Deep Waters: How many wives? How many husbands?


Jesus said, “He that receiveth me receiveth my Father; and he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.” (D&C 84:37-38.)

Simple logic deduces that the Father has more of everything than any one of his children, or than all of them combined. (The Lord explained this principle in Abraham 3: 19, using intelligence as an example.) So, if Brigham Young had 56 wives, the Father has more. If Solomon had 300 wives, the Father has more.

We are taught that there never was a time when there was no God; that God the Father had a Father and so did he, and so on throughout eternity. I ask, then, can any of this infinite number of gods have more than our heavenly Father? Of course, not. “It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another” (D&C 49: 20) is a heavenly principle. So, if a god has x-amount of wives, so do all gods have x-amount of wives. It is likewise a principle of the heavens that they have “all things common.” (See Acts 4: 32; 3 Ne. 26: 19; 4 Ne. 1: 3.)

Godhood can be defined as receiving all there is to receive. So, how many wives does God have? He has as many wives as there are goddesses in the heavens. How many is that? An infinite number that continues to grow as more women become exalted.

Now let’s talk about husbands. If there is at least one goddess in heaven that has more than one husband, all the goddesses must have more than one husband. No goddess can have more or less than any other goddess. They must all be “equal in the bonds of heavenly things” (D&C 78: 5), including the marital bonds. The scriptures explain that polyandry (one wife with multiple husbands) is part of the law of the Lord. (See D&C 132: 41.)

So, it becomes apparent that the heavens are made up of gods and goddesses who are all married to each other. (They have “all things common.”) This is why we read that early GAs, during the time of Brigham Young, etc., referred to the practice of plural marriage as being a requirement of exaltation. It most definitely is. We are not required to live it now, but we will be required to live it then.

So, to answer the question, how many wives will a man receive when he enters his exaltation? He will receive all the wives there are and all the wives there will be in the heavens, without limit. And how many husbands will a woman receive when she enters into her exaltation? She will receive all the husbands there are and all the husbands there will be in the heavens, without limit. Each man or woman must be willing to share what they have with all the others and to receive what all the others have. They must enter into the state of having all things common.

This is my understanding of the doctrine of the Lord, as revealed in the scriptures.

Next Deep Waters article: Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?

Previous Deep Waters article: Deep Waters: Disclaimer and Password

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

About these ads

83 Comments

  1. So everyone will be married to each other? To me that just doesn’t sound right. Polygamy is the one thing that I have had trouble with. Not because I believe it’s wrong, but because I don’t wish to participate. I have a hard enough time with one woman and I could only imagine the difficulty with more than one wife. In D&C 84 does He literally mean we will have what the Father has in the way of His wives (OUR MOTHERS!!!!)? Or does he simply mean we will have all the Father has in that we will also have multiple wives? Do we need to share marriage to have all things in common? I have no problem sharing, but sharing my wife? I’d rather not progress in one of the lower kingdoms. Once all things are made clear, I might be able to understand better but for now I want nothing to do with that type of sharing. I’m not bashing your post, it’s just my own thoughts on the subject.

  2. I can’t come to any other conclusion, based upon the scriptures. Had Jesus phrased it, “he that receiveth me, receiveth a kingdom like my Father’s; therefore all things that shall be given unto him shall be like unto all that my Father hath,” then I could come to a conclusion that we’ll be getting our own, personal, non-shared things. But, Jesus doesn’t say that. It’s like the difference between a father taking his son out to the family car garage and showing him the Mercedes and saying, “Son, if you get good grades, when you turn 16, I’m going to give you a Mercedes just like the one I have,” and “Son, if you get good grades, when you turn 16, I’m going to give you this Mercedes that I have.” Obviously, the statements are very different, with different meanings. With the second statement, as it is made to all the father’s sons and daughter, the meaning is that they all get to share in the use of the father’s car, not that he actual gives it to each one of them with exclusive use. The other scriptures just reinforce this same understanding.

    Although many would consider this thought repulsive, the Lord has said that his thoughts are not our thoughts. He has done some things that already fly in the face of modern conventional thoughts, such as Adam and Eve’s children marrying each other, brother to sister. Concerning celestial marriage and plural marriage, the Lord has said, “And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present.” (D&C 132: 66) So, there’s more to come, but the scriptures that we have received already, paint the above picture, though we still don’t know all the laws of how it will work.

    As for accepting it, I try to keep a REALLY open mind when it comes to the things of God, as he stretches his saints continually, with new and foreign things. Abraham and Isaac’s sacrifice is sufficient illustration of this.

  3. Yeah, a person definitely needs to keep an open mind. I gotta say you make a very strong case. Like I said in my first comment, maybe when everything is made clear and I am able to better understand God’s purposes, my decision could change. So here’s a question going off of this topic and assumption that it is true:

    As we progress and eventually come to know all the things God knows, will we remain in God’s kingdom and create our own worlds while still remaining in the bonds of marriage to others? Or will we set out on our own much like a person grows into adulthood and leaves the comfort of their parent’s house to make their way on their own? Is there a marriage hierarchy? Will we pick and choose who we want to go off with if that is the way that it happens?

  4. I think God doesn’t have the same limitations as we do. He can travel from one world to another as easy as it is for us to walk from one room to another. Setting off on our own doesn’t carry much meaning if it takes virtually no time to return from whence you left and if you can see all things, including the house you left from, at all times. In such a state of existence, “all things are continually before [you],” just as the scripture says. So, I think he does it all. It is not a “this or that” situation, but a “this and that and everything else” situation. I think he exercises all of his powers, otherwise, to what purpose would possessing power serve if it was not to be used? So, I think the answer to your first, second and last questions is “yes.” As for a marriage hierarchy, I’m not sure what you mean by that.

  5. Marriage hierarchy, I mean the woman we are sealed to in this life being our first, does she outrank those that are to come after her? Sometimes I don’t elaborate my thoughts and it gets confusing. I was thinking that if we were to go and create our own worlds away from where God is, and assuming that we were married to everyone, who would we take with us? Would it just be the highest in OUR hierarchy of marriages? I totally understand your last response though which makes this question irrelevant. But my thoughts were along the lines of mortal understanding of our existence in this sphere of space and time. It’s hard to truly grasp leaving, but not leaving, since all things will be in front of us.

  6. I don’t think marriage hierarchy exists for a couple of reasons. Anything that God thinks of doing, he does. The same thing should apply to any god or goddess. A marriage hierarchy would only make sense if the first wife, who takes precedence, needed to give permission to later wives for something, or permission to the husband, for something or other. I cannot see God, or any god or goddess asking permission for anything. I also cannot see them receiving a “no” answer and being denied. They all have the same mind and will, so agreement and co-operation is the way things would be done in the heavens, so why would there need to be a marriage hierarchy, in the first place? Marriage hierarchies would exist here on earth, due to our imperfections and jealousies.

    The second reason that I think it wouldn’t exist is because we have been given the earthly ordinances necessary in order to save ourselves and qualify ourselves for exaltation, but we haven’t been given the ordinance(s) that actually enter us into godhood. So, there are more ordinances, heavenly ordinances. We don’t know what they consist of, but when we are anointed kings and queens, there may be some type of group marriage ordinance which seals us to everyone at once, that levels the playing field, so to speak, meaning that no longer do we see our first wife or first husband as the first, but from the moment of entering into godhood, all spouses become equally first (and last.)

    God has the ability to embrace both the individual (one) and the eternal (infinite) at the same time. So, through the light of Christ, he is in all things, above all things, through all things, below all things, and is everywhere present at the same time, and can, in this sense, be called omnipresent, but also due to his physical body he can be in a specific location only at any given time. So, it may be the same with marriage. We can refer to having a first wife or husband (a hierarchy) and also to all wives or husbands being equal (the infinite number we get sealed to in a group marriage ordinance.)

    This is all speculation, of course. It may be that we become sealed one at a time to each new spouse, but as there are undoubtedly an infinite number (to us), this doesn’t seem likely. But who knows? All I know is I want to be a part of whatever type of life the Lord leads, as it seems to be the most exciting type of all.

  7. Sorry, but I feel that there is something very wrong here..

  8. Yeah, I’m not feeling it either. This seems like a huge stretch.

  9. I know this post is really old, but I just found it.

    My current preferred interpretation of “all my father hath” is limited to (The Glory of God is) intelligence. He personally doesn’t ‘own’ the universe, the elements, etc., but these things belong to all gods. The only thing that he has to give away is intelligence (knowledge, power to manipulate, etc.) He doesn’t own his wife/wifes, he can’t give them away.

  10. I’ve got to agree with ed42 on this one. If anything, God’s wife/wives ha{s,ve} more power than he does, if you take the Mormon idea that God the Mother possess all creative power seriously (e.g.: woman is the car, man is the keys to the car).

    This is why Mormons seek the most reverence for God the Mother — we would rather disrespect our Father by speaking falsely and vainly of him than to possibly perpetrate false doctrines about our Heavenly Mother.

    Personally, I think that we are all the product of only one of God’s wives and not of all of God’s wives, but that’s just me. I like to think Adam and Eve are the Father and Mother come down to bear their physical children after bearing them as spirit children. Even disregarding the Adam-God doctrine, I still think God must have had other worlds by his other wives, and our world is the product of he and one wife only (taking the similitude of Brothers and Sisters literally; certainly we are still brothers and sisters to our half-siblings of other worlds if the godly pairings are indeed 1-to-1). Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I imagine we will end up doing it in our process of exaltation to Godhood.

