Faded

I get what you're saying. But Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ died in such a way that their deaths really meant something. All I'm saying is that if you have to a martyr to a cause, I don't think they'd have chosen to be martyrs to the cause of better plumbing and piping.Of course I know that we're all mortal. I remember a number of different stories of missionaries dying from other everyday things. Getting hit by a train, car accidents, getting hit by a car, etc. I'm not saying we need to be granted super-powers or anything. I'm sure that they're doing just fine right now. In many ways, yes it is the best time for them to meet their maker. But it's still sad of course.

"Mormons believe in a different Jesus." This assertion has always struck me as extremely deceptive statement. The typical Protestant or Catholic congregation member frankly doesn't really understand the Trinity. Many could care less about what most non-Christians would consider minor differences of interpretation. And the average Christian isn't likely to grasp why their leaders are so concerned. But they trust their leaders and take them at their word. So rather than going into a lengthy explanation, the priest or pastor simply tells them, "Mormons believe in a different Jesus," and leave it to their listeners to draw their own conclusions. This has its intended effect: Automatic disbelief of anything those "Mormons" have to say no matter what. Many of them will have concluded that Mormons actually believe in somebody other than Jesus of Nazareth or some nonsense like that. Virtually all of them cannot tell you why they think we worship a different Jesus. Even if their pastor actually did explain it to them, it'll be a discourse about the Trinity and they'll tune it out once they get totally lost and confused. Long and short of it: Most of the Christians who make this assertion can't answer the question, "Why do you think that?" They don't know. Their pastor is doing their thinking for them on this matter.

Seriously, if Barack Obama actually got the ball rolling that led to a College Football Playoff system, I'd be very impressed. Only powerhouse schools who wish to maintain their stranglehold on dominance in College Football (because they have more money) want to keep the system like it is.

Easy answer. Yes that one-time fornication is far worse. Not saying that dealing drugs isn't a bad thing, but in the eyes of God, that one-time fornication more repugnant. The trouble is that you can't really negotiate to make misuse of God's most sacred gift to mankind less sacred that it is. And it truly is a measure of how vile society has become that the sacredness of the procreative process has been so thoroughly perverted. These things really are a lot bigger deal to God than you're making them out to be -- but it's understandable considering what society looks like these days. Sex sells and it's everywhere. Again, the idea that "no life is involved and no commitment involved" is just like me hiring a hitman to kill somebody, and me not considering myself a murderer just because I did not actually do the killing. Is the man who hired an assassin really any better than the assassin himself? Please bear in mind that nobody intends to make you feel miserable. My wife (Tarnished) and I understand your situation better than most. She is coming to the end of one-year official probation in the Church because she committed adultery. A good while before we were married, I had premarital sex with another girl and went through the Church discipline process myself. Neither of us is innocent on this score. The terrible feelings of guilt and the repentance process has taught us both how serious these things truly are.I do think it's important for people not to talk themselves into sexual sins being "no big deal" or to decide "that was then and this is now, it's not as bad now as it was a long time ago." That's me defending the law of chastity, not trying to make you feel bad. Just trust me when I say that the Atonement and the repentance process are very, very real.

Official answer: There really isn't a dress code. As long as it is modest, Church members should not complain. There's a lot of traditions that have developed, and most would say that you wear the best clothes you can in order to show your respect. But if the best you have is jeans and a T shirt, that's fine and dandy. And the "best clothes you have" rule is not official. Just tradition.As it comes to hats ... I don't see women wearing elaborate hats pretty much anywhere these days. The American tradition (and it is again ONLY a tradition) is to take your hat off when you are inside a building out of respect. There is no underlying rule in the Church to that effect.

I actually agree with the general thought: that if an 8 year old child does not understand the commitment they are making, then it would seem to be "baptism without faith." I don't think that the LDS Church intends that to happen at all. It's certainly a sight better than infant baptism -- as I'm sure that no infant can hope to comprehend what is going on at their baptism. As I have gotten older, I've always found it extremely puzzling that a number of people felt they didn't understand what was happening when they were baptized at age 8. I most certainly understood. And while I lacked the maturity I possess now, it was an incredibly spiritual experience in my life. I think that comes of knowing what you are committing to. I can say with certainty that I understood the commitment I was making at the time and I will endeavor to ensure that my own children can say the same thing. That's all I had to say on the matter.

I do love the fact that LDS and traditional Christian doctrine has more common ground than our more passionate critics tend to give us credit for. They do tend to love to sensationalize things and greatly overstate them. I remember CS Lewis teaching something akin to what you mentioned: That we become gods (without the capital letter on the "G".) I'm not at all certain how widespread that notion is among Christians, but it's an interesting thing. From my perspective, it seems an awful lot like Christian thinkers are willing to admit to human destiny being really, really glorious and great, but just refusing to take it to it's logical conclusion. I know you see it differently, and respect your point of view. It's a lot like the Trinity vs the Godhead, you can easily establish either belief based upon a reading of the Bible, so it's puzzling that such a fuss is made about it all.

Really sad thing to hear about. Kind of gives you mixed feelings when two servants of God die from something so pathetic as bad infrastructure and bad piping, etc. Seems like an awfully anti-climactic way to go.

I was pointing more to the Orthodox Church at the time of the Schism, and not today. And even if they had accepted him as "greatest among equals" that was not well established in the early Church at all. But it is very interesting that modern day Orthodox are willing to accept primacy from Rome. I wonder if it is a reconciliatory gesture or if they really believe in the legitimacy of Rome's claim as "the seat of Peter." What strikes me as very interesting is that the Pentarchy of Bishops (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria) seemed to feel it necessary to infuse greater authority by laying claim on linear authority from specific Apostles. Most of my library is packed up (we're trying to sell the house and then move) so I'm having to go from memory a lot here. I wonder where that tradition got started. I don't know how it played out off the top of my head, and I can't look it up. But as a case in point of how I think it all played out: One of the five bishops, let's say it's he Bishop of Alexandria -- stakes the claim that Mark was their Bishop anciently. This would seem to increase their perceived authority. In response, Rome and Antioch lay their claim to Peter. I don't buy into any of these claims. I don't think any of the Apostles were bishops. But it seems logical that many of the claims to specific Apostles originates from a one-upmanship pissing contest of "my authority is bigger than your authority." Perhaps the biggest hole in the claim that "the seat of Peter" descend through the Bishopric of Rome is this: Peter never led the Church from Rome. He was never at Rome for any great length of time throughout his life. Rome is the traditional place of his death, but it is not absolutely certain that he really died there. Historical evidence seems to indicate that Peter's theoretical immediate successor, Linus was never ordained as Bishops at all. "It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief--that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34). " Linus' successor Cletus was not a Bishop. "Pope" Clement seems to get thoroughly confused with several other people named Clement, but it does not appear that the religious leader of Rome named Clement was ever a Bishop, nor an apostle. You have to make a lot of assumptions in favor of "Pope" Clement, which pious accounts undoubtedly will do. I'm being cut short by the wife, so I can't poke around and find the name ... but it was several "Popes" down the list before we find a bonifide Bishop of Rome. Thusly, how does succession happen via a vacant Bishopric? Does Peter geographically pass on his authority somehow just by dying in Rome? If that were enough then clearly Jerusalem's authority would far exceed Rome's. After all, Jesus Christ, the Son of God died there. You can't do much better than that.

By the time the Edict of Milan rolls around, the concept of had already evolved that the five Bishops already mentioned -- Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome -- had authority greater than that of other bishops. So the idea that Rome had primacy was clear enough. They were part of a circle of five equals which essentially presided over the Church. The idea that they held supremacy over the other four was not well established. How did those five grow to such significance? I think it is very likely that those bishops in turn ordained and established numerous bishoprics across the ancient world that had not been established by the Apostles themselves. This may have created an "unequal relationship among equals." The fact that the acknowledged superiors to the bishops -- the Apostles -- were gone left the ancient Church without leadership, so de facto leadership of some fashion was bound to move into that void. There were a couple of Patriarchs of Constantinople who gave deference to the Bishop of Rome prior to the Schism. The Orthodox would view them as weak patriarchs, and would essentially write there actions off in the same way the RCC pretty much just writes off Alexander VI and all his debauchery. As to the Oriental Churches, the Armenians had an early tradition of sending their Catholicos (effectively, their Pope today) to Caesarea. This tradition finds its beginnings when in 302, Gregory received consecration as Patriarch and Catholicos of Armenia from Leontius of Caesarea, his childhood friend. It is likely that Gregory had not been ordained a Bishop and needed to be, but that is not certain. The brief tradition of sending the Catholicos to Caesarea for commissioning ceased in 373 when King Pap appointed Catholicos Yusik without first sending him to Caesarea. The Armenian Church has maintained a relationship with the rest of the Church throughout history, but does not look to the Bishop of Rome nor the Patriarch of Constantinople for leadership. Coptic Christianity centers its authority around the "Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy See of Saint Mark." Interestingly, they too lay claim to direct succession from the Apostles in claiming that the first Bishop of Alexandria was the Apostle Mark. The Bishop of Alexandria views his authority as a continuation of the Pentarchy (circle of five equals) of the early Christian Church. Assyrian Christianity originally looked to the Patriarch of Antioch for leadership. As fears of Roman influence within the Persian Empire grew, pressure was exerted by the Persian Emperors to sever ties to the Church in the Roman Empire. "In 424 the bishops of Persia met in council under the leadership of Catholicos Dadiso and determined that there would be no reference of their disciplinary or theological problems to any other power, especially not to any bishop or church council in the Roman Empire. The formal separation from the See of Antioch and the western Syrian Church under the Byzantine Emperors, occurred at this synod in 424." They have effectively been operating under their own authority ever since then. Interestingly, prior to their separation, it was Antioch and not Rome that they looked to as their superior.

Quite true, depending upon what you want to call "The Catholic Church". There was a religious body that survives intact from the Apostles going forward. But many parts of that body were at odds with each other doctrinally. Roman Catholic seems to come about as the Bishop of Rome laid claims to supremacy centuries later. Those who accepted his authority become Roman Catholic. Those that didn't accept the Bishop of Rome became something else: Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, etc. There are many surviving parts of the original body of the Church that have no tradition of accepting Rome's supremacy. If the Bishop of Rome's supremacy was never questioned, then shouldn't we find a tradition of his authority in Ethiopia and amongst Assyrian Christians?

I wouldn't say it's been a debate exactly. NONE of the popes from Linus I till Gregory I (the Great) were given open acknowledgement as "head of the Church." They weren't acting like men with supreme authority. Those that did try to exert authority over other Bishops were treated with contempt and quite often were strongly rebuked. So for roughly the first 500 years, the Petrine Succession was not universally accepted as belonging to the Bishop of Rome.Gregory I seems to have been the first "Pope" that acted the part. Truthfully, the presumed superiority of the Bishop of Rome was not absolutely established until the Great Schism of 1054 AD. The Patriarch of Constantinople certainly did not recognize the Pope's authority, and it was for that reason that the Church was split in two -- Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. So from the death of Peter up to 1054 AD, the claimed successorship was not univerally recognized. I think the Pope came to his position of power by attrition and by sheer lucky location. Early in the Church's history, five Bishops were considered to be higher in authority than other bishops: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome. Out of the five, two were the capital cities within the empire: Constantinople and Rome. Ultimately, all were overrun but Muslim conquerers with only one exception: Rome. And unlike Constantinope, eclesiastical authority was not shared with the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor once the Western emperors declined and utterly ceased.

Interesting. I guess the missing ingredient is an explanation of this "holy anointing" that is mentioned. In my reading of Section 132, I thought it might have related to a woman with a deceased husband. I suppose this is one of those things we'll learn more about someday.

theophilus I do apologize if I have offended you in some way. I have my strongly felt opinions and so do you. I certainly did not intend to upset you. You are tossing a few stones in your comments, but I've little doubt of your sincerity in your beliefs. I don't see much point in having a discussion about Petrine succession if there is no catholic to give their side of things, so I won't bother. I've wandered onto "Christian" forums myself, and I was blown away at how much abuse I received there. I hope I haven't done the same thing in any way. The debate between the two viewpoints is quite simple. Either Joseph Smith saw God and Christ or he did not. If he did, then what God taught him about their nature and characteristics was true. If it is true, then the fact that it offends deeply entrenched Trinitarian thought is completely irrelevant. You can't turn a brick into a loaf of bread just by believing it's a loaf of bread. God is what he is whether everyone agrees or not. The fact that the Pharisees declared that Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly be the Messiah because he did not fulfill X, Y AND Z traditions they had about the Messiah doesn't change the fact that he most certainly was the Messiah. I'm sorry if you feel that Protestants and Mormons are being ungrateful to the early Church for their sacrifices and diligence in preserving the New Testament we have today. I never said I wasn't grateful to them. However, gratitude does not require us to agree with every teaching of the Catholic Church. But to be fair, how much gratitude has Catholicism shown the Jews for THEIR BOOK the Old Testament? Not much. Unless massacre and persecution at every turn is some hidden form of thanks. I remain sincerely interested in understanding why traditional Christianity clings so tightly to Nicean Theology. I think I understand the biggest reason: Rethinking the Trinity would be like yanking the foundation out from under the house, so Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics alike all tend to view the Trinity as something that is simply not open to discussion. That tends to make discussing it quite challenging. Again sorry if you were offended by anything I've said. I'll endeavor to be more tactful in the future.

I've heard claims to that effect, but I don't know if they are true. William and Jane Law certainly accused Smith of attempting to push something similar onto them, but I don't think the story is credible, nor verifiable.Where does section 132 say that "under special circumstances, a woman may be sealed to more than one husband"? I Must have missed that in my reading of it. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with everything you said. Good comments.

I suppose that LDS girls make this a priority because it is kind of mitigating risk. The logic would seem to be: RM is less likely to fall away from the Church, commit adultery, will be a better father, and has demonstrated their commitment to God by their two years service. We are often told of the fast-forward of maturity and world-experience that a mission provides. The logic makes sense certainly. It would be interesting to see stats on this sort of thing. I'd almost bet money that RM's are not significantly better in virtually every category. I am a Returned Missionary myself, and I think Returned Missionary status is over-blown. Too many incorrect assumptions are made about RM's. People will presume you are better than you really are because you served. People assume that you are automagically on a higher plane of righteousness because of your two years service. People too often place RM's on a pedestal that they don't belong on. Young men should be commended for their service, but I think Latter Day Saints have gone way too far with it.

In the eyes of God, is an engaged couple who slips up any better off than Corianton? Consider my case. At one point, I was engaged to be married to somebody that I didn't ultimately marry. Had I slept with her, it would have had the same impact as it would have it I had at some point gone out and hired a prostitute: I would not have been a virgin on the night of my wedding, and I would have robbed my wife of that. This is completely missing the point. The tools of procreation are sacred in the eyes of God. More sacred than anything human beings are blessed with other than life itself. Misuse of those sacred tools and abilities can't be negotiated down to be less offensive in the eyes of God. It's a lot like making the case that hiring a hitman to kill somebody is less reprehensible than going and killing somebody myself.

It's a sad comment on how corrupt and lost society really is. The world and the worldly do not consider it to be a big deal to commit sexual sin. God does. BIG TIME. God does not become less offended by sexual sins, sexual deviancy and sexual indiscretion just because society has deemed it acceptable and okay. Similarly, just because the Romans made an accepted institution of putting gladiators in an arena and having them fight to the death -- just because society considered it acceptable didn't make it right, nor did it diminish how abominable it was in the sight of God. The same is true of sexual sins. God doesn't view sexual sins as any less of an abomination than he always has. Despite the corrupting influence of society, the powerful impact of sexual sin is very easy to demonstrate. Consider the following scenarios: 1.) You are married for 15 years. Your spouse admits to you that they have been addicted to cocaine for your entire 15 year marriage. You were completely unaware of this. 2.) Your are married for 15 years. Your spouse admits to you that they have been cheating on you throughout the entire 15 year marriage, engaging in sex with a sizable list of different sexual partners. You had no idea. Which one hurts more?

Shall I forebear creating a thread discussing the validity of the Popes' claim to be Peter's successor? It's worthy of discussion, but I don't want to begin it if you're short on time. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, it's a DEEP and INVOLVED topic. For most Latter Day Saints, it's an unfamiliar topic, so it would be worthwhile to discuss at some point.

I was puzzled by the fact that you brought the primacy of Rome into the discussion, but as stated, I'll try to get another thread up to discuss that. It was by the decree of Constantine that the Council of Nicaea was called and it was by his authority that the decisions made at Nicaea were enforced. Meanwhile, "Pope" Sylvester was almost completely uninvolved. So would it not be more correct to point out the obvious: Constantine presided over the Council of Nicaea? "Pope" Sylvester wasn't on the guest list unfortunately. That seems odd to me considering the crucial importance of what was being decided at Nicaea. As previously stated, my sources and research are Catholic sources. NOT anti-Catholic sources. A meeting that we know very little about. Several presumed references to this meeting may even be referring to something else entirely. Did the meeting at Jerusalem you're referring to bear any resemblance to the Ecumenical Councils centuries later? Neither of us can answer that question. You will presume, "Yes, of course it did." because you believe the Roman Catholic Church is God's authorized body on Earth. I will presume, "No, it was probably nothing like an Ecumenical Council." because I believe there was an Apostasy and that the RCC is not God's authorized body here on earth. Neither of us can offer up a definitive description of the Council of Jerusalem. The scriptures say that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. The implementation of a system where eternal truth is established by committee would be a drastic change for a being who supposedly doesn't change. And consider the Jews. They had legitimate authority handed down from God. They injected a bunch of their own thoughts and traditions into things. Jesus Christ and God rejected them, and they rejected Him. If the only authorized body on earth can stray hopelessly far from God once, it can happen again. And presuming that "we can do whatever we want and nobody can tell us differently" is probably falling into the same prideful trap as the Jews. Constantine seemed to be the one calling the shots. Sylvester sat on the sidelines and the Council certainly was not going out of its way to solicit his opinion. It seems to me that Peter's successor was awfully aloof to the proceedings that were deciding the most important questions in the history of Christianity. My sources seem to indicate exactly the opposite. It's quite evident to any honest historian that Constantine had a HUGE impact on the outcome of Nicaea. And it is quite obvious that Sylvester has VASTLY less impact on absolutely everything to do with Nicaea than Constantine did. I think the rest of your response comes down to drastic differences of understanding. My background suggests that when God wishes to reveal his will to mankind, he does so directly and definitely. You're background accepts politically and theological debates followed by a vote to be legitimate means for God to reveal important eternal truths. That notion absolutely unfathomable to my thinking. Constantine called together a few hundred bishops who debated and ultimately voted on, "What God is like." To me, it seems absolutely bizarre for that to be revelation from God. And it is my opinion that nothing short of definitive revelation from God could legitimately answer a question THAT IMPORTANT. The very nature of God is just too fundamental. That is an example of what I'm referring to. In that case, because subsequent generations of religious thinkers decided that the Second Council of Ephesus was a "robber council." So if a properly convened Ecumenical Council can be wrong in one case, why not all of them?It's also quite interesting that the Council of Pisa of 1409 (attempted to solve the Great Western Schism) is not a numbered Ecumenical Council nor considered valid because it was not convened by a pope and because its outcome was later repudiated at the Council of Constance. There was also a unrecognized Council convened well before Nicaea, but it is not considered valid because of its Gnostic proclivities ... and I can't remember what it was called for the life of me. Again, if a gathering of bishops is enough to establish truth, then why would this council be invalidated? If even one council can be invalidated, how authoritative can we presume the remaining 22 accepted councils to be? Ultimately, you're post is very long and I don't think I'll ever be able to respond to all of it. At the very least, it would take more time that I care to offer. That doesn't mean there are no answers to all of your points of course. We both sincerely believe that the religious body we belong to is God's Church and Kingdom here on Earth. We both believe that God's Earthly Kingdom was always intended to be a united and organized body. It's a concept we have in common. We also both sincerely believe that God's Kingdom on Earth must have an established hierarchy. We also agree that the keys passed down from Peter and the other apostles are a valid standard of legitimacy. We both believe in authority originally deriving from God, and passed along by men of God. Primarily, we just disagree on where the legitimate authority from God resides.

It is off topic, so I won’t give it too much treatment, but explaining this bit couldn’t be simpler. You’re referring to: Alma 7: 10 10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. For starters, consider that the Nephites were half a world away from the Holy Land they came from. Alma would have been saying these words in about 83 BC, so to him, the Kingdom of Judah was a 420 year old semi-legendary place. It’s a place he’s heard about and read about in the scriptures, but Alma is not intimately familiar with the local geography of Israel. I doubt the Nephites would have had a map of the land of Israel in Alma’s time. In this passage, when Alma says Jesus would be born at Jerusalem, he obviously meant “in the land where our forefathers came from.” The Nephites and Lamanites alike seem to frequently refer to their ancient homeland as “The land of Jerusalem.” I could cite numerous examples from the Book of Mormon to demonstrate, but I’d prefer to not get too far off-topic.

Very true. I'll split off my thoughts wandering away from the Council of Nicaea into a different thread. Let me offer a bit of insight into where I"m coming from. Frankly, I'm a hopeless history geek. It's not focused upon Mormonism at all. My father was a High School History teacher and later a college History professor. I suppose that's where I started to love history. I acknowledge that I have a passion for studying and digging into history. I find religious history (all religions) particularly fascinating. As one professor of mine put it, "The study of religious history is the study of history. You can't separate the two. You can't truly understand history if you don't understand the history of religion." While I was in college, one of my assignments was to do an in depth research project on a significant historical figure of my choice. I felt that learning about Constantine the Great in depth would be a worthwhile undertaking. After all, he is probably one of the most significant individuals that ever lived for many, many reasons. Frankly, I was more than a little surprised by what I learned. Constantine did important things certainly, but he was certainly not a very good person. I was not fully aware of the much-flawed man behind the legend before that. And when I wanted to learn about the history of the Popes, I sought out and found a Catholic author who seemed to be a forthright an honest historian, not given to historical revisionism. The best reference I found was: Amazon.com: Lives of the Popes - reissue: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI (9780060878078): Richard P. Mcbrien: Books Copying and pasting the summary about the author. "Richard P. McBrien is Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Educated at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, he has also served as president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. A leading authority on Catholicism, he is the bestselling author of Catholicism, Lives of the Popes, and Lives of the Saints, as well as the general editor of The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Most recently a consultant for ABC News, McBrien offers regular commentary on all the major television networks. He is also a prizewinning syndicated columnist in the Catholic press." I don't believe in going to the enemies of Catholicism to learn about Catholicism. An honest Catholic historian is much less likely to have any hidden agendas. I know that I don't appreciate people going to hatefully biased sources when looking into my religion, so it would be wrong of me to do the same to your religion. I'll leave off discussing Papal succession for a different thread. As you said, here we're discussing Nicaea.

Interesting information. It should probably be noted that while most traditional Christians accept Ex-Nihilo Creation, most Jewish scholars reject Ex-Nihilo Creation entirely. So we are unique within Christianity, but not necessarily unique within Judeo-Christian belief.

This is correct. A husband who has married a wife for this life only after her eternal husband dies, according to scripture, is raising up seed unto the deceased. In the Old Testament times, it was the obligation of the surviving brother to raise up seed for his deceased brother by taking his widow as an additional wife. Under the Law of Moses, the offspring of that marriage were the children of the deceased for all intents and purposes. So if there was land or property to be passed on by the deceased, it went to the children of that union. So they were legally the children of the deceased first husband. The important thing to remember: While parent/child relationships are eternally significant, the really important union is the husband and wife. If everyone involved achieves exaltation and eternal life, will it really be THAT important who gets "custody"? All parties involved will probably be a bit too preoccupied with creating things for it to matter all that much. And where there is doubt or uncertainty, I think we can trust that God will sort things out in everyone's satisfaction.

What I find to be very interesting: The vast majority of the men who were asked to live this principal were not the least bit interested in having more wives. Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and Heber C Kimball all struggled mightily with the idea. It seems to me that this was what made it a true test of their faith. The same can be said of Abraham and Jacob. Abraham didn't want to take any wives other than Sarah but God commanded otherwise. I think any man or woman who actually wants another spouse is completely missing the point.