Addressing Common Questions

This is one of the most common objections I receive, and I understand why. On the surface, it seems like a contradiction. But it reflects a misunderstanding of what Isaiah means by “hidden.”

Isaiah 49:2 says the Lord “in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me.” This is not describing physical anonymity. It’s describing someone the world looks at and completely fails to recognize as God’s servant. Trump has been one of the most visible people on Earth for decades, and yet virtually nobody on the planet looks at him and thinks, “That’s God’s anointed.” He is hidden in plain sight.

That’s not describing someone nobody has ever seen. It’s describing someone the world sees and dismisses, someone whose true calling remains invisible even while the man himself is everywhere. If the servant were some unknown figure nobody had ever heard of, there would be nothing remarkable about people failing to recognize him. The whole power of the prophecy is that the world will be looking directly at this person and still not see it.

He isn’t a member of the Church right now. That’s correct. But this objection assumes my thesis claims he is currently functioning in that role, which it doesn’t. The book addresses in significant detail the process by which this individual enters into the covenant, receives the necessary ordinances, and is called and ordained to this work. That process is central to the entire prophetic event I describe.

Many of the greatest figures in scripture were not part of God’s covenant people when they were first identified for their callings. Paul persecuted Christians before his conversion. Alma the Younger actively fought against the Church. The pattern of God choosing unlikely, even seemingly disqualified individuals and then transforming them is one of the most consistent themes in all of scripture.

If you’re dismissing the idea based solely on where Trump stands today, you may be missing what God intends to do tomorrow. I would encourage you to read the book and see how this unfolds scripturally before drawing a final conclusion.

This objection actually gets the prophecy backwards. The scriptures do not say the servant’s given name will be David. What the scriptures say is that God will raise up a servant whom He calls “David.” That is a prophetic title, not a birth certificate. It means “beloved of God,” and it describes the relationship God has with this individual and the role he fulfills, not the name his parents gave him.

Consider that the original King David was not born with a throne or a title. He was a shepherd boy who was chosen, anointed, and then called of God. The name carried meaning because of what God declared about him, not because of what was written on a genealogy scroll. The same principle applies here.

Throughout all of scripture, God regularly assigns new names and titles to those He calls. Abram became Abraham. Jacob became Israel. Simon became Peter. Saul became Paul. The prophetic use of the name “David” in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea follows exactly this pattern. It identifies the nature and calling of the servant, not his legal name.

The book lays out over a dozen specific scriptural criteria for identifying this figure and examines how they align. I’d encourage anyone who finds this question important to engage with that full case before drawing a conclusion based on this one point alone.

I understand this reaction. I had the same reaction initially. But I’d ask you to consider what Isaiah actually prophesied about the servant’s appearance to the world. Isaiah 52:14 says:

The word “marred” doesn’t just mean physically damaged. It means disfigured in how people perceive him. His public reputation, his image, the way the world views him is so distorted that people cannot see past it to recognize what God sees. If the servant looked exactly the way religious people expected him to look, there would be no test of faith involved. The whole point is that God chooses someone the world considers unworthy.

Consider the pattern: Moses was a murderer. Paul was a persecutor of Christians. Alma the Younger was described as “the very vilest of sinners.” God has never required a clean resume before issuing a calling. He requires a willing heart and genuine repentance. The story of the servant’s transformation is part of the sign, not a disqualification from it.

This objection comes from reading only half of Isaiah’s description. Yes, the servant suffers, is rejected, and is despised. But Isaiah also says:

And just two verses later:

Kings shutting their mouths. Nations being sprinkled. This is not describing a quiet, obscure weakling. This is someone so powerful that the rulers of the world are silenced in his presence. This is a figure of tremendous political authority and influence who also suffers and is rejected. Both things are true simultaneously.

If you only select the humble attributes and ignore the power, the political role, and the ability to shake nations, you’re building a portrait from half the evidence. The servant in Isaiah is not simply a quiet nobody. He is a complex figure who holds power and suffers for it, who leads nations and is despised for how he does it.

As for self-proclaiming: the book addresses the distinction between Trump’s current public persona and what happens when he enters God’s covenant and is called and ordained to a specific work. Those are very different things. The book explains how that transformation takes place.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Jesus Christ is the ultimate marred servant. He suffered more than anyone in the history of the universe, both spiritually and physically. The entire human family owes Him a debt that no one else could ever fulfill. I want to be absolutely clear: nothing in my book diminishes the Savior’s role by even a fraction. He is the Christ. He is the Redeemer. He is the only way back to the Father. That is not negotiable.

But here is something that many people overlook: throughout scripture, all of God’s chosen servants have gone through periods of condescension that tested them and demonstrated to the world what was required of them. Moses endured forty years of obscurity in the desert. Joseph was sold into slavery and imprisoned on false charges. Joseph Smith was tarred, feathered, imprisoned, and ultimately murdered. The pattern of the Lord’s servants being marred, rejected, and disfigured in public perception is not unique to Christ. It is a pattern that Christ perfected, and it is a pattern His servants share in their own mortal, imperfect way.

Consider what has happened to Donald Trump. His image has been systematically marred by the media and political establishment unlike any figure in modern history. He has been portrayed as foolish, dangerous, misogynistic, egotistical, evil, and worse. Every word in the dictionary has been weaponized against him. Isaiah 52:14 says the servant’s visage would be “marred more than any man.” Whether you apply that to his spiritual journey or his public reputation, the description fits in a way that is difficult to dismiss.

Why has this happened? Because he is the first president in over a century who was actually elected by the people in a way the established power structure could not control. That is the last thing the beast system wants: opposition it cannot manage. Additionally, Satan will resist the establishment of Zion at every turn, and a servant called to advance that work will face opposition proportional to the threat he represents.

Recognizing a mortal servant’s marring does not compete with Christ’s suffering. It reflects it. The servant points to Christ. He does not replace Him.

I’ve heard this argument from several people, and I take it seriously. But I’d point out that this interpretation does exactly what its proponents accuse me of doing: it takes current events, filters them through a specific interpretive lens, and builds a prophetic narrative. The claim that Trump is Satan’s chief political operative is actually a far more extraordinary claim than anything I’ve proposed, and it typically comes with very little scriptural exegesis to support it.

The Antichrist figure in scripture has specific characteristics that don’t align with Trump’s actual actions. The beast makes war against the saints and overcomes them (Revelation 13:7). The beast demands worship (Revelation 13:15). The beast speaks blasphemies against God (Revelation 13:6). Disagreeing with someone’s policies or personality is not the same as matching the scriptural profile of the Antichrist.

I took this question seriously enough to include a comprehensive appendix in the book that examines virtually every reference to the Antichrist across all of scripture. I walk through each passage methodically and show why the scriptural profile of the Antichrist does not align with Trump. If this is a concern of yours, I would encourage you to read that appendix carefully.

I’d also point out that my book draws an important distinction between the “dragon” (Satan) in Revelation 12 and the “beast” (earthly governmental systems) in Revelation 13. These are connected but separate entities. Understanding that distinction changes the analysis significantly.

This is an interesting scriptural connection, and I appreciate the effort to tie current events to prophecy. However, applying Daniel 11 requires careful attention to the full context of the chapter, which describes a sequence of rulers in a specific historical and prophetic framework. Pulling two verses out of that framework and mapping them onto a modern figure based on tariff policy is exactly the kind of surface-level pattern matching that leads to misidentification.

Tariffs are an economic tool that dozens of leaders throughout history have employed. If “raiser of taxes” were the primary identifier, you could make this case for virtually any head of state in history. The question isn’t whether a single verse can be made to fit. The question is whether the full weight of prophetic evidence across Isaiah, Revelation, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Book of Mormon points consistently in one direction. My book examines that full body of evidence.

Revelation 17:12–18 describes ten kings who give their power to the beast and eventually turn against the harlot. This is a significant prophecy, and I address the relationship between the beast system and the events of the last days extensively in the book.

However, mapping a modern diplomatic initiative directly onto Revelation 17 requires a level of specificity that the current evidence doesn’t support. International alliances and peace organizations have existed for over a century. The League of Nations, the United Nations, NATO, the EU, BRICS, and many others have all been identified by various commentators as the fulfillment of these verses at one time or another.

The question is not whether current events resemble prophetic language. Current events always resemble prophetic language to people who are watching for it. The question is whether we are reading the full prophetic narrative carefully, in proper sequence, and with the guidance of the Spirit. My book walks through the seals, the trumpets, and the sequence of events in Revelation in a way that addresses these connections.

I understand the concern about political alliances and financial influence. These are legitimate things to watch. But “follow the money” is a political analysis tool, not a prophetic one. Every leader in modern history has been funded by wealthy interests. Every piece of legislation involves compromises and provisions that various groups find troubling.

Labeling specific legislation as “Lucifer’s infrastructure” without scriptural support turns political disagreement into prophetic interpretation, and that’s a pattern that has led many people astray over the years. Faithful Latter-day Saints disagreed about the New Deal, about civil rights legislation, about trade agreements, and about dozens of other political initiatives. Political concern is healthy. Elevating political concern to prophetic certainty without scriptural foundation is not.

My book focuses on what the scriptures actually say, not on political speculation. I’d encourage anyone with these concerns to examine the scriptural evidence directly.

This is worth addressing carefully because the prophets and apostles absolutely teach us to avoid contention in our personal conduct. That counsel is inspired and I sustain it completely.

However, there is a difference between the conduct expected of covenant members in their daily lives and the role God may assign to a specific individual in a specific prophetic context. Nephi killed Laban. Captain Moroni threatened the government with military force. Samuel the Lamanite stood on a wall and told an entire city they were wicked. Abinadi called King Noah and his priests to repentance in terms that were far from diplomatic. These individuals were not violating God’s will. They were fulfilling specific assignments that required confrontation.

The question isn’t whether Trump’s public behavior matches the personal conduct standards taught in general conference. The question is whether his role in the prophetic narrative aligns with what scripture describes. Those are different questions, and the book addresses both.

I understand why it might appear that way from the outside, especially if you’ve only seen a short video or heard about the book secondhand. But the actual history is the reverse. I did not start with Trump and look for scriptures. I started with a profound spiritual experience on November 28, 2022, during a serious medical crisis, followed by years of intensive scriptural study. The convergence of evidence across Isaiah, Revelation, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Book of Mormon pointed me in a direction I did not expect and, frankly, did not want.

The book lays out over a dozen specific scriptural criteria for the Davidic servant and then examines how they align with observable reality. Readers are welcome to evaluate that evidence for themselves. If the case rested on one or two proof texts, confirmation bias would be a fair concern. But when dozens of independent scriptural threads converge on the same conclusion, that convergence deserves serious examination.

I want to be clear about something: I don’t want anyone praying about whether my book is true. I’m not the prophet, and this is not the Book of Mormon. What I want is for readers to open their scriptures, read the passages I reference, and take those scriptures to the Lord in prayer. Let the word of God confirm or deny what I’ve written. That’s the standard I hold myself to, and it’s the standard I ask of every reader.

Avraham Gileadi is a gifted Isaiah scholar, and I have great respect for his work. I’ve spoken with him personally, and we simply disagree on one point: the identity of the servant. He has never asked me to stop my work, and I have never claimed he supports my conclusions.

But here’s the important principle: a scholarly framework is a tool for analysis, not a catechism that permits only one conclusion. If Gileadi’s criteria for identifying the servant are scripturally sound (and I believe many of them are), then those criteria should be applicable regardless of who applies them. If the framework only works when it produces one specific answer, it isn’t really a framework. It’s a predetermined conclusion.

I credit Gileadi for opening my eyes to the reality of the Davidic servant in Isaiah. I simply reached a different conclusion about the identity based on my own study and personal inspiration. Good scholars disagree. That’s how understanding progresses.

I respect personal revelation. It’s one of the foundational principles of the restored gospel. I would never tell someone their spiritual experiences aren’t real or don’t matter.

I’ll share something relevant here: I was deeply concerned about the impressions I received, enough that I went to my stake president to discuss them. He listened carefully, counseled me, and encouraged me to proceed under certain guidelines. I would encourage anyone who receives spiritual impressions that contradict what I’ve written to do the same. Go to your priesthood leaders. Go to the scriptures themselves. Take the specific passages I reference and study them prayerfully. Don’t pray about my book. Pray about God’s word.

It’s possible for two faithful people to receive impressions that seem to conflict, particularly on matters that haven’t been officially revealed through the prophets. In those cases, the Lord often intends for us to continue studying, praying, and watching events unfold rather than settling the question prematurely.

I share my work because I believe the Lord directed me to. Others may feel directed to a different understanding. Time will reveal the truth, and I’m at peace with that. What I cannot do is suppress what I believe the Lord has shown me because someone else received a different impression. Nor would I ask that of anyone else.

This is actually one of the most important questions on this page, and I want to answer it honestly.

If this were merely an intellectual exercise, you’d be right. I could publish my theory, shrug my shoulders, and wait. But I don’t believe this is an intellectual exercise. I believe the Lord showed me something specific during a time when I was closer to the veil than I’ve ever been, and I believe He expects me to share it.

More importantly, if I’m right about the sequence of events described in the book, the decisions people make in the near future will have eternal consequences. This isn’t about being right. It’s about warning. If I see what I believe is a fire coming and I say nothing because I’m afraid of criticism, how do I answer for that?

I am willing to be wrong. I’ve said that publicly, and I say it in the book. But being willing to be wrong doesn’t mean I should be silent. If I’m wrong, I’ll own it. If I’m right and I said nothing, that’s a different kind of accountability entirely.

I’ve been asked this by several people who are genuinely trying to help, and I appreciate the intent behind it. But here’s the problem: there is no power in vagueness when the Lord has given you specificity. If Abinadi had said, “Someone in this court might want to consider repenting,” it wouldn’t have carried the same weight as calling King Noah out by name. If Samuel the Lamanite had said, “Some people in this general area might want to reconsider their choices,” it wouldn’t have shaken a city.

I’m not comparing myself to prophets. I’m pointing to a pattern. When the Lord reveals something specific, teaching it in general terms to avoid controversy is not faithfulness. It’s dilution. I believe the Lord showed me something specific, and I believe He expects me to teach it specifically. Readers are always free to disagree, study the scriptures I reference, and come to their own conclusions through prayer. But I can’t teach it vaguely when I received it clearly.

Within hours of publishing my book, I was attacked with this accusation. I want to address it directly because it’s a serious charge and it deserves a serious answer.

I was concerned about this very issue long before anyone raised it. The weight of what I had received spiritually, combined with the decision to publish, led me to consult with my stake president before proceeding. He encouraged me to move forward under certain guidelines, which I have followed. When I shared this fact with one of my most vocal critics, he flatly claimed that my stake president has no such authority. Think about the irony of that position: a person with no priesthood stewardship over me claiming the authority to tell me what I can and cannot do, while simultaneously denying that authority to the priesthood leader who actually holds it.

Priestcraft, as defined in the Book of Mormon, is when individuals “preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion” (2 Nephi 26:29). The key phrase is “they seek not the welfare of Zion.” My entire purpose in writing this book is to prepare people for what I believe is coming. Every dollar this book generates goes back into translating it, producing content, and getting the message out to as many people as possible. I have spent everything I have to create this work and over 2,000 hours doing so. That is not the profile of someone exploiting the gospel for personal enrichment.

If publishing a book about scriptural topics constitutes priestcraft, then every seminary manual, every institute textbook, every book published by apostles and prophets through Deseret Book, and every Latter-day Saint author who has ever written about the gospel is guilty of the same charge. That position is not only absurd, it places the accuser on dangerous ground. I would encourage anyone making this accusation to examine their own motives before casting that stone.

This is a thoughtful question that shows genuine engagement with the prophetic sequence. The relationship between the fall of the harlot, the fall of the beast, and the binding of the dragon is addressed extensively in the book, and I encourage anyone interested in this level of detail to read those chapters carefully.

What I will say here is that many of these events overlap rather than occurring in a neat, linear sequence. The servant’s emergence, the beast system’s rise and fall, and the harlot’s destruction are interwoven in ways that the scriptures describe through multiple prophetic lenses (Isaiah, Revelation, Daniel, 3 Nephi). Reading them as a strict timeline where one must be entirely complete before the next begins can lead to misunderstanding the overall narrative.

The book walks through this sequence in detail, using the JST of Revelation, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Book of Mormon to establish the order and overlap of these events.

The study of Ezra’s Eagle has been a very interesting subject for the last ten years. I think we have to go by the words of the Lord to Joseph Smith when He said that the Apocrypha was correct in some areas and was not correct in others, and there are clearly some problems with this prophecy. Because there has been so much written about Ezra’s Eagle that has not come to pass in the way predicted, I don’t spend much time on this subject in my book. I have focused most of my energy on the book of Revelation, which is canonized scripture confirmed by the Lord through the Joseph Smith Translation.

The broader point here is critical: no single book of scripture contains the complete picture. Daniel fills in part of the prophetic framework. Nephi fills in another part. Isaiah provides the foundation. Revelation provides the sequence. The Doctrine and Covenants ties together what the Bible and the Book of Mormon don’t seem to reconcile on their own.

Think of the Book of Mormon and the Bible as two points between which only one line can be drawn. But when you add the Doctrine and Covenants as a third point, it locks the picture into place and resolves what previously seemed contradictory. This is an amazingly beautiful puzzle, and it must be assembled with all truth as one circumscribed whole. You cannot take one non-canonical source in isolation and use it to dismiss the rest of the picture.

This is one of the most significant interpretive differences between my work and mainstream Christian commentary. Many Protestant commentators have taught that the first horseman represents the Antichrist or a false christ. But this interpretation has significant problems when examined against the full text of Revelation, particularly the Joseph Smith Translation.

The first horseman is given a crown and goes forth “conquering, and to conquer” (Revelation 6:2). He rides a white horse, which is consistently a symbol of righteousness and victory throughout scripture. When Christ himself appears in Revelation 19, He also rides a white horse. The color white is never used in scripture to represent evil or deception.

The book examines this question in depth, using the JST, the chiastic structure of Revelation, and the Doctrine and Covenants to build the case that the first horseman represents God’s servant, not His adversary. I’d invite anyone with this question to examine the full scriptural argument rather than relying on traditional Protestant interpretations that don’t account for restored scripture.

No. My faith is in Jesus Christ and His restored gospel through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has been since my baptism, and it will be until the day I die. The identity of the Davidic servant is an important prophetic question, but it is not the foundation of my testimony.

I’ve been through a medical crisis that nearly took my life. I’ve had experiences with the Spirit that anchor me to this gospel independent of any single prophetic interpretation. If I’m wrong about the servant’s identity, I will own it publicly. It won’t shake my faith in God, in Christ, in the Restoration, or in the living prophets. Anyone who assumes otherwise is projecting their own fears onto me.

That said, I don’t believe I’m wrong. And I’d rather be someone who shared what the Lord showed him and had to correct course than someone who saw it, said nothing, and watched people be unprepared for what’s coming.

Absolutely follow the prophets and apostles. I sustain them completely and without reservation. Nothing in my book contradicts their teachings or counsel.

But prophetic silence on a topic is not the same as prophetic denial of it. The Brethren have not addressed the identity of the Davidic servant, and I don’t expect them to until the Lord’s timing is right. There are many things in scripture that the prophets have not yet expounded on publicly. That doesn’t mean those scriptures don’t exist or that faithful members can’t study them.

My book is not a substitute for prophetic counsel. It’s one member’s careful scriptural study and personal inspiration, offered for others to examine prayerfully. I have never claimed to speak for the Church, and I never will. I encourage every reader to go directly to the scriptures I reference and take them to the Lord. Don’t take my word for it. Take God’s word and ask Him.

Some readers have pointed to past statements by General Authorities, or to chapter headings and footnotes in their scriptures, as evidence that this book conflicts with established interpretation. These are sincere concerns and they deserve a sincere answer.

First, it is worth understanding that chapter headings and footnotes were added by scholars and are not part of the canonized text of scripture. They reflect interpretive traditions, not binding doctrine. Read the actual words of the text itself and ask God what they mean.

Second, not every statement made by a Church leader, however inspired and faithful, constitutes binding doctrine for the entire Church. President J. Reuben Clark taught clearly that the words of General Authorities carry weight in proportion to whether they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and that members have the right and responsibility to seek confirmation through the Spirit. President Dallin H. Oaks has likewise taught that the Church’s understanding of scripture continues to deepen through ongoing revelation. If our understanding were already complete and final, there would be no need for a living prophet.

This book does not contradict the living prophet or the current apostles. It draws on the standard works and the teachings of Joseph Smith. Where it differs from certain traditional interpretations, I invite you to take those specific scriptures to the Lord yourself and seek your own confirmation. That is not a loophole. That is exactly how God designed His Church to work.

If you have questions about your own preparedness and what you should do, please consult with your priesthood leaders. They are the proper source of guidance for your personal circumstances. Our Church leaders are doing exactly what God wants them to do, and this book does not contradict them. It simply shares insights that are unfolding now, as the prophecies begin to be fulfilled, exactly as Moroni promised would happen in the last days.

I understand this concern, and it’s a fair one. Latter-day Saints rightly believe that personal revelation is given for one’s own stewardship. I don’t claim the authority of a prophet, seer, or revelator. I’ve never claimed to speak for the Church or to have received revelation that supersedes prophetic counsel.

What I have done is study the scriptures carefully, received personal spiritual impressions that I believe are from the Lord, and written a book sharing my findings. Members of the Church have done this throughout the Restoration. Hugh Nibley wrote extensively about his scriptural interpretations. Avraham Gileadi has published numerous books on Isaiah. Various scholars and members have shared their understanding of prophecy for generations. My book is in that same tradition: one person’s study, offered for consideration, not for command.

I ask every reader to go to the scriptures I quote and take those passages to the Lord in prayer. I’m not asking anyone to pray about my book or to treat it as scripture. I’m asking them to study the word of God and let the Spirit confirm or deny what they find there. That’s how the gospel has always worked.