Leaderboard

Woah this thread just took a turn to a whole new place ?...thank you everyone for all your comments. I never intended this to become a war, just trying to get more insight into a practice I’m not familiar with. I have gained a lot of insight. I will be sealed to my husband whether he is sealed to his ex because no matter what I want to be with him for eternity. God will take care of the rest. ❤️

What a great attitude. Really, it's an attitude we all need. Were we to see the details of celestial life, I have no doubt that the most righteous of us would be scared stiff at the responsibility, power, and sacrifices we will be called on to make. Yet God assures us that it is the pinnacle of joy, the greatest of all the gifts he offers us. We would all do well to put our trust in God and quit worrying about the various what-ifs that plague us.

With all due respect, Blossom, you aren't clear at all. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You demand that the Mormon Church completely unambiguously shut the door on polygamy in heaven; but then you say you have no problem with voluntary practice of polygamy; but then again when I ask if you want existing marriages of Biblical patriarchs and matriarchs dissolved you drop hints that their marriages were qualitatively inferior because of the cultures in which they lived. So, which is it, exactly? Woah, woah, woah, there! No, the LDS Church is not saying you can't get to the highest level of heaven unless you, personally, agree to enter a polygamous relationship. It has never said that. To receive exaltation, or to be in the "highest level of the Celestial Kingdom" (I hate that terminology, by the way--heaven is not a high-rise hotel) all that is necessary is to enter into the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (i.e. temple marriage, not plural marriage) and to live according to the covenants pertaining to that order. There are basically three ways that a woman's (or a man's) resistance to polygamy can have an adverse effect on her eternal reward: 1) Mormonism has traditionally taught that an exalted being's glory is at least partly a product of that person's "increase"--in other words, the number of offspring and descendants that that being has. That's why Mormonism has historically promoted large families; and one of the rationales for polygamy was that such families could produce larger amounts of progeny in a shorter period of time. But again, polygamy was simply the means to an end--the end being posterity, not sexual partners. A woman who declines to enter into polygamy isn't "penalized" any more than a woman or man who chooses to have zero or one or two children rather than six or eight or ten. It's simply a matter of everyone living with the natural consequences of their own life choices. 2) To the extent that the idea of (for example) Sister Danzel and Sister Wendy both enjoying eternity while considering themselves married to Brother Russell, just sticks in a person's craw to the point where that person can't possibly forgive God for allowing Russell, Danzel, and Wendy to enter into such a relationship: God's certainly not going to "penalize" that person; but the person's uncontrollable rage against God for failing to live up to 21st century Western social theory may well prove a self-imposed and insurmountable stumbling block that leads the person to reject the fulness of the reward God is offering them. 3) A reasonably careful reader of D&C 132 will note some pretty harsh language directed towards Emma Smith and assume that such language naturally applies to all women who have qualms about entering into polygamous relationships. In fact, the language was very likely intended specifically for Emma alone and was a response to some very particular threats that she had been making; which threats ranged from the possibility of a dower action against Church properties held in Joseph's name, to Emma's swearing to "get even" with Joseph by having a fling with some other man. With all due respect, you are talking like someone who hasn't actually read the Church's own explanations of why the earthly practice of plural marriage ceased. I would suggest you read the "Manifesto" ending polygamy--also known as Official Declaration 1--along with its surrounding material. It was not a matter of God saying that polygamy is morally wrong in all circumstances; it was a matter of God saying "as a practical expedient, you need to do this to save the Church's temples from government confiscation and its leaders from imprisonment." That doesn't erode the "credibility" of mainline Mormonism vis a vis fundamentalist offshoots, any more than mainstream Christianity's eschewing traditional kosher standards undermines its "credibility" vis a vis Orthodox Judaism. The whole point of having ongoing revelation and a living, modern prophet; is so that we can have a reliable means of knowing what things we should be doing now that maybe weren't necessary a century or a decade ago--and knowing what things we used to do that are no longer optimal given evolving social conditions. You wouldn't fault a mother who told her six-year-old to stay away from matches but then asked her teenager to light a campfire; and people who try to force God into this game of artificial absolutes and demand He give commandments independent of context will find themselves clashing with Mormon teaching over far more than simply polygamy. In closing, @Blossom76--what exactly are you thinking the missionaries failed to tell you? 1) That Mormonism formerly practiced polygamy? Because, with all due respect--did you really need missionaries to tell you that? 2) That Mormonism teaches you won't get the "highest level of heaven" if you don't become a polygamous wife? Because, that just ain't true. 3) That Mormonism teaches that *some* people--not necessarily you--will be voluntarily living in polygamous relationships in heaven? Because, how is that any of your business? 3) That Mormonism teaches that there is a possibility that if you predecease your husband, he may remarry and that both of his marriages may have standing in the hereafter? Because, as I've said before--misgivings over that don't arise from a mistrust of Mormonism; they arise from a mistrust of one's own husband.

Okay being a female I can see where she is coming from. Not to take sides but us girls dream of our weddings since we are little girls. A church wedding is a tradition for most people. If something like this is causing this much stress, you might want to rethink what your marriage will be like. If you have kids and she wants to raise them in a religious environment. How are you going to take that. How would you support that? There is going to be much to consider. Not just the venue for wedding.

Contention and hostility seem to follow you from topic to topic. I'm unsure why. Whether or not you have a risk of sharing your husband with someone is between you, your husband, and that "someone". It has nothing to do with God or a specific religion. If you believe families will be together beyond the veil, as you have stated, then I'm unsure what your problem is. In EVERY religion people remarry due to death or divorce. In EVERY religion these people have mixed families. In EVERY religion these people will be together in some form if you believe families will be together. That is pretty much the extent of ANYONE'S knowledge and that knowledge extends to every religion that believes in being with our loved ones forever.

I have wondered at times why no one ever seems to consider the idea(s) of plural marriage in reverse and the theoretical problems therein. What do I mean? Let's say I'm sealed to my wife for time and all eternity and then, around middle age or so, I died. My wife, being younger than me, marries again. With her new husband, all in, she spends 40 years of her life and has 6 kids. With me she only spent 20 years, and maybe we weren't able to have children, or only had 1 or 2. Now there I am sitting in heaven, desperately in love with this woman who, by all reasonable accounts, must now either cast me aside, or cast aside the man she lived with longer, had more of a life with, raised her children with, and has likely grown to love more dearly than I loved her. But she cannot choose us both. And I am stuck without the choice. I have no say in whether she chooses me or not. None. If she chooses the other guy, I lose her forever. If she chooses me the other guy loses her forever. Where's the fairness in that? Well it's easy enough to "say" trust God and it will all work out. That's the typical response we'd get on such matters. Facing it is harder. But the ONLY reality we have is to either choose to trust God or to not trust God. In the case of the husband in such a situation as presented here, however, the loss of his eternal companion is still entirely in the hands of the woman. Entirely. The plain fact of the matter is that when and if you believe in eternal marriage -- the simple idea that you can be married to someone eternally, then complications arise in spades. With polygamy, the women face one serious challenge, without it different challenges are faced. And the reality of having two spouses in life due to death used to be a considerably more likely. If we prioritize romantic love as the A Number One most important thing in a marriage eternal marriage doesn't really make sense in the factual grand scheme of things when you start factoring reality. Of course immature children have no perspective on this and cannot see past their Disney Princess idealism of happily ever after. Maturity, consideration, and having faced the realities of life and death as we grow older may well change perspectives on these things. *Edit: I realize that I gave my at least 40ish year old wife 6 children after 40....and that is probably not very likely...but....well, let's make it 3 kids instead, with a set of twins.

I think this conversation has run its course. Closing.

ATTENTION LDS CHURCH STUDENTS AND INVESTIGATORS: As far as has been revealed to us, plural marriage is not a requirement for exaltation in celestial glory. Plural marriage did in fact exist among the people of God in past times, both anciently and in the much more recent past. YOU MUST SUBMIT TO ALL OF GOD'S COMMANDMENTS iF YOU IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ALL GOD HAS TO OFFER. This is a general law, not specific to plural marriage. TO REITERATE THE POINT ABOVE: If God commands you to do X, and you say, "No, God, I will not do X," then you will never receive the blessings or inherit the glory the Father has in store for you. Ever. Worlds without end. The reason for this is simple: When God gives you a gift, he does not force you to accept it. That's true for the atonement. It's true for baptism. It's true for every gift that God gives to men and women. Without exception, God's commandments to us are gifts to us. Doctrine and Covenants 130:20-21 "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." So if plural marriage is ever commanded of you, you can be perfectly sure it's a good thing done for your benefit, and that by obedience you will be much happier than you would otherwise have been by disobeying -- exactly the same as with any other commandment you might ever be given. No difference. One final bullet point: Worrying about plural marriage is useless. More than a few LDS women have materially worsened their lives in worrying about this principle, something that does not touch them personally and that they will never have to confront in this life. (See Carol Lynn Pearson for a living example.) Don't be one of them.

