Popular Post Calm Posted October 22, 2014 Popular Post Posted October 22, 2014 I have no intention of answering a hypothetical that I cannot imagine the details of at this time anymore than I can answer a question on whether I would remarry if my husband died or shoot someone coming at me with a knife or vote Republican in the next election.All I know is if it happens, it will be because I want it and not because someone told me it was going to happen to me. I am not a doll that some man possesses and can pass off to anyone he wants and neither are any of those women who were involved in sealings that seem unexplainable to us in the here and now. 5
JLHPROF Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Pres. George Albert Smith the first monogamist President of the Church? I haven't seen anywhere a list of his wives, but maybe someone else has? Yes, George Albert Smith was the first monogamist President of the Church. Heber J. Grant was the last polygamist (excluding folklore and rumour mills). The last polygamist president of the Church died in 1945, less than 100 years ago. And as I posted the other day, the last polygamous family in the Church holding over from pre-1904 and so maintaining their good standing didn't die out until 1954. There were polygamist Mormons (who weren't apostates) as late as 50 years after the 2nd manifesto. Only 60 years ago. It's not as far in the distant past as we care to pretend.
KevinG Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I do NOT want to be the loose ends... Nobody does. And Christ would no doubt be pleased if we never made mistakes, or misunderstood His instructions. Yet we have a savior who assures us of we do our best and have faith in Him we will lose no blessings through the fault of others. 1
pogi Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Would anyone here be ok with their wife being sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity while he already has a dozen wives and you have to give up your only one for eternity. How is that fair? "Joseph Smith’s sealings to women already married may have been an early version of linking one family to another. In Nauvoo, most if not all of the first husbands seem to have continued living in the same household with their wives during Joseph’s lifetime, and complaints about these sealings with Joseph Smith are virtually absent from the documentary record." If they didn't have any complaints, why should you? 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Pogi because those men lose their wives to Joseph after death.
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 23, 2014 Author Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Pogi because those men lose their wives to Joseph after death. Are you Evangelical or Atheist? Pogi made a good point, those men did not complain, there is a good reason for that.I have an interesting rational theory, but I do not have time to share it at this moment. Most religions believe that marriage is over after death. Edited October 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Well mormon free thinker when those married women were sealed to Joseph for eternity that means he gets them when they die. I don't see your point why they wouldn't be unhappy.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 And nice personal attack calling me an atheist or evangelical. Real classy. 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 23, 2014 Author Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) And nice personal attack calling me an atheist or evangelical. Real classy.I did not call you that, I was asking you. I do not think you are a believing Mormon.Do not judge others faithfulness -AresWell mormon free thinker when those married women were sealed to Joseph for eternity that means he gets them when they die. I don't see your point why they wouldn't be unhappy."Which means he gets them"Not in my theory, it is a good one. At least not the one that had an active member husband.You keep ignoring the fact that the men did not complain, not because they were afraid, it is because there is a good reason. Edited October 23, 2014 by Ares
Tacenda Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 MFT, I surmise they believed JS was a real prophet.
Calm Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 I do NOT want to be the loose ends... It is impossible for anyone to be a loose end. It cannot happen to any child of God. He wouldn't let it. 1
Calm Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Pogi because those men lose their wives to Joseph after death.We don't know that. Originally people were sealed to Joseph and other church leaders as children by the Law of Adoption. Now they are sealed to their own parents through proxy work. We do not know if this cancels out the previous sealing or if the sealing by the Law of Adoption means something else. The very same issue exists imo for the sealings of married women to Joseph. It is an extraordinary occurrence. We have no other examples that are identical to it. Therefore imo we have no clue what it will turn out to be in the eternity. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 MFT you then may be surprised to learn that I'm an active believing temple recommend carrying member in good standing. I dislike it when members talk down to others and make claims of unbelief or apostasy. It came off as personal attacks and you need to stop it now. No one likes a Internet bully. 2
WysteriaBlue Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 MFT....in my humble opinion and with love....I think you ought to offer an apology to Video Game Junkie....I'm sure in your zest for the truth, you may have spoken without meaning to say that...but it was very cruel.We all have emotional attachments to our truths and what we talk about here has great significance and emotional impact.Just think about it please. We all have to listen as well as speak and respect even when we don't agree.words hurt. Respectfully,wb
KevinG Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) In MFTs defense it is very hard to distinguish a flurry of genuine questions from trolling, especially when the answers are readily available with search functions and resources like FAIRmormon and LDS,orgBeing involved in researching questions can lead to unintentionally sounding arrogant.For me the jury is still out on VGJ sincerely. Not his worthiness mind you. I'd like to see him make use of the information he has been referred to, and not just pepper threads with previously addressed questions.Then again maybe apologetics and Mormon discussions online is a very new thing to him, and his questions are indeed new and novel in his eyes.Time will tell. Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG
JLHPROF Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Well mormon free thinker when those married women were sealed to Joseph for eternity that means he gets them when they die. I don't see your point why they wouldn't be unhappy. Is it possible to be unhappy in the Celestial Kingdom? Is it possible that they will lack any joy or happiness?Is it possible that by sacrificing a blessing that God won't make up every last heartache or loss?God will bless those men beyond all imagining for their sacrifice. The women chose to marry Joseph in the eternities. It was always their choice to make. Edited October 23, 2014 by JLHPROF
WysteriaBlue Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Yes, most everything has two sides like the proverbial coin... I only wish for all the very best in finding what they need and seek.. If I was presumptuous, I apologize as well... wb
mormonnewb Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 In MFTs defense it is very hard to distinguish a flurry of genuine questions from trolling, especially when the answers are readily available with search functions and resources like FAIRmormon and LDS,orgBeing involved in researching questions can lead to uninte too ally sounding arrogant.For me the jury is still out on VGJ sincerely. Not his worthiness mind you. I'd like to see him make use of the information he has been referred to, and not just pepper threads with previously addressed questions.Then again maybe apologetics and Mormon discussions online is a very new thing to him, and his questions are indeed new and novel in his eyes.Time will tell. And obviously, common decency is new to you. You're seriously going to chide a guy for asking QUESTIONS on a DISCUSSION board? Why? Because he doesn't know everything that you THINK you know? Let me ask you this, Learned and Wise One, if we all knew all of the truth that you have acquired through long-study and a superior intellect, then what would we have to DIALOGUE about? We could simply start and end every thread with "All agreed? So noted." And perhaps, your role as an authority figure on all things Mormon is to impart your greater wisdom. Or did you not reach the verse of scripture that reads: "To whom much is given, much is required"? It's all the way in the New Testament so you might not have gotten to it yet. So while VGL is pouring over FAIR and lds.org trying to find answers to questions that you could easily answer here, why don't you spend some time on manners.com or howtobeadecenthumanbeing.com? 1
KevinG Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) I have a response for your insult but is not commonly thought of as decent. So I will refrain. I admit VGJ is likely to be genuine, and I have answered some of his questions with links to authoritative answer without dismissal. My point is that in a virtual,discussion forum is that it is often difficult to distinguish genuine questions, and trolling. Even more difficult for those with long histories and who have provided the same answers again and again.Funny how admitting my own admission that I might sound arrogant was interpreted as permission for you to call me every thing but a white woman. Decency indeed!Oh, and I've seen ambush posters castigate people giving honest polite replies with "see I knew Mormons were mean" too often not to be a bit cynical. I may not be decent in your eyes, but we cannot argue I'm human (or a really good artificial intelligence algorithm created by the evil apologist cabal). Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG 1
KevinG Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Videogamejunkie if I was offensive I apologize. It is hard for me to determine who is genuine and who is pulling my leg online. I will assume you are genuine and continue to answer with the best information I have. 1
sunstoned Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Kudos to the Church! In a few places, I think the Church went above and beyond the call of duty in full disclosure (e.g., acknowledging false public denials of the practice, the marriage of a 14 yo, Emma's unease with the practice, etc.). I was impressed that the Church went about as far as it possibly could in tackling those issues that seem to create the greatest stumbling block for members. I know that some of my peeps will argue that the Church used "apologetics" to try to explain away or justify JS' behavior. To which I respond, "Duh!" That is the Church's job -- to defend its core principles and doctrines -- one of which is the practical inerrancy of prophets (i.e., God will kill the Prophet if he even THINKS of leading the Church astray). The Church can't possibly say, "Brother Joseph took us for a ride with this whole polygamy thing, but you can trust everything that we now say about tithing." We're Mormons, not Methodists! And while I don't think this essay will change the minds of those who think that JS got it wrong on polygamy, it should at least allay the concerns of those who feel that they were deceived by the Church. Now, comes the interesting part -- SLOWLY incorporating this information into our instructional materials. But for now, I say, "Bravo! You go, Church!"You have that right brother. The next big effort is to incorporate this information into the correlated manuals so that it will be accessible to the membership at large.
mormonnewb Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 I have a response for your insult but is not commonly thought of as decent. So I will refrain.I admit VGJ is likely to be genuine, and I have answered some of his questions with links to authoritative answer without dismissal. My point is that in a virtual,discussion forum is that it is often difficult to distinguish genuine questions, and trolling. Even more difficult for those with long histories and who have provided the same answers again and again.Funny how admitting my own admission that I might sound arrogant was interpreted as permission for you to call me every thing but a white woman. Decency indeed! Why are you looking for trolls? I've had this conversation with other board members and I still can't fathom what all of the paranoia is about. Whenever someone has even the slightest question about ANY aspect of Church doctrine, then immediately there are questions about whether the person is a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Of course, this is all based on the assumption that the wolves of the world have some huge craving for latter-day sheep. As someone who spent the vast majority of his life outside of the clan, let me be the bearer of some really good news -- very few people are thinking about us one way or another. Until I began investigating the Church, I couldn't have told you three things about Mormonism. Mormons were about as interesting to me as the Scientologists and JWs; and quite a bit less interesting than the Amish. And I was not alone. According to the Rotten Tomatoes website, our "blockbuster" movie was reviewed by 11 critics (compared to the 242 critics reviews of Gone Girl). Think about it. The rest of America is so curious about us that they were able to muster 11 movie critics/bloggers to invest the 90 minutes to "meet the Mormons." So why do so many of you suspect that there are THOUSANDS of Americans who just can't wait to hop on this site and impersonate Mormons? Now, I'm not saying that we don't get trolls from time to time. We had one this week and he lasted less than 30 posts. VGL has over 1,500 posts! By definition, this goes WAY beyond "trolling" (it might not even be healthy, but that's a topic for another thread). So perhaps, we can stop the ego trip that the forces of the world are so aligned against us that they employ a "legion" of trolls to attack the saints. Nobody but us is really thinking about us. And let's be clear ... all but 100 of the 15 million of us aren't that concerned with this board.
mormonnewb Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 You have that right brother. The next big effort is to incorporate this information into the correlated manuals so that it will be accessible to the membership at large. I think Elder Holland said it best after the GC when the mission age changes were announced. "One miracle at a time!" 1
KevinG Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Mormon web,A simple answer. I've been trolled. My history goes way beyond the 11,000 posts on this board. I've been active in online Mormon discussions from the time I got a 54 baud modem on my 20mb computer.I've had people tell ask me about my Mormonism to my face, answered genuinely, then scream at me about how I was going to hell. On more than one occasion.I've lost jobs because I've admitted I'm a mormon. To people in Wyoming no less.And yet, other than saying I'm sometimes wary of a posters intentions, because written forums are so difficult to interpret, I do give genuine and accurate answers to any and all comers.You were pretty quick to judge my human decency. How does your admonition apply to you? Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG 2
Recommended Posts