RevTestament Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 12 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: 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. You seem to be expecting an apostle to give you private prophecy. I believe he will probably decline, but I guess you can always ask. Have you gotten a patriarchal blessing?
JLHPROF Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 44 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: 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. Polygamy never belonged to the Church. It was practiced by members of the Church to be sure but just like priesthood, sealings, the endowment, baptism, etc, etc, it predates the Church by millennia and will exist long after the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" as established in 1830 is defunct having been replaced by/elevated to become the Church of the Firstborn.
JLHPROF Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The temple endowment ceremony and sealing marriage ceremony hints that Celestial polygamy is possible True. The marriage covenant allows for it (perhaps even requires it), as did the original law of chastity wording.
Jude2 Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 I can’t disagree more with this whole thread. 4 Nephi 3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift…. 10 And now, behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, 11 And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the promises which the Lord had made unto them. They were living the Law of Consecration, partakers of the heaven gift means the temple blessings and the ‘given in marriage’ means they were living the law of plural marriage. If you check back through all the scriptures dealing with plural the word “given” is used, if you take a wife then that is not living the law. You must be given the wife as Sarah did with Hagar and Nathan did for David. But, when David took Bathsheba he sinned. I fully expect the Lord to reinitiated plural marriage some time before the second coming, we just have to be righteous enough to live it.
Ginger Snaps Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said: 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. So what happened to this from three pages ago? On August 7, 2016 at 3:31 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: I made ano effort and important decision last night that I want to not care about wives or when I'll be married, and instead focus on trying to be a true disciple of Christ. Thats what I want to be important in my mind. How to follow Jesus Christ now, not what may or may not happen thousands of years from now. 2
mfbukowski Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Ginger Snaps said: So what happened to this from three pages ago? He doesn't understand what he is asking for. As he himself notes, one way this could happen is to have a wife or two pass away.
bcuzbcuz Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Polygamy never belonged to the Church. It was practiced by members of the Church to be sure but just like priesthood, sealings, the endowment, baptism, etc, etc, it predates the Church by millennia and will exist long after the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" as established in 1830 is defunct having been replaced by/elevated to become the Church of the Firstborn. CoJCoL-DS will be defunct? And name change to CotF? Should I hold my breath?
JLHPROF Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) 43 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: CoJCoL-DS will be defunct? And name change to CotF? Should I hold my breath? No, just read your scriptures. CoJCoLDS is the temporal name for the organization founded in 1830. Yes, God chose the name, but the real Church is the same Church as in Adam's day, Abraham's day, Moses' day, Christ's day, etc. Not the one that started in 1830. The LDS Church has never been anything more than a means to get us to become members of the Church of the Firstborn. Edited August 10, 2016 by JLHPROF
blueglass Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 One scholar which is not convinced that the angel pushing Joseph to marry wives is from God is Terryl Givens. In an interview with Dehlin TG acknowledged some of Joseph Smith's self doubt coming through in sec132, Givens: "I think that may be true, I think there were moments where he was very self-questioning - I think we see some of that in section 132". Regarding the angel Givens in his interview with Jana Riess on NPR in response to the question on whether or not he believes in the polygamy angel says, "it doesn't sound like a very meek, gentle and persuasive angel, it sounds like a different kind of influence that is being exercised there. It seems inconsistent with the kind of God, and the kind of influence that generally is exercised in any righteous context that the Lord approves of." William Law says he would try to kill the polygamy angel. "If an angel from heaven was to reveal to me that a man should have more than one wife, if it were in my power I would kill him."
rongo Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, blueglass said: One scholar which is not convinced that the angel pushing Joseph to marry wives is from God is Terryl Givens. In an interview with Dehlin TG acknowledged some of Joseph Smith's self doubt coming through in sec132, Givens: "I think that may be true, I think there were moments where he was very self-questioning - I think we see some of that in section 132". Regarding the angel Givens in his interview with Jana Riess on NPR in response to the question on whether or not he believes in the polygamy angel says, "it doesn't sound like a very meek, gentle and persuasive angel, it sounds like a different kind of influence that is being exercised there. It seems inconsistent with the kind of God, and the kind of influence that generally is exercised in any righteous context that the Lord approves of." William Law says he would try to kill the polygamy angel. "If an angel from heaven was to reveal to me that a man should have more than one wife, if it were in my power I would kill him." I'm not sure why some people think Terryl Givens is all that and a bag of chips. In other words, if he thinks that the angel with a sword didn't happen, that's not very likely to move the needle much on what *I* think . . . Welcome to the board, blueglass! I don't know if August to February counts as thread necromancy, or not . . . 3
Calm Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 24 minutes ago, blueglass said: One scholar which is not convinced that the angel pushing Joseph to marry wives is from God is Terryl Givens. In an interview with Dehlin TG acknowledged some of Joseph Smith's self doubt coming through in sec132, Givens: "I think that may be true, I think there were moments where he was very self-questioning - I think we see some of that in section 132". Regarding the angel Givens in his interview with Jana Riess on NPR in response to the question on whether or not he believes in the polygamy angel says, "it doesn't sound like a very meek, gentle and persuasive angel, it sounds like a different kind of influence that is being exercised there. It seems inconsistent with the kind of God, and the kind of influence that generally is exercised in any righteous context that the Lord approves of." William Law says he would try to kill the polygamy angel. "If an angel from heaven was to reveal to me that a man should have more than one wife, if it were in my power I would kill him." There are plenty of non gentle angels in the scriptures. I am not sure why he thinks nongentle angels need to be restricted to nonrighteous situations. There was the angel Jacob wrestled with that physically injured him, for example. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 24 minutes ago, rongo said: I'm not sure why some people think Terryl Givens is all that and a bag of chips. In other words, if he thinks that the angel with a sword didn't happen, that's not very likely to move the needle much on what *I* think . . . Welcome to the board, blueglass! I don't know if August to February counts as thread necromancy, or not . . . Agreed. For all that I've seen attributed to the Givenses about the fallibility of prophets, it seems like a good many people are inclined to ascribe infallibility to the Givenses. And yes, this definitely counts as thread necromancy.
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 17 minutes ago, Calm said: There are plenty of non gentle angels in the scriptures. I am not sure why he thinks nongentle angels need to be restricted to nonrighteous situations. There was the angel Jacob wrestled with that physically injured him, for example. Although given the physical body of that angel, it is generally presumed to have been Heavenly Father himself. (No resurrection before the time of Christ). That, and his name change to Israel (He who struggles with God). But yeah, God wasn't particularly gentle with Jacob.
Jeanne Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 47 minutes ago, blueglass said: One scholar which is not convinced that the angel pushing Joseph to marry wives is from God is Terryl Givens. In an interview with Dehlin TG acknowledged some of Joseph Smith's self doubt coming through in sec132, Givens: "I think that may be true, I think there were moments where he was very self-questioning - I think we see some of that in section 132". Regarding the angel Givens in his interview with Jana Riess on NPR in response to the question on whether or not he believes in the polygamy angel says, "it doesn't sound like a very meek, gentle and persuasive angel, it sounds like a different kind of influence that is being exercised there. It seems inconsistent with the kind of God, and the kind of influence that generally is exercised in any righteous context that the Lord approves of." William Law says he would try to kill the polygamy angel. "If an angel from heaven was to reveal to me that a man should have more than one wife, if it were in my power I would kill him." This whole conversation is so bazaar!
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 19 minutes ago, Calm said: There are plenty of non gentle angels in the scriptures. I am not sure why he thinks nongentle angels need to be restricted to nonrighteous situations. There was the angel Jacob wrestled with that physically injured him, for example. I agree with you about non-gentle angels, but I'm inclined to view the account of Jacob wrestling with the angel as being figurative, similar to the "wrestle before God" that Enos recounted in the Book of Mormon. 2
Nevo Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 23 minutes ago, Calm said: There are plenty of non gentle angels in the scriptures. I am not sure why he thinks nongentle angels need to be restricted to nonrighteous situations. There was the angel Jacob wrestled with that physically injured him, for example. And there's some evidence that Givens is familiar with the story. 3
Nevo Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I agree with you about non-gentle angels, but I'm inclined to view the account of Jacob wrestling with the angel as being figurative, similar to the "wrestle before God" that Enos recounted in the Book of Mormon. Tell that to Jacob's dislocated hip. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 10 minutes ago, Nevo said: Tell that to Jacob's dislocated hip. Like the rest of the story, that element could be figurative.
Calm Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I agree with you about non-gentle angels, but I'm inclined to view the account of Jacob wrestling with the angel as being figurative, similar to the "wrestle before God" that Enos recounted in the Book of Mormon. Enos didn't pull a muscle or whatever it was.... 1
Calm Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Like the rest of the story, that element could be figurative. If you want to go that route, Jacob could be figurative.
Johnnie Cake Posted February 3, 2017 Author Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: If you want to go that route, Jacob could be figurative. I believe the entire BoM & Bible is figurative Edited February 3, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
bcuzbcuz Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 On 2016-08-09 at 9:01 PM, JLHPROF said: Polygamy never belonged to the Church. It was practiced by members of the Church to be sure but just like priesthood, sealings, the endowment, baptism, etc, etc, it predates the Church by millennia and will exist long after the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" as established in 1830 is defunct having been replaced by/elevated to become the Church of the Firstborn. CFR
JLHPROF Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 4 hours ago, Calm said: Enos didn't pull a muscle or whatever it was.... Different kind of struggle. One was a struggle for repentance and forgiveness. The other is what Hugh Nibley and others refer to as "the sacred embrace".
JLHPROF Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: CFR A CFR from 6 months ago. That's a first for me. I said "Polygamy never belonged to the Church." By that I am referencing the fact that it was practiced by the Holy Order/Anointed Quorum for a decade before it was ever given to the Church as a general body and it was continued to be practiced by the General Authorities and others for another decade and a half after it was banned in the Church by Common Consent. It only was a law of the Church from 1852-1890. So before and after that by what authority were these marriages performed? I also stated that polygamy predates the Church by millennia and will exist long after the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" as established in 1830 is defunct having been replaced by/elevated to become the Church of the Firstborn. I would think this all to be self evident. The CoJCoLDS is a temporal organization. Eternal marriage be it polygamous or monogamous existed among God's prophets and apostles prior to 1830 and will exist into eternity. The references for pre-1830 polygamy are in the Bible. The references for eternal marriage are in D&C 131 and 132. 2
sunstoned Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 7 hours ago, Jeanne said: This whole conversation is so bazaar! The whole idea of an angels with a flaming sword is bazaar. A sword, really? Why not a gun? Are the armaments of heaven really tied to iron age Israel? What of free agency? Wasn't there a war in heaver over that? The the angel with the flaming sword was not to convince JS to enter into polygamy. He had already done that, years ago in Kirkland behind his wife's back and before the sealing power was supposedly restored. The flaming sword story was to convince Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs, a married woman to be his. One of his many women. 1
Recommended Posts