Why The 'Intellectual Reserve' Copyright'?

WHY does the LDS Church have an "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." copyright on its manuals and other publications?
This name replaced "Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" at the beginning of the 21st Century, likely around 2001 or 2002.
Nothing to worry about here.
A bunch of church attorneys chose the name and  purely for  legal reasons to keep up with the times.
Despite the "Sunstone-ish" sounding copyright, there's nothing to read into here.

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Can You Resign From a Church Calling?

  CAN you actually resign from an LDS Church calling or position?

Most members might say no, but there is a historical precedent for a resignation taking place.
On Oct. 6, 1946, Joseph Fielding Smith (the less well-known leader with that name, that was not the president of the church), submitted his resignation as patriarch to the church.
Although some more contemporary sources state that he was "released," he did submit his resignation for the calling to the First Presidency.
The newer Church News Almanacs state he was released, but the older almanacs confirm his resignation.
So, there you have it, for whatever it may mean, at least one church member did resign from a major calling and his resignation was accepted.
(Eldred G. Smith, the seventh and last patriarch of the church, replaced Joseph Fielding Smith. Eldred was put on emeritus status eventually.)

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

Why Church Members Go Inactive ...

Why do some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints go inactive?
It boils down to a lack of testimony and conviction, but often the spark to stop going to church is some negative experience -- usually with a church leader.
A bishop offended or embarrassed the member somehow.
In the case of one of my grandfathers, he traded his two prize plow horses to a friend, who was also his bishop, for a tractor. The machine broke down almost immediately and was no good. So, he took offense and stopped attending church. This continued for decades and he sadly passed away, being inactive.
In the case of one teenager, his bishop stopped him from attending his seminary graduation for a minor sell-confessed moral problem. He took offense that he missed a once-in-a-lifetime event. He was also upset that the prior year, two older boys in the ward did graduate from seminary, even though they stole yearbooks from the local high school and were prevented from attending their own high school graduation. He stopped going to church. His circle of friends even switched to less active members or even non-members.
In another case, a man in his mid-30s went inactive in the late 1970s for something his bishop did. It seemed like the man could not even recall exactly what the bishop did, but he was still mad about it and hadn't been to church since then. That former bishop has long since passed away and about a dozen bishops have served in the ward since then.
For still another case, a man in his late 50s, a smoker and inactive for many years, tried to come to church regularly five years ago. However, he could not stop smoking and said felt like an outcast at church, because of his smoking habit and within a few months he stopped coming again.
These tales are sad.
I'm not saying things that what church leaders do is the only cause of inactivity, but it is certainly one of the key causes. I'm also certain no church leaders plan to drive any members inactive, it just happens with human failings. Yet, I'm also certain church leaders probably work on missionary opportunities a lot and probably mostly ignore the negative -- that things they do could drive someone way from the church.
Obviously in many cases, members are perhaps looking for things to take offense at.
Someone once said that Sampson killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass. Sadly, the testimony of some members today is killed the same way.
Once a person stops attending church and doing what they should, their testimony decreases.
Still, this illustrates the grave consequences -- good or bad -- that church leaders can have on members' lives.
Church leaders could strive to be more sensitive to avoid doing things that members could take offense at. There is no way to avoid all such offenses, as some are silly and overblown, but bishops who are too strict and on a letter of the law crusade -- may do some serious damage -- especially to young adults.
I feel that some people, who are inactive, may not be forthcoming and also don't want to seem so shallow by revealing their true reason for going inactive -- that someone offended them.
So, they hide behind some so-called church history inconsistency, or similar things as their stated reasons.
They want to appear intellectual, but in reality are nothing of the sort ...
In 30 years of meeting inactive members in my stake, when I get people to really open up, the spark or cause of their inactivity can more often than ANY OTHER reason be traced to taking offense at what some leader or member did or said.
That's a sad reason for a substantial amount of inactivity, but still true.

--A second, more recent reason for church inactivity relates to the Internet. A member finds unsupported claims against the church, Joseph Smith, or its doctrines on the Web and decides the church must not be true. These members fail to do an extensive investigation and just seem to be looking for an excuse.

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

World's Toughest Mission (For Converts)?

What is the toughest mission to serve in for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
A lot depends on how you define "tough."
However, if you define it as how many average converts a missionary baptizes during his/her mission, then I'd peg my mission, England-Bristol, as thee toughest, and at the least one of the toughest of all.
In fact, I'd put ALL of Europe in the toughest in the world category.
I'd estimate the average missionary in the U.K. or Europe only baptizes a few or a handful of converts in two years of service.

Whereas in Central and South America in particular, missions have been divided and multiplied many times over the decades, there are actually LESS missions in the United Kingdom today than in the 1970s.
Missionaries were also "chewed out" in the early 1990s by a regional leader for their low baptism numbers. Eleven years later, in 2002, the mission was disbanded and merged with two adjoining missions. (It was re-instated about 2 decades later, though.)

In addition to being tough for converts, this mission is also among the most expensive in all the world -- though costs missionaries pay are equalized world-wide, except for couples.)

--ALL of Europe is in a steep religious decline overall.
In fact, the England Bristol Mission ceased to exist on July 1, 2002, after some 40 years of existence. The England London mission gained part of the former Bristol mission and the England Birmingham mission received the rest.

 The Church re-instated the England Bristol Mission 20 years later, as it returned in 2022.
But, where else in the world are you going to find LESS missions in existence and likely less full-time missionaries serving, except in the United Kingdom and Europe?
The "why" this may be so is another story.

               (Above photograph is from Bradford, England, a circa year 1300 A.D.  building.)

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

God Does Intervene In Our Lives

THIS life isn't set in stone --- there is always hope.
Even though God the Father likely knew  if we would be faithful and return to his presence or not before we were born, I strongly believe that outcome isn't set in stone.
Here's why.
God can see the future as it will be and I've always wondered if he ever intervenes and allows the possibility of changing the original outcome.
I believe we have our free agency to choose, but at times God will inspire and/or humble us so that we have time to reflect and consider a difference course of action that could ultimately change what will happen.
If this wasn't true, then why come to mortality in the first place, if God knew already if we would only fail or succeed as he could see into the future?
Sure you might need to have a physical body, but otherwise there's no reason to come to Earth if there no chance for a different outcome.
But I think because God does intervene to some degree, stopping short of taking any of our personal free agency away, that the outcome can be changed at many different points in our lives.
Thus, this means there is a reason to live a mortal life. The outcome is not set or certain yet. We repent or change the course as we listen to the spirit.
This hope alone is worth God letting us live our lives to truly prove if we are worthy to return to him.
(Note that this a different look on the subject of a similar blog posting I did int the past.)

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

It's "Nigh" unto Kolob, Not "Hie" unto Kolob

OK, my eyebrows raise when I see the title of a song in the LDS Hymn book, "Hie unto Kolob." (page 284).
Its title is simply NOT doctrinally correct.
(Some LDS artwork is not doctrinally correct either, so this should come as no real surprise.)
Based on the Book of Abraham 3:1-4, 9, the song takes an incorrect title.
"Hie" is not "Nigh."
"Hie" in Old English means "to quickly, hasten, hurry," according to Webster's Dictionary. "Hie" is NOT found in the Book of Abraham.
"Nigh" means "nearly, almost," according to Webster. "Nigh" is found in the Book of Abraham.
"And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord's time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest."  (Abraham 3:9).
That's what the scriptures states, "nigh" twice.

Brother Phelps may have aided the Prophet Joseph Smith in the translation of the Book of Abraham, but he indirectly helps to perpetuate an incorrect belief among LDS Church members today.
Phelp's song essentially says to hurry to Kolob, as if Kolob is the eternal goal of church members.
The problem is that I feel that most church members incorrectly believe Kolob is WHERE God actually dwells.
In fact, Kolob is simply the name of a great star that is NEAREST where God dwells (Abraham 3:3) and not actually the place where God dwells.
(We are given no specific name as to God's residence, except perhaps highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.)
I feel Abraham chapter 3 is more than an astronomy lesson.
The Lord is saying to draw near unto him, like Kolob is.
And, anyone who strives for eternal perfection -- required for becoming like God -- knows you can't hurry, or hasten that process. It take time and goes precept by precept.
Also, a man CAN'T be perfect in this life. (Jesus Christ was the only perfect person to have ever lived on Earth.) So, the Lord may also be implying to become as "nearly, almost" as perfect as you can in this life -- thus coming nigh unto Kolob.
That's my two cents on that subject.

--In another beef about an LDS hymn, a second song is "Come, Come, Ye Saints" (LDS Hymns Pages 30 and 326.)
A key phrase in that rousing Mormon pioneer rendition is "All is well, all is well."
Why is that particular phrase in that song?
Had the hymn's writer, William Clayton, not read the Book of Mormon enough or what?
"Wo be unto him that crieth All is well!" (2 Nephi 28:25).
Was Clayton oblivious to that verse or what?
Why did he have to use the phrase exactly as mentioned in the Book of Mormon in the hymn?
Clayton's original name for the hymn was actually "All is Well," later changed to "Come, Come, Ye Saints." So, at least that's one improvement in the song over the years and likely evidence that I'm NOT the only church member to have a problem with the "all is well" phrase.
Now I'm not saying for things NOT to well with the Mormon Pioneers, early church members,or even today's Saints.
Clayton COULD HAVE used a different word, instead of "well" in the song.
"All is clear"; "all is serene"; "all is great"; or "all is best" could have been possible substitutes.
Normally, as in "nigh unto Kolob," it may be best to quote scripture, but not when it is clearly a negative, as with 2 Nephi 28:25.
-Hymn No. 7, "Israel, Israel God is Calling" is another LDS Song that seems to have a problem. Clearly, the most key words in this rousing hymn are: "Come to Zion." That should be the song's title, not "Israel, Israel God is Calling."
--There is already a precedent for doctrinal changes in LDS Hymns. "I am a Child of God" had a one word change from "know" to "do," after a suggestion by then Apostle Spencer W. Kimball.
--I discussed doctrinal problems with the two hymns talked about above with a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. He figures it was all in the smoother kind of wording as to why the songs came out the way they did. 

-And here's another hymn that has been altered:

An LDS Church committee changed some wording in the rousing hymn, “Praise to the Man,” in 1927.

Original verse:

“Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins, Stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame.”

Switched to: “Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins, Plead unto heav’n, while the earth lauds his fame.”

 -In addition, the hymn "Praise to the Man" was originally written as a funeral eulogy and was, at first, NOT a rousing hymn at all. It was only years later when a Scottish tune was used, that it became an upbeat, marching hymn.

--UPDATE: After further thought and also after considering a reader's comments below, here's a clarification:

The LDS realm of arts, music and artwork, isn't always strictly doctrinally correct and may not have to be.
There's a "correct for its purpose" doctrine in the LDS Church and the arts probably fall under that umbrella.
While some hymns may not be strictly doctrinally correct, they can still elevate a congregation spiritually.
In the art realm, the Statues of the Angel Moroni commonly found may or may not be accurate likenesses of Moroni himself, but they still stand for much truth and are powerful symbols of the restoration of the Gospel.
The world of arts often takes certain liberties, it has to, to even be created.
Songs aren't necessarily written to be doctrinal essays and probably should not be analyzed as such. They are rousing musical renditions to honor God and evoke his Spirit. That is their purpose. Absolute correct doctrine in a hymn is a priority much further down the line of importance ...

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.







 

A More Authentic Rendering of Jesus Christ at the Second Coming

I prefer my doctrine to be as accurate as possible.

Hence, I took my limited -- make that very, very limited artistic ability -- at making the famous LDS Church Second Coming of Jesus Christ drawing in my home more authentic by coloring Jesus to have red apparel.
That's how Christ will look when he comes again (Doctrine and Covenants 133:48).
No, I don't care for watered-down doctrine.
That's why my favorite Standard Work is the Doctrine and Covenants.
No parables, no allegories, just straight-forward doctrine.
Now the red does make the painting stand out more in the room, but is that bad?
(Note that some of these Second Coming Christ paintings do have Jesus wearing a red-colored sash at his waist, so there is some small consideration to doctrinal accuracy with the work.)
In fact, it was a non-LDS artist, commissioned by the LDS Church, who drew this famous painting. So,  it is amazing how well it turned out anyway, considering it is one of the most used depictions of Jesus in the church today.

Note that a red-colored and fully doctrinal painting of Christ at the Second Coming is likely too startling for use in Temples. A painting doesn't have to be fully doctrinally correct to invite the Spirit ....

UPDATE: Nov. 24, 2012: My wife made me move this doctored painting from the downstairs family room into my den. She doesn't care for it.

UPDATE 2017: Occasionally, Church members offer to buy this hastily done, modified piece of work. (Of course, it is NOT for sale. Anyone could color their own, better one -- and the author of this blog didn't create the original painting.)

UPDATE 2020: The doctored, with red, painting on this blog, now appears in various Facebook posts and has taken on a life of its own. 

 

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.