captmoroniRM

I posted this in the other discussion: Polyandry, by definition is one woman having multiple husbands. Having read most of the published writings of Joseph Smith, he never once taught or sanctioned the practice of Polyandry. No prophet since has, to my knowledge. The practice itself is against the order of heaven. The Priesthood is the organizing power and principle in the eternities. It is the authority to bind on earth and in heaven. It is what "organizes" us into family units. It is what validates sacred ordinances. It is necessary for exaltation. The principle of exaltation involves a man submitting himself to the Celestial law by covenant and his wives submitting themselves unto him. Males and Females who reject the heavenly order will fail to be exalted, remaining separate and single throughout eternity. In regards to plural marriage, it is still one man with separate, solemn covenants with each individual woman, not one man with one covenant to several women. They submit themselves to their husband, by covenant. Polyandry would be in disagreement with these principles. It would result in unnatural unions which would not bring the full blessings of exaltation. It would not even be the same as the Lord's justification of using polygamy to raise up seed unto him.

Why did the monkey fall off the tree? Because it was dead. Why did the girl fall off the bike? Somebody threw a refrigerator at her. Why can't Helen Keller Drive a car? Because she's dead.

I prefer whole or 2%.

What is the difference between roast beef and pea soup? Anybody can roast beef.

Agreed. In addition to being a publicity stunt, this is a clever tactic by Satan to get us to reveal aspects of the temple ceremony using a "confirm or deny" tactic. the official Church response to this, is to just ignore it. It is another proverbial attempt to take down a battleship with a bb-gun.

In regards to the last what if several scenarios, I think those are the kinds of things that will be sorted out during the Millenium.

Adam an Eve already had their free agency. They didn't have to disobey to obtain it. Our agency was with us in the pre-existance. We used it to choose if we would follow Christ or Lucifer. When they were placed in Eden, they were given two commandments: Multiply and replenish the earth (ie. have kids) and to not eat of the fruit. The Book of Moses sheds some light on this more-so than the Bible account: "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Moses 3:17 God gave them a choice so they could exercise their free agency. Adam and Eve were like children. They were innocent. There was no sin. Without an alternative choice, there would not have a means of using the agency God had given them. From 2 Nephi 2: 16 "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was centiced by the one or the other." Satan offered an alternative choice, "eat, and you will not die." Thus, two choices were given allowing Adam and Eve to use their agency. Without the commandment\law to not eat of the fruit, Adam and Eve would not have had a means of commiting sin. "If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." (2 Nephi 2:13) Thus, when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, they did so knowing that they if they didn't they could not become like God, which would have frustrated the entire plan of God. They would remain forever, innocent, in the garden, and remained in the same state not knowing joy or sorrow. They would not have progressed at all. (2 Nephi 2:22-23). Heavenly Father knew that in order for mankind to come to earth, and for us to be able to progress, learn, and come to be like him, and experience the fullness of joy, Adam and Eve would have to transgress. Knowing this, he prepared for us a Savior, even Jesus Christ to pay the price for our sins. Hope that helps.

No. When a couple goes to perform a sealing, they are sealed together as husband and wife. Temple "marriages" are both celestial, and civil. It's kind of like squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Since most sealings now are temple marriages, we tend to use them interchangeably when they are not. All marriages in the temple are sealings, but not all sealings are marriages.

