On August 9, 2012 the Huffington Post posted a blog co-written by documentary filmmaker Helen Whitney and LDS author Gregory Prince. The Mormon Moment – Postponed suggests that Mormonism remains enigmatic despite the intense interest about the faith currently exhibited by the public and media alike. The authors believe presidential candidate Mitt Romney has a unique opportunity to “clear away the fog that continues to obscure” the religion by answering several thoughtful questions that they pose in their article. The last of the nine questions seeks to lighten the mood a bit when the authors ask:
9. Of all the misconceptions surrounding your religion, which one has offended you the most? Or, to interject a lighter note, what misinformation or stereotype has caused you to roll your eyes and even laugh when you are with your Mormon friends?
Mr. Romney’s answer to this (and every other) question posed by Whitney and Prince would be interesting to read, but he has, to date, provided no response.
However, during the 2008 campaign Mr. Romney was asked a few questions about Mormon doctrine that did make him laugh a bit.
One question asked was about how Mr. Romney would handle it if God spoke to him (or spoke to a Mormon Church leader who subsequently spoke to Mr. Romney) asking him to do something that would conflict with his role as president. Mr. Romney laughed and said, “I don’t recall God speaking to me. I don’t know that He’s spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush…” Apparently this answer caused some consternation among Mormons because the idea of God speaking to people today is not a misconception, but rather a central tenet of Mormonism.
According to Mormonism’s first Prophet Joseph Smith, God spoke to him in 1820. This First Vision formed the foundation of the Mormon religion, a religion that recognizes continuing revelation as a pillar of the Church. Adult members of the Mormon Church are currently studying Teachings of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith. Chapter 11 is titled, “Revelation from God to His Children.” The manual relates a story George Albert Smith told (about an airplane flight) in an effort to teach “the importance of revelation.” Then,
[President Smith said,] Not only has the Lord given us the advice already recorded in the scriptures to guide us but he has placed a leader in this Church, one of his sons who has been chosen and ordained and set apart to be the President. He is our pilot and he will be directed by a voice that will enable him to lead us where we should go. If we are wise we will not set up our judgment against him but will be happy to honor him in his place as long as the Lord sustains him.
…The distinction between this great Church and that of all other churches from the beginning has been that we believe in divine revelation; we believe that our Father speaks to man today as he has done from the time of Adam….
It is unique these days to belong to a church, wherein those who are members believe that the Lord speaks through their leaders. When we are instructed by the President of this Church, we believe he tells us what the Lord would have us do. To us it is something more than just the advice of man. We believe that, and it searches our souls, and we are prompted to renew our determination to be what God would have us be.
We have had misguided souls in the Church who have, in their ignorance, opposed the advice of the [President of the Church], not sensing the fact that they were opposing the Lord and they have fallen into darkness and sorrow, and unless they repent they will not find a place in the celestial kingdom.
Let us remember that the President of this Church has been officially designated as the pilot of the Church here in mortality to represent the Master of heaven and earth.
Judy Woodruff on the Charlie Rose Show posed another apparently laughable question to Mr. Romney in June 2006. She suggested that there are some aspects of Mormonism that people might not understand, for example, “that Jesus Christ will appear again in the state of Missouri or that God has a material body, that He was fathered by another God.” Mr. Romney laughed while telling Ms. Woodruff that she didn’t exactly have those doctrines right and that she should “go talk to the Church” (beginning at 10:45 in the video). But she did have those doctrines right. All three of the doctrines Ms. Woodruff mentioned are teachings of the Mormon Church.
Gospel Principles, published by the Mormon Church as “a study guide and as a teacher’s manual” explains that Christ will return to Missouri:
Near the time of the coming of Jesus Christ, the faithful Saints will build a righteous city, a city of God, called the New Jerusalem. Jesus Christ Himself will rule there… The Lord said the city will be built in the state of Missouri in the United States… (255)
Mormon scripture clearly states that God the Father has a material body:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
Mormonism’s Prophet Joseph Smith was forthright in his teaching that God the Father was fathered by another God:
If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it. (History of the Church 6:476)
Mitt Romney is not the only Mormon who tries to publicly distance himself from Mormon doctrines. In a 2007 interview Helen Whitney noted,
The question I constantly hear in the making of the film [The Mormons]… ‘Do Mormons tell us what they really believe?’…In truth in my own experience, talking to so many Mormons, both the ordinary folk and right up to the general authorities, it’s the rare experience for me, that I’m with a Mormon who will own…the big, bold ideas of Mormonism. (“Mormonism and American Politics: Mitt, Mormonism, and the Media,” Chapter 12: Secrecy, beginning at 2:00)
Mormons often complain that their religion is misunderstood. They protest the misconceptions people have about Mormonism. They express dismay over public misrepresentations of the teachings of their church. But the LDS Church itself — its spokespeople and its leaders, its celebrities and its members — are so reluctant to “own the big, bold ideas of Mormonism” that they end up being the biggest culprits, fostering misunderstandings, misconceptions, and misrepresentations along the way. The Bible says we reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7). The public voice of Mormonism sows prevarication; it shouldn’t surprise anyone when others are left wandering around in the fog.
Personally I’m glad Mr Romney is making a point of not becoming a spokesman for the LDS faith. I’m far more interested in knowing what his positions will be on foreign and domestic political issues if he is elected than where he may fall on any theological topic.
I’m also happy to see that his Mormon faith hasn’t been an issue for his political opponents to bash him with, or seemingly a factor in peoples consideration to vote for or against him. Americans are more grown up than some people on my side would give them credit for.
Sharon, that last paragraph of your thread was well said about today’s Mormonism . We’re going
to see more of this behavior since Mitt Romney brings Mormonism onto the National stage.
The Church’s PR dept is gearing up .
It would come as a surprise to some sects of the Christian family that:
“…The distinction between this great Church and that of all other churches from the beginning has been that we believe in divine revelation; we believe that our Father speaks to man today as he has done from the time of Adam….”
There are all kinds of folks running around hearing from God. Some of these people are pretty flaky while others seem to have form of legitimacy about them. None-the-less, the claim by Mormons that they have a guy sitting in a big chair in a tall building in Salt Lake City who receives messages from God and in turn passes them along to the people, isn’t all that exceptional.
Even within Mormonism all of the different sects have a prophet who has “thee message”. James Strang even discovered plates buried in the ground.
http://www.terrypepper.com/lights/closeups/strang/strang.htm
“As had Joseph Smith before him, Strang claimed to be blessed by heavenly visions, and claimed that an angel had appeared before him, revealing the location of an account of an ancient people, buried in a hill south of White River bridge.”
“After publicly revealing this vision to his followers on September 13, 1845, four of his most trusted elders accompanied him to a location beneath an oak tree deep in the woods, at which point Strang informed them that it was the spot beneath which the secret was buried.”
“Opening the clay case, it was found to contain six mysterious brass plates, which were taken as Opening the clay case, it was found to contain six mysterious brass plates, which were taken as being of divine origin.”
This revelation sealed Strang’s status as a “Prophet and a Seer of God” in the eyes of his followers, and their zealous dedication to their leader increased immeasurably.
Mormonism does much better when it’s flying under the radar screen. Exposure and publicity is not all that beneficial for the Mormon cause. The reason is that there is just too much information available from primary sources that demonstrate exactly what the Mormon beliefs are. Secondly, when people read what the Mormon “prophets” revealed and taught in the past, it’s really hard to defend.
Look at what we experience on this blog. Mormons do back flips and twist themselves into all sorts of contortions to explain away or rationalize some of the most bizarre pronouncements by these men they claim are prophets.
There running excuse, even subtlety expressed, is that these things are just way too deep and spiritual for those not initiated into the Mormon fold to understand.
What I keep telling them is that it’s not that we don’t understand Mormonism, because we do, it’s that we don’t believe it.
Mitt Romney is stuck with a bad product. It’s validity and reliability are not good. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in his shoes having to defend Mormonism. I can see why he laughs and sort of dismisses the questions. He just wants to repeat that he’s accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior and be done with all of the questions.
I often wonder if Mormons like Mitt Romney wish that their religion were something else? That is, with all of the bizarre features removed.
The thing that is not funny is that Mormons, while thinking that they are connected to the Almighty, have been scammed. I don’t doubt their sincerity, piety or devotion to a being they call “Heavenly Father”. Unfortunately for them the Mormon Heavenly Father is an invention of Mormonism. The end result isn’t eternal life with their families, but separation from God forever.
The article says:
Mr. Romney laughed and said, “I don’t recall God speaking to me. I don’t know that He’s spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush…” Apparently this answer caused some consternation among Mormons because the idea of God speaking to people today is not a misconception, but rather a central tenet of Mormonism.
There’s something about that statement that sounds a lot like Gordon Hinckley’s statement to the effect “……I don’t know that we’ve ever taught that.” in referring to the doctrine that Mormon men will become gods.
So I don’t know if that’s a speaking device/strategy that Mormons use to deflect controversy. Way back in the late 1890s Utah was attempting to get their U.S. Senator seated. The Senate had long and protracted hearing on Utah the Mormons and all of the controversial aspects of the religion. The Mormon prophet was called to Washington to be questioned at the hearings. He was asked if God spoke to him. He said he didn’t think God was speaking to him any more than any other Mormon. When reported in the Salt Lake newspaper Mormons were knocked-back some. So it’s deflection.
I don’t know what Romney believes. Mormonism is a moving target and it seems that there are Mormons who sort of make-up their own form of (Mormonism). I repeat what the BYU professor said. “In Mormonism you can believe whatever you want. You just can’t teach it.” We see this on this blog with Mormons giving their own particular slant on what Mormonism believes. They just sort of fill-it-up with their own meaning.
So why did Romney laugh and what did he mean by what he said? His family goes way back in Mormonism. Maybe he’s just one of those New Order Mormons.
Think what you want, but don’t say it.
Yes indeed this is the money quote from the article:
“Mormons often complain that their religion is misunderstood. They protest the misconceptions people have about Mormonism. They express dismay over public misrepresentations of the teachings of their church. But the LDS Church itself — its spokespeople and its leaders, its celebrities and its members — are so reluctant to “own the big, bold ideas of Mormonism” that they end up being the biggest culprits, fostering misunderstandings, misconceptions, and misrepresentations along the way.”
This is so true and an ongoing source of consternation for Christians involved in apologetic work with Mormons. Mormons jump up and down denying that the Mormon church does or has ever taught something and when they are given a direct quote from a Mormon source, they say it doesn’t count.
It’s a little difficult to have a reasonable conversation with Mormons who won’t own what their leaders have said. And the clincher is that Mormons are so proud that they have living prophets who bring them direct messages from God.
Some how it all makes sense to Mormons in the confines of their little religious world, but it sure doesn’t give them much credibility. Now the other topper is when they deny something and then tell us they haven’t denied it. This is what we call the Mormon mind-set. It’s a “maze” as Walter Martin called it.
I remember Bill McKeever saying that he missed the old days when Mormon leaders like Bruce McConkie actual defended the bizarre and confusing and twisted doctrine of Mormonism. Of course cousin Brucie has been thrown under the LDS bus and his book “Mormon Doctrine” isn’t used as it once was; as a defining volume on Mormonism.
So is it laughable? I suppose Mormons laugh about being able to pull the wool over our eyes.
I think there’s going a great influx of people inquiring about Mitt Romney’s church because
of the way he came off at the Republican Convention . Even the reporters on Fox News
could’nt stop talking about loving and family oriented he is etc. Like I said earlier the
Church will be ready to provide answers to the jump in investigators but it would be nice
if these people could hear the other side of the story about Mormonism.
I don’t think many of us would disagree that there are Mormons who are kind, compassionate, loving, caring, devout, sincere, pious and moral. (How’s that for a list of character qualities?) What I have a problem with is the fact that this outward picture of tranquility and wholesomeness masks a doctrine that is insidious and evil, and that’s not laughable.
How can I make such a nasty, incendiary claim? Remember I’m not talking about the Mormon people. I’m talking about Mormonism. How can I say it’s “evil”. Simply put because Mormonism has sought to replace the living God with a god(s) that is/are deified men. I would say convincing people that they can become “gods” is an affront to the living God and thus “evil”.
When Brigham Young, an honored Mormon prophet, taught that the Mormon heavenly father had actual physical sex with the Virgin Mary, I’d call it evil. When he taught that Adam was really a god who had been sent to occupy the Garden of Eden, that’s evil. And finally, when Joseph Smith taught that men had to have multiply wives in order to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, I’d call it evil.
I can say these things because these men weren’t a bunch of loose cannons just giving their opinions (which we find sometimes in other religions), these Mormon prophets were said to be hearing directly from God; something that goes way beyond misrepresenting (God).
Leading people away from God is evil. It’s no different than erecting a stone statue and worshiping it. It’s idolatry at its worse because it exalts man.
So are people who embrace such a religion evil themselves? I gave a long list of positive attributes that could be applied to many Mormons. Does this excuse their following after false prophets?
