Dr. D. Michael quinn has passed away

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if your ancestor was exed and I assume too disfellowshipped or something (before anyone asks, excommunicated or disfellowshipped), all you need to do is write the First Presidency with what you know and ask for a reinstatement and whatever they do on their end they can grant it and would tell the Temple President what will happen next for your ancestor. I am finding some interesting stories on family search about this such as;

“In answer to our letter President Smith said we were to choose a proxy and as Logan Stake Conference would be held in Logan November 25 and 26 (1961), and if the time and place were agreeable to us, and if they could make arrangements with the Temple Presidency, the matter might be taken care of then. We were to get in touch with the Apostle who would come to the conference.”

 

also apparently "many men" in Southern Idaho had their names removed from the Church just so they could vote in the 1888 Presidential Election. Apparently if you believed in celestial marriage you were disenfranchised according to Idaho law and soyou  couldn't vote. To vote though you unmade yourself a member of the church

 

Some of the reasons people got exed are bizarre such as

"To limit contact between church members and the wild environment of the Montana mining camps, local church authorities forbade church members from hauling freight from the rail junction at Corrine to the camps in Montana. ... decided to do so anyway and was excommunicated from the LDS church for doing so. Two years before his death he was rebaptized into the church. "

Someone's great Aunt, who died in 1965 and had been exed for polygamy, according to this 2020 letter. She was rebaptized and had all her temple blessings restored last July. Kinda neat!

I think excommunications from a long time ago were a lot easier to do --- at just the bishop's behest. Talk about leader roulette! 

Really the only causes today are adultery, apostasy, and some felonies. 

[InCognitus]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think excommunications from a long time ago were a lot easier to do --- at just the bishop's behest. Talk about leader roulette! 

Really the only causes today are adultery, apostasy, and some felonies. 

Misuse of church funds would get you in hot water too.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Whom would the rank-and-file ask? 

A petition to the First Presidency, I imagine.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Try asking Elder Bednar about the 2nd anointing at a stake conference Q&A. Seriously, this is one of those questions that raises the ire of general authorities, and you will be chastized for asking about it. 

Discussing it in public is a separate issue.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I also don't. I think a lot of the 2nd anointing stuff, and some of the reinstatements are just decisions of man, being nice, etc., and aren't binding. I think what Joseph taught is true, and the keys are there, but in practice over the years (and especially in more recent times) . . . It's definitely not an essential ordinance, and the faithful without it are on as good a footing as those with it. 

Yep.  No need to fret about things that don't affect our salvation.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

The only ones we know of today are general authorities. I assume their wives, too. In the past, as @HappyJackWagon noted, it used to be put in obituaries and things like that. Every now and then, people become aware of people in their stake (Kevin Barney many years ago was annoyed at a couple in his stake who paraded it around and brought it up as much as possible). 

Just my opinion, but I don't think very many outside of the "aristocratic families" are even offered it. 

Not sure what you mean by "aritstocratic families."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 ) . . . It's definitely not an essential ordinance, and the faithful without it are on as good a footing as those with it. 

Receiving the 2nd Comforter is another story. But, I don't believe that depends on the ordinance of 2nd anointing.

I disagree with you on both counts.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Someone's great Aunt, who died in 1965 and had been exed for polygamy, according to this 2020 letter. She was rebaptized and had all her temple blessings restored last July. Kinda neat!

Does rebaptizing a former polygamist still require Apostolic approval?

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Does rebaptizing a former polygamist still require Apostolic approval?

all rebaptisms and temple blessings restored need First Presidency approval, I don't think it matters why they were exed

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

D. Michael Quinn has been the most prolific author on the subject of "magic" influences on the origins of Mormonism. According to William Hamblin:

Quinn's overall thesis is that Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saint leaders were fundamentally influenced by occult and magical thought, books, and practices in the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is unmitigated nonsense. Yet the fact that Quinn could not discover a single primary source written by Latter-day Saints that makes any positive statement about magic is hardly dissuasive to a historian of Quinn's inventive capacity.

The bold portion sums up my assessment of that particular book perfectly.  And, the book strains at trying to make connections between magic or magic objects and Latter-day Saints, even in the face of evidence that contradicts the assumed connections.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Or are they somehow prohibited or discouraged from asking?

Not being aware of it as an option would lower the probability of participating in it, I am guessing. 

[JustAnAustralian]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

Every now and then, people become aware of people in their stake (Kevin Barney many years ago was annoyed at a couple in his stake who paraded it around and brought it up as much as possible). 

Is this in a BCC post or somewhere else?

[rongo]

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Is this in a BCC post or somewhere else?

Private forum, not BCC. 

[rongo]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree with you on both counts.

Which of the three?  Curious and interested in the discussion . . .

1) not an essential ordinance

2) the faithful without it are on as good a footing as those with it

3) receiving the Second Comforter not dependent on the Second Anointing

To me, there is a difference in Joseph Smith's implementation of the ordinance from how the Church has done it. 

[CA Steve]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

Try asking Elder Bednar about the 2nd anointing at a stake conference Q&A.  Seriously, this is one of those questions that raises the ire of general authorities, and you will be chastized for asking about it.

It has been decades, but I asked the same question of Elder Packer in an open Q&A he was leading and the blunt response was that we did not need to know anything about that.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

It has been decades, but I asked the same question of Elder Packer in an open Q&A he was leading and the blunt response was that we did not need to know anything about that.

And for those who say that it's because it's in a public meeting, I think we would get the same response if we asked privately. 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Which of the three?  Curious and interested in the discussion . . .

1) not an essential ordinance

2) the faithful without it are on as good a footing as those with it

3) receiving the Second Comforter not dependent on the Second Anointing

To me, there is a difference in Joseph Smith's implementation of the ordinance from how the Church has done it. 

All three, but only a bit on #2.

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

All three, but only a bit on #2.

1) If it's an essential ordinance, then why do only a tiny, miniscule fraction of the membership get it, let alone know of it?

1a) If everyone is just going to get it by proxy, then it isn't essential in the second estate.

3) I'm sure that Jesus has personally appeared to people who haven't had the ordinance. 

---

I wish we knew more about it, and I wish it were taught and discussed. 

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

1) If it's an essential ordinance, then why do only a tiny, miniscule fraction of the membership get it, let alone know of it?

1a) If everyone is just going to get it by proxy, then it isn't essential in the second estate.

3) I'm sure that Jesus has personally appeared to people who haven't had the ordinance. 

---

I wish we knew more about it, and I wish it were taught and discussed. 

i'd be interested to know what happens if you get it then later get excommunicated. There are people, i'm assuming had it, like this Elder George Lee, who died outside of the faith plus this Tom Phillips character-what happens if you get it and then go inactive? 

[juliann]

On 4/22/2021 at 6:24 PM, smac97 said:

I wonder if we should expect to see, some time down the road, a restoration of his membership and priesthood blessings.  

I am curious as to how common such posthumous restorations are.  Amasa Lyman.  Helmuth Hubener.  John D. Lee.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I would like to see that. 

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know what happens if you get it then later get excommunicated. There are people, i'm assuming had it, like this Elder George Lee, who died outside of the faith plus this Tom Phillips character-what happens if you get it and then go inactive? 

When Phillips sued President Monson in England, it caused kind of a stir (among the obvious stirs) for this reason. You're sealed up unto eternal life, etc., but then you turn a 180 and become an apostate seeking to destroy and embarrass the Church. I don't personally believe in something like that --- that smacks of Calvinism and the "P" in TULIP (once you're saved, you can't do anything to ruin that). 

I look at it more like you are sealed with this, but for it to be realized, you have to keep your covenants. 

ETA: There was a lot of commotion during the Tom Phillips thing: "Why hasn't this joker been excommunicated for these things?" It sure seemed like the Brethren felt that he couldn't be, because he had had the ordinance. Doesn't seem right . . .

Edited April 24, 2021 by rongo

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

When Phillips sued President Monson in England, it caused kind of a stir (among the obvious stirs) for this reason. You're sealed up unto eternal life, etc., but then you turn a 180 and become an apostate seeking to destroy and embarrass the Church. I don't personally believe in something like that --- that smacks of Calvinism and the "P" in TULIP (once you're saved, you can't do anything to ruin that). 

I look at it more like you are sealed with this, but for it to be realized, you have to keep your covenants. 

ETA: There was a lot of commotion during the Tom Phillips thing: "Why hasn't this joker been excommunicated for these things?" It sure seemed like the Brethren felt that he couldn't be, because he had had the ordinance. Doesn't seem right . . .

I feel for him because his family left him when he discontinued belief.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/23/2021 at 8:08 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

When I served my mission an investigator asked me about Joseph putting a stone in his hat to translate the Book of Mormon, I told him that that was a anti-Mormon lie and at the time the church did not acknowledge Smith's folk magic connections.  However not only does the church freely acknowledge this reality it has even published pictures of the rock on the front cover of the Ensign.  Yes Quinn not only exposed church history but he changed its very course. 

Not true.  Quinn did in no sense pioneer research on the magical aspects of early New England nor of its relationship to LDS history.  All that had been done decades before Quinn came on the scene.  Wes Walters and Mike Marquardt had done some of the most important spade-work.  In fact Quinn plagiarized some of my original work (without acknowledging the source), in addition to citing me for one item in his Magical Worldview.  All well-informed scholars of Mormon history knew all about the seerstones.  None of that was secret or Verboten.  I and others had been writing about that for years before Quinn got on the same path.  However, in doing so, for example in correlating the Autumnal Equinox with Joseph's visits to the hill in Manchester where the Book of Mormon was buried, Quinn missed the main point -- that Joseph removed the plates from the hill at the Jewish New Year (1 Tishri), and that such religious correlations were all too common.

It is true that the average Mormon knew almost nothing about such matters, but then the General Authorities were equally ignorant -- none of them were historians or theologians.  The new Church Historian, Leonard Arrington, was bringing a bunch of professional historians to SLC and the Church Archives in the 1970s, and among them was Quinn.  We can now see the results of that early work to bring LDS history into the 20th and 21st centuries.  It is a process which took time.  Quinn was merely one of a number of serious scholars, most of them quite faithful and hard-working.  As a member of that community of scholars, Quinn did advance knowledge in some areas as he wrote and delivered papers on certain issues.  I'm glad that he felt free to say what he thought, not having to worry about being second-guessed by nervous nellies here and there -- who knew nothing of real history.

By the way, I know of some RLDS remnants in Missouri who still deny that Joseph used a seerstone.  I don't even bother to raise the issue with them.  Like you at one time, they think of that as a diabolical lie.  It is very hard to get through to people who have their minds made up.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

It has been decades, but I asked the same question of Elder Packer in an open Q&A he was leading and the blunt response was that we did not need to know anything about that.

 

4 hours ago, rongo said:

And for those who say that it's because it's in a public meeting, I think we would get the same response if we asked privately. 

It is quite possible that Elder Packer did not actually know the answer.  It is a huge mistake to assume that the General Authorities know everything.  That is demonstrably not true.

[Stargazer]

On 4/23/2021 at 1:24 AM, smac97 said:

I wonder if we should expect to see, some time down the road, a restoration of his membership and priesthood blessings.  

I am curious as to how common such posthumous restorations are.  Amasa Lyman.  Helmuth Hubener.  John D. Lee.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not speaking from knowledge, but I believe there should or may be a policy of posthumous restoration of all excommunicated members. It makes perfect sense, actually, given that repentance is a process than can continue after death. The only unrecoverable sin being the sin against the Holy Ghost, it must be the case that anyone whose membership is withdrawn who hasn't committed the unpardonable sin may obviously be pardoned.

[Stargazer]

On 4/23/2021 at 7:32 PM, rongo said:

Anecdotal experience, outside of general authorities. I've always felt that they shouldn't talk about the experience, but some do. And some are pretty prideful about it, too.  

I wonder about the factuality of such claims. I once knew a man who claimed to have had a visitation by the Savior. Observing his behavior over time I began to think that he had been making it up in order to gain recognition from those of us he revealed this to.

With regards to the 2A, if someone told me that they had received the second anointing, unless there were some reasonable cause for revealing it, I would assume they were lying to me. It just seems like something that one would hold close and keep sacred.

[InCognitus]

55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

By the way, I know of some RLDS remnants in Missouri who still deny that Joseph used a seerstone.  I don't even bother to raise the issue with them.  Like you at one time, they think of that as a diabolical lie.  It is very hard to get through to people who have their minds made up.

That, and polygamy, and temple ordinances, and a few others (although it has been at least 20 years since I've last had conversations with RLDS remnants, so maybe that's changed).

[Stargazer]

On 4/23/2021 at 7:48 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you're right that it is often "little" things that shake peoples confidence in leadership. Some people discount the "little things" as being insignificant but I think they can be very meaningful. Your example of the Second Annointing (2A) is one of those things that really shook me. I had lived 40 years of active church life and service having never heard of it as a contemporary temple ordinance. It really made me question what else I hadn't been told. Then the efforts of my study increased and I found quite a bit that I either hadn't been told, or had been told was incorrect or anti-mormon propaganda but actually was factual.

With the 2A I discovered that they used to be given out as freely as the endowment. Information about a person's 2A was sometimes included in their obituaries etc. And then you get the Tom Phillips types and I just throw my hands up in the air and wonder what's the point. It came to feel like men meddling in God's business with no real power of discernment. It definitely hurt my confidence in church leadership.

I guess that reactions to finding these things out does vary, based on personality and circumstances. I don't remember when I first heard about the 2A, but my reaction was interest, wondering if I would ever be privileged to receive it, not any kind of dismay.

I joined the church at age 14, and aside from a vague awareness of the temple and baptism for the dead, I don't recall learning about the Endowment until not terribly long before my mission. My endowment experience was a huge reveal and an eye-opening experience. The first time I served in a proxy sealing session as a newly-returned missionary was another eye-opening experience. The words of the husband-wife sealing ordinance crashed over me like rolling thunder, as I listened in awe. I couldn't wait to hear it spoken again! After all these years (I'm nearing 70 now) everything connected with the Temple and the ordinances performed there almost take my breath away, and I feel ineffably close to the Lord when serving there. There are too many stairs in the London Temple (puff, puff), in my humble opinion, and I wish there were room for an escalator, but I revel in having been called to serve as an ordinance worker there. I look forward to being able to go back, after this pesky pestilence has been beaten back.

I am well aware of the fallibility of church leaders, having seen various levels of mismanagement. I've never doubted that even General Authorities were capable of screwing up, having seen one interesting example of it personally. But this doesn't relieve me of my deep conviction that the Lord is guiding this church, and that despite the foibles and flubs of His very human servants, He is nevertheless in charge.

I imagine that sometimes, probably very frequently, He feels like He is trying herd cats.