Identifying and Coping with "Unrighteous Dominion"

[BroJones]

The Lord warns about unrighteous dominion poignantly in D&C 121:

2 aHow long shall thy hand be stayed, and thine eye, yea thy pure eye, behold from the eternal heavens the wrongs of thy people and of thy servants, and thine ear be penetrated with their cries?
3 Yea, O Lord, ahow long shall they suffer these wrongs and unlawful boppressions, before thine heart shall be softened toward them, and thy bowels be moved with ccompassion toward them?

34 Behold, there are many acalled, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their ahearts are set so much upon the things of this bworld, and caspire to the dhonors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the arights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be bcontrolled nor handled only upon the cprinciples of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to acover our bsins, or to gratify our cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens ewithdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to akick against the pricks, to bpersecute the saints, and to cfight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but afew are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the bpriesthood, only by cpersuasion, by dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By akindness, and pure bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the csoul without dhypocrisy, and without guile—

Here are some thoughts about identifying and coping with unrighteous dominion:

1. Identifying UD -- bullying, compulsion, forcing, Satan's methods, fear-mongering, back-biting, false accusations, constraints on free speech.

2. "Remember that to be Accused is NOT the same as to be Convicted" of wrong-doing. Bullies assertively accuse of wrong-doing, usually in bold but vague terms. Those who exercise the "true independence of heaven" (Brigham Young) do not accept/believe the accusations without doing some checking and verification first, and then they remember the role of repentance and the Atonement without condemning the accused.

3. Our inclination (I've noticed) when someone in authority (e.g. police, administrators) says one has done Wrong or is in Trouble, our tendency is to believe him, feel bad/worried and to immediately concede -- then later feel bad about caving in, once one has had time to think things through more calmly.

4. Bullies want us to act NOW, immediately, basically while the fear-hormones are still clouding our thinking. Therefore, we should resolve in advance (like now) while we are thinking calmly that we will NOT REACT WITH FEAR, knee-jerk quickly -- but will give ourselves time to settle, think things through, act out of love and faith and sound principles.

5. Sometimes we flee, sometimes we fight -- and the Lord will tell us "whither to flee" and "whether to fight" (see Alma 48, for example). Often this comes by direct personal revelation; we must seek this inspiration daily and BEFORE the provocation of bullies.

I would appreciate others' thought on how to cope with unrighteous dominion. It can be a real trial in life, and is SO common.

[Nan]

I would say that sometimes we flee, sometimes we fight and sometimes God will ask us to endure captivity.

[firend]

Dr.Jones item #3

first off, very well written, i would say we are meek when it is personal to you unless otherwise inspired. when it comes to others don't let them get hurt while we stand by watching doing nothing

develop thick skin, get used to it. If your peculiar people, u dont fit with most. If u are well liked by a lot of people....hmmmmm

item #3 is so true. This is one of the single most destuctive patterns of people. Instead of relying on God/evidence, etc...they rely on man/hear say. This is also true in the church for those who follow blind to anyone. This is true in government as well, and media.

know God, truth, prepare for being lashed badly, develop leather skin, and learn wisdom on when to duck and when to strike.

[buffalo_girl]

I would appreciate others' thought on how to cope with unrighteous dominion. It can be a real trial in life, and is SO common.

In my experience the very most painful and spiritually challenging exercise of 'unrighteous dominion' occurs at the local level in the functioning leadership of the Church.

I see there is an article on this subject in the July Ensign.

I learned long ago not to put my trust in the arm of flesh - that is to expect people who should know better to behave in a Christlike manner. Sometimes they do, but most often they don't.

Some leaders at the local level view their positions as some form of superman/woman costume which allows them to swoop in and do everything the way they think best. Some seem to view counselors as those who simply agree with their agenda.

Years ago a fellow student at BYU accused me of having 'no respect for authority'. That seemed like a pretty bold assessment of my state of being considering how little he knew about me. For a moment, I was a bit taken aback. "No," I answered, "I do respect 'authority' - when it respects me. Otherwise it is not 'authority'; it is tyranny."

More often than not, I'm ill prepared to deal with 'unrighteous dominion' simply because I don't expect it. It usually catches me by surprise because I don't interact with others that way. When I process what just occurred I recognize the justice or injustice of it by asking myself, "Would Christ have spoken to me in that way?" or "Is this person expressing an opinion or an observation with my best interest in mind? If so, how can I better understand how that opinion or observation will benefit me?"

If it comes down to the other person using his/her position to coerce or to demean me, I am flummoxed! At that point, I try to stay as far away as possible. It isn't up to me to explain myself or defend who I am. I know my friends by how they treat me.

This theme seems to be one several of us are experiencing. At least it is in our household.

Psalm 94 came to mind in the last couple of day as I've struggled with a challenge I'm facing in this regard. It has given me a lot of insight.

