Do Our Ward And Stake Leaders Recognize The Room They Have To Include?

[rpn]

 

I teach both of my children that homosexuality is a sin and a plague on our society by Satan.

But your church leaders do not so teach.   They teach that the source of same gender attraction is unknown, that those who experience it must live the law of chastity just like those who do not are required to do, and that same sex marriage is not the way God set up marriage, that He set up families with a mother and a father and intended that every child had a right to be born to such a family.  

 

They also have on multiple occasions taught members to be kind towards those who do not believe the same way as we do.

 

I'd suggest that your harsh (or maybe simply incomplete that seems harsh) teaching is no less wicked than those who choose the alternative lifestyle that is not consistent with the Lord's way of setting up families.

 

I'd also suggest that if you continue teaching it this way to your children, they are likely to be at greater risk of rejecting the Lord's way and accepting those alternative lifestyles, than they are of condemning homosexuality as sin (which is explicitly rejected by church leaders who have frankly said that same gender attraction is NOT a sin).

[Rob Osborn]

But your church leaders do not so teach.   They teach that the source of same gender attraction is unknown, that those who experience it must live the law of chastity just like those who do not are required to do, and that same sex marriage is not the way God set up marriage, that He set up families with a mother and a father and intended that every child had a right to be born to such a family.  

 

They also have on multiple occasions taught members to be kind towards those who do not believe the same way as we do.

 

I'd suggest that your harsh (or maybe simply incomplete that seems harsh) teaching is no less wicked than those who choose the alternative lifestyle that is not consistent with the Lord's way of setting up families.

 

I'd also suggest that if you continue teaching it this way to your children, they are likely to be at greater risk of rejecting the Lord's way and accepting those alternative lifestyles, than they are of condemning homosexuality as sin (which is explicitly rejected by church leaders who have frankly said that same gender attraction is NOT a sin).

Same sex attraction and homosexual beavior are completely different things. You have your philosophy, I have mine. Iteach my children gospel truths on morality. I teach what the church teaches.

[Rob Osborn]

how would you treat your child if one was gay and decided to marry another person of the same gender?

Probably the same as Elder Todd Christoferson treats his gay brother. I would still love him but also still teach it is contrary to the gospel and that repentance is possible.

[DBMormon]

Probably the same as Elder Todd Christoferson treats his gay brother. I would still love him but also still teach it is contrary to the gospel and that repentance is possible.

Do you have evidence that Elder Christofferson teaches his brother to repent for being actively gay?

Has he ever preached a sermon on this to the church generally?

[Daniel2]

The Sunday before Christmas, my husband and I sat on the fourth row of our local LDS chapel to attend the ward Christmas program.

Both of us are returned missionaries that love to sing, and we had several individuals come up to us both before and after the program and welcome us. Several said it was a shame there isn't a ward choir for us to join--which we probably would, if there was one, just cuz we love to sing so much. ;-)

Our neighbors came and sat beside us and gave us warm hugs. She was ecstatic when we told her the day before about our wedding. As I've said before, my husband is well known, respected, and liked in our neighborhood. He's continued to pay fast offerings whenever deacons have come to his home, even after his excommunication approximately 18 years ago.

For many in our neighborhood, our marriage doesn't seem to be an issue--at least publically, and it didn't seem to be in the chapel, either.

Church culture is changing and becoming more inclusive as members follow the recent admonitions for inclusion by church leadership.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[blooit]

My daughter is gay, and lives an "alternative lifestyle."  I love her.  I do not condone her lifestyle.  For me this topic is not that complex.

 

We are born with many tendencies.  I - a heterosexual married man - am attracted to women.  Even though I am married, I find that if left unbridled, I will be attracted to women other than my wife.  This is an inborn, natural tendency.  That does not make it okay to act on that inborn tendency.

 

I find it bothersome that we adamantly reject the idea that people are inherently different based on their biology.  We reject the notion that biology (for example being black or white) determines our intelligence of behavior.  However, in this one area - pop culture claims that biology absolutely determines behavior and that nothing can change it.  This simply is not true.

 

We all have inborn tendencies.  We are here to overcome the natural man.  Until God states outright that acting on homosexual tendencies is acceptable, I will love my daughter - but not support her decisions to act on that behavior - any more than I would expect her to condone my decision to act on my attraction to women other than my wife.

[Guest]

nope.  Never said all nor thought all.  I know of many good leaders in the Church.  My issue is that if we do not see good interaction modeled we are left with sometimes acting different than we would if we knew.  You make a lot of assumptions that are incorrect about me and what I am thinking.  I have not said all, everyone, or any other term to denote all are covered by my words.  But there are some.  Bishops and SP's set a tone and have authority in these situations.  Many Bishops and SP's are awesome, some are among my friends.  This isn't black or white (all need to do better or all are fine)  There are leaders who are unaware of such interactions being modeled.

Indeed, but not enough in your estimation...so you have taken upon yourself to point out the "models" of "good", Bishops and Stake Presidents. I wish I were incorrect about what the thread is here for...

[Rob Osborn]

Do you have evidence that Elder Christofferson teaches his brother to repent for being actively gay?

Has he ever preached a sermon on this to the church generally?

http://mormonsandgays.org/

He states that homosexuality is a transgression that one needs repentance from.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://mormonsandgays.org/

He states that homosexuality is a transgression that one needs repentance from.

Here is a specific quote from Elder Christofferson on that website:

 

There shouldn’t be a perception or an expectation that the Church’s doctrines or position have changed or are changing. It’s simply not true, and we want youth and all people to understand that. The doctrines that relate to human sexuality and gender are really central to our theology. And marriage between a man and a woman, and the families that come from those marriages – that’s all central to God’s plan and to the opportunities that He offers to us, here and hereafter. So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines – has been, always will be – and can never be anything but transgression. It’s something that deprives people of those highest expectations and possibilities that God has for us.

 

(Emphasis mine.)

 

This is not the first time I have encountered this tiresome insinuation that Elder Christofferson, because of personal family circumstances, is at odds with the repeated, united, unequivocal and consistent position of his Brethren in the high leadership of the Church about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and about the proper definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The notion is utterly devoid of merit.

 

It was raised in a thread on here last August -- one in which DBMormon took an active part -- and the above quotation was given on that thread. Yet we are again burdened with the insinuation here.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

... it then begs the question of why don't we share such examples with local leaders?[sic]

 

http://begthequestion.info/

Edited January 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

Here is a specific quote from Elder Christofferson on that website:

 

(Emphasis mine.)

 

This is not the first time I have encountered this tiresome insinuation that Elder Christofferson, because of personal family circumstances, is at odds with the repeated, united, unequivocal and consistent position of his Brethren in the high leadership of the Church about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and about the proper definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The notion is utterly devoid of merit.

 

It was raised in a thread on here last August -- one in which DBMormon took an active part -- and the above quotation was given on that thread. Yet we are again burdened with the insinuation here.

thanks for the reminder.  Keep that one on hand as I might forget again in the not too distant future

[Bob Crockett]

And if proven to be authentic how do you answer them?.... which they are the real deal.  And to shift away from any source because you don't like what they contain seems funny

 

We have weaker evidence that the 8 witnesses ever signed anything

 

this is a whole correspondence.... all faked.  There are multiple parties involved.... all faked... your response can not be serious.... that is the best you got.... deflect that they are likely fake?

During the Salamander controversy, I chose not to fabricate an apologetic response until I was satisfied that the letter wasn't a fake.

 

You are incorrect about the 8 witnesses.   First of all, they didn't have to "sign" anything.  There is no evidence that they "signed" their statement.  Rather, their statement was published time and time again in the Book of Mormon, and they never disavowed their statements. LIkely, they all agreed with Joseph Smith to the text of the statement to be published in the Book of Mormon before it was published.  If you'll read John C Bennett's book about the Mormons, you'll see how the practice was very common.  Or E. D. Howe's book, Mormonism Unvailed [sic].

 

I would compare the practice to an ad for a shoe -- "Endorsed by Michael Jordan."  Is it necessary to locate his signature to believe the endorsement, or is it sufficient to know that commercials are repeatedly aired without his objection?  At some point, early, it become obvious that somewhere, somehow, Michael Jordan has endorsed a particular Nike shoe. 

