Comments on: Questions from the Grass Roots, 1948 (13)

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:49:04 +0000

RE: Priesthood quorums. It also makes more sense outside of the block schedule.

By: ji

ji — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:26:33 +0000

One of the best ways to understand why things are as they are now is to understand the past — that’s why history is important. Thanks for the history! Here’s some more pre-1964 history: Elders quorums were based on 96 members, and one quorum might cover two or more wards, and a ward might have some elders in one quorum and some elders in another. Then, a decision was made to make elders quorum boundaries overlay ward boundaries. When people don’t appreciate this history, they might erroneously think that an elders quorum is a ward organization rather than a stake organization.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:26:02 +0000

Interesting about the high priests quorums. I hadn’t known that there was a separate quorum presidency back then.

I know someone who used the “high priests quorum” as a handy way of disguising his calling: “Oh, I serve in the presidency of the high priests quorum in my stake” was usually met with a “oh, ok” rather than “what’s a kid like you doing in a stake presidency?”

By: kevinf

kevinf — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:04:45 +0000

Bookslinger, last time I read volume 1 of the CHI, that’s the wording that I remember, as well. The general sense, though, is that if someone is not in a repentant state, and not causing any public embarrassment for the church, church discipline is usually not pursued.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:43:42 +0000

If not the present, then another previous but recent edition of CHI had a section that pretty explicitly stated that membership in another church was sufficient grounds for excommunication. I don’t have the exact wording handy. Going by memory, the connotation or implication was that excommunication was not mandatory, but the membership (in another church) alone was “sufficient grounds”.

Until I had read that, I was going to join the local Hindu Temple, which requires only that you pay dues, and -poof-, you’re a member, no beliefs or committment required; just to get their newsletter and “member pricing” for other events.

kevin: The practice you observe (ignoring those who attend or join other churches, as far as church courts go) is my observation as well. Or, as a member of a bishopric once told me: “No one gets excommunicated for (mere) apostasy.” One has to publicly and actively oppose the church.

By: kevinf

kevinf — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:28:59 +0000

Or was that Sir Robin’s minstrel? I forget.

By: kevinf

kevinf — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:28:12 +0000

Clark, I think it may extend beyond the humorless regions of Eastern Idaho you mention. I didn’t respond right away because actual work got in the way of blog reading.

I was actually waiting for someone to quote that line from Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail, when the dragon eats the minstrel Robin: “…and there was much rejoicing!”

By: ClarkGoble

ClarkGoble — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:23:50 +0000

I was surprised about the lack of nuance about Quetzalcoatl, especially since today that parallel isn't seen as that strong and that many of the strong parallels are due to Spanish influence injecting (surprise, surprise) Christ narratives into the local accounts. (See, for instance, this FARMS paper by Brant Gardner)

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:21:26 +0000

kevinf, that last comment from me was supposed to be a joke

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:20:24 +0000

…and the Church pursued disciplinary action, it would alienate the majority of Church members in Eastern Idaho.