Taking the Holy Spirit as Our Guide

This purpose of this article is to review what constitutes "scripture" within the framework of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to encourage taking the Holy Ghost as our guide.

In Section 17.1.1 of Handbook 2: Administering the Church, the Church's official publication concerning policies and procedures, the following statement is provided:

The standard works of the Church are the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In many languages, the Church has approved one edition of the Bible to be used in Church meetings and classes. Likewise, the latest authorized edition of the other three books of Latter-day Saint scriptures should be used. No other works are to be promoted or used in the Church as scripture (emphasis added).

Throughout recent centuries, many of the Brethren have confirmed this policy and have emphasized the foremost placement of the scriptures in our learning and adherence. One such apostle who became known for his love and knowledge of the scriptures was Elder Bruce R. McConkie. Placing the scriptures as the measuring stick against which "the truth of all things is measured", Elder McConkie noted:

That which harmonizes with them should be accepted; that which is contrary to their teachings, however plausible it may seem for the moment, will not endure and should be rejected.

The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the Standard Works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the Standard Works. When the living oracles speak in the name of the Lord or as moved upon by the Holy Ghost, however, their utterances are then binding upon all who hear, and whatever is said will without any exception be found to be in harmony with the Standard Works. The Lord's house is a house of order, and one truth never contradicts another. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 764.)

Elder McConkie's father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith, likewise taught:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 3:203

In Deuteronomy 18:21-22, this principle was taught to the children of Israel. It really differs little from what President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

And finally, President Harold B. Lee declared:

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it. We can know or have the assurance that they are speaking under inspiration if we so live that we can have a witness that what they are speaking is the word of the Lord. There is only one safety, and that is that we shall live to have the witness to know. President Brigham Young said something to the effect that "the greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord. (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places, 162 - 163.)

Even the footnotes, cross-references, dictionaries, maps, and topical guides contained within the Standard Works do not, of themselves, constitute scripture, or comprise doctrine. When appropriately used, these tools prove to be very helpful, but if they become the focus of our study, they may actually serve as a distraction from what the Lord would have us know in the verses they serve. In a talk that is now used as part of the pre-service readings for Seminary Teachers, Elder McConkie set forth several keys of advice and one word of warning that enable one's understanding of the scriptures and, more particularly, the Bible. The tenth key of advice he offered pertained to the foregoing list of scriptural aids, of which he was a substantial contributor. Concerning such, and our need to use them wisely and appropriately, he commented:

I received a letter from a seminary teacher in which he criticized our new scriptural publications because they had footnotes, cross-references, and teaching aids. He argued that these were crutches which kept people from that intensive study in which they would make their own cross-references.

Well, I for one need these crutches and recommend them to you. They include the Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, the topical guide, the Bible dictionary, the footnotes, the gazetteer, and the maps.

None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only. Certainly [on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "most important"] they rate a four or five in importance. Use them consistently.(Teaching Seminary Preservice Readings Religion 370, 471, and 475, (2004), 123–32).

Based on the foregoing definitions of what constitutes scripture, the 1979, 1981, and 2013 edition of the Latter-day Saints' Standard Works neither added to nor diminished the scriptures. But for a few changes in spelling and punctuation, the text of the doctrine of Christ remained untouched. Indeed, with very few exceptions, the scriptures have not changed since the prophet Joseph Smith received his final recorded revelation given to the entire body of the Church of Jesus Christ on January 19, 1841.

As we approach General Conference, I believe what we can expect to hear over the pulpit can generally be summarized into a few (not comprehensive) guiding principles:

• have faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ,
• be obedient to God's commandments,
• repent of past mistakes,
• receive the ordinances of the gospel,
• study the scriptures daily,
• attend the temple often,
• be kind, love, and serve others,
• share the gospel with others,
• be patient and diligent in affliction, and
• pray to the Lord for guidance.

Some attend General Conference every year with their ears attuned only to the spectacular and unusual. As conference concludes and they return home having received the same plain and precious truths taught for so many years, when eagerly asked by another, "what did you hear at General Conference?", they foolishly reply, "Nothing". To them, the question may be posed, "For what purpose did you receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?" At the other extreme will be those who wait to proceed with their lives until the prophets speak. They conclude General Conference believing that all that was said is to be their only guide until the prophets speak again in the General Conference that follows. To them, the question may be posed, "For what purpose did you receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?" In the balance will be those who prayerfully study what was spoken by the living prophets, focusing on the scriptures and Spirit to support and provide relevant counsel for them and those over whom they have responsibility. In the balance will be those who stay within the mainstream of the Church.

Importantly, nearly all that we hear today from prophets, seers, and revelators is counsel as to how we are to conduct our lives within the context of our present environment. This counsel must be followed if we are to remain safe in our environment and obedient to God. Certainly, if all members of the Church were applying the counsel given, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be now and always the greatest power for good upon the face of the earth. But, if the foregoing principles were applied, then the counsel that was to given each General Conference would be generally and widely known, even before it was given.

Based on the foregoing, the scriptures comprise what is known as the doctrine of Christ, whereas, the words of the living prophets define how that doctrine may be applied to bless and protect us within our unique circumstances. On this basis, the words of the living prophets and the words of those past, as contained in the Standard Works, are of equal value; both must be held to and adhered to that temporal and spiritual salvation might be found.

Joseph Smith taught that there are duties that naturally devolve upon the individual saint. Of great import, one of these duties is obtaining for ourselves revelation needed to guide our lives in righteous, holy ways. If this duty is neglected with the hope that a living prophet will somehow make up for our personal neglect once every six months, "our minds will be darkened" and salvation lost (see Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 237). President Brigham Young likewise succinctly taught this principle:

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 9: 150.

President Young has been quoted numerous times by subsequent prophets and apostles including Harold B. Lee, Marion G. Romney, Ezra Taft Benson, Neal A. Maxwell, and James E. Faust.

The foregoing quotes and comments are not made, in the least, to weaken the words of living prophets and apostles. Rather, they are given in hopes that their words will be strengthened and applied daily, rather than sporadically in 6-month intervals.

In conclusion, I quote President Harold B. Lee who gives us timeless counsel concerning how we are to use and view the scriptures:

It is only as we forsake the traditions of men and recover faith in the Bible, the truth of which has been fully established by recent discovery and fulfillment of prophecy, that we shall once again receive that inspiration which is needed by rulers and people alike.

...I say that we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures. If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren’t able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false--it is as simple as that. But the unfortunate thing is that so many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think that therein is one of our biggest dangers of today.

...The Lord has given us in the standard works the means by which we should measure truth and untruth. May we all heed his word: “Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church." (D&C 42:59)"(Harold B. Lee, "Find the Answers in the Scriptures", Dec 1972 Ensign)

Prayer, offered morning and evening in conjunction with scripture study, is a temple pattern depicted as far back as the Tabernacle Moses built (see Exodus 30:6-8). As we prepare for General Conference and hearing the words of prophets, I challenge each to properly prepare by applying the temple pattern of daily prayer and scripture study that our faith may increase and that personal revelation will become the guidance by which we live.

. . . lest he esteem thee to be his enemy

Much like Lehi, my father’s decision to leave my childhood home in Meridian, Idaho and move north was prompted by a dream; the kind that lingers and leaves deep impressions on the mind. And like Sarai, mom followed without murmuring.

According to memory, my father has given proper attention to the promptings of the Lord and has been blessed for so doing. I have also experienced poignant dreams at times and have been compelled to heed their promptings. Shortly after this aforementioned dream, dad boarded a plane to scope out our prospective home—Prince George, British Columbia. When he returned, the home of my birth was listed and sold to the first buyer, a good family moving from Omaha, Nebraska. Within a week or so, we were on our way. Our entire belongings, consisting of 65 gallons (yes, I said gallons) of prunes and countless packages of Jell-O . . . indispensable for all respectable Mormons . . . were loaded into a mid-sized moving van. With dad at the helm, two kids seated next to him, and mom and six more children piled into the family station wagon behind, we departed what seemed like the promised land to venture into the wilderness. In that regard, it didn't fit Lehi’s experience precisely. Little did we realize that only three long and difficult years would pass before we would return to Meridian, Idaho to live next door to the home we were then departing.

Upon our arrival in Prince, George, dad secured a job with Beaver Lumber Company to meet the immediate bills and we began the search for a place to house a family of our size. For eight wired children and two tired parents, a place of any sort was acceptable so long as we could move in now! But nothing was immediately available. So—during the interim, we became city-dwellers and rented an apartment in town.

Outside of oriental communities, there are few cultures that design apartments sufficient to house a family of 10, and Prince George was not one of the few. Living quarters were cramped and micro-thin walls required us to hear the incessant arguments between our next-door neighbors. Characteristic of each neighborhood was a special underclass of white trash. As the only Mormon family in the school district, we were fodder for their pranks. Eventually, my parent felt is was necessary to have my two oldest siblings return to live with their grandparents and communities that provided good youth that they could date.

Similar to my parents, I've never really enjoyed city-center life; it feels like a trap, pulls attention from life's simple pleasures, and creates an anxiety within that can't be explained away. So, living in Prince George was difficult; most particularly on mother. One of the activities that brought us relief was riding our bikes. We had plenty of unexplored streets and wooded trails nearby. When finished riding each day, we had our own unique way of attaching the bikes to our apartment railing. Because we lacked the economic resources to purchase padlocks, we improvised with bailing wire. Round and round we twisted the wire till one could hardly recognize that there were bikes inside the convoluted mess. For any who thought of stealing our bikes, the myriads of bailing wire was a sufficient deterrent. But, for the brow-beaters who frequently "borrowed" our bikes, the wire only served as an invitation and nuisance. We thought that if they had to spend an hour untangling the wire, they would leave the bikes alone. We were wrong.

This neighborhood gang was composed of a dozen kids ages 9 through 17. They were obnoxious, but did little real harm. They were simply experts in the field of annoyance. Whenever they confiscated our bikes, they didn't keep them long. As we became familiar, their personalities became more aggressive. In particular, they began to pick on my brother, Byron, at school. One evening, I recall my father teaching Byron how to throw a fist. Mom was saying, "Bill, what are you doing teaching our children how to fight?" Notwithstanding, my father was determined to have Byron bring an end to the nuisance this group of kids had become.

One evening, the gang came around and took my brother's bike. Byron, about 10 years old at the time, went to the doorway of our small apartment and called dad out. When he came out on the porch, the gang didn't back down in the least. In response, my dad instructed Byron to choose the smallest member of the group and "Byron, you have my permission to beat the heck out of him. Do you hear me? I want you to fight as hard as you can." At that point, dad became the self-appointed referee of the pending fight and warned  told the other members of the group to not interfere. Mom, of  course, was going nuts and all of us were a little fearful.

Obedient to dad’s instructions, Byron proceeded into the crowd, selected the smallest one in the group (which just happened to be about his size) and proceeded to do just as dad had requested. Byron’s arms thrashed about like a wind-rower making short work of a wheat field. I don't think he remembered anything dad had previously taught him. He was too busy to think. Throughout the entire ordeal, Byron was crying . . . probably out of fear . . . but also because he was instinctively kind and had never really been faced with intentionally hurting another human being in this way.

Later that evening, dad began feeling awful for what had happened. So, in accordance with scriptural decree, dad bought a red, toy tractor for the boy that Byron had worked-over, and candy bars for the rest of the group--lest they esteemed him to be their enemy. After reproving them with sharpness, the abundance of love shown forth that night by my father to a gang of high school kids came in the form of candy bars and a toy tractor.

Counting the Cost; The Aftermath of Being a Teacher

Reading my previous entry entitled The Irony of Being a Teacher will provide the reader with the context needed to understand this blog.

Although some may think that I did the right thing by telling the young man that my car door nicked his truck, this experience was actually a wake-up call for me. I have reflected upon it several times since and have given the prior blog as my spiritual thought in each of the accounting classes I teach. The thing that bothers about my response to the experience, is that it wasn't made instinctively. Rather, I conducted a mental analysis of the situation before coming to the conclusion that I must tell the owner of the truck what I had done. The fact that fear entered my heart was most instructive. I should have reflexively set out to find the owner of the truck; that should have been my first and only thought Hence, my final decision was right, but the process of arriving at it was all wrong!

I have been faced with much larger and more important decisions involving integrity and, in each case, responded appropriately. Hence, I thought I had made the decision to be honest long ago. Yet, when faced with the events of last Monday evening, I found myself assessing whether I should be honest. Of course, I should! Why should a matter, small in comparison, demand so much emotional, spiritual, and intellectual capital? That's the question that has been tormenting me since the incident.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell, a prior member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, addressed the subject of making decisions and concluded that some decisions need to be made only  once. Once made, we should allow our righteous reflexes to make any subsequent choices tied to that decision:

Now, since we are not always free to choose just when and how all of life’s interactions will occur, we are nevertheless free to choose our responses to these moments. Since we can’t compute beforehand all our responses, it becomes vital to set our course as immortals on the basis of immortal principles to be applied as reflexively as possible. Besides, there may be no time in which to ponder how we will respond anyway. If, for example, one determines that he will keep the seventh commandment, then his applying this fixed principle will result in temptations either being deliberately avoided in the first place or in being quickly deflected. All of this can be achieved without great thought, risk, or needless anxiety. In fact, I would go so far as to say to you tonight, my brothers and sisters, that  if we are truly attached to immortal principles, some decisions need to be made only once, really, and then righteous reflexes can do the rest. Absent such fixed determinations, however, one can be tossed to and fro by temptations that then require case-by-case agonizing. (Maxwell, Neal A., The Pathway of Discipleship, January 4, 1998).

Elder Maxwell was so right! . . . and now I am embarrassed of all my mental gyrations described in my prior blog in coming to the decision to be honest.

In an interesting article published in the Deseret News National Edition on Wednesday, March 12 2014, entitled "What makes us lie and cheat and what we can do about it", reporter Sara Israelsen-Hartley wrote regarding her interview of Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University and author of "The Honest Truth about Dishonesty." One aspect of the interview that was of significant interest to me was the Dr. Ariely's comment that "when you make decisions, even if you make the right decision, the temptation itself created a cost." Continuing, he explained:

Imagine that your morning is full of temptation: muffin, croissant, Facebook, YouTube, saying something nasty to your boss, the morning is just full of temptation. And you've been able to resist [all of them;], good for you, but by the time you've resisted all of them, you've already paid the price. And the price you've paid is the price of depletion. So temptation is tough to deal with, but temptation has also this consequential cost that comes later that we don't see. You could be a great person overcoming temptation, but you'd be much better off not facing this temptation to start with.

Resisting temptation can drain the soul. Think of the torment that is experienced by the man who, because of weakly viewing pornography, weekly covers the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out insomuch that the Lord regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at the man's hand (see Malachi 2:13). What prevents this desolation and depletion of emotional, spiritual, and intellectual capital is "setting our course as immortals on the basis of immortal principles to be applied as reflexively as possible."

As I concluded evaluating what happened Monday evening, my mind was drawn to Moses 5:23, wherein, the Lord instructed Cain that the distance between sin and safety is the width of a door. Confronting my integrity this week would have been far more enriching if, when I opened the car door, I kept the door to temptation closed. Developing our spiritual reflexes to think the right thing saves us from having to pay the price of resisting temptation over and over and over . . ..

The Irony of being a Teacher

Last evening, I stayed late after work to meet with a student and discuss a matter involving academic dishonesty. I spent 30 minutes giving a home-spun lesson on integrity. It included a significant story from my life wherein I resigned my employment due to ethical issues, and other such stuff. After we concluded, I rushed off from the University to pick up several pizzas for dinner. It was 6pm and a significant windstorm was bringing in an early-evening winter storm. As I arrived at Pizza Hut and was exiting my vehicle, a gust of wind caught hold of my opened door and swung it into the Tacoma truck parked beside me.

We have all had the unpleasant experience of arriving at our vehicle to find a small door-ding freshly implanted in the side without a word from the perpetrator. How we wish that the guilty party would have simply left a message! Sometimes, its the gesture of honesty for which our soul yearns, rather than the chance to get an entire paint-job done on one side of our vehicle.

Well . . . like many who have become perpetrators of this innocent crime, my mind immediately filled with all the reasons to excuse myself from properly taking responsibility. I immediately tried to wipe the scratch off with my thumb. I retrieved a old blanket from my trunk and aggressively wiped the slight scratch. Although most of it disappeared, it was still apparent. As I walked towards the entrance to Pizza Hut, my mind was filled with a myriad of emotions: "It's so small that I won't need to mention it. Anyways, this was an accident and not your fault. There's a lot of other vehicles in the parking lot and I won't be able to find the owner of this one, so just let it go. You're making too much of a little thing."

As I entered through the first of the two doors that provide entrance into the restaurant, I turned around and saw placed on the cab of the pickup that familiar emblem denoting a pizza delivery truck. I was further indicted by this fact since any excuse to avoid admitting responsibility was no longer available. As I entered through the second door into the eating establishment, my mind returned to the lesson I had taught just moments before in my office to a young student, and my fearful heart melted away. I knew then, that, whatever the cost, I must find the owner of the truck.

I began to ask around. No one behind the counter knew who the owner might be. A young woman said she would go into the back of the restaurant to ask around. After 3-4 minutes she returned with a young man who confirmed that he was the truck's owner. We exchanged greetings and I invited him to accompany me out to his truck that I might show him what I had done. When he looked at the small scratch, he said, "It's okay. It's not very big." I concurred that it wasn't. However, I then invited him to step back and look at the ding from a slight angle. He did so, and I pointed out that he would be able to see an ever so slight dent that accompanied the scratch. "Hmmm, yes I can", he continued, "but it's okay." Not yet satisfied with my confession, I handed him my business card. You see, I was twice his age. I was dressed in a full, dark suit, white shirt, and tie. He was dressed in Levis and tennis shoes. He was somewhat timid and I am often overbearing. We were on uneven playing fields--His environment and this circumstance was far too intimidating for him to say anything other than to accept what had happened. I turned to him and said: "If you ever change your mind concerning what you would like to see done in regards to this incident, you have my business card. Please call me."

I arrived home with the pizzas, breadsticks, and soda just in time to save two of my favorite girls--my wife and youngest daughter--from near starvation. The three of us sat around the table eating dinner and hearing another lesson taught by me that honesty matters . . . even in little things.

The irony of a lesson on integrity is that you are only a teacher when you live it. Otherwise, you remain a professor . . . drawing near to the principle with your lips, but having a heart removed far from it.

Out of the Wilderness, Part II

This blog is a continuation of the blog entitled "Out of the Wilderness, Part I". It is recommended that the reader of this blog first become acquainted with the concepts outlined in that blog.

Several ideas within the following comments regarding the war in  heaven are left intentionally vague so as to leave any final conclusions to the reader.

. . . continued . . .

At this point in the story, it is worthwhile digressing to describe in more detail the things that happened in heaven that were in likeness to those that happened here on earth, as previously outlined. Because things in heaven are in the likeness of things on earth (see JST Revelation 12:1), we should expect that the adulterous conduct of the Church of God previously described as the Great Adultery on earth would parallel her conduct in heaven.  Although brief, much can be learned from John's record of what he saw in his panoramic version of the heavenly war.

First, while reading John's version, it is important to recall the symbolic meaning of each of its characters, that 1) the woman is the Church of God, 2) the child is the kingdom of our God and His Christ, or Zion (see D&C 105:32), 3) Michael and his angels are, undoubtedly, many of the noble and great ones (see Abraham 3:1-3), and 4) the great red dragon is Satan (see D&C 76:25-27, compare Moses 4:1-4) and the serpent, a common enemy (see Acts 10:28) comprised of many whom he had drawn after him (see Moses 4:5-7).

Second, this was not a war wherein two opposing forces were determined. Rather, this was a war between long-time rivals of good verses an evil that had, in prior times, been cast out of God's presence for rebellion (see JST Revelation 12:4). There is recorded by Mormon an amazing resemblance of this war (see Alma 2). I highly recommend it.

Third, women have long been the cause of many disputes between male rivals. Given that the woman referred to by John had left her Husband and was fed a forbidden fruit (Abraham 1:23) by a piercing serpent (see Isaiah 27:1; compare 2 Kings 18:21) for 1,260 years (see JST Revelation 12:5), it is not unlikely that she was the object of this primeval war. However, notwithstanding that she had left her Husband in the likeness of what she would yet do on earth (see JST Revelation 12:1), she was worth fighting for as much then as she is now.

Fourth, scriptures teach that the dragon rebelled and sought to destroy the agency of man (see Moses 4:3). He further contended that all would be redeemed under his plan (see Moses 4:1). But, contrary to what is often heard in Sunday School, this does not imply that he sought to save all men by compulsion. Quite to the contrary, destroying agency is a far cry from seizing it to compel obedience. Brother Joseph Fielding McConkie (2004, pp. 54-55) has rightly observed that the notion that Lucifer was going to force us to obey is neither logical nor supported in scripture.

To reinforce this supposition, it is worthy to note that Elder Orson Pratt (Young, 1854-1886, p. 288) taught that those who hearkened to Lucifer’s proposals in the primeval council “thought it would be a very great and important thing to destroy the agency of man in the future creation that was about to be made.” This observation suggests that Lucifer proposed amendments to God’s plan which would have created conditions in mortality whereby men could be theoretically “saved” but that such conditions would result in agency being destroyed. It is not surprising that in counseling his son Corianton, Alma set forth an interesting sequence that produces this very result (see Alma 42:13-26). In dialogue with his son, Jacob, Lehi likewise underscored this sequence, but more precisely illustrated how it destroys agency (see 2 Nephi 2:11-13). Concerning opposition that must be present in all things, Lehi wrote:

...if ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:13).

The opposition that exists between happiness that results from obedience to gospel law and misery that attends the punishment for disobedience is imperative to the existence of all things—both things to act and to be acted upon—and eliminating either happiness or punishment destroys that opposition. Happiness cannot exist without punishment—the foil on which happiness produces itself and becomes known. Thus, punishment is a necessary antithesis to happiness and essential to the realization of agency. When considering these opposites in relation to Lucifer’s aim to destroy the agency of man, it would be silly to think that he proposed to eliminate happiness—such a proposal wouldn’t pass muster with even the most boorish of God’s children.

Although Lucifer sought the Kingdom of our God and His Christ (see D&C 76:28), it is clear that he was not prepared to comply with the terms of obtaining the crown (see Isaiah 14:12-21). His solution was to offer another way with sufficiently alluring elements as to incite serious deliberation among God’s children. In connection therewith, Brother Robert Matthews (Top, 1988, p. 123) makes this worthy observation:

When we talk about our relationship to the Savior and our redemption, we must begin with the pre-mortal life. I think we often miss the real issue of the contention in the spirit world that eventually led to the War in Heaven. We talk about it as though Lucifer were going to force everybody to obey. Most people don’t want to be forced. As I see it, the real issue is that Lucifer would guarantee their salvation. He promised salvation without effort, without excellence, without hard work, without individual responsibility. That’s the lie that he promulgated in the pre-earth councils. That so-called shortcut to salvation captivated many gullible and lazy spirits. They wanted something for nothing . . . . On that basis Lucifer led away many spirits (emphasis added).

In my judgment, salvation in sin was the incentive package whereby Lucifer persuaded many to follow. What he presented was redemption without effort, without excellence, without hard work, and without individual responsibility. Supporting this notion, the prophet Joseph Smith (1844) affirmed that Lucifer set forth a counter-proposal in the heavenly council that was designed “to save men in their sins” (p. 758). Elder Orson Pratt (1854-1886) also settled on the idea that Lucifer proposed to “redeem them all in their sins” (p. 288), and President Brigham Young (1954) likewise concluded that “if you undertake to save   all , you must save them in unrighteousness and corruption” (p. 54). The lessons learned from the parable of the ninety and nine verses the one lost sheep teach us to be suspect of any plan that guarantees 100% success. Unconditional guarantees generally come at a price much higher than most are willing to pay.

We should not be surprised, then, to discover that the philosophy of nearly every antichrist noted in the Book of Mormon validates the logic of President Young’s conclusion—that in unrighteousness and corruption is the only means whereby all can be saved. Nehor, for example, taught “that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and in the end, all men should have eternal life” (Alma 1:4). The Amalekites likewise echoed the words of Nehor: “We believe that God will save all men” (Alma 21:6). To Jacob, Zeezrom declared the satanic means whereby such salvation was proposed—that God shall “save his people in their sins,” (Alma 11:34) and Korihor whistled the same tune declaring that “whatsoever man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17).

From these naive assertions, I believe we catch a whiff of Lucifer’s proposal made to the heavenly council. It is the model of secularism and moral relativism adhered to today—it is the model of the world. In each case, these antichrists suggested that there would be no lasting punishment, that all men would be saved “in their sins” and “not one of them would be lost” (compare Moses 4:1). Confirming this conclusion—that the message of these antichrists was the primeval message of Satan, Elder Oaks (1988) makes the following comments:

An episode recorded in the Book of Mormon shows the importance of knowing what we worship. The Zoramites worshipped a god who was a spirit and would be a spirit forever, who had made known to them that there would be no Christ, and who had "elected" them that they all would be saved (see Alma 31:15-17). From this description it appears that the Zoramites were, knowingly or unknowingly, worshipping the person and plan of Satan (p. 126).

What Satan presented in the primeval council was a system of redemption void of justice—a plan of "unconditional love" and universal amnesty for crime. 

It has long been my experience that efforts to teach that God’s full love is conditional are met with strong resistance—opponents to this view find it impossible to accept that connecting to God’s love is premised upon one’s conduct. They would rather feel safe in their ignorance than apprehensive in the truth. But however ironic it may seem, the myth of unconditional love is most cruel as the one who lives secure in his ignorance may eventually lose all that he thought was certain. The concept of unconditional love is nothing less than the brainchild of him whose primeval design it was to “to save men in their sins”[1]—to guarantee salvation without effort, without excellence, without hard work, and without individual responsibility. It is Lucifer’s ultimate trickery. It is a “secret combination” that validates the sinner no matter how vile he may become; and because it validates the sinner, it decriminalizes his conduct.

Looking into its origins, one might be surprised to discover that the concept of unconditional love stems largely from Karl Marx and his socialistic and communistic ideals.[2] As far as I can ascertain, the term unconditional love was coined by the social psychologist Erich Fromm.[3] He is thought as one of the founders of socialist humanism who equated Marxism with matriarchal[4] feelings of unconditional love and capitalism with patriarchal[5] dominance and conditional love. He formalized these views in his 1956 book entitled, The Art of Loving, and concluded that one’s childhood relationship with his parents was central in determining which of the two views emerged as predominate. “The love of God,” he wrongly noted, “cannot be separated from the love for one’s parents.”[6]

His protégé, Carl Rogers, equally set forth the idea that one’s personal experience was the foremost authority in developing the idea of God.[7] “Experience is, for me,” Rogers wrote, “the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person’s ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me. Neither the Bible nor the prophets—neither Freud nor research—neither the revelations of God nor man—can take precedence over my own direct experience. My experience is not authoritative because it is infallible. It is the basis of authority because it can always be checked in new primary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open to correction.”[8]

Because individual up-bringing has been largely patriarchal, Fromm suggested that this experience has yielded a societal view that God’s love is patriarchal. “Quite obviously,” he boorishly explained, “the majority of people have, in their personal development, not overcome this infantile stage, and hence the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father - a childish illusion.”[9] He concluded that so long as a person retains “this childish dependence on a punishing and rewarding father, or any other authority, he cannot develop a more mature love for God.”[10] Such hodgepodge found fertile soil among the free-loving, morally-bankrupt hippies of Woodstock who wanted little to do with communal constraints and even less to do with God. 

Taking an opposite view and setting forth the doctrine concerning the conditionality of God’s love, Elder Russell M. Nelson writes: “While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.”[11] To those who persist that God’s full love is unconditional, Elder Nelson speaks pointedly:

Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly ‘unconditional’ can defend us against common fallacies such as these: ‘Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless . . .’; or ‘Since ‘God is love,’ He will love me unconditionally, regardless . . . .’ These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception. Nehor, for example, promoted himself by teaching falsehoods: He ‘testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, . . . for the Lord had created all men, . . . and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.’ Sadly, some of the people believed Nehor’s fallacious and unconditional concepts.[12]

The doctrine of unconditional love is antichrist! It is a fabrication of the lowest order. While scriptures declare that “God is love” (see 1 John 4:8), we cannot thereby conclude that “love is God.” There are those who love darkness and those who love evil. But this love is neither God nor of God. Conversely, although we can appropriately conclude that “Satan is hate,” it does not then follow that “hate is Satan” for “hatred is a proper and holy emotion when channeled properly . . . . Manifestations of perfect hatred are shown forth by Deity himself,”[13] declared Elder Bruce R. McConkie. 

In scripture we read: “These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that Be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19). As we work our way through this list of things that God hates, it becomes clear that His hate is not only directed towards sin, but is also directed towards the father of all lies (see 2 Nephi 2:18) who sowed discord among His brethren and “accused them before our God day and night” (see Revelation 12:10).[14] Satan is an abomination to God and for him there is no godly affection.[15] Both love and hatred are godly attributes when properly channeled. When not properly channeled, they are driving forces of the devil’s work.

To be continued . . .

WORKS CITED

Anonymous. (1985). Know This, That Every Soul is Free. Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Bednar, D. A. (2009, May 25). The Agency of Man. Saturday Evening Session. (K. L. Packard, Interviewer) Rexburg Idaho East Stake. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Rexburg. 

Benson, E. T. (1986, May). To the "Youth of the Noble Birthright". Ensign, pp. 43-45. 

Clark, J. R. (1971). Messages of the first presidency (Vol. 5). Salt Lake City: Bookcraft. 

Mann, H. (1859). Baccalaureate Address of 1859. 

McConkie, B. R. (1985). A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 

McConkie, J. F. (2004). Understanding the Power God Gives Us: What Agency Really Means. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company. 

Nibley, H. W. (1993). Teachings of the Book of Mormon--Semester 4: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to a Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University. Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 

Nyman, M. S., & Tate, J. C. (Eds.). (1990). The Book of Mormon: Jacob Through Words of Mormon, To Learn With Joy (Vol. 4). Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center. 

Oaks, D. H. (1988). Pure in Heart. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft. 

Oaks, D. H. (2002). With Full Purpose of Heart. Salt Lake City, UT, United States: Deseret Book Company. 

Packer, B. K. (1988, May). Atonement Agency Accountability. Ensign, p. 69. 

Pratt, O. (2000). The Seer. Salt Lake City: EBorn Books. 

Romney, M. G. (1981, April). Principles of Temporal Salvation. Ensign, pp. 3-7. 

Romney, M. G. (1981, November). The Perfect Law of Liberty. Ensign, pp. 43-44. 

Smith, J. (1844, December 25). Times and Seasons, V. 

Smith, J. (1948-1950). History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, V. 5 (Vol. 5). (G. A. Smith, Ed.) Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company. 

Smith, J. F. (1957-1966). Answers to Gospel Questions (Vol. 4). Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company. 

Smith, J. F. (1967, April 9). Conference Report, pp. 120-121. 

Top, B. L. (1988). The Life Before. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft. 

Young, B. (1854-1886). Journal of Discourses (Vol. 21). Liverpool, London, England: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot. 

Young, B. (1954). Discourses of Brigham Young. (J. A. Widtsoe, Ed.) Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company.

ENDNOTES

[1] Smith, Joseph, Times and Seasons, Volume V, Nauvoo, Illinois, 25 December 1844, 758. 

[2] Marxist notions, in part, flows from Darwin’s theories of organic evolution, which might account for the reason why President Joseph Fielding Smith taught that “organic evolution is Satan’s chief weapon in destroying the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is a contemptible plot against faith in God and to destroy the effective belief in the divine atonement of our Redeemer through which men may be saved from their sins and find place in the Kingdom of God” (see Smith, Joseph Fielding, His Origin and Destiny, 184 – 185). Much of the nonsense today in education, psychology, and social science ties back to Darwin’s theories which postulate that man is nothing more than a highly-evolved animal. 

[3] Unconditional love,” he wrote, “corresponds to one of the deepest longings, not only of the child, but of every human being; on the other hand, to be loved because of one’s merit, because one deserved it, always leaves doubt; maybe I did not please the person whom I want to love me, maybe this, or that—there is always a fear that love could disappear. Furthermore, ‘deserved’ love easily leaves a bitter feeling that one is not loved for oneself, that one is loved only because one pleases, that one is, in the last analysis, not loved at all but used” (see page 35). 

[4] Fromm summarized the matriarchal view as: “I am loved because I am. This experience of being loved by mother is a passive one. There is nothing I have to do in order to be loved—mother’s love is unconditional. All I have to do is to be—to be her child. Mother’s love is bliss, is peace, it need not be acquired, it need not be deserved. But there is a negative side, too, to the unconditional quality of mother’s love. Not only does it not need to be deserved—it also cannot be acquired, produced, controlled. If it is there, it is like a blessing; if it is not there, it is as if all beauty had gone out of life—and there is nothing I can do to create it” (see page 33). 

[5] “Fatherly love is conditional love,” Fromm wrote. “Its principle is ‘I love you because you fulfill my expectations, because you do your duty, because you are like me.’ In conditional fatherly love we find . . . a negative and a positive aspect. The negative aspect is the very fact that fatherly love has to be deserved, that it can be lost if one does not do what is expected. In the nature of fatherly love lies the fact that obedience becomes the main virtue, that disobedience is the main sin—and its punishment the withdrawal of fatherly love. The positive side is equally important. Since his love is conditioned, I can do something to acquire it, I can work for it; his love is not outside my control as motherly love is” (see page 36).

[6] See page 64.

[7] Rogers downgraded the concept of unconditional love to unconditional positive regard; a common term used in psychology today. 

[8] See Rogers, Carl, On Becoming a Person, 23-34. John Rector, a student counselor at a local university used these philosophies to suggest that the “doctrines of our faith may spell out aspects of God’s composition for us, but it is we who fill in nuances of God’s personality and character.” Mr. Rector concluded from this that “since none of us knows very deeply what God is like, we can make a conscious choice to form a concept of divine personality which ‘works’ for us” (see Rector, John, “What is the Character of Your God?” Perspectives, Autumn 2006, 79-80).

[9] See page 64.

[10] See pages 68-69.

[11] Nelson, “Divine Love,” Ensign, February 2003, 20. 

[12] Ibid; emphasis added. 

[13] McConkie, Bruce R., Mormon Doctrine, 344. 

[14] It is often heard that we are to “hate the sin and love the sinner.” Although I do not question the present appropriateness and political correctness of this rhetoric, the statement itself does not logically hold together. Sin does not exist without a cause. God recognizes this fact and, thus, it is the sinner who is punished, not the sin. Can one hate sin and at the same time love the cause of sin? In the telestial realm in which we presently live, we are commanded to love our enemy and do good to those who despitefully use us. This we do to allow the sinner every opportunity to repent and be reconciled to God. And at times, we are called to endure the cruelty of the wicked that the judgments of the Lord might be just. Failure to do so with patience may itself earn the judgments of God. But, from an eternal perspective, the sin and the sinner are uniquely and inseparably tied together. God can love a people and be patient with them in their days of iniquity, but God’s patience and love can wear thin (see Helaman 15:3-4). 

[15] We are no different than God. We have set limits to our love and have identified those who will receive it. From a lesser to greater degree we love our servants, friends, and sons and daughters, but in no degree should our heart give place for the enemy of our soul (see 2 Nephi 4:28).