Denver Snuffer said -- in consequence of his being tried unrighteously, in a manner contrary to the order of heaven as given to the LDS Church and outlined in scripture, and being found wanting by those in (supposed) authority, charged with committing crimes which are not sins, leading to his excommunication, perverting the right ways of the Lord, and the subsequent denial of his appeal to the highest officers of the Church, either through negligence or unrighteous dominion by the same -- the Lord has withdrawn His priesthood -- His authority given to men to act in His name -- from the leaders of the LDS Church, every one of them who knowingly took part and raised his hand to the square to sustain the actions of those who committed this gross injustice.
The Lord is no respecter of persons. If He can slay the man who, in good faith, raised up his hand to steady the ark and -- for smiting a rock and calling forth water to a thirsty people, to his own glory, rather than to God's --- keep Moses from entering the Promised Land, then He can withdraw His priesthood from Thomas S. Monson, Russel M. Nelson and all the rest, individually or collectively. He can "undo" the authority of the LDS Church. They cannot claim that they are entitled to speak and act on His behalf regardless of what they do, without consequence.
And though they be good men (for all I know) and though I dearly love many of them (with great fondness), what's good for the goose is good for the gander. As you judge, so shall you be judged.
I told my bishop and stake president prior to my excommunication that what they did to me they would do to themselves. They didn't believe me.
The Mormon Church has "died" from the top down. The businessmen and lawyers and marketing gurus who run the Church today -- and who are in the Church's employ -- think to wrest the kingdom from those to whom it rightfully belongs. The Lord sent His servant to deliver a message, to call the people to repentance, and to set aright the house of the Lord, and those who thought to make themselves judges and keepers of the gate abused him and cast him out.
The Lord does not look kindly upon those "wicked" men.
I have known personally many of these men. I have loved -- and still love -- Jeffrey R. Holland and Russell M. Nelson. Robert D. Hales personally held my oldest daughter in his arms and blessed her, giving her her name. (He blessed me and my wife, too! I love Robert D. Hales.) I have known of their righteousness and faithfulness and goodness. I have witnessed the power of God work in them and through them. I am sure the Lord loves them.
But whom He loves He also chastens. And the gross injustice, the gross iniquity, the transforming of the gospel and doctrine of Christ -- which is very simple and plain to be understood -- unto something it is not, unto the turning away of the meek and the damning of the humble and repentent -- is an abomination unto Him. The LDS Church has erected a mighty fence of obstacles and disbelief which prevent others from coming unto Christ. They will not come unto Him themselves and they prevent others from doing so! Indeed, they cast those out from among them who dare even to try.
The Lord announced His decision to Denver (if I understood him correctly when he spoke on September 9) on May 1, 2014, saying that the Church's authority was terminated in conjunction with last April's General Conference.
When Jesus dined with His disciples for the last time, He turned to Judas Iscariot and said "That which you do, do quickly." The spirit of the evil one had entered Judas' heart and the Lord knew what he conspired to do that night. Even so our Lord let him. He could have killed him right there! He could have saved His own life! But in conformity with His own word, He loved him...and let him go.
Judas withdrew...and betrayed the Savior swiftly. Unwittingly, he served the Lord's eternal purposes.
When the Lord withdrew His priesthood authority from the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 5-6, they acted quickly to exercise unrighteous dominion against me.
It is not coincidence that while the closing credits to General Conference were still scrolling on the screen, I received a phone call from Bishop Christian Risenmay, greeting me cordially (with a "kiss", as it were), asking how I was doing on that Sunday afternoon. I told him my family and I were just concluding watching the final session of General Conference.
He said: "I'm glad to know that you are watching conference. I am calling to let you know that a meeting has been scheduled at the stake center on Wednesday night at 7 pm for you to meet with the stake presidency and the stake high council to try you for your membership. You may bring whatever witnesses you wish."
