Jump to content

News on Plural Marriage


nuclearfuels

Recommended Posts

On 1/16/2021 at 7:09 PM, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake. I'm sorry to interrupt your "lucky me, men are sooo speshul" revery but women are sealed to all of their husbands after death.

Not that you need me, a disgusting man, to give you advice, but in my opinion you'd make a much better advocate for your position if you left off with the whining snarkiness. If it makes you feel better, fine, but that's all it is going to get you. You could also leave off with putting words in people's mouths, and making wild assumptions about what other they think. 

The multiple sealing thing is not news.  I myself have submitted (and stood proxy in) quite a number of these. One of my great grandmothers was married twice, and so I had her sealed to both her husbands. Who will she be sealed to in the end? Don't know. It's up to the Lord how it will end up, and His judgement is just. Just because women are sealed to all her husbands after death doesn't mean we're practicing polyandry. We're just covering all bases.

Quote

This is more documentation than you have supplied in all of your meanderings as to your elevated male status. I'll break it down for you in plain English, if a man marries a woman, appointed by a holy annointing, who is currently married, she is not committing adultery. Do you need more explanation? A married woman can "be with another man." Gosh, that is exactly like a married man being with....another woman! Do you really think Joseph would be practicing polyandry without scriptural warrant? That so many can totally ignore this verse is the reason we get so many men confidently announcing they get extra honeys in heaven. Just cause they are so very special that they will be one of the few men exalted, allowing them access to heavenly harems. That this is your personal idea of heaven is beyond sad. 

My current wife is sealed to her late husband. I'm married to her now. So, of course she can "be with another man" and it's OK. But I won't be with her in the eternities, assuming ideal outcomes. There is still no polyandry in the eternities.  Many of us won't have any spouses at all.

Your use of the term "heavenly harems" is revealing as to the state of your understanding. I wish you wouldn't project your feelings onto other people like this. You assume that because I understand the scriptures in the way I do, that I am some kind of insatiable satyr. As to what is sad, your assumption about my personal idea of heaven is very sad. You have no idea who I really am, nor what I really think in my heart of hearts. You take what I have written and run off in directions that are completely false and unwarranted.

In connection with things as they really are, and as they really will be, in my present state of knowledge I wish some things would be otherwise than they appear. For example, I'd love to be convinced that in the state of exaltation a man will have one, and only one wife. I want only one, and I hope that is what I get. But sadly, the scriptures suggest that I might not get what I prefer.  And if you think that my understanding of the scriptures means I'm looking forward to my seventy virgins, that's your problem, not mine.

And if you think that I am puffed up about my inevitable exaltation, as such a "speshul" man, you also have another think coming. If there will be fewer, then men have a special reason to fear, do they not? 

But don't let my protestations sway you in your opinions. I'm sure you won't.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
On 1/16/2021 at 12:06 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree with you.  Neither men nor women normally feel comfortable on a pedestal -- except for the narcissists.  Hardly anyone can live up to it, if any at all.

Pedestals are very uncomfortable for those of us with humility, anyway. Falling off is so easy.

On 1/16/2021 at 12:06 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

As to more women going to heaven than men, I have very serious doubts.  It certainly isn't LDS doctrine.  In fact, there are more male babies than female (about 105 boys to 100 girls).

I don't think that it is LDS doctrine -- but there are plenty of true things that aren't. There is certainly a strong implication that there will be more women than men. Just because more boys are born than girls does not mean that more men will be exalted than women, either. In this connection, it's a fairly meaningless statistic. More boys die in childhood than girls -- the overrepresentation in births is most likely a compensation for the disparity in childhood survival.

Link to post
47 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Pedestals are very uncomfortable for those of us with humility, anyway. Falling off is so easy.

I don't think that it is LDS doctrine -- but there are plenty of true things that aren't. There is certainly a strong implication that there will be more women than men. Just because more boys are born than girls does not mean that more men will be exalted than women, either. In this connection, it's a fairly meaningless statistic. More boys die in childhood than girls -- the overrepresentation in births is most likely a compensation for the disparity in childhood survival.

Yep, and those excess boys who die early go straight to heaven.  8)

Tacenda did talk about the burden women feel about being placed on a pedestal, given expectations which cannot really be met.  Women are regularly supposed to be better than men, when in fact they are subject to the very same temptations and shortcomings which men are subject to.  Indeed, as Dr Jordan Peterson likes to point out, more men are incarcerated, more men die in war, and more men commit suicide by far than women.  Men don't have it easy, they usually lose in court custody cases, and they die much earlier than women.  Look at those homeless guys out on the street:  Half of them are combat veterans still suffering from PTSD, and likely addicted to booze, drugs, etc. They live and die empty, lonely lives.

Link to post
On 1/15/2021 at 7:20 PM, Calm said:

For me, it denigrates women’s efforts and commitment to be obedient to God against their ‘natural man’, carnal inclinations..  Think of it as saying women are naturally smarter than men.  Then a woman getting straight A’s is not that big of a deal as it comes easy to her, never had to study for tests, etc. while a man who got straight A’s obviously had to work hard, make sacrifices, tame his less disciplined self.  The man getting A’s is admirable, the woman...it is expected of her and it isn’t a success story, only failing is notable.

Was that your experience, that a woman getting straight A's was treated as unremarkable, as if she was doing nothing more than what was expected?  In my school experience, I don't recall that the girls got no recognition for doing well -- but I was not particularly observant in those days, so I might have missed the omission.

 

 

 

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

Yep, and those excess boys who die early go straight to heaven.  8)

Point! 🙂 

But do they get exalted? There's plenty of room in the two lower degrees of the CK. I've been talking about exaltation, after all, meaning highest degree CK and sealed to at least exalted woman. Not garden-variety CK. If I dare label it so...

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Tacenda did talk about the burden women feel about being placed on a pedestal, given expectations which cannot really be met.  Women are regularly supposed to be better than men, when in fact they are subject to the very same temptations and shortcomings which men are subject to.  Indeed, as Dr Jordan Peterson likes to point out, more men are incarcerated, more men die in war, and more men commit suicide by far than women.  Men don't have it easy, they usually lose in court custody cases, and they die much earlier than women.  Look at those homeless guys out on the street:  Half of them are combat veterans still suffering from PTSD, and likely addicted to booze, drugs, etc. They live and die empty, lonely lives.

If so many men are losers, then the ones who succeed are indeed thin on the ground and as a result they might get more recognition -- as outliers - whether they deserve it or not. While the girls who are consistently scoring high aren't noticed so much because, well, they're normal. But what of it? Isn't it more important to BE superior, than merely being recognized for it?

Some of that pedestal burden may be inescapable, however. And perhaps there's nothing that can be done about it. 

This "pedestal burden" actually applies equally well to anyone who has expectations based on some high standard. I've been in situations where more was expected of me because I was a member of the Church, where a certain standard existed that didn't apply to anyone else. As a teenager I once told an off-color joke that immediately got me some disapprobation that didn't get applied to my peers who were telling the same kinds of jokes at the time. The one time I astounded my subordinates in my Army squad was that one time I let loose with some profanity (it seemed appropriate under the circumstances). One exclaimed: "Damn, Sergeant Stargazer! I never heard you cuss before!" I once met a graduate of the Juilliard school of music. He was a pianist. To listen to him play was transcending -- you could get lost in what came out of his piano. He could play many beautiful and astoundingly complex pieces from memory, confidently, without the slightest hint of hesitancy or mistake. What kind of pressure was he under! He dare not mis-key or falter in any way. Perfection was what was normally expected of him. And to listen to him describe his time at Juilliard sounded to me much like how @Calm described a woman getting straight A's -- an expectation of perfection with the only notability being failure, just because he was attending Juilliard.  His teachers -- male and female -- sounded almost godlike in their abilities and expectations of their students. And it was a harsh environment with terrible expectations. At least to hear him tell it.

And of course women fall under the same temptations as men do. Who said any different? And there are plenty of failures among women, no question of it. But as your citation of Dr. Peterson indicates, the bell curve tends to favor men down the bad side, and women up the good side. 

Just because reality sucks doesn't mean it isn't reality. Just because one wishes men were better or women were worse doesn't change the way things are. 

God the Father is engaged in a VERY serious business. He is trying to raise not just nice guys and gals. He is trying to raise gods and goddesses. And the test is harsh; were it not so it would fail in its purpose -- which is to identify the candidates for divinity. Wishing the pressure were less is pointless. The entire reason for us being here demands more pressure, not less. 

 

Link to post
47 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Was that your experience, that a woman getting straight A's was treated as unremarkable, as if she was doing nothing more than what was expected?  In my school experience, I don't recall that the girls got no recognition for doing well -- but I was not particularly observant in those days, so I might have missed the omission.

 

 

 

It was an example to help explain the issue, similar to how I might say “think of it as saying men are more beautiful than women”...I did not say people actually said that. 
 

But my experience in my family was somewhat similar as we (all the siblings) were expected by parents to get good grades (they had, Mom was valedictorian or something) and it was no big deal unless we had issues and then we got attention, so it is easy for me to extrapolate the idea to greater society and then limit it to one sex. 
 

For a real world example, the belief that women are more spiritual than men did imo contribute to ignoring young women’s needs in the past as one can hear many stories in the past of huge efforts in a ward or stake to keep their young men engaged, interested where nothing much was done for the YW.
 

While it was not a massive difference in my ward in CA, the YW were as far as I could tell low on the list of priorities if one looks at the stuff we did. I know my kids both had great leaders, but the boys were allowed to do life changing activities and the girls not so much. By the time we left that ward, they had started equalizing efforts.  As far as I can tell given my kids are adults and I don’t make it to church much, it is pretty equal in our current ward. Certainly among the parents I talk to now there seems an equal recognition their daughters may lose faith just as the sons where there wasn’t when I was a new parent. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
57 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But what of it? Isn't it more important to BE superior, than merely being recognized for it?

And if someone is not, but only assumed to be?  Then their needs are neglected.

Women are more social in our culture and therefore in the past when church was one of the social centers of life, it is hardly surprising that women were more engaged in church activities, especially if they couldn’t afford doing the civic clubs and such.  In some churches, women could also become leaders, even powerful if allowed to take charge of the supportive activities (from what I have read about church committees in other faiths that handle finances, choose pastors in some faiths, etc).

High in activity in church is no guarantee that someone is not sinning though and any sin too fondly held, even the smallest one if seated in pride, could lead to no exaltation.  Assuming that one set of sins is more likely to keep one from exaltation than another is foolish when it will most likely come down to if we can put aside our pride and allow his Will to become our will. Watching men and women all my life, I don’t see much difference between them with wanting to have their own way in some part of their life, expecting others to meet their expectations rather than adjusting their own. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was an example to help explain the issue, similar to how I might say “think of it as saying men are more beautiful than women”...I did not say people actually said that. 

Wasn't sure, so thanks for clearing it up.

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

But my experience in my family was somewhat similar as we (all the siblings) were expected by parents to get good grades (they had, Mom was valedictorian or something) and it was no big deal unless we had issues and then we got attention, so it is easy for me to extrapolate the idea to greater society and then limit it to one sex.

Gotcha.

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

 For a real world example, the belief that women are more spiritual than men did imo contribute to ignoring young women’s needs in the past as one can hear many stories in the past of huge efforts in a ward or stake to keep their young men engaged, interested where nothing much was done for the YW.
 

I can definitely see how problematic that would be. 

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

While it was not a massive difference in my ward in CA, the YW were as far as I could tell low on the list of priorities if one looks at the stuff we did. I know my kids both had great leaders, but the boys were allowed to do life changing activities and the girls not so much. By the time we left that ward, they had started equalizing efforts.  As far as I can tell given my kids are adults and I don’t make it to church much, it is pretty equal in our current ward. Certainly among the parents I talk to now there seems an equal recognition their daughters may lose faith just as the sons where there wasn’t when I was a new parent. 

At least part of the difference in activities is due to the Church's involvement in Boy Scouts. (Boy) Scouting as a program can be hyper active, and since the Church did not participate in Girl Scouts, it seems the short shrift would be natural. And short-sighted, as well. Of course I know little about GSA, but are or were their programs more homey and less adventurous as well? There may be a societal norm in that. And not necessarily a good one, overall.

I know a slight bit more about young women's activities in the Church than I know about the Girl Scouts. And it certainly seemed to me that they had some pretty involved programs -- perhaps more so than when you were a YW? I don't want to assume your age, but it seems that you might have had a different style and intensity of program in your day? 

Link to post
25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

seems the short shrift would be natural.

But cheaper activities without the paraphernalia could have easily been done, but were not in many cases.  For example, my leaders never had us gather at their homes or drove us to the beach for a party, which would have been minimal cost.  We had our weekly lessons and Girls Camp and on occasion a fun joint activity.  That was considered sufficient to keep girls involved...just expect them to be there and they would be.  And often they would be. But spiritually committed to the faith because in part they had opportunities to practice it as a class, to know they were seen as an integral and important part of the community...not so much. 

In my daughter’s time there was quite a bit more effort. It was a close ward where even though not in Utah, it had a relatively small geographical footprint so even when they went to different schools, friends could easily get together, walk or ride bikes to others’ houses.  The leaders worked hard to make what they did meaningful, but there wasn’t this excitement of purpose of working towards an interesting goal like driving down to Nauvoo or ocean kayaking or even any outdoor activity outside the structured, well provided for church camp (Iow, girls didn’t have to push themselves to see what they were capable of).

Quote

I don't want to assume your age, but it seems that you might have had a different style and intensity of program in your day? 

I think my post was very clear it has improved and equalized over the years.  I am 62. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if someone is not, but only assumed to be?  Then their needs are neglected.

That is a spot-on observation.

For example, I don't need my ministering brothers checking in with me, but if they didn't do so occasionally, I might feel I'm being neglected. Well, I wouldn't, but I'm not everyone.

So, out of the same fork we have Bishops and Relief Society presidents, who are assumed to be doing just fine. And so nobody pays attention. This reminds me that my wife and I are our bishop's ministering team -- and we haven't checked in with them once over the past year!  But the recent widow in our ministering list has gotten checked in with. So we're not being completely neglectful -- but maybe Bishop and family can stand a little more care than we've been giving. Thanks for reminding me!

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Women are more social in our culture and therefore in the past when church was one of the social centers of life, it is hardly surprising that women were more engaged in church activities, especially if they couldn’t afford doing the civic clubs and such.  In some churches, women could also become leaders, even powerful if allowed to take charge of the supportive activities (from what I have read about church committees in other faiths that handle finances, choose pastors in some faiths, etc).

Back when my first granddaughter was born, this "more social" thing stood out like a sore thumb. We visited the hospital the day after she came into the world, and I noticed something that I found quite remarkable. At barely a day old, she was engaging visually with everyone in the room who spoke up. I don't know if it was just her thing, but as I thought back on it, my baby sons and the one grandson seemed to be much more self-focussed than this little girl. 

Anyway, it made me think that it isn't just our culture. It might be a common characteristic, this sociability. 

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

High in activity in church is no guarantee that someone is not sinning though and any sin too fondly held, even the smallest one if seated in pride, could lead to no exaltation.  Assuming that one set of sins is more likely to keep one from exaltation than another is foolish when it will most likely come down to if we can put aside our pride and allow his Will to become our will.

Nail meet hammer!

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Watching men and women all my life, I don’t see much difference between them with wanting to have their own way in some part of their life, expecting others to meet their expectations rather than adjusting their own. 

I know all about that one. I think we all have trouble adjusting on that point, even if not always.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Anyway, it made me think that it isn't just our culture. It might be a common characteristic, this sociability. 

There are cultures where men are more involved in church than women, so I didn’t want to make too wide an assumption. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

...................

But do they get exalted? There's plenty of room in the two lower degrees of the CK. I've been talking about exaltation, after all, meaning highest degree CK and sealed to at least exalted woman...............

Before the age of 8, all are exalted.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If so many men are losers, then the ones who succeed are indeed thin on the ground and as a result they might get more recognition -- as outliers - whether they deserve it or not. While the girls who are consistently scoring high aren't noticed so much because, well, they're normal. But what of it? Isn't it more important to BE superior, than merely being recognized for it?

Some of that pedestal burden may be inescapable, however. And perhaps there's nothing that can be done about it. 

This "pedestal burden" actually applies equally well to anyone who has expectations based on some high standard....................

I am impressed by high standards, not by hoity toity arrogance and special privilege, which is what we are dealing with here.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And of course women fall under the same temptations as men do. Who said any different?

Many have said different.  You haven't been listening closely enough.  I recall George Romney declaring that he was only gonna get to heaven hanging onto Lenore's robe.  You seem not to understand the circumstantial disconnect.  And that necessarily calls on compassion, from God and the rest of us.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And there are plenty of failures among women, no question of it. But as your citation of Dr. Peterson indicates, the bell curve tends to favor men down the bad side, and women up the good side. 

Just because reality sucks doesn't mean it isn't reality. Just because one wishes men were better or women were worse doesn't change the way things are. 

God the Father is engaged in a VERY serious business. He is trying to raise not just nice guys and gals. He is trying to raise gods and goddesses. And the test is harsh; were it not so it would fail in its purpose -- which is to identify the candidates for divinity. Wishing the pressure were less is pointless. The entire reason for us being here demands more pressure, not less.

Dr Jordan Peterson was not describing a Bell Curve of blame, but rather the rough world which many men must contend with, and which seldom concerns women.  I spoke of compassion necessarily coming into play here, without which God's judgment could not be just in the least degree.  For God judges by the heart and circumstances -- St Paul says that they who have not the Law are a law unto themselves.  And most of those born on planet Earth have never heard the Gospel preached, at least not on this side of the veil.  So how are they to be judged?  God doesn't ask for apotheosis here and now.  Instead He selects those worthy of it later.

This morning in Sunday School one of the teachers claimed that there were fence-sitters in the pre-mortal existence, which is false doctrine.  Everyone of us was 100% on board.  Yes, there were noble and great ones, chief among them Jesus Himself, but there were no fence-sitters.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yep, and those excess boys who die early go straight to heaven.  8)

Tacenda did talk about the burden women feel about being placed on a pedestal, given expectations which cannot really be met.  Women are regularly supposed to be better than men, when in fact they are subject to the very same temptations and shortcomings which men are subject to.  Indeed, as Dr Jordan Peterson likes to point out, more men are incarcerated, more men die in war, and more men commit suicide by far than women.  Men don't have it easy, they usually lose in court custody cases, and they die much earlier than women.  Look at those homeless guys out on the street:  Half of them are combat veterans still suffering from PTSD, and likely addicted to booze, drugs, etc. They live and die empty, lonely lives.

My heart goes out to the men out there that suffer from these things that you mention here. :( I'm grateful for men, it's often women who were the ones who've hurt me the most in my life. 

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

Before the age of 8, all are exalted.

Thank you for reminding me of this. There is a beautiful article written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie that is very clear about it: The Salvation of Little Children

It is also made clear that  the same applies to those born into bodies that never become accountable (e.g. Downs Syndrone).  

I don't know why this escaped me in my previous response.

And of course, as exaltation requires eternal marriage, that will be something handled in the process as well. As Elder McConkie writes in the referenced article:

Quote

 

Will children be married and live in the family unit?

Certainly. There can be no question about this. If they gain salvation, which is eternal life, which is exaltation, it means that they are married and live in the family unit. President Joseph Fielding Smith has so stated in plain words, and it is something that must necessarily be so. (See Doctrines of Salvation, 2:49–57.)

 

But there's nothing here that suggests that God will somehow arrange that the ratio of males to females in the highest degree of the celestrial kingdom will be strictly 50/50, as has been suggested in this thread.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am impressed by high standards, not by hoity toity arrogance and special privilege, which is what we are dealing with here.

I cheerfully admit that I'm not seeing how your response here pertains to what I wrote! 🙂 

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Many have said different.  You haven't been listening closely enough.  I recall George Romney declaring that he was only gonna get to heaven hanging onto Lenore's robe.  You seem not to understand the circumstantial disconnect.  And that necessarily calls on compassion, from God and the rest of us.

Many have said different? Here in this thread? I don't think so. Maybe out in the world, among the spiritually ignorant.

I guess I can understand why Romney would say that, as it has always been the tendency of men who hold women in high esteem to regard them as better than themselves. There's a reason why the phrase "my better half" is commonly used to apply to one's wife, at least in Anglo culture. And I've never heard a wife complaining about being referred to in this way.

But George isn't going to get to heaven courtesy of his wife's robe. His assurance of heaven (i.e. salvation) is entirely on his Savior's merits, not his own nor his wife's; his exaltation depends upon himself. But in all this, I don't think he was trying to elucidate gospel doctrine. I think he was simply praising the merits of his wife in public. I've heard other husbands praising their wives, too, it's not unusual among men of understanding. Of course none of us have wives who are perfect.

I still feel that more women will be worthy of exaltation than men. Nobody has convinced me otherwise. This is not to put women on a pedestal, despite what anyone here thinks. As said, women are going to be tested just as hard as men, and will be judged on the same basis. I just believe that more women will succeed in the test leading to exaltation. So sue me, ye who are offended by this.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Dr Jordan Peterson was not describing a Bell Curve of blame, but rather the rough world which many men must contend with, and which seldom concerns women.  I spoke of compassion necessarily coming into play here, without which God's judgment could not be just in the least degree.  For God judges by the heart and circumstances -- St Paul says that they who have not the Law are a law unto themselves.  And most of those born on planet Earth have never heard the Gospel preached, at least not on this side of the veil.  So how are they to be judged?  God doesn't ask for apotheosis here and now.  Instead He selects those worthy of it later.

I don't disagree. And I am grateful that the bolded part is true! 

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This morning in Sunday School one of the teachers claimed that there were fence-sitters in the pre-mortal existence, which is false doctrine.  Everyone of us was 100% on board.  Yes, there were noble and great ones, chief among them Jesus Himself, but there were no fence-sitters.

Of course this is true.

Link to post
38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But there's nothing here that suggests that God will somehow arrange that the ratio of males to females in the highest degree of the celestrial kingdom will be strictly 50/50, as has been suggested in this thread.

That's a silly idea and flies in the face of agency.  Those that choose to meet the requirements for exaltation will be fewer compared to other kingdoms and the statistical odds of an identical number of males and females using their agency to gain those blessings would pass into impossibility.

Not to mention that many of God's chosen prophets are likely already there with their multiple wives.  Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, Brigham, and probably our Savior.  President Nelson and his wives also in the near future.

The numbers are already skewed.

Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The numbers are already skewed.

Indeed. Given how widows often remarried now all their husbands are sealed to them, it is going to be very skewed. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a silly idea and flies in the face of agency.  Those that choose to meet the requirements for exaltation will be fewer compared to other kingdoms and the statistical odds of an identical number of males and females using their agency to gain those blessings would pass into impossibility.

Not to mention that many of God's chosen prophets are likely already there with their multiple wives.  Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, Brigham, and probably our Savior.  President Nelson and his wives also in the near future.

The numbers are already skewed.

Good, you can assume the mantel of disgusting man, then.

Off topic, I love your signature as it stands today:

Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity—thou must commune with God. - Joseph Smith

This quote featured in an issue of my mission's monthly publication. I was quite inspired by it, and remain so.

"...when brother Pratt went back last fall, and published the Revelation concerning the plurality of wives; it was thought there was no other cat to let out.  But allow me to tell you ... you may expect an eternity of cats, that have not yet escaped from the bag ..." BRIGHAM YOUNG, 1853

That particular cat was more a lion. We're still hearing the roar.

"I want God, not my idea of God."  - C.S. Lewis

Too many people (sometimes including me) imagine that their idea of God is God. Lewis was right: Isaiah 55:8,9

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

I still feel that more women will be worthy of exaltation than men. Nobody has convinced me otherwise. This is not to put women on a pedestal, despite what anyone here thinks. As said, women are going to be tested just as hard as men, and will be judged on the same basis. I just believe that more women will succeed in the test leading to exaltation. So sue me, ye who are offended by this.

 

I'm going to ask you one more time and then I'm going to report. CFR or stop spreading the misogyny.  

Link to post
Just now, juliann said:

I'm going to ask you one more time and then I'm going to report. CFR or stop spreading the misogyny.  

Dictionary definition of Misogyny: "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It enforces sexism by punishing those who reject an inferior status for women and rewarding those who accept it."

All I've said here is that I believe that more women will be exalted by God than men, and if so, it makes plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom a necessity. I've cited scripture in support of this belief.

You disagree with my belief. You don't like my belief. You've been railing against it quite emotionally. But you have not provided any references (scriptures) that defeat my belief, or make me question it. 

Report away. I cannot provide any more references than I have already. I cannot retract what I believe to be true. And your accusation of misogyny is a slander.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This morning in Sunday School one of the teachers claimed that there were fence-sitters in the pre-mortal existence, which is false doctrine.  Everyone of us was 100% on board.  Yes, there were noble and great ones, chief among them Jesus Himself, but there were no fence-sitters.

Moses 5:24

24 For from this time forth thou (Cain) shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Dictionary definition of Misogyny: "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It enforces sexism by punishing those who reject an inferior status for women and rewarding those who accept it."

All I've said here is that I believe that more women will be exalted by God than men, and if so, it makes plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom a necessity. I've cited scripture in support of this belief.

You disagree with my belief. You don't like my belief. You've been railing against it quite emotionally. But you have not provided any references (scriptures) that defeat my belief, or make me question it. 

Report away. I cannot provide any more references than I have already. I cannot retract what I believe to be true. And your accusation of misogyny is a slander.

 

When you are asked to provide documentation, you must supply it. Trying to wiggle out by claiming you can spread misogyny because it is a "belief" is beyond childish. 

CFR that there will be more women in the CK. 

Link to post
18 minutes ago, juliann said:

When you are asked to provide documentation, you must supply it. Trying to wiggle out by claiming you can spread misogyny because it is a "belief" is beyond childish. 

CFR that there will be more women in the CK. 

Other than the Hancock vision? :diablo:

Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Dictionary definition of Misogyny: "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It enforces sexism by punishing those who reject an inferior status for women and rewarding those who accept it."

All I've said here is that I believe that more women will be exalted by God than men, and if so, it makes plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom a necessity. I've cited scripture in support of this belief.

You disagree with my belief. You don't like my belief. You've been railing against it quite emotionally. But you have not provided any references (scriptures) that defeat my belief, or make me question it. 

Report away. I cannot provide any more references than I have already. I cannot retract what I believe to be true. And your accusation of misogyny is a slander.

 

I don't have to provide evidence. YOU are the one making the misogynist claim and it is your responsibility to provide evidence for it. There is no scripture that says "there will be more women in the CK!" None. Anywhere. You have quoted nothing. This is about numbers not "beliefs." 

CFR

Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

Moses 5:24

24 For from this time forth thou (Cain) shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.

I'm obviously talking about all of us who came to this Earth, and you should understand that.  I am not talking about those who voted No and were cast out with Satan.  The constant lie and false doctrine spread by racists was that there were fence-sitters, and that is an enormous, self-serving lie by those who haven't got the spirit of Christ.

Cain was not a fence-sitter.  He agreed to the Plan of Salvation before he got here.  Then he turned traitor while on this Earth.  Anyone can make that choice now, a choice they did not make in the pre-mortal existence.  This life is a test.  The final test.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

 

You disagree with my belief. You don't like my belief. You've been railing against it quite emotionally.  

 

People used to have "beliefs" that blacks were cursed, too. Believers also quoted irrelevant scripture.  Then we grew up and listened to modern prophets. 

I know, I know. In your world women are "emotional." It's your "belief."

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...