So, Just What King of Stuff is Going on in those Temples?

[Apologette]

Same-sex sealings - something we never hear about from the Mormons, but part of their history, and a well-documented part. Lookie here:
From:http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,872426,872426

"Historian D. Michael Quinn provides answers to that question--and so much more--in his explosively-detailed book, "Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example" (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996, 477 pp.)

The devastating, documented detail that Quinn provides effectively knocks today's Latter-day Quaints off their high and hypocritical Mormon moralistic horse, as he lays out historically-devastating facts concerning LDS Church founder Joseph Smith's(as well as other early high-ranking Mormon leaders') at***udes and actions on what are for today's ****phobic Mormons an exceedingly awful array of same-sex topics, including:

--Mormon Temple Sealings of Men to Other Men

--Claims of Authorization of Sealings of Mormon Men to Mormon Men

--Claims of Mormon Temple Same-Sex Eternal Sealings

--Joseph Smith's "Revelations" of Eternal Friendship Covenants Between Men

--Joseph Smith on Same Sex-Marriage

--Joseph Smith's Toleration of ****eroticism in the Mormon Church's Highest Leadership Circles

--Accusations Against Joseph Smith of "Immoral Acts" with Other Men

--Joseph Smith and "****social" Relations Between Mormon Men

--Joseph Smith and Loving Same-Sex Bed Partners

--Joseph Smith and Same-Sex Kissing

--Joseph Smith's Intense Love of Young Men

Below are Quinn's findings in his own words--and better yet--in the words of Joseph Smith and Company:

--Mormon Temple Sealings of Men to Other Men--

"In 1954, the sociologist Kimball Young first suggested that Mormon marriage 'sealing' ceremonies (which began in 1843 and bind husband and wife for 'time and eternity') included same-sex marriage. For example, Brigham Young preached in 1862: 'I will here refer to a principle that has not bee named by me for years. With the introduction of the Priesthood upon the earth was also introduced the sealing ordinance.' Although modern readers would expect to hear next about eternal marriage, Young did not mention marriage or women. Instead, he said: 'By this power men will be sealed to men back to Adam.' In another sermon he preached that 'we can seal women to men [without a temple], but not men to men, without a Temple.'

"Such statements caused his sociologist grandson to observe, 'Here is evidence of deep, psychological Bruederschaft [brotherhood]. There are obviously latent ****sexual features in this idea and its cultural aspect has many familiar parallels in other religions.' Kimball Young added that Mormonism 'had strong ****sexual components' but acknowledged: 'Most Saints, including Brigham himself, would have been shocked by such an interpretation.' The grandson regarded ****sexuality as unappealing as the Mormon practice of polygamy that was the topic of his book." (pp. 136-37)

--What Brigham Young Meant by the Phrase "Men Will Be Sealed to Men"--

". . . [S]ociologist [Kimball Young] misunderstood Brigham Young's statements about 'sealing men to men,' which referred to the nineteenth-century LDS practice of spiritual adoption. By this ordinance, a man (usually an apostle) became the spiritual father of the adopted man and of the adopted man's wife and children (if any). In social terms, this was an ins***utionalized form of mentor-prot�g�' relationships between Mormon men. In its early stages under Brigham Young's direction, this adoptive sealing of men to men also involved obligations of financial support. One of Brigham Young's adopted sons was John D. Lee. As was customary in the first adoption ceremonies of 1846, Lee temporarily added the surname of his adopted father to his own. In these respects, this early Mormon ordinance is very similar to the celibate same-sex marriages of sub-Saharan Africa today." (p. 137)

--Mormon Men-to-Men Sealings vs. "Spiritual Adoption" Sealings--

". . . Brigham Young also indicated that some pioneer Mormon men had special covenants with each other, independent of the adoption ordinance. 'No man had a right to make a covenant to bind men together,' Young said in 1848. He added that 'God only had that right and by his commandment to the persona holding the keys of revelation could any man legally covenant & all covenants otherwise were null & of no effect.'" (p. 140)

--Claims That Joseph Smith Authorized Sealings of Mormon Men to Mormon Men--

"A generation after [Brigham Young's grandson and sociologist] Kimball Young, Antonio A. Feliz wrote: 'I found that Joseph [Smith] began a practice of sealing men to men during the last two years of his life in Nauvoo.' Feliz concluded that Joseph Smith secretly provided for a same-sex ordinance of companionship or sealing, which Brigham Young later changed to the father-son adoption ordinance. His evidence involves the funeral service for missionary Lorenzo D. Barnes in which all note takers said Joseph Smith referred to an unidentified 'Lover' of Barnes, rather than to a wife. Feliz elaborated on this in a 1985 article in the newsletter of 'Affirmation,' the society of Mormon lesbians, gays, and bisexuals; in his 1988 autobiography 'Out of the Bishop's Closet;' in a 1992 story by the 'Salt Lake Tribune;' and in his 1999 paper at Salt Lake City's Stonewall Center, a community resource for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.

"Barely two years after Barnes's death, Apostle Wilford Woodruff visited his English grave site and commented that Lorenzo's 'fidelity was stronger than death towards his Lover.' Woodruff added: 'I thought of his Lover, his Mother, his Father, his kindred & the Saints for they all loved him.' From this, Feliz concluded that 'we can only speculate on the iden***y of the person with whom he shared an intimate relationship in Nauvoo prior to his mission to England.' "

(continued below)

[Apologette]

(continued from above)

"However, there are aspects of the Lorenzo Barnes case that undermine Feliz's ***ertions. Woodruff's diary also quoted from love poetry and love letters that Barnes wrote n January 1842 to Susan Conrad, 'his intended.' Sixteen years old when Barnes left her in Nauvoo for his English mission in 1841, Susan Conrad was 'the friend' and 'Lover' of whom Joseph Smith spoke in the 1843 funeral services for Barnes. She later married a man name Wilkinson and moved from Nauvoo to Utah, where Apostle Woodruff sometimes reminisced with her about Barnes. Even less known is that Barnes had returned to his hometown n Ohio while en route to his mission ***ignment. There in October 1841 another Mormon performed the civil marriage for Barnes and Amanda Wilson, who may have been one of his former students. Thus, Barnes was already married when he wrote the 1842 love poetry and letters to his sixteen-year-old 'Lover' Susan Conrad. Lorenzo D. Barnes may have been a polygamist at heart, but his experience had nothing to do with ****romantic attachments or a ****marital ceremony.

"Still, it is true that Joseph Smith's 1843 funeral sermon for Barnes never once mentioned husband-wife relationships. That was remarkable in a sermon on loving relationships in this life and in the Resurrection during which the prophet repeatedly spoke of 'brothers and friends,' fathers and sons, mothers, daughters, and sisters. Smith's silence concerning husbands and wives was deafening in this sermon about attachments of love. Feliz appropriately asked why. I do not agree that the answer involved same-sex ceremonies, but I do see this as the first Mormon expression of male bonding. George Q. Cannon forty years later called it 'greater than the love of a woman.'

"I know of no historical evidence that Mormonism's founding father ever said an officiator could perform a marriage-like ordinance for a same-sex couple. Nevertheless, I realize that some believing Mormons regard it as emotionally appealing or spiritually inspiring for there to be a priesthood ordinance to seal same-sex couples similar to Mormon's opposite-sex ordinance of marriage 'for time and all eternity.'" (pp. 138-39)

--Claims of Mormon Temple Same-Sex Eternal Sealings--

"Aside from the 1833 covenant of friendship in the School of the Prophets and Brigham Young's possible reference in 1848, I [Quinn] have no evidence that there were any same-sex covenants of eternal companionship among nineteenth-century Mormons. However, as previously indicated, nineteenth-century Mormon missionaries may have unknowingly baptized Aikane boys in Hawaii (or their equivalent in Tahiti) who had previously entered same-sex marriages. Also, tens of thousands of twentieth-century converts to the LDS Church in sub-Saharan Africa have come from areas in which celibate same-sex marriage ceremonies are common." (p. 140)

--Joseph Smith's "Revelations" of Eternal Friendship Covenants Between Men--

"[On 27 December 1832], Joseph Smith announced a revelation that included a covenant between men 'to be your friend . . . forever and ever. . . .

"[On 24 January 1833] [t]he male-only School of the Prophets commenced in accordance with [the] revelation on 27 December 1832." (p. 407)

--Joseph Smith on Same Sex-Marriage--

"Joseph Smith's published revelations contained no reference to same-sex marriage. . . .

"[However,] Joseph Smith . . . once referred figuratively to himself as married to a male friend. Beginning in 1840, twenty-nine-year-old Robert B. Thompson became the prophet's scribe and personal secretary. Their relationship was so close that Smith told his friend's wife: 'Sister Thompson, you must not feel bad towards me for keeping your husband away from you so much, for I am married to him.' She added that 'they truly love each other with fervent brotherly affection.' Concerning Thompson's death in 1841 Smith made this unusual explanation to his next secretary during a discussion of 'loose conduct' and sexual transgressions: 'He said [Robert B.] Thompson professed great friendship for him but he gave away to temptation and he had to die.'" (p. 136)

--Joseph Smith's Toleration of ****eroticism in the Mormon Church's Highest Leadership Circles and Charges Against Smith of Committing "Immoral Acts" with Men--

"The first known instance of ****erotic behavior in the [Mormon Church] First Presidency involved John C. Bennett [who was] an ***istant counselor . . . . They 27 July 1842 edition of the 'Wasp,' a church newspaper at Nauvoo, Illinois, claimed that Bennett had . . . engaged in sodomy.

"Second, it claimed that the Prophet Joseph Smith had tolerated Bennett's ****eroticism.

"Third, the church newspaper even printed one apostle's implication that Joseph Smith himself had also engaged in an 'immoral act' with a man.

"These are the actual words (written by Smith's brother William, an apostle): 'Gen. [Joseph] Smith was a great philanthropist [in the eyes of Bennett] as long as Bennett could practice adultery, fornication, and--we were going to say (Buggery,) without being exposed.' At that time the word 'buggery' was a slang word and legal term for 'sodomy,' or posterior [sexual relations] between men. Later statements by Brigham Young and Bennett himself indicate that this 1842 publication was not libeling Bennett.

"Previous actions and statements by Joseph Smith could also be construed as his toleration for Bennett's various sexual activities. On motion of John C. Bennett on 5 October 1840, the general conference (presided over by Smith) voted that no one could be judged guilty of a crime unless prove 'by two or three witnesses.' Such a burden of proof helped shield Bennett's sexual exploits. . . . This was Bennett's way of shielding his own sexual activities with both women and men."

"In January 1841, Smith also dictated a revelation about Bennett: 'his reward shall not fail, if he receive counsel; and for his love he shall be great, for he shall b e mine if he do this, saith the Lord' ('Doctrine and Covenants' 124:17)

"Later in 1841, the prophet further eroded the ability of anyone to investigate or punish Bennett's sexual conduct: 'If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you.' Then in words that must have warmed Bennett's heart, Smith continued his sermon by saying: 'If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours--for charity covereth a mul***ude of sins. What many people call sins is not sin.'

"It must have seemed to Bennett and others that the LDS president put those charitable words into action when he appointed John C. Bennett as ***istant counselor to the First Presidency in April 1841. That was a month after one of the bishops of the church privately reported to Smith his investigation at Bennett's former residence: 'his wife left him under satisfactory evidence of his adulterous connections.' If Joseph Smith had not heard that his new counselor was practicing 'buggery,' he at least knew of Bennett's reputation for adultery.

"On the next page of the July 1842 'Wasp,' the church newspaper described Smith's reaction to Apostle Orson Pratt's vote against a resolution defending the prophet's chas***y: 'Pres. Joseph Smith spoke in reply [on July 22]--Question to Elder Pratt, "Have you personally a knowledge of any immoral act in me toward the female sex, or in any other way?" Answer, by Elder Pratt, "Personally, toward the female sex, I have not."' Since this same issue of the 'Wasp' had already raised the topic of Bennett's 'buggery' and the prophet's alleged toleration of it, Smith's 'in any other way?' was an implicit challenge for Pratt to charge him with 'buggery' as well. Pratt declined to answer whether Joseph Smith had committed 'any immoral act' with someone other than a woman, but also declined to exonerate the prophet form such a charge. That indicates the depth of Pratt's disaffection, which resulted in his excommunication from the LDS Church within a month."

"***istant [First Presidency] Counselor] John C. Bennett was 'disfellowshipped (denied church privileges) and later 'excommunicated' (removed from church membership). His ****sexual activities were publicly revealed two months later."

Seems kind of creeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepy to me!

[Snow Patrol]

I commend you for posting the link to the actual article that you copied most of this information from. I also commend you for including many parts that talk about there really being no evidence of any ****sexual activities, except for maybe John C Bennett. One part you did conveniently leave out was this....

"In that way Mormonism's founding prophet referred to the most famous male relationship in the Bible. David said of his boyhood mentor Jonathan: 'thy love to me was wonderful, p***ing the love of women' (2 Sam. 1:26). Jonathan and David already had wives when the two you men 'kissed one another and wept one with another' (20:41). Consistent with Smith's David-and-Jonathan reference to young Taylor, a Mormon woman described the Mormon prophet's last words to forty-two-year-old George W. Rosecrans as Smith was traveling to his certain death in Carthage Jail in June 1844: 'If I never see you again, or if I never come back, remember that I love you.'

"For more than a thousand years, David and Jonathan have been revered as sexual lovers by Jews and Christians who valued ****eroticism. However, because David was a teenage polygamist and Jonathan fathered at least one child, most Bible readers and scholars regard David and Jonathan as platonic (or nonerotic) lovers. Likewise, m any regard the Bible's Song of Solomon as spiritual allegory rather than sexual imagery."

Why did you decide to leave this part out?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

I commend you for posting the link to the actual article that you copied most of this information from. I also commend you for including many parts that talk about there really being no evidence of any ****sexual activities, except for maybe John C Bennett. One part you did conveniently leave out was this....

"In that way Mormonism's founding prophet referred to the most famous male relationship in the Bible. David said of his boyhood mentor Jonathan: 'thy love to me was wonderful, p***ing the love of women' (2 Sam. 1:26). Jonathan and David already had wives when the two you men 'kissed one another and wept one with another' (20:41). Consistent with Smith's David-and-Jonathan reference to young Taylor, a Mormon woman described the Mormon prophet's last words to forty-two-year-old George W. Rosecrans as Smith was traveling to his certain death in Carthage Jail in June 1844: 'If I never see you again, or if I never come back, remember that I love you.'

"For more than a thousand years, David and Jonathan have been revered as sexual lovers by Jews and Christians who valued ****eroticism. However, because David was a teenage polygamist and Jonathan fathered at least one child, most Bible readers and scholars regard David and Jonathan as platonic (or nonerotic) lovers. Likewise, m any regard the Bible's Song of Solomon as spiritual allegory rather than sexual imagery."

Why did you decide to leave this part out?

I'd like to commend you for your honest statement concerning Joseph Smith jr. When you said if you were a new-comer to LDSinc. I believe most converts feel the same way, and exit the church as fast as they come.
I also believe most people don't like to say they have made a mistake, and try to stay in the church if possible.
As for those born into the LDSinc culture it is more difficult and sometimes impossible to leave at the cost of family and income.
Sexuality and religion are joined at the hip so to speak, I remember the 1960s and the India gaur fad of many of the counter-culture whom were caught up into it. In the end it was more about sex then enlightment.
I believe it was the same for Joseph Smith jr. More about sex than enlightment.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

I commend you for posting the link to the actual article that you copied most of this information from. I also commend you for including many parts that talk about there really being no evidence of any ****sexual activities, except for maybe John C Bennett. One part you did conveniently leave out was this....

