Jump to content

News on Plural Marriage


nuclearfuels

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's SAKE. That is a new one though....verses that "don't apply yet." LOL

Like I said, CFR.  Let's see if God has told the scholars yet. 

I already provided four references of many available to the anointing of a wife to her husband, the only possible ordinance that explains that verse.  Your CFR has been met by any board standard and I feel no need to convince you any further since your mind is completely closed to anything that disagrees with your world view.

And as for verses not applying yet - there are many.  The first administration of that ordinance didn't occur until September 1843, after this section was received.  Just as the scriptures on the endowment didn't apply until that was restored, the scriptures on eternal marriage laws didn't apply until that ordinance was first performed in this dispensation.  

I have met your requests in good faith.  I have provided ample historical evidence.  You can choose to reject them but your academic high horse has no legs to stand on, regardless of which scholars you think you know.  Have a nice day.

Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

understand that the church software has difficulty accepting different names

In every country?  I would be very surprised if it had a problem in Asia. 
 

Besides, on temple records, sealings and such don’t they do the mom’s maiden name?  

Edited by Calm
Link to post

From the handbook, it is the legal name, not the married one, that is put on records. 
 

Quote
The name on the membership record and certificate should match the birth certificate, civil birth registry, or current legal name....

A person’s current legal name should be used on the ordination record and certificate.

 

Link to post
On 1/19/2021 at 2:58 PM, JLHPROF said:

I already provided four references of many available to the anointing of a wife to her husband, the only possible ordinance that explains that verse.  Your CFR has been met by any board standard and I feel no need to convince you any further since your mind is completely closed to anything that disagrees with your world view.

And as for verses not applying yet - there are many.  The first administration of that ordinance didn't occur until September 1843, after this section was received.  Just as the scriptures on the endowment didn't apply until that was restored, the scriptures on eternal marriage laws didn't apply until that ordinance was first performed in this dispensation.  

I have met your requests in good faith.  I have provided ample historical evidence.  You can choose to reject them but your academic high horse has no legs to stand on, regardless of which scholars you think you know.  Have a nice day.

Again, you have to tie those random verses to v. 41. You have not. "Annointing" can be found in countless places but that does not mean it is what v. 41 is talking about in a very specific circumstance. That JS was indisputedly engaging in polyandry places you in the position of having to offer a high level of documentation to defy that. When something is unclear and/or disputed, academics are the only remedy, thus, the CFR rule. Disparaging academics does not change that. 

Quote

 

Although a husband and wife might be sealed, the revelation leaves open the possibility of the wife being “appointed” to someone else. Thus, sexual relations with another man would only be adultery if she were not appointed to him. Though the language here is somewhat confusing, it may be interpreted (together with verses 42 and 61) in terms of polyandry or “dual wives.”     p 117‒18.

William V. Smith, Textual Studies of the Doctrine and Covenants: The Plural Marriage Revelation. https://gregkofford.com/products/textual-studies-plural-marriage

 

 

Link to post
On 1/19/2021 at 4:23 PM, Calm said:

Yet lacking anything else of substance, JLHPROF is using the assumption that priesthood ordinances require the woman to take on the husband's name as proof of eternal polygamy. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 1/3/2021 at 4:52 PM, katherine the great said:

Just seems silly to me. Control freakish. 

Would a synonym be less freakish?

supremacy

ascendancy

dominance

domination

superiority

predominance

preeminence

primacy

hegemony

authority

mastery

control

command

direction

power

sway

rule

government

jurisdiction

sovereignty

suzerainty

lordship

overlordship

leadership

influence

the upper hand

the whip hand

the edge

advantage

hold

grasp

empire

predomination

paramountcy

prepotence

prepotency

Link to post
On 1/3/2021 at 4:49 PM, Calm said:

 If they have maximized all interior and personal attributes, change can only be external and involve others.

Well said.

Truth and logic.

 

Link to post
On 1/3/2021 at 5:01 PM, Stargazer said:

In the June 1989 Ensign, President Hunter wrote:

“No blessing, including that of eternal marriage and an eternal family, will be denied to any worthy individual. While it may take somewhat longer—perhaps even beyond this mortal life—for some to achieve this blessing, it will not be denied” 

Was he lying?

The truth of the Prophets' words are glorious and inescapable. 

No. He wasn't lying, IMHO

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Well said.

Truth and logic.

 

But this assumes it is possible to maximize internal attributes.  What if it isn’t?  What if personal growth is always possible?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
28 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

That's also the tradition in China.

 

And Korea and Vietnam iirc.

Link to post
On 1/18/2021 at 10:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

I think the point being made is perhaps not everyone who comes to earth accepted the full plan of the gospel premortally.

I reject that claim, and know of no reason to support it.

Link to post
25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I reject that claim, and know of no reason to support it.

Scripture.  Like the one provided that Cain was perdition premortally yet somehow wasn't cast out.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Scripture.  Like the one provided that Cain was perdition premortally yet somehow wasn't cast out.

Moses 5:24, "For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world," does not say what you claim.  You are wresting scripture by taking it out of the context of surrounding verses, which say "the Lord said unto Cain: ...If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted, And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire."  If he is already lost, why does the Lord make such promises?  Because agency fully applies:

Quote

President Joseph F. Smith (1838–1918) taught: “God has given to all men an agency and has granted to us the privilege to serve him or serve him not, to do that which is right or that which is wrong, and this privilege is given to all men irrespective of creed, color or condition. The wealthy have this agency, the poor have this agency, and no man is deprived by any power of God from exercising it in the fullest and in the freest manner. This agency has been given to all. This is a blessing that God has bestowed upon the world of mankind, upon all his children alikehttps://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-moses/moses-5-16-59?lang=eng

How can that be if he is already lost?  Of course, it is not so.  Had he not fully accepted the Plan of Salvation, he could not have come to this Earth.

Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:
15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Scripture.  Like the one provided that Cain was perdition premortally yet somehow wasn't cast out.

Moses 5:24, "For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world," does not say what you claim.  You are wresting scripture by taking it out of the context of surrounding verses, which say "the Lord said unto Cain: ...If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted, And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire."  If he is already lost, why does the Lord make such promises?  Because agency fully applies:

You might be the one wresting the scriptures.  Cain might have been Perdition in some ways and righteous in other ways.  He still had agency in the pre-existence and continued to have agency during mortality.  He may have been in the habit of walking the "highwire" by doing enough to remain qualified for entering the Second Estate (mortality) and at the same time feel a perverse fondness for Lucifer.  Note the orange highlighted words in the scripture above.

Another important thing to consider:  Cain was actually able to converse with God during mortality.  He knew he was being warned by God.  But was unwilling to let go of his "fondness" for Satan.

Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

You might be the one wresting the scriptures.  Cain might have been Perdition in some ways and righteous in other ways.  He still had agency in the pre-existence and continued to have agency during mortality.  He may have been in the habit of walking the "highwire" by doing enough to remain qualified for entering the Second Estate (mortality) and at the same time feel a perverse fondness for Lucifer.  Note the orange highlighted words in the scripture above.

Another important thing to consider:  Cain was actually able to converse with God during mortality.  He knew he was being warned by God.  But was unwilling to let go of his "fondness" for Satan.

You've highlighted those words before, and seem unable to understand that they do not state what you claim.  You are interpreting them without benefit of the surrounding verses.  All of us know that personality may be unique to each of us, but you are suggesting predestination not free agency.  As though Cain had to go the wrong way.  Yet any of us might go the wrong way.  No one was neutral in Heaven.  All took sides:  All of us here took the correct side.

Quote

Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. ......... But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition.  Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 6:511 (25 December 1869).  Emphasis added.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You've highlighted those words before, and seem unable to understand that they do not state what you claim.

I was trying to point out that the words "wast", "also" and "before" are important.  Just as Cain became Perdition during mortality, the Lord was stating that Cain was Perdition as indicated by WAST ALSO BEFORE the world was created.  As I explained in previous posts, he was NOT 100% Perdition in the pre-existence.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He still had agency in the pre-existence and continued to have agency during mortality.

Exactly what I stated.  You need to re-read my post.  This is what I said:  "He still had agency in the pre-existence and continued to have agency during mortality."

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All of us know that personality may be unique to each of us, but you are suggesting predestination not free agency.

In no way did I suggest pre-destination.  I am firm in my beliefs that free agency was given liberally in BOTH the pre-existence and mortality.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As though Cain had to go the wrong way.

Absolutely NOT.  Not indicated anywhere.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet any of us might go the wrong way.

Of course.  ALL of us can go the wrong way.  In both estates.  Repentance is a gift and an important learning tool.  Only Jesus stayed perfect.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No one was neutral in Heaven.

I would agree in the sense all had to choose:  1- to gain a body by entering mortality (Second Estate);  2- go with Lucifer (thus NEVER obtain a physical body).  There is NO neutral ground or middle choice.  A stark choice between ONE or TWO, nothing else.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All took sides:  All of us here took the correct side.

Here is the rub.  Among all those that chose to enter the Second Estate, there were varying degrees of valiance, faithfulness, understanding, commitment, etc.  Different levels of intelligences.  Different personalities.  Different degrees of righteousness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, longview said:

I was trying to point out that the words "wast", "also" and "before" are important.  Just as Cain became Perdition during mortality, the Lord was stating that Cain was Perdition as indicated by WAST ALSO BEFORE the world was created.  As I explained in previous posts, he was NOT 100% Perdition in the pre-existence.

Cain was zero percent Perdition in pre-mortal life.  You repeatedly wrest those same words.  You are assuming what has to be proved.

4 hours ago, longview said:

...................  Only Jesus stayed perfect.

Jesus, just like Cain, had to be able to fail, had to have the same free agency as everyone else.  The test had to be real.  Otherwise His atonement would have been valueless.  That is the NT doctrine of kenosis (Philipp 2:7).  No guarantee that He would succeed.

4 hours ago, longview said:

I would agree in the sense all had to choose:  1- to gain a body by entering mortality (Second Estate);  2- go with Lucifer (thus NEVER obtain a physical body).  There is NO neutral ground or middle choice.  A stark choice between ONE or TWO, nothing else.

Here is the rub.  Among all those that chose to enter the Second Estate, there were varying degrees of valiance, faithfulness, understanding, commitment, etc.  Different levels of intelligences.  Different personalities.  Different degrees of righteousness.

That was always the lie told against Black people, who were so frequently accused of not being valiant in premortality.  That was always false doctrine.

Link to post
25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That was always the lie told against Black people, who were so frequently accused of not being valiant in premortality.  That was always false doctrine.

Because the doctrine was perverted in its application doesn't make it false.  All do not enter mortality on the same spiritual footing, scripture is clear on that.  The racial misapplication doesn't falsify the doctrine.  All men are not created equal.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because the doctrine was perverted in its application doesn't make it false.  All do not enter mortality on the same spiritual footing, scripture is clear on that.  The racial misapplication doesn't falsify the doctrine.  All men are not created equal.

They are all equal in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the law.  If you are declaring that there are noble and great ones, fine, but that does not mean that they are given any sort of leg up.  Why?  Because where much is given, much is expected.  There is no advantage to those who had a silver spoon their mouth. That only means that the test will be harder.  And the opposite is true:  Those who are born disabled may not even have to compete at all.  D&C 130:20-21, "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."  No special advantages, but many special demands.  God has no choice in the matter, unless grace is operative through the Atonement.

There is a great leveling or handicapping, if you will.  An even chance for everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:
Quote

Here is the rub.  Among all those that chose to enter the Second Estate, there were varying degrees of valiance, faithfulness, understanding, commitment, etc.  Different levels of intelligences.  Different personalities.  Different degrees of righteousness.

That was always the lie told against Black people, who were so frequently accused of not being valiant in premortality.  That was always false doctrine.

Ridiculous misdirection.  

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is a great leveling or handicapping, if you will.  An even chance for everyone.

Equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes?  Sounds like you are gunning for the socialist principle for everybody to be equally miserable.  This was actually Lucifer's original proposal (make everybody NOT fail and all shall return to Heaven).

Edited by longview
Link to post
10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

All men are not created equal.

A shocking contradiction to the US Declaration of Independence.  I would agree with you that not every child are born with the same social/economic opportunities.  With the same quality of life or health.  In wartime or in peace. And on and on.

1776 NORTH AMERICA

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence
Second Continental Congress
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

 

1789 FRANCE
“Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.”

Marquis de Lafayette
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
The National Assembly
Paris, France

1848 UNITED STATES

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal.”

Elizabeth Cady Stanton
The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments
Women’s Rights Convention
Seneca Falls, New York

1863 UNITED STATES

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

President Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania

1930 - INDIA AND PAKISTAN
“We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil...”

Mahatma Gandhi
Declaration of Sovereignty and Self-Rule
Indian National Congress
Lahore, Pakistan (then part of India)

1963 UNITED STATES

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'”

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

Washington, DC

Edited by longview
Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

Ridiculous misdirection.  

Equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes?  Sounds like you are gunning for the socialist principle for everybody to be equally miserable.  This was actually Lucifer's original proposal (make everybody NOT fail and all shall return to Heaven).

You have it backward, longview:  As Dr Jordan Peterson repeatedly points out, the woke neo-Marxists love to demand equal outcomes, while all fair-minded people insist on equal opportunity -- otherwise under the rubric of merit, which is the measure demanded by God and natural law, dominated by free agency.

It is Satan who demands equal outcomes and the quashing of free agency.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...