"it Takes 5 Generations In A Family Line To Make A Good Mormon"

[Kenngo1969]

I'm a fifth generation Mormon, and I  can assure you some of my ancestors were much better Mormons than I. 

Me, too.

[mfbukowski]

But board participant 'Vance' told me this was his family photo and the he's the one on the left! I call a foul!

That was cold.

 

You should not insult Vance.  Clearly he is the more handsome one on the right. 

[mfbukowski]

I am the one on the right. I am his husband, cousin on both sides, brother, and brother-in-law.

Braggart.

[Tacenda]

I am the one on the right. I am his husband, cousin on both sides, brother, and brother-in-law.

That photo of you was the beginning of ear pinning surgery.

[The Nehor]

In a word "no."

The first generation Mormons were by far the best and least spoiled, beginning with Joseph Smith Jr himself, and continuing with a great bunch including Brigham Young (who met Joseph while Joseph was chopping wood).

 

Of course there is the question of what genetic heritage Joseph had, and whether he was a direct descendant of the Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and therefore an Ephraimite (through Joseph's son Ephraim).  Or is that only by adoption?  What about the rest of us.  What do our Patriarchal blessings say about our descent?

I disagree. The first generation Mormons were often fickle and unstable in their faith. The pool was so shallow that getting reliable apostles was a major challenge. Almost everyone turned on Joseph after Kirtland. The faithful pioneers are rightly venerated for crossing the plains to find a promised land but that veneration should be checked a bit by Brigham's complaints about people risking all for the gospel and then throwing their religion and gratitude away in favor of wealth once they arrived.

[Robert F. Smith]

I disagree. The first generation Mormons were often fickle and unstable in their faith. The pool was so shallow that getting reliable apostles was a major challenge. Almost everyone turned on Joseph after Kirtland. The faithful pioneers are rightly venerated for crossing the plains to find a promised land but that veneration should be checked a bit by Brigham's complaints about people risking all for the gospel and then throwing their religion and gratitude away in favor of wealth once they arrived.

So perhaps we should see Brother Brigham as a kind of Chairman Mao, constantly keeping things stirred up in order to keep the revolution alive, despite all the backsliding?

[The Nehor]

So perhaps we should see Brother Brigham as a kind of Chairman Mao, constantly keeping things stirred up in order to keep the revolution alive, despite all the backsliding?

That is pretty much the role of every prophet and communist revolutionary. Wouldn't you agree Comrade?

[JAHS]

There are some habits and routines that bless the lives of children as they grow up, that do get transferred from generation to generation.   But traditions that hold families together only result in strong members when family members are both loved and taught (and the parents act as though) that their duty is to seek and get their own testimonies, and conform their own agency to His.

 

I think this is a possibility that because my ancestors kept the faith and passed on their example to the next generation it might be a little easier and one might be more inclined to continue that tradition of faithfulness, so long as they also obtain a testimony for themselves of the gospel. 

[smac97]

I have heard people pronounce something like this as if it were doctrine a few times in my life.

I my 40+ years in the Church (mostly in Utah), I have never heard this. Nor do I believe it has any merit.

 

There is of course very little if any proof to this statement. One has only to look at people like many members of the early church, several general authorities today, my own wife, as well as many people on this board.

I have a sister-in-law who is a 1st generation Latter-day Saint. She is an amazing woman in all respects.

 

Yet, I wonder, just as some people might have an inherited genetic predisposition to being an alcoholic or having some personality trait, could a person  be predisposed to being a strong member of the church because of some genetic trait that has been developed and passed down through generations of strong church members within a family line?

Having extended family who are observant Latter-day Saints would, I think, be generally beneficial to an individual Latter-day Saint. But that seems more sociological than genetic.

 

I am fortunate in that I have a large number of siblings who live close by (all in the same county).  We get together frequently, including a birthday party yesterday for one of my children.  We had only part of the crowd there, but there were still around 30 people there (siblings, spouses, and our respective kids).  The kids all get along, some of them extremely well.  All of the adults also get along as well. It so happens that the folks who have married into my family all come from strong LDS families.  We are far from perfect, but we're a pretty decent lot.  I think our shared belief in, and our ongoing efforts to live according to, the Restored Gospel go a long way in "greasing the skids," so to speak.

