Early Mormon Lyman Royal Sherman died without ever knowing he was called to be an apostle

A lot of men have been called to be LDS apostles since Joseph Smith’s time. Today, an announcement of a new apostle is big news. In the early days of the LDS Church, many apostles became apostates. Some died, some were dropped over doctrinal disputes. An interesting footnote is the case of Lyman Royal Sherman, who lived and died without ever realizing that he had been called to be an apostle.

It’s open for debate as to whether Sherman should be considered an apostle. A traditionalist would say no, since he was only called and never ordained. However it’s clear that this faithful member of Smith’s church was intended to be an apostle had he lived.

BYU researcher Lyndon W. Cook, in a sketch of Sherman’s life, published in the fall 1978 Brigham Young University Studies, writes that Sherman was born May 22, 1804 in Vermont. He and his wife, Delcena, were baptized in Pomfret, N.Y., in January 1832. Sherman and his family lived in Kirtland, Ohio, until 1838.

According to Cook, Sherman was a close friend of Joseph Smith. He served as a president in the first Quorum of the Seventies from 1835 to 1837. Sherman also remained a very faithful member of the LDS Church. Just before Christmas 1835, Sherman approached Smith and said that he felt he was in need of a revelation. Smith obliged almost immediately, telling Sherman via the revelation that “your sins are forgiven” and “let your soul be at rest concerning your spiritual standing.”

Sherman also participated in secret anointings and ceremonies in the Kirtland Temple (see above) and according to reports, spoke in tongues. As the saints were being forced from Kirtland, opposition leaders sought to use a printing office to manufacture anti-LDS tracts. That printing office was destroyed by fire to prevent that, and historians believe it was the ever-faithful Sherman who set the blaze to thwart Smith’s enemies. Sherman then moved to Missouri and was on the Far West stake high council.

Here’s where it gets interesting. While in Liberty Jail in January 1839, Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith wrote to Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball that Sherman should be made an apostle. However, unknown to Smith, Sherman’s health was ruined after the Kirtland strife and he was dying. Kimball and Young, for reasons still unclear, chose not to tell Sherman of his call to the apostleship. Perhaps Sherman was in a coma? In any event, this early church leader died in February 1839, in Far West, never knowing about his call.

Google Lyman Sherman and there are several accounts of his life that are interesting to read. In any event, his family remained active in the church. His wife, Delcena, crossed the plains to the Salt Lake Valley and died in 1854 in Salt Lake City.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published in StandardBlogs

The temporary, mistaken ban on allowing women to pray in sacrament meeting

Several years ago, I was listening to a Mormon Stories interview with writer Carol Lynn Pearson when I heard her say that in the 1970s, women were not allowed to offer prayers in LDS sacrament meeting. That caught my attention. I turned 17 in 1980 and had been to hundreds of sacrament meetings in the 70s. I called my mom and asked her if this was true. She said yes. She added that the ban bothered her enough to ask our Southern California ward bishopric for an explanation.

She told me that they told her the ban was in place because sacrament meeting was a priesthood meeting and that only priesthood holders could deliver prayers. Mom added a caveat, though. She stated that not long after her query, the ban on prayers offered by women ended. As she told me, the explanation was apparently that it had all been a mistake.

“A mistake?” This whole objectionable footnote to my church’s decade of the 70s, that included the end of its ban on blacks and tussle with the ERA, sounded so bizarre that I Google searched it, and found that mom was probably right — it had been acknowledged as a mistake, … sort of. Go to a 1986 post in the “By Common Consent” LDS-theme blog here. According to author Kevin Barney, in 1967, a ban on opening prayers was initiated under the “it’s-a-priesthood-meeting” reasoning. Apparently, that ban was rescinded soon after but the prohibition continued for a decade or more in some wards. In late 1978, church leaders, perhaps to settle the issue, had this published in “The Ensign:”

“The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that
there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament
meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer
prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences. Relief Society visiting teachers may offer prayers in homes that they enter in fulfilling visiting teaching assignments.”

So that ended the debate? Maybe not. According to the blog, there is a claim that just before he died, Ezra Taft Benson made a statement that some assumed to mean that only men could open meetings in sacrament meeting. As a result, according to the 2008 blog post, there are some wards that don’t allow women to open sacrament meeting with a prayer. I haven’t been to a ward that follows the no-opening-prayer rule for women, as far as I can recall.

The comments to the blog post cited above are fascinating. There are quotes from old church general handbooks and Ensigns that state only priesthood holders can pray in sacrament meeting. One commentator says he went to a training session for leaders where he was told that women should not offer opening prayers.  For what it’s worth, I went through the “LDS General Handbook 2″ and there was nothing it that said only men could say the opening prayer in sacrament meeting.

This is another fascinating footnote in LDS history that makes it so interesting; another example of the truism that God may be the same today, yesterday and forever, but his subjects can certainly display flighty, ever-changing personalities.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

LDS writer Carter’s essays exploit the tension between right and wrong

There’s a furtive thrill in reading honest Mormon writing because we encounter characters, or better yet, real people — who aren’t cliches or caricatures — wrestling with the same doubts that everyone experiences but is so rarely talked about in the three-hour block called church on Sunday. Part of the thrill is realizing that honest LDS writing is still frowned on by many who should know better.

Stephen Carter, the editor of Sunstone, has a book of essays published by Provo’s Zarahemla Books. “What of the Night” deals with many subjects, including death, Carter’s relationship with an inactive brother, non-member neighbors and fishing, mission experiences, and trying to come to terms with what having the priesthood means. The essays are effective because Carter doesn’t telegraph his intentions in advance. He’s not preaching to readers. He’s relating experiences to Mormonism, telling us how it went with him. Although readers will likely not have equal experiences, they will have had similar experiences that provided the same emotions. If an honest reader can stand honest writing, writer and readers can share empathy from the experiences.

I was particularly moved by Carter’s two-essay tribute on the final years of Mormon academic Eugene England’s life. My communication with England was not even as an acquaintance. As BYU newspaper editor, I used to get a lot of feedback from him and his family. The England that Carter knew well — intelligent, liberal, motivated, impulsive and with an eager knowledge of studying the Gospel — fits what I recall of the man.

Carter captures a lesson I learned from England’s example perfectly when he talks of “Gene’s commitment to Joseph Smith’s concept of ‘proving contraries.’ When one proves contraries, Gene always argued, you aren’t doing so to identify what is right and what is wrong but to experience the tension between them. It is the experience of dwelling in this tension that makes you wiser.”

The “tension” that Gospel questions provides my mind is what keeps me a believing member of the LDS Church. I fear that if I had avoided confronting the endless arguments against God or the LDS Church I would have left spirituality long ago. From England’s example, I realize that my outspoken atheist friends, or scholars such as Fawn Brodie or Will Bagley, are as important to my relationship with God and my spirituality, as The Book of Mormon, the Holy Bible, or the works of Parley P. Pratt. There’s a certain irony that a late friend of mine who spurned any independent LDS publications and took a special interest in vilifying England left the church while England himself died a faithful member. If tensions are not explored, little of value is learned, and whatever faith exists is soft.

It hurt to reads from Carter about England’s slow demise due to brain cancer, or the hateful comments he received from men he revered as representatives of Jesus Christ, but I’m glad he and many others provide us material to enrich our lives.

All of Carter’s essays are thought-provoking. I particularly enjoyed “The Weight of Priesthood,” that explores his feelings of doubt that he could provide power and testimony to others during his youth, mission, and post-mission life. Any priesthood holder who has been given the task of blessing a seriously ill person can understand the doubts and weight associated with such responsibility.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published in 2010 on StandardBlogs