Preaching False Doctrine From The General Conference Pulpit

Elder Claudio R.M. Costa began his Saturday conference talk with the words "I am a convert to the church," so maybe we ought to cut him some slack.  It's quite possible that he just wasn't aware that the words he was quoting from the pulpit had already been rejected by the living prophet thirty years ago, just days after they were first spoken.

Then again, he's not the only faithful Mormon who didn't get the memo.  You can be a life-long member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and still cling to a point of view that has been repeatedly discredited by the living prophets going all the way back to Joseph Smith.

Elder Costa centered his conference talk around a controversial speech given by Ezra Taft Benson at BYU in 1980.  Elder Benson seemed to be making up new doctrine willy-nilly during that visit to Provo.  Some who have read it since then and agreed with him have declared that when Elder Benson spoke those words, he was "speaking as a prophet."  But one reason the talk was controversial was that Elder Benson was not the prophet at the time he gave that speech; Spencer W. Kimball was.  And President Kimball was very much bothered by the message Elder Benson had delivered that day to the BYU student body.

The title Elder Benson gave his talk was Fourteen Fundamentals In Following The Prophet, and the totality of his argument was that anything the president of the church said at any time on any subject should be taken as the will of the Lord and the mind of the Lord, and that obedience to the prophet at all times without question was essential to our salvation.

According to Spencer W. Kimball's son Edward, President Kimball was upset over the talk because he wanted "to protect the church against being misunderstood as ...espousing an unthinking 'follow the leader' mentality."  As the one actually holding the priesthood keys of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, President Kimball was well aware that those gifts were manifest only under specific conditions, and he was sensitive to the reality that many in the church were already too willing to stamp every utterance of a General Authority with the gravitas of a vatical decree. 

The President of the church was concerned enough to insist Benson apologize for the speech to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but according to LDS historian Michael Quinn, some in that quorum were dissatisfied with his response.  Kimball then required Elder Benson to explain himself to a combined meeting of all general authorities the following week.  This was a big deal to Benson and his family, who feared the possibility of a formal rebuke.  Happily, "the meeting went well for Benson, who 'explained that he meant only to reaffirm the divine nature of the prophetic call.'"


Well Then, How About A Retraction?

The leadership may have been mollified by Elder Benson's stated motivation for giving the talk, but the substance of it remained out there with its falsehoods left uncorrected.  Faithful latter-day Saints were buying the transcript in the BYU Bookstore, listening to the cassette recording, and discussing it as though it were gospel.  The rank and file membership of the church have never been told that anyone in the Church hierarchy at the time considered anything in that talk undoctrinal or problematic.

And so here we are today, thirty years later.  With the  participants in the original controversy long dead and gone, a known heresy ends up as the centerpiece of the Saturday Morning Session of Conference and suddenly attains respectability.

It's instructive that when Elder Benson succeeded Spencer Kimball as president of the church, he did not revisit this issue nor insist on any type of blind obedience to his own authority.  Perhaps now that he held the keys he could tell the difference between divine revelation and personal opinion.  Throughout his years of service in the church, I have found Benson's speeches and writings among the most instructive, and certainly among my personal favorites.  When speaking or writing on the subject of America's founding and destiny, he is second to none, particularly in relation to Book of Mormon warnings and prophecy.  His appreciation for our constitution and the necessity of guarding it against encroachment is perhaps his greatest legacy.  His exegesis of Book of Mormon prophecy regarding the falling away of the Latter-day Saints infuses much of my writing here.  I am a fan.

As a former member of President Dwight Eisenhower's cabinet, Benson knew first hand about the inroads being made by groups that the Book of Mormon referred to as "Secret Combinations" -cabals of men who throughout history have combined themselves together in secret with the aim of usurping the freedom and independence of others.

Eisenhower and Benson were united in their condemnation of what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex then being promoted by seemingly innocuous organizations like the Rand Corporation, whose members secretly advocated wholesale slaughter of Americans and foreigners alike in order to feed state power.  President Benson's warnings of such secret combinations have proven prophetic, as today these groups don't even seem to care that they're not so secret anymore.  They often now boast openly of their intentions, as shown in the new documentary film Invisible Empire.

But nothing resembling his usual foresight was present in the talk Ezra Taft Benson gave at BYU in 1980.  Where he normally backed up his statements with scriptural citations, in this case Benson simply made blanket declarations as though the mere act of stating them would imbue them with divine authority. Many of the "keys" he insisted as vital, actually contradicted both scripture and the long-held teachings of the living prophets.  It was a rare performance, undoctrinal and uncharacteristic of an otherwise brilliant mind.  He was out of line with this one, and the Prophet was right to call him on it.

In the end, however, President Kimball's fears were realized.  The substance of Benson's talk, along with news of the reproof Benson received for delivering it, was picked up by Newsweek magazine and provided ammunition for the church's enemies who used it as further evidence that Mormonism is a cult whose central authority demands blind obedience from its followers.  In addition, those who like to claim that Mormons are not Christian had a field day pointing out how Benson taught that salvation hangs on how diligently one adheres to the words of the Mormon prophet, rather than upon the redeeming power of Christ.  He really handed this one to the enemy.

 Why Again?  Why Now?

It is worth wondering why such a discredited sermon as this was repeated yesterday from the pulpit at General Conference.  It's one thing for someone to deliver such words to an audience of university students and faculty, but when presented at the official conference of the Church, those words are seen as doctrine in the minds of the majority.  Unlike a hundred years ago, conference talks today are vetted and approved for dissemination well ahead of time, so it's difficult to believe that this false doctrine simply slipped through unnoticed.  The authorities have been very careful about combing through the talks in advance, particularly those given by untried lower-level speakers ever since that conference session in 1984 when way too much truth slipped out and had to be frantically bottled back up.

Is it possble that the institutional Church actually wants to steer its members into accepting "doctrine" that was once openly condemned?  Is it a move calculated to maintain control over a membership which is more and more beginning to question the propriety of the Church's institutional over-reach?

As discussed here previously, David O. McKay fought a losing battle against a segment of the governing body of the Church who felt it was their province to declare the doctrine, and the province of the members to echo what they say or to remain silent. (McKay's biographers document his discovery in the early 1960's that the negro ban on the priesthood had never been based on any revelation whatsoever, but was merely clung to by long-standing tradition.  He wanted to reverse the ban way back then, but was stymied in his efforts because he was opposed by several of the Twelve and could not get a sufficient number of votes from the Quorum to go along with him.)

The programs and policies of the church in the twenty-first century differ markedly from that of the mid twentieth, and the twentieth century church was already showing a radical departure from the way the church operated in 1830 and 1840.  Still, this mania for blind obedience to Church authority keeps surfacing, only to be officially slapped down again and again by those who actually hold the keys of prophecy.  But recently this falsehood seems to be taking a firmer hold, and I no longer see those in high office scrambling to make the corrections.  In spite of what some of lesser office have declared from time to time, Joseph Smith held that a person who advocated such unquestioning obedience "should not claim a rank among intelligent beings."


The Blindly Obedient Leading The Blind

What shall we then make of the sometimes subtle change in direction of the corporate church?  When I speak of the corporate church, I mean the arbitrary rules of the monolithic, bureaucratic institution as opposed to the traditional teachings received via scriptures and divine revelation from latter-day Prophets in the church.  A brilliant writer by the name of Tom maintains a site he calls Truth Hurts, where he seems to have a pretty good handle on this decline of true doctrine and its replacement with an unsupported counterfeit.  He quotes the prophet Joseph F. Smith over a hundred years ago:

“Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.” (Joseph F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing 1987-1992).

Those are the words of a true prophet.  But a half century later, an insidious new doctrine was making inroads.  Contrast President Smith's words with the lesson Elder Benson wished his listeners to adopt.  He is quoting here from Marion G. Romney:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray."

I don't know if you caught that.  According to Romney's counsel, which Ezra Taft Benson once endorsed, if you do something wrong the Lord will bless you for it as long as you have the excuse that someone else told you to do it.

That, brothers and sisters, is heresy.  It is not supported anywhere in the standard works, or in any modern revelation from any prophet in these latter days.  It simply does not exist in any teachings of the Restoration.  Yet I'm sure you know faithful members of the church who teach and believe that abomination.  Perhaps you believe it yourself, in which case here's my question for you:  Why in the world do you think you have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost if you don't think you're ever expected to use it?

I have been told by some visitors to this site that they find my occasional lack of deference to authority more than a little disturbing.  I've been told I make them feel uncomfortable.  Well, if you can think of another word besides heresy to describe a religious teaching that flies in the face of all scripture and common sense, I'll use that one instead.  In the meantime, you should feel uncomfortable if you favor the belief in unsupported decrees over the revealed word of God.

Writing over at Truth Hurts, Tom included the above Romney quote in a piece questioning the use of indoctrination present in the Primary song "Follow the Prophet, He Knows the Way."

"It really is shocking," Tom writes, "when you look at it this way.  Perhaps it’s true that the culture is so screwed up that they’d benefit from a prophet coming amongst us to tell us to repent, or await the certain destruction that’s coming.  Perhaps it’s true we need an outside voice.  That’s fine.  But how about we draw the line somewhere?  Perhaps we could draw that line at – oh, I don’t know – Follow the Savior, He Knows the Way."

One year ago this month I wrote a piece that I think is a pretty decent analysis of this so-called "doctrine" of Following the Prophet.  I believe it is a complete enough discussion of the subject that a reasonable person should be able to come to a conclusion about whether the doctrine is real or a counterfeit.

Since I wrote that piece, this blog has attracted more than twenty-five thousand new visitors.  If you happen to be among those new readers and you missed it the first time out, I invite you to look it over and decide for yourself whether or not "Follow the Prophet" is a bona fide doctrine of the Restoration.  If you disagree with my conclusions, I welcome your response, but I do ask that you cite your authorities.  I won't accept mere speculation.  No matter how much you have been taught something is true, or how much you want it to be true, you're going to have to show me that it is true.  Wishing that the "Leaders" in Salt Lake will take charge over us so we don't have to do our own thinking is how we members of the body of Christ let the Church slip from our control in the first place.

Here's that link:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/10/follow-prophet-true-or-false.html 


UPDATE October 6, 2012: I just came upon this excellent 5 part analysis of President Benson's talk on the Fourteen Fundamentals at the blog, "In Mount Zion" available by clicking here.

Preaching False Doctrine From The General Conference Pulpit

Elder Claudio R.M. Costa began his Saturday conference talk with the words "I am a convert to the church," so maybe we ought to cut him some slack.  It's quite possible that he just wasn't aware that the words he was quoting from the pulpit had already been rejected by the living prophet thirty years ago, just days after they were first spoken.

Then again, he's not the only faithful Mormon who didn't get the memo.  You can be a life-long member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and still cling to a point of view that has been repeatedly discredited by the living prophets going all the way back to Joseph Smith.

Elder Costa centered his conference talk around a controversial speech given by Ezra Taft Benson at BYU in 1980.  Elder Benson seemed to be making up new doctrine willy-nilly during that visit to Provo.  Some who have read it since then and agreed with him have declared that when Elder Benson spoke those words, he was "speaking as a prophet."  But one reason the talk was controversial was that Elder Benson was not the prophet at the time he gave that speech; Spencer W. Kimball was.  And President Kimball was very much bothered by the message Elder Benson had delivered that day to the BYU student body.

The title Elder Benson gave his talk was Fourteen Fundamentals In Following The Prophet, and the totality of his argument was that anything the president of the church said at any time on any subject should be taken as the will of the Lord and the mind of the Lord, and that obedience to the prophet at all times without question was essential to our salvation.

According to Spencer W. Kimball's son Edward, President Kimball was upset over the talk because he wanted "to protect the church against being misunderstood as ...espousing an unthinking 'follow the leader' mentality."  As the one actually holding the priesthood keys of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, President Kimball was well aware that those gifts were manifest only under specific conditions, and he was sensitive to the reality that many in the church were already too willing to stamp every utterance of a General Authority with the gravitas of a vatical decree. 

The President of the church was concerned enough to insist Benson apologize for the speech to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but according to LDS historian Michael Quinn, some in that quorum were dissatisfied with his response.  Kimball then required Elder Benson to explain himself to a combined meeting of all general authorities the following week.  This was a big deal to Benson and his family, who feared the possibility of a formal rebuke.  Happily, "the meeting went well for Benson, who 'explained that he meant only to reaffirm the divine nature of the prophetic call.'"


Well Then, How About A Retraction?

The leadership may have been mollified by Elder Benson's stated motivation for giving the talk, but the substance of it remained out there with its falsehoods left uncorrected.  Faithful latter-day Saints were buying the transcript in the BYU Bookstore, listening to the cassette recording, and discussing it as though it were gospel.  The rank and file membership of the church have never been told that anyone in the Church hierarchy at the time considered anything in that talk undoctrinal or problematic.

And so here we are today, thirty years later.  With the  participants in the original controversy long dead and gone, a known heresy ends up as the centerpiece of the Saturday Morning Session of Conference and suddenly attains respectability.

It's instructive that when Elder Benson succeeded Spencer Kimball as president of the church, he did not revisit this issue nor insist on any type of blind obedience to his own authority.  Perhaps now that he held the keys he could tell the difference between divine revelation and personal opinion.  Throughout his years of service in the church, I have found Benson's speeches and writings among the most instructive, and certainly among my personal favorites.  When speaking or writing on the subject of America's founding and destiny, he is second to none, particularly in relation to Book of Mormon warnings and prophecy.  His appreciation for our constitution and the necessity of guarding it against encroachment is perhaps his greatest legacy.  His exegesis of Book of Mormon prophecy regarding the falling away of the Latter-day Saints infuses much of my writing here.  I am a fan.

