How Wide Is The Divide?

Today in high priest group we discussed Elder Holland’s talk to the last General Conference entitled, “My Words Never Cease.”  In it he discusses the doctrine and scripture underlying the principle of continuing revelation and the concept of new scripture that adds to what we already have in the Bible.  During the discussion I became aware of two forces or ideas that were being expressed.  One is that we must teach the true gospel of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it does not offend anyone.  The other is that we must preach the truth even if some are offended because truth always offends some.

Which is it?  Must we preach truth even if some are going to be offended?  Or should we carefully avoid bringing up doctrinal differences with other faiths who might be offended in the interests of being accepted as mainstream or perhaps not so mainstream Christians?  Just how different are our doctrinal beliefs?  Or “how wide is the divide” as some have recently expressed it?  And if the divide is wide, if our beliefs are very different from those of traditional Christianity, how likely is it that we will be able to convince them that we are Christian even though we believe very differently?

Finally, is there any danger to the saints themselves in coming to believe there is very little difference between what we believe and what the evangelicals and other traditional Christians believe?  Is there any chance that some of our own members will become confused about doctrine and begin to think that “one church is as good as another” or that it isn’t really important to be a baptized Mormon if one is a sincere believer in a Protestant faith that is pretty much the same?

False Prophets, True Prophets and Service

“A false prophet tells you what you want to hear. A true prophet tells you what the Lord wants you to hear.”

I heard this a few weeks ago, and it rings true to me. I can’t seem to get it out of my mind. Ever since mankind left the Garden of Eden, he has been stoning the prophets, and otherwise killing them. And that certainly was not because they were telling the people what they wanted to hear.

Is this a true principle that can be applied to service work? We hear a lot about service in the Church as the answer to almost everything, but when service is mentioned it is usually in general terms. One rarely hears anyone explain just exactly what it is. What is service anyway? Is it work that is wanted by those who receive it, or is it work that the Lord wants them to receive? Sometimes I get the idea that service is whatever we want to do for neighbors that will make us feel good rather than what they need or want.

For instance, to many Elder’s Quorums, service is fixing a roof or painting a fence or perhaps doing some yard work for an elderly widow. Perhaps it is collecting some canned goods for donating to a “poor” family that doesn’t have enough to eat. Does this mean that a brother or sister doesn’t need “service” if he can afford to hire a contractor to fix his roof or paint his fence? If he has plenty of food, does that mean he needs no service? What if his biggest need is to overcome the problem of loneliness? Does the Church have service projects to deal with that? It is hard to see how paint, yard work, canned goods, etc. will help a new member deal with his loneliness after he has lost all his friends and family when he joined the Church. And we all know that many new members lose everything socially. They have no friends except us when we do “service” by taking them into our families and circles of friends. And a person does not have to be a new member to be lonely. With the disintegration of the family in our time, loneliness has become a major problem everywhere including the Church.

What many think of as service is highly overrated, in my view. We need to provide the service that the Lord wants us to provide, not what we think we would like to do. The first step is to find out from the Lord and from our fellow ward members what is really needed. And then we must do like a true prophet does and provide what the Lord wants us to provide. Service is wonderful indeed, but that depends on the service. Let’s not be like the Boy Scout who came home all beat up.

“What happened,” his family asked.

“I helped a little old lady across the street,” he replied.

“But why are you all beat up?”

“I guess she didn’t want to go,” he shrugged.

Let us provide the service that is needed. If we aren’t willing to do that, let us just forget about service.

Will This Dispensation Produce a Paul?

The Apostle Paul was never the President of the Church in ancient times as Peter was.  It is not even certain that he was ever a member of the Twelve.  But few Christians, Mormon or otherwise, would deny that he wrote inspired scripture and was a true prophet of God.  Will God raise up such a man in this dispensation, the one that the Savior brought forth with the help of Joseph Smith?  Will future generations study holy scriptures originating in this dispensation as we today study the writings of Paul?  Perhaps the Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball will someday be part of our open ended canon, do you think?  Something by Jame E. Talmage?  Something by Joseph Fielding Smith?

What do you think?  This is the last and greatest of all dispensations, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.  Will this dispensation produce another Paul?  Perhaps it already has.  Is that possible?  For myself, I believe that Elder Bruce R. McConkie is the Paul of our times.  His writings, at least some of them, will prove to be as immortal as we all are.  What is your best guess?

Spiritual Wickedness In High Places

In my last post I reviewed some of what the prophets have taught about “churches” and the fact that ultimately there are only two: the church of Jesus Christ, and the church of the devil. Today, I would like to add what I consider to be a related scripture from the New Testament. I think it is especially pertinent today because of the primary campaigns being waged here in the USA by both the Republicans and the Democrats who are vying for the office of President of the United States.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

This is the Apostle Paul, of course. But what was he writing about, and how is it relevant to our day? Is it relevant? On the official Church website, this verse is cross referenced in the Topical Guide to Darkness, Spiritual; Secret Combinations, Governments, and Wickedness among others. Does Paul imply by this that governments are or can be a threat to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is the Church in danger from such threats around the world? How about here at home? What can we learn from Church History? I personally feel it likely that our national elections are very much influenced by the machinations of evil men combined to get power over the people. What to do about it is much less clear to me. But I am weary of our elected leaders obviously serving someone else rather than those who voted for them and put them in office.

Technorati Tags: scriptures, paul, bible, politics, christianity, religion

Powered by ScribeFire.

There Are Only Two Churches

In 1 Nephi 14:10 we read this passage in the Book of Mormon.  It is fascinating and rings true, but it is difficult for many to understand. It is difficult for me to understand.  I am pondering it this morning and wondering what it means.  Does it relate in any way to political campaigns in general?  Does it relate in any way to the campaign currently going on in the United States.

  10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

At the official Church website, in the Guide to the Scriptures it says this:

The church of the devil: Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God.

In Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie which is maligned by many and loved by me, this is what he says:

Church of the Devil

See APOSTASY, BABYLON, DEVIL, KINGDOM OF THE DEVIL, SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, WORLD. The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature — whether political, philosophical, educational, economic social, fraternal, civic, or religious — which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God.

Salvation is in Christ, is revealed by him from age to age, and is available only to those who keep his commandments and obey his ordinances. These commandments are taught in, and these ordinances are administered by, his Church. There is no salvation outside this one true Church, the Church of Jesus Christ. There is one Christ, one Church, one gospel, one plan of salvation, one set of saving ordinances, one group of legal administrators, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5.)

Any church or organization of any kind whatever which satisfies the innate religious longings of man and keeps him from coming to the saving truths of Christ and his gospel is therefore not of God.

Hence we find our Lord saying, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. 12:30.) And hence we find Alma inviting the wicked to repent and join the true Church of Christ and become the sheep of the Good Shepherd. “And now if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd of what fold are ye?” he asks. “Behold, I say unto you, that the devil is your shepherd and ye are of his fold; and now, who can deny this? Behold, I say unto you, whosoever denieth this is a liar and a child of the devil.” (Alma 5:39; Jos. Smith 2:19.)

Iniquitous conditions in the various branches of the great and abominable church in the last days are powerfully described in the Book of Mormon. (2 Ne. 28; Morm. 8:28, 32-33, 36-38; D. & C. 10:56.) Nephi saw the “church which is most abominable above all other churches” in vision. He “saw the devil that he was the foundation of it”; and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that are part of this organization. (1 Ne. 13:1-10.)

He saw that this church took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that it was “the mother of harlots”; and finally that the Lord would again restore the gospel of salvation. (1 Ne. 13:24-42.)

Similar visions were given to John as recorded in the 17th and 18th chapter’s of Revelation. He saw this evil church as a whole ruling over peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues; as being full of blasphemy abominations, filthiness, and fornication; as having the name, “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH”; as drunken with the blood of the saints; as revelling in wealth and the delicacies of the earth; as making merchandise of all costly items and of “slaves, and souls of men.” And then John, as did Nephi, saw the fall and utter destruction of this great church whose foundation is the devil.

In this world of carnality and sensuousness, the great and abominable church will continue its destructive course. But there will be an eventual future day when evil shall end, “and the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire.” (D. & C. 29:21; Ezek. 38; 39; 1 Ne. 22:23; Rev. 18.) Before that day, however, desolations will sweep through the earth and the various branches of the great and abominable church “shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.” (1 Ne. 22:13-14; 14:3.)

The resurrected Christ gave to the Nephites this test whereby they might distinguish the true Church from any other: 1. It would be called in his name, for “how be it my church save it be called in my name?” he said. 2. It would be built upon his gospel, that is, the eternal plan of salvation with all its saving powers and graces would be had in it. 3. The Father would show forth his works in it, meaning that miracles, righteousness, and every good fruit would abound in it. 4. It would not be hewn down and cast into the fire as must surely come to pass with the great and abominable church. “If it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.” (3 Ne. 27:4-12.)

I testify that these are true teachings. We are living in the last days. Many of the organizations that influence our lives are from evil. They are part of this great, evil church. We need to be aware of this as we work to promote the various political parties that are vying for power here in the United States during this campaign. Which of these organizations is going to take this nation toward the light? Which of them is going to drag us down? Or are they both going to drag us down? And if so, what should we do about it? The voters of the USA are not without power, are they? To what church do we belong?

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Idolatry of Worshipping Dead Prophets

The under title of The Iron Rod blog has been updated. It now reads, “Mormon doctrine in the tradition of Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie and Gordon B. Hinckley.” I have made the change because of some criticism that I have received from people who did not understand the old under title which was “Mormon doctrine in the tradition of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie.” There was even one mystery man named Area Authority who commented on one of my blog posts calling me to repentance for teaching doctrine “in the tradition of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie.” He correctly pointed out to me that an undue emphasis on the doctrinal teachings of dead prophets is contrary to the Restored gospel, and that I should only teach as doctrine what is currently being taught by the living prophets, especially the President of the Church. I agree completely with one proviso which needs to be understood by anyone reading The Iron Rod.

That proviso is this: Prophets don’t make up the doctrine as they go along, but they learn it from the same unchangeable God as it is revealed to them by the Holy Ghost in a process that we Mormons call “continuing revelation.” This process is one of our thirteen Articles of Faith, and if we do not believe this fundamental principle, then we are not really believing Latter-day Saints.

Further, since God is an unchangeable God, and truth does not change, true doctrine does not change either. When a doctrine changes, either a mistake was made and false doctrine was taught as a result of that mistake, or the new doctrine is a mistake and is false. What was true once is true forever.

Keeping this in mind, the President of the Church is the only mortal upon the earth with the keys, authority and stewardship to proclaim new doctrine, change old doctrine, or give scriptural interpretation that is authoritative for the whole Church. This principle is clearly revealed by God in the Doctrine and Covenants. Because of this, doctrine cannot be changed by gossip, rumor, scholarly studies, propaganda, grassroots activism on the Internet, the personal opinions of doctrinal commentators such as myself, others with a different opinion, popular authors, influential books, organizations such as FAIR and FARMS, or secret combinations in our midst made up of communists, Signaturi, so-called Fundamentalists, or any other group or faction with a hidden agenda to confuse the saints about the doctrines of Jesus Christ. Only Satan has anything to gain from confusing the saints about the true doctrines of the Restoration that have been revealed to us by Joseph Smith, the Twelve, and all of his successors down to and including Gordon B. Hinckley and the Twelve who are serving in the Quorum of the Twelve today. Lucifer wants to do what he did in ancient times. He wants to lead off the saints into believing a variety of conflicting doctrines so that he can bring about today a repetition of The Great Apostasy that he had so much success with in the early Christian Church.

Therefore, I renounce every doctrine or scriptural interpretation that was ever taught by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie that can be clearly shown to be false because it has been changed or overturned by Gordon B. Hinckley or his predecessors as President of the Church since the death of Joseph Fielding Smith. But I retain and accept as true doctrine all that these men taught that has not been overturned by Gordon B. Hinckley or his predecessors in the First Presidency. Gospel doctrine is not something that we make up as we go along. We cannot reject true doctrine just because we don’t like it. Nor can we proclaim to be true doctrine some personal opinion or scriptural interpretation just because it appeals to us.

But more than that, we are all bound by the truth whether it is “official Church doctrine” or not. There are many things that are true that are not “official Church doctrine.” The Family: A Proclamation to the World is not official Church doctrine by a strict definition, because it is not in our standard works, and it has not been specifically sustained as scripture by the membership of the Church assembled in General Conference. Neither is much of our temple ritual. Neither were any of the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants before they were included in our standard works and sustained by the Church membership. But they were just as true before they were added to the standard works and before they were sustained by the Church membership as they were afterwards. The Law of Gravity is also not in our standard works or sustained by the membership of the Church as “official Church doctrine,” but it is just as true and just as binding upon everyone as the truth always is. We don’t have to believe it. We don’t have to agree with it. But we are bound by it nevertheless. The truth, whatever it is, is binding upon everyone whether he likes it or not. And life’s greatest challenge is to find out what the truth is and get our lives in harmony with it. Official Church doctrine is just a beginning, a foundation. The Lord expects all of us to believe it and order our lives by it, but he expects us to go on from there by learning true doctrine until we know as much about the Plan of Salvation as he does. And that will occur long after this life is over for all of us if it happens at all. Because men truly are free, some will choose to follow other paths and to accept as true that which is false.

So my bottom line is this: This blog is my commentary on Mormon doctrine in the tradition of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie as modified and filtered by the doctrine taught by Gordon B. Hinckley and the prophets living today. Where President Hinckley disagrees with Smith and McConkie, I will not accept as authoritative the earlier teachings. But unless it can be clearly documented otherwise, I will assume that President Hinckley agrees with the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, and all of the other prophets of the Restoration for that matter. Where someone claims that I am teaching the dead prophets, they must point to some teaching by living prophets that shows Smith and McConkie to be wrong. In almost every case they cannot do this because all of these men get their understanding of doctrine from the same standard works and revelations from the same Holy Ghost. Teaching Smith and McConkie is teaching Hinckley. They are agreed on matters of doctrine. And only the President of the Church has the authority to declare that they are not.

Technorati Tags: religion, christianity, mormonism, joseph fielding smith, bruce r. mcconkie, gordon b. hinckley, false doctrine

Midgley’s Response To An Attack On “Prying Into Palmer”

by Louis Midgley, guest contributor

When it was called to my attention that Roasted Tomatoes had posted on a blog an item entitled “Reviewing the FARMS Review: Midgley on Palmer,” I decided that I would respond. My first stab at doing this was reads as follows:

I rather like what has fashioned. He has spunk and has done some research and discovered a few things. I would enjoy having a conversation with him and others on my “Prying into Palmer” [FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 365-410]. I will, if you will permit, fashion something responding to “Reviewing the FARMS Review: Midgley on Palmer” by Roasted Tomatoes (aka JNS). But I have to finish some editorial details on the editor’s introduction to the FARMS Review 18/1 (2006). This must be done this morning, and then I must attend a meeting of the Maxwell Institute people with Richard Bushman. Immediately after this meeting, my wife and I are leaving town for a couple of days–I am going fishing. When we return, I will draft something for you. I will have it to you on Monday. [This was obviously not possible.]

But I can say now that I agree with Roasted’s comments about Anne [Newport] Royall’s probably not being the editor of Paul Pry’s Weekly Bulletin. I was too confident that she had been the editor of that thing. I have been unable to figure out who it was. But, as Roasted indicates, it really does not matter. Probably Roasted does not know this, but I have already tried to address the problem of determining who the editor of that tabloid was. Who the editor was, as Roasted grants, is really not an important issue. And neither is the question of whether Grant Palmer knew that “Paul Pry” had anti-Mormon connections. He may or may not have known. However, his current effort to explain how he came up with that name is not all that plausible. And Roasted needs to ask himself if he has accurately represented the explanation that Palmer recently provided on that [Dehlin] Podcast. He needs to make and then post a transcript of the relevant portions of that interview. Why? My understanding is that Palmer indicated that on a holiday in London he visited the West End (the theatre district) and noticed the name Paul Pry on a leaflet giving tips on plays and musicals. I am confident that Palmer mentioned that he loves to travel and on one of his trips to London, which had to be prior to 1985, he found that name in the theatre district. Palmer will have to demonstrate that he was in London prior to his having adopted the name “Paul Pry” to hide his identify from CES.

His current explanation is not what he told me when I had a long phone conversation with him. Back then, what he said is that someone had suggested the name to him. He could not recall who it was. At that time he was very close to Brent Metcalfe and Ron Walker, who were then busy looking for anything they could find that would cast light on what turned out to be Mark Hoffman’s forged Salamander Letter. For example, it was Ron Walker who introduced Palmer to E. T. A. Hoffmann’s The Golden Pot. And it was that tale that got Palmer partly fueled his writing “New York Mormonism” under the name “Paul Pry Jr.” So who might have mentioned Paul Pry to Palmer? I do not know and he probably cannot recall. But it is likely that it was someone who was right then working on the very earliest published literature on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Paul Pry’s Weekly Bulletin was one of the very first such publications. Palmer’s most recent account of how he just happened to come up with Paul Pry as a handle, however, is much more plausible than his efforts to see the Moroni story in The Golden Pot.

[Note: I have silently corrected a few infelicities and added a few things in brackets.]

SOME ADDITIONAL, PRELIMINARY REMARKS ABOUT ROASTED’S RECENT ATTACK ON ME AND ON THE FARMS REVIEW

I very much appreciate the opportunity to respond to Roasted Tomatoes (hereafter Roasted) who insists that he has identified “important errors” in my essay entitled “Prying into Palmer,” FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 365-410, and hence that my essay is flawed by important errors of fact. He insists that these errors demonstrate that my essay is unreliable, and then he suggests that he has thereby demonstrated a weakness in what is published in the FARMS Review. In making this leap, and it is a huge leap, he seems to have followed a talk given by John Hatch at a Sunstone conference, a version of which was immediately posted on the Signature Books webpage. That deeply flawed diatribe, entitled “Why I No Longer Trust FARMS,” is no longer posted on the Signature Book webpage. (No reason has been given for its removal.) Roasted does not seem to know that John Hatch is embarrassed by what he has admitted to me (in an email message that I am prepared, if challenged, to quote) was an immature rant.

Truth Cannot Contradict Itself

Joseph Smith once wrote:

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? (Joseph Smith-History 1:10)

When I was sixteen years old, so long ago, I read these words and they had a very deep impact upon me because I had lost my faith in the teachings of my childhood. I had been reared an ecumenical Protestant of primarily a Baptist persuasion. And during my early teen years I started to ask the clergymen of my acquaintence questions about God, the Bible, and what we believe as Baptists. And the more questions I asked, and the more they failed to answer in any way that I found satisfying, the more certain I became that their teachings taught a religious whole within which were numerous self-contradictions. And I instinctively understood that what there were teaching must therefore be false because truth cannot contradict itself. If 2+2=4, it cannot also equal 5. I was more certain of this than I was that there is a God. Even today I am more certain of this than I am of God's existence, or my own existence for that matter. I know that truth, if I ever find it, will be perfectly self-consistent. Because an idea or system of ideas that is self-contradictory is always false.

So in this frame of mind, imagine how thrilled I was to learn of another young man about my own age who had questions about religion who also found the answers a mass of self-contradiction and confusion. Like myself, young Joseph knew that because the various denominations of his day contradicted each other on very basic things, they might all be wrong. But there was no way that they could all be right. Truth cannot contradict itself.

I've pondered this over the years and my understanding of this important truth has grown. For one thing I have come to know and love another thing that Joseph Smith wrote on exactly the same subject. He wrote:

"by proving contraries, truth is made manifest"

Even though I am not a student of philosophy, logic or mathematics, I have always thought this to mean that when two things that are certainly true seem to contradict each other, there must be a resolution of that contradiction on some level which we have not yet considered. And that by finding what that resolution is, we can learn new truth. Why? It is because two things that are true cannot possibly contradict each other. They may superficially seem to contradict each other, but there must be some greater perspective from which a resolution of the apparent contradiction becomes apparent. And if we are really interested in seeking out the truth, then it is our duty to find that greater perspective. And if there is no level or perspective at which the resolution becomes apparent, if they actually do contradict each other, it is absolutely impossible for both of them to be true.

Isn't this what the young Joseph meant when he said that all of the churches might be false, but they could not possibly all be true because they directly contradicted each other on various points of doctrine? Can you see how this thought about proving contraries relates to his statement in JS-H 1:10? Were all of the churches wrong, or was one of them right and all of the others wrong? Obviously they could not all be right because they contradicted one another. This is the way the man's mind worked. And it thrilled me as a 16 year old teenager to hear about this from the Mormon missionaries because it is also the way that my mind works. It was for this reason that I had already rejected the traditional Christian faith of my childhood before I ever met my first Mormon.

Well today on a whim I did some Googling to see if I could find out more about the Joseph Smith quotation about proving contraries. And I also went looking for what Joseph might have meant by "contraries." What are they? We don't talk like this any more. It is not part of our culture to "prove contraries" whatever that is. I didn't even know what a contrary was. So I looked it up in a number of different sources. And this is what I found:

In logic, a contrary is "a proposition related to another in such a way that if the latter is true, the former must be false, but if the latter is false, the former is not necessarily true."

Elsewhere I find it defined as "a logical relation such that two propositions are contraries if both cannot be true but both can be false."

This is what drove Joseph into the woods that glorious morning of the First Vision. He was intelligent enough to understand that all of the churches might be wrong, but if not, only one of them could be right. Because truth cannot contradict itself.  As Latter-day Saints we ought to remember this important truth better than any other people in the world because we remind ourselves nearly every day because of the clothes we wear. Certainly truth is circumscribed into one great, self-consistent whole.

Technorati Tags: religion, christianity, mormonism, First Vision, contraries, logic, truth, philosophy

Aren’t you glad the Savior’s church doesn’t have these problems?

Just a few minutes ago I received an email from one of my sons-in-law telling me that every day he sees more and more proof that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and right. He then referred me to this news story about troubles in a traditional Christian sect. My heart burned within me as I realized how well his faith in Christ is growing. What a thrill it is to see the man to whom I have entrusted my daughter and my grandchildren continue to grow in the gospel.

Watching my son-in-law prosper and grow builds my own testimony. It especially builds my testimony of home teaching. I met this fine young man many years ago when he and his single mom were assigned to me as one of my home teaching families. He was in his teens and was never active during those years. But he came over to my home often, and we became great friends. Never at the time did I imagine that he and my nine year old daughter would some day become the parents of my only grandchildren and bring me such joy. So watching his testimony grow, builds my own in ways that I never imagined.

What a joy it is to have children! What a joy it is to have grandchildren! And what an extraordinary joy it is to see my home teaching bear this kind of fruit. I hope that he and I will be good friends for a million billion years and more. I know of no other faith that can offer me such a hope. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints truly is the Lord's own church, the Kingdom of God on earth.

Technorati Tags: religion, christianity, mormonism, anglican communion, homosexual marriage, home teaching

Midgley’s Preliminary Response to Roasted Tomatoes

Note from John W. Redelfs: Louis Midgley has offered to write a guest post on The Iron Rod early next week relative to the current discussion taking place in the comments to my "FARMS vs. the Signaturi" which I posted on Tuesday. Here are some preliminary remarks which he has asked me to post for him this morning. He promises us more after the weekend.

I rather like what Roasted Tomatoes has fashioned. He has spunk and has done some research and discovered a few things. I would enjoy having a conversation with him and others on my "Prying into Palmer." I will, if you will permit, fashion something responding to "Reviewing the FARMS Review: Midgley on Palmer" by Roasted Tomatoes (aka JNS) But I have to finish some editorial details on the editor's introduction to the next issue of the FARMS Review 18/1 (2006). This must be done this morning, and then I must attended a meeting of Maxwell Institute people with Richard Bushman. Immediately after this meeting, my wife and I are leaving town for a couple of days–I am going fishing. When we return, I will draft something for you. I will have it to you on Monday.

But I can say now that I agree with Roasted's comments about Ann Royal probably not being the editor of Paul Pry's Weekly Bulletin. I have worked long and hard on the question of who edited that thing. I was too confident that she had been the editor of that thing. I have been unable to figure out who it was. But, as Roasted indicates, it really does not matter. Probably Roasted does not know this, but I have already tried to address the problem of determining who the editor of that tabloid was. Who the editor was is, as Roasted grants, not really an important issue. And neither is the question of whether Grant Palmer knew that "Paul Pry" had anti-Mormon connections. He may or may not have known. However, his current effort to explain how he came up with that name is not all that plausible. And Roasted needs to ask himself if he has represented the explanation that Palmer recently provided on that Podcast accurately. He needs to make and then post a transcript of the relevant portions of that Podcast. Why? My understanding is that Palmer indicated that on a holiday in London he visited the West End (the theatre district) and noticed the name Paul Pry on a leaflet giving tips on plays and musicals. I am confident that Palmer mentioned that he loves to travel and on one of his trips to London, which had to be prior to 1980, he found that name in the theatre district. Palmer will have to demonstrate that he was in London prior to having adopted the name "Paul Pry" to hide his identity from CES.

His current explanation is not what he told me when I had a long phone conversation with him. Back then, what he said is that someone had suggested the name to him. He could not recall who it was. At that time he was very close to Brent Metcalfe and Ron Walker, who were then busy looking for anything they could find that would cast light on what turned out to be Mark Hoffman's forged Salamander Letter. For example, It was Ron Walker who introduced Palmer to E. T. A. Hoffmann's The Golden Pot. And it was that tale that got Palmer started writing "New York Mormonism" under the name "Paul Pry Jr." So who might have mentioned Paul Pry to Palmer? I do not know and he probably cannot recall. But it is likely that it was someone who was right then working on the very earliest published literature on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Paul Pry's Weekly Bulletin was one of the very first such publications. Palmer's most recent account of how he just happened to come up with Paul Pry as a handle, however, is much more plausible than his efforts to see the Moroni story in The Golden Pot.

Technorati Tags: religion, christianity, mormonism, book of mormon, church history, FARMS, signaturi, Louis Midgley, Grant Palmer