- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Lessons we should have learned but didn’t from the early days of the church: – Loyalty should never really trump integrity, yet it’s still the test in church courts. (“If JS asked you, would you stop doing the thing you’re doing that we don’t like?” only now it’s TSM, according to Chad Hardy’s statement about his own disciplinary trial. I would sure feel better if they asked whether you would stop if Jesus asked you to rather than loyalty to a man, but I guess that means Jesus is theoretical whereas TSM might actually ask you to do something.)
– If you are doing what’s right, you don’t need to be secretive about it (e.g. Danites, blood oaths, uhm polygamy – IMO). Remember, our secret actions will be shouted from the rooftops! From the Nauvoo expositor’s so-called slander to the church’s finances today.
– A little power always goes to one’s head. It’s even in our scriptures, but we still haven’t learned it. Good luck finding a church leader who doesn’t think his conscience is aligned with “the spirit.” Yet, they often disagree.
– People who live by faith can be gullible and susceptible to being conned. From John C. Bennett to Mark Hoffman.
– When we are prosperous, we are subject to being prideful. Yet we only “promote” the wealthy. But the other lesson from history is that indigent farmers don’t always make sound financial decisions, so maybe that is one lesson we HAVE learned – from digging for silver mines to the current mall project (probably a sound financial investment).
hawkgrrrl wrote:Lessons we should have learned but didn’t from the early days of the church:
– Loyalty should never really trump integrity, yet it’s still the test in church courts. (“If JS asked you, would you stop doing the thing you’re doing that we don’t like?” only now it’s TSM, according to Chad Hardy’s statement about his own disciplinary trial. I would sure feel better if they asked whether you would stop if Jesus asked you to rather than loyalty to a man, but I guess that means Jesus is theoretical whereas TSM might actually ask you to do something.)
I’ve been in these councils before — I’ve never heard that question. I have heard “are you willing to accept any decision made by this counsel and continue in the Church?”. But never a test of loyalty to the prophet. Often the questions get free-wheeling and it wouldn’t surprise me if someone just came out with this one off the cuff. But who knows, I’ve only been involved with about four of these at Ward and Stake levels = small sample size.
Quote:– If you are doing what’s right, you don’t need to be secretive about it (e.g. Danites, blood oaths, uhm polygamy – IMO). Remember, our secret actions will be shouted from the rooftops! From the Nauvoo expositor’s so-called slander to the church’s finances today.
ON that one, I think JS said “Never do what you can’t do openly”, which I always thought was good advice for being honest. Not sure what to say on this one. If they practiced plural marriage in secret I think that would make it look even more suspicious.
Quote:– A little power always goes to one’s head. It’s even in our scriptures, but we still haven’t learned it. Good luck finding a church leader who doesn’t think his conscience is aligned with “the spirit.” Yet, they often disagree.
I see that one all over the place. It’s easy to say everything is inspired. Even though there has been no real affirmation….I never claimed inspiration when I called people things. I just asked them to do it unless there was a might rushing wind and cloven tongues of fire.
Quote:– People who live by faith can be gullible and susceptible to being conned. From John C. Bennett to Mark Hoffman.
That’s a good one. I was floored that GBH didin’t see through the salamander letters. It would make a good scripture story in a hundred years about the evils of trying to deceive a prophet…
😈 Quote:– When we are prosperous, we are subject to being prideful. Yet we only “promote” the wealthy.
Unless you serve in wards where they are stretched for people. I have served in just about every leadership position in the auxiliaries and priesthood quorums because I’ve lived in areas stretched for capable membership, except one, where they were ALL wealthy and somehow I ended up in the Bishopric. However, this tendency only to promote the wealthy may be true at the SP or perhaps the GA level. Roy mentioned this might be the reason our Church operates so much like a business — all the people who are promoted are successful business people mostly — and they stay there for life the higher up they get.
Quote:But the other lesson from history is that indigent farmers don’t always make sound financial decisions, so maybe that is one lesson we HAVE learned – from digging for silver mines to the current mall project (probably a sound financial investment).
Perhaps a sound investment, but a terrible PR move for the general membership. That one gets my goat. I have read that about 10% of net income goes to the Church in the form of tithing, and these Church-owned businesses keep the rest. There is a case for keeping some of the money, but when I see your Gospel Essentials class out of manuals, and no plans to buy more due to the budget, our Bishop sending back money to the Stake at the end of the year when there are legitimate needs in the Ward, the mall takes on much larger significance. But I’m just a grumpy old curmudgeon when it comes to Church finances due to the lens of my personal experience. I’m trying to see my spiritual optometrist to get a better lens that help me see clearly. Problem is, there are no deals out there; it’s a personally expensive process!
Quote:Perhaps we have our own cultural Hercules and Achilles, it is interesting to think about. For a period I was reading everything I could about Emma Smith. While I could never accurately approach a true knowledge of this enigmatic woman, I did come to have a feel for the ‘general consensus’ of the books that were written about her. I found that some books, by what they presented and what they left out or the way they presented and framed certain information, told me much more about the author and the culture of the author than about the subject – Emma.
Emma Smith is a fascinating woman. I think she was a strong woman in many ways, not to mention handsome, and I’ve never understood why JS seemed to want to play away.
The fact that Emma went over to the RLDS is rarely commented on.
I found this website too:
Emma didn’t “go over to the RLDS”. She and Brigham Young didn’t like each other much, especially since Emma believed her son should lead the Church after Joseph’s death – eventually, at least. The RLDS organized around them when they stayed in Nauvoo as the “Brighamite” saints went west. That’s way over-simplified, but I think it’s an important point – that after Joseph was killed there wasn’t anything for Emma to “go over to”, necessarily. It was a split, not a leaving of one group to “join” a different one – the same as other groups. We only think of them as “splinter groups” because those who followed Brigham out-numbered any of the other groups.
That time period defined the LDS Church and “Mormonism” probably more than any other “window” in our history.
Well, that’s the point, Emma and her children did NOT go to Utah, although I got forwarded an interesting piece about a CoC/RLDS descendant of JS joining us Brighamites. I consider Emma to be one of the most interesting people in our history, and one of the most badly represented. Eliza Snow is a fascinating figure as well, but as women they don’t fit well into a patriarchal narrative.
Just to continue on Ray’s point, Emma was never baptized in the RLDS church–her previous baptism was considered valid. At the time of her death, her membership records were in both churches. “Brighamite” missionaries often stayed in the hotel that Emma ran in Nauvoo. Sometimes they had pleasant conversations, while other times it was more heated. I do believe that Emma’s image has been rehabbed in the LDS church over the past few decades.
Whenever I see Emma in a church film, she’s a docile, simpering woman… pretty to look at, but pretty much second fiddle. She’s the loyal wife etc. In reality, she’s much more interesting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.