Aaron32-ism: A Perspective of Mormonism

organgrinder

Well-known member
Correct. They tend to lead our critics to wrong conclusions that they insist that we believe. But Joseph Smith didn't invent polygamy and it is necessary so long as there is eternal marriage. So, Joseph Smith didn't make any misleading statements on the subject, nor was he wrong.
Eternal marriage does not exist. This is what the Bible says:


Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
(Matthew 22:29-30 NKJV)

And "like" is not the same as "are".

Pretty straightforward. That which contradicts the written Word of God in the Bible is wrong.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Was "God the Father" eternity from all eternity?
God was God from all eternity to all eternity. Obviously, he wasn't a father until He had children.
If the "Adam God theory" be true, then then answer would be "No."
If the Adam God theory is true, then the answer would be yes. What particular aspect of that theory do you think refutes the eternal nature of God?
Even in D&C 93, it explains how Jesus descended and returned to "Godhood" while always being a "god". (See also John 20:17)
And that should be a clue, but it seems that nearly everyone misses it. Was Jesus a Savior from eternity to all eternity? Or did he actually need to save someone? Was he the mediator for all eternity, or did he actually need to mediate for someone first?
Either way, the path is the same, which is the point Joseph Smith is trying to make.
True. And nothing in this refutes the Adam God theory as understood and taught by Brigham Young. It might not agree with the interpretations our critics have applied to it but who is to say that's how Brigham Young understood it?
And that the TRUE God, which we are adopted to (leaving our Father and our Mother) is Jesus Christ, the Creator of Heaven and Earth
(y)
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
No. But many prominent leaders of the Church who followed Joseph Smith, but then left the Church, was over polygamy.
Again, is the church wrong? or are the "prominent leaders" who happen to think like you, wrong?
It violated their conscience.
That doesn't make it wrong.
What is it that you can't see about that?
I'm surprised you can't see the problem. Again, I ask you, was the church wrong or were the apostate "prominent leaders" who left the church over their dispute wrong? Who were the apostates? The church or the leaders who left? It seems very simple to me.

The fact remains, so long as eternal marriage exists, polygamy must also exist. What is it that you can't see about that?

I mean, seriously, do you honestly believe that there will be an exact even pairing of women to men in the resurrection to life?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Again, is the church wrong? or are the "prominent leaders" who happen to think like you, wrong?
I think it's a false dilemma, or a question I can answer. JS believed in polygamy, but there's no public statement of his to back it.
Oliver Cowdery didn't receive the revelation Joseph Smith did.
If we take them at their word, both of them were doing what they thought was right.
Leaders trying to "steady the ark" was wrong. The Salt Sermon and driving "the dissenters" out of Missouri was wrong. Burning down the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor, and infringing on freedom of speech was wrong.
Ultimately, how Joseph Smith understood the "law of adoption" was wrong, and was changed. We don't marry other men's wives. We don't coax our daughters to marry church leaders out of compulsory means.
I'm surprised you can't see the problem. Again, I ask you, was the church wrong or were the apostate "prominent leaders" who left the church over their dispute wrong? Who were the apostates? The church or the leaders who left? It seems very simple to me.
Answered above.
The fact remains, so long as eternal marriage exists, polygamy must also exist. What is it that you can't see about that?
Not ever marriage is equal. If I a person wants to marry, just for the sake of my name, and be temporally self-reliant, then that's different from a marriage where we have children together. Maybe we don't have a term yet to express the difference yet, but there is a difference.
But go ahead, go shout on the mountain tops and to the world that the Church believes in polygamy - because that's really going to give them the correct impression of the church, and then get mad at the world when they give you strange looks.:rolleyes: To me, it's not same.
I mean, seriously, do you honestly believe that there will be an exact even pairing of women to men in the resurrection to life?
No, I don't. I also believe the plural marriages we accept won't be the same as marriages here in mortality.
 

The Prophet

Active member
Continuing revelation


The Present Status of the Lamanites

"The dark skin was placed upon thee Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse....Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of the South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South."

Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 122-123 Joseph Fielding Smith


"The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation...There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness."

- Spencer W. Kimball; The Improvement Era, Dec. 1960, p. 923

The work is unfolding, and blinded eyes begin to see, and scattered people begin to gather. I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.

