New Book on Polygamy

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

think there are special dispensations made to "cover our bases".  In other words I think the allowance is to address some uncertainty, not to create an eternal polyandrous union.

Or what was bound on earth by those who have the keys will be bound in heaven. Your interpretation  isn’t revelation or doctrine for the rest of us. 
 

I get having the opinion because that is the tradition that got attached to it, but how is that different than traditions that got attached to the Priesthood Ban that were later disavowed?  We don’t see either of those traditions in our polices today. The possibility that the justification to seal a dead woman to all her husbands isn’t there because it was wrong exists as much, even more imo than it was removed to make people feel better….because as far as I can tell the removal isn’t being shared like that.  People don’t realize it has been taken away. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But I think the policy has always been that a woman may posthumously be sealed to all of her legal husbands.  

Not always. It wasn’t that way in my youth iirc, can’t remember when it was changed though.  Whoever got in first was supposed to be it. But then there was lots of confusion over whether it had been done and I suspect some family went ahead and did it for their line anyway. (Just from what I gathered listening to genealogist helpers who shared frustrations of figuring out records, microfilm was better than paper as we could see what others had done, but still took time to track duplicates and errors down) 

Other changes removing what look like cultural differences between sexes irrelevant to actual doctrine have been removed as well, like not allowing a single woman or a married to a nonmember to go to the temple, rationale was given that it had to be her husband that took her through the veil for her own endowment…ignoring that female missionaries had been receiving their endowment without a husband.  It was a huge thing among my women friends when that difference was removed. 
 

Now the dead are treated the same in the ordinances and it is happening under First Presidency direction (similar to how early polygamy was personally directed by Joseph imo) even if not open to the Church as a whole yet. I don’t understand the need to see these changes as regressions based on the weaknesses of (wo)man when other changes to sealing ordinances are seen as adding greater light and knowledge. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

think Cal sees the idea that the church is approving sealings they know will have no efficacy (for the woman) in eternity as problematic.  It can call into question the idea that the temple sealings actually do seal in heaven as they do on earth.  "Pretend" sealings that exist just to make someone feel better sound...icky.

For me the issue is binding in heaven and earth, but not really, just pretending…by the First Presidency sounds like a major lack of respect from them for their Priesthood.  Using it as a pat on the head more or less. 
 

I just don’t see these men who take their calling so seriously that they devote the entirety of the rest of their lives, sacrificing family and fun time in a huge way to serve the Gospel, to teach truth to the best of their ability as using sacred temple ordinances as a empty promise to make someone feel better, especially when we are being taught all the time that living the gospel takes sacrifice. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

also think that having one policy for the dead and one for the living often doesn't make much sense.  "We'll seal you to both your husbands just in case but you have to wait till you're dead".  Yeah, kind of a silly concept.

From what I hear, this is not the message being conveyed. If so, the First Presidency are doing a big disservice to the women who believe somehow the sealings will remain intact even if they don’t know how it is going to work. 
 

But this is not told me as firsthand knowledge, so it may be wrong.  
 

When exceptions are granted for baptisms for minors from polygamous families or other situations that are restricted generally, we don’t approach those baptisms on the basis of the decision to be baptized will only be valid later, the exceptional baptism covenant is in force just the same as any other baptism. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Both ordinations were authoritative, equally valid and those involved in the ordinance held the keys to perform it.

Yeah, the analogy doesn’t work because it is the First Presidency involved intentionally choosing to have two sealings declared in place, not two men who either don’t realize the other ordinance took place or are competing using their priesthood. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

And that leads us right back into the issue of the FP sometimes (rarely) allowing--from your perspective--sealings that they know are not efficacious.  And how that's kind of....icky.   

And so trampling on sacred things. I just don’t see it as likely that men devoted to the faith at the level of the First Presidency would be so flippant about temple ordinances…especially when the cultural expectation that the woman isn’t allowed two sealings is so very, very, very strongly in place.

