Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The polygamy "whitewash" continues ...


Rollo Tomasi

Recommended Posts

So the real defense/answer to the questions are:  we don't know.

Defense? not really, Fact, yes

But for those of us who actually ask questions, for which we are told to 'stuff it', there's always going to be a "why??". 

Noone is more curious than LDS but until the questions are answered we choose obedience as a basic principle.

No, what I told you to stuff is your sensationalistic fantasies that you call our beliefs.

Why even do all these sealings if you all think God's just going to reshuffle things once you get there and set things up the way He wants them to be?  Why marry the love of your life in the temple if a "sealing" means little more than "ticket to heaven".  Why marry 1 woman to 10 men if you really don't have any idea if those are going to stick?

I know not, save the Lord commanded me. We only know that this is an ordinance that we have been commanded to perform for those who have preceeded us. And for ourselves we have been commanded to enter into this covenant (meaning the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage)

Why not just start matching up single women with single men (dead ones, of course), get them all sealed up to someone and let God do what He does best - play matchmaker in the hereafer?

Because that isn't what He asked us to do.

We presume that at least one of the sealings will "stick" we just can't presume to know which one.

-Ed

Link to comment

t2t2:

What things I know pales to less than insignificance, when compared to the vast universe of things I don't know.

The Lord has given us a few commandments to follow, a few things he would like us to know. He gave us a road map, and said here follow Me.

I hope and pray to live my life in such a way that at the end of this life. He will say "Well done thou good and faithfull servant. Thou hath been faithfull in a few things. I wiil make thee lord over many things.

Link to comment
No, what I told you to stuff is your sensationalistic fantasies that you call our beliefs.

What sensasionalist fantasy have I labled "belief"?

--------

We presume that at least one of the sealings will "stick" we just can't presume to know which one.

Ahhh...so MAYBE your eternal marriage to your wife will stick...MAYBE it will not. That is your belief?

Link to comment

t2t2:

No. I work as hard as I can at making my marriage work here in this life. The lord has promised me. That IF I am faithful, no blessing will be denied me. He made the exact same promise to my wife.

The only problem I face is making sure I am faithful to my covenents. God will ALWAYS keep His end of the bargain.

Link to comment
No. I work as hard as I can at making my marriage work here in this life. The lord has promised me. That IF I am faithful, no blessing will be denied me. He made the exact same promise to my wife.

The only problem I face is making sure I am faithful to my covenents. God will ALWAYS keep His end of the bargain.

It seems there are conflicting tales being told. Some say they have no doubt that a sealing is a sealing. It's eternal and binding as long as they are faithful. Others seem to think God can and will redo what he will in the next life to match everyone up as needed.

I'm still confused as to what Juliann was saying. It seems she thinks a sealing between man and wife is not closely related to how we envision marriage such as it is on earth. That it's just a way of connecting us to God.

So I wonder still if she thinks there is "marriage", as know the word, in the next life.

Link to comment
No, what I told you to stuff is your sensationalistic fantasies that you call our beliefs.

What sensasionalist fantasy have I labled "belief"?

Should I have said insinuated?

We presume that at least one of the sealings will "stick" we just can't presume to know which one.

Ahhh...so MAYBE your eternal marriage to your wife will stick...MAYBE it will not. That is your belief?

Hmmm, seems you like to take one situation (a woman who is sealed by proxy to all her husbands, 10 if I recall) and equate it to a live sealing where the choices of the participants can be known.

But fine, you are right, maybe it will stick. Maybe I will allow you to shake my confidence in God to the point that I lose the Spirit and join you in that spacious building, and start pointing fingers at the saints of God. (Don't hold your breath)

Maybe my angel of a wife won't make it because she sees antiLDS propaganda on polygamy and it incenses her against the Church to the point that she joins you in that spacious building. (Again, don't hold your breath)

But since neither of us have managed to get our callings and elections made sure... (well at least I haven't) we can't know we'll make it.

But since we have at least entered in by the gate (baptism) and are doing our best to be obedient, and have placed our trust in Him who is our Redeemer to make up for whatever deficiencies that may remain in us as we have done all that we can.

My faith and hope that the sealing will stick is very strong.

