MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

[JamesBews]

1. found 116 pages lost?!

2. merging with rlds?!


"An interesting photo. Twelve apostles of the Community of Christ."

Help me find the dis-like button

[mgridle1]

Well, it certainly ain't higher (nothing is lower) and was never a law from God or Joseph.

I and mgridle1 would probably dispute that assertion of yours, but then again... lets not derail this thread further into a polygamy debate. There have been plenty of other threads started on the subject, including one of my own.

Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy.

Sure he could... Gay Marriage.

And no, Polygamy itself isn't of the devil (its actually a tender mercy of the Lord if you take what it actually is supposed to do into account). The devil simply twisted and corrupted Polygamy the same way he twists everything that is revealed by God.

And thats all I will say on the subject here. If you want to discuss this further, I can start a new thread or we can discuss via PM.

Yes tender mercies is exactly right.

[Michelle]

That would require new scripture to do so fantasy land imo.

I'm not sure it takes new scripture. I'm not talking about taking away from the man's role while in the office of bishop. Not talking about women taking it from him. More like how we could see a man and wife ruling a kingdom together. The wife can offer a lot in needed areas and that doesn't take from him.

Look at Nelson and his wife. It's not a joint calling on paper but she is right there giving talks side by side with him and very involved with his calling. It's like they are called together.

Bishops wives are usually in the 100% background.

I've lived in Utah and out of Utah and "the bishop's wife" has always been a big deal in the many wards I have been in, and that hasn't always been a good thing.

I remember one who would encourage her daughters to flirt with the missionaries and had all her girls dress . . . in ways that they would be noticed.

Huh, now that I come to think of it she reminded me of a certain mother from Pride and Prejudice (BBC version.)

Okay, that's not a good thing but it doesn't mean all women or all bishops wives are like that. I don't live in Utah and I don't notice things like that happening. Utah is special! Lots of vanity and pride in the members there. It's not like that the places I have lived. Utah is somewhere I don't ever want to live, seems the focus and requirements to be a member there are very wordly.

That particular bishop's wife was in Indiana, not Utah.

I didn't move to Utah until I was an adult.

[Sirius]

Well, if things get bad enough with lower birthrates, men dropping out of the Church, etc. you never know . . .maybe women might demand it come back . Isn't there a scripture about the last days that 7 women will take hold of one man and demand he take away her reproach????

In seriousness, I agree that's not within the remote possibility right now.

The Church misleads with its statistics but all one has to do is watch the video "In Which They Fret Over the Young Single Adults" to see that the leaders are terrified over the low birthrates and declining marriage rates. There is no way that a huge percentage of active LDS women will find an active LDS man to marry. No way.

Changes to the Youth programs should hopefully correct much of that.

I don't see a need for polygamy, nor a belief it will "come back".

"Do we know that polygamy will ever be commanded again? In the 6000 years of religious history, the only adherents to be commanded were the Latter-day Saints between 1852 and 1890. Upon what basis does anyone assert that it will be commanded again?" Brian and Linda Hales

Pretty safe bet Brian and Linda Hales, seeing as we have very little in regards to the true and correct record of this world. Also, it seems very reasonable for a need to command, when a restoring the truth and ordinances of all dispensations that were completely removed through apostasy.

[braingrunt]

Well, if things get bad enough with lower birthrates, men dropping out of the Church, etc. you never know . . .maybe women might demand it come back . Isn't there a scripture about the last days that 7 women will take hold of one man and demand he take away her reproach????

In seriousness, I agree that's not within the remote possibility right now.

Polygamy was a HUGE mistake, is not of God but of men and was never doctrinal (just ask President Hinckley). If you're interested in something as abominable and abhorrent as polygamy, you should go and join one of the fundamentalist offshoots that practice it down in southern Utah.

Lol okay whatever. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. A mistake? Lol right. I agree that it is a practice fraught witha lot of peril and most people could not practice it and do it well. Of course it was doctrinal 132 and then it was discontinued.

No I'm with the mainstream I do believe it is doctrinal and is of god but it's not practiced today. The offshoots don't hold they proper keys so they can go pound sand.

Regardless of weather you think 132 was from JS or not it is part of the standards works

Section 132 was added 10 years after Joseph's death and appears to have been written by William Clayton under the direction of Brigham Young.

Please let's not get deep into polygamy in this thread. Personal preference.

[Col. Flagg]

1. found 116 pages lost?!

2. merging with rlds?!


"An interesting photo. Twelve apostles of the Community of Christ."

Help me find the dis-like button

Because we know God and Christ also dislike them, right?

[Col. Flagg]

I and mgridle1 would probably dispute that assertion of yours, but then again... lets not derail this thread further into a polygamy debate. There have been plenty of other threads started on the subject, including one of my own.

Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy.

Sure he could... Gay Marriage.

And no, Polygamy itself isn't of the devil (its actually a tender mercy of the Lord if you take what it actually is supposed to do into account). The devil simply twisted and corrupted Polygamy the same way he twists everything that is revealed by God.

And thats all I will say on the subject here. If you want to discuss this further, I can start a new thread or we can discuss via PM.

Yes tender mercies is exactly right.

The only mercy is the kind women in polygamous relationships are asking for.

[Juliet]

Polygamy was a HUGE mistake, is not of God but of men and was never doctrinal (just ask President Hinckley). If you're interested in something as abominable and abhorrent as polygamy, you should go and join one of the fundamentalist offshoots that practice it down in southern Utah.

Lol okay whatever. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. A mistake? Lol right. I agree that it is a practice fraught witha lot of peril and most people could not practice it and do it well. Of course it was doctrinal 132 and then it was discontinued.

No I'm with the mainstream I do believe it is doctrinal and is of god but it's not practiced today. The offshoots don't hold they proper keys so they can go pound sand.

Regardless of weather you think 132 was from JS or not it is part of the standards works

I'm new, so I guess you all know already that Section 132 was not added to the D&C until 10 years after Joseph's death. And Section...I believe it was 104 in which "spiritual wifery (plural marriage) was soundly condemned was not removed until the 1870s, if I recall correctly. This is verifiable in the H B Lee Library archives.

And I guess you all know that Joseph's only public comments on plural marriage were to condemn it.

Col Flagg, so you saw the Larry King interview where President HInckley said it isn't doctrinal? So did I! At the time, I had to get on my knees and ask the Lord if prophets were allowed to tell lies. I was comforted and inspired to put it on a shelf and down the road it would all make sense. Then a few years ago, I read Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, just half of Volume 1, and verified the footnotes and finally realized that President Hinckley was the one telling the truth and that there were a lot of people in Church History who seemingly had something to cover up. (Some may have been duped into it innocently.)

It's just hard to find that interview online these days. He kept saying, "No, no. They permitted them to do it when they went out west." Larry King said, "But...Joseph Smith..." and President Hinckley would cut in, "No! They permitted them to do it when they went out west." Finally Larry King repeated that phrase back and President Hinckley nodded.

I have wondered when the Brethren realized it was not what we were told, and how were they going to break it to all of us without making everyone fall apart and wonder if they should follow the prophet or not. President Nelson set the stage so beautifully when he urged us all last April to get our own revelation. Those are the words of a prophet who is confident in all his inspiration! I hope they can bring it to the next level with polygamy, but there might be a lot of devastated men, sadly.

The Church sure has paid a price for that, as well as Brother Brigham stripping blacks of the Priesthood. He is my ancestor, so I say that carefully and with all due respect, but I do think there were some tragic mistakes.

By the way, it doesn't say in the King James version that the Lord commanded Abraham or Jacob to practice polygamy. Poor Jacob was roped into it by his father-in-law. But never in scripture nor that I know of in Church History, has it worked out happily for those involved. Sarah proposed it, so maybe the Lord took that into account, because it wasn't condemned as in Jacob 2, but even there it caused much unhappiness and resulted in a divorce and one child being raised fatherless.

I'll step off my soapbox now...

Allison,

You are right on with your polygamy assessment. It was/is a huge mess. The church needs to come clean on this, like yesterday, and get this behind them. Polygamy was NEVER commanded by God, DUHHHHH!!! I can't understand how people believe such falsities. Anyway, with the huge admissions made in the Gospel Topic Essays, even though they are mostly half-truths, there is now, in plain site, a giant pile of manure that begs clean-up. That they admit these things even happened shows they knew, all along, as an organization. This stuff just blows a mile-wide hole through all their authority claims. I don't see how the church can carry forward like this. It needs to get real, and get real FAST. God's exposing the lies all around us. His work is moving forward and I don't think he'll afford any special respect to any church, no matter how much it ingratiates itself with the savior's name, if it maintains lies as truths.

It's not just polygamy, either. How about all the years they sat idly by condoning paintings of Joseph Smith looking over gold plates, when the truth was that he looked into his old magic seer stone in his hat, without any need for the plates. How is that explained? Was it not important for the members to have an accurate idea of how the process worked? And then there's all the first-vision accounts, where they only talk about the grandest one.

I don't think it is black and white. When you live entirely by the Holy Spirit, nothing is black and white. Some instances some rules apply some instances other rules apply.

[Crackers]

To those of you who think that polygamy is a non-issue in our church since it is not currently commanded, may I point out this discussion? Until it is formally denounced, it is ALWAYS THERE.

[Robin Hood]

Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy.

While it's obvious you are very much against polygamy, your statement above is clearly ridiculous. My advice... think about what you're were saying before you click "submit".

[Crackers]

There are good people in the church in Utah. I think the nature of living in close proximity to those in your ward naturally lends itself to a keeping up with the Jones' mentality. Also, because many people have family close by, it can be assumed that people don't need your help, so wards are less service-oriented.

I'm originally from Utah, but haven't live there for several years. Where I live now, members of my ward are very in tune with the needs of other members because so many of us how no one else close by to turn to. And we are so spread out and run in different circles so to speak, so there's really not this competition thing that DOES go on in Utah. For many in my ward, the only thing we really have in common is our faith and church membership.

I kind of shudder when I consider moving back to Utah. I'm not particularly cutesy with my kids/house/self? and being part of the crowd can get exhausting. A m couple years ago I went to a baby blessing in my brother and sister in laws ward in an area that's newly built up and a lot of younger families. Ran into several people from high school there. It was seriously like my whole graduating class just picked up and moved West a few miles! It stresses me out just to think about reliving those years every Sunday.

I really do miss the mountains, though, and extended family dinners.

I feel like we are kindred spirits in this. I shudder when I think about how long it will be until I can move out of Utah (though I have grown to love the mountains, the red rock, and many people). But in general, it's such an odd culture here. Whether living in other places or just visiting, I have always found the same experience you describe. Outside of Utah (and probably also outside of the more Utah-based populations outside of Utah), the church seems to be more about a gathering of believers instead of some crazy social experiment.

[Crackers]

I can't see expanding the role of the bishop's wife. Her plate is full compensating for his increased time away from home (assuming there are kids at home, etc.). Also, my current bishop's wife is a big 'ole gossip. I don't feel like I could get on board with putting her in any position requiring confidentiality or compassion.

[mtm411]

I can't see expanding the role of the bishop's wife. Her plate is full compensating for his increased time away from home (assuming there are kids at home, etc.). Also, my current bishop's wife is a big 'ole gossip. I don't feel like I could get on board with putting her in any position requiring confidentiality or compassion.

Some of us have had Bishops who are just as bad. FIL was a Bishop 20 years ago and he still wants to corner people and tell them all about the teenage sins of people he counseled.

[Col. Flagg]

Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy.

While it's obvious you are very much against polygamy, your statement above is clearly ridiculous. My advice... think about what you're were saying before you click "submit".

Why is it ridiculous? And don't patronize me RH... I'm no fool.

[Finrock]

I can't see expanding the role of the bishop's wife. Her plate is full compensating for his increased time away from home (assuming there are kids at home, etc.). Also, my current bishop's wife is a big 'ole gossip. I don't feel like I could get on board with putting her in any position requiring confidentiality or compassion.

It could be that a male who gets called as a bishop is a gossip. So, that isn't really a good reason not to expand the role of a bishop to include the wife. I've spoken to several bishops over the years, and it many ways, a few of them have stated or they said that they worked together with their wives when they were bishops. My father-in-law was released as a bishop a couple of years ago after serving for 5 years. He told me how he felt that being a bishop seemed to him to be a calling that both him and his wife were called to fulfill. He said that he relied on his wife a lot for inspiration and for ideas as to what to do or how to help. He felt that they were meant to work together. She was his true first counselor and they councilled together. I've heard of other bishops explain this the same way. Of course my experiences aren't sufficient to make any firm conclusions in general, but, I would venture to guess that a lot of bishops are already working together with their wives, so, this wouldn't be that big of a change for them, even if it would be shocking to them that the Church acknowledges something they've been practicing all along.

-Finrock

[Chip]

How about this for a surprise:

From now on, only gay men who observe the law of chastity will be called as bishops. This is to harmonize LDS and Catholic clergy, though no merger of faiths is planned at this time.

[Robin Hood]

Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy.

While it's obvious you are very much against polygamy, your statement above is clearly ridiculous. My advice... think about what you're were saying before you click "submit".

Why is it ridiculous? And don't patronize me RH... I'm no fool.

Your claim is that Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit...
Seriously?
Have you ever heard of gay marriage?
And your statement about not being a fool is clearly questionable if you are contending that polygamy is worse.

[will]

I've noticed several people point out the possibility of "Gay Sealings" in the Temple. That mindset disturbs me. The day that occurred, would be the same day the church would be in another apostasy. I heard someone mention this possibility in Sunday school, I had to walk out. I believe the church is true. That being said. If it is, That possibility is the desires of some members, and not what I believe reflects what I hold to be true.

[Durzan]

I've noticed several people point out the possibility of "Gay Sealings" in the Temple. That mindset disturbs me. The day that occurred, would be the same day the church would be in another apostasy. I heard someone mention this possibility in Sunday school, I had to walk out. I believe the church is true. That being said. If it is, That possibility is the desires of some members, and not what I believe reflects what I hold to be true.

If that does happen this conference, that is when I will know that my time to awaken will have arrived.

[nightlight]

Hinckley said the said the CURRENT practice of polygamy is not doctrinal....perhaps you folks should read the transcript again(this time without emo goggles)

You anti pluar marriage crowd have a strange spirit about your words when you speak on this subject...it cool....I also say/do dumb crap (a lot). I forgive your hyper emotional thoughtprocess on this subject.
------------------------

If our church does K-12 schoolI I will be soooooooo grateful!!!! I don't want my baby son(20 months) to attend public school....and I can't afford private school. Our plan was homeschool but this sound much better!!!

[Col. Flagg]

Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy.

While it's obvious you are very much against polygamy, your statement above is clearly ridiculous. My advice... think about what you're were saying before you click "submit".

Why is it ridiculous? And don't patronize me RH... I'm no fool.

Your claim is that Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit...
Seriously?
Have you ever heard of gay marriage?
And your statement about not being a fool is clearly questionable if you are contending that polygamy is worse.

So Satan is capable of changing someone's sexual preference? And how many gay people are there compared to heterosexuals? 4 in 100 Americans identify as having homosexual tendencies and it is substantially lower than that inside the church.

[mtm411]

Me, I think polygamy is worse. A nuclear family is clearly God's ideal way. Every time they practice polygamy in the scriptures or in our early church it crashed and burned. The bible is clearly a "How not to have a harmonious family" lesson every time it's practiced. Have you read Jacob 2, where it is called an abomination? I don't have an answer for D&C 132, but besides a few scriptures in Leviticus, there is a lot more in the Book of Mormon (called the truest book by Ezra Taft Benson) condemning polygamy than there is condemning homosexuality. If the Book of Mormon is to be a blueprint for the latter days, they sure did leave all the "homosexuality is the worst thing ever" out of it.

I didn't want to get into a polygamy debate, but it never worked then and doesn't work today. If it weren't for D&C 132, of which Joseph and Brigham DID NOT follow there would be no defense of it. They both married already married women, sisters, mothers and daughters, did not get consent of their previous wives- all of which was not permitted in old testament polygamy or 132.

Sorry for those of you who are hoping to have a pretty young thing at your side during the resurrection, but it isn't happening.

Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy.

While it's obvious you are very much against polygamy, your statement above is clearly ridiculous. My advice... think about what you're were saying before you click "submit".

Why is it ridiculous? And don't patronize me RH... I'm no fool.

Your claim is that Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit...
Seriously?
Have you ever heard of gay marriage?
And your statement about not being a fool is clearly questionable if you are contending that polygamy is worse.

[mtm411]

I had the opposite experience. I felt very clearly that it was never God's way and a mistake and felt the spirit burning. Finally my heart and mind could reconcile and I could still believe in a just and loving God and an afterlife I would want to be in.

For some reason, I did a verse by verse analysis on Section 132 a couple months ago. The conclusion that I came to was that it was indeed inspired of God, and not long after I felt the burning in the bosom and the confirmation of the Spirit. I have developed a testimony of polygamy, when I was unsure of it before, and at times I thought it despicable. What I had once thought to be a

Now I realized that the whole issue is a complicated matter. Remember that God's ways are not our ways Though Polygamy seems to contradict much of our doctrine and beliefs, I can assure you with a full heart and contrite spirit that there are reasons why the commandment to restore plural marriage in the early days of the church was indeed of God.

[Davka]

Me, I think polygamy is worse. A nuclear family is clearly God's ideal way. Every time they practice polygamy in the scriptures or in our early church it crashed and burned. The bible is clearly a "How not to have a harmonious family" lesson every time it's practiced. Have you read Jacob 2, where it is called an abomination? I don't have an answer for D&C 132, but besides a few scriptures in Leviticus, there is a lot more in the Book of Mormon (called the truest book by Ezra Taft Benson) condemning polygamy than there is condemning homosexuality. If the Book of Mormon is to be a blueprint for the latter days, they sure did leave all the "homosexuality is the worst thing ever" out of it.

I didn't want to get into a polygamy debate, but it never worked then and doesn't work today. If it weren't for D&C 132, of which Joseph and Brigham DID NOT follow there would be no defense of it. They both married already married women, sisters, mothers and daughters, did not get consent of their previous wives- all of which was not permitted in old testament polygamy or 132.

Sorry for those of you who are hoping to have a pretty young thing at your side during the resurrection, but it isn't happening.

While it's obvious you are very much against polygamy, your statement above is clearly ridiculous. My advice... think about what you're were saying before you click "submit".

Why is it ridiculous? And don't patronize me RH... I'm no fool.

Your claim is that Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit...
Seriously?
Have you ever heard of gay marriage?
And your statement about not being a fool is clearly questionable if you are contending that polygamy is worse.

I am not a fan of polygamy as it has been practiced on this Earth. You are spot on that it has never worked well. In the Old Testament, I believe it was good men falling prey to cultural norms of their time, and in early church times, good men misconstruing doctrine and then using the Old Testament practices to rationalize their practice of it. I believe strongly that sealing to multiple people has its place in the eternities, but it's not practiced the way the early church practiced it at all -- and not just because "they weren't righteous enough."

But, I digress. This isn't a polygamy thread. Regardless of whether Abraham should have been practicing polygamy, can you really imagine him wedding himself to another man and that being preferable?

Polygamy is worse than gay marriage? Both are wrong, but no way.

[mtm411]

I do think there may be provisions for both genders to keep all their spouses in the eternities through the sealing ordinance. I don't think it is meant to be on this earth.

I am not even advocating for homosexuality. I am just saying it wasn't worse. At least it doesn't leave abandoned offspring behind as polygamy often does. (See Abraham and Ishmael)

Me, I think polygamy is worse. A nuclear family is clearly God's ideal way. Every time they practice polygamy in the scriptures or in our early church it crashed and burned. The bible is clearly a "How not to have a harmonious family" lesson every time it's practiced. Have you read Jacob 2, where it is called an abomination? I don't have an answer for D&C 132, but besides a few scriptures in Leviticus, there is a lot more in the Book of Mormon (called the truest book by Ezra Taft Benson) condemning polygamy than there is condemning homosexuality. If the Book of Mormon is to be a blueprint for the latter days, they sure did leave all the "homosexuality is the worst thing ever" out of it.

I didn't want to get into a polygamy debate, but it never worked then and doesn't work today. If it weren't for D&C 132, of which Joseph and Brigham DID NOT follow there would be no defense of it. They both married already married women, sisters, mothers and daughters, did not get consent of their previous wives- all of which was not permitted in old testament polygamy or 132.

Sorry for those of you who are hoping to have a pretty young thing at your side during the resurrection, but it isn't happening.

Why is it ridiculous? And don't patronize me RH... I'm no fool.

Your claim is that Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit...
Seriously?
Have you ever heard of gay marriage?
And your statement about not being a fool is clearly questionable if you are contending that polygamy is worse.

I am not a fan of polygamy as it has been practiced on this Earth. You are spot on that it has never worked well. In the Old Testament, I believe it was good men falling prey to cultural norms of their time, and in early church times, good men misconstruing doctrine and then using the Old Testament practices to rationalize their practice of it. I believe strongly that sealing to multiple people has its place in the eternities, but it's not practiced the way the early church practiced it at all -- and not just because "they weren't righteous enough."

But, I digress. This isn't a polygamy thread. Regardless of whether Abraham should have been practicing polygamy, can you really imagine him wedding himself to another man and that being preferable?

Polygamy is worse than gay marriage? Both are wrong, but no way.