Shattered Dreams

[michaela]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A non-mormon friend just sent me Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist's Wife by Irene Spencer.

I haven't been active in the church for a very long time, but I can't believe I've forgotten this much!! I'm curious if some of her beliefs are fundamentalists' interpretations or if they were part of the early teachings.

If you don't mind, I'd like to post some questions here about the book.

1. According to the book "Adam chose Jesus, the firstborn of his innumerable offspring in the preexistence, to be the second member of the trinity (the third being the Holy Spirit)."

<blockquote>Adam chose?!?! Jesus was Adam's offspring?!?</blockquote>

2. "Jesus himself had at least two wives, Mary Magdalene being one of them."

<blockquote>I remember my mother becoming quite incensed at the thought of M.M. being a prostitute. Is this why?</blockquote>

3. "A man who acquires at least two wives in this life is thought worthy of being a god, and one with seven or more (called a quorum) is practically assured of it."

<blockquote>Clearly no longer a belief (?!?!), but was it once?</blockquote>

4. "Unmarried women and monogamous women can look forward to being angels in the next life. Angels are forever single and childless, ministering servants to the gods, and part of the celestial audience attendant at others' earthly weddings."

<blockquote>This doesn't sound so different from what I learned.....</blockquote>

Any information would be sincerely appreciated!

Thank you!

michaela

[Honos]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A non-mormon friend just sent me Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist's Wife by Irene Spencer.

I haven't been active in the church for a very long time, but I can't believe I've forgotten this much!! I'm curious if some of her beliefs are fundamentalists' interpretations or if they were part of the early teachings.

If you don't mind, I'd like to post some questions here about the book.

1. According to the book "Adam chose Jesus, the firstborn of his innumerable offspring in the preexistence, to be the second member of the trinity (the third being the Holy Spirit)."

<blockquote>Adam chose?!?! Jesus was Adam's offspring?!?</blockquote>

2. "Jesus himself had at least two wives, Mary Magdalene being one of them."

<blockquote>I remember my mother becoming quite incensed at the thought of M.M. being a prostitute. Is this why?</blockquote>

3. "A man who acquires at least two wives in this life is thought worthy of being a god, and one with seven or more (called a quorum) is practically assured of it."

<blockquote>Clearly no longer a belief (?!?!), but was it once?</blockquote>

4. "Unmarried women and monogamous women can look forward to being angels in the next life. Angels are forever single and childless, ministering servants to the gods, and part of the celestial audience attendant at others' earthly weddings."

<blockquote>This doesn't sound so different from what I learned.....</blockquote>

Any information would be sincerely appreciated!

Thank you!

michaela

Michaela,

These are not LDS beliefs and are- in the most generous analysis possible- extreme distortions of LDS beleifs.

I suggest you do some research on Miss Spencer. In all likelihood, she's an escapee from on of the fundamentalist sects (Jeffs and his followers), rather than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Honos

[michaela]

Michaela,

These are not LDS beliefs and are- in the most generous analysis possible- extreme distortions of LDS beleifs.

I suggest you do some research on Miss Spencer. In all likelihood, she's an escapee from on of the fundamentalist sects (Jeffs and his followers), rather than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Honos

Thank you, Honos, for your response. Absolutely, she escaped. I've just started the book, so I'm not sure if she is still FLDS. I was curious about now closely her statements represented LDS doctrine. If they are "distortions," would someone please explain the actual doctrine as it pertains to those four issues?

I did notice there was a thread here on Jesus being married. It does sound like there's no official stance on the matter. Would that be accurate?

Thank you, again,

michaela

[The Nehor]

1. False

2. Speculation

3. False, one can't read the Journal of Discourses without getting a strong sense that Brigham Young in particular believed that righteousness was required, not many wives.

