garryw

I have a business friend I travel with who always points out good looking women. He asks why I'm not tempted to check them out and I said when I am tempted I just think of a song and the thoughts go away. He is not LDS so he didnt get the inference I was thinking of a hymn. So now whenever he sees a cute girl on an airplane he sings the smurf song out loud and its always hilarious. He's over 60, has a white beard, so he looks like papa smurf.

In the case of a dead spouse, the wrath is less scary. Although I'm sure that's how a majority of haunted houses came to be.

nboman.people.wm.edu/smoot.php

The Reed Smoot hearings statement by Joseph F Smith shows how women were put between a rock and a hard place: Question: Is it not true that ... if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent. President Smith: Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement. Question: Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing? President Smith: It amounts to nothing but her consent.

Emma Smith was (generally) antagonistic towards polygamy, although there are some exceptions where she seemed to reluctantly accept it. Section 132 was revealed in the context of her reluctance. Hyrum asked Joseph to produce a revelation so that he could show it to Emma and convince her to stop being so antagonistic. Section 132 is the key scripture we have on the subject. In practice, during B.Y. time, a first wife could petition B.Y. if she refused to accept a second wife. He held the keys. At that point BY could "decide" and if he approved the husband could take a second wife without the first wife's consent. Also keep in mind historically about 99-100% of women were opposed to the practice until they had received personal revelation on the matter.

I have been in that situation. It's premature (ill advised) to think of divorce. I agree with your bish and sp. As far as raising your child, you know how to do that.

I've seen first hand situations where older teenagers (16-17) want to join the church but parents prohibit it. This is more easily solved because within a few years the teenagers become adults. It's hard to make generalizations when it comes to marital issues such as religion. Both marriage and baptism are ordained of God. But losing one to gain another seems like a bad outcome. Keep the one you have (marriage) and work towards the other (baptism).

It always seems peculiar to me when a person serves a full time mission then claims not to know of the existence of God. If that is the case, he should have spent those 2 years doing something more productive, like obtaining a testimony in the first place.

This quote is attributed to Brigham Young (who himself was divorced several times), but of course, is not official in any sense:

Children remain sealed to both parents once they are sealed or BIC. Considering the children grow up, and get sealed to their spouses, it's misleading to imply belong to one parent or another. It's hard to imagine a divorced couple in their 80's debating over who gets the children, when the children themselves are in their 50's. Likewise, there will be no debate over who gets the children in the next life.

A very womanly man, typing womanly thoughts, close enough to a woman in my book to be called a woman.

The mind of a woman condensed into a single sentence. Neither the love of money nor the love of revenge will bring happiness.

You first have to work under the assumption that God is smarter than you. Second you have to work under the assumption that he has your best interest. Another term for that is faith. Everybody struggles with these things. I doubt Abraham was whistling Dixie on the way to sacrifice Isaac. But just as Abraham had a happy ending, so does the tithing payer.

It looks like Jospeh Fielding Smith's successor (Harold B Lee) was also sealed to 2 women. Assuming Elder Nelson doesn't die, he would be the next, followed by Oaks.

When I said "our lifetime" I meant presidents who were not dead before I was born in '76. I forget there are older people running around this forum.

Ironically Howard W. Hunter is himself sealed to 2 wives. He is the only LDS president during our lifetimes that married two women. It will be interesting to see which one he discards and which he keeps. Perhaps he will tell his second wife: "remember that covenant I made with you in the temple for eternity? I was kidding" Not likely.

Personally I wouldn't consider it for myself for the following: 1. I really like my grandpa and my dad and my name ties me to them. 2. Adam named his wife Eve. I know it's not PC to mention the Proclamation on the Family, but it does say who presides in the home if you read it. Adam presided over her and the fact that he named her is symbolic of that. In conclusion however, it's a free country, do what you want and enjoy it.

I have always been under the impression that the only unpardonable sin is the sin against the holy ghost.

I would call Lucifer, Son of the Morning, God's seed of course. The word Lucifer means Shining One. Who do we suppose named him that? He rebelled and lost his inheritance, becoming Satan. Is he God's seed now? Sure, a bad seed. Is he the seed of Abraham? Nope.

Too bad the forbidden fruit was not a coconut. Those are hard to open, it would have given her time to think about her choice as she tried to open it.

And I think when Adam and Eve were commanded to go forth and multiply it had nothing to do with offspring. Clearly they were to search out righteous people and adopt them. Sarcasm aside, in 132:19, the seed referred to is a subset of of the seed of Abraham. Yes adoption exists, but it will never replace the principle of continuation of seeds. I cant imagine an exalted husband and wife spending eternity wandering around looking for spirits to adopt. I imagine them increasing their posterity not robbing others of spirit children.

My interpretation is different than yours. For example, if my cousin has a baby, and is very happy about it I can be happy about it too. I can share in his joy. However, practicality indicates I can have more joy in my own seed than his. So getting back to the topic of polygamy, we have section 132:19 "....if a man marry a wife by my word....... ...they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." Now, I can enjoy the seeds of others all day long, but without my own seeds I am damned. I have no posterity. The BoM indicates polygamy is to raise up seed. So to put it bluntly, in the "economy" of heaven more seeds = more glory. More wives = more seeds. Polygamy and monogamy are the same covenant, the same law. Both are celestial marriage, both exist in that kingdom.

So the Book of Abraham is an exposition on the telestial or terrestial kingdom? I don't think so. Does one exalted person have more glory than another? Yes How do we know that? Jesus submitted himself to the Father in all things

I don't see the logic. That's like saying that if person X has 7 children then everybody must have 7 children. Abr 3:16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them If you recall limits in high school calculus, it's possible to have two infinities, one larger than the other infinity. Likewise, it's possible to have two men with infinite posterity, but one posterity being larger (growing faster) than the other. Abraham was promised endless posterity. For whatever reason, posterity is a big deal in the celestial kingdom. It seems to be the "end game" for celestial beings. If that's the case, it explains the efforts made to establish polygamy in our dispensation. But it does not preclude monogamy. A monogamous person can indeed have infinite posterity.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." I think you have to be aware of the timescale of the bad things. A bad thing that lasts 1 year compared to a good thing that lasts 3 trillion trillion. The good thing may be, nothing more than experience that cannot be obtained in happy unicorn rainbow land.