Anddenex

how ironic

The thing about deploying righteous indignation as a rhetorical device is, it loses much of its potency if one comes into the exercise with visibly unclean hands.  That's the thing that folks like Carol Lynn Pearson don't get--they stoke judgment against Church leaders and "TBM"s, whilst insisting that no one had better dare subject them to the same kind of scrutiny and criticism they heap upon others.
Whether or not Pearson remains an active Church member, she has left a lengthy trail of destruction that includes a major part in the apostasy of three family members of mine.  As acolytes of John Dehlin and Denver Snuffer have learned, "but not no one has excommunicated him yet" is a remarkably poor basis for handing the reins of one's testimony to a person who specializes in driving wedges between prophets and Church members.

It appears you have some deep emotions that need to be worked through through much fasting, prayer, and counsel with your Father in heaven (Helaman 3:35), and pray that you may have the heart and mind of the Father (which means a heart and mind of heavenly Mother as they are one).
We all agree with regards to pornography, but the world and its philosophy says it is a good thing and nothing wrong with it.
When God commands polygamy, there is nothing wrong with polygamy. There is nothing wrong with a man taking another wife after his first wife dies (even for eternity). We already know from scripture from the words of Jacob that the "desire" for polygamy is a sin.
Women have affairs. Men have affairs, no one is justifying this thing as "good" except the world. Women are insensitive to how much money their partner makes. I know of women who have been told by their mothers to divorce their husband because he isn't making enough. LDS women are taught the following principle, "You can be happy with a poor man, or you can be happy with a rich man -- marry the rich man." Pretty shallow, but it is among us.
People engage in movies they enjoy, and often think are fine -- not inappropriate (just go to the thread on "nude" art and see the different thoughts there). What you think is inappropriate another person might think is fine. The Lord has given us principles and we have our moral agency (not without consequence).
These questions and many other heavenly Father addresses to Enoch, and our Father in heaven cries knowing that his children choose evil over good. Be careful though that you do not call good evil and evil good as you have done with a General Authorities choice to remarry. I am sure you have heard/read the Lord's counsel, "It is not good that man should be alone." This counsel remains even after the death of spouse. I served with a young man whose first wife died of cancer 6 months after their first child was born. She wouldn't go through chemo while she was pregnant. He married a year or so or later, eternally, to another woman. Who are you to judge her and her decision? He was a good man. She was a wonderful woman who willingly took on marriage and a child right away. She agreed to it. She loved him, and he loved her, and you want to somehow make this relationship bad? Stop casting stones, and look inward, and you will find have of your questions resolved.

Consider that plural marriage when properly authorized has only been practiced by very few relatively speaking and perhaps it allowed for growth opportunities in those involved that we simply don't fully understand. As for in the eternities, keep in mind, that time will no longer be relevant and Celestial heirs will be perfected. In this sense, the common, petty weaknesses men and women have now will be done away with, husbands won't be constrained by time and we have the Lord's promise that those who choose to abide Celestial Glory will be happy.
 
I hope I'm misunderstanding this, simply because it may be the most offensive thing I have ever read or heard anyone say about my Heavenly parents. God the Father is a just and righteous being who would not simply create a doctrine for his personal gratification... the juxtaposition of the hypothetical righteous practice of plurality of wives among our heavenly parents to the rank filth of pornography is so repugnant that I honestly can't believe it has been expressed. How can we believe in a just, fair, loving, perfect father and then suppose that simply by virtue of his position he would exploit women for the eternities - I mean if He could just make up the rules to suit impure lusts, why have any rules around morality at all then.

I'll take a stab at this one.
Laws define morality in the same way that the rules in basketball define sportsmanship - they don't.

I did say that I did not know all the reasons for a General Authority to do that, so I really don't feel that I am trying to cast stones or judge him.   However, I feel that there can definitely be more sensitivity shown on this topic.
We do not need to know "all the reasons" why a General Authority (or anyone else for that matter) does something to cast stones or judge. Casting stones or judging wrongly is often based on a lack of information or lack of knowledge. The initial OP seems to say, "The General Authority (possibly Elder Oaks or Elder Nelson you are referring to) hurt their spouse by remarrying." What sensitivity are you referring to?
Let's review a different thought that was provided and your response, @my two cents, "For all you know, they had talked about this and came to an agreement." By which you responded with, "Why would a woman want to agree to that? He probably wanted [it] and she felt she had to give in." This appears to be a pretty big rock thrown toward one of two GA's. He wanted it, so she just gave in, without any choice on her part.
I don't feel that it is wrong for a woman to have just one husband and for a man to have just one wife.  Anyone, man or woman who does not have at least some concerns about polygamy is not normal. If no one wants to admit it would not be an easy thing, they are wrong. It is definitely in God's hands, not ours.
I could be wrong; however, I don't think anyone on this thread would disagree with the first sentence, as there is nothing wrong with having one husband and one wife. The second is a personal opinion and is false. What is normal? And how is your definition of "normal" the correct one? Why does someone need to have concerns about polygamy to be normal? They don't. They have a different thought than you do. They aren't afraid or concerned of things you are, so this makes them not normal?
A person who has the mind of God would not have any concerns with polygamy. They may have questions, but they don't need any concerns. As far as I can tell from scripture, Christ did not have any issues, concerns, with polygamy -- and I would say he was normal. If we have concerns that is OK also, as we are all in different spheres of life progressing toward truth.
The third sentence applies to anything that is worth while in life. The same can be said for marriage itself. Marriage isn't easy. OK, let's move on.  The last sentence is true. Polygamy is in God's hands, not ours, and that is a good thing. All things that come from God are good, and polygamy indeed has come from God, meaning that when commanded it is a good thing, no matter what man, woman, the world in general has to say. When God commands it, it is still in his hands, and it is good. Our responsibility is to learn the mind of God and live what he has commanded.
I know that Carloyn Lynn Pearson has concerns on it and I'm not saying I know everything she has written about it and I'm not saying I am agreeing with everything, but I do appreciate her treating the subject with the sensitivity others seem to lack.  And she has not been disciplined in the Church for doing so.  She has been able to talk to her Church leaders about different topics and they are able to have the right Spirit with one another.  And I think that that is beautiful.
Truly it is wonderful when topics are treated in the right spirit. When you openly make a comment regarding a possible conversation between a General Authority and his first wife (or anyone for that matter), "Why would a woman want to agree to that? He probably wanted [it] and she felt she had to give in." Yes, this isn't the sensitivity you are referring to, nor is this the right spirit. So don't be surprised when a person points it out directly and firmly.
If a woman doesn't want to share her husband with another woman, I believe she should have that right without losing any salvation.
We loose our salvation by not following God or keeping his commandments. Nephi gives evidence to this when commanded to kill Laban. Nephi recognized this was a commandment from God and that if he disobeyed he would not be blessed, and possibly not receive exaltation. No woman, at this moment is commanded to live in a polygamous relationship, so this statement becomes moot. Woman and men have the right to say no to marriage or polygamous marriage. If God commands you (general) to live in a polygamous relationship, then we better move forward and live it. It truly is a simple principle. If people want to do their own thing, after God commands it, then they have to be prepared to reap the rewards of the disobedient. We reap what we sow.
If a man cannot treat his wife right, then he shouldn't be given another.  I really don't know, like I mentioned before how things will work out in eternity, but I do think that women should be treated more fairly, as a  whole.
No one is stating otherwise, not even the Church (nor the Gospel of Jesus Christ). As to my understanding, if a man is not treating his wife well in this life, he may not have her or any other in the next. I believe it was Joseph Smith who made this point clear. This is a humbling truth, as I currently understand it, that man or woman will have a choice in the next life.
Polygamy isn't treating women unfairly, unless of course you think our heavenly parents (yes both of them) are unfair as God commanded polygamy in more than one dispensation. But, any man, who is honest with himself would probably say the same that women have not been treated fairly, and fortunately we are in a day and age where these wrongs are being righted. Polygamy isn't one of them though (when commanded by God), unless of course you think our heavenly parents are wrong when God commanded polygamy, and if so, then you will need to take up these questions when you see them. Remember, God is "one" with heavenly Mother, otherwise God would himself become a liar as he has commanded us to be "one" and that husband and wife should be "one."

This is probably going into deep doctrine territory...or things that are not considered doctrine, but are things people occasionally ponder about in the LDS church.
I know there are some that believe it, and it may very well be, but I don't know.
If I ponder on the polygamy thing, I wonder if that is really the case or not.
I know the Lord stated they are neither married or given in marriage in heaven.  This is one reason why we do sealings for the dead in this life. 
Let's say that those who do make it to eternity are commanded to live a plural marriage.  How is this done.  How do they know to seal so and so, to another so and so, when they were not married in this life.
Or is there something we do not understand that makes it so that such things may be done in heaven?
Or, perhaps, the verse would mean if we are not married here, we are not married there. 
That could make sense to a degree as well, and for most of us the entire polygamy thing is moot and people are worrying about things that they do not need to.
Of course, that wouldn't make a LOT of sense in recognition of what the prophets have stated about YOUNG WOMAN where if they did not have the opportunity to marry for eternity in this life, but held out for a righteous young man to take them to the temple but never was given the opportunity...they will have it in the here after.
(NOT young men, interestingly enough...there's is more of...if you don't in this life, you normally had more than enough chances, and if you didn't marry, that was your choice...etc...etc...etc)
That implies, that somehow, someway, those who did not have the opportunity to be sealed for all eternity in this life, will obtain that opportunity in the next, but how that is achieved or done...I have no idea.
That doesn't necessarily mean there will be polygamy by those who are in exaltation though, but it does imply there is some way of enabling those who need the sealing ordinances done after death who had none in this life performed between them...enabled.
More than likely we will find out more on how this is accomplished or done in the millennium.

I did say that I did not know all the reasons for a General Authority to do that, so I really don't feel that I am trying to cast stones or judge him.   However, I feel that there can definitely be more sensitivity shown on this topic.
We do not need to know "all the reasons" why a General Authority (or anyone else for that matter) does something to cast stones or judge. Casting stones or judging wrongly is often based on a lack of information or lack of knowledge. The initial OP seems to say, "The General Authority (possibly Elder Oaks or Elder Nelson you are referring to) hurt their spouse by remarrying." What sensitivity are you referring to?
Let's review a different thought that was provided and your response, @my two cents, "For all you know, they had talked about this and came to an agreement." By which you responded with, "Why would a woman want to agree to that? He probably wanted [it] and she felt she had to give in." This appears to be a pretty big rock thrown toward one of two GA's. He wanted it, so she just gave in, without any choice on her part.
I don't feel that it is wrong for a woman to have just one husband and for a man to have just one wife.  Anyone, man or woman who does not have at least some concerns about polygamy is not normal. If no one wants to admit it would not be an easy thing, they are wrong. It is definitely in God's hands, not ours.
I could be wrong; however, I don't think anyone on this thread would disagree with the first sentence, as there is nothing wrong with having one husband and one wife. The second is a personal opinion and is false. What is normal? And how is your definition of "normal" the correct one? Why does someone need to have concerns about polygamy to be normal? They don't. They have a different thought than you do. They aren't afraid or concerned of things you are, so this makes them not normal?
A person who has the mind of God would not have any concerns with polygamy. They may have questions, but they don't need any concerns. As far as I can tell from scripture, Christ did not have any issues, concerns, with polygamy -- and I would say he was normal. If we have concerns that is OK also, as we are all in different spheres of life progressing toward truth.
The third sentence applies to anything that is worth while in life. The same can be said for marriage itself. Marriage isn't easy. OK, let's move on.  The last sentence is true. Polygamy is in God's hands, not ours, and that is a good thing. All things that come from God are good, and polygamy indeed has come from God, meaning that when commanded it is a good thing, no matter what man, woman, the world in general has to say. When God commands it, it is still in his hands, and it is good. Our responsibility is to learn the mind of God and live what he has commanded.
I know that Carloyn Lynn Pearson has concerns on it and I'm not saying I know everything she has written about it and I'm not saying I am agreeing with everything, but I do appreciate her treating the subject with the sensitivity others seem to lack.  And she has not been disciplined in the Church for doing so.  She has been able to talk to her Church leaders about different topics and they are able to have the right Spirit with one another.  And I think that that is beautiful.
Truly it is wonderful when topics are treated in the right spirit. When you openly make a comment regarding a possible conversation between a General Authority and his first wife (or anyone for that matter), "Why would a woman want to agree to that? He probably wanted [it] and she felt she had to give in." Yes, this isn't the sensitivity you are referring to, nor is this the right spirit. So don't be surprised when a person points it out directly and firmly.
If a woman doesn't want to share her husband with another woman, I believe she should have that right without losing any salvation.
We loose our salvation by not following God or keeping his commandments. Nephi gives evidence to this when commanded to kill Laban. Nephi recognized this was a commandment from God and that if he disobeyed he would not be blessed, and possibly not receive exaltation. No woman, at this moment is commanded to live in a polygamous relationship, so this statement becomes moot. Woman and men have the right to say no to marriage or polygamous marriage. If God commands you (general) to live in a polygamous relationship, then we better move forward and live it. It truly is a simple principle. If people want to do their own thing, after God commands it, then they have to be prepared to reap the rewards of the disobedient. We reap what we sow.
If a man cannot treat his wife right, then he shouldn't be given another.  I really don't know, like I mentioned before how things will work out in eternity, but I do think that women should be treated more fairly, as a  whole.
No one is stating otherwise, not even the Church (nor the Gospel of Jesus Christ). As to my understanding, if a man is not treating his wife well in this life, he may not have her or any other in the next. I believe it was Joseph Smith who made this point clear. This is a humbling truth, as I currently understand it, that man or woman will have a choice in the next life.
Polygamy isn't treating women unfairly, unless of course you think our heavenly parents (yes both of them) are unfair as God commanded polygamy in more than one dispensation. But, any man, who is honest with himself would probably say the same that women have not been treated fairly, and fortunately we are in a day and age where these wrongs are being righted. Polygamy isn't one of them though (when commanded by God), unless of course you think our heavenly parents are wrong when God commanded polygamy, and if so, then you will need to take up these questions when you see them. Remember, God is "one" with heavenly Mother, otherwise God would himself become a liar as he has commanded us to be "one" and that husband and wife should be "one."

Joseph Smith had a big problem with polygamy.  It was so big that he tried to beg God not to command it of him.  His concern was not even for himself but for Emma.  This problem was so big that God had to send a heavenly messenger to bring the fear of the sword to Joseph Smith.  In the early days of the restoration, polygamy WAS a part of the restoration of the doctrine of Eternal Marriage and Eternal Families.
In those days, Christianity believed in 'Til Death Do Us Part.  So much so that when their spouse dies, they can marry another and not be held on moral account by their pastors even as they believed that polygamy is against God's will.  This teaching was not complete.  The issue was that Marriages and Families do not end at death when sealed under proper authority.  So, 'Til Death Do Us Part, becomes inapplicable after the sealing ordinance is restored.  BUT the practice of marrying another after the death of one spouse is a correct principle (the Catholic Church did get a lot of things right that they successfully preserved).  As part of the restoration of eternal marriage and families, God saw fit to command Joseph Smith to marry another while Emma was still alive.  This taught Joseph Smith that there is no difference between marrying a 2nd spouse after the first spouse dies and marrying a 2nd spouse while the first spouse is still alive.  There is no difference because the first marriage did not end at death.
But, Joseph Smith still had a big problem with it and begged God that he be spared from it on account of Emma.  God, of course, required of him the restoration of eternal marriages.  Joseph Smith tried to hide it from Emma.  That did not work out too well.  Emma gave Joseph a hard time over it.  God revealed to her that if she does not allow Joseph to follow God's commands on the matter that she will be held accountable for this rebellion.
Is it wrong for a woman to desire that her husband only marry one spouse?  No.  God commanded polygamy only to a few select elders of the Church.  But if one of those elders is your husband, then yes, the woman will be held accountable for preventing her spouse to follow God's commands.
Make sense?

I think the whole premise of this is your reasoning that Marriage will be exactly the same as it now in the Celestial Kingdom, we don't know what we will be like when we are perfect and have perfect knowledge.   What we are promised in the scriptures is that everyone will be happy with where they are placed so I am happy for Heavenly Father to sort it out.

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
(Doctrine and Covenants 121:34–40)
 

Wow - that must be a record.  22 question marks in one single paragraph.  jewels8, you're thinking about important stuff.  Maybe carve it up into bite sized chunks?

Because she understands that jealousy, possessiveness, selfishness are traits you can't bring with you to the Celestial Kingdom.
I myself do not have a problem with it.  My husband is such an amazing guy that it would be good with me if he follows the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to bless another with his spirit like he has blessed me.

For all you know, they had talked about this and came to an agreement. 

Yes, and yes. I would say for me it is, "This looks good," and "Other people will think this looks good on me."
When I purchased sunglasses I purchased with both mentalities, "I like the way this looks on me," and "Honey, what do you think, do they look good on me"?
But really, come on @Jane_Doe, let's be honest with ourselves, I make everything look "good" so it really doesn't matter what I wear. (100% joking -- I don't look good in my wife's workout pants )

Right after my mission, when I still lived in California, I routinely exchanged garments for regular under clothing before going to hospital/doctor visits.  Now that I live in Utah (and am generally older and more mellow), I have a hard time considering it to be as big of a deal.  The doctors out here have all seen plenty of garments--if they don't wear them themselves.

At times, yes.  If it's bad enough that you can't dress yourself, a patient doesn't have much say in the matter anyway.  Surgeries and tubes and wounds and stuff may need to be readily accessed, and garments could hamper that.   If the instructions from the doctors are "nothing but the hospital gown", there are usually legitimate reasons for that.  
If the hospital stay allows for underwear though, I'd vote you keep them on.  Our tushies are sacred too, and you just don't want anyone seeing that either.
I've had a handful of physicals and doctor's visits and whatnot over the years that caused me to sit there while medical personnel saw my garments.  It was never a bad thing.  Two or three times the doc said "oh - are you Mormon?".
 

I was always impressed with the lone Amalekite in Alma 23:14. We know nothing about him beyond his conversion and the negative character of his people, but I love that Mormon mentions him because it teaches two important lessons too me.
1. It doesn't matter how horrendous the culture of your people, country, family is, if you exercise faith in our Savior Jesus Christ and strive to follow his commandments you can be saved.
2. Don't apostasize! Thousands of wicked Lamanites converted due to the preaching of the Sons of Mosiah, but only one Amalekite would repent. It illustrates with numbers the hardness of heart that occurs when you reject the greater light. It's not that the great majority of Amalekites couldn't repent, as evidenced by the one who did, it's that they didn't want too.

I did not build the Today's Class website, I simply modified the graphic to match the design of the rest of the site.

If we document the names in the Houston cemeteries, can we count their baptism as completed?

Well, if you coded the website this would incorporate hours of coding and time spent. I also didn't realize there were more pages then 5, and there are actually more pages then I at first thought. According to what I have seen, I can see you charging $1500 for the site.
It may not be appealing in some ways, but the work put in and number of pages could easily be $1500, especially if they love it, which is what matters most.
EDIT: did you build Today's Class website with this?

You are right, but you are missing the point. (Or more accurately, they -- those who would buy the ticket -- are missing the point.) People want to eat their cake and have it, too. They do not really want to be saved from their sins; they want to be saved in their sins, not understanding that "salvation in sin" is an oxymoron. People think only as far ahead as the tip of their own nose. $10,000 for eternal happiness? A bargain at twice the price!
But of course, it is not. Because the people who want to be saved in sin would be excruciatingly miserable standing before God. They would infinitely prefer to be cast out altogether rather than be in the presence of the Divine. That's what they're missing: Heaven isn't for people who jump through the hoops and dance prettily. It's for people who want to live in heaven. And literally the only people who will dwell for eternity in pain and misery will be those who freely choose to do so, because they prefer it to heaven.

Got it.

Oh?