LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **July 1st, 2012, 12:43 pm**

Haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if I'm repeating a point already made.

Remember when Joseph asked Heber for Vilate? There was a type in this. Was Heber willing to let Vilate go to Joseph? Was Heber willing to let her go on to better things, if you will? Did Heber have Vilate's best interest in mind? The point being... will WE be willing to let our spouse go on to better things if they are entitled to such? If there were no type in this, surely this would've been a cruel test for Heber.

Posted: **July 1st, 2012, 1:21 pm**

Raindrop wrote:Haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if I'm repeating a point already made.

Remember when Joseph asked Heber for Vilate? There was a type in this. Was Heber willing to let Vilate go to Joseph? Was Heber willing to let her go on to better things, if you will? Did Heber have Vilate's best interest in mind? The point being... will WE be willing to let our spouse go on to better things if they are entitled to such? If there were no type in this, surely this would've been a cruel test for Heber.

I do not believe that account is true or that Joseph ever asked such a thing of Heber or anyone else. It goes completely contrary to everything Joseph preached his whole life.

I believe we are the best thing there could ever be for our particular spouse and visa versa. Not only are we eternally bound to honor our marriage covenants, but so is God bound to uphold the covenants we made with each other, so I don't believe he would support spouse swapping.

Which reminds me of the quote I think is from the movie 'The Incredibles', where I think the husband is trying to justify doing something for the 'greater good' and his wife reply's - "I am the greater good you are ever going to get."

I believe she was right.

Posted: **July 1st, 2012, 2:55 pm**

Raindrop wrote:Haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if I'm repeating a point already made.

Remember when Joseph asked Heber for Vilate? There was a type in this. Was Heber willing to let Vilate go to Joseph? Was Heber willing to let her go on to better things, if you will? Did Heber have Vilate's best interest in mind? The point being... will WE be willing to let our spouse go on to better things if they are entitled to such? If there were no type in this, surely this would've been a cruel test for Heber.

No, that point hadn't been made, and it's certainly worth considering. If Heber didn't take Joseph seriously, it wouldn't have been much of a test. The fact that he agonized over it for a day shows he believed how serious it was. What reason did he have to take Joseph's request seriously?

awake wrote:Which reminds me of the quote I think is from the movie 'The Incredibles', where I think the husband is trying to justify doing something for the 'greater good' and his wife reply's - "I am the greater good you are ever going to get."

Now we're quoting cartoon characters! I love it! You have competition now, Shadow!

Maybe instead of the handle 'awake' it should be 'deny everything!'

Posted: **July 1st, 2012, 3:58 pm**

gruden2.0 wrote:
awake wrote:Which reminds me of the quote I think is from the movie 'The Incredibles', where I think the husband is trying to justify doing something for the 'greater good' and his wife reply's - "I am the greater good you are ever going to get."
Now we're quoting cartoon characters! I love it! You have competition now, Shadow!

Maybe instead of the handle 'awake' it should be 'deny everything!'

yeah, I know, I just thought that quote was funny and true at the same time and actually pertinent to the discussion.

And unfortunately it seems to me that part of being awake is to have to deny alot of things that we've come to think are true.

Posted: **December 16th, 2012, 6:08 am**

mchlwise wrote:Go to the temple, do some proxy sealings, and listen carefully to the words which are spoken.

No one is ever "sealed to" anyone in a couple sealing.

Please share more of your knowledge about this idea.

Posted: **December 16th, 2012, 8:42 am**

Very true...

7cylon7 wrote:... The problem is that what if both lived up to their covenants but one still does not really want to be with that person for all eternity. Do you understand the question now? Both on this earth lived up to the covenants, however, one could still choose another in the CK. No one is compelled to stay with that choice made on earth. many people don't spend 20 years to find the exact perfect person to marry. Many settle for less. They live the best they can but are not having that super crazy wonderful love fest that you seem to have. They are righteous people yet maybe the other person does not light my fire so to speak. They are good but that deep down love just is not there where that person could be found after a 1000 years in the spirit world while we await the resurrection PLUSSSS what about all those years before we came to this earth? Did we not make friends and maybe even girl friends before we came down here. What if you wanted to marry someone in the spirit world but knew we would never meet on this planet. We would have to wait until after we both lived and then in the spirit world, with our memories restored we would then remember oh ya Sally is really someone I want to spend eternity with. Some of us maybe lucky enough to find that person on this earth but is it not possible the many did not? Hence, the ability to be sealed to the correct person. See the issue. You really can not know until the spirit of promise tells you. then you may feel confident in that sealing. don't get me wrong, I content that there is not such thing as the ONLY one. But I will content that some are better than others, too. And if you feel there is someone better why would you be doomed to stay with a lesser person than you really want. See the issue is not just black and white. We are feeling and loving beings and we have to understand that love must be both ways for there to be a true wonderful oneness with each other. In that true relationship there can be no greater joy.

Posted: **December 17th, 2012, 3:13 pm**

"Ever since I knew that my mother was a woman I have loved the sex, and
delight in their chastity. The man who abuses, or tries to bring dishonor
upon the female sex is a fool, and does not know that his mother and his
sisters were women. Women are more ready to do and love the right that
[sic] men are; and if they could have a little guidance, and were
encouraged to carry out the instincts of their nature, they would effect a
revolution for good in any community a great deal quicker than men can
accomplish it. Men have been placed on the earth to bear rule and to lead
in every good work, and if they would do their duty to-day in their own
government, and then throughout the world, they would stop whining about
the "Mormons" marrying so many wives, and the ladies would have somebody
to protect them and they would not need to flee to the "Mormon" Elders for
protection. But outside of this community they are destroying the sex,
ruining all they can, and then they boast of their villainy. Shall I say
that the women are short-sighted? I will say they are weak: I will say
that it is in their nature to confide in and look to the sterner sex for
guidance, and thus they are the more liable to be led astray and ruined.
It is the decree of the Almighty upon them to lean upon man as their
superior, and he has abused his privilege as their natural protector and
covered them with abuse and dishonor.

I wish the whole people of the United States could hear me now, I
would say to them, let every man in the land over eighteen years of age
take a wife, and then go to work with your hands and cultivate the earth,
or labor at some mechanical business, or some honest trade to provide an
honest living for yourselves and those who depend upon you for their
subsistence; observing temperance, and loving truth and virtue; then would
the women be cared for, be nourished, honored and blest, becoming
honorable mothers of a race of men and women farther advanced in physical
and mental perfection than their fathers. This would create a revolution
in our country, and would produce results that would be of incalculable
good. If they would do this, the Elders of this Church would not be under
the necessity of taking so many wives. Will they do this? No, they will
not; and there are many who will continue to ruin every virtuous woman
they can, buying the virtue of woman with money and deception, and thus,
the lords of creation proceed from one conquest to another, boasting of
their victories, leaving ruin, tears and death in their pathway; and what
have they conquered? A poor, weak, confiding, loving woman. And what have
they broken and crushed and destroyed? One of the fairest gems of all
God's creation. O man! for shame. If the men of the city of New York
alone had done for the last twenty years as the men of this commnnity
[sic] have done, from two to four hundred thousand females from sixteen
years of age and upwards, whose dishonor and ruin are mercifully covered
in the grave, would now be in life and health, moving in the circles af
[sic] happy homes, prayed for, respected, loved and honored."

As we can clearly read from the Brigham Young quote above it is not neccessarily an independent principle or doctrine that righteous priesthood holders always should or must have more than one wife. If every man in the US took a wife and protected her from all evil noone would be required or even have the opportunity for plural wives.

Posted: **December 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm**

If every man in the US took a wife and protected her from all evil noone would be required or even have the opportunity for plural wives.

This is an interesting twist...

Posted: **December 21st, 2012, 6:18 am**

Daryl wrote:
mchlwise wrote:Go to the temple, do some proxy sealings, and listen carefully to the words which are spoken.

No one is ever "sealed to" anyone in a couple sealing.
Please share more of your knowledge about this idea.

Always, in all things, there is the contingency of faithfulness. You leave the temple with promises of the real thing, based on faithfulness.

D&C 84

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

They are highly instructive.

Posted: **January 20th, 2013, 1:59 am**

I would like to share my witness that our fondest dreams and deepest, most sacred and intimate desires of our heart-of-hearts---whatever those may be--- will all be fulfilled-- every whit-- through our Savior Jesus Christ.

The understanding and logic of our puny mortal minds are that of a slug. Our leaning on the trappings and traditions of this mortal world is ridiculously worthless. Our leaning on His ample arm is everything.

We obey the counsel, guidance and warnings of the Spirit precisely and explicitly. Then He blesses us beyond all we can imagine.

We ask Him for a quarter for an ice cream cone, and he takes us to an all-you-can-eat dessert bar. We ask Him for a new bike and he gives us a Hummer. We ask Him to take us to the city pool for a swim, and he takes on a cruise to Belize for some snorkeling.

Then, He blesses us with not only blessings, but a multiplicity of blessings!

I testify that our Savior is willing to, and will grant us, all our requests, according to our faith and obedience, and in His own due time. Which, if I'm promised that I can some day stuff-my-face with guilt-free goodies while driving in my stylin' Hummer to Belize, it's worth the wait!!

Posted: **January 27th, 2013, 8:39 pm**

awake wrote: I personally would never live polygamy or even believe in it, even if every prophet since Joseph did, for Joseph taught us that his teachings and scriptures trumps every prophet who comes after him. I stand with Joseph's proven and published testimony.

Citation please.

Posted: **January 27th, 2013, 8:42 pm**

Seek the Truth wrote:
awake wrote: I personally would never live polygamy or even believe in it, even if every prophet since Joseph did, for Joseph taught us that his teachings and scriptures trumps every prophet who comes after him. I stand with Joseph's proven and published testimony.
Citation please.

I second that. Where is this found?

Posted: **January 27th, 2013, 8:43 pm**

awake wrote: puremormonism.blogspot.com, "Why I’m abandoning polygamy".

Link please.

Posted: **January 27th, 2013, 8:51 pm**

I will chip in my two unsupportable cents.

The principles that will lead you to happiness.

1) Be righteous

2) Do not get married until you meet someone you can say you will never forsake for another. Don't even date if you know it's not possible.

3) Spend a little time making sure you aren't terribly blind about it

4) Get sealed if you both feel the same way.

If you do that 99% of the problem is solved.

If you didn't do that, you probably wouldn't do that on a second time around. I've witnessed the non-LDS relationship scene and it's hell on earth.

If you are married and not being abused or neglected or cheated on, and just don't have the "spark", well focus on making yourself a sparkworthy spouse worthy of not forsaking. You made a promise. You probably have something to learn.

Posted: **January 27th, 2013, 9:03 pm**

Seek the Truth wrote:
awake wrote: puremormonism.blogspot.com, "Why I’m abandoning polygamy".
Link please.

You know, there is this thing called Google: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ygamy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reader beware, the author of this article uses blatantly biased RLDS sources to make certain claims.

Posted: **January 27th, 2013, 9:05 pm**

Seek the Truth wrote:I will chip in my two unsupportable cents.

The principles that will lead you to happiness.

1) Be righteous

2) Do not get married until you meet someone you can say you will never forsake for another. Don't even date if you know it's not possible.

3) Spend a little time making sure you aren't terribly blind about it

4) Get sealed if you both feel the same way.

If you do that 99% of the problem is solved.

If you didn't do that, you probably wouldn't do that on a second time around. I've witnessed the non-LDS relationship scene and it's @#!*% on earth.

If you are married and not being abused or neglected or cheated on, and just don't have the "spark", well focus on making yourself a sparkworthy spouse worthy of not forsaking. You made a promise. You probably have something to learn.

:ymapplause: I especially like #2, and your conclusion O:-)

And I would just add:
Get emotionally, mentally, and spiritually healthy BEFORE you get involved with someone. Do NOT try to rescue them or seek to get rescued. Do NOT get involved so your self-worth can be validated.

Dr. Laura has a pair of great books:
10 Stupid Things Men Do to Mess Up Their Lives
10 Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives

I am reading the Men's book.
#1 Stupid Chivalry
#5 thinking with your crotch (forgot the title of chapter)

I am sure the Women's version is similar....

Posted: **January 27th, 2013, 9:32 pm**

BrianM wrote: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ygamy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reader beware, the author of this article uses blatantly biased RLDS sources to make certain claims.

Yes, Waterman blows his own feet off a good share of the time. He goes all in supporting this book, I mean he's in and then recants in the comments.

Not only do I not put stock in any of this guy's research I really have nothing good to say about him. Don't spout nonsense and then retract it a few paragraphs later, I just don't have time for it.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... 5097790470" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, Happily Married, I don't put myself out as an expert on the subject of plural marriage in the church. All I'm doing here is sharing my discovery of a book that calls into question many of my previously held beliefs on the subject.

To respond to your many points regarding questions that I failed to address, well, my answer is: How the hell should I know?

My review of "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" is merely a feeble attempt at an introduction to the topic introduced by the authors. My efforts here only scratch the surface, and are weak and inadequate compared to the book itself. My presentation doesn't come close to the efforts of the authors, who spent thirty years attempting to get to the bottom of the controversy. My opinion is that they did a bang-up job.

Many of the concerns you put forth are addressed by the authors in their book, and I believe the rest have been covered in volume II, which I have not yet read and I remind you that I did not write, so you're asking the wrong guy here.

The authors continue to add more information online as they uncover it, so I would refer all questions to those who have spent their lives involved in the topic rather than a dilettante like me. Most of what I know about polygamy I gleaned, like you, from the books you refer to above, and I am prepared to admit that the efforts of Richard and Pamela Price have introduced an element of doubt into what were once my strongly held beliefs.

Posted: **January 27th, 2013, 10:19 pm**

Seek the Truth wrote:
BrianM wrote: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ygamy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reader beware, the author of this article uses blatantly
http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm wrote:biased RLDS sources to make certain claims.
Yes, Waterman blows his own feet off a good share of the time. He goes all in supporting this book, I mean he's in and then recants in the comments.
Not only do I not put stock in any of this guy's research I really have nothing good to say about him. Don't spout nonsense and then retract it a few paragraphs later, I just don't have time for it.
Overall I really like what Waterman is doing on his Pure Mormonism blog. There are a lot of great articles, lots of good research. It's just that here and there he strays from the solid research & facts and injects his own assumptions/conclusions or quotes untrustworthy sources. That being said, again, I really like the guy. His blog is definitely a benefit to truth-seekers.

Posted: **January 27th, 2013, 10:52 pm**

7cylon7 wrote:...This game may not be over yet. Also, the judgement and resurrection may have some future heart ache in store. I thought you wanted me forever, until she says, well not really now I can move up or at least I can move to a new person that I truly love deep in her heart.

No one is forced to stay in a sealed marriage. That is one eternal law. Force is not an option, both have to fully agree to the sealing. And we all know that on this earth we sometimes make mistakes.

Does anyone have any further light and knowledge on this subject?

Thanks.

I will not pretend to understand exactly how life after death will be.
Yet, I believe that we continue on - immediately after physical death - in spiritual energy.
Spiritual energy is pure - we are what we are - there's no faking it like there is now.
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."
Spiritually, we will be drawn to who and what we spiritually connect with - nothing more nothing less... IMO.

As someone mentioned, a celestial marriage ceremony is not a marriage - but rather like a blueprint - an intent.
"Faith without works is dead"... a celestial wedding without celestial relating, is dead.

Posted: **January 28th, 2013, 12:01 am**

BrianM wrote: Overall I really like what Waterman is doing on his Pure Mormonism blog. There are a lot of great articles, lots of good research. It's just that here and there he strays from the solid research & facts and injects his own assumptions/conclusions or quotes untrustworthy sources. That being said, again, I really like the guy. His blog is definitely a benefit to truth-seekers.

I had a very different experience, he's quick to condemn and makes a lot of mistakes himself, coming to mind is the oft mangled "Yankee Guesser" quote and the laughable anti-Mormon canard of the "Corporate Church". I had to stop loss on him, he wasn't worth the time to parse. I did like his mound builder thing, that was all.

LDS Freedom Forum

Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the end?

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en

Re: Sealing not really permanant even if we endure to the en