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

[Calm]

Surely you're not suggesting that a person can fall in love with and only one other person.

 

If one can't help falling in love with any particular person, then I don't see how so many manage to marry within the faith with those they love, even those who are late converts to the Church and who would have been brought up with and learned other standards. They have managed, it seems to me, to apply a newly learned set of standards to those they desire to love on a deep and continuing basis and have avoided being inexorably drawn into relationships based solely on some sort of preprogrammed attraction, though I have no doubt there is some contribution to that.

[Calm]

1. I don't know of any journal entries so I can't respond to that part of your post.

2. It would be hard for me to prove 100%, but the general policy in those days was that if you weren't a polygamist, you couldn't preside/be a leader.  So I doubt there would be many too quotes from "monogamous leaders" between 1852 & 1890 as there were very few.  There are numerous references to the requirement of leaders being polygamists to hold position.

3. Alvin would have had his temple work completed, either in Nauvoo or Utah, and I'd be willing to wager that he had plural wives sealed to him posthumously since he didn't get the opportunity while on earth.

I am practically positive there are documented cases of a few monogamous leaders having had this point brought up before in conversations.  I will look for some tomorrow.  

 

I would also assume there would be a huge drive for ensuring that dead parents, children who had died after the age of eight but before they were able to be married and such were sealed in polygamous marriages even among those who couldn't afford to live in plural marriages themselves and yet among my own relatives who were polygamous, I don't see any attempt to do so.  Anyone else?

 

Alvin's records should be available....anyone want to look those up?

[Tacenda]

That's a heck of an assumption...that plural wives didn't love their husbands and were deceived into polygamy by Church leaders. Or did you just mean this specific case that SeekingUnderstanding related because I don't see it there either?

Nope I believe young women like Helen Mar Kimball made a huge sacrifice for what she thought was for her and her families exaltation. And many, many men and women did likewise.

[JLHPROF]

I am practically positive there are documented cases of a few monogamous leaders having had this point brought up before in conversations.  I will look for some tomorrow.  

 

I would also assume there would be a huge drive for ensuring that dead parents, children who had died after the age of eight but before they were able to be married and such were sealed in polygamous marriages even among those who couldn't afford to live in plural marriages themselves and yet among my own relatives who were polygamous, I don't see any attempt to do so.  Anyone else?

 

Alvin's records should be available....anyone want to look those up?

 

There were some monogamous leaders for sure, but the requirement to be polygamous in order to preside was taught.  There were definitely a few stubborn holdouts.  But I'm not sure they ever addressed the issue of their exaltation.

 

Many women were sealed to Joseph Smith posthumously in order to gain him as husband in the next life.  Wilford Woodruff records having large numbers of deceased single women sealed to himself as well.  I think you'll find there were polygamous sealings for the dead for exactly the reason of a better exaltation.  That's why the Law of Adoption was lived as well.

 

Nope I believe young women like Helen Mar Kimball made a huge sacrifice for what she thought was for her and her families exaltation. And many, many men and women did likewise.

 

That's because that's what they were taught by the prophet.  Either he was wrong or lying, or it actually was for their benefit in the next life.  Joseph, Brigham, Heber, and others taught that it would be.  And as I posted references for in post # 68 the necessity of polygamy for exaltation was definitely a church teaching.

[Calm]

There were some monogamous leaders for sure, but the requirement to be polygamous in order to preside was taught. 

 

Then how could there be any monogamous leaders?

 

 

Many women were sealed to Joseph Smith posthumously in order to gain him as husband in the next life.  Wilford Woodruff records having large numbers of deceased single women sealed to himself as well.  I think you'll find there were polygamous sealings for the dead for exactly the reason of a better exaltation.

 

Exactly...it was not unusual to seal deceased single women to Church leaders who were already polygynous.  If only those who were polygynous were to be exalted, why wasn't there a huge hue and cry to seal some of these sisters to dead relatives who hadn't had the chance in mortality?  Why weren't the Church leaders themselves sealing deceased single women to their loved ones rather than having them sealed solely to themselves?  I find it hard to believe they were so selfish as to condemn even their loved ones to no exaltation while multiplying their own sealings. 

