Follow The Prophet Endgame

Anyone remotely familiar with the works of anti-Mormon productions has undoubtedly heard of "The Godmakers." A propaganda piece released by Jeremiah Films in 1982, it includes a cartoon of basic "Mormon belief" that can be accessed on YouTube for anyone to see.

The cartoon's goal is to make Mormonism appear like a cult. By making not-so-subtle artistic implications, employing half-truths, and using statements made by LDS leaders of the past, it succeeds in that goal. After watching this clip, the viewer is left feeling a little dirty. The theology of Mormonism is painted to be nothing more than a Christian-based version of Scientology. But not really Christian, of course!

Sometimes I wonder, why is it so easy to make Mormonism appear so silly?

FOLLOW THE PROPHET.

This single "doctrine," amplified over the years by those we've sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, has led to more trouble for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than any other. It's a doctrine that, once accepted by its followers, cannot be undone. There's no way to be liberal in the interpretations of things because the rank-and-file membership doesn't have the "keys" to. We have been sucked into the vortex of the circular argument from whence there is no return, as long as we continue this inside-the-box thinking.

You know what circle I'm talking about: The prophet cannot lead the Church astray-->Who said that?--->The prophet-->How do you know it's true?-->Because the prophet said so-->How do you know he's telling the truth?-->Because the prophet cannot lead the Church astray!

Once the assumption has been made that the President of the Church and all his corporate underlings cannot lead their people astray, there's no way to hide from the things that those men do and say.

And unfortunately for the Church, those men have done and said a lot of things, things we may not teach today, but things that stick with us nonetheless. And what happens when people outside the Church come across these scars? Cartoons like "The Godmakers" are produced. And you can be sure that such videos, made by men with their own devious agendas, will cast the Church in the worst light possible, not just the Church in Joseph's days, but the modern Church. (The producers of this video are very careful to always use the present tense when referring to all things the Mormons "teach.")

This is Follow the Prophet endgame, my friends. It doesn't matter how sincerely the Mormons of today proclaim respectable beliefs in doctrines like the Atonement, the love of God, and the worth of souls. Their prophets have advocated some not-so-respectable concepts over the years--polygamy, racism, and exclusion, to name a few--and since we believe in following the prophet no matter what, we are held accountable for those statements.

It's no one's fault but our own, really. Remember Joseph Smith's warning to those who "were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, [and] . . . neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves." Well, if this was a problem in the 1840s, it had metastasized by the end of the 19th Century when Wilford Woodruff, speaking for himself, superciliously declared that no President of the Church could lead it astray without God physically removing him from his position. And by embracing this falsehood, our minds remain darkened. Instead of individually determining, through the Spirit, and then being accountable for our own beliefs, as is the organic teaching of Mormonism, we are being told what we believe based off some inane statement made by a general authority 150 years ago.

One might ask, so what? Why does it matter what people think of us? We may have a problem, but it doesn't mean we need to worry about hatchet job cartoons like "The Godmakers." While these people may have a point--we can never quell opposition--people ARE avoiding our Church because of these sorts of things. And it doesn't help that videos like "The Godmakers" appeal to actual statements by LDS leaders through the years. Simply put, if missionary work and reactivation are genuine goals of ours, we need to find a way to escape such damaging stigmas.

The Church has tried to save face on the matter, and in 2007, released the following statement in a piece called "Approaching Mormon Doctrine":

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

This quote is promulgated time and time again on apologist websites, like FAIR LDS, in response to some of the controversial topics related to Mormonism. And while the message of this statement is correct, the Church has not exactly adhered to such a mindset over its history. And if it is indeed true, then it certainly waters down the power of those key-holding revelators at the top of the pyramid, doesn't it? If a single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion isn't binding for the whole Church, then what is? How far can we trust these fallible men? Especially when they decide to "establish doctrine" that conflicts with the standard works?

Don't get me wrong. I understand the position a head prophet plays in the Church. One of his roles is to relay messages directly from God. But when that man is not receiving such messages, when the heavens appear to be closed (to the institutional Church, anyway), when all his statements can be reduced to opinions or rehashes of previous revelations, is it wise to put all our faith in him and the corporate entity he presides over? You don't think outsiders notice this lack of revelation in a Church that claims to be run by it? You don't think those questioning the faith notice an imperfect Church replacing a perfect God as the object of worship? How are we going to grow at the exponential rates we presume we are (the actual numbers are less than staggering) with such a culture of stagnation pervading over us?

I don't think the answer is all that complex. We need to get back to our roots and proclaim our fundamental teachings. We've all but forgotten many of the pure and precious doctrines of the church (lowercase c, as in D&C 10:67), replacing them with the man-made, stifling teachings of the Church (uppercase C, as in the corporate creature that's correlated us to conformity).

Let's never forget one of the most profound things Joseph Smith taught: “Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth. Consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft...The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”

This is what Mormonism is. Not the sinister system "The Godmakers" proclaims it to be. And not the stifling system the LDS Church makes it to be. It is simply truth, "let it come from whence it may."

As an aside, the top-rated comment on the YouTube link for this video is from a user with the handle "Joseph Smith," who says, "I don't remember preaching half of this." Ain't that the truth?

Remember, a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. And to act as a prophet means to directly relay a message from God, through the Spirit. Therefore, I think a better rule to follow than The Fourteen Fundamentals' third idea that a living prophet is greater than a dead prophet would be to ask yourself: who was acting as a prophet more than any other prophet? Why, that would be Joseph Smith. By a mile.

Hear No Evil, Stop No Evil

After my Memorial Day post about President Monson's...er, summary...of Mormon belief following the Persian Gulf War was shared on the Facebook group "Mormons for Ron Paul" by Rock Waterman, commenter Deb protested the article with the following:

Not sure I want to climb on that slippery slope with you Brother Waterman. If President Monson was in charge of the US troops, as was the case with Captain Moroni, I might agree with some of this article. But the President of Christ's church plays a completely different [role]. Reread the 12th Article of Faith and you will see that he IS maintaining true doctrinal [principles]. I believe in Christ and I know that President Monson is the living prophet today and I support him completely.

A rather pedestrian mindset in the world of Latter-day Saints, actually. One I've come across numerous times in my seven years in the church. And one that is entirely missing the big picture.

Deb brings up the twelfth article of faith, something I posited may have been the inspiration behind Monson's unflinching support of the war. So let's have a look at it, shall we?

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

On the surface, this verse could be read as vindicating Monson's blind patriotism. We're subject to our rulers and we've got to honor the law, right? But with no context whatsoever (it's merely part of a 13 article list of different latter-day beliefs), it would be wise to provide some, would it not?

First, we must take the Articles of Faith for what they are--Joseph Smith's best effort to hone down some core beliefs in an explanatory letter to newspaper editor John Wentworth in 1842. They are not direct words from the mouth of the Lord, so we are putting our faith in Joseph's hands to do the best job he can to represent the church's position accurately--not an easy thing to do, even for the founder of the church himself. Keep in mind the words of Don Bradley, who in his analysis of "Joseph Smith's Unfinished Reformation" in Sunstone Magazine observed:

Prior to declaring these “grand fundamental principles,” Joseph had attempted to define Mormonism in doctrinal terms in D&C 20, the Lectures on Faith, and the Articles of Faith. But each of these inevitably failed to provide a timeless or final definition of the faith’s essence. The task of capturing Mormonism in a creedal statement was Sisyphean, because Mormonism was more committed to the principle of forever acquiring truth than to any particular formulation of the truth. It was a circle no static set of doctrines could square.

It's clear the Wentworth Letter was one of Joseph's best attempts to pin Mormonism down into creedal statements, but as we read here, the nature of the religion itself makes that almost impossible. So while there's nothing necessarily wrong with the Articles of Faith, and they were agreed upon to be put into the scriptures in 1880, it is debatable whether they could be considered "revelations." At most, they are very basic revelations that are dependent upon other revelations for support and clarification.

Secondly, to better understand the twelfth article, it may be more helpful to look at what it doesn't say than what it does. Upon reading it again, I have a few immediate questions:

• In what ways are we subject to our leaders? All of them?
• What is meant by "law"? Any law anyone wishes to make or the more specific law of the land expounded upon in D&C 98 and implicitly mentioned in D&C 134?
• Does it make sense that God would want us to honor (to hold in high respect) and sustain (to support) laws that take away the inalienable rights of men? Are we to respect and support a dictator who, for example, slaughters his own people simply because we happen to reside in the nation he rules?

I believe that further revelation clarifies all these questions, and that it all points to the fact that...OF COURSE GOD ISN'T ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT EVIL! I mean, really, do we even need scriptures for this? I assume such an admonition wasn't included in the Ten Commandments because God thought it was so obvious it was simply understood. But I suppose not. So let's get out our scriptures.

I've already gone over Section 98, so let's look at the other. One thing you'll notice about Section 134 is that it looks quite a bit like the Articles of Faith. It has almost the same number of verses, and each begins with the phrase "We believe." In the subheading we learn that it is "a declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835." So while 134 isn't given from the mouth of the Lord either, it certainly gives a lot more context. It was almost as though the council foresaw the confusion Article 12 would spawn, as they inserted a preamble stating: "That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present, at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same."

OK. Since that's cleared up, let's look at some of the verses that apply here:

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that the second governments stop acting in accordance with the "benefit of man," their divine purpose is nullified. And we are held accountable for our acts in relation to them, not in just following laws but in making and administering them.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

Or in other words, a peaceful government is one that sustains the law sanctioned by God--that which derives from the Bill of Rights. In fact it is the only kind of government that can exist in peace. And since we are accountable, we'd better make sure our government is doing just that.

Also, will ya look at that--we believe "each individual has the free exercise of conscience." If Monson's observation that "you rarely find any Latter-day Saints in the role of conscientious objector" is correct, maybe they need to dust off the ol' Book of Commandments.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

Here we have an instance of something the law (note the use of the words "human law" as opposed to "law of the land") cannot do--specifically, suppress or dictate free worship. So if we believe that, what are we to do if such usurpation occurs? Sit back and sustain it? Are we merely allowed to believe that human law can't interfere yet have no prerogative to make sure it doesn't? That doesn't make sense.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

And here's the kicker. The first sentence (up to the first semi-colon) is perhaps the most important one in the entire section, yet what we usually get is the first part of it, ignoring the absolutely essential second clause. We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments. We are only bound to sustain our government while being protected in our rights--rights which are acknowledged by the law of the land (because it is of God). Anything "more or less than this cometh of evil" (D&C 98:7).

After reading this verse, I was naturally very suspicious as to how the modern church uses it. I typed in "D&C 134:5" into lds.org and clicked on all the links that came up on page 1. Surprise, surprise, the "while protected" line is barely made mention of. In the Doctrine & Covenants Student Manual, the heading for verse 5 stops after "reside." In the Triple Combination Index: Citizenship, the reference to 134:5 is preceded by nothing more than "all men are bound to uphold their governments." In a talk given by Russell M. Nelson in 1990, 134:5 is preceded by, "A saint is an honorable citizen, knowing that the very country which provides opportunity and protection deserves support, including prompt payment of taxes and personal participation in its legal political process." N. Eldon Tanner's 1975 talk quotes the entire verse, but goes on to advocate obedience to any law we are subject to; for "this is the attitude of the Church in regard to law observance." It sure is.

Now let's get back to what started this whole discussion--Thomas Monson's support for the Persian Gulf War, and compare it to the "Be A Good Citizen No Matter What" mantra the church has clung to for years. Both the Student Manual and N. Eldon Tanner appeal to Christ's statement, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). But let's remember what Jesus was talking about here--tributes, or taxes. We can agree that taxes--or the concept of money as a whole--is something that can rightly be deemed "Caesar's," in the sense that it is of man. Thus I'm not urging anyone to avoid paying their taxes or break any other law that has to do solely with our own temporal affairs. But war is a different thing. We're talking about basic human rights here--people's very lives. To say that supporting a war is okay because it's one of "Caesar's things" is utter blindness. Governments can endow upon us taxes as they so decide (yet remembering that we as good citizens should be making sure those taxes are fair and reasonable); they cannot endow us or strip us from our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are God-given. Any government that tries to remove these rights may be directly opposed, because those rights are "the things that are God's."

There's a terrific compilation of quotes from Joseph Smith on civic issues on the Latter-day Conservative website, if Section 98 and 134 aren't enough to convince you not to follow governments blindly. For example:

The Constitution tells us what shall not be a lawful tender… The legislature has ceded up to us the privilege of enacting such laws as are not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States… The different states, and even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States… Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!

Here are two more (not from Joseph, but about something he said):

I heard the prophet Joseph Smith say if the people rose up and mobbed us and the authorities countenanced it, they would have mobs to their hearts’ content. I heard him say that the time would come when this nation would so far depart from its original purity, its glory, and its love for freedom and its protection of civil rights and religious rights, that the Constitution of our country would hang as it were by a thread. He said, also, that this people, the sons of Zion, would rise up and save the Constitution and bear it off triumphantly.
-Eliza Snow

It is said that brother Joseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution should be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he [Joseph] said something like this–that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church. I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it.
-Orson Hyde (JD 6:152)

We can't pin down an exact quote, but it's likely that Joseph said something to the effect of: the Constitution will one day be on the precipice of extinction, and it will be up to the Mormons to save it. Now, based on the vanilla way we've been instructed by the Korrelation Kings from Salt Lake to never make trouble, can you honestly see the Latter-day Saints of today having the chutzpah to stand up to tyranny and prevent the annihilation of the law of the land? As long as we're taught that "what the law says goes," we'll simply be spectators watching evil overtake the earth.

We need to go back to our roots. We need to tune in to our common sense. We need to read our scriptures and actually hearken unto them. We need to channel the passion of Joseph Smith, a man who went so far as to advocate capital punishment for those leaders who neglected the Constitution, a man who was willing to die to protect the rights of the weak and oppressed.

Our Prophet On War

As Memorial Day fast approaches, my mind has been focused more on war and what our position should be on it. Really, it's quite simple. The word of the Lord was recorded on the subject in 1833, now known as Section 98 of the Doctrine & Covenants. Among the things this revelation teaches us:

• Anything that is constitutional law of the land is justifiable before the Lord. Anything more or less than this cometh of evil. (verses 4-7)
• We must diligently seek after and uphold those honest and wise men who support these constitutional principles. Anyone who does less than this cometh of evil. (verse 10)
• We should not fear our enemies. (verse 14)
• We must renounce war and proclaim peace. (verse 16)
• We will be rewarded if we bear violence directed towards us and our families patiently (as many as three times) and without seeking vengeance. (verses 23-31)
• We must not go out into battle against anyone unless the Lord has commanded us to do so. (verse 33)
• If anyone has declared war on us, we must lift a standard of peace unto them (as many as three times). (verses 34-38)
• If our enemy has trespassed against us, we must forgive him as many times as he repents for his actions. We must also forgive him if he doesn't repent for his actions (as many as three times). (verses 39-46)

This is fairly straightforward. We may squabble over what kinds of offenses would count as far as the "three times" rule, but there should be no squabble over the principle being taught here--vengeance, violence, and war are all things to be avoided at pretty much all costs. And that's just when the enemy is the aggressor. If we're planning to invade someone else's homeland, then it's a big fat NO from the Lord unless He specifically commands otherwise. As far as I know, there have been no divine approbations for the recent overseas engagements of America.

Try telling that to Thomas Monson.

Pure Mormonism reader Isaac posted a link to a 1991 Deseret News article in which Monson, then a counselor in the First Presidency, gushed about Mormons' support for the Persian Gulf War.

It's one thing for a church leader to be supportive of a war (we are, after all, entitled to our opinions and free agency); it's another thing completely for that leader to wantonly misrepresent the doctrine of his church.

The article, which illustrates the Mormons' impressive patriotism (USA! USA!), is an interview with Brother Monson, who makes sure that, as far as loyalty to his country is concerned, he will never be dubbed "Doubting Thomas."

Here are some of The Living Oracle's statements from the piece, followed by my commentary:

"In time of war or stress, we have no hesitancy in following the flag. You won't find any more patriotic group."

You hear that? "No hesitancy." It doesn't matter what "the flag" is doing, we will not hesitate to follow it. This is basically the Follow the Prophet doctrine morphed into another form--either way, such blind conformity is "slavery to the extreme." Such people "should not claim a rank among intelligent beings."

"Once the United Nations took its action and President Bush took his stand, we were behind our leader. That's all that was needed (Congress ratifying the U.N. action). Interestingly, in our church, it is assumed and understood that when the leadership of our nation lines up behind a particular policy in a crisis, we support and sustain it."

Monson can assume 'til the cows come home that Congress ratifying the U.N. action was all that was needed, but it was not. In fact, no war since World War II has been declared under the Constitution. Even if it was (and there is debate over whether the methods used by the U.S. to go to war since Korea can be considered constitutionally authorized or not), it wouldn't mean it should garner a priori support and sustaining by us as a church. We must first ask: does it meet the Lord's requirements set out in Section 98? Methinks not.

President Monson, a forthright, amiable man of 6-foot-3 with the air of a confident businessman--which he once was...

Okay, it's not a statement from Monson himself, but I had to include this line. I know there's no one I'd rather have leading my church than someone with the "air of a confident businessman." Bonus points if he actually was one!

"We're not just sheep that are going to roll over."

This reminds me a little bit of that verse in Luke 25* when Jesus said, "Thou shalt not be just sheep that roll over."

Oh no, wait, he said, "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39).

"You rarely find any Latter-day Saints in the role of conscientious objector. We don't believe in marches and protests and carrying placards."

There have been a lot of ridiculous statements made by general authorities over the years, but this one may take the cake. This is such a puerile, misguided mindset that I can't even imagine supporters of the war feeling comfortable echoing it. I don't care how staunchly I was committed to America's overseas excursions in the past, I would have never said I don't believe in protests. You have just as much right to oppose war as you do to support war, Latter-day Saint or not. This nation was founded on the principle of conscientious objecting; to say that "we" (quite a blanket statement) don't do or believe in such things is the height of ignorance.

He said the church encourages "grass-roots involvement" in democratic processes, but holds that needed changes can be brought about by working through the established system.

Upon what does he base this? Where in the scriptures does it advise against marches, protests, and carrying placards, actions that are all permitted by law? The only thing I can think of would be a truly twisted interpretation of the twelfth article of faith.

"If there's no disloyalty in the person, then no disloyalty in country. From childhood on, we're instilled to be loyal."

We should be loyal to our friends. We should be loyal to our families. Above all, we should be loyal to our God. But we are under no obligation to be loyal to our country, if we believe that country is doing that which is contrary to the Lord's will. Not to go all Reductio ad Hitlerum on y'all, but could you not see this exact quote being on page one of the Nazi handbook?

I suggest Monson and those who think like him should do a bit of reading--perhaps from the sagacious Hugh Nibley, who said, "Loyalty is one of the few words in existence about whose meaning dispute is virtually impossible. Everyone knows what loyalty is, and what a desirable, nay indispensable thing it is to the survival of any community. Like honor and chastity, it is strongest when least talked about, and thrives only in a climate of uncritical acceptance. A virtuous investigation of loyalty is like a noisy oration in praise of silence, and the appearance of loyalty order and loyalty legislation...is a sign of lost confidence, a desperate groping in empty air for something which groping fingers only push farther out of reach."

May I add "loyalty sermonizing" to the list of those signs of lost confidence?

"We don't believe in people following blindly. They weigh things out . . . They're not just `yes men,' puppets on a string. They have free agency, accountable for their own actions, the right to choose." But they're also instilled with the obligation to serve common interests beyond their own. If a person questions a national course, "he can serve in some capacity that will suit his conscience and country together."

According to Brother Thomas, we have free agency and the right to choose, but if we believe our country is going the wrong way in its course, we must still serve that country in some way? Sounds like a false dilemma of choice to me.

And by the way, O Prophet, when you state that Congress approving a U.N. action is "all that's needed" to support a foreign engagement, that is the very definition of "people following blindly."

"You have to be careful what you ask a Mormon to do, he'll do it. They love the church and love the Lord."

Oh, us Mormons! Obedience isn't an issue with us! Guess it doesn't matter, though, what we are obedient to.

It is my prayer that on this day of memorial, we mourn with those that mourn, and remember those who have lost their lives in warfare. Yet may we also take a deeper look into our hearts, into the scriptures, and learn the truth concerning war. Not what Thomas Monson said in an interview in 1991. Not what Gordon Hinckley said in 2003 general conference. But what the Lord himself has said. Remember, we are commanded to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who despitefully use and persecute us. I know it's much easier to follow the precepts of men, which almost always involve retribution, but we've been asked to live the Higher Law. It's time to follow Christ.

---

*Luke 25 is a fictional book composed of things one would think Christ actually said if one listened solely to the leaders of the LDS Church. When I accrue enough verses from Luke 25, I intend on publishing it in a blog post. NEW SCRIPTURE IS ON THE WAY, PEOPLE!