rongo

And a more financially secure husband, which was the apparent motivateion for many immigrant women (see Daynes' research as I mentioned before).

Not always. My founding Mormon ancestor was a poor amputee who emigrated to Nauvoo with his son (he was a widower. John Benbow paid for them to come to Zion). He remained poor his whole life, but went on to marry three wives, and they scraped by. One winter they survived by eating the seed potatoes for the spring. While we often say that men had to demonstrate ability to provide for their families, some (like my g-g-g-grandfather) were authorized because of their faithfulness.

That there were not enough righteous and valiant men to go around. Women would have had to settle for less or nothing at all.

 

I thought I already explained this.

I think that this explanation comes close to the erroneous "polygamy started because there were more women than men and they married them to help them cross the plains." 

Polygamy consolidated righteous fatherhood. Ideally. Most members did not participate in it (Journal of Discourses talks routinely place participation at about 10% of the Church), but those who were authorized were seen as being "most worthy." There were exceptions (everyone can come up with some horror stories), of course. We wouldn't do any better in our day, and would probably do much worse. 

My ancestry has some horror stories and storybook polygamous marriages (including three wives who got along very well and were very satisfied living it, based on their journals). 

I don't get that from the link.

You need to concede this point, Scott. LoF were canonized the same way that D&C 137 and 138 were in the 1970s. And, they were removed in 1921, with Elder Talmage heavily behind it (probably mostly because of the Godhead confusion in, what is it, Lecure 5?). 

I think that it is clear to anyone who reads LoF and is familiar with Joseph Smith's writings and revelations that LoF are not Joseph Smith's work. The language and theology is different in places.

But plural marriage ensured the survival of the Church in the crucial period when it was undergoing intense oppression and struggling to survive through the rigors of frontier settlement, all the while endeavoring to spread the gospel message in Europe, the British Isles and elsewhere.

Another thought that occurs to me is that the waves of convert-immigrants of the 1850s, 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s ensured that the Church and then-polygamy was nothing like the FLDS of today (which is a common claim --- that if you want to see what Mormon polygamy is like, just look at the FLDS). I remember seeing a Dr. Phil episode where he interviewed some "lost boys" from the FLDS, and there was footage of men on ATVs patrolling the fenced in community of Dorado, Texas --- keeping outsiders out). This was the complete opposite of how European immigrant-converts were assimilated into 19th century Deseret/Utah Territory communities. 

In fact, I don't think the FLDS particularly welcomes converts ---- certainly not waves of them like in the 19th century.

Statistically speaking, each new generation will necessarily include more persons with at least one LDS polygamous ancestor than in previous generations. However, the proportion of ancestors for such members will continue to go down. It's the same principle by which we can conclude that, if Abraham left any living seed, then all people today are literally his descendant. While that's true for Abraham, it's also true for anyone who lived as long ago as he and who left living seed. We're all the literal children of Cain as much as Abraham (even Brigham !)

 

Oddly enough, as a 4th generation member, I have 0 ancestors who were LDS polygamous. Neither do my kids because my wife is a 3rd generation member. But it's practically guarenteed that at some point one of my grandchildren or great-grandchildren will have such ancestors, as my children and grandchildren marry persons with such ancestors.

That's a good point that I had never thought of before.

In my stake, I keep running into descendants of John Hess (my ancestor who had six wives). One of them was one of my young women's presidents, and we used to tease each other because she was through the 16 year-old wife (the other five were in their sixties). I countered that I was through the first wife . . .

I do think that the spiritual heritage and effect on the subsequent generations of the Church is one of strength. Part of this might be because of the forced sacrifice and the galvanizing effect of the world vs. the Church. 

 

Is that why the Church largely distances itself from polygamy whenever the topic comes up?

I don't. No matter what "the Church" does. 

I do think that waffling and dissembling on certain things has not been good (the essays are an attempt to undo this). I've always been open about these things, and haven't cared for some people in the Church's (including public affairs) Jack Nicholson immitation ("You can't handle the truth!").

And I'll just say that the Church's survival into and thriving during the 20th century and beyond is due in part to the sacrifice of early Church members in obeying the commandment to practice plurality of wives.

It amazes me, given how many people are converts, what the result is when you ask a class at church how many have polygamy in their heritage (ancestors). The impact was much more far-reaching than simply "raising up seed" --- that was part of it, but it had a strengthening impact that is still felt generations after it was discontinued. 

B.H. Roberts's treatment of it (himself a polygamist who fought unsuccessfully to be seated in the House of Representatives because of it) in his section "Still, why?" in CHC is very good. He points out (among other things) that it had tremendous publicity value that continues even today:

Those surgeries are so brutal.  Those walks around the hall being torture trying to get things working again.  I also had the ileostomy when they first removed the rectum giving it time for the south end to heal.  I hated the ileo, double barrel, recessed, ostomy rings and always fighting the toxic liquid eating the adhesive.  I had several "accidents" during the 8 months that  I was also dealing with chemo.  Given my options of  A. diaper;  and B. what I remember of the ileo; I was choosing C. and came very close.

 

The colonosomy has been a breeze in comparison.   Give that wife a big hug for me.  I understand part of what she has been through.  As well as you, the caregiver.

Memories! She almost bled to death when they put her back together. She had a bad pain between her navel and her hip, and a lump appeared, first baseball-sized, then softball, then volleyball. She was filling with blood, and we had (what turned out to be) an eight-hour wait for surgery (the surgeon had a worse emergency to deal with). She doesn't remember any of this, but she told me at the time that the pain was worse than childbirth and delivery. Morphine wasn't affecting her at all, and at the time, I thought that morphine was the best available. They explained that they would try dilaudid (spelling?), which was more powerful than morphine, and if that didn't work, they had IV cocaine. Which was guaranteed to work . . . Dilaudid worked great, and she made it to surgery.

Changing the ileostomy bag seals was brutal, like you mentioned. Having to rip them off, taking skin with them, because of the digestive juice irritation, and then sealing another one on top of the raw spot was hard. There was a learning curve for both of us, and one time she had to do everything by herself (I was a bishop, and we had four young kids. I was gone until late, and she simply had to change the seals. It's much easier to do with someone helping or doing it for you, but she managed. I was mad at her, because we had several doctors and nurses in the ward, any one of which would have been happy and willing to help. But, I relate to her pride and independence . . .).

After she was put back together, we had a whole bunch of bags, seals, supplies, etc. and we found a charity that collects them. Boy, were they glad to get them! They said that whatever supplies weren't used in the U.S. were sent to Mexico, where people use garbage bags and duct tape if they can't find them. 

To test this hypothesis, we can look at other general conferences that fell on Easter Sunday.  Does talking about Jesus in celebration of Easter falling on G.C. weekend squeeze out mention of Joseph Smith to the extent that he is only mentioned about 5 times?

 

I believe the Spring 2010 General Conference was the last Easter Sunday.  That year there were 27 mentions of Joseph Smith, well within the range of 21-41 that has been the norm.

 

Easter doesn't explain it.

So, what is your answer, Analytics? That the Brethren were consciously avoiding mention of Joseph Smith?

I, too, think that this is simply a matter of Joseph Smith not being germane (as a reference or source) to the particular focus of this conference: the principles of the Proclamation on the Family. 

Or a sub-topic: weaning ourselves of electronics addiction (mentioned at least three times). The other sub-topics also didn't happen to match up well with direct reference to Joseph Smith.

I really think that it is as simple as this conference being an outlier with respect to references to Joseph Smith, for reasons having nothing to do with seeking to avoid or consciously mention Joseph Smith.

BHR was one of my heroes.  

You might find this article I wrote years ago to be of interest, CCRW.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

On a different note: You can spot a "McConkie-ite Mormon" a mile away: they become apoplectic at the very mention of Hyrum Andrus, Cleon Skousen, or Duane Crowther . . .

Oh, walnuts in brownies make me angry.  So do raisins in cookies when I think they're chocolate chips.

Oatmeal cookies are meant *only* to have chocolate chips, not raisins.

Speaking of raisins (sort of), this Christmas I bought a fruit cake so my kids would get all of the fruit cake jokes. It was awful, and it was from the world-famous Georgia company that makes more fruitcake than any other company (like millions and millions a year). My kids (post mortem) wondered why anyone would ever eat it, and I told them about how they originated in England when there was a flour shortage but a glut in sugar, so fruit was preserved by candying it. Doing some research, I found that a family whose ancestor had sent George Washington a fruit cake (which he returned), still has it, and eats a little every Christmas. Spam and fruit cake will survive a nuclear holocaust (and Twinkie filling) . . .

Unless Johnny Carson was right, and there is only one fruit cake in the world, which is continually re-gifted and passed around.

Why am I talking about fruit cake? This one was chock full of raisins. It wouldn't have been as bad with fewer raisins (I can handle the gummy things).

My wife had a colostomy and an ileostomy back in 2008. She had part of her colon and part of her ileum (small intestine) removed, and they stapled the remaining GI tract back together after five months healing time (she has a clotting disorder, and had hundreds of clots and dead organs. She has to be on extremely high doses of warfarin for life because her body tries to clot in hundreds of places). She's fortunate in that they were able to put "Humpty Dumpty back together again" (many people have to deal with -ostomy bags for life), but she now has "short gut" (complications from the missing sections of the GI tract). Her body processes food differently now, and it's hard for her body to absorb the nutrients she needs from her food. Still, she's very blessed, and we can't complain!

I do see, though, a de-emphasis on things like the KFD/Sermon in the Grove. To the point where the majority of members have no idea what it is when asked. BYU used to sell pamphlet forms of the KFD in the bookstore (the covers looked like the old Joseph Smith testimony pamphlets).

I had a missionary in my old ward ask me if we still taught it (the lesson at the time was in the Joseph Smith manual, and covered the KFD). He specifically asked in light of President Hinckley's three-times de-emphasis of it. I told him of course we do, and showed him the chapter. He asked why President Hinckley said those things, and I told him that it is hard answering things like that in interviews, in a soundbite environment --- especially interviews that may be edited and packaged as soundbites. I've done some radio shows on Mormonism with pastors, and I have a respect for how well President Hinckley did under those circumstances --- circumstances that armchair quarterbacks can't begin to relate to or understand.

That said, President Hinckley's treatment of the KFD (specifically, the Snow couplet) does have the appearance of dissembling or disingenuousness --- or at least, being overly-tied to PR and legalese considerations. What the missionary was hoping for was a confirmation that we do teach these things, and that they haven't been tossed overboard. 

I see the gospel topics essays in this same light. They are trying to thread the needle of a) dealing with tough issues, b) leaving options open, and c) having deniability (anonymity, no overt Brethren involvement, etc.). I wish that the Brethren would deal directly with them, even if some problems arise because of this. While it makes sense in today's hypercritical liability climate, I think sometimes we are overly-cautious and timid about "just answering" certain things.

You are wrong on many points of fact.

Oh, yeah? Which ones (since there are "many" of them).

He's among the mocking, sneering, derisive crowd now. Or, am I wrong on that point of fact, too?

While he claimed to be an edgy GD teacher, his posts reminded me of people who constantly share with Facebook what they made for dinner, or how many jogging miles their app recorded. Really insecure, and seeking for accolades via social media. His took the form of "So, I threw this out in class. Hilarity ensued . . ."

Consiglieri is likely a good example of one who would have put much effort into his GD lessons, bringing very interesting and deeper understanding to the various weeking topics.

 

And yet providing just enough external materal to the lesson to make Bishoprics and Stake Presidents nervious enough to remove him from the position.

He's gone completely apostate, hasn't he?

Prior to that, he always struck me as a "pot-stirrer," a person who liked to use his lessons to shock the class. I actually didn't care for his numerous "so, this is what happened when I threw [ABC] into the lesson today" anecdotes.

I would have gotten rid of him as a teacher a lot faster than his local leaders did. And, I have a local reputation for "exciting, insightful" lessons (the stake presidency is having me teach Gospel Doctrine in the ward conferences this year). "Exciting, insighful" lessons are possible without leaning apostate or "stirring the pot."

 

 

I understand that the typical assignments to speak involve a direct assignment to a given GC talk from the last conference.

 

This leaves no forum where one guided by the spirit could present essay truths, or any other that was not limited to teacher’s guides, prepared printed lesson manuals or Ensign material

I can't stand it when talk topics are GC talks. When I was a bishop, whoever was conducting that week chose the speakers and gave them whatever topics he felt were timely and needed. 

If I had a dollar for every time someone said, "Elder Oaks says it so much better than I do, so I'm going to read you his talk . . ."

Happily, my current ward does things the same way, so anecdotally, GC talks aren't a "typical assignment." At least in my experience.

John was raised/grew up in the wilderness (locusts and wild honey) to protect him (his father was a martyr). They probably didn't know each other or have contact, even though they were cousins. 

There are probably people today who wouldn't recognize some of their cousins if they saw them . . .

Anyone else sorely miss the old FAIR message board? Much better discussion, and it is a tragedy/travesty how much good stuff has been lost in the changeovers that got us to this point (I had a lot of material from myself and others that I relied on being able to find on the old boards, which is now gone).

This would have been from, say, 2004-2009 or so. This board is no comparison, and it's sad.

I wonder how many of them would have their names removed if you went to them with the form and asked them to have their names removed. 

Hardly any. Seriously. 

I've tried to force the issue with people who are hostile, threaten legal action, and insist that they never want contact again. I emphasize that I'm not trying to drive them out and don't recommend taking the step, but there is only one way to ensure no further contact, ever. Callings change, people move, and new people will always try to get to know unknown people on the lists, no matter how many post-it notes we leave saying "no contact." Only removing one's name gets the name off of the list, and you have to write a letter. I've explained how to write the simple letter, and assured expedited follow-up up the chain of command. I've only had one person ever do it when this is explained (she was grateful for the help, and had tried to remove her name years before). Another sister requested name removal directly through Salt Lake (we didn't have her records, and Salt Lake sent them, along with a letter to the stake president), and another brother came to church to talk to me about getting his name removed. He wrote the letter then and there, and I signed it as a witness.

