Mormon Traditions — Twisting “The Lord Prospers the Righteous” into the Prosperity Gospel

The so-called “prosperity gospel” is seeing a lot of success.  The gospel that “God wants you to be wealthy.”  Some congregational leaders are literally demanding wealth, mansions and jets at the expense of their congregations, and the congregations are complying.  They do so in hopes—and based upon promises from the ministers—that God will then turn around and make them rich as well, as to the things of this world.

Not to be outdone, Mormonism is also succumbing to the notion of a “prosperity gospel,” though the lack of a paid clergy among the lower leadership means it has to manifest differently.  Rather than God “prospering” the members for paying the ministers with money, He prospers them for paying the ministers with unquestioning loyalty and obedience.  And the financially successful Mormons argue that He pays handsomely for righteousness.

For example, we have LDS political hero Mitt Romney selling his multi-millionaire status as God-given “prosperity,” and teaching that we should all similarly seek to obtain and hoard such excessive wealth unto ourselves.  At least within American Mormonism, we can lust for and covet such riches and not only maintain a temple recommend, but be lauded and ushered up the ranks of LDS leadership.  You will never find a bishop or Stake President who is the poorest member of the flock.  We obsess over rich men, especially the “self-reliant” ones, believing we can measure God’s approval of us in our “prosperity.”  John Steinbeck made a remark about Americans that was indeed true, regardless of opinions about his socialist alignment, which is that poor Americans tend to view themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” Speak to most any LDS Business College student or professor to confirm this viewpoint is alive and well among American Mormons.

But for the “prosperity gospel” to sell requires exploiting people’s ignorance of scripture.  The Bible alone has enough to indict any who would claim that riches, or seeking them, or measuring God’s approval by them, are pleasing to God.  We Mormons have additional scripture, with even clearer statements concerning wealth and riches and prosperity.  So upholding the prosperity gospel requires we cherry-pick around those verses, focusing exclusively on statements from God where he promises to prosper the righteous, and inferring its necessary inverse conclusion that if you are poor it is because you are unrighteous.

Now, it is true that the scriptures teach that the Lord prospers the righteous.

“For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.” — 2 Nephi 4:4 (see also — Alma 50:18-20; 4 Nephi 1:23)

Passages like this form the basis for the claims of the prosperity gospel, in the same way as Paul's statements provide the basis for "faith alone" doctrines.  But there are a lot of good questions that can arise around such a simple statement.  

- How much must God give us before we can or will consider it “prosperity”?  

- Is prosperity necessarily to be understood as a blessing only, a gift with no other purpose than to please us and fulfill our own needs?  

- If God is actually the owner of all the earth’s riches (1 Corinthians 10:26; D&C 38:39; D&C 104:55), can we really consider them as being “given” to us in any other capacity than that of temporary stewards (D&C 104:56-57)?  Which means we are to do with them as He wills, during the brief time they are in our stewardship?  

- If they are His, to be done with as He pleases, do our interests and desires concerning riches get to take precedent over His?  

- Does it matter who He allows to be a steward over more, and who He allows to be a steward over less, if none of it is ours and all of it is His to do with according to His will?

We should also look at the topical context of riches and prosperity, as it becomes abundantly clear that God prospering the righteous it is not so simple as “God pays you more money for obeying Him more.”  

First of all, riches are one of the most frequently denounced, cursed and warned-against things in scripture.

“He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him.” — Proverbs 28:22

“But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.” — Luke 6:24

“Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.  Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.  Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.  Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.  Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.  Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.” — James 5:1-6

“But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.” — 2 Nephi 9:30

“Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!” — D&C 56:16

(see also — Ecclesiastes 5:13; Matthew 13:22; Mark 10:23-25; Luke 12:16-21; Luke 16:19-25; 1 Timothy 6:9; Revelation 3:17)

Money has also had a direct corruptive influence on the Lord’s people throughout history. 

“But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the Lord, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.  Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity.  The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us. Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.” — Micah 3:8-12

Moroni even prophesied it would have the same effect upon us Mormons, “the holy church of God,” in the latter days.

“Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown 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 iniquities; 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?” — Mormon 8:35-40

So why “bless” us with such prosperity and riches if they have such a corrosive power upon our souls?  Perhaps the answer is also in the scriptures.

“For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad…Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.” — 2 Nephi 2:11, 16

“…We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;  And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;” — Abraham 3:24-25

Could prosperity also be a trial, to see what will be done with the riches?  One of the purposes of our being in this world is to prove ourselves, to be proven.  We must be given the Lord’s commandments on the one hand, and the temptations of the natural man on the other, to see which we will choose.  This serves to help prove your heart, for you cannot serve both God and riches, or in other words Mammon (Luke 16:13).  You must choose one, and we are counseled against setting our heart on the riches of this world, for we will lose them when we go to the next world and would find no treasures awaiting us there.

“Seek not after riches nor the vain things of this world; for behold, you cannot carry them with you.” — Alma 39:14

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal;  But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.  For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” — 3 Nephi 13:19-21

“Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich.” — D&C 6:7

As part of this proving, one thing we must learn is that God does not have exclusive claim to prospering us.  In the temple, Lucifer declares his intention to use money—our primary measure of prosperity—to buy up for himself influence through militaries, religions and governments, the most powerful institutions of this world.  He uses money to accomplish his purposes, and he knows exactly how to use it the most effectively. 

On the other hand, while God does say He prospers the righteous, where does He say He is going to necessarily use money to do it?  Does the Lord ever declare His intention to use money to buy up souls or churches, luxury malls and high-end housing developments, or a percentage of the state of Florida?  To assume that because the Lord allows a person or institution to become rich—or “prosperous”—is not to say that He is thereby endorsing, causing, empowering or otherwise contributing to their excesses.  The Lord also allows all forms of sin and wickedness in this world, but we would not attribute credit for them to Him. 

The wicked are indeed frequently prospered through their wickedness (Psalms 73:3-5, 12). Most riches in this world are obtained through exploitation, digging a pit for our neighbors that we might get ahead, working “smart” to get others to shoulder the real burdens, while we pay them as little as possible and accumulate for ourselves as much as possible.  It is not considered good business to deal justly with our fellow men.  If they can be exploited, then they deserve to be so.  It is the anti-Christ, self-reliant doctrine of Korihor (Alma 30:17), but we are parading it as though it is actually the prosperity of God.  It is the false doctrine of “God helps those who help themselves,” when the truth is that God helps those who help others—at the expense of themselves—while it is the devil who snares those who seek to help themselves (Luke 17:33).

Riches in heaven are obtained by serving God and our fellow man, by sacrifice and faith, and are taught as being a gift, specifically given in the absence of money.

“And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.” — D&C 14:7 

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” — Isaiah 55:1

We are to first seek God and His kingdom, and we are then promised that the rest of our needs will be added upon us (Matthew 6:33).  This is always to be our priority.  But then, once we are in a state where the kingdom of God and His righteousness really are foremost in our interests, we have this statement by Jacob:

“But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.  And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.” — Jacob 2:18-19

Jacob informs us that once we are in alignment with God and have obtained “a hope in Christ” (another topic), we are then permitted to seek after riches.  Why?  Because our hearts are not set on them.  We aren’t interested in what the riches can do for us, or how much we can stuff into our hoard under the Lonely Mountain.  We come to recognize that riches are all God’s, and they are a means by which we can serve and bless those who stand in need, thereby serving God (Mosiah 2:17).  This is perfectly in accordance with the laws of God governing the use of riches.

“Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.” — 1 Timothy 6:17-19

“Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.” — Jacob 2:17

“And the money which is left unto this people—let there be an agent appointed unto this people, to take the money to provide food and raiment, according to the wants of this people.” — D&C 51:8

“But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.” — D&C 104:16

As individuals become prospered or rich, the expectation is placed upon them to aid the poor, in opposition to the natural temptation to hoard and use riches selfishly.  This requirement has been placed upon all the rich by God, all through history.  Very few, like Abraham, choose wisely to spread their wealth and help others, thereby warranting greater treasures in heaven.  The majority are overtaken by their earthly riches, discarding their responsibility to the poor, rationalizing ways to justify keeping their wealth for themselves, resulting in the frequent warnings and condemnations of riches and the rich in scripture.

In aiding the poor, bonds are meant to be created between those who give and receive aid, as they come to see themselves as members of a community together.  Perhaps they were already understood as members of a community in another sense, but class disparity due to wealth has immense divisive power which must be overcome, or the community remains fragmented.  The rich sacrificing their excess to the help of the poor, to lift them from poverty, is a crucial step in repairing this community fragmentation and preparing a space for Zion to come forth.

As the poor are lifted out of poverty and wealth disparity decreases, unity increases.  This is only the case because it isn’t brought forth by compulsion or force, but by voluntary action on the part of all those involved.  The community comes to truly care about one another’s needs, and are willing to sacrifice to fulfill them.  This is the type of “people” that the Lord likes to prosper.

The Lord can and does prosper both individuals, and peoples.  When the Lord works to prosper a people, all the laws and expectations placed upon individuals remain, but something new is added.  For a people to be considered as Zion, they must be tried and proven as a community.  They must face and overcome the greatest challenges that seek to divide and destroy communities, and one of those is prosperity.

“Yea, and we may see at the very time when he doth prosper his people, yea, in the increase of their fields, their flocks and their herds, and in gold, and in silver, and in all manner of precious things of every kind and art; sparing their lives, and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies; softening the hearts of their enemies that they should not declare wars against them; yea, and in fine, doing all things for the welfare and happiness of his people; yea, then is the time that they do harden their hearts, and do forget the Lord their God, and do trample under their feet the Holy One—yea, and this because of their ease, and their exceedingly great prosperity.” — Helaman 12:2 (see also — Alma 4:6-8; 45:24; Helaman 3:36; 6:17)

Most groups fail to clear this hurdle of prosperity, succumbing to pride and ambition and their wealth, and fragmentation occurs as they spiral downward into destruction.  But this must be overcome if there is to be a “people” prepared here to receive Zion upon her return, in preparation of the Lord’s return.  They must have no poor among them (Moses 7:18).  The poor are eliminated not by screening them out, but by elevating them out of poverty and onto equal ground with those in their community.  This necessarily occurs through the free exercise of agency, not coercion.  As the poor are eliminated, they work together with those who have lifted them up to continue producing and contributing to the community, by which means the community can become a rich people with surprising speed. 

We cannot serve both God and Mammon.  God knows we’ve tried, and we are perhaps trying harder now than we have ever tried before.  The nature of civilization has become deeply embedded in the worship of money, business, economy, finances, or in other words: Mammon.  It influences every aspect of the population’s lives and culture, it is the basis for almost all decisions made, it even swings important matters which should not be subject to such influence, like judicial outcomes, political leadership and the functioning of our religious institutions.

Mormons sincerely attempt to worship Christ, but Babylon’s religion of Mammon pushes its head in and sidles up next to Him, demanding at very least equal importance and standing.  This occurs in part because Mormonism transitioned from being a “people” to a Sunday religion, a fractional church facet of our larger lives.  Babylon’s Mammon has come to represent the “real world,” while the gospel represents another world imposing on our Sundays and some weeknights.  Because Mammon represents the more “real” world, it is the more real God, and it is therefore not expelled. We instead attempt to co-worship both Christ and Mammon.  As this is impossible, all we have actually done is choose to worship Mammon, falsely in the name of Christ, and boom, you have the prosperity gospel.

So long as Babylon is the real world, its religion of Mammon is the real religion.  We need for the gospel to become the real world, personally first and then communally, and Mammon to become the imposition.  Rather than accumulate riches to falsely measure God’s prospering of us, we must spend our riches to aid the poor, to help lift them out of the bondage of debt and poverty.

A people must rise who will overcome the temptations of prosperity.  That people must be made up of individuals who have chosen to overcome the temptations inherent with prosperity in their own lives.  Their hearts must be such that the law of all things common (Acts 2:44; 4:32; 3 Nephi 26:19; 4 Nephi 1:3) will be lived as a natural outcropping of who they have become, members of a family.  When a people’s hearts have been proven thus, then they might truly join Zion.

Prophets and Priests

Prophets and priests are always spoken of in scripture as separate and distinct roles or titles (1 Kings 1:32; Jeremiah 6:13; Jarom 1:11).  While they work together in tandem, they are not conflated.  A man may be one or the other exclusively.  

This is different from current LDS understanding, wherein a priest isn’t necessarily a prophet, but there is one “Prophet” who is necessarily the head priest of the church’s priestly body.  There are then 14 other priests titled as “prophets,” among other things, helping the “Prophet” run the priestly hierarchy of the church.  Any others claiming prophetic calls must fit a rigid formula of hierarchal oversight or they are doubted, marginalized, denounced or discharged.  If your prophetic claims don’t meet the priestly criteria of correlation, they are not even worthy of consideration.  But examination of the scriptures proves this view to be problematic.

Priests belong to and maintain a hierarchal religious organization.

Priests are administrators within a religious organization.  If one is a priest, one is necessarily a part of a larger religious body, which they serve in that capacity.  It is an official role, recognized by the religious body they serve.  In the modern church, every office is to be filled by the common consent of the church membership (D&C 26:2; 28:13), meaning the consent of the members at least plays an important role in empowering the priests to hold and exercise authority within the church.

Duties of a priest include things like teaching, exhorting, and administering certain rites of the religion (D&C 20:46-52).  High priests are specifically given responsibility concerning the higher, spiritual teachings and ordinances, while regular (Aaronic/Levitical) priests are to handle the lesser, temporal teachings and ordinances (D&C 107).

Righteous examples of priests would include, for instance, Jacob and Joseph (2 Ne. 5:26), or Alma (Mosiah 18:18), along with the many unnamed priests they ordained and worked with.  Wicked examples would include King Noah's clan (Mosiah 11-17), the Nehors (Alma 14:18), Caiaphus, and many members of the Sadducees and Pharisees.  All these men belonged to a greater religious institution, and played a role within that institution.

Prophets don't necessarily hail from or fit neatly within a hierarchal religious organization.

King Noah was the presiding high priest of his people, with a council of subordinate priests.  However, he didn't call Abinadi, or authorize his working among the people (Mosiah 11:27).  Abinadi was an outsider, and if he belonged in some religious hierarchy somewhere, he was offending jurisdictional lines with his ministry.  But Abinadi was a valid prophet of God (Mosiah 11:20).

Samuel the Lamanite came from a separate people entirely (Helaman 13:2).  The people of Zarahemla at that time had Nephi, a righteous man and a prophet, serving as a legitimate spiritual leader (Helaman 11:18; 16:1).  This could be at least compared to a bishop from another stake coming to our ward in our stake to prophesy to us.

John the Baptist operated outside the rigorous controls of the Jewish authorities, prompting them to interrogate him as to the source of his authority (John 1:19-26).

There was no organized, authoritative priestly body on the earth when Joseph Smith was called (JSH 1:18-20).  Therefore his prophetic call necessarily occurred without any priestly hierarchy to attempt to lay claim or regulation upon that title.

And then there was Christ Himself.  He never sat in a single chief seat of any sort, never functioned as a priest in the temple, and those who occupied the chief seats waged war against Him unto His very death.

As part of a body, priests identify with a community.

Priests not only belong to a community, but to an exclusive one.  To hold a priestly office, one must be chosen, which requires one be "worthy" of that call, fitting a checklist of requirements (e.g. Leviticus 21:16-23; 1 Timothy 3:2; Alma 13:2-3).  By meeting these qualifications and receiving the call, they join a brotherhood of priestly office—a priesthood—and are no longer alone.  The priesthood is their crowd, and it is one generally recognized and respected by the people.

Prophets have no such organized, temporal brotherhood to join, with a set of qualifications that must be met.  Other than having their call come directly from the Lord, one could argue that prophets are generally called from among the unpopular (Enoch and Saul/Paul), noted sinners (both Almas), uneducated laborers (Joseph Smith), and other such "weak" things of the world.

Prophets usually identify with loners, outsiders and outcasts.

John the Baptist was a voice crying out of the wilderness (John 1:23).  He literally lived outside civilization and society, and those seeking his words or services had to go out into the fringe to find him.

Abraham was a lone repenter from amidst a family and culture of corruption (Abraham 1:5), who joined no priestly organization or congregation as far as our records show.  He only had his family and a single recorded interaction with the high priest Melchizedek, who then departed the scene.

Christ wasn't a member of the Jewish priestly authorities at any point during his ministry (Isaiah 53:2).  He instead spent His time among the outcasts, the harlots and publicans and sinners, to the chagrin of the priestly body (Matthew 9:10-12).

Moses was working alone as a shepherd for his father-in-law when he was called (Exodus 3:1-2), having fled Egypt and the Israelites (Exodus 2:11-15).  Perhaps he believed he'd been rejected by the Israelites as the prophesied Moses (JST Gen. 50:29), when they failed to join his insurrection when he killed the slave master.

Priests can be called or advanced in the hierarchy by men.

Priests should be called of God (e.g. D&C 52:38), but they receive their ordination to office within the religious body from another man (2 Nephi 5:26; Mosiah 23:17; D&C 18:32; 20:39).  The exception to being ordained into a hierarchy by men would be founders of a new religious body, for example Joseph Smith (D&C 21:1-3) or Alma (Mosiah 18:18).  The body didn’t exist yet for them to be ordained into, so they were responsible for its inception.

Alternatively, priests may also be called or advanced by men who are merely higher up the priestly food chain, and without a connection to heaven.  When this occurs, the spiritual standing of the organization deteriorates into darkness (Matthew 26:59; Mosiah 11:1-5).

Prophets are always called directly by God.

Prophets are never called by men, or seniority, or assumed titles.  

Joseph Smith’s prophetic call came by faith, according to the will of God.  None but God called Moses from the burning bush, nor gave him his authority to prophesy and perform miracles and deliver the people in the name of God.  The same stands for Enoch (Moses 6:27-36), Samuel (1 Samuel 3:10), and all those called as prophets.  None received their prophetic call by an intermediary voice of man, or by virtue of a priestly office. Men may extend to prophets priestly callings, but the prophetic calling is always from God directly.

Priests tend to command the respect of their people.

Some priests earn the respect of the people they serve, by their diligent and righteous service.  Some are beneficiaries of respect for their office, rather than the earned respect for themselves (Matthew 23:1-3; Acts 23:3-5).  Some command respect for themselves literally, threatening the people that they must be revered or they will use their priestly authority to cut the people off from spiritual blessings, such as entrance to the temple or church membership.

Prophets tend to be marginalized and despised by their fellow men.  

Joseph Smith was, and is, marginalized and demonized by all non-Mormon Christianity.  He was, and is, marginalized by his own Mormon people as well.  Marginalizations include(d) our neglect of the Book of Mormon he brought forth, contributing to his murder, altering and discarding of many of his teachings, and attributing to him evils perpetrated by other men.

Enoch said all the people hated him, and was called a wild man before he ever saw any success (Moses 6:31, 37-38). 

And of course, Christ was marginalized throughout His ministry by His own people (Mark 6:4).  Whether they doubted anything good could come from Nazareth (John 1:46), or only saw in him the son of Joseph the carpenter (Matthew 13:55), or being murdered by His chosen people (Zechariah 13:6), who were unwilling to receive Him (3 Nephi 9:16).

Prophets frequently chastise the priestly body.

Christ certainly admonished the Jews (Matthew 23), His declarations of their sins driving them to their murderous rage.  Abinadi was sent not only to the people, but evidently also to the religious leadership made up of King Noah and his chosen priests (Mosiah 13:3), against whom he bore witness and testimony (Mosiah 12-16).  Also Malachi (Malachi 2-3), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 50:6), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 44:5-13), and of course many more.

Prophets may be called from among the priests.

Examples of this would include Paul (Saul of Tarsus), who was called by Jesus personally while a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 9). Nephi's brother Jacob was called as a priest by Nephi, but obtained his prophetic errand from the Lord (Jacob 1:17-18). Samuel was raised among the priestly class, being groomed as one of them, when he received his prophetic call from God (1 Samuel 1-3).  

This also begs the question that if the priestly calling was in itself enough, as we treat it today with the highest priestly offices, why did God interfere with His direct voice or appearance?  Was their priestly calling perhaps insufficient to constitute grounds for claiming a prophetic mantle?  Because the two are in fact different?

Priests may be called from among the prophets.

This seems more common.  Nephi functioned as a prophet, receiving revelation and instruction from the Lord directly before he supplanted his father and became the presiding high priest among the Nephites.  Alma was called directly by the Lord, being invested with divine authority while teaching Abinadi's prophetic words and performing rites, before organizing a church and priestly body.  Moses was called in the burning bush before he ever became the presiding high priest over the delivered children of Israel.  Joseph Smith was a prophet for years before organizing the church and becoming part of that priestly body.  And Melchizedek was approved by the Lord through displays of divine power as a prerequisite to being ordained a high priest (JST Genesis 14:26-29).  All these men displayed a prophetic connection to heaven before becoming members of a priestly body.

Prophets and priests are both valuable.

Some people marginalize prophets because their pattern appears too unruly, disorganized, or unregulated.  It doesn't match the homogenized priestly pattern.  As a result, those preferring the priestly pattern of order over power may reject prophets, whether intentionally or inadvertently.  Unfortunately, when you reject the Lord's servants carrying His messages or performing His works, He takes it as a personal rejection of Him (1 Samuel 8:7).  Amos concisely described the value of prophets (Amos 3:7).  

Some marginalize priests, saying that their callings and works are external, carnal or temporal, while it is the inner man that must change.  As a result they start to obsess over the esoteric or symbolic meanings of things, deciding that the practical and literal are without value, or are even beneath them.  They think ordinances and other works are all dead, and perhaps wholly unnecessary.  Mental gymnastics transform commandments of action to purely symbolic dramas of the "inner man," with no obligation to external works or efforts.  

This kind of thinking denies the plain and precious nature of the gospel, which is so simple in nature that we must reduce ourselves to become as a little child to engage it (3 Nephi 11:37-38).  Little children are not esoteric beings.  It denies faith as a principle of action (LoF, Lecture 1 vv. 10-12), making it only a principle of understanding.  

While it is true that the ordinances without the inner changes are dead (Joseph said you might as well baptize a bag of sand in those circumstances), the carnal, external, temporal works are considered “living” if approached correctly, and are required.  Nephi couldn't have made the necessity of keeping the outward ordinances more plain (2 Nephi 31:5), nor could Christ with His step-by-step walkthrough to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11).  And if we need the ordinances, as well as any other organized efforts (e.g. building temples), then a priestly body ideally serves to correctly organize, execute and maintain them.

Prophets and priests in a single man

At times a single individual fulfills both roles of prophet and priest. I bring up the possibility that perhaps this is when we get what the scriptures refer to as "high priests".  Alma 13 makes clear that a high priest's calling is to come from heaven, even foreordained before the foundation of the world.  They are ordained of God (it arguably doesn't say anything about an intermediary man), but the title makes clear that they are intended to be a part of the priestly body.  All the examples of crossovers between prophets and priests are named as high priests.  So this begs the question, is Alma 13 explaining that high priests are, among other qualifications, those called to wear the mantle of both prophet and priest?

Joseph and Hyrum, President and Presiding Patriarch of the Church of Christ.

Some further fodder concerning this topic is what Joseph Smith was doing in the church in his day.  Joseph (and the Lord) groomed Hyrum with the intent that Hyrum would join Joseph at the head of the church, as the church's prophet and Presiding Patriarch, while Joseph would maintain his role as President of the Church (see Denver Snuffer's Hyrum Smith series, beginning at http://denversnuffer.com/2012/07/hyrum-smith/).  Joseph was to be the presiding high priest, Hyrum the presiding prophet.  Two roles, working together in a co-presidency.  The offices were established for the church as a co-presidency, but correlation has since swept one of these (perhaps the greater one) under the rug.

Modern prophets rising from obscurity

There are prophets today following the scriptural pattern, emerging from obscurity and raising their voices in a call for repentance, and exposing issues within the priestly body.  As prophets have always done.  The priests can choose to either repent, or see the prophets as threats and become defensive and effectively “stone” them.  As priests have always done.  And in harmony with this pattern, the prophets initially suffer at the hands of the defensive priests, until God will either salvage or destroy the priests and their people.  We are watching history unfold in the same cycle it always has, it's just been a little while since we were last at this phase.  

More interesting is that perhaps we are seeing the prophesied “fullness of the Gentiles,” rejecting the fulness of the gospel sufficiently for it to be taken from them and given back to the remnant of the house of Israel (3 Nephi 16:10-12). This would point to the time of the Lord’s return being yet one prophetic step closer to fulfillment.  

Are you watching?  Are you seeing?  Do you know what is happening right before your eyes?  Time may be shorter than we think.

Knots on a String

I've tried to find a good metaphor for how it is that the Spirit of God can dwell in all of us, that we may be one, and yet we are all separate and distinct spirits.  The metaphor I've found I like the most so far is that the Spirit is a piece of string, and all of our spirits are knots along that string.  Each knot is separate and distinct from the other knots, but they are all the same string.

Angels in the Temple Drama

I want to look specifically at the role of the angels in the endowment ceremony.  This study is based on the current version of the endowment, after the 1990 changes removed significant portions which also included interactions with these angels.  I may edit this post later with those portions added into it.

In the temple, three messengers of God make two separate trips down to Adam.  

The purpose of the first trip is described thusly:  

“Peter, James, and John, go down and visit the man Adam in the Telestial world, without disclosing your identity. Observe conditions generally. See if Satan is there, and learn whether Adam has been true to the token and sign given to him in the garden of Eden. Then return and bring us word.”

So they are first sent from the presence of God on a recon mission, with four responsibilities in the Telestial world:

1.  Don’t disclose their identities.

2.  Observe general conditions.

3.  See if Satan is present.

4.  Learn whether Adam is true to what he’s already been given.

They are then to return and report on what they observe.

Considering each point of their mission, there are some interesting things to ponder.

1.  Don't disclose their identities

-  Should we expect that in our initial interactions with angels, we are not to know that they are angels?  If so, it would seem this requires they disguise themselves.  How might they do it?  Perhaps in a manner that is related top ‘D’?  That allows them to test Adam concerning ‘D’?  Could they approach Adam in a manner that will test whether he will hold true to the “light and knowledge” God has given to him, up to that point?  What might that look like?

• An apparent junkie asking for spare change?  One who “surely” must be seeking money for drugs or booze or other unsavory purposes?  To test whether we will remain true and faithful to the Lord’s injunction to us through King Benjamin?

 “…ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. 17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just— 18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.” — Mosiah 4:16-18

• Someone who tests our willingness to keep any given commandment, to abide by any given truth we’ve received? 
• Someone who wrongs us, to test our willingness to forgive as we seek to be forgiven?
• Could this type of testing by angels be what Paul is referring to?

“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” — Hebrews 13:2

2.  Observe general conditions.

-  What are the angels observing the general conditions for?  Are they watching for opportunities to interact with man?  Are they watching for mankind to meet certain conditions, whether pertaining to salvation or destruction?  All of the above?  Why does God need them to scout things out and then return and report?  Is it for Him?  Is it for man?  Is it for the angels?

3.  See if Satan is present.

-  Why do they need to check and see if Satan is present?  Shouldn’t it be assumed he is, as this is the place where he was cast?  He was present among Adam and Eve, but Adam also showed himself to be true and faithful to what he’d been given.  Is it important that Adam proved he could do that in the presence of Satan?  What if Satan were not present?

4.  Learn whether Adam is true to what he’s already been given.

-  The angels tested Adam, and he passed the test.  What did it look like?  

1. The angel presumed Adam had received the token and sign from his Father.  He asks Adam first, but before Adam responds, the angel turns the question into a presumption.  Why?
2. He then asks whether Adam sold what Father had given him for money.  
• What could this refer to?  Could this refer to selling out?  Giving up what God offered, trading it away for what man and the world offered in its place?  Did Adam turn away from what God had given him and instead sought after money?  Or power?  Or pleasures?
3. Adam answered that he did not sell them, but held them sacred and was looking for further light and truth Father promised him.  
• Could this be putting into words what should be communicated in actions?  Could Adam have been asked through actions and situations, rather than direct words?  Could Adam have answered by showing that he indeed kept what he’d been given by God, through displaying actions that reflected holding to what he had received?  Would living what Adam had been given (the gospel) be understood as communicating to the angels that he indeed held the gospel sacred, rather than selling it out for money?
4. Adam communicates that he is looking for more light and truth.  
• How does one communicate to the angels that they are looking for more?  Direct requests to God would certainly do it, for one.  Would holding true to what we’d been given also fit into displaying a desire to receive more?
5. Adam also hadn’t forgotten that Father promised him further light and truth.  He remembered God, remembered what God had told him, and held onto it with expectation, reflecting a belief that God would be true to His word.  
• Could Adam have displayed this not only in speech, but in action?  By keeping a record of God’s words to him, to which he and his family referred afterward? (Moses 6:5-6)
6. The angel confirms Adam is right, commends him, and tells Adam they will probably visit him again.
• What is meant by the angel saying “that is right?”  Understanding it as “correct” seems odd, as Adam wasn’t answering a correct/incorrect type of question.  Perhaps it is meant more along the lines of “that is [the] right [thing to do],” or “right [with God].” How might angels communicate to us that we are right, especially if they are keeping their identity hidden?
• How might they commend us for it?  Their commendation is in addition to acknowledging that something is right or proper, it is complimentary.  How might an angel commend us for being “right” with God?  Does the commendation have to come directly from the angel?
• How might a disguised angel tip you off that they will “probably” visit you again?  What would that look like?  Could it be that a relationship of sorts is begun with someone who is in fact an angel in disguise?  And they will later reveal their true nature?  Or how else could it look?

The angels then leave Adam to return and report.  

Adam spends a time going about his business while the angels are away, a time while Lucifer believes he is gaining the upper hand over Adam.

Once the Lord acknowledges he is pleased with Adam, he sends the angels back to Adam in their revealed form.  When they approach, Satan rears his head and tries to exert his power.  But the angels handle him, then engage Adam.

• It is not enough for Satan to try to impede your learning through you, he will also seek to impede those who God sends to teach you.  He rears his head at any threat to his kingdom, and must be summarily dismissed.

When the messengers now engage Adam, they make no bones about it.  This is who we are, this is who sent us, this is why we are here.  Adam has already been tested and he passed the first test.  But now Adam must do the testing, weighing the messengers to discover whether they are true to their claims (D&C 129).

Adam’s first question doesn’t volunteer any information, it doesn’t reveal what he is looking for in terms of signs to recognize the messengers as true or false.  It instead places the burden of knowing what is expected on the angels, asking “how shall I know that you are true messengers?”  It is then left to the messengers to not only prove themselves, but to also know how they are to prove themselves.

Being true messengers, the angels know how to prove themselves and proceed with the token and sign Adam received in the Garden.

• If Adam represents us, and the token and sign were received in our Garden of Eden, when would that be and what would those look like?  How would one remember and recognize them?  How would angels “give” them to you, that you might recognize their calling?
• It is not enough for the angel to simply offer Adam the token.  When the angel gives Adam the token, Adam quizzes him on it.  The angel knows what it is, he is able to identify the token without naming it.  Why?  What purpose does that serve?  How does that help Adam?
• Why is the name kept hidden, unshared between two like-minded, similarly-initiated and believing souls?  The name is the new name, and is given to a person by the Lord.  Some new names are not kept secret, for example Abram’s new name of Abraham.  
• As a second witness to the giving of the token itself, the angel gives Adam an identifying sign, in lieu of the name of the token.  What might the sign be?  How does it testify of the token?  How is it universally recognizable among those who have received the first token?
• Why and how would one display a sign related to a secret name received from the Lord?  It seems the signs must be the same for everyone, or else one person would not recognize another person’s display of them.

Having successfully proven himself, the angel and his companions have now earned Adam’s trust.  They have shown themselves to be true messengers from the Father.  Adam can now agree to take his learning from them, as they will deliver messages from their King.  In doing this, Adam is showing his fealty to the King, not to the messengers.  Any new messengers who may come afterward must also prove to Adam that they also are true messengers, and not impostors claiming to represent the King.

Church Discipline, part 7: Conclusion

This information in this series is relevant because excommunications are increasing, and there is sound reason to believe they will accelerate.  The trend is clear.  There is a great division and sifting beginning within the church, and many are being labeled as chaff and tares and being discarded.

It is not enough now, and likely will never be enough again, to believe in Christ and His gospel, the Book of Mormon, and the Divinely ordained mission of Joseph Smith.  These will not keep you from excommunication if you do not swear an oath of loyalty to the brethren leading the church, a covenant to “Follow the Prophet.”  This oath of worshipping the brethren is more important than Christ or His gospel or His scriptures or the head of our dispensation, as far as your church membership is concerned and in spite of loud proclamations to the contrary.  Proclamations of welcoming arms of understanding have revealed their utter emptiness to those who have been cast off for following Christ.

If you are called into a disciplinary council for breaking some law in scripture, then you may well belong there.  You do belong there if you refuse repentance.  That was the intended purpose of the council’s creation.

But if you are called in for a thought crime, or the expression of your thought crime, or disinterest in kissing the ring, or some other trumped-up charge with no scriptural basis, then you may well be facing an unjust trial.  If you are called in to an unjust trial, you cannot reasonably expect a just procedure leading to a just verdict.  You, like Christ, will be forced to endure injustice.  You will suffer actual persecution and oppression by authoritarians, in precisely the pattern I have laid out for you.  Scripture will go out the door, just to make sure you do too.  Expect it.

But, knowing that going in, this is an opportunity.  If you believe in Christ, if you believe in His gospel, if you believe in the Book of Mormon and the Restoration, this is an opportunity for you to testify of this.  Do so.  Then record it in your journal.  Your testimony will be recorded on earth and in heaven, and will stand against those who purport to represent Christ while simultaneously trampling Him and His sheep under foot.

This is also an opportunity for you to claim your rights according to scripture.  Not because that will leverage them into respecting your rights, but because that will also become a part of the record of what occurs.  Make sure your rights are declared, and that you know the judges are infringing upon them and you will not allow them to do so ignorantly.  The scriptures offer protection to the innocent, make it known.

-  If you believe things contrary to what the church teaches, but are guilty of no actual crimes wherein scriptural laws are broken, you are scripturally protected against punishment (Alma 30:7, 11; AoF 1:11). This even covers the open expression of said opinions when expressed as such, for if an anti-Christ like Korihor couldn’t be rightly punished for teaching things as opinions, then one who loves Christ but may err certainly cannot be justly punished for such.  For example:

-  If you have accusations against you, but no witnesses to speak those accusations, the scriptures prevent any action from being taken against you (Mosiah 26:5-9; Moroni 6:7). 

-  If the accusers or witnesses are found among those trying you, then your trial is necessarily a mistrial (D&C 102:20). 

-  If your accusers have come directly to their leaders as tattlers, the scriptures require they first be directed back to you to attempt reconciliation personally, before leadership involvement (D&C 42:88). 

-  If your multiple accusers are not present at your trial, then even Christ would not render a guilty verdict (John 8:10-11). 

-  If any would say that is not how discipline is handled anymore, by virtue of CHI-1, the scriptures would disagree (D&C 20:80) and the judges’ quarrel is actually with God, who apparently neglected His omniscient foresight of what the Handbook would eventually say when he had prophets record the scriptures with their contrary instructions.

By speaking forth truth and shining a light on the darkness brought to bear against you, you are calling the unjust to repentance, which is in fact your responsibility, especially within the church (Mosiah 26:6).  We have all been instructed to call one another to repent (Ezekiel 3:21).  It is a facet of love to shine forth a light on darkness and offer correction, and it is needed to keep the church from iniquity (Moroni 6:7).  There is no impropriety in a lower-ranked member calling a higher-ranked member to repentance, as we are all equals in the eyes of God (Galatians 3:27-28; Alma 1:26).

Again, just know that the odds are supremely stacked against you receiving a fair trial if you are called in for discipline on trumped-up charges of “apostasy,” whether it is for certain beliefs you share, or for being rebaptized, or for what you do to worship within your own home.  Some few may get lucky and have a righteous council, at least at first, but most will not.  Expect to be labeled dross and booted.  It will be done with piety, and perhaps some lip-serviced notions of love, (maybe even a hint of real love that is just twisted by embedded traditions), but those amount to nothing if they would still unanimously kick you to the curb.

But don’t be afraid.  There are a growing number of souls who have chosen God over man, and been expelled for their fidelity to Divinity.  They are working together even at this moment to help God bring new life back to the Restoration, to see it become the living vine it was always intended to be.  His hand is moving again, the heavens are open once more, and He is doing a new work with a new body of people.  If you do not find them, they will find you, and embrace you with truly welcoming arms.  You can begin here:

http://returntotherestoration.com/

It is not a new church, or sect, or hierarchal organization of any sort.  It should never become one, by today's definitions.  It is simply a loose body of self-organizing believers, seeking to follow Christ and fellowship with those who desire the same.  His hand is moving among them, miracles are returning.  Mormons, ex-Mormons and non-Mormons alike are entirely welcomed, though Mormons will likely see the LDS church strip their membership as the fee for such interaction.

Church Discipline, part 6: Some Key Terms

Language tends to evolve.  Words and their definitions slowly shift over time with the ebb and flow of cultures.  Within Mormonism, we have a rather large vocabulary of words which have specific "Mormon" definitions, which in fact differ from the definition outside of a Mormon context.  I think this is a problem.

One problem with this is that it allows us to use words that have more weight, when in fact they are not an accurate or daresay honest reflection of what is really going on behind the words.  We say "I know" when many times the truth would actually be "I really really believe with stony conviction," or we might say "I testify" when the truth is that we are merely opining.

Another major problem is that we take our modern--and in many LDS cases, specialized--definitions of words and we use those definitions when we read the scriptures.  But many of those words do not mean what we have evolved into thinking they mean.  We have lost sight of the meaning of some vocabulary words, and suffer as a result.  That is what I intend to examine here.

For the following key terms, I use the definitions from Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, meaning these are the definitions that would have been understood and used by Joseph Smith in his day.  When revelation, translation and interpretation came to us through him, these definitions were what he would have intended.

APOSTASY, noun [Gr. a defection, to depart.] 

1. An abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion, or departure from one's faith or religion.

THE EVOLVED, LDS DEFINITION

In the LDS church, apostasy has an evolving publicized definition--representing only a fraction of the basis for disciplinary actions--and a secret interpretation which is the actual basis for waging almost all charges of apostasy.

