This is an odd set of revelations. The first one is addressed to Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson, telling them to go preach to the Natives on the border with the Lamanites in Missouri. The second one is addressed to Northrop Sweet and Ezra Thayre, telling them to go preach to the Natives on the border with the Lamanites in Missouri; but, the second one is WAAAAAY BETTER!!! The first section is 5 verses long and ends with a pathetic 1 “Drink!” while the second section talks about thrusting sickles, filling open mouths, and referencing the Book of Mormon, all while nearly murdering our livers with 21 “Drinks!” Why would these two revelations be telling different people to do the same thing, yet sound so different in doing so?
“Drink!” count – 21
My Book of Mormon 
July 4, 2016 at 1:15 am
So in this episode, we learn that Marie grew up a Baptist, and Bryce… if I understood correctly… apparently liked to pee in baptismal fonts? 🙂
Hey, Marie! I may know which Picture Bible you were talking about, if it’s the same one I read as a kid the first time I “read” the Bible myself. Is this it?
You can probably find a cheap used copy on Amazon or eBay, if you want to stroll down memory lane. (Script by Iva Hoth, illustrations by Andre Le Blanc, if you need search terms.)
This book actually is a pretty decent adaptation of the Bible, at least to the extent that it depicts lots of pretty obscure stories from the Old Testament that you don’t usually hear about. But yeah, of course all the sex gets whitewashed out.
For example, we do get the pretty cool story of Samson getting out of a Philistine trap in Gaza by ripping up the entire city gate and taking it with him, but while the Picture Bible says he came to Gaza to “see a friend”, we read in the real Judges chapter 16 that he was there visiting a prostitute.
On the other hand, for all the stuff it keeps, it does skimp out on anything too bizarre. The Book of Revelation gets half a page, and the only picture is of Jesus knocking on a door. No ten-headed dragons, or anything. Disappointing.
July 4, 2016 at 4:51 am
My very favorite picture bible is “The Book of Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb.” It is actually a serious attempt at “a literal interpretation using the text word for word in a version primarily assembled from the translations of Robert Alter and the King James bible.” (from the Amazonian blurb) For better or worse, it’s only Genesis, but it is spectacular.
And who says a prostitute can’t be a friend? Why, some of my best friends . . . never mind . . .
July 4, 2016 at 2:04 am
Now that I’ve posted the fun stuff, I’m now lumping together all my other inane ramblings and pedantic corrections in their own separate comment:
The question of who’s supposed to be talking, God or Joseph Smith, seems to come up a lot on the podcast. Well, just assume it’s God. If the section heading starts, “Revelation given to[/through] Joseph Smith”, and that’s almost every section, then it’s supposed to be God talking. I know that’s confusing enough, because it’s actually supposed to be Jesus Christ, and sometimes it sounds like he’s talking as God the Father, so it’s messy.
If it doesn’t say it’s a revelation right at the top, it will usually say whether it’s Joseph Smith or whoever else doing the talking (though not always.) The one weird exception we’ve seen so far was Section 20, which was clearly not in the “voice” of God, since it’s written in plural first person (lots of “we know”s in there), but it says it’s a revelation in the heading.
Incidentally, D&C 20:73 was where we read the set baptismal “script”, as you called it, that’s recited immediately before a baptized person takes the plunge: “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”
What’s up with Jesus’ red robe at the Second Coming? That will be mentioned way later in the D&C, in section 133:48 – “And the Lord shall be red in his apparel, and his garments like him that treadeth in the wine-vat” – but it’s a reference to Revelation 19:13 – “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” – which itself is cribbing from Isaiah 63:3 – “for I will tread them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.” God sounds nice.
And Mormons do indeed wear robes. They wear the hell out of robes… in the temple…
Speaking of the temple (sacrilegious SPOILERS, TBMs!), as for the Prayer Roll, that Bryce referred to, people visiting the temple can put the name of someone they’re concerned for on a little slip of paper, and deposit it in a box. The temple workers collect all the bits of paper, and put them in a little pouch. Near the end of every endowment session in the temple, a few participants form a prayer circle at the front of the room (the “True Order of Prayer”, as they call it), where a temple worker places the pouch with the names on the temple altar.
He then says a prayer, one line at a time, and the prayer circle participants repeat after him, one line at a time. The prayer can vary a bit, but each time the temple worker prays for those whose names are on the temple altar. He doesn’t actually get out the names and read them, he just asks for a blessing for all the people whose names are in the bag.
So I guess this is supposed to be a more powerful or efficacious prayer, somehow, than the ones given at home by the people who actually know and care about the person whose name they wrote on a slip of paper? I have no clue.
July 4, 2016 at 3:31 am
Oh man, I’m going to have to learn what an endowment session is, aren’t I?
I’m super impressed you can pull all these verses and such out so quickly. And YES, that’s absolutely the one I had! Wow, that sure is bringing me back, dang.
With regards to clothing, it’s possible that I’ve fallen down the LuLaRoe rabbit hole. I’ve seen the temple dresses, but will never purchase one. If I’m going to support a Mormon MLM it’s going to be through the Azures and Randys. And who thought it was a good idea to name a shirt a Randy? Oh, the gigglesnorting in the LuLaRoe groups…
July 4, 2016 at 6:06 pm
I do want to point out one thing regarding the slang: all the “ExMo” “NeverMo” “TBM” stuff is mostly used by the Ex-Mormon community. Actual Mormons almost never use those terms (most of them aren’t even aware those terms exist). To them, a “NeverMo” is simply a “non-member”, a TBM is either a “member” or sometimes a “saint” (LDS stands for “Latter-Day Saint” so the church counts all of its members as “saints”), and most tellingly, an ExMo is usually referred to as an “apostate” or sometime “anti-Mormon” because the Book of Mormon (and some later quotes by Joseph Smith) teach all members that those who leave the church will inevitably rail against it for the rest of their lives (the phrase “you can leave the church but you can’t leave the church alone” comes up in that context). Therefore, TBM’s don’t even really have a term for those who have left the church but are just trying to move on with their lives (“apostate” comes closest, but even that has…connotations…).
July 4, 2016 at 7:29 pm
I’ve never known exactly what to call myself. I was born in Salt Lake into a Mormon family of handcart pioneer stock. There were (still are?) TBMs in my extended family, but my parents and most of their siblings were what I have since learned were “Jack Mormons.” When I was seven I asked if I had to be baptized and my parents asked me if I wanted to be baptized. I said no and they said, “Well, let us know if you do. You can if you want. Or you can go to a completely different if you want.” They actually said that. Of course, as a free agent at seven, I never went to LDS church again. Over the next forty-odd years I went to random churches with random friends probably a dozen times, but I always identified as Mormon because of my hometown and my extended family.
So, I’m not exactly a NeverMo. I was once on a trajectory to become a TBM, but it didn’t take. I’m a Mormon misfire of sorts, a NearlyNeverMo, but still a Mo to one ever-diminishing degree or another.
All that aside, you’re right. The TBMs I’m aware of (relatives) are unaware of me and ExMos in general. To them there are members, gentiles and a few anti-Mormons who are to be ignored.
July 5, 2016 at 12:32 pm
In my personal experience a person who leaves the church is an atheist, because either you believe in God (always the Christian god, obviously) or you don’t. I’d never heard the word apostate until I started listening to Mormon podcasts. Is atheism a term TBMs ever use, or is it always apostates and apostacy?
July 5, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Since the LDS church considers the rest of Christianity to be in apostasy from the original church they claim Jesus set up (a stance often downplayed for PR reasons, but among the first things the LDS missionaries teach prospective converts, or “investigators”), becoming an ex-Mormon evangelical Christian would be perhaps just as big a betrayal of the Church as becoming an ex-Mormon atheist. What you are in relation to the LDS church is more important to the LDS church than what you are in relation to God.
Church-going LDS would simply call themselves “members”, as Jeff said. I think I’ve heard ex-Mormons referred to as “ex-members” more often that “apostates”. The “Jack Mormons” mentioned by St. Ralph are usually called “inactive members”, “inactives”, or “less active members” (by those who believe in political correctness), but a Jack Mormon usually believes it all deep down, but just doesn’t keep all the church’s commandments for whatever reason. Many inactives don’t believe a word of it, but effectively leave the church alone, and don’t quite reach the level of apostates.
July 5, 2016 at 8:00 pm
I haven’t heard “ex-member” much, though most Mormons simply prefer to ignore those who have left or pretend that they’re “inactive” (I’ve also heard them called “lost sheep” though that’s far from standard) unless they’re actively “anti-Mormon.” Which, let’s face it, almost all ExMos have been called anti simply for asking the wrong questions or voicing opinions that don’t gel with the current leaders.
Beyond the temple prayer thing, Mormons also have a laying on hands thing that sounds similar to what you said the Baptists do. They just call it a priesthood blessing. What that means is that one or more people who hold the priesthood (i. e. a (non-black, previous to 1978) male who has been ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, and explaining what that means would be a whole different post) place their hands upon your head, call you by your full name, declare that the following blessing is being performed by the power of the priesthood that they hold, and then give some sort of blessing (usually of comfort or similar things). Sometimes if you are sick then at least two priesthood holders will be involved: one who literally anoints your head with oil (every TBM priesthood holder worth their salt carries around a little vial of olive oil everywhere just in case they suddenly need to give a blessing) and the other “seals” the blessing in the same way as a normal priesthood blessing (by laying on hands and pronouncing some sort of blessing). Often these blessings are performed by family members or home teachers (a church program that assigns two priesthood holders to visit a certain number of members each month to check in on them and see how they’re doing), but sometimes you’ll just be at a church activity when someone starts puking or something and the first thing that people will do for them is whip out their vial of oil and give them a blessing. These blessings supposedly only work if everyone involved is perfectly faithful; I had it hammered into my head growing up in the church that I always had to be worthy to give a priesthood blessing, because if I was suddenly called on to give one and I wasn’t worthy, then it wouldn’t work and Old Widow Johnson’s cancer wouldn’t end up being healed (or whatever). Now that’s pressure. (Though most people add an “If it be God’s will” phrase into a blessing to cover instances when it doesn’t end up working anyway.)
July 6, 2016 at 1:52 am
Holy pressure, Batman. How could you ever be worthy if there’s no actual measurement, or a handy-dandy indicator letting you know if you’re lacking in the ‘perfectly thankful’ department? That’s a recipe for lifetime guilt.
July 6, 2016 at 3:55 am
Finally, if anyone’s interested, here’s the church’s official kids’ version of the Doctrine and Covenants (or at least the history surrounding it):
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-stories?lang=eng
The history here is super-simplified and extreeeemely whitewashed, though it might be interesting to look through it after reading a section to see what the church officially tells people about it. It doesn’t cover every section, though, and it jumps around a little so there might be unexpected spoilers (I think you’re safe through about Chapter 15 given what’s been covered so far).
July 18, 2016 at 6:28 pm
You can make White Fields Educational Foundation Inc. as your charity on an AmazonSmile account.