First is the idea of a spirit. If you don’t believe we have one, then you may find all this amusing. That’s OK. My life experience has led me to believe otherwise. No, I can’t prove we have a spirit and I don’t think anybody can prove it to your satisfaction if you choose not to believe it.

I accept the idea that I have a spirit, or more correctly that I am an eternal spirit temporarily housed in a physical body. This belief is a part of my faith, a fundamental part of my religion. I am certain I am not alone in this belief. Millions, if not billions of people feel the same way.

The Spirit World

Second is the idea that spirits can hang around after death. Those who do believe we have a spirit may be inclined to think all spirits go somewhere else when they leave the body. To some, it’s either heaven or hell, to others it’s paradise or spirit prison. That’s just not always true. Again, I base that on some of my personal life experiences so far and those shared with me by others.

I happen to be one who believes that not all spirits go to a place of happiness or rest. Does that mean I believe in ghosts? No, I don’t believe the spirit can normally be seen with our physical eyes. But yes, I do believe there are spirits hanging around who were not happy to discover they continued to exist after death and are now missing, even craving pleasures of their mortal body.

In my faith we are taught and I believe the spirit world is right here on earth among us. Most Mormons believe that the spirits of the departed can and do look upon us from time to time. If this is true for our loved ones, then the same is true for those who may not have lived such a good life. Rapists, murderers, adulterers, child molesters, and just plain dirty, nasty people go somewhere and that somewhere is right here or wherever they liked to hang out when alive.

Addictions

Third is the idea that addictions can be caused by something other than standard explanations. Addictions to tobacco, alcohol, drugs, pornography, sex, gambling and even food have been extensively studied and explained as natural physical responses. Biology and brain chemistry play a large part in addiction but interestingly, so does genetic makeup and family history.

What if there is another explanation, one that has been around for thousands of years that could help us understand and overcome addictions? I’m sure you’ve heard it before. Most people have. It’s commonly dismissed as harmful in light of today’s scientific proof of how things work. We should rightly be concerned when someone attributes their addiction to any outside source.

When someone leaves this world with a habit or addiction to a physical pleasure, that addiction doesn’t just leave them. Addictions are more than physical. They are spiritual. Unless they have mastered them, a person who is now in the spirit world still craves the pleasures of the body. They continue to seek them out. I believe under certain, specific conditions, these disembodied spirits can temporarily co-habit or possess those who are still mortal but their bounds are limited.

Spirit Possession

OK, now I’ve gone all “spooky” on you. Talk about possession scares people. I understand that. It’s unfortunate that our perception of spirit possession is so skewed to the weird side of things. Movies like the Exorcist or The Shining have totally messed up our understanding of something that is referred to in the scriptures so matter-of-factly. I wrote an essay about this previously. The wide variety of comments on that essay demonstrates the interest people have in the subject.

In that essay I referred to a documented account of a conversation between a priesthood holder and an individual possessed of an evil spirit. I share that privately with those who request it. I’d like to take the dialog from that essay another step down the road of understanding. Throw out the false ideas of spirit possession from overly dramatic media characterizations. Instead, think about people you know who suffer from addictions. You may have some in your own family.

If you have studied the subject of addiction or talked with someone who suffers from addiction you know there are times they feel “out of control,” like they can do nothing other than the very course of action they are trying to resist. This is beyond a mere habit. I’m referring to a feeling that someone or something is taking over. Resistance makes it more noticeable. Unless you suffer from an unwanted addiction yourself, you may not be able to comprehend this feeling.

Shield of Protection

Let’s take the case of someone who drinks until they either pass out or blackout. We say they lose control of themselves. In the case of the blackout drunk, someone is obviously in charge of the body, even if the original owner is unable to remember it later. If you want to know more about what happens to drunks who pass out, read what George Ritchie had to say about it in his book “Return from Tomorrow.” I quote extensively from that book on one of my other blogs.

It is from Dr. Ritchie that I first learned about the shield of protection found in the human body. Some people call this our energy field. Western medicine has all but decimated any belief in the body’s energy fields. You’ll have to go to those who study or practice Eastern medicine to come to an understanding of how they work. I accept the reality of human energy fields as a part of my religion. No, it’s not taught in the LDS Church, but I accept truth from whatever source it comes.

The shield of protection can be weakened or breached when we participate in activities that are below our value standards. It can also be breached when we take offense at what someone has said or done. This shield of protection is composed of light, but a light purer than our eyes can comprehend. One of the objectives of this life is to gather light and to strengthen our shield. The weakening or loss of that shield of light can allow disembodied spirits to co-habit a mortal being.

Pornography Addiction

Now let’s consider another type of addiction. I’ve also written about this extensively before. To this day I still receive private email requests for help in response to my essay on “Healing from Pornography Addiction.” I didn’t spell it out clearly in that essay but I’m sure I have elsewhere on this blog. There is no difference between what George Ritchie saw happen to the drunks and what happens to individuals who participate in pornography and masturbation. It’s that simple.

When viewing pornography, the individual is allowing those disembodied spirits to use their body, even if just for a few moments, so they can vicariously experience sexual pleasure again. I know many of my readers will find this offensive, but I’ve had enough experience in dealing with men in church disciplinary councils who can attest to this fact. A practice the world teaches is natural and normal is in fact, a conduit for unclean spirits to experience the thrill of lust again.

