New First Presidency announced (Oaks, Eyring, Christofferson)

[Limnor]

Posted from Anti-Laman-Lemuel, Utah

Got a chuckle from me.

[drumdude]

Posted from Anti-Laman-Lemuel, Utah

Got a chuckle from me.

These were real people, Limnor!

Seriously though, the first time I encountered the name "Anti-Nephi-Lehites" I knew this was all complete BS, zero doubt. I might as well have been reading Harry Potter at that point.

[malkie]

Got a chuckle from me.

These were real people, Limnor!

Seriously though, the first time I encountered the name "Anti-Nephi-Lehites" I knew this was all complete BS, zero doubt. I might as well have been reading Harry Potter at that point.

May I suggest a revision? "I would have been better reading Harry Potter at that point."

[Tom]

Who does Jane Clayson Johnson work for (i.e., which media outlet), and how did she secure an exclusive interview? (I understand that the Salt Lake Tribune has been requesting an interview.) Did she prepare her questions in consultation with church officials?

A few things I noticed:

1. Some quick cuts. For example at 8:21, 12:24, and 13:09. What was cut out?

2. Eyring prophesies at 13:01 that the growth of the church will accelerate. Mark it, brother Christofferson.

3. Johnson says there’s something special, different, and unique about this generation. Asked for his message to the rising generation, Eyring said, “Congratulations, the Lord saved you for the most exciting time in the history of his work in this world.” I remember when church leaders described my generation as special and chosen. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

4. Eyring and Christofferson seemed very reluctant to go beyond things that Oaks had said.

5. Oaks’ hands were shaking at times (e.g., 00:01:03).

6. Johnson asked no questions about temple-building, LGBTQ issues (including Oaks’ 1984 memo, his sermons, the Policy of Exclusion, and the church’s campaigns against gay marriage), Trump and Putin, political events and division around the world, war and conflict, famine and starvation, the Middle East, racism and the priesthood and temple ban, church history problems and coverups, the activity rate in the church, figures on people having their names removed from church records, church finances, the SEC scandal, gerontocracy in the church, sexual abuse problems in the church, Oaks’ call for more disciplinary councils, the history and activities of the Strengthening Church Members Committee, recent changes in the temple ceremony and garments, the doctrine of polygamy, and the historicity of the scriptures.

Posted from Anti-Laman-Lemuel, Utah

#3 - Saturday Night's Warriors?

Exactly.

Our young people are among the most blessed and favored of our Father’s children. They are the nobility of heaven, a choice and chosen generation who have a divine destiny. Their spirits have been reserved to come forth in this day when the gospel is on earth, and when the Lord needs valiant servants to carry on his great latter-day work.

Joseph Fielding Smith, General Conference, April 1970.

[Limnor]

These were real people, Limnor!

So awkward lol

Although I see this as a clumsy identification of one of the factions within the original group within the 1823-29 timeframe.

The fascination I have with it is trying identify who this group really mirrors.

I’m also a bit surprised that there is very little writing along these lines, though I’ve wondered if some like Brigham Young immediately recognized it in a manner similar to how I have.

[Equality]

Almost 20 years ago I wrote a blog post dissecting one of D(ickhead) Todd Christofferson's most vapid and punctilious talks from when he was in the Presidency of the Seventy and republished n the New Era. It doesn't surprise me at all that Oaks would choose someone like Christofferson. Here is my old post for craps and giggles:

May 28, 2006

A Sense of the Despicable

If Jesus were to walk into an LDS church meeting today, how would He be received? If the latest article in a church magazine on the subject of dress and grooming is any indication, Jesus very likely would be asked to leave. Why? Well, let’s start with hair: in all the pictures I have seen of Jesus, He has long hair. And, typically, He is shown wearing open-toed shoes. According to an LDS church General Authority, such things are offensive to God.

In the June issue of the New Era, the LDS Church’s official magazine aimed at adolescents, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Presidency of the Seventy (the governing council just below the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency in the church’s hierarchical ecclesiastical structure) reprised a talk he gave to young people in 2004 titled “A Sense of the Sacred.” This issue is not yet available online at the church’s web site.

Here are the lowlights of the article with my comments (in italics) on the same:

A Sense of the Sacred


a while back a young woman from another state in the United States came to live with some of her relatives for a few weeks. On her first Sunday she came to church dressed in a simple, nice blouse and knee-length skirt set off with a light, button-up sweater. She wore hose and dress shoes, and her hair was combed simply but with care. Her overall appearance created an impression of youthful grace. Unfortunately, she immediately felt out of place. It seemed like all the other young women her age or near her age were dressed in casual skirts, some rather distant from the knee; tight T-shirt-like tops that barely met the top of their skirts at the waist; no socks or stockings; and clunky sneakers or flip-flops. One would have hoped that seeing the new girl, the other girls would have realized how inappropriate their manner of dress was for a chapel and for the Sabbath day and immediately changed for the better. Sad to say, however, they did not, and it was the visitor who, in order to fit in, adopted the fashion of her host ward. This example illustrates one of my concerns.

So, the standard is now knee-length skirts. Are you saying, Todd, that the Lord is offended by young women wearing skirts that do not fall to the knee or lower? I had never pictured the God of the Universe looking down from his throne on the planet nearest the star Kolob with a measuring tape in hand to determine with exactness the length of skirt his young female worshippers were wearing.

And are only “light” sweaters with buttons acceptable to the Lord? Or can a young woman wear a heavy sweater without buttons? Todd, you imply that young women who fail to wear hose to church are dressed inappropriately. This seems a strange requirement to me, as the wearing of hosiery is often designed to accentuate the attractiveness of a woman’s leg for the pleasure of men. For this reason, strippers and prostitutes often wear pantyhose as a means of eliciting a sexual response in their male customers. Todd, I am sure this is not your motivation for encouraging teen girls to wear stockings or pantyhose to church. I do have another question for you on this subject, though: is it better for a young woman to wear fishnet stockings or attend church barelegged?

Years ago my ward in Tennessee used a high school for Church services on Sundays while our chapel, which had been damaged by a tornado, was being repaired. A congregation of another faith used the same high school for their worship services while their new chapel was being constructed. I was shocked to see what the people of this other congregation wore to church. There was not a suit or a tie among the men. They appeared to have come from or to be on their way to the golf course. It was hard to spot a woman wearing a dress or anything other than very casual pants or even shorts. Had I not known that they were coming to the school for church meetings, I would have assumed that there was some sort of sporting event taking place.

So, let me get this straight, Todd. You want to dictate to people of other faiths how they should dress for their services as well as dictate to young people how they should dress for ours? And you think that one reason people of other faiths should dress the way Latter-day Saints do is so that you, as an observer, won’t be confused about whether they are going to church or a sporting event? Your “shock” at seeing how people dress for their worship activities reminds me of some folks I have read about in the scriptures: “And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel—therefore they were not permitted to enter their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross.” Alma 32:2-3. Congratulations, Todd, you have much in common with people from the Book of Mormon, even the Zoramites! Oh, and why do you capitalize the word “Church” when referring to the LDS church but not when referring to other “churches”? Is that a subtle arrogance manifesting itself?

It offends God when we come into His house, especially on His holy day, not groomed and dressed in the most careful and modest manner that our circumstances permit. Where a member from the hills of Peru must cross a river to get to church, the Lord surely will not be offended by the stain of muddy water on his white shirt. But how can God not be pained at the sight of one who, with all the clothes he needs and more and with easy access to the chapel, nevertheless appears in church in rumpled cargo pants and a T-shirt?

Well, it’s nice to know there is a “Peruvian Hillbilly Exception” to the Lord’s dress and grooming standards. Of course, curses on the Peruvian hillbilly who wears a blue shirt to church—that would, I am sure, offend the Lord’s tender sensibilities. So, God is not only offended but “pained” by: flipflops, clunky sneakers, skirts a half-inch above the knee, shirts that only barely meet the top of a skirt, colored shirts, bare legs on women, cargo pants, and men who don’t wear neck ties.

Some say dress and hair don’t matter—they say that it’s what’s inside that counts.

Yes, Todd, “some” do say that. Who are some of these “some”? Here’s one: “But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7. Last time I checked, that was a Seminary Scripture Mastery scripture. I guess it’s a good thing the Lord did not need to rely on you, Todd, to find the man who would become King of Israel. In a Messianic prophecy, Isaiah said the Lord “shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.” Isaiah 11:3-4. And Jesus said “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” John 7:24. Todd, the Jesus I read about in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon seems to be foreign to the Jesus you claim is “offended” and “pained” by people coming to worship Him however they are dressed. As Hugh Nibley, Mormon apologist extraordinaire, put it: “The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism.” Approaching Zion at 54.

[T]hose who do not appreciate holy things will lose them. Absent a feeling of reverence, they will grow increasingly casual in attitude and conduct. They will drift from the moorings that their covenants with God could provide. Their feelings of accountability to God will diminish and then be forgotten. Thereafter, they will care only about their own comfort and satisfying their uncontrolled appetites. Finally, they will come to despise sacred things, even God, and then they will despise themselves. . . . Rather than letting your life drift into carelessness, may it be one of increasing exactness in obedience.

This is really an astonishing series of pronouncements, Todd. But perhaps I should not be surprised. You are merely following the GA formula for talks: tell a fanciful story or two that fits perfectly into the point you want to make, pronounce some guilt-inducing new requirement for the membership to worry about, induce fear with a parade of horribles that allegedly will follow failure to adhere to the new requirements, and close with a plea for greater obedience to the counsel of the Brethren. But I must say this is really off the charts. We are supposed to believe that the slide down the slippery slope begins with wearing flipflops to church or, for men, wearing a blue dress shirt instead of a white. From there, the descent into perdition and a state of self-loathing is sure to follow. The ridiculousness of these assertions to me is so obvious as to need no elaboration. But your audience, Todd, consists primarily of unsophisticated young people who have been indoctrinated their whole lives to “follow the Brethren” unquestioningly. So, your statements, while laughable to someone like me who can easily shrug them off, are irresponsible and dangerous to the impressionable young people who read the New Era. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your fearmongering in the name of God. While you may be “concerned” about the length of skirts young women wear on Sunday, I am concerned about the harmful effects your despicable remarks may have on those same young people. That you are in a position of authority in a church that claims to be run by Jesus Christ Himself, and that you apparently have the blessing of those in the highest governing councils to peddle your nonsense, is enough to induce nausea.

[malkie]

Almost 20 years ago I wrote a blog post dissecting one of D(ickhead) Todd Christofferson's most vapid and punctilious talks from when he was in the Presidency of the Seventy and republished n the New Era. It doesn't surprise me at all that Oaks would choose someone like Christofferson. Here is my old post for craps and giggles:

May 28, 2006

A Sense of the Despicable

If Jesus were to walk into an LDS church meeting today, how would He be received? If the latest article in a church magazine on the subject of dress and grooming is any indication, Jesus very likely would be asked to leave. Why? Well, let’s start with hair: in all the pictures I have seen of Jesus, He has long hair. And, typically, He is shown wearing open-toed shoes. According to an LDS church General Authority, such things are offensive to God.

In the June issue of the New Era, the LDS Church’s official magazine aimed at adolescents, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Presidency of the Seventy (the governing council just below the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency in the church’s hierarchical ecclesiastical structure) reprised a talk he gave to young people in 2004 titled “A Sense of the Sacred.” This issue is not yet available online at the church’s web site.

Here are the lowlights of the article with my comments (in italics) on the same:

A Sense of the Sacred


a while back a young woman from another state in the United States came to live with some of her relatives for a few weeks. On her first Sunday she came to church dressed in a simple, nice blouse and knee-length skirt set off with a light, button-up sweater. She wore hose and dress shoes, and her hair was combed simply but with care. Her overall appearance created an impression of youthful grace. Unfortunately, she immediately felt out of place. It seemed like all the other young women her age or near her age were dressed in casual skirts, some rather distant from the knee; tight T-shirt-like tops that barely met the top of their skirts at the waist; no socks or stockings; and clunky sneakers or flip-flops. One would have hoped that seeing the new girl, the other girls would have realized how inappropriate their manner of dress was for a chapel and for the Sabbath day and immediately changed for the better. Sad to say, however, they did not, and it was the visitor who, in order to fit in, adopted the fashion of her host ward. This example illustrates one of my concerns.

So, the standard is now knee-length skirts. Are you saying, Todd, that the Lord is offended by young women wearing skirts that do not fall to the knee or lower? I had never pictured the God of the Universe looking down from his throne on the planet nearest the star Kolob with a measuring tape in hand to determine with exactness the length of skirt his young female worshippers were wearing.

And are only “light” sweaters with buttons acceptable to the Lord? Or can a young woman wear a heavy sweater without buttons? Todd, you imply that young women who fail to wear hose to church are dressed inappropriately. This seems a strange requirement to me, as the wearing of hosiery is often designed to accentuate the attractiveness of a woman’s leg for the pleasure of men. For this reason, strippers and prostitutes often wear pantyhose as a means of eliciting a sexual response in their male customers. Todd, I am sure this is not your motivation for encouraging teen girls to wear stockings or pantyhose to church. I do have another question for you on this subject, though: is it better for a young woman to wear fishnet stockings or attend church barelegged?

Years ago my ward in Tennessee used a high school for Church services on Sundays while our chapel, which had been damaged by a tornado, was being repaired. A congregation of another faith used the same high school for their worship services while their new chapel was being constructed. I was shocked to see what the people of this other congregation wore to church. There was not a suit or a tie among the men. They appeared to have come from or to be on their way to the golf course. It was hard to spot a woman wearing a dress or anything other than very casual pants or even shorts. Had I not known that they were coming to the school for church meetings, I would have assumed that there was some sort of sporting event taking place.

So, let me get this straight, Todd. You want to dictate to people of other faiths how they should dress for their services as well as dictate to young people how they should dress for ours? And you think that one reason people of other faiths should dress the way Latter-day Saints do is so that you, as an observer, won’t be confused about whether they are going to church or a sporting event? Your “shock” at seeing how people dress for their worship activities reminds me of some folks I have read about in the scriptures: “And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel—therefore they were not permitted to enter their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross.” Alma 32:2-3. Congratulations, Todd, you have much in common with people from the Book of Mormon, even the Zoramites! Oh, and why do you capitalize the word “Church” when referring to the LDS church but not when referring to other “churches”? Is that a subtle arrogance manifesting itself?

It offends God when we come into His house, especially on His holy day, not groomed and dressed in the most careful and modest manner that our circumstances permit. Where a member from the hills of Peru must cross a river to get to church, the Lord surely will not be offended by the stain of muddy water on his white shirt. But how can God not be pained at the sight of one who, with all the clothes he needs and more and with easy access to the chapel, nevertheless appears in church in rumpled cargo pants and a T-shirt?

Well, it’s nice to know there is a “Peruvian Hillbilly Exception” to the Lord’s dress and grooming standards. Of course, curses on the Peruvian hillbilly who wears a blue shirt to church—that would, I am sure, offend the Lord’s tender sensibilities. So, God is not only offended but “pained” by: flipflops, clunky sneakers, skirts a half-inch above the knee, shirts that only barely meet the top of a skirt, colored shirts, bare legs on women, cargo pants, and men who don’t wear neck ties.

Some say dress and hair don’t matter—they say that it’s what’s inside that counts.

Yes, Todd, “some” do say that. Who are some of these “some”? Here’s one: “But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7. Last time I checked, that was a Seminary Scripture Mastery scripture. I guess it’s a good thing the Lord did not need to rely on you, Todd, to find the man who would become King of Israel. In a Messianic prophecy, Isaiah said the Lord “shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.” Isaiah 11:3-4. And Jesus said “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” John 7:24. Todd, the Jesus I read about in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon seems to be foreign to the Jesus you claim is “offended” and “pained” by people coming to worship Him however they are dressed. As Hugh Nibley, Mormon apologist extraordinaire, put it: “The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism.” Approaching Zion at 54.

[T]hose who do not appreciate holy things will lose them. Absent a feeling of reverence, they will grow increasingly casual in attitude and conduct. They will drift from the moorings that their covenants with God could provide. Their feelings of accountability to God will diminish and then be forgotten. Thereafter, they will care only about their own comfort and satisfying their uncontrolled appetites. Finally, they will come to despise sacred things, even God, and then they will despise themselves. . . . Rather than letting your life drift into carelessness, may it be one of increasing exactness in obedience.

This is really an astonishing series of pronouncements, Todd. But perhaps I should not be surprised. You are merely following the GA formula for talks: tell a fanciful story or two that fits perfectly into the point you want to make, pronounce some guilt-inducing new requirement for the membership to worry about, induce fear with a parade of horribles that allegedly will follow failure to adhere to the new requirements, and close with a plea for greater obedience to the counsel of the Brethren. But I must say this is really off the charts. We are supposed to believe that the slide down the slippery slope begins with wearing flipflops to church or, for men, wearing a blue dress shirt instead of a white. From there, the descent into perdition and a state of self-loathing is sure to follow. The ridiculousness of these assertions to me is so obvious as to need no elaboration. But your audience, Todd, consists primarily of unsophisticated young people who have been indoctrinated their whole lives to “follow the Brethren” unquestioningly. So, your statements, while laughable to someone like me who can easily shrug them off, are irresponsible and dangerous to the impressionable young people who read the New Era. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your fearmongering in the name of God. While you may be “concerned” about the length of skirts young women wear on Sunday, I am concerned about the harmful effects your despicable remarks may have on those same young people. That you are in a position of authority in a church that claims to be run by Jesus Christ Himself, and that you apparently have the blessing of those in the highest governing councils to peddle your nonsense, is enough to induce nausea.

In addition to his preference for King James English, Mormon god is more impressed by 20thC American business attire than any other form of dress. When I was active (PIMO) it was easy to avoid giving prayers, or passing the sacrament, etc. simply by wearing a coloured shirt or a "loud" tie, because apparently god strongly disapproved.

At a pool party for members of a ward I attended, someone was injured - I no longer remember the details - and it was decided that the person needed a priesthood blessing. The blessing was held up for 15-20 minutes while the ranking officer bishop's counselor went to change into his Sunday suit, because it would have been disrespectful to god if he had been in his swimsuit to administer the blessing. I kid you not.

[MG 2.0]

In addition to his preference for King James English, Mormon god is more impressed by 20thC American business attire than any other form of dress.

Different cultures at different times have had accepted cultural norms. At the time of Jesus I would expect that this was so. At the time in which the Christian church spread throughout the Roman Empire and as it moved into other areas of the world the cultures had their own expectations and norms for dress.

I would think that these 'norms' were the way that people outwardly showed conformity to the religious practice and worship of God.

Is that wrong?

Jesus and His disciples had a certain 'style' in which they dressed/attired themselves. As did the Pharisees. The two ran counter to each other I would expect. The Chosen series portrays it that way.

Regards,
MG

[Equality]

In addition to his preference for King James English, Mormon god is more impressed by 20thC American business attire than any other form of dress.

Different cultures at different times have had accepted cultural norms. At the time of Jesus I would expect that this was so. At the time in which the Christian church spread throughout the Roman Empire and as it moved into other areas of the world the cultures had their own expectations and norms for dress.

I would think that these 'norms' were the way that people outwardly showed conformity to the religious practice and worship of God.

Is that wrong?

Jesus and His disciples had a certain 'style' in which they dressed/attired themselves. As did the Pharisees. The two ran counter to each other I would expect. The Chosen series portrays it that way.

Regards,
MG

Care to address the contradictions between Christofferson's punctilious sanctimony and the scriptures (including a Scripture Mastery verse) that I raised in my critique, or are you just gonna throw out more banal pabulum?

"Different cultures at different times have had accepted cultural norms." Yes, and the dominant 21st century cultural norms are for people to dress more casually for religious worship services than lawyers going to court or businessmen going to a board meeting, and it's these cultural norms that Christofferson was calling out.

[MG 2.0]

Different cultures at different times have had accepted cultural norms. At the time of Jesus I would expect that this was so. At the time in which the Christian church spread throughout the Roman Empire and as it moved into other areas of the world the cultures had their own expectations and norms for dress.

I would think that these 'norms' were the way that people outwardly showed conformity to the religious practice and worship of God.

Is that wrong?

Jesus and His disciples had a certain 'style' in which they dressed/attired themselves. As did the Pharisees. The two ran counter to each other I would expect. The Chosen series portrays it that way.

Regards,
MG

Care to address the contradictions between Christofferson's punctilious sanctimony and the scriptures (including a Scripture Mastery verse) that I raised in my critique, or are you just gonna throw out more banal pabulum?

"Different cultures at different times have had accepted cultural norms." Yes, and the dominant 21st century cultural norms are for people to dress more casually for religious worship services than lawyers going to court or businessmen going to a board meeting, and it's these cultural norms that Christofferson was calling out.

If people, including youth (and their fashions) attend and/or show up at church we (those that are conforming to the LDS cultural standards set forth for worship services) ought to...and do, in the main...accept and welcome them 'as they are'. That is what I've seen anyway. What I do think, however, is that some critics simply use this (dress and grooming standards) as another reason to see the church as a "cult".

This, by your comments, seems to be the case for you. There are definitely things more important than the 'outward man/woman'. On that I would agree wholeheartedly. If you, personally, came/went to church services at a typical LDS ward, I hope that you would be accepted, 'as is' without feeling as though you are being shunned or unaccepted. You have to remember though, that humans are humans. Some humans do things that are hurtful rather than helpful to other humans.

It's always been that way. Human nature, isn't it interesting to watch and learn from?

Regards,
MG