Hubris

Hubris is the type of pride that gods have to punish. But the real question is how do gods themselves avoid having pride or hubris?

Lucifer was an angel in high authority before God before his fall. 

"... an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved ... was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son....
And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!" (D&C 76:25-27)

He may have been equal with Jesus Christ, since they are both referred to as a morning star.

“How you have fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn!" (Isaiah 14:12, Gileadi translation)
"I Jesus ... am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:16)

Lucifer fell because he became prideful. That he was in fact better than others, and knew better what they should do than they did. All of which was undoubtedly true, because he had indeed attained a high level of trust from God. But as soon as one takes that true but prideful attitude and actually applies it to control others, one is led into the errors for which Lucifer became Satan.

"because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power;" (Moses 4:3) 

"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degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
... 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." (D&C 121:37,39)

Thus we see how pride goes before a fall (Prov 16:18). But how does God and other angels avoid that trap? First, let us recognize that our agency is a gift from God (as stated above) which he will not take away except at the final judgment.

"And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given." (2 Nephi 2:26)

But notice that it is the law which punishes and not God. God has given that law, and it is just because it is the law by which he himself lives. He lives according to the golden rule, the second great commandment, and does unto others as he would have them do unto him. While wickedness invariably comes from treating others in ways you would not want them to treat you. And even at the great and last day of judgment, it is not necessary for him to act in order to punish people, for they will recognize his example and authority and accept his judgments upon them.

"Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them;" (Mosiah 27:31) 

Only a few will deny and defy God to his face and suffer God's wrath. But they will have shown by their own actions that they would and have tried to destroy the agency of others, so God is just in doing to them as they would do to others. 

"Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—
For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;
Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father," (D&C 76:31,33,35)

Thus the path to avoid hubris is in recognizing the agency of others. Allowing them to taste the bitter that they may learn to choose the good. (Moses 6:55) How far is God willing to allow people to choose evil before stopping them? Satan is the prime example of how far God is willing to let them exercise their agency wrongly. 

But God is just and wise and able to make everything right in the end (Rev 21:4). He exercises his power by speaking or commanding, and because we recognize his absolute goodness, we also recognize his absolute authority, and he need only watch until we obey. (Abraham 4:18) 

And we can follow God's example in our own lives. Instead of trying to control others, all we have to do is speak the truth, and watch what happens. We may suffer for doing so, but that is also according to God's example.

Hereditary Monarchy vs Kingdom of Heaven

We commonly accept that the kingdom of heaven is organized along familial hierarchies. In some sense, God is legitimately our God because he is our Heavenly Father. The priesthood authority is often passed from father to son. 

Likewise on earth, we have a tendency to organize ourselves into tribes which are often defined by descendancy from a patriarchal figure. The nation of Israel is all the descendants of Jacob/Israel. The tribe of Judah is all the descendants of Judah. The Edomites are all the descendants of Esau/Edom. The Nephites are all the descendants of Nephi. etc. But this tribal association is solely an earthly phenomenon, because the patriarch dies. In heaven, the patriarch is alive and can rule his tribe, but on earth he dies, and someone else needs to take the seat of authority, at least if we are not to devolve into very small familial units whenever a grandfather dies. 

There is a heavenly order when the patriarch rules over his direct descendants, but what legitimacy is there for an uncle to rule over his brother's descendants, or for one who is distantly (if at all) related to the members of a tribe to rule, and moreover, to pass the authority to rule over those he is not related to down to his sons and heirs? We see many instances of the ruler taking on the name of the patriarch, in order to put on the air of the heavenly order or things, as when the kings of the Nephites are all called Nephi (Jacob 1:11), the rulers of Egypt are all called Pharaoh after the father of that nation (Abr 1:25-26), and even in Rome all the emperors were called Caesar after the founder of the empire. In the middle ages hereditary succession and primogeniture were called the divine right of kings. 

But all this putting on airs of the heavenly order is merely a counterfeit of the heavenly order, and because it is a counterfeit, it is easily perverted into an evil practice. These issues are carefully considered in Mosiah chapter 29, and he concludes, "because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you." (Mosiah 29:16) A famous historical example of the failure of hereditary rule is the five good emperors of Rome, when Rome had five good emperors in a row, which is so difficult to accomplish because hereditary succession tends to hand authority from one who has worked hard to earn it down to one who has been raised in privilege and who often abuses his unearned authority. The first four of the five good emperors (Neva, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius), kept the form of hereditary succession while actually placing a good and worthy successor on the throne, by formally adopting the chosen successor, so that he could be the son legally even if he was not truly a hereditary son. When the fifth and most famous emperor, Marcus Aurelius, broke with this legalistic fiction of hereditary succession, and let his real son, Commodus, take the throne, the result was unspeakably bad.

If we consider that hereditary succession might not be a legitimate ordering of earthly authority, can we find any scriptural support for doubting it? Certainly for the most common form of hereditary succession, primogeniture or passing authority to the firstborn son, there are many counter-examples in the scriptures, such as Jacob, Joseph, Nephi, Saul, David, Solomon, etc. So even if primogeniture is a pattern in heaven, since Jesus Christ is the firstborn of the Father, it is not therefore to be blindly copied in earthly succession. 

What about hereditary succession in general? Is it just for only one descendant of the patriarch to have rule over the entire tribe after the patriarch's death? To answer this question, I will go to the most fundamental doctrine of Christ and Christianity, and observe the pattern we find there. In John 3, Christ himself teaches, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." As we said at the beginning, God rules us because he is our Father. What happens when we are born again? We become the children of Christ. 

