Peppermint Patty

I will try to view the video later. In the meantime, I want to mention that I myself have come to a provisional conclusion that human consciousness is actually centered outside this perceptible universe -- probably in the presence of God Himself -- and our bodies are all waldoes for our spirits, which communicate seamlessly by way of entrained particles, which is a quantum phenomenum in any event.

This is something I am not prepared to offer any mathematical proof for, regretably.

Stargazer,

You are not alone in your belief about life being a simulation. There are several respected physicists who believe that there is plenty of scientific evidence that we are living in a simulation. Just google Oxford Professor Nick Bostrom, or read about the Simulated Life Theory here:

http://en.wikipedia....mulated_reality

Thanks. Great comments.

I'm thankful that the Church stresses education so much and the importance of the family unit. I think if all religions stressed the importance of education like the LDS Church, the gender gap would not be as wide as it is today.

In addition to a recent study showing that more women are LDS than men, we now have this article from the Deseret News regarding recent trends between men and women in education and obtaining college degrees: http://www.deseretne...risis.html?pg=1

For every 100 women who earn a bachelor's degree, only 73 men earn one. Women outnumber men obtaining master's degrees by more than 30 percent.

Whitmire's "suspects" for why boys have lost so much ground in schools includes video games, homework, male angst, feminization of the classroom, disappearing male role models including teachers and failure to practice brain-based teaching.

As a mother of 3 daughters, these trends are a little discomforting to me. This can't be good for families. Are most women going to be the primary breadwinners in the typical family in a few years? What can be done to reverse these trends and encourage young men to pursue their educations?

Do these trends hold true for LDS young men too?

blooit,

I'm curious. What type of crops are you going to be growing this year? Are you also planning on raising any livestock? If so, what types? I will be interested to see how much food you will be able to harvest on your land.

Good luck.

Sounds like a very interesting symposium. I will try to make it.

I've really wondered why the "moderate" Islamic world has allowed the radical fringe to completely dominate the discourse between Islam and the West. I'm convinced that the vast majority of Muslims go about their lives like ordinary people. Raising their families, praying for security and peace, etc. We seldom see this side of Islam here in the American media.

Many of you probably are unaware that Uncle Jesse had a girlfriend that was exceptionally beautiful. People still sing about Jesse's girl today:

I am going to have to agree with our resident life-long bachelors, Nehor and Duncan. This looks a little hokey.

Lets just hope mosquitos and roaches and rats dont get ressurected. I've been eaten alive my mosquitos in the backcountry, and with a one week lifespan, times the number of lifecycles in a summer, times a few thousand years,......yowsers. Maybe they all get sent to perdition. Living in a constant cloud of eternal skeeters, with roaches and bilge rats scurrying everywhere. Sounds like a good definition of hell to me.

I would have to add spiders, leeches, and most snakes to the list of animals that I would not like to see ressurected.

I know a great joke about animals in heaven but in light of the recent events in Peppermint Patty's life I will refrain

Duncan, please tell.

The exact status of animals in the resurrected state is unknown except as revealed in verse four, where they are credited with being “full of knowledge” and having “power to move, to act, etc.” [D&C 77:4]

If animals will be "full of knowledge" then I guess it would be safe to say that our dog probably will not want to be treated as a pet by us. I wonder what kind of relationship we will have with our animals?

Our Miniature Shnauzer recently died, after being part of our family for 8 years. My two youngest children are having a very difficult time getting over the sadness and sorrow without him in the family.

He was an exceptional animal, very patient, gentle and meant the world to them. They have been very curious about our dog's place in the eternities. I told them that all things were created in spirit before being made in the flesh and that they would see him again.

However, after searching the internet for LDS articles/quotes on animals and their place in eternity, but haven't really found what I am looking for. Is there any offical LDS Doctrine about animals and their place in the eternities? I would appreciate it if anybody could share their knowledge with me on this subject.

I feel a little embarrassed writing this, but I still worry about him and I want to feel comforted that he knows how much we love him and that he was a very important part of our family. I never thought that an animal could have such an effect on my family's emotions and life.

Alan,

Great post. I see nothing wrong with God calling people to other religions if they can help more people by doing so. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has extensive infrastructure in India. Mother Teresa probably wouldn't have been able to receive the support she needed from the LDS Church to run her 610 missions in India.

So you think that there will be dramatic amounts of excess women in the Millennium? Why? What happened to all the males? Satan get 'em? Do you think men will start poaching each other's wives to get the magic number if there isn't enough to give every man a couple of women? What is the magic number that satisfies the celestial requirement? Will those who can secure the most women have additional status? If not status, what is the point? Is it a sign of righteousness like a reward? Or does the very fact of having more women make a man more righteous?

LIke I said, there has been nothing said by our modern prophets. Anyone who wants to promote polygamy has to go back to former prophets....which becomes a problem when we are told to follow living prophets and those that don't tend to start forming those little break away groups..... I don't understand why this topic is continually rehashed when all that needs to be done to put it to rest is any statement from an authority. Anything that would supercede the Manifestos. Anything. Without that rewriting the Proclamation on the Family is all conjecture. We might as well be doing the interior decorating for mansions and bidding for land on Kolob. It doesn't look any less goofy and nobody has said it won't happen.

(And I don't mean to sound as snarky as it is but these are the thoughts that pop into my head when I hear this stuff, there is just so little support for polygamy as an eternal necessity that I think a lot of questions have to be answered before moving on with that idea.)

Juliann and Cal,

EXCELLENT and well thought out posts. We have a lot of misconceptions and myths about polygamy embedded in our cultural. I think it's great to have these discussions and expose some of these misconceptions.

For me, I agree with Valerie Hudson that polygamy is best viewed as an Abrahamic sacrifice. Viewed any other way, it doesn't make doctrinal sense. And, as Juliann and Cal have pointed out, all one needs to do to expose the impossiblilty of polygamy is to perform a quick demographic analysis.

frankenstein and cowdis,

Thanks for your comments. I think the current practice of sealings can best be understood if one studies the transferablity of sealings in Church history. I would recommend reading the Gordon Irving article that I linked. It's interesting to note that sealings have changed considerably, and many times, throughout Church history.

Also, as explained by Hudson in regards to why currently a deceased woman can only be sealed to one man, but a woman who is alive cannot, "we have good reason, however, to believe that constraint will be removed by the Lord in the near future". Based on my understanding of sealings, Church history and Section 132, I would agree with Hudson that this constraint will be removed shortly.

As good as Hudson's article is, I'm not comfortable having her conclusions trump what the church is currently teaching as doctrine. I wouldn't want my children to be comfortable with that either (and i'm not trying to be snarky or judgmental about the way you are teaching your daughter Peppermint. I'm just trying to honestly share my thoughts on why it's not the route i would take).

I also don't feel comfortable with the idea that the 'plural marriage for this life only' question will be solved in heaven by allowing the women to dissolve those unions. It's not the choice i disagree with but the assumption that every woman who has ever been in a plural marriage would obviously choose a monogamous marriage if she had the choice. That notion (and maybe i'm misunderstanding what is actually being said) seems degrading and demeaning to the women who chose polygamy, as if we know better than they did and we know what is actually best for them.

Great comment, Bluebell. I think the whole point of Hudson's article is that we don't have any official Church doctrine currently on polygamy. All we really have are statements from early Church leaders that are all over the map. To further compound this issue, the Church is largely silent today on the issue of polygamy and it's largely swept under the rug.

I agree with Hudson's article that a reasonble and clear interpretation of Section 132 and 36 shows that polygamy is not an eternal principle and will not be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom.

If I'm right, then the question would be this: If there is a member of the Church who will categorically reject Joseph Smith should they learn in detail about the practice of polygamy, should we share the truth with them, or keep it from them to preserve their testimony? Suppose in a conversation, a ward member said "Thank goodness Joseph never married any women with living husbands, because that's one thing I could never, ever handle and would lose my testimony if that were the case!"

I know there are many people who can know all the details and maintain their testimony, but for those who can't, is it ethical to not tell them?

Great question, Cinepro. I guess it depends on each individual and how they want to raise their children in the Church.

For me, it's a no-brainer. Complete and open honesty (warts and all) about the Church and the LDS religion which they (hopefully) will devote their entire lives to and serve in with all of their hearts, might, mind and strength. I would much rather my children learn about Church history and doctrines from me than the internet or a critic.

Also, according to Marlin Jensen, the Church is now currently engaged in a program to address and better inform the members of these issues.

For example, the way my daughter now views polygamy after studying Valerie Hudson's material, it will never be an issue for her again. I think it really helped that we were able to study and discuss the issue of polygamy together.

Do you know when the policy changed?

Thanks, Calmoriah,

It appears that this practice was performed in LDS temples from 1846 until 1894 and over 13,000 such sealings occured. Gordon Irving wrote a fascinating article about this: "The Law of Adoption, One Phase of the Development in the Concept of Salvation" BYU Studies 14: 291-314

You can download the entire article in PDF format here: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/4755/4405

Here is also a Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption

jwhitlock,

Thanks, great comment. Your comment is addressed in great detail in the audio portion.

There is no official Church doctrine that polygamy will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. In the Celestial Kingdom nobody will be put into a relationship that does not result in a fullness of joy.

Briefly, according to Valerie Hudson and Section 36 and 132, choosing enter the sacred covenants of sealing is all that matters from the standpoint of the individual’s exaltation as a member of God’s eternal family. The actual people to whom one is sealed might or might not change in the re-forging of the great family link of all of God’s exalted children. Everyone will be sealed together. That is one of the reasons the Church does not cancel sealing’s of a wife in a divorce situation unless another marriage sealing is to take place, because what matters is that the wife chose to marry a worthy Mel Priesthood holder -even though she will most likely end up having that sealing transferred to someone else. The first husband remains a stand in until a transfer can take place.

Such stand in or proxy marriages were common in the early Church because one could not be sealed to loved one who were not baptized in the Church before they died.

Women will be free to have any such sealings transferred in the Celestial Kingdom.

Wow! He was 11 feet, 6 inches tall?

It's too bad he can't play for the Utah Jazz. Heaven knows we need him.

How old is your daughter?

16

Polygamy is a topic in our Church that brings about extreme mixed emotions and feelings. Pride, anger, resentment, embarrassment, shame and confusion. It also seems that we rarely talk about polygamy as a Church. It gets swept under the rug. I think we need to do a much better job openly discussing the difficult issues.

I grew up in a household where lesser known doctrines of the Church were openly taught. I found this extremely beneficial later life as it inoculated me from many of the critic’s common attacks on our faith.

However, when it came to polygamy I was taught not to worry about it and to “Put it on a shelf” and that “We’ll understand when we have an eternal perspective.” But that never worked for me. From the time I was a child, I have always been a thinker, and serious about my religion.

Lately, my oldest daughter has been asking me questions about polygamy. My answer has been to direct her to LDS scholar Valerie Hudson’s FAIR talk:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168842/Recent-events-highlight-confusion-of-polygamy.html

audio available here:

http://www.nothingwavering.org/2012/02/15/34376-fair-examination-9-polygamy-as-an-abrahamic-sacrificedr-valerie-hudson.html

Valerie Hudson puts forth an excellent argument that polygamy is not an eternal principal (but only an Abrahamic sacrifice) and that monogamy is the order of true things here on earth and in the heavens. She argues that Section 132 can be truly understood by reading Section 36. She also busts the myths about how there will be more women than men in heaven (actually, more men than women have lived on earth) and the erroneous belief regarding polygamous sealings here on earth. I find her arguments well thought out, persuasive, and frankly very comforting.

My daughter has found this very beneficial in understanding the concept of polygamy and its true place in our Church and the hereafter.

So, count me and my daughter among the many Mormons who do not believe that polygamy is an eternal principle, even as I honor and respect all the Mormons who did and do believe polygamy, and the sacrifices they made and make for faith. I love the idea that none of us enters the heavens alone, that we all go in together.

Thoughts?

I suspect that this goes to the difference between "wisdom" and "learning".

Men think that when they are learned, they are wise- and very often it just ain't so.

There's also a vast difference between booksmarts and first hand-experience, between knowing something "in theory" and having lived it.

If memory serves, you are a mother.

Did your prenatal courses and any babysitting experiences prepare you for the reality of giving birth and then holding your child in your arms?

We might have understood the theory of mortality in the preexistence- but we needed to (pun intended) "live it" in order to fully comprehend.

Great comment, Selek. Yes, no amount of babysitting prepared me for motherhood.

I'm sure that during the eons and eons that we lived with, and learned from God, that we had many hands on experiences.

Do you think there is any secular learning here on earth that we didn't already know in the pre-existence? I'm guessing that even the least intelligent spirit in the pre-existence knew far more than Einstein, Newton, Gallileo or Stephen Hawking combined.

D&C 93:29 tells us, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (also refer Abr 3:18)

I had a really sweet opportunity this last month to attend my niece’s Patriarchal Blessing. My niece is a very gentle, sweet and kind soul. She was also born with Down Syndrome. She is very creative and loves learning, but obviously she has severe limitations in doing so.

In her blessing, she was told that she was a “noble one” in the pre-existence and even “assisted in creating the earth”. This started me thinking if there is any knowledge that we could possibly learn here on earth that we didn’t already know in the pre-existence.

I think most of us had great knowledge (far surpassing any knowledge available on earth) before we were born into this world—sufficient to assist in creating the heavens and the earth. After all, we lived with God, and learned, directly from Him for countless eons in the premortal world.

I know that we are taught that the Glory of God is Intelligence, and whatever Principle of Intelligence we attain in this life will rise with us in the Resurrection. What is the difference between knowledge and intelligence? I have a hard time believing that my graduate degree will be of any assistance in the next life, or any knowledge that I can obtain here.

Any thoughts?

Here's one for Duncan:

I think we can all agree that this song is pretty inspiring. I know Nehor has it on his ipod: