Mentality of Lucifer

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven or Hell, a Hell of Heaven...to reign is worth ambition, though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

- Lucifer speaking to Azazel and Mammon, Paradise Lost, Book 1, vs. 254-55, 263 (John Milton)

Though not scriptural, I believe that Milton describes Lucifer's mentality well in Paradise Lost. The context of the quote comes from Lucifer and his minions' debates about whether to wage war on Heaven, from where they had just been cast out. They eventually determine that war will be necessary, but decide that the best way to figure out how is to send Lucifer to see God's new creation, Man, and see how to deceive him before war is waged.

Surely Lucifer really has this mentality, that it is better to be the master of the underworld than to serve the Lord. He is also correct, that Heaven and Hell depend on us in our own minds. Our living closer to the commandments can make our mind a Heaven. And that is not fiction.

Why does Moroni point east?

One of the most recognizable symbols of the LDS Church is the placement of the angel Moroni atop our modern temples. Interestingly enough, eight temples are not crowned with the statue: St. George, Logan, Manti, Laie Hawaii, Cardston, Mesa, Hamilton New Zealand, and Oakland.

Most Moroni statues adorning our temples point due east, however, the Seattle, Nauvoo, and Taipei Taiwan temples all have statues facing west. This is likely due to the orientation of their respective lots and/or the placement of their spires. While there is obviously no Church standard for Moroni’s easterly pointing direction, the symbolism is quite rich.

Members of the Church will frequently explain to their non-member friends, or in Church classes, that Moroni is often pointed east in reference to Christ who is to return from the east. The scriptural background stems partly from Matthew 24:27:

“For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

Joseph Smith provided us with a more correct version wherein he replaced “lightning” with “light of the morning” (see Joseph Smith – Matthew 1:26). Lightning out of the east is meteorologically incorrect in the Holy Land, as lightning typically originates in the west, as with all storm clouds and precipitation from the Mediterranean. Without any training in Near Eastern weather patterns, Joseph correctly amended the KJV to reflect that as the sun comes from the east, so will the Savior at his second coming.

But this is not the only symbolism which can be inferred from Moroni’s eastward orientation. Moroni may also point east to symbolically reflect certain events surrounding Earth’s first temple, Eden.

Eden represented God’s presence, a holy place where He could dwell, quite similar to its modern temple equivalent. “[T]he Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden,” (Gen. 2:8) where he originally placed man. “[I]n the midst of the garden”, indicating a sacred center, he also placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life (Gen. 2:9). Thus, there was a garden placed in the eastern part of God’s presence, or Eden, wherein man and the two trees were situated. Although a frequent visitor, there is no indication that God resided in Eden's Garden permanently.

[As a side note, it is interesting that “a river went out of Eden to water the garden” (Gen. 2:10). God provides the living water that gives life, vitality, and meaning to eternal life, or the tree of life.]

After partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were driven to the east out of the Garden of Eden:

“So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life” (Gen. 3:24) (emphasis added)

Accordingly, so that Adam and Eve could not westerly return to the Garden and partake of the tree of life and forever live in their sins, God placed “cherubim” (Moses 4:31, the correct plural) and a flaming sword at the east gate, or entrance (compare Alma 12:21). The east side of the Garden is seemingly the place of sacred entry, as it is with many modern and ancient holy sanctuaries.

It was “the way” [Hebrew = derek, meaning “a pathway”] of the tree of life that the cherubic host and flaming sword were to guard. Evidently, “the way” connected to a sacred roadway that approached the Garden on its east side. Could the cherubim represent the “angels who stand as sentinels” to whom we must give the proper “key words, [] signs and tokens” to be able to “walk to the presence of the Father” (Discourses of Brigham Young, pg. 416)?

Later, Adam and Eve went to a certain spot, likely on the east side of the Garden where the gate was located, to pray and worship:

“And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence” (Moses 5:4).

Although they were unable to see God, being shut out from his presence, Adam and Eve could speak with the Lord through the veil as he remained in “the way” toward the Garden. Interestingly, Cain and his family settled “east of Eden” in an apparent attempt to also remain close to the gate leading into the Garden (Gen. 4:16).

In an obvious representation of the Garden temple, Moses was commanded to emblazon cherubim on the “curtains” (i.e., veil) of the tabernacle in the wilderness (Ex. 26:1), wherein the curtains were to guard the way to the Holy of Holies (i.e., God’s presence). Why don’t we have cherubim on the veils of the temples today? Because the veil was rent upon Christ’s victory over death (Matt. 27:51), thus removing all obstacles for us to be redeemed from the Fall. Now that all obstacles are removed, we are to “hav[e] boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, . . . through the veil, that is to say, his flesh” (Heb. 10:19-20).

So, why does Moroni point east, then? In my opinion, it is because we, as types for Adam and Eve, are cast out from God’s presence to the east. Moroni sits atop the edifice that represents God’s presence and declares unto us symbolically residing in the east the everlasting gospel and invites us all to return westward, from whence we came (Rev. 14:6-7). With trumpet in hand, Moroni announces to us that "the way" is now freely open for us to attain eternal life, and he invites us to worship God. Where can we better worship our Heavenly Father than in his presence, the temple?

Are We Ripening for Destruction?

For a people to become “ripe for destruction,” the Book of Mormon provides a two-pronged test. First, the majority must choose evil over good, as originally taught by King Mosiah and subsequently reiterated by several other prophets (see e.g., Mosiah 29:27, Alma 10:19-23, Hel. 5:2). Second, the people must “cast out the righteous” from among them. Interestingly, it is the righteous and their prayers that actually save the people from utter destruction until they are ultimately cast out (see Alma 10:22-23, Hel. 13:13-14).

[As a side note, I have jokingly thought that if God doesn’t destroy the city of Las Vegas he will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. But, nonetheless Las Vegas and other cities continue to thrive. Is it a direct correlation to the righteous individuals residing in those cities?]

But being “ripened for destruction” doesn’t necessarily mean imminent destruction. Instead, Samuel the Lamanite introduces us to the doctrine of having one’s “destruction made sure”; the polar opposite to having one’s “calling and election made sure.” Atop the wall at Zarahemla, Samuel declares to the wicked Nephites that they have ripened for destruction and if they now failed to repent they would have their “destruction made sure” (Hel. 13:32). He continues by prophesying that when the Nephites finally realize they can go no lower, they will cry out the Lord, “O Lord, canst thou not turn thine anger from us?” (Hel. 13:37). Unfortunately, it will then “everlastingly” too late:

“But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.” (Hel. 13:38)(emphasis added)

In the Bible, and mainstream Christianity, this is called the Doctrine of the Reprobate, or Reprobation. Reprobation is a corollary to the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election which concludes that some of mankind (the elect) are predestined by God for salvation, so the remainder are necessarily pre-ordained to damnation, i.e. reprobation. In Calvinist terminology, the non-elect are often referred to as the reprobate.

As LDS, we do not agree with predestined election, but instead individuals must work to “make your calling and election sure,” and subsequently have that election sealed by “a more sure word of prophecy” (2 Pet. 1:10, 19). Likewise, we do not accept that individuals are predestined to destruction, but must “earn” such a fate by first ripening for destruction (the 2-prong test) and then refusing to repent.

Paul briefly comments on some characteristics of those ripening for destruction:

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:23-27)

A few of the obvious characteristics asserted by Paul above include idolatry, prostitution, and homosexuality. Paul continues by introducing the Doctrine of Reprobation, wherein God ultimately allows those ripened for destruction to seal their own fate:

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (i.e., appropriate);
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
1 Therefore thou are inexcusable, O man… (Romans 1:28 – Romans 2:1)(emphasis added)

Paul explains that these people block God out of their lives for so long, that he ultimately just lets them seal their own “reprobate” fate. Notice in verse 32 that these individuals are fully aware of God’s impending judgments, but they nonetheless get pleasure out of doing wickedly. Indeed, they eventually seal their own destruction and become “inexcusable” before God. Those that become “reprobates” have done so by forsaking the healing power of Jesus Christ in their lives:

“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Cor. 13:5).

Similar to the peoples spoken of in the Book of Mormon, we have a system of government that allows the people to establish law. We also, however, are susceptible to the similar pitfalls of such a government. Specifically, we may also “ripen for destruction” ourselves when the majority chooses evil over good and subsequently casts out the righteous. I submit that the United States may be close to this point; although not quite fully there.

In sum, I have often wondered if a specific region of the United States eventually chooses evil over good and then subsequently casts out the righteous from among them, would that region of the United States be susceptible to God’s destructive forces? Will the Church ever remove itself from a region as it has previously done and thereby allow the impending judgments of God to come to pass?

Sweet Deal at D.I.

My recent unemployment allowed me to take a trip to Seattle to visit family. I hadn't been home for two years and it was nice to have some free time to hang out. After meeting for lunch with a friend, I reluctantly agreed to go to the D.I. across the street so my wife could search for some deals. Admittedly, I don't care too much for D.I. because the one by us in Mesa doesn't have that many things that I like (unless you are looking for Barry Manilow 8-tracks) and is a little big.

Perhaps the Seattle area D.I.'s are less visited than here. I say so because I found a steal in the book section. Volume 10 of the Hugh Nibley series, The Ancient State, was there for only $2. Of course it had not dust jacket, but do we really buy books for the the dust jacket? I didn't know how much it cost new, but I knew I got a good deal.

The conclusion to the story? I found out online when I got home that The Ancient State retails at Deseret Book for $34.95.

Perhaps, you say, this is a pretty lame post. I agree. But after losing a job and relocating to a different state with a house in Arizona anchoring us down, I need any good luck I can get.

(Tell me if you can honestly see a difference. Or at least a difference that is worth $32.95.)

Yes, we believe in the Bible...

To some not of the LDS faith, it may come as a surprise to learn that we believe, revere, and love the Holy Bible. We do have additional scripture, however, including the Book of Mormon; but it supports the Bible, never substituting for it. In fact, we cross-reference from one book of scripture to another because we are persuaded that the greatest commentary on scripture is scripture itself.

Sadly, the Bible is the most misused and misunderstood book ever written. It has been used to justify all manner of impropriety, wickedness, and falsehood. It has been used for centuries to settle disputes of every imaginable kind, even those that the prophets never intended to settle. Indeed, it has been quoted as often by devils as by Saints and, likewise, has served as an instrument of suppression as often as it has served as a source of inspiration.

In reading and commenting on religious blogs of other faiths, I have encountered numerous individuals who state emphatically that their position is based entirely upon the authority of the Bible. Unfortunately for them, however, God is the only source of reputable religious authority. In fact, the Bible itself points away from itself and instead to that final and true authority, God Himself.

For a time, the established Biblical canon ensured doctrinal orthodoxy as the Church began to grow around the 4th century. An overreliance on the canon, however, tends to shut one off from new truths or insights, and may breed spiritual complacency. For example, non-LDS bloggers often state, “Well, because the matter under consideration is not dealt with directly in the Bible, there is no answer, or God doesn’t care how we solve the issue.”

To that I feel compelled to respond: “If the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?” Or: “On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the church now calls the Bible?”

A knowledge of what the Bible does not claim for itself is important in protecting against its misrepresentations. The following 5 points delineate claims that Bible religions falsely attribute to the Bible, but which the book does not claim for itself:

1) The Bible makes no claim to infallibility. There isn’t one verse within the Bible to sustain this doctrine. In fact, it was in the name of infallibility that Galileo was condemned by the church in Rome for saying that the earth moved around the sun. The idea, it was held, contradicted scriptural passages that spoke of the sun’s rising and setting.

2) The Bible makes no claim to having been supernaturally dictated. Whoever was the first “scholar” to make the terms “the Bible” and “the Word of God” synonymous, did a great disservice to the cause of truth and religion. The term “word of God” is found in scripture hundreds of time, and yet in not one of those instances is it applied to the scriptures.

3) The Bible makes no claim that prophets are infallible. James states that Elijah, one of the greatest Old Testament prophets, was “a man subject to like passions as we are” (James 5:17). Paul corrected Peter (Gal. 2:11-14), and Peter said Paul’s writings were “hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16). Jonah misunderstood his own prophecy (Jonah 4), and Noah occasionally got drunk (Gen. 9:21). Prophets are mortal and, as Joseph Smith taught us, “a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such” (TPJS, p.278)

4) The Bible does not claim to have all the answers nor that it is God’s only revelation. Instead, the Bible continually directs its readers to implore the heavens for knowledge and understanding beyond what it contains, and often quotes statements and books that are now lost unto it. In fact, nowhere does the Bible purport to give its readers either authority or commission to preach the Gospel or to perform Gospel ordinances.

“What makes us different from most other Christians in the way we read and use the Bible and other scriptures is our belief in continuing revelation. For us, the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge, but what precedes the ultimate source. The ultimate knowledge comes by revelation.” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Scripture Reading, Revelation, and Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible,” in Plain and Precious Truths Restored, p.2 (emphasis added))

5) The Bible does not claim to be complete nor does it claim that revelation has ceased. As Joseph Smith said, “We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anything more to man than is there recorded, would be saying at once that we have at last received a revelation; for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God, that He would not, after giving what is there contained, speak again; and if any man has found out for a fact that the Bible contains all that God ever revealed to man he has ascertained it by revelation, other than has been previously written by the prophets and apostles” (History of the Church, 2:18) (emphasis added).

The New Testament church was led by Apostles and prophets and governed by the spirit of revelation. The life-giving force of the Church was the Holy Ghost, not some scriptural record that no member of that church ever read. In fact, the New Testament did not exist until several centuries after the apostasy was complete.

The Bible is a magnificent tool in the hands of God, but it is too often used as a club or a weapon in the hands of men and women. Truly, the more we read and study the Bible and its teachings, the more clearly we see the doctrinal underpinnings of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, of which continual revelation plays a major role.

Wilford Woodruff on Jay Leno

We were watching Leno a few nights ago and enjoying the Battle of the Jay Walk All-Stars. At least one of the people contestants was Mormon. Perhaps two (the Utah bob cut gives it away) could have been. Forward directly to around 16:23 to go to the part that I am referring to.

Vicarious Baptisms for Holocaust Victims

I understand that this post may be a bit untimely, seeing as how several months ago the Catholics decided to seal their genealogical records to the LDS Church, and a few weeks ago Jewish Holocaust survivors decided to cut off discussions with the LDS Church regarding the inadvertent baptisms of Holocause victims. In the interim, I was expecting the Church to step forward with some sort of statement or action that I could use in my post. Lacking such a statement, I nevertheless would like to briefly comment on the issue.

In my opinion, the ordinance known as baptism for the dead is a merciful ordinance that shows the extent of love by our Father in Heaven. Indeed, God is just and cannot send a person to hell simply because he or she had the misfortune of never hearing about the Savior. It is LDS doctrine that deceased beings, dwelling as spirits and awaiting the time of resurrection and judgment, are given the opportunity to hear and accept the message of the Gospel. Many on the other side will not accept Him, but God nevertheless reaches out to each of His children and implores them to follow Him. Personally, having done it several times, I can affirm that it is a marvelous and spiritual experience.

Upon reading the thousands of comments after the numerous articles that deal with the Jewish Holocaust survivors and their decistion to cut off discussions with the Church, a couple of interesting lines of thought were consistent among the readers:

1) Many were outraged that the LDS Church would have the audacity to "convert" their ancestors post-humously. Each was sure that members of the LDS Church would be equally outraged if other religious denominations attempted to post-humously "convert" their ancestors. One commentor (using quite colorful language) was sure that the LDS would vehemently object if the Pope one day declared Brigham Young or Joseph Smith flull-fledged Catholics.

As described above, the LDS practice does not "convert" the recipient, but only provides them with a correct baptism in the event they accept the Gospel in its fullest. Indeed, baptism is only the gateway and lacks the essential keys to exalt any individual.

Personally, I would be touched by the love and concern expressed by another religion that desired to do any sort of proxy ordinance that, in their minds, would ensure a better after-life for my ancestors. I venture to think that many LDS would agree. I fail to see the "disrespect" to our ancestors in an act wholly backed by the love of our fellow-man.

2) Many commentors were astounded at the attention that this is getting by other denominations and religions. In their minds, and I tend to agree, if detractors believe the LDS Church is a false religion, and its ordinances equally false, why would they care if vicarious work was performed on behalf of their ancestors? Wouldn't the outright falsity of the ordinance eliminate any need to worry whether the ordinance had any effect at all?

While we understand from 1 Pet. 3:18-20 and 4:6 that the souls in the spirit world are being taught the Gospel, they are faced with a significant dilemma: they need baptism to enter into a covenant with Christ and receive a washing away of their sins, etc., but they lack physical bodies in which to be baptized. This is why the restored Church includes the practice of baptism for the dead. The ordinance is simply a further testament to God's unending love for His children.

I would like to hear reader's comments on why other denominations or religions are so upset at an ordinance that they outright deny to be correct.

Our Constitution may be Threatened

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke, Richard L. Evans Quotebook, p.88)

Latter-day Saints have long loved and cherished the United States Constitution. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that “the Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner.” (TPJS, 147) The Lord declared that He “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80) Did you catch that? The Lord established the Constitution, therefore, although not perfect, it is an inspired document.

Quite similar to how mainstream Christianity treats the scriptures, of late, in my opinion, we have been departing more and more from the Constitutional principles that have made this country so great. Unfortunately, our country is accepting the principles of socialism, our Constitution’s arch enemy, at an alarming rate. America has truly entered the “me-generation,” and has forgotten the 1960’s mantra “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Indeed, as a result of our current nanny-state, we have bred a sense of entitlement among people that are unwilling to work for even the necessities of life.

The problem is socialism doesn’t work. It’s been tried over and over again, and has never been successful. If you’re hoping for more fairness under a socialist platform here in America, take a look at the suffering and misery in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and Cuba over the years . . . just to name a few. Not to mention the number of their own people each of these regimes killed; somewhere between 60 & 100 million!

Interestingly, the onslaught of socialism was seen decades ago by Elder Ezra Taft Benson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ7LcplfkgY

Under policies (not just socialist) that tend to steer away from the Constitution, our freedoms may likely be at risk. For example, the Fairness Doctrine seems to be just the start of restricting our freedom of speech. [Interestingly, Elder Benson also addressed the Fairness Doctrine issue decades ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwM-4gOgQqo] Next to go, our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. All it will take is some lunatic to open fire in a school and the people will tend to see that gun restrictions may be the only way to prevent that event from repeating itself.

In sum, we may be on the verge of witnessing the fulfillment of one of Joseph Smith’s prophecies:

“Even this nation will be on the verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the Constitution is on the brink of ruin this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” (Dated July 19, 1840, Joseph Smith Papers, LDS Church Historical Archives, Box 1, March 10, 1844.)

In an Independence Day celebration speech in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on July 4, 1854, Brigham Young commented on Joseph’s prophecy:

“Will the Constitution be destroyed? No; it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, ‘the time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At this critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.’ It will be so.” (Journal of Discourses 7:15 (1854)) (emphasis added)

President John Taylor also commented and declared that the Elders of Israel should “begin to understand that they have something to do with the world politically as well as religiously, that it is as much their duty to study correct political principles as well as religious, and to seek to know and comprehend the social and political interests of man, and to learn and to be able to teach that which would be best calculated to promote the interests of the world.” (Journal of Discourses 9:340 (1862))

Will the members of the Church be the only ones that will eventually uphold the Constitution? I lean towards Pres. Benson’s interpretation that all “righteous citizens” will be the saviors of Constitutional values:

“I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.” (President Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, Nov. 1987, p. 7) (emphasis added)

What is clear, however, are two things. First, our Constitutional values are in peril. We should be ever-vigilant of the changes witnessed in Washington. Second, righteous citizens clearly have responsibilities and obligations regarding these matters. Indeed, “[n]ext to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States!” (President David O. McKay, 1956, Instructor Magazine 91:34)

Conscience vs. Following the Brethren

This is a tough post for me to write because I still don't know how I feel about this. Perhaps because the election has already passed, it is no longer relevant what I think. I am, of course, talking about voting on Proposition 102 in Arizona.

I consider myself a pretty reasonable person and always try to understand both sides of an issue, even if I initially don't agree with one side. I also consider myself a pretty orthodox member of the church and think it is inappropriate to criticize our leaders (we covenant not to, right?). With that in mind, I really struggled with this one. Being active on the internet, it was impossible to not notice the church's involvement on California's Prop 8. The church went so far as to provide reasons for why it supported the respective propositions for CA and AZ. For the sake of this post and to prevent arguments over the merits, just assume that I thought that the arguments were weak.

Last Sunday, during a state-wide Stake Conference, President Packer reiterated points of his classic talk called "Follow the Brethren". He briefly mentioned the election and essentially said (paraphrasing) that if we are to follow the Brethren now, we should vote yes on Prop 102. It was rather vague and much of the talk seemed to be more about the fight in CA and less about AZ.

This post is not intended to argue the merits for or against Prop 102 (or 8 for CA readers). Instead, I ask what does one do if they do not agree with the reasoning behind the support? The church of course counsels us to vote our conscience. What if our conscience goes against President Packer's admonition? Does following my conscience mean that I do not follow the Brethren? Do not the Brethren tell us to follow our conscience? Understand, I am deeply conflicted over this and am not intending this to be critical of the Brethren.

I believe that there is safety in following the Brethren. But then I wonder if someone that was critical of the pre-1978 priesthood situation would have felt as if they didn't follow the Brethren at that time. Was that person not ultimately correct post-1978? Putting aside criticism of the Brethren (that would be inappropriate in any situation), should that person have seen himself as unsupportive of the Brethren because of that view?

Jeremy and I were going through some of these ideas earlier today over IM and so I think it helps me to put my thoughts down and solicit feedback. Again, this is not intended to argue the merits of each side. I only ask what one does when they feel that this conflicts with their conscience? I admire those who in the past were able to overcome their conscience and feelings about plural marriage and put their trust in the prophet. I wish I had that kind of faith.

(For what it's worth, when I had to decide, I came to the conclusion that I sustain the Brethren as prophets (even if I disagree) and as such, recognize that sometimes I have to sacrifice my own reasoning because they know more than me. Perhaps this was difficult for me and not for others for this particular issue. In the future, something else could be easier for me and unconscionable for someone else.)

4 Nephi Parallels the Winding Up Scenes of the Millennium

The scriptures are clear that during the Millennium, Satan is to be bound for a time. For example, Revelation 20:3 teaches that there will likely be an initial physical binding of the adversary (maybe through priesthood power), while 1Ne 22:26 explains that his power will be severely restricted during this time as a result of the righteousness of the people. Indeed, Satan will be sealed up in the bottomless pit for a thousand years – but not forever. “When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed” to once again deceive and gather followers from all nations to a battle in which Satan and his angels will eventually be cast off forever (see Rev. 20:7-8).

How is Satan finally loosed? After centuries of ignoring his enticements and the outward determination of the people of God not to listen to him, nor be governed by him, how does Satan once again gain a foothold in the lives of God’s children?

This is likely not an overnight transformation of the people, but a gradual decline of the righteousness of God’s people near the end of the Millennium. Satan only gains power over man through man’s exercise of his own agency. Thus, the Lord will not bind Satan and take his power from the earth while his children are willing to be governed by him.

The Book of Mormon provides an interesting illustration that may parallel this future event for us. In particular, 4 Nephi 1 gives us a sobering preview of how the bright millennial era may be brought to a close. After Christ’s visit to the descendants of Lehi in the Americas, the people entered into a millennial condition wherein they lived in a Zion-like society (see 4Ne 1:15-18). In fact, they were so righteous that they became one of the few peoples in recorded scripture that successfully lived the Law of Consecration for a time (see 4Ne 1:2-3).

The breakdown in this near-perfect society had tiny beginnings: “a small part of the people . . . revolted from the church and [had] taken upon them the name of Lamanites” (4Ne 1:20). Several years later, social classes were instituted once more and the Law of Consecration was abandoned (4Ne 1: 24-26). From that point, society disintegrated rapidly. Within the next decade:

[T]here were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness. And this church did multiply exceedingly because of iniquity, and because of the power of Satan who did get hold upon their hearts. (4Ne 1:27-28)

Thus, Satan, who had essentially been bound, was loosed again in the land because man invited him in once again. In due time, Satan's now-welcome influence caused severe unbelief, wickedness, and divisions among God’s people. In fact, the wicked eventually became more numerous than the righteous (4Ne 1:40). By the time 300 years had passed away from Christ’s visit, wickedness had spread all over the face of the land, and “there were none that were righteous save it were the disciples of Jesus” (4Ne 1:46).

In a parallel fashion, at the end of the Millennium, I believe that those present will again invite the adversary's influence into their lives, thus loosing him "for a little season" (D&C 43:31). The Lord will allow mankind to exercise their agency and worship how (and whom) they wish. As a result, leading up to the final battle, we may likely see class divisions and religious strife as those in 4 Nephi did.

This is just another parallel that I have seen from the Book of Mormon as it relates to our future events.