rongo

Thank you to everybody for your thoughts and insights! They have been very helpful for me as I have worked on this issue.

I met with both the mother and father and the boy last night. The dad is what I call a “functional alcoholic,” by which I mean that he functions pretty well physically and mentally while still being under the influence. He smelled of alcohol, through his skin, not just through his breath (a flashback to my mission ---- we lived in a garden house in an elderly couple’s back yard, and they lived from dawn to dusk off of hard liquor. He picked me up at the train station in his “default setting,” and I doubt if he could function in any way while “on the wagon.” We used to joke that you wouldn’t test his blood-alcohol level, you would test his alcohol-blood level ---- how much blood is in the alcohol in his veins).

The father made it clear that it is important to him that his son be baptized. He explained that he is a baptized member, but never received any level of Aaronic priesthood. He has doctrinal hang-ups about the Church, but recognizes the Church’s authority.

I called the stake president this morning, and he is going to contact the mission president to see about him authorizing us to baptize him on Saturday. If he insists that this be a convert baptism (including missionary lessons), we could baptize him tonight if the stake president authorizes it (like I said, there’s a long story there and some history, which I’ll have to explain later when I have more time). That would be quite rushed and less than ideal, so at this point we’re sitting tight and waiting for authorization.

I agree with those who have said that this is a priesthood key issue, and that’s been my concern (in addition to the emotional state of the family). There have been a lot of good points and thoughts that deserve a response, and I’ll have to get to them later when I have time.

Thanks again!

Buying gasoline for her for this seems to me a legitimate use of fast offering funds.

She's amazing. She has *never* come to the church for any help, although she merits it more than those who do. There's a real danger of hurting her feelings if I was to offer something like that (it would make it obvious that others are mindful of her situation). My wife and I have thought about buying her some dresses and things for Christmas, but worry that that would also hurt her pride in a bad way (she only owns two very old dresses).

She is a paragon of self-reliance in working with what she has. She taught a bread-making lesson for a Relief Society Meeting, and she has a real knack for that. Her pumpernickel is wonderful, and she developed a recipe that substitutes cocoa for coffee in it.

Mainly, she's embarassed that she let it get to this point. Her parents are very active, and she doesn't want to have to have her son be a convert baptism. Given her psyche and everythings she's been through and deals with, this is one source of stress and worry I'd like to take off her plate. While I have reminded her twice over the last year, we would just miss him being 8 by two days.

Believe me, if I could just go baptize him in the church before Thursday, I would, but the stake presidency would go ballistic (long story there ----- this has come up as well).

You can always have the missionary lessons at church when they would normally be there so as to not be disruptive to the family, but I would think that such could be waved in this situation if you are satisfied with his knowledge and commitment. I would ask the question at the ldstech site about the mls if you don't get an answer soon here.

Having them have the lessons at the church occurred to me, but it would be best (in the interest of the mother's well-being) not to if we don't have to. We live near them, and we're in the rural unincorporated county land, as opposed to the 99% of the ward in the city. She has to be extremely frugal with gasoline (Sunday church is one of the few trips into town she is able to do during the week), and staying with her passel of kids for the lessons would be stressful for her (they're a handful, and she's self-conscious about their behavior ----- and, our ward is sandwiched between two other wards with overlap, so space for lessons is limited).

That's good to know about the tech site. Do you have a complete URL? Is it ldstech.org?

Thanks!

I have a boy in my ward who turns nine on Thursday. I interviewed him for baptism a year ago, and have twice brought up the need to have him baptized to his mother over the last year. Stake baptism day is Saturday, and that is the only day children of record may be baptized in my stake, no exceptions, worlds without end. I would like to re-interview him and have him baptized on Saturday, but he will technically be nine years old by two days.

There are extenuating circumstances: his father is an abusive alcoholic who causes scenes and flies off the handle (he's not all there). He's also quasi-apostate. The mother and father are married, but the father lives in a shed in the back of the property out of the kindness of the mother's heart (he's a wretch who can't take care of himself). The mother purposely keeps the kids away from their father for the most part.

Normally, a nine year-old who is baptized is a convert baptism and must be taught the discussions. In this case, I agree with the mother that it would be best not to involve them. They live in abject poverty, living solely off of the sale of eggs from her numerous hens and welfare. My interactions with the father indicate to me that it would be extremely disruptive and ugly to have the missionaries teach the boy at their house, because of the father (he's intimately aware of visitors). The mother and the three children attend church regularly, and there are no concerns from a readiness/understanding of the covenant standpoint.

My question, for the forum, is whether anyone knows if we will have trouble recording a child of record baptism in MLS if the child is technically nine? In other words, will MLS not let us record it?

A second question I'm chewing on is whether there is a jurisdictio nproblem with keys over the baptism (must it be through the missionaries with the child being nine, because it is then under the mission president instead of the bishop/stake president)?

Very interested in people's experiences, insights, observations, etc.! Thanks in advance.

There is no person of Authority in the LDS church that would cause you to lose your Temple worthiness should you choose to leave/divorce your Temple mate.

It would depend on why a person left his spouse or divorced. We have a prominent brother and a prominent sister in our stake who are facing formal Church discipline at the stake level for leaving their spouses for each other (prominent as in high council and stake Relief Society Presidency and concurrent seminary teachers; they both divorced, but the timing of the divorces strongly appears to post-date mid-life crisis behavior on the part of both. The brother’s wife had also recently been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when he told her he was divorcing her). There are any number of scenarios where a member could have his temple privileges suspended or revoked because of leaving/divorcing a spouse, depending on the circumstances (but not simply because of separation or divorce, in and of themselves).

They would simply encourage you or “counsel" you to stay with, forgive and work with one's wayward spouse in an effort to salvage the Temple marriage and sealing.”

You act as if this would be a matter of course. I can assure you that, depending on the circumstances, priesthood leaders may also counsel people to separate or divorce, or at least express that they understand and sanction doing so.

