So the Church™ hasn’t really talked about bringing about Zion in my lifetime (or in the life of anyone currently alive) from what I can tell. Oh there's the occasional lip service to some general idea (usually if it helps bolster an argument by a GA to give/pay more to the Church™). But nothing tangible. Nothing concrete. Nothing serious. And I find that very distressing.
It’s clear they are supposed to. The Lord commands us to “seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion” (D&C 6:6, see also D&C 11:6; 12:6; 14:6)
Maybe they forgot. Maybe they don’t even know what that is, or what it might look like, so they ignore it. I could infer sinister motives, but I tend to subscribe to Hanlon's razor (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/ignorance.)
Well, maybe we ought to know what Zion is if we’re going to talk/think about it. Certainly, if we are going to seek to bring it about.
Google says Zion is the hill of Jerusalem on which the city of David was built (or it’s Africa if you are a Rastafarian)
Wikipedia says it’s a place name often used as a synonym for Jerusalem, which commonly referred to a specific mountain where a Jebusite fortress of the same name stood and later became a metonym (a figure of speech which is a substitute for reduction) for Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, the city of Jerusalem and "the World to Come", the Jewish understanding of the hereafter.
In the well hidden Young Women’s unit on building up the church, lds.org says: “Zion refers to the Lord’s people who are of one heart and one mind and dwell together in righteousness. We can establish Zion by building unity and spiritual strength in our homes, wards or branches, and communities.” Well, maybe. But like most things that come out of the correlation committee, you can bet there’s a LOT more to it than just that.
If you actually looked up the scriptures I cited above, you’ll see that 3 of the 4 D&C versus actually say “the cause of Zion” rather than Zion. Is there a difference between the cause of Zion and the Lord’s Zion?
Honestly, I don’t know. If anyone thinks they do, I’d be pleased to hear from you.
At first blush, I’d think that the cause of Zion is the doctrines and/or concepts that when practiced actually bring about the Lord’s Zion. And what would those doctrines and/or concepts be? I think Alma had it pretty well in hand when we’re told of his initial ministry:
20 Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people.
21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.
22 And thus he commanded them to preach. And thus they became the children of God. (Mosiah 18:20-22, emphasis added.)
I’d submit that the cause of Zion is to become the children of God; and that when we do so, we are well on our way to bringing about Zion.
Perhaps there’s more though.
Scripturally, Zion is the Lord’s people. (“And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.”) (Moses 7:18)
It is also the City of Holiness which came to pass in Enoch’s days, after his continued preaching in righteousness unto the people of God (Moses 7:19) The abode of the Lord forever. (Moses 7:21)
And Zion is also the Kingdom of God on earth. The Kingdom the Lord prayed for in “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matt 6:10)
And Zion is also the pure in heart. (D&C 97:21) In their latest attempt to create scripture without revelation, the correlation committee says in True to the Faith, that “Zion is often used in this way [the pure in heart] to refer to the Lord’s people or to the Church and its stakes.” (They then cite D&C 82:14, which says nothing of the kind)
I prefer to believe that the pure in heart is a reference to those with real charity. Those possessed with the pure love of Christ. Those who have the both the same love Christ has for each of us, as well as the love Christ has for our Father.
So it seems that if we preach nothing but repentance and faith in Christ, and look forward to his return by being united with, and loving our neighbors with true charity, we actually can bring about Zion. And maybe we don’t need the Church™ to follow the injunction to seek to bringing about Zion.
Perhaps if we just act Christlike, the others around us who are observant (watchful, not necessarily rule following), would not only notice, but seeing our good works, would emulate that example, thereby allowing their eyes/minds to be opened and in turn their hearts to become pure. I have no illusions that such a course would be quick, nor that there would likely not be that many who’s hearts would actually be turned. But I’m sure there would be some. More importantly, I believe that it could lead to the ultimate creation of a critical mass of such folks, who could then band together to actually bringing about the physical Kingdom of God Zion that we are supposed to be seeking.
So what do I mean by just act Christlike? When Rock Waterman recently blogged about The Refiner's Fire , he spoke of Mosiah 4:17-18 and called it the “easiest and most rewarding of God's commandments.” He then concluded: “Doing my meager part to assist someone in having a bite to eat now and then turns out to be the one thing I can do that actually brings me closer to God.”
I think that keeping this commandment (to do unto the least of these) is the first step in becoming pure in heart and having charity. Not the act of giving to the beggar itself, but the desire behind the act to help your brother/sister in need. Without regard to how the need arose. Without assigning blame, or finding fault. For aren’t we all beggar’s?
Until I hear of a better method of bringing about Zion, this is my plan. Feel free to adopt it yourself. Or not. After all, I'm Dence.
Friday, July 1, 2016
Monday, May 23, 2016
The gospel of Jesus Christ
I mentioned before that I might just post some of the "journal" entries that I have made in my "gospel library" scriptures. Here's the first. (Feel free to comment if you like with your take on it.)
---
I recently heard an LDS missionary say, we hadn't prepared lesson so we just taught the gospel of Jesus Christ, THE THIRD LESSON. We taught him to endure to the end.
What?
Isn't THE call of missionaries to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ? (Not just as "A lesson," but as the whole of their calling)
And isn't enduring to the end, just the last part of that gospel?
I'm sure "the good news" of the atonement is more than just hang in there.
But then, I'm Dence.
---
I recently heard an LDS missionary say, we hadn't prepared lesson so we just taught the gospel of Jesus Christ, THE THIRD LESSON. We taught him to endure to the end.
What?
Isn't THE call of missionaries to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ? (Not just as "A lesson," but as the whole of their calling)
And isn't enduring to the end, just the last part of that gospel?
I'm sure "the good news" of the atonement is more than just hang in there.
But then, I'm Dence.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
So, What Do you Know About The 3 Nephites?
As I watched the series finale of Castle last night (I know, nothing I ought to admit to) what I thought was the end came, where Castle and Becket are both lying on the floor, shot, and bleeding out. I thought everyone was going to die. . . . And then they flash forward 7 years and they both survived and have a bunch of kids.
I mentioned to my wife how it would have been much better if everyone had died, like Shakespeare would do. Of course she gets all in a twist about how horrible that is, and why can't I appreciate a happy ending.
My response was, death is one of the few certainties we have.
To prove my point I asked her to name 2 people who had never died. (I thought she might try to claim Christ as one. Of course, the atonement required that he actually die, in order to be resurrected, and I didn't want to argue about that, so I said 2.)
A few minutes later, she said: "the 3 Nephites."
I was actually impressed.
So I asked her, "So, What Do you Know About The 3 Nephites?"
Turns out, no so much. But me either.
I mean I know the Sunday School answers that they made the same request as John the Beloved, when Christ appeared in the Book of Mormon. It was unknown whether they remained when the Nephites became wicked again, but they ministered to Mormon and Moroni in Mormon 8:11. They were then claimed by some to have appeared from nowhere to assist church members in trouble, only to disappear after rendering their aid. But that's about it. (Certainly no stories of such strangers “bringing the souls of men unto [Christ].”)
So I ran a quick google search and came up with Wm. Wilson's Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry here that calls tales of the 3 Nephites "one of the most striking religious legend cycles in the United States. . . . these stories are not official doctrine and are not published in official literature. They are based on the Book of Mormon account of Christ's granting to three Nephite disciples, during his visit to the New World following his death and resurrection, the same wish he had earlier granted to John the Beloved-to "tarry in the flesh" in order to bring souls to him until his second coming (John 21:22; 3 Ne. 28:4-9). The Book of Mormon account states: "And they [the Three Nephites] are as the angels of God, and…can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good. Therefore, great and marvelous works shall be wrought by them, before the great and coming day [of judgment]" (3 Ne. 28:30-31)"
LDS.org has an entry under "Three Nephite Disciples" that says (among other things) "They were translated so that they would feel no pain and would not die" (3 Ne. 28). Which doesn't seem right as I'd always understood “Translation” to be the Old Testament version of what after the atonement became being part of the “first Resurrection.” Thereafter, I’d always been taught that folks would be “changed in the twinkling of an eye.” (3 Ne. 28:8) Essentially dying and being resurrected simultaneously if there was a need for them to do so.
The events of 3 Nephi 28, are clearly after Christ was resurrected. But since Christ promised the 3 Nephites to "never taste of death" or “never endure the pains of death” and “not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh” (3 Ne. 28:7-9) then they aren’t dying. So then it would appear that they aren’t being “twinkled” (At least not as I understand the concept.) either.
Yet, apart from these 3 men (and John the Beloved/Revelator), I am unaware of ANYONE being translated after the atonement.
