An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I think that would be a wonderful priesthood lesson.  Just some initial thoughts - priesthood does not make you a bigger man - priesthood is a demonstration of one's willingness to serve God and humanity. If I go back to the definition of self-identity is one's potential and one's characteristics. I think we are all given weakness; said another way, we are all attracted to certain things recognized as human passions and certain moral traits.  Some never sense any desire to drink alcohol and yet others will sense a strong drive to drink.  I really don't know why or how those things develop or why they exist.  Regardless, for one doing something may be infinitely difficult, but for another it is like falling down - it just happens.  

For example, our daughter had to fight for everything she learned in school.  It has hard for her, but she succeeded through tons of hours of hard work and effort.  Our son barely opened a book and breezed through school with straight "A"s.  Interestingly, our daughter was never been troubled by confronting things that are difficult.  On the other hand, our son has had real problems when confronting difficult things - he will stop sooner or find another way rather than exert the effort to overcome.  

Our weaknesses can become strengths if we recognize our weakness, confront it, and not allot it to stop us from achieving the goal we choose.  

When I was in Jr. high school our P.E. coach had a sign in the locker room - "The easy path leads down".  There is a lot of wisdom in that simple statement.  Our society today is committed to eliminating all that is challenging, difficult or that stands in the way of our basest human passions and desires.  Things that have been wrong since the beginning of humanity are now sacred cows.  The amount of energy that goes into helping some boy or girl enter into a bathroom of the opposite sex is astounding and, for me, stupid beyond measure.  My parents and all of humanity prior to this generation would have no comprehension of this generation's desire to entertain the confusion of a very small group of people.  I can hear my dad saying, "Buck the heck up!  Of course you are not supposed to enter the girls bathroom and furthermore, what makes you think all of society needs to change simply because you are confused? I will tell you what, Johnny, how about you start understanding what is acceptable and what is not?"  There I go again, off on a soap box about topics that have lost all meaning in this world of today that makes less, and less sense and that twists logic so far out of shape as to lose all meaning.  

Anyhoo, it would be a great lesson in High Priest group.  In so many ways I think men have lost all sense of what manhood is.  More importantly, I don't think society knows what men are anymore either.  The most despised subgroup in society today is the straight, white male.  

I think you missed the entire point of my post.  I wasn't talking about temptation or weaknesses.  I was talking about what defines you as a man.  Is it only your genitals or is it much more than that?  Does honoring your priesthood have anything to do with what defines you as a man?  Or is it as you say just an office to serve God.  If it is just that, then why don't women need the priesthood to worship and serve God.  Does how you treat women define how you identify with what is a man.  Does being a good dad define you with what a man is?  

Rather than fall back on the tired posts that we have heard members give over and over again about how being gay is just a weakness that needs to be overcome, I was trying to have you relate to what your identity as a man means to you.  Forget justifying what gay people have to do.  Forget for just a moment that any of this relates to what a gay person should do.  Just think about how you view yourself.  What your identity is. 

[ttribe]

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

People have the right to make such claims but the claims are not valid.  If a person commits suicide over troubles with the IRS and his taxes, anyone can claim that the IRS is killing tax cheats but the reality is the IRS is not responsible for the actions of what people do including suicide.  Josh in entitled to his belief but his belief simply is not accurate. 

For anyone to think that the Church should fundamentally change its doctrines including commit spiritual suicide in the name of preventing a few people from committing suicide are simply not looking at things in a realistic way.  If some members start committing suicide over problems with drugs, porn, or something else, should the church relax or reverse its standards on other things to prevent those suicides? Where would it end?  The day the LDS Church reverses is fundamental views on gay marriage and homosexual behavior is the beginning of the end of the Church. 

Who are you to tell someone else what the "real" reason is for their suicide ideations?! The arrogance here is astounding.

[Marginal Gains]

20 hours ago, Darren10 said:

1) Don’t know. Who are they?

2) Except for desth there are no sealings to more than one man that I know of. Do you? And in these cases the woman will end up with one man. Josh seems to advocate an eternal family between himself and at least one other man, his ex wife, and a new man for her. When did God teach that to man? Or maybe Josh is a new prophet. 

1. Helen Mar Kimball was sealed to Joseph Smith as his wife when she was 14 years old. She went on to marry and have children with Horace Whitney. Do they go with Mum to Jose-ha eternal family? Does Horace go with them?

2. We are talking about the eternities, so death isn’t a factor. If a woman is sealed to two or more husbands, you say she will end up with one man - well, CFR on that one. Then, if a man can have more than one wife in the eternities (Nelson, Oaks etc), why cant a woman have more than one husband? What is the difference?

[Marginal Gains]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

People joke about this but I think it's worth considering. The typical assumption is that people married to multiple husbands will simply have to pick one. (Many Mormon feminists like to think same of all polygamous marriages like Pres. Nelson who is sealed to two women even though he wasn't married to two living wives at the same time)  Joseph was unique in that he was married polandrously. Zina Huntington is the most famous example. Further she was later married for time to Brigham Young. However Zina was only sealed to Joseph and not her husband Henry. So there's no examples of sealed polandry, although in work for the dead the process is typically to seal them all and let God sort it out in the Millennium. That means that while most don't take them seriously, there is polyandry now in terms of temple work.

This offers I think an obvious solution. It wouldn't justify of course homosexual acts. But it would let in theory two men to be sealed to a wife just as right now two women were married to a single husband. While this doesn't resolve the issue of sexual attraction in the least it does suggest a way out. 

Now to be clear I'm not saying this is right. That's the sort of thing the the President would have to have a pretty clear, direct and unambiguous revelation for. Further there are lots of reasons to think this wouldn't happen. I don't think the Church wants to open up the pandora's box of polygamy again, even if there still is de facto polygamy when one wife dies and a man remarries. (For the record if my wife died I can't imagine wanting to remarry let alone be sealed to someone else)

This does seem to only possible solution to SSM that is in even theory possible. Further it does have problems. Polygamy isn't a group marriage. People are only married to a person of the opposite sex. So Pres. Nelson was married to his first wife. He was then married to his second wife. His two wives aren't sealed to each other. Although some might say that's a difference without a difference it might potentially matter. The issue of homosexuality in polygamous marriages is of course a touchy subject. I know Quinn suggested a bit on that in his book on homosexuality in Mormonism years ago. The Manti polygamous apostate movement in the 90's split in two as I recall over the issue. So things are not quite as simple as some might portray. It's quite possible that even if sealings were permitted homosexual acts would continue to be seen as a sin.

Yes, there can only be one living husband at a time, but through posthumous baptisms, a woman can be sealed to two men for eternity.

So, in terms of the Weeds, Lolly can, at some point, be sealed to Josh and any subsequent ‘straight’ husband.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Darren10]

13 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

1. Helen Mar Kimball was sealed to Joseph Smith as his wife when she was 14 years old. She went on to marry and have children with Horace Whitney. Do they go with Mum to Jose-ha eternal family? Does Horace go with them?

2. We are talking about the eternities, so death isn’t a factor. If a woman is sealed to two or more husbands, you say she will end up with one man - well, CFR on that one. Then, if a man can have more than one wife in the eternities (Nelson, Oaks etc), why cant a woman have more than one husband? What is the difference?

The difference is that polygamy is absolutely supported by God and directly linked to exaltation. Polyandry not at all. If anything, if it involves sex it is outright condemned in the scriptures. 

Versus 29-34; 38-39; 54

D&C 132

 

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The difference is that polygamy is absolutely supported by God and directly linked to exaltation. Polyandry not at all. If anything, if it involves sex it is outright condemned in the scriptures. 

Versus 29-34; 38-39; 54

D&C 132

 

Someone better tell Joseph Smith - https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry

Be careful when you make blanket statements.

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The difference is that polygamy is absolutely supported by God and directly linked to exaltation. Polyandry not at all. If anything, if it involves sex it is outright condemned in the scriptures. 

Versus 29-34; 38-39; 54

D&C 132

 

As noted by the poster above, your comment on polyandry seems I’ll advised, if not flat out wrong. 

Why does the Church allow for women to be sealed to more than one man? I note you haven’t responded to the CFR for your statement that the woman will have to choose just one in eternity. I also note you haven’t responded to the question about Helen Mar Kimballs children.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[ttribe]

20 hours ago, Darren10 said:

From the article:

Bold mine.as supporting evidence:

Again bold mine. 

It’s very clear Josh proclaims that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is guilty of killing gay people. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70117-an-update-from-josh-and-lolly-weed/?do=findComment&comment=1209790374

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Yes, there can only be one living husband at a time, but through posthumous baptisms, a woman can be sealed to two men for eternity.

So, in terms of the Weeds, Lolly can, at some point, be sealed to Josh and any subsequent ‘straight’ husband.

Except right now only polygyny is allowed for sealings not polandry. I'm just saying that if gender is eternal and two genders needed for exhaltation then there are possible solutions in terms of basic Mormon doctrine but not practice. However I rather doubt SSM proponents would favor this solution.

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Except right now only polygyny is allowed for sealings not polandry. I'm just saying that if gender is eternal and two genders needed for exhaltation then there are possible solutions in terms of basic Mormon doctrine but not practice. However I rather doubt SSM proponents would favor this solution.

My understanding is that Polyandry sealings are allowed, providing the husbands are deceased.

[Darren10]

41 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Someone better tell Joseph Smith - https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry

Be careful when you make blanket statements.

I already cobsidered this when I made my blanket statememt. Joseph Smirh sealed only, no temporal / earthly marriage which could involve sex to women who were married to another man. 

Pay attention to details before issuing your statements. 

[Darren10]

43 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

As noted by the poster above, your comment on polyandry seems I’ll advised, if not flat out wrong. 

Why does the Church allow for women to be sealed to more than one man? I note you haven’t responded to the CFR for your statement that the woman will have to choose just one in eternity. I also note you haven’t responded to the question about Helen Mar Kimballs children.

Nope, I'm right. I answered your car with d&c 132 and I guess the Kimball children will be with their mum and whomever they are sealed to eternally.

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

My understanding is that Polyandry sealings are allowed, providing the husbands are deceased.

There's a "seal them all and let God sort it out" for the dead. However there's no formal doctrine of polandry sealings. So the presumption by most is that this is just letting them pick one in the Millennium. As I mentioned many feminists who dislike polygamy think polygamist sealings will be the same.

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Nope, I'm right. I answered your car with d&c 132 and I guess the Kimball children will be with their mum and whomever they are sealed to eternally.

So if they are sealed to their Dad, Horace Whitney, but their Mum is sealed to Joseph Smith, how does that get figured out?

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

There's a "seal them all and let God sort it out" for the dead. However there's no formal doctrine of polandry sealings. So the presumption by most is that this is just letting them pick one in the Millennium. As I mentioned many feminists who dislike polygamy think polygamist sealings will be the same.

So the ‘seal them all and let God sort it out’ could work equally well  for the Weeds situation.

[Darren10]

19 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So if they are sealed to their Dad, Horace Whitney, but their Mum is sealed to Joseph Smith, how does that get figured out?

Don't know. When were they sealed to their dad?

[Darren10]

39 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So the ‘seal them all and let God sort it out’ could work equally well  for the Weeds situation.

No. The Weed family has yet to even acknowledge the need to be sealed. It all about love to them, despite the fact that one can make a very clear conclusion that they they wouldn't even believe in eternal families were it not for them being sealed together in the first place. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Darren10

[ttribe]

42 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I already cobsidered this when I made my blanket statememt. Joseph Smirh sealed only, no temporal / earthly marriage which could involve sex to women who were married to another man. 

Pay attention to details before issuing your statements. 

Oh, puhlleeeaze.  So, sex in the temporal sphere is MORE important than an eternal sealing?  That's an interesting position to take.

ETA: While I realize B. Hales would agree with your conclusions on the nature of those marriages, I'm pretty sure T. Compton would not and R. Bushman is somewhere on the fence.  This isn't the settled issue you make it out to be.

Edited January 27, 2018 by ttribe

[Darren10]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, puhlleeeaze.  So, sex in the temporal sphere is MORE important than an eternal sealing?  That's an interesting position to take.

ETA: While I realize B. Hales would agree with your conclusions on the nature of those marriages, I'm pretty sure T. Compton would not and R. Bushman is somewhere on the fence.  This isn't the settled issue you make it out to be.

I'm in good company. Hales rules over them all when it comes to Joseph Smith and his polygamy. Say, Hales should even use those words in a book or something. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

I'm in good company. Hales rules over them all when it comes to Joseph Smith and his polygamy. Say, Hales should even use those words in a book or something. 

Uhh, because you say so?  What a weird argument.

[Darren10]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uhh, because you say so?  What a weird argument.

There's a lot of smart Mormons like Daniel Peterson and Steven Smoot, whom I have heard say something similar to my recognition of Hales. 

And in the Church's official essay on polygamy and Joseph Smith, it cites Hales at least 5 times. Whom else is cited that many times? 

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

There's a lot of smart Mormons like Daniel Peterson and Steven Smoot, whom I have heard say something similar to my recognition of Hales. 

And in the Church's official essay on polygamy and Joseph Smith, it cites Hales at least 5 times. Whom else is cited that many times? 

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

Oh, good grief. Never mind. I'm caught up in a derail that adds nothing to the discussion of the Weeds and their situation.  I'll step away.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, ttribe said:

R. Bushman is somewhere on the fence.  This isn't the settled issue you make it out to be.

Also iirc Don Bradley who was the researcher for Hales.

It makes sense that Josephine was told she was Joseph Smith's daughter by her mother because that is what her mother thought.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also iirc Don Bradley who was the researcher for Hales.

It makes sense that Josephine was told she was Joseph Smith's daughter by her mother because that is what her mother thought.

I believe Hales' response to Josephine is that she allegedly believed she was divorced from her legal husband.  Regardless, I don't think she's alone...but, again, I'm derailing.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Except right now only polygyny is allowed for sealings not polandry. I'm just saying that if gender is eternal and two genders needed for exhaltation then there are possible solutions in terms of basic Mormon doctrine but not practice. However I rather doubt SSM proponents would favor this solution.

I know a woman who is sealed to two husbands. I know of others that have been reported. So it happens, it just isn't advertised. Women are sealed to all husbands after death. So there are two options: We can believe in the efficacy of sealings, or we can believe in the efficacy of the sealings that benefit men.

As a side issue, I find the whole SSM debate to be question begging in the extreme. It assumes, first, that there will be sex or a desire for it.  I think those men who can only elevate themselves by lowering women probably assume celestial women will be physically producing babies for them when there is no scriptural evidence that creation happened through anything but speaking or "molding."  There also seems to have been a mixed sex Council involved for earth. That alone is a stronger basis for deciding how the whole sequence works than anything mortal bodies can tell us. 

But the most insurmountable obstacle to our honeymoon cottages in heaven scenario is that scriptures do tell us that God loves all of us. It tells us of charity, the perfect love, not the "I like you better" love that we are limited to on earth. I find it hard to imagine a God that has favorites. So, if we have....

          Equal love for all

          Family (council) without boundaries

          Creation by word (women/men have unique contributions)

We are suddenly talking about something quite different. So the problem isn't the gay issue, it is that we don't know what the afterlife even looks like.