The LDS temples

[twhite982]

So my question was a sincere one.

Here was your UNECESSARY comment:

If I had a really ugly daughter could she be sealed to you ?

You don't see yourself as mocking here?


Time and time again in many different threads you post comments like these.

I have all, but given up on having any kind of meaningful discussion with you.


Not that, I am not interested in dialogue, its just that I'm tired of getting slapped across the face with insults.
[Ephesians thread ring a bell?]

Is that not a fair conclusion?


Tom

 

[rnmomof7]

Here was your UNECESSARY comment:

You don't see yourself as mocking here?


Time and time again in many different threads you post comments like these.

I have all, but given up on having any kind of meaningful discussion with you.


Not that, I am not interested in dialogue, its just that I'm tired of getting slapped across the face with insults.
[Ephesians thread ring a bell?]

Is that not a fair conclusion?


Tom

Depends what you mean by "fair"
I did not "insult " you .
I asked a pointed question with a dumb example, but you knew what I meant , so I can only conclude that this is one of the temple "ordinances " that continue to this day .

 

[twhite982]

I did not "insult " you .

In this thread you did not.

My point about your comment was that it was done mockingly or as you put it "a dumb example".

Why?

You could've just as easily made your point in another way, which would've required a response.


BTW, my comments about insults were in regards to the Ephesians thread as an example I remembered off the top of my head. There are others, but its not necessary to drudge those up.

You do know what I'm talking about in regards to the Ephesians thread, right?



Tom

 

[rnmomof7]

Could you refresh my memory on that quote?

Brigham Young August 19, 1866
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11(

Simply put it is clear from what I've seen that only 15-20% practiced polygamy, if the practice was necessary for exaltation, why was it not more striclty preached / practiced.

I have read that figure also.

but the number of modern day mormons that trace their line back to polygamy indicates it was higher

It seemed "reserved" for the leaders.
My point was if it is a principal that is followed in the celestial kingdom . Why was it not encouraged among the rank and file?

If Brigham Young really believed it was necessary for godhood, why did he not encourage it among his followers?

In other words, time and time again the members were told they needed to practice polygamy, just like today the members are told time and time again that exaltation is in the temple.

Your logic doesn't fit too well.


Tom

Do not modern day Mormons believe that there remains a practice of polygamy in the kingdom?

As you know the modern LDS church is considered apostate by those that strictly follow the teachings of Smith and Young

 

[rnmomof7]

In this thread you did not.

My point about your comment was that it was done mockingly or as you put it "a dumb example".

Why?

You could've just as easily made your point in another way, which would've required a response.


BTW, my comments about insults were in regards to the Ephesians thread as an example I remembered off the top of my head. There are others, but its not necessary to drudge those up.

You do know what I'm talking about in regards to the Ephesians thread, right?



Tom

Nope I do not remember.

If it was personal I apologize.

But we are not discussing that right now.

I asked a simple question, if it is secret just tell me I am not asking you break your oath.

Can an unmarriageable women be sealed for eternity to a man that holds or held the priesthood?
Can a woman that was never married to a mormon or one that held the priesthood be sealed for eternity to another man ?

That was done after the death of Smith
It seems logical to me based on your doctrine

 

[twhite982]

Brigham Young August 19, 1866
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11(

When I looked at the quote in context of the JofD, which by the way is NOT an official source of doctrine, it does NOT say those who do not practice it will not attain to highest degree.

He says those who do not accept the revelation, whether in practice or in faith, but look to excuse themselves will be kept out.

Practicing polygamy according to the discourse is NOT necessary!!


Tom

 

[twhite982]

Can an unmarriageable women be sealed for eternity to a man that holds or held the priesthood?
Can a woman that was never married to a mormon or one that held the priesthood be sealed for eternity to another man ?

That was done after the death of Smith
It seems logical to me based on your doctrine

LDS perform countless "sealings" for an in behalf of the dead, but as I recall these are to those who are already married.

We don't play "matchmaker" in our sealings.


An important key you're disregarding is that ALL will have fair and equal opportunity to be able to fufill ALL the commands of the Lord.

If this person was as you put it "an unmarriageable women", then this opportunity will be provided.

When, where and how, we do not know and leave this up to the justice of God.


Tom

 

[rnmomof7]

When I looked at the quote in context of the JofD, which by the way is NOT an official source of doctrine, it does NOT say those who do not practice it will not attain to highest degree.

He says those who do not accept the revelation, whether in practice or in faith, but look to excuse themselves will be kept out.

Practicing polygamy according to the discourse is NOT necessary!!


Tom

Would you supply the entire context for us, because as a a stand alone that is what it says.

As you know the church has hidden those writings . (I had them for a minute from a Swedish site..but gone again)

 

[rnmomof7]

LDS perform countless "sealings" for an in behalf of the dead, but as I recall these are to those who are already married.

We don't play "matchmaker" in our sealings.

I thought one of the things covered here was that sealing a marriage for eternity is not the same as a sealing for life..(I believe that was to prove that Joseph Smith did not have sexual relations with all the women he was sealed to ) It can not be both ways .

Either a time marriage rules out an eternal sealing or it does not.
If it was different when Joseph was sealed to other men's wives , what has changed??

An important key you're disregarding is that ALL will have fair and equal opportunity to be able to fufill ALL the commands of the Lord.

If this person was as you put it "an unmarriageable women", then this opportunity will be provided.

When, where and how, we do not know and leave this up to the justice of God.


Tom

That is not what the Bible says..it says there will no one given in marriage .Or do you have another Bible citation on that ??

As you know there are many Mormon women sealed to JS and BY after their deaths. It is not without precedent

 

[baker]

Actually, what I have done is to show the 2 articles were voted on seperate from the revelations given to Joseph Smith.

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1835DnC2.htm#pg001

Look at the bottom of the page and see how those assembled voted on it.

I did and I think you are trying to make a distinction that is clearly not there. In the paragraph before Cowdery reads the article on marriage, there is no mention of approving revelations. Just approval of the book. They further go on to approve the final two articles to be included in the book.

This is why the "preface" is so important because it was written and attested to after the events I just referred to. As Smith was one of the signatures, he is attesting to the fact that all this came from revelations. That is exactly what it says. I make no assumptions here.

Your assumtion is duly noted, but incorrect.

Again, I made no assumptions, I have only used facts. Please tell me how I am wrong.

You would have me believe that the article on marriage / government was revelation given from the Lord to Joseph Smith to the church.

No, I wouldn't. It is Joseph SMith who is making that claim:

"The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones."


Again, I only read what is written.

From the "evidence" you posted I have to also have your assumtions to hold to your "facts".

See above.

Is there any other evidence for these two articles as being revelations to Joseph Smith and not written in response to events by Oliver Cowdrey / WW Phelps?

If the statement from you own prophet will not serve as evidence, then I guess, no!

The church as a WHOLE, yes.

Please explain this one to me. Do you have doctines that are only meant for "PARTS" of your church? Is their a class system I am not aware of?

See above. Regulation does NOT equal revelation!

Come on Twhite, look at the words of your own prophet!!!!! Everything included was taken from revelation. His words, not mine.

See above. The two articles (marriage and government) were taken from the then revelations to the church as a whole.

So now they are coming from revelations? Twhite, make up your mind.

Polygamy was not given to the church as a whole, until 1852, by your own admitance.

So what other revelations were piece-mealed out for a select few to test drive first? If, as some contend, it was ok for Smith to practice early on, what do you think changed between then and 1852 that made it ok for everyone else to practice?

You've haven't shown the two articles to be revelations from God.

No? Well you just said that where they came from. Smith said the same thing. If you and Smith can't convince you, I surely won't be able to!!!

By Joseph simply letting them stand does NOT indicate they are revelations. In fact as I stated earlier each and every link I bring up on the article of marriage shows Oliver Cowdrey as the author, but that may just be due to the fact that most links are pro-LDS.

Do me a favor, cite the original source that says Cowdery wrote it. Don't give me some apologists opinion, since you have read all these links, just give me the authoratative souce/cite for this claim. Does one really exist?

Either way there is NO proof to show Joseph being the author and his acceptance of the commitee's decision is NOT proof.

Twhite, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it read! The proof is the statement from your own prophet.

The purpose of the commitee was to change the name of the book of commandemnts and compile those regulations for the church.

Source please.

It is a clear fact Joseph was NOT present during said gathering, but he did allow its compilations to stand "as-is".

If he has written testament to its approval, what is your point?

Again elements of eternal marriage were given to Joseph as early as 1831, but were not ready for the church as a whole.

What is you source/evidence that 'elements were given as early as 1831'?

Additionally as I look throught the church's history even after 1852, the "authorization" to engage in polygamy was NOT practiced by the church as a whole and around 15-20% were enganged in it.

Your point here being.......?

It says marriage.

You and I both know there is NO way to distinguish between a sealing and a marriage upon those records.

You would want everyone to believe that just because it says marriage on the familysearch web site this was an earthly solemnized marriage, but that is stretching it too far.

Twhite, this is lds rationalization at it's best. Your own church source states it as marriage and now you want me to prove that it is not something else. Should we assume this every time your church states it as a marriage. Come on now!

The idea is to seal families together as you well know.

There were several women, who were sealed to Joseph Smith, even after his death.

What else do you conclude from this?

Your theory of adultery is a little tough to swallow, especially with Joseph being dead.

The point of my question deals with the need to have polygamy at all. What did Smith accomplish through his practice of this, if it was strickly spiritual, that could not have been accomplished through monogamy.

Then, if "raising seed" is the reason for polygamy, why is it not appropriate to conclude that Smith did not have physical realtions with these women. If he had these realtions, why is it not proper to describe it as adultery?

 

[twhite982]

Would you supply the entire context for us, because as a a stand alone that is what it says.

Sure.

As you know the church has hidden those writings . (I had them for a minute from a Swedish site..but gone again)

You're jokin' right?


They forgot to delete them my my copy of Gospel Link.


BTW, they are available on-line as the copyright has expired or something to that effect.

Enough jokes, you're killing me..... here's the quote (not complete due to size):

It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Tom

 

[twhite982]

I thought one of the things covered here was that sealing a marriage for eternity is not the same as a sealing for life..(I believe that was to prove that Joseph Smith did not have sexual relations with all the women he was sealed to ) It can not be both ways .

Either a time marriage rules out an eternal sealing or it does not.
If it was different when Joseph was sealed to other men's wives , what has changed??

Possibly because the women were still alive and had a voice in the matter.

BTW, I was saying this in reference to the temple sealings that happen today.

Tom

 

[happyinhisgrace]

We don't play "matchmaker" in our sealings.

Tom, if this is the case, how do you explain all the women who had other husbands in this life but were sealed to JS for "eternity" after He died?

Grace

 

[twhite982]

Tom, if this is the case, how do you explain all the women who had other husbands in this life but were sealed to JS for "eternity" after He died?

Grace

see post #247.

Again I was relating this to modern temple sealings.

I don't have all the facts concerning those sealed to Joseph following his death, but a major theme seems to be uniting families together.

In the case of Heber C. Kimball there seems to be some kind of agreement between Joseph and Heber regarding Helen Mar Kimball.

Again I don't have all the details.

Tom

 

[rnmomof7]

Sure.

You're jokin' right?

Nope an ex Mormon hunted the web until he found them

The secrecy does not look good ...also the leadership can "edit " and modify with no one to notice

They forgot to delete them my my copy of Gospel Link.

Not on line I have searched the LDS site and no J&D


I have LDS site of "gospel links " and I do not find the J&D

BTW, they are available on-line as the copyright has expired or something to that effect.

Enough jokes, you're killing me..... here's the quote (not complete due to size):

Tom

If they are free for use you would not mind giving all of us the link right?



How do you address the underlined sections


http://www.xmission.com/~country/chngwrld/graphics/jd_plyg1.gif

 

[rnmomof7]

Possibly because the women were still alive and had a voice in the matter.

BTW, I was saying this in reference to the temple sealings that happen today.

Tom

I was asking about women that had a say in the matter.

If you have an 80 year old mormon lady that has never been married and she wants to be sealed to you or a deceased mormon can that be done ?

If not why not?

I ask this because of the assertion here that if one is sealed for eternity to someone that is not the same as being sealed for "life"

I have read the assertion that when JS married mother and daughter or teen sisters for eternity , or the wives of other men he only married for eternity and had no call on the body of the women.

 

[twhite982]

Nope an ex Mormon hunted the web until he found them

The secrecy does not look good ...also the leadership can "edit " and modify with no one to notice

Oh man you weren't joking.

Your conspiracy theory is rediculios. There are thousands of copies of the JofD available to ALL.

Again my gospel link 2001 has the entire 26 volumes.

I have found sites on-line that have them for free.

Where do you think all the sites critical of the LDS church get their copy?

Not on line I have searched the LDS site and no J&D

Of course they won't be at lds.org the JofD is NOT church sanctioned!

I have LDS site of "gospel links " and I do not find the J&D

Huh?

If they are free for use you would not mind giving all of us the link right?



How do you address the underlined sections


http://www.xmission.com/~country/chngwrld/graphics/jd_plyg1.gif

I'll let you do your own searching, but I can tell they are available, as can be seen from your link.


BTW Read the top line of the link you provided, it collaberates my story!


Tom

 

[twhite982]

I was asking about women that had a say in the matter.

If you have an 80 year old mormon lady that has never been married and she wants to be sealed to you or a deceased mormon can that be done ?

If not why not?

I don't think that can be done, but only because I've never seen it done, EVER!

Sorry I can't give you a better answer, so I guess my answer is I don't conclusively know.

BTW, if I was single and she wanted to be sealed to me she'd have to do some serious convincing for me to go ahead with her plans.

Tom

 

[unbound]

If you dont know exactly where to look, the Jof D is hard to find. Deseret books doesnt have it in the bookstore, the clerk told me its out of print. They did, however, have a cleaned up, edited version.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

see post #247.

Again I was relating this to modern temple sealings.

I don't have all the facts concerning those sealed to Joseph following his death, but a major theme seems to be uniting families together.

In the case of Heber C. Kimball there seems to be some kind of agreement between Joseph and Heber regarding Helen Mar Kimball.

Again I don't have all the details.

Tom

Tom, I realize this is just a bit off the topic we are discussing here but your second to last paragraph struck a bad cord with me. Not because you stated it but because of what it implies. What is mean is....what right is it of JS and Heber to make an "eternal" decision in regards to Helen. Who gave them the right to choose for her? Do you understand what I am saying. I know what I am thinking but having a hard time to put it to type.

Grace