Of course we believe in repentance or change, even after this life. An addicted spirit can resist the addiction, which is now spiritual, but will feel the torment and pull of that addiction even in the spirit. Brigham Young taught that it is a hundred times easier to change while we have our mortal body. That’s why it’s so important we make every effort to master ourselves while we are still alive. It is almost impossible to prove mastery over the flesh when you no longer have it.

Overcoming Addiction

The counsel I’m about to share is spiritual and not intended to replace competent medical advice. I’m addressing the spiritual side of addiction, which can be just as powerful as the physical. When we allow a disembodied spirit to use us for a moment, even if it is unintentional, there is something left behind that allows that spirit or another like it to get back in when they want to. Think of it as a chink in the armor, a crack in the light, a trigger or button to be pushed at will.

Now don’t go thinking after reading what I’ve written so far that you’re possessed. A certified stress management consultant can easily ascertain if an individual has any spirit attachments. It’s possible but not as common as some people think. Then of course, there are those who think all this is hogwash anyway, but as I said at the beginning of this essay, I’m not writing for them. I’m reaching out to those who want help overcoming addiction or want to help a loved one do so.

The secret to overcoming a spiritual addiction is very simple. In fact, it’s such a modest proposal that you may be disappointed to learn how unassuming it really is. Note I didn’t say it was easy, just simple. All you have to do is forgive. The trick of course is discovering exactly who and for what. Once the original event that caused the crack in the light is discovered, it can be repaired in just a few moments. The darkness left behind by the disembodied spirit can be eliminated.

Forgiveness is the Key

Remember, this is advice for healing the spiritual and emotional aspects of addiction. Those who suffer from addiction should also seek and receive help to overcome the physical aspects of that addiction, be it alcohol, drugs, tobacco or even food. There are even programs for helping those with sexual addictions, but none of them of which I’m aware address the spiritual aspect. I know of several individuals who are skilled in finding and eliminating hidden spiritual addictions.

Over the years, I have spent considerable time and effort to study and understand the process whereby hidden stress can be identified so it can be resolved. It is not an easy process to learn but it is so much more effective than years of therapy that may or may not work. It involves questioning the intelligence or the innate part of our subconscious that remembers everything. Those who have experienced this process will agree that it produces amazing results.

With just a few moments of questioning the subconscious and receiving measureable yes or no responses, a skilled practitioner of this technique can find the root cause of an addiction. It is almost always traced to an individual from earlier in the person’s life. In either a traumatic event or an offensive situation, something negative passed between these two individuals. The only way to heal the effect is to forgive the other individual involved and almost always oneself.

Summary

I could go on and on about this subject. The purpose of this essay is not to titillate you with stories or ideas about evil and unclean spirits. They are not important. Yes, they exist but we should be more concerned with our own battles to master the flesh, not their desire to co-habit ours for a moment. There is a difference between those who were cast out, never to be born, and those who experienced mortality and have refused to go to the light once their life was over.

The idea here is to come to an understanding that sometime in the past, a person who struggles with addiction today may have opened their shield of protection in a moment of weakness, stress, or trauma that allowed an unclean spirit to use them for a time or a season. When the individual regained control of themselves, the spirit departed but left behind some darkness that acts as a trigger or future entry point for that spirit and others to work on until they gain entry again.

Dismiss all this if you will, it matters not to me. You’re welcome to leave comments telling me how deluded and mistaken this is. That’s OK. I’ve heard it all before. I used to think the same way. But if this essay has helped somebody, anybody to find some hope that perhaps their own or a loved one’s “out of control” behavior can be explained, then I will have succeeded in my purpose. Shoot me a private message with your questions or comments. I’m happy to share more.

Three individuals who practice the discovery and elimination technique:

Dr. Brad May, Emotional Complex Clearing, Serenity Systems

Jan Graf, Graf Stress Management, St George, Utah

Russ Stewart, Stress Solutions, Grants Pass, Oregon

If you know of others or have been helped by this technique, please let me know.

One of the big criticisms against Romney is that he has flip-flopped on his positions in the past.  This could have been an area of attack for the Obama campaign.  However, with this quite public reversal, Obama may have given away this advantage.

There may be some strategic advantages to this change of heart though.  It could serve as a distraction issue.  It may be better for Obama’s election hopes if the country debates the merits of gay marriage instead of the state of the economy for example.  Additionally, if the majority of Americans are currently in favor of gay marriage, this may become an even greater advantage to Obama than Romney’s past flip-flops.

The upcoming election, with gay marriage as a hot topic, and a Mormon running for office, could make for a very interesting season for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But many things I attribute to Mormonism the religion, are not taught today in the LDS Church. Does that mean the Mormon religion and the LDS Church are two different things? Consider the recent General Conference address from Elder Donald Hallstrom, “Converted to His Gospel through His Church.” He is obviously declaring the Gospel is not the same as the church.

The Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation, the doctrines that teach how we can be saved and live forever in a state of happiness, redeemed from death and hell. On the other hand, the church is the institution organized and established by the Lord through Joseph Smith in 1830 that has undergone a tremendous number of changes over the years.

Religion and Church

Although it embraces both, in my mind, our religion is something altogether different from the gospel and from the church. I suppose that’s dangerous ground. If you think about it, I’m saying what I believe to be truth is not limited to what the LDS Church declares to be truth today. That is indeed dangerous ground. It invites speculation that the Church limits us in some way.

At one time we taught that we embrace all truth. Yet some things we taught as truth in the early days of the church are no longer found in our official curriculum. I’m not talking about plural marriage, blood atonement or restricting the priesthood. I’m talking about things like the reality of evil spirits, catastrophes of the last days and the literalness of D&C 93:1.

I feel a debt of gratitude to three men whose views have changed my life. Although they do not want or care for the attention, I would like to acknowledge them, their ideas and their work. Each has worked tirelessly to bring their beliefs to light and I for one have benefited from their work. They illustrate the idea that something from the early days of our religion has been lost.

Jan Graf – Reality of evil spirits

I first met Jan at a time in my life when I was troubled by many things that would not go away. There is no other way to explain it concisely. Because of his ideas and explanations of things, I was able to make them go away. It’s that simple. What he teaches about how to remove distress is nothing new or different. It is simply the application of the principle of forgiveness.

But what is unique, unorthodox and controversial about Jan’s skill in helping people find peace are his beliefs about what causes stress in our lives. It is the idea that evil spirits are real, can be found in the world around us and are very active in afflicting and tormenting us. That is a very common belief in the early days of Mormonism but hardly ever taught in the church today.

I was so excited about the amazing results in my life from what he taught that Carol and I went to St. George to interview him and talk about writing a book. Because what he does is so easily misunderstood, he asked that I not pursue my project. Out of respect I dropped the idea but continue to refer people to him I know could benefit from his stress-reduction technique.

Anthony Larson – Latter-day catastrophes

A long time ago I ran across a book that got me genuinely excited about how the last days are going to unfold. It was not told from a social, political or even religious perspective but from a cosmological view that could only be described as unorthodox. Anthony Larson explained for me how the signs and prophecies of the scriptures are descriptions of natural events.

What he explained in his trilogy of prophecy books was not thought to be so unusual in the early days of Mormonism. We were at one time considered an Adventist church, preparing intently for the forthcoming return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even though his books are based on scripture and statements of early Mormon leaders, today they are considered unorthodox.

I have written many essays about his beliefs and interpretations of scripture. I have attended his seminars, read each of his books multiple times and had many dialogs and conversations about how he interprets myths of the past. I’m in the process of writing a fictional account based on the now unorthodox but one-time common beliefs of this visionary, prophetic man.

Denver Snuffer – The Second Comforter

I was recently introduced to the writings of Denver Snuffer, a man who claims to have received the Second Comforter and was asked by the Lord to write about it. That’s an amazing claim and obviously very unorthodox in our modern LDS church. He has generated a lot of controversy. Some have called him apostate or dangerous and said he should be excommunicated.

I have almost finished reading Denver’s eight published books. I have written previously that I would withhold judgment until I finished them all but I think I have made up my mind. Denver’s advice that we read his books in order has merit. I read them in reverse order. That may have been a mistake, but I survived because I read most of the “alternative views” previously.

I have decided I like Denver, or that I can at least accept and trust what he has written. Just as I have with Jan Graf’s and Anthony Larson’s writings, I have pondered and prayed about what I have learned. I am not dismayed or taken aback by his latest book as some others have been although I confess an initial misunderstanding of how he defines the sealing power.

Spiritual Experiences

I suppose I need to change my bio on Twitter, Google Plus and here on my blog. Because of my acceptance of the beliefs of the three men I have described, I guess I can no longer claim to be an orthodox Mormon. What’s more, I am discovering I am unusual in my church because I have long believed and taught that we can seek and should strive to have “spiritual experiences.”

After years of sharing some of my sacred experiences online, engaging in dialog about the reality of personal revelation, I have come to the conclusion there are many within our church that do not experience communication from the spirit world like I thought everybody did. That sounds weird, doesn’t it? “Spooky,” an embarrassing unorthodox belief, some would say.

Perhaps that is why there are two conflicting cultures within the LDS church today. On the one hand we are encouraged to share our testimonies, which are supposed to be based on personal sacred events. On the other hand, the subtle message is being communicated that we must keep our spiritual experiences to ourselves, because they are “too sacred” to share.

Summary

Orthodoxy seems to be all about what is appropriate and acceptable as the norm. As I wrote at the beginning of this essay, I accept and sustain the right of the leaders of this church to direct what is preached from the pulpit and what is taught in the classroom. The church is a place of order. It is a magnificent, effective organization that does tremendous good.

The meetinghouses, the temples, the missionary force, the humanitarian effort, the welfare system, the lay ministry, the willingness of the members to sacrifice and serve each other all attest to the goodness of this organization. But there is something more to our religion than just the church and our activity within it. There is something intense and personal.

That something today is unorthodoxy. It is our individual efforts to commune with God. It is our testimonies, our spiritual experiences, our determination to study, understand and internalize what we believe. It is developing our ability to hear and respond to the promptings of the Holy Ghost. It is our participation in the ordinances and adherence to the covenants we make.

Conclusion

In short, it is being different from the world and even from many within the church who are not willing to pay the price of obedience and sacrifice that inevitably bring the promised blessings. The church is not the same as the gospel and the church is not everything there is to our religion. There is so much more to Mormonism but you have to be willing to be unorthodox to see it.

I have Denver’s permission to derive my own interpretations of his parables. I offer them here as a way of solidifying what I have read and pondered. He writes in his preface that parables “teach truths by using symbols and analogies.” They are “intentionally susceptible to different interpretations and layers of meaning.”

The book was a fun and easy read. I completed it during a lunch hour at work. It is only 107 pages. Some of the parables were obvious as soon as I read them. Some seemed a little obtuse, requiring a bit of pondering. “They have been carefully composed. The words are deliberate.” I hope my interpretations do them justice.

This is another in an ongoing series of essays on the books of Denver Snuffer. I have previously reviewed Passing the Heavenly Gift and The Second Comforter. Comments are welcome. Obviously you will have had to have read the book. I look forward to reading what you think of the parables.

1. A Busy Young Man

This one is very short. I wondered why he placed it first in his book. I suppose it represents Denver when he was a young attorney. He worked many long years to learn of the Master, while doing the Lord’s work. First the rope for seven years, then the net for seven more. Perhaps it represents Denver’s callings in the church.

2. Wise Men

This one is obviously about the General Authorities of the church. I love the symbol of the fruit tree. It could be so many things, but mostly I thought it was a good representation of members of the church. The symbolism of the telescope is also profound. It represents the ability to see things far off, available to all.

“They became men … with the most cunning and cautious minds. For many years they added no wisdom to the kingdom … They only spoke of … the great lessons of the past.” Then again, the parable could be referring to the religious leaders of the past since there is an obvious reference to either Galileo or Copernicus.

3. Triangularity

This is obviously about temple worship. It contains one of Denver’s common themes throughout his books that the ordinances of the temples are mere symbols and not the real thing. You may also conclude that it is about the study of God or more precisely, the Godhead. I love the many references to orthodoxy and creeds.

Then again, it can also be construed as a much generalized view of the history of man, his beliefs about God and his religious worship practices. The part about wars and schisms leads me to think that. There is reference to the restoration and again, the introduction of orthodoxy and the idea of speaking directly to and with God.

The ending is wonderful. It is so applicable to the church today whether we realize it or not. We do indeed look upon anyone who claims to have an “unusual” story of spiritual communion with God to be heterodox. I suspect it is because of the fear of being deceived that this has been inadvertently promoted by those who lead us.

4. The Horses of Shiloh

This is a wonderful parable about the Savior. I like the implications of the lines, “He was hard for any man to ride, and many feared to approach him. Only the most brave attempted it. Only a few were able to ride him.” Obviously this is referring to the process of coming unto Christ and gaining an audience with Him.

The churches of the world have made an image of the Savior that is nothing like who he truly is. The ending: “In Shiloh there was a neglected statue, in a forgotten back alley, of a rearing horse covered with scars whose disproportionate and unruly form was thought to a symbol of everything vile and unwanted in a horse.”

Sadly, in the end, nobody would ever know what the horse really looked like. I wonder if this is meant to imply that our depictions of the Savior in art today are not at all what he was really like. I suspect this is the intent. Most pictures of the Savior depict him as almost feminine, not the battle-scarred warrior that he was.

5. The Weathered Tree

At first I thought this was going to be a camping story. I was delighted it turned out to be the story of a wise tree that stood alone on a cliff, gnarled and scarred, but who had a commanding view of all that surrounded her. The two forests that grew below her are a good contrast between the foolish and the wise who look to her.

6. Five Men From God

The five men from God are Sampson, John the Baptist, Jesus, Joseph and Hyrum. These are the witnesses who were sent to warn and bless mankind. But they were all rejected. God was therefore justified in leaving man to fend for himself, with no warning of impending danger. Man will be unprepared when the last day arrives.

7. Hope and Tarwater

This has become my favorite. I expected something more or different at the end but was pleased that the same theme played out all along. It was a sustained effort. It is analogous to life and the way we travel through it. One young man finds the woods to be a dangerous place. His journey through it reflects wariness and uneasiness.

The other young man found the woods to be a place of beauty and serenity. He was at peace with his surroundings and derived much enjoyment and pleasure from his journey. Although the two men became aware of each other towards the end, they did not meet. They each related their journey to others when they arrived home.

I could write an entire essay about the analogy and the symbolism in this parable. But the end result for me was the way the two young men related their tale at the end and how it confirmed to others their impressions of the forest. They brought with them their perceptions of how things were in the woods, and they were right.

8. Brakhill’s Greatest Citizen

This one is told so well I thought there really was a town of Brakhill, Wyoming and a real children’s author named Olyvie Canfield. I can imagine Denver wrote this for one of his daughters. I got the distinct impression that the building built by the story’s other leading citizen – Ira Wilkas – represented the City Creek Center.

I’m still pondering this one. I wonder if anyone else has come up with who might be represented by Olyvie Canfield. I suppose Ira Wilkas represented the Church. Is it possible that Olyvie might have been a symbol for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? This has probably been discussed on LDS group blogs but I missed it.

9. The Great Competition

This one is about the plan of salvation, told from a very long-range view, including the great battle at the end of the world between the forces of good and evil. Denver has drawn some profound implications of what happens at that great event because those who chose not to come to compete were invited to the great feast at the end.

The focus is on loyalty. Who would remain true to the king in spite of the seeming unfairness of the competition designed to cause a great division among the people? I would love to share this one in a Sacrament talk or Sunday school lesson, but of course, you and I know that one cannot quote from unorthodox sources in church.

10. The Missing Virtue

I’ve read this one a couple of times since the initial reading. When I first read it I knew right away that it was about Denver. I think he had referenced somewhere else in his books his experience with failure to help someone in need. I suspect this was highly personal and significant to Denver. I’m grateful he shared it with us.

One the one hand you could focus on how much he was affected by having failed to provide something for the beggar earlier in his life. Eighteen years is a long time to wait to feel that you have made up for an earlier failure. Thankfully, he found the opportunity again, took advantage of it and was greatly blessed as a result.

I did not see any judgment of his fellow priesthood brethren in this parable. He only related the facts. He told it the way it was. I too have seen this many times. But I have also seen the goodness of my brethren in similar situations. There are many who go out of their way to help those in need. I love my fellow brethren.

We were expecting a large crowd for the missionary farewell of the youngest sister of our bishop. I’ll bet she’ll always remember that she spoke on the same program as an apostle. When he walked in, nine year-old Whitney Peterson handed him a piece of paper with four questions. He delighted us by answering them candidly and directly. I paid close attention to what he said.

Four Questions for an Apostle

Her first question was “How many churches have you visited?” I think she meant different wards or stakes “You do the math,” he answered. “I’ve been doing this for forty years. We go out three weeks out of every month. We have five weeks off in the summer and two weekends off each year for General Conference.” I did the math. Without duplicates, that would be 1,320 churches.

Next, Whitney asked, “How many temples are there in the world?” He laughed as he replied, “I don’t know. I can’t keep track anymore.” Somebody apparently looked it up as he was talking and told him – 136. He told the story of president Hinckley going to Stake Centers while on visits to Mexico looking for properties large enough to accommodate temples to be built next door.

The next question was “Where do you live?” I expected him to simply say Salt Lake, but he told us he lived a half block north of the conference center and that he walks to work each day. He has a key to a side door so he walks the rest of the way through the tunnels to his office in the church administration building. Now I know how this almost 90 year-old apostle keeps in shape.

An Apostle’s Witness of the Savior

The last question was the best. “Have you ever seen an angel or the Savior?” I listened closely to hear how an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ would answer this question. He told a couple of stories. First, he described one of the weekly meetings with the twelve way back when Elder LeGrand Richards was still alive. The meeting had to do with changes being made in the temple.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Elder Richards said that President Woodruff had been there. When asked why, he said that Elder Richards was the only one of the twelve present who had attended the 1893 dedication of the Salt lake Temple (as a child). President Woodruff was vitally concerned with the temple that he had dedicated. To Elder Perry, this was a visit by an angel.

The 1978 Revelation on the Priesthood

He then told the story of the 1978 revelation that all worthy men could hold the priesthood. He said that there were only three of the twelve still alive who had been there. He described how President Kimball asked to be the voice in the weekly prayer circle and how he poured out his heart in petitioning the Lord for understanding of his will on what should be done on this issue.

He said that the outpouring of the spirit was so great that at the conclusion of the prayer they each went back to their offices without saying a word. They usually go have lunch together. Something sacred had happened. To Elder Perry, this was evidence the Lord had visited them in the temple. The next Thursday, President Kimball submitted the new revelation to the twelve.

The Savior Directs This Church

Elder Perry then answered Whitney’s question directly. He said that the heavens only open on rare occasions. He spoke for a moment about placing our tent door toward the temple. He then closed by bearing testimony. He said, “There is only one man who receives revelation for all. This is not a man-made church. The Savior directs this church from above.”

“This is how he continues to reach out to each of us. There is an order and a system in place. Twelve are given the keys but only one may use them at a time. In the church there is order and uniformity. This provides absolute certain direction that comes from the Lord. I know without any doubt God lives and that the Savior directs this church.”

I found a post that analyzed the leadership styles of these Star Trek captains here.  I will sort of borrow from this site, but because this is a Mormon blog, I will share some of my thoughts on these captains in terms of what kind of bishop they would likely be.  Please feel free to discuss these captains as much as you like.

Kirk

Kirk was a commanding, competitive and charismatic presence.  He loved his ship and his crew, and would do anything to save them.  He was a bit of a maverick, and would bend or break the rules if it meant winning.  He could be very charming and warm when the situation called for it.  He had a good sense of humor, and did not take himself too seriously.  But he expected to be obeyed.  He kept his distance from the rank and file, but had very close relationships with Spock and Bones.  The responsibilities of his office weighed on him, yet he was often very decisive anyway.

It would be unlikely to me that Kirk would ever be called as a bishop.  Chances would be good that as he served in other callings, he would do or say something that would turn somebody off.  His ignoring policy and procedure might be his undoing if he were called, and might prevent him from ever being called in the first place.  I believe he would relate well to the youth, and would be something of a hero figure for some.  But his recklessness probably would not fly in the church.

Picard

Picard was a man with a strong sense of morality, that was more concerned with doing what he felt was right than anything else.  Etiquette,  protocol, chain of command, policy, procedure, etc., were of very high priority.  He could be arrogant, intolerant, and aloof.  He was not comfortable in social settings.  There was something noble about the man, as he always tried to take the moral high ground.

I think it would almost be inevitable that Picard would be called as a bishop.  In fact, I would project him as a Stake President, if not a general authority.  The church would love a guy like Picard.  Always by the book, always taking the moral high ground.  His reluctance to be socially outgoing, and occasional lack of bedside manner, might make him less effective than he could be.

Sisko

I admit that I have less of a feel for Sisko than the others.  He seemed to long for the simple life, and had a sense that life was not fair.  Protecting the home turf was important to him in his role.  An organized, strategic plan seemed important to him.  He was resourceful and innovative

I am afraid that Sisko probably had a better past as a leader than a future.  His bitterness and anger gave him some inner demons, that would likely give him his own problems.  His ability to organize and to delegate would be important to his success.  Ultimately, I think the timing would be wrong for him to be a bishop.

Janeway

Yes, I know Janeway is a woman, but let us consider her anyway.  Janeway could be very warm and personable in private settings.  She also was supposedly quite competent as a scientist/engineer prior to her being captain.  Like Picard she placed a high priority on chain of command.  She expected blind obedience.  She was very decisive, and made those decisions quickly, often with little data or information – which seems inconsistent with her background.  She also seemed inconsistent with the prime directive – sometimes refusing to violate it even when lives were at stake – other times violating it on a whim.

I think that Janeway could be a good bishop on a personal level.  Her ability to be compassionate would really resonate with many people.  Yet, her expectations for blind obedience to her sometimes whimsical decisions would turn others off.

Archer

Archer had some good qualities, and created an environment of trust and respect.  But he often seemed over his head.  His recklessness was not of the same quality as Kirks.  He seemed to surround himself with personal friends, and would likely fall prey to the yes-man.  As his experience grew, he may turn out to be a good captain.  Time will tell.

He would likely do well with the whole trust and respect thing, but his lack of personal discipline and experience would hold him back.

Quote

And one quote to wrap this up:

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virture of the priesthood, only be persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile…(D&C 121)

The above qualities rarely get mentioned in leadership books or seminars.  And I am afraid that those who have those qualities will rarely get noticed and receive opportunities for leadership.

Anyway, which of the Star Trek captains do you feel would make the best bishop?  Which would best fit the model of D&C 121?

One place to start would be regarding the prospects, or chances, of salvation.  It is my impression that mainstream protestants believe in a Heaven/Hell dichotomy, and that the vast majority of all mankind will end up in Hell.  Thus the chances are not good for humanity as a whole.  But it is the believers we are talking about.  And since much of protestant Christianity seems to believe in salvation by grace alone, or something close to it, the true believers are ‘in’.  And for many, once you are saved or ‘in’ you will never lose your salvation.  And I suspect that even for those who would accept the possibility of losing you salvation (on never really being saved in the first place) gaining or re-gaining your salvation would be as easy as gaining it in the first place.  So I would suspect that the optimism in the after-life ought to be fairly high for this group.  One source of pessimism may be doubt in whether or not one has really been ‘saved’.  Since it is by grace alone for many, and nearly grace alone for the rest, it seems it would be a little bit like winning a lottery.  What if you were mistaken about actually being saved?

The prospects, or chances of salvation are a bit different in Mormonism – from my understanding.  There is not the same Heaven/Hell dichotomy.  Mormons do not have the same beliefs regarding Hell.  The equivalent in Mormonism would be called ‘Outer Darkness’.  This is a place for those souls who had a sure knowledge, and then denied.  It is commonly thought that there will be very few individuals who would even qualify for this place.  Everyone else will be spared this eternal misery.  So in this respect, Mormonism is nearly universal when it comes to being saved from death and Hell – which ought to be quite comforting.  The prospects for mankind as a whole are quite good – in fact they are basically guaranteed basic salvation from death and hell.  Yet, beyond basic salvation there is the idea of degrees of glory.  So, those who have been saved may be ‘in’, but perhaps only partially ‘in’, since salvation is by degrees.  I suppose this can be a source of either optimism or pessimism, depending on your point of view.   Additionally, this aspect of salvation (which Mormons would call exaltation), is based partly on the merit of the individuals themselves, and thus it would be like meeting certain requirements rather than winning a lottery.  Thus for the believers, a source of doubt would be if they had met the requirements for a fullness of salvation.

I have some other thoughts on this, but I think I will stop here and see how this turns out.  Please feel free to share your thoughts on this, and where my thoughts may be messed up.

The basic point is this, people know that terms like ‘non-Christian’ and ‘Cult’ are loaded terms, and they use them anyway.  They may justify this by telling themselves that they are using a lesser known meaning or use of a word, while the audience will largely take away the common use of the word.  Peterson does a good job of bringing this out.

This statement is repeated over, and over again on the first Sunday of every month in Fast and Testimony meetings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Members, of course, are not forced to say this, but most of them do.  This certain statement bothers a few people when they hear it.  They will often say that the ‘know’ part is to strong, and ‘true’ is a pretty strong word as well.

I use this phase occasionally when I bear my testimony, and I would like to make the attempt to express more thoroughly what I mean when I say this.  I expect that my experience will be similar to many church members, and I hope my explanation can be helpful to somebody.

I

The personal pronoun at the beginning of the statement is one of absolute exclusiveness.  The statement is not one which implicates anyone else.  I am the only one taking a position when I say this.  It is my integrity, reputation, competence, etc., that is at stake.  The statement does not express nor imply the beliefs or knowledge of anyone else whatsoever.

Know

One way to think about knowledge is that of beliefs that are true.  One can imagine two intersecting spheres – one of belief and the other of truth.  The area of their intersection can be called knowledge.  There are some things that can be believed, that are not true, which would not constitute knowledge.  There are also things that are true which are not believed, which would not constitute knowledge either.  A person making the above statement feels that their beliefs regarding the church have sufficient justification for them to be personally held as being true.  Thus, these beliefs constitute knowledge for them.

For me, the sufficient justification is that of subjective, internal, personal experience.  This experience cannot be objectively measured or verified by any external effort.  It also cannot be refuted by any external agent.  Thus, the only person that could evaluate whether my subjective, internal, personal experience provides sufficient justification to hold my beliefs as knowledge is me.

That

This word can be fairly important in understanding what is being asserted in the statement.  The knowledge in question is knowledge that, rather than knowledge how.  For example, one can say I know that my car is powered by an internal combustion engine, without knowing how a combustion engine works.  And in this case, one can know that the church is true without knowing how it is true – as in knowing the truth regarding every detail of Mormon theology.

The church

This can be a complicated phrase with a few possible meanings.  For many members, they will not draw a clear distinction between ‘the church’ and ‘the restored gospel of Jesus Christ’.  I do this myself often.  In the context of the above statement, what is being referred to is not the building, or the people, or the policies, or the organizational structure.  What they are referring to is the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is true

In the context of a testimony, true can have two primary definitions.  One is that true is in agreement with reality, and the other is that true is being loyal and faithful – in this case to Christ.  When I make a statement similar to the above, I would apply both meanings to true.

So to summarize, the common statement above could be restated roughly as – I have had subjective, internal experiences which I have judged to provide sufficient justification to hold that my beliefs in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints constitutes knowledge that the church is loyal and faithful to Jesus Christ and is in agreement with reality.  Or put another way –

I know that the church is true.

I have been reading some Kierkegaard recently, and he pointed out two areas of worry regarding a paid ministry.  And I believe that what little paid ministry there is in the church, it avoids both areas of worry.

Actually, there is only one area of worry – corruption.  And this worry can come from two sources – the state and the congregation.  Kierkegaard made accusations of apostasy against the church of Denmark, and perhaps Christianity as a whole, and he felt that corruption from paid ministry was part of the cause of such apostasy.

Kierkegaard felt that if a minister were paid by the congregation, then he might preach what the people want to hear – rather than the gospel as it is.  If the minister were paid by the state, then he may be pressured to preach what the state desires him to preach.  Either source of pay can lead to a corrupted gospel.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, local people do almost all of the teaching and preaching.  They do not get paid a dime for this.  And while the forces of correlation place suggested boundaries on what is taught, there is still a lot of freedom to teach what one feels ought to be taught.  The general church leaders do not depend on weekly collections for their pay, and such a modest ‘salary’ approach allows them to avoid much of the corrupting influences Kierkegaard speaks of.

Additionally, since the source of the pay is not from the state, it has little if any influence on what is taught or done in the church.

So while the absence of a paid ministry is not absolute in the church, I believe there is a lack of financial based corruption, which is an important safeguard in keeping the restored gospel pure.

He published a book in 2008 with the findings of his poll, How Americans View Mormonism: Seven Steps to Improve Our Image. Dr. Lawrence received a PhD in communications psychology from Stanford University in 1972. He said that of over twenty doctoral candidates in his group, he was the only LDS, Republican, conservative hawk among them. So he knows a little about being in the minority.

Lawrence Research

Now if you know anything about recent events in California, you’ll recognize that Gary’s business, Lawrence Research was the opinion polling company that was heavily involved in Proposition 8. Gary was also the state LDS grassroots director for the Protect Marriage coalition. Brother Lawrence, who has served as a bishop has spent over 35 years studying opinions and behaviors of the American public.

From the results of his survey, Dr. Lawrence maintains that the misconceptions, distortions, and untruths being told about Mormons have slowed the growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that the average member is best positioned to turn things around. By the way, the name of his next book, due from Deseret Book later this year is “What Part of Our Name Don’t You Understand?”

Survey Results

For me, the most interesting result of the survey was that our perceived image is upside down. Forty-nine percent of those surveyed had an unfavorable impression of Mormons. Only thirty-seven percent had a favorable impression. They say that we have weird beliefs and are secretive. Yet they also say we are good neighbors, hard workers, believe in clean living, have high moral standards and help others.

Lawrence said that thirty-seven percent of all Americans do not know a Mormon, and fifty-five percent of all Americans do not know an active Mormon. In fact, those who know one Mormon have a worse opinion of us than those who do not know any Mormons. We are viewed unfavorably more than Jews or Baptists (3.5 to 1) and Catholics (2 to 1). Mormons, less than 1 to 1. That’s a terrible ratio.

Negative Image

Simple ignorance is often blamed for Mormonism’s negative image, but Gary also concludes that it is driven by fear — fear of a supposed political agenda, wealth, organizational ability, unwavering doctrine, and a unique vocabulary that is often misunderstood. He gave some wonderful examples but I’ll have to defer in sharing some of the better ones until I receive his book that I ordered from Deseret Book.

His book explains that individual members in their daily interactions with others are the key. In his presentation, which he has probably delivered dozens of times, he pointed out that friendly and natural conversations, the facts, simple claims, individual latitude, non-threatening invitations and gentle mentoring are the ways Mormons can combat distortions, improve our image, and spread the gospel.

Unique Vocabulary

A central claim of our church is that we have the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Gary explained that this phrase is not well understood by those outside our faith. They equate the word restore as something you do to an old car or a piece of old furniture. He suggested that a better phrase to use would be: “We claim to be the re-established Christian Church.” I like that. It is simpler and easier to understand.

He even broke it down for us into three bite-sized pieces: 1) Christ organized a church. 2) Men changed it and 3) It has been brought back. Amazingly, 84 percent of Americans have had exposure to our church, yet only 14 percent can tell you that this is our main differentiating claim from other Christian churches. While people may not agree with our claim, we want and need them to understand it.

Meaning of Gospel

They can then decide for themselves how they will respond to that claim. But if they never get the real message, how can they make a legitimate choice? Naturally, some people will reject the gospel truth once it has been presented to them. And that’s another word that we use differently from the rest of Christianity. To us, the gospel means more than the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul.

Most Mormons equate gospel to mean the overarching plan of happiness that was presented in our pre-earth life. We have come to see the gospel as more than just a theology, but as a way of life, and that it encompasses all truth that we embrace. But in reality, the gospel is the good news of the doctrine of Christ, that all will be resurrected and that we can be forgiven of sins through repentance and ordinances.

Higher Education

That’s why we can say that the fullness of the gospel is contained in the Book of Mormon even though there are many additional doctrines we believe that are only found outside the Book or Mormon. In fact, some within our church have gone so far as to claim that obtaining a degree of higher education is a part of the gospel. Does that mean that early saints and prophets without a B.A. degree are not saved?

Of course not; that would be a ridiculous example. While we believe in continuing education and encourage our members to get all the education we can, an advanced degree is not a requirement for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. A high school diploma is not required. There is no requirement for any type of certified education to meet God’s conditions to enter into his kingdom; only obedience to his laws.

Mormon Scholars Testify

In our Mormon culture, besides placing great emphasis on education, we also hold those who have received advanced degrees and yet remained faithful in very high esteem. Dr. Lawrence has shared his testimony in greater detail on the website, Mormon Scholars Testify, which was created by another visitor to our stake, Dr. Daniel C. Petersen, speaking about BYU’s involvement in the Dead Sea scrolls.

My fellow blogger Steve Faux introduced me to the site a few years back when he was asked to share his thoughts and feelings about being a believing Mormon who teaches evolution at the University level. I have watched participation grow over the years until there are now more than 200 testimonies recorded there. Compare that to twenty being promoted on the opposing site Ex-Mormon scholars testify.

Opposition in All Things

One of our fundamental doctrines is that we believe there must be opposition in all things. I love the Internet for the very reason that it allows us to see the very best and the very worst of the extremes on just about any issue. I’m not a scholar and will probably never have an advanced degree, but I have come to appreciate both sides of the debate on controversial subjects I have written about over the years.

I can judge for myself when someone is presenting the truth in a distorted manner because I have been counseled over the years to study things out and come to my own conclusions about the truth of an issue. Some things can never be proven and will have to wait until the next life to determine who is right and who is wrong. That’s one of the purposes of life – to exercise faith and choose what we believe.

Choose What We Believe

I recommend you read the testimonies of Dr. Lawrence, Dr. Petersen, S. Faux and any others that you may recognize. They come from a variety of disciplines such as the Arts, Business, Management, Accounting, History, Religion, Social Science, Language, Literature, Law, Medicine, Psychology, Philosophy, Science, Mathematics and Engineering. Yes, Mormons believe in the value of education.

I hope this helps to dispel any misconceptions that Mormons are ignorant, closed-minded, brain-washed or uneducated. We do not follow our leaders blindly, nor do we worship our prophets, living or dead. But we do value loyalty and respect to those who we sustain as prophets and apostles. It is my testimony that they are leading us to Christ. I choose to follow their direction and counsel for my family.

For a great discussion of our image, or rather reputation, listen to what Michael Otterson had to say to Robert Millet on this episode of Mormon Identity on The Mormon Channel.

Ken is a senior at Sturgis High School (Michigan).  He enjoys participating in the orchestra and also plays the guitar.  After graduating from high school he hopes to serve a mission for the church.  He has always dreamed of being a paleontologist some day, and will probably start out doing the geology path once he starts school – unless he changes his mind.

His eagle project involved organizing an effort to provide local elementary schools with audio CDs of selected books.  As a result of this effort over 60 audio CDs/books were provided to the schools.

In addition to the required merit badges, Ken enjoyed earning the archery, rifle shooting, space exploration, music and art awards.  He served as the patrol leader, and also as troop chaplain.  He also earned the ‘On My Honor’ and ‘Arrow of Light’ awards.  All of this was not easy for him, and we are pleased with this important accomplishment.

For the sake of argument, let us assume for the moment that this rumor has some truth to it.  Do nice, expensive scriptures lead to a functionally closed canon?  Unfortunately, I think the answer might be yes.

What if, instead of an expensive, leather bound set of scriptures,  we had a three-ring binder.  This way, when new revelation for the church was received by a prophet, such revelation could just be posted at lds.org, people could print out their own copy of it, and slip it in their own scripture binder.  Or similarly, with on-line information and technology progressing as it is, maybe the scriptures could be on-line and additions to the scriptures would just be a matter of updating the scripture wed site.   In this way, new scripture would only be a matter of receiving revelation, presenting it to the church for sustaining vote, and updating a website (or something to that effect).

As it is now, the words of the prophets are written in the Ensign.  It seems to me that how members take these words range from being the equivalent to scripture, to being personal thoughts and opinions.  It is sometimes difficult to know how much weight to give these articles.

So once again, the question(s):  Do nice, expensive scriptures lead to a functionally closed canon?  Should the church have made the D&C more like a binder so additional scripture could be easily added?  Will new technology eventually lead to non-printed scripture which could serve to functionally re-open the canon?