The Folk Prophet

Statistically, of course, there have to be more women than men in the Celestial kingdom (meaning the highest degree/exaltation) if plural marriage is an eternal principle (which, realistically, doctrinally, is the only truly viable reason for it, as anatess pointed out earlier). If even one male in the Celestial kingdom has two eternal wives, then there must be at least one more female therein saved than males. By this logic, unless one rejects eternal plural marriage, as some are wont to do, then women are, indeed, statistically, more righteous than men -- even if it's only by the, perhaps, relatively few who are sealed in polygamous marriages. :)

It seems that when something like the notice that someone else has posted pops up then the lag is practically guaranteed.

This is meaningless. God's commands are God's commands. Obey and be blessed, or do not and suffer. Besides that, who says it's too late and there is no way back. Divorce is certainly a way back.

The ultimate position of the LDS stance is that it is between you and God. That is the primary reason behind why our policy is what it is -- we allow that in certain circumstances that God can direct, by inspiration, that it is the right choice. Beyond that, in principle, I can't see that Catholic or LDS views on it are much different. Most of the debating back and forth on intent strike me as fairly unnecessary. But in the end, we will all stand before God and account for our choices. We won't account, ultimately, to any organization (though LDS do believe that others in the organization will be part of our expressions of accountability), but to God. If God tells me to do something I am justified. Period. I don't care what organization, policy, or principle says otherwise. Note: To be clear, I think we must be quite careful in all instances when choosing to defy policy based on the "God told me so" idea, in that knowing for absolute certain that it was God who actually told us so can be problematic. The devil appearing as an angel of light, mental disorders, etc., coming into potential play. But if we are certain, that is ultimately between us and God and if God did indeed direct us...we are justified.

The plain fact of the matter is that morality IS defined by authoritarianism. God defines right and wrong. Ultimately, there may be other ideas in play (utilitarianism, etc) that bind principles as law that even God follows. But only one with complete and perfect knowledge of the way things really are can actually understand things on this level, which leaves those of us with a less than perfect knowledge of the way things really are to depend entirely upon authoritarianism for our understanding of morality.

It's the same thing in context of -- If God says to do something, the who are we to say He is wrong? Of course, if you don't buy that plural marriage was ordained of God in the O.T. then the comparison fails. But the principle remains, and that is our plain justification for anything related to plural marriage and Joseph Smith's involvement therein.

This, of course, is only true if you believe that making millions of people look like nothing more than extremely naive and gullible dupes who are, nevertheless, nice, is portraying them positively.

To be fair, the usage of the word "forgive" in the context of these scriptures can well be read as "accept", in that vs. 25 reads: "But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive;" If the church cannot forgive, then why the command to the church to forgive upon repentance?

This is correct. D&C 42:18 has no bearing on the commandment we have been given to forgive others.

Except that the taking out the bridge thing may (depending on the bridge, of course), give the guy a change at survival.

This is over simplistic. I can want (desire) to kill one because of the love of another (a child in danger) and have it entirely irrelevant to the individual I kill. It doesn't mean I hate him that I want him dead. It simply means that my desire is driven by a stronger love for another. Or take the Nazis (yes, I'm going with Nazis). Someone in that time could have wanted to kill the Nazis without individually hating anyone in their ranks. I suspect that in wartime the desire to desperately kill others in certain circumstances is quite overwhelming, and has nothing do to with hating that person, but all to do with survival.

I wonder, as a matter of curiosity, what the stats are of active, righteous females to males in the church nowadays. We sure have an excess of single females to single males in our ward. And at the temple the sessions are almost always (not always, always though) filled with more women than men.

Point 1 is personal view, non-doctrinal - and I don't agree, but... Point 2, I believe, can be substantiated as pretty concrete (though we'll avoid the "what does doctrine mean" discussion at this point.) :)

It's less about whether marriage is a God given thing or man-made institution as it is about what the word itself actually means. The argument on the "gays can't marry" side of things is really about that. The pro-homosexual-marriage side is essentially trying to redefine the word to mean something less than it does (a license to have sex and a contract of commitment). The anti-homosexual-marriage side is saying that marriage means more than that - it has to do with procreation, exists because of procreation, and is inherently defined based on the idea that those entering into said contract can and will likely pro-create. That's not to downplay the God given thing. That debate just doesn't mean much in the political arena where it's plainly accepted that not everyone must or should believe that God even exists.

Of course you are right askandanswer and SpiritDragon, but the point is somewhat of a non-starter when it comes to the gay-rights issue. That is because the homosexual non-discrimination discussion clearly carries the idea of biased/unfair discrimination as an implicit adjective. And bias is always, at it's core, mistaken. Those who argue against non-discrimination either have to confess bias, or they must claim that homosexuality is harmful to society and there is valid reason to discriminate. That's a pretty tough argument to make in today's culture.

This would be valid, however, statistically it has not been the case in mortality. Meaning, if there were more women in the pre-existence, you would expect that more females than males would be born into mortality...that more babies would be girls. This has not been, nor is, the case. So unless something changes in the future (a possibility...but a bit of a stretch, imo) then this theory doesn't work.

Do not buy it in the sense that it's going too far. Of course we believe in obeying the law. And, of course, in general, disregard for the law is sinful. But, as you point out, there are plenty of examples of righteous people defying the law.

Blog?

I'm really quite confounded at your anti-speak-to-your-bishop attitudes in these matters. Did you have a bishop hurt you somehow or something?

When political beliefs are driven by religious beliefs then it can really hit the fan I suppose.

I think this is likely at the core of the message, but I don't discount that there was likely other meaning as well that does, indeed, relate to how we perceive those who would preach to us.

We do a meal that was an effort to create a healthy version of McD's McGriddles. Turkey bacon Egg whites (with a yolk or two) Fat free American cheese slices Whole Wheat pancakes Sugar free syrup - we prefer the butter flavored Make the pancakes, scramble the bacon and eggs together, put the cheese on the pancake, eggs/bacon on top of that. Then another pancake on top. Syrup over all.

I think it a bit misleading to say polyandry "emerged". A few, unexplained, isolated instances that we don't know the reason behind is hardly emerging. Moreover, there is NO doctrine of polyandry eternally, scripturally, or otherwise. The reality of what might be viewed as polyandry from a mortal/legalistic perspective does not apply to the eternities. And there is no evidence, ever, of any woman living as husband and wife with two men concurrently. None. All we have is a few scattered records of sealings between Joseph Smith and women that we know were married to other men. Hardly conclusive evidence of polyandry emerging. My intent here, in case it's misunderstood, is not to be contentious, but rather, to inform and clarify something that seems to be generally misunderstood.

I tend to think it is true, and tend to believe it is the only really viable reason for the existence of polygamy in the eternities (admitting that my understanding of the eternities is ridiculously limited). Where it becomes problematic is when the universal idea is applied specifically. Women are more righteous than men (if true) does note equate to - because someone is a woman they are more righteous than men, or that being a man means we need special help that women do not need (as the "that's why men have the priesthood" theory therefrom supposes).

Um...I thought....we...were..... ??