BYU has banned caffeinated soft drinks on campus for years.  I work for a few large national cable tv networks, and when they come to BYU, they often rant that they can’t find a good cup of coffee in Provo, and they are especially perplexed by the soft drink restrictions.  Often these guys fly in on red-eye flights, and a boost of caffeine is very helpful to keeping them alert during football and basketball broadcasts.  (I took one of those red-eye flights just this weekend, and drank some cheap cola to keep me awake.)

So, Coke and Pepsi are sold on campus, but without caffeine.  I find it an odd situation, and I don’t have much to say when these non-LDS people rant about banning caffeine on campus.  But it appears that President David O McKay was a bit more liberal on some of these Word of Wisdom issues.  We all know the admonition to “avoid the appearance of evil”, yet President McKay was more liberal than some on the subject of Coke.  Prince describes a situation where President McKay actually requested Coke.  From page 23, (emphasis in book)

During the intermission of a theatrical presentation, his host offered to get refreshments: “His hearing wasn’t very good, and I got right down in front of him and I said, ‘President McKay, what would you like to drink?  All of our cups say Coca Cola on them because of our arrangement with Coca Cola Bottling, but we have root beer and we have orange and we have Seven-Up.  What would you like to drink?’  And he said, ‘I don’t care what it says on the cup, as long as there is Coke in the cup.”⁸⁷ McKay’s point was simple and refreshing:  Don’t get hung up on the letter of the law to the point where you squeeze all of the spirit out of life.

But that’s not all.  Prince describes an interesting story concerning rum cake that President McKay ate. Also from page 23,

At a reception McKay attended, the hostess served rum cake.  ”All the guests hesitated, watching to see what McKay would do.  He smacked his lips and began to eat.”  When one guest expostulated, “‘But President McKay, don’t you know that is rum cake?’  McKay smiled and reminded the guest that the Word of Wisdom forbade drinking alcohol, not eating it.”⁸⁶

Some people have tried to add chocolate as being prohibited by the Word of Wisdom.  President McKay chided an apostle about this stance.  From page 23,

he gently chided Apostle John A. Widtsoe, whose wife advocated such a rigid interpretation of the Word of Wisdom as to proscribe chocolate because of the stimulants it contained, saying “John, do you want to take all the joy of of life?’”⁸⁵

Is anyone else surprised by these stories?  Do you think Mormons will ever relax to President McKay’s position on the Word of Wisdom?  When I was first married, my wife surprised me and cooked with wine.  Do others cook with wine, or do you avoid it for “the appearance of evil”?

Apostle Paul Savage of the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message

Sunstone has been going on since Wednesday here in Salt Lake City.  It ends tomorrow, and I thought I would give a few words about the conference.  I have been blogging here at Mormon matters for about a year and a half, and have never met any other bloggers here….until this week!  It has been nice to nice BiV and Stephen Marsh.  I hope to meet others tomorrow.  It was also nice to meet with a few apostles.

I met Paul at the MHA convention in May, and he gave a presentation titled “Why Elijah (or John the Baptist) must come before Christ’s Return”.  I wasn’t able to attend his presentation, but spoke with him for a few minutes.  I learned he is one of 6 apostles for his church, based in Independence, Missouri.  Their church believes apostles are the highest office in the church, and they believe that many people can be prophets.  He noted that the Ephesians 4:11 lists apostles before prophets, so apostles should be the top of the hierarchy.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Robin Linkart, President of the 6th Quorum of Seventy for the Community of Christ

It was fun talking to him.  I’ve been reading Scattering of the Saints by John Hamer and Newell Bringhurst, and plan to talk more about Paul’s church in the future.  I also enjoyed meeting with Apostle Susan Skoor of the Community of Christ, formerly known as the RLDS church.  (I already have a photo of her on my previous post–click here.)  She is always extremely friendly, and a treat to meet.  She introduced me to Robin Linkart, the President of the 6th Quorum of Seventy.  She lives in Colorado, and is in charge of missionary efforts in the western United States from the Canadian border to Mexico, California to Kansas.  (Sorry the photos are out of focus–I guess my $40 camera is only worth what I paid for it.)

CoC Historian Mark Scherer

Mark Scherer, is the historian for the Community of Christ.  He gave an interesting presentation on the latest revelation to be canonized in the Community of Christ, section 164 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  He said the revelation covers 4 main topics:  (1) open communion, (2) open baptism (don’t have to be rebaptized to join the RLDS church anymore), (3) moral and ethical behavior (allows countries to decide if they want to allow same sex marriage), and (4) the RLDS strives to collaborate more with evangelical Christians.

Bridget Jack Meyers, (aka “Jack”–she blogs at Clobberblog), gave a fascinating presentation called “Evidence for Women’s Priesthood in the Earliest Christianity.  She is a “never Mormon” that earned a BA degree from BYU and “seduced” (her words) a Mormon man there.  She is studying at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  She outlined various scriptures showing early women Christian leaders, including a woman by the name of Junia in Romans 16:7.  Jack says Junia was a female apostle, and quoted early Christian theologian John Chrysostum discussing her.  Early Christian theologian Origen discussed a female leader by the name of Phoebe.  Jack gave many other examples, and it certainly deserves a blog post or two to discuss her research.

Yesterday, I was able to attend Stephen Marsh‘s session called “How an Unpleasant Truth Can Be More Inspirational than a Pleasant Fiction.”  I learned that the session was based on his post from October, titled The Stories We Tell.  Briefly, Stephen told the true story about his daughter standing up for a disabled classmate.  Often stories such as this end with a happy ending where everyone realizes that they shouldn’t tease a disabled person, but in Stephen’s story, his daughter becomes ostracized.  Often, we don’t have happy endings, and sometimes it is hard to understand why God doesn’t bless us for doing the right thing.  I also learned that Stephen has 5 daughters, but 3 of them have died, despite his prayers to have them live.  It was an interesting presentation.  Often we learn more from our trials than our triumphs.

I’m excited to attend tomorrow.  If you’re in SLC, I encourage you to attend.  It’s at the Sheraton Hotel on 150 West 500 South.  If you attended, what sessions did you enjoy?  Do you have any questions about the sessions I attended?

“Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of various political parties.” (Emphasis mine.)

Why does it seem that many Mormons don’t seem to believe this, despite the church’s oft-quoted emphasis that the church is politically neutral?

On May 13, 1969, Elder Hugh B Brown of the First Presidency quoted John Gardner, former secretary of health, education, and welfare under Lyndon B. Johnson.  Gardner gave a very interesting definition of political extremism:

Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: An excessively simple diagnosis of the world’s ills and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all. . . . Blind belief in one’s cause and a low view of the morality of other Americans–these seem mild failings. But they are the soil in which ranker weeds take root . . . terrorism, and the deep, destructive cleavages that paralyze a society.[John Gardner, No Easy Victories (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 8, 9.]

The text of Brown’s speech can be found here.  Almost exactly one year prior to Brown’s speech referenced above, he delivered the Commencement Address at BYU in May 1968.  Most of you remember his now famous speech called “Profile of a Prophet.”  It’s a fantastic address as he outlines a legal argument to a Canadian judge on why Joseph Smith is a prophet.  I recently listened to the entire speech.

During the first 3 minutes of the speech, Brown gives a few jokes and advice, and then he gave a few words about Politics, before addressing his main topic of “Profile of a Prophet.”  I’d like to quote his words of advice to the graduating students.  I’d like to highlight some things I find particularly interesting.

“You young people are leaving your university at a time in which our nation is engaged in an increasingly abrasive and strident process of electing a president. I wonder if you would permit me as one who has managed to survive a number of these events to pass on to you a few words of counsel.

First, I’d like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who guide the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all.

Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which will enable you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. I’ve found by long experience that our two-party system is sound. Beware of those who are so lacking in humility, that they cannot come within the framework of one of our two great parties.

Our nation has avoided chaos, like that is gripping France today, because men have been able to temper their own desires sufficiently, seek broad agreement within one of the two major parties, rather than forming splinter groups around their one radical idea.

Our two party system has served us well, and should not be lightly discarded. At a time when radicals of right or left inflame race against race, avoid those who teach evil doctrines of racism. When our Father declared that we, his children, were brothers and sisters, he did not limit this relationship on the basis of race. Strive to develop that true love of country, that realizes that real patriotism must include within it a regard for the people of the rest of the globe. Patriotism has never demanded of good men hatred of another country as proof of one’s love for his own. Require the tolerance and compassion of others and for them. Those with different politics or race or religion will be demanded by the heavenly parentage which we all have in common.

-Hugh B. Brown, Commencement address, Brigham Young University, May 31, 1968

I posted a slightly different version of this post on my blog.  The first few people commented that the politicians of the 1960′s must have been “Men of Integrity”, but our current politicians are not.  Let’s look at the 60′s for a moment.  Lyndon B Johnson’s ratings were so low, that he chose not to run for re-election.   Robert F Kennedy was shot and killed just 1 week after Elder Brown’s address, joining his brother John who had been shot and killed just a few years prior.  Martin Luther King Jr had been killed just 7 weeks prior to this address (on April 4.)

John F Kennedy had a reputation as a bit of a womanizer.  In 1968, Americans were quite sour on the VietNam War.  The sexual revolution was in full swing, and the Women’s Liberation movement was well under way.  The Bay of Pigs was a disaster in Cuba, and we had just gone through the Cuban Missile Crisis.  People were building bomb shelters for fear of Nuclear War with the USSR.  The Cold War was as cold as it ever was.  Suffice it to say, this decade was a time of tumult.

