Our children were taught that the true church was restored through Joseph Smith and that the truthfulness continued unabated to this present day. That the leadership of the church were prophets, seers, and revelators. That they would guide the church just as Christ will do when He returns. They were encouraged to bear their testimonies that the church was true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet and (current prophet) was called by God to lead his people today.

The programmed message was repeated until the kids could recite it on demand. They learned what answers were expected of them and regurgitated them as necessary to make it through the current lesson.

There were occasional spiritual/emotional events such as a visit to Adam-ondi-Ahman or the Youth Conference testimony meeting. These seemed to be orchestrated to be inspirational and to reinforce the messages they received in their courses from Primary to seminary.

But, looking back there was something missing; something fundamental to the spiritual wellbeing of my children. They learned all the correct answers but had never been challenged to assemble the questions and seek the answers on their own. They were never given the opportunity to develop their own spiritual drive; their teachers and parents did that for them.

Today, I regret using the church programming that directed the religious upbringing of my children. I feel I missed the mark. When I was teaching them to follow the prophet, I should have been encouraging them to seek out the Savior because no religion is perfect. When they were learning to pay their tithing, I should have been teaching them  the hazards of relying on the works of men as recognition of God’s assent. Instead of injecting them with pride as the ‘one true church.’ I should have taught them that God will commune with the righteous seeker, regardless of their church affiliation. The message of priesthood keys should have been wrapped in the scripure warning that pride would invalidate any man’s priesthood. When they were instructed about the continuous line of apostles and prophets, they should have been learning that they can receive revelation; that they are just as worthy of dreams, visions, and revelations as any one else.

I never questioned the program when we were in the middle of it. I, perhaps, sensed that the church had taken responsibility for the spiritual training of my children and  obviated my responsibility in the matter. My children were fed a pristine view of the church and a distorted definition of the gospel that did not withstand scrutiny.

As a result, the kids grew up in the church and then grew out of it. At the time, we were so busy ‘living the gospel’ through its attendant outward ordinances and rituals  that we didn’t learn to live the gospel – the message to come unto Christ.

I have to wonder if there aren’t other parents and children who have experienced the same thing. The correlated message of the church having left them with a number of answers to the requisite questions but without the spiritual backbone needed to stand up a true child  of God.

What think ye?

Here we are in the middle of the ‘Mormon moment.’ As President Monson stated in his closing words, if effect, the world is watching us. In the light of the additional emphasis of all things Mormon, I had expected that the 182nd General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would be a concerted effort to convince the general Christian world that we are one of them. Yes, we bring some flavors that may not be familiar to the typical born again Christian, but we worship the same God, we serve in His name and we equally value His children. So, let’s dispel the ‘cult’ thing, link arms and move forward – let’s be friends…

This week,  I made my way up Santa Monica Boulevard to the Los Angeles Temple grounds; spending some time exploring the visitors center located behind the temple. There were the customary missionary couple at the front desk and missionaries keeping watch for the unwashed. I walked around the exhibits and attempted to position my frame of mind as one not exposed to the message of the Mormons. The missive of the visitors center, in summary, that I found was was family and service. Our families are where we learn to serve and we practice it with our neighbor. Not a bad story, one that should be easy for our neighbors to  absorb.

But, was that the purpose of the restoration? Was the mission of Joseph Smith to restore the idea of service to a waiting world? As we vacate our need to gather to Zion, as we morph the law of consecration into the church welfare program, as we sweep the couplets such as God as once a man behind us;  what has the message of the restoration become?

The nagging question remains in my mind: Is it a good thing to be accepted of the world? Are we fulfilling the objective of filling the world with the gospel when we bring ourselves into acceptability by worldly standards, even though they be Christian standards?. Are we the leaven of the earth that will bring about a renewal of the good news? Or, has that leaven lost its ability to raise bread from the dough of man?

I am reminded of the words found in book of James, chapter four:

4  Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?  whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Is the LDS Church, attempting to become friends, culturally, socially, financially, and politically, with the world? If so, do we face being at enmity with God?

What enmity is created when we seek friendship of the world? Can we serve two masters? Can we strive with all our might, mind, and effort to build a home and put two cars in the garage and still fulfill the pleadings of Christ to “come unto Him?”

Each of us must arrive at a personal answer. Am I a friend of the world or am I striving to establish the works of man?

What think ye?

Boyd K. Packer presented this message as part of his address in the Saturday morning session:

What I needed to know about the promptings I found in the Book of Mormon. I read that “angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, … feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.”

Perhaps the single greatest thing I learned from reading the Book of Mormon is that the voice of the Spirit comes as a feeling rather than a sound. You will learn, as I have learned, to “listen” for that voice that is felt rather than heard.

Nephi scolded his older brothers, saying, “Ye have seen an angel, and he spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words.’

Some critics have said that these verses are in error because you hear words; you do not feel them. But if you know anything at all about spiritual communication, you know that the best word to describe what takes place is the word feeling.

The gift of the Holy Ghost, if you consent, will guide and protect you and even correct your actions. It is a spiritual voice that comes into the mind as a thought or a feeling put into your heart. The prophet Enos said, “The voice of the Lord came into my mind.” And the Lord told Oliver Cowdery, “Behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you.”

It is not expected that you go through life without making mistakes, but you will not make a major mistake without first being warned by the promptings of the Spirit. This promise applies to all members of the Church.

Elder Packer speaks of his interpretation of how the Spirit communicates with us. In his opinion, ‘the voice of the Spirit comes as a feeling rather than a sound.’ He tells us that we will learn, as he has learned, ‘to listen for that voice that is felt rather than heard.’

