"I'm Drinking My First Coffee Tonight"

[_gramps]

Back in my university days, I decided to take a course with Professor McMurrin. It became a big stink with my father. He told me he wouldn't pay for that class, if I decided to take it. I said ok. Then, he backed down and paid for it anyway. (I imagine he regrets doing that, now).

I didn't realise you and your family were in proximity to Mc Murrin gramps. Interesting. Even in my early days of beginning to explore "alternative history" and reading Sunstone I became aware of Mc Murrin's unofficial title of "the anti-Christ of Salt Lake City". When I later read his writings I began to wonder what was so eeeeevil about the man, apart from the fact that he was very critical of Packer and Benson, which was still not evil in my opinion. There's a great Sunstone article by Richard Poll titled The Swearing Elders (PDF) which I think would interest you. It really gives insight to how different 1950s Mormonism was.

Hi Ray, hope all goes well down under.

My grandparents were scared to death of him.

When he mentioned to them one day that I was one of his good students (that was nice of him!), they totally freaked out and drove down to our house to talk to me. My grandfather chewed me out royally for laughing it off in front of him.

I have read that article. The main paper, to which he was responding, was given by a good friend of mine at the time. We both took the same course with McMurrin. I wrote two papers for him: (1) Mormon Theology and the Problem of Evil and (2) Charles Hartshorne's Panentheism, or something like that. I was into process philosophy at the time.

It is a small world.

[_Ray A]

You might be interested in this, from the Doctrine & Covenants, Student Manual:

Although the revelation of the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by the individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk to the Saints on the Word of Wisdom. Following his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed to the general conference that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and "all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom" ("Minutes of the General Conference," Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p.35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter.

Eventually Ray, you're going to have to confront whatever it is inside of you driving this nonsense.

Yes, that's because the myth continued. And this is one of the sad aspects of Mormon history. Leonard Arrington corrected this even in The Ensign, but it's still promoted. If you want a better understanding of the development of the WoW from "advice" to requirement, then peruse some more informed articles in Dialogue in the early 1980s.

You are still awash in sanitised history.
>
>
>

[_Ray A]

When he mentioned to them one day that I was one of his good students (that was nice of him!), they totally freaked out and drove down to our house to talk to me. My grandfather chewed me out royally for laughing it off in front of him.

I have read that article. The main paper, to which he was responding, was given by a good friend of mine at the time. We both took the same course with McMurrin. I wrote two papers for him: (1) Mormon Theology and the Problem of Evil and (2) Charles Hartshorne's Panentheism, or something like that. I was into process philosophy at the time.

It is a small world.

Very interesting, gramps. A friend of mine, the late Max Nolan, who made his own contributions to Dialogue and The Journal of Mormon History, and several other Church media (he eventually left the Church after the September Six were excommunicated), was a friend of Mc Murrin's and told me he was a "real charmer" and a gentleman, from his POV anyway. What a contrast to "the anti-Christ of Salt Lake City".

Without doubt, he's one of the most colourful and controversial figures in 20th century Mormonism.

[_gramps]

When he mentioned to them one day that I was one of his good students (that was nice of him!), they totally freaked out and drove down to our house to talk to me. My grandfather chewed me out royally for laughing it off in front of him.

I have read that article. The main paper, to which he was responding, was given by a good friend of mine at the time. We both took the same course with McMurrin. I wrote two papers for him: (1) Mormon Theology and the Problem of Evil and (2) Charles Hartshorne's Panentheism, or something like that. I was into process philosophy at the time.

It is a small world.

Very interesting, gramps. A friend of mine, the late Max Nolan, who made his own contributions to Dialogue and The Journal of Mormon History, and several other Church media (he eventually left the Church after the September Six were excommunicated), was a friend of Mc Murrin's and told me he was a "real charmer" and a gentleman, from his POV anyway. What a contrast to "the anti-Christ of Salt Lake City".

Without doubt, he's one of the most colourful and controversial figures in 20th century Mormonism.

All I can say is how he treated me. He was very kind and helpful to me and we spent many hours in his office talking about the church and philosophy and history. He always spoke so kindly about my grandparents. I really felt bad about that because I knew what they were saying to me about him. That really made me start thinking. Hard.

[_Droopy]

Yes, that's because the myth continued. And this is one of the sad aspects of Mormon history. Leonard Arrington corrected this even in The Ensign, but it's still promoted. If you want a better understanding of the development of the WoW from "advice" to requirement, then peruse some more informed articles in Dialogue in the early 1980s.

You are still awash in sanitised history.

Arrington is not an Apostle or Prophet to the Church as a whole, and his particular economic interpretation of the WoW is only one interpretation of limited specific value.

Your bold evasion above, caught as you have just been with your pants down around your ankles trying to complete a 100 yard dash, is telling. The WoW was accepted by the Church as a binding principle mandating specific forms of conduct in 1851. that's the reality of the matter. The only myths here are the one's necessary for you to remain in your warm, mendacious womb of denial.

[_Ray A]

Arrington is not an Apostle or Prophet to the Church as a whole, and his particular economic interpretation of the WoW is only one interpretation of limited specific value.

In your opinion, not mine. Prophets and apostles are not historians, and JFS did not have a degree in history, and was not a professional historian. Prophets and apostles also taught the hemispheric model for over a century and from all the evidence they were wrong.

Your bold evasion above, caught as you have just been with your pants down around your ankles trying to complete a 100 yard dash, is telling. The WoW was accepted by the Church as a binding principle mandating specific forms of conduct in 1851. that's the reality of the matter. The only myths here are the one's necessary for you to remain in your warm, mendacious womb of denial.

I'll leave you to do some research. There was no official requirement to observe the WoW as a "pass" for a temple recommend until the late 1920s, early 1930s, and impetus for this came mainly from Heber J. Grant (who himself imbibed liberally while a young man).

[_Droopy]

If you really want to be "informed" Ray, then instead of filling your hours reading the sanitized revisionism of Mormonism's very own Mother Jones, you might want to track down the original minuets of the Conference sourced by the manual.

The actual history here seems to indicate that, far from being a myth, the acceptance of the WoW as a commandment is historical fact. And they, as we know Ray, can be stubborn things. I can provide numerous quotes from Church leaders, going back generations, to indicate how the WoW has been understood from a time long before I was born. Need I do that Ray? Must I provide publically what you, I, and everyone else already knows?

Or must I just point out that the Church grows and evolves as its people are prepared, or as they need to be disciplined, refined, and moved to new plateaus. What was once counsel may tomorrow become a commandment. What was yesterday preparatory may tomorrow be mandatory.

You have rejected the Gospel Ray, and you have lost, in the process, your understanding of it.

[_harmony]

You realize, of course, that what you're proposing simply wasn't the case, right? That a commandment isn't binding until it becomes part of the TRI? That this was no more binding than the commandment to love their enemies? And that some apostles and prophets indulged in tobacco and alcohol for at least another generation? That it didn't become part of the TRI for several decades?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I learned a couple of months ago what Platau meant. Was an interesting learning experience.

[_Jason Bourne]

Brigham Young made the Wow a commandment because it was, as counsel, not being taken seriously enough by the Saints of the time. BY had the authority to do so, and according to the will of the Lord, he did.

The great sifting is, indeed, in process of working itself out isn't it? Light disinfects, but it also sometimes just hurts our eyes.

Why did BY and others of his day continue to essentially ignore the WOW then. Why was this not a TR requirement till HJG?