The First 60 Pages

I was only able to read the part that was available online, but I thought the part online was fascinating. I loved the description of how McKay looked like a prophet, and how he purposefully let his hair grow out instead of getting the missionary hair cut. I understand the purpose behind leaders not sharing all of their personal spiritual experiences (as some were alluded to and not shared), but it certainly is more interesting when they share them. I loved the story of McKay seeing the branch president in the audience and calling him "evil".

I will attempt to answer Paul's questions even though many of them refer to parts after the first 60 pages:

Q: was President McKay like Lincoln, erring on the side of mercy? Not to say that President McKay was swayed by personal relationships, but how can church leaders avoid being prejudiced when making hopefully inspired decisions?

I think we're all swayed by personal relationships, and that's not a bad thing. Isn't our goal to develop a personal relationship with Christ and hope God errs on the side of mercy come judgment day?


Q: Was the church membership holding back the revelation? Do we hold our leaders back from receiving the blessings they hope to be bestowed on the Church?

Not me. I'm all for some new revelation. Bring it on!

Q: Without trying to imagine discord amongst apostles, how much debate do you imagine goes on?

I don't know, but my institute teacher in NC would often illustrate my Book of Mormon class with examples of the living apostles, including how they handled differences of opinions. It was the best institute class I've taken. The examples of great men, including possible discord, are a much more powerful teacher than doctrinal quotes, which is why I enjoyed what I could read of this book.

Q: I try to categorize rules into three: principles (unchanging, truths), policies (rooted in principle, but based on circumstances), and procedures (by necessity change to accomplish policies). It’s usually easy to distinguish between principles and the other two, but often, if a rule seems procedural, it is harder for me to believe it was revealed truth. How much from, say, the Church Handbook of instructions is an opinion (albeit a very good source), and how much is and how much is “the Lord sayeth”?

I've had a big internal debate about this one with respect to gay marriage in California. My initial reaction was that government shouldn't define marriage one way or the other. It's a religious term, and marriage for me is different than it is for most people anyway. Then I thought more about what the prophet said about supporting Prop 8 financially, etc. I ultimately decided that if I were in CA, I'd just follow the prophet. Then my uncle (a BYU religion prof. and a staunch Democrat) said he would not follow the prophet on this one, citing blacks and the priesthood and how sometimes doctrines/policies/procedures change. I agree with you in theory Paul, but sometimes it's tricky to find the line between doctrines and policies.


Q: Boyd K Packer: “We live far below our revelatory privileges.” How far?

[Stretching my arms out.]

Q: Are the communists still out to get us? President Benson had some very Right opinions. That’s interesting to me for two reasons: The Lord respects our agency, and in any case President Benson was able to receive revelation.

A member of our stake presidency gave a great talk on self-reliance on Sunday and how our ability to be self-reliant affects our spirituality. He was talking about having a job, being free of addictions, etc. However, I think any form of government that takes away too much from the people's self-reliance is a move in the wrong direction. Can we have universal health care and still be self-reliant? Sure. But there are wrong ways to do things. Communism was one of many wrong ways, and I think there are other wrong ways proposed every day.