Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Over the course of his life he married multiple women; many, if not most or all, of these relationships were sexually consummated, though a handful of these marriages may have been only sealings without a physical relationship. However it went, Joseph’s polygamy is a fact and, to be admitted, a difficult one to accept for many members of the Church who have grown up not knowing about it. However, the LDS Church is now quite public about it (you can even see some of the marriages at the LDS genealogy site, FamilySearch.org) and it is mentioned in manuals and CES courses. It’s even discussed quite bluntly and openly in the popular historical fictions series The Work and the Glory. The youth of the Church are exposed to it from high school and onward. Give it a few more years and it will be common knowledge for most members of the church if it isn’t already.

However, there is another aspect of Joseph’s polygamy that is even more disturbing to people that I find intriguing: polyandry (meaning “many men”). While polygamy in the church is usually understood to mean one man married to multiple women (technically “polygyny”, or “many women”), polyandry means one woman married to multiple men, and this actually occurred in Nauvoo. Basically put, it has been clearly evidenced that some of the women whom Joseph married were already married to other men; three of these are on FamilySearch.org: Zina Huntington Jacobs, Prescendia Huntington Buell (Zina’s sister), and Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (famous for saving, along with her sister, pages of the Book of Commandments as a young girl from a violent mob in the early 1830s; I’m sure you’ve heard the story multiple times in Church – she was an amazing woman). There were possibly as many as nine in total who were married to the Prophet Joseph Smith (and, after his death remarried to Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and other church leaders) as well as being simultaneously married (not sealed, however) to other men.

Many people find this fact to be insurmountable. I’ve heard of many people who have had their rock-solid faith dashed upon this information. Heck, it was seriously disturbing to myself when I first read about it in Dr. Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling (partially because it was too difficult to mentally reject Dr. Bushman’s book because I had obtained a copy of it at Deseret Book). However, there are two things that I now find very interesting and intriguing about people’s responses to this information. First, I find it interesting that it bothers people more than regular polygamy does, and second, I find it interesting that there is intense debate among historians as to whether Joseph had sexual relations with these polyandrous wives. Why are these such overwhelming issues? I’d argue that it is because the culture that is looking at the issue of polyandry is limited by a non-feminist viewpoint; or, to put it another way, a powerful tool available to Mormons (but not used by most of them) for studying this issue is a feminist and egalitarian perspective.

Basically put, simply ask yourself (if you’re having or have had trouble with this issue) WHY is this issue affecting me so strongly? While most modern Mormons have trouble with the idea of polygamy they’ve developed ways to either put it on the shelf or understand it as a doctrine of the Church’s past. Finding out that Joseph practiced polygamy can be difficult, but chances are that you’ve already encountered it and have dealt with it in some way. Why would finding out about polyandry be any different? Well, I can’t really argue for you (dear reader) because I don’t know you, but I can explain it for myself: the problem was how the issue framed itself in my own mind. I was used to Joseph marrying multiple women, but it was troubling when I found out that some of those women belonged to other men. I’m embarrassed to say it, but that was how I looked at the issue deep inside my own head. Joseph was taking what already had been promised to someone else; he was stealing! But then I stopped and turned the situation around in my head. What about women in a regular polygynous relationship? They were married to a man who already belonged to another woman, right? To be fair I should have been thinking that they were taking what had already been promised to someone else; they were stealing? But that was not how I looked at polygyny. Why?

Probably because I was used to the patriarchal system; the man is to preside over the household. The man is in charge. While the best marriage is an equal one, the line of authority in the family still flows subtly from the woman to the man. In my mind, the families in old Utah were large families that centered upon the single father. It was okay (kinda) in my mind for two women to belong to one man (and that the women could share that ownership of their husband). For some reason in my head women could share a man, and a man could share his love towards multiple women.

But polyandry turns all of this on its head: a woman who is already married already belongs to someone else. Men can share their relationship, but I had difficulty imagining women doing the same. I could imagine a man at the center of a multiple partner scenario; I had difficulty imaging a woman doing the same.

Another issue that often pops up, especially from apologists, is whether or not Joseph had a sexual relationship with these married women. The data isn’t exactly conclusive, but it seems that for at least some of them he did. This bothers people. A lot. There’s quite a bit of effort from some people to try and prove that these particular relationships were only spiritual relationships in nature, that there was no sexual contact between Joseph and these women.

Well, why is this a problem? Brigham Young had a number of wives and dozens of children with many of them. This is common knowledge to everyone both within and outside of the Church. Both Mormons and non-Mormons make jokes about it (the Mormon ones tend to be much cleaner). Brigham Young had many wives and these were real marriages. Most Mormons have no problems with it because sex is a good thing as long as it is within a marriage structure. And these women were married to Brigham, so it’s no problem to most Mormons.

So why is there all of the effort to distance Joseph and his polyandrous wives? Nobody seems to be assuming that these women weren’t having sex with their first husbands: merely that they possibly didn’t have sex with their second husband. Why the difference? Nobody questions whether or not Brigham had sex with his wives? Why is there a difference? Again, because we place more of the importance in these relationships on the men than the women. The emphasis is on Joseph Smith, not on Mary Rollins Lightner. Why is that? Again: because these women belong to someone else. It’s difficult to look at the situation as though the men involved belong to the women.

Besides, in term of the historical record, after the death of Joseph Smith most of Joseph’s wives were remarried to Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and other church leaders (including the Huntington sisters) and some had children with these third husbands (again including the Huntington sisters). So even if we can show that Joseph never had sexual relation with these wives, they had sexual relationship with their later husbands.

So what is the solution? Well, I can’t speak for everyone and I don’t want to be a Mormon apologist, but I think that feminism gives Mormons a powerful tool to look at this. If we are limited by our vision of the father “presiding” and the mother “nurturing” we continue to limit ourselves to a view of marriage where the wife is inferior (even if only a slight bit) to the husband. However, if we adopt an egalitarian view of marriage where the two (or even more) people involved in the marriage are truly equal to each other with no authority of one over the other in any sphere then suddenly the role of “wife” and “husband” simply equate to “partner” (or, for those who dislike that term as too “liberal” or “gay”, to “spouse”). At that point the terms “polygyny” (“many women”) and “polyandry” (“many men”) become the same thing: a relationship where there is one person married to multiple spouses. It becomes truly just “polygamy”. And while most Mormons (myself included) still have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea of polygamy, adopting an egalitarian view of marriage forces us to look at polyandry and say to ourselves “What is the problem with this historical practice? Is this really any worse, or really any different, from the practice of polygyny? Even if sex was involved in these relationships?” Answer: not really. And so we see yet another benefit to the Church and its members from a wider acceptance of feminism and egalitarianism instead of patriarchy and complementarianism. However, I worry because it seems that, in general, the Church refuses to be more than complementarian in their approach to equality in marriage and that Church culture (in Utah especially) still rejects feminism as a movement with suspicion and distrust.

I am a little hesitant to share specifics with why I was disappointed with a particular talk from General Conference. Over the next six months, many LDS (myself included) will study from the transcripts as published in next month’s “Ensign”; it’s expected that each talk can provide spiritual comfort and counsel. I don’t want my personal opinion about a particular talk to somehow be seen as invalidating or belittling another person’s enjoyment of the same discourse; my expectations are different and my concerns are different. I don’t think that anyone in Church leadership is somehow dishonest, hypocritical, or evil. I believe that they are all honest women and men who say the things they say because they believe in the doctrines of the LDS Church. However, a leadership position in the Church doesn’t somehow disqualify someone from making a poor choice of words, or even from endorsing a particular point of view that may later be seen as uninspired (much of the pre-1978 folklore would qualify for this; much of it was publicly taught as truth and is now seen as nothing more than misguided opinion). As someone listening to my leaders, I can only argue from a position that I believe in, and if that doesn’t match up completely with what I hear, then I need to look carefully at both what I believe and what was said. Sometimes my beliefs change, and other times I reject the wild fruits in someone’s message and only prize the good fruits. I’ve never found a talk given by a Church leader that didn’t have something in it that was worthy of study and implementation, but I’ve found a few that had some ideas that I had to leave behind because my beliefs simply could not agree with some of what was said.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a small movement compared to many Protestant Christian denominations. Its relative youth compared to the other three Abrahamic religions tends to mean it is easily mocked for its particular historical and faith claims which have occurred within the past two centuries; in spite of this the Church has grown considerably during that time (not nearly as much as the Pentecostal movement, for instance, but for a tightly organized movement, it is an impressive growth). If it is to continue to be a force for good it must continue to grow; however, while the Church currently claims nearly 14 million members it is a guessing game as to how many of those are active in their practice, let alone how many have achieved the highest levels of activity expected for the general membership by attending the Temple or being ordained in the Priesthood. The answer is certainly much lower than the pure membership numbers. From other statistical sources, such as Gallup or Pew, we know that women form a clear majority of active Church membership. As such, it might be expected that Church leadership would speak out more on issues relating to what is expected of all human beings, not just men, within the Church, with perhaps an occasional focus on women’s issues and their strength (by virtue of their numbers at the very least). Such an emphasis was occasionally seen and heard during some of the past weekend, but it is interesting to me how that emphasis was expressed, especially in comparing and contrasting the first two discourses delivered.

President Boyd K. Packer spoke at length about how the Power of the Priesthood is not yet being expressed among the Priesthood holders of the Church. However, (without a transcript to compare against) he didn’t directly define the Power of the Priesthood, as opposed to the Authority of the Priesthood which I’ve continually read from Church sources to mean “the authority to act in God’s name” or, in other words, the authority to perform efficacious rituals and ordinances. In the Church, women have not, as yet, been given such authority apart from their limited authority to perform some of the Temple rituals. However, it appeared to me that the general gist of the “Power” being described was not simply the miraculous ability to enjoy gifts from God such as healing (a power that is equally available to women through the prayer of faith, as expressed by Elder Dallin H. Oaks during his Priesthood Session remarks, and as attested by much of Latter-day Saint Church history where administration and blessings on the sick by women are commonplace), but was also power in the sense of authority and responsibility in relation to other human beings. I love that the Church has a structure that allows for people, both female and male, to hold positions of authority not because they have any particular skill for such positions but rather because the initial “calling” to that position was supposed to be the result of revelatory impressions. I accept that it can on rare occasion be useful to have an individual who has a sort of “final say” regarding difficult decisions, but I also believe that the most successful and most efficient individuals in the positions never use that “final say” (many others, of course, fall victim to the temptation to use it often which usually in my experience quickly devolves to what Joseph Smith referred to as “unrighteous dominion”). The best decisions are mutual decisions where all involved are respected equally. This seems to be how the highest councils of the LDS Church usually are run.

Thus, to me, statements like “The priesthood does not have the strength that it should have and will not have until the power of the priesthood is firmly fixed in the families as it should be” are troubling to me. What “power” of the priesthood is to be expressed within a family? The first answer that comes to mind is the ability of the father to directly request blessings and miracles of God for his family, to perform rituals involving members of his family like baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or to pass on this authority to his sons. That’s always a nice thing, in my mind, for a father to offer because at our present point in history, he is the only one with the authority to do so in the home. To me, while the authority is divine, it’s no different than if the mother of the home had a bank account of her own with large amounts of funds that she could give to members of her family, including her husband, whenever it was requested (and that, for some unknown reason she was not allow to jointly co-own and operate with her husband). If done in a spirit of generosity and love, without the mother feeling somehow important or entitled due to her ownership of such an account, the sharing of such funds as gifts could help the family to grow together. Of course, if she were concerned about keeping an egalitarian relationship between herself and her husband or children she might not want to make too much use of her bank account. In a similar fashion, I know of many men, myself included, who don’t actually enjoy giving blessings or other priesthood rituals in the home too often because it can be difficult to preserve the particular level of equality that the spousal partnership has currently achieved. However, since such gifts and rituals can be used to strengthen family relationships when done with the right spirit, I would agree that men in the Church, myself included, need to do more of them for the families to which we belong.

However, this idea of the father stepping up in regards to what he has to offer to the family does not seem to be simply what President Packer has in mind. Later statements about how it is a father’s right and duty to preside in the home are certainly much more than an offering of generosity and love. “The priesthood does not have the strength that it should have and will not have until the power of the priesthood is firmly fixed in the families as it should be.” Again, what does this phrase “power of the priesthood” mean? From a note made during the talk (there is no transcript yet, so this may be flavored by thoughts I was having while watching) “The father presides at the table, in family prayer, and in general instruction to the family. When he is present, he is presiding.” It seems to me that President Packer is calling on men to lead and run their families in all settings , even informal things Family Home Evening and other events.

He shared a story where a young man had requested to be ordained to a higher level of the priesthood by an individual that was not his father. We as an audience were given no context for that decision, and were even told later that the young man’s brothers had also previously requested to not have their father involved in their ordinations. The moral of the story was clear, however: it didn’t matter why the father’s sons did not want him involved, he deserved to be involved because he was the father. He had the right because he had contributed his Y chromosomes to their genetic makeup (my words, obviously). It was later related that the forced ordination by the father had indeed resulted in a better relationship between father and son; it can’t be denied, this was a touching end to the story, but for all we know it could have ended just as easily that the young man felt that his reasons for not choosing his father were seen as pointless and, upon feeling that his input was completely ignored, descended into apathy in regards to his place within the Church. In the end, the decision was not forced because of love. The moral of the story was all about respect for authority, and respect for maleness specifically. It wasn’t even about respect for the priesthood, since the story implied that the father should be involved in the ordination even if he didn’t have the authority to be involved (it was jokingly implied that, in such a case, he would be given such authority on the spot as a sort of “military commission”).

And what is the responsibility of women in regards to Pres. Packer’s plea for men to step it up in using the “power” of the priesthood in the home? “Unless we enlist the attention of the mothers and daughters and sisters, who have influence on their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers, we cannot progress. The priesthood will lose great power if the sisters are neglected.” Personally, I think that the female members of my own family have far more to give to our family than “attention” and “influence”. Certainly, Heidi can (and does) request blessings using the priesthood in her home, but that is not all that she can do in terms of creating a home that can be shielded from harm. “You [Fathers] have the power of the priesthood directly from the Lord to protect your home. There will be times when all that stands as a shield between your family and the adversary’s mischief will be that power.” I cannot agree with this prediction; the shield is that we, as parents (plural, not gendered), can raise our children to be moral agents that can choose, as we can choose individually and unitedly, to resist immorality and “mischief”. If the use of priesthood in the home can be a bonding agent to help increase trust, love, and respect among all of us, so much the better. But it is only one ingredient among many for a strong home and family. The better ingredients have been what is available to all families, both within and without the LDS Church: love, respect, and kindness.

In total, President Packer’s call for men to step up in employing their authority in both the Church and the home, was severely limiting for members of the Church who do not have the priesthood. Which, if you’ll recall again, is the vast majority of Church members. It was a call for the minority to assert their authority and a call for the majority to assist and aid them in doing so. I felt that the entire talk was a missed opportunity to not simply empower those few men within the Church who have the priesthood, but instead call for all members of the Church to step it up in striving to obtain miracles and blessings from God. While the priesthood is authority that is currently limited to men, a call to live up to the power available to us as children of God is a call that anyone can answer.

All of this is why I appreciated so much the next talk by President Julie Beck, personally applying it somewhat as a corollary to the previous talk. My issue with President Packer’s talk came from my trying to apply generally the principles he was discussing to members of the Church as a whole; much of what he said simply cannot apply to the majority of church members. However, all of what President Beck spoke about is applicable to all members of the Church. She spoke of women in the church increasing faith, strengthening families, and providing relief. And she spoke of the power that can help women in accomplishing these goals: personal revelation. In discussing this, she was appealing to the personal and individual communication available to all individuals. To President Beck, the divine power available to women (and men, I would add) is a power that comes to them directly from God. Women are not dependent upon men to provide them with power: they have it by virtue of their personal relationship with God and their ability to listen to the revelatory promptings of God’s Spirit. Women don’t need men to tell them when they are doing well; she proclaimed that women should be women, not babies to be petted and corrected all the time. “We know we are successful if we live so that we qualify for, receive, and know how to follow the Spirit”.

President Beck was also exhorting the women of the Church to step it up: “In my visits with the sisters, I have felt that there has never been a greater need for increased faith and personal righteousness. There has never been a greater need for strong families and homes. There has never been more that could be done to help others who are in need… When Relief Society functions in an inspired way, it lifts women up and out of a troubled world and into a way of living that prepares them for the blessings of eternal life… Through Relief Society, sisters can receive answers to their questions and be blessed by the combined spiritual power of all the sisters.” Now, I’m not sure what was meant by “through Relief Society” in that statement, but the combined efforts of many people can be a powerful force indeed. In calling upon the sisters to do better, she told them that “We are doing well when we increase faith and personal righteousness, strengthen families and homes, and seek out and help others who are in need.” There was little from her remarks that was not equally applicable to any member of the Church, or, indeed, any member of another faith entirely. Her talk was not limiting at all, even though it was addressed only to the women of the Church. It was empowering and ennobling counsel that applied to everyone who was listening.

Indeed, these two points of view were present throughout the Conference to varying degrees. At times the exhortations to rely upon divine power was limited to those of the Priesthood, while at other times the same exhortation was given to everyone. Since the majority of Church membership is composed of individuals without Priesthood authority, I felt it was far better to speak to the Church as a whole. Especially since the Priesthood have their own semi-private session of General Conference (semi because I can’t imagine that anyone would ask a sister in attendance to leave). Why give a talk addressed to the Priesthood to the general membership in the first place? Especially one that seemed to be about so much more than wives requesting that their husbands offer and be involved in more blessings and ordinances to members of the family? I don’t have much of an answer.

TL;DR;
President Packer’s talk, while not saying anything negative in particular, was limiting in its aspect, target audience, and application. It was empowering to the few. President Beck’s talk, while also not a paragon of egalitarian thought, was unlimited in aspect, audience, and application. It was empowering to all.

Most Mormons are very familiar with the story of the Martin and Willie Handcart Rescue. The Rescue was a favorite story of heroism and courage for President Hinckley who made reference to the story many times. However, the story has been strongly mythologized in the ~150 years since it first occurred.

In 1856 two handcart companies, through a series of events, were traveling west to the Salt Lake Valley. They were very late in going and, though warned against doing so by the experienced members of their companies, felt that God would protect them and they continued on (see this Deseret News article for an interesting discussion by Mormon historians as to what and who was to blame for the tragedy). Notable in this part of the journey is Levi Savage; a man who was experienced with the trail, he urged the companies to winter in Iowa City, earn money for better quality handcarts and supplies, and try to set out again in 1857. The leaders of the company urged the immigrants to continue and that God would protect them. Levi Savage again warned them that they would face danger and even death, but said he would go with them and help them. He did so, and never (as far as I can find) spoke anything unkind against those leaders. In my mind the viewpoint of the leaders was almost the same as praying really hard that you’ll pass a test that you haven’t studied for; the Lord is more likely to let you learn from your mistakes than to miraculously clear the way for you. The companies started off in May of 1856.

In August they were passed on the trail by Franklin D. Richards who, upon arriving in Salt Lake in October, warned the Church about the unexpected handcart companies still on the trail. President Brigham Young, aware of what dangers an early winter could bring, ordered a rescue operation mounted. The rescuers found the handcart companies suffering on the frozen plains of Wyoming. There weren’t enough wagons to carry everyone, so the handcart companies had to continue pulling westward. Eventually, after crossing over some difficult and deadly terrain, the companies arrived in Salt Lake and memebrs were called to care for the suffering Saints. Over 25% of the companies died and, as a result, the story of the Mormon Exodus, which until then had been seen as possibly miraculous in its ease and safety, has ever since been influenced by their suffering (for comparison, possibly only 30 people died on handcart treks outside of the Martin and Willie companies, and the death rate for the entire exodus before the railroad was built seems to be around 4-5%; a tad higher than just staying at home and farming, I suppose, but not much). At first, members of the Church didn’t talk much about the tragedy; it was too recent, too hard, and too many people in Salt Lake were responsible. Over time, as new generations who were not invovled grew up, the story has changed into a mythologized legend of sacrifice, heroism, and faith.

There are two stories that are usually told about the trek that are part of this mythology. One story that is routinely told is part of a famous Priesthood Session talk that President Hinckley gave in 1981. President Hinckley has always enjoyed this story and its lessons, but he did not share this particular aspect of the story later on, possibly because the mythic aspects were brought to his attention. I remember him speaking to a private audience at the premiere of a new documentary on the Handcart Tragedy and Rescue and seem to recall him saying that, as we learn more and more about the events of 1856, we may have to give up some of the stories of the past, but the gravity, depth, and heroism of the events only continue to grow (or perhaps that’s just what my memory wants to remember). Church media, however, continues to relate it (usually using the 1981 talk as their source).

The story President Hinckley recounted is as follows, after relating the complete discouragement of the companies when faced with crossing the icy Sweetwater River:

And now I quote from the record: “Three eighteen-year-old boys belonging to the relief party came to the rescue, and to the astonishment of all who saw, carried nearly every member of the ill-fated handcart company across the snowbound stream. The strain was so terrible, and the exposure so great, that in later years all the boys died from the effects of it. When President Brigham Young heard of this heroic act, he wept like a child, and later declared publicly, ‘that act alone will ensure C. Allen Huntington, George W. Grant, and David P. Kimball an everlasting salvation in the Celestial Kingdom of God, worlds without end.’” (President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Four B’s for Boys”, Ensign, 1981, p. 42)

The record that President Hinckley is quoting from is from a story in the Improvement Era, a Church periodical, published by Solomon Kimball in 1914, fifty-eight years after the disaster. There are a number of incorrect details in this popular account.

• Three eighteen-year-old boys belonging to the relief party came to the rescue There were 26 or 27 rescuers with the companies at the time of the Sweetwater crossing. All of them were 20 years old or over. It’s very discouraging to think that everyone else would simply watch while a couple teens took action for the next few hours. Probably everyone in the rescue party took part in carrying at least someone across and the companies themselves took courage and braved the stream.
• carried nearly every member of the ill-fated handcart company across Actually, many or even most of the company had to ford the stream on their own. Only the most feeble and sick were carried across. Speed was important and the company had to keep moving. They couldn’t afford to wait for everyone to be carried across.
• in later years all the boys died from the effects of it Actually, the three named all lived rather long lives and weren’t really affected by any injuries sustained during the rescue. We don’t have record of any of the relief party having troubles due to the rescue.
• President Brigham Young… later declared publicly We don’t have the record of Brigham saying this. Possibly he had said that this act will “immortalize them”, but that would just mean we’d always remember them (and, since this story has become legendary, that’s completely true).
  .

This is usually the case with some of our best pioneer stories: they begin as an impressive story and eventually transmogrify into truly miraculous events (the Seagulls and the Crickets is another great example of this).

The other story that is related is a second-hand account of an old member of the company rebuking a Sunday School class for discussing the blame. He relates how the journey strengthened his faith and testimony; he had felt the presence of angels helping them along (interestingly, this second-hand account relates that the angels came when he was too tired to get up a “patch of sand” or a “hill slope”, which seems to indicate that the assistance referred to happened much further east, before the companies entered the snowy plains of Wyoming).

Due to this story (first recorded over ninety years later) many people have supposed that all members of the handcart tragedy were strengthened in their faith. However, while some were strengthened, others were not, and some even apostatized due to the hardship they had encountered.

We often assume that the Pioneers didn’t have to deal with the same spiritual issues we do today; we assume that their physical hardships made spiritual and moral choices easier than our choices today. However, there really isn’t a difference – their physical hardships simply made them examine their own testimonies in the same way that our world today forces us to do the same. It’s not really any harder or easier, just different times with the same human beings living in them.

]]> http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/07/the-handcart-tragedy/feed/ 1 http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/07/adam-ondi-ahman/ http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/07/adam-ondi-ahman/#comments Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:03:43 +0000 NoCoolName_Tom http://blog.doggetto.com/?p=359

This might be a little rushed and odd – this post was requested and I don’t have much free time to write it in. As such I really don’t have many sources. Feel free to call me out on anything wrong. I’ll try to either find sources or edit the post with the correct information.

Adam-ondi-Ahman (usually called simply Di-Ahman by the Mormon settlers) is located in Northern Missouri and was a sizable settlement during 1838. As one of the Mormon headquarters during the Mormon War of 1838 it held Mormon militia prepared to defend themselves and to take, by force occasionally, property from the enemy in recompense for property taken from them earlier by mobs of Missourians (the 1838 conflict is a messy affair and while the Mormons were, by far, not the most violent they did participate in fighting, plundering, and property burning of their own; this is the heyday of the Danites, a band of supporters of Joseph Smith whom he used sparingly but they often got out of control in following the prophet’s counsel).

The word had first appeared in a revelation given in 1832 (D&C 78). In this revelation the word was not defined, although the reference is quickly followed by “Michael”, who was identified by Mormons as the name Adam was known by before and after his mortal life. In 1835 another revelation related an event in the early religious history of humanity where Adam blessed his righteous posterity in a valley called Adam-ondi-Ahman.

A site settled in 1838, called Wright’s Ferry, was renamed by God through Joseph as Adam-ondi-Ahman (see D&C 116); Joseph prophesied that in a future day Adam shall come and visit his people and in this place the Ancient of Days, a title variously interpreted by Mormons as either Adam or God (as for Adam-God, nope, not going there!), will sit. Another revelation a few months later castigated the Saints for covetousness and poetically referred to Adam-ondi-Ahman as the “place where Adam dwelt”. These are the only canonical references.

The Early Saints felt that Wright’s Ferry/Spring Hill/Adam-ondi-Ahman/Cravensville (all of the names by which the area has been called) was either the site of the Garden of Eden mentioned in Genesis itself, or it is the location of a place near Eden where the human race began to grow. Spring Hill was also identified as a Nephite fortification. A temple was supposed to have been built here, but due to the Mormon War of 1838, the plans for the temple were indefinitely abandoned and have not yet been taken up again (it has been suggested, however, that no temple site was ever dedicated, but rather a public square for a new settlement was instead dedicated and this dedication transformed over time into a temple dedication – I will look into this more fully).

Since Adam-ondi-Ahman is identified so closely with Adam it has become a source of curiosity to many people both within and outside the faith. There are, however, a few possibilities when we examine the authoritative evidence as to why the site was named:

1. Adam-ondi-Ahman is the site outside Eden where humanity spread over a Pangaea-like world continent that was flooded in a global flood and was later broken up during the days of Peleg leaving humanity in the new Old World.
2. Adam-ondi-Ahman is the site outside Eden where humanity spread over North America until a limited or global flood washed Noah out to sea where he landed in the Old World (kinda like a reverse Nephi).
3. Adam-ondi-Ahman is a name applied to places where Adam blesses his people and is not tied to any particular location on the earth (like the word Zion which can refer to both specific places and also to the location of the Lord’s people wherever they are). There may be multiple Adam-ondi-Ahmans, at least one in the Old World where Adam blessed his people before he died and one in the New World where Adam will bless his people again in a future day.
4. Adam-ondi-Ahman was named as an attempt at Old-Testamentizing the world view of the early Latter Day Saints: to make them feel as though they were directly taking part in the religious drama of the history of the world. In this view there really is nothing in the past to distinguish the area at all, but the arrival of God’s people gave the land new status and God gave it a new name and promise to reflect that.

My personal view is #4, but there may be better reasons to pick a different view. I view the creation story as a ritualized myth (although I should state categorically that I believe in Eve and Adam as real historical people): the landscape described in Genesis is an idealized view of the entire world known to the ancient Jews. The four main rives of Mesopotamia each flow out of Eden to represent that Eden was the center of the world, the source of humanity, life, and knowledge. As such, I am extremely cautious in approaching the Fall story as real history; I don’t know what happened to Eve and Adam but I know something did. Since early human civilization first arises in Mesopotamia, I suppose Adam and Eve lived near there, although I imagine it was dozens of thousands of years ago, rather than just 6,000 years ago, to give time for their posterity to cover the globe. As such, I view Adam-ondi-Ahman to be so named because it represents exactly what D&C 116 says it represents: an important site in some unknown future date where Adam will visit his people. I view the name as being given to the site in an attempt to involve the American Church in the events of the Old World and the Old Testament and to help them to feel that they are truly related to the events in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Just as these ancient people were God’s people, so too are the Latter Day Saints God’s people as well. The naming of the site as Adam-ondi-Ahman represents God’s involvement with his people both past, present, and future.

]]> http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/07/adam-ondi-ahman/feed/ 2 http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/carthage-jail/ http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/carthage-jail/#comments Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:00:44 +0000 NoCoolName_Tom http://blog.doggetto.com/?p=193

There were many factors that led to Joseph Smith’s martyrdom: polygamy, his running for President, the newly formed “Reform Church” operating in Nauvoo that was leading to a fracturing of social life, his public disdain for Missouri, and his leadership of the Nauvoo Legion (meaning that Joseph, as Mayor of Nauvoo, Leader of the Nauvoo Militia, and Leader of the Church was in charge of Nauvoo from a religious, political, and military perspective at the same time – that amount of power in a single person was troubling). However, the one factor that looms over them all is his decision, ratified by the Nauvoo City Council, to close the tabloidish paper: the Nauvoo Expositor (Note: Richard E. Bennett, BYU professor of Church history and doctrine disagrees; I like his post – a good focus on the scriptures. I need to do that more!).

On June 7, 1844, the one and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor was printed. As opposed to the general modern LDS explanations of the paper, the Nauvoo Expositor was not a paper full of lies, per se (I can, if anyone wants, go into the details of the paper, its claims, and the few outright fabrications that it does contain). It was a tabloid—a paper of yellow journalism. The editors’ stated purpose was not to destroy the Church or even for Joseph Smith’s death: they wanted a return to the Church of a few years ago before new doctrines (like polygamy) began to be preached privately and publicly, to put down the new “worldly” culture of dancing, parties, and “excesses” that had developed in Nauvoo, and they also wanted to break apart the immense power that Joseph held as both Mayor, Legion Commander, and Prophet by revoking the powerful Nauvoo Charter. The information it “exposed” was mostly accurate (apart from a claim by the wildly excessive Elias Higbee that Joseph was guilty of Murder!!!1!!11! and a few other equally outrageous claims), but the delivery and manner of the paper was scandalous and loud (it also contained some pretty poor poetry, which some people might consider to be a crime worthy of destruction, I suppose). The Nauvoo city council debated all through Friday, Saturday, and Monday and finally a decision was made that, allowable with the power granted by the Nauvoo Charter, the city was legally justified in forcibly closing the paper as a public nuisance. Joseph was possibly upset at sacred things being revealed, but I’d argue that he was probably more worried about what their public exposure would mean for the surrounding countryside which had grown increasingly anti-Mormon in recent months. The existence of the paper certainly threatened him personally, but its claims were likely to lead to violence upon Nauvoo.

The paper was closed while the owners were away and they returned to find that not only had their paper been closed, but the printing press had been broken and bent, the printed pages were burned, and the type had been dumped in the street while some of the editors had watched. Upset at the destruction of their property and what they saw as an infringement of the Federal Bill of Rights, they quickly called up Joseph Smith on the charge of instigating riot. A few days later, after being convinced by some of the frightened residents of Nauvoo to give themselves up to the mercy of the Illinois courts, Joseph and Hyrum rode to Carthage where they were incarcerated in the local jail awaiting a trial on Saturday, June 29.

As for whether or not Joseph knew he would be killed at Carthage the question is unanswerable. He was certainly frightened about his safety. Some of him closest friends and confidants later related that he said phrases that indicated his coming death. Perhaps the most famous of these was recorded by John Taylor who reported Joseph saying, upon leaving Nauvoo, “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME—HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.” (D&C 135:4, emphasis in original). However, some of Joseph’s actions and words while in prison seem to indicate a hopeful optimism. He wrote a letter to Emma (one of many from the jail) in which he said, “There was a little mutiny among the ‘Carthage Greys’; but I think the Gov. has & will succeed in enforcing the laws” (June 25, 1884). Joseph’s last letter was actually to an attorney, O.H. Browning of Quincy, Illinois (an acquaintance to the young Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln). Joseph asked him to come up to Carthage to represent him and Hyrum on Saturday the 29th (two days after the martyrdom); Joseph was certain that, with a good legal counsel, he and Hyrum could more than adequately show their innocence to the charge of treason. The mobs in Carthage accosted the letter carrier, thinking the letter to contain instructions to the Nauvoo Legion, but finally the letter came through. I have been unable to find if Mr. Browning ever gave any sort of response. [Edit: I have found his response---he arrived in Carthage and was the defense attorney for the anti-Mormon mob. Apparently he had represented Joseph before and this time represented his killers.]

Possibly because of this letter, it is sometimes claimed that Joseph wrote a letter to Jon Dunham, captain of the Nauvoo Legion, to come to Carthage to free him by force of arms. The story has floated around for a long time and the evidence seemingly appeared in the early 1980s when the letter Joseph wrote to Durham was found. However, the letter was later revealed to be one of the masterful forgeries by Mark Hoffman. To this day there is no evidence that Joseph ever gave orders to the militia apart from securing Nauvoo against possible mob action during Joseph’s absence.

As the hot afternoon of the 27th wore on, the men in the room sat around in a melancholic state. “A Poor Wayfaring man of Grief” was sung twice (the tune at this time was not the turn we currently have in our hymnbook, but was a lighter, happier tune; this account of Hyrum asking it to be sung again directly led to the 1985 hymnbook’s claim of “Favorite Song of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, a claim with little evidence). The jailer’s family offered the men some wine, which those gathered gratefully accepted. John Taylor later spoke of this: “Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing,; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us…. I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards. We all of us felt unusually dull and languid, with a remarkable depression of spirits.” (History of the Church, Vol. 7, page 101) I don’t want to mention this for the shock value (The Church at this period in history did not follow the Word of Wisdom as we do today; a living and changing Church remember!) but simply to try and paint in the picture of the mood in the room that afternoon.

(This next part is violent…) The attack upon the jail occurred soon thereafter around 5 pm; the jailer was absent and the guards were friends of the gathering mob. The attack began suddenly. In the confusion, Hyrum was struck in the face by a bullet through the door and went down. He was able to exclaim “I’m a dead man!” before another bullet was fired from the doorway that grazed his chest and struck his head though his throat. John Taylor ran to the window to assess the situation outside. From there he was struck in the leg and arm; he fell onto the windowsill, breaking his watch (later many would say that the watch had miraculously stopped a bullet, but analysis of the watch indicates that probably a spring in the watch burst out when Elder Taylor fell on the windowsill; either way, the watch stopped showing the time of the attack at 5:16 pm).

After firing a gun (smuggled to him earlier by some visiting friends) into the crowd in the hallway, Joseph ran to the window and started to appeal to any fellow Masons in the crowd by stating the Masonic distress call, “O Lord, my God, is there no help for the widow’s son?” However, he was struck before he could finish and fell out of the window after crying “O Lord, my God!” Many of the Apostles would speak out strongly against the Masons in the crowd who knew Joseph was pleading for their aid but continued to aid in the assassination. This call for distress is supposed to be answered with safety and quarter from any fellow Mason except where it would endanger their own life, as well (I hope I’m not saying too much; I’m not a Mason and I don’t know if this is supposed to be secret. I can edit this down if need be). John Taylor wrote a few weeks later in the Times and Seasons that he felt that fellow Masons should rise up for justice:


“Every good man will do it when he remembers, that these two innocent men were confined in jail for a supposed crime, deprived of any weapons to defend themselves: had the pledged faith of the State of Illinois, by Gov. Ford, for their protection, and were then shot to death, while, with uplifted hands they gave such signs of distress as would have commanded the interposition and benevolence of Savages or Pagans. They were both Masons in good standing. Ye brethren of ‘the mystic tie’ what think ye! Where is our good master Joseph and Hyrum? Is there a pagan, heathen, or savage nation on the globe that would not be moved on this great occasion, as the trees of the forest by a mighty wind? Joseph’s last exclamation was ‘O Lord my God’…
Me-thinks I see a ‘union of all honest men’, aside from religion, stand forth to magnify the law, who will never rest till justice and judgement have made the offenders, abettors and accesories, whether apostates, officers, or mere men, atone for the innocent blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith” (Times and Seasons, vol. 5 no. 13 [July 15, 1844], p. 584-585).

I know this point is still contentious as we are arguing about what a person was intending to do right before they died, but the best interpreters of Joseph’s actions are probably those who were closest to him at the time, and many of his friends and brethren felt that Joseph was not simply offering a prayer but was pleading for assistance. Personally, I don’t think this makes Joseph any less of a martyr as some will argue.

Joseph probably died as he hit the ground outside. A later fanciful account would talk of a firing squad that ended his life as he was pulling himself up to a sitting position at the base of the wall, but other aspects of that account make it highly suspect: supposedly after the squad was finished a man rushed up with a knife to mutilate the Prophet. This man was then struck by a blinding light, seen by all the mob, that froze them all in place. The light disappeared and the mob was freed and everyone fled from the scene.

A usually unknown aspect of the Carthage attack was that Samuel Smith, brother to Joseph and Hyrum, was racing on horseback from Nauvoo to Carthage to help Joseph and get advice for the city. In approaching Carthage he was spotted by the mob and was chased away. (It is possible that he was assumed to be a scout for the Nauvoo Legion by many in the mob, leading the mob to quickly disperse with cries of “The Mormons are coming!”) Returning to the jail much later, Samuel helped with the recovery of the injured and the slain who had been moved to the nearby home of a Mr. Hamilton. Samuel made it safely back to Nauvoo and later attended the viewing of his brothers. A few weeks afterward he complained of an ache in his side that he had received after racing from the mob and went to his bed to lay down. He died a few days later; his mother attributes his death to shock from the mob, the chase, and seeing his brothers dead. Samuel is often called the Third Martyr and was listed as such in a later issue of the Times and Seasons. Samuel was expected by some to be called as the Patriarch of the Church soon in Hyrum’s place and many members of the Church had heard Joseph publicly state that either Hyrum or Samuel would lead the Church after Joseph’s death. The death of all three Smith brothers paved the way for the confusing and depressing summer of the “Succession Crisis” of 1844.

]]> http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/carthage-jail/feed/ 0 http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/kirtland-ohio/ http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/kirtland-ohio/#comments Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:00:53 +0000 NoCoolName_Tom http://blog.doggetto.com/?p=167 Kirtland, Ohio

As for the Kirtland Temple, it’s likely that those who tour the building will receive a lot of historical information. The building is owned by our cousins, the Community of Christ, and they usually run their tours in a historical fashion, as opposed to the Mormon sites which are almost always part of the Mission and staffed by missionaries. While the LDS missionaries are encouraged to study the history of the sites they service they are also expected to stay “on script” at most sites; the RLDS sites are usually staffed by historians or history students and, as such, you’ll probably get a different tour each time you go.

One persistent likely Mormon myth about the Kirtland Temple is that the Saints sacrificed their fine chine for the stucco in the walls. There are a few problems with this. The current wall coatings are reconstructed. The building has seen a LOT of abuse through its lifetime before the RLDS received it from a lawsuit (and after they received it they had many financial troubles in attempting to restore it). There are pieces of the original stucco produced by Artemus Millet that still exist and, while they do contain glass, there does not appear to be any fine glassware or china in it. There was a glassware factory nearby Kirtland; the glass in the mix is probably glassware that had already broken or had been bought from the glassware factory – trash. The Church was very poor at this time (it has been estimated that the Kirtland Temple is the most expensive Temple that the Church ever built compared to their financial power at the time of construction), so it’s not surprising that they would use cheaper glass if the same end result could be attained.

The ritual ceremonies revealed for the Kirtland Temple included ritual washings and anointing with oils and spices. The rituals were, at this time, for men only and took many hours; but apart from the ritual endowments, the Temple was usually used as a meetinghouse (the Church actually never built chapels until they arrived in Utah and usually met for Sunday meeting in members’ homes, outside, or in temples once they were completed enough for people to sit in the assembly halls).

During the end of the Kirtland apostasy many apostates attempted to take over the Kirtland Temple once during services leading to a confusing and tense situation where the Church authorities occupied one set of pulpits while the apostates occupied the other set and both attempted to speak over the other while the apostates threatened anyone who left or moved on them with physical violence.

Hiram, Ohio

To the south is the Johnson Farm in Kirtland Ohio. The Johnson parents were converted through a miraculous healing of Sister Johnson by Joseph Smith and invited the Smith family to lodge with them. It was also here that some [probably only one] of the Johnson sons participated in the midnight attack on Joseph Smith in early 1832. They barred the door to the Johnsons’ room and dragged Joseph outside into the stormy evening and a waiting mob. The drunken crowd beat, choked, and even threatened Joseph with castration but finally left him mostly naked, covered with tar and feathers in a nearby field. When he arrived home Emma, not being able to distinguish the tar and feathers from bloodied flesh in the dim lamplight, fainted. The Johnsons (after breaking through their door [scaring away the person holding their door]) helped Emma to clean up Joseph through the night. The next morning, Sunday, Joseph arose and preached a sermon from the front porch of the Johnson home (he was lucky the sermon was not expected further away as he only had to travel a few yards from inside the house to the porch). He preached and said nothing of the attack, and several of the mobbers [those] who were listening in the crowd later joined the Church.

It is also at the Johnson home that much of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible was received.

]]> http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/kirtland-ohio/feed/ 5 http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/little-myths/ http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/little-myths/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:00:31 +0000 NoCoolName_Tom http://blog.doggetto.com/?p=169

Yes, I spelled the title correctly. These are common myths about the Latter Day Saint movement, a religious movement that contains The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (note the hyphenation; also commonly called the Mormons), the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and many others. Of course, to be completely honest, this is mostly about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and the Community of Christ (CoC), formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their common (and separate) history.

The Kirtland Temple exterior was constructed using the sacrifice of fine china and hair of the impoverished Sisters of the Church. There is evidence of glass and hair in the original stucco exterior, but it appears to be regular glass and horse hair.

The freezing of the Mississippi River in 1846 for the LDS exodus was miraculous. Not really – the river often freezes over this far north.

The Community of Christ membership is falling. This is both true and false. Membership in the United States is falling, but worldwide membership rates are doing well. Although it isn’t discussed much, the exact same situation applies to the LDS Church.

The Community of Christ gave women the Priesthood due to a lack of male leadership among their General Authorities / because they ran out of Smith descendants. Not true, but is related to the above myth. The priesthood was given by a revelation to the Church President. The current Church President is not a descendant of Joseph Smith, but the pattern was broken by revelation. The last Smith President is actually still alive, holding the office of Emeritus President of the Church. (There’s also a bizarre myth floating around that the reason for the change was that when the Church ran out of Smiths [untrue, remember] they looked at the genealogies and Spencer W. Kimball [or some other LDS prophet] was the actual Prophet by right of the RLDS Church. If you remember that none of Joseph Smith’s children ever joined with the LDS branch the absurdity of this story should be obvious. Our Church is full of Hyrum’s descendants.)

The LDS Church aided the CoC/RLDS Church at some recent point financially Always untrue. The relationship between our Churches hasn’t always been very pleasant (in some ways the RLDS Church began in opposition to the polygamy of the LDS Church); it’s only been in the last few generations that we’ve gotten along much. There apparently was some land that was swapped to help the CoC in the construction of their Temple in Independence, but the CoC has never received from or given financial assistance to the LDS Church. In fact, the CoC is rather financially secure and, after learning a bitter lesson about the dangers of debt in the construction of their Auditorium during the Depression, they never start any project unless they have all of the funds needed and never build on credit. The Independence Temple was already paid for before it was even built.

You can read many more myths about the relationship between the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here and here.

]]> http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/little-myths/feed/ 0 http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/colesville-and-palmyra/ http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/colesville-and-palmyra/#comments Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:00:47 +0000 NoCoolName_Tom http://blog.doggetto.com/?p=174

I’m not sure about doing both of these sites in the same day, but Joseph (and I think Emma) made this trip a few times in the first few years of their marriage. Palmyra was a small town that benefited slightly from the construction of the Erie Canal and is the township where Joseph grew up from a young boy to a young man. He hobbled into Palmyra a little crippled boy still recovering from an intensive leg surgery and finally left as the leader of the Lord’s Restored Church.

It is uncertain whether or not the Smith Family lived in Palmyra or Manchester – if you look at the map in the Church new triples you’ll see that their property is right on the dividing line between the two townships – this is part of what leads to some confusion when Joseph references the town in his later recollections. There are many other uncertainties in studying Palmyra Church history.

While revival and camp meeting were common in the area a few years before 1820, there are no local references to them in the year 1820. This has led some historians, both faithful and otherwise, to suppose that Joseph Smith may have misremembered the exact year that his First Vision occurred, and that the First Vision possibly occurred earlier in 1818 or later in 1823 or 1824–right before the first visitation by the angel Moroni. Former BYU Historian D. Michael Quinn however has recently published a large study of the surrounding religious countryside in 1820 and has found good evidence that camp meetings, unmentioned by local newspapers and journals, occurred in the area in the late spring of 1820. Quinn has looked at the evidence (the local papers were not very good at reporting all sorts of local news, even missing a prominent death that occurred in Palmyra in 1820) and has come to a rather good argument that we can likely place the First Vision in the later weeks of June, 1820 (meaning that Joseph, writing later in warmer Missouri, remembered the warm weather when he went out and incorrectly deduced that the vision occurred in the “early” spring).

The other interesting and uncertain question has been “where is the Sacred Grove”? There’s not really any documentary evidence to show where it was located. The current site that is designated is a site that sits on the old Smith property and was never fully cleared for farming. Quinn speculates that possibly the land that the First Vision occurred in was forested at the time but was cut down as the Smith family expanded their farmland later, meaning it would currently be closer to the Smith Farmstead than the current site.

Also an interesting little tidbit about the Hill Cumorah and the Book of Mormon. In an interview with David Whitmer (one of the three witnesses; he never rejoined the Church) by the Chicago Times (August 1875), the paper gave this summary:

“David Whitmer was married in Seneca County, New York, in 1830, and was for a number of years an elder in the Church of Christ. Today he is the proprietor of a livery stable in Richmond, Missouri, owns some real estate, has a handsome balance in the bank, is universally respected by all who know him, and surrounded by children and grandchildren, is pleasantly gliding toward the gates of sunset, confident that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was also the God of Nephi, whose faithful disciple he has been and is… Three times he has been at the Hill Cumorah and seen the casket that contained the tablets and seerstone. Eventually the casket has been washed down to the foot of the hill, but it was to be seen when he last visited the historic place.”

]]> http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/colesville-and-palmyra/feed/ 0 http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/sharon-vermont/ http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/sharon-vermont/#comments Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:00:09 +0000 NoCoolName_Tom http://blog.doggetto.com/?p=165

The obelisk stands 38 1/2 feet high – one foot for every year of Joseph’s life. It is difficult to understand why a Church that had only recently found financial independence and was struggling to assimilate into American life and culture would go to the expense of building a monument in such an out-of-the-way place

The monument was built in 1905 for the centennial of Joseph’s birth – the early 20th century was a particularly turbulent time in Church history. Polygamy had been officially removed fifteen years earlier through President Woodruff’s Manifesto, but polygamous marriages had continued to be performed by both Church members and leaders. In 1904, after Apostle Reed Smoot (and the entire Church by extension) had come under heavy fire in Washington D.C. about whether or not he should be seated as one of Utah’s elected senators, President Joseph F Smith had been forced to publicly reiterate the end of polygamous marriages by issuing the “Second Manifesto” and by removing two of his close friends from the Quorum of the Twelve. The country and Church members had defined the Church as a polygamous organization for so many generations that it was difficult for Church culture to know what to hold onto as a defining characteristic. However, in 1905 (and in a process that had begun years before, probably ever since 1890) as the Church celebrated the centennial of Joseph Smith’s birth, Mormon scholar Kathleen Flake explains, “In the First Vision, Joseph F. Smith had found a marker of Latter-day Saint identity whose pedigree was as great as—and would be made greater than—that of plural marriage for the twentieth-century Latter-day Saint” (Kathleen Flake, The Politics of Religious Identity, 118). Joseph Smith had always been a part of the Mormon story but now his calling as a prophet and his place in the Church filled the void left behind by polygamy (later enforcement of the Word of Wisdom would also step in as another defining characteristic). Flake explains:

“The effort to celebrate the legacy of Joseph Smith was meant to signal that the movement he founded had both the intentions and the resources necessary to carry on and to do so on a grand scale.
“Of course, this message was intended for those critics who declared that ‘the Smoot case will abolish Mormonism without war.’ Yet the outside world was not Joseph F. Smith’s only audience. The monument to Joseph Smith also sent a message to the believing but demoralized Latter-day Saints. It was serendipitous that the centennial of Joseph Smith’s birth occurred when the faithful needed something to celebrate — particularly to celebrate Joseph Smith as first in a succession of modern prophets. That Joseph F. Smith seized this occasion is remarkable for two reasons. First, the church was generally defensive about accusations that it worshiped Joseph Smith, not Jesus Christ, and celebration of Joseph Smith’s birth could support such charges. This may have been a contributing factor to the monument’s design, which was not of Smith’s face or form, but an obelisk. Second, for its first celebration of Joseph Smith outside the Mormon culture region, the church chose an occasion unrestrained by any theological or ecclesiastical associations except those the dedication party would bring with them. Memorialization of a birth is, after all, the blankest of slates upon which to write retrospective meanings. The monument erected in Vermont was susceptible to embodying not only the nature and permanence of the Latter-day Saints’ claims about their founding prophet, but their claims about the nature and permanence of their church. These claims were both inclusive and exclusive. The dedication ceremony celebrated the Latter-day Saints’ identity with, as well as their difference from, their host nation?” (Flake, 112).

(This post was written from (read: stealing) a post by Greg Call at Times and Seasons.)

]]> http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/sharon-vermont/feed/ 0 http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/my-revised-primary-lesson/ http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/my-revised-primary-lesson/#comments Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:00:35 +0000 NoCoolName_Tom http://blog.doggetto.com/?p=18

I teach the 10-11-year-olds in my ward primary. This year’s course of study is the D&C and Church History. After reading a lot about Church History and Joseph Smith (including in the completely awesome biography, Rough Stone Rolling) I was worried before starting as to how I would be teaching the course.  Thankfully the lesson manual is written with a surprising amount of carefully chosen wording and nuance.  If you are a member who doesn’t know many details about Church History you really won’t  find anything in the manual troubling, and if you know a lot about Church History you’ll find that the lessons are carefully worded to consciously flow around controversial subjects.

In teaching I’ve never really had much problem with the lessons.  Until now. This weeks lesson is called “Joseph Smith Translates the Bible and Other Scriptures”. It is about the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and about the origin of the Books of Moses and of Abraham.  If you’ve read much of the modern LDS scholarship on these scriptures you’ll be familiar with how LDS scholars approach these texts: they are treated extremely cautiously, even though not even three decades ago there wasn’t much caution at all.  Let me illustrate with an example about another Mormon cultural belief.

Nowadays many members of the Church are quite comfortable with treating the Book of Mormon claims of the ancestry of the Native Americans differently than a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago, popular Mormon thought felt that all Native Americans (and even most, if not all, Polynesians) were direct descendants of the Book of Mormon civilizations. Twenty years ago, popular Mormon thought felt that at least the fair majority of these people came from Nephite and Lamanites lineage (although that left the room open for other people not mentioned in the Book). Nowadays even the Introduction of the Book of Mormon itself has been officially changed to describe the descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples are merely “among” the Native Americans.  Most Mormons today who are familiar with these changes are comfortable with the idea that Native Americans are a people of Asiatic descent.



JOHN JOHNSON HOME
Section 76 and much of the Bible Translation were received here by Joseph Smith in this room on the second floor.

In a similar fashion, feelings are changing among LDS scholars regarding the Joseph Smith Translation (including the Book of Moses) and the Book of Abraham. No longer is the JST seen are the “fixing” of errors of the Bible and the restoration of the English text to a “pristine” original  (it is even doubtful whether a single “original” existed for many of the Biblical books). Instead, the JST is seen as a sort of inspired midrash upon the Bible – a commentary and expansion. As I say in my notes below, perhaps the best way to view the JST is not as a static restoration of those lost pieces of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:26), but instead it is Joseph Smith as a Prophet guiding us through the Biblical text, pointing out interesting things both old and new, smoothing out the confusing things that are said, and ultimately transforming the Bible, a book that was not written for our days (unlike the rest of the Standard Works) into our very own “Restoration” Bible. The JST doesn’t “restore” as much as it is “restorational”.

And that’s not even touching on the not-so-simple history that lies behind the origins of the Book of Abraham (which became ever-so-much-more complicated in 1966 when some, though not all, of the original papyrus the Church bought in 1835 was rediscovered).

The lesson I am expected to teach, however, approaches these two revelations from the older perspective: these are texts that are, quite simply, direct translations and restorations from the Bible and the Egyptian papyri purchased from Michael Chandler in 1835. The JST’s purpose is to fix the errors in translation.

As a side note: isn’t it interesting that the history of the Bible for modern Mormons has always seemed to center on the transmission line of the texts that led to the English King James Version? I mean, it’s not like other modern translations are somehow dependent upon the KJV and share in the errors that the KJV experienced through its translation! Modern translations are based on the oldest available manuscripts and are the best translations available today.  I wonder how other languages, like Spanish, approach this lesson?  “Yes, the English Bible was corrupted through centuries of copying and countless translations during the Middle Ages.  However, the Bible that we use has been translated from ancient pre-Medieval manuscripts directly into Spanish.  So, um, the JST  fixes errors that are in an obsolete English Bible.  But it’s still useful for us to study!”  The whole argument starts to break down rather quickly and automatically brings up the question (to me at least):  If the KJV is full of errors as a result of it’s translational ancestry why don’t we just use a better English translation?  Sometimes you will hear the explanation that “The KJV is the most accurate translation in terms of doctrine” to explain why we do not use the modern translations, but that seems to stand in opposition to our explanation of the long trail of errors that lies behind the English KJV’s translation!  We use the KJV because it’s the most correct for doctrine, but actually the KJV isn’t correct for doctrine at all because it’s full of doctrinal errors (thus the JST)!  It’s not really circular reasoning, but it’s close!

So, anyways, I had long resolved, when first called, that I would never approach any subject in class that I felt to be false doctrine (or, at least, probably false doctrine). That usually means that I avoid telling them folk doctrines they’ll probably hear elsewhere, but it also means that, when applicable, I will give them those aspects of history that are fairly certain (we’re already brought up that the translation of the golden plates involved the use of a seer stone in a hat. I also avoided telling them that our Church’s organization is the same as the Primitive Church [because it isn't] but instead focused on how both Churches are led by revelation and how both Churches have the Priesthood authority necessary to operate). I figure that if somebody has a problem with it they can always release me, but I will have a clean conscience of preparing these kids for growing up in the Information Age of Google.

And so, without further ado, the following is my personal re-wording of the lesson I will be teaching:

---

Joseph Smith Translates the Bible and Other Scriptures

Purpose

To help the children understand Joseph Smith’s role in bringing forth the scriptures and to encourage them to study the scriptures.

Preparation

1. Prayerfully study the historical accounts given in this lesson; Doctrine and Covenants 26:1, 45:60–61; Articles of Faith 1:8; and the headings to the book of Moses and the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Then study the lesson and decide how you want to teach the children the scriptural and historical accounts. (See “Preparing Your Lessons,” pp. vi–vii, and “Teaching the Scriptural and Historical Accounts,” pp. vii–ix.)
2. Additional reading: Joseph Smith—History 1:9, 12–13, 17–19, 36–39; 1 Nephi 13:26; and the introductory note to the Pearl of Great Price.
3. Select the discussion questions and enrichment activities that will involve the children and best help them achieve the purpose of the lesson.
4. Prepare a two- or three-sentence message similar to the following for the attention activity (if you have a small class, make the message longer and include more detail):
   • A brother and sister were skipping down the street. The brother chased after a butterfly and fell down. His sister helped him up and they ran home.
5. Obtain a copy of a book or story the children have likely read that has a movie, play, or painting that the children are likely familiar with.
   • Examples would include: A Harry Potter book along with a DVD of one of the film versions; The Chronicles of Narnia along with a DVD of one of the film versions; Or the scriptures along with a painting of a particular scriptural account. The new activity is explained below.
6. Materials needed:
   • A set of scriptures (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) for each child.

Suggested Lesson Development

Invite a child to give the opening prayer.

Attention Activity

Have the children stand in a line. Whisper the two- or three-sentence message into the ear of the first child in line. Have each child in turn whisper the message to the next child. Instruct each child to say the message only once. Continue until the message reaches the last child in line. Ask the last child to repeat the message aloud. Compare the message the last child received with the original message to see how the message changed.


• How had the message changed by the time it reached the end of the line? What was left out? What was added?
• Why do you think the message changed as it passed from person to person?

Explain to the children that just as their message changed as it was passed from person to person, over many years some of the scriptures in the Bible had been changed as people translated the Bible and made copies of it by hand. Mistakes were made: some incorrect teachings had been added to the Bible, and some important teachings had been left out. The Lord commanded Joseph Smith to prepare a translation of the Bible that would restore the correct teachings (see Articles of Faith 1:8).

Bring out a copy of a book or story that the children are familiar with.  Ask them to summarize the main points of the plot.  Bring out a movie or painting, or refer to a similar adaptation,  of the book or story that the children are also familiar with.  Ask them to summarize the main points of the adaptation.  Then discuss the following questions:


• What differences are there between these two stories?  Why are there differences?  Don’t they tell the same story?
• What details do you remember are addressed in only one of the stories?  Why are these details not in the other story?
• Which story do you feel is more strongly addressed to you individually?

Explain that the Bible is scripture written thousands of years ago by prophets and apostles.  It contains the word of God for people before Christ’s first coming and to the people of His Church in ancient days.  Unlike the Book of Mormon, which was an ancient book written for our day, and the Doctrine and Covenants, which is modern scripture for us as well, the Bible was a book that taught the fullness of the gospel to the Lord’s children in ancient times.  However, thousands of years have passed since the Bible was first assembled.  In that time a few verses and doctrines had been lost and many verses and doctrine were added both by accident and on purpose by people not authorized by God to do so.  The Lord told Joseph to begin a translation of the Bible.  Explain that another word for what Joseph was to do is reinterpretation: as a Prophet of God Joseph was authorized by the Lord to take the ancient Bible and receive revelations to fix some of the errors (see Articles of Faith 1:8) and transform the Bible into scripture for the Lord’s latter-day Church.

The biblical account shows much evidence of tampering, but the evidence points to a tampering by means of editing – merging and addition, rather than deletion – whatever the “plain and precious” parts are that Nephi describes as missing they appear to be absent in toto, probably as entire books and epistles that were simply prevented from ever being part of the Hebrew Bible or the Christian New Testament.  Also there is the idea addressed in the game of a single perfect source that is corrupted down a single chain of transmission.  Unlike the Book of Mormon, which comes from a single set of ancient plates, it is far more likely that there were multiple original sources (no printing presses in the ancient world, remember) from the original authors that each contains some differences.  If John thought enough of his Gospel that he wished the whole world to read it (which he most assuredly would have) then once one copy was finished he would send it out to one part of the Church and immediately begin on the arduous task of creating another copy; perhaps while composing the next copy a particular important detail that was lacking in earlier copies would come to mind and be added to–or a small error would be noticed and fixed in–the new copy that would be sent out to another part of the Church.  There probably isn’t an original source for most of the biblical scriptures.  Comparisons of the JST to the best biblical criticisms shows that the changes introduced by the JST are usually not evident in the underlying text and in a few instances are alterations that would require large changes to the underlying grammar to reproduce.  Thus, the whole “telephone” game addresses a non-issue that is very misleading.  As will be discussed below, the Joseph Smith Translation should not be thought of as primarily  a restoration of an ancient text, but rather as a reinterpretation to “Mormonize” the Bible for the Saints in our day.

Scriptural and Historical Accounts

Teach the children about Joseph Smith’s role in bringing forth the inspired translation of the Bible and other scriptures, as discussed in the following historical accounts and in the scriptures listed in the “Preparation” section (see enrichment activity 1).

Joseph Smith Is Commanded to Translate the Bible

While translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith learned that over the years many “plain and most precious” parts of the Bible had been taken away or lost (see 1 Nephi 13:26). The Bible is a sacred book that contains the word of God, but some mistakes were made as it was copied and translated into different languages long ago; some words were left out, and many were changed, or and added, changing the meaning of some of the scriptures. During the apostasy following Jesus Christ’s death, there were no living prophets or apostles to make sure the scriptures were copied and translated correctly to receive revelations for the people and explain the ancient scriptures. Joseph Smith was instructed to prepare a new translation of read the Bible that would restore and correct these plain and precious parts and, as a Prophet, reveal new information, restore some ancient scripture and ancient doctrines, and reinterpret the ancient Bible for the Lord’s Latter-day Church.

Again, it is not a good idea to give the impression that the JST somehow returns the Bible to a “pristine” state; it probably does not.

Shortly after the translation of the Book of Mormon was completed and the Church was organized, Joseph Smith received a revelation commanding him to study the Bible (see D&C 26:1). As he was studying the book of Genesis, Joseph had many questions, and he prayerfully asked Heavenly Father to help him understand the Bible. In answer to his prayer the Lord revealed important information about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the creation of the earth. This information is published in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. (Have the children look at the heading to the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price; have them also look at the heading to Genesis in the Bible and note that it is also called “The First Book of Moses.”)

In 1830 Joseph Smith began working on a correct an inspired “translation” or interpretation of the Bible. Sidney Rigdon was his scribe. In preparing this “translation“ of the Bible, Joseph was not translating from an ancient language, as he did with the Book of Mormon, but was restoring the Bible to its original meaning instead receiving divine revelation about the Biblical text for the members of the Church. As Joseph studied and pondered the Bible, he was inspired through the power of the Holy Ghost to correct errors in it expand upon it and resolve confusion about its doctrines.

Once again, the JST is not so much a “correction” or a “translation” but is, instead, an inspired midrash upon the English text of the Bible.  It does correct some errors, but these are probably errors that were first written that way by the original authors who wrote from a limited perspective (e.g., the Deuteronomistic school that assembled the books of Samuel and Kings probably didn’t see God “repenting” as a theological problem and so wrote that He occasionally did, but the JST brings their original text up-to-date with a more correct understanding of the actions and intentions of God).

As Joseph Smith worked on his inspired translation of the Bible, his knowledge of the gospel grew, and he was blessed by the Holy Ghost. Many revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants are answers to questions about statements in the Bible that Joseph did not understand.

Joseph Smith Translates Other Scriptures

Some of the information revealed to Joseph Smith while he was studying the Bible is published in the Pearl of Great Price as the book of Moses. Also published in the Pearl of Great Price is the book of Abraham, Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of some ancient Egyptian writings.

In the late 1820s an Italian explorer named Antonio Lebolo obtained eleven mummies from an ancient tomb in Egypt. When Lebolo died the mummies were shipped to the United States. A man named Michael Chandler came into possession of the mummies in 1833. He opened the coffins (the boxes the mummies were in) and was disappointed not to find jewels or valuable treasures. Attached to some of the bodies of the mummies were linen cloths containing rolls of papyrus, a type of paper made from plants. These papyrus rolls had Egyptian writing on them. Mr. Chandler took the rolls to Pennsylvania, where he tried to find some educated men to tell him about the writings, but even the most educated of these men were only able to understand a little of the writings at this point in history archaeologists and historians had not yet discovered how to translate Egyptian writing.

Mr. Chandler decided to travel around the country showing people the mummies, and in the summer of 1835 he came to Kirtland, Ohio. There he met with Joseph Smith, who told him that the writings could be interpreted. Later some friends of the Prophet bought four mummies and the rolls of papyrus from Mr. Chandler. Joseph Smith studied the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language, and then, with the help of the Holy Ghost, he translated the writings on the papyrus rolls, and then, with the help of the Holy Ghost, he received by revelation an ancient record written by the ancient prophet Abraham. The writings Joseph Smith translated tell about the ancient prophet Abraham and are This revelation is now published as the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.

It is a little disturbing to see the phrase “Joseph Smith studied the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language” in this synopsis since it betrays that the author is familiar with the Kirtland Egyptian Grammar – a diary or book of sorts that attempts to interpret the meaning of the heiratic symbols on the papyri that was probably undertaken by the School of the Prophets in Kirtland.  This grammar bears little relationship to the Book of Abraham but bears no relationship to a correct understanding of Egyptian.  The subject of the translation of the Book of Abraham is a subject that is still very complicated, murky, and full of pitfalls.  The original text of this lesson makes a straight-out claim that is difficult to defend in the face of modern Mormon and non-Mormon scholarship on the surviving peices of the papyri, popularly called the Joseph Smith Papyri.  It is unknown whether scrolls that contained the Book of Abraham were lost in the Chicago fire or whether the text was not even on the scrolls to begin with, but it is safer to simply reword the lesson as I have indicated above.

Discussion and Application Questions

Study the following questions and the scripture references as you prepare your lesson. Use the questions you feel will best help the children understand the scriptures and apply the principles in their lives. Reading and discussing the scriptures with the children in class will help them gain personal insights.

• How did Joseph Smith know there were mistakes in the Bible? How did these mistakes occur? How did Joseph correct these mistakes?
• Who was the Bible written for? How old is the Bible?  Does it have some mistakes in it? Who is the Joseph Smith Translation for? The emphasis is, yet again, on the “correcting” aspect of the JST.  Instead it should be on the “transforming” aspect of the JST.  It turns the ancient into the modern.
• What was Joseph Smith commanded to do in Doctrine and Covenants 26:1? How did studying the scriptures help prepare Joseph to translate? How was he blessed as he studied the scriptures?
• Why should we study the scriptures? What happens to our understanding of the gospel as we study the scriptures? Who can help us understand the scriptures? How does studying the scriptures bring us closer to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ?
• What did Joseph Smith do before he began to translate the writings on the papyrus rolls? Why did he study the Egyptian language? Why could Joseph translate the writings on the papyrus while men with more education could not?
• What is the name of the record Joseph received while studying the papyrus rolls?  Who is this record about? I would not focus on the comparisons between the translations of the “men with education” vs. Joseph.  This is setting up a slightly disturbing tension between the “intellectual” and the “spiritual”.  The question is, however, tempered with the emphasis on Joseph’s studying the papyrus, but altogether it seems to be setting the children up to counter the eventual things they will hear about the Book of Abraham with a total rejection of any educated but contrary opinion.  Instead we should focus less on how we got the Book of Abraham and more on the incredible blessing of having it.
• What scriptures do we have today that the Prophet Joseph Smith helped bring forth or translate? (All the standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.) Review with the children Joseph Smith’s role in preparing each of these books for our use.
• How can you and your family study the scriptures? (See enrichment activities 4 and 5.) How have the scriptures been a blessing to you and your family?

Enrichment Activities

You may use one or more of the following activities any time during the lesson or as a review, summary, or challenge.

1. Prepare a simple scroll to be used throughout the lesson. Write the following sentences on a long piece of paper (or several pieces of paper taped together), leaving enough space between sentences that they can be shown one at a time:
   • Tape or secure each end of the paper to a wooden stick such as a dowel, pencil, or ruler, or to a cardboard tube such as the one from the center of a roll of paper towels. Roll the paper up on one of the sticks or tubes so that only the first sentence shows.
   • Show the children the scroll and explain that ancient writings were often kept on scrolls. Roll the paper from one stick or tube to the other as you teach the lesson, revealing each sentence as you discuss the appropriate information.
     • The Bible is a sacred book that contains the word of God.
     • People made mistakes as they copied and translated the Bible.
     • Joseph Smith was commanded to correct the errors in the Bible.
     • The Bible is a book for God’s children thousands of years ago.
     • Through thousands of years the Bible has picked up some errors and uninspired additions.
     • Joseph Smith was commanded to study and receive revelations about the Bible for our day. Again the distinction that the JST simply doesn’t “restore” the Bible, but instead transforms the Bible into more “Restoration” scripture.
     • As Joseph studied the scriptures, his understanding of the gospel grew.
     • Papyrus scrolls were found with some mummies in an Egyptian tomb.
     • Joseph Smith translated the writings on the scrolls.
     • Joseph Smith received ancient scriptures through revelation after studying the scrolls. Again, this is a much more conservative way to describe the origins of the Book of Abraham.  It should be nuanced enough to make everyone happy.
     • As we study the scriptures, we will learn about Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and the gospel.
2. Explain that while we do not use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible as a separate book of scripture, parts of it are included in other Latter-day Saint scriptures. Help the children locate the places in the scriptures where portions of the Joseph Smith Translation are found: Joseph Smith—Matthew in the Pearl of Great Price, the JST footnotes throughout the Bible, and the section following the Bible Dictionary.
   Compare some verses of the Joseph Smith Translation with the original verses in the Bible. Ask one child to read the verse from the Bible and another to read the verse from the Joseph Smith Translation. Discuss how the Joseph Smith Translation makes the verses clearer and easier to understand.  Examples include Exodus 32:14, 1 Samuel 16:14, and John 1:18.
   In many ways, reading the Joseph Smith Translation is like reading the Bible with Joseph Smith sitting next to you to explain and expand upon what you are reading.  Discuss the incredible blessing of having this information available to us in our study of the scriptures. Ever since I heard this description of the Joseph Smith Translation I have never been able to forget it.  If there is a single phrase that seems to perfectly express what the JST is this would be it:  the JST is reading the scriptures with a Prophet of God right there with you to help guide you as you go through the text.
3. Review Joseph Smith—History 1:11–14 with the children and point out that Joseph Smith received his first vision after his study of the Bible prompted him to seek wisdom from God. Discuss the importance of studying the scriptures and praying to ask for blessings and inspiration from Heavenly Father.
4. List the subjects below on the chalkboard, and write each of the scriptural references on a separate piece of paper:
   1. Explain to the children that we can find counsel about specific subjects as we study the scriptures. Have each child choose a paper, locate the scripture reference, and read the scripture to the class. Have the class match the scripture with its subject from the list on the chalkboard.
   2. Help the children locate the Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, and Index in their scriptures, and explain how they can use these sections to study what the scriptures say about specific subjects.

   • Courage	Deuteronomy 31:6
     Missionary work	Doctrine and Covenants 112:28
     Forgiveness	Matthew 6:14–15
     Love	John 13:34
     Heavenly Father’s love	John 3:16
     The Sabbath day	Moses 3:3
     Obedience	Doctrine and Covenants 130:21
     Prayer	3 Nephi 18:21
     Baptism	Doctrine and Covenants 20:72–74

5. Ask the children to suggest different ways they can study the scriptures. List their ideas on the chalkboard.
   Possible suggestions:
   • You may want to have the children choose and write down one way they will study the scriptures during the coming week.
   • Set a goal to read one or more verses of scripture each day.
   • Read the scriptures aloud with your family.
   • Read scripture stories in the Friend magazine.
   • Read from the Old Testament Stories (31118), New Testament Stories (31119), Book of Mormon Reader (31117), Doctrine and Covenants Stories (31122), and Scripture Stories (31120) books.
   • After hearing a scripture story in a talk at church, find the story in your scriptures at home and read it.
   • Following each Primary lesson, read the “Suggested Home Reading” to review the lesson.
   • Share something from your scripture reading with your family in family home evening.
6. Help the children memorize the eighth article of faith. Discuss with the children some possible reasons why we believe the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly.”
7. Sing or say the words to “Search, Ponder, and Pray” (Children’s Songbook, p. 109).

Conclusion

Testimony

Express your testimony of and gratitude for the scriptures. Share a personal experience when the scriptures have been especially meaningful to you.

Suggested Home Reading

Suggest that the children study the second half of the introductory note to the Pearl of Great Price, which explains the contents of the Pearl of Great Price, at home as a review of this lesson.

Suggested Family Sharing

Encourage the children to share with their families a specific part of the lesson, such as a story, question, or activity, or to read with their families the “Suggested Home Reading.”

Invite a child to give the closing prayer.

]]> http://blog.doggetto.com/2009/06/my-revised-primary-lesson/feed/ 2