2 responses
Appendix AA-1 Letter Bro. Steve to Bro. Owen Mon. May 7, 2001 Dear Brother Owen Monday May 7, 2001 I feel so much joy in my heart this beautiful day! I am so relieved as though a heavy burden has been lifted off my back. I have done what the Lord required of me and he has powerfully manifested His love and approval by filling me with His peace and rejoicing! Our Lord is merciful and kind. His ways are glorious and His path is straight never changing. I am so grateful to the Lord for giving you the strength to keep your word and your charge that – you, all your Council and every person in this Work are subject to the Lord’s Justice System as revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith. That took great courage on your part to set that example of humility and love. I love you for that pattern of nobility you have established in this thing. I am also every grateful to those wonderful men who took their precious time to come to such a hearing, whose love for the Gospel brought them to help establish truth and justice more fully in this Work. I salute them for this.1 Even though our attempts may appear, to some, as only a Wright Brother’s version of justice compared to what the Prophets have taught, none the less we are toddling. And I’m sure that we will get better at this justice thing, as we reflect and learn from each attempt. It truly was an awkward situation for all involved, you – Brother Owen, myself, the presidency and the Council of Judges. None of us knew exactly how to handle it but we got through it. I also duly noted Bishop Harding’s manifest protectiveness of you. His inventive strategies and novel procedures were wielded admirably in your defense.2 In this context of reflection and evaluation I proceed to ask a few simple questions and to offer a few humble suggestions for all of us to ponder and discuss and hopefully to grow from. I will proceed chronologically as well as my memory can recall as I am not allowed to have a copy of the proceedings.3 The very first thing I remember was as my witnesses walked in with me, my dear and precious sweethearts, they were treated so gruffly and with so much disrespect and seeming contempt. Why was such allowed to happen? I surely seemed to me that they were treated as though they were the enemy and my one wife had to forcefully reprimand Bishop H. to cause him to cease his very coarse treatment of her sister wife out on the basketball floor. Bishop H. insisted they had to be interviewed as to their worthiness to even be witnesses and whether they could possibly offer any possible evidence relating to the charges against you, Bro. Owen. “No character witnesses will be allowed in this trial” Bishop H. intoned with marked agitation. At this point, only having arrived 2 minutes earlier with such a spirit initiating (intimating) what was to come, I immediately began to have grave doubts of whether Bishop H. even had the capacity to be an impartial judge. It only got worse as things went on the rest of the day.4 As I walked into the cry room/Courtroom in the Rulon C. Allred building I noticed that all 12 of the Judges had about a hundred pages of information, evidence and written materials that had been passed out to them several days earlier to study. Next to me I saw in Bra ‘s packet that Jeff‘s and Ale d’Al ‘s materials were contained and the secret? extension of Section 132. Why was I not given a packet as well? Why was I not even notified of the time and place of the hearing but had to learn of it by having to ask you, Bro. Owen? Why wasn’t I given the rules by which the Court was to be conducted? Why wasn’t I informed that I needed to hand in my evidence and materials days before so the judges could have both sides fairly represented to better enable them to render a “righteous judgment”? I was allowed to pass out two handouts later, but this gave the Judges no real time to prayerfully study my evidence but even in that I was made to feel I was doing so improperly and only after your insistence, Bro. Owen, did I get to read through at least one of them. If you had not insisted, I truly wonder if I would have been given even the slightest representation! I had many other documents that I would have liked to have had considered but this was not allowed. Why was the standard so one sided? Was this fair? Was this just? Do you consider that “due process” occurred in these things? One might claim it was simply an oversight but such weighty oversights have, historically, been the foundation of injustice and tyranny. I’m sure, in this case, this was not the intent, but I continued to be amazed as more of this same irregular theme continued to manifest throughout the entire 7 hour proceedings.5 On the other hand, Bro. Owen, I thought your succinct opening statement was very good and answered the charges very well. You rightly summarized that it truly is a matter of interpretation and, as the Lord adds, the chief purpose of any meeting we hold under Priesthood direction is “to agree upon My Word”. (D&C 41:2)6 I was also allowed to give my opening remarks but, not having the slightest idea of proper protocol because it was not given to me, and still hasn’t been, I was made to feel that I’d only speak for a brief moment as Bishop H. did not really want my view heard any more than would fulfill the smallest portion of the letter of the law. Nonetheless, I felt, all in all, that things proceeded fairly well up to this point. I was allowed to recount very briefly my history of coming into this Work and a couple of my experiences and testimonies of the Office and Calling that you, Bro. Owen, hold.7 As the Court continued I