Do some promptings come as feelings rather than words? I would have to answer ‘yes.’ There have been many times in my life when I have had a feeling and, sometimes, that feeling was validated by an event in the future. At the same time, I must admit that sometimes these ‘feelings’ that could be attributed to the Spirit do not apparently connect to any complementary event.

But, let’s look a little deeper into Packer’s assertion that the voice of the Spirit is a feeling rather than a sound.

It is interesting to me to note that two other speakers in this General Conference also make reference to this topic. Before Packer spoke in the first session of conference, Barbara Thompson spoke on personal revelation. She had this to say regarding hearing the voice of the Spirit:

As a child I thought personal revelation or answers to prayers would come as an audible voice. Indeed, some revelation does come by hearing an actual voice. However, I have learned that the Spirit speaks in many ways.

Does Packer’s interpretation of hearing the voice of God allow for revelation that comes by ‘hearing an actual voice?’ His statement above is that the voice of the Spirit comes as a feeling rather than a sound and seems at odds with Sister Thompson’s statement.

In the Saturday afternoon session, Elder Neal L. Anderson shared this story:

Years ago, Elder James O. Mason of the Seventy shared this story with me: “The birth of our sixth child was an unforgettable experience. As I gazed on this beautiful, new daughter in the nursery just moments after her birth, I distinctly heard a voice declare, ‘There will yet be another, and it will be a boy.’ Unwisely, I rushed back to the bedside of my absolutely exhausted wife and told her the good news. It was very bad timing on my part.” Year after year the Masons anticipated the arrival of their seventh child. Three, four, five, six, seven years passed. Finally, after eight years, their seventh child was born—a little boy.

According to this story, we have a member of the Seventy distinctly hearing a voice declaring personal revelation. Was the voice that Elder Mason ‘heard’ just a feeling? If so, why didn’t he characterize the event as such? This second message delivered from the pulpit at conference also seems to be at odds with what President Packer ‘learned’ from the Book of Mormon.

My concern here is that we have the president of the quorum of the twelve who seems to acknowledge that he has never received personal revelation through hearing a voice. It has only come to him as a feeling. Should I expect that a man holding this position in the Church would have heard the voice of God? Should he be able to make a similar statement as did Joseph Smith in the following D&C 130?

14  I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

15  Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

Was the ‘voice’ that Joseph Smith heard just a feeling? What are the expectations we should have of those who lead this church regarding the means of revelation? What should we expect relative to personal revelation in our own lives?

Who is teaching correct doctrine from the pulpit regarding the receipt of revelation by the voice of the Spirit? Is it only a feeling as Boyd Packer suggests or are we able to actually hear a voice as would be posited by Barbara Thompson or Neal Anderson?

Boyd Packer supports his assertion by quoting from the seventh chapter of 1 Nephi:

45  Ye are swift to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God.  Ye have seen an angel, and he spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words; wherefore, he has spoken unto you like unto the voice of thunder, which did cause the earth to shake as if it were to divide asunder.

Packer suggests that since Nephi states that his brothers ‘could not feel his words’ that communication from the angel was only a feeling. Is the still small voice just a feeling? I would suggest that there are two components to this type of personal revelation. We would hear the voice AND have our souls touched by the Holy Spirit. In this way, we have a dual witness of the source of this revelation.

This idea is also found in the another scripture reference by Boyd Packer from the Doctrine and Covenants, section 8, when Oliver Cowdery attempted to translate the Book of Mormon:

1  OLIVER Cowdery, verily, verily, I say unto you, that assuredly as the Lord liveth, who is your God and your Redeemer, even so surely shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask in faith, with an honest heart, believing that you shall receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records, which are ancient, which contain those parts of my scripture of which has been spoken by the manifestation of my Spirit.

2  Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

3  Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.

Oliver was told in this revelation that the answer would come by the Holy Ghost in his mind AND in his heart. We can receive revelation from the Spirit which speaks to our mind as a voice and confirms that revelation as a feeling such as the burning in the bosom or the peace that the Spirit can bring to our souls. I have come to believe that this dual assurance is necessary to know that the message has come from God.

Another example is found in Jacob, chapter 7:

5  And he had hope to shake me from the faith, notwithstanding the many revelations and the many things which I had seen concerning these things; for I truly had seen angels, and they had ministered unto me.  And also, I had heard the voice of the Lord speaking unto me in very word, from time to time; wherefore, I could not be shaken.

Jacob heard the voice of the Lord ‘in very word.’ I believe this passage clearly affirms the ability for us to receive the voice of the Lord as words, not just feelings.

Sincere prayer, as in the case of Joseph Smith, was answered by the voice of the Spirit. We find a similar experience recorded in the Book of Mormon from Alma in the 26th chapter of Mosiah:

13  And now the spirit of Alma was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord what he should do concerning this matter, for he feared that he should do wrong in the sight of God.

14  And it came to pass that after he had poured out his whole soul to God, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying:

15  Blessed art thou, Alma, and blessed are they who were baptized in the waters of Mormon.  Thou art blessed because of thy exceeding faith in the words alone of my servant Abinadi.

16  And blessed are they because of their exceeding faith in the words alone which thou hast spoken unto them.

17  And blessed art thou because thou hast established a church among this people; and they shall be established, and they shall be my people.

18  Yea, blessed is this people who are willing to bear my name; for in my name shall they be called; and they are mine.

19  And because thou hast inquired of me concerning the transgressor, thou art blessed.

20  Thou art my servant; and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life; and thou shalt serve me and go forth in my name, and shalt gather together my sheep.

21  And he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep; and him shall ye receive into the church, and him will I also receive.

For Alma the voice of the Lord came to him as a result of earnest prayer. I sincerely believe that the experience demonstrated by Joseph Smith, Alma, Jacob, Elder Mason, and Barbara Thompson is available to all of us. We can indeed have the voice of the spirit speak to our minds and have that message confirmed to us in our hearts. If our hearts are hardened, we may hear the voice of an angel, as did the brothers of Nephi, but it will not be received.

I included the longer quote from Mosiah, chapter 26 because I also feel that the last verse quoted is very important. The Lord tells us here that we must hear His voice if we are to be ‘his sheep’ and be received into His church. If someone has never heard the voice of the Lord, they cannot belong to his church. I am speaking here of the ‘spiritual’ church not the ‘corporate’ church.

This message is the same as found in John, chapter 10:

27  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Should we take the charge to hear the voice of God as a literal or figurative commandment? Just as Moroni 6:4 tells us that we must be sanctified before we can be numbered with His church, do we need to literally hear His voice to be numbered with those of His church. You can make your own decision regarding that question, but I believe that it is imperative that we seek the Lord, that we hear and recognize His voice. This is necessary for us to be ‘known by Him’ and be received into his church.

Let me add my personal testimony regarding personal revelation. I have had several occasions where I have heard the voice of God through the Holy Spirit. I recounted one such event when I described my experience of baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost in an earlier post. I would like to share another, not out of boastfulness but out of a sincere desire to open someone’s mind to the idea that personal revelation can come from angels as they speak to our minds AND our hearts ‘by the power of the Holy Ghost.’

A number of years ago, I had interviewed for a job in another state. While the job was very attractive, I did not expect to be offered the position. I had been through many job interviews that all ended with no offer so I was not inclined to expect anything different from this one. The next Sunday after my interview, I had pondered my situation and had engaged the Lord in fervent prayer in the morning and then took my family to church.

I still have this vivid memory of sitting in the pew on the left side of the chapel. The opening hymn was “I’ll Go Where You Want Me To Go.” I am not a great singer but I do cherish the opportunity to sing the hymns and make a feeble attempt at the bass part. I was fully engaged in singing the first refrain when I heard a voice as clear as any voice I had ever heard speak to my mind saying “I want you to go.” With those words came an deep and lasting peace to my soul. As this sunk into my heart I became aware that I had stopped singing. I had a flood of emotion as I listened to the rest of the song. I couldn’t sing with my mouth but my heart was full of this song and the message I had received from God.

I came away from that experience with an understanding that I would be offered the job and that I should accept it when it came. Several weeks later, events transpired as expected; the job offer came. The move was made with a calm assurance that it was what I should do.

I affirm that we can HEAR the voice of God through His Spirit. It comes to our minds as clear as the voice of someone standing right in front of us. God does speak to our minds AND to our hearts and I attest to our ability as individual to receive personal revelation in this manner.

It may not be on the mountain’s height,
Or over the stormy sea;
It may not be at the battle’s front,
My Lord will have need of me;
But if by a still, small voice He calls,
To paths that I do not know,
I’ll answer, dear Lord, with my hand in Thine,
I’ll go where You want me to go.

Refrain:
I’ll go where You want me to go, dear Lord,
O’er mountain, or plain, or sea;
I’ll say what You want me to say, dear Lord,
I’ll be what You want me to be.

Perhaps today there are loving words
Which Jesus would have me speak;
There may be now in the paths of sin,
Some wand’rer whom I should seek;
O Savior, if Thou wilt be my guide,
Though dark and rugged the way,
My voice shall echo Thy message sweet,
I’ll say what You want me to say.

There’s surely somewhere a lowly place,
In earth’s harvest fields so white,
Where I may labor through life’s short day,
For Jesus the Crucified;
So trusting my all to Thy tender care,
And knowing Thou lovest me,
I’ll do Thy will with a heart sincere,
I’ll be what You want me to be.

This song will, forever, be a reminder to me that we can hear the still small voice.

What think ye?

The question asked by President Monson in the Saturday morning session of General Conference caused me to ponder upon an answer. What are the markers that one should use to identify those that are called to lead the church of Christ? How do we recognize the true leader versus a ‘substitute?’ What guidance do we find in the scriptures that can assist in our understanding of this role in God’s dealing with man?

There are fifteen men who were sustained on the first day of conference as ‘prophets, seers, and revelators.’ These men, the first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles, represent the highest leadership of the organization tasked with the care and nurturing of the restored gospel. What have we sustained them to do?

Prophet – “The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God’s messenger and make known God’s will. The message was usually prefaced with the works “Thus saith Jehovah.” (LDS Bible Dictionany) Should a prophet be expected to prophesy? Should we expect those who claim to wear the mantle of a prophet to ‘forthtell’ the events of the future based on our actions today?

Seer – One of the callings of a seer is to bring forth knowledge through the use of translaters. In Mosiah 8 we read:

13  Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God.  And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish.  And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

14  And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.

15  And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

16  And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

17  But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

18  Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

 A seer can know of things in the past, as well as the future. It is the greatest gift that God can bestow upon a human. A seer has all things revealed through them and knows secret and hidden things. Have the men who have been sustained to these positions within the Church demonstrated this greatest gift of God – the seership? Should we assume a man is a seer if he is misled by one offering them forged documents? Should we assume a man is a seer if he does not reveal the hidden things of the future?

There is no definition of revelator in the dictionary of our scriptures. A good example of a revelator is found in the Bible. Revelations was given to us through John the Revelator. Should revelations should be the product of a revelator? Should we expect to see the body of scripture expanded by this act?

What of a prophet that does not prophesy, a seer that does not ‘see,’ or a revelator that does not reveal? Are we not to measure a person by their fruits? Is it the expectation that these men deliver on their calling or simply be satisfied that if God needs to say something, these men are ready to provide the conduit?

What other markers of this calling can we find in the scriptures? When Jesus Christ ministered among the Nephites at the meridian of time, He taught the twelve disciples that, in order for the church to be His, it must exhibit certain criteria. Among these we find this direction in 3 Nephi, chapter 27:

10  And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.

11  But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.

12  For their works do follow them, for it is because of their works that they are hewn down; therefore remember the things that I have told you.

What are the works of the Father, what are the works of men, and what are the works of the devil? Perhaps it is easiest to deal with these in reverse order. The works of the devil could encompass war, bloodshed, anger, strife, and any other action that destroys human life, dignity, or the right to choose. I would suggest that unrighteous dominion is akin to the works of the devil in that it restricts our ability to exercise free agency.

I would suggest that the works of men are represented by the things we can acquire or build with our own hands. Certainly the construction of shopping malls fit in this category, but I would also add the construction of temples and other material structures. The works of men would also encompass the financial ‘kingdom.’ found among men. Are these church leaders relying on the works of men, including the building of temples, to fortify their ‘right and privilege’ as representatives of God? If so, we shall see them enjoy their works for a season and then see them hewn down.

And finally, what are the works of God? When Christ spoke the words quoted above, he was only speaking to the twelve disciples; not the general membership. After defining His gospel in 3 Nephi, chapter 27, He gave the twelve this direction:

21  Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

The twelve disciples were to do the same things that they saw Christ do. Not only did Christ minister and preach to the congregation at large, but he healed the sick, caused the lame to walk and the deaf to hear. He healed many of their afflictions as recorded in 3 Nephi, chapter 26:

15  And it came to pass that after he had ascended into heaven—the second time that he showed himself unto them, and had gone unto the Father, after having healed all their sick, and their lame, and opened the eyes of their blind and unstopped the ears of the deaf, and even had done all manner of cures among them, and raised a man from the dead, and had shown forth his power unto them, and had ascended unto the Father—

These works of God continued after Christ ascended into heaven. The twelve continued to bless the people with miracles as recorded in 4 Nephi:

5  And there were great and marvelous works wrought by the disciples of Jesus, insomuch that they did heal the sick, and raise the dead, and cause the lame to walk, and the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear; and all manner of miracles did they work among the children of men; and in nothing did they work miracles save it were in the name of Jesus.

The marker of the true church of Christ and the true leadership of that body is the presence of miracles, of healings, and the other gifts of the spirit. If these things are not present and not demonstrated by those who lead the church, it is NOT the true church of Christ as defined in the scriptures.

Should a substitute be sought for the president of the Church? If so, I would hope that the designate can demonstrate seership. I would expect this person to exhibit the works of God in healing. I would rejoice as this person revealed the hidden things of the kingdom and not be duped by forgers and imposters.

The sad truth is that none of these markers are exhibited by the leadership of the church today. My only solace is that the apostasy of the restored church was prophesied by men who truly held the position of prophet, seer, and revelator. They recorded the prophecies of such an apostasy in the Book of Mormon, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and in the inspired translation of the Bible.

We are in the midst of apostasy and are generally oblivious of the fact. We go about our routines and rituals ignoring the core message of the gospel and pointing confidently at the works of our own hands as our validation. We shall enjoy our works for a season and then suffer the consequences.

As President Monson asked: “Who should I call upon to substitute for me?” One who demonstrates the calling of a seer. One who demonstrates the works of God. That would be a good place to start.

What think ye?

I would like to talk about a perspective on where to go when confronted with cognitive dissonance with respect to the LDS Church. My approach is to do a general comparison between the early restoration and today’s church in terms of teaching and alignment with scripture. I picked 1844 as the time when Joseph Smith sealed his testimony. Really, this represents the range of church organization between 1830 with the organization of the church through the establishment of Nauvoo. I am assuming that all the critical doctrines and teachings were publically or privately held at this point. Here is how I would characterize it pictorially. In speaking of the church then and now as to truth and error.

The above graphic defines four different perspectives one can hold relative to the church in the mid 19th century and the church today. One can hold that the church was true then and is true today. That is defined as the upper left quadrant, the others follow a similar general definition.

True then, True now

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually— (D&C 1:30)

This is the quadrant where I would put most members of the church today. Those in this bucket accept the correlated version of the church story. The Book of Mormon was divinely inspired and the line of priesthood keys stands unbroken since the restoration. They are TBMs who pay their tithing and attend the temple. Home/Visiting teaching, fulfilling assignments, participating in the meetings are all part of the agenda. Items that may introduce discord or dissonance are ‘placed on the shelf’ assuming we will have the answers at some point in the future.

But… what happens if the shelf is not able to hold the weight? What if Rough Stone Rolling, or some other publication or internet sourced propaganda, illuminates the inconsistencies resident in the message of the restoration as preached in church meetings today? How does one rationalize the potential change in worldview prompted by this new information that can no longer stay on the shelf?

At a high level, I would characterize this as moving to another quadrant identified above. Let’s take a look at the options.

False then, False now

This seems to be, by far, the largest recipient of the “cognitive dissified.” (This is a clinical term defined as those who suffer from a chronic attack of cognitive dissonance.) The baby gets thrown out with the bath water. If the church isn’t telling the truth about its past, then it can’t be the true church. If it isn’t true now, it probably never was. The outcome is the exact opposite of the intended purpose of comments such as this by Carlos Costa in a recent general conference and cited in my recent blog titled “All Or Nothing.”

After I read, pondered, and prayed, the Lord gave me the assurance that Joseph Smith was His prophet. I testify to you that Joseph Smith is a prophet, and because I have received this answer from the Lord, I know that all of his successors are prophets too. (Carlos Costa, Oct 2010 General Conference)

Because of the view that it is all or nothing, some people facing these challenges are prone to choose ‘nothing.’ and walk away. Some seek solace in the confines of other denominations and find that love and charity abound. Some give up on God and adopt atheism or agnosticism in response to the view that God/Religion caused this problem. Those who had a ‘testimony’ of the core items of the church foundational aspects such as Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon attribute these spiritual experiences to emotion as opposed to true communication from God. It can be easy to rationalize this experience. Some are angry that they had been duped, they ‘leave the church but can’t leave it alone.’ These people are typically vocal in public and in the internet on the errors and discordance in the church message. Others capitulate and continue in minimal church activity to placate family and loved ones rather than move to a new box.

False then, True now

I have had members express the opinion that some rudimentary aspects of the gospel were not accurately defined in the beginning but were changed as a result of ‘further light and knowledge.’ The idea, for example, that the prohibition of blacks holding the priesthood was a policy rather than a doctrine suggests that there were things that were in error and  needed to be corrected. The topic of polygamy could also be included. The question certainly can be asked, Why would God allow this to happen?

I can see where the agency of man could be used as an answer. We are humans are prone to take a concept and run with it before completely understanding the implications. Overall, I would consider this a weak argument since we are the recipients of the ‘fulness of the gospel.’  The definition that I would apply to ‘fulness’ would be – all that there is. There is no more. In this light, it is hard for me to consider a church maintaining its ‘trueness’ while at the same time abandoning early principles preached from the frontier pulpit as critical to salvation.

True then, False now

The final bucket, and unabashedly, my selection as the one most appropriate is that the restoration of the gospel was true and complete in the onset. Man, however, screwed things up along the way. This ‘cycle of apostasy’ clearly illuminated in the Book of Mormon, for some reason, is not applicable for many to the modern day LDS Church. It is an undocumented ‘truth’ that the church cannot fail. However, I have not found scriptural justification for that statement.

In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Most members are aware that President Ezra Taft Benson warned us that the condemnation called out in D&C 84 was still in effect.

54  And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55  Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56  And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57  And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

Not much has been said on this topic since President Benson was taken from us. Perhaps this condemnation was lifted with his death and God didn’t deem it important to tell his prophet…

There is scriptural support for the idea that the church is facing a cleansing as one reads in D&C 112.

23  Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.

24  Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25  And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26  First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

The ‘correction’ defined here seems to be targeted at those who claimed to be God’s instruments but were not. Are there clear indications that God’s ‘house’ needs to be the benefactor of God’s vengeance? If we, collectively as members, have not maintained the purity of the gospel; if we have allowed the precepts of man mingled with scripture to infest our teachings and programs, would that rate a correction? What program, doctrines, and policies are being taught as critical for salvation but are not found in the scriptural definition of the fulness of the gospel?

In 3 Nephi, chapter 16, we read the Lord’s perspective of those who accept the gospel in the last days:

6  And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7  Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

Are we not the Gentiles that are recipients of the truth and the fulness of the gospel? Do we not profess to have received our testimonies of the gospel ‘in and of the Holy Ghost’ in these latter days?

So what comes of us Gentiles? Here is what the Lord said would happen continuing in chapter 16 of 3rd Nephi:

10  And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

The Gentiles of the latter day church will sin against the gospel and reject the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. What better way is there to define apostasy?

So we of the latter day church  are under condemnation, we face the vengeance of the Lord, and will ultimately, as the latter day Gentile church, will lose the fulness of the Gospel.

In the end, it is only our personal apostasy that should be of concern.  Christ has extended the invitation to us regardless of what has happened or is happening to the church in general.

13  But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.

What are we to repent of? I would suggest that it is the same as any other group throughout history mired in apostasy. Stop doing what man would have you do and start doing what God is asking us to do.

It doesn’t matter if we are Jew or Gentile, what matters is where our heart is.

In 2nd Nephi, chapter 30 we find:

2  For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel.

What matters is that we, individually, turn our face toward God. We are to repent and come unto Christ. Which happens to be the definition of the Church that Christ gives us in D&C10:67-69

67  Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68  Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69  And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

Does it help to understand that God expected the wheels to come off the church wagon? Should we let this ongoing collective apostasy impede our personal situation?

I would hope that anyone who is infected with cognitive dissonance will take stock of what are the fundamental questions and answers we should be asking of God. If you have had deep spiritual experiences, then begin with these and reaffirm your belief system line upon line and precept upon precept. Rebuild your belief system without the mantras promoted by any earthly organization.

If you have not had these types of experiences, then use Enos as an example and seek earnestly to hear the voice of God. Seek first to understand what is specifically taught in the scriptures relative to the gospel and doctrine of Christ. Study these thing out and approach God with a humble heart and a contrite spirit.

One piece of guidance I can offer to those in this situation is to be very purposeful in the questions contained in your prayers. Spend the necessary time to meditate and ponder on the core message of the fulness of the gospel as contained in the description of the visit of Jesus Christ to the Nephites for therein is the fulness of the gospel. (see Joseph Smith – History 1:34.

I am a real believer that God can and does answer our prayers. That by asking the right questions we can get the answers we are seeking. That is where we go from here.

What think ye?

P.S. Please join me in remembering on this day all the victims of violence in the name of God.

The enclosed glossy pamphlet is as follows:

Pamphlet from Church Membership Divsion

As viewed from the inside, there are several reasons that are generally attributed to one who leaves the church:

• Can’t live the standards of the church

• Sin has removed our ability to partake of the spirit

• Offended by others in the church.

As you can see, this myth is propagated in this message from the First Presidency. The call is for those who are offended, or for any other reason, “outside the embrace of the Church” to come back. What are the reasons so many people are leaving the church today? I would suggest that, based on my anecdotal analysis, these are the primary reasons:

• The sanitized history as taught by the church does not accurately represent the  historical facts. (How can the church be true, when it doesn’t accurately represent its history?)

• The rituals of the church offer no spiritual edification. (The rigors of the Sunday schedule and the demands of the true blue Mormon do not fulfill the innate spiritual needs of the members.)

• The church has taken positions that are considered contrary to the love and acceptance imbued in the teachings of Christ. (Yesterday, it was the color of one’s skin; today it is the likely genetic disposition toward homosexuality.)

I would suggest that the traditional reasons (sin, smoking, and offense) for leaving the church are more likely to cause one to become inactive. The rationale as to why a person would take the active steps to remove their name from the records of the church are likely more deep seated and motivating (implied deceit, lack of spiritual gifts, and participation on politics.)

Each of us must choose our own path. Jeremiah and Lehi lived under the same circumstances but were led to different roles.  Jeremiah stayed in the midst of an apostate Jewish nation. Lehi became an apparent apostate and left. They were both following the word of God – personal revelation.

In our circumstances today, there may be those who are led to stay within the ‘embrace’ of the Church. There may also be those who are led to flee and appear as apostates. While I may have looked with sadness upon those who left the ‘true’ church a decade ago, today I look upon those same people differently. I see them as willing to ‘sacrifice’ their comfort for their conviction. The Church has, in this case, pitted father against son and brother against brother.

But I also believe, that there are those who, as Lehi, are led by their reliance on the word of God to take a different path. There are those believe that there will be a remnant that will come out of this church to carry the true gospel forward. I have posted numerous times about the rejection of the gospel by the modern day Gentile church. (3 Nephi, chapter 16).

To stay in the church regardless of the cognitive dissonance requires patience and long suffering. To leave the church likely means a nearly complete dismantling of your social environment. Neither is easy but either may await those who have come to see the reality gap that exists in today’s church.

The statement here is that the responsibility of the church to each individual is to ensure that all are “remembered and nourished by the good word of God.” Not to beat a dead horse but… how is the construction of a multi-billion dollar mall supporting this responsibility? Will Christ, upon his return, look favorably on the ‘mutual compatibility’ of temple square and Nordstroms?

Finally, I must take issue with the idea that one be in the embrace of the Church and apparently not Christ. The invitation above seems to only, in passing, strike at the core message of the gospel. The church, as has the federal government, gone well beyond that original charter. For the bloated autocracy that is represented in the COB, I would suggest that the original message is found in D&C 19:31

And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

Another key reference is found in D&C 10:

67  Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68  Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69  And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

I would gladly give up the ‘embrace of the church’ for coming unto Christ. Unfortunately, I can’t see how one can do both at the same time under the current circumstances.

What think ye?

After I read, pondered, and prayed, the Lord gave me the assurance that Joseph Smith was His prophet. I testify to you that Joseph Smith is a prophet, and because I have received this answer from the Lord, I know that all of his successors are prophets too. (Carlos Costa, Oct 2010 General Conference)

Does a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet automatically give us the knowledge that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet? In a similar vein, does a knowledge that Peter, the apostle, was called to lead the church in the meridian of time automatically lead to the conclusion that the keys were passed down to Pope Benedict XVI?

I think not.

Paul taught the Thessalonians:

Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. (1 Thess. 5:21)

According to Strong’s Concordance, the word ‘prove’ could also be translated as ‘test’ or ‘examine.’ The message here is that we should examine all aspects of what is presented as truth and only keep what is validated.

In the 28th chapter of second Nephi, we read a series of ‘woes’ starting with ‘wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion. Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well.’ What I find that is pertinent to this topic is the following warning:

Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. (2 Nephi 28:29-31)

I would suggest that one should read this scripture from an individual perspective in consideration of the development of a testimony. The word of God, just as it was used by Lehi (1 Nephi 2:3), is most appropriately considered as personal revelation. God will give us answers ‘line by line, precept by precept.’ We should ‘prove’ all things and not assume that one answer applies to all. In other words, the development of a testimony should require us to test each and every concept or idea presented, not just assume that because part of the message is true, it all must be true.

I think it is also important to note that God promises us in 2 Nephi that if we continue to seek knowledge and testimony, He will give us more. If we deem that we have enough, that which we think we have will be taken away. Wo be unto him that assumes he needs no more revelation.

This is the same message that is found in Alma:

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction.  Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 9:9-12)

Here the Lord refers to those who no longer seek revelation as having ‘hard hearts.’ We must break our hard hearts and exhibit a spirit of contrition in order to receive the word of God. This must happen line upon line, precept upon precept; we are called upon to examine all things, not blindly assume that A equals B equals C.

While this is very important on the way in to a testimony, I feel that it is equally important when our testimony is challenged. Stories abound of good members of the church who, upon being presented with aspects of uncorrelated church history, lose their testimony and walk away. I sincerely believe that having an ‘all or nothing’ testimony as proposed by Carlos Costa, increases the chances of a person rejecting ‘the church’ when difficulties arise. On the other hand, building a testimony line by line, allowing the person to reject aspects that are not revealed as true should preserve those aspects of revealed truth.

My message here is: Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. When I had my ‘crisis of faith,’ I went through a process of evaluating my options. Do I reject all of my testimony because one part of it turned sour? Or, do I attempt to reconstruct my testimony based on ‘line by line’ of those items where I did receive revelation?

I chose the latter. At the beginning of my journey, I began asking simple questions and seeking simple answers. Because of past experiences, I knew that God was there; mainly from my second baptism event cataloged earlier in this blog. I also had a revelation on the truth of the message of the gospel in the Book of Mormon (this last sentence was carefully constructed). I made sure that each step I took, each precept I considered, was stripped of any assumptions and preconceived notions. As I read and studied the scriptures, new perspectives developed that I had not previously considered. These were taken to the Lord through prayer and meditation.

Today, my ‘testimony’ is significantly different from what I held a decade ago. I have tried to build my belief system line by line, proving each item through study and meditation. My testimony is no longer ‘all or nothing;’ I hold fast to that which is good and look to continue the path in understanding the mysteries of God.

What think ye?

This quote comes from the KSL.com site:

There will be significant new residential buildings, initially about 300 units. A full size Harmon’s grocery store will go in at 200 East and 100 South. The development is designed to compliment Temple Square, but will be a commercial venture.

Bishop H. David Burton, LDS Church Presiding Bishop: “Rather than walking across South Temple and a finding a completely different environment, we hope to have that transition, that they would be mutually compatible with each other.” (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=536868)

When I read this, I couldn’t help but think of the quote from James 4:

4  Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?  whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

It is certainly worth the time to read and ponder the full context of these two quotes. What does it mean to be ‘mutually compatible’ with the worldly environment of Nordstroms and Macys? Does this mean that the Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church sees little difference between the mission represented by Temple Square and the objectives of a multi-use mall?

Members of the Church have committed to provide their time, talents and energies to the building up of the kingdom of God. The Church, I would think, should be an example of this focus. Is the expenditure of the time and resources in the construction of such a commercial venture mutually compatible with the three fold mission of the church? How can one justify this type of activity in light of what Christ taught regarding the need to choose between the ways of the world and the ways of God.

When the original church established in the meridian of time ceased to demonstrate the gifts of the spirit, the leaders redirected their attention to the ‘works of man.’ Awe inspiring edifices, such as Saint Peter’s Basilica, are examples of this misapplied energy. The need of the Holy Roman church to express itself in terms of its physical environment extended to the surrounding areas of its headquarters in Vatican City. Speaking of the popes of the 14^th and 15^th century, here is a quote from The Restoration by Wil Durant (page 14):

“They labored to redeem Rome from the ugliness and squalor into which it had fallen while the popes were in Avignon. They drained marshes (by comfortable proxy), paved streets, restored bridges and roads, improved the water supply, established the Vatican Library and the Capitoline Museum, enlarged the hospitals, distributed charity, built or repaired churches, embellished the city with palaces and gardens, reorganized the University of Rome, supported the humanists in resurrecting pagan literature, philosophy, and art, and gave employment to painters, sculptors, and architects whose works are now a treasured heritage of all mankind…perhaps they thought of it as transforming scattered crumbs of evanescent wealth into a lasting splendor for the people and their God.”

In these latter days, we see the modern LDS church expressing the same concern regarding the environs of the temple. Most of the area immediately surrounding Temple Square now belongs to the Church. Is the goal here to create a lasting splendor for the members of LDS Church and their God?

I see no reasonable rationalization for the significant effort on the part of the church to build up the kingdom of Mammon and design it in a way that it is mutually compatible with the kingdom of God. Such a mix is not possible.

Church officials note that the funds going into the project are from the profits of the business holdings of the church; tithing is not used in any form as noted in President Hinckley’s remarks from October, 2006:

“The Church is undertaking a huge development project in the interest of protecting the environment of Temple Square. While the costs will be great, it will not involve the expenditure of tithing funds.”

Does tithing represent the only ‘sacred’ element of funds donated to the church? Aren’t fast offerings, and for that matter, any donations to the church represent a gift to the Lord? The statement that the funds for this significant development comes from the for-profit entities owned by the conceals the origins of these commercial enterprises. Where did the church get the original funds leading to the ownership of ZCMI, Beneficial Life, the farms and ranches and other enterprises that today constitute the non-spiritual aspects of the Church.

Did my great-great grandfather complete a simple commercial transaction when he consecrated his sugar beet factory to the kingdom in compliance to a command from Brigham Young?  Did the fact that this consecrated property, as the United Order unwound, become part of the U&I Sugar Company remove the stipulation of sacred and consecrated property? I think not.

I would be interested if there is any example of a commercial venture owned by the church that does not have its origins in a consecration or other sacred donation from the members of the church. To obfuscate this fact is a travesty and a sham.

As these examples show, we are witness to the slow and imperceptible apostasy settling in to the modern LDS church. As prophesied in latter day scriptures, the church will need to be, at a minimum, cleansed before it will be fit for the kingdom (D&C 112:24-26). In the worst case, the Lord will reject this people and return his gospel to the house of Israel (3 Nephi 16:10).

What think ye?

I assume that message was prompted by the number of members who are leaving the church. Is this true for the 64 stakes involved in this regional conference or is this message going out to the broader church?

As I pondered his comments, I decided that the analogy of the ship and a cruise is relevant but I don’t think he took the idea far enough. A cruise will take you and its passengers to many destinations but will not be able to carry you to past the port. In other words, a cruise ship to Rome won’t get you to the Coliseum. To accomplish that objective, one must get off the ship and proceed on their own to the chosen venue.

In a similar manner, the church can only take you so far before you have to put on your walking shoes and move under your own power. Elder Eyring, later in the same conference, noted that no apostle, stake president, or bishop can save a person; this must be accomplished by the individual.

While the church can get us close to the destination and provide instructions on how to complete the journey, it does not have the power to carry each of us to the final objective. The fundamental purpose of the church is to teach us how to come unto Christ. It is not the end but a means to an end. We must each learn to ‘walk by faith’ and apply the gospel of Jesus Christ in our lives. No leader from the president of the church down to the local bishop can carry us to that final destination – our personal sanctification. We must accomplish this under our own power.

In the definition of the gospel given by Christ to the Nephites found in Third Nephi, chapter 27, we read:

18  And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men.  And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

19  And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20  Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

21  Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

If our ultimate goal is to ‘stand spotless’ before Christ, we are instructed to apply this gospel in our lives. We are told we must repent and come unto Christ. We are to be baptized and receive a remission of our sins through the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, which sanctifies us in preparation for the presence of our Redeemer.

The purpose of those who guide this church, I believe is found in D&C 19:

31  And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

32  Behold, this is a great and the last commandment which I shall give unto you concerning this matter; for this shall suffice for thy daily walk, even unto the end of thy life.

The more the leadership of the church tries to go beyond this simple admonition, the less effective they will be. Instead of telling us ‘Don’t get off the ship,’ the message should be ‘here are the things you need to know so that you can be prepared to leave the ship and finish your journey under your own power.’

Both Paul (Philippians 2:12) and Mormon (Mormon 9:27) told us that we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, or as I would suggest, a broken heart and a contrite spirit. The more that church correlation and programs detract from this objective, the less relevant the church becomes.

So… my message is simple. Use the church as a vehicle to bring you closer to your ultimate destination, but at the same time, prepare to leave the ship and move forward on your own.

What think ye?

“Yea, and they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness; yea, and even according to their faith it was done unto them; and I did remember the words which they said unto me that their mothers had taught them.”

What does it mean to ‘perform every word of command with exactness’ and what is the message to us?

As I pondered this question, I came to the idea that the Lord expects us to be exact in our performance also. It is what He expects from those who wish to be called by His name. We are given direction and are expected to do no more and no less.

There are a number of places in the scriptures where the Lord tells us to be exact in our performance. One of the examples can be found in Third Nephi, chapter 18, where Christ institutes the ordinance of the sacrament among the Nephites. The Lord lays out specific aspects as to the administration and performance of this sacred ordinance and then states:

“12  And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things.  And if ye shall
always do these things blessed are ye, for ye are built upon my rock.

13  But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.”

Do we, in the church, perform this ordinance with exactness? Do we ‘do these things’ as directed by the Lord? The Lord designated one of the disciples who would be responsible for the administration of this ordinance. Do we follow this or pass it on to any number of teenagers in the church? Did He in this passage give us a pass card on using wine, even if we have the ability to produce our own? If we want to be built on the ‘rock of Christ,’ the passage above tells us we must be precise in our treatment of the sacrament.

In His first visit among the Nephites, the Lord reasserted His doctrine. In the eleventh chapter of Third Nephi, beginning in verse 31, Christ states, ‘I will declare unto you my doctrine.’ He then proceeds to lay out a treatment of His doctrine, which, in my opinion, is a summary of the same doctrine of Christ found in Second Nephi, chapters 31 and 32. This presents a doctrine that one must be baptized and be visited ‘with fire and with the Holy
Ghost.’ It teaches us that we must become as a little child to inherit the kingdom of God. Christ completes the instruction on His doctrine with these words:

“39  Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40  And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.”

Again, the message is that to be built upon His rock, we must not do more or less than what is defined here as His doctrine. Do we find ourselves today ‘built upon His rock?’ Do the doctrines of the church called by his name stick to this simple formula, or have we added many other things to the mix? What would you consider as doctrine that goes above and beyond this straightforward definition of His doctrine?

Another place where the Lord declares His doctrine is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 10:

“67  Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68  Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69  And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.”

In this scripture, the Lord defines His church as those who repent and come unto Him. Again, he states that we are to follow this ‘with exactness.’ No more and no less. Do we follow this today? Do we expect members of the church to follow the word of wisdom? Do we prescribe that members must sustain men as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do we task them with paying fast offerings and tithing as conditions of full membership? Has the church that bears His name broadened its focus to include insurance companies, real estate development, and other works of men? Are we following this direction from the Lord with exactness?

Do we fill our spiritual lives today with things that go beyond what the Lord prescribes? Each of us must make our own way and find our own answers to these questions. Our spiritual foundation should not be built upon the sandy soil of going beyond the mark. We, individually and collectively, need to assess our compliance, with exactness, to the commandments of the Lord.

What think ye?