What do Mormons believe will happen to Hinkley?

[Indyann]

mjf001;3262017:

How do you know it was subterfuge, because the Evangelical anti Mormon web site have told you this, or by the rumour mill. What study have you done to know about this issue beyond the sound bite.

Paul

Public knowledge. Many resources, but this was the easiest to post.

mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

 

[PaulDupre]

Sure we teach about eternal progression, and talk about what that might look like, so what. But this countless goddess-wives thing come on, if you say it is still in the manuals could you point it out for me with page #.

Paul

What I claimed is in the Gospel Doctrine manual was:

…and be worshipped by those children as their “God the Father”. Heck, that is still in your Sunday School manual.

It is in Section 47: Exaltation, starting on page 301.

Of course there is no public mention of plural wives any more. You all pretend like it never happened and was never taught.

Paul

Paul

 

[mjf001]

mjf001;3262017:

How do you know it was subterfuge, because the Evangelical anti Mormon web site have told you this, or by the rumour mill. What study have you done to know about this issue beyond the sound bite.

Paul

It sounds like subterfuge because it directly contradicts what I was taught in the Aaronic priesthood classes in my youth. I was taught eternal progression. I was taught that God had a body, and was once a man like us. Later, I learned that the ultimate goal was to be like him. It sounds like subterfuge to me.
I’ll repeat my earlier question. If the LDS faith is true, why is it necessary to hide what you believe? Why not just lay it all out on the line, openly, and have an honest debate?

 

[Paul_G]

Paul G;3262099:

You didn’t read well enough when I posted my first one… I was still a Mormon when I saw this interview. Seeing him lie on national television was one reason why I left.

in Christ
Steph

So we’ve gone right past the many goddesses in my life thing, ok, so in this interview that you saw, being one of the reasons you left the Church, are you are suggesting that President Hinckley is explaining to Larry King that we never practiced polygamy in the Church that it was some sort of urban myth? I’m not quite sure I know where you are coming from on this. Could you elaborate a little more as to your reasoning on this matter.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

Paul G;3262099:

It sounds like subterfuge because it directly contradicts what I was taught in the Aaronic priesthood classes in my youth. I was taught eternal progression. I was taught that God had a body, and was once a man like us. Later, I learned that the ultimate goal was to be like him. It sounds like subterfuge to me.

I have never seen the Larry King interview, in which, according to the poster you are picking up the conversation from, Pres. Hinckley said that we do not teach eternal progression; however I find it very hard to believe, as we do quite clearly teach this, Its’ no secret. You were taught quite correctly as a youth.

I’ll repeat my earlier question. If the LDS faith is true, why is it necessary to hide what you believe? Why not just lay it all out on the line, openly, and have an honest debate?

Sure a back and forth discussion is fine, that would be great. I’m not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you notice however, there is not much back and forth discussion; rather you will find a series of condemning statements, with little or no explanation from Scripture to point out why it is that we are so wrong. So ask away, I will answer you to the best of my ability to do so, you, may not agree with the answer, and that’s ok.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

What I claimed is in the Gospel Doctrine manual was:

I’m not sure where you are looking chapter and page, sure would help. Thank.

It is in Section 47: Exaltation, starting on page 301.

Thanks, I didn’t disagree with you here, as to the discussion about what eternal progression might look like. It was information on the “polygamy reinstated” and “countless goddesses” that you mentioned I’m looking for.

Of course there is no public mention of plural wives any more. You all pretend like it never happened and was never taught.

Paul

Paul

Of course we don’t teach about it anymore why would we? You must know it is the one the first thing anyone asks about the Church; with many still thinking that we still continue the practice. So to suggest that we pretend like it never happened is quite absurd.

Paul

 

[lukewarm]

Paul,

If a man marries and is sealed to a woman in the Temple she will be his goddess wife, if she dies and he later marries and is sealed to another woman in the temple she too will be his goddess wife. A man can be sealed to dead women, spinsters etc… building up a bunch of goddess wives. The “plural wives” doctrine is not a thing of the past, only plural wives “for time” has been put on hold but will be reinstated during hte millenium.

At least that is how it was explained to me on MADB.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Paul,

If a man marries and is sealed to a woman in the Temple she will be his goddess wife, if she dies and he later marries and is sealed to another woman in the temple she too will be his goddess wife. A man can be sealed to dead women, spinsters etc… building up a bunch of goddess wives. The “plural wives” doctrine is not a thing of the past, only plural wives “for time” has been put on hold but will be reinstated during hte millenium.

At least that is how it was explained to me on MADB.

Yeah, just search for any talk that is aimed at single LDS. They are promised that if they live the “good LDS life” they will marry in the millenium. I’ll look for the polygamy in the afterlife quotes…though, most are from pre-1980, and mormons only believe what they want to believe.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yeah, just search for any talk that is aimed at single LDS. They are promised that if they live the “good LDS life” they will marry in the millenium. I’ll look for the polygamy in the afterlife quotes…though, most are from pre-1980, and mormons only believe what they want to believe.

Here ya go, from D&C 132:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply** and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men;** for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.

 

[Prince_Hal]

Yeah, just search for any talk that is aimed at single LDS. They are promised that if they live the “good LDS life” they will marry in the millenium. I’ll look for the polygamy in the afterlife quotes…though, most are from pre-1980, and mormons only believe what they want to believe.

My wife told me only 2 days ago that if I buck up and kick this Catholicism stupuidity then I too can have another wife in heaven, and she would be really happy with it. And I think she has already picked out the victim…

Decidedly NOT cool. Now, plurality of PDA’s or gadgets is totally another thing.

God bless,

Hal.

 

[Prince_Hal]

Here ya go, from D&C 132:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply** and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men;** for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.

You are exactly right - polygamy is still a doctrine, just not practised on earth at the moment. But it must be practised in heaven. Joseph smith and Brigham Young amongst many were sealed to many women. Because God changed his mind in the 1970’s and stopped polygamy, are they to lose their wives in heaven - a mass divorce decreed by God ? This is one doctrine Mormons cannot brush under the carpet.

God bless,

Hal.

 

[Paul_G]

Here ya go, from D&C 132:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply** and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men;** for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.

Thanks for the verses; however, posting them alone doesn’t give me any idea of what you are trying to say. A little commentary would be helpful. Thanks.

Paul

 

[mjf001]

You are exactly right - polygamy is still a doctrine, just not practised on earth at the moment. But it must be practised in heaven. Joseph smith and Brigham Young amongst many were sealed to many women. Because God changed his mind in the 1970’s and stopped polygamy, are they to lose their wives in heaven - a mass divorce decreed by God ? This is one doctrine Mormons cannot brush under the carpet.

God bless,

Hal.

This is one of my problems with the LDS. God is Truth, how can he change his mind?

Blacks can’t recieve the priesthood, then they can. Polygamy is doctrine, then it’s not.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Thanks for the verses; however, posting them alone doesn’t give me any idea of what you are trying to say. A little commentary would be helpful. Thanks.

Paul

Tsk tsk, Paul G, such a disingenuous response!

The words speak for themselves. Unless of course, mormon exegesis entails changing the meaning of common English words to fit current ‘revelation.’

What is the stumbling block, Paul? Is it the number ‘ten’?

Or the meaning of ‘virgins’?

Please elucidate these ‘cryptic’ verses for us poor benighted souls,

Robert

 

[Paul_G]

Paul,

If a man marries and is sealed to a woman in the Temple she will be his goddess wife,

They certainly will be husband and wife, so when do you thing the goddess part kicks in my wife wants to know.

if she dies and he later marries and is sealed to another woman in the temple she too will be his goddess wife.

Yes they have been seal together here on earth. However this is a far cry and switch away from the countless wives thing I’ve been reading about.

A man can be sealed to dead women, spinsters etc… building up a bunch of goddess wives. The “plural wives” doctrine is not a thing of the past, only plural wives “for time” has been put on hold

I can agree with that, it is logical that if one lost his wife and chooses to married and is sealed to the second wife, that this would also be and eternal marriage.

but will be reinstated during hte millenium.

Personally I have no idea, perhaps you or someone can find or knows a quote of two about it. Ether way since Jesus will have returned He will be deciding what will and will not be practiced.

At least that is how it was explained to me on MADB.

It’s a good place to mull over questions like this without the antagonism.

Paul

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Paul,

If a man marries and is sealed to a woman in the Temple she will be his goddess wife, if she dies and he later marries and is sealed to another woman in the temple she too will be his goddess wife. A man can be sealed to dead women, spinsters etc… building up a bunch of goddess wives. The “plural wives” doctrine is not a thing of the past, only plural wives “for time” has been put on hold but will be reinstated during hte millenium.

Hey Paul G!

Here is lukewarm’s COMPLETE posting.

I did this as a favor for you, since your answers to his parsed posting do not address his points.

Or is it “answer the questions that SHOULD be asked [to protect mormon inconsistency] and not the ACTUAL ones that HAVE been asked”?

Robert

 

[Paul_G]

Tsk tsk, Paul G, such a disingenuous response!

The words speak for themselves. Unless of course, mormon exegesis entails changing the meaning of common English words to fit current ‘revelation.’

What is the stumbling block, Paul? Is it the number ‘ten’?

Or the meaning of ‘virgins’?

Please elucidate these ‘cryptic’ verses for us poor benighted souls,

Robert

Hello to you too Robert. Hope your having a good evening.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

Hey Paul G!

Here is lukewarm’s COMPLETE posting.

I did this as a favor for you, since your answers to his parsed posting do not address his points.

Or is it “answer the questions that SHOULD be asked [to protect mormon inconsistency] and not the ACTUAL ones that HAVE been asked”?

Robert

I made comments related to the several statements made. I’m not sure what your purpose in responding in this fashion is about, besides what I and I’m sure other’s see as an attempt to belittle me personally. However, I wish you the best, and you have a good evening.

Paul

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I made comments related to the several statements made. I’m not sure what your purpose in responding in this fashion is about, besides what I and I’m sure other’s see as an attempt to belittle me personally. However, I wish you the best, and you have a good evening.

Paul

Another non-answer.

The “belittling” comes from the flippancy of your attempts to circumvent a direct comment on mormon ‘theology.’

Posters (like Rebecca, myself, hosemonkey, Jerusha, lukewarm, Paul G and others) post

Direct Quotations from Mormon ‘Scriptures’

and all you do is snip a little here and snip a little there and post some milquetoast comment that NEVERS addresses the issues brought up about mormonism and its beliefs.

If that is ‘belittling,’ then I am sorry for you and hope and pray that the scales fall from your eyes and you read the Bible without the ‘verifying testimony of the BoM’ and understand what Christianity is truly about.

A little hint: mormonism doesn’t respect the teachings and traditions of Christ and Christianity, so don’t start with your church’s hypocritical ‘Great Apostasy’ lie.

I’ll put it in ‘milk’ for your understanding:

IF the Church apostatized, and the BoM ‘fulfills’ the Bible, why does the LDS claim they are Christian?

Robert

 

[Paul_G]

Gordon B. Hinckley a History

Whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike Gordon B. Hinckley I believe he was a remarkable man. If you want to see a program on his life I will provide a link to a streaming video. The link starts and the beginning of the program and runs for one hour, however the BYU stream continues after its conclusion. It can only link to the beginning but can not end. as it is part of ongoing programming.

I will not include the link here, but if you are interested PM me and I will send it to you.

Paul