huma17

That Jesus is the Christ.

Regardless of what faith or idealogy each of us are, I want to extend my wishes that all of you will have peace this holiday season. Love your families and each other...enjoy!

I don't think you are fully understanding what I have been trying to get across. I don't know where you got the idea that the elders of the church would practice plural marriage for and in behalf of the members? I didn't say that plural marriage was only for the elders either. I also made it clear that Patriarchal Marriage was a higher law and came with higher blessings with obedience to it. You cannot expect to receive those further rewards by only living a lower law. If one doesn't live it, then yes, they do forfeit those rewards. My reference to the Atonement was an analogy, not meant to be the same in every way. My analogy was to show that there are laws/doctrines of the Gospel that we must accept, but not neccessarily participate in. I don't know how you don't see it? He was speaking with the elders, and giving an account of what occured amungst them. You have yet to show me where every member was commanded to do so. I do recall the Lord stating that he will call who he will to obey this, but never did he command all. I am only seeing what I see.

Yes I will, and keep the faith. :)

Who's 'us'? If you don't want me talking to you, then leave this thread alone. I'm sorry the obvious is coherent to you...

Seeing as I have not stated this, I am puzzled as to why you keep refering to a mere belief. We must accept plural marriage as part of the New and Everlasting covenant, and of the Lord. If you do not, then you are damned. Also, if one is commanded to practice it, then they must. However, all have not/were not commanded to do so.

Unfortunetely, I haven't bent nor twisted anything, but have merely pointed out the obvious, which you fail to acknowledge. You simply choose to take only parts of quotes and use them for your arguement, while refusing to address the rest.I guess schools out.

Sure, Snow. How very noble of you not to respond with intelligent remarks, but to rather call me a hack and run off...

Let's see...well, you suggest that either the Restored Gospel is false, or...it's false...

Why not refer to Daniel Peterson, or Dan Vogel? However, I do not have my own website, so I think Jeff Lindsay will be OK.Do you think the plates will really fit into your small cup?

I am so glad that you have made the connection that I was trying to point out...yes, not all men are to follow the Law of Moses, as all men are not to follow the Patriarchal Law - even though both laws are of the Lord, and we must accept both as such...very good, Snow.However, your remarks towards bacon and tithing settlement were a bit 'irrelevant'. No, not simply 'believe', but accept...big difference. I almost expected you to use Deut. 25: 5-10 (definately one of my favorites), however, I don't see the relevance here...are you saying that you don't believe in the Bible?

I find this post rather pathetic, because you seem to be trying your hardest to retain the allusion of superiority...sorry, Snow, but it just doesn't exist.Why would you even try to dis-credit me in my own emission of the lack of knowledge of a particular subject? I have not once tried to suggest a knowledge of the 1890 manifesto and related subject material. I called you on your remarks of plural marriage because I had a knowledge of it. I also remarked on it due to the fact that a 14yr. old came to this MB for the first time asking an innocent question, and you gave some completely irrelevant information...why? As to me 'catching' you in error...I already have.

---

Let me help you with this: ig·no·rant (gnr-nt) adj. 1. Lacking education or knowledge. 2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake. 3. Unaware or uninformed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English ignoraunt, from Old French ignorant, from Latin ignrns, ignrant-, present participle of ignrre, to be ignorant, not to know; see gn- in Indo-European roots.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- igno·rant·ly adv. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorant Now, let me spell it out for you: You went off on me in regards to my sarcasm towards Jason, even though Jason (to whom the sarcasm was aimed at) and I had worked out and discussed our differences. Your ignorance (see #3) in this matter was quite apparent, or else you would not have made such remarks. Tell me, again, how I used this term incorrectly? And if we are being so correct in our grammar usage, let me inform you that the word 'get' is spelled G - E - T, not G - I - T... I do seem to recall responding to this exact quote...did you miss it? Anyway, I will give you a brief summation: Patriarchal Marriage is of a higher law, and therefore has higher rewards (as well as consequences). If one thinks that they can live only a lower law and receive the higher rewards, they are wrong. If you want to hear more on this, it would do you good to go back and read all the previous posts. Call me crazy (which I'm sure you would anyway), but I'm sure I covered this as well...again, see previous posts. You see, the celestial law of marriage - being sealed for time and eternity by the priesthood power of G-d - is only the beginning, there are more requirements to that law in order to receive all the promised blessings given by the Lord - see D&C 132. Once more, already covered this...higher law, higher rewards. Did you see the part of your quote that states 'INCLUDES'?? Yes, the marriage covenant includes, not soley comprises of, a plurality of wives! Yes, all must obey his law - which INCLUDES plural marriage - to be joint heirs. Do I even need to respond? Yes, if you deny polygamy you will be damned. Where does that mean that we must ALL practice polygamy?? I rather see it to mean that we must accept it as G-ds law, period. Pretty much a repeat of the above - a restriction to one wife is not of the Lord. And your point is...? The doctrine of plural marriage IS important, but where does this state that ALL must live it? The Lord must reveal all of the Gospel - the Fulness of - for us to follow and live by the knowledge of it. As I have pointed out before, there are more than one aspect of the Gospel that is true, but does not require each of us to participate in. We must follow and accept modern prophet/revelation, yet we are not required to be a prophet, nor receive revelation for Mankind. Once more, already covered this. This is meant for the elders of the church. Now say, this IS a good one...I almost got stumped here! However, you forgot to include the rest - or prior parts - of the quote. Let me help you: It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. Notice where BY states 'you will be polygamists at least in your faith'...why did you exclude this? How many times do I have to point out that this quote is from dialoge that is meant for - and only for - the elders of the church?? Yes, polygamy IS right, and of G-d, and it is a necessity to MAN'S highest exaltation. Show me were the term 'Man' refers to each and every man? Sorry, Snow, but the emphasis is accepting it, not simply acknowledging that it comes from G-d. 'Silly notion'...you, Snow, have yet to provide any statement that supports that all must practice plural marriage...

First, let me apologize for not replying sooner, I have been a bit busy - sorry.Now, let me respond to your comments: I'm a little confused to your remark here. The quote you gave is clearly referring to the elders of the church, and there obedience to the Law of Plural Marriage. It states that if they do not keep that law, how can they expect to preside over those that keep a higher law when they keep the lesser law. I don't know why you can't see the correlation here. They are not keeping the Law of Plural Marriage - which is the higher law, so they are only keeping the lower law(s). As for the members, the higher law - for them - could be a number of things; such as the New and Everlasting convenant of marriage - being sealed by the priesthood of G-d for time and eternity. The members would be keeping the higher law - the highest law given to them - while the elders of the church would not be keeping their highest law - Patriarchal Marriage. Are you even going to suggest that you do not realize that the elders of the church are held to higher laws/standards than the lay member? To tell you the truth, I'm a little suprised by your remarks here. Yes, he was saying that if the elders of the church didn't obey the higher law of plural marriage that they could not go where our Father dwells. The members of the church do not get a 'free ride', because they must obey all the laws that they have been given to follow. What I'm pointing out here, is that the laws given to the elders don't always apply to the rest of the membership. I always directly speak my point. I will admit that sometimes I do not make myself clear enough, or that others do not always understand what I am trying to get across. I do feel that what I am trying to point out is clear as the noon sky. Yes, plural marriage IS essential for the exaltation of MANKIND. I don't know how to make this any clearer...many things are essential for the exaltation of Mankind, but not all are required for all men. As I pointed out earlier, the Atonement was a must, but are we all supposed to atone for sin? The elders weren't speaking in riddles either, the quote is CLEARLY amongst, and to, the elders of the church - how can you not see this? I thought I had pointed it out as clear as can be. There is no indirect speech here, the quote talks about the elders of the church and states 'we' in that manner. Read it! Do you need an english/speech professor to help you with this - it is as simple as can be!

And who, exactly, was supposed to obey the law in that quote? It is refering to the elders of the church, not all of the members. The Patriarchal Law is a higher law meant for the 'leading men of Israel'. It is refering to those who are to 'preside over those who keep a higher law'. They were commanded to obey the Patriarchal Law, and if they didn't, they couldn't follow our Heavenly Father and how could they teach the doctrine of plural marriage if they weren't following it. They refer to baptism for the dead, which is a must for this dispensation, and we must accept it, yet, will we be denied exaltation if we do not go to the temple to do baptism's for the dead?I don't have to pick anything apart, it is clearly refering to the elders of the church: 'If we do not embrace that principle soon the keys will be turned against us'. The members do not hold those keys.

I'm now beginning to wonder if your outrageous and irrelevant remarks are your way of masking your complete lack of ability to have intelligent conversations. Your way of 'schooling' me is to make foolish comments without actually defending your position. You have failed to provide any semblance of a logical argument.Do you accept that the Law of Moses was ordained of G-d? Was Moses a prophet?

Again, speaking before reading further. Even in my post that you quoted, I stated I had not researched it indepth, so the 'whoops' remark is just plain, well, foolish. I also told Jason that I would research it further, which he stated was not necessary, but I will do so for you if you would like.

Such sad responses, I kind of feel sorry for you. Nothing among your rambling here has anything to do with what I stated. You have said nothing here, but rather make a bunch of silly and irrelevant comments. Do you always have conversations like this?

First off, Snow, I was sarcastic with Jason due to his strong remarks to me - which, by the way, we have worked out. You might want to read further before making such ignorant comments. Second, suggesting that you know what I don't when you don't know me at all is rather silly. Stop telling me what you know, and just come out with it - why are you stalling? I told you I was waiting for you to 'school' me - quite some time ago - and am still waiting. Stop with your hot air superiority, and back something up.You continue to suggest that I will look foolish, when so far you are the only one that is fitting that bill.

I completely agree.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, or if I am being understood fully. When an LDS leader - apostle, GA - speaks non-prophetically, or without the consent of the presidency and/or the spirit moving them to testify, it is not scripture. When they say things like: 'I feel this is the case', or 'as it appears to me' and such opinion statements, I do not take it to be concrete. Remember BRM was forced to change Mormon Doctrine when he made the statement that the Catholic church was the Great and Abominable church - that was his view.

Fair enough.

It's a law for Mankind to accept, not for all men to participate in. It is necessary for the exaltation of Mankind overall. Just as the Atonement was necessary for Mankind, not all must atone for their own sins (even though many will), but all must accept the Atonement to receive the highest glory. While it is a Law of Heaven, not all must participate - just as we aren't required to follow the Law of Moses, yet it is/was of Heaven.If you have quotes I don't know about, I'd be happy to hear them. Just remember, though, LDS leaders aren't/weren't perfect and not always correct in their opinions. If they state something as their opinion, that's what it is. I have not always agreed with the opinions of LDS leaders - including BRM.

I'm going to have to get back to you on this, OK?