John Dehlin - Why They Leave

[wenglund]

You are most welcome sir.

Truly delicious!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Cal, I like the old ladies.

Me too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://www.lds.org/s...dc/132?lang=eng

Heading of Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

If you read through the paragraphs the 19th one speaks about the "seed". And in several of the rest of the paragraphs, there were commandments that Joseph have plural wives. It might take time to read through. But it is self explanatory.

And to answer you question on sealing/marriage here is a quote from a church leader...

One Church leader described the covenants made and blessings promised via a temple marriage/sealing:

1. Individual covenants and blessings. Each of you will individually and separately make promises, commitments, and covenants with your Heavenly Father and will individually receive promises of blessings conditioned on your individual worthiness. The individual nature of these promises is such that even if one of you were to cease being obedient following your participation in the sealing ordinance and so lose the promises made to you, the other partner who remained faithful would continue to be eligible to receive the promised blessings.

2. Joint covenants and blessings. The two of you jointly will make promises, commitments, and covenants with your Heavenly Father and will make covenants to receive each other as husband and wife. You then will jointly receive promises of blessings conditioned upon your joint faithfulness. The continued faithful obedience of both of you is essential if the promised blessings are to be received jointly. This is because the promises are made to you as one—that is, as a single unit consisting of two halves.

3. Joining in celestial marriage. This element qualifies you to live together as husband and wife under the laws of the land. It is here that you are united forever, becoming one flesh before the Lord and forming a new family unit that, if you are faithful and obedient, will last forever.

4. Blessings for children born in the covenant. All children born to the two of you are born under the blessings of the sealing covenant; thus, it is common to say that your children are “born in the covenant.” They are entitled to blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, including:

a. The gospel

b. The priesthood

c. Celestial marriage

d. Eternal life

It is revealing to know that even if the two of you cease to be faithful in keeping the covenants you make in the temple, these blessings will still flow to your children. It is equally comforting to know the Lord has provided that adopted children and children born to a couple before they are sealed in the temple (as with new converts to the Church) may be sealed to their parents, and upon such sealing they also become entitled to these same promises and blessings (Kofford, June 1998).

You still did not answer my question. Is a sealing the same as a marriage? This is a yes or no answer.

And there is nothing in D&C 132 that makes polygamy a requirement for all. If you think there is (there isn't I am well familiar with the argument) please share with us.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is accurate in todays doctrine. So, I could see the possible confusion.

It is???

So if a son were to be sealed to his parents that is the same as a marriage? Ok.

Yup totally the same, no issues here.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

It is accurate in todays doctrine. So, I could see the possible confusion.

No it is not accurate in today;s doctrine. Just because they are done together for couples just getting married does not make them synonymous. Nor does it make it doctrinally correct to refer to them as synonymous. In the temple there are a lot of sealing performed that are not marriages. Sealings of previously married spouses and Sealings of children to parents. There are also marriages performed in the temples that are not sealings. Marriages of people who are sealed to other spouses in cases where one spouse has died and they find new spouses to complete a family with.

[ERayR]

You still did not answer my question. Is a sealing the same as a marriage? This is a yes or no answer.

And there is nothing in D&C 132 that makes polygamy a requirement for all. If you think there is (there isn't I am well familiar with the argument) please share with us.

I have given her the answer all she has to do is copy off my paper.

[Senator]

It is???

So if a son were to be sealed to his parents that is the same as a marriage? Ok.

Yup totally the same, no issues here.

In the context of a man and woman being joined as husband and wife, is there a sealing performed today that is not conscidered a marriage?

[ERayR]

In the context of a man and woman being joined as husband and wife, is there a sealing performed today that is not conscidered a marriage?

Yes a sealing of a couple who have previously been married in a civil marriage.

[Tacenda]

You still did not answer my question. Is a sealing the same as a marriage? This is a yes or no answer.

And there is nothing in D&C 132 that makes polygamy a requirement for all. If you think there is (there isn't I am well familiar with the argument) please share with us.

No and Yes! And I think I'm actually going to agree with the statement that polygamy isn't a requirement for all! I just thought you meant for Joseph. Sorry, can we end in peace?

Edited June 26, 2012 by Tacenda

[Senator]

Yes a sealing of a couple who have previously been married in a civil marriage.

I other words creating a celestial marrage out of a civil marriage. No?

[ERayR]

I other words creating a celestial marrage out of a civil marriage. No?

If you see it that way I think that is just fine.

[Senator]

If you see it that way I think that is just fine.

Ok

My point was to simply deem it understandable when someone is confronted with, and confused by the oft used apologetic notion of non-conflatiblity between marriage and sealing.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Senator

[ERayR]

Ok

My point was to simply deem it understandable when someone is confronted with, and confused by the oft used apologetic notion of non-conflatiblity between marriage and sealing.

Yes, we often speak of someone going to be married in the temple or of someone going to be sealed in the temple and be speaking of the same event. It is not accurate but we know what is meant. However, I was trying to get her to understand there is a difference and to correct some of her misconceptions and anti-Mormon propaganda that she has picked up and is believing about Joseph Smith.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No and Yes! And I think I'm actually going to agree with the statement that polygamy isn't a requirement for all! I just thought you meant for Joseph. Sorry, can we end in peace?

I was never at war with you.

