JVW

Crap. I think I'm in the "ambivalence" category. I guess I'm not a TBM and I may be in "temple covenant breaking" territory! I like the church but I also don't like the church. It's just that what I like outweighs what I don't like so I stick around until (if it ever happens) I find something that I like more. Hmm... I wonder how I can move into the "identifcation" category.

@smac97 Be careful not to burn yourself out. It's fun to argue but I'd hate to see you take an extended hiatus from this forum again. I value your perspective on a variety of topics and I believe that there were many others on the forums that missed your contribution.

I am genuinely curious how you view anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, and covid-deniers? I've done this thought experiment before and I have a difficult time thinking of anything someone does that truly does not have an impact on another person. We are all so interconnected. What do you think? Thanks for your consideration brother. Cheers!

They recently excommunicated Karen Hyatt described her excommunication experience during an interview on Mormon Stories podcast. She thought it was a great experience and that everyone did the best they could. One thing she described which I thought was fascinating was that councils no longer follow the D&C. They don't divide 6 for and 6 against anymore.

I don't like the Rise of Zion channel. Way too clickbaity. He talks a lot without really saying anything. As far as Second Coming stuff is concerned I haven't been super plugged into that community for awhile but there are definitely some fun things to keep a pulse on. I would describe LDS Second Coming stuff as LDS Conspiracy Theory. If you want to keep tabs on things then follow the Temple Institute. They post on Facebook, I don't think they have a YT presence, and their site is https://templeinstitute.org which you can sign up for a weekly newsletter at. The Temple Institute are the Levites who are working to build the third temple which is what a lot of Second Coming prophecy is tied to. Here's a recent development on the situation https://israel365news.com/413978/update-and-clarification-regarding-the-red-heifer/ and, fyi, these red heifers are part of the reason why Hamas did what they did on Oct. 7th. See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-war-hamas-red-heifers-from-texas-jerusalem-jewish-temple-al-aqsa/

I don't know if I believe you are being honest here. You honestly believe that your role is to blindly support the prophet and view him as more than a man? The way you explain your role further down in the post makes sense, but the way you apply it here is not the same. Also, I believe that you agree with everything the prophets have done, including president Nelson, because you are coming across as one who views the prophets as infallible in all ways except for consciously acknowledging it. Which is fine. I don't take any issue with people who view the prophets that way. But I do think that view has a subtle detrimental effect on a person. I promise I hold no ill feelings towards you and am not passing condemning judgments against you. I am making judgments based on our conversation that I'm using to inform what I choose to type, which I believe is a healthy thing to do. And I'm happy to be corrected in any cases where my judgment is wrong. This tiny sentence fragment is the reason why I am leaning towards believing that you view the prophets as infallible. This isn't the church of Jesus Christ. It's the church of Jesus Christ and the church of Latter-day Saints. It belongs to both, and is run by both in a covenant relationship. Any Saint who speaks can speak God's word, we all have the gift of prophecy and revelation. And any Saint (including the prophet) who speaks can speak as a Saint out of the goodness of their heart, in error. I believe that using discernment is our role. It is important to discern when the prophets are speaking as Saints and the effort needed to do that is a powerful Godly relationship building tool. In my own personal experience I have seen many cases where the prophet speaks his opinion and also God's word at separate points during the same General Conference talk. This happens all the time, do you disagree? If I think about how people can be God's proxy I can see it in two ways: like an on/off switch, and like a sunrise gradient. If someone is giving a priesthood blessing they are "on", but the words they speak are on a gradient. So the blessing could be anywhere between 10% God's word and 90% God's word. On average, if I were to grade various groups of people then Jesus was obviously 100%. A wicked man still can do a lot of good in the world, so maybe the lowest case I'd give a 5%. A true Christian I'd rank around 25% and a righteous priesthood holder I'd maybe cap out at 35%-40%. Where would I rank a prophet? I would rank them maybe 50% max. In the end, we are all human regardless of how purified we've become. I do not view a prophet as 100% in the gradient, or 100% in the on/off switch. My favorite thing to discuss in relation to this topic is The Letter. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-message-covid-19-august-2021 How much of the Letter is God speaking? How much of it is a Saint speaking? According to what you've written, your role is to accept this letter as scripture because anything short of that is breaking temple covenants. Is that correct? I agree with you. When it comes to whether or not a prophet is fallen or wicked then roles absolutely have a place here. It is well above my paygrade as well. In the case of Brigham Young with polygamy, the roles of the members who followed it was to follow Brigham and obey him, and God supported them in their roles in very beautiful and tender ways. And those who had the role to determine whether the prophet was fallen executed their roles and determined that his hands and heart were pure before God and he was ok making his best judgments for the church. In the future if the prophet reveals that gay sealings are ok. It is not my role to rebel against the prophet. But It is my role to approach God, discern truth from error, and act according to the witness I receive from God regardless of whether the prophet was acting for God or not. I imagine you would agree with me here. However, if my personal revelation and discernment resulted in me believing that gay sealing are an abomination and the prophet is in error, I do not believe that I would be breaking my temple covenants. I think that this point is where we disagree. I believe that truth is a synonym for God and to stand up for, and speak, truth is to stand up for God. And that the prophet doesn't always speak the truth because he is merely a Saint. Agreed. Yes. I don't think that this will ever happen. I believe that God has taken care of many matters personally, but we will never know because God is extremely good at not getting caught. I'm sorry for being so wordy. I try so hard to make my posts concise but they never are. I wish I was a better communicator. Thanks for taking time to consider what I've written.

But man never walked on the moon. He wasn't wrong. I realize I'm 4 pages behind but I had to make a quip here. On a more serious note, while prophets say they are fallible I don't think many actually believe that. If they did then why would people leave the church when they learn about various aspects of church history? It wouldn't be so faith shattering if fallibility was a part of their belief system before learning about mistakes prophets have made. ETA follow up for the next comment Calm made "Is there any way in your view to personally verify there is a God? If so, why couldn’t one use the same process to verify other things?" Yes, there most certainly is. Communing with God is a central aspect of worship and receiving revelation from God about His existence, or the divinity of Christ, is a central tenant of LDS and many other Christian faiths. What is not so common is anyone claiming that they receive revelation about what their post-"final judgment" state will be. In fact, as I've reflected on the uncertainty with which I face my personal impending day of judgment I've come to believe that the more certain one feels that they are going to the Celestial Kingdom the more doubt I have that they will actually end up there. In my view the Celestial Kingdom will be filled with people who were surprised they made it there and recognize what a miracle it is. Note, this is different than people feeling like being judged will be "pleasing" or who feel assured that Jesus is their friend or whatever. Having strong faith in Christ and feeling clean before God is not the same thing as feeling like you made it before you made it. Part of the reason for this difference is that God is certain. He exists. He is constant and unchanging. Where one is going after final judgment is uncertain, and may even change due to decisions people make after dying! So to claim certainty of belief on something so outside of our control seems foolish to me.

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight. - God seals through the Holy Spirit of Promise which ratifies a priesthood ordinance and ensures it's validity after death. There is no way to personally verify whether one has been sealed by God, but it can be inferred based on how righteous they are. Except in cases where one receives a Second Anointing, which presumably is a ceremony that needs to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise but that sealing cannot be verified with a Third Anointing, so we are back to square one where it's impossible to personally verify. I don't understand why members I talk to speak about the "calling and election made sure" (cems) so often. From what I've gathered chatting with you the cems is not a priesthood ordinance, and the one who has the power to do it does not lie with God, but with the individual. Why is it called cems if it doesn't make anything sure and there is no way to verify that it is unbreakable? Why do so many church members I talk to believe that if you get your cems, which is commonly viewed as a temple ordinance, that no matter what you do you are going Celestial even though that ordinance still needs to be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise? What leads you to believe that cems is tied to the Second Anointing? As far as I'm aware the Second Anointing simply fulfills the promise of becoming a king and priest to God a little earlier than it otherwise would be. - Man seals through the sealing power given to them by God as seen in Helaman and the verses you quoted from the New Testament where one is given the "as above, so below" power. According to comments you've made there are two types of sealing power given to man, the "Nephi in Helaman" kind and the "temple sealer" kind. If I understand you correctly, the "Nephi in Helaman" sealing power is not involved in any ordinances. And in the case of the "temple sealer" no sealing occurs unless God seals it and God seals it according to personal righteousness not the authority or power of the priesthood ordinance or sealing keys. Since there is a separation between the three types of sealing power then what is the point of the two types of sealing power given to men? For example, it is likely that the Catholic church still has God's authority. According to these beliefs every ordinance performed with authority is valid and has power. The only difference being that God is allegedly not ratifying those ordinances with the Holy Spirit of Promise so they won't be in effect after this life. However, we don't know whether or not God ratifies the authorized ordinances of the Catholic church, and he very well could because we make our own cems through our personal righteousness. In theory a person could be married by the authority of a Catholic priest, who can trace their lineage to Peter, and God could ratify that marriage via the Holy Spirit of Promise due to the personal righteousness of those participating in that marriage and they could be married for eternity. Got it. Its as I said if these words are doctrine. A child who has sealed parents is golden and will end up Celestial no matter what they desire. In this point I really can't wrap my mind around your interpretation. In no way can I see the sentence "This is an abomination" to mean "This is not an abomination". I just can't see it, sorry. We'll have to agree to disagree. What is interesting about your attempt to reconcile is that you tried to tackle the verse directly. In every other conversation I have had that verse is set aside and the focus is shifted to the "if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people" because that is the official church apologetics and it is easier to argue. The only problem with that is that that verse does not address the contradictory verse. Context does not change that that verse says that David and Solomon's polygamy was a grave sin and that DC 132 says that David and Solomon didn't sin. Jacob says in the chapter that they are using David and Solomon as the excuse to practice polygamy "for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son." so that's why he addresses those two specifically. Interestingly enough, it seems like David and Solomon were the primary excuse to justify polygamy in the 19th century as well. The other names were brought up as an afterthought to try and establish a pattern, but Abraham and Jacob are poor examples (because they were pressured by their doubting wife, or deceived by their uncle into practicing it and then pressured by their jealous wives, not commanded by God), and Isaac didn't practice even though God "authorized" the practice during his time and 132 claims Isaac did practice it. "I, the Lord, justified my servant ... Isaac ... as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines." Ok, that's a fair point. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your position. To be clear my position is: - There is one sealing power given to man and if a man uses that sealing power than whatever they seal is bound "as above, so below". - Polygamy is an abomination before God and in every case the practice of it has caused problems and trends towards destruction. - Polygamy hasn't ever been commanded and it arose because of confusion about a radically new doctrine that Joseph was unable to properly expound upon before his death. - God ratifies every authorized priesthood ordinance via the "Holy Spirit of Promise" regardless of the personal righteousness of any individual involved as long as the priesthood keys are present (which is why the Catholic church lost the authority). - An individual's personal righteousness doesn't determine whether God ratifies an ordinance, instead it is evidence of whether or not a person has chosen to accept the outcome of the ordinance. ------------------ By the way, I'm still curious about @ZealouslyStriving thoughts on the topic. You've made a few quips here and there throughout this topic and I'd like to hear his full thoughts on what's been discussed by us so far. I'd be much obliged and I think I'd benefit from reading your thoughts on the topic.

Well dang. And here I thought that tithing was the "easy commandment" to keep perfectly (as the cultural church sentiment seems to be). Looks like I suck at paying tithing and I'm probably going to hell. Hm...

Merry Christmas brother. You look like a nice guy. May you and your loved ones have a peaceful and happy season.

From the references you gave it sounds like "calling and election made sure" doesn't require authority or being sealed. All of the references tell -the person- to make their calling and election sure. As if the one seeking it is in control over obtaining it. The bits about sealing just sound like the behind-the-scenes operations that God does in order to ratify the individuals choice. That's a fair way to look at it. My view here is different. I think that McConkie was getting into the weeds too much. If someone receives any priesthood ordinance it is valid as long as it's performed in authority, period. Sealing has nothing to do with it. If one is baptized then they are baptized. That gate has been opened and they can walk through it by enduring to the end and keeping their promises, or not. McConkie feels like he's saying as much but he's using all of this weird confusing language. There is no indication anywhere in the standard works outside of 132 that mentions that a baptized person needs to be sealed in order to go to heaven, and in 132 that is only inferred as sealing is talked about being the sort of mechanical framework behind how the priesthood operates. I'm not sure but off the top of my head I don't think Jesus mentioned sealing a single time in the NT or BoM. If someone has the priesthood they can perform priesthood ordinances but they cannot seal unless they are authorized with those keys. Yet all of these non-sealers can perform every priesthood ordinance except for sealing. That clearly indicates to me that baptism, priesthood ordination, endowment, etc. are not sealings. Someone who is given the sealing power has the power to change the will of the heavens. That is what sealing means to me. It means that someone on Earth can act in place of God and God will support their decision even if it's a different choice than He would personally make. That is according to what I read in the Bible and Book of Mormon. What I see from todays church is that someone given the sealing power can perform an LDS marriage ceremony and that's it. I feel like our current understanding and application of sealing is woefully inadequate and way below what sealing could actually accomplish. Which supports my point that we don't really know anything about sealing as a church. Your definition of marriage sealing doesn't make sense to me. Because someone can be a baptized, unsealed member of the church and can come forth in the morning of the first resurrection and take their place in the Celestial Kingdom as well. So what makes "marriage sealing" special? Unless I'm wrong about what ordinances are required to gain entry into the Celestial Kingdom. I think you are asking a very intriguing question. If sealing is a vehicle for salvation then I assume that Adam had all of his children sealed to him so once we roll up to them we are good whether we are sealed or not? See these quotes https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/09/hope-for-parents-of-wayward-children?lang=eng Ok, so "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." I shouldn't interpret as Q: What was abominable before God? A: Having many wives and concubines. Instead I should interpret it as "David had a few wives that were unauthorized, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord, but the rest were my treat. And all [or most] of Solomon's wives and concubines were abominable before me."? Even though 132:38 says "[Solomon] received many wives and concubines...; and in nothing did [he] sin save in those things which [he] received not of me." Here is how I interpret that verse in 2 Samuel you shared which, by the way, you make a very compelling argument with. God's servant approaches the king who is currently wicked and tells him that all of the stuff that he has was given to him by God because that king was anointed in his youth and chosen by God to become king. Don't forget where you got your status, wealth, power, and prestige. Humble yourself you arrogant brat David! And the things that Nathan specifically points out are the things that David treasures the most to give his message the most bang for the buck. I do things that are abominable before God from time to time, and I can say that they were given to me from God. I would not say that they were authorized by God or that God is pleased in what I've done with the power He's given me. ETA: I made this comment before reading that talk you recommended from Elder Christofferson. According to the talk Joseph Smith's own baptism was not valid until Elijah bestowed the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple years later. Do you agree or disagree with this idea?

I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure how much I agree with it so I'm going to explore it in this response. I am not a terribly righteous person. I haven't had a temple recommend in around 3 years, and recently I felt like I wanted to return and my Bishop said, "No". So that is definitely a factor in my perspective. I think there are two types of being critical. There is the kind that is fault-finding. It is focused on only seeing what is lacking, what is wrong with the person or the institution. There is baggage, anger, bitterness, cold-hearted feelings. There are people on this forum that I know you get that kind of feel when reading there posts. There are many people I know in real life that have those kinds of feelings and its evidenced in the way they talk and act. The other kind of being critical is an attempt to be objective and call it like I see it. For example, your response to me was a critical response that I would put in this category. I don't think you hate me or feel bitter towards me or are judging me. If I was in a position of authority over you I don't think you would trust me less or have less desire to follow me. You just called it like you saw it and we're all good. We are all human and our goal is to seek truth and see reality as it really is. In my heart, I am the latter. I hold no animosity, grudges, or pain against the church or church leadership. But Isaiah can be a crazy old kook and an unsurpassed poetic holy man at the same time. They don't have to me mutually exclusive, and it's not critical of me to point out his weakness. In conversation I defend Isaiah, and feel even better about it because I'm not blind to his weakness. Am I making sense? Let me give a real life example that I may have already given before. Once upon a time I was worthy and felt the companionship of the Holy Ghost. Some things happened (in which I did not sin) at a doctor's appointment that left me feeling anxious and without God's presence in my heart. The next day I was still feeling uneasy and asked God why I can't feel Him even though I haven't sin. Within a day or two He responded to my query with the answer, "You need to forgive the government.". Within a week my heart had changed and the bitterness was replaced with forgiveness. Now, before I forgave the government, I was keenly aware of all of the stupid crap it's doing. It's basically an abusive entity that I have no way of escaping. After I forgave the government, I was still keenly aware of how bad and corrupt it is, and in the years sense I've become even more aware. Yet my heart is not bitter, and my commentary on the government shifted from attacks to dispassionate commentary. The fact is, the church is ran like a corporation, it uses soft language. Every church leader has done dumb stuff. My old mission president Devin Durrant, awesome guy, very warm and kindhearted, gave a General Conference talk while he was in the Sunday School General Presidency. After the talk his son set up a website selling T-shirts with his GC talk slogan on it. Rightly got called out for profiting off of his sermon. Shut the site down. Is he a great man? Yes. Will I defend him? Absolutely. Was that website a bad decision? Yes. If the prophet did it would I criticize that choice? Certainly. Would I be breaking temple covenants? I don't think so. https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-leader-apologizes-for-ponderize-merchandise-website If I asked you for a list of 5 miracles performed by President Nelson I bet you could do it. If I asked you for a list of 1 thing President Nelson did that was human and not God inspired, could you do it? If people can't see the humanity in the prophets at what point does their view of the prophet become idol worship? On the other hand, to your point, if someone can list 5 faults but not see 1 miracle then they are dismissing the vehicle God is using to communicate with the world and set up His Earthly Kingdom.

I don't know what to call this principle but in my mind I refer to it as "the pregnancy principle" or something like that. It's basically a pattern I just see in life. - Out of ~20 million sperm only ~200 make it to the egg and only 1 fertilizes - Out of thousands of contacts made as missionaries only a few end up baptized, and even less make it to the temple - With all of the wealth in the world only a relative few become wealthy This kind of pattern can be seen everywhere: marketing funnels, in forests, human biology, etc. Start with a whole mess of stuff and in the end only a few trickle through to the end. I believe I've mentioned it here before, but I'll mention it again as a sidenote. If everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will be receiving a mansion, and Earth is going to become the Celestial Kingdom, then how many people could realistically fit? This article suggests around 700 Million or less (if we're talking mansions, not just the average American lifestyle), but it's just a fun thought experiment. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Texas.html ETA: I believe that Christ knew that most would reject Him and, to me, that makes His atonement even that much more magnificent and beautiful and full of love. If I was the only other person, besides Him, to have ever lived and I accepted the world and rejected Jesus I believe that He still would have suffered and died for me just to have the chance. So I don't feel negatively or like my effort is wasted at the temple. I feel like I'm becoming closer to Jesus if anything by acting as His proxy in my role as a priest there.

What makes you believe that "calling and election made sure" is a doctrine as opposed to a cultural Mormon belief. What scriptural connections have you made to this belief? Ok. So if I'm to understand you correctly when a man and woman are sealed in the temple they are not actually sealed, got it. The Second Anointing is well documented and I believe that this is what people are referring to when they say "calling and election made sure" though most everyone I've ever spoken with who talked about "calling and election made sure" didn't know there were additional ordinances in the temple for General Authorities. Ok, let me see if I am understanding you correctly here. Please note that I read your link which is a quote from the book Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie. I'm assuming that you regard this commentary as doctrinal because: it was written by an apostle, and it was published in a church manual 20 years ago. Do you regard the entire text of Mormon Doctrine as doctrinal? Why, or why not? From what I've read in your comments plus the quoted Mormon Doctrine text here is how I'm understanding you: Every covenant priesthood ritual is a sealing ceremony. An ordained "sealer", the ones set apart by apostles and who have to dress in church clothes everywhere they go, is not required in order for someone to be sealed. Being sealed is dependent on two things alone: 1) the ordinance being performed by an authorized priesthood bearer and 2) the individuals personal righteousness before God. If I understand you correctly and this is the case then could you explain to me the differences between: - marriage sealing - children sealing - second anointing sealing - baptism sealing, etc. Also, how do you reconcile the Mormon Doctrine quoted text and your commentary with these verses in our canon? This verse states that to be sealed is done through an authorized servant. It also can be reasonably interpreted to say that the sealing can only be broken if the sealed commits cold-blooded murder as we all "abide in our covenants" as we constantly break them every day. (i.e. There are none among us who fully live the covenant to live the law of consecration.) What do you think "abide in our covenants" means? Whatever definition you give it, just add "don't murder" to the list and you are guaranteed a golden ticket to the Celestial Kingdom. Also please consider and reconcile this verse for me: Am I to understand this to be a different sealing power than what is used in the baptismal sealing and/or the temple sealing sealing? Based on the above two quoted canonized texts it appears to me that God gives power to authorized servants to seal and what they seal is bound "as above, so below" and that, outside of the people's response to the authorized servant, what is bound is bound until the authorized servant says otherwise and has no other bearing on one's personal righteousness before God. Ok, please reconcile these two verses for me. I understand the churches apologetics, but it does not reconcile this contradiction. DC 132:39 "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me ... and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife" - I interpret this verse to mean that God commanded/authorized/gave David all of his wives and concubines except for Bath-Sheba. I hope we can both agree to that interpretation. Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David ... truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." - I interpret this verse to mean that David's wives and concubines were not commanded/authorized/given to David but, in fact, God views his polygamy as an abomination. I hope we can both agree on that interpretation. I feel like both of these verses are incredibly clear without any ambiguity. So which is it? Did God give David his wives and concubines (not abominable)? Or was it an abomination before God? It is also acceptable to believe that prophets can make mistakes and can mistakenly state their own personal opinion as a doctrinal revelation from God when it was not. I am keenly interested in your response to my thoughts here. Thanks for your time in having this discussion with me!

Really? I thought it was based on "increase"? What's the difference? Welcome to the forum "A Wretched Soul", glad to have you and I hope you have a wonderful experience in this forum. I bet you have all sorts of unique insights and opinions to share with us on a variety of church-related topics. As far as your question here, it sounds like you're thinking too much. At the end of the day I figure just do what makes you feel good. If you want to personally calculate and asses inflation rates and use a bunch of Excel spreadsheets, VBA, and hire a few accountants to help you then go for it. Sounds like for some people that could make tithing a lot of fun to calculate. I personally do not pay tithing on investment increase because the money that I invest has already had tithing paid on it and I view investing in the stock market as equivalent to gambling and the church doesn't want anyone to pay tithing on gambling winnings. However, I do use money I make from the stock market to make charitable contributions to the church, so please don't view me as a heretic. If you want to get technical, awhile back we had a discussion about whether or not the church used tithing to pay for City Creek and I believe that the result of that discussion was that if the church invests tithing money that the interest gained is not regarded as tithing money. It was a really interesting discussion, but it is 51 pages so read at your own peril.

I don't believe it will be that obvious in the afterlife but I'm rather cynical. I assume that most will not accept the ordinances. Also, a friend told me of a rare, powerful experience she had in the temple when she was doing sealings many years ago. She heard the woman she was being sealed for scream in her mind "NO! NO! NO! NO!" but she did it anyways trusting that God would work out the details, instead of stopping the ceremony.

I wanted to post my questions about sealing here. If anyone knows the answers to these questions please let me know. I wanted to demonstrate how little we actually know about sealing. - I understand that to be sealed means to be married in the afterlife. What does it mean to be married in the afterlife? How does that differ from non-marital relationships in the afterlife? - Do you believe that married couples who aren't sealed aren't going to love each other anymore? That two formerly married people can't still build a life together in heaven? Do you believe that kids who aren't sealed will not still be loved and treated like the children of their parents even though they aren't sealed? That God will place some sort of barrier preventing any form of communication between non-sealed "former families"? - I understand that being sealed to my children means that they'll be my children in the afterlife. What does that mean? How does that differ from non-parent/child relationships in the afterlife? - When Jesus says He's preparing mansions in heaven, is that literal? If so, I suppose that being married in heaven means that I get to live together with my spouse in our mansion. Do my kids live in that same mansion or do they get their own? Will we be neighbors? Does it even matter if someone shares the same mansion? How does this work if you have 100 generations sealed? One, big, giant gated community with a ton of mansions that somehow are all neighbors to each other? A million people all living in the same mansion? - Do you believe in the quotes (I believe there are 3 quotes and that they were all made before the year 1900) that if a child is sealed to their parents that the "tendrils" of God will reach out to them and eventually every sealed child will make it to the Celestial kingdom? How do you rationalize and support this using the canonized religious texts? - Do you believe that if a man and woman are sealed that if either commits any, or every sin, excepting cold-blooded murder that they have a golden ticket to the Celestial kingdom? How do you rationalize this outside of section 132? To me it sounds quite blasphemous. - Is being married in the afterlife the same thing as being married on Earth? Do you believe that, somehow, exalted beings are going to have sex all the time and women are going to be relegated to infinite baby making machines? Do you have any evidence in the canonized text to support this belief? So, again I ask what does it mean to be sealed? The only thing I can concretely understand about being sealed is that it is a binding covenant with God that strengthens my relationship with Him and that, for some reason, it requires one member of the opposite sex. (I don't think sealing has ever been done with one man and more than one woman simultaneously, or vice versa, I believe that each woman got their own distinct ceremony.) There is very little support for sealing in the canonized text; basically 132 (which *directly* contradicts Jacob 2) and some inferences pressed onto the Bible and Book of Mormon based on 132 and a few tiny snippets of talks from General Authorities, most of whom were in JoD days which are not regarded as canon. The Bible and the Book of Mormon do not preach sealing. So what do we really know about sealing? What has actually been revealed about it?

I have a question for you. Is there ever a time throughout Biblical history where God's chosen prophet or Apostle led Israel, or the church, astray? I haven't studied this but my gut response to this question is that prophets have never led Israel astray. What happens to lead the church astray is the members begin worshipping false gods and then murder the prophets. Under that assumption I think it's safe to assume that a prophet would be murdered before a prophet would successfully rebel against God to destroy Israel. I think the best attempt made was by Jonah, and he failed spectacularly.

Thank you for your kind words, brother. John C. Bennett was the assistant president of the Church and he was going around telling young women that they were already married in heaven so they didn't need to be married, or get permission from anyone, in order to have sex and consummate that marriage. That was the practice of spiritual wifery and Bennett was excommunicated for it. He got pissed and wrote a book accusing Joseph and other leaders of secretly practicing polygamy and went on a campaign up and down the East Coast selling his book and preaching anti-Mormonism. The accusations he made of Joseph practicing secret polygamy is what Joseph denied. I don't believe that Joseph was accused of practicing Spiritual Wifery. see: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/john-c-bennett-and-spiritual-wifery/ for a brief overview. This site has a bunch of quotes of Joseph denying the practice of polygamy. Of course it's couched in commentary basically calling him a lying snake (which is, oddly, what the josephsmithspolygamy site does as well) https://mit.irr.org/joseph-smith-statements-denying-polygamy . Feel free to check out the link but I'll post the quotes down here if you want to skip the laced opinions. Please note that half of these quotes were made in 1844, I also believe that this list is not exhaustive but it may be. As you know, I'm no scholar. Regarding this issue I spent around 2-3 years in deep study, but I didn't make notes or write scholarly articles and I have a poor memory so I could be wrong about anything historical that I mention. I was just looking for revelation, peace, and internal resolution. Once I obtained that I was satisfied. I received revelation from God about this issue. The issue is that properly communicating personal revelation to others is impossible. For me, the revelation boiled down to this "believe the Book of Mormon more than the Doctrine and Covenants" and the Book of Mormon clearly states that the practice of polygamy is an abomination before God that has led to the destruction of civilizations and was the reason why Jerusalem fell shortly after Lehi left. It was also the reason why the church was going to be destroyed in the late 19th century. The patterns are consistent. Along with that, my heart was also changed in how I perceive prophets. We don't know what we don't know and it's an expression of God's love when He allows us to continue living life in error and false belief. This is evidenced by my favorite verse in the Book of Mormon, Alma 32:19 - "And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?". I have many reasons to believe that the church currently espouses false beliefs, policies, principles, or doctrines. I think there are many people who believe this about the current church. And I would argue that if someone doesn't believe that, even after modern prophets have said that the church is still in the process of being fully restored, then they are in error in their beliefs. I firmly believe that President Nelson made some very poor choices during his presidency, but he is also the only prophet that I've received confirmation from God about his prophetic call. I don't doubt that Oaks is making some bad decision as well. These things don't mean that they aren't prophets or that the church isn't led by Jesus, but it does mean that life is complicated and I have to use my brain, best judgment, and a lot of prayer and consulting with God over grievances and concerns. It's a lot of work.

CFR please

Merry Christmas Pyreaux. I hope you have a wonderful Christmastime with your loved ones!

The way sealing is one doesn't need to be married by State authority first. The sealing ordinance is complete on its own and, as far as I see it, the State marriage is done to comply with the laws of the government. I'm probably wrong though, but again, all we can do is speculate because we don't know anything about sealing. I agree. I can see why the normal response is to think that "plural marriage" and "polygamy" are interchangeable synonyms because throughout the history of the church, according to my definitions, both plural marriage and polygamy were practiced simultaneously so no distinction was necessary. AFAIK Joseph denied polygamy anytime he was accused of it. I haven't watched Karen's video yet but she said (in the Mormon Stories podcast interview) that her video (and the book she wrote that's not quite as detailed as the video) is 90% Joseph Smith Papers documents. She claims that all of these papers indicate that Joseph didn't practice polygamy, that it clears his name, and affirms that he was telling the truth when he denied polygamy. Also AFAIK all accusations against him from the women were after he died. Anyways, there is no way that this https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexual-polyandry/ , sealings to 14 women who were all legally married to their alive husbands, could be termed a "polygamous" relationship from Joseph's standpoint. He wasn't married to any of them, didn't live with any of them, for all I know he never saw any of them after the sealings took place. This is what I would call "plural marriage" and one of the things I would say argues my case that there is a difference between the two terms. What term would you use to describe it?

I've never heard of this! Or the three wives thing. If I went on the FB group Christians VS Mormons and asked "Do you all believe that Christ is a metaphorical or literal polygamist?" I don't think I'd get a single affirmative response, so I don't know if "it is known and accepted by millions of Christians worldwide".

Why Wilford and I'm not familiar with Stephen L Richards, was he a 19th century apostle or a more recent one?

I'm operating under the assumption that everything discussed about polygamy and sealing is personal opinion outside of official church apologetics. My apologies.