It's an interesting paradigm. If you believe in eternal families, then you must accept the fact that families naturally have multiple partners. The scenario @NeuroTypical laid out exists across ALL religions. Otherwise, you believe eternal families DON'T exist, which changes the view of heaven dramatically. We're all just up there on our own.

@Blossom76 thank you for your concern and your sympathy. I think we can all agree that there are different beliefs sets. And that’s ok. It’s ok that you don’t agree with the practices of the LDS church and you don’t have to. Being new to the church I don’t know or understand all the practices either. And I do agree it is important for anyone to have a strong understanding of what they do and don’t believe. I wish you luck in whatever avenue you choice to go. And know that no matter what Jesus loves you. ❤️ Ps. Trying to convince someone that their beliefs aren’t true based on your non-beliefs is just a waste of your time. (I mean that with love and grace). Arguing over religion only brings hardened hearts and causes judgement. Neither of those are what Jesus wants.

With all due respect, that would pretty much eliminate all Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Not that that is a problem, if that is what you want. Someone may have said this already, but what about option 3, be sealed or allow the 2nd spouse to be sealed to someone else who will not have more than one wife? Also, just to throw this out there, but in the temple, for the deceased, we pretty much seal everyone to each other, and then just already have built in the plan and caveat that God will sort it out later. If women were divorced and re-married, they get sealed to both Husbands, and many kinds of zig zag and cross connect. Sealing really has one primary purpose, the uniting of all the children of God as one linked eternal family. We will have 1000 years after Jesus returns to figure out the full extent of what will actually happen and what will not. If you actually were to believe the doctrine to be true, I imagine that a great deal of stress from it would be alleviated just in that one simple pivotal experience. I think the stress comes from not believing and thinking you have to believe, rather than from if it is true or not. Also, remember that the truth doesn't change just because we take issue with it. Either it's true or it isn't. But your anxiety on the subject won't change whether it is or isn't true, that's why you have to either shelve it and worry about it later, or decide (as it appears you have done). Historical, and even biblical marriage was not based on romantic love. It was based on two people coming together for a reason, almost like a business deal. Many cultures still have arranged marriages. Many times two people love the same person and that person must choose only one of them. Religiously active Christian homosexuals must forfeit the opportunity to marry anyone of the same sex. People get a 'broken heart' for many, many reasons. I personally believe that love is more a commandment, than an experience. Christ showed us His love by giving his life for us. This was an action, it was not romantic in the traditional sense. Any two people can develop true love for one another by obedience to and focus on the gospel of Christ. I once, many years ago had a co-worker at work that I thought was very attractive and interesting as a person. In a different reality I would have asked her out and hoped to kindle a relationship. On major hiccup though, this individual was a lesbian. Once as we were discussing love she eventually told me, "you can't help who you love", as an excuse for her lesbian relationship. However, what if I loved her? I didn't, but what if I did? Was she going to drop her lesbian partner and come be with me? Even in a heterosexual situation this would be unrealistic. However, it is evidence that sometimes, we have no option but to chose who we will love, when it comes to relationships. When romantic love is the primary measuring stick, one person will always appear to lose, even in our life here on earth. Even without plural marriage the man and the woman who re-marry will romantically love one of the spouses more than the other, does the fact that it doesn't happen at the same time automatically make it okay? Not to me! If I die and my wife re-marries and loves her new husband more than she loved me, then right now in my mind, I have a problem with that! However, I recognize that that is all emotion, and 0 logic. Even without the existence of eternal marriage I can imagine myself on the 'other side' feeling slighted at such an occurrence. My children would love their new father, some of my children would grow up without ever even remembering me is their father. It is extremely painful, emotionally, to think about. However, regardless, it does not change the reality that if I die, it will happen, and I have even counseled my wife to re-marry if she wishes to do so. What can give me solace in this? I know that we all probably spent a great deal of time with each other before our lives on earth even began, and that we will have an eternity after this life has ended. So, I simply can trust that we will all be blessed by God to receive exactly what will bring us the most joy. You see, regardless of your religious paradigm, love and emotional pain and fear can always be connected, always. If anything, the doctrine of plural marriage forces us to bear out that pain and surrender to the will of God, whatever that may be, rather than to bottle it up and ignore it until a time when we can't ignore it anymore. Some people may never have to deal with these types of emotions, or situations, but they are real for many people whether polygamy exists or not. I think not being comfortable with something is vastly different from not making logical sense. Emotionally difficult to bear, perhaps, but illogical, I would need a breakdown to understand what makes it illogical. Which, I am seriously willing to accept as a possibility, but I just don't see how logic enters into it.

