Are We Supposed to Understand the Book of Revelation?

            I found interesting information, topics, and quotes in my study of the book of Revelation. The book was written by a man who identified himself as “John.” The author is understood to be the son of Zebedee and the beloved disciple of Jesus Christ (Matthew 4:21-22). According to latter-day revelation, John the Beloved is the author of the book of Revelation (see 1 Nephi 14:18-27; Ether 4:16; Doctrine and Covenants 77:1-2).


            The book of Revelation was written to encourage the early-day Saints – and any other readers – to remain faithful amid persecution and adversity. It is also known as the Apocalypse, a word that comes from Greek and that means a revelation, uncovering, or unveiling of something hidden. We should prayerfully study Revelation because it reveals important information about events between now and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as well as during the Millennium.


            Revelation includes much imagery and many symbols, but it contains much information about how God deals with His children as well as about the Savior. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The book of Revelation is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written” (in History of the Church, 5:342; as quoted in New Testament Student Manual – Religion 211-212 [2014], 525).


            The book of Revelation is difficult for some people to understand because of the symbolism and imagery. Gerald N. Lund, who later became a member of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wrote an article in which he explained that the book of Revelation unveils many truths.

The title of the book in Greek is Apocalypsis, from which we get its other common name, the Apocalypse. Apocalypsis is formed from two Greek words – apo, a proposition denoting separation or removal, and kalypto, a verb meaning to cover, hide, or veil. Apocalypsis, then, literally means removal of the veil or covering. Hence its title in English, the book of Revelation (or the uncovering or unveiling).

While many might find the title to be ironic, arguing that few books are more hidden or veiled, it is an appropriate one, for it truly reveals many things. Elder Bruce R McConkie, in response to the question ‘Are we expected to understand the book of Revelation?’ answered:

“Certainly. Why else did the Lord reveal it? The common notion that it deals with beasts and plagues and mysterious symbolisms that cannot be understood is just not true…. If we apply ourselves with full purpose of heart, we can catch the vision of what the ancient Revelator recorded” ("Understanding the Book of Revelation,"Ensign, Sept. 1975, 87.) ….

If we diligently use the keys that the Lord has given us to interpret the book of Revelation, it can truly become a book of revelation for us (“Seeing the Book of Revelation as a Book of Revelation,” Ensign, Dec. 1987, 46, 52).

            Nephi, a prophet in ancient America, had a great vision that gave significant insight into the vision of John found in Revelation. Nephi was shown in vision the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ as well as future events. He saw the division between the Nephites and Lamanites and the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ in the latter-days (see 1 Nephi 12:1-14:2). He saw things that are in our future, but he was forbidden to write them (see 1 Nephi 14:25). He was told by Jesus Christ that the He had given the assignment to write about the Last Days to the Apostle John (see 1 Nephi 14:27). Nephi is a second witness to the reason why we should study the book of Revelation.

Lund suggested four key that may help us to understand the book of Revelation. These keys are: (1) Study, ponder, and pray about its message. (2) Use latter-day revelation to expand our understanding of the book. (3) Explore its symbolic imagery. (4) Study its chronological structure. There is more information about Lund’s four keys in his article.  

            Lund closed his article with this statement: “If we diligently use the keys that the Lord has given us to interpret the book of Revelation, it can truly become a book of revelation for us.” As we gain understanding of the Revelation, we will become better prepared for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and more ready to dwell with Him.

Will Impeachment of Trump Put an End to Democrat Hate?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the impeachment circus currently happening in the U.S. House of Representatives. I fully expect that the Democrats in the House will follow through on their actions and impeach Donald Trump. My question is, will impeachment end their hate for him, or will they just find another way to hate him?


            The Democrats on the far left seem to have forced Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to agree to impeachment proceedings. Will they be satisfied with smearing Trump’s character and historical record, or will they continue their shenanigans? I must admit that I have enjoyed NOT hearing from AOC and her left-wing squad and Mad Maxine Waters.


            I can understand why President Trump wants to call witnesses and to watch as they are raked over the coals by Republicans. I think it would be somewhat satisfying to him to see the liberal so-called witnesses squirm. However, it may be better to just end the charade once and for all like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell might be planning. 

Several Republican Senators like the short impeachment idea even though a public defense for Trump could damage political rivals. A quick trial should be easy in that there are no crimes listed in the articles of impeachment. The Senators may understand that Americans are tired of the impeachment circus and just want it to end. Senate Majority Whip John Thune (S.D.) said, “Members want to deal with the arguments, hear the case and hopefully reach a conclusion.” 

 I personally want the Senate to deal with the impeachment matter quickly and cleanly and keep Trump in office. I can think of nothing worse for the United States or its economy than for Trump to be removed from office for no better reason than he disagrees with liberals and they hate him. Trump may be the best President in my lifetime in the accomplishments for good that he has done for the nation and the world. I personally want to be free of impeachment threats and frenzy and be able to watch Congress do their job for a change.

What Does the Inspector General's Report Say and What Does It Mean?

            The long-awaited report from the inspector general for the Justice Department was released on Monday, December 9, 2019. In his report Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that there were 17 inaccuracies and omissions made by FBI agents while they sought permission from the FISA court to spy on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.


            On Wednesday, December 11, 2019, Horowitz appeared before a Senate committee to explain and/or defend his report. Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal found “six big takeaways from the inspector general’s testimony” even though the Democrats kept emphasizing that the IG found no political bias in the corruption and/or incompetence of the FBI.

1. Christopher Steele was “desperate to prevent Mr. Trump’s election.”

2. FISA warrant application was based “entirely” on Steele dossier.

3. IG says he’s “not ruling out’ political bias.

4. [There was FBI bias against Trump, but] what about bias against Hillary Clinton? [FBI agents can favor any presidential candidate, but their personal feelings should not affect their professional work.

]

5. Comey vs. Horowitz: Findings “don’t vindicate anybody.”

6. AG vs. IG? “We stand by the report.” [Even though Attorney General William Barr does not completely agree with the IG’s report, the IG and his team are standing by their report.]

            Even though I believe that Horowitz is part of the “Deep State,” I also believe that he has integrity. He may have shown some favor toward Democrats when he “found” no bias toward Trump. However, this only means that no one admitted to him that they had bias toward Trump. Horowitz found 17 inaccuracies and omissions and admitted that what happened “looked bad.” This is no small thing. Nevertheless, Barr and John Durham both published disagreements with his report, so they must have other evidence.


            Horowitz’s report is not the last word on the Deep State illegal actions toward Trump. The criminal investigation being conducted by federal prosecutor John Durham is covering some of the same areas but also has a wider range. There are differences between the investigations. The IG could investigate only members of the FBI, and Durham can investigate everyone. The IG could not call a grand jury, but Durham can. The IG could recommend to the Justice Department that indictments should be handed down, but Durham can indict. Because Barr and Durham published disagreements, I expect that some indictments will be coming.

Where Is the Evidence?

            On Tuesday, December 10, 2019, Nancy Pelosi announced that the U.S. House of Representatives was bringing two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Democrats began talking about impeachment before or as soon as Trump was inaugurated. They claimed that impeachment was warranted because of quid pro quo, and then they moved to bribery. The actual articles of impeachment are neither quid pro quo nor bribery because they could find no evidence to prove the charges.


            The specific charges made by the Democrats are “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” Again, they have no evidence to prove their claims, but they are moving full speed ahead. The Judiciary Committee will begin its deliberations on the matter on Wednesday and cast their votes soon thereafter. If the committee approves impeachment, a vote in the full House is expected before Christmas. If the full House votes to impeach Trump, a trial will be held in the U.S. Senate.


            This is not the first time that a President of the United States has been threatened with impeachment. Numerous Presidents have been threatened – including Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush – but Andrew Johnson (successor to Abraham Lincoln) and Bill Clinton are the only Presidents to be formally impeached by the House. The Senate has never removed a U.S. President through the impeachment process. Five of the past six Republican presidents have been threatened with impeachment, and Richard Nixon resigned when told that he would most likely be impeached and removed from office.


            The Framers of the Constitution wanted a way to remove a bad president from office, but they did not intend for the impeachment process to be easy. The process starts in the House of Representatives with the announcement of a formal impeachment inquiry. This time the inquiry started in the Intelligence Committee with Adam Schiff and then moved to the Judiciary Committee, but it normally starts in the Judiciary Committee. If this committee votes to impeach, they write and pass articles of impeachment. Then the full House votes to proceed with impeachment. Only a simple majority in the House is required to impeach a President. 


            The impeachment process then moves to the Senate where a trial is held with witnesses and testimony. Unlike the House inquiry, Trump may call his own witnesses. However, if enough Senators are ready to vote against removal from office, the Senate trial may be very short and not include witnesses. The President is removed from office only if two-thirds of the Senate find the President guilty of the crimes contained in the articles of impeachment.


            No one expects the Senate to remove Trump from office, including the Democrats who are bringing the charges against him. They know that they cannot win the 2020 election against a strong Trump, so they are attempting to make him look bad. However, their antics seem to be working against them because American citizens are not stupid. We can see what the Democrats are doing, and we do not like it.


            Americans know that Trump has done many good things for America – without much support from the Democrats. We can see that Trump loves America and is doing what he does because he thinks it will be good for America and Americans. We all want the impeachment process to be over, but most of us understand that this will not be the last time that Democrats try to trap Trump. The best way to stop the rogue Democrats is to vote them out of office in 2020!

How Do You Catch the Spirit of Christmas?

            I simplify more each Christmas, but I still have a difficult time feeling the Spirit of Christmas. I feel stress even though there is not much to stress me. This morning I decided to add a Christmas hymn to my morning devotional with hopes that music will bring the Spirit of Christmas to me as it so often does. 

Christmas stories also help me to feel the Spirit of Christmas, and I received a good one in a Christmas card from a friend today. I do not know if my friend wrote the story or was just sharing it. I believe that the lesson in the story is good for any time of year, but I know that its setting is Christmas. 

I was told a story many years ago of an elderly gentleman who needed to move to a retirement home the day before Christmas. The story continues to describe him as a happy, selfless, patient and understanding man, a man who lever lost sight of the love our Heavenly Father offers each one of us. I think about that sometimes and say to myself, “… you need to be more like that man moving at Christmastime to an old folks’ home.” He was patient while he waited for the handicapped van to come pick him up even though it was over an hour late. Then, after being loaded in his wheelchair into the van, he began chatting with other passengers giving a happy smile to each one of them. He began by wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and asking where they were going. Several were pretty silent, just sharing a grunt or two; while others were so happy to see a smiling face that they warmed to the old man immediately. When the others learned that he was on his way to “Settler’s Place” they were silent, looking down at the floor of the bus not wanting him to see their horror once finding out where he was going. But even though the man did recognize their facial expressions, he didn’t let on.

Velma, one of the ladies on the bus, asked him if he knew anything about the place he was going. He said, “Well, I know all I want or need to know. I know it will be great. I know I will be happy there.”

“How do you know that if you haven’t ever been there?” Velma asked. He replied, “I don’t need to have been someplace to know that I will be happy there. Being happy is a choice. And the sooner I make the choice to be happy, the happier I am, no matter where I live!”

Velma thought about that statement carefully before she answered. She could feel the guilt sliding sideways through her mind as she considered the part about happiness being a choice. Then she told him that she’d never thought that happiness was a choice. She had always assumed her mood or attitude came from the places, people and things around her.

The bus had arrived at his stop, and the driver was preparing the lift to help him down. The old man smiled at Velma and said to her, “I learned a very long time ago that if I make up my mind ahead of time that I will like something, life goes more smoothly and I don’t have to worry about being sad, since I have made the decision to choose happiness.”

By this time the bus lift was ready, but everyone on the bus, including the driver were in a state of awe at this little old man who had learned the secret of happiness. They each considered their own habit of thinking negatively, while he was teaching them the secret! Velma didn’t want to listen, though. She was sure that what he said wouldn’t work in her life. She was always thinking miserable thoughts about how her family no longer enjoyed visiting her, and they usually don’t have anything interesting to say, anyway. But she misses them all the same. The old man’s lesson was almost lost on her. But then, as he was waving goodbye, she thought, maybe she could try it. He was clearly a happy man. Maybe, she thought, she’d give it a try during the Christmas season this year.

            This story and the following quote go hand in hand: “Happiness is a choice, not a result. Nothing will make you happy until you choose to be happy. No person will make you happy unless you decide to be happy. Your happiness will not come to you. It can only come from you” (Ralph Marston).


            The story sort of made me sad. I hate to think of any elderly person being taken to an old folks’ home by some strangers at any time, let alone on Christmas Eve. Yet, it did not bother the old man. I decided to apply his secret and choose to feel the Christmas Spirit. I will simply decide that I have the Christmas Spirit and move forward with the season. How does one act when they have the Spirit of Christmas? I suppose that singing, smiling, and sharing are all part of the Christmas Spirit, so I can start there.

Who Is Alan Dershowitz?

            Alan Dershowitz is a well-known criminal defense lawyer. He is also a liberal Harvard law professor. I chose Dershowitz for my VIP this week because he is a liberal that dares to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerrold Nadler. Instead of following the liberal line to impeachment, Dershowitz said in an interview with Mark Levin this evening that the phone call made by President Donald Trump to Ukraine does not meet the standards for impeachment for bribery.

[I]t can’t operate when you’re the president of the United States and you’re conditioning or withholding money in order to make sure that a country isn’t corrupt and you’re asking them to investigate [something].

That just doesn’t fit any definition of bribery – common law definition of bribery, statutory definition of bribery – however you define the constitutional word “bribery.” It just doesn’t fit.

            In addition, Dershowitz emphasized that the Democrats had decided to impeach the president long before the telephone call and were merely looking for a crime to justify their action. As far as Democrats are concerned, Trump is guilty of something. They just keep searching until they find it.

They have Trump in their sights. They want to figure out a way of impeaching him and they’re searching for a crime….

First, they came up with abuse of power – not a crime – it’s not in the Constitution. So now they’re saying “bribery,” but they’re making it up. There is no case for bribery based on, even if all the allegations against the president were to be proved, which they haven’t been.

[Dershowitz recalled how the Soviet Union would arrest someone and then find a crime that fit their purpose. Their mantra seemed to be: Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.]

What they’re trying to do is what the KGB under Lavrentiy Beria said to Stalin, the dictator – I’m not comparing our country to the Soviet Union – I just want to make sure it never becomes anything like that.

            Dershowitz may not be willing to vote for Donald Trump, but he seems to be a man who can see clearly how the Democrats are working. They hate Trump so much that they are willing to do anything to get him out of office and/or stop him from being re-elected. The impeachment proceeding is purely a political maneuver. Hopefully, the American citizens will also see clearly what the Democrats are doing and vote them all out of office in 2020.

Is the "Fairness for All" Legislation Truly Fair to All?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is fairness for all. Many individuals and organizations are concerned about fairness and how to achieve it in our nation. A group of nine members of Congress, representing seven states, introduced the federal Fairness for All Act on December 6, 2019. 


            I agree that everyone should be treated fairly, and I admit that fairness is a difficult quality to achieve in the world in which we live. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – led by fifteen men that I sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators – expressed support for the bill. The Church is joined in their support by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the 1^st Amendment Partnership, the American Unity Fund, the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities and the Center for Public Justice. The full statement by the Church is as follows.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commends the introduction of federal legislation that seeks to preserve religious freedom and protect LGBT individuals from discrimination. We’re grateful for the leadership of Utah Representative Chris Stewart and other congressional supporters of this cause. The nation is more united when diverse individuals and groups can work cooperatively to advance sound policy. Alongside other religious organizations and denominations and important leaders of the LGBT community, the Church endorses this balanced approach that fosters greater fairness for all.

            The Church of Jesus Christ is concerned about all God’s children. Leaders and members of the Church believe that “No American should lose their home or job simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.” We also believe that “All religious persons should be free to live, work or serve their community in ways that are consistent with their faith.”


