I Have a Question, 1907
Questions asked and answered by the YMMIA, 1907 –
Q. Will you please state what is meant by the Kingdom of God?
A. President Wilford Woodruff was asked that same question by an Associated Press reporter, just after an election some years before his death, and in reply he is reported to have said:
It is this: We hold that this Church was set up and organized by command of the Almighty; that it has the right to formulate and maintain rules of church discipline applying to its own members; that the extent of its punitive powers is the excommunication of the transgressor; that it has no power to punish anyone by deprivation of life, liberty or property or personal injury in any form; that governments should not regulate the church, nor the church seek to control the state, that all men should be politically free and equal, free to vote as they please and to sustain what politics they please, so that they do not infringe upon the rights of others. We believe this Church will prepare the way for the coming of Christ to reign as King, and that this Church will then develop into the Kingdom of God, which all Christians pray will come, that the will of God may be done on earth as it is in heaven. We believe in the full and free agency of man, and that when that kingdom is established there will be perfect liberty on earth, civil, political and religious.
Q. When the Elders bless a child and give it a name, is it proper to mention the surname as well as the given name:
A. The full name may be mentioned; that is, both the given name and the surname, when the child is blessed. But this is not absolutely necessary. But where both are given, there can then be no mistake about the name of the child. its whole name is given; and besides, as soon as the child is blessed, it is the duty of the parents or its guardian to furnish the clerk of the ward with the date of its birth, names of its parents, etc., so that the record itself will give the whole name of the child, and will be an evidence in itself of what the child’s name is.
Q. Does a wife hold the priesthood in connection with her husband? and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority?
A. A wife does not hold the priesthood in connection with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, or with any other officer holding the Melchizedek priesthood, she may do so with perfect propriety. It is no uncommon thing for a man and wife unitedly to administer to their children, and the husband being mouth, he may properly say out of courtesy, “by authority of the holy priesthood in us vested.”
Q. Is the mind a part of our spiritual or physical existence?
A. without doubt, mind is not a physical, but a spiritual existence. The spirit of a man is the life of a man, that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal. The spirit of a man is in the likeness of his person. (Doc. & Cov., 77:2.) What we call mind must be the effect of the spirit, since without the spirit, which is life, there is no mind. The old saying arises: “What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? No matter.” We must agree that matter is never mind, and that mind is not matter, at least not such matter as composes our physical existence. But we are also told that “all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.” (Doc. & Cov., 131: 7.)
Q. Is an officer of the Church – a bishop, for instance – justified in consecrating oil for anyone to sell – Jew, Gentile or Saint – in a public store?
A. The brother who asks this question further says: “Of late years, it has been customary to have twenty or thirty bottles of oil consecrated at our fast meeting, and then taken to the stores to sell, as a convenience for the people. This seems to me like trifling with sacred things.” You are certainly correct; and if any such practice as consecrating oil by the wholesale to be retailed from any public store, is in vogue, the proper ward or stake authorities should see that such practice is immediately discontinued. Consecrated oil may be obtained from the properly designated officers of the temples of the latter-day Saints; or unconsecrated oil may be handed to the bishops of the wards for consecration.
Interesting quote by President Woodruff. All my life i have heard ‘Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” used interchangeably, and even with this perspective it doesn’t really make it clear to me. If the Kingdom of God is the church-type structure, then the scripture “Seek ye first the kingdom of God doesn’t seem so lofty…
Now the selling of consecrated oil I understand.
Comment by -MMM- — October 11, 2011 @ 8:03 am
I have never heard of that practice, and today I assume it would be seen as inappropriate.
Comment by HokieKate — October 11, 2011 @ 8:13 am
I thought that the definitive statement as to the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven question was in D&C 65:6:
Thus, the kingdom of God is the church in its current condition, and the kingdom of heaven will be established on earth when Christ comes again.
Comment by Mark B. — October 11, 2011 @ 8:53 am
“without doubt, mind is not a physical, but a spiritual existence.” So when we are out of our minds, are we having a “spiritual” experience, or just fed up with the craziness of life? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Comment by Cliff — October 11, 2011 @ 9:58 am
HokieKate, that particular construction was a conflation of different usages of the term “priesthood” and Kris and I detail this phenomenon in our paper. Joseph F. Smith is documented to have administered with his wife, in preference to administering with other priesthood holders when available. Perhaps surprisingly, when his son wrote answered questions regarding female healing in the 1955 church organ, he quoted this same section (albeit omitting the phrase about shared priesthood).
The question about selling consecrated oil is interesting as there was a small store at the Temple Square gate that sold oil consecrated in the Temple, and other temples sold consecrated oil as well. As I remember the old Tithing Store also sold consecrated oil.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 11, 2011 @ 10:40 am
Regarding the “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven”, this split goes back to Matthew. Where other Gospels say “kingdom of God” Matthew consistently substitutes “kingdom of heaven”, apparently out of Jewish sensitivity to invoking “God” or his name(s).
Comment by Ben S — October 11, 2011 @ 12:26 pm
That is interesting about women participating in giving blessings. (I asked my wife last night if she wanted to help me administer to one of the kids
). Where can I find out more about this practice? How did it begin? Why did it end? And under what circumstances was it done?
Comment by Steve C. — October 12, 2011 @ 7:14 am
Where to find out more about Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism, Steve C.? How about here. : )
Comment by Researcher — October 12, 2011 @ 7:24 am
Interesting document, Researcher. (though my first reaction to it was “Holy footnotes, batman”)
It seems to give a good overview of what was done in the past, but there doesnt seem to be anything offical(ish) after the direction given in the OP, though there was something similar given in 1946. There’s the Kimball story in the conclusion, but does anyone know if there has been any official direction on this, one way or the other, since 1946? Is there any real reason for this fading away?
Comment by Frank Pellett — October 12, 2011 @ 4:09 pm
Frank, I think that if you take a closer look at the last two sections (the last half really), you’ll see a discussion of second half of the twentieth century and the factors which lead to the declension of female healing.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 12, 2011 @ 6:18 pm
Thanks, JStapley, I’d missed the JFS reasoning given on page 81. Still, I wonder why, 60 years later and with the current ability to widely distribute specific instructions, this hasnt been revisited.
Would this be another instance where we have lost faith that an action is even possible in the “modern” day, like casting out spirits and moving mountains? Is the faith of even Priesthood blessing of healing fading, being relegated to a folk practice?
I mean, I understand the reasons of wanting to make the rituals conform to lower the possibility of splinters off the church, but how many things have we let fade away because we stopped believing in them?
It is a really good paper, btw.
Comment by Frank Pellett — October 13, 2011 @ 3:23 pm
Thank you, Frank. I’m not sure that it is a matter of general faith, though Elder Oaks’ recent talk on healing is quite an extraordinary exposition. I think it has more to do with factors relating to priesthood organization.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 14, 2011 @ 9:02 am