PSALM 94

1 O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself.
2 Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud.
3 Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
4 How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
5 They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.
6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.
7 Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.
8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
10 He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?
11 The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.
12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law;
13 That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked.
14 For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.
15 But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it.
16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
17 Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence.
18 When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held me up.
19 In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul.
20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?
21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.
22 But the Lord is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.
23 And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off.

[BroJones]

Thanks for comments.
Very well said, Buff-girl:

"No," I answered, "I do respect 'authority' - when it respects me. Otherwise it is not 'authority'; it is tyranny."

Yes, point #3 is a key behavior pattern we can modify as we put our trust in the Lord; Firend:

when it comes to others don't let them get hurt while we stand by watching doing nothing

Very important -- Joseph Smith said something along those lines!

[BroJones]

Turning to the life of the Savior our Deliverer, we see several times in his life where even He fled for safety, setting us an example.

The first was when he was very young and Joseph and Mary took Him to Egypt to escape the unrighteous dominion (and murders) of King Herod.

The second was when He spoke in a Jewish meeting in Nazareth (Luke 4) and testified that He was the Messiah, citing Isaiah. He had to flee for His life, and Father helped him escape the clutches of the Jews who sought to slay Him at the time.

The third was after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. This so incensed the ruling leaders that they again sought to take His life (the ultimate in unrighteous dominion).

The hostility of the ecclesiastical rulers became so great that Jesus once more sought retirement in a region sufficiently far from Jerusalem to afford Him security from the watchful and malignant eyes of His powerful and openly avowed enemies...
Thus did our Lord spend the rest of the winter and probably the the early days of the succeeding spring. That His retreat was private if not practically secret is suggested by John's statement that "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews"... The place of this last retirement is not definitely known..."

James E. Talmage, "Jesus the Christ," pp. 498-499

[buffalo_girl]

when it comes to others don't let them get hurt while we stand by watching doing nothing

Too many 'look on' when someone is being hurt. I'm not sure why. It doesn't take a lot of effort to assess a situation for what it is. In my opinion, it is my business when another is being treated unjustly.

I guess my mother taught me by her example in that regard. She was a public school teacher who taught children in the halls and on the playground about fair play and respect for others. Having worked in schools as a tutor I rarely saw adults intervene when children bullied one another. I never knew my mother to remain silent (sometimes to my embarrassment as a child) when she was witness to any situation in which someone was exercising 'unrighteous dominion' over another person or an animal. She was very bold in her approach, yet had a way of helping the 'abuser' recognize how he/she might feel were the tables turned.

[sbsion]

I have found that the scrip: "..........cannot look upon sin with the least degree............", is an "enforceable" church leadership "fall guy", yet, the enforcement of such is probably one of the greatest sins?

[buffalo_girl]

I have found that the scrip: "..........cannot look upon sin with the least degree............", is an "enforceable" church leadership "fall guy", yet, the enforcement of such is probably one of the greatest sins?

Sorry, you lost me.

[Squally]

I have found that the scrip: "..........cannot look upon sin with the least degree............", is an "enforceable" church leadership "fall guy", yet, the enforcement of such is probably one of the greatest sins?

Sorry, you lost me.

Lost me too, I prefer full sentences.

[Geeswell]

hm, maybe he is saying what Buffalo-Girl was commenting about -- about how some "local leaders" use their callings as an ego trip. and they look at the sins of another and say "that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and so therefore neither can I"...but they take it too far.

Maybe thats what he is saying. i dunno, haha.

[Nan]

I think the most important part of Identifying and coping with Unrighteous Dominion is our own. I think everyone struggles with this because it is part of the natural man. So I guess I am more concerned that I am not doing it and that my husband and children aren't doing it.

[buffalo_girl]

hm, maybe he is saying what Buffalo-Girl was commenting about -- about how some "local leaders" use their callings as an ego trip. and they look at the sins of another and say "that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and so therefore neither can I"...but they take it too far.

That sounds right. I hope that's what sbion means.

Your interpretation goes along with a persistent thought in my mind the last couple of days.

The Lord does want us to be a Humble people. Sometimes we learn humility through the bad choices others impose upon us as I believe Psalm 94 describes. We are often 'chastened' through these experiences to put our own lives right with God - which is indeed a desirable outcome!

However, I believe the Lord is not pleased with those who exercise unrighteous dominion over those they victimize as Matthew 18:7 seems to suggest:

7 ¶ Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

The Lord wants a HUMBLE people NOT a HUMILIATED people!

Christ was ever Humble. Even when abused by those who chose to exercise their unrighteous dominion over Him, His dignity, grace, endurance, and restraint were evidence of the absolutely perfect exercise of His Priesthood Power. He fully understood the essential nature of His work in bringing about His Father's Plan. Such consciousness could never be 'humiliated'.

We are each unique in our responsibilities and our gifts in bringing about this Great Work for our Father in Heaven. Such realization should help us remain humble enough to ever seek divine guidance in fulfilling our work on the earth. We need to encourage and support one another in our efforts rather than dominate and bully if we find ourselves in positions of leadership.

There is a good article on this subject in the July Ensign!

[BroJones]

Thanks, Buff-girl.

Another characteristic of Unrighteous Dominion that I've seen is the lack of "due process" -- the effort to circumvent normal fair procedures and convict the accused without due process -- an important part of the 4th Amendment in the US Constitution.

Due process, for the restored Church and its members, is spelled out in D&C 102 and includes the privilege of the accused to speak for himself (or herself) in all cases, before a council. The accused is also to have persons on the council speak on his behalf, to "to prevent insult or injustice."

D&C 102: 15 The accused, in all cases, has a right to one-half of the council, to prevent insult or injustice.
16 And the councilors appointed to speak before the council are to present the case, after the evidence is examined, in its true light before the council; and every man is to speak according to equity and justice.
17 Those councilors who adraw even numbers, that is, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are the individuals who are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice.
18 In all cases the accuser and the accused shall have a privilege of speaking for themselves before the council, after the evidences are aheard and the councilors who are appointed to speak on the case have finished their remarks.
19 After the evidences are heard, the councilors, accuser and accused have spoken, the president shall give a decision according to the understanding which he shall have of the case, and call upon the twelve councilors to asanction the same by their vote.
20 But should the remaining councilors, who have not spoken, or any one of them, after hearing the evidences and pleadings impartially, discover an aerror in the decision of the president, they can manifest it, and the case shall have a re-hearing.
21 And if, after a careful re-hearing, any additional light is shown upon the case, the decision shall be altered accordingly.

If YOU are ever accused unjustly, request/insist that the procedures of due process be followed. These are the "chains of the Constitution" that Jefferson referred to, to "bind" men against injuring their fellows when they think they have "authority as they suppose".

Unrighteous dominion also typically seeks to abridge the freedom of speech; see the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[JoeSwiss]

H. Verlan Anderson contributed some interesting thoughts on Unrighteous Dominion in his article "Many are Called, But Few are Chosen", (found many places online).

His conclusion seems to be that most of the unrighteous dominion that occurs in the world is to be found in the unjust powers exercised by government. The consent we give to the unauthorized actions of government (nanny-state, socialistic programs) is what brings taint upon us ("amen to the priesthood or authority of that man").

Worth thinking about. Article worth reading carefully.

***
An excerpt:

Question: If almost all of us are going to lose our priesthood because we undertake “to exercise control or dominion or compulsion,” unrighteously, what is it we are doing which condemns us?
Answer: There are only four situations where force or compulsion is intentionally used by one
person upon another. They are:
1. When one commits or resists a criminal act.
2. When parents discipline children.
3. In sports, play or athletic contests.
4. Through the agency of government.
While each person must examine his own life to determine wherein he might be using force
against his fellow man for improper purposes, the following comments should help pinpoint the
real problem.
1. Relatively few men are involved in crimes of violence and therefore it is unlikely that
this is the activity which condemns the majority.
2. While a person might be a brute in his own home, it would seem that parental affection
would be strong enough to rule out this possibility in most cases.
3. Since those who engage in sporting or athletic events do so voluntarily and therefore
consent to the force used, this activity would not likely qualify as unrighteous dominion.
4. This leaves government as the force most likely abused. The following questions
consider why this might be so.... (etc.)

[buffalo_girl]

Answer: There are only four situations where force or compulsion is intentionally used by one
person upon another. They are:
1. When one commits or resists a criminal act.
2. When parents discipline children.
3. In sports, play or athletic contests.
4. Through the agency of government.

I can think of examples of unrighteous dominion which do not necessarily fall under these four categories.

It isn't always a 'criminal act' when one's employer or church leader uses psychological means to manipulate another person into a level of submission in order for the one in 'authority' to exact a behavior in the other person which is contrary to that person's wishes.

You are a pretty fortunate individual if you have never been on the receiving end of this type of 'insect authority' (Mark Twain's expression).

[underdog]

The Lord clearly defines when unrighteous dominion is being used. Intent is irrelevant. The end cannot justify the means. You can't claim you MEANT to do good. Coercion or dominion or compulsion in ANY degree of unrighteousness is unacceptable.

DC 121:37: "That [the rights of the priesthood] may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness,..."

I heard a stake president (SP) say of a bishop widely known to bully (use unrighteous dominion) or steamroll ward members and auxiliary leaders, "if he has righteous intent, it's not unrighteous dominion. He's innocent."

Seriously. That's what he said. This point was argued and debated in a most serious manner by the SP.

SP: "The bishop holds the keys! At the end of the day, he must be sustained."

Member: But what if he's wrong?

SP: How do you know he's wrong?

Member: Multiple ward council members have told him that he doesn't listen, that he calls whom he wants to call, and he takes whatever action he wants to take, even if there is widespread disagreement or pushback with logical, fair reasons. There is often no discussion, and if a protest is made, he goes silent, looks down, and changes the subject, ends the meeting, and proceeds in the direction he wants to go in as if there was never any disagreement. There is widespread apathy now because he makes decisions primarily on his own and without listening to the input of others. We think he's trying. We can often detect that he means well, That he seems to be sincere. But he shuts conversation down, and requires submission, usually without feeling the need to offer any reasoning why he holds a particular opinion.

SP: Well, that's not unrighteous dominion. He means well. He has good intentions. If a man has righteous intentions, he CANNOT practice unrighteous dominion!

What do you all think of that statement? Is that not the most laughable thing you've ever heard?

Please defend this stake president, who's a good man. Please play Devil's advocate and argue that it is the intent that matters. He said he himself has made bad decisions before. He said that he's claimed to have revelation, and then it turns out he was wrong. Like calling this certain bishop. He knows that was an inspired call. He "knows" the Lord called that man to be bishop.

Member: So how does that "fact" (that the Lord called him initially) bear on the problem of this bishop exercising UD?

SP: It's not UD. He's not acting with bad intent. He believes he's right.

Member: So if we believe we're right, then we don't have to do what v. 41-42 say? "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—"?

We don't have to persuade, or be gentle, or meek, or be kind? Perhaps we can ACT or PRETEND to be gentle, act meek, act loving, act kindly, but then not persuade and simply "win" a debate by "virtue of the priesthood", by simply jingling the keys we hold? Is that what Jesus is teaching when he said through Joseph Smith, "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion"?

So, Mr. Stake President, is it good, is it right, to say, as a leader, "I have the keys, I have the authority, therefore, accept by decision without discussion!"?

I submit that is the very definition of unrighteous dominion. Whenever you quote authority to get your way, you practice unrighteous dominion. Whenever you jingle keys, you not only draw attention to yourself (which is priestcraft), but you practice UD!

Name the cases when Jesus attempted to coerce people by quoting his Authority. Are there any cases?

If INTENT was relevant in establishing if UD was being committed, then couldn't this very reasoning be used to cover ANY sin? "Well, I MEANT NO HARM, I was only trying to help," etc. Government says they mean well. Even a rapist has been heard to say, "She wanted it. No meant YES. I gave her what she wanted. I was serving her." That's graphic, but what about a thief? "I stole because I intended to feed my kids." Does the end justify the means?

The Lord can sort out the intentions of our heart, and can judge us as individuals, but the act is what matters. An act of coercion was committed or it wasn't. Can a bishop or any priesthood leader continually quote the keys he holds to get what he wants in the face of widespread dissent? Does it make any sense whatsoever to say that "if the bishop means well, he is incapable of committing UD"?

Or could it be as plain as day? If you are appealing to authority to push an agenda/idea/calling/plan, etc., I believe you ARE attempting to exert control. Control over what? The minds of others. Their very thoughts. Their will. You are asking them to submit to you "just because" you are the keys holder. It's an attempt to control somebody's mind. It is a form of mind control. It is mental and emotional abuse.

Or, do any of you care to defend the SP, is there no attempt to control minds, to use compulsion, to abuse authority? I don't see how one can make the case that it's not abuse, but I'm willing to listen to your arguments!

Please share.

When you attempt to have your ideas adopted BECAUSE you have "authority"/ the keys, is that unrighteous dominion?

[Matchmaker]

In my opinion, the most difficult leader to work with in the Church is the one who calls you to be his or her counselor and then is not interested in listening to or considering anything you have to say. He or she may also resort to bullying and intimidation tactics from time to time in meetings to get you to shut up and submit to his or her will. I worked with one once, and it was the most painful experience I ever had in the Church. I don't know if it was an example of unrighteous dominion, but the words dictator and bully came to mind.

[AI2.0]

Underdog;
Dealing with a difficult leader in a church calling is not the same level of problem as dealing with a family member or a boss etc. That Stake Pres. will be released and if you find them too difficult to work with, you can asked to be released. The same goes for the Bishop--they serve a certain amount of time and then they are replaced. If they try to 'bully' you into doing things, you can refuse or be passive aggressive and just not follow through with what they ask--to me, this is a way to handle unrighteous dominion--but I'd pray about it sincerely before deciding to just dig in my heals and not try to offer my sustaining support. I've sung in our stake choir more times than I can count even though I'm quite frustrated with the way it's been handled for years. I've attended activities that I thought were a waste of time/effort/resources because those who set them up had good intentions and the cause was good. I've seen stakes and wards where the leaders are pushy and micromanaging, and have uninspired ideas--it happens because they aren't perfect and we need to recognize that. I also always felt that if I wanted the members to support me when I'm in leadership callings, I ought to give the same support to others when they are in those callings.

When I served in the Stake Relief Society Presidency (through two different Stake Presidencies and two different styles), my feeling was that part of our job was to sustain the Stake Pres. by helping to implement their ideas and their vision in the Stake and help represent their ideas in a positive light to best make them successful. Since they never asked us to do anything that was illegal, immoral or criminal, this was not hard to do. Sometimes we felt their ideas were not the best, but we still tried to find what was good and promote that.

Men and Women called to leadership positions are not always in the calling for the members they serve, but sometimes they are there to learn and grow themselves. A loving, charitable and patient ward/stake family can help make them successful in their calling.

I remember getting an impression one time when Pres. Monson told about the magazine drive in his ward. He was responsible for it, but with his load, he delegated it to a couple of sisters and they went to EVERY house in the ward boundaries. They made him successful in his calling. The members can make or break you.

[buffalo_girl]

https://www.lds.org/church/news/council ... n?lang=eng

Unanimous consensus

In recent years, Church members have turned their focus to councils as leaders have reemphasized family councils, general women leaders have begun participating on general Church councils, general training has refocused the purpose of stake and ward councils, and members worldwide have been asked to participate in monthly teacher councils.

“There is an evolution in the Church, and more people are beginning to better understand what councils really are,” said Elder Golden.

“The Church is governed by keys and councils,” said Elder Gay. “In councils you gather input and then work together to come to unanimous consensus. In councils both men and women participate in every level of the Church.”

Sister Burton said as Church members participate in councils they put forth their best thinking and work together to determine the will of the Lord. “This is His work,” she said. “Councils serve to help determine His will in His work.”

Quoting Doctrine and Covenants 42:3, Sister Burton said in councils members assemble together as “an act of faith.”

Elder Nielson said one of the biggest frustrations people have is feeling like they are not heard. “A council allows everyone to be heard.”

[passionflower]

"Unrighteous dominion" as found in the scriptures is instruction on how a Priesthood holder should avoid using his Priesthood authority in a way that is personally aggrandizing or in a manner that excuses sin , and is not referring to otherwise obnoxious behaviours or poor personality traits of random church members, or the way someone treats others in general.

The verses in section 121 that preface vs 37 are these: "Behold there are many called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson----That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness"

In these verses, Joseph Smith is describing the way "priesthood" is "held" in the various protestant denominations around them, and how this is not acceptable in the Kingdom of God.

Vs 37 goes on to say, "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man."

In these scriptures, JS is not finding fault with church members in general, but is being specific to the Priesthood. For instance, a baptist minister could commit adultery, and still consider himself "called of God" and fully able to baptize, preach to his congregation, etc. And certainly aggrandizing himself was what his "calling" was all about. Most, if not all of the persecution waged against the Latter Day Saints in Missouri was sparked by Protestant preachers, who, back then, as the most influential leaders of their communities, who, in the name of God, can truly be described as using an unrighteous control and dominion over others, in working their fellow citizens up to drive the Mormons out of MIssouri(whom these preachers saw as competitors). Today, a cathoiic priest maintains his priesthood even if a child molester, with other christian denominations condoning the ordination of openly gay priests. And I don't think I have to talk about leaders like Osama Bin Laden, who, in the name of God, sanction the destruction of property, murder of civilians, and a most destructive idealogie, or in other words exemplifying the complete opposite of charity, and all in the name of God ( or Allah ).

Joseph Smith had a real bee in his bonnet when it came to anything sectarian finding it's way into the restored church. And he wasn't entirely successful. I still find many beliefs and behaviours church members think is "gospel" that really stem from the influence of the catholic and protestant worlds.

These vs in section 121 deal with much more serious behaviour on the part of a Priesthood holder than a manifestation of poor personality traits or the venting of frustration by bullying, or not giving his wife or children enough personal freedom or respect. These are problems, yes, but they are not what these scriptures are talking about.

They do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren."

Yes, having to work with somebody who is bossy, controlling, dominating and vents their frustrations in life through bullying and treating others as non people, IS a really really bad problem, and it is becoming worse and worse everyday. But this is not what section 121 is talking about.

IMO, among the problems holding back the progress of the church is poor social skills among the members, lack of personal self awareness, feelings of inferiority. with just a plain lack of social standards, expectations, and manners of propriety that are strictly upheld. Too many people are sort of "doing their own thing" when it comes to the treatment of others ( which usually arises from a neglected upbringing ) instead of submitting themselves as a whole to something higher. (Rules on forum, for instance, that everyone has to agree to before joining, create order and peace ) And unfortunately, leadership positions on the ward and stake level tend to go to a bossy person with an "I am the only one who knows how to the job right" mentality, and not someone with true leadership ability( because such a person is very rare ).

[underdog]

"Unrighteous dominion" as found in the scriptures is instruction on how a Priesthood holder should avoid using his Priesthood authority in a way that is personally aggrandizing or in a manner that excuses sin , and is not referring to otherwise obnoxious behaviours or poor personality traits of random church members, or the way someone treats others in general.

The verses in section 121 that preface vs 37 are these: "Behold there are many called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson----That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness"

In these verses, Joseph Smith is describing the way "priesthood" is "held" in the various protestant denominations around them, and how this is not acceptable in the Kingdom of God.

Vs 37 goes on to say, "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man."

In these scriptures, JS is not finding fault with church members in general, but is being specific to the Priesthood. For instance, a baptist minister could commit adultery, and still consider himself "called of God" and fully able to baptize, preach to his congregation, etc. And certainly aggrandizing himself was what his "calling" was all about. Most, if not all of the persecution waged against the Latter Day Saints in Missouri was sparked by Protestant preachers, who, back then, as the most influential leaders of their communities, who, in the name of God, can truly be described as using an unrighteous control and dominion over others, in working their fellow citizens up to drive the Mormons out of MIssouri(whom these preachers saw as competitors). Today, a cathoiic priest maintains his priesthood even if a child molester, with other christian denominations condoning the ordination of openly gay priests. And I don't think I have to talk about leaders like Osama Bin Laden, who, in the name of God, sanction the destruction of property, murder of civilians, and a most destructive idealogie, or in other words exemplifying the complete opposite of charity, and all in the name of God ( or Allah ).

Joseph Smith had a real bee in his bonnet when it came to anything sectarian finding it's way into the restored church. And he wasn't entirely successful. I still find many beliefs and behaviours church members think is "gospel" that really stem from the influence of the catholic and protestant worlds.

These vs in section 121 deal with much more serious behaviour on the part of a Priesthood holder than a manifestation of poor personality traits or the venting of frustration by bullying, or not giving his wife or children enough personal freedom or respect. These are problems, yes, but they are not what these scriptures are talking about.

They do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren."

Yes, having to work with somebody who is bossy, controlling, dominating and vents their frustrations in life through bullying and treating others as non people, IS a really really bad problem, and it is becoming worse and worse everyday. But this is not what section 121 is talking about.

IMO, among the problems holding back the progress of the church is poor social skills among the members, lack of personal self awareness, feelings of inferiority. with just a plain lack of social standards, expectations, and manners of propriety that are strictly upheld. Too many people are sort of "doing their own thing" when it comes to the treatment of others ( which usually arises from a neglected upbringing ) instead of submitting themselves as a whole to something higher. (Rules on forum, for instance, that everyone has to agree to before joining, create order and peace ) And unfortunately, leadership positions on the ward and stake level tend to go to a bossy person with an "I am the only one who knows how to the job right" mentality, and not someone with true leadership ability( because such a person is very rare ).

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

[brlenox]

The Lord warns about unrighteous dominion poignantly in D&C 121:

2 aHow long shall thy hand be stayed, and thine eye, yea thy pure eye, behold from the eternal heavens the wrongs of thy people and of thy servants, and thine ear be penetrated with their cries?
3 Yea, O Lord, ahow long shall they suffer these wrongs and unlawful boppressions, before thine heart shall be softened toward them, and thy bowels be moved with ccompassion toward them?

34 Behold, there are many acalled, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their ahearts are set so much upon the things of this bworld, and caspire to the dhonors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the arights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be bcontrolled nor handled only upon the cprinciples of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to acover our bsins, or to gratify our cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens ewithdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to akick against the pricks, to bpersecute the saints, and to cfight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but afew are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the bpriesthood, only by cpersuasion, by dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By akindness, and pure bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the csoul without dhypocrisy, and without guile—

Here are some thoughts about identifying and coping with unrighteous dominion:

1. Identifying UD -- bullying, compulsion, forcing, Satan's methods, fear-mongering, back-biting, false accusations, constraints on free speech.

2. "Remember that to be Accused is NOT the same as to be Convicted" of wrong-doing. Bullies assertively accuse of wrong-doing, usually in bold but vague terms. Those who exercise the "true independence of heaven" (Brigham Young) do not accept/believe the accusations without doing some checking and verification first, and then they remember the role of repentance and the Atonement without condemning the accused.

3. Our inclination (I've noticed) when someone in authority (e.g. police, administrators) says one has done Wrong or is in Trouble, our tendency is to believe him, feel bad/worried and to immediately concede -- then later feel bad about caving in, once one has had time to think things through more calmly.

4. Bullies want us to act NOW, immediately, basically while the fear-hormones are still clouding our thinking. Therefore, we should resolve in advance (like now) while we are thinking calmly that we will NOT REACT WITH FEAR, knee-jerk quickly -- but will give ourselves time to settle, think things through, act out of love and faith and sound principles.

5. Sometimes we flee, sometimes we fight -- and the Lord will tell us "whither to flee" and "whether to fight" (see Alma 48, for example). Often this comes by direct personal revelation; we must seek this inspiration daily and BEFORE the provocation of bullies.

I would appreciate others' thought on how to cope with unrighteous dominion. It can be a real trial in life, and is SO common.

I think there is tendency to equate unrighteous dominion with acts of aggression, violence, intimidation and sundry other such behaviors. Certainly these are some of the most disagreeable and the most observable but over the years I have learned that everyone has a little bully in them.

Not always the kind of bully that is demonstrative with bombastic behaviors. However, everyone has found a behavior or behaviors that allows them to manipulate a situation to their own advantage. We may see it in wives or girl friends who cry readily to garner a sympathy response to get what they want. I have a son that is an exceptional salesman who simply pushes ever so gently through the process of identifying what you want and then giving it to you. Mine has always been knowledge. From a young age , I learned that if I knew more than everyone else I could dominate in a majority of situations. I didn't have to demonstrate a single physically intimidating behavior but it was intimidation just the same.

Many of us leave these behaviors with maturity and an improving sense of our own self-worth. However, many lock into them thinking getting their way is the most important thing.

Based on these observations, I have made specific effort to move each of my children through their natural style of bullying by identifying their technique and then over the course of their maturation establishing the environment where they flourish more in the absence of that technique than in its usage.

Unrighteous dominion in the context of the Gospel is really speaking to a limited and select group. Sure wives and children can exercise unrighteous dominion, but the greater concern is those that are granted Priesthood authority.

It is kind of a two fold issue. Can a priesthood holder establish dominion and maintain it using righteous principles? Or, two when he is pushed to the edge will he resort to behaviors of intimidation etc.

In his dominion will he protect those under his care from familial unrighteous dominion also upon proper principles. In my early marriage, my wife was a screamer and a yeller. That is what she grew up under and was the natural response to having her authority challenged. When this behavior was directed towards the children, I saw it as my job to protect them from their mother and I would gently terminate the conflict and resolve. As you can imagine that can be an escalating moment but I never abdicated my role as the protector in the family. I am trying to protect them psychologically more than physically in this situation. Over the years she has completely overcome these tendencies mostly because she has learned that her authority is not dependent on others doing things her way. It is not diminished when she is exercising correct principles of patience, longsuffering etc. It is enhanced by her becoming comfortable that she is the maternal authority.

As my children have entered adulthood both my wife an I have been amazed how remarkable confident and stable our children are. She and they credit me for the stabilizing role I played but my response has always been that I never knew if what I was doing was being done correctly. I did not have an overwhelming sense of direction in these things. However, early on I adopted the behavior I felt was most like how my Father in Heaven treated me and that has made all the difference.

The bottom line in my perception is that these men who hold the priesthood are ever engaged in a sifting process that will determine who can be given absolute power and maintain states of Godliness or who under a managed scenario of familial authority will draw upon the natural tendencies of maleness and dominate to the destruction of the self worth and more of those around him.

[passionflower]

"Unrighteous dominion" as found in the scriptures is instruction on how a Priesthood holder should avoid using his Priesthood authority in a way that is personally aggrandizing or in a manner that excuses sin , and is not referring to otherwise obnoxious behaviours or poor personality traits of random church members, or the way someone treats others in general.

The verses in section 121 that preface vs 37 are these: "Behold there are many called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson----That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness"

In these verses, Joseph Smith is describing the way "priesthood" is "held" in the various protestant denominations around them, and how this is not acceptable in the Kingdom of God.

Vs 37 goes on to say, "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man."

In these scriptures, JS is not finding fault with church members in general, but is being specific to the Priesthood. For instance, a baptist minister could commit adultery, and still consider himself "called of God" and fully able to baptize, preach to his congregation, etc. And certainly aggrandizing himself was what his "calling" was all about. Most, if not all of the persecution waged against the Latter Day Saints in Missouri was sparked by Protestant preachers, who, back then, as the most influential leaders of their communities, who, in the name of God, can truly be described as using an unrighteous control and dominion over others, in working their fellow citizens up to drive the Mormons out of MIssouri(whom these preachers saw as competitors). Today, a cathoiic priest maintains his priesthood even if a child molester, with other christian denominations condoning the ordination of openly gay priests. And I don't think I have to talk about leaders like Osama Bin Laden, who, in the name of God, sanction the destruction of property, murder of civilians, and a most destructive idealogie, or in other words exemplifying the complete opposite of charity, and all in the name of God ( or Allah ).

Joseph Smith had a real bee in his bonnet when it came to anything sectarian finding it's way into the restored church. And he wasn't entirely successful. I still find many beliefs and behaviours church members think is "gospel" that really stem from the influence of the catholic and protestant worlds.

These vs in section 121 deal with much more serious behaviour on the part of a Priesthood holder than a manifestation of poor personality traits or the venting of frustration by bullying, or not giving his wife or children enough personal freedom or respect. These are problems, yes, but they are not what these scriptures are talking about.

They do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren."

Yes, having to work with somebody who is bossy, controlling, dominating and vents their frustrations in life through bullying and treating others as non people, IS a really really bad problem, and it is becoming worse and worse everyday. But this is not what section 121 is talking about.

IMO, among the problems holding back the progress of the church is poor social skills among the members, lack of personal self awareness, feelings of inferiority. with just a plain lack of social standards, expectations, and manners of propriety that are strictly upheld. Too many people are sort of "doing their own thing" when it comes to the treatment of others ( which usually arises from a neglected upbringing ) instead of submitting themselves as a whole to something higher. (Rules on forum, for instance, that everyone has to agree to before joining, create order and peace ) And unfortunately, leadership positions on the ward and stake level tend to go to a bossy person with an "I am the only one who knows how to the job right" mentality, and not someone with true leadership ability( because such a person is very rare ).

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

[underdog]

"Unrighteous dominion" as found in the scriptures is instruction on how a Priesthood holder should avoid using his Priesthood authority in a way that is personally aggrandizing or in a manner that excuses sin , and is not referring to otherwise obnoxious behaviours or poor personality traits of random church members, or the way someone treats others in general.

The verses in section 121 that preface vs 37 are these: "Behold there are many called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson----That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness"

In these verses, Joseph Smith is describing the way "priesthood" is "held" in the various protestant denominations around them, and how this is not acceptable in the Kingdom of God.

Vs 37 goes on to say, "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man."

In these scriptures, JS is not finding fault with church members in general, but is being specific to the Priesthood. For instance, a baptist minister could commit adultery, and still consider himself "called of God" and fully able to baptize, preach to his congregation, etc. And certainly aggrandizing himself was what his "calling" was all about. Most, if not all of the persecution waged against the Latter Day Saints in Missouri was sparked by Protestant preachers, who, back then, as the most influential leaders of their communities, who, in the name of God, can truly be described as using an unrighteous control and dominion over others, in working their fellow citizens up to drive the Mormons out of MIssouri(whom these preachers saw as competitors). Today, a cathoiic priest maintains his priesthood even if a child molester, with other christian denominations condoning the ordination of openly gay priests. And I don't think I have to talk about leaders like Osama Bin Laden, who, in the name of God, sanction the destruction of property, murder of civilians, and a most destructive idealogie, or in other words exemplifying the complete opposite of charity, and all in the name of God ( or Allah ).

Joseph Smith had a real bee in his bonnet when it came to anything sectarian finding it's way into the restored church. And he wasn't entirely successful. I still find many beliefs and behaviours church members think is "gospel" that really stem from the influence of the catholic and protestant worlds.

These vs in section 121 deal with much more serious behaviour on the part of a Priesthood holder than a manifestation of poor personality traits or the venting of frustration by bullying, or not giving his wife or children enough personal freedom or respect. These are problems, yes, but they are not what these scriptures are talking about.

They do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren."

Yes, having to work with somebody who is bossy, controlling, dominating and vents their frustrations in life through bullying and treating others as non people, IS a really really bad problem, and it is becoming worse and worse everyday. But this is not what section 121 is talking about.

IMO, among the problems holding back the progress of the church is poor social skills among the members, lack of personal self awareness, feelings of inferiority. with just a plain lack of social standards, expectations, and manners of propriety that are strictly upheld. Too many people are sort of "doing their own thing" when it comes to the treatment of others ( which usually arises from a neglected upbringing ) instead of submitting themselves as a whole to something higher. (Rules on forum, for instance, that everyone has to agree to before joining, create order and peace ) And unfortunately, leadership positions on the ward and stake level tend to go to a bossy person with an "I am the only one who knows how to the job right" mentality, and not someone with true leadership ability( because such a person is very rare ).

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

Thank you for clarifying, Passionflower.

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness. Please be aware that cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or the arm of flesh, as Nephi said. And obviously cursed is he / she who violates the very 1st of the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Only Christ saves. Christ is the Light, not man. We should seek to align ourselves with HIM, and not with any man. Not even a true prophet would ever encourage others to align themselves with him. We must worship Christ and Christ alone. There's only one name under heaven whereby man is saved, and that's Christ. We must look unto Him in every thought, and doubt not and fear not. We must keep our eye single to His glory, recognizing that He is the keeper of the gate, employing no servant there.

I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any priesthood holder, ESP those who ask for you to be aligned with him "by virtue of the priesthood" (DC 121:41). Because no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. If I err in doctrine, please, I humbly ask to be corrected.