Blog # 5 - A Preliminary Investigation Into the Charges Against Bro. Lynn Based on the Law of the Gospel

Many people have expressed the point of view that this unsavory situation with Bro. Lynn will never be resolved until there is an impartial hearing justly evaluating the mounting charges being leveled against him.  But who shall be the jury?  This question seems to be a bit like fly paper, too sticky to ever be free from or we might call it “a real dilemma” also.  Do you honestly think one could find even 6 righteous men among us who would dare hear charges against their file leader and much more, dare render a just verdict against him if warranted?

Consider the trial I convened against Bro. Owen, for adultery, back in 2001.  I personally witnessed that the 15 judges, all good men, none of whom were very anxious to cross him even a little.  If Bro. Owen said “no” to anything whatsoever, in the trial, all jumped up and clicked their heels and agreed that whatever he said was the “law”.  His tone of what he would allow, right or wrong, was the dominant governing principle then and it would be in such a hearing on Bro. Lynn as well.  Imagine how much justice would prevail in such an investigation, as that in 2001, where, for example, I was not allowed to present one piece of evidence or even cross examine his witnesses – not one piece of evidence!  Not one of the judges objected not even the ones who are now on the council. 

After approximately an hour, Bro Owen finally, out of the "magnanimity of his heart", allowed me to finally present one single document, and only one document, which was an editorial by Pres. J.W.Musser, from Truth 7:200-202 - "The Divorce Evil".  The judges wrestled against Brother Musser’s logic and spirit for more than an hour, finding it an impossible task to defeat his power filled words.  Finally, the court I called, was turned back on me and the next six hours were a trial against Bro. Steve. Almost magically, all the judges, became prosecuting attorneys against me.   And what was my crime?  I violated the greatest, unspoken commandment among us, that of even daring to bring any question or charge against the file leader over all priesthood!  HERESY!!! “What gives you the right to even question this holy man of God?  How dare you bring the vile charge of adultery against the man who holds the Keys of the priest.hood, God’s prophet of over the whole earth!?” 

My few allowed witnesses were rudely cross examined and roughly treated.  Bro. Owen was allowed to even bring forth secondary witnesses but they couldn’t be cross examined, very much, because they didn’t have enough knowledge of the situation to answer.  They were but substitutes of the real witnesses.  Next, a highly charged and lengthy letter was submitted and accepted as “evidence” but the author was not even present to be cross examined by me, my witnesses or the 15 judges.  Was this a justice court or a “kangaroo court”?  A few days later, a 54 page appeal containing a sampling of the documents from both sides, will become Blogs #s 32 – 42 so you can get a bit of the flavor of such embarrassing and tyrannical proceedings under the direction of an often short sighted group called the priesthood. 

What if, in an investigation of Bro. Lynn, one or more of the judges eventually became convinced during the course of the hearing that some or all of the charges and evidence being offered against Bro. Lynn, might have merit?  How many men in this Work would have the courage to stand up, think for themselves and judge a righteous judgment?  If, on the one hand, the presiding judge ruled that Lynn was innocent of all charges, but even two or three didn’t agree with his ruling, would we gain any ground toward deciding on what is true or false in this situation?  Obviously not!

So what are we to do?  What would be a better solution that we could all live with?  In the KJV of the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, (Matt. 7:1) we read:  “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”  Some narrowly interpret that to mean that we should thus never decide or evaluate the merits, for or against, in a disagreement between two individuals and their varied points of view. 

We have been taught that contention is always of the devil: "he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil."         3 Ne 11:29  But have we looked at both sides of the coin before we once again jump to false conclusions?  Consider Jesus also teaching the opposite point of view in D&C 18:20.  "Contend against no 'church' [gathering of people] save it be the church of the devil."  What does does the Lord mean by that?  Consider:  "... ask God ... that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men, for some are of men and others of devils."  (D&C 46:7)  If a servant of God filled with light and truth calls somebody to repentance, there truly is conflict there and someone may become offended by it and yell and scream and fill with a bad spirit.  But is the servant of God filled with the spirit of contention?  No, he is filled with the spirit of the Lord which contends against all darkness and untruth.  So is the Lord commanding us to contend, or to stand up against people, especially among us, who preach false doctrines?  Should we bring their teachings and actions into the light of day for judgment or not? 

Don’t you really believe that we should evaluate and make judgments every day to even survive in this world?  Then what was Jesus really saying?  The prophet corrected the meaning of the verse to say:  “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.”  Again, the apostle John [in John 7:24, 51] testified to the same truth when he wrote:  “Judge not according to ‘appearances’ [alternate translation – ‘traditions’], but judge righteous judgment.”  Thus when we judge by fixed principles of truth, as those found in the scriptures, while discerning by the power of the Holy Ghost, we are thus enabled to take off the colored lenses of our traditions which then enables us to view clearly, discerning truth from error in matters of disagreement or contention. 

The next question that keeps popping up is, who gives you, Bro. Steve, the right to even be looking into this matter with Bro. Lynn?  That is a good question and needs to be addressed, to be sure.  Did Jesus say we have no right to judge, or rather that if we find ourselves in a situation where we feel we have to make judgments, do it with true, eternal principles and with the Spirit of God?  Jesus commanded us to judge righteously, didn’t He?  Another may say, yes, but only one another, not one of the apostles!  Notice, however, that Jesus expressly says we have the right and the duty to even judge apostles and prophets. 

“… the inhabitants [men & women?] of Zion [those trying to live celestial principles – right?] shall judge ALL things pertaining to Zion. And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.”   (D&C 64:38-39)  The word “shall” is the English imperative command that indicates that if we are trying to apply celestial principles we “shall” prove, judge or even try apostles to see if they are liars or hypocrites [wearing a mask] or merely posing as saints.

The evidence I’ve read and heard, so far, by those brave ones willing to stand up for correct principle, courageously sticking their necks out of their protective fox holes, and also others who are yet building up courage to testify what they know from experience to be the truth, offends me greatly!  Most of you haven’t yet seen even half of the evidence that has presented itself even to me, and the council probably has even more testimonies before them.  If you saw and could evaluate the evidence, on your own, would that be a good thing or would knowing more of the truth of this situation, hurt your testimony of God’s holy attribute of justice, and weaken your conviction that it is our duty to bring offenders of God's commandments to an accounting? 

What does the Lord command us to do when somebody offends us or trespasses against us?  Should we just gossip and complain to our neighbors or our friends? Do we have an obligation to the person offending us, to take our reasons and feelings to that person and attempt to work it out with them?  Yes we do!  Don’t we have the duty to apply the Law of the Gospel of Christ, in such situations, as we have covenanted?  What is that Law of God in this case?

Matthew 18:15-17     International Standard Version

Jesus commands us:  "If your brother sins against you [offends you], go and confront him while the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother.  But if he doesn't listen, take one or two others with you so that 'every word may be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If, however, he ignores them, tell it to the congregation. If he also ignores the congregation, regard him as an unbeliever and a tax collector.”

In D&C 42:84-93 Jesus commands:  if a man or woman ... do any manner of iniquity, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law, even that of God.

88 And if thy brother or sister offend thee [or sins against you], thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.

89 And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world [this is why I am only using first names].

90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.

91 And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.

92 If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her.

93 And thus shall ye conduct in all things.

What does “offend” mean?  Synonyms are: to shock, to wound, to annoy, to injure, to violate, to disturb, to attack and to make angry.  If - the mounting charges and testimonies of sin that I’ve heard against Bro. Lynn are true, then I am deeply offended that Lynn would even be thought of as presiding among us!  Wouldn’t it also greatly offend you if you knew the charges were true? 

Our feelings aside, what does the Lord command us, in the scriptures above, to do about such violations? Are we to play as the blind, to testify that the "emperor has clothes on" when he doesn't?   Are we to be prematurely merciful and forgive him as in condoning sin before it is repented of?  Is this the price you are willing to pay so that we might have "peace" among us with no "contention" to the point where we call evil - good?  Is that what the Lord would have us do to enable us to be the people of God this year?  No!  Peace comes from the Spirit of God which demands that justice be satisfied first and then the Spirit of God grants mercy to those who have sincerely repented of all their sins.  Penitent ones are forgiven through the Lord’s atonement, not those who deny any wrong doing and keep on sinning year after year, covering their sins while relying on the “mis-timed mercy” of the people.

Bro. Steve

3 responses
Comments, Blog 5. Our Trial Process, or A Preliminary Investigation Into the Charges Against Bro. Lynn 1. Para. 1. This question reminds me of the Abraham and Lot story. Abraham bargains with God to spare Sodom. God accepts this game down to one man – and then God sends two angels to extract Lot and his family. The iron rails of the Justice Railroad have to be laid down in the beginning and kept in repair by the track crews, or eventually the trains will slip off and grind into the ties or take unannounced side trips down the bank. Consider this axiom: “Organizations do not reform from within.” 2. Para. 1. Despite our permissive age, children aren’t reading this blog, do we hope? “The mice were suffering the unwelcome tithes to their numbers by the cat. One enterprising mouse called together a meeting to form a Committee of Safety in order to obtain a remedy. In due course, a remedy was proposed to which all agreed, ‘Obtain a bell and collar and install it on the sleeping cat.’ The appliance was duly brought forth and pronounced fit for the purpose. Upon the next order of business the enterprise was abandoned, ‘Who’ll bell the cat?’” Who will declare truth to power, here? 3. Para. 1. If this is indeed the state of affairs among us, that even a petition before the bar of judgment is deemed adversarial, what hope do we have of realizing the promises of Zion? The Jews for centuries have been forlornly waiting for Adonai to forgive them and restore them. We Christians think they have been missing the point altogether. Have we, as well? 4. Para. 2. I wonder where the honorable judges acquired their Potsdam manners. The expression, “You are not mine, if you are not one,” comes to mind. If they were “one” in the greater part would they not have been in a prayerful state so that each and all would know the mind of the Lord and someone would be able to articulate it? God is not afraid of evidence. Perhaps they were all in a masked zone so they could not receive God’s transmissions. One of the films enemies of Mormonism once circulated was entitled, “The God-Makers.” In it, they were referring to the Mormon concept of the identity and nature of God and refuting the doctrine of eternal progression. We depart from that path when we usurp and act outside the bounds of our priesthood apprenticeship. God does not allow Himself to be free of a higher degree of the law He requires of us. There is no freedom from law, only a higher exercise thereof. 5. Para. 3. There seems to be a problem of gestalt in evidence. (How one interprets an image that has two coexistent possibilities, such as lamp stand or opposing faces.) It is not, after all, the appellant “prosecutor” that assails, but it is the facts and evidences and law that constitute the case that stand to be judged. The prosecutor merely presents. The Book of Mormon’s reference to king-men and free men comes to mind. (Alma 51:5,6) Does our understanding of what it means to be directed by inspired men need reexamination? I feel a tremor under my feet. 6. Para. 3. The Catholic Church defines heresy as (“the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith.”) What formal truth has Bro. Steve doubted or denied? Is it this one? “The laity should, as should all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience the decisions of their pastors, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the [Roman Catholic] Church.” Whose heresy is this? 7. Para. 3. In order for a radio transceiver to work, it has to be kept in working order and it has to be turned on. So it is also with the ability to obtain the will of the Lord through the attitude that enlivens prayer and listens in quiet, humble attention. 5-1 Comments, Blog 5 8. In the end here is witnessed, and there are living witnesses, a proceeding the purpose of which was to exculpate, not remedy. “O, I have slipped the surly bonds of [heaven].” 9. Para. 4. Kangaroo courts, so named by the lower-orders of British society of late 18th and 19th century, were an ad hoc convention whose purpose was to remove undesirables from the streets of London to the docks of Australia. An individual proceeding could take as little as three minutes. “The priesthood” referred to here does not include all who hold it, but a select few whose duty it is, from time to time, to impose order on the rest. 10. Para. 5. This refers to a protocol of our law that only allows a verdict of conviction to be rendered if there is unanimity among the judges. Who needs the troublesome details of the administration of law presented by Christ through Joseph Smith when we have men among us who have full authority and unimpeachable integrity? And why is their integrity unimpeachable? Because there is no un-gated avenue in which to bring charges (Catch 22). 11. Para. 6. What are called traditions (ways either created or influenced by men); represent the weeds of human nature. If allowed to grow without mowing, they will take over the pasture. Bindweed, is an appropriate metaphor because binding overcomes freedom and inhibits the harvest of good crops. 12. Para. 7. In addition to the right, contained in God’s word, there is the reason. Right and reason go together. For want of the labor of an erudite exploration, look to the way the “LDS Church” of the first-century apostles went. Its point of decision came with accepting the assistance and yoke of a government of men. In the fullness of time, it became a yoke of tyranny, itself. It formed the first trans-national state within states, imposing its will, exacting its tithes, and destroying dissenters with the Holy Inquisition. Follow its path in the second and third chapters of the book of Revelation to where we are now, “neither hot nor cold.” 13. Para. 8. Look to the way the LDS Church went from suffering a weakening of the bonds of loyalty, love, and friendship to standing naked before their enemies, some of them later shown to be within. At the point of decision, the leadership made a practical choice and the better-intended among them couldn’t take it back. If you want to understand why authority must be questioned, look beyond the borders of your mind-set, and while you’re at it, look around you and see what is happening. I see Bro. Steve in the role of a canary gone underground to give warning with his life and testimony of the presence of the deathly firedamp in the network of secret drifts, shafts, and stopes that our Work has become. As he is sanctioned, can others be far behind? Whose marriage is safe? If they won’t listen to him, now, will they listen to you, later? 14. Para. 9. Here we are witnessing the manifestation of God’s righteousness and ours. The division will not be closed by a cover-up and denial. It will only grow until the system finds an equilibrium, like the LDS church has done with its policy of “adapting to change under the direction of . . .” Merely saying we are the Church of Jesus Christ, does not make it so, nor do any of the other claims we make. John Taylor wondered if when the Savior returns He would recognize the people who call themselves by His name. Is this mere hyperbole? The popes have received no prophetic words since the first century. The LDS church has only invited the assumption that their pronouncements have originated from on high. We don’t need any prophecy, ourselves, do we? Times are still bearable, after all, aren’t they? 5-2 Comments, Blog 5 15. Para. 10. I think the evidence here presented suggests we have passed the point of obtaining a resolution face-to-face and hand-joining-hand. The lid is fast closing on popular belief in the reality of the way of scripture and it’s Author. Where a thing is shut out of imagining, it vanishes and another connection between God and man is severed. To see the future where men have fashioned law to further the oppression and bondage of mankind, as what has been happening to the Constitution, we need only listen to the testimony of refugees from the Communist world. 16. Human nature expresses itself in various ways in different individuals, but the same patterns emerge again and again among the generations of men in mortality. Few are ambitious for the Lord, rather than for themselves. Power to command, diminish, and destroy; power to achieve sexual conquest; power to accumulate and direct money –these govern many us and when the opportunity presents itself to exercise such powers, all to many of us do so. In all too many cases it becomes a governing force and defines its possessor. In women there is a variant peculiar to them: the drive to supersede the male by virtue of their superior abilities. 17. Para. 13. One of the reasons to endure the privations and strictures of our way of life is to be directed by the Lord. If this direction is manifestly broken, then why are we here? The choice before us is either to deny and submit to the leadership we have and look no further, or to seek the Lord with renewed energy and courage. This choice comes to us on the threshold of a profound upheaval of the order and peace of the civilized world, prophesied to us by Ezekiel shortly to be followed by Daniel, Joel, and the Savior. If we look closely, we can see the erosion of our national strength and security in many avenues. “And out of my own house shall it begin.” (D&C 112: 25) What shall begin? – among other things the sorting of the people of God from the rest. 18. Para. 13. We are facing a sorting, and choosing of who shall follow Him in heaven and who represents Him on earth in spirit and truth, as well as ordination. This choice will either awaken us to the dangers we face and the actions we should take that will keep us on the path to knowing God and entering the Celestial Kingdom, or permit us to drift on under the direction of men who have shown they know the Lord no better than we. “Many are called, but few are chosen.” (D&C 121:34) You know the rest. This is not a call to find a Paul or a Cephas (Peter), but to “seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.” Mt. 6:33) A word: “Ask and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:” For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” (Mt. 7:7,8) (As baptized and in the covenant, the voice of the Holy Spirit is yours for the asking, when you be asking aright.) A word to the discerning: “Who can be deemed sane when the inmates wear the white coats and sit at their desks in the offices?” (Separation from God represents a form of insanity to the truly righteous.)
— A posthaven user
You Never Knew Me Who runs this work, Christ or man? Reading over the learnjustice blogs I am pausing just before No. 6 to ask the question, “Who runs this Work?” God surely doesn’t, or those who claim His authority must be serving a Cyclops. (This monster in the Greek tale of Odysseus was one of a race of one-eyed carnivorous giants whose normal occupation was tending sheep, but who didn’t mind supplementing the usual fare with a human being as opportunity presented.) The idea that we are separated from the mainstream Christianity and its errors and from mainstream Mormonism and its errors has its value in defining us, but it has been carried by men thinking as natural men into a prideful notion they would use to justify what we are -with all our warts and blemishes. After all, the ways of the other sects with regard to higher ordinances, etc. are not our ways. What are our ways? Do we have nothing to learn from them; do they have nothing of value for us? How can you claim to have a true gospel of Jesus Christ without effulgent, i.e. radiant love attending it? For purposes of this blog, I look at the issue of mainstream and branches slightly differently. As a starting point, I look to a basic and fundamental attitude as necessary for those who would model themselves on Christ –as a person- and take upon them his name and his gospel all the way to sharing thrones and eternal increase with him. The basic and fundamental attitude that gives life and energy and wisdom to know what to do is love, caring outside one self for another and rejoicing in sharing this enthusiasm with our teacher and enabler, Jesus Christ. The struggle we have in life to incorporate into our being the name, and the identity it represents of Jesus Christ is a struggle against overcoming our own selfish and willful nature, a nature that isolates us, separates us, and alienates us from Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation. It is ourselves, as much as any external challenge or obstacle, that we must overcome in returning to the presence of the Eternal Father and His Beloved Son. Jesus conducted his personal ministry to be founded on himself and his nature. This comes nearly eighteen centuries before all the corrections and enhancements Joseph Smith was commissioned to introduce. Jesus said, within hours of the end, “Do ye now believe?” Jn. 16:31 (His fundamental intention was to convert people to himself and his attitude toward life and the living. His last prayer as minister was that his disciples (and by extension all of us who will) would be one with him as he was with the Father and the Father with him. “I have not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it.” This idea in my personal religious landscape is represented by the term, Christianity. The presence of this or that doctrine corrupted by self-directed, self-seeking men is not a part of my definition of what it means to be a Christian. By this definition, we have a common cause with those of other sects who would, within their imposed and accepted limitations, serve Christ in their sacrificial love of others and for the love of Christ. By our prophecy we have through Joseph, we understand that they will have their place in the millennial kingdom of God. “The celestial ministers to the terrestrial.” By this definition, we should have a common aspiration to love and serve Christ and those he loves. In sum, we, the Work of God should be first and foremost – Christians. How can you have Christianity without love at its core? We can well ask that question of our leaders. We can well ask that question of ourselves. (Love, by the way, in light of the backdrop of eternal consequence, should motivate the intent to stand with the Spirit of Christ against evil in all places.) We should be Christians to one another and as Christians, we should be loyal to Christ above loyalty to men who are being disloyal to Christ. The “any other gospel” condemned by Paul the Apostle (Gal. 1:8) is one that introduces any of the ways of putting self above Savior. Unhappily, we, as members of this Work have much to repent of in our leaders, in our ministry, and above all in ourselves. We cannot hope to make things right, if we are so divorced in our natures from Christ’s nature that we cannot recognize what is wrong with us and so yield ourselves to men who have a stronger, united will and experience in exercising their cold-hearted gospel of alienation from the Gods standard of moral conduct, from obedience to statute and principle and who have substituted a riot of lawless iniquity in the place of the Lord’s system of participatory, equal, and corrective justice. The ills of this Work all stem from man’s tendency to stay separate from Jesus Christ, even to step back and withdraw from his standard of responsibility for others, and from his judging presence. Men take for themselves a temporal (and temporary) portion of eternal goods. They run off to their caves of selfhood in triumph at what a fine nest of comforts and prosperity they have made for themselves without having to give up and give away their sovereign selfhood in irksome humility and choking charity. Far be it from them to permit their secret mastery to be seen by others, to cast their pearls before swine. And there must always be swine, lesser beings to be used and fed on fables in order to make lordship among men work, whether they be pharaohs, kings, sultans, or prophets. It seems to them to be far better to use their superior abilities with which they have acquired their positions of advantage to master the real environment as they find it, rather than to wear themselves out trying to create the world according to Jesus. Even as all aspects of the Gospel of Jesus Christ support our becoming comfortable with him and his way, all aspects of the counterfeit, selfish way support each other in enabling its followers to become more perfect in their gospel of greed and self-worship. The heartless lords of men who will approach Jesus at the judgment are actually clueless. They are so divorced from him by the way they have lived and the complete adaptation they have made that they actually think he is one of them. After all, they have played by his rules and in his name, haven’t they? They are dumbfounded when he commands them to depart from his presence, “you never knew me.” (JSTranslation of Mt. 7:23) I believe, by the evidences of the learnjustice blog, and by the spirit I sense around certain people, and by the package of ideas the people of the Work live by and utter, that we are laboring under a counterfeit gospel of man’s making that uses the concepts of Christ which have become empty, lifeless words, because the spirit of outgiving, sharing, and raising that promotes life has been separated out. There is no leadership, even by example, to light our way consistently. How has living with this permutation of Christ’s religion influenced us? Are we ennobled? Are we edified? Are we strengthened in resolve to “live by every word”? (Mt. 4:4) We are supposed to be prepared to die for Jesus, but are we prepared to live for him? Do we recognize that which is of God and that which is of Caesar in our midst? The wisdom of men has a form of discernment, but also a ceiling above which they cannot rise. Does the summum bonum of our religion that inspires us end in conformity to rules and deference to authority as men would have it? The Church age of Laodicea, in our age, is told they are really poor, and blind and naked. (Rev. 3:17) Are we, as well? Those who represent the wheat and the tares will always be present among the people of the Lord. It is a man-centered association that permits the most self-centered, least troublesome to rise to share their secrets and their privileges. What value do the “gifts of the spirit” have to such people? What value do the gifts of the Spirit have to you?
— A posthaven user
Mr. White and Mr. Black I am going to try to remember for you a story from my childhood. I have had to get somewhat creative with it, because the memory of a child will not sustain the whole thing. It was on one of the great experimental dramas at the dawn of the television age. It could have been Playhouse 90, or Omnibus, or Alcoa Presents. The scene is a farming town in Kansas in an indeterminate decade about the turn of the 19th century. The people have experienced a drought that has not only blighted their crops, but is threatening their very existence as their wells are down to a bathtub’s worth of water for themselves and their animals. They have come together after church services to pray for rain; having answered the summons, even the non-church goers are in attendance. Their prayer is answered. In their midst there appears a rather dapper man in a Panama suit. He offers to make a well happen for them; it’s theirs for the asking. All they would give in return is to commem-orate him together every year on the anniversary of their deliverance. He wants their prayers. The people prepare to vote to formalize their unanimity, when just as unexpectedly another stranger appears, rather shorter and heavy-set, dressed in a black, broadcloth suit. It seems the two men know each other and they express themselves with carefully measured respect. Mr. Black, because that is how he chooses to identify himself, gives the people the same terms. The only difference between these two saviors lies in their appearance. The preacher senses here a confrontation between good and evil, just as he has believed and taught the people during the years of his tenure. He speaks his mind to the audience and their awareness is open and agreed upon. Depending on whom they chose, the water will either be pure or poisonous. The town will either survive, or they will all have to leave. Someone in the crowd proposes they discern whom to trust by a contest of strength, since good is always stronger than evil. Both men decline. It seems their opposition cannot include violence or competing magic. Another voice proposes a non-violent contest in the form of a staring match. Whoever holds his gaze on the other and does not look away will be their choice. All are agreed and a space is cleared for the two men, like a boxing ring, with two chairs. They take their places and the hours drag on while the crowd watches. The two have become still as statues. Just then (memory fails me here) a freight wagon rumbles past and the cry of a child is heard. Mr. Black turns away and looks in the direction of the sound. Mr. White rises with the energy of triumph and pronounces himself the winner. Mr. Black has already left his place, parted the spectators and is kneeling in the dusty street beside the child. The anguished mother is beside him. Laying his hands on the little crumpled body, he gives her a calm assurance that all is well and the child sits up, reaching for his mother. Mr. White can scarcely contain himself. He has fulfilled the terms of the contest and they must be accepted. The people re-form, looking to the preacher for what comes next. The preacher pauses, deep in thought. At last he speaks, slowly and thoughtfully, “The purpose of the contest is to discern who represents good and who represents evil, and not just who is the stronger as men measure strength.” “We had an agreement!” Mr. White is becoming agitated; the controlled civility is dropping away. The preacher rubs his forehead, searching his store of scripture. “We must not choose that which is evil for an oath’s sake, (Mt. 14:9) or we will have made a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, to quote Isaiah, 28:15. Let’s look over the whole thing. Mr. Black was not weakening. He let go of the contest for the sake of that little boy.” The people murmur with a growing awareness. Mister White’s face twists into a paroxysm of ugly rage and he thunders frightening curses upon them all, and in an instant he is gone. “I think we have a decision, here,” the preacher says with confidence. “Are we agreed then? Mr. Black will provide us with the well.” Slowly and deliberately the hands are raised. “Mr. White has shown us the weakness of evil in being unable to keep up the appearance of beneficence for long. Mr. Black, since we are of one mind, will you dig the well?” Mr. Black simply said, “It is done. Look beside the church just this side of where the horses are tied.” And when they returned to their houses and farms, they found the water in their own wells had risen to within an arm’s reach of the brim. And despite whatever a summer’s weather might be, the town was never without water. During hard times, people from other towns might come to fill their barrels from the well beside the church. And every year thereafter on the day of their deliverance, the people gathered to give thanks to God and his angel whom they only knew as Mr. Black. * * * Upon whom will we place our faith? Who will provide us from their good will the teachings that will remind us and refer us to the true path back to Heavenly Father? Who shall we make the shapers of our conscience? Who shall we model ourselves on? Who shall we refer our little children to as the repositors of truth and blessing? Even the gentiles in their court system recognize that a contract to violate the law, and thereby join ourselves to further lawlessness, is unenforceable. In casting his snares, the Devil would have us forget that, but if we choose error, our power to freely act to bring ourselves back is weakened. If we choose error, our minds are darkened and we lose the way. The painful emotions of doubt and fear wrap themselves around us. Satan in Hebrew means slanderer. Satan slanders God by insisting on portraying God as Satan, himself, is. We have come to accept that portrait when it comes from men we take for authorities on the subject who either don’t know better or find it convenient to misperceive God in order to keep people controlled and cowering. I have called that misperceiving and misrepresenting a form of blasphemy, because it keeps people away from God so they remain strangers to God and fail to learn from experience to grow in faith and wisdom. Keeping people down, especially when one should know better, is a great offence to God. He calls it Nicolaitanism, which thing he hates. See Rev. 2:15. Instead of being a delightful, gladsome people, the blessings of our calling and our covenants are lived out by too many as though they were a fearsome curse, a curse of oppression they share with others as oppressors. Is it beyond understanding that there are those among us who have taken for their soul’s nourishment defiling little children? Is it really to be outside our comprehension that selfish lust is taken as a drug by those who have nothing better in their lives to seek as a reward and do not know love? Once upon a time, a prayerful state was interrupted by this thought, “That which I have forgiven, you must forgive also.” It was concerning my childhood sweetheart, who, I had learned, for want of loving guidance had taken a dangerous detour, yet has recovered, albeit with secret scars. I have received no such admonition concerning our leaders, and I have made the inquiry. The error of our leaders as presented in the blog has not been relieved. My duty to forgive cannot include endorsing their guilt-stained evasions put forth in Blog 8. of learnjustice.posthaven.com. Forgiveness cannot include assenting that their oppressions rooted in error and compounded in continuing their willful separation from God shall be as a law unto me. Forgiving and condoning are two different things, or I am not upholding true priesthood in myself. So who will provide us with access to the well of living water? Will it be Mr. White who occupies the office and bears the name of that office, or will it be Mr. Black, blackened by a decree endorsed by Mr. White and by them all through open consent or through silence? Who will win the staring contest, or is that really the measure of where truth lies? I don’t know how to end this story. You’re going to have to end it yourself by facing up to a decision. The water in the well of our prosperity is indeed nearly gone as our country is laid down on its bed. We have been living in a drought for want of a true understanding of the nature of our Savior and his intent for a generation since Rulon was taken. For all too many of us, it’s been longer than that, far longer. The battle of which way to believe has been played out in each individual in the privacy of the mind. And now we are seeing the result in a people paralyzed by fear, not knowing which way to turn, which voice to follow: the voice we take in through our ears, or the voice within, along with the testimony of a lifetime of living with the sensibilities of our conscience. “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: St. Paul – 1 Cor. 13:1-8 On the one hand we have a sense of duty accompanied by fear; on the other, we have a sense of righteous indignation. Only after we have weighed the testimonies of both sides and made our decision will the voice intone, “You did the right thing,” or the silence will continue.
— A posthaven user