ST:DS9

When I was on my mission, there was a young woman who had a 4 year old child. Her husband cheated on her and he decided to divorce her, and he got excommunicated. She started to wonder about Temple divorce. Now I don't know the whole events that lead to this letter from the First Presidency. But in that letter they told her that as long as she keeps the covenants she made in the temple that she would still get the blessing promised to her when she made those covenants. They told her not to get a temple divorce until she was ready to get married again in the temple to someone else for all time and all eternity.

I thought you were a chick? Deb...short for Debbie or Debrah. I presume Ray and Snow are fellow Priesthood holders. I was not including myself. Also, call me old fashion, but I do not appreciate being called a "chick." I find it quite rude. If we females are chicks (chickens), what counterpart word do you suppose should be used for you males? I doubt THAT word can be used on this chat site. Sure you can say the word that would match with us, Swine (Pig)

Snow.....Snow......Snow.......SNOW.......Come on dude.........You can breathe now.........take a breath.........bump [snow falls to the ground].........Crud, we lost Snow.

What does it mean that God is no respector of persons? The Levites were the only onese who could officiate in many things in the OT. Sometimes God will have Polygamy,and sometimes he will not. For whatever reason blacks couldn't be ordained into the priesthood at one time. Certain people are called to do certain things ( called to be a Prophet, Sunday School teacher, ect) but while others (Though faithfull) would not be ever be called to certian callings. Anthing else that I can't think of. I don't want to discuss each of those points above, they were used only as an example. In the light of these things, I don't feel that I have a true understanding of what it means that God is not a respector of persons. In my view, God loves all his children equally, even though some are called to greater things, or live certian laws, or not able to have certain authority from God, ect. It doesn't matter in the big picture, everybody is equel in Gods eyes and he loves them all the same.

Dawn, How do you know records were not lost or destroyed??? The fact of the matter is...the "rebaptisms" were voluntary...and were motivated out of wanting to show the Lord, that given all they had been through...they were recommitting themselves to him and his work. Thats all...nothing sinister about it. Just a reaffirmation of the covenants they had made. I find it telling...that that was the only paragraph you chose to comment on. If you would...share with us how you know its a "fact" that no records were lost or destroyed during either the constant moving of the Saints during their persecution...or especially during the exodus west. I dont think your other comments came from your "stronger side" so I will not bother to comment on them. I will assume that perhaps you are having a hard nite. randy Actually, I wasn't/am not having a bad night. The LDS have been fed a white-washed version of church history just as much as the RLDS, just in different areas. We white-washed Nauvoo, you all have white-washed the period from the death of Joseph till the time BY died, or so. You see it through rose-colored glasses, just as we completely ignored the fact that Nauvoo even happened. But we have opened our eyes. When are you going to take your rose-colored glasses off? What is the first thing that you think of when you hear about the MMM? or the Danites/Avenging Angels? I already know, but go ahead and say it. The reason I know that no records were lost is that they conveniently found them all, locked away in a vault in the basement of some church building, and started releasing them back in the late 70's. Ya, so what I see is that the records were lost and then found over 100 years later. Which means, you guessed it, they were lost to the saints who went to Utah.

God also said that he would use Polygamy to raise seed unto him and would command it. Otherwise we are to hearken to the words found in Jacob 2. Refer to Jacob 2:30, this is where you will learn that God would command polygamy when he wants to raise seed unto him. I don't see how you can say that God would never command such when it is clear in the Book of Mormon that he would? Now, that is a far stretch, to interpret that scripture that way. The way I interpret it is that God could command anything because He is God. But God has other qualities, too. One of them being that He never changes. He went through a big long shpeal in Jacob where He explains just why He feels polygamy is an abomination, and for him to all of the sudden say "Ah, go ahead, I don't really care about all those things" just doesn't seem like something God would do because GOD DOESN'T CHANGE. And that ties into Randy's post, too. Randy, thank you for the heart-felt invitation, but the church in 1830 and the church in 1844 were two completely different churches. I understand about maturation, etc., but it wasn't just maturing, it was changing. I don't believe that God would speak against all these things in a book that is said to contain the fullness of the gospel, organize a church under the same principles, and then turn around and change it all. Sorry. I take God at his word when He says he doesn't change. I will put my faith in that first. Whatever else I believe will fall under that umbrella. You keep saying that I have all this patience with the leaders of the CoC, yet you ignore what I say regarding that statement. I said, and I will repeat, I have absolutely no patience with the leaders of the CoC (why do you think I was banned from the discussion board?), I have patience with God. So what will he command to raise seed unto him, but not to otherwise?

God also said that he would use Polygamy to raise seed unto him and would command it. Otherwise we are to hearken to the words found in Jacob 2. Refer to Jacob 2:30, this is where you will learn that God would command polygamy when he wants to raise seed unto him. I don't see how you can say that God would never command such when it is clear in the Book of Mormon that he would?

Jenda, Why are you avoiding my question about the verse in Jacob Chapter 2?

http://users.marshall.edu/~brown/nauvoo/nt-parent.html Look at the Chronology for 1846. Also look at the main Nauvoo page from that site. Also you have not answered my guestion about Jacob 2:30, What will the Lord command to raise seed unto him?

The Nauvoo temple was completed in May 1846 and was publicly dedicated, and there were thousands who witnessed this. Baptisms for the Dead started in 1841 in the Temple, and endowments were done in 1845-1846. So why do you think that the temple wasn't completed? Because it was, Baptism was officiated in the Temple, and there are many places that have been dedicated for Baptisms for the Dead.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended? The temple in Nauvoo had to have been completed in a specific amount of time, and it wasn't. I am ignorant about this part of church history. Can you show me where the Temple had to be done in a certian amount of time, and that it wasn't done? Can you show me where this time appointed for the baptisms of the dead was linked to the time appointed to building the temple? 10f But I command you, all ye my Saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me. 11a But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God. (This is all in your section 124.) But it is stated in Section 124:36 " For it is ordained that in Zion and in her stakes, and in Jersalem, those places which I have appointed for refuge, shall be the places for your baptisms for the dead." The Navaeu Temple was the first to be built for Baptism for the dead. God had ordained other places for this ordinace to be done. The Temple was completed and the ordinance was officiated. Everything is happening that is stated about Baptisms for the Dead, though Jerusalem is a future place for Baptism for the Dead. So I am still not seeing how the time for Baptism for the Dead is over? Can you please be more clear?

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended? The temple in Nauvoo had to have been completed in a specific amount of time, and it wasn't. I am ignorant about this part of church history. Can you show me where the Temple had to be done in a certian amount of time, and that it wasn't done? Can you show me where this time appointed for the baptisms of the dead was linked to the time appointed to building the temple?

It wasn't taken out because it wasn't a revelation, it was taken out to make room for Utah Section 132. And it doesn't need to be a revelation to be considered church policy. The fact that it was voted on by the members as what they believed was the mind and will of God is what is important. It would make sense that the early church would have that policy then, but then the lord commanded polygamy. Polygamy could only be constituted by God, as stated in the Book of Mormon. So when he constituted polygamy, that policy had to change somewhat (as in only having one spouse). But when he commanded it to not be practice anymore that policy then can become full in effect. Remember polygamy could only be practiced when God commands it to be. Yes, God can command anything because He is God. But God won't command that which He has declared an abomination in the past because He doesn't change. Mormon 4:82 (RLDS) And behold I say unto you, He changeth not; if so, he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles. You need to read the meaning of that passage (the one you referenced), not just the words. I re-read the passages, and Jacob 2 says that polgamy is an abomination to him, but he then says this Verse 30 "For I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these sayings." So what will he command to raise seed unto him, if he was not meaning polygamy?

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

It wasn't taken out because it wasn't a revelation, it was taken out to make room for Utah Section 132. And it doesn't need to be a revelation to be considered church policy. The fact that it was voted on by the members as what they believed was the mind and will of God is what is important. It would make sense that the early church would have that policy then, but then the lord commanded polygamy. Polygamy could only be constituted by God, as stated in the Book of Mormon. So when he constituted polygamy, that policy had to change somewhat (as in only having one spouse). But when he commanded it to not be practice anymore that policy then can become full in effect. Remember polygamy could only be practiced when God commands it to be.

So you are not a member of the COC at all? You do not see the COC prophet as a prophet at all?

I can see why it is not in the Doctorine and Covenants now, because it was not given by revelation. If i remember right, my Uncle when he was a Bishop, used those same words when he afficiated in the marriage for my Aunt to her now husband. My guess is that section is now part of the polices of the church, perhaps in the General Handbook. So, why do you think that the LDS has taken it out? Why have the RLDS taken out those other sections?

What is contained in Section 111 of the 1844 Doctorine and Covenants? Why do you think that the LDS church took it out? Why did the RLDS take out those other sections?

I (we) believe that prophets are real people, just like you and me. They don't have magical abilities, they are just real people who have extraordinary faith and an openness that allows God to work through them. Look at some of the OT prophets, i.e.--Jonah or Moses, real people with real problems, and God used them anyway. I, personally, believe that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not eligible for teaching in the prisonhouse, but those who never heard it are taught the gospel. And those who were good men (meaning mankind) during their lives will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just (as per Section 76), which I believe to be before (or during) the Zionic reign. They will then have that 1000 years to make the decision to be baptized themselves. That is my belief, however, and the beliefs of the RLDS Restorationists. The RLDS/CoC don't really hold to restoration beliefs regarding that (and other) issue(s) anymore (for the most part (there are, however, some that do)). I can agree with you there about Prophets being human and can make mistakes. But would God allow a prophet to lead the church astray? I don't believe that God would have let Joseph Smith lead the church astray, he would have had Joseph Smith die before he could do any damage to the church and the saints that would lead them astray. So, Why would God let a Prophet lead the Church astray? God let the church that Christ established be led astray. Why didn't he stop it then and force His will on everyone to keep it on the strait and narrow? The answer is because God doesn't force us to follow Him or do His will. But, though it all, God will see that His will is done. Once the church was cleansed of the wrong that invaded it, and a group of faithful saints was found, He led His chosen successor to that group, and the restored church continued. Ah, but why did the early church go astray? It wasn't because the Prophets (Peter, James, John, Paul, ect) led them astray. In fact, in the scriputes you would learn that there was no prophet that ever lead Gods people astray to believing in false teachings and in false practices, why do you think that is? There is a difference between the general membership going astray because of no leadership from God through his chosen prophet( Early 1st century church), and going astray because of his chosen prophet(what the COC claims happened to Joseph Smith).

I (we) believe that prophets are real people, just like you and me. They don't have magical abilities, they are just real people who have extraordinary faith and an openness that allows God to work through them. Look at some of the OT prophets, i.e.--Jonah or Moses, real people with real problems, and God used them anyway. I, personally, believe that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not eligible for teaching in the prisonhouse, but those who never heard it are taught the gospel. And those who were good men (meaning mankind) during their lives will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just (as per Section 76), which I believe to be before (or during) the Zionic reign. They will then have that 1000 years to make the decision to be baptized themselves. That is my belief, however, and the beliefs of the RLDS Restorationists. The RLDS/CoC don't really hold to restoration beliefs regarding that (and other) issue(s) anymore (for the most part (there are, however, some that do)). I can agree with you there about Prophets being human and can make mistakes. But would God allow a prophet to lead the church astray? I don't believe that God would have let Joseph Smith lead the church astray, he would have had Joseph Smith die before he could do any damage to the church and the saints that would lead them astray. So, Why would God let a Prophet lead the Church astray?

So you believe that God would allow his chosen prophet to fall and lead the church astray? What do the COC believe happens to people who never learn about the true Gospel of Jesus Christ when they die?