 

I am also fortunate in that my wife's family is similarly wonderful.  All of the siblings get along, all are married, and all of the folks who have married into her family come from strong LDS families, with one exception.  I have a sister-in-law who is an adult convert to the Church.  Hers is an amazing conversion story.  I detect in her no difference in spiritual strength or insight because she is relatively new to the Church.  To the contrary, I have found her shared insights on the Gospel to be singular and powerful.

 

I have some family relations who, despite having come from multiple generations of LDS families, are out of the Church or not active.  So genetics?  I don't think so.  I have two sisters who are adopted, and the above-referenced sister-in-law is a 1st-generation member of the Church.  These women lack the purported "genetic" component derived from multiple generations in the Church, the same purported component that other family members would have, but who are not observant Latter-day Saints.  I think Latter-day Saints benefit from the sociological/spiritual components of being part of families that are observant, which observance is attributable, to some extent, to the heritage of having ancestors and extended family members who are LDS.  

 

I have ancestors who lived in Nauvoo among the early saints. I consider myself a very strong member of the church because of a testimony that I obtained on my own. I feel it is in my nature to never question the truthfulness of the church. But did I get a little help with this because of my genetic heritage?

I don't put much stock into a "genetic" component such as you describe. But is it possible that Latter-day Saints in 2015 have familial ancestors on the other side of the veil who are, by virtue of covenants kept and sealings maintained, able to "help" their on-earth descendants? Might a person's "guardian angels" be his/her ancestors?  That's an interesting question, but one about which I think we lack sufficient revealed light and knowledge to form an informed, determinative assessment.  Here is an interesting article from the March 1988 Ensign (scroll down a bit) which touches on "guardian angels" and which may be useful in considering this topic.  See also here and here.

 

I have my own further thoughts and experiences on this subject, but I'm not presently inclined to share them publicly.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited January 20, 2015 by smac97

[JAHS]

I my 40+ years in the Church (mostly in Utah), I have never heard this. Nor do I believe it has any merit.

 

I have a sister-in-law who is a 1st generation Latter-day Saint. She is an amazing woman in all respects.

 

Having extended family who are observant Latter-day Saints would, I think, be generally beneficial to an individual Latter-day Saint. But that seems more sociological than genetic.

 

I am fortunate in that I have a large number of siblings who live close by (all in the same county).  We get together frequently, including a birthday party yesterday for one of my children.  We had only part of the crowd there, but there were still around 30 people there (siblings, spouses, and our respective kids).  The kids all get along, some of them extremely well.  All of the adults also get along as well. It so happens that the folks who have married into my family all come from strong LDS families.  We are far from perfect, but we're a pretty decent lot.  I think our shared belief in, and our ongoing efforts to live according to, the Restored Gospel go a long way in "greasing the skids," so to speak.

 

I am also fortunate in that my wife's family is similarly wonderful.  All of the siblings get along, all are married, and all of the folks who have married into her family come from strong LDS families, with one exception.  I have a sister-in-law who is an adult convert to the Church.  Hers is an amazing conversion story.  I detect in her no difference in spiritual strength or insight because she is relatively new to the Church.  To the contrary, I have found her shared insights on the Gospel to be singular and powerful.

 

I have some family relations who, despite having come from multiple generations of LDS families, are out of the Church or not active.  So genetics?  I don't think so.  I have two sisters who are adopted, and the above-referenced sister-in-law is a 1st-generation member of the Church.  These women lack the purported "genetic" component derived from multiple generations in the Church, the same purported component that other family members would have, but who are not observant Latter-day Saints.  I think Latter-day Saints benefit from the sociological/spiritual components of being part of families that are observant, which observance is attributable, to some extent, to the heritage of having ancestors and extended family members who are LDS.  

 

I don't put much stock into a "genetic" component such as you describe. But is it possible that Latter-day Saints in 2015 have familial ancestors on the other side of the veil who are, by virtue of covenants kept and sealings maintained, able to "help" their on-earth descendants? Might a person's "guardian angels" be his/her ancestors?  That's an interesting question, but one about which I think we lack sufficient revealed light and knowledge to form an informed, determinative assessment.  Here is an interesting article from the March 1988 Ensign (scroll down a bit) which touches on "guardian angels" and which may be useful in considering this topic.  See also here and here.

 

I have my own further thoughts and experiences on this subject, but I'm not presently inclined to share them publicly.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

[Guest]

I have heard people pronounce something like this as if it were doctrine a few times in my life. There is of course very little if any proof to this statement. One has only to look at converts like many members of the early church, several general authorities today, my own wife, as well as many people on this board.

Yet, I wonder, just as some people might have an inherited genetic predisposition to being an alcoholic or having some personality trait, could a person  be predisposed to being a strong member of the church because of some genetic trait that has been developed and passed down through generations of strong church members within a family line?

I have ancestors who lived in Nauvoo among the early saints. I consider myself a very strong member of the church because of a testimony that I obtained on my own. I feel it is in my nature to never question the truthfulness of the church. But did I get a little help with this because of my genetic heritage?

Faith is not passed along in the gene pool, it is passed along through adoption. Each generation must be the fist to find it anew, each must protect it for any chance of survival. Just as with anything to do with faith or ideals, it "cannot" be passed through the bloodline.

[Crypto]

I think there is some truth to that statement and a lot of untruth as well. Certain family traditions (Like everyone for generations going on a mission) might apply. 
At the same time, this has little to do with a personal conversion and conviction to the gospel.

It's great to be proud of your heritage, however that doesn't make an individual any better or worse when following Christ. (Not to mention something about humility)

[Sleeper Cell]

I think this probably represents the situation when my convert wife heard such things from smug long-time multi-generational members.  

IMO, the appropriate response to "It takes 5 generations in a family line to make a good Mormon."   is  “Apparently for some family lines, it takes even more.”

[Stargazer]

Yep. My wife knows a man -- she used to clean his house once per week -- who is a descendant of Parley P. Pratt. His last name is Pratt, in fact. I guess that would be something like 5+ generations, right?

Well, the guy is totally inactive.

The quote in the OP is the biggest piece of baloney I've seen recently.

[Calm]

But were all previous generations strong in the faith and he the first to weaken?

[BlueDreams]

Isn't Dehlin a 5th gen mormon  ....just saying

 

Personally I'm an 8th gen mormon, so that must make me extra stellar. Ignore the several cousins who are not active. Or a host of other inconvenient facts that may change that notion.

 

But for reals, I've never heard this at all. Maybe that's how long it takes for you to become a cultural mormon who will see themselves as mormon even when their lives become far removed from any LDS practice...that I could believe.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 23, 2015 by BlueDreams

[DragonLancer]

 

I have heard people pronounce something like this as if it were doctrine a few times in my life. There is of course very little if any proof to this statement. One has only to look at converts like many members of the early church, several general authorities today, my own wife, as well as many people on this board.

Yet, I wonder, just as some people might have an inherited genetic predisposition to being an alcoholic or having some personality trait, could a person  be predisposed to being a strong member of the church because of some genetic trait that has been developed and passed down through generations of strong church members within a family line?

I have ancestors who lived in Nauvoo among the early saints. I consider myself a very strong member of the church because of a testimony that I obtained on my own. I feel it is in my nature to never question the truthfulness of the church. But did I get a little help with this because of my genetic heritage? 

 

 

In my book Nail of Heaven, I wrote about this concept, however, I wouldn't say that this is doctrine.  Certain aspects of it make sense on certain levels.  It is historically linked to the fact that spiritual gifts are known to run in families.  My cousin shared a part of his patriarchal blessing with me.  And it says that he has "believing blood."  The way this is interpreted is a propensity toward righteousness and tendency toward strong faith that is an inherited trait as a spiritual gift.  I don't know if I would say that spiritual gifts are necessarily "genetic."  But my grandfather taught this doctrine to me as part of his personal belief system, and he got it from somebody.  There is some sort of undercurrent of this doctrine in the Church from somewhere.  I don't know of its origins, or who may have originally taught it.  I only know that some aspects of it are attractive to me.  That the more righteous people get together, the more the Spirit works on these people to purify their blood, until over time, the blood of Israel, or the "believing blood" becomes stronger and stronger in their veins.  And it becomes easier and easier for their posterity to be naturally believing, and less of a tendency for them to go toward disbelief.  This doesn't mean that "gentile" blood is unwelcome in the lines, but rather that the spiritual strength of the branches of wild olive trees that are faithful are brought in to lend their spiritual strength to the family lines of Israel, and are grafted in.  I know some people pass this stuff off as "elitist" or whatever, or try to say that it is some kind of a "folk" doctrine.  Whatever the case, I have witnessed personally that there is something to a legacy of faith over time that lends spiritual strength to posterity.

 

But the reverse is also true, according to this concept, that somehow, people that end up rebelling, are also naturally rebellious by inheritance.  Somehow, their lack of the same amount of "believing blood" in them correlates with their tendency toward rebellion.  It doesn't mean its the cause.  It just means that it is a correlation.  But the irony or paradox to this, is that when rebellious children of the righteous leave the fold and mix with the "gentiles" in rebellion, and mix in their blood with the rebellious, they sprinkle whatever amount of "believing blood" they have in with the rebellious, which eventually has the effect of instilling in the posterity of the rebellious a measure of "believing blood," which eventually helps that posterity toward the eventual conversion to the truth.

Edited January 23, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Tacenda]

Isn't Dehlin a 5th gen mormon ....just saying

Personally I'm an 8th gen mormon, so that must make me extra stellar. Ignore the several cousins who are not active. Or a host of other inconvenient facts that may change that notion.

But for reals, I've never heard this at all. Maybe that's how long it takes for you to become a cultural mormon who will see themselves as mormon even when their lives become far removed from any LDS practice...that I could believe.

With luv,

BD

What would I be if my ancestors came over with the Martin Handcart Company and her daughter found the freshly baked pie in the road, presented in the movie "17 Miracles"? I only learned of this relative recently, my mother never shared this with me, had to learn it from a friend of my parents who told me I had relatives in the book "The Price We Paid".

[mfbukowski]

Well I am a hundred generation Catholic, probably, since Poland became Catholic before 1000 AD

So much for that theory.

It's called culture and has nothing to do with anything else.

No one really had a choice to BE anything else.

[Uncle Dale]

 

I have heard people pronounce something like this as if it were doctrine a few times in my life. There is of course very little if any proof to this statement. One has only to look at converts like many members of the early church, several general authorities today, my own wife, as well as many people on this board.

Yet, I wonder, just as some people might have an inherited genetic predisposition to being an alcoholic or having some personality trait, could a person  be predisposed to being a strong member of the church because of some genetic trait that has been developed and passed down through generations of strong church members within a family line?

I have ancestors who lived in Nauvoo among the early saints. I consider myself a very strong member of the church because of a testimony that I obtained on my own. I feel it is in my nature to never question the truthfulness of the church. But did I get a little help with this because of my genetic heritage? 

 

 

 

It took seven generations, from Hyrum Smith converting my ancestors

in Pennsylvania, to their "gathering" to Kirtland, to Far West, to Nauvoo,

to Winter Quarters, to Lamoni (and some to Deseret) to produce this

particular specimen of latter-day sainthood.

 

I'll hazard the guess, that some folks would say that something must've

gone awry, and that very little of that vaunted Pat Blessings' bloodline

of Ephraim ever seeped into this Josephite apostate's veins.

 

Oh well, "BIC" is a worthwhile addition to certain job applications, I hear.

 

UD

Edited January 24, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[BlueDreams]

What would I be if my ancestors came over with the Martin Handcart Company and her daughter found the freshly baked pie in the road, presented in the movie "17 Miracles"? I only learned of this relative recently, my mother never shared this with me, had to learn it from a friend of my parents who told me I had relatives in the book "The Price We Paid".

That assumes that miracles and heroic events have a staying power over generations. They just don't. Stories get forgotten (as in your case), or they take on a mythic air where you almost don't believe it, or they're become so removed that they're just not as important to you in your day-to-day as they were then.

 

 

Funny enough I went on a little search for my original mormon ancestor Alexander Naibaur after this (he is well known enough that you can find a lot about him through a google search) and found another descendant of his who was ex-mormon, who read his journal and saw it point as yet another nail in the coffin for why the church isn't true. So it means literally almost nothing to have once had a powerfully believing ancestor....your faith is yours. Your family may give you some heritage (mine gave me a long line of mormons who did hard things and highly valued caring for one's family and getting education that could easily be attributed to him and his Jewish-german heritage) to navigate it with. But what you actually do with that is another story all together.

 

with luv,

BD

Edited January 24, 2015 by BlueDreams

[mnn727]

Sounds like a Utah Mormon saying -- and in no way true.

[DBMormon]

Some have said this is why Isarel wandered for 40 years - this allowed a new generation to be raised without false traditions.

 

I think there is definite truth to the idea that over multiple generations we can (if we choose) rid ourselves of false traditions and become better saints.

and create and take with them other false traditions.

[JLHPROF]

and create and take with them other false traditions.

 

We may not agree on which are false, but this is definitely true.