Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blueglass

the women's quorum - can you find a way?

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Really impressed with Kate Holbrook's interview with Terryl Givens.  She's thoughtful, candid, and inspiring as she speaks about her persistence to get a PhD and work full time for the church as a manger of church history.  She's working on a project with Lisa Tate on the history of the young women's organization.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2G7k1ggz7k&feature=em-uploademail

One thing I caught that I hadn't heard before was when Terryl asks her about whether she felt a sense of loss and a sense of jubilation when studying the history of the RS.  Joseph envisioned a more collaborative relationship with the male priesthood, more autonomy, abundance of spiritual gifts, authority to administer ordinances including healing by the laying of hands.  Kate responds that she understands the hyperfocus on this time period, but she feels there is a lost opportunity in recognizing the accomplishments of the women of the 20th century - she then backtracks a bit and says:

"I don't want to say that their isn't a difference, between - a time when a woman was able to say I have this terrific idea she's say the General RS president and she goes and talks to the president of the church about it.  That is certainly different than now, when she goes and talks to someone in the presiding bishopric, and it has to go through several levels to even get to the president.  There is a loss, and there is a difference."

I had no idea that the General RS president did not have direct access to the quorum of the 12, and first presidency?  Why in 3 heavens does the general RS president still have such an auxiliary level of access to the presiding apostolic quorum, access to financial influence through Pres Bishopric perhaps, but no real budget to work with?  No seat on the correlation committee?  

Kate has a great story about how Ardeth Greene Kapp (General YW president 84-92') while receiving a downpour of revelation would use innovative, clever ways and technology to push the ideas upward through the hierarchy.  

Thanks for sharing blueglass!

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I had no idea that the General RS president did not have direct access to the quorum of the 12, and first presidency?

The way I understand it is that the Relief Society reports to the Priesthood Executive council which is comprised of three of the Twelve apostles, and not to the Presiding Bishopric.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, blueglass said:

 Joseph envisioned a more collaborative relationship with the male priesthood, more autonomy, abundance of spiritual gifts, authority to administer ordinances including healing by the laying of hands. 

Yes...and no.

And under Brigham, John Taylor, etc they had all that.

Ironically women had far more priesthood authority under polygamy than they've had since it ended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am curious why the Relief Society would report to the Presiding Bishopric. Not saying it is not true but it seems odd. Are you sure it was not meant that the Presiding Bishopric doe not just disburse the budgets for the auxiliaries which makes sense as the Presiding Bishopric as the presiding authorities of the Aaronic Priesthood are in charge of temporal things and the disposition of money (under the authority of the apostles of course)? It would seem to make more sense for them to liase with the apostles assigned to their auxiliary and the Seventies who coordinate and assist in auxiliary operations.

Share this post


Link to post

I was listening to yet another podcast with a woman who is in Activity Days or something and she asked leaders (bishopric?) if there was any recognition for the young women when they earn their Faith in God, because two of the girls had just earned it. She didn't get any feedback from the bishopric or leaders and the next week two young men were honored for becoming Priests or something, but not even having earned their Faith in God. Well she was furious that neither of the girls were recognized and texted her husband and some women in the Primary presidency right after. They were upset as well, one of them even got up and left the chapel. 

I'm wondering, since it's been a while since I've been in Primary and Young Women's, if this is how it's done or just her ward. There is a happy ending, someone came into the Primary room after Sacrament a little later and told the ladies that the following week they will honor the two girls. I guess through all the texting it go back to them.

But my question is, was this not the usual happening of honoring girls that get their Faith in God?

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was listening to yet another podcast with a woman who is in Activity Days or something and she asked leaders (bishopric?) if there was any recognition for the young women when they earn their Faith in God, because two of the girls had just earned it. She didn't get any feedback from the bishopric or leaders and the next week two young men were honored for becoming Priests or something, but not even having earned their Faith in God. Well she was furious that neither of the girls were recognized and texted her husband and some women in the Primary presidency right after. They were upset as well, one of them even got up and left the chapel. 

I'm wondering, since it's been a while since I've been in Primary and Young Women's, if this is how it's done or just her ward. There is a happy ending, someone came into the Primary room after Sacrament a little later and told the ladies that the following week they will honor the two girls. I guess through all the texting it go back to them.

But my question is, was this not the usual happening of honoring girls that get their Faith in God? FAQ

"What recognition and awards do children receive for the Faith in God program? “At least twice a year, a Primary activity day (or a Cub Scout Pack meeting) should include opportunities for the children to share what they have learned and accomplished. “When all required activities are completed, the Primary president and the bishop or branch president sign the Faith in God Award certificate on the last page of this [Faith in God]guidebook. A member of the bishopric, branch presidency, or Primary presidency recognizes the child’s accomplishment in Primary. “Parents and leaders should help the children understand that the joy of living the gospel is the most important reward” (Faith in God guidebook [2003], 19)."

The recognition is done in primary, not sacrament. This is very different than priests being ordained when in YM so I don't know why they would compare the 2. 

Finding what I found above took about 20 seconds. I'm surprised that instead of everyone texting her back she didn't just google it or better yet, look at the guidebook since she is the leader. 

That isn't to say recognizing girls and women isn't important. I just don't think she had a good understanding of things from the little that I get from your description.

Edited by Rain
To add link
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was listening to yet another podcast with a woman who is in Activity Days or something and she asked leaders (bishopric?) if there was any recognition for the young women when they earn their Faith in God, because two of the girls had just earned it. She didn't get any feedback from the bishopric or leaders and the next week two young men were honored for becoming Priests or something, but not even having earned their Faith in God. Well she was furious that neither of the girls were recognized and texted her husband and some women in the Primary presidency right after. They were upset as well, one of them even got up and left the chapel. 

I'm wondering, since it's been a while since I've been in Primary and Young Women's, if this is how it's done or just her ward. There is a happy ending, someone came into the Primary room after Sacrament a little later and told the ladies that the following week they will honor the two girls. I guess through all the texting it go back to them.

But my question is, was this not the usual happening of honoring girls that get their Faith in God?

Hey Tac, they should be but is highly dependent on leadership.

In a linguistic minority ward deep behind the Zion Curtain I've visited, the young women are recognized and even "sustained" in sacrament for advancement to beehive, Laurel, etc. without regard to the program.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I was listening to yet another podcast with a woman who is in Activity Days or something and she asked leaders (bishopric?) if there was any recognition for the young women when they earn their Faith in God, because two of the girls had just earned it. She didn't get any feedback from the bishopric or leaders and the next week two young men were honored for becoming Priests or something, but not even having earned their Faith in God. Well she was furious that neither of the girls were recognized and texted her husband and some women in the Primary presidency right after. They were upset as well, one of them even got up and left the chapel. 

I'm wondering, since it's been a while since I've been in Primary and Young Women's, if this is how it's done or just her ward. There is a happy ending, someone came into the Primary room after Sacrament a little later and told the ladies that the following week they will honor the two girls. I guess through all the texting it go back to them.

But my question is, was this not the usual happening of honoring girls that get their Faith in God?

They honor the girls who get it in my ward.

And they don't ever honor anyone for moving from a quorum to another quorum (or class to another class.  At least they are not supposed to).  They do have to present the young men for a sustaining vote before they can be ordained to another quorum though, which is why it looks like they are being acknowledged in sacrament meeting.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

With the change in meetings, one thing that has been abandoned is any award recognition in sacrament meetings/boys and girls.   (This was in the Q&A provided after announcement of the change.)  

 I don't recall whether boys have to be congregationally sustained to be ordained to the priesthood.  If they do, members might see that as recognition, but it isn't related to anything someone earned.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/27/2019 at 2:54 PM, rpn said:

 I don't recall whether boys have to be congregationally sustained to be ordained to the priesthood.

Yes, they do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/26/2019 at 11:22 PM, The Nehor said:

I am curious why the Relief Society would report to the Presiding Bishopric. Not saying it is not true but it seems odd. Are you sure it was not meant that the Presiding Bishopric doe not just disburse the budgets for the auxiliaries which makes sense as the Presiding Bishopric as the presiding authorities of the Aaronic Priesthood are in charge of temporal things and the disposition of money (under the authority of the apostles of course)? It would seem to make more sense for them to liase with the apostles assigned to their auxiliary and the Seventies who coordinate and assist in auxiliary operations.

Going by memory so don't quote me, but I think it's due to overlap in that both organizations were service/welfare organizations. That is the practical role of the Presiding Bishopric is, like the original role of the Relief Society, in providing charitable aid. The Presiding Bishopric still does that and works closely with organizations like The United Way. The Relief Society as we see it changing after Grant has less and less connection with that except at the local ward level. 

That recent book on the history of women in the Church (sorry spacing the name -- sorry) goes through the details as I recall. Part of the problems as I recall was that the Relief Society simply couldn't get enough money in donations to do what they wanted to do. That was the basis for the infamous losing their own building they got donations for. It's at that point you start to see the split, with the priesthood taking more of the role that the Relief Society had. By the time you get to the post-war era and correlation you pretty much have the current situation. 

Share this post


Link to post

Also going by memory, but the RS did a bang up job with money....which they had to turn over to the men when RS was taken over. They had donations for the building and were promised a lot to build their own space, then they were put into some offices in an existing church building instead. Not a happy moment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, juliann said:

Also going by memory, but the RS did a bang up job with money....which they had to turn over to the men when RS was taken over. They had donations for the building and were promised a lot to build their own space, then they were put into some offices in an existing church building instead. Not a happy moment.

That's what Colleen McDannell's book Sister Saints goes through. She complicates the traditional story and I think makes it much more understandable. The plan was to raise $20,000 which the RS never did. Quoting from her book. "From the men's point of view, the women had dithered for several years and raised only $14,000. What the larger church needed was administrative offices." In an interview my google-fu is failing to find, she talked about the disconnect between how the women, with little background in finances, and how the men viewed those efforts - particularly relative to the costs of the building. Those who see this event as evidence of the loss of independence have to reconcile it with the fact that independently the RS was unable to build the building. That's not to dispute the big shift that happens at this time - accelerated and accentuated with the issues when Lyman was Relief Society President and the tensions there.

McDannell also goes through the shift as the Presiding Bishop ends up taking over a lot of Relief Society function at this time up through Lyman's end to seeking donations for RS practices. Continuing from McDannell, "Consequently, it is not surprising that by 1913 the First Presidency directed ward bishops to take over all real estate belonging to the Relief Society. By this period, the Relief Society had property and buildings worth over $149,000. However, the granaries and halls were falling into disrepair, and it was increasingly difficult to provide proper upkeep. Women may have wished to continue to own and manage their buildings, but modern standards could not be met without impinging on masculine forms of knowledge. The Relief Society had supported women's independence, and its leaders had always upheld women's intellectual capabilities. However the Relief Society did not establish institutions that would have given women the professional training needed to flourish int he twentieth century."

The standard narrative is that starting with Joseph F. Smith and accelerating with Heber J. Grant men just unilaterally took over power from a combination of sexism and centralization for correlation. However I think McDannell does a good job contextualizing this and showing that practical concerns really were the driver. That's not to deny a structural sexism behind all this. Women simply weren't educated in the needed disciplines and socially weren't viewed as appropriate by either men nor women. Honestly we don't see that change until the 70's and 80's and arguably only starting then in a fairly slow process that still isn't finished. 

So I don't think you can say the Relief Society did a bang up job with money once you move out of the more primitive agrarian society into the 20th century. They just were ill equipped to deal with the demands of modern commerce and building.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/26/2019 at 10:23 PM, JAHS said:

The way I understand it is that the Relief Society reports to the Priesthood Executive council which is comprised of three of the Twelve apostles, and not to the Presiding Bishopric.

Does anyone have an organizational chart for how this works?  It would make sense that RS general presidency reports directly to the PEC.  That's how I understood things until I heard this interview.  Now I'm not sure.  

