THE KINGDOM OF GOD

Chapter 1. Is it a Spiritual Kingdom?

Not of this World

When Jesus was brought before Pilate He made a statement, "My kingdom is not of this world". (John 18:36) From this stems the belief that the kingdom of Jesus Christ is a spiritual kingdom that does not come in conflict with the earthly kingdoms of this world.

That the kingdom of Jesus Christ is to be an earthly kingdom can be discerned from passages in Daniel 2:44; 7:13‑27; Zech. 14; Rev. 5:10; and 11:15 which says, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ". Following the beleif that the kingdom of our Saviour is a spiritual kingdom is the beleif that it should come on earth by spiritual means. Yet "It was accepted Mormon doctrine that the political kingdom of God was to be established by human efforts rather than through divine intervention." (The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of God in Pioneer Days page 51 / Millennial Star XXIV (1862))

While thousands thank God for Joseph Smith and the restoration of the Gospel and church of Jesus Christ, few understand it was only one step in bringing about a full and complete restoration of all things, even the restoration of His kingdom. This is most reasonable as we look back and see the Lord saying to Israel "ye shall be unto me a kingdom". (Exodus 19:6) Joshua saying "choose you this day whom ye will serve ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15) And Isaiah (33:22) saying, "the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, and the Lord is our king".

A Holy People

Moses in speaking to the children of Israel tells them, "Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgements, and to hearken unto his voice: And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; and to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken." (Duet. 26:17-19) To say the kingdom of God, or to say the House of Israel, is to virtually say the same thing.

The Law/Gospel of Israel/Jesus Christ

This at least was true when Israel kept the law of God, or abided in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Perhaps our friends will say that the Gospel and its ordinances were not known till the days of John, the son of Zacharias, in the days of Herod, ... It will be noticed that, according to Paul, (see Gal. 3:8) the Gospel was preached to Abraham. We would like to be informed in what name the Gospel was then preached, whether it was in the name of Christ or some other name. If in another name, was it the Gospel? And if it was the Gospel, and that preached in the name of Christ, had it any ordinances? If not, was it the Gospel? And if it had ordinances what were they? ... We find also, that when the Israelites came out of Egypt they had the Gospel preached to them, according to Paul in his letter to the Hebrews, which says: "For unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as

unto them: ... (see Heb. 4:2). It is said again, in Gal. 3:19, that the law [of Moses] was "added" because of transgression. What, we ask, was this added to, if it was not added to the Gospel? It must

1.

be plain that it was added to the Gospel, since we learn that they had the Gospel preached to them." (TPJS page 60)

The Law of Moses

Jesus Told the Nephites, "... in me is the law of Moses fulfilled. ... ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, ... ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit". (3 Nephi 9:17-20)

Joseph Smith elucidated on this statement when he said, "It is not to be understood that the Law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses's day". (TPJS page 173) An example of which is found in Matthew 19:3-9: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [A prominent Rabbi who lived prior to the coming of Christ had taught just that, that a man could put his wife away for every cause, every cause being anything from getting fat, or old, to accidently burning his toast, ... literally every cause imaginable.] ... "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

The same thing can be said of us in these days as pertaining to the law of consecration or tithing. We do not live the law of consecration or the full law of tithing, if we did we would give our all. Where would one get 10% to give if one has already given their all? And it is for the same reason, the hardness of our hearts. In essence the Lord, through Moses, gave two laws, one which stood forever and one which would pass away as Israel attained maturity.

Life and Death

Moses, before leaving Israel, goes over the law that God has given Israel through him, and after going over the blessings they will receive if they abide in the law, or the cursings they will reciece if they do not he says, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" (Duet. 30:19)

Jesus, when asked by the young man what he should do to have eternal life is answered, "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which?" (Matthew 19:17) Whereupon Jesus begins quoting the ten commandments. Yet in another place He says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life". (John 14:6) Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus is the embodiment of the law that bringeth life, even the Gospel? And that Gospel or law was with Ancient Israel, at least to some extent? And that if we are to become joint-heirs with Him we too must become "like Him" embodiments of the law?

The Laws Rejection but Ultimate Return

Going back to Ancient Israel and Moses we find him telling them, "I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you;" (Duet. 31:29) "And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all

2.

thy soul; That then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion on thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee." (Duet. 30:1-3)

When Moroni came to Joseph Smith he "quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi, and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same". (DHC Vol. I page 12) Malachi 3:7 reads: "Even from the days of your fathers are ye gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts." [Mention is made in this chapter about robbing God in tithess and offerings. Are we with our understanding of the Law of Consecration i.e. a full or true tithe, still robbing God?] And Malachi 4:4 reads: "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgements."

A Different Arrangement or Order

If the ancient kingdom of Israel was the kingdom of Jesus Christ then why did he say his kingdom was "not of this world"? The word world used in this instance was actually the Greek word Kosmos, Cosmos to us, indicating the order of things. His kingdom is simply not of the order or arrangement as the kingdoms of this world are. Further substantiation comes from Joseph Smith stating "It will not be by gun or sword that this kingdom will roll on: the power of truth is such that all nations will be under the nessecity of obeying the Gospel." (TPJS page 366) Compare Joseph's words to the words of our Saviour; "if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, ... To this end was I born ... that I should bear witness unto the truth." (John 18:3637)

Although this may seem ludicrous and completely unrealistic it is simply, like Jesus, of a different "order of things". Consider "A government comprised of murderers, rapists and theives who murdered their way to power; then murdered millions and, after more than forty years, is still murdering in order to retain it, is not a legitimate government [but] ... There is one sphere in which Communists excel, and that is in propaganda. And yet this sphere is by far the most important for it is not governments, not wealth, not power but opinion that rules this world; and governments, with all their wealth and power respond to it. No less a statesman than Abraham Linclon acknowledged this when he stated; "In this and like communities public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed; consequently he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes and decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed." ... without the support of public opinion, even a statesman of Linclon's stature conceded he could accomplish nothing. >From this it follows ... we can never hope for a really effective anti‑Communist [anti-Satanic] government unless anti‑Communism [anti-Satanism]gains the upper hand in the realm of thought." (Thugs and Communists supplement pages 9‑10)

Since "Only the truth can uniformly and consistently agree with itself and with nature; while all false principles are internally at variance with themselves, and externally contradict the testimony of experience which, at every step, records its silent protest." Schopenhauer (ibid. page 53); and since Communism stands squarely on lies and deception, having been established by such; then it should seem perfectly natural that the kingdom of God should come forth by the power of truth?

3.

Summary

Jesus Christ said His kingdom was not of this world, meaning it was not after the order of this world. That His kingdom was and is to be an earthly kingdom can be seen in ancient Israel and its restoration in the latter days, "be unto me a kingdom" (Exodus 19:6). If His kingdom had been of

this world His servants would have fought for Him, but He came into the world to "bear witness unto the truth". It is by the power of truth that the kingdom of Jesus Christ will roll forth. This is seen as a rational and reasonable approach as it is by public opinion that the world and its governments turn. The Communists, and all other ungodly governments and entities, accomplishing their designs by manipulating public opinion via their lies and deception. As lies are constantly in contradiction one with another, and truth alone is consistent, it is inevitable that truth should roll forth like the stone cut out of the mountain without hands. Truth being greater than lies must ultimately triump, and when truth triumps so also shall the kingdom of God triump over the kingdoms of this world.

4.

Chapter 2. What is America?

The Constitution

America could be thought of as land with all the life resing thereon both of animals and plants; including the people with all their structures ect. And though certain animals and plants may be endemic (native only to this land), and certain structures may be found nowhere else, it is not in these things that America is to be truly comprehended. America is is to be comprehended in its Constitution/government which was established by the people; the two being virtually one and the same.

Memshahlah ‑ Government - Misrah - People

Joseph Smith explained that "Every man is a government of himself". (DHC vol. 6 page 292) John Taylor reiterated this, saying, "... we are the people of God; we are his government." (JD 5:187) In Young's Analytical Concordance there are two words for government in Hebrew; Black's Law Dictionary also gives two definitions: 1. The constitution, body of law, statutes ect. This corresponds with the Hebrew word "Memshahlah" which in English would be "rule". 2. The officers who give the laws application. This corresponds with the Hebrew word "Misrah" which in English would be "princely power"

Perhaps James Madison made the point best in asking, "But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" (The Five Thousand Year Leap page 165) A government (nation) is only a reflection of its base parts, the people. To comprehend our government, the Constitution, we must first comprehend the people,our forefathers, their background, and upon what principles they were based.

A Holy Commonwealth

"When the Pilgrims and Puritans came to America they hoped to find more than freedom of religion. In Holland there was no persecution; they had their freedom. The Mayflower Compact and other such documents leave no question as to their purpose. They were seeking to re‑establish with themselves the covenant relationship that had existed in ancient Israel where He was their God and they were His people. Having been persecuted in England they went thither to Holland but found, in their quest, that as a church seeking to serve God was not enough. They had to be a separate and distinct people whose laws (civil) were those given by God. ""... the idea of a covenant or contractural relationship was the central and pivotal idea of the organization of the church." ... It was inevitable that the theologians who wrote about church government and sacred history would also write about the origins and limitations of civil government and would apply the same principles. The Pilgrims and Puritans who came to Massachusetts attempted to put their Christian ideals into practice in civic life. In the Mayflower Compact, the Pilgrims agreed to "covenant and combine [them]selves together in to a civil body politic" ... . Their intent was to establish a theocracy ‑ a "Holy Commonwealth." "... the settlers of Guilford, Mass., organized their town government by "gathering together in a church way." The "Fundamental Orders" adopted by the river towns of Conn. in Jan. 1639, which has been called "the first written constitution in history," opened with the explicit acknowledgement that "God requires" his people to form their civil government "by common consent according to God." ... "The New England Clergy preserved, extended, and popularized the essential

5.

doctrines of ... the fundamental principle of American Constitutional law". Covenant theology put individual rights of conscience [obedience to God] at the top of the list of moral duties where prior philosophies had put obedience to established authority.

The Americam Wilderness was settled by God‑fearing people who came to establish a "Holy Commonwealth." To merit the blessings of God, they beleived they had to be virtuous. ... They clearly believed that God expected "strict obedience" of his laws if they were to enjoy his blessing in their new land. By the time of the American Revolution, the oppressions of the British government were viewed as God's punishment for iniquity, as well as a trial of the faith and obedience of his American Israel. ... "The eighteenth‑century mind was thoroughly convinced that a popularly based government 'cannot be supported without virtue.'"

The principles of constitutionalism and covenant were of little benefit to anyone while the government denied their validity and prevented their implementation. Thus, perhaps the greatest contribution of covenant theology and theologians was ... the practical political establishment of the Constitution of the United States. ... They firmly believed that the new world was a special land of opportunity prepared and reserved by God for his special purposes, and that they had been brought by the hand of God to work his will in this chosen land. ... After the war, "American destiny" became a "civil religion." The war was seen as another Exodus from Egypt, and Washington was considered to be the Moses of the new world.

The clergy believed in a constitutional God who grounded his universe in laws that could be perceived and understood by rational men, who administered his immutable laws in conformity with natural‑law reason. Covenant theologians believed that the will of God was manifest through reason and nature as well as divine revelation. ... The thinking of the covenant clergyman was markedly legalistic: "He started with a written document; he applied his logical faculties to its interpretation, and to the application of its teachings and its examples or precedents." If God's holy laws could be written in the Bible, then man's basic covenants could also be written. ... For more than a century after the first colonies were planted in the New World, ministers, as a class, exercised predominant leadership in civic and social affairs, as well as ecclesiastical matters. [Ancient Sumaria had Priest‑Kings, Israel was to be a nation of priests and kings]

... American revolutionary history are filled with stories of the colorful, firebrand, liberty‑preaching clergymen of the day, such as the pastor of the German church in the Shenandoah Valley, who, after preaching from Ecclesiastes 3:8 ("A time of war, and a time of peace") ended his sermon with the declaration: "There is a time to fight and the time is here." Removing his clerical gown, he appeared in a colonel's uniform; whereupon, three hundred men of his congregation enlisted under him.

The most fundamental concepts and institutions that were incorporated into the Constitution of the United States evolved out of the values, and institutions of covenant theology, including popular sovereignty, limited government, and the notion of supreme, immutable law." (The Constitution as a Covenant by Lynn Wardle / Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 27, Summer 87, #3)

Thus we see America as a people deeply grounded in their relationship or covenants with God i.e. their religion. The Constitution of the United States, being a reflection of that people, is therefore quintessentialy religious. For those who might find the thought of the Constitution being a religious

document ridiculous or repulsive, perhaps a look at history is in order.

6.

Heavenly Intervention

"... we find in Jefferson's writings and in writings of others of our Founding Fathers, that upon numerous occasions heavenly intervention helped to establish this nation. ... on one occasion George Washington was almost completely surrounded by the enemy; he had no hope of escape; he was cut off from all supplies and all assistance. ... at that critical moment a fog rolled in and blinded the enemy long enough for Washington and his troops to escape.

On another occasion ... the British troops were sailing up the rivers on both sides and were about to execute a pincer movement behind Washington and his men. Then, just as the British were about to get into position, the wind ceased. Their ships lay helpless in the water ... there was no wind with which to make the final move ... He escaped again.

... when the signers of the Declaration of Independance were contemplating the signing of that document, they began to hesitate, ... their actions would mean the death penalty if they were caught. ... when they were about to give up, they heard a voice ring out from the balcony ... The speaker gave one of the most inspiring speeches [part of which was, "... the words of that parchment can never die! ... The British king may blot out the stars of God from the sky, but he cannot blot out His words written on that parchment there. The works of God may perish: His words never! ... Sign, and not only for yourselves, but for all ages, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever. ... It is truth, your own hearts witness it: God proclaims it. ... remember this truth ‑ God has given America to be free!" (The Unknown Who Swayed the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)] ... the Founding Fathers rushed forward eagerly and signed their names to the Declaration of Independence. When they had finished, they turned to thank the gentleman who had given the speech but he was gone. The doors were locked, the windows were barred, and there were guards posted all around the building ... Yet no one saw him enter or leave and no one knew who he was nor where he went. Now these occurences are recorded in a book entitled "The Secret destiny of America".

According to another book entitled Our Flag ... we can probably deduce that this same gentleman appeared to Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin as they contemplated the design of our first flag. ... That design was influenced by the gentleman known as "the professor" who appeared when they were discussing the design ... he advised them to include the Union Jack ... He said that later ... the British symbol would be changed to "a field of blue that would be filled with stars..." but ..."for now put the Union Jack there and you will see the results in the war." ... Three days later George Washington raised the new standard on the flagpole at Cambridge, Mass. As it reached the top, the British ... camped across the way, viewed it through field glasses. When they saw its design, the British officers ordered a thirteen gun salute in honor of that new flag. ... The impact of the new flag began to weigh upon the minds of the British soldiers and eventually broke their will to fight.

The gentleman who helped to design the flag, referred to in Jefferson's journals as the "professor", assisted the Founding fathers on other occasions also. ... Thomas Paine and others who were there refer to this stranger. He came again and again to counsel them." (The American Dream preface pages 15‑17)

"You have doubtless heard the story of Washington going to the thicket to pray. Well it was not only true, but he used often to pray in secret for aid and comfort from God, the interposition of whose Divine Providence brought us safely through those dark days of tribulation. [During

Washington's, & America's darkest hours, while at Valley Forge, Washington received a vision, what he termed "my mysterious visitor" who showed him the future] ... saying, "Son of the Republic, look

7.

and learn." [He was shown the revolutionary war, civil war, and a war that is yet to come, wherein] ... "Instantly a light as of a thousand suns shone down from above me, and pierced and broke into fragments the dark cloud which enveloped America. At that same moment the angel upon whose head still shone the word "Union", and who bore our national flag in one hand and a sword in the other, descended from heaven attended by legions of bright spirits. These immediately joined the inhabitants of America, who, I perceived, were well‑nigh overcome ... I found myself once more gazing upon my mysterious visitor, who ... said, "Son of the Republic, what you have seen is thus interpreted: Three great perils will come upon the Republic. The most fearful is the third, passing which the whole world united shall not prevail against her. ... I started from my seat and felt I had seen a vision wherein had been shown me the birth, progress and destiny of the United States." (Vision of George Washington)

During the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin sunmitted a motion for prayer: "how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the father of Lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard ‑ and they were graciously answered ... I have lived a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?" (The Real Benjamin Franklin page 258)

I think it is plain that America did not rise without the aid of the God of Israel, who had said, "Return unto me, and I will return unto you". (Malachi 3:7) What then is America, or America to be? The return of Israel to their God as a kingdom, a Theocracy, a government of God!

A Theocracy is a Republic

"The Constitution and laws of the United States resemble a theocracy more closely than any government now on the earth, ... But few, if any, understand what a theocratic government is. In every sense of the word, it is a republican government ..." (Brigham Young JD 6:342)

The Pilgrims intent was to establish a theocracy ‑ a "Holy Commonwealth". (BYU Studies) Webster's Dictionary defines commonwealth: a nation, state, or other political unit [that is]: a: one founded on law ["supreme, immutable law"] and united by compact or tacit agreement of the people for the common good b: one in which supreme authority is vested in the people c: Republic. The Mormon people with Brigham Young at their head sought to establish a theocracy via the State of Deseret. In its Constitution it states, "it is a fundamental principle in all Republican Governments, that all political power is inherent in the People ...".

The covenant theologians of early America who studied and wrote about church government eventually took the same principles and applied them to civil government. Joseph Smith, referring to ancient Israel said "Their government was a theocracy ... in both civil and ecclesiastical affairs; they were both one, there was no distinction; so will it be when the purposes of God shall be accomplished" (TPJS page 252); showing the covenant theologians to be right on point, Thus, as "all political power is inherent in the people", so then must all ecclesiastical power be inherent in the people, else why have a nation of priests and kings?

Higher Priesthood Equals Titles of Nobility

Joseph Smith explained "This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the

8.

Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all". (TPJS page 169)

"This, then, is the nature [inherent character of] of the Priesthood [authority to act in the name of God or His government ... see John Taylor, JD 22:291]; every man holding Presidency [having power to exercise guidance direction, or controle] of his dispensation ["power and authority to dispense the word of God, and to administer in all the ordinances thereof], and one man holding Presidency [having power to exercise guidance, direction, or controle] of them all".

["Now, I ask, what is a dispensation? I answer, it is power and authority to dispense the word of God, and to administer in all the ordinances thereof." (DHC vol. 3 page 50)]

Here we have the Priesthood, which is the government of God, which is a theocracy, which is a republic; wherein "all political power is inherent in the People". And what are the proper limits of power of the People/Elders? "... the proper functions and limits of government ‑ that is, two or more persons acting together have no right whatever to do collectively anything that is forbidden to the individuals in the group. ... Thus the principle of collective right ‑ its reason for existing, its lawfulness ‑ is based on individual right." (Frederic Bastiat: Ideas and Influence pages 2‑3)

"... there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred". (D&C 132:7) What power then does this one man hold that the People/ Elders do not? Seeing all power is inherent in the Elders [by virtue of the priesthood which they hold individually], the answer is none. But as "The greatest temporal and spiritual blessings, which always come from faithfulness and concerted effort, never attended individual exertion or enterprise" (TPJS page 183) the answer must be that "one man at a time", "holding Presidency of them all", must hold the concerted power of all the People/Elders; receiving his power from them [that is in the united or concentrated powers of the priesthood]. So in Priesthood as in U.S. Government, higher office denotes higher authority, yet the higher authority or power comes from the body wherein "all ... power is inherent".

The difficulty in comprehending this subject has to do with the diversity of offices [labels] within the identical, or one priesthood. "I now give unto you the officers belonging to my Priesthood ... patriarch ...presiding elder ...Twelve ... high priests ... elders ... seventies ... The above offices I have given unto you ... for governments". (D&C 124:123‑143) The label priesthood also has the label of government. The label offices also has the label governments. Thus the Priesthood, priesthood offices, as well as the individuals holding said Priesthood and or offices, can be synonymous. This should not seem strange as we have a government of the United States yet when we deal with the Mayor, Judge, or Police we consider we are dealing with the government, and rightly so. Consider: "The office [government] of an elder comes under the priesthood [government] of Melchizedek. The Melchizedek Priesthood [government] holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices [governments] in the church". (D&C 107:7‑8) Thus the office of "elder" has the power and authority to function in all offices ... "all ... power is inherent in the People[Elders]" There is nothing more! And why is this?

"What ordination should a man receive to possess all the keys and powers of the Holy Priesthood that were delivered to the sons of Adam? He should be ordained an Apostle of Jesus Christ. That office puts him in possession of every key, every power, every authority, communication, benefit, blessing, glory, and kingdom that was ever revealed to man. That pertains to the office of an Apostle of Jesus Christ. ...Suppose that Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams had been taken away or had apostatized, as one of them did soon after the revelation I have referred to was given, and there had been only Joseph Smith left of the First Presidency, would he alone have had authority

9.

to set in order the kingdom of God on the earth? Yes. Again: Suppose that eleven of the Twelve had been taken away by the power of the Adversary, that one Apostle has the same power that Joseph had, and could preach, baptize, and set in order the whole kingdom of God upon the earth, as much so as the Twelve, were they all together. Again: If in the providence of God he should permit the Enemy to destroy these two first Quorums, and then destroy the Quorum of Seventy, all but one man, what is his power? It would be to go and preach, baptize, confirm, lay on hands, ordain, set in order, build up, and establish the whole kingdom of God as it is now. Can we go any further? Yes; and I think you will see the reason of it, and how easy it is to be understood, and see the propriety of it. ... Suppose the Enemy had power to destroy all but one of the High Priests from the face of the earth, what would that one possess in the power of his Priesthood? He would have power and authority to go and preach, baptize, confirm, ordain, and set in order the kingdom of God in all its perfection on the earth. Could he do this without revelation? No. Could the Seventies? No. Could the Twelve? No. And we ask, Could Joseph Smith or the First Presidency do this without revelation? No; not one of them could do such a work without revelation direct from God. I can go still further. Whoever is ordained to the office of an Elder to a certain degree possesses the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood; and suppose only one Elder should be left on the earth, could he go and set in order the kingdom of God? Yes, by revelation." (JD 9:88-89, Brigham Young) I answer: It is because in having the Priesthood, which is the power behind all of the offices, one has as much priesthood power as can be had, to excercise over his family and in whatever office(s) he may be called to serve.

Since the church is only the people, the kingdom is only the people, the priesthood is only the people, and all power lies only in the people; claims of "Higher Priesthood or Authority" must be authority that corrresponds with the authority of the individual priesthood holder. "... the proper functions and limits of government ‑ that is, two or more persons acting together have no right whatever to do collectively anything that is forbidden to the individuals in the group. ... Thus the principle of collective right ‑ its reason for existing, its lawfulness ‑ is based on individual right." (Frederic Bastiat: Ideas and Influence pages 2‑3) Any claims made contrary to this would be to establish "Titles of Nobility" under the guise of Priesthood, which is forbidden in the Constitution, and our God.

Separation of Church and State

If America is basicly a theocracy wherein civil and ecclesiastical affairs are one, why was it not so established in the beginning? Perhaps before answering the question we should ascertain if the above is true. If President Clinton were a part of the body of Christ would he have homosexuals in the military? Would he have condoms and sex education, ect. in our schools? Would he have sanctioned the action at Waco? Would he be pushing for Hillery's health care program? I think it is safe to say that every bit of our politics is directly linked to our religion, ... our belief in God and his laws.

So why wasn't there a union of Church and State in the beginning of our nation? I have concluded that it was nesessary to make the transition in stages; the Pilgrims ect. coming to America and having a degree of religious freedom was a step towards establishing the United States where a full freedom of religion could be had, at least in theory. Thomas Jefferson stated, "I hold the precepts of Jesus ... to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. ... and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of His religion ... If the freedom of religion

10.

guaranteed to us by law in theory can ever rise in practice under the over bearing inquisition of public opinion, truth will prevail over fanaticism, and the genuine doctrines of Jesus, so long perverted by His pseudo‑priests, will again be restored to their original purity ... but to late for me to witness". (The Real Thomas Jefferson page 366)

As we look at the history of Joseph Smith and the church we can see that there was indeed an inquisition of public opinion. Had the law also been against God's church it should not have had a chance. A union of church and state wielded by pseudo‑priests would have most certainly wielded its power against the church of Christ. Yet, it may be asked, what will be the difference if the church of Christ wields that power?

Creeds of the Fathers ... Superstition

Jefferson answers this question magnificently; "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." (ibid. page 645) What did Jesus say to Pilate? "To this end was I born ... that I should bear witness unto the truth." (John 18:36‑37) And Joseph Smith, "It will not be by the gun or sword that this kingdom will roll on: the power of truth is such that all nations will be under the necessity of obeying the Gospel (which is both civil and ecclesiastical law). (TPJS page 366) The Lord tells us the "influence of ... the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children ... is now the very mainspring of all corruption". (D&C 123:7) The religious influence that pervades the world is the "mainspring" of all the corruption that exists.

An example of this can be seen easily in India where "Superstition, among the Indian peoples, knows few boundary lines of condition or class. Women in general are prone to beleive that disease is an evidence of the approach of a god. Medicine and surgery, driving the god away, offend him, and it is ill business to offend the Great Ones; ... Therefore, when a woman is seen to be about to breath her last, her child yet undelivered ‑ she may have lain for days in labor for a birth against which her starveling bones are locked ‑ the dhai, as in duty bound, sets to work upon precautions for the protection of the family. First she brings pepper and rubs it into the dying eyes, that the soul may be blinded and unable to find its way out. Then she takes two long iron nails, and, ... drives a spike straight through each palm fast to the floor. This is done to pinion the soul to the ground ... that it may not rise and wander, vexing the living." (Thugs and Communists page 72)

In the same book Spinoza is quoted, "As the mind's understanding is smaller, ... so will its power of coining fictions be larger, whereas, as its understanding increases, its capacity for entertaining fictitious ideas becomes less."

Joseph ran into this within the church, "there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. ... I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions". (TPJS page 331) Is it any wonder that Joseph should say, "I do many things to break down superstition". (TPJS page 193)

Called to be ... Ahman Christ ... God Anointed Ones ... Priesthood

Though the Constitution should be written, and the true church of Christ established, there can be no true kingdom of God until there is found a body of men who will set aside their superstitions, overcome their ignorance, and put upon themselves the priesthood (government) of God. (see D&C 113:8) That thousands have been called to the priesthood there is no doubt. That "the

11.

rights of the priesthood ... may be conferred upon us, it is true: but ... We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called but few are chosen." (D&C 121:36‑40)

When Joseph organized the Kingdom of God shortly before his demise, reason infers, he chose from among the many who had been called. The title of the Kingdom was, "'The Kingdom of God and His Laws, with the Keys and power thereof, and Judgment in the hands of his Servants, Ahman Christ'; ... when condensed to its "Key Word" ‑ "Ahman Christ" ‑ means, according to the Mormon lexicon, "God Anointed Ones". (BYU Studies) Back to labels. The members of the Council of Fifty, i.e. the Kingdom of God, were "Ahman Christ(s)" or "God Anointed Ones"; when one is called to the Priesthood i.e. the government of God i.e. an office, officiating or acting for God, as God, Saviours on Mt. Zion, ect.; does it not make sense that when one has become a part of the body of Christ (God), that they are then a part of God, and being a part of God what does that make them excepting Gods themselves? Jesus quoting the scriptures stated, "He (God) called them gods, unto whom the word of God came"; "the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven", thus making a (functional) priesthood holder a god according to the words of Jesus Christ. We have already determined it is one thing to be called, and another to be chosen, and it is plain that if the priesthood is functional it must have a connection with heaven. According to Nephi, being connected to the Holy Ghost is equivalent to "feast[ing] on the words of Christ", and what can be more than that; recieving directions from our own dear Saviour? (II Nephi 32:3) And this is needed because "When a man is called to the Priesthood, he is then and there ordained to put down evil. [No unrighteous dominion] ... The world are to comprehend God through us. As God was said to be "written in the face of Jesus Christ" so he is to be told out and made plain in our words and ways." (Mil. Star 20:641‑644 John Taylor)

Even though the Council of Fifty eventually ended, the kingdom of God shall not end as long as there is one righteous Elder on the face of the earth. What is lacking is not ordinations. What is lacking is those who having been ordained/called, to the priesthood, failing to overcome the "mainspring" of all corruption, superstition, and in failing they thereby invariably assert "unrighteous dominion". As long as those who have been called to represent God will [metaphoricly] rub pepper in the eyes of those seeking light, and nail to the ground the hands of those whose desire it is to serve Him, they will not be chosen, the kingdom will not be conferred upon them, and Zion will not come.

Put on thy Strength O Zion and Every Knee Shall Bow

When Isaiah's admonition is heeded, "which saith: Put on thy strength, O Zion ... [which] is to put on the authority of the priesthood" which we have a right to by ordination as well as "a right to by lineage" (D&C 113:7‑8), as did the Founding Fathers of this nation; then will, and this is the only way that God has given, for Zion to come. "It was accepted Mormon doctrine that the political kingdom of God was to be established by human efforts rather than through divine intervention. [Perhaps this would be best said "with Divine help" as was the United States, as] ... it was also believed that more or less concurrently with the establishment of this kingdom, a conflict would erupt, destroying the governments of the world". (Mill. Star XXIV (1862) pp. 337‑338)

"And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take up his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety. ... and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another." (D&C 45:68‑69) If those who flee to Zion are from "among

12.

thewicked" then Zion is definately not an exclusive country club wherein only the pure and righteous shall reside; at least not at first. Yet who is the King of Zion? And what are its laws? Before the wicked enter into Zion they will bow the knee to its soveriegn, and will swear (covenant) to keep His laws. (see Isaiah 45:23)

The Kingdom

In one sense one might consider that the United States will be no more, yet what is the United States ... America? Its Constitution which guarantees the "rights ... of all flesh". (D&C 101:77) Those eternal principles embodied in that document are inherently those of the kingdom, and though a more perfect order will be established, it should be considered more of a transition of the kingdom than the destruction of the one and the rise of another. Yet America as we see it today, corrupted and going in defiance of the Constitution itself, will be destroyed; while Zion will gather to it all who support the eternal principles of the Constitution ... free agency ... the rights of man. Whether or not one is a member of the church (body) of Christ they will have the same "rights ... of all flesh". What should we expect to see in Zion? The same basic things that were hoped for when the Pilgrims came to America, and what Jefferson had revealed to him when these United States of America were formed. A true church, a true government ... pure and unmitigated truth!It is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the law of the universe that holds all things in motion. It is that which will set us free. It is America! It is Mormonism! And if we will ... it is us!!!

13.

Chapter 3.

Render unto Ceasar?

Nessecity, Willingness, or Ignorance

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21) This scripture has established, in mens minds, as unalterable fact, that we should pay homage to the powers that be, as well as serve God. However Jesus said "No man can serve two masters ... Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24) This is not an area that can be easily cut and dried for certainly there are things we all must do that pays some homage to Ceasar/Mammon. Yet is it because of nessecity, willingness, or ignorance that this is so?

Under Duress

That we are held hostage, as it were, makes the nessecity of "rendering unto Caesar" an action of ours born of duress. Homage paid under such circumstances cannot be considered either legal or binding; leaving one, in reality serving but one master, Jesus Christ. Though this appears to answer the question and indeed be the end of the issue it must be remembered that when a hostage is presented with an opportunity to escape said duress and willingly remains he is no longer a hostage making his homage legal and binding. This leaves him in a position of seeking to serve two masters which Jesus said could not be done. I ask, is it because of ignorance that we are under duress? Or do we simply will it to be so?

The Tithe is the Lord's

As with all coins, there are two sides; though we are told to render unto Caesar, we must remember we are also to render unto God the things that are God's. Virtually all will agree that the tithe is the Lord's. But what is the tithe? It is designated as a tenth of ones increase, income, ect. in dictionaries and such. Yet is this so?

The Lord says, "I require all their surplus property ... And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people." (D&C 119:1‑2) Here the Lord designates "all ... surplus property" as tithing; yet this is only the "beginning". This revelation was given after the saints had been driven from Jackson County for not living the Law of Consecration about which the Lord stated, "It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, ... that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God." (D&C 85:3)"The Lord has told us, that it is required of every man in this Church to lay all things, not one‑tenth alone, but to lay all things ... consecrate the whole of it ‑‑ everything he has ... they are the Lord's" (Orson Pratt JD 2:98) This is also corroborated by Temple covenants, made even more plain in that, all of our time, talents, ect. are all to be consecrated to the Lord for his purposes. The Lord informs his people that none are exempt from the Law of Consecration and that those who will not live this law should be cut off or not have their names enrolled with the people of God. (see D&C 51:2, 70:10, 85:3) Here again, while speaking of consecration, which required all, the Lord uses the word tithe. From the above we find that tithe means: 1. a tenth 2. a persons surplus 3. everything. What can be deduced from the above is that the tithe is anything that belongs to the Lord period. Therfore those who faithfully pay their tithes i.e. 1/10th beleiving "he that is tithed shall not be burned" (D&C 64:23 also see Malachi 3 & 4) may not

have the foolproof fire insurance they beleive they have.

14.

The Law

Researching the Law of Consecration is difficult, even among the Twelve there were differences of opinion. Orson Pratt was very clear in his beleif that all properties consecrated were to be held in trust by the church. Though it is broadly beleived that the individual stewards were to have the deeds to their stewardships, deeds being held by individuals (Doctrines of the Kingdom page 230) was a pattern which came over two years after the Law of Consecration was initially revealed (D&C 42), and some five, six, months prior to the Saints being driven from Jackson County, Missouri. The evidence seems to infer that individual deeds was a concession given by the Lord to rebellious Saints, for the purpose of trying to make it easier for them to make good, which they did not do.

The Church / Body of Christ

According to Pratt all the properties were to be deeded to the Church and held in trust, for the Lord. This idea is very repugnant to those who have studied the Constitution and comprehend the ownership of property as a key ingredient in sustaining our liberty. To their understanding allowing the church to hold all the property would be tantamount to returning to the Dark Ages. Yet to truely understand this issue one must understand the Church The question should not be asked, what is the Church, but who is the Church? The Lord says "whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church." (D&C 10:67) This establishes each individual within the church as the church. "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." (Romans 12:5)

The chief reason people dislike, and rightly fear, the idea of not having property in their own names is that the entity who holds the property has the ability to controle, and to enslave them via the property. Yet what entity holds the property, in trust? The Church! Who is the Church? Every member of the body.

As long as the Church is looked upon as an outside entity [something other than ourselves and people we love and trust] this fear will exist, and for good reason. Only as the Church is comprehended as an innate part of ones self, as well as visa versa, does one realize the right of controle [rights and responsibilities] which each individual holds as a part of the Church.

Our concept seems to be that the President is the embodiment of the church with autocratic powers. Yet, "inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood [President of the Church] shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church ... Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God". (D&C 107:82‑84) Although the President holds a very high and exalted position in reality he is only one member of the church (body of Christ. "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church". (D&C 26:2)As in the United States the power is in the vote and each member has as much power as any other, irregardless of office or position. Who then holds these properties in trust for the Lord? Who is to be held responsible for negligence, waste, ect.? As members of the body of Christ we not only have our personal stewardships, but stand also as stewards over the whole. The Body of Christ is remarkable in its oneness or unity. Yet its economic unity is something that few if any truely understand. Yet a gleam of it was seen by some;, "In reality, said Bastiat, capital is always put at the service of other people who do not own it ... In that important sense, all capital is truely owned in common by the entire community ‑ and the greater the accumulation of capital, the more its benefits are shared in common." (Frederic Bastiat: Ideas and Influence page 31)

15.

Although Capitalism is hailed as a system that produces wealth in abundance, and rightly so, it is also the system that allows great wealth to be accumulated in the hands of a few. It is at the hands of these few that our greatest danger comes as nearly "every man has his price". Communism would be a thing of the past if Capitalism had not had not succored and nourished it. Only as a body in Christ does our salvation come, spiritually, economicly, and in every other way.

Catching a Glimpse

The people were unwilling to live the Lord's economic law and the Lord began to whittle, as it were, at his law(s), to find where the Saints might finally begin. Yet in 1838, five years after the saints were driven from Jackson County, it was considered that "All kinds of necessary articles will soon be manufactured ... that we may be under no nessecity of purchasing of our enemies. ... The operation of these firms enables a man to get a comfortable house in a very few days, when he gets about it, first by working for the firm for 70 or 80 days, then the firm turns out stone cutters, teams, carpenters, masons, etc., to complete the house and nearly everything is paid for by the man's own labor ... arrangements will soon be made that a person can get every necessity to eat, drink, live in, and to wear, ... and the best part of it all is that they want no better pay than labor." (From Journal History of the Church, The United Order page 76) God intends for us to be "our brother's keeper". (Genesis 4:9) To "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2)

Consider for a moment where we would be if the people had obeyed the Law of Consecration, and all properties were held in trust by the Church? Would we owe any taxes on our lands, homes, vehicles, ect.? As we formed our own communities would we be hampered by governmental restrictions, codes, regulations, ect.? Would there be anything, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, where we would, in any way, by any means, be obligated, by law, to "render unto Ceasar"? To render anything to any entity besides our Lord and Master Jesus Christ?

"Although the law was given "Did the people carry out this law? No. Why? Because they had imbibed the notions which had prevailed among the people of the whole earth, and these notions were in direct opposition to the order of heaven. ... "No I will not consecrate all my property, I will go ... and purchase for myself, and I will buy largely in order that I may sell to my poor brethren when they come up here ... and make my fortune." That was the feeling ... of some of the latter‑day Saints." (Orson Pratt JD 16:5)

Though the gospel teaches us to love one another and to use things, instead we love things and use each other. This is caused by "covetousness one of the three most disgraceful things, ... meaning literally "a desire to have more." ... all of the wisdom literature are based upon the promise that God will provide enough, and the righteous individual, who is liberal with his God‑given possessions, always has the blessings of life. The covetous and the righteous are contrasted, the one greedy for more, the other making generous use of his material possessions". (Smith's Bible Dictionary) "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24) [Do we even want to beleive it?]

A Stone Cut Out of the Mountain

Until the United States, unconstitutionaly, broke the political power of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, wherever it went, it was a political power. In Jackson County violence broke out when they tried to prevent "Mormons" from voting. Nauvoo became the largest City in Illinios, wielding such political power that without the "Mormon vote" politicians could not hope to win.Yet that political power was only broken because the body of Christ was not one, and that in

16.

many ways. As with the Nephites of old there is the church of God and those who profess to belong to the church of God. (see Helaman 3:33) What is the difference? The one will have kept their covenants and have the Spirit, the other will not. The Spirit leads to the fountain of all truth, that truth leads to freedom, spiritualy and politically. The church was broken politically; which in its fall also eliminated plural marraige, and the United Order, as they were political issues. Yet who is the church? And is its power, in any way broken? When the Priesthood counsel is given to be "politically active" what can that mean?

Is the stone referred to by Daniel essentially any different than the church? And how is it to roll forth and fill the whole earth? Shall not this nation, gifted to us by our founding fathers, not yet become the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Is it not in our power to bring the communities, of which we are a part, within the bounds of their proper Constitutional limits? Or is it not in our power to form communities that function according to the law and order of God? Is it not in our power to roll forth, by the power of truth, and begin to fill the earth, though we might begin in a very small way?

Summary

Though we hold to the concept that we should "render unto Ceasar" and that the tithe is the Lord's; in not having a full comprehension of what the Lord means by these things, our concepts are mechanically false. The Lord does not require a tenth but the whole of our properties and even of ourselves.

As members of the body of Christ i.e. the church, we find ourselves responsible not only for our individual stewardships but also for the whole as "all things are to be done by common consent", we having as much power [in our vote] as anyone, the President of the church not excepted.

In rendering to the Lord his just due we find nothing left to "render unto Ceasar". This is especially true in the United States where, according to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting ... religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

On this principle we can see the stone as ourselves, cut out of the mountain, without hands i.e. directed by the Spirit and not man, with small beginnings rolling forth to fill the whole earth.

Had the body of Christ, the Church, been willing to be one, to abide by the Law of Consecration, there would be no need of rendering to Ceasar, there would be no economic want, there would be no Saints held hostage, or under duress.

17.

Chapter 4.

When Will It Come?

