Generals in heaven

Interesting letter from the First Presidency in sacrament meeting today. I don’t have a copy of the letter, but it solidly refuted the apocryphal “generals in the war in heaven” quote that’s been floating around for years. It’s this one:

You were generals in the War in Heaven and one day when you are in the spirit world, you will be enthralled by those you are associated with. You will ask someone in which time period they lived and you might hear, “I was with Moses when he parted the Red Sea,” or “I helped build the pyramids” or “I fought with Captain Moroni.” And as you are standing there in amazement, someone will turn to you and ask you which of the prophets’ time did you live in? And when you say “Gordon B. Hinckley” a hush will fall over every hall and corridor in Heaven, and all in attendance will bow at your presence. You were held back six thousand years because you were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous.

What’s amazing is that it’s become so prevalent that the First Presidency felt the need to do something about it. This doesn’t happen very often. :)

What other popular Mormon “urban legends” (for want of a better term at the moment, but then I’m running on four hours of sleep so who knows what’s coming out of my mouth…er, fingers…at the moment :P) can y’all think of? In other words, what’s next on death row? ;)

Really? I’m pretty sure we didn’t get that one today. I guess my bishop is just slower than most.

Hmm, they didn’t read it in our ward either.

Several months ago, a high councilor gave a talk in our ward and quoted that passage with the preface “I couldn’t find the reference, but I’m pretty sure it was Marvin J. Ashton at a BYU devotional.” Hint: if you can’t find a reference, run! The Church documents like CRAZY!

Bart and I both know it’s a fake one, so we just sort of looked at each other and contemplated leaping up and shouting “false doctrine!” but refrained. Bart did email the bishop afterwards, though, with the link to the church news article where President Packer shot down that quote and a suggestions that perhaps the HC might be notified lest he go quoting that in every ward in the stake.

This comment is too long.

I hope the next one to die is the myth that in order to be a good LDS woman, you must be a centerpiece-making, obsessed-with-decorating, fresh-bread-baking stay-at-home mom with 10 children, who has no desire whatsoever for a career or extra-domestic activities. Yeah, *that* one’s been buggin’ me for a while.

How about the myth that Joseph Smith didn’t have plural wives?

And the myth that apostates are all liars. And drunken crack heads. With hooligans for children.

is Cain Sasquatch?!

That one never fails to amuse, George.

I don’t seek them out, but I haven’t heard a Three Nephites story that has survived Occam’s Razor in my mind.

There are also plenty of myths/false doctrines that have been refuted and still persist, or that continue as common misconceptions. For example, the misconception that blacks of African lineage were never ordained to the priesthood in this dispensation before 1978, when in reality there were priesthood-holding blacks at least through Brigham Young’s era (for example, father and son Elijah Abel and Enoch Abel).

Along with that come a whole slew of doctrines that were later declared false, but there are undoubtedly some who persist to believe them, particularly since they were taught by general authorities (which is, no doubt, a large part of why they are sometimes still believed). Namely:

*Myth: Blacks were not given the priesthood because they were descendants of Cain (this was partially refuted in 1955 when President McKay declared non-African blacks were not children of Cain and could be ordained, and eventually rescinded as doctrine entirely after 1978).
*Sample refutation:“…It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that…. The lesson I’ve drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. …I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. …Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.” — Dallin H. Oaks, 1988.
*More recent refutation: “One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. …” — Jeffrey R. Holland, 2006.

*Myth: Blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence.
*Refutation: “Mormonism no longer holds to…a theory” that Blacks had been denied the priesthood “because they somehow failed God during their pre-existence.” — Spencer W. Kimball, 1978.

*Myth: Interracial marriage, particularly between blacks and whites, is condemned.
*Refutation: “So there is no ban on interracial marriage. If a black partner contemplating marriage is worthy of going to the Temple, nobody’s going to stop him… if he’s ready to go to the Temple, obviously he may go with the blessings of the church.” — Church spokesman Don LeFevre, 1978.
*Another one: “[T]he Church Handbook of Instructions… is the guide for all Church leaders on doctrine and practice. There is, in fact, no mention whatsoever in this handbook concerning interracial marriages. In addition, having served as a Church leader for almost 30 years, I can also certify that I have never received official verbal instructions condemning marriages between black and white members.” — Robert L. Millet, 2003, in an official response to Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven.

M: Odd. Maybe this week?

Janssen: Haha, yes, people do have a penchant for quoting things without solid references. (Correcting false doctrine in sacrament meetings has got to be one of the less-desirable parts of being a bishop. Not fun.)

Whitney: I thought it was 12 children. :P

Ali: :)

George: Actually, no, Cain is a television producer in L.A. You heard it here first. :P

rikker: Our tendency to idolize our leaders is admirable, I think, but the only one who won’t disappoint (on one point or another) is Christ himself. Our general authorities and prophets are real men with faults and foibles like the rest of us, and it doesn’t really bother me if they make mistakes from time to time. (I’m not saying it does bother you, by the way. :))

Yet again that clever adage seems appropriate: The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible, but no Catholics believe it. The Mormon Church teaches that the prophets are fallible, but no Mormons believe it. :P

It doesn’t bother me a smidgen. It does sometimes bother me that Mormons often don’t understand that a statement from a prophet doesn’t constitute doctrine, even if he teaches it regularly (see Adam-God), let alone an isolated statement. New doctrine has to be ratified by the membership.

Haha. Yes, the whole question of when a prophet is speaking as a prophet and not as a man is often hard to answer, since there’s no noticeable cue. Thus (once again) the importance of relying on the Spirit.