And as a second thought, what of all the doctrine taught by Paul? Did he have the authority to declare Church doctrine?

Peter’s death is not recorded in the New Testament and any information is not terribly reliable.  He is thought to have died in Rome and is buried at the Vatican.  According to the Catholic Church, the Pope that follows Peter as the leader is Linus, The Bishop of Rome, who may or may not be the person mentioned 2 Timothy 4:21. However, no credible evidence exists that the Office of Bishop of Rome has anything to do with the Holy Apostleship.  It is therefore, unclear, who, if anyone succeed Peters as the Head of the Church with the Keys of the Priesthood.

The Apostle Paul was certainly among the most prolific New Testament writers with 13 of the epistles attributed to him included in the canon of the New Testament. We also know that he was a “second generation” Apostle, having had a vision of the Savior, but not having ever been in His earthly presence.

So Christ’s teachings Paul received were basically transmitted second hand from the Apostles who knew Christ personally.

In Paul’s writings, he declared doctrine on these important issues:

a.      Men and Women must be redeemed from the fall.

b.      Justification by Faith, no longer following the Law of Moses

c.       Salvation by Grace, through the Atonement of Christ

d.      We become new creatures in Christ, our nature changed.

e.      Gifts of the Spirit

f.        Jesus Christ transcends all things

And many others.

The question is this:

Was Paul’s teaching established doctrine taught by Christ and/or authorized by the Chief Apostle after Christ’s death, or was he proclaiming new doctrine, never before taught?  And if he was doing the latter, did he possess the authority to do so?

The Christian world, including the LDS, rely very, very heavily of the writings of Paul for much of its doctrinal justification, so it is important to know whether Paul was acting under authority or just preaching his own ideas.

What do you think?

I really enjoyed the last day of Sunstone, since I was able to attend all day, rather than a session here or there.  Don Bradley gave a presentation titled “Dating Fanny Alger”, a bit of a play on words.  I remember he gave a funny line to the effect of “By all accounts, she was hot!”  Anyway, Bradley tried to pin down when the “affair” happened.  Apparently, Emma discovered Joseph and Fanny late at night in the barn.  According to Bradley, Alger appeared pregnant.  Emma threw a fit, and threw Alger out of the house.  (Apparently Alger had been working as a sort of nanny.)

The discovery of the relationship by Emma probably dates to the summer or fall of 1835.  Bradley recounted several people who have tried to pin down the date, and noted problems with each date.  Some authors have discussed an “embarrassing” incident of polygamy in August 1835.   Joseph left for Pontiac, Michigan possibly to avoid embarrassment for his role.  On Oct 14, 1835, Joseph describes “dealing with household issues”, possibly a reference to evict Fanny.  However, Mark Ashurst-Mcgee suggests this incident refers not to Fanny, but a problem with employees at the printing office.

Fanny left Kirtland in August or Sept 1836, so the incident must have occurred prior to that.  Bradley notes that dissenters condemned Joseph on July 24, and Joseph left for Salem, Massachusetts for a treasure trip the next day on July 25.  Bradley believes Joseph sent Fanny to Missouri at the same time.  William McLellin gave his famous quote about having “no confidence” in church leadership around this time as well.  Fanny soon married non-member Solomon Custer after just a 6 week courtship.  Bradley believes it may have been a cover of legitimacy if Fanny was indeed pregnant.

———–

Following Bridget Jack Meyer’s wonderful presentation on Women priesthood holders in early Christianity earlier in the week, I thought Joshua Gillon’s presentation called “Mormon Women Had the Priesthood in 1843: Examining the Claims” might be interesting.  I was greatly disappointed.  Josh is a PhD candidate of philosophy at Princeton, having completed a BA at BYU.  His talk was nothing more than a rant against the church.  He mis-characterized Michael Quinn’s discussion of women and the priesthood.  He employed tedious grammar exercises to make his points, and finished off with an F-bomb to end his presentation.  It was definitely the worst presentation I have ever heard at Sunstone, though there was another terrible one later in the day.

I wasn’t very excited to go the the panel called “Glenn Beck: Likely Mormon or Unlikely Mormon”, but there wasn’t anything else that sounded interesting at that time.  As I reviewed the list of panelists, I was looking forward to hearing Joanna Brooks of Mormon Matters, and David King Landrith of Mormon Mentality.  (I had met him earlier in the week.) Kathryn Hemingway, Eric Samuelson, and Robert Rees weren’t nearly so interesting as Joanna and David, though they all made good points.  Rees was the moderator and not a fan of Beck.  Landrith and Hemingway were supporters of Beck, while Brooks and Samuelson were not.

I really enjoyed Landrith’s presentation.  Landrith showed that Beck’s rhetoric is very similar to political discourse over the past 200 years.  Early founding fathers often compared each other to monarchists, and spoke about each other more harshly than Beck does of his opponents.  I thought it was an interesting presentation.  Brooks really wasn’t that antagonistic toward Beck.  She basically said we should ignore Beck because his ratings are going down and he knows it.  There is no need to feed into the frenzy–Beck will go away on his own.

Following lunch, I attended a fantastic presentation by Apostle Susan Skoor of the Community of Christ.  She discussed her personal faith journey, showing how she has moved among Fowler’s stages of faith.  Her talk was titled “Faith in the Midst of the Difficulties of Life.”  Baptized at age 8 into the RLDS church, she discussed losing her testimony in her 30s, nearly falling into atheism.  Receiving a blessing, and asked “Do you want to believe?”, as Alma says, she let this desire work in her.  She discussed her new found faith as a stage 5 person, and said she knew she was too selfish to reach stage 6.  As I listened to her story, I marveled at how open she was about her life’s journey.  I don’t think an LDS apostle would admit to losing faith as she did, and I don’t think an LDS apostle would discuss spirituality in such as “secular” way as she discussed Fowlers Faith Stage theory.  I was truly moved.

Clair Barrus discussed “Oliver Cowdery’s Rod of Nature.”  It was a bit too technical for me, but I know others enjoyed it.  Finally, I listened to a panel discuss “Men and the Priesthood: Taking on the Feminine.”  Tom Kimball discussed being an unorthodox Mormon.  His previous bishop did not want to let him baptize or ordain his children.  As the bishop got to know Tom better, he decided to allow it.  Tom has previously discussed his story on Mormon Stories.  Tom’s new bishop has taken a more hard line approach, and Tom’s boys have not progressed in the priesthood.  Tom compared his situation to the idea that women can’t ordain daughters in the LDS church as well.

Robin Linkart, President of the 6th Quorum of Seventy for the Community of Christ spoke next.  She gave an excellent presentation and discussed the new revelation in 1984 allowing women to hold the priesthood.  Many in the RLDS church broke off (they lost nearly 1/4 of their membership.)  She discussed the challenges the RLDS church went through, and her personal journey in the priesthood.  It was excellent.

Holly Welker spoke next.  She gave a rant that the priesthood should be abolished in the LDS church.  During Tom’s, Lisa’s, and the Q&A session, she made faces of disbelief and disagreement.  Honestly I believe a 5th grader would have better behavior than she exhibited.  She was incredibly rude and unprofessional.  Her behavior was embarrassing.

Lisa Butterworth finished up the panel.  She started the blog at FeministMormonHousewives.  Being a feminist and an unorthodox Mormon, she was asked to speak in support of the idea of an all-male priesthood.  She did the best she could, but it was evident that she didn’t fully support the topic she was asked to address.

Overall, I enjoyed most of the sessions.  If you missed my first post on Sunstone, click here.  I’m not sure why I attended so many feminist presentations, but I guess they sounded the most interesting.  So what is your take on women and the priesthood?  Do you see it happening in the LDS church in the next 20-50 years?  Would you support or oppose such a move if the prophet received a revelation allowing women to hold the priesthood?

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)

“Delegation Takes No Action on Human Sexuality Issues: Church Will Continue Dialogue.”

Headline  by John Hamer on BCC on Thursday, April 15, 2010:

“Gay Rights Revelation Added to The Community of Christ D&C”

———-

The two headlines above generally cover the spectrum of opinion about what happened at the Community of Christ World Conference as it completed the process of canonization of a new Section 164 for its D&C. The spectrum of opinions about whether what happened was a good thing or bad thing, of course, runs even more broadly. Indeed, I’m not at all certain that we’ll even be able to see how intense the various “colors” of that spectrum will prove until information about the conference filters down to the bulk of the North American church that maintains no real connection to the World Church in the “Blogitorium”. As in many churches on the Christian left in North America, that membership tends to be somewhat more traditionalist than its leadership.

Nevertheless, I’ll give my view as someone from one part of the peanut gallery, focusing on what was in each portion of Section 164 and the effects of associated legislation passed to begin implementation. A future post will provide a similar analysis on legislation considered by the Conference not specifically addressed by Section 164 and suggest something about the overall direction of the Community of Christ in the future.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 1-4

President Veazey describes the experiences of meditation, particularly on portions of Galatians 3:27-29, that led him to offer the Section. After commending the church for similarly seeking to discern the Spirit in a structured process that has been going on for well over a year, he makes explicit an understanding of the church and its sacraments which has been implicit in CofChrist theology for a number of years.

“…Instruction given previously about baptism was proper to ensure the rise and cohesiveness of the church during its early development and in following years. However, as a growing number have come to understand, the redemptive action of God in Christ—while uniquely and authoritatively expressed through the church—is not confined solely to the church. God’s grace, revealed in Jesus Christ, freely moves throughout creation, often beyond human perception, to achieve divine purposes in people’s lives.”

The Community of Christ is to see itself as “one true church”, not as the “one and only true church”. How serious is this theological intent was earlier signaled by something I haven’t seen commentators note elsewhere. The first sessions of Conference always feature certain speeches of welcome. One is usually a non-CofChrist speaker. This speaker is often a local Congressman or a Missouri Senator. The speech is strictly non-political even then, but the identity is interesting because trends over time seem to show the direction of the church leadership’s interest.

This year that slot went to the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. Kinnamon unabashedly spoke of the Community of Christ having unique gifts that should be seen as adding to bodies such as the NCC, rather than as a body going its own way. Ironically, contacts between the RLDS and the NCC were among the suspicions cited by fundamentalist opponents of the church circa 1970 as evidence of apostasy. Thus, such a speech 40 years ago might itself have been too controversial to occur.

Section 164 then lays out specific instruction (that will be followed quickly by formal administrative policy guidance to become effective by September 1, 2011). These policies will result in acceptance into membership into the Community of Christ upon confirmation by CofChrist priesthood – without requiring rebaptism if the original baptism: a) involved water;  b) was performed by an ordained Christian minister;  and c) as a personal expression of faith in Christ. In particular, we will not require someone to present proof of their baptism or the baptizing minister’s credentials, since that would be impossible in many places throughout the world. This clearly expands the notion of true priesthood authority beyond the boundaries of those called through the priesthood line passed to Joseph Smith.

The phrase “using water” also allows for baptisms done by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, while upholding the church’s own standard practice of baptism by immersion at the age of accountability. There is also some additional specific guidance regarding the substance of the prayer of confirmation (Baptism of the Spirit) that is now the means by which one moves from being part of the Body of Christ into membership within the denomination. And preparation for confirmation will now be a formal requirement for the ordinance to occur.

Paragraph 3 contains a call for all members to serious consider and live the meaning of their baptismal covenants (water and Spirit). Paragraph 4 ties this call to consideration of the role the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper should play in renewing, witnessing, and amplifying our covenant. (Portions of the preamble specifically warn us to NOT make the meaning of the covenants atrophy even as we broaden the procedures, because of the concern that in some places this has happened with open communion).

This portion of the Section makes the Community of Christ look very Protestant – if you can call becoming more Protestant through modern revelation a Protestant concept in the first place.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 5-7

These are the paragraphs whose approval generated the widely divergent headlines above. Their actual content is to call attention to “serious questions about moral behavior and relationships” – but to prioritize those questions not simply as they are listed within the dominant culture of the denomination.

“These issues are complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories, customs, and understandings of scripture. For example, the issues include female submission, female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and sexual permissiveness. They include cleansing and exploitation of widows, harsh conflicts over same-gender attraction and relationships, and varying legal, religious, and social definitions of marriage, to name just a few.”

More importantly, the Section calls us to see the solutions for these moral dilemmas as arising from an understanding of Christianity as a community that transcends definitions by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity. They simply are no longer primary. Relationships are to be rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.

Section 164 then extrapolates that these principles require that the church move the resolution of moral issues to the church in the cultures most affected by them rather than let the dominant North American church decide for the rest of the world. Field Apostles, under the guidance of the Presidency, are authorized to call and set the agenda for field, national, or (non-geographical) cultural groups to deal with issues such as those listed above as they feel directed.

Uncertainty about the nature and timing of these conferences is generating the widely divergent headlines about gay rights. First, everyone in the Community of Christ seems to understand that the leadership feels that it must not expose our leaders and members in cultures where discussion of gay issues is taboo. If so, they can hardly move toward expanded gay rights in the United States unless they can find a way to maintain what the government would call “plausible deniability”.

Second, there is a large body of conservative members in the US church (and non-members in society) whose reaction must be anticipated and allowed for. The LDS experience with Prop 8 shows what happens when the church in the US takes any position on controversial issues in the political arena. Many feel the church has moved too hesitantly and will continue to do so; others are likely to feel the church is moving in the wrong direction entirely.

Finally, there are logistical questions. It seems unlikely that the US church has the resources to assemble a national conference on gay rights issues before the spring of 2012 at the earliest. It will take until September, 2011, simply to implement the new conditions for membership.

The greatest sign of movement toward gay rights comes from something in administrative minutia. It is normal for the church to realign Apostolic Fields following a World Conference (our Apostles retire, so there are usually changes in the Twelve). This time a gerrymandered field has been carved out for Apostle Susan Skoor that stretches from Southern Australia to Eastern Canada – and just happens to cover all of the non-US jurisdictions that proposed World Conference legislation expanding full priesthood and sacramental rites for gays. The extension of rights in that Field or in nations within that Field might be granted while maintaining sufficient distance from the World Church (and prying media) to protect the church in cultures hostile to gay rights.

Expansion to the US is much more difficult to do while maintaining any credibility to foreign governments and religious bodies that “this is just local jurisdictions acting on their own.”

Perhaps more significantly in the long run than the particular moral issues – at least from the perspective of this Washington spectator – is the change these paragraphs make in the legislative rights of mission centers to set the agenda for the church. The Presidency immediately ruled 21 legislative proposals that had been painstakingly brought to the conference as out of order because they reflect National or Regional concerns. These rulings were entirely appropriate under Section 164 guidance.

However, the Conference later passed implementing legislation for the field and national conferences that make them “special conferences”. Such conferences operate under different parliamentary rules than World Conference. In particular,  Mission Centers lack the right to place items on the agenda of special conferences; that agenda is set only by the Apostle who calls the conference with the approval of the Presidency. In short, this revelation makes the Community of Christ less democratic and more theocratic than it was a year ago.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 8

Paragraph 8, by contrast, shows the flexibility and speed with which the Community of Christ can move on organizational issues when it wishes to do so. The Twelve and the Presidents of the Seven Quorums of Seventy have been meeting for several years in response to the immediately previous revelation (Section 163) to consider organizational changes to increase evangelistic effectiveness. Paragraph 8 is taken as authorization to make these changes.

Within 24 hours of Section 164 approval, the number of Quorums of Seventy was increased from seven to ten, the additional Quorum Presidents were named, and they were approved by the Conference and set apart to that calling. Jack Bauer couldn’t have moved faster. Clearly, the outcome of these discussions among the leading quorums was well prepared in advance, while they are still feeling their way around the notion of how and when national conferences will function.

Reorganization of the Twelve, while not fundamental, essentially separates the world into 10 Fields for the moment, each led by an Apostle, with the remaining two Apostles focusing on Headquarters-oriented tasks. For the first time, a single Quorum of Seventy will be aligned with the geographic or other missionary focus of a Field Apostle.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 9

The final paragraph of the document is a benediction of sorts, and a challenge that the rise of Zion is no farther away than the willingness of all of us – all the “beloved children of the Restoration” – to overcome our insecurities and embrace a Christ-like life.

“The mission of Jesus Christ is what matters most to the journet ahead.”

It is not intentional.  In fact, I have, and would still call myself a feminist.  What are my qualifications for such a preposterous claim?  Well, first I wholeheartedly support equal rights and opportunities for women in all forms within a society.  Second, I was raised by feminist (then-single) Mormon housewife/full-time teacher.  Third, I have studied, support and work with feminist theory and research in my University education.  Fourth, I try to support my wife in her decisions regarding being a working-mum or SAHM.

Yet, none of this did not help realise something.  Lisa described this way, ‘When I got married I really thought that we would be equal partners, and we were.  We really were.  He did as much of the housework as I did, we both worked, we both made money… But as soon as I had a baby I was just shocked at how my world changed and how there was no equality anymore.  I was shocked of how much of that burden fell on me.’

From a different perspective Reese Dixon both glories and laments being able to have only one ‘role’; that of being a mother.

I guess I have failed to see how our relationship is becoming more unequal.  It started out great, I think.  She worked while I was at School and I did the majority of the housework and the cooking.  Shortly after I was married I was called to a position that meant I was out a few evenings of the week; and then things began to change.  A short time later, my calling changed, and I was out more.  We moved, but I kept the same calling, had a baby and I graduated.  We managed that ok, I was home a lot and tried to make sure I would regularly share the different responsibilities.  I was home most of the time during the day and I could do that.  My wife returned to work and I looked after our baby and began my post-graduate study.

Just over a year ago, my calling changed again.  Now I was out nearly every evening and my studies required more time.  We got pregnant again and I began teaching.  Finally another baby arrived.

Recently, there are some weeks that I never cook and rarely clean.  Though I home, I work and so I see the kids but I don’t always get time with them and sometimes I rarely change nappies or help feed.

Now, some might be thinking that if this is how we balance the responsibilities then that is fine.  The issue here is that I am unhappy with this and so is my wife.  The issue is that it is easier for me to allow this pattern to continue and I don’t like that about myself.

It is apparent that the systemic sexism in both the Church and the UK has made it easy for me to live out a patriarchal (not in a good way) existence by drawing me into the public sphere while simultaneously requiring that my wife live her life in private sphere.  That requirement is disseminated through the subtle, pernicious and quiet expectation that my wife will support me in my responsibilities.

I have need to repent for choosing to be acted upon rather than to act against the tide of these social influences.

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.

Quinn argues that during the explosive Church growth of the 1950’s-1970’s the Church attempted to draw upon a number of external influences in making the organization more efficient and effective.  At the same time there was an explosive growth in Church bureaucracy.  This led some to become concerned over the influence and direction of power and authority within the hierarchical structure.

According to Quinn, both J. Reuben Clark Jr. and David O. McKay were concerned that the increasing bureaucratic, financial and organizational burden meant that the GA’s were not able (due to lack of knowledge or expertise) to make decisions that would need to be made.  They would, of necessity, have to rely upon technocrats and other specialists from the various sub-committees at Church Headquarters.  President McKay’s concern was that this movement would involve an ecclesiastical abdication of the God-given authority to led the Church.

This model of Prophetic leadership in temporal, as well as spiritual matters, has a long and varied history in the standard works and has been exemplified by our earliest and most influential leaders.  The first reason therefore that I am unconvinced that there is an alternative to a mixture (even a heavy emphasis) on the bureaucratic, as opposed to the prophetic, in our Church leadership is that theologically they are expected to be able to guide a temporally-situated Church.  Yet, their burden is fraught with a multiplicity of complex challenges that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others never faced.

John Dehlin rightly notes that within this they have a responsibility to protect the image of the ‘Prophetic Mantle’.  In one sense, therefore, it seems possible that although they believe that as ‘Prophets, Seers and Revelators’ they have a responsibility over the temporal, they also feel a sense of dissatisfaction or dissonance over the types of decisions they have to make.  This is evident by the fact they do not talk about such decisions and even try to mask these processes from the general membership because they feel that such decision-making processes might undermine the image of the ‘Prophetic Mantle’.  I think they are right; it might well have this effect.

Now it is possible to argue that the ‘Prophetic Mantle’ does not need to be protected.  I can sympathise with this position however I believe that the Brethren intentionally present a view of their work which most accurately exemplifies what they expect from their local leaders.  Bishops and Stake Presidents do not make the same type of decisions that might require this legalistic-bureaucractic framework and they therefore expect local leaders to seek the Spirit in dealing with spiritual matters.  I am not convinced that this is disingenuous  but rather sense that they are trying to model the gospel in action to a culturally and intellectually diverse membership.

Therefore, they are in a tough, ecclesiastical bind.  Abdicate the responsibility for the kingdom (to a small or even a large extent) or face the possibility of undermining the ‘Prophetic Mantle’, which I believe they have, and giving scope for local leaders to approach issues in this same legalistic-bureaucractic manner.

I can see why they do what they do because I am not sure I see a valid alternative, theologically or organisationally.  Do you?

1). Your blessing always implies (even if it does not say it explicitly) the agency of another. So even if there is a promise involving another person they still have their choice to go down whatever path.

2). Your blessing (and only you can interpret this) would have made these promises on certain conditions. This does not mean that you are to blame but rather these situations are never just one factor.
3). It is not over yet. You do not know when or where these blessings might be fulfilled.
4). Faith is a paradox. I believe that we see our faith, or experience our faith, when we keep doing those things that are right even when it seems impossible for us to receive the blessings. It is the strength to endure even when we see no possibility of fulfillment. It is in these moments of struggle that we are forced to draw closer to God and rely more wholly upon him because there is nothing else to rely upon.

5). Is it possible that your patriarch, seeking to promise you something that would bring you hope and happiness, made this statement eventhough it was not directly inspired from God? They are not perfect. But I should couple this with my own thoughts that you have the right to pray about your blessing and interpret what it means. Priesthood holders have a difficult repsonsibility to try and understand the spiritual impressions we receive when we give blessings and sometimes it does not always come out quite right and the listener/receiver has to interpret. This is your responsibility.

My questions are these:

Have you experienced a failed patriarchal blessing and how did you deal with it?

Are my possible explanations flawed?

Are there other explanations I may have missed?

What would have said or done in this situation?

As a lead into the rest of this discussion the other people who had this experience are:

Joseph Angell Young – One of Brigham Young’s sons was ordained in 1864 and was never subsequent invited into the quorum [3].

‘Brigham Young, Jr., was ordained as an Apostle by his father on February 4, 1864, but he did not become a member of the Council of the Twelve until October 1868, when he was chosen to fill the vacancy caused by George A. Smith’ [4].

Sylvester Q. Cannon was ordained an Apostle on April 14^th, 1938 and was set-apart in the Quorum April 6^th 1939, a year later [3].

Finally Alvin R. Dyer was called as an Apostle on October 5^th 1967 but was never included in the Quorum, and was actually incorporated into the First Quorum of Seventy when it was created in Oct 1^st 1976 [3].

The last person that might have been in a similar situation was David Whitmer & Oliver Cowdrey (D&C 18: 9), but I will not discuss this here [5].

President McKay once said: “There are apostles who are not members of the council. I think there were in that day [i.e., in New Testament times], at least they were considered to be apostles… A man may be an apostle but not one of the Council of the Twelve” [4].  That people can be ordained as an Apostle without being a member of the Twelve suggests that it is a Priesthood office which could be bestowed on those who are prepared.

In an article by David L. Paulsen, Joseph Smith is recorded to have said in a meeting in 1833, after a vision of the Father and the Son, “Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages” [6].  President McKay, in the citation above, uses the example of Paul and Barabbas who were considered Apostles without them being included in the Quorum.  Paul it seems may have been later, while for Barabbas it is less clear.  It seems they were considered to be Apostles on the basis of what they had seen and that they were felt called to the ministry.

This seems to imply something similar to what Ammon describes in the Book of Mormon.  He says ‘I am called by that Holy Spirit to teach [the gospel]… and a portion of that Spirit dwelleth in me, which giveth me knowledge and also power’ (Alma 18: 34-5).  Moreover, there is a distinction between the calling and the ordinance associated with Priesthood power (see Al 13: 8).  In addition D&C 121: 37 argues that the powers of heaven may be conferred upon us, but that there are inseparable from the Spirit.  In fact if this section of scripture teaches us anything then it is that the Holy Ghost, through a Saintly life, gives power to an individual (see D&C 121: 46) not by the virtue of the Priesthood (D&C 121:40).

This suggest two things to me: first being an Apostle is not necessarily about being in the Quorum of the Twelve and that it may well be a Priesthood office, like High Priest, rather than a calling in that Priesthood.  Second there is a conception that Mormonism has scope for the ‘Priesthood of all believers’ type view.  Meaning that spiritual power is given to those who are called by God or receive that power, rather than by merely being ordained.

Notes:

1. Richard O. Cowan, The Church in the Twentieth Century [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985], 45.

2. Truman G. Madsen; see also Scott Kenney, Joseph F. Smith in The Presidents of the Church, ed. L.J. Arrington [Salt Lake City, UT.: Deseret Book, ?] p. 191.

3. Encyclopaedia of Mormonism, Appendix 1, p. 1631-51.

4. David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals: Selections from the Discourses of David O. McKay [Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953], 250.

5. See Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 6:320 and Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 6:29.

6. David L. Paulsen, The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives in BYU Studies, vol. 35, no. 4 (Provo UT.: BYU Press, 1996).

As some of you may know, the Community of Christ (formerly known as RLDS), canonizes revelations in their edition of the Doctrine and Covenants much more frequently than the LDS church does.  There is an upcoming World Conference (similar to General Conference) coming up in April, where they will discuss canonizing a new revelation.  I asked FireTag to write a series of guest posts discussing this process, and he has graciously agreed to do so.  Without further ado, here is his tourist guide to canonizing modern revelation:

Living prophets who add to the canon of scripture are a distinctive marker of the Mormon movement. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the most recent such formal canonization was Official Declaration 2, added in 1978. The Proclamation on the Family could conceivably be submitted “for common consent” at some future date, the last step in its addition to the Doctrine and Covenants.

The next largest Restoration Movement body, Community of Christ, has added to its version of the Doctrine and Covenants far more frequently. Eleven new D&C Sections (153-163 in CofChrist numbering) have been added since 1978 under three prophet/presidents, and a proposed Section 164 is expected to be announced to the church by webcast on January 17, 2010 for consideration at the CofChrist’s April 2010 World Conference. Since World Conferences during the period have been held only seventeen times (counting 2010), adoption of new scripture is almost a “normal” World Conference activity.

The document is expected to deal primarily with two topics: (1) conditions of membership, as applied to converts from other Christian faiths; and, (2) with the rights to participate in and administer sacraments and ordinances of the church, including ordination and marriage, for those in non-heterosexual monogamous relationships where civil law allows.

Because the latter issues involved in the 2010 document will be very recognizable points of discussion in the bloggernacle, this post is offered as background for those Mormons who want to watch the process unfold. A later post nearer the time of the conference will focus more on events during the conference itself.

The CofChrist holds week-long Conferences that are far more legislation-oriented than are LDS conferences. Most of The Apostles or First Presidency are given no time to address the conference, for example, since only Sunday mornings and evenings are set aside for worship. Mornings and afternoons are devoted to consideration of legislation, whether in full conference, or in various quorums, committees, or delegate caucuses. Consideration of a revelation takes priority over all other matters.

In recent years, our Prophets have become increasingly uncomfortable with “springing” revelations on the people at the beginning of Conference for, literally, overnight consideration and adoption as had been the practice in earlier decades. It now seems to be standard practice for the Presidency to initiate a formal “discernment process” shortly after a Conference to call the church to participate in prayerfully considering the issues which will be the subject of action (and prospective revelation) at the following Conference 3 years later. Often, these are the very same issues which were referred back to the First Presidency for further study or direction (often through a standing or special committee that the Presidency creates) by the previous Conference. Of course, the Apostles, the Presiding Bishopric (chief financial officers, not pastors, in the CofChrist), the Presidencies of the various quorums, and others are closely involved in these considerations behind the scenes.

As a result of these practices, the general membership of the church has acquired some expanded opportunities to influence the theological and policy issues that the leading quorums of the church will seek to address during the periods between conferences. This power is not as explicit as in earlier times when the Prophet was directed to “inquire of the Lord”, and the Prophet has his own impresses regardless of what the Conference says, but there is definitely a notion that “common consent” is involved both in framing which questions the Prophet asks and in accepting the answers the Prophet receives as inspired.

Both of the major expected topics of proposed Section 164 are the result of pressures by significant portions of the membership to address issues of personal importance to them. The CofChrist draws a much smaller proportion of its active membership from North America and Europe than does the LDS church. In fact, conventional wisdom in the CofChrist holds that North American membership will soon be a minority in the church, if it is not already. As a result, views of the membership in places like Africa, India, and Haiti have major and growing influence on the church’s agenda.

These nations are less individualistic than Americans. They often have experienced great tension between teachings of Christianity and other great world religions accepted by their families and friends, and they are less likely to see differences among Christian denominations that loom large in American discussions as important. They often participate in the CofChrist while knowing or caring little about such things as the Book of Mormon or the early history of the Restoration movement. As a result, many of them deeply question the need for rebaptism, which seems to imply a rejection of the sacrifices they made to become Christian in the first place, as well as of the Christian families and communities around them.

The second largest demographic bloc in the church consists of relatively aged, relatively conservative members still very committed to the uniqueness of the Restoration and uncomfortable with any suggestion that their sacrifices would have been just as meaningful in another denomination.

Consequently, following the 2007 Conference, the First Presidency was left with an “action item” to address the issue of the “conditions of membership”, and has been directing a formal discernment process intended to lead to the January 17 guidance to the church. This issue is considered sufficiently divisive that the leading quorums had clearly indicated a desire not to deal with other divisive matters until the church has proven it can work through the issue. The schism that resulted in the church in the 1980’s over extension of priesthood to women has clearly instilled caution in the church leadership.

However, there is another divisive issue, the roles which gays living in monogamous relationships are to have in the church, which a third important demographic bloc, progressives in the Western nations, has forced onto the agenda despite the wishes of the leadership to defer consideration. Field jurisdictions which are roughly equivalent to LDS stakes (though they sometimes extend over several countries) have rights to pass legislation at their own conferences which then come to the floor of the World Conference for action. Ten such “mission centers” in the United States, Canada, and Australia passed overlapping resolutions which ask the church to change policies in various ways toward allowing gays to marry where civil authority permits, allowing our priesthood to perform such marriages as sacraments of the church, and/or to remove such relationships as barriers to holding priesthood. In response, four mission centers, in the southern US, Central America, and Africa passed proposed legislation that would reaffirm (either permanently or until further study) current policy. All proposed legislation is available for  reading here.

The significance of bringing these resolutions up at all should be understood. Their existence eclipses the Leading Quorums’ agenda for 2010 in a way that has not happened in perhaps 80 years, when the quorums were divided among themselves on the direction of the church.

The Presidency has been publicly studying these gay-rights issues without resolution since 1992. While Americans tend to view the issue through the lens of domestic politics, there is a major international church component in the CofChrist consideration. It took special deliberations among the 12 and Presidency to even publicly announce that the specific legislative proposals for 2010 existed, because of fears that members in some third world nations would be subject to physical persecution because discussion of homosexuality was culturally taboo.

It is these potentially divisive issues which form the background for proposed Section 164. The proposed revelatory document should be published on the Community of Christ website within 24 hours of President Veazey’s address to the church on January 17, and a link will be added to the comments of this post as soon as the document appears.

Do you have any comments or questions?

All that have been through an ugly divorce know that the pain can come in waves. Some you can stand against as the water rushes over you. Others are like a tsunami that sucks you in and spits you out in hostile and unfamiliar terrain. It was a tsunami day when I called my bishop and asked if he could come to my house and give me a blessing. I had caught him at a bad time; he was walking out the door to go somewhere with his wife. I apologized over and over and told him not to worry about it, but he came over anyway(it might have been the my unsuccessful attempts to hide the tears in my voice). I felt so embarrassed, but he gave me a lovely blessing that truly got me through a particularly dark period.

For several years after I divorced, I had no desire to date. the legal proceedings drug out(thanks to him)and I was determined not to get involved with anyone until the divorce was final. I had kind of settled into being single and I actually liked it. I worked hard, had fun with my friends, traveled, and pretty much did whatever I wanted to do. I was pretty active in a family ward that didnt treat me as some freak of nature because I wasn’t married. Life was good.Then I read an article in the Ensign about how people in the church are choosing not to marry and that it was considered a troublesome trend in our culture. It pointed out the commandments regarding marriage and encouraged single church members  not  disregard marriage as a worthy goal in  life. For the first time in 7 years I thought those words were written for me-a revelation of sorts. Most of the men I met didn’t seem to take their priesthood too seriously. Some had arrogantly lived beneath their privilege, unashamed of the covenants they broke, not sure if they even wanted to be in good standing with the church again. There were parts of me that held the priesthood in some disregard, sometimes even mild contempt. Heavenly Father had not blessed me with a faithful husband who honored his priesthood, so maybe this was just one of the many blessings that would not be mine in this life.

In more recent years, my heart has  softened on this subject. Going to the temple for the first time to receive my own endowment made me more aware of the eternal necessity of the priesthood. If you are a TBM(as I am)then you know in order to be exalted you must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Sealed in the temple for time and all eternity. More priesthood.The first time I felt truly moved was about 3 years ago when I witnessed a baby blessing. It was a young father, a recent convert to the church, blessing his baby. He had invited quite a few men to stand in the circle and bless this tiny spirit so new to this world. They gathered and  formed the circle, placing one hand under the baby and the other on the shoulder of the elder next to him. It moved me that these men were joined in such a tender act and when the blessing ended and after the baby was shown to the congregation, there were warm embraces and slaps on the shoulder. For the first time I yearned to have an eternal companion I loved to be standing in one of those circles.

Late last year all the priesthood holders in my ward sang as a choir. I dont remember the song, but to see all of those men standing behind the pulpit singing, literally moved me to tears. Then today, the youth speaker canceled and the bishop(last minute) asked the three priests in our ward to share their favorite scripture and explain what it meant to them. These young men did fantastic. You could tell they were a little nervous, but they had scriptures ready and spoke in such a way that i was impressed with their conviction. I got a little misty seeing these young men, future missionaries, husbands, and fathers grow in their faith before my eyes. It’s somewhat affirming to know there are still men in the church who take the priesthood seriously.
Can we bridge the ever growing gap that exists between strong and effective women who don’t “need” a man, but require the priesthood in order to gain the exaltation we strive for?

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?

General Conference must be coming this weekend.

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

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

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

1. Consensus and Clarity About the Nature of Revelation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve been reading a book called Establishing Zion by Eugene Campbell.  I couldn’t find it in the library, but Signature Books has posted the entire book online and you can read it right here!  Chapters 6 and 7 deal with issues surrounding the Indians when the pioneers first settled Utah.  As you will recall, Utah was actually part of Mexico in 1847 when the Mormons literally left the United States due to persecution.

Within a short time, the Mexican-American War broke out.  The purpose of this war was to protect Texas, which had declared independence from Mexico.  The Mexicans didn’t appreciate the secession of Texas, and the United States came to the aid of Texas, thoroughly routing the Mexicans.  However, the war didn’t merely help Texas, but was a major land grab by the United States.  The treaty moved the line south, and the United States took in much of the southwestern US, including Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado, though Texas was technically an independent nation at the time.

So, once again the Mormons were part the United States.  As part of the Mexican-American War, the Mormons even furnished the Mormon Battalion, to show what good citizens they were.  During this time period of the 1850′s, slavery was legal in much of the United States, and slavery wasn’t completely abolished until the Emancipation Proclamation and Civil a decade later (1861-1865).

I previously blogged about slavery in my Priesthood Ban post, noting that Brigham Young made slavery legal in the Utah Territory–the only state to approve slavery West of Missouri (besides Texas.)  While I was pretty hard on Brigham, I was not aware of the slavery problem with the Indians.  I do feel like Brigham tried to make the best of a rotten situation with regards to Indian slavery.  I think this is a very important piece of information to consider when viewing Brigham Young and his legalization of slavery.  From chapter 6, I quote about the Mormon dealings with Indian Chief Walker,

Another problem was Indian slavery. As already indicated, a slave trade was conducted over the Old Spanish Trail that came through much of Utah since the early 1800s. Walker and his band raided weaker tribes, taking their children and sometimes their wives as prisoners and selling them to Mexicans. As early as November 1851, the Deseret News called attention to a party of twenty Mexicans in the San Pete Valley, trading for Indian children. In his book, Forty Years Among the Indians, Daniel Jones wrote that when this party of traders arrived in Utah Valley, Brigham Young was notified and came to Provo. According to Jones, who acted as interpreter,

Mr. Young had the law read and explained to them showing them that from this day on they were under obligation to observe the laws of the United States instead of Mexico. That the treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo had changed the conditions and that from this day on they were under the control of the United States. He further showed that it was a cruel practice to enslave human beings and explained that the results of such business caused war and bloodshed among the Indian tribes. The Mexicans listened with respect and admitted that the traffic would have to cease. It was plainly shown to them that it was a cruel business which could not be tolerated any longer and as it had been an old established practice they were not so much to blame for following the traffic heretofore. Now it was expected that this business would be discontinued. All seemed satisfied and pledged their word they would return home without trading for children. Most of them kept their promise, but one small party under Pedro Leon violated their obligation and were arrested and [p.107] brought before the United States court, with Judge [Zerubabbel] Snow presiding.

The Mexicans were found guilty and fined. The fines were afterwards remitted, and the men were allowed to return to their homes.

Stopping the slave trade embittered some Indians. Some of them attempted to sell their children to the Mormons. Jones related one graphic incident. Arrapine, Walker’s brother, insisted that because the Mormons had stopped the Mexicans from buying these children, the Mormons were obligated to purchase them. Jones wrote, “Several of us were present when he took one of the children by the heels and dashed his brains out on the hard ground, after which he threw the body toward us telling us we had no hearts or we would have saved its life.”

Incidents such as this led the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah on 7 March 1852 to pass an act legalizing Indian slavery. The purpose was to induce Mormons to buy Indian children who otherwise would have been abandoned or killed.⁹ It provided that Indian children under the proper conditions could be legally bound over to suitable guardians for a term of indenture not exceeding twenty years. The master was required to send Indian children between the ages of seven and sixteen years to school for a period of three months each year and was answerable to the probate judge for the treatment of these apprentices. As a result of this act, many Mormon families took small Indian children into their homes to protect them from slavery or from being left destitute. John D. Lee, for example, wrote in his journal about a group of Indians who “brought me two more girls for which I gave them two horses. I named the girls Annette and Elnora.”

Negro slavery was also permitted in the territory, but the pioneers had passed no similar rules about the treatment of blacks, certainly [p.108] not the requirement that they be schooled. However, blacks were not permitted to be sold to others without their own consent.

Footnote 9 was also very interesting regarding Indian slavery.

9. The Mormons had first confronted the problem of buying Indian children soon after their arrival in the Salt Lake Valley. Children were brought into the pioneers’ fort as early as the winter of 1847-48, and Indians said that they were war captives and would be killed if not purchased. The Mormons bought one of the children. Two more children were brought to the fort under the same threat, and the Mormons bought both of them. Charles Decker bought one of these two, Sally Kanosh, who was later given to Brigham Young and raised in his family. Speaking with church members in the Iron County Mission, Young advised them to buy children and teach them to live a good life. According to the Journal History for 12 May 1851, Young said, “The Lord could not have devised a better plan than to have put the saints where they were to help bring about the redemption of the Lamanites and also make them a white and delightsome people.”

Now this brings up an interesting conundrum.  By purchasing Indian slaves, the Mormons are creating a demand to encourage more slavery.  However, they are obviously saving lives.  It would take the Civil War to completely rid the country of the practice of slavery.  For more information on Mormon dealings with the Indians, click here.  What do you think of Brigham Young’s practice of buying Indian slaves?

I’d like all the whining about the LDS Sacrament Meeting to stop.  I’d like to focus on how to make it a better and more meaningful weekly experience.

Among the chief complaints one hears about Sacrament meetings are the following:

• Sacrament meeting is boring
• The music is boring, not diverse enough
• The speakers are boring
• It is always the same
• It is too quiet, not enough emotion
• It is too loud, kids make too much noise
• The Speakers are unprepared.
• They just read conference talks
• There is too little focus on Christ, not enough discussion of Him
• We don’t start on time
• We don’t end on time
• Aaronic Priesthood members must wear white shirts and ties

What I have seen as a member of the congregation and from up on the stand:

• Members arrive late, some are chronic
• Loud conversations before start of meeting
• Not singing hymns
• Playing with cell phone, texting or whatever
• Preparing lessons
• Talking, especially during the Sacrament Service
• Reading other materials
• Eating and drinking
• Sleeping, no matter what time church starts
• Lack of attention, just not listening
• Distracted by caring for children, some avoidable, some not.
• Refusal to remove children from Chapel, no matter how loud and disruptive.

What I have also seen:

• Members arriving early, taking their seats, listening to prelude music
• Singing hymns with enthusiasm
• Actively participating in prayers, saying Amen
• Listening, paying attention
• Singing the Sacrament Hymn
• Appearing contemplative during the Sacrament Service
• Heads bowed, but not sleeping
• Reading Scriptures
• Not talking to others
• Listening to talks
• Taking notes

The Lord gave a revelation to Joseph Smith specifically regarding Sacrament meeting when he said,

Thou shalt offer a ^asacrifice unto the Lord thy God in ^brighteousness, even that of a broken heart and a ^ccontrite spirit. And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself ^aunspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of ^bprayer and offer up thy ^csacraments upon my ^dholy day; For verily this is a ^aday appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; (Doctrine and Covenants 59:8 – 10)

The responsibility for a meaningful Sacrament Meeting experience rests with us as individual members. As we come prepared to partake of the Sacrament in remembrance of Our Savior Jesus Christ, offer up a broken heart and contrite spirit and seek to receive forgiveness and repentance for our sins, we can’t help but improve our own experience. In spite of the shortcomings of those who speak to us, in spite of the fact that topics may not be presented to us well, we need to remember that most everyone who gets an assignment to speak in Sacrament meeting WANTS to do a good job and uplift the members of the congregation.  We need to be chartable toward them.  If we are in the right frame of mind, we can surely receive at least a single bit of instruction or inspiration that we can make useful to us!

The Bishop and his counselors are responsible for assigning the topics to be spoken during Sacrament meeting and insuring the members are prepared to give a talk, which is Gospel and Christ-centered, no matter what the topic.  By its very nature, all Gospel topics should be tied back to the Savior at some point.

I think this quote from President Kimball says it all,

“We do not go to Sabbath meetings to be entertained or even solely to be instructed. We go to worship the Lord. It is an individual responsibility, and regardless of what is said from the pulpit, if one wishes to worship the Lord in spirit and truth, he may do so by attending his meetings, partaking of the sacrament, and contemplating the beauties of the gospel. If the service is a failure to you, you have failed. No one can worship for you” (“The Sabbath-A Delight,” Ensign, Jan. 1978, 4-5).

There is a story in the Church is may be Church lore or maybe not, but it goes somewhat like this,

A General Authority attended a Ward during a Sacrament Service. During the Sacrament Service he was offered the Sacrament, we refused it and it was passed to the next person.

A sister, observing this, approached the General Authority after the meeting,

“You, a General Authority,  not worthy to take the Sacrament?

“Dear Sister, I am sorry, but during the singing of the hymn, my mind wandered ever so slightly away from the Savior and as a result, I did not feel worthy to partake of the Sacrament.”

I hope that we can try to have a more meaningful Sacrament meeting rather than focus on the shortcomings of the meeting itself.  After all, the shortcomings are really ours.

And for heaven sake’s, stopping whining about it!

Aloysius’ proclamation of self-declared hetrodoxy made me ask myself: Is he really at odds with Church doctrine in rejecting the notion that the LDS Church is “an exclusive conduit to God”? In other words, does the LDS Church even claim to be “an exclusive conduit to God”?

But first, what exactly does it mean to say the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”? Does it mean you have to be a member of the LDS Church to receive divine inspiration? Or to have your prayers answered? Or to receive a divine calling or mission in life? Or to be worthy of being considered a servant of God? Or to develop a relationship of discipleship with Christ? Or to receive peace, joy, and glory in the hereafter? What does it mean to say the LDS Church claims to be an exclusive conduit to God?

After giving this matter much thought, I’m still not sure of Aloysius’ exact intended meaning when he says the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”, but of one thing I am sure: numerous statements from LDS leaders and publications over the years create wide enough latitude in LDS doctrine for any active and faithful member of the LDS Church to comfortably reject the notion that the Church is “an exclusive conduit to God” or a “sole avenue to God”, and to feel completely in harmony with Church leaders in doing so.

For example, LDS leaders and publications have made the following statements about God’s communication and relationship with mankind in general, and with non-Mormons in particular:

1. “[W]e claim that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints.” -Elder James E. Faust [1]

2. “All men share an inheritance of divine light. God operates among his children in all nations, and those who seek God are entitled to further light and knowledge, regardless of their race, nationality, or cultural traditions.” -Elder Howard W. Hunter [2]

3. “[T]he Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have.” -Book of Mormon [3]

4. “The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered.”-Elder Boyd K. Packer [4]

5. “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. . . . We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” -Elder Orson F. Whitney, quoted by Elder Ezra Taft Benson [5]

6. “We believe that most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities. We are indebted to the men and women who kept the light of faith and learning alive through the centuries to the present day. . . . We honor them as servants of God.” Elder Dallin H. Oaks [6]

7. “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. … We believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation.” Elder James E. Faust [9]

8. [I]ndividual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.” [8]

The quotes above make clear that the LDS Church teaches and claims:

• that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints;
• that “all men” receive “divine light” and that “God operates among his children in all nations“;
• that the Lord grants to “all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his [i.e., God's] word“;
• that the Light of Christ and the Holy Spirit were present, and that the prayers of the righteous were answered, even during the period of time referred to by Latter-day Saints as “the Apostasy”;
• that Latter-day Saints are not the only people in the world accomplishing God’s “great and marvelous work“;
• that non-Mormon religious leaders are “servants of God”;
• that “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others,” have had moral truths “given to them by God“;
• that “God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way toeternal salvation“; and
• that “there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb [i.e., Jesus Christ] because of their loyalty to him and his life-style”.

What, then, could somebody possibly be referring to when he says the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”? It seems likely that such a statement would be based on statements by LDS leaders like the one quoted below, which are made frequently:

This is the true Church, the only true Church, because in it are the keys of the priesthood. Only in this Church has the Lord lodged the power to seal on earth and to seal in heaven as He did in the time of the Apostle Peter. Those keys were restored to Joseph Smith, who then was authorized to confer them upon the members of the Quorum of the Twelve. [9]

Based on the quote above, and numerous statements like it, there is no doubt that the LDS Church claims to be the exclusive holder of priesthood keys necessary to authoritatively perform priesthood ordinances (and therefore the “only true Church“).

Which brings us to the $10,000 question: is the LDS Church’s claim to exclusive possession of priesthood keys the same as a claim to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”?

Interestingly, the quotes that appear below, which were published in recent Church curriculum, seem to indicate that at least one of Mormonism’s founding prophets, Brigham Young, would have rejected the notion that the LDS Church is “an exclusive conduit to God”:

It has appeared to me, from my childhood to this day, as a piece of complete nonsense, to talk about the inhabitants of the earth being thus irretrievably lost—to talk of my father and mother, and yours, or our ancestors, who have lived faithfully according to the best light they had; but because they had not the everlasting covenant and the holy Priesthood in their midst, that they should go to hell and roast there to all eternity. It is nonsense to me; it always was, and is yet (DBY, 384).

So far as mortality is concerned, millions of the inhabitants of the earth live according to the best light they have—according to the best knowledge they possess. I have told you frequently that they will receive according to their works; and all, who live according to the best principles in their possession, or that they can understand, will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating. They will not be lost (DBY, 384).

If [people] have a law, no matter who made it, and do the best they know how, they will have a glory which is beyond your imagination, by any description I might give; you cannot conceive of the least portion of the glory of God prepared for his beings, the workmanship of his hands (DBY, 385).

I say to every priest on the face of the earth, I do not care whether they be Christian, Pagan or [Muslim], you should live according to the best light you have; and if you do you will receive all the glory you ever anticipated (DBY, 384–85). [10]

CONCLUSION:

The LDS Church’s claim to exclusively possess priesthood keys — and the relevance of that claim to the eternal salvation of mankind, particularly to the 99.99% of humanity who are not, were not, and will not be Mormons — is a complex and nuanced claim. That exclusive claim to priesthood keys is inextricably intertwined with the Church’s universal doctrines about God’s universal love, concern, inspiration, and operation among all mankind, as well as the Church’s universal doctrines that all persons who lived by whatever moral law or light they received in their mortal lifetime — “no matter who made it,” “whether they be Christian [or] Pagan” — “will will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating.”

Bearing in mind these complex, nuanced, and intertwining exclusive-yet-universal LDS doctrines, if we say the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God,” I think we risk stating an innocent-but-careless half-truth at best, or an intentional deception at worst. Furthermore, based on the numerous quotes from LDS leaders above, I feel perfectly comfortable rejecting the notion that the LDS Church is “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”, because I do not believe the LDS Church makes such a claim in the first place.

To be clear, my purpose in writing this post is not to engage in semantic nit-picking in attempt to make Aloysius “an offender for a word”. (For the record, Aloysius and I are official Facebook friends; a bond stronger than the cords of death.) Rather, my purpose is to illustrate the complexities and nuances of LDS doctrine on this topic, which make it extremely difficult to accurately summarize the Church’s claims, or stated conversely, make it very easy to unintentionally mischaracterize or overstate LDS claims by making them sound more exclusivist than they really are.

SOURCES:

[1] Elder James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, May 1980, 12 (emphasis added).

[2] Howard W. Hunter, “The Gospel-A Global Faith,” Ensign, Nov 1991, 18 (emphasis added).

[3] Alma 29:8 (emphasis added).

[4] Boyd K. Packer, “The Light of Christ,” Ensign, Apr. 2005, 11 (quoted on Church website at: http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/) (emphasis added).

[5] Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59 [quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, "Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints," Ensign, Jul 1972, 59] (emphasis added).

[6] Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign, May 1995, 84 (emphasis added).

[7] Elder James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, May 1980, 12 (emphasis added).

[8] Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61 (quoted on Church website at http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/) (emphasis added).

[9] Henry B. Eyring, “The True and Living Church,” Ensign, May 2008, 20–24 (emphasis added).

[10] “Chapter 39: Eternal Judgment,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 285 (emphasis added).

I share that background to explain why – at Sunstone West this past weekend – I took such a keen interest in a screening of the film “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.” Produced by Margaret Blair Young and Darius Gray, this movie goes through the history of black people in the Church and the evolution of the priesthood ban, which is largely “credited” to Brigham Young. Apparently, he evolved (or de-volved) in his views, as the movie had some interesting early quotes from him that were far more kind and tolerant towards blacks than some of his later whoppers. The historical context painted by the film shows an influx of Mormon converts from the southern states who brought their slaves to Utah. Henceforth, Young made the decision to make Utah into a slave-friendly territory. Another bit of historical context that I don’t remember being mentioned in the film is that the Democratic Party (then pro-slavery) was also more tolerant of plural marriage, which was likely another factor in the decision.

Fascinating as the history was, the movie was far more touching for me on a personal level. I was utterly floored by the powerful testimonies shared by the many black LDS members interviewed on camera. Many of these folks joined the Church while the ban still existed. One African-American sister shared the heartbreaking observation that the first time she was ever called a “nigger” was in the Salt Lake temple. Yet, she was far from angry. Like many others of all races, her life had been touched in a positive way by the Gospel. That many of these folks retained a love and loyalty to an organization that had rejected them for so long was amazing. The Church apparently did not sponsor this project, but it should buy every copy that it can and send it out to all four corners of the Earth. Seriously, who better to share the hopeful message of the Gospel than a group of people who consistently getting the short end of the stick.

Another interesting tidbit from the film was a story about Dr. Cecil “Chip” Murray, retired pastor of the First AME Church of Los Angeles (which was founded by a former slave of Mormon pioneers). Murray shares a story on camera that he was once invited to meet with then-President Hinckley at the Church Office Building. At that meeting, he says Hinckley apologized to him for the Church’s participation in the slavery issue and for its part in perpetuating prejudice against black people. How broad he meant that is arguable, but it certainly seems a long way from just three decades ago.

Ms. Young was there and hosted a lively discussion afterwards. She is working on getting the film distributed. Apparently, Howard University has agreed to show it on its PBS station. Hopefully, BYU does the same. Anyone interested should start bugging their local PBS station. And maybe some e-mails to Netflix to spark their interest wouldn’t hurt, either.

Basically, two thumbs up here. Despite the lousy economy, I would heartily recommend dipping into your wallet for $25 to buy the DVD (it can be found at

http://www.untoldstoryofblackmormons.com

) And no, I’m not getting a cut. Thanks for listening.

In our current callings, my wife and I spend a lot of time digging through Church instruction manuals.  I teach both the 12/13 year old Sunday School class (weekly) as well as Elders’ Quorum (once a month).  My wife serves as the Laurels adviser, and is responsible for teaching at least a couple of lessons per month.  Nearly everybody who has served in a teaching capacity can point to some instance in which they have viewed the correlated manual as lacking in some respect, be it too bland, too overly positive in its historical view, or just plain out of date (ever try getting kids to relate to John Taylor’s days as a woodcrafter?)

Last week, my wife ran across something in the Young Women manual that really caused us both to pause.  The lesson, entitled “Growing and Maturing In Self-Reliance (Part 1),” is centered around the notion that we, as Latter Day Saints, have a responsibility to become independent human beings.  That’s all well and good, but buried in the discussion points is the following “Note to teacher”:

Be sure that the young women understand clearly that assuming responsibility and becoming self-reliant is desirable and is what our Father in Heaven hopes for and expects.  But this does not mean that we become independent of his direction in our lives or the sound counsel of parents or priesthood leaders.

(Source)

Can you figure out the source of our consternation?  Go back and read that second sentence again, and remember that this is a lesson being taught by a YW leader to a group of young women.  Who is left out as a potential source of direction and “sound counsel?”  The YW leader herself!

To be clear, the purpose of this thread is not to bash priesthood leaders or ring the “do/should women have the priesthood” bell again.  Rather, I want to raise for discussion two issues I see resulting from this teaching:

• First, this notion undermines the ability of our YW leaders to help guide the lives of those young girls for whom they are called to be stewards.  YW is one the few places where women are given the opportunity to occupy a prominent leadership role.  Just like in any other calling, those who put in the time and effort can have a major impact on the lives of those they lead.  But if we tell our YW leaders that their counsel is always (and necessarily) secondary to that of any random priesthood leader, we are cutting their legs out from under them.   Simply put, a leader cannot lead without authority.  And if we leave our YW leaders powerless, they will devolve into nothing more than figureheads.

• Second, and more troubling for me, a diminished role for YW leaders sends (reinforces?) the message to our girls that they will always play a backseat role in the Church affairs.  I have served in Ward Council-type positions myself and, thus, I am aware of the wide scope of authority Relief Society presidents often have and wield.  But the MIA Maids, for example, aren’t privy to that example, leaving their YW adviser as the foremost non-parent example of how women can and do lead in the Church.

You may be thinking to yourself, “geez, Larsen is making too much out of this.”  You may be right, but here’s why it gets under my skin.  I am not one who believes the Church is a patriarchal system designed to keep women down. Indeed, I have written elsewhere about my wife having the opportunity to counsel a grieving friend in tandem with the Bishop.  But I am the father of three young daughters, all of whom will be entering the Young Women’s program in the next few years.  I want the Church to be a part of their life that brings them happiness and compels them to be better people.  I want them to have strong female role models within the Church, so that they know their voice matters, too.  Setting up a puppet YW leadership, for my money, sends the exact opposite message.

So tell me, am I reading too much into this? Are our YW leaders, in practice, made to play secondary roles?  Are we sending our girls the message that the only Church authorities from whom they can and should receive ‘sound counsel’ wear suits and ties?  How do we correct the problem (or is not a problem at all?)

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

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

AGE

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

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

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

EXPERIENCE

The last 9 apostles came from 3 different pools:

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

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

LENGTH OF SERVICE

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

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

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APOSTLE?

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

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

PREDICTIONS

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

TIER ONE

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

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

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

TIER TWO

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

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

TIER THREE

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

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

THE REST

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

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

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

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

Late one night in the middle of it all, I considered my roommate. He was a friend of mine and also the Elders Quorum President. It came to my mind to ask him for a blessing, using consecrated oil. I desperately wanted to be healed from this chain of horrible sicknesses, and the prayer in my heart went something like this: “Lord, I know when I get blessings for these things, they usually don’t work, and I might be selfish to ask. But could you just do me a solid this one time? People got healed constantly of much worse than this in the Scriptures. I’m not testing you, I think. I just want to get better.” My roommate then administered the blessing, and, much to my dismay and anger, it didn’t work.

Let me pause for a moment to say that I have a strong testimony in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’ve testified time and time again that Joseph Smith is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true and comes from God. So it’s moments like this that give me pause. I was a little irritated that the Lord wouldn’t just heal my illness. It had gone on too long, I had missed so many days of work, I had spent a lot of money on doctors and even antibiotics for the sinus infection, and I still wasn’t healed. I was having trouble sleeping, and, during the time I had the throat infection, I couldn’t eat solid food, so I was losing weight. It was all awful. I was doing everything I could in my life, I wasn’t guilty of any grievous sins, so why couldn’t the Lord just throw me a freakin’ bone and heal my illness just once? He healed all kinds of people in the Bible, why wouldn’t he heal me? What’s the point of Priesthood blessings if they don’t work?

In my feverish, angry mind, I went over some possibilities, in this order:

1. Maybe my roommate didn’t do it right? He performed both parts of the blessing, maybe I should have gotten two people to do it?
2. Maybe I simply don’t have the faith to be healed.
3. Maybe blessings are pointless rituals.
4. Maybe we don’t really have the Priesthood like we think we do.
5. Jesus healed many people over His ministry. What happened? Shouldn’t we be able to identify His church based on the miracles that occur?
6. Is this really His church?
7. Will the Universe really end someday in a Big Crunch and take us all with it? How can God stop it?

At this point, needless to say, I wasn’t thinking very clearly, so instead of trying to answer these questions that night, in my frenzied state, I decided to just take some Ny-Quil (sweet, precious Ny-Quil) and go to sleep.

Two weeks later, I woke up and went to work just like any other day. I brushed my teeth like any other day. I ate my morning Pop-Tart (brown sugar and cinnamon, which is the best flavor ever) just like any other day. As the dry pastry went down my throat I remembered for an instant that two weeks previously I couldn’t have eaten such a dry food because it would have been too painful, and it was at that moment that I realized I had been symptom-free for at least three days.

I offered up a prayer to the Lord and thanked Him for my health. With a more complete fullness of joy and gratitude than I’d had for months, I told Him that I was thankful that I felt better, thankful that I could go to work without being faint and queasy from lack of solid food, thankful that I could eat my dry little Pop-Tart for breakfast. I felt so good. In hindsight, let me say that it would have been very unusual for me to offer up a prayer such as this before I got sick, and that’s where the lesson for me was.

The purpose of my blessing at this time was to consecrate my illness unto the Lord. There are so many difficulties in this life, and for me, illness is a difficulty because I hate being sick. As a singer, and as a person who relies on food to stay not dead, I hate it when my throat hurts. I hate congestion, I hate having a fever, I hate aches and pains, I hate not getting a good night’s rest. But this time, asking for a blessing in the middle of my illness caused my thoughts to turn towards the Lord, even if they were confused and angry. It was like fasting, but instead of a fast from food it was a fast from health, and when I returned to full health, my heart was bursting with gratitude.

Am I denying that miraculous healings occur? Absolutely not. But God decided not to heal me during this illness, and that’s why I think that sometimes God gives men the Priesthood, the power to act in God’s name, in order to consecrate illness unto Him. To make our illness and affliction holy.

What if we looked at every hardship in this way? What if we saw every blessing of comfort, strength, and healing as a consecration of our hardships, that we might be open to the lessons God wishes to bestow upon us? Most importantly, and on the flip side of all of this, how do we avoid the strange but very possible temptation of taking too much glory in our affliction?

An evergreen subject here in the Bloggernacle, it seems, is the outing of “bad Bishops.”  I cannot begin to count the number of posts and comments I have read over the past few years in which people have complained about all forms of mistreatment at the hands of a Bishop.  These purported “bad Bishops” come in all forms, e.g., the ones who ask too many personal questions, the ones who don’t take time to get to know their members, the ones who visit too often, and the ones who don’t visit enough.  Boiled down to their essence, these complaints amount to a disappointment that the mere mortal serving in one’s local ward does not meet the member’s idealized version of what a Bishop should be.  When confronted with this dissonance, otherwise sensible bloggers across the ideological spectrum can whip themselves into a virtual lynch mob.

The purpose of this post is to bring a bit of balance to the discussion.  To be clear, I believe that real ecclesiastical abuse can and does occur  But I also wholeheartedly believe that truly “bad Bishops” are tiny minority.  By contrast, I think most Bishops are regular guys, trying their hardest to make the best of what everyone admits is just about the toughest calling around.  That has been my consistent observation throughout my 36 years as a proud wearer of the worker’s seal.  It’s time we give these guys their due.

Quantifying all of a Bishop’s responsibilities is much more than compiling the number of hours spent in the church building.  As an EQP, I attended hours upon hours of (at times, pointless) meetings.  Not only did my Bishop attend all of the same meetings, he went to dozens of others which I had the fortune of missing.

But even worse than the sheer boredom, Bishops carry a heavy emotional burden.  They are called upon to deal with every conceivable tragedy — ranging from flooded basements (which, in truth, constitute a “tragedy” only to the family under water) to job loss to death — that may befall any of the hundreds of families within their jurisdiction.  During my EQP service, my Bishops made time to visit patients wasting away from cancer in the hospital, struggling teenagers serving time in prison, and parents crying inconsolably in a nursery over the unexpected passing of a newborn.

In addition, they alone bear the burden of listening to their friends, family members and associates confess their most secret thoughts and desires.  Just imagine the toll that would take on your physical, emotional and spiritual well-being!  At the same time, Bishops, like any other father, must juggle the needs of their own families.   I’ve written elsewhere about my current Bishop, whose 4 year-old was killed in a sledding accident. Even while mourning, he kept about his ecclesiastical duties.

Perhaps the worst part is, no matter what is thrown at them, Bishops are expected to take it in stride, and come back ready for more the next day.  One Bishop I knew often joked, “other ward leaders aren’t allowed to have a bad Sunday; Bishops aren’t allowed to have a bad day, period.”

So, with all of that in mind, I think its high time to carve out some space to recognize the good work Bishops do.  Let me give you two short examples:

• My brother has been inactive for nearly two decades.  A few years ago, he married a wonderful woman who, on her initiative, joined the Church.  She and my family have been gently nudging my brother in this direction ever since.  While he has warmed to the Church, he hasn’t quite jumped back in.  A new Bishop was called in their ward the week my sister-in-law was baptized.  Since then, this young Bishop (who has 5 little kids of his own) has gone out of his way to befriend my brother and keep watch over his family.  While reactivation certainly may be an ulterior motive (it hasn’t happened yet), that does not change the fact that, for the first time, my brother feels loved and valued by a Priesthood leader.  It was been a wonderful experience due this Bishop’s selfless service.

• On a lighter note:  just this afternoon, my family’s brand new dog ran away for a few hours.  The Bishop, who lives relatively close, heard the news and drive by to see what was going on.  He was one his way out the door, but he volunteered his two oldest children to come help in the search.  (FYI — the stupid dog showed up on her own after we all spent hours combing the brush yelling her name)

These are just the first two that popped to mind — with a bit more reflection, I could rattle off dozens of instances in which a Bishop proved himself to be a truly inspired and inspiring leader.  At the same time, I would be hard pressed to come up with a personal “bad Bishop” experience.

Now it’s your turn.  Let’s hear your “good Bishop” stories.  I’ll bet you can come up with one much easier than you can a “bad Bishop” tale.

I’ve found that shorter posts get read more, so I’ll try to keep this brief.  I want to highlight some of the good things that happened originally, but if you want a more neutral view, check out my post on the Priesthood Ban, as well as the Special Features on the new DVD, Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.  I highly recommend the DVD, though the video and audio are not always as professional as we’d like.  I think it’s messages about race are honest, telling both positive and negative aspects of race relations within the LDS church.  It even interviews non-LDS leaders, such as Cecil Murray of the AME Church, and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Margaret Young, faculty member at BYU is one of the producers.  First let’s talk about some black members who held the priesthood in the early days of the church.

• “Black Pete” was baptizing as early as 1830 or 1831.
• Joseph T Ball – was baptized in the summer of 1832 by either Brigham Young or his brother Joseph Young who served a mission to Boston. Ball later went on mission with Wilford Woodruff, in New England, New Jersey. In 1837, Wilford Woodruff records in his journal that Ball was an Elder.  Ball was the Boston Branch president from October 1844 to March 1845 – the largest LDS congregation outside of the Nauvoo area. He was ordained a High Priest by William Smith (the first African American HP) and was sent to Nauvoo by Parley P. Pratt in the spring of 1845 to work on the temple.
• Elijah Abel – became the third known black convert to the LDS church, being baptized in 1832. He received the priesthood in 1836, and served 3 missions to Ohio, NY, and Canada. He helped build the Kirtland, Nauvoo, and Salt Lake Temples, received his washing and anointing in the Kirtland Temple
• Walker Lewis – joined the LDS church in the summer of 1843. He was probably baptized by Parley P Pratt in the fall of 1843. He was ordained and Elder by William Smith, Joseph’s younger brother. Lewis has a very interesting history. He was the son of slaves, and sued for his own freedom. His case is cited as the case which liberated slaves in 1783 in Massachusetts. Winning the court case resulted is his family being able to purchase property. He voted, was educated, and became upper class of black Massachusetts society. In 1826 he helped found Massachusetts General Colored Association which was the first civil rights abolitionist group in the world.
  
• In June 1844 Joseph Smith was killed. At this time, Joseph was running for president, and advocated abolishing slavery by 1850. Such a stance was quite unpopular in slave state Missouri. It is important to remember that Joseph prophesied in 1832 about the Civil War. Slavery and race relations were hot topics during this time period, and Joseph’s abolitionist views were probably just as responsible for his assassination, as his religious views.
• Enoch Abel, Elijah’s son received the priesthood, and was ordained an elder on Nov 27, 1900.
• Elijah Abel, Enoch Abel’s son, received the priesthood, and was ordained a priest in 1934.  In 1935, he was ordained an Elder.

So it’s not all bad news.  I have to wonder if Al Sharpton was aware that the first Civil Rights organization was founded by a black Mormon.  Would he have made that quip about Mitt Romney?

The only time I have seen Big Love is on a transatlantic flight back home to Salt Lake.  My initial thoughts were how amazing to have a church just like ours (almost) right in our back door and no one seems to know of it, as they keep it fairly discreet on the show.

From what I saw these Josephites seem to be very similar (i.e. Family Prayer, FHE, Family Council, even similar programs and auxiliaries).  They even seemed to act like Mormons I grew up with.

Since there was a split of Josephites from the Brighamites, wouldn’t most of these branches have similar temple ceremonies to ours?  If so shouldn’t they be the ones who are offended, not the Brighamites?

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creator and HBO assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons.

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The HBO series “Big Love” will show its version of temple rites belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The episode is scheduled to air Sunday, March 15.

Here

‘Big Love’s’ promise to show LDS temple rituals has many crying foul

Richard Cowan, a BYU professor of church history and doctrine, said:  ”It isn’t something that we want to keep away from everyone who isn’t a member of our faith, but rather something we would like to share with those who are personally and spiritually prepared to appreciate it.”

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding.  Last week some church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which (like HBO) is owned by Time Warner.

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

• Intercessory prayer for the sick only has a health benefit when the sick person knows about it.    Does prayer for the sick make them healthy?  If so, how does it work?  It is simply placebo effect (sounds a lot like being healed according to your faith) or is there more to it?
• Prayer and meditation actually change the brain’s development; those who frequently pray have much more developed frontal lobes.  Maybe we could replace TR questions with a simple brain scan.  I kid.
• Those who do not attend church have twice the risk of dying in the next 8 years as those who attend church weekly.  Risk levels vary based on church attendance.  (1992, Univ. of TX study).  Conclusion:  Go to church or die.
• Those who attend church live 2-3 years longer than those who do not.  (Univ. of Pittsburgh Medical Center).

So, why all these health benefits?

• Community centers.  Social benefits of church attendance or being in an extended family of believers.  Some congregations deliberately work together to promote health or weight loss.
• Friendships.  Individual relationships can provide the extra support needed to relieve stress, to feel understood, and to care for each other when ill.
• Physical sensations associated with houses of worship.  As a hospital can contribute to wellness (or illness if dirty or depressing), so can houses of worship transport one’s body by creating feelings of comfort and health.
• Belief that the body is a temple.  When you believe that your body is sacred or divine, you are not only more likely to take care of it, but you create health through your emotional state.
• Prayer’s impact on the brain.  Prayer and meditation can literally transport the body and create health.

So, while every church has health benefits, what are the unique components to Mormonism that lead to a healthier life?

• Focus on Families. Healthy family relationships that are supportive and free from abuse are probably the number one prolonger of life.
• Visiting/home teaching.  The sense that someone knows and cares that you exist is a powerful force for those who might otherwise succumb to despair or feel they are alone in illness.  Friendship is one of the great health benefits of religion.  Plus, you may get a rush of endorphins when your VTers just can’t get to you in the month, feeling like you have extra time in your schedule.
• Fasting.  Many religions and spiritual disciplines prize fasting for its health benefits in clearing the body of toxins.  Mormon fasting also has the benefit of altruism; those fasting feel good about donating the cost of the skipped meals to the poor.
• Lay clergy & participation expectations.  The more engaged you are in your religion, the more likely you are to reap health benefits from fellowship, service, and a sense of purpose or meaning.
• Prayer.  Prayer can literally help your body heal in transcending the temporal concerns that might plague you.  Deepest prayer accesses parts of the brain not normally used.
• Priesthood blessings.  Rituals associated with healing allow faith to release the benefits to the body, much like a placebo effect.  The better the ritual, the more convincing environment for faith (think suspension of disbelief).
• Temple attendance.  Boring?  Mystical?  Transcendent?  If for no other reason, the temple provides a health benefit through silent meditation (anything above a stage whisper is gauche) and complete isolation from outside distractions such as blackberries and whining kids.
• Tithing & church welfare. Especially in trying economic times, it’s a comfort to know that there is a fallback with church welfare for those full tithe payers.
• Word of Wisdom.  If for no other reason than eschewing alcohol and tobacco, the WoW would have health benefits for those who might otherwise O.D. on harmful substances.  In times of stress or illness, though, eliminating coffee and tea and eating meat sparingly can have additional health benefits.

What are the components to Mormonism that could lead to reduced health?  Are any of these unique to Mormonism?

• Stress.  This varies from person to person, but there seems to be a correlation between high levels of belief, perfectionism (expecations of perfection from oneself and others), and responsibility (aka stewardship).  If we could just get rid of that pesky middle one, all would be well.  IOW, “be ye therefore perfect” could land you six feet under.
• Two words:  Funeral potatoes.  It’s hard to imagine a more cholesterol laden food.  Oh, wait.  Honey butter.  Possibly fry sauce.  So-called Mormon foods are neither good for the body, nor for the belly.  If you want to develop a hefty pair of Relief Society arms, go to a ward potluck.
• Repression.  Repressing one’s feelings can lead to depression, ulcers, and can weaken the immune system and make one more prone to all kinds of illness.  Those who feel they have to put on a mask to fit in to Mormon culture are going to be less healthy, first emotionally, then physically.  There has to be room in the culture for a diverse array of people to feel comfortable being their authentic selves.  We literally kill people when we don’t accept them for who they are.  And last I checked, “Thou shalt not kill” was still one of the top ten no-nos.

So, is Mormonism more or less healthy than other faiths or about the same?  Are there times when someone should leave the church for health reasons?  How can we make church healthier for all?  Discuss.