UtahTexan Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 Just now, Jeanne said: It is..and that is a universal truth! Cool...using that standard, the Church is True and THAT is a Universal Truth, since it is what I believe! I can learn to love Universal Truth
Jeanne Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 6 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Cool...using that standard, the Church is True and THAT is a Universal Truth, since it is what I believe! I can learn to love Universal Truth If that works for you..I agree. Everyone should live up to their idea of truth. Best to you!
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, Gray said: In my ward Joseph Smith is very rarely mentioned. However, if I had to guess I would say the most frequently discussed topic is "the Church". But, Jesus is probably a close second. Well, it's the Church of Jesus Christ, after all.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) Unintentional duplication. Edited August 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 I have the same question juliann has. If there is polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom where are all these extra women supposed to come from? And that gets into a whole another discussion of those living polygamy what's the magic number of wives exalted men will have who enter polygamy? 4? 20? 100? 2 thousand?
JLHPROF Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I have the same question juliann has. If there is polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom where are all these extra women supposed to come from? And that gets into a whole another discussion of those living polygamy what's the magic number of wives exalted men will have who enter polygamy? 4? 20? 100? 2 thousand? Do you think that: 1. There are exactly equal numbers of male and female spirit children of our Father (regardless of current demographics) 2. There will be equal numbers of both genders that will live worthy of exaltation 3. That exactly equal numbers of both genders are sent to earth after the 1/3 part fell In a closed society (no converts really) like FLDS you end up with "Lost boys". But there is no record of this problem in the 19th Century LDS Church other than the odd complaint by an annoyed bachelor. Likewise there are several polygamous groups who gain converts so they also have no issues (unlike the FLDS and Kingstons). In other words, as long as demographics among the faithful hold up as they were in 2009 you have 56% female members and 44% male there is already an imbalance. Add to that prophecies like Isaiah 4:1 and Luke 21:26 etc and who knows how the gender split will eventually appear. But most important of all is I Nephi 3:7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. 1
consiglieri Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 2 hours ago, CountryBoy said: Hi Craig, I think most Churches have members who are "cafeteria". I saw it a LOT when I was Catholic. I have not seen it as much as a Mormon, but that does not mean it is not so. There will always be some who fit into that category, so it is incumbent on active members to be there for those who struggle. All Mormons are Cafeteria Mormons. It is the natural result of a long history of Church leaders teaching conflicting things on pretty much every issue. No matter who you choose to believe, you are almost always going to be choosing against some other Church leader somewhere.
UtahTexan Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: All Mormons are Cafeteria Mormons. It is the natural result of a long history of Church leaders teaching conflicting things on pretty much every issue. No matter who you choose to believe, you are almost always going to be choosing against some other Church leader somewhere. That is not a Cafeteria Mormon. But I am sure you knew that.
consiglieri Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 1 hour ago, CountryBoy said: Missionary Farewells and Homecomings were going on when I LDS the first time-----in fact, I gave a farewell and a homecoming 1984-1986 You went on your mission when you were 24?
consiglieri Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 1 minute ago, CountryBoy said: That is not a Cafeteria Mormon. But I am sure you knew that. A Cafeteria Mormon is a riff on the old idea of the Cafeteria Catholic; i.e., one who chooses what to believe. My point is that no matter what a Mormon chooses to believe, it is going to be out of sync with at least some Church leaders.
UtahTexan Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 Again, that is not a Cafeteria Mormon...and you know it. A Cafeteria Catholic was one who picked and chose from established Catholic Doctrine. You are altering the meaning to make a point to suit you. Shrugs. I get why you do it....but that does not make it right. That is like misquoting case law to make a point. 2
consiglieri Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 1 minute ago, CountryBoy said: Again, that is not a Cafeteria Mormon...and you know it. A Cafeteria Catholic was one who picked and chose from established Catholic Doctrine. You are altering the meaning to make a point to suit you. Shrugs. I get why you do it....but that does not make it right. That is like misquoting case law to make a point. We are saying the same thing. Why do you think we are disagreeing?
UtahTexan Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: We are saying the same thing. Why do you think we are disagreeing? No, we aren't. I am saying established doctrine, not what a leader here or there teaches. You are enlarging the pool just to make a point. That is not being intellectually honest.
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Do you think that: 1. There are exactly equal numbers of male and female spirit children of our Father (regardless of current demographics) 2. There will be equal numbers of both genders that will live worthy of exaltation 3. That exactly equal numbers of both genders are sent to earth after the 1/3 part fell In a closed society (no converts really) like FLDS you end up with "Lost boys". But there is no record of this problem in the 19th Century LDS Church other than the odd complaint by an annoyed bachelor. Likewise there are several polygamous groups who gain converts so they also have no issues (unlike the FLDS and Kingstons). In other words, as long as demographics among the faithful hold up as they were in 2009 you have 56% female members and 44% male there is already an imbalance. Add to that prophecies like Isaiah 4:1 and Luke 21:26 etc and who knows how the gender split will eventually appear. But most important of all is I Nephi 3:7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. Well I believe it was Mosiah Hancock had a vision that only male spirits followed Lucifer as the 1/3 leaving 2 women for every man born. That's what the book Life Everlasting said.
mfbukowski Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) I honestly do not understand what this thread is even about or why Reel would bother with it, other than to create a publicity stir over a non-issue invented just for that purpose. I do not recall any questions about polygamy on the temple recommend interview, nor Blacks and the Priesthood, nor Mountain Meadows, nor the Adam God theory, nor about drinking Coke, the more trinitarian possible interpretations of the Book of Mormon, the catalyst theory of the Book of Abraham, various alleged anachronisms, or whether or not McConkie was right about face cards. I mean- do we see hoards of people leaving the church over relatively innocuous passages few have even read, and then to get riled up about, only IF said passages are given the worst possible interpretation? Cheesh! Since when does anyone need a "pathway to disavowal" for something which the church rejected years ago and is not even on a baptismal or recommend interview? Who in their right mind would take Bill Reel as a spiritual leader to advise on such an issue anyway?? 45 pages?? Really? Edited August 10, 2016 by mfbukowski 3
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I honestly do not understand what this thread is even about or why Reel would bother with it, other than to create a publicity stir over a non-issue invented just for that purpose. I do not recall any questions about polygamy on the temple recommend interview, nor Blacks and the Priesthood, nor Mountain Meadows, nor the Adam God theory, nor about drinking Coke, the more trinitarian possible interpretations of the Book of Mormon, the catalyst theory of the Book of Abraham, various alleged anachronisms, or whether or not McConkie was right about face cards. I mean- do we see hoards of people leaving the church over relatively innocuous passages few have even read, and then to get riled up about, only IF said passages are given the worst possible interpretation? Cheesh! Since when does anyone need a "pathway to disavowal" for something which the church rejected years ago and is not even on a baptismal or recommend interview? Who in their right mind would take Bill Reel as a spiritual leader to advise on such an issue anyway?? 45 pages?? Really? The temple endowment ceremony and sealing marriage ceremony hints that Celestial polygamy is possible, but I can't go into temple content. Listen to what is said during those ceremonies.
mfbukowski Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The temple endowment ceremony and sealing marriage ceremony hints that Celestial polygamy is possible, but I can't go into temple content. Listen to what is said during those ceremonies. I have them memorized. So what? How God decides to order the Celestial Kingdom is largely a mystery to us and is his business not ours. And suppose there IS celestial polygamy? Who says you are required to believe that NOW? On this side of the veil? I am sure we will have a surprise or two on the other side. The church and prophets are not infallible. We also have the right to have the spirit guide us in scriptural interpretation- we do not need Bill Reel- or anyone- to tell us what we can or cannot believe, even the prophets words are subject to confirmation through the spirit. Without that we would have the possibility of another Jonestown Edited August 10, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I have them memorized. So what? How God decides to order the Celestial Kingdom is largely a mystery to us and is his business not ours. And suppose there IS celestial polygamy? Who says you are required to believe that NOW? On this side of the veil? I am sure we will have a surprise or two on the other side. The church and prophets are not infallible. We also have the right to have the spirit guide us in scriptural interpretation- we do not need Bill Reel- or anyone- to tell us what we can or cannot believe, even the prophets words are subject to confirmation through the spirit. Without that we would have the possibility of another Jonestown It comes up in our minds today on this side because 10 of our 16 prophets have plural sealings and the next 2 in line for prophet also have plural temple sealings. It's a modern thing and since it was brought into this church, it will be on people's minds.
RevTestament Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: It comes up in our minds today on this side because 10 of our 16 prophets have plural sealings and the next 2 in line for prophet also have plural temple sealings. It's a modern thing and since it was brought into this church, it will be on people's minds. Well, what do you propose they tell their first wife who predeceased the second wife? "Sorry, but you didn't live long enough to be with me now - you'll have to go it alone." Further, presumably the second wife married them knowing they had been married and sealed previously, so is consenting to the arrangement. Do I think that will make them more exalted than me? No. I don't see that in D&C 132. Do you think the Lord will do something without telling His servants? He says no. "Surely, the Lord God will do nothing except He telleth His servants the prophets." 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 37 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Well, what do you propose they tell their first wife who predeceased the second wife? "Sorry, but you didn't live long enough to be with me now - you'll have to go it alone." Further, presumably the second wife married them knowing they had been married and sealed previously, so is consenting to the arrangement. Do I think that will make them more exalted than me? No. I don't see that in D&C 132. Do you think the Lord will do something without telling His servants? He says no. "Surely, the Lord God will do nothing except He telleth His servants the prophets." What I was saying is polygamy is on the minds of the modern saints because plural sealings have always been approved in the church. I got 2 uncles plurally sealed and Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks are plurally sealed. We even have members of this board who are plurally sealed. It's still going on today.
RevTestament Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: What I was saying is polygamy is on the minds of the modern saints because plural sealings have always been approved in the church. I got 2 uncles plurally sealed and Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks are plurally sealed. We even have members of this board who are plurally sealed. It's still going on today. Yep. And I say so what? If their second wives sealed to them knowing the arrangement, they are consenting to it in the hereafter. If that makes them happy, and it is legal before God as it was in the days of His OT prophets, who am I to say bad things about them? Or that they shouldn't have done that? I am continually puzzled by your concern over this issue VGJ. All the Lord required to enter into the eternal covenant is to be sealed to a wife. Calm posted a link on this a few days back. The BY hype about temporal plural marriage being an exalting commandment is just a bunch of fluff IMHO. In other words I don't believe it. However, if the efforts of a man brings multiple women/churches to the Lord, perhaps that would be deserving of exaltation... 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) 1 minute ago, RevTestament said: Yep. And I say so what? If their second wives sealed to them knowing the arrangement, they are consenting to it in the hereafter. If that makes them happy, and it is legal before God as it was in the days of His OT prophets, who am I to say bad things about them? Or that they shouldn't have done that? I am continually puzzled by your concern over this issue VGJ. All the Lord required to enter into the eternal covenant is to be sealed to a wife. Calm posted a link on this a few days back. The BY hype about temporal plural marriage being an exalting commandment is just a bunch of fluff IMHO. In other words I don't believe it. However, if the efforts of a man brings multiple women/churches to the Lord, perhaps that would be deserving of exaltation... But I want to know if it's coming back during the Millennium for those who didn't get a chance to live it to live it. Bruce R McConkie said yes and he's an apostle. Edited August 10, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 I'll ask the question I've been wanting to ask. Does polygamy have a future for the church and does it have a future for me.
RevTestament Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: But I want to know if it's coming back during the Millennium for those who didn't get a chance to live it to live it. Bruce R McConkie said yes and he's an apostle. My guess is that it will VGJ. Whether or not you "will have a chance to live it" isn't important I don't think. You have a chance to live it now. Find a woman who likes you, and get sealed, and you are living D&C 132 - that is my point. I don't want a second wife unless my present wife would happily consent to it. I love her and I wish her to be happy. In the long scheme of things I wonder if the church has interpreted 132 all too temporally, and it is really referring to a spiritual or priesthood sealing of churches ie "the law of my priesthood." 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 I'm going to try the order of command. I arranged an interview with my Stake President. I'll see if he can satisfy me or see if he wants to push the issue up to a 70. That chain of command is the only way it would ever get to an apostle to answer.
Recommended Posts