  11. I just now published an article on adultery and it made me think of ed42’s comment:

    He doesn’t own his wife/wifes, he can’t give them away.

    Researching the article on adultery, it became plain that during biblical times, the wife was the property of the husband, as in she was owned by her husband or belonged to him. It also became apparent that the wording of D&C 132 concerning marriage is that the wife belongs to her husband (or is owned or the property of her husband), that the wife is given to her husband and that the husband receives the wife, and not vice versa.

    If God doesn’t own His wives and can’t give them away, I wonder why the language of the celestial doctrine of marriage found in D&C 132 implies just such a concept?

    I think culturally we are conditioned to look upon marriage one way, the way of our culture, but if you just take the words at face value, without putting them through modern cultural sanitation filters, they match what we have in the Bible, a culture vastly different than our own. Ownership, then, appears to apply to more than just knowledge, but to people, too.

    Derek, I don’t believe that God’s wives have more power than He does. The whole purpose of temple marriage is to become exalted (D&C 132: 63) and as exaltation is possessing all there is to possess, every god and goddess must be equally powerful.

    I also believe that we here on Earth are children of only one of God’s wives, but that He has other wives and other children on other worlds.

    Thanks, everyone, for the visits and comments, although it appears that no one agrees with this post… :(

  12. I think you may possibly be right LDS Anarchist.

    This has been tried already here on the earth. The Oneida community that existed at basically the same time as the beginning of the Mormon Restoration practiced “complex marriage” in which every man in the community was married to every woman in the community.

    The one thing I wonder about here is that I have seen it claimed that Joseph Smith once said “that a community of wives” was not being practiced by Mormons who had been accused of the same and such a practice would be “an abomination before God.”

    Does anyone have the citation for such a quote and, do you think that Joseph was just “lying for the Lord” and not casting pearls before swine, etc?

  13. John, I have not heard of the Oneida community. I’ll have to look that up. That sounds interesting.

    I do not know of those citations, either. Perhaps Derek or OWIW or someone else can inform us?

  14. Just google

    complex marriage

    and you’ll instantly find details regarding the Oneida community.

    The only thing left of them today is the world’s largest silverware company. ;)

  15. There is a presumption I find in the reference of “all things common”. In all the scriptures you sited, all they referred to were items. Just like under the Law of Consecration, all things would be common. I’m sorry, but I don’t think God ever refers to his greatest creations as things. Nor does he ever refer to a woman as a possession. A woman can belong to a man, because that is who she is dedicated her life with to raise their children. So those scriptures don’t help the argument.

    Plus, we know that God is a God of order. And with polygamy, there is an order to things. A man is sealed to lots of women. The man knows his children. There is a direct lineage. That is a house of order to me. Plus, what is the use for genealogy on this earth, if everyone could just get sealed to everyone else. It would negate the need for it.

    Now, as in all things, if it is a true principle given me by God, then of course I’ll accept it. In my opinion, to receive all that the Father has, means His knowledge and priesthood.

  16. Joseph Smith taught that Adam was God. See his little known last public sermon on June 16, 1844, 11 days before his martyrdom. Most thing that the King Follett Discourse was his last sermon. It wasn’t. This one is. To wit:

    http://www.moroni10.com/General_Conference/Joseph_Smith_Final_Talk.html

    Now, Adam being established as God, Father of all under this planet, under Eloheim, stated quite plainly that his wife, Eve, was his possession. To wit from Genesis 2:23:

    23 And Adam said, This is now bone of MY bones, and flesh of MY flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    >>>Now, when you study the Law of Consecreation, once a property has been consecrated, and you receive a stewardship back from it or some other property, the purpose of the Stewardship is to IMPROVE the property.

    That’s the purpose of headship. Christ’s responsibility as our head and as the one who OWNS us is to IMPROVE us. Likewise, a husband, who is the head of the wife, and who owns the wife, his responsibility is to (try) to IMPROVE his wife. Instruct her and their children in the ways and laws of the Lord and the Gospel.

  17. For me that JS sermon did not prove that he taught Adam was God. For how can Adam, who we know is Micheal the Archangel, be God too? The scriptures speak quite decisively about there being angels as servants to the Gods. What does seem obvious from the sermon is that there was a Grand Council convened. And out of that council came a few things: 1) One of the Gods was appointed over this earth, His son Jesus Christ was to be the sacrifice. 2) The spirits got to choose which plan. 3) Micheal, became Adam, the father of all humans on earth. The temple ceremony helps define the rolls.

    And Genesis 2:23, that is your personal thought about it. It doesn’t prove in the wording that Eve was his possession. It does prove that there exists a relationship between man and woman that is so close, they are part of each other. A help meet and a possession for me are two different things. And, everything is God’s, nothing is ours, so you can not own a woman. However, God does commands his creations, for we are His. I have two children, I don’t possess them, I am a caregiver, teacher, nurturer, etc. of them, but don’t possess them. So, I have a stewardship over them. As a father and husband, my spouse has a stewardship over us, to provide for us and bless us with the priesthood. As a woman, my stewardship is to look after my children and be a help meet to my husband. Which means we improve each other.

    As for the original post I made. I just am not sold on the polyandry, but I am on the polygamy as a heavenly principle. I just think there were a few too many presumptions and personal interpretations that didn’t convince me.

  18. Keep reading, perhaps it will be revealed to you.

    Re: Adam and his wife Eve, look it up,

    MY

    is a

    POSSESSIVE

    pronoun.

  19. In other words, you’ll notice that in Genesis 2:23, the word OUR wasn’t used.

    Of course, this is consistent throughout all of Scripture, including Mormon Scripture.

    Women are always the property of some man at all times.

    Either her father’s property; or, if she has a husband (or husbands), her husband’s property.

    One’s flesh may not like these truths, but this is what says Holy Writ.

    Joseph knew it very well too, as is quite plain in D & C 132 and other Mormon Scripture.

  20. Do you know what an ARCH-angel is?

    The *head* of the angels.

    Who other than God would be the head of the angels? ;)

    PS The temple ceremony language was changed. In the past, temple language ceremony revealed that Adam was God. After Brigham Young died, as revelation began to wane, and others came along who didn’t understand the Adam-God doctrine, they rewrote the temple ceremony to what you find today. If you’ll research this, you’ll find that it is true.

  21. PPS 239 Adam-God citations from the early LDS church as taught by
    Presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young supporting Adam-
    God from primary sources also found at

    http:// http://www.ldshistory.net /adam-god/ag.html

    http:// http://www.ldshistory.net /adam-god/ag2.html

    http:// http://www.ldshistory.net /adam-god/ag3.html

    http:// http://www.ldshistory.net /adam-god/ag3.html

    http:// http://www.ldshistory.net /adam-god/ag5.html

    Read every single one of those 239 primary source citations of Adam-God doctrine being taught and understood in the early LDS church and it becomes one of the most
    devestating refutations of an argument (that Adam-God wasn’t taught in the early LDS church) ever witnessed. By the way, I had to put spaces in each of the above links for it to post for some reason, and so you’ll have to type the above links in manually for them to work and for you to reach them.

  22. No, they are not part of each other.

    You won’t find a single place in which Eve was recorded saying that Adam was bone of HER bone; and flesh of HER flesh.

    You won’t find a single place where either of them said that the other was bone of OUR bone; bone of OUR flesh.

    The use by *Adam* of the *possessive* pronoun MY sets the stage for all of the following Biblical and Mormon Scripture, all of which overwhemingly proves and identifies women as under the headship or their fathers or their husbands throughout their entire lives.

    I’ve laid out the Scriptures. There are literally so many dozens of them they probably run into the hundreds, and it’s one of the easiest to establish principles of Scripture that there is.

    All heads OWN the properties they’ve been placed over to prove.

    Jesus Christ OWNS me.

    I don’t OWN him AND he owns me.

    We owns me alone.

    He is my Head.

    I submit to Him.

  23. Typos corrected below:

    All heads OWN the properties they’ve been placed over to IMprove.

    Jesus Christ OWNS me.

    I don’t OWN him AND he owns me.

    He owns me alone.

    He is my Head.

    I submit to Him.

  24. When we become ONE flesh, Jesus and I, it is NOT half of my flesh, and half of his flesh, that is the result.

    The Head ABSORBS the lesser into the greater to become ONE.

    Jesus, the Head of me, ABSORBS me the lesser into Himself to become One Flesh.

    The ONLY flesh that remains, thereafter, is HIS flesh.

    My identity is ELIMINATED.

    In HIM.

    That’s true submission.

  25. Genesis 2:23 has the possessive my in it. But the my is only referencing Adam’s bones and Adam’s flesh. It is not referencing Eve at all. She is from Adam’s bone and flesh. As well, as she is to cleave unto him and can become one flesh. This is referencing the union between a man and a woman, a sacred act of procreation. And I have found no reference in the scriptures saying that a woman is a man’s possession. She is “given in marriage”, but your possession model goes to far to imply that she is owned by her husband.

    As for the Adam God Theory. I will agree that I could call Adam a God, just like the Savior and Heavenly Father. However, it takes it too far with the implication that Brigham Young meant that Adam was our Heavenly Father. God over this earth refers to the fact that he is the first man on this earth and holds the keys to it. He is not also our Heavenly Father. He would then be talking to who in the Garden of Eden?

