What If Abinadi Lived Today

Perhaps the most repeated defense for the Prophets and leaders of the LDS Church, and why members or non-members (mostly ex-members) cannot or should not criticize the Prophet or other Church leaders, is that these men have the Authority to speak for God. To so many active and devoted members of the Church their authority seems like an impenetrable defense, unfortunately for them however, it is actually a very weak scriptural defense, one that is contradicted regularly in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. There are multiple accounts in both scriptural records proving that a Prophet's Authority is not enough to protect a Prophet from being rebuked over his own wrongdoing. Anyone who desires to protect the Prophets and Apostles will need to prove the defense of their leaders by other means after these examples are published and explained.

Abinadi's story is well known to Mormons, as is the painting of his trial before the Wicked King Noah, but perhaps the details of his situation are not so clearly understood.

Abinadi's story actually begins with King Zeniff, long before King Noah or Alma were ever born (Mosiah 9). Zeniff left his home with the Nephites in Zarahemla as leader of an expedition to reclaim their long lost ancestral city of Nephi from the rival nation, the Lamanites. Zeniff managed to keep his people free from Lamanite slavery for many years and appointed Priests to help govern the Church among their people. When Zeniff died his son and heir Noah became King of the people in the city of Nephi, but Noah deposed the Priests anointed by his father and replaced them with more self-centered Priests who corrupted their Church offices and aided the King (who ultimately was also the leader of the Church and the Priests) in becoming more wealthy and wicked. After this Abinadi suddenly appears in the story to preach repentance to the people and ultimately to the King and Priests. During his preaching he is apprehended and brought to trial before King Noah and the Priests, where he gave a profound sermon that changed the future of Nephite civilization forever and was ultimately executed for his willingness to call others to repentance. 

What is often forgotten in this story is that we know almost nothing about Abinadi beyond his brief teachings, we do not who he was or where he came from before he began preaching against the King and Priests. In fact we do not know if Abinadi even had the Priesthood at all, we only know for sure that God spoke to him and supported him (Mosiah 11). Was Abinadi one of the Priests anointed by King Zeniff? Perhaps. Was Abinadi a wandering stranger chosen by God the way the LDS Church says Joseph Smith was? Perhaps. We simply do not have enough information to know for sure. But there is something that we do know, that King Noah and his Priests did in fact have the Priesthood and its authority. We know this because the Book of Mormon plainly shows us. Alma, one of King Noah's Priests repents of his wickedness and is exiled from the Kingdom for believing Abinadi's words and Abinadi is killed shortly thereafter. Alma is never described as having met with Abinadi in private, only publicly at the trial so there was no opportunity for Abinadi to give any sort of Priesthood to Alma (Mosiah 17) yet Alma continued on and re-organized the Church outside the city in the area called The Waters of Mormon (Mosiah 18). Alma continued on as High Priest over the Church in the city of Helam and in Zarahemla for the rest of his life with King Mosiah approving of Alma's existing Priesthood Authority (Mosiah 25). So if Alma could not have gotten his Priesthood from Abinadi then he must have already had that authority, given to him when he was anointed a Priest by King Noah, that would mean that King Noah and the other Priests also had Priesthood Authority and that Abinadi was preaching repentance to the legal authorities of the Church. The rejection of Abinadi was not a rejection of an authorized Priesthood leader but was instead a rejection of a potentially unknown preacher speaking against the existing authorities of the Church. If Abinadi came to preach today who would he be preaching to and who would reject him?

If Abinadi's example isn't enough proof then consider the story of Micaiah, a Prophet in the Old Testament (1 Kings 22). Micaiah lived during the lifetime of Elijah, a famous Prophet in the Bible, and of the infamous King Ahab. King Ahab and King Jehoshaphat were planning a war against a mutual enemy and decided to inquire of the LORD regarding their plans. A number of persons clearly described in the Bible as Prophets of the LORD were assembled praising the Kings and their invasion until Micaiah is brought in and prophesies nothing but doom upon King Ahab, something that the other Prophets were unable to do. One of these other Prophets approached Micaiah, hitting him, demanding to know when the LORD left him to speak to Micaiah. These were clearly men who were accustomed to their authority as Prophets and who did not take kindly to an outsider preaching against them. In fact they may have indeed once been legitimate Prophets of God but had over time become corrupted, causing God to stop speaking to them and allowing Satan to speak to them in God's place. We know only that these men were described as Prophets of God and not Prophets of some idol, and yet they were incapable despite their authority to accurately proclaim the Will of God.

Let's now turn to the New Testament with the story of John the Baptist. John was the only son of a Levite Priest, Zachariah, who undoubtedly had the Priesthood thanks to the birthright and responsibility of that tribe in Israel. However, John grew up in the wilderness outside of civilization (Luke 1 Matthew 3) rumored to be thanks to the murder of his father by King Herod the Great, so it may not have been possible for John to receive the Priesthood of the Levites as he would have normally, in fact the Bible makes no mention of John's Priesthood Authority or where it came from, though the Doctrine and Covenants suggests that he received the Priesthood from an Angel as a baby (D&C 84). The real point of this situation is that as far as the Jews knew, their Temple and Church was administered by Priests who had the Authority of God granted to them since the days of Moses. The Sanhedrin and the other Priests in Jerusalem had what seems to be an unbroken line of Priesthood Authority passed down since Aaron despite all the conquests and destruction in Israel's history they had managed to keep their Priesthood Authority intact, even though they had failed to keep the integrity of God in their Priesthood their Priesthood line of Authority was still valid. The Jewish leaders would not tolerate John the Baptist because he challenged the power of their authority, an authority that was in fact legitimate despite being abused. Who would John the Baptist be preaching to today if he lived? Would he focus his efforts on the non-members or the political leaders of the world or would his words be directed at Church leaders? As far as the Jews knew, John had no real authority to preach against the Priests or the Sanhedrin (the leadership body of the Church) but he preached anyway, proclaiming the Will of God in spite of the fact that the very people he opposed held the proper Keys to lead the Church.

The exact same argument applies to Jesus Christ himself. As a carpenter and a member of the Tribe of Judah, Jesus had not received any kind of Priesthood authority from those Priests who did in fact the Authority over the Church. He was considered a commoner with no Authority to challenge the Priests of the Church, and yet that is exactly what He did. Beyond that Jesus claimed to be the source of their Authority and that His Authority innately superseded that of the Priests. Imagine how the Church membership or leadership would react if some stranger came into the Church and started preaching against the Prophets, Apostles and Seventies while claiming that He or She was superior in Authority to the established leadership of the Church! The LDS Church would reject that person outright and probably not in a very kind way either. Yet we believe that Jesus was in fact being truthful about His Authority, just as we believed the stories of Abinadi, John the Baptist and Micaiah. They each did not have the conventional Church Authority but instead had the support of God in opposition to the established pattern that God himself set up in the first place. 

How exactly does this relate to today's world and to the LDS Church? In today's Church society there is a profoundly large amount of controversy and dissension within the Church's own membership. 

• Many submitted their resignations once the November 2015 Policy was announced that prohibited the children of gay parents from being baptized, among other things. 
• Many others have been protesting the Church's anti-LGBT positions since before Proposition 8 in 2009. 
• Also there is a series of lawsuits against the Church and President Monson from the Navajo Tribe protesting the alleged sexual abuse (along with potential mishandling and dismissal of the problem by Church leaders) of minors brought to LDS homes by the Church's Lamanite Placement Program a number of years ago. 
• Controversy and debate has also plagued the Church in regards to BYU's discriminatory practices against LGBT students and rape victims (the fact that Mormons are committing rape at all is extremely disturbing, even more so when you realize that only the "worthy" students are allowed to attend BYU in the first place). 
• More hostility and criticism has been directed against the LDS Church's leaders for promoting language and positions so hostile to LGBT persons that a large number of LDS Youth who are sexually different than what is expected by the Church have committed suicide. 
• Recently there was a situation with a number of Bishops and at least one Stake President who created and temporarily distributed an Obedience Contract for returning Missionaries. Among other things, this Contract (which was to be signed by the Missionary, Parents, the Bishop and the Stake President) required the Missionaries to "associate with and date only people who share a similar commitment to live the principles of the gospel". The value (or lack thereof) of the Contract method itself is a hot topic of debate right now thanks to the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage of the situation, but also the idea that righteous members be required to disassociate with any one who lives differently is also a frightening idea that is getting a lot of heated attention.
• The publicity that the excommunications of John Dehlin (Mormon Stories), Jeremy Runnells (CES Letter) and Kate Kelly (Ordain Women) brought seems to have been largely negative and also appears to have stimulated a viewpoint that the LDS Church excommunicates or exiles anyone who disagrees with them on any topic. Stories circulating social media that relate experiences of Church discipline for publicly writing on unpopular LDS situations in any way (like Tyler Glenn's song "Trash" for example) do a great deal to promote the fear that the Church is pursuing anyone and everyone who feels differently than the leaders of the Church.

The list of troubles and controversies can easily go on for a very long time. These and other controversies lead many people to feel (to varying degrees) that the Prophet and the Apostles are not guided by God and need to be challenged or confronted for their wrongdoings, or simply called out as false Prophets. If Abinadi were alive today and saw these challenges who would he confront and find responsible for these controversies? Would Abinadi attack the Navajo Tribe and try to pressure them to leave the Church alone? Or would he try ensure that there was no corruption inside the Church that lead to the pain these families endured through the Church? What about John the Baptist? Who would he condemn and chastise in this situations? Would Jesus himself, who ate and lived with sinners, who condemned the Priests and praised the Samaritan, have allowed the Church to demand that the "Righteous" only associate with other "Righteous" people?

Priesthood Authority does grant a person the opportunity to do certain types of work in the Church, that is a scriptural truth and common to almost every religion on Earth. But what it does not do is guarantee someone immunity from prosecution or evaluation on how they use that Authority. Also one's Authority in the Priesthood is not guaranteed forever as explained in Doctrine and Covenants 121: 36-27:

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.

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 the authority of that man.

As the saying goes "To whom much is given, much is required". The leadership of the LDS Church have a lot of power, even if you only count social and economic influence instead of any divine rights or power, as such it is expected of them to behave properly and live up to the challenge. 

I should explain that there is a difference between chastising wrongdoing and "evil-speaking" which is preached against in all the scriptures and in the LDS Temple. Evil-speaking is often paired with what is called a "railing accusation" when discussed in the scriptures, but these are terms not used in every day language now so it is worth explaining. Proof that there is a difference can be found in Jude 1: 9:

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Michael the Archangel was willing and able to rebuke the Devil but even against the Devil himself Michael was unwilling to "bring against him a railing accusation" proving that there is indeed a difference between the two. But what is that difference exactly? 

The Apostle Paul provides us with an example of each, an acceptable rebuke and an unacceptable accusation or evil-speaking:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Galatians 2:11

When reading Galatians Chapter 2 you'll see that Paul lectured Peter on his bad behavior in a constructive and principled way. He maintained his points on matters of doctrine and behavior, essentially taking the stance of "you know better than to do this so stop". There is no indication that this rebuke was sinful in any way. In fact when Paul relates this story to the Galatians he is explaining the situation and trying to prove to the people that he was right to rebuke Peter, who was the Prophet at the time and who held all the Keys and Authority of the Priesthood to lead the Church in Christ's stead.

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?

 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

Acts 23:3-5

While Paul's complaint against the High Priest appears to be legitimate (violating the law) the manner in which Paul rebuked that wicked High Priest was described as "reviling" or in other words "evil-speaking", if you read the wording in Galatians and the wording here in Acts you'll notice one critical difference: in Acts Paul used a slur against the High Priest, calling him a "whited wall" which is a sort of angry slur which multiple biblical commentators have described as generally meaning "hypocrite", though likely in a very "not nice" way.

Jesus Christ made the teaching clear that we are not to use slurs or such personal attacks against each other, Matthew 5:22. So if we know that God doesn't want us to use slurs against each other then why would He be willing to tolerate slurs against the men and women who supposedly work for God? It doesn't matter if the individuals you want to slur are wicked or are misusing their authority like the High Priest who wronged Paul, it is wrong for us to use slurs and personal attacks against them, just like it is wrong to use those slurs and attacks against anyone else. 

I've watched a large number of bitterly angry Ex-Mormons use absolutely disgusting words to reference President Monson, President and Sister Nelson, Elders Holland and Oaks and many other Church leaders at different levels of authority (and against regular members as well). While I understand that these LDS leaders have done or allowed many wrongs to be done to many people such slurs like the C-word, the B-words etc. have no place in any real rebuke. Using slurs or purposely offensive language constitutes evil-speaking and railing accusations, which the Bible condemns wholeheartedly. Strongly declaring wrongdoing and what needs to be done to fix that wrong (also known as "how to repent") is not wrong and is repeatedly used by men and women in the scriptures whether they have the authority of the Church or not.

If any member of the Church wishes to defend the Prophet or Apostles or any other leader in the LDS Church that defense must not be a simple declaration of authority! Jesus said: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16), which proves that any defense of the leaders of the Church (regardless of their authority) must show that their words or actions were right instead of wrong. 

Would Abinadi or John the Baptist hesitate to rebuke and correct the authorized leaders of the Church if it meant fixing problems inside the Church? Absolutely not. No one should be prevented from speaking out against wrongdoing and no one should be immune from repentance.