September 2021 – JayBall.name

Zion’s Camp: Part 2

It’s interesting to me God’s use of aggressive language in this parable. Why has God illustrated these things using vocabulary that conjures up imagery of war and destruction?

If we are to make sense of the events surrounding Zion’s camp, we need to understand the parable given in D&C 101:44-62.

According to the account in Matthew, the reason the Lord taught in parables was because the people were not open to truth in its plainness (see Matt 13:10-17). Therefore, that the saints were given this parable can be seen as an indication of the stiffneckedness of the people to whom the parable was given. In the account in Matthew, the disciples were blessed with an explanation of the parable of the sower by the Lord. Fortunately for us, the Lord has also give a few keys to help us interpret meaning from this parable of the nobleman in D&C 101.

Keys to Understanding the Parable of the Nobleman

In this parable we read of a tower that was commanded to be built, watchmen to be set round about olive trees in the vineyard, as well as a watchman upon the tower. The parable also speaks of one servant to whom additional commandments were given. In D&C 97:20 we are given a definition of who the tower represents:

And he hath sworn by the power of his might to be her salvation and her high tower.

Later, in D&C 103:21, we are told plainly that Joseph Smith is the servant in the parable. By this I think it is safe to infer that he is also the watchman who was to be on the tower.

Additionally, in verse 12, before we arrive at the parable itself, we read:

And in that day all who are found upon the watch-tower, or in other words, all mine Israel, shall be saved.

Here we have “all who are found upon the watch-tower” equated with “all mine Israel“. It is apparent that the intent is that there be more than one watchman upon the tower.

Remember the account of Eldad and Medad:

And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!
(Num 11:27-29)

That “all mine Israel” are to be found upon the watch-tower should remind us of the day referred to by Jeremiah:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them
(Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Parable of the Nobleman

Now I would like to take a look at the parable, starting at verse 43:

And now, I will show unto you a parable, that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion.

A certain nobleman had a spot of land, very choice; and he said unto his servants: Go ye unto my vineyard, even upon this very choice piece of land, and plant twelve olive trees; And set watchmen round about them, and build a tower, that one may overlook the land round about, to be a watchman upon the tower, that mine olive trees may not be broken down when the enemy shall come to spoil and take upon themselves the fruit of my vineyard.
Now, the servants of the nobleman went and did as their lord commanded them, and planted the olive trees, and built a hedge round about, and set watchmen, and began to build a tower. And while they were yet laying the foundation thereof, they began to say among themselves: And what need hath my lord of this tower? And consulted for a long time, saying among themselves: What need hath my lord of this tower, seeing this is a time of peace? Might not this money be given to the exchangers? For there is no need of these things. (v. 44-49)

Here take note how these servants twist words from an earlier parable to justify their neglect to do what has been asked of them. In the parable of the talents (found in Matthew 25:24-30), it was the Lord who told the slothful servant he should have put his money to the exchangers. Here, in this parable of the nobleman however, these slothful servants justify their actions by quoting something the Lord said in the earlier parable. Does quoting the Lord or using scripture to justify wrong actions make one any less slothful of a servant? It is obedience to the Lord only that matters.

Also take note how the reference to “seeing this is a time of peace” relates to the words earlier in this revelation, “In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel” (v. 8).

And while they were at variance one with another they became very slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord. (v. 50)

Again, note how these words relate to what we read earlier in this revelation, “there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances.” (v. 6)

And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive trees. (v. 51)

What is the significance that “the enemy came by night“? Why does the Lord come “as a thief in the night?” (1 Thes 5:2) What is it about night that we need to be aware of as it relates to being ready for when the enemy or the Lord appears?

Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of this great evil? Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you? (v. 52-53)

“… and not have fallen asleep” What’s wrong with falling asleep? Should we not sleep? Isn’t needed rest and sleep a good thing? What is it about being “watchful” that suggests we be willing and ready at a moment’s notice to be inconvenienced in our sleeping hours to “awake and arise”?

And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer.
And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save those only whom I have appointed to tarry; And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money. Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen. And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land. (v. 54-58)

If Christ is the tower of our vineyard, and Joseph Smith is the watchman there, then what is the enemy’s tower and who/what are their watchmen?

If the enemy’s tower is the devil or the devil’s kingdom, then how do you throw that down?

It is a misnomer to speak of the “kingdom of the devil,” because the description presumes something more organized than is the case. It is difficult to organize when fear, hatred, and anger are the primary motivations. Love is a far more cohesive, creative, and loyalty-producing motivation. All that Satan does is designed to destroy itself, as well as all those who follow him.