    As for the polyandry idea. in Moses 5:3, it says that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve paired off and went forth. It does not say that Adam ever took a daughter to wife. It only ever says he conceived with Eve. And again, Adam’s lineage is written down, so it is important to know who a man’s children are. The confusion that would exist in polyandry is not a house of order.

  26. JL,

    it’s getting pretty silly now.

    Adam referring to his wife Eve as MY flesh; and as MY bones, as not referencing his wife Eve at all?

    Please.

    As far as woman being the property of men all of their lives, either their fathers, or their husbands, that’s so axiomatic that a person who doesn’t understand this apparently has not even read the Bible at all. My only Scripture reference to you would be the Bible. Or I could supply you with a link to an article that references dozens, if not hundreds, of Scriptures that proof what any semi-serious Bible scholar already knows.

    Brigham Young plainly said in dozens of his sermons that Adam was our Heavenly Father. You might want to read some of them first.

    Since there is a chain of fathers, that would answer your question re: the Garden of Eden situation.

    Regarding polyandry, permits the reason that the Lord didn’t give it until the 1840s is because, with recent advancements in technology in with paternity is easily traceable and provable, polyandry IS able to be practiced with just as much order as polygyny.

  27. LDS Anarchist, regarding the “complex marriage” concept that you have advocated based on Mormon Scripture, I notice that D & C 70:14 says:

    “Nevertheless, in yor temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.

    >>>Since one ofthe most fundamental understandings of Mormonism is that families are eternal, perhaps 70:14 clearly indicates that ones wives and husbands are NOT included in the temporal things in which we are to be equal. Verse 16 seems to also suggest as much as food, raiment, hiuses and lands are listed, and spouses are conspicuously absent.

    Your thoughts? I’m still on board with D & C 132:41-44 permitting some form of priesthood directed polyandry, but I now have reservations about “group” or “commom” marriage.

    Your thoughts are solicited.

    ?

  28. John, I am reminded of a few scriptures: D&C 29: 34-35, D&C 132: 55, also the scripture quoted in the post above D&C 78: 4-7.

    Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created. Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual. (D&C 29: 34-35)

    But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds. (D&C 132: 55)

    For a permanent and everlasting establishment and order unto my church, to advance the cause, which ye have espoused, to the salvation of man, and to the glory of your Father who is in heaven; that you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; for if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you. (D&C 78: 4-7)

    A couple of comments on the above scriptures: First, my understanding is that the Lord considers all there is as things. So, we find Him talking of heavenly things and of earthly things, yet we know that the heavenly is eternal and that all is alive there (quickened). Second, in describing his commandments, he sees everything as spiritual, not temporal. That goes likewise for the Word of Wisdom, etc. The division between temporal and spiritual seems to be made for man’s benefit only. Third, the Lord aims for permanency in all things, so that everything becomes everlasting, even that which we normally think of as temporal. (And so the necessity of the Resurrection.) Fourth, Joseph was promised that he would be given (as in possession) certain things. Among the list is what we mortals would normally consider things (lands, houses) but also what we mortals would normally consider persons or people (fathers, mothers, etc.) In other words, we mortals divide everything into living things (people or individuals) and non-living things (rocks, lands, houses, etc.), but to the Lord, there does not appear to any such division. All things are alive, even the rocks. That is why the Lord is able to make children of Abraham out of stones (Matt. 3: 9.) Even the Lord’s use of the word “creature” to describe who is to be preached to is different than what we mortals would think of as a creature (a beast, not a human.)

    I guess my point is that the scripture that you quote was to teach the people that the Lord makes no division between temporal and spiritual, that if you want to have the abundances of the Spirit, but have temporal inequalities (some rich, some poor), that such inequalities disqualify the group because in heaven everything is shared by all and there are no rich and poor, but all are made rich. Once it becomes plain that there can be no inequalities in heaven, and that all things are permanent, the premise of the post should be self-evident.

  29. LDS Anarchist, what do you think of this analysis below? This Deep Waters article seemed to be the most appropriate place to post this. To wit:

    Proof that Eve was an Adulteress and that Cain was her son by Satan Inbox X FACTboard X
    John Lester aka the GEMSMAKER! to Father
    show details 9:39 PM (5 minutes ago)

    Reply

    Proof that Eve was an Adulteress and that Cain was her Son by Satan

    [Note from Admin: John, I snipped the rest of this comment and put a link to the same text found on your web site. In the future, try to keep your comments short as I believe this system automatically puts long comments in the moderation queue.]

  30. I think many of you are looking beyond the basic and pure principles of the gospel and searching for those things which haven’t been clearly reaveled to us at the present time. Joseph Fielding Smith and all the prophets warned against this. Clearly, from the statements made above, you are in err. From the holy scriptures it is revealed that Adam is not God! It is true the he is the patriach of the human race but he is not God the Father or the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the first principle of the gospel to know the character of God and if you do not know these things I suggest you go back to the basics. As to the post I don’t agree that we will all marry eachother in heaven. It doesn’t line up with what has been revealed and is a false doctrine that isn’t sweet to the taste. Sound logic and order will refute it!

  31. JRummler,

    “sound logic and reason?”

    Based on your own words, you’re not a Gospel Believer, you’re an atheistic Greek philosopher.

    Gospel believers still strictly with Scripture. And any new revelations agree with or at least to not violate the principles laid down in previous Scripture.

    Brigham Young extensively and repeatedly preached that Adam IS God, in no uncertain and explicit terms, over and over and over again during a span of a full quarter century.

    Obviously, you’ve never read them.

    I have.

    It is you who don’t understand Basic Gospel principles. And the LDS itself.

    The LDS doesn’t even understand its own Scripture. At least not institutionally, although there are a few members here and there that do.

  32. PPS 239 Adam-God citations from the early LDS church as taught by
    Presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young supporting Adam-
    God from primary sources also found at

    ldshistory.net / adam-god/ag.html
    ldshistory.net / adam-god/ag2.html
    ldshistory.net /adam-god/ag3.html
    ldshistory.net / adam-god/ag3.html
    ldshistory.net / adam-god/ag5.html

    Read every single one of those 239 primary source citations of Adam-God doctrine being taught and understood in the early LDS church and it becomes one of the most
    devestating refutations of an argument (that Adam-God wasn’t taught in the early LDS church) ever witnessed. By the way, I had to put spaces in each of the above links for it to post for some reason, and so you’ll have to type the above links in manually for them to work and for you to reach them.

    Note added as of February 22, 2009…my, I could add so much more…

  33. And anyone who doesn’t understand that Adam IS God, doesn’t understand one of the most fundamental Mormon (and Bible) doctrines.

    The doctrine of progression.

    If you don’t understand that Adam IS gone, you don’t even have the First Clue of what the doctrine of progression really is all about…

  34. gone=GOD above, typos, typos, typos…

  35. So let me get this straight. You believe Adam is Heavenly Father?

  36. The status of the “Adam-God theory” was summed up in 1897 in a private letter outlined by President Wilford Woodruff and written by Apostle Joseph F. Smith:

    President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church.
    Brigham Young’s “bare mention” was without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth. Only the scripture, the accepted word of God,” is the Church’s standard (Letter to A. Saxey, January 7, 1897, LDS Archives).

  37. No, Brigham Young does.

    So did Joseph Smith.

    Why don’t you stop “thinking” and start off by reading the 239 *primary* sources that are linked above that show that

    VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE LDS

    under Brigham Young’s administration believed that Adam IS God.

    And then read Joseph Smith’s last two sermons. You’ll have a hard time finding the VERY last one. But I’ve read it.

    His second to last one was the King Follett discourse. Most falsely think that was the last one. There was a last sermon, however, 11 days prior to his martyrdom, on June 16, 1844, when Joseph Smith revealed Adam-God doctrine more fully than ever before.

    And that’s why Brigham Young taught it and that’s why you discover that most of the LDS during Brigham Young’s administration believed it and taught it.

    Most LDS have no clue as to what Mormon Scripture says about the most fundamental of its doctrines and the way Joseph Smith and Brigham Young understood it and taught it barely over a century ago.

  38. In 1976 President Spencer W. Kimball stated the following:

    We wam you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine (Church News, Oct. 9, 1976).

  39. The sermon you stated does not say the word Adam once. Where do you get that Adam is God from Joseph Smith’s sermon?

  40. Woodruff is an apostate, and not a prophet.

    Joseph Field Smith was a vacillating man who maintained secretly Mormon Scriptural principles as long as he could.

    What Woodruff said is worthless, as a result of the above.

    Regarding your question,

    1. Ask it of me again AFTER you read the 239 citations provided above, every single one of them.

    2. And then clarify which of the two (2) sermons I cite that you are referencing?

    And then go do your homework on the web and at the LDS church historical library where I spent and entire week buried reading dozens of Brigham Young’s sermons where Brigham Young repeatedly, over and over and over again, plainly said, in

    NO UNCERTAIN TERMS

    that Adam IS God.

