1882 Oracle received by John Taylor about Celestial Marriage

[Lizzy60]

I personally know a woman who lost her husband when she had two small children, still almost babies. She went to her bishop, as she needed help. He asked her how soon she could get a job. She told him that with her degree she could probably qualify to teach school in a few months, but she felt the need and desire to stay home with her babies until they were school age. He then told her that there was NO WAY the church would help her for that long, and she had better get a job as soon as possible.

I know this is policy because it's what I was instructed to tell women when I was RS President in the 90's and also when I served as a counselor in the Stake RS Presidency in the 2000's.

I have prayed about this, and received a very strong answer from God that this is grievous to Him. We have all covenanted to the Law of Consecration in order that we can take care of each other, and so that there are no poor among us. This is part of living Celestial Law. We are not supposed to be a Corporation with so much excess money in the bank that we can pay cash (yay! no debt for us!!) for a prestigious mall costing multi-Billions of $$$$$$, and we are not supposed to have leaders who have never felt what it's like to be poor (a recent admission by Elder Holland) while we have children who are malnourished and mothers who cry every night because they don't have food for them. These mothers and children are members. Some of them live among us. Most of them are far enough away that we can pretend they don't exist.

We should be better than this. We are living telestial law which will condemn us at our Judgement Day, because we were given Celestial Law, and we made excuses about why we don't really have to attempt to live these laws. We are living below our privilege. Shame on us.

My heart also feels ripped apart at the callous remarks by some who believe they are among the best members of the LDS Church.

[Mark]

I personally know a woman who lost her husband when she had two small children, still almost babies. She went to her bishop, as she needed help. He asked her how soon she could get a job. She told him that with her degree she could probably qualify to teach school in a few months, but she felt the need and desire to stay home with her babies until they were school age. He then told her that there was NO WAY the church would help her for that long, and she had better get a job as soon as possible.

I know this is policy because it's what I was instructed to tell women when I was RS President in the 90's and also when I served as a counselor in the Stake RS Presidency in the 2000's.

I have prayed about this, and received a very strong answer from God that this is grievous to Him. We have all covenanted to the Law of Consecration in order that we can take care of each other, and so that there are no poor among us. This is part of living Celestial Law. We are not supposed to be a Corporation with so much excess money in the bank that we can pay cash (yay! no debt for us!!) for a prestigious mall costing multi-Billions of $$$$$$, and we are not supposed to have leaders who have never felt what it's like to be poor (a recent admission by Elder Holland) while we have children who are malnourished and mothers who cry every night because they don't have food for them. These mothers and children are members. Some of them live among us. Most of them are far enough away that we can pretend they don't exist.

We should be better than this. We are living telestial law which will condemn us at our Judgement Day, because we were given Celestial Law, and we made excuses about why we don't really have to attempt to live these laws. We are living below our privilege. Shame on us.

My heart also feels ripped apart at the callous remarks by some who believe they are among the best members of the LDS Church.

So does that mean you are ready to live in a plural marriage relationship as well if your husband was to pass on before you? That is exactly what jw is appealing for the LDS church to reinstate at this time. He feels plural marriage is celestial law that we have wickedly abandoned and we are under condemnation for doing so. You good to go with this Lizzy or are you just trying to take another shot at the LDS church? Just because I am not involved in plural marriage does not mean I am living below my privileges. That is a crock..

[EdGoble]

If it can be discovered that our Church President or any of our general authorities are neglecting to contend for our rights to fully embrace the fullness of the Father's Celestial Marriage Law, then a controversy should be raised up and have them either perform their duties properly or to be removed from their offices. If we sustain them in them being the ones to fight against the Father's Celestial Order then we are sustaining our own damnation and ultimate destruction.

Actually no, I have to disagree with you here. While plural marriage remains suspended, our Church has no business teaching it or preaching it in any form or fashion, nor does anybody in our Church. Our Church has a longstanding agreement made in the days of the manifestos with the US government that the Church would not teach about plural marriage. And even though the US Government probably doesn't remember or care, our Church no doubt takes this agreement very seriously still. The keys have been used to shut all that stuff down a very long time ago, and it will take a change in this order of the world that would be very dramatic before anything will change in these matters.

There is no requirement from the Lord for the Church to go back on its word to teach these things while things are still in this order of the world, while the US government still stands, or is still not in support of such things. Even if the attitude of the world and the government changed with regard to the principle of plural marriage, the Church would not immediately change without revelation.

I disagree with you here, and I think that while plural marriage will be an option for some people in eternity, it is nothing that needs to be preached or taught or dwelt on. I think that you ought to sustain your leaders in what they are doing now, and not concern yourself for principles that are in suspension, and just wait on the Lord for his timing for things to be made right with regard to this principle and others in suspension like the United Order.

We should not be meddling in the workings of the Lord, when he has not authorized his authorities to take any action or change any position. Things are already as they should be. Let's leave these things alone. To understand them historically and doctrinally is fine. To lobby for them or advocate for them in any way, shape or form when it is not in the Lord's timing is out of order and is meddling in things that are his alone to worry about according to his timing.

If the day ever comes that the Lord will authorize that principle again, then the power of the Lord will be with those who live it or promote it. Until that time, there will be only cursings for those who engage in it or who promote it.

[jwharton]

If it can be discovered that our Church President or any of our general authorities are neglecting to contend for our rights to fully embrace the fullness of the Father's Celestial Marriage Law, then a controversy should be raised up and have them either perform their duties properly or to be removed from their offices. If we sustain them in them being the ones to fight against the Father's Celestial Order then we are sustaining our own damnation and ultimate destruction.

Actually no, I have to disagree with you here. While plural marriage remains suspended, our Church has no business teaching it or preaching it in any form or fashion, nor does anybody in our Church. Our Church has a longstanding agreement made in the days of the manifestos with the US government that the Church would not teach about plural marriage. And even though the US Government probably doesn't remember or care, our Church no doubt takes this agreement very seriously still. The keys have been used to shut all that stuff down a very long time ago, and it will take a change in this order of the world that would be very dramatic before anything will change in these matters.

There is no requirement from the Lord for the Church to go back on its word to teach these things while things are still in this order of the world, while the US government still stands, or is still not in support of such things. Even if the attitude of the world and the government changed with regard to the principle of plural marriage, the Church would not immediately change without revelation.

I disagree with you here, and I think that while plural marriage will be an option for some people in eternity, it is nothing that needs to be preached or taught or dwelt on. I think that you ought to sustain your leaders in what they are doing now, and not concern yourself for principles that are in suspension, and just wait on the Lord for his timing for things to be made right with regard to this principle and others in suspension like the United Order.

We should not be meddling in the workings of the Lord, when he has not authorized his authorities to take any action or change any position. Things are already as they should be. Let's leave these things alone. To understand them historically and doctrinally is fine. To lobby for them or advocate for them in any way, shape or form when it is not in the Lord's timing is out of order and is meddling in things that are his alone to worry about according to his timing.

I don't feel at liberty to go into detail any further due to the wishes of this forum, but I do want you to know there are solid reasons why I disagree with this.
I believe I can say I am of the sincere belief that we have been given over to strong delusion on many points of Celestial Law and Doctrine.
So, yes, it can be argued successfully that the many ways we have become in alignment with the world was and is of God, but how and why and to what end are the additional questions that I believe everyone should also be willing to give sincere attention to.
This forum isn't conducive to such a conversation, but I urge all to find a place suitable if any at all, to make this investigation.

[rewcox]

jwharton,

Turning widows over to centralized welfare requires "big government" to administer such.
It also has them feeling like a number and a general burden on society.
And, besides, money and a short visit once a month doesn't solve everything.

Apparently, you know as little about the Church Welfare system, and ward outreach as you you do about being a prophet seer and revelator.

As I mentioned, as a ward financial Clerk, and an active member of the High Priests quorum, my knowledge is not from some fevered imaginations from your basement, but from "walking the talk". I can clearly say that the way our ward (and Other wards) reach out to help the widows is NOT some "big Government" outreach. It is done prayerfully, and lovingly, with the needs of that very special widow considered in many counsels, by many including the relief society, by her visiting teacher, her home teacher, and if necessary special people assigned to take care of any unique needs she has.

I know this was organized lovingly by Servants of the Lord directed by a Prophet, seer, and revelator, who for some reason has been denied "Oraclability", but please forgive me, if I find this more loving and God's plan for today, than the beliefs of some randy heretic.

Regards,
George Clay

I know many who have been on the receiving end of this system.
And, I know that more and more they are being urged to get state care.
It's a cop-out that is far inferior to the Celestial Patriarchal Order system.

Actually, business pay unemployment insurance so when employees leave, they can get a little to help until their next job.

Businesses and employees pay into FICA and Medicare. I suppose you want people to reject their Social Security payments also.

[jwharton]

jwharton,

Turning widows over to centralized welfare requires "big government" to administer such.
It also has them feeling like a number and a general burden on society.
And, besides, money and a short visit once a month doesn't solve everything.

Apparently, you know as little about the Church Welfare system, and ward outreach as you you do about being a prophet seer and revelator.

As I mentioned, as a ward financial Clerk, and an active member of the High Priests quorum, my knowledge is not from some fevered imaginations from your basement, but from "walking the talk". I can clearly say that the way our ward (and Other wards) reach out to help the widows is NOT some "big Government" outreach. It is done prayerfully, and lovingly, with the needs of that very special widow considered in many counsels, by many including the relief society, by her visiting teacher, her home teacher, and if necessary special people assigned to take care of any unique needs she has.

I know this was organized lovingly by Servants of the Lord directed by a Prophet, seer, and revelator, who for some reason has been denied "Oraclability", but please forgive me, if I find this more loving and God's plan for today, than the beliefs of some randy heretic.

Regards,
George Clay

I know many who have been on the receiving end of this system.
And, I know that more and more they are being urged to get state care.
It's a cop-out that is far inferior to the Celestial Patriarchal Order system.

Actually, business pay unemployment insurance so when employees leave, they can get a little to help until their next job.
Businesses and employees pay into FICA and Medicare. I suppose you want people to reject their Social Security payments also.

I don't condemn those who paid or whose employers paid for those premiums to go ahead and receive the benefit.
As for myself, because those premiums are forced to be paid, I refused to elect to receive any benefits when I could have.
I did this because I had sufficient savings of my own and didn't actually need those benefits.
From my perspective, all of this represents a slippery slope I wish to stay far away from.

[gclayjr]

jwharton,

I know many who have been on the receiving end of this system.
And, I know that more and more they are being urged to get state care.
It's a cop-out that is far inferior to the Celestial Patriarchal Order system.

You do realize that this is not an either or system. We have widows who receive Social Security. We don't tell them. "Go away and get government check" or "Don't take the government check it is better to let the saints pay 2X, first in taxes, and again in FO". We work to fulfill her needs that she cannot take care of for herself, just as we do for other members. One of the things unique in the LDS welfare, is the fact that each Bishop, each Relief society president meets and prays for guidance as to how to handle each situation uniquely. I guess that can lead to unique answers to various financial situations and opportunities. Which shows either your ignorance or blindness to just how things work in Wards, and ward councils. It is exactly the opposite of a faceless bureaucracy

You have shifted now from expressing the superiority of your system from having a unique ability to give her a warm companion in bed and more children to being better able to support her without being a burden to the taxpayer. So answer me this

If one man is wealthy enough to take care of 2 or more poor widows, and another is so poor he cannot afford to support even 1 wife., should the man with the added resources step up and be that husband to those women and the man with no resources wait until he can afford to support a wife?


Regards,

George Clay

[jwharton]

jwharton,

I know many who have been on the receiving end of this system.
And, I know that more and more they are being urged to get state care.
It's a cop-out that is far inferior to the Celestial Patriarchal Order system.

You do realize that this is not an either or system. We have widows who receive Social Security. We don't tell them. "Go away and get government check" or "Don't take the government check it is better to let the saints pay 2X, first in taxes, and again in FO". We work to fulfill her needs that she cannot take care of for herself, just as we do for other members. One of the things unique in the LDS welfare, is the fact that each Bishop, each Relief society president meets and prays for guidance as to how to handle each situation uniquely. I guess that can lead to unique answers to various financial situations and opportunities. Which shows either your ignorance or blindness to just how things work in Wards, and ward councils. It is exactly the opposite of a faceless bureaucracy

You have shifted now from expressing the superiority of your system from having a unique ability to give her a warm companion in bed and more children to being better able to support her without being a burden to the taxpayer. So answer me this

If one man is wealthy enough to take care of 2 or more poor widows, and other is so poor he cannot afford to support even 1 wife., should the man with the added resources step up and be that husband to those women and the man with no resources wait until he can afford to support a wife?


Regards,

George Clay

The overall point is currently the Saints uphold laws that PREVENT levirate marriage, which is one of God's Laws widows have claim upon.
God hasn't made being a recipient of state care against His Law, but that entire system is what is opposed to God's Laws.

Make sense?

We have the world, and now the mainstream people of the church have largely joined with them, making God's Law illegal and striving to keep it that way. That's a problem.

They say, but our missionary efforts would wane if we brought plural marriage back.
My opinion of this is, who cares? I'd rather have a small bushel of Celestial fruit than a whole palette of Telestial fruit.

Also, to fully answer your question about the men, that would require a discussion about the whole economic system of Zion.

[Finrock]

Finrock

The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we have the right to embrace all, and every item of the truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds and superstitious notions of men.” Joseph Smith in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, pp. 420.

You may be able to cut and paste the words of Joseph Smith, but you haven't learned to actually comprehend them.

Joseph Smith wasn't saying that he wasn't shackled by his beliefs and and views. He was saying that he wasn't shackled by certain beliefs and views of MEN! He was probably making reference to things like the Nicene creed, or the Apostles creed. This isn't any mysterious gospel insight, it is simple English comprehension!

One of the main purposes of having beliefs is to self govern yourself based upon those beliefs. We don't follow the Word of Wisdom, because of some government law, but because of our beliefs and views. In fact a society that doesn't have and follow generally righteous beliefs, must be governed by a dictator, because if people don't govern themselves, they must be governed by a strong dictatorial government!

REgards,

George Clay

You quote the wrong quote that I was referring to. Weird. Then, you took that simple statement that I was quoting and proceeded to just make up some interpretation that fits what it is you are trying to say. I'll quote what Joseph Smith said again:

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” Joseph Smith in The Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184

Here is what Joseph Smith is plainly saying in my own words:
Joseph Smith doesn't think that it is right to call up a person and try him (its not right to have a disciplinary counsel) because he is mistaken in doctrine. He doesn't like this because it is too much like how the Methodist do it and because it is not what Mormons do (Latter day Saintism). Methodist (and other religions) have creeds (correlated doctrine that comes down from leaders or "an idea or set of beliefs that guides the actions of a person or group") which a person must believe or they will be excommunicated out of the church if they don't subscribe to those correlated doctrines or interpretations postulated and provided by someone else. Joseph Smith wants the liberty of believing as he pleases in religious matters because it feels so good not to be confined or hampered or shackled by what others believe.

Joseph Smith wants the freedom to explore the doctrine found in the scriptures and what is being revealed to him by the Holy Spirit without the superstitious and artificial boundaries that men in or out of a church place on what a person should or ought to believe.

The guiding principle of Mormonism is liberty and freedom to believe according to the dictates of one's conscience. There is no such thing as a dictator in the gospel. There is no such thing as accepting and advocating strong dictatorial governments. The gospel and true Mormonism, in fact, is opposed to adherence by coercion, fear, or compulsion. The doctrines of the priesthood ought to always be distilled upon a person without compulsory means through the principles of righteousness which includes persuasion, love unfeigned, and without guile or without hypocrisy. There is no place in true Mormonism in attempting to control people's thoughts, ideas, and beliefs in any way at all.

We are a religion that embraces free agency, free will, freedom of conscience, love of liberty, sovereignty, and love of all good and righteous principles. It is only people who have a disposition to abuse, to control, and to place themselves above others who support the opposite or try to dilute this true principle of Latter day Saintism (or Mormonism or the gospel of Jesus Christ).

You are free to believe as you wish but Joseph Smith had a different idea of what this religion was all about and he is in a position to say what a true believing Mormon ought to be believing. I encourage you and everyone to reject and abandon all Luciferian or Satanic principles such as control, compulsion, coercion, dictatorial attitudes, judging, accusing, and the like. These things have no part or parcel in true Mormonism. There is no fear in true Mormonism. There is no place for setting up a system where you must believe what another person says to you because they have a position of authority in the Church. I can't state this strongly enough, but advocating, believing, and supporting the principle that a person must obey or accept a doctrine because it comes from a position/a person who is in authority in the Church is Satanic and evil.

Joseph Smith clearly and unequivocally believes this and it is what he and a multitude of other prophets and apostles since him have taught and what those before him have taught. We lead, direct, and govern only through the principles of righteousness. We teach people correct principles and we allow them to govern themselves. This is what true believing Mormons believe, love, advocate, support, and are willing to suffer and be martyred for.

-Finrock

[jwharton]

To those who feel the need to mock and torment me with your crude, callous and nasty remarks, I urge you to cease and desist, aka repent.
I do not take kindly to such treatment, and especially from those who have covenanted to build Father's Kingdom.
The forum moderators are likely too busy to deal with this so I'm going to take matters into my own hands.
This is my first official warning.

[rewcox]

To those who feel the need to mock and torment me with your crude, callous and nasty remarks, I urge you to cease and desist, aka repent.
I do not take kindly to such treatment, and especially from those who have covenanted to build Father's Kingdom.
The forum moderators are likely too busy to deal with this so I'm going to take matters into my own hands.
This is my first official warning.

I thought you already had taken matters into your own hands. What's your problem?

[Lizzy60]

To those who feel the need to mock and torment me with your crude, callous and nasty remarks, I urge you to cease and desist, aka repent.
I do not take kindly to such treatment, and especially from those who have covenanted to build Father's Kingdom.
The forum moderators are likely too busy to deal with this so I'm going to take matters into my own hands.
This is my first official warning.

I thought you already had taken matters into your own hands. What's your problem?

His problem is that your comment was rude, demeaning, nasty, and not becoming of a man who considers himself a Latter-day Saint. That should be obvious to any reasonable adult.

[Lizzy60]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

[rewcox]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

[Lizzy60]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

That's not doctrine. Those are practices, policies and procedures. The practice of polygamy, as a Celestial Law whenever required or mandated by God, is true doctrine. It's up to the Lord to decide when polygamy will be practiced again, and it's His decision on what to do with anyone, leader or not, who fights against the principle.

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

You quote the wrong quote that I was referring to. Weird. Then, you took that simple statement that I was quoting and proceeded to just make up some interpretation that fits what it is you are trying to say. I'll quote what Joseph Smith said again:

I challenge anybody to look at what you wrote that I quoted, and try and find if there was really any "made up interpretation". I suppose it is possible that that you didn't mean to say what you said, but I am not a mind reader. Why not just admit that instead of accusing me of misrepresenting you?

Maybe, as always you should simply quote Joseph Smith and stop before you write:

Here is what Joseph Smith is plainly saying in my own words:

Because usually after you say that is when things fall apart.

Joseph Smith doesn't think that it is right to call up a person and try him (its not right to have a disciplinary counsel) because he is mistaken in doctrine. He doesn't like this because it is too much like how the Methodist do it and because it is not what Mormons do (Latter day Saintism).