Have I heard of such cases? Sure! The handsome college couple, who entered into the temple vows with hopes and dreams and goals only to have the wife let herself go, put on 200 lbs., and after two years of working with, purchasing fitness memberships, diet programs, etc, etc, the wife simply told him that this is what he signed up for! Like it and live with it! Yes, he was counseled by his Priesthood authority to not leave his wife and sever the sealing but he did. Nothing happened to him! I have never heard of this happening anywhere!

1) This would be an example of tragic falling apart of a marriage, with the fault debatable, but not rising to the level of requiring suspension or revocation of temple privileges. These things happen in every ward in the Church, unfortunately, but on their face are not grounds for temple restrictions. I don’t think anyone (or precious few) would argue that they are.

2) When sealed members divorce, the sealings are almost never cancelled/severed/dissolved. Sealings are almost always cancelled only when the divorcees want to be sealed to other people, and these must be authorized by the First Presidency. What almost always happens is that people obtain a legal divorce, but remain sealed on Church records.

I do know, that if a wife commits adultery and divorces, she must have written permission from her ex-spouse to remarry in the Temple with another. Anyone else know about this? . . . Anyone else have any experiences in this matter?

It’s not correct to view it as “written permission” from an ex-spouse --- it’s really a letter offering the person an opportunity to share details or information concerning the request (anything they feel has a bearing on it or that the First Presidency should know). I once had an ex-spouse who told his ex-wife that if she ever tried to be sealed to someone else, he would stop that in its tracks with his letter. His letter (which we included in the application to the First Presidency) had absolutely no effect on her successful request for a cancellation of sealing, but it did give him an opportunity to “have his say.”

This is first hand through witnessed experience. It was explained that because the wife was unfaithful, committed Adultery and the Temple Marriage ended in divorce, that when she remarried, she told me personally that she had to get written permission from him because (A) she committed the sin (B) he held the Priesthood. It may have been written permission to dissolve the sealing I don't remember. That is why I asked if anyone else could help out on this. I am no authority on the subject. I know there are several Bishops and ex-Bishops in here that would know!

Again, this wouldn’t be “written permission,” it would be the standard required letter from the ex-spouse concerning his/her view/take on the factors and details. This is required in any application to the First Presidency, and has nothing to do with who committed a sin, or who does or doesn’t hold the priesthood, etc.

I cannot believe for one minute a priesthood holder in authority would threaten anyone with anything, let alone if he was leaving his wife.

Well, one man’s “threatening” is another man’s “exhorting/counseling.” If a bishop asks for a person’s temple recommend, is that “threatening?” What about an “if/then” warning?

No one can force another to stay married against their will. They are instructed by the General Authorities to counsel them into reconciliation.

The first sentence here is true; the second one seems to contradict the first one, doesn’t it? Couldn’t mandated “counseling . . . into reconciliation” be akin to “forc[ing] another to stay married against their will,” depending on the details and circumstances? You can’t counsel people to reconcile who are dead-set against the prospect, and there are circumstances where you wouldn’t want to insist on reconciliation.

Please discuss this with your Bishop, it is my understanding the the LDS male will have several wives in the Kingdoms of Heaven.

We don’t know if men (or all men, or most men, or some men) will have several wives in the celestial kingdom. There is certainly a basis in latter-day scripture and historical LDS discourse for assuming this, but we actually don’t know for sure.

Women will not [be sealed to multiple husbands in the hereafter].

This is complicated. The handbooks of instruction say that women cannot be sealed to more than one man, but the First Presidency grants exceptions to this on a case-by-case basis (this is very rare). I am personally aware of two such cases, and I’m aware of other cases, too. How this will be sorted out in the hereafter, who knows?

The man holds the Priesthood but for whatever reasons, and I don't claim to have all the answers, the male spouse is the one and only one who has to give the other spouse permission to be sealed to another man in this life. Now unless the first sealing has been dissolved completely, this may not be the case. I do know there are Bishops in here who can answer this. Any help out there?

No, the First Presidency does. Big difference. As outlined above, the man’s “permission” only serves as input for the First Presidency for considering it, at most. It actually wouldn’t hinge on his “permission.”

[i have access to CHI book 1] legitimately, I am not going to say what calling [i have] because I don't want my postings here to reflect upon my calling or vice versa

What would be wrong about your postings here "reflect[ing] upon [your] calling." Or with "[your] calling reflect[ing] upon your postings here?"

I'm a bishop of four years and counting, and I'm trying to see a member of a stake presidency or bishopric (those with legitimate access to book 1) posting as you do, and it just doesn't add up to me.

It does tend to further add to the blowback you received about "transparency," in my view. You won't even post your calling on an anonymous message board while using a pseudonym.

Ray: its a matter of principle for me, I do have a copy of both CHI 1&2

What is your calling in the Church, Saints Alive?

I'm wondering if you have a copy of CHI book 1 legitimately, or illegitimately.

Hughes:

In the Einheitsübersetzung, or "unity translation" (the version of the Bible the Church uses in German-speaking countries ---- a joint translation put out by the Catholic and Lutheran churches), "Urim and Thummim" is rendered Losorakel ("lot-oracle"). Scholarly footnotes explain that the Urim and Thummim was consulted in a manner similar to how diviners used lots. As others have answered in this thread, Old Testament proscriptions against divination do not apply to legitimately authorized use of the Urim and Thummim or other authorized means. God makes it more demanding for us than to simply provide us with a trouble-shooting flow chart ----- we are required to discern and recognize whether something really is or is not of God, rather than relying on black and white tests.

This becomes similar to the so-called "Bible test of a prophet" in Deuteronomy. The actual test is whether a prophet is of God, not whether what he says comes to pass. Part of the "Bible test of a prophet" acknowledges that false prophets can give true prophecies, and people can't know in real time whether purported prophecies will be fulfilled or not. We need to be able to discern without automatic "lifelines."

We know a great deal about how Smith translated the Book of Mormon, based on numerous witnesses, both Mormon and non-Mormon, who saw him do it. He translated by placing a chocolate-brown colored seer stone in the bottom of a white stove-pipe hat and placing his face within the hat to exclude the external light.

You are conflating details from a montage of anti-Mormon sources of poor quality to arrive at the above confident statement. Particularly with the "white stove-pipe hat:"

. . . and that hat!

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers. With the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!"

Chairman: Why hid in the woods?

Hale: Because, as I explained yesterday, I would not allow the plates in my house. So they took them and hid them in the woods.

Chairman: But you were describing the translation as it took place at Smith's house, not at your house. Did they still have to keep the plates in the woods? This I am afraid is another example of the vagueness of your testimony and the eagerness with which you seize upon every opportunity to make Smith look ridiculous. Such things can backfire. But let's get back to the beginning. Smith always used a hat?

Beardsley: He did. When our history opens we see Joe, the "barefoot boy" looking at "a precious 'lucky stone' . . . placed . . . in the crown of his battered old felt hat."

Daniel Hendrix: That hat! "I can see him now . . . with his uncombed hair sticking through the holes in his old battered hat." fn

Chairman: Why did he put the stone in his hat?

Tucker: Because in his peeping for treasures his "discoveries finally became too dazzling for his eyes in daylight, and he had to shade his vision by looking at the stone in his hat."

Chairman: Indeed. I thought everybody knew that eyes are better accustomed to strong light in the daylight than at any other time, and that the one way to make an object brighter is to look at it in the dark. If you have ever driven a car, Mr. Tucker, you would know that oncoming headlights that are painfully bright at night are hardly noticed in the daytime. You have got it just backwards. How did the stone and hat operate?

Kennedy: "With a bandage over his eyes he would fall upon his knees and bury his face in the depths of an old white hat, where the stone was . . . hidden."

Chairman: How could he hope to see anything with a bandage over his eyes?

Kennedy: Don't you see? It was necessary to shut out every bit of light.

Chairman: But Mr. Hendrix, an eyewitness, tells us Joe's hat was full of holes.

Howe: It may have been another hat.

Chairman: No. Joe, it seems, was famous for a particular hat. An old hat.

Bennett: That's right. He was called the "Holy Old White Hat Prophet."

Chairman: And when did Smith start using the white hat?

****inson: From the very beginning. From the time when Mrs. Smith presented her son with the family peepstone—"from that time on Joseph Smith fooled the credulous residents of the sparsely settled vicinity with the 'peeker' in his white stove-pipe hat."

Blackman: That is right. "He would sit for hours looking into his hat at the round colored stone."

Chairman: Do I understand that it was a stovepipe hat?

Mahaffey: That is correct. "In these ways, decked in his white stove-pipe hat, he fooled the credulous and superstitious and eked out a precarious subsistence."

Chairman: But we have been told most emphatically that it was a "battered old felt hat." Stove-pipe hats are not made of felt. The picture of a notoriously ragged and dirty teenager going about the country "decked out" in a white stove-pipe hat is a comical one, I will admit, but how could he keep it white all those years?

Howe: All those years?

Chairman: Yes, the old stove-pipe hat that Smith wore and used at the beginning of his peeping career was still in use at the time of translating the Book of Mormon, I believe.

Montgomery: True enough. While translating "Joseph kept his face in 'the old white hat.' "

Chairman: You see, it was old at that time—he had not got him a new white hat. And later in Nauvoo, as General Bennett has told us, Smith was the "Old White Hat" Prophet. Now, Smith began treasure-peeping, some have told us, as early as when he was eleven or twelve years old, an amusing figure in the old white stove-pipe hat. In the year before his death we find him going about in the same old "white stove-pipe hat." Apparently his head never grew and the hat never lost its whiteness—which always caused comment—and being already ancient when he got it, never went out of style: it is invariably described as "old." The white hat is an interesting "control" for the reliability of a lot of stories about Joseph Smith. There is another such key, I believe, in the frequent and significant references to boxes in the stories of the Book of Mormon. To expedite matters let us hear from our witnesses in chronological order. Mr. Ingersoll, most writers give you priority in this matter. What is your story?

Hugh Nibley, "Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, 229-231 (footnotes removed for pasting)

Actually, confidently asserting that the seer stone was "chocolate colored" is also precarious:

J. Smith, peepstones for all occasions

Lapham: According to Joseph Smith, Sr., "his son Joseph, . . . when he was about fourteen years of age, happened to be where a man was looking into a dark stone and telling people therefrom where to dig for money and other things. Joseph requested the privilege of looking into the stone, which he did by putting his face into the hat where the stone was. It proved to be not the right stone for him; but he could see some things, and among them he saw the stone, and where it was, in which he could see whatever he wished to see. . . . The place where he saw the stone was not far from their house, and under pretense of digging a well, they found water and the stone at a depth of twenty or twenty-two feet. After this, Joseph spent about two years looking into this stone, telling fortunes, where to find lost things and where to dig for money and other treasures."

Chairman: But a number of other witnesses have already told us that Smith was in the peeping business years before that. Aren't you a bit late?

Chase: Lapham doesn't put the date too late, he puts it much too early! It wasn't until 1822 that they dug the well, and there was no "pretense" about it! I was digging it myself—in fact there was no one in the well but myself when the stone was found. "After digging about 20 feet below the surface . . . we discovered a singularly appearing stone which excited my curiosity."

Chairman: There is no doubt but that this is the same well—the "20 feet" line proves that—but you say it was you who dug the well, not the Smiths, that you discovered the stone, and that yours was the first curiosity attracted by it. What did you do with it?

Chase: Smith asked to see it, "put it into his hat and then his face into the top of the hat." He borrowed it from me and "began to publish abroad what wonders he could discover by looking in it. . . . He had it in his possession about two years."

Chairman: That disposes of Mr. Lapham's story. But there seem to be some objections. Mr. Tucker?

Tucker: "Joseph Jr." was at the well-digging "as an idle looker-on"; it was Joseph Sr., Alvin, and Hyrum Smith who were doing the digging; when they dug up the stone the "lounger manifested a special fancy for this geological curiosity; and he carried it home with him, though this act of plunder was against the strenuous protestations of Mr. Chase's children, who claimed to be its rightful owners."

Mrs. Eaton: That's almost right. "At the age of 15 while watching his father digging a well, Joe espied a stone of curious shape. . . . 'This little stone was the acorn of the Mormon oak."'