Edited by blueglass

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/27/2019 at 11:26 AM, Tacenda said:

I was listening to yet another podcast with a woman who is in Activity Days or something and she asked leaders (bishopric?) if there was any recognition for the young women when they earn their Faith in God, because two of the girls had just earned it. She didn't get any feedback from the bishopric or leaders and the next week two young men were honored for becoming Priests or something, but not even having earned their Faith in God. Well she was furious that neither of the girls were recognized and texted her husband and some women in the Primary presidency right after. They were upset as well, one of them even got up and left the chapel. 

I'm wondering, since it's been a while since I've been in Primary and Young Women's, if this is how it's done or just her ward. There is a happy ending, someone came into the Primary room after Sacrament a little later and told the ladies that the following week they will honor the two girls. I guess through all the texting it go back to them.

But my question is, was this not the usual happening of honoring girls that get their Faith in God?

I think the first presidency statements after the 11 year old change, said they will stop honoring class advancement for girls now.  Young men will continue to be honored for priesthood advancement, sustaining, and so forth.  This is because 2 of 4 key holders in the ward are young boys.  This may be based on tradition (key holders are deacons and teacher's quorum presidents - who used to be grown mature men, likely married) - not sure when this new tradition started.  No D&Cov or other revelations indicate why or when it occurred.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/30/2019 at 12:37 PM, clarkgoble said:

That's what Colleen McDannell's book Sister Saints goes through. She complicates the traditional story and I think makes it much more understandable. The plan was to raise $20,000 which the RS never did. Quoting from her book. "From the men's point of view, the women had dithered for several years and raised only $14,000. What the larger church needed was administrative offices." In an interview my google-fu is failing to find, she talked about the disconnect between how the women, with little background in finances, and how the men viewed those efforts - particularly relative to the costs of the building. Those who see this event as evidence of the loss of independence have to reconcile it with the fact that independently the RS was unable to build the building. That's not to dispute the big shift that happens at this time - accelerated and accentuated with the issues when Lyman was Relief Society President and the tensions there.

McDannell also goes through the shift as the Presiding Bishop ends up taking over a lot of Relief Society function at this time up through Lyman's end to seeking donations for RS practices. Continuing from McDannell, "Consequently, it is not surprising that by 1913 the First Presidency directed ward bishops to take over all real estate belonging to the Relief Society. By this period, the Relief Society had property and buildings worth over $149,000. However, the granaries and halls were falling into disrepair, and it was increasingly difficult to provide proper upkeep. Women may have wished to continue to own and manage their buildings, but modern standards could not be met without impinging on masculine forms of knowledge. The Relief Society had supported women's independence, and its leaders had always upheld women's intellectual capabilities. However the Relief Society did not establish institutions that would have given women the professional training needed to flourish int he twentieth century."

The standard narrative is that starting with Joseph F. Smith and accelerating with Heber J. Grant men just unilaterally took over power from a combination of sexism and centralization for correlation. However I think McDannell does a good job contextualizing this and showing that practical concerns really were the driver. That's not to deny a structural sexism behind all this. Women simply weren't educated in the needed disciplines and socially weren't viewed as appropriate by either men nor women. Honestly we don't see that change until the 70's and 80's and arguably only starting then in a fairly slow process that still isn't finished. 

So I don't think you can say the Relief Society did a bang up job with money once you move out of the more primitive agrarian society into the 20th century. They just were ill equipped to deal with the demands of modern commerce and building.

From what I understand only around 85 - 90people (first quorum of 70, presiding bishopric, quorum of 12, and first presidency) receive the $125k annual salary.  The presidency of RS, YW, and primary I don't believe receive salaries, or control significant budgets.  Only travel expense reimbursement.  If they had 10 - 20M/year to manage what would they do?    Do they meet with the presiding bishopric on world humanitarian projects and help make decisions on where to spend 100k here on clean water project, 100k there on women's abuse counseling project?  250k in DRC on Kiva.org like micro-loan projects.  I have no idea.  genRS presidents don't present an annual report we can read that documents their work activities, so I'm not sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, blueglass said:

From what I understand only around 85 - 90people (first quorum of 70, presiding bishopric, quorum of 12, and first presidency) receive the $125k annual salary.  The presidency of RS, YW, and primary I don't believe receive salaries, or control significant budgets.

I honestly don't know although I am expecting structural changes - whether that'll be this year or not I don't know. I have a hard time imagining they don't get subsidized in some way given how time consuming the calling is. It seems very difficult to assume they aren't though. There have been single women called after all who had high paying jobs prior to the call. It seems nearly impossible to assume they weren't compensated so they could at least keep up on bills. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/27/2019 at 4:54 PM, rpn said:

With the change in meetings, one thing that has been abandoned is any award recognition in sacrament meetings/boys and girls.   (This was in the Q&A provided after announcement of the change.)  

 I don't recall whether boys have to be congregationally sustained to be ordained to the priesthood.  If they do, members might see that as recognition, but it isn't related to anything someone earned.

They do have to be sustained by the congregation.  It is a huge recognition and honor.  They visibly conduct the weekly liturgical rites of the sacrament, and now young priests baptize YW in the temple as well as in the chapel fonts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I honestly don't know although I am expecting structural changes - whether that'll be this year or not I don't know. I have a hard time imagining they don't get subsidized in some way given how time consuming the calling is. It seems very difficult to assume they aren't though. There have been single women called after all who had high paying jobs prior to the call. It seems nearly impossible to assume they weren't compensated so they could at least keep up on bills. 

My hope as well that this will change.  If the position is part-time should we as the general membership receive disclosure on compensation?  There is no ecclesia Lilly Ledbetter act in force here.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2019 at 8:53 PM, juliann said:

Also going by memory, but the RS did a bang up job with money....which they had to turn over to the men when RS was taken over. They had donations for the building and were promised a lot to build their own space, then they were put into some offices in an existing church building instead. Not a happy moment.

RS collected membership dues in the early days correct?  Also accepted donations for humanitarian projects separate from the church general fund.  These budgets/assets/inventories became massive from what I understand which could convert to many millions in today's dollars. 

 

Edited by blueglass

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2019 at 11:16 AM, Tacenda said:

Just thought some of you might enjoy this, I hope it's okay if I add it to the discussion blueglass.  https://ldsmag.com/what-i-want-my-daughters-to-understand-about-eve/?fbclid=IwAR1z5P-DSmOSxzOxqf5FqtfhTp4b62FQ11Mwi4LIoOHzSiBQTS0l5dxqGNg

Thank you for sharing.  Eve as Ezer kenegdo is really powerful for me.  "O Israel, trust thou in the Lord:  he is their help [ezer] and shield.”  I like the alternate translation for kenegdo, “a power or strength equal to."  Hopefully the initiatory will become more equal some day. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, blueglass said:

RS collected membership dues in the early days correct?  Also accepted donations for humanitarian projects separate from the church general fund.  These budgets/assets/inventories became massive from what I understand which could convert to many millions in today's dollars. 

However they were insufficient to keep up with just the buildings they were trying to maintain. How big something is doesn't matter if your necessary expenditures are larger.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/27/2019 at 1:56 PM, bluebell said:

They honor the girls who get it in my ward.

And they don't ever honor anyone for moving from a quorum to another quorum (or class to another class.  At least they are not supposed to).  They do have to present the young men for a sustaining vote before they can be ordained to another quorum though, which is why it looks like they are being acknowledged in sacrament meeting.  

An 11 year old deacon and a 13 year old teacher can now become president of a quorum of young men and become 2 of the 4 in a ward which hold priesthood keys.  Do we have an equivalent responsibility for the presidents of the beehives and MIA maids  classes?   If we called the young men quorums: 11 - 13, the "Ants", the 13-15y/o the "Silver coders", and the 15 - 17 y/o the "Asteroids" how would this fly when trying to portray equality in how we perceive young men and young women?  

