- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
University of Utah Press; 1 edition (March 9, 2005)
Amazing book. Here’s some of my notes:
CH1:
p. 26
DOMK would ‘meditate’ early in the morning.
p. 27
What is it like to die? “Oh, that’s easy. It’s like going from this room to that room”. Dunn interview, Jan. 11, 1997.
p. 27
Family member to DOM: I don’t understand this resurrection business. “We were here [in the mountains] in the fall, and those flowers were all dead. It’s springtime, and they are all back.” That is how he would explain the resurrection to his little children and his grandchildren.” Vivian McKay interview.
Until last year, I would have disregarded, or at least discounted or heavily restated, this statement. Not now.
CH2:
p. 30
“God does reveal today to the human soul the reality of the resurrection of the Lord, the divinity of this great work, the truth, the divine and eternal truth, that God lives not only as a power, an essence, a force -as electricity- but as our Father in Heaven.” Witnesses to the Truth, Improvement Era 54, 1951: 542.
p. 32
request for dramatic testimony. Just like me while on my mission. Only my answer came more quickly (but then again, his answer came while on his mission, and so did mine…)
CH3:
p. 46
“…I believe in evolution.” March 14, 1954; Sterling W. McMurrin, “Account of Events of 1952-54.”
p. 49
Mormon Doctrine …you’d think you’d be safe, quoting BY…
CH4:
p. 104
Blacks and the priesthood. The statement by the architect, and summary by the authors. wow. Pres. Lee’s position. wow.
CH5:
Impressive how his regard for the individual expanded his view into (eventually) regard for larger groups as well as individuals.
CH11:
Didn’t realize it was he who put out the first non-US temples, and how this correlated to the Church moving into international maturity — all due to DOMK’s progressiveness.
CH12:
Pres. Benson and John Birch and communism. Very interesting.
CH14:
How did the doctrine (D&C 45; 101) of the Gathering change into ‘policy’? I can see that it needed to happen, but if you contrast how this was changed to ‘policy’ status, versus how blacks and the priesthood was declared ‘policy’, well, that’s a really interesting contrast, in that there was no scriptural support for banning the priesthood from the Negro, yet there was scripture establishing the ‘gathering’ as doctrine. The contrast is amazing to me.
CH15:
Sterling McMurrin’s comment, coupled with the author’s comment in the epilogue, of how Pres. McKay changed the perception from “what can you sacrifice for the Institution (of Mormonism)” to “How can the Church serve you” is marvelous. I relect in my own life how I have come to the realization that no matter how much we do for the Church (in a balanced way), it all comes back to us in blessings, personal development, and the Spirit. Every time I have significantly sacrificed for the ‘church’ it was actually helping people, and I in turn was blessed greatly.
This quote about sums it up:
“It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life, that no
man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
HiJolly
That book has been on my to-read list. Thanks for doing the review. I think the David O. McKay era was very influential in molding modern mormonism. Great book; great man. My mom was one of his secretaries for a while, and she adored him.
I have a professor who has been encouraging us to learn more about McKay and the development of the church as a global entity. I will be picking up RSR today, and don’t know entirely how I’ll react to reading that lengthy tome. 
One complaint about this book – the chapters are TOO LONG. I like to finish a chapter before I turn out the light and go to bed. I will be up all night with this. It’s cruel. Where are the editors??? On an up-note, my DH was reading this, and he shared the story about McKay getting a soft drink at the theater (from the book). The person assisting him said apologetically that all the cups had a Coca-Cola logo on them, but they had root beer, sprite, etc. available. David O. McKay said, “I don’t care what it says ON the cup so long as there’s Coke IN the cup.” We told my dad that story, and he immediately felt justified in drinking his beloved Dr. Pepper again (after having abandoned it for the last decade.
[Moderator Hat On] We got off onto a fun, humorous tangent. I split the topic and put the WofW part into the GENERAL DISCUSSION forum section. I hope that is ok. I wanted to keep this a serious thread to review this book. hawkgrrrl wrote:One complaint about this book – the chapters are TOO LONG. I like to finish a chapter before I turn out the light and go to bed. I will be up all night with this. It’s cruel. Where are the editors???
On an up-note, my DH was reading this, and he shared the story about McKay getting a soft drink at the theater (from the book). The person assisting him said apologetically that all the cups had a Coca-Cola logo on them, but they had root beer, sprite, etc. available. David O. McKay said, “I don’t care what it says ON the cup so long as there’s Coke IN the cup.” We told my dad that story, and he immediately felt justified in drinking his beloved Dr. Pepper again (after having abandoned it for the last decade.
Hawkgrrrl, I’m just reading this book now and love that quote…have posted it elsewhere a couple of times because it really drives home the message about how important it is to understand rules and their purpose, and not get caught in the letter of the laws to the point you “squeeze the spirit out of life” as it says in the book.
Different leaders have their different styles…DOM was a down to earth person who focused on caring about people. That certainly wasn’t to say he was lax … he was up at 4 or 4:30 every morning! yikes! No wonder he needed a coke at the theater!
I’m enjoying the book’s practical view and less “mystical” view of this prophet. Still more reading to do (long chapters, ya know?)
I finished the book last week and really liked it. It sounds like he was man who kept such a detailed journal…we can learn a lot from it. Things that most impressed me from reading the book:
– He had a focus on people and not rules, but upheld rules as necessary to any organization
– He trusted people, until they lost the trust and then DOM made it difficult to change his mind about that person.
– DOM clearly had his own personal beliefs on how to do things and wasn’t afraid to break from the norm
– It is interesting to see how much GAs and Q12s and church positions (BYU or others) varied in opinions on matters and would advocate their beliefs, work through beauracricies or around them, and politically position themselves to get support and approval to act. I clearly saw how different personalities exist in the church leadership, and how driven they all are to help the church succeed.
– The last few chapters really talk a lot about politics and how the US Presidents would sometimes meet with DOM … there must have been some respect for the prophet amont our nation’s leaders, something I wasn’t aware of in details.
– There was a lot about how Ezra T Benson pushed political agendas while being an apostle…which was interesting to see how driven he was and seemed to be pretty successful in all he did. Makes me want to read a book specifically about ETB.
Overall, I think the book really helped me see how the church really changed as the nation’s landscape changed, and that prophets are important to help direct the church, and help the church deal with current issues. Great book.
My criticism would be that it was long and many parts of chapters were quotes from journals and stuff that were good for a while to hear things in first person, but sometimes didn’t add much more value than just being another quote. I could skim many pages and not lose much understanding. Some details were just “interesting but not relevant”, IMO.
I recommend it and think most would enjoy it, if you like less of a narrative story line, and more of descriptions on how things functioned in the church under McKay’s leadership.
I’m just part way through the book, but my wife and I read the stuff in chapter three about evolution and ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by McKonkie and were just floored. Joseph F. Smith, ‘Man, his Origins and Destiny’ and McKonkie with ‘Mormon Doctrine’ basically did an end run around the prophet and President of the Church and, because of McKay’s reluctance to speak out against follow General Authorities, these books had inordinant influence on Mormon thought to this day! I don’t think I’ll sit still next time I hear a Gospel Doctrine teacher quote from ‘Mormon Doctrine’.
It also nearly knocked me off my feet to know that James A. Talmage, with his scientific background, was one on the side of evolution. I never would have guessed.
Now I have to wonder if there are progressives now in the Quorum of the Twelve who will moderate church position as time goes on.
