Will there be polyandry in heaven? (1 woman, x husbands where x > 1)

[HiJolly]

Ram, Hemi, Vort, etc...

I'd just like to comment that we should take extreme care in this conversation. Resorting to section 107 is doctrinally sound, of course, but still may leave confusion in light of a few items.

We know that section 107 was added to over some time, but I'm not sure what the latest date for information being added to it is.... But most of it was given in 1838. In 1842 (or was it '43?) as work on the Nauvoo temple was underway, Joseph gave a talk in which he spoke of THREE priesthoods. This talk is quoted in the Priesthood/RS manual, but the critical part is cut and "..." are put there. Take a look at p.109 to see it.

So if the Church prefers not to discuss the Patriarchal or Abrahamic priesthood which Elijah restored, and which priesthood is referenced in ALL FOUR standard works, maybe we should just let this one go... Perhaps it is a mystery...

HiJolly

[JohnnyRudick]

Ram, Hemi, Vort, etc...

I'd just like to comment that we should take extreme care in this conversation. Resorting to section 107 is doctrinally sound, of course, but still may leave confusion in light of a few items.

We know that section 107 was added to over some time, but I'm not sure what the latest date for information being added to it is.... But most of it was given in 1838. In 1842 (or was it '43?) as work on the Nauvoo temple was underway, Joseph gave a talk in which he spoke of THREE priesthoods. This talk is quoted in the Priesthood/RS manual, but the critical part is cut and "..." are put there. Take a look at p.109 to see it.

So if the Church prefers not to discuss the Patriarchal or Abrahamic priesthood which Elijah restored, and which priesthood is referenced in ALL FOUR standard works, maybe we should just let this one go... Perhaps it is a mystery...

HiJolly

Seems like I have been pointing out these Scriptures a lot lately:D

But they always seem appropriate.

2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance,

charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to

no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a

workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word

of truth.

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they

will increase unto more ungodliness.

Bro. Rudick

[Just_A_Guy]

However, in the temple they are ordained to be queens and priestesses

That's not quite right, if you listen very closely to the first five minutes of the endowment session.

(Unless you're referring to a temple ordinance other than the initiatory/endowment/sealing.)

[rameumptom]

OK. I own the papers to my house.

My wife live here with me. (if I had one:(

She can use my keys to go in and to go out.

To let others in and to let others out.

She is Queen and Priestess in and about my house.

In effect it is Our house.

It is understood it is Her house.

We could even say that it says that it is Me and Spouse on the papers to the house but we may have a stipulation that I am the primary owner to the property,

But without me. . . .

Not sure if I used the right analogy here but we can get some idea where I am going with this.

Bro. Rudick

Except, on YOUR house, you can change the locks and make her key obsolete. In Pres Packer's example, her key will always fit the safe, because it is HER key and HER right to open up half the safe. In essence, you may own the house, and have the key to it, but she owns half the safe you have in the basement.

[rameumptom]

That's not quite right, if you listen very closely to the first five minutes of the endowment session.

(Unless you're referring to a temple ordinance other than the initiatory/endowment/sealing.)

I am. I was referencing the Second Anointing, which is not part of the standard endowment anymore, but still performed occasionally.

[JohnnyRudick]

Except, on YOUR house, you can change the locks and make her key obsolete. In Pres Packer's example, her key will always fit the safe, because it is HER key and HER right to open up half the safe. In essence, you may own the house, and have the key to it, but she owns half the safe you have in the basement.

Hummmmmmmmm, I don't want to go into things to openly her but, ummmmm, Years ago when she received her um "key", I am talking about her endowment, she may be concerned that I may not recognize her "key".

Bro. Rudick

[interalia]

Hummmmmmmmm, I don't want to go into things to openly her but, ummmmm, Years ago when she received her um "key", I am talking about her endowment, she may be concerned that I may not recognize her "key".

Bro. Rudick

What are you talking about? I really don't understand what you mean. Your post seems condescending to me.

In reading your pasts posts, you seem like you almost resent the idea of women having any authority you might have. Am I reading in too much?

[Dravin]

What are you talking about? I really don't understand what you mean. Your post seems condescending to me.

He's trying to talk about stuff in the temple without talking about stuff in the temple, doing that is bound to be confusing.

[Just_A_Guy]

He's trying to talk about stuff in the temple without talking about stuff in the temple, doing that is bound to be confusing.

No need to, really.

D&C 130:11

And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word. [emphasis added]

[Dravin]

No need to, really.

D&C 130:11

A new name no, Heck Revelations 2:17 talks about a new name. Regardless, hes talking about the temple (even if not doctrine only taught in the temple, which is quite a lot of it when you think about it)* without trying to talk about it which is bound to be confusing. I'm not accusing him of violating covenants or anything, that's not my intent, only that his approach is not the clearest.

If he wanted to say she was afraid he would forget her new name/key which everyone receives upon entering the Celestial Kingdom as outline in D&C 130:11 it would have been clearer, though it doesn't answer why she would be worried he'd forget it, and why he would forget something which no man knoweth (which wouldn't include him) save he (or in this case she) who receiveth it.

Edit: * That being there is a lot of doctrine that isn't exclusive to the temple.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not accusing him of violating covenants or anything, that's not my intent, only that his approach is not the clearest.

Oh, good heavens, no! Quite the opposite--my point was merely that on this particular point, I'm not convinced there's as large a need for secrecy as Bro. Rudick seems to think.

[Dravin]

Oh, good heavens, no! Quite the opposite--my point was merely that on this particular point, I'm not convinced there's as large a need for secrecy as Bro. Rudick seems to think.

Ah okay, on the same page now. :)

[JohnnyRudick]

What are you talking about? I really don't understand what you mean. Your post seems condescending to me.

In reading your pasts posts, you seem like you almost resent the idea of women having any authority you might have. Am I reading in too much?

Yeah, I think ya are:eek:

I was going to write some things pertaining to that house and all but I have deleted it all twice now.

Some may think I am silly for being so shy about going on with this allegory but I really do feel restrained in this direction.

But, no.

I have no problem with women in the priesthood if that is the Father's will I think it would be a lot easier for the rest of us guys.

I have no problem with women in the drivers seat when both own the car:)

I even would let her drive if only I owned the car:D

Well, you get the idea, I almost mess up again.

No Temple stuff, just public relations:p

I better go

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

Ah okay, on the same page now. :)

Back again:)

I try to not be so negative and I am sorry if I gave that impression.

I just try to leave my feelings out of it when I am speaking of what is.

When I am speculating I will try to remember to say I think, or I feel or this is what I believe.

Which is about only what any one of us can do on a subject anyway other then to do what I try to do most of the time and just say.

"The Scripture says So and So."

And even when the written Scripture may mention words that I see and hear inside the Holy Temple (which I also consider Scripture), the written word just don't do them justice. . . " and I don't think I had better either.:)

Do some of you older folks notice slight. . .Oh, well;)

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 25, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Clearify (maybe) (My words were a little Jumbled) Now a litttle less?

[Hemidakota]

Ram, Hemi, Vort, etc...

I'd just like to comment that we should take extreme care in this conversation. Resorting to section 107 is doctrinally sound, of course, but still may leave confusion in light of a few items.

We know that section 107 was added to over some time, but I'm not sure what the latest date for information being added to it is.... But most of it was given in 1838. In 1842 (or was it '43?) as work on the Nauvoo temple was underway, Joseph gave a talk in which he spoke of THREE priesthoods. This talk is quoted in the Priesthood/RS manual, but the critical part is cut and "..." are put there. Take a look at p.109 to see it.

So if the Church prefers not to discuss the Patriarchal or Abrahamic priesthood which Elijah restored, and which priesthood is referenced in ALL FOUR standard works, maybe we should just let this one go... Perhaps it is a mystery...

HiJolly

March 28, 1835...see History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 209.

[HiJolly]

March 28, 1835...see History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 209.

Nope, you're thinking of something else. Aug 27, 1843 History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 554-55.

[Hemidakota]

I was referring to the actual recording of this revelation.

[HiJolly]

I was referring to the actual recording of this revelation.

The open question was when the last update to the revelation we find today in section 107 was made. March 1835 is not the answer to that.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

There was no latter information that was added to this section that I am aware of. If it was, the sub-title section would of indicated the latter change made to this revelation.

Here is the information you had listed:

He [President Smith] then read a letter from Thomas Carlin to Sidney Rigdon as follows:

Quincy, Illinois, August 18, 1843.

Dear Sir:—Yours of the 15th instant was received, but noting time to answer it by return mail. You say that a Mr. Orson Hyde, on board of the steamboat Anawan a short time since, was told by an officer of the boat that a Mr. Prentice, in the vicinity of Quincy, said that some person in high standing in the Church of Latter-day Saints in this place (Quincy) had an interview with you (me) said he would use all the influence that his circumstances would admit of to have Joseph Smith arrested and delivered into the hands of the Missourians, &c. This interview is said to have taken place at the time the first warrant was issued against Smith, and since the last warrant was issued, that the same person had written to you, (me) or had an interview with you, giving the same assurances. It has been publicly said in this town that I (Sidney Rigdon) was the person who had this interview or interviews and correspondence with you. Now, sir, it gives me pleasure to be perfectly able to disabuse you. I have not seen you to my recollection, nor had any correspondence with you, until the present, since 1839; and in all the intercourse I have had with you I have always looked upon you as one of the most devoted followers of Joseph Smith and one of the pillars of the Church of Latter-day Saints. I never sought through the aid of any person to entrap Joseph Smith. A faithful discharge of my official duties was all that I attempted or desired.

Very respectfully

Your obedient servant,

Thomas Carlin.

[He, President Smith] then resumed: The letter is one of the most evasive things, and carries with it a design to hide the truth. Has any man been concerned in a conspiracy to deliver Joseph Smith to Missouri? If so, who?

He then read the 7th chap. Hebrews. Salem is designed for a Hebrew term. It should be Shiloam, which signifies righteousness and peace: as it is, it is nothing—neither Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, nor any other language.

I say to all those who are disposed to set up stakes for the Almighty, You will come short of the glory of God.

To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.

I prophesy and bear record this morning that all the combined powers of earth and hell shall not and cannot ever overthrow or overcome this boy, for I have a promise from the eternal God.

If I have sinned, I have sinned outwardly; but surely I have contemplated the things of God.

Respecting the Melchizedek Priesthood, the sectarians never professed to have it; consequently they never could save any one, and would all be damned together. There was an Episcopal priest who said he had the priesthood of Aaron, but had not the priesthood of Melchizedek: and I bear testimony that I never have found the man who claimed the Priesthood of Melchizedek. The power of the Melchizedek priesthood is to have the power of "endless lives;" for the everlasting covenant cannot be broken.

The law was given under Aaron for the purpose of pouring out judgments and destructions.

The sectarian world are going to hell by hundreds, by thousands and by millions.

There are three grand orders of priesthood referred to here.

1st. The King of Shiloam. (Salem) had power and authority over that of Abraham, holding the key and the power of endless life. Angels desire to look into it, but they have set up too many stakes. God cursed the children of Israel because they would not receive the last law from Moses.

The sacrifice required of Abraham in the offering up of Isaac, shows that if a man would attain to the keys of the kingdom of an endless life; he must sacrifice all things. When God offers a blessing or knowledge to a man, and he refuses to receive it, he will be damned. The Israelites prayed that God would speak to Moses and not to them; in consequence of which he cursed them with a carnal law.

What was the power of Melchizedek? 'Twas not the Priesthood of Aaron which administers in outward ordinances, and the offering of sacrifices. Those holding the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam.

Abraham says to Melchizedek, I believe all that thou hast taught me concerning the priesthood and the coming of the Son of Man; so Melchizedek ordained Abraham and sent him away. Abraham rejoiced, saying, Now I have a priesthood.

Salvation could not come to the world without the mediation of Jesus Christ.

How shall God come to the rescue of this generation? He will send Elijah the prophet. The law revealed to Moses in Horeb never was revealed to the children of Israel as a nation.

Elijah shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers.

The anointing and sealing is to be called, elected and made sure.

"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually." The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right from the eternal God, and not by descent from father and mother; and that priesthood is as eternal as God Himself, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.

The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood.

The 3rd is what is called the Levitical Priesthood, consisting of priests to administer in outward ordinance, made without an oath; but the Priesthood of Melchizedek is by an oath and covenant.

The Holy Ghost is God's messenger to administer in all those priesthoods.

Jesus Christ is the heir of this Kingdom—the only begotten of the Father according to the flesh, and holds the keys over all this world.

Men have to suffer that they may come upon Mount Zion and be exalted above the heavens.

I know a man that has been caught up to the third heavens, and can say, with Paul, that we have seen and heard things that are not lawful to utter.

[HiJolly]

There was no latter information that was added to this section that I am aware of. If it was, the sub-title section would of indicated the latter change made to this revelation.

Not so, Hemi. Would be nice, though...

Here is the information you had listed:

Yes, thank you. It would have been nice to have all of that included in the Priesthood/RS lesson last year. But then, most members don't know there are three priesthoods, and in light of Section 107 it *is* a bit confusing (especially if the member hadn't been to the temple yet).

HiJolly

[talisyn]

Not so, Hemi. Would be nice, though...

Yes, thank you. It would have been nice to have all of that included in the Priesthood/RS lesson last year. But then, most members don't know there are three priesthoods, and in light of Section 107 it *is* a bit confusing (especially if the member hadn't been to the temple yet).

HiJolly

THREE PRIESTHOODS????

Just kidding

[JohnnyRudick]

THREE PRIESTHOODS????

Just kidding

Not sure if you understand fully(what I'm getting at that is) but what was really helpful was for those of us who were blessed enough to receive our own endowments years ago in the Manti Temple.

I Love that Temple:)

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 25, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought;-)

[Just_A_Guy]

The open question was when the last update to the revelation we find today in section 107 was made. March 1835 is not the answer to that.

What is the answer to that? :)

[JohnnyRudick]

What is the answer to that? :)

Not sure what you are referring to.

Later Joseph smith went back and made some minor corrections and small additions to 107 and a few other sections which caused a little stir and when these changes showed up I can't remember.

Is this the "update you are referring to?

I did not know that any other changes were made to this revelation given to Joseph Smith.

Bro. Rudick

[Just_A_Guy]

From what I can find online, D&C 107 was a series of four or five revelations that were compiled in March of 1835.

Elsewhere in this thread someone has mentioned the date of 1838 in association with this section.

So, yeah. I guess what I'm looking for is a complete edit-history of D&C 107, as well as an explanation of the nature of those edits. And yes; I'm particularly interested in the changes you mention.