Jump to content

JLHPROF

Contributor
  • Posts

    16,407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JLHPROF

  1. Jacob 2 circumstances has so many different things mitigating it that any similarities to the ordinances restored to Joseph is purely coincidental. People love to use it to prooftext and ignore all context of the situation.
  2. OD1 did absolutely nothing to change the doctrine of the Church nor has any new revelation done so. D&C 132 is still scripture and plural marriage is still correct doctrine. OD1 stopped it to save the Church and created a moratorium on the practice. There is absolutely no doctrine and nothing doctrinal in the Church preventing it starting again if the Lord ever felt the time was right. All the doctrine surrounding the practice remains intact - only the permission was withdrawn. If Joseph was correct when he restored the doctrine then the truth he established remains even if currently prohibited by the Lord: “... [Joseph Smith taught] the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in the celestial glory."- William Clayton, Joseph Smith's secretary, Historical Record, v. 6, p. 226
  3. Likely someone who has felt ostracized or hurt by the Church or its members. That kind of hatred is usually very personal.
  4. Pretty sure I've seen statements like this multiple times in Church history. Church teachings say something will never/ can never be allowed. Then it's allowed. But probably not for a decade or two and a couple of administrations.
  5. All of this will bring the Church closer to the inevitable revelation allowing same sex relationships. I'd be surprised if we don't begin to hear stories of Church Presidents praying to allow them in the next few decades. Enough bad publicity and the precedent that has been set multiple times in Church history all but guarantee it.
  6. I don't agree. You don't think our physical bodies are created based upon our premortal existence? That's exactly how our immortal bodies will be created. There's no reason these need be mutually exclusive.
  7. I think in this case it refers to the possession of light and truth - the scriptural definition of intelligence. I think if you have more truth then you probably have more understanding. Isn't that pretty close to "smart"? After all "“A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge." In the eternal scheme if we can pass from this estate to the next with different levels of knowledge then as Abraham said it makes sense that we passed from our first estate to here with different amounts of intelligence (light and truth).
  8. Not sure I agree with this at all. I think the Church of the Firstborn may also have multiple definitions if this is true.
  9. I have two - a narrow one and an inclusive one. Widely speaking a Christian is someone who recognizes Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, that he died for their sins and accepts that atonement. My narrow definition of Christian is that of a true disciple, an actual follower who pursues Christ's teachings and commandments, seeks to follow them and makes living that way the goal of life. I mean to be a Christian would have to mean someone who at least either accepts or follows Christ wouldn't it?
  10. Not trying to be critical since I do believe the Church is improving and the JSPP is absolutely awesome. But the improvements are in the scholarly community. They're available for the average member to read but only if they research. Where the improvements are really needed are in Church. The lesson manuals etc are so dumbed down and simplified that learning varies radically ward to ward based on if the teachers bother to research elsewhere. So unless the average member goes looking for the scholarship the problem of an uninformed membership remains.
  11. On a basic level the good is the blessings of obedience and the bad is the challenge of living up to the covenant. Like pretty much everything in the gospel.
  12. I am less inclined to believe in progression between kingdoms than I am to believe in progression of kingdoms.
  13. Because we have multiple revelation indicating that way and dozens of examples of polygamists as God's chosen prophets. There is no indication that polygamy is inherently sinful. It is forbidden without permission from God, but God cannot permit sin. So it's not sinful, period. The only sin is disobedience. Much like the word of wisdom. There's no actual sin in alcohol or tobacco but there is sin in disobeying God concerning them.
  14. Polygamy existed as a form of marriage for millennia before Joseph. I don't see how you can make that claim. There have always been polygamous marriages.
  15. I am considering the context of this discussion and I know what you are referring to. Legalizing polygamy shouldn't be a free for all for all polyamorous relationships. Of course that's true. But I also reject the idea that polygamy as lived by Joseph and Brigham is sinful, evil, or disintegrating to the family, unless it's approved by God. The practice requires God's approval, but God can't approve a sinful practice. There can be nothing inherently sinful or harmful to the family in polygamy or else God couldn't approve of it.
  16. Could have been fun trying... But of course you're right. Joseph, Brigham, and Heber all had 30+ wives. But many of them were widows, lived far away from their husbands, etc. It goes back to the Joseph having no children in polygamy argument. None of his wives except Emma lived with him for longer than a few months, he spent a lot of time in meetings, in hiding, and even in jail. If he had openly lived in multiple homes with all his wives and spent time with each of them, and lived for another decade I have little doubt he would have had dozens more children.
  17. To group polygamy as a practice into this category doesn't exactly increase faith in the prophets who practiced it. Yes polyamorous relationships are a long way from divinely directed plural marriage. But to include plural relationships in the disintegration category incorrectly puts Joseph, Brigham and others in a sinful practice.
  18. Probably. My point is the assumption that a man with one wife will have more children with her than a polygamist would have with each individual wife is just that, an assumption. There are too many variables to make such a blanket claim. Birth control, proximity, legal status, financial status, opportunity, desire for children. We assume this claim is statistical fact but I doubt it. All things being equal a man can have one child with a wife every couple of years. The number of wives don't change that. The variables do.
  19. Yet fundamentalists seem to have more children per wife than monogamists. 🤷
  20. Which is not necessarily true. The demographics that led to that idea involve illegal polygamy. Of course there are less children when Church leaders couldn't see there wives.
  21. I 100% reject the idea that we don't need to obey any of God's laws if there's a law of the land blocking it. But I agree we should work to fix the law to agree with God's laws. But if there remains unavoidable conflict between the two obeying God is always the correct choice.
  22. The same number as are willing to follow all the current commandments. We're pretty stubborn in general. We can literally read or be given explicit instructions straight from heaven and we will do everything in our power to bend, twist, adjust, rationalize, and get around the instruction. Why is it? Serious question. Most of us love God, love the gospel, and want to keep his commandments and follow him. So why do we fight so hard to not obey fully, myself included? I honestly don't completely understand myself at times.
  23. Well President Nelson has two eternal companions. 🤷
×
×
  • Create New...