(Yeah, I know Parley Pratt claimed people who are translated have a terrestrial body; and people who are resurrected have a celestial body, but I’m fairly certain that this is his opinion only. Besides, classification in and of itself, rarely leads to understanding.)
So are the doctrines of Translation and Resurrection mutually exclusive? Are they pre- and post- atonement sides of the same coin? If so, are the 3 Nephites (and John the Beloved), just the exception?
Or (as is more likely) am I just wrong, and they really are independent things (for different purposes)? And if so, what does God need either class of folks for? (See, D&C 49:8)
Most important though, is if both John the Beloved and/or the 3 Nephites remain on the earth to “bring the souls of men unto [Christ]” then where and how are they doing this? You’d expect that after almost 2,000 years, these guys would have hundreds, if not thousands of stories told about how they brought souls to Christ. Yet, I’ve never heard a 3 Nephites story that didn’t sound like what most folks would call a guardian angel (1-3 unknown guys show up and help out an already “converted” person in a time of need). While this may be nice, and allow for a happy ending, I don’t see how that helping hand brings the recipient to Christ. On the contrary, rather than teaching faith in Christ, and repentance (changing our hearts) through his atonement, such stories teach us to seek for unknown strangers who appear based on our worthiness/tithe payment/temple attendance/scripture reading/Sabbath observance, or other principle that teller of the tale (or the Church™) decides to emphasize as a basis for the stranger’s help. Whether factual or not, I’m not convinced that such stories have any real meaning or benefit.
I do see how they can be harmful though. I mean, if I’m checking all the boxes that the Church™ says I’m supposed to (yeah, they’ve probably invented more boxes than anyone can actually check, and they’ll always come up with a new one if you get close, so you’ll never be able to say that. But if you could . . .) Then why didn’t the 3 Nephites show up to help me in my time of need? And now what am I focusing on? (It’s NOT faith in Christ and Repentance)
And finally, where are the missionaries that are going on “splits” with the 3 Nephites? Where are the new members who gained a testimony due to the encounters with these men? They can’t be THAT bad of missionaries. I mean look at all they experience they should have in 20 centuries.
A reasonable person would look at all of this and say, impossible premise, no evidence of anything happening to confirm they are among us, let alone working to bring souls to Christ, looks like they don’t exist.
Maybe they’re right. But then again, I’m Dence.
I mentioned to my wife how it would have been much better if everyone had died, like Shakespeare would do. Of course she gets all in a twist about how horrible that is, and why can't I appreciate a happy ending.
My response was, death is one of the few certainties we have.
To prove my point I asked her to name 2 people who had never died. (I thought she might try to claim Christ as one. Of course, the atonement required that he actually die, in order to be resurrected, and I didn't want to argue about that, so I said 2.)
A few minutes later, she said: "the 3 Nephites."
I was actually impressed.
So I asked her, "So, What Do you Know About The 3 Nephites?"
Turns out, no so much. But me either.
I mean I know the Sunday School answers that they made the same request as John the Beloved, when Christ appeared in the Book of Mormon. It was unknown whether they remained when the Nephites became wicked again, but they ministered to Mormon and Moroni in Mormon 8:11. They were then claimed by some to have appeared from nowhere to assist church members in trouble, only to disappear after rendering their aid. But that's about it. (Certainly no stories of such strangers “bringing the souls of men unto [Christ].”)
So I ran a quick google search and came up with Wm. Wilson's Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry here that calls tales of the 3 Nephites "one of the most striking religious legend cycles in the United States. . . . these stories are not official doctrine and are not published in official literature. They are based on the Book of Mormon account of Christ's granting to three Nephite disciples, during his visit to the New World following his death and resurrection, the same wish he had earlier granted to John the Beloved-to "tarry in the flesh" in order to bring souls to him until his second coming (John 21:22; 3 Ne. 28:4-9). The Book of Mormon account states: "And they [the Three Nephites] are as the angels of God, and…can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good. Therefore, great and marvelous works shall be wrought by them, before the great and coming day [of judgment]" (3 Ne. 28:30-31)"
LDS.org has an entry under "Three Nephite Disciples" that says (among other things) "They were translated so that they would feel no pain and would not die" (3 Ne. 28). Which doesn't seem right as I'd always understood “Translation” to be the Old Testament version of what after the atonement became being part of the “first Resurrection.” Thereafter, I’d always been taught that folks would be “changed in the twinkling of an eye.” (3 Ne. 28:8) Essentially dying and being resurrected simultaneously if there was a need for them to do so.
The events of 3 Nephi 28, are clearly after Christ was resurrected. But since Christ promised the 3 Nephites to "never taste of death" or “never endure the pains of death” and “not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh” (3 Ne. 28:7-9) then they aren’t dying. So then it would appear that they aren’t being “twinkled” (At least not as I understand the concept.) either.
Yet, apart from these 3 men (and John the Beloved/Revelator), I am unaware of ANYONE being translated after the atonement.
(Yeah, I know Parley Pratt claimed people who are translated have a terrestrial body; and people who are resurrected have a celestial body, but I’m fairly certain that this is his opinion only. Besides, classification in and of itself, rarely leads to understanding.)
So are the doctrines of Translation and Resurrection mutually exclusive? Are they pre- and post- atonement sides of the same coin? If so, are the 3 Nephites (and John the Beloved), just the exception?
Or (as is more likely) am I just wrong, and they really are independent things (for different purposes)? And if so, what does God need either class of folks for? (See, D&C 49:8)
Most important though, is if both John the Beloved and/or the 3 Nephites remain on the earth to “bring the souls of men unto [Christ]” then where and how are they doing this? You’d expect that after almost 2,000 years, these guys would have hundreds, if not thousands of stories told about how they brought souls to Christ. Yet, I’ve never heard a 3 Nephites story that didn’t sound like what most folks would call a guardian angel (1-3 unknown guys show up and help out an already “converted” person in a time of need). While this may be nice, and allow for a happy ending, I don’t see how that helping hand brings the recipient to Christ. On the contrary, rather than teaching faith in Christ, and repentance (changing our hearts) through his atonement, such stories teach us to seek for unknown strangers who appear based on our worthiness/tithe payment/temple attendance/scripture reading/Sabbath observance, or other principle that teller of the tale (or the Church™) decides to emphasize as a basis for the stranger’s help. Whether factual or not, I’m not convinced that such stories have any real meaning or benefit.
I do see how they can be harmful though. I mean, if I’m checking all the boxes that the Church™ says I’m supposed to (yeah, they’ve probably invented more boxes than anyone can actually check, and they’ll always come up with a new one if you get close, so you’ll never be able to say that. But if you could . . .) Then why didn’t the 3 Nephites show up to help me in my time of need? And now what am I focusing on? (It’s NOT faith in Christ and Repentance)
And finally, where are the missionaries that are going on “splits” with the 3 Nephites? Where are the new members who gained a testimony due to the encounters with these men? They can’t be THAT bad of missionaries. I mean look at all they experience they should have in 20 centuries.
A reasonable person would look at all of this and say, impossible premise, no evidence of anything happening to confirm they are among us, let alone working to bring souls to Christ, looks like they don’t exist.
Maybe they’re right. But then again, I’m Dence.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
My Big Mouth Strikes Again!
Well, I must be a glutton for punishment.
Either that, or I just refuse to let the hateful/mindless majority take over the church my family has been a part of for at least 6 generations. (Or maybe once in awhile I’m still willing to let the spirit work through me.)
We had an EQ lesson the Sunday after April General Conference from the Howard Hunter book, Chapter 7: Continuous Revelation through Living Prophets.
Our teacher is a divorced guy about my age, that has a daughter that is currently on a mission. He brings up some story about how she has a friend/former mission companion, that has issues with the churches new policy about the children of LGBT parents. He then try’s to say some crap about this new policy is really not that different from what we’ve always been taught, and most of the class then goes off on an echo-chamber tangent about how good and inspired this new policy is.
I was just about to get up and leave in disgust, but instead, I felt inspired to raise my hand. I said something to the effect of: I can’t believe that you are all giving some corporate handbook, written by some anonymous lawyer at Kirton▪McConkie the same weight as scripture or actual revelation. There’s a huge difference between some handbook policy, and the word of the Lord.
The guy sitting across from me just nodded and smiled, and the rest of the quorum (including the instructor) just sat there stupefied.
TBM EQ Pres, thought he’d save the day and made some silly comment about how all of the brethren are inspired and prophets seers and revelators, and we need to just follow them if we don’t want to have bad things happen to us.
