I told you I was a "bad guy", right? I'm every bit as much in need of the Lord's saving grace as anyone else. The works of men are nothing compared to what He has done for us.
King Benjamin taught:
Mosiah 4:29:
29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.
That got me thinking: What does it “take” to be a Latter-day Saint
today?
- Would being “worthy” to enter the temple – appropriately answering all of the temple recommend interview questions, meeting the Church’s highest standards of behavior and devotion -- qualify one?
- Would not only believing these things, but doing them to the best of one’s ability -- even more faithfully than the “average” member (who doesn’t even come to Church!) -- qualify one as a Latter-day Saint? For example, if one were to be baptized by immersion in water, by one having authority; receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (again, by one having authority and/or power to confer this gift), and thus be cleansed of one’s sins by the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, so that one no longer desired to do wrong and was able to prophesy and manifest spiritual gifts; be ordained to the priesthood (both Aaronic and Melchizedek) and thereafter testify to beholding visions of angels and God, as promised by the scriptures; serve a full-time, honorable mission; cast out devils and heal the sick by faith in Christ; be sealed to a spouse in the temple; raise (if possible) a righteous posterity in the Church; fulfill every Church calling to the best of one’s ability (even if inadequately and imperfectly); pay a generous fast offering and give to the needy; keep and use a current temple recommend…if one were to believe and do all this, in additional to everything else indicated above, would one then be a Latter-day Saint?
Apparently not.
It would appear that, despite all this, there are numerous ways one
can still “fail” to be a Latter-day Saint.
In my conversations with my bishop and stake president (before I was
excommunicated), they repeatedly asked me if I “sustained Thomas S. Monson and
the other General Authorities as ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’”. I told
them I did.
For some reason, they didn’t believe me.
“But is Thomas S. Monson a prophet, seer and revelator?” they asked
again.
I confessed that I hardly understood their question.
“If I answer you again, in a different way, will you then believe me? Are you asking if I
know of any prophecy, vision or revelation that Elder Monson has spoken, seen
or revealed? No, I do not. Do you know of any?"
They were surprised by my question, but they admitted that they
didn’t know of any, either.
“Do you know of any
‘prophet, seer, or revelator’ who has never
prophesied, ‘seen’ or revealed?” I asked.
They obviously didn't like this line of questioning! But they
confessed that they couldn’t think of any examples, off hand.
“Even so, if the Lord were to speak to the Church today, I do not doubt that He would speak through
the President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson”, I said.
One would think that would
be sufficient to warrant a “vote of confidence” from them. But no!
“Do you have a testimony
that Thomas S. Monson is the Prophet,
Seer and Revelator and the only person on
the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?”
they asked me, a third time.
I confessed I didn’t know what “keys” the President of the Church
holds or what he is supposed to hold. I invited the bishop to explain it all to me,
but he declined.
“Anyway, you don’t have to have a ‘testimony’ of the President of the Church
to be a member of the Church or to get a temple recommend”, I said. “You
just need to ‘support and sustain’ him in his calling.”
They were shocked by this
assertion and quickly told me I was wrong. They hurriedly re-read their temple
recommend questions, wondering how on earth I came to that conclusion. But
after making the effort, they couldn’t refute my statement.
I then testified that it was my belief
that Elder Monson is fully authorized and empowered to fulfill all the duties
of the President of the LDS Church, as “prophet, seer and revelator”, and the
only one so authorized and empowered. On top of that I said I thought he was a
nice guy.
“Of course, my calling him
a ‘prophet’ doesn’t make him a prophet. Only God can do that”, I said. “I haven’t received any ‘revelation’
about Elder Monson, if that’s what you mean.”
“Well, then, maybe you ought to get
that revelation”, President Morris said. (That sounded almost like a threat!)
Apparently one must now have a "testimony" of the
President of the Church in order to be a Latter-day Saint!
What they were really
asking (I suppose, without being so blunt) was if I swore unquestioning allegiance
to the operations and leadership of the Church. Would I ever even pause to ask
“Is this right?” or “Is he telling the truth?” Anything less than unequivocal
submission to The Powers That Be, in
any respect, they considered apostasy -- Christ’s admonition to “beware
of false prophets” (Matthew 7:15)
not withstanding.
Having got what they "needed", apparently, they changed the subject to
Church history.
“Do you believe the ‘fullness of the priesthood’ was taken from the
Church in the 1840s?”
Did the Church even have
the fullness of the priesthood in the 1840s? (Doctrine and Covenants 124:28.) What’s the fullness of the
priesthood? I had an idea. I told them mine. The fullness of the priesthood is to have everything necessary to come into God's presence. (Doctrine and Covenants 84:19-25.) But I didn't know for certain what the Saints had lost, if anything, at Nauvoo.
“I don’t know,” I confessed. “But the scriptures say that the saints
would be “moved out of their place” if they disobeyed…and they were, indeed,
moved out of Nauvoo…and their partially-completed temple was destroyed!”
“They finished it. It was dedicated”, the bishop interjected, matter-of-factly.
“Well, they may have dedicated it – but the temple was never
finished. They deemed it 'finished'.
After the Saints were driven out of Nauvoo, some sneaked back in to get the job
done. The upper floors were not completed. (They hung curtains for walls.)
The roof, damaged by an earlier fire, was also not fully repaired. After the
temple was dedicated, rather than being 'accepted' of the Lord -- with divine
manifestations, as with the Kirtland temple -- the Nauvoo temple was almost
immediately destroyed, first by fire, then by a tornado, which left not one
stone upon another. That doesn’t sound like a ‘holy place’, accepted by the
Lord”, I told them.
Apparently, one must also now have a “testimony” of Church history
to be a Latter-day Saint! A testimony that doesn’t acknowledge or “interpret”
historical facts in any way that casts shadows or doubts upon those whom the Lord
said would be “rejected as a church, with their dead” (Doctrine and Covenants 124:32) or “moved out of their place” (Doctrine
and Covenants 124:45, 71)
if they did not obey Him. The saints actually being
"moved out of their place" didn't seem to have any bearing on the
argument, according to these brethren.
Not having a “testimony” of Church “inerrancy” is now also regarded
as a “sure sign” of apostasy, apparently.
*****
It seems the more one learns about the LDS Church, the more one is likely
to either leave it or get kicked out by it. I am not among the former group. I would have
never left the Church unless my life
(or my family’s lives) were threatened by it or if unrighteousness within it
became so pervasive that the Church no longer fulfilled its divine mission.
Then I would leave it, happily.
But that point has not arrived (yet). The Church is (or can be) a great place to “come unto Christ” -- if
you don’t get distracted by everything else!
I have no control over the latter scenario. Being "cast out" is already my fate. Despite complying with all of the above, “there are divers
ways and means” to get kicked out of the LDS Church, “even so many that I
cannot number them”.
I have shown you two or three.
