Beliefs Culture Jana Riess: Flunking Sainthood Opinion

Polygamy lives on in Mormon temple sealings

Last month, my Q&A with author Carol Lynn Pearson about “eternal polygamy” clearly touched a nerve. I was glad to see the many conversations about it on the blog and on social media. On Facebook, I heard the personal story of my friend Tracy, and I invited her to recount it here. It’s brave of her to write about it. — JKR

 

Tracy McKay Family (156)A guest post by Tracy McKay-Lamb

While plural marriage has officially been banned by the LDS Church for more than a hundred years, the truth and lived reality for many modern Mormon women is actually far more complicated.  I am one of those women.

For Mormons, one of the major goals in life—something our children are taught from the time they enter the Sunday School at 3 years old—is to strive for a temple marriage, or sealing.  To Mormons, a sealing is much more than a fancy ceremony in one of our pretty temples; it is a marriage “for time and all eternity” and does not end at death. The participants are considered married, or sealed, forever.

So what happens when someone divorces? Or dies? Or doesn’t want to be sealed to someone else anymore?

It gets complicated. Much, much more complicated.

I joined the LDS Church as an adult convert, already a wife and mother. My first marriage ended in a sad divorce several years later, and I found myself with three young kids, alone, and wondering about my place in our eternally-focused church. I asked my local leaders about the possibility of my children being sealed to me; I had been through the temple, but my former husband and I had never been sealed and my children were not born in the Covenant.

My leaders were very kind and cared for us, but they had to inform me it was impossible for me as a worthy, single person to have my children sealed to me. In these painful conversations, I was assured again and again that a loving God would work these things out, and I should not worry about the details. Sitting through the many talks and lessons on the eternal family in church became trials of endurance and patience, peppered with sorrow and frustration. I doubt the average member realizes how often we focus on sealed families.

After several years, I met and married a wonderful LDS man. In order to include our combined children, we opted to have a civil ceremony performed by our bishop in our ward chapel, and planned to apply for sealing clearance after the requisite year-long waiting period. We both felt comfortable with this, our bishop was very supportive, and we moved forward.

We had assumed my husband would request a cancelation of his sealing to his first wife. We had read that a cancelation would not affect his children from that marriage, as no blessings would be denied them. Since I had never been sealed, I did not need a cancelation.

Then it got surprising.

polygamyThe church does not routinely grant men cancelations. Women must get a cancelation, but living Mormon men can be—and routinely are—sealed to more than one living woman.  Today. In 2016.

After a death or a divorce in a sealed marriage, the sealing remains intact. This is surely a great comfort to someone separated from a beloved spouse by death.

But what about in a divorce? After a civil divorce, nothing changes in the temple sealing. The participants are divorced by the laws of the state, but they are still sealed for “time and all eternity” according to the laws of the Church. The sealing remains intact, and both people are still bound forever.

In the event a civilly-divorced Mormon woman wishes to remarry, if her new spouse is a member of the Church, she may petition to have her first sealing “canceled” to be given a clearance to be sealed to her new spouse. Frequently this is granted, and she is able to be sealed to husband #2.  She may not be sealed to more than one man while living.  If husband #2 is not a member of the Church and she cannot be sealed in her new marriage, she will be legally married to husband #2, but she will still be sealed to husband #1.

And here’s a shocker: If she and husband #2 have children, those children will be born within “the covenant” and sealed by birth to husband #1—even though they are no relation at all to husband #1. It’s easy to see why this would be very distressing to women of faith who are facing this possibility.

It actually gets worse.

If a civilly-divorced, sealed man wants to get remarried, and his new spouse is a member of the church, he petitions for a “clearance” to be sealed to his new wife— but his first sealing is not cancelled. It’s a lengthy process, in which the opinion of the first wife is requested (per the Law of Sarah). The man can request a cancelation of his first sealing, but unless the first wife is getting remarried in the temple, that request is almost always denied.

The living man, after being granted clearance, can then be sealed to a second living woman in the temple.  He is legally married to only one woman, but on the records of the church, he is then sealed to two (or more) living women. Any children from either sealing are “born in the covenant” with him, and are sealed to him.

It dawned on us that despite my husband’s explicit wishes and request, he would continue to be sealed to his first, living wife. If he wanted to be sealed to me, his actual legal wife, I would have to agree to be part of a polygamous family for eternity.

What does this mean for modern Mormons?  It means modern, living men are sealed to multiple living women.  Full stop.

This opens up many complicated questions.

Why are members of the church who request cancelation denied? Women who are single and ask about sealing are regularly assured not to worry, which would suggest that sealing is not imperative. Yet men and women who request cancelation are being told sealing is important enough that their agency will be denied and they will be forced to remain sealed to former spouses they no longer want or love—and in some cases, even after they are married to another.

So which is it? Is it the most important thing we do? Is it so indispensable that our agency—paramount in Mormon theology—is denied? Or is it no big deal, and we should stop making a fuss and let God work it out after we die?

It cannot be both. It cannot be the most important thing we do, and also no big deal, depending on the audience being addressed.

What is sealing, and what is it not?  Is sealing a definitively separate thing than a marriage? If so, defining the importance and separateness of those relations would be crucial to further understanding for people of faith.

We have prophets, seers and revelators at the helm of our church. It’s entirely reasonable to ask these questions of our spiritual leaders. When we ask for cancelations and are denied without explanation, our church leaders leave us practicing a theology we profess to have given up more than a century ago. We seek their counsel, but the silence in reply is deafening.

Tracy McKay-Lamb is an adult convert to the LDS Church, living in the DC Metro area with her husband, children, and enormous dog. She writes for the blog By Common Consent and for herself.


RELATED POSTS:


 

About the author

Jana Riess

Senior columnist Jana Riess is the author of many books, including "The Prayer Wheel" (Random House/Convergent, 2018) and "The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church" (Oxford University Press, 2019). She has a PhD in American religious history from Columbia University.

356 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Completely understandable the fear that this could cause, but I’d
    caution patience until we know the order of marriage/sealing in the next
    life and what it exactly entails. Which is cause for pause and
    humility.

  • Polygamy is more than a simple lifestyle choice. It is government fraud, the suppression of women’s rights and the horror of child sexual abuse. It is self-proclaimed prophets brainwashing followers from cradle to grave, threatening their eternal salvation if they fail to follow their twisted doctrine. “plygs” and the just-released “plygs2” (available on Amazon.com) are the books the fundamentalist Mormons do not want you to read, journalistic novels of suspense and the frightening reality of life within this sordid cult.

  • The answer is to run screaming from this nutty cult. All beliefs in gods and devils are crazy, but there’s something extra-special about the kookiness of Mormonism, given that the truth about its founder, Joe the Money-Digger (who wanted to marry young girls and so reinstated polygamy), is so widely known.

  • I hope you realize this is all made up drivel by Joseph and Brigham and perpetuated by semi-inspired men only… right? Full stop. I’m surprised it isn’t more convoluted considering they have a quorum of 70 men to figure it out.

  • I have to comment on this. This information is not accurate that it is hard for a man to get a cancellation of sealing from a first wife. Mine was easy. I was sealed to my first wife, and after my divorce to her (some time later) when I went to get sealed to my second wife, I was told I needed to get a cancellation of sealing from my first wife before I could. One simple request sent to Salt Lake, smoothly taken care of, and then I was cleared to get sealed to my wife (who I look forward to being with for eternity). If your husband’s request was hard to do, I’m sorry, but that isn’t my experience, and it is important that both sides of the story be told.

  • Whew! …It’s always seemed to me, as a twice divorced, LDS man, that there is gonna be a whole lot of parent time the Good Lord will have to “work out” in the next life.

  • mormon heaven is so creepy. everyone is in humanoid form and the women keep having babies for all eternity… and they have to sit by and watch their husband have sex with other women for all eternity. But the women aren’t allowed to have sex with other men or even their sister wives. Pretty sure their tiny little religion is the only one that believes that.

  • Happy it worked that way for you, but we did the same, and were denied. Flat denied. In 2015.

  • According to section 132:65 if the first wife’s consent is denied he is exempt from the law of sarah. So it looks like in your case the church sides with eternal polygamy instead of preferring monogamy. Weird.

  • “our church leaders leave us practicing a theology we profess to have given up more than a century ago”

    The theological practice of polygamy was never given up. Men have always, post-manifesto, been able to be sealed to multiple woman (hence, practice polygamy). Only the temporal practice of polygamy was given up. Otherwise, it’s still the new and everlasting covenant, as D&C 132 explains.

  • She is talking about temporal polygamy here as both wives are living and the sealing remains intact to the first wife after the sealing of the second wife with the consent of the first who remains single without prospects of marriage on the horizon. Hypothetically, if the three agreed to live together for a few weeks and produce strong enough rumors they were living in polyamory – they could trigger a break to the first sealing, but only by passing through excommunication first?

  • This article makes no sense to me. Regardless of whether you like the Church policy on sealings, if you believe Church leaders when they talk of the importance of sealings, then you must also believe that they are doing it right (or at least that God is okay with the current policy for the time being). If you think the sealing doctrine is wrong, and that it has no effect on the hereafter, then why do you care about it at all?

  • I should add: unlike the laws of man that allow people to get divorced for irreconcilable differences, the laws of God are not so lax. So even if the laws of man allow a man to divorce his wife, the laws of God do not allow him to “unseal” himself from her without a good reason; and if she doesn’t want to be unsealed from him, that’s a pretty good reason.

  • It sounds like Michael, and probably his leaders, may be unaware of the difference between a clearance and a cancellation. They may have used the word ‘cancellation’ when they interviewed him, even though what he actually got was a clearance. He used both words in his post, and I am betting that he got a clearance, not a cancellation. My husband has served in a bishopric and was unaware of the difference.

    Michael, is there a chance you have the letter they sent you? I’m wondering if it would specify whether it was a cancellation or a clearance. I am certain that some men have received cancellations, but it is very rare, and often requires a process far more extensive than the standard process that all remarrying men go through to get a clearance.

    I know one man who has appealed 3 times, and has even talked to a Seventy, in an attempt to get a cancellation of sealing from his inactive, adulterous ex-wife. She says she is “worried about the kids,” so they continue to deny him the cancellation.

  • I so much agree with the comment of “Is a temple sealing the most important item (sure is stressed to the youth that it is THE most important ordinance) or do we just let God figure it all out? It makes no sense and gives me a headache.

  • This is an excellent article. There are so many misconceptions surrounding these practices and policies, but Tracy has been very thorough and accurate. I have spent a great deal of time studying the sealing policies section of the church Handbook, and this is all spot on. Anyone can read it – just ask your bishopric to show you the section in the Handbook.

    There is one little thing I would add. Speaking of divorced women, Tracy says “If husband #2 is not a member of the Church and she cannot be
    sealed in her new marriage, she will be legally married to husband #2,
    but she will still be sealed to husband #1.”

    Women who are not being sealed to a new husband have always been able to apply for cancellation, but it was very frequently not granted. No new policies have been written that I have seen, but in the last year or two, it seems that the leadership has been instructed to process these applications for women, whether they are about to be sealed again or not. This is based on anecdotal evidence from many divorced and single women who have been denied cancellations in the past but have now been able to get them within the last year or so.

    These policies create incredibly difficult issues for so many people. It causes so much heartache. I cannot believe that God is the author of such confusion and heartache. I try to remember that God will work it all out, and just not worry, but that’s easier said than done. I began the process of applying for a sealing cancellation from my first husband just two days ago. My case should be easy to get processed, but it probably wouldn’t have been a couple years ago. I really feel for anyone who cannot get the cancellations/clearances they desire.

  • “if you believe Church leaders when they talk of the importance of sealings, then you must also believe that they are doing it right (or at least that God is okay with the current policy for the time being)” Why? Why would anyone have to believe your B if the believe the A you cite? Certainly it could be possible for LDS prophets to get one thing right and a related things wrong. Or do you think they are infallible?

  • Tracy,

    The answer to all this is as simple as it can be: It’s all made up.

    The convoluted and illogical doctrine described so well by you here is just one piece of the nonsense.

    How can anyone reasonably explain the gross problems with the historicity of the BoM? How can anyone explain the large blocks of BoM text lifted verbatim from the version of the Bible Smith owned, including its errors? How can anyone explain the similarity of Mormon temple rituals with those of the Freemasons (which Smith received just weeks before he “revealed” the Mormon rites)?

    How can anyone justify Smith’s immorality? How can anyone justify Young’s brutality? How can anyone justify blatant racism until 1978? The fact is, no one can.

    Mormonism is a sad fraud. It’s that simple.

  • The Law of Sarah as it has been termed by many is, as you mentioned, virtually meaningless in that if, according to D&C 132, a first wife doesn’t give consent then it’s no longer required for the man to have consent in order be justified in taking another wife.

  • Joshua,

    I think what you say represents the ultimate gamble (and con) of Mormonism.

    In essence, what you’re saying is “Ignore what your brain tells you, and just trust us.” And this from the “prophets” who brought racism until 1978, a BoM riddled with serious problems, financial opacity since 1959, and today continuing misogyny and insistence that GLBT people are somehow “defective.”

    No. Don’t wait until you know things in the next life. Study things, test things, and know things now.

  • The first wife did not consent. He was granted clearance, not cancelation, and our children were sealed to us.

  • That’s the ugly thing about the Law of Sarah- the first wife is asked, but if she denies consent, the “sin is upon her head.” It’s such a mess.

  • The problem is that the church and its leaders can solve this problem with one statement. They can show that men and women are both the same in the eyes of the lord…but they are to busy making sure girls only wear one set of ear rings and gays stay unmarried, and their efforts to get kids to deny their parents to get baptised. Instead of showing love and compassion, they show their need for control and power. If the church was ever true, and I will admit I doubt it ever was, it has fallen far from the eyes of the lord.

  • Because if they are doing it wrong and God is fine with it for now, then you should be fine with it for now. If God is not fine with it and wants to change it, he changes it through direct revelation to his prophets. God doesn’t speak to his prophets through social media complaints.

  • Even though all 3 people are alive, they are not living in a temporal polygamy arrangement. I wouldn’t call the situation “temporal polygamy” but maybe that’s just me. My guess is that the church’s position would be that they are not practicing polygamy…yet. But are destined to if they all remain faithful. Unless God “sorts it out” in some other way. But as the article says, if God is going to sort it all out, why bother with all this stuff at all?

  • You are exactly right- I have studied and tested the Book of Mormon and know that it comes from God and have had profound spiritual experiences with it. At the same time I sharply disagree with a lot of what the church does.

    So the only thing I know what to do is profess humility and say we live in a paradoxical universe that is contracting and expanding at the same time and not pretend I know all things.

  • There’s a reason “Joseph Smith” can be rewritten as “Joseph’s Myth”…

  • God and Prophets aren’t real just so we are clear. If you have actual Prophets have em tell me next weeks Mega millions #’$. Do that and I’ll believe em.

  • One minor correction. As far as I know, the LDS church did not ban plural marriage “more than a hundred years ago”. It banned *new* plural marriages. Well, actually, the leadership still did them secretly until 1905, when they finally stopped.

    In any case, to my understanding, all *existing* plural marriages did not require the husband to pick one wife and then discard the rest. So the church was still recognising plural marriages until the mid-20th century. In addition, plural marriage was never defined as a mistake, or a misinterpretation of scripture, or *wrong* in any way.

    So fast forward to today. Church leaders have a doctrine on their books that can best be described as “paused” rather than “renounced”. But the church culture itself has progressed so far beyond polygamy that most members (and especially the women) start feeling very uncomfortable when the topic is raised. I have come across noone who is looking for its return, even though to Brigham and those early prophets, it was a pretty big deal and non-negotiable for eternal glory.

    The temple is the sticking point, though. Eternal marriage just doesn’t work in a world that has divorce, remarriage and children. It is a Utopian concept that works only in a closed, rigid society. The church tries to maintain key catchphrases like “eternal families” and “marriage for time and all eternity” but in reality modern LDS temple marriages are like the Disneyland version of the historical event. Looks great from the outside but don’t look too closely behind the exhibits.

  • Plural Marriage isn’t immoral, Brigham Young was involved in a war, and calling politically incorrect beliefs pertaining to genealogy “wayciss” is childish.

  • So you think polygamy should be eradicated altogether, but you have the audacity to whine about the children of gay couples being treated identically to the children of plural families by the LDS Church? What a hypocrite.

  • I wonder if it depends a lot on who takes the request. That would explain the different experiences.

  • Unfortunately, when you test it against known history, archaeology, theology, linguistics and genetics you find it failing every one.

    Yes, all of those areas are still progressing and developing, but each new stage further sinks the boot into the Book of Mormon.

    So what do you have? A powerful feeling after a prayer, or while you were reading, or when you heard someone else speak? That’s cool, but it’s hard to extrapolate a feeling into something from the real world. In reality, the feeling is all you have. You don’t actually have new knowledge. Meanwhile, your interpretation of that BoM feeling is in conflict with every earthly discipline – those same disciplines that you rely on for understanding, surviving and prospering in the real world.

    Faith is meant to bridge the gap between what you can prove/know and what you hope is true. It’s not meant to contradict the prevailing evidence. That’s when it becomes “blind faith” and that’s when you find yourself in some scary territory.

  • I think this is something the founders of the church never really thought much about, because divorce was quite uncommon, until recent decades. I suspect that current leaders are playing it by ear, and they don’t all have the same opinions.

    I believe it will be worked out in the next life. I certainly hope so, because I do NOT want to be with my ex in eternity! I spent too much of my mortal life with him, the way it was. He and his 2nd wife talked about getting sealed, for a while, but are both inactive, now, so we don’t have to worry about it. However, I wouldn’t accept a sealing cancellation without assurance that our children, whom we adopted and took to the temple, individually, would still be sealed to me.

  • Interesting line of reasoning. This presupposes that the Church leaders have special insight into the will of God. Many members of the Church believe that they do. Some assume they see visions and have revelations. This assumption would contradict many of their own statements and indeed, the history of the church itself. It would be hard to point to any aspect of church doctrine or practice that hasn’t gone through multiple revisions/interpretations over the years.

    Two explanations come to mind (for a faithful member): Either God gets it wrong and changes his mind from time to time, or man gets it wrong, from either not asking the right questions or from misinterpreting the answers.

    Either explanation is a solid basis for someone like Tracy to question the current doctrine and practices around temple marriage. It is in fact more than likely that these practices will be slowly and quietly amended as the years go by to address some of the concerns she has raised. She is not alone in her concerns.

  • This whole mess is why I don’t find LDS “theology” appealing in the least and in fact find it rather horrid in comparison to regular Christianity’s teachings. The LDS church is the only church that rips apart families, gives wives and children to other spouses and parents. Even at it’s base of a man and woman remaining married through out their lives the “families can be together forever” makes no sense at all when your children are going to go on an make their own “forever families”.

  • Maybe Tracy doesn’t want to challenge the whole basis for her belief system just yet? Maybe she just wants a temple marriage that has no overtones of leftover polygamy in it?

  • Actually Gunner, I’m not sure how this solves the problem. You’re essentially advocating for polygamous marriages in both directions: men to multiple women and women to multiple men. This doesn’t solve Tracy’s dilemma of wanting just one temple marriage to one man.

  • Yes, you’re probably right about them playing it by ear. What they really need is some old-fashioned scriptural revelation that explains what God actually wants everyone to do with their lives now. All the stuff he told Joseph Smith is getting a bit dated. I’m not sure the Church knows what to do with Section 132 nowadays. Elder Uchtdorf recently tried to liken the Seer Stone to an iPhone. Well, I’m guessing that the church’s iPhone is in desperate need of an update!

  • It is true that, when entering in to new polygamous marriages was banned, polygamous families that all ready existed were not required to break up, at least, not by the church. They were, however, by the laws of this country. My ex’s grandmother was born and raised in the Mormon colonies in Mexico. Her father had three wives and her mother was the youngest. Each wife had her own house, on the farm, although the father primarily lived with the first wife. The wife of President Spencer W. Kimball, Camilla Eyring Kimball, was also raised in one of the Mexican colonies. Her family entered into plural marriage shortly AFTER the manifesto of 1890.

  • “I cannot believe that God is the author of such confusion and heartache.” Which is why I can not believe that God is the author of the LDS church. It is the obvious concoction of a certain type of man.

  • Rather than “God gets it wrong” or “man gets it wrong,” I like to think of it this way: God let’s man learn to walk like him the same way we let a baby learn to walk like us. Just because the baby stumbles now and then, it is not “wrong” and all part of the process of learning to walk.

    When it comes to the prophet, he holds the keys of the sealing power and it is within his discretion to seal or unseal, bind or unbind. It is not for any other person on this Earth to tell him he is doing it “wrong,” that is between him and the Lord alone. A perfect example of this is Nephi in Helaman 10:5-7, when he reached the point where his will merged with the will of the Lord:

    “I will bless thee forever; and I will make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works; yea, even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will. … I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.”

  • “I’d caution patience until we know the order of marriage/sealing in the next
    life and what it exactly entails”

    Meaning that the LDS church has no clue what it is talking about.

  • Whatever you gotta tell yourself man. But the prophet’s “baby steps” affect (and potentially damage) people in real and lasting ways over generations. Sounds “wrong” to me to let people suffer until your guy “gets it”.

    I’ll take your Nephi and raise you “blacks and the priesthood”. That involved the use of the sealing power (People think it was just the priesthood. They forget about the temple sealings). The sealing practice got questioned heavily both inside and outside the church through the preceding decades. Hey presto. The Lord gives the revelation to open it all up. It would be great to read that revelation, but unfortunately it was more of a feeling than a scripture (if we believe the reports from those who were there).

  • Not even sure what point you’re trying to make. I don’t think many of your statements would resonate with the average church member of 2016.

    One thing I can guarantee. You’ll never hear those statements made in General Conference.

  • Mormonism works for people who want to believe they’ll be with immediate family members forever. A temple sealing has absolutely nothing to do with it. Find one verse of scripture anywhere in the Old Testament, New Testament or Book of Mormon alluding to, teaching about, or otherwise confirming this silly notion that “families are forever”. It was never taught by any prophet of scripture or Jesus Christ. Never mentioned once before 1830 as the most important thing a person can pursue in their lifetime. 99.999% of all humanity who ever lived never heard of such nonsense.

  • Not denying that you’ve had spiritual experiences with the BoM, but does it necessarily follow that BoM spiritual experiences = the LDS church is true? There are other churches that believe the BoM but don’t have the baggage the LDS church does. Ever looked into any of those?

  • But it is such a sweet thought that allows the church to separate them from at least 8 BILLION dollars a year and easily BILLIONS of man hours. All while supporting a church that lies to their faces and they still love it./s

  • That argument failed to prevent same sex marriage.
    What makes you think it’s going to work against Plural Marriage?

  • Actually Joseph Smith’s views was that married women can have sex with other men. Which is why he was able to bed other living men’s wives.

  • The “politically incorrect beliefs pertaining to genealogy” were that black people’s ancestors were morally inferior, or that they had the curse of Ham, correct? Or are you talking about something else?

  • Yeah, if you add letters that weren’t there before. Based on your logic you could also spell “Joseph’s” then cut the m in half and use one side for the r and turn the left over n upside down to make a u, then flatten out the dot above the i to make a t and then you would have the letters for Joseph’s truth. What a conundrum.

  • I know you’re dying to make this about gay marriage, but that’s what the author and her husband are trying to do. They don’t want a plural marriage. The Church feels differently.

  • I apologize in advance for the lengthy response… Not sure how I can say it with fewer words.

    Thank you for posting this frank and honest article. Tracy addresses some critical issues surrounding this frustrating topic, but she really struck a chord when she pointed out the obvious discrepancies in the churches policies and actions. I haven’t experienced the need to have a sealing cancelled, but I have had to deal with the issue of eternal marriage/sealing for other deeply personal reasons. But I’ve also experienced 2nd hand what Tracy describes as a family member and as a friend. As a result of my experience I couldn’t help but spend countless hours in studying, praying, pondering and seeking the advice of “the experts” to help me understand. In the process I too experienced the same reaction: It’s the most important thing OR it doesn’t matter, it will all work out in the end.

    I don’t agree with the acidic comments by many here (most who just want to pass off anything or anyone who have to do with religion or spirituality as an idiots response) or the sycophants who are blinded by their bias (I used to fit more into this category I sadly admit).

    So to help you know at little bit about where I’m coming from:

    I was raised LDS and served a full-time mission and married in the temple. However, several years ago I had a horrific experience that forced me to rethink everything I thought and believed. Prior to the incident I had been dealing with ongoing painful issues, much of which involved questions and concerns revolving around eternal marriage and the sealing ordinance. My pain was mostly inwardly and silent, as I think it is for many of humans. But struggling with issues that put me on the outside of the LDS “norm” only added to my pain and suffering. To put it mildly, I was distressed and needing help.

    My spouse and I were befriended by a couple at church. Both served in local leadership capacity. (At the time I was unaware that she was often released early and suddenly throughout her years of “service” – red flag!) In short time he became the bishop. I thought they were a godsend to my family. I even said prayers thanking God for blessing us with their friendship. (roll eyes here) Turns out they were more devil sent than heaven sent. 😐 To make a VERY long story short…they turned out to have a sociopathic disorder and they work in tandem protecting each other. Very twisted! (BTW I’m not stating that lightly. Their sociopathy was the diagnosis of my therapist, who for the record is also LDS). To this very day this couple is protected and sustained by the stake leadership and both are serving in the temple. Probably needless to say, I was forced to re-think the entirety of my belief system. I can’t even begin to express what a challenge this was to my faith and my soul. But I’ve learned much and am still learning much as result of the incomprehensible injustice. Anyway… to my point now…

    The following is simply my personal opinion resulting from my life experiences (or some will consider bias! LOL):

    There is MUCH confusion surrounding eternal marriage and sealing as Tracy brilliantly described in her article. And as I pointed out, I too dealt with this frustrating confusion. But one day, after years of study and pondering, I had an experience that was part aha moment and part flipping of a switch. I had become aware of the variety of ways ALL religions have mixed sound truth with manmade ideologies and now I recognized my own bias towards my faith. (We like to point out the flaws of others but ignore the sins of our own.) I realized the LDS faith is just as guilty of placing men/people between us and God. In that aha/flipping a switch moment I realized that the whole temple ordeal is just that, a construct of man. Yet one more beautiful artifice created by man to force my dependence upon them. Just because we say it’s of God doesn’t mean it’s of God.

    As humans we really like to feel important, special – Elect! We also like to hand over our thinking to others – blind sheep following blind leaders. It’s so much easier to be told what to do and definitely don’t question those above us! Recognizing my own bias and In this openminded state I realized I was making man MORE powerful than God! As if I needed a human being and an earthly ordinance to enter heaven or be with my loved ones forever. No. I need to live a life doing good to my fellow humans. I need to follow the example Jesus set.

    As far as eternal marriage and sealing and eternity goes… As if GOD doesn’t have the power to overcome any construct that we humans have created. In the end, it’s not a sealing that matters; it’s our faithfulness to God.

    I agree with one commentators point: God is NOT the author of confusion and heartache. In fact, we are taught confusion is of the devil. So whenever you experience confusion this should be a red flag to you that you need to stop and question and don’t stop until you have received a satisfactory answer.

  • They are certainly not obligated to enter into one. If they elect to do so anyway, then that’s on them.

  • I have a close friend who divorced his first wife and wished to be sealed to his second wife. His request was indeed granted. Yes it does happen. It mat not be common but the article gave the impression that it cannot happen.

  • It certainly matters if this is your belief. if life on earth is about 60 years with your children but after that billions then what happens after counts most and if your children are sealed to your ex husband for all that time and you will not be with them that’s something most mothers would not want to contemplate. The fact it is not gender neutral shows how unfair against women it all is.

  • A lifestyle choice? I would agree with that statement if Mormonism wasn’t involved. Obviously, the writer about this article didn’t have a whole lot of choice in the matter of whether or not she participated in polygamy, and neither did a lot of other women in Mormonism. Have you ever read section 1:32 of the D&C? A “revelation” in which Emma Smith is actively threatened with Hellfire and destruction if she does not acquiesce to polygamy? Does Helen Mar Kimball ring any bells with you? A 14 year old girl who was told that her whole family was going to hell if she did not agree to marry Joseph Smith? A FOURTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL. Let that sink in. I’m all for people having whatever marriage arrangements they want, that’s their business, but women and young girls being manipulated and threatened into it I find disgusting. But hey that’s just me!

  • Temple work for the dead is the ultimate busy work. Requiring a temple recommend to be deemed worthy is the carrot that ensures robust cash flow, along with that false promise of glory in the afterlife.

  • This is extremely common. This is the norm for remarrying LDS men. However, as Ophanim mentions, the vast majority of them are granted a sealing clearance, not a cancellation.

  • The Handbook is very clear that when the parents’ sealing to each other is canceled, the children are still sealed to both the parents.

  • Good Lord, that’s a lot of anti-Mormon spin.
    Yes, I’m familiar with 132. I’m a Mormon Fundamentalist, for crying out loud.
    Emma Smith was reluctant at first, but later participated in the weddings of four of her sister-wives.
    Helen Mar’s age is not relevant. There was no marriage age in the 1800s. It was up to the families involved. Edgar Allen Poe was the same age as Smith and he married his 11 year old first cousin while he was in his thirties. Judging characters from the past by the standards of today is useless.

  • Great, because I’m not a PC tool box.
    Lemme guess. You turn a blind eye to the fact that most black churches consider white people to be descendants of Esau?

  • I don’t turn a blind eye to it, more like I couldn’t care less about who holds what fringe belief. Most black churches? Lol.

  • I don’t know what the author believes. Perhaps she believes that God speaks to the prophets sometimes but not others, and is trying to figure things out for herself. This is consistent with church teachings that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such. But it starts to get confusing when you realize you can’t even rely on prophets to get it right all the time. Is your position that God sustains the things that Mormon prophets have gotten wrong over the years?

  • My position is that if the author believes that God entrusted his prophet with the sealing power; then she can take comfort that God is going to ratify or fix whatever the prophet’s decision was at the right time. A God that says “whoops, that guy made a mistake and now you are all eternally dammed” is not the God that Mormons believe in.

  • As I have pointed out numerous times on different threads in Jana’s blogs, trying to use those men’s experiences with polygamy as examples of good is just ludicrous.
    Abraham’s first wife kicked his second wife and her kid to the street. Now that’s a godly practice that ended well if there ever was one. (sarcasm)
    Jacob got tricked into marrying his first wife, married the second, and those two gave their handmaids (basically slaves) in a game to on-up each other in the baby-making business. Is giving slaves to your husband to sleep with godly? It happened with Jacob. Then Jacob favored one son over his others because his mom was the favored wife, which made the other sons jealous and they sold the brother into slavery. Now isn’t that a great example?
    David’s lust was unsatisfied with several wives and concubines (once again, what practices are we justifying by David being involved?). So he slept with another man’s wife and had him killed.
    Solomon let some of his wives lead him into idolatry.
    If you want to justify polygamy, try using an example that ended well. If there is one.

  • No. I simply said that the leadership is not seeing the heartache they cause while being overly busy with the BS of ear rings and such. I said women and men should be treated equally, i did NOT say they both should have the right to be sealed to more than one…you read that into what I said. I said ‘solve the problem’, i did not say ‘allow both to be sealed to more than one’. Big difference. So please do not say I am ‘advocating’ something that I did not say. Thanks.

  • Wow. Please point out in what I wrote that ‘polygamy should be eradicated’? I said “They can show that men and women are both the same in the eyes of the lord”. Where that leads them is up to them, but past the misogyny of the situation, I’m neutral. You and Ozfan2013 sure need to learn to read better. I never said in my comment that I am for or against the act of plural marriage, I simply stated the church can solve this by treating people equally.

  • “It is the obvious concoction of a certain type of man”…You statement could be used to describe pretty much every male in the bible, starting with Paul as a prime example.

  • Think or say whatever you will about the Mormon Church, but the reality is that millions subscribe to this religion. I do not understand, nor claim to understand all the nuances of membership, I do not understand this concept of ‘sealing’, but it is as much a part of their religion as the pope is to Catholics.
    What is presented in this article is a true dilemma for those who must deal with it. What do they do? Just decide one day that they no longer believe that particular tenant? Amend their rules to fit the modern society view of marriage?
    Frankly, I do not know what to tell Ms. Lamb, except that I’ll pray for her.

  • Hmmm. Men cannot be sealed to their children either, so no difference there, and I know my cousin’s ex-husband had to have his sealing canceled before he could remarry.

  • The whole son of Cain thing is not unique to Mormonism. and I believe some other churches still believe this, although it’s brushed under. I know Catholics and most protestants had views on it before Mormonism existed.

  • Mormons are the original American dupes. Willing to suffer the unimaginable for the unimaginable. Well I take that back it does require a fair amount of imagination.

  • No one has ever been helped by prayer… except the prayee who is just suffering from confirmation bias.

  • This idea that a spiritual experience is a powerful feeling is completely bogus first of all. So let’s stop pretending you can interpret mine or anyone else’s spiritual experience.

    Secondly my knowledge the book comes from God or higher power of some sort is not based on history surrounding it. My knowledge is based on the statement ““I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was 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.”

    I don’t care if a talking Monkey is how Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon- I know the above statement is correct.

    If you are looking for someone with “blind faith” you are talking to the wrong person. I’m not some dope that hasn’t experienced life for themselves. Go find some dude that lives in the naive mormon bubble to debate with.

  • Or maybe the human race you are a part of doesn’t know everything and should stop needing certainty at every turn. Faith is exercised whether you are a religious zealot or an atheist. You’re exercising faith in some principle that you don’t have certainty about.

  • This is a great point. I admit humility to the fact I do not know how it all plays together for me and my faith. I trust my higher power to guide me through the principles in that book as it has before and will take your words in consideration.

  • This is overwrought. First, it assumes marriage means you own the spouse. That’s false. Same with children. We don’t own them, we’re merely stewards as parents. Such assumptions are based in selfishness, which (surprisingly) will have no place in heaven. Second, it fails to identify what the sealing ordinance actually is. It’s a saving ordinance every individual needs.

    When it’s viewed in that light, we see why the caution in cancellation. Cancellations aren’t allowed until a new spouse is able to participate in a new sealing. It doesn’t compel divorced individuals to spend eternity married to their ex (but it also doesn’t mean we’ll be wasting eternity harboring ill will to exes). Rather, it satisfies the Mormon injunction to seal the entire human family together. In other words, in Mormon heaven it won’t matter who’s sealed to whom, but rather that we’re all sealed to all.

    It’s also important to understand that in heaven, everyone will be more literally viewing each other as brother and sister, where mortal generations and separate family units are less relevant. All the other crass comments making assumptions about Mormon beliefs of the afterlife are unwarranted, but expected.

  • Thank you for letting me know what you think I think.
    There was never any moral outrage over such a thing from the dawn of mankind until after women’s suffrage.
    You are simply trying to shock people by comparing historical characters to the standards of today. In the process, you have thrown over 99% of your ancestors under the bus.
    You come from a long, long line of people that did the exact same thing that you are howling about.

  • Spouting leftist buzzwords like mysogyny isn’t going to gain you any credibility.
    Lemme guess. Pro-Islam?

  • If you don’t like the beliefs than join/start another Church.
    This is a religion. Not a social club.

  • Overwrought Ponderizing? Crass assumptions about the Mormon afterlife are only being made by you. How are you privy to the exact rules?

  • If it were simply a matter of people living to the standards of their time, then it would be simple to disregard. It’s that in all those instances, these were practices sanctioned by God (at least that’s what’s claimed). So, the problem is not the way their choices are colored by the standards of today. It’s whether or not God actually feels that way about women and girls. If the prophets were doing it and the eternal, unchanging God was complicit, what does that mean about God’s opinion of women?

    So… that’s the great heartache for me.

  • Nope…but a good try to avoid the issue of you making stuff up. Again let us see if you will answer. Please point out in what I wrote that “polygamy should be eradicated” I like how you sidestepped the question and threw out claims of ‘leftist’ and ‘pro-islam’ to cover for your falsehoods. ps. I think the muslim faith is destructive and not conductive to the ideas of freedom and democracy. But again. Where did I say what you claimed I said. I can keep asking and you can keep squirming like a worm, because you’re wrong and you make stuff up like a nice little troll.

  • “There was never any moral outrage over such a thing from the dawn of mankind until after women’s suffrage”

    Christian history has little if any polygyny to show in it’s history and monogamy was the norm in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. Mormons couldn’t even practice it publicly until they left civilization.
    Just curious is owning slaves okay by you too since people have also been doing that since the dawn of mankind.
    You are the one who is “howling” here I simply said I find it immoral.

  • Very true. I just wanted to make clear that men can have a cancellation. The article seemed to indicate that they couldn’t.

  • It was cancelled. He is sealed to only one wife. I do have another friend, however, who is sealed to two wives. His first wife died and he remarried. He is now sealed to both.

  • “Christian history has little if any polygyny to show in it’s history”
    Don’t Tell Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. They didn’t get the memo.

    “monogamy was the norm in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.”
    The Romans revoked plural marriage in order to make Christianity more appealing to their citizens. Sorta like the lamestream LDS Church has done today. Hence the reason that Christianity had to be restored in the time of Joseph Smith.

    “Just curious is owning slaves okay by you too since people have also been doing that since the dawn of mankind.”
    Here’s the part where the dishonest plonker tries to compare marriage to slavery. What’s next? Human sacrifice?

    “I simply said I find it immoral.”
    Good for you. If you don’t want a plural marriage, then don’t get one.

  • What about plural marriage makes you feel that God feels some negative way about girls?

    “Woman is God’s supreme creation. Only after the earth had been formed, after the day had been separated from the night, after the waters had been divided from the land, after vegetation and animal life had been created, and after man had been placed on the earth, was woman created; and only then was the work pronounced complete and good.”

  • No both Romans and Greeks practiced monogamy before Christianity. Oh and Isaac only had one wife.

  • SOMEBODY has to crank out the spirit children in Mormon heaven. In the meantime, Mormon women on earth are used as brood sows to pump out bodies for the spirit children. Creepy, creepy. Don’t believe me? Take a gander at official Magic Kingdom teachings:

    “To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation* or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done.”

    And as the above quote points out, if you’re a really good Mormon – and a male – you get to be a god of your planet. Here’s what Spencer the Kimball, former prophet, seer and revelator of the Magic Kingdom, said:

    “Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.”

  • This is possible, but extremely unlikely. Men are *rarely* given cancellations. They almost always get sealing *clearances*. These are two totally different things.

  • Dang you’re a weaselly individual. I did not say that either. You were fun at first, but now just boring. Very sad and boring

  • Well Josh, unless you’re claiming some kind of angelic ministration, what you’re left with is a feeling. Hey, Book of Mormon describes it as a feeling, so does the D&C. Might be time to own it. Here’s what you can’t get away with, though. You can’t, on the one hand, post on a public forum about your knowledge-defining spiritual experience as if it means something and then get offended when someone questions the experience. One day you will realise that your experience doesn’t mean jack#%$^ outside of your own head.

    On your second point: You’re darn right your opinion on the BoM is not based on history. That’s kind of my point. Yet the Church still tries to claim the book is historical and tells the story of the Ancient Americans. If you just said it came out of Joseph’s head as an inspired work and it’s all about these “most correct” principles then most of the criticism goes away.

    So when you say the book is “true”, you obviously don’t mean it in the sense of an actual history about Nephi and the crew. You use the JS quote about “getting nearer to God” by “abiding by its precepts”. Which precepts are those? The “kill someone if you feel God is telling you to?” The “lie and steal if you really need some brass plates?” The “butcher and maim the robbers if you need to impress the King?” The “put to death if you disagree with the system of government?” The “strike dumb the guy who is against your religion?” As far as I can tell, all the good precepts in the BoM are found in the Bible and many other religious texts.

    Wait, you know that Joseph used a talking monkey? I don’t think that’s what you were trying to say 🙂

    I know you don’t see it as “blind faith”. It’s just that in order to continue believing, you have to ignore the evidence against the proposition. That’s kind of the “blind” part.

  • Thanks for the clarification. However, still don’t know how that fixes Tracy’s problem. They’re currently hamstrung from the leftover polygamy doctrine. That’s what they need to change. Equality of men/women is a thing in its own right and I’m all for that too.

  • When the church decides that it will no longer try to convert the world, maybe you have a point. If the church kept to itself and didn’t try to insert itself into moral debates, maybe you have a point. If the church members didn’t guilt and/or shun and/or criticise and/or demonise their post-Mormon brothers and sisters, maybe you have a point.

    As none of that is the case, the scrutiny will continue.

  • I agree with Morminion. You have absolutely no idea of what the justification for the sealing restrictions are. Same with the day-to-day life in heaven. That’s all coming out of your head. You’ve got zero scriptural support. You’ve fallen into the old LDS trap of making up the stuff you don’t know so that the story sounds complete. There’s only 1 verse of scripture that even tries to address the post-earth life and that was Sec 130 one about the “same sociality” existing there (whatever that means).

    The real problem is that “eternal families” sounds like a great concept until you try to think about how that would actually work in heaven. Polygamy is back, for a start (unless you want to invalidate all the sealings from the 1800s). Let’s not try to pretend that the LDS have worked out the magic formula for eternal happiness. Joseph and Brigham seemed to see it as a patriarchal heavenly MLM scheme where the scope of your eternal glory was equivalent to the size of your downline. That’s seems to be why polygamy fit into their worldview so well.

  • She and others just need to keep creating awareness of the issue. This is NOT a doctrine that the church wants to officially clarify in any way. They will most likely quietly amend the policy at some point.

  • Yes, Jane, that would definitely suck.

    I don’t understand, though, what not being with your children in eternity really means. Do you think the children would no longer speak or acknowledge their mother? They’re adults there after all. I don’t think custody law is particularly relevant 😉 Unfortunately, there’s zero clarification on any of these issue from the church leadership, because, I guess they also have no idea.

  • Hey, everyone’s forgetting the real kicker in this issue, and that is the case of the sealed widow. She obviously doesn’t want to “cancel” her marriage to her deceased spouse. But because she is a woman, her second marriage cannot be a sealing. It would really suck for her second husband as during the whole marriage the understanding is that the wife will return to the first husband upon death. That’s why you’ll find a lot of single widows in the church. Apparently polygamy only works one way.

  • Sounds a bit patronising to me. Is this what women are told right before the bit about not having the priesthood?

    Have you read any of the diaries/historical accounts of women under plural marriage? You’ll find plenty of negative feedback right there.

  • Emma was “reluctant”? There’s the understatement of the day. I guess the other 28 sealings she was ok with also?

    Helen Mar Kimball’s age is of course relevant. Judging by today’s standards helps us avoid the mistakes of the past. But the more important point is that she was a plural wife, which was against the laws and standards of then AND today.

  • The only place in D&C or the BoM it talks about a feeling is the burning of the bosom and that is only in terms of translation never in terms of recognizing truth. In fact, nowhere else is a feeling mentioned- just says ‘by the power of the Holy Ghost’ or ‘I will tell you in your mind and in your heart’- the combination of which syncing up is how one recognizes truth, since the mind and heart are diametrically opposed to each other in its reasoning capabilities. Of course you wouldn’t accept this because this would have to be spiritually discerned.

    I don’t mind you questioning the spiritual experience- i just can’t stand when people think its just some feeling.

    As far as being “blind”, everyone is blind to something, no one has all the answers. People who believe the universe was spontaneously organized are blind to the law of entropy, people who believe homosexuality is normal are blind to basic biology of binary union, people who believe science has all the answers are blind to the fact the universe is contracting and expanding at the same time. Everyone’s ignoring something.

  • Samhain,

    “Calling politically incorrect beliefs pertaining to genealogy ‘wayciss’ is childish.”

    Call it childish if you care to. Guessing you’re fine with your “prophets” calling Blacks inferior. That’s a shame for you.

  • I have first hand experience with this whole fiasco! My parents were married in the temple and after 27 years the marriage ended in divorce. My father then met a woman who had been married 6 times, 3 of them for ” time and all eternity” in the temple. Each time she was able to get her temple marriage cancelled after her divorce. She then told my father that she wanted to be married to him in the temple. The church sent a letter to my mother asking her if she wanted a cancellation of their temple marriage. She very adamantly refused! Regardless, four weeks later she received a letter stating that her request to maintain the sealing was cancelled and that she and my father were now both civilly and LDS sealing divorced.. I was absolutely flabbergasted. Here was my mother pleading that the temple divorce not be granted and the church seemed to blatantly ignore her wishes and grant my father permission to marry the new woman for “time and all eternity” in the Logan,Utah temple. Completely unbelievable! I have always acknowledged that men have the first and last say in everything that happens in the LDS religion, but after this I realized that the a woman’s wishes were completely ignored because my father wanted a different outcome. A woman’s wants, desires, or opinions, hold absolutely no weight in the LDS church.

  • OK, so let’s see: BoM: In Alma 32, when trying to find truth, you “feel” the swelling motion within your breast; in 1 Nephi, Laban and co were criticised for being “past feeling” that they could not “feel his words”. In Alma, he describes the conversion as a feeling to sing the “song of redeeming love”, ending with “can you feel so now?”

    D&C: In Sec 9, you forgot the end of the verse where he says that “you will feel that it is right”. In the context of the scripture, you’re right about the translation process, but it specifically is about the accuracy of the translation. Don’t tell me that you haven’t sat through a Sunday School or Priesthood lesson where Sec 9 wasn’t mentioned as a method for discovering truth, cause I sure have.

    OK, so you finish off by admitting you have blind faith (well, you say everyone is blind to something, so you’re implicitly admitting that you’re being blind to the evidence against the BoM).

    Sorry for coming at you like this. I was a member for a very long time and I was very much like you in the way you’re describing your testimony. Just trying to help a brother get to that “aha” moment.

  • I would say I’m blind if you are calling having eyes wide open to contrarian evidence and still knowing that certain evidences contrary to that original evidence is just as real. You call it blind, I call it eyes wide open.

    I don’t base my discovery of truth on things at church, I am not what you would consider an active member. I just know the Book of Mormon is the word of God. And even as recently as last week profoundly affected my life in a very very personal and healing way. And I would not describe the spiritual experiences I have had as feelings.

  • Hamstrung is a good description. Since so much changes between prophets behind the scenes. This causes contradictory facts and policies to emerge. The best answer is to understand that if the church can cause so much heartache, than why stay in, or even admit that it is all made up. The problem is if you allow anyone to be sealed to whomever they wish, you open the doors to odd combinations. Combinations that do not fir the church’s view of the family. This is one where they cannot back down. They could change some slowly, but only so far before they are changing doctrine.

  • The majority of people are in the church due to being raised in it. The idea that it might be wrong is hard to admit when facing years of indoctrination.

  • The whole thing with Blacks being descended from Cain really came into being among American Protestant groups.

  • Tracy, What you have not yet come to understand fully, is that this church, the LDS church, is strongly against breaking covenants to others or God, unless it is severe. Divorce in the world’s culture does not even remotely reflect heaven’s culture. God’s ways are not man’s ways. What you see as “normal” and “acceptable” today, may, in fact, be egregious in the eyes of God. The church (and God) does not unwind the highest covenants in the universe, so easily. When you make a covenant, you had better take that extremely seriously. You may need to slow down your judgement when considering the gravity of the contracts made between yourself, another person, and Diety. If the particular facts of the divorce indicate that one side did all they could to avoid the allowance of breaking a covenant, this will be, as already suggested to you by your Bishop(s), a major factor in making it right in the eternities to follow. You posture that you understand this topic, and even attempt to explain it in a comprehensive manner, but you have only scraped the surface. I have personally been involved in many situations where things happened completely different than what you have suggested in your article. I would propose that you turn not to anyone, media outlet, etc., rather turn to the spirit to guide you, and follow the footsteps of the Savior in this matter. May God be with you.

    To the writers and publishers: Most of your readers are not as dumb as you assume. They know a topic such as this will not be understood through a single article. It’s an opinion piece (not unbiased news). No fool is blind to your tactic to attract internet traffic for the purpose of financial and notoriety gain. Please, get some originality, your articles are boring. — JS, out.

  • If you are going to throw someone under the bus because of that, then you just threw over 99% of your ancestors under the bus. That marriage age served mankind perfectly well from its inception up until well after women’s suffrage. Calling it a mistake is a little narrow minded. And no, there were no laws against plural marriage until after the Civil War. Even then, the laws were obviously unconstitutional.
    Again, if you don’t want a plural marriage then don’t get one. But you don’t get to cram your morality down other people’s necks.

  • Shall we start listing all of the diaries and historical accounts of women under monogamy?

  • Scrutinize away, but they have just as much a right to inflict there morality on others as you do to inflict your morality on them. Don’t like it, move to a Country without the first amendment.

  • That’s what I said. Can you not read?
    The early Christians practiced plurality, but the Romans had to eliminate it in order to convert their citizens when it became state religion.
    And Issac was no monogamist.

  • Samhain,

    It’s not a strawman at all. And I suspect you know that.

    Your attempt to trivialize Mormonism’s horrible racist past by using childlike phonetics (“wayciss”) or by dismissing as “pc” pointing out that Mormon prophets led the LDS church in promoting racist, misogynistic and homophobic says more about you than you know.

    Fact: Mormon prophets have declared Blacks inferior. No amount of declaring that “wayciss” changes history.

    Mormonism is a sad fraud.

  • Samhain, a few pointers if you want to be taken seriously here…

    Don’t call it the “lamestream LDS Church” due to its view on polygamy, and then use a quote from one of it’s most recent prophets as if its God’s word. You are undermining your own argument.

    Don’t claim “Isaac was no monogamist” when he only had one wife (Rebecca), which is the very definition of monogamy.

    If you want to defend polygamy, don’t use Biblical examples where polygamy directly caused or contributed to extreme jealousy (kick out 2nd wife to die in the desert, sell half brother as slave), wives giving husbands their servants (see concubines, handmaids) for sex in a battle to one-up the other wife in baby making, being led by wives into idol worship, and several other problematic practices. I doubt you would want to use these same men as examples to show these other practices are godly. I am not aware of one example where the Bible narrative includes detail of polygamist life and relationships, and those relationships are good or godly. In every narrative, it causes strife and/or leads one of the participants to sin.

  • And here is the problem.
    You don’t believe prayer can be effective. I do not agree with you on that, but it is your belief. I suspect you will stick by it.
    Others believe differently. We will stick by our beliefs.
    Ms. Lamb is a Mormon. She sticks by her beliefs. Even though, as in this case, they make her uncomfortable. This may not be all the best parts of her religion, but it is nonetheless her religion. Point is that when you join an organization such as a church, any church or organization, not just the Mormon Church, you get the good, the bad and the ugly. And if you believe in what that organization says or does, it is not so easy to turn your back, nor can you just decide that something you don’t like needs to be changed or done away with.

  • I’m sure you think so.
    The LDS treats plural families a lot worse than lgbt ones. I notice you omitted plygophobia from your leftist rant. Gee, tornogal. Why might that be?

  • I mentioned this in a comment on the other article. I’m a polygamist as I’m sealed to my first wife, we’re leagaly divorced, and my current wife. Neither have a problem with it. If we spend eternity as a polygamist family, that’s what happens. We’re all sealed together anyway in some way or another.

  • Tracy, good grief. You say you’re a convert yet you haven’t gained a testimony of section 132 and plural marriage (and of Abraham’s works and exaltation for that matter).

    You falsely say “a theology we profess to have given up more than a century ago.” WRONG (big time wrong Tracy), we DON’T “profess” to have given up plural marriage. Clearly you don’t understand what

    A. the full new and everlasting covenant is,

    B. what “the manifesto” actually did and did not do, and

    C. what “the manifesto” ISN’T.

    An executive order in 1890 from president Woodruff (the first manifesto) only partially suspended plural marriage, and only partially suspended it for MORTALS. Guess what happens to an executive order when the executive dies? Yep, it becomes meaningless. “The manifesto” was never turned into scripture. It is printed in the appendix of your scriptures, and did you realize that the “second manifesto” IS NOT PRINTED by the church?

    President Monson still holds the keys over plural marriage and TWO APOSTLES are sealed to multiple wives right now (Oaks and Nelson). As you know, just because their first wives have died, doesn’t change that they are polygamists.

    The church (i.e. the anti plural marriage wing of it) pathologically avoids statements by Brigham Young and others, in the Journal of Discourses, that plural marriage is necessary for full active exaltation.

    As you can probably see, the church is fundamentally divided on plural marriage. The current brethren (with the exception of Ballard who recently said to stop avoiding polygamy) avoid the issue, and hence, are not healing the division.

    My own bishop is virulently hateful towards plural marriage, and he will be damned if he continues with that attitude.

  • Ah, it’s all clear now. A convicted rapist said it in a video with a whopping 65 views. Must be true. I’m embarrassed I didn’t know before.

    Add “using convicted felons as sources” to my previous list.

  • A pastor explained this to me and it made sense: In the examples of the patriarchs can you look at any of those men and their progeny and pronounce a “And they all lived happily after!” ending? Because when I read them I cannot. The conclusion you reach is probably the one God wants us all to draw: polygamy creates dysfunction, envy etc as Joseph’s brothers demonstrated. Hagar and her son were objects of scorn by Sara and she had Abraham send them off into the desert.

    But to answer your question–the polygamy was a perversion of what God originally intended. And yet even the 11 betraying brothers and Joseph’s two sons became tribal leaders of the incipient nation of Israel.

  • A great book to read about Smith is by his fellow Mormon Fawn Brodie “No Man Knows My History” Smith’s reputation at the time of the “revelation” was that of a con man, water diviner, etc. And the magic “seer stones” which allowed him to translate the gold plates? Wow, just wow.

  • I always thought it interesting that Smith’s long-suffering wife Emma Hale Smith and her son BOTH left the church after Brigham et al took it over.

  • And hence we have public forums. Glad you’re ok with it. By the way, I already live in a country without the First Amendment, but fortunately we have freedom of speech anyway.

  • Hey, if you want to pretend everyone in Illinois was cool with polygamy, go for it, man. So glad I don’t need to defend Mormonism anymore. Enjoy your plural marriage, but I feel sorry for your wives.

  • There is no evidence that the early Christians practiced polygyny and the early Christians went right along with the RE prohibition on polygyny. The history of Christianity is a history of monogamy. Name one Christian polygamist in post New Testament Christian history. “The bishop must be BLAMELESS, the husband of one wife.” So a man who has more than one wife lives a life of blame. Also the Romans did nothing more at the beginning than allow Christianity. It was not the “state religion” of the Roman Empire until 400 years after it’s foundation. Read actual history not the stories your church puts out to justify the lust of of it’s originators.
    But I see you are one of those who hold on to perverse notions.

    And there is NO biblical evidence that Isaac was anything other than monogamous, but I doubt you ever really spent much time there, to busy reading the BoM and your leaders who are equally ignorant about Isaac’s marital relations.

  • Plural marriage is not a “theology we profess to have given up more than a century ago.”

    While the church begrudgingly agreed to stop performing new plural marriage ceremonies about a 100 years ago, polygamy (in the hereafter) remains an essential element of our theology. Eventually entering into the “new and everlasting covenant” of plural marriage remains a pre-requisite for attaining the highest degree of exhalation in the celestial kingdom.

    D&C 132 remains canonical scripture and, although the brethren now stratigically avoid discussing polygamy like the plague, its practice beyond the veil is still, beyond a doubt, part of our official theology.

    Faithful members need to stop pretending with regard to polygamy. It’s still very much doctrinal.

  • I don’t know. God got Adam and Eve together and you still got Cain. Jacob was a child of polygamy and still was blessed.

  • Attacking the character instead of the argument is called ad hominem logical fallacy.
    Appealling to the Majority is another.
    You lose.

  • Did Jesus tell you that personally, or did you pull on your big boy pants and make it up all by yourself?

    Honestly, as an atheist, the sight of so many TRUE CHRISTIANS posting here, and flinging theo-poo at other CHRISTIANS for not being super-duper TRUE CHRISTIANS, is at the very least, disgusting. TOS prevent me from saying what I really think.

    As an atheist, I can respect all people’s religious beliefs, even though I think all of them are questionable.

    The question is, WHY CAN’T YOU?

  • Nope not in the bible, and I’m not buying anything with that pervert Warren Jeffs’ name on it.

  • Someone close to me once said, “families CAN be together forever. They don’t HAVE to be.” Even if we are sealed on earth, we can still choose in the next life whether we want to be with that person for eternity or not. Our perspectives may change by the time we get there, or maybe they won’t, in which case your husband does not have to be together with his first sealed wife if he doesn’t want to be.

  • The problem is that two people who were married to others are trying to marry each other. DIvorce is not moral even if it is legal. Nobody is entitled to a hassle-free remarriage. As Jesus said, “God hates divorce.”

  • Sure it is. The wedding of Cana was obviously His wedding. Also Mary, Martha, and Mary Mag interacted with Him in ways that would have been highly inappropriate were they not married to the Savior.

  • You are reading into the text things that simply are not there. And I see a big fan of the pervert.

  • Although the Romans tried to remove the evidence of Christs Wives and Children when they revised the scriptures, they left enough intact that it’s preposterous to argue to the contrary.

  • I’m glad you recognize statutory rape as a poor reflection on character. Character is of utmost importance when trying to establish someone as spiritual authority. Though I can see why you would not want Jeffs’ character taken into account when your entire argument boils down to “Jeffs said it, so it’s true”.

    My argument is based in the actual biblical text, not appeals to the majority. If you don’t want anyone to take you seriously, feel free to ignore my pointers.

  • So, if I understand this correctly, you voluntarily joined a church whose central claim is that it is personally led by Jesus Christ through His apostles, and you are upset that the revealed doctrine doesn’t conform to your cultural biases?

  • @Swiftt:disqus
    You say, “First, it assumes marriage means you own the spouse. That’s false.”

    D&C 132 says:

    Verse 44: “I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.”

    Verse 61: “And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another,
    and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they
    are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he
    cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit
    adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.”

    Verse 62: “And if he have ten virgins given unto him by
    this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they
    are given unto him…”

    Verse 63 “But if one or either of the ten virgins,
    after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed
    adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him…”

    I believe that either you and I have different definitions of ownership, or that you are incorrect in your assertion that the husband doesn’t own the wife in Mormon theology. If I am a “ruler over” things that are “given” to me, that “belongeth” to me, that sounds very much like ownership.

  • Insert standard mormon platitude #3: “It will all be sorted out in the hereafter.” If that isn’t satisfactory, we can use standard platitude #4: “It’s not pertinent to your salvation to know.” If you still have questions, we’ll invoke the default fallback procedure: Someone will bear testimony to you.

    Cynical? Absolutely. True? Absolutely. There are no answers.

  • Your assumption that “God is fine with it” is just that, an assumption (along with the idea that God exists). You only think God is fine with it because LDS prophets have told you to think that way. Do you see the logical problem here? In any case if LDS leaders show themselves to be wrong on issues often enough (and they have) then their prophetic claims should be questioned.

  • So Andrew based on your comment I’m guessing you think that once someone become LDS they no longer question anything the Brethren ever say? You take the LDS quote, “When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over” literally….???

  • I’m talking the Law of Sarah as it was in Joseph Smith’s and BY’s time (when plural marriages were among the living) and not in the current context of Mormons getting civilly divorced.

  • Definitely different definitions; yours being an incorrect one. Ownership is the act of possessing something. Notice how you don’t mention the act of possession. You mention “rule over”, “given”, and “belongeth”. In the context of Mormon doctrine, we believe we are all spirit sons and daughters, and that we are but stewards of the souls “given” to us. Stewards are not owners, they are caretakers, but their stewardship “belongs” to them. Now that we’ve clarified the definition and the doctrine, please apply the correct definition and acknowledge that you are mistaken. Thanks.

    Since we’re scripture battling, please see for reference Matthew 25:14-30. Trigger warning: it uses that tricky language you latched onto: ‘ruler over many THINGS” (emphasis added).

    Also: D&C 51:19, D&C 104:11-15

  • Oh, no doubt, I agree that we don’t know exactly what it will be like. But if using what we actually do know to infer what might be is considered by you a “trap”, I would recommend you avoid delving too deeply into anything to do with science, law, economics, engineering, social studies, math, language…..pretty much all human knowledge.

  • Afraid of what? And prayer has worked out just fine for me, thank you.
    But you have missed my point here.
    Let me try again. You have your beliefs. Whatever they may be, would you abandon them because some things got a bit rough? Most of us would not. THis is especially true of the religious. You can like this, or not. Agree or disagree. Believe or not. Whatever floats your boat. Thing is that not everybody sees things the same way.

  • Doesn’t change the fact you’re just making stuff up. It’s a bit rich to equate LDS truth-seeking with the sciences.

  • Jesus must be really busy these days as he apparently hasn’t popped in to see the Brethren for over a century. He could really come in handy these days too. Lots of prophecy needed and maybe a heads-up or two on some of these terrorist attacks and/or natural disasters. Whatever happened to calling the people of the city to repentance before the disaster hits?

  • Unfortunately for you, ozfan2013, all of your conclusions
    are wrong because you have based them on five wrong premises. First, we can’t
    even prove to 12 people that O.J. Simpson killed his wife in the year it
    happened: so good luck proving or disproving anything back more than 100 years.
    We are looking for intellectual honesty and evidence of probability.

    Here are two books, written by scholars, that support my
    claim: ‘The Great Apostasy Considered in the Light
    of Scriptural and Secular History’ by James Talmage and ‘Mesoamerica and the
    Book of Mormon: Is This The Place?’ by Dr. John L Lund. The restoration
    of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith Jr. and the
    truthfulness of the Book of Mormon are supported by known history, most
    especially in Talmage’s book but also in the Lund’s book of the histories of
    the Mesoamericans as recorded by the conquering Spaniards in the 16 century.

    Archaeologically, lists of things mentioned in the Book of
    Mormon have been made where “nobody” believed they existed anywhere in the
    Americas in 1830, when the book was first published. Since then, 35 of those
    things have been found by archaeologists. Hello, that is 35! No fiction writer
    or con man gets 35 wild guesses correct! Theologically, are you kidding me?
    What church is more New Testament than the LDS? Also, the Church is very
    “Temple” Old Testament. As for linguistics: Fair Mormon has a Linguistics
    series called “Linguistical evidence for The Book of Mormon” with Brian Stubbs
    as lecturer. The lectures are spot on.

    The genetics is now clearly a possibility with the Emory
    University School of Medicine DNA Study (page 231 in Lund’s book) showing 3% of the original founders of Native American populations (from the Mesoamerica area) came from – wait for it – Europe and Asia Minor, including: Italians, Finns and certain Israelis.

    The above mentioned research and science clearly shows the
    historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, as being a history of peoples
    partially populating a portion of the America’s between 2200 BC and 400 AD, is probable.

  • Katie11111,

    Pretty good post and this is a good place to add; if a person is sealed on earth to someone they do not want to be with, they will not be forced to be with them in eternity. Also, a woman receives blessings (and or power) from the sealing ceremony. The leaders of the church do not want to take away those blessings even when the sealing becomes meaningless – the blessings
    do not become meaningless.

  • Actually, I was equating it to all subjects of human knowledge. Truth seeking is a valued character trait, whereas striving to disprove through mischaracterization is a severe character flaw.

  • Actually, rhetorical questions are inherently invalid. I can only answer it with its inverse: how are you not?

  • I understand you would prefer to reply to a ‘strawman’ rather than what I actually said. I am rather difficult to debate with.

  • It is convenient to decide what the meaning of a word is based on what you view the doctrine to be. However, can you give me an instance of everyday situations where a person gives something to another to the extent that the gift now belongs to the receiver, and that the receiver is not now the owner/possessor of that thing given.

    While I wait I will thank you for bringing up the parable of the talents and, like Joseph did, applying it to the doctrine of polygamy. Now, go back and read your scriptures in context. This parable grows out of the conversation Jesus is having with his disciples after he has rebuked the scribes and the pharisees. He is warning them about false teachers and those that would use God to build up themselves. To gain power, wealth, and influence. The servants are those that God allows to teach his people. The talents are the truths of the Gospel. He also gives 3 other parables at this time to teach his disciples what they need to do to be his followers. While one of those parables is about a wedding, none of them is teaching anything about marriage. However, of interest to anyone who is looking at the history of Mormonism, and looking at the temple practices, these introductory verses may be interesting:

    Matthew 24:

    4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

    11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

    26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

    Now, I am not necessarily claiming that this is Christ prophesying the LDS Church specifically, but saying so would have more legitimacy than your assertion that this passage has anything to do with polygamy.

    As to your “trigger warning” truths are something that are given to us. They are things that we own, that become a part of us, and one leads to another, thus the gaining of talents. Line upon line you might say… Unless you can display to me the natural progression of one wife leading to another, and also how that will help us avoid false teachers, I fail to see this scripture as having anything to do with polygamy.

    Now, in reference to section 51 of the Doctrine and Covenants…did you even read it? Did you actually look at what it is saying, or simply look in your appendix to find scriptures dealing with belongings? (To clarify that word means things which one owns.) This section is a “revelation” directing Edward Partridge on how he was to deal with people and their belongings, in his office of Bishop. It is literally about property, money, and how that is to be dealt. Strike two..

    Now, for the nail that you somehow put in your own coffin while you lay there, Section 104. This is a scripture entirely about the “United Order”. If you don’t know what that is, let me illuminate. Joseph Smith sought to create a communal society in which all things were held common, because that was one of the ways God’s people were to create Zion in his theology. This verse is completely about property and belongings. Except that, as I’m sure you noticed since you pointed out the scriptures, in verse 14 it informs us that all things are God’s and so, we are all just stewards and nothing belongs to us, even our property. Now, whether you want to say that owning wives is a part of Mormon theology, or that it is simply being stewards is irrelevant if you look at that statement through the lens of the scriptures you provided. Because in either scenario, women are reduced to the level of goods, animals, or some other property/stewardship. They are not on par with men, but are simply bricks, albeit necessary ones in the building of a man’s own post-mortal kingdom.

    If you still haven’t come up with an answer to the original question, let me answer it for you, you can’t. Call it stewardship, or ownership, the result in the context of LDS Polygamy is the same. God is the giver (owner transferring), the wives are the gifts (property being transferred), the husband is the receiver (owner taking possession).

    I await your further correction. I hope that in your next effort you actually read/understand the scriptures you use to prove your point. Otherwise, you may once again prove mine.

  • Also, since you seem to be something of an expert on LDS theology, can you tell me what the “holy anointing” is as it pertains to D&C 132:41? Because whatever it is allows a woman who is in “the new and everlasting covenant” to have sex with a man other than her husband without committing adultery. Read it closely, get back to me. The LDS theology of “plural marriage” as it is contained in the Doctrine and Covenants is a morally bankrupt ideology.

  • It would be great if the “Brethren” would teach and acknowledge this. Full transparency I say! But, alas, the membership would tank. So instead, they keep hiding behind the “other stuff”.

  • Actually it’s not rhetorical, unless of course you’re admitting that you shouldn’t have stated the rules and justifications so matter-of-factly and that it’s self-evident that you have no special insight on the issue.

    Thanks for the clarification.

  • Yes, I knew what you were trying to do. And, hey, I don’t think you have a major character flaw. You’re just a bit brainwashed currently. No biggie.

  • I already gave you an example of someTHING being given but not being owned by the receiver: stewardship. The rest of your “argument” is irrelevant given the fundamental importance of the concept of stewardship which you seem extremely eager to dismiss for some reason.

  • It deals with divorce within the context of LDS theology. The holy anointing is simply one aspect of the temple covenant, nothing particularly mysterious there (but I’m sure you have some anti-Mormon source which says otherwise). It’s basically what this article is addressing: that a woman cannot be sealed to a man if she is already sealed or married to (i.e. “with”) another man.

    While there is a nuanced negative inference which might suggest what you insist, nuanced negative inference is hardly enough to support an affirmative assertion that the verse allows what you claim. Your fallacy is an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Plus, the further context of that section undermines your claim.

  • Wow, all my conclusions are wrong? Dang, really? All of them? [email protected]%!

    Here’s how this plays out. I start accumulating the evidence against and the responses to the LDS claims of evidence. My evidence and argument beats your evidence and argument. You fall back to your claim of a spiritual confirmation and how that trumps all the other worldly stuff. I then question the authenticity of your experiences, at which point you get angry and defensive and lose the Spirit. A few insults are thrown around. Everyone leaves unfulfilled.

    There’s a possibility you may in the future be one of the members that reevaluates their testimony and the evidence and finally leaves the church and people like me help you in your transition.

    So in the interests of a potentially great friendship in the future, I’ll opt out of this pending truth-war.

  • The real question is whether the structure of the marriage contributes to the negative. If the husband’s an abusive guy, doesn’t matter what the structure is. But if it’s a good guy in a polygamous relationship, will that, on balance, contribute to better or worse outcomes for the individual wives. My money would be on worse, but as you like to (needlessly) remind everyone, your free speech lets you have an opinion all your very own. Again, good luck with all that.

  • I actually have no source but the verses and history that is found on LDS.org, and apologetic sites from which to draw my conclusions. I have never heard anyone speak on, nor read anyone’s writings (if they exist) on this passage.

    I am not basing my conclusion on negative inference, but on the context of the scripture, combined with historical record. The reason I am not practicing negative inference is, for starters, because the very next verse clarifies it. Verse 42 states, “If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.” So, “…if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery…”, and “If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery” is coupled with the fact that we know that both Joseph Smith and Brigham young married/were sealed to other men’s wives. It goes beyond an inference, to an evidence based argument.

    If you would point out the specifics of how the context in any way undermines my claim, I would appreciate it. Further, I am curious as to you source and/or thoughts on how this passage connects with divorce.

    I know that we have exchanged some less than complimentary posts, but I really do appreciate your willingness to engage. Also, just to clarrify, I do not study “anti-Mormon sources”. All of my thoughts and conclusions are based on the study of scriptures, LDS.org (particularly the Gosel Topics Essays), sites such as FAIR and the site by Brian C. Hales josephsmithspolygamy.org., and “Rough Stone Rolling” By Richard Bushman. None of these are anti-Mormon and all try to defend the faith, poorly in my estimation, but they do try.

  • First, let me thank you for removing the assertion that I am a “troll”. I don’t think that is an accurate assessment of my character or current behavior.

    I don’t think that I dismissed stewardship, so much as I am claiming that in the context of the scriptures you provided there is little to no difference in the practical application. In D&C 104 it makes it clear that we don’t own anything, but are stewards over all of what would be called in layman’s terms, “our property”. We don’t own it, because it is all God’s. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the horse, farm, money, etc. are under the dominion of a given man. So, if the same terms are used for both goods, animals, etc., and for a wife, what is the difference? It certainly seems that whether wives are owned, or whether they are given to the stewardship of a man that they are placed in a decidedly inferior category to their husbands and are still just bricks in the husband’s Eternal Kingdom.

    Further, if wives are given only for safe keeping as a “Stewardship”, do they all go back to God in the Eternities? That concept seems to fly in the face of both the doctrines of Brigham Young as well as the doctrines of today.

    I feel that I have given a fair amount of theology and supported it by both scripture and history. You have told me that I am wrong by citing scriptures about a Bishops duties regarding distributing property among the saints, and the United Order. You use, as did Joseph, the parable of the talents to support polygamy, when it is obvious that the scripture has nothing to do with that idea. You refuse to directly respond to any of my points because, “stewardship”. I addressed stewardship, although you claim I did not. You make the claim in another post that my arguments are based on inferences, (which they are not since they are supported by context as well as by history), but I can’t find anything but inferences in your views. Not one solid quote, not one solid scriptural reference, (that actually pertains to marriage, much less polygamy), not one historical corroboration. We are obviously not going to agree regarding this point of Mormon theology. I invite you to read the scriptures with an objective eye. I invite you to pray to find out what is truth, instead of to know that something is true. If this is/has been your course, I apologize for my presumption. I wish you luck in your studies and your faith. I will check back to any posts you leave.

  • Do you understand what a strawman argument is? I don’t know that you do. Anyway, it may not have been clear but my post posed a few questions for you.

    1. Do you think that once someone becomes Mormon that they should no longer question anything LDS Prophets, Seers and Revelators say is revelation from God. If no, then when is it OK to question?

    2. Do you believe Mormons should follow the often repeated quote “When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over”?

  • Doubling down on going off topic? Seems rather silly. Address what I have written or concede that you have an emotional itch to scratch.

  • This your original post to the author:
    “So, if I understand this correctly, you voluntarily joined a church whose central claim is that it is personally led by Jesus Christ through His apostles, and you are upset that the revealed doctrine doesn’t conform to your cultural biases?”

    From that I asked a question that logically follows:
    “(Do) you think that once someone become LDS they no longer question anything the Brethren ever say? (Do) you take the LDS quote, “When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over” literally….???”

    You have yet to answer. The ball Andrew is in your court and you are the one not addressing what has been said. Do you disagree? I mean, you can attribute and project all sorts of things on to me but you’re the one dodging direct questions.

    Make you a deal. You answer my questions and I will address whatever you want. Just ask. And please be clear about what you want me to address though. I obviously have missed it so far.

  • You seem insistent, so let me point you in the right direction. Do you understand the concept of Quorums? Do you understand the difference between the consensus of a quorum and the opinion of a General Authority? In which category does the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage fall into? How is law for the church made? How is the will and mind of Christ made evident? In whining about the sealing of multiple wives to one man, are we talking about the opinion of a general authority, canon law or something else?

    I leave you to your research.

  • ozfan2013

    I find your statement of intent and procedure refreshingly honest: although I am disappointed.

    A wise teacher taught His “students” truth. The students, who accepted His teachings and wanted to improve their lives, changed themselves because they wanted to: not by getting mad, losing the Spirit etc.

    So I will ask my question again, but first, I will give MY answer. My truth is found in the Triple Combination and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Secondary
    sources include, The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, The Ensigns from 1971 to
    present, Handbook 1, certain other books (Talmage, etc.), truths that the Holy Spirit has taught me directly, and proclamations.

    What is your source of Truth?

  • Hahaha, sources of Truth. I like and appreciate your sense of humour. Not that there isn’t some pearls of wisdom here and there in those books and magazines. I’ve read a lot of them.

    See, this is the problem. You’re brainwashed into thinking there’s something special about the pronouncements of these LDS leaders over the years. But they’re just men, seeing through the glass darkly and often getting it wrong.

  • So no answer to answer my question directly? OK. I will attempt to answer yours although your vagueness may make that a little difficult. Sorry, its a little long.

    Sure, I understand the concept of Quorums in the LDS context. And I get how the consensus of a quorum stacks up against the opinion of a single GA. If that single GA with opinions happens also be the President of the Church and Prophet then things are different because (as any Mormon knows) the Prophet’s words hold special sway and the Q12 falls in line. If that single GA is well Joseph Smith then all bets are off.

    In any case I’m not sure what yer getting at. When Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy much of the time the revelation that became 132 was unkown to most and wasn’t written own until 1843. It hadn’t been voted on by or adopted as canon by the whole Church while plural marriage was practiced in Nauvoo later in Utah. In fact there’s no evidence that a vote by the Church preceded it be finally being added to the D&C in 1867 when it replaced the previous Sec. 101 (which ironically condemned plural marriage and denied any Mormon involvement in it).

    In Mormonism there are numerous and repeated examples of the Church membership accepting and living by what Prophets and apostles say is revelation w/ no general Church vote or even a vote by the 12. Case in point is the 130 Priesthood ban on people of african descent — keeping all men from the priesthood and all african americans from temple ordinances. No recorded revelation instead it just shows up in late 1840s. No voting by the Church as a whole that I can see. By the late 1940s though as the Church is pushed on the topic you have 1st Presidency saying the ban came by revelation and is doctrinal— again in 1969. But after repeated pressure it’s ended in 1978 and and then in the 2014 GT essay you have the Church rejecting the very ideas that the ban was put forth on for over a century.

    My take: LDS leadership including the Q12 and Prophet have shown themselves to have gotten some big stuff really wrong in the past. Isn’t that enough to allow oneself to consider that they might be wrong on stuff currently or in the future? If you don’t think so then doesn’t that essentially means that you see them as infallible?

  • See, this is the problem. You won’t disclose what you think. Therefore I have no opportunity to show you if/how you have been: brainwashed, overtaken by emotion (by some hurt or offense), or some other illogical situation.
    It is time to put your cards on the table, ozfan: What is your story?

  • My brainwashing? Not about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I entered into the covenant at age 23 with eyes wide open, logic and Christian church history analyzed and several spiritual confirmations. Now the logic, church history and archaeological analysis is times 10 and the spiritual confirmations, experiences and tender mercies are times 100 (after 40 active years.)
    You are the concern. You need to become “Mr. Nice Guy” and quit trying to drive (entice, manipulate, whatever) the faithful out of the church. One cannot “rescue” a person from truth. That is called, in religious terminology, dragging them down to hell.

  • I’m not sure what your point is, since plural marriage bears no resemblance to the denial of priesthood ordination to blacks or calls to abstain from pork and Coca-Cola. It is black letter revelation. Canon.

    More to the point, the context of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage is deeply integral to the reason for and existence of the church. There are 150 temples in operation and more coming on-line all the time, premised entirely on Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants. Hundreds of millions of dollars are devoted to compiling genealogies, to supporting a global digital and geographical infrastructure to that purpose. Suggesting that this is the result of some dead apostle’s ‘opinion’ is absurd.

    Look, there are lots of doctrines that the church is ‘better’ at following now than it was in the 1840, 50s or even the 1920s. This progression is also black letter revelation, the very reason for modern revelation and priesthood quorums. The church evolves deliberately, except for the things that do not. Knowing the difference isn’t really that hard.

    If you are secular and culturally predisposed to bias against non-traditional forms of marriage, that is entirely understandable, even rational. On the other hand, a faithful member of the church who discounts revelation as opinion, well that is just nuts.

  • Unfortunately for your stance, Andrew Piereder, the most recent pronouncement by a prophet states that polygamy is not doctrinal: Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement on Larry King Live on September 8, 1998 with regard to the practice of polygamy:
    I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

  • I think if you would think about what I said more carefully, you would realize that this is exactly what I am talking about. Pres. Hinckley was expressing an opinion. His opinion is not authoritative.

    I always think you should exercise due diligence before forming an opinion, otherwise you end up spouting B.S. If you read the transcript of the Larry King interview, they are discussing polygamists like the FLDS or the Kingston Group. Hinckley is clearly expressing an opinion about their ‘practice’, which is an unrelated issue to the covenant of New and Everlasting Marriage. He is declaring their practice of marrying more than one wife to be ‘not doctrinal’, but what he really meant was ‘not authorized by ecclesiastical authority’. Once again, no one is really confused by this. Polygamy is a social practice. Plural marriage is an abstraction about the nature of social relationships in the afterlife that encompasses men, women, children, cousins, parents, grand-parents, etc.

    Ironically, as most divorced people with children know, you can divorce your spouse and marry another, but your relationship with the divorced spouse continues for the rest of your life. I have a niece getting married today, and both her parents will be there. Both her divorced parents will be there. You see, it’s not all that strange…

  • Wow, someone is a little defensive. I didn’t say “Joseph’s Myth” was an anagram for Joseph Smith. But anything can’t be too offensive for a Joseph backer. I guess this means you’re another apologist for Joseph’s polyandry. That’s what it’s called when you marry other men’s wives (presumably after you “call” them to a faraway mission). Not to mention the 14-year-olds, and the abortions.

  • “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.” Um, yeah… not seeing it…

    Anyway, which racist quote by mormon leaders do you want to pick from? There are some real peaches, right up until the 70s when the church was forced to reveal black ordinations.

  • Definitely. All wanted more women for themselves. All imagined that a god told them to get more. David even killed a man for his polygamy. So yeah.

  • Go right ahead.

    Look, I understand that their genealogical beliefs hurt your precious little liberal ears, and make you want to seek out a safe space with grief counselors available. But just because Mormons believe that black people descended from Cain doesn’t make them inferior. Hell, Ham’s wife Egyptus was black, and she was one of eight people on Earth that were deemed righteous enough to be spared from the flood.

    And before you go digging, finding examples of people using the word “negroes” doesn’t qualify as wayciss in and of itself. That was the preferred nomenclature of the time period in question.

  • Defensive? I just thought it was funny that’s all. And yes, I know what polyandry is, Google is available to just about everybody these days. But I wouldn’t consider myself an apologist, i just think the rearranging of letters to form new misspelled words isnt a very intelligent method of forming an opinion about an individual. But then again, we can get dingus from the letters in your name so maybe there is something to what you’re saying. Jk… But yes, I do stand by Joseph Smith, absolutely.

  • Bender, youre pretty upset about Joseph Smith and the LDS church aren’t you? You’re hopping from comment to comment bashing anybody showing signs of support for the church. So why do you hate Mormonism so much? You think we’re racist? Surely there are some white supremacy groups you could troll who have done far worse than withhold priesthood from African Americans. Or is polygamy the problem? Maybe you should be fighting the LGBT movement if youre so staunch on traditional marriage. Or is it the abortion you mentioned earlier, I’d like to see evidence of that, but even if that were true, maybe you should be hounding planned parenthood if you’re out to get pro choice supporters. The thing is you support non traditional marriage and abortion don’t you? But you’re willing to be a hypocrite just to make your point, showing you don’t even believe in what you believe, you just rally behind whatever is the opposite of the groups you choose to hate.

  • And regarding 14 year olds… Considering life expectancy at that time was 40 a 14 year old was almost middle aged and the age of consent in the United States during the 19th century varied from 10 to 16 depending on the state. Comparing centuries isn’t apples to apples and you’re looking at the 19th century through a 21st lense and your view is distorted.

  • ozfan2013,

    Do you mean that you believe studying and having spiritual
    experiences with the Holy Spirit is brain washing? I cannot imagine what else
    you are thinking.

    Therefore I conclude that you do not accept the doctrine of
    the Holy Spirit of God: That this Holy Spirit can testify of the divinity of
    God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. Further, that the Holy Spirit can
    testify of the truthfulness of all things and can teach us all things.

    Unless you correct me, I must conclude to this point. If not,
    what did I write that triggered brain washing?

  • Wow! I am devastated by the power of your editorial attack! But at least I have a brain. You do too. But right now it’s located up some place where the sun don’t ever shine.

  • Sorry, I couldn’t help it, your one line insult reminded me of that scene from Hook between Pan and Rufio so I borrowed the parimesyium jab from Robin Williams. Based on your response, it sounds like you missed that flick.

  • But I hope you can appreciate the irony of you claiming my head is dislocated when you are the one named Icabod.

  • Worse than that the Book of Mormon proclaims every minority with a darker skin inferior due to the “wickedness” of their ancestor. But never fear some day they will become “white and delightsome”….oh I sorry they did change that Book of Mormon scripture. It now reads “pure and delightsome”.

  • Do tell how it could be there without being detached…. But aside from that, notice how hate filled you are toward me for no other reason than what I believe. I’ve been jokingly throwing movie quotes at you to try and keep it civil but you keep digging to try and get under my skin. Ask yourself Icabod, why do I hate this guy so much and why do I feel so threatened by what he believes? I’ll tell you my friend, it is the same force that drove the Sanhedrin to put Christ to death. I’m not saying you’re as wicked as they nor am I comparing myself to Christ, all I’m saying is you need to fight that tendency to go straight for the throat, it will make a devil out of you.

  • Brandt, let me apologize for the inappropriate invective. But let me also tell you that I was a member for more than 60 years, and I am fully aware of the willful deception that the Church has dispensed during my lifetime and before. When did you first learn that Smith married 14 year old girls and other living men’s wives usually while they were away on missions or on business? What do you know about his practice of concubinage? (sex partner for a night) What do you know of Sara Pratt and Nancy Rigdon? What do you know of William Law and his wife and why they did what they did? What do you know of Smith having himself ordained “king”? What do you know of the Danites, and what they were all about? In Missouri, who was the first person to suggest that there might have to be a war of “extermination”? What do you think about the Mountain Meadows Massacre? What do you think about multiple and differing accounts of the so called “first vision” and Smith’s money digging and conviction as a “disorderly” person in a court in Bainbridge NY in 1826? Was the Fannie Alger thing a plural marriage or adultery? Do you think it was okay for him to break the law in Illinois regarding bigamy? Was it okay for Smith to lie about his involvement? How about that stone being used in the translation? When did you learn about that, and how did you think it happened before the Church finally came clean on that? What do you think of Brigham Young’s so called “Adam God theory”? Was he a false prophet when he declared that doctrine as “revealed”? What do you think of the doctrine and practice of “blood atonement”. And that it will “always” be worthy of death for anyone who is involved in miscegenation? (marrying a black person) What do you think of the Book of Abraham that Smith said he translated from the papyri, but now some apologists are theorizing that the papyri were just some kind of juice for his prophetic abilities while others ignore the ramifications of the so called sen sen text and its handwritten translation and say we don’t have all the papyri?

    By the way I am directly descended from a person who was an ordained bodyguard to Joseph Smith, and who was reportedly buried with his sword, and who warned him not to go to Carthage on that fateful day. And, I didn’t go “straight for the throat” unless you think one who suggests that you have swallowed the “Kool-Aid” is going for the throat.

    I could, of course give you citations for all of these things and many more. But that is not my responsibility. It is up to you to find out and make a determination as to their relevance to your faith. I will just say that 40 years of research has led me to conclude that the Mormon Church is not all what it claims to be. It is said that “faith” can move mountains. But it does have one problem. Faith can be misplaced.

    Am I becoming a devil? I will content myself to answer your obvious insinuation with this. “and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”.

  • You got me, I was convinced the church was all funeral potatoes and popcorn popping on apricot trees. Sarcasm aside, I’m aware of all this and you know what, if I didn’t know better I’d think you were reciting portions of the Bible to me. How do you feel about Abraham marrying his cousin Sarah, and then taking her servant Haggar in his old age? The age gap there was far greater than a mere 15-20 years. And multiple accounts of the first vision that aren’t in complete harmony… Sounds a lot like the differing accounts of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. And Joseph Smith recieved messages through a seer stone… Sounds almost as crazy as God scratching 10 commandments into a rock and expecting the Israelites to live by them….. And Mountain Meadows was nothing compared to what happened in the land of Canan….. But aside from all that, maybe you should ask yourself if Mormonism is so flawed why did it take 40 years of studying for you to figure it out and why are you still not able to let it go?

  • Regarding the 14 year old girls, you’re assuming 14 in the 1800’s is comparable to 14 today and you’re absolutely wrong about that:
    “The daily routines of children in 1800 were also very demanding. Not only were they expected to follow strict rules of etiquette, but between the ages of four and seven they wore small-scale adult clothes which were often uncomfortable (“Children’s Glossary”). “Boys and girls meant workers – the boys on the farm or sea or in the shop, the girls in the home” (qtd. in Kids). As soon as children could perform simple tasks they were given chores. Children between the ages of four and eight were expected to do things such as help with basic cooking and cleaning tasks, weed, card wool, and start their lessons in school (tasks vary for different regions). Girls between the ages of nine and twelve would help with more complex chores and were trained in all aspects of being a wife and mother; large numbers of girls were wed at age 16.” -“Kids.” Children in Colonial Times. Fort Frederica. 22 Oct. 2005 .
    Please note that last sentence before casting stones at Joseph Smith.

  • Why are 30,000 plus Mormon missionaries not able “to let it go”? It didn’t take me that long to figure it out, just that long to break Mormon ties forged over 6 generations.

  • He married two that were short of 15. And did that using considerable pressure tactics. I am happy to throw a stones at a man who said he learned something about the mind of God from a rock found in a well.

    “A study performed by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on marriage in North America and Western Europe mirrors the findings of the Yorkshire researchers; the NBER found that young women from the 17th through 19th centuries were not all that young when they got married.

    For example, in Massachusetts records dating from 1652 to 1800 demonstrate that the mean age of first marriage for ladies was between 19.5 and 22.5 years, and records for other colonies reflect similar ages. In fact, the average age of first marriage for all of the colonies studied was 19.8 before 1700, 21.2 during the early 18th century, and 22.7 during the late 18th century.

    This is consistent with data gathered in England, France and Germany that puts the average mean age of first marriage for women at 25.1 from 1750-1799 and 25.7 from 1800-1849.

    Marriage Post Civil War

    Maintaining the trend, by the end of the 19th century, the median age when women were first getting married was between 22 and 24 years old, and this tendency continued into the 1940s.”

  • Well, if you know your history, girls marrying that young was not abnormal. Girls were considered women at that age and were often teachers and mothers well before they were 20. When life expectancy is 40 you grow up a lot faster. But I see the facts mean nothing to you, for as you said, you are “happy to throw stones.” Well Icabod, you keep on chucking them but all you’re going to end up with is a pile of rocks.

  • O Icabod, as much I as I love Joseph Smith it’s not about him and it’s not about Brigham, or in your case Grant Palmer or Fawn Brodie. It is and always has been about God and going where He wants you to go regardless of what others have done or what they say. If you do believe in Christ remember that it is by their fruits that ye shall know them and although Latter Day Saints have serious flaws just like everyone else, the fruit is undeniable.

  • “By their fruits ye shall know them” You mean like those Mormons who slaughtered the Arkansas wagon train at Mountain Meadows. How about the central Utah Piutes who were slaughtered during in the Black Hawk war in 1866.

    “…settlers arrested a group of Paiutes and when they tried to escape, they were killed. Settlers also murdered women and children who they feared might reveal their atrocious acts.

    “They took them out, hit them on the head, slit their throats in one of the greatest tragedies in Utah history. After all these years, it’s still gut wrenching,” Winkler said.

    While no one was ever held accountable, the Utah Division of State History, Circleville, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the LDS Historical Department and other historians have partnered with the Paiute Tribal Council to recognize victims with this monument. Does this sound “Christian” to you?

    “We wanted to have a memorial to remember and hopefully this will not be forgotten,” said Dorena Martineau, Paiute Tribe cultural resources director.

    Notice the slitting of their throats. Who did that kind of killing? Why do you suppose the Church helped with the monument like they did for the victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

  • How can those things be the fruit of the religion when they go against its doctrine? The church isn’t the mistakes and sins of its members, it is what it teaches. Every organization that has been around for hundreds of years is going to be laced with tales of adultery, murder, lies and deceit. This country has a pretty dark history as well, are you going to leave it too? Some of our presidents were slave owners and the majority have been adulterers, there has been mass killings, sterilization of minorities and on and on. Are you going to spend the next 40 years severing your ties with America? If you’re going to attack the church do it intelligently and use its doctrine, pointing out the sins of its members proves nothing.

  • That might be true if the Church did not sponsor hatred. I don’t know how old you are, but until just a few years ago there was a song in the LDS song book that enjoined members to “Remember the wrongs of Missouri. You might be correct if the Book of Mormon did and still does not plainly teach that persons of color look the way they do because of the wickedness of their ancestors. I would have expected better of the “Saints” You know, they the “chosen”, the “elect”, the “choice spirits reserved to this the latter days”, the righteous generation etc.

    But you are the one that said “By your fruits ye shall know them” I just pointed to some very rotten fruit.

  • If you’re saying a hymn with the words “Remember the wrongs of Missouri” is the church doctrine that inspired Mountain Meadows that’s just too crazy for me to take seriously.

  • Here is what the Book of Mormon was teaching about race 35 years before slavery was abolished.
    “he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.“ 2Nephi 26:33.

  • “…their efforts to get kids to deny their parents to get baptised.”

    No actually, that’s not correct. It’s a fairly strict rule that if either parent denies permission to get baptized, the kid has to wait until they’re an adult.

  • Kids of parents that are gay have to deny their parents lifestyle, and I believe not live with them, to get baptized. Yes either parent can deny, but the church demands such a cruel act for the kids to become members,

  • I have the same thing in my family. My parents were divorced when I was 9. That was 15 years ago. My mom was told to not get her temple marriage cancelled until she is remarried. She’s been remarried for 10 years now to a non-member and is still sealed to my Dad so she can get into heaven. My dad was sealed to his current wife a year ago. All my sisters attended except for myself. How they made it okay in their minds I’m really not sure. It’s always funny when I tell people that I don’t agree with polygamy or that it was ever a true ordinance from God. Their reply is always “well we don’t practice it anymore so why do you care?” This is absolutely false and I’m quick to let them know Mormons 100% still practice “plural marriage”. They consider the sealing the only important marriage so how can they honestly say they don’t practice anymore. I guess god will work it out. But if he’s going to work it out then why does my mom have to go through this life sealed to a man she doesn’t want to be with. Why is she not good enough by herself to be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven?

  • Wow Brandt, that’s one spirited defence of church history. I used to do the same thing, until one day I realised that the critics were right. It’s all so obvious now, but I always thought part of having a testimony is that you didn’t let doubt enter your mind. “Doubt not, but be believing”. This concept kept me from honestly, calmly considering the evidence in the historical record.

  • My testimony or faith isn’t based on the history of the church, or the culture of the LDS faith, or the conduct of any of its members. If it was I would listen to the critics. A higher source has told me it is true and as crazy as that may sound to you it happened and continues to happen and I would be foolish to let critics lead me to believe otherwise. So yes, I am passionate about it.

  • being sealed and being married are not synonymous. Because a woman cannot be sealed to more than one man and yet a man can be sealed to more than one woman– does not mean that they are necessarily married to each other. While the scriptures have allowed men to have more than one spouse and also be sealed to more than one woman we can only deduct that the “natural order of family and making offspring” is ordered this way, does not mean that a man sealed to a woman means that he is married to her in this live or the next. I personally don’t see compatibility with myself and my ex and even if she became a nice person, I don’t see God forcing her on me. Sealing is a “connection” of family in this life and back through the family tree to Adam and Eve, the purpose of which is an Eternal order. No one should make conclusions on the concept of sealing. It is not synonymous with Marriage now or in Joseph Smiths time.

  • OK, the age of marriage was different back then, but one can not ignore the fact that Joseph was already married, it did not give Joseph permission to marry other women who were currently married to living husbands. Even the D&C stated he needed Emma’s permission, should only take 10 wives, they must be a virgin, and they must have sex. Joseph failed on all accounts.

  • The only form of polygamy permitted by D&C 132 is a union with a virgin after first giving the
    opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If the first wife doesn’t consent, the husband
    is exempt and may still take an additional wife, but the first wife must at least have the opportunity
    to consent. In case the first wife doesn’t consent, she will be “destroyed”. Also, the new wife must
    be a virgin before the marriage and be completely monogamous after the marriage or she will be
    destroyed (D&C 132: 41 & 63). It is interesting that the only prerequisite that is mentioned for the
    man is that he must desire another wife: “if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse
    another…”. It does not say that the man must get a specific revelation from the living prophet,
    32
    although we assume today that this is what was meant.

  • From D&C 132:12
    We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

  • POLYANDRY (from the Greek “many men”): one woman having several husbands

    POLYGYNY (from the Greek “many women”): one man having several wives

    POLYGAMY (from the Greek “many marriages” ): one individual having several spouses

  • I have read your question.
    Are you asking in order to receive information, or are you asking preparatory to jeering?

  • Contrary to your belief, the question is answerable — but if you think it cannot be answered, what is the sense of asking it?

  • Are you asking me to answer it:
    a. so you may know that the question is answerable? — or
    b. so that you may know what the answer is? — or
    c. so that you may jeer at me?

    … and you still have not answered this question: “If you think that the question ‘how do you know I’m not referring to the tissue surrounding muscle fibers?’ cannot be answered, what is the sense of asking it?”

  • Don’t waste your time with people who have no sincere desire to know the truth. Take my word for it, even if you are able to answer one question they might pose, they will just keep coming up with more and more (like a game of “whack-a-mole” and there is no end to it. It just turns into a waste of time, unfortunately.

  • Thank you, Rick.
    What you say is true.
    I believe that you have Mr. Neider pegged — but I wanted to see if he was honest enough to admit what he planned to do.

  • The name “Icabod” (usually spelled “Ichabod” — in Hebrew, אִיכָבוֹד‎‎) has nothing to do with one’s bodily condition.
    It is a Hebrew name meaning “no glory.”

  • You’re so funny Sylvias. Surely you’re familiar with the practice of using an individual’s name who personifies a certain characteristic to describe someone else. For example, a person guilty of betrayal might be called Judas or a naysayer might be called a doubting Thomas. Of course the name Judas and Thomas have nothing to do with betrayal or doubting but these individuals personify those characteristics. Ichabod crane is known for having his head cut off and so my use of his name was apt.

  • I was asking it to give you a hard time for being such a know it all and now you’re giving me multiple choice questions to answer your question. What’s up with that? Borrowing from your playbook here’s one for you:
    Did you choose to respond to my posts from a year ago because:
    a. You liked what I had to say?
    b. Because you wanted to show that you’re better at looking up words on Google than I am?
    c. because you wanted to show off your mutton chops? (I admit it, they’re pretty awesome)

  • In “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” Ichabod Crane’s head was not cut off .
    (That is the only Ichabod Crane of whom I know …)

  • To give me a hard time for being a know-it-all …
    Mr. Neider has shown himself to be a bully.
    I wonder if he spent his younger days pulling wings off flies, or torturing animals …

    OPEN QUESTION (I welcome answers from anyone and everyone):
    Is jeering at brilliant people appropriate conduct? If so, why?

  • If you are following this thread, you have confirmation — in Mr. Neider’s own words — that you had him pegged.

    See Ether 12:26 … and Matthew 7:6 …

  • Not at all.
    Ichabod Crane was frightened by the Headless Horseman (Brom Bones in disguise).
    … and I thank you for introducing the subject of Ichabod Crane, because our conversation caused me to think, and I had to go back to the story to refresh my memory. It had been 57 years since I read it. I was glad to find that my memory had not failed me.

  • First off, I was joking with you Sylvias, I was actually pretty impressed that you would be able to catch the Paramecium thing. Second, I’m not a bully, I hate bullying and I apologize if what was intended in jest came across as an insult. That wasn’t my intention.

  • Apology graciously accepted.

    Now, since the subject is open, I ask to be enlightened:
    How do you see “giving someone a hard time” to be different from bullying? For that matter, how do you see any so-called “practical joke” or other situation where the humor is derived from someone’s embarrassment to be different from bullying?

    (Nobody has ever given me, or even offered me, an answer to that question.)

  • The profound irony to your last comment Sylvias is that the *only* person being “bullied” at this point is Mr. Neider. He doesn’t realize it (yet), but he is actually only “bullying” himself…if he continues down his current path of rejecting or criticizing the Gospel,..

  • I never rejected or criticized the Gospel, how did you come to that conclusion? I am the one these people have been criticizing because I believe it whole heartedly.

  • I guess we understand the term “giving someone a hard time” differently. For me it means joking with in a playful manner with no ill intentions. And I don’t remember playing any practical jokes on you or anyone for that matter. You and Rick are making a lot of baseless assumptions about me despite my clarifications and apologies. I even complemented your mutton chops and ability to differentiate between Paramecium and Perimysium and yet somehow I am picking on the two of you?

  • Please understand that I have graciously accepted your apology. That means, among other things, that I am neither angry nor vengeful. I consider that subject settled.

    The subject now is “giving someone a hard time” and how, if at all, that differs from bullying. The conversation is, from my point of view, a fact-finding exercise.

    A PURE JOKE is something akin to:
    “Don’t use Jell-O to commit a crime — you could be prosecuted for carrying a congealed weapon!”
    or
    “Why don’t Texas Aggies like to eat M&M’s? (They’re too hard to peel!)”
    The humor is derived from the words alone.

    “Giving someone a hard time” can take one of several forms:
    FOOL’S ERRAND: Sending your victim to retrieve a fanciful object (a can of relative bearing grease, a plank-expander, the muzzle report, etc.)
    CATCH QUESTION: Asking your victim an easily-misunderstood or oddly-defined question [“Which hand do you eat soup with?” (That’s strange — I use a spoon!) or “What color is your vehicle?” (then inform your victim that, in this sentence, “vehicle” means “rear end”)]
    SET-UP: Conniving with a third party to embarrass your victim. [your victim likes to play the piano, so you tell him “(Third party) has a daughter who likes to play piano duets, and is looking for someone to help her practice.” Victim offers his services to (third party), whereupon (third party) says “My daughter has no arms or legs!” and jeers at victim. (NOTE: Daughter is entirely fictional)
    GIMMICKED OBJECT: Dribble glass, shocking pen, foaming lighter, etc.
    The humor is derived from the victim’s embarrassment or discomfort.

    I am asking you to tell me, in your own words, the difference between giving your victim a hard time, and bullying your victim.

  • All this back & forth reminds me of a joke:

    When I was a freshman at Texas A&M, one of my upperclassmen set me up with a blind date one weekend. “Her name is Elizabeth,” he explained, “but her nickname is ‘Crane’.”

    “Is that because she has long, skinny legs and a beak for a face?” I asked.

    “No, nothing like that,” he assured me.

    Friday afternoon rolled around. I was at the Memorial Student Center awaiting her arrival.

    A blonde walked up to me, read my name-tag, and announced “I’m Elizabeth — your date!”

    I knew immediately why her nickname was “Crane”:

    She had an icky bod!

  • You have never heard it because I made it up, and I have not told it all that widely.

    More on Ichabod Crane:

    When I was little, I enjoyed watching Captain Kangaroo. One episode had the Bunny Rabbit doing a dance to a song with the refrain “Ikka-body, ikka-boddy, ikka-body!” I was highly amused, and repeated that refrain over and over.

    My father asked me if I had ever heard of Ichabod Crane and Brom Bones. Of course I had not, and said as much. He said that he would have a friend get me a copy of “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.”

    The next morning, while I was waiting for school to begin, a family friend (and teacher) walked in and handed me a copy of a high-school literature book containing the story. I read it that night, and enjoyed it.

  • Icabod states correctly that an LDS hymn used to contain the phrase “Remember the wrongs of Missouri.” The remainder of the stanza was “Forget not the fate of Nauvoo/When the God-hating foe is before you/Stand strong and be faithful and true.” Good advice!

    The persecutions suffered by the Latter-day Saints are of the same type (but not to the same degree, of course) as those suffered by Jewry during HaShoah. When one considers that those atrocities were perpetrated in a nation that has boldly and repeatedly proclaimed these many decades that it stands foursquare for freedom of religion, the acts become more heinous.

    Icabod has chosen to number himself with the naysayers. He has plenty of company there in the great and spacious building.

    I wonder if he is familiar with Ether 12:26 …

  • Mr. Neider mentions multiple accounts of Saul’s experience en route to Damascus.

    He could also have mentioned the four different versions of the placard on the Cross, and the four different accounts of how many women saw how many angels at the Tomb.

    He also could have mentioned the circle that, in defiance of geometry, was ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference.

    (Of course, Mr. Neider and I know why such matters are unimportant.)

  • My question was directed to Nantro.

    Since you responded to my question, why did you not answer it?

  • Ok, so please let me get this straight. Is it Brandt or Sylvias who is actively attending the LDS Church?

  • I am assuming it is SylviasDaddy at this point, seeing as how he speaks much more like a typical ( “ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” ) anti-Mormonite! I also come to this conclusion based upon the fact that he is accusing Mr. Neider of “bullying”, which, while reading back through this most recent exchange of messages, never happened, except perhaps in Sylvias’ own mind.

  • I am.
    Happens that I am also familiar with verse six of that chapter.
    Maybe one of these days I will be a doer of verse six, and not a hearer only …

  • Based upon your reference to verse six I think it well for you to look in the mirror. That verse may be describing you more than me. Your vicious reference to this verse is just hateful innuendo. In fact, it’s just the kind of nasty attitude that helped convince me to find my way out of Mormonism. I suppose I should actually thank Mormons like you for that.

    Reading and listening to Mormons like you, I begin to understand better how Mormons could have slaughtered innocent Men, Women, and Children at Mountain Meadows.

  • Icabod..We’re rubber, you’re glue, anything you say bounces off us and sticks to you. How’s that for hateful Mormon rhetoric?

    Sorry to hear you ran away from “Mormonism” (as you call it). It is of course in reality the one and only ..”Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, and you are ultimately only hurting yourself by apostatizing, despite what you may erroneously believe at this time.

  • I actively attend but what difference does it make? Are you going to call me names too if I don’t? I think you owe Sylvias an apology.

  • Which names are you specifically referring to? Apostate? That isn’t a name, it is a designation. Either someone is, or they are not. What’s your point?

  • Additionally, If you are referring to “anti-Mormonite”, and you consider that “name calling”, then I guess each and every time someone outside the Church refers to us as “Mormons”, they are doing the same thing to us. But we do not consider it such, and neither should they (or you), genius. Oooops. I called you a “genius”. Better go home and cry now, big baby. Uh oh, I did it again!

  • No. If I said your breath stinks like rancid horse manure, that would be juvenile. Unless of course..it is true?

  • You officious, self righteous, smug classless nitwit! Why don’t you take the time to check out a few things out before you summarily dismiss my concerns and thereby demonstrate your complete ignorance. Truth is, TBM’s like you are simply afraid of the the truth. If you have the courage, (which I doubt) dig into Mormonism’s truth claims from sources not afraid to share objective facts. Hint, that will not include the Ensign. If you look you can find many serious problems right in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants and the Book of Abraham. But, finding and evaluating these things requires an IQ higher than 90 and a small measure of honesty,. so I suspect, this will be an effort well beyond your native abilities.
    I will get you started. Question: was Joseph Smith a liar. See “History of the Church” Vol 7 page 411. Here he denies he is involved in polygamy saying that he can find only “one” wife. Find out how many wives he had at the time of that denial and ask yourself –If he lies about that, what else might he be lying about?

  • Already investigated and resolved every single anti-Mormonite thing you just mentioned years ago, along with many, many others.. I was able to do so, because unlike you, I do have an IQ above 90, and more importantly, possess -a real desire- to know the truth, and then obey it. If I thought for one moment you possessed such real desire, I would be happy to take the time and address your comments, as misguided as they may be. I do not, however, believe you possess any such desire in the slightest. So go find another tree to piss on, pal. You are in way over your head here.

  • “Mormonite”? Now there’s a term I haven’t seen written recently. And you need to do some research on the Ad Hominem fallacy. It seems that that is all you have in your fact empty tank. And i would bet you haven’t looked any further than Standard Church publications and the Church’s apologist web site. But once again you conveniently ignore my question. Was Smith a liar about his polygamy and polyandry? And as a corollary, did the Church as an institution, ever lie about the practice of Polygamy? Oh, and was it the just Indians who killed all those innocent people at Mountain Meadows under a white flag?

  • Again, I’ve spent 2 decades addressing ALL of your small minded, petty grievances, and many others which you probably haven’t even heard of. That journey has only served to BOLSTER my belief in the Lord’s Church, Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. This is because I humbled myself, suspended my selfish pre-conceptions (which you clearly have not), and committed myself to finding those answers, ** not with any intent to DISPROVE the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith, but trusting in God that he would lead me to the truth **. (This is what is called REAL INTENT, and again, is what people like yourself are sorely lacking).

    My final advice to you is to REPENT, or the Lord’s final words to you will be…”Verily, I say..I never knew you”.

  • Then answer my question. Once again how do you justify the lying by Joseph Smith and by the Church itself on Smith’s polygamy and polyandry before 1852?

    It’s one thing to say you have “suspended (your) selfish pre-conceptions” and quite another to explain how such deception can be justified by a faith that outwardly holds to very high moral standards. (13th Article of Faith) By the way, I never had such “selfish preconceptions”. I came to my position over a period of 45 and more years of detailed study. In your case, the truth seems to be that faith trumps reason, which is, of course, exactly what the church demands of you. To that, I would say two things. You are welcome to your faith no matter how delusional it is; and the main problem with living “by faith” is that faith can be, and often is, misplaced.

    A final note: do you know how incredibly self righteously sanctimonious and officiously judgmental you sound?

  • Its simple. The shorter answer is that you are either greatly misinformed, or lying. Only you and God know which one for sure.

    Ask yourself the following question…Is the current worldwide (voluntary) dissemination of these teachings by the Church itself indicative of an organization trying to hide its former practice of polygamy, whether by Joseph or anyone else, from the masses? If so, I would say they
    are miserably failing at their “cover up”, and better hire some new “PR” people right away to handle the issue. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Its all publicly available. If the “Church” were lying about polygamy, or the practice of it by early Church leaders, especially Joseph Smith…Why the **commandment** to engage in the practice plainly printed
    within the current edition of the Doctrine & Covenants (for the whole world to see!). Why would the Church to this day literally teach its members that they cannot reach the “highest degree” of the Celestial Kingdom without engaging in the practice of polygamy at some point, either before or after the resurrection from the dead?

    Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, among many other Biblical characters, also clearly had multiple wives (i.e practiced polygamy)..Why don’t you start contacting some protestant churches and start asking them why they believe in the Bible?, Perhaps you should start holding Abraham and the Bible to the same standard of scrutiny you do Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?
    Again, if I thought you were investigating the doctrine(s) with any degree of “real intent” whatsoever, I would get deeper into the actual minutia regarding Joseph’s personal experience(s) with polygamy. However, it appears you are just another fault finding anti-Mormonite on a misguided crusade to accuse and/or deceive, whose primary motivation is -NOT- to find real truth or answers, but to discredit and defame.

    Light and truth are plainly manifest for all to see who possess an honest heart and contrite spirit. Unfortunately for you, and all like you..”The light shines, and the darkness comprehends it not”.

  • You miss the point. Today’s open disclosure is good, however this disclosure is a recent development forced by the increased availability of information disseminated over the internet, and by new historical publications by professional historians who have not been dissuaded by the well documented threat of Church sanction, and who have not bought into the “faithful history” preaching of Mormon General authorities. These are the same General Authorities who have publicly pronounced that “sometimes the truth is not very useful” (Boyd K. Packer). The point is Rick that founding leaders, including Joseph Smith, lied about the practice and that it was to policy of the Church before 1852 to publish and maintain that lie.

    This is not about whether or not polygamy is or is not God sanctioned, however I challenge you to find one bible scripture that demonstrates that God sanctioned polygamy. And the Book of Mormon actually condemns the practice of those old testament leaders you cite.
    And you still don’t answer the question I actually asked. How do you justify the public lie? You don’t because you can’t. And that Rick is the real point. And once again you have no other proposition except to restate your foolish ad hominem attack on my person not knowing anything about me. By the way, Section 132 was not in the D&C until 1876.

  • Are you feeling alright? You are not thinking rationally or logically. The fact that early Church leaders did not “proclaim” the practice of polygamy from the housetops, or advertise it with a megaphone before 1852, doesn’t mean they were actively hiding it. They were also being HUNTED, RAPED, TORTURED, and EXILED on a regular basis up until 1852 in NY, OH, and & MO, by the way.

    Do you think this might have had a little something to do with choosing *not* to needlessly advertise the practice in the midst of their enemies (i.e. to heap more “red hot coals” upon their own heads?)..(Hint: If you say “no”, you are irrational, no offense).

    You are again attempting to analyze a given issue with a desire to find fault, rather than find real answers. As long as you do that, you will continue to find fault. Logical, correct?

    Case in point. You are clearly conflating “increased availability of information disseminated over the Internet”, as you say, with the false narrative of a widespread, “cover up” by the Church.

    Nonsense. No General Authority, including Brigham Young, has ever intentionally altered official Church records to hide the fact that Joseph had multiple wives, including wives in their teens, or that he was sealed to women who were already involved in civil marriages, etc.. Just the opposite in fact.. (As D&C 132 came to light many years later, as even you have admitted)!!

    Orson Pratt did not author D&C 132, it was dictated by Joseph in Nauvoo, before his death. All available evidence speaks to this being the case, including Pratt’s own testimony, and I have never found one credible source in 20+ years (in or out of the Church) that can prove otherwise. It makes no difference at all whether it was “officially” entered as cannon in 1872, or 1972, or 2002. It doesn’t change the fact that it was dictated by Joseph and recorded prior to his death in 1844.

    It is MUCH more reasonable to assume that any delay in it being printed (in subsequent editions of the D&C) is due to the above mentioned challenges confronting the saints in Nauvoo, and their subsequent trek to the Salt Lake Valley, vs. your half baked (non-evidence based) cover-up “conspiracy” theories.

  • I would have had no problem if they had merely kept silent. But that is not what they did. They willfully lied. The did so for many reasons, but one good one is that they were breaking the law by violating the Bigamy statutes of the state.

    “Never altered Church official Church records” this is a straw man argument. It does not matter whether they did or did not alter official records. The issue is what Smith and other leaders said for public consumption. The issue is that they lied. You seem to suggest that lying was necessary to save them from harm. but I could justify any criminal’s lie using that defense. And must you continue your weak ad hominem attacks?

    Orson Pratt did not author Section 132? I never made that claim. Joseph Smith authored that “revelation”. So I don’t know why you said that except as a furtive futile attempt to muddy the water and impress me with your knowledge of Mormon history.

    On the issue of Mormon Treatment. The truth is that both sides engaged in violence. The Saints were not lily white innocent. Reference the Battle of Crooked River. And the first person to talk about “extermination” was not Lilburn Boggs, it was in fact Sydney Rigdon.

  • No ad homs here… just rational observation(s). Your words are
    simply incomprehensible..

    You just said and I quote.. “You seem to suggest that lying was necessary to save them from harm. but I could justify any criminal’s lie using that defense.”

    No offense (and nothing personal)….But what planet do you really live on? (..not an ad hom..just a simple question).

    The Mobs in Missouri, Ohio (to a lesser degree) & New
    York *consistently* committed CAPITAL CRIMES upon all Church
    members (especially Church leaders)..such as Murder 1, 1st Degree Rape, Kidnapping, Extortion, (not to mention felony destruction of private property (burning people’s houses down), grand theft, etc.)

    These types of crimes, as committed by the Missouri and Ohio
    Mobs, were clearly intentional and premeditated. They are NEVER justifiable or defensible, no matter what the counter argument or defense may be.

    For you to equate or compare what the Saints *might* or *might not* have been guilty of: (misdemeanor assault->primarily in self defense, verbal threats, civil disturbances, petty civil violations etc. ) to MURDER 1, KIDNAPPING, RAPE, and EXTORTION shows exactly how “out of touch” with reality you are, and I have no further desire to speak to an intellectually dishonest, Looney Toon! (just an accurate observation, not an ad-hom).

  • One ad hominem attack after another. “Intellectually dishonest”, “Looney Toon” And you still have not come up with an answer to Smith’s deception.

  • You’re comparing admitted and notorious PRE-MEDITATED MURDERERS, RAPISTS, KIDNAPPERS, ARSONISTS, ROBBERS, and EXTORTIONISTS to: …A man (in Joseph Smith Jr.) who was never *once* convicted of a felony or serious crime of any kind during his entire lifetime, and who at **worst** lied about the existence of his polygamous relationships out of “fear” for his life, the lives of his family members, and/or “fear” of additional persecution/prosecution by the lawless mobs & state of Missouri).

    BIG DEAL!!! Comparing what Joseph did, to what the Missouri Mob did…would be like comparing little Tommy’s bb gun to a 20 inch Howitzer on the USS Nimitz. And all you can do is fault find and criticize Joseph and the saints. You’re nuts, man, sorry to say it, but its true.

    No ad homs! You are just a genuine “cuckoo”! Who’s the bigger fool? The fool, or the man who argues with one?

    Therefore, I’m out. Bye!

  • “You are just a genuine “cuckoo”! Who’s the bigger fool? The fool, or the man who argues with one?
    Therefore, I’m out. Bye!”

    Another reprehensible ad hominem attack. Yeah, you are out. Out to lunch. One ad hominem deserves another.

    You and your sanctimonious ilk make me glad, even although being a 6th generation with direct ties to the founding Mormon generation, including a direct name ancestor who was an ordained bodyguard to Joseph Smith, one who warned him not to go to Carthage, that I am glad to be “out”, -Out of this pathetically obvious fraud.

    By the way, aside from being tried as a “glass looker”, Smith and Rigdon were tried for Bank Fraud. February 1837, Samuel D. Rounds swore a writ against Smith and Sidney Rigdon for illegal banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper. At a hearing on March 24, the court found sufficient evidence for the case to go to trial. In October, Smith and Rigdon were tried in absentia after having left Ohio for Upper Canada. (Missouri) They were each found guilty and each fined $1000. Usually convictions could not be had because Smith fled the charging Jurisdiction or was allowed to escape from jail before a trial could be held. In that day it was very hard to get a person convicted if the charging government could not get and hold the corpus.

  • I take it that you don’t agree with the first amendment. I don’t harass, I educate. But I will do as you ask, once you recall all those harassing missionaries.

  • You do love the ad hominem attack. But then that’s what weak minds do, because that’s about all they have.

  • “Batten down the hatches, crew..the soul sucking leviathan is after us again. Rave on, looney!”

    It that all you got? Small brain small ……….

  • You are pretty good a sounding like a Cuckoo. Damn, am I glad I don’t have to associate with Morons like you anymore.

  • I can handle people that are “cuckoo”. I actually think people are more fun that way. It is blatant “liars” (such as you) that are unacceptable.

  • The facts do not bear out that it was blatant racism on the part of the LDS Church. One factor was African and Native tribes had allegiances to other religious and cultural traditions preventing their conversion and ordination. African and many Hispanic and Native peoples in particular had numbers of adherents to witchcraft, Voodoo, in some cases gods of a different character, as the history of the South reveals. In some cases the fact presented a tangle and an impediment with regard to descendants, not unlike Christian children born in covenant being unable to be converted to another faith, or hold office in it, without layers and layers of authorizations which may not be given if the faiths are not substantially in alignment. There is a line of authority. Most Christian denominations, where they are in agreement on essentials, might not pose an insurmountable obstacle. Others may. Adherents to practices alien to Christianity would not be sustainable. The more important factor was no one of any race could, or can now, hold the priesthood if their personal lives are non-conforming with the standards of Christianity, or if not in good standing. Anyone who accepts and lives the standards of Christianity can be ordained. Anyone who does not isn’t.

  • Adrian,

    Your reply is remarkable.

    How is it that “African and Native tribes” had any more allegiance to religious and cultural traditions than any other groups of people whom the Mormons have targeted for conversion? The LDS church devoted ENORMOUS energies to convert Native American tribes (“Lamanites”) to Mormonism. Are you suggesting Native American traditions are any less in significance than those of African peoples? And the LDS church made huge (successful) efforts to convert Polynesian people to Mormonism. Their belief systems and traditions are every bit as strong as Africans’, as is/was their “entanglement”

    The only difference is that the Black race was regarded as unworthy of all the blessings of Mormonism. And that is the very definition of racism.

    The only “line of authority” in Mormonism is a lie. The only authority Mormon leaders possess is that which Mormons ignorantly and naively give them.

  • It’s comforting to know however that God is the same “yesterday, today..and forever”. At some point the practice of being sealed to more than one wife (for righteous priesthood holders only) will be reinstated, possibly at the 2nd coming of Christ..while those who reject this doctrine (both male and female) will not receive a resurrection to the highest degree of celestial glory, but will remain servants to the Most High forever and ever.

  • That’s very funny and provocative at the same time. That makes you officially excommunicated from the LDS Church and an apostate today, tomorrow, and forever.

    I’m sure you will appreciate the humor in my response when I say your proposal to rape and enslave women by undue influence will only happen for you in a galaxy far, far away, and perhaps on your own planet governed by someone willing to watch over or correct your misuse of authority.

    It is not LDS doctrine, not Christian, never has been, never will be, but doctrine of the apostate who wants what he wants when he wants it and wants to do away with the vote of the membership who rejected his wolf tactics unanimously in 1890 and still does so today. It seems like protecting the flock against wolves in sheeps clothing is the same yesterday, today, and forever, too. It’s a shame. No one should have to.

    The only place you will be if you try to force polygamy into my life is in the lowest degree of hell. I’m not sure what the obsession is with violating and enslaving women against their will for one man’s lust-puppet fantasy of ill-gotten progeny, but I think apostates need to grow up and get boundaries.

  • I am sure you do find it comforting to condone your own pride, lust, and enslavement to your errant personal phantasmagoria which you seek to impose on others without their consent, rather than to correct your own sin in humility. Sociopaths always prefer to rationalize grave and mortal sin rather than change their own behavior. Every Jim Jones and Charles Manson does the same. We’ve been approached by child rapists and adulterers like you for decades in this Church. The answer has always been no, and you don’t seem to be able to take no for an answer. That tells me you are the one with the problem of needing to be comforted by lies. It’s just that billions of people do not agree with your undue influence and coercion, and Christianity does not admit you to their faith and standards to be a predator on the inexperienced or unsuspecting. You are not a member of this Church wherever you are. And as long as we are not in relation to you and your false doctrines and lies, I can say none of us cares very much where in your idea of a hierarchy we are.

  • Mormonism is not the correct term here. There is no such thing. Almost invariably, the use of the term Mormonism is an indication of an apostate view put forth by an alien group mimicking the LDS organizational structures and falsely claiming legitimate authority. With few exceptions it is traceable to invasion by deception and false claims. The correlation is so reliable it could itself become the new “mark of the devil.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Church we are talking about. I have been there when many of the Polynesian groups you mentioned were invading here under pretext of conversion. They were not converting. They were seeking to overthrow. It was the same with many Hispanic and some local Native groups seeking to push polygamy into our Christian standards by any means. It was far from honest, far from transparent, and far from Christian. Many such groups had their hidden agenda. It was not converting. It was hijacking. Not unlike terrorist groups with an agenda to infiltrate, many have confessed they came to tamper with and topple both church and state process and structures. So, beyond legitimate challenges for converts who were sincere, there were these illicit and insincere approaches. These are the types of cases that will not result in ordination. Fake conversion does not an ordination make.

  • Simply, because I don’t have the time to respond to your lengthy comment, I will just say that the mass slaughter at Mountain Meadows was not in self defense. The Mormons with their Paiute allies attacked the wagon train in an ambush. After a couple of days where the train could not get water, the Mormons lured them out of hiding under a white flag, promising them safe passage to Cedar City. Then they cold- bloodedly killed them, men women, and children down to the age of 4 years old. Valuables on the train were stolen with some things being given to the Paiutes. Does this sound “Christian” to you?

    And outside of the “Book of Mormon” there is little evidence that there ever was any Christian civilization in “South America” or for that matter in North America. The Mormon Church is simply a fraud.

    By the way, since you mention “what we learn at University”. I hold three degrees.

  • There is no such thing as “Mormonism”? You are making no sense, Adrian. The LDS church’s own website mormon.org makes 3,820 references to the term.

    https://www.mormon.org/searchresults#?query=mormonism&filter=site

    And it is almost always used by apostates? Good grief, Adrian, go to lds.org and do a search on the term “Mormonism.” I did and the site returned 20 PAGES of hits.

    https://www.lds.org/search?domains=all&lang=eng&query=%22mormonism%22

    And as to Polynesians, BYU would disagree with you. Here is a decent bibliography describing Polynesian conversions to Mormonism:

    Britsch, R. Lanier. Moramona. Laie, Hawaii, 1989.

    Clement, Russell T. “Polynesian Origins: More Word on the Mormon Perspective.” Dialogue 13 (Winter 1980):88–89.

    Cole, W. A., and E. W. Jensen. Israel in the Pacific. Salt Lake City, 1961.

    Loveland, Jerry. “Hagoth and the Polynesian Tradition.” BYU Studies 17 (Autumn 1976): 59–73.

    And I am sure you do not see anything racist whatever in your making broad generalizations about entire races of people.

  • Additionally, Joseph Smith himself was a strict abolitionist his entire life and publicly taught and preached against the practice of slavery until the day of his murder at the hands of real racists and bigots! Oh the irony!

  • Sister Yearsley,
    Given your last response, I wonder if you have ever read the doctrine and covenants? If so, you don’t understand it very well! First off, no one is forced to do anything! That’s the beauty of agency as it pertains to the Gospel! The facts, despite your own obvious personal emotional and intellectual bias are this..Joseph Smith was sealed to multiple young women by the keys of the priesthood (some of whom were age 16, 17ish) as were many of his fellow Church Priesthood leaders of that day. This is because it was a COMMANDMENT of the Lord..(I am quoting literal doctrine from D&C 132)? Are you a member of the LDS Church, or do you just pretend to be? If so, perhaps you need to educate yourself a little better and own your religion and it’s history, whether you personally agree with certain aspects of it or not, and STOP cherry picking certain principles you like while discarding everything else? Please don’t reply back with some long drawn out (emotionally charged) reply or rebuttal. Just read D&C 132 and pray about it. Life will go on, and the sun will rise tomorrow on schedule, I promise.

  • Both of you should stop touting your “educational exploits” and just humble yourselves and thank God that he is willing to put up with all of our combined ignorance and stupidity despite our “education”. Each of us are dumb swamp rats compared to God intellectually and every time I see people brag about their “learning” it just further reinforces my belief in how foolish and ignorant mankind truly is. As soon as we are fully immortal, able to create worlds, and hold the keys to resurrection and eternal life..then we can brag about how much we “know”. Until then.. not so much!

  • Tracey, my heart goes out to you! I don’t know how far you’ve come in your search for answers since writing this, but when Jesus was asked a sort of similar question by the Sadducees about a woman married seven times, asking whose wife of the seven will she be in the resurrection, Jesus said they were mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30) When I was 14, having recently transitioned from Beehive president, to an eager budding Mia Maid, having participated in my first proxy baptisms in the Seattle temple, and looking forward to my Patriarchal Blessing, my fifth or sixth generation priesthood holding father sat our family down to notify us the Church wasn’t true. He clung to and taught Jesus ever since. I however, spent the rest of my teenage years dismayed, and most of my young adult life wary of all religion. When I was about thirty, I set out to prove the Bible errant and false and put to rest “annoying Christians.” God had other plans. Instead, at 31, my research led me to new life. I was born again, having repented and put my trust in Jesus. A man plans his ways but the LORD directs his steps (Proverbs 16:9) and I am ever grateful! That was either the last week in September or the first week in October of 2004. If you like, I offer a compassionate ear and gentle advice, advice that will encourage you to test all things and hold fast to that which is true (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and will always point you to Jesus, the One by whom God speaks to us in these last days (Hebrews 1:2, as opposed to prophets, whom He spoke to the fathers by in time past, Hebrews 1:1). This goes for anyone with sincere questions or a need to talk. [email protected]

ADVERTISEMENTs