Line upon line, precept on precept.
That is how he lifts us, that is how he teaches his children.
Line upon line, precept on precept.
Like a summer shower giving us each hour His wisdom.
If we are patient we shall see
How the pieces fit together in harmony.
We’ll know who we are in this big universe
And then we’ll live with Him forever.
- “Line Upon Line” from Saturday’s Warrior, Words and Music by Doug Stewart and Lex de Azevedo
In a recent post, we discussed the fact that as Mormon missionaries, the focus was on helping others feel “the spirit,” rather than on providing a full disclosure of what would be required of them as church members. While the interview process may help close the gap, there are still some things that very few converts are aware of as a result of the missionary discussions.
There are some reasonable explanations why full disclosure is not possible, in addition to the cynical benefit of increasing the number of converts by withholding information; after all, it’s much easier to sell a car that’s a lemon if you don’t have CarFax giving away all your secrets. It’s easier to commit to an entirely new faith, a new worldview, if the information you have downplays how much of a change it will be as well as historical or theological elements that you would find unacceptable. Over time, you might object less. I’ve previously posted about the process my mother describes in her conversion process. Early on, they felt that the missionaries’ statement that they would have to quit drinking Pepsi was “narrow-minded,” but later she felt grateful for a health code and considered it prophetic. Feelings change over time; that’s what conversion means. Or cynically, that’s how indoctrination works. You decide.
Missionary Lessons vs. Full Member Expectations
| Category | Taught by Missionaries | Post-Conversion Realities |
|---|---|---|
| Doctrine | Jesus Christ is central. Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. God restored His Church through Joseph Smith. | Deep loyalty to the living prophet is expected. Belief in the First Vision, gold plates, and modern-day revelation is non-negotiable. |
| Scriptures | Bible and Book of Mormon are used. | Full canon includes Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, with more esoteric doctrines like Kolob or pre-mortal life. |
| Tithing | Taught clearly: 10% of income. | Required for temple access. No detailed discussion of how finances are used. Additional fast offerings and donations are also encouraged. |
| Lifestyle Standards | Word of Wisdom (no alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, drugs). Chastity law (no sex before marriage, no homosexual acts ever). Modest dress and speech. | More intense than expected: caffeine taboo (cultural), temple garment wearing, ongoing behavioral worthiness interviews, and emphasis on obedience to leadership edicts even in gray areas. |
| Church Attendance | Sunday attendance expected. | Three-hour (now two-hour) block + additional weekday responsibilities, callings, and ward activities. Converts may be asked to teach, speak, or lead without understanding this cultural aspect of the church beforehand. |
| Temples | Talk of eternal families and temple marriage. | Temple worship involves symbolic rituals (endowment, sealing) that are not explained until after baptism, and even then vaguely. Includes wearing garments, making covenants, and using language that can (even now) be jarring for newcomers. |
| Church Authority | Prophets and apostles lead the Church. | Strong emphasis on hierarchical obedience, correlated curriculum, and centralized policy. Questioning leadership is frowned upon. Living human leaders are often quoted more than Jesus or New Testament scriptures. |
| History | Joseph Smith received revelation and restored the Church. | Little or no mention of polygamy, treasure seeking, race and the priesthood, or changing doctrines, all of which are sometimes outright denied. These facts often surprise converts who research later. |
| Social Norms | Warm community, support for families. | Cultural conservatism, especially around politics, gender, and LGBTQ+ issues. Unwritten rules (like expectations around missions or large families) can be deeply embedded and include strong social pressures not anticipated. |
| Dissent or Exit | Little discussed. | Social costs of leaving can be high. Disagreeing with doctrine or history publicly can lead to informal exclusion or formal discipline. |
Some converts, like my mother, felt that the gradual introduction of new ideas helped growth and acceptance. Others have explained that they felt betrayed or manipulated. Members who defend this lack of full disclosure excuse this by blaming the converts for their own lack of commitment and preparation, or they claim that they left for other reasons (e.g. wanted to sin) or they deny that this information was not shared, claiming it was widely available to anyone who looks.
So how does the LDS church’s disclosure to potential converts compare with other faiths? LDS conversion is one of the most structured approaches, but the disclosure is deliberately incomplete, especially downplaying or delaying disclosure of temple practices, history, and social consequences for dissent or exit. Catholicism and Judaism takes a much longer and more thorough approach, but may gloss over the cultural expectations of the faith community. Evangelical and Muslim conversions are quicker, but leave a lot to be figured out post-conversion which can result in reneging after conversion. Jehovah’s Witnesses demand the most radical lifestyle shifts of these faiths and do not reveal the full implications up front in their conversion process.
At a glance, here’s a contrast of how much is disclosed or transparent vs. what is actually required of new converts. Judaism, which has a lengthy and involved conversion requirement, is the only one that truly practices full disclosure.
| Religion | Initial Transparency | Cultural Adjustment | Exit Costs | Full Lifestyle Disclosure? |
|---|
| LDS (Mormon) | Moderate | High | High | No |
| Catholicism | Moderate–High | Moderate | Moderate | Partial |
| Evangelical | Variable | Variable | Low–Mod. | Often No |
| Jehovah’s Witnesses | Low–Moderate | Very High | Very High | No |
| Judaism | High | Varies by sect | Low | Yes (esp. Orthodox) |
| Islam | Low–Moderate | High | High (varies) | Partial |
Religious freedom is highly protective of church’s rights, allowing them wide latitude in how they operate (including tax exemption and relief from anti-discrimination laws). If churches were seen as other institutions where consumer protections applied, we might see a difference in how converts feel about the lack of disclosure. As it stands, here are some common complaints converts of various faiths have about their conversion:
- LDS: “I didn’t realize how much of my life would revolve around the Church. I was taught about baptism, not about garments, tithing interviews, or what happens in the temple.”
- Catholicism: “RCIA gave me a good theological foundation, but I had no idea how political or conservative parts of the Church can be, especially on social issues.”
- Evangelical Christianity: “I loved the worship, but I didn’t expect the church to be so anti-intellectual and politically rigid.”
- Jehovah’s Witness: ““They told me it was the truth. They didn’t tell me I’d lose my friends and family if I ever left.”
- Judaism: “I converted Reform, but Orthodox Jews didn’t always see me as fully Jewish.”
- Islam: “The faith was beautiful, but I wasn’t prepared for the cultural clash or how conservative some communities would be.”