Welcome, @harrypark Um, you're calling her "my wife" - which makes me think you're already married. Is that the case? If so, then by "church wedding", since you're on a Mormon site, I assume you mean a temple marriage - to be sealed together for time and eternity - which would require you to join the Church. If you're not married, then instead of "my wife", I assume you mean "my fiancee"? If you're already married, then I would recommend the two of you go together to a marriage counselor and do what you can to maintain your marriage - especially if you have children. If you're not yet married, then pre-marriage counseling, to help you discuss these issues without fighting, would be wise - if you cannot move past this, it would be a mistake to get married. Even if you think you can move past this, it's a huge challenge and you need to be united in how you're going to approach it.

Works better if we make it rhyme, "If the garden of eden was the ideal way to live, there was no polygamy, god made Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve and [Genaveeve]." All kidding aside, I will provide the following statement I made in the other thread: "We have a choice, we can either live in fear causing over anxiety over something we can not control, or we can live in faith knowing that when we die temporal knowledge (Telestial knowledge) will not inhibit us from accepting pure and virtuous principles. We don't have the "little" devil on our shoulder telling us "bad things are good, and good things are bad." Place your trust, place your faith, in a loving heavenly Father who has a perfect plan that he executes with perfect love. Hold onto what you have now, and do not be bothered by something that may or may not be." If we struggle with something, true or not true, there is a loving Heavenly Father you can kneel and plead for his guidance and tutoring toward all and any truth that we need witness or comfort with.

Sorry, I wasn't specifically referring to you. I was talking about sealing and what it truly means. We aren't just sealed to our spouses but to our families as well. What do those sealings look like in heaven? I personally don't know. Anything I find on it says we will be bound together in heaven and that it will extend to all generations. https://www.lds.org/temples/what-happens-in-a-temple-sealing?lang=eng I trust God's plan. I also recognize the choices we make in this life have effects in the next. I know that Christ's atonement has the power to cleanse our sins. Beyond that, I can't say I know what will happen. I'm pretty sure I'll be happy for it, though. After all, we shouted for joy when we heard God's plan, so it must be a good one.

I think It’s important for discussion sake that I clarify that I knew going into my marriage that this would be a possibility. I knew my husband was sealed to another woman. I knew that there was a change before we even civilly married that I may never be sealed to my husband or if I did she could still be sealed to him as well. I didn’t feel forced into polygamy, I walked right in with my eye open because I knew without a shadow of a doubt that my husband was who I wanted to be with whether for time only or for eternity no matter what that entailed. However that doesn’t me that it doesn’t bother me. Like I said I’m human. I feel my husband is mine. And I want his love for me only. But if I have to share him it wouldn’t be with his ex because she doesn’t deserve to get to love him because she already had her chance and chose not to.

Wow. Such strong, aggressive, no-nonesense hand-writing. It's what we need in police officers. And now you won't have cramped fingers. We need those fingers fresh and steady for trigger discipline.

Long ago, one of my good friends married a young woman in the Ward whose first husband (they were married in the temple) had died of cancer after only a year of marriage. Back then my friend could only marry the young widow for time and not eternity. We had lengthy conversations about him not being sealed to his wife for eternity and whether his children (there were no children from the first marriage) would be sealed to the first husband for eternity. His great attitude was that it will all be worked out by God in the end, and to everyone's satisfaction. I can't be sure, but I believe he has since been sealed for eternity to his wife and children--again, with the provision that it will all be worked out in the end. My friend wisely decided not to taint his joy with his wife and kids in this life by worrying about what may or may not happen in the after-life. They have lived happily together for more than 40 years. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Only if said person eats the cream and nothing else. My children are soul-sucking ghouls when it comes to Oreo cookies.

Also if you aren’t willing to compromises on this because your different belief systems then you two will have a long road ahead. This will just be one of many things that religious differences will become to play a role in. Especially if you have children.

