Ammonihah’s Arrogance

From Connor’s Conundrums some sobering thoughts:

The experience of the city Ammonihah in the Book of Mormon provides an interesting case study regarding the arrogance that patriotic pride produces. Having apostatized from the Nephite faith and embraced the teachings of Nehor, the people violently rejected a prophet of God sent to call them to repentance. In their wickedness, the citizens had apparently grown so proud of their metropolis that
they scoffed in disbelief at the suggestion that it might be removed from its position of prestige and power, and ultimately destroyed.

Mormons and the Cross

From the Salt Lake Tribune, Michael Reed argues for inclusion on the Christian cross in modern Mormonism:

It’s no accident that Mormon steeples, temples and necks are free of Christian crosses.

LDS leaders long have said the cross, so ubiquitous among traditional Christians, symbolizes Jesus’ death, while Mormons worship the risen Christ. Some Latter-day Saints go even farther, condemning the cross as some kind of pagan or satanic symbol.

Now a historian at California State University in Sacramento claims in a just-completed master’s thesis that Mormon aversion to the cross is a relatively recent development in LDS history, prompted in part by anti-Catholic sentiments.

“It first started at the grass-roots level around the turn of the 20th century, ” Michael Reed argues in the thesis, “The Development of the LDS Church’s Attitude Toward the Cross.”

“It later became institutionalized during the 1950s under the direction of LDS Prophet David O. McKay,” Reed writes.

Before that, Reed says, many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints used and promoted the revered Christian symbol as a potent expression of personal and collective faith.

That’s a welcome conclusion, says Mormon scholar Bob Rees of southern California.

Reed’s research explains Mormons’ “ambiguous, confused relationship to the cross,” says Rees, a former LDS bishop. “At one time there was an informal acceptance of it as an overt symbol, but in the 20th century its use has been discouraged by church leaders. Wanting to maintain its distinctive identity among Christian churches, the church essentially rejected outward manifestations of the cross, one of the most compelling symbols in all of Christendom – even though there’s nothing doctrinally, theologically or scripturally that keeps us from embracing it.” …

Reed argues that: In pioneer Utah, crosses of various styles were common in jewelry, church art and funeral arrangements. Amelia Folsom Young, one of Brigham Young’s wives, sported a cross necklace, and a floral cross was prominent on the caskets of Daniel H. Wells, Young’s first counselor in the First Presidency, and John Taylor, the third LDS president. Architects designed the Assembly Hall on Temple Square in Salt Lake City as well as LDS tabernacles in Vernal and Loa, Utah, on a “cruciform” plan.

But the clearest example was Charles Nibley’s 1916 proposal to place a giant cross on top of Ensign Peak as a way to honor the Mormon pioneers. Karl A. Sheid, Salt Lake City’s commissioner of public affairs and finance, emphatically supported the move, saying: “That the ‘Mormon’ Church, which has so frequently and so unjustly been accused of not being a Christian church at all, should volunteer to place Christianity’s most sacred emblem on Ensign peak – that place so hallowed by the memory of pioneer days — is to my mind an event of first importance: One that should be and doubtless will be heralded to the four quarters of the globe, to the ultimate benefit of this commonwealth.” …

Reed concludes by saying: “If someone is wearing a cross, we get very uncomfortable, yet we believe the scars of his crucifixion is how Christ identified himself in ancient America, ancient Israel and to Joseph Smith. If Christ so openly displayed the marks of the cross, shouldn’t we be more open to its symbolic possibilities?”

Embracing the Law of Consecration

Thoughts of Larry Barkdull on his blog:

The Law of Consecration is the very core of the gospel, and it permeates every gospel principle. This highest law defines a Zion person. Although programs of consecration have come and gone, the template of consecration remains the same. Consequently, consecration is current; it is now. Only by living this law can we hope to obtain an inheritance in the celestial kingdom.

What is Consecration?

To consecrate something is to sanctify, purify and set it apart for a sacred use, to make it holy, to dedicate it solemnly to a special service, or to give it religious sanction as with an oath or a vow. When we make the covenant of consecration, we agree to consecrate our lives, including everything that we have, will have, are or will be. According to President Kimball, we consecrate “our time, talents and means to care for those in need-whether spiritually or temporally-and in building the Lord’s kingdom.”

Hugh Nibley asks, “And how much is one able to give? Exactly as much as the Lord has given him-all that which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he will bless you.” Lived properly, the covenant of consecration paves the way and lays the foundation for the establishment for Zion in a righteous person’s life.

Five privileges of membership you probably weren’t aware of

You can just pay 10% from your surplus, and pay it directly and anonymously to Salt Lake, and still be classed as a full tithe payer

There is a strong case that tithing is supposed to be paid from the 10% left over after meeting basic essential needs:

JST Genesis 14:39: “Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.” (see Alma 13:15)

1 Corinthians 16:2: “On the first day of the week each of you should set aside whatever he can afford”

D&C 119:4: “And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord. [5] Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.”

You can pay your tithing electronically directly to the Church headquarters, and they will only tell your Bishop that you paid something, but not how much. To get the instructions and forms email the Church at RE-FRD-Electronic-Donations@LDSChurch.org

I will leave the final word to the First Presidency:

“the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.” (19 March 1970 letter to Stake, Mission, and local leaders.)

See a previous post with links to several articles on this subject .

You can have an altar in your home and pray in the way you do in the temple

J. Stapley gives an overview of this subject in his article on the By Common Consent blog. It is also worth seeing see D. Michael Quinn’s article on the subject in BYU Studies 19:1.

To summarise the early Presidents and Apostles of the Church taught that “The family altar should be in every man’s house; he is the patriarch of the family, and everything should be done under his direction. He should offer prayer; his wife and children also should offer prayer in turn around the family altar.” (George Teasdale General Conference, 5 October 5, 1903.)

Absent from the article is this description of the family altar given by Brigham Young: “The altar is 2 1/2 feet long X 2 1/2 feet high x one foot wide rising from a platform about 8 or 9 inches high and extending out on all sides about a foot forming a convenient place to kneel upon. The top of the altar and the platform for kneeling upon are covered with cushions of scarlet damask cloth; the sides of the upright part or body of the altar are covered with white linen.” (Manuscript History of Brigham Young, p.

From the following quote it is clear that this home altar was intended for similar prayers as those in the temple, for “President Young said the family altar was the same as an altar in the prayer circle. It is for parents and children to join hands over the altar and pray.” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 25 April 25 1858.)

Although such prayer circles for quorums were discontinued by the Church in 1978, it still remains the “true order of prayer”, and these teachings of Joseph Smith illustrate that it was intended to be used by individuals and families:

“He spoke of delivering the Keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them with their husbands, and the Saints whose integrity has been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask and receive an answer.” (Teachings, p. 226)

“we did not know how to pray and have our prayers answered. But when I and my husband had our endowments … Joseph Smith presiding, he taught us the order of prayer.” (Words of Joseph Smith, p. 54)

It seems to me that this would be conducted differently with unendowed children, and would not be done outside your own family.

A wife can give her husband or children blessings

The Prophet Joseph tells us there is no harm in it, that anyone – whether they have priesthood or not – do not sin in blessing others:

“Respecting females administering for the healing of the sick, he further remarked, there could be no evil in it, if God gave His sanction by healing; that there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on and praying for the sick than in wetting the face with water; it is no sin for anybody to administer that has faith, or if the sick have faith to be healed by their administrations.”  (History of the Church 4:602-4.)

The First Presidency under John Taylor even gave an official statement on the subject:

“It is the privilege of all faithful women and lay members of the Church, who believe in Christ, to administer to all the sick or afflicted in their respective families, either by the laying on of hands, or by the anointing with oil in the name of the Lord: but they should administer in these sacred ordinances, not by virtue and authority of the priesthood, but by virtue of their faith in Christ, and the promises made to believers: and thus they should do in all their ministrations.” (First Presidency, Circular Letter, 6 October 1880.)

Some Mormon Feminist Housewives have discussed this subject, and there is a more in depth article in Sunstone(PDF), and an overview in another blog.

Most people I know who do this do it discretely, as they are afraid of others not understanding.  But what a blessing it could be to jointly administer to your children.

You can give your own children their Patriarchal Blessings

If the Father of the family is not a Patriarch then who is?

“Every father, after he has received his patriarchal blessing, is a patriarch to his own family; which blessings will be just as legal as those conferred by any patriarch of the Church: in fact it is his right; and a patriarch in blessing his children, can only bless as his mouthpiece.” (The Gospel Kingdom, p. 146)

Joseph Fielding Smith sustained this teaching too.  The only difference between the blessing given by the father and a Stake Patriarch, is that the latter’s are held on record in the Church offices.

If you only attend just Sacrament once a month you are still classed as active

At least thats what Armand Maus tells me.  However, according to another source, it seems that officially those who attend church at least once a quarter are considered “active”.  But you may have a hard time convincing your Bishop of that, especially at Temple recommend time.

Early LDS congregations only administered the Sacrament once a month.  Members may have had it at home with their family or in other meetings more often.

I bring this up – not because I am encouraging you to skip meetings – as I know there are some great distances from their local branches, and others whose work involves travel a lot, or are full time carers for loved ones.

Intelligences – What are they?

From J. Stapley’s article “Tripartite existentialism“:

If we were to survey American Church members, I imagine that a large segment, perhaps the majority, would indicate subscription to what I call the tripartite model of Mormon ontology. This concept is that in our most primordial existence we were sentient “intelligences” which were then transformed into spirits, typically by some form of spirit birth. Subsequently we receive a physical body destined for the resurrection. As far as I can tell, the popularity of this idea is a case study of grass roots doctrinal evolution.

Joseph Smith revealed the book of Abraham, which was published in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons. In what we now have canonized as Abraham 3, the Lord describes a cosmological hierarchy of celestial bodies and then analogizes them to individual existence. He states “[I]f there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”

I am unaware of any documented reaction to this bit, but the Prophet emphasized the idea in the last months of his life in his famous “King Follett Sermon” and his June 16 “Sermon in the Grove.” In one of the best documented sections of the KFD (see here for a textual history, introduction and link to sources) Joseph Smith defiantly preached: “God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. He could not create himself–Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent principle–is a spirit from age to age & no creation about it[.]“[1]

Saving ourselves and our children

From the article “To Help your Struggling Children: Swim for Shore” by Colleen C. Harrison, and original published at Meridian Magazine.

Years ago I heard a compelling story. I can’t find any reference to it in Church magazines, so I assume I heard it at a stake conference or a BYU Education Week. Wherever I heard it, the Spirit brought it home to my heart with such power that its message has never left me. It became the guiding vision of my most recent and most successful parenting experiences. I only wish I had heard it twenty years earlier. Today, I am grateful to have the opportunity to honor it as the overarching metaphor for my testimony concerning parenting.

A Great Adventure Suddenly Turned Dangerous

The speaker began his story describing a family vacation and the high adventure of spending a day on a white-water river rafting trip. Most of the course of the swift river was smooth and invigorating, surrounded as it was by exquisite mountain scenery. There would be some stretches of rapids, though, and the anticipation of riding through them was a big part of the thrill of the day.

As the raft full of excited adventurers was carried along on the current, it became obvious that the streambed beneath was growing rockier. Just below the surface, boulders could be seen causing the current to pass over them in smooth, unbroken humps of icy water. The river guide was doing his best to avoid these submerged obstacles, but suddenly the edge of the raft was caught in the upward rise of water over a boulder and the raft bucked and nearly flipped.

In a split second, the fun of running the river turned to terror for this father and one of his children—a daughter—as they were thrown out of the raft and into the snow melt temperature of the river. Even though they were wearing life jackets, the deep current around the rocks pulled them under, and the shock of the cold water was immediate. Dazed and confused, they began to desperately flail around, grabbing at each other.

All their frantic efforts only served to submerge both of them over and over. Gasping for breath, the father realized he and his child were being swept away from the raft and ever closer to the actual rapids. Suddenly, terror set in as he realized they could die in this incident. “O God,” he cried out. “Please let me save my child. Please!”

Into his mind came the most irrational and counterintuitive thought: “Turn and swim for shore.” He couldn’t believe that thought could be from God! How could God tell him to turn away from his child and swim for his own life? He knew he could probably make it on his own, but he couldn’t just abandon her to be pulled under and swept away, possibly to her death! In a growing panic, he kept trying to get some hold on her, but with no lasting success. He could feel his strength waning. In a short time, he knew he wouldn’t have the strength to even save himself. They would both be lost. “Swim for shore.” The words came to his mind again, and finally a third time. “ Swim for shore! ” He could no longer deny the clarity and the finality in the words. They were a command.

Feeling like a failure, feeling he had lost his daughter, feeling he was saving himself while leaving her to drown, he turned sobbing and swam diagonally across the powerful current toward the shoreline. He couldn’t believe how strong the current was. Every stroke felt like his last. He felt like he weighed a thousand pounds and even when his feet finally found some footing, he couldn’t keep his balance and had to keep swimming.

Finally, after what seemed like forever, he found himself in water shallow and slow enough that he could touch the bottom and get his feet under him. Only then, when he tried to stand up, did he realize that what he had thought was the terrible grasp of the swift current pulling him backwards was actually the weight of his daughter who had grabbed hold of a dangling strap on the back of his life jacket. Thus, in obeying the impressions of the Spirit to swim for shore, he had not only saved himself, but his child as well.

Revising Joseph Smith

From an article at “By Common Consent” by Natalie B.

Ever since my calling in Young Women’s ended a year ago, I have enjoyed the lessons on Joseph Smith that we are studying in Relief Society and Priesthood.  I appreciate this attempt to understand our founding prophet’s life within a historical context, and, until recently, I felt touched and awed at hearing the prophet’s own recorded voice.  What changed?  Well, it suddenly dawned on me that I wasn’t actually hearing his voice.

Although I knew that Joseph Smith’s writing is far more grammatically troubled than what we find in the manual, I never thought to question the surface accuracy of what I was reading in the manual.  The manual mentions that it has standardized some of the writing, but until I actually compared the originals to the standardized manual, I didn’t realize how much was being altered or lost in my persepctive of the prophet.  Even though the standardized letters still touch me, my faith is affirmed far more when I can glimpse Joseph Smith as a person who struggles with both his view of the world and his lack of formal education.  The standardizations block my access to these important parts of Joseph Smith’s character, presenting me with a man who is far more polished and poetic than the Joseph Smith I see in his own writing.  The modern insertion of periods, semi-colons, and commas where there are none potentially changes his meaning.

But the biggest problem with the manual might not be standardization: it also confuses words that come from Jospeh directly and mere recordings by other present parties.  The manual presents words that are in fact only attributed to Joseph Smith in quotation marks, giving the impression to the reader who doesn’t check the footnotes that he actually said them. 

The Science of Anti-Mormon Suckerology

From the Juvenile Instructor, Christopher’s discovery of Parley P. Pratt’s article:

I came across the following article while looking for something else in Samuel Brannan’s The Prophet yesterday.  It was authored by Parley P. Pratt and published in May 1845. I had never heard of it or come across it anywhere else [1], and thought readers might find it useful (or at least entertaining). Entitled, “The Science of Anti-Mormon Suckerology—Its Learned Terms, and their Significations,” (perhaps the best title ever for a piece in a Mormon periodical) the article is written in response to the increasing number of articles on the Mormons that had begun to appear in popular and significant newspapers in America following the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. It provides (often humorous, always polemical) definitions for various terms that Pratt feels the general reader may not be familiar with. Perhaps more significantly for interested researchers, it speaks to early Mormon understandings of their place in America as true patriots and sincere religionists. It also probably deserves a closer reading through the lens of gender, race, and ethnicity. I’m interested in any and all reactions to what stands out to readers. Enjoy.

The Science of Anti-Mormon Suckerology—Its Learned Terms, and their Significations.
Preface.

The foregoing article, which appeared in the New York Tribune last week, as well as other articles which are some times seem in the Warsaw Signal, Quincy Whig, and Alton Telegraph, and some othor papers contain terms peculiar to anti Mormon Suckerism.

Or rather, some of the terms in use in these articles have a meaning peculiar to those singular people, and therefore not rightly understood abroad without an Anti Mormon Sucker Dictionary.

The following list of terms and their significance, will aid the general reader, in some measure and give him the key to the better understanding of the Anti Mormon Sucker communications, which have, or may hereafter appear in the Tribune, and other like papers.

The significations here given, however, may not be perfect, as we only form out judgment of their meaning from our knowledge of the circumstances to which they refer, or from a careful examination of the sense of th sentences, with which they stand connected.

Mormon.—A believer in revealed religion; a patriot, who stands firmly for the laws of his country, and for equal rights and protection.