As a former member of President Dwight Eisenhower's cabinet, Benson knew first hand about the inroads being made by groups that the Book of Mormon referred to as "Secret Combinations" -cabals of men who throughout history have combined themselves together in secret with the aim of usurping the freedom and independence of others.

Eisenhower and Benson were united in their condemnation of what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex then being promoted by seemingly innocuous organizations like the Rand Corporation, whose members secretly advocated wholesale slaughter of Americans and foreigners alike in order to feed state power.  President Benson's warnings of such secret combinations have proven prophetic, as today these groups don't even seem to care that they're not so secret anymore.  They often now boast openly of their intentions, as shown in the new documentary film Invisible Empire.

But nothing resembling his usual foresight was present in the talk Ezra Taft Benson gave at BYU in 1980.  Where he normally backed up his statements with scriptural citations, in this case Benson simply made blanket declarations as though the mere act of stating them would imbue them with divine authority. Many of the "keys" he insisted as vital, actually contradicted both scripture and the long-held teachings of the living prophets.  It was a rare performance, undoctrinal and uncharacteristic of an otherwise brilliant mind.  He was out of line with this one, and the Prophet was right to call him on it.

In the end, however, President Kimball's fears were realized.  The substance of Benson's talk, along with news of the reproof Benson received for delivering it, was picked up by Newsweek magazine and provided ammunition for the church's enemies who used it as further evidence that Mormonism is a cult whose central authority demands blind obedience from its followers.  In addition, those who like to claim that Mormons are not Christian had a field day pointing out how Benson taught that salvation hangs on how diligently one adheres to the words of the Mormon prophet, rather than upon the redeeming power of Christ.  He really handed this one to the enemy.

 Why Again?  Why Now?

It is worth wondering why such a discredited sermon as this was repeated yesterday from the pulpit at General Conference.  It's one thing for someone to deliver such words to an audience of university students and faculty, but when presented at the official conference of the Church, those words are seen as doctrine in the minds of the majority.  Unlike a hundred years ago, conference talks today are vetted and approved for dissemination well ahead of time, so it's difficult to believe that this false doctrine simply slipped through unnoticed.  The authorities have been very careful about combing through the talks in advance, particularly those given by untried lower-level speakers ever since that conference session in 1984 when way too much truth slipped out and had to be frantically bottled back up.

Is it possble that the institutional Church actually wants to steer its members into accepting "doctrine" that was once openly condemned?  Is it a move calculated to maintain control over a membership which is more and more beginning to question the propriety of the Church's institutional over-reach?

As discussed here previously, David O. McKay fought a losing battle against a segment of the governing body of the Church who felt it was their province to declare the doctrine, and the province of the members to echo what they say or to remain silent. (McKay's biographers document his discovery in the early 1960's that the negro ban on the priesthood had never been based on any revelation whatsoever, but was merely clung to by long-standing tradition.  He wanted to reverse the ban way back then, but was stymied in his efforts because he was opposed by several of the Twelve and could not get a sufficient number of votes from the Quorum to go along with him.)

The programs and policies of the church in the twenty-first century differ markedly from that of the mid twentieth, and the twentieth century church was already showing a radical departure from the way the church operated in 1830 and 1840.  Still, this mania for blind obedience to Church authority keeps surfacing, only to be officially slapped down again and again by those who actually hold the keys of prophecy.  But recently this falsehood seems to be taking a firmer hold, and I no longer see those in high office scrambling to make the corrections.  In spite of what some of lesser office have declared from time to time, Joseph Smith held that a person who advocated such unquestioning obedience "should not claim a rank among intelligent beings."


The Blindly Obedient Leading The Blind

What shall we then make of the sometimes subtle change in direction of the corporate church?  When I speak of the corporate church, I mean the arbitrary rules of the monolithic, bureaucratic institution as opposed to the traditional teachings received via scriptures and divine revelation from latter-day Prophets in the church.  A brilliant writer by the name of Tom maintains a site he calls Truth Hurts, where he seems to have a pretty good handle on this decline of true doctrine and its replacement with an unsupported counterfeit.  He quotes the prophet Joseph F. Smith over a hundred years ago:

“Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.” (Joseph F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing 1987-1992).

Those are the words of a true prophet.  But a half century later, an insidious new doctrine was making inroads.  Contrast President Smith's words with the lesson Elder Benson wished his listeners to adopt.  He is quoting here from Marion G. Romney:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray."

I don't know if you caught that.  According to Romney's counsel, which Ezra Taft Benson once endorsed, if you do something wrong the Lord will bless you for it as long as you have the excuse that someone else told you to do it.

That, brothers and sisters, is heresy.  It is not supported anywhere in the standard works, or in any modern revelation from any prophet in these latter days.  It simply does not exist in any teachings of the Restoration.  Yet I'm sure you know faithful members of the church who teach and believe that abomination.  Perhaps you believe it yourself, in which case here's my question for you:  Why in the world do you think you have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost if you don't think you're ever expected to use it?

I have been told by some visitors to this site that they find my occasional lack of deference to authority more than a little disturbing.  I've been told I make them feel uncomfortable.  Well, if you can think of another word besides heresy to describe a religious teaching that flies in the face of all scripture and common sense, I'll use that one instead.  In the meantime, you should feel uncomfortable if you favor the belief in unsupported decrees over the revealed word of God.

Writing over at Truth Hurts, Tom included the above Romney quote in a piece questioning the use of indoctrination present in the Primary song "Follow the Prophet, He Knows the Way."

"It really is shocking," Tom writes, "when you look at it this way.  Perhaps it’s true that the culture is so screwed up that they’d benefit from a prophet coming amongst us to tell us to repent, or await the certain destruction that’s coming.  Perhaps it’s true we need an outside voice.  That’s fine.  But how about we draw the line somewhere?  Perhaps we could draw that line at – oh, I don’t know – Follow the Savior, He Knows the Way."

One year ago this month I wrote a piece that I think is a pretty decent analysis of this so-called "doctrine" of Following the Prophet.  I believe it is a complete enough discussion of the subject that a reasonable person should be able to come to a conclusion about whether the doctrine is real or a counterfeit.

Since I wrote that piece, this blog has attracted more than twenty-five thousand new visitors.  If you happen to be among those new readers and you missed it the first time out, I invite you to look it over and decide for yourself whether or not "Follow the Prophet" is a bona fide doctrine of the Restoration.  If you disagree with my conclusions, I welcome your response, but I do ask that you cite your authorities.  I won't accept mere speculation.  No matter how much you have been taught something is true, or how much you want it to be true, you're going to have to show me that it is true.  Wishing that the "Leaders" in Salt Lake will take charge over us so we don't have to do our own thinking is how we members of the body of Christ let the Church slip from our control in the first place.

Here's that link:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/10/follow-prophet-true-or-false.html 


UPDATE October 6, 2012: I just came upon this excellent 5 part analysis of President Benson's talk on the Fourteen Fundamentals at the blog, "In Mount Zion" available by clicking here.

How To Become An Apostate In One Afternoon

Previously: The Problem With Denver Snuffer
 
If you'd like to see how difficult it can be to follow the counsel of Church leaders and still retain your membership in the church, take a look at what happened last Sunday to LDS blogger Adrian Larsen and his wife, Tausha. They were excommunicated for essentially heeding the advice of one of our apostles.

Apostle David Bednar has of late been concerned with how Mormonism is often wrongly perceived and misunderstood, and so last August Elder Bednar gave an address at BYU in which he encouraged individual members to flood the internet and social media, with the aim of correcting falsehoods about the church, promoting truth, and boldly testifying of Christ. This is what Adrian Larsen has been doing with his Mormon-themed blog To The Remnant since early summer: correcting falsehoods, promoting truth, and boldly testifying of Christ.

But because Adrian did so, last Sunday a high council was convened in his stake and he was expelled from our society for the sin of apostasy.  So was his wife, Tausha, in a bizzare, highly unusual double-excommunication proceeding in which both were tried and sentenced together in the same proceeding.   Both had been devoted members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all their lives, yet in one afternoon representatives of that same Church officially declared them to be apostates and pariahs.

It is still not clear to either Adrian or his wife why Tausha was given the boot, since she herself had never blogged or written anything that anyone on the High Council ever alluded to. The only thing they can conclude is that Tausha was expelled because of guilt by association. She is the wife of a Mormon blogger. Apparently that is now an egregious sin, in and of itself.

It also wasn't clear to either of them from the proceedings what act of apostasy they were accused of having committed, for under the traditional definition, in order to be an apostate one must have at some point renounced his or her former beliefs and and actively fought against Christ and His church, something neither Adrian nor Tausha has ever been accused of.  Rather than accuse either of these good people of turning their backs on the faith, the High Council focused their interrogations on a particular post of Adrian's, the fourth part of a series on "Hearsay and Heresy" which he titled Never Led Astray. I found this post to be highly readable and extremely informative.  And frankly, I cannot find any factual errors anywhere in it.  This piece appears to be right in line with Apostle Bednar's charge to all of us to combat the pervasive misconceptions about Mormonism by countering them with truth.

Adrian has kindly given me permission to republish his controversial post below. Perhaps others reading it can detect where he has promoted falsehood rather than truth, or failed to adequately testify of Christ. If so, I hope you will help me understand what the controversy is by pointing those findings out in the comment section afterward.  

                                   Never Led Astray
                                                                     By Adrian Larsen

I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. (2 Nephi 4:34)

In the previous posts in this series, we've examined some manufactured quotes--falsely attributed to Joseph Smith--which are used to promote false doctrine. Among the ideas promoted:

• The majority of the twelve can never go astray.
• The records of the church can never go astray (not sure how they could...)
• The majority of the church members can never be misled.
• The majority of the church members will go to the Celestial Kingdom, and
• Anyone who says otherwise is on the high road to apostasy.

Oh yeah...and the moon is inhabited by people that dress like Quakers.

Now make no mistake, the above ideas are FALSE, never taught by Joseph, not supported by scripture, and frankly really stupid if you think about them. They were made up in an effort to strengthen an agenda and win a historical power struggle with other branches of the restoration movement. Yet we persist in believing and teaching these ideas, even featuring them in our official church manuals. We find it more important to win an argument than to be on the side of truth.

Not good, but it gets worse. 

If we really want to get to the root of the problem we must consider the holiest of the holy grails of unbelief.

Warning: Confronting unbelief is never easy. You may find the following uncomfortable to consider. I sympathize with you; this wasn't easy for me, either. All I can do is plead with you to please hear me out. If you love God, value truth, and want to develop real faith, you'll need to confront your unbelief and seek truth above tradition. Saving faith can only be founded upon truth. If it is founded upon anything else, it is not faith. If confronting unbelief is the only way to know God, I'll gladly make that trade.

OK, on to the problem. This is the 800-pound gorilla of false doctrine that affects every part of the church from top to bottom. It is simply stated as follows:

The Prophet can never lead us astray.

The mantra begins in primary, where we march to the drumbeat of "Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray."

By the time we reach adulthood, we take great comfort in the idea that no matter what, as long as we're following the prophet, we're A-1 guaranteed entry into the celestial kingdom, because there's just no way the guy can ever make a mistake.

So pervasive is this unbelief, that we've now placed the prophet in a place of priority above the scriptures, above the truth, and even above the Lord. These are bold statements to make, but they are absolutely true in our religious practice and beliefs.

For examples, look to Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, a talk given by the apostle Ezra Taft Benson in 1980. In this talk, Elder Benson asserted, among other things, that words of the prophet are more important than what is written in our scriptures, that anything that comes out of the prophet's mouth is revelation, and that even if the prophet tells you to do evil, God is bound to honor you for doing it. 

When this talk was given, it was roundly rejected by Spencer W. Kimball, who was the prophet at the time. In fact this talk very nearly earned Elder Benson a formal rebuke from the First Presidency, and he was required to apologize to the Quorum of the Twelve and explain himself to a combined meeting of all the general authorities of the church. In short, President Kimball was MUCH displeased with what was said, and considered it false doctrine.

Oddly enough, the same talk, filled with the same false doctrine, was just given in General Conference in 2010, without a peep from the Twelve, the First Presidency, or the general membership of the church. Nobody bothered to address how the doctrine could be false in 1980, but true 30 years later. Did God change the doctrine? Or did someone else?

So consider this: Brigham Young taught many things that the church has since flatly denied and openly called false (polygamy, Adam-god theory, blood atonement, refusal to ordain blacks, for example.) Obeying Brigham in these items nowadays will get you excommunicated. Yet when Brigham taught these things, he insisted he was speaking the word of the Lord. 

Was Brigham wrong? Or is the church today wrong? Remember saving doctrine never changes. God does not vary. Somebody was wrong. Somebody misled you. Was it Brigham, or is it today's leaders? They can't both be right.

This deserves careful thought. Your salvation is at stake.

Since this series is about origins of doctrines, let's go back and take a look at where this particular doctrine of infallibility came from. Like many issues in our history, it all starts with polygamy.

As you may be aware, during Joseph Smith's day, the practice of plural marriage was limited and secret. But Brigham Young went public with the teaching in 1852, advocating plural marriage as a necessary part of the LDS faith, which he practiced with gusto.

Due to national backlash about this practice, government persecution threatened plural marriage in the LDS church. Seeking protection under the first amendment, Brigham began forcefully teaching that polygamy was not only part of the LDS religion, but a fundamental part of the belief system--so essential, in fact, that exaltation was simply impossible without polygamy. It was polygamy or damnation. Period.

By insisting plural marriage was so fundamental a part of the religion, Brigham hoped the religious freedom guarantee in the first amendment would protect the practice. 

The church then commenced a 30-year series of court battles against various laws and attempts to curtail polygamy. Losses mounted for the church as government pressure and threats increased.

By 1890, in a final blow, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Edmunds-Tucker act, disincorporating the church and seizing church assets, including the temples. Though Wilford Woodruff, church president at the time, had previously vowed that the church would never give up polygamy, he found himself in a tough situation.

On the one hand, there had been 40 years of insistent teaching by prophets that polygamy was absolutely necessary for exaltation, that the church would never abandon it under any circumstances, and that the Lord would uphold the church against all its enemies. 

On the other hand, there was the U.S. government, which had already disincorporated the church, seized church assets, and publicly stated it was coming for the temples next. Meanwhile many church members and leaders were languishing in jail, facing court fines, and living in secret to evade the law.

Wilford Woodruff was indeed in a tough situation. 

Faced with the destruction of the church and no chance of statehood for Utah, under pressure from the government, he issued the press release now known as the Manifesto (Official Declaration 1), in which he stated that the church would no longer perform plural marriages. This statement was designed to mislead congress into believing the practice would actually stop. 

Not to be misled, congress insisted that the statement not only be published in the press, but actually presented at General Conference and sustained by the church membership as a binding policy change.

And so it was that on October 6, 1890, Wilford Woodruff found himself standing at the tabernacle pulpit, before the church and the world, reading a statement that said he now intended to do what he swore he would never do, and which he himself had taught the Lord would never allow. He intended to publicly abandon polygamy. But he needed political cover for this fundamental change in the very foundation of then-practiced LDS mormonism. As one doctrine was abandoned, he needed another to justify it. 

So he said the following:

"I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

And thus was invented the doctrine of infallibility, now applied to each President of the LDS church. 

Why can't the President lead you astray? Because he said so.

Of course, the doctrine has since grown and expanded to the point that rational people actually believe they can safely entrust their salvation to another fallen mortal man, despite pointed scriptural warnings to the contrary. They actually consider it safe to surrender their agency to another, not realizing that this was Lucifer's plan from the beginning!

The doctrine teaches that it is impossible for the prophet to lead us astray, and that if he attempts to do so, the Lord is obligated to kill him. Seriously. And we're OK with that? Knowing how many mistakes I make, I'm sure glad I'm not the prophet...

This doctrine is not scriptural. This doctrine did not originate with Joseph Smith--Joseph actually taught the opposite. I'd say more along these lines, but there's no way I can possibly hold a candle to the summary given by Rock Waterman in his blog, Pure Mormonism:

"You can search the scriptures and the general conference archives until your eyes swim and never find one instance of a recorded revelation from God declaring the prophets will never lead us astray, or that God wants us to "follow" them.  We didn't get that doctrine from God. We have it because one fine day in 1890 Wilford Woodruff just pulled it out of his butt." 

Not much I can add to that. 

Wilford said it, he got the vote he needed to convince the congress he was serious, even though he wasn't (the church secretly continued polygamous marriages until at least 1904), and Utah got statehood. 

As a by-product, we were left with a lie.

We've since repeated the lie so often and so well, with so much passion and embellishment, that it's become THE new foundational doctrine of the LDS church. A recent example from General Conference states, "We have the Lord’s personal promise that the prophets will never lead us astray." I'd love to know when and where the Lord made that "personal promise." But all I can find is an apocryphal premise.

We've replaced polygamy with infallibility. 

Today, the prophet can do no wrong, and therefore, by extension, the church can do no wrong. And if it's impossible for the church to be wrong, then there's really no need for individual LDS members to do anything other than "follow the prophet" right into the Celestial Kingdom. 

We've traded the Savior's injunction of "Come, Follow Me" with Satan's imitation, "Go, follow him."

Cursed, indeed, is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. (2 Nephi 4:34)

Speaking of our day, Nephi said, "...they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men." (2 Nephi 28:14)

Therefore, in our day:

• ALL are astray
• Except a few who are humble followers of Christ
• And these humble followers are misled by their leaders in MANY INSTANCES.

Therefore if you're not astray, you're likely misled. 

So what's the solution?

There's really no need to despair. The gospel of Jesus Christ is designed to save you without the need for a man to act as the intermediary between you and God. Remember, "the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel, and He employeth no servant there." (2 Nephi 9:41) Salvation is an individual endeavor between you and God. It always has been. 

Certainly the church offers important things we need: Ordinances, opportunities to serve, a community of believers to love--in short, a lab in which to practice the gospel. 

But when it comes to the one you should follow, you can go to God yourself. You can receive the revelation you need. You can even commune with angels and know the Lord face to face. The most important first step is to actually receive the Holy Ghost. Know why? Because the Holy Ghost is the one who truly can't lead you astray.

I'll talk more about that in a future post. Until then, ponder this:

Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. (2 Nephi 32:3)

 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:5)


                                 Afterward by Rock
Since the members of the stake high council that excommunicated Adrian and Tausha Larsen acted in violation of scripture, outside their proper authority, and contrary to the counsel given to members by an actual apostle of the Lord who encouraged us all to be actively engaged in countering false information, we can always hope these excommunications will be overturned on appeal to the First Presidency, right?

Well, I wouldn't hold my breath.  In spite of the numerous assurances by official Church Spokespersons that there is no effort to tell local leaders to keep members from blogging or discussing questions online, Adrian Larsen is only the latest of many who have been disciplined for blogging and discussing questions online. Take a look at this transcript by Brett Larson after he was ex'd, or consider the appalling disposition of Mormon blogger Will Carter's appeal here.

What is supposed to happen after an excommunication when either party is dissatisfied with the result is outlined in our Doctrine & Covenants:

“Should the parties or either of them be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made.” (D&C 102:26-27)

But the Church doesn't operate according to scripture anymore.  What happens these days is that the Brethren in Salt Lake never do review these cases. Instead they automatically defer to the local leaders as having made the right decision. 

When you have been officially declared an apostate by men in your stake who hold high callings and important titles, that means they're right and you're wrong.  No further review is necessary.  Shut up and wear that Scarlett 'A'.

                                                                *****
    UPDATE Monday, October 20: At the very time I was writing an reposting Adrian Larsen's piece, he was posting a follow-up to this one, which contains further insight as to what occurred, what it means, and how we all need to take a close look at the true damage being inflicted on the church we love.  In short, this is essential reading. It's important, the kind of thing I wish I had the power to shout from the rooftops.

