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

[wenglund]

28% of the men and 44% of the women. ~40% of the children would be raised in polygamous households. What myths were we talking about?

 

 

So, at a bare minimum, 72% of adult males, and 56% of adult females, had no possible chance of living the "required commandment" even if they wanted to. Are you getting even a hint of the myth?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

So, at a bare minimum, 72% of adult males, and 56% of adult females, had no possible chance of living the "required commandment" even if they wanted to. Are you getting even a hint of the myth?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Still doesn't beat all the silly myths given to explain away why it was instituted in the first place.  And you are still basing that on the erroneous notion that 100% of adult members wanted to keep the commandment anyway.  I think there is probably just as high a percent of members today who don't even try to hold a recommend or pay their tithing.

[wenglund]

Still doesn't beat all the silly myths given to explain away why it was instituted in the first place.  And you are still basing that on the erroneous notion that 100% of adult members wanted to keep the commandment anyway.  I think there is probably just as high a percent of members today who don't even try to hold a recommend or pay their tithing.

 

No, I am not basing it on "want to keep it." I am basing it on, at a minimum how many could possibly keep the "required commandment." If it were mathematically impossible for the vast majority of adult members to hold a recommend or pay tithing, you may have a point.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

Ok, I get where you're coming from now. You acknowledge that it was taught that it was necessary for exaltation, but seem to think that it only applies to those who were "called to live it" to use the popular term. Did I get it right?

I think that it was never taught as necessary for salvation, but only for exaltation, and I believe that it was applied to membership as a whole. The quotes I provided back that up. However, I also agree with you that there was no expectation that 100% of the membership were ever going to live to that level.

I think the 90% number is a bit off (most estimates put polygamous numbers at 25-30% of members at their peak, but maybe 10% over time).

And the explanation as to why so many did choose to practice polygamy is a simple one - how many of the 15 million church members are Temple recommend carrying, tithing paying, covenant keeping, on their way to exaltation saints...(maybe 20%). People choose not to follow the laws of exaltation everyday, even if they know better.

Oh, and I never said that it was essential to exaltation worlds without end. But I have professed my belief in what was taught by so many GAs that plural marriage is the family order which God always lives by and if we want exaltation to Godhood we'd better be prepared for it.

I love your analogy, that is probably how it happened.

Question...in LDS belief am I going to see God if I'm not exalted, since I think I was taught he only dwelled in the highest kingdom?

[rongo]

Celestial kingdom = God's presence. What is required for that is baptism and confirmation and "enduring to the end" (being sanctified and justified through the atonement). No priesthood or temple required.

 

For the highest level of the CK, you need priesthood and temple (and covenant keeping).

[canard78]

 

I’m the one who included the ellipses. I typed my quotes by hand straight out of the volumes (no internet access when I compiled them from my notes for this). Many of my ellipses were simply to reduce the amount of typing necessary (redundancy, irrelevancy, etc.). I gave the references; people are free to check them all they want.

 

In this case, the fact that Brigham Young began specifically addressing “polygamy out of passion” (i.e., lustful, less-than-holy reasons) is irrelevant. He then goes on to say what I quoted: if the Lord reveals that it should be abolished, then that is what we will do. That was the main point of that passage --- much more so than “polygamy out of passion.”

 

 

You said:

 

Third, the Brethren, including especially Brigham Young, looked for and expected it to eventually be suspended through revelation. They were open to this, as opposed to insisting that it would never be done away with, worlds without end.

 

(Brigham Young, April 7, 1861. Journal of Discourses 9:36) . . . the sooner it is abolished, the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say that 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 . . . I would rather take my valise in my hand today, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do unless God commands it.

 

 

 

By using ellipses that leaves the reader with the impression that BY is saying "the sooner it (polygamy) is abolished the better." Was that your intention? Because the original quote shows that BY is saying something very different. He actually says "If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better."

 

That's not him saying he "looked for and expected it to eventually be suspended through revelation." Do you have a better quote to support that he expected it to be suspended through revelation?

[canard78]

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.

 

RE 3 - since when has "always" had any other definition? Just saying "nope" doesn't make it so. Can you provide some references and support for the fact that when BY said "it will always be so" he actually meant "it will be so until it isn't."

[CV75]

RE 3 - since when has "always" had any other definition? Just saying "nope" doesn't make it so. Can you provide some references and support for the fact that when BY said "it will always be so" he actually meant "it will be so until it isn't."

I explained this already (and it goes without saying!): People will always die in mortality, but not in the spirit world or the resurrection. People will never die in the spirit world or the resurrection, but this is not so in mortality.

 

For Brigham Young's hearers, "it will always be so" under the covenants as they were to be kept by them in their time and circumstance, according to the administration of the law they were given to obey. Others have gone over who was actually under this covenant.

[CV75]

The sun always rises (as long s there is a temporal Earth around).

[JLHPROF]

Question...in LDS belief am I going to see God if I'm not exalted, since I think I was taught he only dwelled in the highest kingdom?

 

Celestial kingdom = God's presence. What is required for that is baptism and confirmation and "enduring to the end" (being sanctified and justified through the atonement). No priesthood or temple required.

For the highest level of the CK, you need priesthood and temple (and covenant keeping).

 

Any who enter the Celestial Kingdom (as Rongo perfectly described) enjoy God's presence and ministration.  But those who live all the laws, receive all the ordinances, basically, those who live by the same laws as God lives are the ones who get exaltation and to actually live where God lives. 

Exalted meaning to rule and reign over a kingdom and have eternal increase, those who are merely saved do no receive eternal increase and are made servants in the Kingdom.

[Tacenda]

Any who enter the Celestial Kingdom (as Rongo perfectly described) enjoy God's presence and ministration. But those who live all the laws, receive all the ordinances, basically, those who live by the same laws as God lives are the ones who get exaltation and to actually live where God lives.

Exalted meaning to rule and reign over a kingdom and have eternal increase, those who are merely saved do no receive eternal increase and are made servants in the Kingdom.

That's the teaching I'm remembering! That you will live where He lives. I knew it! No wonder those women & men entered polygamy even when they may not have wanted to. Just don't get how they live with God, when they would be on their own planet, world, star or realm....sounds like He would still be only ministering. ..

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That’s a very good point. I disagree with your contention that the Brethren regarded the 90% (in their minds) who didn’t participate in polygamy as being in the same condition in the hereafter as our total inactives in our day. Are you really claiming that they regarded people who in all other ways kept their covenants but did not practice polygamy the same way we regard people today who are not temple worthy?

To be crystal clear I am claiming that they taught and believed that to receive the highest degree of celestial glory, one had to enter into plural marriage.  Other people would receive Celestial glory, but not the highest degree of celestial glory. As supporting evidence to this fact, I have provided quotes from Brigham Young, quotes from my ancestors that demonstrate they believed this fact.  In addition after the "revelation" to end plural marriage, church leaders continued to promote plural marriage for over a decade.  Once they were absolutely forced to end the practice, many members continued to practice it and even sacrificed their church membership and apostleship to do so.  The reason they were willing to do this is because they were taught and believed it was required to obtain the highest degree of celestial glory.

I’m the one who included the ellipses. I typed my quotes by hand straight out of the volumes (no internet access when I compiled them from my notes for this). Many of my ellipses were simply to reduce the amount of typing necessary (redundancy, irrelevancy, etc.). I gave the references; people are free to check them all they want.

 

In this case, the fact that Brigham Young began specifically addressing “polygamy out of passion” (i.e., lustful, less-than-holy reasons) is irrelevant. He then goes on to say what I quoted: if the Lord reveals that it should be abolished, then that is what we will do. That was the main point of that passage --- much more so than “polygamy out of passion.”

Your quote with the ellipses makes it sound like Brigham says the sooner polygamy ends the better which does not convey his meaning. If you don't see this as disingenuous I don't think further productive conversation can occur.

Again, I think that it *was* necessary for the exaltation of some --- primarily as communicated to those individuals by the Holy Ghost. I don’t think it was a hard-and-fast, blanket rule taught and applied to the whole church (10-30% “hearken rate,” etc.). That it was perceived at least hypothetically as possibly temporary is self-evident.

CFR for one instance of any general authority exhorting the general membership to seek guidance from the holy ghost on whether plural marriage was right for them.  The hearken rate of 10-30% is very similar to modern day hearken rates.

 

People on the ground? You mean all of those who didn’t practice it? Your best case scenario still has 70% of the Church not doing it, still a staggering number.

Okay CFR for any quote from a person not living polygamy during this period that says that Brigham Young taught you could receive the highest degree of celestial glory without living plural marriage.

 

Two things. First, it’s impossible to stop a freight train at full speed on a dime. And the “non-polygs” still had an abiding admiration for the “polygs,” who formed an aristocracy of sorts. I liken it to how most Catholics, the vast majority, don’t practice things vital in the Catholic Church (i.e., birth control, divorce, etc.). They aren’t regarded as “good” Catholics, but they admire and respect the “good” Catholics. And when the Catholic Church is under fire, these “not good” Catholics are fiercely loyal and proud. Similarly, non-polyg Mormons admired those who did practice it, and did not like seeing the government and the Church’s enemies prevail, even though they themselves did not have the wherewithal to practice it. They were the epitome of those Brigham Young described as “polygamists at least in your faith” (another passage in my favor that I ellipsed out because it didn’t immediately relate to my quotes at hand).

Are you aware that when John W. Taylor was excommunicated he provided a revelation from his father that polygamy would never be taken from the earth.  This revelation was not disputed during the hearing, but Elder Taylor was excommunicated for not following the modern prophet.  What this demonstrates is that John W. Taylor an apostle from 1884 on, and his father who was present in Utah during all of Brigham Young's teachings somehow missed the message that polygamy was temporary and unnecessary for the highest degree of celestial glory.

 

I think you’re going out of your way to be a drama queen here. Having an honest intellectual discussion about the degree to which it was regarded as essential to exaltation or hypothetically temporary doesn’t diminish anybody’s sacrifices.

 

I can speak for my ancestors. The only reason that they lived it was because they understood it to be a requirement for the highest degree of celestial glory. It required huge sacrifices. They moved from place to place, never having a permanent home. The men went to jail. After the manifesto, the second wives lived as widows. They did it because they knew it was required by God. Saying they were mistaken (i.e. too dumb to understand what 90% of their brothers and sisters in the gospel understood) diminishes their sacrifice.

[Calm]

That's the teaching I'm remembering! That you will live where He lives. I knew it! No wonder those women & men entered polygamy even when they may not have wanted to. Just don't get how they live with God, when they would be on their own planet, world, star or realm....sounds like He would still be only ministering. ..

Is this not God's planet?  Is he "living" here?  

 

You applying mortal restrictions to immortal beings.

Edited October 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

According to polygamists...we are in a state of apostasy or the lost ones, for having abandoned polygamy.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So, at a bare minimum, 72% of adult males, and 56% of adult females, had no possible chance of living the "required commandment" even if they wanted to. Are you getting even a hint of the myth?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you are saying polygamy is not required for recieving the highest degree of celestial glory, then I am in 100% agreement with you. This is not, however, what was taught and understood by members living in Brigham Young's day.

 

As an aside, are you saying we can use math logic and science now to determine what was taught and understood as docrine in the past? Using birthrates, current doctrine and math, I can dispel the myth that their will be more women than men in the celstial kingdom (and hence dispel the myth that their is any doctrinal reason for polygamy in the first place).

 

Using science and math, I can prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and death has occured since life about 3-4 billion years ago. From DNA evidence and math, I can prove that modern humans diverged from a common ancestor more than 100,000 years ago.

 

Using science and math, I can prove that a universal flood is impossible.

 

I cannot use any of the above however to prove that church leaders didn't teach no death before the fall or a young earth. I also can't use the above to show that most members understood no death before the fall as non-doctrinal.

[JLHPROF]

To be crystal clear I am claiming that they taught and believed that to receive the highest degree of celestial glory, one had to enter into plural marriage.  Other people would receive Celestial glory, but not the highest degree of celestial glory. As supporting evidence to this fact, I have provided quotes from Brigham Young, quotes from my ancestors that demonstrate they believed this fact.  In addition after the "revelation" to end plural marriage, church leaders continued to promote plural marriage for over a decade.  Once they were absolutely forced to end the practice, many members continued to practice it and even sacrificed their church membership and apostleship to do so.  The reason they were willing to do this is because they were taught and believed it was required to obtain the highest degree of celestial glory.

Your quote with the ellipses makes it sound like Brigham says the sooner polygamy ends the better which does not convey his meaning. If you don't see this as disingenuous I don't think further productive conversation can occur.

CFR for one instance of any general authority exhorting the general membership to seek guidance from the holy ghost on whether plural marriage was right for them.  The hearken rate of 10-30% is very similar to modern day hearken rates.

 

Okay CFR for any quote from a person not living polygamy during this period that says that Brigham Young taught you could receive the highest degree of celestial glory without living plural marriage.

 

Are you aware that when John W. Taylor was excommunicated he provided a revelation from his father that polygamy would never be taken from the earth.  This revelation was not disputed during the hearing, but Elder Taylor was excommunicated for not following the modern prophet.  What this demonstrates is that John W. Taylor an apostle from 1884 on, and his father who was present in Utah during all of Brigham Young's teachings somehow missed the message that polygamy was temporary and unnecessary for the highest degree of celestial glory.

 

 

I can speak for my ancestors. The only reason that they lived it was because they understood it to be a requirement for the highest degree of celestial glory. It required huge sacrifices. They moved from place to place, never having a permanent home. The men went to jail. After the manifesto, the second wives lived as widows. They did it because they knew it was required by God. Saying they were mistaken (i.e. too dumb to understand what 90% of their brothers and sisters in the gospel understood) diminishes their sacrifice.

 

Love your post and agree with it 100%, (but bringing up the 1886 revelation just opens a whole can of worms.)

But it's true, the teachings of this time period absolutely taught that only those that who lived plural marriage would receive exaltation.  To claim otherwise is simply revisionist history.  It was in too many sermons, journals, and other sources to be otherwise.  The idea that there was in the church at that time a specific corps of those who were called to polygamy is just not backed up by history.  It was taught to all.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That's the teaching I'm remembering! That you will live where He lives. I knew it! No wonder those women & men entered polygamy even when they may not have wanted to. Just don't get how they live with God, when they would be on their own planet, world, star or realm....sounds like He would still be only ministering. ..

Please note that nowhere was it taught that you couldn't recieve Celestial glory if you didn't practice polygamy.  That is non-polygamists can dwell with God. It was taught and understood, however, that to achieve the highest degree of celestial glory one must practice plural marriage.

[Tacenda]

Please note that nowhere was it taught that you couldn't recieve Celestial glory if you didn't practice polygamy. That is non-polygamists can dwell with God. It was taught and understood, however, that to achieve the highest degree of celestial glory one must practice plural marriage.

That's what I was talking about, the highest tier in the CK. Those that reach that are supposedly the only ones that dwell/live with God. And I guess the others just get visits. ETA: Now what I don't get, after re-reading your quote SU, I don't understand the desire to live polygamy if I'd still dwell with God without it. Why would I want to procreate 24/7? I'm not being glib here. If a Mother in heaven is creating billions of spirits, where she has all those children, when is she going to spend time with her original children, especially if they are off being Mothers & Fathers also? Some people make fun of EV's idea of heaven, with violin playing , all that....but atleast you're confined with your family, they do believe they'll be with their families btw. Oh, they may not be married but will be together doing who knows what. Edited October 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[cursor]

What science and math offer us is truly welcome and enlightening. Their objective revelations helpfully offset the nonsense that we might otherwise adopt.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That's what I was talking about, the highest tier in the CK. Those that reach that are supposedly the only ones that dwell/live with God. And I guess the others just get visits. ETA: Now what I don't get, after re-reading your quote SU, I don't understand the desire to live polygamy if I'd still dwell with God without it. Why would I want to procreate 24/7? I'm not being glib here. If a Mother in heaven is creating billions of spirits, where she has all those children, when is she going to spend time with her original children, especially if they are off being Mothers & Fathers also? Some people make fun of EV's idea of heaven, with violin playing , all that....but atleast you're confined with your family, they do believe they'll be with their families btw. Oh, they may not be married but will be together doing who knows what.

Let's just say I would have been a monogamist. You may have hit on why 70-90% of the saints felt likewise...

Edited October 10, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

That's what I was talking about, the highest tier in the CK. Those that reach that are supposedly the only ones that dwell/live with God.

 

CFR please.

 

I have always understood:

 

All who inherit the celestial kingdom will live with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ forever (see D&C 76:62).

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng

 

I know that sometimes we hear something and whether or not we hear it correctly, it becomes stuck in our head and becomes a basic assumption with which we approach everything else.  So whenever we hear something that might correct that understanding, that assumption colours our perception enough to prevent that.  So whether someone actually told you this or you just misunderstood, this seems to have stuck with you.

 

I am thinking perhaps you have read the description in D&C 76:62 as only applying to exaltation based on D&C 76:57-59, but we already know that in addition there are also those who must be with the "priests and kings" and that is those who are 'priestesses and queens'.  I believe those previous verses are describing various groups of who is in the CK, including the subset of those who are exalted, while 62 applies to everyone.

 

If we are living as an eternal family with those we are sealed to in the CK...even if some of those do not share exaltation, we are still with them and thus God is also with them.

 

So pay attention and rewrite that assumption now you have the chance.  

Edited October 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

If you are saying polygamy is not required for recieving the highest degree of celestial glory, then I am in 100% agreement with you. This is not, however, what was taught and understood by members living in Brigham Young's day.

 

As an aside, are you saying we can use math logic and science now to determine what was taught and understood as docrine in the past? Using birthrates, current doctrine and math, I can dispel the myth that their will be more women than men in the celstial kingdom (and hence dispel the myth that their is any doctrinal reason for polygamy in the first place).

 

Using science and math, I can prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and death has occured since life about 3-4 billion years ago. From DNA evidence and math, I can prove that modern humans diverged from a common ancestor more than 100,000 years ago.

 

Using science and math, I can prove that a universal flood is impossible.

 

I cannot use any of the above however to prove that church leaders didn't teach no death before the fall or a young earth. I also can't use the above to show that most members understood no death before the fall as non-doctrinal.

 

Nice slight of hand trying to slip science into the mix along with a then and now irrelevancy. Basic math back in Brigham's day was the same as it is today. The so-called "required commandment" was as mathematically impossible back then as it is today.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Nice slight of hand trying to slip science into the mix along with a then and now irrelevancy. Basic math back in Brigham's day was the same as it is today. The so-called "required commandment" was as mathematically impossible back then as it is today.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You've missed the point of my post (probably because I wasn't clear). I don't think that math, or science, or logic is a good way of determining what was thought or believed by Brigham Young and his followers (or any historical people). Many reasons could be given to explain the apparent discrepancy. I'll give one: Brigham Young knew that despite his exhortations, only a relatively few number of people would answer the call to live plural marriage.  Hence it was a litmus test to determine one's worthiness.

 

By your logic, would it be fair to say that FLDS people don't believe polygamy is required for exhaltation?

Edited October 10, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

FYI:

 

On the Interpreter website, Ralph C. Hancock has posted a response to Dehlin's quiz.

 

I've yet to read it; Mr. De Groote just drew my attention to it.

 

Edited to add:

 

I just read it, and I like it very much.

 

Here's a passage to give you a taste and induce you to click on the link.

 

What comes next?  Surely progress cannot come to an end?  If you are sure what direction we should go in, why make us (and the prophets) wait – why not tell us where it is all supposed to lead?  What is the ultimate vision of individual fulfillment in a just society?  After the overcoming of the traditional, natural, conjugal understanding of marriage, and of  the associated preference for heterosexuality and role differentiation between the sexes, what further barriers must be toppled to reach our destination?  Where does all this lead?  Surely there must be more traditional barriers thought to be “moral” that will be revealed to be sheer, stupid, self-interested prejudice, or perhaps pathological hang-ups that limit our self-expression.  What other barriers to equal freedom and free equality need to fall? And where will this leveling of barriers lead us?  What, again, is the ultimate vision?

 

Edited October 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

CFR please.

I have always understood:

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng

I know that sometimes we hear something and whether or not we hear it correctly, it becomes stuck in our head and becomes a basic assumption with which we approach everything else. So whenever we hear something that might correct that understanding, that assumption colours our perception enough to prevent that. So whether someone actually told you this or you just misunderstood, this seems to have stuck with you.

I am thinking perhaps you have read the description in D&C 76:62 as only applying to exaltation based on D&C 76:57-59, but we already know that in addition there are also those who must be with the "priests and kings" and that is those who are 'priestesses and queens'. I believe those previous verses are describing various groups of who is in the CK, including the subset of those who are exalted, while 62 applies to everyone.

If we are living as an eternal family with those we are sealed to in the CK...even if some of those do not share exaltation, we are still with them and thus God is also with them.

So pay attention and rewrite that assumption now you have the chance.

Your CFR is noted. I don't have a reference, just experience with various situations where I've been under the impression that marrying in the temple and keeping the covenants were the only way to reside with God. Just never knew that according to some prophets that I'd also have to live polygamy and create spirits to populate my own kingdom with my husband.