 

Yes, as a threshold matter, the Lowry letters look faked.  Why wouldn't Lowry have a copy of the First Presidency's signatures?  There is no way he would have had the letterbook copies unless LDS Church Archives provided him the letterbook copies.  Do you even know the meaning of the term, "letterbook?"  I can understand why he wouldn't have copies of his own letters with signatures, as those are HIS letterbook copies (where signatures weren't kept in the days before copy machines were common).   If the letters are not faked, then I have an opinion about them. If I were to guess what happened, Lowry typed up these copies himself.  

 

As to your opening post on the merits -- I think you know very little about the Church's relationship with homosexuals, as I have pointed out in a prior post.  You demonstrate no experience of counseling homosexuals in the ministry or even disciplining them.  Your post juxtaposes political correctness against the church in such a way as to argue that the Church shuns homosexuals from their congregations.  That isn't true.  One of my children in San Francisco says his ward has many such persons attending regularly.   Time to jettison political correctness, my friend, for a course in critical thinking.  You may not like the Church, or the way it does things, but it is best to first have a working knowledge of its operations rather than simply rely upon what Sunstone says.

 

Isn't it a tad disingenuous to say that you agree with and support the Church's position on disciplining (or not) homosexuals, on the one hand, and then offer an opening post which can only be viewed as beating the Church's head and shoulders with political correctness?  (And ,offering the old canard that homosexuals are more loving and compassionate than straight people.)  I mean, why don't you just come out and say that you think that practicing homosexuals ought to be ordained as elders and admitted to the temple?  I certainly don't have much of a problem with a poster fairly stating what he or she believes, even if in opposition to what the church teaches, but I will criticize a poster who says one thing and believes another -- whether the topic be the church, gun control or immigration. 

Edited January 5, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My daughter is gay, and lives an "alternative lifestyle."  I love her.  I do not condone her lifestyle.  For me this topic is not that complex.

 

We are born with many tendencies.  I - a heterosexual married man - am attracted to women.  Even though I am married, I find that if left unbridled, I will be attracted to women other than my wife.  This is an inborn, natural tendency.  That does not make it okay to act on that inborn tendency.

 

I find it bothersome that we adamantly reject the idea that people are inherently different based on their biology.  We reject the notion that biology (for example being black or white) determines our intelligence of behavior.  However, in this one area - pop culture claims that biology absolutely determines behavior and that nothing can change it.  This simply is not true.

 

We all have inborn tendencies.  We are here to overcome the natural man.  Until God states outright that acting on homosexual tendencies is acceptable, I will love my daughter - but not support her decisions to act on that behavior - any more than I would expect her to condone my decision to act on my attraction to women other than my wife.

So much for this waste of time, wishful thinking thread. I think you summed it up well.

 

We are here to overcome it not embrance it.

[Daniel2]

We all have inborn tendencies. We are here to overcome the natural man. Until God states outright that acting on homosexual tendencies is acceptable, I will love my daughter - but not support her decisions to act on that behavior - any more than I would expect her to condone my decision to act on my attraction to women other than my wife.

.Hopefully, God will soon reveal the same set of blessings and expectations for your daughter (and all his gay children) that he has for you (and all his straight children): the blessing of one spouse with whom to have as a help meet and spouse to become one with, while likewise overcoming any inclination to act out on their natural attractions towards any and all others, just as much as you do, by cleaving only to that spouse.

(Unless Heavenly Father also reinstitutes ploygamy, in which case the number changes, but the marital requirement won't).

Love is uplifting, unifying, healing, helping... bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures many things and hopes to endure them all... it's greater than either faith or hope, and is a fruit of the Spirit. Everyone should be so lucky as to experience it in this life that has opportunity to do so, even if misunderstood and misjudged by the assumptions and cultural biases of the heterosexual majority. Someday, God will step in and clarify the issue further, an Latter-day Saints will express gratitude for the strength of their Faith: living oracles that are able to receive revelation for today, rather than be bound by false precepts of the past.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Daniel2

[Bob Crockett]

Love is uplifting, unifying, healing, helping... bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures many things and hopes to endure them all... 

As I have pointed out to Bill Reel, I don't find these bromides all that significant in describing or dealing with the gay community.

 

Today I support gay marriage.

 

In 2008 I didn't.  I contributed $5100 to the Prop 8 campaign.  A group of liberal Mormons started a website targeting big donors. One of the September 6, who has now returned to the church,  headed up the campaign.  As a result of my name being publicized by her and her organization, I received many hate-filled obscenity laced emails.  My firm was told that it would be boycotted by law schools if I remained a partner in my firm.   So, I'm not sure that gays are any more loving, committed and compassionate than straight persons, and I think they're just part of the mainstream in terms of emotion and consideration.

 

I'm pretty sure that when Paul penned I Cor 13 that he didn't have in mind people who had sex outside of heterosexual marriage. 

Edited January 5, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Guest]

My daughter is gay, and lives an "alternative lifestyle."  I love her.  I do not condone her lifestyle.  For me this topic is not that complex.

 

We are born with many tendencies.  I - a heterosexual married man - am attracted to women.  Even though I am married, I find that if left unbridled, I will be attracted to women other than my wife.  This is an inborn, natural tendency.  That does not make it okay to act on that inborn tendency.

 

I find it bothersome that we adamantly reject the idea that people are inherently different based on their biology.  We reject the notion that biology (for example being black or white) determines our intelligence of behavior.  However, in this one area - pop culture claims that biology absolutely determines behavior and that nothing can change it.  This simply is not true.

 

We all have inborn tendencies.  We are here to overcome the natural man.  Until God states outright that acting on homosexual tendencies is acceptable, I will love my daughter - but not support her decisions to act on that behavior - any more than I would expect her to condone my decision to act on my attraction to women other than my wife.

Great points...I have a gay daughter, who attends Church whenever family member is speaking, blessing of babies, etc. She helped pay for her little brother's mission...anytime she comes she is received with open arms. Most of our members have known her everyday of her life, and all love her. But, I guess these types of things do not make the news. She is not kin to someone important...but she has a father who loves her more than life itself. The sad part is that she takes a lot of heat from the gay community for not having her name removed from Church roles. The intolerance is not coming from the Church.

[Daniel2]

As I have pointed out to Bill Reel, I don't find these bromides all that significant in describing or dealing with the gay community.

I agree. What's more, you won't find those attributes in "the gay community" any more than you'd find those attributes in "straight communities" that center their identities on sexual attractions or behaviors (such as straught stripper clubs, clubbing culture, Mardi gras, singers groups, etc.)

The characteristics I (and Paul) listed are found most often in individuals' personal relationships, or in communities bound by identities other than shared sexual attractions--i.e. parenting groups, caregiving groups, faith-based groups, family-promotong groups--again, whether straight or gay.

A few examples: the Unitarian Church I attended for many years was inclusive of gays and lesbians, but the focus was on shared humanity and community values. The gay relarionships in the UU community very much focused on the behaviors and values I describe, because the common characteristic was not focuses mostly/solely on sex (like clubbing cultures are, whether gay or straight). During the AIDS epidemic of the 80's, many gay individuals and groups centered around caring for the sick and dying--and those more "virtuous" attributes were definitely on display. There are sports leagues and other lgbt social groups not based on sex thst teach sportsmanlike behaviors and community involvement. SAGE is a gay group aimed at helping LGBT seniors, and COLAGE or the Utah Gay Fathers Associarion are groups aimed at helping kids with gay parents (as well as helping LGBT parents, as well)--and you would find such attributes there.

There is no one "gay community"--there are facets of gay life just like there are facets of straight life.

I believe the more gays are included and welcomed into "ordinary" culture and find inclusion in ways that allow them to embrace their desire for a same-sex relarionship without being consumed by a sex-based identity, instead of being rejected by responsiblity/stability-promoting structures of culture and society, the more "virtuous" their lives are likely to become.

Today I support gay marriage.

In 2008 I didn't. I contributed $5100 to the Prop 8 campaign. A group of liberal Mormons started a website targeting big donors. One of the September 6, who has now returned to the church, headed up the campaign. As a result of my name being publicized by her and her organization, I received many hate-filled obscenity laced emails. My firm was told that it would be boycotted by law schools if I remained a partner in my firm. So, I'm not sure that gays are any more loving, committed and compassionate than straight persons, and I think they're just part of the mainstream in terms of emotion and consideration.

I am grateful you now support gay marriage, despite having endured some terrible behavior at the hands of some angry people.

There are angry and threatening gays, just as their are straights. And gays have a lot to be angry about, IMO--though it doesn't condone inappropriate behavior, it's certainly understandable.

I don't believe gay love is MORE virtuous or compassionate than straight love... people are people, and you'll find good and bad everywhere.

I'm pretty sure that when Paul penned I Cor 13 that he didn't have in mind people who had sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

I'm not sure whether or not Paul may have considered that... my view of it's applicability to how I love isn't limited by his intention of what he wrote so much as how his words resonate with the truth of my own personal experiences with love, and I know that his words are very accurate in describing the immense love my husband and I share, today. They are also a sad testament to how horribly inept my own relarionship was with my wife, however well-intentioned. Everyone's experience will vary in that regard; some may make mixed-orientation marriages work; I would wager that the vast majority of us (both straight and gay) experience most success when we marry someone who shares our same sexual orientation. I submit that is also likely one of the best foundations for a successful relationship, along with shared values, outlook on faith, culture, finances, etc. Edited January 5, 2015 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

As I have pointed out to Bill Reel, I don't find these bromides all that significant in describing or dealing with the gay community.

 

Today I support gay marriage.

 

In 2008 I didn't.  I contributed $5100 to the Prop 8 campaign.  A group of liberal Mormons started a website targeting big donors. One of the September 6, who has now returned to the church,  headed up the campaign.  As a result of my name being publicized by her and her organization, I received many hate-filled obscenity laced emails.  My firm was told that it would be boycotted by law schools if I remained a partner in my firm.   So, I'm not sure that gays are any more loving, committed and compassionate than straight persons, and I think they're just part of the mainstream in terms of emotion and consideration.

 

I'm pretty sure that when Paul penned I Cor 13 that he didn't have in mind people who had sex outside of heterosexual marriage. 

 

Bob, I'm sorry to hear about your experience and the public opposition to your speaking your mind. I wish there was more tolerance in our society, including in our church society, for people to speak against the majority view.

 

As for the authenticity of the Lowry letters, I don't have signed copies, but I do have a link to Mormonism and the Negro by John Stewart which was published in 1960 by Bookmark Press.(see http://sainesburyproject.com/mormonstuff/Mormonism%20and%20the%20Negro.pdf)  At pages 46-47 you will find the Lowry letter cited. This isn't 100% proof of authenticity, but it is at least evidence that prominent LDS apologists were in possession of the letters 13 years after they were written and considered the letters authentic enough to quote in their defense of the church doctrine against interracial marriage.

 

I also believe the Lowry letters were prominently cited in the Lester Bush Dialogue article which played a prominent role in changing the opinions of senior church leaders regarding whether the racial priesthood ban was created by Joseph (something they'd all assumed).

[Bob Crockett]

Does not make them authentic. Apologists assumed the Salamander letter was real. Did Lowrey ever say anything about them?

[Guest]

Does not make them authentic. Apologists assumed the Salamander letter was real. Did Lowrey ever say anything about them?

I am not someone anyone would ever call an apologist, I knew it was a fraud long before Hoffman's forgery. In fact the moment I heard about it, before he was caught and confessed. So not everyone was deceived.

[Buckeye]

Does not make them authentic. Apologists assumed the Salamander letter was real. Did Lowrey ever say anything about them?

 

Short of an affidavit from the FP, I'm not sure what you're looking for.

 

FWIW, here is a link to the famous 1973 Dialogue article by Lester Bush: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/.  You'll see that Bush cites the Lowry letter multiple times in his article and says the letter is found "at the Brigham Young University Library."

 

Considering that Bush's article was very prominently reviewed by the FP/Q12 prior to their removing the ban in 1978 (see, e.g., https://chadlawrencenielsen.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/a-significant-factor-the-influence-of-lester-e-bush-jr-s-research-on-the-revelation-of-1978/) and that President Kimball's son has said that his father "had underlined and annotated virtually the entire article in his own copy of Dialogue" (http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/06/08/the-long-awaited-day/), I find it very hard to believe that if the Lowry letter was fake no one in the COB would have investigated and published that fact. There was certainly opposition from McConkie, Stapley and others in the Q12 to the Bush article. If he was citing a false source - a 1947 letter from the FP for goodness sake - it would have been found out.