In the 1968 election that Brown referred to, Nixon won a 3 way race over D-Hubert Humphrey, and I-George Wallace. Let’s not forget that Wallace was later shot in 1972, and we all know what happened to Nixon. I didn’t know what happened in France in 1968, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently there were some big-time riots, strikes, and protests that almost brought the French government down.

I think it was a much more divisive time than today, though today is a very divisive time.  I don’t understand why our country has become so partisan, and why we don’t try to work together more.  People are gravitating to the extremes of MoveOn.org, and the Tea Party.  Brown saw a similar time of rancorous partisanship in the 60′s, and quoted Gardner:

As these antagonisms become more intense, the pathology is much the same. . . . The ingredients are, first, a deep conviction on the part of the group as to its own limitless virtue or the overriding sanctity of its cause; second, grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others; third, a chronically aggrieved feeling that power has fallen into the hands of the unworthy (that is, the hands of others). . . .

Politics can always bring out a lot of rants, and often both sides will have “grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others.”  I’m sure all of you have your pet political issues.  Can we avoid these antagonisms as we discuss the state of our country?

What say you?  Are you guilty of Elder Brown’s definition of political extremism?  Can you disagree with either President Bush or President Obama without questioning their integrity, just as Elder Brown did with Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon?  Do you demean the institutions of the Congress or the Supreme Court because you don’t agree with particular legislation or court rulings?

The overall article is well worth reading to better understand current political debates, but that wasn’t what called my attention to it as a possible subject for Mormon Matters. Rather, the following paragraph toward the end of the Article startled me:

“Nothing has set the country class apart, defined it, made it conscious of itself, given it whatever coherence it has, so much as the ruling class’s insistence that people other than themselves are intellectually and hence otherwise humanly inferior. Persons who were brought up to believe themselves as worthy as anyone, who manage their own lives to their own satisfaction, naturally resent politicians of both parties who say that the issues of modern life are too complex for any but themselves. Most are insulted by the ruling class’s dismissal of opposition as mere “anger and frustration” — an imputation of stupidity — while others just scoff at the claim that the ruling class’s bureaucratic language demonstrates superior intelligence. A few ask the fundamental question: Since when and by what right does intelligence trump human equality? Moreover, if the politicians are so smart, why have they made life worse?” [Emphases added.]

When I read the bolded sentences above I almost sputtered to myself. “Of course, the intelligent should…” And then I remembered a series of conversations I had with my wife-to-be several decades ago when I was getting my baptism into the government policy environment in the DC area and she was free-lancing as a classical musician in New York City. When I visited her, it seemed her colleagues were always complaining about how little funding there was for the arts. When we were alone together, this conversation often continued as she noted that the government seemed to have plenty of money to pay me well for what I did. (I had enough spare cash at the time to fly back and forth between the two cities; she once, I found out later, had to walk home from seeing me off at the airport.) I had initially defended my privilege with exactly the same “Of course…” sputtering.

Well, true love triumphed, and we long ago moved on to debate other issues in our marriage, but my memory of those conversations stopped the sputtering, and I could start taking the article’s fundamental question seriously.

What trumps “the worth of all persons”, to use a Community of Christ terminology? Is it intelligence, which we now measure in our culture by having accrediting bodies grant us degrees that say we are intelligent? It is a very seductive idea, until I start to examine it closely. Why does a master’s degree in physics make me more intelligent than my wife’s masters degree in classical music makes her? She can play a piano; she gets calls to do that more often than I get called upon to solve third order differential equations (and she can still do it from memory, too). Who’s more useful? How many of me does society actually need?

Other cultures have believed (do believe?) that the basis of rule should be the ability to defeat enemy armies, to belong to a divinely-favored race or gender or ethnicity, or even a dubious claim to be sired by a previous member of the ruling class.  Shouldn’t I be willing to question the basis of my belief in the rule of “intellect”.

I am proud of my degrees and my connections to what Codevilla’s article calls the “ruling class”. My pride shows, no matter how hard I try to become conscious of it and question my cultural assumption. Oh, oh!

Ancient people of many cultures built monuments to their gods. Often, it became a little confusing about whether the monuments were built to the gods, or whether the people who built them believed they were gods. In places like Egypt or Meso-America there eventually was no mistaking that the pyramids were about the rulers.

I look at the great monuments in Washington. Some are monuments to political demi-gods of the past. But some seem clearly monuments to the present rulers themselves. Oh, oh! In fact, the places you see Senators or House Representatives being interviewed on TV are not the most ornate Congressional office buildings. The newest structures have multi-floor glass walled interiors that work poorly with reflections from TV lights, so they go unseen by most people without day-to-day business there. (And why did I bother to tell you that? Oh, oh!)

Other monuments are ideological. If you can’t get your name on a monument (or at least an office building in your local district), get your name on a law. In the sciences, get an effect, or a theory, or an equation named after you. Win a prize. Leave your mark on history.

In the Book of Mormon, the falling of people into the “pride cycle” is frequently thematically associated with the wearing of “costly apparel”. Those on the fringes of the ruling class could not build monuments, but they could signal their membership in that class to everyone by what they wore. If we take Meso-America as a model, they could make themselves into living pyramids of expensive cloth, jade, or shell.

And the more widely those signs spread (physically or metaphorically), the more ideas like “the worth of all persons” became illusionary self-deception. The more people were excluded from the ruling class, the more strongly those still on the fringe found it necessary to justify doing ever-more-questionable things to hang on to the symbols of status. The gulf between the classes widened into violence.

I am very much on the “fringe” of my culture’s ruling class. I can signal my membership in that class through my university affiliations, the reports I’ve co-authored, the conferences and advisory hearings I’ve attended, and the offices of the government officials who’ve passed me written “attaboys”. I can make my pyramid out of paper, and my mark on history can last digitally until the digital formats themselves become obsolete. Oh, oh!

Intellectualism is not a vice. Neither is being a member of any elite. But could membership in a ruling “intellectual” elite be the particular form of the pride cycle to which our modern Western culture can be tempted?

As I mentioned previously, I really enjoyed the Strangite session of the Mormon History Association meetings a few weeks ago.  Vickie Speek, John Hamer, and Mike Karpowicz gave some fascinating presentations on this little known group.  Following the session, they answered additional questions, and I thought it would be interesting to provide a transcript of the Q&A session.  But before I get into the transcript, I should tell you a brief history of the Strangite Church.

James Strang was baptized into the church just a few months before Joseph Smith was killed in 1844.  He said he had a letter from Joseph proclaiming that Strang was to lead the church.  The letter is currently owned by Yale University; in the past few decades, they have declared Joseph Smith’s signature on the letter a forgery.

Evidently Strang was a dynamic leader.  His church (officially known with slightly different punctuation as the Utah church: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [no hyphen, different capitalization]) rivaled the Brigham Young movement in size.  They had some well known converts too:  Martin Harris, William Smith (Joseph’s brother), William Cowdery (Oliver’s father), William Marks (stake president in Nauvoo), William McLellin (former apostle), Hiram Page, and some of the Whitmer brothers.

Strang claimed an angel visited him, appointing him as prophet.  As part of his calling, he translated the Brass Plates into a book of scripture called “The Book of the Law of the Lord” written by Moses, and in Laban’s possession.  Originally against polygamy, Strang translated the book (first published in 1851), which said polygamy was a godly commandment.

Strang originally moved his followers to Voree, Wisconsin, and then received another revelation to move to Beaver Island, Michigan.  He crowned himself king, and was assassinated there by disgruntled followers.  The Strangites still exist today.  The have a few hundred members in Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wisconsin.  Here is a website from a Strangite follower.  (It contains an online version of the Book of the Law of the Lord.)  John Hamer says the official website for the church is found here.

Independent historian Vickie Speek, John Hamer & Mike Karpowicz of John Whitmer Books, and Bill Russell of Graceland University (the CoC version of BYU) answered a few questions following their presentation on the past 160 years of Strangite history.

Newell Bringhurst, “I found it very enlightening too, but the one area I wanted to hear a little bit more about was the core teachings, the liturgy.  Did you get a sense, particularly John and Mike?  [Vickie] You went into the Law of the Lord in your paper and those tenets and teachings, but what core teachings were perpetuated to the make things that give them an identity as far as their Mormonism or moving beyond or in a different direction in terms of their Mormon teachings that we would identify with as Mormons, from a Latter-Day Saint tradition?”

John Hamer, “I identified in my paper that there is a remarkable continuity.  When we first looked into this, we weren’t sure how this church that had been on Beaver Island and in Wisconsin, how did it end up being in New Mexico?  So we wondered, ‘is this a Neo-Strangite Church?  Is this a bunch of people who got converted and started calling themselves Strangites that don’t have any actual continuity?’  But we found in the course of looking through the records–we had incredible access to all the church’s records, we interviewed a dozen of the oldest members of the church, the branch records going all the way back to the 19th century are all kept in the vaults and all maintained—there is a remarkable continuity of practice and teaching that occurs because these Beaver Island members taught this new generation.  The practices remain and all sorts of things remain.

Some of the things we mentioned were sealing—sealing continues to be done, so that is unusual for Midwestern Mormons for example.  Most of the other branches other than the Cutlerites don’t do that.  You don’t have that in the Community of Christ.  It’s not in the Hedrickites.  They’re sealed for time and all eternity.  This idea of adopting into a noble and a princely household, these kingdom powers—that was being done all the way up through the [19]60’s, especially members of the Flanders clan were sealed, adopting into this Ketchum household that they were intermarried with in the 19th century, but essentially had forgotten that they were inter-married with.  This was more or less forgotten.  Some of this history has been recovered from the records, this connection between Joseph Ketchum and Granny Flanders.  Remember that Granny Flanders was this matriarch who had done this.

I would just say there are an incredible number of practices, there are all kinds of Strangite practices.  The Book of the Law of the Lord is integral as scripture.  It is read.  The Voree Branch are 7th day Sabbath-tarians—that’s Strangite practice.  The Laws of Sacrifice so they would sacrifice first fruits so again a lot of Strangite practice, because they had a second prophet, there’s all sorts of things that they have that other branches don’t have.  So I think the continuity is actually remarkable and the amount of practice and preservation is remarkable.  There are just a few things that fall out, because they don’t have the top priesthood offices.  So some things they don’t feel are valid to do.  One of those is plural marriages for example, they’re not done.

Vickie Speek, “There’s something we didn’t mention is the fact that according to Strangite belief, the lesser cannot ordain the higher. So they’ve lost their prophet, they’ve lost their priesthood, because only God can make a prophet.  Man can’t.  Man can’t make another prophet, so when James Strang died, the prophet died.

John Hamer, “It’s simply invalid for a teacher to ordain a priest.  Likewise, you cannot have an apostle ordain a prophet.  So that’s why Joseph [Smith] III’s ordination is invalid.  William Marks, as great of priesthood or whatever as he had is not a prophet, he cannot ordain a prophet.  Likewise Brigham Young, the other apostles that ordain him—that’s simply invalid in Strangite view, because the lesser cannot ordain the greater.

Newell Bringhurst, “So then the highest priesthood office then is a high priest, is that correct?”

Hamer, “Yes, High Priest.”

Bill Russell, “Since prophets die, and  Joseph was killed, then how are you going to have a successor to Joseph?”

Hamer, “Angelic ordination.”

??? “Just the way Strang was ordained.”

Vickie, “James Strang could have, under the direction of God, laid his hands and ordained somebody before he passed, but he did not.”

Larry Foster, “I also commend the excellent papers.  I had a couple questions more to Vickie, and maybe I missed part of it, or maybe it was answered elsewhere.  On the Book of the Law of the Lord, that’s an extremely impressive book I think.  I looked at it, but the 1856 edition is much bigger than the original book which is only about 50 pages?  A lot of the best stuff in the 1856 edition is these extended explanatory notes, I don’t know if polygamy is in the original text of the edition, or is it part of that explanatory notes stuff that extends the length of the book so much?

The other question I had was an inevitable question about Strang—what does one make of him?  He didn’t ordain a successor even though he was alive for several weeks after he was shot fatally.  Going back, how does polygamy get in there?  How about John C. Bennett?  It seems like John C. Bennett is right there at the heart of Nauvoo polygamy and Strangite polygamy and it seems like he was equally destructive in both contexts.  [audience chuckles]

I also wondered, I read one of Strang’s articles.  Golly, he could sure write.  He almost convinced me that polygamy was a great thing to liberate women.  [audience chuckles]  It gives them all kinds of choices they don’t have and they’re not stuck with a bunch of dodos.  It would appear, and I’ve been criticized by one of the Strangites for saying this, that certainly his letter of appointment was a forgery, that it seems to reflect his own diary.  It is block printed, the name has no relationship to Joseph Smith.”

Bill Russell, “We talked about his appointment at the beginning.”

Foster, “Oh you did.  There’s a pretty clear cut case of forgery, or maybe did you find some other approach?”

Vickie, “The way that I have looked at it.  When I wrote my book about the Strangites, I approached it basically as a newspaper reporter.  I was not going to take a position either way, I was just going to tell the story.  Because to me, it doesn’t matter to me what my opinion of James Strang was, but I was doing the story of the people who believed him, so that’s the way I wrote my book, and that’s the way I still basically look at it.  I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people who followed James Strang, and the Strangites of today, because their [road] is not the main road.  Theirs has been a very hard, hard road with a lot of heartache.

Now I would like to make one comment.  As far as I know, there is only a few copies of the 1851 Book of the Law, and there is somebody here who is familiar with the 1851 Book of the Law, and I’d like to ask him if there is polygamy in it?”

John Hajicek, “Yeah, there is.”

Vickie, “It’s basically the same thing?”

Hamer, “It’s in the main text, right?  In other words, it just lacks the commentary, so it has the text, it just doesn’t explain it, right?”

John Hajicek, “Are you guys asking me?”  [audience chuckles]  “Yeah, I have an 1851 Book of the Law and it’s an 80 page preliminary version.  It was published as a pamphlet with colored, printed wrappers on it.  It doesn’t have the explanatory notes.  It has 95% of the sections.  He continued to translate some additional sections.  There are some interesting differences.  For example, the first edition doesn’t have a chapter on baptism for the dead, and Strang includes his earlier 1849 revelation on baptism for the dead instead, and then has a footnote that says baptism for the dead evidently didn’t exist in the Old Testament.  Later he translates a chapter after on baptism from this Mosaic period, allegedly Mosaic period record.  So his own views changed.  But on polygamy he didn’t change.  The laws on the number of wives a king could have and things like that are all in that first edition.”

Bill Russell, “That 1851 edition does have that you say?”

John Hajicek, “Right.

Mike, “Bill, is my assumption correct that with the assassination of Strang, that the tensions between the Strangites and the state and federal government kind of dissipated at that point.  It is interesting to me that whereas the army had a relationship with the Utah church for quite a while, Strang was shot virtually under the guns of the USS Michigan, a naval vessel on the Great Lakes.  I don’t know what the reports that were filed by the state of Michagan were, and how they were considered when they got back to Washington to the Navy Department in the Pierce administration, but were the tensions with the state governments of in Michigan and Wisconsin and federal government dissipated after the assassination?”

Hamer, “Yeah, because they also got expelled.  They picked up all the members.  They spoiled them of all their property.  They put them on rented boats and they dropped them off all along the coast line destitute in little tiny groups.  So it was the worst kind of persecution results than any other Mormons faced.”

Mike, “Did the navy play a part in that or was it all surveyance from Mackinaw City?”

Vickie, “There is no positive evidence.  However, you take all the circumstantial evidence together, and I say yes.”

Hamer, “Not in the dropping off of the people.”

Vickie, “Not in the dropping off of people, no.”

Hamer, “But like Mike said, the warship is there in the murder.”

Mike, “Does the USS Michigan ferry people from Mackinaw City to St. James as part of the mob?”

Hamer, “Yes.”

Vickie, “As part of the Mob?”

Mike, “Yes”

Vickie, “I don’t believe it was the Michigan.  There were 2 ships in Michigan.  There was a steamer and there was a warship.”

Mike, “I’m asking about the USS Michigan, the warship.”

Vickie, “I don’t know.”

Hamer, “Right, The warship left the dock though.”

Vickie, “Right, it left the dock when Strang was murdered and the murderers jumped on the ship and then left.”

Mike, “2 guys jumped on the ship.”

Vickie and Hamer, “Right.”

Mike, “They left on the USS Michigan?”

Vickie and Hamer, “Yes”.

Mike, “It’s an interesting parallel with the 2 churches: one with the army involved, and the other with the navy.” [audience chuckles]

Vickie, “I think the conflict was gone, because the Strangites were gone, they were scattered.”

Mike, “and the polygamy issue kind of faded away, then?”

Vickie, “Right.”

William Russell, “Here’s a question right here, and then our time is expired so maybe this should be our last one.”

Woman, “Why did they kill James Strang?”

Vickie, “That’s a good question.  Basically, people had become disillusioned with Strang.  Strang was caught trying to follow the Book of the Law and one of the tenets of the church is no alcohol, and basically the Strangites didn’t allow alcohol and they did not support the sale of alcohol to the Native Americans and there was a lot of conflict with the gentiles, and so forth who wanted to sell alcohol.  Strangites became thirsty and they left the fold for other reasons, and those are the ones that basically were in the conspiracy to kill Strang.”

Hamer, “That’s one of them.  That’s on ongoing conflict.  Whenever Mormons gather together in big numbers and took political control and things like that, they would have conflict with their neighbors.  There are all kinds of problems that result from that including the 2 groups don’t trust each other, they don’t feel they can get justice from each other.  The other Americans see Mormons gathering under one prophet as being un-American.  There’s a lot of tendency to go and kill that prophet.”

Bill Russell, “One other thing though, he did serve 1 term in the Michigan legislature.”

Hamer, “Two terms.”

Russell, “Well 2 years I think is all.  But anyway, he was considered very effective according to the Detroit Free Press.  It’s interesting that a prophet and king could be elected to the Michigan legislature and get along well.” [audience chuckles]  He was also a member of the farms.  Well thank you very much, this was an excellent session.”

Like I said, it was a fascinating question.  I’ve invited John Hamer and a few others to entertain questions if you have any.  Do you have any questions for them?

