John Dehlin - Why They Leave

[Aliwe]

That's why it's so hard to become motivated to read scriptures, it's all through men mostly. And how many women are spoken of in the BOM?

In the first quarter of the Book of Mormon we are given the name of only one woman, Sariah, the mother of Nephi. Later the Book of Mormon mentions a harlot named Isabel, and also a servant woman named Abish. The Book of Mormon also mentions three other women from the Bible, Mary the mother of Jesus, Eve, and Sarah the wife of Abraham. That that's all she wrote. So, not in my chick lit stack, that's for sure!

[BCSpace]

I've read some of John Dehlin and I don't think he does a service to those who are disaffected or to the church. Just my opinion, especially knowing personally some of the people he's influenced.

At the very least, he's publically teaching against the Church's doctrine regarding marriage realtive to homosexuality being the co-founder of the Mormons for Marriage website. That in and of itself shows Dehlin is not faithfully trying to encourage people to stay in the Church as he claims.

[Tacenda]

Unless something occurred that wiped out a majority of males, monogamy has to always be the norm. Polygyny as the norm requires a minimum of twice as many women as men.

You did not address the commandment of Levirate marriage in your reference. What do you think about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage

Am I missing something?

[Kevin Christensen]

From a 52 page article on Women in the Book of Mormon:

Given that the Book of Mormon doesn't often mention individual women, what can we learn from those instances when it does? In researching this essay, we have realized that when women move from the background to the foreground in the Book of Mormon they typically do so for three reasons:

• to highlight profoundly archetypal situations
  
• to show the mutual dependence and independent agency of men and women
  
• to emphasize that the promises and obligations of the gospel apply equally to men and women
  

There is a consistency and deliberation in this on the part of the authors that suggests a positive intent and attitude.

And this:

We affirm that the message of the Book of the Mormon for women is a positive one, more so than has been recognized by most readers. We shall consider several kinds of evidence that this is so:

• Doctrinal statements and the absence of proscriptive statements
  
• Type-scenes involving specific women
  
• Imagery concerning a Divine Mother
  
• Symbolism in narrative context
  
• The significance of the narrator perspective (male, Nephite, military)
  

We shall also discuss the influence of culture and biographical influences on contemporary reader expectations on the text.

And this:

Our initial responses to her paper involved our own notes and reading. Later, we used the Infobases^TM LDS Collectors Library CD-ROM to locate expressly female references. We performed a search using the following terms: women, woman, mother, mothers, daughter, daughters, sister, sisters, queen, queens, virgin, virgins, maid, maids, maiden, maidens, handmaids, womb, breast, breasts, harlot, harlots, concubine, concubines, wisdom, she, her, hers, Eve, Sariah, Abish, Isabel, Sarah, Mary, wife, wives, whore, prophetess, nurse, nursing, widow, widows, and female.

This produced 312 hits. When these passages were cut out for reference, we had about sixty pages of text to digest. Our computer-assisted search brings out a number of references that elicited no comment in Pearson's paper. But notice that this still does not produce a complete survey of women's presence in the Book of Mormon.

We searched again for terms that include females: parent, parents, children, and people. This produced 1,724 hits. Among these hits, the phrases children of men or children of Israel or children of Christ often appear in doctrinal and prophetic passages. Their use emphasizes the inclusiveness of these passages as applying equally to men and women.

The plural pronouns they, them, we, ye, and you often must be understood as inclusive of both genders. Other terms, such as Nephite, Lamanite, Jew, or gentile, are inclusive except in some military contexts. Terms such as the wicked or the righteous are expressly gender inclusive.

Furthermore, at various times, masculine nouns such as men or he should often be understood as inclusive, equivalent to mankind or whoever. While such use of language runs contrary to current fashions for explicit gender inclusiveness, we should not expect to be able to understand an ancient writer by uncritically imposing contemporary standards of proper usage. For example, 2 Nephi 9:21 expressly explains that men is used inclusively:

And he cometh into the world that he might save all men, . . . both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.

