24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

The 13th President of the Church, Ezra Taft Benson, was especially interested in this topic and spent most of his 50 plus years as a general authority and president of the Church teaching about these secret combinations. So of course, I have always found the topic fascinating myself, and this is one of the most informative things I have ever read about the workings of secret societies. The article was a scholarly work published in the Encyclopedia of Britannica in the 1971 edition which I had in my home for many years. You too may find this information valuable as well. It is no longer available in current editions of the encyclopedia and has not been for many years.

From Encyclopedia Britannica. 1971 Edition. Volume 20, p. 148

SECRET SOCIETIES, any of a large range of membership organizations or associations having secret initiation or other rituals, oaths, grips (handclasps) or other signs of recognition. Elements of secrecy may vary from a mere password to elaborate rituals with a private language and peculiar ceremonials, costumes and symbols. The term may be applied to such widely divergent groups as U.S. college fraternities, the Ku Klux Klan and international Freemasonry as well as to similar phenomena in primitive cultures. For discussion of the latter see SECRET SOCIETIES, PRIMITIVE.

Among the earliest secret societies of which historical evidence exists were the oriental mystery cults and the religious mysteries of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, which had secret rites, initiations and revelations of still more ancient wisdom (see MYSTERY; see also MITHRAISM; ORPHEUS; OSIRIS; PYTHAGORAS AND PYTHAGOREANISM). Whereas the mysteries employed secrecy to guard religious truths, other groups have been forced to adopt secrecy to escape or survive suppression and persecution, as in the case of the early Christians in pagan Rome and, in their turn, of various heretical groups in the middle ages (see EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH; INQUISITION; MANICHAEISM). Medieval guilds (q.v.)resorted to solemn initiatory oaths and other elements of secrecy primarily for economic self-protection. Throughout history revolutionary, subversive and conspiratorial groups have organized secretly, as in the case of the Sons of Liberty. The repression of liberal, nationalist and republican movements in Europe in the 19th century, for example, produced an underground network of revolutionary secret societies (see EUROPE: History: The 19th Century, 1815-1914; see also CARBONARI; CAMORRA). Other examples may be found in the Fenian Irish Republican Brotherhood (see FENIANS, AMERICAN; IRELAND: History) and the Decembrists or Union of Salvation in Russia (see DEKABRISTS). The very existence of secret societies has prompted antagonisms and fostered accusations of immorality, subversion and heresy. Such accusations were made against the Roman mysteries and early in the 14th century were used to justify the ruthless suppression of the Knights Templar (see TEMPLARS). The early 19th-century Antimasonic movement in the United States offers another interesting example of opposition to secret societies (see ANTIMASONIC PARTY). Many modern secret societies were formed primarily for social and benevolent purposes and to carry out charitable and educational programs: these have been especially numerous in the United States and in the later 19th century attracted large numbers of immigrants who sought companionship and guidance among people who spoke their native language and followed their customs. In many communities such societies in the 20th century have continued to provide the principal means of members’ social and civic activities. (See FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION; FRATERNITY AND SORORITY.)

With all their diversity of type and origin, secret societies have certain characteristics of structure and function in common and some of their ceremonials reveal surprising similarities. Historic and other details of the more important groups are covered in separate articles under their own names.

Structure and Function. Secret societies are made up, ipso facto, of persons presumably oriented toward similar ends, and these ends usually manifest the characteristic differentiating secret societies from all others-that is to say, the ends are secret. Moreover, admission to membership almost always involves the explicit obligation to preserve such secrecy, and penalties for its violation are likewise explicitly stated. The explicitness involved may sometimes apply only to the members of the society, for secrecy may be so complete that even the existence of some societies is not revealed to outsiders; revolutionary, heretical and similarly subversive secret societies are cases in point. More frequent is partial secrecy: the existence of the society is publicly acknowledged or even proclaimed, as by the Ku Klux Klan (q.v.) in the U.S. after the Civil War and again in the 1920s and the 1950s and 1960s; at least some of the ends are made generally known; parts of the society’s ceremonial are performed openly; and public co-operation with other groups having fundamentally differing ends may occasionally be undertaken.

But, obviously, secret societies would lose their reason for existence if secrecy were ever entirely abandoned. Many fraternal organizations, for example, maintained the secrecy of their rituals into the second half of the 20th century although, as in the case of college fraternities and sororities, these survived largely as formalities. In most instances, the core of the binding secrecy is to be found in the society’s ceremonial. The essential part of this is rarely if ever legitimately known to those who are not initiates, particularly where the really significant ends are concerned. In order to ensure full and exact knowledge of these ends on the part of the initiates, the ceremonial’stresses painstak’ ingly accurate repetition and close guardianship. It is often designed to provide a strong emotional appeal, impressing the members with the gravity of the ceremonial occasion and the authenticity of the knowledge thereby revealed. In many secret societies the ceremonial is cast in dramatic form and contains episodes taken from holy books, revered legends, episodes thought to be of crucial historical importance, etc. Oftentimes members play parts enabling portrayal of the origin of the society, and in this portrayal the candidate for initiation usually has a key role. For instance, he may undergo a symbolic journey fraught with obstacles and temptations and at the end thereof receive the “truth” or esoteric. wisdom viewed as the society’s characteristic possession (see Ceremonials, below). In this process physical objects such as keys, pillars, swords, books, globes or staves may be endowed with symbolic meaning, so that their display on later occasions helps to reinstate, psychologically speaking, the awesomeness of the initiatory ceremony.

Many secret societies operate through a system of degrees of progressively higher rank in which secrets are revealed step by step. Initiation is therefore hierarchical; members at the higher levels are more fully aware of the ends pursued by the society than are those at the lower. Consequently, secrets of recognition are graded. That is to say, although there is ordinarily a grip, password, ceremonialized greeting in question and answer form, esoteric phrase, or secret jargon serving many of the purposes of a special language that distinguishes even the lowest initiate from nonmembers, the society has secrets within secrets. Those more fully initiated make every effort, by the use of special names; ordeals or revelations, to set themselves apart, on the one hand, and on the other to stimulate the lower ranks to the effort necessary to reach the exalted degrees.

The sedulous preservation of higher secrets serves several other, purposes. For instance, beginning initiates are thereby impressed with the necessity for silence. Not only is this the case, but the art of remaining silent without giving offense to fellow members at lower levels is imparted by direct example. rhis is especially important when “final truth” and the real ends of the society are known only to those in the more advanced degrees, and even more so when, as in a few societies, the supreme leaders remain unknown to the rank and file membership. An essential technique in all of this is that secrets remain unwritten, so far as possible; they must therefore be transmitted verbally in a sort of master-pupil situation. Frequently the transmission takes place under striking ceremonial conditions, reinforced by oaths of allegiance coupled with detailed specifications of dire punishment for traitors. In many modern secret societies such punishment seldom if ever occurs, but there have been instances of rigidly enforced discipline, especially in societies of subversive type-and some modern secret societies, in their early stages, were regarded as subversive.

The effects of secrecy on personality are many, but among them may be listed the growth of a sense of fusion, of a “mystic tie,” induced by the sharing of secrets under the appropriate ceremonial circumstances. Further, the appropriately initiated person may effectively acquire norms or standards that extend or even substitute for the norms of the larger society of which he is apparently an integral part. Some secret societies, indeed, lay claim to the total personality of the fully,devoted member, but this claim is virtually impossible of fulfillment.

Even though not fulfilled, however, the claim to the total personality means that sharp distinctions may be drawn between members and nonmembers, or in-groups and out-groups; some secret societies, even when their ends are not overtly subversive, may therefore operate in ways such that they tend to split larger societies. This being the case, supporters of various institutions within the larger society may become quite antagonistic to secret societies in general, resulting in accusations of overtly traitorous, heretical, immoral or similarly unworthy ends and their accompanying ceremonials. Political antagonism to secret societies has of course been much in evidence under totalitarian regimes—Nazi, Fascist and Communist—where all groups not controlled by the state are suppressed to the greatest possible extent.

Where secret societies effectively co-ordinate with the larger societies of which they are parts, as is often the case, the coordination is frequently linked with class affiliation. Secret societies recruited from the upper classes are more prone to support the existing social order than radically to challenge it; at most they aim at the “moral regeneration” of the larger society. Secret societies drawn from the ranks of the disaffected, however, are seldom free from subversive intentions and may become drasfically revolutionary, heretical or even criminal, as the Mafia and the Molly Maguires (qq.v.).

An astonishing number of secret societies, when thoroughly investigated, can be shown to have ceremonials testifying to common origins or, at the very least, remote historical connections. At the same time, some secret societies bearing the same name and practicing the same ceremonial, in all essentials, show striking variations from one country to another (see ROSICRUCIANISM). (HD BR.; J. K. RH.)

Ceremonials. The following ccount of the ceremonials of the ancient Chinese Hung or Triad society by Freemason historian J. S. M. Ward indicates some of the similarities in the ceremonials of different groups.

The Hung society of China was founded, or perhaps reorganized, in A.D. 386 by the Buddhist patriarch Eon or Hwui-Yin, to spread the cult of Amitabha Buddha. Contemporary with the ancient mysteries and itself a great mystery rite, it survived over 1,500 years. The Hung rituals as they evolved showed a blending of Taoist-Buddhist ideas having curious analogies with the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and with certain “higher degrees” n western Freemasonry. The ceremony symbolized the journey of the soul through the Underworld and Paradise to the Holy City of the Gods, called the City of Willows, and interwoven with this, was an allegory of the experiences of the mystic in his quest for union with the Supreme Being. As regards its analogies with Masonry, practically every important incident is found in certain higher degrees in England and America, while most of the hand signs are known to many Freemasons.

The ceremony comprised four sections. First the traditional history was given to the candidates in the anteroom before they entered the lodge. It was a moving story, wherein a body of monks who had helped the emperor were requited by him with the foulest treachery, all being murdered save five, who became the founders of the order. There were three villains, and for political purposes one was a Manchu emperor, either Khang Hsi, or, in some versions, his son, but originally the story was allegorical.

After this the candidates were “prepared” in the anteroom. The most notable incidents were (1) ceremonial wasl-iing and changing into white robes to symbolize not only mourning but.that they themselves were dead; (2) the right arm, shoulder and breast, and also the left knee, were made bare; and (3) grass slippers were substituted for ordinary boots. Meanwhile the master opened and consecrated the lodge and invested his officers.

The third section dealt with the actual admission of the candidates, who had to pass through three gates inside the lodge and take the oath of blood brotherhood by mingling their blood with that of all members present in a cup of wine, from which each person present drank. (Women as well as men were eligible.)

The last section consisted of a catechism; the master asked a series of questions, which the conductor answered for the candidates. These revealed that they had been on a long and mysterious journey, first by land and then by boat, till they reached the City of Willows. Throughout the whole of this part of the ceremony great stress was laid on numbers, which had a definite mystical significance. The triangle also played an important part in the ritual, hence the name “Triad” society. The brotherhood had many aliases, the most famous being “The Society of Heaven and Earth.” The significance of the ceremony was revealed by the opening questions:

Master: Whence come you?

Vanguard: From the East.

Master: At what time?

Vanguard: At sunrise, when the East was light.

See FREEMASONRY; see also references under “Secret Societies” in the Index.
See J. S. M. Ward and W. G. Stirling, The Hung Society, 3 vol.
(1925-26). (J. S. M. W.)

[Note about the authors of this Britannica article]
HD BR. is Howard Becker (d. 1960) Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 1937-60.
J. K.

RH. Is John Kenneth Rhoads. Associate Professor of Sociology, Northern Illinois University, De Kalb.
J.S.M.W. is John Sebastien Marlow Ward, D.D. Is the author of An Outline History of Freemasonry; and others.

To the best of my understanding, these are the modern Gadianton Robbers prophesied throughout scripture and especially in the Book of Mormon. The prophesies are for world conditions in the last days and are hence one of the “signs of the times” preceding the Second Coming.

I hope you find this article interesting and useful. As a result of President Benson’s teachings he was thought by the mainstream press and many members of the Church as a “conspiracy theorist” and hence a right-wing crackpot and extremist, part of the lunatic fringe. Responding to these charges, President Benson once said in General Conference, “There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon — it is a conspiracy fact.”

This actually does not always tell me who does and does not believe the scriptures.  There are too many argumentative know-it-alls on the Internet who would take issue with anything that I or anyone else posted online even if they knew it was true.  Others who know and dislike me would take issue with the “opinion” just because I said it.  Were I to say, “Grass is green, and the sky is blue,” they would point out that sometimes grass is brown and the sky is gray.  Were I to say, “Trees are taller than grass,” they would point out that a Japanese bonsai tree is shorter than bamboo, a type of grass.  Some people just cannot stand agreeing with me.  Others cannot stand agreeing with anyone.

Yes, I know that the devil does not make me do this, but I am mischievous online from time to time.

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, (2 Timothy 3:1-3)

What is the meaning of this passage from the New Testament? Is it a reference to homosexual behavior? If so, is it pertinent only to the times in which Paul lived, or is it binding upon us who live today? How do homosexuals interpret this verse and others like it in the Bible? Is the Bible just wrong about this subject?

From the Old Testament on this topic, we read:

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 18:22-23)

Here God is apparently equating homosexuality with bestiality. Does this mean that the sins are of comparable wickedness?

I have heard homosexuals and their fans say that this passage is no longer binding on us today because it is part of the Law of Moses which was done away with the death of the Savior. Others have ridiculed the idea by pointing out the fact that many passages in the Old Testament say adulters and those break the sabbath are to be put to death. Are such laws reasonable today? If not, why should we pay any attention to this passage? Or does the prohibition on homosexual behavior in the New Testament indicate that this law was not done away with the Law of Moses and may still be in effect?

Also in Leviticus is another passage that may indicate how serious the sin of practicing homosexual behavior is:

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

If God is fair and just? Was he not also fair and just in ancient times? If so, does that not mean that punishment must fit the crime? If the fair and just punishment for homosexual behavior is death, just how serious does God consider this sin?

Even in our own day the true prophets of God who are his mouthpieces and spokesmen have taught that a homosexual is a pervert. Here are some passages from general conference and other sources in which President Spencer W. Kimball uses that word for homosexuals:

“. . . Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that ‘God made them that way.’ This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be ‘that way’? . . .

“Sometimes not heavenly but earthly parents get the blame. Granted that certain conditions make it easier for one to become a pervert, the second Article of Faith teaches that a man will be punished for his own sins. He can, if normal, rise above the frustrations of childhood and stand on his own feet. . . .” (Kimball, Spencer W. The Miracle of Forgiveness.)

And also this while President Kimball was the president of the Twelve:

There are said to be millions of perverts who have relinquished their natural affection and bypassed courtship and normal marriage relationships. This practice is spreading like a prairie fire and changing our world. They are without “natural affection” for God, for spouses, and even for children. (General Conference, April 1971)

Many other examples could be given, but this sampling should be enough to give us food for thought. Apparently the Savior does not want us to engage in homosexual practices.

Finally a caveat, in ancient times death was the penalty for adultery or homosexual behavior. An abomination is “that which God hates,” and both heterosexual adultery and homosexual behavior are abominations. The Mormon prophets have condemned in the strongest possible language all sexual sin, not just homosexual sin. What God wants is for us to be chaste. That is, he wants us to live the Law of Chastity. Ultimately there will be terrible penalties for those who do not repent of these things. And there will be great blessings both for those who do repent as well as for those who never indulge in the first place.  God loves us, and we are all sinners.  He only gives us these commandments because in his infinite wisdom he knows that keeping them will lead us to great happiness, and violating them will lead us to great misery and death.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things [fornication] are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost? (Alma 39:5)

This quote from the Book of Mormon makes clear that fornication, adultery and sex sin in general are second only to murder in the eyes of God. I mention this here because I have heard active Latter-day Saints say that this is not so. Some have even ridiculed this teaching which has been reiterated by many presidents of the Church and members of the Twelve.

It is important that we as Latter-day Saints obtain our values from the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than from the secular world around us. Pop culture tells us a different story, but the teachings of the prophets are true and the mind of God. They are his mouthpiece or spokesmen here on earth. If we commit sex sin, we must repent and be forgiven, or we will be damned. Those who claim otherwise are simply wrong.

These doctrinal books were amazingly consistent in their teaching of the doctrines, so much so that along with the promptings of the spirit I felt, I believed them to be true. After all, the truth never contradicts itself even though our faulty perception of the truth occasionally does.

I found especially interesting the concept of “the restitution of all things” initiated in our day by the Prophet Joseph.  It was the beginning of the ongoing restoration of ancient Christianity.  Part of that restitution was to be the restoration of animal sacrifice, something that the Prophet Joseph taught and that President Joseph Fielding Smith taught.

I have since become aware of an apparent inconsistency in the teaching of doctrine surrounding the ancient ordinance of animal sacrifice.  It puzzles me, and I am hoping that someone with a greater knowledge of doctrine and the history of doctrine can help me understand.

Joseph Smith taught:

“Thus we behold the keys of this Priesthood consisted in obtaining the voice of Jehovah that He talked with him [Noah] in a familiar and friendly manner, that He continued to him the keys, the covenants, the power and the glory, with which He blessed Adam at the beginning; and the offering of sacrifice, which also shall be continued at the last time; for all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by the Priesthood, under the directions and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation, therefore all things had under the authority of the Priesthood at any former period, shall be had again, bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of all the Holy Prophets; then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable offering to the Lord….

… it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. We frequently have mention made of the offering of sacrifice by the servants of the Most High in ancient days, prior to the law of Moses; which ordinances will be continued when the Priesthood is restored with all its authority, power and blessings….

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.

It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time? The Priesthood has descended in a regular line from father to son, through their succeeding generations.”—Joseph Smith (Oct. 5, 1840), in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,, 171-73.

I especially remember the phrase “the restitution of all things” when it was explained to me by the missionaries.  It made sense. It caused me to love better the Old Testament because for the first time the Old Testament was integrated into my understanding of the gospel which earlier as a Baptist was poor because the Old Testament was almost entirely ignored along with those parts of the New Testament that were not included in the writings of Paul.

But… I have since learned that there seems to be some inconsistency between this teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith and what has been taught by his successors in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I have further been confused to find a passage in my study of the Book of Mormon that seems to say that animal sacrifice has been completely done away since the death of Jesus Christ in ancient times.

18 I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

19 And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.

20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not. (3 Nephi 9:18-20)

Other modern prophets have confirmed this:

“The law of sacrifice was ended upon the cross and a new era was inaugurated, the era of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ which would give men the opportunity to serve God in the spirit of love.”—Joseph L. Wirthlin, Conference Report, April 1948, 144.

“With the sacrifice of Jesus, ‘the performances and ordinances of the Law of Moses’ were fulfilled (4 Ne. 1:12), and his death ended the practice of sacrifices on an altar. To his disciples in the western continents, Jesus said that he would no longer accept burnt offerings, but that anyone who believes in him should offer a broken heart and a contrite spirit (3 Ne. 9:19-20; cf. D&C 59:8).”—Gloria Jean Thomas, “Sacrifice,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 3:1248.

So which is it?  Does an apostle’s statement or the The Encyclopedia of Mormonism have more authority than the first president of the Church, Joseph Smith, or the apostle who became the tenth president of the church, Joseph Fielding Smith?  Is there some other way to understand the passage in the Book of Mormon?  We know that when considering the teachings of the apostles and prophets we need to make allowance for the possibility that they were not “speaking as a prophet” as is the case when they are giving their personal opinions. We also know that the scriptures are not always correctly interpreted by accepting the first understanding that comes to mind.  Sometimes there are other scriptures that do not verify the questioned passages and even some that seem to contradict.  There is also the possibility of ancient errors in the Book of Mormon.  Those possibilities are referred to by the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon themselves.

I am pretty confused on this issue.  I do not like contradiction because I know that the truth is always consistent with itself.  Whatever was true in the early 19th century is still true today.  If there seems to be an inconsistency, it is only because our perception of truth is faulty or incomplete.

Can anyone reading this clear it up for me?  This is a gospel question.  What is the answer?

When I try to discuss this with him, he just says that religion is not his “hobby,” suggesting that it is mine.   He believes there is a God, but religion is just not something that interests him.  How can a good man, an honorable and honest man be disinterested in the welfare of his own soul? How can he care nothing about what comes next after this life or in what he might  do today to improve his situation there?  The Savior asked us in the Sermon on the Mount to “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth… But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.”

My brother has been far more diligent than I in carefully managing his earthly  treasure.  He is a cautious, prudent man.  And his estate shows it.  If he believes in God, and a life after this one, how can he be so cavalier in his attitude about heavenly treasure?  If we cannot be the great friends and brothers in the next life that we have been here, I will sorrow.  I will be forlorn.

19 And wo is me because of their wickedness; for my heart has been filled with sorrow because of their wickedness, all my days; nevertheless, I know that I shall be lifted up at the last day. (Mormon 2:19)

Is this pessimism? Was Moroni a pessimist here? No, he just understood the situation. He knew it was impossible for bad behavior to lead to a good outcome.  Here is an interesting passage from the teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley:

I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. –President Gordon B. Hinckley, January 10, 2004

Was President Gordon B. Hinckley being a pessimist here? No, of course not. He just understood the situation, maybe because he read the scriptures alot over his 95 years in mortality.

So what does President Thomas S. Monson think of all this? Does he disagree with President Hinckley? Here is a passage from October general conference, the one we just had three days ago:

“Behaviors, which once were considered inappropriate and immoral, are now not only tolerated but viewed by ever so many as acceptable,” [...] “The message is that morality is passe, conscience is for wimps and the single overriding command is ‘Thou shalt not be found out.’” –Thomas S.Monson, October 2, 2011

I don’t believe that President Monson is being a pessimist or that he is being judgemental. He is just stating facts. He understands the situation. He knows from reading the scriptures,  just as anyone does that the future is bright for those who love the Lord and follow him, but it is dark indeed, for those who don’t. An evil tree always brings forth evil fruit. But it is impossible for a good tree to bring forth evil fruit.

I am not a pessimist.  I am a realist.  And I know what the prophets have said about the wages of sin.

But of greater significance to me, is the fact that the attitude of the Prophet Joseph Smith was negative concerning the “sectarians.” That was his term for the many denominations of traditional Christianity.  Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, the primary inspiration of this blog, did not use the term “sectarian” so much as they referred to “apostate Christendom.”  But although the terms they used were not the same, their negative view of the Protestant and Catholic denominations were in the tradition of Joseph Smith as was my own because of the reasons for which I joined the Church.  I had obtained a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

After all, is not this a passage from our scripture?

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.” (Joseph Smith–History)

If traditional Christianity had not gone astray, there would have been no Great Apostasy and no need for a Restoration. Because of this teaching, and the attitudes of Joseph Smith and the early latter-day prophets, this change in LDS understanding and attitude towards the false churches has been a puzzle to me to me and a source of no small amount of distress.  Are these changes from God, or are they just false attitudes creeping into the Church?

Well, yesterday I had a thought that may have been from the Lord because I never thought it before, and it answered all my questions and set my heart at rest on this matter.  A young and brilliant attorney in my ward spoke in Sacrament Meeting, and at one point he spoke about the claim some sectarians make that we are not Christians.  I thought his remarks excellent.  Whether we are Christian or not depends on how one defines the term “Christian.”  If in the course of conversation with a Gentile we are using different definitions, of course there will be little or no true communication or understanding.

Whenever this topic of who is and is not Christian comes up, a nagging question comes up in my mind.  Why do we care what the they think?  There is a sense in which we are not Christians.  We are not heirs to the false doctrines and philosophies of traditional Christianity.   On the other hand, there is a sense in which they are not Christians.  How can one follow Jesus Christ while rejecting his prophets? That is exactly what the Protestants and Catholics do.  There is a sense in which we are the only Christians.  So why do we care what they think?  Joseph Smith didn’t.  He denounced those denominations as false churches all the days of his short life.  So did his successors until recently.

After the meeting I went up to this fellow and asked, “Why do we care?  Why do we care whether or not the false churches consider us to be Christian?  We are in this life to please God, not man.  His are the only opinions that matter.  He told me what I thought he would, something I have heard from dozens of other saints when I pose this question.  “We want the other churches to accepts us as Christians because of our missionary work.”  But that makes no sense.  When others join us from a Catholic or Protestant background as I did, we are ripe to become members of the Church because we have begun to doubt the teachings of the church in which we grew up.   Do our missionaries have a lot of success in baptizing nonmembers who are still convinced their church is right?  I doubt it very much.

Then during the Sunday School part of the block, I thought something I have never thought before.  We are living in a very difficult time for people of all faiths.  Just as the other churches are being persecuted on all sides by the atheists, agnostics and secularists, so are we.  The gays are mad at us, as are those who believe there can be a legitimate “choice” to kill an unborn child.  Others hate us because we love and defend our God-inspired Constitution.  Many despise religious tea party people because they remind the wicked that there is a difference between right and wrong.  The government controlled media portray those who believe in a far more negative light than those who keep their mouths shut about God.

But more importantly, this intolerance for those who are religious is increasing rapidly.  What will happen in the future?  Does persecution lie ahead, not only for the Mormons but for all those who believe in God?  Could there ever be another holocaust or genocide, this time not just targeting Jews but all who believe? I think it could happen.  There are a couple of reasons.

First, our scriptures proclaim that when Christ comes at the Second Coming, there will be few left upon the earth.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall ^akill you: and ye shall be ^bhated of all nations ^cfor my name’s sake.

And then shall many be ^aoffended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

And many ^afalse prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

And because ^ainiquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax ^bcold. (Matthew 24:9-12)

[...]

For then shall be great ^atribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those ^adays shall be shortened. (Matthew 24:21-22)

Also, the latter-day Prophet Bruce R. McConkie and others have said that the saints will endure greater persecutions ahead than those they have known in the past:

Nor are the days of our greatest sorrows and our deepest sufferings all behind us. They too lie ahead. We shall yet face greater perils, we shall yet be tested with more severe trials, and we shall yet weep more tears of sorrow than we have ever known before. (Bruce R. McConkie.  The Coming Tests and Trials and Glory.  General Conference, April 1980)

If these prophecies are true, and I believe they are.  Then all we who believe in God must stick together.  We need to forget our differences and focus on our mutual belief in God and his love for us.  For only his love and our faith in him will get us through the difficult times ahead.  Those who have taken the part of Satan, with or without realizing it,  can persecute all of us regardless of religious persuasion.  And they can persecute us with a great persecution, possibly unto death.  But as long as we remain faithful, we need not worry.  As long as we keep the promises we have made to God, he will protect us and sustain us in this life and in the life to come.

The bottom line for me, and what I learned from my contemplation is that because very difficult times lie ahead for all of us, we Latter-day Saints do not want to be alone against the terrors that evil men seek to inflict upon us.  We are all children of the same Heavenly Father, brothers and sisters.  And we need to love and care for each other amidst all the machinations of the secular world, the crusading atheists, and the worldly.

But not only that, the Latter-day Saints are very well organized.  They can do much for those of other faiths if they will let us and need our help.  In some cases we can provide some of the leadership that is needed for our spiritual and temporal survival.  We are strong in the Lord and can use that strength to love and serve others.

In any case, I am no longer puzzled or distressed that we are reaching out to the other churches.  We need friends both inside and outside of the Church.  We can help each other.  And we are going to need it.

]]> http://ironrod.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/mormons-jews-christians-and-future-holocausts/feed/ 7 ironrod http://ironrod.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/what-do-the-latter-day-saints-think-about-knowledge-and-education/ http://ironrod.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/what-do-the-latter-day-saints-think-about-knowledge-and-education/#comments Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:54:57 +0000 John W. Redelfs http://ironrod.wordpress.com/?p=276 ]]> A number of years ago while I was still living in Ketchikan, Alaska, I taught early morning seminary for three years.  It was perhaps the most richly rewarding service I ever did in the Church.  During those years, I read a statement by President Spencer W. Kimball which I cannot quote verbatim because to date I have been unable to find it.  Basically he said that education was among the most important of all human activities, and the most important education was gospel education.  I was deeply impressed by this. In looking for that passage I happened upon something said by Joseph Smith on the same topic of education and knowledge and its importance.

Spiritual knowledge is the knowledge that saves.

The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation. This principle can be comprehended by the faithful and diligent; and every one that does not obtain knowledge sufficient to be saved will be condemned. Salvation is nothing more nor less than to triumph over all our enemies and put them under our feet. And when we have power to put all enemies under our feet in this world, and a knowledge to triumph over all evil spirits in the world to come, then we are saved.” (History of the Church 5:387.)

I’ve been a member of the Church for nearly fifty years since I joined from a Baptist background in the early 1960s.  It was the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the prophets that first gave me my  testimony.  I am not one who fits well into groups, and I only have a very small number of very close friends.  So it was not the cultural or social aspects of the gospel that drew me into the fold of Christ.  In the early 1960s the main doctrinal works were Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage.  There was also a huge appetite in the Church in those days for the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, my personal heroes.  I gorged myself on Talmage, Smith and McConkie.  I loved the teachings, teachings primarily bringing to light the sermons and ideas of Joseph Smith.

Today I am alarmed to see there is not as much interest in doctrine as there was then.  And from my perspective it seems like there is a greater number of saints who can be described as cultural or social Mormons, those whose interest in gospel is more about the Church than about what the prophets teach.  Obviously this is just a perception that I have.  It could be completely wrong.  But from where I stand this is what I see.

Of course, the best source of doctrine is the scriptures themselves, the standard works.  But I really miss the interest in doctrine of my early days in the Church.  The scriptures themselves tell us that anything a man speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture.  Many saints including myself consider the conference talks to be scripture when the Holy Ghost testifies to us that what we are hearing is true and from God.  I wonder, did LeGrand Richards write Marvelous Work and a Wonder while under the influence of the Holy Ghost?  I hope so.  That book was the manual for the Gospel Essentials class for many years.  How about the writings of Talmage, Smith and McConkie?  Were they writing under the influence of the Holy Ghost?  If so, then their works contain scripture as well.  Are there errors and personal opinion included?  I imagine that is a possibility.  But a great deal of their writing they wrote as moved upon  by  the Holy Ghost, ie. scripture.

Now I am fairly certain that today a decision has been made to focus on the standard works and discourage the publishing and reading of doctrinal works by individual apostles.  We are encouraged to get our doctrine straight from the standard works themselves.  I believe this is from God through his true prophets.  But it brings with it some unique problems.  First, is reading level.  Many of the scriptures are very hard to understand even if one has a huge vocabulary and highly developed reading skills.  Normally this would not be a problem if an honest seeker of the truth is prepared to receive personal revelation as he reads the scriptures.  But the second problem is this: People with inadequate reading skills will have a more difficult time enjoying the study of the scriptures, and as all of us have a tendency to intellectual laziness, this will discourage many from reading the scriptures.  I may be completely wrong, but it seems to me that average reading skills are declining in our society because of television, movies, DVDs, surfing the Web, computer and video games, etc.  Reading is no longer a highly popular form of entertainment as it once was.  And since reading is a skill that improves with practice, if people read less, over time they will not read as well.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there are far more Sacrament talks today than ever before which do not include any scriptural references, and even fewer that are focused on the scriptures.  Many of the talks I hear in Sacrament don’t seem to have anything to do with the gospel at all.  Telling temple stories, BYU stories, mission stories, and other Church stories can include some aspects of faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.  But often they don’t.  If a Sacrament talk does not include any of the doctrines, scriptures or principles of the gospel, in what sense is it a gospel talk?  Such a talk would be more appropriate for a weekly meeting of the local Toastmaster’s Club.

I was recently in a Gospel Doctrine class when to my horror I heard the teacher say that knowledge of the gospel was not necessary to have a powerful testimony.  Perhaps he meant that being a gospel scholar such as Elder McConkie was not a prerequisite, but it didn’t come out that way.  He seemed to be saying that a deep understanding of the gospel was not needed.

I immediately raised my hand and said, “That can’t be true.  If gospel knowledge is not important, how do we account for the passage in the Doctrine and Covenants that says, “It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.” (D&C 131:6)  This is possibly among the favorite scriptures of Elder Bruce R. McConkie and he quoted it often.  I also mentioned the fact that a person cannot study the scriptures without gaining knowledge.  And our prophets are continually asking us to study the scriptures.  If a person does not know the scriptures and hence the doctrines, it means he hasn’t been studying the scriptures.

Unfortunately, I was fairly new in the branch, and the Branch President was in the class.  Perhaps he thought my class comment was contentious.   I don’t know.  Be he called me into his office after the meeting and chastised me.  From that moment on I did my best not to say anything in class.  And a few weeks later he was released.

How important is gospel knowledge? How can we get it unless we search the scriptures?  If we do not use our knowledge of the scriptures in the talks and lessons we give, is that not a fairly good indication that we are not studying the scriptures as we should?  Perhaps I am being judgemental, but when I hear a talk in Sacrament that includes no scriptural references or does not focus on a scriptural theme, I just assume the speaker doesn’t know his scriptures very well because he is violating the commandment we have all received from Jesus Christ to “search the scriptures.”

It grieves me to see an interest in doctrine decline in the Church if that is in fact happening.  I hope I’m wrong about this, but it really frustrates me to attend Church week after week and hear many stories told in Sacrament meeting without hearing any of the parables of Jesus or other stories from the Bible and Book of Mormon.  Often the youngest speakers fresh out of Primary do a better job of sticking to the gospel in their talks than the adults do.

Have you ever heard a conference talk that did not include the scriptures?  I don’t think I have.  We need to follow the example of our prophet-leaders, not just their counsel.