A small crowd at the BYU Studies Symposium yesterday was on hand to receive Richard Holzapfel’s self-proclaimed Mormon history “bombshell.” He presented the morning plenary session on Wilford Woodruff’s 1897 recorded testimony, the first sound recording made of an LDS General Authority. The audience was treated to hearing parts of this recording, which is also available at the BYU Studies website. Continue reading…
Archive for the 'General Authorities' Category
13 Comments
I listened recently to a Mormon Expression podcast with John Dehlin, in which he comments upon the difficult position the Church leaders face. He observes that their are times when they make particular decisions based upon a legalistic-bureaucratic framework that sometimes seem incomprehensible, even unchristian but that these decision are understandable. I would like to ask this question: Is there an alternative? Continue reading…
Some time ago, as a guest I wrote a post entitled ‘Academic freedom in the Church‘ which tried to explore some of liberalizing tendencies seen in LDS culture since the September Six, but particularly over the last decade. Having recently read an excellent (as usual) article by D. Michael Quinn on the development of the ‘Sacral Power Structure‘ of Mormonism, I wanted to re-visit this issue as a result of some of the reasons he gives for the increasing authoritarianism and conservatism in the Church. Quinn argues that the expansive growth of the Church during the 1950-1970’s led the hierarchy to emphasize an ‘unquestioning rank-and-file obedience to Church directives’ which is rooted in the ‘inherent fear of centrifugal tendencies of enormous Church growth’[1]. Continue reading…
I wish I could claim credit for the title of the post, but it actually comes from this MSNBC article. Apparently the Pope is encouraging Catholic Priests to blog. It reminded me of Elder Ballard’s admonition back in 2007. Even though the pope doesn’t love computers, he said, Continue reading…
Obedience to the Word of Wisdom, it is commonly known, was not always a requirement for entering the Temple or 
advancement in the Priesthood. What is less clear from the historicl record is when this principle moved to become a requirement. President Joseph Fielding Smith believed the change occurred in 1851, but an excellent article by McCue has shown this cannot be the case [1]. Others have argued that it occurred under the Joseph F. Smith administration (he seems to have been the first to have said it was a commandment – but it was only made a test of fellowship in extreme cases and informally in a letter dated Dec 28 1915 [2]). Contrastingly Thomas Alexander argued that it happened under President Grant. I agree with Alexander, but there is even confusion about when it was made official, was it early 20’s or early 30’s and what led to these changes?
A close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows
In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.
Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church. Continue reading…
A temple wedding petition to is being circulated to promote love and happiness in the family by changing the church’s stance on civil marriages preceding temple weddings. The petition requests that the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make it acceptable to have a civil marriage ceremony first, if desired, and then giving the couple the necessary time to attend the temple for the sealing ordinance as they do in those countries whose laws require it. (The petition is not endorsed by Mormon Matters; this information is being shared for discussion as a news item).
In the following video which lasts about 2 minutes, Jean talks about the stigma some members may feel if they choose a civil wedding ceremony. The other preseding videos last approximately 2 minutes each.
Temple Wedding Petition 3 Here
This year I received a Christmas card from the First Presidency. I have heard that Church employees get one, but it has not been my experience so far. Nor did it occur to me that I would get one. I received it with a DVD for the youth of our ward. I cannot tell whether it was to accompany the DVD or whether Bishops get Christmas cards every year (this is my first Christmas as a Bishop).
From an outsiders perspective, Mormon worship services may be perceived as lacking actual worship. We spend two and a half of our three hours in classes or listening to sermons. We have (maybe) half an hour of singing (most of it – in my ward at least – resembles a death march) and ordinances. Even our public prayers center around the teacher and the student receiving the Spirit. Where is our Worship? In a BYU devotional entitled ‘Lord, Increase our Faith’ Bruce R. McConkie taught that he believed that the highest form of worship is when someone spoke by the spirit and another person received by the spirit so that both were edified. This idea is clearly rooted in D&C section 50, but is this really a form of worship? If it is a uniquely LDS form of worship then what does that tell us about the ideals we value most in the Mormon Church? Continue reading…
I saw this interesting photo in the Deseret News today, and just had to share.
Air Force Acadamy at Utah football game 10/24/2009
In the paper edition of the Deseret News, President Monson was “honored as the distinguished University of Utah fan of the game.” Pres Monson’s attendance may have been a deciding factor–the Utes won 23-16 in Overtime over the Air Force Falcons. Meanwhile, BYU suffered a loss without Pres Monson, getting crushed 38-7 at home in Provo to TCU (Texas Christian University.)
I recently learned that the University of Utah was designated as “the School of the Prophets” by Brigham Young, according to a Deseret News article from Dec 2, 1867. Continue reading…
If you didn’t happen to read the February issue of Ensign Magazine in 1987, you missed some valuable instruction about how to provide critical feedback to Church leaders. Luckily for you, this post provides a second chance to get up to speed on what all would-be “improvers” in the Church should know about how to seek improving the Church without crossing any line that will forfeit your eternal exaltation and doom you to an eternity of teeth-gnashing with a TK smoothie. Continue reading…
There are two types of people who try to improve organizations from the outside of hierarchies. Those who volunteer and those who are asked for their help. As to volunteers, if you think the pure mass of blog commenters is overwhelming (think how many people make a suggestion or have comments that are ignored on T&C or BCC), any large organization has such a crescendo of people with ideas that the flood of ideas tends to merge into a huge wall of static from the organization’s perspective. Not to say that every outside voice is not heard.
Which is what this post is about.
If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That’s what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody’s liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. . . . [W]e have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. . . . We would say: “This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” . . . We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive. -Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Mar. 6, 2006. (Source.)
I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this Latter-day work and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these our times until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and Semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow–especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers–if that’s the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this Church, they must to do so by crawling over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit.” -Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Oct. 4, 2009. (Source.)
When Elder Holland delivered his stinging rebuke to Book of Mormon critics in his General Conference address last Sunday, reactions ranged from “woots” and “double woots” by literalist believers of the Book of Mormon, to disappointment by those who felt Elder Holland was backtracking on his prior statement that Church members who don’t believe the traditional story of its origins should not be considered “unacceptable . . . as a Latter-day Saint if [they] can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” However, after listening carefully to Elder Holland’s address again, I think both camps might be mistaken about what Elder Holland was intending to say, particularly with regard to the “Inspired Fiction” theory of the Book of Mormon. Continue reading…
Do you know your Apostles’ wives? Bonus points if you can give first/maiden names in the comments. (Don’t cheat–only make a guess if you didn’t have to look it up!!)
Katherine Jessop Christofferson Continue reading…
Loading ...
