David Betz: Civil War Comes to the West

I recently came across links to a two-part article by David Betz, a professor of war at King's College London, published in Military Strategy Magazine. Entitled "Civil War Comes to the West" (Summer 2023) and "Civil War Comes to the West, Part II: Strategic Realities," (Spring 2025) the author explores how "the cult of ethnicity," decline in societal trust and social capital, multiculturalism and political polarization has brought western nations to the brink of civil war. He notes, for instance:

What might be described as ‘intertribal conflict’ is by no means confined to the virtual spaces of the Internet; rather, it manifests also in physical fighting in a self-reinforcing feedback cycle. Many examples of this from recent headlines might be given. A good one though, is the city of Leicester in Britain, which over the last year has witnessed recurring violence between the local Hindu and Muslim populations, both sides animated by intercommunal tensions in distant south Asia. A Hindu mob marched through the Muslim part of town chanting ‘Death to Pakistan’. 

He also observes:

[I]t can be said that a generation ago all Western countries could still be described as to a large degree cohesive nations, each with a greater or lesser sense of common identity and heritage. By contrast, all now are incohesive political entities, jigsaw puzzles of competing identity-based tribes, living in large part in virtually segregated ‘communities’ competing over diminishing societal resources increasingly obviously and violently. Moreover, their economies are mired in a structural malaise leading, inevitably in the view of several knowledgeable observers to systemic collapse.  

All that is needed to touch it off, he predicts, would be a severe economic downturn. But he also mentions how vulnerable are modern cities to disruption of utilities and basic services, hinting that concerted disruptions could finally push the populace over the edge. 

    "The trouble is that the urge to fight, indeed the wish to accelerate towards conflict," he writes, "is not confined to just one group—as one might gather from the recent alarm over far-Right populism—but is of a rather more general character, with radicalism increasingly visible in all sorts of communities." And he uses France as an example where Muslims have committed many of the atrocities there (albeit in smaller numbers) that we saw committed against and between communities in the Middle East conflicts. He continues (footnotes omitted):

    Approximately 75 per cent of post-Cold War civil conflicts have been fought by ethnic factions. Therefore, that civil war in the West will be likewise is unexceptional. The nature of the belief that Mansoor invokes as being important is, however, worth dwelling upon. I would suggest that the belief in question is the acceptance by all groups in society of the precepts of ‘identity politics’.

    Identity politics may be defined as politics in which people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. It is overtly post-national. It is this above all that makes civil conflict in the West not merely likely but practically inevitable, in my view.

    Identity politics will not only play a role in the cause of any such civil war, but in how it plays out. Betz explains (footnotes omitted):

Scenarios, mostly focused on the United States, of what civil wars in the West would look like exist in the literature. They tend to share one thing in common particularly, which is the expectation as expressed by Peter Mansoor, professor of military history at Ohio State University, that they will,

…not be like the first [American] civil war, with armies manoeuvring on the battlefield [but] would very much be a free-for-all, neighbour-on-neighbour, based on beliefs and skin colour and religion. And it would be horrific.

My LDS readers may find this description eerily familiar. As I've previously related, Duane S. Crowther's book, Prophecy--Key to the Future, cites various early LDS Church leaders concerning a second civil war. For instance, Orson Pratt, speaking in 1879, described this second civil war:

[I]t will be very different from the war between the North and the South. Do you wish me to describe it? I will do so. It will be a war of neighborhood against neighborhood, city against city, town against town, county against county, state against state, and they will go forth, destroying and being destroyed and manufacturing will, in a great measure, cease, for a time among the American nation. Why? Because in these terrible wars, they will not be privileged to manufacture, there will be too much bloodshed, too much mobocracy, too much going forth in bands and destroying and pillaging the land to suffer people to pursue any local vocation with any degree of safety. What will become of millions of the farmers upon that land? They will leave their farms and they will remain uncultivated, and they will flee before the ravaging armies from place to place; and thus will they go forth burning and pillaging the whole country; and that great and powerful nation, now consisting of some forty millions of people, will be wasted away, unless they repent.

(Crowther p. 50). Joseph Smith is also quoted as saying:

A terrible revolution will take place in the land of America, such as has never been seen before; for the land will be literally left without a supreme government, and every species of wickedness will run rampant. Father will be against son, and son against father, mother against daughter, and daughter against mother. The most terrible scenes of murder and bloodshed and rapine that have ever been looked upon will take place.

(Crowther 53). 

     Despite the focus of the foregoing passages on the United States, Betz says in the second part of his article that he expects civil war to first erupt in the U.K. and France. But, he adds, "[t]he conditions are similar, however, throughout Western Europe as well as, for slightly different reasons, the United States; moreover, it must be assumed that if civil war breaks out in one place it is likely to spread elsewhere." As to how the war will break out and progress, Betz predicts:

    ... First, the major cities become ungovernable, i.e., feral, exhausting the ability of the police even with military assistance to maintain civil order, while the broader perception of systemic political legitimacy plummets beyond recovery. The economy is crippled by metastasising intercommunal violence and consequent internal displacement. Second, these feral cities come to be seen by many of those indigenes of the titular nationality now living outside them as effectively having been lost to foreign occupation. They then directly attack the exposed city support systems with a view to causing their collapse through systemic failure. 

     Betz states that his purpose is to provide a warning to both the statesmen and military leaders, and encourage military leaders to study how they might "win" such a conflict. But one has to ask, win against who? 

    Betz is quite clear that there are certain political asymmetries here focused around geography (rural versus urban) and ethnic (the native whites versus the replacement population). (Unmentioned, of course, is the power axis--elites versus commoners). For instance, he displays a map of France showing which areas voted for Marine Le Pen's National Rally in the 2024 election versus other parties, and it rather pointedly is clear that those voters in the French countryside voted for Le Pen, while only a few urban islands voted for other parties. The police and military, I would expect, will support the locus of political and economic power which are centered in the cities. Meaning that in a civil war, the police and military should be expected to turn their guns against the native white populations. 

    We see this already--particularly in Europe--where the governments are increasingly hostile to the native white populations and any speech, acts, or people around whom they might rally. How else to explain the recent conviction of a man in Britain for burning a copy of the Koran, not because the burning was illegal, but because it might cause some sort of psychic harm to Muslims; the serial prosecution of Tommy Robinson in the UK; or the threatened ban of the AfD party in Germany.  These governments are working to head off civil war, but they seem to be concentrating their efforts on only one ethnic group, and it isn't the imported populations. These efforts will ultimately fail, however, because they merely underscore how the native white populations are being turned into second-class citizens and will breed further resentment among whites while encouraging the imported populations to further assert themselves. 

