Mormons?

[baker]

Hi,

I don't know if this is the place for these questions but can someone of the mormon or lds faith please explain where their concept of eternal marriage originated. Do you believe this was new to your religion? Is polygamy related to the concept of eternal marriage?

Also, I have heard some mormons talk about getting sealed in the temple. Is this the same thing as eternal marriage?

 

[Alma]

Hi,

I don't know if this is the place for these questions but can someone of the mormon or lds faith please explain where their concept of eternal marriage originated. Do you believe this was new to your religion? Is polygamy related to the concept of eternal marriage?

Also, I have heard some mormons talk about getting sealed in the temple. Is this the same thing as eternal marriage?

It originated with Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS faith. We don’t believe that it was new, just a concept that was restored. We believe that Adam and Eve were married for eternity because their marriage took place before they were subject to death. We also believe that the apostles believed in eternal marriage. Polygamy is related to the concept of eternal marriage, because today a man might be “sealed” (meaning “married for eternity”) to his wife who subsequently dies. After her death, he could be sealed again to another woman. He would be sealed to both of them in eternity. Polygamy (technically “polygyny”) was practiced in the LDS faith from the 1840’s until 1904 at which time the Church stopped the practice of men having more than one concurrent wife. You’ll still see news reports of polygamists today but they are seceders who don’t recognize the Church’s authority to regulate the practice.

Alma

 

[baker]

Alma

Thanks. Sholuld I assume you are mormon?

Is there some scriptural support that mormons use to determine that this practice was restored. Is it in the bible or is it in your book of mormon.

I guess what I,m asking is how or why did J Smith begin to practice either eternal marriage or poygamy if it wasn't being practiced by others at his time?

Does your church print some official info on this? If so - where?

 

[Alma]

Alma

Thanks. Should I assume you are Mormon?

Yes.

Is there some scriptural support that mormons use to determine that this practice was restored. Is it in the bible or is it in your book of mormon.

Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon specifically mention eternal marriage. I would say that the only way to determine if this practice was really restored would be to determine if Joseph Smith were really a prophet who was called by God. I think that’s what the Book of Mormon is for.

I guess what I’m asking is how or why did J Smith begin to practice either eternal marriage or polygamy if it wasn't being practiced by others at his time?

The two concepts aren’t necessarily synonymous. Lots of cultures have practiced polygamy, it was common among many American Indian tribes, it’s allowed in Islam and Sephardic Jews still practice it. (Polygamy wasn’t made illegal in Israel until 1967 - - but individual Rabbis can still authorize it.) Joseph Smith claimed that God called him to restore the Church of Jesus Christ with all of its doctrines, ordinances and practices. From 1830 until 1844 he taught his followers the things he claimed God had revealed to him. For reasons that are pretty involved, he began teaching eternal marriage about 1842 and plural marriage shortly thereafter.

Does your church print some official info on this? If so - where?

Two sections in a book of scripture called “Doctrine and Covenants” briefly explain eternal marriage and plural marriage (sections 130 and 132.) The LDS Church publishes very little “official” historical treatments or commentaries. It publishes four books of scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) but the footnotes, dictionaries and chapter headings aren’t even considered “official” Church pronouncements. However, several historians have produced dissertations and theses on this subject that you could probably obtain through inter-library loans. If you’re really interested, I’d suggest “Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question,” a doctoral thesis by Andrew Ehat from 1981 and Danel W. Bachman’s, "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith," (M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975). If those are too detailed for your taste, I could think about it a little more and suggest something else.

Alma

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Wow,

I think I can say Ive never seen such excuse made for Mr. Smith's conduct before. This is very revealing. So, now I undersand how the snow falls. Thanks for sharing those answers.

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Two sections in a book of scripture called “Doctrine and Covenants” briefly explain eternal marriage and plural marriage (sections 130 and 132.) The LDS Church publishes very little “official” historical treatments or commentaries. It publishes four books of scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) but the footnotes, dictionaries and chapter headings aren’t even considered “official” Church pronouncements. However, several historians have produced dissertations and theses on this subject that you could probably obtain through inter-library loans. If you’re really interested, I’d suggest “Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question,” a doctoral thesis by Andrew Ehat from 1981 and Danel W. Bachman’s, "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith," (M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975). If those are too detailed for your taste, I could think about it a little more and suggest something else.

Alma

I didnt really catch the jest of your post before my last reply, but man, sounds like your group doesnt really know what it believes and these details coming from a Mormon.

Why do you think the "church" doesnt publish much?

 

[Alma]

I didnt really catch the jest of your post before my last reply, but man, sounds like your group doesnt really know what it believes and these details coming from a Mormon.

Why do you think the "church" doesnt publish much?

I think you probably ought to re-read what I wrote. I didn’t say the LDS Church doesn’t publish much, I wrote that it doesn’t publish much historical treatments or commentaries.

I’m not sure how you have concluded that we don’t know what we believe based on what I wrote - - I’d say that a thousand pages of scripture is a pretty good reference work for detailing what we believe.

Alma

 

[tigersnare]

I think you probably ought to re-read what I wrote. I didn’t say the LDS Church doesn’t publish much, I wrote that it doesn’t publish much historical treatments or commentaries.

I’m not sure how you have concluded that we don’t know what we believe based on what I wrote - - I’d say that a thousand pages of scripture is a pretty good reference work for detailing what we believe.

Alma

I would agree with you except that there is so many things that are written in all the books, you are talking about apprently (a thousand pages), that you guys dismiss and/or ignore.

I found a good 5 false prophesies in the Pearl Of Great Price alone....how do you defend your prophet against this?

Also what about the Book of Abraham (I belive) that were ancient egyptian scrolls They were supposedly interpreted by your Seer Prophet, and later when people learned how to read hyrogliphics turned out to be all about pagen gods?

 

[Alma]

I would agree with you except that there is so many things that are written in all the books, you are talking about apparently (a thousand pages), that you guys dismiss and/or ignore.

I can imagine that you think we ignore much of the Bible; but I’d say we just interpret it differently than you do. As far as dismissing or ignoring other parts of our scripture, I’m not aware of such being the case. Could you give me a for instance?

I found a good 5 false prophesies in the Pearl Of Great Price alone....how do you defend your prophet against this?

I’d really have to see the alleged “false prophecies” before I could respond to them. A little more specificity would be appreciated.

Also what about the Book of Abraham (I believe) that were ancient Egyptian scrolls They were supposedly interpreted by your Seer Prophet, and later when people learned how to read hieroglyphics turned out to be all about pagan gods?

Responding to that entails quite a bit of discussion. Let me see if I can offer a brief reply.

All critics of the Book of Abraham approach it from the premise that Joseph Smith attempted to translate some hieroglyphic and hieratic Egyptian scrolls found with some mummies and purchased by the LDS Church about 1835. The scrolls no longer are extant but a few fragments have survived. Egyptian scholars (both LDS and non-LDS) agree that these fragments could not be the source for the Book of Abraham. Critics conclude that since these documents aren’t the Book of Abraham that Joseph Smith was therefore a fraud and Mormonism is a house of cards that has now crumbled. Those who believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet generally fall into two camps:

One camp believes that Joseph Smith did translate the scrolls themselves but that the text came from much more than the six or seven fragments that are extant. I personally don’t buy that explanation.

The other camp believes that Joseph Smith published two things when he published the Book of Abraham: a) his own translation of three fragments of papyri and b) the Book of Abraham which he received by revelation from God. There is really only one historical account from anyone who worked with Joseph Smith when the text of the Book of Abraham was produced and it comes from a man named Warren Parrish. He left Mormonism and no longer believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet; but he said that he served as Smith’s scribe and wrote the Book of Abraham as Joseph Smith dictated by the inspiration of heaven.

As I noted above, critics of Joseph Smith invariably attack him from the position that the fragments aren’t the Book of Abraham. They never address the actual text of the Book of Abraham. It includes non-biblical elements about the life of Abraham that have remarkable parallels in Islamic and Jewish legend that weren’t available in English until well after Joseph Smith’s death.

People who criticize the BofA invariably attack their perception of its origin. People who believe it investigate its text. Jesus said, “¶ Beware of false prophets, ... Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

Those who persist in examining the “roots” of Joseph Smith’s claims will invariably fail. When they examine his fruits, they ultimately admit that the doctrine and principles promoted in them are good. They teach Jesus Christ and salvation through his atoning sacrifice and obedience to his commandments. People invariably ignore what is in the scriptures produced by Joseph Smith. Instead, they criticize the Book of Mormon for not including every doctrine believed by Mormons and they criticize the Book of Abraham for where they think it came from rather than what it teaches.

If Joseph Smith was a false prophet, Jesus said he couldn’t bring forth good fruit. No one is really willing to consider the ramifications of that assurance of the Savior. Are the scriptures of Mormonism evil fruit or good fruit? Are the people who believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet good people or evil? You can’t get figs from a thistle plant or grapes from a thorn tree. You get grapes from grape vines and figs from fig trees. Are the people from Mormonism good people or evil? The only way to determine the answers to these questions are to examine the fruits – instead of the roots.

Alma

 

[Atkin]

Have those Africans ever confirmed that their genealogies can be

traced to Cain through the so called Egyptus lass?

They should be able to confirm that story and their word would

be reliable since it is their ball park as opposed to speculation

from outer "space".

 

[Malakeh]

I used to be a Morman and this is very interesting to me. I am a Christian now Born again in his ligh and love and my life has not only become more fulfilling but I no longer have all the hang ups that the Morman religon instills in you. I was born into a Morman family but never felt right about it I kept trying and trying and after I turned 21 and had been in and out of church with the constant fear that God was going to cast me away because I was Morman I found GOD!!! and he was no where near a Morman church. I never felt the Love of Christ like I have since leaving that religon. I have seen now how Morman's are brainwashed and no matter how hard you fight with one weather they believe it or not they will tell you they are right and you are going to a lesser hevan or hell because you are not Morman. This fear, that brainwashing technique kept teh truth of having God in your life for 21 years....I lost so much of my life forced into a religon that hurt me so much.
I am so happy I have found the truth light of Christ. I would never go back not even for a moment.
being a Christian has completely changed my life and I am in love with this Forum because I can finally find people with my same beliefs....
It is beautiful and Praise God for the inspiration.

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

I can imagine that you think we ignore much of the Bible;

I do believe this. Why are Mormon's directed to believe the BOM over the Bible at points of diverstion?

I’d really have to see the alleged “false prophecies” before I could respond to them. A little more specificity would be appreciated.

You become gods and goddesses in heaven, that might be a good topic for starters in false prophecies.

If Joseph Smith was a false prophet, Jesus said he couldn’t bring forth good fruit. No one is really willing to consider the ramifications of that assurance of the Savior. Are the scriptures of Mormonism evil fruit or good fruit? Are the people who believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet good people or evil? You can’t get figs from a thistle plant or grapes from a thorn tree. You get grapes from grape vines and figs from fig trees. Are the people from Mormonism good people or evil? The only way to determine the answers to these questions are to examine the fruits – instead of the roots.

Alma

Wow, the fruits instead of the roots. Would you say the roots are bad then?

When I read this last bit, I thought of an interesting saying, well two of them actually.

Even the Devil can be 99% correct.

and

A broken watch is correct twice a day - yet its still broken.

Go figure.

I wonder something else.... If Mormons are Christians, why do Mormons feel the need to share with non-mormon Christians? Is additional converstion necessary - after all, Mormons want to be known as Christians, but I cant understand why Christians would feel the need to convert others in kind?

 

[tigersnare]

I used to be a Morman and this is very interesting to me. I am a Christian now Born again in his ligh and love and my life has not only become more fulfilling but I no longer have all the hang ups that the Morman religon instills in you. I was born into a Morman family but never felt right about it I kept trying and trying and after I turned 21 and had been in and out of church with the constant fear that God was going to cast me away because I was Morman I found GOD!!! and he was no where near a Morman church. I never felt the Love of Christ like I have since leaving that religon. I have seen now how Morman's are brainwashed and no matter how hard you fight with one weather they believe it or not they will tell you they are right and you are going to a lesser hevan or hell because you are not Morman. This fear, that brainwashing technique kept teh truth of having God in your life for 21 years....I lost so much of my life forced into a religon that hurt me so much.
I am so happy I have found the truth light of Christ. I would never go back not even for a moment.
being a Christian has completely changed my life and I am in love with this Forum because I can finally find people with my same beliefs....
It is beautiful and Praise God for the inspiration.

May the Lord Bless you for your obediance. Another lost soul found and saved. Amen.

I have also heard about the brainwashing, bascially you go to church and for 21 years you hear the same thing, "I prayed about it, and I belive these books to be true and Joseph Smith to be a prophet from God". Is that basically how it went?

You know the greatest part about this, now your call yourself a christian, when before you knew something was wrong and no longer refer to that belief system as christian.

I applaud you for your courage.

 

[GJG]

The fact is that mormonism does not know what it teaches. It has changed so many times since it was created by joe smith that everyone is in the dark about the last generations beliefs. The RLDS church while in the dark too actually is, IMHO, more respectable since they have maintained the basic same teaching since the beginning. Funny thing is though that they are now getting rid of the book of mormon as they see it as the problem it is. They do not adhere to the false prophesies in the doctrine of covenants though they have some of the "prophecies" in the original form. The salt lake church has changed them drastically to fit their current spin on things. RLDS still uses the original temple ceremony with all its penalties and the masonic five points of fellowship that the salt lake church conveniently took out in 1990. David Whitmer, one of the supposed "witnesses" to the book of mormon (though he later made that statement clear to what it actually means) stayed with the rlds and condemned what began happening with joe smith and briggy toward the end of their welcome back east. Very interesting history steeped in evil.

I was looking at the first few pages of a mormon bible and read something like this: This is the most correct book on earth.......and that a person can get closer to God using this book

Then the following page it stated that: it was an updated version not containing the errors of the previous one.

My wording may not be totaly accurate, but does anyone have any view on this?

 

[tigersnare]

I was looking at the first few pages of a mormon bible and read something like this: This is the most correct book on earth.......and that a person can get closer to God using this book

Then the following page it stated that: it was an updated version not containing the errors of the previous one.

My wording may not be totaly accurate, but does anyone have any view on this?

Haha, maybe with futher revision, it will be the most correstest book ever, and will get you even closer to god!!

 

[baker]

Alma,

Thanks for the info. I also looked up and found what I think (but could be wrong) is the mormon church official website. I found this explanation for eternal marriage:

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1597-1,00.html

If this is the same church you belong to, would you know why they reference this verse in Matt 16 as support for marriage. When I read this entire chapter of Mathew is seems to have nothing to with marriage. Furthermore there are subsequent chapters in Matthew that seem to address marriage very specifically.

Also, while I wasn't too sure from looking at this site, do mormons believe that one must be married to achieve god's highest blessings.

I haven't read the things you referred to in your previous post - 130 and 132. Where can I find these?

 

[Alma]

I do believe this. Why are Mormons directed to believe the BOM over the Bible at points of diverstion?

I'm not aware of any such "direction" for Mormons and I don't believe any exists. I also don't believe there is any point of diversion between the Bible and BoM necessitating such a choice. Certainly there are differences between of interpretation between Mormons and other Christians, but that wasn't what we're charged with. We’re charged with dismissing and ignoring scriptures.

You become gods and goddesses in heaven, that might be a good topic for starters in false prophecies.

That's hardly a "prophecy," it's more correctly a "concept" that you might think is heretical - - but Mormons aren't the only Christians who believe in theosis. You might want to check out an article written by a mainstream evangelical theologian on theosis -- or divinization. Go to google and type in "Robert Rakestraw" for starters.

Wow, the fruits instead of the roots. Would you say the roots are bad then?

Wow, I don't know that I've ever encountered people with such a propensity for jumping to false conclusions. I pointed out that the Jesus provided a method for people to determine false from true prophets. Yet, Christians consistently fail to or refuse to use the method specified by the One they claim to follow. It isn't a matter of the roots being evil; it is, for the most part, that investigators have no real idea what the roots are and no way of objectively examining them. But they do have the fruits; yet they ignore them while claming to really be followers of Christ.

When I read this last bit, I thought of an interesting saying, well two of them actually. "Even the Devil can be 99% correct." and "A broken watch is correct twice a day - yet its still broken."

What I thought about when I read that comment was that you apparently have concluded that you have a better way of determining true or false prophets than the method given by Jesus Christ. That's pretty bold don't you think?

I wonder something else.... If Mormons are Christians, why do Mormons feel the need to share with non-mormon Christians? Is additional converstion necessary - after all, Mormons want to be known as Christians, but I cant understand why Christians would feel the need to convert others in kind?

Because Mormons believe there is more involved to being saved than just being a Christian. They believe that the Christian world has a great deal of truth, but that there was an apostasy after the deaths of the apostles, and the gospel in its fulness was restored to earth including God's priesthood and true doctrines that had become distorted over the centuries. Mormons have a very different concept of the nature of God than does the rest of the world. Jesus said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." If you don't know God -- you cannot have eternal life even if you claim to be a follower of Jesus. If you have a different Jesus than the one preached by the apostles in the New Testament; and if you have a false concept of who the Father is, then you cannot have eternal life.

I was looking at the first few pages of a mormon bible and read something like this: This is the most correct book on earth.......and that a person can get closer to God using this book

Then the following page it stated that: it was an updated version not containing the errors of the previous one.

My wording may not be totaly accurate, but does anyone have any view on this?

I have a view on it. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon by the “gift and power of God.” He dictated the translation to several scribes and published the first edition in 1830. Over the next 11 years he made corrections in the text, punctuation, grammar and spelling and in 1843, he pronounced the third (1841) edition as “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” Unfortunately, the Mormons were driven out of the U.S. shortly thereafter and didn’t have the ability to publish the BoM in America for over 30 years. When they finally did, they used plates made in England typeset from the second edition - - which did not have the 1841 corrections made by Joseph Smith. Additionally, scholars were able to compare the two handwritten manuscripts of the BoM for textual errors and in 1981, the LDS Church published a new version that incorporated all of the editorial revisions made by Joseph Smith, they corrected other printing errors that had occurred and been perpetuated, and they made other revisions based upon the text from the original manuscripts. So, in the most recent edition, you find this explanation:

“Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with the prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

I seriously doubt that when Joseph Smith claimed that it was the “most correct book” that he meant it had anything to do with grammar or spelling. It had to do with clarity of doctrine and unswerving fidelity to truth.

Alma

 

[Alma]

Thanks for the info. I also looked up and found what I think (but could be wrong) is the mormon church official website. I found this explanation for eternal marriage:

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1597-1,00.html

If this is the same church you belong to, would you know why they reference this verse in Matt 16 as support for marriage. When I read this entire chapter of Mathew is seems to have nothing to with marriage.

That’s why I wrote that you wouldn’t find anything “specifically” in the Bible on it. While it may seem to have nothing to do with marriage, note that Jesus said “whatsoever” the apostles bound would be bound in heaven. We believe that marriage is a very important part of “whatsoever.” He also promised them that what they “loosed” on earth would likewise be loosed in heaven. The term “bound” refers to marriage even today when we refer to the “bonds of matrimony.” The idea that Jesus was speaking of marriage and divorce in this context I think can be supported by Paul’s comment in 1 Cor. 7:27: “Are you married? Do not seek a divorce.” (NIV) Each passage - - Matthew 16 and 1 Cor. 7 - - uses the same root word “deo” for “bind” and “lusis” for “divorced” or “loosed.”

Furthermore there are subsequent chapters in Matthew that seem to address marriage very specifically.

They do without a doubt.

Also, while I wasn't too sure from looking at this site, do mormons believe that one must be married to achieve god's highest blessings.

Yes.

I haven't read the things you referred to in your previous post - 130 and 132. Where can I find these?

The easiest place is on the web at www.LDS.org follow the links to the scriptures, Doctrine and Covenants, and then “sections.” I wrote section 130 in error. It should have been 131 and 132.

Alma

 

[baker]

Alma,

Thanks for the reference to sec. 132. (by the way, this website has great key word search functions) I've read it a couple of times now and am trying to get a better understanding of it's context and timing. Was the book of mormon issued before this section 132 or were they published (if thats the right terminology) at the same time?

A couple of questions (sorry if they seem obvious to you) from my initial reading.

First, the introduction of this sec. 132 says: "Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives."

This sounds like eternal marriage and plurality of wives (polygamy?) are one and the same. Is this what your church taught back then but not now?

Second, verse 4 says the following: "4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye b******•; for no one can creject• this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

Does this mean if you don't practice polygamy or enter into eternal marriage, god will **** you? Seems like a very non-christian teaching and a very harsh consequence for those who choose not to even marry. Am I reading this right?

Third, is this teaching something that was new to your founder or was it something that you believe was being practiced during the time of Christ?

PS Wow, in previewing my reply I noticed that this site won't allow the word "da_ned" to print!!!

 

[Alma]

Thanks for the reference to sec. 132. (by the way, this website has great key word search functions) I've read it a couple of times now and am trying to get a better understanding of it's context and timing. Was the book of mormon issued before this section 132 or were they published (if thats the right terminology) at the same time?

The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830 and section 132 wasn’t made public until 1852. Technically, its first “public” reading was in 1843 when Joseph Smith’s brother read it to the Nauvoo high council (leaders of an ecclesiatical LDS unit). Some members of the Reorganized LDS Church (now called Church of Christ) claim that it was produced after Joseph Smith’s death.

A couple of questions (sorry if they seem obvious to you) from my initial reading.

First, the introduction of this sec. 132 says: "Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives."

This sounds like eternal marriage and plurality of wives (polygamy?) are one and the same. Is this what your church taught back then but not now?

Some people claim that they are one and the same, but I think historically and textually there are good indications that it is not. As I mentioned earlier, the LDS Church doesn’t publish commentaries on the scriptures, but there was a book published during the height of the Church’s practice of plural marriage called “The Compendium” where the president of the 12 apostles indicated that plural marriage is a subset of eternal marriage.

Second, verse 4 says the following: "4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye b******•; for no one can creject• this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

Does this mean if you don't practice polygamy or enter into eternal marriage, god will **** you? Seems like a very non-christian teaching and a very harsh consequence for those who choose not to even marry. Am I reading this right?

I think that could be a plausible reading, but not the accurate one. If you’ll look at the language which is very specific, it gives the conditions of the covenant that he is about to reveal. It includes “all covenants, vows, oaths, bonds, performances,” etc. It is much more inclusive than marriage or even plural marriage.

As far as a condemnation for choosing not to marry, Paul taught “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” But that is ancillary to section 132. The verse threatening condemnation (we’ll see if that word is allowed), is for those who have “a new and everlasting covenant” revealed to them who refuse to abide by it. Brigham Young claimed in 1868 that, “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church.”

Third, is this teaching something that was new to your founder or was it something that you believe was being practiced during the time of Christ?

I believe that eternal marriage was taught by Christ and practiced anciently by the Christian Church. I personally doubt that plural marriage was practiced in that time period but some Mormons - - very prominent ones at that - - have believed and likely do believe that it was.


Alma