I was asked about “submission to the church” and “criticism as rebellion.” Here is my response:

The church is formed by a mutual agreement between the members and the leaders. The leaders occupy their positions because they are sustained to the offices they hold. When sustained, they are the office holders. No one has the right to preside or conduct church activities other than the regularly constituted church authorities. It is their right.

But if you love the church and want her best interests, it is a mistake to leave her uncriticized for mistakes and blunders. Those who care for her the most will be the most eager to help. Criticism designed to improve, to overcome mistakes or solve dilemmas the church faces is what a person who cares would always do. Only a fool would mistake comments motivated by concern and care as a sign of rejection or rebellion.

The church is struggling. Only about 10% of the converts remain with the church today. Half of the returned missionaries drift into inactivity within two years of returning home. Temple marriages in the U.S. are ending at a rate nearly comparable to national averages, and the fertility rate of Mormons in the U.S. has dropped to nearly the national average. Tithing contributions have dropped. There is a crisis underway at present. If a member cares, they owe it to the church to offer views for discussion.

I think using professional business consultants to help solve the crisis is what has led to the crisis. They do not, indeed cannot, understand the things of the spirit. It is impossible to treat the Gospel as another commodity and market it like you would soft drinks, cars or office supplies. Businessmen cannot remedy a spiritual illness. The church does not need good marketing. Indeed it grew the most as an overall percentage of growth, when it boldy proclaimed a new doctrine, a new revelation from heaven, and suffered the indignity and criticism of the entire world. While editorial pages were railing against the church, and cartoonists were mocking Joseph Smith, the church went from nothing to tens-of-thousands. That was how the truth should always be spread. Not by aligning with the world and employing its methods, but by proclaiming the truth and rejecting the world.

We’ve been using more and more of the same failed business marketing approach to try and smooth out the message and deliver it more agreeably to the world. That will NOT attract those seeking the truth. We must not blend in, but must stick out. Doing more of this marketing and social-science driven management will lead to less: Less activity. Less retention. Less tithing. Less membership. Less success. It needs to reverse.

Sooner or later someone who is open to that message will decide the failure has continued long enough and will decide to return to what established the church in the first place against all opposition.

There is a presumption that “the Book of Mormon” means the book “Book of Mormon” we have now. That is, the one you can get off the shelf at Deseret Book. That is not the only possible meaning of the words.

Nephi records he made two sets of plates. On one he recorded the “full record” of his people. We do not have that record. On the other he included little history and a summary of his religious teachings and prophecies. (1 Ne. 9: 2) The small plates we have are devoted primarily to his “ministry.” (1 Ne. 9: 4.) When Nephi prepared the first, larger plates, he was unaware he would later receive a commandment to make the second, shorter record devoted to only his ministry. (1 Ne. 19: 1-3.)

The commandment to make the second set of plates was not given until after Lehi died in the promised land, and Nephi and those who followed him separated from his older brothers Laman and Lemuel. (2 Ne. 5: 30.) This would have been several decades after the events in and around Jerusalem.

Mormon did not use Nephi’s “small plates” to abridge in his original book. He used Nephi’s large plates, containing “more history part” of the people. But, after finishing his abridgement, he attached the small plates to his abridged record, noting that the small plates he attached contained “this small account” of the prophets from Jacob down to King Benjamin. (Words of Mormon 1: 3.) Within the small plates Mormon explained there were “many of the words of Nephi” (Id.). For all of Nephi’s words, we would need access to the large plates.

The “Book of Mormon” included: 1) Mormon’s summary of the Nephite records, which was based on the larger plates and not the smaller ones, 2) The small plates of Nephi, 3) Moroni’s translation of part of the Jaredite records, 4) Some correspondence between Mormon and Moroni, along with Moroni’s final warnings, and 5) An extensive, sealed and untranslated record containing information not yet revealed to us (2 Ne. 27: 6-8). We no longer have a portion of part 1, it having been lost through Martin Harris’ neglect. It was not re-translated after the first version was lost. (See D&C 10: 30.) Part 5, or the sealed portion of the record, contains a revelation from God of everything from the beginning to the end (2 Ne. 27: 7.)

When “the Book of Mormon” is said to contain the “fullness of the Gospel” (D&C 42: 12) is that referring to what we have now (parts 2, 3, 4)? Does it or did it also include what was originally included by Mormon, but has been lost to us as a result of Martin Harris (part 1)? Does it include the sealed portion of the record we have never been given (part 5)? Although the traditional discussion presumes what we now have (parts 2, 3, 4) are what is meant by “the Book of Mormon” there are other possible meanings.

I was asked about a quote from Joseph Smith. Thought I’d put it up here, also. It is taken from the journal of Mosiah Hancock, and is Bro. Hancock’s recollection of a statement made by Joseph Smith:

…you will travel west until you come to the valley of the Great Salt Lake. …you will live to see men rise in power in the church who will seek to put down your friends and the friends of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Many will be hoisted because of their money and the worldly learning which they seem to be in possession of; and many who are the true followers of our Lord and Savior will be cast down because of their poverty. (Mosiah Hancock Journal, p.19)

Abraham was in possession of the records going back to Adam. All the records of “the fathers” from the beginning came down to him. (Abr. 1: 31.) This would have gone back to the time of Adam. (Moses 6: 5.) It would also have included the record kept by Enoch which contained a prophecy of all things from the beginning to the end of the world. (D&C 107: 53-57.) These are the records he studied to increase his own desire to be a man of greater understanding and to follow greater righteousness and also to possess the singular form of High Priesthood known to the Patriarchs. (Abr. 1: 2.)

It is a mistake to assume Abraham had less of the Gospel than do we. He had more. We have not yet risen to his level of understanding or priesthood. I reject the idea that Abraham’s “Gospel” and priesthood was inferior to ours. He was a peer of Adam, Enoch and Noah in his priesthood and the understanding given to him.

Further, the Lord personally ministered to Abraham and conferred priesthood, sonship, and an everlasting inheritance upon him. (Abr. 1: 17-19.)

I think it is a mistake to believe we have more, or even as much, as Abraham did. Reading his record (which is his endowment) it becomes apparent there is an understanding of the heavens, including a detailed account of the path back to God’s presence through the stars, which has yet to be restored to us.

To whom does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints belong? To us, or to the Lord?

That seems like an easy question, but it isn’t. Because to answer it requires a great deal of understanding of both history and doctrine. The Lord told the Nephites a church had to bear His name or it wasn’t His. (3 Ne. 27: 8.) At the beginning our church was originally called “The Church of Christ.” By a vote of a conference on May 3, 1834 the name was changed to “The Church of the Latter-day Saints.” (DHC 2: 62-63.) By 1838 the Lord put His name back into the title by revelation, but approved adding our names when the name changed to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115: 4.) So our name is in the title. The Lord told the Nephites that if named after someone, then it is their church. His name is in our title, but so is ours.

If the church belongs to us, then we can do as we like. Our sustaining votes are all that are required to implement any changes we choose to make.

If, on the other hand, the church belongs to the Lord, then we have no right to make any change to it. We conform to what He tells us. We cannot make a change, and must keep what He chooses to give us intact, awaiting His instruction before altering anything.

One of the most remarkable differences between Joseph’s era, or the first phase of Mormonism, is the direction we received from the Lord. The outpouring of revelation established not only three new volumes of scripture, but control was in the Lord’s hand, not Joseph’s nor the church’s. Direction came, and we conformed.

The absence of that Divine control since Joseph’s passing has been covered over by insistence that keys were given from Joseph to successors, and with those keys the right to direct everything remains intact. So much so that we can vote new “prophets, seers and revelators” and their decisions are God’s. God’s will is obtained by proxy, decided by councils, and accepted as if it were His.

If this is our church, proxies work fine. We are supposed to carry things on in the absence of Divine direction. Sentiments and feelings that we are going in the right direction is all we need. When good men acting in good faith make a unanimous decision prayerfully, we should feel good about it. Is that enough? If it is our church, I think it is.

What if the church is the Lord’s, though? I mean what if it is only His, and we have no right to implement any alteration? What if it is our obligation to listen, then conform, and only to obey? Do our good faith, honest desires, prayerful discussions, hopeful changes, and best feelings then matter? Do we get the right to change anything if the Lord alone owns the exclusive right?

If someone is His, what does that mean? What does it mean to be “His people?” Can “His people” act independently of Him? Does independent action constitute rebellion or rejection of Him? After all, didn’t He tell us it wasn’t necessary to command us in all things? (D&C 58: 26.) How far does that commandment extend? Because He also warned us to give heed to everything revealed to Joseph Smith (D&C 21: 4; 50: 35.)

What if a church president spends many long hours in the upper room of the temple praying for an answer, and can’t get one? The Lord won’t even give a “yes” or a “no” despite repeated prayers, for months, even years; what then? Can a decision be made because frustrated church leaders all feel good about going forward? Is “feeling good” about going forward a “revelation” from God?

What does it mean to “take the Lord’s name in vain?” Clearly we sustain leaders, follow them, trust them to do what is right, and all have testimonies this is the Lord’s great work. How much latitude do we possess?

Who then owns the church? Him or us? 

I just got asked for help with the Parables. It was a nice request, so I’m responding here. I’m worried about giving a complete answer. The joy of a parable is the discovery by the reader for herself (himself) of the hidden meanings. I rob you when I take away the discovery from you. Someone asked for some help, and I’m willing to give a few things. You really need to discover for yourself because the exercise is important. It unlocks the scriptures, also. This is the language of the Lord. He gives us parables far more often than we’re willing to consider.

For “A Busy Young Man” ask yourself:

Why “busy?” What does it imply? How are “the cares of this world” and “business” connected? What does it mean to be laden with business here? Don’t we respect this kind of thing? Aren’t we looking to elect someone who understands business to be our next US President, because the current one doesn’t do enough to keep us busy in a profitable way?

Why “young man” rather than an elderly one? What is it about relative youth that makes a person more open to consider something new? Can anyone be a “young man” even if they are a child? Elderly? What was Christ at 12 when visiting the Temple? Was He a child or a “young man” at the time? Do the words convey something apart from age itself?

What does it mean to be “on his way?” What do we mean when we say someone is “on their way” to the top? If a person is “really on their way” is that economic? Political? Is there a worldliness about the phrase? Why?

When someone is “sitting” what is implied? Why would the person sitting be “beside the road” rather than on it? The road is for movement, and getting somewhere. But here is someone beside the road, almost as if they were rejecting it. Why? Does sitting make them at rest? But here is someone both sitting and busy in their own small way. Why?

What does a tree symbolize? Why would the one sitting be under the tree? How do the images of sitting and being under the tree combine to present an identity for the one there? When we think of a person meditating, where would we expect to find them in relation to nature? In relation to a tree?

Why were there three days in the initial transition? Then why years? Then cycles of seven years? Then enlightenment? Why did the identity, once it was discovered, no longer result in any requests, demands or inquiries? Why was there only contentment?

The tediousness of the activity, and the narrow confinement to the hands of the one who left the road to help the man under the tree suggests something deeply personal and within the grasp of any person. Why is that? Why would the activity be so little, so narrow, possible for anyone with hands to accomplish?

Think about the descriptions of the hands of both the Busy Young Man and the Master. Words convey messages about the person, and the hands are where these individual’s souls are on display.

Think of the braiding, and how that conveys an image. How are lives “braided” as they are lived? To whom are you “braided” as you go through your own life? Why? What little things are repeated day-by-day to braid you together with your immediate peers?

Well, this could go on for many pages. But already I’m cheating you. You don’t need me, you have the parables.

I like parables. You can accomplish so much with so few words, and you can put so much on display for someone with the eyes to see it.

I’d say the parables are the best writing form to be used if there could only be a single form. Interestingly, they seem to have attracted little attention, except for a handful of quite exceptional people I’ve encountered. Most people are far more interested in volume and scope, rather than the still, quite intensity possible by meditating on a parable. Too busy. They think they can get further on their way by amassing a great volume of material, rather than pausing to think deeply, sitting beside the way, on short tales containing hidden wisdom. They’re probably right. Most people will get a lot more of life’s business done if they stay on the road they’ve already chosen.

The church has released Marlin K. Jensen as the Church Historian. I knew him when he practiced law in Ogden, many years ago before he became a General Authority. He was an honorable man then, and has provided a long and honorable service to the church as the Church Historian. The policy of releasing General Authorities and making them emeritus is costing us a valuable resource. I hate to see him go.

Brother Steven Snow, an attorney from St. George and current member of the Seven Presidents of the Seventy will replace him. I wish him well in his new assignment. The Church Historian’s job is challenging, to say the least. It would be wonderful if there is a continuation of the Joseph Smith Papers project, a second volume of the Mountain Meadows Massacre work (which was promised when the first came out), and a more open-door policy about our history.

I do not think we have anything to fear by letting more information flow into the public arena from our history. The more the better, in my view. What may be viewed as an embarrassing revelation from one vantage point, may be a hopeful declaration that God’s work can be done despite human weaknesses by another. Some of our grandiose claims will necessarily become more modest, but that will only help, not hurt, people of faith.

Some of the greatest figures in the Bible are flawed, craven people. David’s triumphs and failures are exposed to full view and we are not the worse for it. Quite the opposite, we are the better for it. Solomon’s legendary wisdom sank into a mire of foolishness in old age, and we are blessed to read about it all.

Perhaps if we let our own heroic figures reveal themselves in more a complete and complex light, it would help us de-mythologize the way we treat our living leaders. They might be able to get more done if we let them make mistakes from time to time. When they are forced to defend every action as “truly inspired” we have a much harder time fixing our many problems.

Our history is great, even glorious. It doesn’t need to be fiction to be edifying. Scriptural characters like Sampson, Job and Jonah are as valuable to us as Elijah, Nephi and Christ. Who among us would want to hide Aaron’s golden-calf building? Who would eliminate Lot’s residency in Sodom? When we edit our history to remove the shadows, we lose more than contrast. Sometimes we lose context as well.

I’d like to see the church’s history become the thing of wonder it was meant to be, rather than the sometimes plastic imitation we’ve allowed it to become. It will still be more than enough, even if it is merely the truth.

I got an inquiry asking: “I am interested in any thought you would be willing to share about why we were willing to sacrifice to come to this earth. I don’t think that this earth is the only place in all of creation where one can learn to return to the presence of the Lord, so what is the purpose of the righteous in the preexistence coming here? Why not take an ‘easier’ route and go to a different terrestrial mortal state?”

Because we saw great benefit in coming. In fact, the opportunity was greeted with shouts of joy. (Job 38: 4-7.) Perspective from here is not the same as perspective from above. There is a required opposition in “all things.” (2 Ne. 2: 11.) To ascend you must first descend. The path to the highest state runs through the lowest. (See, e.g., Moses 1: 18-20; see also JS-H 1: 15-17.) You will not see the Father and Son (D&C 76: 20-21) without also seeing the fallen angel cast out for rebellion (D&C 76: 25-26).  Nor will you behold the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 76: 50-58) without also seeing the horror of outer darkness (D&C 76: 44-48).

To comprehend you must become acquainted with both glory and darkness. You cannot receive the one without also the other. Joseph put it this way: ” Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity—thou must commune with God.” (TPJS, p. 137.) You do not get to behold glory without also beholding the darkest abyss. There is a parallel to comprehension, a symmetry to understanding.

You came here to increase your understanding of truth, and to broaden your capacity to appreciate what is good. For that, you wanted and now are receiving, exposure to the brackets which allow your comprehension to expand.

You will eventually leave here. But you will depart with an expanded capacity which could come in no other way.

Read the perils through which Abraham passed, and know this was necessary for him to become the Father of the Righteous. There is no path back to heaven apart from walking through the valley of the shadow of death. Your understanding of eternal life will come from suffering death. Your appreciation of eternal glory will come from having been first composed of the decaying dust of this earth.

You wanted this. You shouted for joy when it was offered.

I’m not very political. Unlike the rabid who believe political salvation is possible for the United States, I believe if the “Elders of Israel” are going to have any effect on the Constitution, it will not be through litigation, legislation or elected office. It will be through preaching the Gospel and converting Americans to the truth. When people agree on fundamental principles, they will elect to office those who reflect those fundamental principles. But you don’t elect someone whose values are alien to a corrupt population and thereby “save” the population. If you want to have a lasting effect on the government, preach the truth and convert people. If you want to occupy your time in a temporary effort, then push a single candidate in an election.

I believe it is good for Mormonism to have two LDS candidates running for the Presidency who disagree with and criticize one another. It is good to have the leader of the US Senate be a Democrat. It is good to have radio personality Glen Beck criticize and disagree with Mitt Romney. One of the fears inspired in others by Mormonism is the apparent monolithic appearance of the faith. These public splits among the Saints shows there is intellectual flexibility on political matters, which gives hope to non-Mormons that an LDS leader can be persuaded by something other than their religious affiliation. I believe that is a good thing.

I also believe the church is subject to the government, and not the government subject to the church. Our scriptures declare: “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man[.]” (D&C 134: 1.)  In the same section, “We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest[.]” (Id. v. 5.) 

Perhaps more importantly, we declare as a matter of scripture that government should not have religious influence mingled with political power, nor to benefit one religion over another: “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (Id. v. 9.)

Also, as an Article of Faith, the church has adopted the following statement: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (12th Article of Faith.) This is so absolute a proposition that the church surrendered what it claimed to be a duty imposed by God once the law of the land required it. “Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.” (OD 1: Paragraph 4.) In other words, the rule of law required submission, even in the face of doctrine declaring otherwise. There is no question the US Government commands the LDS Church’s submission.

I believe the submission to government to be so doctrinally established, that if a Mormon were elected President of the United States, he would “preside” over the church’s President. This is not just a New Testament principle (Titus 3: 1), but also a matter of Latter-day revelation, as well. (D&C 58: 21-22.) This is so compelling a point that, if there were a General Conference at which a sitting LDS US President attended, correct doctrine would require the announcement that the US President was “presiding” at that Conference, rather than the church’s President. The church’s President is “sustained” by the members of the church alone; while the US President is “sustained” by the entire nation to which the church is subject.

I do not believe we are under any obligation to be bored in church. I do not believe there is any virtue in sitting in a class without being either edified or taught. Of all the terrible offenses under the claim it is done in Christ’s name, taking high school students and asking them to color pictures in a Sunday School class or seminary course seems to me to be a solemn offense to them and the Lord. When we have an audience of young people who are curious and eager to learn, we ought to capture their minds and hearts with the wonder and glory of Christ’s Gospel. We owe it to them and to God. It should delight them. I’ve told my kids it is their duty to leave and study their scriptures rather than waste time coloring, or engaging in any other activity that is a waste of their time. And I trust them to know the difference.