THE INCARNATION OF MOLOCH (Part III)

MOLOCH

Before proceeding, the reader is encouraged to review, in the order shown below, previous blogs concerning this same topic:

1. THE SEALED BOOK UNFOLDED TO VIEW

2. HIS NUMBER IS 666

3. THE FOOLISH BEAST

THE INCARNATION OF MOLOCH 

Although many consider Solomon to be a righteous leader during the initial years of his reign, the scriptures suggest otherwise . . . as does his conduct. It is true that God blessed him, but it was't because Solomon had qualified himself for such blessings through righteous living. His throne was secured through bloodshed (see 1 Kings 2:12-25, 28-34, 36-46), his kingdom was built upon the back of Israelite slaves (see 1 Kings 5:13-16) and, as depicted in the picture shown to the left, he was the first king to build up the altar of Moloch, whereby, he introduced child-sacrifice as a form of worship to Israel (see Leviticus 18:21 and Leviticus 20:1-5; compare 1 Kings 11:7 and Moloch).

Although his name means "peaceable", Solomon was no less of a tyrant to Israel than Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and no less of a butcher than Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. No other person can measure up to his extreme moral wickedness. For this reason, he has been revealed in scripture that we may expose Lucifer and his methods of treachery.

WINSTON CHURCHILL

Other literary works have also referred to him in conjunction with his pagan god, Moloch. In The Gathering Storm (1948), the first volume of Winston Churchill's history of World War II, Churchill compares Solomon's pagan god with Hitler's triumph at the moment he finally achieved total power in 1933:

ADOLPH HITLER

He had called from the depths of defeat the dark and savage furies latent in the most numerous, most serviceable, ruthless, contradictory and ill-starred race in Europe. He had conjured up the fearful idol of an all-devouring Moloch of which he was the priest and incarnation (Churchill, Winston S., The Gathering Storm (The Second World War), Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY, 1948, p. 64).

JOHN MILTON

Likewise, in John Milton's poetic masterpiece containing more than ten thousand verses of Biblical history regarding the fall of man, Moloch is depicted as a brutish spirit, obsessed with war and violence. He urges the devils to return to battle Heaven even after their defeat has landed them in Hell. Important for purposes of this blog, Milton portrayed Moloch as the fallen angel who caused Solomon to build a temple against God wherein children, in sacrifice to his idol, were burned alive:

HINNOM, TOPHET, GEHENNA, or HELL

First MOLOCH, horrid King besmear'd with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents tears,
Though, for the noyse of Drums and Timbrels loud,
Their children's cries unheard that passed through fire
To his grim Idol. Him the AMMONITE
Worshipt in RABBA and her watry Plain,
In ARGOB and in BASAN, to the stream
Of utmost ARNON. Nor content with such
Audacious neighbourhood, the wisest heart
Of SOLOMON he led by fraud to build
His Temple right against the Temple of God
On that opprobrious Hill, and made his Grove
The pleasant Vally of HINNOM, TOPHET thence
And black GEHENNA call'd, the Type of Hell (Milton, John, Paradise Lost, Book I, 392-405). 

SATAN CAST OUT

In this literary work, Moloch is further listed among the chief of Satan's angels and, to those cast out of Heaven and assembled at the parliament of Hell, argues for immediate warfare against God. Although somewhat lengthy, this appeal is worthwhile reading (note: to facilitate understanding, the plain-english translation in used below):

SATAN SUMMONS HIS COUNCILS

Satan sat on his throne.

It was fancier than the richest kings of Persia or India had. He had become the king of evil.

It was more than he hoped for, and now he was greedy for more.

Instead of learning from his defeat, he just wanted to fight God some more.

So he began to tell his dream to the assembly.Gods of Heaven! - I still call you that because no place, however deep and dark, can weaken immortal power.

I'm not giving up on Heaven.

We will rise up more glorious and more feared than if we never fell, and not be afraid that we might lose again. 

Heaven's law made me your leader. The rights of justice gave us free will. And our achievements gave us honor and glory. 

Now we have it all back again, and in a much safer place. He willingly gave us this kingdom. Nobody would want to take it away from us. 

The powers that rule in the comfort of Heaven might be envied, but who's going to envy whoever rules in Hell and is in constant pain and under constant threat of attack from above? 

Where there's nothing to steal, there are no thieves. Nobody wants to gain worse pain for himself than he already has. 

That makes us more firmly united. Now we can fight for what is rightly ours. 

We have a better chance of succeeding now than when we were in the comforts of Heaven. Now it's just a matter of deciding how to go about it. Who wants to speak?

Moloch stood up. He was the strongest and fiercest angel in the war.

He wanted to be as strong as God, otherwise to him life wasn't worth living.

He was willing to risk everything.

MOLOCH

I vote for war, he said. I don't know anything about trickery. Those of you who want to sit around conspiring, do it on your own time! What do you expect the rest of us to do--sit around and wait in this hell-hole while our warden sits above on his comfortable throne? No! Let's take these damned hell-flames and attack his angels with them. He invented these tortures. Let's return them to him and dump sulfur and black fire on his throne. It won't be as hard as you think. Being chased downward and falling like we did is unnatural to us. But we can fly upward more easily, and take them by surprise. Are you afraid to make him mad again? What more can he do to us? What's worse than this?--where fire tortures us without end, and we're slaves at his mercy to punish whenever and in whatever way he wants. How much worse could things get? If he decides to kill us, let him. At least we'll be out of here. And if we really are immortal and can't die, then we can make his life miserable with repeated attacks forever. If not victory, at least we can get our revenge (Milton, John, Paradise Lost, Book II, 1-105).

To the people he served, Solomon was the INCARNATION OF MOLOCH.

THAT WHICH THEY DESIRED

So . . . why did the Lord bless one whose kingdom was full of darkness?

Whatever work

SOLOMON'S WIVES AND IDOLATRY

God desired to accomplish with Israel, He generally sought to do so through those who had power over them. Hence, there was an occasional changing of the guard. At times, those placed in power were foreign nations used to chasten God's people; at times, prophets and kings from within were placed as rulers that God might bless His people. At this specific time in Israel's history, the Lord blessed a king from within--Solomon--to chasten His people; and that the words of the prophet Samuel would not fall to the ground (see 1 Samuel 3:19). Surely, God could have removed Solomon out of his place. Nevertheless, God chose to retain Solomon because he was what God's people desired. 

When the Book of Mormon prophet, Mosiah, neared death, he established judges to reign over the Nephites according to the commandments of God (see Mosiah 29:21-27). This political structure, however, was not an original idea. Following the death of Joshua, the Bible notes that "the Lord raised up judges, which delivered [Israel] out of the hand of those that spoiled them. And when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them" (Judges 2:16, 18). True to form, the record states that the Lord's people . . .

SAMUEL DEDICATED BY HANNAH

. . . would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the Lord; but they did not so.

And when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubbornway (Judges 2:17, 19)

This form of leadership continued until Samuel, the prophet. Unfortunately, those of Samuel's sons who were appointed judges in Israel "walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment" (1 Samuel 8:2-3). By then, Israel had grown weary of this particular form of leadership. As a result, all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came and said unto Samuel, "Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations" (1 Samuel 8:4-5). Their simple request marked a critical turning point for Israel. Although displeased and discouraged, Samuel took the matter to the Lord:

And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 

According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 

Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them (1 Samuel 8:7-9).

Samuel returned and, as requested, rehearsed to the elders the manner of king that would reign over them. Neither the first nor second kings of Israel fit within Samuel's description. Solomon, however, fits his description in every detail. Following each verse of the description Samuel gave, a fulfillment of his description, as it pertains to Solomon, is provided below:

He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. (1 Kings 4:26-28; 1 Kings 9:19; 2 Chronicles 1:14, 17; 2 Chronicles 8:6; 2 Chronicles 9:25).

And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. (1 Kings 9:22, 27; 2 Chronicles 8:9-10).

And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. (1 Kings 4:7, 22-23, 27; 1 Kings 10:5; 2 Chronicles 9:4)

And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. (2 Chronicles 2:15; 2 Chronicles 9:7)

And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. (1 Kings 4:2-19)

And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. (1 Kings 5:13-16; 2 Chronicles 2:2)

He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. (1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chronicles 5:6; 2 Chronicles 7:4-5)

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

Nevertheless, it is recorded that ". . . the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles" (1 Samuel 8:11-20).

It is at this point, that an important lesson should be brought to the forefront: God grants to men according to the desires of their hearts, whether they desire good or whether they desire evil. After declaring his wish to cry repentance unto every people (Alma 29:1) that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth (Alma 29:2), the Book of Mormon prophet, Alma, mildly rescinded his declaration:

I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience (Alma 29:4-5).

The Israelites were raised in an environment whereby they knew good from evil, and to them it was given according to the desires of their heart. Hence, when Samuel rehearsed all that he had heard from the elders, the Lord said to Samuel, "Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king" (1 Samuel 8:21-22). A king he did make, and as Solomon began his reign, the Lord plainly declared that He was not pleased with Solomon, but was willing to prosper him because the people desired it:

And the Lord was not pleased with Solomon, for he made affinity with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter to wife, and brought her into the house of David until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall of Jerusalem round about. And the Lord blessed Solomon for the people's sake only (JST 1 Kings 3:1; emphasis conspicuously added).[1]

Hence, the first and ONLY reason the Lord prospered Solomon was for the people's sake. 

ACQUIRING ALL THINGS

Of the seven things which Solomon received in the likeness of Christ, I wish to address RICHES first. This is because doing so provides the most immediate and obvious connection to the antichrist of which John speaks.

To be continued in Part IV . . .

ENDNOTES

[1] The emphasized elements of the foregoing verse are contributions by the prophet, Joseph Smith. The fact that they did not find their way into the footnotes of the LDS edition of the Old Testament is an unfortunate mishap, for they provide the best doctrinal explanation as to why Solomon received power, riches, wisdom, strength, honour, glory, and blessing from God. 

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 Worm that Never Dies

Having previously written about the worm that dies, I thought should say a little regarding the one that never does. However, reading my blog entitled "I am a Worm" prior to reading this one is important to understand what the worm is, why the worm dies, and what results when it does.

The Joseph Smith Translation of Mark 9 details a conversation between Christ and his apostle John. Therein is the Lord's first reference made to the worm that dieth not:

And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out.

It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

For it is better that thyself should be saved, than to be cast into hell with thy brother, where their worm dieth not, and where the fire is not quenched. (JST Mark 9:45-48).

As noted in my previous blog regarding this concept, the female crimson worm gives birth but once in her life-cycle . . . at the cost of her life. Hence, the worm that dies has posterity; she brings forth children. But what comes of the tola'ath, or worm, that never dies? She never brings forth children. Thereafter, she is a generation whose name is cut off out of the land of the living (see Jeremiah 11:19) that she may be forgotten and never again declared among all that are living (see Isaiah 53:8). Like all maggot larva, she spends the rest of her eternal existence feeding her voracious appetite; persistently consuming and destroying all the living in her path.

Clearly, the worm that never dies is a shadow of those who apostatize from the true and living church after they have received their inheritance by consecration. Hence, their names are not enrolled with the people of God, neither is their genealogy kept, or had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church, "neither the names of the fathers, nor the names of the children [will be] written in the book of the law of God" (D&C 85:3-5). As spoken by the prophet, Malachi, they are left with "neither root nor branch" (Malachi 4:1).

Addressing those for whom the new heavens and earth is to be made and whose seed and name shall remain, Isaiah declared that "they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh" (see Isaiah 66:22-24). In this verse, Isaiah added several elements, which few understand, to the foregoing penalty of barrenness. First, the fire spoken of, that is never quenched, is wickedness. "Wickedness burns as a fire", wrote Isaiah (see Isaiah 9:18-19). When judgment day for most will have come and gone and they will have been washed clean of their sins through faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, "there [will be] found among those who are to remain until that great and last day, even the end, who shall remain filthy still" (see D&C 88:102, compare D&C 88:35). These "filthy still" reserved unto the fire "cannot be redeemed according to God's justice" for they shall be as though "there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death" (see Alma 11:41). And, because they shall have been resurrected, "they cannot die, seeing there [shall be] no more corruption" (Alma 12:18). And because they will not be willing to enjoy that which they might have received," they "shall return again to their own place to enjoy that which they will be willing to receive" (D&C 88:32).

Second, Isaiah's reference to the carcasses of those so cursed points back to the oath of the Abrahamic covenant wherein Abraham divided the designated sacrifices . . . the heifer (peace offering), the ram (burnt offering), and the she-goat (sin and trespass offering) . . . through the midst (see Genesis 15:9-10). And when the fowls came down upon those carcasses, the following verse notes that Abram drove them away (Genesis 15:11). At some future date, I will offer significant detail regarding the Oath of the Abrahamic Covenant and all of the symbolism involved in this rather obscure chapter of Genesis 15. For the time, however, it is sufficient for me to mention that one of the penalties for breaking the oath is that "the Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth. And thy carcass shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away" (Deuteronomy 28:25-26; compare Jeremiah 34:17-20).

 

The fowls of the air and beasts of the earth are scriptural symbols of the Gentile nations. Gentiles were also called strangers, unclean, common, Egypt, a bruised reed, serpents, and "that which is forbidden" (see Ezekiel 23:42, Matthew 27:27, Acts 10:9-16, 28, 45, Acts 11:1, 4-10, 18, Jeremiah 46:1-2, 2 Kings 18:21, and Abraham 1:22-23). Partaking of those things which they seek (see Matthew 6:24-31, 32) is partaking of "forbidden fruit." During the greater part of the 6,000-year history of this world, they have been a sword in the hand of the Lord raised against His people to reprove, scatter, humble, and punish them. If the Lord's chosen race were, thereafter, to be slain by this common enemy, Jeremiah prophesied that "they shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcasses shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth" (see Jeremiah 16:4; compare Jeremiah 25:33 and Psalms 83:9-10). Such bespeaks of an inglorious resurrection.

The penalty imposed on all who break the covenant of the Holy Priesthood is that they 1) shall receive an inglorious resurrection, 2) shall have no posterity, and 3) they shall not be cleansed of their wickedness worlds without end! This, the scripture declares, "is their torment!!!" (see D&C 76:44). Who, but God, could imagine a more awful farewell.