A parable: The pit, the village and the mountain

Once upon a time there was a small village. Just a short distance north from the village lay a deep and dark pit. Out of concern that someone would fall in the pit, the elders of the village had erected a fence around it. The villagers often gathered by the pit to lament over those who fell into it, but also to try to keep each other out of the pit. They spent a lot of time around the pit, repairing and painting the fence. The pit was at the center of attention.

South of the village was a high mountain with steep sides covered by trees, bushes, boulders and tall grass. Atop the mountain, the view was splendid. The horizon was filled with even higher, snow-covered mountains displaying their grandeur, a glittering river bent itself through the green fields and the dark forest made the flowers glow even brighter in all their colors.

A strait and narrow path moved its way up along the mountain side. Because few, if any, of the villagers had hiked up the mountain during the past decades, the path was almost entirely overgrown with wild vegetation. By and by, the path had become so hard to find that the villagers who tried to get up on the mountain were discouraged when they didn't even know where to begin their hike upward. Moreover, if ever a villager mentioned climbing the mountain path, they were always dissuaded and met resistance by the elders and the rest of the village’s residents. The elders of the town, had become too preoccupied with the pit and too content with staying in the village, that the idea of climbing up the mountain and observing its splendid view never crossed their minds. Ultimately, they didn't have the desire, the courage, the belief or feel any responsibility to get to the top of the mountain to be mesmerized and inspired by the distant view.

As a result of the attitude shown by the elders of the village, the villagers no longer believed, nor desired, nor felt that they even were allowed or had to get up on the mountain to see further. At the village festivals, the elders of the village told stories about ancient trips up the mountain side and had the villagers relish in the feeling of absolute safety in the village. The elders also convinced the villagers that they, the elders, would know when it was time to once again venture up on the mountain, and that the villagers just had to look to them and follow their lead to stay safe and sound.

During earlier years, when each villager was expected to, and also did, get up on the mountain, their dealings with each other was permeated with joy, optimism and gratefulness. The ones who had ventured up the mountain came back to the village and told of the vast views and about the trip along the strait and narrow path. They gave advice on how the hike could be done, and they warned about dangers. Other villagers were inspired to pursue the same journey, and they did. The villagers were grateful for living so close to the mountain, which made them look upward.

Now, the atmosphere in the village was characterized by a gloominess. The villagers complained about the long shadows which the mountain cast over the village and they tried their hardest to stay out of the pit. As the mountain beckoned for the villagers to come and see, ironically, they never realized that responding to the call would've been the best way to do just that. And so,  in the shadows of the mountain the villagers continued living their lives in the safety of the village.


________________

This analogy/parable came to my attention when reading Denver Snuffer's "The Second Comforter: Conversing With the Lord Through the Veil"). Thank you, Denver, for that. I hope you didn't mind me borrowing it.

The Waldenström legacy – a distaste for orthodoxy

Last Sunday, I was released from my calling as councilor to the bishop in my ward. In short, you could say that I blogged my way out of the bishopric. Since there are a few questions still unanswered with regards to how it all went down, I will only make one small comment about it in this post.

This experience has made me reflect on the state of the Church today. What was the reason for my release? Was it a valid reason? What can you and I learn from all of this that will help us reconcile ourselves to the will of God through the Atonement of Christ? (2 Ne. 10:24)

This post should've been cut in half (on my wife's order). However, when I tried to shorten it, I realized it had to be like it was. It's long and covers topics that might seem unrelated. With this said, I commend you for reading past this paragraph and I hope you will get something out of it.

The Waldenström legacy – a distaste for orthodoxy

Joe Hill is my grandfather's uncle. He's a legend among socialists, and was executed by the state of Utah in 1915, falsely accused and convicted for murder. While a young boy, he went to a church headed by minister Paul Petter Waldenström. William Adler, author of "The Man Who Never Died: The Life, Times, and Legacyof Joe Hill, American Labor Icon”, relates the following about Waldenströms view on the Christian faith, and the Lutheran church he belonged to.

"Waldenström's heresy was that he was an ordained Church of Sweden minister whose loyalty lay closer to the Bible than to institutional orthodoxy. He was dangerous because on crucial points in the Scripture his reading was at odds with Lutheran doctrine, and because no Church of Sweden preacher had greater ability to speak his mind from the pulpit–or less fear of doing so. Waldenström preached that the essence of faith was not one's adherence to theological orthodoxy but one's personal bond with Christ. "Salvation," he wrote, "depends on the individual's relationship to the savior who God gave to the world." And for Waldenström and those whom he inspired, a lite steeped in glorifying Christ was a life dedicated to bettering one's community." (p. 96-97).

I like this, a lot. Thanks to Adler, I have a new favorite 19th century minister. 

Just like Waldenström, I'm not so concerned with religious orthodoxy as with our struggle to have a personal relationship with the Savior. This view seems to be shared by Joseph Smith.

"I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believe as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled. It don't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine." (The Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184; compare to TPJS p. 288)

Religious orthodoxy is epitomized in the development, acceptance and belief in creeds. 

Joseph would've been against the development of Mormon creeds, just like the Savior seems to have been. In the canonized version of the First Vision, Christ relates to Joseph that, "all their (that is, the religious denominations) creeds were an abomination in his sight" (JS-H 1:19). If Christ considers all creeds to be abominations, regardless of their content, I can't say, but neither the Lord nor his Prophet seems to have been very fond of them.

”Is the LDS Church in Apostasy?”

In a great post on Rational Faiths, Corbin Volluz, asked the challenging question ”Is the LDS Church in Apostasy?” He explained that one of the hallmark signs of apostasy in the early church (having a church run by men who gathered in councils and held debates, letting their decisions rest on the collected wisdom of mortal beings) has now crept into the Church (the leaders of the Church ”counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications”). The product of the council at Nicea was the famous Nicene creed. What’s the result of the councils in the Church Office Building? The doctrine of Christ, or Mormon creeds? 

Are there any Mormon creeds? The only maxim denoted "creed" is the one attributed to Brigham Young ("Mind your own business"). However, this isn't directly related to the Mormon faith. A possible creed may have been reiterated by president Uchtdorf in his talk from the October 2006 General Conference (this is an echo of earlier teachings to the same effect).

A testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ will always include these clear and simple truths:

 - God lives. He is our loving Father in Heaven, and we are His children. 

- Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and the Savior of the world. 

- Joseph Smith is the prophet of God through whom the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in the latter days.

- The Book of Mormon is the word of God. 

- President Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the  Twelve Apostles are the prophets, seers, and revelators in our day. (Emphasis added)

Notice that he uses the word always. I guess that the Christian world in general could use the same word when talking about the doctrine established in the council of Nicea (a true Christian will always believe that the canon is closed, God is three personages in one, and so forth).

In his talk, Uchtdorf establishes a creed like core for our testimonies of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. This must, as I've experienced, be in place and firm beyond questioning for one to be eligible to fully participate in the Church. It is, as it were, the basis for the Mormon faith and Mormonism in general.

Mormonism redefined 

What is Mormonism? I proclaim the following:

Mormonism is an attitude towards and hunger for truth, not a set of beliefs. In this sense, each and every honest seeker of truth is a Mormon, regardless of the amount of truth they currently possess and the amount of unbelief they need to repent of. This is the real big tent Mormonism.

Brigham Young seems to agree. The following quotes are from Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, chapter 2, p. 16-17

I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it.  

Be willing to receive the truth, let it come from whom it may; […] If God has called an individual and sent him to preach the Gospel that is enough for me to know; it is no matter who it is, all I want is to know the truth.  

“Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” […] “Mormonism” includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. 

It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, […] it is the business of the Elders of this Church […] to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, . . . to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion.

Say what you want about Brigham Young, but he sure is quotable. I like what he says here, and I believe it’s true. But this isn’t how the Church rolls these days.

In an interesting blog post (Corbin Volluz, again), it was noted that the only thing that what will get you kicked out of the Church is a public declaration that you are unsure if the current president of the Church also is a prophet, seer and revelator. Sadly, it's been said that there’s only one doctrine left, and there seems to be some truth to that statement.

As I was released, I was told, that there can’t be any doubt in the minds of the people I was leading (as a member of the bishopric), that I know that president Monson is a prophet and God’s mouthpiece on the earth. I firmly believe that Joseph would've lamented this development. 

This leads us to these questions: Which facts and truths do you need to have a spiritual conviction of in order to be saved? Do we have to know that Joseph was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true or any of the truth claims of the Church? I honestly believe that I don't have to believe and have faith in anything else than the divinity and Atonement of Jesus Christ and his teachings. Everything else is at best an instrument to the development of real faith. There's a distinction between faith in Christ and instrumental faith in other aspects of the restoration. We mustn't conflate the two.

Testimonies and faith

In the same talk from October 2006 General Conference, Uchtdorf stated that ”a testimony is a most precious possession because it is not acquired by logic or reason alone, it cannot be purchased with earthly possessions, and it cannot be given as a present or inherited from our ancestors. We cannot depend on the testimonies of other people. We need to know for ourselves. President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “Every Latter-day Saint has the responsibility to know for himself or herself with a certainty beyond doubt that Jesus is the resurrected, living Son of the living God” (“Fear Not to Do Good,” Ensign, May 1983, 80).

Eight years later, Uchtdorf said ”that this personal testimony of the gospel and the Church is the most important thing you can earn in this life. It will not only bless and guide you during this life, but it will also have a direct bearing on your life throughout eternity.”

The concept of receiving a testimony has, in my view, overshadowed the need for real faith in the Savior. I would suggest that a testimony is concerned with facts; did Joseph see the Father and the Son, is the Book of Mormon true, Jesus did resurrect. Knowing the facts is helpful and creates a sense of peace and assurance. This kind of testimony, however, won't make you take the needed steps into the dark and thereby see the light of the Lord break forth. Only true faith in Jesus will do that. A testimony (in the sense the word is used in the Church) is a good start, but I believe that if we believe that this also is the end, we will be disappointed.

The Mormon usage of the word testimony is misleading. What is a real testimony? A testimony was originally understood as the communication from an eye witness, uttered to proof a fact. As we read in John 3:32:

He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony.

A real testimony can only come from a witness. Since few of us have this witness about the reality of Jesus (because we haven’t witnessed his existence in a real and literal sense), something else needs to guide us.

With regards to future challenges, Heber C. Kimball said to the Saints that ”you will be left to the light within yourselves. If you don't have it you will not stand; therefore seek for the testimony of Jesus and cleave to it, that when the trying time comes you may not stumble and fall." [Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, pp.450-451]

The testimony of Jesus = Jesus’ testimony of your relationship to him

The testimony of Jesus is said to be the spirit of prophecy, and presumed to be the possession of everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ (Rev. 19:10). Accordning to Ezra Taft Benson, ”A testimony of Jesus means that you accept the divine mission of Jesus Christ, embrace His gospel, and do His works; it means you accept the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith and his successors.” (Ensign, May 1982, p. 62.)

There’s some merit to president Benson’s words (which I won't go further into here), but I would suggest that the testimony of Jesus is more akin to what Enoch experienced than to what president Benson expressed. In Hebrews, we read the that:

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Hebr. 11:5; emphasis added)

Enoch received the testimony of Jesus (God). Jesus had seen his works and knew his heart, and could attest to the fact that Enoch was his and pleased him. Jesus sealed Enoch as his own (Mosiah 5:15). This testimony surely is an anchor to our souls (Eth. 12:4). With this testimony, Abinadi was able to finish his message, regardless of the daunting prospect of getting burned om the stake (Mosiah 13:1-10).

If the great deceiver can get us preoccupied with good things (a testimony of facts), we will never get to the core and get a hold of what’s best (true faith in Jesus Christ). Then he has won. We don’t have to become murderers or adulterers in order for the Devil to disturb our eternal progress. He needn't do more than make us believe that we are done, when we in fact haven't but started (if we think we are on our way to the Celestial kingdom without even having passed through the gate, then we surely are up for a rude awakening; 2 Ne. 31:13).

The quest is to gain the testimony of Jesus and cleave to it. Until that day, the light of the Gospel should brightly burn within us. If we want to call it a testimony, sure, go ahead. The most important thing isn’t what we call it, but that it’s vibrant and brings you joy. But, believing that faith in anything else than Jesus will carry us over the valley of the shadow of death is, at best, misinformed. At worst, it's damning idolatry.

All or nothing - a false approach to the Church!

Have you heard the metaphor about the stick and its two ends? The metaphor is used to convey the idea, that when one accepts one fact, another one (or any undisclosed number) will follow: when you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other one as well.

This is the way leaders of the Church we should relate to the truth claims of the Church, i.e. if the Book of Mormon is true, everything is true.

I believe it's wrong and that the assertion is dangerous, misleading and spiritually hurtful.

False teachings from the Conference center

During General Conference in April of 2003, Gordon B. Hinckley said the following:

"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

Four years later, in a PBS-interview, Hinckley was asked to expound on this idea.

Question: You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

Answer: Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

This teaching from Hinckley, perpetuated from the pulpet at General Conference and institutionalized in our manuals, is false. I strongly disagree with it. I believe that there is middle ground. I believe that we are equally exposed to truths as well as untruths and that the Church can be both right and wrong.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then (fill in the blank) is true!

While serving a mission, we got a new manuel–Preach My Gospel (PMG). It was a great day to be a missionary, for sure. Missionaries were generally enthused by the new way to do missionary work. I liked the PMG back then. Now, more than a decade later, I don't like it as much as I used to.

In chapter 5 ("What is the role of the Book of Mormon?") we read the following:

Many people will not believe everything you teach. President Ezra Taft Benson taught how the Book of Mormon can be the central resource in responding to such situations: 

“We are to use the Book of Mormon in handling objections to the Church. …
“… All objections, whether they be on abortion, plural marriage, seventh-day worship, etc., basically hinge on whether Joseph Smith and his successors were and are prophets of God receiving divine revelation. …
“… The only problem the objector has to resolve for himself is whether the Book of Mormon is true. For if the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was his prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation.
“Our main task is to declare the gospel and do it effectively. We are not obligated to answer every objection. Every man eventually is backed up to the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand” (A Witness and a Warning, 4–5). 

For example, sincere investigators might object to what you have taught about the Word of Wisdom. Help them see that their real question is whether Joseph Smith was speaking as God’s prophet when this commandment was renewed in this dispensation. You might say: “Having the faith to accept this teaching will require the assurance that this commandment came to us through revelation from God to the Prophet Joseph Smith. The way to know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God is to read and pray about the Book of Mormon.” 

Investigators must resolve for themselves their concerns and objections. You can help as you focus them on what will strengthen their faith in Jesus Christ—reading and praying about the Book of Mormon. When they strengthen their testimony of the Restoration, they will have the strength to overcome their objections and concerns. 

As you answer concerns, remember that our understanding comes from modern prophets—Joseph Smith and his successors—who receive direct revelation from God. Therefore, the first question for an investigator to answer is whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, and he or she can answer this question by reading and praying about the Book of Mormon.

I don't like this at all. I honestly believe it's false and misleading.

If you have a stick where on one end, it says "The Book of Mormon is 'true'", what would it say on the other? Would it say that Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was his prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true or that it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation from God? No, it would not. The question on whether the Church is led by a prophet today has to be resolved by the test described by Jesus:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewndown, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matt. 7:15-20)

A prophet is known by its fruit - prophecy! Not by the truthfulness of some book published in 1830.

The carefully crafted language of the Book of Mormon introduction

The introduction to the Book of Mormon was written by Bruce R. McConkie and was added during 1981. In the last two paragraphs we read:

We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10:3–5.)

Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is His revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

Some members take these words as a basis for accepting everything related to the Church just because they've had the spirit testify that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. (I used to be one of these members. I'm repenting of this.) If you read the text closely, that's not what it says.

It says that we will "come to know by the same power" that all these other things are true (and I presume, if they aren't). This "same power" is the Holy Ghost confirming to our hearts, minds and souls of the truth of God. It's an invitation to seek confirmation on all things, just like Moroni implied.

If we know that the Book of Mormon is relevant for our journey into the presence of the Father and the Son, then we might give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the Church, Book of Abraham, polygamy, the King Follet discourse and so on. But we still have the responsibility to search these things out for ourselves.

I sure hope the wording of the introduction wasn't misleading on purpose.

The two ends of the stick

Now back to the question: If you have a stick where on one end, it says "The Book of Mormon is 'true'", what would it say on the other? My answer: Joseph Smith was a tool in the hand of the Lord to bring forth this volume of scripture! Nothing more and nothing less. The rest of Church doctrine, principles, policies and so forth, stand or fall independently.

As noted, there might be reasons for assuming that Joseph was a tool in the hand of the Lord to bring forth other revelations, knowledge and temple ordinances and so forth. But these things are separate and separate sticks, and need to be handled accordingly.

When developing faith, we need to start with the belief that it's is from God and try it (Joh. 7:17). This belief is often the result of preaching of the word of God (Rom. 10:14). This belief isn't enough. Faith is a principle of power, whereas belief isn't. Our belief has to develop into real faith. Inherent in this development is that we let go of our false beliefs when they prove to be wrong. Real faith is centered in God and Jesus and truth, so we have to be willing let go of our unbelief.

An often repeated mistake

Many members accept anything that comes from their priesthood leaders. They act under the assumption that every president of the Church is a prophet like Joseph was, just by occupying the seat of the President of the Church. They believe that everything coming from Salt Lake City is the word and will of God and that we need to obey with exactness, even though it might contradict scripture, the Spirit and common sense. They have an all or nothing, black or white, on and off relationship with the Church. This kind of relationship has its benefits, for sure (peace and quiet in the ship Zion, for one). The problem is that this relationship is based upon a faulty premise and is spiritually harmful.

When a member sees this bubble burst and the shiny veneer crack, everything is now dragged into question. If one thing is false, then everything is false. They leave the Church in frustration, disappointed and with a sense of betrayal. For the members who are spectators to this, this disaffected Mormon has left the Church, but can't leave it alone.

Having left the Church, they still have the all or nothing, black or white, on and off mentality. Now, the faith and religion that used to be all true has become all false. They believe, and suppose the have ample 'evidence', that Joseph was a total fraud and con man who did nothing good. This isn't true, of course. Joseph did many great and good things. And he made mistakes.

The mindset that once kept these members tied to the Church now keeps them out of it. We don't need more ultimatums ("either the Church is true, or it is a fraud"). As members we need more open hearts and minds, willing to search out and receive truth, regardless where it comes from. We need a balanced and nuanced approach to religion. We need to think, ponder, pray and ask.

Conclusion

The Book of Mormon is of divine origin and it's relevant for my journey towards and to the Father and the Son. I truly believe that. The other truth claims by the Church have to be examined and will fall or stand on its own merits. I won't let false teachings drag down the Book of Mormon with it.


_____________________________________
[1] Think about it. If a sincere investigator objects to Mormon way of implementing the Word of Wisdom, I'd say that they're problem is this interpretation and the origin of the WoW itself, not whether Joseph was a prophet. Why do we feel the need to get a conviction of the medium of a revelation instead of the revelation itself? Are we so afraid of approaching the throne of God? Do we lack confidence before his face? Do we believe that we need mortal men between us and Him? If Joseph was given the WoW from God, that doesn't mean that the modern implementation of it is true.

Breaking up with with the Church!

As of late, I've had a hard time deciding what kind of relationship I want, and ultimately can have, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church). Many Mormons struggle with this decision. Some leave and some stay. The following thoughts have come to mind when I've been thinking about all the role of the Church in my life.

Does the Church have to be true?

Mormons often say that they know that the Church is true. I don't know that. I don't even believe that I have to know, or even believe, that it's true. Quite honestly, I don't even believe a knowledge of the truthfulness of the Church would affect my salvation or my happiness in the least. A true Church wouldn't make me more or less true. And that is important, for real. An institution has never saved anyone, and it never will. Denver Snuffer put it this way:

"Whatever the church does or doesn't do, salvation is an individual process to work out person by person. If you say: "The church is perfect!"  Then I wonder how that saves me. Am I not imperfect? Does the church's perfection aid me in any respect unless I will repent and return? Also, if you say: "The church is a corrupt mess!" Then I wonder how that damns me. Am I not still required to follow the Master? Was Peter perfect? Was Paul? Did their quirks and imperfections damn those who came forward and accepted baptism, received the Holy Ghost, and lived the Lord's commandments?" (A bit of a detour)

Complaining about the
bureaucratic Church

Today, the Church is not what it's supposed to be. It is an administrative and bureaucratic machine that demands the loyalty of its members. "As thrilling as [Church] growth was, [president Gordon B. Hinckley] abhorred bureaucracy and at times felt himself swimming helplessly against a mounting tide.” (Sheri L. Dew, Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996, p. 408) Even the 'prophet' of God, the highest leader of the Church, complains about its inner workings. To then say that the Church isn't run by the "spiritual" leaders anymore, but by the bureaucrats in the Church Office Building, or by the traditions of our fathers, seem to be a fair assessment.

Legally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't exist. The Church is organized as a 'sole corporation' (The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). The name of the Church as a registered trademark to Intellectual reserve, Inc. (1) In the US, the Church hasn't existed since 1890 when the Supreme Court dissolved it, to pressure it into abandoning polygamy.

Leaders of the Church have made mistakes, proclaimed untruths as doctrine of Christ and hereby caused members and others to suffer. Since they are human beings, I don't hold it against them. Still, it raises some interesting, and frankly disturbing, questions. As an example, I want to point out some of Brigham Young's teachings.

Brigham's racist teachings

In January of 1852, Young said that the priesthood would be removed from the Church the same day and hour that the blacks will get full access to what God has granted the Church. (2) Since 1978, all worthy males have access to these blessings. In an essay about blacks and the priesthood, the Church throws Young under the bus when it comes to his view on blacks and the priesthood. The Church now condemns the doctrine Young proclaimed was from God. 

This creates a problem for those, who have been taught that we have "the Lord’s personal promise that the prophets will never lead us astray." If this is true, either Young was dead wrong, or we don't have any priesthood authority. Without a doubt, from a public relations stand, it was best to denounce Young's racist teachings. 

The conclusion we can draw here is that 'the prophet' can lead us astray. This might be easier to accept when that 'prophet' is long since dead, but would we be open for the possibility that the current 'prophet' is doing the same thing? I think we need to be open for the possibility that things haven't changed and that we could be, and perhaps are, led astray. We will hear lies and untruths–philosophies of men, mingled with scripture–from the pulpit, for as long as the Church is lead by fallen and imperfect human beings. This shouldn't come as a surprise.

Since I no longer will trust in man–just like Nephi said we shouldn't in 2 Ne. 4–I feel I need to be open to the fact that God can, and oftentimes does, speak through "other holy men" I've never heard about (D&C 49:8). The responsibility lies solely on me to look to God and receive a divine witness about the truthfulness of things I read and hear. If something I hear–even if it's during General Conference–doesn't pass the test of the word of God, I will not believe it, I will not teach it, I will not follow it. Since the doctrine of "following the leaders" is the dominant one in the Church today, I will need to break up with the Church.

No need to panic, though, for I have found myself a new church. Let me explain.

My new church

There is no other salvation than the one Jesus offers us (Mosiah 4:8; Acts. 4:12). I've been given reasons to reflect on this fact for the past 18 months. It's been a period of questions and some doubts. Just like many others, certain aspects of the Church's history has made me question and wonder. Learning more about the difficult aspects of the Church and it's history needn't threaten our faith. Instead, it can help us focus on the Rock of our Redeemer. As I've chosen to go forward in faith, I've found clarity and strength. These verses from the 10th chapter of the Doctrine and Covenants are important to me.

Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. (D&C 10:67-68; emphasis added; see also Mosiah 26:15-28)

"In the usual sense of the term, church membership means that a person has his or her name officially recorded on the membership records of the Church. By that definition, we have more than six million members of the Church.

"But the Lord defines a member of His kingdom in quite a different way. In 1828, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, He said, “Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church”. To Him whose Church this is, membership involves far more than simply being a member of record." –Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, March 1990.

Jesus wants Mormons to turn into disciples, disciples to turn into friends, friends to turn into sons and daughters and sons and daughters to turn into His image. This mighty change and rebirth (Alma 5:14; Mosiah 27:24-26) won't happen in 24 hours, but we can choose to look unto Christ and be saved, whenever we want. (Alma 34:31-32) On that day, our motives will change. We will stop trying to fit into the social context surrounding. We won't feel a need to obey in order to feel of great worth or be worthy of God's love. We won't adapt to the Mormon culture because we believe it will save us. Rather, we will be motivated by our love for Jesus (Joh. 14:15), as we strive to keep his commandments (D&C 46:9). 

To follow Jesus is to take his yoke upon us. His yoke is–juxtaposed to the yoke of sin and perfection–easy (Matt. 11:28-30; 3 Ne. 9:19-20). The yoke of Jesus is to make peace, bless those around us, forgive, encourage, reprove when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, love no matter what, to save and to redeem. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7; 3 Ne. 12-14), Jesus plainly taught how we can be perfect as He, or His Father in heaven, is perfect (3 Ne. 12:48). Repenting and coming unto him, is to take his yoke upon ourselves and learning of Him in every way.

As defined by Jesus, the church, can be a great support in the process of repenting and coming unto Christ. Like Joseph Smith said about himself, we are all "like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing [we] get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else." (TPJS p. 304) A common theme for our experience of the church, is that it's neither round, square or shapeless. It's formable. We can create our own experience by taking control of it and not by putting more hours into our callings or getting burnt out through running faster than we can. We can't let our surroundings and circumstances decide things for us. We must be actors, and not things that are acted upon (2 Ne. 2:14). By living the teachings of Jesus Christ we take control. Once we've decided to forgive and to bless others, there is nothing, that can hurt us in the long run.

For the polishing to happen, we need to create an atmosphere of acceptance, compassion, acknowledgement, forgiveness and a desire to seek the interest of ones neighbor (D&C 82:19). In short, we need to forgive ourselves and others and live the doctrine of Christ. Our service will become more genuine and filled with the Spirit, and the work of God, the church, can grow in and through us. We will be able to see how we better can use our callings to let Jesus be the focal point. If we can't se him in the center of what we do, it might just be that He won't be there at all.

As time goes by, we will have a clearer sense of what Jesus wants us to do and be, and separate that from the culture of the Church, our misconceptions, unbelief and the fathers' traditions handed down to us (D&C 93:39). We make this trip in faith and, like Moroni said, we will receive no witness until after the trial of our faith (Eth. 12:6). Many steps, if not all, will be taken into the dark. Even though we may yearn for proof that what we're doing and that the life we're leading, is according to the will of God (Lectures on Faith, lecture 3 p. 5), we will have to move forward with faith. The proof that we will get is the swelling emotions in our breast, the enlargement of our soul and mind, our more enlightened understanding and the sweetness and the light that fills us (Alma 32:28-35). One day, when our faith has withstood the test, we will be able to eat the fruit of the tree of life which has rooted itself in our hearts (Alma 32:37-43). That day, we will surely bring forth fruit, worthy of our Father's kingdom (D&C 84:49-58; see also 2 Pet. 1:4-10).

The gospel of Jesus Christ should permeate everything we do. If we can't see Jesus in what we do, we should consider to stop doing it, or we should examine it more closely. Because, it something is truly good, Jesus is in it (Moro. 7:16). We can find him, if we just diligently and humbly seek him (1 Ne. 2:19; Eth. 12:41). When we do, we will be His true and living church.


_________________________________________________________________________________

(1) "Trademarks“ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Liahona,” “Book of Mormon,” and “Mormon” are trademarks of Intellectual Reserve, Inc."

(2) Let this church which is called the Kingdom of God on the earth: we will summons the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High Counsel, the Bishopric, and all the Elders of Israel, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the Black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction; we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed. … What we are trying to do today is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against [it] all the day long. … I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. It shall not be while I am here.” (Brigham Young, 5 January 1852:—The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], pp. 470, 471.)

Misunderstanding eternal marriage (or, idolizing the family)

The Stockholm temple

My wife and I got married on a clear day in December a few years ago (you can read more about what led up to that day here). We knelt by the altar and said, "yes" and "I do", kissed, got congratulated and went on with the dinner and reception. By then, we were sealed to each other for time and all eternity–or, so we were taught. Now, eight years later, I'm not so sure about this. For those who find deep peace and a profound joy in the promise of eternal marriage, this might be depressing and even threatening. But I believe that you can't find true and lasting joy from incorrect beliefs (or rather, unbelief), just as one can't find happiness in wickedness (Alma 41:10).

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble here, but I believe there's a score to settle with the 'doctrine' that marriage automatically becomes eternal through the temple sealing. If this is unsettling for you, then perhaps you shouldn't continue reading. If you decide to not continue, please ask yourself, "why does this make me feel uncomfortable?"

Now, let's continue.

What is eternal?

The work and glory of God is, "to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). Immortality and eternal life are two distinct concepts and mustn't be confused; one is quantitative, the other qualitative.

Immortality means to never cease to exist. It's entirely about the duration of our existence, or the quantity of time we live.

Eternal life, on the other hand, is the quality of this never ending existence. The Lord put it this way:

It is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory. Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore— Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment. (D&C 19:6-12)

The righteous are promised eternal life and the wicked are promised eternal punishment simply because whatever God gives us is of him and by him.

Jesus stated that knowing the Father and the Son "is life eternal" (Joh. 17:3). Really knowing God is to learn how to become like him. And to become like him is to be blessed with a 'God-like' existence. Joseph taught the following in the King Follet-sermon.

Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me. (TPJS 346-347)

Anything eternal (as outlined above) is of God and by God and God-like. What about eternal marriage then?

The Holy Spirit of Promise

This is a grander subject than I can–or intend to–address once and for all. I just want to highlight a few aspects of this whole eternal marriage-thing that tends to get overlooked.

D&C 132 is a heavily debated chapter of scripture (see here, here and here). Even though many of the things taught in that chapter may be of unclear origin, I believe that verse 7 teaches a true principle.

All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, […] are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

If a marriage is not entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, it is of no force in and after the resurrection of the dead. We often miss this piece of truth, even though it's plain as word can be. Henry B. Eyring taught the following during the april 2012 General Conference:

Henry B. Eyring 

The Holy Spirit of Promise, through our obedience and sacrifice, must seal our temple covenants in order to be realized in the world to come. President Harold B. Lee explained what it means to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise by quoting Elder Melvin J. Ballard: “We may deceive men but we cannot deceive the Holy Ghost, and our blessings will not be eternal unless they are also sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. The Holy Ghost is one who reads the thoughts and hearts of men, and gives his sealing approval to the blessings pronounced upon their heads. Then it is binding, efficacious, and of full force.”

This negligence of truth causes some members of the LDS Church to stay in abusive relationships and others to not cancel their sealing after a divorce, just to be on the safe side.

Let's be honest - this is insane! If a husband, or wife, is abusive, do we really believe that marriage is eternal? If a couple can't stand each other and don't want to be married anymore, is that relationship  of God, by God or God-like? Of course not. So, let's not kid ourselves. Just like Henry B. Eyring taught, a temple sealing is of no effect unless the parties sealed truly live up to their potential as children of God and joint heirs with Christ.

The "olive leaf" starts with these beautiful verses:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you who have assembled yourselves together to receive his will concerning you: Behold, this is pleasing unto your Lord, and the angels rejoice over you; the alms of your prayers have come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded in the book of the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world. Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John. This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom; Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son— (D&C 88:1-5)

Going through these verses, I looked for some key words to underline and I wanted to underline all of it. Read the verses again. 

The Holy Spirit of promise is the "promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom." This sounds like something from another world. And you know what? - it is. Because this is what truly makes a marriage to be of God, by God and God-like. Without this ratification from the Holy Spirit of promise, a marriage is not eternal, at least not yet.

The progression of the temple ordinances

Mormon couples getting married need to be endowed before being sealed to one another. This helps them get used to one part of the temple ordinances before taking the next step. For that's how it is - the sealing is the next step up from the endowment. The endowment builds on the initiatory ceremony. The initiatory ceremony follows baptism and confirmation. In this, we see a clear example of progression. 

"Ritual ordinances offered by the Church are," like Robert Sonntag stated, "symbolic of actual saving interactions with heaven. Those saving interactions are the 'ordinances' which we must all seek. Wrongly depriving one of the ritual will not prevent them from obtaining what the ritual symbolizes, any more than performing the ritual guarantees the blessing it symbolizes."

The endowment ritual points to a literal and real conversation with the Lord through the veil and is a pre-requisite for the sealing. I believe it's fair to say that the same holds true for the 'real endowment', it also being a pre-requisite for the 'real sealing'.

When Jesus Christ, "hath spiritually begotten [us,] our hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, [we] are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters." If we press forward and are "steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works," then Jesus Christ will seal us his. (Mosiah 5:7, 15) This sealing to Jesus Christ will make us ready to be sealed that to another person. In other words, receiving the Second comforter it's a requirement for having your marriage to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.


The Mormon business

As a missionary for the Church, I rarely had the chance to teach about the gospel of Jesus Christ. I mentioned it whenever we got passed the first lesson, which in Finland, rarely happened. During my last month on the field, I had an epiphany. I realized, and the Spirit bore testimony, that Joseph restored "the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Elemantary? You bet, but it changed those final weeks for me. I felt a surge of power and spirit when I contacted people and taught about the Gospel. It was great, but, that's not really what we we're selling.

Instead of focusing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we marketed the Church and the concept of eternal families. At least, I did. Why is that? One reason might be that most people already know about Jesus Christ and his Gospel–or, at least the think they do. Thus, preaching this wouldn't have helped in bringing people into the Church or given us the edge we needed on the market of religion. The edge of the LDS Church–compared to other churches–could be summed up with these words: we have the priesthood authority and keys by which we can seal families for eternity. 

Let's look at some examples of this overemphasis of the importance of the family and the Church.

The first chapter of Handbook 2: Administering the Church centers around the family. The first sentence of this chapter states that, "the family is ordained of God." In a First Presidency letter, dated Feb. 11, 1999 (quoted in Handbook 2, section 1.4.1) we read:

“We call upon parents to devote their best efforts to the teaching and rearing of their children in gospel principles which will keep them close to the Church. The home is the basis of a righteous life, and no other instrumentality can take its place or fulfill its essential functions in carrying forward this God-given responsibility. 

I love this question from chapter 16 in the Harold B. Lee manual: "How do the principles of Church correlation help the Church and the family work together to save souls?"

The answer in the next paragraph is even better:

While serving as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Harold B. Lee was charged by the First Presidency to oversee an effort to focus all Church programs on the ultimate purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ—“to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). This effort was called correlation. Correlation includes emphasizing the importance of the family and the home by ensuring that Church auxiliaries, programs, and activities strengthen and support the family. It also includes placing all the organizations and work of the Church under priesthood direction. In the 1960s, many steps were taken to accomplish these purposes, including reemphasizing family home evening and reviewing the curriculum of the Church to ensure that it strengthened the home and family.

This is such a great quote, because it makes me smile.

Harold B. Lee also said that "the Church is the scaffold with which we build eternal families." (Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 267)

These are just a few examples of the great emphasis that is put on the family bu the Church. Another example, is the opposition of the Church to same sex marriage. This opposition might be based on a desire to stand up for good morals and speak up against sin. But it might also stem from fear of having your edge taken away from you. The LGBT-people can be viewed as being in the business of degrading or devaluing eternal marriage when they claim the right to marry for themselves.

I recently met and older lady who is childless and don't want to attend church nor General Conference because of the constant talk about family and children added insult to injury and made her feel worthless. That's truly sad. I wish she would still attend church and could have heard more about the grace and love of the Father and the Son.

When is this gonna be canonized?

In "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" we read:

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

When and how did the family become a savior from the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets? (Maybe since it was put in the driver's seat through correlation.) Is the family anything without Christ? Are we anything without Him? As a church, are we looking to the family for only what Christ can give? Do we worship and idolize the family? If so, this idolatry stems from the false beliefs that, "the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and [that] he hath given his power unto men" (2 Ne. 28:5), that rituals are ends instead of means, and that Christ is satisfied with a ritualized and symbolic relationship with us.

If I'm splitting hairs, I apologize. But I believe that the overemphasis on the Church and the family leads us away from the Savior. Eternal life consists of really knowing the Father and the Son. Without that knowledge, not even strong families will save us.