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By FearlessFixxer
      http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2017/11/26/commentary-the-gaslighting-within-mormonism-must-stop/
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I know this has been discussed previously (but couldn't find the thread). I recently came to the realization that every 4th Sunday for 6 months will be based on 1 topic. The first 6 months of 2018 happens to have the topic of Sabbath worship- keeping the Sabbath day holy. Regardless of what one thinks about that particular topic, is it reasonable to expect 6 lessons on consecutive months on the same topic to be stimulating to the membership? I struggle to see how even the most dedicated member could be excited about hearing the same topic (presumably with a different spin) for 6 straight months.
      Has anyone been involved in the pilot programs for this approach (which also used Sabbath Observance as the topic- so you get another 6 months...yay!!)? How did it work? Were eyes more glazed over than usual on the 5th and 6th month? Seriously, is anyone looking forward to this? I will be thrilled if someone can show me that I have misunderstood this teaching approach and it won't really be 6 months of the same topic.
       

    • By Chrysblack2017
      The Daughters of MOTHER EVE
      of Latter-Day Saints
       
       
       
      1. We believe that God is a title that denotes more than one personage. Those personages are our Father and Mother in Heaven.
       
      2. We believe Jesus Christ is the Savior of Mankind and Mother Eve the Comforter of mankind.
       
      3. We believe that we were given the Sarahic1 Priestesshood in the pre-existence through Mother Eve.
       
      4. We believe that the Miriamic1 Priestesshood is to help prepare women to take on the duties of the Sarahic1Priestesshood.
       
      5. We believe that women should lead side by side and hand in hand with our brothers, husbands, and fathers.
       
      6. We believe that our duty and calling is separate and complimentary to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
       
      7. We believe that there should be no poor among us. To help the poor build a secure life with love and understanding. 
       
      8. We believe that poverty is instability in home ownership, food availability and job security.
       
      9. We believe that through personal accountability and community support we can achieve the fullest measure of our creation.
       
      10. We believe that holy script has been changed by false priests and evil transcribers to exclude and persecute those who were a different gender, race, nationality, and sexuality.
       
      11. We believe through objective thought and careful prayer we will be able to strip prejudice from ourselves and our beliefs.
       
      12. We believe that we are saved through Jesus Christ and we are here Because of the sacrifice of Mother Eve.
       
       
             1 These names were chosen in the same manner that The Melchizedek and the Aaronic Priesthood names were chosen.  Namely by calling them after Women that faithful to the Priestesshood, otherwise known as the Priestesshood after the Order of the Daughter of God.  
    • By Bernard Gui
      On a thread that was closed for not supplying a topic for discussion.....
      I listened to the podcast. It takes apart Elder Packer's CES address where he defined what is a faithful/faith-promoting history of the Church.
      He calls his blog "Radio Free Mormon broadcasting behind enemy lines." Who is his enemy? It appears his enemy is the Church and its leaders.
      An hour-long monologue making a case that Boyd Packer was immoral, unethical, and a liar who worshipped a false God based on his CES talk about church history and Leonard Arrington. Also accuses the General Authorities of publishing books for the purpose of making a profit. He doesn't like Elder Packer who is portrayed as an evil man. Also dredges up the Gordon Hinckley's "I don't know" interview to question his integrity. Church leaders are part of a deceptive conspiracy to cover up the truth of church history.
      Some here knew Leonard Arrington. I have enjoyed his writings. Is it fair to say he was demoted from his position as Church Historian to a professor at BYU? Is it fair to claim Elder Packer was an unethical liar?
    • By canard78
      Elder Maynes CES devotional went into extensive detail on the first vision accounts last night. 
      Starts at 35:20:
      https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/the-truth-restored?lang=eng&_r=1
      I'm delighted that the essays and these topics are gradually becoming more mainstream. My mum (a primary president) even plans to use parts of the vision essay in sharing time this month (it's the "truth restored" section of the manual). I'll share this talk and article with her too as it's got some useful suggestions.
      A couple of questions: 
      - He said Joseph "wrote or dictated" the four accounts. Is that the best description of how the official account was written? I'll have to look up the Bushman reference I'm thinking of as I seem to remember him saying somewhere that the official version was a bit more of a co-creation or collaboration with Rigdon. I might be misremembering that so will try to check it.
      - He also says that it's the best documented vision in history. I wondered what the other contenders would be. 
      Any other thoughts?
×