- Kent Larsen on Coduction (learning together) in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/23: “Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church yesterday (8/23): One speaker, a dental student, talked about how in dentistry they worry about misalignments of as little as 1/4 of a millimeter, and explored how much of a difference blemishes make. They observed that Christ’s “blemishes” — the scars from the crucifixion — aren’t something that He hides or tries to “correct,” but are instead a badge of identity. The discussion reminded me of a self-help book I read as a teenager, “Psycho-cybernetics” which featured a man who had a scar on his face from a sword fight. The scar was a badge of honor, and something that the man didn’t want “fixed” by a plastic surgeon. In contrast, we talk about a resurrection in which all our defects will be fixed. I wonder if there is an exception for identifying “blemishes”. When is a “blemish” something that actually should be fixed? In quorum meeting we discussed the idea of focusing on what is best — instead of what is good or what is better. I’ve actually been thinking quite a lot about the idea of “good” or “best”, because in my field I have frequently been met with claims that something is “best” where the criteria for that hasn’t been decided, let alone disclosed. “Best” is often a social definition, something we accept because others tell us so, often without any criteria mentioned. Its also often a way of saying “I like this a lot, and I want you to like it also.” Unfortunately, when we accept other’s ideas of what is best, we are abandoning responsibility, since someone else made the decision. Another speaker mentioned the idea that “the natural man is an enemy to God,” and defined the ‘natural man’ as someone who isn’t changing. In the past I’ve defined ‘natural man’ as ‘how we are by nature’, and the whole idea bothered me, because it seemed to be suggesting that God created us as by nature evil. The idea of the ‘natural man’ as someone who doesn’t change is a different way of thinking about this. I’m not sure it solves how I think about it, but it gives me a bit more to chew on. Another speaker told of getting a haircut and being told “you look taller.” Huh? Maybe I’ve missed something. Do haircuts make you look taller?” Aug 24, 14:15
- on A Schism of Loyalty: Aidan and Tristan Caplan on the Third Convention: “That’s a scary thought, RL. Recent history suggests that if it does happen, the trigger will be putting a black man in a position of authority, say, as a member of the Twelve. I expect that will happen soon(ish), so let’s hope no such backlash arises. I’ve been a bit perplexed by the Church’s apparent determination to make the reopening of the Salt Lake Temple a significant event for the global Church. I figured it was just the effect of most of the leadership still being from the Wasatch Front. If instead it is a deliberate gesture to make the people there feel like they’re still the heart of the Church, no harm done and hopefully some good will come of it.” Aug 24, 11:55
- on A Schism of Loyalty: Aidan and Tristan Caplan on the Third Convention: “RL, that’s a good question. It would not surprise me if that happened. I feel like the choice to call Clark Gilbert as an apostle was a deliberate choice to keep some Utah/US folks in charge for the foreseeable future, though that doesn’t mean that overrepresentation is going to be the norm.” Aug 23, 18:14
- on A Schism of Loyalty: Aidan and Tristan Caplan on the Third Convention: “Interesting now how much more diverse and representative the Church leadership is becoming when compared to the demographics of the Wasatch Front. I wonder if in the future the Western or US Saints frustration they are no longer over represented in leadership will bubble up similar to the way whites are with MAGA in the US right now politically.” Aug 23, 14:30
- on Tangled Assets and Legal Erasure: Emma Smith’s Fight for Financial Survival: “Isn’t her name Emma Bidamon?” Aug 23, 13:22
- on A Schism of Loyalty: Aidan and Tristan Caplan on the Third Convention: “Chad, thanks for the additional context. This is a great example of why I find Church history so endlessly fascinating.” Aug 21, 18:33
- on A Schism of Loyalty: Aidan and Tristan Caplan on the Third Convention: “There weren’t stakes in Mexico at that time outside of the one in the colonies, and after the Mexican Revolution decimated the colony populations, even that stake was put under the direction of the Mexican Mission President. During the 1920s and early 1930s, Rey Pratt and his successors were functionally the president of all Spanish-speaking Latter-day Saints, under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Most of the Church’s presence in Mexico at that time was focused in central Mexico, in the capital and surrounding regions, and was only gradually spreading out from there (again, except for what remained of colonies in the far north). So, the lead-up to the Third Convention was going on in a situation where there were a handful of branches of various sizes receiving no external budget and very little guidance from Church headquarters and trying to figure out how the Church functions in that setting without any manuals (or even the Doctrine and Covenants) in their language. From that situation, about 1/3 of the Latter-day Saints there split off to form their own church and created their own ecclesiastical structure to mirror the Church (over 1,000 people). Geographically, they were spread out over the same central Mexican area where the mainline church existed. The other 2/3 remained in the Church and continued to function under Harold Pratt and then Arwell Pierce (by then, the mission had split to put Spanish-speaking people in the United States under a different mission president). Where their leaders remained in the Church, they were left intact, but where they had leaders who joined the Third Convention, they were replaced. I believe that when the First Presidency excommunicated the Third Conventionists, it was only the top leaders listed by name, but that people who followed them were treated like they were joining another church. Both the mainline Church and the Third Convention were seeing success in missionary efforts throughout the decade, though, which is part of why it was so surprising that the Third Convention reunified with the Church. When it did reunite, all of the leaders of the Third Convention who came back into the Church were accepted back in without further punishment. (Margarito Bautista and a few other leaders had formed their own schismatic movements from the Third Convention and were not interested in reuniting, which meant they remained excommunicated.) It wasn’t until 1961 that a stake was organized down there.” Aug 21, 14:38
- on A Schism of Loyalty: Aidan and Tristan Caplan on the Third Convention: “Chad, it’s a fascinating story, and not one that I think will ever be repeated, certainly not the disfellowshipping in place of excommunication. Were the Third Convention to happen today, it would be widespread news to the entire Church body within days (I’m sure the Salt Lake Tribune would provide plenty of coverage as would the various ex-Mormon outlets). With the entire Church watching, I simply can’t see President Oaks doing anything short of withdrawing the membership of those attempting to force Church leadership to bend to their will. Can you speak to whether the leadership chain worked differently back then? My understanding is that the first stake in Mexico was created in Colonia Juarez in 1895, though I don’t know how many additional stakes there were by 1936. Was all or most of Mexico included in the Third Convention? Were branch, district, ward, and stake leaders across the country all released and replaced or did those who weren’t the top leaders largely escape punishment?” Aug 21, 14:01
- on Legal Doctrines/Terminology and Latter-day Saint Theology and Governance: “Pretty interesting list! — “Ignorance of the law is no excuse. … I feel like the gospel actually has an opposite take on this.” I think Mormon theology has moved to make the ignorance argument irrelevant by covering pretty much everything: sins of ignorance, sins of necessity (e.g. lying to save a life), straight-up rebellion, and now even just disappointing outcomes in life.” Aug 20, 14:13
- on A Review: Picturing Christ: Understanding Depictions of Jesus in History and Art: “I love seeing manger scenes from around the world, where people unabashedly (and even proudly) present Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus, and the others as local persons in local dress.” Aug 20, 01:33
