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

[juliann]

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.

 

First, there is no such animal as "polygamy".   You have to specify which era you are talking about and probably each population.  For instance, Kathryn Daynes studied the Manti polygamists.   It was quite secret in Nauvoo.  BY specified that one had to be a polygamist "in faith".   It ultimately comes down to numbers.  There would have had to have been a steady influx of single immigrant women for all to be in polygamy.   In Utah, it was declining even before the manifesto.   It helped drive the formation of Joseph's family centered theology (see Merina Smith's book) but it was not a practical system in practice. 

[wenglund]

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?

 

I, too, am not sure you understood my point, perhaps because I have been intentionally vague.  To me, the mathematic impossibility was and is self-evident. An omniscient God, let alone a commonsense prophet, wouldn't give commandments that are impossible for all worthy and willing members to abide. In fact, I would suggest that the law of plural marriage may have or will yet exist in the here-after because, given the near invariable circumstance in singles wards, where women far outnumbering men, it would be mathematically impossible for all worthy women to marry under conditions of monogamy, particularly when there are male slackers like myself,

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 11, 2013 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

I, too, am not sure you understood my point, perhaps because I have been intentionally vague. To me, the mathematic impossibility was and is self-evident. An omniscient God, let alone a commonsense prophet, wouldn't give commandments that are impossible for all worthy and willing members to abide. In fact, I would suggest that the law of plural marriage may have or will yet exist in the here-after because, given the near invariable circumstance in singles wards, where women far outnumbering men, it would be mathematically impossible for all worthy women to marry under conditions of monogamy, particularly when there are male slackers like myself,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, what if there isn't marriage in heaven like Jesus said, will that make you feel better?

[Calm]

Well, what if there isn't marriage in heaven like Jesus said, will that make you feel better?

I believe it was Mormon Mason who pointed out that the original language has Jesus making a specific comment about a marriage ceremony as opposed to marriage in general, also about the seven specific brothers being referred to, not the general population.

[J Green]

FYI:

 

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

 

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

Scott,

While I disagree with Dehlin, I took issue with Ralph's response. My reply:

I’m not a fan of the line of the reasoning behind Dehlin’s quiz, and I find the title of his FB post (“Oak Fails”) to be somewhat offensive. Unfortunately, I think the response here is just as unhelpful. Aside from framing the issue unnecessarily in a political context, I think it focuses on the wrong aspect of the discussion.

Given our views on creation, I don’t think we should advance a doctrine of revelation ex nihilo simply as a tactic to counter John. Mostly because it’s not accurate. From Joseph’s First Vision, to family prayer, to running our wards and stakes, we ask for divine guidance based on the trials of the day. Stimulus, guidance, response. Almost every section of the D&C is exhibit A for seeking guidance based on internal and external stimuli to the nascent Church. In fact, all of the examples offered in this blog as revelation free from stimuli or derivation are actually good examples of the opposite. President Lee’s implementation of correlation as a solution to specific issues is well documented in several sources.

The hymn I sing on a Sunday that profoundly inspires me may be Shaker or Methodist in origin, the OT passages I read in Sunday School may have been patterned after Hittite treaties, the temples I attend were anciently patterned after Canaanite models, and when I make sacred covenants that I believe are binding and effective, I do so through participation in a ceremony that is related in some way — the extent of which is tirelessly debated — to Masonic rituals. But I believe that all of these are the product of divine revelation that used ‘ideas unorganized’ (as opposed to revelation ex nihilo) to reveal and restore sacred truths to meet the specific needs of Saints in specific times. Contra what is advanced in this blog, revelation unencumbered from its Sitz im Leben as a catalyst is not the rule while revelation in response to stimuli is the exception.

The best response to Dehlin is to focus on the process of how this pattern of revelation in response to stimulus works in the kingdom, what part we as Saints play in it, and how we interact with those we sustain as leaders with priesthood keys. While Church leaders at all levels will see and consider both internal and external stimuli, when (if ever) is it appropriate for members who should be following the internal process of requesting guidance and clarification to abandon that process in favor of adopting the methods of outside sources? In response to the question about why he is agitating in the manner he does (a concern about the *process* he is using as a member), Dehlin responds with a quiz about how agitation can be a catalyst for revelation. But that’s not the point. We understand how outside stimuli might work, but it is jarring when we see members adopting these methods. Is it appropriate? If so, why or why not? That is where the real discussion lies.

Joey Green

[Brian 2.0]

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.

I've always heard that being sealed and keeping those covenants was the only way to be LIKE God (exaltation in the celestial kingdom), while baptism is the gate into the celestial kingdom where you RESIDE with God. So theoretically there are unexalted people in the Celestial kingdom that reside with God but aren't fully like him because they do not have eternal increase in the form of spirit children of their own.

That's how I've always been taught it anyway.

[Tacenda]

I've always heard that being sealed and keeping those covenants was the only way to be LIKE God (exaltation in the celestial kingdom), while baptism is the gate into the celestial kingdom where you RESIDE with God. So theoretically there are unexalted people in the Celestial kingdom that reside with God but aren't fully like him because they do not have eternal increase in the form of spirit children of their own.

That's how I've always been taught it anyway.

I asked my husband about this tonight and he said the same as you have, I don't know why my mind took it to mean a different way. Edited October 11, 2013 by Tacenda

[Storm Rider]

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.

 It is strange that being taught to all a minority participated in the practice. Was there an condemnation of the majority that did not practice polygamy?  I don't recall any sermons of this kind.  

[Tacenda]

It is strange that being taught to all a minority participated in the practice. Was there an condemnation of the majority that did not practice polygamy? I don't recall any sermons of this kind.

Maybe they believed some of the leaders, for instance BY, was already starting up their kingdoms here on earth. Pretty sure I've read quotes, one even mentioning BY or JS to be as a God. Maybe they struggled with the notion of becoming as Gods on the earth. But good question, and I also have read in the JoD, BY admonishing them to live it or be damned.

[rongo]

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.

I really appreciate your insight here as to the distinction between the highest degree versus "simply" celestial kingdom. I think this is a really good point, and I didn't understand it until you emphasized it. I think you're correct that obedience to celestial marriage (which then included plural marriage) is comparable to obedience to celestial marriage in our day (which does not). In other words, the difference between temple worthy and not temple worthy in our day = the difference between those who practiced authorized polygamy and those who did not.

 

 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.

 

I see your point. At minimum, though, the quote even as "ellipsed" did demonstrate Brigham Young's hypothetical openness to ending the practice if it had been abused to a certain point. And his point later on (not "ellipsed") that he was willing to abandon the practice if God commanded it was the main point, after all. But, we probably will have to "agree to disagree" on this (don't you hate that cliché?)

 

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. 

 

Ummm. Every time Joseph Smith proposed to a plural wife?   I'm being serious.  As mentioned, B.H. Roberts's example is instructive --- it's exactly what he did and how he perceived the process to work, and he did it right and reached the proper decision. And Brigham Young himself was absolutely adamant about any of us doing anything he or the Brethren taught without spiritual confirmation. Here are a lot of quotes to that effect I have shared elsewhere:

 

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous

 

You're not insisting that Brigham Young exempted polygamy from this, are you?

 

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.

 

As stated, I agree with you that this was taught as being necessary for "highest level" Celestial Kingdom. I had thought that you were claiming that it was necessary for "simple" Celestial Kingdom admission.

 

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

 

How do you square this with historical evidence (previously cited by me, others available) that the Brethren were contemplating and discussing ending it already in the 1860s? I'm not saying that they weren't heart-broken and surprised when it was ended in the 1890s, but it is beyond doubt that they at least conceived of and discussed ending it.

 

Question for you: do you believe they were mistaken and displeased God by ending it?

 

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.

 

My ancestors were at least as involved in polygamy, and probably more, than yours (all of mine were involved in it, on both sides). I've never said they were mistaken; I've just said that it wasn't the imperative you say it was, based on outcomes, contra-statements, etc.

[wenglund]

Well, what if there isn't marriage in heaven like Jesus said, will that make you feel better?

 

Ignoring for the moment your private interpretation of what Jesus has said, why would the prospect of people not being sealed to their earthy spouses and families make me feel better? One of the most difficult experiences of my life was dealing with the prospect of my parents divorcing and the breaking up with my  former girl friend and her two boys. That was hell to me, so I can't imagine that it will be what is in store as heaven.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

Ignoring for the moment your private interpretation of what Jesus has said, why would the prospect of people not being sealed to their earthy spouses and families make me feel better? One of the most difficult experiences of my life was dealing with the prospect of my parents divorcing and the breaking up with my former girl friend and her two boys. That was hell to me, so I can't imagine that it will be what is in store as heaven.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I meant the prospect of no marriage in heaven might make you feel better. When Jesus told someone there wasn't marriage in heaven, given or otherwise, we will be with our loved ones either way. I believe some might feel they are losing out if they believe they aren't going to be together because of varying circumstances. Like in your situation, I'm confident you will be with your loved ones, especially if there is no marriage in heaven. Maybe we will actually be as Jesus said, angels in heaven. I don't believe he was being specific, but referred it to all, IMHO. But then we have the "Man can become as God" delemma that creeps up. Did the scriptures mean in every way or just as in a loving being doing good to all men. I honestly feel that Masonry plays a big part in our belief that we can become a God.

[wenglund]

I meant the prospect of no marriage in heaven might make you feel better. When Jesus told someone there wasn't marriage in heaven, given or otherwise, we will be with our loved ones either way. I believe some might feel they are losing out if they believe they aren't going to be together because of varying circumstances. Like in your situation, I'm confident you will be with your loved ones, especially if there is no marriage in heaven. Maybe we will actually be as Jesus said, angels in heaven. I don't believe he was being specific, but referred it to all, IMHO. But then we have the "Man can become as God" delemma that creeps up. Did the scriptures mean in every way or just as in a loving being doing good to all men. I honestly feel that Masonry plays a big part in our belief that we can become a God.

 

I am aware of what you meant. However, if you think that "being together" with loved-one's in the hereafter is on par with being married/sealed, then I wonder just how superficial may be your perception of marriage and/or heaven. I don't know about you, but to me, during mortality, being together as children at the same location with divorced parents is hardly the same (on order of magnitude) as being together with married parents. I suspect it is exponentially more so in heaven. To me, the phrase "until death do we part" isn't so much about geographic proximity as it is about legitimate familial boundaries and eternal bonds.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 11, 2013 by wenglund

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I really appreciate your insight here as to the distinction between the highest degree versus "simply" celestial kingdom. I think this is a really good point, and I didn't understand it until you emphasized it. I think you're correct that obedience to celestial marriage (which then included plural marriage) is comparable to obedience to celestial marriage in our day (which does not). In other words, the difference between temple worthy and not temple worthy in our day = the difference between those who practiced authorized polygamy and those who did not.

 

 

 

 

I see your point. At minimum, though, the quote even as "ellipsed" did demonstrate Brigham Young's hypothetical openness to ending the practice if it had been abused to a certain point. And his point later on (not "ellipsed") that he was willing to abandon the practice if God commanded it was the main point, after all. But, we probably will have to "agree to disagree" on this (don't you hate that cliché?)

First thanks for you gracious response (probably much more gracious than I desreved). I'm going to bow out of the conversation here as I am heading out of town on a trip.  I will agree that quote does demonstrate Brigham being open to the possibility of the Lord ending polygamy, though I don't think he expected him too.  (Probably similar to Pres Hinckley's comment and women and the priesthood (saying it would require a revelation but likely not expecting it). This does demonstrate at least that he had no revelation saying it would continue for ever (though perhaps John Taylor did).  

 

Ummm. Every time Joseph Smith proposed to a plural wife?    I'm being serious.  As mentioned, B.H. Roberts's example is instructive --- it's exactly what he did and how he perceived the process to work, and he did it right and reached the proper decision. And Brigham Young himself was absolutely adamant about any of us doing anything he or the Brethren taught without spiritual confirmation. Here are a lot of quotes to that effect I have shared elsewhere:

 

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous

 

You're not insisting that Brigham Young exempted polygamy from this, are you?

Quite true, but not exactly what I meant.  We are all expected to receive a witness rather than  blindly follow.  Also agree that on individual marriage proposals, both sides were encouraged to get a witness. My point was that polygamy was preached as a good thing for all.  There wasn't a select few called to live the principal.

 

How do you square this with historical evidence (previously cited by me, others available) that the Brethren were contemplating and discussing ending it already in the 1860s? I'm not saying that they weren't heart-broken and surprised when it was ended in the 1890s, but it is beyond doubt that they at least conceived of and discussed ending it.

I don't think your quotes demonstrated that the brethren contemplated ending it only that they would have been open to the Lord ending it. I think as time went on and persecutions increased the rhetoric and resolve on the part of the saints not to stop likely also increased.  

 

Question for you: do you believe they were mistaken and displeased God by ending it?

Absolutely not! Although I'm somewhat of a heretic (believe in evolution, Adam / fall as being figurative vs literal, etc. etc.). I can say that from the journals I have, my ancestors did not murmer against the prophet after the manifesto. 

 

My ancestors were at least as involved in polygamy, and probably more, than yours (all of mine were involved in it, on both sides). I've never said they were mistaken; I've just said that it wasn't the imperative you say it was, based on outcomes, contra-statements, etc.

Well of my great great grandparents, 5 of 8 were polygamists, and the other three weren't members yet, so you have me beat there. Obviously I wasn't there.  I do know that the journals I've read indicated polygamy was a requirement.  I can't prove BY thought this as well, but it seems reasonable to me based on his sermons and the actions of those around him.

 

Again thanks for the gracious response and sorry I have to bow out of the conversation.

[JLHPROF]

 It is strange that being taught to all a minority participated in the practice. Was there an condemnation of the majority that did not practice polygamy?  I don't recall any sermons of this kind.  

 

Oh, there were a few tongue in cheek condemnations:

"I would not be afraid to promise a man who is sixty years of age, if he will take the counsel of brother Brigham and his brethren, that he will renew his age. I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors His work and word. Some of you may not believe this; but I not only believe it—I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business; for it is as much as we can do now to keep up under the burdens we have to carry; and I do not know what we should do if we had only one wife apiece."

- Heber C. Kimball - JD 5:22

[omni]

We've been debating whether or not prophets taught that polygamy was required for the highest level of the CK, but I think we are all in agreement that the church teaches celestial marriage is required. Polygamy robs men of their ability to reach this highest level by removing eligible (worthy LDS) women from the marriage pool. Unfortunately the worst offenders of this were church leaders who often had dozens of wives and who in essence created dozens of bachelors. Sure I guess these bachelors could have married in the next life, but due to no fault of their own they missed out on all those blessings in this life.

[Calm]

 Polygamy robs men of their ability to reach this highest level by removing eligible (worthy LDS) women from the marriage pool. 

CFR that unmarried men in the LDS Church was a significant number, enough so that your claim is demonstrated as likely (since we can't tell how many of the unmarried males wanted to actually marry)...my memory says the unmarried pool was lower than the general population....

 

I agree in the smaller and closed communities, such as the FLDS where the percentage of polygyny is much higher and in general the number of wives is higher per husband as well, this will be a problem.  I would like to see demonstration that LDS ever reached that stage having attempted to compensate with lowering the age of the wife for a time.

Edited October 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

We've been debating whether or not prophets taught that polygamy was required for the highest level of the CK, but I think we are all in agreement that the church teaches celestial marriage is required. Polygamy robs men of their ability to reach this highest level by removing eligible (worthy LDS) women from the marriage pool. Unfortunately the worst offenders of this were church leaders who often had dozens of wives and who in essence created dozens of bachelors. Sure I guess these bachelors could have married in the next life, but due to no fault of their own they missed out on all those blessings in this life.

 

I'm sorry, I don't see any evidence to support your claim.  There is record of many men wanting plural wives and having a hard time finding enough eligbible women to build large families, but I find no record of any batchelors bemoaning polygamists taking up the wives.  I think that this is not a true statement of fact, and I have yet to see any statistics to back it up.

[rongo]

What it did do, I think, was "raise the bar" (hate that cliché, too) on men wanting good LDS wives. The system naturally made it so some men who didn't "have it together" would have a tough time finding a girl worth having to marry (since multiple women could marry one man). In theory. In practice, of course, not all polygamist men were wonderful men.

 

Reminds me of George Bernard Shaw's comment on Mormon polygamy: "The Mormons have figured it out. Better to have a quarter share in a first-rate man, than to have a third-rate man all to yourself."

Edited October 12, 2013 by rongo

[omni]

CFR that unmarried men in the LDS Church was a significant number, enough so that your claim is demonstrated as likely (since we can't tell how many of the unmarried males wanted to actually marry)...my memory says the unmarried pool was lower than the general population....

 

 

If you'll remember, Hamba Tuhan took institute classes from Kenneth Godfrey who did his PhD thesis on this.  This is a link to the thread:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60966-wrestling-with-polyandry/page-20?hl=humba#entry1209268986

 

"When I was doing my undergraduate study in America, I took many Institute classes from Kenneth Godfrey. In one of them, he mentioned to us that Church records (he did his PhD research in this field) indicate that fully 1/3 of adult males in the Church never married during the decades that plural marriage was practised. This was, he suggested, the very specific context for Heber C. Kimball's oft-(mis)quoted concern about unmarried men. One of the solutions to this sociological time bomb seems to have been to send large numbers of single men on missions for very long periods of time....It was his clearly stated conclusion that polygamy was the cause of 1/3 of men going their entire lives without marriage -- which makes perfect mathematical sense, as you've already demonstrated. I remember for certain that he told us that at no point during the practise of plural marriage was there an abundance of extra women in the Church's records. That meant, simply, that every man who had one extra wife resulted in a man who would never marry. A man who had three extra wives created three lifelong bachelors. And so on. There's just no other way around it." -Hamba Tuhan

 

This is exactly what a simple mathematical model would predict.  

 

I agree in the smaller and closed communities, such as the FLDS where the percentage of polygyny is much higher and in general the number of wives is higher per husband as well, this will be a problem.  

 

 

 

CFR that modern polygamists practice at a "much higher rate" and a higher number of wives per husband.  

 

I would like to see demonstration that LDS ever reached that stage having attempted to compensate with lowering the age of the wife for a time.

 

 

JLHProf provided this little gem:

 

"All are trying to get wives," Wilford Woodruff wrote to George A. Smith in 1857, "until there is hardly a girl fourteen years old in Utah but what is married or just going to be."  (Mormon Polygamy pg 42)

[why me]

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.

And yet, someone is creating those spirits who get bodies who come to earth. How does god have time to create so many spirits all the time? And how does he do it and yet have time to listen to prayers, help those that are here etc? At least the lds have a concrete idea.

[why me]

JLHProf provided this little gem:

 

"All are trying to get wives," Wilford Woodruff wrote to George A. Smith in 1857, "until there is hardly a girl fourteen years old in Utah but what is married or just going to be."  (Mormon Polygamy pg 42)

Do you have the complete letter? Or just this excerpt? Was it a hyperbole?

Edited October 12, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

CFR that modern polygamists practice at a "much higher rate" and a higher number of wives per husband.  

Just remembering what was reported in the FLDS raid...maybe wrong about it being higher than the percentages reported for LDS because it was just raw numbers and not percentages.

[Tacenda]

And yet, someone is creating those spirits who get bodies who come to earth. How does god have time to create so many spirits all the time? And how does he do it and yet have time to listen to prayers, help those that are here etc? At least the lds have a concrete idea.

EV's probably don't believe in a pre-existence and why do you think there are angels? Someone's got to be a liasion to God with all his children to look after. Maybe that's why we'll be angels. I can't think of a better thing to do than that when I get to heaven vs. the other.

[canard78]

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.

 

That's some impressive linguistic gymnastics.

 

So when the breathren say that SSM can't happen and "it will always be so" we can take it that it might not apply to the next generation even if it applies to us?