Multiple Mortal Probations, Eternal Progression, Joshua the Jewish Minister, and the Doctrine of the Devil

Multiple Mortal Probations (MMP) is a variation of reincarnation. The distinction is that a human being is always a human being. You don't come back as a mosquito if you were bad in your last life.

You probably won't hear much about it from within the mainstream LDS Church. Nevertheless, this doctrine sees popularity among a diverse array of dissident Mormons, practicing their own forms of Mormonism apart from the church. You'll find polygamists teaching it, it's foundational to Julie Rowe and others with a highly mystical focus, and sadly, in newer movements that hold that Brigham Young led the church astray, (a place I now call my spiritual home), people are more likely to believe it than not.

MMP believers are usually aware that Joseph Smith told reincarnaton advocate / con man "Joshua the Jewish Minister" that his doctrine was of the devil, but they try to justify saying joseph was only condemning this one man's particular views.

I denounce MMP as rank heresy.

Furthermore, I have come to realize something that was not immediately apparent. Multiple mortal probations is the product of a doctrine featured prominently in the mainstream church, and in many if not most of the other branches of the Restoration. It is referred to as Eternal Progression.

MMP makes sense *if* you believe you have come to this world to perfect yourself. Becoming perfect would require more than just one trip. But I have to ask, where is Jesus in this process? Someone who believes that clearly does not believe human beings are hopeless, and we need Jesus to come save us from ourselves.

Balderdash! Human beings will never be perfected. Not after one lifetime, not after one thousand. The belief we can get better and better each time is folly. Additional lives would only mean additional sins Jesus needs to atone for.

The end result is not to for us to become gods, creating, populating, and ruling over worlds of our own. Even if our God was once a mortal man, who became God, that does not mean that is the general plan for everyone. The general plan was for us to be given free will and choice, but there was one choice we were not allowed to make. That choice was to immediately give them back. We have our independence, apart from our Heavenly Parents, for +/- 90 years. Afterward, we will be able to keep them, if we so desire. Continuing forever to live apart from our Heavenly Parents.

But the correct choice, after gaining through experience a thorough knowledge of what free will and choice are all about, is to give them back. To tell our Heavenly Parents that we don't want them.

The end result is to get back to where we once belonged. To return to a helpless state of infancy, cared for and protected by loving parents forever. Never again having any responsibilities, never again having to make any decisions, and never again having to do any form of work. Earth is toil, that is heaven!

Criticisms of the Mormon faith and the LDS Church, my assessment of which have validity and which do not, a rough draft

Criticisms I do not consider to be reasonable:

Evangelical Christian claims that "the Mormon Jesus" is a completely different individual than the Jesus that they know.  Used as the primary basis to argue that we are not Christians, are not "saved", because our savior is a fictional being with no power to save, because he does not exist.

Claims that the Mormon lifestyle is burdensome and restrictive.  Actually, Mormonism is what you make of it.

Claims that the Mormons will hound you if you try to leave.

Claims that Mormons are inhospitable to their non-Mormon neighbors.

Claims that First Vision accounts contain significant contradictions.

Claim that Utah is a place of stiffing morality, state legislature is a theocracy.

Claims that gay people are being hurt, not just by flawed aversion therapies tried at BYU decades ago, but that they continue to be hurt by church practices today.

Claims that City Creek was an inappropriate use of church funds.  Complaints in general of how the church spends money.  Anecdotal claims have been made those in need are being turned ways by bishops, I haven't seen any such instances.

Claims that the BoM has been significantly changed.

Attempts to prove Joseph was capable of producing the BoM, from the sheer power of his intellect, his fertile imagination, and the library resources of his frontier surroundings.

Conspiracy theories that have Sidney Rigdon knowing Joseph prior to when history says they met, late in the year of 1830.  That have him colluding with Joseph to produce the BoM, and stealing some "second Spaulding Manuscript".  Solomon Spaulding's family knew nothing of the existence of any "second manuscript.

======================================

Criticisms I consider to have some merit:
Specific to the temple:

Jesus said there would be no marriage in heaven.  Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25.  There is no way his statement can reasonably be interpreted as only pertaining to the "less valiant".

The temple, both the endowment ritual, and the procedure for obtaining a recommend, are instruments of dominion.  Albeit effective instruments.  They do a very efficient job fostering payment of tithes, and heeding other recommend requirements.  Active Mormons would not be nearly as compliant without it.

Very effective indeed.  The temple would appear to be the only mechanism left in this decadent society giving engaged couples a reason to wait until marriage.  Those who don't wait, and don't lie about it, face a serious social consequence when the are wed in what is regarded in the Mormon community as an inferior "civil wedding".  These inferior weddings were once the official practice of the church (Community of Christ edition of the  Doct. & Cov., chapter 111).

Exclusion of family from temple sealings.  Refusal to cancel temple sealings for (female) widows.  Hurtful doctrine: children are considered sealed to man they never knew, who died before they were born, not to actual (biological) father, the man who raised them.

Plagiarized Masonry.  Thankfully some of it has been removed.

The temple endowment contains two brief mentions that "a Savior will be provided".  That is the extent of which it teaches salvation by the atoning sacrifice of a savior.  The whole things fits more with the Old Covenant, than the New Covenant.  The church often pays lip service (for lack of a better term) to the concepts of grace and atonement, while teaching obedience and worthiness.

The temple has created the impression among non-Mormons that there significant things going on within the church that we are concealing from the world.  A perception that we are a people with something "wrong about us" is pervasive.  Thus non-Mormons primarily trust ex-Mormons for information.  The ex-Mos will (supposedly) reveal all the deep dark secrets.  People think if they ask a Mormon about Mormonism, they will get a white-washed sales pitch, with high-pressure tactics to get them to convert, and with significant information deliberately concealed.

No recommend without a full tithe = signs and tokens being sold for money.

Men and women both are given robes that serve a specific stated purpose: the robes are for officiating in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood.  Yet the men never don these robes to officiate in ordinances, and the women do not officiate in ordinances at all.  That includes temple workers, hey officiate over the ritual, but they do not wear the robes.  Only the temple patrons do.

The temple promotes the notion that "temple worthy" members are living up to some standard of righteousness.  As opposed to the true doctrine taught by the rest of Christianity, that we are all hopelessly depraved sinners, trusting in a savior, to grant us a place in the Father's kingdom, that we could never deserve on our own good merits.

======================================

Criticisms I consider to have some merit:
General:

The Miracle of Forgiveness.  Terrible book!  Despite it's title, it is actually a warning not to sin, because obtaining forgiveness is supposedly so difficult.  Giving this to someone seeking penance from religious authority will cause intense despair.

Mormons do a horrible job of including those whose lifestyles are at serious conflict with church standards.  The church does not accept people as they are, then work with them to improve.  Far too many people feel that they must either get in line or leave, so they leave.  Where people are actually leaving in droves: the high number of youth raised in the church, who no longer consider themselves to be Mormons in their adult lives.

Catholic families will retain Catholic identity, even through generations of minimal church participation.  Vs. Mormons finding entire families completely out of the church in three generations.  Going from a devout couple, to inactive children who may or may not self-identify as Mormons, to grandchildren who have not been baptized and know nothing of the beliefs of the church.  If those grandchildren feel a need for religion in their lives, they are unlikely to turn to the religion of their grandparents (unlike Catholics).

Use of  I Cor. 15:40 as a proof text heaven will be composed of three kingdoms.  Passage is actually about the physical bodies we will have in the resurrection.  Telestial is a made up word.

Deliberate Utah laws against the father, making Utah a destination for pregnant women seeking to evade father's rights.  LDSFS ran TV ads in the past, encouraging unwed pregnant girls to give their babies up for adoption.  Thankfully this has been discontinued.

Disregarding the fact that adoption to two non-blood relatives takes the child not just away from biological parents, it robs two entire families of the association with their family member.

"Sustaining" appears to be a process of democracy or common consent, but is really a loyalty oath.  If you vote "no", it does not reflect against the person you are "voting" against, it reflects against you.

"Raising the bar".  Elder Ballard: "We cannot send you on a mission to be reactivated, reformed, or to receive a testimony. We just don't have time for that".

Need to register with membership number in order to view webpage with online ward calendar.

A pop up screen specifically instructs ward clerk not to give membership record printout to member

Mormon leaders will not sit down and show those they disagree with the faults in their reasoning.  Instead they "pull authority", teach a Mormon version of papal infallibility, and threaten disciplinary action.  "You will change your mind on doctrine, because those in authority over you are ordering you to change your mind", is simply not persuasive".

Old Testament thinking: belief that sin makes someone unclean, spirit will not enter an unclean temple, steps must be taken to make ones self clean again.

JS teaching that you can become elect.  By New Testament definition, the elect are those born predestined to salvation.

The church right to oppose masturbation, pornography, homosexuality, and alcohol, but misguided in tactics to oppose these evils. Pornography use is considered a reason to break up a marriage.

Obedience, if for no other reason than to show God that we are obedient.

Use of funerals to proselytize to a captive audience.

Members of prominent families enjoy special access to top church leaders, while the vast majority are only allowed to communicate with them through local leaders.  Even letter writing is considered improper and chastised.
example: Steve Benson meetings with Elder Oaks
example: Pres. Monson at the funeral for Marie Osmond's adopted son (suicide)
example: Elizabeth Smart meets Pres. Hinckley

Mormon culture only recognizes the hierarchy as a source of truth, ordinary members attempting to introduce new insights into the church are rejected.

Suspicion of study groups, para-church organizations (Sunstone), and other religious activities outside the institution of the church.  An Evangelical telling others that he's starting his own ministry will receive encouragement.  A Mormon telling his peers he intends to do something similar will immediately be suspected of trying to start something against the church.

Blessings can or must be earned, shovel analogy in relation to tithing, Doct. & Cov. sections, the Lord bound when we do what he says

Victims of Jackson County expulsion told their unfaithfulness was the cause (Doct. & Cov. 100, 101, or in that range?).  This continues today, if you're not getting anything out of classes or partaking the sacrament, there must be something wrong you you.

Liberty has been mistaken for license, Jesus turned the water into wine, Mormons have turned their wine into water (Isa. 1:22).  Holy emblems are defiled by being thrown away, when they should be passed until all that has been blessed has been consumed.

Children, too young to gain anything from sacrament meeting, attend and partake of emblems (sanitary issue!) that have no meaning to those not yet baptized.  In other churches, "Sunday School" is held at the same time as the main worship service, and contains material that young children enjoy and are educated by.

The priesthood defers to government in determining what constitutes a legitimate marriage.  A couple legally divorced but still sealed in the temple, and other couples together with no government recognized married, are all regarded as living in sin.

Praying because the clock says it's time to pray.  Fasting because the cullender says it's time to fast.  Fasting and prayer should be done according to need.  To pray before bed, when nothing happened that day that merits discussion with God, is empty ritual, vain repetition.

Nauvoo polygamy is indefensible.

The Book of Abraham is indefensible.

Missing the entire point of the four gospels.

To quote individual bible verses, as if Jesus gave us specific rules to follow, is to miss the entire point of the four gospels.

Jesus gave the people rule after rule, impossible demand after impossible demand. Finally, when a rich young man turned and walked away after Jesus demanded more than he was willing to sacrifice, the bewildered disciples turned to their master and asked, if this is what we must do to be saved, who can be saved?

It turns out it was all one big object lesson. He never really expected us to pluck out an eye or chop off an arm. He never expected us to live like the lilies of the field, having no material possessions, doing no work, just taking up space and expecting God to sustain us.

Nor did he expect compliance with any other supposed commandment. Nothing we can do for ourselves can cause us to deserve a positive reward in the afterlife. We're all a bunch of filthy sinners, a fallen race, hopelessly depraved.

History's most notorious criminal, and most generous philanthropist, deserve to rot in hell just the same. We all do, and not just for some dark misdeed in the past, but for the imperfect way each of us have lived this very day. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

But as Jesus responded that day the disciples asked who can be saved, with God all things are possible. He has provided a way.

That place in heaven we could never earn on our own good merits is ours for the asking, by His grace.

Most won't ask. Either they will be deluded by the sophistry of the secular world to disbelieve in a supreme being and an afterlife, or they will be too pious, too proud of their own supposed righteousness, worthiness, and obedience to accept that they cannot earn eternal glory.

There will be no worries of crowding in heaven. Heaven will certainly not be crowded. Though it could be packed, if people were not so stubborn and proud.

TLC Prophet James Dee Harmston of Manti, Utah has passed away

The (lack of) attention Mr. Harmston's death has received surprises me. This man and his following once were a matter of significant media coverage and community concern. Even the shadowy figures of LDS Church Security were once detected gathering intelligence (I briefly mention an incident I was present for in my opening entry to this blog). Now, The Salt Lake Tribune is the only local news outlet to even report on it.

There have been a few posts to Mormon Fundamentalist related Yahoo groups I infrequently check in on. The one place I would have expected to be buzzing with activity is the attack blog run by an anonymous ex-follower at manticult.com. In recent years, the entries and reader comments on that site have been the only place I have been able to find containing information on the TLC (The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days) that is not long outdated

I don't know what to make of Jim Harmston. I see two viable possibilities. Either he was a liar and an imposter in the same manner as Elizabeth Smart kidnapper Brian David Mitchell, or a Warren Jeffs-style lunatic.

Testimony and evidence indicate imprisoned FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs would self-induce a state where is body would go into a seizure, and his mind would go into hallucinations. That is the real function of the suspicious, custom made bed with side rails Texas investigators found in the basement of the FLDS temple they desecrated. Jeffs really believes his own delusions. The voices in his head told him his favorite wife Naomi Jessop would die. His grief gave every indication of being genuine. To this day she remains alive and well. In jail he would spend so much time on his knees praying that his knees developed ulcers, and the jailors began forcibly dragging him off his knees. In Utah and Arizona, he let his attorneys present a defense that proved effective, but in Texas, he defied the guidance of his counsel, fired them, and represented himself, making threats that the court must abandon the prosecution or face the imminent wrath of God. He believed that God would follow through.

The FLDS are a specific sect of Mormon Fundamentalism. Those on the internet who apply FLDS to all Mormon Fundamentalists are misusing the term. Formally, The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

When he thinks he can talk his way out of trouble, Brian David Mitchell, the self-styled Prophet Immanuel David Isaiah, conducts himself very rationally. It was when he realized the rest of his life would be spent in confinement, the only question was, the big house or the nut house, that he played the fool. At federal trial we learned that though he has commonly been referred to as a street preacher, Mitchell had no desire to convert anybody to anything. Due to social phobia he needed to get thoroughly liquored up, then he would make his way downtown, where his actual activities were a matter of panhandling for money. The measure of sincere religion is whether the purported religious person acts to further the interests of his deity, or himself. The prosecution demonstrated that Mitchell never did any projects of service for either his fellow man or his God. He's not a particularly religious man. His religion-speak and his crudely self-manufactured Old Testament garb were for show. They were no more indicative of his true self than a man's donning of a policeman's costume, for Halloween or for deception, indicates an honest desire to uphold the causes of law and order.

I once traveled to Manti, stayed in the home of Jim and Elaine Harmston, and sat through the two long days he took to present his introductory seminar, The Models. On Sunday, I left about an hour or two before he was due to wrap up. I smiled goodbye at Elaine on my way out. I don't think she smiled back.

This was just before Jim's revelation to withdraw from public outreach, that marked the end of incoming converts and the growth of his organization. If he was just making up wild stories to get the money to fund a luxurious retirement, while his followers sat by candlelight in houses with the utilities shut off for non-payment, then the revelation probably meant he had reached the point where he had stashed away enough dough to accomplish the objective. He took a lot of people for a lot of it.

At The Models, two personality traits were apparent, the charisma to gain followers, and the overbearing and domineering nature that would chew them up and spit them out. A combination of disillusioned mainstream Mormons, and outcasts from other Mormon Fundamentalist factions, TLC converts started out as some of the most dedicated to the cause of building a communal zion.

Ask your average mainstream Mormon what he thinks about quitting his job, selling his house, giving all the proceeds to a new church, moving to a rural agricultural county with minimal job prospects, buying another house, transferring title over to the church, placing a sign in the yard declaring it as church property under stewardship, taking out loans he never intends to repay, giving that money to the church, than trusting the church to provide his family's groceries?

After the TLC, most of them vow to have nothing more to do with religion, in any form, for the rest of their lives.

At first this whole thing began as what I see as very positive, an outpouring of what I believe was genuine spiritual (supernatural) phenomena. In the early 1990's, people from various places, who did not know each other in advance, felt a prompting to move to Utah's Sanpete Valley. They joined the LDS wards in the area, and news spread of a study group (outside the official auspices of the church). They would meet, read the revelations they were receiving, and were amazed that the spirit was independently telling them all some remarkably similar things.

As one who laments the way Mormons have drifted away from their original communalism, I think this had all the makings of something wonderful...until one destructive personality entered the picture. The grandeur of Jim Harmston's claimed experiences with heavenly messengers exceeds every prophet in the entire Restoration Movement, including Joseph Smith. The fruits borne of Harmston's ministry are less impressive.

The mainstream Mormon Church promotes the validity of individual inspiration...so long as you abide by their structure of tiered authority. An individual is entitled to inspiration to guide his or her own life. A father to guide his family. But when you start declaring inspiration for those outside your stewardship, start contradicting the inspiration of those in a calling of priesthood leadership above yourself, your days in the church are numbered.

By the time I made my pilgrimage to Manti, I felt no spiritual manifestation. The study group was no more. The LDS had purged the dissidents, and they Harmston had established the True and Living Church.

The early 1990's contained many interesting instances of internal dissent in Mormon Utah. The liberals rallied behind the September Six, I watched as they proceed in a long line to place flowers on the steps of the Church Office Building. Patrick Waters began the Utah Free Militia with some well attended meetings and training sessions in Utah County, though quickly what remained was just a few scattered small teams. Since Waters openly used his real name as a presenter at Sunstone, representing the Militia, I feel mentioning it here is giving away no secret. Mike Rigby was actively distributing what people referred to as his "White Bible" (Sacred Scriptures is the actual title), holding study groups with some off-the-wall ideas such as Lucifer had repented and Cain had taken over the job of the Devil, and taking up a collection for a large newspaper ad declaring that the great cleansing of the Earth is about to begin.

Nothing remotely like that is happening today, even though we now have the amazing abilities of the internet to bring together people of common interests. I miss it.

I sent a letter by mail thanking Jim and Elaine for their hospitality. I wished them and their church well, stating that I felt no spiritual indication telling me to get involved, but if that changed I would, be back in contact. I received no reply. I find it highly probable Jim's response was some hocus-pocus in a ritual to condemn me over to the buffetings of satan. Yes, I take that lightly.

If actively functioning Mormon based polygamy groups numbered in the hundreds, I could see one deceased leader not being considered newsworthy. Just off the top of my head I can name off about eight, and a few more that might be, but I don't know the current status.

That manticult site is the only source I have to know what remained of the TLC just prior to Jim's death. Rather than hearing me paraphrase, adding one more person to the kids game of whispering in people's ear to find out how badly the message gets distorted with repeated retelling, you can go see for yourself. I'll just say this, it doesn't sound like much was left.

The tone of this blog entry is harsh. I didn't expect it to be quite so when I started making mental notes for it. I actually am very sympathetic to the people of Mormon based polygamy. The last thing I want to do is join my voice with anti-polygamy activists to create a bad impression of good people. Leaders are another matter.

Libertarian pundit P. J. O'Rourke is noted for his thoughtful quote, beginning with, Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. It's not just polygamous leaders, and it's not just religious leaders.

Jesus cautioned to be innocent but not naive, (Matthew 10:16). Many common claims against the people of polygamy are based in prejudice and not based in fact. Failing to take this passage to heart is a valid criticism of these people. They find themselves under bad leaders more often than not.

Restore the Fourth, Utah chapter, a group whose continuing efforts I will not be supporting

I'm hearing preliminary reports from today's Restore the Fourth rally near the soon to be opened NSA Utah Data Center that I find troublesome, to the point that I think I'm glad I didn't go. Even increasing their reported number from 150 to 151 was more support than I believe this organization deserved.

Reports indicate that the first speaker, who runs the website battlehymn.com, received vocal rebuke from members of the crowd, as well as the following speaker, and now the event organizers are bashing him online. Some people even walked out and went home.

Most of the objections accuse him of hijacking a political event to preach a religious sermon to a captive audience, who didn't come for that. Some accuse him of compromising the credibility of the event with off-topic matters they believe are not reasonable, such as chemtrails.

If this group collectively harbors significant hostility to religious viewpoints, or is so narrowly focused that their 'open mic' was only to a few authorized topics, then they're certainly not people I would care to align myself with for activist purposes.

Any attempt to limit the scope of what an audience hears offends me as an American.  Don't like the message? Whip out the smartphone, play tetris, and wait for the next speaker.

Some people will only work, politically, with those who think exactly as they do. That is what killed the group Accountability Utah, and that is my main objection to the old guard of the Libertarian Party. Ideological purism, unwillingness to form coalitions with those you agree with half the time, and vehemently disagree with the other half, condemns a group to being a tiny, irrelevant faction, with no capability for growth.

I've seen no evidence that would convince me that Geo Bush ordered 9-11, with Osama bin Laden being a patsy. I do see enough common ground between myself, and the truthers, that I can work with them.

Democracy and political activism are primarily a game of who can marshal the greatest number. Only a fool would tell a group that has shown up at their rally, adding a significant number, "Go away, people generally regard you as crackpots, your presence does more harm than good to our public credibility".

I'm hoping those of us living in the area of the data center will soon hear that it is time to rally again, but this time, the two different factions will hold two different rallies.  I would appreciate an invitation, so long as it comes from those who believe God must play the primary role in restoring our nation, or at least from those who can be inclusive and respectful of that viewpoint.

Related links:

https://www.facebook.com/events/650737448289112/permalink/652175948145262/

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56543985-78/nsa-data-utah-center.html.csp

Not all conspiracy theories are harmless: satanic ritual abuse

In my last entry (link) I argued that although I am not big on conspiracy theories, I don't see the harm.

Just afterward, an incident on Facebook reminded me of an exception that must be noted.

A woman that I met once in person at a lecture, somewhat prominent in the local liberty community, who participates in a few of the Ron Paul and Libertarian Facebook groups that I subscribe to, started posting material about satanic ritual abuse.  I discovered this as I was getting ready for work, and not having much time, I cut and paste two paragraphs from an earlier entry in this blog, Polygamy, hatred, and the "True Believer" (link), made a few modifications, and posted it.  Later in the day I checked back to see if any further comments had been added, and I found mine gone.  In a private message:

Gary:
R-, my comments earlier this morning regarding satanic ritual abuse claims seem to have disappeared. If they were deliberately deleted, I would appreciate knowing why. Thank you.

R W:
You should be respectful to those that have endured these terrible experiences. Nobody knows everything and we should treat each issue as such. It is like telling a rape victim that there is no such thing as rape. Be respectful towards victims around you cause I guarantee that there are many around you and you have no idea. I deleted your post cause it hurt a dear friend of mine.

Gary:
Your audience is your audience. I will therefore not make any further attempts to present anything to them that you find objectionable.

I would, however, like to continue the discussion between the two of us privately. I have briefly outlined the basis for my disbelief. I was following this controversy even before the Pace memo brought the LDS church into it, and I still keep a large stack of the materials I gathered back then. Before I go any further, though, I would like to hear what has persuaded you to believe?

I should have suspected right away that I was dealing with true believer syndrome, rather than naively assuming this was a reasonable person who had gotten ahold of some bad information.

I waited the better part of a day for an answer, noted that she had been active in posting on other matters, and hit the "unfriend" button.  If she's unwilling to even accept my invitation to present her basis for belief, there's no point in trying to push the matter, to do so would only make me look like a bully.  There's also no point in thinking that there's anything meaningful to learn by continuing to follow the posts of someone whose perception of reality leads her to guarantee that that the problem is so pervasive that the victims are all around us.

She is correct on one account, I don't know everything, but there are a few things I do know.  When a person describes an experience that is not physically possible, that experience did not occur, and, if the problem were really as pervasive as this person believes, and the number of people claiming to be victims would indicate, there would be some physical evidence.

The only evidence we have indicates teenage occult dabblers are scattered here and there, and have done some bad things, usually to animals, though at times to people.  Widespread, multi-generational conspiracies, where people living respectable lives by day have some alternate personality kick in, put on black robes, and torture children the way they were tortured as children (though they have completely repressed these memories), are nothing more than sick fiction.

This frustrates me because R W is such a good illustration of just why it is so destructive to believe that satanic ritual abuse is real.  She apparently actively associates with other true believers, as well as those who believe themselves to be victims.  She shields them from truth they desperately need to hear, so that they can get real help, and get away from the quack therapists who have induced these false memories, and are treating them for abuse that did not actually occur.  Reality does matter.  These quack therapists are about as unethical (and counter-productive) as an MD administering chemo and radiation to anyone and everyone who believes themselves to have cancer.

In the height of this hysteria, our community was not spared.  Alan Hadfield of Lehi, Ut. was just one of our local people whose lives were devastated by a witch hunt (using that name in a google search should start you in the right direction, if you're not already familiar).  Could R W and her friends trigger another round of satanic panic?  Not if I can do anything about it.

Glenn Beck, Truthers, people who are so sure that they are absolutely correct, and the subjective nature of perception.

From the opening remarks in Glenn Beck's daily television show, Wednesday, 23 Jan 2013, an episode devoted to debunking conspiracy theories that the Sandy Hook massacre either did not actually take place, or that the government orchestrated it:

These guys will make us doubt absolutely everything, and I don't know about you, but I already doubt enough.  I have to know what is true and what isn't.  We have detached as a society from the truth, the truth about ourselves, the truth about our country, the truth about our debt, personal and national, all of it.  We don't know what's real anymore.  We don't trust the news departments anymore.  We don't know who to trust.  We don't trust anybody, and when that happens, your nation is over.  Our country now believes - we have more respect for cockroaches than Congress.  And all our institutions are at all time lows.  The institution of the media, the institution of the courts, police, everything.  And it all boils down to trust.  It is a dangerous, dangerous road to head down.  We have to have something to hold onto, something that is real.

A bigger load of nonsense has never hit the airwaves.

Truth is absolute, however humanity currently has no access to any source that represents the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. All we have is other fallible human beings.  One of our biggest problems is people who are so sure that they are absolutely correct.

Glenn Beck is a source of information.  His nemesis Alex Jones is a source of information.  The Salt Lake Tribune, KUTV-TV 10 PM Evening News, and KTKK-AM Radio 630 kHz, are sources of information.  Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are sources of information.  The blogs and vlogs I follow are sources of information.  The Bible, Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's writings and speeches, and the current leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are sources of information.

Each one of them has provided enough kernels of useful facts, reports of interesting events that have taken place, and (at least for some of them) profound opinions, that I will continue to pay regular attention.

When asked what I think of any controversial public figure, or any public figure for that matter, my answer is always the same, all sources of information must be subjected to appropriate scrutiny.

People usually, perhaps nearly always, want to know the credibility of a source before they will pay any attention.  They don't want to spend four hours reading a book, only to find something half way through that will cause them to have to have to erase everything from their memory, then throw it in the trash. "I don't want to hear a single excerpt from the Book of Mormon, for fear that I might mistakenly recall a verse from it as if that verse came from God's Holy Bible".

Intellectual laziness, pure and simple.

I will give any one of my fellow human beings the courtesy of listening to their arguments, and deciding whether to incorporate their viewpoint into what I believe to be truth, based upon the strength of the case they present.  That includes people whose arguments on other topics are not persuasive to me, and people with demonstrated character flaws, including the demonstrated character flaw of having been previously been caught in a lie.

Where it is reasonable to question credibility is when somebody asks us to take their word for something, when they expect us to accept their unsupported personal account of something they supposedly witnessed or experienced, as if it actually happened.

Human beings naturally require a very low standard of proof for that which is not controversial, or conforms with what they already accept as truth...and a very high standard of proof for anything which conflicts. When an eyewitness makes a claim that invalidates someone's preconceived notions, the accusation of anecdotal evidence is a common defense mechanism.  That accusation can be valid, when the witness has used limited experiences with a small number within a group to pass negative judgements on the entire group.  That accusation, however, is not valid when the witness has extensive experience with the group in question, though animosity may still render the witness unreliable.  "They were out to get me, but I got away", may either be a slanderous lie, or a delusion...or maybe they really were out to get him.

Glenn Beck, listen up!  The principle that we must employ is to recognize that different sources have differing degrees of veracity.  We must get away from absolute thinking and classify that which we regard as truth in such terms as, "almost certainly", "probably", "likely", "possibly", etc.  To my fellow Mormons, (including you, GB), it has inappropriately become customary for us to use the phrase, "I know the church is true", to express the idea that our conviction is something much stronger than simply believing it.  I have stopped using that phrase, and in fact if asked by priesthood leadership if I know the church is true, I will (and have) told them I no longer think in those terms.

We must all always remain conscious of the subjective nature of perception, open to reevaluate our position when additional information makes it apparent that the limited information we have been operating on has led us to premature conclusions, and down wrong way paths.

I don't have to trust public institutions to make productive use of them.  Beck's claim that social collapse will result when they are no longer trusted is absurd.  I keep informed of news that helps me gauge their capabilities, their limitations, to know when it is wise to turn to them for help, to attempt to help others through them, and when it is wise to stay away from them.  Also to know when it is wise to offer constructive criticism to try to improve them, or destructive criticism designed to discredit them and tear them down, so they can be replaced with something different and better.

I may be wrong, if you have information I currently am unaware of that shows that people will be hurt if those public institutions I see no use for, and am engaged in activism intent on damaging or destroying them, were to cease to exist, I will give your case a fair listening.

Conspiracy theories usually strike me as complex, speculative possibilities, where viable explanations that are much more simple and direct already exist.  I'm not big on conspiracy theories, though I keep an open mind.  I would find relief to believe that no one died that day at Sandy Hook, though I find the arguments unpersuasive.  My sense of patriotism doesn't close my mind to the possibility that minds similar to those who planned the burning of the German Richestag could rise through the ranks of our government.  Neither does my distaste for increasing authoritarianism in our government (link to previous blog entry) cause me to promote Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, when I lack the academic background needed to render an informed evaluation of their claims.

I have more use for some conspiracy theories, and theorists, than others.  My old VHS tape of Cover up in Oklahoma raises questions for me that are not satisfied by a more recent production aired on one of the cable channels (the exact title, air date,  and which specific channel I don't presently recall).  It impresses me more than what I've seen from 9/11 Truthers.  Alex Jones has called my attention to many news stories across the country, most often dealing with police brutality, I would otherwise have missed, while I've never found anything useful in material produced by Jesse Ventura or Bill Cooper (deceased).

Glen Beck has long declared there is something destructive about Truthers (link to youtube video):

These Truthers are exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation's foundation, tear us apart, and plant the seeds of dissatisfaction in all of us.

As if this were some kind of a bad thing.

If belief in something, even if not true, causes one to watch the bureaucrats more closely, alert others at the slightest indication of a cause for concern, work for a sharp change to the course this country is presently on (nearly any other direction would be better than this one), become a prepper or at least give your food storage more consideration, get a gun and the training to safely, accurately, and appropriately use it, and rely on self, family, church, and the private sector more than on government programs, then I say let's give this nation's foundations a good hard rocking!

Is this country in the midst of a gun crisis, or a mental health crisis?

I doubt anyone would come out and say, "Had the shooter been limited to a gun that took longer to load, and needed more frequent reloading, or better yet just used some other type of murder weapon, things wouldn't have turned out as bad".  Yet what other message are we to infer from currently proposed approaches to the problem?

Mental illness is the driving force in any killing rampage.  A weapon is merely an instrument.

Even if these schemes resulted in less lethal killing sprees (highly doubtful), I don't want less lethal killing sprees, I want the killing sprees to end!

If sacrificing rights is necessary, then let's at least choose rights to jettison that actually are contributing to the problem.

A case in recent years, that dragged on for years, centered in my local area, but receiving news coverage worldwide (I'm not being more specific because I am sick of hearing about it, I'm sure you are sick of hearing about it, and I'm sure you know exactly what I am referring to) was prolonged in the courts over the question of whether the perpetrator could be forcibly medicated.

It would seem that the mentally ill have somehow acquired the "right" to refuse treatment.  An absolute right, no less, if even a man in custody for his wrongful acts is still entitled to it, and can use the fact that he is not being treated to postpone the day when he has to answer for his actions.

The time to treat mental illness is before the anti-social actions begin.  Failure to do so is packing our penal facilities, draining the resources of government and private aid programs, filling our streets with the homeless, and putting children at grave danger.  The objections of the mentally ill person, or his family (if he is a minor), must be weighed against the consequences of allowing them to refuse.

Sandy Hook, job loss, and how Firearmageddon caught me off guard

For a couple of years I knew it was coming, but I had hoped to stick it out at least another year. Working conditions at what had been my nice, comfortable, well paying, low stress job, were continuing to deteriorate in the bad economy. After witnessing wave after wave of "workforce reductions", my name eventually made the list in February 2012.

Fortunately I had stayed friends with the owner of a small company I had worked for earlier.

Previous to February I had been preparation minded, though my priorities were a little skewed. If I had $500 to spend, what would I get? Something fun, perhaps? Some new amateur radio gear? Camping equipment? Shooting accessories? These all might have practical uses in a disaster. Then there are the more mundane items, bulk food, alternative power sources, water barrels, silver bullion for barter. Not much fun can be had out in the desert with any of these. But ask yourself, if the ground suddenly shakes violently (the Salt Lake metro area is overdue), if the events of Black Tuesday, 29 October 1929, were to repeat themselves, if utilities went down for an extended period, if a run on the stores cleared out the shelves, what items would become the most important?

In the last year, catching up on what I should have been accumulating all along in essential practical preps has become the priority for my (now significantly reduced) income, over fun (but practical) items, such as guns.

Then came the Sandy Hook massacre, and the reaction to it in Washington, DC. Like everyone, this event impacted me emotionally. You wouldn't be a human being if it didn't. These were small children, for God's sake.

The National Rifle Association proposes a policemen on every campus. The last thing we need is to bring TSA-style security theater to the neighborhood elementary school. Nor do we need more "school resource officers" initiating criminal charges for matters that used to be resolved between parents and the principal.

I would like to see the mental health system that Ronald Reagan dismantled put back together.  Just what money did we save?  The system today leaves alone the mentally ill who do not seek treatment on their own, then it punishes irrational destructive acts the same as malicious crimes.  This is true insanity (doing the same thing, yet expecting better results).  Jails do not help them, so they come back over and over again, after they have hurt someone again.

In 48 states, a teacher would be breaking the law by keeping a locked box in a drawer, quickly opened by pressing a combination, to retrieve a pistol.  A madman on a rampage, on course, could care less about the law.  Fortunately for the children of Utah, we are not one of those states.  Few teachers want to be armed, yet one is all it would take to bring a shooting spree to a quick end, just as an armed volunteer security guard did in a Colorado church, a few years ago.

The left proposes a broad sweeping gun ban (link).  Barack Obama waits impatiently for it's arrival on his desk.  Firearmageddon is a term coined my youtube user Nutnfancy (link). If you're not already familiar, click that link and get familiar, excellent stuff, if you care anything at all about disaster preparation and the safe and effective handling of firearms and knives.  As I write this, panic buying is in full swing.

A few months ago, I handed a Springfield M1A I was examining back to the sales rep at the Lehi Cabelas.  $1800?  Not this year.  Today I'd be lucky to find one for $2,500, if not $3k! 

Like any responsible gun owner, I see the one hour safety lecture that came with my first purchase of a pistol, and the four hour safety lecture it took to get a Utah permit to carry concealed, as merely a start to my ongoing proficiency training.  An AR-15 with a holographic site (zero magnification) has served me well for instruction involving close range immediate action drills or a day long walk in the desert.  I'm not about to lug around the weight of a full sized M1A all day, along with a battle load of .308 ammo, and sufficient drinking water to stay hydrated in that climate.  I do, however, see the shortcomings in my abilities to shoot a reasonable group at distances in excess of 100 yards.  I waited a little too long, an event happened, my world changed, let that be a lesson to me.  Any prepper knows 20 years too early beats a day too late.  Hopefully some good tactical classes involving significant distances will be offered this year, and my Russian SKS, with that cheap illuminated 2 - 6 X scope (that I've never gotten around to sighting in), will suffice.  Any prepper knows when you are too late, you make do with what you have.