Also, see the express inclusiveness of he:

Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female. (2 Nephi 10:16)

As we have seen, the inclusiveness of language has cases where men are included as part of feminine symbols as well, the most conspicuous example being Babylon, the whore of all the earth, consisting of those who fight against Zion.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=288

FWIW

Back on topic, I read the Why they Leave powerpoint many years ago. The Sam Taylor Dialogue essay from the 80s says much the same thing. I addressed the same key notion in "Paradigms Crossed" in RBBM 7:2

Take note that those who send out the young unprepared, or who create faulty background expectations for them, have just as much to answer for as those who stand in the great and spacious building, zealously or morbidly pointing out problems. Whether they intend to or not, both camps can lead innocent individuals to feel shame at clinging to the iron rod, and to lose their way, and wander lost in the broad roads. The disillusioned got their illusions somewhere.¹⁸⁴

But I also notice that over the past 23 years the FARMS Review and FAIR have been addressing all of the issues he raises in a spectacularly successful fashion, and Dehlin has been tending to give discredit where credit is due. Based on my listening and reading, he doesn't conduct his interviews in the manner of a person who has researched the issues as much as one who remains stuck in them.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[why me]

Based on my listening and reading, he doesn't conduct his interviews in the manner of a person who has researched the issues as much as one who remains stuck in them.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

And I think that this is his basic problem. His interviews are basically for him. Others can join for the ride. And this was okay in the beginning. But now, it is wearing thin, especially if his interviews are a justification to solidify his new perspectives about the church.

[Calm]

http://en.wikipedia....virate_marriage

Am I missing something?

What happened if the brother is already married and yet is commanded to take to wife his brother's widow?

[Damien the Leper]

What happened if the brother is already married and yet is commanded to take to wife his brother's widow?

I personally don't have a problem with polygamy and polygny. However, if the LDS position on both is that a man can have more than one wife then there is no reason for early church leaders and members to have wives who still had living husbands. This is a problem.

Deuteronomy is a mess! I would not be taking religious practice advice from that book.

[Calm]

Deuteronomy is a mess! I would not be taking religious practice advice from that book.

Tacenda said she could find no commandment in the Bible approving polygyny (actually she said she read sources that challenged anyone to find a scripture that commanded it, I just answered that challenge). I am merely trying to determine her view on Levirate marriage, nothing else. Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

Tacenda said she could find no commandment in the Bible approving polygyny (actually she said she read sources that challenged anyone to find a scripture that commanded it, I just answered that challenge). I am merely trying to determine her view on Levirate marriage, nothing else.

Before asking Tacenda, perhaps you should ask King Josiah about his thoughts on the matter. The author of Deuteronomy and Josiah are the problem not Tacenda's citations. But this argument of mine only holds up if you agree with the textual and redaction criticisms of Deuteronomy.

Now, if we are to consider the verses you cited then it is in the spirit of adopting a wife who is widowed.

I am concerned with how you have defined Levirate marriage in light of how people perceive polygamy/polygny. There is a great deal of difference between the two.

[cdowis]

I told my bishop my concerns in an email, basically JS polygamy, Mountain Meadows and blood atonement. Laugh some of you, but I'm not alone. My bishop hasn't emailed back anything.

And why do you suppose that happened. He doesn't care, he does not have the answers, he forgot, he's busy.

Or, perhaps.... just think about it.... this is something between you and the Lord. He does not want to deny you the experience to understand that you are the one responsible to get the answers.

As Joseph Smith advised to one with similar troubles, "Put those things under your feet."

Put it under your feet, serve the Lord, and forget yourself.

Someday, when you are ready, after months or even years, the Lord may show you some of the answers. You will spend your entire life with unanswered questions, and now is the time to learn how to deal with it.

Edited June 24, 2012 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

And why do you suppose that happened. He doesn't care, he does not have the answers, he forgot, he's busy.

Or, perhaps.... just think about it.... this is something between you and the Lord. He does not want to deny you the experience to understand that you are the one responsible to get the answers.

As Joseph Smith advised to one with similar troubles, "Put those things under your feet."

Put it under your feet, serve the Lord, and forget yourself.

Someday, when you are ready, after months or even years, the Lord may show you some of the answers. You will spend your entire life with unanswered questions, and now is the time to learn how to deal with it.

I figured as much. I guess that's why the obsession on these boards.

[Freedom]

Positive perspective but so hard to achieve. When evil men are doing the revealing it makes one really just want to go straight to the Lord and avoid man made philosophies. That's why it's so hard to become motivated to read scriptures, it's all through men mostly. And how many women are spoken of in the BOM? Being as you're a man you probably don't understand what women feel like especially when they are so overlooked and taken advantage of. I think polygamy is abusive even though you many not think so. In the bible it wasn't commanded to have polygamy, I've read sources that challenge anyone to find a scripture that commands it. It is likely to condemn it. And about Mountain Meadows, I've just found out about a person that had researched MM and it was what eventually led them out of the church. I know the church wants us to just leave things like this behind but for some it's difficult especially when they didn't learn of it until much later in life.

Evil men? Because they taught concepts you disagree with and were falsely accused of actions that concern you? Who is this Christ you want to have a relationship with if the very book you find him is written by evil men? I am a bit confused.

[Tacenda]

Evil men? Because they taught concepts you disagree with and were falsely accused of actions that concern you? Who is this Christ you want to have a relationship with if the very book you find him is written by evil men? I am a bit confused.

Freedom, I probably shouldn't say evil men, just men doing evil. Like they say, "hate the sin, not sinner". I want my relationship to be with the Christ of true scripture. And as I've been told before I'll have to discern which is true or not through the holy spirit.. I've already done the discernment on polygamy. And that someone commanded it, when it shouldn't have been so. Pres. Hinckley once stated in a public interview that polygamy isn't doctrine. So that's where I get comfort that I'm not just some apostate speaking out against polygamy in Joseph Smith's time and to the present. I've had an incredibly hard time, losing part of my testimony b/c of this. I've read about the evil being done to women and children in the polygamist colonies. I was half insane about it for quite awhile. I can't stand that we as a nation watch while this is happening. Read my comment, albeit the only one, here: http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/blogs/story/Brents-Blog-More-on-Warren-Jeffs-perverse-sex/VwQdUihcRky23eDc6jzsnQ.cspx. Until section 132 is scrapped from the D & C in these Polygamist groups, this will continue to go on.

[Deborah]

Pres. Hinckley once stated in a public interview that polygamy isn't doctrine.

...at this time, meaning we don't practice polygamy for the living. However, you should know that men can still be sealed to more than one wife if the previous wife is deceased so technically we do still practice it but not as the world understands it.

I've read about the evil being done to women and children in the polygamist colonies.

These people are not affiliated with the LDS church and this shows how when not under the command of the Lord this practice can be corrupted. Satan loves to use imitation to corrupt and discredit the true principle.

You might be interested in this quote by Brigham Young:

The Saints like a plurality of wives, and the sinners like a plurality of men and women. I will say to the sisters that I have heard but very few women, and not a great many men, ever talk sensibly upon the plurality of wives. When they begin to talk about it, they exhibit, almost without an exception, passion instead of principle. Were we to appeal to passions of the people, we should promote the doctrine of a plurality of men and of women. But when we address ourselves to the Saints of the Most High God, it is very different and in a different light. It is for my sisters to be mothers of holy men and holy women—to receive and conceive in the name and by the power of the Holy Ghost—to bring forth their fruits to the praise and honor of the God of heaven. But what are the people doing here? “I want another wife,” and almost universally passion is exhibited instead of principle.

If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say, if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man to have but one wife, let it be so. The word and will of the Lord is what I want—the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will. The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. (April 7, 1861, JD 9:36.)

[Tacenda]

...at this time, meaning we don't practice polygamy for the living. However, you should know that men can still be sealed to more than one wife if the previous wife is deceased so technically we do still practice it but not as the world understands it.

These people are not affiliated with the LDS church and this shows how when not under the command of the Lord this practice can be corrupted. Satan loves to use imitation to corrupt and discredit the true principle.

You might be interested in this quote by Brigham Young:

The problem I have is that I don't think that it was sanctioned by our Heavenly Father. Joseph Smith read about it in the Old Testament and decided to go to the Lord and ask if it should be reinstated. True story.

[Deborah]

The problem I have is that I don't think that it was sanctioned by our Heavenly Father. Joseph Smith read about it in the Old Testament and decided to go to the Lord and ask if it should be reinstated. True story.

Not true story. Joseph read about it and asked how it could be sanctioned. Then follows the explanation of the New and Everlasting Covenant, under which is the only circumstance in which the Law of Abraham can be justified. Joseph was commanded to practice (way before section 132 btw) as part of the restitution of all things and yes as a means of the people to raise righteous seed. Out of those early polygamous families came the leaders and prophets of the church.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Deborah

[Tacenda]

Not true story. Joseph read about it and asked how it could be sanctioned. Then follows the explanation of the New and Everlasting Covenant, under which is the only circumstance in which the Law of Abraham can be justified. Joseph was commanded to practice (way before section 132 btw) as part of the restitution of all things and yes as a means of the people to raise righteous seed. Out of those early polygamous families came the leaders and prophets of the church.

I guess I read the anti mormon slant. Thanks for the pro LDS view. I long for the faith you have that once was held by myself. Thanks for the example.

[Deborah]

I guess I read the anti mormon slant. Thanks for the pro LDS view. I long for the faith you have that once was held by myself. Thanks for the example.

I suggest getting hold of Truman Madsen's discussions on Joseph Smith. I have them on CD and Brother Madsen has done so much research and has such a strong testimony that his discussions are very faith promoting.

All of us have doubts at one time or another but we can't let the doubts undermine what we once knew simply because we can't yet reconcile it with society's current view of what is right and what is wrong.

[Deborah]

I just heard this on History of the Saints on BYU tv:

History doesn't convert or de-convert; it depends on what the person brings to the history he reads.

[Calm]

I guess I read the anti mormon slant. Thanks for the pro LDS view. I long for the faith you have that once was held by myself. Thanks for the example.

One of my great grandmothers wrote about her experience with plural marriage, said it was the best way to teach the pure love of God on earth. And she stated that such was in her relationship with her sisterwife, their husband and their family.

There are horror stories among monogamous marriages. If one reads historical accounts of what marriage was viewed as (women as property of less than horses in some cultures), one could get the idea that monogamy is an evil institution. I have heard that idea taught even, that marriage should be completely done away with as it is an tool of the patriarchal society to impose servitude on women.

Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

I guess you should read the current stories in the Warren Jeffs group. I'm sure it was once not such a bad deal, especially with only one other wife. But some of the leaders such as BY, married several wives. Some wives and their families went hungry and weren't taken care of properly. Some of these leaders thought they were getting a head start on the world they were going to populate. But it's origin was has always been with Joseph Smith, a fallen prophet, possibly?

[Deborah]

I guess you should read the current stories in the Warren Jeffs group.

Once again the experiences of Jeffs' group are not at all comparable to how plural marriage was practiced in the church. You can't read those and think that speaks to the practice of the COJCOLDS. For one thing Brigham Young was very ready to allow plural wives not happy in the marriage to divorce. Furthermore such abuses would not have been tolerated. It was the women of the church who went to Washington to defend plural marriage.

[Calm]

Some wives and their families went hungry and weren't taken care of properly.

You do realize that there was extensive famine and hardship going on during some of the time, that many families, monogamous and plural, went hungry. (IIRC this is one of the problems with Compton's book, that he didn't differentiate between hardship caused by environmental causes and hardship caused by the plural marriage itself). Later many families went untaken care of because fathers were in hiding or in jail due to the government trying to suppress plural marriage. That can hardly be considered the fault of those participating.

I have no doubt that there were some plural families that were not taken care of by the father to the best of his ability, but I'd like to see some evidence that the problem was essentially polygyny and not more of a dysfunctional father, environmental causes or the government crackdown ripping families apart.

PS: I have read stories about Jeffs' group...I think Deborah's response covers that.

Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Do you think that the show "Sister Wives" is more in line with how we would be if it were still a practiced doctrine? Have you ever had any kind of nagging thought that these factions are living JS church and we are the apostate church? If JS were to live among us would he be just a little miffed by how secularized the COJOLDS has become. I wonder on occasion, since BY said once, that no one is going to attain salvation unless they enter into a polygamist marraige, the new and everlasting covenant.

[Calm]

Do you think that the show "Sister Wives" is more in line with how we would be if it were still a practiced doctrine?

Haven't seen it. I've seen documentaries. If the Manifesto hadn't been issued, then the Church would be still not be practicing it according to the vision given (and if it had insisted on doing so, would likely be nonexistent).

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

http://www.lds.org/s...t/od/1?lang=eng

Have you ever had any kind of nagging thought that these factions are living JS church and we are the apostate church?

No.

If JS were to live among us would he be just a little miffed by how secularized the COJOLDS has become.

I don't think so. He seemed perfectly willing and even eager to turn the leadership of the Church over to others near the end of this life.

I wonder on occasion, since BY said once, that no one is going to attain salvation unless they enter into a polygamist marraige

That is not what he said. He said someone would have to be willing to do so to achieve exaltation, not that they had to, IIRC.

Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah