Is polygamy necessary for exaltation?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Actually this discussion has helped convince me that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. Until, now I have been asking questions and trying to work things out. Thanks for the help.

Shawn,

Don't blame this on us.  You didn't need any help.  You were already there.  You didn't even believe Joseph was a prophet at all, much less a fallen one.  

You've already built up your logical house of cards indicating how Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon on his own without the aid of heaven.  You doubted any and all of the accounts of the first vision and the restoration of keys.

What remaining faith did you actually have?

You kept changing positions because you knew that your positions were inconsistent.  You can admit you're wrong about one point of disbelief so you can justify your disbelief in another point.  But you'd already formed these thoughts before coming onto this board.  So, what was your motivation?

At some point in your life you will still be given another chance.  It will be a chance to humble yourself and repent, or you can choose the path of pride and captivity.  If you choose to come back, the Lord will accept you with open arms.  But until then, I just hope you don't get lost too much in the mists of darkness.

While the Lord will continually give you more chances, with each time that you choose the wrong, the less likely you will be to take the correct path in the future.

 

 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, redundant, and perhaps pointless for some of our readers, but apparently it cannot be explained enough or in enough different ways, so...

1 hour ago, Nothing said:

I read your explanation and responded to it. Jacob 2 does not say "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord, but I allowed it so it was actually okay." That's an odd interpretation.

D&C 132:38: "... and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. ..."  Clear: when the Lord commands it, it is not a sin, but when you step beyond what is commanded ("received not of me"), it's sin.

Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."  Clear: David and Solomon sinned (somehow, sometime).

Put the two together (and add in the relevant original scriptures), and what we get is that in Jacob, the Lord was describing the wives / concubines "not received of" Him (the "example" being followed by some Nephites to justify doing the same thing).  In D&C 132, the Lord is clearly describing the rules and examples of wives "received of Him" (so to speak), and mentions both - the ways in which David and Solomon obeyed, and the ways in which they sinned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Thanks. I read your blog today, the same one you have been copying and pasting from. You appear very set in your "concerns" and unchanging in your thoughts the entire time you have been here. Your blog is not one of innocent gospel exploration and confusion, instead you are very critical of the Church in many aspects and appear to be trying to spread those thoughts here too. So, honestly, what did you hope to accomplish here?

I haven't changed my thoughts because no one has presented any evidence that would change my mind. I was interested in the idea that "virgin" can refer to virtuous women but nothing was posted to support that.

Did you find anything incorrect in my blog? Are there any questions that are unfair?

I came here to only point out that disbelieving in section 132 does not necessarily constitute "wholesale apostasy" and then I was pushed to talk more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Nothing said:

I came here to only point out that disbelieving in section 132 does not necessarily constitute "wholesale apostasy" and then I was pushed to talk more.

That may be. But it was your choice to "talk more."

It seems, however, that your position rather buttresses the one of mine you cite.

Joseph was not a fallen prophet, but there are a lot of people who claim(ed) to be Saints who reject him (by rejecting any of the revelations he received) and who find themselves in "wholesale apostasy", n'est-ce pas?

I'd rather defend Joseph Smith, the Seer, and let him make good on his promise to carry me as his back load (I think those were the words), than to try to enter the Kingdom on my own and in rebellion against the chosen Prophet of God.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nothing said:

I came here to only point out that disbelieving in section 132 does not necessarily constitute "wholesale apostasy" and then I was pushed to talk more.

And yet... you yourself claim to disbelieve that Joseph Smith is a prophet and you also disbelieve Section 132 thus you personally have show this to be true...

And you have never yet done anything more than assert that it does not have to be so... you have never shown how that might work... while the opposite  has been shown by your example and logic and reasoning laid out by myself and others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Lehi, I'd rather rely on Jesus Christ.

And you presume to imagine that I wouldn't? I said "defend Joseph Smith, the Seer", not "rely on [Joseph Smith]". There's a distinct difference. And the modifier, "the Seer" implies, and implies strongly, that he, Joseph Smith, is not much without Jesus Christ. And he didn't pretend to be.

Lehi

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lehi, you also said "and let him make good on his promise to carry me as his back load (I think those were the words), than to try to enter the Kingdom on my own.." It really sounds like you want Joseph Smith to carry you on his back into the Kingdom. I'm sorry if I misunderstand you.

Quote

estradling75: And you have never yet done anything more than assert that it does not have to be so... you have never shown how that might work... while the opposite  has been shown by your example and logic and reasoning laid out by myself and others

There are many people who don't believe in D&C 132 and are perfectly active in the Church. That's how it works.

Well, I'll get out of here. It seems to me that most people here are more interested in being right that in trying to help a brother out. I started writing that blog last Thursday, about a week after I first posted here. My mind was open but I just got criticized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Lehi, you also said "and let him make good on his promise to carry me as his back load (I think those were the words), than to try to enter the Kingdom on my own.." It really sounds like you want Joseph Smith to carry you on his back into the Kingdom.

Yes, I did. But you seem to think that means something entirely different from what I read from those words. Joseph can't get someone into the Kingdom if that person is a rebel or apostate or wicked or unrepentant. So, make of it what you will, but Joseph on my side is worth more than claiming him to be a fallen prophet, fer shure.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nothing said:

Actually this discussion has helped convince me that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. Until, now I have been asking questions and trying to work things out. Thanks for the help.

Then you said.

52 minutes ago, Nothing said:

I haven't changed my thoughts because no one has presented any evidence that would change my mind. I was interested in the idea that "virgin" can refer to virtuous women but nothing was posted to support that.

Inconsistent.

Next topic

On 7/29/2016 at 4:37 PM, Nothing said:

I do not believe D&C 132 is inspired by God. It's of dubious origin. It does not seem like a "clear revelation" to me. I can still believe in the restoration. More importantly, I can still believe in Christ. 

You never did explain what you meant by "dubious origin".

On 8/2/2016 at 5:55 PM, Nothing said:

I reject D&C 132. I do not believe it’s a revelation from God. This does not mean I reject Joseph Smith and the Restoration.

Now you're going full out and being honest.  But then you allowed...

2 hours ago, Nothing said:

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe D&C 132 is from God. It specifies the conditions to be met in order to have plural wives and not commit adultery. It's very clear that a plural wife must be a virgin "and have vowed to no other man," meaning she's not married to another man. In answer to that, I have heard only conjecture that "virgin" can mean "virtuous woman." So if Joseph didn't meet those conditions, was he committing adultery?

So, was he a false prophet or not.  He cannot be a false prophet and give accurate revelation.  Those two are mutually exclusive.

On 8/3/2016 at 3:36 PM, Nothing said:

Lehi, I did not say Joseph Smith was an adulterer or that he gave false revelations. Please don't make assumptions about my meaning or intent.

Uhm... yes, you did.

44 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Lehi, I'd rather rely on Jesus Christ.

I sure hope you do.  But I fear you're actually going to go away from any religion at all.

20 minutes ago, Nothing said:

It seems to me that most people here are more interested in being right that in trying to help a brother out. I started writing that blog last Thursday, about a week after I first posted here. My mind was open but I just got criticized.

Help you do what?  You believe one thing.  Then you believe another.  But you still reject anything that doesn't agree with what you've already decided.  As long as YOU change your mind every day, that's fine.  But if we offer you a differing opinion, then you just outright reject it.  How is that an open mind?  

I really hope you can find your path back.  But if you continue down the path you're on, I fear for you.

If you want answers, you need to look to the Lord.  And he will eventually lead you down the true path.  But if you continue in pride, believing you have more answers than everyone else, then you will undoubtedly find the wrong path.  This is actually, exactly what you accused many here of. But consider that you are as firm in your positions as we are in ours and you'll find how hypocritical it is.

Believe in God.  Believe that he is.  Believe that he has all power both in heaven and in earth.  Believe that he understands what man does not.  Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean you must reject it.  If you somehow know it is of God, then find a way to make peace with that which you do not understand.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nothing said:

There are many people who don't believe in D&C 132 and are perfectly active in the Church. That's how it works.

 

There are also people in the church that don't think things through...  There are people who are active for social reasons rather then faith reasons.

The fact that they go to Church every week does not mean they have faith or accept the scriptures or prophets...  Thus your point is an absolute failure.

 

11 minutes ago, Nothing said:

 My mind was open but I just got criticized.

You claim a fact not evidence...  Nothing you said or otherwise posted shows any consideration of what we have told you... and criticism naturally follows when you take hypocritical positions  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nothing said:

Did you find anything incorrect in my blog? Are there any questions that are unfair?

I can answer your question by telling you what I didn't find there. I didn't find any positive confirmation, reassurance, peace from the Spirit that you were on the right track. In fact it was exactly the opposite. I realize this is a gospel battle you have been trying to fight for years now, and anxiety and depression don't help it, but you are following a path that will not and can not bring peace to your soul. Worse than simply following a path away from the iron rod, you are now repeating those same teachings to others. You are now the one beckoning others off of the path with you. 

I do agree with one of your past statements:  "I admit I probably have a distorted view of the church due to focusing on negative aspects and disqualifying the positive."

You can try to "logic" yourself out of this slump all you want, but a little hand holding with the Savior, sincere prayer and humility in letting the Spirit teach you will go much farther and deeper.

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just FYI, I haven't shared that blog with anyone. I wrote it all in a Word document because I have been thinking of sharing my concerns with my wife, and then I put it in a blog just so it would be available online. I was just toying with different ways to let her read it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Worse than simply following a path away from the iron rod, you are now repeating those same teachings to others. You are now the one beckoning others off of the path with you. 

1 hour ago, Nothing said:

I have been thinking of sharing my concerns with my wife, ... I was just toying with different ways to let her read it.  

If you have been thinking of sharing your concerns, that leads me to believe that you have not already, is this correct?

This isn't the best analogy perhaps (I'm tired), but bear with me if you will. Sometimes in our testimonies and gospel understanding we are doctors, healthy and able to help lift others. Other times in our lives we are full of doubts/worries/anger/frustration. During this time, our testimonies are at a low and instead of being doctors, we are patients. When we are the patients, our testimonies are not healthy, rather they have become sick. The bad thing about a unhealthy testimony is that more you go around coughing it on others the greater the likelihood is of the sickness spreading. We may feel like we are harmlessly just sharing our thoughts/concerns with others, but in reality we are coughing all over them and spreading the doubt/frustration/concerns. Is this what you hope to accomplish with your wife, spread it to her too?

When we are in this weak/sick state we have to decide what to do about it:
Spread it on others, especially our loved ones?
Try to sincerely get help without hurting others in the process?
Stay sick in silence? 
Seek out doctors, but then abruptly reject there suggestions and guidance?

I think you can admit that your rock solid testimony is on some pretty wavy grounds right now. You have frustrations / concerns / doubts / feel a loss of your religion, etc. So what are you going to do about it? Seek help OR spread it to others (including us)?

I won't speak for everyone, but I know the vast majority of us are willing to help just about anyone here that has sincere, humble, honest questions. At the same time, a lot of us are quick to recognize the patients that don't want help. They often times think they are going to bulldoze their way around here and sneeze all over us. The truth is, most of us here won't tolerate it. 

If you are honestly looking for help Nothing, try a different approach. You started with:
Option A: "I do not believe D&C 132 is inspired by God. It's of dubious origin." cough, cough sneeeezzze all over us.
how about instead using... 
Option B: I have had some concerns with D&C 132. I'm a member who is struggling to better understand what is happening here. Can someone please help me with my concerns in Section 132? I am looking for guidance. I'm willing to pray about it and am open to the Spirit guiding me and correcting me if I'm wrong. I really do want to understand. My concerns are x,y,z. I look forward to your help with this. Thank you in advance!

If you want to start over here, please do. The Spirit can calm your anxiety over your concerns if you are open to it. Be open, be receptive. Reread what has already been shared here. Pray about it. Talk to your Bishop. Get a priesthood blessing of comfort. Go the temple. Do what is hard and face your concerns with an open mind and heart. 

It is your choice now to decide what to do. Good luck Nothing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nothing,

I've thought about your comment earlier about my "conjecture".  And I realized you were right.  Part of it was that this is just a forum for people to brainstorm ideas.  So, I put forth a postulate.  It seemed reasonable to me.  But you wanted something more solid.  And that's fine. 

So I spent some time thinking about this and did what I should have done in the first place -- read the context.  From that I got a different reading that fits the context.

If you look at the verses in context, you'll find that it begins talking about a man taking a virgin for a wife.  This is only the idealized first marriage that we are all used to.  Then to use the same language as the first wife for parallel structure, the Lord speaks of a second virgin.  It wouldn't make sense to start speaking of one virgin and then a second wife.  That is not parallel structure.  And ideally, this woman would also be a virgin.  This continues through the discussion.

Now, here is the clue that "virgin" doesn't consistently mean virgin throughout the passage.  It goes on to say that if that virgin after she has been with the first husband, then lies with another man...  How is she still a virgin if she's been with her husband?  Obviously, the word is being used to describe the woman in an idealized situation.  And it continues to use that word to describe her no matter her intimate experience.

Also, your use of the word "only" is in error.  The description with virgins was only an example given by the Lord.  Nowhere in the text does it preclude marriage to non-virgins.  That was all in your head.  It doesn't take another revelation to apply the same principle to non-virgins (like widows).  Do we have a revelation regarding singlular marriage to a widow?  Do we say it is a sin because a man marries a widow?  Why would it be any different with plural marriage?

Does that help you with the concept?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share