Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
Little Known Facts About Church History: Lucy Mack Smith and Chinese Take-Out

Little Known Facts About Church History: Lucy Mack Smith and Chinese Take-Out

Last updated on: June 8, 2021 at 11:32 pm by Dan Peterson

Little Known Facts About Church History: Lucy Mack Smith and Chinese Take-Out 2021-06-08T23:32:29-06:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The temple of Jerusalem as it appeared in 66 AD, about three and a half decades after the crucifixion of Jesus and just prior to the Roman destruction of temple and city during the First Jewish Revolt. This wonderful outdoor model of late Second Temple Jerusalem stands on the grounds of the Israel Museum.
(Wikimedia Commons public domain photograph)

***

First, though: This article, by Professor S. Kent Brown, was just published in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship:

“Jesus’ First Visit to the Temple”

Abstract: In this rich and detailed description, S. Kent Brown paints an evocative, historically contextualized account of Jesus Christ’s first visit to the Jerusalem Temple since his infancy, when at age twelve he traveled with his family to attend Passover.

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the Latter-day Saint community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See S. Kent Brown, “Jesus’ First Visit to the Temple,” in The Temple: Symbols, Sermons, and Settings, Proceedings of the Fourth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 10 November 2018, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2021), 235–66. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/the-temple-symbols-sermons-and-settings/.]

***

Last night, I called attention to an article in the online industry newsletter Deadline (aka Deadline Hollywood):

“Faith-Based ‘Witnesses’ Debuts With Commanding $155K Weekend; ‘Bố Già’ Continues Specialty Box Office Dominance”

I’ve been faulted for using the sensationalistic adjective commanding. But, of course, commanding wasn’t my word; it’s from the newsletter’s own headline. (Reading is so hard!) And the Deadline Hollywood story has now been picked up by at least two additional outlets:

News Block: “‘Witnesses’ leads the specialized box office with an impressive debut”

WCNN (Atlanta): “‘Witnesses’ Leads Specialty Box Office With Commanding Debut”

Notice my exaggerated use, in their headlines, of the words impressive and commanding. I’m so vain. I probably thought that song was about me.

Today, Monday, would be an excellent day to attend a screening of Witnesses. It’s Family Night tonight! Take extended family! Take friends! And many theaters offer discounts on Tuesdays, right?

***

In connection with the Witnesses film, some critics of the Restoration have sought to resuscitate the venerable “deer Jesus” story in order to discredit Martin Harris. I commented on that story in this column, published in Meridian Magazine back on 4 May 2021:

“Martin Harris: Skeptic or Gullible Dupe?”

For a certain type of person, though, the “deer Jesus” yarn will live on, lovingly cherished and cultivated from generation to generation. And, for some of them who have no problem baselessly slandering living people, there’s obviously no moral impediment to slandering the dead: Martin Harris, says one, wasn’t so much a witness as he was witless. (Nudge, nudge. Get it?)

Whether or not Martin Harris saw weird visions, however, a small handful of critics definitely do. Several months back, a few of them were able to behold a battery-microphone pack on the back of one of our actors, even though we didn’t use battery microphones. Now, gazing intently at the food served up by Lucy Mack Smith to her family during a scene in Witnesses in which Martin Harris visits the Smiths, a member of the same small coven of visionaries affirms that he could clearly see the rice, water chestnuts, broccoli, and other vegetables of an anachronistic Chinese stir fry. I thought that our producer, associate producer, anddirector might be amused by this visionary claim, and they were: “That’s a hoot,” said one, “especially because it was, I believe, from a Campbell’s (or similar) can. Didn’t know that Chinese stir fry included a gravy base with potatoes, etc.” Said the other: “That is wonderful Dan, thanks for sharing! I’d have to check with our art dept., but I believe it was actually Dinty Moore beef stew from a can. (Avoided by the crew.)” And then the third added that “It was Dinty-Moore (or a close relative). That really is hilarious — and more than a little sad. How would it be to be that obsessed with tearing down the church?”

***

And, finally, here are some links to articles that were published in a prior volume of Interpreter:

Daniel C. Peterson, “The Power is In Them”

Abstract: The Interpreter Foundation has spent five years dedicated to publishing quality scholarship regarding the gospel, history, and scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The result is a body of work both to be proud of and to stand upon as we move forward. Profound appreciation is given to those who have contributed to this effort, and an invitation is extended to be part of future explorations and exhortations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part One”

Abstract. Many mistakes that occur in scholarly endeavors are understandable. The truth is often difficult to discover, and this makes errors inevitable and expected. And, of course, some mistakes are so insignificant that to complain of them would be mere pedantry. But this is not true of all errors. Some are both obvious and of such significance to their topics that they are egregious. With respect to the gospel, there is reason to be concerned that this is occurring to some degree on the topic of prophets and the Lord’s revelations to them. Erroneous claims and arguments are not difficult to find, including some published under the auspices of reputable and mainstream entities. Is it possible that such errors are becoming common, and commonly accepted, in Latter-day Saint scholarly discourse? To help answer this question, it is useful to consider, among others, works by Terryl Givens, Patrick Mason, and Grant Hardy. This paper will do so in three Parts.

Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part Two”

Part One considered multiple examples, primarily from Terryl Givens and Patrick Mason, that begin to suggest a positive answer to this question. This installment, Part Two, considers examples from Grant Hardy that also suggest an affirmative answer.

Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part Three”

Part One considered multiple examples, primarily from Terryl Givens and Patrick Mason, that begin to suggest a positive answer to this question, and Part Two did the same with regard to examples from Grant Hardy. This Part considers several additional instances that can be treated more briefly and then provides a general conclusion to the two-part question that has guided this exploration.

Richard D. Gardner, “Consecration Brings Forth Zion, Not Just Disaster Relief: An Examination of Scholarly and Prophetic Statements on the Law of Consecration”

Abstract: Active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints covenant to obey the law of consecration, and although I have long felt we discuss it too little, more Saints seem to be taking notice. Various historical and doctrinal opinions have been expressed on the law and on the “united order,” including some insightful and some unusual opinions by Kent W. Huff in his book Joseph Smith’s United Order*.1 Using this book along with the contributions of several other scholars and Church leaders as a basis for discussion, I explore the history, meaning, and future of the “united order” as part of the larger law of consecration. Starting as an eleven-man organization in charge of Church business and operating under consecration principles, the united order — actually called the united firm — transformed into the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to historians, most Church members did not even know of its existence, let alone participate in it. Traditional understanding is that the firm’s consecration model provided the pattern for the Saints to follow. An alternative interpretation, described by Kent Huff, is that the Saints’ only real attempt at a formal consecration effort was for disaster relief. In fact, according to Huff, the Saints in general did not deed their property to the Church as we’ve learned in Church history classes. He further argues that even the former-day Saints in the City of Enoch, the early Christians in Jerusalem, and the Nephites right after Christ’s visit didn’t really have all things in common in the way most of us have imagined. I disagree with this interpretation and provide evidence against it, but I [Page 124]appreciate the historical information and several philosophical insights that Huff provides. Other scholars and historians challenge the widely-held notions that 1) tithing is a lower law, given because the Saints failed to live the full law of consecration, and that 2) a formal form of consecration (the united order) will eventually return. I advocate instead for the traditional understanding of the law of consecration and stewardship as taught by Church leaders, believing it is the path toward both freedom and equality the world is looking for, and I explain why I believe it — or a similar program — will eventually be reinstated.*

Uncategorized

Book of Mormon Witnesses

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Interpreter Foundation

Interpreter journal

Interpreter Journal Latter-day Saint Faith Scholarship

Witnesses of the Book of Mormon

Previous Post

June 6, 2021

How is "Witnesses" doing thus far?

Next Post

June 8, 2021 In which I channel my inner Antaeus

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Abraham Peter Paul Joshua