And then I did it again, I just interrupted, and said something like: look, the Q12 or 1st Pres can say what they want, and it MAY be inspired, but it doesn’t have to be. What we do know is that ONLY THE Prophet can receive revelation for the whole church. And unless THE Prophet is actually speaking for the Lord, it’s not binding on the whole church. (I could have added and the church accepts it by what is today the worthless formality of “common consent.”) So if we have a question about a policy (or anything else being taught), we ought to analyze it by looking to see if it is consistent with the scriptures. In this case, I think that answers the question, and shows the policy is wrong. But if that doesn’t do it, then you look to see if it’s consistent with what other Prophets (when they were the president of the Church™), expressly speaking FOR the Lord, have said. If that still doesn’t answer it (and while I didn’t say it, let’s face it there’s VERY little of that), then is it consistent with the principle of charity. And if not, then it’s not likely to be the will or the word of the Lord, and the spirit will tell you that. Then I said something about how the whole purpose of our mortal existence is to make choices, and that we all get to decide what we believe and how we act. Finally I told them that if they abdicated their agency to church leaders, or anyone else, there will come a day when they will be called to account for it.
My nodding smiling friend across the room, just kept nodding and smiling, and everyone else just kind of shut up, and let the instructor finally move on. Literally two minutes later he’s having people take turns reading the lesson book and comes to this:
“Only the President of the Church has the right to receive revelations for the entire Church or to give official interpretations of the scriptures or the doctrines of the Church”
Vindicated by the dicta of the correlation committee.
I’m actually not sure how to feel about that. Especially when they support the conclusion by mis-citing D&C 28:2 and substituting “[the President of the Church]” for “my servant Joseph Smith, Jun.” But the spirit did shut them all up, and maybe a couple of them though about it, at least a little bit. So I guess there’s that.
The next week I was out of town for work.
I’m sure TBM EQ Pres is planning to “report” me to the stake pres again, if he hasn’t already.
While I still have NO respect for the guy, I suppose I do sort of feel bad for him.
But then again, I’m Dence.
Either that, or I just refuse to let the hateful/mindless majority take over the church my family has been a part of for at least 6 generations. (Or maybe once in awhile I’m still willing to let the spirit work through me.)
We had an EQ lesson the Sunday after April General Conference from the Howard Hunter book, Chapter 7: Continuous Revelation through Living Prophets.
Our teacher is a divorced guy about my age, that has a daughter that is currently on a mission. He brings up some story about how she has a friend/former mission companion, that has issues with the churches new policy about the children of LGBT parents. He then try’s to say some crap about this new policy is really not that different from what we’ve always been taught, and most of the class then goes off on an echo-chamber tangent about how good and inspired this new policy is.
I was just about to get up and leave in disgust, but instead, I felt inspired to raise my hand. I said something to the effect of: I can’t believe that you are all giving some corporate handbook, written by some anonymous lawyer at Kirton▪McConkie the same weight as scripture or actual revelation. There’s a huge difference between some handbook policy, and the word of the Lord.
The guy sitting across from me just nodded and smiled, and the rest of the quorum (including the instructor) just sat there stupefied.
TBM EQ Pres, thought he’d save the day and made some silly comment about how all of the brethren are inspired and prophets seers and revelators, and we need to just follow them if we don’t want to have bad things happen to us.
And then I did it again, I just interrupted, and said something like: look, the Q12 or 1st Pres can say what they want, and it MAY be inspired, but it doesn’t have to be. What we do know is that ONLY THE Prophet can receive revelation for the whole church. And unless THE Prophet is actually speaking for the Lord, it’s not binding on the whole church. (I could have added and the church accepts it by what is today the worthless formality of “common consent.”) So if we have a question about a policy (or anything else being taught), we ought to analyze it by looking to see if it is consistent with the scriptures. In this case, I think that answers the question, and shows the policy is wrong. But if that doesn’t do it, then you look to see if it’s consistent with what other Prophets (when they were the president of the Church™), expressly speaking FOR the Lord, have said. If that still doesn’t answer it (and while I didn’t say it, let’s face it there’s VERY little of that), then is it consistent with the principle of charity. And if not, then it’s not likely to be the will or the word of the Lord, and the spirit will tell you that. Then I said something about how the whole purpose of our mortal existence is to make choices, and that we all get to decide what we believe and how we act. Finally I told them that if they abdicated their agency to church leaders, or anyone else, there will come a day when they will be called to account for it.
My nodding smiling friend across the room, just kept nodding and smiling, and everyone else just kind of shut up, and let the instructor finally move on. Literally two minutes later he’s having people take turns reading the lesson book and comes to this:
“Only the President of the Church has the right to receive revelations for the entire Church or to give official interpretations of the scriptures or the doctrines of the Church”
Vindicated by the dicta of the correlation committee.
I’m actually not sure how to feel about that. Especially when they support the conclusion by mis-citing D&C 28:2 and substituting “[the President of the Church]” for “my servant Joseph Smith, Jun.” But the spirit did shut them all up, and maybe a couple of them though about it, at least a little bit. So I guess there’s that.
The next week I was out of town for work.
I’m sure TBM EQ Pres is planning to “report” me to the stake pres again, if he hasn’t already.
While I still have NO respect for the guy, I suppose I do sort of feel bad for him.
But then again, I’m Dence.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
So . . .How Did It Go?
Is what my wife asked me when I got back from my meeting with my stake president on Tuesday 4/5.
I thought it would at least be interesting.
Turned out, not so much.
I basically sat there for about a half hour as my stake president kind of talked around the events I chronicled in my letter to him, and as sincerely as he could said “I/we sure do love you/your family” about 3 dozen times.
He said that (as I expected) my TBM EQ Pres. had “reported” me to him back in December after my EQ lesson.
He said he thought that perhaps I was having marital, financial or job issues, and wanted someone to check to make sure that wasn’t the case. (I call BS on this, as he met with my wife before calling her to the stake RS at the beginning of the year, and never mentioned any such concerns to her) He claimed that “we often find that members are suffering from excessive stress when they disagree with the brethren.” (Well, that or they actually think about what’s being said critically, rather than “trying to find the good” in what’s said, no matter how bad it is.)
Consequently, he says he assigned his counselor to “just check on” me and make sure I was doing OK. But with the holidays, and February Stake Conference, the counselor just never got around to it. So it was after Stake Conference when he followed up with his counselor, when the counselor “remembered” and then made the appointment. Of course, it had been so long since the original assignment was given that the counselor had sort of forgotten the purpose of the meeting.
On reflection, this strikes me as one of the poorest excuses I’ve ever heard. You believe that you are responsible for me, and suspect that I’m having SERIOUS marital, financial or job issues, but wait over 4 months before you actually do anything substantive about it? I know this man is NOT that poor of a “leader.” I don’t want to think he’s lying. But he’s clearly not making a full disclosure.
He then said some stuff about nuance, and how he sees the world, and the gospel, in very nuanced terms. However, he knew TBM EQ pres definitely does not. To him everything is black or white. He then told me that in our old ward, when he was my bishop, and TBM EQ pres was his clerk, that he got madder at him than he’s ever been at anyone. He didn’t say what the issue was, but he did say that he felt he HAD to bring his counselor in to his office with him when he talked to TBM EQ pres (and apparently set him straight).
He also made a point of saying that EQ secretary is a calling by the EQ pres and bishop, rather than the Stake, so if something changes with my calling, it’s not his doing. And that I’ve been on “the short list” ofDry High Councilmen to call. (I warned him not to do it.)
Then out of the blue he says: “well, lets get down to it, do you sustain the prophet and quorum of the 12 as prophets seers and revelators?”
Since we’d JUST been discussing nuance, I told him yes, and that seemed to do it for him. No questions to dig deeper into what that actually means, or how I could make such a claim at the same time publicly state that Neil Andersen was dead wrong. Instead he talked about how he’d never been a fan of Tommy Monson, and wasn’t sure he’d be able to sustain him as aprofit prophet, but when the time came, he was, and now does. He said that he likes “the guys that just tell it like it is” (which I took to mean the “hard liners,” which is pretty much everybody in the Q15 except maybe Robert Hales and Dieter Uchtdorf.) I told him I had the same concern with Tommy Monson (though I’m sure for very different reasons) but that once it happened I’d had a change of heart too.
Then it was another 5 min of well, we sure do love you and your family, and I was on my way home, thinking why didn’t he just reply to my email to say there was nothing to worry about. Instead he dragged it out for almost another full month. For what?
Maybe I’m Dence.
I thought it would at least be interesting.
Turned out, not so much.
I basically sat there for about a half hour as my stake president kind of talked around the events I chronicled in my letter to him, and as sincerely as he could said “I/we sure do love you/your family” about 3 dozen times.