4. True, but it applies only to unmarried women and MEN that take no thought for marriage and do not seek it.

[Dale]

1. Brigham Young thought God told him Adam was under Eloheim, and Jehovah. But that Adam had actually not been created from the dust of the earth. That he had actually lived on another world and had gotten his exaltation. That Eloheim's spirit children were not his directly, but actually Adam's. That at some point he came to the garden with Eve. That he became mortal after the fall. He taught the three shared the title of only God by virtue of the fact they represented the exclusivity of the Godhood of Eloheim.

2.Argument's regarding a married Jesus has been around for a long time. In John 2 Jesus was in charge of the wine which was the duty of the bridegroom. The earlier context seem's to treat him as an invited guest. Rev.22:18,19 warns against scriptural tampering, so it's slighly possible someone who did not like the idea of a married Jesus could have changed it. Some thought sex dirty even in a marriage. As if it made Jesus impure if he had a wife. In John 11 Jesus call's out a woman in mourning which a thing only a husband could do. Jesus was called Rabbi which was a title of a married man. Certain women came to anoint Jesus dead body with spice's. That was the duty of the widow, or widows to touch the dead body.

I am not saying these arguments are valid, but they have been around for years. An LDS book entitled the Gainsayers by Darrick Troy Evenson contain's the arguments. He is ex-LDS now, but his book is still good. Though i have seen him write some pretty wicked stuff these day's. If your author is not aware of the arguments, but turned Evangelical the person doesn't know enough to know Jesus wasn't married to one of more wive's. I prefer not to teach Jesus was married, but he could have been.

3.Brigham Young taught a person must be a polygamist at least in their heart to obtain exaltation. An article online at Fair Wiki examine's an abused quote from him that get's taken out of context by his critic's.

4.True.

I am not LDS, but Community of Christ/RLDS. Some of the Fundementalist polygamist churches base their ideas on speculation's in early LDS writing's. Adam God, a married Jesus, absolutely having to be a polygamist to get exaltation were some of the ideas present in 19th century LDS writings. Brigham Young himself in the Journal of Discourses said he couldn't get the LDS people to accept his idea. So he himself admitted it was not ever official LDS doctrine.

Is there an official position?

1.LDS leader's don't accept the idea as true doctrine. It's been held false by some. Some have thought Brigham Young was misquoted, or misinterpreted.

2.The LDS Church take's no position on a married Jesus. It's not an official position that he was married. Though some member's think he probably was.

3.That 19th century belief has been abandoned. Although i understand unless i have been misinformed that LDS men can still remain sealed to their dead wife, and be sealed to the new wife also if they get married again. So that would make the man a polygamist in the resurrection. LDS don't allow polygamy among it's members on earth now, but only in the eternity.

Does anybody know if i have been misinformed?

4.Some of that has nothing to do with official LDS belief. Though the 19th century LDS church may have thought that way. Eternal marriage is all that's needed for a woman to become more than an angel. Her monogamous status would not effect her future potential. The polygamist churches are an attempted continuation of sort's of the early 19th century LDS church.

The LDS Bible Dictionary has an odd definition of damnation. It has a wider definition of damnation that considers saved/angel women damned. None of the scripture's cited agree with this definition. All of them have any person's that's saved from outer darkness as getting eternal life. Anybody unsaved goes to outer-darkness. Exaltation and eternal life in my thinking have been abused as if they were the same term.

The LDS definition of damnation may have underwent an evolution, but the scriptural meaning's have not. I know of no instance in scripture of any saved person that get's damned. Anybody damned get's sent to outer-darkness after the final judgement. I am not sure the stopped progress definition associated with damnation is the only definition the Bible Dictionary should have included.

[michaela]

Thank you, Dale!!!!

Michaela

[Dale]

You are welcome.

[Juliann]

3.That 19th century belief has been abandoned. Although i understand unless i have been misinformed that LDS men can still remain sealed to their dead wife, and be sealed to the new wife also if they get married again. So that would make the man a polygamist in the resurrection. LDS don't allow polygamy among it's members on earth now, but only in the eternity.

Does anybody know if i have been misinformed?

Every person, men and women, are sealed to all of their spouses when work is done for the dead .....so if that makes a man a polygamist (Polygyngy) it will make the woman a polygamist (polyandry) since women tend to live longer and have more opportunity to accumulate multiple husbands.

[Juliann]

The LDS Bible Dictionary has an odd definition of damnation. It has a wider definition of damnation that considers saved/angel women damned. None of the scripture's cited agree with this definition. All of them have any person's that's saved from outer darkness as getting eternal life. Anybody unsaved goes to outer-darkness. Exaltation and eternal life in my thinking have been abused as if they were the same term.

All it says is that the KJV has a "wider meaning than is at once apparent from modern usage." I have no idea where you are getting this from...certainly not from the definition of damnation in the Dictionary. It limits its definition to those not receiving the fulness of celestial exaltation being " limited in their progress and privileges." That has always been the standard definition of "damned" in LDS theology since we do not believe in an eternal hell. Outer darkness has nothing to do with damnation, it is a category of its own and is reserved for anyone who knew Jesus was Christ, as in saw him, knew him and was fully aware of who and what he was yet would still be willing to nail him on a cross. Even Judas would not qualify under that definition. Dale, how long has it been since you were LDS?

[ztodd]

Ensign » 1983 » October » "Four Blessings of the Temple"

"If we are faithful to these covenants, all of our sealings, covenants, and promises will be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Brigham Young once said of a righteous woman who died before she had a chance to be married that she would not be denied husband, family, and exaltation. (See Journal of Discourses, 14:229; see also 8:208.) Thus, righteous people who die before being married or remain unmarried for valid reasons will have the privilege in the Lord’s own time to have these ordinances performed and sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. "

[michaela]

Every person, men and women, are sealed to all of their spouses when work is done for the dead .....so if that makes a man a polygamist (Polygyngy) it will make the woman a polygamist (polyandry) since women tend to live longer and have more opportunity to accumulate multiple husbands.

I thought a woman could be sealed to one man only---while men can be sealed to as many women as they want. A woman cannot be polyandrous, but a man can be a polygamist.

Am I wrong?

michaela

[Juliann]

I thought a woman could be sealed to one man only---while men can be sealed to as many women as they want. A woman cannot be polyandrous, but a man can be a polygamist.

Am I wrong?

michaela

Have you done work for the dead? There is no one that decides which husband a woman will be sealed to....she is sealed to all of them. I don't know why this is restricted during life when it is done after death, but still...a man can't be sealed to "as many women as he wants". He has to go through the same permission process to marry in the temple a second time as a woman does.

I think it is very inappropriate to dismiss one sealing over another...it diminishes all sealings and it is not our call. So despite all of the theorizing and speculating based on 19th century statements that have not been said by our modern prophets...in real life we are left with women sealed to several men and men sealed to several women.

[michaela]

Have you done work for the dead? There is no one that decides which husband a woman will be sealed to....she is sealed to all of them. I don't know why this is restricted during life when it is done after death, but still...a man can't be sealed to "as many women as he wants". He has to go through the same permission process to marry in the temple a second time as a woman does.

I think it is very inappropriate to dismiss one sealing over another...it diminishes all sealings and it is not our call. So despite all of the theorizing and speculating based on 19th century statements that have not been said by our modern prophets...in real life we are left with women sealed to several men and men sealed to several women.

Ah, I was referring to "live ones" and, in particular, widows and/or widowers. I haven't done work for the dead and find the practice repugnant.

michaela

[fish4kitty]

retracted my post

f4k

[Juliann]

Is there anything that involves honoring one's ancestors you do not find "repugnant"? Cultural practices vary. Is it the religious aspect or is a cultural bias?

[fish4kitty]

retracted post

f4k

[michaela]

Is there anything that involves honoring one's ancestors you do not find "repugnant"? Cultural practices vary. Is it the religious aspect or is a cultural bias?

I'm all for honoring my ancestors. I find baptism for dead Jews presumptuous and offensive.

michaela

[fish4kitty]

retracted post

f4k

[michaela]

where is that coming from?

f4k

Just one of those things that Mormons did. Presumptuous and offensive considering the religious and cultural aspects of being Jewish. You can imagine how they don't find it "honoring one's ancestors." The church was asked formally to stop the practice, but there's some question of whether or not that actually happened.

michaela

[fish4kitty]

Oh..I can see how that would chap them. I suppose I could understand that

f4k

[Sheelah]

I just feel that at least in my family if they wanted to be baptised they would have been here the first time through.

What do you mean by this?

[imported_Stargazer]

Just one of those things that Mormons did. Presumptuous and offensive considering the religious and cultural aspects of being Jewish. You can imagine how they don't find it "honoring one's ancestors." The church was asked formally to stop the practice, but there's some question of whether or not that actually happened.

It is problematic for the church to comply completely with this "formal" request. The only program that the church has for baptism for the dead is the Records Extraction Program, in which old records are examined by volunteers and transcribed into computer records, and in a number of cases are delivered in batches to the temples for the "temple file", which members who come to serve in the temple but who do not have their own family's records use to do work for. I do not believe that the extraction program targetted Jewish records, but simply did not discriminate in the records extracted and set forth for temple work to be done. Compliance with the agreement mentioned simply means that the church strives to avoid sending Jewish names routinely to the temples. I believe that the church is trying to fulfill this agreement.

However, the members themselves extract their own families's records and either send or bring them to the temple. Some of these members have some Jewish ancestors, and some of these members are Jews themselves. Prominent Jewish Mormons include Marvin Goldstein, the well-known pianist. I attended a fireside following a concert he gave several years ago in which he described his conversion and his mother's subsequent conversion. He related that when his mother died, she was buried in clothing specific to the LDS temple, because she had been endowed, but by her request to Marvin her casket was closed so her family members would not be disturbed unnecessarily by her Christian faith, and the evidence of her membership in the Lds church.

Br. Goldstein has Jewish ancestors. Should he be restricted from seeing to his ancestors' eternal salvation because they happen to be Jews? I think not -- it would be a cruel requirement. I know that if I had any Jewish ancestors I would be very annoyed to find I could not see to their work.

[imported_Stargazer]

What do you mean by this?

I believe it is meant that if they didn't get baptized when they had the chance that they should stay unbaptized. I take from this that, for example in my case my father who was never a member of the church requested of me that I not have him baptized by proxy after he died, and so I would never do it.

As it turns out, I did it anyway. My reasoning was this: he was blinded by his environment and never took the opportunity to actually hear the good news; he never specifically rejected it, because he never actually heard it. I would rather apologize to him in the spirit world for being baptized for him, than get there having not done so when he might have changed his mind in the meantime. The conversation as I imagine it:

Dad: "So you did what I said and never had my work done."

Son: "Yep, that's right. I didn't want to offend you."

Dad: "It never occurred to you that I might change my mind?"

Son: "Well, you always knew what you wanted."

Dad: "So, out of the thousand things that you did in life that I told you not to do, this one thing that meant more than any of them you had to obey me on?"

Son: "Well...sorry about that."

Dad: "Yep, you're pretty sorry all right."

YMMD, but I think it is best to err on the side of doing the work.

[fish4kitty]

f4k

[michaela]

Just that. If they didn't do it in this life they "chose" to not be baptised. There is no question in my mind that if they wanted to.... they would have. That is why I may have made a mistake by posting my personal opinion. It's just that MY personal opinion. I know the arguement involved in this so if it would make you all feel better I'll retract my post ...

f4k

This goes beyond baptizing those who "chose" not to be baptised....

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342473,00.html

michaela