 

EDIT to add: I just noticed that I've been referring to the "Lowry letter" when I should be saying "Nelson letter." The member's name was Dr. Lowry Nelson.  My apologies.

 

Also, it should be noted that at the time of the Stewart Book (1960) which cited to the Nelson letter, two of the signatories to the Nelson letter were still alive - J. Reuben Clark (d. 1961) and David O. McKay (d. 1970). This is quite a different situation from the salamander letter - where the parties to the supposed letter were long dead and gone. We're talking about a potential forgery where the authors were still very much alive and their correspondence files could by easily checked.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

 

My point was that very few Bishops and Stake presidents are likely aware that such an option is even on the table

The problem is that there is a hyperfocus on worthiness. Leaders and members alike often feel responsible for casting out those people with grievous sins so they don't polute the church or corrupt the members. But we're all sinners. We're all unworthy in different ways.

 

Sinners need love, not tough love. Allowing a gay couple to participate in church is not going to turn the youth gay by association. I feel that as a church we have a long ways to go in following Christ's example of charity and compassion instead of following the example of the pharisees. It seems we have it backwards all to often.

 

PS- I write this as a recovering Pharisee

[Buckeye]

^{Utah State appears to have a set of the correspondence as well:}

^{http://www.mormonstudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf}

[Buckeye]

The problem is that there is a hyperfocus on worthiness. Leaders and members alike often feel responsible for casting out those people with grievous sins so they don't polute the church or corrupt the members. But we're all sinners. We're all unworthy in different ways.

 

Sinners need love, not tough love. Allowing a gay couple to participate in church is not going to turn the youth gay by association. I feel that as a church we have a long ways to go in following Christ's example of charity and compassion instead of following the example of the pharisees. It seems we have it backwards all to often.

 

PS- I write this as a recovering Pharisee

 

I don't think many leaders worry about the youth "turning gay" (at least not today), but they do worry that if the youth are exposed to gay couples/families they will judge those couples/families to be good and thereby reject the church's teaching against SSM. It's the whole Modern Family issue.

 

I also think that we should make as much room for all sinners as possible, but struggle with the Savior's instruction to his selected leaders to prohibit the unworthy from partaking of the sacrament. That instruction is made many times, in both the NT and the BOM (and the D/C). So while there can be some debate as to where to draw lines, it's tough to say that the church should never exclude anyone from taking the sacrament.

[canard78]

Short of an affidavit from the FP, I'm not sure what you're looking for.

 

FWIW, here is a link to the famous 1973 Dialogue article by Lester Bush: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/.  You'll see that Bush cites the Lowry letter multiple times in his article and says the letter is found "at the Brigham Young University Library."

 

Considering that Bush's article was very prominently reviewed by the FP/Q12 prior to their removing the ban in 1978 (see, e.g., https://chadlawrencenielsen.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/a-significant-factor-the-influence-of-lester-e-bush-jr-s-research-on-the-revelation-of-1978/) and that President Kimball's son has said that his father "had underlined and annotated virtually the entire article in his own copy of Dialogue" (http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/06/08/the-long-awaited-day/), I find it very hard to believe that if the Lowry letter was fake no one in the COB would have investigated and published that fact. There was certainly opposition from McConkie, Stapley and others in the Q12 to the Bush article. If he was citing a false source - a 1947 letter from the FP for goodness sake - it would have been found out.

 

EDIT to add: I just noticed that I've been referring to the "Lowry letter" when I should be saying "Nelson letter." The member's name was Dr. Lowry Nelson.  My apologies.

 

Also, it should be noted that at the time of the Stewart Book (1960) which cited to the Nelson letter, two of the signatories to the Nelson letter were still alive - J. Reuben Clark (d. 1961) and David O. McKay (d. 1970). This is quite a different situation from the salamander letter - where the parties to the supposed letter were long dead and gone. We're talking about a potential forgery where the authors were still very much alive and their correspondence files could by easily checked.

 

Very impressive investigation work

 

Bob... does that provide enough reassurance?