    Starting with Woodruff and going forward, the Puritan PROTESTANT ELEMENTS within the LDS (in other words, the ones who were still fully immersed in their SECTARIAN backgrounds and notions which Prophet Joseph Smith so vehemently condemned), systematically began de-constructing the very same doctrines for which Joseph Smith was MURDERED for by William Law and other TOP LEADERSHIP surrounding Joseph Smith in the LDS there in 1844. They thought in their darkened sectarian minds that by killing Joseph Smith they were doing God and the Church a service.

    God allowed it because God’s purposes for Joseph’s earthly life were, at least at that time, over (but those involved will bear their blame).

    The 239 citations supplied above help you to understand what the LDS was

    TAUGHT

    and what

    THEY BELIEVED

    under the Administrations of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor, before Lucifer came in thru Woodruff and others to follow and, in addition to murdering Joseph Smith, began deconstructing many of the very doctrines for which he gladly died.

    But, as always, it’s all under God’s control and the Lord is on the verge of RESTORING that which has been lost and much, much more…

  41. In other words, William Law and his ilk murdered Joseph’s body.

    Woodruff and other “Presidents” in the LDS since then have “murdered” many of the doctrines for which Joseph Smith died.

    That’s partly because they’re blind, and do not understand them, any better than Woodruff and others of his ilk did.

  42. And, by the way, you don’t need Mormon Scripture nor any of the sermons of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to understand that Adam IS God.

    It is smack dab in the Bible alone plain as day for all to read and understand by plain language and/or by revelation.

  43. I’m glad you gave more comments. Especially how you think your understanding is above modern day prophets. You clearly show every right minded person who will read this that you are apostatizing from the church.

  44. Wrong again.

    I’m the grandson of a Pentecostal preacher who has never been a member of the LDS church.

    It’s literally impossible for me to be an apostate of the LDS church.

    The LDS church is apostate, however.

    I can read.

    But God will restore her.

    I love the LDS church.

    She’s beautiful.

    But she’s been misled.

    But God will restore her.

  45. And, by the way, do you ever support any of your points with a Scriptural or sermon reference from an actual prophet?

    In case you’re not aware, prophets are those that receive Revelations from God that become Scripture.

    There hasn’t hardly been one of those from a LDS President since John Taylor.

    Funny how God has completely stopped speaking to the “modern Presidents” of the LDS church, eh?

    Kind of like heaven has become a stone wall…

    …but God will speak to her yet again.

  46. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam–God_theory

    Statements by leaders of the movement

    There are several sources that support this, arranged chronologically:
    1. In June 1835, William W. Phelps states that we have the opportunity to “become archangels”. [1] Joseph taught that angels are “resurrected or translated” beings [2] and that Adam was “Michael the Archangel”. [3] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “archangel” as “a chief angel”. Joseph said that “spirits can only be revealed in flaming fire or glory. Angels have advanced further, their light and glory being tabernacled… Angels have advanced higher in knowledge and power than spirits.” [4]
    2. On May 16, 1841, Joseph taught that an “everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham’s record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator.” [5]
    Joseph seems to be suggesting that the 3 Gods made a covenant between themselves that related to their dispensation on earth, meaning that God the Father may have had a dispensation on earth.[citation needed]
    This inference is perhaps weakened by the LDS doctrine that God the third, the witness or Testator, has had no such dispensation on earth. [6]
    4. The following statement was recorded by Anson Call in Nauvoo and copied by Patriarch John M. Whitaker also of Nauvoo. Elder B. H. Roberts, Church Historian and one of the First Presidents of the Seventy later made a copy from Patriarch Whitaker. Date c. 1800-1844: “Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay…was made mortal and subject to death.”
    5. In June, 1854, Apostle Franklin D. Richards, British Mission President stated that “Adam is our Father and our God” and that the Lord had revealed this to the Prophet Joseph in a revelation. [7]
    6. On April 4, 1860 a meeting was held in the Church Historian’s Office in Salt Lake City at 7pm. Several apostles were in attendance. Brigham Young said: “It was Joseph’s doctrine that Adam was God… God comes to earth & eats & partakes of fruit. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him, & if Joseph had it revealed, he was not told to reveal it.”[citation needed]
    7. On September 4, 1860, George Q. Cannon said “…that Adam is our Father [and] is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print….” [8]
    8. On December 16, 1867 at a meeting of the School of the Prophets: “President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel, & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this principle.” [9]

  47. One should read the entire Wikipedia article. I don’t get my info from Wikipedia, by the way. I go to primary source documents. I simply posted this to help you out in a remedial fashion.

  48. Well, I am going to disagree on the basic premise. But I do have a friend who has expressed a similar thought in the past.

    We are to be ONE with our spouse. That, to me, is an absense of ownership. You are one flesh, mind, etc. On the other hand, when talking about my body, I say “my arm” or similar. I guess maybe a better way to describe it would be dual ownership. And if we literally become ONE flesh won’t that eliminate copulation? That is really what everyone is so worked up about-imagining copulating with anyone/everyone. I am willing to speculate that spiritual creation is much more effecient. As a woman, it is the premise that we will continue to be “less than” in the hereafter. I believe that man and woman are equal in the sight of God. And one is not without the other-nor can either create without the other.

    And yet, we won’t even be ourselves if we become ONE with God. Will we? As we unify with Christ we become an altogether different (new) creature. 2 Cor. 5: 17 Mosiah 27: 26 Do we even comprehend what that means?
    We are also commanded to cleave to Him.

    Does anyone have a scriptural reference for Heavenly Father having multiple wives? I’m wondering/thinking that all exalted beings are ONE with their spouse-literally.

  49. If you’re a true Christian, it doesn’t mattter, to quote you, “what you think.”

    The Scripture is of No Private Interpretation.

    The Bible is unyielding on this and many other points.

    Wives are the Inferior of their Husbands.

    Their husbands are their SCOs (Superior Commanding Officers).

    This is reaffirmed in the Christian New Testament

    WHERE IT IS WRITTEN

    that Christ is UNDER God, Man is UNDER Christ, and woman is UNDER Man.

    By today’s standards, the Bible is the most misogynist book ever written.

    However, this world is destined to be DESTROYED BY FIRE as well.

    And this world lies in SIN and WICKEDNESS.

    And your notions, if they do not align with Scripture, are wicked as well.

    As are mine, if they do not align with Scripture.

    The Scripture reference that you seek is Ezekiel 23 where God describes himself as being the husband of TWO SISTERS.

    I believe Jeremiah Chapter 3 has a similar reference.

    PS In Genesis Chapter 3, Eve is told from God’s lips directly that Adam will RULE her. It also implies, in the underlying Hebrew,

    THAT IN HER WICKEDNESS

    she would constantly be trying to throw off that RULE (given her rebellious nature first demonstrated in the Garden).

    Her daughters are alive and well in every “church” still today…

    …but they’ll be ELIMINATED in the Final Battle.

    No sin will be permitted to enter into the 1400 mile cubic object described in Revelation 21 that comes down from outer space and hovers over the glassy flat surface and sealess surface of the New Earth (this present earth having been DESTROYED BY FIRE).

    THUS IT IS WRITTEN.

    THUS SHALL IT BE DONE.

    Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus. RULE this earth with the ROD OF IRON as thus saith Your Word.

    The Lord is a MAN OF WAR; the LORD IS HIS NAME (that’s a Scripture too).

  50. 1st Corinthians 7:39 *alone* proves that men are permitted multiple wives on this earth; women are permitted only 1 living husband (at a time).

    Some would say that D & C 132 permits a male priesthead directed polyandry.

  51. TruthSeekerToo, I see that you’ve visited this post one time before.

    I think maybe the problem you (and others) are having is with the meaning of the word “ONE.” There is ONE God, we are to be ONE flesh, we hope to be ONE with God, etc.

    I suggest that you (and anyone else so interested) read this article, as it clears up this mystery. Once you understand the real meaning of ONE in these scriptures, it will take away the stumbling block to comprehending the doctrine of plural marriage here and in the eternities. (I feel like a broken record, as this is the third time I’m linking to this article on this blog…)

  52. One more thing, TruthSeekerToo. You asked above, “Does anyone have a scriptural reference for Heavenly Father having multiple wives?”

    The Bible speaks of Jehovah/Yahweh as having more than one wife. See this link. So, Yahweh refers to himself as being in a polygamous relationship. If polygamy were evil and wrong, why would Yahweh associate Himself with it?

    Also, Jesus himself refers to himself as a polygamous husband. See this link. The same question concerning Yahweh applies to Jesus.

  53. I’m not sure where I have ever called (recently, my blog or here) that polygamy is always “evil and wrong.” I maintain a position that it is not doctrine, not required and not the new and everlasting covenant.

    I replied to Todd thinking it was you on the other post. Obviously, I didn’t look close enough at who posted the comment.

    I know the verses you are refering to, I looked at them when John Lester posted it. It is not very convincing to me as I do not see those verses as literal. And it does nothing to prove that polygamy is a doctrine or the (new) new and everlasting covenant.

    I really would just like to know the answers to the questions I posed in the other post.
    I’m growing tired of Todd’s answers and being left to guess what you are thinking.

    Meanwhile, I will look at your other links.

  54. Okay, I believe in a (non sexual) communal sealing concept-as in all men and women are sealed together-not marital sealings. I don’t have an issue with that. We will all be one. No where is it indicated that it will be sexual or physical. When I commented back in February my understanding of oneness, the Godhead, etc were much less developed.

    I do have an issue with the concept of ownership over one another as you seem to indicate in your post. I don’t believe we will all be eachothers husbands and wives. I don’t believe we will be copulating, or going through human gestation and childbirth.

    The doctrinal issues with D&C 132 still remain.

    The 10 virgins are literally GUESTS at the wedding feast. This is indicated by them waiting outside. The literal bride waits inside the house for the bridegroom to come. We know they are SYMBOLIC of the church (bride) through other scriptures. This allegory does not make D&C 132 true.

    Now I do see better where you are coming from, but you haven’t addressed the doctrinal issues for D&C 132.

  55. Here, this might help you sort the parable of the 10 virgins out.

  56. LOL I don’t need help sorting out the 10 virgins parable. I was merely pointing out that it is symbolic, not literal.

  57. And I was merely pointing out that the ten virgins were not mere GUESTS (the word you used) or BRIDESMAIDS, as is typically preached by the Christians, but were actual WIVES. It is a parable, true, but Jesus makes himself the polygamous husband in the parable, coming for his ten brides.

  58. Oh, would you look at this! Apparently, not only do we still practice polygynous sealings, but polyandrous ones, too!

    Click here to read the Church Handbook of Instructions on sealing a woman to multiple husbands!

  59. In case the link ever ceases to work, here is the quote:

    For the Record, From the Current 2006 CHI, page 86

    Deceased Women:

    A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she may be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.

  60. Polyandry – has never existed in the kingdom of God neither in the Time of Joseph Smith nor in the Time of the Ancients – OT, NT, BOM.

    There are many instances where Joseph Smith and others have stated that he who ‘receives’ more (wives) in this life will have the advantage over he who just has one in the next life.

    Living Women
    A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorced, she must
    receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her
    lifetime (see “Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a Sealing Clearance” on this page).
    Deceased Women
    A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. However, if she was
    sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a husband to
    whom she was not sealed during life.

    There is no scriptural account of Polyandry. Not one example. This is a principle of satan. It is basically a great Orgy where every one has everyone elses intimate and personal property – meaning the man belongs to the woman and the woman to the man. Remember we are Sanctified to become Sacred.

    Look at the great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah:

    http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/18.htm

    #11 In those days all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of the whole five cities, were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord and they provoked the Lord with their abominations, and they strengthened in aging abominably and scornfully before the Lord, and their wickedness and crimes were in those days great before the Lord.

    #12 And they had in their land a very extensive valley, about half a day’s walk, and in it there were fountains of water and a great deal of herbage surrounding the water.

    #13 And all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah went there four times in the year, with their wives and children and all belonging to them, and they rejoiced there with timbrels and dances.

    #14 And in the time of rejoicing they would all rise and lay hold of their neighbor’s wives, and some, the virgin daughters of their neighbors, and they enjoyed them, and each man saw his wife and daughter in the hands of his neighbor and did not say a word.

    #15 And they did so from morning to night, and they afterward returned home each man to his house and each woman to her tent; so they always did four times in the year.

    As we can clearly see this is inherently evil in the eyes of the Lord. Malum in se – evil in itself.

    There were people in the time of Joseph Smith who were accusing him of doing such a thing. Apostates and Enemies accused him of marrying women that were already married. The truth was that if Joseph married a women who was married, it was one who was married Temporally and Joseph Smith would only marry her for Eternity, not for Time. A women cannot be married for Time at the same ‘Time’ to two men, further a women can be sealed to multiple men when they are all deceased but will have to make a choice as to which one she will remain with at a certain point.

    Joseph Smith was asked why he could do this… marry another’s man’s wife. His response was that she belonged to him before the world was and that it was his property. And that in Eternity she would be His because His Heavenly Father had give her to Him before the world was.

    Nature has an order. In order for things to exist and have form they must have a structure. All things have an identity which is derived from their structure and uniqueness. No 2 beings are alike. We are born into this world separate and our highest achievement is to unite with another of the opposite gender for all eternity. Our Relational structure In Eternity has been revealed to us and defined by God as Patriarchal, 1 to Many, 1 man to 1 or more women. Meaning each man is made a ruler over his own house.

    But how did we begin as intelligences? Did we begin as separate entities? Or did we exist as a part of a unit (think of an atom), which at spiritual birth was separated to allow for our independence. And now on earth we unite once again forming that unit through sealings, thus becoming united by the Spirit and yet independent and unique Entities; Thus Fulfilling both the Joy of Union and the Everlasting Principle of Independence. Were we born with our wives?

    There is so much we don’t know. But all things give testimony of God and in nature and in the cosmos we can find by communing with God’s Spirit flashes of Eternity.

    Jesus said, “He that receiveth me receiveth my Father; and he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.” (D&C 84:37-38.)

    This Scripture means every principle of intelligence, every attribute of perfection, Plenitude upon Plenitude of Perfection. It doesn’t mean that we all of a sudden start sharing God’s throne and have a say in what He does in His universe. It doesn’t mean that everything belongs to everyone and that now everyone can dispose of everything as he sees fit.

    My father has given me everything he has… every thing he knew on how to become successful and obtain the same power and peace he has. Now I have everything He has.. my own family, my own home, my own posterity.

    Remember also that in the pre-existence that is what satan wanted… to possess what God already had. He wanted to substitute the Father God. Even in the law of Consecration and in Zion, people don’t share everysingle thing. There are bounds and order. Everyone is equal in opportunity to obtain Happiness and Peace.

    You are using the ‘all’ as if it indicated license to do anything and everything. This is not the case for there are bounds to everything. God works within the bounds and has power to do all things.

    Look at your own family. It is a specific unit and structure. It can be added upon but it’s form cannot be altered.

    It was interesting reading something’s on this site. I would recommend that the advances in knowledge be in step with our advances in gaining the characteristics of Jesus Christ, the Gifts of the Spirit, power in the Priesthood, and the fullness of the Spirit. I hope that our time and effort may be placed in becoming born again, having a permanent change of heart, becoming a child meek and submissive having a broken heart and a contrite spirit, Repenting of our Sins and seeking to forgive and receive forgiveness. If not our time on earth will be wasted. You know all these answers already… you just don’t remember, you have a veil.

    This time on Earth was allotted unto us to see whether we would love God, and the greatest manifestation of Loving God, is loving the same things He Loves… His Children… if not all these principles although titillating to the mind do not add an ounce of Intelligence, for Intelligence is the Living Light which fills us with Joy, Power, Peace, and Prophecy to do the Works that the Master Himself did among the people and to become Sanctified.

    “In vain do they talk of happiness who never subdue an impulse in obedience to a principle. He who never sacrificed a present for future good, or a personal to a general one, can speak of happiness only as the blind speak of color.”
    Horace Mann

  61. Plural marriage is a deep doctrine. Just as the law of consecration most people were not and are still not ready for it. These two become “defining” doctrines, they show where you really want to live.
    LDSA I just read this but I agree with you. I don’t think this is an evil or false doctrine. I don’t believe woman are subordinate to men nor should men be subordinate to women. Due to our fallen natures and having been raised in a world filled with corrupt ideas we perceive the word “given” and “property” in a corrupt sense. As LDSA spoke about in one of his posts there is no such thing as righteously dominating another person. All control of another by force or coercion is evil, now and forever. Why? All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. (D&C 93:30)
    Why can’t we use compulsion over others? Because it doesn’t work. Satan and his followers will find this out in the end.
    The desires we have we say are God given. Well technically yes. But He gave us the power to experience and act upon these desires because that is who we are as intelligences. These desires are part of our nature as god intelligences. In this life we have the chance to demonstrate that we can control those desires and use them correctly in the proper time and proper place. That is what the marriage covenant is all about.
    Women are given to men in the same way we all give ourselves to God, by our own free will and choice. Listen to the sealing ceremony. Men give themselves to their wives also so men are given to women also. This is a hard fact. When a man has a wife he is obligated to provide for her (D&C 83:2). Who owns who? In the world sense of ownership where the owner has all control over his possessions no one owns anyone.
    Righteous people never have kingdoms based upon control of others. A righteous kingdom flows unto the person without compulsory means. Every element, plant, animal and human who will live in the Kingdom of God will obey by their own choice. A hydrogen atom acts like a hydrogen atom because it chooses to.
    Look closely at what marriage really is. It is a covenant to treat each other as the gospel requires. Well we made that covenant regarding all of God’s children. We are to love, cherish and honor all of our brothers and sisters. But marriage says we as husbands will provide for our wives. That is beyond what is required of me for my other sisters in the world. Then we covenant that we will not have sexual relations with anyone but our husbands and wives to whom we are married to. I love every sister in my ward and the world as much as I love everyone else. But I don’t have sexual relations with them because I am not married to them.
    Real love is not diluted nor parsed as it is spread. Loving someone with all our heart doesn’t limit how many we may love. If it did then you can’t love Heavenly Father and Jesus and your wife each with all your heart. But you can because your love is not partial. Does God love Jesus or Heavenly Mother more than me? Again we were raised in a corrupt world.
    Now one last comment. Why then just multiple wives in this life? I believe in this life we are faced with challenges that are harder than in the eternities or even in the spirit world after physical death while we prepare for our resurrection. We have never seen or heard of any possibility of falling away after physical death. The Lord always promises that if we endure to the end of our mortal lives in righteousness we will be exalted. If you can make it here you can make it anywhere. Nothing is harder for a woman to share than her husbands love. Her husband’s love is her lifeline to being cared for and having the ability to have children and provide for them. She can’t do it without him. I believe women have feelings of jealousy from a instinctive fear of losing what allows them to fulfill their nature namely a faithful husband.
    In order to fulfill her nature each woman needs a man that gives them:
    love (fulfills their emotional needs),
    children (love and sex are not the same thing but sexual relations are required for children and are part of the emotional needs too)
    the spiritual means (priesthood ordinances)
    and physical means (bread by the sweat of Adam’s face)
    to raise them in righteousness (provide them with exaltation).
    So if a woman can exercise the extreme faith required to share her husband with another woman then she has got exaltation nailed its the ultimate test for her. For her, life in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will be easy. Every man there is a 100% provider and will honor all his commitments to his children and their mothers forever.
    For the man living polygamy is a real test too. Do you really love each and not emotionally abandon one or two? Are you wiling to suffer with each through her trials and help her and provide for her? Even in a monogamous relation each man must have a love which transcends self gratification and sacrifice of himself to provide for his wife’s needs.

