HIS NUMBER IS 666 (Part I)

"In relation to the kingdom of God,
the devil always sets up his kingdom
at the very same time in opposition
 to God" (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 365).

Before proceeding, the reader is encouraged to review the previous blog concerning this same topic:

1. THE SEALED BOOK UNFOLDED TO VIEW

I'm going to let the cat out of the bag on this one by blurtting out that Solomon is the latter-day antichrist whose "number is Six hundred threescore and six" (see Revelation 13:18). I feel at peace with this conclusion. He was a man of wanton wickedness, with innocent blood on his hands, and a sexual preoccupation and deviancy second to none. Although dead for many years, he continues to "have dominion . . . from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth" (see Psalms 72:8).

For some, this news might be disappointing inasmuch as many have anticipated a latter-day antichrist that is a little less abstract. However, the scriptures teach that "whoso treasureth up my word, shall not be deceived" (Joseph Smith-Matthew 1:37). Hence, the apostle John sought to reveal the great antichrist through one of whom much is written that the elect may, through the appointed means, avoid being "overpowered unto blindness, or lead away to destruction" (1 Nephi 15:24). Supporting this cause, the Lord declared that "the scriptures shall be given . . . to the salvation of mine own elect" (D&C 35:20). According to a revelation previously given to the prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord pronounced that "mine elect hear my voice and harden not their hearts" (D&C 29:7). In the most profound sense, the Lord's "words . . . are [his] voice" (D&C 84:60) and those who read them by the power of the Spirit can "testify that [they] have heard [his] voice, and know [his] words" (see D&C 18:34-36). Indeed, the Shepherd's sheep "hear his voice" and "follow him: for they know his voice" (John 10:3-4). In the end, if we find that we have been deceived, it will be because we have not treasured up the word.

The Works of His Hands

In JST Revelation 13:1, John noted that he saw "a sign, in the likeness of the kingdoms of the earth; a beast rise up out of the sea, and he stood stood upon the sand of the sea, having seven heads and and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy." In a reference to this beast, the Lord invited the prophet Joseph Smith to consider how the lilies of the field grew? This rhetorical question was likewise asked by the Lord on two prior occasions; once to the multitudes listening to His sermon given on the mount (Matthew 6:28), and again to his people dwelling in ancient America (3 Nephi 13:28). On each occasion, the same reply was given . . . "they toil not, neither do they spin" (D&C 84:82).

Christians world-wide, tend to take the Lord's reply as the constitution for a perfect life. Neither toil, nor spin . . . that's the life for me! In fact, one individual has immortalized the Lord's question in song (see "Consider the Lilies" by Roger Hoffman), and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has commemorated it with a beautiful 2003 rendition (arranged by A. Laurence Lyon). However beautiful the song may be, the context of the Lord's question IS NOT, for the lilies are "the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven" to be burned (3 Nephi 13:30). Hence, the Lord's invitation to consider the manner in which lilies grow is not a suggestion that we should grow in like manner. To the contrary, lilies grow without toiling or spinning, without working, and without increasing the talents they have been given. Individuals who adopt this lifestyle cling to others to sustain life. Usually, they give nothing in return and, eventually, they must exhaust the host to which they cling if they are to sustain their lifestyle.

Solomon's life was so arrayed. He was Mahan, the master of that great secret, whereby he could convert life into property (compare Moses 5:31). His gain was another's loss. Despite his costly apparel, the Lord publicly censured Solomon and declared that, in all his glory, he "was not arrayed like one lily of the field which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven to be burned" (Matthew 6:28-29). When addressing the prophet of the latter-days regarding this subject, the Lord substituted his previous use of the name "Solomon" with "kingdoms of the world" (D&C 84:82), thereby, coupling Solomon to the beast (in the likeness of the kingdoms of the earth) that John saw.

At the conclusion of his sad life, he revels in the fact that all of his egocentricity "was vanity and vexation of spirit." Following are some of his final entries in his book of life:

I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life.

I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards:

I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits:

I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees:

I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:

I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the

provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.

So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.

And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.

Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun (Ecclesiastes 2:3-11).

Although I am an accountant by profession, I gave up trying to count the number of times that Solomon used the term "I", or its pronoun-equivalent, in these verses. I-ronically, it was Solomon who wrote concerning a generation of leeches who, like himself, would devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men. Although I find it distasteful to quote such a man, I believe it is warranted in this case: 

There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. 

There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. 

There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. 

There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men. 

The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough: 

The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough. (Proverbs 30:11-16).

There is prophetic irony in the fact that nearly every electronic device under the sun today begins with the letter "I" . . . iPhone, iTunes, iPad, and iPod . . . each with iTouch capabilities . . . in contrast to the declaration of the Great Jehovah, that I AM. 

Before the apostle John developed the verses that reveal Solomon as the latter-day antichrist, he established a fundamental premise as an opposing backdrop. Concerning Christ, he wrote: "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing" (Revelation 5:12). These seven things, and the means by which they were obtained and the use to which they were put, are the opposing backdrop. Christ was slain to receive all things. The sacrifice of all things is a precedent to receiving all things. Solomon received all things, but the means by which he obtained them, or the use to which he put them, was in contrast to the man he opposed--Jesus Christ. Each of these seven things, and the means by which Solomon obtained them will be the focus of the next several blogs.

To be continued in Part II . . . 

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).

The Ninety and Nine

What is frequently called the Parable of the Lost Sheep, should, in large respect, be viewed from the perspective of the ninety and nine. The reason for this conclusion is because the greater audience that Jesus was speaking to when he gave the parable were, in fact, the ninety and nine. Although the one lost sheep was present to hear his voice and was, in the end, offered salvation, the fact that there were ninety and nine other sheep should be sufficient for any to ask: "What about the ninety and nine . . . were they likewise saved?" When I pose this very question to any of my religion or accounting students, their typical response is that they were saved. Hence, when personally applied today, most of our youth go about thinking that they are the ninety and nine, that they have the principal obligation to save the one that is lost, and, if they do, salvation comes to all. However, given that it was Satan's plan that "one soul shall not be lost" (see Moses 4:1), I think it is high time to consider the salvation of the ninety and nine. Because the Joseph Smith Translation of Luke's version of the parable is the most beautiful and clear account I know, I give it here in its entirety:

1 Then drew near unto him, many of the publicans, and sinners, to hear him.

2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.

3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

4 What man of you having a hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine, and go into the wilderness after that which is lost, until he find it?

5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, and saith unto them, Rejoice with me; for I found my sheep which was lost.

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance. (JST Luke 15:1-7).

Joseph Smith (1976) provided an explanation for interpreting the parables Jesus taught. “I have a key,” he said, “by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what was the question that drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable?” (see Smith, J. (1976). Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (J. F. Smith, Ed.) Salt Lake City: Deseret Book., pp. 276-277.) Thus, to understand the foregoing parable, one has only to decipher the question that drew out the parable. Although the publicans and sinners drew near to hear him, it was the murmuring of the Pharisees and scribes that prompted the parable. The parable was, therefore, addressed to them in response to their zealous concern over the fact that Christ was receiving and eating with sinners. If Christ had simply "received" sinners, the Pharisees and scribes would have likely remained ambivalent and quiet. But it was the fact that Christ was eating with sinners that caused the hypocritical Jews to question his actions.

In ancient and medieval times, eating with another person denoted fellowship. Such fellowship was, among Israel, associated with the peace offering, the characteristic rite of which was the sacrificial meal. In the LDS Bible Dictionary, the following summary of the peace offering and its connection to eating is given:

Peace offerings, as the name indicates, presupposed that the sacrificer was at peace with God; they were offered for the further realization and enjoyment of that peace. The characteristic rite was the sacrificial meal. A feast symbolized fellowship and friendship among all its partakers and providers, and also a state of joy and gladness (Ps. 23:5; Matt. 22:1–14; Luke 14:15).

 This fond relationship between eating and fellowship is celebrated today by Latter-day Saints in the ordinance of the Sacrament. This relationship was also noted by Christ in the immediately preceding chapter, Luke 14, wherein he said to his listeners, "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God" (see Luke 14:12-15). Although inconclusive, I presume it is reasonable to suggest that some of those who were then hearing the Savior give the Parable of the Lost Sheep were the same who heard his parables that are recorded in Luke 14. Inasmuch as eating, or fellowship, presupposed that the sacrificer was at peace with God, the Pharisees and scribes probably felt justified in murmuring about the Savior's eating with sinners.

There is another element of this parable that should be addressed before moving to any final conclusions as to its interpretation. Although I do not wish to cover the law of the tithe to any great depth in this article, it is important to note that the law of the tithe definitely comes into play with respect to this parable. However, the part it plays is hidden . . . very hidden. Briefly, the first tithe of any sheep owned by Israelites in ancient times was a tenth of all, both good and bad (see Leviticus 27:32-33). From those thus tithed, a second tithe was determined by selecting the very best thereof (see Numbers 18:20-32). This "tenth part of the tithe" comprised the heave offering, or hallowed part, that thereafter became part of the sacrificial meal consumed by the High Priest and his sons in the Holy Place of the tent of the tabernacle (see Numbers 18:8-10), thereby, connecting the heave offering with the peace offering and fellowship.

Applying the law of the tithes to one hundred sheep results in one sheep . . . the lost sheep! The fact that this lost sheep is identified with the tithe of the tithe is not by chance as will be proven in future articles. For now, it is sufficient to remind the reader that Christ, on one occasion, declared that he was "not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (see Matthew 15:24) and, likewise, sent his disciples unto "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (see Matthew 10:16). This being the case, the Lord's people are "lost sheep" (see Jeremiah 50:6). In short, Christ did not come to find sheep that were found; rather, he came to find sheep that were lost. And, since Christ came for lost sheep, every person reading this article should feel compelled to conclude that being a lost sheep is far better than being a sheep that is found.

Having provided this backdrop, the reader of this article should now re-read the Parable of the Lost Sheep paying particular attention to the ninety and nine. As noted in verse 4, the Shepherd of the flock left the ninety and nine that he might go into the wilderness to find a single lost sheep. For any shepherd to leave ninety and nine for the sake of one bespeaks of how much love the Shepherd must have for the one, or of the lack of regard he felt for the ninety and nine. Further, as noted in verses 5-6, only the lost sheep whom the Shepherd found, thereafter, became the object of heavenly rejoicing for him, his friends, and neighbors. The Shepherd never returned to the ninety and nine, but instead returned home, and no rejoicing was heard in heaven for them. Correlating verse 7 with prior verses suggests that the lost sheep symbolized a sinner who repented.

But wait! Have not all of God's children, excepting Christ, sinned, and come short of His glory? The apostle Paul certainly thought so (see Romans 5:12, compare Roman 3:23). Are not all invited to repent? Why, then, were not the ninety and nine listed as those who likewise repented and, therefore, individuals over whom the angels of heaven aught to have rejoiced? The answer to these questions is found in the scathing rebuke the Lord gave to the ninety and nine in verse 7 of the parable. You see, there is no such thing as "just persons, who need no repentance." The ninety and nine, however, thought that is exactly who they were. These high-minded teachers and practitioners of the law forgot that they were "fallen man" in need of repentance. They thought redemption was found in keeping the law and had forgotten the need for Christ to save them. Hence, because they considered themselves just, they also considered themselves worthy of fellowship and were having a difficult time reconciling why Christ would eat with the sinner, but not with them. And because their pride so blinded them, the only thing left for them to do was to murmur.

Hence, those who considered themselves "found", or the proud, were lost . . . and those who considered themselves lost, or the humble, were found. Confirming this conclusion, the prophet Joseph Smith noted the following concerning the parable of the Lost Sheep:

The hundred sheep represent one hundred Sadducees and Pharisees, as though Jesus had said, “If you Sadducees and Pharisees are in the sheepfold, I have no mission for you; I am sent to look up sheep that are lost; and when I have found them, I will back them up and make joy in heaven.” This represents hunting after a few individuals, or one poor publican, which the Pharisees and Sadducees despised.

He also gave them the parable of the woman and her ten pieces of silver, and how she lost one, and searching diligently, found it again, which gave more joy among the friends and neighbors than the nine which were not lost; like I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons that are so righteous; they will be damned anyhow; you cannot save them. (Jan. 29, 1843. DHC 5:260-262).

Of the 100 sheep, only one was offered and accepted salvation! The tenth of the tithe, or the hallowed part, was the sheep that was saved; it was the lost sheep. The ninety and nine were too proud to accept salvation through Christ. I pray daily that I might remain a lost sheep.