As to these sealings of JS there seems to be little evidence that these sealings were marriages. When I was married to my wife I was also sealed. They were 2 separate acts of one ceremony.

A sealing by it's self is not a marriage. And a marriage by it' self is not a sealing. Do you see the distinction. The lie that is told is that a sealing is the same as a marriage. And when you start to look at it like that then you start to see that "JS married other men's wives".

I don't believe he did that and the evidence seems to be lacking that these sealings were marriages. There is little evidence that JS consummated these sealings. Modern day genetic testing so far has proven that the only kids of JS were from Emma and him. Does that speak anything at all, in terms of evidence for what I am saying?

[Senator]

Yes, we often speak of someone going to be married in the temple or of someone going to be sealed in the temple and be speaking of the same event. It is not accurate but we know what is meant.

My point was to demonstrate that (in contemporary doctrine) it is accurate to conflate a temple sealing (meaning: husband and wife) with a marriage. Now Joseph & company may have had something else in mind in his day. I don't know. In my mind the jury is still out on that.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Senator

[ERayR]

My point was to demonstrate that (in contemporary doctrine) it is accurate to conflate a temple sealing (meaning: husband and wife) with a marriage. Now Joseph & company may have had something else in mind in his day. I don't know. In my mind the jury is still out on that.

I am not trying to be argumentative but that is not an accurate statement. Although it is done in contemporary conversation to conflate the two is neither doctrine nor accurate. Missunderstandings like that causes some people real trouble. Case in point: Tacenda's understanding of Joseph Smith's sealings.

[Senator]

I am not trying to be argumentative but that is not an accurate statement. Although it is done in contemporary conversation to conflate the two is neither doctrine nor accurate. Missunderstandings like that causes some people real trouble. Case in point: Tacenda's understanding of Joseph Smith's sealings.

Understood. I'm not trying to be argumentative either. But I simply disagree that it is not accurate.

Contemporarily speaking, either there has been a change in doctrine, or we simply don't mention it anymore, but there simply is no notion in todays temple ordinances of a dynastic/familial sealing between an adult man and woman, that is not conscidered a celestial marriage.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok

My point was to simply deem it understandable when someone is confronted with, and confused by the oft used apologetic notion of non-conflatiblity between marriage and sealing.

Yes you have demonstrated that people do conflate the 2. I wish that people wouldn't but they do. I understand the confusion which is why I wanted to have a discussion about it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Understood. I'm not trying to be argumentative either. But I simply disagree that it is not accurate.

Contemporarily speaking, either there has been a change in doctrine, or we simply don't mention it anymore, but there simply is no notion in todays temple ordinances of a dynastic/familial sealing between an adult man and woman, that is not conscidered a celestial marriage.

Well, a Celestial Marriage and a sealing are often thought of as the same thing. But again that is still not accurate.

Case in point, when my cousin, who had previously been married, civilly, we said "they are getting sealed today". They were not getting married. Only a temple sealing was taking place.

[Minos]

Don't lecture me about being offensive and rude....not after what I've experience on this board from some of the regulars. What is good for the goose is good for gander. Cal has been nothing but rude to me...so deal with it.

Cal is one of the most consistently courteous posters here. Cool your jets and stop derailing threads with strings of whiny complaints or you aren't going to last long.

[Calm]

Cal is one of the most consistently courteous posters here.

You will find the envelope under the park bench per our usual agreement.

[Senator]

Well, a Celestial Marriage and a sealing are often thought of as the same thing. But again that is still not accurate.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Case in point, when my cousin, who had previously been married, civilly, we said "they are getting sealed today". They were not getting married. Only a temple sealing was taking place.

I believe it would have been even better to have said, " They are getting Celetially married today"!

In other words, (in the case of a previous civil marriage) ,I do not believe that a temple sealing simply acts as a ratification to the civil marriage. It's a whole new convenant/construct. An eternal one!

[Weston Krogstadt]

I wish the church would brag more about the very solid foundation it has. Joseph Smith's revelation nailed the Civil War, he even nailed the fact that Great Britain would help the south. And he did it THIRTY YEARS in advance. They let the anti's go all over the internet and recreate church history so now ALL of the 11 witnesses "later recanted their testimony" and they only held the gold plates "while wrapped in a sheet". Church needs to pound the fact that all 11 of the witnesses were very very very honest men, and none of them ever denied their testimony. Church needs to help build a historical foundation for peoples testimonies.

[rpn]

Are you so sure JS wasn't talking about the earlier rebellion that was occurring in the south, rather than the civil war? I think the evidence is certainly debatable about whether he was prophesying about the civil war at all.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I told my bishop my concerns in an email, basically JS polygamy, Mountain Meadows and blood atonement. Laugh some of you, but I'm not alone. My bishop hasn't emailed back anything. Dead silence for several months now. Why do leaders tell us not to write COB with problems but go to our bishops/sp with them instead. And when we do we get nothing?

The problem is that there are no answers out there for people like me. None, it is all faith driven. That's what my journey is right now. And I'm trying to get that personal relationship with the Savior, something I'd never been taught that I recall, in all my years as a LDS.

Staunch LDS, never once had testimony issues. Couldn't understand why people were telling us to work on our testimonies. I thought it was damage proof.

Now I believe we are joining the rest of the world and faith is where it's at, thank you very much!

"JS Polygamy" = http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

I'll let the LDS explain the other two.