He said that (as I expected) my TBM EQ Pres. had “reported” me to him back in December after my EQ lesson.
He said he thought that perhaps I was having marital, financial or job issues, and wanted someone to check to make sure that wasn’t the case. (I call BS on this, as he met with my wife before calling her to the stake RS at the beginning of the year, and never mentioned any such concerns to her) He claimed that “we often find that members are suffering from excessive stress when they disagree with the brethren.” (Well, that or they actually think about what’s being said critically, rather than “trying to find the good” in what’s said, no matter how bad it is.)
Consequently, he says he assigned his counselor to “just check on” me and make sure I was doing OK. But with the holidays, and February Stake Conference, the counselor just never got around to it. So it was after Stake Conference when he followed up with his counselor, when the counselor “remembered” and then made the appointment. Of course, it had been so long since the original assignment was given that the counselor had sort of forgotten the purpose of the meeting.
On reflection, this strikes me as one of the poorest excuses I’ve ever heard. You believe that you are responsible for me, and suspect that I’m having SERIOUS marital, financial or job issues, but wait over 4 months before you actually do anything substantive about it? I know this man is NOT that poor of a “leader.” I don’t want to think he’s lying. But he’s clearly not making a full disclosure.
He then said some stuff about nuance, and how he sees the world, and the gospel, in very nuanced terms. However, he knew TBM EQ pres definitely does not. To him everything is black or white. He then told me that in our old ward, when he was my bishop, and TBM EQ pres was his clerk, that he got madder at him than he’s ever been at anyone. He didn’t say what the issue was, but he did say that he felt he HAD to bring his counselor in to his office with him when he talked to TBM EQ pres (and apparently set him straight).
He also made a point of saying that EQ secretary is a calling by the EQ pres and bishop, rather than the Stake, so if something changes with my calling, it’s not his doing. And that I’ve been on “the short list” of
Then out of the blue he says: “well, lets get down to it, do you sustain the prophet and quorum of the 12 as prophets seers and revelators?”
Since we’d JUST been discussing nuance, I told him yes, and that seemed to do it for him. No questions to dig deeper into what that actually means, or how I could make such a claim at the same time publicly state that Neil Andersen was dead wrong. Instead he talked about how he’d never been a fan of Tommy Monson, and wasn’t sure he’d be able to sustain him as a
Then it was another 5 min of well, we sure do love you and your family, and I was on my way home, thinking why didn’t he just reply to my email to say there was nothing to worry about. Instead he dragged it out for almost another full month. For what?
Maybe I’m Dence.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Some news is . . . .well . . some news & Scripture apps recommendations
So the stake secretary or clerk that I don’t know called this week, and ask if I could meet with my stake president on Tuesday 4/5. This should be interesting. I will, of course, post the outcome.
On another note, I'd sent a Facebook message to Mr. Alan Rock Waterman, asking him to take a look at my blog, and let me know what he thought. (As I continue to be impressed with most of what he does.) I'm not sure if he actually read anything, or not, but he did message me back that I'd been added to his blog roll. I've noticed that I've actually had some traffic (though still no comments) since then.
I know I've been poor at making regular posts here. (in part for lack of response, and in larger part for lack of my own effort) I can't promise that will change too much.
However, I do make occasional notes as I study the scriptures. I may begin posting these notes as entries in the future.
On that note, for the last year or two I've been using the Android "Gospel Library" app almost exclusively for scripture study. I can mark (both highlight, and underline) in a number of colors (for different ideas), link different verses (personal cross references) and most importantly, make notes/journal entries of things I'm impressed to write as I study.
I've recently had a concern that in the event something should happen to my "membership" (ala Rock Waterman, John Dehlin, etc.) I'd likely lose access to the app, and with it all my notes, and scripture markings. I've been looking for a way to export my "personal work product" off of servers belonging to “The Church™” so I can put them elsewhere, but to date the best I've found is this: https://tech.lds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20810 ; which purportedly gives me the ability to download my "notebook" in .DOCX, .RTF or XML formats. However, with 16K highlights, when I attempt to do it, it just hangs.
So would anyone care to reply with a suggestion for a new/different scripture app (android) that allows me to make (and ideally import from my existing Android "Gospel Library" app) the same kind of notebook/journal entries, and hopefully my scripture markings too?
Perhaps I'm asking too much.
But then again, I'm Dence.
On another note, I'd sent a Facebook message to Mr. Alan Rock Waterman, asking him to take a look at my blog, and let me know what he thought. (As I continue to be impressed with most of what he does.) I'm not sure if he actually read anything, or not, but he did message me back that I'd been added to his blog roll. I've noticed that I've actually had some traffic (though still no comments) since then.
I know I've been poor at making regular posts here. (in part for lack of response, and in larger part for lack of my own effort) I can't promise that will change too much.
However, I do make occasional notes as I study the scriptures. I may begin posting these notes as entries in the future.
On that note, for the last year or two I've been using the Android "Gospel Library" app almost exclusively for scripture study. I can mark (both highlight, and underline) in a number of colors (for different ideas), link different verses (personal cross references) and most importantly, make notes/journal entries of things I'm impressed to write as I study.
I've recently had a concern that in the event something should happen to my "membership" (ala Rock Waterman, John Dehlin, etc.) I'd likely lose access to the app, and with it all my notes, and scripture markings. I've been looking for a way to export my "personal work product" off of servers belonging to “The Church™” so I can put them elsewhere, but to date the best I've found is this: https://tech.lds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20810 ; which purportedly gives me the ability to download my "notebook" in .DOCX, .RTF or XML formats. However, with 16K highlights, when I attempt to do it, it just hangs.
So would anyone care to reply with a suggestion for a new/different scripture app (android) that allows me to make (and ideally import from my existing Android "Gospel Library" app) the same kind of notebook/journal entries, and hopefully my scripture markings too?
Perhaps I'm asking too much.
But then again, I'm Dence.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Well THAT didn't go very well.
So I was "assigned" to teach the lesson in EQ on December 6, 2015. (You know, because my TBM EQ Pres. thinks that Secretary is part of the presidency if it means he only has to teach 2-3 1st Sunday lessons per year instead of 3-4 if the presidency is only him and his 2 counselors)
Wait . . . It's almost Easter, and you're talking about last December?
Yup.
Because apparently the way I taught this lesson is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Actually, I was never really given the formal assignment to teach. I was sent an email from the 1st Counselor with the October 2015 General Conference talks that the EQ Pres had decided were going to be the 1st Sunday topics through March 2016, and asked to put them on the lds.org calendar/lesson schedule. I just happened to notice that my name was by the December topic.
I'd been out of town hunting during October Conference, and apart from the "any opposed" stuff that went on there, was perfectly happy not to have had to sit through another semi-annual SnoozAPoloza, so I hadn't yet heard or read the talk I was apparently assigned. It was Neil L. Andersen: "Faith Is Not by Chance, but by Choice."
So I start to read it, and all I keep thinking is: they called THIS guy to be an apostle?
I know I’ve heard this “Not by Chance, but by Choice” BS before, so I google it, and lo and behold, every self-help guru since the at least the 80's has claimed that some concept or laudable characteristic is yours “Not by Chance, but by Choice.” And then I search the scriptures . . .and you guessed it . . . .bupkis. In fact, from what I gather from the scriptures, faith is a Gift of the Spirit, not something you just have to choose. (Well at least “faith in Christ” is, which is the only faith that really matters.)
I find it interesting that citation to the scriptures is almost wholly absent from Neil Anderson’s remarks, and the few scriptures he cites to just talk about faith in abstract terms. I am also astounded that for a talk on faith (in Christ?) He only puts the words “faith in Christ” together in 2 paragraphs in the entirety of his remarks.
Then he starts with the OPS’s (other people’s stories). Apparently Neil Anderson has no personal stories to tell about choosing to have faith (in Christ?), so he tells other peoples stories. I note that these stories are footnoted as having been authenticated by someone in the COB; cause heaven forbid we have another Paul Dunn on our hands. He tells the first story, about a Brazilian kid who is orphaned and must provide for his many younger siblings. He works in a bank, and does not have enough money to go on a mission and provide for his family but decides to go anyway, and then once he’s on his mission he gets an unexpected check that helps support the family in his absence. Elder Anderson’s conclusion that this man’s “faith did not come by chance, but by choice” is a non sequitur conclusion, that appears to just be tacked on to the end of the story.
Then he goes for the Jr. Apostle brownie points by trying to “help out the brethren” by raising the issues of the then recently released lds.org “essays” on the “Seer stone” and “Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives” that were in the news at the time, but without actually referring to them. With the absurd solution of “For now, give Brother Joseph a break!”
Finally he concludes with his second OPS. This one about a family who all die in a plane crash, except the 2 sons that are studying abroad and on a mission. The one on the mission decides NOT to return for the funeral for his parents and younger siblings. This because of the missionary son’s faith that he would see his family again, and his belief that they would want him to finish his mission. Elder Anderson doesn’t even attempt a second non sequitur conclusion after this story. He just launches into his own rambling, nonsensical conclusion that “your faith did not begin at birth, and it will not end at death. Faith is a choice.”
Really, my faith did not begin at birth? I thought that veil of forgetfulness thing was why faith was required in mortality. Because we lived with God and knew him (didn’t need faith) before we were born. And after this life, once we are brought to stand before the judgment bar, we’ll know him again (so won’t need faith then either). So it would seem, that faith is actually a gift of God specific to mortality, and not something we eternally need.
Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the FIRST principle of the gospel. The Lectures on Faith (you know, the Doctrine part of the D&C, until “The Church™” decided to take the doctrine out) are a basic primer on Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even Dallin Oaks first conference talk, “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” is far superior to this false doctrine riddled garbage. So when I finished reading the talk my first thought was THIS is everything that is wrong with “The Church™.” (OK, not everything, but a lot.)
So I set about preparing a lesson that was honest, and accurate.
I prayed, I fasted, and I received revelation that I should present the lesson I’d prepared.
When it came time to deliver the message, I knew it would go over like a ton of bricks, and boy did it. Still I felt that I was led by the spirit, and even felt impressed to leave out a couple parts, but for the most part I just exhorted and expounded the scriptures and gave this lesson:
[I'd intended to insert the outline I taught from, but have been unable to locate it. Based on the length of this post, I think I'll just publish without including it.]
Afterward, I had a couple guys come up and thank me for the lesson, and tell me they appreciated it. Just to give me the false impression that all was well I suppose. ;)
The very next week (12/13/15), TBM EQ Pres. calls me in to have a “PPI” during the Sunday School hour. He tells me how he’s been so upset about the lesson all week, and that he thinks I’m having a “faith crisis.” (He says it in a pejorative way that makes me cringe just recalling it.) When I asked him what, if anything I’d said was inaccurate, he had nothing specific to point to. Instead, he wanted to know what I actually have a testimony of. He couldn’t seem to wrap his head around the fact that I can believe the Book of Mormon to be “the word of God” that plainly teaches important things (that the vast majority of those who read it are oblivious to) but feel no compulsion to believe that it literally happened (if it did, I could believe it, but I think the overwhelming evidence is that it is NOT a legitimate historical account.) Or that I can believe that Joseph Smith brought forth the Book of Mormon by the power of God, but likewise feel no compulsion to believe that every hair brained thing that ever came out of his mouth is of the same quality or value, and that he did a lot of what can charitably be seen as “shady” things that I definitely do NOT believe were even inspired of God. Sure, he was probably a prophet when he was acting like one, but it's up to us to figure out exactly when that was. And to just say it was always is foolish. But that I don’t need to have a testimony of Joseph Smith, just of Christ. He then did something that made me lose all respect for him as a person. He tried to “counsel” me by referring to people who he claimed left the church over the Salamander Letter, and then it was later shown to be a fraud.
Wait . . What? Do you mean the Mark Hoffman thing? Was my response.
Uhummm. Yeah, I think so. I don't really know. was his response.
All I could do is shake my head in disgust.
I was in high school in small town central Utah when the whole Salamander Letter/Mark Hoffman thing when down, and it was on the local news every day.
My take on the whole thing is that Gordon Hinkley and Dallin Oaks were duped by these forgeries (despite their purported gifts of discernment) and were buying them up with tithing funds to hide in some Indiana Jones type warehouse under BYU, so they’d never see the light of day and thereby spare the brethren the embarrassment of having to explain yet another inconsistent version of the “first vision.” When the jig was up Mark Hoffman constructed bombs to murder two people in northern Utah to draw focus from him, and then accidentally bombed himself giving law enforcement evidence of his involvement.
Thereafter “The Church™” stonewalled law enforcement’s attempts to investigate the motive (the counterfeit documents). If people left “The Church™” over this incident it was more likely over the actions of Gordon Hinkley and Dallin Oaks, than over the content of the counterfeit documents they purchased from Mark Hoffman. But I saved my breath, and just knew that I’d never respect this man who was too lazy to even look into the accuracy of what he presumably thought was counsel with eternal consequences.
And I thought that was it.
Then in Mid-February I get a call from some stake secretary or clerk that I don’t know, and that doesn’t know me. He asks if I can meet with the 2nd counselor in the Stake Presidency after church on February 21, 2016.
Now this is a full 12 weeks after I’d taught the above lesson, and I’m thinking that well maybe I’m being released. I have been in this calling about 2 ½ years, and I was originally called by the prior EQ pres (who then moved to get out of our abominable ward - OK, maybe that wasn’t THE reason, but it was certainly among the factors he considered.) So maybe I can do something else, and hopefully not have to come to EQ any more.
Now the 2nd counselor in the Stake Presidency has seen me around. He knows my face. He’d JUST seen me a couple weeks before when I came to the Stake Center for my wife to be set-apart as a counselor in the Stake RS. But he doesn’t know anything about me. And he says that to start with, and asks me to tell him about myself. I have no idea what’s going on and tell him some general stuff about my job and education and family, and he literally won’t look at me, but stares over my right shoulder the whole time we are talking. After about a half hour of this idle chit chat, he finally gets to the point.
He says, I heard you taught a lesson in EQ and the stake president is concerned about you.
What have you heard, or what is the concern? I ask.
I don’t really know. No one gave me any details. Is his response.
Wait, the man that was released as my bishop to become my current stake president, is concerned about me, but he sends the one person in his presidency that doesn’t know me to address that concern? And more importantly, he doesn’t even bother to tell him specifically what his concern is? But it involves this lesson I taught 12 weeks ago?
I’m totally taken off guard and tell him I recall the lesson, I recall it was by one of the 3 new apostles, and it was about faith, but I don’t recall the title, or the specifics. As evidence of the impression (or lack thereof) that Elder Anderson’s talk made, he didn’t remember the talk either. I tell him that I thought it was false doctrine, and that I taught from the scriptures and what I felt was true doctrine, and that I also handed out copies of Dallin Oaks’ talk, “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” and told the class to read that instead.
He said he thought maybe my “tone” could have been better, and that I didn’t have to disagree with the apostle, maybe I could have just taken the topic of faith and taught without really referencing the talk. (I’ve since concluded, that while it’s not necessarily my place in general to publicly disagree with a GA’s talk, apart from to teach my immediate family that it is false doctrine, it becomes my place to point out false doctrine when I’m given the assignment to teach it.) He basically said that publicly disagreeing with GA’s is failing to sustain them. I said I disagree, but that I’ll try to be more tactful in the future.
Then I went home and started to think about it.
And the more I thought, the more distasteful I found the whole thing.
So I drafted the following email that I sent to the Stake President, and CCed to my bishop (who to my knowledge knew nothing of this whole affair to this point).
“I write to express my concern over last Sunday's "meeting" with Pres. __. After taking some time to reflect on the situation I believe that you need to personally be aware of my displeasure with how this matter is being handled.
I was called on the prior Tuesday and asked if I could meet with Pres. __ after the block on Sunday. No indication of why we were meeting was given. Nor was it even hinted at that it would take close to an hour (I had 2 children who were waiting for me, thinking it would be 10-15 min. Had I known, they could have driven a separate vehicle so they wouldn't have to wait.)
As I'm about 2½ years into being EQ secretary for the second EQ presidency (I was originally called to serve with Pres. A) I expected perhaps I was being released.
Instead Pres. __ sat across from me, stared over my right shoulder, and asked me about my life story, under the auspices that he didn't know me. When he finally got to the point after about a half hour, he occasionally would look at me, as he claimed that YOU were concerned about me and/or my testimony because of reports from Pres. TBM. I found the whole affair to be very disheartening. I mean, you actually know me. You were my bishop. I know you are not just entitled to receive inspiration, but that you actually have done so. I also realize that you have a difficult calling, and not a lot of time. But I'd hope . . . no I'd EXPECT, that if YOU were actually concerned about me, that YOU'D talk to me.
I was even more perplexed that Pres. __ claimed that he didn't even know any specifics about why you were concerned. Just that it had to do with a lesson I'd taught in EQ. I last taught EQ the first Sunday in [December]. It was now the 3rd Sunday in February, a full [12] weeks later.
The second Sunday of [December] (The very next week after the lesson) Pres. TBM dragged me off to a vacant primary room during Sunday School, and berated me for the better part of an hour about things he didn't appreciate about the lesson I'd taught the previous week. I think I understand Pres. TBM’s personality, and understood that he was doing what he thought he was supposed to do (though I disagree in large part that it was either necessary or appropriate), so I had no real problem with his action. However I was deeply saddened by his inability to actually listen to me and really hear any issues I'd raised, or to comprehend how I could be aware of the issues (which he apparently is more comfortable denying or just ignoring) and still have a testimony of the same things he does, but from a different basis and perspective.
I was also appalled at his attempt to "counsel" me by invoking the Salamander Letter, when he had no idea of what had even happened factually. I know what happened as I was a teenager living in Utah when it happened, and it was on the local news nightly for over a month. When I ask him if he was talking about Mark Hoffman, he wasn't sure and it was clear he was well out of his depth. I didn't even attempt to explain my view to him that people did NOT leave the church over another, not fully consistent, version of Br. Joseph's 1st vision (there are what, 10-12 already - I literally just saw a half dozen of them on temple square on 2/13/16 when we had traveled to Utah for ___ missionary farewell); but many HAVE left over the fact that the forgery appears to have duped Elder Hinkley and Elder Oaks as Apostles, and that apparently acting in that capacity they sought to hide the potentially troubling documents when they were believed to be real, and then hindered law enforcement's investigation after the documents were discovered to be fraudulent.
To be clear, I don't really have a problem with my view of the facts of what happened. But only because I refuse to believe the dogmatic and scripturally false claim that leaders are always inspired, and are to be followed blindly. If we disagree on this point, then you will need to meet with me personally to learn of the multitude of reasons I hold this belief, and to explain to me why it is incorrect. Otherwise you will necessarily have to determine whether "the tent is big enough" for me and my belief. If not I know full well what to expect. For your sake, and the sake of my family, I trust that it will not come to that.
Despite being disgusted that Pres. TBM is so clearly uninformed as to many facts about the church and it's history, and by his seeming inability to see beyond his own narrow point of view, I left that first "meeting" under the impression that the matter had been discussed, and was resolved. I suppose knowing Pres. TBM, I should have known better.
As to my meeting with Pres. __, I told him I was aware of the lesson. I explained that I'd already talked to Pres. TBM about it for almost an hour. He asked what the lesson was and having not been prepared I couldn't recall the exact title, just that it was one of the newly called Apostles, and that it was Faith by choice or something. Pres. __ said he wasn't familiar with the talk, and didn't remember it. I explained how the concept of "by choice not by chance" was both a well known "self help" concept for at least the last decade or two, and not at all scriptural (as evidenced by Elder Andersen's failure to cite a single scripture to support this assertion, and my citing several that plainly teach that faith is a gift of the spirit). I also explained that it is my belief that the purpose of this life is to exercise our agency (a concept we apparently fought a war in heaven about) and that to abdicate our agency to another, rather than to seek our own revelation from the Lord, is an extremely dangerous position to place ones self in. So when a man, whether just sustained by those in attendance as an Apostle, or anyone else, preaches for doctrine the philosophies of men, and doesn't attempt to even mingle them with scripture, he should be called out, and we ought to discuss it, rather than ignoring it, or worse just blindly accepting it.
Pres. __’s ultimate conclusion seemed to be that it was "disrespectful" of me to publicly disagree with those he views as being in a position of authority over me, regardless of whether the criticism is warranted, or true. He then attempted to equate this perceived being disrespectful by disagreeing with failing to "sustain" such leaders. However we then agreed that former church leaders (even former presidents of the church) are acknowledged to have been wrong about many thing. I stated my position that it is more important to follow the Lord than men, regardless of their position. Then I explained that those of Pres. TBM’s ilk will never see ANY disagreement with "the brethren" to not be "disrespectful." Pres. __ agreed, but just came back to his same conclusion that disagreeing is disrespectful and ought not be done other than in ones own mind.
I found this concept reprehensible when Elder Oaks smirkingly announced it on Frontline years ago, and as my testimony and gospel knowledge have grown since, I only find it to be more so today. I can find no scriptural support for such a claim. More importantly, if we truly understand the plan of salvation, I find it incomprehensible that we could legitimately hold such a belief.
I will tell you, just as I did Pres. TBM, and Pres. __, that I was inspired to give the lesson I gave. I knew it would be uncomfortable for some. But there was nothing in what I said that was not factually true, nor that wasn't scriptural. The spirit told me how it would be received, but to do it anyway. It should also be noted that I was also thanked by more than one elder for the lesson afterward.
Having met both with my EQ pres, and your 2nd counselor, I still do not know the specifics of what (if anything) I've done that warrants this kind of reaction. If I am being accused of teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine, I expect that Bishop X, or another stake leader will clearly explain what I've taught that is in error, and why my understanding of the gospel is in fact wrong. Of course, if anyone has any real concern that this will continue to be a problem, it would seem that the obvious solution is to simply have Pres. TBM stop giving me a quarterly assignment to teach EQ. Such an assignment is clearly not part of what the handbook lists as a secretary's duties.
Yet I am still left wondering what, if anything, is going on. I know how many folks recently have been being excommunicated for allegations of apostasy. Though I do NOT hold the same beliefs (or lack thereof) of most of those cases, they looked alarmingly like this when they began. So am I being labeled as an apostate, and groomed for excommunication? And if not, why does it feel that I am being treated as such?
Perhaps I am blowing this out of proportion, and the matter has actually been put to rest. If so, a simple acknowledgment that you have received my email and I need not worry about it further will be appreciated. However if there is more, I expect that I'll need to meet with someone to find out exactly what the concern is. In that regard I will be unable to do so until at least Thursday 3/3, as [my wife] and I will be traveling with [my daughter] to visit college campuses so that she can decide which offer of admission to accept.
By copy of this email to Bishop X I am advising him of the above, and requesting that he NOT discuss it with ANY other members of the ward, unless expressly directed to do so by you or by the spirit.
Thank you for taking the time to read this tome, and for your anticipated considered response.”
Of course, the next week as I'm traveling around visiting colleges with my daughter I’m listening to a “Mormon Stories” podcast, and the guy John Dehlin is interviewing says something to the effect of: “if you ever get called in by the stake and they just shoot the breeze with you for the first :20, you know you’re in trouble.” I just died laughing.
I never got a reply to my email.
My bishop finally did stop me in the hall between classes on 3/13, to thank me for CCing him on the email, and he asked if I’d heard anything. I said no, and he said, “well, I guess what happens happens,” and walked off.
Then last Sunday (3/20) the Stake President was on the stand during our sacrament meeting. I got a text from a client right after sacrament meeting ended, and used it as an excuse to leave for my office (it’s a few blocks away) to reply so I wouldn’t have to endure our atrocious Sunday School, or sit in the hall and listen to the lunatic fringe of the ward rail to each other about politics while I try to quietly study my scriptures. Just as I was about to head back to pass the roll in EQ, I get a call on my cell phone from the Stake President. He says I must have “snuck out” and that he wanted to talk to me. I told him that I had no idea he intended to talk to me, and that I’m just taking care of a work matter and will be back in about 5 minutes. He says he has Stake stuff he has to do and has to leave, but he’d like to talk to me, so can he have his executive secretary call me to set up a time. I tell him sure.
I have been waiting for the call ever since.
But then again, I'm Dence.
Wait . . . It's almost Easter, and you're talking about last December?
Yup.
Because apparently the way I taught this lesson is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Actually, I was never really given the formal assignment to teach. I was sent an email from the 1st Counselor with the October 2015 General Conference talks that the EQ Pres had decided were going to be the 1st Sunday topics through March 2016, and asked to put them on the lds.org calendar/lesson schedule. I just happened to notice that my name was by the December topic.
I'd been out of town hunting during October Conference, and apart from the "any opposed" stuff that went on there, was perfectly happy not to have had to sit through another semi-annual SnoozAPoloza, so I hadn't yet heard or read the talk I was apparently assigned. It was Neil L. Andersen: "Faith Is Not by Chance, but by Choice."
So I start to read it, and all I keep thinking is: they called THIS guy to be an apostle?
I know I’ve heard this “Not by Chance, but by Choice” BS before, so I google it, and lo and behold, every self-help guru since the at least the 80's has claimed that some concept or laudable characteristic is yours “Not by Chance, but by Choice.” And then I search the scriptures . . .and you guessed it . . . .bupkis. In fact, from what I gather from the scriptures, faith is a Gift of the Spirit, not something you just have to choose. (Well at least “faith in Christ” is, which is the only faith that really matters.)
I find it interesting that citation to the scriptures is almost wholly absent from Neil Anderson’s remarks, and the few scriptures he cites to just talk about faith in abstract terms. I am also astounded that for a talk on faith (in Christ?) He only puts the words “faith in Christ” together in 2 paragraphs in the entirety of his remarks.
Then he starts with the OPS’s (other people’s stories). Apparently Neil Anderson has no personal stories to tell about choosing to have faith (in Christ?), so he tells other peoples stories. I note that these stories are footnoted as having been authenticated by someone in the COB; cause heaven forbid we have another Paul Dunn on our hands. He tells the first story, about a Brazilian kid who is orphaned and must provide for his many younger siblings. He works in a bank, and does not have enough money to go on a mission and provide for his family but decides to go anyway, and then once he’s on his mission he gets an unexpected check that helps support the family in his absence. Elder Anderson’s conclusion that this man’s “faith did not come by chance, but by choice” is a non sequitur conclusion, that appears to just be tacked on to the end of the story.
Then he goes for the Jr. Apostle brownie points by trying to “help out the brethren” by raising the issues of the then recently released lds.org “essays” on the “Seer stone” and “Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives” that were in the news at the time, but without actually referring to them. With the absurd solution of “For now, give Brother Joseph a break!”
Finally he concludes with his second OPS. This one about a family who all die in a plane crash, except the 2 sons that are studying abroad and on a mission. The one on the mission decides NOT to return for the funeral for his parents and younger siblings. This because of the missionary son’s faith that he would see his family again, and his belief that they would want him to finish his mission. Elder Anderson doesn’t even attempt a second non sequitur conclusion after this story. He just launches into his own rambling, nonsensical conclusion that “your faith did not begin at birth, and it will not end at death. Faith is a choice.”
Really, my faith did not begin at birth? I thought that veil of forgetfulness thing was why faith was required in mortality. Because we lived with God and knew him (didn’t need faith) before we were born. And after this life, once we are brought to stand before the judgment bar, we’ll know him again (so won’t need faith then either). So it would seem, that faith is actually a gift of God specific to mortality, and not something we eternally need.
Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the FIRST principle of the gospel. The Lectures on Faith (you know, the Doctrine part of the D&C, until “The Church™” decided to take the doctrine out) are a basic primer on Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even Dallin Oaks first conference talk, “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” is far superior to this false doctrine riddled garbage. So when I finished reading the talk my first thought was THIS is everything that is wrong with “The Church™.” (OK, not everything, but a lot.)
So I set about preparing a lesson that was honest, and accurate.
I prayed, I fasted, and I received revelation that I should present the lesson I’d prepared.
When it came time to deliver the message, I knew it would go over like a ton of bricks, and boy did it. Still I felt that I was led by the spirit, and even felt impressed to leave out a couple parts, but for the most part I just exhorted and expounded the scriptures and gave this lesson:
[I'd intended to insert the outline I taught from, but have been unable to locate it. Based on the length of this post, I think I'll just publish without including it.]
Afterward, I had a couple guys come up and thank me for the lesson, and tell me they appreciated it. Just to give me the false impression that all was well I suppose. ;)
The very next week (12/13/15), TBM EQ Pres. calls me in to have a “PPI” during the Sunday School hour. He tells me how he’s been so upset about the lesson all week, and that he thinks I’m having a “faith crisis.” (He says it in a pejorative way that makes me cringe just recalling it.) When I asked him what, if anything I’d said was inaccurate, he had nothing specific to point to. Instead, he wanted to know what I actually have a testimony of. He couldn’t seem to wrap his head around the fact that I can believe the Book of Mormon to be “the word of God” that plainly teaches important things (that the vast majority of those who read it are oblivious to) but feel no compulsion to believe that it literally happened (if it did, I could believe it, but I think the overwhelming evidence is that it is NOT a legitimate historical account.) Or that I can believe that Joseph Smith brought forth the Book of Mormon by the power of God, but likewise feel no compulsion to believe that every hair brained thing that ever came out of his mouth is of the same quality or value, and that he did a lot of what can charitably be seen as “shady” things that I definitely do NOT believe were even inspired of God. Sure, he was probably a prophet when he was acting like one, but it's up to us to figure out exactly when that was. And to just say it was always is foolish. But that I don’t need to have a testimony of Joseph Smith, just of Christ. He then did something that made me lose all respect for him as a person. He tried to “counsel” me by referring to people who he claimed left the church over the Salamander Letter, and then it was later shown to be a fraud.
Wait . . What? Do you mean the Mark Hoffman thing? Was my response.
Uhummm. Yeah, I think so. I don't really know. was his response.
All I could do is shake my head in disgust.
I was in high school in small town central Utah when the whole Salamander Letter/Mark Hoffman thing when down, and it was on the local news every day.
My take on the whole thing is that Gordon Hinkley and Dallin Oaks were duped by these forgeries (despite their purported gifts of discernment) and were buying them up with tithing funds to hide in some Indiana Jones type warehouse under BYU, so they’d never see the light of day and thereby spare the brethren the embarrassment of having to explain yet another inconsistent version of the “first vision.” When the jig was up Mark Hoffman constructed bombs to murder two people in northern Utah to draw focus from him, and then accidentally bombed himself giving law enforcement evidence of his involvement.
Thereafter “The Church™” stonewalled law enforcement’s attempts to investigate the motive (the counterfeit documents). If people left “The Church™” over this incident it was more likely over the actions of Gordon Hinkley and Dallin Oaks, than over the content of the counterfeit documents they purchased from Mark Hoffman. But I saved my breath, and just knew that I’d never respect this man who was too lazy to even look into the accuracy of what he presumably thought was counsel with eternal consequences.
And I thought that was it.
Then in Mid-February I get a call from some stake secretary or clerk that I don’t know, and that doesn’t know me. He asks if I can meet with the 2nd counselor in the Stake Presidency after church on February 21, 2016.
Now this is a full 12 weeks after I’d taught the above lesson, and I’m thinking that well maybe I’m being released. I have been in this calling about 2 ½ years, and I was originally called by the prior EQ pres (who then moved to get out of our abominable ward - OK, maybe that wasn’t THE reason, but it was certainly among the factors he considered.) So maybe I can do something else, and hopefully not have to come to EQ any more.
Now the 2nd counselor in the Stake Presidency has seen me around. He knows my face. He’d JUST seen me a couple weeks before when I came to the Stake Center for my wife to be set-apart as a counselor in the Stake RS. But he doesn’t know anything about me. And he says that to start with, and asks me to tell him about myself. I have no idea what’s going on and tell him some general stuff about my job and education and family, and he literally won’t look at me, but stares over my right shoulder the whole time we are talking. After about a half hour of this idle chit chat, he finally gets to the point.
He says, I heard you taught a lesson in EQ and the stake president is concerned about you.
What have you heard, or what is the concern? I ask.
I don’t really know. No one gave me any details. Is his response.
Wait, the man that was released as my bishop to become my current stake president, is concerned about me, but he sends the one person in his presidency that doesn’t know me to address that concern? And more importantly, he doesn’t even bother to tell him specifically what his concern is? But it involves this lesson I taught 12 weeks ago?
I’m totally taken off guard and tell him I recall the lesson, I recall it was by one of the 3 new apostles, and it was about faith, but I don’t recall the title, or the specifics. As evidence of the impression (or lack thereof) that Elder Anderson’s talk made, he didn’t remember the talk either. I tell him that I thought it was false doctrine, and that I taught from the scriptures and what I felt was true doctrine, and that I also handed out copies of Dallin Oaks’ talk, “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” and told the class to read that instead.
He said he thought maybe my “tone” could have been better, and that I didn’t have to disagree with the apostle, maybe I could have just taken the topic of faith and taught without really referencing the talk. (I’ve since concluded, that while it’s not necessarily my place in general to publicly disagree with a GA’s talk, apart from to teach my immediate family that it is false doctrine, it becomes my place to point out false doctrine when I’m given the assignment to teach it.) He basically said that publicly disagreeing with GA’s is failing to sustain them. I said I disagree, but that I’ll try to be more tactful in the future.
Then I went home and started to think about it.
And the more I thought, the more distasteful I found the whole thing.
So I drafted the following email that I sent to the Stake President, and CCed to my bishop (who to my knowledge knew nothing of this whole affair to this point).
“I write to express my concern over last Sunday's "meeting" with Pres. __. After taking some time to reflect on the situation I believe that you need to personally be aware of my displeasure with how this matter is being handled.
I was called on the prior Tuesday and asked if I could meet with Pres. __ after the block on Sunday. No indication of why we were meeting was given. Nor was it even hinted at that it would take close to an hour (I had 2 children who were waiting for me, thinking it would be 10-15 min. Had I known, they could have driven a separate vehicle so they wouldn't have to wait.)
As I'm about 2½ years into being EQ secretary for the second EQ presidency (I was originally called to serve with Pres. A) I expected perhaps I was being released.
Instead Pres. __ sat across from me, stared over my right shoulder, and asked me about my life story, under the auspices that he didn't know me. When he finally got to the point after about a half hour, he occasionally would look at me, as he claimed that YOU were concerned about me and/or my testimony because of reports from Pres. TBM. I found the whole affair to be very disheartening. I mean, you actually know me. You were my bishop. I know you are not just entitled to receive inspiration, but that you actually have done so. I also realize that you have a difficult calling, and not a lot of time. But I'd hope . . . no I'd EXPECT, that if YOU were actually concerned about me, that YOU'D talk to me.
I was even more perplexed that Pres. __ claimed that he didn't even know any specifics about why you were concerned. Just that it had to do with a lesson I'd taught in EQ. I last taught EQ the first Sunday in [December]. It was now the 3rd Sunday in February, a full [12] weeks later.
The second Sunday of [December] (The very next week after the lesson) Pres. TBM dragged me off to a vacant primary room during Sunday School, and berated me for the better part of an hour about things he didn't appreciate about the lesson I'd taught the previous week. I think I understand Pres. TBM’s personality, and understood that he was doing what he thought he was supposed to do (though I disagree in large part that it was either necessary or appropriate), so I had no real problem with his action. However I was deeply saddened by his inability to actually listen to me and really hear any issues I'd raised, or to comprehend how I could be aware of the issues (which he apparently is more comfortable denying or just ignoring) and still have a testimony of the same things he does, but from a different basis and perspective.
I was also appalled at his attempt to "counsel" me by invoking the Salamander Letter, when he had no idea of what had even happened factually. I know what happened as I was a teenager living in Utah when it happened, and it was on the local news nightly for over a month. When I ask him if he was talking about Mark Hoffman, he wasn't sure and it was clear he was well out of his depth. I didn't even attempt to explain my view to him that people did NOT leave the church over another, not fully consistent, version of Br. Joseph's 1st vision (there are what, 10-12 already - I literally just saw a half dozen of them on temple square on 2/13/16 when we had traveled to Utah for ___ missionary farewell); but many HAVE left over the fact that the forgery appears to have duped Elder Hinkley and Elder Oaks as Apostles, and that apparently acting in that capacity they sought to hide the potentially troubling documents when they were believed to be real, and then hindered law enforcement's investigation after the documents were discovered to be fraudulent.
To be clear, I don't really have a problem with my view of the facts of what happened. But only because I refuse to believe the dogmatic and scripturally false claim that leaders are always inspired, and are to be followed blindly. If we disagree on this point, then you will need to meet with me personally to learn of the multitude of reasons I hold this belief, and to explain to me why it is incorrect. Otherwise you will necessarily have to determine whether "the tent is big enough" for me and my belief. If not I know full well what to expect. For your sake, and the sake of my family, I trust that it will not come to that.
Despite being disgusted that Pres. TBM is so clearly uninformed as to many facts about the church and it's history, and by his seeming inability to see beyond his own narrow point of view, I left that first "meeting" under the impression that the matter had been discussed, and was resolved. I suppose knowing Pres. TBM, I should have known better.
As to my meeting with Pres. __, I told him I was aware of the lesson. I explained that I'd already talked to Pres. TBM about it for almost an hour. He asked what the lesson was and having not been prepared I couldn't recall the exact title, just that it was one of the newly called Apostles, and that it was Faith by choice or something. Pres. __ said he wasn't familiar with the talk, and didn't remember it. I explained how the concept of "by choice not by chance" was both a well known "self help" concept for at least the last decade or two, and not at all scriptural (as evidenced by Elder Andersen's failure to cite a single scripture to support this assertion, and my citing several that plainly teach that faith is a gift of the spirit). I also explained that it is my belief that the purpose of this life is to exercise our agency (a concept we apparently fought a war in heaven about) and that to abdicate our agency to another, rather than to seek our own revelation from the Lord, is an extremely dangerous position to place ones self in. So when a man, whether just sustained by those in attendance as an Apostle, or anyone else, preaches for doctrine the philosophies of men, and doesn't attempt to even mingle them with scripture, he should be called out, and we ought to discuss it, rather than ignoring it, or worse just blindly accepting it.
Pres. __’s ultimate conclusion seemed to be that it was "disrespectful" of me to publicly disagree with those he views as being in a position of authority over me, regardless of whether the criticism is warranted, or true. He then attempted to equate this perceived being disrespectful by disagreeing with failing to "sustain" such leaders. However we then agreed that former church leaders (even former presidents of the church) are acknowledged to have been wrong about many thing. I stated my position that it is more important to follow the Lord than men, regardless of their position. Then I explained that those of Pres. TBM’s ilk will never see ANY disagreement with "the brethren" to not be "disrespectful." Pres. __ agreed, but just came back to his same conclusion that disagreeing is disrespectful and ought not be done other than in ones own mind.
I found this concept reprehensible when Elder Oaks smirkingly announced it on Frontline years ago, and as my testimony and gospel knowledge have grown since, I only find it to be more so today. I can find no scriptural support for such a claim. More importantly, if we truly understand the plan of salvation, I find it incomprehensible that we could legitimately hold such a belief.
I will tell you, just as I did Pres. TBM, and Pres. __, that I was inspired to give the lesson I gave. I knew it would be uncomfortable for some. But there was nothing in what I said that was not factually true, nor that wasn't scriptural. The spirit told me how it would be received, but to do it anyway. It should also be noted that I was also thanked by more than one elder for the lesson afterward.
Having met both with my EQ pres, and your 2nd counselor, I still do not know the specifics of what (if anything) I've done that warrants this kind of reaction. If I am being accused of teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine, I expect that Bishop X, or another stake leader will clearly explain what I've taught that is in error, and why my understanding of the gospel is in fact wrong. Of course, if anyone has any real concern that this will continue to be a problem, it would seem that the obvious solution is to simply have Pres. TBM stop giving me a quarterly assignment to teach EQ. Such an assignment is clearly not part of what the handbook lists as a secretary's duties.
Yet I am still left wondering what, if anything, is going on. I know how many folks recently have been being excommunicated for allegations of apostasy. Though I do NOT hold the same beliefs (or lack thereof) of most of those cases, they looked alarmingly like this when they began. So am I being labeled as an apostate, and groomed for excommunication? And if not, why does it feel that I am being treated as such?
Perhaps I am blowing this out of proportion, and the matter has actually been put to rest. If so, a simple acknowledgment that you have received my email and I need not worry about it further will be appreciated. However if there is more, I expect that I'll need to meet with someone to find out exactly what the concern is. In that regard I will be unable to do so until at least Thursday 3/3, as [my wife] and I will be traveling with [my daughter] to visit college campuses so that she can decide which offer of admission to accept.
By copy of this email to Bishop X I am advising him of the above, and requesting that he NOT discuss it with ANY other members of the ward, unless expressly directed to do so by you or by the spirit.
Thank you for taking the time to read this tome, and for your anticipated considered response.”
Of course, the next week as I'm traveling around visiting colleges with my daughter I’m listening to a “Mormon Stories” podcast, and the guy John Dehlin is interviewing says something to the effect of: “if you ever get called in by the stake and they just shoot the breeze with you for the first :20, you know you’re in trouble.” I just died laughing.
I never got a reply to my email.
My bishop finally did stop me in the hall between classes on 3/13, to thank me for CCing him on the email, and he asked if I’d heard anything. I said no, and he said, “well, I guess what happens happens,” and walked off.
Then last Sunday (3/20) the Stake President was on the stand during our sacrament meeting. I got a text from a client right after sacrament meeting ended, and used it as an excuse to leave for my office (it’s a few blocks away) to reply so I wouldn’t have to endure our atrocious Sunday School, or sit in the hall and listen to the lunatic fringe of the ward rail to each other about politics while I try to quietly study my scriptures. Just as I was about to head back to pass the roll in EQ, I get a call on my cell phone from the Stake President. He says I must have “snuck out” and that he wanted to talk to me. I told him that I had no idea he intended to talk to me, and that I’m just taking care of a work matter and will be back in about 5 minutes. He says he has Stake stuff he has to do and has to leave, but he’d like to talk to me, so can he have his executive secretary call me to set up a time. I tell him sure.
I have been waiting for the call ever since.
But then again, I'm Dence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)