The John Dehlin Quiz In Support Of A Change Within Lds Regarding Ssa And Ordaining Women

[wenglund]

 

For Questions 1-8, revelations from God can occur in both ways.

 

For Question 9, when members want a particular blessing but are contentious with the Church, its leaders or members over it, their understanding of or motive for the blessing is as out of line as the spirit in which they ask for it. Also, the kinds of questions that lead to revelation, or the kinds of pleas for the Lord’s anointed to resolve or pray about a matter, are not framed as demands or used to camouflage the actual objective.

 

This is why the two issues at hand are not playing well, and how they are very different from the examples you provided.

 

Exactly!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cursor]

What do you mean by "singular definition"?

 

I think Abinadi wraps it up rather nicely with the descriptors "carnal, sensual and devilish" (see Mosiah 3:16).

 

If you need to drill down on what those terms mean, Scott Woodward has a pretty good commenatary here.

 

There is a vast array of characteristics and behaviors that contribute to who each of us are. Some are shapable/sculptable, while others are not. Factors of variation include gene pool, parental influence, sibling interface, community standards, geographic surroundings, social customs, etc. Which set of factors is it that does away with "the natural man?"

 

In a word, Abinadi was talking about selfishness. The terms are relative. As humans, we are all carnal. As humans, we are all sensual. That is a very significant part of this earthly experience. Success is a matter of mental and spiritual (and even physical) honing in on the target. 

[rockpond]

Consider how the conditions of this very firm stance might have been fulfilled in 1978:

 

1) "...all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof" once the "faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh" were sufficiently organized and operational so that "they might carry the message of redemption unto all the dead, " which could have taken until 1978 to accomplish, that is, by catching up with giving all the other dead descendants of Adam the opportunity so that this could be done withotu a backlog of dead people waiting to hear the mesasge and receive the ordiannces from 1978 onward. It goes without saying that, since 1978, any descendant of Adam can receive the promises and enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof, whether living or in the spirit world.

 

2) The curse had been lifted for anyone alive on earth from 1978 onward, consistent with the assignment of spirits that are reserved for the last days.

 

3) "Always" refers to any part of the period of time prior to the curse being lifted.

 

1 & 2 are interesting explanations.  But, #3 cracks me up... the priesthood/temple ban will *always* be in place until it isn't?

[DBMormon]

Sorry the quiz is misguided. The main issue is that the church has already claimed repeatedly that neither women getting the priesthood or gays gettting married is ever going to happen. That position has never changed and I have never once heard that at some future date it would change like I have with polygamy and blacks and the preisthood. This is a total wishful thinking campaign.

 

Show me a source prior to 1890 that said polygamy would be rescinded in the future?

[Scott Lloyd]

Show me a source prior to 1890 that said polygamy would be rescinded in the future?

Jacob 2:27-30. Monogamy is the default condition; plurality of wives is the temporary condition.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

There is a vast array of characteristics and behaviors that contribute to who each of us are. Some are shapable/sculptable, while others are not. Factors of variation include gene pool, parental influence, sibling interface, community standards, geographic surroundings, social customs, etc. Which set of factors is it that does away with "the natural man?"

The natural man is overcome through the exercise of agency (free will) strengthened by the Holy Spirit and guided by the light of Christ, perhaps augmented by one or more of the factors you list here.

 

 

In a word, Abinadi was talking about selfishness. The terms are relative. As humans, we are all carnal. As humans, we are all sensual. That is a very significant part of this earthly experience.

 

Of course. We are all subject to the natural man and, guided by the light of Christ and strengthened by the Holy Ghost, we must overcome it.

 

Success is a matter of mental and spiritual (and even physical) honing in on the target.

 

Yes. The "honing in on the target" is what  I have called here the exercise of agency in choosing right from wrong as guided by the light of Christ and righteous influences to which we may be subject.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

This, of course, is true for LGBT who prioritize their LGBT over their spirituality--i.e. who identify themselves ("who they truly are") more by their sexual orientation than by their orientation to Christ, and who manifest their priorities in their behavior. It is false where their priorities and self-identification are reversed, and their behavior follows suit.

 

The same, in principle, holds for any and all of us with inclination that run contrary to godliness. Confirmed adulterers may not find the Church all that spiritually conducive.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sound like an amazing pot/kettle situation to me. Considering how heterocentric and baby-making-centric the LDS faith is, I surprised you would offer up such a mess. Again, we see where Noam Chomsky was correct in saying there is no double standard but merely a self serving bigoted single standard. The LDS church is great place to have one's heterosexuality praised and molded into spiritual necessity. Then again, what the neo-conservative propagandists continually fail to understand that scripture and our relationships with God have nothing to do with sex.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

As I understand it, the "B" in LGBT stands for bi-sexual. In theory, at least, such a person is capable of sexual expression with someone of the opposite sex -- and hence, capable of marriage as it is defined in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Might it be difficult for such a person to suppress the homosexual aspect of his nature? Sure. But it can also be difficult for a heterosexual man to suppress sexual attraction he might feel for women other than his wife. That's part and parcel of marriage.

But keep in mind that you cannot deal with the bisexual persons separately. It's not like dealing with two personalities or dealing with a situation on a case by case situation. In bisexual persons, it is not about which proclivity is dominant at the moment.

[CV75]

1 & 2 are interesting explanations.  But, #3 cracks me up... the priesthood/temple ban will *always* be in place until it isn't?

I put that in there just for you... "Always" and "never" are terms that are used within the limitations of tehir application. For example, some things in this life are always so (like death always comes, eventually), but in the next life they are not (like death never comes).

[Scott Lloyd]

But keep in mind that you cannot deal with the bisexual persons separately. It's not like dealing with two personalities or dealing with a situation on a case by case situation.

I don't see why not. If a person is determined to live the laws of God, it seems to me it is just a matter of suppressing the portion of his nature that precludes it, whether it is a homosexual or a heterosexual tendency. It's a matter of individual attitude and desire.

 

In bisexual persons, it is not about which proclivity is dominant at the moment.

 

I should think that, depending where the bisexual person lands on the Kinsey scale, he in theory would be capable of sustaining a heterosexual relationship within a marriage.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

I don't see why not. If a person is determined to live the laws of God, it seems to me it is just a matter of suppressing the portion of his nature that precludes it, whether it is a homosexual or a heterosexual tendency. It's a matter of individual attitude and desire.

But bisexuality is not a contending of two separate sexual orientations and cannot be defined or treated as such. To do so is to try to oversimplify or take an easier route. This is not possible. In bisexual persons, their attraction is psychologically and emotionally treated as a single sexual orientation. There is no dissecting one from the other as they are intertwined.

 

I should think that, depending where the bisexual person lands on the Kinsey scale, he in theory would be capable of sustaining a heterosexual relationship within a marriage.

The Kinsey scale determined itself to be a joke when it made the claim of 1 in 10. In the class at ASU Psychology of Human Sexuality we were able to see how the Kinsey theory was set up to fail. Many psychologists hardly consider it to be valid. University professors cringe. I'm surprised you bother to mention it.

[rockpond]

I put that in there just for you... 

 

Ahhh... I'm touched.  

[Scott Lloyd]

But bisexuality is not a contending of two separate sexual orientations and cannot be defined or treated as such. To do so is to try to oversimplify or take an easier route. This is not possible. In bisexual persons, their attraction is psychologically and emotionally treated as a single sexual orientation. There is no dissecting one from the other as they are intertwined.

 The Kinsey scale determined itself to be a joke when it made the claim of 1 in 10. In the class at ASU Psychology of Human Sexuality we were able to see how the Kinsey theory was set up to fail. Many psychologists hardly consider it to be valid. University professors cringe. I'm surprised you bother to mention it.

I admit I'm approaching this subject with a layman's understanding. I'm probably out of my element and perhaps should cut my losses now.

 

But from what reading I've done, I've seen nothing yet to indicate that the Kinsey scale is as widely discredited as you claim here. Moreover, I understand that the field of psychology in recent years has been to some degree politicized by the influence of the gay-rights movement. I suspect that may have come into play here.

 

Bottom line: Controlling sexual inclination is more-or-less difficult for most everyone, and I remain unpersuaded that a typical person with a bisexual orientation is inherently incapable of controlling that aspect of his sexuality that is not conducive to obeying the laws of God.

[cursor]

 

Show me a source prior to 1890 that said polygamy would be rescinded in the future?

Jacob 2:27:30. Monogamy is the default condition; plurality of wives is the temporary condition.

 

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."

—Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269.

 

Sounds like we just might be a little out of the loop. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

 

 

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."

—Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269.

 

Sounds like we just might be a little out of the loop. 

 

I've come to expect out-of-context quotation from  anti-Mormons, but I'm surprised at you, Curtis.

 

I'm acquainted with this particular discourse. Brigham Young is here railing at those inside and outside of the Church who are criticizing the Latter-day Saints for their practice of plurality of wives.

 

Prior to the portion you quoted, there is this:

 

... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained.

(Bold emphasis mine for reference)

 

So what is President Young saying here? He's saying that the doctrine of plurality of wives is the word of the Lord, and one must accept that it is in order to obtain exaltation.

 

To wit:

 

You who wish there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: 'We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character, and office etc.' The man that has that in his heart and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will com short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son in celestial glory.

 

(Bold emphasis mine for reference)

 

Does Brigham Young mean here that one must literally practice plurality of wives in order to obtain celestial glory? He can't mean that, because between 1847 and the issuance of the Manifesto in 1890, there were many, many of the Latter-day Saints who, for whatever reason, were never called to enter into plural marriage. Did Brigham Young regard them as having fallen short of exaltation? It's news to me if he did.

 

No, Brigham Young's point here is that one must accept the doctrine as the word of the Lord, just as I do today, even though I have every hope and expectation that I will never be called upon to practice it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Show me a source prior to 1890 that said polygamy would be rescinded in the future?

Scott beat me to it. The BoM is pretty clear.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

No, Brigham Young's point here is that one must accept the doctrine as the word of the Lord, just as I do today, even though I have every hope and expectation that I will never be called upon to practice it.

Well I guess you just laid that to rest?

[rockpond]

I've come to expect out-of-context quotation from  anti-Mormons, but I'm surprised at you, Curtis.

 

I'm acquainted with this particular discourse. Brigham Young is here railing at those inside and outside of the Church who are criticizing the Latter-day Saints for their practice of plurality of wives.

 

Prior to the portion you quoted, there is this:

 

(Bold emphasis mine for reference)

 

So what is President Young saying here? He's saying that the doctrine of plurality of wives is the word of the Lord, and one must accept that it is in order to obtain exaltation.

 

To wit:

 

(Bold emphasis mine for reference)

 

Does Brigham Young mean here that one must literally practice plurality of wives in order to obtain celestial glory? He can't mean that, because between 1847 and the issuance of the Manifesto in 1890, there were many, many of the Latter-day Saints who, for whatever reason, were never called to enter into plural marriage. Did Brigham Young regard them as having fallen short of exaltation? It's news to me if he did.

 

No, Brigham Young's point here is that one must accept the doctrine as the word of the Lord, just as I do today, even though I have every hope and expectation that I will never be called upon to practice it.

 

I think it's possible that he saw them as falling short of exaltation.  I also think it's possible that he didn't.  Here's the full quote and I don't think it's abundantly clear:

 

"We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

 

At first, he's talking about professing a belief in the principle.  But then he says that the only men who become Gods are those "who enter into polygamy".  Not those who "believe or enter into it".  Take this quote as well:

 

"Now, where a man in this Church says, "I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one," he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, "Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent," and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever."

 

The more I study BY, the more I am fascinated by the confidence with which he taught seemingly contradictory doctrines.  I think we could literally spend all day sharing discordant JoD quotes (on various principles, not just polygamy).

[stemelbow]

Jacob 2:27:30. Monogamy is the default condition; plurality of wives is the temporary condition.

 

but it doesn't say it's temporary.  It says it is to be practiced if God commands it, right?  Anyone in 1865 could very well be under the impression that polygamy was commanded until Christ would come and beyond.  This reference does not fulfill the CFR.  it does not suggest polygamy would be rescinded in the future.

Edited October 8, 2013 by stemelbow

[CV75]

Ahhh... I'm touched.  

...by an angel, or course...

[cursor]

I've come to expect out-of-context quotation from  anti-Mormons, but I'm surprised at you, Curtis.

 

Actually, I'm not entirely sure why you're surprised at my referenced quote, since you really don't know me at all, Scott.

 

I'm acquainted with this particular discourse. Brigham Young is here railing at those inside and outside of the Church who are criticizing the Latter-day Saints for their practice of plurality of wives.

 

I too am familiar with the quote (and many/most/all of his writings). My personal belief is that brother Brigham believed that polygamy was a requirement for entering into the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, and taught the same.

 

Does Brigham Young mean here that one must literally practice plurality of wives in order to obtain celestial glory? 

 

Yes, I believe that was his position.

 

Brigham Young was a man of very bold beliefs.

Edited October 8, 2013 by cursor

[SeekingUnderstanding]

but it doesn't say it's temporary.  It says it is to be practiced if God commands it, right?  Anyone in 1865 could very well be under the impression that polygamy was commanded until Christ would come and beyond.  This reference does not fulfill the CFR.  it does not suggest polygamy would be rescinded in the future.

I can add the testimony of two of my great great great grandmothers who left journals for their descendants.  They both entered into plural marriage as second wives (and had single suiters available) and gave as their reason a desire for exhalation.  This came as a great personal sacrifice for both of them especially after they were all but abandoned post manifesto.  It was clearly their understanding that the highest degree of exaltation required actually living the principle.  Did they just misunderstand the doctrine of their day? Did they miss the sermons that said you just had to accept polygamy as a true principle and not actually live it? Maybe they just missed church the day the sermon on Jacob 2 was expounded upon?

Edited October 8, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

I think it's possible that he saw them as falling short of exaltation.  I also think it's possible that he didn't.  Here's the full quote and I don't think it's abundantly clear:

 

***

 

The more I study BY, the more I am fascinated by the confidence with which he taught seemingly contradictory doctrines.  I think we could literally spend all day sharing discordant JoD quotes (on various principles, not just polygamy).

Both quotes address those who are under the obligation to live a law by faith, at least in sustaining it in principle even if lacking an opportunity to execute. Just like marriage today—the saints are under obligation to sustain it in principle at least by faith even if lacking the opportunity to actually marry. The same goes with priesthood ordination. The saints of Brigham Young's day had some different requirements than we do, and vice-versa.

 

I don’t see how the quotes lack clarity. “Dwelling in the presence…”and being “permitted to come into the presence” of God are two different things. The first is exaltation in the celestial glory and the second is a lesser degree of glory within the celestial kingdom per D&C 131.

Edited October 8, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

Both quotes address those who are under the obligation to live a law by faith, at least in sustaining it in principle even if lacking an opportunity to execute. Just like marriage today—the saints are under obligation to sustain it in principle at least by faith even if lacking the opportunity to actually marry. The same goes with priesthood ordination.

 

I don’t see how the quotes lack clarity. “Dwelling in the presence…”and being “permitted to come into the presence” of God are two different things. The first is exaltation in the celestial glory and the second is a lesser degree of glory within the celestial kingdom per D&C 131.

 

Like Cursor, I believe that BY believed it was necessary to receive the highest level of exaltation.  Not just belief or sustaining, but actual practice.  Both the quotes I provided support that ("only men who ENTER into polygamy").  The belief that it was required for the highest levels of exaltation also helps explain post-manifesto polygamy.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's possible that he saw them as falling short of exaltation.  I also think it's possible that he didn't.  Here's the full quote and I don't think it's abundantly clear:

 

"We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

 

At first, he's talking about professing a belief in the principle.  But then he says that the only men who become Gods are those "who enter into polygamy".  

Which he defines as having "had blessings offered unto them." Obviously, this cannot include those who have never been called upon to enter into it.

 

 

 

Take this quote as well:

 

"Now, where a man in this Church says, "I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one," he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, "Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent," and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever."

Obviously he has reference here to those who have been taught the principle of plural marriage and have been called upon to enter into it but refuse. What do you do with those who were never given the opportunity, were financially unable to do it, etc. Again, are you saying that Brigham taught these individuals, through no fault of their own, would never attain exaltation

 

The more I study BY, the more I am fascinated by the confidence with which he taught seemingly contradictory doctrines.  I think we could literally spend all day sharing discordant JoD quotes (on various principles, not just polygamy).

 

What seem to be contradiction in doctrines taught may just be a failure on the part of the receiver to read for comprehension. And reading for comprehension entails judging whether one's own perceptions make sense. For instance, does it make sense that everyone who lived in Utah in the last 50 years of the 19th century who never practiced plural marriage were automatically discarded by Church leaders as candidates for exaltation? That's a strange -- and ultimately unsupportable -- notion.