"And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters." (Mosiah 5:7)

Christ is King of kings, and Lord of Lords, but kings exert their authority through power, violence, and force, usually over their enemies. In like manner Christ will need to exert authority over those who decide to be his enemies. "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Cor 15:25-26) Christ will subdue all things, but we seek not to be his enemy, nor even his servant, but to be born again as his sons and daughters. And when he has subdued all things, then he can cease to reign, because the heavenly order is restored. "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." But then Christ is both the father and the son (Mosiah 15:2-4), being the son of heavenly father, and also the spiritual father of all those in the kingdom of heaven.

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." (1 Cor 15:24)

The whole purpose of Christ being king is for him to put down all earthly authority. In this respect no earthly system can be considered to have the mandate of heaven. God may choose kings such as Cyrus or David to bring about his will on earth, but he is clear that we should have no king other than him.  Moses and Mosiah instituted a minimalist government, with no executive, traditional laws which required no legislature, and only judges to resolve disputes. When the Israelites wanted a king instead of judges for their government, this is what God said about it. "And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." (1 Sam 8:7) 

When the need for all rule and authority and power is over, what remains? The only ruling power left is the love and respect between parent and child. And when Christ no longer needs to reign as king, what does he do? That is, a kings reigns, but what verb do we use to describe what fathers do? We do not choose our parents or our children on earth, so your father is your father simply because he is your father. Perhaps this is why the Father states, "I am" (your father).

Refuting the Gospel of Inclusion

 In church meetings, many of the comments were using the words of the enemy. Words like "diversity", "equity", and "inclusion". These are words invented by the enemy and used to subvert well-meaning Christians into believing in their works. They work so well at that task because of the conservative mind-set, which is all about conserving the status quo, or in other words, whatever the progressives were able to convince us to do last year. They convince us by subverting our language, and using words which sound good to advocate for perverse and sinful things. And they are effective at this because few conservatives understand their own morality well enough to be able to form a rational line of thought which can refute the perverseness of the language.

"No unclean thing can enter his kingdom." (3 Nephi 27:19, Alma 11:37, 1 Nephi 15:33, Alma 40:26, 1 Nephi 10:21, Alma 7:21, Moses 6:57, Rev 21:27) This is an extremely exclusionary statement, which is repeated many time in the scriptures. How do we reconcile this with the popular notion of "Let us all come unto Christ"? (e.g. Benson, April 1988) I call this a popular notion, because it is never stated unqualified in the scriptures. Instead, he says, "Come unto me, all that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Or "repent and come unto me" (2 Nephi 28:32). It is certainly true that the invitation to come unto Christ is extended to all (Alma 5:33), but the "all" is always qualified as those who are willing to repent and change themselves, for if they come and are not willing to repent, they will not be received. "Repent, and I will receive you." (ibid) 

One of the most inclusive sounding scriptures is 2 Nephi 26:24-28.

24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.
25 Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price.
26 Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.
27 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.
28 Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.

This sounds very inclusive. But again the "come unto me" is qualified with the symbolic buying of milk and honey without money. Does he say unto any, "Depart from me?" Actually, he does.

Matt 7:23 "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity"
Matt 25:41 "Depart from me, ye cursed"

He does not command any that they should depart from the synagogues, but he does blot the names of those who will not repent out of the church and out of the book of life. "Whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people." (Alma 26:32 but the whole chapter is important to understand both the inclusionary and exclusionary nature of the doctrine of Christ.)

The first principles of the gospel are faith and repentance. Repentance means changing who you are and putting off your sinful nature. We all have sinful natures we need to put off. And repentance comes before the principle of baptism, which is the ordinance whereby we make you a member of the church. Those who do not repent are not to be received into the church, and those members of the church who sin and repent not are to be excommunicated.

To state the matter shortly, the doctrine of Christ is not about who you are now. It is about who you are willing to become. If you are coming in order to be a gay follower of Christ, or a trans follower of Christ, or a golfer follower of Christ, you are cleaving to your sinful ways, and you will be rejected by Christ and should be rejected by the church. Those who come unto Christ must lay everything they are on the altar, and simply be a follower of Christ, becoming whatever he tells them to be. You can come as you are, but don't expect to stay that way. (e.g. Holland, April 2017)

What is a "little horn"

In Daniel 8, a beast (kingdom) is described as a he-goat with a single notable horn (king) which defeats a previous great kingdom, and when grown strong, is broken (dies) and is replaced by four notable horns toward the four winds. If you know your history at all, this is a clear allegory for the kingdom of Alexander the Great. He came from the west (Greece) and conquered the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. Then at the height of his power, he suddenly took sick and died, leaving his kingdom to "the strongest". His generals fought over the succession and eventually stabilized into four kingdoms: Ptolemy ruled Egypt in the south, Seleucus ruled Persia and everything east, Antigonus ruled Greece in the west, and Cassander ruled in the north over Thracia and parts of Asia minor.

While the allegory is clearly depicting ancient events (to us; they were still in Daniel's future), the angel tells Daniel "at the time of the end shall be the vision." This is a pattern in Hebrew revelation, in which events in old times are also types for events in end times. Thus the vision refers to multiple events at different times, and by studying the past events we know about, we can learn more about the characteristics of future events.

The next thing in Daniel's vision is a little horn which comes out of (is a descendant of) one of the four, and takes away the daily sacrifice. We might think of notable descendents such as Demetrius or Pyrrhus, but these people did not attack Jerusalem. And the horn is "little" instead of "notable" like the four horns. The person who fits the description of the little horn is Antiochus, king of the Seleucid empire, and his wars with the Jews are described in the books of the Maccabees. He is a wicked and prideful man, and caused the temple to be desecrated, forced Jews to eat pork, and many other things which I will not recount. He did not win great battles, even though he called himself a god. Basically, he was a weak man who came to power by inheritance, who boasted much, and accomplished little other than wicked deeds. This is the character of a "little horn".

I conclude by quoting Jordan Peterson, "And if you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of."