Suzie

I know his second wife wrote his autobiography : "As told to his wife Rebecca E. Howell Mace" and I believe she also kept his journal.

@Just_A_Guy How much do we trust his wife?

Thanks, but I really don't need one. Even though it affected me at that time because I was young, I quickly realized that she did not mean to be hurtful. Sometimes, members get caught in tradition and they do things like this but they don't mean any harm. Of course it is wrong and I am not trying to justify it, but in situations like this I try to always see the intention behind people's actions rather than the action itself. It helps me to see that just like me, people mess up sometimes.

@Just_A_Guy my only experience about wearing pants came from a YW President. I was like 14 and it was seminary graduation. I was so excited because they asked me weeks in advance to offer the opening prayer. When I reached the stake center, I saw my name printed on the program etc. I was beyond nervous but very happy! Everything was going well until they called my name to offer the prayer. I slowly approached the pulpit...the Stake YW President saw me, came to me and quietly said: "Suzie, you cannot offer the prayer because you're wearing pants" and then she sat down while talking to other leaders and choosing someone else to pray. I stood there not knowing exactly what to do and I quietly sat down while everyone was just staring at me. It made me feel like I have done something wrong and of course, at that age, concerned that others would think I wasn't worthy to offer the prayer. When they called someone else to pray, all I did was to look at my name printed on that program... Mind you, I was wearing some really, really nice dress pants....

Maybe the whole idea of thinking that an individual can be "shared" (even though it is your husband) is where the issue really stems from.

Sorry but something just doesn't sound right about this story. I work with young people every day and even though unfortunately this is very common, the location, scenario and discovery isn't. Please investigate further.

Divorce is always heartbreaking. I am seeing that his wife is very supportive of this decision (it seems like it was taken by BOTH). I am just one of those who thought they should have never gotten married in the first place. The idea of marrying someone who is gay is completely bizarre and whomever believes it is a solution to "cure" homosexuality is a fool.

Sometimes instruction by the Spirit takes place in the bathroom...

I have a very hard time comprehending the concept of fairness in life. I admit is one of the things that take away my sleep at night... Example being.....I don't see anything fair about a baby born into abuse to be starved, raped and beaten daily......non-stop........and then brutally murdered in the hands of his/her abusers... I know the example might seem extreme, but it is not...there are many people in this world living this daily. Life is NOT fair for everyone. I don't know WHY it is not and it makes me incredibly sad and often times angry.... But I just hope with the little I have to offer to this world...that I can help as many people as I can...in whatever way or means possible.

@TheLizardofOZthanks for replying. I assume the things your ex stated are quite serious if we are talking about lawyers being involved, etc. So if that's the case and the allegations against you by your ex-said are serious then I can understand why she is taking time to think about it. I just hope if she has no intentions to continue this relationship, she would be kind enough to be straightforward with you and end it rather than having you hanging by a thread. Wishing you all the best.

I re-read the OP several times and I am still trying to understand why is your current girlfriend in need of "space" or "healing"? Are any of the things your ex-girlfriend said true? Half-truth? I don't understand why she is taking almost a month because a bitter ex-girlfriend said some things about you that aren't true (and according to you, you already cleared up your name). What am I missing in this scenario? Because it makes no sense to me.

@Blossom76 I can understand your point and agree!

Hi Mauren, the quote is in the box. But when I write my reply OUTSIDE the box, when I post...it appears inside the quote box.

I can understand @Blossom76point of view as an investigator. Most of the time, I try to focus on what is being asked rather than cherry-pick whatever "tone/intentions" etc I "feel" posters are using because if I do that two things happen...one, the topic gets lost (which defeats the purpose of the discussion) and second who wants to keep adding people on their "ignore" list?

I do that too...but remains inside no matter what.

I wish I could quote....everytime I do, my reply for some reason gets inside the quote itself no matter what I do...

Blossom76, the following link deals specifically with your questions. Hope you find the link useful to your studies. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/13/2/S00012-51ba01c7722d112Bruening.pdf

As JAG said, in my experience very few people are truly interested in a historically-informed answer therefore most of the time, I give a very casual and yet, honest answer. This is how it goes for me: Person: Suzie, my goodness...What's the deal with Polygamy and your Church?? Me: I know right? I find the idea crazy. And yet, it happened hundreds of years ago... God asked people to do some things we just don't understand. If not, check the Old Testament.... Person: *thinking and giving an affirmative head nod*. You are right....(when they think about the Old Testament).... Me: It seems like we will have to wait to find out more...

Hi Jane_Doe, so nice to see you. I wish it was that simple. I am not sure to be honest. Even though I believe that a lot of these sealings didn't involve sexual intercourse, I cannot ignore the fact that quite a few of these women (good standing, Latter-Day Saints) have expressed that they were wives of Smith in "very deed". And even though I agree these sealings weren't about sex, I don't think we could state categorically that sex wasn't part of them at all.

I will make a search on your posts (or if you can please send me a PM with links to some of your threads with the questions, I would appreciate it) . I will attempt to answer some of them from a historical point of view (if they are Church-history related). I cannot promise to have all the answers but I will try my best to assist.

Hi Blossom76, nice to meet you. I looked at this before and I would like to bring some historical facts to the discussion in order to understand this apparent discrepancy. The answer is: John C. Bennett. When he reached Nauvoo in 1840 he became Mayor and also Assistant to the Prophet in a very short period of time. He stayed in Nauvoo for a period of approximately two years. However, after just five months of being there Smith started having suspicions with regards to his personal life, his truthfulness about being a bachelor and overall his moral conduct. There were rumors circulating about Bennett and it reached a point where Smith decided to investigate. He chose not to expose him several times, and even though some might criticize Smith's decision, I believe he acted in good faith hoping that Bennett would change his ways (which he never did) despite the fact that he was given multiple chances by the Prophet. It was later discovered that Bennett was married and was unfaithful to his wife with many women. She ended up leaving him. When Bennett started seducing LDS sisters, things started to go downhill from there for Bennett, Smith and the practice of Plural Marriage. He explicitly tried to seduced LDS sisters to have sexual intercourse with him and told them that no sin would fall upon them ("spiritual wifery"). Upon discovering this practice, Smith could no longer keep this hidden. He was disfellowshipped. It should be noted that Smith knew about these many encounters and tried very hard to give Bennett as many chances as possibly. Later on though, after observing the true natural of this individual, Smith regretted that decision and asked for forgiveness. When Bannett left Nauvoo, he left bitter. He wrote many letters and even published a book. In all these publications, he attacked the very same, sacred doctrine of Plural Marriage that Smith has been trying to prepare the Saints for and has attempted to introduce to a very small group of Latter-Day Saints. Bennett was indeed putting the whole Church at risk and people were wiling to listen to him (and believe him too) because he was close to the Prophet. Even created a lot of confusion among the Saints who did not know what to believe. In Times and Seasons, the piece you quoted about denying Plural Marriage continues:

I'm so sorry to hear! You'll be in my prayers! Please make sure to have a good rest.

@LiterateParakeet what an amazing woman! I feel nothing but great admiration for her and her story (as well as the other story someone posted). I love our gay brothers and sisters and I am very happy the Church has created videos such as this one. They face many unseen challenges, I cannot comprehend what must be like to be in a position of this sort. What an inspirational story, her laugh at the end is priceless. Thanks for sharing.

I don't think taking sides in this particular scenario is even necessary. You can perfectly validate your wife's feelings without having to agree with her. Often times, people take offense and they are hurt for the smallest things, but it doesn't mean they are not affected by it. Sometimes what it does not offend you, it might offend someone else. So we always need to see it through the other person's perspective. After all, we are all different. Since you didn't tell us what was the misunderstanding about, my input is limited. However, do you have the kind of relationship with your wife where you can both sit down, talk and find out what exactly went wrong? Is she expecting you to talk with your mom?

You are obviously not going to comment on the link I provided because it proves that the Church clearly states that someone identifying themselves as gay is NOT sin. But, hopefully those lurking the forum (which are the ones I am concerned about) will be able to see the link from the official source and know the difference. That's all I have to say.