I learned in Church today

[Sullyute]

I learned that you are suppose to wear a white shirt when performing a priesthood ordinance. I was chastised for wearing a light blue shirt to bless my child.

I also learned that going to an early morning priesthood meeting on "respecting women" and leaving your wife to get all the kids ready for church on her own is not a great way to respect women.

[LA Ute]

I learned that you are suppose to wear a white shirt when performing a priesthood ordinance. I was chastised for wearing a light blue shirt to bless my child.


As orthodox as I generally am, the way the white shirt thing is often handled still drives me nuts.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I learned that you are suppose to wear a white shirt when performing a priesthood ordinance. I was chastised for wearing a light blue shirt to bless my child.

I also learned that going to an early morning priesthood meeting on "respecting women" and leaving your wife to get all the kids ready for church on her own is not a great way to respect women.

Who? Bishop? Relative? Really? We've got a father, who's a worthy priesthood holder blessing his newborn child and we can't get passed the color of the shirt? What a waste of energy. I would have responded with, "if you're going to bust my balls about some insignificant thing, you better be prepared to show me the handbook."

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

As orthodox as I generally am, the way the white shirt thing is often handled still drives me nuts.

One of the scouts in the stake did a clothing drive for disadvantaged youth for his Eagle Project. There was a box in every foyer in every chapel asking for Sunday clothing donations. At the bottom of the sign was a bolder statement that read: These donations are for Sunday dress so white shirts only please.:rolleyes:

[Rocker Ute]

As orthodox as I generally am, the way the white shirt thing is often handled still drives me nuts.

Now help me understand this one, because as far as I understand this white shirts being a 'requirement' was related to GBH saying a few years back that when possible those administering the sacrament should wear white shirts and ties when possib in a conference talk. I know in 'Handbook 2' it says that they are recommended for passing the sacrament, but not mandatory. It also notes to take into account other circumstances and 'spiritual maturity' and to use discretion when discussing dress with the youth. Other than that, is it documented anywhere that that is a requirement or is it a mostly baseless tradition? I've never read about it for any other ordinance.

I hate how people get hung up on this stuff, it is like we need to have things spelled out, and then we need to then take it to the next level as if it is some sort of extra demonstration of devotion.

[Sullyute]

Who? Bishop? Relative? Really? We've got a father, who's a worthy priesthood holder blessing his newborn child and we can't get passed the color of the shirt? What a waste of energy. I would have responded with, "if you're going to bust my balls about some insignificant thing, you better be prepared to show me the handbook."


It was the bishop. He didn't "bust my balls" but just gave me a gentle reminder that white shirts should be used for performing ordinances. I just smiled and said that mine were all dirty and went back to my pew. Maybe he expected more out of me based on his perception of my "spiritual maturity".

PS. The bishop is a good dude, but just a strick unwritten rule follower.

[LA Ute]

Here's what I've seen. President Packer gave a talk in a stake conference somewhere, sometime in the last decade or so, about the "unwritten rules of the church." The white shirt rule was among them (i.e., anyone functionng in a leaderhip capacity -- or performing an ordinance, I think -- should wear one). A transcript of the talk got around. Our prior SP was a rules-oriented guy and at a stake general PH meeting everyone in attendance got a copy. It looked like a 3rd-generation photocopy and had been faxed. My thought at the time was "If these are rules to be followed, why are they unwritten?"

Here's what Elder Holland said about white shirts. I'm not sure what else has been said.


May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions.


That simple suggestion is not intended to be pharisaic or formalistic. We do not want deacons or priests in uniforms or unduly concerned about anything but the purity of their lives. But how our young people dress can teach a holy principle to us all, and it certainly can convey sanctity. As President David O. McKay taught, a white shirt contributes to the sacredness of the holy sacrament (see Conference Report, Oct. 1956, p. 89).


http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/this-do-in-remembrance-of-me?lang=eng

That's limited to the sacrament, is not supposed to be rigid, and doesn't go as far as Pres. Packer's alleged talk. Our then-SP extended the white shirt rule to anyone even standing in the circle for an ordinance. That extension was often ignored, especially for things like baby blessings. Our latest SP has quietly dropped that rule.

I think we all have a little Pharisee deep inside us, struggling to get out. Things like the unwritten white shirt rule really tempt us to let that little guy out. It really bugs me.

Again, this is just what I've seen. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

It was the bishop. He didn't "bust my balls" but just gave me a gentle reminder that white shirts should be used for performing ordinances. I just smiled and said that mine were all dirty and went back to my pew. Maybe he expected more out of me based on his perception of my "spiritual maturity".

PS. The bishop is a good dude, but just a strick unwritten rule follower.

This happened right after the blessing? I don't mean to be too hard on this guy, but that seems like really poor timing.

[Sullyute]

This happened right after the blessing? I don't mean to be too hard on this guy, but that seems like really poor timing.

No. It happened before the meeting began. I had already sat down with my family but got back up to get a program at the door where he happen to be standing.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

No. It happened before the meeting began. I had already sat down with my family but got back up to get a program at the door where he happen to be standing.

Okay. That's good to know. I was wondering how he would even pull such a move off. I'll back off the guy...for now.

[mUUser]

I learned that you are suppose to wear a white shirt when performing a priesthood ordinance. I was chastised for wearing a light blue shirt to bless my child.

I also learned that going to an early morning priesthood meeting on "respecting women" and leaving your wife to get all the kids ready for church on her own is not a great way to respect women.

You probably then passed the sacrament without plastering your left hand behind your back and may even snuck that same left hand into the tray to pick up a piece of bread or cup of water. :Evil:

[UtahsMrSports]

I learned that you are suppose to wear a white shirt when performing a priesthood ordinance. I was chastised for wearing a light blue shirt to bless my child.

I also learned that going to an early morning priesthood meeting on "respecting women" and leaving your wife to get all the kids ready for church on her own is not a great way to respect women.

To your second point: I know this is somewhat "heretical", but I find so little value in these sunday morning priesthood meetings. Probably a decade ago, I went to one with my Dad and it was snowing like crazy. Our ward was meeting at 9 and had a lot of widows who had no means of getting their driveways shoveled. As we got in the car at 830 (no time to do anything helpful), my Dad was so frustrated. What should have happened is the Stake Presidency either put a note on the door or started the meeting by saying "we had some stuff to say, but today, it would be better if you all went out and helped people get to church". Instead, they gave us an hour and a half presentation on the new Duty to God program.

In my case, my wife works hard every day to raise our son. I try to help her out on the weekends and let her sleep in. Really frustrating when I dutifully head to priesthood meeting, leaving her alone to get the kid ready and its all for another "you're lousy, home teach better, dont look at porn" lectures.

[Utah]

Two things:

1 - Your bishop is probably taking it a little too far.

2 - If you had a clean white shirt, why didn't you wear it? It's not mandatory, but recommended. Was it really worth all this trouble? I dunno.

"May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions."

[Mormon Red Death]

To your second point: I know this is somewhat "heretical", but I find so little value in these sunday morning priesthood meetings. Probably a decade ago, I went to one with my Dad and it was snowing like crazy. Our ward was meeting at 9 and had a lot of widows who had no means of getting their driveways shoveled. As we got in the car at 830 (no time to do anything helpful), my Dad was so frustrated. What should have happened is the Stake Presidency either put a note on the door or started the meeting by saying "we had some stuff to say, but today, it would be better if you all went out and helped people get to church". Instead, they gave us an hour and a half presentation on the new Duty to God program.

In my case, my wife works hard every day to raise our son. I try to help her out on the weekends and let her sleep in. Really frustrating when I dutifully head to priesthood meeting, leaving her alone to get the kid ready and its all for another "you're lousy, home teach better, dont look at porn" lectures.

People actually go to those things?

I'll give you some advice.

Have a policy where you don't go to any meetings outside of the block or if your calling requires (Ward Council). Twice a year for General priesthood is fine. Your time with your family is way more valuable than any stake meeting, leadership training, or whatever. This policy will make your life more pleasant.

[LA Ute]

People actually go to those things?

I'll give you some advice.

Have a policy where you don't go to any meetings outside of the block or if your calling requires (Ward Council). Twice a year for General priesthood is fine. Your time with your family is way more valuable than any stake meeting, leadership training, or whatever. This policy will make your life more pleasant.

Our stake has those general priesthood meetings on Sunday nights, which seems to make them less intrusive.

[Sullyute]

To your second point: I know this is somewhat "heretical", but I find so little value in these sunday morning priesthood meetings.

People actually go to those things?

I may be a cynical POS but I still hold out hope that I will see, hear, or feel something at one of these meetings that will bolster my belief or fan my faith. I keep hoping that an ecclesiastical leader will say something new, profound, or inspired that will cause all my doubts to wash away. I really want to feel that fire of surety again. I go to obtain blessings for my family, that despite my unbelief, they will still be rewarded. I go to support my EQ president because he is a really good guy. I go to associate with the good men in the community. I go and mostly wonder… why?


2 - If you had a clean white shirt, why didn't you wear it? It's not mandatory, but recommended. Was it really worth all this trouble? I dunno.


It really wasn’t any trouble, other than a quick chiding by the bishop. It was easier than spending ten minutes ironing a white shirt. Also I think that it is good to break from the mold once in a while.


Your time with your family is way more valuable than any stake meeting, leadership training, or whatever. This policy will make your life more pleasant.
I think there is great wisdom in that advice.


Our stake has those general priesthood meetings on Sunday nights, which seems to make them less intrusive.
I go to these meetings because they are in the early morning before my wife and kids are usually up. Sunday evening is my time with the family and I would not give that up to go to a church meeting.

[LA Ute]

I go to these meetings because they are in the early morning before my wife and kids are usually up. Sunday evening is my time with the family and I would not give that up to go to a church meeting.

;) Wait till you have teens and they have Sunday evening firesides to attend. Then there are convert baptisms, always on Sunday afternoons/evenings in our area. This type of thing affects us 2 Sunday evenings a month at least.

[Mormon Red Death]

Our stake has those general priesthood meetings on Sunday nights, which seems to make them less intrusive.

They are still a waste of time

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[LA Ute]

They are still a waste of time

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

It depends. I like our SP and he doesn't waste our time. Still, I love what Jeffrey Holland (then a 70) said to us in a stake priesthood leadership meeting some years ago: "We've raised up a generation in the church that thinks the way to serve the Lord is to go to a meeting." So true.

[Scorcho]

Clearly in the grand scheme of things what I about to complain about is nothing. It’s small, it’s virtually insignificant, but I need to beeyatch about it simply for my own sanity. Could they (the LDS Church) simply rename the Young Women’s Program.

I have been a member my entire life. I am a BIC Baby, and yet I still get confused about the YW Groups - Beehives, Mia-Maids and Laurels. I don’t mean to be insensitive (if there are significant reasons they are called that and I have missed it), but I have a daughter in one of those groups, I routinely forget which one, because these names are weird, bizarre and goofy. Is there any meaning behind them? I don’t know any great women in Biblical or BOM History named Laurel. And Mia-Maids what on earth is that? Is that a Missing-in-Action Maid? If that's the case my su-casa has had a Mia-Maid for far too long.

I would be happy with calling them Seniors, Juniors o r Sophomores. Level I, II or III. You could name them after famous women in the Scriptures (Ruth, Sarah and Mary), or any other division that creates an identity that gives our YW a sense of pride. The NHL realized years ago that the Patrick and Norris Divisions were out dated and confusing and renamed them, and the Big Ten quickly dropped the Legends and Leaders divisions because someone was smoking crack.

Can’t we rename the YW’s Program, so we don’t have to get more strange stares from our non-member friends. They already struggle so much with “Stake House.”

[NorthwestUteFan]

I suggest they use 'Junia' as one of the group names, because she was an Apostle. You could also use Phoebe, but that may be confusing because she was a Deacon...

:D

[LA Ute]

I am in SLC for my high school class reunion (40th!) and in the ward I attended this morning the Days of '47 royalty all spoke. Three very impressive young women. Two were BYU grads and one was a USU grad. She was the most compelling and genuine, although they were all sharp. The queen, or whatever she is called, was the least impressive.

[LA Ute]

I was in Utah last summer during the Days of '47. I never thought I could get mad over a beauty pageant, but I did get mad when I found out that the royalty all have to be descendants of the Mormon pioneers. Ridiculous. Open the thing up to everyone. Time to make July 24 a true state-wide holiday instead of a Mormon holiday.

I hadn't realized that, but now that you mention it, each of them mentioned their pioneer ancestors. I agree. It's time to stop that nonsense. I'm quite surprised they're still doing it that way.

[Sullyute]

I was in Utah last summer during the Days of '47. I never thought I could get mad over a beauty pageant, but I did get mad when I found out that the royalty all have to be descendants of the Mormon pioneers. Ridiculous. Open the thing up to everyone. Time to make July 24 a true state-wide holiday instead of a Mormon holiday.

I don't have much positive to say about beauty contests but there are plenty of city, county fair, and state beauty contests that anyone can enter. This is pioneer day to celebrate the mormon pioneers coming to the valley. What is wrong with limiting the contestants to pioneer stock?

[LA Ute]

The LDS church spends a good bit of effort reminding its members that we are all pioneers. And rightly so. Everyone has something worth celebrating in their heritage. That should be the spirit of pioneer day. Otherwise, it's something of a divisive holiday.

The pageant is run by the daughters of the Utah pioneers, so I don't expect any changes.

I've got tons of Utah pioneer ancestors but agree that it is divisive to emphasize bloodlines that way.

In that spirit, this is one of my favorite church-related videos of all time. Listen to the young man at about 2:45-3:00:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQA2Mc7qqU

This is why we need to stop making it seem like the Utah pioneers are more special than those who have followed, and that their descendants are special simply by virtue of their ancestry..

[Scorcho]

The Scorcho’s packed up the family Truckster yesterday to see a friend perform a musical number in another ward. Sacrament meeting, at said ward, was simply several youth and their leaders reading from the For the Strength of the Youth Pamphlet from page one till the end. A somewhat lame Sacrament Meeting, but I guess it could have been worse.

Having never read For the Strength of the Youth in its entirety there are lots of great things in there. Its great advice for youth and adults, and certainly some things that I could do better. However, there was one part that troubled me. Naturally, there are several references to pornography and sexuality, and at one point it’s pointed out that sexual sin is second only to murder and denying the holy ghost in the hierarchy of bad things one can do. I’m not questioning the validity of that statement/BOM Scripture, I just feel uneasy about its place in the For the Strength of the Youth Pamphlet. It’s completely unnecessary.

I know this isn’t a new topic, but it seems that statement is more like a Scare Tactic than it is a warning. There’s no need to bring up the subject of murder, or denying the holy ghost when discussing sexual sin. It borders on the ludicrous IMO. Our youth struggle with enough guilt, most are already harder on themselves than they need to be. I don't see any need in comparing them to Charles Manson.

[Sullyute]

This is why we need to stop making it seem like the Utah pioneers are more special than those who have followed, and that their descendants are special simply by virtue of their ancestry..

I just find it funny that for millennia God emphasize blood lines as his chossen people. Even today we still emphasize those blood lines in patriarchal blessings. The calling of Ephraim is missionary work. The D&C states that if you are a descendant of Aaron then you have a right to serve as a bishop.

So is the complaint that the parade affiliates with a restrictive group like the daughters of the utah pioneers or that the church doesn't sponsor a mormon beauty pageant or that the days of 47 are too mormony for utah's "diverse" population?

I honestly don't know who sponsors what when it comes to the parade. Does the church run it or is it done but the city or a private entity?

[concerned]

I just find it funny that for millennia God emphasize blood lines as his chossen people. Even today we still emphasize those blood lines in patriarchal blessings. The calling of Ephraim is missionary work. The D&C states that if you are a descendant of Aaron then you have a right to serve as a bishop.

So is the complaint that the parade affiliates with a restrictive group like the daughters of the utah pioneers or that the church doesn't sponsor a mormon beauty pageant or that the days of 47 are too mormony for utah's "diverse" population?

I honestly don't know who sponsors what when it comes to the parade. Does the church run it or is it done but the city or a private entity?

my brother has an original certificate signed by Brigham Young appointing my great-great, etc., grandfather a lieutenant in the 1857 army assembled to protect against the fed army. Sounds like I am in like flint when the time comes.

The parade and related festivities are run by a private board of trustees all or most of whom are appointed by or affiliated with the Church. Technically independent, but it really is a Church event.

[LA Ute]

I just find it funny that for millennia God emphasize blood lines as his chossen people. Even today we still emphasize those blood lines in patriarchal blessings. The calling of Ephraim is missionary work. The D&C states that if you are a descendant of Aaron then you have a right to serve as a bishop.

So is the complaint that the parade affiliates with a restrictive group like the daughters of the utah pioneers or that the church doesn't sponsor a mormon beauty pageant or that the days of 47 are too mormony for utah's "diverse" population?

I honestly don't know who sponsors what when it comes to the parade. Does the church run it or is it done but the city or a private entity?

Well, in the latter days almost everyone is adopted and being a covenant people is more important than a "chosen" people. I.e., bloodlines don't matter. But I digress!

Having lived outside "Zion" for a long time now, I can testify (can I get an amen?) that the millions of members who have no Utah pioneer ancestors tend to roll their eyes when those of us who do have such ancestry emphasize it publicly. I can see why.