Let’s take a quick look at what types of converts thrive in each of these faiths vs. those who struggle and are less likely to stay:
🌱 Converts Who Tend to Thrive
| Religion | Converts Tend to Thrive When They… |
|---|---|
| LDS | Are highly structured, enjoy community roles, and are open to lifestyle conformity and group identity |
| Catholicism | Appreciate deep theology, liturgy, tradition, and are okay navigating internal diversity |
| Evangelical | Crave spiritual intensity, personal connection to Jesus, and align with the church’s cultural values |
| JW | Are highly obedient, seeking order and belonging, and accept top-down authority completely |
| Judaism | Embrace Jewish identity both religiously and culturally, and are patient in building communal trust |
| Islam | Are attracted to devotional routines, clear moral frameworks, and are supported by an inclusive local community |
😓 Converts Who Tend to Struggle or Leave
| Religion | Converts Tend to Struggle When They… |
|---|---|
| LDS | Are curious questioners, dislike top-down control, or discover hidden teachings post-baptism |
| Catholicism | Expect moral consistency from hierarchy or underestimate cultural politics |
| Evangelical | Expect intellectual rigor or feel pressured into political alignment |
| JW | Desire personal freedom or dissent — Watchtower doctrine leaves no room for deviation |
| Judaism | Expect instant acceptance, especially in Orthodox or ethnically homogenous spaces |
| Islam | Encounter conservative communities that don’t support converts or differ greatly from Qur’anic ideals |
I see a dichotomy at play in what works for LDS converts and what turns many of them off, and it boils down to community participation (callings, giving talks and prayers, teaching classes). Minor tweaks in this area could really improve how people feel about their conversion process. If you are considering joining the church, you really have to be OK with doing a calling and becoming very invested in the community because that’s what it’s all about. But the church needs to loosen its strangehold on the content of lessons and talks and be less controlling, less prone to insisting on quoting leaders and on “one way” of looking at things, instead embracing the sharing / application approach that is inherent in community-led churches. A gospel doctrine class that works is one where ideas and experiences of the members are shared, their best ideas are facilitated, and they feel like they are both contributing and uplifted as a result. Lessons where individual ideas and experiences can only be shared if they conform to a specific narrative are going to immediately turn off a whole lot of people. I think we’ve all been in a meeting where a newer member shares a story or a question that a longer-term member would not have shared. Maybe they aren’t the ones who need to change to conform. Maybe everyone else would benefit from letting go of those pearls they are clutching and let people be who they are.
- Do you find any of this information surprising?
- Do you think the church is dishonest in the conversion process or that withholding information is justified?
- What would you do to improve convert retention and experience?
- What lessons would you take from other churches’ processes?
- Do you think religions should be required to provide full disclosure prior to conversion?
- Have you seen new converts struggle to fit in due to these issues?
Discuss.

So maybe the Church should put together a “full disclosure” pamphlet titled, “Things You Should Know Before You Are Baptized.” Or maybe just put the 10 or 11 Gospel Topics Essays together into a booklet that all converts are required to read before baptism.
The problem is not that we baptize too quickly. It is that we don’t follow the scriptural pattern, and we confirm too quickly.
D&C 20:68 explains that after a person’s baptism, “the elders or priests are to have a sufficient time to expound all things concerning the church of Christ to their understanding, previous to their partaking of the sacrament and being confirmed by the laying on of the hands of the elders, so that all things may be done in order.”
So after baptism, but before confirmation as a member, there is to be a sufficient time for teaching by the elders or priests, and that time is to be long enough to the newly baptized person to fully understand what it means to be a member of the church (“expound all things concerning the church of Christ to their understanding”). This simply does not happen, and I don’t know if it has ever happened. People who are baptized but who are not confirmed are not supposed to be carried on our membership roles.
So the Lord allowed for full disclosure. Baptism can be almost spontaneous, but the burdens and expectations of membership should not fall, according to scripture, upon baptized people. They should only fall on confirmed members, and people should only be confirmed if they are sufficiently taught “all things concerning the church of Christ to their understanding.” What is a sufficient time? It certainly isn’t Saturday afternoon to Sunday morning. A sufficient time might take weeks or a few months, but the time isn’t measured in how long the elders or priests can present certain prescribed lessons; it should be individual to the baptized person, sufficient for him or her to reach understanding.
At least that is how I see the scriptural pattern.
I’m not sure 100% disclosure is ever possible in any large organization but there should be an expectation of reasonable disclosure. If it affects your lifestyle, income, mental health, family relationships it should be disclosed. Every person getting their own planet (doesn’t really change much but it’s weird) maybe not as important as 10% income tithing requires for full participation in saving ordinances and full community participation. Gold plates (again weird but maybe not more so than Moses climbing a mountain to get commandments on tablets) maybe not as important as we’ll tell you what underwear to use.
Anything but informed consent is coercion. I wouldn’t baptize children until 18, and converts until attending for at least a few months. Also raise the missionary age back to 19. The 18 year old missionaries I know are so naive.
Yeah, I have also wondered why we don’t follow D&C 20:68. Baptism and Confirmation were intended to be two separate ordinances, and maybe we err by treating them like two parts of a single ordinance.
This simply does not happen, and I don’t know if it has ever happened. People who are baptized but who are not confirmed are not supposed to be carried on our membership roles.
I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, but it seems like a good time to repeat it.
During the late 90’s, I served as stake mission secretary. During that period, Salt Lake finally took note of the scripture Georgis cites and decreed that converts should not be confirmed immediately after baptism. (No delay was required for children of record.) I don’t remember whether they specified what the convert needed to be taught in the interim, but our stake’s practice was to ensure that they be taught at least one “new member lesson” (out of six). The trick became to teach them that lesson on Saturday night so they could be confirmed on Sunday. Probably not what Georgis has in mind.
Nevertheless, there were three instances in our stake of baptized people never being confirmed. One of them missed his confirmation because he was in jail. The other two were young teenaged twins whose parents officially changed their minds about supporting their children’s membership. (They didn’t really change their minds–they just stopped telling the missionaries what they wanted to hear.) None of those three should have been baptized, much less confirmed.
I don’t know when or why this policy was discontinued, but it never really conformed to the scripture anyway. To conform to the scripture, it seems reasonable to me that converts be taught a full contingent of new member lessons (not necessarily those we used in the 90’s, which were pretty lame) with the requirement that they be taught over no less than a three week period. People could potentially be confirmed on the fourth Sunday after their baptism. And keep in mind that the keys to confirmation, unlike convert baptism, are held by the bishop, not the missionaries, and his incentives are very different.
For what it’s worth, I struggle to believe that “full disclosure” is possible, or desirable, in a variety of contexts. Has anyone else besides me ever joked about whether they would have committed to marriage, or children, or XYZ job, if they knew at the onset the downsides that came with it? Because I tend to emphasize the negative more than the positive and therefore would have been much more swayed by the negative aspects, and discounted the positive aspects down the pipe.
This is not me advocating for hiding stuff before embarking on whatever – whether it be marriage, children, baptism, what-not (even just the concept of a difficult hike!). It’s more to try and point out a few, sometimes competing, things:
1) even if you point out all the negatives and positives all at once, if a person has no context/has not experienced some of those things, they will not appreciate what that means to begin with;
2) if you point out all the negatives and positives all at once, many people tend to unconsciously attach more weight to the negatives than the positives as a protection mechanism.
I have a great marriage; I really do believe that I would have similar relationship “negatives” no matter whom I married, because they are part and parcel to relationships that require living together, no matter the person. But if I had known the negatives as intimately at the onset, I would not have taken the leap. And I do think I would have missed out on some truly meaningful, and deep, experiences. I think the same could be said of many other things, including baptism – or even just a gorgeous hike. Sometimes the blisters that come are worth it, even if we would not have thought so beforehand!
Hawkgrrrl,
First, the missionary meme is excessively mean and makes it difficult to take this post seriously. It is true LDS missionaries are naive and overconfident about what they know. However, they are also innocent and fit perfectly the Lord’s admonition to be “innocent as doves”.
The LDS church has forever struggled to assimilate converts into the church. The one thing it could do it refuses to do which is to require prospective converts to be active in a ward / branch for many months. When I was on my mission in the 1980s the requirement for convert baptisms was for the person to have attended church twice! Such a low bar is a guarantee not to allow the convert to have developed the habit of church attendance and gain a familiarity with the church program.
I’m not sure what exit cost fresh converts face if they change their mind about the church. A good percentage of converts do not stay active which indicates the exit cost is not very high.
As for full disclosure, in my church area the leadership is integrating family temple work into the missionary lessons. If followed, a convert would not be surprised the church places great emphasis on the temple. This is a change from the older era when converts heard nothing about the temple until after they were baptized.
“A good percentage of converts do not stay active which indicates the exit cost is not very high.”
Very true of course. However, I believe the chart indicates the exit cost for long time members- which is indeed very high!
I’m going to agree with A Disciple that the exit cost for most converts is quite low. In many instances they’ve just given up coffee, alcohol, Sunday free-time, money and been labeled as “weird” by friends and family. Exit costs for lifetime members residing in high-LDS areas (I’m describing myself here) are much higher.
Adam F aptly points out that “full disclosure” is probably impossible. I’ve been an active member for more than 40 years, and I’m still learning stuff about the church. If “full” disclosure is the bar, I’m not sure I’d qualify for baptism.
If baptism requires only an 8-year-old equivalent understanding of the church, then I think it is unavoidable that retention rates will be low. It can’t be both a quasi-spur of the moment call to follow Christ AND a deep lasting conversion.
(Who else has the song from Addams Family in their head now?)
I think more scaffolding (support and mentoring) should be placed on the conversion experience, particularly a waiting period before baptism. Suggesting that a conversion can happen at warp speed denies the social, psychological, cultural and emotional adjustments that must take place. Most would be concerned if a friend met, courted and married a partner in a two-week period. But that is similar to going through a conversion experience in such a short time. It signals infatuation and poor judgment, not thoughtful change and commitment.
Suppose the church created a “full disclosure” document that told prospective members about garments and polygamy and first vision accounts. How long should such a document be and what should be in it? Can we possibly account for every possible thing that every prospective new member might one day be bothered about? And would such a document realistically be received in a manner that is any different from the legally mandated list of possible side effects at the end of a pharmaceutical TV ad? I’m not sure it would. In fact, I think the TV ad analogy is quite apt, because someone who is the target of the ad is likely to be much more focused on whether it offers them hope of improving their life than whether they need to be concerned about the side effect.
I think the “exit cost” varies a lot, depending on personal history, length of time spent in the church, social connections and their relationship to the church. A new convert who gives up and stops attending in less than a year has a very different exit cost than someone in a stake presidency or the child of a GA. I don’t dispute that for some it is high, but I would say it’s not high for everyone, and maybe not even a majority. I’ve heard the stories of those who faced high exit costs, but let’s be honest about the selection bias inherent in focusing on those stories, when every ward in the church has a list full of names that nobody knows, who have for all practical purposes informally disaffiliated, who may have never had much of a strong connection to the church in the first place.
A Disciple: Yes, the featured image is mean, but is illustrative of how those who feel they were deceived due to lack of full disclosure feel about it.
Adam F: I agree that on some level, it’s like a first date or a job interview vs. how people feel a year later, but that there are also some things that it feels are being withheld too much for integrity sake.
And I mostly agree with those who say that for converts, exiting is “low cost” vs what ChatGPT seems to think, based mostly on the fact that almost all converts leave within the first few months. But, and this is an important caveat, the cost is higher for anyone who has spurned the advice of family members. They have to crawl back, eating humble pie, and they are likely to become very critical of their dalliance with what they now see as a deceptive cult.
Delaying confirmation for a longer period of time, as other commenters have mentioned, is probably the most effective way to let new members know what Church life is like. When I was on a mission, we were told to baptize quickly — as soon as they felt the Spirit! Then that spiritual confirmation would carry them through the shock of the cultural adjustment. Well, the spiritual confirmation was really just the emotional reaction to being love-bombed.
If the Church wanted people to fully understand membership before they converted, they would encourage/require a full year of attendance before baptism. Or if baptism had to come first, a year before confirmation. That way, the people who were going to drop off the rolls quickly will drop off before they’re actual Church members.
Sure, baptismal numbers would drop like a rock. But the percentage of new converts who remain active would go way up.
The Church has struggled with “convert retention” for decades and decades, with no improvement to speak of. They’re obviously missing something. I don’t think it has much to do with the missionaries or “member lessons” or even maybe partial instead of full disclosure. Here are a few ideas I haven’t heard much, with possible responses in brackets:
1 – Tithing hits adult converts harder than expected, even though it was explained to them. [So maybe we dial back tithing? Use some of that $100 billion to fill any gap? Give converts two years at 5% tithing?]
2 – Shifting ward boundaries too much has frayed a sense of familiarity and community in many wards. [Local and mid-level leaders: stop shifting boundaries so much! If a ward shrinks, get by with fewer callings. Maybe even let people choose their own ward. How can converts feel part of a community that doesn’t quite itself feel like a community because of so much boundary shifting?]
3 – Once upon a time, when you joined the Church through baptism, you were a full member of the Church. Elevating the temple and temple recommends so much means you’re only a full member when you get a TR and do the temple thing. And converting to the temple, as a convert, might be even harder than converting to the Church! [Maybe make the temple less of a thing? Ease up on garments? Rethink the endowment even more than the recent “more Jesus” changes? Ease up on the hurdles the Church throws up to get a TR?]
Dave B: Honestly, your #3 is kind of the crux, or at least one of the cruxes. Converts make this big commitment to become church members, but almost immediately discover that they aren’t “real” church members until they go through the temple. Psychologically speaking, it seems like this increasing elitism would deepen commitments, but it also provides an exit ramp to those who realize that they HUGE sacrifice they just made was really nothing compared to what’s next.
I’ll briefly say that having lived in the Muslim world and having many Muslim friends I have found that what constitutes leaving the religion is much different than in Mormonism. In Islam it is easier to lessen activity and belief as a male (female is a very different story since the social expectation for many is to wear the headscarf, although in Turkey I have met many women who claim to be religious Muslims who don’t wear the headscarf). As long as you don’t openly say that you converted to a different religion or that you are an atheist it is rather easy for men to lapse into a quasi non-religious state. There are no worthiness interviews or temple recommends or garments or garment-checks. Alcohol is technically forbidden in Islam. But in Turkey drinking is very common. In fact raki is a sort of national drink. In Iraq and Iran it is possible to practice a religiously sanctioned form of prostitution known as nikah mut’ah (pleasure marriage) where a man marries a woman for a very brief period of time, and then the marriage ends quickly after.
Hawkgrrrl, I understand what you are saying. FWIW, I have always been a terrible salesman for this very reason – I will tell you all the things wrong with something I’m trying to sell you just to be sure that you don’t feel cheated after the sale in case something doesn’t work out like you hoped. Used car? I’ll tell you about the issues the mechanic told me about that led to me wanting to sell it in the first place. On a mission? I won’t hide the high-demand aspects and how it can be challenging. But I also served in Western Europe, and so my entire missionary-culture-worldview is from the perspective of the Germans of the local wards, who did NOT want fast baptisms but instead wanted to make sure that converts really got it before taking the plunge. So I was never, ever indoctrinated in the “dunk-em-fast” worldview of missionary work to begin with, and like my German benefactors I’ve absorbed the similar attitude of go slow, and help see if we can make it last.
We’re all kinda like the rich young man. As Neal A. Maxwell said in so many words: a down payment won’t do. Unless we’re born of the water and of the spirit we can’t enter the kingdom–those are the words of the Savior. And being born of the spirit means, ultimately, to be transformed by the power of the atonement. We cannot become perfect in Christ without total commitment on our part.
Jack, I agree a lot with what you wrote, but given what D&C 20:68 says, what do you think about a period of teaching and learning after baptism and before confirmation? Jesus spoke about not building a tower before you have the materials, and not starting a war unless you had the means to win. I want people to win, as do you. Might trying the scriptural pattern help people win?
Jack, I don’t understand your allusion to the rich young man. Which downpayment and what does that even mean?
In my ward here in Toronto there are convert baptisms almost every week and people are joining the church from literally all over the world. The idea that these people are getting baptized based solely on what they learn from the missionaries without ever doing even one internet search is frankly naive and does not square with my experience on the ground. They may not be fully informed but they have some idea of what they are getting in to. I know this because they ask lots and lots and lots of questions. You should hear the discussion in Gospel Doctrine.
I think this post is more reflective of trying to convert people to cultural Mormonism which is a different thing and exists primarily in the Mormon corridor. With the level of diversity we have here that’s just not possible or even desirable. You pretty much have to stick to the basics. Which FWIW I think is a good thing. Having to separate the baby from the bathwater.
The days when the church could control the narrative are long behind us. I wish the leadership in Salt Lake would realize this. I want more transparency. It’s not like the information is not already out there.
Possible solution? Bring back the Gospel Essentials class. New members used to have to spend their first year in gospel essentials where there was opportunity for questions and to mingle with long time members.
Georgis,
I see that verse as indicating that all new members need to have been taught–at the very least–the basic elements of the covenant they make upon entering the church. And I assume that such instruction will happen–for the most part–before they are baptized.
I absolutely agree with you, brother, that we want people to win. And that means–IMO–that most folks will need lots of milk before they’re ready for the meat. And so, while the goal for all of us is complete transformation we have to remember that a plant cannot grow faster than its design will allow. We have to be patient with ourselves–and!–with each other during the process of conversion.
vajra2
“Jack, I don’t understand your allusion to the rich young man. Which downpayment and what does that even mean?”
I like to think of the story of the rich young man as a type for all of us to wrestle with. The gospel covenant requires that we be willing to sacrifice all things that prevent us from entering the Kingdom. And so, while we may not know all things about the Kingdom as we enter the gospel covenant–we should know enough to get us within its precincts. And that degree of knowledge should include an understanding that total commitment to the conditions of the covenant is required. It won’t do to half-heartedly place a makeshift sacrifice upon the altar. The Lord requires a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
In the 90s, both in the MTC and in the mission itself, I was constantly bombarded with messages saying that the reason we needed to baptize and confirm people quickly (ideally, within a few weeks) is that if investigators didn’t receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost very quickly, Satan would be able to attack them and turn them away from the Church. These new converts needed the Gift of the Holy Ghost to ward off Satan’s temptations and stick with the Church. Statistics don’t lie, though, and it sure seems like giving new converts the Gift of the Holy Ghost very quickly doesn’t really help retention at all. Given the low retention rates when people are baptized and confirmed so quickly, it seems like we ought to:
1. Institute a waiting period of a year before baptism/confirmation.
2. Allow people to get baptized/confirmed if and when they feel they are ready to do so (i.e., don’t start applying pressure once they hit that 12 month marko or anytime after that).
3. Discourage missionaries from setting baptismal goals at all. The main goal of missionaries ought to be to convert people to the point that they are interested in participating in the Church. Leave the baptism/confirmation timeline to the converts themselves.
After all, we’re not like other Christian denominations who believe that people are damned if they fail to get baptized/confirmed in this life. We’re Mormons, and we believe in baptism/confirmation for the dead, so if new converts don’t get baptized and die before their 12 month waiting period hadn’t elapsed, well, just send some 12-year-old to the temple to get dunked for them. Problem solved.
Really, as a missionary (and afterwards), I always thought the whole idea of needing to baptise/confirm quickly to protect converts from Satan was just a made up justification to drive missionaries to baptize more people. As I mentioned earlier, this “protection” obviously isn’t working, so let’s just stop it.
Jack, You wrote, “…I assume that such instruction will happen–for the most part–before they are baptized…”
But doesn’t the Lord, in His own voice in D&C 20:68, call for it to happen after baptism? Are you (and others) substituting the Lord’s wisdom with your own? Please re-read D&C 20:68.
ji,
My sense is that a potential convert must have a basic understanding of the baptismal covenant before receiving the ordinance. Plus the policy of the church nowadays is to confirm the new convert as soon as possible–on the following Sunday after receiving the ordinance of baptism.
And so, while I agree with the instructions given in Section 20 in a general sense–I don’t want to be so tied to the scriptures–especially with regard to logistical issues–that I can’t bend with the times and receive modern counsel that may differ from the written word.
Jack, I live far from the center place, so you might be better situated than I am, but I am unaware of any modern counsel from the Lord that supersedes or sets aside D&C 20:68. I actually think the Lord’s counsel is entirely appropriate for our times, and I wish we as a church followed it.
Haven’t I heard somewhere that obedience brings blessings, and exact obedience brings miracles? It seems to me that we need blessings, and maybe even miracles, in the matter of convert retention. But regardless, I agree that we follow instructions from our leaders even while thinking that some conversation can be helpful.
Our dear leader still believes that Moses visited Ohio in 1836 (see Gen Conf April 2024) – so everything is just wonderful and magnificent in God’s true church, n’est-ce pas? Milk before meat/further light and knowledge > informed consent
We will never hear a talk from Bednar explaining the emotion of elevation and why someone would decide to join a cult.
Meanwhile (exit costs), one of the Q15 has an inactive adult child canoodling with a minor Hollywood celebrity. It’s not my place to say how I know or give further info.
We need to chart the popularity (in different religions) of honky-tonks, DQ, 7-11, chocolate chip cookies, candy bars, Dua Lipa, hot dogs, Bon Jovi, Irish nachos, crocs, video games, sweatpants, tattoos etc.
“Our dear leader still believes that Moses visited Ohio in 1836…”
Me too.
Chet,
I fully endorse the fine art of “canoodling”. We need more canoodling in this sad and lonely world, regardless of who does it. Moses was likely a very good canoodler. RMN is likely a good canoodler as well, hence his longevity. But I fail to see why knowledge of another’s canoodling activities would matter? Canoodle on, my friends!
Old Man – see the Julie Beck talk about one cup of coffee.
And so, while I agree with the instructions given in Section 20 in a general sense–I don’t want to be so tied to the scriptures–especially with regard to logistical issues–that I can’t bend with the times and receive modern counsel that may differ from the written word.
Welcome to W&T, Jack. You finally figured out what it is we do here.
I do not endorse canoodling while drinking coffee or any other hot beverage. Accidents can happen.
lastlemming,
“Welcome to W&T, Jack. You finally figured out what it is we do here.”
Yes. But sometimes the good folks at W&T take that virtue to an unhealthy extreme–even to the point of becoming strangely fundamentalist in their attempt to prove the modern prophets wrong by the scriptures.
While studying Soviet foreign policy under Prof. Dunning at Texas A&M, I developed a theory of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” as a mechanism for dismantling the ethical containment force of a civilization. This theory helped explain why Stalin, in 1939, invited Hitler to attack the USSR, enabling the Nazi military to mass troops along Soviet borders without triggering a Soviet mobilization. Stalin, fearing the precedent of WWI—where a prolonged war catalyzed the collapse of the Czarist regime—believed such a shock invasion could be politically survivable if it avoided prolonged internal dissent.
The Bolsheviks based their theory of revolution upon the French revolution where the King and the Church destroyed. The Bolsheviks destroyed both the Czar and the Greek Orthodox Church. The collapse of the Shah of Iran witnessed the overthrow of both the Shah and Western culture. Hitler did the same in Germany, he destroyed the post WWI Parliament and the Church.
Vladimir Lenin’s approach to revolution built around a tight knit and concealed cabal of revolutionaries. This idea separated from the Menshevik theories which embraced anarchist theories of revolution. Lenin rejected the anarchist and decentralist leanings of the Mensheviks, establishing a covert revolutionary elite to seize power. Trotsky, by contrast, remained more loyal to the original soviet model: workers’ councils governing through direct delegation. Lenin Marxist ideology emphasized the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Troskii, being at heart a Menshevik supported “All Power to the Soviets” way to achieve political power and rule of government – at least till he sat as the Head of State. Lenin and Troskii used specific strategies, such as forming alliances with other revolutionary groups and leveraging the discontent of soldiers and workers, to successfully overthrow the Provisional Government. Stalin would employ intra-Bolshevik alliances to expel Troskii as the heir of Lenin.
The simplistic narrative of the Gospels – a story of Santa Claus coming to town lies told to children. Religious belief systems, no different than Stalin’s and Hitler’s propaganda lies told to their Party “believers”. The church persecution of “Xtian heretics” — no different than Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders whose opinions threatened the stability of Stalin’s One Man dictatorship.
Or Hitler’s, the “Night of the Long Knives,” purge which executed several leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), also known as the Brown Shirts, as well as other political adversaries. The SA, led by Ernst Röhm, instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, but by 1934, their increasing power and Röhm’s ambitions posed a threat to Hitler and the more conservative elements of the Nazi Party, including the military (Reichswehr) and the SS (Schutzstaffel).
Hitler used a purge to consolidate his power, eliminate rivals, and gain the support of the military, which viewed the SA as a potential threat. The event resulted in the deaths of many SA leaders and other political opponents, solidifying Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party and the German state. The Night of the Long Knives, often seen as a turning point in the establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.
During the Middle Ages the Pope instituted similar purges of all heretic gnostic and Protestant believers which challenged the dominance of the church monopoly over how to understand and interpret the NT\gospels. For example all church leaders have denounced to this very day the revelation of the Oral Torah as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s four part פרדס logic format.
Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), a significant figure in medieval theology, best known for his work “Sentences” (Sententiae), which became a cornerstone of Scholastic thought. His “Sentences” – a compilation of theological opinions and teachings from earlier Church Fathers and theologians, structured in a way that facilitated debate and discussion among scholars. The “Sentences” addressed various topics, including the nature of God, the sacraments, and the virtues. It provided a systematic approach to theology that encouraged critical thinking and analysis.
Gratian, who lived around 1140, a prominent medieval scholar and jurist, best known for his work in canon law. He often referred to by many catholics as the “Father of Canon Law”, due to his significant contributions to the development of ecclesiastical legal systems in the Catholic church. His most notable work – the “Decretum Gratiani.” A comprehensive compilation of canon law that organized and harmonized the various legal texts and decrees which accumulated over the years. This work, pivotal in establishing a systematic approach to canon law and served as a foundational text for later legal scholars and the development of church law.
Gratian’s “Decretum” addressed various topics, including the authority of the church, the nature of sin, and the administration of sacraments. Gratian’s ‘Decretum’ shaped the Church’s legal framework and remained a foundational text in canon law and theology for centuries. His work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in both canon law and civil law.
Saint Albert the Great, another significant figure in the development of medieval philosophy and science. Albertus Magnus, a mentor to Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. His influence on Aquinas helped shape the latter’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology. He played a crucial role in reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy to the Xtian intellectual tradition.
Albertus sought to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with Xtian doctrine, emphasizing the compatibility of faith and reason. Often regarded as one of the first to systematically study the natural world. His integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology influenced not only his students, like Aquinas, but also the broader development of Western philosophy and science. His work in biology, mineralogy, and metaphysics, all of which were deeply empirical for the time viewed as a bridge between the ancient philosophy and the rediscovered ancient Greek logic philosophies in the 10th Century.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Perhaps the most famous Scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas – best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles.” He sought to reconcile faith and reason, drawing heavily on Aristotelian philosophy.
This is Aquinas’s most famous work, structured as a comprehensive guide to theology. It addresses various theological questions, including the existence of God, the nature of man, and moral principles. The work is notable for its systematic approach and use of Aristotelian logic.
Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas defends the Xtian faith against non-Xtian philosophies, particularly those of Islam and Judaism. It emphasizes the rational basis of faith and aims to demonstrate the compatibility of reason and revelation. Its failure to address the 4 part inductive reasoning logic of Oral Torah ultimately proves the propaganda half truths of church theology.
Aquinas, by stark contrast drew heavily on the works of Aristotle rather than rabbi Akiva. The latter views the Talmud compared to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Where דרוש ופשט interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar and interpret the kvanna of Aggadic stories. While רמז וסוד conceal as the foundation of time oriented commandments express through both Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot. Aquinas consciously chose and integrated Aristotelian philosophy within the fabric of Xtian doctrine. He introduced concepts such as the “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, arguments based on observation and reason based upon Greek philosophy. And the Xtian Muslim dogma of Universal monotheism.
Aristotle’s static logic, ideal for constructing bridges. Hence Aquinas prioritized ancient Greek logic as ideal to support catholic dogmatism and Papal Bulls. Fluid\dynamic inductive reasoning/law where opposing prosecutor and defense lawyers rely exclusively upon previous judicial precedents to support pro & con opinions, hardly served the interests of a Vatican bible dictatorship. All three—Church, Stalin, Hitler—feared epistemological rivals: alternative systems of truth and authority. Like Stalinist “confessions” under torture, medieval inquisitions produced fabricated heresies to maintain a monopoly over “truth.”
Aquinas, known for his development of the concept of ancient Greek ‘natural law’. Which posits that moral principles best understood through human reason and inherent in the nature of human beings. His method involved posing Socratic-Plato questions, presenting objections, and then providing answers, which became a hallmark of Scholastic methodology.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian substitute theology doctrine included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system “replaced” by Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The latter shaped the church narrative. Logos (Greek abstraction) vs. Dibur or Torah SheB’al Peh (Oath alliance active remembrance of the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.), which the church fathers violently denounce. In 1242 the Pope ordered the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts within the whole of France.
The church defined heresy as beliefs or practices that deviated from established doctrine dogma and Vatican Bulls. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, and of course Jews, labeled as cursed heretics for their stubborn stiff-necked alternative interpretations of Xtianity; Jews who viewed the NT as a Roman fraud, utterly despised by being impoverished through taxation without representation and thrown into ghetto gulags for multiple Centuries – פרדס inductive reasoning, compares to mentioning aloud the name of Lord Voldemort.
Established in the 12th century, the Inquisition formalized systematic oppression into a Nazi-like system – wherein the catholic thought police identified, prosecuted and slaughtered “heretics”. It involved pre-decided judicial investigations, trials, employed to conceal satanic human torture. The most infamous of these the notorious war-crimes: Spanish Inquisition. Begun in 1478, targeting Jews, Muslims, and Protestant reformers.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian doctrine, specifically included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Which also laid the foundation for Stalin’s later show trials in the 1930s.
Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system, Xtian replacement theology” prioritized and emphasized both Paul’s ‘original sin’ theology and later Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic, and denounced Jewish Oral Torah as non existent. This proverbial ostrich burying head in sand cowardice, such tuma pusillanimity shapes the church narratives to this very day.
The church classically defined heresy, prior to the French Revolution, as beliefs or practices that deviated and challenged the church dictate. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, labeled as heretics for their alternative interpretations of both bible & Xtianity. Many groups other than these specific particulars utterly rejected the church Vatican monopoly – authority and power – to solely interpret the intent of both bible and church dogma. The Inquisition prosecution of heretics involved quasi-investigations, trials, and often torture punishments, resulting in execution.
The Gospel of John, written in Greek. The earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of john include fragments such as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to around 125 CE. This fragment, the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament and contains a few verses from John 18. Other significant manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date from the 4th century CE and include the entire text of the Gospel.
The early Church Fathers, who were primarily Greek and Latin speakers, recognized the Greek text as the authoritative version. They often cited it in their writings, which supports the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and contributes to the perception that the john gospel was originally composed in Greek. During this period of the Roman empire Greek served as the lingua franca – the medium of communication between peoples of different languages.
The Hellenistic themes of pre-existent divinity and hypostatic union present significant theological challenges when compared to the foundational principles of revelation as outlined in the Torah, particularly the events at Sinai. Pre-Existent Divinity, this concept suggests that certain divine beings or aspects of divinity existed before the creation of the world. In Hellenistic thought, this often refers to the idea of a divine Logos or intermediary that existed alongside God before the creation of the universe. In Xtian theology, this Greek concept, reflected in the belief in the pre-existence of Christ, seen as the divine Word (Logos) that was with God and was God (John 1:1).
While some early Church Fathers, like Papias, mentioned a possible ‘Hebrew Gospel’, they did not specifically attribute this to john. The notion of a Hebrew Gospel has been discussed in the context of the early Christian community’s use of different languages and texts. However, there no manuscript exists that definitively supports this revisionist history narrative. Most of the early references to such texts, compare to church blood libel slanders – indirect and often speculative. The lack of concrete manuscript evidence has led many scholars to view the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of John as most base revisionist history. The Greek Gospel of John, with no reliable Hebrew precedent, confirms the Roman-Hellenistic theological trajectory—not an indigenous Semitic prophecy.
The absence of a Hebrew manuscript or even substantial references to it in early Christian writings further proves this as just another blood libel lie. The theological themes in the Gospel of John, such as the Logos (Word) and the divinity of Christ, align more closely with Hellenistic thought than Hebrew thought which totally repudiate it. Attempts by Xtians in this Century to declare that Logos means “ben” or “JeZeus” amounts to creating their own ‘Oral Torah way’ to interpret the NT, while denying the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.
The church’s persecution of heresy did not merely target political dissent—it waged wars against competing systems of legal and judicial reasoning vs. legislative statute law dictates made by tyrants or non elected bureaucrats. The Jewish Oral Torah, whose revelatory authority at Horev, rooted in inductive logic and oaths precedent active remembrance of the Avot; this judicial common law fundamentally threatened the Vatican’s imposed monopoly over its Pravda – truth. Replacing Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס framework with Aristotle’s deductive syllogism, the Church attempted to implode T’NaCH and Talmudic common law judicial legalism. That actively shapes and influences the cultures and customs which defines Jewish identity as a people of the chosen Cohen nation.
The battle over heresy, never merely about doctrine—rather, a battle over interpretive sovereignty. The church’s erasure of the Oral Torah, its violent rejection of the פרדס legal judicial legislative review, and its dogmatic substitution of Greek metaphysics, all point to a broader imperial strategy: the silencing of Sinai. Just as Stalin erased rivals and Hitler purged the SA, the Vatican constructed a theological police state—burning the Talmud, ghettoizing Jews, and replacing the oath alliance conscious remembrance of the Avot through the tefillah from the Torah kre’a shma, the church intentionally sought to implode Horev replaced by the empire of Rome. That war on revelation still echoes in every attempt to retranslate the Gospel into Hebrew, to resurrect ‘Logos’ as ‘Ben,’ and to pass fiction as prophecy.”
The Torah commandment to uproot Canaanite cultures reflects not cruelty but covenantal mercy (מידת רחום)—a national immunization against cultural apostasy and idolatry. The second commandment warns against assimilating into societies that reject the Horev revelation, whether ancient Canaanites or modern ideological empires like Rome and Mecca. Failure to uproot the ancient Canaanites directly threatened the 2nd Sinai commandment not to follow the cultures and customs of peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The peoples of both Xtianity and Islam reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence the church sought to implode and cause the People of Israel to forget the Oral Torah just as did the assimilated Tzeddukim who sought to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis.
The mitzva of observing Torah commandments לשמה within the borders of the oath sworn brit lands, the inheritance of the Chosen Cohen people.
[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? I[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? In a world saturated with propaganda and revisionism, what disciplines shape that conscience to remain true to Sinai? ]]]
The Books of שמות וויקרא concentrate on the avodat HaShem of dedicating korbanot. This “service” does not exist as offering up a barbeque unto Heaven. The mitzva of the פרט case of Moshiach learns from the כלל of korbanot services of the House of Aaron.
Another בנין אב-precedent, the כלל for faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. Still another פרט-בנין אב precedent: the court case of Hebrew slaves vs. the State of Par’o – beating slaves for their rebellion to meet their brick production quota consequent to Par’o withholding the required straw.
One other בנין אב-precedent learns from the כלל that all ברכות require שם ומלכות.
Just as a korban requires a dedication to achieve a specific specified purpose, so too the mitzva of Moshiach. Specifically in the mitzva case dedication of Moshiach, this dedicated “king” sanctified לשמה to rule the land with Judicial justice, working through the common law lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms. Based upon the Torah Constitutional mandate that the Sanhedrin courts operate through משנה תורה-Legislative Review of any and all statute laws or bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Monarchy and/or his government.
The often repeated rebuke which the Book of Shmuel makes upon the House of David as Moshiach, the injustice shown to the husband of Bat Sheva. This פרט-specific defines the כלל dedication of the mitzva dedication of Moshiach. No such dedication for the mitzva of Moshiach to become a substitute theology which has some mythical theologically based messiah to replace the chosen Cohen People.
The opening word of the Torah בראשית, through the aggadic stories of the Creation, teaches the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; as the Av of the תולדות secondary source positive and negative commandments located specifically in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. Hence just as the Book of בראשית introduces the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, this opening first Book of the Torah introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments which the rest of the Books of the Torah come to clarify.
For example: what separates tohor spirits from tumah spirits? Avodat HaShem in the Mishkan, only served in the state of tohor middot. For a Cohen to serve within the Mishkan in a condition of tumah middot – this Av transgression carries the din of כרת. Cutting off that person and his children from the oath brit wherein HaShem and the Avot mutually swore to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. This latter בראשית most essential idea shares nothing with tuma middot which promote racial or genetic inheritance of the Jewish race – as the Xtian church and Nazis promote – examples of tumah middot.
Hence to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות like as do all ברכות from the Torah. The sin of the Golden Calf – a substitute theology which replaces the revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment revelation of the Spirit Divine Presence Name unto other word-Gods. Avoda zara by definition worships other Word-gods. The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the defining פרט for the 2nd Sinai Commandment כלל not to worship other Gods.
Therefore all Torah oath britot require שם ומלכות. The Name clearly directly links to the Spirit Divine Presence Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The term מלך refers to the כלל mitzva of the dedication of the spirit of משיח as expressed through all tohor time oriented Av commandments … the righteous pursuit of justice to achieve shalom among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations in all Ages and times while Jews rule our ancient homelands.
מלכות understood as the dedication of defined tohor middot. אל remembrance of the Sin of the Golden Calf. רחום the inference which turns pity upon its head. Obliterating the Canaanites, the killing of the minor stubborn and rebellious child, the war against Amalek (Jewish assimilation to foreign cultures and customs of peoples who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. And intermarriage with such Goyim). The middah of רחום a Jew dedicates how he shall socially interact with both his people and Goyim in the future; specifically through the dedication of defined tohor middot. חנון the general dedication to dedicate all future behavioral patterns with family friends, people, and even Goyim by and through the future born tohor middot that a person dedicates whenever that Jews does Torah or Talmudic mitzvot/halachot.
Both Xtianity and Islam worship other Word-gods. Therefore both religions do not define faith as the pursuit of justice, but rather belief in the theologies about these Word-gods.
[[[ Also, when you speak of the erasure of Jewish self-determination through revisionist Palestinian narratives, I hear both an intellectual rebuttal and a deep historical wound. Is your critique aimed primarily at the political manipulation of language and borders—or also at the erasure of Jewish covenantal memory from the land itself? ]]]
Unlike the Xtian and Muslims theologies which promote some pie in the sky Universal Monotheism God, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed the local tribal God of Israel. When David fled from king Shaul he declared as he entered g’lut lands: “I have been forced to abandon God”. Just as the Great and Small Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of the Jewish state so too the local God of Israel. Herein the answer given to the Holocaust survivor who said to me: “I was in Auschwitz, Where was God?” When I lived in the US and Xtian people asked me if I was a religious Jew? I responded with: I am an atheist praise God. But even living within the borders of the oath sworn brit alliance lands I habitually respond to Goyim with “I am an atheist – praise God”. Meaning, I do not believe in any theological/creed construct of Word-gods – praise God. LOL Torah, its deep and requires a sense of humor.
The curse of g’lut-exile of my people almost immediately caused Jews to lose the wisdom how to do mitzvot לשמה. G’lut Jewry does not understand how to employ and work our Yatrir HaTov within our hearts. The בנין אב-precedent of blowing the shofer serves as a פרט to define the כלל of Yatzir HaTov. Meaning, to blow a shofar requires air from the lungs. But to blow a spirit from the Yatzir HaTov within the heart requires the k’vanna, (all time-oriented commandments require k’vanna) the dedication of defined tohor middot spirits. This כללי-general idea of tohor middot, it defines the dedication of the middah of חנון.
Herein a definition of 3 of the 13 tohor middot which a person dedicates through Yatzir Tov k’vannot from within their hearts. Jews uprooted from our homelands by both the Babylonians and Romans caused the g’lut cursed survivors to lose this kabbalah wisdom which defines how to do mitzvot לשמה.
Human society not flat, nor a טיפש פשט mythology.
The zionist experiment of democracy faces some criticism by Jews such as myself who favor restoration of a Torah constitutional Republic which mandates a lateral Sanhedrin common law courts to regulate all laws passed by Jerusalem and the state legislatures of the 12 Tribes. Imposing Judicial Legislative Review upon Sanhedrin common law courtrooms with the Mandated Constitutional power to conduct trials which judge Capital Crimes offenses, and impose 4 different types of death penalties, dependent upon the nature of the Capital crimes committed. And equally vital and important דיוק inference to judging Capital Crimes Cases: To judge the leadership responsible for Federal and State governments; based through evidence of laws bureaucratically imposed by government authority officials — viewed through the lenses of prophetic משנה תורה-Legislative Review.
The prioritization of lateral common law Sanhedrin courtrooms over institutional machinery of governance, which directly includes government leadership positions within these institutions of government, this essential clause defines, separates, and make unique Jewish political science. Faith: the Torah defines as justice justice pursue; a direct reference to lateral Sanhedrin common law courtrooms having the mandate of ‘Legislative Review’ over all governments – Jerusalem or any tribal/state legislature.
Democracy or democratic institutions not part of the Jewish cultural traditions. Democratic mob rule, a Greek idea and not a Jewish cultural concept. Leaders “anointed” under the pre-condition that they will faithfully pursue justice as the rule of law. As in all Human endeavors, the humanity of Man, the ideal and the practical realities – a wide gap separates the two. When a leader sufficiently abuses his leadership mandate a prophet, representative of the Sanhedrin Court, impeaches that leader and replaces him with another. The stories in the Book of Judges and Samuel and Kings, which pits, for example: Shaul against David, serve as precedent models which separate Ordered societies from chaotic societies collapsing into a state of anarchy.
Imposition of some grand Cathedral, Soloman Temple – like institutions comparable the newest Federal Reserve building in the US, the graphic porn of pork graft in government that has no shame – within any given civilization. Institutions compare to people that bow down and worship idols. Buildings of wood and stone do not promise efficient good governance. Public expenditure of taxes to build such grand structures of Egoism, they serve witness to a stratification of aristocratic feudal Lord/peasant economic anarchy; which imposes wealth and justifies ‘might make right’ judicial injustice, oppression, theft, and even taboo incest or murder.
Contrast the IDF with its direct linkage with power projection through Foreign Policy. Ideally Foreign Policy plays second fiddle to domestic Home Rule. But often the nature of the Humanity of Man, Foreign Policies prioritized over Domestic Policies. This Yatzir Ha’Rah, once more its power seduction dominates the dynamic “ideal vs actual”; this gap separates the vision of governance from the cruel reality – that all men sit and crap on toilets, and it stinks. The Human potential NEVER achieves the Human ideal messiah.
NT mythology no different than Homer’s Iliad, and Odyssey. Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days. Aeschylus’s The Orestia. Sophocles Oedipus Rus. Euripides Medea etc etc these Greek myth stories, they compare to how Xtians worship their silly sophomoric bible translations which depict a messiah savior that rises from the judicial oppression grave and saves all Humanity — despite the Caesar Son of Gods – the personification of Hercules/JeZeus in flesh, blood & History.
The fly in this ever so sweet ointment, myths do not actually make and determine history. As history does not shape and determine modern life today in any society in all the annuls of Humans living on this Earth. Worshipping history as God the exact same idolatry as worshipping Shlomo’s or Herod’s Temples made of wood and stone. Institutionalized buildings, no matter the cost of their construction does not and never has produced the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice.