The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
harakim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2819
Location: Salt Lake Megalopolis

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by harakim »

TrueIntent wrote: January 29th, 2017, 10:42 pm
Ezra wrote:I would imagine if the church did bring back polygamy there would be a lot of members leave the church.
Members are already leaving in groves over just the essays. The ones that will be left are members who are the most open to contradictions in our teachings, and those who would be obedient. If the essays or other issues don't shake them after deep pondering then they would be the most likely to participate in a practice based on obedience.
Which contradictions are you foreseeing?
TrueIntent wrote: February 1st, 2017, 4:37 pm Ballard said that Muslims don't have a problem with being assimilated....why is that???? What weird cultural beliefs to we espouse that they are cool with? Also, the catholic church appears to be pushing the same refugee agenda...and recently the church has been doing a lot of teaming up with the catholic church, including donating millions to some of their charities (there was a news article about this). What's the agenda? because there is definitely an agenda? You don't go pulling quotes from the 1800's out of context of controversial material without having an agenda.
The agenda is they believe religious freedom is under attack and don't want members to participate in it. They try to make this a little clearer by showing how Muslims and Mormons are a lot alike.

Matchmaker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2266

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Matchmaker »

simpleton wrote: April 11th, 2017, 7:47 am Orson Pratt:
"We cannot feel justified in closing this article on the subject of marriage without saying a few words to unmarried females in this Church.
(May I pause at this point long enough to say that while he is speaking to females, it is just as true of males, and we could insert that term just as well as to speak of females, so keep that in mind.)
You will clearly perceive, from the revelation which God has given, that you can never obtain a fulness of glory, without being married to a righteous man for time and for all eternity. If you marry a man who receives not the gospel, you lay a foundation for sorrow in this world, besides losing the privilege of enjoying the society of a husband in eternity. You forfeit your right to an endless increase of immortal lives. And even the children which you may be favoured with in this life, will not be entrusted to your charge in eternity, but you will be left in that world without a husband, without a family, without a kingdom, without any means of enlarging yourselves, being subject to the principalities and powers who are counted worthy of families, and kingdoms, and thrones, and the increase of dominions forever. To them you will be servants and angels—that is, provided that your conduct should be such as to secure this measure of glory. Can it be possible that any females, after knowing these things, will suffer themselves to keep company with persons out of this Church?
It matters not how great the morality of such persons may be, nor how kind they may be to you, they are not numbered with the people of God; they are not in the way of salvation, they cannot save themselves nor their families, and after what God has revealed upon this subject, you cannot be justified, for one moment, in keeping their company. It would be infinitely better for you to suffer poverty and tribulation with the people of God, than to place yourselves under the power of those who will not embrace the great truth of heaven. By marrying an unbeliever, you place yourselves in open disobedience to the command of God requiring his people to gather together. Do you expect to be saved in direct violation of the command of heaven? (Millennial Star, XV: 584
I believe the Church teaches now that if the woman is worthy of a Celestial life but her husband is not, she and her children will be given the opportunity to be sealed to another righteous man in the next life. Am I wrong here?

User avatar
BruceRGilbert
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1472
Location: Near the "City of Trees," Idaho

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by BruceRGilbert »

A careful review and pondering of Section 132 will reveal that the "being given to another" requires that "another" of having received, previously, the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. It does not and cannot pertain to those who have not received such, as non-members who have not made a prior covenant that is sealed in Heaven, as well as upon Earth through the ratification of a sealing ordinance binding such. There is no incongruence or discrepancy in these teachings, they are the same.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by JohnnyL »

Matchmaker wrote: April 12th, 2017, 4:22 am
simpleton wrote: April 11th, 2017, 7:47 am Orson Pratt:
"We cannot feel justified in closing this article on the subject of marriage without saying a few words to unmarried females in this Church.
(May I pause at this point long enough to say that while he is speaking to females, it is just as true of males, and we could insert that term just as well as to speak of females, so keep that in mind.)
You will clearly perceive, from the revelation which God has given, that you can never obtain a fulness of glory, without being married to a righteous man for time and for all eternity. If you marry a man who receives not the gospel, you lay a foundation for sorrow in this world, besides losing the privilege of enjoying the society of a husband in eternity. You forfeit your right to an endless increase of immortal lives. And even the children which you may be favoured with in this life, will not be entrusted to your charge in eternity, but you will be left in that world without a husband, without a family, without a kingdom, without any means of enlarging yourselves, being subject to the principalities and powers who are counted worthy of families, and kingdoms, and thrones, and the increase of dominions forever. To them you will be servants and angels—that is, provided that your conduct should be such as to secure this measure of glory. Can it be possible that any females, after knowing these things, will suffer themselves to keep company with persons out of this Church?
It matters not how great the morality of such persons may be, nor how kind they may be to you, they are not numbered with the people of God; they are not in the way of salvation, they cannot save themselves nor their families, and after what God has revealed upon this subject, you cannot be justified, for one moment, in keeping their company. It would be infinitely better for you to suffer poverty and tribulation with the people of God, than to place yourselves under the power of those who will not embrace the great truth of heaven. By marrying an unbeliever, you place yourselves in open disobedience to the command of God requiring his people to gather together. Do you expect to be saved in direct violation of the command of heaven? (Millennial Star, XV: 584
I believe the Church teaches now that if the woman is worthy of a Celestial life but her husband is not, she and her children will be given the opportunity to be sealed to another righteous man in the next life. Am I wrong here?
No. And, vice-versa.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

You know, nature is not as nice as a Church sermon. Single males die at a much higher rate than married males and women who have children reduce their chances of suicide, breast and uterus cancer.

Post Reply