In this mission alone there are 8400-plus members of the Church. As I visited this area fifteen years ago, there were ninety-four. "Are they faithful?" I am asked. And the answer is, "Not all of them. They are just about like their white cousins in the stakes of Zion." "Are they making headway?" And the answer is, "Yes. Perhaps relatively greater headway than we ourselves."

Elder Spencer W. Kimball

CONFERENCE REPORT, OCTOBER 1960



At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).


During the same message Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and "several shades lighter than her parents..." He went on to say, "These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."


Kimball's comment sounds very similar to a curious comment made in a conference message given by Elder Eugene J. Neff in 1927. Referring to Hawaiian members, Neff stated:


"The first missionaries went from this section around to another little town on the east side of the island, and there they gathered in a grass hut one hundred people to hear the message of these strange white men, As they all sat around the mat and heard the voice of this missionary from Utah, they were transfigured before George Q. Cannon, and he saw ninety-seven of them become white, and three of them remained dark. He did not understand. He did not know why it was that three of them would remain dark and all the rest should become light. He received a partial answer to this manifestation when it was learned that ninety-seven of those people in meeting at this time joined the Church, became devout members, lived and died Latter-day Saints, while three of them never did. It is said that they will become a white and delightsome people. They are delightsome at present, and I believe they are going to become white. They are growing whiter from year to year. I have said to myself and to some of my intimate friends that I thought the Hawaiian people would become white and delightsome, through intermarriage. I do not know whether that is according to the doctrines of the Church or not, but they have married the oriental races and married white people on the islands to such an extent that today there are more half casts than there are pure Hawaiians" (Conference Report, April 1927, p.49).



LDS writer George Edward Clark gives a similar account in his book titled Why I Believe. On page 129 he wrote:
"The writer has been privileged to sit at table with several members of the Catawba tribe of Indians, whose reservation is near the north border of South Carolina. That tribe, or most of its people, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). Those Indians, at least as many as I have observed, were white and delightsome, as white and fair as any group of citizens of our country. I know of no prophecy, ancient or modern, that has had a more literal fulfillment."

It has also been taught in Mormonism that opposite repercussions could result when a white person abandons their Mormon faith. For instance, the Juvenile Instructor (26:635) reads,


"From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom his blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extend as to excite the comments of all who have known them."


In 1857, Brigham Young declared that apostates would "become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Journal of Discourses 5:332).
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I think it's a false dilemma, or a question I can answer. JS believed in polygamy, but there's no public statement of his to back it.
Oliver Cowdery didn't receive the revelation Joseph Smith did.
If we take them at their word, both of them were doing what they thought was right.
Leaders trying to "steady the ark" was wrong. The Salt Sermon and driving "the dissenters" out of Missouri was wrong. Burning down the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor, and infringing on freedom of speech was wrong.
Ultimately, how Joseph Smith understood the "law of adoption" was wrong, and was changed. We don't marry other men's wives. We don't coax our daughters to marry church leaders out of compulsory means.

Answered above.

Not ever marriage is equal. If I a person wants to marry, just for the sake of my name, and be temporally self-reliant, then that's different from a marriage where we have children together. Maybe we don't have a term yet to express the difference yet, but there is a difference.
But go ahead, go shout on the mountain tops and to the world that the Church believes in polygamy - because that's really going to give them the correct impression of the church, and then get mad at the world when they give you strange looks.:rolleyes: To me, it's not same.

No, I don't. I also believe the plural marriages we accept won't be the same as marriages here in mortality.
Do you think you should hide the truth about mormonism because it might give people a different impression of the church than you want them to have?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I think it's a false dilemma
Of course, you do, but let me remind you they apostatized over their disagreements. The answer is obvious and like the "faith-alone" argument, you won't be pinned down. Refusing to give an answer is you're only defense.
Answered above.
I think you mean, the non-answer above.
Not ever marriage is equal.
What has that got to do with anything? If eternal marriage exists, it will always demand the existence of polygamy.
If I a person wants to marry, just for the sake of my name, and be temporally self-reliant, then that's different from a marriage where we have children together.
What do you mean, temporarily self-reliant? Again, what has Isa 4:1 got to do with eternal marriage? What has temporarily got to do with eternal? Are you suggesting that they are temporarily married for eternity? What are they waiting for?
But go ahead, go shout on the mountain tops and to the world that the Church believes in polygamy - because that's really going to give them the correct impression of the church
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
So, the world decides what is right? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

I told you, you can't expect anyone to accept the gospel if you keep adjusting to the world's expectations, We'd be no different than other so-called Christian religions. It seems to me that you are advocating keeping certain church doctrines secret, but eventually, they are going to find out. Anyone with a half-pint of common sense can see the obvious issue with eternal marriage. I know many women who see it almost instantly and show it when they demand that their husbands commit to never marrying again in order to avoid the obvious implications.
then get mad at the world when they give you strange looks
I'm not mad about what other people think. I simply disagree with your ideas about what the church teaches. As I said, you should probably join the reorganized church, in fact, you are probably a member. It seems so based on the argument you offer in defense of your ideas.
To me, it's not same.
I didn't say it was the same. A man and a woman can be eternally married and not practice polygamy. But you can't have one without the other. I've already described the potential issues that eternal marriage causes. So, if you're willing to go with marriage only for this life, then we can forego polgyamy. As long as you are agreeable that upon death the marriage is desolved.
No, I don't. I also believe the plural marriages we accept won't be the same as marriages here in mortality.
Well then, that is a problem. It certainly isn't what we teach. It is to continue the seeds. I have no idea what you think that means, but I understand it means to continue having children.
 

The Prophet

Active member
Luke 7:

44 And turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give Me water for My feet, but she wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not greet Me with a kiss, but she has not stopped kissing My feet since I arrived. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but she has anointed My feet with perfume. 47 Therefore I tell you, because her many sins have been forgiven, she has loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.”

48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

49 But those at the table began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”

50 And Jesus told the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I didn't say it was the same. A man and a woman can be eternally married and not practice polygamy. But you can't have one without the other.
That makes no sense at all, to anyone. You constantly contradict your own words. It’s just all a jumbled mess of your own making.
 

Markk

Active member
That makes no sense at all, to anyone. You constantly contradict your own words. It’s just all a jumbled mess of your own making.

He’s dug a hole so deep, his posts are just for the most part ad hom one liners. No CF, no context, just deflection.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
That makes no sense at all, to anyone.
Bzzzt. It makes sense to me, so once again, you're wrong. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
You constantly contradict your own words.
How can you say that? You just finished saying it doesn't make sense. If it doesn't, how do you know there is a contradiction? You don't. :rolleyes:

It's pretty simple but I'll explain it so maybe you can understand it.

1. You don't have to practice polygamy to be eternally married. If one is married to one spouse, they are not practicing polygamy. First, part of the statement explained. You shouldn't have too much trouble with "A man and a woman can be eternally married and not practice polygamy". You might but if you do, I can't say whether it's intentional or not.
2. That doesn't mean that polygamy doesn't exist.

Let's say that a man marries Mary Smith time and eternity. Mary Smith dies and the man marries Sonya Davis who has never been married. Now what? Do we dissolve the first marriage? What will that do to Mary? She's dead and has no chance of marriage, except maybe in the Millennium. But she really loved her husband. Or do we cast off Sonja? She wants to be married for eternity because she also loves her husband. There's no way out of it. Rather than having the living decide what to do, we marry all of them together and let the Lord sort it out in the end. Whatever they want to do, but with the dearth of men that will be exalted, a lot of those men are going to need to take more than one wife.
 

The Prophet

Active member
Do we dissolve the first marriage? What will that do to Mary? She's dead and has no chance of marriage, except maybe in the Millennium.

Seems neither will be living on earth during the millennium if both died :)
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Bzzzt. It makes sense to me, so once again, you're wrong. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

How can you say that? You just finished saying it doesn't make sense. If it doesn't, how do you know there is a contradiction? You don't. :rolleyes:

It's pretty simple but I'll explain it so maybe you can understand it.

1. You don't have to practice polygamy to be eternally married. If one is married to one spouse, they are not practicing polygamy. First, part of the statement explained. You shouldn't have too much trouble with "A man and a woman can be eternally married and not practice polygamy". You might but if you do, I can't say whether it's intentional or not.
2. That doesn't mean that polygamy doesn't exist.

Let's say that a man marries Mary Smith time and eternity. Mary Smith dies and the man marries Sonya Davis who has never been married. Now what? Do we dissolve the first marriage? What will that do to Mary? She's dead and has no chance of marriage, except maybe in the Millennium. But she really loved her husband. Or do we cast off Sonja? She wants to be married for eternity because she also loves her husband. There's no way out of it. Rather than having the living decide what to do, we marry all of them together and let the Lord sort it out in the end. Whatever they want to do, but with the dearth of men that will be exalted, a lot of those men are going to need to take more than one wife.
This was your statement in post #28.

“A man and a woman can be eternally married and not practice polygamy. But you can't have one without the other.”

Your explanation does not explain it. 1 and 2 contradict each other.

Who said you need to “sort” everyone out? You don’t think God is capable of that.

You have no idea how many men there will be. We’ve talked about that before.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Your explanation does not explain it. 1 and 2 contradict each other.
No they don't. :rolleyes:
Who said you need to “sort” everyone out? You don’t think God is capable of that.
Who said God wasn't going to do the sorting?
You have no idea how many men there will be. We’ve talked about that before.
I believe that an exact pairing of men to women is unlikely, not impossible of course, but highly unlikely. Whatever you might think is going to happen up there, the fact remains that if there is one more woman who wants to be married than there are men, someone is going to have to practice polygamy.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
the fact remains that if there is one more woman who wants to be married than there are men, someone is going to have to practice polygamy.

How is that a "fact"?

If someone "wants" a million dollars, does that mean that they get it?
If someone "wants" to be married, does that mean the will?

Since when did "want" mean "achieve"?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yeah, it seems that we have nothing but a time-wasting hacker here.

Bzzzt. It makes sense to me, so once again, you're wrong. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

I think it was obvious that he meant, "doesn't make sense to anyone [else]".
And with all due respect, I'm not convinced that it makes sense to you.
If it truly made sense to you, your tone would be far more sincere and charitable, and far less 🤣 🤣 🤣 .

How can you say that? You just finished saying it doesn't make sense. If it doesn't, how do you know there is a contradiction? You don't. :rolleyes:

"Doesn't mean sense" doesn't necessarily mean "lack of understanding".
It frequently means "resulting in something that causes contradiction".

1. You don't have to practice polygamy to be eternally married. If one is married to one spouse, they are not practicing polygamy. First, part of the statement explained. You shouldn't have too much trouble with "A man and a woman can be eternally married and not practice polygamy". You might but if you do, I can't say whether it's intentional or not.
2. That doesn't mean that polygamy doesn't exist.

Well, God says that polygamy is a sin.
And God says that marriage ends at death.

Let's say that a man marries Mary Smith time and eternity. Mary Smith dies and the man marries Sonya Davis who has never been married. Now what? Do we dissolve the first marriage?

It was already dissolved: "Mary Smith dies".

Rom. 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

1Cor. 7:39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

What will that do to Mary? She's dead and has no chance of marriage,

So what?
The only "marriage" in heaven is between Christ and His bride, the Church.

She wants to be married for eternity because she also loves her husband.

It's not her fault the LDS church lied to her about "married for eternity".

but with the dearth of men that will be exalted, a lot of those men are going to need to take more than one wife.

Why?
You seem to be just making stuff up as you go.
There is no need for ANY "marriage" in heaven.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
How is that a "fact"?
Duh. :rolleyes:
If someone "wants" a million dollars, does that mean that they get it?
This has nothing to do with equal pairing. It just isn't going to happen. There are men who are already married to more than one wife where they are fully willing to participate in a polygamous relationship.

I'll make it easy for you, Let's say there is only one man and two women and both women want to be married and have children. What's the solution? You might not be able to figure it out, but I think God can.
If someone "wants" to be married, does that mean the will?
Didn't I just say that they will?
Since when did "want" mean "achieve"?
Since God said, if you "want" an answer, "ask". If you "want" to seek, you will find. If you "want" to knock, it will be opened. I believe God, don't you? The "want" in those statements is implied. Who would do any of those things if they didn't "want" to? :rolleyes:
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I'll make it easy for you, Let's say there is only one man and two women and both women want to be married and have children. What's the solution? You might not be able to figure it out, but I think God can.

God says marriage ends at death.
There's no need for your "solution".

Didn't I just say that they will?

Newsflash: Mormonism is FALSE.

Since God said, if you "want" an answer, "ask". If you "want" to seek, you will find. If you "want" to knock, it will be opened. I believe God, don't you? The "want" in those statements is implied. Who would do any of those things if they didn't "want" to? :rolleyes:

So Mormonism teaches that EVERYONE gets EVERYTHING they want, as long as they "ask"?

Yes, I believe God.
But I believe you don't understand what He's saying.
 
Top