- Jonathan Green on Handbell Music and the Latter-day Saint Hymnbook: “That’s outside any ward’s or even stake’s music budget, but very much within the range of what some people spend on hobbies – look at what people spend on nice pianos or string instruments for home use. It just takes a ward with enough musical talent and one motivated financial backer (who would own the bells). That’s a real possibility in some areas.” Aug 17, 23:37
- on Handbell Music and the Latter-day Saint Hymnbook: “In looking on Ebay, I see a set for $5,000. (Compared to $14,000 for a new set.) The good thing about handbells is that new ringers can pick up the basics really quickly, so that idea is very possible.” Aug 17, 19:53
- on Handbell Music and the Latter-day Saint Hymnbook: “Interesting. In some wards, you could probably find four people with some musical background who might give it a reasonable effort. How much would a decent quality small set of 25 bells cost?” Aug 17, 17:54
- on Handbell Music and the Latter-day Saint Hymnbook: “The answer is complicated. If you’re looking at bells, the smallest set is usually a two octave span (so 25 bells). That’s like having both the black and white keys on a piano between the G above middle C and up for two octaves. If you’re doing a simple piece with no accidentals, you can get away with using as few as eight to twelve of those bells. As far as number of people, there are advanced ringers who do solos on a set of bells, usually with piano accompanying. So, one person is the minimum. For the bells by themselves, though, I would usually say four people is the minimum to get a full sound. Accompaniment for a choir can usually be done by people in the choir, just with the bells distributed amongst them.” Aug 17, 14:27
- on Handbell Music and the Latter-day Saint Hymnbook: “What’s the absolute minimum size of a handbell choir/handbell accompaniment for a choral choir?” Aug 17, 13:19
- on Variety in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/16: “Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church yesterday (8/16): One speaker in sacrament meeting compared family members to stereotypical film roles—the disgruntled old man, the perpetually peppy young woman, etc. This made me wonder about these roles. How often do we accept the stereotypical roles that are thrust on us by friends and family? Are they true to who we are? Are they eternal? Or in the eternities will we become ALL roles and none of them as well? How much are such roles consistent with eternal life? Another speaker spoke of looking for mentions of Christ’s titles while listening to General Conference, and surprisingly suggested that looking at this became distracting and overwhelming. It seems to me that these titles are usually metaphors for some aspect of Christ. I think merely listing them instead of looking at what they mean doesn’t help us learn anything or get closer to Christ (although it’s certainly better than checking out of conference altogether). But, like most things in life, its also easy to look at the representation, or metaphor, than at the meaning that they point to. Another speaker mentioned “going down the rabbit hole” in studies, leading me to think about this idea of “going down the rabbit hole.” It has a kind of negative implication, suggesting that the items in the hole aren’t worth looking at. Perhaps that’s true, but in my experience it’s often hard to tell when a line of investigation or surfing is worthwhile or not. Believe it or not, sometimes what seems like a “rabbit hole” ends up being an expansive new world, full of fascinating or inspiring material. A speaker also said that they based their talk on a 2025 conference talk, “so, a little while ago.” Since I’m old, 2025 doesn’t seem ‘a little while ago’ to me, and I wondered if there is some recency requirement for source talks. Can we be assigned talks from 2020? Or 2000? Or 1950? What about 100 years ago? If we need to use recent talks, why are we using the scriptures? They are MUCH older!” Aug 16, 20:18
- on Tangled Assets and Legal Erasure: Emma Smith’s Fight for Financial Survival: “I think this proves that JS assumed he was going to live to the second coming. He did what he liked with other people’s money as he saw fit because he was THE prophet, laws and fiduciary integrity be damned. Then when he dies, the mess is left for other people to fix. Is it any wonder Emma fought tooth and nail to secure assets she could support her family with? Why would she want to be the third, seventh, or tenth wife to someone else in hopes they would be merciful enough to keep her children fed, clothed and housed. The coverture law saw to it that independence was illusory. Then there’s Joseph’s, get in personal debt and put the property in the church trust ploy. Have the wealthy always tried to do this kind of shell game? And what does that say about current church finances today? So taking care of widows and orphans take a back seat to protecting church assets. Got it. Everyone fend for themselves I guess.” Aug 16, 15:37
- on Tangled Assets and Legal Erasure: Emma Smith’s Fight for Financial Survival: “That’s a fair point that they aren’t mutually exclusive categories. On the comparison with Mary Fielding Smith, though, I would note that even though she married Heber C. Kimball, she got very little support.” Aug 15, 23:52
- on Faith Is a Hope, by Alma the Younger (Alma 32): “I think Alma’s tree has direct allusions to Lehi’s tree–especially in the way he talks about the fruit. And interestingly it is the word that is the means to getting to (or growing) both of them. And so, speaking of the word (as well as the fruit) we should be asking ourselves Brian Regan’s famous question: how do I get that goodness in me? And the answer (IMO) is by doing what the apostles have counseled us to do: regular prayer and scripture study; partaking of the sacrament; and going to the temple as often as our circumstances will allow. That said, certainly other means of worship may be added to those basic practices–but it is those four that must serve as our foundation stones for receiving the word.” Aug 15, 16:08
- on Tangled Assets and Legal Erasure: Emma Smith’s Fight for Financial Survival: ““But were the assets of the church Emma‘s to claim? I don’t see it.” Agreed. And the comment that she was not a legal person is just reading offense into reality. She had no legal right, nor should she. She had every moral right and there’s no doubt they would have helped her. Mary Fielding Smith carred for Hyrum’s children from his first marriage, and when he died she remained single for 10 weeks before marrying Heber C Kimball, so presumably that’s what support for Emma would have looked like and it’s well known how she felt about that. But I suspect much of Emma’s promise to be an antagonist to the church was “kept” through her denials of plural marriage and the minor schism she eventually caused in the church. I wonder what things would have looked like if she went west.” Aug 15, 14:30
