Response:
THE MAKING OF IMMANUEL
Brian David Mitchell and the Mormon Fringe
Recommendation of Sunstone article and reply to incorrect
statements in the article about myself (Sterling D. Allan).
Nov. 1, 2003
=================
Recommended
Article
I commend an article by John-Charles Duffy that appears in the Oct. 2003 issue of Sunstone
Magazine (pp. 34-45). It is available online at:
The opening premise, which he convincingly supports, states: "The worldview laid out in
the writings of Elizabeth Smart's alleged abductor is entirely derivative. Every one of his
views that is likely to strike mainstream Latter-day Saints as bizarre has a precedent in beliefs
that thrive on the margins of the LDS community itself."
His closing statement: "The man in white robes who preached to the homeless just blocks from
Temple Square is a product partly, it may well be, of mental illness, but also of an ongoing
tug-of-war between what Mormonism once was and what it is trying to become."
Mormonism seeks to marginalize the fringe that is intent on pursuing the origins of its
foundation. My personal take, though, is that the path to progression is not in restoring
the past, but in learning from it and moving yet closer to an ideal -- for sprinkled
midst the glory of the past is also found heavy mistakes, which if we fail to learn we will
repeat.
Setting the
Record Straight
That said, I would like to set the record straight on a few particulars that Duffy cited in
relation to myself.
Statement (bottom LH column of Page 39): "Church intervention led to the
collapse of his study group."
Correction: The church did not "intervene," per se. True, they
were threatening some participants in the study group to take away their temple recommends or even
membership, but the Church nor any of its leaders never issued an edict to discontinue the group
itself. That came through a consensus of the group leadership.
Statement (top RH column of Page 39):"to a remote location in
California."
Correction: It was in Oregon. And I would like to mention that the reason
for the trek was with the intent of helping to escort a group of people to safety should a nuclear
holocaust occur.
Statement (top RH column of Page 39): "upon his return home to
Manti..."
Minor Correction: I was living in Fountain Green at the time, 35 minutes north of
Manti. Same correction applies to top LH column of page 41 sidebar. I didn't reside in
Manti until I was married in 1999.
Statement (top RH column of Page 39): "Allan was excommunicated for his
allegiance to teachings of Avraham Gileadi."
Correction: Affinity to Gileadi's work was a factor, but not a heavy
factor. The stated reason for excommunication was "for extreme beliefs regarding a
Davidic Servant."
Statement (RH column of Page 39): "Allan believed himself to be 'the one
mighty and strong."
Correction: should read "one and only . . ." I now believe there
are many (e.g. 144,000), of which I am one. Some I consider to be more spiritually advanced
or finely honed than myself.
Statement (RH column of Page 39): "recently discovered Bible code...predicts
that he will win."
Correction: should read "could win." I never stated that I
"would" win, only that my candidacy was being presented to the American people as an
opportunity for them to awaken to the plight we are in as a country, seek a mighty change of
heart, thereby averting the destructions that otherwise await us as a people.
Additional
Ponderings
I very seriously doubt at this point that I will win the run for the presidency in 2004. But
I am still intent on running to present the message of repentance and the fact that we do not have
to go through massive calamity to learn the lessons we need to learn to be able to build
Zion. So far, support for the campaign has been close to nil. I have put myself on the
line, and have little left to give after such a cold reception. The fire of enthusiasm is
nearly extinguished. For the first time since my greaterthings.com site commenced in Feb.
1998, I've posted a statement at the header of the pages of my site stating that without donations
the site will be in jeopardy of being taken down for lack of adequate funds. This recent
snubbing not only hurts emotionally, but pushes me past my financial ability to endure.
Rather than being received as a hero, I have been shunned as being at the height of human
foolishness.
The portrayal of myself in this article in Sunstone Magazine reinforces that image of
flagrant, futile, quixotic eccentricity on the extreme fringe of mainstream normalcy.
Yet I know within my heart, that despite my unpolished surface, my intentions are for the
betterment of mankind and the service of my God, in clear conscience -- for reestablishing the
foundations of freedom and goodness.
I'm not violating anyone's agency, nor am I contemplating anything of the sort. And that is
a primary factor that differentiates me from Brian Mitchell. That that is where he and the
Laffertys crossed the line, and why their incarceration is justified, not just by the laws of man
but of God as well.
Duffy states in the final paragraph of the sidebar on page 41 that "no one on David's
Outcasts has noted the strong parallels between Jesus Elijah Moses (cited as example of another
willful destitute preacher to the homeless) and Immanuel David Isaiah."
That statement implies that there has not been any introspection among the David's Outcasts
email list regarding the Mitchell phenomenon, which is not the case. There has been quite
a bit of introspection.
One of the upshots of this introspection for me personally has been the close look at John D.
Lee, who was the scapegoat for Mountain Meadows Massacre. How could someone come to do
what he did? The answer to that question begs for us to examine some of our core premises
of religious belief.
The result of my examination tells me that a primary culprit doctrine that spawns such behaviors
as Mitchell and Lafferty is the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac
(Ishmael, according to the Arabs).
According to the main religions of the day (Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism in particular), the
take home lesson of that story is that there are times when we must put our own best judgment
aside and just follow lockstep what God tells us to do.
Few people have the guts to take this test to its ultimate fruition. But Mitchell and
Lafferty did. My attempt to get to the podium in LDS General Conference in October 1992
was that kind of a scenario as well.
What we must be willing to learn from this is that ultimately, the most important gift we have
is our right and obligation to choose for ourselves our own destiny.
God is there to guide us and direct us, but ultimately we must take responsibility for ourselves
and choose for ourselves what is right and what is wrong.
It is at that threshold where we either show ourselves to be peers with God -- apprentices, so
to speak -- or a menace to society such as Mitchell or Lafferty (or myself, when I attempted to
reach the podium) or John D. Lee.
And what makes John D. Lee an interesting case study is that he was not acting alone, and he was
not an aberration in the LDS norm of the day. He was the epitome Mormon, among the most
faithful at the time. What he did is what any stalwart who would answer to "the
brethren, who speak for God," surpassing his own conscience even.
That is what created the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and that is why the LDS Church is still so
embarrassed by it and seeks to distance themselves as far as they can from it. They did
it.
I believe I was John D. Lee in a previous life.
I've learned my lesson the hard way, back then, and again in this life.
How many people can say that?
So am I the one who is at the extreme fringe of religion, making myself of no use to man by my
tremendous folly, or am I pushing the envelope of what future generations will see as truth so
obvious?
I leave you to ponder the answer to that question.
Until you are at the point where you are okay with the idea of questioning a story so
unanimously held by today's society as a model of righteousness -- the story of Abraham nearly
sacrificing his own son -- you will consider me to be a useless crackpot. But I
submit to you that those who mingle as peers and apprentices of godhood, must past this test.
Meanwhile, I submit to you that the story of Abraham is at the root of behavior such as Brian
Mitchell and the Laffertys and the John D. Lees of the world. They are not necessarily out
of their mind, but rather intentionally disregarding their mind. They are obedient to the
ultimate degree -- even to the denying of their own conscience.
That must change if we are to see an end to these kinds of horrors. And mainstream
religion must take responsibility for that change, for they are the ones who set up Abraham's
near sacrifice of his son as the quintessential act of righteous obedience by man.
Ultimately, it is our conscience that should be the final voice of reason. That is the god
that is us that is within each of us, which is part of the universal oneness, of which God is
the embodiment.
Sincerely,
Sterling D. Allan
p.s.
http://cass.molp.org/polls.htm (I believe
there are enough of you remnant out there who should resonate with what I just wrote -- enough
to win this poll for November. How will you vote?)