Chairman: Is that the way it happened, Mr. Chase?

Chase: No! What happened was that "the next morning he came to see me, and wished to obtain the stone, alleging that he could see in it; I told him I did not wish to part with it, on account of its being a curiosity, but would lend it." After that "he made so much disturbance, that I ordered the stone to be returned to me again. He had it in his possession about two years."

Chairman: Did you get it back at the end of that time?

American Whig Review: Certainly not! "Smith could never be prevailed upon to give it up." This very stone was "used in the translation of the Book of Mormon."

Tucker: That's right. After he took it from the children, "Joseph kept this stone, and ever afterward refused its restoration to the claimants."

Chairman: What kind of a stone was it?

George W. Cowles: I can answer that. It was "such a pebble as might any day be picked up on the shore of Lake Ontario—the common hornblende

Chairman: So any kind of stone would do for this peeping business?

Ingersoll: Just about. Once after a conversation with Joseph Smith, Sr., in the fields, in which he urged me to become a money-digger, "on my return I picked up a small stone and was carelessly tossing it from one hand to the other. Said he (looking very earnestly), what are you going to do with that stone? Throw it at the birds, I replied. No, said the old man, it is of great worth; and upon this I gave it to him."

Chairman: What did he do with it?

Ingersoll: He put it into his hat, and after "sundry manoeuvres . . . took down his hat, and being very much exhausted, said in a faint voice, 'If you knew what I had seen, you would believe.' His son Alvin then went through the same performance, which was equally disgusting."

Chairman: Did you ever try to get the stone back?

Ingersoll: Of course not. It was just an ordinary stone.

Chairman: And we have heard that Mr. Chase's stone was also just an ordinary stone. Why was he so eager to get his stone back? Could Smith really see things in the stone, Mr. Chase?

Chase: Don't be absurd. It was all a hoax.

Chairman: Then why were you so extremely eager to get possession of this perfectly ordinary stone, which you or Smith could have duplicated with ease any day? Why did Hyrum and Joseph have fits when you asked them for it? If we are to believe our witnesses, they have drawers full of stones—and every one phony. Why all the excitement about one stone?

Chase: "It excited my curiosity." I asked for it back the first time because "he made so much disturbance, that I ordered the stone to be returned to me again. He had it in his possession about two years."

Chairman: Couldn't he have caused just as much disturbance with any other stone, since he was only faking? If it was such a menace, why did you lend it to him again and again? If not, why was he so anxious to have it?

Tucker: Can't you see? It was Mr. Chase's children who clamored for the stone. Joe Smith, "an idle looker-on and lounger" at the well-digging, "manifested a special fancy for this geological curiosity; and he carried it home with him, though the act of plunder was against the strenuous protestations of Mr. Chase's children, who claimed to be its rightful owners."

Chairman: And where was Mr. Chase? Was he going to let a fifteen-year-old kid walk off with his property while his children howled in protest? Mr. Chase tells us that he found the stone while digging his well on his property, and that it excited his curiosity, and two years later, when he "ordered the stone to be returned," Smith gave it back to him. I think it rather obvious why Mr. Tucker told a totally different story fifty years after the event: it had to be the Chase children who got excited about the stone, because of the patent absurdity of having Chase, a grown man, get all worked up about a thing which he declared worthless, and which could be duplicated without any trouble.

****inson: I think if we study the matter we can give a more cautious and rational explanation of the whole thing. Let us put it this way: "While he [smith] was watching the digging of a well, or himself digging it, he found, or pretended to find, a . . . stone.”

Chairman: That is the safe, conservative school, followed by some of Smith's latest biographers. Let me tell you a story: "While I was walking to work last week or today, or lying in my bed, I saw or heard, or my friend saw, a horse or a dog running or lying down in the street, or in a field." Notice with what exemplary caution I avoid the pitfalls of positive statement. Doesn't it give my story an air of modest objectivity? But can you tell me what happened? Did Smith find the stone or didn't he?

****inson: I don't think he did. "It has been said that this little stone . . . had been in the possession of Mrs. Smith's family for generations, and that she merely presented it to Joseph when he was old enough to work miracles with it: and that he hid it in the earth to find again when it was convenient."

Chairman: You realize, of course, that what you say makes a hash of Mr. Chase's Revised Standard Version? Mr. Linn says that Smith first looked into a second-class peepstone in which he saw not any treasures, but another peepstone, which was the one he finally used. Did he use more than one stone?

J. Stowell: He must have, for when he was tried for fraud, he displayed in court a stone "about the size of a small hen's egg, in the shape of a high instepped shoe. It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it."

Arbaugh: That "must have been the Chase stone, since it resembled 'a child's foot in shape' and was opaque"; it "was clearly not the Belcher stone.”

Chairman: What is this Belcher stone?

Blackman: Oh, don't you know? That was "the stone he afterwards used."

Chairman: After what?

Buck: After he took to peeping; that is, after I knew him in 1818. "The stone which he afterwards used was then in the possession of Jack Belcher, of Gibson, who obtained it while at Salina, New York, engaged in drawing salt. Belcher bought it because it was said to be 'a seeing stone.' I have often seen it."

Chairman: In Smith's possession?

Buck: No. I told you I only knew Smith "some years before he took to 'peeping,' and before the diggings were commenced under his direction. . . . These were ideas he gained later."

Chairman: How do you know that Smith ever used that particular stone?

Buck: As I said, "I have often seen it. It was a green stone, with brown, irregular spots on it. It was a little larger than a goose's egg, and about the same thickness."

Chairman: Your description shows that Mr. Arbaugh is right. That cannot possibly be the stone that the other witnesses described. Also, there is no doubt that you saw the stone. But since that was years before Smith got interested in stones, I don't see how you connect it up with him since you last saw him use it.

Cowles: What do you mean, years before? Haven't we been told that his father practiced peeping already in Vermont, and that the Chase stone had been in the family for a long time?

Mahaffey: That is right: "It had been in the family for generations."

Chairman: Then how could Mr. Chase claim that he personally dug it up in 1822?