When we lived in Saudi Arabia a few years ago, I obtained a faculty position in the fairly newly-formed department of Health and P.E. at a university which was strictly segregated by gender.  The women’s side of the university operated independently, with our own female custodians, technical staff, professors and administration,  and very little oversight from the male president.  Our department consisted of five women, and we made all decisions collectively, with no titular head.  After the first semester I was there, one of our staff meetings was dedicated to the question of whether we should have a department head.  Being the newest addition to the faculty, I had little say in this decision, but I did bring up the point that we had successfully administrated the department jointly, and I questioned the necessity of one department head.  It would completely change the group dynamics that we had experienced as a body of women removed from a patriarchal hierarchy and which I very much enjoyed.  The reply from all of the rest of the women, though there had been no problems thus far, was that “you HAVE to have a leader,” that one person MUST be in charge of any organization.

At the time I was struck by how much this assertion resembled the one I have heard from many Mormons justifying the hierarchical, patriarchal system in place in the Church, both within the institution and within our individual families.  The argument seems to be that harmonious resolution of difficulties is impossible without one leader to make final decisions.  I am not entirely sure I agree that no other model beside the “one-leader rule,” or what I will here call the “kingship” model is viable in administrating a successful community.

The kingship model of administration appears to have been particularly desirable throughout history.  It seems obvious that strong personality types would desire to set up a system of governance where they were in charge of making all the decisions.  But the scriptural record and our OT SS Lesson #21 show that groups of people also wish to configure their communities under the supervision of a king.  1 Samuel 8 recounts the story of the Israelite people, dissatisfied with judges and prophets, clamoring for Samuel to get them a king.  Their reasoning is found in verse 20: they want to be like the other nations, they want one strong leader to judge them, and they desire to be under the protection of a military commander who will lead them in battle.

Passages in the Book of Mormon also describe this desire of the general population to set up a monarchy.  In Mosiah 23 the people want Alma to be their king because of their great admiration for him.  In 3 Ne 7 a league of tribes attempt to establish a kingship in order to overthrow the tribal system of government then operating.  In Alma 51 there is also an attempt to overthrow the current leadership and inculcate a kingship, inspired in part by pride and aspirations to nobility.  In each case in the scriptures where there is a desire to crown a king, it is denounced as contrary to the ideals of freedom.  Several reasons are given in these passages as to why kingship is considered malapropos:

• It is a rejection of divine rule in favor of human rule (1 Sam 8:7)
• A king would allocate human and natural resources to his own advantage (1 Sam 8:11-17)
• One man should not think of himself as being above another; kingship gives those of high birth unfair power and authority (Mosiah 23:7; Alma 51:8)
• Not all kings can be trusted to be just (Mosiah 23:8,13,14)
• A king can oppress people and lead them into iniquity (Mosiah 23:12)
• A monarchy is not a free government (Alma 51:6)

I attended the Mormon History Association meetings in Independence, Missouri this past week.  I thought I’d share some pictures.  If you’d like to read more about the conference, here are some links to my posts from Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3.

CoC Independence Temple at Sunset

All trip long, I have been looking forward to attending the Community of Christ Devotional at the Independence Temple.  The meeting began at 8:30 AM, and was a wonderful hour of singing and spoken word.  Professor Alex Baugh of BYU, and Apostle Susan Skoor of the Community of Christ

gave background on many hymns written or revised by WW Phelps.  It was a truly inspiring meeting.  I haven’t enjoyed singing that much since I was in the MTC!

Following the service, I went on a tour of the temple.  We visited the meditation chapel, as saw many beautiful sculptures inside the temple.  Unlike LDS temples, we were able to take photos everywhere except for the museum.  I was lucky enough to be led on a personal tour by Ron Romig, Community of Christ Director of the Kirtland Temple.

Displayed in the museum were actual copies of 1830, 1837, and 1840 copies of the Book of Mormon, along with facsimiles of the printer’s manuscript.  The famous oil painting of Joseph and Emma were also there, along with photos of the previous 6 or 7 prophet/presidents of the Community of Christ.  It was truly fascinating.

Following the tour, I wanted to visit some of the other Restoration churches.  There are quite a few Restoration churches in the vicinity.  When Joseph designed the city of Independence, he had allocated 63 acres for 24 temples to be erected on 3 city blocks.  The original plan called for 12 temples for the Melchizedek Priesthood, and 12 temples for the Aaronic Priesthood.  These temples apparently were supposed to serve a more administrative role than for worship.  As you can imagine, many followers of Joseph Smith, both inside and outside the LDS and RLDS churches have clamored for this land.

A group calling itself the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) actually owns the location for the spot where Joseph Smith said a temple should reside, and they have a church on that location now.  The RLDS owns a portion o fthe temple lot, where the Independence Temple resides, and the LDS church owns a visitor’s center and a stake center on part of the temple lot.

I really would like to attend some of these other Restorationist branches, so it was difficult for me to choose where to go.  I attended part of the service for the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), also known as the Hedrickites.  The group was founded by a man by the name of Granville Hedrick.  There is an article in the Journal of Mormon History outlining many legal battles between the Hedrickites and the RLDS church, with the Hedrickites prevailing.  I attended about 20 minutes of the service.  During the service, a baby was blessed, and I heard references to both the Bible and Book of Mormon.  I was late for the service, but I did not see a sacrament table, so I’m not sure if that was part of the service.

Wanting to visit a few other churches, I attended the Stone Church—the oldest church in Independence. The RLDS church began construction in 1873 and it was dedicated in 1888.  I arrived just in time for the last song and prayer.  The church had a balcony, similar to the Salt Lake Tabernacle.  The congregation stood during the last song, and I was so tall that I had to duck into the aisle to see the organist.  There were old wooden benches there, but they had cushions.

I asked if I could take photos, and they said I could.  There were 3 beautiful stained glass windows: one showing Moroni, Joseph Smith, and

the Golden Plates, another showing Moses, Jesus, and the resurrection, and a third symbolizing the Trinity.  The people were extremely friendly, and it was nice to have one of the members take me on a mini-tour.

Following that service, I noticed another Community of Christ church a short distance away.  I was surprised to learn that they had a Jazz band playing.  I recorded a few minutes of their last song!  (I tried to post it, but the file is too big–I’ll try to condense it somehow.)  They mentioned that the neighborhood was full of drugs and gangs, and they were trying to help citizens in the area avoid these problems.  They invited me back next week for a baby blessing, but I told them I had a plane to catch.

A friend told me that I really needed to attend the Cutlerite Church.  It was founded in 1853 by Alphaeus Cutler, who I believe is mentioned in the D&C.  On my way there, I mistakenly thought this was a Cutlerite church.

I knocked on the door, but nobody answered.

Just a few houses down was the real Cutlerite church.  My friend told me that the Cutlerites are the only group that still maintains an Endowment Ceremony, and it is conducted in the upstairs portion of this church.

Apparently they only have about 10-15 people meet on a weekly basis.  The MHA pre-conference tour flooded them with about 50 interested participants.

Unfortunately, I arrived too late: the doors were locked.  Here are a few photos, and I stuck my camera up to the door to peer into the chapel.

As I looked at my map, I decided to try to find Lilburn W Boggs house.  Unfortunately, I never found it, but I did find another interesting church: the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  They meet across the street from the Independence Temple in a converted high school (formerly Crisman High School.)  I walked around the building, and discovered a man.  Apparently, they hold luncheons for the needy and homeless.  Their freezer had broken, so he was loading food into his van.  I asked him if I might be able to tour the building, and he reluctantly agreed.  His name is Arlo Stevenson.

I learned that he is not a member of the Remnant Church, but his church has partnered with them to help out the needy.  The Remnant Church is a break-off from the RLDS church.  Arlo is a former member of the RLDS church, but has joined the House of Aaron, and I learned that this church has a branch about 50 miles west of Delta, Utah on the Utah/Nevada border.  Arlo showed me the Remnant Church offices, and then I learned that the Remnant Church has rented a room for the House of Aaron to hold meetings.  I purchased a “Sunday School” manual, and I hope to do a future post on the House of Aaron.

I also ran into some interesting people.  I had a nice chat on Saturday night with Paul Savage, Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Elijah message.  He is from Independence as well, and has a small congregation.  I had recently purchased Scattering of the Saints by John Hamerand Newell Bringhurst, and he pointed to the cover to his name.  I said, “Wow, I thought these were all dead people.”

“I’m not dead!” he exclaimed.  He was a really interesting person.  We didn’t have much time to chat, but I got his email address and hope to discuss this group further as I learn more.

I also took my picture with 2 apostles from the Community of Christ:  Andrew Bolton and Susan Skoor.  Here is Elder Marlin Jensen, Historian for the LDS church.  I was pleased to meet many authors including John Hamer, Newell Bringhurst, Kathy Daines, Rick Turley (asst LDS Church Historian), and Greg Prince.  It was a real blast—I remarked to some that Independence felt a bit like Mormon Disneyland to me.

I really enjoyed hearing President Carter discuss prayer during the peace negotiations between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.  From page 70,

When we went to Camp David on September 5, 1978, Begin, Sadat, and I all wanted to pray.  But before our first talks, I spent several hours negotiating the text of the prayer.  I got a proposed draft from a prayer group in Washington and I made some edits.  Sadat approved it, Begin made some changes, and we issued the prayer the first day….

While we were at Camp David those thirteen days, Begin and Sadat were almost totally incompatible.  They didn’t like each other and kept resurrecting ancient grievances.  So after the third day I wouldn’t let them see each other again.

[Larry King]  There are stories the talks almost ended without a resolution a number of times.

[Carter] I remember one day, maybe the tenth, Sadat told Moshe Dayan he would make no more concessions in the negotiating text that I was carrying back and forth.  Sadat told his people at Camp David to pack, and he told National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to arrange a helicopter to take them back to Washington.