- Publicized definitions (before June 28, 2014)

-  “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.” -- LDS.org

• This is the most correct statement, and also the least followed.  Nearly all charges of apostasy are currently built on infractions against other definitions, hidden from the public eye.  In speaking of the principles of the gospel being corrupted or turned away from, such corruption or turning away must be directly related to the gospel, which gospel is defined by Christ Himself:

"Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.  And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.  And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world." -- 3 Nephi 27:13-16

-  "We define it as when our members turn away from the principles of the gospel, or corrupt principles of the gospel, or make unauthorized changes in Church organizations or priesthood ordinances. It's one thing to make one's views known; it's quite another to actively draw others away from clear doctrine… Elder Oaks was clear in last April's general conference when he stated categorically that the leaders of the Church don't have the authority to change things.” -- Ally Isom, official church spokesperson (as opposed to the church President), June 16, 2014

• This statement has some issues and should be looked at.  
• The "gospel" is defined by Christ (above), and apostasy from it is far more frequently used as a basis for putting membership records on the back burner or inactive lists than it is for excommunication.
• “unauthorized changes in Church organizations or priesthood ordinances” -  This creates awkward circumstances, because the highest leadership has in fact made changes to ordinances numerous times, which thing Joseph Smith stated and Elder Oaks here affirmed that leadership has no “authority to change.”  Joseph taught that the ordinances were instituted before the foundation of the world, and were not to be altered, period (TPJS, 308).  Isaiah notes that alteration of ordinances is coupled with the breaking of covenants, transgressing of laws and defiling of the earth (Isaiah 24:5). Therefore the “unauthorized” clause concerning changes condemns rather than justifies the leadership, and having offended the principle they are themselves necessarily in a state of apostasy by their own definition.

- Publicized First Presidency Statement definition, June 28, 2014

-  “Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.”

• This is a major shift, as “the gospel” is not to be understood as being the same thing as “the church” or its leaders.  (Indeed, the gospel has apparently gone completely out the window with this revised definition.)
• Public disciplinary actions taking place at the time of this declaration, and higher accessibility to information, forced the First Presidency to be slightly more transparent and honest with their definition of apostasy, or face being further humiliated by the press.  This definition is pulled from the hidden definitions of Church Handbook of Instructions, vol. 1 (CHI-1).
• The First Presidency added the qualifier “faithful” in this statement.  Why?  Is the CHI-1 statement upon which they execute discipline insufficient and in need of alteration?  Is it a PR stunt to make the phrase appear more palatable to the public?  Is it a blanket compliment applied to all the leadership, as though there are none who are not faithful?  Is it a tacit admission that there are priesthood leaders who are not faithful and therefore opposition to them does not constitute apostasy?  Why present an altered version to the public, rather than an accurate one?

- Secret definitions from CHI-1, 2010 edition (6.7.3, “Apostasy”)

1. “Repeatedly act in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.”

• The definition says nothing of opposition to the gospel, nor the Lord, nor the scriptures.  One can fully believe and follow Christ, the scriptures and the gospel, yet be punished for disagreement with the current stewards.  This is definitively tyranny.
• This definition has four qualifiers for the “opposition” that theoretically must all be met, according to the conjunction “and” sandwiched in its adjectives.  Clear. Open. Deliberate. Public.  If your opposition meets less than all four descriptors, then according to the language of lawyers used to write and interpret the Handbook, you should not be able to be punished for infraction against this point.  However, we see in practice that this is not the case.
• Should a person exercise their scriptural mandate and manifest an opposing vote to leadership (D&C 124:144) twice in their lifetime, they technically qualify as "apostates" under this definition.  For their vote was "clear," "open," "deliberate," "public" and in "opposition," and upon the second vote it becomes "repeated."
• It is worth noting that there is a major difference between “deliberate” opposition to one paradigm, and deliberate support of a paradigm that happens to disagree.
• This definition has become a breeding ground for institutional hypocrisy.
• In word, President Uchdorf’s General Conference address in October 2013 publicly acknowledges that church leadership has been and continues to be subject to human error.  He then invited even those with “doubts” and “questions” pertaining to these human errors into the fold.
• In practice, there have been many now who have expressed these “human error” based questions and doubts while fully believing in Christ, the Book of Mormon and the divine calling of Joseph Smith, and desiring to be numbered among the church.  The decision of the church has overwhelmingly been to interpret their questions and doubts as opposition, and to excommunicate rather than embrace.

2. “Persist in teaching as church doctrine information that is not church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.”

• This mandate is clearly misunderstood by many authorities, as it is generally armed against opinions that are stated as opinions, and are rarely (if ever) claimed as representing church doctrine.  While this mandate could perhaps be rightly applied to those lying about the teachings of the church and spreading intentionally false doctrine, it is instead used to silence any voice of disagreement with the correlated and censored teachings of the Church.
• Note, again it is about church doctrine.  Not Christ's doctrine, not scriptural doctrine, not gospel doctrine.  It fosters the idolatrous worship of the institutional church and its leaders.

3. “Continue to follow teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.”

• Originally designed—right or wrong—to weed out polygamists (as still evidenced within the statement).  “Follow[ing] teachings of apostate sects” has become so loosely interpreted as to include simply hearing a person speak ideas that certain members of church leadership don’t like, or having a conversation with someone else who questions the alignment of an official church doctrine or statement with scripture. There is too much latitude of interpretation.  If teachings do not go against scripture there may be room for disagreement, but there is no scriptural basis for punishment.

4. “Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.”

• In writing, the “formal” aspect is heavily emphasized, including the phrases “If a member formally joins another church…” and “ if formal membership in the other church is not ended…”  Therefore if you were to informally engage in religious practices outside the LDS church, or informally attend group meetings outside the control of the LDS church, you should be able to avoid concern on this.
• In practice, this instruction is loosely (and INFORMALLY) interpreted to now include rebaptisms by LDS priesthood holders, with no ties to any other church, simply operating outside standard church regulation.  It is levied against LDS members holding private fellowship and study groups, unaffiliated with any other church.  It is also levied against those who believe God can work with people outside the hierarchal framework of the church, including those “holy men” of whom the church doesn’t know (D&C 49:8), even though God gave us the heads up that they exist and are recognized of Him.

Considering how loosely each definition is interpreted, and the trend of such interpretations, it could be said that the one current definition of an apostate is “anyone who doesn’t follow the current Prophet (meaning President of the LDS Church).”  This is idolatry. 

BEHALF, noun behaf.

1. Favor; advantage; convenience, profit; support, defense, vindication. The advocate pleads in behalf of the prisoner. The patriot suffers in behalf of his country. 

2. Part; side; noting substitution, or the act of taking the part of another; as, the agent appeared in behalf of his constituents, and entered a claim.

EXCOMMUNICATION

-  Read HERE.

IMPARTIAL, adjective [in and partial, from part, Latin pars.]

1. Not partial; not biased in favor of one party more than another; indifferent; unprejudiced; disinterested; as an impartial judge or arbitrator.

2. Not favoring one party more than another; equitable; just; as an impartial judgment or decision; an impartial opinion.

INJUSTICE, noun [Latin injustitia; in and justitia, justice.]

1. Iniquity; wrong; any violation of another's rights, as fraud in contracts, or the withholding of what is due. It has a particular reference to an unequal distribution of rights, property or privileges among persons who have equal claims.

2. The withholding from another merited praise, or ascribing to him unmerited blame.

JUST, adjective [Latin justus. The primary sense is probably straight or close, from the sense of setting, erecting, or extending.]

5.  In a moral sense, upright; honest; having principles of rectitude; or conforming exactly to the laws, and to principles of rectitude in social conduct; equitable in the distribution of justice;

In an evangelical sense, righteous; religious; influenced by a regard to the laws of God; or living in exact conformity to the divine will.

OFFICE, noun [Latin officium; ob and facio, to make or do.]

1. A particular duty, charge or trust conferred by public authority and for a public purpose; an employment undertaken by commission or authority from government or those who administer it. Thus we speak of the office of secretary of state, of treasurer, of a judge, of a sheriff, of a justice of the peace, &c. Offices are civil, judicial, ministerial, executive, legislative, political, municipal, diplomatic, military, ecclesiastical, &c.

REPENT, verb intransitive [Latin re and paeniteo, from paena, pain. Gr. See Pain.]

3. To change the mind in consequence of the inconvenience or injury done by past conduct.

-  Repentance is not a checklist which must be ticked off before one may receive Divine forgiveness.  The word “repent” simply means to turn or change direction, to change your mind, and that word is used deliberately.  To repent is simply to evaluate the direction you are going, and adjust course back to facing and moving toward God. It is a matter of adjusting the mind and heart.  All the rest, the confessions, the making amends, etc. are fruits of repentance.  They are evidence that the repentance has already taken place in the heart and mind, which is the only place repentance can take place.  So as soon as someone is making an effort to conform outward actions to a more godly course than what they were before, that is evidence they have repented and they already warrant forgiveness.  Indeed, God has likely already extended it.

SANCTION, verb transitive

To ratify; to confirm; to give validity or authority to.

TESTIMONY, noun [Latin testimonium.]

A solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact…  testimony differs from evidence; testimony is the declaration of a witness, and evidence is the effect of that declaration on the mind, or the degree of light which it affords.

WITNESS, noun

3. A person who knows or sees any thing; one personally present; One who sees the execution of an instrument, and subscribes it for the purpose of confirming its authenticity by his testimony.

Church Discipline, part 5: Select D&C Alterations

Evolution of Mormonism has included evolution of the very scriptures we use.  A great many alterations are punctuation and grammar, but some do have actual doctrinal significance.  I want to look only at a few sections, which have endured alterations that affect the way we understand and enact church discipline.

D&C 42:74-93

STRUCTURAL CHANGES

Section 42 is made up of three different partitions, from two different revelations.  As part of distinguishing the partitions, prefacing remarks or titles were originally used to create separations:

- Partition 1, “The Law,” was the first revelation, received on Feb 9 1831.  It somewhat constitutes our current verses 1-73, some mights say especially vv. 11-69.  I will refer to it but not examine it.

- Partition 2, the first portion of the second revelation, was prefaced with an explanation that this partition addresses “how…to act upon the points of the Law” that have been received.  This partition constitutes our current verses 78-93.

- Partition 3 was titled “How to act in cases of adultery,” with specific instructions for the handling of that offense.  It constitutes our current verses 74-77.

Until the 1835 D&C, these three partitions were understood to be separate but related.  One, two or all three partitions might be published at any time, and whenever the second and third partitions were published together, partition 3 followed partition 2:

Symonds Rider copy, JSP Documents, 23 Feb 1831

1. How to act upon the Law (vv. 78-93)
2. Cases of adultery (vv. 74-77)

Revelation Book 1

1. Cases of adultery only (vv. 74-77)

July 1832 The Evening and the Morning Star (EMS)

1. Cases of adultery only (vv.74-77)

Oct 1832 The Evening and the Morning Star

1. How to act upon the Law only (vv.78-93)

Revelation Book 2

1. Cases of adultery only (vv.74-77)

Book of Commandments, 1833

1. How to act upon the Law (vv. 78-93)
2. Cases of adultery (vv.74-77)

Feb 1835 Evening and Morning Star

1. Cases of adultery only (vv.74-77)

June 1835 Evening and Morning Star

1. How to act upon the Law only (vv.78-93)

The preface for partition 2--"How to act upon the Law"--is not recorded beyond Symonds Rider’s manuscript, and as of July 1832 the header or title “How to act in cases of adultery” was removed from partition 3.  In 1835, the decision was made to combine all three partitions, and to move partition 3 (How to act in cases of adultery) into its current position between partitions 1 and 2.

On the surface this move might make sense, as the section on adultery is moved into a position immediately preceding another reference to adultery, seemingly tying the subject together through that keyword.  The loss of the prefacing titles further facilitated this move.

But these partitions were not meant to be conflated on a keyword basis, or there wouldn’t have been a title separation between partition 3 and partition 2. Doing so opened up a door for trouble, as can be seen when comparing the structure of the original with the current version:

-  ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OF D&C 42:74-93

1. PREFACE:  “How the Elders of the church of Christ are to act upon the points of the Law given by Jesus Christ to the Church in the presents of twelve Elders February 9th 1831 [D&C 42:1-73] as agreed upon by seven Elders Feby 23d 1831 according to to the commandment of God—“ (Not in current version)
2. An opening statement declares the expectation that the church is to obey God’s commandments and covenants. (v. 78)
3. The greatest offense of killing cannot be justly handled by church courts, so this offense must be handled by the state. (v.79)
4. There is “no forgiveness” for killing (vv. 18 and 79).  Reconciliation cannot be made, as one party necessary for it is no longer part of this world. Therefore, as the church has no authority to see that a killer “die” (v. 19), they are to be handed over to the state, which has authority to try a person for their life.
5. The second greatest offense, adultery, can be disciplined by the church.  So it is used as an example to lay out the basic pattern for church discipline in “all cases”. (vv.80-83)
• There are no qualifiers to the “all cases” statement.  It does not say “all such cases,” or “all cases of adultery.”  It simply states “all cases.”
6. It is clarified how widely this instruction is to be applied to varied offenses, even to “all cases” brought forth for discipline. (vv.84-87)
• “law of the land” appears to be an erroneous 1835 alteration from the “Law of God” (addressed later).
7. Instruction is given to offended members on responding to offenses and delivering up the offenders for church discipline. (vv. 88-92)
8. It is re-emphasized that this is blanket instruction for all offenses. (v.93)
9. PREFACE / TITLE:  “How to act in cases of adultery” (Not in current version)
10. Now that the blanket pattern has been laid out, specifics are given concerning the crime of adultery. (vv.74-77)

-  CURRENT STRUCTURE OF D&C 42:74-93

1. The crime of adultery is specifically addressed (vv.74-77)
2. The opening declaration (v.78) now seems like a random insertion interrupting the flow of an ongoing discussion about adultery, as v. 80 is now seen as a return to that subject.
3. Stating that killers are to be delivered to the law of the land also seems like an odd sidestep point. (v.79)
4. Mentioning adultery in v. 80 now reads like a return to the subject, in the same exclusive context. Therefore this portion is understood as pertaining to “all cases” of adultery. (vv.80-83)
5. There is a flip-flop return to other offenses which are to be delivered up to “the law of the land,” as it is no longer only killing. (vv.84-86)
6. Flip-flopping back, iniquities of “any manner” (apparently expecting that we infer this excludes the iniquities just listed in verses 84-86?) are to be handled according to the Law of God. (v.87)
7. Instruction is given to the offended for responding to offenses and delivering up the offenders for church discipline. (vv. 88-92)
• These details are no longer required or followed in full by CHI-1.
8. The final declaration that we are to do “all things” in this way is confusing (v.93), as the altered text and structure have muddied up any single understood course of conduct.

In short, there is now confusion as to whether the church or the state should handle an offense, and verses 80-83 are understood as applying only to adultery, rather than applying to all cases.  The original structure reflects a clear flow of ideas, which are now rather jumbled.

NOTABLE TEXT CHANGES

From the time of the original revelations until their publication in the 1835 D&C, the text itself underwent numerous changes.  Most of the important changes occurred near or in 1835, becoming part of that edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

- "THE WORLD" CHANGED TO "THE ENEMY" (v.80)

This change first appeared in the 1835 D&C and June 1835 Evening and Morning Star (EMS).  While these words can be understood synonymously in the LDS world, they can also be understood differently.  

• “The enemy” is a title given to Satan throughout scripture.  It always refers to one who intends harm.  “The world” is generally understood as all those not belonging to the covenant people.  Today we’d say “non-members.”  This is far greater in scope than “the enemy,” as it also includes all the truly good people who are non-members.
• Witnesses against the accused were therefore required to be church members (specifically, those of the local “church” or congregation).  This alteration changed the requirement so witnesses can be non-members, so long as they don’t serve “the enemy.”  That creates a dangerous grey are for interpretation.
• This causes a change in procedure and as such it had better have the Lord’s approval, or we should expect to incur some sort of loss as a result of departing from what He has approved (Isaiah 24:5).  Not to mention the difficulty of screening out servants of the enemy, as honesty is not a requirement in that camp.

-  “THE LAW" CHANGED TO "THE LAW OF THE LAND” (vv.84-86)

This change first appeared in 1835 D&C and June 1835 EMS.  In the original transcript of the revelation, and in every version until 1835, the only crime for which “the church” was to hand offenders over to “the law of the land” was killing (v.79).  The remainder were to be handled by the church, according to the Law of God.  

In all versions of partition 2 prior to 1835, the semi-poetic pattern of the sentences makes clear which “Law” is really being referred to in these verses:

1. And if a man shall rob, he shall be delivered up unto the law,
2. And if he shall steal, he shall be delivered up unto the law,
3. And if he lie, he shall be delivered up unto the law, 
4. If he do any manner of iniquity, he shall be delivered up un to the law, even that of God.

There are at least two notable reasons why the church was expected to have its own functioning court system, rather than relying on the courts of “the land”:

• The state’s judicial system was already understood to be corrupt.  As Mormons were intended to become their own independent people—rather than another Sunday religion in the world—the church court system was to be the reliable source of justice for members, to offset the injustice they should expect from the state’s corrupt system.
• In the church court system there is hope for mercy to swallow up justice, unlike the state judicial system.  Opportunities for reconciliation to be made and forgiveness granted is built into the very process, rather than punishment being automatically rendered for every offense, which thing is just, but not merciful.

-  “THOUS SHALT TAKE ANOTHER WITH THEE, AND THEN IF HE CONFESS NOT” WAS REMOVED (v. 89)

This was removed in the Oct 1832 and Jun 1835 EMS, and finally the 1835 D&C.  It remained in all other versions prior to 1835, including the 1833 BoC.  The understood practice required the offended party to approach the offender, and if reconciliation wasn’t made they were to bring another with them and try again, before finally turning the offender over for church discipline.  Arguments can be made both in support of and opposition to this change.

-  Some arguments for the change 

• Simply because a second person hears an exchange doesn’t necessarily make that person a “witness” to the offense.  They are arguably only a witness to an exchange between an accuser and accused.
• Just because we don’t have proof that Joseph or God approved this or other alterations, doesn’t stand as proof that he didn’t.

-  Some arguments against the change 

• The requirement to bring another party and approach the offender a second time builds two opportunities for reconciliation and forgiveness into the system before the church becomes involved, rather than only one.
• Without bringing the second party, the offended person can only hope that another witness will independently report the offense, so that the necessary two witnesses can initiate the church’s scriptural disciplinary involvement.
• While the second party may not be a witness to the original offense, they are witness to the efforts of the offended to seek reconciliation and the possible refusal of the offender before the case is turned over to the church.
• The content was first removed in the Oct 1832 EMS—which publication was not managed by Joseph—but it was present afterward in the 1833 Book of Commandments, which was published by the church.  Either someone made a mistake in the EMS, which mistake was corrected in the Book of Commandments, or the Book of Commandments simply ignored the EMS, being considered scripture as opposed to a community newsletter.  The Jun 1835 EMS publication was merely a reprint of the Oct 1832.
• The original version was an accepted revelation from God, through Joseph.  God’s approval of changes would seemingly then come through Joseph as well.  But Joseph wasn’t responsible for The Evening and Morning Star, and Joseph entrusted others to prepare for publication his transcribed revelations which make up the “Covenants” portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, in which this content lies.  Joseph himself was instead focused on editing the Lectures on Faith (the “Doctrine” portion of the 1835 “Doctrine and Covenants”).  Therefore alterations to these revelations were perhaps more likely performed by these other editors, their stylistic voices even being recognizable in many cases, while Joseph’s approval of these alterations is only assumed.

D&C 107 

This section is made up of two parts, received at two different times.  Verses 60-100 are (roughly) the content of a revelation from Nov. 11, 1831.  Verses 1-59 are said to be from a revelation sometime around April of 1835, with no specific date declared as of yet.  The Joseph Smith Papers have yet to publish any versions of this portion dated prior to the 1835 D&C.  Without any originals to compare to the 1835 D&C, and knowing that some degree of freelancing took place in editing that initial edition, it is impossible to guess how much of the content can comfortably be attributed to revelation, and how much to the hand of men.

-  Examining the Nov. 11 revelation (vv.60-100), we find some of the Aaronic Expansions, with major additions related to the rights and role of Aaron’s lineage in the office of bishop (vv. 68-71, 73, 76-77).  Said to be expanded by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, I have yet to discover the source of their understanding which allowed them to insert these additions, but hope the purported April 1835 revelation will be published. These changes affect the disciplinary process as they affect the calling of bishops, therefore affecting whether a bishop properly qualifies to serve as the “common judge.” (Non-Aaronic bishops are only allowed to serve if Aaron has no available descendants to fill a vacancy.  If the vacancy is improperly filled, can it be truly said that God will sustain the impropriety?  That seems debatable…)

-  Another notable addition is the phrase “in spiritual matters” (v. 80).  The church disciplinary system was built to handle not only “spiritual” matters, but temporal ones.  Else the bishop, whose role is exclusively related to “temporal things” (v. 68) would not be considered a “judge” (D&C 58:18; 107:72, 74-76).  This added phrase is apparently part of the church’s transformation from a people of God to another Sunday religion.  This is further attested to by the switch from “court” to “council” in every instance in this section.

-  One very notable word change was the switch from “me” to “him” in our current verse 84.  The original transcript uses the word “me,” the first-person word identifying the speaker: God.  Joseph was merely acting as voice for His words.  The moment this word was altered to “him,” God ceased to be the speaker.  This was no longer a revelation in which God spoke to us, but was rather, at best, a revelation to Joseph Smith, which he then attempted to express in his own words.  This weakens the importance of fidelity to what was originally spoken, as it is taken to be Joseph’s words rather than God’s.

D&C 68

The two Joseph Smith Papers sources of this revelation predating the 1835 D&C are Revelation Book 1, and the Oct. 1832 Evening and Morning Star.  These two sources are consistent with one another, so the following changes found in the 1835 D&C came after these publications.

-  Like section 107, this section endured additions concerning the rights and role of Aaron’s lineage in the office of bishop (vv.15-21).  I have yet to find any explanation of these expansions and their sources, other than third party attributions to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.  No source is provided for these attributions.

-  The word “Laws” has been replaced entirely, being changed to “covenants” in verse 13, and “covenants and commandments” in verse 23.  No explanation is given for the change, but these terms, while related, are not interchangeable.  It could be understood as part of the transition from understanding the church as being a people of God, to being a Sunday religion.  That is only speculation.

-  One change which functioned to transition power from a more localized model to a centralized one is the switch from utilizing a “council of high priests” to instead utilizing the First Presidency (vv. 15, 22-23).  Transgressing bishops could no longer be tried and punished by a local council of high priests, but instead their case must be tried directly by the highest court of the church.  The result both removes from the accused bishop at least one opportunity for appeals (having no lower trials), as well as making more difficult the accusation and trial of a transgressing bishop, as the First Presidency has become increasingly distanced from the rank and file membership who might report the wayward bishop.

-  Changing the word “judge” to “high priest” in verse 22 also affects the disciplinary process, as not all high priests are called to be judges or bishops.  This creates for all the high priests the same effects noted above for bishops; removing opportunities for appeal, and making them harder to discipline in cases of transgression.  It is respect of persons (Acts 10:34), due to rank.