I've done some reading on the subject of Polyandry. In the Church, we tend to use Sealing and Marriage interchangeably. There is no evidence that these were "marriages" but sealings to one another. From Fairmormon.org: Plural marriage was one means by which Joseph implemented the broader doctrine of sealing. Ultimately, his intent seems to have been to reunite the human family into a bonded whole. "Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship," observed Richard Bushman, "but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities."[3] Alma Allred agrees with Todd Compton that "[m]arriage, sealing and adoption, in fact, were nearly interchangeable concepts,"[4] for Joseph's followers, but criticizes Compton because this principle is "much too important to be relegated to, or lost in a footnote" when discussing Joseph's plural marriages.[5] Sealing creates new, eternal families, and "[a]s each new family came into being, it became another link in the chain of families stretching back to Adam, who was linked to God. Thus the 'family of God' became more than metaphor."[6] It is but a short step from sealing existing families to extending that privilege outward. Since many, if not most, of the saints would have family outside the church, there was an understandable anxiety that they be included in the new, eternal family being forged by Joseph. Later in Church history, this was accomplished by adoption, where faithful members would serve as surrogate parents in the divine order. This practice was not without its problems, as many surrogates began to look on their adoption of others as a route to glory and power, both spiritual and temporal, rather than as a service for the family of heaven.[7] Adoption by living non-relatives was eventually replaced by the present practice of sealing members to deceased ancestors, with the expectation that definitive resolution of such matters can await the millennial years. This expanded understanding, however, was decades in the future. In Joseph's day, the necessity of sealing was clear, and most members did not anticipate having faithful family to whom they could be sealed. The Mormons' anticipation of an imminent end to the world heightened the urgency.[8] The role of sealing in marriages was clear—as we will see, Joseph may have extended the role of marriage to binding not just his partners, but their spouses and family as well, into the divine family. The Sealing ordinance, is not simply to seal husband and wife in marriage, but link the human family together going back to the days of Adam. Thus, being sealed to someone doesn't mean you have to be linked to marriage. My mom was adopted at birth. When she found the church, her adopted dad had died. Her adopted mom died when I was 15. Both, at the time of death had married others. When my mom did their temple work, she thought all she would be able to do was get them sealed together. She found out that despite the fact she was adopted, she could be sealed to them. Sealings are also essential to the Resurrection. The resurrection is a priesthood ordinance, and each priesthood holder will have the opportunity to resurrect his family. That is part of why those who reject the gospel and have no sealing link will be the last to be resurrected. The same page also describes how information on them is scarce as most of the information is all second hand-regarding it. Most of the information available about his relationships aren't from primary sources. It also analyzes each 'marriage' by itself as to reasons why it was so. There is also no evidence that these relationships were sexual in any way. No children, despite many accusations, have been found as a result of these "marriages." Thus, there is no proof that these relationships fell under our traditional understanding of "marriage." So in a very tecnical sense, yes, Joseph Smith practiced polyandry. In the actual context of what happened, these were not "marriages" but "sealings." Sources: Polygamy book/Polyandry - FAIRMormon Joseph Smith and polygamy/Polyandry - FAIRMormon

HiJolly, please cite your evidence that Joseph Smith taught or sanctioned Polyandry. If you want to, PM them to me. Your comments do not pass the "sniff" test, and I have no idea what you want to say by your last comment. Polyandry is not in tune with D&C 132 or what is taught and performed in the temple. I'm I am wrong, please provide the necessary information to show it, rather than simply a "no, you are wrong."

Polyandry, by definition is one woman having multiple husbands. Having read most of the published writings of Joseph Smith, he never once taught or sanctioned the practice of Polyandry. No prophet since has, to my knowledge. The practice itself is against the order of heaven. The Priesthood is the organizing power and principle in the eternities. It is the authority to bind on earth and in heaven. It is what "organizes" us into family units. It is what validates sacred ordinances. It is necessary for exaltation. The principle of exaltation involves a man submitting himself to the Celestial law by covenant and his wives submitting themselves unto him. Males and Females who reject the heavenly order will fail to be exalted, remaining separate and single throughout eternity. In regards to plural marriage, it is still one man with separate, solemn covenants with each individual woman, not one man with one covenant to several women. They submit themselves to their husband, by covenant. Polyandry would be in disagreement with these principles. It would result in unnatural unions which would not bring the full blessings of exaltation. It would not even be the same as the Lord's justification of using polygamy to raise up seed unto him. If you meant will polygamy exist in the heavens? yes. If a man was sealed to multiple wives in this life, and all lived faithful to those convenants, then yes. Polygamy, though not the defining or essential aspect, is a part of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage

I never explained my avatar - it is GORT and Klaatu from The Day the Earth Stood Still, one of THE most classic sci-fi movies ever.

I'm not denying that the Lord works through peoples of all faiths. I was simply commenting on how christianity so fervently rejects Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, under the pretense that modern revelation has ceased, and not reject additional "prophets" who claim to prophecy in the Lord's name. As for whacko conspiracy theorists, we aren't all totally whacko.

Indeed. Those articles were written to help us use our own wisdom and decide on issues like caffeine. What I found interesting was the references last conference that referred to "stimulants" as something to be watchful with. I was constantly drinking energy drinks because I worked at 4:30 am. It really began affecting me. After hearing the comments about "stimulants" I stopped drinking them. I realized that is all they were. I found myself more awake without them now.

One of my favorite Pres. Hinckley talks was the one immediately after the attack of 9/11. As he began his comments he said he was just handed a note saying the US began the war against Afghanistan. This talk is powerful, as he assumed his duties as prophet and provided council for us. What did he talk about? Living within our means. He spoke strongly of it. He said: I cannot forget the great lesson of Pharaoh's dream of the fat and lean kine and of the full and withered stalks of corn. To me, when a prophet says he can't get something off his mind...one might pay attention to what he's saying. Pharaoh's dream foretold 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine. Interestingly enough, 7 years later, after a time of reasonable economic prosperity, we were voting on a "bailout" package for the economy and entering a period of serious financial crisis. Just one more reason to follow the prophets.

Originally on younglds.com, I was captmoroni. Then I became ElderCaptMoroni when I got my mission call. When I came back, I became captmoroniRM. It's been my sn ever since. With the exception of the occasional use of my superhero name.

Times are tough. I'm a newly wed and so the economy has hit me some. I'm not at the point of selling everything to survive, but I've had to make sacrifices. The blessings of tithing are really saving my skin right now. One interesting side note, stakes across the country are beginning to perform surveys of talents, skills, and the financial situation of the members they take care of. My ward has even done the same, with a more spiritual survey. The stake wants a knowledge of everyone's financial situation, and everyone's talents so we can all help one another if needed. Sounds like a task that could lay the groundwork for the day when the United Order and Law of Consecration be reinstated in full.

Indeed. I will admit I wrote a short nasty-gram to HBO over it, especially after seeing the TV Guide image. But I figured, if the Church isn't making a big deal out of it, then neither should I. They know more about what is going on and so if this were to be a big thing, the Church would back a movement to stop it. But this, bundled with Tom Hanks prop 8 comments that Mormons were unamerican for supporting prop 8, I have lost a lot of respect for Tom. As time goes on, I have a feeling we'll see more of Tom's criticism of Mormons, and I wouldn't be surprised if he one day joined the ranks of those worthy to be dubbed "Anti-mormon."

From his blog: I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to send out an urgent message to all on our mailing list, and to friends and to bishops we have met all over the world. AN EARTH-SHATTERING CALAMITY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IT IS GOING TO BE SO FRIGHTENING, WE ARE ALL GOING TO TREMBLE - EVEN THE GODLIEST AMONG US.... And in his latest entry: I can only answer by sharing what the Holy Spirit is speaking to my own heart and what I am to do. I shared that I was led in a practical way to lay aside a month’s supply of food — because I have witnessed the panic in the wake of terrorism. That has to be a personal word for every individual. This is what I hear the Holy Spirit speaking to my heart concerning my own spiritual response to impending calamity. It is simply this —STAND STILL AND SEE THE SALVATION OF THE LORD. Sounds like direct revelation to me.

What I find funny, is how the Christian world rejects the concepts of modern revelation and modern prophets so vehemently, and yet this guy, and Patt Robertson come out with their "Prophecies" of what is to come. If the Christian world which violently criticizes Joseph Smith for receiving extra-biblical revelations from God, shouldn't they react the same to their own ministers who prophecy of calamities like Wilkerson?

I agree in part with your definition of Anti-mormon. I do agree that Anti-mormonism is more than just a disagreement with LDS beliefs, but an organized, persistant effort to discredit and destroy the church. Perhaps I should rephrase that statement and say this isn't the first production made that has elements of the temple video in it. Whether the makers of this show qualify as "anti-mormon", we'll see. But for now, consider this an official rephrasement.

Yeah, the principles of Sola Scriptura and documents like the Westminster confession...plus the scripture to "prove all things, hold to that which is true" (paraphrased again) keep people checking out the Bible above all things. It does all rest on the assumption the Bible is true. That particular interpretation also rests on whether or not the Bible is inerrant. That was one of the hardest things for my dad when he was a teen. He was not a member of the Church, but could see easily the contradictions and differences just between varying Christian denominations. Some would tell him that he had to believe in Jesus Christ. He would ask, "Why should I?" They would say "The Bible says so." "Who says the Bible is true?" "God does" What says "God is real?" "The Bible says so." What intrigued my dad about Mormonism, was the possibility of having a witness directly from God by the Holy Ghost whether Mormonism is true. He had nothing to lose. If it were true, he'd found God's true church on the earth. If it were false, then he learned more about another interesting religion. He knows, because he learned for himself.

Now adays, if you use any dollar bill over 20 dollars, store are required to test to see if it is a vaild bill. They hold it up to the light to see the watermarks. Some have the fancy pens that turn black if the bill is fake. If I give a 50 dollar bill, it is up to the receiver of the bill to validate it. I can explain to the person how I came across the bill, how it was given to me, etc and assure the cashier that it is a good 50 dollar bill. I can know with complete certainty the bill is good. I could tell this to the cashier, and she could trust me that it is good and simply finish the transaction. If there were doubt, the user has tests she can do to determine if it is a valid bill or not. The cashier holds it to the light, marks it with the pen, and thus she learned for herself if the bill was true. The burden of proof was on her. Even if I got the bill directly from the mint, knew 100% it was good, if the cashier wanted to know if it was conterfit, she had to prove it. Maybe a better example: Let's say one day I find a room full of gold and silver and all kinds of valuable objects that one could partake of freely. Having been there, I know 100% of it's existence. I cross paths with you in a different location and tell you of the room that I found, tell you where to find it, and even draw you a map of how to get there. You have the choice to believe or not what I say. You may think I'm crazy and no such room exists. If you wanted to prove, my testmiony of this room is true or not, the burden of proof is upon you, for I already have my proof and certainty that the knowledge I am giving you is true. I don't have to prove anything because I already know. It is up to you, to follow the map, and go to the place that I told you the room was at. Only then, would you know if I was honest or not. The same goes with with our testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have learned for ourselves of its truthfulness. We know it is true. We are under no obligation to prove to others that what we know is true. We can tell them that we know, and pass along the knowledge of how they can know....we can give them the map, or the true-money marker....and they can prove it for themselves if they want to or not.

Agreed. 1: Brigham Young said something to the effect of "You can't kick the church down the stairs. you can only kick it up them." (Uber-paraphrased there). The humble seeker of truth will find truth, even in the midst of lies and mistruths. 2. Fools mock what they don't understand. The makers of this show mock the practice of polygamy. Now, in an attempt to mock Mormon temple ordinances, they will mock these sacred ceremonies. 3: Any information included about the temple ceremony will be from second hand sources, or 1st hand sources who willfully walked away from sacred covenants that they made with God. What does the Bible say about those who violate covenants? Paul includes them in a list of evil behaviors, calling them "Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." (Romans 1:31-32) Though they might repressent parts of the temple ceremony, their interpretation and presentation of them should be seen as the works of evil men who took on sacred covenants of their own free will, and then betrayed them. 4. This isn't the first anti-mormon publication to feature information about the Temple. I believe The Godmakers includes actual footage from the temple ceremony. Still hasn't stopped the church from growing any. 5. Like Stampede said. They want to provoke a reaction out of us and draw publicity to their program. Most of the time these emails that report these kinds of "scandals" are initiated by the company that makes the show. They do it to draw attention to their show and boost ratings.

I try. My evil plan to save the world! Just you wait til it's unfurled! It'll go down in history! It's pathetic...no its not pathetic. I can't believe I made it up myself.