            I sincerely believe all that is written above, but I am concerned when I learn that a conservative constitutional scholar does not agree. Ryan T. Anderson wrote a scathing rebuttal to the Fairness for All Act. He stated that it is a good thing to find a legislative compromise, but the Fairness for All Act is not a good compromise. He worked for several years with “scholars and civic leaders promoting and drafting this legislation.” He reviewed the “69-page legislative draft” and rejected it.

Despite the undoubted good will of those who drafted and introduced the legislation, and despite some meaningful though insufficient protections for religious liberty, the bill is not in fact fair for all. Its protections for religious liberty come at the high cost of enshrining a misguided sexual and gender ideology into federal law. This will allow the federal government to use our civil rights laws as a sword to punish citizens who dissent from the reigning sexual orthodoxy. This is certain to create significant harm to the common good, especially for the privacy, safety, and equality of women and girls.

            Anderson stated that the Fairness for All compromise “was misframed from the beginning.” He said that Stewart recognized that the compromise is flawed. Even though the bill is meant to be “a balanced legislative solution for preserving religious freedom and protecting LGBT civil rights,” those are not “the only two values at stake in this legislative area.”


            If signed into law, the bill will amend the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Anderson said that “elevating ‘sexual orientation and gender identity” to a protected class in the Civil Rights Act will cause serious harms.” He fears that the harms caused by this bill will come to “people’s privacy, safety, equality, and other forms of liberty – not just for religious people, but for anyone who disagrees with contemporary sexual and gender ideology.”

A bill that was truly fair for all would not allow the government to use civil rights law as a sword to punish citizens for disagreement on sexual ideology.

A bill that was truly fair would explicitly say that no institution could be forced by the government to allow boys who identify as girls to compete against girls in athletics; that no institution could be forced by the government to allow men who identify as women into women-only spaces, such as locker rooms and shelters; that no institution could be penalized because it lives out its creed that marriage unites a husband and wife.

A bill that was truly fair for all would explicitly say that no physician would have to engage in any “gender-affirming” care that they thought unethical, and that no child could be denied assistance to help them identify with their bodies.

            Anderson listed several other ways that he believes the bill is unfair. Then he noted the support given by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He agreed with the statement that “No American should lose their home or job simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.” Then he said, “But the Fairness for All legislation goes well beyond cases where people are fired or evicted simply for identifying as LGBT.” He continued with his explanation.

Fairness for All takes the existing Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed by Congress to, among other things, combat racism, and expands its reach while adding “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected classes. The bill never defines what constitutes discrimination against such classes. So it takes a law meant to combat racism, broadens its reach, and fails to define a key term.

But properly defining unjust discrimination and targeting legislation at those actions is essential. Part of the problem with Fairness for All is that it leaves it entirely at the whim of hostile bureaucrats and judges to declare that commonsense actions may count as discrimination….

It is irresponsible to rewrite our civil rights laws to make “gender identity” a protected class when we can’t even define what gender identity is, or how many there are.

            Anderson continued by asking how it can be fair to “pass a law saying it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of these gender identities without even defining what constitutes discrimination? This is legislative malpractice and will lead to endless, costly litigation.” He counseled that the nation should not “rush to conclusions” but “think critically and prudently.” He said that all Americans – no matter where they “fall on the political spectrum and whether they are religious, secular, or agnostic” – should be involved in the redefinition of marriage, sex, and gender.


            Clearly rejecting Fairness for All, Anderson said that the effort to develop good legislation should continue. He said that “A better approach would carefully consider the needs of people who identify as LGBT that requires a policy response, and then target legislation at those needs.”

Such legislation would specifically define what constitutes unlawful behavior, while explicitly protecting everyone’s freedom to engage in legitimate actions based on the conviction that we are created male and female, and that male and female are created for each other.

Such legislation must protect the privacy and safety of women and girls, the conscience rights of doctors and other medical professionals, parental rights, and the free speech and religious rights of countless professionals.

This would leave all Americans free to act on those convictions. It would also protect diversity and promote tolerance. It would promote true fairness for all.

            Anderson defended his rejection of the Fairness for All Act by showing that he has invested time and effort in his attempt to provide fairness for all. Even though the Fairness for All Act has been introduced and could pass quickly through the Democrat-majority House, we should hope and pray that it is destroyed in the Senate and fairer legislation introduced.