Is polygamy necessary for exaltation?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

is a cooler-head really an insult?

This guy doesn't seem to think so.

[Nothing]

NeedleinA said: "Oh, Yoda strikes again. Each time you try to shock us with non-doctrinal Brigham quotes (especially from another "message board"), the FORCE will rise up!"

 

 

Brigham Young gave this address (I'm referring to the quote beginning with "Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters...") in the capacity of the prophet and president of the Church. I understand this doesn't make it official doctrine, but does it mean President Young was leading people astray?

 

 

The list of quotes posted by Zarahemla that begins with "At Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife's funeral in 2007" may have been copied from an anti-Mormon website (I don’t know for sure), but none of the quotes are anti-Mormon. The sources are Deseret News, Doctrines of Salvation, and a speech delivered at BYU.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Nothing

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Nothing said:

but none of the quotes are anti-Mormon

The arrangement and commentary between were a copy and paste job. 

How do you know BY gave those quotes in the capacity of prophet?

[Nothing]

Zarahemla, I am also sorry that some are being unkind toward you.

[Nothing]

Is there anything anti-Mormon about the arrangement? The commentary is stuff like:

 

“At Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife's funeral in 2007, Gordon B Hinckley testified that President Hunter would be with both his wives in heaven:”

And

"Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the LDS Church, remarried twice after the death of his first wife, and in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 67, he remarked:”

 

Is there anything anti-Mormon there?

[Guest]

Generally we discourage visiting anti-Mormon sites, but what people do in their other tabs is between them and God. However, pasting from those sites is frowned upon, no matter how much truth (or, as it most times is, distorted truth) the pasted post contains.

But you'll notice the post is still there and the paste-r didn't get any sort of warning, so what is it that your problem is exactly?

[Nothing]

How do I know Brigham Young gave that sermon in the capacity of prophet? What other capacity could it have been? The quote comes from A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, September 21, 1856. It can be found here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/4/10

 

It was a congregation of saints and the prophet preached a sermon to them. The prophet ended with “in the name of Jesus. Amen”.

 

Also consider this:

Quote

 

Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with "Thus saith the Lord," and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and he may preserve us as we desire.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Statements_by_past_prophets

 

 

[Nothing]

Duplicate.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Nothing

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Is there anything anti-Mormon about the arrangement? The commentary is stuff like:

 

“At Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife's funeral in 2007, Gordon B Hinckley testified that President Hunter would be with both his wives in heaven:”

And

"Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the LDS Church, remarried twice after the death of his first wife, and in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 67, he remarked:”

 

Is there anything anti-Mormon there?

The poster is struggling to understand Gods will and the gospel.  The scriptures make if very clear how we do that...    Instead of doing that the poster choose to dreg through the anti-mormon sewer of the internet looking for understanding...  Not surprisingly he remains confused and got called out on it and his lack of faith in following the steps God has outlined.

And that is.

No official action was taken...  no post was removed or edited.  What he pasted was not objectionable.  But that is unlikely to be all that he saw or read about while he was there which is only going to make things worse for him

 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, tesuji said:

 

 

@Nothing, this is from lds.org

Again:

Quote

The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.

 

[Guest]

@Nothing wait, there's more:

 

Quote

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine.

 

[Nothing]

13 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Generally we discourage visiting anti-Mormon sites, but what people do in their other tabs is between them and God. However, pasting from those sites is frowned upon, no matter how much truth (or, as it most times is, distorted truth) the pasted post contains.

But you'll notice the post is still there and the paste-r didn't get any sort of warning, so what is it that your problem is exactly?

I see. Thank you for the clarification. My only problem is the sarcastic reaction to Zarahemla. NeedleinA wrote:

 

Quote

 

Another cut and paste job, shocking;)

 

 This time you are just cutting and pasting from an anti-mormon website, you know which one I'm talking about too. wink, wink

 

 Thanks for shedding light on your over zealous concerns, at least I know why now. If I thought you were here with pure intentions, I would be happy to help, but now, I'm not inclined to play the Zarahemla game any longer. As a famous author once wrote, you are currently "trying to find treasure in the sewers" and drinking from a anti-water well that will not satisfy your thirst.

