Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[Pahoran]

Sibling and Dr. Steuss,

your dialogue, since it has strayed from the topic, is possibly grist for another thread. What say ye?

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek]

Daniel,

What I read on a Fair thread sometime back was an LDS lady, married, who said her husband would have to accept her as a wife (in the next life) for her to make it to the highest portion of Heaven. Does that sound right?

Bill,

Even if your recollection is accurate, it doesn't make it authoritative. It could have been her opinion, or a deliberate misrepresentation of LDS theology (like so much of THIS thread). There simply is no context.

The lack of a specific source (even a screen name) raises serious questions about its accuracy. This is the worst sort of hearsay/anecdotal evidence.

I'm not questioning YOUR veracity, but pointing out the flaws with your statement.

[William the Conqueror]

Daniel,

What I read on a Fair thread sometime back was an LDS lady, married, who said her husband would have to accept her as a wife (in the next life) for her to make it to the highest portion of Heaven.

[sibling]

Daniel,

What I read on a Fair thread sometime back was an LDS lady, married, who said her husband would have to accept her as a wife (in the next life) for her to make it to the highest portion of Heaven.

[Daniel Peterson]

But doesn't a women have to be married for eternity to gain the third or highest tier of the Celestial Kingdom?

Yes. So does a man.

Do you deduce from that that husbands need their wives' permission to enter the celestial kingdom?

If not, why not?

[Doctor Steuss]

{deleted} sorry for the off topic stuff

[Pahoran]

Daniel,

What I read on a Fair thread sometime back was an LDS lady, married, who said her husband would have to accept her as a wife (in the next life) for her to make it to the highest portion of Heaven.

[Doctor Steuss]

Sibling and Dr. Steuss,

your dialogue, since it has strayed from the topic, is possibly grist for another thread. What say ye?

Regards,

Pahoran

I apologize.

[selek]

But doesn't a women have to be married for eternity to gain the third or highest tier of the Celestial Kingdom?

Absolutely- just as any man does. The problem is that the original insertion was that a husband can deny that entry to a worthy wife simply at his whim.

That's the nonsense that is being combatted.

No one who is worthy will be denied. They will have every opportunity to make things right (the main point of the Millenium, IMHO).

Also, no man who would so cavalierly dismiss a worthy wife, is himself worthy of the Celestial Kingdom.

[William the Conqueror]

Also, no man who would so cavalierly dismiss a worthy wife, is himself worthy of the Celestial Kingdom.

So it could be he would deny her a chance in the highest tier of CK, although he himself would also be denied. Kind of like a suicide bomber.

[selek]

So it could be he would deny her a chance in the highest tier of CK, although he himself would also be denied. Kind of like a suicide bomber.

No. He would only disqualify himself, as did King David. The wife would be given to another, and would in no way be denied her eternal reward.

[William the Conqueror]

Also, no man who would so cavalierly dismiss a worthy wife, is himself worthy of the Celestial Kingdom.

So it could be he would deny her a chance in the highest tier of CK, although he himself would also be denied. Kind of like a suicide bomber.

And if he gets eternally married by proxy to another woman or women, could he still qualify?

[selek]

And if he gets eternally married by proxy to another woman or women, could he still qualify?

No. Remember, the premise was that he could "stand at the gate" so to speak, and deny her entry. At this point, all have been judged, and he has been found wanting. Sorry. No do-overs. He has lost his eternal reward.

EDIT: corrected for clarity.

[William the Conqueror]

No.  He would only disqualify himself, as did King David.  The wife would be given to another, and would in no way be denied her eternal reward.

Does that mean that Michael whom David put away, was given to another man in the top tier of the Celestial kingdom who already had other wife or wives, or would she have been married to another by proxy, or possibly both?

And if David accepted the Gospel of Joseph Smith in the Terrestial heaven, would he also get a chance for top tier of CK by either being given a wife up there or being married by proxy down here? Or did his putting away Michael seal his eternal fate? She was still his wife however he had no relations with her. You have to remember she laughed at his dancing.

[selek]

Does that mean that Michael whom David put away, was given to another man in the top tier of the Celestial kingdom who already had other wife or wives, or would she have been married to another by proxy, or possibly both?

And if David accepted the Gospel of Joseph Smith in the Terrestial heaven, would he also get a chance for top tier of CK by either being given a wife up there or being married by proxy down here? Or did his putting away Michael seal his eternal fate? She was still his wife however he had no relations with her. You have to remember she laughed at his dancing.

Actually, the scriptures (as I recall) are vague about the ultimate reward of David's wives and children, except to say that they "were given to another". Anything else is speculation. Sorry.

And again, the point of this arc was that it is NOT Mormon doctrine that a woman is dependent upon her husband for entry into the Celestial Kingdom.

EDIT: I should be clear- anything else about King David's wives THAT I KNOW OF, is speculation. There are undoubtedly others who are wiser/more knowledeable than I.

[Pahoran]

Also, no man who would so cavalierly dismiss a worthy wife, is himself worthy of the Celestial Kingdom.

So it could be he would deny her a chance in the highest tier of CK, although he himself would also be denied. Kind of like a suicide bomber.

No, William, no.

Try to see if this amazingly simple concept can somehow penetrate the anti-truth defensive screen you've set up to protect your anti-Mormon opinions:

Men don't get to deny their wives entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.

Did you get it yet? No?

Then try this:

There is nothing any man can do to prevent his wife inheriting exaltation.

Has that sunk in?

Well, just to make it clear:

A woman who receives the ordinances of exaltation and is faithful to her covenants will have her sins forgiven, through the Atonement of Christ, and will be exalted; there is nothing any mortal man, whether her husband or not, can do to prevent that; and any "Concerned Christian" who says otherwise has most outrageously LIED to you, and you should never trust them again.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MorningStar]

Absolutely right. Only the Lord decides who gets into the Celestial Kingdom and who doesn't. Only the Lord decides who is exalted.

Why is it anti-Mormons always leave out the fact that men can't be exalted without their wives? Why is there no rumor that women can refuse their husbands entrance into the Celestial Kingdom?

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

What do you want me to say? That, yes, I think it is wrong for anybody to make money from something for which he or she has labored and feels a passion?

That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

I've said nothing about paid clergy or about paid Protestant apologists and "cult"-bashers. I'm simply pointing out the fact that, contrary to frequent allegations that are typically meant to impugn my integrity and/or cast doubt on my intellectual independence, I can't honestly be considered a paid defender of Mormonism.

On the other hand, I don't think mere labor and passion gives one a moral entitlement to money therefrom. I presume that at least a few career criminals (e.g., Mafia dons, serious computer hackers, clever bank robbers) feel passionate about their enterprises and work hard at them.

I just wanted your opinion, it's a bummer you have to be on the defensive all the time, but I really do understand.

To compare LDS and evangelical in house economics is just not fare, they are totally different beasts. To say paid protestant apologist is not a fair analogy, all most all are independent and rely on donations, while the LDS church is a totally in house apoloigest, in that they defend what they believe while bashing what others believe, it's not so much a individual, but the LDS faith as a whole. They are also paid clergy as a whole (I'll explain if you like).

The LDS faith directly teaches that protestants are in error and professing such will not get one to true salvation, there is no way around that and the church believes they are restoring the one true faith. They teach this, most LDS members believe this, it is the major starting point to understand before becoming a member. Yet if one defends against this attack on the protestant church they are labeled as "antis", bashers, and worse. So I see know problem with a person who has dedicated their life in defending this attack on their belief system, and making a living at it and supporting their families as wrong. The LDS church being a apologetic system in its self, and supported by its professors, has no room to judge on this subject unless it can be proved that the person is in just for the money and not for what they believe.

To compare mafia dons..etc and evangelicals is a stretch, if that is what you implied. We can't judge motive very easaly, and to throw a blanket on those is wrong.

take care

Mark

John 1;12

[William the Conqueror]

Also, no man who would so cavalierly dismiss a worthy wife, is himself worthy of the Celestial Kingdom.

So it could be he would deny her a chance in the highest tier of CK, although he himself would also be denied. Kind of like a suicide bomber.

No, William, no.

Try to see if this amazingly simple concept can somehow penetrate the anti-truth defensive screen you've set up to protect your anti-Mormon opinions:

Men don't get to deny their wives entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.

Did you get it yet? No?

Then try this:

There is nothing any man can do to prevent his wife inheriting exaltation.

Has that sunk in?

Well, just to make it clear:

A woman who receives the ordinances of exaltation and is faithful to her covenants will have her sins forgiven, through the Atonement of Christ, and will be exalted; there is nothing any mortal man, whether her husband or not, can do to prevent that; and any "Concerned Christian" who says otherwise has most outrageously LIED to you, and you should never trust them again.

Regards,

Pahoran

Also, no man who would so cavalierly dismiss a worthy wife, is himself worthy of the Celestial Kingdom.

So it could be he would deny her a chance in the highest tier of CK, although he himself would also be denied. Kind of like a suicide bomber.

No, William, no.

Try to see if this amazingly simple concept can somehow penetrate the anti-truth defensive screen you've set up to protect your anti-Mormon opinions:

Men don't get to deny their wives entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.

Did you get it yet? No?

Then try this:

There is nothing any man can do to prevent his wife inheriting exaltation.

Has that sunk in?

Well, just to make it clear:

A woman who receives the ordinances of exaltation and is faithful to her covenants will have her sins forgiven, through the Atonement of Christ, and will be exalted; there is nothing any mortal man, whether her husband or not, can do to prevent that; and any "Concerned Christian" who says otherwise has most outrageously LIED to you, and you should never trust them again.

Regards,

Pahoran

First of all Pahoran it was a loyal LDS lady who said it, not me.

Second of all Pahoran, from what Selek said, it may not be so simple.

Selek said she would be given to another. Well Pahoran, what if no others wanted her? Then Pahoran, would she have to be married by proxy to make it?

And finally Pahoran, I am not talking about just getting to the Celestial Heaven. I'm talking about the highest tier of Celestial Heaven, where only married eternally people go.

[Daniel Peterson]

I just wanted your opinion, it's a bummer you have to be on the defensive all the time, but I really do understand.

You probably don't. I'm not defensive. I'm very secure. I feel fine.

To compare LDS and evangelical in house economics is just not fare, they are totally different beasts.

I haven't compared them. I've said nothing about evangelicals. I've even pointed out that I've said nothing about evangelicals. And, just to be really clear, I'd like now to point out that I've already pointed out that I've said nothing about evangelicals.

To say paid protestant apologist is not a fair analogy, all most all are independent and rely on donations

Unless you're talking about donations that are neither in cash nor in kind -- and I would have to be given some examples of those, so that I might comprehend what you're talking about -- I don't see how that would demonstrate that they weren't paid. The method by which a "ministry" generates its funding makes no difference as to the question of whether or not it has paid employees.

while the LDS church is a totally in house apoloigest, in that they defend what they believe while bashing what others believe,

If you can identify any place where I've ever actually attacked some other person's faith or denomination or religious affiliation, I certainly hope you'll point it out to me. Having the reference in hand will help when I apply for Alzheimer's institutionalization.

I don't do it. I've never done it.

it's not so much a individual, but the LDS faith as a whole. They are also paid clergy as a whole (I'll explain if you like).

Please do. I'd like to know precisely how I'm "paid clergy."

Can I apply for time and a half for things like that early morning leadership meeting last Sunday?

The LDS faith directly teaches that protestants are in error and professing such will not get one to true salvation, there is no way around that and the church believes they are restoring the one true faith. They teach this, most LDS members believe this, it is the major starting point to understand before becoming a member. Yet if one defends against this attack on the protestant church they are labeled as "antis", bashers, and worse.

You can argue for your interpretation of scripture and Christian history 24/7, for all I care, and I will never call you an "anti-Mormon."

It's when you attack my faith -- not merely by your existence and by your adherence to views that disagree with mine, but overtly and expressly and directly -- that I'll consider whether to call you an anti-Mormon.

To compare mafia dons..etc and evangelicals is a stretch, if that is what you implied. We can't judge motive very easaly, and to throw a blanket on those is wrong.

It isn't what I implied. Please go back and try to understand my point. I have nothing personal against Mafia dons. Nor even, for that matter, against evangelicals.

[William the Conqueror]

But doesn't a women have to be married for eternity to gain the third or highest tier of the Celestial Kingdom?

Yes. So does a man.

Do you deduce from that that husbands need their wives' permission to enter the celestial kingdom?

If not, why not?

If not, why not?

The reason why not is because of what the LDS lady said. She said her husband would have to invite her.

And finally Daniel, I am not talking about just making it to the Celestial Kingdom. I'm talking about the highest level of the CK where only eternally married people go. As Selek said, 'She would be given to another.' Now read my response to Pahoran.

[MorningStar]

But doesn't a women have to be married for eternity to gain the third or highest tier of the Celestial Kingdom?

Yes. So does a man.

Do you deduce from that that husbands need their wives' permission to enter the celestial kingdom?

If not, why not?

If not, why not?

The reason why not is because of what the LDS lady said. She said her husband would have to invite her.

And finally Daniel, I am not talking about just making it to the Celestial Kingdom. I'm talking about the highest level of the CK where only eternally married people go. As Selek said, 'She would be given to another.' Now read my response to Pahoran.

What LDS lady said that? That makes absolutely no sense.

[Daniel Peterson]

She said her husband would have to invite her.

And finally Daniel, I am not talking about just making it to the Celestial Kingdom.  I'm talking about the highest level of the CK where only eternally married people go.  As Selek said, 'She would be given to another.'  Now read my response to Pahoran.

I don't really know how I can respond to your claim. I've never heard anybody say anything like that, but I can scarcely guarantee that nobody ever has said something like that. There are millions of Mormons. Not all of them know the teachings of the Church well. Heck, not all of them are even sane.

I can only say that, if somebody were to teach that idea in a class where I was present, I would immediately characterize it as false doctrine. And if I were a leader in that particular ward or organization, and the person persisted in teaching it, we would have an appointment to discuss what future steps it would be necessary to take.

First of all Pahoran it was a loyal LDS lady who said it, not me.

Second of all Pahoran, from what Selek said, it may not be so simple.

Selek said she would be given to another.  Well Pahoran, what if no others wanted her?  Then Pahoran, would she have to be married by proxy to make it?

And finally Pahoran, I am not talking about just getting to the Celestial Heaven.  I'm talking about the highest tier of Celestial Heaven, where only married eternally people go.

I'm trying to imagine the celestial kingdom, bathed in light, filled with the love of God, inhabited by righteous people who are free from all of the shocks and temptations and weaknesses to which mortal flesh is prone, who are secure from all threats and want and who have inherited all wisdom, and yet in which, on your account, every single male resident rejects a perfected and glorified woman deemed worthy by the Father and the Son to dwell in their presence forevermore.

I can't do it.

[Del March]

I'm trying to imagine the celestial kingdom, bathed in light, filled with the love of God, inhabited by righteous people who are free from all of the shocks and temptations and weaknesses to which mortal flesh is prone, who are secure from all threats and want and who have inherited all wisdom, and yet in which, on your account, every single male resident rejects a perfected and glorified woman deemed worthy by the Father and the Son to dwell in their presence forevermore.

I can't do it.

I rather think they would all be fighting for the honour of marrying her. And I wonder how she would make her choice between all those equally worthy men. Maybe that's why it says that she will be GIVEN to someone else?

Del

[Del March]

Honestly, this is all such a crazy discussion. I mean, how is the scene supposed to take place? How is a man supposed to explain to God that after having been forgiven himself, he won't forgive his wife? How is a man supposed to explain to God that he refuses to allow into exaltation a woman whom God Himself has redeemed and deemed worthy of exaltation? Such a man couldn't even get into exaltation himself, since his unforgiving and uncharitable heart would condemn him at the last judgement!

And how could any other man, who has been forgiven, redeemed and exalted along with his wife, not be moved by the plight of a worthy woman being barred from exaltation because of her unworthy husband? Of course such an exalted man would hurry to open the door to that woman!

And his first wife? Same answer: if she's selfish and uncharitable enough to not be willing, while she's sitting on a throne in God's house, to offer the same blessings she has received to a sister in need, she has no business being exalted to start with.

Could we PLEASE remember that we are talking of EXALTED beings!? Not selfish, sinful, greedy, uncharitable or insecure mortal beings, but instead exalted beings full of charity, full of God's love, the same love that moved God to sacrifice His Son, and Christ to sacrifice Himself! I think taking another wife, and letting a husband take another wife, would be insignificant sacrifices for such beings, if they were sacrifices at all!

In the meantime, any woman who thinks her husband could bar her from entering into her exaltation doesn't understand the concept of exaltation to start with.

Del