I faced my own personal dilemma after my Mother died in March of 2007. While she and my Dad did not disown me for joining the LDS Church, they were not happy about my decision. My Mother, in particular, made sure that she voiced her opinion strongly from time to time. She told me once that she was afraid I would give all the money I received from her estate to THAT Church. And she made it quite clear she was not interested in being Baptized a Mormon after she died. Even though I tried to explain the idea of having the right to choose to accept the ordinances performed for our deceased, she was still adamantly against it.

So, I always wondered what I would do after they were gone. Would I respect their wishes and not do their Temple Work or do it anyway?

I decided to go ahead and do the work.

Here was my rationale:

1. It is better to do as we are asked to do to seek after our dead and perform vicarious work on their behalf.
2. If I didn’t do it, who would? Maybe my children or their children? Could I count on that? At this stage of their lives, the answer is no. So who would do it?
3. They will have the choice to accept or reject the ordinances. This is according to our theology. I assume that my parent’s eternal perspective has changed on the other side of the veil.
4. What is the worst that could happen? Either they yell at me on the other side for not respecting their wishes, provided they even know I did it. Or, none of this true and it doesn’t matter anyway.

But, what is the best that could happen? That their perspective has changed so much, they embrace the Gospel and thank me for doing their work. And that we will be together as a family forever.

Seemed to me it is worth the risk to have it turn out for the best.

Besides, they’ve yelled at me before, I can take it.

E. Scott

• The porn warning, usually reserved for Priesthood session, goes mainstream.  Sisters, this is what equality feels like!
• The analogy of trying to taste a grape (revelation) while eating a jalapeno (experiencing strong emotions like anger or passion) was interesting.  He was advocating stoicism, and it reminded me of that Greek philosophy.
• He suggested teachers should sometimes close the manual and teach through the spirit.  Were the correlation committee’s ears burning?

E. Bednar

• It was nice to hear some real life examples of a high ranking leader’s failed FHE attempts.  I particularly liked “he’s breathing my air.”  What parent hasn’t heard that sibling complaint?

Pres. Uchtdorf

• Lovely talk about how to become a disciple of Christ and the importance of love.
• Referred to “heavenly parents,” which reminded me of what my 11-year old son said the other morning when I mentioned the idea that we have a Heavenly Mother.  He said, “Well, I never heard of her!”

E. Oaks

• This talk might be best understood when compared to E. Oaks’ much-criticized interview on homosexuality.  He tempered several of the things that were uncomfortable to people about those statements, including:
  • rather than “mandating” what parents should do about wayward children, he said parents were entitled to their own revelation.
  • he said it might be extreme to shun wayward kids (and also extreme to ignore their behaviors)
  • he used cohabitation as an example, not homosexuality, indicating that chastity was the issue, not the specific way in which the law of chastity is broken (IOW, placing homosexual and heterosexual violations of the law of chastity on equal ground, where they theologically if not politically belong).

E. Hales

• This was an anti-atheism talk about Korihor.  E. Hales was confident that those who pray to know if God exists will believe that he does.
• I just saw the movie The Invention of Lying last night, which was somewhat atheist, but also totally awesome.

E. Callister

• Contrast of JS’s flaws with those of Peter in the NT was a nice idea, although none of JS’s actual flaws were discussed.

E. Kent Watson

• Temperance in all things.  He obviously stole my “Moderation in All Things” Post.  Seriously, dude.  Just ask next time.

E. Packer

• Did this talk while seated – is his health failing?

I also noticed a LOT of uses of the word “believe” in place of “know.”  This could be becoming a new trend, and if so, I applaud it!

What did you think?  Any thing you particularly liked or didn’t?  Discuss!

Christian sects have a Jewish problem.  Christ was a Jew who either fulfilled or rejected the faith in which he was raised.  Christianity shed basic tenets of Judaism including circumcision, dietary restrictions, the authority of the rabbis, and rituals that became impractical as the religion gained non-Jewish converts.  Early Christians invested in highlighting any Old Testament scripture that could plausibly be considered Messianic to bolster their claim that Jesus was divine.  Many early Christians sought to discredit the Jews to make it clear that despite their common roots, it was the parent religion that was in error, not its offspring.  A negative cycle of Jewish antagonism ensued which resulted in some of the worst atrocities of humanity, including the Inquisition and the Holocaust.

From its inception, Mormonism re-invented the relationship of Christianity to its Hebrew roots.  The Book of Mormon purports to be written by Hebraic people who openly worshiped Jesus Christ and knew directly about him, hundreds of years before his birth.  In proposing a pre-Christ Christology, Mormonism created an alternate Jewish history with a very recognizable and familiar Jesus Christ in the role of Messiah.  Even Isaiah is quoted at length to further solidify the notion that Isaiah was specifically talking about Jesus.

From the very beginning, Mormons have viewed themselves as an actual part of the House of Israel.  This belief in being part of “the chosen people” gives Mormons today and early Mormons a sense of purpose.  Some of the “Israel-centric” beliefs of Mormonism:

• Gathering.  We believe in the literal gathering of Israel.  Many Christian sects also believe in this, and it certainly prompted the creation of the state of Israel.  Nevertheless, a unique component to the beliefs of early Mormonism was that there would be a “new” Jerusalem in the United States.
• Lost Tribes.  The LDS have a belief that each member of the church is literally descended from (or adopted into) one of the Lost 10 Tribes.  As revealed through Patriarchal Blessings, most hail from the tribe of Ephraim, although commonly, native Americans and Polynesians tend to be assigned to Mannaseh, while those of actual Jewish descent have tribe assignments that reflect that.  (Incidentally, the Church of God in Christ, a black Pentacostal church formed in 1907 also has unique beliefs about the lost tribes, believing that England is Ephraim and the U.S. is the tribe of Mannaseh.)
• Utah’s geography.  When Saints arrived in Utah, the fact that there was a northbound freshwater lake flowing into a salt water lake was yet another sign that this was the right gathering place for the heirs of Israel, one with the same geography as the holy land.
• Wandering.  The House of Israel wandered for 40 years before inheriting their promised land, which was frankly a barren wasteland.  Sound familiar?  Early Mormons considered their westward trek to be another test of the House of Israel, wandering by faith toward an unknown destination, and finally arriving in their arid home.  Yet pioneer stories are retold in Mormonism much as stories of Moses and the Israelites were told within Judaism.

When apostasy struck in Kirtland (over the bank failure and economic crisis of 1837), elders were sent under Heber C. Kimball’s leadership to England to preach.  Within 8 months, there were two thousand converts to Mormonism, many of whom are ancestors of current members of the church.  Most of these new converts (through Patriarchal Blessings) were assigned to the tribe of Ephraim.  Is the claim that the British descend from the tribe of Ephraim credible?  Interestingly, the idea that the Celts were descended from the Hebrews (tribe of Ephraim) has many non-LDS and LDS proponents.  This idea became popular in England, especially during the Victorian age; critics considered it an attempt to justify colonialism.  The catalyst for its popularity was a book written in 1871 by Edward Hine.

A few reasons Celts are believed to descend from the tribe of Ephraim:

• similarities between Druidism and Phoenician religious worship combined with early Hebrew worship, see here.
• similaries in Celtic names and Hebrew names, see here.
• cultural similarities, see here.

And, a quick poll to see what tribe you were assigned personally.  (My guess is we’ll be over 95% Ephraim):

[poll id="43"]

So, what do you think?  Does the church’s view of the House of Israel strengthen our position and give the people a sense of purpose lacking in some other sects (but present in some other non-LDS sects as well)?  Was it an ingenious concept unique to Mormonism?

And do you believe in the accuracy of lineage as assigned in Patriarchal Blessings?  Why or why not?  Do you think that Celts are of Hebrew descent?

Discuss.

In Hinduism we read “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanthi” or “Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names.” I’m a big Joseph Campbell fan. He pointed out the goal of religion is to take us beyond the dualistic conception of reality, or “pairs of opposites,” to a stage of transcendence. I think we find this in Mormonism as well. The words of Lehi in 2nd Nephi 2:11:

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.

juxtaposed against Christ’s admonition in John 17:11, 21:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Ultimately, I wonder if there is a duality, each side of which is to be satisfied, maybe it is our mission in life to overcome it and become one?

2.  What does it mean to be “spiritual”? And an extension of this, do religions always help us be more “spiritual”? This is where I’d like to focus my thoughts. Joseph Campell’s message, research, and ideas can be summarized by the phrase “Follow your bliss.” Might I suggest this as a definition of “spirituality.” I am convinced that this could be science, mathematics, scholarship, religion, mythology, music, pottery, philosophy, languages, poetry, etc. etc. etc. From Campbell:

The way to find out about happiness is to keep your mind on those moments when you feel most happy, when you are really happy – not excited, not just thrilled, but deeply happy. This requires a little bit of self-analysis. What is it that makes you happy? Stay with it, no matter what people tell you. This is what is called following your bliss.[3]

As a case study, I’d like to compare Joseph Smith with Albert Einstein. Joseph Smith needs no explanation to this audience. He was a visionary, a mystic, a prophet, a charismatic leader, superstitious, an author (depending on your POV). But no matter how you spin it, he was a deeply “spiritual” man in the traditional sense of the word – that is, he was concerned about God and religion, afterlife, premortal life, ordinances, revelation, and authority.

The less traditional case is Albert Einstein. When most of us think of him, we might think of general, and special relativity, and more specifically E=mc^2. What we don’t think of, are his profound thoughts on nature, religion, God, oneness, etc. From Albert Einstein:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.[1]

It seems to me, from this statement (and many others he made) that he was “following his bliss” via his scientific endeavors. It would appear that Einstein was deeply “spiritual” in this sense. He was passionate about the subject that, for him, led him to a place of appreciation, love, respect, and kindness for all things living. A kind of transcendence above the need for “opposition in all things.” Note the following:

“A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty… The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. (Albert Einstein, 1954)”[2]

But lest you think that his convictions came from religion, or traditional “spirituality,” observe this statement:

“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)”[1]

My point, at the end of the day, is twofold: first, the seeming duality is, possibly, something we are to overcome, and second, that “spirituality” can be defined as following whatever means leads us toward this realization.  Religion, God, the Holy Ghost, prayer, and Mormonism is one way to achieve that end. I suggest there are as many other ways as there are human beings!

What say ye?

[1] http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-ei … eology.htm

[2] http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

[3] http://thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_campbell/

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!

I  lived in San Jose as  member of the Church for 21 years. In that time, we did not experience a Ward split.  Quite the contrary, we witnessed a shrinking Church population in the Santa Clara Valley.  In 1984, We did have the creation of a new San Jose 31st Spanish Branch, but that was really a split off of a dependant Branch attached to our Ward. I even think there was a 32nd unit created as well. But that was the end of it. Since that time, we have seen two stakes dissolved and as well as more than 15 wards and branches. It has been a combination of movement out of the high cost Silicon Valley as well as significant inactivity.

Our current Ward on the other hand, has been split three times since 2003 and we’ve moved from one stake, The Colorado Springs North Stake to the Colorado Springs East Stake. This has occurred for two reasons, Growth in new population and flight from the southern parts of the city to the northern part of the city and county.

Anyway, this past Sunday saw the creation of a new ward out of two existing large wards and the calling of two new Bishops. The best part was that it was a complete surprise to most of us.  In fact, I had no idea that it would happen this past week.

We all knew it was coming.  We just broke ground on a new chapel east of us and with the expected completion around the end of the year, we all expected the split at that point.  So, needless to say, many of us were in shock. One of my Home Teachers was called as the Bishop of the new ward and my team teacher in Gospel Doctrine was called as a counselor in our Ward.

So, how are you supposed to react to this type of thing?  During the meetings, we heard both joy and sadness.   Joy, because of the continued growth in the Church in our area, but sadness because many of our associations will be diminished.  Sure, we can still associate with the members of the new ward, but the fact is, we will see them much less than we did before.  Many of those in leadership positions are not in our Ward anymore and so the new Bishopric must staff up our Ward again. And quickly.

Another interesting aspect is that our Ward is in the forest and the population is pretty sparse.  We still have some growth areas, but they are very few.  The new ward is in an  area that is growing like crazy and so we expect another split in the next 2 to 4 years. We go from being one of the largest wards in the Stake to one of the smallest.

What has been your experience with Ward and Stake Splits? I realize it is more common in Utah, Arizona and Idaho.  But it is pretty new thing for me to have 3 splits in 6 years.

Independence Temple

The site of the Independence Temple, or Temple Lot, is located southwest of the intersection of Lexington Street and River Boulevard in Independence, Missouri. On site is the headquarters of the Church of Christ. East and south of the Temple Lot are the Community of Christ (former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) Temple and Auditorium, respectively. And southest of the Temple Lot on Walnut Street is the visitors’ center of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Also on Walnut are the Missouri Independence Mission office and the Independence Missouri Stake Center.

From the official founding of the Church in 1830 and throughout the next decade, Joseph Smith received several revelations that dealt with the location and building of a temple in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri. On 20 July 1831, the Lord said to Joseph, “Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse” (D&C 57:3).  Sidney Rigdon was commanded to consecrate and dedicate the spot (D&C 58:57).  Later, the Lord confirmed his command “that a house should be built unto me in the land of Zion, like unto the pattern which I have given you.”  The revelation further stated that the temple was to be built by “tithing and sacrifice.”  (D&C 97:10-12.) Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, T. Jeffery Cottle,  ”Window to the Past: A Photographic Panorama of Early Church History and the Doctrine and Covenants”

“On the third day of August, I proceeded to dedicate the spot for the Temple, a little west of Independence, and there were also present Sidney Rigdon, Edward Partridge, W. W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe and Newel Knight. The 87th Psalm was read. The scene was solemn and impressive.” D. H. C., Vol. 1:199.

While excavating for the foundation of a temple in 1929, the Church of Christ discovered the northeast and southeast cornerstone markers. The Great Depression set in shortly thereafter, and the temple was never built, but the stones are now on display in the Church’s visitors’ center room.

The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1834, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands. After they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph recorded another revelation rescinding the earlier commandment to build the Independence temple:

” Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings….  Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.  (D&C 124:49, 51)  http://en.fairmormon.org/Independence_temple_to_be_built_%22in_this_generation%22)

Prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a magnificent edifice-the New Jerusalem Temple-will be erected on the location of the Temple Lot.

Far West Temple

Announcement:  26 April 1838
Groundbreaking:  3 July 1837
Site Dedication:  4 July 1838 by Brigham Young

The Far West Temple was the second temple commenced but never constructed by the early Saints in Missouri.  The Far West Temple site is located in Caldwell County, which was created specifically as a settlement for the Saints, who had been driven out of Jackson County several years earlier in 1833.  Far West was the county seat. See D&C 115.

“Let the city, Far West, be a holy and consecrated land unto me; and it shall be called most holy, for the ground upon which thou standest is holy. Therefore, I command you to build a house unto me, for the gathering together of my saints, that they may worship me.”  (D&C 115:7-8)

The cornerstones were laid for the Far West Temple on July 4, 1838, in the following order: southeast by the Stake presidency, southwest by the Elder’s quorum presidency, northwest by the Bishop, and northeast by the Teacher’s quorum presidency. At the cornerstone laying for the Far West Temple, President Sidney Rigdon gave his famous Independence Day oration.  The speech’s passionate declarations fueled tension between the Saints and the citizens of Missouri, eventually culminating in the issuance of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs’ extermination order on October 27, 1838.

Despite the great risk of danger, five apostles-accompanied by several others-returned to the Far West Temple site just after midnight on the morning of April 26, 1839, in fulfillment of prophecy. A large stone was rolled on the southeast cornerstone as recommencement of work on the foundation, and the apostles left to prepare for their overseas missions.

The Far West Temple site was reacquired by the LDS Church in 1909 under the direction of Joseph F. Smith.

Adam-ondi-Ahman Temple

Site Dedication:  October 1838 by Brigham Young

The beautiful site of Adam-ondi-Ahman lies at a bend in the Grand River in northern Missouri, about 70 miles north of Kansas City. On the highest elevation of Spring Hill, 124 feet above Grand River, a temple block was dedicated. No cornerstones were laid or temple constructed, however, as just days later, the Saints were ordered to leave the settlement. The Church has since acquired the site and much of the surrounding area, which is leased to local farmers.

The Adam-ondi-Ahman Temple was the third temple planned but never constructed by the early Saints in Missouri. The name Adam-ondi-Ahman is an English rendition of a phrase from the pure Adamic language, which could possibly mean “Adam in the presence of God.”The valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman was revealed to Joseph Smith to be the place where Adam blessed his posterity after being driven from the Garden of Eden.The first settlers of Adam-ondi-Ahman arrived in February 1838. By November 1838, the Saints had been delivered an ultimatum to leave Daviess County within 10 days.

On June 11, 1838, Joseph Smith gave Spring Hill the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman.  Some evidence suggests that a public square-not a temple block-was dedicated in October 1838 at Adam-ondi-Ahman.

Adam-ondi-Ahman is the site of a future grand council where Jesus Christ will meet with His stewards of all dispensations and receive back the keys of the kingdom in preparation for His Second Coming. Only those called to the meeting will know of its occurence.

Samoa Temple

Announcement:  15 October 1977
Suspended:  2 April 1980

Steady growth of Church membership in the Pacific islands prompted the 1977 First Presidency announcement of a regional temple to serve the 50,000 saints scattered across the islands of Samoa, Tonga, French Polynesia (Tahiti), and Fiji. At the time, members had to cross the Pacific Ocean for hundreds of miles to attend services in the Hamilton New Zealand Temple. The Tahitian saints, who lived the farthest from the temple, devotedly traveled 2,500 miles to receive temple blessings.

A groundbreaking ceremony was anticipated to take place in late 1978 with completion of the temple in 1980.

The specific site chosen for the Samoa Temple was in Malaeimi Valley on Tutila Island near the village of Pago Pago, American Samoa, adjacent to a newly completed stake center. Its location on a bus-serviced road from the international airport made it easily accessible to the many members who would be traveling to the temple by air. The picturesque setting at the base of a lush natural hill-visible from the ocean-is covered with beautiful foliage and palms trees.

Church architect Emil B. Fetzer said, “We expect [the temple] to be one of the finest, if not the finest, building on the island as far as workmanship, design and materials are concerned.” Plans called for a 20,000-square-foot temple, which would house a baptistry, a 100-seat ordinance room, four sealing rooms, and a circular Celestial Room featuring stained glass (visible from the front of the temple) and crowned by a round roof and single spire. The grounds would be extensively landscaped and feature a water fountain and reflecting pool.

On April 2, 1980, a landmark announcement by the First Presidency of plans for seven new temples for seven different nations were accompanied by a location and design change for the Samoa Temple.  At a press conference, President Spencer W. Kimball said, “The Pago Pago location was selected on the basis of convenience for air travelers from other islands. Since there will be two other temples in the South Pacific islands, the Samoa site was altered to be more convenient to Samoan members. Its design will also conform to those included in this announcement.”  With additional announcements for Nuku’alofa, Tonga and Papeete, Tahiti, the location of the Samoa Temple was moved from Pago Pago, American Samoa, to Apia, Samoa. The design and size were altered to conform to a new 12,500-square-foot standard design. The location change placed the temple on the island where the vast majority of Samoan members reside.

Hartford Connecticut Temple

Announcement:  3 October 1992
Suspended:  30 September 1995

During the Saturday afternoon session of General Conference on October 3, 1992, President Gordon B. Hinckley, First Counselor in the First Presidency, announced plans for a regional temple to be built in Hartford, Connecticut, to serve members in the New York and New England areas of the United States. Plans were also announced for the Hong Kong China Temple to serve a large region of Southeastern Asia and a second temple for Utah County to relieve the overburdened Provo Utah Temple-later identified as the Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple.

Three years after the announcement, plans for the Hartford Connecticut Temple were replaced. President Gordon B. Hinckley explained in the priesthood session of General Conference, “After working for years to acquire a suitable site in the Hartford area, during which time the Church has grown appreciably in areas to the north and south, we have determined that we will not at this time build a temple in the immediate area of Hartford.” Plans were then announced for temples in Boston, Massachusetts, and White Plains, New York. “In other words,” he said, “there will be two [temples] to serve the needs of the people where originally it was planned that one would do. We have sites in both of these new locations.”

To the members of Hartford who had joyed in the announcement of this temple, Pres. Hinckley said, “We apologize to our faithful Saints in the Hartford area. We know you will be disappointed in this announcement. You know that we, and your local officers, have spent countless hours searching for a suitable location that would handle the needs of the Saints in New York and New England. While we deeply regret disappointing the people in the Hartford area, we are satisfied that we have been led to the present decision, and that temples will be located in such areas that our Saints in the Hartford area will not have to drive unreasonable distances.”

Harrison New York Temple

Announcement:  30 September 1995
Suspended:  Mid-2000s, following the dedication of the Manhattan New York Temple (2004)

On September 30, 1995, during the priesthood session of General Conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced that plans for a regional temple in Hartford, Connecticut, which would serve the New York and New England areas of the United States, had been replaced with plans for two temples for that region on sites in Boston, Massachusetts, and White Plains, New York-later designated Harrison, New York. “In other words,” said Pres. Hinckley, “there will be two [temples] to serve the needs of the people where originally it was planned that one would do.”

On March 8, 1996, the Church purchased a beautifully wooded 24-acre site for the temple at the highly accessible intersection of Interstate 287 and Hutchinson River Parkway. The location of the site in Harrison was reflected in a name change made during a major renaming of many of the Church’s temples to a uniform guideline in October 1999, making the White Plains New York Temple the Harrison New York Temple.

The residents of Harrison and the Town Planning Board were very much opposed to the Church building its Temple in their town. As a result, the Church scaled back plans for 89,000 Sq foot building to a 56,000 Sq Ft. in an effort to appease certain elements in the town. They reduced the height of the steeple from 159 ft to 115 ft. and finally to 44 feet. They applied for a variance from the town, which had a 30 ft limit. That variance was denied. The Church elected to pursue a lawsuit, accusing the town of infringing on freedom of religion and assembly.

The spirit of compromise filled members of the Harrison Town Board, who unanimously voted on April 30, 2002, to approve a proposed settlement with the Church, when it became clear that the town would likely lose in court and spend millions of dollars if legal action were pursued. The agreement resulted in numerous additional concessions by the Church including reducing the building from 56,000 square feet to 28,400 square feet, dropping the number of seats from 200 to 100, lowering the height of the building from 44.7 feet to 34 feet and steeple from 115 feet to 105 feet, trimming the number of parking spaces from 198 to 135, paying for any damage to Kenilworth Road caused by construction, and refraining from building anything else on the property for 15 years after the temple opens.

In August 2002, the Church announced its plans to build the Manhattan New York Temple inside an existing Church-owned building. Though the seven-year dispute in Harrison contributed to the decision, significant membership growth in the city was emphasized, as explained by Stake President Brent Belnap: “Growth in the five boroughs has been so great, that the logic of having a temple within easy access to public transportation in the heart of the city makes far more eminent sense.”

By 2006, the Harrison New York Temple was removed from the Church’s official list of announced temples. The decision to build a temple on this site would constitute a new announcement.

Paris France Temple

Proposed:  4 June 1998 by Gordon B. Hinckley

During a European tour to dedicate the Preston England Temple, President Gordon B. Hinckley met with about 2,400 members from two Paris stakes and three outlying districts. In his remarks, he noted, “When I came here after the war, there were so few members of the Church, and now there are 30,000 of you.”  He continued, “I don’t want to build up your hopes, but the time has come when you deserve to have a temple among you, and we’ll look for a place to build one.  I don’t know how long it will take to find a suitable site. I invite every one of you, my brethren and sisters, to plead with the Lord individually in your prayers to lead us to a property in this great city, or its environs, where we can build a house of the Lord so that you won’t have to travel five hours to Frankfurt or six hours to Zollikofen.  Please unite your prayers with ours, and the time will come, and I hope that it will be quick in coming, when we can construct somewhere in this area a house of the Lord, a sacred temple, into which you can go and do that work which is found only in the temples of the Lord.”

In May 2004, President Hinckley returned to Paris, shortly after the dedication of the Copenhagen Denmark Temple.  He met with French members on May 28 in a hotel convention hall on the property of Euro Disney.  Remarking on the upcoming dedication of the Manhattan New York Temple, President Hinckley expressed, “I wish I could announce that we could have a temple here, but we do not have a suitable place yet, in my judgment, to build it. And so, we will continue to look. I don’t know when it will be built, but I am confident that we will have a temple for the French-speaking people of the Church sometime in the future.”  Continuing he said, “You are worthy of the richest blessings of the Church. You are worthy of every blessing which this Church has to offer.  And there is no blessing greater than the blessing of the house of the Lord. And so, my brothers and sisters, I ask you to be patient for a time. I know it is a long way to Frankfurt where you go.  I hope that you will continue to go there, but sometime in the future a beautiful house of the Lord will grace this land.”

As the April 2006 General Conference approached, hopes rose that the Paris France Temple would be announced when French media disclosed the Church’s interest in purchasing a huge tract of land outside Versailles-about one-third of the small city of Villepreux-reportedly for a temple. A church spokesman confirmed the Church was working with the property owners, but he said that the use of the property had not been determined and that temple locations were announced by the First Presidency. The summer before, President Hinckley had been considering a parcel of land in Saint-Cloud, a suburb of Paris, but attention had now turned to the Villepreux property. Moulin Rouge owners, the Clerico family, were also the owners of the land. Of the three interested parties-an Arab emirate, a Russian, and the Mormons-the mayor of Villepreux said he preferred the Mormons for two reasons: morality and quality of investment. Never has there been any concern about public order with church members, he said.3 No temple announcement was made, however, and in the end, the Church did not succeed in acquiring the property.

Southwest Salt Lake Valley Temple

Proposed:  1 October 2005 by Gordon B. Hinckley

During the opening session of the October 2005 General Conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced the construction of a temple in South Jordan, Utah, later named the Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple.  With this announcement, President Hinckley indicated that another temple site had been acquired in the southwest part of the Salt Lake Valley, which would be announced later once membership growth in the valley required it.

Last time, I did a lengthy post on Nepotism in the Church, which you can find here.  This is an update for this year so far.  As you can see, the list is pretty short.  I haven’t had a chance to go back and do more research on the appointments other than General Authorities, Temple Presidents and Mission Presidents.  Biographical information is hard to come by for Area Authorities and Stake Presidents.

One thing is clear; the church is getting much more diverse in appointments for Mission Presidents and Temple Presidents.  While there are still a number of Mission P residents coming out of Utah and other church strongholds, local/regional callings are on the rise.

As far as Temple Presidents, with the large number of Temples in operations, local Temple Presidents are now the norm.  Except for the “big” Temples in various areas, Utah, Hawaii, and Washington D.C where emeritus General Authorities or released 2nd Quorum of 70 members are called.

And while you don’t see a significant number of relatives being called to the General Authorities, long time Church employees or other “well-connected” members are getting the nod.  But this has probably always been true as President Hinckley was a long time Church employee prior to his call to the General Authorities.

One of the great things is the ability to communicate with a wide range of people well in excess of our normal circles of friends, relatives and acquaintances.  For members of the Church, it is chance to exchange ideas and thoughts with a wide range of church members, ex-members and non-members.

The so-called “Bloggernacle,” has in many ways turned into the Church’s unofficial complaint department. The Church itself does not have a complaint department, either official or unofficial.  In fact, many would say that not only does it not accept complaints; it discourages them and some leaders  complain about complainers.

President Gordon B. Hinckley has said: “I am not asking that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction. Strength comes of repentance. Wise is the man who can acknowledge mistakes pointed out by others and change his course.

“What I am suggesting is that each of us turn from the negativism that so permeates our society and look for the remarkable good among those with whom we associate, that we speak of one another’s virtues more than we speak of one another’s faults.” (Ensign, Apr. 1986, pp. 3-4.)

Another  aspect of blogging is the ability to be anonymous, if one chooses.  Under the cloak of anonymity, one can write practically anything one wants with less worry that someone will discover who he or she really is.  And many avail themselves of that opportunity.

In fact, we have some people who post here under different screen names and actually argue with themselves on some topics. I can’t figure that one out.  Shades of Sybil, I guess.

Some of the more common complains one reads about the Church are:

1.       The Church is boring, out of touch and too old fashion

2.       The Church is too restrictive and discriminates against people

3.       The Church is too conservative on some social issues and should be more in tune with societal reality

4.       The Church is phony

5.       The Church is rich and will not spend its money or tell anyone how much it has

6.       The Church is lying about its history, won’t apologize for perceived wrongdoing nor admit its past errors.

7.       The Church and its leaders refuse to listen to its members, especially me! (Meaning the person complaining).

The list is endless.  In many cases, these complaints come from upset or disaffected members, or people who have left the Church or in the process of leaving.  It comes from folks who often hide behind their screen name. In some cases, for good reasons.

All of us can find things about the Church, its leaders and its practices that we don’t like.  But, one of things I notice is that the complainers often take over every Church-themed blog, as they have to point out why the blogger is wrong, the Church is wrong and they are right.  Their hardheartedness, resentfulness and bitterness is obvious and painful to read.

Mormon Matters strives to be open to all points of view on Mormon topics and we do not censor comments like some sites. But really, can’t we have a reasonable conversation about topics without nasty complaining about the Church and its leaders.  We can disagree and we can do it respectfully.

let’s give it a try.

Today, February 3, 2009 is the 1-year anniversary of the calling of President Thomas S. Monson as the 16th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  What has happened in the Church during that period?  Has there been any major changes, events, revelations?

 LDS Church News has a specific page devoted to the first year of President Monson’s leadership as President of the Church. For that reason, I invite you to look through it as I will not repeat what was written. Also, the Salt Lake Tribune has an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack entitled, “LDS leader’s first year: Observers say Monson barely budged from the Hinckley plan“

In summary, President Monson dedicated 5 temples, announced 10 new Temples, presided over two General Conferences, and spoke in an number of other meetings. But, no new policies were established, no major revelations were received and the growth of the Church is steady.

However, the one of the most controversial things the Church as ever gotten involved with occurred on his watch; the fight in California over Proposition 8.  To some, it was a stunning encroachment on civil liberties and a wrong-headed involvement of the Church in political affairs. To others, it was nothing more than the Church defending traditional marriage and engaging in a coalition with other like-minded organizations.  The fact the Church seemed better organized, its people more engaged with time and money is beside the point.

I personally will not forget the address President Monson gave on Sunday Morning during April Conference. His first official address (he spoke in the Priesthood session) as President. While on one hand it was vintage Monson, there was, for me, a detectable difference. He was now the Lord’s Prophet on the earth.  And he can wiggle his ears too! 

I have books written by and about the Prophets and General Authorities, Histories of the Church, Church Units and the building of the Kingdom in various geographies. Books about Temples and Temple Building.  Books which attempt to explain Gospel doctrine and principles, even untrue doctrine and books which are critical of the Church.  I have various versions and translations of the Scriptures, books that comment or explain scripture and many, many more. One of my friends once commented, “Why do you have all these books, you are never going to read them all.” Which is turning out to be true, but I have referred to many of them at one time or another. I like the feel of a real book in my hand so I often do research online and then read from the actual book itself.

Sometimes it seems that I spend a lot of time in my books and not as much time in the Scriptures.

President Harold B Lee said this:

“We have been prone in the last while to be more concerned about reading commentaries about the scriptures. But there is nothing quite so vital as taking those scriptures in our hands and reading them. [T]here is something that’s more electric, more spiritual, something that is more deeply meaningful when I read from the scriptures themselves. There is nothing so vital, so necessary today, as to ingrain in your children a love for the scriptures themselves.” (Sunday School General Conference, 6 October 1972)

I have often thought about this and wonder if we have way too many books about the Church and Church topics. That those thousands of books distract us from the books we should be reading on a frequent basis-the Scriptures.

Ironically, General Authorities and Church Scholars are major contributors to the plethora of books on the market. Even though the market for LDS books is rather small, I bet it is still big business.

And really, after the tenth or eleventh biography of Joseph Smith is written, do we really need yet another one? Just how much more Book of Mormon geography theories and explanation can we stand?

Now, I have gotten a great deal of insight from reading some of these books and gotten ideas which did truly enlighten me. But could I have gotten that with an earnest reading of the Scriptures under the influence of the Holy Ghost?

What do you think?

I decided to bag the post I had planned because this issue or at least the reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 in California seems to have some longer range consequences. As a California native who lived the great majority of my life there (until I moved to Colorado 5 years ago), I am interested.

