No CK for Adulterers.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

In the Grand Council in the pre-existence, Christ said some souls would be not be saved.

"Some people can't be saved" isn't quite the same thing as "one strike and you're out, baptism doesn't really wipe away all of your sins, and you're going to be repeatedly told that you will have the opportunity to repent but even though you will repeatedly be told that you can repent of just about everything that will not be the truth."

I don't think there is anything wrong with authorized polygamy. We learn Abraham and Jacob were blessed for being obedient to this commandment in the revelation received through Joseph Smith in D&C 132 (or History of the Church, Volume 5, pg. 501-507).

Then you reject the "legally" part about the covenant of chastity.

[tmaccaptain of 1,000]

This thread is a great example of the philosophies of men (all kinds of men, across the spectrum and from every different level), mingled with scripture. I'm glad it will be God doing the judging and meting out justice, instead of some of the mortals who like to make it sound as if they are speaking for Him on this forum.

[Raindropcaptain of 100]

Looks like Bro. Snuffer has used this same Joseph Smith quote on adultery. (See his July 1st post, "The Lord Delights in Chastity")

[abundanceofwatercaptain of 10]

I don't even know why this was posted in the first place.

I suspect the following:

1. OP has been offended by an adulterous spouse
2. OP has been overlooked for a church position; with said position being given to a multi-offender(or supposed offender)
3. OP is a multi-offender and is taking the affirmative position to find holes within the 'no CK' doctrine.

With respect to 1 and 2, I suspect the hard line posturing provides some sort of comfort. In the sense that OP will eventually be a granted the greater reward. By giving up this line of thinking, OP loses that comfort. Whatever the case, I hope OP finds a true peace. Not a peace in seeking the damning of another's soul.

That said, I am glad there are those on this board who are knowledgeable enough to refute this doctrine. You never know if multi-offenders are out there.. Looking for a reason to give up.. To continue on their wayward path. They come upon the OP post and based on that give up the fight; then in the end they find out OP was wrong as wrong can be.. Would the adulterer's sins then be heap onto OP? Who knows.. I would hate to be the cause of anyone's discouragement. Good thing OP isn't the only post in this thread.. It's reassuring to see posts encouraging those to continue. To never give up.

[gruden2.0captain of 100]

Looks like Bro. Snuffer has used this same Joseph Smith quote on adultery. (See his July 1st post, "The Lord Delights in Chastity")

Yes, what interesting timing:
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/ ... stity.html

Like the JFS book, this is an unsourced quote, leading me to believe he got it from the same place. I did a wordfind on that whole section of TPJS and there was no such quote. Based on scripture I do not think that is correct, but I would love to find where this quote came from. In my mind it is invalid until it is properly sourced.

[Raindropcaptain of 100]

Looks like Bro. Snuffer has used this same Joseph Smith quote on adultery. (See his July 1st post, "The Lord Delights in Chastity")

Yes, what interesting timing:
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/ ... stity.html

Like the JFS book, this is an unsourced quote, leading me to believe he got it from the same place. I did a wordfind on that whole section of TPJS and there was no such quote. Based on scripture I do not think that is correct, but I would love to find where this quote came from. In my mind it is invalid until it is properly sourced.

You looked up the reference given in DOS? That's Doctrines of Salvation, 3 volumes, by Joseph Fielding Smith. That's different than TPJS. The Joseph Smith quote is from volume 6, page 81 of the Joseph Smith History and I looked it up - it's correct.

[gruden2.0captain of 100]

You looked up the reference given in DOS? That's Doctrines of Salvation, 3 volumes, by Joseph Fielding Smith. That's different than TPJS. The Joseph Smith quote is from volume 6, page 81 of the Joseph Smith History and I looked it up - it's correct.

I have long since lost the software, so thanks for that. I figured if it were legit someone would have it.

I view this as a conflict with the scripture I mentioned above, so personally I resolve it by thinking the comment applies to unrepentant adulterers. This talk to the Relief Society was in direct consequence of what John C. Bennett was doing in Nauvoo, which included the seduction of an apostle's wife. I'm sure he wanted to make sure that the women knew what he was doing was not condoned behavior. This is certainly worthy of further thought.

[RabbanahLlamacaptain of 50]

"Some people can't be saved" isn't quite the same thing as "one strike and you're out, baptism doesn't really wipe away all of your sins, and you're going to be repeatedly told that you will have the opportunity to repent but even though you will repeatedly be told that you can repent of just about everything that will not be the truth."

I didn't say "can't". I said "would not". Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 357

Then you reject the "legally" part about the covenant of chastity.

I never said that.


My comments in red.

I suspect the following:

1. OP has been offended by an adulterous spouse Nope.
2. OP has been overlooked for a church position; with said position being given to a multi-offender(or supposed offender) Nope.
3. OP is a multi-offender and is taking the affirmative position to find holes within the 'no CK' doctrine. Nope.

With respect to 1 and 2, I suspect the hard line posturing provides some sort of comfort. In the sense that OP will eventually be a granted the greater reward. By giving up this line of thinking, OP loses that comfort. Whatever the case, I hope OP finds a true peace. Not a peace in seeking the damning of another's soul. I am not looking for any comfort or peace. I simply posted the quotes to see what others would think.

That said, I am glad there are those on this board who are knowledgeable enough to refute this doctrine. You never know if multi-offenders are out there.. Looking for a reason to give up.. To continue on their wayward path. They come upon the OP post and based on that give up the fight; then in the end they find out OP was wrong as wrong can be.. Would the adulterer's sins then be heap onto OP? Who knows.. I would hate to be the cause of anyone's discouragement. I did not make this thread to dash the hopes of adulterers. Just to start a discussion about it. Good thing OP isn't the only post in this thread.. I am sorry you find my stance so hard. It's reassuring to see posts encouraging those to continue. To never give up. I am not telling adulterers to give up.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

Then you reject the "legally" part about the covenant of chastity.

I never said that

Ok then, define adultery.

[RabbanahLlamacaptain of 50]

Then you reject the "legally" part about the covenant of chastity.

I never said that

Ok then, define adultery.

I have no desire to engage in a debate with you on polygamy.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

I have no desire to engage in a debate with you on polygamy.

This isn't a debate on polygamy, this is to probe a theory which you put forth regarding adultery. You brought it up. What constitutes the offense which guarantees permanent exclusion from the Celestial Kingdom regardless of repentance or even baptism?

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

And I'll answer for you (I'm guessing you won't want to address the question you raised)

Adultery -"For Latter-day Saints it is defined as sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her legal and lawful spouse." (BYU Mormon Encyclopedia)

Why did you quote that if you don't believe that "legal and lawful" mean "legal and lawful"?

[RabbanahLlamacaptain of 50]

And I'll answer for you (I'm guessing you won't want to address the question you raised)

Adultery -"For Latter-day Saints it is defined as sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her legal and lawful spouse." (BYU Mormon Encyclopedia)

Why did you quote that if you don't believe that "legal and lawful" mean "legal and lawful"?

Mingano I think I am missing your point. I believe "legal and lawful" mean "legal and lawful" and never said otherwise. I am not following your train of thought.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

Mingano I think I am missing your point. I believe "legal and lawful" mean "legal and lawful" and never said otherwise. I am not following your train of thought.

If "legal and lawful" has an explicit meaning then Brigham Young is excluded from the CK.

[RabbanahLlamacaptain of 50]

Mingano I think I am missing your point. I believe "legal and lawful" mean "legal and lawful" and never said otherwise. I am not following your train of thought.

If "legal and lawful" has an explicit meaning then Brigham Young is excluded from the CK.

I don't care to judge individual cases. You're free to draw any conclusions you like, but please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

I did no such thing.

You said that in ALL cases of (x) the consequences are (y). Either you mean that or you don't. Your call.

[RabbanahLlamacaptain of 50]

please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

I did no such thing.

You said that in ALL cases of (x) the consequences are (y). Either you mean that or you don't. Your call.

Yes. But I do not know all the details about Brigham Young's marriages and even if I did I do not care to be the judge. I am not accusing anyone of adultery. I just passed on the information, and backed the idea with some scriptures. If you want to judge individuals that's your call.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

I do not know all the details about Brigham Young's marriages and even if I did I do not care to be the judge.

You don't need to know all the details, nor do you have to limit it to BY. The point is that the Church was allowing people to live in sexually active polygamous marriages long after JS made that quote.

If you want to judge individuals that's your call.

You have clearly and unequivocally declared that the general authorities of the church explicitly endorsed an activity that guaranteed eternal exclusion from the CK. This is so far beyond "judging individuals" that it ain't even funny.

There is one and only one possible scenario in which your position is correct and that requires acceptance of an immediate general apostasy of the body whole of the church before they even left Nauvoo.

There are many other ways to view that quote that does not require condemnation of the entire church.

Your call.

[RabbanahLlamacaptain of 50]

Mingano you are jumping to conclusions that I did not make. Don't say I am declaring anything clearly and unequivocally unless you can quote me saying "I RabbanahLlama declare such and such..." I never declared anything about the Church leadership. I am not accusing anyone. You are pushing the ideas you bring up onto me and I don't want them. Keep them to yourself.

You say there is one and only on possible scenario where I can support this opinion. I do not believe the church was in apostasy before it left Nauvoo, or now. These are all your ideas. You brought it up. I never said any of this. You are making statements based on inferences not fact.

If God commanded someone to live polygamy (lawful or not) I hope they would be obedient to that command. By being obedient you will not be condemned. Here's an example. If the angel did not stop Abraham, when he was about to sacrifice Isaac, he wouldn't have been guilty of murder because God commanded him to do it. It was accounted unto him for righteousness. Murder was against the law, and if Abraham was not commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac he would be guilty of shedding innocent blood. If God commands you to do something I believe you should do it, and you will be blessed for being obedient.

Yes there are many ways to view that quote. And I am not condemning the entire church with my view.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

I never declared anything about the Church leadership. I am not accusing anyone.

Did you or did you not say

Adultery -"For Latter-day Saints it is defined as sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her legal and lawful spouse." (BYU Mormon Encyclopedia)

?

Do you believe this to be true or did you post a statement you believe to be false?

If you believe that adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between any married person and any other person to whom he is not legally married then by the definition that YOU brought up the persons YOU cited are themselves forever excluded from the CK.

These are your words, not mine.

You say there is one and only on possible scenario where I can support this opinion. I do not believe the church was in apostasy before it left Nauvoo, or now.

This is the natural and inevitable conclusion of the criteria that YOU brought up. YOUR arguments. Either defend them or retract them because they are irreconcilable with many other fundamental truths and beliefs of the church.

If God commanded someone to live polygamy (lawful or not) I hope they would be obedient to that command.

I shouldn't have to hold your hand and connect the dots but if this is true then either the definition of adultery that you are basing your argument on is not valid or you believe that God commands people to do things that will exclude them from the CK. I know you don't believe in the latter, but your pride seems to preclude you from admitting to the former.

By being obedient you will not be condemned.

Then your definition needs to be refined.

Yes there are many ways to view that quote. And I am not condemning the entire church with my view.

Actually, you are even if you won't admit it. You may not mean to but your logical requires you to. You need to go back and rethink things.

[RabbanahLlamacaptain of 50]

That quote was taken directly from BYU. How can you attribute it to me if I copied it? It is not my definition. I just passed the quotes along. These ideas are not mine, I got them from Joseph Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. If you want to attack more than the message, attack the original messenger.

There is no need for me to rethink anything. I do not care what your opinion is. I do not care what you think of me. I am not refraining from admitting anything out of pride. I don't understand your need to accuse me of being prideful. I don't see anything wrong with the definition from BYU. That is what adultery is commonly accepted as otherwise they would have changed their wording.

I meant no harm in creating this thread. I am done debating with you.

[awakecaptain of 100]

Rab,

God doesn't have personal commandments that pertain to just one person or a small group of people, everyone on earth is under the same eternal laws and commandments, even if they don't know what they are, they have to eventually repent and live them when they do learn them.

If you can't explain polygamy, divorce, Alma, Alma the Younger, the Sons of Mosiah, the fact that Joseph promised spouses they could help save their adulterous spouses and thus not to leave them, the scriptures I previously presented which name all manner of unrighteousness, including lying that you probably believe Joseph himself did about polygamy, which will also keep anyone out of the CK, and above all, if you can't explain the current practice of the Church to promise 'known repentant adulterers' Eternal Life and Marriage, then you can't declare a blanket statement that an adulterer can't make it to the CK. For it clearly has no backing, for it is so obvious that that is not what Joseph mean't. Nor is it a doctrine that the Church leaders believe.

It is just your opinion, which because it is 'contrary' to what the scriptures teach, the prophets say to consider your opinion false.

I just don't understand why you want to believe and spread such a destructive horrible unsupported doctrine, and why you wouldn't want to hope it wasn't right and accept the multiple evidence that is so clear that Joseph just didn't take the time to clarify the repentance clause.

Not to mention that the Holy Spirit will teach and confirm to anyone that adulterers can repent and still attain Exaltation.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

That quote was taken directly from BYU.

Are you willing to base your understanding of the mysteries of God by declaring everything that comes out of BYU as canonical? Or even scripture?

How can you attribute it to me if I copied it?

I attribute the citation to you.

It is not my definition.

It is the one you have accepted as canonical - even though it has never been accepted by the body of the church.

I just passed the quotes along.

As standalone dogmatic declarations devoid of any context or consideration whatsoever.

These ideas are not mine

No, but your acceptance of them as overruling any and all other references to the matter is yours.

I don't see anything wrong with the definition from BYU. That is what adultery is commonly accepted as otherwise they would have changed their wording.

Then you accuse many of the modern prophets of being adulterers.

If you say, as you have, that ALL persons who do (x) are (y) then all persons who did (x) are (y). So you have two options here: admit that a non-canonical definition is flawed or that any person who did (x) is (y), full stop.

I meant no harm in creating this thread. I am done debating with you.

You never started a debate. You made a declaration and have refused to defend it. That isn't a debate.

[Raindropcaptain of 100]

Mingano... it's obvious the teachings from Joseph Smith (and Joseph Fielding Smith carrying them on... and Denver Snuffer for that matter) is really getting under your skin. Why don't you step back and realize who you are having this fight with? (Hint: It's not RabbanahLlama)

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

I meant no harm in creating this thread.

But you DID cause harm. Just because you didn't mean to hurt somebody's feelings doesn't mean that you didn't. Just because you didn't mean to denounce hope doesn't mean that you didn't.

This is a prime example of straining at a gnat: you glommed onto a single concept and rejected any and all quotes, citations, references or practices to the contrary. To illustrate, let us remove context and address accurate portrayals (AP) in general. The general concepts as they apply to an AP are universal and can be referenced in any situation.

First, there exists truth. Truth can be defined as "that which is". It doesn't matter what "is", if it "is" then it is synonymous with truth.

All that "is" can be portrayed, with some approximation of accuracy. Accuracy is influenced by understanding, by awareness, by linguistical or conceptual limitations, by sociological or personal/interpersonal bias and a whole lot of other things. Not all truths are knowable at all times to us mortal, our job is to both expand the circumference of our knowledge of truth as well as tighten the focus of our understanding.

If anybody cares I can elaborate, if nobody does I won't say any more.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

Mingano... it's obvious the teachings from Joseph Smith (and Joseph Fielding Smith carrying them on... and Denver Snuffer for that matter) is really getting under your skin. Why don't you step back and realize who you are having this fight with? (Hint: It's not RabbanahLlama)

I don't care about this snuffer guy. Don't know him, don't know anything about him.

And stop, take a deep breath and look at the allegations here.

1. It has been stated that adultery is having sexual relations with any person to whom you are not legally married.
2. Joseph F Smith reportedly declared that anybody who commits adultery was forever denied the CK
3. Joseph F Smith had sexual relations with several women to whom he was not legally married, specifically Julina Lambson, Sarah Ellen Richards, Edna Lambson, Alice Ann Kimball, and Mary Taylor Schwartz.

3 is factual and beyond dispute. What is getting under my skin is the disconnect here. If #1 is correct the JFS declared that he cannot go to the CK. This seems illogical and unlikely. Therefore #1 must be a flawed definition - which, since it is non-canonical seems likely.

What gets under my skin is declarations of things by people who absolutely refuse to even consider any points to the contrary. It drives me up the wall.

