Monday, December 28, 2015

Mechanical Ticks (Part 1)

This blog post from New Zealander Gina Colvin describes eloquently the difference between the Christian church of Mormonism that strives to follow Jesus and the machinations of the corporate parasite that is devoted to hierarchy and institutional policy. My favorite section comes at the end:

"So I’m asking my snipers to put your guns down and lets call a truce. Let’s lay our cards on the table and start talking to each other.  Let me start – I’m a servant and a loyalist of the People’s Church; the Saint’s Church not the Corporate or the Leader’s Church and I have absolutely no guilt about that – not a shred.  Could you please explain to me how that’s a sin?  If I can see the spiritual efficacy of your argument I’ll change – that’s my promise
And let me say this also – I’m not alone. Daily – hundreds and thousands of people are paying a new kind of attention to the machinations of the Corporate Church – because something doesn’t feel right. Something is malfunctioning, something is off and this dis-ease is shooting through the church at pace.

You can scramble and scrape and bark orders all you want to clean up and kick out – but this mounting, convulsive outrage will continue until something transcendent happens to arrest this. Until we get back to good faith, love and spiritual generosity with each other we’ll stay on opposite sides of the fence – and I’ve read the Book of Mormon enough to know how that eventually goes."

 Are we willing to entertain the question of what makes an active, loyal member of the largest Mormon sect arrive at dissent such as this? She is comparing the corporate church to a machine, essentially admitting the same thing that Elder Christofferson alluded to on November 5th remarking on the policy update regarding children of same-sex marriage. These two agree philosophically on what the church has become, but disagree on the rightness of it.

How can this be? How can two different Mormons react differently to this engine? If you read her blog post, it would appear that she has given much work and presence to Mormonism. Relative to her time in the church, she has worked as hard and given as much of herself as Christofferson has to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, he is fine with accommodating the cybernetic implants that have been fitted to the bride of Christ while Mrs. Colvin is not okay with these machinations.

Is it crass for me to ask if the difference between them relates to pay scale? Mrs. Colvin pays tithing and speaks lovingly of a spiritual Church that is located in "people". Elder Christofferson, by contrast, is exempt from tithing and is given an undisclosed stipend for his efforts. His word of choice for the Church (critiqued here) is "triggers", and he appears to be perfectly fine with the division caused by institutional policy:

"When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple." 


There seems to be two masters here. Scriptures that contain doctrine vs. handbooks that contain policy. If there is not in fact two masters, then what is it that accounts for these similar assessments and differing conclusions? I am open to explanations.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Teraphim












Like a lightning bolt from heaven:

"15 The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

16 They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;

17 They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.

18 They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them."

~ Palms 135

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Drive-By Mormon History, Gems of Thought Circa 1872 Edition

Today's Drive-By Mormon History is from A Fragment: The Autobiography of Mary Jane Mount Tanner (from the Introduction) edited by Margery W. Ward:

"I too have some gems of thought and beautiful ideas that float through my mind like mists on a summer morning. But would they be appreciated? This is such a commonplace world after all, that it would be like putting sugar on our meat and potatoes; it would waste the sugar and spoil the meat...One can say all sorts of things if they are well said, and people are interested and think them witty or smart; but when I have an idea that I consider particularly nice, I turn it over in my mind until it seems so very stale that if I mention it I expect to hear someone say, 'how stupid.'" (diary, December 6, 1872)



Monday, December 21, 2015

Drive-By Mormon History, Statehood by Shotgun Edition

Today's Drive-By Mormon History is from the biography of Nicholas Groesbeck Morgan, The Man Who Moved City Hall by Jean R. Paulson, pp 55-56:

---

Nick carried a smeared and deeply-creased newspaper clipping reminding him that there was occasional excitement to leaven the poverty and drudgery. It was from the Deseret Evening News of Saturday, January 4, 1896, and proclaimed that Utah had become the forty-fifth state. The lead paragraph of the story, under the headline, UTAH A STATE, and a subhead, THE PROCLAMATION ISSUED BY PRESIDENT CLEVELAND, set forth:

At 9:13 this morning the usual early morning activity at East Temple Street was decidedly disturbed owing to the fact that superintendent Brown of the Western Union Telegraph Company was observed to rush frantically out of the office armed with an old reliable shotgun, the contents of which belched forth in two resounding reports. A small boy in the near vicinity dived for an adjacent doorway, his juvenile brain having grasped the idea that a holdup or bank robbery was in progress.

The story then told how merchants decorated their stores with bunting, that George M. Scott and Cunningham and Co. erected steam whistles outside their doors, that the stars and stripes were strung from the east and west towers of the temple. The Utah National Guard Battery at noon took a position on Capitol Hill and fired a twenty-one gun salute, the booming accompanied by the ragged din of ringing bells, steam whistles, and half-a-dozen bombs set off at the news corner by a junior patriot.

It was a proud moment for the Morgans and the Groesbecks, for the pictures of members of the Constitutional convention, featured during that time, showed Uncle John Henry Smith --twice as large as the others, right spang in the center. And right under his was the photo of that brilliant friend of the family, Brigham H. Roberts.