****inson: The contradiction vanishes if we realize that Smith planted the stone there.

Chairman: Why? Is a stone any more wonderful that is found by digging a well than if it has been in the family for years? Smith, we are told, was much too lazy to do any digging himself—he was only a lounging onlooker—yet the men had to dig down twenty feet before they came to it. A nice bit of stone-planting by Smith, so that Chase could lay legal claim to his precious stone! All this rationalizing and explaining is obviously meant to reconcile conflicting reports that discredit each other at every step.

Cowles: Oh, there were earlier stones, all right. "Long before the Gold Bible demonstration, the Smith family had with some sinister object in view, whispered another fraud in the ears of the credulous. They pretended that in digging for money, at Mormon Hill, they came across 'a chest, three feet by two in size, covered with a dark-colored stone.' In the center of the stone was a white spot about the size of a sixpence. Enlarging, the spot increased to the size of a 24-pound shot, and then exploded with a terrible noise. The chest vanished and all was utter darkness."

Chairman: If I were giving prizes, Mr. Cowles, you should certainly get something for that one. There were no witnesses to the phenomenon?

Cowles: Of course not; the Smiths only "pretended" that it happened.

Chairman: And why would they pretend such a thing?

Cowles: "With some sinister object in view."

Chairman: You can't even guess what the object might have been yet you know it was "sinister." And to achieve it, they claimed there was something there which really wasn't there, and then, boom! It really wasn't there—and so they tell their story and prove their case. Are you sure there were any stones at all?

O. Turner: Yes, there were the stone spectacles. Actually they were the only stones Smith ever used.

Chairman: How do you know that, sir?

Turner: I was very intimately acquainted with the Smith family at Palmyra, where I grew up with Joseph Smith, Jr. I know all about his money digging and treasure hunting, and have given a lengthy deposition on the subject, but I know nothing of any stone except "a pair of large spectacles" found with the gold plates. "The stones or glass set in frames were opaque to all but the prophet." These were the only peepstones he ever used.

Chairman: More contradictions. Some important witnesses have stated that the Chase stone was actually identical with what Smith called the Urim and Thummim, is that not correct?

American Whig Review: That is correct. Chase tried to get the stone back, "but Smith could never be prevailed upon to give it up. It was afterwards used in the translation of the Book of Mormon and styled the mysterious Urim and Thummim."

Howe: Imagine it! Two of the sixteen stones that belonged to the brother of Jared! We are asked to believe that "two of these stones were sealed up with the plates, according to a prediction before Abraham was born. How, and in what manner they became set in the 'two rims of a bow,' and fell into the hands of the Nephites, has not been explained, nor what has become of the remaining 14 molten stones, is likewise hidden in mystery.”

Thomas Gregg: One impeccable witness says they were "two small stones of a chocolate color, nearly egg-shaped and perfectly smooth, but not transparent . . . which were given him with the plates."

Chairman: Then they cannot have been the stones mentioned by Mr. Howe, which were perfectly transparent. It is marvelous, sir, how you, the most-quoted authority on these matters should blithely identify any stone that comes along with Smith's peepstone.

Howe: Does it make so much difference? The main idea is that Smith had an obsession for magic stones. Any stone would do, as Mr. Ingersoll's testimony shows. Mrs. Brodie has discovered clear evidence of Smith's stone mania in the Book of Mormon itself.

Chairman: Indeed, and what is the evidence?

Howe: Here it is (reads): "Joseph's preoccupation with magic stones crept into the narrative . . . " and here is the proof: God "had given the Nephites . . . two crystals with spindles inside which directed the sailing of their ships." There you have it—two crystals, Urim and Thummim!

Chairman: But what the Book of Mormon says is that the compass was given to Lehi, not Nephi, and that it consisted of a "round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles" (1 Nephi 16:10). For Mrs. Brodie a bronze sphere becomes without the slightest effort "two crystals with spindles inside." Now this is most instructive: in the middle of the twentieth century an expert pretending to high scholarly objectivity sits at her desk and unwittingly turns out a brand-new original peepstone story, as if there were not enough already. Having glanced at the text only long enough to sustain the trend of her own wishful thinking, she gives us two new crystals, bred of an airy word. After that performance, can anyone maintain that any of the peepstone stories are not or cannot be pure fabrication? Another point: Didn't you say, Mr. Howe, that the Book of Mormon was discovered by peeping in the first place?

Howe: I said that "the mineral-rod necromancy of Joseph Smith, Jun., searching after Robert Kidd's money . . . found the plates of Nephi."

Chairman: Then by peeping and dowsing the plates were discovered?

Arbaugh: It was search for buried treasure that gave Joseph Smith the idea of the "Golden Bible."

Emmons: You will recall, sir, that Smith led "a gang of idle and credulous young men, whom he employed in digging for hidden treasures. It is pretended that, in one of the excavations they made, the mysterious plates from which the Golden Bible was copied were found. Such briefly is the origin of the Mormon faith.”

Howe: By this gang "many pits were dug in the neighborhood, which were afterwards pointed out as the place from whence the plates were excavated.”

Walter R. Martin: Smith "was engaged for the most part of his youth in seeking Captain Kidd's treasure and in gazing through 'peep stones.' "

Hunt: Let a real old-timer get in a word, here! "In the course of time numerous excavations were made, but unfortunately, they never dug deep enough to find the object of their search. However, the good resulting from their labors overbalances their misfortunes, as Joe has since informed us that here the golden plates were found, containing the important facts upon which the salvation of the world depends."

Chairman: So it is very clear that Smith found the gold plates while he was digging for treasure. It is equally clear that he never dug without first using his peepstone.

Rev. John A. Clark: That is correct! "Long before the idea of a Golden Bible entered into their minds, in their excursions for money-digging . . . Jo used to be usually their guide, putting into his hat a peculiar stone he had through which he looked to decide where they should begin to dig."

Chairman: So we know that Smith always used a stone when digging. Some of the best and oldest witnesses insist that he only had one peepstone, and with that stone he discovered the buried plates, and with the plates were found buried—guess what? The wonderful stone! Where did he get the stone? He found it with the plates. How did he find the plates? By looking in the stone! You see, gentlemen, how silly this all is. Now let's talk a little about that hat. Did Smith always use a hat in peeping?

Ibid, 220-226

This is all really interesting to me. I pop in here very sporadically, but there's some down-time at work, sooooooo . . .

I served in northern Germany from 1994-1996. Early in my mission, we baptized a family of four from Kazakhstan with the last name of Detzel. I asked them about their Germanic name, and they told me that there were many of German ancestry in Kazakhstan, whose ancestors were brought there by Catherine the Great. I had always thought of that as a Muslim/Asiatic area.

The Detzel's were really destitute and had nothing. Brother Detzel was a dentist back at home who really put in a lot of effort to learn German (they spoke Russian) --- he took German classes and did his homework and studied. We found them by talking to them on the street, and Brother Detzel translated for them. Mom and the boys were ready to be baptized, but Brother Detzel had reservations until he had a dream about washing in the purest water he'd ever found and being made clean. He took this as a sign, and they were baptized along with a mother and daughter.

Although his German was decent, and getting better, the thought crossed my mind when teaching about the restoration of the priesthood to purposely mispronounce "John the Baptist" to avoid confusion (Johannes der Täufer --- John the Baptist ---- sounds a lot like Johannes der Teufel ---- John the devil). He recoiled in horror, and I had to explain that it was Täufer, not Teufel, and that that meant "someone who baptizes."

Sister Detzel told us through her husband that she wanted her sons to be just like us when they grew up. She developed terminal brain cancer and passed away before my mission was over.

I have no idea as to what that disclaimer would/should be. There already provisions within the CHI that allow for differents needs, being met differently . . . The CHI was never intended nor designed to be the "Final Word" on anything.

This is important. *Nothing* in the handbooks are set in stone in a canonical way that cannot be overruled by priesthood keys.

This has been an issue in my stake recently. I'm a bishop, and there was an interpretive disagreement regarding book 1 between me and the two counselors in the stake presidency. The stake president agreed with me, but acquiesced to his counselors in the name of "domestic tranquility." Which resolved the issue, once he definitively spoke on that. In the course of communicating about this, I noted that even where the handbook is much more explicit than in our particular disagreement, there are exceptions (e.g., men being sealed to more than one living woman, women being sealed to more than one man, etc.). I pointed out that they were aware of this because of succesful applications to the First Presidency from our stake (and from my ward) that they were aware of. In other words, even where the handbook say something cannot be done, the First Presidency can and does grant exceptions. What matters is not the handbook engraved on stone tablets, but the proper priesthood authority acting in its station in applying the handbook in its ministry in its area.

I think those of us who have experienced powerful inspiration in giving a blessing, or giving patriarchal blessings, etc. have a small glimpse of what this was like for Joseph Smith (except applied to the dictation of a 600 page book over ca. 60-70 working days in front of ca. 15 witnesses/scribes). I think his "marvelous experience" was ultimately unique to him, and that we can only approximate what this was really and ultimately like through our own experience.

I think this was why he didn't have a lot to say about the translation method. Where to start, and how to put it in terms others could understand?

I did two radio shows in Phoenix with two evangelical pastors (one a hip-hop artist --- he's actually a really sharp guy, and is finishing up his divinity school) back in July. It was a lot of fun ---- it's definitely quite an experience to tape a show live. Time *really* flies between segments, and all of you are an absolute slave to the clock (the "going to the break" music starts in at 30 seconds to cut-off).

My shows are the ones on 7/10 and 7/17:

http://backpack.podbean.com/category/mormonism/

The first one was a critique of a prior show they did with clips from missionaries teaching one of them (the missionaries did a good job --- they were sharp and articulate). The second one was a commentary on all of the Mormon-themed shows they have done. They came upon me because of a series of community firesides my stake did (actually my ward ---- I wrote most of the material and put together the slides, but it was under the auspices of the stake), and over 130 non-Mormons came. I can post links to slides, handouts, Q&A transcripts, etc. if people are interested ("Are Mormons Christian?", "Book of Mormon: Fact or Fiction?", "Can Mormon Prophets Stand Up to Scrutiny?").

They had good feedback from listeners, and I will probably be asked back on in the future. The younger pastor (the hip-hop artist) also is an assistant pastor at a church and counsels a lot of his congregants with addictions and personal problems, and I have provided him some helpful material from the Church and from the Lighted Candle Society. We remain in contact.

Do you think that God really would have ceased to be God if He allowed us to return to Him without the atonement as it took place? Could He have simply allowed all of us back into His presence without an atonement? Why or why not?

I personally hate this 'explanation'.

You're not alone. I have found this explanation to be very polarizing --- you either love it or hate it. I really like it.

Jesus had to suffer and die because all our eternal brothers and sisters were clamoring with a desire for blood and suffering in order for their sense of 'fairness' to be fulfilled? And what is attractive about this worldview?

Not really (or at all). Under this understanding, intelligences demand absolute justice. They aren't requiring anything other than absolute justice in the form of not allowing unpure, tainted intelligences to return to God's presence. That the infinite and eternal atonement by God Himself is what does bring to pass the bowels of mercy in the intelligences does not equal them "clamoring" for blood and suffering, a la the "Mola Ram Suda Ram" priest in "Temple of Doom."

What is attractive about this is that it offers an explanation of "why" and "how." The only explanations I am aware of.

Ostler suggests . . .

Interestingly, I find that those who have a real aversion to Skousen really like Blake Ostler. And vice versa. Nothing wrong with this; it just is. Not surprisingly, I don't care much for Ostler's philosophical explanations of the atonement or nature of God.

[The episode in Les Miserables with the Bishop of Digne and Petit Gervais] is, to me, is the best illustration of the Atonement ever written.

I would merely point out that it, and the other non-Skousen explanations, don't explain why or how. Could God bring about the atonement in some other way, or is this the only way? Why? Can He lower the standard to whatever He wants, because He is all-powerful and all-knowing? Why or why not? Etc.

This will make some people's heads explode (it always does), but I find Cleon Skousen's explanation of how and especially *why* the atonement works to be the best one. Skousen evokes some real ad hominem aploplexy (can there any good thing come out of Cleon Skousen?), but I am not aware of *any* alternate explanations, from GAs or non-GAs, that treats the full scope of the scriptures and weaves them consistently together into a whole that gets into the how and why.

http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-atonement-by-cleon-skousen/

In short, Skousen explained that our intelligence and matter is eternal, not created (section 93 and other scriptures). The Creation, miracles, etc. happen on natural principles, not by magic ---- those with authority command, and intelligences in matter obey. Man alone, literal spirit children of God, has actual agency and can disobey. This means that, with the veil of forgetfullness, 100% of mankind will be disobedient in some sense and will not be able to live in God's presence because God's honor is His power (D&C 29, Moses 4:1). What drives everything is that it is the honor that all intelligences have for God that demands absolute justice (which answers the question of why God, if He is all-powerful and all-knowing, can't just let us back into His presence if we tried). If God were to do anything the intelligences regarded as unjust, God would cease to be God (Alma 42, several repeated passages). That is what demands justice, and why a capable Savior is needed. Jesus, as the Firstborn and universally recognized as God in the pre-existence, came to earth, lived a sinless life, took our sins upon Himself in a way that only God can, and suffered completely unjustly. This caused the intelligences in the earth to rebel at the injustice of it all (cf. New Testament and Book of Mormon passages at the upheavals at the crucifixion). This "brought about the bowels of mercy," and the intelligences are willing to accept Jesus' purchase of those who follow the just terms and conditions He laid out.

Thought this might help with your question and observations, if you weren't already aware, Maidservant.

It seems to be a matter of distinguishing whether the three things are beneficial to a successful life as opposed to being essential for a successful life. I tend to hold with Frankenstein that saying they are "needed" seems to convey the latter rather than the former.

Perhaps it was a case of poor word choice on the part of the speaker. If, say, he had said that the three elements tend to promote a successful life, I would feel far more comfortable with his statement.

I've always been struck by the wording in the Proclamation: "Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ." I always thought that this was a little timid. Upon further reflection, though, there are no guarantees, even when one does found everything on the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. The agency of others, among other things, is also in play, and outside of our ultimate control (and possibly God's, depending on how one views omnipotence and omniscience).

Just a little observation to inject into this discussion about whether or not President Benson said being an Eagle Scout is essential or beneficial in succeeding.

I have heard countless people testify to lasting impact from seminary and insitute teachers. Most recently, our former young women's president, who has overcome a lot of adversity and life experience, has told our family at length about a Brother Reed who was her seminary teacher when she was in high school. Our families talk deep doctrine a lot over dinner, and it is obvious what an impact Brother Reed had and continues to have on her. Even when we have polite disagreements with Brother Reed's take on speculative doctrinal questions (which default to her take), I am impressed with the impact he left on her. His impact is a good one to have, and it has seen her through to where she needed to be in her life.

I hope seminary and institute teachers get glimpses sometimes of how influential and impactful they are ---- it's a wonderful and scary prospect, and almost all of them do a wonderful job of it.

Thank you, all, for the suggestions and ideas (thank you especially, annewandering for the kind PM and Storm Rider for the offer of more detail through email). I spoke at length with him today, and he had a very rough day. He is being transferred to the Mayo Clinic where they have better cardiac facilities, but it appears that the weapons at our disposal are not working very well at keeping his heart going. They had a scare today, and he's on a high level of oxygen (I forgot what the levels were, but they're high and his saturation levels are very low). The strange thing is, to all appearances, he's the picture of health --- other than his very bad congenitally-defective heart. He is handling everything philosophically, and it's amazing to see him be gentlemanly and courteous to all of the nurses and doctors coming and going, with his Texas drawl. I'm working on getting him things to read and do to spend the time (all he's had with him this week is his scriptures).

The good news is I found that oxygen equipment is much less expensive than I thought. The equipment runs about $200 a month, with oxygen tanks running $22 per x however many are needed. That seems very doable, although not a long-term solution.

He is on the waiting list for a heart, and from what I've learned, the prime factor will be tissue matches. We'll worry about the astronomical cost of things, including immuno-suppressants if there is a transplant, if and when we come to them.

Does anyone know the rough waiting time for a major organ? I imagine it's l-o-n-g. Also, how heavily is one's ability to pay factored in?

I forgot to mention that he's young ---- in his young 40s, and other than the congenital heart problems, in good health. That's a pretty big "other than that," but he's probably a good candidate for a successful transplant, if one were available and if his lack of insurance and money weren't factors.

I'm a bishop. I had a message a couple of days ago from a couple in Missouri whose son is clinging to life in a hospital in Mesa, AZ. He is a good friend and a former member of the ward who had moved to Texas. A true modern-day cowboy, he has made his living breaking horses, punching cows, shoeing horses, etc. He is one of the most spiritual and profound gospel scholars I personally know, and a very humble man. When the missionaries first contacted him at his house in rural Pinal County in the Sonoran Desert, he was in the process of putting an engine into a truck and told them that there wasn't anything they could do for him unless they wanted to help him put an engine in. To his surprise, they gladly offered and insisted on fully helping, and they ruined their white shirts and slacks with engine grease. He was impressed, took the lessons, was baptized along with his wife, and has voraciously read anything he can get his hands on regarding the gospel since then. He's a deep thinker and a wonderful discussion partner for anything gospel or Church-related. He has good recall of what the Brethren have said, and attends Institute and anything else he can.

He and his wife had marital trouble when they lived here (I don't think she was fully converted), and much of their problems centered around his perceived lack of ambition. She was wealthy and owned 13 Circle K's, so money was not a problem, but she despised the fact that he didn't want to do anything business-related. In addition to working with cows and horses, he cared for a large herd of horses at a dude ranch connected with a casino/resort on an Indian reservation. They moved to Texas and bought a 500 acre ranch, but divorced and she took everything from him. He came back to Arizona and lived with my family for a couple of months while he worked (he came for a big Single Adult Conference in the Phoenix area). He is one of the family for us, but then he went to Missouri and we lost contact with him.

I visited him at the hospital, and we were both overjoyed to see each other after about three years. He had been taking people into the wilderness around Yellowstone on mules as a guide when his heart gave out. He told me (I didn't know this) that he had always had a weak heart his whole life, but hadn't told anyone --- he just worked and toughed it out. The doctors in Montana told him that he needed to get out of the 10,000 foot elevation, so he headed back to Arizona, when he suffered severe heart trouble north of Phoenix. He has been hospitalized for about a week and needs a new heart. He can't even walk to the bathroom without being extremely out of breath.

Here's my dilemma: I've let him know that he can live with us as long as he cares to, but at minimum, he will need oxygen. He won't live long without a transplant, but I'm under no illusions about being able to get one. He isn't insured and has very little cash on-hand. How do waiting lists for major organ transplants work? Realistically, what are his chances, especially without insurance or significant sums of money? More realistically, could something like fast offerings be sufficient to help with oxygen tanks and things like that in the short-term? I don't have any experience with the financials of things like that, but would like to have a better grasp of options and ways and means.

Any thoughts, observations, experiences, etc. in this realm would be greatly appreciated!

I'll be interested in seeing if or how well media saturation campaigns lead to drastic increases in positive perceptions of Mormons. I think being viewed negatively is just one of those things the Church, former-day and latter-day, has had to face, regardless of ad campaigns and charm offensives. I don't think any amount of PR can move the dial on it.

I also believe that uninformed, deep-seated negativity against the Church is actually a *good* thing (even thought it's not much fun for us) because it spurs interest in those who are searching and the honest in heart. Not that we need to court it or seek it, but it makes us an interesting and intriguing people, and thoughtful people really do "want to know more." They can see through the shallow, uninformed, simple-minded meanness of blatant negativity, and they wonder what "the rest of the story" is.

In my opinion, high-tech, media-savvy missionary approaches, while important as elements of missionary work, will and can never replace actual missionary work. David Stewart, in his book “The Law of the Harvest,” made a really profound point: the more new programs are announced and replaced with other programs, the more we can know that people really don’t know what to do about or with a certain challenge. And no other item in the Church has undergone more “new programs” or gimmicks (I use that in a neutral sense, not in a negative one. There can be good gimmicks, too) than missionary work. This is more so when one factors in the local “new programs” and gimmicks of one’s local areas along with Church-wide changes. The thing I think everyone agrees on is that the problem is really how to get more members to naturally, comfortably, sincerely, and instinctively share the gospel with others on a regular basis. I think this most recent “new program/gimmick” (the “I’m a Mormon” campaign with URL-specific pass-along cards) is in a long line of efforts to make missionary work easier for people, and I think the nature of missionary work is such that “easier” (more convenient, less “scary,” etc.) is not “better” or “more effective.” I wonder if the primary purpose is more to get the members to put the time and thought into making their profiles and less for these profiles to actually be used.

I’m a bishop, and have had several members --- good, solid members who are good member missionaries --- express concerns with this big push. One, my former young women’s president, was pressured by the missionaries at a dinner appointment to complete her profile and hand out her URL cards. She responded very enthusiastically when I asked her (in conversation about this) if it wouldn’t be better to simply share the gospel and explain things ourselves in person rather than send people to mormon.org or our profile (“Yes! That was my thought!”). The approach seems to me to encourage members to disengage from a drawn-out or potentially dicey conversation and to send people to web sites or brief social networking items instead, things that are much less-satisfying and effective than sincere and (hopefully) competent explanations in person from friends or co-workers.

Several comments on this thread have hinted that door-to-door proselytizing will soon be discontinued by the Church in favor of more “effective” approaches like networking or relying on members. I think this harks back to unfounded and groundless speculation by Peggy Fletcher Stack in April 2011 in the Salt Lake Tribune, but if true, this would be tragic. I know how ineffective door-to-door tracting is from a pure statistical standpoint, but the problem is that missionaries in the United States don't do anything when they have no appointments or appointments fall out. Inefficient tracting is better than nothing at all, and even in "Mormon belt" areas, missionaries have a surprising amount of time with nothing at

all (and I don't lay this squarely at the feet of good-for-nothing members who don't keep their planners filled). I also realize that some mission presidents forbid their missionaries to tract (in an effort to force members to do "member missionary work"). I remember being home from my mission and working with the missionaries in the Chicago area, and their appointment and back-up appointment fell out. They had no idea what to do, and I suggested we knock on some doors. They were nervous and dubious, but on the third one, we were let in by a lady and I (they followed my lead in these uncharted waters) was able to explain and give her a copy of the Book of Mormon and get a return appointment (she only had ten minutes or so). They left there blown away, and with a really good story to share at their next district meeting.

My mission (northern Germany, mid 1990s) was a door-to-door/street contacting mission. I actually really enjoyed door-to-door, even though we sometimes did it as long as ten hours in a day. Interestingly and anecdotally, towards the end of my mission, I had to prepare a zone conference presentation on finding. In the month leading up to it, I polled all missionaries anonymously through the chain of command to see what I would find, and the results, while along the lines of what I expected, were still shocking to me. Door-to-door tracting was dead last in a list of favorite finding methods, while referrals (member and media) were at the top. However, door-to-door was squarely in the #1 spot in terms of finding method for both lessons taught and baptisms. Nothing else came even close. These results had a big effect on my mission president, because (unbeknownst to me), Elder Holland had just told him that his missionaries weren't doing enough door-to-door. My ward (and our stake overall) has had a lot of baptisms recently (we have another one on Saturday between sessions), and last week in talking with the elders, I asked them how the investigators had been found. None of them have been through members, but have been self-referrals or through the missionaries’ own efforts.

The problem with those who argue from an efficiency standpoint is that most of the really good experiences I had on my mission stemmed from door-to-door (including a visual vision, miraculous gift of tongues, and other things --- things I wouldn’t have experienced without door-to-door), and refusing to ever do it on principle would deprive missionaries and investigators of experiences with each other.