-Ed

Link to comment
Hmmm, seems you like to take one situation (a woman who is sealed by proxy to all her husbands, 10 if I recall) and equate it to a live sealing where the choices of the participants can be known.

Not true - I speak of you, Juliann, Brigham Young - people who married by choice. If I read her right (which has been VERY tough to do) I would guess she thinks she's just as "sealed" to Brigham as she is to her husband. We know her choice - yet I sense she thinks that may not matter or, more importantly, misses the point altogether since being sealed to her husband does not mean "married".

THAT is what I'm trying to understand here.

Link to comment
It seems there are conflicting tales being told.  Some say they have no doubt that a sealing is a sealing.  It's eternal and binding as long as they are faithful.  Others seem to think God can and will redo what he will in the next life to match everyone up as needed. 

This is a message board. Why would you expect everyone to say the same thing? I am going to invoke the "asked and answered" policy here because you are asking things that you have been told cannot be answered to the point it becomes badgering.

Move on.

Link to comment

t2t2:

I can not presume to speak for Juliaan. She is more than capable of doing that herself.

All we really know is what is in the Scriptures. Christ loved woman and marriage. He constantly talks about weddings and marriages, brides, and bridegrooms. He commands us to love our wives.

In modern day revelation He give us a promise. That if we are married in His house, by His authority, having been sealed by the spirit of promise. That if we are faithful, our marriages will continue into the eternities.

Exactly HOW that will all shakeout is not known at this time. But we believe that through Him it is possible.

Link to comment
This is a message board. Why would you expect everyone to say the same thing? I am going to invoke the "asked and answered" policy here because you are asking things that you have been told cannot be answered to the point it becomes badgering.

If my question cannot be answered I find that an answer in and of itself. Thank you.

Link to comment
That if we are faithful, our marriages will continue into the eternities.

That was my understanding in all my years in the church. My confusion grew only from those who implied, it seemed, something else.

Link to comment
It seems there are conflicting tales being told. Some say they have no doubt that a sealing is a sealing. It's eternal and binding as long as they are faithful. Others seem to think God can and will redo what he will in the next life to match everyone up as needed.

Terrie: Things are not always as some think they "seem" to be. There are no conflicting tales being told. A sealing IS a sealing. It's eternal and binding as long as both parties are faithful to the covenants made to God and to one another. Entering into the covenant of Celestial Marriage IS a necessary requirement for exaltation.

On the other hand... in a proxy sealing the individuals concerned have not necessarily MADE any promises to one another. The sealing is primarily for the purpose of allowing them the opportunity of entering into the ordianance of Celestial marriage. Therefore...God can...and will...make whatever adjustments he deems necessary in "matching up" those couples who are to be eternal companions. All within the bounds of the ordinance of Celestial Marriage.

We are not privy to the information as to how and why all of these decisions will be made. It is sufficient for us to know that we have been commanded to provide the opportunity for the acceptance of necessary ordinances to all. We do not need to concern ourselves with their personal choices of individual eternal companions. We need only concern ourselves with our own choices in such matters.

Link to comment
You drew the comparison to the Japanese who, you say, "wipe clean" from their texts any reference to accountability for World War II atrocities. The terms any and all are equally universal. If you now want to agree with me that it was a bad comparison, I welcome your change of heart.

It was a great comparison. Both "wipe clean" as they will - when and where they will. I welcome your admission that it WAS a great comparison.

I note that in the process of backpedaling and insertion of qualifiers, your former certitude has now evolved into an unsubstantiated statement of belief, which is hardly surprising, and which, frankly, holds little interest for me.

A qualifier is just that - a qualification when someone is too stubborn to see the similarities between 2 very close realities. I qualify so that you might have a chance to see the error of your faith-induced blindness to this simple fact - the LDS covers up polygamy where and when it can.

The reason people like myself must further explain comparisons like this is that upon intimate inspection - there will be differences. Of course there will. While Teletubbies and Romper Room can be said to be very much alike - if someone really wants to challege the idea...well...they certainly can and YES there are differences. This can become a "yeahbut....yeahbut....yeahbut...." for weeks if we want. Or - a sensible person can see that the church omits references to polygamy. In every case? No. So - OK....you're right. It's not EXACTLY like the Japanese. But it's a good enough analogy for anyone else who is not beholden to such nitpicks in comparisons.

It's not close at all. The Church and its numerous writers/speakers discuss polygamy in some fora and they don't in others. So what? That is nothing like "wiping clean" any reference to it. I could understand a lapse into reckless hyperbole if it bore some resemblance, however distorted, to the truth. This one doesn't even do that.

Reluctance to accept at face value the inferences of an antagonist hardly qualifies as lying to oneself.

It has as much value as inferences from a true believer. Either we're both disqualified or we can both express our views and do our best to back them up.

I have yet to charge you with lying to yourself, although, on this thread at least, I've seen precious little backing up of claims from you beyond a continual Johnny-one-note reference to a single Ensign article.

Since plural marriage is no longer practiced in the Church, it is to be expected that sermons from the pulpit would not touch on it very often.

But it IS still practiced. See, if you were right I would agree. But members on this very thread have explained that men and women are married to multiple partners in this life all the time. When one dies they can and often are married to another for all time and all eternity. If you are marrying people to more than 1 person for eternity I would say plural marriage is still very much a part of your church.

Despite your obstinacy, I think it has been pretty well explained by Juliann and others that whatever transpires in the hereafter could hardly be comparable to the polygamy in mortality that critics try so hard to horribalize.

The quote I gave was from CES literature. Such a ringing refutation of the notion that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy is highly inconsistent with a supposed effort to hide the Church's past regarding plural marriage.

Do you assert that I cannot find an example of a quote in CES literature that once referred to polygamy and was aterred to remove it? You know as well as I that there are many.

Trying in vain to look up the word aterred in the dictionary, I eventually figured out that you must have been trying to write altered, in which case I would respond that where I come from, altering quotes is a fairly serious accusation and, no, I don't know of such an instance in CES literature. Unless you have in mind condensing quoted material through the use of ellipses, in which case I would say don't waste my time with petty complaints.

I'm curious - which book again are you talking about and what is the date of publication?

I gave you the citation already. Again, it is Church History in the Fulness of Times. In the copy I have, the copyright date is 1993, but it is currently in use for Religion 341-43 courses.

So you have said. And thus, stripped of bluster and spin, your comments amount to little more than unsubstantiated opinion.

Eye of the beholder.

I've actually related the comments of this discussion this to a group of friends of mine and they are amazed at YOUR spin.

That I am an object of derision for your particular kaffeeklatsch of antagonists and critics neither surprises nor distresses me very much.

But this is where I'm at the disadvantage - most people here are Mormons.
Link to comment

We have 8 pages of gnashing of teeth and straining at gnats. Many LDS have stepped up and tried their best to respond to some pretty derisive questions. I have asked one question in all this time. Just one. And not one of you critics will answer it.

If you want to discuss "eternal polygamy" explain what it is. What would life be like? Describe what it means by giving us a picture in the life of a polygamous family in the "eternities".

Don't ask more goading questions until you can answer one from us.

Link to comment
>The "whitewash" continues, imo.
Link to comment
If it's not, then I find another way to explain my pov to them. History is great in that we can keep what we need and leave out what we don't at the time.

:P

Through this thread, I've come to a better understanding of the different approaches LDS have towards the presentation of our history. And I'm grateful for that.

I also feel a little silly at my surprise when I saw the artful editing done to the Ensign article. After all, what should I have expected?

Link to comment

Excuses for NOT telling the truth are endless; not enough Space, not enough Time, not 'on topic', etc.

Things LDS are 'so wiggly' that no one can put their arms around them.

Truth is a predecessor to Understanding: Less Truth, less Understanding.

Understanding NEVER precedes truthfulness: NEVER EVER

Link to comment
Your world perhaps. Some people outside that world might be inclined to view the penchant to spend significant time and energy on an Internet bulletin board deriding and discrediting a religious faith one no longer claims any association with to be a little weird.

The rest being nothing more than one more round on a rollercoaster neither of us care to take (I hope I am not presuming too much - anything you want to continue with you'll find me willing to accompany and respond to) I will address the above.

As well as a swipe at my spelling, which is really beneath you (I'm a child of spellchecker, which is not available here - I offer no more defense than that), you also feel the need to deride my mere presense on this board.

I obviously still have an association with the LDS church. I've paid considerable sums of money into its coffers. I've given up 2 years of my life as well as many more hours of service than I could ever count. I've held positions as simple as teacher where my service required little more than the hours I put in at church. I've held positions such as Ward Clerk where my sundays often consisted of a full day in an office working. I devoted my mornings, 6AM every single school day, to seminary as a kid. All of my hopes, fears, dreams, desires, etc. were wound up in this church until a few years ago.

No, the church owes me nothing. But to assume that I can walk away from it like it was never part of my life is to assume something about me that you would not about yourself. That's a lack of respect I have not earned. You may disagree with my opinions. But my sincerity has not been shown to be lacking.

One last thought. Often, to make a case for your ideas another idea must suffer. There's a reason why the LDS church talks about the apostacy in their first 6 discussions. They don't merely tell the investigator to pray about the Mormon church as if no others existed. No, they paint a story meant to show WHY a restoration was needed. Catholics may be quite offened by this - with good reason perhaps. Yet this is how it is done. Sometimes one must showcase WHY another faith is wrong in order to understand where to go from there. If you have a problem with people here on this board telling you why they think there's a better way, and in doing so they challenge your own beliefs, you should consider your own church's policies before assuming such is inherently wrong.

Link to comment
Daddy tell me the story how Jesus raised Lazareth from the dead. Will you please Daddy?

No. I first have to tell you all about how Brigham Young was a polygamist. So shut up and listen.

Yes, you're right...that's the same thing. :P

Link to comment
Excuses for NOT telling the truth are endless; not enough Space, not enough Time, not 'on topic', etc.

Things LDS are 'so wiggly' that no one can put their arms around them.

Truth is a predecessor to Understanding: Less Truth, less Understanding.

Understanding NEVER precedes truthfulness: NEVER EVER

Journalists learn early that articles they write can contain only a fraction of the information they gather, so they must pick and choose what to include.

I'm told that book authors face the same challenge, as do documentary filmmakers and others.

Reasonable minds can disagree about the prudence of excluding this or that fact or tidbit as opposed to including something else. But to accuse the writer of not telling the truth for making his/her selection is a demonstration of the irrational hyperbole that seems to abound on this thread.

Link to comment
Reasonable minds can disagree about the prudence of excluding this or that fact or tidbit as opposed to including something else. But to accuse the writer of not telling the truth for making his/her selection is a demonstration of the irrational hyperbole that seems to abound on this thread.

Scott:

Do you deny that all references to polygamy were intentionally edited out of the Ensign article on Bathsheba Smith? If not, then why do you honestly believe such references were edited out?

Link to comment
Reasonable minds can disagree about the prudence of excluding this or that fact or tidbit as opposed to including something else. But to accuse the writer of not telling the truth for making his/her selection is a demonstration of the irrational hyperbole that seems to abound on this thread.

Scott:

Do you deny that all references to polygamy were intentionally edited out of the Ensign article on Bathsheba Smith? If not, then why do you honestly believe such references were edited out?

No, I make no such denial. Nor do I offer any speculation as to the thinking behind the editing. You see, my "training" to which you referred earlier conditions me to beware of undocumented or unsubstantiated conjecture.

But I would pose a question to you. Who published the book Elect Ladies which contains the chapter from which the Ensign article is condensed?

Link to comment
Your world perhaps. Some people outside that world might be inclined to view the penchant to spend significant time and energy on an Internet bulletin board deriding and discrediting a religious faith one no longer claims any association with to be a little weird.

The rest being nothing more than one more round on a rollercoaster neither of us care to take (I hope I am not presuming too much - anything you want to continue with you'll find me willing to accompany and respond to) I will address the above.

As well as a swipe at my spelling, which is really beneath you (I'm a child of spellchecker, which is not available here - I offer no more defense than that),

I could not be certain that by "aterred" you meant to write altered. It was an educated guess, so I was obliged to make the basis of my response clear.

But since you bring it up, lack of a spell checker does seem like a lame excuse for carelessness. Unlike Daniel C. Peterson, Pahoran and others whose posts I have read on these boards, I have not mastered the ability to produce flawless text on the first try. But I do care enough to go in and fix a glaring error when I see it, especially one that is likely to obscure my meaning.

you also feel the need to deride my mere presense on this board.
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...