"In that way Mormonism's founding prophet referred to the most famous male relationship in the Bible. David said of his boyhood mentor Jonathan: 'thy love to me was wonderful, p***ing the love of women' (2 Sam. 1:26). Jonathan and David already had wives when the two you men 'kissed one another and wept one with another' (20:41). Consistent with Smith's David-and-Jonathan reference to young Taylor, a Mormon woman described the Mormon prophet's last words to forty-two-year-old George W. Rosecrans as Smith was traveling to his certain death in Carthage Jail in June 1844: 'If I never see you again, or if I never come back, remember that I love you.'

"For more than a thousand years, David and Jonathan have been revered as sexual lovers by Jews and Christians who valued ****eroticism. However, because David was a teenage polygamist and Jonathan fathered at least one child, most Bible readers and scholars regard David and Jonathan as platonic (or nonerotic) lovers. Likewise, m any regard the Bible's Song of Solomon as spiritual allegory rather than sexual imagery."

Why did you decide to leave this part out?

It has nothing to do with sealings. Now, would you be sealed to a man or not?

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Apologette

It has nothing to do with sealings. Now, would you be sealed to a man or not?

I am already. I am sealed to my son.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

I am already. I am sealed to my son.

I wonder how far back it goes to Adam and Eve? Gosh, think about it, all those sealin just to those two.
I wonder who Adam and Eve is sealed to on the planet Kolob, it must be billions, and billions, and billions, and billions and to infinity and beyond.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

I am already. I am sealed to my son.

That is interesting.. Not discussing the rites of the temple may I ask you why being sealed to anyone is important at all? Is it because you believe that in the resurrection you won't have love for them in that day? Or is it the fear that they won't love you and this will force them to be with you? I love my wife and I will stand with her, holding her hand while we worship our Lord and Savior together in the resurrection.. I will do the same with all those I love.. I need no permission other than that of my Lord's to do so.. Remember God in the Person of the Holy Spirit told us that faith, hope, and love abides for all time but the greatest of these is Love. Since it abides I will hold my love always. I will love my wife, my children and my friends forever.. No permission from man's authority required.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by James Banta

That is interesting.. Not discussing the rites of the temple may I ask you why being sealed to anyone is important at all? Is it because you believe that in the resurrection you won't have love for them in that day? Or is it the fear that they won't love you and this will force them to be with you? I love my wife and I will stand with her, holding her hand while we worship our Lord and Savior together in the resurrection.. I will do the same with all those I love.. I need no permission other than that of my Lord's to do so.. Remember God in the Person of the Holy Spirit told us that faith, hope, and love abides for all time but the greatest of these is Love. Since it abides I will hold my love always. I will love my wife, my children and my friends forever.. No permission from man's authority required.. IHS jim

Matt 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I want my family to remain a family unit. I want my wife to be my wife throughout eternity. I don't want to settle for her just being some other person. I want the special relationship to continue.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Matt 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I want my family to remain a family unit. I want my wife to be my wife throughout eternity. I don't want to settle for her just being some other person. I want the special relationship to continue.

If you want your family to be together after death, then come to Christ! Your cult will only lead you to hell, and you will be misleading your whole family as well. Mystical temple sealings are hogwash - only the Holy Spirit binds us together in Christ!

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Apologette

It has nothing to do with sealings.

And neither did the bulk of your article.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I love my wife and I will stand with her, holding her hand while we worship our Lord and Savior together in the resurrection.. IHS jim

That's just your hope. You have no promise that this will happen.

I hear this from many LDS-critics, that they don't need to be married for eternity or sealed to a family, because they believe they will still be in Heaven with their family and loved ones forever. But that isn't based on doctrine so much as it is simply their desire. So they scoff at the LDS who believe that we are bound on earth and have doctrinally instilled in our beliefs that we will be with our sealed families in Heaven, even though they actually believe they are in the same boat without the doctrine or binding authority of the priesthood.

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Sir

That's just your hope. You have no promise that this will happen.

I hear this from many LDS-critics, that they don't need to be married for eternity or sealed to a family, because they believe they will still be in Heaven with their family and loved ones forever. But that isn't based on doctrine so much as it is simply their desire. So they scoff at the LDS who believe that we are bound on earth and have doctrinally instilled in our beliefs that we will be with our sealed families in Heaven, even though they actually believe they are in the same boat without the doctrine or binding authority of the priesthood.

And some Christians believe that they will be without facial features so how will they know it is their wife or kids or loved ones?

[John T]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

And some Christians believe that they will be without facial features so how will they know it is their wife or kids or loved ones?

.

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the mul***ude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Mark 12: 23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage

I do not think that Jesus agrees with LDS doctrine, do you?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Matt 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I want my family to remain a family unit. I want my wife to be my wife throughout eternity. I don't want to settle for her just being some other person. I want the special relationship to continue.

You have a problem with that p***age don't you? Did Jesus build His Church during His mortal ministry? Yes of course and yet many LDS leaders teach that it died and needed not a reformation but instead a whole restoration. Did Jesus lie? HIS CHURCH ACCORDING TO LDS TEACHINGS DID FALL AWAY. Peter and I believe all the Apostles of Jesus has that power to bind on earth and in heaven but never did they use that power to bind marriages.. If it was that important don't you think they would have been shown as doing so? Instead they are seen bringing the hearts and souls of men to Jesus..


About marriage Jesus teaches something else completely

Luke 20:35-36
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.


Is not loving each other a special relationship? Do you really believe that in the face of the Holy Spirit telling us that the greatest gift of God, LOVE, continues always, we need some ceremony some special building, some ***umed authority to hold onto it? There is a problem with LDS believing that eternal marriage is so sacred that it never appeared in the Bible.. That is because today anyone that has studied mormonism knows about temple marriage.. It is so sacred that it would have been different to the Apostles? Still Jesus teaches us that those that are worthy to obtain that world, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. They are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God (Luke 20:35-36).

You can say it has to be done before the resurrection all you wish but Jesus teaches is that in the resurrection we will be equal with the Angels and are the children of God.. Since love always continues, but Jesus says we will be equal to the angels, where is marriage? Jesus taught this in response to a question posed to him about marriages that had already been solemnized by the authority given the people by God through Moses.. There is nothing to teach that your love for your family has to end in all that.. Your love will hold those you love together. Nothing can destroy it not death, and not the resurrection. It will remain and grow stronger in Jesus. But we will be equal with the angels and children of God.. NOT GODS, the creators of worlds, not the parents of spirits.. God is God, He is all the God that has ever existed, He is all the God that will ever exist.. Being a child of God and a joint heir with Jesus of all God has will have to be enough for those that receive the blessings of His grace..

If Marriage was a requirement for God's greatest blessings marriage would have center stage in the scripture and it would be clear that Jesus was the bridegroom instead of an invited guest at the marriages he attended.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

I am already. I am sealed to my son.

Let me clarify - would you be sealed to an unrelated man? And by the way, do you seriously think you are a savior to your son? Are you now usurping Jesus' role in salvation, or is it enough that you are "sealed" to your son and will br*** him into your "kingdom?"

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Sir

That's just your hope. You have no promise that this will happen.

I hear this from many LDS-critics, that they don't need to be married for eternity or sealed to a family, because they believe they will still be in Heaven with their family and loved ones forever. But that isn't based on doctrine so much as it is simply their desire. So they scoff at the LDS who believe that we are bound on earth and have doctrinally instilled in our beliefs that we will be with our sealed families in Heaven, even though they actually believe they are in the same boat without the doctrine or binding authority of the priesthood.

It most certainly is based in scripture..

All the saved are forever with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18) If the Bible is God's truth, and it is, then your weak proclamation that we need some invented priesthood to make this possible is wrong.. All we need is His grace given to those that hold faith in Jesus.. Even those who sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. ALL believers! And because we will ever be with the Lord, even without His help, we would have time to find all our loved ones.. You are the one dreaming here.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Matt 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I want my family to remain a family unit. I want my wife to be my wife throughout eternity. I don't want to settle for her just being some other person. I want the special relationship to continue.

The verses you quote have nothing to do with same-sex sealings in your temples. Binding and Loosing has to do with doctrine and forgiveness. For instance, we as Christians have loosed Mormonism from being part of the Christian faith based on its false doctrines. And we have bound this decision by the Blood of Christ. But, we can also bind you under this: if you should repent, and turn away from the false teachings of Mormonism, we affirm you will be forgiven in Jesus' Name.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Apologette

The verses you quote have nothing to do with same-sex sealings in your temples. Binding and Loosing has to do with doctrine and forgiveness. For instance, we as Christians have loosed Mormonism from being part of the Christian faith based on its false doctrines. And we have bound this decision by the Blood of Christ. But, we can also bind you under this: if you should repent, and turn away from the false teachings of Mormonism, we affirm you will be forgiven in Jesus' Name.

Have you EVER seen a Mormon take something from the Bible, and use it in its full context? Of course not! And that is proof that according to 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, they are universally spiritually blinded people.
.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I know that the Mormons do not like that verse, and I also know that I get reported every time I quote that verse, but they are arguing with the Bible and not with me.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by John T

Have you EVER seen a Mormon take something from the Bible, and use it in its full context? Of course not! And that is proof that according to 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, they are universally spiritually blinded people.
.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I know that the Mormons do not like that verse, and I also know that I get reported every time I quote that verse, but they are arguing with the Bible and not with me.

LOL...you "get reported" everytime you quote that scripture?

I highly doubt such hyperbole.

But you seem to be arguing against Mormons (the people), so that qualifies you as being anti-Mormon.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Sir

LOL...you "get reported" everytime you quote that scripture?

I highly doubt such hyperbole.

But you seem to be arguing against Mormons (the people), so that qualifies you as being anti-Mormon.

I am anti-everything, but money, just can't seem to have enough. Maybe I should start my own religion, and keep the monthly required payments at 5% to start with. Any takers out there

[John T]

Originally Posted by John T

Have you EVER seen a Mormon take something from the Bible, and use it in its full context? Of course not! And that is proof that according to 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, they are universally spiritually blinded people.
.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I know that the Mormons do not like that verse, and I also know that I get reported every time I quote that verse, but they are arguing with the Bible and not with me.

The sad truth of the matter is that the Mormons believe in, and teach the meaning of this verse to their children. Therefore, their religion is officially "anti-Cgristian" and those who believe this verse are likewise "anti-Christian" by definition.

1 Nephi 1: 10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ***** of all the earth.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by John T

The sad truth of the matter is that the Mormons believe in, and teach the meaning of this verse to their children. Therefore, their religion is officially "anti-Cgristian" and those who believe this verse are likewise "anti-Christian" by definition.

1 Nephi 1: 10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ***** of all the earth.

This is a sad commentary on mormonism but it is true. I remember my TBM and when driving past a Christian church house would tell my children "There's one of those devil churches" and that only because I saw a cross on it.. Now the cross is a badge of honor to me, identifying myself with the Lord, to the point of installing one on my home.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by James Banta

This is a sad commentary on mormonism but it is true. I remember my TBM and when driving past a Christian church house would tell my children "There's one of those devil churches" and that only because I saw a cross on it.. Now the cross is a badge of honor to me, identifying myself with the Lord, to the point of installing one on my home.. IHS jim

The Devil make me do it!
Just one more nail in the coffin of Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary mind.
I wonder if that goes for Joel Osteens, name it claim it church too?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

The Devil make me do it!
Just one more nail in the coffin of Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary mind.
I wonder if that goes for Joel Osteens, name it claim it church too?

I don't want to stray from mormonism here too far but I heard Osteen deny the Lord on national tv.. Smith didn't have the honor of such a wide denial as Osteen, but it was still before men. Jesus will therefore deny them both before the Father.. IHS jim