Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[tonie]

I think you need to reread your D&C 76.

Telestial and Terrestrial are no longer options for those who enter into the waters of Baptism regardless of Church membership.

 

 

Here is the Official position of the Church

 

Terrestrial Kingdom

 

Those who inherit terrestrial glory will “receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father. Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun” (D&C 76:77-78). ... This group will include members of the Church who were “not valiant in the testimony of Jesus” (D&C 76:79).

Edited April 26, 2015 by tonie

[Tacenda]

I think you need to reread your D&C 76.

Telestial and Terrestrial are no longer options for those who enter into the waters of Baptism regardless of Church membership.

But if you have really reached the point where the Bible is the only scripture you accept and where you reject the prophet of the dispensation, then you will be in my prayers. Mormonism IS the true restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing can change that.

Ok, I need an honest answer, awhile back people on this board said you won't have to live polygamy if you choose not to, and section 132 didn't mean polygamy for everyone more or less. It primarily means eternal marriage. Do you go along with this premise? Probably not I'm thinking. What does this section mean, and how has what President Young and other leaders said changed if so? When they say no one will be exalted without living the principle.

[Teancum]

I think you need to reread your D&C 76.

Telestial and Terrestrial are no longer options for those who enter into the waters of Baptism regardless of Church membership.

 

But if you have really reached the point where the Bible is the only scripture you accept and where you reject the prophet of the dispensation, then you will be in my prayers.  Mormonism IS the true restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  Nothing can change that.

Are you telling Tacenda it is outer darkness for baptizes apostates? Seems to me as long as they are honorable, repent and but are not as valiant in their testimony they inherit the terrestrial kingdom.

[CCRW]

ETA: So now you're giving me a reason to resign, at least I won't be a servant in the CK to you and the other polygamist Gods & Goddesses, that's messed up. The thought that people would even want servants is lame, IMO.

Tacenda,

 

I have little respect for the OP and so I've not followed this at all.  I just noticed this eta and it almost sounds serious.  I hope this is not the case.

 

are you guys still talking about polygamy?

[Bobbieaware]

I think you need to reread your D&C 76.

Telestial and Terrestrial are no longer options for those who enter into the waters of Baptism regardless of Church membership.

 

But if you have really reached the point where the Bible is the only scripture you accept and where you reject the prophet of the dispensation, then you will be in my prayers.  Mormonism IS the true restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  Nothing can change that.

Just a friendly question: What exactly do you mean when you say the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms are no longer options for those who enter the waters of baptism? This seems an odd response since it's likely very many baptized LDS church members will not make it to the celestial kingdom. I'm sure you can clarify.

[CCRW]

Ok, I need an honest answer, awhile back people on this board said you won't have to live polygamy if you choose not to, and section 132 didn't mean polygamy for everyone more or less. It primarily means eternal marriage. Do you go along with this premise? Probably not I'm thinking. What does this section mean, and how has what President Young and other leaders said changed if so? When they say no one will be exalted without! living the principle.

 

All right, I'm getting mad now ... I used to love the poetic foundation of 76 and thought it was the cats meow.  But of course that was when I was certain I was Celestial material.  Another view of this concept is one of fear based control.  What could possible be more fearful than being stripped from family and loved ones?

 

Whatever it may be to carry this on for 9 pages, leaving a sister with questions like this is bs, all for original intent of listenership.

[Tacenda]

All right, I'm getting mad now ... I used to love the poetic foundation of 76 and thought it was the cats meow. But of course that was when I was certain I was Celestial material. Another view of this concept is one of fear based control. What could possible be more fearful than being stripped from family and loved ones?

Whatever it may be to carry this on for 9 pages, leaving a sister with questions like this is bs, all for original intent of listenership.

I'm totally fine, no worries! I'm not resigning, especially if it hurts my family especially my MIL. It is upsetting to think members are fed milk then fed meat. So we don't know what we are really signing up for at baptism. I guess I should have known about my temple marriage meaning that I might live polygamy but not a soul told me this, and I didn't understand it in the temple.

[JLHPROF]

Really.

 

Section 76

 

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

 

 

Here is the Official position of the Church

 

Terrestrial Kingdom

 

Those who inherit terrestrial glory will “receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father. Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun” (D&C 76:77-78). ... This group will include members of the Church who were “not valiant in the testimony of Jesus” (D&C 76:79).

 

Just a friendly question: What exactly do you mean when you say the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms are no longer options for those who enter the waters of baptism? This seems an odd response since it's likely very many baptized LDS church members will not make it to the celestial kingdom. I'm sure you can clarify.

 

Are you telling Tacenda it is outer darkness for baptizes apostates? Seems to me as long as they are honorable, repent and but are not as valiant in their testimony they inherit the terrestrial kingdom.

 

No, I believe Tacenda like most members with a testimony of Christ who have received Baptism will be held to the covenants they've agreed to at some point in the eternities to come.

 

Requirement for Terrestrial

- 74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

- 79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

Requirement for Telestial

-  82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.

 

Kingdom of glory has no bearing on anything but our acceptance of Christ.

Now that doesn't mean everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will be exalted.  We know there is a huge difference between people there, enough that there are three degrees at least.  But those who accept Christ as their Savior will be held to the covenants they have made.

 

I can't find the quote right now (maybe some nice person can help me out) but there is a teaching that God will hold us to every covenant we enter, even if it takes eternities.  Those who make promises in the house of the Lord will have to live up to them at some point.   Wish I could find the quote.

 

A similar principle to the one I can't find the quote on was made by Joseph Smith concerning Celestial parents with children who "were not valiant in their testimonies".  He said:

When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother.

 

Apostle Orson F. Whitney agreed:

Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain.

 

The quote I can't find refers to the same principle for all members, even if they go astray.

 

ETA:

I would like to see all this people do right, and keep the commandments of God. I would like to see them fulfil their covenants, and live up to their vows and promises, and fulfil their obligations, for they have obligated themselves before God, and before angels, and before earthly witnesses, that they would do this.

What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time. And when the servants of God speak to you, and require you to do a thing, the Lord God will fulfil His words, and make you fulfil His words he gave to you through His servants. Inasmuch as you have come into this Church, and made a covenant to forsake the world, and cleave unto the Lord, and keep His commandments, the Lord will compel you to do it, if it should be in ten thousand years from this time. These are my views, and I know it will be so. - Heber C. Kimball JD 2:151

Edited April 26, 2015 by JLHPROF

[canard78]

I think you need to reread your D&C 76.

Telestial and Terrestrial are no longer options for those who enter into the waters of Baptism regardless of Church membership.

What utter dribble. There is absolutely no doctrine in Mormonism that suggests that those who are baptised are making a "Celestial kingdom or bust" contract.

But if you have really reached the point where the Bible is the only scripture you accept and where you reject the prophet of the dispensation, then you will be in my prayers. Mormonism IS the true restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing can change that.

We'll see...

[Scott Lloyd]

I went back and looked at your 2013 thread on this.

 

If I remember correctly, "selections from" compilations of the Book of Mormon have also been made in non-standard languages to meet an urgent need while the entire book is awaiting translation. It's not my understanding that the "selections from" book was ever meant to replace the entire book permanently.

 

Was that the case with what you are talking about?

Don't think I ever saw canard78's response on this.

Maybe he elected not to pursue it. If so, that's fine.

[The Nehor]

Ok, I need an honest answer, awhile back people on this board said you won't have to live polygamy if you choose not to, and section 132 didn't mean polygamy for everyone more or less. It primarily means eternal marriage. Do you go along with this premise? Probably not I'm thinking. What does this section mean, and how has what President Young and other leaders said changed if so? When they say no one will be exalted without living the principle.

 

I would never say that. While polygamy is not mandatory or even an option now I have no idea what steps and decisions I will have to make to find exaltation. I may be required to live it, I may be required to live polyandry, I may be given the option, or it may not be an option.

 

Placing mental reservations as to how far you will go to serve God and putting a line in the sand saying "I will not cross this" is probably the most sure way of getting God to require it. We have to serve without reservation.

[Garden Girl]

I'm totally fine, no worries! I'm not resigning, especially if it hurts my family especially my MIL. It is upsetting to think members are fed milk then fed meat. So we don't know what we are really signing up for at baptism. I guess I should have known about my temple marriage meaning that I might live polygamy but not a soul told me this, and I didn't understand it in the temple.

 

Tacenda...