I expect the Republicans in Congress to cave.  The internet is filled with the shrill voices of Americans, their constituents, demanding "something be done about the guns".  Now doubt their offices are flooded with calls and emails.  Sen. Feinstein has loaded up that bill, asking for the moon.  She will offer to cross a few items off the list, they will compromise, and something will pass, just as compromise got the now expired 1993 Clinton AWB enacted into law.

For now, the job market remains dismal, the housing bubble that was the most significant causing factor of the 2008 stock plunge, and nearly triggered the Second Great Depression, is only the first of several economic "bubbles" just waiting to burst, SHTF is getting closer and closer...but it ain't here yet!  The gun shelves are empty, the ammo rack as well, but there's still plenty of preps I will need freely available.  May my wisdom in prioritizing these purchases be a little better in 2013.

Update: I'm still here, and I have not abandoned this blog

I really need to get back to working on this blog.  A lot has happened since my last entry.

One of the things that has happened was that I have had to change jobs, and as a result I have a lot less free time to spend on the internet.

I actually have composed the body of a post on this years very significant occurrences in Utah politics.  My tune has changed significantly since that last piece on Votaw vs. Ridgway.  The content needs some polishing, and I am not pleased with the tone.

I have been pondering for quite a while a way to broach the subject of effectively versus ineffectively expressing yourself.  I find a rich source of material in a certain youtube clip, where the leader of a small, controversial sect provides a defense that should effectively refute the accusations of his detractors, however the manner in which he provides it only serves to worsen the audiences perception of him and his group.  (Hint: David McKay and the "Jesus Christians").

It has always been my intention to keep this blog low volume.  An outstanding post written a few years ago is effectively buried and forgotten when a blogger is always posting new material.  Keeping this down to between three and six posts per year, only dealing with subjects I consider of the highest importance, is the way I feel I can make the best use of the medium of blogging.  Unfortunately, search engines and other means to connect interested parties to blogs that suit their interests favor blogs with constant activity.

I've fallen short of even that modest goal.  If this entry serves no other purpose, not benefiting anyone other then myself, by breaking my writers cramp and getting get me back into the habit of working on it, then that's at least some good it's doing.

My 9-11 reaction, just after it happened

A plea to our state and federal legislators: Whether the September 11 terrorists have succeeded or not depends on what you do in the aftermath.

17 September 2001

I think all of us in this country have been asked by friends about our feelings regarding the attack our society suffered on September 11, 2001. I write this one week after the tragedy occurred.

In response to these chilling acts of sheer evil, it has been heartwarming to me to see the outpouring of charity and patriotism from so many in our nation. Seeing the entire group of people who had just fled the Pentagon turn back in response to the call to aid their comrades still inside made me proud to be an American. We will never know the exact details of what transpired aboard the fourth aircraft just before it went down, but what we do know tells us that some of the greatest heros in our nation's history perished before or as the plane fell upon a piece of uninhabited land in Pennsylvania.

However I fear there will be another reaction to the carnage. I expect that already our elected officials are hearing from many of their constituents with the cry, "No measures should be considered too extreme in ensuring that nothing like this could ever possibly happen again."

Don't misunderstand me, this horrific incident provides lessons that we must learn from and act upon. Beforehand we didn't consider the personal grooming items of airline passengers to pose a threat. We now know differently. More restrictions on what may be carried onto an airplane, and closer inspection of these items, are necessary and appropriate.

We have also seen other changes at our airports. One of them is that only ticketed passengers are now allowed past security to the terminals. I see no indication that this restriction is temporary. Being as the hijackers all appear to have had their own valid tickets, I fail to see how this particular security measure would have impeded them, and therefore I fail to see why it is needed.

We have been shown some specific weaknesses that we have had. The fact that four planes could be simultaneously commandeered shows that the security inadequacies extend throughout our entire commercial air travel system. We must deal with this, but we must not take this as an indication that our entire pattern of living needs increased security. If we do, then we grant the terrorists their victory, for societal security is only improved at the cost of personal liberty. We must not let them succeed in curbing our freedoms and impacting each of our daily lives.

Some have said that our lives will never be the same. If we take this as the truth, then our enemies have accomplished at least a portion of their evil objectives.

It is not necessary and it is not appropriate to plot out every possible scenario of terrorist attack, and to implement solutions to the countless myriad of theoretical threats.

It cannot be denied that we have a lot more laws today than we did twenty years ago. Many things are now illegal which were not prohibited in the very recent past. Enforcement has been stepped up dramatically, and enforcement techniques are becoming more and more aggressive. Is this just a reasonable response to society being less safe than it was twenty years ago? As a freedom loving American, I am compelled to respond with a loud, Hell no! In the last two decades I have come to fear excesses in my government much more than I fear criminals and terrorists.

We know those, within our country, who have already been misguidedly advocating more restrictions on the people, will use this tragedy to lobby for causes completely unrelated to air piracy. They have been payed much more heed than I am comfortable with in the past, and sadly, I know that this will only renew their vigor to bring about a society that is more secure in general.

Now we wait. It is in the hands of our representatives, at all levels of government. Will they deal with the specifics of this attack, or will they pursue a broader public safety agenda? When we see what new laws will be passed in response to this, then we will know the extent of the damage done by the terrorists to their ultimate target, our freedoms, western culture, and the American way of life.

The point of the "...and I'm a Mormon" ad campaign.

Notes I was reading from:

There are three statements I see repeatedly from people leaving comments on these "...And I'm a Mormon" videos, that I'd like to expound upon:

- What's the point?

- Your career success is your accomplishment, your religion has nothing to do with it.

- Is this a stealth campaign for Mitt Romney?

===

The point of these ads is straightforward, there's no hidden motive, there's a lot of unreasonable prejudice against us, and prejudice is always defeated when you get to know the people you've been prejudiced against, and see that they're just regular folks, not all that different from yourself.

I joined the Mormon Church when I was 19-years-old, and here's a rude little introduction I got to what I was in store for.

Around that time a friend stopped by, someone I was attracted to, who was actively dating guys within our circle of friends, but the two of us never got together. She had a couple of her friends with her. While we were making introductions, she blurts out, "He's a Mormon", and I saw their reaction to me change.

I called her aside and told her, "You bring girls over to meet a guy, then you torpedo any chance I had with them...thanks a lot".

A lot of people seem to have the idea that the way Mormons live, and the way Mormons think, is somehow significantly different.

Growing up, about the only thing I "knew", and I put "knew" in quotations, about Mormons, was that they were a restrictive religion, that has a lot of rules imposed on them.

I decided to Join when someone explained what Mormonism was really all about. Miracles in modern times, and the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ, because by 1830 old Christianity was broken beyond repair and a new start was needed. In my searches I found that all the other churches have is the Bible, and their differing understandings of it, I was excited to find the one church that had something more than that.

I didn't have missionaries hounding me, in fact my first several requests for them to visit me went nowhere.

As a convert, I know the differences between life as a Mormon, and life as a non-Mormon. Is it really that restrictive? Let's see...what do I do without, that I would otherwise have...what do a not go out and do for fun, that I would otherwise do?

We'll start out with the, quote, "restriction", that Mormons are the most famous for. Before I joined I picked up a taste for beer, and there have been some brief times since joining the church when I have gone back to drinking it. I couldn't tell you the difference between a pilsner and a lager, and I don't really care.

Wine, I don't really get the point of. The same goes for any sipping beverage, hot or cold. Give me something I can gulp so I can get the food down. Bars are not comfortable places for me, even if I hadn't found the church I don't see that I'd be spending much time there. Shots or mixed drinks, I have no use for them, whatsoever.

The prevailing view among Mormons is that it is morally wrong to drink, period. My perspective differs, slightly. In my view, there's no basis in the New Testament for the Old Testament concept of becoming "unclean" through sin continuing into the new covenant.

Jesus said (Matt. 15:11,16-20; Mark 7:14-23)... It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles us, it's the words that come out of it.

When I look at all the damage alcohol does in this society, I think that avoiding it altogether is the wisest counsel. Moderation is a concept subject to interpretation, and not getting a taste for alcohol in the first place you're not going to have a problem of use escalating to excess.

Recent wedding reception... the bride was someone I knew, raised in the church...disrespectful of her family members. I can relate to enjoying a beer, but I don't get those who think that not having alcohol at a social gathering somehow diminishes their enjoyment.

The sabbath day, the fourth of the ten commandments, is something that we take seriously. It is against our religion to work, shop, play sports, or go out to a paid meal in a restaurant on our Sabbath. (Since we're not fundamentalists, we don't insist that the Sabbath must be on Saturday). If you invote me to a Barbecue on Sunday, I'll politely decline, so let's have it on Saturday.

Oh, and the so-called "magic underwear". Instead of putting a symbol on a chain around my neck, I have three symbols sewn on my undershirt, and one over my knee. Why anyone would find any kind of prurient curiosity in this, I don't know. When I began wearing them, I was told that they would be a shield and a protection as long as I am worthy. This does not say that they're going to save me from internal injuries in an auto crash, or from having my flesh burned in a fire. I see them much like like a "wwjd" bracelet, a constant reminder of my faith and the need to strive for a higher standard of conduct because of it.

That's it. We do the same jobs (except for being a bartender), play the same sports, enjoy the same hobbies as everybody else. Some difference.

The things that my faith takes away from me are pretty minimal, now let's look at everything it gives me.

Most important is all the divine truth it has brought to my awareness, enabling me to form a deeply personally fulfilling world view that is both magical and reasonable. I'll post a link for my blog entry, "Why I believe, not your typical Mormon testimony". (Link)

It's given me a community. Mormonism is not just you go for a Sunday sermon and a weekday night Bible study, it's a very well put together social and practical support system. Through a coordinated effort, my Utah neighborhood averted flooding in 1983, and this Winter's snowpack poses a very real threat of those conditions reoccurring this year. My wife is recovering from a major surgery. Soon my employer plans to send me out of state for a project. The ladies at church have been eager to offer their help.

This church offers me many ways to help those in need.

Mormonism is what you make of it, and I have made something positive of it.

===

I am a success because of my religion.

At 19, I was a mess, completely unprepared by the California public school system to function as a self-sustaining and productive adult member of society. If you had the determination, they had the advanced classes, otherwise, there were no plans or programs in place to inspire the unmotivated, they just push you through, until they push you out the door. Need I say anything about what happened after graduation, when I enrolled in the local community college?

Some friends at church suggested full-time missionary service as a means to get my head on straight and my life in order. After being a member for just a year and a half, I got my call from the church to serve in England.

When I returned, I re-enrolled, and this time was productive.

===

This has run on long enough, so on the matter of Mitt Romney I'll be brief. The church does not endorse political candidates, and although Romney highly regarded in the Mormon community, there are a lot of us who don't want him, or the other Mormon planning to run, Jon Huntsman, Jr., in the Oval Office. My objections to Romney are detailed in a previous blog entry, (Link), and as the campaign progresses, I'll be adding remarks about Huntsman if I see him making any significant gains.

Mormon Fundamentalist Theology, And Why I Cannot Abide By It

Previously I have explained some of my experiences looking for a home for myself in Mormon Fundamentalism (link), and where I now stand on the general topic of religious fundamentalism (link).

Today I have chosen to go beyond the generalities of what I have previously written, into specifics on the most prominent beliefs unique to Mormon Fundamentalism, and why I can no longer hold to them.

Alternative Succession Theories

In the early 90's I first learned of Lorin Woolley's claims about what is now commonly referred to as "The Eight Hour Meeting". At that time I thought I had discovered something as significant as what had originally attracted me to Mormonism in the first place, The First Vision of Joseph Smith.

The flowchart on the website run by Brian C. Hales, MD, (link) uses the title, "Alleged 1886 ordinations", to refer to The Eight Hour Meeting. The chart demonstrates quite effectively how central the meeting is to the authority claims of the vast majority of those involved in this movement.

Hales is a biased source, a mainstream Mormon with the intent of picking apart Mormon Fundamentalism, in much the same way outside critics attempt to undermine his (and my) church. Tactics which Mormons usually denounce with the valid question, "Is there so little to extol in your own beliefs that you have to resort to attacking ours?"

Dubious methods notwithstanding, I believe his material to be reliable, though a few more groups could have been listed in the chart. I would add United Order Publications/School of the Prophets (Robert Crossfield, pseudonym "Prophet Onias"), Winston Blackmore and those who left the Canadian branch of the FLDS with him, and the various groups John W. Bryant, Davied Israel, and Hava Pratt have started. Mike Rigby (Modern Automated Publishers) the book he promotes, "Sacred Scriptures", and the study groups he has led, might also have been worthy of mention.

Before I relocated to Utah, at a Sunstone Symposium West, I met author Samuel W. Taylor, (link), son of the apostle excommunicated in 1911 over the polygamy issue, and grandson of the LDS Church president who authored the 1886 revelation, and (allegedly) conducted the meeting. I highly recommend Sam Taylor's works, "Family Kingdom", "The Kingdom or Nothing", "Nightfall at Nauvoo", and "Rocky Mountain Empire". He believed that the Eight Hour Meeting actually took place, but mentioned "The Polygamy Story, Fiction and Fact" by J. Max Anderson, when I discussed the matter with him.

Anderson is associated with Brian C. Hales, and much of the content on Hales' website, and in books the two later co-authored, appear to be an extent ion of this earlier work. I obtained a copy of The Polygamy Story and found it made a convincing case against Lorin Woolley's claims. Were it not for this, I very well could have joined the Apostolic United Brethren. I certainly would have given this possibility much more serious consideration once I had moved.

With this house of cards collapsed and removed from the table, only a few theories remain as to the true successor of Joseph Smith, Jr.

The claims of the Lebaron Family, with their hereditary propensity for mental illness, do not impress me. Though I did take some amusement during the years when I worked a few blocks from the intersection where Ben had gone out in the middle of traffic, and did push-ups to prove he was the One Mighty and Strong. Personally, if I thought I was the OM&S, I think I'd try walking on the water in the fountain outside the Church Office Building (kidding, kidding).

Jim Harmston declared a revelation that time to proselytize had ended. With his source of converts cut off, and the high number of defections, the collapse of his church in eminent.

Chris Nemelka? Don't make me laugh.

Outside of Brighamite Mormonism, we have 167 years advantage over those in the succession crisis to see just how the other contenders had performed.

My conclusion: Thomas S. Monson, through Brigham Young, is Brother Joseph's legitimate successor. Not really by the strength of his own position, he has never translated an ancient language by the gift and power of God, declared any previously unrevealed doctrines to the church, or added the verbatim text of any, "Thus saith the Lord", revelations to the Doctrine and Covenants, but rather by the weakness of all other possibilities.

The One Mighty and Strong and The Setting In Order

And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God.
-Doctrine and Covenants 85:7

This person will go through the land, assigning parcels of property...and he will set the entire world right. Huh? Does it make any textual sense to you to have to have these two events, of very different importance, put together into one passage?

One of the more significant faults I see in the reasoning of many Christians (Evangelicals in particular) is their eagerness to take a single excerpt from the Bible, and build an entire theology around it. Fanciful interpretations of the above cited quote outdo any of the Evangelicals imaginative fabrications, such as cars suddenly careening down the freeway unoccupied, by a long stretch.

Book of Isaiah scholar Avraham Gileadi has said nothing in public about his 1993 excommunication from the mainstream LDS Church. He has since been reinstated. That leaves me to speculate that this believing member of the church received such a harsh sanction not because of any deliberate disloyalty on his part, but rather because his writings found an eager audience in the fringes of the faith. In Isaiah, Gileadi finds prophesy of a figure in the latter days destined to a great work. He calls this man The Davidic King aka. Davidic Servant. Believers in the One Mighty and Strong have latched onto this as validation. The problem is that Gileadi believes that the prophesies can and do have multiple meanings, that they foretell several different things happening, at several different points in history. He takes prooftexts pertaining to Christ, and reads into them a second individual, who will prepare the way for the Second Coming. I don't think so.

The only half-way convincing argument I have found that another great prophet is foretold in prophesy is that Joseph Smith did not accomplish the deeds that the "Choice Seer" of II Nephi 3 was supposed to, therefore this must apply to a later prophet, who will bring forth the Sealed Portion. Believe me, I'm one of those Mormons who long to see another Joseph Smith, liberally proclaiming new truths to the elect who will receive them with joy...and I fear that the current leadership want to exclusively advance pragmatists and businessmen, no dreamers or visionaries, within their ranks. Can he come from outside the church? Doctrine and Covenants 42:11, a favorite for Elder Packer to cite at General Conference (link), would argue not.

Does the LDS Church even need to be set in order?

The very reason that Mormon Fundamentalists are considered fundamentalists (link) is that they believe they are holding to old truths, divinely revealed, that everyone else has forsaken. They (like all alternative succession theory proponents in the Restoration) believe that this work started out perfect, under God's continual guidance to keep out any error, but the mainstream somehow lost their way at some point in time.

My study of history leads me to regard this as a faulty premise. Mormonism, from it's very beginning, has been a collection of ideas, some of them reasonable and profound, some not. Mormon leaders have gotten enough wrong that I cannot accept the notion that the church has ever been under constant heavenly direction. They've gotten enough right that I plan to keep my book collection, church membership, and belief in a God that has, from time to time, communicated with us. Line upon line, precept on precept.

Joseph Smith is the Holy Ghost

"The Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has."
-The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 245; Sabbath address, Nauvoo, 27 August 1843. Reported by Franklin D. Richards.

"You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself."
-From The King Follet Discourse

"Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! Would to God I could tell you what I know! But you would call it blasphemy, and there are men upon this stand who would want to take my life"
-cited in Life of Heber C. Kimball, by Orson F. Whitney, pg. 322.

The prevalent view among Mormon Fundamentalists that the time had come for the Holy Ghost to take a physical body, to live out a mortal life as we all must do as an essential step in our eternal progression, and that Joseph Smith was this incarnation, using the above cited (highly cryptic and ambiguous) quotes from Joseph Smith as the basis, is one more example of taking an original source, and building upon it with assumptions.

Continuing Revelation

This is the one thing both mainstream Mormons and Mormon Fundamentalists agree upon, that Joseph Smith's successor, and his, and his, from here on out, would be prophets.

It's a common perception that Mormon Fundamentalists are doing the best job, of all sects in the restoration, of carrying on original Mormonism. Dead wrong! They may be carrying on certain aspects of it, but if you are looking for an organization that lives Mormonism, just like the Mormons in 1844 lived it, (and I have looked!), you will not find it.

The fact of the matter is that all restoration churches have taken the teachings of Joseph Smith and added to them, regarding themselves as being led by a prophet, with the full authority to pick up where he left off. Though it should be noted that Brigham Young made statements that indicate that he did not immediately consider himself as such right after assuming the presidency.

One glaring example is the bizarre hairstyles, clothing, and ideas of the FLDS, like red is prohibited (it's Jesus' color and only he can wear it), or that non-FLDS entering an FLDS house defiles the building (Joseph Smith ran a boarding house). These are very recent introductions of Warren Jeffs. If you look at the pictures of the 1953 raid, you won't find any of it.

Adam-God

To the critic, Adam-God is a simple matter: Brigham Young taught palpable nonsense.

I give him more credit than that. No simple minded fool could have accomplished the things he did.

Adam-God is incomprehensible to me. I do not see how Adam and God could possibly be one and the same, how he could have returned to the garden to confront himself about partaking of the forbidden fruit. For that matter, I don't even believe that Adam and Eve literally existed. Most of what purports to be literal history in the Bible is literal history, though the books of Genesis, Job, and Jonah are most certainly mythology. And yes, I'm well aware of the difficulties this presents in reconciling this view within a religious tradition which puts a greater emphasis on the role of Adam than perhaps any other. That's a blog entry all it's own, or possibly even a series of them.

What I do know is that Adam being our Father and our God, the only God with whom we have to do, made sense to a highly intelligent man, a man more successful and inspired than I. I just lack the insights required to understand exactly why it made sense to him.

Multiple Mortal Probations and Veganism

Unlike the rest of the rest of the topics I am covering in this entry, these two are not universally accepted by all Mormon fundamentalists. They have, however, become popular with some, in recent years.

Joseph Smith's journal, 9 November 1835, (HC vol. II, pgs 304-307), records an encounter with a man calling himself "Joshua the Jewish Minister". Wikipedia lists him as "Robert_Matthews_(con_artist)" (link). Joseph regarded this man with suspicion, and concludes by dismissing him, remarking how he, for once, cast out the devil in bodily shape, and I believe a murderer. In their conversations, Joseph declared that this man's belief in this transmigration of soul or spirit from father to son was a doctrine of the devil.

A Sunstone presentation I attended a few years back, did argue that near the end of his life, Bro. Joseph contemplated the idea, and that this seemed to have led Eliza R. Snow to believe in it.

I have to ask, what would be the purpose? Reincarnation is absolutely inconsistent with my understanding of the plan of salvation. To come back, over and over, until you finally get it right? You will never get it right. The entire object of this mortal sojourn is to trust in Jesus as your Savior, and thereby obtain pardon, because fallen man is incapable of attaining heaven on his own good merits. Additional lives would only compound the problem with additional sins.

The Apostle Paul was concerned that contention over abstinence from meat would divide the church (Romans 14:1-3), though he did identify this as something those who have fallen away, in the latter times, would embrace (I Timothy 4:1-4). Peter was ordered by the Lord, in the Book of Acts, chapters 10 and 11, not to refuse the flesh of even those animals the old law forbade.

In proclaiming the unique sanctity of human life, The Christian Faith promotes the interests of humanity. No where in scripture does it say that any life, other than human life, is precious unto God.

Some contend that sensitivity for animal live fosters sensitivity for all life. When I look at the values system that today's vegans operate under, I see animals and the environment taking priority over the well being and standard of living of humans. When they do express care about people, it's in misguided ways. They are eager to buy into alarmist theories about human activity diminishing the habitability of the planet, and they place the "choice" of a mother over the life of the baby.

Plural Marriage

Yes, I've finally gotten to it. I have deliberately placed this last because that is where it fell in my priorities when I considered myself a believer in Mormon Fundamentalism, and a part of that movement.

The one thing I never wanted, nor ever felt called of God to do, was to father a large brood, far in excess of what one wife could carry. My stance is now that Joseph Smith's polygamy, which included polyandry anathema to the later official polygamous doctrine of the church, pushed good leaders out and into public opposition, caused the prophet to defensively impugn the reputations of several women who rejected his advances (Nancy Rigdon, Sarah Pratt, and Martha Brotherton), set in motion events that led to the martyrdom, and hinders evangelism to this day, never produced any offspring, or in any other way accomplished anything positive.

I forgive Brother Joseph. I cannot cast a stone, because in his position, I would be sorely tempted. Testosterone is the most destructive mind altering substance known to man, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think better of the motives of those who have developed the doctrine and carried it on. I know them and can attest that they are devoutly religious and sincerely believe that this was established by divine revelation. If multiple sex partners is your real objective, there are much easier means.

It has been claimed that simple logistics compel the expulsion of young men, and intense competition for females just entering the age where they are able to bear children, in a polygamous society. If a group only accepts as members those born into the group, this has some merit. Those groups open to converts are another matter. Attend any church, especially a congregation created specifically for singles above the age of 30, and a fact is apparent, women are much more religiously inclined then men. Humanity's 51/49% female/male split is only reflected with children of the age where they are brought by the parents choice. No advocate of polygamist doctrine has ever said that it is for everyone, they see it as only for a small segment, the most religious of people.

Anti-polygamy activists will not tell you just what percentage claim government welfare or are involved in underaged marriage. I cannot counter them with any empirical statistics, what I do have to offer is my own eyewitness observations that the real numbers would dispel the prevalent notion that these are problems inherent to the system of polygamy.

I understand a second season of the TLC Channel series Sister Wives is due to air soon, and will focus on the criminal investigation prompted by some people who saw the first season, searched to discover the city they lived in, and called the police department. Good. America should be informed, and should be shocked to learn, that these activists are people who don't just want statutes kept on the books as a symbolic statement of the greater society's moral views, but who actually think that an adult having sexual relationships with multiple willing and knowing adults should be an enforceable offense in 2011, so that any and all polygamists can be brought before the courts. This is the tenuous basis of their shrieks, in the comments of youtube videos and newspaper stories, that "Polygamy is a crime".

So Just What Was It That Once Drew Me To This Religious Movement?

Whenever a dissatisfied Mormon looks into becoming a part of Mormon Fundamentalism, the motivation is always the same: we see things in early Mormonism that we desperately want to cling to, but can't find in the mainstream church today.

What I was longing for, though I was cautious about it then, and have completely dismissed it now as an unrealistic desire of youthful idealism, was something many in the generation half-way between mine and my parents dreamed of. Some actually worked for it, though these efforts had generally failed and been abandoned by the time I became old enough to join in.

I've never shared the radical left-wing politics of the 1960's (when do we radical right-wingers get our 1960's?), but I strongly relate to disillusionment with mainstream society, and the desire to build some better alternative. To separate from the establishment and join others working together for our mutual benefit, holding all material possessions in common. To be given a house, in exchange for getting together with all the men to build new houses when they are needed, rather than paying a mortgage for 30 years. To see my labor go to the direct benefit of all in my close-knit (in my preference-religious separatist) community, rather than watch the bulk of my gross pay go to taxes and loan interest.

The early Mormons shared this vision, though the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not offered anything like this for a very long time.

Jobs in in Salt Lake City, working with technology, make for a considerably easier life than trying to farm the rough desert terrain that guys like Talmadge Weis and his Immanuel Foundation and Fraternity of Preparation once settled on. Knowing about the novel legal theories they attempted to operate on, in pro se filings in relation to their property taxes, further contributed to my reasons not to seriously investigate the possibility of joining them.

I was not going to place myself into the position other idealists before me had, giving all my money and possessions to the commune, entitled to get nothing back were I to decide to leave, unless I was absolutely sure that I and mine would be safe, and that their doctrines were sound. A wide variety of people have been burned by a wide variety of communal efforts.

Some company out of Las Vegas, Ranger Enterprises, obtained title to the fraternity's land for $15k in back taxes. The fraternity responded by filing appeals (continuing the same ineffectual legal reasoning). While the appeals were in progress, they planned to keep at least one person on the property, to keep Ranger from taking control, demolishing their buildings, and putting the land to their own use.

This place was truly out in the middle of nowhere. The small town of Milford, Ut., 30 miles away, was the closest sign of civilization. It must have been a terrifying experience when those holding the fort, following Weis' no-gun policy, were attacked by thugs employed by Ranger Enterprises.

Tony Alexander Hamilton was an experienced military veteran, and he disregarded that policy. One night the Sheriff's Department arrived to remove him. When he attempted to speed away in his truck, they opened fire, using the possibility that he might have been going to get weapons as their justification. When Tony had stopped a dog handler released his animal. Tony's well placed shot ended the threat of this vicious beast tearing into his flesh...and created a much worse threat. "G- d- it Tony, you killed my dog, now I'm going to kill you". Bam! Another well place shot ripped into the leg of the angry man intent on murder. Tony had neutralized him without having to take his life. A clear cut case of self-defense, though in this corrupt society, a citizen who shoots a rogue cop cannot expect anything other than the rest of life in prison, under any circumstance. At least he is still alive.

Which brings me today, happy with Joseph Smith and the great heritage I was adopted into when I converted, seeing nothing better in either secular or religious life than the mainstream LDS Church, and proceeding in my spiritual and temporal affairs accordingly.

Response to TheWoodsofJordan - Leaving Mormonism

Jordan is a young man I can somewhat relate to. A religious seeker very much like myself. His explorations have received a considerable amount of attention on Youtube. I think he's made a hasty decision recently, and this is my case as to why he should reconsider.

Part 1



Part 2



Notes I used to make these two videos:

Jordan, I'm Gary.

I'm a Mormon who frankly admits that Joseph Smith taught some things that don't stand up to scrutiny. I don't think that it is necessary to agree with absolutely everything a religious teacher ever had to say in order to find value in his teachings.

First of all, let me say that this all or nothing, the church is true or it is not, either everything is 100% true or it is 100% worthless, is not reasonable. The missionaries and the members may have been of such a mindset, but I'm telling you right now, throw that nonsense away. Mormonism, like every other philosophy, is a collection of ideas. Ideas should be taken one at a time, considered each on it's own individual merits.

I think you're being hasty in throwing throwing away a tremendous source of truth, and the resources that really helped me as a 19-year-old, when I converted. At that time, psychologically, I was a mess, completely unprepared by the California public school system to succeed in college, and function as a self-sufficient, productive adult in society. Through the church and it's unique programs, especially in my case the missionary program, I found helpful people who enabled me with the tools to take the pieces and put together the foundation for a great adult life.

The Bible says that if a prophet proclaims a false prophesy, you should not be afraid of him. Evangelical Fundies may WISH it said that if he issues a false prophesy, he never was a prophet in the first place, and that none of his previous pronouncements have any validity, but that simply is not what it says.

Sometimes the material we have from Joseph was on par with what we would expect from someone of his educational level and frontier surroundings, sometimes downright silly, other times we have things that were extremely profound. And Therein lies the proof. A man who exhibits knowledge and wisdom far beyond what he (and all those he associates with) are normally and naturally capable of is obviously getting this advanced information from an external source.

He taught that death was not the final opportunity to accept Christ, that there will be preaching in the afterlife while we await the day of resurrection, and the opportunity to accept, answering the hopeless dilemma of how a just God could deny heaven to people for not accepting a Savior that they never had the opportunity to learn about. The entirety of Christendom, and not just Evangelicals who think that their faction of Christianity are the only real Christians, but all the sects who accept Jesus of Nazareth as the promised messiah, seems to be in unison in the belief that death is the final opportunity to accept Jesus. Yet this one young frontiersman steps forward and challenges them all, in this unfair standard, that unjustly condemns so many souls, and is not supported anywhere in the Bible.

Then there's the Book of Mormon, intelligent educated people to this day find it's teachings deeply meaningful. In the day, it was dismissed as a stolen manuscript of an incomplete novel written by a deceased preacher. The real manuscript has been discovered, and only superficial similarities, a few still cling to this, trying to put forth a speculation that there was a second Spaulding manuscript, though the critics have mostly moved to another book, View of the Hebrews, but I've read it, again found only superficial similarities, and major differences. It's about a completely different tribe of Israel coming across the ocean for an entirely different set of reasons. A plausible naturalistic explanation to the origin of the Book of Mormon has simply not been given, though many have tried. The fact remains that producing this book was beyond the capabilities of Joseph and his associates, unless they had otherworldly help. It leads people to Christ, and that answers the question of whether negative supernatural forces could have been behind it.

Some people, who don't actually know any Mormons, or at least don't know any very well, may think that Ed Decker's cartoon, that get's so many views here on YT, and the rest of the defamatory material being passed around by those with an agenda against the church, represents what real Mormons believe, and therefore Mormons must, one and all, be psychotic, completely detached from reality, in order to believe such obviously absurd things. But c'mon Jordan, you've actually gotten to know us, you know that the church is full of thoughtful and reasonable people.

It sounds like one of our missionaries has done you a great disservice by discussing his personal speculation about multiple gods in existence. As if we don't have enough problems with our detractors taking the Lorenzo Snow couplet, "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become", drawing their own absurd inferences, and proclaiming that their own absurd inferences are what Mormons believe. Forget this nonsense about space gods having endless celestial sex in order to populate new planets. It's all a load of speculative, unauthoritative crap. Real Mormon doctrine teaches that this earth, after it has been made perfect, will be the location of the Celestial Kingdom.

[pt. 2]

In your explanation of your reasons for renouncing Mormonism, you cite and challenge Joseph Smith's description of the nature of God as being unbiblical, advocating the traditional trinitarian position. The third and final point I will make, supporting the strength and value of Joseph Smith as Christian theologian, who introduced bold new ideas that deserve much more thoughtful consideration than they have received (outside his own church), is for the clarified information about God that he gave us, information that is not in conflict with what we already have from the Bible.

Jesus cannot be his own father, the idea that trinitarians are trying to convey when they proclaim that, "Jesus is God", is false. In Matthew 4, Jesus is tempted by the devil. Tempted into what? Rebellion against himself? Jesus rejected glory for himself, directing all glory to the Father. He constantly emphasized his subordinate role to the Father. How could he be subordinate to himself? In the Great Intercessory Prayer of John 17, Jesus prays that all his disciples, and later in the prayer all the world, may be one, as he and his father are one.

Earlier in the Book of John, Jesus proclaimed, "Before Abraham was, I am". In Exodus 3, The God that Moses interacted with proclaimed, "I am that I am".

So let's look at this God of the Old Testament.

In the poetry of Psalms, God is once described as having wings and feathers. Prominent anti-Mormon author and traveling speaker Walter Martin was fond of using this verse, in isolation, to ridicule us, saying that our God is a chicken. But let's go back from this literary portion of the Old Testament, back to the historical accounts of Book of Exodus, to Moses and his God, in chapter 33. Can you seriously tell me that there is some alternative explanation, other than that this chapter detailing a literal encounter with a God, who is a corporeal being?

This God traveled in front of the Isrealites, and and periodically came to visit their portable tabernacle, covered in a cloud of smoke by day, and in fire by night. We find this description over and over. Does this sound like the formless spirit-god of sectarian Christianity, whose being occupies the entire universe?

Now if you believe that God the Father was the being that Moses and the Israelites interacted with as their God, then there's your proof that the Old testament God has a physical body. But here's where things get a little more complicated.

Ironically, one of the favorite proof texts used by trinitarian advocates of strict monotheism is actually their own undoing.

[Isaiah 43:10-11] A God that was "formed" (created), a time before this God was "formed" (created), the Savior.

Did Moses see the Father? Not according to John 1:18 and 6:46.

To further demonstrate that Jesus was the firstborn of all God's created beings I refer you to Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14.

Now let's look at a few other proof texts used against the Mormons.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth". Now that sounds pretty clear. Since this idea is Biblical, it must be found all over the Bible, supported by the preponderance of scripture, right?

The closest thing is Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent". Why do men lie, and need to repent? Because we are corporeal beings?

Evangelicals have a great propensity for taking a single passage, and building an entire theology around it. Just look at all these tales of unoccupied cars, and other fanciful notions about "the rapture".

Wrapping this up, you express that you have grown weary from organized religion. Fair enough. I myself have gone back and forth as to whether to consider myself a loyal supporter of the LDS Church, or an independent, unaffiliated Christian who finds value in the teachings of Joseph Smith. At the present I find that there is benefit in active membership. The crucial thing is accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the foretold messiah, your personal savior. Anyone who thinks Mormons teach that we can work our way to heaven on our own merits is mistaken. We believe that we have all come short, that obtaining a pardon for our sins through the attoning sacrifice of Christ as our only hope. The difference between us and other Christians in the fine details of what puts grace into effect.

Many Mormons don't understand why it is claimed that that we are not Christians. They'll say "We teach Christ, of course we are Christians". Since they are not aware of the notion we supposedly have a "different Jesus", they can't offer a persuasive argument against it. The idea that Mormons have a different Jesus is ridiculous. If I were to look at you and declare, "Behold Jordan, a formless spirit and not a corporeal being", would you look behind you? All that is proven by all the irreconcilable differences is that once side, or the other, has some very mistaken notions about Jesus, it does not prove that one (or the other) is trusting in some different, fictional, imaginary Jesus hat has no power to save, because he doesn't exist. That is why we Mormons challenge the teachings and authority of other churches, but we do not question the Christianity of the people in those churches.

Eternal salvation is dependent on trusting in Christ. Accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet is not as absolutely crucial, but I think that those who reject him are throwing away a lot of blessings that have enlightened my mind and have enriched my life and my relationship with God. If Joseph Smith was indeed acting on behalf of Jesus Christ, then there is some danger that rejecting his works are a rejection of the works of Christ, constituting a rejection of Christ, at least in part.

If you can't bring yourself to believe that Joseph Smith was a proven true prophet, then why not at least keep an open mind? You expressed an intention to seek formal cancellation of your baptism and church membership. I have to ask what would this accomplish? I was christened in a Presbyterian Church as a small child, and I have no problem with that. At the very least, I figure I've got both bases covered. Keep in mind that LDS leaders consider renunciation an act of wrongdoing, and if you ever do reconsider, they will expect a lot more in penance than simply being told that you want back in.

I find there to be unnecessary authoritarian rhetoric in the church, but as long as I'm free to leave at any time, then I'm not going to get worked up about it. If that's more than you can abide, then you can still study Joseph Smith's teachings, and accept those things that make sense into your own belief system, without accepting everything, calling him a prophet, or without being an active participant in church meetings.