I’m about half-way through this book too and though I have felt for several years that GA’s are just like me, it was nice to read just how much like me they really are. I found myself feeling so drawn to Hugh B. Brown and his plight to move the church past it’s dark political leanings of the time. I’m sure you could take a snap-shot of any time in history and make the argument that it was a turning point, but this particular time period, just after WWII seemed to present the church with a fork in the road and somehow, the church took the middle, going into the forest where there was no path and lost the forest for the trees. In fairness, the majority of orthodox christian churches did the same, feeling the “existential” threat of the godless communists as an affront to the bible and, therefore, any questioning of the literalness of the bible was framed as an assault on freedom and democracy. The church was held back by this U.S.-centric world-view and, unfortunately, still suffers from this alot. (piercings, R-rated, caffeine, organ donation, cremation)
I think it would be really interesting if the same kind of book was written about GBHinckley. I don’t know if GBH kept the notes and journals like DOM did, or if they’d ever be released…but this book gave a great insight on how the church developed programs and how many differing opinions there were among the brethren, yet you still see the spirituality there of them working to follow what they think is God’s will. A lot happened with GBH in the church in the latter part of the century…I think it would be interesting to see the same type of book about that period.
I totally agree, Heber. I think the inner-workings of how the proclamation to the family came about would be fascinating. Especially since it seems to have taken the unpaved “middle way” that they took around the PH ban and civil rights (advocating strongly for civil rights but not changing the ban). I’ve said it before, but by encoding gender as “doctrinal” set the church up for a long, protracted, ugly debate, both external and internal. imo
Maybe Ray can parse the proclamation to make it sound like gender is not doctrinal.
Actually, swim, I can – but, honestly, I don’t want to here. It’s pure speculation, and not what I think they meant – but it’s doable. This is a threadjack, so I don’t want it to derail the core conversation of this thread. I mean that. I’m going to type it here, and I’m ok with a short response, but I don’t want it to be an extended conversation.My short answer to the general issue is that it’s very easy to believe that, if spirits are created without a male / female identity, mortality introduces a necessary element of “perfection” (completion, wholeness, full development) that allows spirits to become male and female and be sealed eternally – OR if there is a pre-mortal male / female identity that mortality introduces a disconnect between such pre-mortal identity and mortal identity for a small percentage of those spirits, since perhaps the mathematics of identity simply can’t map out one-to-one within the confines of genetic development. Either way, male/female identity can be termed as “eternal” without “gender” being doctrinal in the sense that most people assume and teach.
Summary:
It’s easy to come to either of these conclusions, since we really have NO idea with any surety. It also might be a non-issue, but we don’t have any certainty about that, either. Therefore, we get to choose how we personally see it for now.
Homosexuality is not about gender confusion, gay men do not think they are women. Gay men know they are men, but they are attracted to other men. My wife is deconstructing the Proclamation on the Family on her blog,
http://www.thirdwavemormon.blogspot.comhttp://www.thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com” class=”bbcode_url”> @Ray: I knew you could do it, though it seems to require much more liberal interpretation. And I don’t think this is a thread-jack completely, as I’ll explain.
@MisterC:
I hope I didn’t insinuate that homosexuality included gender identity. Sometimes it does, but more often gender identity has nothing to do with sexuality. I was simply speculating on the fact that intersex or transgender or gender identity are real issues because they include real people. And by defining the “doctrinal” (maybe) basis of gender, these complications will be incredibly difficult to deal with in the future.
I alluded to this in another thread, but, for example, there is a reasonable expectation that someone who self identifies as a woman but is a man, will be allowed to dress as a woman at work just as they do at home or elsewhere. This will then become an issue when that same man feels compelled to also dress as a woman at church. That’s a super-tough line to define from a Christ-like perspective.
In my mind, I’ve reached the exact same conclusion that MadamC has: the proclamation was a pre-emptive shot at the looming gay marriage issue, and a back-handed attempt to thwart certain aspects of the feminist movement. (As an example, we have two stay-at-home dads in my ward. That part of the proclamation gets skipped in my ward)
And, this isn’t totally a thread-jack because a huge part of the DOM book revolved around the inner-battles that the twelve had over whether they should openly and aggressively state the church’s position on the PH ban. Or how to deal with evolution. I think that insight in the book is totally relevant to the current thought processes around the proclamation, what it meant ten years ago and what it means now. And how it came about in the first place.
Even the seemingly contradictory thoughts that DOM had about the African race. I see those struggles with race as a potential precursor to the struggles around sexuality and, maybe even more so, gender in the future.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.