Monthly Archives: February 2017

Dialogue

One of the main reasons I started this blog a couple years back was so that I could express my views anonymously and without retribution from the Church. It was at a time where I was struggling and needed to vent.

As most of you know and as I have documented here numerous times, I have issues with the direction the Church seems to be heading. Discovering that the wonderful Church of my youth is flawed and is “not true” to some of its founding principles and doctrines has been at times a very painful experience for me. Expressing why I feel that way and getting your feedback has been therapeutic.

I can’t say, however, I’ve had the same open-mindedness from Church leaders or generally from most Church members. More times than not, even as a bishop, I was told to just be quiet, in some cases, to be more politically correct or sensitive or to repent.

I recall one of my own counselors while I was serving as bishop telling me I needed to be more careful about the things I said and felt. I later found out that he reported me to my file leader for some things I had shared with a friend.

I have always disliked this idea of holding back what we’re really thinking. Now, I understand that care must be taken to share or not share certain things in the presence of children or with those who may not be ready or wanting to contemplate certain ideas, but my experience in the Church is that we simply cannot talk about anything that may be viewed as controversial. Certainly we cannot do so in a civil and loving way.

This has made my Church experience lately even more difficult. I also think it has created a culture in the Church which is antithetical to open dialogue.

And so seeking to more openly vent my thoughts, I began this blog. Here I wanted to be free to openly share whatever ideas I may be having. I certainly can’t share my concerns about the Church’s decision to stay with Boy Scouts, an organization I view as broken and apostate, at Church or with many Church leaders or members. Although I sure tried to as a bishop. In fact, as bishop, I refused to sign the Scout Charter as Charter Head of the Troop and I refused to do Friends of Scouting. This did not go over well with some, and with the wrong stake president, my tenure as bishop would have surely been shortened.

Now, having mentioned that, I was careful how I said what I said to the ward generally. But, I was also very honest when I felt I could be. I did not impose my ideas on others, however. As bishop I could have simply not called a scoutmaster or could have put someone in who hated scouts. But because I knew Scouting was important to many of our ward members, we called the best person for the job and I supported ward members in their desire to have this program, despite the fact that I was opposed to it.

Other topics are taboo at Church as well. Take the Word of Wisdom for example. We had three or more adults addicted to opioids while I was bishop. These were prominent people in the community and they were (likely still are) completely hooked on this awful drug. BUT, as LDS people, especially in Utah, we don’t like to talk about our addictions. And so a bishop who may wish to address such issues is likely to offend people in the ward. And you certainly can’t tell the ward that you favor medical marijuana over opium use, as the Church has made it very clear that Utah will not allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for their patients experiencing chronic pain. If not careful, you will be viewed as out of line with the Brethren on an issue. So the unfortunate reality is silence or consequences from leadership.

And yet, many Mormons are so imbalanced when it comes to the Word of Wisdom. The “world” drinks coffee, Mormons drink Coke and Red Bull and Monster. Which is worse? The world drinks alcohol, Mormons take anti-depressants or eat excessively. (I recognize that non Mormons do this too, but Utah is the capital of anti-depressant use in the world). The world watches rated R movies, while many Mormons struggle with pornography. The list of moral and physical issues goes on and on.

As a bishop, from time to time, I suggested a person or two try to get off their meds (which they told me they and their doctors wanted them to) and to do as their LDS doctor was prescribing–to drink a cup of coffee in the morning to help them feel energy and to get out of bed. In one instance a poor sister all but screamed at me and began to quote things about how blessed she was for “never” having broken the Word of Wisdom. Not even once. “Hidden treasures and running without being weary” etc. Yet, this poor woman was so frail and unhealthy. I did not perceive great wisdom in her, but rather great sadness and darkness. Someone so obsessed with the letter of the law that she would rather die than consider to reason. Mormons are not open minded in general about such things and we surely can’t talk about them.

Why? Because we have a culture of not really “talking” to each other.

Well, it would be my preference–to be able to talk about most things in Church (that are appropriate for that setting) and most things with Mormon associates IN A WAY that is healthy. Healthy dialogue.

Most of you know that I have a sense of humor that often gets the best of me. I post pictures that are at times a little shocking and I bring up controversial topics and share my ideas. While doing so, I make an honest effort to use reason and logic, but I am quick to confess that my ideas are not always valid. I admit that I do a little name calling when referring to certain people. I shouldn’t call Elder McConkie “Bruce Almighty” for example. It’s not nice. But, I don’t do so angrily. I don’t hate Elder McConkie. In fact he was one of my favorite leaders as a young man. I would certainly show respect to him if I was having a conversation with him or was in a Church setting. I employ such titles to be funny, because I despise the unearned and undue reverence we give to the Brethren. Heck, if my name was Bruce (and it might be 😉 – and you called me Bruce Almighty, I would think it was funny, especially if I knew you loved me.

I wish I was more like some of you. I love it when someone replies to my posts with a thoughtful counter argument. Some of you do that so well. So much better than I do. Whether you know it or not, you persuade me. If nothing else, you persuade me to be more like you in your approach. More loving, more kind, more intelligent.

Most of you know that I lean conservative / libertarian. But I have plenty of friends and people who I love who are more liberal in their ideas. It’s true we don’t see eye to eye on some things, but we respect each other. We may even tease each other. But we love each other and try to persuade each other. I love it when these friends of mine are persuaded by some of my ideas and when I am able to perhaps better understand where they’re coming from.

This is what I love about this blogging experience. I feel comfortable bringing up a topic and I love to see the healthy dialogue back and forth. I’m disheartened, however, when someone says something like “Well, AB I thought you were awesome, but after this post, I just wanted to tell you, you’ve lost a reader.” I don’t mind that you won’t read anymore. I don’t mind that you disagree with me. I admit that I’m a nobody just sharing his ideas. BUT, I wish you would try to persuade me. I wish you would share why you think I’m wrong so that I can learn from you. I don’t intend to offend, but you simply prove my point that as Mormons, we can’t discuss anything when you throw in the towel so easily.

I personally don’t like to argue. I took a harsher than normal tone with a commenter the other day who I felt was just mocking. I feel badly and I apologize to that sister. I’d love to hear her thoughts on why she believes allowing girls into Boy Scouts is a good idea. I’d love to hear her reasons for why the Church should or shouldn’t support such an idea. But, to simply laugh at my ideas or to threaten to never come back, robs us all of the opportunity to engage in healthy discussions, that I for one, don’t think exist at Church very often, if ever.

With that, I extend to all of you, my hand of friendship. I know we think differently. I know we are each just trying to figure things out in life. I support you and love you. Even though I don’t know many of you. I thank you for being here and for supporting me as I vent and share. God is good and Christ is our Savior. I am pretty sure that most everyone here will agree with that.

Peace to you all,

GBSA?

So it was like 100 years ago where some really nice person decided to form an all girls organization that would encourage among many things, female solidarity and women’s roles and virtues.

Way back then, no one seemed to care whether those private groups quote unquote discriminated against the opposite sex in such an endeavor. In fact, for many years back then, many women didn’t even care that only men could vote. Why? Because most men that owned land had a wife who more times than not, informed her husband’s views and balanced his ideas out. Call it old fashioned, but the man generally voted for his family and their collective interests. Just like the man went to war (for his family and his country) or went to work at some factory, while his wife took the harder job of staying home raising kids, running a small farm, and taking care of a busy household.

But somewhere along the way the concept of female “equality” came into the discussion. Never mind that men and women are different. We’ve now evolved into more sensitive and enlightened and openminded humans. So openminded that our brains have fallen out.

We’ve broken the glass ceiling alright. In fact we’ve broken the whole damn building.

So it should be no surprise to anyone that immediately after the Boy Scouts decided it was the right thing to do to let transgender children participate in scouting, the National Organization for Women (NOW) petitioned BSA to also allow girls into Boy Scouts. Here’s the story for anyone who may have missed it.

The article begins with:

After many years of divisiveness, the Boy Scouts of America have opened their ranks to gay and transgender boys. Yet a different membership dispute persists: a long-shot campaign to let girls join the BSA so they have a chance to earn the prestigious status of Eagle Scout.

Just last week, after the BSA announced it would admit transgender boys, the National Organization for Women issued a statement urging the 106-year-old youth organization to allow girls to join as well. NOW said it was inspired by the efforts of a 15-year-old New York City girl to emulate her older brother, who is an Eagle Scout.

This despite the fact that girls ALREADY have their own organization!

Meanwhile the LDS Church is still pondering thoughtfully what it should do about the transgender issue. That’s code by the way, for they’re waiting to see if there’s any huge groundswell of anger against BSA before it makes any rash decisions.

Does anyone really believe that the Church was not notified by BSA before changing such an important policy? One they knew could affect the vital, mammoth support of its largest donor?

What’s interesting about this new twist is there is a work around for the NOW girls: They simply need to tell their little girl applicants to say they are boys. Kind of like a border crosser who speaks no English but somehow, when being arrested, knows how to scream and spell the word “asylum” with no hint of an accent.

“Transgender” is the new code word I suppose for these girls who feel left out.

On a serious note I’m very saddened that this little girl’s parents would allow their daughter to decide at age 9 that she’s a boy! She has not even hit puberty yet! My gosh, how many little nine years olds would even know what any of that means! You can’t buy cigarettes at age nine. You can’t drink or drive or vote or have legal sex, BUT you can decide that you are a different sex than your body parts indicate, apparently.

Shame on her mom (not sure where dad is) for allowing her daughter to discuss what it means to be transgender at such a tender, innocent age. My kids still believe in Santa Claus at that age. Oh and by the way, cut any little girls hair and guess what! They look like a cute little boy!

Shame on Boy Scouts for supporting this mother and for now encouraging God knows how many other young, confused children to make such a serious decision so early on.

Shame on the Church for not running from BSA like a person would run from a fire. It’s almost too late to run at this point, without the Church being criticized for having stayed in so long. Could you imagine if Planned Parenthood was the “activity arm” of Relief Society? That’s about the equivalence of where we are with Scouting.

I assume that eventually some young man who got cut from the NBA will claim he’s now a woman and be able to be the star of the WNBA. Why not? I’m just waiting for that lawsuit.

Did you read the recent article about the transgender guy who went to prison with the ladies and who was “moved” because “she” was having consensual sex with all the women? I’m not sure where they moved him/her but I’m guessing he’s meeting with ACLU lawyers as we speak.

At this point, how does the Church in good conscience say they have no sympathy for the Ordain Women movement? The Church gives 10s of millions of dollars to an organization that allows “girls” (who say they are boys) to participate in what the Church considers to be the activity arm of the priesthood.

Maybe it doesn’t allow transgender children to participate in LDS troops (yet), but those same kids will be having activities in the Thomas Monson Lodge and at Church paid for campsites all over the country.

For kids not in Utah, who are wanting to get their Eagle award — They WILL likely have to more closely affiliate with these new individuals and in will be placed in these awkward situations.

I guarantee you the Church is not going to soften its emphasis on young men receiving their Eagle award. Just like 4 years of seminary, getting your Eagle is one of the check boxes expected of a young man in the Church before entering the MTC.

I’ve said it before, but if nothing else the Church should at least eliminate the affiliation question from the temple recommend interview. Anyone who affiliates with Boy Scouts of America in any way today, affiliates with those who oppose our teachings and beliefs. Boy Scouts HAS become an apostate organization, unworthy of our investment and clearly an unworthy partner in rearing our young men. Both gay, straight, or other.

Just as a side note, as someone living in Utah, I’ve noticed a lot more LDS people jumping on the LGBTQ and women’s rights bandwagons of late. Like many of you I could not believe my eyes when I looked at the pictures on the news recently of people with huge “female parts” on their heads here in our very state in parades marching against President Trump, who they ironically say does not respect women and their parts.

As Wayne would say, “Exsueeze me?” HE doesn’t respect women?! HOW about you parading around with an exposed larger than life female organ on your head might not be respecting women?!

(Even I can’t bring myself to add a picture here)

And yet, somehow more and more LDS folks seem to be jumping on the bandwagon for these progressive issues. I say go for it, it’s your God-given right and I don’t condemn you. But, Church leaders may want to take note. Because I think it’s been since they “changed their stance” on such issues that more LDS people have started supporting these causes. I could be wrong.

I laugh a little though because some of these Molly Mormons have no idea what door they are opening. Maybe one of them should go to Berkeley with a Trump hat on as a social experiment to see what kinds of people they are teaming up with.

These people protesting conservatism (or Trump or whatever) wouldn’t even let a gay man, Milo Yiannopoulos, speak at Berkeley and they PEPPER SPRAYED this beautiful, intelligent young, courageous woman peacefully expressing her opinions! Not to mention millions of dollars damage to taxpayer subsidized property.

So if you’re an open minded, progressive, LDS person, these are your contemporaries. These are your amazing civil rights leaders. Maybe you should spend some more time with them next time before you go buy that organ costume online.

As for me, I say it’s a sad day where evil is called good and good called evil. Anyone who does not see this “slouch towards Gomorrah” is blind and the Church does not seem to be helping the situation by towing the PC line.

Zeus and the Zormonites

A friend of mine gave an excellent talk last week in his ward about the Zoramites. His humble prayer was that his audience might see some of the parallels between them and us as Latter-day Saints. Sadly, the message fell upon deaf ears.

I ask the same question my friend posed in his talk: Are we like the Zoramites of old time? If so, how?

In Alma 31 we find the account.

13 For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person. (Is this so different than our “stand”? Set above the congregation, whereupon only the most faithful sit and speak?)