 

 

[estradling75]

11 minutes ago, Nothing said:

I see. Thank you for the clarification. My only problem is the sarcastic reaction to Zarahemla. NeedleinA wrote:

 

 

So what?  And individual person can't have an opinion? 

You seem to be very persistent  that you be allowed and opinion that most of us disagree with... Can not NeedleinA have an opinion that you disagree with?

If you want to seek clarification from NeedleinA (like many of us have tried to get from you) feel free to ask them. They will answer or not has they feel inclined (just like you do)

 

[Nothing]

I know the Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of the Church. However, it still contains sermons given by prophets in General Conference and other meetings. It was originally approved by the First Presidency and paid for by the Church. It is quoted in many Church lesson manuals and other official publications. It was an official publication of the Church containing sermons of General Authorities given at General Conference and other official meetings, yet when people read something that makes them uncomfortable, they say “The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and “Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented.”

 

It's just interesting.

[Nothing]

Duplicate.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Nothing

[Guest]

@Nothing, you are an enigma. You don't believe some scripture to be scripture, but you believe everything BY ever said to a group of people to be scripture. I'm not even going to try to figure that out.

[Maureen]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It doesn't happen because it's not a valid sealing.  We make mistakes in temple ordinances all the time.  Such ordinances, even if performed, are not valid.  If it's not valid, it isn't a sealing. That is what I meant when I said they are not sealed to multiple men.....

I tried to show that the LDS church allows deceased women to be proxy sealed to all husbands (also deceased) that they had been married to while alive. The post was taken down because it broke lds.net rules about showing Book 1 contents.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Eowyn

[Nothing]

estradling75, others can totally have an opinion and I can give me own.  I didn't say NeedleinA can't have an opinion, I just pointed out that I don't like it. That's okay, right? It's too bad, though, that this forum is okay with sarcastic and unkind remarks toward others.  

Eowyn, I didn't say I believe everything BY ever said to a group of people is scripture. I only posted a quote by BY himself. 

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

So what?  And individual person can't have an opinion? 

 

.....................

Edited August 4, 2016 by omegaseamaster75

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Nothing said:

estradling75, others can totally have an opinion and I can give me own.  I didn't say NeedleinA can't have an opinion, I just pointed out that I don't like it. That's okay, right? It's too bad, though, that this forum is okay with sarcastic and unkind remarks toward others.  

 

Of course it is OK for you not to like it.  Just like it is ok for everyone else to not like what you post or say..

As for the remarks... like the cut and paste job from the anti site... it is really not ok.  Nor in accordance with the rules.  But we let both pass

You seem to be fighting for one and against the other and that is hypocritical of you.

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, Nothing said:

My only problem is the sarcastic reaction to Zarahemla. NeedleinA wrote: 

7 minutes ago, Nothing said:

I didn't say NeedleinA can't have an opinion, I just pointed out that I don't like it.

I'm soooooooo sorry you didn't like my post.

[NeedleinA]

.....

Edited August 4, 2016 by NeedleinA

[omegaseamaster75]

@nothing You are new to the board. Just an FYI if you are out of step with the current narrative of the church you will gain no traction here.  No one here wants to hear about anything that may be out of line with what the Brethren say. 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

@nothing You are new to the board. Just an FYI if you are out of step with the current narrative of the church you will gain no traction here.  No one here wants to hear about anything that may be out of line with what the Brethren say. 

Everyone here treats me with respect, even when I differ from church teaching here or there. So it's okay to think for yourself 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

@nothing You are new to the board. Just an FYI if you are out of step with the current narrative of the church you will gain no traction here.  No one here wants to hear about anything that may be out of line with what the Brethren say. 

Everyone here treats me with respect, even when I differ from church teaching here or there. So it's okay to think for yourself