Dear Reader,


A Latter-day Saint who believes that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders are authorized of God doesn’t necessarily accept whatever the church puts forth as “gospel.” On the contrary, anyone who wants a better church tomorrow really ought to speak up today. We aren’t potted plants. Let's face it: Theological malarkey will continue to thrive in the church if members say “amen” to it all.

That is the main reason this site exists.

It also exists because I want to encourage wavering Latter-day Saints not to leave the Lord's restored church merely because of its flaws and the errors of its leaders.

Each article is listed below with a title, short synopsis and a link. They were written by Steve Warren (bio below).

Keep the faith.

Steve Warren
West Valley City, Utah

“God is actually trying to create a much more profound relationship with us. We can only do that if we are actually wrestling with issues at hand.”
--Fiona Givens

Christ moves closer to us as we move from dogma toward truth.

Steve Warren was raised in Heppner, Oregon, and has lived in Utah for 46 years. He attended Ricks College for two years, served a mission to Colombia and Venezuela, and graduated from BYU in 1973 with a degree in communications. He and his wife, JaNiece, have two sons and a daughter. He wrote and published Drat! Mythed Again, Second Thoughts on Utah in 1986 and was a copy editor at the Deseret News from 1988-2008. He wrote and printed 100 copies of a novel, Beyond the Finish Line, but has not found a real publisher in spite of good reviews.
Knowing, believing, seeing Insights into our borderline dysfunctional LDS relationship with the word “know.”

Pathway to heaven The Scriptures show one sure way to return to God’s presence: possess a heart that pleases him.

Obedience gone awry Strictly following the prophet is an excellent idea—at least as long as he’s right.

Falling short, staying put Living prophets constantly err, but that’s not a good reason to leave the Lord’s church.

What in the world? Certain strange features of the Book of Mormon add to its credibility.

Some kind of miracle Fiction. An invitation to speak in sacrament meeting begins a Utah couple’s wild ride.

The cross = victory The cross is a worthy, positive symbol because it reminds us that it is the dying Christ who saves us.

Pilate tried Jewish religious leaders sought to kill Jesus; Pontius Pilate sought to set him free, so let’s give the man a break.

Father, Father, Father Why do we repeat the name of Deity so often in prayers these days?

Witnesses Multiple witnesses provide a compelling reason for anyone to ponder the claims of Mormonism.

Who is God? The Book of Mormon and other scriptures clearly teach that Jesus Christ is God and that Heavenly Father is God the Father.

In the beginning If we didn't allow speculation and guesswork in lessons on the Creation and Adam and Eve, classes would be really short.

Short takes Brief quotes, comments and reflections on a variety of gospel topics.
A few heresies... that would make for a more interesting sacrament meeting.
Oopsy-daisy 40 foul-ups by top LDS authorities.
Appreciating Christ
It's a miracle
The certainty of life after death
Farewell to temple ordinances



Friday, February 24, 2017

A few heresies


Rethinking salvation of little children

The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that children who die before the age of accountability inherit the celestial kingdom (D&C 137:10) and eternal life (Mosiah 15:25), which is the greatest of all the gifts of God.  The Book of Mormon also teaches that little children who die do not need baptism as they are not capable of sinning. (Moroni 8)  Some might contend that it hardly seems fair that after living six months on earth, a dead baby who came to earth to be tested” automatically gains heavenly glory while such glory is far from certain for those of us who are tested in this vale of tears for many decades.

The Church goes further.  To comfort parents of children who die before the age of accountability (age 8), it declares that these children all inherit the celestial kingdom, where they will eventually be raised to adulthood by their righteous parents, in particular, their mothers.  What grieving parent wouldn’t want to hear such soothing words?  (See July 2021 article in Liahona.)

The above teaching reflects a comment of Joseph Smith to Mary Isabella Horne and Leonora Cannon Taylor who each lost a young child. Sister Horne said, He told us that we should receive those children in the morning of the resurrection just as we laid them down, in purity and innocence, and we should nourish and care for them as their mothers.

Nevertheless, this feel-good teaching, like a wheat field in gopher country, is full of holes.

First, some parents who have lost a child have told of an appearance of that same child to them decades later but as an adult rather than as a child.

Second, roughly half of first marriages in Utah and elsewhere end in divorce.  Bringing two divorced parents back together for many years in the hereafter to raise their dead small child could turn into a real nightmare.  Plus, think how annoying it would be to their current spouses.

Third, at what point after parents die do they actually get to enter the celestial kingdom to raise their long-dead small child?  For example, if the dead child and parents were drowned during the Great Flood and the parents have not yet had the required ordinance work done in their behalf, wouldn't the little child be facing more centuries of remaining in his little-child limbo?  We seem to be putting God into the position of saying to 5-year-olds, “Because you died before the age of accountability, you will remain a 5-year-old for decades or centuries until your parents finally have their vicarious work done and they become available to raise you. 

Fourth, what if the parents are unworthy and/or refuse to join the Church?  Would they get a temporary pass into the celestial kingdom to rear the child before being booted out forever?  Or is the child assigned to LDS step-parents?

Fifth, what is the theologically correct term for the long time dead children must wait until someone finally becomes available to rear them to adulthood?  Dormancy?  Limbo?  Stasis?  It seems like we ought to come up with something better.  Plus, there's the problem of a child dying very young when the parents are both 25, but one parent eventually dies at age 50 and the other parent dies at age 90does the parent who dies at age 50 have to wait for 40 years so that the two of them can raise the child?  If the child is not allowed to be reared until the other parent arrives, we can picture a scene in which the first parent is stuck reading and re-reading Winnie the Pooh books to the child for 40 years. 

Sixth, if all little children who die will indeed be raised by their parents in the celestial kingdom, it becomes quite clear that most people who have lived on earth are headed for celestial glory.  Here’s why:  Most couples in centuries past had one or more children die before the age of accountability, often at or near the time of childbirth. This means that all of those parents, together with their dead little children, end up in celestial glory.  This, of course, is quite contrary to Church doctrine on the makeup of the celestial kingdom.  (We teach that most mortals are bound for the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms, not the celestial, where residents must be members of the Lord's church.  This forces us to conclude that LDS parents will be doing a lot of step-parenting in the celestial kingdom.)

Seventh, on a practical, down-to-earth note, let us visualize what rearing of a small child in celestial glory would be like.  It is guaranteed to be successful.  Remember, Satan isn't there, so the child can't be tempted to sin.  Most of these children will be raised as an only child as their siblings won't be around, having already lived their comparatively sinful lives on earth.  And the sinless child might be fearless and tempted, er, inclined to take risks, knowing that he's immortal, can experience neither pain nor death, and is assured of eternal life.  In fact, if this doctrine is true, we have to ask ourselves two questions:  What is the point of a child being reared in celestial glory if the outcome is assured?  and “Why in the world would any loving parent on earth allow their children to live past the age of 8? 

Note:  A July 2021 Liahona article asserts that small children in the celestial kingdom will be required to enter into the covenant of marriage in order to be exalted into the highest order of celestial glory, but, as noted above, Mosiah 15:25 clearly states these children will receive eternal life, the greatest gift of God.  In other words, just as they were exempted from being tested and from being baptized, our theology teaches they will also be exempted from the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

Heavenly Mother

Although there is no scripture or revelation on the subject, church leaders say we have a Mother in Heaven.  I'm perfectly happy believing that.  But short of a revelation, whatever the church says about Heavenly Mother is no more than speculation.  Rather than automatically believe the church's position, as individuals we would be better advised to ponder the subject, decide for ourselves and act accordingly.  Here's why:  First, because consistency has not characterized our LDS beliefs on Deity.  And, second, because the same church that today says Heavenly Mother exists may say tomorrow that Heavenly Father always presides, that we must not seek to commune with her, that she is but one of God the Father's numerous wives, and that she should not be an object of worship. 

Our LDS track record relating to Deity has not been sterling.  

We are a church whose prophet taught for a couple of decades that God the Father and Adam are the same.

We are a church whose scriptures proclaim that Heavenly Father is the same yesterday, today and forever while we simultaneously assert that he was once a mortal and that he eventually rose to the stature of an exalted man, i.e., God.

We are a church that teaches that in order for anyone to become an exalted person or God, he must obtain a physical body and enter into the covenant of eternal marriage, but our scriptures also state that the premortal Christ was God over the whole earth, created numerous other worlds and is the creator of the physical bodies of Adam and Eve all of this while having only a spirit body and, as best we can tell, never entering into the covenant of eternal marriage.  Additionally, in the mid-1830s, the church-approved Lectures on Faith taught that God the Father was a personage of spirit.

We are a church that teaches that our Father in Heaven is himself a fully omnipotent God while hinting that he lacked power to create spirit children without some form of assistance from a female god or gods.

We are a church that claims to know that we have a Heavenly Mother but is entirely uncertain about whether there might be more than one.  (Asserting that there is only one Heavenly Mother would likely have problematic implications relating to plural marriage and to the continuing temple practice of sometimes sealing one man to multiple wives.)

We are a church whose scriptures (and some leaders) state that God the Father is the only being (D&C 20:19,29) we should worship, but our scriptures also speak of worshiping Christ, and one of our recent prophets, Gordon B. Hinckley, declared that it is Jesus Christ, not God the Father, who is the central focus of our worship.”  The existence of a Mother in Heaven would, naturally, cause us in this era of equality to ponder whether she, too, might deserve to be worshiped, the affirmation of which would likely cause certain people to declare, There goes the freakin' neighborhood!

We are a church that is highly reluctant to use the term God to refer to Christ although our Scriptures routinely refer to him as God.  (See Who Is God on this site.)  

Finally, we are a church that possesses canonized, revealed scripture dealing with such low-end topics as whether certain missionaries should ride horses or mules (D&C 62:7).  Yet, on the subject of Heavenly Mother, not a single word.  Shouldn't profound silence from God on such a major issue be sufficient reason to take a “we don't know” position?  (Also, profound silence on such a significant subject might be viewed as sufficient reason to seek a revelation.)

Yes, we may indeed have a Heavenly Mother.  But church leaders who say so are simply engaging in uncanonized speculation.  

Frankly, when Eliza R. Snow wrote “In the heavens are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! . . . truth eternal tells me I've a mother there,” she was not issuing a revelation for the church but was merely engaging in deductive reasoning.  Still, what Joseph Smith might have said on the subject may not be heresy, but it is certainly hearsay.  Yes, the Heavenly Mother teaching has a comfortable feel, it harmonizes well with other LDS doctrines, many prophets have embraced the concept, and most of us feel good about it.  But that doesn't make it revelation nor does it make it true.   Nevertheless, the church's inconsistent teachings on Deity need not prevent us individually in the meantime from deciding for ourselves that the church's speculation about a Mother in Heaven's existence is indeed true.  And giving her a more prominent place in our minds would affect how we see ourselves and the world and would likely recognize the proper stature of femaleness; namely, equal to maleness.  

When one looks at where males in control has brought our world, this might be the perfect time not only to decide that she exists but to decide that her female children should be much more involved in running the world. 

P.S.  Let's also ditch that nonsense about Heavenly Father refusing to reveal anything about his heavenly companion because he didn't want foul-mouth rascals here on earth to profane her name.  If we actually believe that Mother in Heaven is so girly sensitive that her tender feelings would be hurt if mortals misused her name, we are forced to conclude that she isn't much of a goddess because an omniscient goddess would be fully aware of the myriad despicable deeds that her children commit that are far worse than the mere misuse of her name.

Also, let's ditch this nonsense that God the Father created his children through some process that required an interaction with a Heavenly Mother.  Look at the numbers.  If the Christ mentioned in the Pearl of Great Price created “worlds without number, then how many spirit children would our heavenly parents have created to populate those worlds?   Let's say worlds without number is actually only 10,000 and that 25 billion spirit children are sent to each world.  Total:  250 trillion.  Now let's assume that our heavenly parents had an amazing tolerance for repetition and were actively doing something (procreating?) to produce all those children for 100,000 years before going completely stir-crazy.  To have created the 250 trillion spirit children in 100,000 years, they would have had to create 7 million children per day.  (And to think some people make a big deal out of having twins!)  Creating 7 million children each day would leave even the most frugal couple with little time to become personally acquainted with each child.  (Keep in mind that patriarchal blessings often say we knew our Heavenly Father or heavenly parents and that we dwelled with them.)  I suspect that long before 100,000 years, if they had found a free moment to chat, they would have said something like, Maybe we should consider other activities.  Let's watch a Utah Jazz game!  (Rest assured, God is not a Lakers fan.)  

When revelation goes bad

Although Joseph Smith and others reported visions in the early years of the church, revelations for the church are typically received when the prophet feels something is the Lord’s will, he prays about it, and if he senses a confirming impression or voice in his mind, it might be presented to counselors, apostles and, eventually, to the church.  

But how do we explain so-called revelations that are wrong from Day One?  Rather than examining the usual suspects (blacks and the priesthood, plural marriage, the role of women, etc.), let’s consider two other examples.

First, the LGBT exclusion policy of November 2015 that prohibited baptisms of children in families with gay parents was viewed as a revelation.  Some leaders said it showed the Lord’s love for children.  By the time it was reversed less than four years later, a senior apostle who had referred to it as revelation, Elder Russell M. Nelson, had become president of the church.

Second, Joseph Smith and others traveled to Salem, Massachusetts, in 1836 after the prophet prophesied that large amounts of money would become available to the church there and that the Lord would “give this city into your hands.”  They returned empty-handed to Kirtland.  This failed revelation comprises Section 111 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

As with other failed revelations, prophecies and teachings, the preceding two raise a couple of questions:   Do prophets sometimes make up crap and present it as revelation?  Or, more likely, does the Lord permit prophets to proceed with certain courses of action (or teachings) even when what is being followed is incorrect and will be changed?  In the latter scenario, perhaps Christ is saying, in effect, “I will provide no feeling to dissuade you from proceeding as you currently think is correct, but you will eventually learn that your course is a mistake just as Joseph giving the manuscript to Martin Harris was a mistake.  This will enable you to learn the importance of due diligence and will help demonstrate to you the difference between a feeling that it's OK to proceed versus a clear impression that proceeding is actually my will.”  Such a course would manifest the Lord's deference to the agency of man in which prophets, like everyone else, make mistakes and learn from them.

Of course, the weird Salem revelation might better be explained by saying that the prophet combined a correct thought—that he was the Lord’s authorized prophet—with an incorrect assumption—that thoughts that linger in the mind of an authorized prophet surely must be there because the Lord put them there.  The same could be said of prophets having dreams that they interpret as revelations but that, in reality, may simply be the result of consuming ice cream or blueberry pie too close to bedtime. 

In both cases above, the failed revelations might have been avoided through seeking input from a range of people, not just like-minded church associates and leaders.  In the LGBT matter noted above, this might have been particularly helpful.  By listening to members and others who disagree, rather than treating them as pests, leaders might slow the flow of bunk from church headquarters.

Unfortunately, the problem of today's accepted dogma becoming tomorrow's heresy is not limited to revelation; it also includes other accepted teachings and beliefs that don't qualify as revelationsand it is far from a  modern problem.  For example, we believe the Bible and Book of Mormon are the word of God, but the word of God contains many words that aren't from God.  As with modern teachings and revelations that are later discarded, well-intended ancient prophets were caught up in traditions and cultural biases as well as the problem mentioned above of combining a correct thought—that they were the Lord’s authorized prophets—with an incorrect assumption—that thoughts that linger in the mind of authorized prophets surely must be there because the Lord put them there.  Obviously, many people slain by righteous sword wielders and stone throwers would have preferred a little less certitude from the prophets who green-lighted their killers.

Even the church today is acknowledging that the way prophets receive most revelations is no different from how average members pray and feel inspired.  As Matthew Godfrey, managing editor of the Joseph Smith Papers project, has said: for the vast majority of the revelations that are in the Doctrine and Covenants, they came to Joseph Smith the same way the Lord reveals things to us.  It was through inspiration that he  received (from) his heart into his mind.” (Church News, Feb. 13, 2021, p. 15)  In Joseph Smith's case, many of those thoughts were spoken to scribes and edited by others before they were published.

Dressing for the last time

Having an earthly burial has never been a requirement for a heavenly resurrection. Therefore, the type of clothing placed on our corpse will have zero impact on our prospects for heavenly glory.  Still, most active, temple-endowed Latter-day Saints prefer to be attired in temple clothing in their coffins.  Indeed, the church handbook says worthy endowed members should be buried in temple clothing.  Here are 10 thoughts about why there is no need to dress the dead in temple clothing.

1.  Jesus was not buried in temple clothing, nor were virtually all of the great prophets.  Enoch, Elijah, Moses and Alma apparently weren't buried at all but went directly to heaven. 
2.  In the unlikely event that temple clothes are actually required on the other side, every worthy person will receive them.  Being buried in regular clothing won't hurt the worthy, and being buried in temple clothing won't help the unworthy.  It simply doesn't matter to a just God whether someone's body was buried in a clown suit or whether it re-entered the food chain after it was cremated, lost at sea, eaten by wolves or blown to smithereens.
3.  Any temple clothing provided in the next life will be superior to what was produced on earth and will not wear out.
4.  Any temple clothing made on the other side will be in the correct heavenly style.  (Most temple-goers today wouldn't be caught dead in the styles of the late 1800s.)
5.  We anticipate that in the Resurrection our bodies will be in the prime of life.  If this is indeed the case, earthly temple clothing (or any other clothing) that fits the bodies of worn-out, creaky old dead people is unlikely to fit the body of a vibrant, resurrected being.  It will need to be replaced.
6. When Peter and John arrived in the tomb, they discovered that Christ had left behind his burial clothing.  Yet, when he later appeared to Magdalene and to other disciples, the risen Lord was clothed.  By discarding burial clothing made in this world, Jesus was perhaps telling us that clothing made on earth stays on earth.  He was also telling us that clothing (temple or otherwise) is available on the other side.  
7. The Doctrine and Covenants says that children who die before the age of 8 go directly to the celestial kingdomand not a one of them ever wore temple clothing. 
8.  Temple clothing made in heaven will not have been exposed to a corpse for an extended period of time. 
9.  Instead of adorning the dead, maybe temple clothing would better be donated for use by the living.  For Latter-day Saints who feel uneasy about using clothing left behind by a person who has died, be assured that such clothing is completely decoffinated.
10. Familial conflicts over whether to dress the deceased in temple clothing would be eliminated if everyone recognized that the clothing worn by the dead makes no more difference in the next life than whether the dead person was buried at all.

Putting temple clothing on corpses is nothing more than an unexamined tradition that we Latter-day Saints have become comfortable with.  As long as it has the imprimatur of church headquarters, it will be as hard to shed as any other bad habit.  Of course, that doesn't mean we are stuck with it forever because, when it comes to reversals of church policy on matters of burial, it wasn't too many years ago that cremation was taboo for members in the United States, whereas today it is acceptable.

It is also good to keep in mind that the Scriptures say our bodies came from the dust of the earth and unto the dust they return. (Gen. 3:19, Eccl. 3:20, etc.)  Despite scriptures that appear to say that our mortal bodies undergo change and resurrect, these temporary bodies partly consist of matter from plants and other animals (including long-dead humans whose remains had returned to the food chain). Our resurrected physical bodies, therefore, will surely consist of a new, nonperishable substance.

Half-baked theology

As I have noted elsewhere on this site, the Church cranks out theological malarkey on a regular basis.  One of the most prolific contributors to the malarkey pile was Elder Bruce R. McConkie.  (He also contributed much valuable insight on gospel topics.)  One of Elder McConkie’s most dramatic additions to the pile was titled “We worship the Father and him only and no one else,” which was a subsection of a BYU Devotional address titled “Our Relationship with the Lord” that he gave on March 2, 1982.

Below are Elder McConkie’s verbatim thoughts in their entirety, divided into five parts, followed by my comments.

We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.

That we do not worship Christ in the “true” sense but simply find ourselves “standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him” is a claim that Elder McConkie pulled out of thin air.  The Nephites were not “standing in awe of Christ but were kneeling in worship when “they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him.”  3 Nephi 11:17  And Nephi was speaking of total, all-out, 100 percent worship of Christ when he stated: Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him will all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul. 2 Nephi 25:29 

Also, to say that worship in the “saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator” has two significant problems.  First, prophets and the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the atoning Christ, not the Father, saves us and that he is the only source of eternal life.  In other words, we could worship the Father 24 hours a day, but without Christ we'd still not be saved.  Second, the title “the Creator” in the Scriptures generally refers to Christ, not to the Father.

To say that The Church of Jesus Christ, which builds temples in “Holiness to the Lord” and always remembers him in Sunday worship services, does not worship him would seem to suggest that the church is misnamed.

Our revelations say that the Father “is infinite and eternal,” that he created “man, male and female,”

Our revelations also say not only that Christ is both the Father and the Son, but that he is “the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made; The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes.”  (D&C 38:1,2) 

Christ, not the Father, created the physical bodies of man.  Ether 3:9-21 is far superior to any other passage of scripture when it comes to answering the question “Did Christ Create Man?”—and its answer is an emphatic YES. (See the final section of Appreciating Christ on this site.)

And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship. [D&C 20:17-19]

In the above-cited 20th Section of the D&C, the God who was speaking and who gave to Joseph Smith his will and commandment” and who is entitled to all glory, both now and forever” was not God the Father but was Jesus Christ, as is clearly noted in the section’s heading and in verses 1-4.

Far from saying that the Father is “the only true God,” Nephi declares that “the true and living God” is Christ, “their Redeemer, 1 Nephi 17:30, and Mosiah declares that “Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent . . . is God above all” Mosiah 5:15.  In view of the  fact that the D&C and Book of Mormon appear to disagree on this topic, let’s keep in mind that the Church’s view is that the Book of Mormon is “the most correct” book.

Indeed, far from saying the Father is “the only being whom they should worship,” President Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking in April 2002 General Conference, observed that Jesus Christ “is the central focus of our worship” (italics added).

Jesus said:  True worshippers shall [note that this is mandatory] worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.  For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth. [JST John 4:25-26]

Or, we could again point out that Christ repeatedly tells us that he is God and that he is both Father and Son.  We also note that the Father himself desires that we come unto the Son:  “For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off . . . ” (3 Nephi 21:20)

There is no other way, no other approved system of worship.

The “other  way”—the correct way—is that we worship both God the Father and Jesus Christ while heeding President Hinckley’s words to make Christ “the central focus of our worship.”  In other words, Christ is No. 1 in our worship, something that is perfectly consistent with the fact that the Scriptures declare that he is the God who rules with all power over the earth.

Finally, an apostle equal in rank to Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote these emphatic words about Christ:  I'll worship him with all my might” (italics added).  Those words come from the LDS hymn, I Believe in Christ.  It's  author?  Elder Bruce R. McConkie.

Case closed.   

Isaiah said zero about the Book of Mormon

We Latter-day Saints for decades have routinely asserted that Isaiah prophesied the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. 

However, a closer look at Isaiah 29 reveals that the prophet almost certainly was speaking specifically about the Jerusalem of his era rather than about a latter-day people.  In 29:11, when he writes And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed his vision of all seems to refer to the existing spiritual blindness of both the learned and unlearned.  The marvellous work and a wonder mentioned in verse 14 most likely refers to the ending of this sorry state of affairs when Jerusalem's meek and humble turn to the Lord, perhaps a reference to Christ's earthly ministry.

Writings in ancient times were routinely sealed (1 Kings 21:8), so the metaphorical learned man saying he couldn't read a sealed book (scroll) may merely point to his lack of interest in spiritual things; he apparently makes no effort to unseal the scroll, an effort that might have consisted of taking the scroll to someone authorized to unseal it.

In saying the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book, the word as tips us off that Isaiah is not speaking about an actual event but rather that he has made up a short parable to illustrate his point that the inhabitants of Ariel (Jerusalem) have departed from the Lord.  Yes, there are significant similarities in Isaiah 29: 11,12 to the modern experiences of Professor Anthon and Joseph Smith, but there are also significant dissimilarities. 

Nephi himself provides the best evidence that Isaiah was not speaking of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  In borrowing from Isaiah 29, Nephi never says that Isaiah prophesied about a latter-day book. Instead, Nephi tells us that he has turned Isaiah's words into mine own prophecy (2 Nephi 25:7; see also 28:1; 30:3; 31:1).

It was Nephi, not Isaiah, who prophesied about the latter-day coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

An impression from above—or below

I was gazing toward heaven not long ago while pondering the words “following the prophet is always right, when a 125-word sentence distilled upon my mind as dew from heaven.  (Actually, I was in my recliner and bored, and there are plenty of English teachers who will insist that any sentence over 100 words sure as hell never came from heaven.)  Here’s what popped into my head:

“Proclaiming it is always right to follow another mortal is a concept hatched in the darkest corner of hell—in fact, not far from Donald Trump's summer residence—and was sent forth by Lucifer himself in the form of a putrid vapor that wafted through perdition’s borders, drifted toward our galaxy and eventually distilled on the lobby floor at LDS Church headquarters where a custodian fully intended to wipe up the foul mess but became distracted by a perky young thing in a sleeveless T-shirt, thereby allowing it to ooze into the curriculum, correlation and publications areas where it spread like manure upon a pasture and has remained to this day although without the benefit of gentle breezes that often make manure-covered pastures more bearable.”

The future of sex

A common LDS assumption about immortal beings is that it takes male and female—and probably sexual relations—to produce children.  In the Doctrine and Covenants, for example, we are told that a couple must be sealed as man and wife in order to have “an increase” in the next life. (D&C 131:4)  An inference is that “an increase” refers to offspring and is achieved through sex.  (Some Muslim men believe that if they die for their religion, they will be rewarded with 72 virgins who, presumably, would lose their virginity rather quickly after meeting up with the virile martyr to whom they were assigned. This isn’t taught in the Quran.  It may simply be a tool to get Muslim men to do their home teaching. If they're anything like a lot of LDS men, they'd probably settle for 36 virgins if they were permitted to skip the home teaching.)

A strong scriptural case can be made that sexual relations may not be the way of the gods.  We believe that circulatory, digestive and other bodily systems undergo major change in the next life.  (It is hard to conceive of Bandaids, indigestion, root canals and restrooms in the Celestial Kingdom.)  Consequently, we may discover that reproductive systems will also become distant memories.  Indeed, at some future day we may all enjoy a good chuckle if it turns out that the very God who gave us a powerful sex drive deliberately placed our sexual organs near organs of excretion merely to demonstrate that a heavenly being can have a down-to-earth sense of humor.

It is a virtual certainty that God the Father did not produce his trillions of spirit children in the way mortals produce their children.  Otherwise, his newborn children, would have possessed physical bodies just as he does.  It's a natural-law thing.  Imagine the shock in a local maternity ward if a woman gave birth to a spirit child!  Pity the poor nurse who must explain to her supervisor why she recorded zero as the birth weight.

Likewise, when Christ tells the brother of Jared “man have I created after the body of my spirit,” we can be sure the creation process used by Christ, a spirit at the time, was not a sexual one.  Otherwise, “man” (Adam and Eve and their descendants) would also have been born on earth as spirits.

Also, Mary was told that “the Holy Ghost shall come unto thee” (Luke 1:35) and “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”  Again, the creation process is clearly not intercourse—the Father isn’t even present.

If we presume that God needed to interact sexually with one or more wives in order to create his spirit children, we put ourselves in the rather awkward position of wondering how he “interacted” to create animals.  We have laws against that sort of thing.

For those who speculate that immortals reproduce through sexual relations, it may be advisable to keep in mind that “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than yours.”  (Isaiah 55:9)  In her experience with dying, LDS poet Emma Lou Thayne glimpsed “that world beyond bliss, beyond joy, beyond ecstasy,” which hints at something “higher” than any mortal sexual ecstasy.  It may also be useful to keep in mind that if all resurrected beings have physical bodies, children produced through sexual relations would also have physical bodies and would not need to dwell on an earth to obtain such a body, clearly contrary to the Plan of Salvation.  (And speaking of resurrected beings, the Scriptures suggest we all will live as adults and that the traditional family—babies, children, parents, grandparents, etc.—will be merely a relic from our earthling era. Of course, if we become gods and somehow produce spirit children, they presumably would inhabit an earth and temporarily experience the same baby, child, parent, grandparent thing that we went through.) 

If the idea of no male-female sex in the hereafter seems depressing, this essay does not assert there is no sex in heaven.  It only suggests that when it comes to either a Mother in Heaven or sex in heaven, we should not present opinion, belief or speculation as knowledge or doctrine.  Heaven may have a way of creating children that does not require male and female gods to get all hot, bothered and humpy.  And I wouldn't blame a gay person for viewing this essay as confirmation that the male-female thing is way overrated. 

Pity the poor teacher

(The following was written in 2017.)

In relief society and priesthood classes, the course of instruction since 1998 has been Teachings of Presidents of the Church.  The 2017 manual features President Gordon B. Hinckley.  We instructors understand that we are expected to teach in a way that invites the Spirit and that builds confidence in leaders of the church.  Unfortunately, the manuals often make that tricky.

What is a teacher to do when he disagrees with the theology taught in a key section of the lesson? An example:  In Chapter 8 of the Hinckley manual, the first page and a half imply that it’s a negative thing to be reminded of the death and sufferings of Christ.  (See “The cross = victory” on this site.)

Or, what were teachers to do when Lesson 11 on following the living prophet in the Ezra Taft Benson manual in 2015 was based heavily on a Benson talk that was not well-received by then President Spencer W. Kimball?  Naturally, this would be especially difficult when the teacher totally agrees with President Kimball.

Or, how comfortable would a teacher be testifying to the truthfulness of a lesson that contains internal contradictions as well as teachings that aren’t accepted today?  On this final conundrum, I offer six problems below from Chapter 2, “God the Eternal Father,” from the 2011 Joseph Smith manual.

1.  Joseph Smith is quoted as saying, “I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday, today, and forever.”  He also refers to the Father as the God “who was and is and will be from all eternity to eternity.”  Later, however, the manual quotes Joseph as saying, “God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man.” 

2.  The lesson says Joseph Smith believed that God the Father was “the Great Parent of the universe” and that “the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring.” (Italics added)  The Heavenly Father described by Joseph Smith seems to be a single parent; no mention is made of a Heavenly Mother.  This, of course, does not mean Joseph was wrong; it’s simply different from what the church teaches today.  (It also is apparently different from what some say Joseph taught later in his life.)

3.  Referring to God the Father, the manual quotes Joseph Smith:  “Adam  . . . received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him.”  LDS scripture teaches that Christ was the God who created the earth, who created the physical bodies of Adam and Eve (Ether 3:14-16, see the final section of Appreciating Christ on this site), and who interacts with mortals.  The only scriptural account of the Father appearing to man is his 1820 appearance to Joseph Smith. 

4.  The prophet Joseph instructs us to come to the Father: “When we understand the character of God and know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us.”   While it can easily be argued that the practical effect of coming unto the Father or Christ is the same, the Scriptures repeatedly and emphatically teach that man is to come specifically to Christ.  The Father commands: “whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off . . . ” (3 Nephi 21:20)   The Son is the God who has been revealed to us and is the revelator authorized by the Father “to unfold the heavens to us.”  In the January 1976 Ensign, Elder Bruce R. McConkie noted that whenever Joseph Smith asked the Father, in the name of the Son, for answers to questions, “the answering voice was not that of the Father but of the Son.”

5.  Speaking of the Godhead, Joseph Smith observes that “the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones but is a personage of Spirit.”  A few lines later, he is quoted as saying that any being “without body or parts is nothing.”

6.  The manual cites secondhand sources who say they heard Joseph Smith say that God the Father “presides” in heaven in the role of “President.”   For purposes of understanding our relationship with the Godhead, however, it would have been helpful to mention that when it comes to man on earth, the Scriptures say that Christ is both Father and Son, that the fulness of the Godhead resides in him and that he possesses all power over the earth and, like the Father, has all knowledge.  As God of the whole earth, he simply does not need to be “presided over” or to be “under the direction” of someone else.  Whatever he says or does is automatically the mind and will of the Father.  Christ is a full-fledged god, not a counselor in a presidency or bishopric.  Indeed, Elder Bruce R. McConkie says Christ’s role as Father is “over, above and in addition to” that of God the Father and that Christ is “God of Gods.” (Not that Elder McConkie was always correct.)

Note:  The manual writers didn’t include Joseph Smith’s statements that Jehovah is God the Father, a viewpoint that pops up in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and in Section 109 of the D&C but is in conflict with Section 110.  (The church says Jehovah is Christ.)  For what it’s worth, the fact that Joseph Smith misidentified Jehovah (at least for a while) shouldn't bother anyone.  It confirms he was no scriptural scholar in his earlier years and needed to rely on “the gift and power of God” in translating the Book of Mormon.

By the way, I’m not saying that I know my views on the Godhead, Mother in Heaven, etc., are more accurate than prevailing teachings in the church, but I think there’s a fine chance that some of them are.  Frankly, I’d like to hear less of “we know” in the church and more of “we believe”or “we don't know.