Issues with Brigham Young

[Suzie]

Armand L. Mauss (LDS sociologist) gave a very interesting view of the Book of Abraham concerning this issue some years ago in a FAIR conference:

"We see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally".

[Vanhin]

Well, I'm glad to know that you are beginning to allow the possibility to enter your mind.

The possibility was always there, as expressed in my posts on this topic. I just lean strongly towards bigotry (just like Margaret and so many others in the bloggernacle). It would be very foolish in my opinion for me to consider just one reason knowing that all the facts have not been answered and there are so many "holes" (historically speaking).

There's perhaps the difference between you and me. I'm not still trying to figure out whether the prophet and apostles of this Church are called of God, and beyond that, whether they are righteous/honest men. I already know they are.

You are making a lot of erroneous assumptions here with regards to my views (not appreciated). I believe a person can be called of God and yet have their personal views, wrong and all (the quotes of past leaders with regards to this topic is overwhelming evidence) unless you think the Lord through his Prophet/s saw black people as a bunch of uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of intelligence and commanded him/them to say so?.

Forgive me, I don't mean to offend you in any way. My observation was based on what you said about the lifting of the ban. Since you said that there is only a "very small chance about the possibility of the Lord lifting the ban", then I believed my assumptions to be in harmony with your words. But let's just start there then before we go too much further. I think this is an important matter to clear up, since this is a huge component of my beliefs concerning the matter.

The first person accounts of those in attendance, from the First Presidency to members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles describe what happen as a revelation from God akin to the "day of Pentecost and at the Kirkland Temple". Bruce R. McConkie witnessed the following:

"And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord." (Spencer W. Kimball et al., Priesthood (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1981), pp. 127–128)

The First Presidency then issued a statement in June announcing the revelation, which was sent out to all general and local priesthood officers of the Church. Later, during the September General Conference, the revelation was accepted by the body of the Church "as the word and will of the Lord". Then Official Declaration 2 (which includes the notice that was sent out) was added to our official canon of scripture, making the matter binding upon members of this Church. (See Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom)

If you think that there is only a "very small chance about the possibility of the Lord lifting the ban", in other words, you question whether the lifting was revelation or not, then I think you are still trying to figure out "whether the prophet and apostles of this Church are called of God". There's not a more clear cut example of how direct revelations are (or should be) received and put into effect than this.

So, if you and I could just put all other parts of this discussion aside for a moment and settle this issue first, I think we can begin to understand each other better.

Are you really on the fence still about whether the 1978 lifting of the ban was a result of revelation from God or not?

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[MarginOfError]

If you think that there is only a "very small chance about the possibility of the Lord lifting the ban", in other words, you question whether the lifting was revelation or not, then I think you are still trying to figure out "whether the prophet and apostles of this Church are called of God". There's not a more clear cut example of how direct revelations are (or should be) received and put into effect than this.

A implies B implies ---------------------------REACH FOR IT------------------ C

[Suzie]

Vahnin, I truly don't know how to explain myself anymore (and kind of tired to be repeating myself over and over and over again, such a waste of time for such interesting thread). It seems like the only one who seem to understand my position in this thread is Margin (as reflected in his last posts). Margin, maybe you can explain better? (again?)

You seem to think that because I choose to add the possibility of external factors such as personal bigotry I am somehow in the wagon of those who believe Brigham Young and many others were not Prophets of God, I tend to agree somewhat with J. Reuben Clark who stated that there have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost (inspired) whether you believe this or not, this is entirely something personal.

However, just because I may believe such doesn't mean I lose perspective of things. Two plus two doesn't equal three but I don't know what else to tell you other than I think the possibility exists and the Lord allowing this the whole time. You think otherwise, and I respect that. Why continue going in circles?

However,I am interested in discussing the historical facts presented (I know you said you can't explain them) but maybe someone else can and who knows we may be able to come up with some answers.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Suzie

[HiJolly]

Vahnin, I truly don't know how to explain myself anymore (and kind of tired to be repeating myself over and over and over again, such a waste of time for such interesting thread). It seems like the only one who seem to understand my position in this thread is Margin (as reflected in his last posts). Margin, maybe you can explain better? (again?)

You seem to think that because I choose to add the possibility of external factors such as personal bigotry I am somehow in the wagon of those who believe Brigham Young and many others were not Prophets of God, I tend to agree somewhat with J. Reuben Clark who stated that there have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost (inspired) whether you believe this or not, this is entirely something personal.

However, just because I may believe such doesn't mean I lose perspective of things. Two plus two doesn't equal three but I don't know what else to tell you other than I think the possibility exists and the Lord allowing this the whole time. You think otherwise, and I respect that. Why continue going in circles?

However,I am interested in discussing the historical facts presented (I know you said you can't explain them) but maybe someone else can and who knows we may be able to come up with some answers.

FWIW, Suzie, I agree with you -- you make excellent sense -- and would even go further than you have along these lines. But I won't. :-)

HiJolly

[Vanhin]

Vahnin, I truly don't know how to explain myself anymore (and kind of tired to be repeating myself over and over and over again, such a waste of time for such interesting thread). It seems like the only one who seem to understand my position in this thread is Margin (as reflected in his last posts). Margin, maybe you can explain better? (again?)

Hey Suzie,

I understand. I'm not really asking about the origin of the ban, or about racism, or even about Brigham Young at this point. I was hoping we could slow it down a bit, and find some common ground. That's why at this point I am specifically asking about the 1978 lifting of the ban. You have indicated that you question whether it was revelation or not. I just want to be sure I understand you so I don't make incorrect assumptions with my other points.

Do you believe that the ban was lifted in 1978 because of revelation?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Suzie]

Hey Suzie,

I understand. I'm not really asking about the origin of the ban, or about racism, or even about Brigham Young at this point. I was hoping we could slow it down a bit, and find some common ground. That's why at this point I am specifically asking about the 1978 lifting of the ban. You have indicated that you question whether it was revelation or not. I just want to be sure I understand you so I don't make incorrect assumptions with my other points.

Do you believe that the ban was lifted in 1978 because of revelation?

Regards,

Vanhin

Once again, as I stated in many parts within this thread....

There seems to be a bunch of different factors, from purely the involvement of the Lord to social pressure and the involvement of the Lord and the Church inability to cope with the situation worldwide, etc.

I stated my position before and you even quote it however, once again (as I said) I have not made my mind completely in both: the placement of the ban and the lifting. I may lean towards a cause/s however they are not absolute. I continue searching and seeking answers. I don't think this is a thread about Suzie's position (how boring!) so I don't wish to focus on my personal views entirely (I don't mind to share it but I don't want to make it "the" focus) however I wish to deal with historical evidence or lack thereof.

Now that I have answered, I would like to move on and deal with the facts presented on this thread and see if we can come up with some answers. Thanks.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Suzie

[Vanhin]

Once again, as I stated in many parts within this thread....

There seems to be a bunch of different factors, from purely the involvement of the Lord to social pressure and the involvement to the Lord and the Church inability to cope with the situation worldwide, etc.

I stated my position before and you even quote it however, once again (as I said) I have not made my mind completely in both: the placement of the ban and the lifting. I may lean towards a cause/s however they are not absolute. I continue searching and seeking answers.

Now that I have answered, I would like to move on and deal with the facts presented on this thread and see if we can come up with some answers. Thanks.

Okay, you did state all that. I know. So you have not made up your mind. That's what I think is the difference between my way at looking at all the facts and yours. I didn't mean to insult you in saying that before.

I already accept the 1978 event as revelation, and I accept Official Declaration 2, and the rest of the standard works as binding doctrine upon members of the Church. So, I work backwards from there, when looking at the facts, even the ugly ones that imply racism.

Now, if you had said that you believed the 1978 event to be a revelation, then we would have a wealth of common ground to work with, and I believe my reasoning on why I believe the ban was the will of the Lord could gain some traction with you.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question even though you felt it was redundant.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

Edited January 21, 2011 by Vanhin

[MarginOfError]

Now, if you had said that you believed the 1978 event to be a revelation, then we would have a wealth of common ground to work with, and I believe my reasoning on why I believe the ban was the will of the Lord could gain some traction with you.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question even though you felt it was redundant.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

Accepting that the 1978 event as a revelation does not necessarily mean that the ban was the will of the Lord. As we've said before, it's entirely possible that the revelation was given to end the ban because the Lord wasn't willing to tolerate it any longer. In other words, he was waiting patiently for people to see it a different way, but was only willing to wait so long.

[Suzie]

Accepting that the 1978 event as a revelation does not necessarily mean that the ban was the will of the Lord.

I am puzzled as why some people make both mutually inclusive.

[Vanhin]

Accepting that the 1978 event as a revelation does not necessarily mean that the ban was the will of the Lord.

I am puzzled as why some people make both mutually inclusive.

Suzie,

Now that is a misrepresentation of my position. It would indeed be a flimsy argument for me to make, but I didn't make that argument. Accepting the 1978 event as a revelation is merely a starting point for the rest of my reasoning. I said:

Now, if you had said that you believed the 1978 event to be a revelation, then we would have a wealth of common ground to work with, and I believe my reasoning on why I believe the ban was the will of the Lord could gain some traction with you.

I could explain my reasoning hypothetically as if we were both in agreement with the premise that the 1978 event was a revelation. Then you could show me where I have erred in my reasoning. Interested?

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 21, 2011 by Vanhin
Clarified that I am addressing Suzie.

[MarginOfError]

I already accept the 1978 event as revelation, and I accept Official Declaration 2, and the rest of the standard works as binding doctrine upon members of the Church. So, I work backwards from there, when looking at the facts, even the ugly ones that imply racism.

Now that is a misrepresentation of my position. It would indeed be a flimsy argument for me to make, but I didn't make that argument. Accepting the 1978 event as a revelation is merely a starting point for the rest of my reasoning. I said:

I'm not sure what other conclusions I was supposed to make.

I could explain my reasoning hypothetically as if we were both in agreement with the premise that the 1978 event was a revelation. Then you could show me where I have erred in my reasoning. Interested?

Regards,

Vanhin

Such is the typical course of intellectual discussion.

[Suzie]

Suzie,

Now that is a misrepresentation of my position. It would indeed be a flimsy argument for me to make, but I didn't make that argument.

Actually, I was not referring to you specifically (although you seem to hold that view). I was talking generally. I know we don't know each other but just for reference, I have no problem whatsoever in calling out your name if is needed.

I could explain my reasoning hypothetically as if we were both in agreement with the premise that the 1978 event was a revelation. Then you could show me where I have erred in my reasoning. Interested?

You mean you would explain how it was surely the will of the Lord? (the placement of the ban?) If that's what you are saying, I would love to read your reasoning since I'm always open to new ideas and hypothesis.

[Suzie]

I didn't mean to insult you in saying that before.

I just saw this. I just wanted to say that I didn't feel you was insulting me. I enjoy debates, even when they get heated and I don't get offended. If I appear to be is probably frustration rather than indignation for not getting the point across.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Suzie
Decided to remove last paragraph so it doesn't create a misunderstanding

[Vanhin]

You mean you would explain how it was surely the will of the Lord? (the placement of the ban?) If that's what you are saying, I would love to read your reasoning since I'm always open to new ideas and hypothesis.

Yes, I am trying to show my reasoning for why I believe that not only was the lifting of the ban the will of the Lord, but the ban itself, and the duration of the ban was the Lord's will.

This reasoning is based upon the following premises.

* The 1978 lifting of the ban was due to direct revelation to authorized servants of the Lord.

* Official Declaration 2 (OD-2) is the word of the Lord unto all latter-day saints concerning the lifting of the ban.

* Wording in OD-2 says that the ban was to be lifted on the "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan".

* The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray.

* The Lord allowed the policy to persist in His Church, despite inquiries from several generations of true prophets and apostles.

* The Church has never repudiated the policy as false doctrine.

I argue that if all of those premises are true, then it must be true that both the ban and the lifting of the ban were the will of the Lord.

I will add, that I believe each of those points to be true, hence my belief that the ban was the will of the Lord.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Duplicate post.

[Suzie]

For those who aren't familiar with Darius Gray: He is an African American member of the Church, and is one of the persons behind the formation of the Genesis group (that was established back in 1971 to support African Americans LDS members) in the Salt Lake City area. The Genesis group was created as an auxiliary organization of the Church and currently overseen by a General Authority.

Darius was baptized in the 1960's. As I mentioned earlier, Darius and Margaret Young (both active and faithful LDS members) created the documentary Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons and Darius along with Marvin Perkins also created Blacks in the Scriptures to reach members and non-members who may wonder about the Priesthood ban.

The reason I say all this (besides the fact of providing a little more information) is to quote him when he said:

Gray, a black man who joined the church before the ban was lifted and who was among the first to receive the faith's priesthood in 1978, has long worked with top LDS leaders to help facilitate ministry among African-Americans. He said he's been given permission by those same church leaders to share his belief that the ban "was not imposed by God but was allowed by God" as a test for Latter-day Saints of all ethnic backgrounds.

Priesthood for blacks is focus of film | Deseret News

[Vanhin]

I just saw this. I just wanted to say that I didn't feel you was insulting me. I enjoy debates, even when they get heated and I don't get offended. If I appear to be is probably frustration rather than indignation for not getting the point across.

No worries at all. Thanks for explaining.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Suzie]

Yes, I am trying to show my reasoning for why I believe that not only was the lifting of the ban the will of the Lord, but the ban itself, and the duration of the ban was the Lord's will.

Before I go any further. I would like to get a little more clarification. What do you exactly mean by the will of the Lord?

The reason I ask is because I could say I believe it was the will of the Lord to let Brigham Young go ahead (without him interfering) and place a ban in the Priesthood to blacks even though he wasn't the one behind it. Do you understand what I am coming from? I would like to know whether or not you believe that the Lord was the one who commanded the ban and revealed it to Brigham Young accordingly. Thanks.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'll see your Genesis Group founder, and raise you a personal secretary to the Prophet.

David O. McKay's secretary remembered him once emerging from his office in tears, explaining that he had been praying for a revelation giving blacks the priesthood and had just gotten a "no" in reply.

(Of course, we could just do away with all the hearsay and wait for something more official and explicit from the Church itself. But what would be the fun in that? :) )

[Vanhin]

Before I go any further. I would like to get a little more clarification. What do you exactly mean by the will of the Lord?

The reason I ask is because I could say I believe it was the will of the Lord to let Brigham Young go ahead (without him interfering) and place a ban in the Priesthood to blacks even though he wasn't the one behind it. Do you understand what I am coming from? I would like to know whether or not you believe that the Lord was the one who commanded the ban and revealed it to Brigham Young accordingly. Thanks.

I mean specifically that the Lord was behind the ban, the duration of the ban, and the lifting of the ban. We just don't know the reason for the ban.

If the ban was a "mistake", and not His will, then I don't believe it would have lasted very long at all, since I do not believe the Lord would allow the prophet(s) to lead the Church astray. If the ban was a mistake, then that would mean that Church was indeed led astray by the presidents of this Church. We are talking about the priesthood, and saving ordinances after all.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Suzie]

I mean specifically that the Lord was behind the ban, the duration of the ban, and the lifting of the ban. We just don't know the reason for the ban.

It's interesting to me how we presently saywe don't know the reason for ban after generation to generation have been taught from the pulpit and in church publications (from top LDS leaders, including prophets) that the reason were from the "curse" of Cain to being less valiant in the pre-existence. Should I guess the Lord changed his mind in every generation and with every Prophet and now He doesn't know the reason for a ban he allegedly placed?

[Suzie]

* The 1978 lifting of the ban was due to direct revelation to authorized servants of the Lord.

* Official Declaration 2 (OD-2) is the word of the Lord unto all latter-day saints concerning the lifting of the ban.

* Wording in OD-2 says that the ban was to be lifted on the "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan".

* The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray.

* The Lord allowed the policy to persist in His Church, despite inquiries from several generations of true prophets and apostles.

* The Church has never repudiated the policy as false doctrine.

Vahnin, thanks but I fail to see how these beliefs of yours prove that the Lord was behind the ban. Maybe you would like to break it down? (if you have time and energy, if you don't I completely understand).

[Vanhin]

Vahnin, thanks but I fail to see how these beliefs of yours prove that the Lord was behind the ban. Maybe you would like to break it down? (if you have time and energy, if you don't I completely understand).

It only proves it for someone who holds those points to be true. Obviously a non-believer would not accept any of those points. I will break it down but not right now. I'm trying to finish dinner for my relatively large family. :) So, stay tuned.

Thank you for your consideration.

Edit: A non-believer might accept the last point since it is a fact that the Church has not repudiated the policy, like they have other "false" doctrines.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 22, 2011 by Vanhin

[Suzie]

When we think about the Priesthood ban, we tend to think about black men who weren't allowed to hold the Priesthood for more than 100 years, often times we forget that the Priesthood restriction also affected many worthy black women.

Take for example, Jane Elizabeth Manning James. She was an African-American LDS member born in Connecticut in the 1820's. She was born free (not slave) but worked as a servant in the farm of a very wealthy white family. She was a Presbyterian and when our missionaries traveled to the area (around 1841) where she lived and Jane listened to their message, she knew instantly that she has found what she has been looking for and decided to be baptized the following Sunday.

Around a year or two after her conversion, she led a group of relatives (8 of them) to Nauvoo along with the Saints of the area. The whole family prepared and traveled with the larger group of members of the Church. However, they were separated in New York after the steamboat captain refused Jane and family entry because they were African Americans. The captain also refused to give them their belongings that were already packed in the boat.

This unfortunate event that probably could make most people give up and lose hope didn't stop this wonderful and faithful sister. She was determined to be in Nauvoo, no matter what it would take.

Jane and her family decided to walk to Nauvoo (800 miles), experiencing harsh weather conditions, illnesses, almost ending in prison (authorities demanded that they present documents that would prove they weren't slaves and after a long interview, they were allowed to leave and were able to convince the authorities that they were free).

Jane said that they walked until their shoes were worn out and their feet were so sore that they cracked open and bled to the point of making bloody prints on the ground. However, they prayed together and asked Heavenly Father to heal their feet and He did and they were able to continue the journey.

When they reached Nauvoo the members of the Church after seeing them didn't greet them as she was expecting. However there was a very special person who greeted her and her relatives with love: The Prophet Joseph Smith.

She was able to find his house and when Joseph saw her, he took a chair and sat by Jane and said "You have been the head of this little band, haven't you?" (I close my eyes and I feel like I can almost imagine the voice of the Prophet saying this with a smile on his face). Jane, humbly answered "Yes, sir". He then said "God bless you". He also told her "You are now among friend and you will be protected".

A week passed and each relative of Jane was able to find a job and a place to live except Jane. Her family left for their new jobs in the morning and the Prophet saw Jane crying and asked her why she was so upset and she told him that all her relatives got themselves homes and she got none.

And it's very hard to write this now (without choking up) the Prophet told her that yes, she has a house, "right here if you want it", he comforted her and said she musn't cry and left the room and brought Emma with him. Emma welcomed her with open arms and from that day, Jane became a servant in the Smith house helping Emma with chores such as washing and ironing. Emma became very close to Jane and even offered her "adoption", meaning being sealed to the Prophet and her as a child but she not understanding at that time what it meant, politely refused.

One of the first chores she did the next morning was the washing of clothes and saw the Prophet's temple garments and said:

I looked at them and wondered–[as] I had never seen any before–and I pondered over them and thought about them so earnestly that the spirit made manifest to me that they pertained to the new name that is given the saints that the world knows not of.

I had to pass through Mother Smith’s room to get to mine, [and] she would often stop me and talk to me. She told me all Brother Joseph’s troubles, and what he had suffered in publishing the Book of Mormon. One morning I met Brother Joseph coming out of his mother’s room. He said, “Good morning!” and shook hands with me. I went to his mother’s room. She said, “Good morning. Bring me that bundle from my bureau and sit down here.” I did as she told me. She placed the bundle [in] my hands and said, “Handle this and then put it in the top drawer of my bureau and lock it up.” After I had done it she said, “Sit down. Do you remember that I told you about the Urim and Thummim when I told you about the Book of Mormon? I answered yes ma’am. She then told me I had just handled it. “You are not permitted to see it, but you have been permitted to handle it. You will live long after I am dead and gone and you can tell the Latter-day Saints, that you was permitted to handle the Urim and Thummim.”

After Joseph Smith died, she lived in Brigham Young's house. There she met and married another member of the Church named Isaac James, they had 8 children and their third child was the first African American child born in Utah territory. Both of them worked for very hard and were able to purchase a farm and accumulate horses, sheep, chickens and all sort of animals until the crickets came and destroyed most of their crops. Jane and her kids suffered harsh weather conditions, no money and hunger. She related how hard it was for her to listen her kids cry for bread and yet have none to give them. This was just the beginning of sorrows...

Her husband decided to leave her and the kids (he returned more than 20 years later, short before he died) and Jane had to be the breadwinner in her large family. Her income wasn't much but she did the best she could and worked in washing, sewing, soap making that allowed her at least to have some bread on the table for her and her kids. Even though her income was very low, she payed tithes and even donated to three temple funds and a mission. Her faith and determination were unstoppable.

This wonderful faithful woman walked for over 800 miles until her feet were cracking and bleeding, losing all her belongings, facing racism and prejudice, bringing along her relatives who joined the Church because of her, payed a faithful tithing and donated money to Church funds and programs even though she had a meager income.

After her husband left the family in 1869, Jane in several occasions asked the First Presidency to be endowed and to be sealed, along with her children, to Walker Lewis, an African American Mormon Elder (I think he is the second, after Elijah Abel). Jane of course assumed that he would be eligible for temple ordinances since Walker was an Elder. However, her petitions were refused several times.

After Isaac died in 1891 Jane decided to ask the First Presidency to be given the ordination of adoption so that she could be sealed to the Smiths as a child as Emma has offered in the past. Her request was once again refused. Instead, the First Presidency decided (after several requests) that she can be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith as a eternal servant and they did so. Jane was not allowed to be present in the ceremony. Joseph F. Smith acted as proxy for Joseph Smith, and Bathsheba W. Smith acted as proxy for Jane.

It just breaks my heart to imagine the pain that this faithful Saint went through and her faith and desire to be sealed in the Temple just like anyone else to her loved ones. It also touches me to know how wonderful the Prophet Joseph was to her and her family .

After that ordination of becoming a servant for eternity, Jane didn't seem satisfied (who can blame her?). She petitioned once again (1895) to the First Presidency to be sealed to the Smiths as a child but once again, was denied.

She died in 1908 at age of 86. She was almost completely blind yet her faith and love for this Gospel are amazing examples in LDS history. I never met this sister, I am not African American yet I feel my heart so close to her and the struggles she went through. The work in the Temple has been done for her right after the lifting of the ban in 1978.

Toward the end of her earthly journey she said:

My faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is as strong today, nay, it is if possible stronger than it was the day I was first baptized. I pay my tithes and offerings, keep the word of wisdom, I go to bed early and rise early, I try in my feeble way to set a good example to all."

God bless you Sister Jane. Forever.