noticed that even though all twelve Judges had drawn lots according to the pattern revealed by the Lord in D&C 102, I never did have (it) clear who my three Counselors were, whose duty it was to make sure that I was not wrongfully dealt with or that I was fairly represented. By the end of the trial and after 7 hours I was still unsure who they were. Why were they not moved next to me for me to confer with as I had about a hundred questions that I wanted asked of you, Bro. Owen, but only one out of the hundred, 1% was ever allowed to be asked.8 Was this another oversight? One question that I did have, B. W., the youngest member among us, just happened to ask at the beginning of the hearing. “Bro. Owen did you get the Word of the Lord to release A... from S. Murphy?” And you will remember that you refused to answer that question.9 When you refused to answer, I reflected back on the Prophet Joseph Smith when he was being tried a couple of times. He answered every question, completely opening himself up to scrutiny and encouraged a full shining of light into his life to search for any wrong which, if found, he freely and totally confessed. He allowed many, many questions to be asked of him and didn’t seem to project himself above the rest. Although you may not have felt superior, your refusal to answer the first question, certainly sent a shock wave throughout the entire Court and sent a loud and cautioning message that you were in charge and would determine how much justice you were even going to allow in that room. Oh yes, you did answer B.’s and my question 7 hours later, but long after the message of your refusing had been received by all in the room and had powerfully established the feeling that you were not to be questioned and seemed to convey that you were not really on trial but perhaps merely going through the formality of the motions.10 The Judges were allowed to ask clarifying questions as to what the charges meant and directed their questions and sermons mainly toward me. But I wasn’t usually allowed to answer their questions or their challenging of my understanding of correct doctrine. The Bishop seemed to hurry things along and to keep me out of it as much as he could. The 12 judges mostly preached their own sermons of understanding of the current policy in both the Church and the Work and I was allowed to simply refer back to Joseph W. Musser’s article, entitled, “The Divorce Evil” as being our official position and that it contrasts to what they were all saying.11 By this time most had concluded that we couldn’t rightly judge a matter unless we had a criterion. Without a measuring stick, we couldn’t measure accurately much less judge a righteous judgment. I asked Bishop H. if we might read my one allowed handout, The Divorce Evil and for awhile he continued to deny me that request. More questions came up and all led to the necessity of a clear and proper standard by which to judge. Finally, you, Bro. Owen, insisted we read Bro. Musser’s editorial from Truth 7:200-3. I read it aloud from the actual book as everyone else followed in their photocopies of the same. At the end we discussed and tried to agree upon “the Word of the Lord” that we had just read and which Pres. Musser testified is the unchangeable, Celestial “Law of Heaven” regarding divorce for the Priesthood. I testified that what we had just read is true and that is exactly what I believe, every word of it.12 Many wrestled with it and tried to get around it, modify it or explain it away – practically speaking. Some attempts to get by the Celestial law, as I recall were: “It is quite clear that what we have just read truly is the Celestial Law regarding divorce. But we live in the real world and the ideal is almost impossible to carry out.13 We all fall short so we can't hold each other accountable to such a high standard. It would damn all of us. Let’s be practical.”14 Another wrestled with the Celestial Law regarding divorce citing a case similar to my own where his wife lost a child which began to explode their marriage. Looking back he felt it was a good thing that you, Bro. Owen gave his wife a divorce from him and the proof was that she came back to him just before she died. You will remember that I said to him, that according to what we just read, the Celestial Law, she committed adultery when she married her next husband before coming back to him. Thank God he didn’t sleep with her after she came back! I then testified that this Work is about Celestial Law and if we must condescend to administer a lower law like Moses was forced to do, let’s be clear which level of Law we are administering. We must be careful not to use the Celestial Sealing keys to marry a couple into “adultery”, which is exactly what Bro. Musser had just testified, since there is no provision in the Celestial Law for a woman to divorce her husband. The only exception would, of course be, if the word by the Spirit of prophecy was received or the direct word of the Lord commanding such a divorce. A “warm fuzzy” in such a case or sincere sentiments of sympathy obviously would not fill the bill.15 Another Judge aptly gave a discourse on our current tradition but in marked contrast with the Word of the Lord or the beautifully clear teaching of our Savior, the Law of Heaven as delivered by a man who knew his Savior face to face, Joseph W. Musser. Brother Musser of course knew about how many exceptions could be brought to dethrone the Celestial Law and yet nonetheless wrote down for us, to help and bless us, what the requirements are in marriage and the only legitimate grounds for a wife ever being released from her husband. We then broke again