I would very much urge you to marry someone who has similar religious views/values as you do (including a view "religion doesn't matter"). This is foundational to who a person is, and you want to have that foundation in common before becoming one with that other person via marriage. This is WAY bigger than the question of "which building do we get married in" and has implications throughout your entire lives (and any children's lives).

There you go. Next time you're in Priesthood meeting and you hear "Does anyone have any missionary experiences they'd like to share?" you've got your thing to say.

The thing is, the war between truth and lies, good and evil, heaven and hell, God and Satan, is ongoing. It simply is. We either stand on God's side (which means (among other things) accepting and trusting God fully and without reservation) or we stand on the enemy's. Yes. It sounds harsh. But it is what it is. Sounds like you're choosing the right side.

I agree. And even if one's objections are primarily on grounds of emotional discomfort, there are light years of difference between saying "I just can't reconcile myself to the emotional ramifications of this particular teaching" versus coming out swinging with language like "I want nothing to do with a God/Heaven that runs things this way", or refusing to present a cohesive alternative as to how Heaven should be run, or offering mutually contradictory arguments against the Mormon paradigm, or repeatedly making stupendous misrepresentations as to the Mormon position. At some point, a person who takes the latter approach is going to be suspected of dealing in bad faith.

Hi folks, Just a reminder about site rules #2 and 3 and 4: This applies to all of us. Here's your notice - we've locked a thread and might start issuing infractions. I love y'all, but I got a mighty fine infraction hammer, and it works on everybody. On the other side of the coin, here's a reminder about site rule #1: This is a "come learn about what Mormons believe" board. This isn't an "I believe differently, therefore I must justify/defend, or try to persuade the mormons" board. Arguing why mormons are wrong, or your way is better, is perfectly fine - http://www.mormondialogue.org is a great place to go do it. Don't do it here. Peace everyone!

Then you should avoid any organization founded on the Bible, because it's got all kinds of polygamy going on. Erm, just don't date guys who have already been sealed to someone else. Make it question #1 when asked on a date. Problem solved. If you date a few times and like him, ask his thoughts on re-marrying if you die first - if you don't like his answer, move on. In other words, don't fall in love with someone whose beliefs and intents are incompatible with your own. Problem solved. (If this is truly the main issue, I'm baffled.) Because this is the first time you've answered the "what do you believe" question with "I don't know what I believe". Previously you have only said what you don't believe (LDS teachings) but have never responded in the affirmative (nor explained that you have not yet formed an affirmative belief in this area).

For every troll out there you will find 10 Mother Theresa's. For every person who cannot look past doctrinal differences you will find many who will admire and envy your walk with Christ. While other churches dry up because they cannot seem to put into practice what they preach you will hear many of the lost cry, "I knew the Mormons would come!" I became a Mormon, despite being one of those "traditional Christians", because I had friends and neighbors who looked past our differences and took it upon themselves to help me be the best Christian I could be - despite ill advised things I probably said, despite the fact that I most likely would not join the church. They did so because they knew I was operating on incomplete information. They did so because they were obeying Christ's admonition to bless those who curse you. For which I cannot begin to express how grateful I am. Today, I got to deal with some trolls who, because of the need for doctrinal purity on their part, could not even see they were being self righteous, condescending, and hateful. It was unfortunate, because I had, up until today, been somewhat successful at bridging the gap between evangelicals and Mormons. But, I guess, occasionally we run into situations were we have to agree to disagree and in other cases not bother casting our pearls before swine. Paul faced this kind of blow back in his day. So did the savior. So will anyone who tries to live a Godly life. Take joy in the fact that we have been deemed worthy to endure ridicule and hatred because of our love for Christ! I do take solace that as time goes by this in-fighting between churches will hopefully diminish. I take encouragement because of the fact that here in Salt Lake City our Church and the Roman Catholic Church seem to have a good working relationship. I'm encouraged because when I volunteered at the homeless shelter you had a ministry ran by the catholic church and while I was there we had a number of Mormon missionaries, a couple of baptist sisters, and some other gentlemen from various denominations, but we had all come there to bring the gospel of Christ to those in our community who needed it the most. Do not give up on people who are working with incomplete information. If they won't listen to your words then let your life be your testimony, because it will be the one thing they will never be able to ignore. They may hate us for it, they may curse us and call down Hell upon our heads, but they will not be able to shut down the burning coals our examples will place upon their heads.

In a long term outage like that, you're much better off conserving fuel for other things. Past about a week, I'd be planning to finish off everything refrigerated ASAP, and save generator fuel to run a well pump, communications, etc.

If I recall this (I think I've seen it before), there's a logical flaw presented here: - The Abrahamic sacrifice was a great sacrifice. - Polygamy, also being a great sacrifice, was accordingly compared to the Abrahamic sacrifice. - Therefore, because the Abrahamic sacrifice did not require follow through, neither will polygamy. The first two being true do not automatically equate to the third being true. That's a big ol' HUGE, and quite basic I might add, example of a logical fallacy. Is it wise to give credence to a philosophy where the core view is based on a logical fallacy?

That is a reasonable emotional response. I would feel exactly the same if my wife were to be married to another man at the same time as me. Although, I admittedly would not be bothered by it very much if it were only going to take place in heaven and not here on earth. The reason is that I assume that by the time it actually happened, I would be perfected through Christ, and would be granted the knowledge and wisdom to understand it. I wonder, would it be different if polygamy did not happen in the next life, but only happened here on earth? Do you at least acknowledge God's blessing to Abraham, who had 3 wives, and Jacob who had two wives as legitimate and God given during mortality? If not, what is your view about those Biblical instances? That is a really good point, especially from the non-lds paradigm. The only issue I have with that comparison, is that there are plenty of other Biblical instances of God ordained plural marriage, that I don't think the instances of monogamous marriage alone will establish that plural marriage is never good in the eyes of God. Not all LDS women do accept this. When you get baptized, they don't ask you if you believe in polygamy as a requirement. That said, one should believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that as of right now, Russel M. Nelson is a true prophet. Those will help in the journey, but the main thing we must accept is Christ, and our commitment to follow him. If Christ came to you personally and commanded to you to participate in a marriage that was uncomfortable, do you think it would assuage your fears? Sometimes God asks us to do simple things, sometimes hard. Remember the story of Job? God let the devil take everything from him, and yet he remained faithful. One of my favorite quotes from Joseph Smith is this: I also think of Naaman, who was kind of in the exact opposite situation. He would have been willing to do something big, but something small made it seem false. Now days many will do small things to follow Christ, but few will do big things: That is a very interesting thought. However, I don't think God would all of a sudden stop validating something in heaven just because it is no longer being practiced on the earth. I mean, without the LDS view, God stopped sending prophets, even with the LDS view, he stopped for a little while and then started again at a later date. I personally presume God took it from the earth because it would make it culturally easier to facilitate the promotion of the restored gospel in all the world. Regardless, once again, we know that is was done in Biblical times. We also believe that God forbade it during Book of Mormon times and gave a qualifier: God commands, we do what He commands. We believe he commanded polygamy/plural marriage. I believe it is and was a true principle, although I do not fully understand His reasoning for it, nor do I personally wish to participate. However, if the Lord asks it of me, I pray that I have the faith to comply, and as of right now, I think I do. In light of polygamy, and many of the other principles that concern you, I close with the words of Moroni: I truly hope you find peace with all of these doctrines and principles that seem frightening to you. Especially in hopes that they will lead you to the truth that I know is found in the restored gospel. Regardless, I pray for you and wish you the best.

I recognize that as a non-member you have a unique perspective, but there are active members of the Church who reject polygamy and everything associated with it, but who are otherwise faithful, and who know the Church and Book of Mormon are true. I have family members among them.

The rest of Christianity, from what I can tell, are all over the map on this question. Most haven't really thought about it. As I mentioned before, much of Christianity just figure we don't stay married, or human. We lose whatever we have here on earth, and become angels, content to exist in a constant state of worship and adoration of God. And our earthly loves and relationships and commitments just dissolve and are replaced by God's love. I guess that's a "make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt" way to see the eternities. Mormons don't believe that. When Christians think long and hard about it, and realize they just can't abide "until death do you part", well, when they come looking for a better answer, we've got one. Our understanding on the importance and eternal nature of families? Well, it's a reason why we continue to baptize lots and lots of converts. But yes, it comes with some weighty implications. Just as weighty as accepting "you won't care about not being married after you die - you'll be content to praise God and stand in his light forever". Again, I honestly couldn't chose without God's direction.

You're welcome here, Blossom, as long as you do not violate any of the site rules. At the end of the day, the only valid reason to become a Mormon, is you believe God wants you to. If you don't believe that, if you haven't received a testimony that such is His plan for you, then I wouldn't become LDS. If He does though, well, that assurance is more powerful than all the good causes for pause. God bless you wherever you go Blossom!

I truly do not understand. How is this different from the requirement that, to live with God, you have to be selfless, or generous, or think of others, or worship only God, or sacrifice everything you own and everything you value for the kingdom of God, or literally anything else God commands of those who dwell with him? Are those things also "spiritual blackmail"? Or is there something special about the idea of plural marriage that sets it apart from any other commandment God gives?

No it doesn't. It means to be stopped from eternal progression.

The longer I live, the more I believe that every single one of Satan's attacks, subtle and glaringly obvious, have been against the family. Whether they appear to be moral, political, economic, violent, or what-have-you, all have been for the intent of destroying the family and / or by the mechanism of destroying the family.

Indeed. For over eighty years, we have allowed our attitudes about love and marriage to be shaped by Hollywood—which itself is very possibly the most relationally dysfunctional subculture to ever emerge out of a western society.

Well, that is certainly a good desire to have. Obviously, I believe that the LDS Church fulfills that role. However, if that is specifically what you are seeking, then the only other church I can think of that adequately attempts to make that claim is the Catholic church. In my mind, in terms of authority to speak for God, it is one or the other of Catholicism or Mormonism. Protestant faith's tend to believe that God has stopped speaking to man and usually don't claim any type of prophetic authority to speak for God (outside of their interpretation of the Bible). I suppose you may have been aware of that, which may have been the origin of your investigation to begin with, but that's my perspective on the matter.

I desperately hope this is true. I really, really enjoy eating delicious food. The joy of this magic wand would last maybe two weeks, tops. Then it's just Life As Usual.

crackheads all of you.

@harrypark I’m assuming your wife is LDS? If yes, then just be aware that by marrying you civilly she is giving up her ideal of a temple wedding given that she is marrying a non-lds member. So if that is the case, a church wedding seems to be a compromise. also it’d be beneficial to both of you if despite your non religious preference you did some research into her beliefs.

I got the Crane & Co for me. The cheapo paper is for my sons' schoolwork. I got them each their own Al-star so they'll leave mine alone. They're call them their "missionary pens" - they plan to take care of them so that they can take the pens with them on their mission! My youngest is only 14 and has a ways to go before then... so let's see if he can really hang on to his pen. The 16 year old I'm fairly certain will still have his pen by then - he brings his pen like his phone and wallet... never goes anywhere without it.

I can't wait @zil! I ordered 12 Jinhao 992 transparent fountain pens (almost like demonstrators but more colorful). I got 2 sets of 6 different colors. I ordered them to gift to my cousins for my upcoming visit. So, from the review, it says Jinhao's are a hit or miss on production - you basically get what you pay for - but that those that are hits write really good and those that have some experience can usually fix the ones that are a miss to make them good. So, I figured I can use this opportunity to learn how to fix pens... I wanna be like @LiterateParakeet! Anyway, I had the stuff shipped to my mom so she can put it in her luggage. I'm a backpack traveler so I offload gifts to my mother who likes to check-in giant suitcases. I won't see them for 2 weeks! Ugh! I can't wait.

This seems . . . contradictory. Sounds like I pretty much called it in my last post when I suggested that "people who try to force God into this game of artificial absolutes and demand He give commandments independent of context will find themselves clashing with Mormon teaching over far more than simply polygamy." That's because the Church ultimately isn't what would put you into that situation; your husband would. Either you trust his discretion and his devotion to you--or you don't. The situation of a woman marrying a widower--as opposed to the situation of a predeceasing wife discussed earlier--seems like another scenario whose implications you haven't really considered. Let's run out the possibilities through a series of hypothetical outcomes: 1) Marriage does not continue into the hereafter. (Prospective) Wife #2 and Husband may remarry, for this life only, with no eternal ramifications. I presume this isn't your standpoint, because it would make our entire discussion academic. 2) Marriage does continue into the hereafter. (Prospective) Wife #2, unable to cope with the prospect of eternal polygamy, declines to go through with the marriage and resumes her search for a completely unattached potential mate. Your statements quoted above suggest you believe this to be a cruel/unrealistic option. (They also reek of the Hollywood lie that we have absolutely no control over who we love; but that's perhaps neither here nor there.) 3) Marriage does continue into the hereafter. (Prospective) Wife #2, unable to cope with the prospect of eternal polygamy, lobbies the Church to change its policies in such a way as to nullify Husband's sealing to the deceased Wife #1, thus enabling her to be sealed to Husband and keep him all to herself for all eternity and thus leaving deceased Wife #1 to fend for herself. @Blossom76, your arguments tend towards Outcome #3. In another recent thread I made a tongue-in-cheek crack about "celestial home wreckers"; but the two statements of yours that I cite above suggest that you actually think a woman should be entitled to do to another woman. What makes this discussion even more bizarre is that in one breath you worry that a husband will betray his dead wife through remarriage; and then in your next breath you worry that he won't. It's almost like you have no consistent, coherent vision of what spousal relations in the eternities are supposed to look like; and you're just poking holes in an attempt to justify your decision to not become a Mormon.

Assume religion A is the chocolate cookie, and religion B is the vanilla cookie, and the cream filling is the Bible. If both religions believe the Bible is the word of God, then the basis for following or believing in one religion over the other is the personal preference for, or belief in, the doctrines and teachings and biblical interpretation of that religion. The biblical text remains the same across both religions, but the interpretation differs. I was never trying to raise the issue of why mainstream Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian. I am well aware of their reasons. I was attempting to raise the issue that they are terrible at accurately communicating their reasons. When they say things like, "I dont consider anyone who has a doctrine other than what the Holy Bible teaches as Christian", what they actually mean is, "I don't believe that anyone who disagrees with [x] interpretation of what the Holy Bible teaches about [a/b/c] is Christian". The problem is that they don't understand the difference between what they are saying and what they are meaning, even when you point it out to them. It is reasonable to say that they believe a certain religion is not Christian in comparison to what they think Christian beliefs should be, but that is not what was being said by the individual who inspired this thread. What they were saying was that their definition of Christianity is based on what the Bible itself teaches, when in fact the Bible 'teaches' something different to each person who interprets it different than the next. Saying that the cream filling is the reason one of the cookies is better than the other is an example of the type of illogical thing that was being communicated, when what someone would actually mean is that the chocolate or vanilla flavor is what made it more preferable. Compliance with the biblical text itself is ambiguous and relative. Compliance with certain established doctrines and principles is, for the most part, fixed. Either you believe in the trinity or you don't, however, to say that the Bible teaches the trinity is relative to interpretation. Once again, the whole thread was initiated by my annoyance at the lack of logical communication skills shown by those who seek to claim the falsehood of Mormonism, not the actual claim itself.

[Aside: Crud. You'd think we could get through a thread without falling into this abyss again, but here we go.]

I have eaten 10-year-old chicken from a jar. Not frozen. We had it on one of our Food Storage themed Relief Society activity. It was pretty good, a bit on the salty side, but still good. One of our elderly sisters jarred the chickens herself 10 years prior, kept it in her food storage pantry, then made chicken pot pie with it for the RS activity.

I recently inherited 30 lbs of 30 plus year old wheat. Each can I have opened, I just made sure it sprouted. If it did, it was still good as new. If it didn't sprout, throw it away. Every sample has sprouted so far.

Our own @Suzie has previously pointed to the journal of Wandle Mace for the proposition that at least one animal sacrifice was performed in Kirtland. Heber C. Kimball’s journal records Brigham Young prophesying that animal sacrifice would someday be done in the Salt Lake Temple; and Wilford Woodruff’s journal as of 1857 records that the original plan was for the altar to be under the west (Aaronic Priesthood) pulpits in the Salt Lake temple. But it’s hard to know which floor this would have been on (the original plans for the SL temple called for two assembly rooms, one above the other, similar to Nauvoo) and I’m not aware of any record confirming that such an altar was ever incorporated into the finished structure.

IMO, a prophet's calling can only be negated by God. If a prophet does something sufficiently worrisome, God will take care of it. (This isn't over-confidence in prophets, it's complete confidence in God. It's also His stewardship, not mine, to appoint and remove prophets.) As for all the things typically cited as prophetic error, I suspect we're being awfully Monday-morning-quarterback about them (aka presumptuous). We don't have the infinite capacity to go back in time and see _everything_ that would have happened to _everyone_ had the decision been the one we think it should have been. Again, I trust God to right any wrongs. Personally, I have yet to hear a prophet teach something that requires me to do something against my conscience in order to gain salvation. There are so many teachings for me to work on to improve myself and serve others, that I really don't need to worry about things which have no impact on my eternal salvation. Possible prophetic errors have no impact on my salvation. When Christ's birthday was, and what various people believe on that topic, have nothing to do with my salvation. Such things seem utterly irrelevant to me, little more than curiosities.