Heaven and polgamy???

[WANDERER]

Divorce, child maintenance payments for both parents, custody and access...having two people divorce is bad enough without the complicated aspects of a polygamous family. Exactly how do you envisage it coming back?

[Fiannan]

You are so wrong. It will not come back and Heavenly Father would not do away with baptism no matter what!

Well, we all know there is polygamy in Heaven -- I mean really, I know several men whose wives have died and they have remarried in the temple. Case closed there.

Second, I suspect polygamy will come back. I once heard that church leaders in the past have said (heard from a friend who was a total obsessive when it came to backing up stuff with references) that polygamy will come back when the world has more infanticide (in the 19th. century infantacide and birth control were often interchangeable terms) than births. Seems we live in such a world today -- even Latin nations are seeing low birthrates developing. Sorry I never bothered to get the name of the specific leader he quoted. Makes sense however.

Polygamy wouold have eugenic as well as cultural advantages. In time the laws of western nations will develop more tolerance and later acceptance of polygamy. At that time maybe the manifesto will be fulfilled (in a manner of speaking) and polygamy will come back. It will certainly come back during the Mellenium.

[Fiannan]

I have a rather interesting question. Let's say a man is married to a woman in the temple. He has a long-time friend but they are only friends. He dies before his wife and his wife indicates that this family friend would be ideal to be married to her deceased husband in the afterlife and requests that her kids do a sealing of the husband and the friend in the future (when all are deceased).

Would that be kosher?

[ZelphLover]

You are so wrong. It will not come back and Heavenly Father would not do away with baptism no matter what!

Dear Marsha8,

Thank you for your rather emotional response...maybe you should go back and re read my post because I very clearly stated a "FOR EXAMPLE" before the baptism statement.

ZELPH:cool:

[NeuroTypical]

I will, however I can assure you that there are many!

...

I will get you all the sources that you need,

I'm waiting...

LM

[Dale]

I found a FAIR Wiki article on post-Manifesto polygamy.

Polygamy after the Manifesto - FAIRMormon.

It seems that only 200 cases was allowed. After that time it became firm policy to take disciplinary actions against new polygamy.

[Elphaba]

I'm not sure which church you're thinking about, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - AKA Mormons - the folks that went west with Brigham - the church with their HQ in Salt Lake City - the church all the mormons on this site belong to (except Dale), do no longer pracice polygamy. If you are sealed to your wife in the temple, and she's still alive, you don't get sealed to anyone

else.

This is true. But if your wife were to die, and you subsequently met a woman you wanted to marry, and she had never been married/sealed in the temple, you could marry/be sealed to her in the temple. This means you would have a polygamous marriage in the Celestial Kingdom as you would be sealed to both wives.

However, this not true for women. She can only marry/be sealed to one man during your time on earth.

Elphaba

[Iggy]

Perhaps I am the only one here on this forum, or in the western hemisphere who would not object to living in a polygamist household.

I am secure enough in my own self, my sexuality, my faith, the love Husband has for me, and the love I have for my husband not to feel that he was out marrying other women so he could legally "sow his oats."

I am also thinking outside the box too. I sure could use more help with the household chores. It would be wonderful to share that workload with another woman. Just think, some one to cook half of the meals, and do half of all the cleaning, ironing, washing. That would nearly be Paradise on Earth to me.

It would also be nice to have another woman around to listen to Husband when I am just too tired to, or really not interested. Not to mention another woman to share my thoughts, feelings, fears and joys with.

I wouldn't be jealous if she and Husband were intimate- I just want them to be so in private. I am not a voyeur.

As for in the Eternities- same thing goes. There will be even more to share there. Because in the eternities we will be having children, so we can share in their raising and teaching.

Sounds like paradise to me. By The Way I do not want more than one husband either. One is sufficient for me.

[Marsha8]

Perhaps I am the only one here on this forum, or in the western hemisphere who would not object to living in a polygamist household.

I am secure enough in my own self, my sexuality, my faith, the love Husband has for me, and the love I have for my husband not to feel that he was out marrying other women so he could legally "sow his oats."

I am also thinking outside the box too. I sure could use more help with the household chores. It would be wonderful to share that workload with another woman. Just think, some one to cook half of the meals, and do half of all the cleaning, ironing, washing. That would nearly be Paradise on Earth to me.

It would also be nice to have another woman around to listen to Husband when I am just too tired to, or really not interested. Not to mention another woman to share my thoughts, feelings, fears and joys with.

I wouldn't be jealous if she and Husband were intimate- I just want them to be so in private. I am not a voyeur.

As for in the Eternities- same thing goes. There will be even more to share there. Because in the eternities we will be having children, so we can share in their raising and teaching.

Sounds like paradise to me. By The Way I do not want more than one husband either. One is sufficient for me.

I am defanetly not the same on this subject. I want my husband all to myself no matter how much work I have to do. Your husband can have my husbands share of wives.

[BenRaines]

While not endorsing the idea of polygamy, since it is not practiced in today's church, I can see the value in it and Iggy find it enlightening to see another sister who can accept the idea. When personal prejudices, jealousy and abuses are no longer present I see the value that it provides.

At the same time I can see why it cannot work with the natural man.

Ben Raines

[WillowTheWhisp]

I have a rather interesting question. Let's say a man is married to a woman in the temple. He has a long-time friend but they are only friends. He dies before his wife and his wife indicates that this family friend would be ideal to be married to her deceased husband in the afterlife and requests that her kids do a sealing of the husband and the friend in the future (when all are deceased).

Would that be kosher?

I don't think that could be done. As far as I am aware a couple can only be sealed in the temple if they have been married whilst still alive.

For the heck of it i speculated a a way a church leader could be sealed to more than wife without anybody knowing it. I am not sure how proxy temple work goes on. But i assume LDS men and women stand in for deceased men and women couple's all the time. If the LDS leadership were to use a substitute code name for a church president who would know women were being sealed to him? It would require them having an order sent to a temple to have certain name's to have proxy marriage's performed for them, but it could be done.

.

Again, that couldn't be done because temple sealings are only done for people who were married to each other in their lifetime. Women who died without marrying are never sealed to men in the temple.

[checkerboy]

Interesting that we still have yet to get any citation on the supposed FACT that polygamy is required and the highest form of marriage. If that is the case how come it wasn't ever practiced by a larger percentage of church members at the time? Oh and anyone ever heard of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times? That is the dispensation we currently live in. Wanna know why it is called that? Because every ordinance and commandment ever given to men in previous dispensations will be practiced during this one. So that means that polygamy came and went. It will not come back. That is of course my opinion but I am pretty confident that it is right.

By the way I have read studies and I apologize that I don't have the sources right in front of me that men are emotionally wired to be able to love more then one woman at the same time where as women are wired to only be able to love one man. I can look these up if you are interested. I for one don't want to practice polygamy because I do get jealous easily. But hey we will all just have to wait and see what happens.

[Dale]

Marriages to the dead used to be more common in LDS temples. Heber J. Grants mother had been married to or sealed to Joseph Smith. I am not sure if she was single, or married at the time. She was not married to him while alive. I do not know when the practice ended in LDS temples. I see a lot of documentation for it used in some of my anti-Mormon books. But the critics of the LDS don't have anything recent on it.

I was not certain if single women were sealed to men today. It could be done but it would be a thing for those in the know. One can do anything if the brain figures out a way to get a covert operation going. But unless i ever saw documentation for marriage to the dead being continued it is a dead practice for single women. I have seen critic's of Joseph Smith bring up possible lists of 84 wives in connection with his name. That is because they had women sealed to him after he was dead.

[Elphaba]

And you heard this where? I have been in the church a very long time and NOT ONCE have I ever heard out of the prophets mouth that Polygamy was a Celestial right nor was it ok when Joseph Smith did it.

As Dale said, this is not suprising. I was never taught this when I was still a member. I discovered it after I got into Mormon history.

The scriptural reference where Joseph tells polygamy is commanded of God is D&C 132. He said he actually had the commandment from God in 1831. How man wives Joseph had varies depending on the researcher, but I believe Todd Compton, who wrote "In Sacred Lonliness: The Plural Lives of Joseph Smith," believes Joseph had around 33 wives.

I HAVE heard that there may be plural marriage in heaven but since none of us are there its a crap shoot as to whether that will be the case or not.

