Here are a couple of religious mysteries to think through.
Mystery No. 1: How Jesus’s Judaism Became Paul’s Christianity. Jesus was a Jew who preached a reformed version of Judaism in Aramaic, the language of the common folk in Galilee and Judea. He directed followers to keep the Torah and to worship Yahweh or Jehovah, the Jewish God of the Hebrew Bible. He did his work in the small villages of Galilee, and when he made it to the big city (Jerusalem), he was appalled at the temple Judaism practiced by the religious leaders and created quite a stir at the temple.
Then came Paul. The Gentile churches he planted and, even more, the doctrines and beliefs laid out in his letters transformed the reformed Judaism of Jesus into something new: Christianity, the worship of Jesus, in which the crucifixion of Jesus became an expiatory sacrifice for sin (all of it, all sins, everybody’s sins). Paul’s Christianity spoke Greek, used the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible, and targeted cities of the Roman Empire, not villages in the countryside. Within a couple of centuries, the reformed Judaism of Jesus was all but forgotten and the Christianity of Paul was poised to take over the Roman world. Christian churches don’t emphasize or even acknowledge the significant differences between Jesus and Paul, but the deeper you dig, the more glaring the differences become. It is fair to say that in the 21st century, there aren’t any Jesus Christians, only Pauline Christians.
Mystery No. 2: How Mormonism Changed Over Two Centuries. What’s the analog for Mormonism? I suppose you could talk about the strange arc of polygamy. The Church went from monogamy (the original doctrine, by default) to secret plural marriage practiced by Joseph and a few close associates, to publicly acknowledged plural marriage practiced more widely under Brigham Young and John Taylor, to the current doctrine of “polygamy only in heaven, and we don’t want to talk about it.” But I don’t really want to talk about polygamy today.
What about the shift from political pariah status in the 19th century to being super patriots in the 21st? The Church’s questionable political loyalty and apparent unwillingness to obey the law delayed statehood for Utah until 1896. Two years later, B. H. Roberts was elected to Congress, but the House refused to seat him because he was a polygamist. Yet within a generation or two American Mormons had become highly patriotic, devoted to the United States government and Constitution. They remain so to this day. There were two changes, really. First, the US federal government came to regard the Church as no longer a threat. This was due in part to strong LDS support for the US military and willing service in the Spanish-American War (1898) and subsequently WW1 and WW2. It was also due to Utah and the Church adopting the national two-party system. Then there was the LDS internal shift away from thinking about the US national government as the enemy. Both the Church and the government buried the hatchet, so to speak.
I don’t know that these two transformations are as jarring as what I noted above for early Christianity. LDS leaders constantly preach and emphasize continuity, not change or development over time. “The same, yesterday, today, and forever” is the mantra, not “we change with the times” or even “the same, but different.”
What about at the local, congregational level? How different does LDS Church on Sunday feel now as compared to fifty years ago? We now sing Primary songs in sacrament meeting, there are no local Seventies anymore, and church on Sunday is only two hours. But the sacrament ritual itself and the prayer-song-talk-song-talk-song-prayer format for the meeting is largely unchanged. To me, it feels more like “the same, but different” rather than radical change.
So there have certainly been significant changes in the LDS Church. I noted two or three. Any other candidates? How many small changes have to happen before it adds up to significant or radical change?
Wheat & Tares 
One of the biggest changes between the 1800s church and the modern church? A focus on eradicating poverty and preaching the evils of wealth (as evidence by language in the Book of Mormon, D&C, the United Order, sermons by Brigham Young, etc.) changed to full support of modern capitalism where the poor are looked down on and the rich are idolized.
The analog for Mormonism is the Catholic church.2 Nephi 28: 5: “And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel; and they say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men;”Whether the claim is based on Protestant claims that authority is derived from the New Testament, and all men who believe have authority from God, or it is a Catholic claim to have a line of authority back to Jesus Christ, it is the same. Without some involvement from God in the church itself, the teachings end in the same conclusion: “God has given His power unto men.” The institution has taken over. The claim is always that “the church is true” without regard to whether the Lord remains involved, revealing Himself to the church. This is what the Catholic Church has claimed for centuries; God has finished His work and surrendered the “keys of authority” to the church. Now God has transmuted into a church, a Holy Roman Church, to which you may confess your sins, obtain absolution for your sins, and have entry into heaven provided to you.With such a claim, why ask God for help? Why turn to a priesthood advancing such claims? Why make the difficult, inner changes that bring about real intent and faith in Christ? Why seek for and come into contact with “the power of God” if a church can be an adequate substitute?How like the Catholics have we become?Was Nephi only warning about Catholic error? Do his warnings apply equally to all?The alteration of the Presiding High Priest’s status from “President” to “Prophet.” From the time of Joseph Smith until 1955 the term “Prophet” was used exclusively to refer to Joseph Smith. It was changed in 1955 to apply to the living President, David O. McKay. Before then no living man was ever referred to as “Prophet” within the church, other than Joseph Smith. When the word “Prophet” was used after Joseph’s death, it was understood the term meant Joseph Smith.The result of this change was to create a “cult of personality” around the church president in much the same way that the Catholic Church has created a “cult of personality” around Mother Mary. You need to understand that whole subject before you get too excited by my putting it that way. If you do not understand this technical description then you need to become acquainted with it to be able to comprehend what I am saying here. To briefly touch upon the subject, the Catholic view of the “cult of personality” around Mother Mary is positive. It does not get viewed by them as a defect or some terrible aberration.In our context, what has happened as a result of this alteration is that the former significance of the church’s president was administrative, and priestly. He was a final arbitrator and judge, a presiding authority and a leader whose words were to be considered carefully. He was NOT considered infallible or to be invariably inspired. In fact, during the presidencies of the Prophet Joseph Smith, President Brigham Young and President John Taylor, they all spoke against any notion of infallibility of the church’s president. President Young was particularly cautionary about trusting church leaders instead of the Holy Spirit as your guide. President Young said too much trust of a church leader would bring the saints to hell.President Woodruff was so criticized by members for the Manifesto that he defended himself by claiming that the Lord wouldn’t let him make a mistake on that order. He said that the Lord just wouldn’t let the church’s president lead the saints astray. That comment was what would later be used to buttress the notion popularly believed today that the “prophet is infallible.”President Heber J. Grant was an unpopular church president. One of the problems with getting the saints to respond to the church president’s counsel was solved when the president of the church became the living “Prophet.” You can reject or question counsel from an administrative authority. But to question a “Prophet of God” was to invite the damnation of hell. So the change in nomenclature worked a mighty change in the perceptions of the Latter-day Saints. The “cult of personality” was an inevitable result. Everything the president did would be done as “God’s Living Prophet.” No matter what decisions were made, no matter their wisdom, goodness or undesirability, the result was the same: “They MUST be inspired. We may not have the human capacity to see it, but God’s ways are higher than man’s after all. To question is to lack in faith.”The change put the president into a league in which at a minimum criticism was disrespectful. Worse, if you were convinced that he made a mistake, it followed almost as an inevitability that you were absolutely forbidden from saying so because to do so revealed a “weakness in the faith.” In fact, there are General Conference talks which speak about criticizing the church president (or “Living Prophet”) claiming that the criticism was due to a weak faith, and it would lead to apostasy unless a person repented.
@arelius11 You’ve made some connections there I’ve never noticed before. Thank you for that break down.
One head scratching transition… 19th century LDS women had the ability to give blessings to the sick, Brigham Young(!) advocating for education in the business and medical professions, an independent organization (Relief Society) with independent fund raising and budget, many were politically active feminists/suffragettes then… Bam! it all went away in the early 20th century. My dear old grandmother still resented the change when I was growing up.
Let’s say you were running a social organization whose members were pretty loyal internally but its image to the outside was almost totally negative. That would be sustainable, and maybe even preferable, as long as the outside forces left you alone. But then let’s say the outsiders start encroaching on this organization’s independence, even existence. The encroachment is both physical and legal.
So the organization decides to repeal its most antagonistic and controversial social code. And the organization recognizes that its future is more secure if it attempts to integrate rather than isolate. So it attempts to go more mainstream while maintaining some of its earlier codes. Meanwhile it develops some new codes.
Finally, rather than demonize greater society it decides to become the better part of that society by promoting universal values like family and country. And it turns out that this is pretty good for the organization’s brand and image for many decades. But then the definition of “family” in society is expanded and the organization seems confused as how to navigate this. Also, it turns out that this organization’s values seem to correspond more to the fringes of society than to the mainstream that it appealed to 50 years ago.
There’s also an internal dilemma. Do you try to placate the progressives who want you to change and thus alienate the loyal conservatives who pay the dues and fees? Or do you cater to the latter and drive away those with any nuance? Meanwhile the Internet is highlighting all of the current and historic contradictions. And demographics for the group is not looking good heading into the future.
(sorry if this was too long and monotonous)
Much of the polygamy arc has played out, making it relatively easy to identify. The final step for LDS polygamy might be that both men and women can be sealed to one living person, and as many dead people as they have been legally married to. It’s effectively the policy for dead people right now, so it doesn’t change much theologically. Then we can push polygamy completely into the “God will figure it out category” which will be enough to satisfy many members, though certainly not all.
Arcs that we are currently in the middle of are harder to identify. One ongoing arc is the transition from “weird Mormons” to “normal Church of Jesus Christers”. The Church has clearly moved away from “Mormon”, Moroni logos, weird pageants (I’m looking at you Manti), road shows, “beehives/miamaids/laurels”, and many other curiosities. We’ve added more talk of grace, “Amazing Grace” and other songs, palm Sunday (a little bit), Elders in blue shirts and tan pants, Sisters in pants, and sleeveless garments (women only). Obviously some major things remain: BoM/D&C/PoGP, garments, temples, “prophets, seers & revelators” and the Godhead as some big ones off the top of my head. Are we at the end of this road, or will a couple more decades show that this was just one phase of many?
Excellent comparison! And try asking the LDSbot what prophetic revelation has ever been verified. Mormonr (bhroberts foundation) can’t/won’t even answer the question.
These two “mysteries” are fascinating topics. I believe mystery #1 has been studied by theologians and historians and you can even ask ChatGPT what it thinks. My amateur contribution to the conversation is I firmly believe the origins of Christianity existed in Judea. The things Jesus taught were new and novel to the people, but they were not original. And while we should credit Paul for being the loudest voice about making the Gospel accessible to Gentiles, the idea that “Christianity’ had an audience outside of Jerusalem and Galilee was immediately embraced by most early Christian disciples. The theologian Margaret Barker has written about the “higher law” being known and taught in ancient Israel, only to be erased after the Jewish reformation lead by Josiah and Ezra. Christianity had to flourish outside Jerusalem because the culture of the people in Jerusalem rejected it and had so for centuries.
As for mystery #2 there is a stark reality faced by all religions. It is that no matter how insular a religion is, it faces the risk of the faith being corrupted by its membership. And the instant a religion cares about how it is perceived by outsiders, it especially becomes prone to being swayed by the whims of the world. The historical reality of the swaying of the LDS church surprises us because the church asserts to be lead by prophets and apostles and Paul explains in Ephesians this means we will not be, quote: “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness.” If only this were so!
A particular problem for the LDS church is it can’t decide if it believes in Universalism. It so wants to save everyone but it also wants an exclusive club of “Exalted” persons. Alas, the current LDS solution is to exalt everyone but what can that possibly mean? I have to credit the old school Mormon Fundamentalism where at least the adherents believed there were exclusive benefits to their orthodoxy. Seriously, does the LDS church have an answer to the question that if everyone dead or alive needs temple work and temple work provides exaltation then why should anyone risk joining the church while alive? Your odds of exaltation greatly improve when you are dead!
Another huge shift from the early days of the Church to today is that the early Church members were convinced that the Second Coming was imminent. Early Church members were “building Zion” and telling converts to gather to Zion because Zion was literally going to be the only safe place for the people of the world to live in “the last days”. Many current members of the Church aren’t at all aware of how certain the early Church members were that Christ was coming very soon and that the purpose of the Church was really to prepare for this event, but that really was the mindset that Joseph Smith and his early followers had. The Church today obviously doesn’t want to teach this history because, well, Christ still hasn’t come.
We still see remnants of this belief in the Church, but it isn’t anything like it was in the early days. Preppers are considered by most members to be pretty fringe. I hear members largely joke about waiting for the prophet to tell us all to “return to Missouri”. Russell Nelson seems to believe that Christ is going to arrive any day now–as he carefully drops hints in many of his talks–and I do see orthodox members get a little excited about what he says, but a whole lot of other members just yawn.
No, the teaching has shifted from building and gathering to Zion for the imminent return of Christ to “building Zion” all over the world wherever Mormons happen to be living. The early Church seemed to really have a purpose. The end was near, revelations were coming left and right, and members were “building Zion” from scratch on the American frontier and telling converts to gather there for safety. What does “building Zion” look like now? Well, I’m not really sure how the Church institution is really trying to do that these days. The Church program for people right now is, quite frankly, pretty dull and uninspiring. Attend your boring meetings, go to the boring temple, serve a boring mission when you’re young and two more as soon as your kids move out of the house, live it up at your boring and underfunded ward Christmas party (and don’t expect any other socializing with Church members the remaining 12 months of the year), pay your tithing, clean the chapel every month or 2, live by arbitrary standards that are constantly shifting but are permanently set to about 30 years behind the rest of society, just do what your leaders tell you to do, and whatever you do, never question your infallible leaders. This is building Zion? Whatever it is, it’s sure not anything like what Joseph and his followers were trying to do. Joseph’s Church and the Church or today are very, very different.
It so wants to save everyone but it also wants an exclusive club of “Exalted” persons. Alas, the current LDS solution is to exalt everyone but what can that possibly mean?
The clubhouse of exalted persons is locked. Proxy temple work provides dead people on the outside of that clubhouse with a key. Whether they choose to use it, however, is up to them. The way I see it, people who could have acquired a key during their lifetime but chose not to are unlikely to make a different decision in the afterlife. We may give them the key, but few will use it. The proxy work is really for those who had no realistic access to a key during their lifetime. But we can’t distinguish between those who had realistic access and those who did not, so we do the proxy work for everybody. (Examples of not having realistic access would be the obvious cases of Christians who lived before the restoration and non-Christians who live where no missionaries are allowed. But it also includes the less obvious examples of people who were familiar with the Church, but whose mental health limitations or other challenges that are not readily observable kept them outside of it.)
In other words, I don’t think that “temple work provides exaltation”–it merely removes obstacles to exaltation. As such, it is not a manifestation of universalism. The real universalism in Mormonism is the doctrine that nobody will spend eternity in hell–everybody (excepting the infinitesimally small number of sons of perdition) will eventually inherit a degree of glory. One of my predictions for an Oaks administration is that “think celestial” will quietly be untaught and more attention will be paid to lower kingdoms.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Your comments are better than my post!
Tim, so you’re saying the Church preaches care for the poor but practices tax breaks for the rich? I should do a post on the regressive nature of tithing taxation. The more money you make, the lower your overall tithing percentage, since tithing is primarily paid on wage income and rich people make money on investments and capital gains. But leadership is okay with that because rich, active Mormons do kick in a lot of money and also provide a lot of free managerial labor running wards and stakes.
josh h, when push comes to shove, the leadership is always going to lean towards keeping the majority conservatives happy rather than placate the few remaining doctrinal liberals. But give an inch every day, that adds up to miles. That’s how we have become the Church of Donald Trump.
Dave W, I’m afraid we will always be “the weird Mormons” to most people outside of the Church. Unless we give up polygamy, garments, and anti-coffee, then wait a generation or two. That’s what it would take.
A Disciple: “It is [a fact] that no matter how insular a religion is, it faces the risk of the faith being corrupted by its membership.” Yes, sort of. Most churches and not-for-profit organizations realize that the broader membership and broader group of supporters are not as dedicated as the few motivated issue zealots who run the organization — but you need those halfway supporters to keep doing their halfway support for the organization to prosper. I’m not sure LDS leaders really get this. When pressed, most LDS leaders both general and local would rather keep a twice-a-month family active than hound them out of the Church. But the reality is that a lot of the time leaders and speakers so vocally and loudly push the ideal of the 110% Mormon, never missing a meeting, paying 12% tithing, going to the temple twice a month — and hounding anyone without a TR to ante up and get one — that the Church generally does chase out the half-hearted. Fence-sitters fall out of the LDS corral a lot more often than they fall into the LDS corral.
Since the LDS church is a corporation, I believe #2 is simply the move from start-up/growth to maturity/decline/renewal.
Growth from all metrics other than # of temples is flat or declining. Published revelations added to the Doctrine & Covenants has been zero in my lifetime. The owners of the organization has changed from a progressive age to a retrenchment age. “Revelations” have gone from changing the church’s course to now telling members to stop asking to change the church’s course.
Less dynamic. But predictable. Like McDonald’s.
Dave W.
Garments for men will come in sleeveless beginning in Fall 2026, just like the women. Look it up. They in the lds catalog for garments right now, listed as becoming available in 2025.
I feel like there has been a big change in the church. When I was a kid (and Gordon B. Hinckley was the prophet) church was about having a loving family, being good neighbors, and following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Now in my experience (as Russell M. Nelson is the prophet) church is pretty much just about covenants and the temple.
I think it will change again a few more times as the prophet changes. I think in some ways there has been a bigger emphasis on Christ and being Christians, but the emphasis has been “We follow Christ by having his name in our church and by going to the temple to make covenants.” I hope that we get to a point where we have a bigger emphasis on Christ and the emphasis is, “We follow Christ by following his teachings.”
It so wants to save everyone but it also wants an exclusive club of “Exalted” persons. Alas, the current LDS solution is to exalt everyone but what can that possibly mean?
Well, this past Tuesday, in beautiful northern Utah county I sat through an evening youth fireside with Brad Wilcox. True to his viral speech in Alpine, Utah in 2022, he began by talking about the general decline in the belief in God, or more specifically, the God that religion has constructed, which to him is the superior version. In 2022, he gave this silly example about how his kids would pull out bibles and Books of Mormon and “play” church, and how cute it was, and then realizing that it really wasn’t all that cute, because that’s what the rest of the world is doing, “playing church”. On Tuesday, he suggested that 95% of the world professes some belief in a higher power, God or however one conceives of that, but the trouble is, they ALL lack the ability to access that power. He began by laying waste to the entire God-fearing world, disparaging their baptisms and practices as cute, but ultimately worthless. I’m not sure, even if that sort of exclusive claim were true, which I don’t believe at all, how much mileage does it get the church. The leadership seems like they are putting on a valiant effort to build bridges and create inter-faith conversation (in the public), but to the members, its status quo, we are the Lords chosen and exclusive product.
“The leadership seems like they are putting on a valiant effort to build bridges and create inter-faith conversation (in the public)…”
I have not seen much of this, but good for them. However, and unfortunately, they may be doomed to fail because such efforts will require laity (member) participation to be successful, and church leaders seem not to trust members to make statements or hold opinions — is our culture too over-correlated and too distrustful to allow for success?
I hope the effort is both valiant and successful.
One big change we’re in the middle of right now is the huge focus on temples and temple covenants. This wasn’t a thing a few generations ago. And the term “covenant path” definately didn’t exist. In fact, if you look at conference talks prior to about 100 years ago, any mention of the term “covenant” in the context of temples meant the “new and everlasting covenant”, i. e., plural marriage. Today, however, the meaning of “temple covenants” has entirely morphed. And as much as I might wish for it, one can’t escape hearing the term “covenant path” a dozen times in any recent general conference. (Nelson coined the phrase about 30 years ago and it’s increasing use has been so gradual it’s almost hard to realize it once never existed).
Areliuss11
Nice thoughts, but I would highly encourage the use of paragraphs. They are a thing.
WoW! It’s a long time since I read such an anti-Catholic screed from any Mormons outside my family. ” argumentum ad ignorantiam ?”
toddsmithson,
Even the most orthodox member of the COJCOLDS should reject Brad Wilcox’s message outright. Wilcox should not be allowed around young minds. Not only is his message ethnocentric, elitist and extremely bigoted, it is completely at odds with the 1978 Statement of the First Presidency Regarding God’s Love for All Mankind. That statement makes it quite clear that “great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals”. It goes on to state that “Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come.” How can Wilcox be so sure that elements of other religions, which he has such limited understanding of were not given by God?
Wilcox’s worldview creates a minimalist God which plays little to no role in human history. For Wilcox, God is only a personal God for Latter-day Saints, but a Deist version of God for everyone else. Wilcox shows his ignorance of the Book of Mormon (Alma 29:8,12), as well as elements in the Doctrine and Covenants which clearly point to inspiration being received by individuals outside of the Church. On top of all that, Wilcox’s message and method is a violation of the Golden Rule (Luke 6:31).
Brad Wilcox is a royal git. I didn’t realize they kept him in after the videos of his performances in 2022 surfaced and brought such shame on the LDS church. But I guess if Utah votes for Trump three times, BW is the perfect fit for its Utah LDS audiences. Sorry you had to sit thru that toddsmithson. Did you consider walking out?
Inclusiveness is a virtue–and there’s no question that we (the saints) should spread our wings as wide as possible in our effort to be inclusive. Even so, the Lord himself said, “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
With that in mind — and in view of the fact that too many us–our youth in particular–are being drawn away from the “mark” as we seek to embrace everything that is good — I’m not opposed to being reminded every now and then that the fulness of the gospel cannot be found in any other system of belief.
It’s when we begin to see the fulness of the gospel as just one of many equally good options that the virtue of inclusiveness becomes a vice.
Wait a minute, embracing the good draws youth away from the LDS Church? Jack, that is a rather bizarre stand for you to make. Or is it an admission?
As far as #2 goes, there’s a great couple of podcast episodes by Matt Christman (a non-mormon) about the socioeconomic conditions that led to mormonism happening and then the transition of the church from pariah to patriot:
https://youtu.be/-cMs2BYo9nY?si=NMcNNcSpWAkzDaei
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
lws329, interesting. LDS guys, don’t throw out those old muscle shirts quite yet.
aporetic1, “pretty much just about covenants and the temple.” I suppose that makes sense from a strictly religious perspective, but the Church ought to (and used to) offer a lot more from a life perspective. I think the membership is sort of sensing now that the Church just offers a lot less to the membership than it used to.
anon, I’m going to steal “from pariahs to patriots” for my book on LDS history (should I ever get around to writing it).
How many small changes have to happen before it adds up to significant or radical change?
It feels like the answer to this question is the proverbial boiling of a frog metaphor: dramatic change done incrementally obscures the magnitude of such change (even when such change is highly detrimental).
My wife and I are finishing the Netflix series on the FLDS “Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey.” We stop each episode periodically and discuss how uncomfortably similar these fundamentalists are to our own culture. This is especially true when it comes to patriotism and a strong penchant for the display of patriotic symbols. It’s a really weird and discomfiting experience to realize so many elements, albeit less egregious and blatantly abusive/secretive as what is in the FLDS, exist within the LDS culture, or at least the culture I grew up in. But when I squint, I am able to see very clearly a link between the FLDS and the LDS even though the doctrine and practice of polygamy has been abandoned by the LDS. But the authoritarian, top-down leadership style and patriarchy of the LDS and lack of empowerment and voice and input of LDS adherents on critical to their lives and wellbeing is similar to the FLDS. Sure, your underage daughters might not be recruited to the YFZ “Zion” ranch, but many LDS parents send off their barely legal childen to serve a mission for no pay and in locations that are often dangerous on terms they do not dictate or locations they have no agency in selecting.
Correct, lws329. Gentlemen, you can see them in the LDS store catalog, or if you can’t navigate to them, just search for “wivesbeater.”
The Xtian preachers who preach their ‘Good News: I am saved through the blood of Jesus’, they compare to prostitutes selling their wares while standing on street corners.
Jeremiah 42:5–6, a prime example of contextual abuse by Xtian fraud theologist. The very next verses show that the people were lying to Jeremiah. They never intended to obey remember and keep the oaths sworn by the Avot—they simply wanted Jeremiah to bless their plan to flee to Egypt. Jer. 42:20 exposes the duplicity of this assimilated and intermarried ערב רב. This passage condemns their hypocrisy, both then and Xtians attempting to sell their wares today. It does not affirm blind obedience, as Xtain prostitute propaganda rhetoric proclaims ethical guidance in Jewish tradition. The mussar of Jeremiah 42 instructs this unique mussar instruction, and not ‘Good News’ Xtian propaganda rhetoric. Prophetic mussar applies equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people, not just limited to a single historic people a long long time past – as Greek static deductive logic declares. Therefore the T’NaCH specifically instructs prophetic mussar, NOT history of events converted into a fossilized dead religion.
Religious manipulation, as expressed through the Xtian super-sessionist use of Torah, fundamentally denies the Divine T’shuva made by HaShem on Yom Kippur, wherein HaShem rejects replacement theologies of avoda zarah. The Golden Calf simply not limited to a mere golden physical idol; nor to translating the Divine Presence Spirit Name first revealed during the first commandment Sinai revelation! No. The sin of the Golden Calf exposes the Av tuma Yatzir Ha’Rah spirit to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with some other God – in short this Av tuma “sin” defines replacement theology, which the t’shuva every Yom Kippur Jews remember. HaShem annulled his vow to establish the seed of Moshe as the chosen Cohen oath brit people! Both the framers of the new testament and koran worship the sin of the Golden Calf through their Av tuma avoda zarah replacement theologies, despite not actually bowing down to a physical Golden Calf as did the טיפש ערב רב.
Just like the Judeans pretended to seek God’s will, while concealing their evil intend to go back to Egypt, so too and how much more so Xtian evangelicals who call all others to obey their distorted message of submission to the Greek idea of divine Logos or “crucified salvation.” Their ‘good news’ propaganda aims to convert Jews to worship their Golden Calf, Son of God theology.
Jeremiah 42:5–6 as a case study of Xtian theological fraud, puts the spotlight right where it belongs: on hypocritical performative piety masquerading as covenantal obedience. Jeremiah 42:5–6 serves as a textbook example of contextual abuse by Xtian theologians; comparable to drunk drivers killing innocent folk on the highways. They extract these verses—“Whether it be good or evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God…”—to promote blind obedience to their rebranded deity, Jesus son of God. Evangelists wield this verse as rhetorical ammunition from the pulpits, demanding unthinking submission to a metaphysical abstraction they call “the Lord,” now fused with Hellenistic Logos theology.
Thus, far from demonstrating their proclaimed “from the roof tops” covenantal obedience, such preaching unmasks religious manipulation. The very same kind employed by Xtian super-sessionists and Shoah revisionist historians, who claim to speak for “the God of Israel” or physical science, while violently uprooting the Torah oath-brit, together with its demands for national t’shuva and righteous judicial courtroom governance of damages inflicted by Jews upon one another. Shalom stands upon trust. Hence judicial justice which dedicates to restore fair compensation of damages inflicted strives to build shalom among the chosen Cohen people who live within the borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes.
The very next verse of prophetic mussar expose the true context: a false vow. Hence rabbi Yishmael advices to learn T’NaCH through a כלל פרט sh’itta of disciplined learning. The ערב רב, had already decided to flee to Egypt and simply wanted Jeremiah’s rubber stamp. Jeremiah 42:20 explicitly reveals their duplicity.
The mussar of Jeremiah 42, not about blind faith or passive submission—it instructs a mussar of k’vanna integrity within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the heart before HaShem. The Navi calls Jews to remember the oaths which the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance concerning the chosen Cohen people and their eternal inheritance to the Promised land.
If we the living generations commit to maintain from generation to generation (Meaning we commit to educate our children as the key condition of marriage.), and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot, that we in our own turn swear these same oaths from generation to generation. Hence the k’vanna of tefillah דאורייתא/from the Torah – kre’a shma. Both the Avot and the ensuing generations had to put their pants on one leg at a time and sit to take a crap on the toilet. Prophetic mussar does not differentiate the merits of one generation over other generations. All generations of the chosen Cohen people must struggle with the tuma Yatzir Ha’Rah within our hearts.
Xtian gospel rhetoric, by contrast, perverts this prophetic mussar for introspective teshuva, unto the theatrics of Greek and Roman performative faith. Their theologies misappropriates Torah passages to serve the Av tuma static Greek deductive logic which they employ to promote their ‘good news’ myth of “universal salvation through crucifixion.”
The cheit ha’egel—the sin of the Golden Calf—not just idolatry in the physical sense. Rather this prophetic mussar warns against spiritual substitution, a betrayal of the Divine Name revealed at Sinai. The ערב רב didn’t say, we do not reject outright the revelation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name; but rather, “this is your אלהים, O Israel, who brought you up from Egypt.” The ערב רב tried to repackage the Divine Presence Spirit Name by inserting some word translation as an intermediary in Moshe’s absence.
Herein defines the exact model of replacement theology: rebranding the brit with some new god, whether a crucified Christ, or a final prophet Muhammad who preaches strict Monotheism in the name of Allah. The Yatzir Ha’Rah behind the Golden Calf, breathes the same spiritual Av tuma avoda zarah spirit within the hearts of the ערב רב\assimilated and inter-married Jews (who lack fear of heaven). This tuma Yatzir seeks to incite, manipulate or seduce others to worship these new Gods. This central motivation inspires the New Testament and the Koran—both of which claim to replace Moshe, the Oral Torah, and the oath brit — with metaphysical substitutes and narrative fabrications.
Just as the Judeans in Jeremiah’s time pretended to seek HaShem’s will while plotting to return to Egypt—the symbolic archetype of slavery, judicial injustice, and spiritual corruption—so too the Xtian & Muslim evangelicals, who call others to obey their distorted message of the Greek Logos, the crucified “savior,” and metaphysical obedience over national justice.
They do not call Israel to make t’shuva, much less so remember prophetic mussar instructions. They call Israel to abandon Sinai. They do not call for brit renewal. They call for the replacement of the brit by a universalized guilt doctrine rooted in Greek fatalism. They do not call for judicial righteousness in the Land—they promote through their ‘good news’ preaching that Jews abandon living in the Promised land and return and become once again slaves in Egypt.
The Torah concept of “sin” does not institutionalize the Fall and expulsion of Adam from the Garden of Eden. Rather the Torah concept of “sin” exposes the Av tuma Yatzir Ha’Rah spirit, which seeks – throughout the generations – to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with some replacement new god. In short, the prototype of both New Testament and Koran replacement theologies. Both the framers of the New Testament and the Koran worship the sin of the Golden Calf through their Av tuma avoda zarah replacement theologies.
Replacement theologies always attempt to repackage the Divine Presence Spirit Name by inserting a word translation as an intermediary in Moshe’s absence. Herein defines the precise and exact Av tuma methodology of replacement theologies: rebranding the brit with a new god—whether crucified Christ or final prophet Muhammad. The Yatzir Ha’Rah behind the Golden Calf, the exact same Av tuma spirit within the hearts of the ערב רב—assimilated and inter-married Jews who have no fear of heaven—that inspires the framers of both the New Testament and the Koran counterfeit scriptures. Both texts claim to replace Moshe, the Oral Torah, and the oath brit, with metaphysical substitutes and narrative fabrications.
Just as the Judeans in Jeremiah’s time pretended to seek HaShem’s will while plotting a return to Egypt—the archetype of slavery, judicial injustice, and spiritual corruption—so too the Xtian and Muslim evangelicals, who urge obedience to their distorted and perverted messages which stand on the foundations of assimilated the Greek Logos … their crucified “savior,” glorified in both New Testament and Koran – their metaphysical obedience which rejects national judicial justice which sanctifies the Will of the Courts to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews on other Jews with the k’vanna to build shalom among the Jewish people within the borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic.
It’s very important to define Xtian and Muslim rhetoric which declares their love and devotion for the Promised ‘Holy Lands’, that never during any time after the Romans expelled Jews from Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”, not any Xtian nor Arab or Muslim Power ever established a Country in the Middle East called “Palestine”. Neither Jordan nor Egypt – who ruled Samaria and Gaza between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian state. The British and French UNSC 242 which promotes European interests which seek to divide and conquer the Jewish state and calls for Palestinian national independence, clearly 242 shares no common ground with the 1917 Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations carved up Ottoman Greater Syria and divide that empire as the spoils of war to the British and French empires.
Recently the UN Security Council attempted to decree a Chapter VII ultimatum which dictated that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza.
Italy did not support the recent UN Security Council resolution that called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, which was vetoed by the United States. The resolution received 14 votes in favor, with the U.S. casting the only vote against it. The draft resolution was co-sponsored by several countries, but Italy was not listed among those actively supporting the resolution in the context of the recent vote.
These 14 countries Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Algeria (co-sponsor), Denmark (co-sponsor), Greece (co-sponsor), Guyana (co-sponsor), Pakistan (co-sponsor), Panama (co-sponsor), South Korea (co-sponsor), Sierra Leone (co-sponsor), Slovenia (co-sponsor), and Somalia (co-sponsor) voted to impose a UN Chapter VII dictate upon Israel. Of these countries Algeria and other scamps countries do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.
Neither Iran nor Sudan have diplomatic relations with Israel. No different than Algeria. Algeria and Turkey have developed a military partnership and cooperation over the years, particularly in the areas of defense and security. This relationship has been strengthened through various agreements and joint military exercises. The relationship is part of a broader strategic partnership that includes economic and political cooperation, with both countries sharing interests in regional stability and security.
Those 14 countries have already repeatedly called for international condemnation of Israel, rabidly support Palestinian terrorism relabeled as “Palestinian rights”. They already engage in public relations propaganda campaigns hostile to Israel. They already support and initiate legal actions against Israel in international courts such as the ICC. These countries have escalated their rhetoric propaganda against Israel. Hamas could never have dug its complex tunnel system without international support. They already promote cultural and academic boycotts of Israel.
These countries throw their support for the Palestinian cause, like whores on street corners sell their wares. They often use stinky rhetoric, to condemn Israeli actions, framing them as oppressive or colonial. Such putrid rhetoric seeks to poison public opinion and mobilize support for Palestinian groups. Numerous solidarity movements around the world that advocate for Palestinian rights; they often align with groups like Hamas, viewing them as legitimate representatives of Palestinian resistance.
Countries without diplomatic relations with Israel compare to corrupt judges that accepts bribes. This objection, seeks to raise critically important questions about the legitimacy and fairness of the recent Chapter VII UN ultimatum which demanded that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza. While the analogy of a corrupt judge highlights concerns about bias and fairness, the international system, in point of fact, operates on principles of representation and sovereignty.
The International system operates, so it appears, as something akin to a beauty contest. What defines beauty — not a rational logical concept. Israel demands a change to the International system. It could express its rebuke of the UN, by leaving the UN. The analogy of a corrupt judge suggests that countries without diplomatic relations with Israel, that they lack objective credibility to fairly judge the case heard before the court of international opinion.
This perception of bias, Israel argues, undermines the legitimacy of all UN resolutions or demands made against Israel. Particularly since nations who do not have diplomatic relations with Israel obvious their anti-Israel hostility – politically motivated – rather than based on objective criteria. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, the application of this chapter, like as in the Korean war, especially when it appears to favor one side over another in a conflict, historically expands the local conflict into a far larger international war. The call for Israel to surrender to Hamas, obviously viewed by both the US and Israel as an ultimatum that lacks balance and fairness. Just as China despised the UN Chapter VII ultimatum decreed against North Korea.
The international UN system, indeed based on principles of state sovereignty and representation. However, the effectiveness and fairness of this system both the US and Israel have repeatedly warned and challenged. Especially when certain countries dominate decision-making processes or when resolutions reflect geopolitical interests rather than universal principles of justice.
The idea that Israel should demand changes to the international UN system, this demand reflects the Israeli requirements for a more equitable and fair approach to international relations expressed through public UN diplomacy organs. Leaving the UN perhaps a radical step. But it raises questions about the effectiveness of the international UN system of public diplomacy among nation states in the world community of nations.
The concerns about bias and fairness in the international UN system, particularly regarding Israel, absolutely valid and reflect broader issues of representation and legitimacy. Whether through reforming the UN or reconsidering its participation, Israel’s approach to these challenges will significantly impact its international standing and relationships. The debate over the effectiveness and fairness of the current international system remains a fixed constant, critical issue in global politics.
Thank YOU Mr. President. Iran looks more and more like Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, and the Houthis. Burn baby burn.
The 12 Day War has ended. The Tripartite Alliance US – India – Israel now dominates. The leadership of Bibi where he held back following the Oct 7th Abomination, where he did not commit the IDF into Gaza but waited for other Arab countries to join the War as did Lebanon and Syria and the Houthis. Thank you for your great leadership Bibi.
The losers of this Middle East War … England and France broke off diplomatic relations with Israel over the Gaza war. The UN attempted to arrest the PM as a war-criminal. The UN, EU and Britain have zero say in shaping the post war ‘balance of power’ in the Middle East. Revenge for the UNSC 242 & 338 imperialist Resolutions! In this war the Quartet Powers exist comparable to tits on a boar hog. Another BIG LOSER of this the 12 Day War —- China. Post War, a massive expansion of the Abraham Accords.
Iran Admits Defeat: Khamenei just lost the 12 day war
🚨 BREAKING: China THREATENS Iran As Trump Confirms Ceasefire
INDIA & ISRAEL’s Secret Plan to Reclaim POK — Mell Robbins Motivational Speaker. – YouTube
🚨 BREAKING: Israel OPENS Iran Prison’s Gate As Pahlavi Announces Transition Government – YouTube
Before the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump pulled out of the G-7 meeting and said the Macron did not know squat about the conflict in the Middle East.
Trump blasts Macron, says early G7 exit has ‘nothing to do’ with an Israel-Iran ceasefire
The collapse of post-WWII multilateral diplomacy in the Middle East. The rise of a multipolar alliance system where nations like India and Israel take the place once held by Britain and France. The exposure of Arab regimes who tacitly supported Hamas or Hezbollah and their strategic miscalculations. The irrelevance of Cold War-era frameworks, both legal and political, to the current reality. The Middle East’s future will no longer be decided in Geneva or Brussels, but in Jerusalem, Washington, and New Delhi…The irrelevance of Cold War-era frameworks, both legal and political, to the current reality.
Iran: Who was Ayatollah Khomeini? | If You’re Listening