- Ken on Rowdy Children, Judgment, and the Foyer: “Given the fact that I am careening rapidly through middle age and toward geezerhood, while, at the same time, I have escaped the sustained attention (and, often, even the mere notice) of the Fairer Gender in its entirety, I’m afraid I have nothing of substance to contribute to the irreverent children wars. It is, of course, axiomatic that, in order to have irreverent children, one must have children in the first place. I know how the process works, biologically, in theory, but I’m afraid my exposure doesn’t extend much beyond that. Perhaps those who are impatient with [allegedly] irreverent children should give more than passing thought to the unqualified declaration of the Master, who said, “Suffer the children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” (There was no reverence qualifier attached to that declaration.) And perhaps we ought to rethink what reverence actually is, since a lot of us are exceptionally good at putting up a front when it comes to appearing to be reverent on the outside, while, on the inside, many of us are anything but.” Dec 1, 00:07
- on The Restored Gospel, the Great Apostasy, and St. Clement: “I’m no Graecist, but the Greek text of 55.3 does use the term “andreia” for “feats of valor,” and to me the root looks like and “andros,” the root meaning “man” we see in “android” or “polyandry.” So the play on words motivating “manly feats of valor” really does seem to go back to the original text.” Nov 30, 19:59
- on Monogamy is the Rule, Part 2: Celestial Marriage and Plural Marriage: “For what it’s worth, at the time, an adoptive relationship that later turned into a marriage was not considered a betrayal. If there was a big age difference that may have raised some eyebrows, but it was not considered abusive. See the entire plotline of The Barber of Seville, for example.” Nov 30, 14:51
- on The Restored Gospel, the Great Apostasy, and St. Clement: “Most excellent. Please do this again when you read the Didache.” Nov 30, 07:34
- on Rowdy Children, Judgment, and the Foyer: “Yes, we’ve done the parent-on-the-both-sides thing. One problem with that is that with enough kids there is a middle area where the child-to-adult ratio is a little high, and that’s where the chaos migrates to, so sometimes we’ll intersperse the older kids with the younger kids, but then of course the younger kids who are successfully cordoned off feel like they’re missing the party and try to do the under-the-bench thing. It’s quite the chess game as I’m sure you know. That woman sounds absolutely angelic.” Nov 29, 11:50
- on Monogamy is the Rule, Part 2: Celestial Marriage and Plural Marriage: “Chad, I must say that the theory that Joseph’s relationship to Fanny was initially a parent-to-child sealing makes me feel so much worse about the later sexual relationship. If Fanny’s parents approved of a parent-to-child sealing, isn’t the subsequent sexual relationship a complete betrayal of the trust and faith they placed in Joseph? While I try to maintain a faithful approach to Church history, the theory paints Joseph as manipulative and sexually opportunistic. It seems that there is a desire to ensure the relationship occurred after the restoration of the sealing power as a sealed plural marriage which makes the more sense in the context of Nauvoo and later plural marriage (and thus slightly more palatable to modern Latter-day Saints), but, I don’t find Eliza Jane Churchill Webb’s assertion 40 years after the fact to be convincing for the primary reason that Oliver withdrew his allegations of adultery when Joseph defended himself in a church court. Would a parent-to-child sealing have been sufficient for Oliver to conclude that Joseph’s actions were merely marital sexual relations and not adultery (or worse, some form of spiritual incest)? I sincerely hope not, but, if so, Joseph spun something that should be good, an adoption into the family of God’s prophet, into something that Oliver clearly did not believe it to be at the time the sealing was performed (assuming for the sake of argument that the sealing did occur). As an alternative, I give credence to W.W. Phelps’ recollection of an 1831 revelation about Cowdery, Phelps, Harris and a few others taking Lamanite wives and Joseph clarifying that these wives would be plural wives. If that account is accurate (and it’s certainly possible it isn’t), I don’t know that Joseph had any clear idea in 1835-6 that the sealing power was necessary to enter a plural marriage. At the very least, that alternative theory doesn’t make my stomach turn.” Nov 29, 09:10
- on Rowdy Children, Judgment, and the Foyer: “Stephen C, As a veteran of the children-in-church wars may I suggest positioning a parent on either side of the children on the pew with consistent enforcement on either end. I know that some of the wilder ones will go with the covert “under the pew” maneuver but an alert parent can usually drag them back to the DMZ. Parents can also limit activities to the more reverent category such as picture books, coloring, etc. Wheeled vehicles have to be carefully monitored. Also parents have to be attentive. No digital devices, reading or napping for parents. And don’t let local leaders or speakers distract you! Children are usually clamoring for attention. For critics of children being children, the most beloved woman in our ward is a veteran grandmother who brings a bag of little treats and coloring books with her for each sacrament meeting. More than one wiggly child ends up on her lap or next to her quietly coloring. No reverence, no treats! Sometimes parents (especially single parents) need assistance in giving attention to the kids. She is the MVP of caring for children during a worship service.” Nov 29, 01:58
- on Monogamy is the Rule, Part 2: Celestial Marriage and Plural Marriage: “Section 132 almost feels like two different revelations to me. The first part speaks of the covenant of marriage itself–and at the exact center of the section it switches gears and speaks of polygamy in conjunction with that covenant. And so there seem to be two separate elements that the revelation is addressing under the rubric of marriage. And the first–the covenant of marriage–stands alone as the gateway to exaltation. In other words, polygamy need not be the logical conclusion of the revelation in order to make sense of the first half. We should also remember that the blessings of exaltation which are pronounced upon couples who are sealed in the temple come right out of the first half of section 132. And so there’s proof of the pudding–that the practice of polygamy is not required to receive those blessings.” Nov 28, 11:16
- on Rowdy Children, Judgment, and the Foyer: “@RLD: That’s a good idea, and I’ve noticed something similar with sitting in the back with more space and sitting in a pew. When the children have more space in front of them they feel freer to play around more, but when they are limited by the bench right in front of them it sort of contains their energy. Genevieve: That’s a wise, empathetic point. When we’re sensitive about something we’re more likely to read people as responding to that thing.” Nov 28, 10:21
- on Monogamy is the Rule, Part 2: Celestial Marriage and Plural Marriage: “You could say the same thing about the polygamy-era quotes too. They were practicing plural marriage and wanted to justify it. What I’m saying here is that distance from the practice allows a different perspective from which we can approach the scriptures, which are ambiguous enough to allow for reinterpretation. In any case, reinterpretation of scriptures and changes in doctrine to adjust to different paradigms and circumstances are a part of any living tradition. I would say that’s one of the most important function of ongoing revelation and inspiration to leaders of the Church.” Nov 27, 21:05