«The Lord’s Anointed» Does Not Mean What They Make It Mean

This is the third of four parts. It has been said how the half-truth is constructed, and who profits from it. What remains is the piece that makes it unassailable — and it is the most effective of all, because it is the hardest to contest without seeming irreverent: declaring that a man is the Lord's anointed.

That said, everything else falls into place on its own. Flaws become trials. Errors become maneuvers we do not understand. Accusations become persecution. And any believer who hesitates comes to have a problem, not with a politician, but with God.

Here is why this argument works: almost everyone has heard the phrase and almost no one has gone to see where it comes from. I did. And what is there is the opposite of what it is made to say.

«The Lord's Anointed» — what the phrase really means

We come to the center. Of all the pieces that make up the apparatus I describe in this article, this one is the most effective, and it is so because it is the hardest to contest without seeming irreverent: declaring that a man is the Lord's anointed.

That said, everything else falls into place on its own. Flaws become trials. Errors become maneuvers we do not understand. Accusations become persecution. And any believer who hesitates comes to have a problem, not with a politician, but with God.

Here is why this argument works: almost everyone has heard the phrase and almost no one has gone to see where it comes from. I did. And what is there is the opposite of what it is made to say.

First: the phrase is a restraint, not a passport

The phrase «the Lord's anointed» appears in the mouth of David, and it appears at a very specific moment: David has Saul at his mercy in a cave, has every reason in the world to kill him, and does not kill him.

And he said unto his men, The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.

1 Samuel 24:6

Note the direction of the sentence. David is not saying «Saul can do whatever he wants because he is the anointed.» He is saying «I cannot do this, because he is the anointed». The phrase is a restriction imposed on the one who speaks, not a license granted to the one spoken of.

It is the difference between a traffic sign and a driver's license. «The Lord's anointed» is a STOP sign placed before me. It is not a license given to him.

And there is a historical detail that completely dismantles the modern use of the phrase: Saul, at the moment David says this, is a king whom God had already rejected. David knew it. The restraint still applied — because the restraint never depended on the king being good.

Second: anointing protects no one from obedience

Saul was anointed by a prophet. He was the first king of Israel. And he heard this:

And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

1 Samuel 15:22-23

There is no exception clause here. No «but he is the anointed, therefore». The anointing is real, the prophet is real — and the rejection is also real. «Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.»

If anointing protected anyone from the consequences of their acts, it would protect Saul. It did not. The idea that divine anointing immunizes a man against judgment is, therefore, contradicted by the first real anointing in the Bible. It is difficult to imagine a more frontal counter-example.

Third: the anointed is rebuked to his face

And David, the anointed par excellence, the man after God's own heart? He did a terrible thing, and a prophet came to him:

¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

2 Samuel 12:7

Four words. Thou art the man. No preamble, no mitigating circumstances, no «with all due respect for your anointing». And David did not have Nathan arrested, nor accuse him of being at the service of Israel's enemies, nor say that this was persecution against God's elect. He accepted it.

Thus the complete biblical pattern stands, and it is this:

Fourth: those who declare the anointing are doing what God forbade

There is a verse that deals directly with the act of looking at a man and concluding that God has chosen him. It was said to a prophet — to Samuel, precisely the man who anointed the two kings we have spoken of — and it was said to correct him:

But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

1 Samuel 16:7

Samuel, with prophetic gift, had just looked at a tall and handsome man and concluded that he was the one. He was corrected. «Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature.»

Now, what does a movement do when it declares a man anointed? It looks at the stature — at the charisma, at the firmness, at the crowd he fills, at the way he speaks to enemies. Appearance, all of it. It is precisely the operation that was forbidden to a prophet who had, he indeed, the authority to perform it.

Fifth: and even true authority evaporates

The hardest text remains, and it comes from modern revelation. If you read only one passage from this article, read this one:

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. 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.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:34-37

This is not about false authority. It is about true authority — conferred, legitimate, real — and about what happens to it the instant it is used for the wrong purposes. And the purposes are named one by one: to cover our sins, to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men.

And the result is not a warning. It is a statement of fact: «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.»

Amen to the authority of that man. Not «it is suspended». Not «it is under review». It is over — and, what is worse, it is over without anyone around having noticed, because the office remains.

Two dark truths come out of this. The first: a man may have had genuine authority and no longer have it, while keeping intact the title, the pulpit, and the crowd. The second, which is the most uncomfortable, is in the following verses:

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. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:39-40

«It is the nature and disposition of almost all men» — almost all. Not a corrupt minority. Not others. The revelation does not say that there are wicked men who abuse power; it says that abusing power is what almost all men do when they obtain it, and that learning not to do so is the rare exception that is called «being chosen».

Against this backdrop, the question changes shape. It is not «is that man God's anointed?». It is: what, in the observable conduct of that man, places him in the exception instead of the rule? And that question has an answer, and the answer is seen.

The Rameumptom, or the prayer of the elect

There is in the Book of Mormon a scene that, when I first read it with these eyes, forced me to put the book down. It is a portrait — made two thousand years ago, of a people that no longer exists — of exactly what this article is about.

Alma and his companions arrive in the land of the Zoramites and find an organized, respectable congregation, with a day of worship and all:

Now, when they had come into the land, behold, to their astonishment they found that the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did worship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld; For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person. Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:

Alma 31:12-14

Keep the architecture, because the architecture is the message: a raised place, higher than the head, and on top of it only one person fits. It is not a pulpit to teach a congregation. It is a stage to be seen by it. And what is said up there is this:

Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ. But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God. And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.

Alma 31:16-18

Let this prayer be taken apart line by line, because each line is a piece of the apparatus:

• «we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren» — the separation comes first, and it is attributed to God. It is not we who have distanced ourselves; it is He who has distinguished us.

• «we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren… by the childishness of their fathers» — the other is not merely wrong: he is childish. It is the disqualification of the adversary as incapable, which dispenses with the obligation to hear him.

• «thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell» — here it is, in so many words. The election of some is stated at the same time as the condemnation of others, and the two things are the same sentence.

• «for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee» — and they give thanks. The condemnation of the neighbor is a matter of liturgical gratitude.

And then comes the verse that turns the scene from scandal into system:

For behold, every man did go forth and offer up these same prayers.

Alma 31:20

Every man did go forth and offer up these same prayers. It is not the arrogance of one man. It is a script, repeated weekly by everyone, from the top of a structure built for that very purpose. No one there invented anything. Each one went up and said what is said.

If you want to know whether you are before a Rameumptom, do not look at the doctrine. Look at three things: whether there is a place from which only one person speaks, whether what is said from there is always the same, and whether the content of the prayer includes the condemnation of those who are not in the room.

“These are of the devil”

The other half of the apparatus. If one side declares our man anointed, the other declares the adversary demonic — and the two claims are the same claim said twice, because each one only holds up with the other.

This accusation also has a biblical origin, and it too says the opposite of what it is made to say. It is worth seeing who made it first, and against whom.

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Matthew 12:24-26

It is all here. A man does a good work — casts out devils, that is, frees someone — and the official religious leaders of his day cannot deny that the work happened. So they do the only thing left: they do not deny the fact, they attribute to it the wrong origin. “He does this by Beelzebub.”

It is the same operation, exactly. One does not discuss whether what the other says is true. One discusses from what spirit he comes. And the rhetorical advantage is enormous, because a fact can be verified and a spiritual origin cannot.

Now notice what Jesus does next, because it is the practical lesson: he answers with a reasoning. He does not return the accusation. He does not say “ye are the ones who are of Satan.” He says: every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation — and he shows that the accusation does not stand on its own feet for logical reasons. The answer to the spiritual accusation was an argument.

The verse the accusers use

Let us be honest with the text that plays against us, because it is what is always quoted to justify this:

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Matthew 12:30

It is a real verse, it is hard, and I will not soften it. But notice the subject of the sentence. “He that is not with me” — with me, Christ. The sentence divides the world in relation to a Person, and that Person is not a candidate, a party, a pastor or a movement.

The whole error lies in a substitution of one word. Put a man’s name where “with me” is, and the sentence still sounds like Scripture and has come to say something Scripture does not say. It is the half-truth in its purest form: the verse is true, the quotation is exact, and the application is a lie.

Jesus did use the expression — and said by what criterion

It is true that the phrase exists on the lips of Christ:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 8:44

But see what He puts after the colon, because it is the criterion, and it is what is never quoted: murder and lying. “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth… when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own.”

The test Jesus gives is not affiliation. It is not the vote. It is not disagreeing with Him on matters of temple politics. It is killing and lying — two observable behaviours. Whoever wants to use John 8:44 must use the criterion of John 8:44, and the criterion does not point where it is usually pointed.

The complete criterion, which settles the matter

And there is a passage that gives the whole test, to know what is of God and what is of the devil, without depending on who affirms it:

For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

Moroni 7:16-17

“I show unto you the way to judge” — and the way is this: what inviteth to do good and persuadeth to believe in Christ is of God; what persuadeth to do evil and not to believe is of the devil. The question ceases to be “which side is he on?” and becomes “where is this pushing me?”.

Apply it to the message that convinces you that your neighbour is demonic. Does that message invite you to do good? Does it make you more capable of loving? Does it draw you to Christ, or to a faction? The answer is usually instantaneous, and it is usually uncomfortable.

The prudence an archangel had and a pulpit does not have

And there remains the text that seems to me the most eloquent of all about the levity with which these accusations are distributed:

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.

Jude 1:9

Michael, the archangel. Arguing with the devil in person. And he does not take it upon himself to bring against him a railing accusation — he refers it to God: “The Lord rebuke thee.”

If an archangel did not bring a railing accusation against Satan, a man at a microphone has no authorisation whatsoever to bring one against the neighbour who votes the other way.

And the accusation turns back

There is finally a verse that, on this subject, does what no other does: it identifies a concrete spirit with the devil, and it is not the spirit that is usually pointed at.

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

3 Nephi 11:29

Read it slowly. It does not say that whoever disagrees is of the devil. It says that whoever hath the spirit of contention is of the devil — “who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another”.

That is: Scripture attributes to the devil precisely the disposition that characterises those who loudest cry that others are of the devil. Anger. The will to contend. The energy of dividing.

And there is one last piece, which Isaiah wrote and which describes the whole operation in a single line:

¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20

It is not about doing evil. It is about swapping the names — calling good evil and evil good, darkness light and light darkness. It is the corruption of language before the corruption of conduct, because when the names are swapped no one can any longer describe what is happening.

Continues in part 4 — O teste dos frutos, e quatro perguntas para usar amanhã.

---

Este texto desenvolve a introdução e os capítulos 2 e 7 de O Altar e o Algoritmo — Como Identificar os Novos Mercadores da Fé. As passagens em destaque são citações do livro. Todas as Escrituras citadas foram conferidas contra a edição publicada pela Biblioteca do Evangelho — a Bíblia de João Ferreira de Almeida na versão que a Igreja utiliza, o Livro de Mórmon e Doutrina e Convénios. Os doze capítulos tratam do resto: os mercadores, o dinheiro, o púlpito transformado em palanque, a milícia digital paga, e o caminho prático para sair.