Here above are another two of your statements that are misleading... when children of eight are baptized, it is assumed they will have many years to actually learn the gospel through continual activity, study and prayer...  for adult converts, it is important that they not just skip through the scriptures, etc., as they take the discussions but study and ask questions, particularly about the temple and temple ordinances, and eternal marriage and families.  There is no reason not to know what one "is signing up for."  So, in my opinion, your statement is uncalled for. 

After baptism we have new member lessons as a review...  When the convert is ready, we have temple prep classes... to help prepare members to go through the temple.  Questions outside of actual temple content can and should be addressed...

I strongly suggest, Tacenda, that as a beginning you get out your Gospel Principles manual and read Chapter 47 on Exaltation, beginning on page 275.  This chapter addresses... What is exaltation?  What are the blessings of exaltation?  Requirements for exaltation.  What ordinances are necessary for exaltation?  In addition to the ordinances, what does the Lord command all of us to do?  What happens when we have endured to the end in faithful discipleship to Christ? 

In addition, there is a booklet available from your ward library titled "The Holy Temple" by Boyd K. Packer that would be helpful to you.

I've just spent a good portion of this evening, Tacenda, going through the scriptures, the D&C manual regarding Sec 132, numerous books on the temple by authors such as Truman Madsen, and S. Bradley Wilcox, and a favorite resource by Victor Ludlow... no where do I find anything on temple marriage meaning "you might live polygamy." 

I believe that there will be those who will, i.e., those who have had more than one wife sealed in the temple... for instance a man marries and subsequently is a widower and then marries again.  He is able to have both wives/families in the eternities.  But, in my case I don't forsee living polygamy or being required to... 

 

GG

[canard78]

Another interesting notion is “knowing” that something is "unknowable," just because you do not know it and some of those who claim to know it disagree with each other. Is this really your reasoning, or have I misunderstood?

Why isn’t it possible that one of those who claims to know, really does know?

It's entirely possible. There have been and will be millions who say/said "I know" about something spiritual or religious. Chances are that one of those perspectives is quite close to what's really "out there." The chances that it's your view that's right are so low, to say "I know" seems pointless.

I say this with the complete acceptance that I don't know that my paradigm is the correct one either.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda...

Here above are another two of your statements that are misleading... when children of eight are baptized, it is assumed they will have many years to actually learn the gospel through continual activity, study and prayer... for adult converts, it is important that they not just skip through the scriptures, etc., as they take the discussions but study and ask questions, particularly about the temple and temple ordinances, and eternal marriage and families. There is no reason not to know what one "is signing up for." So, in my opinion, your statement is uncalled for.

After baptism we have new member lessons as a review... When the convert is ready, we have temple prep classes... to help prepare members to go through the temple. Questions outside of actual temple content can and should be addressed...

I strongly suggest, Tacenda, that as a beginning you get out your Gospel Principles manual and read Chapter 47 on Exaltation, beginning on page 275. This chapter addresses... What is exaltation? What are the blessings of exaltation? Requirements for exaltation. What ordinances are necessary for exaltation? In addition to the ordinances, what does the Lord command all of us to do? What happens when we have endured to the end in faithful discipleship to Christ?

In addition, there is a booklet available from your ward library titled "The Holy Temple" by Boyd K. Packer that would be helpful to you.

I've just spent a good portion of this evening, Tacenda, going through the scriptures, the D&C manual regarding Sec 132, numerous books on the temple by authors such as Truman Madsen, and S. Bradley Wilcox, and a favorite resource by Victor Ludlow... no where do I find anything on temple marriage meaning "you might live polygamy."

I believe that there will be those who will, i.e., those who have had more than one wife sealed in the temple... for instance a man marries and subsequently is a widower and then marries again. He is able to have both wives/families in the eternities. But, in my case I don't forsee living polygamy or being required to...

GG

To the last sentence, exactly how I had felt. But some on the board believe it to be otherwise, or a requirement unless I totally keep misunderstanding. Sorry to have kept you up so late reading that stuff. But thank you for proving my point.

[Storm Rider]

Doesn't everyone do that? You justify yours in following what you believe is from God by arguing it and having faith in it as such. What's so different about that?

 

No, I don't think they do.  There are numerous examples from scripture and from our own lives where we do and accept a certain thing because the Lord tells us it is his will.  We sacrifice our own will for his and follow after him.  What you are proposing is to sever that link and only support those things that we want to believe, which is the very definition of following after the teachings of man. 

[Storm Rider]

Though I appreciate the guidance of Church leadership, I have become rather guarded and believe doctrines only when I personally have been led to a spiritual witness of their truthfulness.  I don't for one minute believe that one need live plural marriage in order to obtain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  More importantly, I honestly believe that God is the final arbiter of what is and is not required for a specific individual to enter a specific kingdom.  

 

I have know many people that don't know nearly as much about God as I do and they were still more holy than I will ever be.  All of these bits and pieces of truth are nice, but it is how we live the truths we possess rather than what we know that leads us to holiness and righteousness.  

 

Give me the widow that is capable of throwing in her two mites before all the rest; it is she who will wear the crown.  

[readstoomuch]

To the last sentence, exactly how I had felt. But some on the board believe it to be otherwise, or a requirement unless I totally keep misunderstanding. Sorry to have kept you up so late reading that stuff. But thank you for proving my point.

Tacenda, it seems to me that you have a pretty good knowledge about controversial Church history and doctrine.  Why don`t you lay off the year of polygamy podcasts and other various sundry topics.  Just read the scriptures or faith-promoting things.  It seems like you are waiting for every one else to tell you what is right, correct or should be believed.  You get some good opinions, but aren`t yours valid.  How about working at finding some peace.  Focus on Christ.  Have a relationship with him.  Find those parts of the gospel and Church which lead you to him.  If you still have to have intellectual books, read someone like the Givens.  Crucible of Doubt and Wrestling with Angels.  At the very least balance every thing controversial with the same amount of time spent in the scriptures/words of the prophets.  Just walk the doubts under your feet.  They`ll still be there.  Some day you`ll figure them out, but probably not today.   Regards, RTM 

[SmileyMcGee]

I think I've made my feelings known.

These three excuses (and that's all they are) can be applied to ANY revelation or principle of the gospel. Which means applying them in this manner can only be based on our distaste for a particular doctrine and have no relationship to whether the revelation came from God or not.

ETA - additionally, D&C 132 is the revelation that first taught the prophet eternal marriage.

Discard it and you would have to admit that your eternal sealing is also wrong. Anybody willing to give up eternal marriage to get rid of polygamy?

Wait, never mind, I know the answer to that.

The problem with the "prophet speaking as a man" idea is that it creates a kind of liar's paradox wherein none of the doctrines of the church are safe, including polygamy, since all doctrines have been established through prophets, and we have no way of knowing what is opinion and what is revelation. The only thing we have is our interpretation. DB doesn't like polygamy, you seem to be okay with it. It's belief vs belief, feelings vs feelings and neither invalidates the other. Edited April 26, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Russell C McGregor]

I have a few free moments so I thought I would expound on the episode referred to in the OP of this thread.  The Van Allen's are supposedly being brought before a disciplinary council because they have chosen to disbelieve section 132.  They otherwise consider themselves faithful members and it seems that is the case.  But I share sources that seemingly gives room for us to possibly set aside section 132.  I will present the myths as I see them and the reasons for calling them myths

 

Myth #1   - We can not disbelieve 132 because it is canon

 

 

canon = scripture.  But is all scripture from God?  Consider this quote from Brigham Young

 

Brigham seems comfortable not believing every word of it to be from God.  we also should acknowledge that each of us interpret and understand portions of scripture very differently.  literal vs figurative, local or global flood, WoW interpretation, skin will become white, sexual sin next to murder, etc...

 

Myth #2 

 

We can not discard 132 because a Prophet believed it was revelation.

 

Consider the quote where Brigham Young claims his Adam God theory was Revelation

 

 

 

 

And then how the Church discarded it.

 

 

Brigham claimed his teaching of Adam as God came from God himself and yet we have discarded his revelation as false.

 

Myth #3 we can not discard 132 because it was given by an angel of the Lord

 

 

D&C 129 gives us room to acknowledge that evil spirits come in the name of God and can fool us if we don't test them properly.  Lehi's dream is a possible demonstration of this along with Jesus being tempted, and Adam and eve being tempted as other examples.  The question must be asked if Joseph took time to shake hands with an angel that threatened him with a drawn sword... 

 

At a minimum it should be acknowledged that we set aside portions of canon (song of solomon, parts of the law of moses, old D&C section 109, lectures on faith) as not binding and in some cases as not divine truth or from God.

 

At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we have on occasion discarded what was believed by our prophets to be revelations.

 

At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we leave room for leaders to think they got info from an angel of God only to have been deceived.

 

On this basis it appears Mormonism itself may possibly give you permission to personally discard portions of its theology and proposed revelations.

------------------------------------------------------------

In my personal views I have not discarded 132 though I admit i am very uncomfortable with it.  

The episode this comes from is here  

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/04/shaking-hands-and-drawn-sword/

 

There's something fundamental you are missing here.

 

Section 132 is revealed truth.  There are many evidences for its truthfulness; the fact that it is "out of step" with the twisted priorities of a wicked world is only one of them.

 

The "precedents" you've cited are, on inspection, not symmetrical.

 

There's no need to discard Section 132.

 

But there might be valid reasons for discarding those who reject it.

[why me]

Tacenda, it seems to me that you have a pretty good knowledge about controversial Church history and doctrine.  Why don`t you lay off the year of polygamy podcasts and other various sundry topics.  Just read the scriptures or faith-promoting things.  It seems like you are waiting for every one else to tell you what is right, correct or should be believed.  You get some good opinions, but aren`t yours valid.  How about working at finding some peace.  Focus on Christ.  Have a relationship with him.  Find those parts of the gospel and Church which lead you to him.  If you still have to have intellectual books, read someone like the Givens.  Crucible of Doubt and Wrestling with Angels.  At the very least balance every thing controversial with the same amount of time spent in the scriptures/words of the prophets.  Just walk the doubts under your feet.  They`ll still be there.  Some day you`ll figure them out, but probably not today.   Regards, RTM 

This was my suggestion months ago. But I think that podcasts can be addicting, especially the critic ones. People just want to fill their heads with anything that makes one to question and lose faith. After awhile, critical thought goes out the window as critic interpretations are unquestioned and believed by the listener. I think that the listener gets a pumped feeling from it all. What have the prophets counseled? Read the scriptures and pray for guidence and for truth. But....people engaged in critical literature of the lds church can lose their own criticalness when it comes to the reading of such texts and listening to such podcasts.

[Tacenda]

This was my suggestion months ago. But I think that podcasts can be addicting, especially the critic ones. People just want to fill their heads with anything that makes one to question and lose faith. After awhile, critical thought goes out the window as critic interpretations are unquestioned and believed by the listener. I think that the listener gets a pumped feeling from it all. What have the prophets counseled? Read the scriptures and pray for guidence and for truth. But....people engaged in critical literature of the lds church can lose their own criticalness when it comes to the reading of such texts and listening to such podcasts.

I listen to both sides such as General Conference talks and Fairmormon podcasts. Looking to go to their conference in August to listen to Laura Hales.

[DBMormon]

Tacenda...

Here above are another two of your statements that are misleading... when children of eight are baptized, it is assumed they will have many years to actually learn the gospel through continual activity, study and prayer... for adult converts, it is important that they not just skip through the scriptures, etc., as they take the discussions but study and ask questions, particularly about the temple and temple ordinances, and eternal marriage and families. There is no reason not to know what one "is signing up for." So, in my opinion, your statement is uncalled for.

After baptism we have new member lessons as a review... When the convert is ready, we have temple prep classes... to help prepare members to go through the temple. Questions outside of actual temple content can and should be addressed...

I strongly suggest, Tacenda, that as a beginning you get out your Gospel Principles manual and read Chapter 47 on Exaltation, beginning on page 275. This chapter addresses... What is exaltation? What are the blessings of exaltation? Requirements for exaltation. What ordinances are necessary for exaltation? In addition to the ordinances, what does the Lord command all of us to do? What happens when we have endured to the end in faithful discipleship to Christ?

In addition, there is a booklet available from your ward library titled "The Holy Temple" by Boyd K. Packer that would be helpful to you.

I've just spent a good portion of this evening, Tacenda, going through the scriptures, the D&C manual regarding Sec 132, numerous books on the temple by authors such as Truman Madsen, and S. Bradley Wilcox, and a favorite resource by Victor Ludlow... no where do I find anything on temple marriage meaning "you might live polygamy."

I believe that there will be those who will, i.e., those who have had more than one wife sealed in the temple... for instance a man marries and subsequently is a widower and then marries again. He is able to have both wives/families in the eternities. But, in my case I don't forsee living polygamy or being required to...

GG

I disagree. Young missionaries rush investigators into baptism. It is a rush process one that takes very little account of how much the investigator understands but rather whether one will agree or not agree to be baptized isn't this way with every missionary or every mission but way way more than the norm this is the way it goes. I have seen investigators baptized in just a few weeks because they committed to keeping the Commandments of the mysteries of taught and they said yes to the question of getting baptized there is very little concern for how well someone understands the Scriptures when they join the church. I joined the church at the age of 17 and read everything I could get my hands on including the entire book of Mormon before being baptized and I still had very little clue of exactly what those commitments were if were saying that one should understand that once salvation the celestial kingdom is either make or break after baptism. Edited April 26, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

This was my suggestion months ago. But I think that podcasts can be addicting, especially the critic ones. People just want to fill their heads with anything that makes one to question and lose faith. After awhile, critical thought goes out the window as critic interpretations are unquestioned and believed by the listener. I think that the listener gets a pumped feeling from it all. What have the prophets counseled? Read the scriptures and pray for guidence and for truth. But....people engaged in critical literature of the lds church can lose their own criticalness when it comes to the reading of such texts and listening to such podcasts.

That is true for some. But not all or perhaps not even most. The real issue is strength of argument. When discussion occurs either here or with Fair or other apologetic places the apologist often seems to never admit when the critic has the stronger position on an issue. When one never concedes their argument is weaker on at least some of the 1000's of issues discussed, one loses credibility. One of the things that has so many who have doubts telling me that I have helped them stay in the church, is they appreciate my fairness with issues. I tell my listeners when I think the church has the stronger position on an issue and I frankly admit when I think the critic has the stronger position. I also follow that up often by explaining that life is messy and sometimes the weaker position is still the true one and call on members to use faith and to press on. This builds trust whereas always acting as if the faithful answer is the obvious one and another is unreasonable for not seeing that it is the most logical loses trust. ( I have seen many act this way with those who doubt and have serious concerns) I also don't hesitate when I see the church fall short and hurt others. I also validate the messiness and the pain of discovering it. If we avoid discussing where improvements can occur and where abuses happen than we lose credibility there as well. To acknowledge both the good and the bad shows one is fair and balanced. When one only defends, deflects, and ignores admitting problems, others can see how thick their rose colored glasses are and will cease seeking truth from those sources. Jesus spoke both good and bad of his religious culture and seems to have earned the trust of those who sought truth and the scorn of those who simply needed to always be right.

Edited April 26, 2015 by DBMormon

[halconero]

Throne's to me mean dominion over, somewhat like a queen and king. Principalities means ruler, none of this ever sounded good to me.

I'll hopefully be with those that are in the village, hopefully by a beach and some mountains, with plenty to read, animals surrounding, plants to grow and harvest, a lot like here on earth. Heaven with gold streets, yuck! I'll hopefully be the angel that helps others, especially those on earth not that I do enough here but think the "Touched by an Angel" version sounds good. There won't be any harp playing for me, like some think angels do. Hopefully my husband will work along side of me and I'll be with my kids and their kids.

I've never been fond of people in power unless they do something good with it. And I'm not into building worlds like in video and computer games. I'm pretty dull sounding right? My idea of heaven is basically what we have here on earth, so yeah, terrestrial is just fine. Jesus will be there too, yay.

What will you and your husband do? What do you think GG?

The thing I guess I just don't quite understand is that the dominions, thrones and gold-paved streets part is just as much of the New Testament as it is Mormon doctrine...like...a lot of that comes straight from Revelation.

[SmileyMcGee]

There's something fundamental you are missing here.

Section 132 is revealed truth. There are many evidences for its truthfulness; the fact that it is "out of step" with the twisted priorities of a wicked world is only one of them.

The "precedents" you've cited are, on inspection, not symmetrical.

There's no need to discard Section 132.

But there might be valid reasons for discarding those who reject it.

You're going to have to back up your statements with more than just arrogance and salt sermon-like language. Define revealed truth and how you know something is revealed truth, AND how you know that you know. Explain the asymmetrical nature of DBs argument to polygamy.