The LDS temples

[MormonFriend]

And then we have,

There is absolutely no way The World Tract and Bible Society (JW) could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray Charles T. Russell to be.

There is absolutely no way The World Wide Church of God could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray Herbert W. Armstrong to be.

There is absolutely no way The Christadelphians could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray John Thomas to be.

There is absolutely no way The Message Church could have grown into what it is today, and stand firm in the values of chastity, marriage, modesty, family, honesty etc. etc. ...if the founders were of the low caliber that you portray William Branham to be.

Etc., etc., etc.​

​

And how have I portrayed Armstrong, Russell, Thomas etc?

 

[drstevej]

I know that Joseph Smith was sealed to Helen Mar Kimball while she was 14, but I wasn't aware that there was any evidence that Joseph Smith slept with her. Where do you get your information?

Alma

Evidence? Think you would accept a stained blue dress if it were available?

If he was sealed to Helen Mar in marriage as you claim and Joseph Smith did not sleep with her, your prophet violated 1 Corinthians 7....

3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

​

So which is it? Is Joseph Smith a biblically disobedient prophet with a "deprived" wife; or a prophet enjoying the body of a 14 year old?

"I did not have sexual relations with that teenager, Miss Mar..."

http://www.gargaro.com/980126clinton.avi

 

[Tawhano]

Helaman said:
You twist the wording to your liking.

Direct Quote:
Where Solomon had multiplied (i.e., stored-up, hoarded), David had only added

Direct Quote:
Hence, adding more than one wife is biblically acceptable (just as David did), whereas multiplying wives (just as Solomon did) is what was prohibited in Deuteronomy 17:14,17

Tell me how I twisted the wording here. Does this not say that David was justified in his actions because he added and not multiplied? Does it not say that Solomon, his son, was the one who committed the abomination and not David?

Direct Quote:
(Book of Mormon | Jacob 1:15)
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

Does the verse above not say that David, like his son, indulged in wicked practices by desiring many wives and concubines?

Direct Quote:
(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:24)
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Does the above verse not say that both David and Solomon were guilty of committing an abominable act?

So explain to me the how you came to the false accusation you hurled at me for twisting words? Where did I twist words.

Am I the only one here who can see this glaring error in Helaman’s rebuttal? Has my common sense and logic so failed me that I twisted the clear meaning of the quotes above?

 

[drstevej]

Am I the only one here who can see this glaring error in Helaman’s rebuttal? Has my common sense and logic so failed me that I twisted the clear meaning of the quotes above?

Nope, you are right on target. Mormons use fuzzy math to justify their prophets.

Mormon Math:

wife + wife = godly

wife X wife = abomination

​

BTW,

Direct Quote:
(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:24)
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

is the nail in the coffin. But, Joseph never let a little past "revelation" keep him from "receiving" a new "revelation" to "sanctify" his proclivities.

 

[baker]

Am I the only one here who can see this glaring error in Helaman’s rebuttal? Has my common sense and logic so failed me that I twisted the clear meaning of the quotes above?

Rest assured you are not the only one isolated within the world of logic an common sense here. This area becomes very difficult for the lds church to address and is why they take a position of "no comment".

Polygamy and the temple ceremony in the lds church are so intricately linked together via D&C 132 that it becomes very difficult for them to discuss. Hence "we don't talk about sacred (secret) ceremonies" is what you hear alot.

I think after you study it you will see why there is so much "speculation" on their part as to the origin of this practice but with no scriptural support. I truly beleive after much reading in this area, it was Joseph Smith's "quid-pro-quo to his wife Emma for his desire of a polygamous lifestyle. Ie. Let me do this and I will give you eternal life as a goddess. Interestingly enough, this supposed revelation was the only one where the wife of a prophet (Emma) is personally threatened with destruction if she does not capitualte. Even more interseting, however, is that it was Smith who was destroyed while Emma, after rejecting this practice and leaving the church founded by her husband, went on to live out a very long life even by today standards.

No Tawhano, rest assured that your logic and common sense do not betray you.

 

[Doc T]

Helaman,

Could you please provide a reference from the Bible that shows that God commanded David and Solomon to take more than one wife? I have read the Bible, and I have not found such a reference. If it is there please enlighten us.

Thanks.

I'm not Helaman, but since this question has not been answered, let me take a crack at it. And let me address what I see as some of the other issues on this thread.

Many here have stated in essence "God only tolerated these prophets to practice polygamy. I ask, where does the Bible say polygamy was only “tolerated” by God? Since when does God allow mankind to make up his own laws of morality? What scripture says God allows man to do as he pleases and God will tolerate it? I find such a rationalization really absurd. This statement also shows the ignorance of the Biblical text by many here. Plural marriage was part of the Law of Moses (Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15, 25:5). God gave David his wives (2 Samuel 12:8). God said that polygamists will inherit the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11, Luke 13:28). Does this sound like God “merely tolerated” plural marriage? No. On the contrary, what some of you here should have said, if they wanted to be honest, truthful, and accurate, is, ‘Christians today merely tolerate the fact that God sanctioned polygamy in ancient days, and refuse to accept that He would do so today.’ I see that as a double standard, and a lack of understanding of the Bible.

Doc

~

 

[Tawhano]

Doc T said:
What scripture says God allows man to do as he pleases and God will tolerate it? I find such a rationalization really absurd.

Matthew 19:7-8 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Doc T said:
‘Christians today merely tolerate the fact that God sanctioned polygamy in ancient days, and refuse to accept that He would do so today.’ I see that as a double standard, and a lack of understanding of the Bible.

Then perhaps you can enlighten us with the true meaning of Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2:24.

 

[baker]

I'm not Helaman, but since this question has not been answered, let me take a crack at it. And let me address what I see as some of the other issues on this thread.

Many here have stated in essence "God only tolerated these prophets to practice polygamy. I ask, where does the Bible say polygamy was only “tolerated” by God? Since when does God allow mankind to make up his own laws of morality? What scripture says God allows man to do as he pleases and God will tolerate it? I find such a rationalization really absurd. This statement also shows the ignorance of the Biblical text by many here. Plural marriage was part of the Law of Moses (Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15, 25:5). God gave David his wives (2 Samuel 12:8). God said that polygamists will inherit the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11, Luke 13:28). Does this sound like God “merely tolerated” plural marriage? No. On the contrary, what some of you here should have said, if they wanted to be honest, truthful, and accurate, is, ‘Christians today merely tolerate the fact that God sanctioned polygamy in ancient days, and refuse to accept that He would do so today.’ I see that as a double standard, and a lack of understanding of the Bible.

Doc

~

Doc,

In all seriousness, applying the logic you are promoting here, do you then beleive God sanctified slavery during the 1800s. Did everything that is recorded in the history of the ot and nt become sanctified by God?

But then lets add what his supposed restored gospel said about polygamy as has been posted above. This claim, as promoted by the lds church, was recorded during the time frame of 544 -421 bc, indicates that god was displeased with polygamy quite clearly. Had he changed his mind after that?

Finally, lets quit trying to be coy with such references to Matt 8;11 and Luke 13;28 to say that "polygamists will inherit the kingdom of heaven. This is just plain silly. It says nothing about polygamy. What it does show is that God has the ability to forgive for man's misgivings that are pointed out in your Jacob,2;24 and other scriptures.

 

[skylark1]

Sealing is kind of a subset of marriage. Someone may be married but not "sealed." Sealing refers to marriage for eternity while marriage generally carries the caveat, "till death do you part." Additionally, people may be sealed to their parents and vice-versa. If I were to adopt a son, I could then have him sealed to me as a child. So, sealing and marriage aren't interchangeable concepts.

Alma,

The reason why I asked is because of something that twhite had written.

Irrelevant since you and I know it doesn't matter if it was a sealing for eternity or time and eternity. What is annotated is that its a marriage.
........

The idea of a marriage / sealing in LDS theology goes beyond this life and is linked to family.

This is the concept you aren't grasping.

Many of the sealings were ONLY for eternity and were meant to join the two families (Joseph and others) together.

If marriage and sealing are not interchangeable, then how do you know when you see a record of a marriage, that involves the taking of at least a second wife, if the marriage was a marriage "for time," or a marriage for "time and eternity, or a marriage for "eternity?" On what basis can this be historically determined?

Thanks.

 

[fatboys]

Alma,

The reason why I asked is because of something that twhite had written.

[/size][/font]

If marriage and sealing are not interchangeable, then how do you know when you see a record of a marriage, that involves the taking of at least a second wife, if the marriage was a marriage "for time," or a marriage for "time and eternity, or a marriage for "eternity?" On what basis can this be historically determined?

Thanks.

FB: When you already have your mind made up as to how things are, it is even harder to teach the correct way for a person like myself who does not have the language skills to do so. I don't blame you for not understanding, but mine for not being able to express it correctly.

Although we interchangably use sealing and marriage as the same they are not in the eternal view. Marriage is the joining of a man and woman, they are then sealed for eternity. They will be husband and wife for ever. We we are sealed to one another, we will be eternally connected to that person or persons in a organized structure that goes on into eternity.

I know I have probably confused you even more, so I will try again.

 

[skylark1]

I don't think that you understood my question. Claims have been made that some early LDS marriages/sealings were for eternity only, and therefore were not marriages for this time on earth. I am asking why this is believed to be so, and more to the point on what basis these can be distinguished from each other historically.

 

[fatboys]

Nope, you are right on target. Mormons use fuzzy math to justify their prophets.

Mormon Math:

wife + wife = godly

wife X wife = abomination

​

BTW,

is the nail in the coffin. But, Joseph never let a little past "revelation" keep him from "receiving" a new "revelation" to "sanctify" his proclivities.

FB: God can give a commandment or take it away. When a group of people are living the commandment in a way that makes it unrighteous then the Lord takes it away from them, tells them to repent. God has reasons for us to live by his laws, and reasons why we are releaved from them. At the time of Jacob, they were living a riotous life. They had forgotten much of what God had promised them. This is not uncommon, but is what happens when people go through the cycle of life. You don't believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God yet you criticize it for giving laws and calling into repentance people you don't even believe existed. We are not saying that you are bound by anything the Book of Mormon teaches, but I am, and I don't have any problems with what it teaches. But these questions are certainly great questions and making me do so studying. Thanks

 

[gort]

Doc T quote:
God said that polygamists will inherit the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11, Luke 13:28

Matt 8:11
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 13:28
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out.

Hello,

Can you please explain how these verses you quote have anything to do with polygamists inheriting the earth?

thanx

<><

 

[rnmomof7]

.

Although we interchangably use sealing and marriage as the same they are not in the eternal view. Marriage is the joining of a man and woman, they are then sealed for eternity. They will be husband and wife for ever. We we are sealed to one another, we will be eternally connected to that person or persons in a organized structure that goes on into eternity.

.

I have never seen them used interchangeably by the Mormon Church .

There is usually a clear distinction made .

 

[rnmomof7]

FB: God can give a commandment or take it away. When a group of people are living the commandment in a way that makes it unrighteous then the Lord takes it away from them, tells them to repent. God has reasons for us to live by his laws, and reasons why we are releaved from them. At the time of Jacob, they were living a riotous life. They had forgotten much of what God had promised them. This is not uncommon, but is what happens when people go through the cycle of life. You don't believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God yet you criticize it for giving laws and calling into repentance people you don't even believe existed. We are not saying that you are bound by anything the Book of Mormon teaches, but I am, and I don't have any problems with what it teaches. But these questions are certainly great questions and making me do so studying. Thanks

Could you produce Biblical support that God is not immutable?

You have a god that is a moving target , he has this law and then he changes it, then he brings it back as a necessity for exhaulation and then he wipes it out again.

With a god like this you can never be sure he will not change his mind tomorrow ruling you out of the kingdom.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

FB: God can give a commandment or take it away. When a group of people are living the commandment in a way that makes it unrighteous then the Lord takes it away from them, tells them to repent. God has reasons for us to live by his laws, and reasons why we are releaved from them. At the time of Jacob, they were living a riotous life. They had forgotten much of what God had promised them. This is not uncommon, but is what happens when people go through the cycle of life. You don't believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God yet you criticize it for giving laws and calling into repentance people you don't even believe existed. We are not saying that you are bound by anything the Book of Mormon teaches, but I am, and I don't have any problems with what it teaches. But these questions are certainly great questions and making me do so studying. Thanks

OH I see, so the commandments of God only apply when a person is living righteously. If you are living in sin he will take the commandments from you (anyone) so you don't have to live them anymore? That makes no sense.

Grace

 

[drstevej]

FB: God can give a commandment or take it away.

YEP, example:

• Polygamy is suspended (OD1) when the Utah is seeking statehood.
• Blacks are allowed to be priests (OD2) when the NCAA is about to suspend BYU.

Job 1:21 The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.”​

 

[Alma]

I don't think that you understood my question. Claims have been made that some early LDS marriages/sealings were for eternity only, and therefore were not marriages for this time on earth. I am asking why this is believed to be so, and more to the point on what basis these can be distinguished from each other historically.

Those claims are correct. Probably the best source for an explanation comes from the Reed Smoot Hearings when then president Joseph F. Smith was on the witness stand testifying about the differences between sealings for time, time and eternity, and eternity only. He explained that a sealing for eternity did not carry with it the right to earthly cohabitation and that the church had stopped performing those ceremonies 20 or more years before that time (which would have put it in the 1880's.)

The CHAIRMAN. Could a person living in polygamy, married for time, be sealed to some other woman for eternity?
Mr. SMITH. No, Sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You have heard of instances where two living persons have been sealed for eternity?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, Sir.
The CHAIRMAN. According to the doctrines of your church, did that carry with it the right of earthly cohabitation?
Mr. SMITH. It was not so understood.
The CHAIRMAN. Then, what is your—
Mr. SMITH. It does not carry that right. (Smoot Hearings Vol. 1:378-380)

That's one of the reasons for believing that to have been the case. The other is the historical fact that sealings occurred but no cohabitation followed. That was clearly the case when women who were already married were posthumously sealed to Joseph Smith. While it would be nice if it were more tidy and easily identified, scholars have pointed to the fact that in the early days of sealing, some procedures were followed that indicated they were still working out some of the specifics. BY claimed that Joseph Smith was given the principles but expected to work out the specifics on his own.

As to being able to ascertain whether or not a sealing was for time or for time and eternity, I don't think that's possible in all cases. I guess that's part of the historian's work.

The other fly in the ointment seems to be that distinctions were always apparent between sealings as spouses and sealings as parents or children.

While critics of Mormonism like to jump to the worst possible conclusion, these practices occurred among a rigidly moral people. I find it hard to believe that any of them would have tolerated any hint of impropriety under the guise of religion. Oliver Hungtington is a typical example. When he learned that his sister had been sealed to Joseph Smith, he confronted Smith and promised him that if he ever found that Smith had plans to dishonor his sister he would make sure Smith suffered for it. Joseph Smith assured Huntington that he would in time come to realize that he was acting in good faith. Huntington did become a staunch supporter of Joseph Smith.

Alma

 

[unbound]

Would you call the mormons which acted in the meadow mountain massacre moral,too?

 

[fatboys]

Would you call the mormons which acted in the meadow mountain massacre moral,too?

FB: Unbound, stick to the topic. Start another thread if you want.