Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that the Fundamentalists have a good reason to say they are following the true path.
Not all fundamentalists are 'The FLDS', the group whose prophet is Warren Jeffs. What people refer to as The FLDS is an offshoot of the AUB, so I am not sure how they got that designation. The fact that they (fundamentalists in general) are outnumbered doesn't make them wrong.[/quote]I’m curious as to where you got this information. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint and the Apostolic United Brethren are both polygamous offshoots of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Neither one of them is an offshoot of the other.
Quote:
Of further interest, talking about changing Doctrines causing confusion, many LDS families migrated to the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) when the 'mainstream' LDS church gave the priesthood to Blacks. They felt the church had gone yet another step away from the original teachings.
Yes, a few dozen at the most may have left the LDS Church. Of course, when your total membership is only about between 7,000 and 10,000, a few dozen new members would be a .5% growth. That’s probably something to get pretty exited about. Had even a thousand members left (which was not the case), it would have reduced the membership of the LDS Church by .00625%. Yeah, we took a real hit there.
Quote:
Prior to that point, AUB members were encouraged to keep going to mainstream LDS Temples. Polygamists in the mainstream Temples, that is correct. The leader saw no reason to have a separate Temple except for sealing plural marriages.
You’re going to have to explain how that would have worked. Anyone who left the LDS Church to become affiliated with the Apostolic United Brethren would have excommunicated from the LDS Church and would no longer be permitted to get a temple recommend. And let me tell you, there is no entrance to any LDS temple without a temple recommend. Maybe you’re suggesting that the AUB urged its new converts not to let their conversion become known to the LDS Church. If that’s the case, then the issue is neither here nor there, because it would have been the leadership of the AUB who was encouraging its members to lie. By the way, I mentioned earlier that one of the questions asked in a temple recommend interview is, “Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?” You found this “alarming.” I asked why and you never responded. This question is asked of temple recommend applicants for the purpose of weeding out anyone who is pretending to be a believing Latter-day Saint but whose loyalties actually lie with an apostate group. I would imagine that anyone who would be sufficiently two-faced as to try to get a temple recommend from a Church they no longer wanted to be a part of would probably lie when asked that question. Nevertheless, it’s the Church’s way of saying: “This is your last chance to rethink your duplicity and own up to it.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
[Polygamy is] not imaginary to them. It's very real. It's more important than any earthly thing.
Polygamy is "more important than any earthly thing"? That’s total BS.
Quote:
They cannot get to the highest level of the Kingdom w/o plural marriage. Nothing has ever changed about that Doctrine.
This is absolutely false, jencam, and it’s going to be false no matter how many times you say otherwise. Do you seriously think that we believe we have been commanded to live in polygamous relationships in order to be exalted, but that we have also been commanded to live in monogamous ones under threat of excommunication? You can’t possibly be that clueless. Or maybe you can; I don’t know. Do you actually think that we believe the last 13 men who have served as the President of the Church (not to mention the hundreds who have served as Apostles) are not worthy in God’s eyes to someday enter the Celestial Kingdom? Any sealing performed in one of our temples is binding throughout eternity, provided both parties remain true to their vows. My husband and I were sealed “for time and for all eternity” 48 years ago and we are entitled to all of the blessings which were promised to us at that time. My husband does not need to take a second wife in order to be worthy to someday live in the Celestial Kingdom. And I don’t need to have a “sister wife” in order to spend eternity with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
Contrary to what was posted by the OP, The Doctrine of plural marriage was canonized.
Why don’t you quote for us the verses in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants that state that plural marriage is necessary for exaltation. Don’t waste too much time looking for them, though, because they aren’t there. As Section 132 does state, there are times when the Lord will authorize the practice of plural marriage. Abraham and David are both cited as examples of when God commanded this practice. Verse 37 states:
“Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law.”
And verse 39 says:
“David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife.”
The principle of plural marriage is an eternal gospel truth. The practice of this principle applies only when God specifically commands it, as He did on a number of occasions in the Old Testament.
I am discussing Mormon polygamy. Start your own thread if you want to discuss something else.
You’re adding nothing to the discussion, so I’m done with you.
I don't recall this being your thread Junior . Next time don't make claims you can't back up and have to resort to an imaginary version to try and support your claim .
It's been fun watching you two whine about imaginary marriages in a religion you don't belong to, but I have to drive now .
Last edited by wallflash; 09-18-2018 at 04:07 PM..
Actually, that isn’t the case at all. Some may be unsure, but for the vast majority of us, it’s nowhere near the issue you are trying to pretend it is.
You don't speak for all Mormons. I have read a lot from other Mormons. I know Mormons.
Katzpur has in the past vehemently denied that this practice is occurring. And this in spite of me explaining that my wife is in this EXACT situation. That’s right. My wife, to whom I am legally married, is in fact wife #2 in a polygamous Mormon marriage, sealed to another man who is also sealed to his current wife, polygamous wife #2. The Mormon church has steadfastly refused to cancel her sealing, thus denying her free agency.
It’s very curious, given the church’s very public position that the church has absolutely nothing to do with polygamy, that they in fact refuse to allow people to get out of a polygamous relationship.
Katzpur’s past denial of this is quite interesting, given that she holds herself out as an authority on all things Mormon, and that this practice undeniably exists. I eagerly await her return to this thread, and wonder if she will continue to deny that this happening in the Mormon church.
Okay, let’s be honest, TaxPhd. Our last discussion on this topic (which was two or three years ago) ended with our disagreeing on the use of the term, “polygamy.” Wallflash picked up on that right away and has pointed it out to you again and again and again. Polygamy is against the laws of the land in all 50 states. That means that legally speaking, your wife is not in a polygamous relationship. She is legally divorced from her ex-husband, even though her sealing to him is still intact, according to the records of the Church. You are saying that the “Mormon Church [is] denying her free agency.” Nonsense. Nobody can deny anybody else’s agency. It’s simply impossible. Her agency to do what? Be your wife? Is she genuinely concerned that she is going to have to spend eternity with a man she no longer loves and no longer shares her life with? I hope that’s not the case. I suspect that you’re both just peeved that the record of her sealing is still “on the books.”
My response isn’t so much directed to you as it is to anyone who may be following this thread and is wondering about your case. I’m going to draw an analogy between a temple sealing and baptism for the dead. When a Latter-day Saint stands as proxy for a deceased relative and is baptized “for and on behalf” of that person, he knows that the baptism will be considered valid and binding in the eyes of God only if it is accepted by the individual who is now “on the other side.” If I were to be baptized for my great-great-great-great-great grandmother who was a devout Catholic throughout her life, I believe you and I both know that it is the position of the Church that this baptism I’m receiving on her behalf will be valid only if she wishes it to be. Since the Church was not founded until several hundred years after her death, she obviously never had the option of converting to it during her lifetime. Perhaps, having been taught the restored gospel in the Spirit World, she might pleased and touched to have had one of her descendants perform this necessary ordinance for her. If, on the other hand, her response is, “Hell, no! I spent my life as a Catholic. I don't want to be a Mormon!” then the baptism will simply be null and void. I will have wasted some of my time, but that’s about it. Mormons can’t posthumously convert anyone by force. The ordinances of baptism and confirmation are binding only if the individual accepts them.
Why would you think that it’s going to be any different where marriage is concerned? Why would you or your wife think that God is going to force her to spend eternity with someone she can’t stand? A sealing is supposed to be a blessing, not a punishment. In the case of a proxy baptism, once it has been performed, it’s a matter of record. That doesn’t mean it’s binding in God’s eyes. It’s binding only if the person for whom it was performed wants it to be. A sealing is intended to eternally unite two people who actually love one another, care for one another, support one another and want to be together. If their love ceases to exist, their eternal marriage ends when the love, care and support ends. Those were the terms of the covenant in the first place, and regardless of whether a record of that sealing continues to exist in some database, the eternal nature of the sealing exists no more. Incidentally, were your wife ever to wish to remarry in the temple, she could definitely get her prior sealing cancelled.
Finally, I have never, ever “[held myself] out as an authority on all things Mormon.” As a matter of fact, I have stated at least two or three times on this thread alone that this is not the case. I have said that I know and understand LDS doctrine very well, and I stand by that.
1) Regarding the D&C on plural marriage, I cannot quote that much because the TOS doesn't allow it. I linked it per the rules here.
Where's your link? Oh, never mind... Here's the text of Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants for everybody's information. Now everyone can read it and see for themselves that it positively does not say that plural marriage is a requirement for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.
Quote:
2) One of your quotes above changes what I actually wrote, another violation of the TOS.
If that's the case, it was inadvertent. Quote what I said, and quote what you said. Let's clear this up and not have a meltdown over it.
Quote:
3) Your non-linked copy and pasting jobs, walls of text from 'Mormon friendly sites', do not change my mind.
Every word I wrote was my own. I copied and pasted nothing except where I actually quoted someone. To begin with, I have more integrity than that. Furthermore, I am articulate enough that I don't have to rely upon someone else's words. Lastly, I'm not posting to change your mind. I'm posting for open-minded people who are looking for accurate information, not lies.
Quote:
4) When you said you were curious where I got my information about the AUB, go back and look where I linked it. I have sourced everything I have said.
Brigham Young, who instituted the ban in the first place, said (as far back as 1852) that the "time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more." Throughout the 1960s, Presidents of the Church taught that the then-current policy would eventually be lifted and that those of African descent would eventually possess every blessing that all other members of the Church were entitled to. Among these was President David O. McKay, who specifically stated that at some future date, “the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.” And when the ban was removed in June, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball (by whom it was officially lifted) referred to the event as "the long-promised day."
What I read is that what was meant at that time, was that blacks would receive the priesthood after everyone else did.
Maybe that's what he thought. Turns out he was wrong, huh? Anyway, he definitely wasn't the only Church President to have said that the time would come when Blacks would be permitted to hold the priesthood. I was taught through all of my life prior to 1978, that the ban was not permanent. I was actually surprised that it was lifted when it was, but so was everybody. There had been no talk of it being imminent.
Here is the text of the actual announcement (overturning the ban on Black men holding the priesthood) as it was made in June of 1978:
“As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.Moderator cut: Copyrighted material. Post just a snippet and the link
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