[Calm]

Wrong thread somehow. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

I think it's important to say that I do believe that we need to be willing to be comforted when we are struggling with something and people are trying to help, and with this topic, sometimes people do refuse to be comforted. 

Sometimes we reject comfort (often subconsciously but not always) because we are getting something out of being upset and we want to keep that negative emotion alive.  Maybe it's we feel we deserve to be upset by this so we are going to continue to be no matter what anyone else does or says.  Maybe it's pride at not wanting to admit we weren't seeing the situation as clearly as we thought or didn't have all the information yet.  Maybe it's something else.  Whatever the reason, it happens and we've probably all rejected an offer or attempt at comfort because we weren't ready or willing to move beyond anger or sadness yet.

Last Sunday we talked in SS about Enoch and how he refused to be comforted by God when He tried to tell him that he didn't need to be sad or cry over the the wickedness of His children.  Enoch rejected that offer of comfort instead of embracing that blessing that God was extending.  Sometimes we are all Enoch and miss out on the blessing of comfort, especially from the Lord. 

Some of the people who struggle with polygamy might be stuck in that struggle because they refuse to acknowledge or engage with doctrines, teachings, or opinions that maybe could soften the blow.  They are convinced that the doctrine is evil and they refused to be comforted by anything that doesn't fit that perspective.

BUT, there is a difference between having our thoughts and feelings understood and validated but still refusing to be comforted, and being told to just get over something because X, Y, and Z. 

If we can't empathize and sympathize with someone's hurt, any response we give will not be an offer of comfort.  It will be something else.  Maybe it's information.  Maybe it's opinion.  Maybe it's just our pride at not liking to be disagreed with or a desire to prove we are right.  It could be any number of things, some more benevelant than others.

But it won't be comfort.

So I do think we have to be careful not to paint some of these women as refusing to be comforted when in reality they haven't been offered any actual comfort yet.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If I have an unsubstantiated opinion that disparages the reputation and character of another person, I will be quite circumspect in sharing it publicly.  

More to the point, I would hope to re-visit my negative opinion if it is unsubstantiated, as it may stem from ignorance, lack of charity, even prejudice.

This extends to people who are deceased.  If I were a descendant of Joseph Smith, I would probably not let your libelous characterization of him go unchallenged.  As it is, I feel a debt of gratitude to and kinship with him, such that I am willing to defend his character and reputation against baseless calumnies.

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."  (Matthew 12:36.) 

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."  (Mormon 9:31.)

Thanks,

-Smac

I know, and had my conscience pricked. Thanks!

[juliann]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 I get that.  I respect it, even.  But I think it has its limits.  In my view, I think we go pretty far afield when we fret about polygamy.  It has been prohibited in the Church for 130+ years.  It affects us only in abstract ways, and such effects are almost entirely of our own choosing.  We're bothered because we choose to be so.

 

There is no way for a man to tell a woman she shouldn't be concerned about something that affects her in unique ways. It needs to stop. There is nothing abstract about having your marriage options limited if you are a widow.  There is nothing abstract about your children being sealed to an abusive ex-husband rather than their biological father. There is nothing abstract about men having multiple live sealings while women are limited to one (there have been quiet exceptions made.) There is nothing abstract about being a second wife and spending your life wondering if you will end up in a polygamous situation in heaven...or that your husband may remarry as a widower. 

It is high time that men started taking women's concerns seriously.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is no way for a man to tell a woman she shouldn't be concerned about something that affects her in unique ways. It needs to stop. There is nothing abstract about having your marriage options limited if you are a widow.  There is nothing abstract about your children being sealed to an abusive ex-husband rather than their biological father. There is nothing abstract about men having multiple live sealings while women are limited to one (there have been quiet exceptions made.) There is nothing abstract about being a second wife and spending your life wondering if you will end up in a polygamous situation in heaven...or that your husband may remarry as a widower. 

It is high time that men started taking women's concerns seriously.

I KNEW that the word "mansplaining" was about to appear out of nowhere......  5, 4, 3,...

I especially like it when it appears in a discussion how women and men are the "same"....

Definitely a good time to leave..... the mob is assembling.....

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And so trampling on sacred things. I just don’t see it as likely that men devoted to the faith at the level of the First Presidency would be so flippant about temple ordinances…especially when the cultural expectation that the woman isn’t allowed two sealings is so very, very, very strongly in place.

I think you're reading into the actions of the FP based on something not in evidence.
But we've discussed this in the past and we don't agree on it.  No reason to hash it out again. 
You believe valid polyandrous sealings are taking place that will be efficacious in the next life. 
I believe polyandrous sealing ceremonies are taking place but I don't see any evidence even the FP believes there will be polyandrous eternal families.  And I certainly don't.
We can agree to disagree.

And if the FP ever announced a revelation and began sealing same sex couples I wouldn't accept those as valid either.  Can't seal something into a form that simply doesn't exist.

Edited August 3, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

So I do think we have to be careful not to paint some of these women as refusing to be comforted when in reality they haven't been offered any actual comfort yet.

This, this, this, this, this…

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

especially like it when it appears in a discussion how women and men are the "same"....

Same in some ways doesn’t mean same in all ways, especially in treatment when beliefs that there are differences are inaccurate. 
 

And my point is the lack of recognition that sealings are being treated the same after death leads to different experiences for those that are currently being treated different because of the assumption that the ordinances are different.  And that difference of treatment when no currently documented difference exists has an effect.
 

Two groups of kids go out into the sun daily. One group has tanned or dark skin naturally,  another group run very pale.  The supervisor sees the difference in skin color and decides the pale group needs sunblock to prevent those nasty burns they see while the more naturally tanned skinned group obviously aren’t as likely to burn as they can’t see much redness on them. So they give sunblock to the pale kids, but refuse to for the others as not needed for them, they don’t burn after all. 
 

Parents would have a right to be really ticked off when their tanned or darker skinned kids came home complaining of sunburn, wouldn’t they?  And have a right to protest they should be getting the same treatment because hey, their skin gets burn too, even if it is harder to see. 
 

It was not uncommon for medical professionals to believe darker skinned individuals were much less likely to get skin cancer.  This has been scientifically proven to be false, there is a lower prevalence but it is still common enough it should be checked for thoroughly. But not everyone is up to date, especially the patients themselves. 
 

Is it wrong to insist attention needs to be given to those who got skin cancer because they weren’t given needed protection or knew they needed it even though we know they should have been treated much the same in levels and timing of attention?  Is it wrong to be concerned that even now there is a big gap between when skin cancer gets diagnosed which leads to at times tragic results?  Should intervention all go away because now we know everyone is at risk for skin cancer?
 

https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-is-there-a-skin-cancer-crisis-in-people-of-color/

Edited August 4, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

I get that.  I respect it, even.  But I think it has its limits.  In my view, I think we go pretty far afield when we fret about polygamy.  It has been prohibited in the Church for 130+ years.  It affects us only in abstract ways, and such effects are almost entirely of our own choosing.  We're bothered because we choose to be so.

There is no way for a man to tell a woman she shouldn't be concerned about something that affects her in unique ways.

Yes, there is.  I reject the notion that a man cannot offer input to a woman solely because he is male, and vice versa.

Polygamy affects both men and women.  And nobody is telling anyone what to do.  We are simply offering viewpoints and perspectives.  We don't have stewardship/authority over each other.

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

It needs to stop.

No, it doesn't.  I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head.  I'm expressing a viewpoint, just like you are expressing yours.  The difference is that your viewpoint presumes to silence mine.  Solely because I am male.

It won't work.

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is nothing abstract about having your marriage options limited if you are a widow.  There is nothing abstract about your children being sealed to an abusive ex-husband rather than their biological father.

Neither of these are gender-specific concerns.  

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is nothing abstract about men having multiple live sealings while women are limited to one (there have been quiet exceptions made.)

Actually, I think that is pretty abstract (as in "thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances").

"Multiple live sealinlgs" only has meaning to those who choose to impart meaning.  I happen to believe that the sealing power is real, but I can't prove it, and it has no particular substantive effect in the real world.  It is almost purely a matter of faith.  And that faith can and should incorporate the full ambit of our understanding of the doctrines pertaining to sealings, including A) agency, B) the ratifying effect of the Holy Spirit, C) the requirement to keep covenants, D) the various points of counsel we have received regarding the Millennium and other constraints on our perception and understanding of how sealings work, E) the power of the Atonement (which is really getting a short shrift in this discussion, IMO), F) the futility and impropriety of fretting about and railing against issues that we are nowhere near having sufficient light and knowledge, and more.

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is nothing abstract about being a second wife and spending your life wondering if you will end up in a polygamous situation in heaven...or that your husband may remarry as a widower. 

Yes, there is.  In this life, that is an abstraction.  It's a concern, and one I understand and even empathize with.

I would still say to someone seeking my advice or within my stewardship: Get over it, or past it, or whatever.  Don't obsess over things like this.  Don't chew yourself up with fears that are based on speculation and ignorance.  Have faith, keep your covenants, serve others, sustain the Brethren, endure to the end.  Study the matter out if you really are that invested in it, but in the end it comes down to faith.

In 1 Nephi 11 Nephi was shown in vision something he did not understand or fully comprehend:

Quote

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

There is much virtue in acknowledging limitations, in exercising faith and obeying God even if and when we "do not know the meaning of all things."

King Benjamin exhorted in Mosiah 4:9 that we "{b}elieve in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."

In 2 Nephi 2:24, Lehi, having expounded on doctrines pertaining to opposition in all things, appeared to acknowledge that the concepts can be difficult to fully understand and accept, but that we should believe that "all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things."

In John 6 the disciplies of the Savior were taught things that were, for them, abstract but difficult-to-accept concepts.  The "Bread of Life" sermon.  And many of them murmured, even to the point of forsaking their discipleship.  Others, however, did not:

Quote

66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Just so.

There is only so far we can go with the light and knowledge revealed to us thus far.  We can each of us seek further personal revelation, but even then I think we will often be called upon to accept things that we do not fully understand, that we are not fully comfortable with, that we may have difficulty accepting.  

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is high time that men started taking women's concerns seriously.

I do take such concerns seriously.  I think most men do.

I also think men also have concerns about polygamy.  But tying ourselves up in fear and emotional knots is not going to advance our personal progression, nor will it help build up the Kingdom.

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)  We can and ought to study and try to sort things out as best we can.  We should not act in fear, or stew in it, or foment it in others, or ratify it when it is largely based on ignorance and speculation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I KNEW that the word "mansplaining" was about to appear out of nowhere......  5, 4, 3,...

I especially like it when it appears in a discussion how women and men are the "same"....

Definitely a good time to leave..... the mob is assembling.....

And yet no one used the word mansplaining, this isn't about women and men being the same. They definitely are not the same when it comes to polygamy. Fearing a few women are a "mob" is interesting, though. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it's important to say that I do believe that we need to be willing to be comforted when we are struggling with something and people are trying to help, and with this topic, sometimes people do refuse to be comforted. 

Yep.

And sometimes "comfort" can come in the form of a reality sandwich.  The first few bites may not taste very good, but they are still nourishing for the soul.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Some of the people who struggle with polygamy might be stuck in that struggle because they refuse to acknowledge or engage with doctrines, teachings, or opinions that maybe could soften the blow.  They are convinced that the doctrine is evil and they refused to be comforted by anything that doesn't fit that perspective.

BUT, there is a difference between having our thoughts and feelings understood and validated but still refusing to be comforted, and being told to just get over something because X, Y, and Z. 

If we can't empathize and sympathize with someone's hurt, any response we give will not be an offer of comfort.  It will be something else.  Maybe it's information.  Maybe it's opinion.  Maybe it's just our pride at not liking to be disagreed with or a desire to prove we are right.  It could be any number of things, some more benevelant than others.

But it won't be comfort.

With respect, I disagree. 

I have long cherished this anecdote from Pres. Hinckley:

Quote

As a new missionary serving in Preston, England, Elder Gordon B. Hinckley was facing a major trial in his life. He was sick when he arrived in the mission field, and he quickly became discouraged because of the opposition to the missionary work. At a time of deep frustration, Elder Hinckley wrote in a letter to his father that he felt he was wasting his time and his father’s money. A little while later, Elder Hinckley received a reply from his dad. It said, “Dear Gordon, I have your recent letter. I have only one suggestion: forget yourself and go to work.”

I think we can empathize, but not indulge someone in fears that are based mostly on ignorance and speculation.

We can empathize someone's struggle, but not ratify the errors in reasoning that are making it worse.

We can empathize concerns, but not go along with acting on them out of fear and ignorance and speculation rather than faith and knowledge and revelation.

We can empathize with someone's "major trial" in life, and then help them in the same way Pres. Hinckley's father helped him.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

So I do think we have to be careful not to paint some of these women as refusing to be comforted when in reality they haven't been offered any actual comfort yet.

Sure.  If the shoe fits, wear it.  Otherwise, don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it's important to say that I do believe that we need to be willing to be comforted when we are struggling with something and people are trying to help, and with this topic, sometimes people do refuse to be comforted. 

Sometimes we reject comfort (often subconsciously but not always) because we are getting something out of being upset and we want to keep that negative emotion alive.  Maybe it's we feel we deserve to be upset by this so we are going to continue to be no matter what anyone else does or says.  Maybe it's pride at not wanting to admit we weren't seeing the situation as clearly as we thought or didn't have all the information yet.  Maybe it's something else.  Whatever the reason, it happens and we've probably all rejected an offer or attempt at comfort because we weren't ready or willing to move beyond anger or sadness yet.

Last Sunday we talked in SS about Enoch and how he refused to be comforted by God when He tried to tell him that he didn't need to be sad or cry over the the wickedness of His children.  Enoch rejected that offer of comfort instead of embracing that blessing that God was extending.  Sometimes we are all Enoch and miss out on the blessing of comfort, especially from the Lord. 

Some of the people who struggle with polygamy might be stuck in that struggle because they refuse to acknowledge or engage with doctrines, teachings, or opinions that maybe could soften the blow.  They are convinced that the doctrine is evil and they refused to be comforted by anything that doesn't fit that perspective.

Years ago my friend an I were having a serious gospel discussion about priesthood authority. We talked for a good long time. At one point she said, "that would mean that my church doesn't have authority."

And I just sat there trying to figure out how to answer gently.  I couldn't come up with one single way.  I finally just told her, "yes."  I figured she would either hear the Spirit confirming it or not hear the Spirit confirming it.

Then I sat on pins and needles for what seemed the longest time for her to respond.  She finally told me she would have to think about it.

I think there is a lot of doctrine and principles where that's where we finally end up.  We either have to accept the thing as true or not and then let ourselves be comforted that whatever is true will work out.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

BUT, there is a difference between having our thoughts and feelings understood and validated but still refusing to be comforted, and being told to just get over something because X, Y, and Z. 

If we can't empathize and sympathize with someone's hurt, any response we give will not be an offer of comfort.  It will be something else.  Maybe it's information.  Maybe it's opinion.  Maybe it's just our pride at not liking to be disagreed with or a desire to prove we are right.  It could be any number of things, some more benevelant than others.

But it won't be comfort.

Yes.  And it's so important to know what is needed and how to give it.  Information or comfort.  A little of both.  

Sometimes you give info like I did above. Sometimes just tell me "yep it stinks. I don't know how to deal with it either". That's 1000 times more comforting than trying to show me how I'm looking at it wrong.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

So I do think we have to be careful not to paint some of these women as refusing to be comforted when in reality they haven't been offered any actual comfort yet.

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.

And sometimes "comfort" can come in the form of a reality sandwich.  The first few bites may not taste very good, but they are still nourishing for the soul.

With respect, I disagree. 

I have long cherished this anecdote from Pres. Hinckley:

I think we can empathize, but not indulge someone in fears that are based mostly on ignorance and speculation.

We can empathize someone's struggle, but not ratify the errors in reasoning that are making it worse.

We can empathize concerns, but not go along with acting on them out of fear and ignorance and speculation rather than faith and knowledge and revelation.

We can empathize with someone's "major trial" in life, and then help them in the same way Pres. Hinckley's father helped him.

Sure.  If the shoe fits, wear it.  Otherwise, don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

I realized that some people would disagree when I wrote that but knew it would be those who had no desire to offer comfort anyway.  There are some topics that I don't have any desire to offer comfort on, so I'm not saying that in a self-righteous way. 

It is what it is--a bit of a reality sandwich that you just need to eat even though it doesn't taste that good because it's still good for you, as some would say.   

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

think you're reading into the actions of the FP based on something not in evidence.

I am misreading a respect for sacred ordinances that is not based on evidence?  Seriously?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You believe valid polyandrous sealings are taking place that will be efficacious in the next life. 

No, I do not. 

I have explained before, but will try again. I believe sealing ordinances mean the same for women as men…whatever that will be in the eternities. 
 

I believe in the eternities when our mortal limitations are long forgotten, the fullness of the ordinances we have participated will be available to all as God is no respecter of persons…the Atonement is truly deep, in the phrasing of another person. 

What that fullness is I have always be open that I do not know, but it makes sense to me if that includes multiple marriages for men, it will include multiple marriages for women. There is no logical doctrine that prevents women from being able to fully enjoy God’s blessings. 
 

I also don’t believe marriage in mortality is close enough to eternal marriage to guess at more than vague outlines of a magnificent, massive eternal family with God the Father and God the Son at the core. I suspect there will be others at the core as well, but don’t believe that has been revealed yet. Also “at the core” is not that accurate because it implies some are further away than others. I believe it will be more like we are all at the core with God at our side, but describing the mechanics of that is impossible. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

And yet no one used the word mansplaining, this isn't about women and men being the same. They definitely are not the same when it comes to polygamy. Fearing a few women are a "mob" is interesting, though. 

Aren’t you the only one that is new to the thread?  You must be the assembling mob since I and others have been posting all along. 
 

I think I will start calling you Legion. 
 

(Remember when we were all Juliann?)

Edited August 4, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, juliann said:

Fearing a few women are a "mob" is interesting, though. 

Oh yes, absolutely terrifying.

SUBJUNCTIVE 

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/3/2021 at 12:28 AM, Stargazer said:

The Atonement goes as deep as repentance.

Those who are baptized but do not repent, have only taken a short bath. Atonement cannot penetrate any deeper than repentance.

Every knee will bend…..

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/3/2021 at 9:45 AM, Tacenda said:

Would you have a problem if your wife was able to have more than one husband in the hereafter? Or even several husbands? Maybe that's the problem, men's usual take about the women only able to be sealed to one man from early on in the church. Because as has been mentioned somewhere on this thread, what if there were more righteous men than women? 

@Stargazer mentioned how in his experience or mind, not sure, women were more spiritual and kinder than men. Well, I counter that, in my experience I've seen women be the opposite and put on acts at church. And I've seen very, very kind and spiritual men. 

I believe Heavenly Father will not force anything on his children that they do not want.