"A Stone Was Cut Out Without Hands"

Daniel speaks of "the God of heaven set[ting] up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed" signified as a "stone .. cut out of the mountain without hands" and "became a great mountain and filled the whole earth." (Daniel 2:44, 45, & 35)

A stone cut out of the mountain without hands indicates that it is not the work of man, but of God. Though outwardly men might do the work, it is something beyond them, greater than their intellect could devise, and greater than their ability to accomplish.

It has been said the Founding Fathers in establishing the Constitution cut the stone out of the mountain as they had not had hands laid on them, or been given the priesthood. The fact does exist that many nations have emulated their Constitution.

Joseph Smith said, "I calculate to be one of the intruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world." (TPJS page 366) In 1844 Joseph Smith organized the Kingdom of God, commonly called the Council of Fifty, "the singular importance of the Council of Fifty is that it reveals Joseph Smith Jr., as Mormonism's greatest Constitutionalist. The 1844 minutes of the Council contain hundreds of pages of the Prophet's teachings about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and the application of that document to the Latter‑day Saints in the world and during the Millenium." (BYU Studies 20 (Winter 1980)

It might make for an interesting discussion whether the stone was cut out when the U.S. Constituton was ratified, when Joseph organized the Council of Fifty, or we might even want to go back to when the Pilgrims drew up the "Mayflower Compact". Yet I think it is worthy of note that Joseph's statement was that he intended to lay a foundation, and though a foundation is surely a part of the edifice, I do not believe it is the edifice itself; and surely a peruser of history would not discount the Founding Fathers nor the Pilgrims as having done preparatory work, or groundwork, needed prior to laying the foundation. Yet at this point it certainly doesn't seem that Christ's Millenial reign has begun.

Equality

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independance that "all men are created equal". King Arthur had a round table where all were seated as equals. In an Epistle of Paul's he states, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God". (Phil. 2:5) And Joseph Smith stated that "The mind or intelligence which man possesses is co‑equal with God himself." (TPJS page 353) It is upon this foundation of equality that America, Mormonism, and or the Kingdom of God is based.

Critical Elements

The Declaration of Independance is "the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever." (The American Dream page 86) In it Jefferson dealt with four critical elements of the

kingdom, equality, inalienable rights [the right of free agency, or individual choice], the principle of consent, and just powers. Inalienable rights is based on the principle of equality; for when there is an

18.

inequality (iniquity) it establishes as fact that some men will have more rights than others; and it will invariably lead to some ursurpation of some individuals "inalienable rights".

This of course precludes government, excepting by "the consent of the governed." [It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith was intructed to have the "sanction" or consent of those baptized before being ordained an elder. (see DHC vol. I page 61)] The principle of consent is doubly based on equality in that: 1. as equals, no man has the right to act for another without his first giving that right by consent. 2. As equals this "power of attorney", thus given, grants no special privledges, bestows no higher powers, as all powers bestowed are common (equal) powers held by all by virtue of the equality that exists.

This equality being a principle of the kingdom of God establishes that, as in God, so, in us rests the common "just powers" of government. It can also be deduced that as we act in the name of God, i.e. a higher power, we are in reality acting for the President of the kingdom, which is simply to say, for the kingdom itself. Thus the higher power that is so much touted simply is comprehended in the power of the kingdom at large which is the concerted or united powers of all within the kingdom, an example of which is readily discernable in the government of the United States, especially as it was originally intended.

I think it would be safe to say that all of us have a false concept of God which has been enhanced and extended by our environment and educational systems. That the kingdom of God is the only government that establishes an actual equality, with its accompanying principles is astounding! Why? Because whereas the governments of men do not allow an equality of men one to another, in the kingdom of God, our Father‑in‑heaven establishes a strict equality of men on earth with Himself.

These "just powers" cannot be innumerated as they are as miriad as the stars themselves, but which can be amply understood in the words of the Lord Himself, speaking in conjunction with the powers of His government: "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to excercise controle or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, ... Amen to the ... authority of that man." (D&C 121:37)

I believe the authority conferred upon men by the U.S. Constitution has been so perverted as to establish as fact that we have no Government of the United States but a De Facto government that masquerades as such, in effect 'Amen to the ... authority ". I also believe our inability to comprehend these "just powers" comes from the fact that our only experience in these matters has been that of a De Facto, i.e. illegitimate, government. Yet the government of God is a natural, family government. Father‑in‑heaven is indeed, just that, our father, and as such he stands at the head of the family. When we elect anyone to any office we elect them to take a father's role for us, in that office or capacity; thus the "just powers" of government can be comprehended as the just powers of fatherhood.

The "generation gap", "spouse abuse", and "breakdown of the family" is only a clear indication of our disfunctional ability, as fathers, as government, in its smallest and most powerful form. I say most powerful form as it is upon this family structure that everything rests [remember the power of the atom bomb is caused by messing with those tiny little atoms].

These "just powers" spoken of by Jefferson are comprehended in the character or characteristics of Jesus Christ, or are reflections therefrom, as are the men and women themselves who seek after and attain these self‑same characteristics i.e. "just powers". [Accept no substitutes i.e. Clinton and his ilk.]

19.

The Most Critical Element

The Jews "had a very definite but false concept of God's character. ... This factor was so fixed and powerful that it influenced them to reject the Saviour because He did not perform as their concept of God's character led them to expect and desire of Him. ... He had the power. Therefore, they reasoned, it was His duty to use that power to favour them. If He refused to do it, then He was nothing short of a traitor to His own. They found Him guilty of treason and determined to be revenged. Because they possessed the character which they believed He had, they did to Him with the power at their command, what they believed He should have done to the Romans. ... Thus the question of the character of God and Christ was the most critical element ... there is a terrible danger that we will repeat their history by rejecting the message [of the true character of Jesus Christ] because it does not suit our personal ambitions and dreams." (from a paper given me by a Seventh Dat Adventist friend) With this we find all the critical elements of the kingdom wrapped up in one, the character of God.

A Living Constitution

When Joseph Smith established The Kingdom of God he also received its Constitution; "'Ye are my Constitution and I am your God and ye are my spokesmen, therefore from henceforth keep my commandments.' ... John Taylor said: These words are pregnant with meaning & full of intelligence & point out our position in regard to these matters ‑ it is expected of us that [we] can act right ‑ that our interests [are] bound up in the kingdom of God. That we should consider we are not acting for ourselves, but that we are spokesmen of God selected for that purpose in the interest of God & to bless & exalt all (humanity). We must acknowledge him as our God and all men who enter this body must acknowledge him here. ... Orson Pratt ... said: In the Church we take the Law of God & his Priesthood as the Constitution of his Church ‑ here in this Council we have (a) living constitution not a written one which we must conform to." (BYU Studies Fall 1980) [It is interesting to note that the church is a living body, the kingdom a living stone, and the Priesthood a living constitution.]

Oath and Covenant of the Government of God (Priesthood)

King Arthur and his knights had a code of chivalry and each took an oath to abide by the same. With the Constitution there was also an oath which Washington made or took when taking office. " 'Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will, to the best of your ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?' Washington answered, repeating the oath in first person. Then ... added the words, "So help me, God," and bowed and kissed the Bible." (The Real George Washington page 520)

Everyone who is called to serve the people of the United States is also called upon to

"preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet thousands take upon themselves this oath without any apparent understanding, or committment to the same. Nor is it the written Constitution that they take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend; it is the the organic and fundamental law, the basic principles, those things that establish the character of our nation that they are taking an oath to preserve. (see Blacks Law Dictionary)What is it then that every officer of the United States takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend? The critical elements of the kingdom, the "unalienable Rights" of man, to hold sacred, in the words of Washington, "the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained." (The Real George Washington page 523) Let us

20.

remember "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government".

The government of God (Priesthood) has an oath and a covenant also. In this we are talking about more than pledging to preserve, protect, and defend the principles of equality, inalienable rights, consent of the governed, and just powers; for no man will have the wisdom, strength, and ability to do so without attaining to the most critical element i.e. characteristics of Jesus Christ. In essense it is an oath to be like God, to act like God, indeed to be a God, in our dealings with one another, or to fail in ones oath and covenant.

Perhaps it was said best by John Taylor, in the Millenial Star (20:641‑4). "When a man is called to the Priesthood, he is then and there ordained to put down evil. He is not merely called to form part of a splendid organization ... We are not called simply that God may have a number of men called priests upon the earth. No. The Holy Priesthood has been conferred upon us for the express purpose that the Father and the Son may have representatives of their Spirit and their actions upon earth. We are ordained and appointed to act them out. The world are to comprehend God through us. As God was said to be "written in the face of Jesus Christ" so he is to be told out and made plain in our words and ways."

Brigham's Deseret

This was possibly accomplished most perfectly in Mormondom's State of Deseret. Where "The administration of justice is [was] of the most simple kind, and based on equity and the merits of the question, without reference to the precedents and technicalities, referring to the rules of the Mosaic code, and its manner of punishment, when applicable. ... there is nothing known as the "law's delay", and the quibbles whereby the ends of truth and justice may be defeated. ... [It was] the duty of every Justice of the Peace, to examine strictly and faithfully into the merits and demerits of all civil and criminal cases ... and to execute justice without respect to persons or favor, or the technicalities of the law, ... Unparalleled in the history of the times, not a solitary case was reported for trial, before the regular sessions of either the county or supreme courts ... no offense beyond the controle of a justice of the peace seems to have been committed ... partly owing to the requirements of the law, making it the duty of all officers to seek to allay and compromise differences, instead of promoting litigation." (The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of God in Pioneer Days pages 21, & 28)

The Stone Cut Out a Living Stone!

Jesus Christ is referred to as "the shepherd, the stone of Israel". (Genesis 49:24;) "A tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation". (Isaiah 28:16) "The chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20) And "a living stone". (Peter 2:4)

As we become "the body, the church" (Colossians I 1:18) of Jesus Christ, so also we become "lively [living] stones ... an holy priesthood". (I Peter 2:5)

The word stone is used to denote firmness and strength, characteristics of Jesus Christ and true Christians. An example of which might be the Christian King "Arthur [who] in his person is the most manly man alive, and likely to conquer all the world." (King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table page 190) This statement made of a legendary figure, who actually lived, might well be applied to Joseph Smith, to any elder who takes seriously his covenants and his oath of office, or any man who desires and attains the characteristics of Jesus Christ, i.e. becomes a living stone. Why? Because these are the living stones cut out of the mountain without hands who cannot be held back

21.

but go rolling forth in doing good and establishing the kingdom [i.e. its principles] within others who in turn become living stones. How was the stone cut out of the mountain to become a great mountain and to fill the whole earth? Not by merely rolling forth but by adding to itself as indeed the kingdom of God shall surely do, as the stone cut out of the mountain seen and recorded by Daniel some 2600 years ago.

22.

Chapter 5.

Are there Counterfeits?

Different Forms of Government

The principle forms of government known in history are patriarchal, theocratic, monarchial, aristocratic, democratic, and republican. Yet Aristotle only divided governments into monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies. Aristotle is quite vidicated in his assesment, as, on the whole, governments are run by people, be it the one (monarchy), the few (aristocracy), the many or all (democracy).

Democracy is from the Greek demos (people) + kratia (to govern), yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics; why so? Because, originally, in the one the people governed and in the other the people elected representatives to govern for them, they are both based on the same essential principle of the right of the individual to self government.

Who cannot see that a patriarchy developes into a monarchy as the generations extend the family, and in both of these recognize the essential principle or right of the father, or his predecessor to rule. This is also the principle of a theocracy wherein our Father in heaven holds the right to reign and rule over us. It is also interesting to note that in modern usage the term republic indicates a government with a "chief of state".

This leaves an aristocracy, wherein the power of government is vested in a few principle persons. Athough their power is not supreme Congress is an aristocracy. Thus we find all forms of government exist in the republics established by the hand of the Almighty. namely, Ancient Israel, and the USA. [In Israel there were "princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel" (Numbers 1:16), and "seventy men ... elders of the people, and officers over them" (Numbers 11:16). Thus there was also a form of aristocracy in ancient Israel.]

John Taylor (in a book which I could not find), made the point that there were many truths in the various religions of the world simply because the true religion revealed from heaven had been altered and perverted by men throughout time. Yet it was not so perverted but what one could find truths and see from whence their doctrines came. With government it is the same; "Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh ... a righteous man ... seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers ... in the days of the first patriarchal reign." (PGP 31‑25 & 26)

Joseph Smith stated that, "False prophets always arise to oppose true prophets and they will prophecy so very near the truth that they will deceive almost the very chosen ones. ... [And that] In relation to the kingdom of God, the devil always sets up his kingdom at the very same time in opposition to God." (TPJS page 365)

Since the forming of the Constitution of the U.S. it seems that nearly all the governments of the world have become republics, emulating in some way the U.S. Constitution. Russia for example labeled itself a republic and its form is or was very similar to our own, yet it is the very antithesis of what the U.S. originally stood for. Since there is only one creator God this makes perfect sense as the other God not having the power to create has only the power to alter, or pervert that which has already been created. Thus we see all forms of government simply as perversions of the one true government of heaven.

Counterfeits

Irregardless of the type of government or its ideologies there is one thing that will be found

23.

to be common of them all; they are counterfiets of the perfect government of God. Aristotle defined the end of government as that which would bring the most good. When mankind is seeking salvation and government attempts to sell them a perverted form of it, it is most certainly a counterfeit, covert as it may be. Joseph Smith certainly understood this when he said, "When God sets up a system of salvation, he sets up a system of government; when I speak of a government I mean what I say: I mean a government that shall rule over temporal and spiritual affairs. [Then he expounded succinctly.] Every man is a government of himself, and infringes upon no government." (T. & S. 5:524)

"Temporal and spiritual affairs" would cover the gamut of our social. poltical, and economic lives, which is exactly what government is doing or trying to do today. So what is the difference? Perhaps if we examine some of the worlds more recent governments we will get a clue.

Feudalism, Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism

Feudalism was a system where the king owned all the land which was simply sublet to vassals in consideration for military service to be rendered on demand and possibly other considerations.

"Fascism, in general, an antidemocratic form of government which glorifies the state and sanctions its intervention in all phases of a nation's life; ...

The German counterpart of Fascism, National Socialism, or Nazism ... built on the triple principles of the total State, the infallibility of the leader, and the doctrine of racial inequality. ... a totalitarian ideology, National Socialism completely subordinated the lives of its citizens to the authority of the State.

Socialism, a theory of social organization which aims to reorganize society on the basis of cooperation rather than competition. ... all Socialist hold to the abolition of capitalism and imperialism and the institutionalization of a planned economy based on public ownership and controle of the means of production and distribution. ... The alleged state Socialism of the National Socialist Party [Nazi's] in Gernmany and of the "corporative state" [Fascism] in Italy were perversions of genuine Socialism.

Communism, a scheme ... by which private property is abolished, the state or some other public body bearing the responsibility for meeting general public and private needs. ... See Brook Farm; Harmonists; Icarians; Mormons; Perfectionists; Shakers. In contrast to these early efforts stands present‑day Communism which is of an outspokenly political character and is, as such, a product of the Russian Revolution ... [where] All trace of opposition was mercilessly wiped out.

Capitalism is characterized by the private ownership of capital either in the form of money as stored wealth or in the form of land, buildings, natural resources; in short, any means of production. The use of these elements secures an income as private earnings in free competition.... Modern capitalism came into existence gradually through ... the banker families of the 15th and 16th centuries." (The New World Family Encyclopedia)

A Closer Look

Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, and Communism beleive that the means for production should be owned by the whole nation, and should not become a private monopoly, or a variation of the same. State controle, harking back to feudalism, which controle is quintessentially ownership, i.e. the state/monarch owns everything. To say that Fascism, and Nazism allowed private ownership becomes simply a statement that individuals were allowed to be part of the state. To call it private ownership is a facade as the state could take controle at any time, in any way, for any reason.

24.

Capitalism, as defined, must come under the ownership/controle/ management of some body/entity. No nation could concievably be free from it. Therefore the private monopoly so much feared and hated by Communist/Socialist/Feudalism is replaced by a state monopoly. Now instead of having individual capitalism we have state capitalism with the state having the monopoly on all capital. If capitalism is innately evil then state capitalism must be the greatest evil concievable.

Russia is or was Capitalism at its Worst

There is therefore nothing but Capitalism in its various forms. Communism being Capitalism at its worst; indeed how can it be called Communism when only a small portion of the people are in controle, governing a captive and enslaved people. To those who would say this is not so, we would simply reply, why then is it run as a prison camp with concrete walls, razor wire, and guards to prevent the populace from leaving. And leave they do even at the peril of their lives. To say Russia is or was governed according to the common will of the people, that is to say it is or was Communist, is not only a misnomer but a blatant and evil lie.

America is or was Communism at its Best

America originally, I must say originally as it is greatly corrupted from its original form, was the most communistic government on the face of the earth. It was a "government of the people, for the people, and by the people". There was an equality that was begun or attempted, and the major cause of its failure to finish what it had begun or attempted has been Capitalism i.e. International Bankers. In the beginning America was owned and controled by the people, who, interestingly enough, at that time, were also the State. When the people, being the State, own and controle the capital of the State; is it possible to be more communistic than that?

Once you put someone in charge of other people you have lost your democratic principle, your republic. What happens when some people are allowed to gain controle of large chunks of capital? Without an ability to ensure their righteousness they immediately begin to enslave others.

True communism, the principle of of having all things common, as Bible based, is inherently based on the equalty of all men whether it is political equality, economic equality, or ecclesiastical equality.

It was the communistic aspect of America that caused men, women, and children to either come, or dream of coming to America. Even now the "walls" that have been set up around America are not for the purpose of keeping people in, but out. [For those who may find it repugnant to believe that America is based on communism let us ask this question, what did Jefferson mean when he wrote, "all men are created equal, ... with certain unalienable rights"? Since common means "Belonging equally to more than one, or to many", wasn't he saying we were made to be common, with common rights? Why is it that Christian/Patriot people want to function under "common law" unless it is because Jesus Christ wants us to be a people with "all things in common"?]

Combining Capitalism and Communism

The concept of combining capitalism and communism has been approached in two different ways. The way we are most cognizant of has to do with the forcible seizure of all property by a small group who then redistribute it. Then, because left simply at that, the property will again gravitate away from some and toward others, certain men are put in charge, only now they are not just in charge of property they are in charge of lives as that is what it takes to keep the type of equality they have created. Under this system agency is, and must be, totally compromised or done away with in

25.

order to accomplish the end result, which history shows us to be starvation and want.

The other way, though not thought of in these terms, is very familiar to us. All men have the common right to own capital and to use that capital to bless all mankind, or to utilize it for the common good of all. [Note: "the common good of all"] Things that are not for the common good of all, the people [who are the state] have a right to suppress or do away with. When capitalism is not checked by the people it, as with any tool used to build up, or do good, can be used to tear down, or do evil. Here the only agency to be abridged or supressed is that which is used to destructive ends. [I say "the common good of all" accepting the premise that "Man's own needs are best met when society's needs are met at the same time." Of course the accomplishing of this can only come with a righteous body of people who, as in the Star Trek movie, are willing to give or risk their lives for the individual, while at the same time the individual is willing to give or risk his life for the body at large. Only with such a people can the above premise function in reality.]

Capitalism Unchecked

(The 1800 Mines of Scotland)

What are the baneful effects of Capitalism. "Come with me to the mines of Scotland ... as described ... by Her Majesty's Commission on the Labour of Women and Children in Mines, 1842: Children are taken into these mines to work as early as four years of age, ... Female children begin to work in these mines at the same early ages as the males ... Parrish apprentices, who are bound to serve their masters until twenty‑one years of age, ... The employment ... requires that they should be in the pit as soon as the work of the day commences, and ... not leave the pit before the work of the day is at an end ... Some of them never see the light of day for weeks together. ... From six years old and upwards, the hard work ... begins, ... [requiring] the unremitting exertion of all the physical power which the young workers possess. ... The regular hours of work for Children ... are rarely less than eleven; more often they are twelve; in some districts they are thirteen; and in one district they are generaly fourteen and upwards. ... what food is taken in the pit being eaten as best it may while the labour continues. ... In many mines the conduct of the adult colliers to the Children ... is harsh and cruel; the persons in authority in these mines, who must be cognizant of this ill‑usage, never interfere to prevent it. ... In all the coal fields accidents of a fearful nature are extremely frequent. ... the food is poor in quality, and insufficient in quantity; the Children themselves say that they have not enough to eat; and the Sub‑Commissioners describe them as covered with rags, ... Notwithstanding the intense labour performed by these Children, they do not procure even sufficient food and raiment. ... The employment in these mines commonly produces ... stunted growth of the body. ... The long hours of work, [etc.], in all the districts, deteriorates the physical constitution. ... This class of the population is commonly extinct soon after fifty." (Approaching Zion pages 243‑5)

Washington D.C. Today

Along a larger and more far reaching scale is capitalism as it now exists in America, and, to be sure, in every other country in the world. "Legal corruption" has reached great proportions in our capital. Lobbies and special interest groups seduce politicians by making money available to them ‑ and politicians pass laws legitimizing the practice. ... Etzioni characterizes Washington as a marketplace where deals are struck, where a special interest group or lobbyist can buy single pieces of legislation (as in a boutique) or long‑run commitments, or a whole slew of legislation. "Some defenders of the PACed system do not deny that private monies carry legislation, but insist that the

26.

votes of lawmakers are not bought, because there are no explicit deals. It is this subtle distinction that allows lobbyists to swear up and down they do not buy Congress (explicitly that is) and, at the same time, looking at the same situation, allows former members of Congress, those few scrupulous ones still in office, and some unabashed lobbyists to state that the fix is on (implicitly)." (Capital Corruption by Amitai Etzioni, Introduction)

Russia as it was and most certainly still is

These capitalistic corruptions, that exist in every country in the world, are the things that Socialist Russia, as well as every socialist country, are attempting to save mankind from. Yet Konstantin Simis a native of the Soviet Union in his book, "USSR: The Corrupt Society", reveals when, "my wife ... suffered a very bad multiple fracture ... She was taken, semiconsciouse, to the surgical department of the nearest polyclinic. When she arrived in the X‑ray room, the surgeon, the radiologist, and the nurses (all women) were busily occupied in a lively discussion about the merits of a knitted cardigan from abroad which a patient had brought in to sell to one of them. They paid no attention to my wife, and only after they had exhausted their topic of conversation ‑ about ten minutes later ‑ did the radiologist tell her, without even asking how she felt, to climb onto the high X‑ray table. Then the surgeon put her arm and shoulder into a cast that was as heavy as medievial armor. (Back in Moscow our doctor could only shake his head as he removed the cast ‑ together with the skin of her shoulder ‑ and say, "Another week in that cast and you'd never have moved that arm again.") As soon as my wife returned home we called the doctor from the local polyclinic. She did not even look at the arm, ... The only thing she was interested in was when and in what circumstances the injury was sustained (facts determining how much insurance would be paid). ... We realized immediately that free medical care was not going to get us anywhere, and so the very same day arranged ... that my wife should be treated at one of the best hospitals in town by experienced surgeons, ... They saved my wifes arm ... The total cost in cash and gifts for all their work was probably not more than two hundred rubles. ... The only way, then, to avoid free medical care is to go to the same free, state‑run institutions ‑ not, however, as a normal nonpaying patient but, rather, privately, by visiting a specific doctor by prior agreement and for a fee." (The Soviet Union pages 71‑2) He then goes on to explain that this is the way everything works in the Soviet Union.

"Out of the ... Heart"

Remember "every man is a government of himself". Unlike the mines of 1800 Scotland Robert Owen (1771‑1858) "completely eliminated the typical social evils of the British factory system and transformed New Lanark into a model workers' community. He did this by raising wages, reducing the hours of work, improving factory sanitation, rebuilding the workingmen's homes, and even by providing schools for the workers' children. ... Owen gained greater productivity and factory efficency, which returned higher profits. ... New Lanark became for Owen a labratory in which he could test his philosophy." (The Worldly Philoshophers Notes page 26)

Robert Owens might have been satisfied working to increase his capital but in his heart and soul was a burning desire to better the lot of men in common and in his attempts lost most of his fortune. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and others did similar giving great quantities of their time and capital for their fellow men. Out of the abundance of their hearts they gave for a common goal, the salvation of mankind be it politically, economicly, or otherwise.

When commenting on the men at the Constitutional Convention Jefferson wrote, "It is realy

27.

an assembly of demigods." Jesus would have called them gods (see John 10:34‑35) as they were men to whom the word of God came. And could we expect that they should have accomplished what they did had that "word" not been burning in their hearts? John said, "In the beginning was the Word", so it was with America. The difference in government [be it political, economic, or ecclesiastic] is the difference between men and God, for government will be of one or the other. And though it be only as perfect as the men through whom the "word" is coming it is still the difference between night and day, as are the hearts of men.

28.

Chapter 6.

What is its Economy?

Oikos Nomos

"The word economics comes from the Greek "oikos nomos", which literally means "the law or custom of the home". Ecoomics originally meant the study of family and the home, not merely the production or distribution of material goods."

Go Back to the Beginning

"I wish to go back to the beginning ... There is the starting point for us to look to ... It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right." (TPJS page 343)

Our first knowledge of our heavenly home begins in heaven where Satan "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. ... my Beloved and Chosen ... said unto me Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." (Moses 4:1‑2)

The custom of our heavenly home is emulated in our earthly homes, that is that the Fathers will be done. As on earth it was also in heaven with some children saying, "I will" versus "thy will". A second custom, which simply grows out of the first, being "give me" versus "let me give"; with a mindset for any glory that might be derived going to self or to the Father and the whole family. An earthly analogy of this might be a father who has contracted work for one of his sons. He approaches his sons to see who will do the work. One son is willing to do it if he can do it "his own way", and since he is the one doing the work he wants the pay to go to him. Another son is willing to do it according to how his father might instruct him and adds that he doesn't want any of the payment as the father has taken care of him and all his needs. Thus we see, in the beginning, that the economics of heaven was based on following the will of the Father, love of others, and gratitude for what one has received. In opposition to which Satan began his economics based on selfwill, selfishness, and ingratitude.

Behold ... he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price. ... Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Nay; but he hath given it free for all men". (II Nephi 26:25 & 27) Since Satan wanted payment from the father he certainly wants payment from any who would venture to seek his salvation.

The Custom of the Kingdom / Gratitude

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law (i.e. the economics or custom of our heavenly Fathers home)..." (Matt 22:37‑40) "... love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:10) Galatians 6:2 tells us, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Even as He bore our burdens.) The rich man who asks Jesus what to do to have eternal life is told, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, ... and come follow me (in other words do what I have done and accept and follow the economics of our Heavenly Father and His home)." (Matt. 19:21)

29.

Love cannot be bought or sold, bartered and traded, or auctioned to the highest bidder. If it can be any of the above then it ceases to be love. When a woman gives herself to her husband, the man she loves, there is no price tag attached. The most astrinomical figure possible would still cheapen and degrade the gift she gives. Greater yet is how this gift of love binds her husband to her in a perpetual debt of gratitude which can never be truely repaid. The gratitude he feels must move him to give of himself freely and unselfishly, binding her to him in a perpetual debt of gratitude, indeed making them one. "Gratitude never counts its payments. It realises that no debt of kindness can ever be outlawed, ever be cancelled, ever paid in full. ... No good act performed in the world ever dies. Science tells us that no atom of matter can ever be destroyed, that no force, once started, ever ends; it merely passes through a multiplicity of everchanging phases. Every good deed done to others is a great force that starts an unending pulsation through time and eternity." (Great Truths pages 25 & 37)

The Custom of the World / Ingratitude

When nothing but the physical reality is considered, and the intent is left out, it is easy to see why, "Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained the law of righteousness." (Romans 9:31) Mormons, for the most part, today, are like their ancient counterparts, focused on the letter of the law, howbeit "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (II Cor. 3:6) Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that they were hypocrites. (see Luke 11:44) Here was a class of people more than any other who studied the law and attempted to live up to the law, that is, up to what they could construe the letter of the law to be. What we're talking about is lawyers and their craft, finding legal loopholes, ways to break the law without breaking it. To use the actual letters of the law to kill, destroy, or get around what the law was written to accomplish, to effectively make dead the spirit of the law itself.

Having examined a wife who as a gift gives her body to her lawful husband and the results that eminate from that, we next examine a prostitute who gives her body, not as a gift but for a price and demands a payment, of money. Her life is empty, with feelings of inferiority and a worthlessness of self, looked down on by others even her patrons, with a short life expectancy due to disease and occupational hazards. Though we might wish to deny that this is a benchmark by which we can measure and thereby understand and know our true situation as we labor for money and not for Zion, none-the-less it is true. Nephi knew what he was saying when he said, "the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish." (II Nephi 26:31) Why? Because when we do things for money we are prostituting ourselves just as much as the whore, only in a different way. Why would our Father want such people in His home, when they would, paraphrasing Brigham Young, sell the home and everything in it for a lewd woman and a can of oysters.

So we all are making our choice to be like Jesus, or Satan, willing to do the will of the Father and bear the burden of mankind, giving the glory to God; or to do our own thing and take honor unto ourselves, which is to grasp for power. (see Moses 4:1‑3, D&C 29:36) Since it was impossible to get Gods honor (you can't beg, borrow, or steal it) Satan came up with something that would give him power ... money! But no matter how much power money has, no matter how much money will buy, it only has power over those who honor, reverence, and repect it.

Zion

No matter how many United Orders are established, no matter how many or few their rules,

30.

how complex or simplistic their order; Zion cannot come until we want the will of the Father. Jesus was willing to sweat blood to do the will of the Father. He didn't let anything seperate Him from His Fathers will. If we want the will of the Father, if we want Zion, there is nothing to stop us if we are willing to give whatever He might require of us. The will of the Father is that we love one another, money won't bring it, words, letters, even pictures can't describe or define it, it must come from our hearts, as gratitude has always come, and always will come. What our Father is waiting for is for us to give our hearts to Him.

Quintessentially Jesus

Jesus Christ is quintessentially the kingdom and this includes its economy. Jesus Christ nailed down what that economy was just as surely as He was nailed to the cross at Calvary. "I had a debt I could not pay. He paid a debt He did not owe." We covenant in baptism as well as in other things to abide by His laws, His commandments, to do as He has done, to follow Him.

The essence of this worlds economy is based on debt. but in such a twisted, perverted way as to make it the virtual antithesis of the other. Whereas the one will bind you as one with others in love and gratitude, the principle of "it's mine, I earned it" will leave one alone in their selfishness and misery.

31.

Chapter 7.

Who or What is it?

"Bone of my Bones, Flesh of my Flesh"

"Adam said, this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. ... and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:23,24) I thought this statement was completely figurative until my wife handed me a restraining order and then proceeded to get a legal seperation. How little I knew that she is as much a part of me as I am myself. How painfully I learned that I cannot hurt her without hurting myself, or bring happiness into her life without bringing the same to myself. Nor is this phenomenon restricted to the marraige of a husband and wife, for the Saviour declared, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matt.25:40) As a husband and wife are married and made one flesh so "should (we all) be married to another, [even] to him (Jesus)who is raised from the dead". (Romans 7:4) And as "... the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body." (Ephesians 5:23) And "as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ." (I Corinthians 12:12) Jesus, moreso than any husband, feels for us, our pain and happiness, as though it were His own. "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." (Hebrews 4:15) How much comfort this should give us and how much we should exemplify that feeling for, and after others. How many of us have watched Polyanna, or It's a Wonderful Life and shed tears as we felt the pain and the happiness portrayed in the lives of others, tears that say, "inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me"? In David Hume's An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals this principle of feeling for others and desiring good for them, even at times when it is detrimental to your personal interests, is an essential element in determining what is truly moral. [The New Morality is simply the old immorality.] And how much does this principle, this element, make us a part of God?

Who, or What is Jehovah?

Who is Jehovah? According to Youngs Analytical Concordance Jehovah is the incommunicable name of the God of Israel, or the existing one. It is interesting that according to Joseph Smith, "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself." (TPJS page 353) " intelligence exists upon a self existent principle, it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. .The first principles of man are self existent with God". (Times and Seasons, Vol.5, Pg.615 John Taylor corroberates and expands this: "...an intelligence that governs all worlds and controls all nature, a particle--a spark of Deity straight from the eternal blaze of Jehovah". (JD vol.6 page 164) Also that "Man ... received his intelligence, his spirit, from God, he is part of himself, a spark of Diety, Struck from the fire of his eternal blaze; he came from God as his son, he bears the impress of Jehovah." (The Government of God chapter 9) How can anyone be part of himself? Of course Jehovah being a "name" which is incommunicable but simply means the existing one is strange in itself. Another example is "I AM THAT I AM ... say ... I AM hath sent me ... this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations". (Exodus 3:14, 15) I AM means basicly I be, or simply the same thing as I exist or existing one. Perhaps the problem here is the same one Joseph Smith came up against when he stated,"Oh, Lord, deliver us in due time from 32.

the little, narrow prison, almost as it were, total darkness of paper, pen and ink;‑‑and a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language." (HC Vol. 1 page 299) Perhaps the question should not be who but what is Jehovah?

The Name(s) of God

Looking up name I find: 1. That by which a thing is called ... used to express an idea, or any material substance, quality or act; ... A name may be attached to an individual only ... or it may be attached to a species ... 3. A person. 8. Authority; behalf; part; as in the name of the people ... 10. In Scripture, the name of God signifies his titles, his attributes, his will or purpose, his honor and glory, his word, his grace, his wisdom, power and goodness, his worship or service, or God himself. Is it possible that Jehovah is a material substance (spirit), a quality, a species, authority (title, or office), and person, or all, if not some combination of the foregoing? Perhaps the egomania of man is a key in grasping the concept of Jehovah, or the great I AM. One of the key elements of Satan was his wanting to take upon his person honor and glory. The element of humility seems to be innate in God. James Madison, one of the framers of the Constitution, said: "... in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to controle the governed; and in the next place oblige it to controle itself." This concept of government is important because he also said, "But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" (The Five Thousand Year Leap page165,6) Understanding that the frailties of human nature have been overcome or controled by those who become Gods (which controle is internal rather than external); I ask, is there a better way to controle ones ego than by establishing as a principle for one not to take honor and glory unto ones self? Is it possible that by giving it to the Father, Jesus, or the entire family of God, intelligences, or those existing ones, that controle is maintained over the most subtle yet most powerful aspect we have ... the mind? Is it possible that we are wrapped up in the idea of God being a person, which He is, but a humble person not given to limelight, yet knowing we have a need for personal contact gives us names which fills our need for a personality while at the same time places Him in a position where honor and glory might not affect him adversely?

I AM the TRUTH

Let's take the name Jesus Christ; Jesus means annointed, Christ means Saviour. Is Annointed Saviour a personal name or a title, or a description of ones mission? How many are annointed? And how many Saviours are there on Mt. Zion? [There is only one who paid the price of sin and died for all mankind and I do not wish to belittle or make light of His awesome sacrifice for us, but we are all supposed to be like Him. Yet only Jesus can say, "I AM the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)]

Orson Pratt explained, "... if I understand a truth, and some other person in this congregation understands the same, does that make two truths of it? No; it does not. And if this body of people before me were in possession of the same truth as I am, does that make as many truths as there are persons who understand it? No; certainly not: it is all one truth, dwelling in various tabernacles; it is one truth wherever it is found, or whoever may possess it‑‑it is still the one unchangeable truth. Jesus could with all propriety say, when speaking of the knowledge he had, "The Father is in me, and I in him." What does he say concerning us in a revelation in 1831? He says, "I am in the Father, and

33.

the Father in me, and inasmuch as you have received me, I am in you, and you in me." That is as much as to say, that "not the whole of me is in you, because, you are imperfect: but inasmuch as you have received the truth I have imparted, so much of me is in you, for I am the truth, and so much of you dwells in me." And if you should happen to get a knowledge of all the truth that he possesses, you would then have all of his light, and the whole of Christ would then dwell in you." [In The Perfection of Yoga, page 47, it states, "In the final analysis, the Supreme Absolute Truth is a person. Simultaneously He is the allpervading Supersoul within the hearts of all living entities ... within the core of atoms ... He is ... the effulgence of spiritual light, as well." Is it possible that when we say Jehovah we are essentially talking about Truth, and that we essentially are also Truth, and as such a part of ourselves? "... if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!" (Matt. 6:23) Is this in reality the same as telling men, "to thine own self be true" or the truth?]

The Parts of God

"There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. ... It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman‑‑the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo‑man." This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo‑man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman, and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? It is, that these intelligent beings are all parts of God, and that those who have the most of the parts of God are the greatest, or next to God, ... Hence we see that wherever a great amount of this intelligent Spirit exists, there is a great amount or proportion of God, which may grow and increase until there is a fulness of this Spirit, and then there is a fulness of God. ...

The Oneness of God

The flesh and bones of the Son were not in the Father, neither did Jesus try to convey such an idea. The Apostles understood as we do on this point, and they likewise knew that he had made and created all things; we believe the same, and that he is infinite. Not infinitely expanded in his person, but that the all‑wise substance, called the Holy Spirit, is "in all things, and round about all things." We see the propriety, then, of this prayer of our Savior's: "Father, I pray not only for these Twelve Apostles that thou hast given me, but for all those who shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they may be made perfect in one, even as we are one. Hence, then, men are to be one with Christ on the same principle that he is one with the Father. Now there is no man that will be so foolish as to think and believe that all men, who shall believe on the Savior through the Apostle's words, will become the same identical person; this is not the idea conveyed, but they were to have that same truth, so as to make them one in their feeling, desires, designs, and actions ... When we look at all those principles, and reflect upon them, they afford us joy and comfort, and the reflection gives me an earnest desire to be one with my brethren, and to be one upon the principles of righteousness, ... You will perceive that in the devil's kingdom, with all the knowledge that they have gained by a long experience, they are not one. There are disunion and strife continually among them; they are not united upon false principles, and

34.

wherever false principles exist in the world, or anywhere else, there will be discord and contentions, ... as soon as this people are united, and become one upon the principles of the celestial law, the Lord will pour out His blessings more abundantly upon them; when all understand it, they will all be governed by it; they will believe alike, and act alike, and this will make them one." (JD vol.2 pages 342-3)

Government of Truth

In the book Come Out of Babylon on page 41 it shows two entities establishing themselves virtually the same way, i.e. being: Creator vs Incorporator, King vs Ruler, and then both being: Lawgiver, Judge, Protector, Corrector, Deliverer, Provider, Healer, and Teacher. What is interesting is that the false God is government. So I ask the question, "Is God government?" If one aspect of God is that of government it might begin to make Jehovah make sense. Joseph Smith said, "I discover one thing: Mankind have labored under one universal mistake about this‑‑viz., salvation was distinct from government; i. e., that I can build a Church without government, and that thing have power to save me!When God sets up a system of salvation. He sets up a system of government. When I speak of a government, I mean what I say I mean a government that shall rule over temporal and spiritual affairs." He goes on to say, "Every man is a government of himself". (HC Vol.6 Page 292) Question: Who or what is the government of the United States (Constitutionally that is)? It is a government of the people. How many people? It just depends on how many of us there are doesn't it? If all the mainland were Nuked and Hawaii was the only State with any people, would that be the government of the people? If there was only one city left, would that be the government of the people? If there was only one man left, would that be the government of the people, or in this case person? I say this to show that it is the principles that exist within God, or Man that determine the government, not a piece of paper, or buildings of wood and stone. How many times have we had a traffic violation, or some other infraction of the legal code and found ourselves fighting with the government? When we did did we take on the whole people, who are the government, or one man or woman who was the government? Is Jesus Christ a government, or a system of salvation, complete and whole all within Himself? Is Jesus Christ a part of an organization that is a system of salvation? The Lord tells us, " First, I give unto you ... a patriarch ... a presiding elder ... First Presidency ... the Twelve ... high council ... high priests ... elders ... seventies ... bishopric ... priests, and the president of the teachers and his counselors, and also the president of the deacons and his counselors, and also the president of the stake and his counselors. The above offices I have given unto you, and the keys thereof, for helps and for governments, for the work of the ministry and the perfecting of my saints." (D&C 124:124-145) The above sounds like a government with offices, which offices the Lord calls governments, whose purpose is to perfect or save mankind. Joseph Smith explained: "It will not be by sword or gun that this kingdom will roll on: the power of truth is such that all nations will be under the necessity of obeying the Gospel." (HC Vol. 6 page 356) Yet truth unembodied does not exist for all practicle purposes, only God and men as beings of truth can make the kingdom roll forth. Can I as truth be a part of truth, can I as government be a part of government, can I as Jehovah be part of Jehovah? Who then is waiting for who to bring forth the kingdom?

Is it possible that the bulk of the people will continue to wait on the Lord not understanding they are simply waiting on truth, i.e. themselves? Zion is everybodies responsibility, just as the U.S. government is everybodies responsibility. It is a society of truth which we seek to be a part of, but it, as truth, will only come to those who seek to come to it.

35.

The Kingdom of God VIII

What is the Law?

The Law

Law is a rule of action established by authority. In the D&C it is a principle upon which blessings are predicated [and I add] or curses. At first it might seem very simple. Keep the laws receive the blesings, don't break the laws and don't receive the cursings. Yet, "they (Israel) being ignorant of God's righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God;(Rom. 10:3) Which righteousness was "the first and great commandment," which is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind"; they had also the second great commandment, which is "like unto" the first: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." ... And having so stated, our Lord added, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matt. 22:35‑40.) ... those who kept the law of Moses were heirs of eternal life, an eternal verity that Jesus confirmed in this conversation. Our Lord was asked, "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He responded: "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" which is tantamount to saying, 'If you want eternal life, keep the law of Moses.'" (The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, Pgs.73-79)

Love

I have heard of BYU students who run down to Las Vegas to get married and spend a riotous weekend, and then go back to Utah to school where they promptly have the marraige annulled. Sounds like a good Jewish keeper of the law doesn't it? So what law has been broken?

How can you monitor or make sure one is loving the Lord or his neighbor? How do you even define love? There are so many aspects of love, perhaps that is why there have been so many written laws; laws I might add that do not bring salvation or eternal life. Love is so easy and yet so hard. I fulfilled some aspects of love with my wife and failed in others. Mothers love their children so much at times that they fail to love them. Just how complex is love? I say it is as complex as human life, or God Himself. For "God is love". (I John 4:8) Examples of love that have touched me are: Davids lamentation for Jonathan; "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26, see also19-27) Jesus lamenting: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ...how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!" (Luke 13:34) And Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail: "O Lord God Almighty, maker of heaven, earth, and seas, and of all things that in them are, and who controllest and subjectest the devil, and the dark and benighted dominion of Sheol‑‑stretch forth thy hand; let thine eye pierce; let thy pavilion be taken up; let thy hiding place no longer be covered; let thine ear be inclined; let thine heart be softened, and thy bowels moved with compassion toward us. ... If thou art called to pass through tribulations; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea; if thou art accused with all manner of false accusations if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters, and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garment, and shall say, My father, my father, why can't you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by thesword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the

36.

blood of the lamb; and if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good. The Son of Man hath descended below them all; art thou greater than he?" (D&C 121:4 ... 122:6-8)

Grief, sorrow, compassion, these seem to be the areas best suited to determine ones love. Anyone can be in love as they cross the threshhold of marraige, but is it still there through the childbearing, the backbreaking labor, the misfortunes, and tragedies of life? When times become hard is there still a commitment to love each other or is it easier to say goodbye? Love extends far deeper into the human experience than romance and sex; it is there during the disagreements, when there is no work and no money, when the house is a wreck, it is there as they hold their dying child as it breaths its last; when there is no hope except in each other, and that God who gave them life. And it is only in that reality of true love that obeyance to Gods laws can be found and eternal life obtained.

Obedience

The Lord tells us, "my people must needs be chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by the things which they suffer." (D&C 105:6) "So also Christ ... Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered:" (Hebrews 5:5 & 8)

Joseph Smith in his suffering was told, "all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." Experience is "knowledge gained by trial or practice", knowledge of what? He is also told, "The Son of man hath "descended" below them all, art thou "greater" than he?" Can ones greatness be measured by how far one has descended, or experienced suffering? If so wouldn't sons of perdition qualify for greatness? Or is it suffering connected with obedience to the law, to love, i.e. the will of the Father? "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." (Luke 22:42-44) His suffering was connected with us, his coming sacrifice, and the boundless love that was required of him. Is there anything in this world we are experiencing or learning in any more depth or detail than what love is? Isn't our capacity to love deepened, as was Christ's, by our suffering in obedience to God and His law? Then the "experience" or that "knowledge gained by trial or practice" in suffering in obedience to the will of God is nothing more than love; love that innately becomes a part of the sufferer creating greatness, just as coal under pressure creates diamonds [Diamonds are just chunks of coal that stuck to their job]; which obedience brings order.

Order

"Pope's famous line, "Order is Heaven's first law," has often been misapplied. Order is a result of compliance with established requirements; of necessity, therefore, it cannot be first. It is an effect, not the primary cause. A more thoughtful generalization leads to the conclusion that obedience is the basal law of Heaven, and that this law is equally valid and as truly operative in things pertaining to mortality. (The Vitality of Mormonism page 75)

"The earth, and all the worlds which God has made are obedient to the laws of their creation,

37.

for this reason there are peace, harmony, union, increase, power, glory and dominion, which could not exist without obedience. For the lack of obedience the whole world to‑day lies in sin, for except, the little existing among this people, obedience can not be found on the face of the earth. Go to the religions of the day, do you find obedience manifested by the people? No, but you find man everywhere self‑willed and untractable, therefore confusion and anarchy reign. It is said in the Scriptures that all things are possible with God; but he only works in accordance with the principles by which he himself is governed; and hence he can not convince nations of the truth against their will. As the poet says‑‑

Know this, that every soul is free,

To choose his life and what he'll be;

For this eternal truth is given,

That God will force no man to heaven.

He'll call, persuade, direct aright,‑‑

Bless him with wisdom, love and light,‑‑

In nameless ways be good and kind,

But never force the human mind." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.16, Pg.248)

God gives us laws based on love and through obedience to those laws we have order, and that order, because it is of love, is not forced or coerced but an order that is self-existant, having come into being via free agency thereby needing nothing to maintain it. No barbed wire, no guards, no guns or dogs, just a beautiful order existing as God, by itself. Why? Because it has found the order of nature or the universe and has become one with it. Such as accomplish this are, "Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that Priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God ... " (TPJS Pg.322)

Oneness

Paul explains "...that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. (I Cor. 11:3) Here we see a chain of authority. Heber C. Kimball also elucidated: "Women have not a particle of Priesthood, only what they hold in connection with their husbands; neither have the men, except that which they hold in connection with those who hold the keys of the kingdom at head quarters. Do not step out on one side and say you have Priesthood independent. You have not a particle in that way." (J.D. 6:67) He also said, "How can you honor the Priesthood, except you honor the man you are connected with?" (J.D. 5:31)

Possibly the most difficult aspect of the priesthood or the law is righteous dominion versus unrighteous dominion. This would apply to both men and women for "...the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness." (D&C 121:36) One's righteousness has to do with not overstepping ones bounds or dominion, but staying within the realm of ones dominion or office. For "Every man that holds the priesthood, and magnifies his calling, is a prophet; and he has a right to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so far as he is concerned ‑‑ but not to receive revelation for the Church. There is only one who is appointed to that office. A president of a stake has a right to revelation in his stake, and for the guidance of it; a bishop, in his ward; and likewise a missionary in his mission field. Every other member of the Church who is called to an office has the

38.

right to the inspiration and the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord in that which is given him to do. If he is so inspired, he is a prophet. Not only Joseph Smith was to be a prophet, not only his counselors and the Council of the Twelve were to be prophets, but every person who would be willing to accept the truth, who would humble himself, and come into the Church, might speak in the name of God, the Lord, even the Savior of the world." (Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 1, pages 185-6)

Office/Dominion

If Christ receives his power/priesthood from the Father, and men receive it from Christ, and women receive it from their husbands, should not children receive it from their mothers? If we understand that the earth and all that is in it is the Lords; that thereby He has the right of dominion; that the priesthood represents, or legally acts for, Him, and is therefore the only entity that can exercise any legal or righteous dominion upon this earth; then that priesthood, like any authority, can be delegated to others, even women and children; else when He comes how will everything be under His dominion. This means that everyone, even little children will be functioning within the realm of the priesthood. We can say that only men hold the priesthood and be completely correct in one sense. But we must come to understand that everything must come under the dominion of God, from sweeping the floors to shoveling the manure. When a man directs his wife and his wife directs their children in the keeping of their house, their yard, their garden, their animals; all authority, giving each wife and child their dominion, be it over a bedroom, an animal, or part or all of a yard or garden, etc. has been delegated from the father directly or indirectly from the mother or elder sibling, but it all comes from the father, just as all men hold their authority from Jesus Christ, who holds His authority from His Father. It is in this righteousness understanding what ones office or dominion is, and filling that station, while staying within its bounds, that establishes oneness.

There was a film, dealing with phycology, where a man goes to work and his boss chews him out, he goes home and chews his wife out, she in turn chews out the child, the child goes out and kicks the dog, and the dog goes down the road chasing a cat down the road. It is in exactly this way, only opposite, that the priesthood is supposed to work. Are we so wound up in the concept of a formal priesthood that we cannot see that it extends far beyond where the formality ends. Is the office of Elder, or Priest, that much different than the office of mother, or floorsweeper and bedmaker? What kind of priesthood does a man hold if he cannot go home to the same order that exists in the heavens, or is not at least working towards the same? Shouldn't a wife, a child, feel the respect and honor of the priesthood in filling their offices and callings? Shouldn't a man and his wife receive revelation from God in establishing and giving a five year old child the office of bed-maker, or dog feeder, and shouldn't that five year old receive revelation in dealing with his dominion; doesn't this office (bed-maker, or dog feeder) having been established by legitimate priesthood authority then become a priesthood calling? The Lord told Emma Smith, "the office of thy calling shall be for a comfort unto my servant, Joseph ... [she was further told] thou shalt be ordained under his hand to expound scriptures, and to exhort the church, according as it shall be given thee by my Spirit." (D&C 25:5-7) By whose authority do men exercise their priesthood? Our Lord! By whose authority do women excercise their priesthood [for if it is not theirs would they not be exercising unrighteous dominion in the excercise thereof]? Thier Lord! Is it so much different excercising the power of the Father by invoking the authority of Jesus Christ, or the Son of God [Melchizedek ... out of

respect for our Saviour]; or a woman excercising that same power by invoking the authority of the man she is connected to by sacred covenants and bonds of affection? And shouldn't her children be

39.

entitled to the same? Isn't such desirable and needful in order for this earth and all that's in it to come under the true and proper dominion of God our Father?

Men/Women

Men have a fairly clear cut understanding of what their areas of dominion are, or, at least, they can go to the scriptures and search them out. Women have been so curtailed by the unrighteousness of the ages that God has not been able to clearly define their offices within the priesthood. Yet Joseph began what must certainly come to pass.

Elizabeth Ann Whitney wrote in 1878 that she and several other women were "ordained and set apart under the hand of Joseph Smith the Prophet to administer to the sick and comfort the sorrowful." (Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith page 110)

"Sister Eliza R. Snow Smith, from the Prophet Joseph Smith, her husband, taught the sisters in her day, that a very important part of the sacred ordinance of administering to the sick was the sealing of the anointing and blessings, and should never be ommitted, and we follow the pattern she gave us continually. We do not seal in the authority of the Priesthood, but in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." (Women and Authority pages 31-32)

I am afraid we are to prone to think in terms that at times are to simplistic. What did Jesus mean when he said, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."? (Matt 4:10) If there is only one being to whom we are to give service why did Mosiah say "... when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."? (Mosiah 2:17)

But then again I might ask which God? Although Jesus is referred to as Lord, and God, and is himself worshipped, I find no place where he teaches that we should worship or pray to him, but that we should pray to and worship the Father. We also understand that where there is a father there will also be a Mother. Just what was Paul saying when he spoke of "... the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped;"? 2 Thess. 2:3-4) What is "all that is called God, or that is worshipped"? To worship is to be devoted or have devotion for, to honor, revere or reverence, to respect. [Since this can apply to both divine and human superiors, supreme worship would apply only to God.] Is it possible, that when there is a "oneness", that when one worships, not supremely, but is simply devoted to, honors, reveres, and respects his fellow beings in righteousness, he is only being devoted to, honoring, revering, and respecting, i.e. worshipping his God? Is it possible that when a people begin to abide in Gods "perfect law of liberty" they become part of "all that is called God, or that is worshipped"?

Again, not to be misunderstood, Jesus taught us to pray to and worship the Father. Here is where supreme worship belongs. Yet we also worship Jesus Christ, and rightly so. The concept of worship I think has us bound down. At one time I began to wonder just what worship was, and how I was supposed to do it. In answer to my prayers I was told that to worship the Lord was to give my heart to him. Can I give my heart to my Father and at the same time give it to my Saviour? And could one not [especially a woman] reach out and give their heart to their Mother in heaven also? Is it not easy to see women seeking to Her who has gone through the trials and struggles they are going through? Isn't the kingdom of God based on family? Isn't there times when one goes to their mother for aid and comfort without any discord with the Father?

"... the Female Relief Societies. Our Sisters are engaged with us in trying to do a good work. Shall we despise them in their labors? No. Who are they? Part of ourselves. Do they hold the priesthood? Yes, in connection with their husbands and they are one with their husbands, but the

40.

husband is the head. And women are so constituted that they are much better prepared to feel after the welfare of families than men are. They can sympathize with the sisters, for they are one with them. I remember a certain lady said to me in talking about some things, "you never was a grandmother." "No" said I, "I never was? I never had that experience." "Well, then, you can not

enter into the feelings of a grandmother." No, and I never was a wife, and therefore I could not enter into the feelings of a wife. But a wife can enter into a wife's feelings and into a mother's feelings and they can sympathize with the sisters, and pour in the oil and wine and they can teach the sisters correct principles, teach them cleanliness, kindness and sisterly sympathetic feelings. They are doing this to a great extent, therefore I say God bless the sisters. They are one with us in seeking to promote the welfare of Israel." (J.D. 20:359)

The leaders of the Church advised that theRelief Society be revived in each Ward in 1868; " for the good work that a woman's society could do; the caring for the sick; looking after the needs of the poor, preparing the dead for burial and many other necessary functions. ... In October [1968], Eliza R. Snow, general president of the Relief Society, visited the Big Cottonwood Ward group. The society was a necessary adjunct to the priesthood, she declared. Whenever there had been priesthood on the earth, there also had been a Releif Society." (Church News Sept. 28, 1963)

If ever I learned anything as a married man it was how I could not tolerate others putting my wife down, and how it pleased me tremendously to have my wife revered and honored. My wifes honor was my honor. {As I have worked on this paper and pondered these things I was told that there is nothing that would delight our Father in heaven more than to have our Mother in heaven worshipped, for it is impossible to worship her without worshipping Him. Yet He is, as any righteous husband, unwilling to have his wife negated in any way. And, as always, He is the head.}

Is there a contradistinction between the holder of the priesthood and the priesthood itself? Indeed does one hold the priesthood or is one called to be priesthood? Is the call to the priesthood a calling to love, a calling to obedience, a calling to order, a calling to Godhood, a calling to oneness with nature and the universe itself? If that is so how do you separate the priesthood from the being of which it is innately a part? Or do you? Is this the reality of "God is love"? And in that reality do not women and children exist?

Tough Love

It should be our goal to be one with Christ, and in so doing attain oneness with not only Him, but all others who are seeking that oneness. I have a friend who firmly maintains there are two laws only, constructive and destructive; one tending to oneness and life, the other to division and death. How many ways are there to construct or build something, especially something as complex as the human soul? Wasn't that Christ's object in life? Shouldn't it be ours; to lift each other, to add to that soul already existing by giving of ourselves? Do we not in that giving innately become part of one another, and closer to a oneness with each other and God?

And how do we love? The term "tough love" is used to explain that sometimes we must be hurtful to another in order to truly love that person. Why? Because love is not mush and syrupy goodness; it is the rock solid base upon which all things exist. Jesus, being quintessentially love in human form, performed an act of love in driving out the money changers. So what is the law of love, obedience, order, and oneness that vouchsafes to all beings construction and not destruction? The Prophet Joseph Smith defined that law.

41.

Revelation

"God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle (law) on which the government of heaven is conducted‑‑by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked

wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation." (H. C. Vol.5 Pg.135)

The Lord himself tells us, "Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground." (D&C 8:2&3) Also "That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to... exercise control or dominion or compulsion ... in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man." (D&C 121:34-37)

The Law of God is Within One's Heart and Mind

The priesthood must be connected with heaven. "This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;" (Hebrews 10:16) The priesthood must be connected to heaven by revelation, it being the law; that law, that we should abide in, regardless of written laws. {This is an area that can get people into trouble quicker than any other because as Joseph said, "... nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God." (TPJS page 205)} "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:4) On the other hand if the Spirit, or the heavens, are withdrawn ... "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

Women have it as Well as Men

Isaac was a man of God, what then was his wife Rebekah? "And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." (Gen. 25:22-23) This was a revelation received of a woman and contained in scripture. Read on in chapter 27 where she, filled with greater understanding than her husband, Isaac, sees to it that that which was shown her was fulfilled in Jacob receiving his fathers blessing, contrary to his fathers design, which was to give it to Esau. Can we say that Isaac wasn't worthy of his priesthood? I would be afraid to make any such statement. I think though that every man called and ordained to the priesthood ought well to consider his wife and not think to slightingly of what she may say or what may come to her, for here we see the Lord giving light and knowledge to a woman and using

42.

her to accomplish his designs despite his legitimate priesthoods apparent self-will.

In the diaries of L. John Nuttall: "Sisters Rhoda Hamman and several other sisters called and

we conversed on Releif Society matters. I explained many things to them and they were much pleased after which Sister Elizabeth Hamman said she felt the same spirit which was upon her at the meeting last night when she wanted to bless me. She arose and placed her hands on Brother Maeser's head and blessed him, then on my head and blessed me, then on Sister Woolf and blessed her; also blessed three other of the sisters and sister Zina Card. This was done in tongues - Sister Zina Y. Card arose and laying her hands on our heads interpreted these bless(ings). A good feeling was present." (Aug. 7, 1899)

Also,"Recently a midwife in Central Utah had a spiritual experience during a rather difficult

homebirth. During a brief moment of serious concern for the safe arrival of the baby and wanting special guidance, she silently asked Mother Eve, "Please let your mind be my mind, and your hands my hands." She immediately knew what she needed to do, and her hands felt as if they were being guided by greater hands than her own." (The Holy Priesthood Vol.3, page 90)

Defining the Law

I'm afraid we define law much differently than God. Who can define love with all its complexities? The true law of love must be equally complex. So the perfect law that stands as God (or God who stands as the law, both being equated with the fulness of the priesthood) is priesthood being in parts or peices; for "... there is only one gospel, one law, one system of salvation, and it comes in degrees. It is all the law of Christ. ... He gives [reveals, i.e.revelation] to men [and women] as much of his law as they are able to bear. ... that is all they receive. Men are given according to their desires and their deeds." (The Mortal Messiah Vol. I page 73) And what is accomplished in this?

Sanctification

"... it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory; ... That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified. And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom. For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. ... And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same." (D&C 88: 17-24, 34)

To consecrate is to set apart, to sanctify, or make holy. "It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God." (D&C 85:3) Later when the church failed in living this law the Lord reveals that "... were it not for the transgressions of my people, speaking concerning the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now. But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor

43.

and afflicted among them; And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom; And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself." (D&C 105:2-5)

Celestial Law of Love Circumscribes all other Laws

This is a law which virtually circumscribes all other laws, and why the young man having lived or obeyed all the laws and commandments in reality failed to live all the laws and commandments, and was therefore failing in eternal life. For on this one commandment hangs all the laws and the prophets ... love. Is there any other way or principle whereby one may be consecrated, sanctified, or made holy than by the principle of love? Most of us today, as did the ancient Jews, live laws that are dead to us because we do not give them life or live them out of the abundance of our hearts. How many of us even understand what love is, should, or must be? Is it any wonder that all attempts at living the law of Consecration have failed when you rightly consider that we all fail to comprehend God, which is love, which should be us. Unless we ourselves are love we shall never succeed in

abiding by, or receiving the blessings that come by, the law of Consecration. Rules and regulations may be good in and of themselves but without love they are simply fetters to bind the people of God down so that they may be destroyed. I say this because to attempt to live the celestial law by living by rules and regulations is like riding on a merry-go-round; you can imagine you are on a wonderful steed riding swiftly to your destination, but you are safely going round and round, no place at all. It takes more than mere obedience to rules, it takes obedience to God himself, to the revelations He gives you. It takes love, and understanding, understanding that the feelings of others must be taken into account in making decisions; rules do not isually allow for such things. It will take loving God with all ones heart, might, mind, and soul.

Tried in all Things

For "it is necessary that we should be tried in all things? If you do not you will find it out before you get through, and we are not through yet quite. In this connection, I am reminded of what I heard the Prophet Joseph say, speaking more particularly with reference to the Twelve, "The Lord will feel after your heart‑strings, and will wrench them and twist them around, and you will have to learn to rely upon God and upon God alone." ... He furthermore said, "If God could in any other way more keenly have tried Abraham than by calling upon him to offer up his son Isaac, he would have done it." And as I have said, Jesus himself sweat great drops of blood, and in the agony of his suffering cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And why is it thus? We are told by one of old, "For it became him, for whom all things, and by whom all things, in bringing many things unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." "For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Oh, what a happy thing it would be if we could follow in his footsteps in that particular! ... no man is strong unless he be strong in the Lord. No man is sustained only as God sustains him; ... If Jesus was here, he would tell you to lay aside your nonsense, your follies and weaknesses, and act more like men and Saints, and go to work and "Feed my Sheep." Said he, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to me," not that I will rule with an iron‑hand, not that I will trample upon them, not that I will let you see that I possess power and authority; but "I will draw all men to me." ... it will be done through the influence of the Gospel, through its cementing and harmonizing influences, through the aid of the Almighty and the operations of the holy priesthood

44.

combined together, united as the heart of one man in the accomplishment of the purposes of God; with kindness and brotherly affections". (J.D. 20:259 ‑260, John Taylor)

Sanctification will come by living by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God; by living in love, obedience, order, and oneness, as revealed to each individual by God Himself. This sanctification is part and parcel of the priesthood, and only by being perfect in one can you obtain perfection in the other.

The Perfect Law

"Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that Priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God ... " (TPJS Pg.322)

I find it interesting that, "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam". (Genesis 5:1-2) If Adam was in the likeness of God, and if Adam was male and female, is God not also male and female? Is it possible to attain perfection without both genders bound together as "one flesh"?

"Women are different from men. Not better, not worse, different. Women look different, react

differently, think differently - and that's all right. Feminine traits aren't inferior to masculine ones. They're complementary." (Graham, Plain truth pages 12-13)

Betty Eadie describing her experiences in the spirit world tells of coming before a council: "One thing struck me almost immediately; there were twelve men here - but no women. ... I might have reacted unfavorably to this council of men and no women, but I was learning to have a new perspective about the differing roles of men and women. This understanding had begun earlier while viewing the creation of the earth. I had seen then the differences between Adam and Eve. I was shown that Adam was more satisfied with his condition in the Garden and that Eve was more restless. I was shown that she wanted to become a mother desperately enough that she was willing to risk death to obtain it. Eve did not "fall" to temptation as much as she made a conscience decision to bring about conditions necessary for her progression, and her initiative was used to get Adam to partake of the fruit. ... I saw the Spirit of God resting upon Eve, and I undestood that the role of women would always be unique in the world. I saw the emotional structure of women allowed them to be more responsive to love and to allow the Spirit of God to rest upon them more fully. I understood that their roles as mothers literally gave them a special relationship to God as creators. ... So, I began to see the difference in the roles between men and women, and I understood the necessity and beauty of those roles." (Embraced by the Light pages 109-111)

Although most of us have probably been brought up beleiving women can't hold the priesthood, yet "According to Joseph Smith's teachings to the Relief Society and to the Anointed Quorum, a woman receives Melchizedek priesthood when she receives the endowment." (Women and Authority page 375) The author, Michael Quinn, points out in this book that Joseph and Oliver both received priesthood without having any office conferred upon them; and that similarly women could have priesthood without holding an office in it. Also when certain women went to the Prophet about organizing a ladies' society Joseph said, '"I am glad to have the opportunity of organizing the women, as a part of the priesthood belongs to them. ... I will organize the sisters under the priesthood after a pattern of the priesthood." ... "If any Officers are wanted to carry out the design of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, & etc. are among us." (Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith pages 106-7) Brigham Young promised: The man that honors

45.

his priesthood, and the woman that honors her priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God. (J.D. 17:119) Nor are women different from men in being foreordained to the priesthood; "In February 1844 stake patriarch John Smith told an LDS woman that she had a right to priesthood from her birth. "Thou art of the blood of Abraham ... and lawful heir to the priesthood". (Women and Authority page 369)

"It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective, and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood. Nevertheless there is no grade, rank, or phase of the temple endowment to which women are not eligible on an equality with men. True, there are certain of the higher ordinances to which an unmarried woman cannot be admitted, but the rule is equally in force as to a bachelor. The married state is regarded as sacred, sanctified, and holy in all temple procedure; and within the The House of the Lord the woman is the equal and the help‑meet of the man. In the privileges and blessings of that holy place, the utterance of Paul is regarded as a scriptural decree in full force and effect: "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."' (James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord, Pg.79))

Mary Ellen Kimball had a problem ... "I thought of the instructions I had received from time to time that the priesthood was not bestowed upon woman. I accordingly asked Mr. [Heber C.} Kimball if women had a right to wash and anoint the sick for the recovery of their health or is it mockery in them to do so? He replied inasmuch as they are obedient to their husbands, they have a right to administer in that way in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ but not by authority of the priesthood invested in them for that authority is not given to women. He also said they might administer by the authority given to their husbands inasmuch as they were one with their husbands." (Mary Ellen Abel Kimball Diary, 2 Mar. 1856, LDS Archives) In a magazine published for the Young Ladies Mutual Improvement Association an article appeared stating that "... the Seventy's wife bears the priesthood of the Seventy in connection with her husband, and shares in its responsibilities." (Young Women's Journal 7:398)

Heber C. Kimball stated, "You have been anointed to be kings and priests [or queens and priestesses], but you have not been ordained to it yet, and you have got to get it by being faithful." In the second anointing, the husband and wife are ordained "King and Queen, Priest and Priestess to the Most High God for time and throughout all eternity." (Woman's Exponent 13:61)

"... only by receiving the fullness of the priesthood could Emma have claim on her husband in the eternities." The "fullness of the priesthood" here refers to those ordinances of the endowment and second anointing". (Mormon Enigma: Emma hale Smith pages 152-3)

The Law in its Perfection

To recapitulate: "True, there are certain of the higher ordinances to which an unmarried woman cannot be admitted, but the rule is equally in force as to a bachelor." "The "fullness of the priesthood" here refers to those ordinances of the endowment and second anointing". "In the second anointing, the husband and wife are ordained "King and Queen, Priest and Priestess ..." "Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that Priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God ... " To be sure, those holding the fullness of the priesthood stand as Gods, but it is unattainable to man or woman alone, and wherever there is a God there will of necessity be a Goddess. Nor will these two be separate and distiquishable one from the other in their rule, as they will be one; and only in that oneness can there be perfection.