  62. How many is that? An infinite number that continues to grow as more women become exalted.

    Just re-read that sentence and it made me wonder how an infinite number can get larger. Do you mean that the number is considerable infinite because it will get larger forever? If it is a counted number that is getting larger, how can it ever be infinite — except for being theoretically infinite, or “we might as well consider it infinite”?

  63. As I look up the definition of the word infinite, I see there are 6 shades of meaning, one of which applies to mathematics. The following shade is what I meant when I used this word in that sentence: “Greater than any assignable quantity of the same kind.” Obviously, this only applies to man. It is a number greater than the largest number that man is capable of assigning. God can number it, but man can’t. This inconceivably large number continues to grow.

    My understanding is that even God’s left-brain-mind, which counts (numbers) finite things is beyond the scope of man. To man, His left-brain-mind is infinite. In truth, it is not. It is finite. But the numbers are so large as to enter into the realm of the inconceivable. We cannot even imagine or conceive of such a number.

  64. So is this then the shade of meaning you would ascribe to God’s power or knowledge being infinite — i.e. greater than any degree to which humans could conceive?

    Does mathematics’ definition of infinite [meaning boundless, without beginning or end] mean something different than a scriptural definition of infinite [which could be -- to a greater extent than humans have the ability to number/conceive of]?

  65. Okay a perspective on infinities.
    In the book 123 Infinity by Gamov he illustrates a point by telling a story.
    There is this caveman ogg (no offense Justin this is just a guy who doesn’t know much math). Ogg knows how to count to 3. Beyond that he just says there are many. So he has a pile of shells and a pile of pretty rocks agates maybe or pearls. He wants to know which there are more of but he doesn’t have the numbers to compare them by counting. Is it hopeless? No. He can take and place one shell and one pebble side by side until he runs out of one. Then even though he cannot comprehend the number he can compare the two quantities.
    So for us there are varying infinities. A one dimensional infinity is a smaller infinity than a two dimensional. ie counting numbers compared to fraction, then irrational numbers (non terminating decimals like pi) is another and larger infinity. Then 3 dimensional shapes becomes an even larger.
    Now all that having been said I really believe “all knowledge” is not a quantity but a state of being. Truth exists and we are imbedded in it, we are part of it. It is simply a matter of being willing (righteous choices) and able (uhh same thing righteous choices we need to make that we don’t we yet know) to receive it all. It is constantly expanding and changing. When we have a mind which is not limited to one perception at a time (our brain is like a locked cell phone) we will be able to comprehend it all.
    I also believe that “all knowledge” is grouped by kingdoms. The creations of our Father are all one kingdom but they are independent from other kingdoms in that they are self sustaining. We have our Christ and He provides all the life giving light to allow the kingdom to exist. So if we know all of this kingdom then we basically know the same about limitless other kingdoms. My house is exactly the same as another house but it is on a different street. But if I know all about mine then I know all things about that house too.
    Are there higher kingdoms? Yes to look down in the level of kingdom you down at the earth once it and you are celestialized. I am sure you can see other same level kingdoms by simply looking sideways or around. To look up at higher kingdoms you look at the white stone you were given.

  66. dyc4557, it sounds like you are describing pattern recognition. If the Universe is constructed according to prescribed patterns, once you learn the patterns, you learn the Universe.

    Justin, I found 16 uses of the word infinite in our LDS edition of the scriptures. I’m not sure every use of the word in those verses carries the same shade of meaning.

    Concerning God’s power and knowledge being infinite, it seems to me that there is more than one shade of meaning that fits. As dyc4557 pointed out, although a person may not be capable of counting beyond a certain number, comparison still works to give a sense of “how much” more one thing is compared to another. The problem with comparing what man possesss with what God possesses is that the amount on God’s side is beyond the scope of our sight. We can’t see the end of what He’s got. If we could see the end, even if it is an “ungodly” amount of stuff, there is some point of reference by which to determine how much more He’s got then us. But the pile on His side ascends up beyond what we can see or imagine, its width is beyond what we can see or imagine, its depth, too, etc. So, there is no point of reference. We cannot quantify it nor can it be compared in any sensible way. It is simply incomprehensibly great. Joseph, I believe, said it best when he stated that God’s glory “defies all description.”

    We know, based upon what God has said, that there are bounds and limits to the Universe, so in a sense His power is limited and has bounds, yet the ends of the created Universe is always expanding into outer darkness, illuminating the darkness found there and causing more nothing to come into existence. So, if the bounds and limits is contantly expanding, it is, essentially, boundless and limitless power and knowledge, for not even the nothing of outer darkness can stop its expansion. As outer darkness is, indeed, limitless and endless, or is not finite in any sense of the word, being a true infinity, that means that an ever-expanding Universe might as well be considered infinite as well, although technically it is a true finite quantity.

    So, I see more than one shade of meaning of the word infinite applicable to God.

  67. I remember reading Brigham Young’s journal wherein he relates a few things to the “brethren” that Joseph had taught him in private, to see how well they would/could accept/understand these higher laws. This happened either in Council Bluffs or Winter’s Quarters.

    One thing he related to them was something like, “The Organization of The Family of God in Heaven”. (I might not have that totally correct.) I remember Brigham stating in his journal that of the dozen or so men who were in attendance, only 2 men accepted what he had taught. 2 ! (I bet one of those was Heber C. Kimball.) The rest “shattered like glass”.

    The above concept involves a community shaped like a wagon wheel . I also remember hearing a BYU panel of professors talking about this on the Dish Network’s BYU channel. Oh how I wish I could find that. They said this would be something the Savior will restore on His return.

    Another community who lived within a shape of a wagon wheel was the Canela Tribe in South America. They had lived this way for centuries. They also practiced polyamory for centuries until the “Christian White Man Government” forced them out of such an “abominable” lifestyle. (This is well documented in a documentary from Yale, I believe.) I’ll never forget the part of the documentary where the professor returned a few years later to find them living in straight streets with fences. The Canela leader said they were now miserable like unto the white man. They now cheated, stole, murdered, etc…

    Nonetheless, the Book of Mormon relates Christ taught things to the ancient inhabitants that were NOT allowed to be written by those in attendance here in this ancient continent. Is it possible the Canelas were living a remnant higher law which Christ taught to their ancestors that was NOT allowed to be written?

    Brigham, at times, was known to have suggested other men impregnate other men’s wives for one reason or another. (See the lifestory of Charles Edmond and Sullivan Richardson) Joseph Smith had also told Heber C. Kimball that in order to be as obedient as Brigham, he would have to give Joseph his wife. (This is in the life story of HCK.) Oddly enough, Heber’s wife saw something in a vision which convinced Heber to take her to Joseph. Upon handing his wife to Joseph, Joseph told him he is now obedient in all things. Could Joseph have been thinking polyamory?

    In the Richardson’s story, it took three people to have a vision to help bring Charles and Sullivan to this world; their mother, their Richardson dad, and the dad who impregnated their mom, a Brother Cox. This sounds more like a form of polyamory rather than polygamy.

    All 4 visions had occurred after all thought the suggesting leader had lost their marbles. LOL

    None of these suggest a lesson merely on obedience, but suggest something obviously higher than polygamy. According to Brigham Young, polygamy is but a drop in the bucket. Polyamory would be one viable way to fill the bucket a little more. No?

    If the Canelas were living peacefully for centuries sharing spouses, then is it possible the United Order of the 1800’s was doomed because they weren’t literally sharing all things in common? Things meaning people as well?

    If at present, every brother and sister within a ward made their rounds with each other, I could see everyone taking more time to care about each other. People would be much more interested in helping and sharing. Perhaps the ornery husbands and wives might become more delightful. Perhaps the timid men and women of the ward would become more confident and communicative. Perhaps the less behaved children will behave based on this new environment they are now a part of.

    If a human has to alter their self-image of being a “thing” (All Things In Common) in order to live in a way that brings happiness and joy, this is not too large of a price to gain Godhood?

    Also, if Satan’s basic desire is to mock God and His higher laws, wouldn’t pornographic orgies be a mockery of this higher love-based law of God?
    Worse yet, how about the secret societies’ orgies? Don’t those do a great job of mocking God on a few levels?

    Sorry for not citing exact pages and references.

  68. Very good comment DBH. There is a website that expounds upon D&C 132 and shows it is talking about polyamory, that the women would have more than one husband also.
    I don´t think we have to view ourselves as things to be benefited by living this law. In fact we need to more intensely view ourselves as an independent agent and that we are not owned by anyone but that we give ourselves to them. True in D&C 19:2 Jesus says he is owned by the Father. But it is that he gave himself to the Father not that the Father exercises dominion over him.
    The difference between giving ourselves willingly to another or others and being the possession or property of others may seem purely a matter of semantics or point of view. It is not. It is a fundamentally and vitally different thing.

    The true united order is that people give out of the love of their hearts. Socialism is that people are forced to give by external force. The Father’s plan was that we retain our power over our agency and by choice live for others. Satan was that he have power over our agency.

    True plural marriage sacrifices nothing it simply shares the most intimate of our possessions which is not our spouse. We do not own them. They are not ours to share. What we share is our ability to give and receive physical intimacy and the blessings which flow from that.

  69. dyc4557, your comment speaks volumes. I appreciate that. Thank you.

  70. The problem with suggesting that Brigham Young and others were hinting at polyamory? Other prominant church leaders of the day clearly said women would never be allowed to have more than one husband. Journal of Discourses, Vol.18, p.55 – p.56, Orson Pratt, July 11, 1875 “Let this principle be extended. There are some cases in life where two women might die, and a man be still left in his young days without a wife, and he marries a third and perhaps a fourth; in the resurrection they are contemporaneously his wives. Plurality, therefore, would be perfectly consistent in the world to come, but, “Oh,” says a sectarian,” “how awful it is in this world!”
    Thus you see that the very moment we admit the eternity of marriage, the very moment that we admit that Adam and Eve were immortal beings, when they were married, and we undertake to follow that pattern, plurality necessarily comes along; either marriage has no bearing upon eternity, and no bearing upon immortality and immortal beings, or else plurality of wives necessarily must exist in eternity.

    Says one–“Turn it about the other way, then we shall have plurality of husbands.” Let me say to the congregation that the object of marriage is to fulfill the commandment which God gave to immortal beings. Could a woman multiply faster by having two husbands? Everybody knows that in this respect there is a difference between the male and the female. In this life, at any rate, if one woman had two husbands, instead of making her more fruitful, the probability is that it would prevent her raising any offspring at all; and if she did, how would the father be known? And hence, God has strictly forbidden, in this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law.” Elder Pratt doesn’t seem to support a polyamory viewpoint at all. We look to modern day revelation. Current sealing policy is to seal — eventually — all husbands and wives together. There is no language in the church handbook that says anyone will have to choose anyone, thereby giving the impression that we will be polyamorous. But that just opens another can of worms. Are we limited to the number of spouses we obtain in mortality? If we feel free to marry upon the death of a spouse, what makes us suppose our spouse isn’t doing the same thing in the Spirit World? Obviously, the preceased don’t have a physcial body, but they are still sentient beings capable of feelings. I’ve yet to hear anyone address this aspect. I wonder how many people will hit the Spirit World and be surprised to find their predeased spouse now has 10 or 20 “lovers” in the Spirit World, and that as soon as the Millennium comes, they intend to appear in a temple and be sealed by proxy.

  71. Something like,

    Let me say to the congregation that the object of marriage is to fulfill the commandment which God gave to immortal beings. Could a woman multiply faster by having two husbands?

    Is based on his own reasoning and his own understanding of reproductive physiology — and the answer to his rhetorical question is “Yes” they could multiply faster.

    So — if his issue with polyandry rested in a concern over reproductive ability — then research that suggests polyandry improves a woman’s reproductive success would put that issue to bed and we could move on.

    Further — it’s also been demonstrated that while a single polygynous man does father more children [on average] than a single monogamous man — fertility rates per woman actually decrease in a polygyny-only environment [as compared to monogamy-only or simultaneous polygyny and polyandry].

  72. Can’t say I disagree. Just quoting the voices of the day. I could accept the polyamory model easier if that is what modern day leaders were saying. To me, it makes no sense to be monogamous in mortality but plural in perpetuity. Why be faithful and loyal to one person if, in the end, it won’t have meaning in the life to come? I’ve never heard one modern day church leader describe husband – wife relationships in the eternities as anything but the way we have them now. On the other hand, I’ve can’t find anything official that says husbands and/or wives will have to choose among the several spouses to whom they might end up sealed. My point with dating in the spirit world is that offers a resolution to the numbers game. Think of all the people who’ve died below age 8, or who’ve died without being sealed. They have to pair off and be sealed eventually to go the Celestial Kingdom. Is God going to randomly put people together, or are these going to be arranged marriages because he knows them so well? Why would we have to choose and pair off in mortality, but those on the other side of the veil don’t? Anyway, if we’ll be monogamous in the eternites, that’s okay. And if we’ll be plural, that’s okay. My frustration is that we don’t know what we believe at this point, which makes the whole sealing exercise somewhat futile. Yet, every prophet has said we need to be sealed to a member of the opposite sex in order to go to the CK. They don’t say you have to be sealed to many members of the opposite sex, just one. While we’re on the subject, does anyone know why we can’t seal a living woman to more than one man? If we’re going to eventually seal her to all the husbands she’s had in mortality, what’s the problem with sealing her to more than one man while alive. I think I know the reason, but would like to hear from someone else.

  73. I have typed about 3-4 responses and I keep deleting them because I write one thing, and D&C 132 will say another. I then look at how Joseph did the complete opposite of what was in D&C 132 and write that, but then delete it because I don’t want to confuse anyone, myself included. LOL

    Nonetheless, in my heart, I am wrapping my mind around this deep topic the best that I can and hopefully it is preparing me for the next life. At least I don’t have my head in the sand. LOL

    I throw my hands up in the air with the mere thought that God reassigns loved ones because of this, that, and the other.

    I can’t help but wonder if David is happiest when he is hanging out with Goliath instead of whatever female he may or may not have
    received. LOL

  74. I’ve read many good takes on D&C 132, all of which are more scholarly and insightful than anything I could come up with on my own. But what really interests me are what leaders are saying today about sealings. The CHI simply says the purpose of a temple marriage, referred to in the scriptures as “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” is to seal a husband and wife for time and eternity, subject to their faithfulness. Only a marriage that has been sealed in the temple and confirmed by the Holy Spirit of Promise can be eternal.” Then the Sept. issue of the Ensign says if you’re sealed to someone, and keep your covenants, you will be husband and wife in the CK. No equivocation, no ambiguity, nothing that implies any exception. Then you have church policy that allows people to remarry after the death of a spouse, so obviously remarriage and/or additional sealing is not in violation of the first covenants undertaken in the first sealing. And eventually, we’ll seal husbands to all wives had in mortality, and vice versa. Therefore, I don’t know what impression one can have but to say there will be plural marriages of both sexes in the hereafter. I’ve read anecdotal stories that claim men will have plural wives but women will have to choose. It’s whispered that we’ll retain our agency and if you’re not comfortable in some arrangement, you can opt out and maybe find another mate in the Spirit World. Again, these notions are whispered about but have absolutely no offical support at all. I’ve never read anyone who’s been remarried and/or sealed a second time say anything but that they can’t imagine life in the eternites without both spouses. My question is: Do they think that predeased spouse is twiddling his or her thumbs in the Spirit World while the surviving spouse remarries? Would the surviving spouse who has remarried have a problem with their predeceased spouse “moving on” and also developing relationships that will eventually turn into sealings during the Millennium? If you can “love” 2 spouses, why not 2 million? In deed, why not 2 billion! The Tribal theory sounds great if we really believe we’ll all be one “family” in Christ. However, it seems to negate romantic love. Elder Packard said romantic love forms the basis of the Celestial Kingdom. I know mortality is a testing ground, but I would think, if plurality was going to be the eternal norm, we’d have seen it instituted when people were the most righteous, like right after Christ’s visit to the Nephites. It seems like it would be something clearly found in the restored gospel. And it seems like it would be something clearly explained today. That’s my challenge to the many opinions floating around on this subject. They are all just opinions, just people’s efforts to explain what thus far, the Prophet has not explained. Therefore, one person’s opinion is as good as another. Some are more thoroughly fleshed out than others, but in the end, they are still just opinions. Since we believe in living revelation, I’m more interested in what prophets, seers and revelators of today are saying on the subject than I am men who lived 170 years ago. Even Elder Oaks, when interviewed and commenting on the effect of his second marriage, mentioned it it not something the Prophet has chosen to address. My grump is why have such detailed sealing policies if you’re not going to follow them up with any kind of explanation and support, whether it be with scripture or just plain old modern day revelation. You know that language did not find its way into the CHI by accident. I’m sure it was something that was thoroughly discussed by the First Presidency and The Twelve. I can’t think of any other topic that does not have scriptures or quotes supporting the policy or position. Anyway, it it confusing, to say the least.

  75. Last post then I’ll shut up. Can anyone explain the following. It is “good” to love Girl A (earlier girlfriend and wholesome love interest), “bad” to love Girl A once married and sealed to Girl B (because we shouldn’t dwell on old romances during our marriage), but “good”, if Girl B dies, to love Girl A again and even marry her and be sealed to her, and “good” to continue loving Girl A and Girl B in the eternities. Am I the only one that’s confused by all of this in light of being married “for time and all eternity” to Girl B? Monogamy in Mortality and Plurality in Perpetuity? Maybe it goes to show that you shouldn’t burn all those old bridges with old love interests because at some point you might be able to rekindle those old flames. While married, you shouldn’t revisit old memories of old romances or love interests, but the moment your spouse dies, you can dust off the old feelings and look up those old girlfriends or boyfriends? If the answer to that question really is “yes,” then fidelity, loyalty, faithfulness, and everything that is related to those ideas, really does die with your spouse. And if Girl A was previously sealed to another man and then widowed, then it’s still “good” to marry her for time only and know that you’ll eventually be sealed to her by proxy. If those are our facts, then we’ll have a man with two wives, a woman with two husbands, and then a man and woman with one spouse each. Can anyone explain why we say we’re married for time and all eternity but feel, like the rest of the world, that we’re free to marry upon the death of our spouse? Is it because we really don’t believe our spouse is alive and well in the Spirit World? Or, is it because maybe the relationship of marriage and associated sealing (whether alive or by proxy) means something altogether different than they way it is traditionally described?

  76. I agree — Monogamy in Mortality and Plurality in Perpetuity is actually just polygamy — but for people who don’t want to call it by that name.

    If a scriptural command like, “cleave unto thy wife and none else” is a doctrine of monogamy [instead of fidelity] — then there can’t be divorce, remarriage after death, or sealing to all spouses a person had in mortality.

    If we’re going to have mono+gamy — then we would need to have “mono”, or one and only-one.

  77. I am definitely of the mindset that we have eternity to rekindle old bridges as well as build new ones. This world simply presents too many obstacles compared to the other side.

    I find it funny how many divorcees feel they will NEVER choose to be around their exspouses because of what they were like here on earth. What an absurdity, no? If to be in HF’s presence, we have to love others, then it only makes sense that we will have rebuilt those burned bridges in order to be where we think we want to be or even deserve to be.

    Many women divorcees today feel their children are sealed to them because their exes aren’t “faithful”, yet where does the church seal those children to the women again to their new spouse(s)? Talk about absurdity!

    It doesn’t take long to wonder if the sealings are almost like kids choosing teams for a game. The teams change at every recess. LOL

    I find another thing odd. Many women have told me that they are a “one man woman”. They don’t have any interest in sharing their husbands either. HOWEVER, in the same conversation, these very women will say that they would be okay marrying their man even if he has had sexual relations with other women. When I ask them how many women will be one too many for them, they just say, “I’ll have to decide based on how much I want him.” Does anyone else smell a foul odor with this thinking??

    Can anyone else see that the countless temple divorces and remarriages today are maybe an ignorant and difficult venue to God’s preferred polyamory?

    I apologize for all the venting today. Such good therapy. LOL

  78. Well Justin tell me how this relates to the law of restoration. The same spirit which has power to possess our body in this life will have power to possess it in the eternal worlds. So with that concept in mind does “Monogamy in mortality” mean monogamy in the next world? Now y brother studied the precepts of polygamy and felt it was required to live it, that the LDS had in fact gone astray by not living it. He was answered one day with a revelation which said, “You do not have to worry about polygamy.” Being the clear thinker that he is he took this as meaning this applied to him personally. His wife (LDS sealed) later died and he married another wife also sealed to her. So for him there were two things going. 1 he was completely converted to the principle. and 2 although it was serial he has actually complied with the multi wife part of it. And one more thing we talk of anarchy, we preach of anarchy, why don’t we practice it in our religion? We are not anarchists if we stay under the thumb or even concern our selves of the thumb of the LDS or any other religion.
    The true church is a perversion of terminology. A church is a group of people. People are not true. They are growing and fallible. The true gospel is the concept which is true and eternal. None of the true followers of Christ can also follow and apostate church. The one and only church of Christ is a group of people who have 1 repented and 2 come unto Christ. Be careful your correlated LDS concept attached to the concepts of “repent” and “come unto Christ” will prevent you from understanding that the church of the Lamb spoken of in the Book of Mormon and the “church” spoken of in D&C 10:67. Not a word is spoken of any ordinances being required. The 300 plus Lamanites in the prison were all converted and redeemed of God (pillars of fire surrounding them showed that) and yet they were not baptized nor ordained, heck they hadn’t even attended church yet. You see how foolish are the concepts of the LDS regulations when tested before the words God has spoken. So why do we care about whether we can keep going to “church” and still practice the true order of plural marriage? Can we join a group of true followers into a group of apostates and hope to protect the true followers from the damage which comes from false traditions? Being married without a government archy is a great thing. Being baptized unto the remission of sins in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost without having a religious archy over you is a even greater thing. If God has shown us how to be free do we honor Him by turning around and walking back into the hands of the plantation overseers of the LDS church? Or put another way, once Alma the Elder realized the church under the Noah’s priests was apostate how may more meeting did he attend with them?
    PS I have been baptized as a member of my tribe. And I realized it is not only freedom from my sins but freedom from the control or arhy of the LDS. So I am no longer subject to their sins. The “church” (correlation term meaning) is just another government now run by men. If we live anarchy we will free ourselves from it and it influence.

  79. Dyc — I’m glad to hear about your baptism.

    Well Justin tell me how this relates to the law of restoration. The same spirit which has power to possess our body in this life will have power to possess it in the eternal worlds.

    The “spirit” referred to in that verse in Alma is either the Spirit of the Lord or the spirit of the devil. It is not teaching that your same personality, desires, etc. will be with you ["possess you"] in the eternal world.

    It is referring to which master you pertain to — the Lord unto righteousness or the devil unto captivity.

    So the verse isn’t saying that people won’t want to change their minds as soon as they die. In fact — that’s seems to be exactly what it’s saying:

    Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this

    These departed spirits will want to repent when brought to that awful crisis upon death — upon seeing the veil of darkness and chains of hell attached to them and pulling them down to hell.

    for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

    But, you will not be able to say you want to repent then [which you will want to say] — because one of the two spirits has full-claim on your spirit body at that point.

    For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.

  80. Great explanation Justin I have no problem with any of that. It makes sense. I reject concepts that limit a person’s ability to be a follower of Christ and yet not be fully informed about all His truths. We all fall into the group in this sphere.

    Now do you want to take on the more meaty question of how many meetings Alma the Elder attended once he realized the apostate nature of the church he had been raised in? Or perhaps the more pressing question:

    Can we think that attending a church filled with false traditions will not do harm to our souls?

    I know this is challenging concept. I know I wasn’t ready to answer it a year ago. But since then I have been able to begin seeing how my life in the LDS has messed up my concept of what Christ’s Gospel is really saying and even in fact made me unable to know the truth of how to increase my faith and how to become free from my sins. The LDS church teachings are about co opting the concepts of the true Gospel to use them to control people not to free them.
    My wife now is not LDS. She loves and trusts me so much that if I said hey lets go to the LDS church she would do so willingly. But I already know she is a true follower of Christ. her faith is strong and she has a reliable and true connection with God which has lead her to make great and good changes in her life. No church leader was involved.
    Now I realize that if I were to attend the LDS church with her 1. I would hate it because I would see the false traditions of the perversion of the gospel truths via the correlated church. But 2. I would be exposing her to these perverted concepts which she has no previous understanding of and might be infected by them.
    Even in a family reunion with my TBM siblings I heard my brothers say hurtful and judgmental things which are straight up from their exposure to the LDS doctrines. Some of my friends back home have seen what a good husband I am and they decided they want me to find them and LDS man to marry. I tell them I am not really part of the LDS church. But they don’t know that a typical LDS man would not treat them as I treat my wife. But when my siblings hear it they say, “Have them join the church.” as if they are below the LDS in their walk with God.
    I know very strongly how such fault finding damages people. No way in Heaven or hell or earth that I want to subject people I love to such abuse.

  81. Can we think that attending a church filled with false traditions will not do harm to our souls?

    It’s really a non-answer — but I think I’m going to answer that it really comes down to expediency. Meaning, I was told by the Holy Spirit to join the LDS church b/c it was true. That’s why I was baptized. She has not told me any different as of today. So I stick by what She told me then.

    If someone says that they can no longer stand the LDS church experience — and say it is a hindrance to them spiritual — I don’t fault them, I understand it. The false traditions and leader worship is tough to stand — and I can see why so many just go inactive.

    So, to your question — “Can we think that…” — Well I know that I think that [for me] — but I wouldn’t presume that ask another person to walk the same path as I do.

  82. Excellent explanation Justin. I agree. As for my brother’s revelation on polygamy, it was just for him. I have been through the process of divorcing a wife. It was real hard. I honestly told the Lord (pleaded and begged) that I never have to go through it again. But I saw at the time and still see now that it is a totally individual case.an never My bother may have what appears to me the exact same conditions in his marriage and yet he does not divorce. I do feel that it is a true principle that when the actions of a spouse reach a certain quality of treatment then it is not right to remain married to them. But even in that case it has to be perceived as such by the person receiving the treatment. So I cab truthfully say I have no right to tell others they need to divorce their companions.
    And I see the exact same principles apply to a person’s relationship with the church. I have stopped attending and stopped affiliating with the LDS church because for me it really was damaging my walk with Christ. But I don’t receive revelations for others.

  83. I come to the same conclusion LDS Anarchist. Thank you for posting.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers