Why Not?
Posted on January 26, 2010
Filed Under Economy, Intelligent Design, Politics, Reason, Religion | 20 Comments
I’ve been following a blog called The Higher Law recently. There has been much commentary on it by members of the LDS church regarding the intent of the blog and the movement behind it, and specifically regarding the author. Their contention is that the kind of revelatory direction claimed by the author, if it were actually true, would come from the Prophet (the President of the Church), since the source for all of the information regarding The Higher Law is coming from translation of facsimile number 2 in the LDS Book of Abraham.
The author’s position, however, is that the movement being started, by God’s direction, is not a religious movement. It is a movement founded and directed by God, but it is intended to unite the people of the Earth under a common set of core truths, most of which are reflected in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: that God exists, that He created us, and that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. (For those who didn’t know, property was originally in the Declaration as well, but was removed at the last minute by the founders for fear of misinterpretation regarding slavery.)
This post aims to dismantle the arguments and accusations being leveled by these LDS people. They are correct in their assertion that the Prophet of the Church is still the Prophet of the Church. No one is claiming otherwise; however, their claim that only the Prophet of the Church can receive this kind of revelation is completely misguided.
First and foremost, it really doesn’t matter what anyone believes about the movement of The Higher Law. In the end, belief amounts to nothing. The Lord does not expect us to believe; He expects us to know. That’s what prayer and pondering are for, with scriptures as a guide in obtaining the proper spirit in order to be instructed, not by the scriptures, but by the Spirit. As anyone who has been a missionary will tell you, scriptures don’t convert, missionaries don’t convert, even prophets don’t convert; only the Holy Ghost converts, but only when the receiver allows the Holy Ghost to do the teaching.
Now, don’t get me wrong: the scriptures are a powerful tool for conversion, inasmuch as they put us in the proper frame of mind and heart in which the Spirit can teach us. So, I’m going to use the scriptures to make a point.
In the time of the Old Testament, between the periods of about 640 BC and 598 BC, there were numerous prophets, including Nahum, Jeremiah, Daniel, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Obadiah, Ezekiel, and a prophetess named Huldah. Anyone familiar with the Old Testament will recognize the names of many of these prophets as the names of books from the Old Testament. The chronology of their lives was such that many of them overlapped. It was a time when there were literally many prophets in the old world at the same time.
During this same period—about 600 BC—another prophet was called by God to take his family and flee from their home and everything they knew and loved to avoid the impending destruction of Jerusalem. This prophet and his family were guided, by divine messengers and aids, to the New World. Obviously (for those familiar with it), that prophet was Lehi and the result of his obedience to his calling can’t be denied (i.e. the Book of Mormon).
I don’t mean to sound condescending to readers, but I’m making an important point, and it is NOT that the author of The Higher Law blog is another prophet called to lead a new branch of the Church. The point I’m making is that God calls people to do certain things at certain times according to His will, and He communicates with them in whatever ways He sees fit, regardless of who the current prophet of the Church is.
History, even Church history, is full of, and I would say even founded on evidence of continuing revelation, the founding of this Nation being one stark example of that. Who are we to dictate to God how that revelation will take place and to whom? Obviously, through Joseph Smith the Church was founded as the order of revelation and direction for the Church. That does not mean that only the current prophet of the Church is entitled to revelation and angelic visitation (if that were true, Joseph Smith would not have ever been visited).
With all that in mind, here’s the most important thing to understand about the author and the movement (the author has been very clear about this): It is not a “religious” movement. The author makes no claims whatsoever of religious authority, which is to say authority to dictate God’s will as it pertains to the affairs of the church and the ordinances of salvation. That is the sole stewardship and responsibility of the President of the Church, currently Thomas S. Monson (who, incidentally I fully sustain as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and the only man on earth who holds and exercises all the priesthood keys).
Read closely this quote by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:
“Against such times as come in our modern day, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are commissioned by God and sustained by you as prophets, seers, and revelators, with the President of the Church sustained as the prophet, seer, and revelator, the senior Apostle, and as such the only man authorized to exercise all of the revelatory and administrative keys for the Church (emphasis added).”
The same can be said of the account of Hiram Page in Doctrine & Covenants. Again, in this case, he was claiming to receive revelation pertaining to the “order of the Church.” Section 28 instructs that only Joseph Smith (and by extension the current Prophet) receives revelation for the Church (see section headings).
You also have to recognize what it means to be a prophet and what it means to be a seer (see section 2-C, question “What is a seer?”).
We in the Church tend to automatically assume that these gifts of prophecy and seership are reserved only for the President of the Church. That’s just not true. It is absolutely true that the President of the Church is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church and the only one authorized to receive revelation and commandments for the Church and the only one who holds and exercises all the keys pertaining to the ordinances of salvation; but that does not mean that God does not and will not grant those gifts of prophecy and seership to others, within specific constraints and for specific purposes. In this case, those constraints are non-religious by design for the purpose of starting something that can be immediately appealing to a much broader audience than religion can reach in today’s world, or at least any one specific religion.
We’re kidding ourselves if we believe that the Church will be able to fill the whole Earth and that everyone will have adequate opportunity to be exposed to the fullness of the Gospel if left only up to the Church’s formal missionary efforts. It has to move faster than that, and the fact that the work to be accomplished during the Millenium will be undertaken in large measure by people who are NOT members of the Church has been given much commentary by many Church leaders, including Brigham Young. How else would the Lord prepare the rest of His children to receive the gospel if not by creating a movement of socio-economic and political origin and intent that can unite people under a common banner that is not religious (do your homework on the difference between the Church of God and the Kingdom of God)? To my mind, it makes perfect sense: Get people united so they can begin to talk openly about and jointly explore such concepts as truth, right and correctness as they pertain to unalienable rights, the nature and order of law, the pillars of economics, etc. The natural progression, for those of sincere heart, would be to seek after all truth regardless of where it’s found (and yes, there is truth in other religions as well as science and other non-religious disciplines), which inevitably leads to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But on a mass scale, in our current world, as fast as things are falling into disorder and degradation, this kind of movement cannot begin with religion, even if it inevitably ends there.
Another important factor to consider—a hint if you will—is the origin of the facsimile number 2. Unlike the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants and even the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham was not received by divine messengers or by revelation; it was purchased by the Church. I don’t want to try to read too much into this, but I have experienced enough to know that almost nothing happens by chance in these matters and the manner by which the book came into Joseph Smith’s hands was, in my opinion, by design to help fortify the barrier that must exist between the message inscribed in the facsimile and the LDS Church. Although the Church owns it and Joseph interpreted a portion of it, the message of it is specifically and intentionally NOT meant to be associated specifically with the LDS church. If it had been given by revelation, it would be easier for opponents to claim association with the Church and pass it off as fraud or fiction; but, if it was purchased by the Church (as it could have been by any other person or organization), and if its translation was facilitated by someone not officially acting for the Church, then its overall intent as an invitation to the entire world to recognize God’s hand in all aspects of their lives becomes much less objectionable. After all, any church or person could have bought the facsimile and any person could have been called to translate it. It just so happens that a member of the Church is most likely to 1) be very accustomed to the idea of God’s interest in our lives at all levels, 2) be somewhat accustomed to the idea of revelation and communication from God and to seek it out with sincerity and real intent, 3) have some familiarity with the facsimile, and 4) be pure enough in desire and intent to do whatever God asks without nefarious motivation. The combination of those things makes a member of the Church a most likely candidate by virtue of spiritual preparation, but not necessarily by virtue of membership in the Church.
Finally, a question: why not? Why can’t God call whomever He wants to do whatever is necessary according to His wisdom and designs? Obviously, He can. The only real question on the subject is, has He? In the end, all the evidence, testimony and scriptures in the world can’t convince anyone whether it is true or not. That determination is between God and the individual, and the responsibility is on that individual to throw aside all preconceptions and prejudices and be sincere in their appeal to God to know if it is true. I will never know if you have been able to achieve that level of completely open sincerity, only you can know that. All I can do is tell you that it’s true. Don’t take my word for it, though. Even if you can’t take my word for the truth of it all (and I am adamant that you should not just take my word for it), at least give the possibility of it sincere, honest consideration and prayer (after having shed your fears and preconceptions). Don’t just dismiss it off-hand, certainly not until you’ve had a chance to read the actual translations once they are published.
There really isn’t much else to say on the matter. Whether or not you discover the truth of it is of little importance to me except that I would hate to see anyone miss out on the great events about to take place because of something as petty and preventable as closed-mindedness. Your belief will do little to fortify my conviction, nor will your doubt weaken it. I can only testify, as I have, that it’s true. The rest is up to you.
P.S. If by some chance the Prophet comes out with any direct comment in opposition to this movement or the author of the blog, I will be the first to abandon the whole thing and do as the primary children and follow the Prophet. I promise, though, that will not happen.
Comments
20 Responses to “Why Not?”
Leave a Reply
You can try to justify this all you want, but the fact still remains that you are on the road to apostasy. You do make true points but much of it is misguided. Satan is the master of mixing truth with little lies. As you start to believe the little lies, he adds more, until everything you are doing and saying is from him.
And what if your bishop or stake president comes out in opposition to this? Will you sustain them?
Thomas, I’ll be addressing the subject of apostasy in another post shortly (next day or two), but as a question back to you, in what way is this apostate? There has been no claim that anyone involved is the new prophet of the Church or that there is some new aspect of Church organization or operation being revealed, no new ordinances, no call for followers or loyalties of any kind. So if the author claims that this entire thing is non-religious and the messages being delivered have no impact at all on the operations of the Church, where is the apostasy?
You claim that my points are true (at least some of them) but misguided. That’s a very vague characterization. Can you be more specific? I was very thorough in my reasoning and supporting evidence (directly from Church materials). So if you’re going to make a claim of misguidance, you’ll have to point to specifics. I’m more than willing to consider any points you make.
Finally, if any ecclesiastical leader comes out in direct opposition to this, I will take that matter seriously. As I mentioned before, if the Prophet himself comes out in direct opposition, I will abandon it at once. Bishops and stake presidents definitely have the right to call on the gift of discernment, but that doesn’t mean they will use it properly. Bishops make mistakes all the time (I know of at least one who was excommunicated for adultery). But be certain that I will take my bishop’s advice very seriously when I talk to him this week (as I have arranged to do). Remember, this is a non-religious movement, so in reality it’s outside of the stewardship of bishops and stake presidents.
That said, I’m not sure I’ll report back what my bishop says for one reason: it’s not my place to speak on his behalf and to use his name and office to sway anyone else’s opinion one way or the other. It would be extremely wrong for me, in the event that my bishop advises me to proceed (maybe with caution), to then publish that effectively on his behalf by saying, “My bishop said it’s ok!” First of all, that would be a form of manipulation of people’s opinion and would derail the purpose of seeking individual spiritual confirmation and advice from one’s own ecclesiastical leaders; and secondly, it would make the kind of religious connection or connotation that is inappropriate to the mandate of the movement, which is expressly non-religious (although it embraces the value of religion in general).
Still, in the middle of all this conversation–which I believe is critical and very healthy as long as we remain civil and respectful–there is really only one question you have to answer and only one way to answer it:
Is it true?
Why can’t God direct a political/economic movement through religion, specifically through the LDS Church?
Why not?
KC, that’s one of the most important questions to ask, so thanks for asking.
To me the answer is pretty obvious., but I’ll answer first by asking you another question in return:
Why isn’t everyone a member of the LDS Church?
Obviously the answer is because people have agency, they have strong opinions, and along with politics, religion is one of the most divisive topics on the planet, not prone to engender unity across differing beliefs. Just ask the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or the Muslims and pretty much everyone else.
The mandate of the LDS Church, or part of it anyway, is arguably to convert every soul and baptize them as members of the Church. Why hasn’t that happened already? If you believe that the LDS Church is the only true and living church on the face of the Earth, with the entire might of God behind it, why hasn’t everyone realized it and joined?
Agency is always supreme. Even God can’t over-power it. So in order to get people to unite in a common purpose of preserving the freedoms necessary to continue to allow God’s work to continue (through religion), He would have to create an environment where people of like mind and similar common beliefs can unite without feeling like they are submitting to one specific religion or even supporting one specific religion. Most of the world has not and would not rally to join a movement that was started by or is officially affiliated with the Mormon Church. Not even most of Christianity would do that, not to mention non-Christian faiths. But in the face of the kind of opposition movement currently rising at increasing speed (Satan’s government, you might call it), people of all religious beliefs or no religious beliefs can stand together as part of a non-religious movement that has as its mandate the preservation of freedom, the right to worship (or not) as they see fit, the belief that we are created equal and must remain so, etc.
This is getting long, so I’ll probably end up writing a whole other post on this topic, but feel free to comment back. It’s important that we talk about these issues.
I’m not one to go around telling people to live their religion–there are others who are far better equipped at doing that than me.
But I would like to know how you view the Hiram Page episode. Also, I would like to know if you saw Joseph Smith as the authorized mouthpiece of God to receive canonized scripture (the Book of Abraham in particular).
Russell, that’s kind of curious question. Did you read the whole post?
The reason I ask is because I actually addressed the Hiram Page episode, as you call it, in this post. Right below the quote from Elder Holland, I refer to the story of Hiram Page and how he was claiming to receive direction for the church. Obviously that’s not what’s happening in the case of the Higher Law.
I also addressed the Book of Abraham and its origin as being not of divine origin. To be more specific, I do believe that its origin is divine, from the writing itself (by Abraham) to the way it was preserved and eventually found its way to Joseph Smith. What I mean, however, is that unlike the Book of Mormon, which was brought to Joseph Smith by angelic visitation (namely Moroni), and unlike the Doctrine & Covenants, which are dictations of revelations given to Joseph Smith and others, the Book of Abraham was simply purchased by the Church (obviously he was inspired). I have no doubt that God’s hand was in the entire process, and that’s exactly why I think it was by design that the Book of Abraham wasn’t delivered by more overtly divine means. The intent of the book, or more specifically, the facsimile contained in the book, is a message to the entire world to unite in opposition to rising tyranny (call it “the beast,” if you will). This unification can’t and won’t happen if the origin of the movement is founded by any specific religion. It has to embrace and invite all religion (and non-religion).
Now, from the LDS perspective, it’s obvious to me that that’s where it would start–outside of religion; but it’s also obvious to me that it ends with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The point is to unite people first, then get them thinking about truth in a more open-minded way. The natural end of that path, if they are sincere, the Gospel.
Does that make sense?
As far as Hiram Page, other scriptures make clear that the prophet’s mantle is for all of humanity. Therefore, when the Lord speaks of “this church,” it is clearly a reference to the vessel that holds stewardship of the world. From the scriptures, it doesn’t appear that you can separate that two.
But more to the point, so I take it that you’re assuming the ability to receive a revelation for the world, but not for the church? That seems counterintuitive…not that all divine manifestations are commonsensical. But I do believe that if your message is to have persuasive power, the burden is on you to demonstrate why we should listen to you rather than to any number of world leaders. More importantly, I presume you have talking points of some kind…some sort of distinct plan of action. What do you want us to do besides oppose tyranny and embrace peace? If that’s what this all comes down to, then I’m not sure this movement is adding much new to the discussion.
You’re right, the prophet’s mantle is absolutely for all humanity…as far as it pertains to the ordinances of salvation and the authority to administer those ordinances. That’s the domain of the Church regarding mankind. If that were not so, the Church would be taking much more vocal and public official stances about economic and political decisions being made in the world at large. That, however, is not the case. The Church can’t engage in such activities and still be “subject to kings, presidents, rulers…” etc. There is a very clear distinction that the Church recognizes between the domain of religion and that of socio-economic and political activities. So your point that you cannot separate the mantle of the prophet regarding the Church from the rest of the world is, unfortunately, not accurate and is not scriptural. (I’m willing to examine any specific passages you may know of to the contrary.)
You’re also missing the point a little about the application of revelation. Certainly anything received by revelation for the world would equally apply to members of the Church, that is not in question; what it does not apply to, in this case, is the operation and administration of the Church. The revelations being given (actually already given, now being translated, as claimed by the Higher Law) are in the form of invitation to the world to engage in this socio-economic and political movement; they are not religious commandments or calls to repentance or religious ritual action of any kind. So it’s not a matter of the Higher Law not applying to the members of the Church, it’s a matter of it applying to everyone regardless of religion, but about non-religious activities. There’s a very important difference there.
Finally, you’re right, there’s got to be more than just a bunch of flowery words, dazzling stories and high speeches to have any power of persuasion (we get enough fluff from Washington). The burden, though, is on the author of the message–God–to provide the “plan of action” as you put it. The claim of the Higher Law is that He has provided just that, and it’s on its way to being published. So stay skeptical if you must, stay open-minded, and by all means stay tuned.
You say there is no call for followers or loyalties of any kind???????? Maybe you should read Jason Johnson’s blog a little more carefully. Here is an excerpt from his blog in the section titled “The Structure of Society and Religion:”
“The Higher Law will eventually create an organization. The purpose of this blog is to establish the purpose, membership requirements and responsibilities, governance, and the provisions for its amendment and dissolution of this organization. Any individual who desires can as a potential member evaluate whether or not they would like to give their consent and join the organization.”
Those are his own words. It sounds like a call and preparation for followers to me. Also, since this is your own blog, what is your name? And I think a person’s name has a lot to do with the credibility of what is being said.
Thomas, you’re right, in a sense. I should have been more specific. When I say “no call for followers,” I mean in the Koreshian sense of a call to follow the “new prophet.” The call for membership is definitely a part of the movement, but it’s obviously voluntary membership and participation by “their consent” in a non-religious organization. The language you cite reads more like articles of incorporation than articles of faith, and rightly so.
As for my name, you couldn’t be more wrong. If you really believe that the identity of the messenger has anything whatsoever to do with the credibility of the message, you will most certainly find yourself on the wrong side of many issues. Here is just a small list of people who had little or no “credibility” in the eyes of their peers: Joseph Smith, John the Baptist, Enoch, Moses, Matthew, Nephi and of course, Jesus Christ. Perhaps you think their messages should have been discounted by their peers on grounds of credibility? Truth is not a subjective issue. No matter where it is found, if it’s true, it’s true. So again, we’re back to that question: is it true? (I don’t expect you to answer me; that’s between you and God.)
Lastly, are we cherry picking topics now? You leveled an accusation of apostasy at me and others. I responded in great detail, especially asking for evidence of apostasy or misguidance. Apart from the comment about followers, which I have now clarified, can you point to the evidence of apostasy?
I put other comments on Jason’s blog that are more specific examples of how this is apostasy. You may refer to those. I also agree with most of the other comments posted by others – Basically all of them but yours, Nates, and Jason Johnsons. You can read them. They are good examples of how you are in error. I don’t need to be redundant. You claim it’s not religious, but everyone else can see that IT IS. Wasn’t Abraham a prophet? If you’re translating his writings with a seer stone, that is religion. Talking about visions, devils, angels, translations of things in the scriptures – that IS religion. You also claim that this movemement is to help the missionary efforts of the church. Again – RELIGION! Also, you want people to pray to know of the truth of what you are saying so that they can be prepared for joining your organization. That sounds a little like religion too. Yes, I know people can be inspired outside of religion for non-religious purposes, but you guys go a little far. If this is to help eventually in spreading the gospel, why wouldn’t God go through his prophet to call you guys to do it? It’s God that told us he reveals things through his prophets.
As for what you said about Bishops and other local leaders. Yes they make mistakes. But you are still supposed to sustain them just the same as the prophet. It sounds to me like if they say anything contrary to what you think, you will just dismiss that as them being in error. That is not following the prophet. I’m not trying to judge you personally, just what you have said.
As for names, all of the people you cited, USED THEIR NAMES. They didn’t hide behind some other name, such as RWP. I’m not arguing that some of them were lesser known people to begin with. I’m just arguing that when they started telling the world about their messages they didn’t hide their identity. What are you hiding? I just wonder if you are not giving your name because you fear that people will see all of this for what it really is, and you don’t want your name attached to it.
As for the truthfulness of the Higher Law – Do I think it’s true – NO! I believe very much that it is the work of Satan – Some truth mingled with falsehoods. Have a nice day. I am done commenting forever because I don’t want to create bad feelings between me and you (whoever you are). It sounds like neither of us will be swayed in either direction.
Fair enough. I’ll just finish our conversation with some parting thoughts of my own.
You haven’t pointed to a single instance of apostasy, only your inability to separate revelation and spiritual communication from religious authority and ordinances. I haven’t seen a single citation of evidence of apostasy only “bad feelings” and faulty conclusions. Why is translation of ancient characters limited to religion, especially if the message being translated isn’t for a religion? Why are visions, devils and angels limited to religion? Just because they are recorded in the scriptures? George Washington has recorded his own experiences of having visions. Is he considered a religious leader? Is the United States a religion? It was founded by God, wasn’t it? Weren’t the founders men of differing religions working together under God’s direction to build and “organization” that embraced religions of all kinds, but which itself was expressly non-religious? Why weren’t Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams and the others called to their work by the prophet of the Church? How about Laman and Lemuel? They had several angelic visitations. Would you consider them religious just because they’re in the Book of Mormon?
I didn’t claim that this movement is to help the missionary effort. I said it stands to reason that the Lord would use this kind of movement for such ends, according to His own will and timing (like the United States). I also explained very thoroughly why, if that turns out to be true, it can’t begin with a religion. And most importantly, if it does end up helping the missionary effort of the LDS Church, so be it; but as has been stated over and over, that is not the responsibility or stewardship of Jason or anyone else involved. If and when the time comes that individuals, who by their own desire and consent to participate in the organization of the Higher Law, discover that the sincere path of truth leads to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the LDS Church, then they will be within the realm of authority of the LDS Church and its leadership. Then they will have to seek out the proper method of joining the Church according to whatever procedure is deemed appropriate by the Church leadership. That won’t remove them from the organization of the Higher Law, though, unless they choose to opt out. So God may use the organization that way, but the organization will not be a proselytizing vehicle of any kind. That’s what the missionary effort is for and it is well in hand by the Church, as it will stay.
About bishops and local leaders, I said plainly that this is not their stewardship. My participation in this organization in no way jeopardizes my membership in the Church, being that the organization is NON-RELIGIOUS. Call it a socio-political grass-roots movement, if you will, started by God (much like the United States of America). I fully sustain all the leaders of the Church at all levels in the roles and authority they are given. I trust that they will understand exactly where their stewardship ends, and I know exactly where the mandate of the Higher Law ends, so if at any moment the movement were to step out of bounds, I will be the first to cry foul.
Next, still pulling at that name thread, eh?
Yes, they all used their names, but that’s not the point. The point is their names didn’t matter (with the exception of Jesus Christ). It wasn’t their names that made their messages true. Eventually I’m sure I will be more public with my identity (not that it will matter…I’m seriously nobody of consequence). There are many people who know who I am, that I am the author of this blog, etc. That’s fine. I’m not hiding, I’m making a point. Who I am is irrelevant. And come to think of it, shouldn’t the fact that I am keeping my name out of it actually be a good sign? After all, what good would it do for someone like me to call for followers (if that’s what I was doing, which I’m not) without letting people know who I am? What am I to gain from it, AdWords hits? (Notice, I don’t even use AdWords or ads of any kind, so I’m not making money from this.)
Last of all, I hope you realize that not only do I not blame your skepticism, I welcome it. This kind of conversation is healthy for us all. We have to open our minds more than we have historically and your challenges give me much to consider (even if I am not swayed). I harbor no ill will towards you or anyone who disagrees or even fears what’s going on. I’m not interested in adulation and praise, but I’m extremely interested in deep conversation and debate, so sincerely, thanks for engaging for a few minutes. I really do wish you the best.
Keep your eyes open (and your mind, and your heart).
admin,
I am always turned off by people the feel their knowledge is far superior to others. That is how you come across to me as if you are in deed the omniscient God himself.
Probably won’t look at your blog again so don’t waste your time responding.
One last thing, I totally agree with Thomas
admir,
I’m surprised by how often you have to repeat yourself to explain that your claim is not of a religion. It’s NOT hard to understand what your saying, its very clear. The higher law, is meant for ALL people, and not all people are of one religion or one at all–
It’s amazing how far people will go to misunderstand something out of fear of something they can’t wrap their heads around… Obviously the information that you claim to have could be beneficial to the world, and when we all have the chance to read it we can decide for ourselves. I believe the idea that Lord works outside of one specific religion or leader is true. Anyone who can’t grasp that concept is small minded.
Its a big world people…
I pray the Lord watches over you and your family, i can only imagine that you will need Him more then ever.
Skyler,
This means more to me that you probably realize. I’m undaunted by the negative commentary that’s gone on, it doesn’t change my conviction at all; but it’s always nice to know that every once in a while, someone comes along who can at least entertain the idea that some or all of this stuff just might be true, or at the very least, that the Lord works on a much broader scale than just the limited scope of “religion” that we humans have falsely created over the course of generations of spiritual and political “land-grabbing.”
I’m firm in my religious convictions and no less firm in my convictions regarding the Higher Law. To me, their purposes are one in the same–to bring God’s children back to Him–though by decidedly and intentionally different means.
So thanks for being open and available. I won’t impose my convictions on you, but I hope you and others will continue to at least consider the things being shared openly without the improper burdens of prejudice.
I’m enjoying the discussion here and your blog posts on the Higher Law. Your words have helped elucidate and clarify some points for me and I’ve no doubt that others will likewise benefit from your understanding.
Thanks
I just want to throw in my two cents on this matter. You said that the Prophet has the keys for humanity as far as Salvation is concerned. This is incorrect. The prophet Joseph Smith created the United Order, Brigham Young urged the saints to take part in co-ops, Spencer W. Kimball urged the saints to get food storage. All of these things are for the TEMPORAL well being of the church and of the world. If the church had nothing to do with temporal well being then it would not provide for disaster relief to all parts of the globe. If God wanted to create new economic and political structure he would do it through his church and his ordained Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Oh and by the way, if this new order is not the law of concecration then it will be thrown out when Jesus Christ comes again, scriptures are clear, that is the law they all of Christ’s followers will be following.
Richie,
I didn’t say that the church has nothing to do with temporal well being. Obviously it is very concerned with those kinds of things. However, those are humanitarian concerns, not economic/political. The church does not and cannot engage in political policy making and can only be involved in the economics of society by influence through its members (i.e. teaching correct principles and letting them govern themselves). It stays well clear of engaging in any official activity that could be construed as politically motivated or else it faces losing its non-profit status with consequences that could include loss of property (including meeting houses and temples). Remember, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers…” etc.
There’s a very clear distinction between the church’s religious authority and its temporal humanitarian efforts, but that doesn’t mean the two are mutually exclusive and no one has claimed they are.
You’re correct it does. But in history, prophets have been political ans spiritual leaders of their people. If God was going to form a political/economic society, then he would do it through his ordained prophets and apostles. This man, is claiming to be a seer, in order to be a true seer, you must be called to that position through the Priesthood. Mark my words, this man will be excommunicated from the church. I know his home teacher, he has been released from all priesthood callings, so its only a matter of time. This man is a false prophet.
Richie,
You need to cite specifics if you’re going to make an argument. You can’t just generalize.
For example, you say: “in history, prophets have been political and spiritual leaders of their people.” Can you give me one example where the prophet was acting as the political leader because of religious authority? The only possible example I can imagine you’re referring to would be Joseph Smith when he was voted to be mayor of Nauvoo. If you read a little about how that happened, however, you’ll see that his election was hardly a religious mandate and had nothing to do with his religious office (except inasmuch as the voters knew he was the prophet, which certainly would have influenced their decision). He was not “called” to be mayor, he was elected mayor by the citizens, just like any other political officer. He recognized the distinction between the two offices; one does not presuppose the other.
You also state that “in order to be a true seer, you must be called to that position through the Priesthood.” Again, can you provide a single example of scripture or instruction from the Church that supports your conclusion? The prophet, seer and revelator and president of the Church obviously must be called to that position, but that doesn’t mean the gift of seership is limited only to the president of the Church or those called by the Priesthood. If you read the articles I linked to in this post (here and here) you’ll see that the term “prophet” does not only apply to the leader of the Church, nor does the term “seer” apply only to those called by Priesthood authority. They are both gifts to be sought after from God by every person. Can you provide any evidence from the Church that disputes this? Keep in mind, almost every case in scripture of someone exercising the gift of seership did not receive a “calling” through the “Priesthood,” at least not as you’re using the terms (i.e. read about Mosiah, the brother of Jared, etc). Seership is not a position, it’s a gift. Don’t confuse the two.
Finally, you say “this man will be excommunicated from the church.” Are you a prophet now? Or maybe a seer? How can you know things to come before they have happened? Have you received instruction from God on this matter? Have you even asked? People get released from callings all the time. Do you know it has anything to do with this? If so, how? Just because you know his home teacher? Is his home teacher the bishop? Did he divulge confidential information to you that is between Jason and his bishop? Your attempt to claim some kind of inside knowledge and designate yourself as some kind of authority on this matter is not only incorrect, it’s deplorable and not befitting of a true Christian.
It still just amazes me how hard it is for some people to believe that this could even be possible. What’s more amazing is with all the emphasis the Church puts on receiving revelation (i.e. answers to prayers), with the heavily cited “Book of Mormon challenge” (Moroni 10: 3 – 5) which gives very clear instructions on how anyone can “know the truth of all things,” they still resort to visceral, emotional response to anything that challenges their prejudices and preconceptions rather than actually doing as Moroni says. Why the knee-jerk reactions? Has the Higher Law blog said anything that challenges the authority of the Church, its divinity, its mission, its leadership or its truthfulness? No. Then why the fear? Suppose the Higher Law turns out to be false (hypothetically). What has actually happened related to the Higher Law that would constitute an offense requiring excommunication? Nothing.
You people need to stop letting your emotions and prejudices rule your actions. If you haven’t prayed to know if it’s true, there’s only one thing that needs to be done. If you have and you’re absolutely convinced that it’s false, then don’t believe it. You don’t have to attack the messenger, or worse, the children of the messenger to give yourself some false sense of security. There’s no threat here. Why the violent reaction?
Frankly, I’m appalled that you people call yourselves “good” members of the Church.
(I’m not speaking only to you, Richie, but to everyone who is reacting from a position of pure emotion and not from spiritual confirmation.)