seekerw

I understand that John Taylor would want to offer the highest possible praise for Joseph, but the fact that this was accepted into the D&C means that it's official church doctrine. If it was not in the D&C, I never would have given this matter a second thought. You have a good point about Smith's numerical influence on mankind. From that standpoint, his influence is perhaps greater than any other prophet. I suppose influence doesn't have to equate to greatness of the individual, although I certainly think Joseph was a great individual.

I think that "To care for the poor and needy" involves individual members of the church choosing to help others out of their own resources. I don't think it's meant to apply to government taking money involuntarily from one group through taxation and giving it to others. The church has spoken out against the evils of the government dole, and free agency is a big principle of the church.

I heard a good reply to questions about Mormons having horns. You say that Mormons have horns, but that yours are smaller than the average. You invite the person to feel the top of the back of your head. Then you ask, "Can you feel them?" They feel around on your head and then admit they don't. Then you ask, "Do you feel a little foolish?" I laughed when I heard that one.

Thanks for your replies, everybody. I believe in God's eyes that all prophets are equal, as long as they fulfill their missions faithfully. From the parable of the laborers hired all throughout the day and into the 11th hour, I conclude that all people, prophets or otherwise, are equally important to God as long as they are ready and willing to do the Lord's will, whether he calls them to be a prophet or a ward librarian or whatever. I believe that Jesus told the Jews that no greater prophet had arisen before John the Baptist to signify that John was every bit as great as Moses and Elijah and other prophets whom the Jews revered. Hence no greater prophet than John had arisen. The distinction between greater and lesser prophets, in my opinion, has more to do with the length of their respective writings in the scriptures than anything else, but then that's just my perspective. In men's eyes, some prophets might seem greater, depending on one's perspective and on the prophets with whom one is more personally familiar. But I'm not going to judge anybody else's perspective.

I joined the church almost 30 years and have been active in it ever since. I have a testimony of the gospel. I have a strong testimony of Joseph Smith being a prophet and do not wish to detract in the slightest from his accomplishments and character. However, there is something I struggle with -- D&C 135:3, in which John Taylor wrote that Joseph Smith "has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it". It somewhat bothers me to compare one prophet to another, as if they were in competition with each other and that one should be esteemed any higher than another. It seems more like a worldly mindset than a spiritual one to start comparing and ranking prophets against each other. Does anybody here have any thoughts on this?

I once looked at an art book with photos of nude women in various poses (none of which were suggesetive). I could look for a time without feeling tempted, but then temptation started hitting and I had to put the book down. There are times when I could look at the entire book and not think a thing of it, and others when I wouldn't trust myself to open up the book at all. I haven't found any hard and fast rules on this subject.

My then-wife and I were once in this same situation: I had the income and she was a stay-at-home mom and had no income. I at that time did not pay a full tithing, and the bishop told her that since we as a couple did not pay a full tithing, then she was considered to not be a full tithe payer. Of course, we were both LDS and so it might be different than lydlou's case. Or maybe it was the individual bishop's determination.

Are you serious about this? It sounds like I was being rather condescending myself. But I'll accept your word on this. I know women and men don't view things always in the same light. I like your story a lot. I've copied it onto my computer for future reference. I don't have time to comment on it now, but will later. Everybody, I hope my comments on this subject haven't caused anybody any discontent and I do appreciate your forbearing with me. I realized after my last post why I feel so strongly on the subject of polygamy: I'm afraid. Under polygamy in the early church, women were free to enter and leave marriages at will. I know of at least one who left a monogamous marriage to become the third wife of another. I'm divorced and not yet remarried, but what if I was and my beloved wife left me for another man? That would devastate me, yet it could always happen under polygamy. I've never been very competitive. I'm a peacemaker at heart and am not interested in gaining advantage over somebody else, even under the accepted rules of the game. I'd much rather play by the understanding that I have my wife and you have yours, and let's respect that, and please don't take her away from me and I won't try to take away yours. Of course, I'd seek to build my wife up as much as possible and to love her and only her. I've never earned very much money, and it would tear me apart to be excluded from polygamy because I couldn't afford it financially. Seeing men with multiple wives (and me with one or none) would lead me to doubt myself, wondering why I'm not as good or worthy as them. I would feel extremely jealous. I think this is the root of my feelings about polygamy. I think I'm much better off to not think too much about polygamy, to seek to live worthily with one woman, and trust God that he will provide for my needs here and in eternity, and if my wife were to be happier with another, then to let her go and to be happy that she's with a better man than me. Seeker

