What does “Families are forever” even mean?

[Niemand]

Stephen Fry did a programme where he mentions visiting Salt Lake and a sister missionary using this line on him on a tour of the visitor centre there.

Fry claimed he'd said something on the tour about having to spend eternity with one's creepy uncle. (I can't help but thinking that since Fry has siblings that he might have ended up becoming the creepy uncle himself at some point. )

I think Fry is wrong on most things about religion, but he makes a valid point. The "Families are Forever" model is about people who love one another. What happens when you have relatives you don't like or cut yourself off from? This even happens in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I don't have any love or affection for some of my relatives, dead or alive. I don't know most of my cousins, never met my father's siblings, never met several of my mother's siblings (and barely remember all but one), and only ever met one of my grandparents... who I didn't love, and hadn't seen for years before she died. So it's fair to say that I could count the relatives I had a relationship with on one hand.

So what then?

(Before you ask I have had work done for all these individuals in my family where it was possible.)

[Niemand]

I can't believe so few understood my initial joke; dyaladic...dial-a-dic. Oh well, win some, lose some.

Actually I thought it was a reference to "a lad". Shows how innocent I am.

[Mindfields]

There'll be no time for family gatherings in the hereafter. Creating worlds and birthing spirit babies will consume all of your time, at least according to Mormon theology. Define a family in the hereafter. You and your children? Your parents and their children? and on and on and on. Everyone a God doing their own creating. Seriously it's just illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.

[Jonesy]

Thinking you can seal your children to you and no matter what choices they make... they're going to be saved in the celestial Kingdom is a false LDS-polygamy doctrine that is clearly against the doctrine of Christ.

But parent has a lot of power over the outcome of their children if the have the Holy Ghost. Alma was a main catalyst in the redemption of his son.

There is some truth to this in regards to the Davidic Covenant.

[TheChristian]

The words of Jesus of Nazerath concerning His true heavenly family ..........

While Jesus was still speaking to the crowds,
His mother and brothers stood outside wanting to speak to Him.
Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.”

But Jesus replied, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?”
Pointing to His disciples,
He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers.
For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

[Artaxerxes]

Already your premise is faulty as you’re simply writing off revelations you don’t like.

It’s like a Christian writing off the Book of Mormon and asking you or I where God ever spoke about Lehi or Nephi. It’s practically a trap.

Bull Crap Luke!!! You are full of you know what and you know it. And we have been over this before.

The word of God is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The BoM has two or three witnesses.

Section 132 was not established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. It has zero witnesses.

Technically the scribe claims he is a witness. Awfully convenient that he was already practicing polygamy when Section 132 was added. He also claims that Joseph Smith & Hyrum Smith were witnesses, very convenient that they were already dead.

So, the only supposed witness you have to this whole Section of Doctrine & Covenants at best was compromised and claimed to have 2 other witnesses that were obviously dead (Dead men tell no tales).

Never mind that there is ample proof that 132 was tampered with, and it is believed that BY was the actual author thereof, according to several handwriting expert analyses. The other glaring issue for me is that 132 is counter to the very nature of God. Show me anywhere else in the scriptures where God forces me against my will to do his will instead. He even threatens to kill Joseph if he doesn't do what he is told, exactly what God is this that we are reading about here? This goes against the very nature of the God I have come to know and love.

There are, of course, many more witnesses to 132, both hostile and friendly.

And there are no handwriting experts who say it was Brigham. Everyone agrees it is Joseph Kingsbury's handwriting.

[Mindfields]

"There are, of course, many more witnesses to 132, both hostile and friendly."

The entire Section 132 story hinges on whether or not William Clayton was telling the truth. He is the only "witness".

[Artaxerxes]

"There are, of course, many more witnesses to 132, both hostile and friendly."

The entire Section 132 story hinges on whether or not William Clayton was telling the truth. He is the only "witness".

No. Multiple people read it and had Joseph attest to it to them.

[ransomme]

"There are, of course, many more witnesses to 132, both hostile and friendly."

The entire Section 132 story hinges on whether or not William Clayton was telling the truth. He is the only "witness".

No. Multiple people read it and had Joseph attest to it to them.

[innocentoldguy]

I think that it is almost entirely a marketing ploy. And in all practicality it is a huge distraction from the Gospel of Christ.

The Lord's stated purposes of the Temple are primarily for the living. Somehow they have been twisted (IMHO) into 99% of the time, works for the dead. Modern LDS temple work seems to me like a huge malinvestment of effort, time, money, etc. Imagine taking the man-hours of service, the money to build and run the ultra-fine sanctuaries and redirecting those things into the service of our living neighbors... The world would be a better place.

The D&C has all kinds of revelations in it about temple work for the dead, so I'm not sure where you got this idea.

We do those things too. The two topics aren't mutually exclusive.

[ransomme]

I think that it is almost entirely a marketing ploy. And in all practicality it is a huge distraction from the Gospel of Christ.

The Lord's stated purposes of the Temple are primarily for the living. Somehow they have been twisted (IMHO) into 99% of the time, works for the dead. Modern LDS temple work seems to me like a huge malinvestment of effort, time, money, etc. Imagine taking the man-hours of service, the money to build and run the ultra-fine sanctuaries and redirecting those things into the service of our living neighbors... The world would be a better place.

The D&C has all kinds of revelations in it about temple work for the dead, so I'm not sure where you got this idea.

We do those things too. The two topics aren't mutually exclusive.

Read D&C 124 and list out how many things are for the living and how many are for the dead...

So you are a prophet speaking the will of God and also malinvest your time/energy/funds?
I mean, I expect it from us regular clowns, but not the Lord's Church which is receiving revelations, and which has Christ directing things.

[innocentoldguy]

Already your premise is faulty as you’re simply writing off revelations you don’t like.

It’s like a Christian writing off the Book of Mormon and asking you or I where God ever spoke about Lehi or Nephi. It’s practically a trap.

Bull Crap Luke!!! You are full of you know what and you know it. And we have been over this before.

The word of God is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The BoM has two or three witnesses.

Section 132 was not established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. It has zero witnesses.

Technically the scribe claims he is a witness. Awfully convenient that he was already practicing polygamy when Section 132 was added. He also claims that Joseph Smith & Hyrum Smith were witnesses, very convenient that they were already dead.

So, the only supposed witness you have to this whole Section of Doctrine & Covenants at best was compromised and claimed to have 2 other witnesses that were obviously dead (Dead men tell no tales).

Never mind that there is ample proof that 132 was tampered with, and it is believed that BY was the actual author thereof, according to several handwriting expert analyses. The other glaring issue for me is that 132 is counter to the very nature of God. Show me anywhere else in the scriptures where God forces me against my will to do his will instead. He even threatens to kill Joseph if he doesn't do what he is told, exactly what God is this that we are reading about here? This goes against the very nature of the God I have come to know and love.

God threatens to kill lots of people if they don't repent and keep his commandments (e.g., Nephites, Lamanites, Tribes of Israel, etc.) When people behave badly enough, he does kill them (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, Korihor, Nehor, Nephites, Jews, and many of us before the second coming).

[ransomme]

Already your premise is faulty as you’re simply writing off revelations you don’t like.

It’s like a Christian writing off the Book of Mormon and asking you or I where God ever spoke about Lehi or Nephi. It’s practically a trap.

Bull Crap Luke!!! You are full of you know what and you know it. And we have been over this before.

The word of God is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The BoM has two or three witnesses.

Section 132 was not established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. It has zero witnesses.

Technically the scribe claims he is a witness. Awfully convenient that he was already practicing polygamy when Section 132 was added. He also claims that Joseph Smith & Hyrum Smith were witnesses, very convenient that they were already dead.

So, the only supposed witness you have to this whole Section of Doctrine & Covenants at best was compromised and claimed to have 2 other witnesses that were obviously dead (Dead men tell no tales).

Never mind that there is ample proof that 132 was tampered with, and it is believed that BY was the actual author thereof, according to several handwriting expert analyses. The other glaring issue for me is that 132 is counter to the very nature of God. Show me anywhere else in the scriptures where God forces me against my will to do his will instead. He even threatens to kill Joseph if he doesn't do what he is told, exactly what God is this that we are reading about here? This goes against the very nature of the God I have come to know and love.

God threatens to kill lots of people if they don't repent and keep his commandments (e.g., Nephites, Lamanites, Tribes of Israel, etc.) When people behave badly enough, he does kill them (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, Korihor, Nehor, Nephites, Jews, and many of us before the second coming).

If God was bipolar I could see your point, with God threatening Joseph.

[Artaxerxes]

"There are, of course, many more witnesses to 132, both hostile and friendly."

The entire Section 132 story hinges on whether or not William Clayton was telling the truth. He is the only "witness".

No. Multiple people read it and had Joseph attest to it to them.

Was there not a meeting where Section 132 was read to James Allred, Thomas Grover, William Huntington, Aaron Johnson, Leonard Soby, and Austin Cowles?

[innocentoldguy]

Bull Crap Luke!!! You are full of you know what and you know it. And we have been over this before.

The word of God is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The BoM has two or three witnesses.

Section 132 was not established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. It has zero witnesses.

Technically the scribe claims he is a witness. Awfully convenient that he was already practicing polygamy when Section 132 was added. He also claims that Joseph Smith & Hyrum Smith were witnesses, very convenient that they were already dead.

So, the only supposed witness you have to this whole Section of Doctrine & Covenants at best was compromised and claimed to have 2 other witnesses that were obviously dead (Dead men tell no tales).

Never mind that there is ample proof that 132 was tampered with, and it is believed that BY was the actual author thereof, according to several handwriting expert analyses. The other glaring issue for me is that 132 is counter to the very nature of God. Show me anywhere else in the scriptures where God forces me against my will to do his will instead. He even threatens to kill Joseph if he doesn't do what he is told, exactly what God is this that we are reading about here? This goes against the very nature of the God I have come to know and love.

God threatens to kill lots of people if they don't repent and keep his commandments (e.g., Nephites, Lamanites, Tribes of Israel, etc.) When people behave badly enough, he does kill them (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, Korihor, Nehor, Nephites, Jews, and many of us before the second coming).

If God was bipolar I could see your point, with God threatening Joseph.

How is it any different? God also threatened to remove Joseph from his place if he didn't keep the commandments well enough to obtain the gold plates. He also warns us that we'll die a spiritual death if we don't repent and obey his commandments. Being cut off via physical or spiritual death seems to be a common thread throughout the scriptures.

[ransomme]

"There are, of course, many more witnesses to 132, both hostile and friendly."

The entire Section 132 story hinges on whether or not William Clayton was telling the truth. He is the only "witness".

No. Multiple people read it and had Joseph attest to it to them.

Was there not a meeting where Section 132 was read to James Allred, Thomas Grover, William Huntington, Aaron Johnson, Leonard Soby, and Austin Cowles?

What it was during Joseph's life was altered after his death

[Artaxerxes]

No. Multiple people read it and had Joseph attest to it to them.

Was there not a meeting where Section 132 was read to James Allred, Thomas Grover, William Huntington, Aaron Johnson, Leonard Soby, and Austin Cowles?

What it was during Joseph's life was altered after his death

Multiple people say they saw it themselves when Joseph was alive, and that it taught polygamy. Any changes that anyone thinks happened to the copies are irrelevant if people read the original.

[Shawn Henry]

There are, of course, many more witnesses to 132, both hostile and friendly.

The Law of Witnesses requires a witness of the divine, not a legal witness that Joseph said or did something.

If you have a revelation, someone else has to have that same revelation to be a witness. I would not be an actual witness if all I saw was your eyes rolling in your head as you received the revelation.

132 has no such witnesses. Even Joseph isn't a full witness, because he never went on record claiming it as a revelation and he chose to not place any such revelation in the 1844 D&C. Epic Law of Witness fail.

[Artaxerxes]

There are, of course, many more witnesses to 132, both hostile and friendly.

The Law of Witnesses requires a witness of the divine, not a legal witness that Joseph said or did something.

If you have a revelation, someone else has to have that same revelation to be a witness. I would not be an actual witness if all I saw was your eyes rolling in your head as you received the revelation.

132 has no such witnesses. Even Joseph isn't a full witness, because he never went on record claiming it as a revelation and he chose to not place any such revelation in the 1844 D&C. Epic Law of Witness fail.

Where does it say that? This seems to be a standard you made up.

[Shawn Henry]

Where does it say that?

It's in the Book titled: "Things that an even an idiot doesn't need to be told." Chapter 1 page 1.

Seriously!! You really think I can witness a car accident from my house? Yes, Officer, I was sitting here at home on my @#$, but my friend told me he wasn't at fault, so I'm a witness.

Try that in court sometime.

How can you testify of spiritual things without divine manifestation?

[Shawn Henry]

Wow! The site filtered out the word A-S-S and put in @#$.

What if I was legitimately talking about a donkey?

[ransomme]

Was there not a meeting where Section 132 was read to James Allred, Thomas Grover, William Huntington, Aaron Johnson, Leonard Soby, and Austin Cowles?

What it was during Joseph's life was altered after his death

Multiple people say they saw it themselves when Joseph was alive, and that it taught polygamy. Any changes that anyone thinks happened to the copies are irrelevant if people read the original.

yep, and miraculously they were all after, even years after, Joseph's death. And all materially different that the pieces of the original that we do have from during Joseph's life.

[Artaxerxes]

Where does it say that?

It's in the Book titled: "Things that an even an idiot doesn't need to be told." Chapter 1 page 1.

Seriously!! You really think I can witness a car accident from my house? Yes, Officer, I was sitting here at home on my @#$, but my friend told me he wasn't at fault, so I'm a witness.

Try that in court sometime.

How can you testify of spiritual things without divine manifestation?

Ask the eight witnesses.

[Artaxerxes]

Was there not a meeting where Section 132 was read to James Allred, Thomas Grover, William Huntington, Aaron Johnson, Leonard Soby, and Austin Cowles?

What it was during Joseph's life was altered after his death

Multiple people say they saw it themselves when Joseph was alive, and that it taught polygamy. Any changes that anyone thinks happened to the copies are irrelevant if people read the original.

yep, and miraculously they were all after, even years after, Joseph's death. And all materially different that the pieces of the original that we do have from during Joseph's life.

How were they "materially different"?

[Shawn Henry]

Ask the eight witnesses.

What do they have to do with what we are talking about? The 8 are Witnesses to the Gold Plates, like they claim. They witnessed what they saw, and they wrote what they saw. How are you stuck on that?

We don't need witnesses that Joseph said something. We need witnesses that what he said was true. Do you see the difference?