I was in my cabin talking to Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and others about budget matters.  I was in jeans and a T-shirt.  I remember changing into a suit and going to Sadat’s cabin, where I had a very sharp exchange with him.  I accused him of breaking promises he had made.  Then I went outside to a quiet place by myself and prayed.

[Larry King]  The Camp David peace accords were signed three days later, on September 17, in a ceremony at the White House.

“Pray for your enemies” has an interesting meaning when looking at the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty.  Do you pray for you enemies?

I also enjoyed Larry’s exchange with Ralph Reed.  From page 184, Reed said,

One of the things the Bible teaches us to do is pray for our leaders.  It doesn’t say pray for the leaders of the political party with which you are affiliated.  It doesn’t say pray for Ronald Reagan but not Bill Clinton.  that’s something we have to rediscover.

[Larry King] Do you include Bill Clinton in your prayers?

Yes.  I pray for our national leaders, that they will be wise and that they will be fair and judicious.  I hope that liberals said the same prayer when Ronald Reagan was in the White House.  On the day Reagan was shot, I think every American prayed for his health and his protection.  Maybe there were some who didn’t, but I think most did.

The book was published in 1998, so I’ll update question:  do you pray for President Obama, Harry Reid, and Mitt Romney, John McCain and (fill in your favorite/least favorite politician here)?

“Smith was forced into politics by the abuse that the Mormons received. As soon as they were driven out of their first city site in Independence, Mo., he turned to the government for redress. He never obtained it. No level of government, from local justices of the peace to governors to the president of the United States – to whom he constantly appealed – ever came to the defense of the Saints. But Joseph Smith became a great devotee of constitutional rights because they seemed like his only hope. He said some very extravagant things about the Constitution being God-given because of those rights and became quite conversant in constitutional matters. He even visited the president of the United States, Martin Van Buren, in the White House in 1839.

Gradually, then, Joseph Smith backed into American politics. In the fall of 1843, as the 1844 campaign began to take shape, the authorities of the church wrote to all of the known political candidates asking them about their views of the Mormons, and none returned a satisfactory answer from the Mormon point of view. The Mormons wanted a pledge that these candidates would protect them if they were attacked again, and they couldn’t get it.

Joseph Smith was nominated as a protest candidate in February of 1844. Like other protest candidates, he began to warm to his work and got quite excited about it. He may have dreamed for a moment that through some strange concatenation of events, he would get elected. Every candidate has to dream such things.

His involvement in politics was manifested in a political platform of which he was very proud. He would bring it out whenever he had visitors and read from it. It is an interesting document because it represents a man whose world had been his own people, whose own project had been to create a kingdom of God, and who now had to turn his mind to politics.”

I want to address some really interesting parts of Joseph Smith’s platform that I found really interesting.  Regarding slavery, Joseph Smith came up with a solution that would have avoided the Civil War.  He advocated low taxes (just like conservatives do today.)  I found most of his points very appealing.  Let me quote from Quinn’s book, page 119,

“Smith’s Views revealed him as more than a one-issue candidate.  For the reform of government, he intended to reduce the size and salary of Congress.  In judicial reform, he advocated rehabilitation of convicts through work projects and vocational training and liberal pardoning.  In economic reform, he proposed less taxation, free trade, secure international rights on the high seas, and establishment of a national bank in every state and territory.  On the slavery question, he advocated compensated emancipation through the sale of public lands.  To cope with resulting social stress, he advocated the relocation of the several million freed slaves to Texas.  In keeping with the spirit of “Manifest Destiny” in the 1840s, he proposed annexation of Oregon and Texas and whatever parts of Canada wished to join the Union.  As a reflection of the Mormon expulsion from Missouri, Smith’s platform also advocated presidential intervention in civil disturbances within states.  As one author noted, this interventionist impulse ‘did not exist until the Civil War and Reconstruction.’”

So I want to address several points, and give my comments.

1.      Reduce the size and salary of congress.  Wow!  Congress continues to grow in size with each census.  I’d love to cut salary, but on the other hand, the only people who go to Congress are the rich.  Perhaps increasing salary would invite more middle class types.  I’m not sure how cutting the size of congress would impact the nation.  I need a constitutional scholar on this one.

2.      Rehab convicts – I like this idea.  While everyone likes to think they’re tough on crime and wants to throw ‘em all in jail and throw away the key, the reality is we can’t build prisons fast enough to keep pace.  And the prisoners we do have end up becoming more skilled at criminal activity.  It seems our current procedures are not working.  I’m with Smith on this one.

3.      Liberal Pardoning – Hmmmm, didn’t we go through that with Bill Clinton?  Mike Huckabee has some pardon problems of his own.  I’m not sure I like this one as it has the capacity for abuse, and possible risks to public safety.

4.      Less taxes – yes, but we need to balance the budget, not simply reduce taxes.

5.      Free trade – I guess he would support NAFTA

6.      Secure International Rights on high seas – It seems pirates are making another comeback.  I’m with Smith on this one.

7.      Establishment of national bank in every state and territory – Bad idea.  We are currently experiencing banking problems with banks getting too big and doing bad mortgages. Joseph has a bad record of running a bank.  See my post on the Kirtland Bank Failure.

8.      Sale of public lands for sale of slaves -  I like it.  That’s a much better solution than the Civil War was.  Richard Bushman commented about this at the Pew Research Forum,

He began by citing the Declaration of Independence, the famous passages about all men being equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, which of course could be a lead-in to religious rights. But he didn’t use it that way. Instead, in the very next sentence, he talked about the obvious contradiction: “Some two or three million people are held as slaves for life because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours.” His platform called for the elimination of slavery, proposing that the funds from the sale of Western lands, a major source of revenue along with the tariff in those days, be devoted to purchasing slaves from their masters in order to avoid the conflict that would otherwise ensue.

Josiah Quincy, soon to be mayor of Boston, visited Joseph Smith in the spring of 1844 when this platform was in circulation. Much later, Quincy wrote about that visit, saying that Joseph Smith’s proposal for ending slavery resembled one that Emerson made 11 years later in 1855.

As Quincy put it, writing retrospectively in the 1880s, “We, who can look back upon the terrible cost of the fratricidal war which put an end to slavery, now say that such a solution of the difficulty” – Joseph Smith’s and Emerson’s – “would have been worthy a Christian statesman. But if the retired scholar was in advance of his time when he advocated this disposition of the public property in 1855, what shall I say of the political and religious leader who had committed himself, in print, as well as in conversation, to the same course in 1844?”

9.      Send all the freed slaves to Texas – Wow, what would Texas be like if that happened?  Remember at this time, Texas was trying to become independent nation from Mexico.  About 1848 came the Mexican-American War, freeing Texas from Mexico and establishing Texas as an independent nation.  (Texas was later annexed into the US.)

10.  Annex Texas, Oregon, and parts of Canada??? I know Canadians like the US, but I didn’t know they wanted to be part of our union!!!

11.  Presidential authority to get involved in state disturbances.  As I mentioned in my Sidney Rigdon post, Van Buren refused to get involved in Missouri because he didn’t feel that was a federal mandate.  Joseph was 20 years ahead of actions which resulted in the Civil War.  It’s interesting to see how Joseph would have wanted to handle the federal raid in Waco, and the state raid of the FLDS (both in Texas.)

Finally, let me conclude with Bushman again.

This part of his platform accords perfectly with what modern people like us would have liked a candidate in 1844 to say. But Smith went beyond our sense of political propriety in other parts of his platform: he blended his role as candidate with his role as prophet. He was already mayor of Nauvoo and lieutenant general of the Nauvoo Legion when he ran for the presidency. He seemingly had no sense that church and state should be separated. He gave no hint that he was going to give up his religious offices if he were to become president of the United States.

In the closing peroration of his platform, Joseph Smith indirectly, but I think clearly, offered himself to be the priest of the people, as well as the president. “I would, as the universal friend of man, open the prisons, open the eyes, open the ears, and open the hearts of all people to behold and enjoy freedom, unadulterated freedom; and God, who once cleansed the violence of the earth with flood, whose Son laid down his life for the salvation of all his father gave him out of the world, and who has promised that he will come and purify the world again with fire in the last days, should be supplicated by me for the good of all the people.” He would be the intercessor as priest as well as prophet.

Of course, that is point at which moderns part company with Joseph Smith. We don’t want a prophet with his authoritative words from God governing the nation. That seems to lead to the exclusion of unbelievers and the repression of naysayers. All the alarm bells go off when we see these roles merging.

But I would appeal to you, before you turn away completely from that idea, to pay heed to the underlying theme of that platform and that proposal. I think it can be argued that Joseph Smith actually felt he was fulfilling one of America’s dreams. We think of the American dream as the promise of ascent for the wretched refuse of the teeming shores – the promise that in America, everyone has a chance to prosper and to achieve respectability. That is a dream for the individual.

So, what do you think of Smith’s platform?

Just to re-explain, I check the 2010 Church Almanac and Church News for this information.  I have just been looking at General Authorities, Temple and Mission President because their bio information is available. As I post this, I will get other information from knowledgeable, “in the know” folks on other leaders.

One other thing I wondered is how many LDS “Celebrities” get high level calls like this?  I note this because Bruce Summerhays, a professional Golfer was just called as a Mission President and Gifford Nielsen, a former BYU star Quarterback was called to be an Area Authority 70.  I also recall that Dale Murphy, star Baseball player for the Atlanta Braves was a Bishop and a Mission President.