for a few minutes. Upon returning the real trial began. According to Priesthood Law as revealed from heaven, through the Prophet Joseph Smith and recorded in D&C 102 and the extensive details fond in the minutes of the Kirtland Council Minute Book, the presiding Judge, M. H., in this case, was to be an impartial Judge and after the hearing of all the evidence and hearing the counsel of the other 12 or 14 Judges in the room, he was to render a just verdict by the Spirit of revelation. The other 12 or 14 Judges were then to be asked to agree or to offer other evidence, or insight, as they felt inspired to do. That is “due process” as the Lord has revealed it for those of us of his Priesthood to follow. But what happened next? The 7 or 8 charges that were preferred by Stephen Murphy against, you Bro. Owen, were side stepped and a new trial began.16 Even though a great issue was made the first few minutes of the day, that no character witnesses would be allowed in that trial, and that was adamantly demanded by Bishop H. seemingly to stop anyone speaking that would in any way support my point of view. The “no character witness policy” was only directed against my live and present witnesses. Then Bishop H., the President and Chief Judge, took off his judge’s robes and put on the robes of the prosecuting attorney, operating in both roles at the same time, and wanted to read an hour’s worth of “character defamation” letters from a person who was not even present and could not be questioned as my witnesses were 4 hours later. My character witnessing wasn’t allowed and yet this man broke his own rule, in front of all those witnesses taking off his white Priesthood roes and put on the black robes of the prosecuting attorney not using character witnesses but an(a) anti-character-witness which was very inflammatory and demoralizing in their intent.17 Bro. Owen, you will recall that I challenged such an underhanded manipulation. I reasoned with Bishop H. until he accused me of contention. I then asked, at least for my live witnesses to be brought in so they could at least give their living and present witnesses as to what they had experienced living with the NEWLY accused person that was now to be put on trial, St ...M. Mur. I pointed out these facts and no logical reason or legitimate basis was brought up to even pretend to sanction such a heinous slight of hand and illegal proceeding. Even in the Gentile courts, such a maneuver would have been thrown out by the Judge. But in our Priesthood Hearing, it was the Judge who now appointed himself to be my accuser and your trial, Bro. Owen, was over. I can't remember hearing my 3 Judges, appointed to come to my defense, even make the slightest peep. Not one sound! Even in the mock trial of Jesus there was more justice than with us, Bro. Owen. Does this distress you? Is this not a visible sign to us all of how sick we truly are and are we not all aware that when actual justice ceases among us then we cease to be actual Priesthood or real representatives of the Lord? But, after strongly and repeatedly objecting, Bishop H. simply said he was going to do it anyway. Oh my God, I thought, Bro. H. has forgotten the Savior’s words that the same judgment he is measuring out to me will be measured again to him I fear greatly for this man who has no more Spirit of justice than that, such that he couldn't even feel the treacherous thing he did. His scattering to the far winds all those exaggerated and warped memories of a very sick and twisted woman, who, herself, will be largely unaccountable for her actions based on her mental state, was his only means of defense. Sad, but true. With Bishop H. using such as a weapon of destruction, a manifest intent to destroy me, my reputation, any influence I may have for good, and against my posterity is a crime that even if he could possibly make it right with me, he will know no end of suffering for. You may watch this man’s career from this point forth, it will not be pretty.18 I forgive my poor wounded sweetheart for spreading such twisted fragments in such a self justifying manner. Bishop J. has likewise spread, through garbled, intimate and personal things, I guess prompted by the spirit that directs him to publish such garbage as an official act of his “bishopric”. Witnesses have shared with me his delight in so doing. What do you think, Bro. Owen? Did the Spirit of God with you, justify these actions of Bishop H.? What about my 3 defenders, where were they? It seemed like 15 to 1.19 I testify, in the fear of Almighty God that only about 10 % of the context, seeming quotes and intent was even close to accurate in Ann’s letters justifying her illegal divorce, at least according to Joseph Musser. Why weren’t my wives allowed to give their memories of their experiences of being married to the same man and mostly in the same house? Wouldn’t it have given a more rounded out version? No but that was not the intent, was it? The intent was all too clear. The spirit prompting such a horrible mockery of justice was to character assassinate me and thereby relieve you, Bro. Owen, of even having to answer the 8 charges against you. Can you look me in the eye and tell me I got “due process” of Priesthood law? Was it a just trial? But I sat there for almost an hour and quietly and meekly endured such abomination, humiliation and injustice that made the mockery of my Church trial pale in comparison! I never objected after Bishop H. started reading and only once interjected a short clarifying comment. After the avalanche of overkill that was allowed to go on and on by the other two presiding judges on both sides of Bishop H. as well as my 3 protectors and the Head of the Priesthood for all the earth, I merely said, “To hold a trial and to conduct such an evil and warped man as these letters portray, would have been an easy matter. The person described or fabricated in these letters is worse than Ervil LeBaron.” In such light then why wasn’t a court convened? Why wasn’t proper Priesthood procedure followed as was revealed to you, Bro. Owen in Pinesdale in 1990? Is there more to this then these twisted letters reveal?20 Even after these letters of character assassination were read, was I allowed to even comment? No! D. W. was then invited in to act as a “character witness” for you Brother Owen and for his mother D. W.- A. Dav. revealed that Del. had a civil divorce, not a Celestial Priesthood Release, about 1981. Dav. counseled his mother that she was still sealed to Gar. and couldn't remarry until that sealing covenant was broken. It was witnessed to us, second hand at best, that Mar. fasted and prayed and got the Word of the Lord by the Spirit of Prophecy that Del. was to be released from Gar. and did so in the RCA building one day after meeting about 1990. If I remember correctly, she asked to come into your family at a year later. I’m glad for you Bro. Owen, I really didn’t want you to be an adulterer and I hope your brother really did get the word of the Lord according to the requirements that Bro. Musser testified to us are the Celestial Law of Heaven. If G.’s offenses were so great, which Dav. did in good taste did not elaborate on, then why was a divorce ordinance even needed to be done by Bro. Mar.? President Young said no such ordinance even exists, and Joseph Musser said when a man loses his Priesthood no bill of divorcement is even needed, as Del. would have been automatically divorced. Nonetheless, wanting to believe this second or third generation removed “character witness,” representing both his mother and Mar., I wanted to believe it and so promptly withdrew my charge in this area based on this proxy “character witness.”21 Bishop H. cut loose again accusing me as a prosecuting attorney, hurling a railing accusation at me vehemently charging me with bearing false witness. I answered I bore no witness but merely made charges that, you Bro. Owen, haven't even made the slightest attempt to talk to me about, man to man to give me any other facts to even try and set the matter straight. I asked Bishop H. if he knew the difference between making charges and bearing a false witness. Not only did you, Bro. Owen, allow Bishop B. to stop the first trial 18 months ago, but you stopped my second attempt that you authorized me in writing to initiate. The second attempt was through the President of the Seventy Apostles in SLC, Ric. K. He wrote me and said you had commanded him to stop as he had no jurisdiction. So if this matter was not cleared up, and has caused embarrassment, it was not my intent, but I was actually only trying to stop the liberal divorce tradition in the Work that is contrary to Bro. Musser’s candid teachings, so my marriage to A. might have some additional time to be saved. My wife had barely gotten out of extensive therapy to help her undo the scars of her evil father, and was not yet very stable but rushed now into transgressing the Celestial law of divorce.22 Bro. Owen, I felt your closing remarks, especially the history of your early beginnings in the Work, were very well done and I even enjoyed them. I really did. The only thing that bothered me was your implying that my three wives were just like Joe’s three wiv... who still believe he is righteous. May God bless you to finish your mission valiantly for the cause of truth is my sincere prayer. Your brother in Christ Jesus, Ste. Mur The Work on Trial 5 I have copied this open letter to clear up the typescript which is difficult to read. In the process, I have discovered portions that are not only disturbing, but confirming of what I have come to suspect all along about the state of this Work and its luminaries. In football terms, I see the need to make an end run around the defensive line and throw a pass out of reach of the defending team. I hope that there is at least one wide-receiver who will evade their secondaries through prayer to make the pass complete and run the ball of truth all the way to the Celestial end-zone. 1Bro. Steve certainly needs someone in his corner and although the contest has long been over, its message still resonates. This paragraph shows not how you address a senior priesthood colleague, but a monarch on his throne. “Bro. Joseph, we hardly knew ye.” I can just see the sacred cup of incense held aloft by the hierophant while in the background the softly ringing tones of the cestrum sound. Bro. Steve can be excused for his brief rhapsody; the Irish have a gift for blarney. (What’s actually going on here is an attempt to open a man’s heart.) 2With the wisdom of hindsight, or even on-the-spot perspicacity, I am not so optimistic that the lessons learned from this trial-become-ordeal will produce a return to even the Anglo-Saxon model of community justice – would that it could. This trial in form more is in the spirit of the show trials of forlorn communists run afoul of Stalinism that took place in the 1930s in the court of prosecuting judge Vishinsky. The parallel is inescapable: a faith judged by a power. 3The character of this trial here begins to show itself; it will not prove to be a search for truth, harmony, or healing, but an adversarial proceeding in which the outcome will be directed. This trial is a display of the “new standard and character of the Work” which we had all better heed, whether we are inspired or impressed to agree with it and embrace it, or not. 4It seems to me that the Spirit of the Lord impressing itself upon those worthies rendering judgment would be strong enough to overcome any presentation calculated to deceive or sway the emotions, and therefore if a brother desires, he should in the spirit of love for a man in distress, be able to present his best case as he sees fit. Notice the emotion directed against sisters, with malice before they are even heard, as though any disrespect were justified at any time. Charity is long-suffering, the Bible says. (As an aside, I have a strong aversion to the word, brother, as I have heard it used. One might as well call each other comrade, the way the communists used to do. One understanding the Russians have of that term is, fellow sufferer.) 5I feel like a judge at a boxing match. I count six impropriates in this paragraph; did I miss something in my scoring, so far? In the courts of the land, a postponement would be allowed to correct deficiencies in preparation and presentation of evidence, particularly since amateurs are involved. I certainly am not going to hide my astonishment at anyone who says that our justice-seeking is more humane, more in keeping with the Spirit of God, etc. than anybody else’s. Perhaps our thing is better because our people are better people and have access to the Spirit of the Lord to determine truth from error. Access, indeed. Let’s see how the Spirit of the Lord expresses itself in these inspired people. 6Unhappily, one swallow does not make a summer. The record will show that Bro. Owen’s garde du corps did not regard this solemn pronouncement from the man who from God presides over all the earth as applying to this trial turned ordeal. 7In addition to the oratorical gift bestowed upon the Irish by the benevolent Deity, Bro. Steve also shows the British talent for understatement. The Inquisitors called their methods, “unsealing the secrets of the soul.” When you look beyond the forms, the intent of those who rule by force is the same. 8The journey of discovery is indeed a painful one, but it reveals that which would be hidden. The trial of Bro. Steve is the trial of us all. It is the trial of conscience; it is the trial of the dignity and worth of human beings before the Lords of Power. Even the lords are afraid to even be perceived as favoring he who is not favored by their fellows. Jesus, God’s Viceroy, has long ago put the receiver back on the cradle where these men of God are concerned. Don’t believe me? Ask Him yourself. 9A matter of such eternal weight and consequence as Celestial marriage calls for consultation, even before an open book containing the law upon which Celestial marriage is administered. If we love the Lord enough to seek him to serve him in righteousness, should we not know his will in a thing he cares so deeply about that it is kept from the world? The question I will ask to follow up is, “If not, then why not?” Getting a truthful answer to that question is more important than the first. There is a scripture in which Jesus reminds us that the servant is not greater than his lord. Who is the lord of these judges, is it Jesus Christ, or Owen Allred? 10Having spent as much time as I have on these subjects, I have come to a frame of mind that comparing Joseph Smith to those in his stead now is rather a long stretch. Joseph Smith had long ago put aside preoccupation with self-preservation before men with the more important issue of carrying out the work he had been commissioned by his Savior to do. His graciousness was in keeping with the example of Jesus when he dwelt among men. The example of Joseph in advancing justice by submitting to it himself is worthy of an article, in itself. It was done in the spirit of true brotherhood, not a brotherhood in a parody of the name. Joseph was quick to accept correction and repent, the better to get along with the business of perfecting himself before his Savior. We have two examples to choose from. 11Reading over this area is what prompted me to copy the letter and write comments. These men were all quoting the doctrines and precedents of men, and of the LDS Church, no less. I can find good things in the way the church handles some social policy, but surely not administering the law of God. What this tells me is that the departure of the lawmakers of this Work from the law made for us by the Lord through Joseph is one of long standing acceptance and practice. I think dear Bro. Steve is in the unenviable position of having brought a knife to a gun fight. 12This is the high point of the trial. It represents an attempt to get things right, but as you will see, it will not be sustained for long. It is the watershed moment, but it passed quickly enough. Either men will accept and submit themselves to God’s law as God’s priesthood holders, or they will adopt an ignorant and independent position analogous to the Catholic “Jesus checked out and left us boss” position. They’ve got to do the best they can, because the Lord’s not really, directly involved anymore. I wonder why. They and all those who follow them have adopted the attitude that the Lord’s not able to be spoken with and certainly a voice in our head that contradicts our reasoning as to how to handle the things we face cannot be relied upon. Is it really the Lord we are hearing, or just our own selves? We have a tin can and a string with which to obtain the oracles of God. These are your Lord’s anointed in action as they really are when they face a test of faith, discernment and obedience. This is what the spiritual and social and cultural environment of the Work has bred as its finest examples. Is it time to say, “To your tents, O Israel”? “Truer words were never spoken,” as the saying goes. “We live in the real world.” That’s just the point. the purpose of the Savior’s ministry was to get us into his world through living the commandments. The purpose of Joseph Smith’s ministry was the same. The speaker of this gem of wisdom is firmly rooted in the real world, which is what we speak against, again and again, over the pulpit when we speak of Babylon, a world whose philosophy is one of control and denial of the true way back to the Savior, as well as commandment-breaking and sexual sin where the game of “musical beds” is accepted. It is the world that denies the saving gospel, the exalting gospel. And because the speaker and those he speaks for -don’t want to try to adopt a higher standard and move towards the light when it’s inconvenient or too difficult, they are stuck in eternal stasis, marking time. Thus is there revealed a secret kept among the Council of the brethren, do they rule by what is practical – for them? Rule with the judgment of men requires secrecy, lest others should discover what really governs this Work. Welcome to realpolitik. We bear the name of Jesus Christ, but we are of the world, no less so than the LDS. These apologists have plainly said so, and I, for one, think you can believe them. 14“We can’t hold each other accountable or we’d all be damned.” There you have the oath and covenant of their priesthood, repeatedly impressed upon them by an alleged disciple of the Other Side. Well, you don’t have to hold each other accountable, you can just leave that up to Christ, who is not only the Savior, but the Judge. “And in that day many shall come to me crying lord, lord, have we not cast out devils in your name and done any marvelous works, and I shall profess unto them, depart from me, you never knew me. This is darkness at noonday. The friends of men were around in Brigham’s day, but they were too afraid of him to make a peep. They began to discover each other in John Taylor’s reign and gained the upper hand with Wilford Woodruff. 15Here we have the voice of reason advising administering a standard appropriate to the capabilities of those who find a celestial standard too hard to live. It causes me to wonder just how widespread is the sin of adultery combined with covetousness. I wonder if some of this misapplication of celestial marriage has not been done to gain the cooperation of women in unions that had to be celestial in form, but were not undertaken in a celestial spirit. The opposite of love is not hate, it is not indifference; it is using someone. If this is what we have going on among us, we are a mutant form of the gospel. 16The way a trial before a priesthood court is supposed to work is that the presiding Judge opens himself to be impressed by the Spirit to discern truth from error, presumably with a mind to do what is best for all concerned after the verdict, but especially as pertains to the accused. Exhibiting an animus that is ill-contained is hardly conducive to obtaining the will of the Lord and is indicative that the Spirit of the Lord is not sought and is not to be directive in either what comes to the minds of the “defending prosecutors” or the Judges. Generally speaking, in such an environment, it is difficult for anyone involved to obtain and maintain such a spirit. 17This shows what can happen in an environment wherein force and fear prevail. Since all the defending prosecutor-judges belong to the same club and will have to live with each other afterward, there can be no appeal to impartial fairness, no interruption of the juggernaut for a point of order. They have to avoid offending each other as a higher priority than obtaining justice for a brother who is not in their eyes a complaisant brother and therefore not a brother in other than name. The system of justice from which this mockery is derived simply will not work to achieve anything above a telestial standard, unless the participants are behaving like men of God should. The standard displayed by these judgers has more in common with the Ku Klux Klan, than the priesthood of God. 18In the wrested justice of the high court of Henry VIII, the word used to stifle unpleasant interruption was contumely, and the accused, in this case, Catherine of Aragon, was declared to be contumacious. In the judicial system of the communists in its full flower, the defending attorney had the role of not making the case for innocence, but for trying to mitigate the sentence. Bro. Steve didn’t even have that. I wonder if the judges didn’t get their model for judicial conduct from Pyongyang. (As an aside, I feel moved to say that I devoutly hope these people never bear rule over all the earth in God’s name or anyone else’s.) 19 The very thing Joseph Smith enjoined against in warning the brethren not to destroy a brother based on testimony that is manifestly doubtful and able to be contended by witnesses -is here proclaimed. In football, this is a foul called “piling on” when the player in possession of the ball is down. Give the poor yappy dog something else to chew on. And so, the inmates have put on the frocks of the keepers, or is it the hooded cloaks of the Prince of Imposters? “Priesthood is as priesthood does,” I’m fond of saying. This is a new religion using the forms of the one gone before. It is a very old religion, also, older than the Book of Genesis. “Do what thou will,” is its fundamental creed. 20I am minded of these lines from the movie, Goldfinger. The portly villain has Bond tied to his torture table familiarly used for laser cutting gold bars. “Surely, Goldfinger, you don’t expect me to talk.” “No, no, Mr. Bond, I don’t want you to talk; I want you to die.” It is clear to me that what all these people really want is for Bro. Steve to just go away and let them have the run of their religious creation all to themselves. The cloak of charity, ignorance really, must cover speculation as to the expanse of motives that prompt so many to be so rabid in contravening what is supposed to be their own laws and conventions in order to get Bro. Steve to go away. “In animas, veritas patent,” the saying goes, meaning, “in hatred there is truth revealed.” 21Wouldn’t it have been simple for a defending advocate to be steered to present this second-hand testimony early on containing the sought-after word that God had, in fact indicated His approval for the event described? There was far more energy devoted to discrediting the appellant, than establishing the defense of the accused. “Methinks, thou dost protest, too much.” 22The journey to truth for Bro. Steve puts me in mind of the struggle of thinkers in the 16th century to explain the motion of the planets using a “crystal spheres” model that would explain why the earth is the center of the solar system and thus the universe. The truth, proven by Johannes Keppler is much more simple: the sun is the center of the solar system and the planets describe elliptical orbits. Why this proceeding took the lawless form it did is that communication with God has been severed (or is hanging by a thread if you want to believe the second-hand testimony that the Lord’s will was in dissolving a marriage) as to discerning truth from error and showing the higher wisdom of love for one-another. “By their fruits, ye shall know them.” (Mt. 7:20) So passes into history a noble experiment to enable men to rise to be one with the mind, spirit and purpose of the Creator and Finisher of this world? Is this, indeed, the end of the line, or is it just the turning of another leaf in review. You now have the opportunity to decide for yourself by making a start using the right you have to obtain the word of the Lord for yourself on the matter, and what he would have you do. MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN (Dan. 5:25)
— A posthaven user 9 years ago
Seventh Call – The Perils of Passivity Part of the problem of having a moribund to extinct system of participatory law and justice among us stems from the time of Joseph Musser. We read in the blogs (blog 29) that the solution to the Killgrow maniacal marriage style came directly from Bro. Musser and no others were mentioned as being consulted. For reasons unknown to me (a member of a generation far removed) Bro. Musser relied on his own authority (plus), as did Bro. Brigham before him, to rectify marriages gone wrong. I suspect this was done during the period in which the Work was embattled from outside and under hostile scrutiny, so quiet, discreet judgment was deemed best for the parties involved, as well as the general membership. “Out of sight, out of mind,” was a useful tactic to reduce provoking a groundswell of righteous indignation from the electorate who viewed polygamy as a barbarous, even unchristian form of oppression of women. Thus a precedence was set for one-man justice. To protect the good, the less than good had to have their place, unchallenged – and their victims. (“Say it isn’t so.”) In Blog 8 of learnjustice.posthaven.com, the polemic against Bro. Steve, we hear this theme repeated. The powers that be among us apparently fear publicity and the possibility of schism (pronounced “sissim”) more than doing what is right. With time there have emerged those who have found it more and more easy to take advantage of the opportunities provided by secrecy, authority, and submission to privately reinterpret the working of the Work to their advantage. Now this accommodation to the interests of men has reached the point where our link with God is in question and the continued validity of what we hold most sacred. The men who would lead us to sustain Lynn Thompson do not question, at least to our hearing. Is this a form of progression that is eternal? (“Say it isn’t so.”) War is the Devil’s playground. Otherwise good people will abandon the good in favor of achieving safety or advantage, and too often the standard of good is never entirely recovered in the society, but the Devil’s distorting hold on the thinking of men estranging them from God gains yet another 10 yards, play after play until the people of God are pushed back to a goal line stand. When the recognized authority of a Joseph Musser and a Rulon Allred is present, the membership need not fear that although justice may be delayed, it will not be denied. In a sense, it doesn’t matter how the government of the kingdom is handled as long as we have a man or a few men of good will (plus) to administer. These men of God were so far advanced beyond their contemporaries that they had about them an aura that inspired awe and profound respect, even fear. Those who kept a lesser standard were nevertheless held to a higher standard, at least in public, than they would have maintained on their own. The blogs reveal this equilibrium of private justice to avoid public annoyance and protect the member-ship from the pain of awareness of internal infamy, as well as to avoid provoking external acts of war was torqued to the breaking point when these exponents of righteousness were no longer here. (“Say it isn’t so.”) Read the story of Eli, the High Priest in the 1st Book of Samuel, chapters 2 and 3. All along, within the secret precincts of the family, this recognition of a mantle revealed in its living example, Bro. Rulon, was claimed by men who did not deserve it and did not strive for it, either. In the blogs we read of two examples in which even Brigham had to correct himself from abusing a brother and a sister-wife. At least, that’s what Brigham did: he corrected himself. This awe and respect existed as a reality in the minds of the membership and was passed on in a mantle of sacredness (even to the extent of infallibility) to their successors. Too many have accepted the notion that when compared to Joseph and Rulon, they cannot ever be like them and so must do the best they can by deferring to the judgment of those they perceive as similarly endowed – “the Lord’s anointed”. Bro. Steve in the blogs tells the story of how this unquestioned mantle of authority and righteousness clothed Bro. Owen and insulated the membership from a knowledge of the secret doings on high and a true perspective of the interplay of right and wrong. (“Say it isn’t so.”) I think God has been patient with us and I even presume that for the sake of those who are trying with the best of their abilities and understanding to live the gospel in righteousness, God has held His peace. I believe, however, that God, for the sake of accomplishing His strategic plan to save the more righteous of all lineages and traditions He has placed to live in this world-iteration in the winding up scenes, can’t afford to indulge us any longer. God has a schedule to keep. Either we recognize our wretched state before him in the face of the perilous nature of our time and repent, or we will suffer along with the rest. Bro. Steve is the canary in the coal mine of the soul of a people perilously close to, dare I say it? Apostasy. (“Say it isn’t so.”) Amicus Finch “It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.” Joseph Smith Jr. (TPJS, p. 332) “And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.” (Mosiah 29:27) “And upon my house shall it begin . . . First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.” (D & C 112:25, 26) (Knowingly and deliberately doing wrong while representing God before others is blasphemy.) Refusing to do what is necessary to restore the power of God to his people is wrong. Sustaining, likewise. “…Salvation is an individual operation. I am the only person that can possibly save myself. When salvation is sent to me, I can reject or receive it. In receiving it, I yield implicit obed- ience and submission to its great Author throughout my life, and to those whom He shall appoint to instruct me; in rejecting it, I follow the dictates of my own will in reference to the will of my Creator. There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salva- tion in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor weak, fellow mortals. ‘I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own,’ say they, ‘to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, bro- ther James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for and; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem.” Brigham Young (J.D. 1:312) This is worth a comment. The text expresses an apparent contradiction. It is all too easy to let strong emotions imprinted upon us in childhood highlight for us the one and subordinate the other. On the one hand, Brother Brigham will implicitly obey and submit to those persons whom the Author of Salvation appoints to instruct him, and on the other, he will reject depending on other people to direct him in all things. I believe the answer to these apparently opposite guides lies in praying to God for specific instruction as to who stands acceptable to God in the office of a minister and who does not. When one has a body of scriptural knowledge and an active conscience empowered by living the gospel, any error in teaching will immediately or soon thereafter trigger a shout of warning within the mind and the spirit. The touchstone that allows obedience and following and withholds credibility is prayer and accepting the word of the Lord. “Trust, but Verify.” Brigham is not talking out of two sides of his mouth, but is approaching the problem of who and when to accept and when and how to reject an invitation to follow from both sides of the issue. We have to find the center. The text continues: “…Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, sus- pending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they antici- pate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can have scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.” Brigham Young (J.D. 1:312) “We need the light of the Holy Spirit continually, day by day, as you have been told hundreds of times. How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction unless you actually know the mind and will of the Spirit yourselves. That is your privilege.” Brigham Young (J.D. 4:368) “I want you to have faith enough concerning myself and my counselors for the Lord to remove us out of the way, if we do not magnify our calling, and put men in our places that will do right.” Brigham Young (J.D. 9:142) Only I would make this not passive silence, but open petition for either understanding or deliverance. “And so, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good – yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.” (D&C 11:12) I think the problem lies not so much with the form of governance we have or its administration (that’s reason enough for concern), but in the hearts of those who execute it and with those followers who refuse to recognize the evil in their midst and pray for deliverance if so prompted, as the Prophet Brigham taught. He had to contend with the same tendencies in his day that we have in ours.
— A posthaven user 9 years ago