In the interest of Sam Young's recent excommunication response, I reread Jacob 7 this morning. The Book of Mormon always provides precedent for the archetypal events of our day.
Here are some of my highlights:
v. 2 "He preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ" - Keep in mind that the real goal of the movement is to abolsih the law of chastity (forefront) and repentance as a principle (background). Repentance is the second principle of the very gospel, yet Sam's main thrust in his offensive swordplay is "commandments cause shame and guilt, and shame and guilt is damaging". Whereas we have dozens of archetypes in the scriptures where guilt and shame were the explicit catalyst for a man finding Christ. Consider Alma the younger, in Alma 36: v12 "I was racked with eternal torment, for my soul was harrowed up to the greatest degree and racked with all my sins." v13 "Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormented with the pains of hell" and his repentance: v2 "And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea,, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!"
Jacob 7 again, v3 "he labored dilligently that he might lead away the hearts of the people, insomuch that he did lead away many hearts" - Who in our day has been more dilligent in leading people away from the church? Sam's efforts have been consistent, subversive, and dedicated. I am reminded of Rev 3:15: "thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot." I have heard it said that every so often the Lord sees fit to "sift" his church, and we are met with trials such that force us to either stand with or against God. I believe God has allowed Sam so long that he might force people to choose whom they will serve/cast allegiance to.
v4 "And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge oft he language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil." - His recent response to his excommunication letter is written with, in my judgement, incredible sophistry and skill. He primes many pumps and poisons many wells, and rigs the whole thing in such a way that if the church takes action against him he can claim they were dishonest because they didn't meet his contrived demands. He almost oozes sincerity, and honestly if I wasn't already poised to view him negatively I might have taken the post at face value, and missed all the clever little sleight of rhetorical hand underneath the surface.
v5 Of course Sam aims to shake confidence in our leaders, and by extension God's ability to guide his leaders, and by extension whether the church is truly led by God.
v10 I wouldn't expect to be able to get such a straightforward answer from Sam. When I asked him if he thought the church was true, he responded as Pontias Pilate with an existantial deflection on the nature of truth: "what is truth? What does it mean?" Which is certainly a tacit admission of guilt. Sam and his followers do not believe the scriptures. They do not care about the scriptures. Christ exists only as a prop to bludgeon the church into conformity with their doctrine (that repentance is not necessary to salvation) which they do using the hippie "Christ says love" charicature, thus rigging the discussion. If you disagree, you're both unloving and not following Christ. This is not the Christ of the scriptures, who taught harsh judgement in parables, but again, they don't really believe the scriptures anyway. There's no interest in finding the will of God unless it happens to be useful.
v13 and 14 - Sam Young's insistence on meeting with leaders amounts to little more than sign seeking. If a leader had come and sat in his chair, he would still defy them. He only asks as a spectacle to bolster himself and as part of his posturing. I would be interested to find if his sign seeking, like Sharem, is soon to be fulfilled to his condemnation. If so, verses 16 and 17, though sad, offer hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment