Anti-Polygamy is Anti-Christ

[erichard]

I wrote this some time ago, and thought perhaps some would be interested to read it here at FAIRboards.

Richard

"Polygamy" is more of an issue than many see at first.

Polygamy really is only a natural and inevitable extension

of "Patriarchal Government", which is the more fundamental issue.

When marriage centers on a "Political Contract", and the Husband is

the Political Head of the Government of the "Royal Family Kingdom",

then there is no Political reason that he cannot have more than one

wife.

For example, the Government of the United States can have more than

one State subject to its laws, but a State can only have one

Government over it. Likewise, the Husband can have more than one

wife subject to his Government, but the wife must only have one

husband-- or which Government would the Wife or State follow?

The Family becomes the First level of Government beyond the

individual, and the Head of that Government is the Husband, subject

to Christ.

Also, Polygyny makes sense spiritually. If a firm follower of

Christ has more than one wife, then all his many children will have

both a Father and Mother who will nurture the child to also follow

Christ. No faithful woman, no matter her problems, who loves Christ

will be without the option of a honorable marriage with husband and

children. And if she loses her husband to death or apostasy, she

will have the immediate option of another faithful husband for her

and her children.

Polygyny in humans, as in other successful higher species makes

sense biologically. It establishes a strong, uncontested head for

the family to follow, which is critical especially in times of

conflict. It is hard for abusive, corrupt men to even have one wife

where polygamy is lived faithfully- so they do not reproduce, the

future has less of them.

If a woman had more than one husband, there would be confusion as to

who the Father of her children are, and who would be responsible to

take care of the child. Biology thus again supports polygyny.

And more importantly, Patriarchal Government is a natural,

inevitable extension of Christ's Government-- which is the MOST

fundamental issue.

Everything that is going on in this world centers around the

struggle between those seeking the Government of Christ, and those

opposing the Government of Christ, and seeking the governments of

the world.

By establishing Christ as the Perfect Government over Patriarchal

Government, the Family is given the BEST possible Government. The

scriptures are clear that Patriarchal Government is integral to the

literal re-establishment of the Tribes of Israel, and to the coming

political Israel, or Zion.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every MAN is CHRIST;

and the head of the WOMAN is the man; and the head of Christ is

GOD." 1 Cor. 11:3

The establishment of the Government of Christ on Earth is IDENTICAL

with the establishment of Patriarchal Government, and with Polygyny--

an inevitable part of Patriarchal Government.

Those who oppose "Polygamy in any form" are DIRECTLY opposing Christ

and His Law and Government. They are ANTI-CHRIST in the most

absolute way possible-- they are enemies of Christ. There is no

middle ground, one is either for Christ, or they are His enemy.

Many who profess Christ today are probably His worst enemies. Even

leaders in the Mormon church.

Polygyny is abused by many today, but it will be part of Zion

when it is perfected, because it is based on Eternal Truth.

Polygyny is certainly only one particular issue, but it is a

critical issue in the establishment of Zion and its laws, because

the adversary will always use his servants to fight against

Patriarchy (and thus Christarchy) in any form.

Thus it is not surprising that when Christ restored His church, and

laid the foundation for the coming of Zion through the Prophet

Joseph Smith, that he led His Priesthood to begin the struggle to

have "Polygamy" as part of the religion of His people.

We live in an age of rampant immorality, perversion, homosexuality,

pedophileness, pornography, divorce, and more. If one does not

realize this, they are out of touch with reality. It is certain

that much of the problem is that America is NOT living the Lord's

laws of marriage--

Our laws in America do not give the righteous Husband the proper

rights and authority he needs to be empowered and motivated to bring

his full intelligence and skill towards being a Husband to the best

of his masculine ability.

If a Bible believer reading this still questions the righteousness

of Polygamy when lived correctly, I recommend they read the Bible

book of Ruth over and over until they experience the Spirit while

reading it.

My conviction for today is that Polygamy should be de-criminalized

in America.

Without the proper head to govern it (Christ through revelation) it

would be a mistake for this nation to make it a "legal" option. But

if it were de-criminalized, those who are guided by Christ could

live it without any threat of Government prosecution.

And those who use fraud or coercion in marriage can be prosecuted

for these crimes and not for their polygamy.

[truth dancer]

Hi Richard...

Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself that your desires for polygamy are righteous!

"Polygamy" is more of an issue than many see at first.

Agreed!

Polygamy really is only a natural and inevitable extension

of "Patriarchal Government", which is the more fundamental issue.

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever....

When marriage centers on a "Political Contract", and the Husband is

the Political Head of the Government of the "Royal Family Kingdom",

then there is no Political reason that he cannot have more than one

wife.

What? Silliness... about what are you talking? Political Contract?

For example, the Government of the United States can have more than

one State subject to its laws, but a State can only have one

Government over it. Likewise, the Husband can have more than one

wife subject to his Government, but the wife must only have one

husband-- or which Government would the Wife or State follow?

So, a wife is subject to the government of her husband? Ummm... you think this is church doctrine? Is she to obey him as well?

Also, Polygyny makes sense spiritually. If a firm follower of

Christ has more than one wife, then all his many children will have

both a Father and Mother who will nurture the child to also follow

Christ. No faithful woman, no matter her problems, who loves Christ

will be without the option of a honorable marriage with husband and

children. And if she loses her husband to death or apostasy, she

will have the immediate option of another faithful husband for her

and her children.

I always think it is funny when men think women are so desperate for a man that they would choose polygamy. Personally I don't think a man with five wives and twenty five children is much of a parent at all... he is more like a sperm doner! Single women are assured of a husband in the next life....

Polygyny in humans, as in other successful higher species makes

sense biologically. It establishes a strong, uncontested head for

the family to follow, which is critical especially in times of

conflict. It is hard for abusive, corrupt men to even have one wife

where polygamy is lived faithfully- so they do not reproduce, the

future has less of them.

This makes no sense whatsoever.... when women do not need to rely on men for survival women do not need to remain in abusive partnerships... you make it sound like polygamous men are less abusive? Strange...

If a woman had more than one husband, there would be confusion as to

who the Father of her children are, and who would be responsible to

take care of the child. Biology thus again supports polygyny.

As if polygamous men take care of their children? And if women had more than one partner, trust me, she could figure out who the father was... gosh how stupid do you think we are?

Everything that is going on in this world centers around the

struggle between those seeking the Government of Christ, and those

opposing the Government of Christ, and seeking the governments of

the world.

You are kidding right? In what world do you live? Most of those on this planet are struggling to just survive... I think governmental issues are the least of their worries... and if you think the church is the government of Christ, well... how many of the six billion people on the earth have ever even heard of JS?

The establishment of the Government of Christ on Earth is IDENTICAL

with the establishment of Patriarchal Government, and with Polygyny--

an inevitable part of Patriarchal Government.

And why is polygyny inevitable? Because you want it?

Those who oppose "Polygamy in any form" are DIRECTLY opposing Christ

and His Law and Government. They are ANTI-CHRIST in the most

absolute way possible-- they are enemies of Christ. There is no

middle ground, one is either for Christ, or they are His enemy.

Many who profess Christ today are probably His worst enemies. Even

leaders in the Mormon church.

Wow.... did you get some revelation? Are you starting a new church or something? Have you spoken to GBH lately or something?

but it will be part of Zion

when it is perfected,

Documentation for official church doctrine on this? Or is this going to be doctrine in your own church you are starting!!!

We live in an age of rampant immorality, perversion, homosexuality,

pedophileness, pornography, divorce, and more. If one does not

realize this, they are out of touch with reality. It is certain

that much of the problem is that America is NOT living the Lord's

laws of marriage--

So the problems of the world are due to not having polygamy... OK then...

Our laws in America do not give the righteous Husband the proper

rights and authority he needs to be empowered and motivated to bring

his full intelligence and skill towards being a Husband to the best

of his masculine ability.

I think this pretty much sums up your feelings and ideas...

This is sort of scary Richard.... what exactly is it that you what? More power in your family? More women? More control? More authority over whom? Why do you think you are being held back in your intelligence and skill and masculine ability? Because you don't have enough women?

~dancer~

[emaughan]

Not following the councils of God is "anti-Christ". I do not have problem with plural marriage, but I do have a problem with those who wish to practice it without authority from God. Those who left the LDS church over the issue must have forgot what the term "prophet" means. I also wonder if they understand the message in the book of Jacob. It is God who determines when and where plural marriage is proper - outside of God's council it becomes just another philosophy of man mingled with scripture.

So according to your POV, I am an anti-Christ because I am opposed to the practice of plural marriage at this time. It's ok, most of the BACs think I'm an anti-Christ because I'm a Mormon. Many think I'm strange because I do believe that polygamy is sanctioned by God at certain times and seasons. Oh well.

P.S. I don't often agree with truth dancer but in this case I do. Your statements show some of the "dark side" of those who support polygamy - it sounds as writen self justification. Polygamy is justified when, and only when, the Lord commisions it.

[juliann]

Those who oppose "Polygamy in any form" are DIRECTLY opposing Christ

and His Law and Government. They are ANTI-CHRIST in the most

absolute way possible-- they are enemies of Christ. There is no

middle ground, one is either for Christ, or they are His enemy.

Many who profess Christ today are probably His worst enemies. Even

leaders in the Mormon church.

I guess I missed the part in the NT where it says we are saved because of "polygamy".

[MorningStar]

AMEN, TRUTH DANCER!!!!!!!

[Jon Haugo]

I think that erichard is joking. I truly doubt that he is serious. Maybe this should be moved over to the "clean joke" thread started by Bertram.

[erichard]

...

Without the proper head to govern it (Christ through revelation) it would be a mistake for this nation to make it a "legal" option.

...

I completely agree there must always be revelation from Christ to govern the Celestial version of plural marriage.

Consider 1 Cor. 11:3 again:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every MAN is CHRIST;

and the head of the WOMAN is the man; and the head of Christ is

GOD."

This terse verse is talking about government. A woman has a biological head, she does not need another one. What this New Testament verse is talking about is an order of government that no true prophet, nor Christ himself has never spoken against.

Remember that Christ said if a person keeps nine of the ten commandments, but breaks one of them he has broken the entire law.

Likewise, can you not believe that if a person rejects that the "head of the Woman is the man", then they are also rejecting the other two doctrines: "the head of the man is Christ" and the "head of Christ is God"?

Thus by rejecting part of the law of God, they are actually rejecting all of the law of God. If one rejects the law of Christ, and the government of Christ, and want some other government and law then they are truly Anti-Christ.

Whether anyone understands or not, plural marriage is a direct result of this order of government.

I am not judging anyone here, as I truly do not know your hearts. But none of us would be on earth if we were already perfect.

So you ought to circumspectly consider that if you are "ashamed" of plural marriage, and always seeking to accuse anyone who is not ashamed of it of evil and perversion, then possibly you are the one who needs a change of heart.

I am not advocating a lot of plural marriage, for sure. But I do believe that D&C 132:44 cannot be honestly lived by the Latter-day Saints unless they claim the right to live plural marriage when necessary. So to always be ashamed of it cannot be the right attitude.

I again recommend any disbelievers in plural marriage to keep reading the book of Ruth until they experiences the spirit.

Richard

[Zeph]

In my opinion, it is at best discourteous to accuse someone of being "anti-Christ" because of their differing opinion on the issue of polygamy. There are penty of solidly and demonstrably "pro-Christ" people on either side of this and many other divisive issues.

Zeph

[Jon Haugo]

Uh,

Are you trying to pick up chicks?

Jon

[Jon Haugo]

I just talked this over with my wife. She's not falling for it, she is staying with me!!! I am very thankful.

Jon

[Connolly]

Those who oppose "Polygamy in any form" are DIRECTLY opposing Christ

In any form?

[DaveS]

Isa.4

[1] And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

This is a millenial prophecy from Issiah. Looks like plural marriage to me.

[MorningStar]

I think that erichard is joking. I truly doubt that he is serious. Maybe this should be moved over to the "clean joke" thread started by Bertram.

I wish he were joking.

P.S. Hi Jon!

[Jon Haugo]

Hi Morning Star,

How are you? I guess he isn't joking. I am glad that you aren't falling for him. Kind of reminds me of this:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=6946&st=0 - took me a while to find it.

I enjoyed the baptism thread, this one is enjoyable for a different reason. BTW, when my wife saw me on this board she also saw your name on the screen and asked how you were. She appreciates you.

Sincerely

Jon

[erichard]

Those who oppose "Polygamy in any form" are DIRECTLY opposing Christ

In any form?

I realize most polygamy today has problems with it. But if a person teaches that plural marriage is always wrong, and are totally against it ever, then that is what I am talking about.

I am not trying to accuse anyone, but make them realize that the Zion that is coming will not be based on what is popular, but what is eternally true. And also that those who despise Zion's laws now will eventually realize they have been enemies of Christ.

[Tchild2]

I realize most polygamy today has problems with it. But if a person teaches that plural marriage is always wrong, and are totally against it ever, then that is what I am talking about.

Plural marriage is not wrong, it just doesn't seem to function well at many levels in our society. Polygamy is just another form of human interaction that is neither good nor bad if the involved parties consent to it. Polygamy seems to get really ugly when a religious hierarchial system is introduced that has a flow down effect from top to bottom. Then it is more about control than anything else, then add some revelation to the mix by those at the top (those in control) directing the affairs of those in a lesser station, and the real fun begins in creating a dysfunctional familial arrangement. Polygamy is at its ugliest when the alpha males recruit the unwilling, uninformed, or non consenting children or adults as marital partners that lie within their religious influence.

I am not trying to accuse anyone, but make them realize that the Zion that is coming will not be based on what is popular, but what is eternally true. And also that those who despise Zion's laws now will eventually realize they have been enemies of Christ.

Well, if you are an active LDS member, then you are talking about the whole body of the LDS church as being "an enemy of christ" in its current position in relation to polygamy. Secondly, if you are a believing member, then you know that if you practice polygamy and have reached a high enough station within the church, that you will be excommunicated by the very priesthood you validate as legitimately held by the church.

Are you saying that the LDS church, endowed with the priesthood, could excommunicate you today for a principal of truth that must ultimately be accepted and/or lived in the future?

Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

[truth dancer]

Hi Richard....

Our laws in America do not give the righteous Husband the proper

rights and authority he needs to be empowered and motivated to bring

his full intelligence and skill towards being a Husband to the best

of his masculine ability.

I ask again,

I think this pretty much sums up your feelings and ideas...

This is sort of scary Richard.... what exactly is it that you what? More power in your family? More women? More control? More authority over whom? Why do you think you are being held back in your intelligence and skill and masculine ability? Because you don't have enough women?

Please help me understand what you are thinking here...

~dancer~

[Dear Mee]

RICHARD, you certainly lay some intersting cards on the table. You know, they are not to be played at the moment! That you bring them out is quite disturbing to most of us. As apologists of LDSism, how do we deal with one who threatens our attempts to main-stream ourselves? With great difficulty and possibly more denial.

Mee hastens to add, i could not disagree more with your take on the male-female relationship. If it is made in honesty and seriously considered, by you, the-way-things-should-be, then be informed i am in absolute opposition to your position.

That being said, i know where you are coming from, with the validation and the justification, YOU have for your belief, (and aspirations?). These too i do not accept as being Christian, from my perspective.

OT evidence of practice, or thought, does little to positively impress Mee. The OT is chuck-full of ignorance and error. Appealing to that volume of primitive superstition and misrepresentation of God, IMSCO, in this case, by you--as well as by others, in different cases--is, if only to Mee, revelatory.

Appealing to Paul's understanding of the family once again does not lend a lot of credebility to your/ones argument of good spousal/familial compassion and affection.

Several weeks ago there was a FB thread touching this same topic. On that thread i suggested that without government intervention, and the consequent Manifesto, Mormonism would not be as it currently is. To Mee it would be unacceptable. At the same time there was considerable defence using the same rational you use. So while You are out-of-the-closet i suspect you have more secret-support than many of us like to think. Thanks for the horror story. It should give great insentive to "...know the truth..." Luv to all, DM

[erichard]

Hi Richard....

Hi Dancer,

The quote from me does not "sum up" my ideas and feelings.

I was simply rephrasing one point in defense of Christ's Patriarchy that the 1842 Nauvoo "Peace Maker" pamphlet makes:

Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."  She gave unto man and he did eat.  Therefore, said Paul, "I suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp authority over the man, but to be in subjection." [see 1 Timothy 2:12-14]  Her law and government over a man we are thus taught by the Holy Spirit is an usurpation of power.  ...Hence, we have lost the original dignity, nobleness and excellency of the masculine mind; and have, as it respects the sex of our minds, become effeminate.

Peace Maker pamphlet

My own conviction is that this "Peace Maker" writing was inspired, but not without errors. I realize some will differ on the inspired part.

I find the above idea hardly different than this:

7 Questions by Elias Higbee: What is meant by the command in Isaiah, 52d chapter, 1st verse, which saith: Put on thy strength, O Zion-- and what people had Isaiah reference to?

  8 He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost.

  9 What are we to understand by Zion loosing herself from the bands of her neck; 2d verse?

  10 We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation. See the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the Gentiles.

D&C 113

I have a conviction that the Zion of true Israel is coming. The D&C talks more about this Zion (a political government) than it does about the church. Zion will not come until the present US government falls by itself, and thus there will be a lot of tribulation. Those who survive will do so by learning to live by correct principles independent of anyone else, even independent of leaders. I believe D&C 132:44 is one of these correct principles. This paragraph more accurately sums up my feelings about "being a man" on this thread.

[erichard]

...

Well, if you are an active LDS member, then you are talking about the whole body of the LDS church as being "an enemy of christ" in its current position in relation to polygamy.  Secondly, if you are a believing member, then you know that if you practice polygamy and have reached a high enough station within the church, that you will be excommunicated by the very priesthood you validate as legitimately held by the church. 

...

My faith is that only God can give true Priesthood (the Holy Ghost MUST be in the one who ordains: D&C 20:60). And thus only God can take away true Priesthood.

Me and several friends were cast out of the LDS church, but we have faith the LORD has not taken His spirit and authority from us. This is because His church is in need of being cleansed as He predicted.

We have faith in the Doctrine and Covenants revelations, but we also have faith in the Second Book of Commandments. We are officers in the School of the Prophets by authority of these revelations. We are not a church, and cannot really function correctly until the church is cleansed. 2BC 24 gives a parable showing how this will happen.

The 2BC begins with this chastizement of the Gentile church:

SECTION 1

Received February or March, 1961

At Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada

Thus saith the Lord God: Not until the church

again lives the New and Everlasting Covenant as

revealed to them in plainness by My servant the

Prophet Joseph Smith, and verified from time to

time by others of My holy prophets, will I instruct

and guide this church with further enlightenment.

2 For if ye will not receive the word ye have, what

profit will it be if I reveal more to you? For you

will treat it as naught and trample it under your

feet.

3 Repent therefore, both the sheep and the

shepherd, and I will reveal more of the mysteries

of My kingdom, for I will give here a little and

there a little, line upon line, and precept upon

precept, if ye will have it, until you have all truth

and are able to stand in My presence.

4 For My word is as a refiner's fire, dividing the

evil from the good, and sharper than a two-edged

sword dividing asunder both bone and marrow.

5 Repent therefore! Come unto Me, all ye that are

heavy laden and I will give you rest.

6 Call upon My name both day and night and

repent of your many iniquities, and I will forgive

you, and you will again be acceptable as My

church.

7 For there are many among you, even of your

leaders, and those who call themselves your

leaders, who are not acceptable in My sight, for

they do corrupt the right ways of the LORD, and do

pervert My doctrines which I have so plainly

revealed to you in the Book of Mormon and the

Doctrine and Covenants.

8 This they do because they have not the Spirit,

and seek after the glory of the world and not My

glory, for I see their works, and know their acts,

and they are not of Me, and I have not sent them.

9 Repent therefore, and come unto Me, and learn

of My ways and I will be your shepherd and ye will

be My sheep.  Amen.

Early 2BC Sections

So I have faith that the LORD does not accept that the church that He set up among the Gentiles is really living by D&C 132 even though they claim to be doing so. This apparently is the major issue the LORD has with His church-- and He will not speak by revelation to the church until they repent of this.

The 2BC Preface revelation makes it clear that D&C 132:44 must be lived. If you read 2BC 24 enough you can understand the deep underlying reason for the LORD's concern that the instructions in D&C 132 must be lived.

Here is a defense of my faith:

A defense

Richard

[truth dancer]

Hi erichard...

I still don't get it.

What specifically do you struggle with? What is it you want for men?

You seem to think women should be in "subjection" to men... what does this mean to you? I'm not sure if you are married or not but it seems to imply you have power, control, and authority over your wife. She must abide by your will and demands.

Could you give a few examples of women having power and control over men? Or women upsurping a man's authority?

To what does, "her law and her government" refer? I am not aware of any government or law that one would describe as "hers."

This paragraph more accurately sums up my feelings about "being a man" on this thread.

So, (the scary question here...) what does it mean to you, to be a man?

What is the "dignity, noblenes, and excellency of the masculine mind" that you have lost?

You seem to be implying that you want more power, control, and authority... over whom do you want this?

I would respectfully invite you to read the GC talks given over the last few years concerning abusive men, marriage, families, husbands etc. etc. etc.

My observation is that the leaders of the church are making a very concerted effort to help families be healthy and whole, respectful and non-abusive.

Perhaps the current prophets words trump those of the dead ones?

Perhaps some scripture was not really addressing the concerns of our day but reflected the customs and times of the era?

Perhaps the gospel is moving toward greater and greater holiness, light and knowledge?

Perhaps God actually loves women and is pleased with how men are becoming more compassionate, and sensitive to their needs and emotions as human beings rather than possessions?

Perhaps God sees men moving toward the role model of Jesus, giving us an example of kindness, gentleness, honoring women, caring for children, having strength and control of themselves rather than an ego based need to control and dominate those weaker than they? (weaker in the sense that women were dependent on men for their very survival at the time)

Perhaps God is pleased that some men do not look upon women as being on the earth soley for their pleasure?

Perhaps God is happy that women are not so degraded and dehumanized as in days gone by?

Could be?

~dancer~

[truth dancer]

Well I posted my last post prior to reading your last post...

So.. I guess the suggestion of reading the previous GC talks is irrelevant!

Oh well...

~dancer~

[juliann]

RICHARD, you certainly lay some intersting cards on the table. You know, they are not to be played at the moment!   That you bring them out is quite disturbing to most of us. As apologists of LDSism, how do we deal with one who threatens our attempts to main-stream ourselves? With great difficulty and possibly more denial.

Your statements become more bizarre and cynical by the day. The guy says "Me and several friends were cast out of the LDS church, but we have faith the LORD has not taken His spirit and authority from us." Perhaps he meant "MEE and several friends....."

At any rate, I'm missing the "denial" part...excommunication sounds to meeeee like outright public and quite emphatic rejection. Is Mee trying to be clever again?

TChild: Plural marriage is not wrong, it just doesn't seem to function well at many levels in our society. Polygamy is just another form of human interaction that is neither good nor bad if the involved parties consent to it. Polygamy seems to get really ugly when a religious hierarchial system is introduced that has a flow down effect from top to bottom.

Have we ever seen polygamy in a situation that was not politically repressive to some degree? I think we need to see that in order to make some judgements. I don't think that the history of this unusual situation has begun to be mined. And I find it interesting that in Mormonism, the result was to give women more political and social freedoms not less (easy divorces, the vote, access to education, etc.). I would think it should work the other way. There are so many anomalies in the short LDS practice I think that you should be cautious in making such hard-line generalizations.

My problem with plural marriages is much more pragmatic....you run out of candidates for marriage.

[rameumptom]

I think that Plural Marriage is neither good nor evil, just like any other idea that is not twisted by the wiles of evil men.

More importantly, though, I believe that plural marriage is only good when authorized by the Lord's servant. Those who are entering into plural marriages at this time, are doing so through wicked intent and disobedience.

That some believe that plural marriage is THE most important key in God's kingdom, leads me to believe they are looking beyond the mark. Obedience to God and his living prophets are paramount to salvation. Quoting dead prophets in pamphlets that are not recognized as authoritative in our time opens the door to apostasy.

I also don't sacrifice animals, just because Moses the prophet commanded it. His laws were rescinded, and so was plural marriage.

[erichard]

Well I posted my last post prior to reading your last post...

So.. I guess the suggestion of reading the previous GC talks is irrelevant!

Oh well...

~dancer~

Right. I find reading (or listening to) the "Standard Works" and the Second Book of Commandments much more edifying than conference talks. That is because I have faith confirmed by spiritual witnesses that the Word of the LORD contains a "higher wisdom" than that of even very educated men.

However, I am not opposed to reading individual conference talks that others claim are inspiring.

I appreciate your hope that things are moving forward in the church. I hope you are right. I agree that women in the past and present have often been abused. I am certain that setting up Christ's Patriarchy will not happen without addressing your concerns fully.

Most of what I say is just rephrasing what the LORD has said. If you have issues with it, from my point of view, you need to go to the LORD and ask Him about it. If you find I am not representing what the LORD has said (you must include the Second Book of Commandments also, however) then please I need to know the chapter and verse that contradicts what I am saying.

Since I am committed to following the Word of the LORD, you have a good way to change my mind if you see I am not in harmony with the Written revelations.

I agree that the words of a true living prophet trump the words of the dead ones. But I also believe that the LORD will try the Saints in all things (DC 136:31) including the need to live by the law for removing the President of the church when necessary. (D&C 107:81-84; JST Mark 9:40-48)

I honestly believe the church should have dealt with President Young when he taught Adam-God doctrine in General Conference. (Well, and also some of his other controversial teachings.) Can you not see that just because President Young was held up as "the Prophet" did not guarantee he was actually being a true Prophet when he taught Adam-God doctrine in General Conference?

Can you not see that the same is true today: Conference talks are not presented as the "Word of the LORD", and there is no reason to believe they are guaranteed to be fully the LORD's law and will any more than Conference Talks of President Young's Adam-God teachings.

Dancer, the world is full of wise, educated men and women coming out with all sorts of "good" teachings on how a family should work. But is it not possible that the wisdom of men, which often seems so great, may not be near as good as the simple wisdom of the LORD found in His word?

On the other hand, it would be a mistake to not consider that the LORD could inspire individuals with further understanding on important matters. I agree we must be always open to truth from any source.

Do the conference talks you think I should read contradict the D&C? Do they add or take away doctrine from the D&C? Is it not possible that after all the efforts of the church to "improve", that in the end the church will find that just living by what is in the D&C is the best way there ever was?

Remember, the D&C is full of instructions the church does not live today, including D&C 132:44. Would it hurt to at least try to live by these instructions? And if we lived by them, and it changed the whole situation, then a would not a lot of the "wisdom" of today become irrelevant?

Richard