A quarter of a million citizens of the new state shouted themselves hoarse on that bitter cold day, rejoicing in the victory that had been denied in the attempts of 1849, 1856, 1862, 1867, 1872, 1882, and 1887. Nick had heard both his famous uncle and BH Roberts say that the territory was becoming a state only because LDS Church President Wilford Woodruff had issued the Manifesto (4). Nick had also heard his mother say that Brother Roberts had done himself a "lot of harm" speaking against women's suffrage during the convention in 1895. Everybody flocked to hear BH speak, she said, but the convention adopted the suffrage amendment anyway, 75 to 14.

When the family resided briefly in the duplex after being evicted from the big house, Mellie had told the children about a dream she'd had, in which a great wave had engulfed her as she walked along the seashore, then receded, leaving her safely on shore. This renewed her faith that better days were coming.

That hope was partly realized in 1897, when a Civil War pension she had applied for during the previous year was granted, and with retroactive payments in hand, (at $12 a month) moved her fanily to a two-story frame house at 363 York Street (5). They had been in this home but a day when Shirley Kunkel, a neighbor boy, told 12-year-old Nick of a job in Granger putting up hay for Fred Eldredge and David Lambert.

---

4. The manifesto was the church president's official declaration that he would submit to laws forbidding plural marriages, and would use his influence with other members of the church to have them do likewise.

5. York Street, which extended from Third East to Fifth East, later was known as Bryan Avenue.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Drive-By Mormon History, Print or Perish Edition

Today's drive-by Mormon history comes to us from Richard L. Saunders' book Printing in Deseret: Mormons, Politics, & Utah's Incunabula, 1849-1851 (2000, University of Utah Press)
---
From the introduction:

"Because of the West's geographic richness and diversity, for some states the story begins with the economic draw of metals, timber, open range, or farmland. For what is now Utah the initial attraction was isolation-sky-broad emptiness and wind-strewn silence. The state's settlement began in July 1847 with the arrival of displaced Yankees in the self-styled Pioneer Company. Barely two years later, with a sizable part of the population still living out of canvas-topped wagons, residents petitioned for the civilizing status of US statehood. Though it was one of the earliest trans-Mississippi territories to be established, and despite the subsequent admission of almost a dozen of its fellow territories, Utah was not granted statehood for almost fifty years. The reason, agreed upon by both sides though from entirely opposite perspectives, was religion. Five times before 1896 Utah's electoral majority tried hard to make its overwhelming cultural hegemony appear to be an American liberal democracy."



From Part 1:

"Far and away the most successful counterclaimant to apostolic leadership was James J. Strang, a Wisconsin convert with merely four months' tenure as a member of the church and almost absolute anonymity at the time of Smith's murder. But Strang was consumed by a hunger for worldly reputation and possessed an innate talent for promotion. Through 1845 while the apostles labored to gather the scattered saints to Nauvoo, keep mobs at bay, plan the evacuation of the city, lay in food stores, and decide just where it was they were going, and through 1846 as the Nauvoo saints vacated homes to move across the frozen Mississippi River and Iowa mud, James Strang was busy initiating a publishing campaign of pamphlets and a weekly newspaper to announce and build upon his claim as Smith's successor (10).

The apostles realized how vulnerable congregations would be without an authoritative source of news. One plan for westward movement called for the pioneering company to take with them a printing press, one of the two presses from the Times and Seasons plant. That plan lasted merely a week. The city's established news-and-book printing office had to be abandoned as the saints began hastily leaving Nauvoo in February 1846. Still, the printing office was almost the last of the city's institutions to be closed down. Its closure stanched the outward flow of print-disseminated news, encouragement, and instructions from the church's newspaper and broadside proclamations. For three years after the city's evacuation the dearth of printed communications from the apostolic leaders (1846-48) proved to be an expensive lesson in social cohesion. The apostles struggled mightily to maintain connections to scattered congregations with correspondence and rare visits from missionaries but could not personally contact every branch of the church. Keenly aware of the importance of communication, in September 1846 Brigham Young wrote the Nauvoo Trustees asking them to send him at Winter Quarters the two presses from the newspaper office and other supplies:

We wish you to send us the two printing presses, all the type, brass rule and fixtures belonging thereto… and all the plates and fixtures of the stereotype foundry and screw tools of the bindery [probably a job backer], ink, paper, etc. etc. etc.-everything that may be useful and cannot readily be furnished by the labor in the wildernes, with as little delay as possible, either by the team going from here or such as you shall furnish (11).

Primarily because a capital outlay was necessary to move the equipment, it never happened through all of 1846, 1847, and into 1848. Young might as well have asked them to ship the Nauvoo Temple. Despite their positions as receivers, the trustees had no resources. The central body of Mormonism lacked both a printing press of its own and cash to have the printing done. The apostles, frantically trying to gather a dispersed membership, were unable to distribute the call effectively.

In the communicative vacuum that followed, Strang (and others) successfully stepped into the breach. Most used the extended social reach that printing gave them to propagandize, attracting the allegiance of church members from isolated congregations and even invading the Mormon core. Strang's weekly newspaper (the Voree Herald and later Gospel Herald) and active pamphleteering broadcast a competing summons and heralded an organization that , despite his anonymity, eventually drew several hundred church members and a few thousand new converts to his Wisconsin (later Michigan) kingdom. That Strang's publishing made inroads into church membership was a point not at all missed by the apostles. The greatest number of Strang's "Old Mormon" converts were gleaned out of the Midwest from isolated Latter-day Saint congregations, those that had not gathered with the saints to Nauvoo and would not choose to make the trek west. The attention Strang's press generated among the scattered Mormon flock thumbed a proverbial nose at the apostles' solid claims to ordained authority, underscoring their inability to communicate meaningfully with the saints (12). In the midst of the Mormon flight westward, Strang's success confirmed the importance of reestablishing the fleeing saints' own press as quickly as possible. With that they could again broadcast their word. But in the pinched face of general privation after the evacuation of Nauvoo, simple human survival became the paramount interest of both church leaders and members generally."

---

10. The best treatment of Strang's early years is Roger Van Noord, King of Beaver Island: The Life and Assassination of James Jesse Strang (Urbana: The Univ. of Illinois Press, 1988), 4-66. For an intimate window into Strang's character, see The Diary of James J. Strang, ed. Mark Strang (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1961).

11. A circular of the High Council (Nauvoo, Ill., 1846), dated Jan. 20. The Mormons began leaving February 6. Brigham Young to Almon Babbitt, Joseph Heywood, John Fullmer, 27 Sept. 1846, in Journal History of the Church, 28 Sept. 1846.

12. An entirely different picture existed elsewhere. The Latter-Day Saint press in Britain remained healthy and active, for example. Not only was it easily able to counter schism, but the number of converts continued to grow. See Peter Crawley, Descriptive Bibliography of the Mormon Church, Vol. 1, 1830-1847 (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young Univ. Religious Studies Center, 1998)(successive volumes will carry the catalog history through 1857).

Monday, December 14, 2015

Drive-By-Mormon-History, Political KJV Edition

Today's drive-by Mormon history comes from Philip Barlow's book: Mormons and the Bible (Oxford 1991).
---
"When copies of the published work, The Holy Scriptures, began to proliferate in Utah, various leaders of The School of the Prophets in Provo voiced the church's stand against the new revision: "the world does not want this [new Bible]... they are satisfied with the king James translation...."; "The King James translation is good enough... I feel to support the old Bible until we can get a better one."(14)

This sentiment was not universal in Utah, and it was explicitly provisional ("until we can get a better one"), but it was reiterated in later years(15) and it marked the ironic beginning of a conscious stress on the King James Version.

An indirect influence increasing the status of the KJV among the Saints was the general Protestant antipathy to Catholic immigrants. Anti-popery had long flourished in Protestant lands, of course, but the Catholic population in eighteenth century (eastern) America was too small and too localized to incite broad conflict. By the 1820s, however, Protestants were viewing Catholics, who before mid-century would constitute the nation's largest denomination, as a genuine threat to an evangelical America.
...
To some extent, the Mormons participated in this trend. Alienated from the culturally dominant Protestants in so many ways, the Saints might plausibly have identified with the embattled Catholics by defending alternative translations. But most Mormon converts had come from Protestant ranks that assumed the KJV. Moreover, the Saints themselves had inherited a significant strain of anti-Catholicism, and during the course of Mormon history some would identify the pope as the head of "the great and abominable church" mentioned in the Book of Mormon. An occasional Mormon leader even made these drifts explicit, remarking on the worth of the Authorized Version against Roman Catholics who objected to it. (18)
...
In addition to such causes, we must also acknowledge that Mormon loyalty to the KJV was-as it was for many Protestants-simply a natural attachment to the vehicle by which a people felt they had encountered the sacred. A similar phenomenon may be seen in the great struggle Roman Catholics had in producing an acceptable vernacular Bible in America. This love of the Bible "of one's youth" is easily traced in the resistance with which every major new translation , including the KJV, has been greeted. This preservationist impulse will be explored more fully as we look at the later twentieth century, but it was doubtless a factor in earlier decades as well.
...
Even when Church leaders did articulate reasons for recommending the King James over other translations, they rarely asserted that it was more accurate. They supported it primarily because they suspected the RLDS production of Joseph Smith's revision, or because they believed the elegant familiar version had "taken too firm a hold of the popular heart" to forsake it.(23) Sometimes, in fact, they highly praised modern translations, offering only an appended tolerance for those who would continue to prefer the familiar version "because they have become accustomed to its lofty phrases."(24)

---
14. Testimonies of G.G. Bywater and J.W. Fleming recorded in the Minutes of the School of the Prophets July 6th, 1868.

15. Apostle Charles Penrose's 1881 assertion was typical. The Church would use the Authorized Version, he said, "until the inspired... revision commenced by the prophet Joseph Smith shall have been completed in a form acceptable to The Almighty..." ("The Revised Scriptures", Deseret News, April 22, 1881)

This suspicion of the "Reorganite" production of Smith's biblical revision was still apparent in the Utah-based church as recently as the early 1970's, after which it rapidly faded. See, for example, Mark E. Peterson, "As Translated Correctly" (Deseret Book, 1966) pg. 30, and an unsigned editorial in The Church News November 14, 1970 pg. 16. The change was evidenced quite publicly when another CN editorial (Nov. 16, 1974) expressed deep reservations about the "Inspired Version", but was followed (Dec. 7) by a tactful correction that amounted to a retraction. In contrast to all of this, the Reorganized Church began in the nineteenth century its current practice of using Smith's Inspired Version as its primary Bible.

18. George Q Cannon, Juvenile Instructor 10 (Oct. 16, 1875): 246.

23. Charles Penrose, "Revised Scriptures," Deseret News, (April 22, 1881); "Editor's Table," The Improvement Era 2(1899): 621.

24. C. Frank Steele, The Church News (Nov. 9, 1935): 6.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Drive-By Mormon History, Polygamy Prosecution Edition

Today's drive-by-Mormon-history is from Zion In The Courts by Edwin Firmage & Richard Mangrum, pp. 129-30:

---

"Polygamy provided a clear rallying point for anti-Mormon forces. It was a practice so abhorrent to most nineteenth-century Americans that sophisticated constitutional arguments were not required to justify its eradication. "The traditional family was seen as the basis of civilization, and a domestic role for women was considered essential to the stability of the marriage.," observe two scholars of polygamy legislation. "These were the propositions which underlay the nineteenth-century hostility to modification of women's roles" (Weisbrod and Sheingorn, 830). Typical of this attitude are the views of one representative expressed during debate on the first anti-polygamy legislation:

"The existence of such an institution as prevails in Utah, under the protection of the laws of the United States, is an outrage upon the moral feelings of our whole population. It is, as I conceive, an insult to our own wives and our own daughters, , and the wives and daughters of our constituents" (Congressional Globe, 1860, 194). But the nation's leaders were not merely troubled by the Mormon's peculiar marriage practices. Washington was also troubled by Mormon society, in particular its isolation from non-Mormon America, the Church's domination of Utah politics, and Mormon economic power (Arrington, 1958, 356). What began as a campaign against polygamy eventually became a war against all who professed to be Mormons, a war intended to break the secular power of the Mormon church and force it into conformity with mainstream America.

For the Mormons the cost of the war against polygamy was high. Over a thousand Mormons were convicted of practicing polygamy (Arrington, 1958, 359). Mormon women were jailed for refusing to testfy against their husbands. Polygamous families were left fatherless, as Mormon men either went into hiding or obeyed federal law and abandoned wives and children. Federal spies tracking down polygamists disrupted Mormon communities and invaded the privacy of Mormon homes. On a larger scale, the role of the Mormon church as a guiding force in all aspects of Mormon life was destroyed. The church that Washington permitted to survive was shorn of its secular powers, and church experimentation with novel forms of social organization such as the United Order were abandoned. For better or worse, thenceforth the civil and religious powers in Utah were clearly separated, and Mormons became by and large indistinguishable from other Americans.

America also paid a price. The image of judicial impartiality was tarnished by the active roleUtah's judges assumed in the war against the Mormons. In the hysteria of anti-polygamy sentiment, the Supreme Court defined the scope of constitutionally protected religious activity in a narrow and distorted fashion. Thus, in deciding whether polygamy was protected by the Constitution, America defined in general terms the extent to which religious practices could stand against the claims of the state.

Finally, there was a moral cost. Imposing conformity on a group of sincerely dedicated dissenters almost inevitably requires a level of force that debases the oppressor. In a sorry cycle, resistance breeds repression that calls forth yet more resistance and yet more savage repression. In the case of polygamy, it may be questioned whether the prize was worth the price."

Friday, December 11, 2015

Drive-By Mormon History, Illegal Mormo-Alien Edition

Today's drive-by Mormon History is from The Mormon Conflict 1850-1859, by Norman F. Furniss, pg 12-13:

"Hostile American opinion not only accounted the Mormons guilty of murderous plotting, subversive desire, and other criminal inclinations; it also considered the Church in great part composed of recent immigrants drawn from the lowest classes of other lands. In the 1850s the United States was experiencing in the "Know Nothing" movement a wave of nativism later to find expression in the American Protective Association, the Klu Klux Klan, and periodic immigration acts. As the people watched a host of new Mormon converts from abroad arrive on their shores, many were easily convinced that the Church was as dangerous to their institutions as they supposed the Roman Catholics, the swollen Irish minority, or any other alien group to be.

At the present time it is difficult to estimate the number of aliens in Utah during the late 1850s, or even to fix with certainty the actual population of the territory (11). Yet in 1857 Stephen A. Douglas, his early friendliness toward the Church grown cold, stated that possibly seven out of ten Mormons in Utah had emigrated there from other countries, and many commentators of his day agreed in general with his conclusions. The popular view further held these newcomers to be for the most part indigent, illiterate men and women menacing the economic and social standards of the United States. Reports to the contrary did not greatly weaken the judgment that the Mormons were undesirable candidates for American citizenship, since it was based less on dispassionate investigation than on prejudice drawn from the spirit of the decade (12). In the words of one historian, "These individuals, so long as the remained members of orthodox denominations of the day, were regarded as worthy members of society. Only when they affiliated with the despised sect, known as Mormons, did they become objects of execration." (13)

---

11. Some say 40,000 in the late 1850s; others, 60,000 or more: Neff, History of Utah p. 165; Ephraim E. Ericksen, The Psychological And Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life (Chicago University Press, 1922), p.44. The census of 1860 set the foreign segment at 12,000, but Ericksen states that between 1849 and 1858 at least 22,000 Mormon immigrants arrived. It would seem safe to say that approximately a third of the Mormons during the years under consideration were of foreign origin.

12. M. R. Werner, Brigham Young (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1925), pp. 271-72. Bancroft, History of Utah, pp. 414-15, 449. Annals of Cleveland, 1818-1935 (WPA, 1935), p 43, 516. National Intelligence, May 8, 1857. New York Times, June 27, 1857. Missouri Republican, April 29, 1858. 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 1, Vol. 2, Pt. II.

13. Neff, History of Utah, p.530. See also Thomas F. O'Dea, The Mormons (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1957) p. 91.

Friday, November 27, 2015

Robes and Rags


From the video:

Elder Christofferson: To some degree it came from questions that have surfaced in different parts of the world and the United States. With the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be law of the Church and the law of the Lord and how we respond to that. So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt. We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that. We’re not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know sin does not. And so we’re going to stand firm there because we don’t want to mislead people. There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ.

Michael Otterson: Why are the children of these same-sex partners an issue here?

Elder Christofferson: Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.
The situation with polygamist families, for example, and same-sex marriage couples and families really has a parallel. For generations we've had these same kinds of policies that relate to children in polygamist families that we wouldn't go forward with these ordinances while they're in that circumstance and before they reach their majority. That's the same sort of situation we're dealing with here, so it's something we have had a history with. It's a practice that really is analogous that's been the case over many generations.

So a religious culture that cannot even prevent the subtle abuses and inequalities between adults will foist upon children the awful burden of not technically belonging to your club when they are not emotionally intelligent enough to negotiate the accompanying social abuse that such a division will entail.

If you think Jesus was about policy, I don't think you understand his pattern at all. He commanded you to love as he loved. He was not afraid of people questioning or doubting. He did not command you to deny anyone worthy who seeks baptism. Even you cannot deny that these children are worthy of baptism.

Surely you are familiar with Section 38:

 25 And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself.
 26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?
Robes and rags, and you insist that you are "just". And all of your sycophants bear robotic testimony because they cannot even begin to reason in light of Christ's words. In fact, they cannot bear to be around me anymore because they consider my honesty about your abuses to be an act of treading on something "sacred".

Think about that for a moment, Todd. I bring the words of Christ to bear upon your policies, and Mormons I've known for 20+ years respond by not inviting me over anymore. Not even a phone call for Thanksgiving. Christ asks them to be a witness of his name at all times/in all places, commands them to love as he loved, and their response when I hold to His words is mechanical aversion and indifference.

You, however, understand the implications of "robes' don't you, Mr. Apostle? Do you esteem these children as yourself? Will your grandchildren esteem the children of same-sex couples as themselves when they go to Primary, Scouting, Mutual, or the YSA system?

You point to the decades-old policy concerning children of polygamists, and again you consider yourself "just". As if those kids, suffering through ostracism and suicide pacts, don't need someone to turn to. Do you mind if I ask you for the umpteenth time if Mormons are actually Christians?

What are these "handbooks" that you write and implement upon the repentant body of Christ? Tell me honestly: are they written to protect the flock, or the brand? Do they work for the Gospel, or for the 501c? Did they stem from Joseph Smith, or Harold B. Lee? Why are their instructions different from what Christ commands? If Christ says the following in Section 10:

65 For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts;

66 Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely. 
67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.
68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.
...then wouldn't this policy be considered more than what Christ requires? Doesn't such a policy serve to harden hearts? Why attach asterisks to His words? Don't you trust Him? The rumor is that living prophets trump dead ones... but do their words trump Jesus' words also?

You identify your concerns very clearly in your interview, and they regard the mechanism of the Institution above the souls of human beings. "Trigger" is the word you use (3 times) in the portion I quote above, which indicates to me that you consider the Church to be some sort of unwieldy machine that you seek to accommodate. It appears you want to do so rather than go the difficult route of simply obeying Section 10.

That is alarming, Todd. Why? Because it indicates to me that the Church Handbook of Instructions (CHOI) carries more heft than scripture. Which ultimately means that it is the actual scripture on the LDS table. And it is a privileged text to boot, in that it is not distributed to the lay members. That is what the scriptures used to be in the old machine, otherwise known as the Catholic Church.

If your bishops and stake presidents follow the instruction of this handbook, eschewing the words of Jesus while simultaneously taking upon themselves His name, can it not be said that they are attempting to serve two masters?

They do so at your insistence, and you don't pay tithing while they do. So you understand completely when I speak of inequalities within this Institution.

Third Nephi capitalizes the initial "m" of "Mammon" where KJV Luke and Matthew left the noun common. Sounds proper to me, too. It is much more likely that Mammon is an entity rather than mere "riches". If the god of money constitutes the meta text of the CHOI, then can it not be said that the handbook (along with its adherents) constitutes a parasitic idol religion that has attached itself to the Restoration?

This is where the notion of "robes" becomes important, Mr. Apostle. The Bridegroom has commanded the preparation of a bride, and instead you are preparing a cyborg. Instead of robes and beautiful garments, you are adorning the church with dehumanizing policies that obfuscate the commandments of Jesus Christ. The result is widespread malfunction, as pure doctrine clashes with corporate codes within the minds of your churchgoers.

Such mechanisms deaden the mind to reason and only allow for fanaticism. Mecha and technological implants are worse than rags.

Do you think He wants a mechanical bride? An unthinking fembot instead of a free-thinking authentic woman? If you had paid attention to science fiction, you would understand. Metropolis, Blade Runner, Ex Machina, it's all there. But even a rudimentary reading of the scriptures spells out what Zion is. Again from Section 38:

27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.


Unity is not achieved through policy. Policy relates to brand and product, and people are always divided over the quality of both. Hence, policy always divides. It is doctrine that unifies because it allows the space necessary for all to commune with God according to the dictates of their own conscience, and Christ's doctrine was laid out in scripture before any of us were born.

Doctrine does not require parasitic policy.

Your handbook prefers Mammon over the flock. It lays out the red carpet for the whore (See Revelation), and she only understands whoredom. Mammon is more than happy to accommodate her. But the problem with Mammon is that he isn't interested in marriage. He is not a bridegroom at all. Furthermore, Mammon has bad friends. He is buddies with Moloch. You remember that guy, right? Moloch, who always required the suffering of children.

So if the idea of using children as a means of coercing others to behave a certain way sounds familiar to anyone who has observed a divorce, that makes sense because Moloch always saw 8-year-olds as a means of idolatry and self-interest more than a reflection of Heaven. If there is anything that can divide the church like pitting baptized children vs. the unbaptized, it would be rare indeed.

Friday, September 18, 2015

If the Womb is a Veil (part 5)

If the body is a temple, then it is the terrestrial world. It is not the telestial. 

LDS people do not understand the term "terrestrial" the way it is traditionally used. It is used in D&C 76 (and in the temple) to identify a plane of existence that is preparatory to entering heaven, or the "Celestial". In the common Plan of Salvation that is posed repeatedly to membership, the Terrestrial world is a kingdom and plane within the Kingdom of God, but it is level that is between the Telestial (which represents the world we now live on) and the Celestial.

An etymological examination of these terms can be found here.

The temple is implicitly understood as a representation of the Terrestrial, which has associations with both the Garden of Eden and the City of Enoch. Adam and Eve were kicked out of this world and into the Telestial for their transgression at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. As a result, the earth fell with them into the Telestial state, which is a proving ground. Conversely, Enoch was accepted back into this 2nd plane when he established a Zion community that was taken from the fallen earth into the Terrestrial by God.

The difference between the lower two kingdoms is that we mortals, for good or ill, create laws to govern the telestial. Though a body is a temple it exists within the telestial, so what we do to others on this plane is legislated here by those in mortal sovereignty. 

What happens within the terrestrial is another story. If the body equates to a temple, as Christ repeatedly asserts, then it is the middle ground between heaven and earth. Hence the things that happen within it are subject to laws agreed upon between mortals and deity; meaning that God dictates the terms and we either agree with or reject those terms with our autonomy.

If a woman is allowed by God to be a steward over the temple body that she has been given, then it should always be the mother who decides who enters or exits her body. She gets to decide the "yes" or "no" because she is the steward. 

It follows that, if her stewardship is righteous, she will eventually be given sovereignty over her body by deity. Part of this could include entry into the terrestrial plane while she is still alive if the Lord so chooses to extend that invitation, a la Enoch and his people. It should be noted here that the scriptures refer to the church metaphorically as a "woman with child" that departs into the wilderness to escape Babylon and birth Zion.

Christ gave every mother the autonomy to decide when he gave us life, and it is not within the jurisdiction of mortals to restrict what happens in that space. Examine Section 121:

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
If persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned are the only methods allowed by God to exercise righteous dominion within the context of priesthood, then why would force and/or coercion somehow be acceptable within the context of state or federal law?

Christ did not do his work through legislation. He did not force his laws of love and forgiveness on anyone. He reasoned, he used parable, and he offered astounding answers which communicated his powerful doctrine. He forced no one. His doctrine was powerful enough on its own to impact and influence others to seek righteousness.


If anyone is to fight abortion from the platform of Christ's rock, they will do so using His methods. In other words, you will face the mob, speak the truth to them with your own lips, and refrain from exercising force (even if you are completely capable of forcing others). Always.

What truth did Jesus speak? That the body is a temple. And that children are innocent. And that if you harm little ones, it would be better that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you are tossed into the sea. 


Who is brave enough to abandon the idea of legislating abortion and to repeat Jesus' words and use them as a platform by themselves to protect unborn lives? It would appear that those who follow Christ in this matter are so few that they are essentially anonymous. Most people that fight against abortion are overwhelmingly interested in legislation and have abandoned Christ's sanctity for autonomy.

Legislation will not stop abortion, and neither will criminalization. Impersonal propaganda and "pro-life" fanaticism have yielded the current results: an estimated 55 million abortions since January 1973. It will only be authentic Christianity, which includes a strict adherence to Christ's laws regarding autonomy and love unfeigned, that will change the hearts of the women that possess the bodies and power towards giving life instead of taking it.

I agree that abortion is murder. In my opinion, those murders are not punishable on this plane. They shouldn't be. I hate that it happens, and I despise the rationale that supports its use as birth control. But if the womb is a veil, then it most certainly is not the United States. It is a sacred gate wherewith a woman must negotiate her own stewardship and relationship with God.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

The Implements of Myth














The offense that you have committed is myth dismantlement. They take it as violence because they must. They do not have an identity without the lie. And no matter what truth you speak, it will always cut through an image that they hold as sacred.

This is why many of these people always divert attention towards the "tone" of comments or arguments that contradict the way they live. If they focus instead on the content of what you are saying, they will be forced to face up to a truth that is uncomfortable to them on a fundamental level.

They can neither walk one mile with you, nor two. They can sit through a 45 minute class with you where you are only allowed a few sentences, but a true dialogue is not the goal. The goal is for you to join in with their monologue. And if you do not, they must dismiss you as quickly as they possibly can, and get back to the implements of the myth. These include the following:

1. A orthodox reading of scripture that doesn’t even pass the English litmus of basic word meaning. So interest = "income", hot drinks = “caffeinated hot drinks”, and Prophet, Seer, & Revelator = “Anyone so sustained whether they prophesy, see, translate, or reveal anything at all. They are now your commander”.

2. An endowment ceremony that was adulterated before the saints even left Nauvoo, and that has since been scrubbed and altered beyond recognition by committees for reasons as varied as convenience, embarrassment, and member polling.

3. A secret doctrine (the Church Handbook of Instructions) written by committee that not only supersedes the doctrines of the scriptures, but also was expressly written to legally protect the church brand and hierarchy above individual members.

4. A hierarchy that is mythologized and worshipped to the point that you must sustain them as “Prophets, Seers, & Revelators” or risk having your membership and temple blessings rescinded.

Christ's words and acts are completely foreign to our myths and religious constructs. Trusting his words instead of those offered by corporate churchmen? That is anti-establishment behavior. Civil disobedience. It equals being at odds with Babylon, and thereby leaving behind comfort, and possessions, and admiration.

Christ demands love and righteousness on a level that those who prefer myth have abandoned a long time ago. He demands that you actually cloth the naked, and care for the sick. Meaning that your hands get dirty and that you are exposed to diseases and filth that the rest of humanity would never go near.

In the minds of those who worship the brand, they have to construct and project the image of a monster upon you in order to make sense of your decision to follow Christ instead of churchmen. They do this by accusing you of things like “losing the spirit” or “intellectualizing yourself out of the church”. They forget that the glory of God is intelligence. They demonize what they fear and what they do not comprehend.  It is just like Captain Ahab designating all of the world's evils and ills upon the whale in Moby Dick. So when he stabs the whale, he is not striking an enemy at all. He is stabbing a boogeyman of his own make.

To the myth of mainstream Mormonism, we are monsters. Anyone who stands for truth is a monster to a corporate PR machine and its army of zombie slaves. You will be cast as such a monster for being honest. To a body such as theirs, the truth is like cholera. They will avoid you as much as they can, and when they must speak to you they will avoid talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Lord implores us not to fear:

"49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.
50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound." (D&C 88)

Light does not recede from darkness. Light does not unfriend you on social media. Light does not stop inviting you over. Light does not abandon the one to huddle with the ninety nine.

Light does not feel threatened by spiritual progression, visions, or visitations. Light does not term the mysteries of God as "deep doctrine" and under its breath say "steer clear". Those who are in darkness say such things because they have the mentality of lobsters in a boiling pot. 

Light stands forth and loves all. Light has no fear of speaking the truth. Light chases away darkness, and it is darkness that cannot bear the things revealed by the light.

If you do not get light and darkness right, you will forever be mistaking them. You will put forth one and pretend it is the other. This is how myths enslave us.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

The Primal Forces of Nature

"How many here, be priests who commune with the Firstborn—with the people brought upon the face of the earth before God brought man to earth—How many priests here turn rivers from their courses, and say unto the mountain, move, and it moveth from its place?"

Important questions, Daymon Smith.

The essay (click on Daymon's name to read it) is a presentation that Mr. Smith gave at the recent Sunstone Symposium. It reminded me of Arthur Jensen's beratement of Howard Beale in the 1976 film Network:

"You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangelism."

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Christ Gave Us Freedom

Maria from Fritz Lang's film Metropolis.

Does anyone still believe that Christ gave us our agency & autonomy? I wonder all the time. I repeatedly see Mormons in my newsfeed lobby for control and coercion. It is as if they have forgotten the adversary who emerged from the Council in Heaven.

We read about that stuff in Moses 4:
1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.
D&C 76:
25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,
26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
27 And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!
28 And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old serpent, even the devil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our God and his Christ
29 Wherefore, he maketh war with the saints of God, and encompasseth them round about.
Isaiah 14:
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Revelation 12:
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
2 Nephi 9:
O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.
And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.
Re-reading this stuff, doesn't it seem clear to you that the adversary's goal is control and enslavement? If his plan was diametrically opposed to that of The Father, then wouldn't that mean that Christ intended for us to have the freedom to choose for ourselves and govern ourselves?

If this is true, then governments fulfill the plan of the adversary. On the surface, they protect our property, financial interests, and values. But if they dissuade us from doing wrong via threat of fines, criminal records, and/or imprisonment, then it's not really freedom that we are talking about. It is mechanical performance of appearances to avoid pain. In other words, it is a defense mechanism.

If Shakespeare is correct in declaring life a play, then aren't you just memorizing rote lines and performing a part? And if so, then who's plan are you fulfilling?

Machines also have parts. If a part performs well, then it hums in concert with the rest of the machine. If it does not perform well, then it is replaced and discarded. But there is something ignoble about being a cog under threat, isn't there? There is an empty caving in of will that results in an intolerable numbness.

God the Father didn't want machines to enter heaven. Why did Christ follow the will of the Father? Was it out of robotic obedience? If so, then wouldn't Christ simply be the ultimate machine, following the Father's commands with a cold exactness that is better than anyone else?

Nothing about Christ strikes me as robotic. His life as described in scripture was saturated in charity, grace, and love unfeigned. But the Pharisees and Sadducees that opposed him were painfully mechanical in their approach to spirituality and the sacred. They were all about the performance of clean appearances, and Christ had a monumental critique of their programming. Their collective response to his critique was that of a calculator that could not compute.

From John 9:
19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.
22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
Their response to miracles was contempt and judgment. Their questions about healing was from a position of incredulous doubt. Such machines are not fit for a world populated by gods. What would they do there? Display their resistance to pork and shellfish? Recount the steps they took every sabbath day to prove their righteousness?

Verse 29 should be horrifying to people who regularly say "I know" in fast and testimony meeting. The Jews claimed that they knew that God spake to Moses, but they still did not recognize Christ. This begs a serious question: If they knew that God spoke to Moses, what was the nature of their knowledge? Was it mere tradition? If so, then isn't that just the result of hearing your parents and elders repeat the mantra "I know" until you become brave enough to repeat it yourself?

Their knowledge was not saving knowledge. This puts an unexpected twist on Joseph Smith's translation of Matthew 7.

KJV:
23 And then will I say, I never knew you; depart from me ye that work iniquity.
JST:
23 And then will I say, Ye never knew me; depart from me ye that work iniquity.
Clearly there is a hierarchy of knowledge, despite what some people at FairMormon would say on the matter. Some knowledge saves, and some knowledge does not. So when Joseph Smith says,
"A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world."

... it is likely that he is speaking of knowledge that is of the saving kind. Not only is it not heretical to seek this knowledge out, it is imperative. I believe that it is this knowledge, the knowledge of knowing Christ, that frees us from the fear and mechanical ungodliness of obeying God like the awful machines that the enemy would have us be. The enemy wants to keep you from it. He wants you to pretend, and to play your part instead of fulfilling the measure of your creation.
 
What is it that caused the Pharisees to resist Christ and fight against the kingdom of God? They accused him of being possessed by a devil. Was it not the other way around? Their ultimate response to his doctrine and gospel was to deliver him to the murder machine that, at that time, had their kingdom in thrall: the Roman Empire. Jesus claim to "fulfilling the law" of Moses was the last thing they desired. Freedom from the law was terrifying to them. But more terrifying than that was the new commandment (from John 13):
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
This commandment is still terrifying to us. So much so that we rely on the law to dispense our values to those who disagree with us. This is why this country and its people are not recognizable as "Christians". We do not love as he loved.

Think about that. We rely on machination, on government and law. On police and military to maintain our freedom. Christ, conversely, coerces no one. If he is willing to go to war with an enemy that wanted to puppet us into heaven, why would we turn around and implement the plan of the adversary on ourselves and others?

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Nicolas Notovitch

Lest anyone forget the efforts of Nicolas Notovitch and the words of Christ that he brought to light:

9. Then said Issa: "It is not good for a son to push away his mother, that he may occupy the place which belongs to her. Whoso doth not respect his mother--the most sacred being after his God--is unworthy of the name of son.
10. "Hearken to what I say to you: Respect woman; for in her we see the mother of the universe, and all the truth of divine creation is to come through her.
12. "She is the fount of everything good and beautiful, as she is also the germ of life and death. Upon her man depends in all his
p. 205
existence, for she is his moral and natural support in his labors.
12. "In pain and suffering she brings you forth; in the sweat of her brow she watches over your growth, and until her death you cause her greatest anxieties. Bless her and adore her, for she is your only friend and support on earth.
13. "Respect her; defend her. In so doing you will gain for yourself her love; you will find favor before God, and for her sake many sins will be remitted to you.
14. "Love your wives and respect them, for they will be the mothers of to-morrow and later the grandmothers of a whole nation.
"Be submissive to the wife; her love ennobles man, softens his hardened heart,
p. 206
tames the wild beast in him and changes it to a lamb.
16. "Wife and mother are the priceless treasures which God has given to you. They are the most beautiful ornaments of the universe, and from them will be born all who will inhabit the world.
17. "Even as the Lord of Hosts separated the light from the darkness, and the dry land from the waters, so does woman possess the divine gift of calling forth out of man's evil nature all the good that is in him.
18. "Therefore I say unto you, after God, to woman must belong your best thoughts, for she is the divine temple where you will most easily obtain perfect happiness.
19. "Draw from this temple your moral force. There you will forget your sorrows
p. 207
and your failures, and recover the love necessary to aid your fellow-men.
20. "Suffer her not to be humiliated, for by humiliating her you humiliate yourselves, and lose the sentiment of love, without which nothing can exist here on earth.
21. "Protect your wife, that she may protect you--you and all your household. All that you do for your mothers, your wives, for a widow, or for any other woman in distress, you will do for your God."

---
Notovitch is a controversial figure in Christian scholarship. He went to Tibet and discovered some scrolls that spoke of Jesus Christ, an excerpt of which is above. He is considered to be a fraud by most of the Christian intelligentsia, and they have sources that indicate that he admitted to making up the book that he published. The problem with their conclusions is that after he was "debunked" a guy from India named Swami Abhedananda went to Tibet and verified the existence of the scrolls Notovitch claimed to have discovered.

This contradiction is reflected in the Wikipedia article on the subject. Take a look, check the sources (footnote 7) and judge for yourself. But in the meantime, I defy anyone to show me a more beautiful passage concerning womanhood and motherhood than what is posted above.

If these are not indeed the words of Christ, then Notovitch should be praised for including in his "hoax" something this timeless and ennobling.