LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 10:39 am**

mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:39 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:35 am An interesting change, which I don't expect to happen, would be to make the bishopric calling a joint calling with husband and wife.
A wife joining her husband would be cool. Not to take away from him but to add to him.
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.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 10:47 am**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 10:39 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:39 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:35 am An interesting change, which I don't expect to happen, would be to make the bishopric calling a joint calling with husband and wife.
A wife joining her husband would be cool. Not to take away from him but to add to him.
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.)

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 11:04 am**

Michelle wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 10:47 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 10:39 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:39 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:35 am An interesting change, which I don't expect to happen, would be to make the bishopric calling a joint calling with husband and wife.
A wife joining her husband would be cool. Not to take away from him but to add to him.
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.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 11:06 am**

mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:38 am
Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 8:34 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 6:14 pm
Chip wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 6:01 pm Reinstituting polygamy...

Now, that would be rapturous.

I don't think it's even within the scope of remote possibility. That would be quite a way for the church to shoot itself in the foot, all across the world. I think that will never happen, in any parallel universe, ever.
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

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...

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 11:14 am**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 10:39 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:39 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:35 am An interesting change, which I don't expect to happen, would be to make the bishopric calling a joint calling with husband and wife.
A wife joining her husband would be cool. Not to take away from him but to add to him.
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.

You do make a good point. I like the model of a mission president and his wife. If that is how and what you are referring to, sure I can get on board with that I would agree doctrinally and scripturally with something like that.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 11:21 am**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 11:04 am
Michelle wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 10:47 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 10:39 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:39 am

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.

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.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 11:29 am**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:35 am An interesting change, which I don't expect to happen, would be to make the bishopric calling a joint calling with husband and wife.
A wife joining her husband would be cool. Not to take away from him but to add to him.

Are you a divorce lawyer? Just hoping?

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 11:33 am**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 10:39 am

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.

Still, her role is that of a supporter of him and his calling. I can almost guarantee you that she attends close to 0% of the meetings he attends. She isn't he one making decisions or receiving the revelations. In fact, her talks speak about how it's he who receives revelations and the revelation she has received is that he is the Prophet.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 11:50 am**

shadow wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 11:33 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 10:39 am

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.
Still, her role is that of a supporter of him and his calling. I can almost guarantee you that she attends close to 0% of the meetings he attends. She isn't he one making decisions or receiving the revelations. In fact, her talks speak about how it's he who receives revelations and the revelation she has received is that he is the Prophet.

Yes, true, and Sis Nelson has said in several talks that she has to leave the room while her husband receives his inspiration/revelation. It's a sacrifice she is happy to make.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 11:51 am**

mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:38 am
Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 8:34 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 6:14 pm
Chip wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 6:01 pm Reinstituting polygamy...

Now, that would be rapturous.

I don't think it's even within the scope of remote possibility. That would be quite a way for the church to shoot itself in the foot, all across the world. I think that will never happen, in any parallel universe, ever.
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.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 11:54 am**

Allison wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 11:06 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:38 am
Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 8:34 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 6:14 pm

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

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.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:07 pm**

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.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:14 pm**

Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:07 pm 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. I have developed a testimony of polygamy, when I was unsure of it before, and at times I thought it despicable. Now I realized that the whole issue is a complicated matter.

Anyone who actually thinks God was prepared to 'destroy' Emma Smith, one of the most honorable, classiest and noble women the church has ever had if she didn't give in to a practice that makes property out of women which is abominable in the sight of God, needs to seriously re-evaluate who God is and how precious the feelings and emotions of his daughters are to him.

Durzan... section 132 was written 10 years after Joseph's death - it did not come from Joseph or God.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:22 pm**

mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 11:14 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 10:39 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:39 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:35 am An interesting change, which I don't expect to happen, would be to make the bishopric calling a joint calling with husband and wife.
A wife joining her husband would be cool. Not to take away from him but to add to him.
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.
You do make a good point. I like the model of a mission president and his wife. If that is how and what you are referring to, sure I can get on board with that I would agree doctrinally and scripturally with something like that.

Yes, this is the model I am referring to.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:28 pm**

Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:14 pm
Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:07 pm 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. I have developed a testimony of polygamy, when I was unsure of it before, and at times I thought it despicable. Now I realized that the whole issue is a complicated matter.
Anyone who actually thinks God was prepared to 'destroy' Emma Smith, one of the most honorable, classiest and noble women the church has ever had if she didn't give in to a practice that makes property out of women which is abominable in the sight of God, needs to seriously re-evaluate who God is and how precious the feelings and emotions of his daughters are to him.

Anyone who fails to look at the context of the revelation itself will fail to understand, which I did, albeit briefly.

I have no need to re-evaluate who God is, for I already KNOW Him fairly well as an individual. How could I not, when He is literally a part of who I am in the foundation of my own soul, and when His influence and strong relationship with my family has continued unbroken since at least the days of Hyrum and Joseph Smith. I have known Him since the beginning of the beginning, and I (and many others) stood by His side during creation, and possibly even before that. To assume that I don't is an affront to my own character and His character and an attack on my very identity that I will boldly refute.

As for whether or not God was actually prepared to 'destroy' Emma or not, I aint gonna touch that assertion.

My Great Aunt Emma wasn't without her faults, she was indeed a noble and elect lady... but she did have a bit of a temper.

Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:14 pm Durzan... section 132 was written 10 years after Joseph's death - it did not come from Joseph or God.

It was revealed eight years after Joseph's death. The notion that it was written afterwards is (in the end) just as much an assumption as my assumption that the original document was indeed recorded by Joseph Smith, and thus came from God.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:33 pm**

Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:07 pm 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.

Totally agree. I believe it is a higher law.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:34 pm**

Would be nice if we could not turn this into a polygamy debate.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:45 pm**

Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 11:51 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 9:38 am
Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 8:34 am
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 6:14 pm

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.

It was 8 years I think.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:50 pm**

mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:33 pm
Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:07 pm 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.
Totally agree. I believe it is a higher law.

Exactly. Polygamy (as revealed in section 132, as there are other cultures which have polygamy which DO tend to treat women as property, or at the very least mistreat them far worse than they should be) is a higher law, just as the Law of Consecration was a higher law. But, like all Higher Laws that are implemented among men, those laws almost inevitably get corrupted. Only among a

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:52 pm**

mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:33 pm
Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:07 pm 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.
Totally agree. I believe it is a higher law.

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

Polygamy, polyandry, wife-swapping and 'spiritual wifery' are all inventions of man to justify the cold-hearted desire of a man having more than one woman for himself. Whether you believe it is a true doctrine or not, the practice itself tramples on the emotions and feelings of women and elevates men above them while essentially giving men the satisfaction of indulging in carnal behavior with multiple females all while women are told they can only have one husband. That's 'of God'???

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 12:58 pm**

Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:52 pm
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:33 pm
Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:07 pm 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.
Totally agree. I believe it is a higher law.
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.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 1:03 pm**

Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:58 pm
Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:52 pm
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:33 pm
Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:07 pm 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.
Totally agree. I believe it is a higher law.
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.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 1:03 pm**

Purposefully ignoring the polygamy comments...It isn't happening.

I think 2 hour church and the temple/civil ceremony being separate are the almost guaranteed things to happen. The mission change rumors are interesting. I think it will likely be more of an expansion of what we have already had. We have had a few young men in our ward with mild autism serve in the family history library. Also, one serve in a neighboring community to "try out" a mission, I am not sure what his mental health issue was- he opted to come home after the trial mission- a great young man from the outside.

I think the changes we will see will be similar to the changes at the last conference. Home teaching wasn't eliminated, just re-branded and refocused. I honestly can tell little difference in real life application. The high priests meeting separately from the elders was always weird. I love hearing from the more experienced women in relief society, and I felt they liked me being there even as a younger woman. I think the men similarly need each other.

Change is exciting in our church because like most large institutions, it moves and adapts slowly. I think a lot of the changes will feel long over due.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 1:03 pm**

Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 1:03 pm
Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:58 pm
Col. Flagg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:52 pm
mgridle1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 12:33 pm

Totally agree. I believe it is a higher law.
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.

Posted: **September 24th, 2018, 1:05 pm**

Don't build my hopes up

LDS Freedom Forum

MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !

Re: MAJOR MAJOR CHANGES COMING IN THE CHURCH !