1. There has been a strong and sometimes violent reaction to the passing on Proposition 8 by the opponents similar to, but not on the same scale as those during the civil rights struggles. Not riots, but strong protests, mainly at religious institutions and mostly at Mormon Temple sites, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Diego. I have not heard nor seen any reports on widespread protests at LDS chapels on Sunday. ( CORRECTION: here’s one in Seattle) There was also a large protest at Saddleback Church (Pastor Rick Warren’s Church) in Lake Forest, Ca. Anti-8 folks are angry and frustrated that they did not get what they wanted and are now demonstrating it toward those they feel are responsible for their loss.

The fact is that while these folks certainly had no love for the Mormon Church prior to the vote, or were at least ambivalent toward it, they were probably like most people in their knowledge of the Church.  So their reaction to the well coordinated efforts by its members at the urging of its leaders is probably one of sheer frustration rather than any vendetta that they might personally hold against the Church itself. So, it was, up until now.

It has been pointed out that the Church was one of many involved in the campaign, but again, the most organized of the bunch, it appears.  Mormons only represent 2 percent of Californians, so, if all voted for Prop 8, could only be blamed for 2% of the 52% majority. Of course, as we know, not all agreed with the pro 8 position and many church members are too young to vote.

The irony here is that had prop 8 lost, you would not see the kind of protests from the frustrated pro 8 folks.

2.       There is also an irony involved as you watch the videos that Andrew referenced in his post as the protesters shout “Stop the Hate.”  There are hateful references to the Church, Christians in general and others who supported Prop 8 because of their belief in traditional marriage but not unkind feelings toward gay people.

Certainly, there are those in religious organizations that “hate” gay people or their lifestyle, but certainly the prop. 8 campaign did not appear to be “hate-filled” but only addressed the issue itself.  There were no untoward ads that mocked gay people or spoke of extreme dire consequences of the defeat of prop 8 against a backdrop of sinister music and visuals.  I suppose some might argue that some references to the potential acceptance and teaching of the Gay lifestyle in schools and the influence on children might be construed that way, but from my point of view, it was handled respectfully. The anti 8 campaign seemed to be quite the opposite especially at the end. Granted, I don’t live in California any longer so I can’t say that I saw all the ads, but I did see a number of them on YouTube and on the California newspaper websites, which I look at every day.

So, who needs to “Stop the Hate?”

3.       The final irony for me is the fact that the polling data seems to indicate that African Americans and Hispanics were the deciding voters who pushed Prop 8 over the top to passage. So, apparently, they did not see this as a civil rights issue. According to the Sacramento Bee, 70% of those identifying their race as Black voted for the proposition while 53% Hispanic/Latino against 49% White and Asian. In spite of the talk to the contrary, it appears to be a morality/societal question, not a question of civil rights.

So, I hope we can all get passed this episode and come to some place where all sides can be satisfied. Perhaps that is not possible, I hope it is. The trend seems to indicate that in a few years, voters will be willing to allow gay marriage, if the demographics are correct as older, more conservative voters are eliminated from the voting rolls and younger, more accepting voters replace them.   Of course, it is harder to overturn a constitutional amendment than it is to pass one.  And, we don’t know what the courts will do.

So, stand by, this is not over.

One says: “Are you Sister Smith?”

He goes on, “We’re from the Church. It’s been a few years since someone contacted you and we are just here to check with you.”

She says, rather emphatically, “I thought I told you people that I want nothing to do with YOUR Church! We want to be left alone.”

“Sister Smith, we want to respect your decision, but it is necessary for us to check with you every once in a while to make sure you still live here and that no contact is still your desire. Since you seem to want no contact with the Church, have you ever considered having your name removed from the records of the Church?”

“And have you excommunicate me? I haven’t done anything wrong!”

“Actually, the procedure has changed and all you need to do is write a letter that states you wish to be removed from the records and your request will be granted.” No other Church action is taken.”

“Well, I could never do that; my family in Utah would be devastated!”

And so it goes.

I have been yelled at, cursed at, threatened with the police, etc. just for showing up at a member’s door and asking about them. And yet, most do not want their name removed from the Church rolls.

Either, they have family concerns, are just too lazy to write the letter, or don’t care enough to do anything about their Church membership other than request no contact from the Church.

And so, every once in a while someone in the ward mistakenly contacts them and that person gets yelled at or told in no uncertain terms that their contact is unwelcomed. Sometimes the “no contact” members are nice about it, but often they are very hostile and nasty. We sometimes send letters to their house as a form of contact – one way contact in order to count them as home or visiting teaching. In my current ward, we have quite a list of “do not contacts.”

So, it has always intrigued me as to why these folks seem unable to completely divorce themselves from the Church. Even though they want no contact. They sometimes cite family concerns but doesn’t their family know they are not even the least bit active in the Church? Maybe the family hopes the person will one day change their mind.

What are your experiences with this situation? Maybe, you are one of those that I describe in this post. Please comment.

One of things that bothered me when I joined the church and started studying the New Testament was the way the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes were depicted.  They are portrayed as bad guys in the Gospels being scornful and hostile to the Savior.  But upon examination and study, is that really the case? I say no.

For example, just from the Gospel of Matthew are these comments about the Pharisees:

Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. But ^awhen Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; (Matthew 12:14 – 15)

^aAnd when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet. (Matthew 21:45 – 46)

But woe unto you, ^ascribes and ^bPharisees, ^chypocrites!  for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for ye ^adevour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater ^bdamnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell ^athan yourselves. Woe unto you, ye ^ablind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? (Matthew 23:13 – 17)

Who were the Pharisees?

The Pharisees or Perusim, (separatists) constituted the largest Jewish party following the return from the Babylonian captivity. They strongly embraced the concept of separatism from the non-Jewish people because of their superiority as God’s chosen people.  The Pharisees were the “Puritans” of their time (Talmage, “Jesus the Christ, “pg. 66).  They strongly held to the observance of the Oral Law as well as the Torah (the written law).  “They attempted to direct their activities to the masses whom they sought to influence according to the traditional doctrines.” (Cecil Roth, The Concise Jewish Encyclopedia [New York City: New American Library, 1980], pg. 424)

The basic tenets of their beliefs were:

• Pre-existence of Spirits
• The reality of reward and punishment
• The necessity for individual self-denial
• The immortality of the soul
• Resurrection of the dead

These Jewish beliefs were mostly abandoned as Christianity embraced them as fundamental tenets.  “The Pharisee tradition became the norm for later [current] Rabbinic Judaism.” (Roth, pg. 424)

Why Did They Keep Questioning the Savior?

Throughout the Gospels and particularly in the gospel of John, the Pharisees, Scribes and Jews are portrayed as continually questioning the Savior on His Teachings. (See Matt. 12:38-45; 15:1-11: John 8:52-59: 10:24-38, for examples).  In many cases, these Jews were comparing the Savior’s teachings with those of own revered Rabbi’s teachings and the traditions.  They were less interested in the Savior’s answer than in convincing themselves that they were followers of the most learned Rabbi. In fact, Jesus specifically chastises them keeping the traditions in violations of the Commandments of God. (John 15:1-11).

There is a tradition among Jews of debate about doctrine and practice of the Law. The Talmud is volumes of commentary on the Law written in a format of discussion, disagreement and argument. If you would like to see it in English, click here. So, for me, it is not at all that unusual to read this kind of discourse in the Gospel between Jews. So while many Christians would condemn the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes for their lack of respect, I see it as very normal. While it is clear that those in conversation do not receive a spiritual witness that Jesus is the Christ, they are paying Him respect by even having the discussion.

Another key point to make is that, at that time, there were many Rabbis and other learned men that were promoted as the promised Messiah. But, needless to say none of them were the true Savior of the Jews. Because of the continuous enslavement and occupation of the Land of Israel, “It comes, therefore, as no surprise to find that all Israel in the days of Jesus were looking for a temporal Deliverer, for a Messiah born in the lineage of Abraham and David, who, sitting on the throne of their greatest king, would free them from personal and national bondage and vanquish their enemies….

“Such a Deliverer, such a Messiah, as they envisioned, would not only restore the kingdom to Israel, but would also return the dispersed of that great nation to their original inheritance in their promised Canaan. All Israel again would find residence on the soil that once was theirs.” (McConkie, Mortal Messiah, 1:43)

In reality, however, the Messiah’s kingdom was to be eternal and over the whole earth including both Jews and Gentles, with freedom from the enslavement of sin and deliverance to life eternal.

According to information in Wikipedia under “Pharisee,” “Some scholars believe that those passages of the New Testament that are most hostile to the Pharisees were written sometime after the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 ^[5], at a time when it had become clear that most Jews did not consider Jesus to be the messiah, see also Rejection of Jesus. At this time Christians sought most new converts from among the gentiles, and needed to explain why converts should listen to them rather than the Jews, concerning the Hebrew Bible. They thus would have presented a story of Jesus that was more sympathetic to Romans than to Jews. It was only after 70AD that Phariseeism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism.”

So, in my mind, I see the Pharisees as the unfortunate victims of their traditions, their teachings and “their blindness [that] came by looking beyond the mark” (Jacob 4:14) rather than the combatants as portrayed in the Gospels.

As the tragedy and outrage of the September 11, 2001 attacks unfolded, we heard news reports about the tens of thousands of people that potentially lost their lives in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and on the airplanes. Estimates as high as 140,000 people came and went to the WTC buildings each day and so, high causalities were a real possibility.

As it turned out, while there were more than 17,500 people in the WTC buildings at the time of the attacks, in the end about 2,800 people were killed in the WTC buildings including those on the planes that crashed into them.

Among the stories of tragedy, harrowing rescues and escapes were many stories of people who were supposed to be in those buildings at the time of the attacks but, for one reason or another, were not.

You can find them here, here and here. The stories included one by my Brother-in-Law, who worked for Merrill-Lynch at that time and was supposed to be in one of the towers that day for training.

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; …..” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2

As I heard these stories, it got me thinking, “Who are the fortunate ones?  The ones who died, or the ones who were spared?”

“And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed.” Doctrine and Covenants Section 42:48

President Kimball in his book, Faith Precedes the Miracle, devoted an entire chapter to the question, “Death: Tragedy or Destiny?”

He says this:

“Why should the young mother die of cancer and leave her eight children motherless? Why did not the Lord heal her?…

Did God take the life of the young mother or prompt the child to toddle into the canal or guide the other child into the path of the oncoming car?…

Did the Lord cause the man to suffer a heart attack? Was the death of the missionary untimely? Answer, if you can. I cannot, for though I know God has a major role in our lives, I do not know how much he causes to happen and how much he merely permits. Whatever the answer to this question, there is another I feel sure about.

Could the Lord have prevented these tragedies? The answer is, Yes. The Lord is omnipotent, with all power to control our lives, save us pain, prevent all accidents, drive all planes and cars, feed us, protect us, save us from labor, effort, sickness, even from death, if He will. But He will not. (Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle, Chapter 8, excerpted)

So, the question remains in my mind:

“Are we better off dead?”

Sort of an unusual way of asking the question, but nevertheless, it is appropriate.  We know that when we die, we go to the Spirit World (See Alma chapter 40:11-12), the righteous to a “state of happiness” called paradise and the wicked to a state of “outer darkness” commonly referred to as Hell or “Spirit Prison” where there “shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. (Alma 40:13)

So, another fundamental question is: Who are the “righteous” and who are the “wicked?” I asked this of my Gospel Doctrine class last Sunday and everyone had a hard time giving an answer. My first thought is the righteous are the valiant members of the Church, who have lived the gospel as best they can and they, for sure will be in a state of paradise.

“As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.  And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality; And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name.  All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  I beheld that they were filled with joy and gladness, and were rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand. “(Doctrine and Covenants Section 138:11 – 15)

And the rest?

“While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful;  And there he preached to them the everlasting gospel, the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance.  But unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, his voice was not raised; Neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, nor look upon his face.  Where these were, darkness reigned, but among the righteous there was peace; ” (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 138:18 – 22)

Reading this, I would say that those who were good people in this life, but did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel will have that chance and be “promoted” if you will, to paradise. The same would apply to members who, might not have been as strong as they should have been. The unrepentant wicked will stay that way and be judged at the final judgment.

Elder James E. Talmage said this:

“…many other great truths not known before, have been declared to the people, and one of the greatest is that to hell there is an exit as well as an entrance. Hell is no place to which a vindictive judge sends prisoners to suffer and to be punished principally for his glory: But it is a place prepared for the teaching, the disciplining of those who failed to learn here upon the earth what they should have learned…No man will be kept in hell longer than is necessary to bring him to a fitness for something better. When he reaches that stage the prison doors will open and there will be rejoicing among the hosts who welcome him into a better state.” (Conference Report, Apr. 1930, p. 97 as taken from Latter-day Commentary on the Book of Mormon compiled by K. Douglas Bassett, p. 342-3)

So, I go back to my original question, When our lives are “spared” by God to remain in this earthly life, are we “better off” than those who are taken from this earth?  We know that this is the “time to prepare to meet God.” Are those who are taken prepared or not?  Or, do they, as we teach, continue to grown in knowledge and truth? Eternal progression.

What are your thoughts?

Here’s the other version of the story I dug up after breaking into secret Illuminati archives and comparing translations with those hidden in the depths of the Vatican library. I decoded the rest using a Knights Templar cipher wheel obtained from a street vendor selling souvenirs outside the US Capitol building. The final scripture becoming visible under the moonlight reflected off the roof of the chapel at Rennes-le-Château.

Genesis Chapter 22

God: Abraham, I want you to sacrifice your son as a burnt offering. I know he’s your only son, and it was really a huge deal for you when Isaac was born, but I command this. Take him up to the mountain, slice his throat and burn his body.

Abraham: Uhhhhhhh…. Are you sure Lord? That doesn’t sound quite right.

God: Yes. I am sure. Go do it. This is a commandment.

Abraham takes Isaac. They go up to the mountain. Abraham builds an altar and piles kindling around it.

Isaac: Ok dad, where’s the lamb? You said we were coming up here to make burnt offerings to the Lord.

Abraham: Sorry little buddy, the Lord said you are the sacrifice.

Isaac: What! That doesn’t sound right dad. I have faith in you though and trust you to make the right decision.

Abraham binds Isaac and places him on the altar. He raises his knife. At last minute he drops the knife and begins to weep. An angel of the Lord appears.

Angel: Abraham, why did you disobey the commandment to slay your son?

Abraham: I’m sorry. It’s just not right. I won’t do it. I accept any consequences of this decision, but I will not obey this commandment and do what I know is wrong.

God: Abraham, thou good and faithful servant. Because you were willing to risk disobedience, and because you were faithful in doing what is right, you will be blessed. From this day forth, I will be your God. You and your posterity will be my people. I want a people who think through things and make good decisions. I don’t want a people who will do evil, even if they believe I command it.

Wouldn’t that have made a cool scripture? Maybe it really happened like that, and we have an edited version from corrupt scribes. It wouldn’t be the first time it happened. Discuss…

• Excommunicated: LDS Church boots creator of ‘Men on a Mission’ calendar
• Local gay Mormon faces excommunication
• LDS author facing excommunication

Note: The links are all active

Where do these headlines come from? The Church or the individuals themselves?

There was a time (and perhaps still is) when church discipline was a private matter, between the individual and Church Leaders. Church Discipline, for those who are unfamiliar is explained here in an article by Elder M. Russell Ballard. It is not my intention to debate Church Discipline in this post, though I suspect some comments will be directed toward that.

Let’s take the case of the recent church discipline against the “Shirtless Missionary Calendar” maker, Chad Hardy. It’s not likely that the Church made this public, but Hardy himself in an effort to gain publicity and drum up more business. His sales statistics and website address feature prominently as part of the articles written about him.

In other cases, the press was designed to tell the disciplined person’s “side of the story” even though the Church would not reveal its side in any case. Thus was the case of the so-called “September Six.” Maybe even in an attempt to pressure the church not to proceed with the action.

I found that in some past issues of the “Improvement Era” names and reasons for church action were recorded, but certainly that has not been Church practice for many, many years. On a rare occasion, it will be announced in Church, which I only remember happening once in my 26 years in the Church. The Ward Clerk was excommunicated for a second time for adultery and the Bishop announced it to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Most of the time, only those who need to know about a particular member’s status know unless he/she reveals it.

What I don’t understand from the Hardy case was a statement he made in the article.

”I really feel sorry for my family,” Hardy said. ”They are going to be so sad. But I feel empowered and free and I feel like I no longer have to apologize for anything.”

Excommunication is a step whereby a member is relieved of all responsibilities of Church membership including paying tithing, wearing of the garment (if endowed) and active participation in Church meetings. But much is lost as well. For example, a priesthood holder is no longer able to exercise his Priesthood and there is the loss of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion, as if never baptized.

The purpose of excommunication is to assist the member in repenting of their sin and feeling the “godly sorrow” necessary. The loss of church membership should be felt as a significant part of that sorrow associated with repentance process. It is to help focus them and is not meant to “free” someone from the things that they “know” and have become responsible for as a member of the Church.

From what I gathered in the article, Chad was no longer active in the Church and may have had “other issues.” But, in the end, I think he will be held accountable for what knowledge he did have and will not be “free” to do whatever he wants in this life. I hope he re-considers his statements and is someday welcomed back in full fellowship if he desires it.

Please welcome first time guest blogger Denae.

I did not marry my husband with the hope that he would convert, I do not encourage missionaries to come over to our house, and I do not think I have less of a marriage, or less of an eternal future because of my marriage. What I wish people would understand is we are not the only church that believes in our own religiosity, we are not the only ones that have the right to convert other people. If I have the right to try and convert my husband, than he has the right to try and convert me! If I want him to respect my ability to chose my religion that I have to respect his ability to chose his religion.

I can’t begin to tell you how many people have said “So when are you going to start bringing your husband to church?” I have a 30 second answer, a 2 minute answer, and a 5 minute answer, depending on the person and the situation. So far most people are pretty good about it, but… it is still annoying. Mormons have such a reputation about trying to convert people that my husband is afraid to spend any time around my church friends or to go to any church activities, for fear that he will be descended upon like a storm of locusts, everyone being super nice to him in hopes of trying to convert him. I hate that because I want people to accept him exactly like he is. He is not a lesser person because he is not LDS.

I have a bit of a controversial belief. Everything that I have been taught of the nature of God and my own personal experience with God, does not lead me to believe in an exclusionary God. I can’t believe that God would really split up a family after death because they didn’t perform a specific ceremony because they weren’t all worshiping under the religious name. That doesn’t sound like a nice God; that sounds downright mean. So I don’t believe that my husband (and any potential future children) will be separated at death. Maybe in the hereafter we’ll have to do some extra work, maybe take some extra classes, something like that, but ultimately we’ll still be together.

Meanwhile in addition to the frequent conversations about trying to convert my husband, I have to deal with the constant references about having a lesser marriage. Even though I don’t believe I have a lesser marriage, it is still not fun to listen to it. I have even heard references to it being a commandment to marry another LDS person.

So I don’t know if I have a question per se but just what your thoughts are. I am completely open to disagreement on my current belief about what will happen to combined families not married in the temple in the hereafter. Also, if anyone has comments about how families are treated where one spouse is not LDS, or maybe this would even apply if the spouse is not active, or (fill in the blank). I look forward to the comments, thanks!

I recently started drinking plain, black coffee at work. Not only do I feel better, IT’S FREE! The company I work for provides it in the break rooms. I love being thrifty.

My work is tedious, boring and stressful. I’d love to give up work! My traditional culture, big family (sahm wife and 6 kids) keep demanding to sleep under a roof and eat 3 meals a day. Big families are very expensive.

*I* slept just fine in a dirt hole rolled up in a piece of tent canvas back when I was in the Army. They’re such babies! *rolls eyes* DW doesn’t find that budget-cutting idea amusing…

I knew for sure that soda pop was killing my health. I knew this beyond a shadow of a doubt and with all the fiber in my bowels. It made me sick!

I changed my delivery method to plain, natural, black coffee – wholesome beans right from God’s garden going into my cup, with a little roasting and brewing between.

The early members of the Church didn’t make much fuss about the Word of Wisdom. It wasn’t enforced with any rigor until the 1920’s, nearly 75 years after the revelation was given to Joseph. Our pioneer ancestors fueled their journey across the plains with coffee and tea. They enjoyed beer and wine on occasion. Some of these items were listed in pioneer supply inventories. I’d have been in good company with the likes of Brother Joseph, Brother Brigham and many others of great prominence. The WoW has been flexible, and emphasis has changed at times over our ~175 year history.

Did I make a smart, rational choice based on my direct health experience and my attempt to pick the best option? Coffee was the lesser of evils for me. That makes it good, right? Am I being prudent and adapting a spiritual concept of health for my situation?

I am not making a perfect choice. I am making a better choice. I’m making the leap of faith that closer to health is better. Perhaps I am blinded and just want to justify my actions.

Do I need to be called to repentance and go back to the righteous and “approved” caffeine delivery beverages? Health is not what the WoW is about, it’s about obedience.

Let me have it! Don’t hold back.

Here’s the kicker: He wants *ME* to perform the wedding ceremony. I was touched. It’s a big honor.

They are not members of the LDS Church. They are not religious. I do not even think my friend believes in God. He is an artist and musician, and he is pretty far out in his view of the world. He sometimes calls me “Elder” because it is amusing, and he remembers 20 years ago when I went on a mission. It is my endearing nickname. I used to play music with him, but made a big life change and left to serve a mission. It was a radical and foreign concept to him. It always struck him as cool though, in a hardcore devout kind of way. At least that is what he tells me.

So he tells me “You’re the only one I know who can pull this off. You’re the only clergy I could tolerate to officiate the ceremony. You *have* to be there or it just won’t work.” Yes, he thinks of me as church clergy. I teach in the LDS Church. I’ve baptized, confirmed, blessed and even ordained people. That makes me clergy right?

I did some poking around and realized that the LDS Church is not going to authorize me to marry two non-members, even though I’m an ordained Elder in the Church.

So I needed to come up with plan B.

I joined the Universal Life Church and requested ordination as a minister. They have only two items in their creed: Promote religious freedom, and Do that which is right. Neither of those conflict with my LDS beliefs in any way. They authorize their ministers to perform weddings and any other ordinances people want.

I’m now a “priest” in both Churches. Am I an LDS apostate?

Or am I doing a practical, Christ-like service by reaching out to a friend at the level of faith they are ready to embrace? My friend wants to do something good, and he wants it to be a religious ceremony. He is reaching out toward faith in the best way he can.

When I officiate, I’m going to be wearing a medieval priest cassock and probably a stole with a Celtic cross, Taoist symbol of good luck and the 4 Led Zeppelin rock band symbols embroidered on it. How cool is that???!!!

“Marriage for all eternity is being threatened. Many male members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are married to multiple women in heaven. Even today, prominent LDS general authorities are also polygamists in heaven. I believe in the importance of eternal marriage; therefore I would like to propose a “Celestial Marriage Amendment” that would define marriage in heaven as “one man married to one woman.” This is a moral issue that certainly threatens to undermine the sanctity of heavenly unions…”

I for one would be a bit more comfortable if this matter was cleared up. Will it take a revelation to do it? After learning about the fervor with which Spencer W. Kimball sought revelation on the priesthood issue, I often wonder if we have just left polygamy alone, rather than actively seeking guidance. Normally I would agree that we don’t need to worry about these types of things right now, but we are still practicing it.There must be at least some choice involved, however, because I’ve heard people may be sealed “for time” in temples. Is that correct?

I always tell my wife that if she died young, I would find an LDS woman (or of another faith) who had lost her husband and we would get married for time only. Sure, people fall in love again, but I think I would be betraying my respect and honor for her by adding on a second. What do you think?

This is the last installment of Our Foundation Stories, I promise!

As a child, I heard the story of the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods this way: In May of 1829 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying in the woods about baptism and had John the Baptist appear to them, put his hands on their heads, and recite the following, currently found in D & C Section 13: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins…”

Some time later, Joseph and Oliver again were in the woods and John, James, and Peter appeared to them, put their hands on Joseph’s and Oliver’s heads, and restored the Melchizedek priesthood.

Certain details were fuzzy here, but I got the gist. Joseph and Oliver were ordained like every other 12 year old boy I knew, even dressing up for the occasion, as Church art depicted. (Can you imagine an imageless Church manual? We would have to use our own imaginations!)

I later majored in history at BYU, where I learned to distinguish primary from secondary sources, and to assign relative weights of reliability to certain primary accounts over others based on many factors like whether the person writing was an eyewitness to the events described, length of time between the event and its recording, potential motives of the writers, etc.

When I turned this rudimentary training on the sources describing the stories above, I found the records to be vague and contradictory, more so than in the case of Joseph’s different accounts of the First Vision. This is partly because Joseph had a co-participant, Oliver Cowdery, who left his own account of these experiences, and that many other early Church members wrote as if they did not hear of these ordinations until 1834 or 1835. Cowdery’s account is especially interesting, as he mentions only one occasion of priesthood bestowal, only one priesthood, only one angel visiting, and declines to name the angel as either John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. (Note that the Church has added an “s” to “holy angel(s) in the link to the Oliver Cowdery account above to soften the ambiguity, under the guise of correcting “spelling, grammar, and punctuation”. Compare to the wording here)

Parley Pratt, John Corrill, Lyman Wight, and David Whitmer each leave accounts which make it appear that the Melchizedek or Higher Priesthood was first revealed to the church in a June 1831 conference, and was unknown before that time.

So where did our contemporary story of two separate priesthood bestowals come from? It appears that the line upon line development of church doctrine made clear after the organization of the church that two priesthoods, arranged hierarchically, were necessary for Church governance. Revelations included in the Book of Commandments (later renamed The Doctrine and Covenants) were edited later to include references to both priesthood bestowals. (Editing revelations was a common practice in the early years of the Church.)

B.H. Roberts of the Seventy even attempted to fix a timespan for the second bestowal of the priesthood to the period between the May 15 first bestowal and the end of June 1829, based on some conjectures flowing from assumptions based on the edited revelations (e.g. Section 27). This is likely where our sense of certitude on the subject comes from.

My questions are these:

Since I, and probably many others, were raised in the Church with the very definite, specific chronology for two separate priesthood bestowals, and this appears (although La Mar Petersen, Bill Hartley, and Larry Porter have attempted to rescue the Roberts chronology) to be highly questionable given the testimony of the sources, what do we do with this story?

Does the restoration of priesthood/authority need to have been a literal laying on of hands by resurrected beings in the same order in which 12 year old boys and 18 year old men experience it in the contemporary Church?

Does imagining that things happened this way make it easier for LDSaints to serve confidently in the Church, fulfilling their callings, learning to love God and their neighbor?

Could God have restored priesthood by an act of will, divine fiat?

Why do we rely on these stories as told and recounted in our secondary literature?

In all seriousness, let me share with you a recent experience that has had a profound impact on the way I view the concept of Priesthood, and that has convinced me, once and for all, that I am not the sole Priesthood bearer in my family.  I believe it’s high time we recognized the service rendered by faithful LDS women as more than simply the fulfillment of a Relief Society assignment, or being a good visiting teacher.  Such efforts constitute the righteous exercise of Priesthood power.

Over the past year or so, some of our closest friends — Lori (not her real name) and her husband — have been struggling with marital difficulties. Since we live close (and are in the same ward), Lori and my wife talk often. My wife, the daughter of a school psychiatrist, has listened to Lori and, where appropriate, offered advice. The situation, however, continued to deteriorate.

One Sunday afternoon as my family was sitting down to dinner, the phone rang. I just happened to be the one who picked it up and said, “hello.” All I heard in response was a woman’s heavy sobbing, through which I could barely discern fumbling attempts to speak. The caller was hyperventilating, so it took her a few tries to get out my name. “Sh-Shawn, can you come over here now?” It was Lori, and it was obvious she was in distress. So, I did what anyone else would do — I told my wife I would be home soon, then immediately got in the car and drove over. When I arrived, I found Lori and her children huddled together on the living room couch, all in hysterics. I soon discovered that only minutes before I got there (and only seconds before the phone call), Lori and her husband had had a particularly nasty fight that resulted in his packing up, walking out, and saying he was gone for good.

Once inside the house, it was clear that I was I out of my depth. I’m an employment lawyer, not a family counselor. Faced with a room full of crying women and girls, all of whom were suffering real emotional trauma, I had absolutely no idea what to do but give hugs and offer some mewling words of encouragement. Then my instincts kicked in — I called my wife and told her get over there on the double. Of course, she agreed to be there as soon as she could get someone to stay with our daughters.

Immediately after I hung up the phone with her, I called our Bishop. He was there in a matter of minutes (just enough time to put on a tie and drive over, I’ll bet). He’s a great Bishop and had been working with Lori, in particular, for some time on trying to keep her family together through a very rough patch. To my great surprise, however, his reaction to the situation was not much different than mine. He, too, had that “deer in the headlights” look on this face and, while his words of comfort were a bit more eloquent than mine, they didn’ t seem to be having much more impact.

Then my wife walked in and took over. Within seconds, the Bishop and I were relegated to (our rightful place at) the other end of the couch. She gave the kids a squeeze, wrapped Lori in her arms, and proceeded to offer some very wise words based on her ongoing involvement with the situation. I’m not exaggerating when I say that, over the course of the next hour, the mood noticeably changed from despair to hope. My wife identified potential lights at the end of the family’s very dark tunnel, and helped them to find the physical, spiritual and emotional strength to press forward. Before we left, Lori asked that the Bishop and I give her children blessings. We did, while my wife sat silent with her arms neatly folded.  We were stuck.

As I have pondered this experience over the past several months, it has become clear to me that my wife did much more that afternoon than simply offer sisterly counsel to a friend. She was exercising her Preisthood to serve someone desperately in need.   Using that power and her accompanying gift of discernment, she was able to able help a family in ways that I and our ecclesiastical leader simply could not.

Before going any further, let me say that I don’t have the stomach for yet another long-winded (and assuredly acrimonious) debate about whether, and to what extent, LDS women hold the Priesthood, and whether they should be included in ecclesiastical leadership positions.  Such posts are legion on the Bloggernacle, and I have nothing new to add on the subject here.  My opinion, for better or worse, is that by virtue of their temple endowment, women receive at least some modicum of the power we refer to as Priesthood.  It is that Priesthood that my wife and other faithful LDS women exercise on a daily basis through their service.

When we talk about Priesthood, we often place far too much emphasis on the administration of ordinances, such as the blessing of babies, the laying on of hands, etc.  Clearly in today’s Church, women do not “exercise Priesthood” by participating such rituals.  However, I believe the Priesthood to be a much broader, and at the same time a much simpler, concept.  If Priesthood is the power to act in God’s name here on this Earth, as we teach, it cannot be limited to ordinances — God certainly has much more in store for us than going around laying hands on one another.   Instead, as our leaders have instructed, Priesthood power truly manifests itself in the rendering of what Spencer W. Kimball referred to as “selfless service.”   If this is the case, then endowed women have equal claim to Priesthood as their ordained male counterparts.   Godly service is godly service, no matter the sex of the provider.

We often speak of the “compassionate service” offered by women in the Church as something other than the Priesthood, i.e., as an auxiliary of, or support to, the Priesthood held by men. This distinction does not make sense to me.  Why does an afternoon spent by Deacons digging up Old Lady Smith’s weeds qualify as “Priesthood service,” while delivering meals to new mothers does not?  Similarly, for many men, and most certainly for up-and-coming Aaronic Priesthood holders, the very ideal of Priesthood service is honorably serving a full-time mission.  Adding up all of the baptisms, confirmations, blessings and grave dedications I performed, only a fraction of my two years in Guatemala were spent actually administering Priesthood ordinances.  By contrast, the vast majority of my time was spent serving others in all manner of ways, including formal service projects (i.e., hours spent at the hospital), informal service to those in need (i.e., visiting a sick member or investigator), and simply trying to share the Gospel with others, which arguably is the highest act of service possible.  But for the infrequent ordinances, women missionaries render these exact same types of service in exactly the same way; there is no gender differentiation.   If that is the case, why should my mission be deemed ”Priesthood service” status, if the work of valiant female missionaries is relegated to some lesser status?

All of this has opened me up to a new understanding of what it means to hold and use the Priesthood.  To believe that women can be Priesthood bearers, I need not accept the notion that women should be Bishops (that’s a different can of worms).  Rather, I recognize the efforts my wife makes as something more than mere acts of thoughtfulness.  I see them for what they are:  the proper exercise of her Priesthood power.  Put another way, the fact that my wife did not actually lay hands on Lori’s children does not mean that she is without Priesthood.  Rather, working together on an equal plane –with me administering a blessing and her comforting the family — we made a great team (a quorum of two?), using our individual abilities to achieve a common goal.   And isn’t that the ideal for an eternal family (think back to the words used in the Endowment and sealing ceremonies)?

So, with that in mind, let me proudly echo the sentiment I hear expressed in testimony meeting exclusively by wives and mothers:  I am very thankful to be married to a worthy Priesthood holder.