[canard78]

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.

 

2) There was never a curse to be lifted. Blacks never carried a curse. The only pre-1978 issue was human racism combined with ignorance of what had brought in the ban in the first place.

 

3) 1: at all times  / 2: forever "it will always be so" was a statement of the future. It could say "it will be so at all times" or "it will be so forever"

 

And why aren't we discussing the actual topic in the OP? The actual topic is whether the umpteen changes in the list were in response to circumstance and some 'agitation' from individuals.

[Brian 2.0]

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.

 

Just curious... have you thought about what you would do IF it was announced the women are going to receive the priesthood?  Would you pray about it and if confirmed believe it to be true and admit that you and Elder Oaks must have been wrong on the matter?    I know it's hypothetical, but how hard line is your hard line on this... It will never happen period and if it does it's wrong?  or it will never happen period, and if it does, then I guess I was wrong?

 

Basically... is there a window open that you and the church leaders that have made definitive statments on this matter could be wrong?

[rockpond]

I am practically positive there are documented cases of a few monogamous leaders having had this point brought up before in conversations. I will look for some tomorrow.

I would also assume there would be a huge drive for ensuring that dead parents, children who had died after the age of eight but before they were able to be married and such were sealed in polygamous marriages even among those who couldn't afford to live in plural marriages themselves and yet among my own relatives who were polygamous, I don't see any attempt to do so. Anyone else?

Alvin's records should be available....anyone want to look those up?

I think you make be relying on some faulty presumptions. In reading BY's statements regarding highest levels of exaltation he refers to practicing polygamy in this life. I'm not sure that there was even a belief in creating posthumous plural marriages where no such marriages existed in mortality. We certainly don't do eternal matchmaking now. Meaning, we don't take two people who died single, at random, and seal them so that they can enjoy that benefit in the next life.

[rockpond]

Just curious... have you thought about what you would do IF it was announced the women are going to receive the priesthood? Would you pray about it and if confirmed believe it to be true and admit that you and Elder Oaks must have been wrong on the matter? I know it's hypothetical, but how hard line is your hard line on this... It will never happen period and if it does it's wrong? or it will never happen period, and if it does, then I guess I was wrong?

Basically... is there a window open that you and the church leaders that have made definitive statments on this matter could be wrong?

Yes, there is a window: If it happens during his lifetime, Elder Oaks can always pull a McConkie and just say to forget everything he ever taught as he was operating under limited light and knowledge.

[Calm]

I think you make be relying on some faulty presumptions. In reading BY's statements regarding highest levels of exaltation he refers to practicing polygamy in this life. I'm not sure that there was even a belief in creating posthumous plural marriages where no such marriages existed in mortality. 

And yet plenty of single deceased women were sealed to leaders.  Why was that okay and not the other?

 

And I have heard of a few examples where families asked for monogamous sealings to occur for two deceased family members, so I believe it is considered possible to at least seal those unmarried, both men and women.

[rockpond]

And yet plenty of single deceased women were sealed to leaders. Why was that okay and not the other?

And I have heard of a few examples where families asked for monogamous sealings to occur for two deceased family members, so I believe it is considered possible to at least seal those unmarried, both men and women.

I had not heard of single deceased women being sealed to leaders. When was that done?

In your second example, could I presume that there was some type of relationship between the pair prior to death? Or are we, as a matter of policy, letting mortals choose eternal marriage partners for deceased relatives?

[webbles]

I had not heard of single deceased women being sealed to leaders. When was that done?

There's also living woman sealed to deceased leaders.  I have one in my ancestry who was sealed to Joseph Smith this way.  It is also one of the reasons why it is hard to determine who he was actually married to during his life time.

[Calm]

 In your second example, could I presume that there was some type of relationship between the pair prior to death?

I unfortunately don't have this info.

 

The single deceased women were sealed to leaders up until the ending of plural marriage, I believe.

[Brian 2.0]

Yes, there is a window: If it happens during his lifetime, Elder Oaks can always pull a McConkie and just say to forget everything he ever taught as he was operating under limited light and knowledge.

 

And it's all good and faithful to accept that Mcconkie was just opeating under limited light and knowledge and he was incorrect on that point.

 

But it's apostate thinking to believe that the same thing might be happening on a different subject today.

 

That smells like a double standard.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Glenn101]

And it's all good and faithful to accept that Mcconkie was just opeating under limited light and knowledge and he was incorrect on that point.

 

But it's apostate thinking to believe that the same thing might be happening on a different subject today.

 

That smells like a double standard.

 

Most if not all of what McConie was referring to were presented in his unfortunately titled "Mormon Doctrine" and not spoken from the pulpit. Maybe there is a difference there.

 

Glenn

[Brian 2.0]

Most if not all of what McConie was referring to were presented in his unfortunately titled "Mormon Doctrine" and not spoken from the pulpit. Maybe there is a difference there.

 

Glenn

You remember that movie "Sliding Doors" with Gwyneth Paltrow? We saw two timelines, one where she made the subway, one where she missed it.

What I wouldn't give to see the timeline where Mormon Doctrine was never published. I wonder how different the church and church culture would be today.

[Calm]

You remember that movie "Sliding Doors" with Gwyneth Paltrow? We saw two timelines, one where she made the subway, one where she missed it.

What I wouldn't give to see the timeline where Mormon Doctrine was never published. I wonder how different the church and church culture would be today.

I think to make a significant difference, possibly Doctrines of Salvation would have to remain unpublished as well as I would not be surprised if Mormon Doctrine replaced that as the go to reference book.

[CV75]

2) There was never a curse to be lifted. Blacks never carried a curse. The only pre-1978 issue was human racism combined with ignorance of what had brought in the ban in the first place.

 

3) 1: at all times  / 2: forever "it will always be so" was a statement of the future. It could say "it will be so at all times" or "it will be so forever"

 

And why aren't we discussing the actual topic in the OP? The actual topic is whether the umpteen changes in the list were in response to circumstance and some 'agitation' from individuals.

RE: 2--I was using the OP's language, so he would understand the principle with the light he demonstrates he has. Perhaps putting quotation marks around "curse" might help you consider the history in a less prejudicial and accusatory manner.

 

RE: 3--Nope, not always, as i indicated already.

 

RE: "actual topic" -- see post #25 and proceed to discuss the actual topic, which actually does entail how one chooses to view history and definitions.

[stemelbow]

The demand was this: "Show me a source prior to 1890 that said polygamy would be rescinded in the future?"

 

If monogamy is the default condition and plural marriage is the exception, the implication is clear that it would one day be rescinded.

 

Whether people understood it properly at the time is another matter. But it is a pre-1890 source.

 

And ultimately it doesn't matter to me.  I think you've read far too much into Jacob 2.  It merely says it is to be practiced if God commands it.  That does not mean there is an implication that in the last days if commanded it will be rescinded.  The point is, it seems, the implication only works for you because you have the luxury of seeing it all these years after polygamy was rescinded.  It appears until 1890 there really is no clear indication that God was going to put a halt to commanding it after He had Joseph begin the practice of it. 

 

If so, then it also appears by revelation things concerning gays or women and the priesthood may one day change the course of our thoughts, I'd say.

 

I'm far more open to the idea that God sees things quite differently than we do.  That our understanding is limited and one reason why that is so it because of our inability to see each person as God does.  One of my biggest hopes is to look forward to a day when all things will be revealed and thus, turn many assumptions I hold close on their heads.  Does that mean I think Women will get the priesthood?  not necessarily.  It means if revealed by God that it should be, I'm more than willing to accept it.  Does it mean I condone homosexual activity?  not necessarily.  it means if God reveals information that we simply did not know and it turns our whole idea around about it,I'd be more than willing to accept it. 

[JLHPROF]

Then how could there be any monogamous leaders?

 

There were monogamous leaders in spite of the polygamous requirement because they were given time to comply with the rule after they were called.

For example John Taylor's 1882 revelation called Seymour B. Young to the Quorumn of the Seventy providing he would enter polygamy.

Wilford Woodruffs 1882 journal said that men presiding over Stakes would have to enter polygamy or stop presiding.

Heber C. Kimball was told that he had to enter polygamy or lose his Apostleship.

If you believe the angel story, Joseph Smith was told he had to enter polygamy or lose his priesthood and be replaced.

 

All examples of people who were already in positions but it was made clear they wouldn't be allowed to continue without polygamy.  There were a couple of prominent stake presidents who refused to enter polygamy and they were not well thought of, although one of them didn't think it would hurt his exaltation much.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I wonder if they were under the impression that they needed to be in the highest kingdom (exaltation) in order to live with God. I see that would be a big incentive for them and probably the only reason for most to marry someone they weren't in love with. But it is apparent now they never really needed to do that to live with God. And were probably deceived when they wed people they never really loved in the first place. Becoming like sacrificial lambs on the alter of polygamy.

 

 

That's a heck of an assumption...that plural wives didn't love their husbands and were deceived into polygamy by Church leaders.   Or did you just mean this specific case that SeekingUnderstanding related because I don't see it there either?

 

I did not say that they didn't love each other. Marriage in those days was often a matter of practicality and respect.  I also don't think they considered themselves sacrificial lambs and hence I would not describe them as such. I went back and read the writings again from Lorena Larsen (my gggrandma whose journal I had access too). In her own words written later in life:

In the winter of 1879 I had no thought of marrying Bent Larsen, but one night I dreamed that we were at a dancing party, and he took me to his home, and pled with me to marry him. A short time after I had dreamed this, it happened just that way.

 

We were taught tin those days that there was no way to get to the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom, only by plural marriage; and my patriarchal blessing said that I was heir to all the blessings of Sarah, and of all the daughters of Israel, and if I would obtain them, I must yield obedience to the law of Sarah.

 

I believed Bent Larsen to be a thoroughly religious, straightforward and splendid man, and though it was a hard thing to do, and it required so much sacrifice on my part, yet I finally consented, after Aunt Julia [bent's first wife] siad she would feel worse if I did not marry him, than if I did.

 

From Lorena's son of this polygamous union (who was not polygamous):

 

At that time, the Church emphasized the fact that plural marriage was the Law of Celestial Marriage and that abiding by this law was the only way of securing entrance into the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom. 

[Calm]

There were monogamous leaders in spite of the polygamous requirement because they were given time to comply with the rule after they were called.

That makes sense.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are there any journal entries or published comments from those in monogamous relationship that bemoan their future lack of exaltation?  OTOH do we have monogamous leaders teaching an anticipation of exaltation themselves or for their loved ones who had died without the opportunity?  What of the visions of the Celestial Kingdom and those seen there, such as Alvin?  Are they identified as exalted by chance?

This I don't know.  From the journal I quoted above, I do know that my gggrandma Lorena was proposed to by at least two bishops (who were at the time monogamous) as well as at least two other individuals (also both monogamous) before accepting Bent's proposal.  These proposals started at the age of 15 (from one of the bishops).  It would seem that these individuals were eager to ensure they could enter into the highest degree of exaltation and there was significant competition.

 

From my study of the law of adoption (thanks to your CFR IIRC) Brigham Young viewed heaven as very hierarchical. His view of heaven had him as king and priest over all his descendants (both biological and adopted). The more children, and wives you had, the greater your glory in the eternal world. This can best be seen in this image here (click the link for a description of the diagram):

http://www.aliveonline.com/grasshopper/hyde_diagram.html

Edited October 9, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[DBMormon]

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

Good.  Do we have one from leaders in this dispensation prior to 1890?  And yes I agree that your source satisfies what I was asking.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just curious... have you thought about what you would do IF it was announced the women are going to receive the priesthood?  Would you pray about it and if confirmed believe it to be true and admit that you and Elder Oaks must have been wrong on the matter?    I know it's hypothetical, but how hard line is your hard line on this... It will never happen period and if it does it's wrong?  or it will never happen period, and if it does, then I guess I was wrong?

 

Basically... is there a window open that you and the church leaders that have made definitive statments on this matter could be wrong?

I am not interested in hypothetiacls. I am interested in what is. And they made it very clear that gay marriage in never going to happen because it goes against fundemental trueths.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram