california_ave

If I remember correctly, the Ostling's book, Mormon America, estimated a figure of $5 or 6B--about twice the ELCA number you cite.

In other words, since the Victorian age.

I used to live on California Ave--in California of course. Good point. Betrayed is a wrong word as I think the false argument was passed along in ignorance and never questioned--like I had later followed. I don't think there was intentional deception involved. I suppose a better word is duped--just as I had done to others. I think we both agree that BY taught the theory sufficient that others believed BY. SWK taught in GC that teaching such doctrine was an excommunicationable offense. I'll use that as my source that the church now considers BY teachings apostate. I write it off as BY speculation just as many other early church leaders liked to publicly speculate. Now doctrinal speculation is generally kept within local high priest group meetings:)

I'll mention one here: the Adam God theory taught by BY. When I first ran across the doctrine, I read what the apologists said that BY was taken out of context, etc. I liked that because it supported the idea that a prophet can't lead the church astray (i.e., infallible, in my mind). When faced with the Adam God, I became an apologist and used teh same arguments I had read.Several years later, I encountered the Adam God teachings again, and I found the arguments I had rehearsed were contradicting. I investigated it more and discovered that no, BY did teach that Adam was our God, others believed it, and BY labeled those who opposed his doctrine "apostate". The worst feeling was that I felt betrayed by the apologists. They had fed me a false argument and I believed it. I'm convinced from historical records that BY taught the doctrine; I'm convinced by the Spirit of God that BY was wrong. Given that BY taught false doctrine, I had to readjust my notion of what a prophet is. Prophets are fallible. That is one of the tenets of Mormonism. God is not going to intervene and correct a prophet's every mistake just as God doesn't meddle with my poor choice. Since BY was not perfect and had flaws and sins, it gives me hope that I may overcome. As has been stated before, one's conviction must be founded on the Rock of Salvation. When that is shaky, it is easy for these questions to drive a wedge in our faith between us and God.

Stanley Ivans estimated that 15-20% of Mormon families in Utah were polygamous. ("Notes on Mormon Polygamy" Western Humanities Review 10, Summer 1956, p. 230.) Leonard Arrington cites that 5% of Mormon men and 12% of Mormon women were involved in polygamous marriages. This may be a difficult figure to compile from records for a large community who were knowingly defying the law. It may be akin to estimating the percentage of pot growers in California. Additionally, the practice varied widely from community to community--sometimes as low as 5% (Weber, UT) and as high as 67% (Orderville, UT). The 2-5% figure above is usually the one tossed around in Sunday School and Seminary. I don't know how accurate that is, but my guess it the ~4% figure is low. I took a survey of my own Mormon ancestors and counted a polygamy rate of 33% rate. I counted 6 polygamous families out of a total of 18 Mormon ancestors who married before 1890. (The "families" refers to the marriage, i.e., I didn't double count husband and wife) So what is the figure you have heard (including source)? Or what is your own experience if you aren't part of the 70% of the church that is 1st generation Mormon?

Alma 34:13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the claw of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. D&C 13.1: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness. Was Christ's sacrifice the end and put an end to blood sacrifice? Does the "offering" of the Son of Levi referred to in Malachi and repeated by John the Baptist necessarily mean the same kind of OT "offerings", that is a blood sacrifice. How do we reconcile these? Joseph Fielding Smith and his son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie believed that this Levitical offering would be a one-time sacrifice as part of the "restoration of all things". John Widsoe believed that the prophecy referred to a restoration of modern temple work, that is ordinances for the dead. What say ye?

Stagnant. My local observation is consistent with what Pew has reported for US: less than 1% growth.

No. Joseph had plenty of wives, but no more kids from these wives. BY had ~25 wives and only ~55 kids--a ratio that is consistent with present day America--not 19th century rural America. Just because a man has multiple wives does not mean he can support proportional multiple families.

The following is a summary of a blog posted by a Mormon historian who also occasionally writes Utah history articles for the Salt Lake Tribune: The Primary organization originally included boys and girls from 3 to 14 years, but changed the age limits in 1913 (year the Scouting program became recreational program of Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association) so older boys (12-14 yrs) could attend scouting. Only later in 1950 did BSA start offering scouting to 11 yrs. Girls 12-14 remained in the primary organization till 1934 when they too were transferred to the MIA program. Before reading the blog, I had assumed the 12 yr old limit was set by the age of ordaining a deacon. Apparently not. It came from the age a boy could originally become a scout.So where did the 12,14,16 yr ages come from for the ordination of young men to the Aaronic priesthood offices? In Joseph Smith's day, I'm not aware of minor children being ordained to the Aaronic priesthood, so when the change?

I've heard one historian say: "The doctrine of the Catholic Church states that the pope is infallible, but no one believes it; the doctrine of the LDS Church states that the prophet is fallible, but no one believes it." I think that is where alot of individuals' problems are with Joseph--they think he should be immortal. Joseph was a man full of contradictions: He had a powerful spiritual gift of revelation. He was also inspired by the mystical.He loved his wife and family dearly. He was a polygamist much to the pain of his wife.He inspired numerous converts to join his new sect. He was very inexperienced at leading his disjointed people.He was a good judge of character. He surrounded himself with power-hungry people like John C. Bennett.He could translate reformed Egyptian. He divined the BoM text from a peepstone.He could be very loving and caring. He could be quite angry and vengeful.He organized the priesthood leadership. He didn't leave a clear successor.He went like a lamb to the slaughter. He carried and used a gun.He taught sobriety. He opened a bar and drank alcohol. Can he still be a prophet? Yes. I'd be worried if he didn't have flaws, because that would give no hope for me.

Interesting observation. Maybe we don't need the autographs: "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 2cor3:3. Maybe the scriptures are for us to use as a Urim and Thummim to receive our own revelation directly from God so our lives can be shaped by doing God's word. Maybe it didn't matter if Joseph used the plates or a peepstone--the source was still from God. So it is for us, it doesn't matter if we use the KJV or NIV--both imperfect renditions are capable of inspiring revelation from God. The Word is more important than the words.

I've got to laugh at the above statement--I've heard it many times. To join the church as a convert, an investigator meets with missionaries for several lessons about an hour each. They've got to at least be awake to answer the questions right. Read a foreign book of scripture, come to church (3 hours!) at least once, agree to pay 10% of income and fast monthly. They have to give up coffee, tea, tobac, premarital sex etc. They may have to confess previous sins to a teenage kid. After baptism, they are asked to contribute time and energy to the new congregation, yada, yada, yada. Now to go to the temple, that is likely to cost you thousands of dollars in tithe and lots more time, so let's not go there. To get out of the church, write a letter to the Bishop. If you don't know what to say, there are several form letters on-line that will help. If you want to be particular, send the letter certified mail and include a copy to the Stake President and Greg Dodge - Supervisor, Member & Statistical Records at church headquarters. Two hours tops. Sure there may be the annoying phone call or visit by do-gooders. But say 12 annoying visits and 30 seconds to say "leave me alone" adds up to an extra 6 minutes. Now the Mormon missionaries waking you up on Sat. morning while tracting your street, well, you forfeited the privilege of sleeping in by removing your name from the ward directory. Ahhh the benefits of being a Mormon. We can't even get organized enough to do the home teaching of our own members, but somehow people think we can make a uniform assault on all the ex-mos and harass them?

Pres. Hinckeley stated in Oct 1985 General Conference explaining why the Church is involved in commercial business: "I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people." Before last last decade or two, it was common for GAs to be on the Board of Directors of Church-owned companies. As such, they received salaries for their part-time work on the Board--just as any company does. These salaries were disclosed publicly as with any Board and with a little research could be found.

JS made both the statement in the 2nd article of faith and the statement that Song of Solomon is uninspired, so have Joseph explain the apparent dilemma you point out. A subject for another post is a discussion on why the "uninspired" Song of Solomon is quoted in the D&C. What is your point Snow? Do we infer JS is a contradictory liar, or that the Bible still contains the Gospel of Christ despite the flaws?

Good question. A Muslim would argue that an English Koran does not exist--a translation of the sacred text may exist, but the new rendition is not the Koran. Mormons would not be as strict, but would accept as official any Book of Mormon currently published by the LDS church (or alternate publisher where the text was identical--e.g., DoubleDay, or Desert Book). Anything different would require a modifier, such as the Book of Mormon "Reader" or the "RLDS" Book of Mormon, or the "First Edition" Book of Mormon. I'll wait for your point.

I'm confused by these two sentences--hopefully I didn't take them out of context. I want to understand your view of how the Bible is "inspired" or not. If I understand you, the books of the Bible as originally written were the inspired word of God, consistent with Paul's admonition to Timothy " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Then, because we don't have the originals (autographs) and dirty hands have corrupted the texts we do have, the Bible is not as pure as the original word? So the Bible we are left with, would you say is no better than inspired secular text (e.g., Constitution) in bringing us closer to God, or is the Bible we have still sacred text and Paul's admonition still applies?

Maybe it was this declaration you remember hearing as part of the King Follet discourse: "I have an old book of the New Testament in the Hebrew, Latin, German and Greek. I have been reading the German and find it to be the most correct, and it corresponds nearest to the revelations I have given for the last fourteen years." Following this declaration, Joseph demonstrates a single example of the poor translation of the KJV and how the other languages mentioned all agree on the "correct" meaning. Granted Joseph didn't say Luther's Bible was the "best", but he definitely thought it was the "most correct"--i.e., more correct than KJV. Do we not understand this to be literal? Do we dismiss Joseph's opinion because it is counter to our later cultural traditions and uniformity of the church?

I don't buy ice cream anymore. I do not let it go to waste if my wife buys it though:D

I'm for a gradated flat tax a la Jerry Brown: 5,10,15%. No deductions. The tax return would be completed on a postcard--this includes corporate taxes. CPAs and tax attorneys would be out of jobs.

If there is a correlation between a CEO's compensation and his/her education and responsibility, how do we explain the skyrocketing trend in CEO compensation relative to workers? In 1980, CEOs earned, on average, 42 times the earnings of the rank-and-file employee; in 2006, the wage divided widened to 364 times! Has there been a 9 fold increase in CEO education and responsibility relative to the individual worker? Look at any Board of Trustees and you will see more incestuous relationships than the royal families.

I had four mission presidents, in this order: excellent, poor, mediocre, and good. Going from excellent to poor was difficult, but I tried to give the poor guy the same respect as others. I tried to honor his role as mission president and not focus on him. I disagreed with him, but I still followed his council--at least the logical part.

I think both religion (not necessarily in the organized sense) and science seek to answer the same question: "What is truth?" Religion tends to answer the "why" and science answers the "how". They both have different methods of discovering truth. Our understanding of truth can change as new understanding/observation/experience is had. Elder Oaks gave a fantastic discussion of this topic in the May EnsignLDS.org - Ensign Article - Testimony

I don't think you understand PC. Point #2 refers to ancient manuscripts, which are closer to the source--further up stream if you will and less likely to be corrupted. Point #4 refers to translations of all authoritative texts available. Given that many of the early texts were not available to KJ translators but are available know, the modern Biblical translations can benefit from these newly-discovered ancient documents.

I started using the Zondervan Study Bible (NIV) a few years ago--picked it up at Walmart for $20. I bring it to Sunday School when we study the Bible. Indifferent of the translation, I find that it is like hearing the same story in different words and it expands my understanding. Sometimes teachers will ask me to read a passage in class to get a different perspective. Above the text, I love the footnotes and integrated maps, charts, timelines, etc. I found when reading the NT, I had memorized the footnotes and found it harder to learn anything new from the text. The thorough reading aids make it easy to study. But that is just me.

I remember reading a biography of John Henry Smith, an apostle and briefly a counselor to JFS, where an excerpt from Elder Smith's journal was shared. Elder Smith had a heated disagreement with a fellow apostle over an issue discussed in quorum meeting. Both left angry and frustrated over the incident. The next day, Elder Smith came to the apostle he felt he had offended and offered a heart-felt apology. Both embraced afterward as the offenses were forgiven. This story has been an example to me that though we may disagree, we can't harbor ill feelings and must quickly repent. From scripture, remember that Paul and Barnabas "sharply" disagreed on mission companions and went their separate ways. They later repented and reunited. To disagree is acceptable, following is more important than agreement.