Well, since Jonathan Green and James Olsen blew this out of the water (thanks guys) it’s much shorter. That’s probably a good thing. So here’s the final post in the series. Which opens the way for another series on the Seventy. Fair warning.

Pulpit scripture comes with varying valence. As promised in part 2, here is some (nearly?) canonical pulpit scripture.

A recent issue of BYU Studies (vol. 50/1) contains an article regarding Mother in Heaven. David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido present an informal descriptive bibliography (not an exhaustive one) on the subject to show that Latter-day Saint sermons and writings are not silent (and mostly do not advocate silence) on the subject. They present references from Latter-day Saint speakers and writers from the 1840s to the present. The authors catalog these Mormon discursions under the rubrics of

[Read more...]

What is the meaning of this:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,—at another time he said, thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

The earliest appearance of the statement comes in the Sangamo Journal of 19 August 1842, as part of an article by disaffected Mormon, John C. Bennett. Bennett claimed that this statement (and the letter it was a part of) was written by Joseph Smith. How seriously should we take such a document? And what do you think of this statement?

In this part I’m going to focus a little more on Christian preaching in Joseph Smith’s time but first I want to take a final stab at the last post. There I briefly mentioned the thinking that the Standard Works are superior to pulpit scripture, the latter to be measured by the former. While I said that in modern times this idea might be traced to Joseph F. Smith and James E. Talmage, it had a much earlier adumbration in Orson Pratt. Pratt’s value system for Mormon doctrine pressed into service the early revelations of Joseph Smith. It seems clear that he ranked those revelations, published in the Doctrine and Covenants in Smith’s day, as superior to the innovative preaching of Nauvoo (I’m excluding private teachings). Indeed, he seems somewhat ignorant of that preaching, or perhaps saw it as speculative (see for example his discourse of Feb. 18, 1855, JD 2:338). In the internal discussions regarding doctrine among the apostles in Utah, Pratt tended to favor the written Word (as he saw it) over the cosmological declarations of Brigham Young, say. (Think: Adam.) Pratt was no exception to the rule that every generation reinterprets inherited texts to situate itself — but for him the elasticity of scripture was just not generous enough to accommodate the necessary rereading of the Old Testament and the revelations.

[Read more...]

In 1851, young Mormon Apostle (and British Mission President) Franklin Dewey Richards did a remarkable thing:
[Read more...]

At the recent Richard Bushman symposium (June 18, 2010) in honor of his 80th birthday, I noted that Armand Mauss was going to speak to “Rethinking Retrenchment: Course Corrections in the Ongoing Campaign for Respectability.” I was planning to be there for his talk, but arrived late. But before that, I had decided to read through his 1994 book “The Angel and the Beehive” since the title of his talk is related to issues discussed in the book. While looking at some the analysis in the book related to General Authorities of the church, I became curious about certain details regarding the current group of GAs – GOs (General Authorities, General Officers (Aux.)).
[Read more...]

As a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I often served in rural areas where the dog population sometimes seemed to equal the human presence. Our mission abounded with dog stories. I mean these were nearly universally unpleasant but often humorous. Generally, they were not for the consumption of the dog-loving folk and I learned from my parents who became dog lovers late in life that criticizing nearly any aspect of our canine brothers can be perilous. I hope that the subject is not in breach of good taste, but given the season (missionary reunions, etc.) I thought it might provide a little entertainment. I shall offer a few fairly tame stories, but I suspect it may stimulate something more radical. I hope it does, actually.
[Read more...]

Phoebe Palmer diary (1847):

After class, went to see Mrs. Pillow, who has lately returned from the residence (of months I believe) among the “Shakers.” She had become so far deluded, during her residence with them, that she renounced all earthly obligations to her husband and family, and the pursuasions of a kind husband were unavailing, in urging her return. His only alternative was to take out a writ, and demand her person by law.
[Read more...]

Social events in wards[1] have enjoyed a checkered history. The dance parties of the 19th century seem to mostly be ghosts of the past, while the Relief Society Bazars and Budget Dinners of the 20th century are dead but I want to talk here and now. I’ll go first.

Last evening we had our annual food-bash, a tradition begun by an Elders Quorum President a decade or so back called “Taste of the 10th” (we’re in the 10th ward). In this exercise of culinary perspicacity the men of the ward are supposed to reveal (or maybe exorcise) their metrosexual bas and cook a dish or bring a salad or dessert and everyone gets to sample the eats. We have some ethnic stuff going on which is pretty good and a few artists whose contribution is anticipated every year.

Anyway, consider this a request to reveal your ward party secrets of success (or failure if you want). Do you actually still do something by tradition that everyone looks forward to as a kind of Mormon rebonding or something? Whatever it is, spit it out. Worst or best or funniest.

———————
[1] Just in case you are unfamiliar with the term, a “ward” in Mormon parlance is the fundamental congregational unit. Something like a parish.

[Part 3 is here.]

The terminology used in textual studies has changed as the philosophy of the nature of texts has changed and it also varies depending on the methodological branch being considered. So, I’m going to avoid the technical language as much as I can. Also, I’m leaving out a lot, believing that brevity is the soul of something or other.

The idea of reconstructing a text from fragmentary sources is an old one. In early biblical studies the process of attempting to move from fragments of early manuscripts to an autograph or something near it became known (1885) as “lower criticism.” The idea could be applied to other ancient texts or modern ones. But the study of texts since the 19th century, originally obsessed with the idea of actually rebuilding the autograph, or original text, has changed, methodologies bifurcating in the process.

[Read more...]

Every elementary school student learns how to add, subtract, multiply and divide. Well, some people object to teaching this sort of thing, but let’s suppose it’s true. The rules for addition, etc. are well known, and seem natural. Induction is a little different and most students have trouble grasping it, even though its basis is quite simple: every subset of the counting numbers has a least member. For example, {10, 5, 150, 47, 3}. Obviously, the least member here is 3.
[Read more...]

I have a habit of falling for movie (and TV) soundtracks. Not the whole schmere, just some parts that other people seem to hardly notice.[1] I give you a few examples that flip my bic:
[Read more...]