Everyone else (in my experience) has refused to take the plunge, even while insisting as vociferously as ever not to ever visit them again. I've been a bishop, a counselor twice, an EQP twice, and a WML twice. I am very skeptical about there being high numbers of formal resignations from the Church. There are admittedly a large number of people who do not consider themselves Mormon or who are hostile to the Church but remain on the records. 

Yeah...makes ya wonder what was meant when you read this, "However, children are not counted as members if they turn age 9 and are not baptized."

They're not counted as children of record, or are stricken from the membership rolls?

Just this week, a student of mine (8th grade) was asking questions about Mormons at the end of a class period. She happens to be on our ward roster (unbaptized, must have been blessed as a baby), but I haven't been able to get our clerks to transfer her records (she doesn't actually live in our ward boundaries any more). Another girl in the class told her she was a Mormon, and she said, "No I'm not!" The girl said, "Your middle name is Mason, isn't it?" and the girl wanted to know how she knew that. She is the Mia Maid class president, and told her that she has her on her attendance roster. I explained to her that she must have been blessed when she was a baby, and she insisted that that was impossible --- that no one in her family or extended family is LDS. 

She then said, after thinking about it, that she was born someplace called "Orem, Utah," and I told her that *someone* in her family was close enough to the Church to have her blessed as a baby. She was bothered about being Mormon, and I explained to her after class the difference between being blessed and being baptized. The other LDS girl and I both invited her to come to church with us, and she declined. I did give her a "For the Strength of Youth" booklet, though (her questions were about tattooes, Word of Wisdom, dating, etc.)

I actually have several out of my 220 students who have LDS connections in their background, but don't know it.

Some of us do. I agree, though, that those who have the right to complain are those who aren't just sitting around pontificating.

So a couple of years ago we had more converts with far less missionaries than we do today, and we shrug that off because missionaries are doing service projects and playing around on the computer? This seems to touch on my point. It sounds like we need to really consider changing the program. Why send kids out to play on computers when they can do that at home?

I don't shrug it off. That's the point I was making. I think there is a direct correlation between how we are utilizing our missionaries and our conversion statistics. I would do things differently, if it were me (I'm very old school). 

I would love to see all missionaries go foreign and have North American units serviced by ward missionaries. But, this soft, non-resilient generation of pansies can't even handle the stateside missions most are called into, with a total de-emphasis on missionary "work" (remember Elder Anderson's talk --- it's not missionary work, it's missionary fun! We were told by a Seventy at stake conference that our duty is to shield the missionaries from all negative experiences and see that they only have positive ones. That's the main reason why I think we're not expecting them to find and face rejection --- and why we let electronics-addicted youth do "social media missionary work."). We would have an epic epidemic of depression, anxiety, early returns, etc. that would make our current state look like a Sunday picnic if we sent 80,000-100,000 North American missionaries to foreign countries, along with the stress of language and culture --- and most of all, the hard reality of preaching the gospel in foreign lands (lots of rejection, but great experiences and some breakthroughs and miracles).

As I've said, I think that the purpose of the missionary program has shifted to an attempt to keep young adults connected to the Church and to staunch the flow of young adults going inactive or missing. Not missionary work as it has traditionally been understood.

Again, stem, you're assuming that "a huge number of missionaries added" are trying to find people to teach. Many of them (especially in North America, where most of these surge missionaries are going) spend most of their time doing service projects or social media contacting. In my city, you can find ten missionaries hogging up the computer bank at the public library all day long on any given day (not just Monday, their P-day). Or at Walmart.

Who expects a rise in converts under this?

I also think that the principle of Gideon's army applies. They were much stronger with the 300 dedicated than they were with the initial 10,000. I think we get too caught up with numbers. If we only had 10,000 baptisms in a year, but those 10,000 were very dedicated and committed, in many ways we would be "stronger" than if we baptized, say, 296,000 or so in a year, but most of them were not converted or committed.

Are we a "stronger" church today with 15 million nominal members (but maybe only 4 million dedicated), or were we stronger when the entire church was almost exclusively about 250,000 members in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona? The dead weight drain on any given ward list (non-attending, non-tithe-paying, hostile if you visit them) is a drag on the Church's "strength" right now, and is getting worse with our current cycle of convert baptisms, retention, and ministering.

Book of Mormon prophecy indicates that the Gentile Church (the church of the last 185 years, from people of northern European descent ) will decline and go to the "remnant" (descendants of Lehi). Not an apostasy, but a shift.

I think we are seeing this gradual decline right now (lack of resilience, apathy, lack of vitality among the members, softness, etc.).