJZ8HS9jsCBZLoAktNkmW4tp1vZ77zCz91QdlRCTWrBsPrtDi3Gguk4EnsyxpgBKhvnUeXzsuGyCwAgbRyA-KzDMe-IkJyD0dmqYHWH-GDXiMA_bjQ4-9YW6ufajbChg/s487/I%20support%20the%20current%20thing.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="487" data-original-width="487" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixXEeAucCsUp7VdvN9iIRdiCBrNyTsz_C4QPawDvD0qHMNBO0Ylxu2VolWSnnJZ8HS9jsCBZLoAktNkmW4tp1vZ77zCz91QdlRCTWrBsPrtDi3Gguk4EnsyxpgBKhvnUeXzsuGyCwAgbRyA-KzDMe-IkJyD0dmqYHWH-GDXiMA_bjQ4-9YW6ufajbChg/w200-h200/I%20support%20the%20current%20thing.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>They care only about expanding the power of NATO and, as they've done before, they intend to crush all Ukrainians who opposes their plan for world domination.<br /><br />Naturally, there are some members of congress who aren't in on the grift. Quite a few, like congresswoman Maria Salazar, simply don't have a clue about what's going on. She is emotionally caught up in the belief that the president of Ukraine is a white hat, and the president of Russia is a black hat, that there's a clear demarcation here between the good guys and the bad guys, and therefore is is the duty of all brave American good guys to step across the ocean and crush the baddies with a single blow Salazar's problem is that she is under the mistaken belief that America is still a superpower. Which it is not. Here is Rep. Salazar defending her position on Tucker Carlson's show last week:<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YSxnyA_8RI0" width="320" youtube-src-id="YSxnyA_8RI0"></iframe><br /><br />Sadly, Salazar is just as much in the dark as most other Americans. It has not occurred to her that we can't just go over to Ukraine and "fix things." American exceptionalism is fading; we can no longer just roll up in our tanks and solve the world's problems. Besides, most other countries don't really like us very much -and that goes for our supposed allies, as well. <br /><br />Few world leaders respect us. No one fears us. Even now Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, and other Eastern countries have agreed among themselves to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zYY36xRV3k" target="_blank">stop using the Amercan Petrodollar in their commerce.</a> America's dirty little secret is that the only thing currently propping up our dollar is that it is still the world's currency. That is not likely to continue as these countries realize they can do quite well with America out of the way, since China is producing more goods than we are, and well, let's face it, we don't really have that much to offer the world anymore. <br /><br />America is about to experience a catastrophic financial crash that the average politician didn't even see coming, because our economy depends heavily on the foreign markets. Who do you suppose, among the nations of the world, will be weeping when the hubristic American Empire finally gets its comeuppance? I'm betting none of them. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S5MdGgjA4A" target="_blank">The major powers are even now creating a parallel economy</a> that will function just fine without us. <br /><br />All this has been prophesied, of course. And yet it seems it's only a populist minority who are beginning to see it coming --the elites haven't a clue. They will be the living embodiment of Proverbs 16:18, "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."<br /><br />If we get into a nuclear war against Russia. the United States will surely lose, as it has in every overseas excursion it set out on since the Korean war in 1950. We simply are no longer who we thought we were -or what we used to be, which was a nation whose God is The Lord. <div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vuiivYZ80l4" width="320" youtube-src-id="vuiivYZ80l4"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Remember that most recent war we lost? When was that anyway? A couple of months ago, I think, give or take twenty years. We were beaten by a bunch of goat-herders who ended up keeping 80 billion dollars worth of our own weapons. That's how thoroughly incompetent <i>our</i> military leaders are. You think those clowns will be sharp enough to protect us when the bombs are actually landing in our own country? How about that there Commander-in-Chief I keep hearing about? Sure am glad he's on the clock. If we continue to antagonize Russia, this time the stakes will be much higher than the loss of our tanks and missiles. This will be a war America will lose decisively. <br /><br />In case you haven't noticed after seeing how all those other foreign adventures turned out, we no longer have God on our side. If there is any overriding lesson we should have gleaned from the Book of Mormon, it is that although we have a duty to defend our own land from invasion, meddling in the affairs of other nations will be the very thing that leads to our final destruction. In a revelation given in 1833, the Jesus commanded us to renounce war and proclaim peace, reminding us that the same commandment he had given to all the prophets from Nephi forward, and then going back all the way to Abraham, has never changed. That instruction held then and it still holds today: <div><blockquote>"This is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them." <a href="https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fscriptures%2Fdc-testament%2Fdc%2F98%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D19020113A8DFAA81-0B8CE20CAE536D56%7CMCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1647761312" target="_blank">(D&C 98: 32-33)</a></blockquote><b><span style="font-size: large;">Is World War Three Really About To Be Triggered?</span></b></div><div><span>Could be. Who knows? At the moment it looks like quite a few Americans are tempting fate. Senator Roger Wicker has come right out in favor of a nuclear strike against Russia, and he does not appear to be alone. How stupid is that? If Putin really was the crazy madman we're told he is, wouldn't it be enough to convince him, after hearing a threat like that from a leader in the senate, that maybe <i>he</i> should strike first? Tulsi Gabbard, one of the few honest Democrats still living, had this to say:<br /><blockquote>"Anyone who would propose, or even consider, what he is saying as an option must be insane, a sociopath, or a sadist." Watch:</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rmkxSEEGFFU" width="320" youtube-src-id="rmkxSEEGFFU"></iframe></div><br />Whether or not idiots like Roger Wicker get their way, all I really know is what the Lord tells us in 3rd Nephi 25, echoing Malachi 4: that there will come a day that will burn like an oven, and all that do wickedly will be burned as stubble. <br /><br />There is some possible good news in all that, so we don't have to lose hope completely. <a href="https://denversnuffer.com/2012/03/nephis-brother-jacob-part-6/" target="_blank">Nephi's brother Jacob</a> tells us that "none will He destroy that believe in Him." If you read it carefully, however, you'll learn it doesn't mean everyone who <i>professes</i> to believe will be spared. You can be completely active in the church, obeying everything your priesthood leaders tell you, and you probably will wind up on the fire. But that's a discussion I'll take up at a future time.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">What Does It Mean To Burn As Stubble? </span></b></span></div><div><span><span>I used to think it meant God would blast the wicked with some kind of ray from outer space, and all those evil bastards would evaporate in a flash. I didn't even know what "stubble" was, to tell you the truth; I assumed it was some kind of stubbly material that is highly flammable and consumed in an instant. <br /><br />Well, it turns out that if you were to "burn as stubble" you probably wouldn't go up in a flash at all. More likely you would die a long, painful, smoldering death, very much like you would if you were in a city that was bombed out, like that picture in the upper left hand corner of this page. That is the German City of Dresden following the horrific destruction by over a thousand British and U.S. bombers during World War II. Here is what burning stubble actually looks like, and to me it looks a lot like how a city continues to burn and smolder long after a violent bombing:<br /><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kP65LNxRYpg" width="320" youtube-src-id="kP65LNxRYpg"></iframe></div><br /></span></div><div><span>The thing that struck me is that stubble is the worthless part of a crop left over after the harvest. In short, stubble is good for nothing, like worthless politicians who will sell out their country for profit and gain. I can see why people like that might deserve a slow, smoldering death. Wouldn't want to be standing next to one of 'em when the bombs fall, I'll tell you that.<br /><br />But what I also find curious is that nowhere in these statements, either in 3rd Nephi, nor in Malachi, does Jesus seem to be saying <i>He</i> would be the one striking the match that sets these wicked people on fire. He simply says the day will come that will be hot as an oven, and the wicked will burn like stubble. Righteous Judgement? Absolutely. But the scriptures teach us that sometimes the Lord doesn't find it necessary to execute the judgment himself. Sometimes he stands aside and allows things to take their natural course, like when he simply let the baby-killing Lamanites wipe out the baby-killing Nephites in Mormon Chapter four. As the prophet Mormon observed, <br /></span><blockquote>“It is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.” (<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/4.5?lang=eng#p4">Mormon 4:5</a>)</blockquote>Who is it today that is stirring up the hearts of Americans to the point they have come to hate foreigners they've never even met? It's likely that most of your friends and family live in complete ignorance about what caused this war between the corrupt government of Ukraine and the corrupt government of Russia. And yet they can't wait for the extremely corrupt government of the United States to step in and make things better. (Spoiler Alert: The American War Machine has never made things better.) <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Seems Like We've Been Down This Road Before</span></b><br />Prior to April 1917, World War I was at a stalemate in Europe. Trench warfare being what it was, it had become impossible for any army to gain ground over another. At one point the leaders of England, France, and Germany were actually beginning to talk about calling a permanent truce to that European war and just letting everybody go home and make like none of it ever happened. Then the propaganda machine went into high gear in America and our country stepped in, prolonging the war well past its natural expiration date. The war became much more brutal and intense than before, with many thousands of young men killed and maimed who would not have been had America not butted into a war that had nothing to do with us. Even today most historians will agree that war was completely unnecessary and accomplished nothing. <br /><br />What came to be known as World War II had mostly been a feud between Hitler and Stalin, until Winston Churchill (Himself as cruel and brutal as both Hitler and Stalin) jumped in, then helped persuade members of Franklin Roosevelt's cabinet that America should jump in too and help the Russians. <br /><br />And so here we go again. What legitimate reason could there be for America to have a dog in this fight? The only thing most Americans have heard is that the president of Ukraine is a noble and valiant hero whose people are rallying around him to oppose the Russian horde. No one has told them that <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzNxLzFfR5w" target="_blank">Ukraine has long been a brutal police state</a></b> that kills and tortures its own people. The only thing most Americans know about Ukraine is what their wicked politicians and lying media talking heads have told them. Their hearts have indeed been stirred up to hate one side and support the other, to the point where even some Americans are willing to fight and die for what they are finding out -often too late- is just another evil government run by evil, self-serving men. <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">"People Need To Stop Coming Here. It's A Trap"</span></b><br />Here is a bone-chilling account from a well-meaning American who went to Ukraine to fight Putin, only to learn the Ukrainians were using American, Canadian, and British volunteers as hapless cannon fodder (<b>Warning: Harsh Language):</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CH5fnlurq-w" width="320" youtube-src-id="CH5fnlurq-w"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> </div></div><div>This poor chump learned first hand that Americans are being deceived about the nature of this conflict. This is no simple good-guy/bad-guy situation, and anyone with any sense should avoid any involvement. As Dore reminds us, <br /><blockquote>"The establishment Media is one hundred percent propaganda right now. So if you're getting your news about Ukraine from establishment media, you're being lied to and you don't know what you're talking about. You think Putin is a madman who is an irrational actor who might start a nuclear war just for kicks. That's what they have people thinking. They don't tell anybody about how we got here, about how the United States overthrew the Ukrainian government, how the Ukrainian government kept shelling the Russians who lived in the Eastern part of Ukraine and they wouldn't stop for eight years and killed 14,000 of them, even though they had a peace agreement called the Minsk agreement. They don't know about the pipeline that Biden and the West wants shut down from Russia directly to Germany. They don't know about any of this stuff."</blockquote><p>And guess what else? The American government's handprints in Ukraine are as bloody as Putin's! <br /> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1humfpe1K4w" width="320" youtube-src-id="1humfpe1K4w"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">So What Can We Do? </span><span> </span></div><div><span>First, I would think we should start taking Jesus at His word. In order to make sure we didn't miss it, Jesus reiterated a specific warning <b style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-sins-at-top-of-list.html" target="_blank">three times</a>. </b>What was that warning? That in our day we, the Gentiles, would be lifted up in pride and filled with lyings, deceits, hypocrisy, murders, abominations, and "all manner of hypocrisy," and that if we failed to repent we would be cut off, I'm pretty sure He meant for us to take those warnings seriously.<br /><br />We should therefore be skeptical of anyone in power who attempts to play on our emotions to get us to support the killing of people who have done us no harm. Latter-day Saints, more than any others, are without excuse, as we have the warnings of God given to us in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. We should therefore be watching out for any and all deceptions promoted by those in power, even when it is our own Church leaders who promote such lies, <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/05/" target="_blank">as LDS leaders officially did during the run-up to the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.</a></b> Yes, that's right. Because some young men in America's armed services sought assurances from Church leaders about whether God approved of what they were doing, older men in the Church hierarchy lied to them and told them they were indeed on a mission from God, while not once referencing anything God actually had to say about such questions.<br /><br />Secondly, I think we should be actively doing what we can to share the truth about the origins of the Ukraine war with everyone we know. This is the third time I've brought up the subject of the looming crisis at our door (click <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/02/theyre-trying-to-get-you-to-support.html" target="_blank">HERE</a></b> and <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/03/normal-isnt-coming-back.html" target="_blank">HERE</a></b> for the previous two), and each time I have included plenty of videos that I hope at least some of you are using to help wake up your friends. At the very least I would hope these blog posts would be shared with fellow Mormons. The threat of war is real now, and it is imminent; we should take that threat seriously and do whatever we can as individuals to try to avert it. That is the charge given all of us by God, and that is what is meant when He warned us in 3rd Nephi to repent.<br /><br />Once you realize the legacy media has been deceiving you, look for alternative sources that have proven reliable. While it seems everyone at Fox News has reverted to the same warmongering they were cheerleaders to during the Bush/Cheney era, I'm finding Tucker Carlson to be a lone voice promoting reason and caution. Here is a typical attempt by Tucker to buck the warmongers, and boy, is he catching flak for it:<br /><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FY0P8Tmj73I" width="320" youtube-src-id="FY0P8Tmj73I"></iframe></div><span><div><span><br /></span></div>And here's Steve Turley again, this time discussing why all of a sudden Republicans are sounding like Democrats:<br /><br /><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k3t7A2b6RY4" width="320" youtube-src-id="k3t7A2b6RY4"></iframe><br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Mark Dice assures us, with tongue in cheek, that the woke military leaders will keep us safe:<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/o2ZpcBehk0I" width="320" youtube-src-id="o2ZpcBehk0I"></iframe></div><br /><div>Salty Cracker does an entertaining job of mocking the warpigs in office, but be forewarned, his language can be <i>very salty.</i> So hide the kids and watch his videos only while wearing headphones (or maybe earplugs):<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/asONmWd0SHc" width="320" youtube-src-id="asONmWd0SHc"></iframe></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="text-align: start;">Other sources where you'll find fact sorted from error and updated daily are </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/theduran" style="text-align: start;" target="_blank">#TheDuran </a>, along with the indefatigable<span style="text-align: start;"> </span><a href="http://82.221.129.208/1/.tm2.html" style="text-align: start;" target="_blank">JimStone.is</a><span style="text-align: start;">. </span><span style="text-align: start;"> </span><a href="http://LewRockwell.com" style="text-align: start;">LewRockwell.com</a><span style="text-align: start;"> is a forum providing honest </span><span style="text-align: start;">articles from a variety of writers on politics and current events, and you can easily flip back to see what you missed on </span>previous days.<br style="text-align: start;" /><br style="text-align: start;" /><span style="text-align: start;"> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/styxhexenhammer666" target="_blank">Styxhexenhammer's </a>language is only slightly less salty than Salty Crackers, but his analyses are extremely informative:<br /></span><br style="text-align: start;" /><span style="text-align: start;">What I'm trying to get across here is this: God always sees to it that His people are not left without access to information. But it's your job to find it and sort the good from the bad. We may not be able to stop the juggernaut of war that seems to be rolling toward us full steam ahead, but what will you say when you stand before the Savior and he asks you why you didn't even try?</span><br style="text-align: start;" /><br style="text-align: start;" /><span style="text-align: start;"> *****</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br style="text-align: start;" /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><u>Notes & Asides:</u></b></span><br style="text-align: start;" /><span style="text-align: start;">The bombing of Dresden, which took place in the second world war, and which I referred to above, was a horrific moment in American history, yet one few Americans even know about, and with good reason. It was nothing to be proud of, and World War II is a war Americans are supposed to be proud of. <br /><br />That incident was a shameful moment in our history, and one few historians can justify. Dresden was the cultural center of Germany. There were museums, music halls, priceless statues and paintings in that city. There were no military bases, no munitions factories, and no strategic reason for the destruction meted out by 527 American heavy bombers and 772 bombers belonging to Britain's Royal Air Force. In three days of bombings, the city was completely leveled, the entire population, estimated at between 23,000 and 25,00 killed by explosives and incendiary devices. The city was left a burning, smoldering ruin.<br /><br />The bombing of this city full of innocent men, women, and children was intended to terrify the German people, and it did just that. Winston Churchill, whose idea it was to bomb a city that held no strategic importance to the war, proudly described the operation as "an act of terror." Historians today rightly believe Churchill should have been tried for war crimes. Most of the Americans who took part in that bombing are dead now. Years after the war, when these pilots and crewmen learned what it was they had been forced to take part in, they didn't seem to want to talk about it. </span></div><br /><u style="font-weight: bold;">What Will Our Leaders Say?</u><br />I fully expect the leadership of the LDS Church to get fully on board with the idea of buying up armies and navies and reigning with blood and horror on the earth, since they have already told us who's side they are on in the great eternal battle for freedom (Spoiler Alert: it's the globalists.) <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2022/03/is-zion-sustainable-society.html" target="_blank"><b>Book of Mormon Perspectives</b></a> just posted today about how the corporate Church is already siding with -and donating moeny to- the very institutions David O. McKay, Ezra Taft Benson, and J. Reuben Clark, vigorously preached against from the pulpit. <br /><br /><u style="font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold;">UPDATE March 22, 2022:</u> <br />For anyone scoffing at the suggestion that the president of Ukraine could possibly be a dictator, here's your evidence. The man is a monster:<br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oifqp1bJp8Y" width="320" youtube-src-id="oifqp1bJp8Y"></iframe><br /><br /></div><br /><b style="font-size: x-large; text-decoration-line: underline;">UPDATE March 22, 2022:</b> <div><blockquote>Eagle-eyed readers Linda Lopez and Linda Gale put me onto this bombshell interview with Laura Logan, formerly of 60 Minutes. Says Alexandra Bruce, <br /><br /><br />"In this short clip from an interview with Donna Fiducia and Doug Neuen of CowboyLogic.us, Lara Logan outlines her brutally honest perspective on why Ukraine is so important to people in power within the DC system.<br /><br />"She explains that Ukraine is at the center of this cult of Globalists. It is the center of money-laundering for the oligarchs and their allies in the United States, it’s the center of the Russia Hoax and the Fake Impeachment."</blockquote><p>Watch the four and a half minute video <a href=".https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/03/no_author/lara-logan-sets-the-record-straight-on-ukraine-russia/" target="_blank">HERE.</a><br /> </p><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> <br /><br /><br /></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-51789072337788016442022-03-13T17:24:00.015-07:002022-03-16T07:57:29.151-07:00Normal Isn't Coming Back<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgD110QfAJOjDBDS5vM0bnwglwkOxcYKUXPv5Tj1lQcNTD6ay9gCX99J3TqOCsNrMe7P7eG6g1I4DtJXkDiu693u-UJPZCsz5AbR21cAUAIdyfhOa5rIYLDkz3ufMd-MVOT8v1kU4tc2V-oPgd-TbfhPD5oe3R4Ogl67K1uyRXwzqxRz5W1U5M2rgB_kA=s750" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="750" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgD110QfAJOjDBDS5vM0bnwglwkOxcYKUXPv5Tj1lQcNTD6ay9gCX99J3TqOCsNrMe7P7eG6g1I4DtJXkDiu693u-UJPZCsz5AbR21cAUAIdyfhOa5rIYLDkz3ufMd-MVOT8v1kU4tc2V-oPgd-TbfhPD5oe3R4Ogl67K1uyRXwzqxRz5W1U5M2rgB_kA=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /> <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/02/theyre-trying-to-get-you-to-support.html" target="_blank"><b><i>Previously:</i></b> </a><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/02/theyre-trying-to-get-you-to-support.html" target="_blank">They're Trying To Get You To Support Another Phony War</a></b><p>In my last post I discussed the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy that our day would see a massive ramping up of lies and deceptions. So given the overwhelming flood of lies and deceptions coming at us from all directions, today I think I'll make a prediction. Based on <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/10/i-decide-to-become-prophet.html" target="_blank">my previous track record,</a> I think there's a pretty good chance this prophecy will come true. My prediction is twofold: first, in the very near future, many Americans will starve to death. Second, America's ruling class is about to trigger World War III, which will pretty well finish off everybody else. (Including those responsible, if our scriptures are any indication.)<br /><br />Now, I hope I'm wrong. But based on the startling number of Americans who are uncritically accepting the lies their government is telling them, I don't hold out a lot of hope. And by the way, as much as I hope to see the mid-term elections result in sweeping a large number of the current ruling class out of office, you can be certain of one thing: politics will not save us. The only thing I believe will change the trajectory we're on will be a national repentance, and I don't see that coming. So pardon my pessimism, but I hope Connie and I die peacefully in our sleep before the sausage really hits the fan. You should be so lucky, as well.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgey8gG1zFwSnq-3t59towD47vE0-h3R3a5_NyTM7uEaBbYKRjpg-EXc8a88Q4g3-JwTxPoeZOOZsZ2GilTvFdikw-J27iKiaW93ogqX1eBc41J7Q9sAm3KDUSmsPkfIjzxI3KiEDlAVl1GdWmrrOoAxG0r5ZyIFTB0RyVgvpag4i1fEZ_j4bQflpHNGQ=s719" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="613" data-original-width="719" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgey8gG1zFwSnq-3t59towD47vE0-h3R3a5_NyTM7uEaBbYKRjpg-EXc8a88Q4g3-JwTxPoeZOOZsZ2GilTvFdikw-J27iKiaW93ogqX1eBc41J7Q9sAm3KDUSmsPkfIjzxI3KiEDlAVl1GdWmrrOoAxG0r5ZyIFTB0RyVgvpag4i1fEZ_j4bQflpHNGQ=w200-h171" width="200" /></a></div>So, to address that uncomfortable topic of starvation: The financial collapse you have been warned about for years has finally begun. And in my view it's only <i>just</i> begun; we aren't yet seeing a hint of the extent of the destruction that will soon hit us. At this point, it's unavoidable, we will not be able to escape it. And it's going to get massively worse because the inflationary spiral cannot be arrested or reversed. Despite our current president's denials ("I'm sick of hearing about it") inflation is indeed caused by government overspending. A nation can't borrow multi-trillions of dollars all at once without expecting catastrophic consequences. We are ruled by idiots who have no clue about how cause and effect works. <br /><br />The rising price of fuel is the perfect barometer for measuring the effects of inflation, because everything you have, from the food you buy to the packaging that food is wrapped in, incurs repeated <br />costs in fuel before it ever gets to your grocery cart. So ask yourself this: how high does the price of gasoline have to get before you can't even afford to drive to work? Ten dollars a gallon? Twenty? You can see how the world could easily come to a full stop. <br /><br />But not to worry. Stephen Colbert has said he's willing to pay fifteen dollars a gallon if necessary because he thinks if everyone did the same, it would somehow "hold Putin accountable."<br /><br />Setting aside the fact that, unlike you, Stephen Colbert can afford to pay more for gas because he makes <b><a href="https://www.suggest.com/late-night-talk-show-hosts-net-worth/193210/#:~:text=With%20a%20%2416%20million%20annual,far%20as%20cash%20is%20concerned." target="_blank">sixteen million dollars a year,</a></b> Colbert, as well as everybody else who thinks Putin is suffering because America is not purchasing fuel from Russia, seems to be ignoring this simple reality: that doesn't bother Vladimir Putin one bit. Until Biden took office, we weren't buying our oil from Russia anyway. America was producing more than it needed, so much more that <i>we </i>were selling our surplus to <i>other</i> countries. <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>So don't be fooled because Biden refers to the skyrocketing fuel prices as "Putin's price hike." Putin has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of gas in America. Those prices were climbing long before Putin invaded Ukraine, and they were rising because of the inflation caused by the trillions upon trillions of dollars borrowed by Biden and his congressional cronies. Inflation has only added to the shortages we were already seeing after Biden stupidly made it his number one priority on his first day in office to shut down oil production in America. <br /><br />Putin doesn't run our government, <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DuM3Mv7Lk" target="_blank">these are Biden's price hikes.</a></b> No one in America is "sticking it to Putin" because they're paying more for gas. <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bck06b9pxJ8" width="320" youtube-src-id="Bck06b9pxJ8"></iframe></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhPs7KpJuMUMpNuYtaaZDkK5jKeJa-tOwE_GOHsthP-wczxqr-IRFWmWzv76NQNDP69mbbr9AWweq2EsmhYiNMSA3qwGj-0rXYA6c0xV024jjxhNvcqRnR_dAs-_T0L9vl339zb2Zt9zmpJPyItg719Lu5VB7LL0A03t2DqsoQByLZweVz7q9xbnHTbBQ=s450" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="293" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhPs7KpJuMUMpNuYtaaZDkK5jKeJa-tOwE_GOHsthP-wczxqr-IRFWmWzv76NQNDP69mbbr9AWweq2EsmhYiNMSA3qwGj-0rXYA6c0xV024jjxhNvcqRnR_dAs-_T0L9vl339zb2Zt9zmpJPyItg719Lu5VB7LL0A03t2DqsoQByLZweVz7q9xbnHTbBQ=w130-h200" width="130" /></a></div><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Why Do We All Of A Sudden Hate Russians? <br /></span></b>How many actual Russians have you even encountered in your life? What, none? And yet, if you're the typical American right now, <b><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/03/no_author/ukraine-and-falsehood-in-the-time-of-war/" target="_blank">it makes your blood boil just to think about how awful those people are. </a> </b>Did you ever wonder how the German government got the German people whipped up into such an irrational hatred of Jews that they would want the entire lot of them exterminated? Well, now you know. It's pretty easy to do, actually. The way you get people to clamor for war is to get them to react emotionally. All the Deep State needs is a few more people like the ignoramus officeholder in the video below, and Boom! In no time you've got yourself new world war:<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8xaOCr64GuM" width="320" youtube-src-id="8xaOCr64GuM"></iframe></div><br /><p><span>If America declares a no-fly zone over Ukraine like this congressperson is asking for, what that means is an American jet pilot will be shooting down a Russian jet pilot. That, dear sister, is an act of war, and then it's only a matter of time before nuclear weapons get discharged. And if things ever heat up to that point (and it certainly looks like we're headed that way), if high prices are the biggest worry in your life right now, well, get used to 'em because they're going to get astronomically higher. Even if you can afford some things, there will be massive shortages well in excess of what you're seeing so far. You're going to look back on those weeks when the stores were completely out of toilet paper and think of those as the good old days. <br /><br />It's certainly a testament to how well we are being propagandized when one notices how quickly so many Americans have become conditioned to hate foreigners. If, like me, you're more interested in understanding the causes of the conflict in Ukraine rather than simply falling for the deception being foisted on you by those who love conflict, you'll find yourself labeled a "Putin Apologist" by a rabid mob that immediately wants you silenced. But my position is this: simply saying it's probably not a good idea to be poking a cornered bear with a stick doesn't automatically make you "pro cornered bear." All it means is it's probably not a good idea to be poking a cornered bear with a stick. <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>But Wasn't It The Russians Who Started This Fight? <br /></b></span></span>No, Putin was <i>reacting</i> to a fight started years ago by US and NATO interests who saw a country they felt they could easily take control of. Here is the narrative those Western interests are trying to get you to accept:</p><p><span><span></span></span></p><blockquote><span><span>Vladimir Putin is a madman who attacked Ukraine for no reason at all. The people of Ukraine, who idolize their brave president Zelensky, are valiantly fighting against all odds to repel the invaders who want to kill them all and destroy their cities.</span></span></blockquote><span><span>That's the myth they want you to believe. If you want the truth, you need only look beyond the propaganda being thrown at you. Putin has no designs on Ukraine. He doesn't want to conquer Ukraine. He doesn't want to govern it. He doesn't want to destroy its cities. Russia doesn't even <i>want</i> war with Ukraine; in fact Putin's negotiators have stated publicly that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/" target="_blank"><b>Russia will stop in a moment if its demands are met. </b></a> <br /><br />So what are those demands? Well, you can read all three of them yourself, but the pertinent one is that Ukraine must remain a neutral country. Simple as that. It should be governed by a democratically elected president who is not beholden to the United States or any other globalist entity.<br /><br />The reason you're not being told that is this: factions within the United States have invested too many billions in creating a puppet state in that region that they can control; one with a malleable leader installed and approved by them who they can count on to govern as they see fit. Since the 1950s The CIA has overthrown many governments around the world and they're not about to let this one slip through their fingers. So they will gladly go to war if they have to. Maybe even if they don't have to. If we're lucky, we may be looking at a stalemate. Putin won't back down, you can count on that, because it means death and destruction to the people of his nation if he allows Ukraine to be folded into NATO. What most airheads sporting the "I Stand With Ukraine" pin don't realize is that becoming aligned with the US and NATO is a sure way for a nation to <i>lose</i> its autonomy. Just ask the people of Ukraine. They have a long history of being under the control of other nations. Finally they have a chance to break free, and the one guy helping them do that is painted as the bad guy.<br /><br />The people of Ukraine are <i>afraid</i> of their president -you know, Zelensky, the guy the US secretly installed by way of a violent coup. Have you seen those pictures of long lines of cars trying to leave Ukraine? They're not fleeing the Russians; the Russian troops aren't going after civilians. They are fleeing their own government since Zelensky's soldiers are gunning them down in their cars as they try to flee. Every man between the age of 18-60 is being conscripted by Zelensky to fight the Russians. They don't want to fight the Russians, so their own government is killing them en masse.</span></span><p></p>You may have seen this video, as it has gone viral. It was a live stream from a married couple who came across a massacre at a Zelensky checkpoint in Mariupol. The livestream cuts out as they themselves are shot down:<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzq7DcxzTKmIoT-mqwJSe71y0xVQfCzkyc4sTEsFKE3GHSBMq94alfC51NM_e8n1keijaIVK-xMS0kWZsTtCA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>If you're wondering why Vladimir Putin would want nothing more than for Ukraine to be free and independent, here is his answer:<br /><blockquote>"Why do we resist so vehemently to NATO's expansion? We are concerned with the decision-making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can't resist the pressure of the USA. And very soon anything at all can appear in such a country -missile defense systems, new bases or, if necessary, new missile strike systems." </blockquote>When such a threat appears right on Russia's doorstep, what then would be the logical step for Russia to take? <br /><blockquote>"We need to take countermeasures, meaning, to aim our rocket systems at the new locations which we consider to be threatening to us. And the situation gets worse."</blockquote><p>Does this sound like the ravings of a madman? Seems like a pretty normal reaction to me. I've seen the ravings of a madman, and his name is Joe Biden.<br /><br />This all sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it? It's as if we've seen something like this that happened to America when I was a kid. Those younger than me may not have heard about the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was when Kruschev sent nuclear missiles to its puppet state Cuba to be installed and pointed directly at the United States, which was only 90 miles away. That would have put enemy missiles virtually on our doorstep. Happily, President Kennedy actually <i>talked</i> to the Russian Premier, resulting in those missiles being removed. And thus was the crisis avoided.<br /><br />So why won't our president today reach out to talk to the Russian president so they can get this thing settled? The answer to that is <b><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/03/vasko-kohlmayer/warning-the-biden-administration-wants-to-expand-the-war-in-europe/" target="_blank">those in control of Biden actually <i>want</i> us embroiled in a war</a></b>. We have already inserted ourselves in the middle of a hot war between two countries. You would think it was now time to sit down with the Russians and negotiate a peace. But that's not how globalists think. They are called "globalists" because they want the entire globe under their control.<br /><br />Besides, as anyone with their eyes open can tell you, there's too much money to be made from this crisis to bring it to a halt just yet. As Jesse Watters put it recently, members from both sides of the political aisle, who were privy to advance intelligence, "knew something that we didn't. They saw what was coming and poured money into the market, buying up defense stocks, energy stocks...So as Ukraine burned to the ground, congress got rich." Watch here as Watters names just some of those insiders, as well as how much they have gained so far from this disaster:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/va5g5KhOi0o" width="320" youtube-src-id="va5g5KhOi0o"></iframe></div><br />If there's anything worse than murder, that would be committing murder in order to get gain. And if there is anything worse than committing murder to get gain, it's committing murder to get <b><i><a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/ether/8?lang=eng" target="_blank">power and gain.</a></i> </b>The reason our government wants this situation to fester is because they see great opportunities if they can get the puppet government in Ukraine to finally sign on to NATO. <i>Then </i>the Deep State will really be sitting pretty, because Ukraine right now is ripe for the picking. If only they could stir up the American people to want desperately to turn this proxy war into a real war, they're convinced they would be on the way to finally running the whole world. <br /><br />But what those in the halls of power don't seem to realize is that if they trigger another world war, America will lose. We can't win it. America is no longer a superpower. Not only are our generals weak and incompetent, but a large percentage of our soldiers have been weakened from the vaccine and all those boosters they were required to take. Our soldiers simply aren't as strong as Russian soldiers. Our best and brightest cannot be relied upon in battle because sadly, many of them are no longer our best and brightest. <br /><br />Americans need to realize that Vladimir Putin will not back down and allow NATO to threaten him on his own doorstep. If he did he truly would be mad. And it doesn't look like the US/NATO alliance wants to give up all that power. So a showdown is coming, and if you thought Ukraine was ripe for destruction, you haven't been paying attention to the moral decline in America. Much as we may not like to face the reality, America could actually come out the loser here. The Book of Mormon foretells as much, so why should we be surprised when it finally happens in our lifetimes?<br /><br /><div>There is more I wanted to present today, but I think I'll save it for next week because this is quite a load for anyone to absorb who has only been getting their news from the Legacy media. If that's you, all I can say is you deserve to know the truth, so keep digging. Be skeptical of <i>everything</i> you hear from the Legacy media, especially accounts pretending to be from Russian soldiers lamenting how they're being forced to kill civilians. Most of them have already been proven fake, and I'll discuss them next time.<br /><br />For now I leave you with three videos, all of which I feel are essential viewing, so I hope you'll take the time. The first is just six minutes long and will tell you what you don't know about the war in Ukraine, and especially why you do <i>not</i> want to find yourself on the side of NATO. <br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OisJkpGYpAo" width="320" youtube-src-id="OisJkpGYpAo"></iframe></div><br />Next is Glenn Greenwald with a complete report on what we know about the biolabs in Ukraine, and how the U.S. is scrambling to do damage control after Victoria Nuland spilled the beans about their existence. This one will take you about an hour, but Glenn Greenwald is always worth the time:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yn_HZ3Ta-5w" width="320" youtube-src-id="Yn_HZ3Ta-5w"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Finally, <b>Ukraine on Fire</b> is a film Oliver Stone produced six years ago following the violent overthrow of Ukraine's government two years previous. If you don't know the background on Ukraine, this one is essential. You can't possibly understand what's going on today without the information contained here. And if that isn't enough to entice you, two minutes in, where the opening credits roll, you can see a naked lady:<div><br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">/<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yxau6qeWZ4w" width="320" youtube-src-id="yxau6qeWZ4w"></iframe></div>(If you have trouble viewing this film <b><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/W2pC7um2s6Ww/" target="_blank">here it is on Bitchute.</a><br /></b><br /><u style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">Notes & Asides:</u><br />If you haven't yet seen my earlier post on this Ukraine business, <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/02/theyre-trying-to-get-you-to-support.html" target="_blank">"They're Trying To Get You To Support Another Phony War,"</a></b> it's over there just waiting for you. This is a good introduction to the information shared here, so it would be preferable if you read that one first.<br /><br />Book of Mormon Perspectives has two excellent essays up in the time it took me to write this one. Check 'em out:<br /><br /><b><i><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2022/02/the-greatest-revolutionary-of-all-time.html" target="_blank">The Greatest Revolutionary of All Time </a></i></b><div><br /></div><div>and,<br /><br /><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2022/03/throw-down-their-tower-and-scatter.html" target="_blank"><b><i>Throw Down Their Tower and Scatter Their Watchmen</i></b></a><br /><br />Also, over at <b style="font-style: italic;">To The Remnant, </b>Adrian and Tausha Larsen have provided a fascinating correction about one of the great myths of Mormonism, the false idea that the Book of Mormon made reference to Christopher Columbus. It wasn't Columbus that scripture was referring to at all, as should have been apparent to anyone familiar with Columbus' evil life. If you haven't already guessed this person's identity, you'll find it here. Part One can be found at this link: <a href="https://www.totheremnant.com/2022/03/destruction-part-1-man-among-gentiles.html" target="_blank"><b><i>A Man Among the Gentiles</i></b>.</a><br /><br /></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-73519765577883491742022-02-26T18:57:00.025-08:002022-02-27T13:08:44.210-08:00They're Trying To Get You To Support Another Phony War<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi-f-08wr-r8JAy18NqhHh4igpsxGfy33Ym-22Xp8YKvDf7KnS1Xq1VW4rGeUKYdHz1f85kugoyscfyaugfFcwdRV_vE4E9ZhzkMrhJEv45bjdwrdfwsymOsGG_Y1zdi2QYp_vP-NJViOEm7jTLibIymlq9-Br30DIYON08EXHBSN62QiHKCbCN3E7vcg=s1024" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="646" data-original-width="1024" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi-f-08wr-r8JAy18NqhHh4igpsxGfy33Ym-22Xp8YKvDf7KnS1Xq1VW4rGeUKYdHz1f85kugoyscfyaugfFcwdRV_vE4E9ZhzkMrhJEv45bjdwrdfwsymOsGG_Y1zdi2QYp_vP-NJViOEm7jTLibIymlq9-Br30DIYON08EXHBSN62QiHKCbCN3E7vcg=s320" width="320" /></a></div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/02/my-interview-at-mormon-book-reviews.html" target="_blank"><b><i>Previously</i>: My Interview at Book of Mormon Podcast</b></a><br /><br /><br />Nothing I've read in the Book of Mormon the past couple of years has struck me as forcefully as what Jesus told the Nephites would occur among us in the last days. Three times he reiterated the sins that would be among <i>us</i>, and since He was only with the Nephites a short time, he must have really wanted us -the ones who would eventually receive that record- to sit up and take notice when we saw these prophecies come to pass among us. Each time the Savior reiterated the list of sins <i>we </i>would be awash in, two in particular were always at the top of His list: "lies and deceptions." I assume therefore that he wanted us to be especially keen in watching out for them. (I included each list with corresponding cites in my earlier post <b><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-sins-at-top-of-list.html" target="_blank">"The Sins at the Top of the List."</a></i></b>)<br /><br />We've seen an abundance of lies and deceptions foisted on us by those in positions of power these past few years, and the latest attempt to get the populace to go along with their schemes is this idea that we should take sides with them against Russia. They have told us repeatedly that it will require us, the common people, to make sacrifices, but they haven't exactly been up front about why. <br /><br />I've been watching a lot of coverage about what is happening in Ukraine since last week, but nowhere am I seeing the full story told. No, not even on the Fox News Channel, where virtually everyone there (<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-how-will-this-conflict-affect-you" target="_blank"><b>with the possible exception of Tucker Carlson</b></a>) has taken the same posture that network did twenty years ago when they banged the war drums in support of America's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, all of mainstream media, both liberal and conservative networks, have suddenly become avid warhawks.<p></p><p>So, if you've a mind not to get fooled again this time around, you deserve to know what they haven't been telling you.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">What They Haven't Been Telling You </span></b><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>First thing to know about the situation in Ukraine is that this not something you should be manipulated into taking sides on. There is nothing patriotic about siding with the American political establishment on this; they are in the wrong. <br /><br />This is little different than a gang war between two crime families, the Deep State versus Russia. Think of it as a feud between the Genovese crime family and the Gambino crime family. This doesn't involve you, and if you take sides with one crime family over another, you are in the wrong as well. God will not smile on you for cheering on either side. So here are the facts:</p><p><span>In case you're too young to remember, for several decades following World War II, the Soviet Union consisted of Russia and fifteen satellite countries. These satellite countries were all communist, just like Russia. The leaders of these satellite countries were puppet dictators who took their orders from the Russian Politburo. You'll recognize the names of some of these satellite nations as Poland, Georgia, Czekoslovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Kazakhstan, and a handful of other countries with names ending with "-stan." <br /><br />And, of course, Ukraine.<br /><br />Back then, the Soviet Union, a sizable superpower that openly threatened to "bury" the West, was rightly considered a threat to the rest of the world. So the governments of the major Western nations created an alliance known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. The idea behind NATO was that if the Soviets tried any funny business, we would all gang up on them and see that they learned to play nice. It seems to have worked. Then, after years of Russians becoming dissatisfied with the failure of the promise of a communist paradise, in December 1991 the Soviet Union fell. Having lost the ability to keep its own people in check, Russia also lost control of its puppet states. The people of these countries, tired of communism, moved toward more democratic governments. And all was well with the world. Kinda sorta.<br /><br />With the Soviet Union no longer a threat, one would expect that NATO, which existed only as a guard against encroachments by the Soviets, should have been dissolved, being no longer needed. But that didn't happen. In fact, in the decades following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO' has continued to expand, giving truth to the old adage that governments, once given power, almost never give that power up, even long after any reason exists for them to have that power. And this is where Ukraine comes in.<br /><br />Ukraine is not a free nation. It is not a democratic republic. Hell, it isn't even a democracy. In 2014 <b><a href="https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/04/how-and-why-the-u-s-government-perpetrated-the-2014-coup-in-ukraine/" target="_blank">the U.S. government overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine</a></b> in a violent coup and replaced that government with one more malleable to U.S. interests. The result is that today Ukraine's government is almost as thoroughly corrupt as our own. Ukraine has, for all intents and purposes, become a vassal state of the U.S. government. This is why our president (also beholden to globalists hell-bent on bringing Ukraine in as a member of NATO), has been able to treat Ukraine as his personal piggy-bank. It's also why politicians on both sides of the aisle aren't telling you the truth.<br /><br />Now, why would that be? Why would NATO have need of a member country that exists right next door to Russia? Well, that's kinda what Vladimir Putin wants to know. <br /><br />The truth is, Putin <i>does</i> know why, and I'll get to that in a minute.<br /><br />When I said Ukraine is not a free country, I was not entirely accurate. The people in a large region of Ukraine have declared their independence from Ukraine. They consider themselves a free people who have formed a free nation they call Donbas. Here's what that looks like on the map:<br /><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhdu-lHnU2Kq1Cz4OzmjpXv0wwiwbq191txxn3tbbmZ-T8cLN1Ltg8s9LvvuRvCTmdfcWnGqd1DWpgHdKBfGVEmhkAVt3zyl2a6VOxwFq-9TwLpkLklPadshf5cJ6AV6X4rlO7tDZf6PVnW2XiRbC3IxFuphmz32VCug_Th8En38jCMYKm6rCooNLEnvA=s306" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="306" data-original-width="250" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhdu-lHnU2Kq1Cz4OzmjpXv0wwiwbq191txxn3tbbmZ-T8cLN1Ltg8s9LvvuRvCTmdfcWnGqd1DWpgHdKBfGVEmhkAVt3zyl2a6VOxwFq-9TwLpkLklPadshf5cJ6AV6X4rlO7tDZf6PVnW2XiRbC3IxFuphmz32VCug_Th8En38jCMYKm6rCooNLEnvA=w327-h400" width="327" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>You'll notice that Donbas is right smack dab next to Russia. Here's the thing about the people of Donbas: like a lot of people who left Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union, they are overwhelmingly Russian. They moved next door to Ukraine, but they speak Russian. Their culture is Russian. The vast majority of them are devout Christians who attend Russian Orthodox churches there in the Donbas region. One other thing: The illegitimate government of Ukraine does not like the people of Donbas. Partly because they're Russians, and partly because they don't wish to be ruled.<br /><br />Now, you get to understand that the people of Donbas don't want to be governed by Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they want to go back to being governed by Russia, either. So some years ago they declared their independence. How do you think the government of Ukraine has reacted to a swath of its population declaring themselves no longer under its iron fist? Well, the Ukraine government says Donbas can't be allowed to be independent, and to that end <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/02/no_author/hypocrites-on-parade-john-pilger-calls-out-world-leaders-for-ignoring-donbass-shelling-for-years/" target="_blank"><b>the Ukrainian government has been shelling the Donbas region for the past eight years</b></a>. Let that sink in: For eight long years, the government of Ukraine has been slaughtering its own civilian population just because they want the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. The prime minister of Canada has nothing on the president of Ukraine.<br /><br />Why do you suppose Ukraine wants these people to fall back in line? Well, one reason could be that Donbas is right on the border of Russia. NATO is a highly militarized outfit, and Putin certainly realizes that if NATO gets a toehold in Ukraine, and if Donbas is out of the picture, NATO would be setting up weapons right next door to Russia, right there on the border. With Donbas a free and independent state, NATO wouldn't be able to do that, because Donbas does not want to join NATO. <br /><br />Putin seems to have figured out that having NATO right next door to Russia might possibly pose a threat to Russians. Call me crazy, but I think Putin prefers that doesn't happen. <br /><br />Just as an aside, Putin finds Biden's threats of sanctions laughable; threats by Biden mean absolutely nothing to the Russians. They don't give a hang about Biden's sanctions. <i>They</i> have all the energy, and we don't, thanks to Biden shutting down all U.S. sources of energy creation the very day he took office.<br /><br />As well as having a corner on the world's fuel, the Russians also have control of a great deal of the world's grain, and Russia has already stopped shipping it to us the moment Biden announced his feckless sanctions against them. If anyone is going to suffer from Biden's silly sanctions, it will be the American people, who will be largely dependent on Russia in order to fill their gas tanks, as well as many of the other things Russia controls that we're going to need to use and eat. <br /><br />So -no surprise- our genius politicians didn't quite think this through before poking that stick in Putin's eye. On a recent episode of <i><b>Tucker Carlson Tonight</b></i>, Tulsi Gabbard explains how <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4" target="_blank">all this could have been avoided</a>:</b> Had Biden simply taken NATO off the table, the threat to Russia would have evaporated; Putin would have seen no reason to send planes over Ukraine. Styxhexenhammer also weighs in on how <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khSCMzTj3U4&t=201s" target="_blank"><b>Biden foolishly humiliated himself because he thought acting like a tough guy would work against an actual tough guy.</b></a> (Warning: Styx tends to use naughty words, so hide the kids.)<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">There Will Have To Be Sacrifices</span></b><br />On the run-up to war, Biden and the establishment spokesmen solemnly informed the American people that if war breaks out in Ukraine, sacrifices will have to be made: Not by them, mind you; they all have huge government pensions and no reason to worry about how they're going to fill their Bentleys with gas. They meant you. <i>You</i> will have to make sacrifices. But they never tell us why, except for feigning nebulous clichés that suggest that antagonizing Russia is somehow "the right thing to do."<br /><br />Vladimir Putin long ago recognized Donbas as a sovereign state. Is it a cynical move made only because it will play to his advantage? Could be. It certainly is to his advantage to have a sovereign nation of people who share Russia's culture on his doorstep rather than a nation of foreigners who are hostile. But what does any of that matter to you and me? Why should <i>we</i> care about any of this, other than being in favor of seeing a people who wish to be free allowed to be free? <br /><br />What, then, is the actual danger of a potentially hostile puppet country like Ukraine right on the doorstep of Russia?<br /><br /><div>Well, for one thing, many in the know claim that Ukraine has eight separate labs involved in the development of chemical and biowarfare, and that these labs are controlled by the United States. Is that true? Well, there is no shortage of reports pooh-poohing the idea that such labs could possibly exist, but I've seen no compelling arguments to refute the allegation. In essence, the sources relied on in these reports always consist of some U.S. official or other coming out and denying these labs exist. So, I guess we're supposed to just trust the word of people who are known to be compulsive liars.<br /><br />The question we deserve to ask is, are Putin's accusations plausible? Well, his planes did bomb eight laboratories and I think his government has sufficient evidence to suggest he knew what he was after. Russia has intelligence agencies too, you know. For my part, I think it's extremely naïve in this day and age to believe that any developing nation is<i> not </i>developing bioweapons. This report from the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine says Ukraine has a <b><a href="https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/sections-offices/defense-threat-reduction-office/biological-threat-reduction-program/" target="_blank">biological threat reduction program.</a></b> Where does that program conduct its business? Why, in labs, of course! "The Biological Threat Reduction Program’s priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concerns..." A further evidence is this report claiming that the <a href="https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/us-official-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-risks-release-of-dangerous-pathogens/" target="_blank"><b>Russian invasion of Ukraine risks release of dangerous pathogens</b></a>. <i>What</i> dangerous pathogens? I thought they said they didn't have any.<p><b><span style="font-size: large;">But Why Bioweapons?</span></b><br />It's much easier to deploy chemical and bioweapons on an enemy country than it is to line up tanks and soldiers and conventional weapons that everyone can see coming. It's also easier to deploy those weapons if the country you're planning to use them on is right next door. <br /><br />But before Ukraine can pull anything like that off, it's going to have to do something about those pesky people of Donbas, because they are right smack dab in the way. Despite the propaganda you're hearing, Putin has not been attacking civilians in Ukraine. What you're not specifically hearing is that the Russian bombers took out all eight of those labs, as well as any pertinent military installations. He has stated that his operation is not to occupy Ukraine but to "demilitarize and de-Nazify" that country. I don't know how far Putin is going to go with this, but so far he has said he is doing nothing more than protecting the people of Ukraine from their government, which is the same thing the U.S. said when they bombed Libya. Which makes the U.S. look like hypocrites for criticizing him, since he's only doing what the Americans claimed was right and proper when they did the same thing. <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Wait...Did He Say Ukraine Is Full Of NAZIS?!</span></b><br />Sure seems like it. Four years ago <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#"><b>Reuters News Service</b></a> put out a piece showing that groups sporting actual Nazi-era symbolism and spouting neo-Nazi ideology have infiltrated the Ukraine armed forces, with the tacit approval of the Ukraine government. This is not reported in our media, if for no other reason than it would embarrass the Biden administration to have to admit it was opposing the Russians for opposing Nazis. (You may have noticed Biden says he opposes Nazis too.) And lest we forget, Hitler was actually defeated by Russia in the second world war; America and Britain showed up pretty much after Der Fuhrer had been cornered and defeated. So, if there's anything we know about Nazis, it's that they don't much care for them Russians.<br /><br />Openly identifying as Nazis and Nationalists seems to be all the rage in Ukraine right now, and for whatever reason, they really seem to have it in for anyone named Ivan. When you watch the opening of the <b><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary/commentary-ukraines-neo-nazi-problem-idUSKBN1GV2TY" target="_blank">video featured on that site</a></b> showing Ukrainian children at a Summer Youth Camp shouting <b>"We are Ukraine's children! Let Moscow lay in ruins, we don't give a damn! We will conquer the whole world!"</b> it's not hard to see why Putin might want to prevent that toxic ideology from crossing over into his country. And you can see why he supports the independence of Donbas, seeing as everyone else in Ukraine seems to want them dead and gone.<br /><br />Which brings us to the salient lesson here, and one all Mormons should truly take to heart. The Book of Mormon teaches us that we should defend our lands, and that we get in trouble when we meddle in the affairs of other countries. That was also the sage advice of George Washington. But what we have here is one country (the U.S.) meddling in the affairs of another county (Ukraine) so far away that it makes no sense that the U.S. should have any interest in Ukraine at all. This has resulted in the country right on Ukraine's border (Russia) feeling it necessary to defang the aggressor that is clearly and openly threatening it. <br /><br />It was obviously wrong -and incredibly stupid- for Biden and his handlers to poke the Russian bear, but is it moral for the Russian bear to finally decide it has had enough and poke back? Well, that's the dilemma, isn't it? If The Russians are careful to only eliminate the direct military threats, it's still a sticky situation to defend in light of scripture. But I can't say I don't understand the motivation to strike defensively. <br /><br />What I do believe firmly is that the wise thing would be for America's establishment to recognize it went too far, and for our war-hungry politicians to slink back home and lick their wounds, lesson learned. But this I am sure they will not do, because (as you may have noticed), the political class as it stands today is not very intelligent. They're certainly not smart enough to do what's right. And they have long since ceased to check in with God to see what He thinks before making any decisions.<br /><br />So, bottom line, I certainly don't foresee these dopes will ever stop trafficking in lies and deceptions. The bigger question for Americans, and everyone else in the West, is this: Are you ready to die for Ukraine? More pointedly, are you ready to die at the hands of Russia in clear violation of the commandment God gave His people in D&C 98:33? Because that is what your government is about to demand you do. As Lew Rockwell reminds us, this is not a desirable outcome, given the fact that the U.S. government is clearly in the wrong here, has had ample opportunity to repent, and the enemy it proposes to go up against has nuclear weapons pointed right at us. <br /></p><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>"Instead of maintaining the status quo, we have expanded NATO towards Russia’s border. Make no mistake–Russia considers the expansion of NATO as a direct military threat. . . the United States has been conducting regular military exercises in countries bordering Russia for more than 20 years. If you think these exercises are of no concern to Russia you are worse than a damn fool. <a href="https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/ukraine-domestic-brawl-not-fight/"><b>Now we are arming the Ukraine with weapons that will be used against Ukrainians with strong ties to Russia</b></a>. This is madness that carries a genuine risk of sparking a nuclear conflagration. <b>Russia will not be bullied and will not cower.”</b> <p></p><b>"<a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/stephen-f-cohen/why-are-we-in-ukraine/">The great expert on Russia Stephen Cohen warned us</a> </b>over two years ago that trouble lay in store for us: “<b>Ukraine is not ‘a vital US national interest,</b>’ as most leaders of both parties, Republican and Democrat alike, and much of the US media now declare. On the other hand, Ukraine is a vital Russian interest by any geopolitical or simply human reckoning. Why, then, is Washington so deeply involved in Ukraine?. . . The short but essential answer is Washington’s decision, taken by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, to expand NATO eastward from Germany and eventually to Ukraine itself. Ever since, both Democrats and Republicans have insisted that Ukraine is a ‘vital US national interest.’ Those of us who opposed that folly warned it would lead to dangerous conflicts with Moscow, conceivably even war. <b>Imagine Washington’s reaction, we pointed out, if Russian military bases began to appear on Canada’s or Mexico’s borders with America.</b>” <b>-<a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/01/lew-rockwell/why-die-for-ukraine/" target="_blank">"Why Die for Ukraine?" Lew Rockwell, January 29, 2022</a> </b>(emphasis mine)</blockquote> Here is what Paul Craig Roberts wrote just today in a piece titled <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#"><b>"Russia Demilitarizes Ukraine":</b></a><br /><p></p><p></p><blockquote>"The West, of course, is screaming its impotent accusations, but the barrage of Western media lies will have no effect on the outcome. If the Western World had any intelligent leaders, what would they conclude? They would conclude that the days of baiting the bear are over. As I have reported for some time, <b>Russia has had enough of the West’s lies, deceptions, insults, and provocations. </b> Henceforth, when Russia tells them something, they would do well to turn their ears on. Putin has said that Russia will not permit Ukraine to develop nuclear weapons, and he has said that Russia will not tolerate US/NATO bases on her borders. The US and NATO had better believe it.<br /><br />"Putin said Russia has no intention to occupy Ukraine. Russia does not want Ukraine, but Russia will not permit the continued militarization of the country by the US and NATO or the Ukrainian attacks on the Donbass Russians. The West had better understand this." (Emphasis mine.)</blockquote><p></p><p>If Biden's latest debacle has shown us anything, it is that the Ruling Class is not the infallible, indestructible behemoth they thought they were. America is no longer the biggest sonofabitch in the valley, and those in power had better learn that real quick. Our nation is weak, and it is crumbling apart, and this is all because we -if not all of us, at least those we have allowed to rule over us- no longer recognize that Jehovah is our Lord, and "he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." (2Samuel 23:3).<br /><br />Here is theologian Dr. Steven Turley discussing how, on February 24th of this year, the globalist order officially collapsed. This is also an excellent 13 minute summary of everything I've written above. I think you should share it:<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KAXWAA5GnEI" width="320" youtube-src-id="KAXWAA5GnEI"></iframe></div><p>Is Turley correct? Does this mark the beginning of the end of the unchallenged power of the global elite? Time will tell. But I'm sure of one thing: In spite of the collective efforts of all the globalists, deep state operatives, corrupt politicians, and their myrmidons in the media, not everyone is falling for <i>this</i> deception. Not this time. </p><p> *****<br /><br /><span><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><u>Update February 27, 2022: THE FIRST CASUALTY</u></span><br />There's an old adage that first gained traction during World War I that states "the first casualty of war is truth." I didn't want to make this post any longer than it was by digging up all the propaganda currently being spewed, but I think some of the more ridiculous examples are worth a look. <br /><br />The first, and most absurd I have seen so far, is the headline from <b><a href="https://www.the-sun.com/news/4735398/russia-kill-list-gay-ethnic-minority-ukrainians/" target="_blank">The Sun</a></b> claiming that Russia has drawn up a "kill list" of blacks and gays in Ukraine they intend to dispose of. As you may have guessed, that story was completely made up, but it has circulated widely, even among "respected" outlets such as NPR. <br /><br />But that's not all. According to another rumor, Russia will be deploying "mobile crematoriums" to follow its troops into battle, presumably so they can stop and spend time burning those black and gay Ukrainians alive, one person at a time. The British tabloid <b><i><a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-deploys-mobile-crematoriums-follow-26314565" target="_blank">The Mirror</a></i></b> (what is it with the British tabloid press, anyway?) helpfully provides photos of one such "incinerator on wheels" to accompany the article:<br /><br /> <br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhoN7P-DEhIIngBlMn4IN9Cw3EvcIUQIhrdKA4fwJv1x8U6Y5fWk-OuESzAkkXdmezJLei0MzzDvPluMTsDbfqnObeCizfpbnoIrCPXP9yck-i_8vAwT9KO_uxoaPqRKxg3eoAdixIwlS-p4JFzvKEqLZB7LLyVbwl8Qfeb5-o9q4ihgK-erZhKmu1c3w=s615" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="615" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhoN7P-DEhIIngBlMn4IN9Cw3EvcIUQIhrdKA4fwJv1x8U6Y5fWk-OuESzAkkXdmezJLei0MzzDvPluMTsDbfqnObeCizfpbnoIrCPXP9yck-i_8vAwT9KO_uxoaPqRKxg3eoAdixIwlS-p4JFzvKEqLZB7LLyVbwl8Qfeb5-o9q4ihgK-erZhKmu1c3w=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgaUOV5JVNk7aCjlWvpZ9eTAx6alzRAhPyNyrqNjKfm4B5JIVNWEfJZ8h5FWdysvFGU9csYYdp71pyravI5_YTqJBcrz8b3neB-1nYodBZEy966F9-Xuze1zj3QUSgGHmpaWEUZSvrpwGuQTfA2FtSC2q4bbjOe4RrEQIx_ZQfANfoUFnssdjyu5Uj_Bw=s620" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="315" data-original-width="620" height="163" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgaUOV5JVNk7aCjlWvpZ9eTAx6alzRAhPyNyrqNjKfm4B5JIVNWEfJZ8h5FWdysvFGU9csYYdp71pyravI5_YTqJBcrz8b3neB-1nYodBZEy966F9-Xuze1zj3QUSgGHmpaWEUZSvrpwGuQTfA2FtSC2q4bbjOe4RrEQIx_ZQfANfoUFnssdjyu5Uj_Bw=s320" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>Anyone with an IQ higher than the average Weekly World News reader would have instantly noticed that the guys operating that machine look a lot less like Russian soldiers and more like sanitation workers somewhere in the Western hemisphere. And sure enough, someone on social media named Olga corrected a tweet left by a horrified guy named Rob Crilly, patiently explaining to Rob what these ominous looking machines are actually used for:<br /> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjIoVosuKlNXc3_5DRXEe23vfw-U5TzD8ppyBiUuX8ZM5P7TFQ0VT7hW96fBdXQ6F2StKyDgwGteS0ExYk-pbqKSDGXR9PFfyI7Wfo5hi_Fa3CPYP4qbq64FdQUwpv7spLbwuki1nu4gWHKCpCqqmoEXTZYqU97Ln9-9uFHNuLea2x_Cs2SOMiy4CbbCg=s1300" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1300" data-original-width="719" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjIoVosuKlNXc3_5DRXEe23vfw-U5TzD8ppyBiUuX8ZM5P7TFQ0VT7hW96fBdXQ6F2StKyDgwGteS0ExYk-pbqKSDGXR9PFfyI7Wfo5hi_Fa3CPYP4qbq64FdQUwpv7spLbwuki1nu4gWHKCpCqqmoEXTZYqU97Ln9-9uFHNuLea2x_Cs2SOMiy4CbbCg=w354-h640" width="354" /></a></div><br />Last night my daughter Amy put me onto an internet site I had not known about, hosted by one <b><a href="http://82.221.129.208/1/.to3.html" target="_blank">Jim Stone</a>, </b>that is fast becoming one of the most reliable roundups of short news snippets on the internet. Jim provides a daily update on the propaganda being currently circulated on the situation in Ukraine. Where a rumor is debunked, he says so. Where the rumor remains unconfirmed, he also says so. This is where I learned the truth about the story currently circulating in the media about a Russian tank crushing a civilian's car with the driver still in it. Here's the picture currently circulating in the media:<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjdba3fTmtGXOoXuLqL9d_zUEqIJnEodSJBm6HjHdcfstHR6xMa7cco_ubm7iyhDmZFbZObm4t3hY2Tz8XnHPs-H_HmMfbnuv0FdvqzmlM8iOyyNPEr0Pmv3av2v_LtKjHLf2ANSh6qSYy7rw_gTtZY0WU9jbUd_2oXghlv2S3CruHAmb2-ArzfdkE1zQ=s900" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="900" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjdba3fTmtGXOoXuLqL9d_zUEqIJnEodSJBm6HjHdcfstHR6xMa7cco_ubm7iyhDmZFbZObm4t3hY2Tz8XnHPs-H_HmMfbnuv0FdvqzmlM8iOyyNPEr0Pmv3av2v_LtKjHLf2ANSh6qSYy7rw_gTtZY0WU9jbUd_2oXghlv2S3CruHAmb2-ArzfdkE1zQ=w400-h266" width="400" /></a></div>As it turns out, a tank really did run over and crush a civilian automobile, but it wasn't a Russian tank. It was a Ukrainian army tank. The driver of the tank panicked as he was being shot at, swung his tank around, and ran right over this poor guy's car. The good news is the driver of the car survived (that's him poking his head up) and was helped out by the crew operating the tank once they calmed down and stopped shaking.<br /><br />Are you waiting for the media outlets who shared this horror story to issue a correction? I wouldn't hold my breath. The narrative is only helped when Russian soldiers appear heartless and brutal. It wouldn't do to admit a Ukrainian soldier freaked out and tried to hightail it outta there screaming like a little girl. <br /><br />Finally, here's Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate, sharing the many media lies that have been debunked so far about this war (but that you were never told about). Get ready to have your jaw drop to the floor:<br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xt3Zv-e4n1M" width="320" youtube-src-id="Xt3Zv-e4n1M"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><h3 style="font-family: arial;"><u>Second Update February 27th:</u><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The propaganda has gone SO over the top now that it's a subject in itself.</span></h3><div>More from <b><a href="http://82.221.129.208/1/.to3.html" target="_blank">Jim Stone:</a></b></div><blockquote>"First of all, Putin is not weak, and Putin is not defeated. Word on the street is that Putin used his junk at first and will pull out the good stuff if NATO attacks. And it seems legit, there were a few good cruise missiles used but most of what got used really was not Russia's best.<br /> <br />"I have seen lots of crap about Russian tech being "50 years behind the United States" and it is always from a war monger that probably wants Americans to believe victory will be easy. But even if America's tech is better, it is going to be used by a military that was recently maimed by a death vax. The playing field is probably quite level." (See more from that site on today's date regarding how Russia is definitely <i>not</i> 50 years behind the U.S. in weapons capability.)</blockquote>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com91tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-946182732117548592022-02-19T18:22:00.019-08:002022-02-23T13:51:36.957-08:00My Interview At Mormon Book Reviews Podcast<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEie5WBtTySffZ_BOQtBSdHKmlbQmN1axOklMntd9GTb_uxbmgOUXfhWpQ9CtQx7vmxasrjDgVd7f4SkOJ9XI0xX9vxszDtxNHT5Z8lK4_BeGokO1wDlD8vIqL3kJCYu9wc_X1t9NR8X9c98DcgPwIq6EOsstVgoH9CKotdLu4gUrvDGVWmie7K431R3qA=s340" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="270" data-original-width="340" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEie5WBtTySffZ_BOQtBSdHKmlbQmN1axOklMntd9GTb_uxbmgOUXfhWpQ9CtQx7vmxasrjDgVd7f4SkOJ9XI0xX9vxszDtxNHT5Z8lK4_BeGokO1wDlD8vIqL3kJCYu9wc_X1t9NR8X9c98DcgPwIq6EOsstVgoH9CKotdLu4gUrvDGVWmie7K431R3qA=s320" width="320" /></a></div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/01/is-vaccine-passport-mark-of-beast.html" target="_blank"><b><i>Previously</i>: Is The Vaccine Mandate The Mark of the Beast?</b></a><br /><br /><br />Steven Pynakker is an interesting guy. He is not LDS and never was. What he is, is an evangelical Christian living in Florida. Yet I'd wager he is better informed about Mormonism than the average member of the LDS Church. And he's certainly more knowledgeable about our religion than those in the anti-Mormon camp who think they have us pegged dead to rights, but are mostly just echoing each other.<br /><br />Steven is proprietor of the podcast <b><i>Mormon Book Reviews </i></b>where he has interviewed over a hundred of the most interesting people within all branches of Mormonism. Here is where you'll find those fascinating interviews:<br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/MormonBookReviews/videos" target="_blank">Mormon Book Reviews Youtube Channel</a></i></b></span><br /><br />And here's where you'll find one of those interviews that is not the least bit fascinating: the one involving me. Click on the screen below (I'm the one on the left).<br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U32FwjNlvSk" width="320" youtube-src-id="U32FwjNlvSk"></iframe></div><div>I gotta be honest, folks: It was painful for me to watch myself this time around. In real life I'm known for encouraging people to "stay on point," yet what I see in this video is an aging, addlepated old doofus constantly wandering far off-topic. I mean, Yikes! That was a revelation. </div><p>Oh well. If nothing else, this episode will serve to document my cognitive decline. If I keep on like this, the Democrats may try to run me for president.<br /><br />Anyway, in case anyone is interested enough to watch me deteriorate in real time into a stammering, doddering old coot, in the space below I'm providing links to the earlier posts that were referred to in this interview, as well as any other notes and miscellanea that were referenced by either me or Steve. Go ahead and watch the interview if you've a mind to, but my feelings won't be hurt if you pass on this one. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">So, To Begin</span></b><br />First, a picture of my mother's parents, along with her brothers and sisters. That's my mom top row left, the one who looks like her arm has been amputated (Her arm was fine, someone just did a poor job of cropping the original photo.) Front row center is my Grandma and Grandpa Law. Grandma, the former Elsie Reichert, was apparently of the tribe of tribe of Judah, but it's likely she never knew that as her parents never told her. Once the family arrived in America (when Elsie was five years old) they chose to hide their ethnic background. So my family's bloodline was unknown until uncovered by my mother and her sister, my Aunt Rose, who were both assiduous genealogists.<br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibPZc-N7oK0ed_41QCKpQbfmO4NYUKUCcxW1ENBxLoLQeRm8xp3YCGsFhEOMH2ffZN8uuX43eRoEO8sxzJkDrhDXL7o7re03y-Q1n8OHVoXO9vnPDEgcIk9G50Buy_xjc2KBoIVbWB_u1O6DhbCKtR89I0EDPfvuKOrwai608LgE9FnzrTp0oItH86Lw=s3292" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2559" data-original-width="3292" height="498" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibPZc-N7oK0ed_41QCKpQbfmO4NYUKUCcxW1ENBxLoLQeRm8xp3YCGsFhEOMH2ffZN8uuX43eRoEO8sxzJkDrhDXL7o7re03y-Q1n8OHVoXO9vnPDEgcIk9G50Buy_xjc2KBoIVbWB_u1O6DhbCKtR89I0EDPfvuKOrwai608LgE9FnzrTp0oItH86Lw=w640-h498" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Funny, they don't <i>look</i> Jewish. (Oh wait...yes, they do.)<br /><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>There in the middle next to Grandma is her husband Ray Law, descended from Charles Law, one of the many handcart pioneers from England who crossed the plains to Utah. With Charles were his wife and his wife's four sisters, the youngest of whom was nine years old at the time. Upon arrival in Utah, as each sister came of age, Charles would take her as his plural wife until all four sisters were literally his first wife's "sister wives." <br /><br />That awkward arrangement may be the reason my mother never told us kids we came from polygamous stock. By the time I was in high school, Mom started traveling to Utah from our home in Anaheim to attend large family reunions and come back telling me about the many "cousins" I had, which was strange because I knew the handful of relatives quite well. But these were people I had never heard of , with last names that didn't match any of my mothers OR my father's sides of the family. I had always known I was descended from pioneer Charles Law, but was never told he was a polygamist or how many branches there were to that family tree. (Dad's family was not LDS; he had a father, a mother, and one brother.) Dad's brother Lloyd sired my only cousins on the Waterman side (three of them) and I knew them very well. That small family, along with my own parents and siblings, made up the entire Waterman clan on my Dad's side. So it was a mystery how I suddenly had hundreds of relations in Utah I never heard of before. I didn't know my great-great-great Charles Law had been a polygamist until I learned it from my cousin Dennis Law just a few years ago, shortly before Dennis died. <br /><br />So I grew up completely unaware of two realities: I'm secretly descended from polygamists on my grandfather's side,<i> </i>and<i> </i>I'm descended from Jews on my Grandma's. My Grandpa's surname, "Law" also hides a secret. When some members of the Scottish Clan McLaren moved South to settle in England centuries earlier, they hid their Scottish ancestry by abandoning the name "McClaren," adopting instead the more British-sounding surname "Law." <br /><br />Now here's the kicker: since Grandpa Law's ancestors are Scottish, according to some scholars his bloodline likely contains DNA from the tribe of Judah.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi_M6WuiXy6DHHyK-XjKOGR7zF0DSGCF1m7cDR5YC4q-bhPX51GF-1rtobVWfy4BAQ8YY2_vfjVF2fIsY9gqVF8Fcz9Fn7ec0CnRwy1NjbqEKAwV4bmICTeEwDqv8jXJde1kEmkLvVB-GUGGUepe_Ol0jXCYsRzgAmMTIFU15e4bA7lVIT5XBriVigLiA=s500" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="350" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi_M6WuiXy6DHHyK-XjKOGR7zF0DSGCF1m7cDR5YC4q-bhPX51GF-1rtobVWfy4BAQ8YY2_vfjVF2fIsY9gqVF8Fcz9Fn7ec0CnRwy1NjbqEKAwV4bmICTeEwDqv8jXJde1kEmkLvVB-GUGGUepe_Ol0jXCYsRzgAmMTIFU15e4bA7lVIT5XBriVigLiA=s320" width="224" /></a></div><br />But...to further muddy things up, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica and other authoritative sources, many scholars would argue that Jews of Eastern European descent are not strictly Jews per se; that is, they were not distinctively Hebrews descended from Abraham through Judah, but represent a class of Middle Easterners who were converted to Judaism around the 10th century AD. So ultimately I may be an <b><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full" target="_blank">Ashkenazi Jew</a></b> like most American Jews whose Yiddish-speaking ancestors also came through Ellis Island, and not a pure descendant of Jacob's son Judah. <br /><br />On the other hand, there appears to have been sufficient intermarrying between the tribe of Judah and those Jewish converts who later emigrated to Poland, Russia, Germany, Lithuania, etc, to allow their descendants to be considered Judahites by blood. So that's what I'm claiming. Because, after all, I do <i>look</i> Jewish (especially when I'm wearing glasses). But I'm equally proud to be descended from Ephraim as well. (My dad's ancestors are from England, and Anglo-Saxon stock is considered mostly Ephraim with perhaps a touch of Dan by way of the Nordic tribes.)<br /><br />All that having been said, I'm a Reichert on my mother's side, and proud to be not-so-distantly related to <a href="https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=San_Francisco_Jewish_Elite:_America%27s_Leading_Anti-Zionists" target="_blank"><b>Rabbi Irving Reichert</b></a><b>,</b> who in his day famously opposed the creation of a "Jewish State" which he warned would result in the corruption of the Jewish religion. He was right, and quite a number of orthodox Jews in Israel today continue to insist that God will not bless a nation that believes it has the divine right to exact violence upon its neighbors. So in that respect, although I am a devout Mormon by way of my religious beliefs, I also claim the label of orthodox Jew in the best sense of the meaning. I stand firmly with these guys:<div><div><br /></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FKplabTRuak" width="320" youtube-src-id="FKplabTRuak"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><br />Moving on, here's the Trailer for my favorite movie of all time:<i><br /><br /></i><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UWV-XAaCIt8" width="320" youtube-src-id="UWV-XAaCIt8"></iframe></div>At twelve years old, I had no clue who John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart were. But I was caught up in the story, and it affected me like no movie had before. (I saw Old Yeller when I was seven, and I recall it was kinda sad that the dog died, but <i><b>The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance </b></i>was the first film I remember actually having a deep emotional impact on me, which I suppose was because I was old enough to understand the story.) If you have never seen this film, well, now you have your homework assignment. It's the best.<br /><br />Just as an aside (and this was not touched on in the interview above), I'd have to say my second favorite film of all time would have to be the romantic comedy <b><i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkvsn3d4XA" target="_blank">Return to Me</a></i></b>. (Yes, I'm in touch with my feminine side and really dig romantic comedies.) <br /><br />I base my favorites on the following criteria: no matter how many times I have seen a film I like, if I happen to walk into a room while that films is playing, if I sit down and end up watching that film to the end even though I never intended to, that film goes onto my mental list of favorites. (Another example of that kind of film I know a lot of people would agree with: <i><b>Galaxy Quest</b></i>). <b><i>Return to Me</i> </b>is so perfectly executed that if I was teaching a class on film, <i><b>Return to Me</b> </i>would be the example I would hold up as having an absolutely perfect script, perfect pacing, perfect cast, and perfect performances all around. If you haven't seen it, do yourself a big favor. <br /><br />As I mentioned in the interview, as a kid, I wanted to <i>be</i> Jerry Lewis, but as I got older I found his films insufferable. A few weeks ago Connie and I sat down to watch <i><b>Cinderfella</b></i>, and it was bloody awful. Even our ten-year-old grandson begged us to take out the DVD and choose another. And that film was made <i>before</i> Lewis began directing his own movies, which were all much, much worse. The man was an certifiable narcissist who thought everything he did was hilarious, and in every scene, the camera stays on him long after the gag has ceased to be funny -if it ever <i>was</i> funny, which it almost never was.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PPD7KTmemHc" width="320" youtube-src-id="PPD7KTmemHc"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Can you imagine sitting through 91 minutes of bits like <i>this</i>?<br /><br /></div>Want more? <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzO0FoM79us" target="_blank"><b>Click here for 7 awkward moments with Jerry Lewis</b> </a>when he's simply being himself.<br /><br />Okay, let's get into some of the links I discussed with Steve:<br /><br /><b><i>"The Religion of the Fathers"</i></b> is where Denver Snuffer puts the whole Book of Abraham controversy to rest. Below is a video of the talk itself, but if you're like me you'll want it in book form because it's chockfull of sources and citations. You can find it at Amazon and Barnes & Noble, but but <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/religion-of-the-fathers-denver-c-snuffer/1139895970?ean=9781951168766" target="_blank">the epub "Nook" format is the best price for only $2.99.</a><b><br /></b><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z0GEpPeHwdc" width="320" youtube-src-id="z0GEpPeHwdc"></iframe></div><br /><div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/05/" target="_blank"><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;">"Vengeance and the Latter-Day Saints"</span></i></b></a> is a piece I posted wherein I show how Church leaders have completely missed what all those war chapters in the Book of Mormon were really about. Indeed, they have turned those teachings completely upside down so that now members are told they mean the opposite of what the ancient prophets actually taught. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/01/who-died-and-made-him-president.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: medium;">"Who Died and Made HIM President?"</span></a></i></b> was written just after Russell Nelson was installed as the new Church president following the death of Thomas Monson. In it you'll see how the Lord had nothing whatsoever to do with the installation of Nelson to that position, and how all the claims of the current leaders completely contradict what Jesus Himself actually told us was how these things were to be done. <br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/02/have-you-voted-for-new-church-president.html" target="_blank">"Have You Voted For The New Church President Yet?"</a></i></b> A</span> companion piece to the the one above, and shows how Latter-day Saints were tricked into sustaining a man who had not even been ordained at the time, and still never has been to this day.<br /><br />Here's a link to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine-Development-Theology/dp/1589585062/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LFOK38E3HVFV&keywords=this+is+my+doctrine+charles+harrell&qid=1645252978&s=books&sprefix=this+is+my+doctrine+%2Cstripbooks%2C137&sr=1-1" target="_blank"><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;">"This is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology"</span></i></b></a> by Charles Harrell. <br /><br />And here's a link to <span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Obscure-Mormon-Doctrine-Uncommon-Latter-day-ebook/dp/B097YX7WVX/ref=sr_1_2?crid=23MYEL4LAXLRD&keywords=obscure+mormon+doctrine&qid=1645253120&s=books&sprefix=obscure+mormon+doctrine%2Cstripbooks%2C120&sr=1-2" target="_blank">"Obscure Mormon Doctrine: Uncommon Beliefs of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"</a></i></b> </span>by Chris Jensen. <br /><br />Both books are extremely helpful in separating true doctrine (that which comes from Christ through his chosen servants) from things we've been brought up to believe simply because we have been taught them. I highly recommend them both. And you can see Steve Pynakker's interview on the Mormon Book Reviews Podcast here:<br /><br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0b0N6NQn8bs" width="320" youtube-src-id="0b0N6NQn8bs"></iframe></div><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/03/evil-speaking-of-lords-anointed.html" target="_blank"><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;">"Evil Speaking of the Lord's Anointed"</span></i></b></a> is where you'll find the Harold B. Lee Story as well as scads of other info you're sure to find of value. This is one of my personal favorites.<br /><br /><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/02/misquoting-god.html" target="_blank">"Misquoting God"</a></span></i></b> is where you'll find McKay Platt's correction on the commonly held belief that the LDS Church is the "true" church. Jesus said no such thing, and McKay walks us step by step through what the Lord was really saying and how all this time we've been getting it wrong. <br /><br />Baptist preacher Lynn Ridenhour exclaims <b>"The Book of Mormon: How Baptist Can You Get?"</b><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/33FfO6ZFzgw" width="320" youtube-src-id="33FfO6ZFzgw"></iframe></div><br />And here's a link to Ridenhour's book, <b><i><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Share-Book-Mormon-Baptist/dp/1944200460" target="_blank">"How To Share The Book of Mormon With a Baptist."</a></span></i></b><div><br />Twice during the interview with Steve I struggled to recall the name of a certain general authority who has now gone on to meet his maker, and I do not envy his having to face the Lord. Boyd K. Packer. That's the guy whose name I couldn't recall: Boyd K. Packer. He's the one (unless I'm still mistaken) who taught that the baptism of fire comes incrementally over time. So it's clear he never experienced the baptism of fire. Which he <i>should</i> have, seeing as he was a bloomin' apostle, for cryin' out loud!<br /><br />Here's a video of the lackluster Gordon Hinckley leading the congregation in a pathetic attempt at giving the Hosannah Shout:<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/waRS5DXh3F0" width="320" youtube-src-id="waRS5DXh3F0"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Leaving One Important Question Unanswered</span></b><br />One last thing: Because I was all over the map with my answers to Steve in the podcast, I forgot to provide the answer to a vital question he asked, which was this: "If I were to join your organization would I be required to be baptized?"<br /><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhqh14Ble6rm7pK2UhomledCL0JoOsWohsqGoPQeUogdUHhnv1HWb-eLiMuar12szJBqoU9muwTZFo949HCNVbKqaGJO2s0pD_hYpFs5zK3lbAZarfVh5munWGz8VVLOPW78CjeUs2fhvd2uaDdsV6-kJGNeukswDCcqxjTvfcIWu3-unc5AN4hiETV9g=s500" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="336" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhqh14Ble6rm7pK2UhomledCL0JoOsWohsqGoPQeUogdUHhnv1HWb-eLiMuar12szJBqoU9muwTZFo949HCNVbKqaGJO2s0pD_hYpFs5zK3lbAZarfVh5munWGz8VVLOPW78CjeUs2fhvd2uaDdsV6-kJGNeukswDCcqxjTvfcIWu3-unc5AN4hiETV9g=s320" width="215" /></a></div><br />I responded correctly that we don't have any sort of "organization" but I did not address the question of baptism, which is something we Mormons incorrectly assume is synonymous with "joining the church." We have all been raised to believe that when a person comes to accept the Book of Mormon, he is expected to align himself with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that the act of baptism is the process of initiation by which he becomes a member of that church. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, it is essential that all believers in Christ be baptized. Baptism is essential, but it has nothing to do with aligning yourself with a particular religious denomination. Let me repeat that: <i>baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with aligning yourself with a particular religious denomination.</i> Mormons deserve to change their thinking on this, because we were wrong to assume baptism means anything other than what it is. To cite just a small portion from Charles Harrell's previously referenced book, <br /><blockquote>"Scholars note that baptism was initially performed by John the Baptist and Jesus's disciples as a cleansing rite to prepare them for the coming kingdom of God, <i>which was perceptually distinct from the Church</i>." (<b><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine-Development-Theology/dp/1589585062/ref=sr_1_1?crid=358BFRJ1L78M&keywords=this+is+my+doctrine+harrell&qid=1645290684&s=books&sprefix=this+is+my+doctrined+harrell%2Cstripbooks%2C128&sr=1-1" target="_blank">"This is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology.</a>")</i></b></blockquote><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/01/" target="_blank">As I've written in a previous post,</a></b> it appears that equating baptism with joining our particular denomination is something we picked up in the 19th century from the protestants, as it was not an issue in the primitive Christian church. As LDS religion scholar Kevin L. Barney explains, "[Baptism's] full significance as a rite marking formal initiation into the church is a later Christian innovation." (Quoted in Harrell, ibid.) In other words, if a person came to Christ through the efforts of Methodists, he tended to be baptized by Methodists and naturally joined with the Methodists after being baptized. If he was converted and baptized by Presbyterians, he tended to become a Presbyterian. Thus, when candidates are converted by Latter-day Saints and baptized by Latter-day Saints, they usually end up joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. <br /><br />But the ordinance of baptism is a separate thing from membership in any Church, as evidenced by the confirmation process which is a separate ordinance that often isn't even performed until the following Sunday. When you are confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, <i>that</i> is when you become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You were not "baptized into the Church," as your baptism is not about joining this church or any other.<br /><br /><br />And finally, here is the link to <b><i><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2022/02/the-constitution-of-no-authority.html" target="_blank">"The Constitution of No Authority"</a></span></i></b> at Book of Mormon Perspectives. Like I said in the podcast above, this is the stuff I would be writing if I was a lot smarter. And remember, when you're looking for that blog, you must type the exact url: www.bomperspectives.com, or you will end up somewhere in internet limbo. <br /><br />Finally, kudos to Steve Pynakker for putting up with my incessant rambling. He's a very interesting man and I'm honored to call him friend. For his sake, please make sure you click on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U32FwjNlvSk&t=140s" target="_blank"><b>the actual Youtube video</b></a> and give it a like; it helps the algorithm.<br /><br />Okay, that's it for now. See you next time. <br /><br />(If there <i>is</i> a next time.)</div><div> *****</div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-21619377893065746862022-01-23T14:32:00.037-08:002022-01-23T23:20:32.667-08:00Is The Vaccine Passport The Mark Of The Beast?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhHLxpGLZc5ocKg2FQ3cJlAXQrrSqaA-Gg_aek5UnSh-1WPhBAONNv0pPX-eXmqIzKKz7rM6aaFGDin-EAqwqWQSII3THZHxzADDhgAjl7b24YYB7V4yrFGWSl1OU_vyIkUvypUXJNV3vdTfCW7ZpF_zCFo3G9iUF8Cuu-bdZDNGMx7xKWfsAIW8rXXLQ=s1400" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1050" data-original-width="1400" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhHLxpGLZc5ocKg2FQ3cJlAXQrrSqaA-Gg_aek5UnSh-1WPhBAONNv0pPX-eXmqIzKKz7rM6aaFGDin-EAqwqWQSII3THZHxzADDhgAjl7b24YYB7V4yrFGWSl1OU_vyIkUvypUXJNV3vdTfCW7ZpF_zCFo3G9iUF8Cuu-bdZDNGMx7xKWfsAIW8rXXLQ=s320" width="320" /></a></div><b>Previously: <i><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022/01/you-can-buy-anything-in-this-world-with.html" target="_blank">You Can Buy Anything In This World With Money</a></i></b><p></p><p>So, with governments increasingly calling for proof of vaccination before citizens can function freely in society, the question naturally arises: "Does the vaccine passport represent the precursor to the mark of the beast as prophesied in the Revelation of John?"<br /><br />Well, it sure looks like it to me. Of course, to be certain, it would help to have a clear definition of who or what the "beast" of Revelation is, and for that, we would want to see what Joseph Smith had to say. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the one time the prophet addressed the topic, the scribes seem to have muddied things up, which I will address in more detail below in case anyone's interested in that digression. For now, though, let's look at the pertinent parts of what John says in Revelation 16-17:<br /></p><blockquote>"And he [the beast, who spoke as a dragon, i.e. Satan] causeth all...to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads, and that no man might buy or sell, save he had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."</blockquote><p>Well, we know what the governments of the world are wanting to impose on the people, because they are no longer making a secret of it. What they <i>want</i> is to require all people to provide proof of Covid vaccinations before they can travel, shop, dine, work, or even go outside. They have proposed, and in many cases implemented, a document proving the bearers obedient to their overlords. <br /><br />And since we already have the technology to insert teeny-tiny injectable chips under a person's skin, it was only a matter of time before that facet of the prophecy came to pass. After all, why lug around one more card in your wallet when you can keep it inside you forever and ever? <br /><br />Last week Russell Brand reported on Sweden being the first to officially introduce this "convenience":<br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2BNt-0kfic8" width="320" youtube-src-id="2BNt-0kfic8"></iframe></div> "They're Putting Covid Microchips WHERE Now?!"<br /><br />So, to answer the question I asked at the beginning of this piece: I think we might very well be headed down that slippery slope to seeing Revelation 16 and 17 fulfilled.<br /><br /><b style="font-size: large;">And Now The Good News</b><br />We often forget that prophecies of a dystopian future don't necessarily <i>have</i> to be fulfilled in our generation. Recall the hopelessly wicked city of Ninevah, which the prophet Jonah warned would be destroyed in forty days. That was an iron-clad promise from the Lord: "Yet forty days and Ninevah will be destroyed!"<br /><br />Jonah was so certain God was going to blow this mighty city sky high that he found himself a nice shade tree several miles away and sat down to watch the explosion. Yet what happened? The people of Ninevah suddenly came to their senses. They turned things around. They repented, and the city was spared. When a people finally tire of the deceptions foisted upon them by those in power, entire nations <i>can</i> repent, and when they do, God's hand is stayed, the prophesied doom postponed.<p></p><blockquote>"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2nd Chronicles 7:14)</blockquote><p>That is also an iron-clad promise from the Lord. Below is a short video showing what's happening in Sweden <i>right now </i>following the announcement by the Swedish government attempting to foist its Satanic will on the people. The populace is resisting <i>en masse</i>. Similar national awakenings are taking place in other cities throughout the world. <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b></b></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ym-Ml3VpR_c" width="320" youtube-src-id="Ym-Ml3VpR_c"></iframe></b></span></div><br /><b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D70kZDLGr4Q" target="_blank">The narrative seems to be crumbling</a> </b>as the people are finally seeing through the propaganda.<b> </b><p></p><p>We'll have to wait and see. Meanwhile, keep praying. </p><p>And remember: Courage Is Contagious.</p> *****<br /><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Addendum: Joseph Smith On The Beasts Of Revelation</b></span></p><p>There is no end to the interpretations offered by the sectarian world of the meanings of the Book of Revelation, which is why in matters this crowded with confusion, I prefer to see what our founding prophet had to say. Unfortunately, the two versions of his sermon taken down by scribes William Clayton and Willard Richards differ wildly from one another, to the point where Joseph even seems to be contradicting himself. <br /><br />I prefer, when possible, to read the words written in Joseph's journal in Joseph's own hand, which is why my first source in any controversy is to pull <a href="https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&ref=bf_s2_a1_t1_1&qi=KncaOvD6.nlVbVyvQwVOpccEq.U_1497963026_1:2:1&bq=author%3Dandrew%2520f%2E%2520ehat%253B%2520lyndon%2520w%2E%2520cook%26title%3Dwords%2520of%2520joseph%2520smith%2520the%2520contemporary%2520accounts%2520of%2520the%2520nauvoo%2520discourses%2520of%2520the%2520prophet%2520joseph%2520religious%2520studies%2520monograph" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Words of Joseph Smith</a><i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>off the shelf behind<i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>me. Sadly, that book is becoming harder to find at a reasonable price.<br /><br />You can find the prophet's teaching on the beasts of Revelation in most books that provide the prophet's teachings on various subjects <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Scriptural-Teachings-Prophet-Joseph-Smith/dp/0875796478/ref=sr_1_2?crid=ZCKU7VXZ21VM&keywords=scriptural+teachings+of+the+prophet+Joseph+Smith&qid=1642974251&sprefix=scriptural+teachings+of+the+prophet+joseph+smith%2Caps%2C137&sr=8-2" target="_blank">(<b>Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith</b></a></i> is one I keep nearby), but unfortunately this is one of those occasions when you'll have to rely on what the scribes <i>thought</i> he said, and even their words have been cleaned up by later editors and Church leaders thinking they were being helpful, to the point they often don't very well match what the scribes wrote down in their initial transcriptions. <br /><br />So in the case of Joseph's teachings on the beasts of Revelation, if you can get your hands on a copy of <b style="font-style: italic;">The Words of Joseph Smith </b>(it is now available on kindle), you can at least see the versions as transcribed by Clayton and Richards, which, as I said above, remain a somewhat muddled mess. <br /><br />I think it's helpful at this point to describe exactly how it is we know (or don't know) what Joseph Smith actually taught on a given topic, and why what we think we know may not be accurate. It's one thing to read a revelation received and written down by the prophet in his own hand; it's another to read a sermon given by him but hurriedly scribbled down by someone else. It has been estimated that Joseph Smith gave about two hundred and fifty sermons in his lifetime, but we have records of only fifty. And those fifty were taken down in what may be described as a frantic style of shorthand, often an indecipherable form of shorthand created by the individual scribe himself.<br /><br />In 1837 a better type of shorthand was invented by one Isaac Pittman in 1837, based on sounds rather than letters or words. But Pittman shorthand was not employed by any of the scribes in Nauvoo. Those men scribbled their notes as best they could as they struggled to keep up with what Joseph was saying. <br /><br />Now, by 1845 a new convert by the name of George D. Watt began reporting speeches by Brigham Young using Pittman shorthand. I should note, for those who are unaware, that the 26 volumes we refer to as <b><i>The Journal of Discourses</i></b> contain the conference talks of Brigham Young and his cohorts during the pioneer period. Joseph Smith's sermons are not found in there.<br /><br />Although Clayton and Richards neither knew nor used the Pittman method, understanding the way Pittman shorthand worked gives us a clue as to how unreliable most records could be when taken down in whatever methods earlier Church scribes transcribed Joseph's sermons. Here is LaJean Purcell Carruth, historian with the Church History Library, who happens to be quite the expert on Pittman shorthand as it was used to transcribe Brigham Young's sermons:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"This relatively new shorthand method used straight and curved lines, circles, and other marks to represent the <i>sounds</i> of words spoken, and it allowed skilled reporters to quickly record a speaker’s words verbatim. [Watt's] skills soon found use: he began teaching classes on shorthand, and in April 1845 he began reporting speeches given in Church conferences, the proceedings of the Carthage trial, and other meetings."</p></blockquote><p>Carruth continues: </p><blockquote>"When I began transcribing the original shorthand of sermons that were published in the Journal of Discourses, I compared the original shorthand records to the published versions; it was obvious that Watt and other shorthand reporters significantly changed the words of early Church leaders during the transcription process. (It is true that editors made some additional alterations; however, comparing the shorthand and extant longhand transcripts of Watt and others shows that most alterations between the shorthand and published text were made by the reporters themselves.) In other words, the sermons published in the Journal of Discourses and in the Deseret News often differ significantly from what speakers actually said according to the original shorthand record. Examples of these differences will be included in parts two and three. <br /><br />"I am frequently asked why Watt, Long, Evans, and others altered their shorthand as they did. In short, we don’t fully know. Ideas of historical accuracy were very different in the 19th century than they are now, and people altered records far more casually than we would today, with shorthand writers often making changes as they transcribed. The shorthand reporters themselves left no explanation, so we must rely on their original longhand transcriptions to give us some information. In most cases, we still do not know what the transcribers’ motives were for their changes, but we can at least see what changes were made.<br /><br />For example, when we compare Watt’s shorthand to his longhand transcripts (and the resulting publication in the Journal of Discourses), it is clear that Watt made significant changes as he transcribed. He inserted words, phrases, and even extensive passages into his longhand that do not have any relation to the shorthand itself; these inserted passages’ style is often different from the style of the speaker he was transcribing. Also, comparing the shorthand transcripts and the Journal of Discourses shows that many cited scriptures were editorial additions, with no mention in the original shorthand itself. Changes to Brigham Young’s sermons thus changed the representation of his personality, not to mention his prophetic guidance." (LaJean Purcell Carruth, <b><a href="https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/preached-versus-published-part-1-of-3?lang=eng" target="_blank">Preached vs Published: Shorthand Record Discrepancies, Part One</a></b>)</blockquote><b><span style="font-size: medium;">So What Went South With Joseph's Transcripts? </span></b><div>As Lajean Carruth mentions above, "Ideas of historical accuracy were very different in the 19th century than they are now," and this is something I wrote about at length in my post <i style="font-weight: bold;">Why Mormon History Is Not What They Say. </i>It wasn't just Mormons who fudged their own history; up until the early part of the 20th century <i>all</i> historians had no problem simply making things up if they felt it was faith promoting or instilled good feelings. So we shouldn't be surprised to find early Mormon scribes punching things up a bit, especially when they've taken their notes home to try and decipher them and can't quite recall what had been said several hours before. <br /><br />And so here we are at April Conference of 1842. The problem with trying to understand Joseph Smith's explication of the Book of Revelation is that in the first place, he wasn't really that keen on talking about it. He only addressed the issue because there had been disputations among the elders as to the meaning of the beasts. These guys had been mostly arguing that the beasts John wrote about in the Book of Revelation were similar to the beasts from Daniel's vision. The Elders would argue about whether the beasts John spoke of had anything to do with Nebuchadnezzar or Constantine or even Napoleon, so Joseph said they had nothing to do with anything in the past, or in the present -their present- for that matter. These beasts were entirely different from Daniel's vision, the prophet said. They were "yet set in futurity" and the Elders at that time needn't concern themselves with them.<br /><br />Of course, that doesn't mean we in the 21st century should ignore the signs that we may be approaching the last days. At any rate, at one point, Joseph went off on a tangent, as he was wont to do, declaring that beasts by the thousands resided in heaven, intelligent beasts who could think and communicate with the angels. This resulted in either Clayton or Richards (or both; I've long since lost track of who said what) transcribing the sermon in a way that has Joseph Smith saying the beasts of Revelation resided in heaven and that's where those beasts came from. That, of course, is not true, as John is very clear that the beasts were sent by Satan. It seems apparent that when Joseph digressed onto that little side discussion about beasts in heaven, he was talking about resurrected animals, but Clayton and Richards were having trouble keeping up with where Joseph was going with this whole thing.<br /><br />To be fair, Willard Richards points out that the wind was quite fierce at the time this sermon was being given, and Joseph said his lungs were so affected that he could barely continue speaking. So I have to kind of feel bad for these guys struggling to hear past the whistling of the wind to grasp what it was the prophet was saying on this very complicated topic while at the same time trying to keep their notes from blowing away. <br /><br />Anyhow, all this is by way of explaining that, in my view, pertinent to understanding what the mark of the beast is, or will be, it is probably a good idea to have a clue who or what those beasts represent. Clayton or Richards pretty much have Joseph claiming that the beasts were sent from heaven. But a reading of John's Revelation tells us, among other things, that the beasts represent the corrupt and debased kingdoms of this world operating under the control of Satan, which I interpret to mean modern governments. That will have to satisfy me for now. Most of us have heard the quote from Joseph Smith to the effect that "the Book of Revelation is one of the plainest books God caused to be created." This is the very sermon wherein he made that claim, and I'm inclined to the view that Joseph was making a little joke for the benefit of his audience, and the humor simply didn't translate. </div><div><br /></div><div> *****<br /><br /><br /><i style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><u>Notes & Asides</u></i><br />Of late, here at the end of my posts, I have made mention of the blogs of a couple of close friends whose writing has motivated me to really think about things that sometimes had not occurred to me. Both have written further since the last plug I gave them, so I'm going to mention them again:<br /><br />I just spoke on the phone with the proprietor of <b>Latter Day Truths,</b> and he has uncovered a doctrine I had not heard of before. Apparently Apostle Mark E. Peterson announced several years ago that "Salvation Comes Only Through the Church." This completely unsupported falsehood was preached in conference, established as doctrine, and published in the Ensign Magazine. Seems to me that would eliminate the need for a Savior, but I guess our leaders know better than me about such things. Watch for this piece to be published this afternoon at <b><a href="http://LDTruths.Blogspot.com" target="_blank">LDTruths.Blogspot.com</a><br /></b><br /><b>Mormon Perspectives</b> continues to provide thought-provoking pieces, and he's incredibly prolific. Click here for <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2022/01/the-art-of-propaganda-and-rape-of-mind.html" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Art Of Propaganda And The Rape Of The Mind.</a><br /><br />I've just learned that Denver Snuffer has a short post as of just this morning and it is somewhat related to this one. I haven't read it yet because I want to get this one up first, but the title is <a href="https://denversnuffer.com/2022/01/awaiting-results/" target="_blank"><b>Awaiting Results...</b></a><br /><br />And finally, if you haven't yet seen the documentary <b><a href="https://whokilledjosephsmith.com/" target="_blank">"Who Killed Joseph Smith?"</a> </b>It's free to watch and it's waiting for you so click on the link. And if you want to see what Denver thought of the film, <a href="https://denversnuffer.com/2022/01/why-was-joseph-killed/" target="_blank"><b>CLICK HERE.</b></a><br /><br />It's not my intention to play favorites, so if <i>you</i> happen to blog on topics of interest to Mormons and you'd like a mention, or if you have come across something you feel might be of interest to my readers here, please let us all know in the comment section and I'll give it a mention next time and/or the next. I'll try and include two or three links each time I post here.<br /><br />In the meantime, way down at the bottom of the right hand page here is a blogroll that I understand is automatically kept current by the algorithm. I never get around to looking myself, and I'm aware that some of those blogs listed may be dormant or extinct, but it would be a good thing to check out now and then if you're interested in all things Mormondom. <br /><br /><p></p></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-12755801446156794102022-01-02T11:03:00.020-08:002022-01-02T22:49:17.655-08:00"You Can Buy Anything In This World With Money"<blockquote><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEihHtsSNO4eXxGTkr_FaCRJ2DZFGbgAm9n8R9SaQRzpydjMvFkV3b3jDEBrBj9Ov6640PPPIKmyQA2icat-fx0p5tBG2_cI9q72XaOuyefUVFHYff8LHpOXvl2eYBAcTz_tMcx8JOzW0yDm-DVtTRoPGhD5wrx-mHzetkYldw82slh3Bwxz8bA24Hi1mg=s225" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEihHtsSNO4eXxGTkr_FaCRJ2DZFGbgAm9n8R9SaQRzpydjMvFkV3b3jDEBrBj9Ov6640PPPIKmyQA2icat-fx0p5tBG2_cI9q72XaOuyefUVFHYff8LHpOXvl2eYBAcTz_tMcx8JOzW0yDm-DVtTRoPGhD5wrx-mHzetkYldw82slh3Bwxz8bA24Hi1mg=w320-h320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr></tbody></table><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/12/dont-look-here-look-over-there.html" target="_blank"><i>Previously:</i> Don't Look Here, Look Over There<br /></a></b></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/12/dont-look-here-look-over-there.html" target="_blank"></a></b>About a year ago I received a message from a long-time reader who lamented the direction he felt this blog was taking. He told me he liked it better when I was writing about religion instead of politics.<br /><br />I responded that I <i>am</i> writing about religion. Always have. The scriptures caution us to be ever alert as to how prophecies are being fulfilled, and if there was ever a time when scriptural prophecies are coming to pass, that time is right now. They're flooding in. How, I wonder, should we expect to see God's predictions manifest if not in the spheres of culture and politics? <i>That</i> is where we will see God's prophecies come to pass. That's why I pay attention to what is going on in the culture at large, and that's why I write about what I see here, on a blog in which I discuss my religion.</blockquote><blockquote>Some years ago I read an article that made the astonishing claim that the Bible deals with religion only about 29 percent of the time. The other 71 percent is concerned with government. That statistic seemed unlikely to me at first, until, as I immersed myself in the bible, I came to realize that all the ancient prophets spent most of their time railing against rulers and warning the people they should learn to govern themselves and not rely on people who claim authority to rule over them.<br /><br />I'd venture to guess the Book of Mormon devotes even more space to warning us about government overreach. And, of course, it was written for <i>us</i>, to come forth in <i>our </i>day. So we ought to be paying very close attention to the shenanigans people holding political power are constantly trying to con us with. (And that goes double for those in the shadows who are pulling the strings of the politicians.) </blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>A Blast From The Past </b></span></p><p>Please indulge me for a moment while I quote from <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2016/05/our-long-national-nightmare-continues.html" target="_blank">one of my earlier blog posts</a>.</b> In this piece, written five years ago, I was discussing why politics cannot save us, and how, over one hundred years ago, Americans lost control of their own government because they were not paying attention to what their scriptures were warning them against: </p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote>Money buys influence. Everybody knows that. But few truly understand the extent to which the government of the people has been completely compromised by filthy lucre. Once you can convince a people that their president is in charge of the country -that he is, in essence, their king- it's a simple matter for those with endless financial resources to completely control the one man at the top. Author Nomi Prins describes how the corruption goes all the way back to the mid 1800's:</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p></p><blockquote>"The domestic power game emanated from the railways, an industry cultivated by the country's richest barons." (All The President's Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power, pg 2)</blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p></p><blockquote>Later manufacturing giants such as J.P. Morgan, who personally owned 70 percent of the steel industry, and John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil, colluded with other titans of industry such as International Harvester, General Electric, and others as they came to the collective realization that merely making money wasn't everything. The real power was not in manufacturing goods, but in manufacturing "influence capital;" that is, using money to control political outcomes. These wealthy barons soon shifted from making products to making money. They dropped the manufacturing game and focused on becoming bankers. Really, <i>really</i> powerful bankers. "By the end of the nineteenth century," writes Prins, "the titans of banking were replacing the titans of industry as the beacons of economic supremacy in the United States. </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote> "Eventually, politicians discovered that J.P. Morgan's bank held more money and gold than the entire U.S. Treasury. As the government's need for money became more critical, the men who controlled the money became more powerful. And in 1910, the richest men in America had themselves a brilliant idea: "why don't we just run the whole country ourselves?"</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p></p><blockquote>These men <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k">combined together in secret</a> </b>to hammer out a plan that in some respects resembled the ancient practice of <a href="http://www.taxworld.org/History/tax_farming.htm"><b>"Tax Farming,"</b></a> except their modern version was far more nuanced and sophisticated. It was also nearly impossible to detect that private financiers were the ones now pulling the government's strings. The way tax farming worked in ancient times was like this: when a king found he needed vast amounts of money that he did not have, he would hire outsiders who would "farm" money off the king's subjects, shaking the subjects down in return for a cut of the collections. </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>This year it is estimated that the IR$ will bring in 3.3 TRILLION dollars in collections, and all of it goes directly into the pockets of the families of the six banking titans who originally concocted the scheme. <i><b>None of your tax money actually goes to the government. </b></i></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Don't believe me? Look at who endorsed the back of that check you sent to the IRS last year. It says "Pay to any branch of the Federal Reserve Bank in payment for obligations incurred by the U.S. government." </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>In other words, your hard earned cash is used to pay off the debts owed on money your government has already spent, and it's paid to those wealthy private families. You have been listed as collateral for the government's debt. You are nothing but a crop awaiting the farmer's sickle. <b>(<a href="http://%28see%20modeleski%2C%20the%20federal%20zone%2C%20chapter%208%29/">See Mitch Modeleski, The Federal Zone, Chapter 8</a>) </b></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Remember when the federal government "bailed out" the big banks following the crash of 2008? Most Americans whose homes plummeted in value thought that bailout would somehow benefit them, that they would get at least some relief from their rising mortgage payments. Then remember what a shock it was when the bankers took that 700 billion dollars of government money and <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hard-times-but-big-wall-street-bonuses/"><b>awarded it all to themselves</b></a> as performance bonuses? </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Giving away all that money to the already rich did not sit well with most Americans, who could not understand why their representatives would act against the people's clear wishes. Well, now you know why. Your representatives are owned. As we learned years ago from the Wizard of Id, "He who owns the gold makes the rules." Our representatives in congress had no choice but to do the bidding of their true masters. </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>And here's the amazing part: The government did not have seven billion dollars to fork over to those banks. It first had to borrow the money from some of the same bankers they were handing it over to, which meant the bankers received that money twice. First they loaned 7 billion dollars to the U.S. Treasury, then the Treasury handed the money over to the bankers and their friends, and finally they got the money paid back to them that they loaned to the government so the government could give them all that money. These guys are brilliant. Devilishly brilliant. </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOjdKDi7WdG_uUZR9imkm2VP2XcYw7OEf3cID58wsIaxCSMk_Cl3R9jgPAtXO6lKS3R041vGeDBa__lluCkcKaI_ylVFd1RAm8PMFdx55IJnMpgJTxBS_QmNG9k17Ac-8wawrdLEvSHIfyeT4xTz5lxDFeadxcWFCXLhoEJ1-oQdQ_nnOBSjceMiINJw=s350" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="230" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOjdKDi7WdG_uUZR9imkm2VP2XcYw7OEf3cID58wsIaxCSMk_Cl3R9jgPAtXO6lKS3R041vGeDBa__lluCkcKaI_ylVFd1RAm8PMFdx55IJnMpgJTxBS_QmNG9k17Ac-8wawrdLEvSHIfyeT4xTz5lxDFeadxcWFCXLhoEJ1-oQdQ_nnOBSjceMiINJw=w131-h200" width="131" /></a></div><blockquote>"At the dawn of the Twentieth Century, the powerful "Big Six" bankers used a major bank panic to help make the case for the establishment of the Federal Reserve...Over the decades, the faces at the helm of America's two poles of power changed, but the aspirations of the unelected financial leaders coalesced with the goals of the elected leaders -occasionally to the benefit of the U.S. population, often to its detriment." (Nomi Prins, <a href="http://smile.amazon.com/All-Presidents-Bankers-Alliances-American/dp/1568584792/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462038473&sr=1-1&keywords=all+the+president%27s+bankers"><b>All The President's Bankers:The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power,</b> </a>pg 393-394)</blockquote></blockquote><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">It's Going To Get A Whole Lot Worse</span></b> </p><p>What I wrote about above was all put in motion over a hundred years ago, but you're still not supposed to notice how you're being skinned and enslaved. The ruling class is doing all it can to convince you this is just some silly "conspiracy theory" so you won't look into it. But this information is all factual and easily verifiable. And since the Book of Mormon warns us that in our day men would <b><a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/secret-combinations?lang=eng" target="_blank">combine together in secret</a></b> against the people, we would be remiss if we failed to notice when these scriptures are being fulfilled. The easiest way to allow these secret combinations to "get above us" is to allow their minions to ridicule us as "conspiracy theorists" just because we happen to notice that the warnings in <b><a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/ether/8?lang=eng" target="_blank">Ether Chapter 8</a></b> are being manifest before our very eyes.<br /><br />Today, the super-wealthy descendants who inherited billions from those who first put this plan into effect in 1913 have perfected the formula, and their hope now is not only to rule America, but to completely dominate the planet by the year 2030. Will they succeed? Who knows? But to me that's not the important question. What concerns me right now is the damage they are doing in the process of working toward that goal. No matter what happens from this day forward, you, and everyone you love, will be seriously hurt within the coming months. It's unavoidable at this point. The massively increasing inflation alone (which so far we have had only the tiniest little taste of) will turn out to be more than most of us will be able to endure, especially combined with the whipsaw period of recession/depression that will follow. Many people will die. Those who live through it will suffer serious harm. Sadly, these are tribulations we will not be able to escape. <br /><br />Many books have been published that lay out the goals of these insidious insiders in their own words, so we are well beyond speculation here. You can also find academic papers full of admissions and confessions by these very criminals that very few regular people have bothered to read. <br /><br />For the sake of brevity, and for those unaware of the evil that is being planned for you, I'm providing a video I've come across recently that lays it all out inside of an hour. I don't know who this guy is who is presenting this, but he's done a very good job of keeping it concise and factual. Here you'll find, in their own words, admissions and confessions by those who wish to rule over you, how they have accomplished their goals so far, and precisely how, in our lifetime, they intend to tighten the noose completely. Whether they succeed on the timeline they have set, is probably up to us. <br /><br />For reasons that will soon be apparent, you will not find this video on YouTube. I hope you'll share it with everyone you know: <br /><br /></p><p>
</p><center><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="rumble" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://rumble.com/embed/vklfaf/?pub=4" width="640"></iframe></center>
<p></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">If you have trouble seeing the video, go to <a href="https://rumble.com/vn7lf5-monopoly-who-owns-the-world-must-see.html" target="_blank">THIS LINK</a> on Rumble.</span></b></p><p> *****</p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><u style="font-weight: bold;">Notes & Asides</u><br />As discussed on this site <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/10/lets-talk-about-conspiracies.html" target="_blank"><b>last October,</b></a> there's nothing new under the sun when it comes to men combining in secret attempting to enslave the masses to their will. The four-part series you'll find at <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/" target="_blank"><b>Book of Mormon Perspectives</b></a> regarding <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2021/11/mystery-babylon-into-abyss.html" target="_blank"><b>Mystery Babylon</b></a> demonstrates that, as the scriptures teach us, Lucifer is and always has been behind conspiracies that have existed among all nations going back to ancient times. The difference is that today, those conspiracists are operating openly, and openly announcing their plans at the same time they are ridiculing and dismissing anyone who dares to repeat what they themselves have said. <br />These are strange times indeed.<br /><br />And speaking of: just this morning you will find on the Book of Mormon Perspectives blog a new post proving that the so-called Corona "Virus" is, indeed, a myth. <a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2022/01/the-cult-of-germ.html" target="_blank"><b>Click Here.</b></a><br /><br /><b>Latter Day Truths Strikes Again</b><br />I can't imagine why any young person would want to go on a mission at this time. LDTruths's blog from two days ago reports that out of 588 missionaries now in the MTC, 91 have come down sick with the so-called Coronavirus. All 588, of course, have been vaccinated, which gives the lie to Russell Nelson's claim that the vaccine has been proven "safe and effective." "Safe"? Well, I guess the jury is still out on those 91 unwitting ministers of the gospel, since we don't yet know how badly they've been damaged yet. But "effective"? Well, I should smile. If it was effective, as Nelson assures us, why have these kids succumbed to the illness the vaccine is supposed to be effective in preventing?<br /><br />By the way, in case you've forgotten, that regarding the punishements to come, the Lord announced that "upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth. First among you, who have professed to know my name but have not known me but have blasphemed against me."<br /><br />That sounds very much to me like it describes the First Presidency of the LDS Church as currently constituted, since they did not consult the Lord before officially encouraging the Saints to take the vaccine. Too bad a bunch of innocent missionaries have to suffer for the sins of the leaders, but I guess that's what comes of trusting in the arm of flesh while ignoring the words of God Himself. The post is entitled <a href="https://ldtruths.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-bold-claim-opening-verses-of-upon-my.html" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">"The Opening Verses of 'Upon My House' Are Now Underway"</a> Check it out and see what you think.</span></p><blockquote><p></p></blockquote>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-61196478730031569752021-12-12T15:16:00.005-08:002021-12-12T23:19:13.880-08:00Don't Look Here, Look Over There<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgRjSWaUyx2SWcK7dDKomJU8BIXR0_fgZdmw7msS1Y7GAd3xW3FC0OH3MlRKyXl-63uBZkeNnlRUVgeelosxq1CxwhhiAkItYDoP5Gu4LjbyhHpzOCiiurEUYJbBqR27kKGlkGiW8T_GMnrJyf8nqop-VlQOtQxvyOSwT5Ac2Pa9aYQCKByeaHH_fo9Qw=s200" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="200" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgRjSWaUyx2SWcK7dDKomJU8BIXR0_fgZdmw7msS1Y7GAd3xW3FC0OH3MlRKyXl-63uBZkeNnlRUVgeelosxq1CxwhhiAkItYDoP5Gu4LjbyhHpzOCiiurEUYJbBqR27kKGlkGiW8T_GMnrJyf8nqop-VlQOtQxvyOSwT5Ac2Pa9aYQCKByeaHH_fo9Qw" width="200" /></a></div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/10/lets-talk-about-conspiracies.html" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank"><i>Previously:</i> Let's Talk About Conspiracies!</a><br /><br />It is becoming more and more obvious to a growing number of believers that the pure doctrines of Christ as revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith are being rapidly displaced by dogmas invented by men. I can remember in my own lifetime when those in leadership positions taught the importance of looking to the word of God. That no longer seems to be the case. Today's LDS leaders have one mantra and one mantra only: "Follow the prophet. Keep your eyes riveted on the leaders. We cannot, we will not lead you astray."<br /><br />This false doctrine cannot be found anywhere in the Book of Mormon nor in any revelation from God; in fact the opposite is true. Joseph Smith rebuked the Saints for depending on him, and the Lord frequently said those putting their trust in men will be cursed. <br /><br />So today I'd like to introduce you to a couple of blogs that are relatively new to the Mormon blogosphere, but whose contents I find so important I wish I could shout it from the rooftops. So this time I would ask you not to look here, but to look over there where you'll find the <i>really</i> good stuff.<br /><br />There are, of course many in the blogosphere who are doing some great work; too many for me to even keep up with anymore. For now I would like to provide you some links to just two of these incredible new voices: <br /><br />Blogger Number One, known only by the name of his blog, "Latter DayTruths" prefers to remain anonymous for now. He has family members who are well-known in the Church and at this time he feels it best not to openly stir the pot. <br /><br />His latest post begins with these words:<br /><blockquote>"Let’s cut right to the chase: As of October 2, 2021, the LDS Church officially ceased being a Christian denomination. And all those non-LDS Christian churches who for years have accused the church of not being Christian? Turns out they were right all along."</blockquote><p>Here is that post: <a href="https://ldtruths.blogspot.com/2021/12/video-proof-apostle-following-prophet.html" target="_blank"><b>"Following the Prophet Now Supercedes All Primary Christian Doctrines" </b></a><br /><br />LDTruths has also weighed in on <a href="https://ldtruths.blogspot.com/2021/10/did-first-presidency-mislead-us-when-it.html" target="_blank"><b>the false teaching that the Covid vaccines are "safe and effective."</b></a> <br />It's worth remembering that no one in Church leadership has claimed that this insidious declaration came by way of any revelation from God. The president of the Church no longer has to claim an actual revelation as Joseph Smith did. Like the Catholic Pope, when the LDS president says something, it's a papal bull, the same as if the words came from God Himself. If you question the legitimacy of his decrees, <i>you</i> are the heretic.<br /><br />LDTruths has elaborated further on that false doctrine, such as the announcement that the Covid vaccine- the very poison that is killing young Mormon athletes- is <b><a href="https://ldtruths.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-covid-19-vaccines-godsend-from.html" target="_blank">"a godsend from heaven."</a></b> It's easy to see why they are pushing this so hard. LDTruths presents <a href="https://ldtruths.blogspot.com/2021/11/exclusive-ensign-peak-advisors-latest.html" target="_blank"><b>documented proof that the LDS Church has invested half a BILLION dollars in the those very vaccines.</b></a> Why wouldn't they try to get members to put this poison inside their bodies? It's making the leaders personally rich.<br /><br />And if you think I'm exaggerating, just remember that in 1925, when the Church was changed from the religious society founded by Joseph Smith into a modern corporate entity, ownership of church property was transferred from the members to whoever is the president of the Church at any given time. That means that <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-corporatism-has-undermined-and.html" target="_blank"><b>right now Russell Nelson <i>personally owns everything</i> held by the Church,</b></a> from every share of stock right down to every folding chair in every chapel. <br /><br />While you're over at the LDTruths blog, you can also read about how <a href="https://ldtruths.blogspot.com/2021/12/why-church-befriended-nazis-exed-nazi.html" target="_blank"><b>the LDS Church kissed up to the Nazi regime,</b></a> while siding with the SS against members who criticized Hitler; how very recently <a href="https://ldtruths.blogspot.com/2021/12/video-proof-when-first-presidency.html" target="_blank"><b>members of the First Presidency outright lied,</b></a> and <a href="an objective look" target="_blank"><b>an objective look</b></a> at whether or not the LDS Church has now become a cult. Just look to the right of the page on <a href="http://LDTruths.blogspot.com" target="_blank"><b>LDTruths.blogspot.com</b></a> under "Archived Posts" for this past October, November, and December and you'll find them all there. <br /><br /><br /><b style="font-size: large;">Gadiantons, Secret Combinations, and the Mystery Babylon Religion</b><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">The other new blog I've been anxious to share with you is one begun just nine weeks ago by Kendal Anderson, and man, is he prolific! Kendal is the author of the book "War: A Book of Mormon Perspective" which I reviewed here on my own blog a couple of years back. (Kendal will send you a free version of the book in pdf format; all you have to do is ask.)<br /><br />Now he has begun a blog that tackles the really big issues, such as who or what exactly is the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil mentioned in the Book of Mormon, also referred to in the Revelation of John as The Whore of Babylon.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">I have long thought about tackling the topics Kendal has presented in his recent posts but I abandoned the idea, believing the issues were simply too complex and convoluted to present in a way those unfamiliar with them could grasp. But Kendal has done a magnificent job, already posting several chapters that are so gripping you'll find it difficult to pause and take a break. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">The name of Kendal's blog is, fittingly, Book of Mormon Perspectives, located at www.BOMPerspectives.com. (When searching for the blog, its important that you include the www or you'll end up somewhere in internet limbo.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Here are the links to the articles you'll find there so far:</span><br /><br /><b style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2021/10/gadiantons-and-state.html" target="_blank">Gadiantons and the State</a><br /></b><br /><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2021/11/is-god-fellow-tax-protestor.html" style="font-size: large;" target="_blank"><b>Was Jesus a Tax Protestor?</b></a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2021/12/mystery-babylon-part-iii-ignorance-and.html" target="_blank"><b style="font-size: large;">Mystery Babylon: Into the Abyss</b><br /><br /><b style="font-size: large;">Mystery Babylon Part Two: Superstition</b><br /><br /><b style="font-size: large;">Mystery Babylon Part Three: Ignorance and Fear</b></a></p><p><br /></p><p>So now you see why I've been too busy reading other people's stuff to write something of my own: I can't compete with these two champs. Until next time, a couple of notes and asides:<br /><br /><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;">Notes & Asides:</span></u></b><br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>Denver Snuffer's Latest</u></span></b><br />I must have been the last person on earth to learn that Denver Snuffer has published his exigesis on the Book of Abraham, which is available on Kindle for only $3.99. This is the same talk <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Fathers-Context-Book-Abraham-ebook/dp/B09B7QL5ZB/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=denver+snuffer+religion+of+the+father&qid=1639347775&sr=8-1" target="_blank">I posted a link to back in April </a></b>but with the book you get Denver's copious footnotes and sources. Well worth the four bucks and a great gift to share with those for whom the Book of Abraham controversy has been a stumbling block. <br /><br />Denver has published another book which, from what I hear, is destined to be a classic, <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Jesus-Past-Present-Promise/dp/1951168828/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=denver+snuffer&qid=1639348798&s=books&sr=1-8" target="_blank">The Testimony of Jesus: Past, Present, and Promised.</a> </b>Geared toward the general Christian reader, at this time it isn't available in Kindle and, in fact, the hardcover version has sold out of its first run. I'm looking forward to getting this when the stock is replenished.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>Now You Can Hear The Golden Mellifluous Tones Of My Lovely Bride</u></span></b><br />Back in the day, my wife Connie was known as an accomplished songwriter and performer and we still have a CD of some of her Christian recordings which has been languishing for a couple of decades. Not long ago our friend Nancy Genys put a couple of these recordings to video and created a Youtube page in Connie's name, so I'd love it if you listened to those two songs which you can do by <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0LANq_-6a8fLHrqi63hBiw" target="_blank">clicking HERE.</a> </b> <br /><br />I should note that Connie herself doesn't appear in these videos; these are made with stock footage. If you want to see what Connie looks like today you're just going to have to come visit us in Sandpoint Idaho. <br /><br />At last Summer's Remnant retreat in Challis, Idaho, Connie performed her latest song titled "Dear Jesus" which many people have been asking to hear again. At this time that particular song is not available on the internet because although we have had the music track ever since Challis, Connie hasn't had a chance to lay down the vocal track. I'm happy to announce that as I write this, Vaughn Hughes is assisting Connie with that very thing, so once Nancy posts it to Youtube (neither I nor Connie know how to do any of this) that song also should be up and available for free, so keep checking back on the Connie Waterman Youtube Channel. <br /><br />If you're like me and can't get enough of hearing Connie sing, Nancy posted a version of Connie singing "Amazing Grace" which you can access by clicking <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3jwbVzOmbI" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">HERE. </a> In just a matter of weeks that song has gotten nearly 39,000 views! <br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><u style="font-weight: bold;">One Last Note</u><br />As much as I like receiving comments on this blog, I hope you'll express your views on the blogs I've mentioned here on those respective sites. These guys haven't been at this long and I'm sure they would appreciate seeing your feedback. </span></p><p></p>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-87293546259818103722021-10-24T07:20:00.026-07:002021-10-30T11:50:18.790-07:00Let's Talk About Conspiracies!<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWqLLsdgyVY2Mde2hs2dHGpI_nr-o539DBxmlYIEyBuVWxm1mZem00X04UZlbw3nk1dx_ktppvg7ZOzdtBfcwsnh20pRL5xOsUWPi01eQNFIw9yDWFKkIQFug-uqOWqTgklTfYJxqEt-mt/s327/Heinlein+secrecy+is+the+beginning+of+tyranny+%25282%2529.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="154" data-original-width="327" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWqLLsdgyVY2Mde2hs2dHGpI_nr-o539DBxmlYIEyBuVWxm1mZem00X04UZlbw3nk1dx_ktppvg7ZOzdtBfcwsnh20pRL5xOsUWPi01eQNFIw9yDWFKkIQFug-uqOWqTgklTfYJxqEt-mt/w400-h189/Heinlein+secrecy+is+the+beginning+of+tyranny+%25282%2529.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/10/what-in-world-is-going-on-with-church.html" target="_blank">Previously: <i>What In The World Is Going On With The Church Leaders Lately?</i></a></b><br /><br />Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the Church hasn't been teaching about secret combinations for quite a while now?<br /><br />I'll admit I don't watch all sessions of conference these days, but I can recall a time when men like David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark, and Ezra Taft Benson were constantly reminding us that secret combinations were among us in our day just as they were present among the Nephites and the Jaredites. <br /><br />I could be wrong, but in all the years I attended Sunday School classes as an adult, the lesson plans seem to have skipped over those sections in the Book of Mormon that contained those salient warnings. Was that deliberate? Were those warnings in the Book of Mormon left out of the lesson manuals on purpose?<br /><br />I first heard about secret combinations when I attended seminary in the late 1960s, and I'll admit I was confused by what the teacher was saying. What the heck was he trying to get at? The only secret combination I knew of was the combination to my locker at school, which, of course, I kept secret from everyone else. So when I heard the teacher say "secret combinations," all I could picture was my combination lock. Of course, I could have read those assigned chapters in the Book of Mormon and maybe figured it out. But hey, I was fourteen and groggy from the early morning hours -the last thing I wanted to do was pick up the scriptures. <br /><br />So for you young people today who may not have any idea what "secret combinations" are: in a word, they are conspiracies. More accurately, the term "secret combinations" refers to <i>conspirators</i>; i.e. persons who <i>combine</i> together in secret to plot and implement nefarious plans. Back in Joseph Smith's day use of the term "combination" to describe an intimate group was so common that the pre-eminent dictionary defined essentially two kinds of combinations; one good, the other bad:<br /><blockquote><b>Combination:</b> Intimate union, or association of two or more persons or things, by set purpose or agreement, for effecting some object, by joint operation; in a good sense, when the object is laudable; in an ill sense, when it is illegal or iniquitous. It is sometimes equivalent to league, or to conspiracy. We say, a combination of men to overthrow government, or a combination to resist oppression. <a href="http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/combination" target="_blank"><i><b>(Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, Pub 1828)</b></i></a></blockquote>What the Book of Mormon tells us is that these iniquitous groups working behind the scenes eventually took control of their entire respective governments. By the end of the Jaredite run, mass murder had become rampant not only within the political realm but among the populace as well. Mix that brand of mayhem with the social and economic collapse that had become endemic, and it spelled a one-two punch the Jaredite civilization could not withstand. The Nephites called the conspiracy at work among them "Gadianton's Robbers and Murderers" <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/hel/6?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>(Hel 6-18)</b></a> after the guy who initially founded the cabal. The surprising thing is that over time, a majority of the people simply found it easier to go along to get along with these insiders since the dominant party clearly held all the cards. Easier to cooperate with the ruling class than to continue as a member of the shrinking resistance when hope already seems lost, right? Still, you might wonder: how could such a thing happen to an entire nation? <br /><br />Well, some were inclined to just put up with it, or they decided to join in because they were attracted to the ideology. At any rate, allowing those secret combinations to get above them is the reason we don't see any Nephites or Jaredites living among us today. Eventually the influence of the conspirators had so overwhelmed the political and cultural landscapes of those societies that both civilizations were entirely destroyed from within. And here's why it's important for us to read up on these incidents: because God tells us the same fate awaits us unless we awaken to <i>our</i> awful situation <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/hel/6?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>(Ether 8:22-24)</b></a>. <br /><br />So here's the good news: we have a road map from American history to show us precisely how and when certain secret combinations became entrenched in the United States just as they had on this continent all those centuries before. I'm going to direct you to that before I'm done here, but first I want to make a couple of more points about conspiracies.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Is It A Conspiracy 'Theory' Or Is It An <u>Actual</u></b> <b>Conspiracy?</b></span><p></p><p>The first rule of a conspiracy is to convince everyone that there is no conspiracy. Many people haven't figured that out, which is why, when you find yourself getting close to the truth about a thing, there always seems to be some knucklehead standing by ready to shout you down by saying "that's just a conspiracy theory."<br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3BXJelrgaTMloJFdAZ6jKq_WoHagvncqi0r7CX-bwqgOaHwtbviXrA-uIgfQ5jM1SFPddD1IIX2oKW3M0c23OmZe1_glUZSUU_Qtd9faCYsHhravqcHH8wtxRsS46muhLEJ1nNN3q5-_j/s786/Thomas+Sowell+futile.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="786" data-original-width="526" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3BXJelrgaTMloJFdAZ6jKq_WoHagvncqi0r7CX-bwqgOaHwtbviXrA-uIgfQ5jM1SFPddD1IIX2oKW3M0c23OmZe1_glUZSUU_Qtd9faCYsHhravqcHH8wtxRsS46muhLEJ1nNN3q5-_j/s320/Thomas+Sowell+futile.jpg" width="214" /></a></div>If you encounter one of these dolts, take the advice of Thomas Sowell and just walk away. Anyone who goes around spouting "it's a conspiracy theory" as if they had just put you in your place is simply too stupid to bother with. Such people cannot be reasoned with. They are mere parrots, still stuck in junior high.<p></p>Responding with ridicule was the methodology the ruling class promoted immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, and once Lee Harvey Oswald had been shot dead it was immediately agreed upon that <a href="https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Katzenbach_Memo.html?search=katzenbach%20meme" target="_blank"><b>"the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin;</b></a> that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." <br /><br />Intelligence agencies at the time didn't want anyone snooping around and possibly discovering that government contractors may have had something to do with the murder of the president. And they sure didn't want anyone discovering that Oswald may himself have been a deep-cover asset. So they had to keep secret what has since been revealed among the documents in the 20 gigabyte <b><a href="https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release" target="_blank">JFK document dump</a></b> released when Donald Trump was president: that U.S. Intelligence agencies had Lee Oswald on their radar for at least two years <i>before</i> the assassination, because he appears to have been recruited by Naval Intelligence while in the Marine corps. Unredacted sources indicate that just prior to the assassination, Lee was being unwittingly groomed by his agency handler, one George de Mohrenschildt, to be set up as the lone-nut "patsy" who would take the fall for a shooting he had nothing to do with. <br /><br />So America was told that Oswald was a nobody. It was this weirdo Oswald, and Oswald alone, who shot the president. Period. End of story, fade to black. Members of the press dutifully fell in line, deriding anyone who suggested otherwise as kooky "conspiracy theorists"-which itself was a term virtually no one in America ever uttered until the national security apparatus coined it to be used as a term of derision. <br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The Conspiracy You Didn't Learn About In School</span></b><p></p><p>I realize I'm wandering all over the place here, but there is one thing I want to present before we get to what I promised, and that's a discussion of the conspiracy everyone has heard about but few people know much about, namely (drum roll) The Illuminati! When the Bavarian Illuminati was exposed in 1797 it was <i>huge</i> news. Virtually everyone alive at the time was talking about it, both in America and across Europe. The fact that today this famous conspiracy is unknown to all but a few is a testament to what happens when the ruling class decides something should be swept under the rug: it stops being reported, never gets repeated, ceases being written about, and is no longer published in the conventional histories. Within two centuries the once-notorious incident of the Bavarian Illuminati had been flushed down the memory hole. Too bad, because this is one of those "lessons of history" we all ought to know about.<br /><br />That's why I'm presenting below an excerpt about the Bavarian Illuminati written by one of the most reliable conspiracy researchers I know of, Donald Jeffries. The following is from his bestselling book, <i>Crimes and Coverups In American Politics,</i> and I present it because it's a very even-handed account, devoid of unnecessary alarmism despite the disturbing insouciance Weishaupt exhibits, given his stated intention to deceive virtually the entire world. Here it is:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>ADAM WEISHAUPT AND THE ILLUMINATI</p><p><i>Of all the means I know to lead men, the most effectual is a concealed mystery</i> -Adam Weishaupt</p></blockquote><p><i></i></p><p></p><blockquote><p>The earliest genuine "conspiracy" book that I know of carried the lengthy title <i><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Proofs-Conspiracy-against-Religions-Governments-ebook/dp/B08F7HW9PH/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2HHJ5M7C787W3&dchild=1&keywords=proofs+of+a+conspiracy&qid=1635059257&s=digital-text&sprefix=proofs+of+a+conspiracy%2Cdigital-text%2C135&sr=1-3" target="_blank">Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All Religions and Governments of Europe Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati and Reading Societies.</a></b> </i>Written by Edinburgh Professor John Robison, it was published in 1797. The book was the first to focus on the Bavarian Illuminati, founded allegedly on May 1, 1776 by University of Ingoldstadt professor Adam Weishaupt, and its supposed infiltration of Freemasonic lodges. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p>While the establishment views the Illuminati as a seldom noted, innocuous organization designed to enlighten the masses, conspiracy theorists consider it as one of the leading candidates for the unseen power behind everything. <i>Proofs</i> was widely read, and a copy was even sent to George Washington. Washington commented on the book in a letter to Rev. George Washington Snyder, dated October 24, 1798. A well-known Freemason himself, Washington attempted to refute the contention that Masonic lodges in America had been widely infiltrated by the Illuminati, although he admitted that "It was not my intention to doubt that the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am." </p></blockquote><blockquote><p> Thomas Jefferson, however, seemed naively supportive of Weishaupt (whose name he misspelled as Wishaupt) in a January 31, 1800 letter, labeling him "an enthusiastic philanthropist." Jefferson dismissed the fears of those like Robison towards "the spreading of information, reason, & natural morality among men." In addition to George Washington, many other founding fathers were masons, such as Joseph Warren, James Otis, John Paul Jones, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin. So was the Marquis de Lafayette, the French nobleman who fought with the American colonists. <br /><br />Even at that early date, the inclination was strong among establishment voices to discredit any "conspiracy theories." Robison had been a "respected" figure in intellectual circles prior to writing <i>Proofs, </i>and had contributed many valuable scientific articles to the Encyclopedia Britannica. After his controversial book was published, however, the Encyclopedia Britannica critiqued it with the following comment, "it betrays a degree of credulity extremely remarkable in a person used to calm reasoning and philosophical demonstration." That sentence could easily have fit into any <i>New York Times</i> review of an anti-Warren Commission JFK assassination book. <br /><br />Few conspirators have left the kind of transparent confessions on the record that Adam Weishaupt did. Consider this quote from Weishaupt:<br /></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is better than the three lower degrees of Free Masonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it. Next to this, the form of a learned or literary society is best suited to our purpose, and had Free Masonry not existed, this cover would have been employed; and it may be much more than a cover, it may be a powerful engine in our hands. By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labours, we may turn the public mind which way we will.</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p>Does this sound like the philosophy of an innocent free-thinker? Weishaupt, in another statement, appeared to openly advocate assassination, as he reminded his followers, "No man is fit for our Order who is not a Brutus or a Catiline, and is not ready to go to every length." Scoffing at the religious leaders who thought his movement innocuous, Weishaupt remarked, "The most wonderful thing of all is that the distinguished Lutheran and Calvinist theologians who belong to our order really believe that they see in it (Illuminati) the true and genuine sense of Christian Religion. Oh Mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?"<br /><br />Weishaupt's Illuminati drew the attention of many prominent Americans. On the significant date of July 4, 1812, Joseph Willard, then president of Harvard University, delivered a speech in which he declared:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">There is sufficient evidence that a number of societies, of the Illuminati, have been established in this land of Gospel light and civil liberty, which were first organized from the grand society, in France. They are doubtless secretly striving to undermine all our ancient institutions, civil and sacred. These societies are closely leagued with those of the same Order, in Europe; they have all the same object in view. The enemies of all order are seeking our ruin. Should the infidelity generally prevail, our independence would fall of course. Our republican government would be annihilated.</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p>Although the mention of his name is scoffed at in polite society, Adam Weishaupt was a very real person; as noted, a professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt. Robison's interpretation of Weishaupt's plans as "scheming the establishment of an Association or Order, which, in time, should govern the world" was well reasoned. His theory would lead inevitably to the concerns present-day conspiracy researchers have regarding the "New World Order," which always seems to be on the minds of those who lead us. Robert Shea and Anton Wilson used Weishaupt with great dramatic license as a character in their wonderful <i>Illuminatus </i>science-fiction trilogy in the 1970s. They even claimed that Weishaupt had killed George Washington and assumed his identity. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p>As was mentioned earlier, Weishaupt founded the Illuminati officially on May 1, 1776, which is of great interest considering that "May Day" also came to be celebrated as International Workers' Day, and is dear to the hearts of socialists and communists everywhere. It was an official holiday in the Soviet Union, with elaborate parades held in Red Square in Moscow and other major cities. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p>The establishment's view on Weishaupt was expressed by Dr. Tony Page, who explained, in his translation of <i>Supplement of the Justification of My Intentions by Adam Weishaupt,</i> "His project was utopian and naively optimistic...but neither he nor his plan was evil or violent in and of themselves. It is one of the deplorable and tragic ironies of history that a man who tried to inculcate virtue, philanthropy, social justice, and morality has become one of the great hate-figures of 21st century "conspiracy" thinking." <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Cover-ups-American-Politics-1776-1963-ebook/dp/B07G1PGJ78/ref=sr_1_1?crid=C13DMJGIDJGG&dchild=1&keywords=donald+jeffries+crimes+and+coverups&qid=1635048819&sprefix=donald+jeffries+crimes+and+coverups%2Caps%2C165&sr=8-1" target="_blank">-<b><i>Excerpted from Crimes and Coverups in American Politics, 1776-1963</i> by Donald Jeffries (2019)</b></a> *</p></blockquote><p>____________________________________________</p><p>*<span style="font-size: x-small;">Jeffries has written a companion volume to<i> Crimes & Coverups</i>, titled <i>Hidden History</i>. Whereas <i>Crimes and Coverups</i> is a history of conspiracies in American politics from its founding up to 1963, <b><u><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Conspiracies-Cover-Ups-American-ebook/dp/B01KEL9Z82/ref=sr_1_1?crid=WLLV4ZWUUH79&dchild=1&keywords=donald+jeffries+Hidden+History&qid=1635048981&sprefix=donald+jeffries+hidden+history+%2Caps%2C167&sr=8-1" target="_blank">Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Coverups in American Politics</a></u></b> picks up from there, covering the Kennedy Assassination onward. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqIS25kyfzAGo1OTn4Ee4kXfQrENTiE7wSctYYj2YUccwZpIpWBTDjA5kKfUOEzsw_3wYkrlcSNcJ_bgf0oPPY4yCU1MI0ihqwTqe7ZvpbOAyeRHtudY83Oey1FOF7HRtdSKVv_B9jxC35/s499/donald+jeffries+crimes+and+coverups.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="334" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqIS25kyfzAGo1OTn4Ee4kXfQrENTiE7wSctYYj2YUccwZpIpWBTDjA5kKfUOEzsw_3wYkrlcSNcJ_bgf0oPPY4yCU1MI0ihqwTqe7ZvpbOAyeRHtudY83Oey1FOF7HRtdSKVv_B9jxC35/s320/donald+jeffries+crimes+and+coverups.jpg" width="214" /></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Yeah, Well, That's Kinda The Problem, Isn't It, Tony? </b></span><br />I think most of us would differ with Tony Page's assertion that Weishaupt's actions were virtuous, just, and moral. Weishaupt was undertaking to deceive on a massive scale, with the ultimate goal being world conquest. Deception on that scale never results in the kind of "justice" most people envision when they hear the word. As much as Dr. Page would have hoped Weishaupt's utopian dream could have been allowed to come to pass, every single civilization founded on the ancient religion of illuminism inevitably degenerates into a <i>dystopia</i>, not a <i>utopia</i>. The precepts of illuminism dictate that the God of the bible was a jealous usurper, and that the true "Bearer of the Light" was Lucifer, The Illuminated One, The Son of the Morning. It is<i> he, </i>according to the the creeds of the Illuminati, who is the rightful god, unjustly kicked out of heaven just for believing the best way to ensure everybody gets saved is to force them into it. Satan would have coerced all mankind into behaving exactly as he commands them, and when they can't be perfect (as individuals seldom can), they would be forced to conform against their will, even if it means their enslavement, torture, or death for disobeying.<br /><br />As we learn in the Book of Mormon, secret combinations could be found in every age and on every continent literally since Cain plotted to kill his own brother. The Mystery Babylon School has always been the model for oppression, not liberation. Illuminati creeds were developed many centuries ago by power-hungry men motivated by one over-arching philosophy: certain men were destined to rule over lesser men. That belief did not change with Adam Weishaupt's attempt at reviving the ancient ways, and that belief remains in force on every continent of the world today.<br /><br />From the Hittites, to the Assyrians, to the Egyptians and others, the leadership of the Mystery Schools learned how to control the weak. The enslavement and oppression of lesser beings was the defining feature of those civilizations; without it they would have no power. Illuminists "have a very ego-centric, prideful theology that dehumanizes its believer. The ancient secret societies of the Illuminati practiced occult theocracies that are totally removed from the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ." (Fritz Springmeier,<b> <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlines-Illuminati-Fritz-Springmeier/dp/0972792929/ref=sr_1_4?crid=A6PAESLW3GTZ&dchild=1&keywords=fritz+springmeier+bloodlines+of+the+illuminati&qid=1635052533&sprefix=fritz+spring%2Caps%2C211&sr=8-4" target="_blank">Bloodlines of the Illuminati</a></i></b>). <br /><br />One common thread weaves itself through the training of those attracted to the mystery religions: it is the desire for power. Compare that with the desire of the godly hero Captain Moroni, who said, "I seek <i>not</i> for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country.” <br /><br /><b style="font-size: large;">And That Brings Me To My Actual Point</b><br />As I was mulling this topic around in my head I was made aware of a recent blog post by Kendal Anderson. Kendal is the author of <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00R0PCCRM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1" target="_blank">War: A Book of Mormon Perspective</a></b>, which I <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-do-we-keep-celebrating-disobedience.html" target="_blank"><b>gave a brief mention</b></a> to awhile back in these pages. As concerns secret combinations, Kendal has brilliantly explained how these combinations got a foothold here in America at virtually the same time the nascent United States was founded. I have read entire books on this topic, but I have never seen this fascinating information explained as succinctly as Kendal has done here. What will really surprise you is that two of our founding fathers were instrumental in launching the very conspiracy that now threatens to hold every one of us in its totalitarian clutches. I hope you'll click on the link below to learn what they haven't been teaching you in school <i>or</i> in church:<br /><p></p><b><u><span><a href="https://www.bomperspectives.com/2021/10/gadiantons-and-state.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">Click This Link to be taken to "Gadiantons And The State"</span></a></span></u></b><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b> *****<br /></p>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-69807724508778919592021-10-09T19:01:00.015-07:002021-11-22T16:39:42.250-08:00What In The World Is Going On With The Church Leaders Lately?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTI3o8qOymxB8hJQtGOl0Zg4JvpSf3g-NR1trCNp7bWDUvjnsr9a9ejaAFxPwSn-Af5TDZbjOdgsCx4wKTW24Y37Sn2ViHmFwNxoySxOj9e5dP_MN8Sj_rvqRXdzYNIKs1VFZvF_od6RS3/s275/First+Presidency.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTI3o8qOymxB8hJQtGOl0Zg4JvpSf3g-NR1trCNp7bWDUvjnsr9a9ejaAFxPwSn-Af5TDZbjOdgsCx4wKTW24Y37Sn2ViHmFwNxoySxOj9e5dP_MN8Sj_rvqRXdzYNIKs1VFZvF_od6RS3/s0/First+Presidency.jpg" width="275" /></a></div><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/09/religious-exemption-you-dont-need-your.html" target="_blank"><b>Previously:</b> <i><b>Religious Exemptions: You Don't Need Your Bishop's Permission</b></i></a><p></p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">Many thousands of devout members of the church are understandably confused by recent statements of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Setting aside some of the more bizarre presentations heard at general conference last week, what most disturbs these faithful members is </span></span><a href="https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=60629&fbclid=IwAR0Fuhh66owwKq2OAxI-LdH6NoRspam75RzRDZqKG29Gah0deMw78phGFLg" target="_blank"><b>how blatantly the leaders have been lying to them.</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;"><br /><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">The most notable falsehood was the official statement by the First Presidency encouraging members to submit to the Covid "vaccine," wherein they made the outrageous claim that the shot has been "proven safe and effective." </span><br /><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">The reason these members find that statement troubling is because those who have been following the actual science know it is an outright lie. The data simply doesn't exist to support such an outrageous claim. The very reason the FDA has not approved those medicines manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson is specifically because there has not been adequate time to test them to find out if they are safe and effective. All the data so far shows the opposite to be true. A report released just yesterday shows that </span><b><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/10/joseph-mercola/more-than-200000-have-already-died-from-the-covid-jab-in-the-us/" target="_blank">the covid shot <i>kills</i> five times more people than it saves.</a></b><br /><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">Just as this controversy was really heating up, I was shown this report about an admission made by Elder Ronald Rasband of the Quorum of the Twelve:</span><br /></span></p><blockquote style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">"Elder Rasband was speaking at a meeting in Boise last week. Our nephew was in attendance. Someone asked about the vaccine and Elder Rasband responded that each person should understand that the Church is being threatened and sued on a continual basis. The CDC has the Church in their crosshairs. This request for the members to participate in the vaccine was simply to reduce liability for the Church from the government. He said that members are to go to the Lord with this...and do what feels right for them. This has never been, nor ever will be a commandment."</span></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">Whew! Well, that's a relief, ain't it? So members of the Church aren't really being told to take the vaccine after all! It's just a ploy to keep the government at bay. <br /><br />But hold on a second... doesn't that raise at least two very troubling questions?<br /></span></p><blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">1. Given that members of the Church are raised to believe that when the president of the Church speaks he is relating instructions directly from God, is it then moral for President Nelson to put the lives of the saints at risk just to keep a government agency off his back?<br /><br />2. Since our constitution prohibits the government from dictating policy to any religious entity, what possible jurisdiction can the government claim that would give one of its agencies authority to make demands on a church? </span></blockquote><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;">Allow me to take a stab at answering those questions:<br /><br />1. No, it is not moral. <br />2. The reason the federal government has jurisdiction over the LDS Church is because the LDS /Church is not really a church.</span></p>Oh, it <i>used</i> to be, make no mistake about that. The church that was organized by Joseph Smith and five others on April 6th, 1830 had been properly <a href="https://www.deseret.com/2010/3/13/20375284/byu-symposium-lds-church-s-first-legal-status" target="_blank"><b>organized under American common law principles.</b></a><b> </b>And like every other church in its day, the Church of Christ (as it was originally known) stood independent of, and immune from, governmental interference. But in 1851 Brigham Young directed the territorial legislature to convert the church into a corporation under federal law. That shadow "Church" was now a creature of the federal government, and in 1887 the United States government, as was its right, dissolved that territorial corporation and directed federal marshals to seize its assets. We came within an inch of losing Temple Square.<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">The lesson that should have been learned by that scary episode (but was not) is this: The State giveth, and the State taketh away.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Because 36 years later Church lawyers convinced President Heber J. Grant to incorporate the church under a</span> model<span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"> identical to that held by the Catholic Pope. In addition to several </span><a href="http://hushmoney.org/corporate-sole_probs.htm" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>unscriptural "improvements"</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"> to its operation, this corporate charter </span><a href="http://user.xmission.com/~research/central/chorg3.htm" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>legally changed the name of the Church</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"><b> </b>to reflect the executive office held by a man.[1] All this was done in secret without informing the members, who up until then had been the rightful Holders of Interest in the church. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">_____________________________________________</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: x-small;">[1] "How be it my church," </span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/27.8?lang=eng" style="color: #336699; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Jesus asked rhetorically</a>, "save it be called in <i>my</i> name? </span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: x-small;">If it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man." Ever wonder why the Lord saw fit to point that out? Other than the Lutheran church, I can think of no other church at the time that was named after a man, so what do you think compelled the Lord to even bring that topic up? Well, perhaps he was preparing us for a future event. The actual, legally recognized name of the LDS church <i>today</i> is The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or "Corporation of the President" for short. The fact that the corporate charter is named after the president is a clear indication that for the past 96 years, this "church" has been named after a man. <br /></span><br />If the Church held the same status under the law as when it was organized in 1830, it would be directed by those principles contained in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. Alas, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was long ago converted from a church into a <a href="http://corporationsole.hushmoney.org/corporation_sole_intro.htm"><b>Corporation Sole</b></a>, an act that gutted the Church's basic structure and gave the erstwhile "Church" an entirely different status, leaving it vulnerable to the whims of societal change. <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">To read a detailed explanation of how it all went wrong, see </span><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-corporatism-has-undermined-and.html" target="_blank">"<b><u>How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ."</u></b></a><br /><br />Whereas the church that was founded by Joseph Smith operated under the distinct doctrines revealed by Christ, The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints operates under the doctrine of political expediency. By definition, any church that has been incorporated cannot claim the Lord Jesus Christ as its sovereign head. In an incorporated church, the State is sovereign.<br /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" />That's not just speculation on my part; it's <a href="http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/501-church.html"><b>a legal reality</b></a>. What it all translates to is this: if the Board of Directors of the Corporation of the President expect to keep the Corporation intact, at times they will be forced by circumstances to set aside the religion. This abandonment of principle has occurred many more times than we would like to believe, as documented <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/235706812/Cutting-Down-the-Tree-of-Life#scribd"><b>here</b></a>.<br /><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;"><br /></span><b>But That Was Only The Beginning</b></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Converting what was once a religious society of equals into a corporate entity controlled by a single man at the top was just phase one of the transformation. In the middle part of the last century, leaders of the LDS Church, along with those of many other denominations, were tricked into applying for special 501(c)3 status under Title 26 of the United States Code. This status, government lawyers assured them, would provide their churches special benefits, as well as guarantee their churches remained exempt from taxation.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" />But Churches were already non-taxable, and guaranteed to remain so under the First Amendment to the Constitution. That exclusion is still plainly codified in the government's own Code of Federal Regulations at <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/508" target="_blank"><b>26 IRC 508 (c)(1)(A)</b></a>. But Americans in the 1950s tended to completely trust their government, so when the government began actively promoting a way for churches to better protect their assets, it was an easy sell. Most churches, including our own, willingly signed up.<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Well, it was a scam. Known as </span><a href="http://davidfiorazo.com/2015/05/the-johnson-amendment-and-the-agenda-to-silence-christians/" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>The Johnson Amendment</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"> after its chief promoter, senator and future president Lyndon B. Johnson (according to </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F77s8wHCY3o" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>this guy</b>,</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"> the 'B' stands for "Butthole"), the law had one purpose and one purpose only: to neuter and muzzle America's churches. According to author David Fiorazo:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXLOUlBo6OaO_oG6SzrYxpRu1VQ8tIAWY3DIf7bj7NJVV3N8TSJjsQJsumB5RsiycsNrjMikGVCFCxMwjRj6mVbAYQWyZAYruESzfNP-dIIC-o5JUztcEIkezZEsEYgsjfutxrzr7qhEDY/s1600/The+cost+of+our+silence.png" style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: #336699; float: right; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXLOUlBo6OaO_oG6SzrYxpRu1VQ8tIAWY3DIf7bj7NJVV3N8TSJjsQJsumB5RsiycsNrjMikGVCFCxMwjRj6mVbAYQWyZAYruESzfNP-dIIC-o5JUztcEIkezZEsEYgsjfutxrzr7qhEDY/s320/The+cost+of+our+silence.png" style="border: none; position: relative;" width="204" /></a>"Texas Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was a powerful politician running for reelection as Senator, but two anti-communist, tax-exempt groups were opposing him and passing out literature during the campaigns. He contacted the IRS and found the group’s activity was legal, so he sought other options to fight them. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Johnson shrewdly appeared on the Senate floor on July 2, 1954, and offered his amendment to a pending, massive, tax code overhaul bill. The bill was supposed to modernize the tax code. Records indicate an absence of committee hearings on the amendment. No legislative analysis took place to examine the effect the bill and the amendment would have, particularly on churches and religious organizations. The amendment was simply created to protect Johnson." (<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cost-Our-Silence-Consequences-Christians-ebook/dp/B00WH8AU26/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+cost+of+our+silence&qid=1633818191&sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Cost of Our Silence: Consequences of Christians Taking the Path of Least Resistance.</a>)</b></blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Under this radical overhaul of the tax code, churches were now restricted as to what could be preached from the pulpit. If they dared talk about the bible as it relates to cultural, political, fiscal, and social issues, they were in danger of losing their tax exempt status. If a pastor preached contrary to what the courts refer to as "fundamental public policy" he was walking a thin line.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" />If you remember LDS Church leaders preaching vigorously against abortion in the nineteen sixties, and you were puzzled when they suddenly seemed to shut up about it following the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade; or if you wondered why Gordon Hinckley, in his <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>wishy-washy conference talk</b></a> on the Iraq war did not once reference the many places in our scriptures that <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.33?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>clearly prohibit God's people from participating in pre-emptive warfare</b></a>; well now you have your answer. In the LDS Church of today, the revealed word of God is disallowed where it contradicts government practices and policies.<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Church Of Public Policy Of Latter-day Saints</span></b><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Our leaders have not forgotten the beating the Church took in 1887 when their predecessors were on the losing side of a battle with the feds. As Denver Snuffer </span>documented at the <a href="http://denversnuffer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cutting-Down-the-Tree-of-Life.pdf" target="_blank"><b>2014 Sunstone Conference</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"><b>,</b> every major policy change in the Church since then has been the result of the Church bowing to political and social pressure from outside the Church. Not one of these changes has come by way of revelation from God. Don't believe me? Look around. When was the last time you saw any president of the Church issue even <i>one</i> bona fide revelation the way Joseph Smith did on a regular basis? <br /><br /></span>No one really knows where the courts will draw the line on "fundamental public policy" so preaching the gospel with boldness can be risky. The primary reason why incorporated Churches will do anything to avoid a confrontation with civil authorities, even to the point of giving up religious principles, has been neatly summarized by author Jerry Finney:</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK-zgjWzozfblyXuH2vJh2RoyGXPl4M5YnZlBK2eAnI9EJfTxLzPa-R047w5-ecm8-qqOAb4Vlp2P9ptQAxzwhL2VgtYD_oUjeIDTzE-FheJLj7c-tobECVHFPpIwkt-Rtx9qqDTbS4LDX/s218/Separation+of+church+and+state.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="218" data-original-width="218" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK-zgjWzozfblyXuH2vJh2RoyGXPl4M5YnZlBK2eAnI9EJfTxLzPa-R047w5-ecm8-qqOAb4Vlp2P9ptQAxzwhL2VgtYD_oUjeIDTzE-FheJLj7c-tobECVHFPpIwkt-Rtx9qqDTbS4LDX/s0/Separation+of+church+and+state.jpg" width="218" /></a></div>"The IRS determines, subject to costly and time-consuming challenge, whether a restriction has been breached by a 501(c)3 organization. These restrictions subject a religious organization to suit in the courts for violating a federal government law. Fundamental public law is above biblical principle if the two conflict." (Jerald Finney,<b> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-Churches-Spiritual/dp/1607913410/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=Jerald+finney+separation+of+church+and+state&qid=1633818986&sr=8-2" target="_blank">Separation of Church and State: God's Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?</a></b> pg 37.) </blockquote><p>Because the LDS Church today is a legal entity and no longer a spiritual one, it's safer to avoid making waves. The bottom line is that our leaders have sold us out. The Lord said we cannot serve both God and mammon. They chose mammon.</p><blockquote>"When a church incorporates, it becomes a 'creature' of the state. Having created the incorporated church, the State governs them via corporate law and public policy, grants and revokes privileges, burdens them, restricts them, penalizes them, and can dissolve them." (Peter Kershaw, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzNWYAvh5Do" target="_blank"><b>"Does the Government Control Our Churches?"</b></a>)</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Remember how, until very recently, Church leaders vigorously resisted any hint of accommodation toward homosexuality? And did you notice how quickly </span><b><a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mormon-church-lgbt_n_6559272" target="_blank">the Church began to palliate its position</a></b> <span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px;">as soon as it became apparent the Supreme Court would be ruling in favor of same-sex marriage? What you're seeing is the Church that used to be directed by Jesus Christ frantically trying not to displease its new master.</span></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Fellow blogger </span><a href="http://anonymousbishop.com/2015/05/" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>Anonymous Bishop</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"> tells of a priesthood meeting he conducted where he, as the bishop, had made an innocuous statement on the importance of standing up for traditional values. After they dismissed, a general authority who happened to be a member of his ward asked to see the bishop in his office. He gave the bishop a very stern look.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote>"He then proceeded to warn me to 'not get ahead of the Brethren on these issues.' He said, 'Things are changing in the church and it’s important we await further direction from the prophets.' ”</blockquote><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">One has to ask: further direction from the prophets, or further direction from the State?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">The bishop tells how, back in 2008, this same general authority had actively encouraged members in that very ward to do all they could to work for passage of California's Proposition 8, stressing how important it was for the Church and its members to "continue fighting on these eternally important issues."</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><blockquote>"But now, only a few years later, the same church leader was warning me, as his bishop, to 'not get ahead of the brethren' as the church 'upgrades' its position."</blockquote>This is why the Church in recent years has spent so much time and energy instructing local leaders on the importance of following the Church Handbook of Instruction. When government lawyers are investigating an incorporated church for infractions, they aren't interested in that Church's religious beliefs. What they want to see is the Church's policies, practices, and procedures. I've been on the phone with three former bishops who all informed me they had been instructed by their higher-ups that the CHI is the only source they are to consult in the performance of their duties, barring even the scriptures. This would also explain why the Church released a training video back when Monson was President featuring Monson <a href="https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2010-11-010-opening-remarks?lang=eng"><b>actually testifying of the Church Handbook</b></a>, and did so in the name of Jesus Christ!<br /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" />If that doesn't qualify as taking the name of the Lord in vain, I don't know what does.<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><p>The thing that made Monson's odd testimony all the more disconcerting to me is that at least one blogger has <a href="http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/solved-why-president-monson-has-not-born-testimony-of-the-book-of-mormon/"><b>noted and documented </b></a>that in the past ten years, Thomas Monson "has not borne testimony of any of his own Church’s unique foundational doctrines, including the truth of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith in any of the church’s General Conference meetings"<br /><br />But he enthusiastically bears his testimony of the corporate handbook.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Painting Themselves Into A Corner</b></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">As I pointed out in my <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/08/when-lds-church-leaders-teach-contrary.html" target="_blank">blog post of August 29th,</a></b> when the First Presidency issued its egregious policy recommendation, they made no pretense that they were relaying a message from God. Yet I've heard numerous otherwise good members insist that "the Lord will never let the president of the church lead us astray." Why do they believe such nonsense? God never made that promise.<br /><br />So now the Brethren find themselves in the unenviable position of having to try to justify a teaching that the Lord has not backed them up on, while at the same time trying not to appear to be backbedaling too frantically. Perhaps they weren't expecting such an overshelming amount of disappointment on the part of <b><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iwivZM9mgYxgbA8_yXxePI3fL4Ii66rq/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">their most dedicated followers.</a></b> So now they've sent out Rasband the new guy to offer an awkward reassurance: Hey really, don't worry about it; this was all just a show we put on for the gentiles. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"><br /></span></p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">If the leaders really want this headache to go away, they could easily solve all their problems by </span><a href="http://nooganomics.com/2014/03/dissolving-the-corporate-charter-from-religious-organization-to-church/" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>dis-incorporating</b></a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"> the Church. That would place them once again under the protection of the first amendment to the constitution, removing the church from any and all interference from government harrasment.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br />But this they will not do. <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/morm/8?lang=eng" target="_blank"><b>As Moroni observed </b></a>when looking into the Church in our day, "ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches..." The risk involved in dis-incorporating the Church is the very real certainty that all those perks the Brethren enjoy would evaporate, and they would be forced to get regular jobs between conference gigs <b><a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/1?lang=eng" target="_blank">just like the Book of Mormon says they should.</a></b><br /><br />As I related in <b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-real-threat-to-traditional-marriage.html" target="_blank">an earlier post</a></b>, Congressman George Hansen confided in me some years ago that he personally knew several general authorities who would prefer the Church rescind its corporate status. He did not name those particular apostles, but he did say they differed from the newcomers in that the old school apostles were firmly rooted in the doctrines of the faith. Those general authorities are all dead now, replaced by corporate yes-men who can't imagine the Church operating in any other form than the business model they have become accustomed to.<br /><br />I grew up in a different era. I can't imagine such theological giants as LeGrand Richards, Mark Petersen, Ezra Taft Benson, Howard Hunter, Harold B. Lee, Joseph Fielding Smith, or even Bruce McConkie sitting still while their lesser informed Brethren gutted the church of its core teachings and turned it into the obvious counterfeit it is today.<br /><br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">The good news is this: leaders can only lead as long as they can hold on to a cadre of followers. So maybe the upside of this is that devout believers will finally stop trusting in the arm of flesh and re-learn the importance of having an eye single to the glory of God. It is possible -indeed preferable- for members of the Lord's church to affirm the divine role of the prophet Joseph Smith, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">embrace the Book of Mormon, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">celebrate the Restored gospel, and love the Savior while still concluding that the current leaders are seriously<b> <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/06/where-did-oracles-go.html" target="_blank">lacking inspiration</a></b>. "Hold fast to that which is true," the apostle Paul taught. That also requires letting go of that which is <i>not</i> true. Tens of thousands of devout believers worldwide have been learning to simply let go of the hollow dross for the past several years now. You can, too. </span></p><p>I highly doubt the Church will ever be reformed from within, because that would require the current administrators to give up all that wealth, prestige, power, and adoration. I get the sense they don't have the moral capacity for that.<br /><br /><br /> *****</p><p><b style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/10/lets-talk-about-conspiracies.html" target="_blank">Next Entry: </a></b><i style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/10/lets-talk-about-conspiracies.html" target="_blank">Let's Talk About Conspiracies!</a></b><br /></i><br /><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;">Notes & Asides:</span></u></b><br />Much of the information in this post was previously covered in a couple of posts I wrote back in 2015. Rather than recreate that information from scratch, I lifted whole sections for inclusion in this one. There was necessarily a lot left behind and not included in here, so if you would like to see the originals, here they are:<br /><br /><b><a href="https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-real-threat-to-traditional-marriage.html" target="_blank">The Real Threat to Traditional Marriage Part Three</a></b><br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-hidden-reason-for-policy-change-on.html" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;" target="_blank">The Hidden Reason for the Policy Change on Baptisms</a><br /><br />From way back in 2010, here's the granddaddy of Momon hidden history, courtesy of information provided mostly by Damon Smith who worked deep in the bowels of the Magisterium. He's the guy who revealed the actual name of the modern LDS church, and pointed out that one subdivision of the corporation, Intellectual Reserve, Inc, retains ownership of the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as a trademark utilized by the corporation as needed, which is why most Mormons are not aware that isn't the actual name of the entity that runs things:<br /><br /><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-corporatism-has-undermined-and.html" target="_blank"><b>How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ</b><br /><br /><br /></a>Finally (for now), a reminder that there have been several updates to my last blog post, consisting mostly of important information you'll need to know if you intend to challenge the vaccine mandates (if and when those mandates ever go into effect). Go to that site and scroll down to the bottom (just before the comments begin):<br /><br /><b><u><a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2021/09/religious-exemption-you-dont-need-your.html" target="_blank">Religious Exemptions: You Don't Need the Approval of Your Bishop</a></u></b></p><p><b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">UPDATE, October 14, 2021:</b><br />For those who may have clicked on the second link in the piece above and didn't find the story to that link ("the covid shot kills five times more people than it saves") I have corrected the link. Dr. Mercola only leaves his articles on his website for 48 hours, after which other mirror sites pick it up so it can always be found. I've linked to the piece at LewRockwell.com, one of my favorite news and commentary sites, where it goes by the title <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/10/joseph-mercola/more-than-200000-have-already-died-from-the-covid-jab-in-the-us/" target="_blank"><b>"More Than 200,000 Have Already Died From the Covid Jab in the US." </b></a><br /><br />The video that leads into the piece is a must-watch, and though it's two hours long, if you can't spare the time you can get the gist of the data by watching just the first few minutes. Steve Kirby's research is impeccable and no one has challenged or refuted the data.<br /><br /> </p><p><b><u><br /></u></b></p><p><br style="color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;" /><br /> </p></div>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com58