14 Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:

15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. (Surely this was not what truly displeased Alma — the Zoramites were simply expressing their acknowledgement of God’s holiness. And to say He is Spirit is also not a contradiction to our beliefs. Remember Ammon’s response to the Lamanite king asking if God was the Great Spirit? Ammon’s response was “Yes!” Of course Mormons will emphasize that God is also flesh and bones, resurrected, etc. BUT to say He is also Spirit cannot be what angered Alma.)

16 Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ. (Now is where I think Alma becomes truly upset. But as LDS we too often speak of how blessed we are to be “set apart” from everyone else — the only true and living church — elected and foreordained to come forth in these the last days as God’s most valiant spirits. With Holy Prophets, Seers, and Revelators — rejecting the Childishness of our Gentile Fathers who, per Bruce R. McConkie, not only had it all wrong, but who worshipped Satan and were members of the Church of the Great Whore who sat upon the Waters. Truly WE are a chosen people. Now on the issue of there being ‘no Christ,’ this would have upset Alma too, IMO, BUT are we any different if we do not know how to speak of Him or if we do not properly worship Him? Do we, like the Zoramites, accidentally deny Christ because we believe that “God has given his power to men” so that He is no longer needed here?)

17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God. (Much of the same. Elected, special, most valiant, set apart, better than all others. But I will say that our ‘damning to hell’ of other faiths has softened over the years. As a young man I recall a much greater urgency to preach the gospel because we feared that any who rejected or did not accept the gospel in this life would go to hell. BUT today us Mormons teach a much nicer message. As funny as it may sound, the Zoramites actually may have been more correct than today’s Mormonites who teach that there is no hell. Just glory for everyone. Oh and by the way, we will do your work for you when you die, so no worries.)

18 And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen. (We do this a lot too. ‘Thank you Lord that we are chosen and that we live in this blessed Valley, away from all the Gentiles, set apart able to teetotal without anyone making fun of us. White shirted and long skirted. I.e. Special.’)

19 Now it came to pass that after Alma and his brethren and his sons had heard these prayers, they were astonished beyond all measure.

20 For behold, every man did go forth and offer up these same prayers. (Do we offer the same vain and repetitive prayers? Let’s be honest. I say the answer is yes. ‘Please help us to get home safely and bless all those who are not here that they can come next week and bless these cookies to nourish and strengthen our bodies. We’re grateful that we are so blessed, that we have the truth and that we cannot be led astray by our holy prophets.’)

And so I ask again, are there parallels between us and the Zoramites? Would Alma and his brethren be impressed or saddened and angered by what they would observe in our meetings? Or would they be more likely to agree with Joseph Smith who said:

How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.137)

Today in fast and testimony meeting, I think there was only one testimony that even spoke of Christ. But, even that testimony ended in how blessed we are to have a prophet to guide our Church that can never be led astray. All the other testimonies were about our bishopric and about the leaders of the Church, especially Thomas S. Monson. Funny enough the comment in one of the last testimonies said it best: “There has been a good spirit here today.” What does that even mean? Is it a confession that THE Spirit was not present, but that some Casper the Friendly Ghost spirit was in fact, in attendance? Who made us feel sleepy and happy and warm?

Bruce Almighty, aka Zeus McConkie

The god of Mormon Doctrine is no other than Bruce R. McConkie. He not only “wrote the book” on doctrine but he was also the son-in-law to Joseph Fielding Smith, a man also known for his “doctrinal prowess.” Surrounded by other great Mormon scholars and academics such as Hugh Nibley, Eugene England, Mark E. Petersen, and N. Eldon Tanner, Bruce set himself apart and became the doctrinal go-to-guy of his day.

This last week I read a great blogpost about McConkie’s beliefs on Jesus Christ. Keep in mind as you read this that this is the same man who said only two weeks before he died:

And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person. I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears. But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

And yet in McConkie’s talk he warned us that we should NOT worship Christ or seek some special relationship with Him! Here is a part of that talk as quoted in the blog titled, Peace in Paradise:

The Mainstream of the Church

Now I know that some may be offended at the counsel that they should not strive for a special and personal relationship with Christ. It will seem to them as though I am speaking out against mother love, or Americanism, or the little red schoolhouse. But I am not. There is a fine line here over which true worshipers will not step.

It is true that there may, with propriety, be a special relationship with a wife, with children, with friends, with teachers, with the beasts of the field and the fowls of the sky and the lilies of the valley. But the very moment anyone singles out one member of the Godhead as the almost sole recipient of his devotion, to the exclusion of the others, that is the moment when spiritual instability begins to replace sense and reason.

The proper course for all of us is to stay in the mainstream of the Church. This is the Lord’s Church, and it is led by the spirit of inspiration, and the practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture.

And you have never heard one of the First Presidency or the Twelve, who hold the keys of the kingdom, and who are appointed to see that we are not “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14)—you have never heard one of them advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with Christ.

You have heard them teach and testify of the ministry and mission of the Lord Jesus, using the most persuasive and powerful language at their command. But never, never at any time have they taught or endorsed the inordinate or intemperate zeal that encourages endless, sometimes day-long prayers, in order to gain a personal relationship with the Savior.

Those who truly love the Lord and who worship the Father in the name of the Son by the power of the Spirit, according to the approved patterns, maintain a reverential barrier between themselves and all the members of the Godhead.

I am well aware that some who have prayed for endless hours feel they have a special and personal relationship with Christ that they never had before. I wonder if this is any or so much different, however, from the feelings of fanatical sectarians who with glassy eyes and fiery tongues assure us they have been saved by grace and are assured of a place with the Lord in a heavenly abode, when in fact they have never even received the fullness of the gospel.

I wonder if it is not part of Lucifer’s system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true Church.

Let me remind you to stay in the course chartered by the Church. It is the Lord’s Church, and he will not permit it to be led astray. If we take the counsel that comes from the prophets and seers, we will pursue the course that is pleasing to the Lord.

Would it be amiss if I reminded you that Jesus maintained a reserve between him and his disciples and that he did not allow them the same intimacy with him that they had with each other? This was particularly true after his resurrection.

For instance, when Mary Magdalene, in a great outpouring of love and devotion, sought to embrace the risen Lord, her hands were stayed. “Touch me not,” he said. Between her and him, no matter what the degree of their love, there was a line over which she could not pass. And yet, almost immediately thereafter, a whole group of faithful women held that same Lord by the feet, and, we cannot doubt, bathed his wounded feet with their tears.

It is a fine and sacred line, but clearly there is a difference between a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord, which is improper, and one of worshipful adoration, which yet maintains the required reserve between us and him who has bought us with his blood (my emphasis added).

Okay, I’m sorry but this is where I become a little unhinged. Ironically a large part of this talk was written to rebuke George Pace for having written about our opportunity to develop a personal relationship with Christ. Much like the time when McConkie reprimanded Brother England with a letter that said in part:

It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.

I shall write in kindness and in plainness and perhaps with sharpness. I want you to know that I am extending to you the hand of fellowship though I hold over you at the same time, the scepter of judgment.

I say it’s Elder McConkie who deserves to be rebuked. For teaching false doctrine. And the Brethren who never corrected his false doctrine openly. (A committee found almost 1100 errors in Mormon Doctrine, very few of which were corrected)

I hope any reading this will have the courage to stand with me against such unrighteous dominion.

Since Elder McConkie is now on the other side of the veil, he can answer to the true Holy Prophets who said the following things in scripture that contradict his words that we should NOT worship Christ:

2 Nephi 26:12

And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God. (It almost appears that McConkie’s statements on behalf of the Gentile Church were foreseen by Nephi — He obviously needs to be convinced that Jesus is GOD and is worthy of our worship!)

And then there’s Jacob 7, where Sherem calls out the Nephites for “the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence.”

2 Nephi 25:26

And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins… And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

There are so many more scriptures that contradict McConkie. You can read them in Jacob 4, Mosiah 18, Alma 7, Alma 15, Alma 21, Alma 22, Alma 31, 34, 44, 45, 3 Nephi 2, 11, 21, 4 Nephi, and in many other places in the scriptures.

The example in 3 Nephi when those in attendance prayed to and worshipped Him. Or in the New Testament when while still in mortality, women and apostles and others bowed down and worshipped the King of Kings, with their tears and their oinments and kisses. Jesus did not rebuke them as did the angel when John bowed to “his fellow servant.” There was no fine line as McConkie warned — just worship of the Creator of Heaven and Earth.

Now, in fairness, I am not a doctrinal go-to-guy. I admit that I don’t know exactly who it is we pray to. I don’t know exactly how to worship God the Father and His Son. But the scriptures tell me, and my heart tells me to seek this God Jesus who died for me. To fall down at His feet and to praise Him. He is my God and I want Him to be my Father.

As for Zeus and the Zormonites, I invite you to repent of your worship of men. Of your idolatry. Of your vain repetitions. Your holy pulpits and your teleprompters. Of your fine twined linen — your nice suits – that which you call the uniform of the priesthood. Of your grinding upon the faces of the poor by building up your fine sanctuaries with funds that should be consecrated to bringing meat into the the Lord’s storehouse.

May we repent together and come unto Him.