"To try me for what?" I asked. Of course, I knew. The bishop and stake president had met with me twice previously to grill me about my "testimony" of Thomas S. Monson and whether I believed the Church held "legitimate" priesthood authority. I recorded my recollections of that conversation in my journal soon thereafter. Those who doubt that the leaders of the LDS Church pervert the right ways of the Lord will do well to consider the following dialogue. These men -- Chris Risenmay and Matt Morris -- are not "evil" men, merely misguided ones. And inasmuch as they make themselves "judges in Israel" and claim all the rights, privileges, powers, honors and responsibilities of administrating the affairs of the Lord's kingdom, they can also share accountability for the same. I warned them to take care what they do -- for as they judged me they would be judged. They were both "fine" with that and blithely excommunicated me anyway. I take them at their word.
I sent them a copy of the following transcript shortly after our discussion, asking if any part of it was factually inaccurate. Neither of them had any corrections to make -- though my (former) bishop complained that I came across as "very arrogant" and made them both look "foolish". Oh well. They are lucky I did not record the event. They would have no cover for their sins.
From my journal:
[2014 March 3: Monday: 0256 hrs.] Sunday morning I met with Stake
President Matt Morris and Bishop Chris Risenmay. The two “tag teamed” to “beat
me up” (some more). It was like something out of “bizarro world”. I still can't
make sense of it. Unable to find sufficient fault with my conduct (to deny me a
temple recommend), they felt qualified to judge my “head” and my “heart”.
President Morris opened the meeting by asking me to pray. I felt a
dark spirit come over me as I did so. My mouth was almost stayed. I didn't want
to be there...and I didn't have anything to say. I forced myself to invite our
Father's blessing upon these men in their deliberations and grant His Spirit to
be with us.
President Morris asked me what I wanted to talk about. I gave him a
blank look like, What do you mean? “I have nothing more to say”, I told
him. He looked at Bishop Risenmay and back at me, confused. The two apparently
found something to talk about, for the ensuing conversation consumed the
better part of two hours! (I wish I could have recorded it!)
President Morris asked me how I was doing and Bishop Risenmay
expressed that he had misgivings about extending to me a temple recommend
because of various blogs and books I had read.
I explained how my understanding of the Church and its operations
has grown and matured over the past year because of my reading. I told them I
have learned many things, some of them quite disturbing. I used the analogy of
my children who, at first, were deeply disappointed when they learned there was
no Santa Claus, but, eventually, got over it and got into the “spirit” of it.
“I used to think that every word that dropped from the Brethren's lips over the
pulpit was the inspired word of God”, I said. “Now I know that's not true; the
Brethren make mistakes; they sometimes speak for themselves; what they say
isn't always scripture, but only when they are moved upon by the Holy
Ghost.”
“So you're saying you once worshiped the Brethren, Bill, but
now you realize they're only human?” President Morris mocked me. [I add here that his calling me "Bill" indicates just how long he has known me. Only my family and those who have known me all of my life call me "Bill".]
“I never said I worshiped them! I said it's a common mistake that
converts, like me, make: to suppose that whatever the Brethren say in General
Conference is inspired. Those born in the Church – like yourselves – generally
have a different opinion.”
I granted that each of us (in the room) were well read; that each
had studied the same history and scriptures, for many years. I asserted that I
had read more of these blogs and books than they had read, however, and
consequently I had a different understanding than they had.
Those who study Church history and read the scriptures carefully
come to realize there are gaping holes in the narrative: contradictions, false
doctrines, even fabrications in Church history. “My studies have helped me come
to understand how this came to be.”
“We believe you should be reading more from the scriptures and less
from those blogs”, President Morris interjected. Both of them seemed curiously disinterested
in anything I had to say. They were there, it seemed, merely to set me
straight. There wasn't the slightest hint that either of them believed I had anything
to offer them.
“I do read the scriptures! I read them all the time! I read
them with my family every day! We have Family Home Evening not once each week,
but every day! Before I go to work!” I mentioned that reading those blogs had
actually helped me to read and understand the scriptures.
The president and bishop asserted their belief that I was headed
down “the road to apostasy”, a refrain they repeated many times. They had seen
it “time and time again”, they said. “You're going to lose your testimony of
the Church!”
“I don't have a testimony of the Church! My faith isn't in
the Church! Or even in the Brethren” I said, pointing to their pictures on the
wall. “My faith isn't grounded in things that people normally get 'derailed'
on. I don't care about DNA in the Book of Mormon. Or the translation of the
papyrus of the Book of Abraham. I don't care about changes in scripture. Or
flip-flops by Church leaders over
doctrine. Or any of the other things that cause people to lose their
faith...because my faith isn't grounded in those things!”
“Then what is your faith based on?” Bishop Risenmay asked,
incredulously.
“My faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ. I know He lives
and I know the Book of Mormon is true. I can't deny that. Believe me,
I've tried! I've wanted to walk away, many, many times. I used to struggle with
sin, rising and crashing in stupendous failure, again and again, encountering
tremendous opposition and having many reasons to give up and move on. Many
people have tried to push me out of this Church, both from within and without.
I watched family and friends 'circle the drain' as I became a Baptist. Then I
watched many more go down when I became a Mormon. I'm not giving up now. My
focus is on coming unto Christ. If I wanted to leave this Church, I could have,
long ago. I have been given many reasons to leave, believe me. But I can't. I
know the gospel is true.”
“How do you know it's true?” the bishop asked again. I looked at him
incredulously. “Why do you ask me that? You don't even believe me! You don't
believe anything I say! You've rejected my testimony already.” (I stopped short
of reminding him that he had characterized my testimony as “a rant and
diatribe”. I didn't want to cast that in his face again, as he had apologized
and I had forgiven him.) “You don't believe anything I've told you!” But I told
him (some of it) again anyway.
“The Lord has ministered to me. I have heard His voice.[1] I can't deny that He lives.
He showed me the Book of Mormon. I have seen the gold plates – not in flesh,
but in vision[2] – and I have heard His voice
declare to me that they are true. I cannot deny it. And while I am not anything
like Him, I know He is divine – His mannerisms, His words, His Spirit.[3] I have seen His glory, and I
have seen that same glory upon select members of His servants, namely, Neil A.
Maxwell, Spencer W. Kimball and Jeffrey R. Holland.[4]
So I know they are His servants, but I can't speak for the rest.”
They were astonished that I would divide and disaggregate among the
Brethren as I did.
I intentionally omitted mentioning Robert D. Hales, an apostle –
even though he, too, named and blessed my daughter, Ariel, and blessed me and
my wife to be restored in the Church (both of which came to pass!) – for I had
received no witness from God that he was the Lord's anointed and any
man having “authority” in this Church could have told Pres. Zundel to
“make it so” and it would have happened thus. Not a bad man, by any means! But
I have received no witness from the Lord regarding him. Nevertheless, I
had nothing but good to say about him. Or any of the Brethren!
To emphasize the need to refrain from the smithering skepticism of
scholarship, so called, Bishop Risenmay appealed to a beautiful conference talk
delivered by Jeffrey R. Holland, quoting Neil A. Maxwell (two of my favorites!)
advocating “conformity” in the face of perilous mutiny from the faith.
In this Church there is an enormous amount of room—and
scriptural commandment—for studying and learning, for comparing and considering,
for discussion and awaiting further revelation. We all learn “line upon line,
precept upon precept,” with the goal being authentic religious faith informing
genuine Christlike living. In this there is no place for coercion or
manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy. But no child in this
Church should be left with uncertainty about his or her parents’ devotion to
the Lord Jesus Christ, the Restoration of His Church, and the reality of living
prophets and apostles who, now as in earlier days, lead that Church according
to “the will of the Lord, … the mind of the Lord, … the word of the Lord, … and
the power of God unto salvation.” In such basic matters of faith, prophets do
not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity, in the eloquent sense
that the Prophet Joseph Smith used that latter word. In any case, as Elder Neal
Maxwell once said to me in a hallway conversation, “There didn’t seem to be any
problem with conformity the day the Red Sea opened.”
Haha! Such a clever insight! But the Red Sea did open.
I rehearsed for the bishop and stake president, just to be clear,
that one must receive the Lord's servants in order to receive the Lord. I
didn't want them to think I believed that leaders of the Church were not
the Lord's appointed servants just because I had not received a revelation
concerning some of them. But no matter how many times I recited “I 'support and
sustain' the Brethren as 'prophets, seers and revelators'”, they would not
believe me!
“I'm not going to parse words with you, Bill”, President Morris
said. “Is Thomas S. Monson a prophet of God or not?”
“We call him a prophet. He doesn't call himself one. I don't know if
he is. I 'support and sustain' him as such. But I can't make him a prophet,
simply by calling him one! That's the Lord's doing.” This was a
novel argument for either of them to hear. “Not to be ... sacrilegious” –
I said, struggling to find the right word – “let me ask you a question: has
President Monson ever prophesied? Has he shared a vision? Has he ever revealed?
Has he ever translated? I don't know of any, do you?”
They looked at each other in disbelief. I continued: “Which of the prophets never prophesied? Any of them? Surely there must be at least one who didn't.”
After a pause, President Morris said “I can't think of one right now.”
“It doesn't matter. If the Lord wants to use Thomas S. Monson”, I
said, “as a prophet, seer and revelator, I'm sure He can! The Brethren, at the
very least, stand as 'placeholders'. The Lord has ordained for them to be where
they are now. Even if they don't do or say anything on His behalf, they hold
the place and confer and transmit that authority by the laying on of hands. In
the Book of Mormon, when someone had nothing to say or write, they simply
passed it on to the next guy – from father to son and brother to brother and
man to man. They simply kept the 'chain' going, passing on the book – and
authority, as it were – holding the spot. The Brethren today, at the very
least, hold the spot. The Lord can speak through them, if He chooses.”
In these men's minds, my words were tantamount to apostasy!
“So you think President Monson is a 'fallen' prophet, do you?”
President Morris asked me, pointedly.
“I wouldn't know. I have no idea. I hardly know the man. I've only
met him once...and he seemed like a nice enough guy.[5]
The Lord hasn't told me anything about him. I've appreciated his work and his
words. But I've never heard him prophesy. I sustain him as the leader of the
Church. He is the only one, as far as I know, who has the authority to lead
this Church, which authority he receives, at the very least, by our common
consent, when we raise our hands to 'sustain' him.” I lifted my hand to the
square, to demonstrate. “That, alone, gives him the right to preside. He also
may have other authority from the Lord to hold and exercise 'keys'...but I know
very little about those. In fact, I'd like to hear from you, bishop, about
those keys!” He declined to take up the challenge. “I know of no other person
on earth possessing the keys – whatever they are! – or authority to lead this
Church”, I said.
You would think that would be enough for them. But no!
“Maybe you should pray to receive a testimony that President Monson
is a true prophet of God”, President Morris suggested.
“We aren't required to have a testimony of the president of the
Church in order to receive a temple recommend”, I told him.
“Uh?” President Morris looked shocked! “But don't we...?” He
stumbled to find the right words. Bishop Risenmay helped him out: “Do you
sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the
prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses
and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of
the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers,
and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local
authorities of the Church?”
“Yes, I do”, I said. “I 'support and sustain' all of them as such.”
You would think that would have been enough!
But no! It wasn't!
Bishop Risenmay then elaborated on his perception of my dilemma. He
believed that I believe many things that aren't true and worried that I
“support, affiliate and agree with” people and organizations whose precepts and
practices are not accepted by the Church.
“Let's get that on the table, then”, I said. “Let's name the false
doctrines you believe I believe and I will denounce them here and now” I said,
tapping on the desk, “one by one”.
“There's so many of them!”
“Then let's name them, one by one. Surely you can name one!”
“Okay”, Bishop Risenmay proffered, “there's the false doctrine that
Denver Snuffer teaches that to receive priesthood authority you must first see
Christ. That's ludicrous!”
“I don't believe that. And Denver Snuffer didn't say that. What he
said was....”.
I wasn't allowed to finish. Bishop Risenmay cut me off, eager to
move on to the next point. He wasn't listening to me anyway.
I've learned something from this: the bishop and stake president
hear what they want to hear; they think they already know. I
would say one thing and they would hear another...and argue about what they thought
I said, rather than what I actually said! They simply couldn't understand
my words! Because they didn't believe them! They “judge” me not for what
I actually believe, but for whom I associate with:
an “apostate” (in Rock Waterman) or an excommunicant (in Denver Snuffer).
Because I agree with those fellows in some things, I'm now “guilty”, not to be
trusted, in error, heading for apostasy.
I mentioned Paul. “Paul was a prophet. Paul had seen the Lord. He
was called by Jesus Christ directly.”
“But Paul”, President Morris said, “didn't get the priesthood from
Jesus.”
“Actually, he had hands laid on him by Ananias[6]....Peter,
James and John, as the leaders of the Church, didn't know anything about
Paul – only that he was their enemy. And they were suspicious of him....”[7]
The stake president moved the discussion along, saying this was
going in circles. And maybe it was too much for them to handle.
To show I was objective, I made a point of explaining where (I
thought) Rock Waterman was wrong (regarding tithing), but this did not placate
the bishop or advance my cause any.
“Can you give up reading those blogs and books?” the stake president
asked me.
“I don't want to. I have learned more truth in reading a few
paragraphs of Denver Snuffer's blog than I have learned in all the Conference
Talks I have ever listened to!”
“But they're destroying your faith!” Bishop Risenmay said.
“That's not true! My faith in Christ has been remarkably deepened;
I've been driven to my knees in greater prayer and repentance, by reading
Denver Snuffer's blog and books.”
“Is it possible”, President Morris asked, “to drink pure water from
a poisoned well? Or to eat good fruit from an evil tree?”
“I know what you're saying, president. I just heard Sister Whitlock
in Sunday School talk about 'poop in the brownies'. You don't want to eat any
poop in the brownies!” They chuckled at the metaphor. “Precisely!” President Morris
remarked.
“But we are all 'poop in the brownies', to some extent. We
all have false ideas, doctrinal errors, misconceptions. If we reject all but
the 'perfect' we reject everyone. We can learn much, even from
people who have gone astray and who are in error in some things”, I said.
I returned to Bishop Risenmay and his accusations of “false
doctrine”, wishing to get that “resolved”, once and for all. I asked him,
again, to “place on the table” whatever he had against me. Pressured to find
something, he identified Snuffer's thesis of the “fulness of the
priesthood” being taken from the Church. President Morris agreed that this was
a grave false teaching.
“This is the premise of Snuffer's thesis, as I understand it”, I
tried to explain. (Notice I'm arguing Snuffer's thesis, not my own! I
never would have thought of it myself! His alleged “false doctrine” is now
apparently my false doctrine, by association!) “It's grounded in D&C
124. The Lord promised to restore the 'fulness of the priesthood' (see D&C 124:28) to the
Church, through Joseph Smith, even as He offered it to Israel, through Moses.
Seventy of the Elders of Israel did, in fact, go up to Mt. Sinai and enter into
the Lord's presence. God told Joseph Smith, by revelation, that He wished to
grant this same blessing to the Church if they would build a house unto Him. No
other place on earth would do, He said by revelation. Yet the saints failed to
build the Lord's House as invited (though they built many other houses for
themselves). And Joseph was subsequently taken from their midst and, with him,
went the opportunity to receive the 'fulness of the priesthood' offered. That
is Denver's thesis” I said. “And that's why the Saints, by and large, are not
entering into the Lord's presence today.”
Seeking to “cut to the chase”, President Morris asked me the
following:
“Is the baptismal ordinance recognized by the Lord?”
“That's a good question.”
“Is the sacrament ordinance accepted by the Lord?”
I held my peace, not knowing if he was speaking rhetorically or
wanting an answer.
“Is the sealing ordinance that you and your lovely wife received in
the temple efficacious?” He thought he was making head-way here. “Do we have
priesthood authority in this Church, or not?”
“We have lots of authority” I said. “Our problem is we have
very little power!”
They agreed that was true. “That's what Elder Packer said”, Bishop
Risenmay confirmed.[8]
“The ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood are outward
ordinances”, I said. “They are symbolic. They do not depend upon
the worthiness of the officiator to be efficacious.”
“What...?” President Morris recoiled, wondering how this
answered his question. “You're saying Bishop Risenmay shouldn't be worried if
one of his priests blesses the sacrament unworthily? That's 'okay' with the
Lord?”
“No, I'm saying the Lord accepts it. The Church will not deny the
efficaciousness of an ordinance simply because an administrator is
unworthy to perform it. Otherwise, what would happen if it were discovered
(after the fact) that a priest had blessed the sacrament unworthily? Or if a
father had baptized his daughter unrighteously? Would the ordinance have to be
repeated, even years after the fact? No, it would not. The Lord accepts such
ordinances, even in the temple, even when performed by wicked Aaronic
Priesthood holders! Think of wicked Eli and his two wicked sons. Or Caiaphas,
sitting in Moses' seat. Jesus said 'Do as they say, but don't do as they do,
for they are wicked.' Jesus acknowledged their 'authority', despite their
unworthiness.”
I continued: “Unlike the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is utterly
dependent upon personal righteous for the exercise of any priesthood
authority or power. Said power cannot be conferred by the mere laying on
of hands alone.”
This was practically blasphemy to them! They were shaking their
heads with incredulity. I was a babbling fool! I was speaking obvious false
doctrine now, for surely priesthood power is conferred by the laying on of
hands! For so they had been ordained!
“Jesus never appealed to authority to be obeyed by saying 'Look at
me! I am the Son of God!' or 'Listen to me! I've had some guy lay his hands on
my head!' Even His disciples, being ordained to the priesthood, sometimes
couldn't cast out demons. Why?[9] Jesus demonstrated His
authority by exercising power. In the absence of power, there is no real
authority.”
Again, another false doctrine, they thought. They knew better. But I
continued anyway.
“Jesus said 'Which is easier for me, to forgive this man's sins or
to say unto him, rise up, take up thy bed, and walk? But that you might know
that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins also, I say unto thee
(speaking to the man) Take up thy bed and walk.' Jesus thereby demonstrated He
had authority by exercising power.”
“D&C 121 explains”, I continued, “'no power or authority can
or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood'.”[10] That scripture alone
undercuts the entire “priesthood authority paradigm” of the Church.[11] “Power and authority cannot
be established or maintained by virtue of mere priesthood ordination alone,” I
said. I refered to (but did not recite in full) the scripture below:
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably
connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of
heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only [except] upon the
principles of righteousness. 37 That they may
be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to
cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise
control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any
degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the
Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the
priesthood or the authority of that man.
“Amen to the priesthood and authority of that man!” I said. There
is no “priesthood authority” – no Melchizedek Priesthood authority,
at least...by which the power of godliness can be made manifest – without
power in righteousness. Only the man who is righteous has real
power and true authority. Divine power, righteousness and authority are
eternally conjoined and cannot be separated!
I might add: No one possessing of the rights of the priesthood has any
right to compel, coerce, intimidate or demand, but shall lead and guide “only
by persuasion, by long-suffering, by
gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure
knowledge” (D&C 121:41-42). “Because I said so” just isn't an option under
the auspices of the holy priesthood.
“So the temple ordinances are not efficacious? We don't have the
sealing power in the Church?” President Morris asked me, incredulously. “Why
would you want a temple recommend if the temple ordinances aren't valid?”
“They are valid. The temple ordinances are outward
ordinances. They are all symbolic. The blessings of the temple are conditional
upon our faithfulness and obedience. The sealings, the anointings, the
ordainings to be kings and priests, the embracing of the Lord at the veil...these
are all symbolic. They have not yet been received. They are Aaronic
Priesthood-type ordinances.”
“You're conflating Aaronic Priesthood with Melchizedek Priesthood”.
“Yes, I am.”
Surprisingly, he didn't pursue that line of reasoning.[12] Instead, he castigated me
for sending my daughters (a few years ago) to another religious organization's
Youth Camp, rather than to our own, thereby (as he said) subjecting them to
ridicule, persecution and proselytizing by members of another faith. I reminded
him that the leaders of that group were the girls' own grandfather and uncle
and that I sent my girls to that camp because our church wouldn't
let them attend ours![13]
“I fear you're leading your family down a dark path toward
apostasy”, President Morris warned me again.
What came to my mind, however, was Lehi leading his
family down a similar path shrouded in mists of darkness, fraught with
temptations, dangers and filthiness, susceptible to the mockings and
persecutions and misinformation of those (both within and without the
Church) who would not continue to partake of the Tree of Life. “You are leading
your wife there. You are leading your children there. I'm not confident that
you will be able to venture down that path without losing your grip on the rod
of iron”, he said. “Your cynicism will destroy your faith and that of your
family.”
The highlight of our conversation (for me) came somewhere in the
middle, as I bore my testimony of the Savior and summarized all that I
had suffered in seeking His face. It came after the stake president almost
mocked me for wanting to be active in an organization which, in his mind, I no
longer believed. I told him that I have a testimony of the Lord and of His
gospel, that the Church fills a vital, and thus important, role; that without
the Church we would not have the ordinances of baptism or sacrament or the
temple; nor would the Book of Mormon be carried by the missionaries to the
world. I summarized my witness by saying thus (and “fire” welled up within me
as I spoke): “If I cannot have a temple recommend, I will go. I will not be
part of this Church.” No “half-measures” for me. How could I support a Church
which does not support me?[14]
“It works both ways, bishop”, I said. “Do you 'support, affiliate or
agree with' me?” He wouldn't answer.
The president seemingly ignored my “ultimatum” and went on to
something else.[15] (He apparently wasn't
listening very carefully.) But I interrupted him: “I meant that, president.
Either I get my recommend back or I go.”
I'm not sure those were the humble words of a true disciple
of Jesus Christ. But I am tired of being treated as a
“second-class-citizen” in this Church – first estranged for my sins, then
repulsed for my beliefs. (Meanwhile, the Church has nothing but good to say
about my wife and children, as if I had nothing to do with that!) “I see what
you're doing”, I said. “You think I'm falling out of the Church, and you're
trying to push me back into it!”
“Exactly!” they agreed.
“But I'm not a 'cultural' Mormon”, I told them. “I will never
be a 'cultural' Mormon. It is very easy to be a member of this Church so long
as you embrace the culture. And no one in the Church is going to criticize you
for doing that.” President Morris agreed. “But I will never be that guy”, I
said. I wasn't going to abandon my faith and testimony to conform to the
'culture' of Mormonism.
The purifying process has had its effect. I can see the standard of
truth going forth boldly, nobly, and independent...even into my own heart.[16] President Morris told me,
“I believe your heart is in the right place, but I'm not so sure about your
head!”
The brethren resolved, after all this, to “go home and pray about
it” and let me know.
If the bishop does not give me my temple recommend back, there is no
place for me in this Church. (And there's nowhere else for me to go...except to
Christ.)
I prophesy this: these brethren who sit in judgment against me will,
by their own verdicts, either lock themselves out of the Lord's presence...or
let themselves in.