Here's a little background, a photo of the youth in our stake who recently did a ballroom dance performance (and yes, they did love learning those dance steps):

704

There are three kids in this group who could be described as "Caucasian," I guess. Only two of them are even from Utah. In that environment, when we mention our Days of '47 ancestry we do it pretty carefully, and are sure to talk about pioneers in the larger context -- because some of these kids are themselves the first in their families to join the church. We like to make it clear that they are today's pioneers and are just as cool and inspiring as the Utah pioneers.

[FountainOfUte]

Our stake president released our bishopric yesterday. I'm in my late 30's this is only the fourth, maybe fifth, time I've been through the changing of a bishopric. Most of them have been the typical five year tenures coming to an end, and one was the splitting of a ward. I guess I've moved around enough that I've seemed to catch the lion's share of some bishipric's tenure's without experiencing the turnover.

Our new bishop was the former first counselor. He was always a dark horse to be the next bishop in my mind, and possibly one of the obvious choices but for the fact that he's been in two straight bishoprics. I figured they'd give the guy a break. It almost felt cruel to put him in the center chair given his run. He rounded out his counselors with the EQ president and the Exec Sec -- neither having prior bishopric or high council experience.

It's trite ward fodder to discuss bishopric changes, but it is interesting to see how a changing of the guard affects the ward dynamic. In the ward I grew up in, we went through two consecutive bishops over the course of a decade that could not have been more different. The first of the two was a tough cookie; an old-school, depression-era-childhood guy who was kind of intimidating. He was big (at least to me as a kid) with a bold, loud, my-way-or-the-highway personality. A total Type A. Then the guy who followed him was this more light-hearted jokester somewhat diminutive in stature; seemingly more collaborative and about meeting you at your level. I think he had a more natural rapport with the youth than his predecessor. He was the one I had for most of my YM experience and the one who sent me on my mission. As usual, both men did fine jobs, but the "feel" of the ward vibe was SO different between the two.

[LA Ute]

As usual, both men did fine jobs, but the "feel" of the ward vibe was SO different between the two.

Yeah, that's always fascinating to experience. We've gone from a SP who was not only quite aloof (I think because he is shy) and a hard-liner, who always made people feel inadequate, to our current SP, a big teddy bear of a man who's more like an inspiring coach. The former SP was called by a GA (now deceased) who was also a hard-liner and gave the SP instructions to lead that way. (For example, he didn't allow the SP to call his own counselors. This SP followed that lead and chose bishops' counselors for them.) Current SP was called by Dieter Uchtdorf, who gave very different instructions and had the SP and his wife (!) choose the counselors. I've always thought all that was very interesting.

[Sullyute]

Yeah, that's always fascinating to experience. We've gone from a SP who was not only quite aloof (I think because he is shy) and a hard-liner, who always made people feel inadequate, to our current SP, a big teddy bear of a man who's more like an inspiring coach. The former SP was called by a GA (now deceased) who was also a hard-liner and gave the SP instructions to lead that way. (For example, he didn't allow the SP to call his own counselors. This SP followed that lead and chose bishops' counselors for them.) Current SP was called by Dieter Uchtdorf, who gave very different instructions and had the SP and his wife (!) choose the counselors. I've always thought all that was very interesting.

I find it interesting that we have hand books of instructions that are hundreds of pages long in regards to church administration but something as important as a choosing a counselor can be changed so much. I guess when you are in charge (speaking of the GAs) then you can adjust on the fly or as the spirit directs.

[Sullyute]

So has anybody learned anything in church in the last month? My kids have been sick so I have kept them home the last couple weeks but I have gone to elder's quorum. I did learn that cougar fans were walking much taller yesterday than they were the previous week.

[wuapinmon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQA2Mc7qqU


Amazing how the ugly kids seen in the group photos didn't make it onto camera for commentary, only the exceptionally good looking ones.

[LA Ute]

Amazing how the ugly kids seen in the group photos didn't make it onto camera for commentary, only the exceptionally good looking ones.

777

[LA Ute]

I learned that I ought to read the Book of Mormon daily. I tried that this morning, even though I didn't want to, and I am glad I did. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_12v.gif

[Scorcho]

I got mooned in Sacrament meeting yesterday.

Our ward has a rest hymn prior to the final speaker, and we stand for that hymn. I think that's fairly common.

An attractive young mom in a pew just in front of us was standing and singing when her little girl grabbed the back of the mom’s skirt and lifted to about the middle of her mom’s back exposing everything underneath.

Hello?

[Sullyute]

I got mooned in Sacrament meeting yesterday.

Our ward has a rest hymn prior to the final speaker, and we stand for that hymn. I think that's fairly common.

An attractive young mom in a pew just in front of us was standing and singing when her little girl grabbed the back of the mom’s skirt and lifted to about the middle of her mom’s back exposing everything underneath.

Hello?

:rofl: Aren't kids great!

[mUUser]

My oldest daughter whose a freshman in college went to her YSA Branch for the first time last week. She took a teammate who isn't LDS. After the 3 hour block she said, "Good God is it always that boring?" My daughter had to admit that yes, yes it is. I guess the branch services were especially excruciating, however. Hoping she has better luck in the family ward.

[hostile]

My oldest daughter whose a freshman in college went to her YSA Branch for the first time last week. She took a teammate who isn't LDS. After the 3 hour block she said, "Good God is it always that boring?" My daughter had to admit that yes, yes it is. I guess the branch services were especially excruciating, however. Hoping she has better luck in the family ward.

another argument for 2 hour church - 33% less boring

[mUUser]

My oldest daughter whose a freshman in college went to her YSA Branch for the first time last week. She took a teammate who isn't LDS. After the 3 hour block she said, "Good God is it always that boring?" My daughter had to admit that yes, yes it is. I guess the branch services were especially excruciating, however. Hoping she has better luck in the family ward.


Visited my daughter this weekend and attended the family ward. It was a circus which was fun, but would be a beating to be a full fledged member of a barely functioning ward.

A few highlights: Elvis impersonator was the first person I saw as we walked into the chapel. Long-haired surfer style bishop was clearly beaten down by his calling as much of sacrament meeting was spent with his elbows on his knees staring at the floor. Eclectic dressing....everything from a bright green and yellow plaid suit, to Kentucky Derby style hats, to tight animal print jeans with a midriff shirt. A new member confirmation that began with her convulsing in her chair, sobbing and raising her hands to "Praise Jesus", all the while the bishopric and missionaries were shushing her into the microphone. A talk on the RS that morphed into a declaration that women should receive the priesthood -- it as actually a fascinating talk that gave me additional insight into the topic, especially as the 11th AoF relates to membership within the church. Poor bishop was sweating bullets the last half of this talk.

Really felt like this ward was an aggregate of every ward SoonerCoug has ever attended. A fascinating day, but wouldn't want any part of it on a full-time basis.

My kid is really in a pickle as far as church options go. :flush:

[Sullyute]

Visited my daughter this weekend and attended the family ward. It was a circus which was fun, but would be a beating to be a full fledged member of a barely functioning ward.

A few highlights: Elvis impersonator was the first person I saw as we walked into the chapel. Long-haired surfer style bishop was clearly beaten down by his calling as much of sacrament meeting was spent with his elbows on his knees staring at the floor. Eclectic dressing....everything from a bright green and yellow plaid suit, to Kentucky Derby style hats, to tight animal print jeans with a midriff shirt. A new member confirmation that began with her convulsing in her chair, sobbing and raising her hands to "Praise Jesus", all the while the bishopric and missionaries were shushing her into the microphone. A talk on the RS that morphed into a declaration that women should receive the priesthood -- it as actually a fascinating talk that gave me additional insight into the topic, especially as the 11th AoF relates to membership within the church. Poor bishop was sweating bullets the last half of this talk.

Really felt like this ward was an aggregate of every ward SoonerCoug has ever attended. A fascinating day, but wouldn't want any part of it on a full-time basis.

My kid is really in a pickle as far as church options go. :flush:

mUUser, we need to have your daughter sign up and give us weekly updates as I am rolling in my seat picturing the sacrament meeting above in my mind. Great stuff.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Visited my daughter this weekend and attended the family ward. It was a circus which was fun, but would be a beating to be a full fledged member of a barely functioning ward.

A few highlights: Elvis impersonator was the first person I saw as we walked into the chapel. Long-haired surfer style bishop was clearly beaten down by his calling as much of sacrament meeting was spent with his elbows on his knees staring at the floor. Eclectic dressing....everything from a bright green and yellow plaid suit, to Kentucky Derby style hats, to tight animal print jeans with a midriff shirt. A new member confirmation that began with her convulsing in her chair, sobbing and raising her hands to "Praise Jesus", all the while the bishopric and missionaries were shushing her into the microphone. A talk on the RS that morphed into a declaration that women should receive the priesthood -- it as actually a fascinating talk that gave me additional insight into the topic, especially as the 11th AoF relates to membership within the church. Poor bishop was sweating bullets the last half of this talk.

Really felt like this ward was an aggregate of every ward SoonerCoug has ever attended. A fascinating day, but wouldn't want any part of it on a full-time basis.

My kid is really in a pickle as far as church options go. :flush:

For me to complete the visual in my head, I need a general geographic area, if you don't mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m/)

[LA Ute]

Not really something I learned in church, but important to know just the same:

Arsenio reveals Mormons' superpower (http://www.arseniohall.com/video/comedy/1594_Arsenio_Reveals_Mormons_Superpower/index.html)

[Damage U]

For those of you getting out of church meetings today, after another Ute win and pics of Pres. Uchtdorf walking off the field at RES-south with Whitt, is the church still true or did the zoobs lock the doors to anyone wearing a hint of red?

[LA Ute]

I posted this elsewhere but it seems to fit here. My tie at church today:

828

[Sullyute]

I posted this elsewhere but it seems to fit here. My tie at church today:

828

LA is so excited about the win yesterday that he is posting crotch shots on the internet. Does your wife know about this?

[LA Ute]

LA is so excited about the win yesterday that he is posting crotch shots on the internet. Does your wife know about this?

I'm a little worried about you, Sully. That is my tie, laid out innocently atop my right thigh (calm down, now!) just before sacrament meeting started today. I guess to some people everything is a Rorschach blot.

[Sullyute]

I'm a little worried about you, Sully. That is my tie, laid out innocently atop my right thigh (calm down, now!) just before sacrament meeting started today. I guess to some people everything is a Rorschach blot.

I forgot to say that I did like the tie. ;)

[LA Ute]

Preparing my SS lesson. The new youth curriculum has been great. In addition to good talks, they often have good videos as source material. But this week's lesson suggests a video which is a big BYU basketball advertisement featuring Tyler Haws. I won't be using the video this time.

It's disappointing. Whoever put it together should be reminded that most LDS kids who want to go to BYU won't get to. We should stop sending them the message that BYU is what they should be striving for. Stop being lazy and small minded, and pick a player from another school. The youth are more than aware that BYU is an option - too many of them think it's the only option.

Well said.

[UBlender]

Today a high councilman said he grew up in California always wanting tacos for Thanksgiving dinner and called it a "Lamanite Thanksgiving". I spent the rest of the block trying to decide if this was unintentionally offensive.

[LA Ute]

Today a high councilman said he grew up in California always wanting tacos for Thanksgiving dinner and called it a "Lamanite Thanksgiving". I spent the rest of the block trying to decide if this was unintentionally offensive.

Groan.

[Rocker Ute]

Today a high councilman said he grew up in California always wanting tacos for Thanksgiving dinner and called it a "Lamanite Thanksgiving". I spent the rest of the block trying to decide if this was unintentionally offensive.

You probably don't want to know about an event we had called "Christmas in Zarahemla" that featured Mexican fare and a guy MC-ing the event in a sombrero and doing his most best 'Mexican accent'. Let's just say it still gets talked about today.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

You probably don't want to know about an event we had called "Christmas in Zarahemla" that featured Mexican fare and a guy MC-ing the event in a sombrero and doing his most best 'Mexican accent'. Let's just say it still gets talked about today.

No bueno.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Sullyute]

We also had a high councilman speak yesterday. I have to admit that it was probably the best high council talk I have heard in a long time, if not ever. He spoke on being nice and using kind words. He shared some humorous and touching experiences in his own life and even my 10 and 7 year old paid attention. I was very impressed and uplifted.

[Solon]

A Precursor to Thanksgiving?
The Hebrew Festival of Weeks


Deuteronomy 16.9-12
9 Count off seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain. 10 Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the Lord your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the Lord your God has given you. 11 And rejoice before the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, the Levites in your towns, and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows living among you. 12 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt, and follow carefully these decrees.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+16&version=NIV


Generally, Freewill offerings were non-obligatory, voluntary offerings (duh) as governed by the general "peace offerings" restrictions laid out in Leviticus 3 & 7. It's unclear (to me) the exact differences between Thanksgiving Offerings & Freewill Offerings, other than how they were administered. As it's laid out here, the implication is that the sacrificial meat & food would be shared out among those in attendance.

Either way, the same idea is present: Be generous. Rejoice. Share your bounty with the foreigners & the priests & the widows & the fatherless. Remember the trials your ancestors suffered to give you a better life.

Seems like a nice message.

Happy Thanksgiving this week, my friends.

[Scorcho]

did the High Council Speaker open his talk by informing you that the Stake Presidency sends their love? I wish they would just mix it up. SP sends their general disinterest, their warmest regards, their contempt, their wish you were more faithful disconcerting smirk, etc. :D

[LA Ute]

I learned that speakers using visual aids creatively and appropriately can really add to their sacrament meeting talks, even if The Handbook says we're not supposed to use them. (Actually, I've always known this, but was reminded of it yesterday.)

[San Diego Ute Fan]

did the High Council Speaker open his talk by informing you that the Stake Presidency sends their love? I wish they would just mix it up. SP sends their general disinterest, their warmest regards, their contempt, their wish you were more faithful disconcerting smirk, etc. :D

I served on our HC for 5 years. I can think of only one time when the stake presidency specifically asked us to send their love to the wards in our talks. It was the week after the Cedar Fire burned 2200 homes to the ground, many of which belonged to members of our stake. It was very heartfelt, genuine, and needed. I think the phrase is over-used for the most part.

Random comment: An apostle (who I will not name) told me that high councilors are to be called high councilors, NOT high councilmen. A councilman works in city government.

[Rocker Ute]

We sang in opening exercises of priesthood meeting, "If you could hie..." for five Sundays in a row. The person making the decision added a verse each week, which means I said 'there is no end...' 36x in three weeks.

I hope I never sing that song again, I went from general dislike of the song to complete hatred of it.

[Sullyute]

In sunday school we discussed the Official Declaration 2. The question came up as to how blacks were denied the priesthood in the first place. After several comments a lady in the ward who has adopted three black kids shared her views. She was honest in her feelings but faithful to her testimony. It was a good meeting.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

In sunday school we discussed the Official Declaration 2. The question came up as to how blacks were denied the priesthood in the first place. After several comments a lady in the ward who has adopted three black kids shared her views. She was honest in her feelings but faithful to her testimony. It was a good meeting.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

We had the same lesson, and our teacher (a good friend) was really worried about it. We have a few AA members in the class, and an AA investigator. It ended up working out great. The killer moment came when someone read the new preamble to Official Declaration 2, which is is not in the older print editions. In my opinion (we didn't discuss this in class) that language comes awfully close to acknowledging that the entire "practice" (not a doctrine, not even a policy) probably arose from a mistake that the church just got locked into and couldn't get out of for over 100 years. Everyone in the class accepted the language. Notably, probably 80% of the class either were not alive or were not members in 1978.

[UtahDan]

We had the same lesson, and our teacher (a good friend) was really worried about it. We have a few AA members in the class, and an AA investigator. It ended up working out great. The killer moment came when someone read the new preamble to Official Declaration 2, which is is not in the older print editions. In my opinion (we didn't discuss this in class) that language comes awfully close to acknowledging that the entire "practice" (not a doctrine, not even a policy) probably arose from a mistake that the church just got locked into and couldn't get out of for over 100 years. Everyone in the class accepted the language. Notably, probably 80% of the class either were not alive or were not members in 1978.

Does it conflict you to see the issue dealt with in that way? Or (I ask without sarcasm) do you think most people are just eager enough to put that all behind them that any explanation will probably do? I've never thought there was a "good" way to deal with that issue.

[LA Ute]

Does it conflict you to see the issue dealt with in that way? Or (I ask without sarcasm) do you think most people are just eager enough to put that all behind them that any explanation will probably do? I've never thought there was a "good" way to deal with that issue.

I frankly see it as a gradual acknowledgement that somewhere along the way there was an error that took one heck of a long time to correct -- or an acknowledgement at least that an error might be one of the bases for what happened. We are moving at a glacial pace, but I can live with that.

I reported once on TMBFKACUF that I've talked to many AA members of the church, as well as many non-Mormon AAs, most born after 1978, who don't care about this issue. The members in predominantly AA wards in D.C. area, for example, tell me the question never comes up in their meetings. That's all anecdotal, of course. I personally find their acceptance and forgiveness quite touching, frankly. They are more generous than I think I would be in their shoes.

[UtahDan]

I frankly see it as a gradual acknowledgement that somewhere along the way there was an error that took one heck of a long time to correct -- or an acknowledgement at least that an error might be one of the bases for what happened. We are moving at a glacial pace, but I can live with that.

I reported once on TMBFKACUF that I've talked to many AA members of the church, as well as many non-Mormon AAs, most born after 1978, who don't care about this issue. The members in predominantly AA wards in D.C. area, for example, tell me the question never comes up in their meetings. That's all anecdotal, of course. I personally find their acceptance and forgiveness quite touching, frankly. They are more generous than I think I would be in their shoes.

I think that if you are AA and Mormon that you had to clear that hurdle in some fashion before you ever joined or when you came into adulthood and gained some awareness of the issue. I think the issue of what is doctrine, practice, policy is difficult to grapple with. I know it is why SU says there is no real doctrine in the church. That is overstating things, but the reality is that there are some things which were at one point doctrine which later came to be characterized as policies. Things that those with authority to say so provided very well thought our reasons for while stating it was not possible for them to change.

This exchange between Dr. Lowery Nelson and the First Presidency is an interesting example of that. It is also an example that gives the Ordain Women movement a lot of hope. I think it is really hard to claim, as Dallin Oaks did last conference, that some things just can't change, in light of prior identical claims turning out to not be correct.

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/dr-lowry-nelson-speaking-truth-to-power-on-racism-in-the-lds-church/#Addendums

[UtahDan]

To a lesser degree, if you are Mormon of any race you have had to clear that hurdle in some fashion. This issue and polygamy are two items that make all Mormons uncomfortable. It's pretty much a universal test of faith.



You intrigued me enough that I chased the link. But when I saw the phrase "speaking truth to power" in the title, I shut it down. That phrase has tricked me too many times in the past -- it is too often accompanied by neither truth nor power.

I'm not endorsing that blog. I don't know the guy who writes it or anything about him. But I think he links the letters, which are well worth reading. You can draw your own conclusions from them without needing anyone to digest it for you. In fact, a quick search comes up with this which gives just the letter exchange:

http://www.mormondocs.org/2013/06/letter-of-lds-first-presidency-to-dr.html

EDIT: Err....parts of it anyway.

2nd EDIT: Better yet, here are photos of the original documents.

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n10/mode/1up

[Viking]

Just read Jessop quit the MoTab.

When I was 12, we hosted a dinner with Bob Hales, who told us that if my grandfather managed to stay active, he would have led the MoTab for a very long time.

I wonder why Jessop quit so abruptly?

[LA Ute]

2nd EDIT: Better yet, here are photos of the original documents.

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n10/mode/1up

Thanks, UD. Those are very interesting, albeit declared null and void after June 1978. ;)

[Rocker Ute]

2nd EDIT: Better yet, here are photos of the original documents.

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n10/mode/1up

Dan, have you read the biography "David O McKay and the rise of Modern Mormonism"? The section regarding this is fascinating and the narrative from that is interesting in context of this link.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Dan, have you read the biography "David O McKay and the rise of Modern Mormonism"? The section regarding this is fascinating and the narrative from that is interesting in context of this link.

I am a fan of Greg Prince. I can't wait for his biography on Paul H. Dunn.

[NorthwestUteFan]

In Sacrament Meeting I learned that over 75% of evolutionary biologists and genetic scientists believe in a divine Creator. I want to see the data from that study, particularly want to see how broadly they defined 'God'.

I took the baby to the mall and went Christmas shopping for 2nd and 3rd hour. I know we had a better time at the mall than he would have had in nursery or me in SS or Priesthood.

[Solon]

I'm not endorsing that blog. I don't know the guy who writes it or anything about him. But I think he links the letters, which are well worth reading. You can draw your own conclusions from them without needing anyone to digest it for you. In fact, a quick search comes up with this which gives just the letter exchange:

http://www.mormondocs.org/2013/06/letter-of-lds-first-presidency-to-dr.html

EDIT: Err....parts of it anyway.

2nd EDIT: Better yet, here are photos of the original documents.

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n10/mode/1up

These are pretty interesting.
On a secondary level, I'm intrigued by the intimation that the Cubans would be receptive to LDS preaching because of the church's youth programs, lay ministry, and social activities. This (to me) is a far cry from the sense of "everyone needs to gospel for its saving ordinances." The approach here is so pragmatic, insisting on the church as a social institution intended to provide social support. It doesn't really delve into the mystical elements of conversion or the urgency of salvation.

Today's missionary messages strike me as an imperative to spread the Gospel through mystical experiences with the Holy Ghost.
These letters seem content to spread the church.

[Scorcho]

I admit I find it troubling that the LDS Church has admitted that the Priesthood Ban was more about racism than about revelation. I have always shelved that topic in my mind as one of those things we weren't meant to understand in this life (like polygamy).

[LA Ute]

I admit I find it troubling that the LDS Church has admitted that the Priesthood Ban was more about racism than about revelation. I have always shelved that topic in my mind as one of those things we weren't meant to understand in this life (like polygamy).

I love the new approach just because it clears away a lot of the nonsense and speculation that has grown up to explain the old ban -- lack of valor in the pre-mortal existence, etc. etc., ad nauseum. I am curious -- does anyone know if BY ever said, "The Lord has revealed to me that black men are not to receive the priesthood?" or even "That's the awy the Lord wants it, according to the scriptures?" I really don't know. I suspect he did not.

[Sullyute]

I admit I find it troubling that the LDS Church has admitted that the Priesthood Ban was more about racism than about revelation. I have always shelved that topic in my mind as one of those things we weren't meant to understand in this life (like polygamy).

It shouldn't be too troubling as we, collectively and individually, are taught to strive for an increase in light and knowledge. The leaders of the church have received further light and knowledge that early church leaders, and much of the country, were racist and that it clouded their judgement. "[A] living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet." Fundamental 3 of 14 in Following the Prophet.

[Sullyute]

I love the new approach just because it clears away a lot of the nonsense and speculation that has grown up to explain the old ban -- lack of valor in the pre-mortal existence, etc. etc., ad nuaseum. I am curious -- does anyone know if BY ever said, "The Lord has revealed to me that black men are not to receive the priesthood?" or even "That's the awy the Lord wants it, according to the scriptures?" I really don't know. I suspect he did not.


"The prophet does not have to say "thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture" - Fundamental 6 of 14 in Following the Prophet.

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)

[Scorcho]

It shouldn't be too troubling as we, collectively and individually, are taught to strive for an increase in light and knowledge. The leaders of the church have received further light and knowledge that early church leaders, and much of the country, were racist and that it clouded their judgement. "[A] living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet." Fundamental 3 of 14 in Following the Prophet.

The revised 9th article of faith.

9 We believe all that God has arevealed (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1#) (except when the prophet had clouded judgement), all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet breveal (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1#) many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I'm half joking, but that was a gigantic swing and miss by Pres. Young.

[Sullyute]

The revised 9th article of faith.

9 We believe all that God has arevealed (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1#) (except when the prophet had clouded judgement), all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet breveal (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1#) many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I'm half joking, but that was a gigantic swing and miss by Pres. Young.

Even the mighty Casey struck out.

[LA Ute]

"The prophet does not have to say "thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture" - Fundamental 6 of 14 in Following the Prophet.

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)

Har-har. Point taken. I'm just wondering what exactly he said.

My personal theory is that BY decided to adopt this "practice" (which, before it became a practice, used to be a policy, and before it became a policy, used to be a doctrine, etc., etc.), which then became locked in. Because of the nature of the church and other factors (for example, the requirement of unanimity in votes by the Q12 on changes in practice/policy/doctrine) it took 126 years to change. (That's a laughably simplistic and terse summary of a hugely complex and painful episode, and even in saying that I'm grossly understating nearly everything). Probably for the first 20+ years hardly anyone paid attention to it.

I've often wondered what BY's thinking was. Maybe in 1852 he was afraid that if the church ordained AAs it would be sucked into the slavery controversy? There were effectively no mixed-race churches (or even communities) in that day, so it might have seemed like a pretty radical abolitionist step to take. I am not defending anything, just wondering how the whole thing really got started.

[Sullyute]

Har-har. Point taken. I'm just wondering what exactly he said.

My personal theory is that BY decided to adopt this "practice" (which, before it became a practice, used to be a policy, and before it became a policy, used to be a doctrine, etc., etc.), which then became locked in. Because of the nature of the church and other factors (for example, the requirement of unanimity in votes by the Q12 on changes in practice/policy/doctrine) it took 126 years to change. (That's a laughably simplistic and terse summary of a hugely complex and painful episode, and even in saying that I'm grossly understating nearly everything). Probably for the first 20+ years hardly anyone paid attention to it.

I've often wondered what BY's thinking was. Maybe in 1852 he was afraid that if the church ordained AAs it would be sucked into the slavery controversy? There were effectively no mixed-race churches (or even communities) in that day, so it might have seemed like a pretty radical abolitionist step to take. I am not defending anything, just wondering how the whole thing really got started.

I don't have a real answer to your question, however given that the quotes the church used for Brigham Young were given at the same time the territory approved "servitude", and seeing the pragmatism of Brigham Young, he might have simply had a handful of poor free blacks, and a handful of rich white slaveowners, and choose to side with the later as he needed their money and influence in establishing the land of Deseret. Once again, your guess is as good as mine.

[Two Utes]

Har-har. Point taken. I'm just wondering what exactly he said.

My personal theory is that BY decided to adopt this "practice" (which, before it became a practice, used to be a policy, and before it became a policy, used to be a doctrine, etc., etc.), which then became locked in. Because of the nature of the church and other factors (for example, the requirement of unanimity in votes by the Q12 on changes in practice/policy/doctrine) it took 126 years to change. (That's a laughably simplistic and terse summary of a hugely complex and painful episode, and even in saying that I'm grossly understating nearly everything). Probably for the first 20+ years hardly anyone paid attention to it.

I've often wondered what BY's thinking was. Maybe in 1852 he was afraid that if the church ordained AAs it would be sucked into the slavery controversy? There were effectively no mixed-race churches (or even communities) in that day, so it might have seemed like a pretty radical abolitionist step to take. I am not defending anything, just wondering how the whole thing really got started.

Probably because most people including Brigham Young were racist. The bigger question is why does the church come out with this now? I have a pretty damn good guess, but would like your thoughts.

[Sullyute]

The bigger question is why does the church come out with this now? I have a pretty damn good guess, but would like your thoughts.

I know that you didn't ask me, but here (http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_8607.shtml) is good story on it:


If you're asking why the LDS church is making the move to dig into its past now, the answer is fairly simple. Bottom line, the internet has changed the world as a whole and that includes the LDS church and how its members study their faith and its beginnings.

A new generation of Mormons is going online to find answers to historical questions long avoided in Sunday school classes. The new statements slowly being released by the church are the official answer to those searches. If you talk to Historians that have spent their lives studying the LDS faith you will hear different ideas. In the end there is one consensus, some members of the LDS faith are "becoming convinced that they have been betrayed, or they believe they have been lied to.

"It causes a crisis of faith, and some of them are leaving," said Associate Professor of History at the University of Utah Paul Reeve, who can understand why the church is making a move now. "For a church that puts so much emphasis on missionary work and growth --- losing those already in the flock is not a good thing."

Philip Barlow, Ph.D. is a Professor of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University and he says that, "The church feels it has a responsibility to foster faith." While solely fostering faith in Jesus Christ may have worked in the past, the LDS church admits they must change.

In a new video released this afternoon Elder Steven Snow from the first quorum of the 70 or the upper levels of church seniority states it is in a similar manner. "We have understandably in the past not spent a lot of time worrying about these issues because our mission is to promote faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But-- as the information age is now upon us we feel with all this information out there we owe it to the rising generation to provide good reliable information."

[LA Ute]

Probably because most people including Brigham Young were racist. The bigger question is why does the church come out with this now? I have a pretty damn good guess, but would like your thoughts.

I have only a guess. I think it just took a long time for the circumstances to be right to make the change. Those include younger leaders who came of age in the later 20th century, a much more cosmopolitan outlook (and reality) among both leaders and members, and -- from the standpoint of a convinced believer, which I am -- inspiration telling them it's time to put this very sad episode behind them. I am not one who sees the benefit of an apology, but who knows? We may well get one some day. Change rarely comes quickly in this church.

EDIT: I meant to add that the reality of today's world is that there is just a ton of information out there now about all these issues, due primarily to the Internet. In that regard this change is really of the same nature as the new openness about Joseph Smith's polygamy. What used to be obscure facts are now screaming for attention, and the leadership is giving it.


I don't have a real answer to your question, however given that the quotes the church used for Brigham Young were given at the same time the territory approved "servitude", and seeing the pragmatism of Brigham Young, he might have simply had a handful of poor free blacks, and a handful of rich white slaveowners, and choose to side with the later as he needed their money and influence in establishing the land of Deseret. Once again, your guess is as good as mine.

I am inclined to be charitable to BY on this issue. That doesn't mean I don't think he goofed, but I'm not willing to attribute opportunistic or venal motives to him. I think he was a great, if imperfect man, just as Joseph Smith was.

[Two Utes]

I know that you didn't ask me, but here (http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_8607.shtml) is good story on it:

Another way to put it is, with the growth of internet use, the church is having a lot of trouble controlling what information it's tithe paying members receive about it's history. Members are looking up information and getting frustrated about Smith's polyandry, polygamy with ealry teen brides, history with the law, looking in the hat Brigham's discourses etc. As any very well run organization would do, the LDS Church hires a great PR firm who tells them to get out in front of these issues.

I understand there are about 13 of these coming out. They are well written. The church either has excellent writers and PR guys or they are getting help. Keep in mind, the Church doesn't pay its employees that much

[concerned]

I love the new approach just because it clears away a lot of the nonsense and speculation that has grown up to explain the old ban -- lack of valor in the pre-mortal existence, etc. etc., ad nauseum. I am curious -- does anyone know if BY ever said, "The Lord has revealed to me that black men are not to receive the priesthood?" or even "That's the awy the Lord wants it, according to the scriptures?" I really don't know. I suspect he did not.

The talks and writings by David O McKay, Bruce McConkie and many others in the 40s and 50s certainly seemed to treat the ban as revelation.

[concerned]

[
I understand there are about 13 of these coming out. They are well written. The church either has excellent writers and PR guys or they are getting help. Keep in mind, the Church doesn't pay its employees that much[/QUOTE]

The church PR dept. has a pool of good writers who used to be journalists at the DNews, KSL or elsewhere. (Serisously; not joking).

[LA Ute]

Another way to put it is, with the growth of internet use, the church is having a lot of trouble controlling what information it's tithe paying members receive about it's history. Members are looking up information and getting frustrated about Smith's polyandry, polygamy with ealry teen brides, history with the law, looking in the hat Brigham's discourses etc. As any very well run organization would do, the LDS Church hires a great PR firm who tells them to get out in front of these issues.

I understand there are about 13 of these coming out. They are well written. The church either has excellent writers and PR guys or they are getting help. Keep in mind, the Church doesn't pay its employees that much

Another factor is that many people (including many on message boards like this one) have been clamoring for the church finally to address the types of issues you list. So they're doing it, and it looks like they are doing it in a professional manner (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57241071-78/church-lds-says-mormon.html.csp):


What is most important about the statement on race to Mormon historian Richard Bushman is its perspective.

"It is written as a historian might tell the story," Bushman says from his home in New York, "not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice."

By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote "Rough Stone Rolling," a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, "it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated."

But accepting that, Bushman says, "requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking."

Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, "it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration."

Members need to recognize that God can "work through imperfect instruments," Bushman says. "For many Latter-day Saints, that is going to be a difficult transition. But it is part of our maturation as a church."

Better late than never, I say. (I speak as a life-long believing member whose eyes popped when I read Rough Stone Rolling.)

[LA Ute]

The talks and writings by David O McKay, Bruce McConkie and many others in the 40s and 50s certainly seemed to treat the ban as revelation.

Sigh. Yes, they did. At least it seemed to bother President McKay. Elder McConkie simply declared his prior writings null and void.

[Two Utes]

Another factor is that many people (including many on message boards like this one) have been clamoring for the church finally to address the types of issues you list. So they're doing it, and it looks like they are doing it in a professional manner (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57241071-78/church-lds-says-mormon.html.csp):



Better late than never, I say. (I speak as a life-long believing member whose eyes popped when I read Rough Stone Rolling.)

So what are they going to write about Packer about 40 years from now? And when do they leak out to members that, perhaps, some of the things in the Miracle of Forgiveness are bat shit nuts?

[Solon]

I don't have a real answer to your question, however given that the quotes the church used for Brigham Young were given at the same time the territory approved "servitude", and seeing the pragmatism of Brigham Young, he might have simply had a handful of poor free blacks, and a handful of rich white slaveowners, and choose to side with the later as he needed their money and influence in establishing the land of Deseret. Once again, your guess is as good as mine.

Utah was already embroiled in the issue of north & south & slavery - the Compromise of 1850 had been an important part of allowing the territory of Utah to choose whether or not to allow slavery.

Utah people were just racist. Just like Northerners who didn't think it was fair that Southerners had super-cheap labor, and just like Southerners who thought themselves justified in enslaving other people. Lincoln was no lover of black people. He advocated sending them back to Africa or to the Caribbean once they were freed.

The rise of the Republican party & its stated goal of eradicating polygamy probably pushed Utah into the arms of the South more than anything else.

[Scorcho]

if there are 13 explanations/clarifications that are scheduled to come out, what are some of the other items on that list?

1. Polygamy
2. Mountain Meadow Massacre

What else?

[LA Ute]

Utah people were just racist. Just like Northerners who didn't think it was fair that Southerners had super-cheap labor, and just like Southerners who thought themselves justified in enslaving other people. Lincoln was no lover of black people. He advocated sending them back to Africa or to the Caribbean once they were freed.

I think just about everybody was racist then. I'm not offering this as an excuse, just as an explanation. There was not a multi-racial society in existence anywhere in the world when the Declaration and Constitution were signed, and I don't think it was much different in 1850. The anti-slavery folks of both eras were truly ahead of their time and very principled. (In fact, Joseph Smith's ordination of blak men was in the same category.) This is covered very well in Joseph Ellis' "Founding Brothers." Chapter Three, entitled "The Silence," describes the tacit agreement among the Founders to postpone dealing with slavery. They worried concluding that any early attempt at abolition would doom the union before it had a chance to become established. Sad but fascinating.

One can't help but wonder what would have happened if BY had taken the same approach as Joseph did.

[Scorcho]

The Roger Reid era. Severe trial of many testimonies.

But seriously, did I miss some kid of announcement from the Church? Am I living in a cave or something?

Here you go Cave Dweller

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/mormon-church-justifications-for-black-priesthood-ban-rooted-in-racism/2013/12/10/1a142f10-61e2-11e3-a7b4-4a75ebc432ab_story.html

[Solon]

I think just about everybody was racist then. I'm not offering this as an excuse, just as an explanation. There was not a multi-racial society in existence anywhere in the world when the Declaration and Constitution were signed, and I don't think it was much different in 1850. The anti-slavery folks of both eras were truly ahead of their time and very principled. (In fact, Joseph Smith's ordination of blak men was in the same category.) This is covered very well in Joseph Ellis' "Founding Brothers." Chapter Three, entitled "The Silence," describes the tacit agreement among the Founders to postpone dealing with slavery. They worried concluding that any early attempt at abolition would doom the union before it had a chance to become established. Sad but fascinating.

One can't help but wonder what would have happened if BY had taken the same approach as Joseph did.

This could use some nuance.

Race is a social construction. People have always been aware of different skin-colors, but to use that as a defining feature of society is a modern innovation. In the English Colonies, after Bacon's Rebellion in the 1670s, conducted largely by indentured servants wanting better opportunities once their terms of service were up, the authorities began focusing on slave-labor instead of indentured-servitude to grow tobacco. This led to the designation of the few Africans in the area as slaves - by "race" or skin-color, making them easily distinguished from whites. There were African slaves in the Americas long before this (and by Americas, I mean North America, South America, Caribbean), but they weren't enslaved because of their color (indeed, some were indentured servants, finished up their terms, married, and became landowners). They were enslaved and brought to the New World because of their high resistance to contagious disease. It wasn't until the late 1600s in this country that race was equated to slave.

So, to say there was no such thing as a "multi-racial" society before the 18th century is perhaps correct because there wasn't really a concept of "race" in the modern sense for a long time. But that's like saying there was no such thing as an ipad in the 1700s either.

There were plenty of multi-cultural societies throughout ancient history, societies that we would consider multi-racial today. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Athens, Ancient Rome, probably China (although I'm not an expert) - all of these had many people of many different skin-pigments living together - but with very different conceptions of what constituted their identities (e.g., Greeks considered Greekness to stem from language, not from physical appearance).

So, your point is taken that the LDS church is a product of the 19th century, but the picture is pretty complex.

[Applejack]

I don't post about religion because, frankly, what's the point? But I am surprised by how much traction and genuine surprise that this thing (is it a statement, an announcement, a declaration, a revelation) is generating on the interwebs. What is the big revelation? That Brigham Young was racist? Certainly anyone who has ever read any quote by BY with the word "race" in it knew that already. Is it that the Priesthood ban was a racist mistake? Are there still people that think that God somehow approved of racist priesthood? Is it that black members had previously held the priesthood before Brigham Young set the policy? That's a little more obscure, but hardly unknown.

For me, a more interesting statement would not have focused on the priesthood ban's origins, but rather why it took until 1978 to correct the error.

[LA Ute]

This could use some nuance.

Race is a social construction. People have always been aware of different skin-colors, but to use that as a defining feature of society is a modern innovation. In the English Colonies, after Bacon's Rebellion in the 1670s, conducted largely by indentured servants wanting better opportunities once their terms of service were up, the authorities began focusing on slave-labor instead of indentured-servitude to grow tobacco. This led to the designation of the few Africans in the area as slaves - by "race" or skin-color, making them easily distinguished from whites. There were African slaves in the Americas long before this (and by Americas, I mean North America, South America, Caribbean), but they weren't enslaved because of their color (indeed, some were indentured servants, finished up their terms, married, and became landowners). They were enslaved and brought to the New World because of their high resistance to contagious disease. It wasn't until the late 1600s in this country that race was equated to slave.

So, to say there was no such thing as a "multi-racial" society before the 18th century is perhaps correct because there wasn't really a concept of "race" in the modern sense for a long time. But that's like saying there was no such thing as an ipad in the 1700s either.

There were plenty of multi-cultural societies throughout ancient history, societies that we would consider multi-racial today. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Athens, Ancient Rome, probably China (although I'm not an expert) - all of these had many people of many different skin-pigments living together - but with very different conceptions of what constituted their identities (e.g., Greeks considered Greekness to stem from language, not from physical appearance).

So, your point is taken that the LDS church is a product of the 19th century, but the picture is pretty complex.

977 You're challenging Joseph Ellis? I mean, he did have that little plagiarism problem, but....

Seriously, I get what you are saying. I am no historian. Still, I was talking about American society, and I think Ellis was too. What he seemed to be noting was that at the time of the American founding, a multi-racial/ethnic society like the current USA did not exist anywhere. That's why I admire the Quakers and Franklin, who in 1790 tried to get the Constitution amended to ban slavery. They were way ahead of their time. (Few people today realize what radicals the Quakers were in many ways. I have Quaker ancestry so studying them is a bit of a hobby for me.)

To be clear, I am not saying that as a result slavery was excusable because of the world's condition then, or that early Mormons' racism was excusable. It just was not unusual. Just trying to avoid what you historians call presentism.

[SoCalPat]

Washington Post? How was I supposed to notice that? My news gathering consists of browsing headlines on CNN.com and reading 1 liberal and 1 conservative op-ed daily. Thanks.

It was actually written by Peggy Fletcher Stack, the SL Trib's religion reporter, although I was not aware her writing was syndicated under the Religion News Service.

[Solon]

977 You're challenging Joseph Ellis? I mean, he did have that little plagiarism problem, but....

Seriously, I get what you are saying. I am no historian. Still, I was talking about American society, and I think Ellis was too. What he seemed to be noting was that at the time of the American founding, a multi-racial/ethnic society like the current USA did not exist anywhere. That's why I admire the Quakers and Franklin, who in 1790 tried to get the Constitution amended to ban slavery. They were way ahead of their time. (Few people today realize what radicals the Quakers were in many ways. I have Quaker ancestry so studying them is a bit of a hobby for me.)

To be clear, I am not saying that as a result slavery was excusable because of the world's condition then, or that early Mormons' racism was excusable. It just was not unusual. Just trying to avoid what you historians call presentism.

Yeah, I wasn't really disagreeing. Just adding some context to the idea of a multi-racial state.

The understanding that the Constitution's framers would put off a discussion on slavery for 20 or so years is well documented. By the 1770s, race had come to be a defining feature of "free" and "slave" in the US. In fact, Edmund Morgan argued in the 1970s that the distinction between black & white as "slave" & "free" posited a fundamental equality among whites in virginia, and this fundamental equality transgressed normal social & economic lines. This basic equality was the basis of (white) liberal democracy & notions of freedom that gave birth to the American nation. So, in a way, the way whites in Virginia defined themselves as essentially free because they were white established a more egalitarian state than existed back in jolly old england.

So, in sum. the existence of black slavery made whites feel free, whether a poor white ex-indentured servant or a rich bourgeois slaveholder. This common sense of freedom established the basic egalitarianism of American democracy.

Pretty interesting idea, IMO. I buy the Morgan thesis.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Yy_X7a0tWbkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Solon]

if there are 13 explanations/clarifications that are scheduled to come out, what are some of the other items on that list?

1. Polygamy
2. Mountain Meadow Massacre

What else?

My best guesses:

Differing Accounts of the First Vision
Word of Wisdom (from suggestion to commandment)
Women & Gender roles (esp. historically - the blessings & stuff)
Book of Abraham
Blood Atonement
Church Finances
Anti-Communism & John Birchy stuff
End of the World & Food Storage

I doubt we see anything on Book of Mormon historicity or Book of Mormon textual problems.

[LA Ute]

You may be right. Not sure they'll get into the John Birchy stuff or food storage but those are good guesses.

[Applejack]

My best guesses:

Differing Accounts of the First Vision
Word of Wisdom (from suggestion to commandment)
Women & Gender roles (esp. historically - the blessings & stuff)
Book of Abraham
Blood Atonement
Church Finances
Anti-Communism & John Birchy stuff
End of the World & Food Storage

I doubt we see anything on Book of Mormon historicity or Book of Mormon textual problems.

I would be surprised about JohnBirch/Communism. I would also be surprised to see something about women and giving blessings, but I guess anything is possible. I'm going to say a big NO WAY on church finances, if you mean transparency.

[LA Ute]

Is food storage controversial?

Not to me.

[Applejack]

Is food storage controversial?

It will be once the zombie apocalypse hits and I'm trying to get into your food storage.

[Solon]

I would be surprised about JohnBirch/Communism. I would also be surprised to see something about women and giving blessings, but I guess anything is possible. I'm going to say a big NO WAY on church finances, if you mean transparency.

Hey, you wiseasses go ahead and put your guesses up here and i'll bag on them. ::p

When I was a kid, Food Storage was emphasized to deal with impending doom of Nuclear Armageddon & the end of the world.
Now it's recommended to alleviate short-term financial problems.
The LDS used to be much more of a millenialist movement. I don't see much of that anymore.

As for the financial transparency, I doubt we see the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see an acknowledgement that those numbers used to be public, and the church gives some more detailed reasons for keeping them in-house.

Is it true that temple-workers can't have beards? Wow. That seems silly.

[Applejack]

Hey, you wiseasses go ahead and put your guesses up here and i'll bag on them. ::p

When I was a kid, Food Storage was emphasized to deal with impending doom of Nuclear Armageddon & the end of the world.
Now it's recommended to alleviate short-term financial problems.
The LDS used to be much more of a millenialist movement. I don't see much of that anymore.

As for the financial transparency, I doubt we see the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see an acknowledgement that those numbers used to be public, and the church gives some more detailed reasons for keeping them in-house.

Is it true that temple-workers can't have beards? Wow. That seems silly.

Apologies - I actually think your list is pretty good.

Here are some other possibilities:

- Multiple polygamy pages: one on why we did it, one on why we stopped, and one on how LDS is different than FLDS.
- I think we might say one historicity page: native american DNA and lack of links to Jerusalem.
-ERA
-

[LA Ute]

Hey, you wiseasses go ahead and put your guesses up here and i'll bag on them. ::p

When I was a kid, Food Storage was emphasized to deal with impending doom of Nuclear Armageddon & the end of the world.
Now it's recommended to alleviate short-term financial problems.
The LDS used to be much more of a millenialist movement. I don't see much of that anymore.

Probably a reaction to the Cold War and possible nuclear Armageddon. I recall reading somehere (The Economist?) some pretty wild misperceptions about what food storage is all about.


As for the financial transparency, I doubt we see the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see an acknowledgement that those numbers used to be public, and the church gives some more detailed reasons for keeping them in-house.

Could be. I hadn't thought about that.


Is it true that temple-workers can't have beards? Wow. That seems silly.

It's my understanding that Pres. Hinckley decided that all temple worker must meet missionary grooming standards. IN the L.A. Temple a prior temple president interpreted this to mean that our bishop (who was about 78 years old) could not perform temple baptisms because he had a mustache. I also was excluded for the same reason. It was a pretty embarrassing experience in front of our youth. I'm not sure if the current temple president takes the same position.

[Sullyute]

Is food storage controversial?

That is one of the areas that I think the church should hit on more (general financial preparedness and the ability to weather hard times). However in many cases that means putting off marriage or child rearing so it can back fire against other church priorities.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Sullyute]

Agree that church finances are not "historical issues" but current issues that I don't see the church adressing any time soon.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Applejack]

It's my understanding that Pres. Hinckley decided that all temple worker must meet missionary grooming standards. IN the L.A. Temple a prior temple president interpreted this to mean that our bishop (who was about 78 years old) could not perform temple baptisms because he had a mustache. I also was excluded for the same reason. It was a pretty embarrassing experience in front of our youth. I'm not sure if the current temple president takes the same position.

Wait, you have a moustache? My mental image of you just imploded.

[LA Ute]

Wait, you have a moustache? My mental image of you just imploded.

I had one for 25 years. In 2004 it went away. My kids had never seen me without it. Neither had my wife. I'll find a photo somewhere.

[wally]

It's my understanding that Pres. Hinckley decided that all temple worker must meet missionary grooming standards. IN the L.A. Temple a prior temple president interpreted this to mean that our bishop (who was about 78 years old) could not perform temple baptisms because he had a mustache. I also was excluded for the same reason. It was a pretty embarrassing experience in front of our youth. I'm not sure if the current temple president takes the same position.

Of all of the camplaints about the LDS Church, this is by FAR the one I embrace most. So. Freakin. Dumb. Of all the LDS prophets, 44% of them have had beards. 19% of all LDS prophets have had "Duck Dynasty" beards. See the image below. If you are LDS and lay claim to all ancient prophets as well, those percentages skyrocket.

978

When did this aversion to facial hair begin? why? For the record I have never seen my father without a mustache. He shaved his beard (not his mustache) a 5-year period prior to 2004 while he was a bishop. Upon his release he immediately grew his beard back. Beards are great for hiding jowls and for looking marvelous, so I have to imagine that among the Q12 and first presidency there have to be some closeted beardos, wishing they could come out. Some day I hope that revelation is received.

[concerned]

I had one for 25 years. In 2004 it went away. My kids had never seen me without it. Neither had my wife. I'll find a photo somewhere.

My partner had a beard for 30 years too. Same as you for his kids and probably his wife. He was called as a bishop. Nobody said a thing . . . for about a month. Then his stake president "suggested" that he might want consider shaving it. He did, before he told his wife. She went through the roof when she saw him (and eventually recognized him), and wanted to give the SP a piece of her mind. She was dissuaded gently. He was released after 5 years a couple of months ago, and grew it back immediately. Its grayer than it was; everybody tells him he looks just like the most interesting man in the world. All is harmony in his household.

[LA Ute]

Did it go away in response to your call into the bishopric? It's always fun to show up on new bishop day to see someone without facial hair for the first time in forever.

No, I had been in the bishopric and on the high council with it. When I gave it up I had just been released from the HC and put back in a bishopric, and I finally got sick of all the hints from my SP and just took it off. The temple baptisms incident influenced me too. I figured, "If it means that much to them, then fine, I'll lose it for a while." My family freaked out, my wife especially. I may grow it back someday. My theory is that once all GAs who were alive in the 60s die, the preoccupation with facial hair will go away.

[Scratch]

I had one for 25 years. I'll find a photo somewhere.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18nwdrxqdsfixgif/original.gif

[concerned]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18nwdrxqdsfixgif/original.gif

You will shave yours at the appropriate time, I presume. You don't strike me as a radical.

[LA Ute]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18nwdrxqdsfixgif/original.gif

Then again, maybe not.

[Solon]

I had one for 25 years. In 2004 it went away. My kids had never seen me without it. Neither had my wife. I'll find a photo somewhere.

I got you covered.
LA Ute's picture from his High School Yearbook.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/33300/33333r.jpg

[Senioritis]

I had one for 25 years. In 2004 it went away. My kids had never seen me without it. Neither had my wife. I'll find a photo somewhere.

LA Ute in 2003.

979

[LA Ute]

LA Ute in 2003.

979

That was before my hair transplant procedure. (We moved the 'stache to my forehead.)


I got you covered.
LA Ute's picture from his High School Yearbook.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/33300/33333r.jpg

That's actually my younger brother. <fail>


For me, a more interesting statement would not have focused on the priesthood ban's origins, but rather why it took until 1978 to correct the error.

I think that is the most interesting question about this entire subject. I wonder if we'll ever really know with any decent level of certainty. I wonder if it's even possible to know. I am pretty confident my own guess is right. But I'll reserve judgment until that great day when we all attend a celestial fireside titled "All the Mysteries and Secrets You Ever Wondered About -- Explained!"

[Solon]

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/bbc/2000/2090/2094fr.jpg

Here's another LA Ute classic portrait, although this is from his Brooklyn Dodger days.

If you ever want a way to kill a couple of hours, the Library of Congress Digital Archive is where to go.

Here's the main page: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/
Here are the civil war portraits: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/lilj/ The faces haunt me since they're all, 100% dead. We all have it coming.

And here's my favorite: the Baseball Card page: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?st=grid&co=bbc

I love the LoC. Sometimes our government gets it right.

[Sullyute]

I may grow it back someday. My theory is that once all GAs who were alive in the 60s die, the preoccupation with facial hair will go away.

Is there a current GA that was not alive in the 60's?! You may be waiting a long time for revelation to come.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Is there a current GA that was not alive in the 60's?! You may be waiting a long time for revelation to come.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Afraid so. In their eyes, long hair and facial hair became symbols of rebellion in the 60s. The 70s too, when you think about it. It will be a long time before that fades away.

[scottie]

... to get out in front of these issues.

:spittake:

[Jeff Lebowski]

Probably a reaction to the Cold War and possible nuclear Armageddon. I recall reading somehere (The Economist?) some pretty wild misperceptions about what food storage is all about.


What is it all about? I have always wondered.

[LA Ute]

What is it all about? I have always wondered.

Looks like you are about to burst into song, or maybe into a poem. An admirable impulse in an engineer.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Why is this in the beard thread? Go start a religion thread if you want to talk about this kind of stuff.

This IS about religion. The church owns BYU, and it was Ernie Wilkinson who as pres of byu established the short haircut/no facial hair aesthetic as a response to the hippies of the 60s. It just kind of stuck, and elevated itself into the upper echelons of the church leadership.

Now the inertial doctrine of Stare Decisis keeps it going.

[LA Ute]

This IS about religion. The church owns BYU, and it was Ernie Wilkinson who as pres of byu established the short haircut/no facial hair aesthetic as a response to the hippies of the 60s. It just kind of stuck, and elevated itself into the upper echelons of the church leadership.

Now the inertial doctrine of Stare Decisis keeps it going.

I remember reading a Wilkinson speech at BYU about increased effeminacy was a sign of a civilization's imminent fall, and that longer male hair thus must not be permitted.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Ernest Wilkinson also established the Honor Code, and its enforcement arm the HCO. He is to blame for BYU enforcing Lucifer's pre-existencial plan at the Lord's university.

[LA Ute]

Ernest Wilkinson also established the Honor Code, and its enforcement arm the HCO. He is to blame for BYU enforcing Lucifer's pre-existencial plan at the Lord's university.

An old joke: Required reading at BYU included "Free Agency and How to Enforce It," by Ernest L. Wilkinson.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Looks like you are about to burst into song, or maybe into a poem. An admirable impulse in an engineer.

Totally serious question. Food storage always seemed kind of bizarre to me. And now we haven't really renounced it and some people still do it, but it gets almost zero discussion or emphasis. I have heard a variety of theories over the years on why we do it, but I am not sure any of them were more than speculation. So when you say that the mag had it off, I am wondering what you see as the real motivation for it.

[LA Ute]

I was responding to Solon's list of controversial topics the church might officially address, and expressing some mild skepticism as to whether food storage would be one of them. It just doesn't strike me as a big deal. But I allowed as how there might be some misperceptions out there -- some writers in high-end publications refer to it as "food hoarding," which in American usage probably doesn't convey the real spirit of the practice, IMO. (In the U.K., I'm told, "hoard" has a more neutral connotation.) Still, I don't see that as a big enough problem to require an official statement. I don't know.

[Solon]

Totally serious question. Food storage always seemed kind of bizarre to me. And now we haven't really renounced it and some people still do it, but it gets almost zero discussion or emphasis. I have heard a variety of theories over the years on why we do it, but I am not sure any of them were more than speculation. So when you say that the mag had it off, I am wondering what you see as the real motivation for it.

It's a legit question. I can understand the idea of preparing for a doomsday scenario where people would need large quantities of stockpiled materials.

But the idea of stockpiling more than a week or two's worth of food & water & supplies is silly. In the event of a lost job or financial difficulty, you're better off with a savings account than 30 bushels of cheap wheat. (I also think it's funny that so many people stockpile wheat but no grinder, and no provision for electricity to run the grinder)

I found nothing in The Economist's archives on LDS food storage.

The lds.org page on food storage seems to echo the "store just a little bit in case of natural disasters" line of thought rather than the 1-year's supply of food, water, diapers, and ammo.

http://www.lds.org/topics/food-storage

I think LDS beliefs on the Millenium deserve some scrutiny like the other issues. I just chose "Food Storage" as the manifestation of a belief, since widely de-emphasized, in an imminent end of the world.

[LA Ute]

It's a legit question. I can understand the idea of preparing for a doomsday scenario where people would need large quantities of stockpiled materials.

But the idea of stockpiling more than a week or two's worth of food & water & supplies is silly. In the event of a lost job or financial difficulty, you're better off with a savings account than 30 bushels of cheap wheat. (I also think it's funny that so many people stockpile wheat but no grinder, and no provision for electricity to run the grinder)

I found nothing in The Economist's archives on LDS food storage.

The lds.org page on food storage seems to echo the "store just a little bit in case of natural disasters" line of thought rather than the 1-year's supply of food, water, diapers, and ammo.

http://www.lds.org/topics/food-storage

I think LDS beliefs on the Millenium deserve some scrutiny like the other issues. I just chose "Food Storage" as the manifestation of a belief, since widely de-emphasized, in an imminent end of the world.

FWIW, my earliest recollections seem Cold War-oriented, but during my teenage years (about 1970 forward) the emphasis seemed to be "You'll need this, we don't know why." That prompted tons of speculation. During my adult years it has seemed to be, "It's just good to be prepared for whatever may happen in an uncertain world, what with economic collapses, natural disasters, etc." But that's just how I've seen it. You can have access to my giant boxes of Bisquick any time, Solon. (We are pretty much prepared only for a natural disaster, not a year of famine. That really did make life easier just after the 1994 earthquake.)

[Solon]

FWIW, my earliest recollections seem Cold War-oriented, but during my teenage years (about 1970 forward) the emphasis seemed to be "You'll need this, we don't know why." That prompted tons of speculation. During my adult years it has seemed to be, "It's just good to be prepared for whatever may happen in an uncertain world, what with economic collapses, natural disasters, etc." But that's just how I've seen it. You can have access to my giant boxes of Bisquick any time, Solon.

Thanks, LA.
In 2006 I was trapped for 3 daysin the Outer Banks of NC without electricity or any way to get off the island after a Nor'easter wrecked the road.
Ever since, I've been a big believer in having enough food for a few days and especially water to drink, and cash (stores opened on generators, but nobody could use a credit card or an ATM). But I don't really believe in storing enough to survive for years, although I've got a lot of venison jerky in the freezer.

[scottie]

What about the hitchhiker/one-of-3-Nephites-guy?

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's a legit question. I can understand the idea of preparing for a doomsday scenario where people would need large quantities of stockpiled materials.

But the idea of stockpiling more than a week or two's worth of food & water & supplies is silly. In the event of a lost job or financial difficulty, you're better off with a savings account than 30 bushels of cheap wheat. (I also think it's funny that so many people stockpile wheat but no grinder, and no provision for electricity to run the grinder)

I found nothing in The Economist's archives on LDS food storage.

The lds.org page on food storage seems to echo the "store just a little bit in case of natural disasters" line of thought rather than the 1-year's supply of food, water, diapers, and ammo.

http://www.lds.org/topics/food-storage

I think LDS beliefs on the Millenium deserve some scrutiny like the other issues. I just chose "Food Storage" as the manifestation of a belief, since widely de-emphasized, in an imminent end of the world.

I think 72-hr kits are a great idea. But if we ever get to a point where we legitimately need to live on a 2-yr supply, then God help us because it is the apocalypse and 99% of us are going to die when the food and the bullets run out.

Some people claim that it is for financial hard times, but it seems like the Bishop Storehouse (a program I really love) fills that need. In the end I think it was an odd Cold War artifact.

[Jeff Lebowski]

An old joke: Required reading at BYU included "Free Agency and How to Enforce It," by Ernest L. Wilkinson.

A system that is 100% supported by the current First Presidency and Q12. But I agree that it is less awkward and more fun to blame it on Ernie Wilk and make fun of him.

[LA Ute]

A system that is 100% supported by the current First Presidency and Q12. But I agree that it is less awkward and more fun to blame it on Ernie Wilk and make fun of him.

I think Wilkinson was more inclined to enforce free agency than the current FP and Q12 are. His many idiosyncrasies made him easy to make fun of. I interviewed him once for an hour when he was BYU President Emeritus and found him to be a powerful and charismatic personality.

[hostile]

I think 72-hr kits are a great idea. But if we ever get to a point where we legitimately need to live on a 2-yr supply, then God help us because it is the apocalypse and 99% of us are going to die when the food and the bullets run out.

Some people claim that it is for financial hard times, but it seems like the Bishop Storehouse (a program I really love) fills that need. In the end I think it was an odd Cold War artifact.

We had our regular "Emergency Preparedness/Food Storage" 5th Sunday lesson a while back. After the instructor (our former bishop who has an incredible arsenal of survival gear/weapons ) finished one of my wife's friends said, "What if I don't want to survive; If we're going to die I'd rather get it over quickly"

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think Wilkinson was more inclined to enforce free agency than the current FP and Q12 are.

Not that much difference. Don't kid yourself.


His many idiosyncrasies made him easy to make fun of. I interviewed him once for an hour when he was BYU President Emeritus and found him to be a powerful and charismatic personality.

He is an enigma. He did some really nutty things but he was also responsible for massive growth of the campus in terms of new building, additional faculty, etc.

[Brian]

If just a few people have a 1 year supply, they should be able to help entire neighborhoods for a short time after a disaster.

Good point.

In general I'm not on board. I'm all for a couple weeks worth of food, and some cash. If things get apocalyptic, I don't think I would want to live anymore. So I guess I should add a few bullets to my food stash.

I remember doing nuclear bomb exercises in first grade (in the 70s). I remember a booklet on how to survive a blast, and how to build and live in a fallout shelter. I remember walking to school one day and they tested the emergency sirens. It terrified me because I thought there was going to be a nuclear war. Red Dawn seemed like a documentary. I remember seeing a documentary on PBS about the arms race and what the Soviet stockpile could do to us. I had a hard time going to sleep for several days after that.
A few years ago I asked my dad about what it was like during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Everyone was legitimately scared, and waiting to hear that bombs were falling.

You youngsters don't know what fear is.

[Applejack]

Good point.

In general I'm not on board. I'm all for a couple weeks worth of food, and some cash. If things get apocalyptic, I don't think I would want to live anymore. So I guess I should add a few bullets to my food stash.

I remember doing nuclear bomb exercises in first grade (in the 70s). I remember a booklet on how to survive a blast, and how to build and live in a fallout shelter. I remember walking to school one day and they tested the emergency sirens. It terrified me because I thought there was going to be a nuclear war. Red Dawn seemed like a documentary. I remember seeing a documentary on PBS about the arms race and what the Soviet stockpile could do to us. I had a hard time going to sleep for several days after that.
A few years ago I asked my dad about what it was like during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Everyone was legitimately scared, and waiting to hear that bombs were falling.

You youngsters don't know what fear is.

Here is a handy tipsheet about where your local ward's facial hair restrictions came from:

1. If your bishop/stake president outlaws/frowns on all facial hair on leaders, he is probably taking a cue from the church leaders who, since the 60s, are all clean-shaven.
2. If your bishop/stake president outlaws/frowns on beards BUT ALLOWS MOUSTACHES, he is a graduate of BYU and was probably a member of the secret Honor Code Danites.

The beards-are-of-the-devil-but-moustaches-come-from-God logic is so twisted that it could only come from BYU's honor code (or Magnum P.I.)

[Scratch]

And in a reassuring turn of events, we now have one more person who can hold higher office in the church or take tests at BYU:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/elvishimmler/JesusShaved.jpg?t=1178278095

[LA Ute]

And in a reassuring turn of events, we now have one more person who can hold higher office in the church or take tests at BYU:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/elvishimmler/JesusShaved.jpg?t=1178278095

Still needs a haircut.

[LA Ute]

Apropos of our food storage discussion, I happened to see this. It kind of screams "OCD!!" but these are more practical suggestions than having a year's supply of wheat.

http://thesurvivalmom.com/2013/11/29/50-last-minute-ways-prepare-emergency/

[Rocker Ute]

Everybody knows the essential thing you need for an emergency is a towel.

About a year ago the stake gave us a sheet of paper with information on things to do for prepare for an emergency and they wanted us to deliver it to everyone in the neighborhood. In the top 5 of things needed for an emergency was guns & ammo and gold coins which raised my eyebrows.

A few years back in our old place a guy came through whose focus was basically getting people through the first five days of a disaster. Super practical stuff and a lot of it you would never think of. Like get a flashlight with a flat bottom so you can stand it up, or lighters are better than matches because you can reuse them and drop them in water, or the best flashlight you can have is one of those LED keychain lights because it is with you, or include a picture of your family in your 72 hour kit, cash and a sharpie. Or 2-liter bottles are better for water storage than a 50 gallon drum because they are portable, you can store them in different places and if one gets smashed you've got lots of others.

Just a lot of level-headed good stuff.

So I suggested that I could get that list of suggestions and maybe we give it as kind of a stage one and the sheet we were given as a 'so you are super prepared? Well here is a stage 2 zombie apocalypse plan...' sort of a deal as I really didn't want my first conversation with a neighbor to be about the gold standard.

I was told that I was to hand out the sheet as is with no additions or alterations. I think they are still sitting in the trunk of my car.

[Scratch]

I was told that I was to hand out the sheet as is with no additions or alterations. I think they are still sitting in the trunk of my car.

I'll see you in hell. Between this failure to sustain your presumably clean-shaven superiors, your semi-long sideburns, and your failure to shave last Saturday I am hereby officially making your calling and election to the telestial kingdom made sure.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Sweet. Everybody know that ALL of the best parties will happen in the Telestial Kingdom!

[Rocker Ute]

I'll see you in hell. Between this failure to sustain your presumably clean-shaven superiors, your semi-long sideburns, and your failure to shave last Saturday I am hereby officially making your calling and election to the telestial kingdom made sure.

That took a lot longer than I expected.

[Sullyute]

So I actually read from the "Race and the Priesthood" essay in sunday school yesterday. There was no comment, except from the teacher who said thanks for reading that. After class I did have a gentleman ask where I gotten that statement. I gave him the copy that I read from and we talked about it as we walked out of class. He said that he had always had some questions on the issue and was glad to see a little more clarity on it.

[Scorcho]

It is a bit unfortunate because some men look much better with facial hair. For those that have facial scars, severe acne or skin issues nicely groomed facial hair can be an improvement. I suspect Neal A. Maxwell might have looked much more handsome sporting a beard.

And I would hope that a card carrying LDS Member thats using his beard to hide some Rosatia wouldn't be denied to work in the temple of hold other callings, but I wouldn't be surprised, it seems like we still hold onto some cult like behavior.

[Sullyute]

It is a bit unfortunate because some men look much better with facial hair. For those that have facial scars, severe acne or skin issues nicely groomed facial hair can be an improvement. I suspect Neal A. Maxwell might have looked much more handsome sporting a beard.

And I would hope that a card carrying LDS Member thats using his beard to hide some Rosatia wouldn't be denied to work in the temple of hold other callings, but I wouldn't be surprised, it seems like we still hold onto some cult like behavior.

In the business world you are less likely to see executives with facial hair. There are some out there (Men's Warehouse CEO, Oracle CEO) but they are definitely in the small minority. Same goes for news anchors, college and professional sports coaches, government leaders, etc. The majority of "leaders" tend to be beardless, so I don't think it is that odd that church leaders are expected to be clean shaven. However, I do think that some church leaders take it to extremes, but that is the price of moving up the ecclesiastical ladder.

[Scorcho]

With the new addition of LDS Beliefs explained just out.

http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&query=polygamy (http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&query=polygamy)


After the Manifesto, monogamy was advocated in the Church both over the pulpit and through the press. On an exceptional basis, some new plural marriages were performed between 1890 and 1904, especially in Mexico and Canada, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law; a small number of plural marriages were performed within the United States during those years.

I suspect if the US Govt. didn’t come down so hard on Polygamy back in the late 1800’s, LDS Members might be still practicing it today?

[concerned]

With the new addition of LDS Beliefs explained just out.

http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&query=polygamy (http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&query=polygamy)




I suspect if the US Govt. didn’t come down so hard on Polygamy back in the late 1800’s, LDS Members might be still practicing it today?

as one of the topics that could be subject of future doctrinal clarification, what about the relationship between terrestrial monogamy and celestial polygamy? some if not many men are sealed to more than one wife.

[Sullyute]

With the new addition of LDS Beliefs explained just out.

http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&query=polygamy (http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&query=polygamy)



I suspect if the US Govt. didn’t come down so hard on Polygamy back in the late 1800’s, LDS Members might be still practicing it today?

I think the societal pressure to change would be too great for the church or individuals to endure this long. Just look at how ostercized and disdained the FLDS are today. There is no way the church has the growth that it has over the last 50 years if we were still polygs.

But if we did still practice plural marriage, I could see general conference talks chiding men in their 20's putting off marriage, and chiding men in their 30's putting off their second marriage.

[LA Ute]

as one of the topics that could be subject of future doctrinal clarification, what about the relationship between terrestrial monogamy and celestial polygamy? some if not many men are sealed to more than one wife.

Here's my view of that, which many see as a cop-out but which to me is the only honest answer: That can't be clarified because we don't know enough. Hardly anything has been revealed (using that term in the believer sense) about what exactly marital relationships will be like in the eternities. There's plenty of speculation and probably eyebrow-raising statements by various GAs at various times, but nothing that could reliably called church doctrine.

I expect to be verbally pummeled for the above paragraph.

[NorthwestUteFan]

We have some extraordinary musical talent in the ward. Our Christmas program today was a mix of Spoken Word (mostly Luke 2), with various songs by the Primary children, audience participation in Christmas hyms, etc.

But the standouts were a beautiful violin performance, a lovely vocal solo by a talented friend who is active in local musical theater, a fun mix of Christmas carols by the Ward choir.

But the song that stood out the most was one of the most passionate, moving, and powerful performances I have ever witnessed. A sister performed on the harp and sang what IMHO is the greatest Christmas song of all, "What Child Is This?". She sang with the voice of an angel.

As always the uncomfortable silence after such a performance is unsettling. A few random children clapped, because in their sweet innocence they realize how we should show appreciation. But these performances each deserved a standing ovation. Or at a minimum a polite round of applause. That has always bothered me in sacrament meetings.

As an aside, the power of these performances were not sufficient to tear away from their ipads/blackberries the Bishop, the 1st and 2nd counselors, the stake president, and visiting High Councillor (all seated on the stand). I felt like shouting as did Russell Crowe in Gladiator, "Were you not entertained??!"

:confused:

[NorthwestUteFan]

The Sunday School and Priesthood lessons were business as usual and did not disappoint. SS was "Building Zion Society on earth" with plenty of 'Joseph Smith was a great guy' and 'tye world is getting worse every day therefore Jesus us coming, so keep doing your church assignments'. It felt too similar to a work meeting. As I said, business as usual.

Priesthood lesson was the Thomas Monson lesson about him starting a forest fire when he was 7. The first law of the Gospel is 'Strict Obedience', and the second law is 'pay your tithing'.

Is it too much to ask that we talk strictly about Jesus during church on the weeks of Christmas and Easter? Does this bother anybody else? Can we still claim that we are 'Christian', when we can't even recognize that every other Christian church in the world actually spoke exclusively about Jesus today? How can we sit, with straight faces, and claim to have a greater degree of light and knowledge with respect to 'true Christianity', when we never seem to directly discuss the teachings of Jesus?

I don't know why I expected anything different.

[NorthwestUteFan]

... Seems like Christmas is one holiday that is nearly impossible to screw up.

I disagree. See my second post. Sac mtg was lovely and uplifting, but the other meetings were not. Christmas and Easter church meetings should break away from the standard correlated pap, and refrain from talking about anybody else but the Saviour. Preach some love, tolerance, forgiveness, etc. Put a smile on everybody's face and have them leave enjoying a better mood.

[Diehard Ute]

So, this leads me to a question I've always had.

Why doesn't the LDS church have Christmas Eve or Christmas Day services? Special Easter services? Or do things with Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday etc.

[Diehard Ute]

Probably because we have enough meetings already.

I think Northwest is in the minority in thinking that something is broken there. Mormons pretty much love all aspects of Christmas. The Church does a great job with the holiday - one of the best light displays in the world is at temple square, there is a First Presidency Christmas devotional, and the MoTab concerts sell out online like U2 concerts in the 90s. The December Ensign is always a Christmas edition. I left church yesterday full of the Christmas spirit, and I don't think I'm an exception. I love Christmas talks and music, so I don't mind when lesson planners go rogue from the set curriculum to do a holiday lesson. But I don't see it as an affront to Christianity if I have a lesson on the word of wisdom in December.

I have a hard time equating a Christmas Eve service to a "meeting" (I'm guessing you were joking about the reason...at least I hope so)

Silent night being sung in candlelight at midnight is a pretty cool thing...and definitely not a meeting.

[NorthwestUteFan]

So, this leads me to a question I've always had.

Why doesn't the LDS church have Christmas Eve or Christmas Day services? Special Easter services? Or do things with Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday etc.


Matt 15:8-9 seems to apply.

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[UBlender]

The Sunday School and Priesthood lessons were business as usual and did not disappoint. SS was "Building Zion Society on earth" with plenty of 'Joseph Smith was a great guy' and 'tye world is getting worse every day therefore Jesus us coming, so keep doing your church assignments'. It felt too similar to a work meeting. As I said, business as usual.

Priesthood lesson was the Thomas Monson lesson about him starting a forest fire when he was 7. The first law of the Gospel is 'Strict Obedience', and the second law is 'pay your tithing'.

Is it too much to ask that we talk strictly about Jesus during church on the weeks of Christmas and Easter? Does this bother anybody else? Can we still claim that we are 'Christian', when we can't even recognize that every other Christian church in the world actually spoke exclusively about Jesus today? How can we sit, with straight faces, and claim to have a greater degree of light and knowledge with respect to 'true Christianity', when we never seem to directly discuss the teachings of Jesus?

I don't know why I expected anything different.

If it makes you feel any better, my primary lesson was the "Christmas lesson". Which brings me to what I learned in church yesterday--spending two hours with FIFTEEN hyper five year olds three days before Christmas (especially after the super helpful primary presidency has given them all a treat on the way into class) is NOT the way to increase one's feeling of Christmas spirit.

On the topic of Christmas meetings, my memory from my childhood was that the Sunday before Christmas was always just sacrament meeting (even if it wasn't Christmas Eve or Christmas Day). This changed probably sometime in the late 80s/early 90s. Was this a church-wide thing or just something my rogue ward/stake did?

[LA Ute]

If it makes you feel any better, my primary lesson was the "Christmas lesson". Which brings me to what I learned in church yesterday--spending two hours with FIFTEEN hyper five year olds three days before Christmas (especially after the super helpful primary presidency has given them all a treat on the way into class) is NOT the way to increase one's feeling of Christmas spirit.

On the topic of Christmas meetings, my memory from my childhood was that the Sunday before Christmas was always just sacrament meeting (even if it wasn't Christmas Eve or Christmas Day). This changed probably sometime in the late 80s/early 90s. Was this a church-wide thing or just something my rogue ward/stake did?

i think you had a rogue ward/stake. We've gotten away with that on a "seek forgiveness rather than permission" basis. It depends on whether the SP wants to make an issue of such things. Our last one did; the current one doesn't. Still, yesterday we had a full block. Every class in every organization was a Christmas-related class, with stories and treats and presents. We didn't count the money after the block -- just went home to be with our families. Just as it should be, IMO.

[chrisrenrut]

I have a hard time equating a Christmas Eve service to a "meeting" (I'm guessing you were joking about the reason...at least I hope so)

Silent night being sung in candlelight at midnight is a pretty cool thing...and definitely not a meeting.

My thought is that the church wants to allow families to do what they want, or create their own traditions on Christmas Eve. To a degree, Sancho is right, the LDS church does require a lot of time from its faithful members both on Sundays and during the week. I don't think they would want to create another event that many members would feel obligated to support that might interfere with family time/traditions.


Matt 15:8-9 seems to apply.

Geez, NWUF. You either have the crappiest leadership in the church, or you are one cynical dude.

[Scorcho]

having been to midnight mass a couple of times, there is something very spiritual/magical about Christmas Eve. For me there is an enhanced sense of peace on that night. I love that feeling, its one of the best parts of the Christmas Season.

[LA Ute]

having been to midnight mass a couple of times, there is something very spiritual/magical about Christmas Eve. For me there is an enhanced sense of peace on that night. I love that feeling, its one of the best parts of the Christmas Season.

I envy that Christmas tradition in other faiths. (In the "holy envy" sense, of course!)

[Devildog]

Is it too much to ask that we talk strictly about Jesus during church on the weeks of Christmas and Easter? Does this bother anybody else?

Yes.

[Rocker Ute]

I have a hard time equating a Christmas Eve service to a "meeting" (I'm guessing you were joking about the reason...at least I hope so)

Silent night being sung in candlelight at midnight is a pretty cool thing...and definitely not a meeting.

My former stake did a Christmas Eve sing-a-long/devotional thing that was nice.

I don't have any specifics as to why the LDS church doesn't have formal services those days but it is probably rooted in the fact local congregations are run by lay ministry and having no specific services allow them to spend time with families.

Personally we spend that time with family and friends. We read and discuss the story of Christ's birth, we listen to music, have the kids reenact the nativity, do service and enjoy each other's company.

Spiritually our family event far surpasses any mass or service I've ever attended. I'd despise anything that would cut into that time. Best part of the year.

[Applejack]

Our Christmas program featured a french horn! Totally against the rules, but also totally righteous.

Does anyone have statistics on the per capita french horn & harp playing rates of various religions? I'm sure mormons dominate.

[LA Ute]

Our Christmas program featured a french horn! Totally against the rules, but also totally righteous.

Does anyone have statistics on the per capita french horn & harp playing rates of various religions? I'm sure mormons dominate.

We had a saxaphone. Top that!

[Applejack]

We had a saxaphone. Top that!

AGAINST THE RULES!!!!! see ​CHOI.

[LA Ute]

AGAINST THE RULES!!!!! see ​CHOI.

Forgiveness soooo trumps permission....

[tooblue]

We had a saxaphone. Top that!

Oh yah, well our Christmas program was cancelled because church was cancelled! We slept in. Of course, what else is there to do when there is no power or heat, it's -11 and the world is covered in a quarter inch thick sheet of ice. From the sounds of it we will be spending Christmas in the dark this year huddled around the fireplace.

The Christmas program has been scheduled for next week ... if the power is back on. It is at the chapel, at the moment, where the boys and I have sought refuge to play some basketball. Below is a pic of the railing at the chapel entrance.

994

[NorthwestUteFan]

That is awesome 2B. As much as the freezing rain can be devastating and dangerous, it is also spectacularly beautiful. I loved seeing the sunlight filter through our trees when they were coated in ice like that.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Forgiveness soooo trumps permission....

As a missionary I sang John Lennon's 'Imagine' with one companion in sacrament meeting, with each of us playing a guitar. Good times...

[Rocker Ute]

We had a saxaphone. Top that!

We actually had a sax, trumpet and acoustic guitar... and it was the best Christmas program I've ever seen on a local level. As off the hook as Mormons can get.

[Applejack]

I think what I learned in the what-i-learned-in-church thread is that bishoprics from the east coast to the west coast are thumbing their nose at the prohibition on "secular" music and "most brass" instruments.

[Scorcho]

We actually had a sax, trumpet and acoustic guitar... and it was the best Christmas program I've ever seen on a local level. As off the hook as Mormons can get.

steel drums, an oboe and a kazoo.

okay not really but that might have been better than our ward choir :)

[Rocker Ute]

steel drums, an oboe and a kazoo.

okay not really but that might have been better than our ward choir :)

Oh, and I have an ear infection that is very painful to loud noise right now. Our organist excited about the musical presentation blasted the organ so loud I was in some pretty good pain. I'm sure it disturbed whatever was living in the pipes too, and I kept imagining a whole bunch of bats flying out into the congregation and causing mass Christmas hysteria.

No such luck. As my father said each Christmas morning of my childhood, "It is always a disappointment."

[LA Ute]

I think what I learned in the what-i-learned-in-church thread is that bishoprics from the east coast to the west coast are thumbing their nose at the prohibition on "secular" music and "most brass" instruments.

IIRC the Handbook leaves it up to the bishop. Haven't ever checked (after 8 years in this bishopric).

[arizonaute]

We had strings, flute, piano, and guitar as prelude music all month. They stretched across the stand. It was awesome. We had a lady solo on a harp last Sunday.

[Freaky Girl]

It's a legit question. I can understand the idea of preparing for a doomsday scenario where people would need large quantities of stockpiled materials.

But the idea of stockpiling more than a week or two's worth of food & water & supplies is silly. In the event of a lost job or financial difficulty, you're better off with a savings account than 30 bushels of cheap wheat. (I also think it's funny that so many people stockpile wheat but no grinder, and no provision for electricity to run the grinder)



As a child I heard you are supposed to store what you eat. So I have 24 boxes of Betty Crocker Fudge Brownie mix in my food storage. And then just for good measure, some 15 year old bushels of wheat, a wheat grinder, and a generator.

[LA Ute]

As a child I heard you are supposed to store what you eat. So I have 24 boxes of Betty Crocker Fudge Brownie mix in my food storage. And then just for good measure, some 15 year old bushels of wheat, a wheat grinder, and a generator.

The fudge brownie mix makes complete sense to me.

[ute4eva]

Who knew that toner cartridges in the clerk's office could derail a whole ward for a week.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I'm pretty late to the discussion, but agree completely with Northwest. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason that these Sundays shouldn't be dedicated solely to talking about the savior. Especially from an organization that prides itself so highly on correlation. It would take slightly more than zero effort to reorganizing already existing lessons to match up with these holidays. Instead, we had lessons on...can't even remember. I imagine inviting a non-member one of these weeks and then trying to convince them that "I promise that we really do believe in Jesus, it just wasn't his week!"

As for our Sacrament meeting service, I found myself slipping I to cynicism as Sisters Showoff paraded one after another in overly dramatic song solos through the program. About half way through, I checked myself and started just focusing on the songs and was instantly reminded of how much the Christmas hymns mean to me this time of year. It's easy to become immune to the secular garbage piped through the radio about sleigh rides and Christmas shoes. It was nice to cleanse that off my palate for 30 minutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[FMCoug]

I envy that Christmas tradition in other faiths. (In the "holy envy" sense, of course!)

Two of the things I miss the most from my protestant upbringing are Christmas Eve and Easter morning sunrise services.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Two of the things I miss the most from my protestant upbringing are Christmas Eve and Easter morning sunrise services.

Since we have the 'Fullness of the Gospel' we seem to focus on the higher aspects of administration. Middle Management positions have a way of sucking all the joy out of the work that we leave to the 'lesser' religions (who do not have the 'fullness of truth')...

Frankly I would like to see a greater focus on Grace and Forgiveness at church. And for Christmas and Easter we need to either raise the bar and prove we are Christians, or stop claiming to be.

[Rocker Ute]

...for Christmas and Easter we need to either raise the bar and prove we are Christians, or stop claiming to be.

This is exactly why I hang the most Christmas lights on my street, so nobody can deny my Christianity.

It is actually funny I have mixed feelings about the name 'Christian' as a result of a mission in the South. After two years of being harassed by people who called themselves Christian, in my 19-21 year old mind I couldn't think of a more mean, deceptive and hate-filled people... and thinking back on some of those people and what they did it still holds true...

But I remember hearing them call themselves Christians and thinking to myself, "If that is what it means to be Christian then I want nothing to do with it; I'll just be a disciple of Christ instead."

Interestingly to me today is my critiques of those people are remarkably similar to critiques I hear of Mormons in Utah. I've concluded that the dominant religion or group in any given area is going to be met with the same ire by those 'on the outside'.

[Scratch]

It is actually funny I have mixed feelings about the name 'Christian' as a result of a mission in the South. After two years of being harassed by people who called themselves Christian, in my 19-21 year old mind I couldn't think of a more mean, deceptive and hate-filled people... and thinking back on some of those people and what they did it still holds true...

But I remember hearing them call themselves Christians and thinking to myself, "If that is what it means to be Christian then I want nothing to do with it; I'll just be a disciple of Christ instead."



Maybe it was just you.

[NorthwestUteFan]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

~Mohandas Ghandi

I agree on the point about living as a 'disciple of Christ'. I relate strongly to the 'philosophical Christian', 'love thy neighbor', 'Golden Rule', 'live and let live', be a lover, not a fighter' way of life. So when I say 'Christian' perhaps I refer to an ideal, and not necessarily a particular denomination.

I align myself most closely with the statement by the Dalai Lama, "My religion is love."

[Rocker Ute]

Maybe it was just you.

No maybe about it.

[UBlender]

Primary leader: "In what ways are you different from your Heavenly Father?"

Smart 7ish year old hand shoots up. "I'm evil."

Okay then.

[Rocker Ute]

I learned both that baby Jesus never cried and also that he probably got in fights as a child with his siblings. These were both from the same person in two different comments.

[Freaky Girl]

I'm down in St George visiting my parents as well as a sister who came in for the holidays. My sister was bemoaning that at her in-laws ward she attended yesterday, they sang no holiday music or Christmas songs. She was disappointed that the music celebrating Christ's birth was so quickly abandoned. It reminded me of earlier posts in this thread.

Before I left SL, we had a fantastic service at UU. It was on gratitude and giving thanks, Congregation attendees were invited to go to the front and share the things for which they are grateful, and light a candle. The centerpiece was a beautiful display with so many bright candles by the end of the service. It was a warm and thoughtful way to close out the year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[LA Ute]

I'm down in St George visiting my parents as well as a sister who came in for the holidays. My sister was bemoaning that at her in-laws ward she attended yesterday, they sang no holiday music or Christmas songs. She was disappointed that the music celebrating Christ's birth was so quickly abandoned. It reminded me of earlier posts in this thread.

What is wrong with these people???

[Sullyute]

I learned that since the drop in age for missionaries, that the efficiency/effective level of the average missionary has dropped (go figure). The answer to increasing young mens' readiness for missionary work is active participation in Scouting.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I HATE the thought of using scouts as a missionary training program. I have the 11 yr old scouts and we stick to scout-related activities only (tying knots, learning first aid, camping, cooking, merit badges, etc).

Also for all the complaints I have about the LSD church at the top, I need to express my appreciation for local congregational leadership from the Stake level on down. They are fantastic, and do the best job possible with the resources they have.

Yesterday my son gave his first talk as a Deacon. He wrote the whole thing by himself, and absolutely nailed the presentation. I was very proud of him.

Late last night we had a knock at the door. I opened it to find the Bishop (who is a friend and former home teacher). He wanted to stop by and praise my son for a job well done. That made my son feel especially good about the effort that went into preparing his talk, and I appreciated the gesture.

[ute4eva]

"I learned both that baby Jesus never cried and also that he probably got in fights as a child with his siblings. These were both from the same person in two different comments. "I'm not sure why but that cracks me up!

[Sullyute]

Also for all the complaints I have about the LSD church at the top, I need to express my appreciation for local congregational leadership from the Stake level on down. They are fantastic, and do the best job possible with the resources they have.

I agree with you, that for the vast majority of leaders they are doing a very good job with the little resources the Church and God gave them. They sacrafice their time and talents to the needs of the members and should be commended for their efforts. Just think of what they could do with a little more resources.

I realize that tithing is like taxes, you pay them and they go to the needs of the whole state (roads, schools, police, utilities, etc) whether or not you directly benefit from it, but I sure wish that more tithing would find its way to the local level instead of being gobbled up by the "needs" of church headquarters.

[Rocker Ute]

"I learned both that baby Jesus never cried and also that he probably got in fights as a child with his siblings. These were both from the same person in two different comments. "
I'm not sure why but that cracks me up!

You aren't the only one. The incident went like this:

The lady commented in class that it bothered her when she saw depictions of the baby Jesus crying because he was perfect and she was certain he never cried. I made a sarcastic comment (shocking I know) along the lines of, "Yes, I'm sure that as an infant he would calmly say, 'I am hungry, but don't get up, I can make myself a sandwich or something...' I'm sure that he cried because that is how a baby communicates and a baby crying isn't a sin or imperfection even when it feels like it is."

So the class laughed and moved on and the teacher came back in her lesson about how He grew and waxed strong and grew in wisdom or whatever and the same lady said completely seriously, "You know he was probably just like you or me and got into little fights with his siblings..." It felt as if all eyes in the class turned to me for another smart-mouthed comment but I just kind of shrugged my shoulders... I was too busy entertaining myself with the, 'Jesus keeps coming over onto my side of the camel on purpose!' sort of thoughts.

I do struggle with the thought of Jesus-as-an-unruly-teenager-that-his-parents-are-just-hoping-something-clicks-and-he-turns-out-okay sort of thinking, but that is just me.

[Mormon Red Death]

Church was cancelled today Of course the missionaries walk over to our house unannounced in a blizzard.

I wonder if their mission president is retarded. There is a foot of snow on the ground and its a blizzard. Worst storm in 20 years and he tells them to go out on foot.

We were watching raiders of the lost ark and They came in and we had treats on the table and one of them remarked. "So we're not fasting today? "

I ended up giving them a ride home. We were the second house they visited. The other family just let them walk out in -11 weather and a blizzard.

What the hell is wrong with their mission president? He cares more about his cars being wrecked than the 18-21 year old kids he is supposed to watch over.

If it was my kid out there I would be livid. I guess generals don't really care for soldiers
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[hostile]

Our mission rule was if it was below -20 we didn't have to go out. The blizzard certainly adds a significant element of danger.

[UBlender]

What I learned in church today (again): 1:00 church is the worst thing ever and surely accounts for more inactivity in the church than all other factors combined. 1:00 church with the assignment to teach SIXTEEN five year olds is going to be the cause of my own inactivity.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

What I learned in church today (again): 1:00 church is the worst thing ever and surely accounts for more inactivity in the church than all other factors combined. 1:00 church with the assignment to teach SIXTEEN five year olds is going to be the cause of my own inactivity.

Lord help you. I thought 5 of them and afternoon church was bad enough.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Bring them treats every week, and twice as much on Fast Sunday.

[Slim]

What I learned in church today (again): 1:00 church is the worst thing ever and surely accounts for more inactivity in the church than all other factors combined. 1:00 church with the assignment to teach SIXTEEN five year olds is going to be the cause of my own inactivity.

I'm sorry brother. It's nice being back to 9:00 church, and I only have 4 (active) 9 year olds. I wish you well in your endeavor, 16 5 year olds is ridiculous, they need to split that class at least once.

[arizonaute]

if the person bearing a testimony says " i ll be short" they wont

[LA Ute]

I already knew this, but I was reminded last Sunday that some people think a testimony is really a talk, and it can last 10+ minutes.

[Rocker Ute]

I already knew this, but I was reminded last Sunday that some people think a testimony is really a talk, and it can last 10+ minutes.

This reminds me that a few years back we had a guy (actually fairly young) give about a 10 minute prayer at the end of Sacrament Mtg. It about killed me, but it was kid kryptonite... they were all passed out in the aisles with black ooze coming from their ears and noses.

[UTEopia]

I learned this a few years ago, but in a discussion about consecration the guy said "God wants everyone to drive a Mercedes."

[LA Ute]

This reminds me that a few years back we had a guy (actually fairly young) give about a 10 minute prayer at the end of Sacrament Mtg. It about killed me, but it was kid kryptonite... they were all passed out in the aisles with black ooze coming from their ears and noses.

You're stirring up all sorts of memories with this. Like the guy who sang a hymn as part of his testimony. All four verses. People were getting up and going out into the foyer. I led the way.

[chrisrenrut]

I'm more of a Cadillac guy.

Not thy will. . .

[Scorcho]

I got to stand in the circle and help set apart a missionary the other day. That's the first time I've been apart of that since my own mission. What a very cool spiritual experience.

Also, my parents got called to be a full-time missionaries in their own area while they live in their own home. That's a little bit different, but i've heard its becoming more and more common. There definitely seems to be some hastening of missionary work over the last little while.

[Rocker Ute]

You're stirring up all sorts of memories with this. Like the guy who sang a hymn as part of his testimony. All four verses. People were getting up and going out into the foyer. I led the way.

My all time favorite testimony meeting was when a guy declared his presidential candidacy from the pulpit (after explaining about a conspiracy of Bill Clinton to kill him). My eyes were fixated on the bishop as to what he would do... he hopped up and put his arm around him and whispered something in his ear... the guy nodded and said, "The Bishop says we are out of time , but if you want to hear more about this you can talk to me about it in the foyer."

We actually were out of time, I have no idea what he would have done had it been at the start of the meeting.

The best part though was after I thought everyone would avoid him like the plague and some did, but a large number of people went and gave him a hug and talked to him out in the foyer. The beauty of what some people think is open mic day.

[cald22well]

I already knew this, but I was reminded last Sunday that some people think a testimony is really a talk, and it can last 10+ minutes.

My girlfriend is scarred for life with her first ever LDS church experience being testimony meeting. Before church started, I had mentioned that I generally like testimony meeting because you can feel people's passion. Even though I am atheist, I have always felt this way. The look on her face when the first 'testimony' was a three year old boy being told what to say, followed by a middle aged woman who spent 10+ minutes talking about her recent geneology project and what she had found out about her family. She was thoroughly convinced that Mormons did not know the meaning of the word testimony.

[Scratch]

She was thoroughly convinced that Mormons did not know the meaning of the word testimony.

She was correct.

[jrj84105]

When I was a kid we had a regular speaker, a retiree who was more eccentric than senile, but a bit of both. In addition to admonitions not to drink cold water or eat green bananas, she tended to have a lot of spiritual experiences at fast food restaurants and gas stations (In fact after her death, her personage was witnessed by her husband to be floating alongside Jesus and Joseph Smith over the local Denny's). One such experience she related was that she and her husband were traveling and found a bag of someone's personal belongings under the table at McDonald's. They finished eating and left, but a few miles down the road she was prompted to return to McDonald's and turn the bag of clothing to the register person. That was the end of the story, but it was still one of her go to testimonies.


A few years later and about three hours from where I grew up my undergrad anthropology assignment was to visit a church and write about our experience. I went to an Eastern Orthodox church with my girlfriend and she decided to go to a Mormon church with me. It wasn't the first of the month so it must have been a conference month or something, but we unfortunately walked in on fast and testimony meeting. About halfway through a somewhat disheveled woman arose and began to speak. I could tell from reactions that this was a frequent flyer and that we might be in for a treat. She related the story of being on her last dime, homeless, and traveling with nothing more than the clothes on her back and a grocery bag full of her personal belongings which she left at McDonalds, but that a kind person turned in for her to recover.

That basically ruined any confidence that I will ever have in knowing anything for sure.

[Sullyute]

When I was a kid we had a regular speaker, a retiree who was more eccentric than senile, but a bit of both. In addition to admonitions not to drink cold water or eat green bananas, she tended to have a lot of spiritual experiences at fast food restaurants and gas stations (In fact after her death, her personage was witnessed by her husband to be floating alongside Jesus and Joseph Smith over the local Denny's). One such experience she related was that she and her husband were traveling and found a bag of someone's personal belongings under the table at McDonald's. They finished eating and left, but a few miles down the road she was prompted to return to McDonald's and turn the bag of clothing to the register person. That was the end of the story, but it was still one of her go to testimonies.


A few years later and about three hours from where I grew up my undergrad anthropology assignment was to visit a church and write about our experience. I went to an Eastern Orthodox church with my girlfriend and she decided to go to a Mormon church with me. It wasn't the first of the month so it must have been a conference month or something, but we unfortunately walked in on fast and testimony meeting. About halfway through a somewhat disheveled woman arose and began to speak. I could tell from reactions that this was a frequent flyer and that we might be in for a treat. She related the story of being on her last dime, homeless, and traveling with nothing more than the clothes on her back and a grocery bag full of her personal belongings which she left at McDonalds, but that a kind person turned in for her to recover.

That basically ruined any confidence that I will ever have in knowing anything for sure.

That is a great story!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Spencer W. Kimball: (https://www.lds.org/new-era/1981/08/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-testimony?lang=eng)


A testimony is not an exhortation; a testimony is not a sermon (none of you are there to exhort the rest); it is not a travelogue. You are there to bear your own witness. It is amazing what you can say in 60 seconds by way of testimony, or 120, or 240, or whatever time you are given, if you confine yourselves to testimony.

[Rocker Ute]

When I was a kid we had a regular speaker, a retiree who was more eccentric than senile, but a bit of both. In addition to admonitions not to drink cold water or eat green bananas, she tended to have a lot of spiritual experiences at fast food restaurants and gas stations (In fact after her death, her personage was witnessed by her husband to be floating alongside Jesus and Joseph Smith over the local Denny's). One such experience she related was that she and her husband were traveling and found a bag of someone's personal belongings under the table at McDonald's. They finished eating and left, but a few miles down the road she was prompted to return to McDonald's and turn the bag of clothing to the register person. That was the end of the story, but it was still one of her go to testimonies.


A few years later and about three hours from where I grew up my undergrad anthropology assignment was to visit a church and write about our experience. I went to an Eastern Orthodox church with my girlfriend and she decided to go to a Mormon church with me. It wasn't the first of the month so it must have been a conference month or something, but we unfortunately walked in on fast and testimony meeting. About halfway through a somewhat disheveled woman arose and began to speak. I could tell from reactions that this was a frequent flyer and that we might be in for a treat. She related the story of being on her last dime, homeless, and traveling with nothing more than the clothes on her back and a grocery bag full of her personal belongings which she left at McDonalds, but that a kind person turned in for her to recover.

That basically ruined any confidence that I will ever have in knowing anything for sure.

jrj84105 wins!

[Rocker Ute]

The look on her face when the first 'testimony' was a three year old boy being told what to say...

So legend in my family goes:

My grandparents lived in a small town in central Utah for a very long time they were well known in the community. He was a local school teacher, etc. My grandma had passed away a few years earlier and just a few months before my grandpa had a stroke that required him to live in assisted living my father gets a call from one of his old childhood friends who still lived in the small town. Apparently that fast Sunday my grandpa decided to give the testimony to end all testimonies and let a few common LDS practices have it. Your example of little children bearing testimonies told to them by their parents was top among the list. I'm uncertain of the exact quote of what he said but it was something like, "...and these parents who stand proudly behind their children and whisper in their ears as if they were the Holy Ghost..."

Apparently it wasn't well received. But by damn, he was right and our family has laughed about it ever since.

[LA Ute]

So legend in my family goes:

My grandparents lived in a small town in central Utah for a very long time they were well known in the community. He was a local school teacher, etc. My grandma had passed away a few years earlier and just a few months before my grandpa had a stroke that required him to live in assisted living my father gets a call from one of his old childhood friends who still lived in the small town. Apparently that fast Sunday my grandpa decided to give the testimony to end all testimonies and let a few common LDS practices have it. Your example of little children bearing testimonies told to them by their parents was top among the list. I'm uncertain of the exact quote of what he said but it was something like, "...and these parents who stand proudly behind their children and whisper in their ears as if they were the Holy Ghost..."

Apparently it wasn't well received. But by damn, he was right and our family has laughed about it ever since.

That practice drives me nuts. A related pet peeve: We have a couple of families on our ward who routinely bring their small children up to the pulpit and hold them while the parents bear their testimonies. The kids always want to grab the microphone, talk to their parents, cry, and generally distract everyone from what is being said. Of course, while everyone's time is being wasted that way, there are several people waiting to speak who probably have something they want to say.

[LA Ute]

My bishopbric occasionally reminds the congregation of this definition of a testimony. It always makes me think how boring the meeting would be if everyone stuck to that guideline. The best testimony meetings involve good stories. I love to hear what's important to others.

Stories are great. They should be short and related somehow to a testimony. The grandmas who talk about how wonderful their grandkids are, however....


On a related note, what is the age at which people forget that their kids were loud and energetic? It seems to happen to everyone at some point. I keep getting comments from older folks that the ward needs to do something to calm kids down during ward activities. They run and play in the halls and on the stage too much. I still remember running all over the church at activities when I was young. Why should the kids not be allowed to enjoy the ward activities too?

I agree. We need to take it easy on parents of young'uns. Still, a couple of our families (the same ones I mentioned earlier) regularly let their kids not only make the 20-yard dash up to the stand, but also get up on the stand and adorably wave to their parents. Only then do their parents recover them. The last time this happened, our bishop, a very easy-going guy, stepped completely out of character, picked up the kid, and took her back to her astonished parents while the speaker waited. I thought some people were going to stand up and cheer. Anyway, they haven't let that happen again. The other family still does, however. We always took our kids out when they got out of control....but I know that can be difficult when the kids outnumber the available parents.

[jrj84105]

That post brings back a lot of memories. I remember one 12 year old picked up by the first counseler and carried out of the building by his belt (sort of in the Tom Cruise dangling in air Mission Impossible pose) kicking, flailing, and screaming- granted he was pretty undersized for his age from living off a diet of adderall and pixie sticks.

The other was the family with 8 kids whose parents were completely oblivious to anything they did in the pew during sacrament meeting. The youngest one got his head and one arm stuck in one of those mesh sacks that oranges come in and he was for some reason gasping for air while flopping across the pew and into the aisle like a dolphin caught in fishing net. I've never seen the entirely bishopric laugh so hard, while his mother just continued to stare ahead with her frozen serene smile. He made it about five or six rows down the aisle before someone reached down and performed the catch and release.

[Sullyute]

Jrj, you are killing it in this thread. Keep the stories coming.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[San Diego Ute Fan]

An elderly lady in our ward bore a sweet, yet powerful testimony in our ward years ago. When she finished, she walked out the rear door.

After the meeting we discovered her on the sofa in the foyer asleep. When attempts to wake her for Sunday School failed, we realized she had died. That's how I'd like to exit this existence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[San Diego Ute Fan]

When I was a teen, a guy in our ward confirmed his freshly baptized 8 year old son. It was done on the podium during testimony meeting.

After a lovely and appropriate confirmation, he picked the kid up, chair and all, and displayed him turning side to side like a baby after a name and blessing prayer.

The guy was a proctologist with a very well developed sense of humor.

Spectacular.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Scorcho]

one gripe I have with Testimony Meetings is when there is a brief moment of enjoyable silence between speakers and inevitably someone will get up and explain that they couldn’t stand the silence or let the time go by. Sometimes sitting in the chapel in silence can be just as meaningful, can’t it? I think so.

[UTEopia]

I didn't learn this in church today, but there was a recent article in the SLTrib about a study done on LDS missionary and retention efforts. It pegs the "active mormons" at 4.5 million or about 30% worldwide. It is an interesting read and the numbers it suggests are in-line with a study I read 15 years or so ago by some people at Ricks College. The LDS Church never publicly addresses the huge problem of retention, but I know that they are trying to address the issue in a variety of ways.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57369318-80/church-percent-lds-growth.html.csp

[LA Ute]

Dear Parents With Young Children in Church (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bruesehoff/parents-kids-church_b_3909085.html)

You are doing something really, really important. I know it's not easy. I see you with your arms overflowing, and I know you came to church already tired. Parenting is tiring. Really tiring.


I watch you bounce and sway trying to keep the baby quiet, juggling the infant car seat and the diaper bag as you find a seat. I see you wince as your child cries. I see you anxiously pull things out of your bag of tricks to try to quiet them.


And I see you with your toddler and your preschooler. I watch you cringe when your little girl asks an innocent question in a voice that might not be an inside voice let alone a church whisper. I hear the exasperation in your voice as you beg your child to just sit, to be quiet as you feel everyone's eyes on you. Not everyone is looking, but I know it feels that way.


I know you're wondering, is this worth it? Why do I bother? I know you often leave church more exhausted than fulfilled. But what you are doing is so important....

[Rocker Ute]

Dear Parents With Young Children in Church (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bruesehoff/parents-kids-church_b_3909085.html)



From the Old People in Church:

"Dear Parents with Noisy Children,

It has been 30 years since I have had children, but as memory serves my children sat quietly throughout the entire meeting. Looking back on this version of my memory I can only attribute it to us having steadfast rules and being superior parents. Our children were polite and well-behaved and on the rare moment it they weren't well-behaved we took swift and immediate action.

We have placed our coats and bags on the row in front of us to signal to you that you are welcome to sit back on the hard folding chairs or the short benches that are better suited for older couples like us who can sit still, versus a family of five with kids who may want to move around a bit.

Also, you will note my disapproving stare when you break out a treat at a time I don't approve or if you child puts his feet up on the bench or speaks loudly. These are just gentle reminders of how to be as good of a parent as I was..."

[Utah]

On a related note, what is the age at which people forget that their kids were loud and energetic? It seems to happen to everyone at some point. I keep getting comments from older folks that the ward needs to do something to calm kids down during ward activities. They run and play in the halls and on the stage too much. I still remember running all over the church at activities when I was young. Why should the kids not be allowed to enjoy the ward activities too?

This is something I have thought about a lot. Are things worse now than the good old days? We all complain about politics and big business and everything else, but aren't we more transparent than every? So wouldn't that make our system better than ever?

Same with kids, with all the new disorders and parents suck now a days, etc, are we really worse off, or do we all just glamorize the past and not look at it realistically?

Anyways, sorry for the derailing comments, they just popped into my mind.

[Utah]

From the Old People in Church:

"Dear Parents with Noisy Children,

It has been 30 years since I have had children, but as memory serves my children sat quietly throughout the entire meeting. Looking back on this version of my memory I can only attribute it to us having steadfast rules and being superior parents. Our children were polite and well-behaved and on the rare moment it they weren't well-behaved we took swift and immediate action.

We have placed our coats and bags on the row in front of us to signal to you that you are welcome to sit back on the hard folding chairs or the short benches that are better suited for older couples like us who can sit still, versus a family of five with kids who may want to move around a bit.

Also, you will note my disapproving stare when you break out a treat at a time I don't approve or if you child puts his feet up on the bench or speaks loudly. These are just gentle reminders of how to be as good of a parent as I was..."

LOL. That is just what I posted about. The follow up question that always pops in my mind is this:

If you were such a great parent back then, and your kids are now the parents of these awful kids, what happened? Maybe our memories are so sweet as we remember.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

Did you say "Amen"?

[NorthwestUteFan]

High Councilor spoke , drawing heavily from Dieter Uchtdorf's talk from October 2013 conference (mistakes were made...). Said he knows all about all of the historical problems with the church, but none of them are important to our salvation, so long as we start with the premises that the Book of Mormon is 'true' and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If we accept those two things, then everything else falls into place...


But the worst part was yet to come. He spoke about missionary work and implored all of us to wear our BYU hats, t-shirts, jackets, and put bumper stickers on our cars so that people will know how wonderful we are and will want to take the discussions from the missionaries.

I walked out to change the baby's diaper. I wanted to challenge him on whether it is a good idea to wear the name of a man who the church itself has stated was a racist as an conversation starter, but I am sure he would just call me an evil anti-mormon.

[Rocker Ute]

This is something I have thought about a lot. Are things worse now than the good old days? We all complain about politics and big business and everything else, but aren't we more transparent than every? So wouldn't that make our system better than ever?

Same with kids, with all the new disorders and parents suck now a days, etc, are we really worse off, or do we all just glamorize the past and not look at it realistically?

Anyways, sorry for the derailing comments, they just popped into my mind.

I think you just forget... and I have ample proof. First of all, I was there first hand watching and creating the disturbances. My brother just older than me and I were partners in crime, but he always was the fall-guy as he had no idea how to blend in and shut up. I remember multiple times watching with glee as he got hauled off down the aisle being held by his arm. Proof that I had the same thing happen to me is that it STILL drives me nuts if someone ever grabs me by the bicep and tries to lead me somewhere, I have to fight the instinct to go boneless (but wouldn't that be a sight?).

Truth is, in a lot of ways my kids are probably better than we were back in the day (I'm not saying all kids). But I remember epic wrestling matches, followed by shouting matches, followed by punching... I don't think I've had to break up a single one of those with my kids yet.

Yet if my kids and their cousins get a little bit noisy it seems like it is more than my parents can handle sometimes. I get it, when you don't deal with that noise it is pretty rough.

So I think the trick is to remind yourself to enjoy kids. We recently sat in front of about 6 older couples for Stake Conference, or rather they came and sat behind us. I warned them that after about an hour it wouldn't be pretty and we wouldn't be offended if they chose to sit somewhere else. They just laughed. They sat behind us and laughed at what was going on and played with the kids and gave them candy. After they commented on how much they enjoyed it all, which frankly made me feel great. One guy patted me on the shoulder and said, "We've all been there, hang in there..."

[Solon]

I think you just forget... and I have ample proof. First of all, I was there first hand watching and creating the disturbances. My brother just older than me and I were partners in crime, but he always was the fall-guy as he had no idea how to blend in and shut up. I remember multiple times watching with glee as he got hauled off down the aisle being held by his arm. Proof that I had the same thing happen to me is that it STILL drives me nuts if someone ever grabs me by the bicep and tries to lead me somewhere, I have to fight the instinct to go boneless (but wouldn't that be a sight?).

Truth is, in a lot of ways my kids are probably better than we were back in the day (I'm not saying all kids). But I remember epic wrestling matches, followed by shouting matches, followed by punching... I don't think I've had to break up a single one of those with my kids yet.

Yet if my kids and their cousins get a little bit noisy it seems like it is more than my parents can handle sometimes. I get it, when you don't deal with that noise it is pretty rough.

So I think the trick is to remind yourself to enjoy kids. We recently sat in front of about 6 older couples for Stake Conference, or rather they came and sat behind us. I warned them that after about an hour it wouldn't be pretty and we wouldn't be offended if they chose to sit somewhere else. They just laughed. They sat behind us and laughed at what was going on and played with the kids and gave them candy. After they commented on how much they enjoyed it all, which frankly made me feel great. One guy patted me on the shoulder and said, "We've all been there, hang in there..."

I can't remember who said it, but there's some kind of a line about "none of us really loves kids; we just love our own kids."

[Utah]

I can't remember who said it, but there's some kind of a line about "none of us really loves kids; we just love our own kids."

Amen to that.

[Rocker Ute]

My last Pinewood Derby happened on Saturday. Hallelujah. Last year a complete moron was running the thing with a single elimination bracket so most kids raced their cars once and it was done. It didn't matter if you were against the best car in the derby or stuck on the worst track. This year was run by the same moron, but thankfully some people sort of interjected to fix some of the problems, but it was still mostly a disaster.

When half the kids have tears in their eyes you've failed.

This year most of the kids only got to race four times (there were 16 kids racing). They set up heats with four cars in each heat. You raced four times in a row and they took the top car from the heat. Just like last year my son finished just millimeters behind the eventual winning car (which won by a long shot) but they only took the top car out of each heat (in this format they should have done top two). The track had some definite problems with it as well, with some obvious fast tracks and one that had a jump that would derail the car. I think the best format is a round-robin where you race everyone at least once, meaning your car gets 16 runs before you are done, the top cars get put into heats, the top two advance from each heat until you have a winner.

Conversely, when it came to the weigh-in my son's car was in at 1/100 of an ounce over and they wouldn't let him in all the while letting parents hammer things on their car bouncing the scale on the same table.

The leaders wanted to get home and an astute parent observed, "If they'd only put in a fraction of the effort the kids and their parents did it would make all the difference."

Plus, as bad as that all was, they took down the track immediately after the 'formal' racing was done so the kids couldn't just race for fun. So, a week of my son and I working on this car all down the tubes in 7 minutes and no fun with friends after. Nice work.

I try to be as forgiving of people with their church callings as I hope people are with me and so I gave the first year a pass. This year I'm having a hard time giving it a pass particularly because this year my son did the bulk of the work and he had a very fast car and got eliminated by the stupidity of adults, a definite "life isn't always fair" moment, which is the worst lesson when the people making things unfair are people you should trust and depend on.

As I've always said about the Pinewood Derby: It is a race among parents where only the kids get to feel bad.

But since I'm having an apparent need for moral victories in my life, at least with the bogus race outcome I was able to say to my son, "You were neck and neck with the winner, so you had at worst a second or third place car."

But kids are smart, they know when something isn't fair, and I'd rather he had been eliminated straight up then the nonsense that happened Saturday.

[Sullyute]

My last Pinewood Derby happened on Saturday. Hallelujah. Last year a complete moron was running the thing with a single elimination bracket so most kids raced their cars once and it was done. It didn't matter if you were against the best car in the derby or stuck on the worst track. This year was run by the same moron, but thankfully some people sort of interjected to fix some of the problems, but it was still mostly a disaster.

When half the kids have tears in their eyes you've failed.

This year most of the kids only got to race four times (there were 16 kids racing). They set up heats with four cars in each heat. You raced four times in a row and they took the top car from the heat. Just like last year my son finished just millimeters behind the eventual winning car (which won by a long shot) but they only took the top car out of each heat (in this format they should have done top two). The track had some definite problems with it as well, with some obvious fast tracks and one that had a jump that would derail the car. I think the best format is a round-robin where you race everyone at least once, meaning your car gets 16 runs before you are done, the top cars get put into heats, the top two advance from each heat until you have a winner.

Conversely, when it came to the weigh-in my son's car was in at 1/100 of an ounce over and they wouldn't let him in all the while letting parents hammer things on their car bouncing the scale on the same table.

The leaders wanted to get home and an astute parent observed, "If they'd only put in a fraction of the effort the kids and their parents did it would make all the difference."

Plus, as bad as that all was, they took down the track immediately after the 'formal' racing was done so the kids couldn't just race for fun. So, a week of my son and I working on this car all down the tubes in 7 minutes and no fun with friends after. Nice work.

I try to be as forgiving of people with their church callings as I hope people are with me and so I gave the first year a pass. This year I'm having a hard time giving it a pass particularly because this year my son did the bulk of the work and he had a very fast car and got eliminated by the stupidity of adults, a definite "life isn't always fair" moment, which is the worst lesson when the people making things unfair are people you should trust and depend on.

As I've always said about the Pinewood Derby: It is a race among parents where only the kids get to feel bad.

But since I'm having an apparent need for moral victories in my life, at least with the bogus race outcome I was able to say to my son, "You were neck and neck with the winner, so you had at worst a second or third place car."

But kids are smart, they know when something isn't fair, and I'd rather he had been eliminated straight up then the nonsense that happened Saturday.


I am sorry to hear that. I have very found memories of the pinewood derby as a kid. My son is participating in his first pinewood derby in about a month. I will keep my son's expectations low, so that hopefully they are exceeded.

[LA Ute]

My last Pinewood Derby happened on Saturday. Hallelujah. Last year a complete moron was running the thing with a single elimination bracket so most kids raced their cars once and it was done. It didn't matter if you were against the best car in the derby or stuck on the worst track. This year was run by the same moron, but thankfully some people sort of interjected to fix some of the problems, but it was still mostly a disaster.

When half the kids have tears in their eyes you've failed.

This year most of the kids only got to race four times (there were 16 kids racing). They set up heats with four cars in each heat. You raced four times in a row and they took the top car from the heat. Just like last year my son finished just millimeters behind the eventual winning car (which won by a long shot) but they only took the top car out of each heat (in this format they should have done top two). The track had some definite problems with it as well, with some obvious fast tracks and one that had a jump that would derail the car. I think the best format is a round-robin where you race everyone at least once, meaning your car gets 16 runs before you are done, the top cars get put into heats, the top two advance from each heat until you have a winner.

Conversely, when it came to the weigh-in my son's car was in at 1/100 of an ounce over and they wouldn't let him in all the while letting parents hammer things on their car bouncing the scale on the same table.

The leaders wanted to get home and an astute parent observed, "If they'd only put in a fraction of the effort the kids and their parents did it would make all the difference."

Plus, as bad as that all was, they took down the track immediately after the 'formal' racing was done so the kids couldn't just race for fun. So, a week of my son and I working on this car all down the tubes in 7 minutes and no fun with friends after. Nice work.

I try to be as forgiving of people with their church callings as I hope people are with me and so I gave the first year a pass. This year I'm having a hard time giving it a pass particularly because this year my son did the bulk of the work and he had a very fast car and got eliminated by the stupidity of adults, a definite "life isn't always fair" moment, which is the worst lesson when the people making things unfair are people you should trust and depend on.

As I've always said about the Pinewood Derby: It is a race among parents where only the kids get to feel bad.

But since I'm having an apparent need for moral victories in my life, at least with the bogus race outcome I was able to say to my son, "You were neck and neck with the winner, so you had at worst a second or third place car."

But kids are smart, they know when something isn't fair, and I'd rather he had been eliminated straight up then the nonsense that happened Saturday.

Wow. That really makes me sad. I hate it when adults get in the way.

Maybe you can have a Pinewood Derby fun night for your ward alone. We did that once and a lot of adults even found their old cars and polished them up (for a "has-been" division -- they didn't compete with the kids). The kids got to race their cars all night while the adults ate and talked and watched, and sometimes competed.

BTW, "Down and Derby" is a pretty funny movie for those of us who've lived the nightmare dream.

http://www.downandderby.com/

[Rocker Ute]

Wow. That really makes me sad. I hate it when adults get in the way.

Maybe you can have a Pinewood Derby fun night for your ward alone. We did that once and a lot of adults even found their old cars and polished them up (for a "has-been" division -- they didn't compete with the kids). The kids got to race their cars all night while the adults ate and talked and watched, and sometimes competed.

BTW, "Down and Derby" is a pretty funny movie for those of us who've lived the nightmare dream.

http://www.downandderby.com/

We are actually holding a 'no holds barred' pinewood derby in March. We do this most years where we get out barbeques, people build insane cars and the only rule is no open flames. We have a legit division as well, but the kids have way more fun watching the ensuing disaster that comes from strapping C02 cartridges and other nonsense to a car. Frankly, it kind of ruins the real pinewood derby because it is slow by comparison.

So there is opportunity for retribution... we may strap the guy who has messed it up two times in a row's butt to the end of the track to stop wayward rocket powered cars.

[mUUser]

Church cancelled due to weather. I wouldn't leave the church over questionable doctrines or practices. Won't leave it because leadership can be out of touch. Won't leave due to cultural oddities, and won't leave over bureaucratic paperwork & meaningless interviews.

But got to admit, it's tempting to leave so I can have a full day puttering around the house watching TV, or relaxing in the park, or going to the lake, or taking an epic nap.

[jrj84105]

But got to admit, it's tempting to leave so I can have a full day puttering around the house watching TV, or relaxing in the park, or going to the lake, or taking an epic nap.

I did all of those yesterday.

[Sullyute]

I had one of the most entertaining Sunday's in a quite a while yesterday. In priesthood we discussed whether we were perfect in the pre-existence since we were in God presence and God cannot abide the smallest sin.

In Sunday School we talked about Adam and Eve. There was some speculation on whether Eve made the conscious decision to "fall" so man could be. Some of the ladies were really talking Eve up (pointing to the new temple movie) and then an older gentleman put his foot down. He said, "I am going to say what the other men are afraid to, this is false doctrine. The scriptures say that Eve was deceived and that is it." He also stamped out talk of the temple movie. The teacher and class were a little taken back. I was laughing on the inside as he was so adamant on his stance.

In Sacrament, the youth speaker went off on how gay marriage is bad because they cannot procreate as we are told marriage is for in the Family Proclamation. Another speaker talked about how she is so glad that she teaches modesty to her children and that even her three year old knows how to dress modestly.

Then to top it off, the counselor in closing the meeting decides that he is going to show everyone that he listened by recapping each talk and sharing his own insights even though we are already late.

So I just chuckled through most of church thinking about how odd our mormon culture must be to outsiders.

[Sullyute]

I taught that lesson once and had a similar experience. I don't understand the Fall very well at all, but I did feel like I should (sympathetically) point out that most of the comments were speculation and not LDS doctrine. Sisters immediately found all kinds of quotes on their smart phones to prove me wrong. Fortunately, a member of the bishopric was there to back me up.

It has been said that trying to nail down "LDS Doctrine" is like trying to nail jello to a wall. LDS Doctrine is so fluid that it really is practically impossible to keep hold of it.

However the bigger issue is that there are so few heroine in the scriptures and LDS history. So to see these sisters clinging to any positive female role model and her attributes (whether doctrine or not) and then to have this brother just stamp it out with one quick patriarchal pronouncement was just sad. I don't know how sisters keep up the good fight.

[DrumNFeather]

I taught that lesson once and had a similar experience. I don't understand the Fall very well at all, but I did feel like I should (sympathetically) point out that most of the comments were speculation and not LDS doctrine. Sisters immediately found all kinds of quotes on their smart phones to prove me wrong. Fortunately, a member of the bishopric was there to back me up.

Not long ago the Givens' addressed this in a Q&A session and they referred to it as an ascension, rather than a fall, which I can get behind. I think it is challenging for people to not speak of it in negative tones because they call it a fall. I also find it interesting that with the benefit of thousands of years of hindsight, we all say "this is the only way they could know joy and sorrow." I'm not convinced they had any idea of what was on the other side of their choice until they got there.

[jrj84105]

There are the bible literalists who think Adam and Even were real and were on the Earth exactly six thousand years ago. The rest of Christianity seems to view Adam/Eve/Eden in increasingly allegorical terms. Mormonism strikes a somewhat tennuous balance of allegory and historical factuality which is hard to follow for a non-believer or even maybe a casual believer. In this particular thread of discussion (Adam and Eve) I often feel like a person overhearing some comic book nerds discussing a battle of Batman versus Spiderman, wondering wether they're in a heated theoretical debate or if they think Batman and Spiderman are real. Has Mormonism committed much more to certain aspects of the literal veracity of the creation story than to most other aspects of the Old Testament, or is it like many things a moving target?

[Sullyute]

Has Mormonism committed much more to certain aspects of the literal veracity of the creation story than to most other aspects of the Old Testament, or is it like many things a moving target?

Yes. Most of Christianity just has the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 as scripture. However, Mormon's arguably have 5 creation stories: Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Moses 2, and Abraham 4, and the Temple ceremony. There are also other Mormon-centric ideas about Adam and Eve: prophecy that Adam will come back at the last days to prepare the earth for Jesus' return (the gathering of the the 144,000 at adam-ondi-amen (spelling?)); sealing families back to Adam and Eve; Adam-god doctrine, etc. Combining all of these teachings and ideas together make it very difficult to view Adam and Eve as anything other than literal persons.