Adrian's latest is entitled 40 Days On Death Row and you can access it by clicking here.                                                     

Important Notice: I again remind those who wish to comment that posting only as "Anonymous" is no longer allowed. You do not have to use your real name, but if you insist on choosing "Anonymous" from the drop-down menu, you must invent a username and place that either at the top or bottom of your comment so that readers can tell you apart from the many others who for some reason keep choosing to post under the anonymous option.   If you have a Google registration, use that one, otherwise it's best if you check the box that says "Name/URL", place your preferred username in in the "name" box, and ignore the box that asks for a URL. That way you can still remain anonymous if you so wish, but then other readers have a handle to address you with when responding. Comments missing any kind of identifying moniker are at risk of being deleted. I'm very strict about this because too many people posting as "anonymous" has created chaos in the past.

What I Left Out Of My Book

Previously: The Drunkards of Ephraim

Late at night on July 22nd, after I had gone over the manuscript of my book one last time (did I mention I wrote a book?), I sent the final draft to the printer and went to bed.  The very next morning I wished I had waited one more day, because Denver Snuffer had written a piece that so encapsulated the entire theme of my book that it just screamed to be included as an afterward.

But I was too late. My book was going to press. And soon I remembered something else I had meant to include in the book, and a week later at the Sunstone Symposium Joe Jensen delivered a paper that would have been perfect in the appendix -if I had thought to include an appendix.

So, what follows in today's post are things I wish I had mentioned or included or linked to, had I not been in such an all-fired hurry to get the book to press. Think of the following bon mots as something like DVD Bonus Extras.

But first, a word from the Mrs.

Maybe I Should Listen To My Wife
Connie was never keen on the title I gave my book, What To Expect When You're Excommunicated: The Believing Mormon's Guide to the Coming Purge.

"People are going to think it's only for people who are facing excommunication," she insisted, "You'll lose most of the people you're hoping to reach."

I disagreed. I thought the title was clever and provocative, and anyone who saw it would be so intrigued they would buy it the minute they read the title. Besides, the only other name I could think of was I Have A Blog So Buy My Book.

I'm beginning to think my wife was onto something. Because the truth is, the book isn't entirely about excommunication. Now, if you happen to be one of the many believers currently facing an unwarranted excommunication from the LDS Church over a bogus charge of "apostasy," then chapter 7 will likely be quite helpful to you.

But the rest of the book is for the average latter-day Saint who is struggling to make sense of  the craziness going on in the Church of late. As a commenter on another blog recently expressed things, "It just feels as though we as LDS who want to follow Jesus Christ are in the middle of a terrible storm right now."

Many faithful Saints are coming to realize that the modern LDS Church bears little resemblance to the one founded by Joseph Smith in 1830. If you've done any reading in church history and wonder why the marvelous gifts of the spirit once abundant in Nauvoo seem to be missing in the church today, this book will provide an overview of how that happened and why.  It compares the revealed word of God to the foolish traditions of men, and will help you sort out one from the other. It asks and answers the pertinent question of the day: how did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which began as a theocracy (government by God) find itself largely transformed into an oligarchy (government by a small group of dominant elites)?

If you are convinced it's impossible for The True Church to ever go astray, this book may not be for you.  But for everyone else it will deconstruct that false teaching, and direct you to where the Book of Mormon prophets -as well as Jesus Christ Himself- predicted just the opposite. In short, this book is for every latter-day Saint concerned with the direction the modern Church appears to be heading, and provides solutions from the word of God as to how we can repent and get ourselves back on track.

But first we're going to have to recognize what we have to repent of.  Which brings us to that piece I mentioned from Denver Snuffer's blog.

After I had written an entire book describing the various causes in which the Christ-centered religion of my youth had been loosed from its moorings, Denver Snuffer comes along and distills it all into one simple truth: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints apparently has only one doctrine left.

Here is the essay I wish I had included in my book as an afterword, presented here with his permission:

 Only One Doctrine Left
"In LDS Mormonism there is really only one doctrine left. Everything else is subordinate and changeable. But this single demand is paramount. If you disbelieve this position, then LDS Mormonism has no place for you. The doctrine:

"We follow a man whom we call a prophet."

"If you disbelieve this, and think you ought to follow Christ first, and the church's 'prophet' is secondary, then you are insubordinate and a threat. Believing that Christ comes first opens the possibility that Christ could tell you the 'prophet' is mistaken. That is intolerable.

"In LDS Mormonism it is allowed for the current 'prophet' to criticize and denigrate a former 'prophet.' This happens frequently. Even editorials now appear on the LDS.org website rejecting Brigham Young's teachings as wrong, even immoral. The new, living leader has the 'keys' and the contradictions are viewed by blinded followers to be 'proof of continuing revelation.'

"Therefore these contradictions are valued by the deceived. An unchanging God has error prone key-holders who can guarantee his contemporaries their salvation. This is even if later key-holders proclaim the earlier leader's mistakes. All of this is only consistent if you believe the central, single doctrine. If you question it, the whole construct begins to look foolish and riddled with error.

"When I joined LDS Mormonism there were many doctrines. None of them put President Spencer W. Kimball into a position of a dictator. Indeed, President Kimball earned our loyalty and respect by his meek example and the content of his sermons. He denounced modern idols, and criticized the war-like nature of our country. But no one demanded a loyalty oath, insisting that veneration of him took precedence over worship of Christ. I believe if President Kimball heard of such a thing being taught he would have vocally and immediately spoken against it. He denounced Ezra Taft Benson's sermon about Fourteen Fundamentals for Following the Prophet. But today these are taught in General Conference!

"LDS Mormonism has changed since I first joined. So much so that I no longer belong in an organization that holds one and only one doctrine as its bedrock. I believe Christ alone is worthy of veneration. I do not believe I must follow a man to be able to follow Christ. I do not believe I should look to the example of some man in order to be able to see Christ.

"This radical and false shift of the religion has happened in my lifetime. I never engaged in this idolatry while among the LDS organization, and I refuse to accept that kind of religion now. It is false. I reject it.

"Insofar as the LDS Church 'believes' in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and the revelations through him, including the D&C and Pearl of Great Price, I honor them. Insofar as they testify of the Book of Mormon and preach from it, I believe and accept it. Therefore I see some considerable merit to the LDS Church. However, their current single fundamental doctrine is false. Utterly false.

"If you extend the fundamental LDS doctrine to its logical conclusion, it is also satanic. It abrogates free will, requires obedience to a man even if he tells you to do something which you know to be wrong (a principle that has been taught in General Conference), and requires you to abandon your own agency. Since I believe everyone will be accountable before God for their choices in the Day of Judgment, the paradigm is false and will not protect you. You may think the 'key holder' will absolve you of your mistakes, but God will judge you. If you are asked to do something wrong, and you do it out of veneration for a 'prophet you will not be spared, but you will be judged and condemned.

