I think this is a really intriguing effort, Dan! I would suggest, though, that your analysis needs to be targeted to a specific timeframe. Otherwise, things get pretty convoluted. For example, Adam-God has been disavowed for quite some time, more emphatically since Spencer W. Kimball’s administration. That’s all well and good, but I’d suggest that your zero score for “Scriptural” may be highly influenced by Kimball’s condemnation, rather than whether a scriptural case could be made (as it was made in earlier days). I actually think it would be rather fascinating to line up some of these topics for an 1844 score vs. a 2009 score!

As for polygamy, we get into the question of doctrine vs. practice, since the doctrine itself has not been disavowed, but the current practice is condemned. To muddy the waters further, we have Hinckley’s comment that plural marriage is “not doctrinal,” which arguably could mean a few different things!

Polygamy is not current…

How did you assign the weights? Just arbitrary?

It would interesting to run a “discovery” algorithm against well-known doctrinal issues to see if we can sort out the weights algorithmically…

#5:
It is worth mentioning however, that the principle was never widely accepted by the church, something that Brigham Young complained in public about.

I realize this claim is often made, but I’ve never seen any evidence to back it up, aside from Orson Pratt’s well-documented refusal to accept the doctrine. On the other hand, I’ve seen the teaching mentioned favorably in the journals of many LDS members and leaders.

Most notably, the original “Lecture at the Veil,” dictated by Brigham Young to L. John Nuttall and Wilford Woodruff as part of their 1877 project to write down the endowment ceremony, directly taught the doctrine. I would have to say that Brigham Young, the LDS “prophet, seer, and revelator” at the time, had the authority to say what was (or was not) LDS doctrine, regardless of what percentage of church members accepted it. The same authority, of course, was present in Spencer W. Kimball, during his own administration as president.

Dan Ellsworth: this is really cool, and something I know I do subconsciously as well. Might it be useful to allow negative scores? For example, Adam-God would get a “-8″ in the disavowal category because it has been actively and rigorously disavowed, dropping it’s overall score to 11%.

#8: I understand the public reaction to Pres. Young’s original and most explicit October 1854 general conference sermon was not exactly positive. It was (for whatever reason) even left out of the Journal of Discourses. Here is one witness:

[T]here were some who did not believe the sayings of the prophet Brigham. Even our beloved Brother Orson Pratt told me he did not believe it. He said he could prove from the scriptures it was not correct. I felt sorry to hear Professor Orson Pratt Say that. I fear lest he should apostatize. (Joseph Lee Robinson Journal, 6 October 1854, quoted by Bergera, Dialogue, vol 13 no 2, Summer 1980)

Here is Brigham Young twenty years later:

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints In regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God – I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. (Brigham Young, Deseret News Weekly, June 18, 1873)

The people dictating or presenting the St. George Endowment were most definitely not a preponderance of members of the church. I am aware of letters to bishops and mission presidents in the late 19th century who inquired on the subject, having never heard of it before.

It was affirmed as an “advanced doctrine”, but one that was not actively taught in the church. I imagine it was well known, if not always believed in, by the older members of the Church. There is certainly reason to believe that Joseph F. Smith was one of the skeptics, given his later actions, although I do not have a source for his earlier skepticism handy.

#12:
Mark, if you know about Bunkerville, then I’m guessing you know how selective your two quotes really are.

The people dictating or presenting the St. George Endowment were most definitely not a preponderance of members of the church. I am aware of letters to bishops and mission presidents in the late 19th century who inquired on the subject, having never heard of it before.

I was evidently unclear. Prior to the dedication of the St. George Temple, Brigham Young assigned Wilford Woodruff and L. John Nuttall (secretary to the FP) to commit the endowment ceremonies to writing for the first time. This was done with great care, as each segment was brought directly to Brigham Young for approval and/or correction. Finally, Brigham Young met with Woodruff and Nuttall, at which time he directed them to transcribe a lengthy lecture, which he then proceeded to give. Upon finishing his dictation, Brigham Young directed that this instructional lecture would be given at the end of the endowment. This “lecture at the veil” survived (albeit in gradually abbreviated/edited form) until April of 1990, at which time a few portions were incorporated into the ceremony itself, rather than as a distinct lecture.

In other words, what I described was not “the people dictating or presenting the St. George Endowment.” Rather, it was an official portion of the endowment process, specifically dictated by Brigham Young.

How in the world would you pull that off if everyone over forty was taught the doctrine in detail, i.e. more than just a vague “folk doctrine” in passing? The relatively few people with decent memories of the St. George Endowment were probably in their seventies in 1918. Adults present for the October 1854 discourse would have been in their nineties. Those younger than fifty were probably one step removed from complete unfamiliarity with the idea.

RE: #14 Nick

“This “lecture at the veil” survived (albeit in gradually abbreviated/edited form) until April of 1990, at which time a few portions were incorporated into the ceremony itself, rather than as a distinct lecture.”

I was endowed a decade before 1990, in 1980, and received absolutely no lecture of any kind after passing through the veil. What are you referencing with this comment?

I’m not sure how this system works in regard to that whole “personal revelation” thing we talk about in the church. I mean up until this point I’ve worked on developing a one on one relationship with this God being so that I could be directed in situations where I have questions about gospel teachings. Turns out that that idea is just too old school, I need some new modern thinking to bring my beliefs up to speed. With this new method I can see how it will actually free up more of my I’ve dedicated to keep this relationship through clean living and prayer. I’m excited to see what behaviors I can justify with this method, I may be able to find brand new hobbies that I never even thought I was eligible for in the past. Thanks.