For My LDS Readers: Will A President Harris Cause World War III?

The video below relates a prophecy allegedly related by George Albert Smith circa 1946, about the start of World War III and its aftermath. The author acknowledges that the providence of the prophecy is somewhat questionable: while there are Church sources that reference the prophecy, he writes in the description, it has never been released by the Church. In fact, it apparently was only shared privately with a small number of people, and it appears that the author's sources are recollections of what was said rather than transcriptions of Smith's words. I would also note that I have not come across references to this prophecy before. And, as one of the commenters points out, the prophecy (if that is what it was) was apparently only relayed by Smith to a single family and not intended for the Church as a whole. So my impression is that although Smith had a vision or dream, he either was told to not widely reveal it or had doubts as to whether it was a genuine prophecy. 

    It is notable that Smith had used the term "millions shall die like flies" at least one other time: in the 1950 Conference Report, p. 169. His comments about missile silos and nuclear tipped IRBMs and ICBMs seems prescient; but Germany had developed and widely used the V2 which was an IRBM, so perhaps it was just a good interpolation from known facts. 

    Assuming the prophecy is authentic, there is another interesting point. The recollection indicates that the U.S. president at the time of the nuclear war will be a man of a different extraction--i.e., not of British or northern European extraction. My initial thought was Obama was the first president "of a different extraction" because he was half-black; and obviously we didn't have a nuclear war under his watch. But Obama's mother, Ann Dunham,  "was of predominantly English ancestry, with small amounts of Scottish, Welsh, Irish, German and Swiss-German" according to Wikipedia, so perhaps that was enough to disqualify him.

    Harris, if she is elected or otherwise becomes president, would be a different matter: her mother was Shyamala Gopalan, a biologist from India that arrived in the United States in 1958. Her father was Donald Jasper Harris, an Afro-Jamaican (i.e., Jamaicans of predominantly African descent). And even her Irish slave owning ancestor was Irish: i.e., not of English or northern European extraction. 

    But even considering all the foregoing, you might find the account interesting:

VIDEO: "George Albert Smith's Vision of World War III - Church of Jesus Christ"
The Words of Christ (14 min.)

For My LDS Readers: "Does this mean the wrath of God comes next?"

VIDEO: "Does this mean the wrath of God comes next??"

Consider the Truth (10 min.)

The host of the video, above, picked up on a comment that President Nelson made hear the close of his talk at the end of this Spring 2023 General Conference. Specifically, Pres. Nelson quoted from 1 Nephi 14:14 about the power of the Lord descending upon the Saints and that they were being "armed with righteousness and with the power of God" and that this is in the process of happening. 

    The host notes that the very next verse--1 Nephi 14:15--states:

And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.

In fact, the next several verses are about God pouring out His wrath on "the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil". Consequently, the host speculates that perhaps Pres. Nelson's comment was a warning that God is about to pour out his wrath. 

    I still think that the war of Armageddon is still a ways off--at least a decade or more--just because of all that must first occur. For instance, the city which is the latter-day Babylon--the harlot of Revelation 17--still has not been revealed even if we are surrounded by its "religion"; and the Beast or Antichrist has not been revealed, let alone prosecuted a war against Israel. 

POTD: The Desolation of Washington D.C.

I typically post photographs or videos of actual ruins, but occasionally I come across an artistic work that captures my imagination. I'm reminded of a vision experienced by John Taylor in which he saw a future United States in tatters. As to Washington D.C., he related: "The next I saw was Washington, and I found the City a desolation. The White House Empty, the Halls of Congress the same Everything in ruins. The people seemed to have fled from the City and left it to take Care of itself."

Source: "Washington Hole"--Deathlands Wiki

VIDEO: The Healing Power of Gratitude

"President Russell M. Nelson on the Healing Power of Gratitude​" (12 min.)

If you haven't seen it yet, President Nelson gave a special message this morning on the topic of the power of gratitude, even in trying situations. President Nelson specified three ways you can develop and spread a spirit of gratitude:​

1) Turn social media into your own gratitude journal by sharing something you are grateful for each day ​for the next seven days, using the hashtag #GiveThanks. 

2) Say a prayer of gratitude, even expressing gratitude for the trials we face and the learning experience they provide.​

3) Build your relationship with Jesus Christ.​

So, let me begin here with my first message of gratitude: I know many people that have lost jobs or suffered severe financial hardship due to the COVID-19 shutdowns; therefore, I am grateful that I have had a steady job through the whole thing and my reduction in income was but temporary. 

For My LDS Readers: No Apology for the Priesthood Ban

     I've been reluctant to write this post, but I think it is time something needs to be said. As you know, the Church recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1978 revelation on the priesthood that permitted black males to receive the priesthood, and all black members to enter the temple and receive the temple ordinances. I don't know what makes this anniversary so special, but there has been a lot of attention over the last year or so on Church's prior ban on blacks and the priesthood; and part of that has been calls for the Church to officially apologize. Apparently the Church, and even God, are now required to bow to the false god of victim-hood.

       The actual title of the 1978 revelation was Official Declaration 2, and it stated:

        As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords. 

       Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. 

        He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness. 

       We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

The Church authorities have made a concerted effort this year to celebrate the lifting of the ban, rolling out the "Be One" campaign which is both a celebration of the lifting of the ban and explores the history of blacks in the Church. The Church authorities have also bent over backward to show that the Church is open and welcoming of black members (see, e.g., this article on "Blacks and the Priesthood"). And President Nelson has instructed us to "build bridges of cooperation instead of walls of segregation."

Some Are Unsatisfied With The Lifting Of The Ban

       But building "bridges of cooperation" doesn't seem to be enough for some. Some want the Church to acknowledge that it was "wrong" for all those years that the ban was in effect. (See also here and here). And, as The Salt Lake Tribune reported earlier this year, some black members are unsatisfied by the celebration and want the Church to apologize.

       “A lot of members are waiting for the church just to say, ‘We were wrong,’” said Phylicia Norris-Jimenez, a 30-year-old black Mormon and member of the grass-roots Black LDS Legacy Committee, group of women who are organizing a conference Saturday in Utah to honor the legacy of black Mormon pioneers. 

       Norris-Jimenez said nonblack Latter-day Saints still struggle with how to talk about the ban or understand the pain it causes. She said the anniversary celebration honors something that should have never existed but that it’s a good gesture and hopefully leads to more discussions about race.

The same article quotes LaShawn Williams, an assistant professor of social work at the Utah Valley University, as saying she would like an apology.

       Mormons probably shouldn’t wait for a rare apology from church leaders, said W. Paul Reeve, a Mormon studies professor at the University of Utah. The church seems to be trying to walk a tight rope by disavowing past beliefs while not apologizing for the ban to avoid members questioning other doctrine they think should be changed, he said. 

        “What else are they wrong about? Are they wrong about gay marriage? Are they wrong about female ordination?” Reeve said. “If they got race and the priesthood wrong, what else could they be wrong about? I think that’s part of the fear.”

       Of course, those calling for an "apology" should consider a different possibility. What if the ban was "right"--that is, an actual commandment from God through His earthly prophets? Then a call for an "apology" is actually a call for God to apologize, which is blasphemy!

The Ban Was Not Unprecedented

        Those that claim that the ban was "wrong"--i.e., not inspired or commanded of God--base their arguments on the premise that a loving God would not choose to pour out his blessings on all his children. But, in fact, examining the scriptures show that such bans or limitations have actually been the norm. The Lord has often worked only through a certain people or elite group.

       We see this as early as Genesis 6, where the "Sons of God" marrying of any they choose of the daughters of men is considered wickedness. (Gen. 6:1-3). Similarly, the Lord also condemned the intermixing when the daughters of Noah married outsiders. (Moses 8:14-15).

       At the time of Abraham, the gospel apparently was open to all mankind, so we see Abraham going to give tithes to Melchizedek, the king of Salem who was also a priest for the Lord, and received from him the sacrament of bread and wine. (Gen. 14:18-20). Yet God later chose the descendants of Israel for His special favor. And after the exodus from Egypt, Israel became His chosen people; yet, even among these, service in the temple was restricted to the tribe of Levi, and the priesthood was restricted to the descendants of Aaron. After the return of the Jews from Babylon to rebuild the temple, the Lord prohibited those that were not of pure Levitical descent (either through intermarriage, or that simply couldn't prove their lineage was pure) from participating in rebuilding the temple.

       Fast-forwarding to the time of Christ, where Christ expressly indicated that his mission was only unto the Jews. (See Matt. 15:24). In that chapter, we read:

       And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 

       But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 

       But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 

       Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

       But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

        And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

       Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

(Matt. 15:22-28). It was not until some time after Christ's ministry that Peter was finally instructed to take the gospel to the Gentiles. (Acts 10).

       The point isn't when we are called to work for the Lord or receive our reward, but that no matter when we are called, if we work with diligence, we will receive our reward. This is clearly set out in the Parable of the Laborers in Chapter 20 of Matthew:

        For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

        And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

         And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

        And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

       Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

       And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

       They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

       So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

       And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

       But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

       And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

       Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

       But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

       Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

       Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

      So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

(Matt. 20:1-16). If the Jews were those called in the morning, and Gentiles were those called at noon, and blacks are those called at the eleventh hour, what is the matter? The Lord will reward all his faithful laborers alike.

Church Authorities Have Made Things Worse By Not Forcefully Responding To Critics

        Unfortunately, in an effort to appease the easily offended, the Church authorities have attempted to downplay the whole matter, without stating that the ban was "wrong," by acknowledging that "[e]arly in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent," but claiming that "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice." In his comments at the "Be One" celebration, Elder Oaks similarly related:

I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray—as promised from the beginning of these restrictions—that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple.

The Church authorities have also stated that "[t]he origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear."

        The problem, however, is that the origin of the ban and the reasons therefore are actually fairly well documented, and, therefore, statements suggesting otherwise come across as disingenuous and merely provide fodder for the enemies of the Church. (See also here and here). For instance, on October 9, 1859, Brigham Young taught:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion."

In 1949, the First Presidency issued a statement on blacks and the priesthood:

        The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." 

         President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." 

         The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

Another 1969 statement from the First Presidency read:

        From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man." 

       "Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God...."Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state." President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

The Lifting Of The Ban Was A Sign Of The Times--A Milestone In The Setting Up Of The Kingdom Of The Lord On The Earth

       One of the points to be drawn from these statements is that, just as it was Church doctrine that the ban be put into place, it was also understood that the ban would eventually be lifted when, as Brigham Young stated, "all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." Thus, as I read it, the lifting of the ban should be taken as one of the signs of times. This is supported by the very text of Official Declaration 2 which reads, in the relevant part: "He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood ..." (underlined added). Consequently, the lifting of the ban marked a significant milestone toward the preaching of the gospel around the world. By suggesting that the ban was a "mistake" or "wrong," the critics are missing and submerging an important truth being revealed by the ban and a fulfillment of prophecy regarding the establishment of the Lord's kingdom in these latter-days.

The Ban Was Probably Necessary.

       I would suggest that the ban served a useful purpose in the early days of the Church, even without considering the disproportionate crime, sexual promiscuity, and other issues within the African American and Sub-Saharan African communities. There has been considerable research showing that ethnic diversity leads to lower social trust and cooperation. For instance, in 2007, Robert D. Putnam published a paper in which he concluded that:

In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.

James Laurence conducted a longitudinal study and found that people who stay in a community that become more ethnically diverse over time invest less social capital into the community.  Another paper found that "all-white [church] congregations become less charitably active as the share of black residents in the local community grows." And yet another paper found that "a small minority group will adopt majority cultural practices and integrate. In contrast, minority groups above a certain critical mass, may retain diverse practices and may also segregate from the majority."

        In short, "genetic diversity may have an adverse effect on the prevalence of mutual trust and cooperation, and excessive diversity can therefore depress the level of social capital below a threshold that otherwise subdues the emergence of social, political, and economic grievances and prevents the culmination of such grievances to violent hostilities." In fact, racial integration and social cohesion may be impossible.

        Now, look at the situation faced by the young LDS Church. The greater number of the members were located in small, frontier settlements in the Mountain West region, particularly Utah, eastern Idaho, and Arizona. These were small communities that relied on cooperation and unity to survive. The Church, overall, also needed cooperation and unity to survive, particularly in the face of a hostile government. Of course, we cannot know if, without the ban, there would have been a large number of blacks that would seek to join the Church, but it can't be ruled out. So, we have small frontier communities exposed to an influx a new members of a different race, and we know racial diversity decreases trust and social cohesion. It could have destroyed or severely weakened the Church in its younger state.

What If The Church Apologizes?

