Donald Trump the Epitome of “Projection”©

 Donald Trump the Epitome of “Projection”© 

At a political rally on 5 August 2023, presidential candidate Donald Trump lashed out at Special Counsel Jack Smith who is prosecuting cases against him. He used what has now become common language–Smith was “deranged,” “sick,” “maniac.”(1)  I noticed long ago that one of Trump’s habits, probably calculated, is to accuse his opponents of the same things of which he is guilty. In recent weeks, commentators, pundits, and now some of the press are calling attention to this phenomenon as “projection.” Projection in this context is a psychological term. On the Psychology Today website, projection is explained as:

...the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another. For example, if someone continuously bullies and ridicules a peer about his insecurities, the bully might be projecting his own struggle with self-esteem onto the other person.

The concept emerged from Sigmund Freud’s work on defense mechanisms and was further refined by his daughter, Anna Freud, and other prominent figures in psychology.(2)

It is interesting that “projection” is often a defensive mechanism growing out of insecurities and fears. Given Trump’s constant projection on to others his own egregious thinking and behavior, this may tell us even more about Trump than the projection itself. It suggests insecurities and fears may drive this behavior at the deepest levels of his infantile-juvenile mind.  

But, I think there is more to it because projection is one of the favorite techniques of autocrats, demagogues, tyrants, and dictators. Just this week Trump accused Joe Biden of trying to destroy American democracy.  We have been warned for years, and in recent years and months, a plethora of books mostly from Republicans, many former members of the Trump administration, are being published to “warn” America of Donald Trump’s intent to cast aside the Constitution and destroy American democracy. Liz Cheney’s book which came out today, Oath and Honor: A Memoir and Warning, is the most recent example. Equally interesting is this month’s The Atlantic magazine is given over entirely to two dozen essays about “If Trump Wins.”

Jack Smith may be one of the least “deranged” attorneys Donald Trump has ever encountered, especially when compared to Rudi Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and John Eastman. And if you hear those around Smith in the legal profession, he also may be one of the most dedicated, thoughtful, clear eyed, and under control prosecutors Mr. Trump has had to deal with. Smith is anything but “sick” physically or emotionally. He is not obsessed, but he is tenacious, dedicated, and thorough, which may well spark DT’s fears and insecurities.  As for “maniac,” which Webster’s online dictionary defines as “someone who is or acts mentally unsound, especially: a person who behaves in a wildly foolish, reckless, or dangerous manner,” well, none of these things fit Jack Smith, but each one is a bull’s-eye accurate description of the former President himself!

Pay close attention to Mr. Trump’s words and how often he “projects” his own thinking, desires, wishes, and actions on to his opponents and enemies. It is quite uncanny. But, please believe him when he says the Constitution should be terminated, and when, though he believes without any evidence but his own fears and insecurities, that Biden has weaponized the DOJ against him, therefore he will do the same if he becomes President again. I agree with Liz Cheney and many others who warn that he is the greatest threat to our democracy since World War II, and he will make every effort to set himself up as our dictator. I’ve believed this about him from the time he entered the political arena, and everything I have seen from him since confirms that original impression. I’m glad that so many of his former associates and others, are raising the warning trumpet. Though the MAGA base may be hardening against all of this, I believe they must also be shrinking in size, because it is so obvious that he is the one obsessed, sick, and maniacal–in his quest for power.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  David McAfee, “‘This guy is a maniac’: Donald Trump lashes out at Jack Smith at event,” Raw World Daily, available online at: https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-2662816861/?utm_source=msn

2.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection

Evidence Seventy-Four: Joseph Smith and the “Lamb of God.”©

 101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

Evidence Seventy-Four:

“Joseph Smith and the ‘Lamb of God’”© 

If you keep studying the Book of Mormon and trying to keep up on current literature on this amazing volume you inevitably run into new things that set you back in your chair. That happened to me this week.  It involved an interesting set of circumstances. For many years I have met with several friends (now on Zoom) to discuss the temple. We read and discuss books and articles, and currently we are reading Margaret Barker’s book, The Revelation of Jesus Christ Which God Gave to Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1:1). It is basically her commentary about the temple as found in the Book of Revelation.

Then three days ago I started reading Joseph Spencer’s wonderful little volume 1st Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction. Last night and this morning the two came together in an amazing “ah ha!”  I learned from Joseph Spencer a remarkable series of little facts. Here is my summary of his discussion of Nephi’s use of the title “The Lamb of God” in First Nephi. Spencer calls the title  “theologically fraught,” which is central to Nephi’s visions in 1 Nephi. The title does not appear in the Old Testament, but 30 times in the New Testament–twice in John 1 and 28 times in the book of Revelation! Here is its distribution in Restoration scriptures. Once in the Pearl of Great Price, 14 times in the D&C, and 70 times in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon distribution is very interesting.  It is used 57 times in 1 Nephi 10-14–Nephi’s account of his visions, 4 times in 2 Nephi 31-33, 4 times in Mormon’s writings, and 5 times in Moroni’s writings.(1)

Here is Spenser’s analysis of the meaning and importance of all of this:

...the Messiah’s baptism introduces readers to a key theological title for the Messiah.  Lehi prophesies not only that the Messiah’s prophetic forerunner would baptize him but also that this forerunner would “behold and bear record that he had baptized the Lamb of God” (1 Ne. 10:10).The preparatory prophet would thus do more than administer a necessary ordinance.  He would see something others wouldn’t, and he would bear public witness to it: that the Messiah is God’s Lamb. This theologically fraught title–”the Lamb of God”–proves central to Nephi’s vision. We’ll see that it’s the Lamb that lies at the heart of the presentation of Israel’s God in 1 Nephi.(2)

He goes on to tell us that the title first appears in the New Testament testimony of John the Baptist in John 1:29, and 36. Interestingly, its use in the scriptures of the Restoration are almost exclusively used in reference to 1) John the Baptist’s testimony, 2) Nephi’s “apocalyptic” vision , or 3) John’s Revelation!.  Spencer writes, 

In the Book of Mormon, the title is almost entirely restricted to Nephi’s vision. Lehi introduces it in 1 Nephi 10, and then it appears fifty-six times in the course of Nephi’s vision, which is explicitly related to John’s Revelation (see 1 Ne. 14:18-27). After that, the title mostly disappears. Nephi uses it late in 2 Nephi, referring back to his vision. And then it appears a few times in the remainder of the volume, but always mirroring the book of Revelation or the Baptist’s words in John.

Thus, references to God’s Lamb throughout scripture derive either from the Baptist’s testimony or from the apocalyptic visions of John and Nephi. (3)

It only requires a little reflection to see that this information uncovers some remarkable evidence for the Prophet Joseph’s inspired translation of the Book of Mormon.  For one, the bulk of the uses of the title “Lamb of God” appear in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, in the recounting of apocalyptic visions of Lehi/Nephi and John the Revelator. Nephi knew of John’s future work and was told not to encroach upon it, but we do not know whether John knew of Nephi’s visions. (See 1 Nephi 14:19-27.) Indeed, Nephi is told, “behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold the remainder shalt thou see.”(4)

My simple faith leads me to ask myself, isn’t it amazing that the very first thing in the Book of Mormon, the thing that becomes one of the core themes of the entire book, is a series of visions given to Nephi that are exactly the same things John saw? And... both speak of Jesus Christ using the same title! Since Nephi was restricted from relating what John would see and he is careful not to do so, one cannot accuse the Prophet of plagiarizing John. If one is inclined to attribute the origin of the Book of Mormon to the Prophet Joseph, the worst one could say is that his genius, creativity, and unbridled hubris led him to mimic the Book of Revelation in 1st Nephi.  

However, there are some things that make this theory more than a little suspect in this case. First, as Spencer discusses his analysis of First Nephi he repeatedly argues that LDS are so familiar with its story that they often overlook and miss such subtleties as these. Second, the theory presupposes that Joseph Smith had a thorough knowledge of the Book of Revelation, yet family members and others who knew him, confirm his account of the First Vision, that his religions inclinations were aroused about the age 12 to 14, and there is virtually no evidence this author knows of that he pursued an understanding of the book of Revelation between 1819-20 and 1829-30 when the Book of Mormon was translated. Third, Spencer also discusses the relationship of the Lamb to the Old Testament temple sacrifices, and observes;

Although there is disagreement among scholars about exactly which form of Israelite sacrifice ... the image derives from, numerous Book of Mormon passages show that it’s the blood of the Lamb that’s most essential to the Nephite prophets.(5)

This is interesting, because again Nephi and John are one on this, but only quietly so.  The word “blood” shows up seventeen times in the Book of Revelation. The same emphasis on Christ’s blood is found only in the following: Revelation 1:5, 5:9, 7:14, 12:11, and 19:13(?)  

Fourth, as our understanding of the complexity of the Book of Mormon grows through ongoing studies such as Spencer’s, the more difficult it is to attribute the multitudes of such subtle details with so many combinations and permutations to plagiarism.

Fifth, although I have no question that Joseph Smith had an ego which tended to surface when he faced opposition, I am also aware of an amazing humility before God that flows through his life.  That is another topic for another time, but it is easier to attribute the boldness of the Book of Mormon to the idea that Joseph Smith translated it by the gift and power of God as to it is to ascribe it to Joseph’s ego. Here it is a choice.  I choose to believe the evidence suggests ego was not Joseph’s impetus for producing the Book of Mormon. That doesn’t explain much that follows.

Sixth, Spencer’s summary of the pervasiveness of the Lamb in Nephi’s story, suggests it is  possibly a broader view of the Lamb than found in Revelation.

What Nephi sees in vision regarding the destiny of Lehi’s children is principally the story of the Lamb.  Christ is the Lamb when Nephi first sees him in the arms of the Virgin (see 1 Ne. 11:21), and he is the Lamb again when Nephi sees him baptized (see verse 27).  He’s the Lamb in his mortal ministry (see verse 31), and he’s the Lamb when he’s “judged of the world” and killed (verse 32). He’s the Lamb when he descends from heaven to visit Lehi’s children (see 12:6), and he’s the Lamb when the Nephites write and seal up his teachings (see 13:35). The pure gospel corrupted by the abominable church belongs to the Lamb (see verse 26), as does the pure book that goes from Jews to Gentiles before its corruption (see verse 28). It’s also the Lamb who reaches out in mercy in the last days (see verse 33), brings forth the Book of Mormon (see verse 39), and destroys the abominable church (see 14:3). And, of course, it’s to the Lamb that “all men must come” in the end, “or they cannot be saved” (13:40).  In the vision that forms the theological heart of 1 Nephi, it’s the Lamb of God who requires our worship.(6)

Finally, once again I point out that all of this is consistent with and reinforcing to the central purpose of the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith was a dupe of Satan when he produced the Book of Mormon and organized the Church of Jesus Christ, Satan sure had an odd way of trying to draw us to his side buy making one of the central visions of the book and doctrine of the Church about the Lamb of God!

I finish as I began. I’m in my 81st year of life and I still get a buzz when I encounter this kind of wonderful information, and I almost always sense the whisperings of the Spirit saying something like, “See, Dan, here is another piece of evidence to add to the mountain you already have, that Joseph Smith was and is a Prophet of God. The Book of Mormon is of  divine origin, and the Church Joseph Smith organized is the restored Church of Jesus Christ.”

Thank God for Joseph Smith!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Joseph Spencer, 1st Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2020, 48.

 Ibid.

3.  Spencer, 1st Nephi, 49.

4.  1 Nephi 14:24.

5.  Spencer, 1st Nephi, 49.

6.  Ibid, 49-50.  Barker emphasizes several things about the Lamb in the Book of Revelation that are not strong motifs in Nephi’s vision. A particular one is her view that the Lamb goes through “apotheosis”–become a God, (“the vision of Revelation 5 is a scene of apotheosis, corresponding to temple ritual underlying Psalm 2 and Psalm 110") and is enthroned (Rev. 7:17).  See Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, London: T&T Clark, 2000, 139-41.

Donald Trump and Bilking the MAGA Base©

Donald Trump and Bilking the MAGA Base© 

Twenty minutes after court was dismissed last Monday in the first day Donald Trump attended the civil lawsuit against him for fraud and other associated crimes in New York, his campaign team sent out a fund-raising email.(1) I’m not telling anyone who is paying attention anything new when I call attention to the fact that every time the former president has been in court in recent months he immediately uses the opportunity to raise funds. We already know he is a con man, he has been found liable for business fraud in New York. So would-be donors must consider the high degree of probability that they are being suckered. Trump’s constant pleas for money are perverse. To begin with, he claims he is very wealthy man. He never tires of boasting about his wealth. If he is so wealthy, why does he come with open hand every time he comes out of court?  Here are a couple of possible answers to this question. First, maybe he is lying about how wealthy he really is. Given his innate mendacity, that is also a distinct probability. Second, he doesn’t want to use his own money and knows he can bilk his MAGA base. In either case, as always, Trump constructs his fantasy world to have it both ways to his benefit. In the Good Book, the Apostle Paul teaches Timothy “the love of money is the root of all evil.”(2) Donald Trump is Exhibit A in the evidence for Paul’s case; meanwhile the dupes in the MAGA base pay his bills.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Many commentators and pundits note that Trump’s non-mandatory appearance at this trial is indicative of where his values really are. He is most concerned, they say, about his pocketbook and the superiority, fame, status, and power he believes wealth gives him.  He sees his court appearances as an opportunity to bilk–or maybe more accurate–filch the MAGA folks.

2.  1 Timothy 6:10.

“Breaking News! Former Chief of Staff Says Trump Has No Idea what America is About and Has Contempt for the Constitution.”©

 “Breaking News!  Former Chief of Staff Says Trump Has No Idea what America is About and Has Contempt for the Constitution.”© 

Just this afternoon (2 October 2023), CNN’s Jake Tapper disclosed an on-the-record-statement from John Kelly, Donald Trump’s longest serving Chief of Staff, critical of his former boss. This is noteworthy not only for the length of time Kelly served Trump and therefore knows whereof he speaks, but heretofore Kelly has been somewhat reticent to speak out against the former president.  Kelly had many scathing things to say about Trump, but I am concerned with and will only publish one brief excerpt.  He said Donald Trump is:

“A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior [General Milley] who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”(1)

On 21 June 2023, I wrote a blog here titled “Donald Trump: An ‘Enemy to the Constitution” in which I quoted Trump’s own words on Truth Social that he felt that the circumstances of an alleged stolen election “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” I also cited Liz Cheney’s statement at the end of the House Investigation of Trump that “No honest person can now deny that Trump is an enemy of the Constitution.” [My emphasis in both quotations.] And General Milley referred to the former president as a “wanna be dictator” in his exit remarks as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

The point I’m making here is that Kelly’s remarks very strongly sustain and confirm what I wrote three months ago. I’m not crowing here. I’m simply trying to keep my eye and your eye on the ball. Tapper appeared to be more offended by Kelly’s revelations that Trump dissed dead or wounded veterans than of his “contempt” for our institutions and the Constitution. On January 6 the man broke his oath to sustain the Constitution, and probably many other times previous to that. Those who know him by serving with him or closely investigating him keep warning us that he does not uphold the Constitution nor the institutions, rights, and freedoms it provides for, that he does want to be a dictator.  

Tapper is right in one other statement he made: “No other presidential candidate in history has had so many detractors from his inner circle.” [My emphasis.]  The “tell all” and books warning us about Trump by former members of his administration has no equal in our history and the list continues to grow.  Yet, apparently 20 to 25 million of the so-called Trump base, ostrich-like, hide from, simply ignore, or believe Trump contra these assertions. They are like the proverbial guy who says, “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up!” It is inexplicable, but sane voices need to keep resisting the totalitarianism Trump and the MAGA base would impose upon this country.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Jake Tapper, “Exclusive: John Kelly goes on the record to confirm several disturbing stories about Trump,” CNN, 2 October 2023.  See it online @:  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/exclusive-john-kelly-goes-on-the-record-to-confirm-several-disturbing-stories-about-trump/ar-AA1hBaQp?cvid=47d629c459ba46d1a808a22e922200b8&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=17#image=AAUU2x4|1

Donald Trump prefers the South of France to America: Let’s Help Him Pack!”©

 Donald Trump Prefers the South of France to America: Let’s Help Him Pack!”© 

Updated: Thursday 10 August 2023

In recent times Donald Trump regularly attacks America during his campaign speeches. It gets old from a man who aspires to lead the country. An example comes from remarks made Tuesday, 8 August 2023, in New Hampshire. He complained about the indictments against him, deplored ever getting into politics and said:

“I could have been relaxing at Mar-a-Lago or in the south of France ― which I would prefer to being in this country, frankly.”(1)

What a excellent idea!  He should be encouraged to follow this preference.

I also like the thinking of Steve Benen who wrote for MSNBC on Thursday, 10 August 2023, following an interesting review of Trump's long-standing criticisms of America, "it's more than a little jarring to see the Republican, at different times, both claim the moral high ground on patriotism and run down his country in ways no former president has ever done."(1)  It's standard hypocrisy for him which his base regularly overlooks in their cult leader, but would not for any opponent, Republican or Democrat.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Ed Mazza, “‘He Hates America’: Trump Slammed for Admitting He’d ‘Prefer’ to Live Overseas,” HuffPost, Tuesday, 8 August 2023, emphasis added.  Available online at:tps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/he-hates-america-trump-slammed-for-admitting-he-d-prefer-to-live-overseas/ar-AA1eZIKL?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=09ae87e2693d482bd0312016cefb2cde&ei=62

2. Steven Benen, "Maddow Blog: The Political Relevance of Trump's Preference for the South of France," MSNBC, available online at:  Maddow Blog | The political relevance of Trump’s preference for the south of France (msn.com)  Emphasis added.

“Donald Trump and a Generation that ‘received not the love of the truth’ but ‘had pleasure in unrighteousness.’©

 “Donald Trump and a Generation that ‘received not the love of the truth’ 

but ‘had pleasure in unrighteousness.’© 

Updated: 6 August 2023

Many, many politicians, pundits, journalists, and common folk like me have been deeply puzzled by Donald Trump’s strong base that stays with him regardless of his: narcissism, innate mendacity, total absence of moral character, irreligious lifestyle as the following list shows he commonly without conscience violates the sacred teachings, principles, and wisdom pertaining to civil human conduct of every known major religion; insatiable hunger for power and wealth, despotic desire to be a “strong man” tyrant, endorsement and embrace of neofascism, violation of his oath of office, unprecedented double impeachment in a single term, life-long womanizing and out-of-hand degradation of women and found legally liable in a court of law for sexual abuse, calling women he doesn't like "fat pigs," "dogs," "slobs," "bimbos," and "disgusting animals,” continually insulting, belittling and stereotyping women; running thoroughly corrupt business and political organizations; malignant tactlessness, mannerlessness, straight-faced hypocrisy; insatiable contention and litigiousness--using the courts as a weapon against opponents and enemies (over 4000 cases in his pre-presidency days), his never ending tactic to villainize opponents and worse, to aggressively pursue not only retribution but vengeance--to destroy careers, families, and lives of those he villainizes; repeated sophomoric threats to weaponize the DOJ against his enemies while at the same time complaining it is illegally weaponized against him; runaway pubescent playground bullying involving name calling and merciless mockery and belittling of everyone who annoys him in any way; bare racism, unbridled hot temper and volatile anger, ungoverned mean spirit, raw, uninhibited insults, vulgarity and crudeness, without refinement, class, and nobility in any form; duping and/or intimidating others, especially attorneys, to do his dirty work, yet absolutely disloyal to former friends, colleagues, staff, employees, and any peer who disagrees with or opposes him; repeated and ongoing intimidation of prosecutors and witnesses (he posted on Truth Social, 4 August 2023, the day after a judge warned him about this, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU"); harsh, reactionary and juvenile judgmentalism; impulsiveness, showing signs of "impulse control disorders," or "disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders" which include “intermittent explosive disorder” and “oppositional defiant disorder;” apathy and indifference about negative consequences his erratic behavior produces, incessant character assassinations; egotistical, arrogant, and pompous to an unbelievable degree, at the same time monumentally and insufferably ignorant and stupid although he thinks he is always the smartest man in the room, ("my IQ is one of the highest" he boasted on TV), and see exhibit "A," his threat above, or that he apparently does not know the difference between a civil and criminal case, referring to the indictments against him as "law suits"; disdain for the expertise and opinions of others, especially those who disagree with him, and always right while everyone else is wrong; promotion of wild-eyed and irrational conspiracy theories, hysterical crybaby whining about his alleged victimization in contrast to his boasts of strength and toughness; speaking of toughness, Mr. Trump has remarkably thin skin, he can dish it out but he cannot take it as evidenced when Nancy Pelosi said this past weekend that Trump looked like a "scared puppy" when he came out of court in D.C., last week and Trump immediately responded on Truth Social, "I wasn't scared.  Nevertheless, how mean a thing to say!  She is a Wicked Witch ....  She is a sick & demented psycho who will someday live in HELL!"; cunning manipulation of others, greedy grifter enriching himself while allegedly serving the people, continual lawlessness, without conscience, a callous Spock-like deficit of emotional sensitivity, kindness, compassion, sympathy, or empathy, detached and cold; calculating, full of guile, relishes cruelty to others, thinks himself above the law; complete irrationality and utter disregard for facts, truth, and reality bordering on mental illness, a colossal braggart--"I will be the greatest job President God ever made" or "nobody builds walls better than me," and he claims a kind of clairvoyant and/or world-class historical knowledge without reading a book (or his security briefings) such that he knows and says really factual things the rest of us do not know or say, like his defense for saying he could grab women by their genitals without their consent, "Historically, that's true with stars.  If you look over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true," or that Jack Smith is deranged and a drug user because he was photographed wearing a purple robe and his face is unattractive to Mr. Trump, or that the Bidens were responsible for the drugs discovered in a White House locker room, or that he could end the Russo-Ukrainian war in 24 hours, or he could build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, or touting disinfectant/bleach and hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid-19; persistent sociopathic if not psychopathic behavior, chronic exercise of unlawful influence by virtue of his position and status, abandoned recklessness with national security and handling of classified information, nearly unimaginable administrative incompetence like his deranged response to the COVID-19 pandemic and--where is the “wall” and what about the brainless scheme of Mexican money to pay for it?--that staggers the imagination!

What an example for America's youth! What a specimen of American politics! What a representative of the United States of America to put before the world! What a amateur, moronic madcap buffoon to put in charge of the most complex and powerful democratic government in the world!  What an unstable power-hungry demagogue to protect and uphold the Constitution with the freedoms and rights it guarantees! What a demon to have his finger on the nuclear button!

In light of all this, a base that remains loyal is not evaluating the man with a crystal clear critical eye, but are parading lemming-like loyalty to a political party and its frightful figurehead.  Their problem is that they are, as one long-time observer of the base, Sarah Longwell, founder of "The Republican Accountability Project" says, living "in an entirely different information ecosystem"(1)--that is they only read, see, and hear Trumpian propaganda such as Fox News.  In words borrowed from C. S. Lewis, they are enclosed "in a tiny windowless universe which [they] mistake for the only possible universe."(2) American education has failed these people according to the amiable Alan Simpson, former Republican Senator from Wyoming who defined an educated man as one who is "thoroughly inoculated against humbug, [and] thinks for himself...."(3) They evidence a similar irrationality, blind mindedness, and hard heartedness that characterizes the behavior of a religious cult like that of Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple or David Koresh’s Branch Davidians.(4) These same characteristics were hallmarks of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. I can understand Nazi Germany better now, in a way I never could before 2016. Understand may not be the correct word, but I see so many social and historical parallels that, if I were not a man of faith, it could be worrisome.

My wife and I read scripture together every night, and recently we have been reading Paul’s epistles. Within the week we encountered a passage that put Hitler, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia, China, and Cuba, Jones and Koresh, and Donald Trump and his base in a religious perspective.  In 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 Paul is writing of a time when there was a “falling away, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (Vs. 3)  He goes on to discuss Satan and his influence. I invite the reader to consider some of the characteristics of the period Paul is discussing in 2 Thess. 2:9-12. I have highlighted several that stood out to me.

KJV 2 Thessalonians 2: 9-12    9) Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,  10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  11)  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:  12)  That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The context is, of course, a religious declension, but to me it also fits an ultra-contemporary political counterpart. Donald Trump and his ilk: Lindsey Graham, Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, Ted Cruz, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and a host of other like-minded irrational crazies and hypocrites should all be sent packing.  Latter-day Saints know the Constitution was inspired by God, not that it is perfect, but it’s the best this world has ever seen.  Why turn the government of this great nation over to people who act like the people Paul describes?

Until a year ago, I’ve been a life-long Republican, but these irrational demagogues have commandeered the party and turned it into a political cult revolving around the worst man to ever hold the office of President of the United States. So, I left and became an independent. I will not vote for Donald Trump nor Joe Biden. But, I believe we can go back to some fundamental Republican ideas and ideals without the baggage, and more importantly, the danger Donald Trump represents to our Constitution, the republican form of government it authorizes, the Rights it guarantees, Democracy in general, and to the good of our society and culture.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1. Sarah Longwell to Christiane Amanpour, 3 August 2023, on CNN @ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-supporters-live-in-an-entirely-different-information-ecosystem-says-political-strategist/vi-AA1eNY3V

2.  C.S. Lewis, "Christianity and Culture," in Lesley Walmsley, ed., C.S. Lewis: Essay Collection: Faith, Christianity and the Church, London, Harper Collins, 2000, 81.

3.  Alan Simpson, Newsweek, 1 July 1963, cited in Stephen Donadio, et al., eds., The New York Public Library Book of Twentieth-Century American Quotations, New York: The Stonesong Press, 1992, 163.

4. See for example, this very recent article:  Seth D. Norrholm, "A Neuroscientist Warns: We're Watching the Largest and Most Dangerous 'Cult' in American History," Raw Story, 5 August 2023, A neuroscientist warns: We're watching the largest and most dangerous 'cult' in American history (msn.com)

Donald Trump and the Sucker Generation©

  Donald Trump and the Sucker Generation© 

The 180 degree difference between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump is found in Reagan’s challenge to students in Chicago.

"Don’t let me get away with it.  Check me out.  Don’t be the sucker generation.”(1)

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Ronald Reagan cited in Stephen Donadio, et al., eds., The New York Public Library Book of Twentieth-Century American Quotations, New York: The Stonesong Press, 1992, 298.

Donald Trump: An “enemy to the Constitution”©

Donald Trump: An “enemy to the Constitution”© 

Updated: Thursday, 20 July 2023

I oppose Donald Trump’s nomination and election as President because rather than defending the Constitution of the United States, he is a threat to it. He thinks his belief in a stolen election justifies “terminating” unnamed provisions of the Constitution and he opposes “birthright citizenship” allowed by the 14th Amendment which he thinks he can do away with by an executive order. His ignorance about the Constitution, constitutional issues, and of his authority relative to the Constitution is not flattering to him. Given his great influence with scores of millions in his base, his naiveté and hubris relative to the Constitution are extremely dangerous for the future of Democracy.

On Saturday, 3 December 2022, Donald Trump posted the following on his “Truth Social” media network:

“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” [Emphasis added.]

This extreme statement is one of the most damning things he has ever said publicly, because his sworn duty is to protect the Constitution not terminate it. If I were a political opponent this would be front and center in my campaign against him.  

Though this may be hyperbole–two days later he denied he wanted to terminate the constitution, however, he apparently did not delete the post– he either does not understand the meaning of his own words, or they have some other meaning which was poorly expressed, or responding to negative reaction he lied about his true feelings. Trending evidence for the last six years favors the latter. At the very least, this is not a ringing stellar endorsement and defense of the Constitution that should come from a wannabe President.

I agree wholeheartedly with Liz Cheney who tweeted the next day:

Donald Trump believes we should terminate “all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution” to overturn the 2020 election.That was his view on 1/6 and remains his view today. No honest person can now deny that Trump is an enemy of the Constitution.” [Emphasis added.]

In addition, Trump’s recent resurrection of his earlier opposition to the “birthright citizenship” provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which he promises to abolish with an executive order on the first day of his second administration, is equally as fanciful and equally dangerous for the same reasons stated above.

The most important point:  We already know the former President cannot be trusted to keep the oath which President’s swear on inauguration day. Why would anyone who loves America and believes in the sanctity of the Constitution, ever give him another chance to further denigrate and erode, indeed, to threaten that sacred document, the freedoms it enshrines, and the democratic government it provides?

***

Update 20 July 2023: On Monday, 17 July, the New York Times published an article which was picked up by USA Today, which is absolutely consistent with my arguments in this blog.  I don’t have access to the Times article because I do not have a subscription, but the USA Today article called the former, “bone-chilling for anyone who cherishes our freedom, democracy and constitutional governance.”  It was published with cooperation of Trump’s presidential campaign and it outlines his plans to “eliminate executive branch constraints on his power if he is elected president in 2024.”  USA Today cited Trump as saying in 2019, “I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” 

I have believed that is his belief and objective from day one and that it why I have never voted for him and never will.  There is no doubt in my mind Donald Trump would like to be a dictator and he is willing to destroy our Constitution, along with the political form of government and the rights and freedoms it bequeaths us.

See:  Austin Sarat and Dennis Aftergut, “Is American on the brink of tyranny?  Trump’s plan if elected in 2024 should frighten us all.”  USA Today, 20 July 2023.

See also this like-minded piece:  Bess Levin, "Trump Makes It Clear He'd Be and Out and Out Dictator If Reelected in 2024," Vanity Fair, 31 January 2022.

Let’s think together again, soon. 

Prophecy Fulfilled: “...the most reckless President in American history”©

 Prophecy Fulfilled: “...the most reckless President in American history”© 

Having a personal, moral, and (I think) legal obligation as a citizen of the United States to participate in its public affairs, I will from time to time explain here my opposition to the nomination and election of Donald J. Trump to be President of the United States. If you wish to differ with me, please do so on your own website or blog. I am not wishing to engage in debate with anyone here. I only wish to register and document for myself, my posterity, and others with whom I may have some influence, my opposition to Mr. Trump–a position I first took in this blog prior to his election several years ago.

A Prophecy Fulfilled: 

On 8 August 2016, seven years ago, 50 prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts wrote an open letter to the American people opposing the election of Donald Trump. My copy is from the online version of the Wall Street Journal.

Here is how they prophetically concluded that letter:

“We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.”(1)

As it turns out these men and women, Republicans all, experienced all, and in this case wise all, had their finger on the pulse of Donald Trump very well.

The accuracy of this statement should be self-evident to every thinking and well informed American. Its truth was demonstrated repeatedly during Trump’s presidency, most notably on 6 January 2021; and again on Tuesday, 13 June 2023, when he faced 37 formal criminal charges for his handling, or rather mishandling, of classified documents.

Indeed, Donald Trump has been, and would continue to be, the “most reckless President in American history!”  Republicans didn’t listen to them then.  Will they listen this time?  

This is one reason I am and always have been a “Never Trumper.”

Let’s think together again, soon.

PS:  I will notice other things said in this very important and prescient letter in future posts in this series.

Notes:

1.  https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/natsecurityletter08082016.pdf ; emphasis added.

     Accessed 14 June 2023.

Evidence Seventy-Three: Saved in our sins, or from our sins? Another Score for the Book of Mormon.©

 101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

Evidence Seventy-Three:

“Saved in our sins, or from our sins?  Another Score for the Book of Mormon”© 

The Book of Mormon offers a unique and important view of the notion that Christ will save the world from sin.(3 Nephi 9:21.) The only clear mention of this idea in the Bible is found in Matthew 1:21 which is part of the angel’s instruction to Joseph in a dream: “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” (Emphasis added here and in all future cases unless otherwise noted.)  There is no further explanation of this point here or anywhere else in the Bible. Perhaps the meaning is considered self-evident, but the Book of Mormon introduces another important element when Nephi teaches “And, in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins.” (2 Ne. 9:38)  The same doctrine is reiterated in even stronger terms by Abinadi in Mosiah 15:26:

But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.  

Nephi and Abinadi’s  statements begin to clarify an important issue. Jesus will save us from our sins, but he cannot do it while we are in our sins. Later in the book of Alma, Alma teaches his wayward son Corianton. He explained to his son that in the resurrection the soul should be restored to its body (Al. 40:22-23), and in chapter 41 he has more to say about this doctrine of restoration, because some misunderstand or intentionally wrest the scriptures on the subject.(1) He says this restoration will be consistent with the justice of God and men will be judged according to their works.  (Al. 41:1-3) Then he warns Corianton:

9) And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.  10) Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness.  Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.” (Al. 41:9-10.)

Even Moroni weighs in on the matter. Within the last ten verses of the Book of Mormon, he writes:  “And wo unto them who shall do these things away and die, for they die in their sins, and they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God; and I speak it according to the words of Christ; and I lie not.  (Moroni 10:26.) 

Salvation cannot be a divine fiat irrespective of the divine laws of justice; it must be consistent with them.

Alma was one who consistently taught that Jesus came to redeem his people “from their sins.” Three times in Alma 5 and 6 he addresses the issue as he taught the people of Zarahemla and Gideon. Notice for him the issue is the spiritual cleanliness of the individual:

5:21   I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins.

Al. 5:27  Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins?

Al. 6:8  And Alma went and began to declare the word of God unto the church which was established in the valley of Gideon, according to the revelation of the truth of the word which had been spoken by his fathers, and according to the spirit of prophecy which was in him, according to the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who should come to redeem his people from their sins, and the holy order by which he was called. And thus it is written. Amen.

As I said earlier, one may think much of this is self-evident. However there is an episode recounted in the eleventh chapter of Alma that suggests otherwise. Just as Corianton may have been confused or sought a loophole in scriptural language, the following shows there are those who play word games and thereby wrest the scriptures and doctrines of the Gospel.(2) Here Zeezrom debates with Amulek about the coming of Jesus Christ; a portion of their dialog concerns this issue:

34)  And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word.  35)  Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God.  36)  Now Amulek saith again unto him: Behold thou hast lied, for thou sayest that I spake as though I had authority to command God because I said he shall not save his people in their sins.  37)  And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.  (Alma 11:34-37.)

Later Helaman recalls this episode to his sons Nephi and Lehi. Though not directly stated in Alma 11, Helaman’s interpretation of the incident is that it infers a distinction between being saved in their sin from being saved from their sin.

And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins. (Hel. 5:10.)

In LDS theology, the story does not end here. In 1918 President Joseph F. Smith received a vision of the gospel being preached to the spirits in the Spirit World. He said, “These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.”(D&C 138:3.) And in verse 32 he wrote, “Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

As I reflect upon this doctrine as it may pertain to Joseph Smith’s alleged authorship of the Book of Mormon versus translating it by the gift and power of God, I confess that this data really astounds me. First, this is a fairly subtle language issue that gradually takes on a significant life of its own as it progresses through the Book of Mormon story, and I find myself asking two questions: 1) What could possibly have existed in Joseph Smith’s immediate situation or his doctrinal interest that would have made it relevant to weave this through the text from 1 Nephi to Helaman and 3 Nephi, and even to Moroni? 2) Was Joseph Smith familiar and spiritually sensitive enough, at age 24-25, with the Bible story to realize that the issue raised in Matthew 1:21 was never fully treated further in the biblical text, and therefore, was ripe for further explication in his book? To me the improbability of this increases when you consider how many other similar things are present in the Book of Mormon. Creativity and insight on steroids! Was he at that age, aware that some men wrest the scriptures on the basis of technical language to score doctrinal victories, moreover, that it was an important enough issue to include more than one example of the practice in the Book of Mormon including this one? The reader will have to answer these questions for himself. To me, though I believe Joseph Smith possessed a mind with spiritual gifts we have not yet plumbed, I still find it difficult to believe that he intentionally planned to do this and ingeniously scattered it in the sermons and teachings of several prophet-authors, in separate incidents, over hundreds of years until it becomes a significant sub-theme in the book. I am also convinced that given more thought and analysis, there are a number of good reasons for the Book of Mormon to ensure the distinction between being saved in our sins from being saved from our sins is important in this dispensation.

At least one of those reasons may be discovered from the following quotations from noted Evangelical theologian John MacArthur, Texan Fundamentalist Baptist Robert Jeffress, and noted World War II theologian-martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, concerning the popular "saved by grace" intellectual assent theology today which is "cheap grace" which "makes no moral demands" or exempts Christians from "any standard of conduct."(3)

MacArthur: The gospel in vogue today holds forth a false hope to sinners. It promises them they can have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God. Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord. It promises salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity. It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the flesh and spurn the way of holiness. By separating faith from faithfulness, it leaves the impression that intellectual assent is as valid as whole-hearted obedience to the truth. Thus the good news of Christ has given way to the bad news of an insidious easy believism that makes no moral demands on the lives of sinners. It is not the same message Jesus proclaimed. 

Jeffress: “In an attempt to ‘rescue’ grace from legalists [those who would turn the gospel into a set of regulations and good works that save us], we have unwittingly delivered it into the hands of libertarians, who insist that grace exempts Christians from any standard of conduct. Instead of saying that there is nothing we need to do to cause God to love us any more than He already does, a libertarian places the period after the word do. ‘Grace means there is nothing we need to do.’”

Bonhoeffer: We are fighting today for costly grace .... Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner.... Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate....

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ.  It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.  It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: ‘ye are bought at a price.’ And what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us.”(4)

Thank God for Joseph Smith!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Alma 41:1.

2.  Amulek accuses Zeezrom of just such conduct in Alma 11:21.

3.  All as cited in Robert L. Millet, The Atoning One, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018, 122-24.

4. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, New York: Touchstone, 1995, 43-45, emphasis in original.

Evidence Seventy-Two: No Unrighteousness in the Revelations of Joseph Smith©

 101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God

Evidence Seventy-Two:

No Unrighteousness in the Revelations of Joseph Smith© 

On occasion I have previously called attention to a couple of important statements about the revelations of Joseph Smith and I do so again today. Early in November 1831, the prophet conducted a lengthy conference in Hiram, Ohio. The purpose was to publish the Doctrine and Covenants. During the ongoing meetings Joseph Smith received several revelations, all of which in one way or another addressed the new publication and some concerns of those in the conference. The second of those revelations is D&C 67. Apparently some looked down upon the revelations and perhaps the language of them. One man even suggested it was easy to produce such a document. The Lord directly addresses this issue and challenges any of them to produce one like the least of those given to Joseph. In verses 8 and 9 he says

8) But if ye cannot make one like unto it, ye are under condemnation if ye do not bear record that they are true. 9) For ye know that there is no unrighteousness in them, and that which is righteous cometh down from above, from the Father of lights. (Emphasis added.)

Two things stand out to me about this wonderful and remarkable passage. The first is, of course, the Lord’s testimony that there is no unrighteousness in the revelations Joseph Smith has written. But there is also an interesting implication in verse 9. “And that which is righteous come down from above...” This says to me the revelations are not neutral. There is no unrighteousness in them, and the clear implications is therefore, they are righteous, and if they are, that means they came from above, from the Father of lights. Earlier the Lord cautioned the Church, “These words are given unto you, and they are pure before me; wherefore, beware how you hold them, for they are to be answered upon your souls in the day of judgment.”(1) 

Today, in my work compiling a commentary on 3 Nephi, I reviewed some quotations I have collected about the word hearken and I came across a sweet and profound statement from Elder Delbert L. Stapley that prompted me to write this essay. Read it carefully because it lays a foundation for the principle of obedience to God and the Spirit that rings with righteousness. In addition, his last paragraph prepares us for the further teachings of President Russell Nelson. In the April 1968 General Conference Elder Stapley said:

Hearkening unto the voice of the Spirit is the key and the challenge which leads to God's eternal mansions. Hear this warning: "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning. . . .  And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men " (D&C 93:38-39.)

It is through disobedience and man's failure to hearken unto the voice of the Spirit and the counsels of God that Satan is able to come and take away from man the light and truth of the gospel. When the light within us begins to dim, Satan moves in. When the light within us goes out, we are in his power and under his control.

When Saul, who failed to follow the instructions of the Lord, tried to justify his disobedience for doing so, the ancient prophet Samuel said: ". . . Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (1 Sam. 15:22.)

In latter-day scriptures the Lord uses action words in the first sentence to introduce many of his revelations. It is interesting to note that "hearken" was used 23 times. We are admonished by the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith to behold, to hearken, to listen, and to hear, in over 60 revelations.(2)

Hearkening to the Spirit is the key to eternal life, but disobedience leads to the loss of light and truth. So, Elder Stapley points out, the word hearken was used 23 times to introduce revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and together with behold and listen, the principle is repeated in over 60 revelations. Moreover the word hearken is found 80 times in the Book of Mormon, many of which stress the same doctrinal principle. For example, it appears 6 times in 3 Nephi, and only the first one in 3 Nephi 3:12 is not in this context; the rest are. 3 Nephi 21:22 declares “But if they will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob...” And directly to the point, 3 Nephi 23:5 declares, “And whosoever will hearken unto my words and repenteth and is baptized, the same shall be saved.” Chapter 28:34 declares a “wo upon him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus.” Finally, the first verse of the last chapter (30) begins, “Hearken, O ye Gentiles, and hear the words of Jesus Christ....”

From what has been said thus far that the word “hearken” means more than just listen or hear what the Lord says. It most definitely implies "heed," “do,” or “obey.” That conclusion is stressed in considerable commentary on the meaning of the word by President Russell Nelson. The word hearken and its meaning is important to him; he has addressed the subject several times through his ministry, as illustrated below. The first I am aware of is in a footnote to his April 1991 General Conference address. In that address he said: [numbered footnotes follow]

Scriptures recorded in all dispensations teach that we show our love of God as we hearken to His commandments and obey them.14 These actions are closely connected. In fact, the Hebrew language of the Old Testament in most instances uses the same term for both hearkening (to the Lord) and obedience (to His word).15

14  See Ex. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; Deut. 7:9; Deut. 11:1; Deut. 30:16; Josh. 22:5; Neh. 1:5; Dan. 9:4; John 14:15; John 15:10; 1 Jn. 5:2–3; 2 Jn. 1:6; Mosiah 13:14; D&C 42:2; D&C 46:9; D&C 124:87.

15 That term was שָ מַע (shâma’), which means “to hear intelligently.” The term was used hundreds of times in the Hebrew Old Testament, as Israel was counseled to hearken to the word of the Lord and obey it.

Different terms were used in some instances in the Hebrew text whenever reference was made to hearing or responding without implied obedience.

Examples:

• “They have ears, but they hear not.” (Ps. 135:17; see also Ps. 140:6; italics added.) אָזַן (’âzan) to give ear—to listen

• “I will hear, saith the Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth.” (Hosea 2:21; italics added.) עָנָה (’ânâh) to pay attention—to answer

• “Lift up thy voice, O daughter … : cause it to be heard.” (Isa. 10:30; italics added; see also Ps. 10:17.) קָשַ ב (qâshav) to give heed

Still different terms were employed in the Old Testament when referring to obedience not to Deity but to other people.  

Examples:

• “The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother.” (Prov. 30:17; italics added.) יִקָהָה (yiqqâhâh) obedience, to obey

• “The children of Ammon shall obey them.” (Isa. 11:14; italics added.) מִשְ מַעַת (mishma’ath) audience—obedience

That link between listening and obedience is found not only in Hebrew, but in Latin and Greek. The word obey comes from two Latin roots: the prefix ob “to” or “toward,” and the root audio, audire “to hear” or “to listen.” This root occurs in words such as audio, audience, or auditorium. Literally, then, the word obey means “to hear or to listen toward,” that is, “to comply.”

The word for obey in Greek, ὑπακούω (hupakouo), literally means “listen under,” from hypo “under” as in hypo-dermic, also “in subjection or subordination” and the root akouo “hear, listen” as in acoustics. In New Testament times, its use was gradually broadened to less sacred realms, including expressions such as “children, obey parents” (see Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20), “wives, [obey] husbands” (see 1 Pet. 3:1), “servants, obey … masters” (see Col. 3:22), and so on.

A parallel pattern is found in the Book of Mormon. Use of terms such as listen, hear, and hearken, written at the time of the Old Testament, generally carried the same implication of obedience to Deity. Those terms in Book of Mormon scriptures written after the earthly advent of Christ were also broadened to include the more familiar usage, as in the language of the New Testament.(3)

In June of 1998 he addressed the new mission president’s seminar as follows:

Obedience is the act of obeying. The verb to obey comes from the Latin audire meaning “to hear.”  Audio-, audition, auditorium are also words that come from audire.

Even deeper meaning unfolds from study of the Hebrew language. If you will bear with me, I’d like to pursue that a little, ever mindful of the teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith. With respect to “the present translation of the Bible,” he said, “our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version.”

One of the most powerful and pivotal words in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is shama' {shaw-mah'}, עמש. It occurs more than 1,000 times in the Old Testament.  It appears in each of the 39 books of the Old Testament. It is a strong verb that means “to hearken,” “to listen attentively,” “to hear.” It connotes more than merely to perceive by ear.  It means that one hears a message with real intent to obey.

Throughout the entire Old Testament, “shama” is an oft-repeated cry of God’s prophets to His people. You remember the declaration recorded in First Samuel: “To obey (shama) is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” 

In the King James translation of the Hebrew text, shama was translated into many terms—such as hearken, heed, obey, listen, or understand, in their many forms.

It is not surprising that the long-promised “restitution of all things,” would include restoration of the powerful concept of shama.  Its English equivalents are scrolled across the pages of scriptures of the restoration.

Let us turn to the very first verse in the Doctrine and Covenants: “Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen.”  That first verse features hearken twice and listen once. Hallelujah! Shama has been restored! Those first words of “Preface to the doctrines, covenants, and commandments” of this dispensation are not written as optional language. They are divine imperatives. You may be interested in knowing that 58 of the 138 (or 42 percent) of the  sections of the Doctrine and Covenants contain some form of the words hearken, heed, hear, listen, or obey. Moreover, in the Book of Mormon, those words appear more than 200 times. Thus, the concept of obedience is not only evident in restoration scripture, it is another confirming evidence of the restoration.”(4)

And most recently he again addressed the subject in his April 2020 General Conference talk:

The very first word in the Doctrine and Covenants is hearken. It means “to listen with the intent to obey.”13 To hearken means to “hear Him”—to hear what the Savior says and then to heed His counsel. In those two words—“Hear Him”—God gives us the pattern for success, happiness, and joy in this life. We are to hear the words of the Lord, hearken to them, and heed what He has told us!

As we seek to be disciples of Jesus Christ, our efforts to hear Him need to be ever more intentional. It takes conscious and consistent effort to fill our daily lives with His words, His teachings, His truths.

13 In the Old Testament, the word hearken is translated from the Hebrew shama, which is a strong verb that means to “listen with the intent to obey.” Hearken is a scriptural word that occurs in 40 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Now back to Joseph Smith and the righteousness in his revelations. The plea for God’s children to “hearken” to him, begins in and permeates in the Old Testament. A pattern of use similar to that already discussed can be discerned in the 8 or so times the word is found in the New Testament. For example Mark has Jesus introducing the famous parable of the sower in the following words: “Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow....” And it continues the drum beat of pleas to God’s children in the scriptures of the Restoration.

So, if Joseph Smith is indeed a servant of Satan as many opponents believe and proclaim him to be, I think they must explain why he writes scripture that continually repeats the plea--scores of times--to listen to and obey God? And, by the way, isn’t it nifty that his usage of the word hearken is of one piece with the linguistic definitions which come down to us from ancient times as President Nelson shows?  Do you suppose Joseph knew that? Where would he have encountered it in his first quarter century of life? Or, is it possible that he was just lucky to use the word with the same meaning in the same context the ancients gave it because he was just a good copycat? Or is the truth really that there is no unrighteousness in his revelations, and therefore as God says, they come from above? I choose to believe the latter. His doctrine tastes good. It is good. Nay, it is more than good, it is righteous and holy, something that is not highly revered in today’s secular society, and in many cases even among those professing to be his followers.

Thank God for Joseph Smith!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1. D&C 41:12, emphasis added. On another occasion the Prophet Joseph said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967, 368.

2.  Delbert L. Stapley, “Light and Truth Forsake Evil,” Improvement Era (June 1968): 52.

3.  Russell M. Nelson, “Learn to Listen,” Ensign (May 1991), 24 and 25 n. 15.

4.  Russell M. Nelson, “Obedience,” address to New Mission Presidents, 25 June 1998, 1-2.

5.  Russell M. Nelson, “Hear Him,” Ensign (May 2020): 89, 92, n. 13.

Evidence Seventy-One: An Obscure Evidence for Individual Authorship in the Book of Mormon.©

 101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

Evidence Seventy-One:

“An Obscure Evidence for Individual Authorship in the Book of Mormon”©(1)

This is likely one of the shortest of the evidences which I write about, but I believe it is potent nonetheless. This morning while discussing with some friends a book written by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, we came across the following passage regarding the omnipotence of Jesus Christ:

This is most often seen as a characteristic and quality of godhood rather than a title.  Nevertheless, it is used as a name seven times in scripture, six of those by King Benjamin or those who heard his magnificent sermon as recorded in the Book of Mosiah.(2) This distinction is another testament to the individuality of authorship among those writing in the Book of Mormon.(3)

There are several things we could talk about in this passage, however, I emphasize the last sentence to briefly enlarge on it’s point. Since the writings of Hugh Nibley, if not before, LDS defenders of the Book of Mormon have made the point that when studied closely, one can detect various differences among the many authors of the books within the Book of Mormon. The point of that emphasis is usually to argue that if Joseph Smith were the author of the book, rather than a translator of an ancient text, all the alleged authors would sound the same. There would not likely be unique differences between Nephi, Jacob, or King Benjamin, because in reality they came from the same source–the mind and heart of Joseph Smith. The most scientific computer-facilitated approach to this issue initially came from Wayne Larsen and Alvin Rencher in their 1980 article “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? An Analysis of Wordprints” and a subsequent study by John Hilton in 1990.(4)

To me, what is important about Elder Holland’s statement, is that of all the Book of Mormon authors, King Benjamin is the only one to refer to the "omniscience" of God in the entire text and this is a “testament to the individuality of authorship” among Book of Mormon authors. A little thing, some may say. Perhaps, but when added to the ongoing accumulation of evidence for the separate authorship of books, sermons, and narratives within the Book of Mormon, this is one more precious morsel which could easily be overlooked, but Elder Holland didn’t miss it or its implications.

Moreover, Elder Holland is making the point that this descriptive phrase is actually a name and title for the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not referring to the Father Elohim, though it would not be inappropriate to do so. In the third lecture of the Lectures on Faith, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught, that there are three things we need to possess in order to exercise faith in God, “unto life and salvation.” The second of them is, “a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes.”(5)

In that respect note the specificity and power in the following statements by King Benjamin in reference to Jesus Christ, “the Lord (God) Omnipotent”:

Mosiah 3:5: For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Mosiah 3:17-18   17) And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. 18)  For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

Mosiah 5:15:Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen. [Emphasis added.]

Each of these passages emphasizes in one way or another the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the first, he is a God of miracles; in the second, he has the power to save through his atoning blood; and in the third, he can seal us his to have “everlasting salvation and eternal life” through his wisdom, power, justice and mercy. These passages are unique expressions in the Book of Mormon, emphasizing Elder Holland’s point.  To me it is marvelous that this very profound and deep spiritual teaching comes by way of an obscure unlearned New York farm boy in 1830!

Thank God for the omnipotent Lord Jesus Christ and for Joseph Smith, the instrument in God’s omnipotent hand to bring us the Book of Mormon which teaches his correct character, perfections, and attributes in such simple yet potent ways! 

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  This is a companion piece to evidence number 50 “‘Zingers’ in the Book of Mormon, Part 7, ‘relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save,’” published 23 October 2016.

2.  See, Mosiah 3:5, 17, 18, 21; 5:2, and 15. The word “omniscience” appears only once in the KJV at Revelation 19:6, however the Greek word  pantokrator, occurs eight other times, once in Paul and the rest from John, but is always translated “almighty.”  See, 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7,14; 19:15; 21:22.

3.  Jeffrey R. Holland, Witness for His Names, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019, 114, emphasis added. 

4.  Wayne A. Larsen and Alvin C. Rencher, “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?  An Analysis of Wordprints,” BYU Studies 20 (Spring 1980):225-51, reprinted in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, Religious Studies Monograph 7, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 1982, 157-88.  One significant study before the computer was Glade L. Burgon, “An Analysis of Style Variations in the Book of Mormon,” MA thesis, Brigham Young University, 1950.

Because wordprinting studies were in their infancy when Larsen and Rencher first wrote, some critics challenged the validity of the method and its results.  Perhaps the most extensive work  of this type was Ernest H. Taves, Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1984, 225-60.  

Shortly after the publication of the Larsen and Rencher article, John Hilton III, joined with a small group of researchers in Berkeley, California who were working on wordprinting to check the results of Larsen and Rencher.  Seven years later they concluded the methodology had advanced far enough that scholars “could use such tests confidently and without personal bias...” See his article, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship,” BYU Studies 30, no. 3 (Summer 1990):89-108. Hilton also reviewed the Taves study referred to above and found it “fundamentally flawed.”  See John L. Hilton, “Review of Ernest Taves’ Book of Mormon Stylometry,” FARMS HIL-86, Provo, UT: FARMS, 1986.

These studies were followed in 1996 by Roger R. Keller’s, Book of Mormon Authors: Their Words and Messages, Religious Studies Center Specialized Monograph Series 9, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 1996. And there are others. 

5.  Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985, 38.  See paragraphs 2-5, emphasis in original.

Evidence Seventy: Joseph Smith a “Skilled Writer” at Age 23?©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

Evidence Seventy:

Joseph Smith a “Skilled Writer” at Age 23?© 

Last week I re-read Elder Tad Callister’s October 2017 Conference address titled “God’s Compelling Witness: The Book of Mormon.” There are many things in it which could be the subject of a blog in this series, and I may deal with some of them individually, and some I have addressed in previous blogs. Today I want to concentrate on a statement he made following comments about one of the popular theories of the Book of Mormon critics, that Joseph was a “creative genius” and an eclectic one at that, so he took advantage of all of the alleged sources of his ideas that were supposedly readily available in the gigantic library of Palymra, New York in the late 1820s. To mine, winnow, and integrate all of these sources into something coherent and then dictate it without a note would require as Elder Callister says, a “photographic memory of prodigious proportions.”(1) Incidentally, none of his contemporary critics credited him with such a memory. Elder Callister went on to say, that the critics would also have to consider Joseph Smith a theological genius because of the many doctrinal ideas found in the Book of Mormon. Then he said...

But even if we suppose that Joseph were a creative and theological genius with a photographic memory—these talents alone do not make him a skilled writer. To explain the Book of Mormon’s existence, the critics must also make the claim that Joseph was a naturally gifted writer at age 23. Otherwise, how did he interweave scores of names, places, and events into a harmonious whole without inconsistencies? How did he pen detailed war strategies, compose eloquent sermons, and coin phrases that are highlighted, memorized, quoted, and placed on refrigerator doors by millions of people, phrases such as, “When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God” (Mosiah 2:17) or “Men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:25). These are messages with a heartbeat—messages that live and breathe and inspire. To suggest that Joseph Smith at age 23 possessed the skills necessary to write this monumental work in a single draft in approximately 65 working days is simply counter to the realities of life.(2)

To me one of the things that makes the idea of Joseph Smith being a skilled writer important is the fact that his wife Emma, who early on helped him temporarily as a scribe while he dictated the manuscript of the Book of Mormon said in her final testimony, “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictat[e] a book like the Book of Mormon.”(3) Of course she was referring to his ability as her young husband at the time. Though she went on to say that being an “active participant” and “present during the translation” and having “cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much so as to anyone else.”(4) She, a dutiful and faithful young companion finds the ability of her husband “marvelous.” Besides immediate family, who knew him any better at that time?  

Nor was he a good speller, and this is not insignificant in light of what Emma told Edmund C. Briggs:

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.(5)

We will shortly see evidence of his poor spelling in 1832-33, three or four years after the Book of Mormon was translated. Though he improved through his life, he was never a good speller. That is not necessarily a mark of a poor education or low intellect.  The first American dictionary was published in 1828. Most Americans of Joseph Smith’s day and earlier, educated or not, wouldn’t pass muster in a 5th grade spelling bee these days.

There is other interesting evidence of his lack of literary prowess. In 1957, John A Widtsoe published a study of Joseph Smith.  Chapter twelve is titled: “The Vocabulary of Joseph Smith.”  He found that the Book of Mormon is composed of  2,800 “general words,” 245 person’s names and 166 place names. This is about 1,439 fewer “general words” than in the New Testament, and about 585 more than in the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph’s vocabulary fares poorly against the 7-8,000 words vocabulary of John Milton and perhaps 18,000 of Shakespeare.  Widtsoe notes a well educated man in the 1950s used about 8,000 words.(6) To me, for Joseph Smith to produce what he did in the Book of Mormon with such limited word resources, is truly phenomenal. He, like Nephi and Moroni, seems to have gloried in “plainness.”

It is interesting to do a little reading in his earliest holographic journals.  By 1832, he could write a coherent sentence, but there is evidence of lingering weakness in his grammar, syntax, punctuation, and spelling.  His journal entries illustrate visually in part, at least, what Emma said. Here are two examples from his earliest journal, a year apart in late 1832 and 1833:

1) 29 November 1832: “November 29th this day road from Kirtland to Chardon to see my Sister Sopronia and also came to see my Sister Catheri and found them all ... [well?]

    this Evening Brother Frederic Prophcyed tha next spring I should go to the city of PittsBurg to establish a Bishopwrick and within one year I should go to the city of New York the Lord spare me the life of thy servent Amen.(7)

2) 12 October 1833:   “...held a meeting at Brother Ruds a had a great congregation paid good attention Oh God Seal our tetimony to their hearts Amen.”(8)

Compare those rough-hewn, apparently hastily written entries with two dictated passages from the Book of Mormon:

1) Mosiah 3:19: For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

2) Moroni 7:48: Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

He did this very polished writing in a single draft, no rewrites, and without ChatGTP!! Coherent, logical, challenging, profound,  inspirational, and to me literarily beautiful.  And they are typical of hundreds of passages found in the text of the Book of Mormon. I agree with Elder Callister, when Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon the result was from a “skilled writer.”  So, if Joseph Smith did not have this native ability as his wife maintains and as some evidence confirms, how do we explain the difference?  If it was “creative genius” in 1828-29, according to the critics as he dictated the Book of Mormon text, what happened to that genius in his 1832-33 journal; and how did he produce the Book of Mormon with a vocabulary of less than half of that of a well educated man in 1957? To me there is one answer, and it comes from the pen of Joseph Smith in a letter to James Arlington Bennett:

    The fact is, that by the power of God I translated the book of Mormon from hierogliphics [sic]; the knowledge of which was lost to the world.  In which wonderful event, I stood alone, an unlearned youth, to combat the worldly wisdom and multiplied ignorance of eighteen centuries.(9)

Thank God for Joseph Smith!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Tad R. Callister, “God’s Compelling Witness: The Book of Mormon,” Ensign (November 2017):  108.  Regarding the demands the 65-day timeline for the production of the Book of Mormon text would require of that memory, Daniel Peterson wrote: “Whether it is even remotely plausible to imagine Joseph Smith or anyone else memorizing or composing nearly 5000 words daily, day after day, week after week, in the production of a lengthy and complex book is a question that readers can ponder for themselves.”  Daniel C. Peterson, “A Response: ‘What the Manuscripts and the Eyewitnesses Tell us about the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Uncovering the Original Text of the Book of Mormon: History and Findings of the Critical Text Project, edited by M. Gerald Bradford and Alison V. P. Coutts, Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002, 69.

2.  Callister, “God’s Compelling Witness,” 108, emphasis added.

3.  Emma Smith, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 290, emphasis added.

4.  Ibid.

5.  Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, January 1916, 454, reproduced in, Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844, edited by John W. Welch with Erick B. Carlson, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005, 129.  It is also cited in Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” seminar for new mission presidents, 25 June 1992, 3, which is where I think I first encountered it.

6.  John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith Seeker After Truth, Prophet of God, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1957, 67-71.

7.  Dean C. Jessee, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Journals Volume 1:1832-1839, Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2008, 9.

8.  Ibid, 12.

9.  Joseph Smith to James Arlington Bennett, 13 November 1843, in Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford and Steven C. Harper, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations Volume 1: Manuscript Revelation Books, Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2011, xx.

 

FOX PROPAGANDA©

More than two years ago I stopped watching Fox News.  First, because I can’t stand Tucker Carlson.  Second, by then I concluded Fox News is not in the “search for truth” news business, just “news” propaganda for the conservative side of the Republican Party and Donald Trump in particular.

Therefore, I am not up on the current controversy at Fox, although my wife shares some things with me.  But the latest release of Carlson’s email exchanges with Alex Pfeiffer and others, published from the court records by The Washington Post this afternoon show proof positive that Fox News is absolutely a propaganda organization.  Carlson and Pfeiffer were (and probably still are) conflicted by the President whom Carlson characterized as only being good at destroying things, and someone he “hated” and at the same time, the very evenings he was saying such things in private, he was, struggling though it may be, toeing the party line.

This all is very disgusting, and for me at least, confirms my view of Fox News, Tucker Carlson, and Donald Trump (some of his most ardent public supporters, privately despise him).  

I have done at least two right things in my life. I’ve never voted for Donald Trump.  I thank God that not a single flea’s freckle of responsibility rests upon me for his disastrous political career!  And I have not given a minute’s time to Fox News in over two years.  Yea for me!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Note:  If you would like to view the article referred to above, you can see it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/03/09/tucker-carlson-trump-texts-fox-news/