If the LDS Church is true, of course there are going to be plural marriages in the Celestial Kingdom. Twenty percent of the pioneers lived in plural marriages, and they did so because they were commanded by God to do so. They were told it was the way they would get into the Celestial Kingdom; thus, the term "Celestial Marriage."

The Church has stated officially that they do not support Polygamy in any form.

I don't know that the "Church" has made this statement, but Church officials certainly have, and in my opinion, it is disengenuous of them, for the Church continues to practice polygamy as defined by its doctrine.

Every time a man is sealed to a second or third, etc., wife in the temple, they are practicing polygamy, as defined by the Church's doctrine. It is not, however, civil polygamy. I don't have a problem with this; however, I do have a problem with saying the Church does not practice polygamy in any way whatsoever. I think it would be more truthful to say the Church's doctrine still includes polygamy, but that it does not currently practice civil polygamy at this time.

I do understand why Church officials do not say this as it would not be good PR. But to say the Church has nothing to do with polygamy whatsoever is just not true.

Elphaba

[ztodd]

AEvery time a man is sealed to a second or third, etc., wife in the temple, they are practicing polygamy, as defined by the Church's doctrine. It is not, however, civil polygamy.

The term polygamy only refers to civil marriage- the lord never used the term polygamy. It won't be the same in heaven for those involved in plural marriage as it is for those practicing polygamy here. In heaven, to be involved in plural marriage you must abide the celestial law, which includes keeping all of Heavenly Father's commandments. It will not be permitted to be done in wickedness, the way that polygamy is here. In heaven, marriage will be sacred and holy, and will remain so for eternity, whether it is with a man and one wife or with multiple. We do not abide a celestial law here and now, so we are not capable of understanding all about it.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I don't believe there will be jealousy in the Celestial Kingdom between a person with one wife and a person with several. Jealousy is not something which will exist in the Heavens. But look at it from an earthly perspective. Are people with one or two children jealous of those who have ten or twelve? Would there be such jealousy in the Celestial Kingdom? I have 2 daughters. A friend of mine has 5 daughters and 4 sons and is expecting a baby. I'm not sure that I'd want to swap!

As regards polygamy, there were many people who still only had one wife when polygamy was accepted in the church. Were they jealous? I honestly don't know.

One day we'll find out the answers and if we are in the Celestial Kingdom I'm fairly confident that we will be happy with whatever that answer is.

[Fiannan]

Just to clarrify something said earlier, if a couple get sealed, and a divorce takes place in the future, and the man wants to get sealed again (assuming that a temple divorce is either not asked for or is not granted) he can get sealed to the new wife after his ex wife submits a letter granting him permission. If she does not grant permission then an investigation takes place surrounding the circumstances behind the divorce before he can get sealed to the new wife.

So yes, you can be sealed to two women who are both still alive.

[MissouriBoiler]

I have always taken Polygamy throughout the history of man to being the exception and not the rule. I've always felt that in heaven and on earth marriage was meant to be between one man and one women and that anything else was an exception but not the rule.

So many lds consider it the other way around.

I do believe that jacob the son of isaac and early lds days and other bilblical time were obeying God's commandment/spiritual guidance to have more than 1 wife but I've never looked at that is what we will all need to do.

[Elphaba]

If I have one legal wife sealed to me in the LDS temple.I can sealed maybe more wives to me in the temple.If the women are not married and single.If I am in my 70's and get maybe 2 more women sealed to me in the temple,I will have three wives in heaven??? If these women are never married in the 70's???

[Guest Malcolm]

Jealousy is about possession, personal and emotional space, the fear of loss of position or authority and the rights to inherit. At the core it comes down to fear.

Sealings in the church are ONLY performed between a man and a woman legally and lawfully married.

Now, poligame occurs in soem places and is not induced by religion or social mores and values.

Today in certain places women are "taken" in what more closely resembles a kidnapping than courtship, by any young man that just wants to have the girl for a wife. They live in a quite hopeless circumstances (financially and emotionally) and their future does not look any better.

Sometimes a good young man comes along. Courteous, polite, respectful and, for all practical purposes ,honorable. He courts one of two sisters and marries the older one. He takes her away to his hometown. Because his family has a better socioeconomic position life for this young woman changes dramatically. Although not wealthy, she has a life that is significantly better than her younger sister left behind. For the first time she comes to know that men can be loving, gentle, kind, hardworking, reverent and devoted to their wives. She has NEVER seen that before in her tiny universe. She writes to her young sister every week about this new found world. The younger sister daydreams about leaving. She is afraid she will be "taken" any time now that she is 16 and quite beautiful.

A year goes by and the older, married sister worries constantly about the future of her younger sister. She finally gets pregnant and sends for her sister to help with the pregnancy and the household shores after delivery. When the younger sister comes she is just blown away!! She can not believe the love and the kindness her sister's husband lavishes on his young wife. They have a small farm and they work quite hard but they are doing well.

After the baby is born and all is well the time comes for the younger sister to return to her small little town in the mountains. She cries quietly at night, she is dreading having to return to her village. Nothing awaits her but stark poverty, and no hope for her. To be forcibly taken from her home, rapped and forced to become a common-law wife to a strange man (the suitor may or may not be somebody known to her) is very likely her future. She cries and although she tries to hide it from her older sister, she can't. They have been close all their lives and the pain experienced by one does not escape the eye of the other. They talk about the truth and the meager future and prospect before the younger sister. and they cry together. The older sister can not bring herself to send her young sibling back and condemn her to a life of misery and sorrow. They have shared everything from the time they were born. She had looked after the young one always and she will not stop now.

The younger sister remain. They both share home, responsibility and children. They share the same husband who is father to their children and protector and all. They both care and sustained each and thus ensured that the fate of one is shared with the other so that they both can have a better life, a better future for generations to come. For 200 years women in their family lived and died in object poverty and exhausted by the hunger, abuse and dispair they endured. None lived to be 50 but they would. By being brave and defying convention they created a whole new universe for their family and generations to come.

What do you think?

[Elphaba]

The term polygamy only refers to civil marriage-

No, it does not. Look up "polygamy" in the dictionary. You will never find the word "civil" in the definition. Polygamy is simply a marriage where one spouse has two or more spouses. That is it.

the lord never used the term polygamy.

So? The following are just three of the many, many examples in which His spokesmen did use the word "polygamy." If the Lord did not want the word used, then I doubt it would have been used.

Brigham Young said: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

John Taylor: Now, in relation to the position that we occupy concerning plurality, or, as it is termed, polygamy it differs from that of others. I have noticed the usage of several nations regarding marriage; but, as I have said, we are not indebted to any of them for our religion, nor for our ideas of marriage, they came from God. Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221)

In an editorial from the "Millenial Star," one of the pro-Mormon newspapers of the day, Heber C. Kimball wrote "It would be as easy for the United States to BUILD A TOWER TO REMOVE THE SUN, AS TO REMOVE POLYGAMY, or the Church and kingdom of God. (Millennial Star, Vol. 28, page 190.)

So you can see that while you may not like the usage of the word "polygamy," it was, and is proper. And while I do understand the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine, it does show that "polygamy" was a word that was used often by God's prophets to describe what God was commanding the Saints to practice.

To insist "polygamy" is not what was practiced by Joseph Smith, people he chose and counseled to practice it, and approximately twenty percent of the Pioneers, is a straw man.

It won't be the same in heaven for those involved in plural marriage as it is for those practicing polygamy here. In heaven, to be involved in plural marriage you must abide the celestial law, which includes keeping all of Heavenly Father's commandments. It will not be permitted to be done in wickedness, the way that polygamy is here. In heaven, marriage will be sacred and holy, and will remain so for eternity, whether it is with a man and one wife or with multiple. We do not abide a celestial law here and now, so we are not capable of understanding all about it.

You need to be more cautious when making such statements. I realize you are talking about the polygamous sects begun by Latter-day Saints in the beginning of the 20th Century, but not everyone does.

In fact, there are polygamists the world over, some are LDS and some are not. Making statements about polygamists being "evil" is, in my opinion, offensive, because you have no way of knowing if any other person on the planet is evil.

And finally, I still maintain the LDS Church continues to practice polygamy, as defined by its doctrine. If you want to call it "Celestrial Marriage," or "plural marriage," it doesn't matter to me. But every time a man marries/is sealed to his second, third, fourth, etc. wife in the temple, he is marrying another wife with whom he expects to live for eternity in the Celestial Kingdom. That is polygamy.

Elphaba

[pilot]

People ! Are we obsessed with polygamy ?

Good grief ... I've read the theads and it seems like folks are very concerned about how many wifes a man will have in heaven. Someone wrote about sharing partners in heaven and even about pregnant women in heaven. Give me a break. Why would there be pregnancy in heaven?

In a nutshell... It is not necessary to have creation in heaven. You will remember from your LDS primary lessons that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman created. Why? To bring spirits from heaven to live here on Earth. This is the origin of mankind and basic knowledge you should have. Spirits wait to come to Earth. ***The gift of Creation is to bring spirits here to Earth *** We are also here to help one another, his sheep. We will be judged by our works and our faith. Our life is limited and we are here for a short time. When we die our mortal bodies and all our possessions will be left here. Our spirits return to Jesus and Heavenly Father as children.

To talk about polygamy is a Earthly perversion of thought and wish to satisfy your fantasy. This is a sin. This practice was abolished from Earth once and for all. In truth God never commanded this practice. It was man's idea. JSmith was killed because of this.

Better you should think about your faith. Ask yourself have you done anything good to help someone ? Jesus will ask you what have you done in the time he has given you. To be idle is a sin.

Thanks, Pilot

( clear skies ahead )

[Marsha8]

People ! Are we obsessed with polygamy ?

Good grief ... I've read the theads and it seems like folks are very concerned about how many wifes a man will have in heaven. Someone wrote about sharing partners in heaven and even about pregnant women in heaven. Give me a break. Why would there be pregnancy in heaven?

In a nutshell... It is not necessary to have creation in heaven. You will remember from your LDS primary lessons that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman created. Why? To bring spirits from heaven to live here on Earth. This is the origin of mankind and basic knowledge you should have. Spirits wait to come to Earth. ***The gift of Creation is to bring spirits here to Earth *** We are also here to help one another, his sheep. We will be judged by our works and our faith. Our life is limited and we are here for a short time. When we die our mortal bodies and all our possessions will be left here. Our spirits return to Jesus and Heavenly Father as children.

To talk about polygamy is a Earthly perversion of thought and wish to satisfy your fantasy. This is a sin. This practice was abolished from Earth once and for all. In truth God never commanded this practice. It was man's idea. JSmith was killed because of this.

Better you should think about your faith. Ask yourself have you done anything good to help someone ? Jesus will ask you what have you done in the time he has given you. To be idle is a sin.

Thanks, Pilot

( clear skies ahead )

We will be reserected and recieve bodies again in perfect form. We will have creation of spirit children in Heaven. I know we will still have physical relations with our spouses also.

[Elphaba]

Jealousy is about possession, personal and emotional space, the fear of loss of position or authority and the rights to inherit. At the core it comes down to fear.

I think you are right on about the fear. I think the rest is a bit presumptuous. I also sense that you, unknowingly, belittle those who struggle with jealousy. I know what helped me through my own rantings was kindness. So many people listened to this crazy woman talking in tongues, and rather than condemning me for being so crazy, they gave me extra duty kindness.

Kindness works miracles.

Sealings in the church are ONLY performed between a man and a woman legally and lawfully married.

This is not true. If the man and woman are alive, the sealing includes the legal and lawful marriage.

Now, poligame occurs in soem places and is not induced by religion or social mores and values. T

oday in certain places women are "taken" in what more closely resembles a kidnapping than courtship, by any young man that just wants to have the girl for a wife. They live in a quite hopeless circumstances (financially and emotionally) and their future does not look any respectful and, for all practical purposes ,honorable.

I am aware of these practices, but to say they are not induced by religious belief or social mores and values is not correct.

This is very common in India, and one of the reasons is because the social interaction that would bring together a man and woman of the same "caste," no longer exists. The caste system has been eliminated by the government, but the people still believe in it. It is more of a traditional belief than a strong religious one in the upper "castes", and is actually extremely religious in the lower castes." But the kidnappings are the answer to the problem of the upper caste system where they can no longer covertly take a woman because of her caste. Now they do it for different reasons, but do not mention caste. Many of the women are amenable to the kidnappings, and many are appalled by it.

It also meets the requirements of the Hindi religion to adapt to the caste system, but it still is part of the religion and the system.

He courts one of two sisters and marries the older one. He takes her away to his hometown. Because his family has a better socioeconomic position life for this young woman changes dramatically.

He also does it because that is the custom. You can say he is sensitive to her needs; however because of the custom he would NEVER consider staying near her family at her request.

Additionally, his family does not always have a significantly better socioeconomic level. It is not that uncommon for the man to "marry up," with the bride's family to be the one with the higher socioeconomic level. <snip>

By being brave and defying convention they created a whole new universe for their family and generations to come.

I know what you are saying, but I have to disagree. These kidnappings are so common now, I think the ones who are really brave are the women who refuse them.

To illustrate, both families usually meet before the kidnappings now, though of course not all of them. But the economic details of the marriage have usually already been worked out before the “kidnapping.” However, the bride is never told the details.

Anyway, if the bride does not like the groom, and does not agree to the marriage, her parents, his parents, and both families are often furious with her. She is often disowned by her parents. So, I ask you, who is truly being brave and defying convention?

What do you think?

First, I am an ex-LDS, so I have no religious issues with it at all. However, I do worry the Church makes such a strong issue about polygamy that will be misunderstood by peoples throughout the world who practice polygamy, and that could cause hurt and significant misunderstanding of the Church's position about polygamy.

If you read my post to TZodd, that is why I advised her not to make statements that "polygamy" is evil. Even though the people on the board are aware she is referring to the polygamous schisms of the LDS Church that have survived since beginning at the start of the 20th Century, there are billions of people on the planet who practice polygamy with no sense of “evil,” or “wrongdoing,” at all. If someone who heard from another who heard from another, and so on and so on, that LDS thought polygamy was evil, then you’ve probably just lost a prospect.

I care strongly that the Church has been put in a position where it looks as if it has been offensive. I care strongly when its actions are misinterpreted and people, who have no way of knowing otherwise, then have an image in their minds that will probably remain for the rest of their lives. I care strongly that the people who work so hard for the Church have the unfair likeness of being judgmental and buying into stereotypes.

I think we have all seen the horrid abuse in the Fundamental LDS schism led by Warren Jeffs. And for those who claim the fundamentalists have no right to call themselves Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints, I say they have every right to the name. As I said in another thread, they truly could not believe God had ordered the Saints to give up the commandment to practice polygamy because they emphatically believed He had ordered the Saints to practice it for almost fifty years. The form of polygamy they lived in the late 1900s was the same as that that had been practiced, according to God, since 1952.

Unfortunately the need to hide themselves from the world turned their religion into a perilous and hazardous dogma, especially for the children. Unspeakably dangerous for the children.

Having said all of this, I think polygamy itself is fine. I think calling polygamy “evil” is as absurd as saying the reason women needed to have their uteruses removed was to treat hysteria, hence the word “hysterectomy.” You would think that after all of this time, the medical world would have started calling it by the correct name, which is “uterectomy.”

Polygamy is not evil. The way it is implemented in many ways is. There are people who live in polygamous marriages and societies who are as happy in those relationships as those who live in non-polygamous marriages, and obviously, vice versa.

Be very careful what you call “evil.” Don’t ever agree to any marriage you do not want. And if you do agree to the marriage, whether it is just you as the only wife, or you as one of many, go for it!

Elphaba

[Guest Malcolm]

I think you missed the point. The case I illustrate is REAL. It happens today in Central America in certain locations and it has nothing to do with religion and it may or may not be the first time it happens in certain families. This are truly heartfell stories of selfless love between sisters. Most men face the situation with trepidation.

It is not discussed and it happens as a way to "save the girls" from a horrible life. The kidnappings are not arranged. A couple of friends plot to take a school girl one of them like on a horse and take her to a town 5 hours away. She may have never seen the guy before.

I think most people visualize polygamy in the same way a temporal marriage functions. It will not be that way. A priesthood holder may have a family which could be a complex organization and he would be the spiritual guide and leader, a teacher, a pillar and a source of inspiration for growth for the family. We have to put away ideas about cohabitation and the like.

At this end, why should we bother with the subject. We should stick to the a-b-c's of the Gospel which we are still to master.