Joseph Smith wants the freedom to explore the doctrine found in the scriptures and what is being revealed to him by the Holy Spirit without the superstitious and artificial boundaries that men in or out of a church place on what a person should or ought to believe.

In response to this I will pose a thought question:

What were the charges leveled against William Law, in 1844 for his excommunication, and who conducted his excommunication hearing?
(Think of the word Apostasy, it might help... Also, I'm sure jwharton would know this, because his apostasy was to REJECT plural marriage)

We are a religion that embraces free agency

There is no such thing as Free Agency!

In this case, I might be able to figure out what you mean, even if it is contrary to what you say. But if you can't say what you mean, it ifs often hard to guess what you mean. This is not a problem of simply trying to hold you to expressing yourself in reasonably coherent English.

Because by saying things wrong, you tend to follow your incorrect statement with subsequent irrational conclusions.

by the way there is Agency, but it isn't FREE. We have the agency to make the choices we desire, but we DO NOT have the freedom from the consequences of those choices. If we humbly repent and come to Christ, he may take on that payment, but it must be paid!

Regards,

George Clay

[Delight]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

Neither have I.

[rewcox]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

Neither have I.

Polygamy was turned off in the early 1900's. Saying it wasn't is apostate doctrine. Saying we need to hold our leaders accountable for that is apostate doctrine.

[Melissa]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

That's not doctrine. Those are practices, policies and procedures. The practice of polygamy, as a Celestial Law whenever required or mandated by God, is true doctrine. It's up to the Lord to decide when polygamy will be practiced again, and it's His decision on what to do with anyone, leader or not, who fights against the principle.

Are we merely pawns?

[Mark]

To those who feel the need to mock and torment me with your crude, callous and nasty remarks, I urge you to cease and desist, aka repent.
I do not take kindly to such treatment, and especially from those who have covenanted to build Father's Kingdom.
The forum moderators are likely too busy to deal with this so I'm going to take matters into my own hands.
This is my first official warning.

How many official warnings do I get jw? :-ss You are too much brother. Go take a break and pay some attention to your wife instead of a bunch of non celestialized internet strangers.

[gclayjr]

jwharton,

To those who feel the need to mock and torment me with your crude, callous and nasty remarks, I urge you to cease and desist, aka repent.
I do not take kindly to such treatment, and especially from those who have covenanted to build Father's Kingdom.
The forum moderators are likely too busy to deal with this so I'm going to take matters into my own hands.
This is my first official warning.

You've got my curiosity. what is the penalty for ignoring your warnings?

Regards,

George Clay

[Mark]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

That's not doctrine. Those are practices, policies and procedures. The practice of polygamy, as a Celestial Law whenever required or mandated by God, is true doctrine. It's up to the Lord to decide when polygamy will be practiced again, and it's His decision on what to do with anyone, leader or not, who fights against the principle.

Good grief sister are you even reading jwhartons posts? The man believes that plural marriage for the benefit of all the widows should still be actively preached and practiced in the church and we are under condemnation for discontinuing this type of marriage arrangement In the early 1900's. The Woolleys are his Prophets of choice. Wilford Woodruff and succeeding Prophets rejected the Lords sanctioned doctrine so the Woolley stepped in to save the day. He is a fundamentalist in all his thought processes. Are you a fundamentalist in your belief system as well? If you agree with jwharton I guess you must be..

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue;

Reading your posts here, it is clear that you will not listen to any arguments against your views.

I do listen and then I try to also get a sense of whether or not I am being listened to.

It's as if none of us have even discussed this--you are still going on about widows needed to be polygamously married to men, in order to help them. This is the weakest of your arguments because in our society women don't need to marry a man in order to be taken care of. Single LDS women don't want to be married polygamously to some middle aged man with a wife and kids. They want a man who will love and cherish them, alone-and if they can't have this, they will get on with having a fulfilling life and hoping for this in their future. That is what LDS women want.

This isn't me telling those women what they SHOULD do.
If that is what they want, then I'm sure not going to stop them.If they join in a polygamous union they will be excommunicated from the Lord's only true and living church; if they were someone I knew, I'd try to talk them out of it.
What I'm addressing are those women who do wish to become a plural wife.What women??? LDS women who believe that Thomas S. Monson is the Lord's anointed Prophet and president of the church, don't want to enter a union that is considered an 'abomination' when the Lord has not authorized it--which is the way it is right now.
I'm addressing you and others who are telling them what they SHOULDN'T do.Anyone with half a brain who cares about their membership in the LDS church would tell them NOT to do it! Also, it's illegal in the US.
If you can keep this context in mind then you will understand me better.I don't understand you. I don't understand why you would want to believe the tales of Lorin Woolley. I don't understand why you ignore the teachings in the Book of Mormon and embrace the fanatical views of the FLDS. I don't understand why you are not happy with your one lovely wife and instead secretly pining to take other wives. I understand and accept that polygamy will be a type of marriage for some in the next life, but I am certain that those engaged in it will not be men sealed in the temple to the wife of their earthly life, but who did not 'cleave to her alone' because in their heart they were looking forward to and fantasizing about having others. In the next life, we won't be able to hide our unclean, unrighteous, prideful thoughts and actions which we did not repent of--all will be able to see them. Do you really think that a woman would want to join herself eternally to a family where in life, the husband was unfaithful(in a variety of ways) or disrespectful or dismissive toward his wife? Why would a woman want that kind of man? Why not choose a man who was completely faithful and cherished his one wife and never harbored secret desires for other women.

You seem incapable of understanding that polygamy is not something modern LDS women want, no woman wants to be treated like property to be collected or awarded to a man and the Lord delights in the chastity of women, he doesn't treat us as if we have no value unless we are married.

Your picture of plural marriage and what it allegedly entails is much different than mine.Maybe it's because you've got some rose colored fantasy of what it would be like to actually live it.

The church is NOT under condemnation

The Church has been under condemnation for a VERY long time and yet is.Why are we under condemnation? Because we stopped practicing polygamy? This is ridiculous to even be arguing. You think the church is condemned, you reject the manifestos, you believe in some shadow priesthood--you don't believe Pres. Monson is the 'anointed' prophet--how can you think of yourself as a faithful LDS? You are faithful only to your convoluted beleifs of this strange tight rope you walk.
We were under condemnation far prior to 1890 and to this day the Lord has not removed this status.If YOU think we're under condemnation, why are you even a member of this church? It simply does not make sense--I can't fathom this type of compartmentalization.

, we followed the directive of the Lord, through his prophets, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, in ending the practice. The polygamists were wrong and they've reaped bitter fruits for believing the claims of Lorin Woolley. Hindsight ought to be 20/20 for you, you can see what a century of their 'fruits' of believing his claims has given them. I can have sympathy for earlier polygamists--they didn't know, but anyone today can see that the manifestos were divinely inspired! Why you would want to believe in Woolley's claims which have come to destroy families, damage relationships and ruin whole communities, I cannot fathom.

By their fruits shall ye know them. That was the Lord's counsel in recognizing false prophets. What more proof do you need???

There is a lot more I could say and would say but I have agreed to steer clear of controversial subjects that people respond contentiously to.

I agree the FLDS are a dead and disgusting body that refuses burial and I'll leave it at that.

But the FLDS are the 'fruits' of what you are promoting and believing. They are a 'dead and disgusting body' because they believed Lorin Woolley---made him out to be a prophet and followed his directives--created a priesthood body (not the one Woolley claimed because they were all dead and there's no evidence any of them were ever involved in this so called 'priesthood body') out of his authority and several other men that he chose. They put polygamy above all else--they were disobedient to the Prophet, Joseph F. Smith, the only one who actually held the sealing power, they refused to acknowledge that he could stop this or require it--and they followed after false prophets and false teachings and look at the bitter fruits they've brought forward. Do they care for widows and orphans? They even live the United order (their version) but most live in poverty and the women are passed around as prizes for the men who are obedient to their prophet. The young men are pushed out because they compete for the very limited commodity of young virgins in the community. This is what happens when polygamy is practiced over generations. Why do you think the practice was only to be used when the Lord authorized, and it MUST be temporary. When it goes on too long, it degrades over time and is rife for promoting unrighteous dominion, child abuse, sexual abuse and power struggles. Just look at the Muslim countries which allow it.

[AI2.0]

I haven't read any false doctrine from jwharton.

So you believe in that council of guys, and our leaders should be getting us back to polygamy or we should throw them out?

That's not doctrine. Those are practices, policies and procedures. The practice of polygamy, as a Celestial Law whenever required or mandated by God, is true doctrine. It's up to the Lord to decide when polygamy will be practiced again, and it's His decision on what to do with anyone, leader or not, who fights against the principle.

Lizzy, if you haven't read any false doctrine in jwharton's posts, you aren't reading them, so I'll spell out some of his teachings for you.

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the Prophet of the LDS church may be the president of the church but may not be the Lord's 'anointed' prophet--that these two things do not go hand in hand. Jwharton believes that Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, down to Thomas S. Monson are not 'anointed' prophets and so the manifestos were not binding on the members of the church. He believes that Lorin Woolley was one of the Lord's 'anointed' prophets and so was able to pass the sealing power to other men and keep polygamy alive.

Jwharton believes the false doctrine that Pres. John Taylor set up a shadow priesthood organization, calling and setting apart men to work outside the LDS priesthood hierarchy to continue the practice of polygamy.

Jwharton preaches the false doctrine that the practice of polygamy cannot be ended by the prophet, but must always be practiced or the church is under condemnation.

He preaches the notion that the LDS church is under condemnation because we no longer practice polygamy and we excommunicate those who do. He preaches the false doctrine that polygamy is required and necessary for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom and those of us who reject this belief are headed for perdition. He also preaches that church leaders who excommunicate polygamists are headed to perdition.

He also preaches the false doctrine that polygamy being ended and the end of living the united order put the church under condemnation. These may be practices involving doctrine, but he has made how they are practiced part of his doctrine.

So, Lizzy and Delight (who claims to be a lifelong member of the church)--do you think you can identify some false doctrine in his teachings?

If you responded because you feel he's being ganged up on or treated unkindly, then say so, but please don't ignore the fact that he IS preaching false doctrine.

[Jeremy]

Rewcox, you're about as recalcitrant as they come. This is to be expected, I suppose, from a blowhard so enmeshed in his own sense of self-righteous indignation that he emblazons every post with a picture of Texas. If I were to have the misfortune of having you as my advocate for anything of any importance, I'd be utterly embarrassed.

You do nothing to contribute to the conversation. You ignore every point made and blather on like a buffoon while insulting people from all demographics who have the dubious responsibility of having to wade through your drivel every time you mash the keys on your keyboard.

@-)
Wow. Being someone who isn't really rew's biggest fan, even I thought this a bit harsh and over the top. Granted, rew, like many others and myself included, often contribute nothing in conversations. But to state it so absolutely is kind of obnoxious... even if it was slightly empathized with.

I happen to know that rewcox has put forth an effort many times to add content on this forum that is intended to be uplifting and edifying. Surely, Jordan you have come across such posts? If not, I feel sorry for your misfortune during this half a decade or so. I imagine you might have scrapped out your eyes and wasted to much vinegar my friend.

I suggest that perhaps you can attempt to add to this forum with material and content that has more value yourself before wasting precious posts (two as of the time of this post) adding more contempt to a forum already dripping with contention.
By my count, rewcox seems to have a more preferred ratio of positive content to drivel. Lucky for you, your two posts away from a tie. =))

Try to find something good in rew, even if you have a problem with Texas. FYI - SECOND biggest state ;)