Satan’s aim is to cause division and create contention and anger and keep us in fear. So how do you scatter those watchmen and break down that tower? Can you do it with the same tools of anger, accusation, and contention that Satan uses? Will that work?

What if the tools you employ included persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned? (see D&C 121:41-42) Could that be effective in breaking down the enemy’s tower?

How would having a prophet on the tower help the situation? Do messengers of God shed light on things? Do they reveal the truth? What affect does that have on lies and deceit?

When truth is revealed, and people turn their attention to it, then what is untrue dissolves. Then that kingdom simply fades, it can’t stand, because you’ve revealed its motive. You’ve shown it for what it is, and when people see that and recognize it, and respond to the truth of it, then it just goes away. Darkness flees from light, not the other way around.

So how does this approach relate to the call for Zion’s camp to arm themselves and march forth to rescue their bretheren in Missouri?

It’s interesting to me God’s use of aggressive language in this parable. Why has God illustrated these things using vocabulary that conjures up imagery of war and destruction? Will God give us what we ask for? (See D&C 50:29-30)

Recall that by virtue of the fact that these teachings are being presented in the form of a parable is an indication of the stiffneckdness of those to whom it is being given. Take a look at the Lord’s explanation:

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
(Matt 13:10-15)

Consider the example of John Whitmer’s response to what is now section 84:

Some readers may have missed the implications of the priesthood revelation. John Whitmer was most excited by the verse warning Boston, New York, and Albany of coming desolation. Those verses reflected the millenarian thinking of the gathering to Zion and constructing the New Jerusalem, which had occupied the Saints for the last two years. The part about “exaltation” – the preparation to stand in God’s presence and commune with Him – did not register with Whitmer. Eager as the Saints were for spiritual gifts, not all were ready for the mysticism of the priesthood revelation.
Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 204-205

Continuing with the parable:

And the servant said unto his lord: When shall these things be? And he said unto his servant: When I will; go ye straightway, and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you; And this shall be my seal and blessing upon you—a faithful and wise steward in the midst of mine house, a ruler in my kingdom. And his servant went straightway, and did all things whatsoever his lord commanded him; and after many days all things were fulfilled. (v. 59-62)

In a scriptural sense, a ruler is a teacher of truth. We were spirits before we were born. We were all there when some were chosen to be rulers, or in other words, teachers. (see Abraham 3:22-28). To rule is to be responsible to teach all those in one’s dominion. A ruler is a teacher responsible for instructing others (see 1 Nephi 2:22).

If, on the other hand, we view the term “ruler” in a modern day gentile sense, we get an image of one who rules with a fierce strong hand, tearing down walls, taking the offensive, and aggressively conquering an enemy.

If you are more like John Whitmer, focused on the condemnation of New York over the beauty and light of exaltation … if that’s the mindset from which you approach things, then this parable has all the elements in it that would justify an aggressive offensive approach.

In fact we see this was the case for some, in response to the revelation disbanding the camp:

Others protested, feeling that it denied them a chance to do more for the Missouri Saints. A few people were angry and ashamed that they had to return home without a fight.
Saints Vol 1, p. 205

By using the kind of imagery in this parable that He did, God exposed their hearts. If we are to do better in our day, then we need to have different hearts.

Zion’s Camp: Part 1

After gathering their forces for two months and marching over 800 miles for another month and a half more, God gave a revelation that essentially disbanded the camp without accomplishing the mission they set out to do?

Was Zion’s Camp a failed mission? This last week’s Sunday School lesson on D&C 98-105 focused on the trial of the saint’s march in 1834 on a rescue mission to Jackson County Missouri to “redeem” Zion. There were some important takeaways I gained from my reflection and lesson on this topic.

Historical Sketch

I am assuming the reader will be familiar with these events from Church history, but to give some context, here is a brief sketch of a few highlights:

Tension between local Missourians in Jackson County and the growing body of Mormon immigrants was rising to a point where in July of 1833, demands were made that the Mormons leave on threat of physical expulsion. On July 23 they were given 6 months to leave Independence. In August, over 800 miles East in Kirtland Ohio, Joseph Smith recorded two revelations where God gave direction and counsel regarding the situation with their fellow saints in Missouri.

In November 1833 Missouri saints were expelled from Jackson County. On December 16-17 Joseph received another revelation known today as Doctrine and Covenants section 101. In it the Missouri saints are told that their sufferings were in consequence of their transgressions, and a parable was given, “that you may know my [the Lord’s] will concerning the redemption of Zion.” “Zion,” referring to the place, Jackson County Missouri, and “redemption” being understood to mean recovery of the lands that had been lost to them. In a revelation given on February 24 of 1834, Joseph Smith was directed to gather a number “of the strength of [God’s] house” to “go up with you unto the Land of Zion.”

A body of volunteers (close to 200 men and a number of women) gathered and in early May, left on the near 900 mile journey toward Missouri. The main purpose of the mission does not appear entirely clear from what we read in D&C 101:35-36, but the call to go was given and men and women responded.

“The redemption of Zion must needs come by power,” is what the D&C 101 revelation says, and the Lord would “raise up unto my people a man who shall lead them as Moses led the children of Israel.” As one historian put it, “It sounds like a call to action, but the comparison was to Moses leading Israel out of bondage, and not Joshua invading Canaan.” (Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 236)

The trek took over a month. As might be imagined, when an organized and armed band of Mormons began to approach the territory where Missourians had driven their fellow adherents away (and with no intent of letting them return) it had all the makings for an impending armed conflict. Joseph had no desire to engage in a battle of arms and hoped that his petition for help from Governor Dunklin to assist in the saint’s cause, would result in assistance from the state militia to help recover their lost lands. No such help was granted, and on July 22 a revelation (D&C 105) was given, and the camp was disbanded. Some stayed in Missouri, while others, including Joseph Smith, returned home.

Rebellious Hearts

So, what are we to make of this account? In response to the suffering and loss of property from persecution that the saints in Missouri were enduring, Joseph was called by God to organize a body to go redeem their brothers in Zion (D&C 103:1). Then, after gathering their forces for two months and marching over 800 miles for another month and a half more, God gave a revelation that essentially disbanded the camp without accomplishing the mission they set out to do.

In the hours of reflection over the course of a month of study and preparation for the lesson I was to give in Gospel Doctrine class, I was drawn to conclude that the outcome, known by the Lord from the beginning, was immutable, and any attempt to change the course of things would be futile. This, because of something Joseph later wrote from his own conclusion of what took place at the end of the journey. As the camp disbanded, a devastating outbreak of cholera attacked its ranks.

“Long afterward, Joseph remembered the suffering that week. ‘While some were digging the grave others stood sentry with their fire arms, watching their enemies.’ The camp was trapped between the hatred of the Missourians and the onslaught of cholera. Responding to the shrieks of pain that filled the camp, Joseph gave the victims flour and whiskey and ministered by laying on hands. Nothing worked. Each time Joseph laid hands on a victim, the diseased passed into his own body. ‘I quickly learned by painful experience,’ he later wrote, ‘that when the Great Jehovah decrees destruction upon any people, makes known his determination, man must not attempt to stay his hand.’ … Joseph remembered the unsettling contradictions. ‘Elder John S. Carter was the first man who stepped forward to rebuke it, and upon this, was instantly seized, and became the first victim in the camp.’ The men who buried Carter ‘united, covenanted and prayed, hoping the ideas would be staid; but in vain, for while thus covenanting, Eber Wilcox died.'”
(Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 245-246. emphasis mine)

I reasoned that perhaps the attempts to mingle in something that God had already decreed applied to more than the cholera outbreak. What if Joseph’s prayers and attempts to intervene were futile gestures, even from the onset of the trek to Missouri?

It was because of their “jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires” that they “polluted their inheritances” (D&C 101:6). They had failed to bring forth the required fruit, remaining heedless of the Lord’s warnings (see for example the Lord’s warnings in D&C 97:25-26; 98:21-22; 103:8-10). The Lord used the Missouri citizens as His hand of judgment to scourge the condemned saints in His attempt to persuade them to repent and no longer treat lightly His word (see for example D&C 97:25-27; 101:1-2, 51; 103:3-4, 8; 105:2, 6). Still seeing no Divine purpose behind their distress, they railed against their Missouri persecutors. Despite their suffering, they were not sufficiently humbled to repent. Instead, they breathed out threats and expressed hope to gain vengeance against the same Missouri mobs to whom the Lord had given power to afflict and inspire them to repent.

Why, then, would the Lord call the saints in Kirtland to go on a rescue mission? In Joseph’s position, can he simply sit back and do nothing? Even as late as February when the call was given to gather their strength and march (D&C 103), the saints were told they could still repent and turn things around and recover their lost lands. We read how it was “in consequence of their transgressions” that the Lord “suffered the affliction to come upon” the saints in Missouri (D&C 101:2). But also remember that similar words of condemnation were given to the Kirtland saints, “For they do not forsake their sins, and their wicked ways, the pride of their hearts, and their covetousness, and all their detestable things.” (D&C 98:20). Were there lessons and testing and trial that those who were called to march needed to learn as well?

Prayers of the Righteous

It wasn’t until the morning of the lesson, as I sat reflecting and revisiting the lesson material, that a new perspective of these events emerged from the pages I was reading. While it was certainly true that sufferings were “in consequence of their transgressions“, I began to see that among them there was a category of “many of whom are truly humble and are seeking diligently to learn wisdom and to find truth.”

Verily, verily I say unto you, blessed are such, for they shall obtain; for I, the Lord, show mercy unto all the meek, and upon all whomsoever I will, that I may be justified when I shall bring them unto judgment.
(D&C 97:1-2)

A distinction was being made between two types of people who were enduring persecution and suffering.

[N]evertheless, there are those that must needs be chastened, and their works shall be made known. The ax is laid at the root of the trees; and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire. I, the Lord, have spoken it.
(ibid v. 6-7)

While on the other hand:

Verily I say unto you, all among them who know their hearts are honest, and are broken, and their spirits contrite, and are willing to observe their covenants by sacrifice—yea, every sacrifice which I, the Lord, shall command—they are accepted of me. For I, the Lord, will cause them to bring forth as a very fruitful tree which is planted in a goodly land, by a pure stream, that yieldeth much precious fruit.
(ibid v. 8-9)

Four days later, in the August 6 revelation, the Lord addressed the saints in Missouri with some words of encouragement:

[I]n everything give thanks; Waiting patiently on the Lord, for your prayers have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded with this seal and testament—the Lord hath sworn and decreed that they shall be granted.
(D&C 98:1-2)

A promise is given that “prayers” have been heard and a decree given that “they shall be granted“. Followed up with this powerful covenant from the Lord:

Therefore, he giveth this promise unto you, with an immutable covenant that they shall be fulfilled; and all things wherewith you have been afflicted shall work together for your good, and to my name’s glory, saith the Lord.
(ibid v. 3)

In unmistakable language that cannot be taken lightly, the Lord has promised and decreed that He will answer …

“prayers”.

We are not given any additional information or specifics about what these prayers contained. In a letter to Edward Partridge and other church leaders several days later, Joseph gives one other key of what is included in this powerful covenant that the Lord promised:

“I verily know that he will spedily deliver Zion for I have his immutible covenant that this shall be the case but god is pleased to keep it hid from mine eyes the means how exactly the thing will be done.”
(“Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson County, Missouri, 18 August 1833,” p. [1], The Joseph Smith Papers, emphasis mine)

In the language of scripture, “speedily” often means “surprisingly,” “in an unexpected way,” or “being caught off-guard.” (See e.g., Isaiah 48:3).

Four months later, in response to further requests for information from the Lord regarding the saints in Zion, the December 16-17 revelation was given. Section 101 opens with:

Verily I say unto you, concerning your brethren who have been afflicted, and persecuted, and cast out from the land of their inheritance— I, the Lord, have suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions; Yet I will own them, and they shall be mine in that day when I shall come to make up my jewels. Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son. For all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified.
(D&C 101:1-5)

As it relates to the two types or categories of people being tried, take note of the phrase “my jewels“. This phrase occurs four times in the standard works. In the instance found in 3 Nephi, Christ is quoting from Malachi chapter 3:

And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
(3 Ne 24:17-18)

I want to ask the question, if God is using the Missouri mobs to inspire the saints to repent, what of the more righteous among them? Is it fair for them to suffer these indignations as well? I believe God is addressing this very thing by including the parable of wheat and tares in this revelation:

That the work of the gathering together of my saints may continue, that I may build them up unto my name upon holy places; for the time of harvest is come, and my word must needs be fulfilled. Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be; While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire.
(D&C 101:64-65)

Gem formation requires five things for mineral crystallization to occur. Ingredients, Temperature, Pressure, Time, and Space. To become the Lord’s “jewels“, the righteous will need to be proven by being subjected to testing, alongside the chastisement being imposed upon the unrighteous. Another way to look at it is, the response to the trials and testing can be a determining factor in which type or category of person you will become.

As we look at the conclusion of this Zion’s camp story, in the revelation where the camp is disbanded, we read that God again confirms the promise that we looked at earlier in section 98:

But inasmuch as there are those who have hearkened unto my words, I have prepared a blessing and an endowment for them, if they continue faithful. I have heard their prayers, and will accept their offering; and it is expedient in me that they should be brought thus far for a trial of their faith.
(D&C 105:18-19)

There are two COVID camps. And they’re both wrong.

The two camps being, COVID is not serious, it’s an excuse for authoritarianism. And the other camp being COVID is extremely serious and the authoritarianism isn’t authoritarianism, it’s public health.

[The following remarks are my condensed version of a train of thought presented by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's recent Darkhorse livestream #94. Video posted below.]

We have to ask the question: To what extent are the narratives that we are battling over being fed to us by something that does not have our best collective interest at its core? This does not mean that we’re being fed narratives from somewhere, but that is at least a possibility that would explain in part why this pandemic is being managed so badly.

Both of these are wrong.

It is quite clear that COVID is a very dangerous disease. On the other hand, it does seem to be the excuse for an awful lot of authoritarianism that makes no sense. I suggest there is a litmus test that we can use to detect that there is something about the way this being handled that makes it evident that this is absolutely not about public health.

Consider the typical diminishing returns curve in complex systems. Imagine a simplified diminishing returns curve where the x-axis is investment. The y-axis is return. There is a shallow early phase that then curves up and becomes a steep, effectively a cliff face, in which your investment is low relative to the returns that you get for it. For example, in the early stages imagine you are trying to figure out how to skateboard, or whatever it may be, and it’s tough at first and then you hit some point where you are, like, “Oh, I’m getting this, I’m getting this!” And then what happens? At the inflection point in the curve you get the emergence of a plateau, where larger and larger investments net smaller and smaller gains. There are still returns on investment, but they get less and less.

The reason that you get a diminishing returns curve in a complex system in which there’s an objective, is that you have a hierarchy of interventions. You’ve got some stuff that’s actually “no-brainers” that work really well, and you do those things first. This is obvious, of course, because why wouldn’t you? The more of those “most evident” things you’ve already done, the more of the low-hanging fruit you’ve found, the more you’re forced to do things that, yes, work. But at increasingly larger costs. And so you get this reliable pattern because a reasonable person, or system, attempting to solve a problem will go after the low-hanging fruit first. Eventually you will be left with smaller and smaller interventions that are more and more expensive, eventually getting to a point of near pointlessness.

Our response to COVID does not show an indication that we have gone after the low-hanging fruit. At all. It’s completely insane with respect to the low-hanging fruit that we have left on the table and not invoked. For instance, the most obvious one, and the thing that I would suggest that we use as a litmus test, is the question of vitamin D. Now the vitamin D question is not simple. It’s not a simple matter of, take vitamin D = avoid COVID. You can take vitamin D and still get COVID. But the evidence strongly suggests that vitamin D deficiency makes you much more vulnerable to COVID. This is completely unambiguous. And what’s more, that people who live far from the equator, as many of us do, are very likely to be vitamin D deficient during the winter months. Why? Because vitamin D is naturally produced on the skin in response to sunlight, and so what that means is that vitamin D deficiency, which might not be inherent to humans, is very common amongst modern humans because of the way we live. Because we spend a lot of time indoors where climate control allows us to continue, but we are then chronically underexposed to sunlight that would produce vitamin D. And therefore vitamin D supplementation has tremendous value in terms of fending off COVID for people who are likely to experience deficiencies. What’s more, vitamin D is inexpensive, vitamin D is readily available, and not only does vitamin D not have serious downsides, but if you take reasonable amounts of vitamin D you are very likely to fend off other diseases because vitamin D is basically immunosuppressive. All this makes a great deal of sense, and yet we are somehow still not widely recommending vitamin D to everybody who are likely to have that deficiency in the winter. In spite of the fact that we have a raging pandemic and we could reduce the number of cases substantially by simply making that one intervention.

So the question is, how on earth is this not our first public health recommendation to people? That if you have any danger of a vitamin D deficiency, you should do something about it. That includes making vitamin D while the sun shines – by going outside and exposing yourself to sunlight. And as that becomes less and less useful as an intervention, supplementing with biologically available vitamin D that would compensate for a deficiency. I would say that’s a litmus test. Why is it a litmus test? Because it’s the lowest hanging fruit on the tree. There is no good reason not to address the question of vitamin D deficiency first. It should have been our first intervention. And the fact that we didn’t do it, and still are not doing it, is evidence of one of two things. It is either evidence of absolutely jaw-dropping levels of incompetence (which I admit is possible). Or, that something else is driving our policy that isn’t really obsessed with preventing COVID.