For the record, polygamy IS INDEED currently being practiced, albeit in heaven, not on earth. That makes polygamy just as relevant today as it ever was in the early church. Don't get me wrong. I have a testimony of the LDS church. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I know we're led by prophets and apostles today. I will never deny that, and I won't leave the church over polygamy or any other doctrine. What I meant originally is that if there was any doctrine over which I might leave the LDS church, it is polygamy. In spite of my testimony, it still bothers me that Joseph Smith stands to have over 80 wives in the eternities. The very thought seems to cheapen women by reducing them to being baby factories and, well, being a reward or a prize given to valiant men. It's like the Lord is saying, "Here, man, you've been faithful. Have two dozen wives as your reward." Never mind that they may have been just as valiant as he -- they have to share him with 20-plus sister wives. That's THEIR reward for being valiant, I suppose. My youngest is the same age as Helen Marr Kimball when she was married to Joseph Smith. Do you know why he married her? Joseph had asked Heber Kimball for his wife Vilate in marriage, and Heber presented her to him. When Joseph refused, saying that it had only been a test, Heber asked him if he would take his daughter Helen in place of Vilate. Joseph said that this was acceptable. Helen later said that her father convinced her to marry Joseph, and that he was the only person who could have convinced her. In effect, Helen became a pawn in some game between Joseph and her father. I have two daughters, ages 21 and 14. The thought of my daughters becoming the second, third, twelveth, fifteenth or fifty-seventh wife of one guy infuriates me, no matter how valiant he might be. I know I might get castigated for saying this, but it sure seems that the only conclusion I can draw from polygamy is that a valiant man is better spiritually than an equally valiant woman. Either that, or children and eternal increase is the most important part of the gospel, more important than the husband-wife relationship, which seems to contradict what the church teaches in this matter. If I were actually called to practice polygamy, I know I could adapt to it. I think I'll just not think of it again. The subject is too emotionally charged for me to handle. It strikes a discordant chord deep within me that I don't know how to resolve into a happier sound. I'm not saying it's wrong; I'm just saying I don't know how to feel right about it. Webster's 1828 Dictionary FUNDAMENT'AL, n. A leading or primary principle, rule, law or article, which serves as the ground work of a system; essential part; as the fundamentals of the Christian faith. The gospel as restored, taught, and lived by Joseph Smith jr. is the above for me, which makes me a Fundamentalist Mormon. The vast majority of Fundamentalists that I know are monogamists. I, however, am a plural wife. church girl, Thank you for sharing that. If it's not too personal, would you mind sharing a little bit about your experience as a plural wife? I've never known anybody who was currently living in polygamy. I know it must be a trial at times, but then, monogamous marriage is also trying at times. I'm particularly curious if you feel plural marriage demeans you in any way or makes you feel less important than a man. I'm trying to reach some peace over this issue, is why I ask. Seeker

I must admit, I would be happy being an eternal monogamist if everybody else was. But seeing that some men will be eternal polygamists, it awakens some sort of competitiveness in me and I don't want to be left behind. I figure if Joseph Smith and others could have many eternal wives, why can't I? I'd feel jealous of these men if I couldn't do likewise. As I've said before, maybe I should just put the subject of polygamy entirely out of mind, focus on being the best monogomist husband I can be in this life, and let eternity take care of itself. I've gone through the posts on this thread and saw the following quotes I'd like to reply to. Serg, {If it is, it certainly should be satisfaied NOW, as many poor men are being tried unjustly, because they, de facto, because of their intrinsic needs, NEED this practice, without which aparently, they are not only unhappy but in grave danger of commiting adultery(as their need is so profound and real that they cant take it).} I beg to differ. I don't think men have an intrinsic need for sex. I was married for 23 years (recently divorced) and my ex went through times when she didn't want sex. We sometimes went six months, eight months, or a year without physical intimacy. Yet I wasn't driven to have an affair. I was able to keep my urges under control. Dale, {What item of Joseph Smith & polygamy bothers you? I confess I don't believe in plural marriage. But I have most of the information relating to the 33 wives at my disposal.} What bugs me the most is that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have spent much time with any of his wives, except for Emma. What business does anybody have being married to wives he can't spend time with. This would leave them alone much of the time and wouldn't allow them to satisfy their own physical desires for intimacy. This bugs me the most about it. Xhenli, {But to the degree that any man or any woman 'needs' it, polygamy helps the ladies out too. Instead of a woman being single, remaining single, because there is not a man for her, and thereby being required to be celibate in order to be holy. That's painful for the ladies, too. Polygamy could conceivably solve that problem.} Agreed. However, I sort of wish the Lord would have made more men that would be righteous than he did. That way we wouldn't need polygamy. I must admit, your argument kind of makes me want to be a Mormon giggolo, focusing on serving the needs of my single sisters. I know, I know, I won't really do it. Church girl, I see you’re a Fundamentalist Mormon. Whenever I see that term, I automatically assume the person is a polygamist. Do you mind if I ask you whether you practice polygamy? Last summer I visited two women in another state, neither of whom were Mormon, but we went to a Mormon church together. I felt like introducing us as fundamentalist Mormons and that they were two of my wives, just to see what reaction I might have gotten.

What's your source for this? According to the book Now They Call Me Infidel, authored by an ex-Muslim woman from the Middle East, polygamy is a nightmare for women in that society, the way the men practice it there.

Thank you, everybody, for your comments. Somewhere in the church I've heard, and I suppose it's true, that woman was made for the glory of man. Like it or not, I think the principle of polygamy bears this out. Maybe this is a subject I just shouldn't think too much about. But I do know that, the way D&C 132 is worded, a man can be exalted with only one wife. In fact, the plurality of wives is mentioned almost as an aside, toward the end of the section. I supppose polygamy makes practical sense -- children are central to the gospel, and a woman can only have one pregnancy every nine months and for a more limited period of her life than a man, who could conceivably father several pregnancies every night. Looking at it from that perspective, you don't need as many men as women. But this sounds like such an unattractive way of looking at it. As I said, maybe I shouldn't think about this subject too much.

I am a faithful Mormon male. I believe in the LDS church with all my heart, but there is one issue that has bothered me for many years about it. I once forbade myself to even think about this issue for about 10 years. It is the issue of polygamy. Don't get me wrong. I have a testimony that it is true and it's even been revealed to me that I may well one day be living it. But it seems so blasted unfair to the women involved -- why should they have to share their husband(s) with other women? It strikes me as very unfair that a man could have so many wives he couldn't even spend a reasonable amount of time with any one of them. Joseph Smith had about 33 wives when he died. How could he have possibly spent any time with any of them, when he had all his church, civic, and other duties to deal with, along with persecution? Brigham Young and Heber Kimball had 36 and about 42 wives respectively -- why did they need so blasted many? Kimball said he thought no more of marrying a wife than he did of buying a cow. This saying bothers me more than any other thing I've heard about this subject. Why would Joseph Smith tell at least one of his wives that unless she accepted his marriage proposal, the gates of heaven would be closed against her forever? I understand he said something similar to at least one other. This just doesn't strike me as being right. If I told any woman that unless she married me, she would be forever barred from the celestial kingdom, I'd expect her to laugh in my face and run the other way. I know the church is true with all my heart, but I've never been able to come to peace with the subject of polygamy, even though I know it's a true principle. I'm hoping to find some peace on the matter, and I hope I'm not opening a Pandora's box here or spreading discontent. But nobody in the church talks much about this subject and so I've been left to deal with this mostly on my own. If anybody here has any thoughts on this subject, I'd very much appreciate you sharing them. Thank you. Seeker

Hi Jesse, I'll take a stab at answering this one: 1 What chose you to follow Mormonism and how has your beliefs affected or change your lifestyle? I'd looked into a Christian religion in high school (Assembly of God) and liked some things about it, but some things didn't seem right. For example, it didn't seem right that God would consign a person to hell simply becuase he didn't accept Jesus Christ in this life as Lord, even though he may have lived an honorable life. I went to college in Utah and so ran into many Mormons on campus. One of my friends told me the Book of Mormon was true and gave me a copy of it. I didn't read it at the time, but there was something about my friend's witness of the Book of Mormon that stuck with me. Then I started dating a Mormon girl and began meeting with the missionaries. I followed their counsel and started reading the BoM. It had a powerful effect on me. It filled me with a curious light. It took me a little over a year, but I joined the church. Mormonism has answered questions that other Christian faiths had no satisfactory answer for. The most important way it has changed my lifestyle is that I now know that God lives, loves me, and is always watching over me in an infinitely tender way. It has given me a relationship with God that I never had before, and this has given me more self-confidence. I tend to be a people pleaser and tend to do some unwise things simply to try to please others and get caught up in philosophies that influential people might espouse. Mormonism has given me an anchor to resist such things and has given me root in myself and God that I didn't have before. 5 Is there something you would change about Mormonism and if so why? Nothing at all. 6 How would someone convert to Mormonism and what challenges would that person have to overcome? One would ideally read the Book of Mormon with a desire to know if it was really true or not, and trust that God could answer his prayers about it. There are many potential challenges to overcome -- some people might be scared to death of how family and friends will react to their becoming Mormon (as was my case), others might have a difficult time giving up smoking and drinking, others might get discouraged by encounters with less-than-perfect Mormons, and so forth. Everybody will have some challenges to overcome if they decide to join the Mormon church. 8 What conflicts have Mormons have with other religions and why? The Mormon church is very positive toward other religions. I have never seen any Mormon leader express animosity toward another religion. As such, I don't think we have conflicts with any other religion. Seeker

I generally don't watch R-rated movies, because I hardly ever watch movies and the ones I do watch have to be worth my time. The Passion is the only R-rated movie I've ever seen that I believe was worth watching. (I am a convert and didn't immediately stop watching R-rated shows after my baptism.) It's funny; I watched it twice and didn't even think about its rating until now. The only reason, IMO, it was rated R was because of the violence when Christ was beaten and crucified. However, that seemed like appropriate violence to me, and it was probably fairly accurately portrayed what really happened. I almost felt like I was there in ancient Jerusalem at times. Could I have been happy had I never seen it? Sure I could have, but I feel I gained something by seeing it. The Atonement and the New Testament now seem a bit more real to me. Seeker