       The Church authorities have indicated in statements that "[t]he origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

      The more recent statements from the Church authorities come out very strongly against any attempt to understand why the ban was implemented, and, given the trend, I would not be surprised if Church leaders eventually did repudiate the ban in its entirety and declare it a "mistake" or "wrong."

     And that would create a serious conundrum for the Church and its members. As pointed out in the Salt Lake Tribune article cited to near the beginning of this post:

       “What else are they wrong about? Are they wrong about gay marriage? Are they wrong about female ordination?” Reeve said. “If they got race and the priesthood wrong, what else could they be wrong about? I think that’s part of the fear.”

But it goes beyond that. As I've noted above, the difficulty is that some of the statements concerning the reasons for the ban were not "personal," but part of official statements from the First Presidency. So, in the event of an apology, members would be left with the quandary of discerning which official statements are correct. Perhaps a statement apologizing for the priesthood ban would, itself, be mistaken or wrong, or perhaps the lifting of the ban in 1978 was "wrong"? You can see the potential for mischief if the Church issues an apology.

Concluding Thoughts

       I think that the Church, black members, and detractors are making much ado about nothing. There was a ban, but now there isn't. Such bans or restrictions are not unprecedented, but appear to have been the Lord's modus operandi during the majority of his dealings with the people of the Earth. But now black members are able to participate in the temple ceremonies and ordinances, including doing work for their ancestors--even those ancestors that were prohibited from the temple during the time the ban was in place. At the end of the day, they will be receiving the same wage for their faith. Finally, given the circumstances of the Church during the 19th and much of the 20th Centuries, the ban was necessary to preserve the Church against division and schism.

A Review of Revelations--Part 13--The War In Heaven And The Beast

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6] [Part 7] [Part 8] [Part 9] [Part 10] [Part 11] [Part 12]

       This is a continuation of my series reviewing The Book of Revelation: Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass by G. Erik Brandt. Today, I will be discussing Chapters 12 and 13 of the book, which itself discusses Chapters 12 and 13 of Revelation.

"The War In Heaven" 

       Chapters 12 and 13 of Revelation are intended to give us a look behind the curtain as to what is happening in the spiritual realms. In Chapter 12, we are exposed to the animosity between the Devil and the righteous, including the war in heaven and the casting out of Satan. Chapter 13 describes Satan's agents in the mortal realm.

       Revelation, Chapter 12, begins by describing "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered." (Rev. 12:1-2). John continues: "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born." (Rev. 12:3-4).

       The Dragon is Satan. His enmity toward the woman should be familiar, because that is how the Bible begins, in the Garden of Eden, and God's proclamation that He would "put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15).

       There is some debate on the identity of the woman, with some contending that the woman is the Church, and others saying it can't be so because the woman is pregnant, but the Church (the Bride of Christ) is supposed to be a virgin. However, Mary was a virgin, yet bore Christ. Thus, I don't believe that her being pregnant excludes her from being the Church. Since the followers of Christ will either be part of the remnant of the 10 tribes or be adopted into one of the twelve tribes, the distinction is moot: the Church is the righteous of Israel, and the righteous of Israel are the Church. This is represented by the diadem with 12 stars--one for each of the tribes of Israel.

       In any event, as noted, Satan drew away 1/3 of the stars of Heaven--figuratively, one third of the hosts of Heaven. John writes:

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

(Rev. 12:7-9).  After being case onto the earth, Satan turns to persecuting the woman. (Rev. 12:13). However, "to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." (Rev. 12:14). That is, "the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days." (Rev. 12:6). This is in reference to the persecution of the early (or Primitive) Church, the apostasy and the period until the restoration. (See Acts 3:19-21). Brandt writes:

... the member of the Primitive Church literally fled, or were led away, to find refuge in distant lands. ... While the truth and authority were lost, the blood lines of Israel were preserved among the nations through the long dark night of apostasy.

(See also Rev. 12:15-16 (noting that the woman escaped the flood sent after her by Satan)). Brandt quotes the following from Elder Erastus Snow about a portion of the elect having been hidden from Satan and their posterity preserved for the last days. Snow stated:

        Their [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's] blood has permeated European society, and it coursed in the veins of the early colonists of America. This is the blood that has been foremost among those spirits who have come forth to accept the gospel, those who did not wait for the Elders to hunt them from the hills and corners of the earth, but they were hunting for the Elders, impelled by a spirit which then they could not understand; and for this reason were they among the first Elders of the Church; they and the fathers having been watched over from the days that God promised those blessings upon Isaac and Jacob and Joseph and Ephraim. 

         And these are they that will be found at the front ranks of all that is noble and good in their day and time, and who will be found among those whose efforts are directed in establishing upon the earth those heaven-born principles which tend directly to blessing and salvation, to ameliorating the condition of their fellow-men, and elevating them in the scale of their being; and among those also who receive the fullness of the Everlasting Gospel, and the keys of the Priesthood in the last days, through whom God determined to gather up again unto himself a peculiar people, a holy nation, a pure seed that shall stand upon Mount Zion as saviors, not only to the house of Israel but also to the house of Esau.      

        It is important to understand that the war in Heaven was a rebellion against God's plan ("the Word"--John 1:1), which was salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Satan instead advocated for "absolute eternal security at the sacrifice of our freedom." That is, under Satan's proposal, all would be forcibly  saved, but all glory (and power) would be Satan's. If this reminds you of the premise of the various forms of socialism--using state power to force everyone to be "good"--then you will better understand Chapter 13 of Revelation.  Brandt explains:

Subverting agency and applying principles of force would transform the children of God into lowly, subservient subjects, rather than individuals endowed with endless potential. Mankind would spent their mortal probation in passive, reactionary modes to be controlled or manipulated.

And, like modern progressives, socialists, and communists, Satan's "real motivation was not the welfare or advancement of mankind, but a conceited hunger for honor and power. He desperately desired the grand honors and elevated station that would be bestowed upon the chosen savior." (See Isa. 14:13).

The war was severe, and it had eternal consequences. Every kind of sin (with the possible exception of sins involving death) were present in that premortal state, and there were many casualties. Repentance was in order for all who sinned, and forgiveness in that premortal life was available through Jesus Christ and obedience to the plan of salvation. This was not a war just of words and debate and forensics. It was a war of misdeeds, lies, hatred, pride, jealousy, remorse, envy, cursing, blasphemy, deception, theft, cajoling, slander, anger, and sins of almost every kind that are also known in mortality. The issues were so well defined that coexistence was not possible. Those who wholeheartedly supported Lucifer's rebellion became like him.

(quoting Dr. Robert Matthews; underline mine). The final outcome of the war was that Satan and his followers were cast out from Heaven, losing their opportunity to obtain physical bodies. But that was not the end of the war, for Satan fights against righteousness here on earth. He cannot give up the battle because he is now obsessed with revenge; for he "was a murderer from the beginning," and "a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44). Thus, he desires that all men become miserable like himself (2 Nephi 2:27), and "goeth up and down, to and fro in the earth, seeking to destroy the souls of men." (D&C 10:27). Thus, John warns: "Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time." (Rev. 12:12).

       That Satan and his minions lack physical bodies does not stop their attempts to overcome the Saints. Moreover, Satan has the assistance of men and women in the mortal realm. As we shall see in Chapter 13 of Revelation, these mortal followers of Satan mirror to a great extent the infernal world.

       Chapter 13 begins:

       And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 

       And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

(Rev. 13:1-2). The Beast mirrors the dragon in having seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns. (C.f. Rev. 12:3). The ten horns, and the combination of features from a leopard, bear, and lion are the same as Daniel describes in his vision (see Dan. 7:7). The lion represented the Babylonian Empire; the bear represented the Persian-Median empires, and the leopard represented Alexander's empire and the subsequent Hellenic kingdoms. The Beast of John's vision is made up of parts of those empires, and likely represents both the Roman Empire and its successor states. That the Beast arises from the sea may have double meanings: the sea has traditionally been viewed a source of evil; and, later, we are told that the "waters" represent "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" (Rev. 17:15).

        The heads, horns, and crowns represent earthly kingdoms, powers, and ideologies; the horns represent specific kings (see Dan. 7:24). Brandt notes that each of the seven heads had, upon it, "the name of blasphemy.." (Rev. 13:1). Thus, he suggests that the seven heads represented the Roman emperors who were deified as part of the Imperial cult, and committed blasphemies (including Caligula's attempt to place his statue in the temple in Jerusalem). However, I would note that in Daniel's vision, the beast representing the Hellenic kingdoms had four heads, and that Alexander's empire was split into 4 kingdoms upon his death. Thus, I would suggest that the 7 heads represents specific kingdoms, nations or empires that are successors to Rome.

        While Brandt discusses the Imperial cult of Rome and its emperors in detail, he also notes that this is not the only blasphemous ideology.

Modern manifestations include often condescending ideologues commonly found in social progressive movements. Many of these activists are self described intellectuals with highly elite attitudes who achieve their goals through more surreptitious means. Tactically, they promote the "populist" cause, but strategically their ends are to establish new roles and powers in big, centralized governments. Carefully they cut away and dispose of individual freedoms for the "greater social good" or "social equality." In the process they take power unto themselves. Government becomes god with its own state religion, that of irreligion in the form of iconoclastic reasoning. Many modern socialists are not unlike the "kingmen" in the Book of Mormon (Alma 51, 60), who were also popular elitists that sought power and whose aims were "to destroy the church of God [or religion generally], and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them" (Alma 46:10). In the end this form of governance enables anti-Christ principles to take root in society. It slices away at man's inherent freedoms. Agency is subverted by degrees, rejecting the gift of self-governance and reliance in favor of secular, hedonistic doctrines.

And, "[i]n the culminating events leading to the coming of the Son of Man, the 'ten horns' or Gentile nations will unify under a latter day beast (Dan. 7:8, 20) who will be like the ancient Caesars. These rulers will give their strength and loyalty to the Beast."

       The Beast's power comes from Satan (Rev. 13:2), who works through mortal agents. Satan's "goal is to captivate and destroy the souls of men, which is more easily achieved when his servants wrest control in governments, religions, or other powerful institutions."

He [i.e., Satan] employs political, religious, media, and economic influences to further his purposes and to discredit or subvert the moral foundations of society. "What Satan calls from the abyss is not government, but the [terrible] abuse or government, the omni-competent state."

* * *

Today in countries throughout the world, wicked men have already combined in sordid cabals to obtain wealth and dominions.

       Brandt goes on to discuss secret combinations, of which we are warned of many times in the scriptures. It is through these secret combinations that the Beast and others like him obtain power. "By oath, threat, and terror, order is kept in their society. They intimidate, punish, and even kill members who might seek to leave or expose the secret organization."

The devil's goal with these secret societies is not just wickedness, violence, or murder for money and power. No, his end goal is to gain control, the absolute and complete management of institutions and government; and through them, the regulation and therefore the manipulation of societies and individuals.

* * *

Once in power, Satan uses his servents to pervert the right ways of the Lord, to harden the minds and hearts of the people against that which is good. [Citations omitted]. His agents work to change laws, history, culture and traditions so as to turn policy against the followers of God, so that the citizens of society being to fight against righteousness. The minds of the people are changed so that good becomes evil and evil good. [Citation omitted].

Moreover, "[e]ven well intended political ideologies or programs that purport to serve the greater good or build 'better societies' will, in the end, lay the groundwork for secret societies to gain control, if they require people to relinquish their freedoms."

       One of the more interesting parts of the prophecy is that one of the heads of the Beast was wounded to death, but the wound was healed and caused the world to wonder after the beast. (Rev. 13:3). Brandt notes that the Greek word used for "wounded" means "slaughter," and thus the wound and its healing is suggestive of Christ's death and resurrection, and underscores how the Beast will be an impostor and imitator.

        The wounded head likely represented Nero, the Roman emperor most infamous for his persecution of the early Saints. When Nero committed suicide, his death plunged the Empire into a year-long civil war. One of the major parties was the Stoics who would have restored Rome to its Republican form of government, thus "killing" the Beast at that time, but instead Vespasian was victorious and ascended the throne, restored imperial rule, and strengthened the Empire and the Imperial cult.

       But as is common in prophecy, events immediate to the prophet may also have a greater spiritual significance, or play out in a grander scale later. Brandt notes that:

Many anti-Christs do and will hold power in the latter days, but the one anti-Christ who will gain a seat as the leader among the leaders of the nations will be a modern version of Nero. He will be a person in the likeness of this ruthless rule, whose disposition will be exceptionally malevolent. 

       Brandt seems to take the common view that the mortal wound to the Beast's head represents a mortal wound to a particular person, which will be miraculously healed. (John West, in his book, Fry The Brain: The Art of Urban Sniping and its Role in Modern Guerrilla Warfare offers a scenario where such a ruler could seem to die and be miraculously healed without the need for an actual miracle, by use of a body double that is assassinated, with the real person then showing himself unharmed later).

       I'm not so sure. As noted earlier, the heads represent kingdoms or nations. Obviously, Nero was not miraculously healed, but it was the Roman Empire that survived a seemingly certain death. Thus, the mortal wound could represent an empire that seems to have died that comes back into power and authority. Also, while the "resurrection" of this head appears to be part of the end times, the wounding of the head may occur earlier. I am reminded of how Germany seemed mortally wounded at the end of World War I and then sprang back to challenge the whole world only a couple of decades later. We have plenty of kingdoms and empires that seem to have been killed off in the last century that could recover power: Britain, Germany, Turkey (i.e., the Ottoman Empire), Russia, etc. It could even be in reference to a yet future United States that recovers from what should have been a mortal wound.

       In these troubled times, John inserts a specific warning for the followers of Christ in the latter-days.

If any man have an ear, let him hear. 

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

(Rev. 13:9-10). This warning should be considered with other pronouncements of the Lord commanding the Saints to "avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19). As I've mentioned several times before, the wicked will be destroyed by their own actions, natural disasters, and the wrath of the Lord at His Second Coming. We do not want to fall into the same error that destroyed the Nephite nation where they got caught up on an endless cycle of revenge and violence that unified their enemies and led to their loving killing over loving Christ.

        I don't see this as a call to passivity, but, rather, that our wars and conflict should be defensive, not to exact a penalty or revenge. Again, I will use World War I as an example--it was humiliations that Britain and France sought to visit on Germany that paved the way for the rise of Nazi fascism and World War II. And it was the magnanimity toward the losers that marked the successful end to the Civil War (i.e., the readmission of the Confederacy into the Union) and World War II (i.e., the rebuilding of Germany and Japan).

        Getting back on topic, John relates that the Beast is assisted by a second beast--a false prophet. John describes this second beast thusly:

        And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 

        And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

Brandt notes that the fact that the second beast arose from the land, rather than the sea, suggests that this second beast is a local or regional leader; and probably one of the leaders of one of the world's great religions. In any event, "John's message is a warning that from among the world religions and local governments, personalities will arise and align themselves in support of the latter day beast."

We can expect that modern false prophets will endeavor to use religious, legal and political persuasions to turn the people against the righteous and righteous principles. The latter day servants of the beast in positions of power will exercise authority to enforce the mandates of the anti-Christs in power. They will have power to legislate, pass judgment, to charge, summon, arrest, try, and prosecute those who will not conform to their laws and edicts. The targets of such persecutions will inevitably include all who faithfully remain true to Christ.

Interestingly, this second beast causes the world to worship the first beast, partly through the exercise of miracles:

And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

(Rev. 13:14). Christ, Himself, warned: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matt. 24:24).

       All of the major religions are currently awaiting a prophet or messiah. Christians, of course, are looking forward to the Second Coming. Muslims are looking for the return of "Christ," who will prepare the way for the coming of the Mahdi. Jews are still awaiting their Messiah. And Hindus look forward to the next incarnation of the Krishna. I've seen good arguments for the false prophet being the Muslim "Christ," and the Beast as the Mahdi and a resurgent Caliphate, but I think we should be open to the possibility that whatever or whomever arises may seem to satisfy all religions, but, especially will target Christianity ("the very elect").

       The portion of Chapter 13 of John's Revelation that most people focus on are the latter part that discuss the mark of the Beast and the number of the Beast. John writes:

       And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 

       Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

(Rev. 13:16-18).

        The mark of the Beast is open to multiple meanings. As an initial matter, it is obviously a demonic equivalent to those Saints that have been sealed to the Father in the forehead (see Rev. 7:3). That is, just as the Lord marks His own, Satan will similarly mark his followers. (If you have ever been in the presence of Evil, there is a very perceptible aura about it). As Brandt points out, when a person drinks the "wine" of spiritual Babylon, "the Spirit of the Lord withdraws and the spirit of the devil enters in."

In time, people's countenances begin to reflect the gods they worship. As slaves to sin they become restless, mischievous, and deceitful. They become as a "troubled sea" and can find "no rest day nor night" (Rev. 14:11; Isa. 57:20-21). Eventually, they die "as to things pertaining unto righteousness, being dead unto all good works" (Alma 5:42 (40-42)).

       However, John is probably describing a physical mark. Brandt mentions some historic examples of such markings, and what would have informed John and the people of his day. Brandt notes that the Greek word for "mark" signifies a "stamp, etching or engraving," and that "[i]n John's day it was a form of branding used on slaves and animals to identify the owner." Slaves were branded this way on the palm of the right hand or on the forehead directly above the eyes. However, it was not just slaves that were marked thusly. Religious tattooing and branding was common in the ancient world to indicate their branding, and soldiers often marked themselves with the sign of their commanding general to show ownership. And, of course, we have the example of the Amlicites in the Book of Mormon who, upon dissenting from the Nephites, marked themselves on their foreheads.

      We are not beyond such marks today. For instance, it is not uncommon for those serving in the military to obtain a tattoo indicating their branch of service or particular unit, and women sporting the infamous "tramp stamp" certainly indicate something about themselves. Brandt also explains:

Today many tattoo themselves with various symbols, patterns and words to show loyalty or devotion, to fit in, or make a statement, all the while desecrating their bodies with a literal mark. By their very deed they express something about who they are and what influences their lives. Body piercing, an ancient and accepted form of self-marking, is also popular today.

And although Brandt doesn't reference this, I would observe that in the stories about "spirit cooking" that have circulated about some on the left, they often have cut marks on their hands, which also act as marks to identify them to one another.

       John mentions an economic aspect to the mark--that no one could conduct business absent a mark. Brandt notes that the Greek word for mark could also refer to seals attached to commercial or official documents bearing the name of the emperor.

        Coinage and treasury income was stamped with the mark of the imperial beast, and the emperor and provincial leaders kept a tight rein on this wealth. Most commerce and contracts were validated by the "mark of the beast," or the seal or approval of the emperor. Thus, no one conducted significant business without being part of the establishment.  

        John's point is that those who control the wealth have the power to influence policy in accordance with their desires. Rome's super rich rewarded loyalty and discrimination against those who opposed their designs. In the Book of Mormon, we find a similar practice in the era when the Gadianton robbers controlled the government, the courts, and much of the commerce. This diabolical secret combination exercised authority to accumulate wealth and to thereby control society.

       I'm not going to engage in fruitless speculation as to how people will be marked and how it will be used to control commerce. I would note that, although it does not involve a physical mark on the hand or forehead, we are already seeing such economic coercion today by means of social and economic ostracising of those that are not "politically correct". Social justice warriors stand ready to destroy careers and businesses over incorrect thoughts. Businesses have been fined and sued for not wanting to celebrate gay marriage.

        And perhaps there won't be a physical mark. Certainly it is not necessary: just connect an identity to a government list. China has already rolled out a system that assigns a "social credit score" measuring their trustworthiness; a low score being punished by such things as not being able to buy property, board aircraft, or enroll your children in private school. Combined with China's rollout of massive facial recognition systems, China stands on the threshold of being able to deny people with low social credit scores from any meaningful economic activity. China is exporting this technology, and it is under development in Western nations. Reports have just come out that Google and Amazon are partnering with police and the military to improve public surveillance. So the mark of the Beast may not be a physical mark, but rather the biometrics of our faces and fingerprints.

       Finally, many people are drawn into trying to figure out the meaning of the number of the beast (666). Brandt notes that many cultures have indulged in numerology of some sort or another; it is inherent in some ancient languages where letters also served double duty as numbers. "6", he explains, is often associated with a deficit or imperfection. So, "666" would represent the consummate embodiment of evil. But, as Brandt also explains, the meaning of this passage was probably self-evident to the members of the Church to whom he wrote. For instance, the Emperor Titian's name, translated into Greek, would equal a sum of 666. (Titian destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and so would be a good candidate for the time). "Therion," the word John uses for "beast" equals 666, and the first letters of the names of the Roman emperors from Julius Caesar to Vespasian also add up to 666. Nero's name (i.e., "Caesar Nero") can also be used in a couple of ways to come up with a sum of 666 or multiple thereof. But it is probably fruitless to try to use the number to predict the latter day Beast. As Brandt points out, "[i]n the proper hour the Lord will make manifest the servants of the devil and their doctrines to the benefit of those in tune with the Holy Spirit."

Acceptance of Gay Marriage Increases in the United States

         The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) has released the results of a 2017 poll showing increased acceptance of same-sex marriage (SSM) in the United States, including those that identified themselves as religious or members of a religion. The poll shows that a majority of those who identified as a member of a religion now support SSM, including, surprisingly, 51% of American Muslims.

       There are a couple exceptions to this, and that is what caught my attention. From the report:

       Opposition to same-sex marriage is now confined to a few of the most conservative Christian religious traditions. Only about one-third (34%) of white evangelical Protestants support same-sex marriage today, while nearly six in ten (58%) are opposed, including 30% who are strongly opposed. And just 40% of Mormons support same-sex marriage, compared to 53% who are opposed. Jehovah’s Witnesses, a racially mixed religious group, are the exception. Just 13% support the policy, compared to 63% who oppose it. However, nearly one-quarter (24%) of Jehovah’s Witnesses express no opinion on this issue. 

        Nevertheless, even those religious groups most opposed to same-sex marriage have become more accepting of it over the last five years. Since 2013, opposition to same-sex marriage has dropped 13 percentage points among white evangelical Protestants (from 71% in 2013 to 58% today). Over a similar time period, opposition among Mormons has dropped 15 percentage points (from 68% in 2014 to 53% today).

(Footnotes omitted). Worryingly, the report indicates that "[a] majority (52%) of young Mormons also believe same-sex marriage should be legal...."

       Of course, enemies of the Church have latched onto this survey as proof they are winning the cultural war within the Church. (See, e.g., this article from The Salt Lake Tribune). I'm not sure whether all the SSM supporters in their youth will still support it years from now--the survey also looked at political differences, and political beliefs (e.g. Republican versus Independent or Democrat) play an even greater role than religion in predicting opposition to SSM. And it is a truism that people become more conservative as they age....

       Frankly, reading about the increasing support among younger members reminded me of this prophecy by Heber C. Kimball in 1886 wherein he stated that: "After a while the Gentiles will gather by the thousands to this place, and Salt Lake City will be classed among the wicked cities of the world." He also stated:

Persecution comes next and all true Latter-day Saints will be tested to the limit. Many will apostatize and others will be still not knowing what to do. Darkness will cover the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. The judgments of God will be poured out on the wicked to the extent that our Elders from far and near will be called home, or in other words the gospel will be taken from the Gentiles and later on carried to the Jews.

The acceptance of SSM among the Church is unseemly and, to my mind, a fulfillment of the prophecy that Salt Lake City would become one of the most wicked cities on the face of the Earth. Those of you that have followed my blog for awhile also know that my belief is that the SSM issue will become even more divisive within the Church, and perhaps produce a schism.

       For those who don't read the Dalrock blog, the author is a Christian that takes a hard look at modern feminism and inter-sexual dynamics. One of the more profound points that he has made is that most Westerners hold to the belief that love sanctifies sex. That is, in the modern West, sex outside of marriage is generally held to not be a sin if the participants are in love. Coupled with this idea is also the supposition that marriage is a celebration of that love. Thus, it has come about that the purpose of marriage is to make a public display of the love that has sanctified the sex and force public acceptance of that union, whether holy or not. Anymore there isn't even an attempt in our culture to portray premarital sex as a sin, let alone that the purpose of marriage is for procreation. And this has led us to the present point where the "love" between homosexuals is deemed to deserve to be publicly acknowledged, condoned, and celebrated via marriage.

       Church leaders have tried to placate the "gay-rights" members and critics of the Church, but that has not played out very well. Like the proverbial camel sticking his nose into the tent, the "gay rights" bloc continues to demand more and more until there will not be room enough for those who oppose them--at least, that is the bloc's hope.

       It is particularly ironic that those in the bloc so often use the word "love" to defend their position. Again, in their minds, love sanctifies what would otherwise be a sin. There is no scriptural defense of their position, however. In John 14:15, Christ plainly stated: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." This is not saying that love is the equivalent of keeping the commandments, but, rather, that keeping the commandments is how we can express or show our love for Christ. That shows up even more clearly as your read the whole of John 14:15-31. For instance, in verse 21, He explains: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." Also, in verse 24, "[h]e that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings."

        And it is clear that homosexual relationships are not condoned in the scriptures, but are condemned as wickedness. Not just the destruction of Sodom, but also many other scriptures prohibiting "lusting after strange flesh." (See Jude 1:7-8). I would note that there is a commonly expressed belief that the destruction of Sodom was solely because of the physical threat (rape) to the angels sent there to retrieve Lot and his family, or a general mistreatment of strangers, but there is no support for this. The sin of Sodom was clearly understood up until the last couple of decades to be the sin of homosexuality, including the verses from Jude that I just cited. That the inhabitants forced their perversions on strangers may have been the reason that the city and environs were blasted with fire (creating a tourist attraction that lasted into the Roman period), but that doesn't mean that the perversion, itself, was not a sin.

      Those that belong to the "gay rights" bloc also seem to believe that, even if they are wrong, they will somehow be spared punishment or consequences due to God's love. Again, there is no support for that in the scriptures. All of the books of the prophets in the Old Testament concern themselves with the destruction of the wicked. The Jews were warned of the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the enslavement of its people by the Babylonian Empire because of the people's wickedness at least as early as the time of Isaiah, and their wickedness was the reason for their destruction as explained by Jeremiah and his contemporaries. Similarly, Israel (speaking of the northern 10 tribes) were destroyed by the Assyrians because of their (Israel's) wickedness, which largely consisted of participating in pagan fertility worship and the sexual practices that that worship entailed. Revelation and other prophecy of the last days is all about the physical destruction of the wicked--i.e., lots of people dying in horrible ways--in the lead up to and concurrent with the Second Coming. And Revelation ends by relating that a bunch more people will be burned up with fire at the end of the Millennium. There is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that God will preserve the unrepentant from physical destruction.

      The broad acceptance of SSM is a tragedy. There is no kindness in not warning the SSM bloc of their wrongness. It merely acts to, in their minds, confirm their beliefs and further lull them into false security. And, to be honest, tolerating them as members of the congregation is increasingly like hugging an asp to your bosom.

A Review of Revelations--Part 12--The Two Prophets

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6] [Part 7] [Part 8] [Part 9] [Part 10] [Part 11] [Part 12]

       This is a continuation of my series reviewing The Book of Revelation: Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass by G. Erik Brandt. Today, I will be discussing Chapter 11 of the book, which itself discusses Chapter 11 of Revelation.

(Source)

       Chapter 11 of Revelation is a return to the chronology of events described in earlier chapters leading up to the Second coming. This chapter has three basic parts. The first part is a commandment to measure the temple, and ends with the information that the gentiles shall trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months (or 3-1/2 years). (See also Ezekiel chapters 40-44, where he is given a detailed vision of the temple). Brandt suggests that the measuring of the temple has multiple meanings: that it is also in reference to the Lord taking measure and cataloging His people, and the layout of the temple (outer court, inner court, and Holy of Holies) mirrors that of the post-mortal kingdoms of heaven--i.e., the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial kingdoms. The 42 months is yet another reference to the 3-1/2 year period of the tribulation period under the dominion of the Beast. While Brandt sees this as a symbolic period of time--3-1/2 representing calamity--rather than a specific length, I disagree. Daniel 9:27, referencing the abominations of desolation midway through the 70th week (i.e., midway--3-1/2 years--through a 7 year period (the "week")).

      The second part of the chapter deals with the Lord calling two witnesses that are described as being clothed in sackcloth, and as"the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth." (Rev. 11:3-4). Sackcloth was the roughest of fabrics, only worn by the poorest of people, and traditionally was worn during periods of grief and mourning; and, for these reasons, also became a symbol of humility. (See, e.g., Jonah 3:5 where the people put on sackcloth as part of their process of repentance). Brandt views the reference to them as olive trees and candlesticks as being both the oil and lamps to Israel, bringing the light of Christ. I would also note, though, that olive trees are sometimes representative of Israel or its tribes (see Jacob chapter 5). Thus, the olive tree reference may be reference to the two being representatives of righteous groups of the tribes of Israel: Ephraim and Manasseh, most likely.

      Brandt also notes that "[t]he reference to candlesticks draws meaning from the writings of Zechariah, who spoke of two ancient candlesticks: Joshua, the high priest, and Zerubbabel, the descendant of David, who was the heir to the throne of Israel."

      In addition to preaching the gospel, the two shall also serve to defend Jerusalem. Brandt notes that "[l]ike the prophets Moses and Enoch, they will exercise their priesthood to call down plagues and destruction on the advancing foe." (See Ezek. 38:22-23). It should be noted, however, that the defense of Jerusalem will be because the Lord wishes to show his power. The Revelation describes Jerusalem as being like Sodom and Egypt (Rev. 11:8) in its wickedness and corruption.

      Once their ministry is completed, like many others before them, the two witneses will seal their testimony with their own blood, killed by the Beast. However, after 3 days--the time considered to be "truly dead"--the two witnesses will be raised from the dead (probably resurrected), and taken into Heaven. Then, there will be a great earthquake that destroy a tenth of the city and kill 7,000. That the number of dead is so low will probably be a testament to modern building codes; but Brandt believes that these numbers are symbolic. That is, that "a tenth" and "7,000" represent a full measure and completeness, respectively, and indicating that all of the cabal that plotted against the two prophets will be killed.

       The earthquake shall not be limited to just Jerusalem, but will be a great earthquake "such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake and so great." (Rev. 16:18; see also Ezek. 38:19-20). Brandt continues: "Both modern and ancient prophecies reveal that this great quake is touched off when the Holy One of Israel descends to earth and touches the Mount of Olives," which will split in two and provide a refuge for those Jews fleeing Jerusalem. The armies of Magog will also be destroyed (see Ezek. 39). It should be noted that Jerusalem lies along the great division of tectonic plates that also created the Rift Valley in Africa, so that a major earthquake along the length of the fault would stretch all the way from east Central Africa into Asia Minor. However, this may be but part of a larger tectonic upset of the whole earth. And, we are told, this earthquake shall affect all nations. (Rev. 6:4). In any event, this earthquake is the end of the second woe, or group of disasters against the wicked prior to the Lord's coming.

       It should be noted that this earthquake will be touched off by Christ alighting upon the Mount of Olives, which will split in two to provide a route to freedom for the Jews fleeing Jerusalem. There, Christ will reveal Himself to those Jews, including the marks in his hands and feet and in his side, and will have to acknowledge Him and the truth of his Gospel.

       This also marks the beginning of the third woe, when "the Lord, Himself, will come to 'fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle' (Zech. 14:2; 12:3)." According to the Revelation, "[a]nd the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail." (Rev. 11:19). The winds and ferocity of the storm will be such that it will carry away men and destroy the crops of the earth (D&C 26:16), and some of the hail stones will weigh a talent (~ 70 lbs.) (Rev. 16:21). Many will flee to caves and crevices of rock, and call upon the rocks to tumble down and hide them from the fury of the Lord. (Luke 21:26; Moses 7:66; D&C 45:26).