Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Rodcast 29: Nemesis

Yeah, it's an ugly picture, but I used it for a reason. I'll give anyone five bucks if they can tell me what that reason is.

Joey Smith joined us this time with a barrel full of topics. Resulted in us running quite a bit longer than usual, but good times had by all. Sean pops in a bit too, so that's totally a bonus.

I think we talked a little about regional conference in there too. Plus there was some Matsby correspondence. All this and polls!

Download here!


  1. First of all, Rhett has bad taste in candy. 3 Musketeers over Peanut Butter Cups? That is insanity! Seriously, that's something an insane person might say. I wouldn't be surprised if that guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart said something like that in court between shouting his crazy hymns.

    Second, thanks for addressing my questions. It is the Purpose of the Aaronic Priesthood. Then the scripture about the field being white and ready to harvest.

    And yeah, we did chant stuff as missionaries, but that is a completely different story from civilian life. Everything missionaries do is weird, so that doesn't count as a measure of something weird.


    Elder Packer's talk as spoken during conference was somewhat different than the transcription of the talk that was released the following week. Some of the questionable things he had said were somewhat smoothed out when referring to the version that the church officially endorses (the released written version). I think he may have strayed a little from the teleprompter when giving the talk and that he may have misspoken.

    That's cool that you were there for Elder Uchdorf's talk on Sunday. What he said was much more in line with more of the recent views the first presidency has been going with - they are no longer saying it is a choice - and they are acknowledging the possibility of it being something you are born with.


    Cain... the story is weird. The way he brings it up in the miracle of forgiveness is odd...

    "an interesting story comes to us from Lycurgus A Wilson's book on the life of David W Patten. From the book, I quote an extract from a letter by Abraham O. Smoot giving his recollection of David Patten's account..."

    So he is quoting a book by a guy which features a story as told by another guy where he is remembering a story he heard another guy tell.

    I am not sure that testimony would hold up in court.


    It was NEVER official doctrine that the blacks would never get the priesthood. My understanding is that the first presidency did not want President McKonkie to name his book Mormon Doctrine because there are quite a few things in that book that do not have a real foundation. And he went ahead with calling it that anyway - knowing it was at odds with the other brethren.

    There were quite a few people who were working with the church to get them to consider offering the priesthood to the blacks. Some were working WITH the church and some were protesting antagonistically. It is reasonable to believe that the those people helped prompt the brethren to ask in the first place.

    I believe this was a practice that was perpetuated for so long because nobody even thought to ask about if it was right or wrong - until 1978


    I think your podcast is a great place to discuss the things you discuss. If you had a wider listenership, I would want you to continue the discussions as they have been. You are not declaring yourself scholars, you're just dudes. You're not making declarations or judgements, you are just discussing things. You're not prophets. It's just like having a conversation with my friends (I pretend Pete's voice is my own - even though that means I say weird things sometimes).


    I loved this episode! The best yet.

  2. Sorry, Rhett...peanut butter and chocolate is the best flavor combination in the history of ever.

    Peter's coconut "chew" story = awesome.

    I think I voted for mints in the fasting poll. Actually, I think I voted for all the options...but anyway...I put them on a par with gum. I kind of agree with Rhett about the Altoids thing...Cafe Rio mints are a little too enjoyable to be fasting-appropriate.

    In the instance when I had an experience with a bishop where I know he said something to me that was wrong, I went to the stake presidency about it. Whatever happens after that...whether the bishop gets called in or not...isn't up to you. What IS up to you is to bring it up to higher authority and let them know what happened/what's going on. It devolves upon you to do what you can to fix problems, and, in a case like that, that's what you can do. Definitely, like Jon said, you need to weigh whether your problem is of significant enough consequence to "protest", but it should be identified as an option and not totally off-limits.

    Regarding the Packer talk: I think the line gets crossed when members go public with their disagreements (like Jon said). I agree with Peter about the need to take it upon yourself to come to your own conclusion about an issue discussed by leadership and not just either rubber-stamp it or fly off the handle the second a certain issue (like same-sex attraction) gets mentioned. If there is a problem, you need to work through that issue privately and not rant online or wherever else to unburden yourself. Private issues are not to be hashed out in public forums.

    Pres. Packer apparently went off-script to some degree with his talk. He didn't give the talk completely as it was written, and that's where the trouble entered the situation.

    Amazing...none of the things you talked about...the never getting to the moon, the question of Cain being Bigfoot...I'd never heard of any of that stuff. Wow. Probably because I avoid that crap at all costs. If it isn't in the temple recommend interview, it isn't necessary for me to have any clue about it. Like Peter said, if it isn't fundamental to the faith, it is not as relevant to us as those things that are.


  3. I agree with Peter that the idea that blacks were not to have the Priesthood was parsing/twisting a doctrinal point to fit into a culturally-related question. It was an easier way for people to 'understand' the idea of the Lord opening the Priesthood to whomever He chooses. The current application of that idea at the time was to say blacks couldn't have the Priesthood, but that was not the larger concept...that the Priesthood could be denied to a larger group of people than just blacks, if it were the Lord's will that it be so. It was people mistaking an aspect of the larger principle for being the larger principle.

    My bishop served most of his mission in the ghettos of Philadelphia a few years before the Priesthood was made available to blacks, and he's talked about how less-than-easy it was to teach blacks, knowing what he wouldn't be able to offer them, and how much he admired those who joined the Church in spite of that unavailability. He stayed faithful too, even though the situation made his mission more difficult.

    I think the important thing is how well the listeners know you guys. They will know when you're joking, what your personality is, etc. There's little risk involved. The listeners "get" you. The more people who listen, though, the fewer who will have that familiarity...the greater risk of being mistaken and misunderstood. It isn't a matter of what you say or what you've said on the podcast to this's a matter of a lot of the format of this program being subjective rather than objective, and the negative consequences of that fact if you had a larger, less-intimate listenership.

    Smooth body doctrine? Sounds kinky.

    This was probably one of the best Rodcasts ever...I agree with Matsby. That thing at the end about Trick-or-Treating at the Prophet's house was AWESOME.