I was expecting something more along the lines that Sister Dewey wrote about Gordon B. Hinckley. This book was more of an analysis of the Church with David O. McKay as a point of reference. The first and the last chapters were more of the biography that I was looking for. Perhaps if it was written more linearly rather than categorically, I might have been satisfied. Part of the problem for me was that some things were repeated as they crossed over into the history of multiple topics (eg. the chapter on communism, the chapter on politics).
Some things that surprised me were similar to what others have already mentioned: McKay's tolerance of others' viewpoints, the collisions of opinions between General Authorities (while reading the book I wondered if these clashes made it difficult for some of them to be involved with certain prayers in the temple), Ernest Wilkinson ('nuf said), Ezra Taft Benson's persistance in certain matters and McKay's change of decision from Benson's influence. Some of the authors' depictions made the leadership in the church appear to me like the top level management of a large corporation.
I look forward to talking with my Dad about this book and his recollections of this period. Like Peter, I wonder if the members of the Church viewed things as Miss Middlemis did. Given her proximity to things, I'm sure that they didn't.
A question I have, and maybe one of you can add some insight, is about a comment the authors made in the chapter about The Church and Blacks. The book claims that Joseph Smith ordained some blacks to the priesthood, but the authors left no supporting reference.
Showing posts with label David O McKay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David O McKay. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
David O. McKay and The Modern (?) Church
I enjoyed reading the first 250 pages or so. The last 150 I had to plow through, as the story had become fairly repetitive. If I had to summarize things into a single sentence, it would be: "David O. McKay energetically moved the church forward, although he was occasionally swayed strongly by affinities for specific people to make decisions that probably had some negative consequences." This theme was repeated in connection with blacks and the Priesthood, BYU structure development, KSL, communism, missionary work, and the building program.
As an overall work, I was often frustrated with what I perceived as the authors' personal biases. They seem to have had a particular view, one which impacted their presentation of all the major characters in the book, particularly divisive figures. Consider, for instance, what I would consider the difference with which Sterling McMurrin's political views were presented (quite sympathetically) versus Ezra Taft Benson's political views (quite unsympathetically). I attribute this to a modern perspective on the particular issues, but I would have appreciated a more historical perspective that avoided the normativity. I don't imagine it was a conscious decision, rather it just seeped in from the authors understandable personal feelings and beliefs.
On some of the specific issues Paul raised: I do think the church generally held back the revelation on blacks and the Priesthood. I think the more interesting question is to what degree the feelings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee delayed the revelation. This is, I feel, a much trickier question. How limited are prophets, in their role as prophets, by personal feelings. Harold B. Lee seemed to have very strong feelings about the importance of the policy during McKay's tenure; when he became prophet did those feelings disappear, or was God able to speak through them, or did they (possibly) interfere with his potential to receive the revelation? I don't know.
I've never given the question of whether there is significant debate among members of the Quorum of the Twelve, or the First Presidency, a large amount of thought. I think that what I found more disconcerting from the way the governing organizations of the church were presented in the book was a lack of united front after decisions were made. Often this seemed (from the author's depictions) to arise due to ambiguity in David O. McKay's instructions. However, I question two things: how publicly divided the leadership of the church truly was (on issues like the John Birch Society, for example) and to what degree the Clare Middlemis records (private accounts, by in large) reflect the general public perception at the time. Personally, I imagine the issue of Elder Benson's politicization wasn't nearly as conflictual as it was depicted in the book.
As a final note, I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about an important era in church history. While I take most of this record with a grain of salt, I don't find anything in it to shake my testimony. David O. McKay, like his predecessors and successors as President of the Church, was a prophet of God. Despite personal limitations and foibles, when he spoke as Prophet, he spoke the Word of God. And while it's important to always maintain personal perspective, I think doubting what is of man and what is of God should, in the end, be of mostly academic import. Less important than his dicta to the press over communism or priesthood are his words at General Conference. We should probably study those more, and the former less.
[Note: edited for date and time to make the post appear at the top of the blog]
As an overall work, I was often frustrated with what I perceived as the authors' personal biases. They seem to have had a particular view, one which impacted their presentation of all the major characters in the book, particularly divisive figures. Consider, for instance, what I would consider the difference with which Sterling McMurrin's political views were presented (quite sympathetically) versus Ezra Taft Benson's political views (quite unsympathetically). I attribute this to a modern perspective on the particular issues, but I would have appreciated a more historical perspective that avoided the normativity. I don't imagine it was a conscious decision, rather it just seeped in from the authors understandable personal feelings and beliefs.
On some of the specific issues Paul raised: I do think the church generally held back the revelation on blacks and the Priesthood. I think the more interesting question is to what degree the feelings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee delayed the revelation. This is, I feel, a much trickier question. How limited are prophets, in their role as prophets, by personal feelings. Harold B. Lee seemed to have very strong feelings about the importance of the policy during McKay's tenure; when he became prophet did those feelings disappear, or was God able to speak through them, or did they (possibly) interfere with his potential to receive the revelation? I don't know.
I've never given the question of whether there is significant debate among members of the Quorum of the Twelve, or the First Presidency, a large amount of thought. I think that what I found more disconcerting from the way the governing organizations of the church were presented in the book was a lack of united front after decisions were made. Often this seemed (from the author's depictions) to arise due to ambiguity in David O. McKay's instructions. However, I question two things: how publicly divided the leadership of the church truly was (on issues like the John Birch Society, for example) and to what degree the Clare Middlemis records (private accounts, by in large) reflect the general public perception at the time. Personally, I imagine the issue of Elder Benson's politicization wasn't nearly as conflictual as it was depicted in the book.
As a final note, I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about an important era in church history. While I take most of this record with a grain of salt, I don't find anything in it to shake my testimony. David O. McKay, like his predecessors and successors as President of the Church, was a prophet of God. Despite personal limitations and foibles, when he spoke as Prophet, he spoke the Word of God. And while it's important to always maintain personal perspective, I think doubting what is of man and what is of God should, in the end, be of mostly academic import. Less important than his dicta to the press over communism or priesthood are his words at General Conference. We should probably study those more, and the former less.
[Note: edited for date and time to make the post appear at the top of the blog]
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Doug on McKay
Thanks for picking this book. I have enjoyed what I have read so far; I don't know how much farther I'll get in the coming days. I start my new job in the morning.
Two thoughts and a longish quote:
1) I don't really like the author's writing style. I think the "blacks and the priesthood" chapter was better written than earlier chapters, but I still think the writing got in the way of the subject matter a little.
2) I love hearing about the discussion and (for lack of a better term) politics that seem to happen with the brethren. It's interesting. None of it affects my testimony. If I had more time, I would like to read the conference talks from the timeframe of some of these discussions. Might help us realize that these men spent the bulk of their time teaching true doctrine and leading. It's more interesting to point out the discord (and extremist comments), but I wager not proportionate to what was happening day-in and day-out.
3) The writing about the leaders of the church debating/discussing things that are later put forth as immutable truths reminded me of an interesting passage from the Heber J. Grant biography I have, by Matthew Haslam. Forgive the long quote, but it has always made me wonder just how much our Father in Heaven is willing to listen to our ideas, then support us in our actions. For what it's worth, the author cites the Conference Report of April 1941, page 5 for the quotation. I found the original article here: http://search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/195462
The background is that Elder Grant has been rather weighed down by his call as an apostle at age 25, and is riding alone through Arizona. The call came unexpectedly a little after the conference, which had concluded without filling 2 vacancies in the 12.
"In what he described as 'one of the most real things in all my life,' he listened in on a conversation of his father, the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Savior. So real was the event that Heber 'seemed to hear the words that were spoken.' Listening with a 'great deal of interest,' he heard them converse about the status of the Quorum of the Twelve following the previous October conference. They addressed 'the question that a mistake had been made in not filling those two vacancies and... agreed that a revelation needed to be sent in order to correct the mistake. Heber reported:
"It was given to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith and my father mentioned me and requested that I be called to that position... that the Prophet Joseph and my father desired me to have that position, and it was because of their faithful labors that I was called, and not because of anything I had done of myself or any great thing that I had accomplished."
Happy reading... Doug (now in Durham)
Two thoughts and a longish quote:
1) I don't really like the author's writing style. I think the "blacks and the priesthood" chapter was better written than earlier chapters, but I still think the writing got in the way of the subject matter a little.
2) I love hearing about the discussion and (for lack of a better term) politics that seem to happen with the brethren. It's interesting. None of it affects my testimony. If I had more time, I would like to read the conference talks from the timeframe of some of these discussions. Might help us realize that these men spent the bulk of their time teaching true doctrine and leading. It's more interesting to point out the discord (and extremist comments), but I wager not proportionate to what was happening day-in and day-out.
3) The writing about the leaders of the church debating/discussing things that are later put forth as immutable truths reminded me of an interesting passage from the Heber J. Grant biography I have, by Matthew Haslam. Forgive the long quote, but it has always made me wonder just how much our Father in Heaven is willing to listen to our ideas, then support us in our actions. For what it's worth, the author cites the Conference Report of April 1941, page 5 for the quotation. I found the original article here: http://search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/195462
The background is that Elder Grant has been rather weighed down by his call as an apostle at age 25, and is riding alone through Arizona. The call came unexpectedly a little after the conference, which had concluded without filling 2 vacancies in the 12.
"In what he described as 'one of the most real things in all my life,' he listened in on a conversation of his father, the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Savior. So real was the event that Heber 'seemed to hear the words that were spoken.' Listening with a 'great deal of interest,' he heard them converse about the status of the Quorum of the Twelve following the previous October conference. They addressed 'the question that a mistake had been made in not filling those two vacancies and... agreed that a revelation needed to be sent in order to correct the mistake. Heber reported:
"It was given to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith and my father mentioned me and requested that I be called to that position... that the Prophet Joseph and my father desired me to have that position, and it was because of their faithful labors that I was called, and not because of anything I had done of myself or any great thing that I had accomplished."
Happy reading... Doug (now in Durham)
Discussion items from David O McKay
Here are my thoughts in random order:
In my late teenage years, up through when you all knew me, I was a proud orthodox Mormon. My experience on my mission and last three years at BYU, including marriage, tempered a lot of my self-righteousness and natural tendency to judge others harshly. I have learned to relax and enjoy others for their strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps that is why I enjoyed so immensely the anecdotes about David O McKay and the Coca-cola and the rum-cake.
A history of our church from the perspective of academic openness would be an interesting one. How many people were excommunicated for their libertarian positions on Prohibition? How many people were excommunicated for their opinions related to our LDS history? If you have read, "Rough Stone Rolling" by Bushman, you can find historic details not mentioned in mainstream mormondom that might have got Bushman ex'd sixty years ago. I have found that the truth about certain historic events may challenge my former line of thinking, but as it is truth, my testimony is strengthened. I also found that to be the case while reading about some of the internal conflicts between the members of the twelve in President McKay's time.
I embrace an openness to critical thought and discourse in our church, especially as it relates to our history. History and points of interest that are non-revealed are all fair game in my book. The danger is when one crosses into "evil speaking" of the men called of God and in rejecting revealed doctrines.
The discussion of the book "Mormon Doctrine" was very interesting to me. I knew there was some controversy related to some of the content, but I had no idea about the heartache it caused the brethren and the unpublished reviews pointing out varying opinions and even corrections. I'd like to get my hands on that manuscript! The greatest scriptural truths are those found in apparent contradictions. Although Mormon Doctrine used to be "in application" as important to me as the scriptures, I have since come to realize that it should have been entitled "One Really Good Man's Scholarly Interpretation and Opinions of Stuff from the Scriptures." As the David O McKay book mentions, the printing of Mormon Doctrine has had a huge impact on the culture of our church. I think it helped broaden general understanding of church principles, but it also made us all a bit more like the Sadducee's and Pharisees. We let Elder McConkie's opinions lead us to be more critical of each other and perhaps we closed the door a bit on our personal revelations in coming to understand complex doctrines. Perhaps "Mormon Doctrine" led us to a more wide-spread belief that everything ever spoken by any prophet or general authority was truth and fit for doctrine.
If you all haven't read it yet, I might suggest for our August book-o-the-month, "Getting at the Truth" by Robert Millet. In dealing with difficult questions about our faith, especially from anti-Mormon's, I like how he defines what LDS Doctrine and beliefs are. They are those items that you can find in the official church curricula for Sunday School, Primary, Priesthood, Relief Society, Seminary and Institute guides, and current General Conference talks. If it ain't in there, it isn't our official position and you can't challenge Mormon beliefs that are not official.
I also found the discussion about Ezra Taft Benson fascinating. I admire a lot of what he wrote about the Proper Role of Government. He was surely caught up in the Red-Scare mania, but I still think he was right, even about the socialist results of civil rights legislation. Don't get me wrong here. I am all for equal rights under the law, but whenever a government has to force a policy on its people it isn't nearly as effective as if the change came from the people's hearts on their own. Because political leaders felt so horrible about the brutal treatment of blacks, programs were put in place to supposedly repair damages caused by centuries of abuse. Unfortunately almost every one of those "civil rights" programs created a deeper dependency of the government. This form of slavery is nearly as bad as their former servant-hood. At least a servant with a benevolent master still has personal dignity.
Lastly, on the topic of California's Proposition 8. Although a libertarian at heart, I have no internal conflict with moral legislation that perpetuates a "Good" society. (remember American Heritage!) The church's reason for supporting the legislation is very good and deep and can be found on the Newsroom portion of the church website. I did find it surprising that the church issued a letter that members were free to disagree on this issue without fear of repercussions and church discipline. How very progressive! I remember the letter being read in church, but I can't find a copy of it.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
David O and the Rise
Hopefully this book was faith building rather than destroying. It was for me. I appreciate that the prophet struggles with problems within the Church—and it saddens me that there are so many who do not support him fully. I know it was long. And boring in parts. And repetitive. The first 60 pages, I think were the best. I felt like the author(s) were trying to make things seem a lot more heated than they may have been, but I felt like I got to see the forest in spite of some of the authors' pet trees.
Tolerance/Agency
I love the quote regarding McMurrin’s possible excommunication: “They cannot do this to you! They cannot put you on trial!” While it was clear that President McKay was willing to execute the will of the Lord by not tolerating sin and helping people repent, whatever the process, he respected agency and free thinking. It appears that he sought open-mindedness in decisions and in his general thinking.
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?
Blacks
“I’ve had it! I’m not going to do it again!” Referring to his asking the question of blacks and the priesthood, President McKay said, “the last time I did it was late last night.” It appears that many Church leaders were anxious about the issue. Incidentally, I read a very comprehensive article on this subject in BYU studies. It talks about, among other things, the unity that existed when the revelation was finally received.
I am a counselor in my current church calling. Throughout most of the church, I think the problem is that counselors do not do enough to help their presiding authority, but this book has brought to light for me that we can very easily get in the way of the presiding authority’s plan of action.
For example, I wonder about the apparent opposition Harold B. Lee had to blacks receiving the priesthood. How much did that affect the Lord’s willingness to bless the Church? Obviously until after he died.
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?
Revelation and the prophet
I think it’s also interesting how many different opinions there are. When the Lord speaks, it’s black and white. When the brethren are acting on their own, there’s plenty of discord, and that’s not always a bad thing. But it’s made me realize the importance of revelation. When the prophet speaks (especially from the pulpit or by written directives), it’s best to listen.
Take Mormon Doctrine. Aside from the Catholic reference, I didn’t know it was so controversial. In fact, it seems that there are quite a few holes in the author’s assertions—if there were thousands of doctrinal errors, why were there not some good examples? It seems the authors are trying to make, in this and in other instances in the book, a tempest in a teapot. The lesson for me, however, is the same. It makes me grateful for personal revelation to confirm when people speak the truth.
Q: Without trying to imagine discord amongst apostles, how much debate do you imagine goes on?
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”?
Q: Boyd K Packer: “We live far below our revelatory privileges.” How far?
Commies
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.
Tolerance/Agency
I love the quote regarding McMurrin’s possible excommunication: “They cannot do this to you! They cannot put you on trial!” While it was clear that President McKay was willing to execute the will of the Lord by not tolerating sin and helping people repent, whatever the process, he respected agency and free thinking. It appears that he sought open-mindedness in decisions and in his general thinking.
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?
Blacks
“I’ve had it! I’m not going to do it again!” Referring to his asking the question of blacks and the priesthood, President McKay said, “the last time I did it was late last night.” It appears that many Church leaders were anxious about the issue. Incidentally, I read a very comprehensive article on this subject in BYU studies. It talks about, among other things, the unity that existed when the revelation was finally received.
I am a counselor in my current church calling. Throughout most of the church, I think the problem is that counselors do not do enough to help their presiding authority, but this book has brought to light for me that we can very easily get in the way of the presiding authority’s plan of action.
For example, I wonder about the apparent opposition Harold B. Lee had to blacks receiving the priesthood. How much did that affect the Lord’s willingness to bless the Church? Obviously until after he died.
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?
Revelation and the prophet
I think it’s also interesting how many different opinions there are. When the Lord speaks, it’s black and white. When the brethren are acting on their own, there’s plenty of discord, and that’s not always a bad thing. But it’s made me realize the importance of revelation. When the prophet speaks (especially from the pulpit or by written directives), it’s best to listen.
Take Mormon Doctrine. Aside from the Catholic reference, I didn’t know it was so controversial. In fact, it seems that there are quite a few holes in the author’s assertions—if there were thousands of doctrinal errors, why were there not some good examples? It seems the authors are trying to make, in this and in other instances in the book, a tempest in a teapot. The lesson for me, however, is the same. It makes me grateful for personal revelation to confirm when people speak the truth.
Q: Without trying to imagine discord amongst apostles, how much debate do you imagine goes on?
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”?
Q: Boyd K Packer: “We live far below our revelatory privileges.” How far?
Commies
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.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
June 2009: David O Mckay and the Rise Of Modern Mormonism
I'm proposing a book about David O McKay for June. It is longish, and I'm about halfway through. The 1st sixty or so pages alone would serve as enough fodder for book club conversation and are on google:
David O McKay and the Rise Of Modern Mormonism .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)