A Poor Wayfaring Man

As noted in a previous post, Church leaders often struggle to control how the lifeblood of the Church (i.e., personal reassurance that one is on the path to salvation in the Celestial Kingdom–a concept I’ve termed “Hope”) is distributed to, and apportioned among, the members of the Church.  Below are two examples of such battles.

Example 1:  Elder Poelman’s View of Divine Love:

About a month after McConkie’s speech excoriating George Pace for promoting the concept of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, Elder Ronald E. Poelman, a fairly new member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (one level below the apostles in the Church hierarchy) gave an address in General Conference which appears to have been carefully worded to imply the existence of a personal relationship with the Lord, without crossing any of the lines that McConkie had drawn.  Elder Poelman’s talk included the following statement: Continue reading

As noted in a previous post, Church leaders often struggle to control how the lifeblood of the Church (i.e., personal reassurance that one is on the path to salvation in the Celestial Kingdom–a concept I’ve termed “Hope”) is distributed to, and apportioned among, the members of the Church. Below is an example of one such battle.

In the early 1980’s, a BYU professor named George Pace had previously given speeches and written a book promoting the idea that people should “center their lives on Christ and…develop their own personal relationship with Him.” Even though Pace was simply echoing ideas recently taught in General Conference by then-apostle (and future First Presidency Counselor) James E. Faust, his “taking out the middle man” approach to interacting with the Savior prompted a humiliating public rebuke from Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, which included the following counsel: Continue reading

I was browsing the internet the other day and found a really interesting blog that discusses events and hot topics at BYU’s Provo campus. In this post about the conflict between the religious world and the secular world, the liberal-leaning Mormon author seems to support (very tentatively and with ample obligatory qualifications to deflect charges of heresy, since he is a BYU student) the view that the creation account in Genesis (six days, etc.) is just a metaphor, not literally true.

This seems like a neat and tidy way to avoid conflicts between science and religion–just treat the religious view as a divinely-inspired metaphor only.
Continue reading

My professor at BYU once asked us to read the first couple of chapters of the Book of Mormon–the First Book of Nephi. The book starts with a story about Nephi’s father, a well-heeled man named Lehi, who has a vision from God, in which the Lord tells him to pack up his things, leave his home in Jerusalem, and depart with his family into the wilderness. Lehi obeys, but some of his sons are harder to convince than others that Jerusalem is to be destroyed and that wandering in the wilderness is the will of God for them. The skeptical sons in the family are Laman and Lemuel, and the believers are Nephi and Sam. My professor asked us, as devout Mormons, which of the brothers we were like.

In case you are wondering, the right answer is always “Nephi”. Continue reading

I was born and raised a Mormon, in the LDS Church. At 19 years of age, I volunteered to be a missionary for the Church and was sent to a foreign country to spread the Gospel for two years. Upon returning home, I was fully committed to Mormonism. I believed that its doctrines were literally heaven-sent, and that it was the one pure source of philosophical, spiritual, religious, and even secular Truth in this world. I liked Mormon social institutions and the support they provided me as I followed the path of Truth. I felt lucky to have been born a Mormon.

Continue reading