Here we are nearly 2000 ears after Jesus established His church and appointed men
to preach the gospel of salvation so that all can receive eternal life . Yet we have a
statement that unless you submit to a man claiming to be God’s mouthpiece on earth
today and not oppose his teachings because to do so endangers your salvation . This
is exactly what Jesus warned us all about in the last days —latter days prophets
arising to mislead many. THis church manual calls those LDS who “oppose” the
teachings of their prophets that they are actually opposing the Lord Himself. This
type of intimidation is no doubt why many sincere LDS stay in their Church . The
church manual calls these opposers ” misguided” , yet it just could be that many of
these members have took the time to examine the teaching track record of their
leaders since the gospel was “restored” by them , and found that instead of being called
“misguided” they are being guided , guided by God to see how they’ve been short
changed by the claims of their prophets to be consistent reliable guides in spiritual
truths. May the Mormon people come to see what many LDS have discovered in recent
years , that a freedom from false prophets can lead to a full and saving relationship
with God outside of the Mormon church .
Falcon
I have heard many people claim to understand LDS doctrine, and yet still not have a clue. I do not mean to say that this is true of you, as I do not have any proof to that effect. What I mean to say is that knowing quotes from past prophets does not insure an understanding, and is more likely to actually cause misunderstandings if not studied in proper context.
Case in point: you say “when Joseph Smith taught that men had to have multiply wives in order to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom” Yet this was never taught. Plural marriage was taught, and it is still true that a man must accept the doctrine. However, accepting it and practicing it are two very different things. It was never taught that a man had to have more than one wife, but that he needed to understand that such was a part of the gospel and accept that, or he would put himself in danger of missing out on the Celestial Kingdom.
MIKE
What do you think people would have said of those who questioned Peter’s authority and questioned what he taught.
For instance, it was Peter who first took the gospel to the gentiles. Do you think that those who opposed and questioned this were, in fact, opposing the Lord himself? Do you think that telling them this would constitute intimidation?
What of the time that Peter stood and declared that circumcision would no longer be required? Would people who questioned this be opposing the Lord; and would it be intimidation to tell them this?
What of those who opposed Moses (like Korah and Dathan) and were killed for it?
shematwater,
See here’s the problem. Mormons start out telling us we have our information wrong. Then when we produce the quotes that substantiate what we say, then they go to the next levels. The next levels include, but are not limited to: Well it may say that but that really doesn’t count. That was that person’s opinion or (a new trend), it’s Mormon folklore. The other tactic, which you seem to be employing is, you really don’t understand.
What I’ve concluded, after several years of doing this, is that individual Mormons tend to have their own individual take on what various things within Mormonism mean. In-a-sense, it’s meaningless because the individual Mormon doesn’t speak for the LDS church. So it’s basically a “he says, she says” sort of deal.
I suppose we could spar back and forth but the real critical thing is that Mormons have a different gospel, a different god, a different Jesus and a different plan of salvation than Christians have.
So we can post back and forth but at the end of the day, you won’t be any closer to getting saved than at the beginning.
We’re trying to reach Mormons who have concluded that something isn’t right with Mormonism. It’s these folks for whom what we present here makes sense.
In-other-words, there’s a market niche that we’re trying to reach and I don’t think you’re it.
But if you enjoy playing religious ping-pong, stick around and post all you like.
The Prophet Joseph F. Smith asserted:
“Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I wish here, to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it to be false. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage IN PART –and is good so far as it goes–and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it.”
“Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain a fulness of the blessings pertaining to the celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. He cannot receive the fulness of the blessings useless he fulfills the law, any more than he can claim the gift of the Holy Ghost after he is baptized without the laying on of hands by proper authority, or the remission of sins without baptism, though he may repent in sackcloth and ashes.”
“I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in the Church who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned.
Shem , for me it boils down to how do I today avoid being persuaded by those who
claim to be appointed by Jesus as His spokesmen ,but who may not be , but who tell
me that to oppose them is to oppose the Lord ? I would expect such men to mimic
the Biblical apostles in their claims of authority, but that is’nt going to prove their
claim true to me . It all boils down to the Bible being sufficient for me to gain the
knowledge about salvation for today and I believe that false prophets will always
try and create a connection between themselves and events in the Bible and
then tell their followers to oppose them is to oppose God etc. Now I know that
you disagree and that’s your prerogative , but that’s what I believe will keep me safe
today and I hope that the Mormon people will not be hesitant to walk away from
their apostles because for fear of opposing God .
Mike,
There are a lot of Mormon prophets. I’m not just talking about the prophets of the past but also those who lead all the different Mormon sects. So actually when we talk about what Mormonism teaches on any given topic, our observations depend on this parade of prophets and the contradictions and personal spin within their messages.
This is why it’s so difficult to pin Mormonism down on what it actually believes. Multiply the number of prophets by progressive revelation then the variables skyrocket. Is it any wonder that we have Mormons expressing their own opinions with confidence that they really have the straight scoop on what Mormonism believes and teaches?
I don’t know if it was a planned thing but Mormonism thrives on the concept of plausible denial-ability. There’s a reason why the phrase “maze of Mormonism” so accurately describes the religion.
Out here in the Midwest there are pumpkin farms that create corn mazes and families come out for a sort of fall outing. One family got lost in the corn maze and had to call 911 because it was getting dark and they were lost. That can pretty much sum-up those caught in the maze of Mormonism. The sad thing is that there are many Mormons wandering Mormonism’s maze not knowing they’re lost.
Jesus was right in describing people as sheep in need of a Shepard. The prophets, apostles and other leaders of Mormonism are not reliable Shepards. While it may appear to the Mormon faithful that they are being well cared for they are not. The spiritual food they are being fed is contaminated.
So I guess my point to Shem with my quote from Joseph F. Smith is that the real debate isn’t whether or not a Mormon needs to “practice” or “accept” polygamy, it’s determining what Mormonism teaches on the topic.
Let’s go and ask a member of the FLDS about the topic or, let’s say, Adam-god as taught by Brigham Young. We’ve had Mormons come on this blog and deny all sorts of things that we can find quotes from Mormon leaders saying the thing (the Mormon poster) denies.
There are several kinds of Mormons. Some merely follow along and do what they are told. Then we have those who want to be “teachers of the Law” that have an intellectual itch that they need to scratch. These are the ones that strain the gnats and split the hairs. They come-up with all sorts of creative Mormon dances spinning, swirling, leaping entertaining themselves and perhaps a little following they gather down at the Wards. The Bible calls them folks who are constantly “learning” but never coming close to the “truth”.
Shematwater,
You said, “…many people claim to understand LDS doctrine and yet still have no clue.” Who in Mormonism can really say what “LDS doctrine” really is? After all, it seems the doctrinal “reset button” is continually being pushed when there is either a shift in American culture (antagonism against polygamy; racism: blacks in the priesthood, etc.), when a new prophet is elected, or every six months when General Conference is held and your church’s general authorities speak equating their words as scripture. Trying to grasp hold of LDS doctrine is like trying to nail jello to the wall or hold on to a slippery eel while in water. Good luck to those that try. I certainly have as I have read your Standard Works more than once, your LDS church manuals, and many, many other sources from LDS authorities. One thing seems pretty clear to me: plural marriage and entrance to the highest level of the celestial kingdom are woven together. It is for this reason and others that I think Mormons of the Salt Lake City sect are the ones that are confused.
I find your post above to be confusing and filled with LDS “double speak.” You said that plural marriage as espoused by Joseph Smith was not taught. You then go on to say that it was taught, it must be accepted, it was part of the gospel, and one would be in danger of missing out on the celestial kingdom by not doing so. That is very confusing to me and leaves me clueless. Why would it be taught if you didn’t have to accept it? How could it be part of your gospel and put you in danger of missing out on the celestial kingdom and you aren’t required to practice it?
A simple reading of D&C 132:1-6; 38-39 gives a very clear understanding of the importance of a devout Mormon’s requirement in not only accepting the doctrine of plural marriage but also practicing it. D&C 132:1 says it is “the principle and DOCTRINE of their having many wives and concubines.” D&C 132:2 says that “those who have this law revealed unto them MUST OBEY the same.” D&C says this is “an everlasting covenant and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”
Joseph Smith didn’t teach this? Where did D&C 132 come from? Didn’t this come from your god whom your prophets have said is a polygamist himself who resides on Kolob? Why is this text in your Standard Works if it not be accepted, believed, and practiced when it says you are required to obey it or thus be damned? The Salt Lake City Mormons seem to be the inconsistent ones on this issue. Fundamentalist Mormons embraced this doctrine when it wasn’t politically or socially expedient in modern America.
This is another distinction that separates Christianity from Mormonism and why Mormons aren’t Christians. Christians cannot pick and choose which doctrines from the Bible they want to embrace, what books or chapters in the Bible they want to discard, or carefully select which prophets and other authors of Scripture they want to take seriously. Christians realize that the Scriptures are God-breathed (coming from God) and are authoritative in totality for the believer who has been regenerated and adopted into God’s family via the new birth. Mormonism’s “doctrine buffet” where one can take a little of this, some of that, and pass the others by is a concept that is anathema for Christians.
Shemwater,
You and I both know that a plethora of documentation from LDS authoritative sources (former prophets and apostles) is out there regarding plural marriage and its requirement for entrance into the highest level of the LDS celestial kingdom. You have acknowledged yourself that it is, in fact, taught and supposed to be accepted among the Mormon faithful. Not doing so endangers one from being admitted to this level. I won’t supply the quotes here because you would dismiss them as Mormons often throw their dead prophets “under the bus.” Christians can’t do this with our prophets of Scripture (Isaiah, Moses, Ezekiel, John the Baptist, etc.).
When it comes to LDS “doctrine,” it doesn’t get any better than Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine.” How does plural marriage fit in with the modern-day Salt Lake City Mormon? When will the practice as decreed by the Mormon god in D&C 132 start being practiced again? McConkie tells us:
“Those (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other Jews) who entered this order (plural marriage) at the Lord’s command, and who kept the laws and conditions appearing to it, have gained for themselves eternal exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world. Later the Prophet (Joseph Smith) and leading brethren were commanded to enter into the practice, which they did in all virtue and purity of heart…Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 578)
So, it’s in the millennium when plural marriage will begin again making it possible for the Salt Lake City Mormons to start obeying D&C 132 again like Joseph Smith and the other five prophets that followed him in the presidency qualifying them for the highest level within the celestial kingdom.
Shemwater,
I anticipate you will dismiss McConkie’s statement and insight on Mormon doctrine. I’ve lost count how many times modern-day Mormons have thrown McConkie under the LDS wagon cart for his doctrinal analysis and explanations. However, his clout and importance in Mormonism cannot be overlooked. LDS prophets called on McConkie to explain doctrinal issues to them. Why the prophets themselves didn’t just have counsel with their god either through prayer or through the rock that Joseph Smith used is confusing to me. Why would an apostle instruct a prophet who claims to be the mouthpiece getting revelation directly from the Mormon god on Kolob? McConkie is held in high esteem:
“When he [McConkie] received a blessing from Elder Boyd Packer a week after conference, however, he was told, he was one of ‘the faithful elders of this dispensation [who], when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel’ (D&C 138:47). President Ezra Taft Benson eulogized him as a preacher of righteousness. ‘Thanks be to God that Elder McConkie’s written words of testimony remain to continue to bless a world that needs them so desperately. Often when a doctrinal question came before the First Presidency and the Twelve, Elder McConkie was asked to quote the scripture or to comment on the matter. He provided the entire church with an example of gospel scholarship…Elder McConkie is best known and loved among Church members for his sermons and writings on doctrinal subjects – his encyclopedic work, Mormon Doctrine, covering over 1,100 gospels subjects.” (Elder Bruce McConkie, Preacher of Righteousness, Ensign, June 1985).
This is the same title given to Noah:
“Noah…He became a preacher of righteousness even as Enoch” (Pearl of Great Price Student Manual Religion 327, p. 26)
Classifying McConkie with Noah and Enoch? Wow!
Shemawater,
In the Journal of Discourses number 5 pg 203 Heber C Kimbal said this
Wow Shemawater, YOU MIGHT AS WELL DENY “MORMONISM,” AND TURN AWAY FROM IT, AS TO OPPOSE THE PLURALITY OF WIVES. How do you explain this? throw it under the bus like everything else? Tell us we simply dont understand it?
We read in vol 3 pg 266, where B Young said
WOW B Young promises we will be damned if we stop this practice. I guess there will be many damned LDS, as they stopped doing this. Are you and Parkman practicing this? Or are you damned as your prophet said? Remember it was JS that said, A man cannot be saved in ignorance. How many LDS are ignorant of LDS prophets teachings?
Falcon, yes unfortunately there are many prophets. What do we do TODAY? Jesus
warned of many false prophets who would come in the latter days . How do we
evaluate these prophets ? I think it’s important we realize that we have a measure ,
a barometer to gauge Mormon prophets/apostles teachings by : Gal 1:8 .I think
that is a valid criteria even today for evaluating modern -day prophets . I appreciate
that Mormons have embraced the Bible as ” the foremost of her standards works , chief
among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and
doctrine. [ Articles of Faith, by Talmage p 240 ] . This common ground gives us a
opportunity to see what Jesus established as His gospel of salvation and then sent
men to the world preaching it –Rom 1:16; Col. 1:25. For men 1900 yrs later to
claim to allegedly restore this gospel and then seek to introduce into it polygamy
as a saving ordinance of Jesus’ church is a red flag for all who pattern their lives on
the New Testament gospel of Jesus Christ —Gal. 1:8 . I think people who want to
follow Jesus are safe when they are hesitant on accepting the gospel promoted by
Mormonism modern day apostles and stick with the New Testament because the
gospel therein did’nt need to “restored” by latter day prophets .
Shematwater said
It sounds like you are talking about yourself and other LDS Shematwater? Because I notice LDS tell us Christians we dont know what we are talking about, but once we provide quotes and even Scripture from LDS sources, it seems the LDS go hiding. I am wondering where you and Parkman are? Are you searching for answers to these things we posted? Or do you know we are correct and you have no answers, so you will come back later after a new topic is posted? Or will you simply disappear for months again? Just wondering since it seems to be a trend among Mormon posters here.
The problem with Mormonism is always its credibility, validity and reliability.
Mormons have to just make way too many excuses and faux explanations and rationalizations to try and keep the USS LDS ship afloat.
The Community of Christ has basically thrown in the towel, for example, on the BoM. They “allow” their members the option of seeing it as a “spiritual” book rather than actual history. About the only thing they really cling to is progressive revelation. They seem to like that.
I’ve never quite figured out what that means in Mormonism except for an excuse to change things when time, evidence, social pressure and just plain credibility call for a change in the Mormon play-book.
I think what happens is that the Mormon restored gospel becomes so difficult to defend along with a lot of other nonsense coming from the not so very hot prophets, that some Mormons just ignore it all. It’s just easier that way.
Others try to come up with plausible explanations that only really work within the context of Mormonism.
As I pointed out in a previous post, Mormonism is so disjointed and fractured that there is no clarity within the program. In fact Mormonism has become, what Mormons claim Christianity is, too many different opinions.
Here’s the difference though. In Christianity there is a basic set of doctrinal standards that those wanting to be in the orthodox camp subscribe to. The basic doctrine can be traced back to the Bible and the revelation that Jesus brought from the Father and delivered to His apostles. This revelation was never lost. It is well documented not only in the Bible but in the writings of the Church Fathers and in the history and tradition of the Faith.
Mormonism is based on too many false premises.
FALCON
I think you have just proved that you don’t know what you are talking about. Since you seem to think that your quote from Joseph F. Smith is enough to end all debate, let us look at something else he said.
Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff, of September 26, 1890, commonly called the Manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violate of the law of the land; I Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I hereby announce that all such marriage are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the Church and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof, and excommunicated therefrom.
Joseph F Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints – April Conference Report, 1904, pg 75.
(to be continued)
(continued)
Since President Smith declares that plural marriage is not practiced, and that any such marriages are transgressions against the church, he could not have meant them to be required for exaltation in the quote you give (reference please, if you could). So, let us look at the quote you give. That last part really sums things up nicely.
“I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in the Church who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned.”
So, if a person is not able to practice the doctrine in righteousness than he is not damned if he doesn’t. As President Smith has already stated that practicing it at this time would be unrighteous, we can clearly see that his intent is not to say it is required for exaltation.
The full intent of his words is this: A man with only one wife cannot have the same fullness of blessings that a man with multiple wives can (since more wives brings more children, and thus greater blessings), even though having only one wife is sufficient to receive an exaltation. This is clearly seen in this sentence: “The marriage of one woman to a man…by the sealing power…is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage IN PART …and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward…he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions.” In other words, one wife is sufficient for exaltation, but a greater fullness comes to those with more wives.
You may have a quote, or even a dozen, or a hundred quotes. That does not mean you understand them.
ANDY
I don’t dismiss Brother McConkie, and find his words to be very insightful. Since you bring him up, let us look at what he said on the subject of Plural Marriage.
“Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman (D&C 132: 1-28). Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriage would be valid only if authorized be the President of the Church (D&C 132: 7, 29-66).
Mormon Doctrine pg. 578
Funny how you missed this when you quoted him, as it directly contradicts everything you, and everyone else here is claiming. Even in the section you do quote you do not give a full quote. You leave out the fact that the principles were revealed to Joseph Smith long before they were practiced, again proving that Joseph Smith himself never intended this doctrine to be required of men.
Shem.
It’s not that we don’t “understand”. We understand just fine. What your problem is, is that we don’t “believe” it. And there’s the rub.
You are one of those Mormon dudes that does a passable presentation and can even sound somewhat articulate and well versed on Mormonism. That works pretty well in your world. The problem is when you venture out of the confines and warmth of the Mormon wards, you encounter people who actually do study Mormonism and understand what it’s all about.
At the end of the day, as I’ve stated before, you’re lost.
The millions and billions of gods that make up the Mormon pantheon of gods can’t save you. The Mormon Jesus can’t save you. The manufactured restored gospel can’t save you.
You’re basically giving your spin on Mormonism to justify your own desires. It’s worthless and you will remain spiritually lost until you jettison the false gods of Mormonism and come to the Living God who alone can provide forgiveness of your sins and the redemption of your soul.
Andy Watson gave a very good presentation regarding the topic at hand; several posts as a matter of fact.
Here’s the deal. The Mormons who come here and read do so because they recognize in their spirit that Mormonism presents a false gospel. You can wade around in the swamp of false Mormon doctrine all you want. However once the Holy Spirit enlightens the spirit of a seeker, all of your protestations that we don’t understand this or that about Mormonism will make little difference. In that regard you’re fighting a losing battle.
Jesus has set His table. He’s calling those who want to know the Father, to the banquet. Those who are His know His voice and respond to the invitation. As it is, you’re rejecting the invitation.
RICK
I don’t appreciate the personal attacks and the libel that you seem to frequently like to throw out. I am not scared, nor am I unable to answer. Your assumptions only reflect badly on you and your attitudes.
Speaking of President Young’s, remarks, you again prove you don’t actually know and understand, even though you constantly try to claim a better understanding than members.
Let me spell it out for you: If a person denies the doctrine, or claims it wasn’t divinely instituted, or works to have it erased (or stopped when it is permitted) than they are in danger of damnation, for they are fighting against God. However, when a person accepts the doctrine, embraces it as divine and proper, and yet is not able to practice it (for any reason, like not having permission) they are in perfect harmony with God and they will be accepted into the Celestial Kingdom as faithful saints.
Do not confuse accepting and embracing the doctrine with actually practicing it. These are two very different things, and yet so many people confuse them and make them out to be the same. I have accepted the doctrine, and I have embraced. I can say in all honesty that if my circumstances were better, and such was allowed, I would be willing to take a second wife (if my first wife agreed, as is required by the law). However, I am a poor man who can barely support the wife I have, and thus I feel no burden to take a second wife (even if allowed) as God does not require that I do; only that I be willing if I am able.
P.S. I started my own blog, just for the fun of it. You might find it
We need to remember that since not every faithful Mormon could practice polygamy or might
not want to , this could prove to create a bad situation for B.Y. since it was taught to be a
ordinance in his church . What he came up with was to warn anyone who would deny in
their feelings that this doctrine was a gospel ordinance in Jesus’ restored N.T. church , that
would damn them . This seems to be communicated in the quote by Rick from JofD v3
p266 . To not enter into polygamy if God “revealed it unto you ” , or to even deny in your heart
that this doctrine was endorsed by Jesus Himself as a vital and necessary part of His gospel of
salvation for the latter days , BOTH of these would result in damnation to Mormons. What was
taught by Mormon leaders about polygamy was a clear picture of religious men creating a
doctrine out of their own ideas and this serves to help distinguish Mormon prophets as
those who Jesus warned would come in the latter days to advertise another gospel –Matt24:11
Gal.1:8 . ” They teach for doctrine the commandments of men” .
Shem
I found your response to Rick pretty funny.
First of all, don’t waste your time lecturing Rick that he is a mean, nasty, inconsiderate, libelous oaf. I know Rick personally and he isn’t a bit concerned with your evaluation of his character or manner.
Secondly, I find it really funny that you want to argue about whether or not a Mormon has to “accept” or “practice’ polygamy to be admitted to the Joseph Smith key club. I think you’ve found an “escape clause” that can keep you feeling good about a practice that is offensive by the standards of decent people.
Thirdly, I see where you want Rick to come and participate in your blog. Sounds like a bit of self promotion.
Finally, I’ll go just so far with Mormons on topics such as this because it’s an empty rabbit trail that really leads no where. While we debate something like this with you, we don’t really get to the real question which is the status of your soul. You suppose that by “accepting” polygamy, you will get into the top level of the Celestial Kingdom where your wife and you will procreate spirit children into eternity, be a god and goddess juggernaut and have your own private worlds to rule.
Mormonism is more than a couple of bubbles off of plumb. It does, however, play to the pride of man.
You need to spend less time on whether or not Mormons need to “accept” or “practice” polygamy and more time learning who God really is and what His plan of salvation requires.
Shematwater,
Your really funny. You said you don’t like what I said and how I talk, well why not speak at all shematwater becauce you really can only be mad at yourself and only blame yourself, I simply quoted what you said about us and said I think you were talking about yourself. So it seems the problem lies with you and what you said. And I won’t get sucked into your blog and do anything with it.
Rick,
I think it’s pretty easy to make Shemwater. He’s just making up his own brand of Mormonism like so many of them do. These guys are all over the map just like their prophets who zig zag here there and every where and then swear God is speaking to them and they have the truth.
The Community of Christ and Church of Christ totally reject the SLC brand of Mormonism as does the FLDS. There are any number of Mormon groups with guys like Shemwater who claim they have the real message and proper interpretation.
I think they all better get new decoder rings.
OK, Shematwater, Lets break this down.
1. Why can you say the things you do about us, but when I say them back to you, it is me that is the mean vile person? This just shows a double standard.
Now onto the issue of polygamy. As I pointed out, Heber C Kimbal said this, and I will break it down for you. If I was speaking in person to you, I would speak slowly, one word at a time, so maybe if you read slower it will have the same effect.
In the Journal of Discourses number 5 pg 203 Heber C Kimbal said this
So according to Heber this was reveled by God Himself, and if we listen to people who speak against this practice then we are not listing to God.
You then went onto say to Falcon
Now lets see here, According to Heber, Polygamy was reveled by God and if we ignore it, then we are listening to people not of God, yet Woodruff said it was a “Official Declaration” not to do this.
Somehow I am not surprised LDS cannot agree. I seem to recall a Mormon that was just here not to long ago that said, we Christians listen to “OUR” Teachers, yet you guys are listening to these people on this issue. (cont)
We can see the warnings of Jesus’ apostles concerning prophets and apostles in the latter days
who claim to have the same gospel that was preached by Paul etc . but who are only religious men
“teaching for doctrines the commandments of men ” on vital issues that will affect a
person’s relationship with God . Mormon apostles are those type of men and their teachings
on polygamy show cases that fact . Following is a list of how sincere Mormons, from General
Authorities to many of their faithful followers , have testified about the importance of polygamy:
– polygamy is a gospel law , a gospel command; a gospel principle
– polygamy is a gospel sealing ordinance and important and necessary as baptism
– polygamy is the most holy an important doctrine ever revealed to man
– polygamy is saving principle
– polygamy is part of the religion and economy of heaven
-polygamy is our greatest gift
– polygamy is the gospel in it’s fullness
– polygamy: without it man cannot hereafter attain to a fullness of exaltation
This is how faithful Mormons described plural marriage.
What really makes all this egregious is two things 1. this doctrine was declared to be a vital
part of Jesus’ gospel of salvation –restored ” in it’s purity ” by Mormon prophets . 2.The way
this doctrine began was in secret by an inner group of privileged men who denied it to the rest
of the church , it’s “official ” end was characterized afterwards with similar behavior by
some leaders . Also, despite the fact that it was taught to be an ESSENTIAL doctrine of Jesus’
gospel that fact was later purposely distorted by authorities in Church publications.
Cont,
Also I seem to recall another LDS member on this blog saying
So back to breaking down what was said. Heber said
Wow, So If I dont practice or follow polygamy, I might as well have a half a dozen demons in me, Wow thats just great.
Then Heber says,
So did J.F.S deny Mormonism?
Lets see, J.F.S According to you said
So did J.F.S not know what Heber said? Better yet, What God reveled to the Church?
Now how do you reconcile what J.F.S. SAID with what Heber said?
Heber said
These two cannot agree with each other, so Please do explain this to us, I am all ears.
Why have church leaders been hesitant to talk at length about this doctrine today ? Two
church manuals have been written about Brigham Young , they are 60 years apart but share
one thing in common— silence about polygamy ! Why ? Why do some Mormons find it
shocking at finding out that Joseph Smith, for one , had so many wives ? Why does the church
give their permission to show a film that portrays Joseph Smith as a kind husband , yet it is
silent on the turmoil he caused his first wife over his clandestine activity of gathering other
women as wives ? Strange way to treat a doctrine said to be an important part of Jesus’ gospel.
The fact is that for many Mormons the issue with how polygamy is down played, quietly
ignored, or carefully handled is because of their leaders choosing to take that route, and this
is a big factor in why so many LDS have become inactive or left in recent years —lost of
confidence in their prophets/apostles to lead . We can pray that these dear people will come
to see how they have been detoured by their apostles into embracing a imitation gospel , one
that is not endorsed by Jesus . Mormon women should especially be excited to know that the
real Jesus and His true gospel never included polygamy . May these women come to look at
that gospel , it’s in the New Testament and it still is sufficient and able to save anyone to the
uttermost —-Heb 7:25
I’m wondering how SLC LDS women feel about polygamy?
After all it’s still on the books, right? Are they OK with the idea that if they should proceed their husbands in death, he can marry and be sealed to another woman? I’m right on this, am I not? So wife number one is going to have to share hubby with the new babe into eternity.
It’s my understanding that women have been sealed, unsealed and sealed again to different men. One such woman is Marie Osmond. Who keeps track of all of this? We’ve also brought up the issue of single women; those not sealed to anyone. Well it seems there’s an app for that. These women are told that they will be assigned to some man by the Mormon god after death. At least that’s the expectation.
But not to fear, Mormonism is full of all sorts of speculation. That’s the fun of Mormonism.
Incidentally, Joseph Smith’s son, who became the prophet of what was known as the “Restored” sect of Mormonism. Denied that his old man practiced polygamy. He further stated that if he did do such a thing, it was wrong.
Well the son was a prophet and was hearing from God, right?
“Joseph Smith III, son of the founding prophet and first prophet-president of the RLDS Church (1860–1914), spent much of his life trying to clear his father’s name from the stigma of polygamy and polygamous doctrine, even though there were leaders in the early RLDS Church who believed otherwise. While it is clear Joseph Smith III sincerely believed his father was innocent, he affirmed on more than one occasion that even if his father was guilty, he was wrong.”
http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp
Shematwater,
I know it is roughly 24 hours since I broke down what I said and you said and compared them, But I do expect an answer from you. Like it or not, I notice a trend if you want to call it that among Mormon posters here. If they cannot answer something, they either disappear for some length of time, then come back as if they never left. Or they simply tell us we are wrong, but never give us a serious breakdown of an answer like Andy, me or Falcon or others have done for you guys. Then when Mormons do try and give us some what of a broken down answer, they tend to get replies from either Fair/farms website, which is not “Official” Church doctrine. They cannot speak on behalf of the Church, So that makes me wonder why some LDS as in the recent past accuse of Christians of listing to men, when that what LDS do by giving canned answers from Fair/farms.
Or you guys try only giving an answer that agrees with the guy you like. Example, You never addressed Heber and what He said, you only quoted J.F.S. and saying He claim Polygamy is no longer practiced and he gives reasons why we wont have to practice it if we dont want to.
Yet besides avoiding what Heber said, you also never addressed whay those two could not or did not agree on this subject. And simply blowing it off as, I cannot speak for them does not work when you insist on quoting them and agreeing with them when it fits your needs. So please answer these issues, since if you go disappear then I will simply remind lurkers the parkmans and Shem types cannot answer questions.
Rick, could you please relax ? Nothing is going to be gained by demanding someone answer
a question .
Within Christianity we talk about “accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior”. That’s the gospel message. That is, our sin separates us from a Holy God. We can’t atone for our own sins no matter how hard we try to live a righteous life. We will always fall short. God in His love, benevolence, mercy and grace has covered our sins with the blood of the Lamb, His Son Jesus. We get ourselves right with God through faith in Jesus. We can’t add anything to what God has done for us.
Now the SLC denomination of Mormonism has a lot of different things that have to be done or believed if a man is going to become a god.
We have recently been told that one of these things that needs to be done is to “accept” plural marriage. A man doesn’t have to actually “practice” it, just accept it. That seems a bit strange even for Mormonism. Of course we don’t know if that’s true or not, generally speaking, because they are a lot of interpreters of Mormonism running about the countryside.
We know that there’s a whole lot of things that need to be done if a Mormon man is going to get to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. I would think that common sense would dictate that a man who actually “practices” polygamy and depending on the number of wives sealed to him, would be higher up the ladder of Mormon success.
I know the Gospel message of Jesus Christ, as presented in the NT will have an appeal to Mormons on a couple of different levels. There are those Mormons for whom Mormonism just doesn’t ring true and they’re tired of the religious grind.
Jesus stands ready to fully accept them through faith in Him.
Mike, why is it the Mormons can say what they want about us, accuse us of things we did not do. Call us names, dodge questions and many other things and you remain silent to the point of not caring, I say something and you then feel the need to speak up. I seem to recall the bible telling us to correct those in error, Mormons are in error. Them teaching a false gospel even after being told it is false and shown it it false is far worse than me asking for an answer. You seriously make me think you would follow and admire someone like Richard moux. So if you insist on keeping it one sided, then please keep it to yourself.
I wonder how many Mormons are aware of Shem’s doctrine that they must “accept” polygamy. Is this pledged somewhere in one of the Mormon rituals? I would love to sit myself down in Temple Square or outside of General Conference and pose this question to the Mormons who pass by. What would be a good way to ask it? I ask two questions.
“Does the LDS church teach that a Mormon man must practice plural marriage in order to enter the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom?”
“Does the LDS church teach that a Mormon must accept the doctrine of plural marriage in order to enter the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom?’
I purposely didn’t put “man” in the second question.
I’d ask both questions and keep track of how women and men answered the question.
I have a suspicion that the average Mormon really doesn’t want anything to do with plural marriage, whether practicing it or accepting it. The practice of plural marriage goes against the sensibilities of most people, Mormon or not. When Joseph Smith introduced the practice, he did so to a small group of his leaders. This is pretty typical of how cults operate.
When the whistle was blown on what these guys where up to the printing press of the man who exposed it, was wrecked. This led to Smith’s eventual arrest and then his demise at the hands of a mob.
The CoC website says:
“Research findings point to Joseph Smith Jr. as a significant source for plural marriage teaching and practice at Nauvoo. However, several of his associates later wrote that he repudiated the plural marriage system and began to try to stop its practice shortly before his death in June 1844.”
If this is true, then “accepting” or “practicing” plural marriage is a moot point.
Rick, you’re apparently having a bad day since what you just said was really unwarranted .
I merely ask you to calm down and you claim I’ve been quiet and un-caring on this blog ?
I’m constantly reminding our Mormon guests on the danger of embracing the false gospel
promulgated by their false prophets . You may disagree in HOW I do that but to accuse me
of being “quiet” ? Really? I love how you proceeded to try and lump me in with Richard Moux .
Ouch . I’m trying my best to act in accord with what the Moderators have asked of
us here , namely 1Peter 3:15 . So you either are having a bad day, or you have a anger problem
you need to manage or , you’ve ingested to much of your hot wing sauce today 🙂
But tomorrow’s a new day.
Mike,
For me, I am not/was not having a bad day, Nor am I angry, and it was not some hot sauce.
I agree that you keep talking about False prophets, and are not silent on that issue. I also agree with 1 peter.
But for me and this is only my opinion, I am a all or nothing kind of guy, all or nothing in the sense of, either say something to everyone, or say nothing. As I said, you keep saying things to me, yet you say nothing to the LDS. I dont believe I am out of line with 1 peter to say, Please answer me and I expect an answer.
I really get tired of giving detailed answers with sources, and them keep being told, I have no clue, I dont understand these things and I am getting it all wrong, yet these things are no being backed up with evidence.
Then in line with first Peter, I see in the Bible, God and Jesus rebuking His people, Moses, Job, Peter for examples, but also rebuking the false teachers, and people who are getting their facts about God wrong. I also see Jesus, Peter, James, Jude Etc saying some things that to the average person reading the Bible say, those dont line up with 1st Peter. So No offense, But either say something to everyone or keep it to yourself.
Falcon, I agree with you that the average Mormon really does’nt want much to do with polygamy whether to practice it or believe it is actually a important gospel doctrine . But back in the days of
B.Y. in Utah Mormons were told of it’s virtues both in this life and in the hereafter . While it’s true
that a monogamist could receive exaltation if he would refrain from denying in his heart that
polygamy was an important part of Jesus’ gospel , still the fact that Mormon leaders were teaching
that the more wives a man had then the greater his glory, his reward and his kingdom would be
after he died. Creating a vast kingdom by peopling it with his progeny and being adored and worshiped by such was quite the position awaiting faithful LDS who entered polygamy , and
building this kingdom would be much faster by their taking of more wives . Mormon males
were told that if God was revealing this law unto them then to refuse was to invite God’s
judgement so no doubt many men struggled with knowing for sure if they were going to be held
accountable or not . Mormon leaders sure were not waiting for these men to step forward with
their desire to receive ” the blessings of Abraham ” , as they rapidly promoted the benefits
of polygamy . Their counsel went from warning officers under them such as Stake Presidents
that they should resign if they refused to enter polygamy , to extolling the physical benefits of
polygamy such as teaching that polygamy would work out the moral salvation of the world ;
[ cont]
cont.
It was even taught that ” children of our system ” [ polygamy] are brighter , stronger,
healthier every way than those of the monogamic system ” according to George Q.Cannon .
This was because , “, monogamy , or the one wife system adopted by Christendom is a very
defective system ” , according to Mormon intellectual , Orson Spencer, Chancellor of the
University of Deseret . Herber C. Kimball even taught , ” I would not be afraid to promise a
man who is sixty years of age, if he will take the counsel of br. Brigham , and his brethren , that
he will renew his age . I have noticed that a man who has but one wife , and is inclined to that
doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality looks fresh ,
young, and sprightly.Why is this ? Because God loves that man and because he honours His
work and word.” That polygamy was held to be such an important part of Jesus’ restored
gospel was did not escape the conviction of William Clayton who stated :
” From him [J.S.] I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy
and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth and that without obedience to that
principle , no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in celestial glory.”
This is testimony from a range of devout Mormons as to why men could embrace
polygamy, and no doubt this is how many felt God had revealed this law to them–D&C
132 : 3 . But sadly these men were the victims a false gospel–Gal 1:8
It appears to me that Mormonism is a merit badge sort of system and its competitive. The more you do, the higher you get on the ladder of success and achievement means more glory. So, for example, BY with his huge number of wives, gets to the top of the rung when it comes to exaltation and god worthiness.
Accepting polygamy in your heart isn’t going to get a Mormon very far. Think about Mormon men since they officially stopped practicing polygamy. These poor saps are basically in the mosh pit of the Mormon system. They can kick in their 10% and chase to the temple every week and full-fill all of their callings, but if they aren’t practicing polygamy, they aren’t getting far in the Celestial Kingdom.
To pull the plug on polygamy was to doom Mormon men to be in the lower rung of the Celestial Kingdom. There is no Mormonism as taught by BY et al without polygamy.
That’s why the groups that didn’t follow BY reverted to what Mormonism was at its founding. That is, a more traditional Christian view of the nature of God, the rejection of polygamy and rejection of the men-to-god idea.
The CoC has an open temple. Anyone can enter it.
So I think the question has to be asked. Who has the real Mormonism?
RICK
It doesn’t seem to matter what I say, so what is the point? However, I will break it down for you, and I will try to use small words, and speak slowly, as I doubt you could understand it any other way.
“Some quietly listen to those who speak against the lords servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that god has revealed.”
As I clearly spelled out before, Brother Kimball is talking of those who seek to deny or fight against the appointed leaders and revealed word of God. He is not talking about those who accept but don’t practice. Get this through your head and you might understand what he means.
“Such persons have a half dozen devils with them all the time.”
So, those who listen to the devil have devils with them. There is nothing really new about this, is there. A person who is willing to listen to those who fight against God have already allow Satan his first foothold in their soul, and Satan has sent some of his devils to keep it that way.
” YOU MIGHT AS WELL DENY “MORMONISM,” AND TURN AWAY FROM IT, AS TO OPPOSE THE PLURALITY OF WIVES.”
Notice that he does not say that you might as well deny Mormonism as refuse to have plural wives. He specifically uses the term ‘oppose’ which is exactly what I pointed out. In other words, those who speak out against the practice, who condemn it as wrong, are in opposition to Mormonism, and one cannot call themselves a true saint and behave in such a manner. He does not make any reference to the practicing of it, but to the opposing of it. Learn the distinction and you might understand
” Let the presidency of this church, and the twelve apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned.”
No one is exempt from the justice of God, and to deny the truth once it is revealed will bring damnation, no matter who it is.
Speaking of President Smith and his statement that no such marriages have been solemnized; this is no way is in opposition to that ordinance, and it is clear from everything that he said and wrote that he embraced the doctrine as divine. The problem is that you do not understand that doctrine, but are imposing your false understanding on his words. Plural marriage can only be authorized by the president of the church (read D&C 132 again), and only when God allows it. When he doesn’t allow it we are not to practice it. This is clearly supported in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, and the New Testament.
I don’t care what claims you make to understanding, you constantly prove that you are ignorant of LDS doctrine.