So as you look at the list for this year, the trend away from nepotism continues with a lot of leaders called from the areas they will serve in.  But, BYU professors, high ranking Church and CES emplyees and “well known” Church people continue to get calls.  many Temple Presidents are former GAs, mainly from the 2nd Quorum of 70 or emeritus GAs.

I was also thinking of doing a survey of professions since we now have more corporate types becoming GAs. What do you think about that idea?

2010 Nepotism Update

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/07/nepotism-in-the-church-2010-update/feed/ 17 http://mormonmatters.org/2010/04/20/what-will-it-be-white-and-delightsome-or-pure-and-delightsome-cognitive-dissonance-2/ http://mormonmatters.org/2010/04/20/what-will-it-be-white-and-delightsome-or-pure-and-delightsome-cognitive-dissonance-2/#comments Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:06:51 +0000 James http://mormonmatters.org/?p=10643

I’m 1/16 th Chippewa and don’t even look a little Indian! I figure from my knee down is pure Chippewa and  for whatever reason  I am pretty proud of that. In the afterlife if possible I would like that section preserved if God sees fit.  Below is my Great Grandmother and Grandmother — you can see even from one generation to the next how things change.

I would also like to see my ancestors who are pure Chippewa with all their beautiful dark skin and get to know them as they were living on the earth before God changes their skin colour to white.

We have met an Elder who the sisters of all ages seem to swoon over — he is half Tongan and half Hawaiian. There is no other way to put it but he is a lady killer! We discussed this subject, and it doesn’t seem to bother him if the doctrine does literally mean white and not pure.  He doesn’t mind if he becomes white in the afterlife. It seems to disturb me more than it does him. It’s something he and his family have come to grips with.

I guess I better get down to what has caused my dissonance.   Here are some statements by the prophets about a Book of Mormon passage found in 2 Nephi 30:6 regarding a change Lamanites would experience if they embraced the Book of Mormon.  In every edition save one (1840), the words “white and delightsome” were used.  In the 1981 edition, the editors reverted to the 1840 edition’s “pure and delightsome” wording.

Prophet Statements

President Brigham Young
“You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people.” (Journal of Discourses 7:336)

W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith:

“It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.’” In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the “natives.” (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote #5, pg. 52)

Apostle Spencer W. Kimball

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today…. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather….These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.” (Apostle Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967)

2 Nephi 5:21

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

3 Nephi 2:12-15 teaches that dark-skinned Lamanites who converted unto the Lord had their curse taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.

“White” versus “Pure” (Maxwell Institute)

According to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Nephi, speaking of the latter-day restoration, discussed the future conversion of Lehi’s descendants: “And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:6). In 1840 the Book of Mormon was “carefully revised by the translator,” Joseph Smith, and in that edition the expression “white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome.” This change seems to reflect the Prophet’s concern that modern readers might misinterpret this passage as a reference to racial changes rather than to changes in righteousness. Possibly his sojourns in Ohio and Missouri had altered his perspective of the racial connotations of the term white in the contemporary United States, particularly among slaves and slaveholders. He may not have gained much understanding of this matter during his upbringing in New England and New York State, where slavery was not as common.

Unfortunately for subsequent Latter-day Saint interpreters, following the Prophet’s death the changes in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon were not carried over into subsequent printings, which were instead based on an edition prepared by the Twelve Apostles in Great Britain after a copy of an earlier edition. The apostles, being in England, were not familiar with the 1840 edition. Consequently, Latter-day Saints did not reap the benefit of the Prophet’s clarification until it was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon.  Some critics have been fond of citing statements of earlier Latter-day Saint leaders, who once interpreted 2 Nephi 30:6 to mean that conversion leads to a change of skin color; however, to use such statements today is anachronistic at best and disingenuous at worst since these statements were all expressed previous to the 1981 correction and merely echo a misinterpretation of the Book of Mormon text rather than the authoritative text itself. Moreover, a change in Lamanite skin color was clearly never intended by the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the Prophet Joseph modified because it does not refer to the Lamanites at all, but to the Nephites and Jews in the latter days who turn to Christ (see 2 Nephi 30:1—7).

But is the Prophet’s change from “white” to “pure” justified in the scriptural context? The answer is yes. The terms white and pure are used synonymously in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and Doctrine and Covenants 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ (Alma 5:24; 13:12; 32:42; Mormon 9:6; D&C 20:6). Similarly, Mormon expressed the hope that the Nephites “may once again be a delightsome people” (Words of Mormon 1:8).

Poll

[poll id ="146"]

[poll id = "148"]

[poll id = "149"]

[poll id = "150"]

Where I have dissonance or questions

1. Is from how I understand the Book of Mormon and statements of past prophets contradict our view of it being pure today.
2. There has been no church conference talk that I am aware of clarifying the teachings of the past prophets i.e. President Kimball white vs pure. Many members I would suggest aren’t clear on our past beliefs and our current progressive belief on pure.
3. If these were president Kimball’s own personal views why haven’t the church come out with a statement expounding on this?
4. As a church, are we resolute that this was a clarification of the word white — never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would turn white upon a conversion to the gospel; but referring to a cleaner state of heart? This hypothesis in my mind fails to make clear other passages in the Book of Mormon that still make a connection with “iniquity” and skin color. See, for example, 2 Nephi 5:21 as well as past prophet statements.
5. Why did it take God 140 years to clarify this misunderstanding?
6. If we quote what President Kimball said in 1967 conference would we be considered anachronistic today?
7. Is FARMS saying Apostle Kimball’s views are out of date , old fashioned, obsolete?

I want to explore these myths using the office of Prophet/President.  The centrality of his position hierarchically, the significant role he plays in the faith of many members of the Church and also the infrequency of contact with the general membership make this an apt example.

These myths come in many varieties.  There are stories about the Holy of Holies, about paintings of the Saviour and about mantle experiences. Now all of these may well be true, in whole or in part, or they may be completely fabricated. I am not concerned with their truth claims, rather I think that what is essential in the dynamic of these stories is the way that they become transferable between Prophets.

It is possible to trace a number of these stories (or variants of them) through many leaders, especially prophets, of the Church. This does not add to their fallacious nature rather it serves to reinforce what Bushman noted, which is that the office is endowed with charismatic gifts and not the person. Therefore it is probable, even expected, that these charismatic gifts are manifest by diverse men who hold the same office.

For example, the ‘This is the Place’ myth is re-cycled in England regularly but in a context far removed from Utah. Instead this myth focuses on the construction of the Preston Temple. Simply stated, a number sites were discussed but one site had a number of people who always resisted building permission. Yet, President Hinckley had asked for a Temple to built in Preston and when he saw the different sites he said… Yes, you guessed it. Then, though there were problems, the Temple went ahead. I am sure other similar stories abound.

My point is this, the process of re-cycling and repeating these mythic stories is one mechanism for maintaining the dynamism of a charismatic office, specifically the Prophet, in a Church where the general membership is so far removed from the individual. This is not to say that miraculous things do not happen, but these stories play an important sociological role in reinforcing this key notion that is rooted so firmly to the earliest days of the Church. These Mormon myths serve as a form of transferable charisma for an otherwise distant office.

This recording forms part of the many testimonies that are available from Wilford Woodruff concerning “the Last Charge,” a council meeting in Nauvoo where the Twelve were given authority to “bear off the kingdom,” and interpreted by President Woodruff to be the foundation of the succession policy of the Church.  Holzapfel’s announcement was that on one of the three wax cylinders upon which the recording was made, the rest of the First Presidency consisting of George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith added their witnesses that they had heard Wilford Woodruff bear his testimony.  We thus have the early voice of another president of the Church, the only recording of Cannon, and the addition of “two or three witnesses” to respond to the succession question.

I guess you’d really have to be a Mormon history afficionado to consider this information a “bombshell.”  There were a select few in the audience who were moved by the revelation, but the majority took the news calmly.  Holzapfel, in contrast, could hardly restrain himself as he built up his presentation and delivered his revelation in the final moments.  He mentioned that he had difficulty waiting the few weeks before the symposium to tell anyone this exciting news.

Interestingly, a point was mentioned in passing which grabbed my attention far more than the recording.  Apparently Holzapfel and some other historians have recently collaborated on an article discussing for the first time the fact that Sidney Rigdon was not present in the morning meetings at the Nauvoo Temple on March 26, 1844, when the Last Charge was given.  This is stunningly important to Mormon history, because it implies that Rigdon was not given the same keys that the rest of the Twelve received at that time.  Not only did he lack the right to succession, but he may not have understood the pattern Joseph presented that day in the same way as the members of the Twelve who were present.

I’m enjoying the Symposium so far, and I’ll be back to summarize some more of the proceedings soon.

Many of you in the bloggernacle thrive on having two opposing ideas at once in your head. I have always found that difficult. I have seen many who can’t cope with it at all and have to come to a conclusion one way or the other or their belief system will cave in and their minds will explode.

I have all the best intentions in the world to start a series on cognitive dissonance this year. To start off I have found some quotes from the brethren which seems to be in opposition to each other. I am sure some of you will figure out away in which they are not!

Don’t Think for Yourself!!

“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators’ of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the lord’s annointed… and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking.”

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”

Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”

LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289, 1862.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

“When the Prophet speaks the debate is over”.

N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“I sat in this tabernacle some years ago as President Joseph Fielding Smith stood at this pulpit. It was the general priesthood meeting of April 1972, the last general conference before President Smith passed away. He said: ‘There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, or the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the lord’.”

L. Aldin Porter of the Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventies (Ensign, Nov. 1994, p. 63)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.”

Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

President Wilford Woodruff (considered scripture as it is canonized at the end of the D&C)

Think for Yourself!!

President Joseph F. Smith said, “We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.” (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: “President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Millennial Star 54:191)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God… would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Brigham Young said:

“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:150)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.” (JD 4:368)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied…Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (JD 3:45)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“…Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.” (JD 1:312)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']…said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church — that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls — applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall — that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;” (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

Have you had experiences where you think you have genuinely had bad advice from following your leaders?

Later prophets and apostles trump older ones. How do you think the older ones feel about that?

Have you had times where you had so much on your plate you were glad to let someone think for you and it worked out for the best?

Should we think for ourselves in the church or should we let the Brethren think for us that is the question?

According to Allen and Leonard ‘perhaps no doctrine was preached more enthusiastically by President Grant or stressed more in Church literature during his administration than the Word of Wisdom’ [3].  Arrington’s seminal (if not a little controversial essay) on the economic factors that led to the importance of the Word of Wisdom deals with the period till 1900 and misses some crucial occurrences in the lead up to this principle becoming a ‘commandment’.

The Personal

President Grant had a friend who had died young because of alcohol related problems (according to Truman Madsen it was cirrhosis of the liver [4]).  At the funeral President Grant records, in a sermon given in 1931, that ‘as I stood at his grave I looked up to heaven and made a pledge to my God that liquor and tobacco would have in me an enemy who would fight with all the ability that God would give me to the day of my death, and I have kept that pledge so far’[5].  Perhaps what haunted President Grant most was that this young man had given up his habits to serve a mission, but had quickly resumed them when he finished his service.

The Political

According to the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism ‘The [prohibition] movement intensified the Church’s interest in the Word of Wisdom. There is evidence that Church Presidents John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, and Heber J. Grant wanted to promote adherence to the Word of Wisdom as a precondition for entering LDS temples or holding office in any Church organization; and indeed, by 1930 abstinence from the use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea had become an official requirement for those seeking temple recommends.’[6].   

It seems this interest became even more pronounced when the calls for repeal began.  President Grant’s concern can be seen in his April 2, 1932 General Conference address.  There was a controversial speech by Elder Stephen L. Richards at that same conference which will be discussed later.  But at the very least, it seems that President Grant’s emphasis on making the Word of Wisdom a requirement emerged out of a political context in which he saw liquor becoming a problem for the Latter-day Saints.  He had lived through and been an Apostle through some of the previous period of emphasis which Arrington documents, and perhaps did not want to see the Church membership go down that road again.

Perhaps President Grant saw the Church collectively as being like his friend.  He may thought the membership would enter a period of relapse; and he was trying to prevent it.

The Prophetic

What is surprising, is that in President Grant’s sermons on this issue and on the policy change he does not cite any direct revelation.  Interestingly, President Grant said in 1928, which seems to contradict Alexander’s thesis of the 1921 date, that ‘the Lord has not made this an absolute commandment’.  The implication here from President Grant however, is that if the Lord asks his people to do something then we should respond.  In addition, in a CHI (published in 1928) the Word of Wisdom was not explicitly mentioned as a requirement for the Temple, but was in the 1933 edition [2].  Thus although the issue seems to have been informally incorporated as policy its codification was not enforced until the early 1930′s in-line with the possible repeal of Prohibition. 

In addition, the evidence suggests that there has never been a sustaining vote on this issue [1].  I am not claiming that President Grant never believed he had received revelation on this issue nor that he never shared a testimony that he believed this principle was revelation.  What interests me is how, as a Prophet, he did not justify this change by referring to a revelatory experience but rather in a personal commitment to a principle and to political or social fears.  I would have expected an effort, like President Kimball discusses, of overcoming bias and prejudice that individuals hold in order to prepare for revelation.  For President Grant it seems that he moved forward in a different way.

Some Controversy

Stephen L. Richards who was an Apostle during this time gave a sermon, which was apparently not printed in the conference report because it angered President Grant.  It has been subsequently printed by Sunstone.  The sermon suggested that there was fanaticism in the way Church leaders had approached the issue of the Word of Wisdom, and other behaviours.  The date Sunstone give for the delivery of this sermon is the 9^th April 1932.  Although there was not a General Conference session on that day, Stan Larson (source – fn 79) in a footnote in his work on B.H. Roberts makes reference to a Salt Lake Tribune article and First Presidency meeting that discussed Richards’ talk on the 9^th and the day after.  Sunstone claim they got their transcript from the Church archives.  So there is some confusion in my mind at least about where this comes from.  However, according to Michael Quinn [7], on May 5^th 1932, Stephen L. Richards told the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that he will resign as apostle rather than apologize for his general conference talk which argued that the Church is putting too much emphasis on the Word of Wisdom. However on the 26^th May he later recanted and apologised for his remarks.  What this suggests to me is that this move may have been as much a personal drive from President Grant as from a revelation.  Moreover, it certainly was not wholly accepted at face value by all of the twelve.

Notes

1. Robert J. McCue, Did the Word of Wisdom become a Commandment in 1851? in Dialogue, no. 3 [Salt Lake City, UT.: Dialogue Foundation, 1981], p. 66-77.

2. Thomas G. Alexander, The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement in Dialogue, no. 3 [Salt Lake City, UT.: Dialogue Foundation, 1981], pp. 79

3. James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 525 – 526.

4. Truman G. Madsen, The Presidents of the Church, [Salt Lake City, UT. Deseret Book, 2004).

5. President Heber J. Grant, Answering Tobacco’s Challenge in Improvement Era, 1931, (Vol. Xxxiv. June, 1931. No. 8.)

6. Joseph Lyons, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1584.

7. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power [Salt Lake City, UT.: Signature Books, 1997).

A close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows

In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.

Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church.

They did hundreds of hours of interviews over two years and edited it down to a 55 minute film. The film is very moving–a tribute to those who shared their stories as well as DeMillia and Lavery’s videography and editing skills.

About two dozen people appear in interviews in the film. Each story is unique, but a common thread runs throughout them all. All faced a similar rejection by family, friends and community. Some of those interviewed have left the church. Others no longer believe, but remain active because of family or community pressure. The latter are filmed in shadows, to obscure their identity. The film refers to these people as “Shadow Mormons.” They define “Shadow Mormons” as those who privately do not accept the exacting doctrine of the Church, but publicly profess to be true believers. They are in shadow to protect their relationships with family, friends and employers.

Someone commented to me after the film, “That’s you. You’re a Shadow Mormon.”

Yes, I’m a Shadow Mormon. Maybe that’s why this film hit me so hard. I haven’t believed in over 20 years – most of my adult life. Yet, during that time I’ve paid my tithing, gone to the temple, served in bishoprics and high councils and done all the things that were expected of me. Why? Because I am tied to the church by family and community.

The story of “Grace” (not her real name) resonated with me because it was so similar to mine. Her pain, and anger, were born of all the energy she has given to a religion that she doesn’t believe in. Finding out that the Church was not true was like a death experience for her. Like me, she tried following the Church’s teachings to fast, pray, read the scriptures and yet never felt she received the “burning in her bosom” that is promised in the scriptures.

What of the families and communities of these people? What are their stories, their experiences with loved ones who go through a process of losing belief and leaving the church. Only one person who was a family or friend agreed to be interviewed for the film. The believing husband that was interviewed told how he still loved his wife, even though she has left the church. What about the others? Are they embarrassed to say that the Church was more important than their relationship with the person who left?

The saddest stories, to me, were of divorce caused by one spouse believing and the other not believing. Michelle (another woman interviewed in the film) said her heart was broken that her husband would choose the Church over her. He told their marriage therapist that if she had not been Mormon he never would have married her. “There was more to me than being a Mormon,” she said. “And I thought that there was more to him.”

The dictionary defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” We could all use a little more empathy for those around us. I have had several people tell me, “I can’t imagine how a person could leave the church.” Either they need a better imagination or they need more empathy. Maybe they just need to see this film.

One of the questions at the screening–one that Lavery could not answer–was, “How do we get the right people to see this film?” Sadly, many members of the church would not even consider it. (It screened in Salt Lake City in October and got almost no media coverage.) The film does not try to de-convert anyone or disparage the doctrine of the church. It doesn’t assert that someone is right because he or she believes, or that someone else is right because he or she leaves the church. This film is about accepting people regardless of what they believe, and about how we treat those who believe differently than we do. I wish every member of the church could see this film.

Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbylWK-i2Q&NR=1

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.

I don’t really do Christmas cards so it was not really a big deal, except it made me wonder, who else gets Christmas cards from the First Presidency?  Did I get this because of my calling, and if so what other callings get Christmas cards?

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

Air Force Acadamy at Utah football game 10/24/2009

In the paper edition of the Deseret News, President Monson was “honored as the distinguished University of Utah fan of the game.”  Pres Monson’s attendance may have been a deciding factor–the Utes won 23-16 in Overtime over the Air Force Falcons.  Meanwhile, BYU suffered a loss without Pres Monson, getting crushed 38-7 at home in Provo to TCU (Texas Christian University.)

I recently learned that the University of Utah was designated as “the School of the Prophets” by Brigham Young, according to a Deseret News article from Dec 2, 1867. 

Back in July, the University of Utah football team signed a player out of California by the name of Joseph Smith.  I joked that with his signing, and President Hinckley and President Monson’s status as alums of the U, that it was the “School of the Prophets.”  (Joseph Smith had originally set up a School of the Prophets to teach the LDS leadership back in the Nauvoo days.)  Well, it turns out that it’s no joke, and comes straight from the mouth of none other than Brigham Young!

I just finished Forgotten Kingdom, and I want to quote from page 261.

School of the Prophets

To implement a unified move in this direction, Brigham Young on December 2, 1867, resurrected an organization from an earlier period of his church’s history.  He announced that day before an assembly of Mormon leaders that the University of Deseret, parent of the University of Utah, would be reorganized and “hence, it may properly be called the ‘School of the Prophets.’” [Deseret News, December 2, 1867.  While Young considered School of the Prophets to be the proper name and role of the University of Deseret, the institution's existing name remained the same.  In 1872 the larger School of the Prophets was dissolved due to a lack of attendance and the inability of many to keep its affairs secret.]  Since it was founded in 1850, the university had seen few students but served primarily to publish and distribute the Deseret Alphabet.

Who knew?

I must say that I am one of these people who believe that private communications don’t work very well.  However, I have tried hard to improve my communications (though I’m not always successful.)  A few months ago, I decided to give Andrew’s option #3 a test to see if it would do any good.  I was quite surprised at the positive result.

I wrote my stake president (SP) a letter expressing concern for how large our ward is.  I live in a growing community, and the last time the ward split, we reached about 950 people.  I thought it was outrageous–parking was terrible, and even finding a seat in the gym was hard if you were late.  So, our ward was over 700 again, and I decided to write the SP a letter expressing concern at the size of the ward, the parking problems, and difficulty finding a seat in the gym for sacrament meeting.  I have a baby, and one particular Sunday, he had a blow out just as we were leaving for church.  So we had to change his clothes completely and were late, having difficulty parking and finding a seat.

I tried to take extra care to emphasize that I wasn’t trying to “counsel the brethren”, and I hoped my email would be considered in the same way that Jethro counseled Moses.  My email was met with silence.  I told my bishop I wrote an email to the SP, and asked if he had heard anything.  He hadn’t heard anything (and was concerned that my email might be taken the wrong way) so he asked the SP if my email had offended him.  The SP said it was no big deal, and made a comment that when I was stake president I could split the wards as I chose.  (I wasn’t overly impressed with the SP response.)  I never heard a word from the SP, but in the coming months, he or his counselors would visit the ward and tell us they were aware of the overcrowding problem, and exhorted us to be patient.  I kept wondering if my email was the reason they were saying this.  Within about 3 months, they decided to realign the ward boundaries, and during the meeting, the SP used a phrase from my email that only he and I knew about.

As I discussed the ward split with my bishop, he said, “You’re the one that started this whole thing!”  I said, “Wow, I have a lot more power than I thought.”  I’m sure there were other influences here (my bishop had served 5 years and was due to be released anyway, and I am aware a counselor to the SP also had similar reservations about the size of our ward), but I do think that my email did play a role in influencing the SP in this decision when I talked about concerns about parking and overcrowding in sacrament meeting.  One Sunday I counted 60 people in the foyer because they couldn’t find a seat for sacrament meeting.  I think the split did happen sooner than it would have if I had stayed silent.

Now I know my issue isn’t very large in the scheme of things, but I was positively surprised at the results of my email.  Have any of you had any similar experiences, or are they all bad experiences?

Over the past couple weeks here at Mormon Matters, we’ve had two posts discussing the need to be “improvers” in the Church rather than uncritical optimists or unloving pessimists, and suggesting some practical rules that would-be improvers should follow. Fortunately, our Church leaders have not left us to re-invent the wheel when it comes to figuring out what our options are when we disagree with their statements, policies, or practices.

Below are excerpts from Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ article entitled “Criticism,” which appeared in Ensign magazine in February of 1987. (You can read the full article here.) In this article, Elder Oaks straightforwardly informs Church members that there are two very different sets of rules when it comes to publicly disclosing the truth and criticizing leaders or their decisions: (1) the rules that apply to the political and business worlds; and (2) the rules that apply to the Church. According to Elder Oaks, it is essential for Church members to be aware of, and abide by, these two different sets of rules. As you read these excerpts, I invite to you pay particular attention to the following ideas that Elder Oaks shares:

(1) “’[T]he fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it. . . . The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.’ . . . The critical consideration is how we use the truth. . . . A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it. Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .”

(2) “The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. . . However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. . . . When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season.”

(3) “Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. . . . A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause.”

(4) You’ll want to pay particular attention to the latter part of Elder Oaks’ article where he presents five suggestions for how to appropriately deal with situations where we find ourselves disagreeing with Church leaders.

And now, without further ado, excerpts of Elder Oaks’ Ensign article on Criticism:

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) . . . Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. . . . The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize. . . .

Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn’t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that “the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.” A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as “contempt for the truth.” (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is “a time to speak,” and there is also “a time to keep silence.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to mute our criticism is like the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Saints to abstain from eating meat offered as sacrifices to idols. In truth, he taught, the idol was nothing. But since some of the members were weak and might misunderstand, those who knew the truth needed to “take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” (1 Cor. 8:9.) A Protestant theologian, Krister Stendahl, concludes: “The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.” (See Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, p. 61.)

The critical consideration is how we use the truth. When he treated this same subject in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” (Rom. 14:15.) A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it.

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. . . . In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.)

However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. The principles of love, unity, righteousness, and mercy do not condone falsehood. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Ex. 20:16), and he has not revoked that command. When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to “[speak] the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit.

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.) . . .

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. . . .

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. . . .

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. . . .

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.) . . .

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister. . . .

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error. . . .

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek. . . .

Despite the commandments and counsel I have reviewed, we have some members who persistently and publicly criticize Church leaders. What about them? . . .

Just as our Church leaders’ source of authority is different from that of government and corporate leaders, so are the procedures for correcting Church leaders different from those used to correct leaders chosen by popular election. But the differences are appropriate to the way in which our Church leaders are called and released. By following approved procedures, we can keep from alienating ourselves from the Spirit of the Lord.

This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.)

Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.

. . . It is easy to preach freedom or truth. Praise for those subjects is usually safe and always popular. It is infinitely more difficult to preach how men and women should use freedom or truth. The preacher of that message may command respect, but he or she will not win popularity.

I conclude with a message of hope. When Isaiah condemned the critics of his day, he concluded with a prophecy. He said that in time the children of God would sanctify his name and “fear the God of Israel.” Continuing, he declared, “They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.” (Isa. 29:23–24.) In that spirit I pray for the day when all of us will know God and keep his commandments. In that day, as Isaiah foretold, the “king shall reign in righteousness,” and “the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.” (Isa. 32:1, 17.)

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?

‘In recent years [Church Leaders] might be compared to a team of doctors: issuing prescriptions to cure or to immunize our members against spiritual diseases. Each time some moral or spiritual ailment was diagnosed, we have rushed to the pharmacy to concoct another remedy, encapsulate it as a program and send it out with pages of directions to use.  While we all seem to agree that overmedication, over-programming, is a critically serious problem, we have failed to reduce the treatments. It has been virtually impossible to affect any reduction in programs.  Each time we try, advocates cry to high heaven that we are putting the spiritual lives of our youth at risk. If symptoms reappear, we program even heavier doses of interviews, activities, meetings, and assessment’

‘The whole correlation effort, which took about twenty years, followed that course and much was accomplished. The habits for moral and spiritual health were defined. The scriptures were prescribed as the basic nourishment. The curriculum, loaded with spiritual nutrients, was developed but we did not allow time for it to work and we failed to close the pharmacy or even effectively control it.  We now have ourselves in a corner.’

‘The hardest ailment to treat is a virtue carried to the extreme. We cannot seem to learn that too much, even of a good thing, or too many good things, like vitamins taken in overdose, can be harmful. In recent years I have felt, and I think I am not alone, that we were losing the ability to correct the course of the Church.’

‘Both Alma and Helaman told of the Church in their day.  They warned about fast growth, the desire to be accepted by the world, to be popular, and particularly they warned about prosperity.  Each time those conditions existed in combination, the Church drifted off course. All of those conditions are present in the Church today.’

‘The patience of the Lord with all of us who are in leadership position, is not without limits.’

‘The most dangerous side effect of all we have prescribed in the way of programming and instruction and all, is the overregimentation of the Church. This overregimentation is a direct result of too many programmed instructions.’

‘It is not that any one thing we have been doing is wrong, for we have acted with the best of intentions. Some of us remember when President Kimball saw the outlay of curriculum and the vast display of printed material. He said he was frightened, “We have done it all with the best intentions.”‘

‘Latter-day Saints will come to depend upon the Lord instead of upon the headquarters of the Church.’

‘Matters with deepest doctrinal significance must be left to married couples and to parents to decide for themselves. We have referred them to gospel principles and left them to exercise their moral agency.’

I acknowledge that this is one side of the story, but it is a real dimension.  A facet that I appreciated seeing from Elder Packer.  I think there is much here which is of value, and has led me to think deeply about my own participation in the Church and my response to it and the programmes offered by it.

My questions are these:

Is there anything of value in his remarks?

Given that this was presented nearly 20 years ago, have we seen Elder Packer’s counsel followed?