(And this isn't even touching on the other, deeper issues here - but if people can't accept that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not canonical scripture they haven't got the slightest chance of learning anything new.)

[Raindropcaptain of 100]

In Blue.

Mingano... it's obvious the teachings from Joseph Smith (and Joseph Fielding Smith carrying them on... and Denver Snuffer for that matter) is really getting under your skin. Why don't you step back and realize who you are having this fight with? (Hint: It's not RabbanahLlama)

I don't care about this snuffer guy. Don't know him, don't know anything about him. Fair enough.

And stop, take a deep breath and look at the allegations here. Allegations? Okay....

1. It has been stated that adultery is having sexual relations with any person to whom you are not legally married. That's right. That's what we teach in the temple... do you attend?
2. Joseph F Smith reportedly declared that anybody who commits adultery was forever denied the CK You're getting your Joseph Smith's mixed up. Joseph F. Smith was never quoted in the OP.
3. Joseph F Smith had sexual relations with several women to whom he was not legally married, specifically Julina Lambson, Sarah Ellen Richards, Edna Lambson, Alice Ann Kimball, and Mary Taylor Schwartz. Who cares? We're not talking about Joseph F Smith here.

3 is factual and beyond dispute. What is getting under my skin is the disconnect here. Maybe the disconnect is coming from your being so emotionally invested in the topic that you aren't reading what's really in the thread. If #1 is correct the JFS declared that he cannot go to the CK. This seems illogical and unlikely. Therefore #1 must be a flawed definition - which, since it is non-canonical seems likely. Again, you're getting everything all jumbled up here... attributing quotes erroneously, etc.

What gets under my skin is declarations of things by people who absolutely refuse to even consider any points to the contrary. It drives me up the wall. Looks to me like Rab is considering your points to a great degree... probably to the tune of over an hour or so of his/her time today???? What more do you want? If Rab didn't care, you would be ignored. Like I ignore awake.

(And this isn't even touching on the other, deeper issues here - but if people can't accept that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not canonical scripture they haven't got the slightest chance of learning anything new.) Oh, now... isn't that a harsh judgment? I've read the thread through... I must have missed someone quoting the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (was it awake?) Anyhoo... I think people learn new things just as soon as they are prepared to. You shouldn't put hoops out there for people to jump through to prove themselves to you. Oftentimes people will surprise you.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

3. Joseph F Smith had sexual relations with several women to whom he was not legally married, specifically Julina Lambson, Sarah Ellen Richards, Edna Lambson, Alice Ann Kimball, and Mary Taylor Schwartz. Who cares? We're not talking about Joseph F Smith here.

It is a universal truth or it isn't. You can't say "who cares" to some situations and not to others if it is a universal truth then it applies to everybody at all times.

Again, you're getting everything all jumbled up here... attributing quotes erroneously, etc.

Ok, you take a crack at it. If ALL sexual relations by a married person with anybody to whom you are NOT LAWFULLY married is adultery and the modern practice of polygamy was NOT LEGAL then either the definition of adultery is inaccurate (or at least incomplete) or all male polygamists were adulterers.

(And this isn't even touching on the other, deeper issues here - but if people can't accept that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not canonical scripture they haven't got the slightest chance of learning anything new.) Oh, now... isn't that a harsh judgment? I've read the thread through... I must have missed someone quoting the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (was it awake?)[/quote]

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was quoted by OP as the very first line of the very first post. It is how he started this entire thing.

[gdemetzcaptain of 100]

Even murderers can inherit the Celestial Kingdom! Remember the people of Ammon! However, in the case of King David it will take him a good while longer (assuming he has repented totally) due toi the fact that his accountability was much higher than the people of Ammon. I recommend that some here read D&C 19 carefully, and also go back and look at some of the things the prophets have taught concerning this matter, including the statements by Brigham Young I already quoted here.

[BrianM]

Mingano I think I am missing your point. I believe "legal and lawful" mean "legal and lawful" and never said otherwise. I am not following your train of thought.

If "legal and lawful" has an explicit meaning then Brigham Young is excluded from the CK.

I'd say "legal and lawful" is defined based on God's Law and not Man's law. If God declares something is right, it is 'legal and lawful'