"There are many good people in the LDS Church. There is also some considerable good done by the LDS Church. But when adulterers, liars, idolaters and the ignorant who preside in wards, stakes and areas of the church insist their personal unworthiness is excused because they are loyal to a priesthood line of authority, as we presently find in the church, then someone needs to proclaim faith in Christ and repentance. Even if only one voice will speak up, God will vindicate faith in Him in the end.

"The Great Whore will always outnumber the few who are Christ's sheep. But that cannot detract from Christ's affection for those who hear His voice and defend His religion."

The Latter-Day Apostasy
Just days after submitting my manuscript to the publisher, I attended the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City where one particular presentation struck me as something that would have been perfect to include as an appendix to my book if I hadn't already been too late. It was Joe Jensen's presentation titled The Latter-day Apostasy: A Scriptural Perspective.  During the rest of the symposium, and for days afterward, I was still hearing quite a bit of buzz about this one. And for good reason. 

I have recommended Joe's website, Just And True, many times in the past, and the transcript of this talk is available there.  Sunstone has also provided the audio on this site here, so you can listen to it if you wish.  Just scroll down to Session 224, and click on the arrow below the title. You can also purchase it from the Sunstone site on CD. I'd recommend it.

What I really wish is not so much that I had included Joe's presentation in my book, but that I had written the thing myself because it's phenomenal. Joe has performed an invaluable service to all of us by examining the subject of apostasy from every conceivable angle of interest to Mormons, and concludes -no surprise here- that the real iniquity in the LDS Church is always fomented from above (as our founding prophet Joseph Smith lamented in a quote on page 152 of my book).

Brother Jensen presents the correct (and scripturally accurate) definition of apostasy as found on the LDS Church's official website ("When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel") and then juxtaposes that with the fraudulent definition provided to local leaders in the corporate Church Handbook of Instruction.

"There appears to be one definition of apostasy for public consumption," Brother Jensen writes, "and another private directive to church leadership." It is this latter, completely arbitrary definition that is used today by some in high office who desire to strip faithful believers of their membership in the Lord's church.

One of the things that really caught my attention was Joe's discussion of Nehor, the notorious Book of Mormon apostate.  Among the things Nehor advocated for was that the leaders of the church should enjoy certain perks and privileges, including being supported by the people so they didn't have to hold down normal jobs like everyone else, and being treated like celebrities. 

I have a friend who worked at Church headquarters for several years, meeting frequently and answering directly to two well-known apostles.  Once he was able to find more suitable employment, he resigned, and was glad to be out of there. "These guys," he told me, referring to the apostles, "are treated like rock stars. And they act like they expect it."

I won't name the particular apostles my friend worked under, in the interest of protecting his identity, but he also told me jaw-dropping tales of waste, abuse, and cavalier attitudes toward large amounts of money spent on dubious projects, "because they believe they can do no wrong." And although no one really knows how much our general authorities are compensated for their "labors," based on the lifestyles my friend observed, he believes the sum is quite substantial.

All this in a Church that boasts of having a humble unpaid clergy, as the Book of Mormon requires.  In the first book of Alma, we learn that Nehor loses his temper and kills a guy, so Nehor is executed for committing murder, and that's the end of that.

Except it seems that now the spirit of Nehor -"the only person in the index of the LDS Scriptures to be branded an apostate"- lives on today in the pampered and popular hierarchy of the LDS Church.

Also worth noting is Brother Jensen's reminder that the Lord has insisted that for His church to be legitimately His, it must be "called in my name" which our church certainly was for many decades.  But we now know that the the name of the church was legally changed by Heber J. Grant on November 26, 1923, with the new entity retaining the original name only as a trademark that is now held in reserve by Intellectual Reserve, Inc, the copyright arm of the corporation. This is no matter to be taken lightly, as Jensen submits:

"To be His church, the organization must be called by His name, be built upon His gospel and demonstrate the works of God....The current formal name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This seems to fit the requirement although this is only the trademark. The legal name of the organization is The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the holder of the copyright of my triple combination. Buildings and facilities typically show ownership as the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop or other entities. Does this meet the Lords requirement?

I can't stress how important I feel it is for you to read this entire essay. I don't even care if you stop reading my words right now.  Click on this link and get yourself an education about what it really means to be in apostasy.

Strangers In Zion 
In my newly published book, I discuss how growing numbers of faithful, believing latter-day Saints have gotten fed up with the direction the LDS Church appears headed and have vowed to stop supporting it. Many of these devoted members, though they remain committed to the Restored gospel, are resigning from the institutional Church in protest.

I have never advocated resigning from the Church, for a variety of reasons. In the first place, this is our church. Nowhere in scripture can you find any indication that God has given an elite priest class the authority to own or control His church. In the second place, when you resign from the church, others assume you have lost your testimony of the gospel. You appear to them as just another apostate, a turncoat. Whatever statement you intended to make by leaving is lost on your fellow believers, because they don't want to hear your reasons. Your voice is therefore not heard, and your valiant stand for truth and righteousness is ignored.

So last month a group of believers led by Micah Nicholaisen, one of the lights behind A Thoughtful Faith Podcast series, has come up with an alternative to resigning. They call themselves Strangers In Zion, and they are saying, in effect, "If you're going to hold disciplinary councils on our brothers and sisters over matters that heretofore have never warranted such action, then we insist you hold disciplinary councils on us, too, because we share the same views as those you have targeted."

It's a pretty radical idea, but I like it. No sooner had the website been publicized than over a hundred church members signed on, drafting letters challenging their local leaders to convene Church courts and try them for the "sin" of refusing to kowtow to authority.

On August 18th, Strangers In Zion founder Micah Nicholaisen was disfellowshiped from the Church, and he appears none the worse for the experience. The real oddity about the whole thing is that Micah was disfellowshiped for holding the very same views that Kate Kelly was excommunicated over.

Excommunication is a much harsher punishment, yet this Church insists its women are treated no differently than its men.

Here's a photo of Micah and his family taken today after church. Note that Micah has a beard, is not wearing a tie, and his shirt isn't white. This is proof that he is lost to us forever.

Oh, and his prepubescent daughter is wearing a sleeveless top, so she's lost, too.

As much as I find the idea behind Strangers In Zion strangely endearing, there may be an even better way to work the needed reforms. That would be to hold disciplinary hearings on the real apostates.

Throw The Bums Out?
When I was in Salt Lake City last month I had conversations with a group of concerned Utah Attorneys and professionals who, except for one, are all present and former high council members.

They posed a simple question: why should believing members resign from the church in protest, or fall on their swords like Micah Nicholaisen and others are doing, when the Lord has already provided us with the remedy to this problem?

What they propose sounded intriguing to me, and I'm interested in hearing how things  develop.

In my book I express the belief that the current rash of senseless persecutions we are seeing are not the work of a concerted, unified pogrom instituted by the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. From what we know so far, this craziness is likely the work of one or two rogue apostles, just as it was twenty years ago with the the September Six. They appear to be aided by two or more members of the Quorum of the Seventy who, for various reasons, are overclocked with ambition and zealotry. (I go into greater detail in the book as to why they chose this particular time to tip their hand.)

Since the identities of some of these men are known, all that is necessary to rein them in is to convene a Council of Elders and try them for apostasy.

Easier said than done, you say?  Yeah, could be.

Actually the idea is scripturally sound, but given the climate of the Church today, it might be as Quixotic as trying members of congress for violating their oath of office. Everyone knows they're guilty, but who's going to call them on it?

The remedy does exist for putting things back in order. Doctrine and Covenants section 107 makes it clear that not even the president of the Church himself is immune from prosecution for violation of his office.  And the body of the Saints are qualified to conduct the trial. Where something like this has a chance of making a difference is that the unfavorable publicity that would result from calling out GAs who constantly break the rules might itself be enough to get the other members of the Twelve to finally step up and put a stop to the usurpations of their brethren.

Is there evidence to convict a general authority of apostasy?  Man, is there ever! Finding evidence is not the problem. Some of  these so-called "leaders" violate Church law routinely and openly. You know the adage: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Human nature is the same whether in politics or religion.

This committee I've spoken with suggests the most appropriate target would be the recreant apostle Boyd K. Packer, because Packer was responsible for a DVD that thoroughly renounced the teachings of Jesus. I wrote something about that video in my post titled Vengeance And The Latter-day Saint and I have seen for myself how Packer has twisted and misquoted both scripture and the modern prophets (in particular the First Presidency back in 1942) in order to present a deliberate distortion of doctrine that suited his own agenda. He'd fit the bill, all right.

So right about now you've decided these guys have lost their minds, right? You think it's a nutty idea to threaten high Mucky-Mucks in the Church to get them to shut up and sit down?  Well what do you think they've been trying to do to us down here at the bottom of the totem?

It doesn't sound any crazier or less effective to me than resigning from the church to try to make a point.  Maybe it's time the members of the body of Christ stood fast and reclaimed their power as members of the church of Christ, and kept a closer watch on those at the top whose personal ambitions have clouded their judgment.

As D&C 20:80 instructs, "any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct."  So the way it would work is two or more witnesses belonging to Boyd Packer's stake would have to come forward and testify that the video he promoted teaches false doctrine.  Frankly, that part would be a cakewalk. The difficult part would be in getting a council of Elders from his stake with the integrity to call out a GA in this day and age when we've all been conditioned to believe these men are beyond reproach.

Anyway, it's something to think about, and it's certainly an intriguing idea whether it's feasible or not.

What I do know is this: we have to put a stop to this divisiveness that's tearing the church apart simply because one person's views don't line up with someone else's. This is not the way to unify the church.  Maybe it is time to rein in those leaders who are letting their thirst for control cloud their judgment.  If they wish to lead, then let them lead, but what we're seeing now isn't leadership. We have enough problems in the church today without everybody making things worse.  Like the title of Lori Burkman's recent post puts it, If It Keeps On Raining, The Levee's Going To Break.

What To Expect When You're Out Of State
People have been asking what's the latest with my situation?  Well, the other thing that happened the day after I sent my book to press was that I finally got the call from my stake president in Sacramento wanting to meet with me for the first time. I had been expecting his call for two months, ever since that meeting with my bishop where I was given the ultimatum to shut up, get out, or get kicked out.  Since I was in Utah when he called, I told him we'd have to get together when I got home.  When I got home I called him and told him I wasn't well, and he said he'd call me back in a couple of weeks.  This is one week later. Maybe I'll call him.

So that's the update. Here's a few more odds & ends and then I'll wrap this up:

A reporter from The Daily Beast did a story on the Sunstone Symposium and quoted me spouting off at the end.

The Blog Nearing Kolob has compiled a chart listing many of those who have been, or are in the process of being brought up on charges of apostasy.  I don't know how current the list is, but it's interesting to look at.

One of my online heroes, Tim Malone, posted a review of my book today.  You can read it here at Latter-day Commentary.

I hope you'll take a look at my book. And better yet, I hope you'll buy it.  In the midst of all this blabbering, did I mention the title? I don't think I did.

It's called What To Expect When You're Excommunicated: The Believing Mormon's Guide To The Coming Purge. You can find it at Amazon, and also at Benchmark Books in Salt Lake City. But be advised that as of yesterday Benchmark Books is down to their last ten copies, so you may want to call first.  By the way, I finally got hold of somebody at the publisher and got them to reduce the price of the book overall, so there's some good news. I never was comfortable with it listing at fifteen dollars.

My thanks to all the wonderful people who reviewed my book on Amazon and said such kind things about it. (Except you, Payton Chalmers.) I greatly appreciate your input and welcome more comments. (Again, Payton Chalmers, I'm talking to everybody but you.)

Updated September 1, 2014, 7:14 AM:  
Whoo-hoo! I just found out I've sold TWO BOOKS already this month! You read that right, my friends. Two. That puts my Amazon Ranking at #63,094.  I only have to sell sixty-three thousand and ninety three more books today and I'll be at number one!

Come on, people, we can do this!

(Psssst! Hey! Click Here!)


Important Note About Posting Comments:
As announced previously, henceforth all comments posting on this blog only as "Anonymous" will be deleted.
I respect all reader's wishes to post anonymously, and you may continue to do so as long as at the beginning and/or end of your comment you use some type of unique identifiyer so that others can tell you from the hundreds of others posting as "Anonymous." With so many commenting under the name "Anonymous," the conversations have become increasingly difficult to follow.  It has also become obvious that some of those posting anonymously are often among the most uncivil; rather than engage  in intelligent arguments, some of these people tend to get quarrelsome.  A civil argument advances the dialogue; petty and immature attacks on other's views do not.

Please note that if you are concerned about your privacy, the drop-down feature that reads "Name/URL" already keeps you completely anonymous. When you post a moniker using that method, I don't have the ability to track who you are (not that I would want to) and neither does anyone else. So it makes sense to use that feature if you wish to keep your true identity hidden. All you have to do is place whatever username you wish to go by in the "Name" box and ignore the URL part. If you find it necessary to fill in the URL, you can put any link in the URL box you choose, such as Youtube.com, Amazon.com, or even LDS.org

Those with Google, Yahoo, Wordpress, and other accounts can choose to post under those accounts, which helps to lead others to your own blog if you have one.