Degrees Of Glory

[huma17]

Originally posted by funkyfool416@Dec 16 2005, 01:52 PM

oh well honestly this subject doesnt interest me...if your good...you go to heaven. If your bad...then you go to hell. And you are all immature it was hilarious to read your arguments back and forth i must say i was quite entertained.

←

Who is more immature, us for conversing in a mutual discussion, or you who finds this all silly, yet posts on this silly thread to tell us how immature we are...?

Nobody forced you to read, or reply to, this thread.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 16 2005, 01:23 PM

Perhaps Snow and I could offer our suggestions for further readings if you'd be interested?

←

No need, I told you I hadn't researched the whole thing as indepth. However, what you told me ends it all. The manifesto wasn't revelation, fine, I didn't say it was. The revelation didn't come until later, whereas is was inforced, fine, end of debate.

[Jason]

Originally posted by huma17+Dec 16 2005, 02:19 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Dec 16 2005, 01:23 PM

Perhaps Snow and I could offer our suggestions for further readings if you'd be interested?

←

No need, I told you I hadn't researched the whole thing as indepth. However, what you told me ends it all. The manifesto wasn't revelation, fine, I didn't say it was. The revelation didn't come until later, whereas is was inforced, fine, end of debate.

←

I hate skipping reply's (so you'll have to forgive me) but you're last sentence here is something I'd like you to think on. Would you be so kind as to find an actual "revelation" that ended Plural Marriage? The 1904 manifesto was just a re-afirmation of the 1890. Neither was a revelation. During the admin of Heber Grant, they started calling the 1890 manifesto a "revelation," but nobody's actually ever had one that terminated the practice.

[Jason]

Originally posted by huma17+Dec 16 2005, 01:05 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Dec 16 2005, 12:35 PM

I was on one last night.  Sorry about that.

Accepted.

See, this is why I don't buy into your claim as being one who is in the know.  Those two specific quotes mandate the practice of polygamy, not simply the belief.

However, I feel what is said is rather easy to see, and doesn't require any twist. I've never considered myself an 'apologist' - in the sense of trying to explain difficult doctrine - but rather one who points out the obvious (at least to me). Let me show you what I mean.

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind.  In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one.  I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false

OK, we have some who think plural marriage was not essential to exaltation. That is a mistake, because it is stated that plural marriage is bound to marriage, meaning you cannot have the new and everlasting law of marriage be G-ds law without having plural marriage as part of his law as well. Plural marriage is ordained of the Lord, just as modern revealation to his prophet is. I am neither a prophet, nor have I been commanded to take more than one wife. You must accept plural marriage as essential to the exaltation of Mankind, not specifically for every man to participate in. They must accept this as truth, or be damned. Also, it states that those who believe that they will have the same glory, or blessings, as those who are in plural marriage are wrong. It doesn't state that they will not receive exaltation at all. Patriarchal marriage is a higher marriage - such as the Apostles are higher than the bishops - yet one is not automatically required to attain to that level for exaltation, just as I do not have to be an apostle.

The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part. . . . But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it.  Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fulness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself.  He cannot do it. (Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:28)

Correct, it is only the beginning. One must fulfill his end of the bargain, as layed out by the Lord for these blessings to occur. If you read section 132 of D&C, it goes over it in detail. You must be sealed by the authority of G-d for the marriage to be observed by the Lord after this life - however, that is only the beginning. The couple must not transgress the laws of that marriage, or the Lord is no longer bound.

Those who make the attack perhaps hope to drive the people of God to renounce the doctrine and promise not to obey the revelation.  Vain and delusive hope!  Unless the Saints apostatize, such an action on their part is impossible.  By doing so, they would deliberately shut the door of the celestial glory in their own faces. . . . To comply with the request of our enemies would be to give up all hope of ever entering into the glory of God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son. . . . So intimately interwoven is this precious doctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory. (George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor 20, no.9, (may 1885): 136)

The law of plural marriage is ordained of the Lord, and denying it closes the door to the CK, because you are denying his law - if you deny part, then you deny all, and cannot return the Father and his glory. The law of plural marriage is part of the Restored Gospel, and all that has been revealed is essential for the highest of salvation - you cannot deny it and hope to attain the highest glory. It does not state that you must perform plural marriage, only that the law is essential to the Gospel.

←

Let me see if I understand what you're getting at with this post (correct me if Im wrong). You're stating that it's a fact that Plural Marriage is a Law of Heaven, but that even though it's a law for all mankind, not all will live said law.

Am I getting what you're saying?

I want to be clear on this as to your view. Also, if Im correct, I think you'll find that the early LDS leaders had no such view in mind, and I'd be happy to provide you with quotes sometime later.

[Guest funkyfool416]

Originally posted by huma17+Dec 16 2005, 03:15 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-funkyfool416@Dec 16 2005, 01:52 PM

oh well honestly this subject doesnt interest me...if your good...you go to heaven. If your bad...then you go to hell. And you are all immature it was hilarious to read your arguments back and forth i must say i was quite entertained.

←

Who is more immature, us for conversing in a mutual discussion, or you who finds this all silly, yet posts on this silly thread to tell us how immature we are...?

Nobody forced you to read, or reply to, this thread.

←

Im sorry. Your right and i was wrong...this is a serious matter and i just found it to be ever so silly. Its a bad habit i have you know...im just so silly at the wrong times. I really wanna apolagize. I wont be silly anymore i swear.

[Ray]

Originally posted by funkyfool416@Dec 16 2005, 02:29 PM

I'm sorry. Your right and i was wrong...this is a serious matter and i just found it to be ever so silly. Its a bad habit i have you know...im just so silly at the wrong times. I really wanna apolagize. I wont be silly anymore i swear.

←

And we're supposed to take you seriously now even though you still call yourself a fool?

I don't think so.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 16 2005, 02:54 PM

I hate skipping reply's (so you'll have to forgive me) but you're last sentence here is something I'd like you to think on.  Would you be so kind as to find an actual "revelation" that ended Plural Marriage?  The 1904 manifesto was just a re-afirmation of the 1890.  Neither was a revelation.  During the admin of Heber Grant, they started calling the 1890 manifesto a "revelation," but nobody's actually ever had one that terminated the practice.

←

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

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 16 2005, 03:23 PM

Let me see if I understand what you're getting at with this post (correct me if Im wrong). You're stating that it's a fact that Plural Marriage is a Law of Heaven, but that even though it's a law for all mankind, not all will live said law. 

Am I getting what you're saying? 

I want to be clear on this as to your view.  Also, if Im correct, I think you'll find that the early LDS leaders had no such view in mind, and I'd be happy to provide you with quotes sometime later.

←

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.

[huma17]

Originally posted by funkyfool416@Dec 16 2005, 03:29 PM

Im sorry. Your right and i was wrong...this is a serious matter and i just found it to be ever so silly. Its a bad habit i have you know...im just so silly at the wrong times. I really wanna apolagize. I wont be silly anymore i swear.

←

Fair enough.

[glindakc]

thanks you guyz. ya, i believed #2 since i was like relle young, and i do actually read a lot of lds works and stuff - i do my research. i just wanted to see what you guyz had learned.

snow - sounds interesting. ill have to look up that elder you cited. however, i had never heard that b4.

thanks u guyz - u all rock.

email me at [email protected] or AIM me at glindakc - i wont be on here during xmas break - my stupid home computer blocks this site so ya id love to discuss this further!

~glindakc (jenni)

n please dont fight about sumthin i started

[Jason]

huma17,

No worries on the revelation thing. You'll be venturing into original research on that anyway.

As for the leaders views being merely "opinion," I would like to point out that this whole view that what the LDS hierarchy states may just be opinion is a relatively new thing. That's not how things were taught/viewed just a few decades ago.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 16 2005, 04:41 PM

As for the leaders views being merely "opinion," I would like to point out that this whole view that what the LDS hierarchy states may just be opinion is a relatively new thing.  That's not how things were taught/viewed just a few decades ago.

←

...and it's still not how things are taught/viewed by people who know better today.

[glindakc]

jk im bak n everything - thnx huma for the advice - u kno wut im talkin about

my question just is, who here exactly believes #1 as in there are not any degrees within the celestial kingdom?

[Ray]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 16 2005, 05:16 PM

jk im bak n everything - thnx huma for the advice - u kno wut im talkin about

my question just is, who here exactly believes #1 as in there are not any degrees within the celestial kingdom?

←

My question to you is, how would you define a "degree"?

And btw, I do have a point in asking this question, and it is not to be facetious.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 16 2005, 06:09 PM

...and it's still not how things are taught/viewed by people who know better today.

←

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.

[Ray]

Originally posted by huma17+Dec 16 2005, 05:35 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Dec 16 2005, 06:09 PM

...and it's still not how things are taught/viewed by people who know better today.

←

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.

←

Thank you for the clarification, and I agree with what you just said, but sometimes what someone considers to be an "opinion" someone else knows to be the truth, because they have received inspiration to see how to properly understand and interpret what someone else meant.

And btw, I can also see and understand why BRM was a little "off" in his ideas about THE great and abominable church, because there are some similarities.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 16 2005, 06:58 PM

Thank you for the clarification, and I agree with what you just said, but sometimes what someone considers to be an "opinion" someone else knows to be the truth, because they have received inspiration to see how to properly understand and interpret what someone else meant.

And btw, I can also see and understand why BRM was a little "off" in his ideas about THE great and abominable church, because there are some similarities.

←

I completely agree.

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 16 2005, 07:02 AM

Sure Jason, let's see your version...I'm soooooooooo in the dark about things.

←

Here's the problem with the saracasm and false bravado...

I already know what you don't know and so I know that everytime you try the sarcastic supercillious routine, it only sets you up to appear more foolish when you are proven wrong.

I can see that there are now several pages to this thread so I assume by the time I get to the end you will have been proven wrong. I'll just read along one post at a time to get up to speed. If needed I provide the truth of the matter....

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 16 2005, 09:24 AM

Yes, I've seen these quotes, and many more, regarding plural marriage.  However, you fail to see that they are given to explain how important it is to accept plural marraige as a law ordained of the Lord.  One must accept it as a celestial law in order to receive the highest glory, not necessarily having to practice it (only if the Lord requires it of them, which is not automatic).  You see, there were many who did not believe - nor accept - plural marriage as being ordained by G-d - they were in error.  They did not accept it at all, which is to be damned.  You must accept it as a law, not perform it, to enter into the highest heaven.

←

BS meter just went redline.

I imagine that you have already been called on your BS but suffice it to say that according you your illogic, we don't really have to get baptised, care for the needy, feed the sick, partake of the sacrament, and obey God... we just have to believe that God thinks it's a good idea.

Next time you get a temple reccomend interview - let me know what the Bishop says when you tell you you don't actually practice the Word of Wisdom but you remind yourself that God ordains it - while smoking your crack pipe.

Reel it in Opie - looks like a whooper!

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 16 2005, 11:23 AM

Perhaps Snow and I could offer our suggestions for further readings if you'd be interested?

←

That would be: LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages 1890-1904 by noted LDS scholar/historian and BYU professor Michael Quinn, Dialogue, Spring 1985.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 16 2005, 11:36 AM

Jason,

Men continue to “take plural wives” now, if they marry again after their current wife dies.  Perhaps the marriages you’re talking about are more of the same thing, but if not, they will have to answer to the Lord for anything they did which was wrong.

←

The marriages were "temple" marriages approved by the Brethren who had specific authority to authorize them. How would a saint be punished for doing what an apostle or First Presidency member instructed and authorized them to do?

And no... we aren't talking about taking a second wife after the first wife dies. We are talking about secret sealing post-manifesto.

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17+Dec 16 2005, 12:19 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Dec 16 2005, 01:23 PM

Perhaps Snow and I could offer our suggestions for further readings if you'd be interested?

←

No need, I told you I hadn't researched the whole thing as indepth. However, what you told me ends it all. The manifesto wasn't revelation, fine, I didn't say it was. The revelation didn't come until later, whereas is was inforced, fine, end of debate.

←

Whoops! There's nothing in the manifesto or the then current thinking to make us believe that it was a revelation, but plenty of others made that assumption later.

"Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith did not specifically identify the Manifesto as a revelation in 1922, but affirmed that "the word of the Lord came to him [Wilford Woodruff] in a revelation suspending the practice of plural marriage," Apostle John A. Widtsoe wrote in 1940 that the Manifesto "was the product of revelation," Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine has asserted since 1958 that the Manifesto "is a revelation in the sense that the Lord both commanded President Woodruff to write it and told him what to write," President Spencer W. Kimball said in 1974 that the Manifesto was a "revelation," and historians Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton described it as "a divine revelation" in 1979." (Quinn)

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 16 2005, 02:55 PM

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.

←

Uh, yeah. What I'm gonna need in order to accept this latest bit of reasoning is some sort of authoritative statement that while we can eat bacon, we have to accept that God commanded Moses not to.

What happens if we don't believe that? Can we get our fast offering money back?

[LionHeart]

Actually, I think that the early leaders of the Church had a unique understanding of the law of plural marriage; one that is obviously not being taught today. But pehaps this quote will shed some light:

The following is an extract from the journal of Wilford Woodruff, dated October 13, 1882:

October 13, 1882. We met in council at President Taylor's office. We heard the revelation read in which George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant were called to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Seymour B. Young to fill the vacancy in the First Presidency of Seventies. October 14, 1882, we held a meeting with the Presidency, Twelve Apostles and the Presidents of Stakes. Remarks were made by President Taylor. Then the revelation was read. George Q. Cannon spoke to us and said, "How can we teach the people any law or principle that we do not keep ourselves?"

Joseph F. Smith spoke upon several subjects upon the Patriarchal Order of Marriage. President Taylor told what Joseph Smith said to him upon the subject, and said, "If we do not embrace that principle soon the keys will be turned against us, for if we do not keep the same law our Heavenly Father has we cannot go with Him. The word of the Lord to us was that if we did not obey that law we could not go where our Heavenly Father dwelt. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law." W. Woodruff said he was glad the Quorum of the Twelve and Seventies were now to be filled, and said that the reason why the Church and Kingdom of God could not progress if we did not receive the Patriarchal Law of Marriage is that it belonged to this dispensation as well as the Baptism for the dead, and any law or ordinance that belongs to this dispensation must be received by the members of the Church, or it cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over Stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to stop.

Note the part where it says "Will have to OBEY the law" and not merely "Believe in the law."

And there will be no picking it apart. It means what it says. It does not have some secret interpretation that requires a college degree to find out what it is.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 16 2005, 07:51 PM

Here's the problem with the saracasm and false bravado...

I already know what you don't know and so I know that everytime you try the sarcastic supercillious routine, it only sets you up to appear more foolish when you are proven wrong.

I can see that there are now several pages to this thread so I assume by the time I get to the end you will have been proven wrong. I'll just read along one post at a time to get up to speed. If needed I provide the truth of the matter....

←

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.