In a post at BCC, John Hamer gave a thorough history of Marsh’s disaffection with the Church and concluded:

“Thus, while the moral the Thomas B. Marsh fable, i.e., that faith can be shattered over something inconsequential, is true enough, it would probably make sense to tell a different, more appropriate fable to illustrate that moral.”

The same conclusion can be reached by considering additional aspects of Ryder’s story.  A talk in the Sunday morning session of General Conference by Donald L. Hallstrom titled Turn to the Lord referenced the Symonds Ryder story as follows:

Symonds Ryder was a Campbellite leader who heard about the Church and had a meeting with Joseph Smith. Moved by this experience, he joined the Church in June 1831. Immediately thereafter, he was ordained an elder and called to serve a mission. However, in his call letter from the First Presidency and on his official commission to preach, his name was misspelled—by one letter. His last name showed as R-i-d-e-r, not the correct R-y-d-e-r. This caused him to question his call and those from whom it came. He chose not to go on the mission and fell away, which soon led to hatred and intense opposition toward Joseph and the Church.

In such retellings of the Ryder fable, the misspelling of his name is often the only reason cited as the cause of his decision to then leave the church. (see B. H. Roberts in HC 1:260–61; Fawn M. Brodie in No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, 118; Donna Hill in Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, 143; Cannon and Cook in Far West Record, 286; Dean C. Jessee in Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume 1: Autobiographical and Historical Writings, 511.) Probably the origin of this story is his funeral sermon preached in Hiram, Ohio, August 3, 1870, by B.A. Hinsdale.

“Ryder was informed, that by special revelation he had been appointed and commissioned an elder of the Mormon church. His commission came, and he found his name misspelled. Was the Holy Spirit so fallible as to fail even in orthography? Beginning with this challenge, his strong, incisive mind and honest heart were brought to the task of re-examining the ground on which he stood. His friend Booth had been passing through a similar experience, on his pilgrimage to Missouri, and, when they met about the 1st of September, 1831, the first question which sprang from the lips of each was–”How is your faith?” and the first look into each other’s faces, gave answer that the spell of enchantment was broken, and the delusion was ended. They turned from the dreams they had followed for a few months, and found more than ever before, that the religion of the New Testament was “the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.” (A. S. Hayden, Early History of the Disciples (1875), p. 251.)

Perhaps the misspelling was a bother to Ryder, but this one incident was hardly the sole reason for Ryder’s departure. For one thing, spelling was more fluid in the 19th century and earlier. An attempt at standardized spelling in the U.S. did not begin until the appearance of Webster’s “American Dictionary of the English Language” in 1828, and for at least a half century many words continued to be vociferously debated. American census-takers varied quite a bit in their reporting of people’s names, showing that they were not asking people “How is that spelled?” but rather writing the name as they thought it should appear. Ryder’s name appears as following in the U.S. census:

1830 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Simonds Rider
1840 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Symonds Rider
1850 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Simonds Rider, wife Mahitabel
1860 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Symonds Rider, wife Mehitable
1870 census Hiram, Portage, OH: Symands Rider, wife Mahitable

Ryder’s commission with the misspelling of his name took place in June 1831 and may account for his not going to Missouri, but as noted he did not leave the church until Ezra Booth’s return in September. In the meantime, Ryder became concerned about other developments. In a letter to A.S. Hayden he wrote:

“But when they [Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon] went to Missouri to lay the foundation of the splendid city of Zion, and also of the temple, they left their papers behind. This gave their new converts an opportunity to become acquainted with the internal arrangement of their church, which revealed to them the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Joseph Smith the prophet. This was too much for the Hiramites, and they left the Mormonites faster than they had ever joined them, and by fall the Mormon church in Hiram was a very lean concern.” (Symonds Ryder, “Letter to A. S. Hayden,” February 1, 1868, cited in Hayden, op. cit., pp. 220, 221.)

It seems that the coming threat of enforced consecration might have been more of a problem for Ryder than the misspelling of his name. The influence of his disaffected friend Ezra Booth must have also had an effect upon Symonds.

The Religion 341 Church History manual states:

“From the outset the Church had an unpopular public image that was added to by apostates and nurtured by the circulation of negative stories and articles in the press. People gave many reasons for apostatizing. For example, Norman Brown left the Church because his horse died on the trip to Zion. Joseph Wakefield withdrew after he saw Joseph Smith playing with children upon coming down from his translating room. Symonds Ryder lost faith in Joseph’s inspiration when Ryder’s name was misspelled in his commission to preach. Others left the Church because they experienced economic difficulties.”

Such a view boils the disaffection of these individuals down to a single, easily dismissed anecdote rather than acknowledging the difficult and complex issues they faced. This practice encourages members today to dismiss the very real concerns confronted by members who question aspects of the Church. “If you have questions, you must be sinning,” the party line goes. In reality, there are multiple tangled and tortuous reasons why someone may develop a crisis of faith. Not only should we look deeper into the available documents to discover the motivations of historical figures, we should listen, and listen, and listen some more to come to a greater understanding of our friends and associates who question.

As for Symonds, poor thing.  If he was really so concerned about spelling, he must have rolled over in his grave when they placed this tombstone — with the name of the “Desciples” church spelled wrong!

New Year celebrations are some of the oldest holidays known to man.  The Babylonians had an 11 day celebration to ring in the New Year about 4000 years ago.  This celebration began with the first New Moon following the Vernal Equinox (Mar 21).  The Romans continued to observe the New Year in March, but due to tampering with the calendar by various emporers, the calendar became out of synchronization with the sun.  In 153 BC, the Roman senate decided to start the New Year to match the same time the senate started sessions:  January 1.  Further calendar tampering continued, and Julius Ceasar decided to synchronize the calendar in 46 BC by allowing the previous year to last 445 days.  (This is known as the Julian calendar.)  Our current calendar is based on the Gregorian Calendar, (named after Pope Gregory 13th), and was introduced February 24, 1582 using the birth of Christ as year 1.  (However, it is widely believed he was off a few years–even by his contemporaries.  With all the changes in calendaring systems, it’s easy to see why.)

Many of you are probably familiar that April 1 was originally the day of the New Year, and it was the April Fools who didn’t know it had been changed to January 1.  A possible origin for April Fools Day may have been when King Charles IX of France officially changed the first day of the year from April 1 to January 1, some of his subjects continued using the old system, based on the Julian calendar.

——

We don’t normally associate January 1 with Christian celebrations, but there is a great story in the Bible.  If Dec 25 represents Christ’s birth, 8 days later (Jan 1) would be the day Christ was circumcised.  The story is found in Luke 2:21-30.  You may remember that Simeon was promised that he would not die before seeing the Lord Jesus.

Luk 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

The Eastern Orthodox Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, Lutheran Churches, and some churches in the Anglican Communion celebrate Jan 1 as The Feast of the Circumcision of Christ. According to Wikipedia,

The feast is celebrated with an All-Night Vigil, beginning the evening of December 31. The hymns of the feast are combined with those for Saint Basil the Great. After the Divine Liturgy the next morning, Russian Orthodox churches often celebrate a New Year Molieben (service of intercession) to pray for God’s blessing for the beginning of the civil New Year.

So, would anyone like to celebrate the New Year the Russian Orthodox way?

———–

Now, I thought the beginning of Elder Eyring’s talk introduces the idea of New Years Resolutions quite well:

I feel blessed to have the opportunity to speak with you on this Sabbath day. Different as we are in circumstances and experiences, we share a desire to become better than we are. There may be a few who mistakenly feel they are good enough and a few who have given up trying to be better. But, for all, the message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is that we can and must expect to become better as long as we live.

It’s hard to tell by reading just the print version here, but Elder Eyring is actually saying this is a kind of joking way “There may be a few who mistakenly feel they are good enough”.  I’ve always noticed that Elder Eyring frequently gets choked up with emotion (as he does later in this talk), and it is nice to see that he is trying to exhibit a sense of humor, though there were no chuckles here.  (I get tired of people who feel the need to cry every testimony, and it seems to me Eyring usually fits to this category–if the gospel makes us happy, why all the crying?)

I think there are some who won’t do any resolutions because they “have given up trying to be better.”  I admit that I often don’t do resolutions, and perhaps I fit into this category.  Are there any others willing to admit this?

———–

The next paragraph, Eyring seems to have misplaced the setting of a scripture, calling it a revelation to Joseph Smith at first.  That seems like a bit of a mis-characterization to me.  Rather than a revelation to Joseph, isn’t this a sermon/exhortation from the prophet Mormon?  Is this some sort of off-handed way to say that Joseph revealed the Book of Mormon, rather than translated the Book of Mormon?  Eyring says,

Part of that expectation is set for us in a revelation given by God to the Prophet Joseph Smith. It describes the day when we will meet the Savior, as we all will. It tells us what to do to prepare and what to expect.

It is in the book of Moroni: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.” [Moroni 7:48]

That ought to help you understand why any believing Latter-day Saint is an optimist about what lies ahead for him or her, however difficult the present may be.

———-

Wait a minute–aren’t Mormons depressed because they’re trying too hard to be like Jesus, or is it true the Mormons live in the happiest State in the Nation?  Which side do you pick?

———-

Eyring continues,

We believe that through living the gospel of Jesus Christ we can become like the Savior, who is perfect. Considering the attributes of Jesus Christ should quash the pride of the self-satisfied person who thinks he or she has no need to improve. And even the most humble person can take hope in the invitation to become like the Savior.

Ok, I guess we all have need of New Years Resolutions….  How far do we take this analogy to be like Jesus?  Can we take it to exaltation/theosis?

———–

Elder Eyring gets choked up while relating the words to a children’s song.  I think the words could well be heeded on the bloggernacle.

“Love one another as Jesus loves you.
Try to show kindness in all that you do.
Be gentle and loving in deed and in thought,
For these are the things Jesus taught.”
[“I’m Trying to Be like Jesus,” Children’s Songbook, 78–79.]

I know that I can do a better job of “trying to show kindness in all that [I blog]“.  While feelings can often get heated on the bloggernacle, how do we disagree in a way that “show[s] kindness”?

——–

I liked Elder Eyring’s counsel to see the good in our spouses.  As marriage lengthens, it is really easy for all of us to become shorter with our spouses, and I don’t look for the good in my wife as I should.  I resolve to look for the good in my wife.

First, I give counsel to husbands and wives. Pray for the love which allows you to see the good in your companion. Pray for the love that makes weaknesses and mistakes seem small. Pray for the love to make your companion’s joy your own. Pray for the love to want to lessen the load and soften the sorrows of your companion.

I saw this in my parents’ marriage. In my mother’s final illness, the more uncomfortable she became, the more giving her comfort became the dominant intent of my father’s life. He asked that the hospital set up a bed in her room. He was determined to be there to be sure that she wanted for nothing. He walked the miles to work each morning and back to her side at night through those difficult times for her. I believe it was a gift from God to him that his power to love grew when it mattered so much to her. I think he was doing what Jesus would have done out of love.

———–

I think this counsel can be applied to the bloggernacle as well.  We ought to pray for the love which allows us to see the good in those we disagree with.  We ought not to be so judgmental, especially on divisive topics.  One wouldn’t think that the next paragraph would be divisive, but it sure can be on the bloggernacle as we talk about families.

That is because the greatest joys and the greatest sorrows we experience are in family relationships. The joys come from putting the welfare of others above our own. That is what love is. And the sorrow comes primarily from selfishness, which is the absence of love. The ideal God holds for us is to form families in the way most likely to lead to happiness and away from sorrow. A man and a woman are to make sacred covenants that they will put the welfare and happiness of the other at the center of their lives. Children are to be born into a family where the parents hold the needs of children equal to their own in importance. And children are to love parents and each other.

That is the ideal of a loving family. In many of our homes, there are the words “Our Family Can Be Together Forever.”

———

I think the Prodigal Son is one of my favorite parables of Jesus.  It is the story of both Judgment and Forgiveness, and I think its’ application is one of the most difficult.

The story of the prodigal son gives us all hope. The prodigal remembered home, as will your children. They will feel your love drawing them back to you. Elder Orson F. Whitney, in a general conference of 1929, gave a remarkable promise, which I know is true, to the faithful parents who honor the temple sealing to their children: “Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold.”

Then he goes on to say: “Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.”4 You can pray for your children, love them, and reach out to them with confidence that Jesus reaches for them with you. When you keep trying, you are doing what Jesus does.

When we look at people with drug problems, or serious sexual offenses, how do we apply this story?  Recitivism for drug addicts and sexual predators is very high.  Some believe they can’t be rehabilitated.  Governor Huckabee’s pardon of a man who went on to kill 4 police officers seems that he was trying to use the example of the Prodigal Son.  From the Washington Post article,

“If I could have known nine years ago this guy was capable of something of this magnitude, obviously I would never have granted a commutation,” he told Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly on Monday night. “It’s sickening.”

Huckabee defended his decision,

On Tuesday, Huckabee defended his decision to commute Clemmons’ sentence during a call to “The Joe Scarborough Show” on 77 WABC radio in New York. If his critics had been there in the governor’s mansion, Huckabee said, “They would have seen a 16-year-old kid commit crimes of which normally, there would have been a few years. And if he’d been white and middle-class with a good lawyer he’d have gotten probation, a fine and some counseling. But because he was a young black kid, he got 108 years!”

“People don’t go to prison for murder” with that sort of sentence, Huckabee said.

The recent hit movie, The Blind Side, seems to be a feel good story of a family who took in a Prodigal Son, Michael Oher, and turned his life around from a life of crime and gangs.  How do we practically apply this parable, when it is so easy for criminals to deceive?

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

Temple Wedding Petition 1 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 2 Here

Temple Wedding Petition .org here

The actual petition is found here

I was raised in a part member family and remember when my brother was married my parents were disappointed that they weren’t able to go to the temple and see their son get married. It would have been nice for our family to have seen it. I wonder if it makes non- members, or those on the fringe, feel excluded from the church and may damper future missionary work with families. I live in England and it’s the law that there is a civil wedding which usually takes place in the chapel.

Recently a nephew was married and was schedueled to get married in the Salt Lake temple. Because much of the family couldn’t witness the wedding they decided last minute to have a civil wedding. He and his wife since their marriage enjoy going to the temple but have to wait a year now to be married in the temple.

I wonder if there is a church loophol if you want your non- member family to see your wedding you could get married in America and fly to a country where the church allows civil marriages followed by a temple marriage after?

What are your thoughts and experiences?

Just to make it very clear that there is no advocacy on the part of MM.

As I read the scriptures, listen to conference talks, and other materials about the Church, I get the feeling sometimes that things can be a little vague.  Human nature seems to dictate that an absolute answer is always preferred over ambiguity and vagueness.

But in the religious realm, it is not to be.  Vagueness is defined as not clear in meaning or application or, indistinctly felt, perceived, understood, or recalled; hazy.

The fact that there are so many religions and religious denominations seems to confirm this idea. For instance, if there is one God, our Heavenly Father, why does He seem to manifest Himself so differently to different people, to different cultures, and at different times?

For example, In the LDS Church, we believe that Baptism is an essential ordnance to enter the kingdom of God and to progress toward eternal life and salvation.  And there are Christian denominations that echo that same idea.  However, there are just as many, maybe more, who, reading the same scriptures, deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  Vagueness occurs because the scriptures are not 100% clear on that point.  Within the LDS Church, the Prophet Joseph Smith did make it clear, in the Fourth Article of Faith, that Baptism is essential.

In another, more contemporary example, many conservative Christians and Jews, for that matter, look at scriptures in Leviticus to proclaim that Homosexual activity is wrong. (Leviticus 18:22, see also Romans 1:27, 29-31, 32) However, religious organizations and individuals more sympathetic toward the Gay Movement have interpreted those scriptures very differently and say that they do not even address the issue of homosexuality.  (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm) The scriptures do not come right out and address the issue so clearly it cannot be open to interpretation. Vagueness.

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, the Word of Wisdom verse 9, “hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” But what is a hot drink?  Anyone’s first read of that verse would lead them to conclude it was ANY drink that was HOT  That does not seem terribly vague.

But wait, there’s more!

In 1842 Hyrum Smith, Assistant President of the Church and also the Presiding Patriarch, provided an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom’s proscription of “hot drinks”:

“And again “hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;” there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.  (Times and Seasons, 1842-06-01, vol. 3, p. 800.

But it does not refer to hot chocolate, hot herbal tea, hot barley drinks, etc. But, many have also speculated as to why coffee and tea?  Could it be the caffeine? If so, that means cola drinks, or anything else that might have caffeine in it.  You mean like chocolate? Wait a minute! I thought hot chocolate was ok? What about Mountain Dew, its not a cola drink?  Here is a case where something seems pretty straightforward but has been made somewhat vague.

Here are a few other topics that have been vague at one time or another:

• Tithing: Net or Gross?
• New and Everlasting  Covenant of Marriage: Plurality of Wives or just Eternal marriage ( Sealing)
• Missouri Extermination Order: Kill them or just run them out of town?
• United Order: Voluntary or the Law of Consecration?
• Blacks and the Priesthood:  Doctrine, policy or  just plain prejudice?
• Many, many more

So why would Gospel Principles be Vague?

First, maybe they are not all that vague.  Maybe, you need to find the right source of information. If the scriptures seem vague, what have the Living Prophets said?  If that is vague, what does the Lord tell you when you pray about it or what does the Spirit testify to you about it?  Still nothing?  What are you willing t o take on faith alone?

Second, We do need to develop faith. “NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  (Hebrews 11:1). Some things have no immediate answer and must be taken on faith alone until a later time.

Thirdly, we are here on earth as a test.  Ultimately, we decide for ourselves the path we walk. Like the verse at the beginning of this post, if we did not have our agency to decide for ourselves and had to be told each and every little detail, we would not progress to reach the goal of living with Our Father in Heaven and His Son throughout eternity.

Sure, things can be a bit vague and uncertain at times.  But it is part of the great Plan of happiness for us to endure to the end.

So, the question at hand is how do you deal with the vagueness and ambiguity? Perhaps you think there is none. Feel free to list your vague Gospel Principles.

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.

The Inspired Fiction Theory and Its Scriptural Precedents

For those who may not be familiar with the Inspired Fiction theory, it goes something like this: Scripture is a vehicle that teaches us divine truths through the medium of divinely-inspired stories which are oftentimes fictional. Just a few of the more obvious examples would be the parables contained in the New Testament, or the fantastic stories in the Old Testament (Noah and the Ark, Moses’ divine cursing of Egypt, Jonah living three days in the belly of a whale, etc.). These seemingly obvious examples of divinely-inspired fiction are no less important or valuable as sources of divine guidance than had they been literally true. For example, the stories of the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan do not have to be based on literal historic events to have spiritual value. Moreover, the fact that Jesus openly used fictional stories to teach timeless truths establishes an example and a pattern of God teaching his children spiritual truths through stories that are not grounded in literal, historic fact.

Latter-day Saint Apostles and scholars have embraced the notion that scripture may be divinely-inspired fiction. For example, Apostle Parley P. Pratt stated that the Creation story was the equivalent of a child’s fable because humankind has not been intellectually equipped throughout the ages to understand its true origins. (See Temples of the Most High.)

Moreover, faithful LDS scholars who have examined the surviving Egyptian papyri that were in Joseph Smith’s possession (which contain the facsimiles that appear in the Book of Abraham but which date from around 100 – 250 B.C. rather than from Abraham’s much earlier era) have theorized that perhaps the Book of Abraham was not translated from Egyptian papyri even though Joseph Smith said it was, but rather, that the Book of Abraham was a divine revelation that Joseph was able to receive only after his mind was opened and prepared to receive it by examining the Egyptian papyri in his possession. (Source.) In other words, faithful LDS scholars hypothesize that despite Joseph’s claim that the Book of Abraham was “A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus,” the papyrus merely served as a “catalyst” to inspire a divine revelation that was, in fact, not contained on the Egyptian papyri in his possession. (Source.) These LDS scholars feel comfortable with this possibility because, as one LDS apologetics forum explains: “Joseph used the word ‘translation‘ to mean several things, including the process of receiving pure revelation. (Joseph Smith’s revelations call his revision of the Bible a “translation” (D&C 73:4; 76:15; 90:13; 94:10; 124), even though he didn’t use any Hebrew of Greek manuscripts. Also, D&C 7 is a revealed translation of a lost record written by the Apostle John.)” (Source.) Again, it is worth emphasizing that, according to faithful LDS apologists, Joseph Smith is known to have used the word “translation” to mean “the process of receiving pure revelation,” as opposed to literally translating words in an ancient record from one language to another. (Source.) Thus, faithful LDS scholars have no qualms with the possibility that Joseph may have thought he was producing a “translation” of an ancient record when in reality he was receiving and recording “pure revelation” that was unconnected to any ancient record, even when a physical object such as Egyptian papyri were present. The overall concept is that Joseph’s revelations were divinely inspired even if he didn’t completely understand the process through which those revelations were received.

Resistance to, and Acceptance of, the Inspired Fiction Theory

When it comes to applying this same sort of theory to the Book of Mormon, however, the resistance sometimes becomes fierce. It seems most LDS leaders and scholars are unwilling to extend this same theory to the Book of Mormon, and are deeply disturbed by any suggestion that the Book of Mormon represents anything less than an actual translation of Reformed Egyptian characters into English taken from an actual historical record written by real persons living anciently in the Middle East and on the American continent. It is worth noting that this resistance to the Inspired Fiction theory persists even though LDS scholars now believe Joseph Smith and his contemporary Latter-day Saints were mistaken when they made many statements indicating their belief that the Book of Mormon accounts had taken place over large swaths of the North American continent. (Source.)

In summary, most LDS scholars are comfortable stating that Joseph Smith did not actually “translate” the Book of Abraham and the Bible as that word is commonly understood, and that he was mistaken in thinking that the Book of Mormon accounts took place over large swaths of the North American continent (rather than a relatively small area in Guatemala and southern Mexico), but they are unwilling to allow for the possibility that Joseph Smith also mistakenly believed the Book of Mormon was a translation of an actual ancient record.

Some may ask: Why resist applying the Inspired Fiction theory to the Book of Mormon? Why resist the idea that God inspired Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon to teach us divine truths through the medium of divinely-inspired stories that are equally fictional but no less valuable than the parables of Jesus? Why resist the idea that Lehi, Nephi and others were divinely-inspired characters in a grand divine novel rather than real persons who actually lived in the ancient Americas? Why resist the idea that Joseph mistakenly thought the Book of Mormon was a “translation” of an ancient record written by actual ancient prophets, similar to his mistakenly thinking he was translating the Egyptian papyri in his possession when he received the revelation that is the Book of Abraham? In a prior interview, Elder Holland explained why he has difficulty embracing the Inspired Fiction theory:

Now, in terms of more modern theories, there are those who say it’s more mythical literature and spiritual, and not literal. That doesn’t work for me. I don’t understand that, and I can’t go very far with that, because Joseph Smith said there were plates, and he said there was an angel. And if there weren’t plates and there wasn’t an angel, I have a bigger problem than whether the Book of Mormon is rich literature. . . . I have to go with what the prophet said about the book, about its origins, about the literalness of the plates, the literalness of the vision — and then the product speaks for itself.

I don’t think we’re through examining the depth, the richness, the profundity, the complexity, all of the literary and historical and religious issues that go into that book. I think we’re still young at doing that. But the origins for me are the origins that the prophet Joseph said: a set of plates, given by an angel, translated by the gift and power of God. . . . (Source.)

However, some LDS scholars, usually those whose conclusions fall outside the “mainstream” of what Church leaders and Church-funded scholars are comfortable accepting, view the Inspired Fiction theory as a favorable “middle ground” position where Latter-day Saints can continue to reverence the Book of Mormon as divinely-inspired scripture without having to believe it is an actual translation of an actual ancient record written by real people, and thereby avoiding the numerous challenges to the Book of Mormon’s historicity that currently keep a team of Church-funded scholars employed to research and respond to.  However, as LDS scholar Louis Midgley has explained, such a “middle ground” position is harmful to the Church’s tradition and interests:

Some may ask: why not find a way to reduce the controversy over the Book of Mormon? What harm can such an accommodation do? The reasons for rejecting such compromises seem obvious to me. For one thing, the Book of Mormon is, more than anything else, what keeps the Church of Jesus Christ from becoming just another Protestant sect or social welfare agency. Its existence makes of Joseph Smith something other than a mere quaint or colorful example in a line of Christian primitivists or restorationists. In addition, the Book of Mormon was what witnessed to those who first became members of the fledgling Church of Christ that Joseph Smith wore the mantle of a genuine prophet, as it does to those who are currently believing and practicing Latter-day Saints. And its existence has, more than any other single thing, right from the beginning, distinguished the Latter-day Saints from various brands of Protestant sectarian religiosity. (Source.)

Did Elder Holland Denounce or Carefully Avoid the Inspired Fiction Theory?

Though it is clear that Elder Holland’s recent Conference address denounced all theories that portray Joseph Smith as having knowingly fabricated a book that he knew was not divinely-inspired, it is less clear to me after carefully listening to Elder Holland’s talk whether he was likewise intending to denounce the Inspired Fiction theory that portrays Joseph as receiving and dictating a divinely-inspired but fictional history of Israelites emigrating to and settling in ancient America as a medium for conveying spiritual truths and doctrines that promote the happiness, peace, and spiritual well-being of humankind. As you read the portions of Elder Holland’s address quoted below, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between what Elder Holland personally believes about the Book of Mormon, and what he is comfortable allowing other faithful Latter-day Saints to believe about its origins (as we see reflected in the very first Holland quote above). Although it is clear that Elder Holland personally believes the Book of Mormon is an actual translation of an actual ancient historical record, and although it is likewise clear he finds it utterly unacceptable for any Latter-day Saint to believe that Joseph Smith knowingly, and therefore deceptively, fabricated the Book of Mormon, ask yourself as you read Elder Holland’s remarks whether he allows for faithful Latter-day Saints to believe that the Book of Mormon was divinely-inspired, but that Joseph was simply mistaken in saying it was a translation of an actual physical historical record (as LDS scholars are willing to accept when it comes to the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian papyri Joseph Smith believed he was “translating”). For example, when Elder Holland states that Latter-day Saints are “deceived” unless they believe in the “divinity” of the Book of Mormon, does that mean he feels Latter-day Saints are deceived if they believe it is divinely-inspired fiction?

In my view, Elder Holland selected his words very carefully, I suspect for the purpose of allowing faithful Latter-day Saints to hold a position that he personally does not share: that the Book of Mormon was divinely-inspired, but that Joseph did not recognize its stories as being fictional (again, similar to LDS apologists’ theory that Joseph mistakenly believed the Book of Abraham was an actual translation of an actual historical record, rather than knowingly lying about it, and similar to LDS apologists’ assertion that Joseph was mistaken in believing that the Book of Mormon actually took place over large swaths of North America, rather than knowingly lying about it). And now, without further ado, the relevant portions of Elder Holland’s talk (as transcribed by me from the audio recording):

There is one kind of latter-day destruction that has always sounded to me more personal than public, more individual than collective, a warning perhaps more applicable inside the Church than outside it. The Savior warned in the last days, even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth. . . . [Elder Holland then identifies the Book of Mormon as a source of divine guidance in the Latter-days, summarizes Lehi's dream, focusing on the rod of iron and the mists of darkness, and relates a story of Hyrum reading a Book of Mormon passage to bring comfort to the party on their way to Carthage jail.]

Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards that held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Shortly thereafter, pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest and last hour of need, I ask you, would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book, and by implication a church and a ministry, they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth?! . . . [A]nd tell me, whether in this hour of death, these two men would enter the presence of their eternal judge, quoting from, and finding solace in, a book which if not the very word of God would brand them as impostors and charlatans until the end of time. They would not do that! They were willing to die, rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Elder Holland’s choice of words above is interesting. A Latter-day Saint who believes the Book of Mormon represents divinely-inspired fiction would whole-heartedly agree with his remarks about the Book of Mormon’s “divine authenticity,” “divinity,” “truthfulness,” “divine origin,” and “eternal truthfulness,” in the same way he or she would embrace the “divine authenticity” and “divine origin” and “eternal truthfulness” of Jesus’ parables or any number of the fantastic stories in the Old Testatment. Moreover, when Elder Holland uses the word “fictitiously” above, it’s seems he almost certainly means that Joseph would not have knowingly fictitiously created the Book of Mormon, as opposed to his receiving a divine revelation that he did not recognize as being a fictional spiritual history (again, in the same way LDS apologists hypothesize with regard to the Book of Abraham). This line of thought continues in the next paragraph, where he denounces the various theories that portray Joseph as knowingly plagiarizing from other works to create the Book of Mormon, or knowingly fabricating it out of whole cloth:

Failed theories about its origins have been born, parroted, and died. From Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding, to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young, unlearned translator. . . . “No wicked man could write such a book as this, and no good man would write it, unless it were true, and he were commanded of God to do so.” 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.

Again, I do not see anything here that should cause Latter-day Saints who ascribe to the Inspired Fiction theory of the Book of Mormon’s origins to feel as if they’ve been pronounced “deceived” by Elder Holland. While he obviously sees “Semitic complexity” in the Book of Mormon, which he plainly relies upon to support his personal view that it represents literal history, he does so in the context of denouncing those those who deny the Book of Mormon’s divinity. Of course, those who ascribe to the Inspired Fiction are in full agreement with Elder Holland about the divinity of the Book of Mormon, and could further believe that any genuine “Semitic complexity” within its pages was divinely-inspired as well.

Elder Holland then cited as support for his position that witnesses to the Gold Plates, some of whom were later sometimes hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the Gold Plates by the power of God and not the power of man. Thus, Elder Holland plainly believes in the literal existence of Gold Plates, and views them as being the source material for the Book of Mormon, along with “gift and power of God” to translate them. However, there is no plain denunciation of those who believe the Gold Plates could have been an angelically-provided object that served as a catalyst to open and prepare Joseph’s mind to receive the Book of Mormon through revelation, in the same way that LDS apologists posit Joseph received the “pure revelation” of the Book of Abraham after examining the catalyst to that revelation, namely, the Egyptian papyri in his possession. Moreover, this would explain the accounts where Joseph “translated” the Book of Mormon while he gazed into a seer stone placed in his hat, rather than by reading from the characters on the Gold Plates. (Source.)

Elder Holland continues:

Now, I did not sail with the brother of Jared . . . . I did not hear King Benjamin speak his angelically-delivered sermon. I did not proselyte with Alma and Amulek . . . . I was not among the Nephite crowd who touched the wounds of the resurrected Lord, nor did I weep with Mormon and Moroni over the destruction of an entire civilization. But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them, I give my name unto the world to witness unto the world of that which I have seen, and like them, I lie not, God bearing witness of it.

I suppose one could read the quote above cynically to mean that Elder Holland said he didn’t do any of these things because they never actually happened, but I don’t believe for a second that was his intended meaning. It seems this passage again demonstrates Elder Holland’s belief that these were actual historic events. But is that the equivalent of saying that those Latter-day Saints who do not share that belief are “deceived”? I personally don’t think so, because when he referred to Latter-day Saints being “deceived” about the Book of Mormon earlier in his remarks, he did so in the context of identifying those who deny the Book of Mormon’s divinity. Moreover, if at any point in his talk Elder Holland intended to say that faithful Latter-day Saints must believe the Book of Mormon is a literal historical account of real people, he could easily have just said so. For example, he could have easily testified to the Book of Mormon’s “historical truthfulness” or “historical authenticity” but instead, he chose to testify of its “divinity” and “eternal truthfulness.”

Elder Holland concluded with his personal testimony of the Book of Mormon:

I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world in the most straightforward language I can summon, that the Book of Mormon is true, that it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth, and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days. My witness echoes that of Nephi, who wrote part of the book in his last days, “hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, . . . and they teach all men that they should do good. And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day.

Remember this declaration by Jesus himself: “Whoso treasureth up my word shall not be decieved.” And in the last days, neither your heart nor faith will fail you. Of this I earnestly testify, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Once again, a Latter-day Saint who ascribes to the Inspired Fiction theory would have no problem echoing Elder Holland’s testimony that the Book of Mormon is “true” any more than the average LDS apologist would bristle at the suggestion that that the parables of Jesus, or the Book of Abraham or the Joseph Smith”translation” of the Bible, are “true”–even though those are all recognized by LDS apologists as potentially being divinely-inspired fiction and not literal translations of actual historical records in Joseph’s possession.

Finally, I can’t help noting what I feel must have been carefully chosen wording by Elder Holland in saying that the Book of Mormon “came forth the way Joseph said it came forth.” This language struck me because it reminded me of a passage in an official Church text book used in CES Institute and BYU Religion classes, Church History in the Fullness of Times:

Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

The Prophet was reluctant to give the details about the translation. In a Church conference held 25-26 October 1831 in Orange, Ohio, Hyrum requested that a firsthand account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon be given. But the Prophet said, “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.” Joseph explained in an open letter to a newspaper editor in 1833 the heart of the matter, but he gave few particulars, stating that the Book of Mormon was “found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God.” (Church History in the Fullness of Times, p. 58, Church Education System, 1993.)

This passage raises some interesting questions: Why did Joseph and Oliver say so little about the method of translation of the Book of Mormon? Why was Joseph Smith “reluctant to give the details about the translation”? When Joseph Smith’s own brother Hyrum, who obviously believed in the Book of Mormon, asked Joseph to give a firsthand account of its coming forth to a Church conference, why did Joseph answer that “[i]t was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon”? Why did Joseph stick to generalities about the Book of Mormon being translated “by the gift and power of God”?

Elder Holland’s fervent testimony that the Book of Mormon “came forth in the way Joseph said it came forth” takes on an interesting meaning when examined in the context of these statements. It seems he too was testifying, in general terms, that the Book of Mormon came forth “by the gift and power of God,” which is a statement that adherents to the Inspired Fiction theory can fully agree with.

So what do you think? Did Elder Holland intend to denounce the Inspired Fiction theory along with all other non-traditional theories about its orgins, or did he, consistent with his words in the first quote above, intentionally and carefully avoid it to provide room within the Church for those for whom the Inspired Fiction theory serves as a lifeline that keeps them tethered to the Church?

Katherine Jessop Christofferson[poll id="69"]

Kathy Sue Williams Anderson[poll id="70"]

Wendy L. Watson Nelson[poll id="71"]

Mary Gaddie Cook[poll id="72"]

Kristen Meredith McMain Oaks[poll id="73"]

Mary Elene Crandall Hales[poll id="74"]

Patricia Terry Holland[poll id="75"]

Frances Beverly Johnson Monson[poll id="76"]

Harriet Reich Uchtdorf[poll id="77"]

Barbara Bowen Ballard[poll id="78"]

Barbara Dayton Perry[poll id="79"]

Kathleen Johnson Eyring[poll id="80"]

Donna Smith Packer[poll id="81"]

Susan Kae Robinson Bednar[poll id="82"]

More bonus points if you know whose wife was mentioned during Saturday’s talks.

Readers, we know that most of you will be home using the internet or other media wonders of today to keep abreast of General Conference. And if you’re at home with the fam, by all means make yourself as comfy as possible. On Saturday, PJ’s are perfectly acceptable. Here’s what the well-dressed Mormon will be wearing if they’re viewing at home.

If there’s too much noise around the house, head on over to your local meetinghouse for the broadcast. Saturday’s dress is a little more relaxed than Sunday’s. Women, that means skirts rather than dresses or suits. And denim is acceptable, but NEVER pants. Men, no suit coat. Throw on a pair of slacks, but don’t forgo the white shirt and tie.

If the weather is cool, a sweater or sports coat can be added to great effect. Think Sean Connery:

Now, if you’re heading on over to the Conference Center on Saturday, you know what you have to do. The weekend will cut you no slack. For women, it’s full Sunday dress, complete with hosiery. Cool weather will allow you to wear these chic opaque tights. For comfort, you’ll see lots of floral print dresses. But since it’s Saturday, you can still give it a little bit of a casual twist. For men, get out that Sunday suit, white shirt and tie again.

SUNDAY SESSIONS:

There’s going to be a lot of diversity in our home crowd on Sunday. For some, the pajama casual will still be the order of the day. But since it’s the Sabbath, many families will want to dress the part even when at home. Moms, try a cozy housedress and put your girls in jumpers. Dads, wear your loosest slacks and a button-down shirt. For once, you can break out the colored one!

For Sunday at the chapel, regular Sunday dress code applies. Frilly dresses for little girls, skirts and modest tops for teens, dresses and skirt suits for women. No flip-flops!! For males of all ages, you guessed it, a white shirt and tie, and preferably a full suit.

Finally, we have the Sunday Conference Center-goer. Remember for this session you are dressing for success. Put your boys and girls in their best Sunday clothing. Teen girls should be extremely modest, with no cleavage, shoulders, or legs above the knee revealed. All priesthood holders must wear the standard outfit. Dark suit, white shirt, dark socks and shoes, conservative ties. If you must express your individuality, it is acceptable to wear a pair of shades around Temple Square before entering the building. Women, in order to be the perfect picture of Relief Society, you should wear a business suit, but give it a feminine touch. Suits in bright colors will make you look like you are ready to give the next talk in the Conference Center!

Mormon Matters hopes this post has been helpful for our Conference-goers. Let us know what you were wearing this weekend!

General Conference must be coming this weekend.

Twice a year, I can’t help formulating hopes and expectations, or making predictions about what we might hear in the next General Conference. There are a few things that are givens. We can expect to hear spiritual messages that transcend the issues discussed most often on LDS blogs. We can expect to hear speakers relate sincere, heart-felt experiences that bring comfort to those who are struggling with loneliness, loss, sickness, guilt, or feelings of inadequacy. Those are messages I know I can expect to hear every conference.  But the anticipation that slowly builds in my mind over the couple weeks before Conference is whether we will hear anything about the issues typically discussed in the Bloggernacle by those for whom the Church is more than a religion or a lifestyle, and who make a hobby out of studying Mormonism from an academic standpoint.

Major changes in the Church have been announced at General Conferences in the past, and when the Ninth Article of Faith tells us that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” I can’t help wondering whether any of those “great and important things” will come out this Conference.

I invite you to express your own hopes, expectations, and predictions for this coming General Conference in the comment section below. But before doing so, I’d like to share with you a few of mine.

1. Consensus and Clarity About the Nature of Revelation

I have come to believe we are a bit schizophrenic in the Church when it comes to defining and explaining what “revelation” is, particularly as it applies to revelations received by the Prophets and Apostles.  Some Church leaders and members seem to view revelation as a process whereby God transmits his exact thoughts and words directly to the Prophet, who then passes them on to us without any human interference or input, such that revelations handed down by the Prophets are completely free from any human considerations (e.g. economic, political) in their origin, and completely free from any human error in the Prophet’s perception and interpretation of what he believes God told him.  Some LDS apologists have referred to this version of revelation as reflecting a “fundamentalist” mindset, so for the sake of ease I’ll refer to this as the “Fundamentalist Version” of revelation.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation is usually presented when Church leaders are trying to create unity and motivate members to rally around a particular program or policy and carry it out without question or challenge. The Fundamentalist Version creates compliance and squashes dissent because if we view revelation as a pure transmission of God’s will devoid of any human imperfections, then members will feel no room to question or refuse to comply, and Church leaders will feel divinely justified in reprimanding and punishing those who do.  A few examples of scriptures or quotes used to support the Fundamentalist Version of revelation are: “whether it be from my mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same” or “the Prophet will never lead us astray.”  And when something the Prophet says or does seems not to make sense, the scripture “[God's] ways are higher than [man's] ways” is often invoked, the implication being that if what the Prophet says or does doesn’t make sense, it must be because it is one of those “higher” divine truths, rather than because the Prophet has made a human error.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation seems simple, clear, and provides a feeling of comfort and safety to people looking for a reliable guide to help them navigate through the perils and uncertainties of the world.  But this Fundamentalist Version of revelation also has a significant downside: it creates an image of Prophets as being men who do not err in their revelations, so when people encounter evidence that seems to overwhelmingly demonstrate that Prophets past and present have erred, this Fundamentalist Version of revelation provides no framework to reconcile those obvious human errors with the belief that so-and-so was a genuine Prophet of God.  In other words, the Fundamentalist Version of revelation creates the expectation that Prophets and their revelations are infallible, because despite the occasional acknowledgements of prophetic fallibility in theory, telling people that whatever the Prophet says is what God says creates an illusion of prophetic infallibility in practice.  As a result, when Church members who embrace the Fundamentalist Version of revelation encounter convincing proof of human error in the statements or actions of Prophets (and if the Internet provides us an accurate glimpse, there are many such people) they become disillusioned and stop believing in the concept of revelation altogether.

However, there is another version of revelation within the Church, one which has long existed alongside this Fundamentalist Version in our scripture and in Church leaders’ statements.  And because it has become so popular with LDS Apologists, we could call it the Apologist Version of revelation.  In the Apologist Version, revelation is understood to be a collaborative process between a perfect, omniscient God and imperfect men with limited understanding who “see through a glass, darkly.” In the Apologist Version, we understand that revelation is a transmission of divine knowledge oftentimes received as somewhat vague “impressions” that can be misperceived and misinterpreted by fallible men who have cultural biases, human passions, political and economic considerations, and pride.  As a result, we hope and expect that revelations will usually reflect God’s will on at least a general level, but we recognize that sometimes those revelations will err in their specifics, or (hopefully rarely) be wrong altogether.  This version of revelation is usually presented in the context of apologetics when responding to uncomfortable evidence that seems to conclusively demonstrate that the statements or policies of past or present Prophets and Apostles have been in error.  Thus, the Apologist Version of revelation is often used to persuade someone that he should not lose his testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet because it allows someone like Joseph Smith to inadvertently mix human errors into his revelations and still be a Prophet. In support of this version of revelation, apologists cite the acknowledgments in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that God’s servants “err” in ways that are eventually “made known” but that their revelations should be heeded nonetheless.  Or we find the Apologist Version of revelation in Joseph Smith’s famous quotes that “some revelations are from God, some are from man, and some are from the devil” or that “a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet.” The overall idea presented in this version of revelation is that it sometimes contains human errors, and therefore we ought to expect to find such errors without losing our testimony of Church leaders’ prophetic callings when we do.  Of course, the drawback of the Apologist Version of revelation from the perspective a Church leader is that it causes some Church members to feel free to doubt, question, challenge, or refuse to comply with the Prophet’s purported revelations on the grounds that they reflect the will of man rather than the will of God.  And such doubting and dissent is a hindrance to administrative effectiveness in any organization.

Because I see these two different versions of revelation existing within the Church, anytime the subject of revelation comes up in a talk, either directly or indirectly, my ears always perk up and I listen closely to which version is being presented: the Fundamentalist Version or the Apologist Version.  Overall, it’s my feeling that the Fundamentalist Version of revelation is most often presented in sermons and lessons by both Church leaders and members, with a sprinkling of the Apologist Version from time to time, such as when uncomfortable situations arise where it become necessary to acknowledge prophetic error in attempt to save someone from losing his testimony altogether.  However, I think anyone who has been paying attention to FARMS, FAIR, and the Church’s media and public affairs departments have good cause to believe that the Apologist Version of revelation is becoming more popular and is being invoked more frequently, perhaps in an effort to stem the flow of folks losing their testimonies over troublesome episodes in Church history that seem to reflect human error in Church leadership.  So with the Church’s media and public affairs folks quoting apologists with seemingly increasing frequency, I am constantly curious to see whether and when the Apologist Version of revelation will become the dominant version of revelation presented by Church leaders at General Conference.

Very briefly, four more issues I’m always wondering whether will be addressed:

2. A clearly-worded, official repudiation of the statements made by past Church leaders to support the pre-1978 priesthood ban for African Americans. The policy changed in 1978, but there was never an accompanying clear, official renunciation of the many statements that past Church leaders had made to support it.  Many of those statements are still sitting on Church members’ bookshelves at home.  And when people ask the understandable question of why the ban was ever instituted in the first place, those old statements, some of which are extremely hurtful, are sometimes trotted out by misguided members.  We know a committee was formed to draft such a statement several years ago, and there were high hopes such a statement would be presented at the 20-year and 30-year anniversaries of the rescission of that ban, but it didn’t come. Will it come this Conference?

3. Will we receive messages aimed at preparing Church members to continue to generously donate their time and money to support legislation to prevent Same-Sex Marriage? Or will the negative backlash from some quarters regarding the Church’s heavy involvement in Prop. 8 result in a more moderate approach that simply “encourages” members to do so, but this time without creating a mechanism of administrative enforcement for that “encouragement”? I have heard anecdotal stories about General Authorities saying that Prop. 8 was nothing compared to what the Church will be doing in the future, so we shall see what comes out about that topic in Conference.

4. Clarification about what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are. Recently, a notable LDS apologist who specializes in Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, Dr. John Gee, gave a talk in which he provided a list of what was “central” to the Restored Gospel.  His list included the Book of Mormon, but excluded the book of scripture that he has researched and defended for so long: the Book of Abraham.  Dr. Gee’s speech prompted discussion about the criteria for determining what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are, and also fueled speculation about whether Dr. Gee’s exclusion of the Book of Abraham reflected a lack of scholarly confidence in Joseph Smith’s claims about that book of scripture in attempt to establish a “fall back position” where the Church can argue that academic challenges to the Book of Abraham should not undermine anyone’s testimony of Joseph Smith’s status as a Prophet on the theory that the book is “not central to the Restored Gospel.”  Was Dr. Gee’s statement a prelude to a change in the way the Church views, teaches, and uses the Book of Abraham? My guess is probably not; the Church seldom seems to move that quickly. But the Church’s relatively recent revision of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, which was preceded by an emerging consensus among LDS scholars that the Book of Mormon action took place within a limited geography rather than upon the entire American Continent, demonstrates that these types of issues are receiving the attention of the General Authorities, and that the General Authorities are willing to adjust the Church’s claims about its books of scripture.  So perhaps something is in the works on this issue.

5.  Warnings, admonishments, and clarifications about what the General Authorities view as being appropriate and inappropriate online discussion of LDS doctrine and history. Elder Ballard’s recent encouragement to become involved in online discussions about the Church seems to have enlarged the pool of Mormons participating in the Bloggernacle and other online discussion fora.  However, it seems only a matter of time that Church leaders will recognize that Church members’ increased involvement in online discussions about Church history and doctrine will only increase the likelihood that they will come into contact with uncomfortable information that they otherwise would not have encountered.  Around 20 years ago, Elder Oaks delivered an address in which he warned Church members about participating in symposia and becoming involved with “alternate voices.”  But Elder Ballard’s encouragement to become involved in the world of online discussions seems to have departed from that approach, or to have at least created ambiguity about the degree to which faithful Church members should be involving themselves in online discussions and debates, even with the intent to defend the Church.  Will the General Authorities issue any warnings or admonishments about the “proper” way to discuss Church topics online, or the “proper” online fora to visit?  If so, it seems Elder Ballard would be the most likely Apostle to deliver that message.

Overall, I should say my expectations are not high that issue #2 will receive any mention in Conference.  While I do believe it is possible, it seems the Church prefers to make such statements more quietly in between Conferences, rather than making any sort of dramatic public announcement that will attract attention to an uncomfortable topic.  But I do think it’s very possible we will hear messages addressing issues #3 , #4, and #5.

So, what are your hopes, expectations, or predictions for this coming General Conference?

I am well aware of most of the controversial issues (Book of Abraham, DNA, Book of Mormon historicity, polyandry, etc.). Some of them occasionally bother me. Others do not. Although according to statistics I am very educated, I probably could not win an argument defending the church on any of those points. I could not support the church on Prop. 8, (if you want to specifically comment on that, please go here). I will probably never understand in this life why we are discouraged from praying to our Heavenly Mother, or why women are no longer allowed bless the sick. I am sure I could go on, and so could many of you.

I occasionally get asked or read questions like, “If Joseph Smith made claims that were false, how can you believe any of his claims?” “When you line everything up, how can you still logically believe it to be true?” For anyone questioning the faith, or those who have left the church who may be reading this, feel free to mentally insert other questions here. They are all good and valid in my opinion. I do not fault anyone for asking them, nor for being disturbed enough by them to leave the faith. Although my path is different, I wish you the best.

How do I explain my belief and activity in the church? Have I put “feelings” above reason?

I was raised by a saint of a mother and an intellectual yet very spiritual father. Church books lined the shelves: Quinn, Compton, and even Bagley’s Blood of The Prophets and Southerton’s Lost Tribe made appearances. On hunting trips my father would sometimes shoot his buffalo in the name of Allah (in Turkish) so our good Muslim friends could enjoy it with us. As bishop, he helped countless families regardless of legal status, blessed a neighbor’s sick cat, and was a safe haven for gay members to turn to. My parents left their ward a few years ago to attend a Hispanic branch, where they can do a lot more than debate in Sunday School over gospel minutiae. They taught me by word and example that serving and loving others always trumps theology.

As a priest I loved blessing the sacrament. It was probably the first time I felt a significant sense of the sacred–it was intoxicating. I loved seminary and institute, even when I was taught that Darwin was Satan’s answer to Joseph Smith (that one still makes me smile). I often felt a sense of awe watching the RMs come home. I wanted what they had. My father called it “spiritual muscle.” My mission in Japan was the right place at the right time for me, for many reasons. It was the best investment of time I had ever made (up to that point, of course!).

The Book of Mormon has a special place in my life. One experience reading King Benjamin started what became a small series of nearly indescribable subjective positive spiritual experiences, (I once tried to describe what it was like to an inquiring non-member/acquaintance and was mocked for it, so I hold close what is most sacred–let’s just say that a few of them were more than just a “tingling down the spine” or “warm feelings”). I have also felt what I interpret to be the infinite love and patience of God, for me and for all of his children. These “feelings” are as important and special to me as my “feelings” for my wife and son.

I love having a community wherever I go. I generally enjoy responsibilities at church, (currently the strengthening marriage instructor) and I have found that if I’m prepared and attentive, the meetings are usually more than worthwhile. I love General Conference, and agree with the teachings almost all of the time. Some people (both in and out of the church) seem to think that a prophet is either always right or not a prophet at all. I was not brought up that way, and have a difficult time understanding it now. Like Henry Eyring (Sr.) said, I think that prophets are wonderful because sometimes they speak for God. It is for those special moments of elevation and insight that I respect and listen to them.

Certain aspects of Mormon theology also fit me better than any religion or philosophy I know. This will have to be a later post, but marriage and personal growth are two of the most important things in life to me, and Mormonism fits those quite well, (I am definitely open to other views or ideas on this, if you have some).

I love symbolism, and enjoy the temple ordinances–I expect that they will continue to evolve, and look forward to it. I see Christ and relationships in everything in the temple. It can be different, even awkward at first, but looking deeper provides inspiration and insight that is a moving and a stabilizing force in my life. I believe in Christ. He inspires goodness. He is the answer to the question of evil and tragedy and suffering. He unconditionally loves everyone. That is a God I believe in. His revelations are in the Church, in books, in the rocks, and hopefully in my dissertation in a few years. None of those conduits are free from error.

This is not an argument for Mormonism. I am not telling others how they should approach faith, or activity in the church. This is simply how I am doing it. I could not be more logical: Some stuff bothers me, some of it really inspires me, gives meaning to my life and family, and has been the source of experiences (not always just feelings) and growth that I cannot reject. I do not have my head in the sand. I am not plugging my ears and yelling “faith! faith! faith!” at valid and logical arguments against the church’s claims.

Some people may think that if I have concerns or disagreements I should drop the church. Others may think I should try harder to procure some answers for my questions and concerns. I have pondered the first option and tried out the second for a while. In one of the clearest insights in my life, I found that neither option is even remotely satisfying. I believe in the gospel, and I am not an apologist. So here I am, in the church, good and bad, best and worst, inspiring and awkward.

What is your story?

• How do you handle issues that are difficult or perhaps impossible to reconcile?
• What are the best parts of your experiences in the church?
• Why have you ultimately decided to stay or leave? (Please keep these in a spirit of sharing and mutual understanding.)

Do you know of any good related posts (by those who have stayed OR left–again, written with some humility, please). Next week there will be a guest post by a friend of mine who left the church a while back. Here are a few others, from various perspectives:

• Why I Am Not a Disaffected Mormon
• Not ashamed
• The atheist hiding within the Mormon
• I Have Always Been A Pagan

This trend is probably to some extent backlash against the histo-centric year we are having with D&C as focus of GD class and JS manual in RS.  There may also be some desire to reaffirm our status as Christians when other religions often stigmatize us as not being Christian.  So, what would it look like if Christ were the center of our worship?  Here are some possibilities of how lessons & talks might be more Christ-centric:

1. the atonement of Christ; his role and divinity
2. how to apply Christ’s teachings:  how to be followers of Christ
3. stories from the life of Christ, events that happened to him in his lifetime
4. the parables of Jesus – sharing and elaborating on these messages
5. how to develop a personal relationship with Jesus; understanding Jesus’ nature as a personal friend

Have I missed any major angle above?  It occurs to me that these topics might get stale if covered for 3 hours every week.  Also, if speakers only focused on 1 or 2 of the 5, it would get very repetitive.  I also notice that as I look over the list, I don’t find them equally appealing.  Personally, I would prefer them in this order:  2, 4, 3, 5, 1.  What order would you prefer?  I think the order in which they are usually focused at church is the order I listed them above:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Do you agree?

Do you feel that Church should be more Christ-centered or that it is sufficiently Christ-centered?  Which of the above focuses would be of the most interest to you?  Are there some ways of focusing on Christ that you don’t find appealing?  How do you think our focus (especially by topic) compares to other Christian churches?  Discuss.

My home teacher (who is very cool) came by yesterday to drop off some starter cables for my car and as one does in that short interlude we discussed the celestial kingdom and being Gods after this life. He believed that those who don’t make it to the highest kingdom in the Celestial Kingdom won’t have any sexual relationships and if you don’t have sexual relationships their will be no need for sexual organs.

Its interesting talking about controversial stuff but I was finding this unnerving!!

Eunuch
1: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3: one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>

In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)

Joseph Smith said that even the telestial Kingdom was thousands of times better than this world and if we had a glimpse of it we would kill ourselves now to get there. I think many of us now would disagree with Joseph Smith Jr in light of reading the more current views of Joseph Fielding Smith.

In the family proclamation we learn that Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. But the family proclamation is not kingdom specific to whether will still have our male or female gender if we don’t make it to the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom.

I thought I was being unique (pun) in this post but as I have researched,being a so called  EUNUCH is a phrase used in the Bloggernacle since 2006 its called  TK SMOOTHIE

It has two definitions

1. The logical conclusion for JFS, then, was to say that the people in the TK would not have male or female genitalia.
2. If a doctrine of the church seems like it has been created in order to “fix” or explain another, it might be a TK Smoothie. The TK Smoothie is eponymous for all doctrines that are probably bogus but exist in order to clarify some other doctrine or speculation.

Bishop Young Spanish Fork 401st Ward

In Mormonism, we have an expanded picture of life that extends before this mortal life and then on into the eternities. However, when you really dig into this, it turns out that we have very few details on what to expect after this life, and the details we do have come mostly from talks given almost 175 years ago. And to say that our expectations of ‘Heaven,’ have changed quite a bit since then is a gross understatement.

Despite all the speculation, one detail that we know for sure: unless you make it to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, there will be no eternal sex. Basically, you’d be turned into a Telestial/Terrestrial Kingdom Smoothie (TK Smoothie). I like to imagine these lesser-Kingdoms as the Barbie & Ken Kingdoms. Everyone walking around looking beautiful and perfect for eternity, but having a smooth under-carriage like Barbie or Ken.

Parley P. Pratt

The object of the union of the sexes is the propagation of their species, or procreation; also for mutual affection, and the cultivation of those eternal principles of never ending charity and benevolence, which are inspired by the Eternal Spirit; also for mutual comfort and assistance in this world of toil and sorrow, and for mutual duties toward their offspring. Key to the Science of Theology, Ch.17, p.169

I would like to believe as Parley P Pratt describes that this mutual affection will not only be for this life but carried through to all the kingdoms after this life to all of our Brothers and Sisters who have lived on this earth.

Questions

1. If you make it to the Celestial Kingdom how would you feel when you visit a Parent, Grandparent, Brother, Sister, Son or Daughter in the Terrestrial Kingdom with out any Gender?
2. Do you believe Joseph Fielding Smith is correct?
3. Is there any current doctrine that overrides his beliefs?
4. If JFS doctrine is correct the word Brother and Sister takes on a whole different meaning in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom?
5. Is it silly doctrine we should jettison?
6. If it is still true do you think if we emphasised it more it might motivate members to push harder for the Celestial Kingdom?
7. Doctrines of Salvation is most of it safe doctrine we can use in our talks and lessons ?  Is some of it suspect and if it is how do we know what that is? Do you think of it as interesting reading not really fiction but not really solid doctrinally? How would you describe it?

Here are a few responses from various different individuals to this quote from this weekend’s General Conference:

• “It’s not as if you’re going to hear that and say “Right. I guess I don’t have doubts.” It seems more likely that people will hear that and say “Right. I guess I don’t have faith.”"
• “Plenty of seemingly incompatible thoughts/emotions coexist in the same mind at the same time without dispelling each other. It’s like saying “being faithful in marriage means never having desires for another woman/man” when the truth is faithfulness in marriage is about staying committed in spite of those desires.”
• “If Joseph Smith hadn’t doubted a whole bunch of things would we even have the LDS Church?”
• “One popular ZEN proverb reads, “Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening; no doubt, no awakening.” It’s refreshing and uplifting to think about doubt as a positive catalyst for reflection and self-discovery, rather than a weakness to be risen above.”
• “If faith means enough hope to act even though one is not absolutely certain of the result, the opposite is enough despair or discouragement that we become paralyzed from acting. If one calls that despair or discouragement “doubt”, then I agree that doubt is the opposite of faith.  However, I personally see doubt as uncertainty, recognizing the possibility that what we hope for or believe is not true. For me, that is an inherent component of faith. Without that uncertainty or doubt, I do not think faith exists (because it would be knowledge or certainty).”
• “I’ve heard plenty of Church leaders admit to feeling doubts, and Joseph Smith seemed full of them. But quotes like this do set-up a certain mindset among the “faithful” that they should never entertain doubt, or else. The sad thing here is that this state-of-mind is temporary at best, and can often lead to complete loss of faith. But some GC talks seem more designed to rally than educate, which explains stuff like this.”
• “What was most striking about Mother Theresa was the juxtaposition of faith and doubt in her life. She had such faith, yet such doubt at the same time. I think it’s totally bogus to pit faith and doubt against each other as opposites. They aren’t competitors, they’re collaborators – they encourage each other. Faith exists because of doubt, and doubt because of faith. IMO, faith without doubt is smug arrogance. Show me someone who has no doubt, and I’ll show you someone who has no faith.”
• “Pope Benedict referred to Mother Thesesa’s doubts as the “silence of God,” and said that all true believers must learn to deal with the silence of God which inevitably come to all of us.”
• “Elder Holland said Jesus needed to experience something like doubt. Joseph Smith certainly did–see the first verses of section 121. And the book of Job is full of doubts and anguish (although, in the condensed version we skip from Job’s refusal to condemn God and go straight to the restoration of his prior blessing, and we overlook his struggles and anguish and anger expressed in the intervening chapters).”
• “If faith is a spiritual gift, then only some will receive it. I’m paraphrasing, but the scripture says some will have the give of faith and some will have the gift to believe those with faith and some will have other gifts. And yet then we are told it is a sin if we don’t have this gift?”
• “When church leaders are asking for us to have faith in God, they really mean have faith in what they tell you about God and what the scriptures say about God, but neither are God, they are just ideas.”

What do you think?  Does doubt drive out faith?  Or is faith without doubt smug arrogance?  Is doubt an essential part of faith development?  Is some doubt bad (paralyzing doubt) and some good (energizing doubt)?  Is doubt the same as “the silence of God” that Mother Theresa, Joseph Smith, Jesus, and Job all experienced?  Do you view doubt as a complement to faith or the enemy of faith?  Is there a “war on doubt” in the church?

Discuss.

Last summer I had the opportunity to attend Sunday services with my girlfriend at her branch. I very much enjoyed myself and found the experience quite reminiscent of my days in evangelical congregations before the mega church phenomenon. The people were very welcoming, they clearly enjoyed being together, and the service and classes were easy to follow. Several individuals went out of their way to make me feel welcome, taking the time to talk with me, offer me a book so I could follow along in the priesthood meeting, and include me in their conversations.

I also found that there were a number of stereotypical individuals that can be found in almost any small evangelical church: the kindly grandmother that everyone loves, the young mother trying to corral her wandering son, and the somewhat socially inept fellow who knows more than anyone cares to hear. Somewhat to at least one person’s dismay, he was one of the speakers that morning at the sacrament meeting. (Actually I thought his was by far and away the best speech of the morning, though it didn’t take me too long to realize that instead of simply quoting a line or two from President David McKay, he was giving McKay’s entire talk.)

What struck me as a bit odd, however, was the nature of the sacrament meeting seen against the background of Mormonism’s past and desired future. This is what I would like to focus on. Obviously, this is not a prescriptive article nor is it even primarily  descriptive. It is instead an impressionistic work from the point of view of someone who is sympathetic towards the LDS and is also reasonably knowledgeable about how worship has been and is conceived in the greater Christian Tradition. Perhaps by combining my outsider’s insight with your own much broader and deeper knowledge of sacrament meetings, some discussion might be generated on what worship means in the LDS and how it expresses the Saints’ basic theological convictions.

From my readings of LDS history and a couple of visits to the Kirtland Temple, the Church of Christ (as the LDS was originally named) put considerable weight on the possibility, reality, and necessity of modern day revelation. One of the Book of Mormon’s chief roles was to validate the prophetic ministry of Joseph Smith, thereby making possible the development of the Doctrine and Covenants and other revelations. Without this emphasis on the restoration of prophetic ministry and authority I don’t see much point in the whole Mormon movement.

This emphasis was certainly present at the Kirtland Temple. Visions, enthusiasm, and even speaking in tongues were all reported and celebrated. Clearly God was doing a marvelous work and there was considerable cause for rejoicing. As a matter of fact, the description of Temple worship strikes me as being very similar to early (and some current) Pentecostalism, albeit 70 years earlier.

There was, however, a counter-weight to this enthusiasm. While the worship service could be pretty “wild” by today’s standards, there was also a very heavy emphasis on education. Classes were held in theology, classics, and even Hebrew. While I know Fawn Brodie’s biography of Joseph Smith is regarded as Mormon Kryptonite, I think her treatment of the Kirtland Temple shows Joseph Smith to be very bright man who was very much interested in education and who, like others of his time period and since, wanted to find a way to integrate faith with the rising field of science. The doctrine of eternal progression can certainly be seen as one way to see the development of energy on a cosmic level. (As an aside, I find looking at it this way makes the doctrine worthy of consideration from even a non-Mormon viewpoint.)

By studying and engaging the issues of the day himself, and by providing classes for his followers to do the same, Joseph Smith gave the early Saints a strong model for education and self improvement. I saw at least some vestiges of this in the Sunday school and priesthood meetings. Perhaps a better modern day example lies in the powerful drive to self improvement within the LDS and the high quality of its educational institutions.

The question that arises here is, “What happened to the ‘fire’ of early Saints’ worship?”

Clearly at some point the worship became less demonstrative and more orderly. This in itself is a very natural development within religious movements. The informal worship (and in some cases, border line chaos) that is described in Acts and I Corinthians eventually became the highly structured Mass. The Montanists (an early revival group) went through the same transition and the same dynamic can be seen in contemporary Pentecostalism. Worship at your average First Assembly of God is not even close to what took place at the Azusa Street revival in 1906.

There are a variety of possible times and reasons for the switch in the LDS. Maybe it was the less than felicitous demise of the Kirtland experiment, or the ongoing persecutions, or the desire to establish greater order and uniformity. Maybe it was something that happened over the years in Utah. Then again, maybe it was the rise of temple ceremonies which offered a different kind of revelatory experience, making the need for such things in corporate worship superfluous. I simply don’t know. I’m sure a good Mormon historian could provide the answer, (If not, there’s a Ph.D topic looking for a scholar.) but whatever the answer, I’m confident there were some good reasons.

Still, from my perspective as a visitor, I found it a trifle strange that morning to discover that a movement which began with such enthusiasm, with such a strong emphasis on current revelation, and that still teaches the truth of personal revelation to each member of the church should have such a “head oriented” order of worship for its sacrament meeting. Two short prayers, three talks, four hymns, and the sacrament itself in a never varying order just doesn’t seem to express a strong belief in ongoing revelation. To put it another way, I think one could learn a lot in a sacrament meeting but I doubt one would be likely to “dream dreams” or “see visions” as Acts 2 describes. Depending on when things changed it’s also possible that Joseph Smith would be a little lost in the meeting, wondering if perhaps he’d wandered into a class of some sort instead of a worship service.

Now this is where the Saint needs to use her or his deeper and broader experience of sacrament meetings to properly interact with my perspective. Doubtless, there is something about the sacrament meeting that I as an outsider just don’t get. Perhaps there is a great revelatory and deeply spiritual current being generated that isn’t visible or perceptible to visitors. Then again, maybe something has been lost. Maybe the eminently understandable desire to maintain order and preserve good teaching has overshadowed the need for spiritual encounter and experience. I think this is a question worth asking, for surely the teaching that God is active and revelation ongoing should be expressed when those who believe such things gather for worship.

Lest I be misunderstood as advocating Pentecostal style worship for Mormons, let me make it clear that I suggest no such thing. What I do suggest is finding ways to allow the Holy Spirit more room to work in the context of a sacrament meeting. Personally, I find silence or meditative music very effective in this regard. There is no need to “whomp up the Spirit” or get overly emotional. One just needs to allow some space and time for God to move in the human heart. Something as simple as quiet prayer or meditation after one of the talks might bring the message home in a considerably more powerful way than just singing a hymn and moving on to the next talk.

That said, I do think the heavy LDS emphasis on education and doctrine could easily serve as a keel (the heavy downward facing blade on the bottom of a sailboat that keeps it from tipping over) for a good deal of emotional/spiritual sail. Such demonstrative worship is probably unnecessary and unwanted in most white LDS congregations. But it might prove quite helpful in other cultural contexts.

What think ye?

It’s tough to guess when Pres. Monson has only extended one apostolic calling thus far.  To get past this sample size of one, I expanded the field to include all apostles called since Monson has been in the First Presidency.  He wasn’t in charge in most of these situations, but I assumed he was involved to some extent as he counseled with then Presidents Benson, Hunter and Hinckley.

Since Pres. Monson joined the FP in November 1985, nine apostles have been called to the Quorum of the Twelve (Q12).  I reviewed their pre-apostolic resumes to see if I could identify common factors that may have led to their selection.  Presumably Pres. Monson will use a similar thought process as he considers the next apostle.

AGE

It’s tough to draw a compelling histogram with a sample size of 9, but I didn’t let that stop me:

• 5 of the last 9 apostles were clustered together in the center, aged between 59 and 63 when called.
• 2 of the 9 were younger than the norm:  Holland (53) and Bednar (52).
• 2 of the 9 were older than the norm:  Wirthlin (69) and Cook (67)
• Beyond these nine I found that new apostles are seldom called once they reach the age of 70; it has happened only 5 times in the history of the Church, and the most recent, Hugh B. Brown, was over 50 years ago.

Based on recent history, it appears that the “target range” for apostolic callings is in the late 50s or early 60s.  Pres. Monson’s first pick was right in the target range, age 63 (Christofferson).

EXPERIENCE

The last 9 apostles came from 3 different pools:

• 5 of the 9 were called directly from the Presidency of the Seventy (P70), which makes sense organizationally.
• 2 of the 9 served in the First Quorum of Seventy (1Q70), but served in the Presiding Bishopric (PB) rather than the P70.
• 2 of the 9 were current or former presidents of Church-owned universities.  E. Holland had also subsequently served in the 1Q70, but not the P70.  E. Bednar had only served as an Area Authority/Area Seventy in addition to his time as president of BYU-Idaho.  I found it interesting that these 2 had such different paths to the Q12 because I had already considered them outliers based on their age when called.

Any discussion of potential apostles should obviously begin with the current P70, and possibly consider former members of the P70.  Service in the PB and leading a Church university are also potential paths to the Q12.  True to these patterns, E. Christofferson was serving in the P70 when called one year ago.

LENGTH OF SERVICE

I was surprised to find little correlation to length of service in the P70 and an apostolic calling.  Of the 5 who served in the P70, the time they spent there varied widely from 5 weeks (Wirthlin) to 10 years (Christofferson).  Others served 2 months, 2 years, and 5 years.

More interesting is the correlation between total time served in the 70 (any quorum), PB, as university president, or Assistant to the 12.  8 of the 9 newly called apostles had at least 10 years combined service in these groups.  Only Bednar (always the outlier) fell short of this mark.  His combined service in the 5Q70 and Pres. of BYU-Idaho totaled only 9.5 years.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APOSTLE?

When E. Cook was called in 2007, he and Pres. Eyring (new member of FP) held a press conference.  One of the first questions centered around the calling of yet another American as a high-ranking leader in a global Church.  Apparently they were expecting something different, perhaps because E. Uchtdorf had been called (along with Bednar) to fill one of the last vacancies.

Does the Church worry about apostolic demographics?  Probably not, but a new apostle from a country besides the U.S. is somehow exciting.  It seems to validate the growth of the global Church, and I’m sure it will happen again eventually.

PREDICTIONS

Based on all these criteria, I identified the 9 individuals I see as the most likely candidates for the open spot in the 12.  Any of these men could be selected to join the Q12, and there are doubtless others who are well-qualified.  My picks are divided into 3 tiers:

TIER ONE

Claudio R. M. Costa. Currently serving in the P70 and his age (60) is about perfect.  Served in the 70 for 15 years, with 20 months of that in the P70.  I gave him bonus points for being Brazilian and his work as a professional diamond cutter (totally irrelevant but more interesting than just another attorney, businessman or Church employee).

Neil L. Anderson. Currently serving in the P70, plus he’s on the young end of the target range (57).  He has served in the 70 for 16 years, and he and E. Rasband have the highest tenure in the P70 (nearing 4 years, although this hasn’t necessarily mattered in the past).  Bonus points (from me) for speaking French, Spanish and Portuguese, and I liked his last conference address.

Jay E. Jensen.  After 17 years in the 70, he has the odd distinction of being both the junior member of the P70 (8 months tenure) and the senior member of the P70 (67 years old).  That puts him out of the target range, but I can’t shake him specifically because he was just put in the P70.  Years ago, E. Wirthlin was called to the P70 and served only 5 weeks before joining the 12.  More recently, E. Cook spent only 2 months in the P70 before becoming an apostle.  In both cases, the same President who put them in the P70 moved them rapidly into the Q12.  Could Jensen be ticketed for a similar path?  My wife (Sister Hall?) gives him bonus points for looking like Pres. Faust around the eyes.

TIER TWO

Cecil O. Samuelson.  Has served 14 years in the 70, including a term in the P70 (although not currently) and several years as President of BYU.  He climbs this high on the list (despite being a little older than the apparent target at 67) because of the BYU job.  It worked for Oaks, Holland, Eyring, and Bednar.

Marlin K. Jensen.  Leading the field as far as GA tenure goes, Jensen has logged 20 years in the 70, including 3 years of past service in the P70.  At 66, he’s a little older than the target, but tenure gets him this high.

TIER THREE

Ronald A. Rasband, Steven E. Snow, Walter F. Gonzalez, and L. Whitney Clayton:  The rest of the current P70 are all in their upper 50s but haven’t been around for quite 10 years (9 for Rasband, 8 for the others).  For that reason alone they drop to Tier 3.  More apostles have been called over 65 (see Tier 2) than have been called with less than 10 years of service (as defined above).

Still, they are on the list and could be called.

THE REST

I briefly considered several others, including Dennis B. Neuenschwander (former P70, 18 yrs in 70, but at 69 years old, less likely), Keith B. McMullin (only member of PB under age 70), and Glenn L. Pace (former PB who at 69 probably won’t reunite with Hales and Eyring as apostles).  Bruce C. Hafen is also a former Ricks/BYU-Idaho president currently in the 1Q70, but not the P70.

All others in previous P70s, Presiding Bishopric or presidents of universities are either over age 70 or have been given emeritus status.

To wrap it all up, I find it interesting that although all of these men have led the third highest quorum in the Church, our interaction with them is fairly limited.  They speak every three or four conferences, and you might see them once in a lifetime at your Stake or Regional Conference, but they aren’t nearly as well known as the 12.  All that will soon change for someone.

Is there a dark horse I have missed?  Have any of their conference talks or other messages been particularly meaningful to you?  Who do you think will fill the empty seat?

In corporate America, misconduct is often characterized as a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption.  Whistle-blower protection is a serious concern as others inside an organization tend to “shoot the messenger” when it comes to whistle-blowers.  Major corporations are wise to provide options and multiple complaint mechanisms to handle internal complaints.  I work for one such organization.  There are many vehicles to handle internal complaints:  employee surveys, human resources groups (several different kinds), an ombuds office, online employee discussion forums that allow anonymous participation, and a very large compliance and legal department to proactively police regulatory issues.

In my experience, the vast majority of what gets reported as “misconduct” is really something else, such as:

• a complainant with hurt feelings
• the result of poor relationship or communication skills (either on the part of the complainant or a direct leader or some other third party); in some cases, this alleged misconduct is actual misconduct, but not always.
• a misunderstanding of what the laws and regulations are or what the supposed “misconduct” activity entailed
• an act of vengeance (e.g. the complainant hopes to exact revenge on another employee or leader using the complaint vehicle as a weapon)

That is not always the case, of course, which is why it’s worth it to sift through hundreds of complaints to find the one that is a real issue for the company and that requires intervention.  To the complainant, the complaint is very serious and needs to be resolved to their satisfaction.  In reality, it’s nearly impossible to separate the complaint from the complainant.  The more neutral the complainant, the more valuable the complaint.  Some of these factors make the complainant seem less neutral:

• The complainant wants something of personal benefit as a result of the complaint.
• The complainant is vengeful toward individuals they accuse of wrong-doing or there is a known personality conflict between them and an accused party.
• The complainant has a history of making complaints.
• If they no longer have any ties to the organization (an ex-insider), that complaint might also seem suspect to insiders, regardless of how neutrally the complaint is phrased.

So, when it comes to complaints within the organization of the church, how do we do?  Here are some areas where I think we do well:

• Complaints are handled at the lowest level possible.
• Complaints are generally handled in confidence (obviously, there are individuals who have blown this, but IME, local leaders tend to take confidentiality to extremes).
• There is a focus on accountability (LDS scriptures actually instruct members to handle personal conflicts between them and the other party).
• Actual misconduct complaints (e.g. fraud, legal, etc.) are generally taken very seriously and actions to remedy are easy to handle swiftly due to the lay clergy aspect of the church.

Where do we sometimes fall down?

• Females alleging sexual misconduct may find the process extra difficult due to the lack of female representation in church courts.  A female who already feels violated may have a difficult time in addressing an all-male leadership with painful details that are necessary to assess the situation.
• There is very little effective access to top levels of the organization.  This is really only an issue if the complaint is about local leadership or if the complaint has organizational implications.  We should bear in mind that this is how the Catholic church got into trouble over the priest molestation scandals–by pushing too much to local levels to handle and not realizing they had an institutional problem before it was too late.
• Organizations with deep pockets are often the target of spurious law suits which makes identifying the serious cases more difficult.
• Disclosures about financial and legal activities are either vague or considered confidential.  But again, this is often the case in a corporation as well.  While financial disclosure of a publicly-traded company is more open, airing dirty laundry over minor litigations is not.
• Local leaders may lack the skill to assess and deal with issues and may hold complainants at bay to cover their ineptitude.  They may use unrighteous dominion to punish the complainant.  And there is some open question about the church’s culpability when an untrained lay clergy makes a local error in judgment.
• Individuals feel guilty for complaining in a religious structure.  This is true of all churches, but added to it is our lay clergy.  It’s harder to complain about an unpaid volunteer.
• Whistle-blowers may not be taken seriously if they are not considered neutral or are frequent complainers.  But this is true in all human organizations, and is the basis for the age-old story The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  There’s sometimes a reason the messenger gets shot.

So, what do you think?  Do we do a good job dealing with complaints or not?  Do we do a better job with more severe complaints or minor issues?  What should we do to improve how we handle complaints or is the system working just fine?  Discuss.

I have lived here in the UK -London for 20 years now and when friends and family come over they sometimes comment on how green we are over here. They observe that most of us dry our clothes on the  line, drive much smaller cars, live in shoe box’s compared to the average size of an American home, walk to the shops, use long life low wattage low energy bulbs, changing windows over for double glazing, doubling up on insulation, are becoming more obsessive about recycling, drive low emission high mpg diesel cars, save left over food, food portions at restaurants smaller and public transport used far more often and readily available.

It amazes some of the Brits when they go to Utah to see how big the houses are especially in many cases for so few people who live in them.  Huge Ford Explorers, steak dinners that could feed a typical family of four.  When they go for the first time they come back thinking that it’s a land of excess.

I know there have been many of the changes I have described above happening in Utah and throughout the states but there is not quite the buzz or emphasis on it that I see here at least IMO!

I also have this theory that Mormons aren’t into green issues because

1. Many believe the second coming will be coming soon (God the creator of this earth will be able to clean up the planet in a second, our efforts are pointless.
2. We have to get our priorities right – family, missionary work, ward service, temple work.  Being green is definitely not a priority now
3. If it was important the prophet and apostles would be vigorously emphasizing it during conference.
4. It would be stressed and accentuated in the manuals
5. Gas guzzling cars – God created fossil fuels for our use.  He created this earth and when we run out God will inspire man to come up with an alternative fuel – he always provides for us.
6. God made fossil fuel for our use and we are fortunate to be Americans and live in a place where fuel is cheap and are blessed to be here.
7. We have proven ourselves in the pre-existence and in this life and we deserve the just rewards for being faithful members
8. An attitude of the more physical stuff I have cars, houses, boats shows were being blessed abundantly
9. We have been hearing a lot about fuel and energy—about their high cost and limited supply, our unsafe and unpredictable dependence on their suppliers, and the need for new and sustainable sources of energy. I leave the discussion of these complicated issues to leaders of government and industry. The fuel I want to discuss is spiritual fuel. Elder L. Tom Perry

Please discuss

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/23/why-arent-mormons-green/feed/ 56 http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/13/creeds-of-the-creedless/ http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/13/creeds-of-the-creedless/#comments Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:17:10 +0000 Hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4089 The restoration was essentially based on a rejection of the creeds of Christendom which were declared “an abomination” and “those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”  So, are all creeds bad or just those specific creeds?  Are there creeds in Mormonism or is it a creedless religion?

Over Christmas, I was fortunate enough to be able to attend an Evensong service at Westminster Abbey.  It was very cool to be in a worship service surrounded by 3000 of England’s most famous dead people.  The choir was far superior to anything I’ve heard in any of the wards I’ve been in, although the songs had that quality of being made up as they went along (but in Latin).  Part of the service was the recitation of the Anglican Creed.  I could have in honesty recited 80% of it without batting an eye, but there were some statements in it that I could not in good conscience recite (but then I’m not an Anglican, am I?). 

First of all, what is objectionable about creeds?  Here are some thoughts:

1. Content.  These specific creeds are usually rejected by Mormonism because they conflict with our view of God as being an exalted man with a body.  But these are just current drafts of millenia old discussions, the efforts of people to describe the holy.  Whenever people are doing that, their efforts will be tainted by:
   • Consensus.  Too many cooks spoil the broth, as they say.  Groups of people haggling over the nature of God is likely to lead to debates full of compromises and competition, not actually nailing down the nature of God.
   • Limits of Language.  Regardless of how precisely we try to communicate, words have mutliple meanings and are subject to individual interpretation.
   • Context of Culture & Time.  Over time and in different cultural contexts, the meaning of words changes.
2. Lack of Authority.    They are deemed to have been created by well-intentioned men but without authority and therefore, they allowed error to be included.  This seems to be a problem frequently discussed in the b’nacle within Mormonism:
   • Conflicting Opinions.  Q:  When two authorities disagree, which is right?  A: The one who agrees with you.
   • Prophetic Fallibility.  Q:  When is a prophet not speaking for God?  A:  When he’s proven wrong over time (or see the first answer).
3. In Writing.  One could say that creeds are bad in that they are written down at a point in time based on one’s understanding, but they could be incorrect or need revision at a later date.  Being written down causes people to stop seeking revelation and to continue to reinterpret the same dead words on a page.  Creeds in general are rejected because they hem the church in rather than allowing it the freedom to reinterpret itself through greater light and knowledge.

I suggest that there are two main creeds that have crept into Mormonism:  the Articles of Faith and the Proclamation on the Family.  I considered and reject that the Official Declarations are creeds (they are more like one-time memos).  I also reject the scripts in the temple as “creeds” of a sort because they change considerably and frequently.

The Articles of Faith were written by JS in 1841 (in a letter written to John Wentworth published in 1842 in Times & Seasons) to explain what Mormons believe.  The Proclamation on the Family was published (to the world at large) to explain what Mormons believe about families and responsibilities.  Are they creeds?  And if they are creeds, do they have any of the 3 problems listed above?  So, if we dismiss the idea that authority is a problem (for those who are Mormons at least), is there a problem with either content or with the fact that they are in writing?

First of all, let’s consider the ubiquitous Articles of Faith.  What Primary child hasn’t memorized these basic, irrefutable tenets of Mormonism?  Surely, their content must be above reproach.  Or is it?  Here’s a counter-point on the Articles of Faith, excerpted from here.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie boasted as follows concerning the Articles of Faith:

    “For brevity, clearness, and forthrightness of doctrinal presentation, they are unexcelled. When compared with the muddled creeds formulated by the supposedly greatest religious thinkers of Christendom—creeds born amid the strife, bitterness, and debates of councils that struggled at length over every word and comma—the Articles of Faith, coming forth as the spontaneous and inspired writing of one man, are a marked evidence of the spirit of revelation that rested upon the Prophet.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 53)

    Actually, the truth of the matter is that the Articles of Faith are remarkable for what they fail to say concerning the teachings of the Mormon Church. Although Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy at the time he authored them, he made no reference to the doctrine of plural marriage. He made no mention of his teaching that there are many Gods, that God was once a man or that men can become Gods. The Articles of Faith are completely silent concerning the Doctrine and Covenants which contains many of Smith’s revelations and distinctive doctrines. Even Apostle McConkie had to admit that these “articles, of course, do not attempt to summarize all of the basic doctrines of the gospel…. the Articles of Faith are silent on such things as celestial marriage, salvation for the dead, temple work in all its phases, the resurrection, and degrees of glory in the eternal worlds.” (Ibid.) The Articles of Faith seem to be an attempt to hide almost all of the LDS teachings which separate the Mormon Church from historic Christianity.

So, it would seem that the Articles of Faith might be said to suffer the same basic problems of all creeds:  content, authority, and being written at a fixed point in time.  Perhaps these are issues that all scripture face as well.  But are they an abomination?  More or less of an abomination than the Creeds of Chrstendom?

Do you agree that these are creeds of Mormonism?  Do they lead to the same sorts of problems that other creeds do or are our creeds OK, but others’ are not?  Discuss.

The onset of 2009 brings an opportunity for young people of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to renew their commitment to their faith while participating in a program of instruction, song and dance that reviews the activities of 2008. The program also introduces their theme as Mormon youth for the new year: “Be thou an example of the believers” (1 Timothy 4:12)

Wow I had never seen such a sleek production done by the church some blogs have compared it too watching High School Musical. See you tube video here (please click high quality when you watch it).

Its a whole new media style and attitude I have never seen in our church.

Click here to see the News Press.Click here to Brand New Year Website – I found the videos pretty up beat and interesting. My English daughter who is out of young women’s found it cheesy-she thinks most American things are.  My wife thought it was a little too manufactured and OTT but she is English to.

What do you think?

Have any of the youth in your wards seen in it live or watched it ?

Did they enjoy it or not?

“The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health” (Add Health),

1. Found that conservative and evangelical Christian teenagers are more sexually active than mainline Protestants, Jews, and even Mormons. On average, white evangelical Protestants begin having sex shortly after turning sixteen, which is sooner than most other groups.
2. Moreover, because of the widespread conservative and evangelical Christian belief that contraception is morally wrong, those teenagers were more likely than the other groups to become pregnant and contract sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
3. The surveys found that abstinence-only sex education is a total failure in stopping premarital sex, unwanted pregnancy, and STDs.
4. Bush has made it governmental policy in the United States and around the world to support the teaching of abstinence-only sex education. According to a 2001 estimate, two-and-a-half million young people have taken a pledge to remain celibate until marriage. This has been done under the auspices of movements such as “True Love Waits” and “The Silver Ring Thing.” Sometimes the pledges are made at “purity balls” where girls in ball gowns exchange rings with their fathers who vow to help them remain virgins until they marry. The surveys show that 82% of those who take such pledges end up having sex before marriage.
5. In addition, other surveys show that communities with high rates of pledging also have higher rates of pregnancy and STDs.
6. The problem with teenage marriages is that they lead to higher rates of divorce by conservative and evangelical Christians than among other Christians, Jews, and Mormons. Social scientists have noted that the states with the lowest age of marriage have the highest rates of divorce.
7. The problem with teenage marriages is that they lead to higher rates of divorce by conservative and evangelical Christians than among other Christians, Jews, and Mormons. Social scientists have noted that the states with the lowest age of marriage have the highest rates of divorce.
8. In 2004 the states with the lowest median age of marriage were the (then) red states of Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, and Idaho. The states with the highest age at marriage were New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
9. The highest rates of divorce were in the red states of Arkansas, Idaho, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Nevada. The lowest rates of divorce were in the blue states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey.
10. The highest teen-pregnancy rates were in the red states of Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. The lowest were in Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine.
11. The surveys also showed that there is an important social class and educational aspect to adolescent sex. The more affluent, better-educated blue state teenagers are more cautious about having premarital sex than conservative and evangelical youths.
12. They are more likely to use contraception when having sex, and are less likely to get pregnant or STDs. Blue state young people are more likely to postpone marriage and children until after they reach emotional and financial maturity.
13. According to Mark Regnerus: “They (blue state teens) are interested in remaining free from the burden of teenage pregnancy and the sorrows and embarrassments of sexually transmitted diseases. They perceive a bright future for themselves, one with college, advanced degrees, a career, and a family.”

Thoughts and Questions

• The Church encourages education and the correlation between education and unwanted teenage pregnancy is positive
• Abstinence seems to be working fairly well in our church doesn’t it? – I honestly don’t know?
• What is our stand on contraception for teenagers that are going to be sexually active do we bury our head in the sand or is it ever discussed where they could go get help.
• Mormons don’t think contraception is morally wrong but would we encourage it if we knew abstinence was not going to happen?
• It appears in the States where religion is practised less but education is higher their seems to be higher abstinence and less teenage pregnancy and STD’s
• Has the church supported President Bush on abstinence only sex education? Will Obama be advocating abstinence education as well ?
  
• Do we formally encourage in our wards and stakes for our teenagers to pledge abstinence?
• If their is a correlation between the younger you get married the more likely you are to get a divorce, should it be encouraged that members wait longer before they tie the knot?
• If its true that the trend for BYU students are waiting a little longer to get married will this improve future divorce rates in the church?

Final thought and Question Do you think the more we talk about abstinence the worse the problem will get?

Don’t think the colour red! Don’t think the colour red! Don’t think the colour red!

What colour are you thinking?

Notes: Jack LeMoult

Jeff Lindsay [The Word of Wisdom] outlines principles of healthy living that go far beyond the scientific knowledge of the 1800s and much of this century…The 1833 dietary guidelines sound much like the recommended “food pyramid” produced by federally-funded research in the past decade.

For me and perhaps many of you it has been one of those solid concepts that when you feel rickety about some of the doctrine you can always count on the solid foundations of the word of wisdom.

What I never was taught though that before the word of wisdom there was the Temperance Movement.

Temperance Movement

In 1826 Marcus Morton had founded the American Temperance Society June, 1830, the Millenial Harbinger quoted in full, and with the hearty personal endorsement of Alexander Campbell, an article from the Philadelphia “Journal of Health,” The above in turn was quoting a widely circulated book, “The Simplicity of Health,” which article most strongly condemned the use of alcohol, tobacco, the eating intemperately of meats.

Fascinating Facts on the Word of Wisdom/ Temperance Movement (The last one being the most fascinating of them all)

The church today interprets hot drinks to mean tea and coffee, although there is evidence that in the early history of the church all hot drinks were forbidden.

Word of Wisdom is by Lester Bush (physician). He shows how, contrary to recent assertions, the Word of Wisdom was actually what “medical science” in the 1820s and 1830s preached. Bush claims that the Word of Wisdom would have been far more useful (and prophetic) to the 19th Century Mormons had it included instructions to use only clean water and to adequately dispose of waste. In fact, “hot drinks” and some alcoholic beverages may have saved the lives of many 19th Century Mormons had they drank them instead of the unsanitary water in Nauvoo, along the plains, and in Utah.

Although church leaders stress some portions of Joseph Smith’s Word of Wisdom, other portions are almost completely ignored. Mormon writer John J. Stewart observed: “The admonition to eat little meat is largely ignored, as are some other points of the revelation”

Temperance Societies were organized in great numbers during the early thirties, six thousand being formed in one year

The Temperance Society succeeded in eliminating a distillery in Kirtland on February 1, 1833, just twenty-seven days before the Latter-day Saint revelation counseling abstinence was announced, and that the distillery at Mentor, near Kirtland, was also closed at the same time (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1959, pp.39-40).

On October 6, 1830, the Kirtland Temperance Society was organized with two hundred thirty nine members. Among its members were listed a George Smith, several Morleys, a Wells, a Coe, and a Lyman. names all associated with the history of Mormonism

A few years before the Word of Wisdom, Robert Owen had abolished the use of ardent spirits in his community at New Harmony.

Whitney R. Cross points out that “the temperance movement … began much earlier… During the 1830′s it attained national scope. … Further, if alcohol was evil because it frustrated the Lord’s design for the human body, other drugs like tea, coffee, and tobacco must be equally wrong … Josiah Bissell…. had even before the 1831 revival ‘got beyond Temperance to the Cold Water Society—no tea, coffee or any other slops.’ ”

Joseph tested the saints to make sure their testimonies were of his religion and not of him as a personable leader. Amasa Lyman of the first Presidency related Joseph Smith trying the faith of the saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time he had preached a powerful sermon on the word of wisdom and immediately thereafter he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.phpCISOROOT=/MTGM&CISOPTR=3327&CISOSHOW=3264

Questions

Do you have a problem with the temperance movement being, so to speak, the forefather to the word of wisdom?

If the Word of Wisdom was derived from the Temperance movement does that make it feel a little less inspired to you?

If the Word of Wisdom was derived from the Temperance Movement why don’t we show it in the manuals?

Can you still count on the solid foundations of the word of wisdom or does the Temperance Movement make it feel rickety?

Does it really matter where the word of wisdom came from – it’s a net positive if you live it?

http://ldslivingmagazine.com/articles/show/934

One of the top fifteen factors that can transform a reasonable, amiable, friendly person with reasonable, friendly beliefs and ideas into a ranting, screaming, judgmental zealot with poisonous, nauseating, self-righteous dreck for beliefs.

A member of the Church cannot go many Sundays without hearing about the fortitude of early Saints in overcoming persecution.  A fast and testimony meeting often includes statements about persecution against the Church in the past or present.

Persecution, persecution, persecution!

When Joseph Smith was murdered, the New York Herald printed:

The death of the modern mahomet will seal the fate of Mormonism.  They cannot get another Joe Smith.  The holy city must tumble into ruins, and the ‘latter-day saints’ have indeed come to the latter day.

Little did the New York Herald and many of the Church’s critics know that persecution and tragedy can bring a people closer and make them stronger.

Such is the case with Mormonism.  While there were divisions and schisms (schisms which included many prominent members), the majority of the early Saints followed Brigham Young after Joseph Smith’s death, building a strong and unified Church in the mountains of Utah.

The writings of Brigham Young and Church leaders found in the Journal of Discourses and other sources are filled with rants about the persecution the Church suffered.  It was a constant subject that was no doubt continuously on the minds of the entire Mormon Church.  This is understandable, as the Church was continually subject to misconceptions, unwarranted criticism and unfriendly government intervention.  They were living through persecution.

However, as the Church became more and more accepted by others and granted equal rights, the constant banter of persecution did not cease. And even today, with the Church enjoying many of the rights and privileges early Saints could only dream of, the Church continues to complain about persecution or reflect on past persecution.

With an “us vs. them” attitude, members will cry injustice or discrimination at the drop of a hat.  Some allow this attitude to grow into arrogance and bitterness toward others.

I have seen cool-headed members blow their tops at protesters at Temple Square.  I have seen missionaries jump into attack mode at the slightest mention of criticism from those they teach.

Does the church suffer from persecution complex?  And are the side effects of a persecution complex in some ways as dangerous as persecution itself?  What do you think?

Saturday is a special day
It’s the day we get ready for Sunday
We brush our teeth and we go to the bathroom
So we don’t have to do it ’til Monday

Well, that’s how my sister and I used to sing it anyway.  So, how liberal or orthodox is your interpretation of Sunday observance?

Rescuing one’s “ox from the mire” is a Mormon euphemism for breaking the Sabbath.  This phrase (sort of) originates in the NT when the Savior was accused of doing work when He healed a man of the dropsy on the Sabbath.  The Savior’s response is in Luke 14:5:

5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the ^asabbath day?

This begs the following questions:

• Why do we say “ox in the mire”? There is no “ox in the mire” in scripture referring to Sabbath breaking.  My theory is that it’s because people are too dainty to use the accurate phrasing.  So, the next time you are caught in a questionable Sunday activity, just say, “Sorry, bishop.  My ass was in a pit.  This was just one of those “ass in a pit” situations.”
• So, when (to re-coin the original phrase) is one’s ass in a pit? The answer varies greatly from person to person.  There are some who would go so far as to not read the newspaper or turn on the TV on a Sunday.  There are others who will eat in a restaurant on a Sunday if it is a special occasion.  Our classic “ass in a pit” scenario occurred a couple months ago when we awoke to find the second story of our house had flooded overnight.

I found an interesting talk from 1972 that included results of a study.  The study showed that most active members shopped at least once per year on a Sunday (43% once per year, 21% 6-10 times per year, 32% 1-2 times per month, and 4% nearly every Sunday).  Active members were asked to respond to a variety of situations to see if they would “break the Sabbath” (percentages indicate the % of respondents who agreed it was warranted):

1. Someone is sick and needs medicine (98%)
2. To buy gas to attend a distant church meeting (82%) – this might be perceived differently now that most gas purchases can be done with no human interaction.
3. At church, you discover there is no bread for the sacrament, so you buy some at the store (46%)
4. The car needs gas for personal use (42%)
5. Your parents want to take you to dinner (38%) – my parents would never suggest such a thing.
6. Friends are visiting from out of town, and you take them to dinner rather than cook (31%)
7. You go to dinner for a celebration with a significant other (28%)
8. Friends are coming over, and you need to buy snacks to serve them (25%)
9. Your son gives a talk at church, so you take the family out for ice cream as a reward (15%) – hopefully the talk was not on keeping the Sabbath day holy.
10. You get a run in your pantyhose (11%) – not sure how the men responded on this one
11. There is a “Sunday-only” sale and you really need to save money (11%)
12. Someone you like asks you on a date (8%) – not sure how the marrieds answered this one, unless they were also flexible on adultery . . .

Here are some that were not on the list that I would add:

• Pool owners – do you swim on Sunday?  (My parents claim there are alligators in the pool on Sunday; since they live in Florida, they might be right.)
• Do you vacation as a family on Sundays?  (Which usually involves things like restaurants, hotels, buying gas, air travel, etc.)
• Do you purchase from vending machines on Sunday?
• Do you speed on Sundays, causing policemen to work in order to give you a ticket?

These numbers might be different if the same questions were asked today, although I suspect they are pretty similar today.  So, when is your “ass (or ox) in a pit”?  Is it the same or different than your family’s threshold?  Your in-laws?  Your spouse’s?  (And let’s try to avoid the Sabbath = Saturday rigamarole that has already been addressed at Gen Conf ad nauseum).  Discuss.

Some speakers overtly state something like, “I was assigned to speak on this talk entitled _______ by Elder ________ in the April General Conference.” Others go about speaking on the subject and then in the process make multiple references to a single recent General Conference talk.

The last talk I gave was in 2007 and I was given a topic, but not a General Conference talk. In all the speaking assignments I have had, most have come with a topic (although a couple times I was given a blank canvas), but never anything as specific as a talk given by someone else. In this ward it is completely consistent now, though.

Is this happening where you live? What are the pros and cons of this kind of practice?