Ask the Mormon

If anyone’s interested (and since someone brought up the Reorganized Church earlier in the thread), there’s an excellent book written by a former LDS who’s now one of the senior guys in the RLDS Church: Divergent Paths of the Restoration, Steven L. Shields, ASIN: 0942284003. Amazon’s got it going for about 50 bucks. The copy I used to have cost far less than that & I got it from Herald House, the RLDS version of Deseret Book. If you find yourself in Monterey County, California, you should be able to read it for free: I donated it to the county library system.

Regarding divorce: Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, our church does permit and recognize divorce. If the couple had been sealed in the Temple, then the Church may grant what’s commonly referred to as a “temple divorce.” Most famous person I know of who’s gone through that was Marie Osmond. There are a number of reasons for granting such a thing, one of which is cruelty towards the spouse or children, and another one is infidelity. Once those covenants have been broken, then there’s no “hold” onto the spouse in the hereafter. Also, nobody “belongs” to anyone. Marriage is a partnership, with each partner having different “jobs.”

One of the books comprising the Book of Mormon is entitled Jacob. That particular prophet had this to say about a man’s duties towards his wife (I’ve bolded one particular portion & will explain why later in this posting):

I didn’t use any ellipsis because I don’t want to get accused of leaving anything out.

Clearly, this passage shows that the Church teaches that adultery isn’t the thing to do.

The portion I bolded is directly relevant to a recent event in the news.

Also, the chapter and verse numbering I used above, since I’m LDS, are from the Utah church’s versification of the Book of Mormon. The versification of this particular volume of Scripture occurred after the split of the major “Paths of the Restoration,” to use Mr. Shields’ term.

You can access the LDS version directly at The Book of Mormon. The RLDS version is at http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/default.htm. I don’t know if that church has approved this; however, it seems to be an unbiased site, something to do with Comparative Religion.

As to the President of the Church: We feel that he is led by the Holy Spirit and guided by God and Jesus Christ to lead the Church and its members in the service of the Lord Jesus and in the service of our fellow man. Any revelation that he receives, any teaching that he submits to the church (and I mean submits to the church) is presented first to those attending the General Conference and, if sustained, then submitted to the entire membership in the various wards and branches for sustaining. There is no coercion. I believe, but am not sure if this is required, that before presenting anything to the General Conference, the President of the Church first presents it to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Please check www.lds.org for both the teachings and the organizations of the Utah church. You can check www.rlds.org[/org] for the same information about the Community of Christ.

A very interesting site is www.restoration.org. Be sure to scroll down and click on the pull down menus for “Alternative Mormon churches with continuous existance,” “Alternative Restoration churches based on Joseph Smith III,” and “Other important Restoration sites.”

Brother McConkie’s book is not scripture, so please bear that in mind when you read it or cite it.

A final note: “Versification” of scriptures is one of my hobbies. It is not limited to just Mormon stuff. I’m interested in how any faith has decided to split up its scriptures for ease of instruction and/or memorization. Oddly enough, I’m also interested in the versification of Shakespeare’s works!

Crud. I did make a misspelling in that quotation from Jacob. “Savie” appears as “save” in the Scriptures. Sorry.

mangeorge: I find your questions in this thread to be respectful and nonconfrontational. Thought you’d be interested in that.

Crud! There’s yet another misspelling of mine in the quote from Jacob. I’ve no idea what a “daugher” is, but since the BoM says “daughters,” let’s go with that instead. As I said above, you can link to the Book of Mormon online: your choice of which church, Us or Them! BTW, the link for the Community of Christ is supposed to be: www.rlds.org.

Here we’re squarely in the realm of policy.

Temple sealings (marriages) hold the promise of being in force beyond death if both parties live up to the covenants they made. Also, while plural marriage in this life isn’t practiced currently, it may be practiced out of this life. Hence, it is possible for a man to be sealed to multiple women, but not vice versa.

From a spiritual standpoint, sealings should be taken very seriously–even more so than what we consider civil marriage. A practical result of this is that sealings aren’t dissolved unless necessary, and so even if a civil divorce happens, a cancellation of sealing usually doesn’t happen at the same time. If the ex-husband and ex-wife both endure to the end and are saved in the Celestial Kingdome of God, I would expect them to have worked out their differences, and be able to be together again in the eternities, but of course not if either objected.
If a man remarries (and is worthy to be sealed) he can be sealed to his second wife without cancelling the first sealing. This is the practical, but not ideal solution (ideally, the first separation wouldn’t happen at all). If a woman chose to remarry, she would have to have the first sealing cancelled. In either case (the man or woman remarrying), the church would consult with the ex-spouse before the sealing is approved. One reason for this is to make sure the spouse has been keeping up with his or her obligations from the separation (in other words, deadbeat dads don’t qualify to be sealed again until they fix the deadbeat status).

That is the current policy as I understand it, and I’ve worked with a few people who’ve gone through this process, but it’s not something I deal with on a regular basis, so I could be wrong.

genie Thank you for fielding this one for me, but it’s looking like I’m going to have to explain further.

SandiMama welcome to the boards :slight_smile:

I think in order for this to be explained so that people unfamiliar with temple marriage (sealing) will be able to understand as well, I’ll have to go into a little bit more background.

When you are “sealed” to your husband or wife in the temple marriage ceremony, it is done so with each spouse entering into the to eternal marriage understanding that if either one of you do not live up to your promises you’ve made to Heavenly Father and each other, the sealing is not valid in the site of God.

In a civil ceremony, the phrase “until death do you part” is part of it. In the LDS temple ceremony, it is “for all time and eternity”… meaning: you have entered into a commitment potentially culminating in being together as a family forever.

The guy I married was extremely abusive. He was not “worthy” to be going to the temple and being sealed to me when he did, but he lied to get there where he mistakenly believed that I would become his “property” which would give him the right to treat me in whatever way he chose and I would “have” to submit to it.

That is not what the Church teaches at all! As has been discussed above, husbands and wives are considered equal partners in your marriage. Church members are taught to treat your spouse with the utmost respect.

In short, just because I was sealed to the man for eternity, since he abused me in so many ways including threatening to kill me several times and attempted to also, he is not worthy to be considered as a potential eternal companion for me by Heavenly Father.

In addition, as I understand it, (and my only cite for this is several Bishops have told me the same thing that I’m about to tell you, so if you want to know where it is written, I can’t tell you…if you are that serious about wanting to see it in writing, I hope you will search it out. For me, I’m satisfied with the answer and don’t feel the need to research it.)

The Bishops I have gone to for counsel/guidance about this have all told me that not only is he not worthy, but I would still have the option as to wither or not I wanted to go with him. It is automatically determined that you will be “suck” with someone.

I hope that makes it clear. If not, ask away, and once I understand what is still unclear, I’ll try to explain it again.

Now for the more personal side of the question.

As has been stated, in order for me to be sealed to another man during this life, I would have to contact the man I am currently sealed to and ask him to agree to a “cancellation of sealing”.

IF he agreed to it, then my request would be sent to the First Presidency in Salt Lake City and the President of the Church (Prophet) would have to authorize it.

I can just hear it now; there are those of you reading this asking me why I don’t do it…

  1. In order for me to request a cancellation of sealing, I have to be engaged to a man who is worthy of going to the temple and wants to be sealed to me and I want the same.

For years I begged Bishops to let me put in the request without someone else being in my life. They would not do it and the most comforting explanation they could offer me was the part that it’s not a done deal…I’m not trapped/stuck with the creep.

  1. I have no desire whatsoever to come into contact with my ex!!! I don’t want to even risk having a bishop talk to him for me and request his okay dokay. I don’t want him to be reminded I even exist. I don’t want to know where he is. He stalked me for 11 years. I don’t want to risk it starting again.

So, even if I had married someone who was an active member of the Church, I would have refused to be sealed to him in this life.

This is probably the point where I’m explaining I’m using my
“free agency” or freedom to choose how I want to handle this very difficult situation. There are no easy, clear-cut answers how to handle it. For YEARS I was distressed by it. But by now, I’ve reached a place where I’m at peace with my decision.

I believe that Heavenly Father is truly a loving God and although I don’t know how it will be worked out, as the traditionally taught way is really not an option for me, I do believe (have faith) that if I live the best possible life I can, Heavenly Father will take care of things.

Oh, one other thing. If a woman wanted a cancellation of sealing but her ex-husband was dead, he wouldn’t very well be able to agree to it. She wouldn’t be able to go through with it. Surely, Heavenly Father has a plan for these kinds of situations. As humans with limited knowledge of eternal plans, and brains not well developed enough to comprehend it all anyway, … Shoot, I forget where I was going with that. Oh, and some of the other things my ex was involved in, I would not be surprised if he was dead. I hope he is. I would be able to rest knowing he wouldn’t get a hair tickling him to come hunting me again.

Suffice it to say, Rico and I both plan on being together for eternity despite what the Church teaches is the only way for that to be achieved. We have faith that there is something in place for good people who do the very best they can to live good lives but are unable to be sealed in the LDS Temple.

I’m exhausted now. I’ve been writing this for what seems like forever.

If that wasn’t clear or answers you’re questions about the doctrine regarding Temple sealing (marriage) or the official position on divorce, or how I can live a happy life with my husband despite what I was raised to believe…I’m sorry. Let me know what is still confusing and I’ll try to explain it again once I understand what is still unclear.

Kathy

Cadolphin, I was interested in Mormanism because a few of my wife’s close friends are Morman, and they are wonderful people. I never intended to offend anyone, nor did I mean to choose an anti-Morman site. It’s just that when my wife, a devout Baptist, asked me “what exactly is Mormanism”, this is what I found. Neither of us wanted to believe that some of our good friends were this ‘different’ (compared to her Baptist and my Catholic beliefs), but we didn’t have any sources to verify or debunk the information. We didn’t dare approach our friends on this, because the subject of religion is very touchy and often leads to terrible arguments (and we do not want to taint our friendship).

Hence I was very excited when I saw an ‘Ask a Mormon’ thread, since I knew I’d get the Straight Dope on the subject without offending my friends. Sorry if you took the link as the wrong way - I just wanted to know if the site is accurate or not.

SPOOFE, thank you for the in-depth analysis, it is very interesting.

I think one main question we have is regarding Joseph Smith - is he as important as Jesus? Is he really descended from Jesus? Did God really talk to Smith? How could so much weight be put on one individual - a man - thus taking the focus away from Jesus?

Opps, that should be: it is not automatically determined…

Bob, thanks for explaining where you were coming from. For good information online, the offical site for the church is the best place to start for accurate information. LDS Main Homepage

Kathy

Joseph Smith -

<The gosple according to Kathy:>

We are all children of God, therefor, IMHO, we are all as important and have intrinsic worth that is so considerable it is difficult for us to fully comprehend. </The gosple according to Kathy:>

Now that you know where I am coming from with my personal bias, I do not remember ever hearing anyone say in any of my Church classes or meetings that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus nor have I heard that he is descended from Jesus.

At this point, let me say, if you wish to further discuss the possiblity that anyone is a blood decendant from Jesus, please take it to Great Debates. As I have heard it, some people believe Jesus did marry and other people do not believe he did. I do not know of a scripture that clearly says yes or no either way…only some that can be interpreted to say what you want them to say.

There are many accounts that state he did infact talk directly with God. But as I’m sure you have heard, or will be said now that this is being said, there are many people who question the validity of this.

I’ll post the official account of the first time Joseph Smith said he spoke with God. It is known as The First Vision. This account is found in the *Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith—History 1:1-26 *

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here, but if you are saying what I’ve heard many times before— suggesting that Mormons worship Joseph Smith instead of Jesus, that is just wrong. We do not worship Joseph Smith.

The Church teaches us that Joseph Smith was chosen to be God’s instrament to bring the Gospel back on the Earth as it was before being corrupted centuries ago, but he is not considered a God, or part of the Trinity and is not worshipped as if he was. He was a man who was chosen to be a modern day Prophet, not a god.

Kathy

To add to what Kathy said, we do not worship Joseph Smith, believe he is descended from Jesus Christ, or put him on the same plane as Christ. He was a prophet, and the best comparison is for you to understand that we think of him as similar to Abraham, Moses, or Peter–an inspired leader of the people, authorized by God to shepherd the church in his name. But not the same as the Savior, who is the real Head of the Church.

Incidentally, where did you hear that we think Smith was descended from Christ? That’s certainly a new one for me.

I’ll assume you are kidding since that’s preposterous.

:: Trying to picture the Prophet and apostles sitting down at their strategy meeting… First item of business: Elder _____ , did you carry out your instructions planting information incriminating Ms. SoandSo thereby insuring she’ll be eliminated… ::

NOPE I just can’t see that the leaders of a church with over 11 million members are going to devote any of their precious time to such a cause… but the idea does indeed make me smile… LOL

Good one, thank you for the chuckle :smiley:

Kathy

I’ve never heard that one either genie.

Maybe I need to get out more :wink:

K.

Well, since Kathy brought it up, what is God’s (as Mormons know him) attitude toward non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, imperfect Mormons and total non-believers such as myself? If a person lives an otherwise “holy” life, but just can’t accept the part about Joseph and The Book, does he/she stand a chance of eternal bliss?

mangeorge, please let me think about this awhile…to make sure I’m clear on what the Church’s position is without my personal opinion clouding the answer. I don’t want to give you inaccurate information and I am fully aware I’ve justified my personal belief on this topic a bit so that it works for me.

If someone else comes in and can answer the question sooner, please have at it.

Kathy

Nobody, except Sons of Perdition, is damned to any sort of eternal hell or torment. After you die, you go to "Heaven’s Waiting Room’ where you can either accept God and receive the ordinances, or you don’t. If you accept the ordinances, they have to be performed for you by proxy (think Baptism of the Dead). You do not have to accept these ordinances. Your Free Will is not compromised in anyway. There’s a scripture verse about this, but I can’t remember what it is…been a long itme since Seminary.
So anyway, if you accept Jesus Christ and all the of the covenants and ordiances, your sins will be wiped away and onto the Celestial Kingdom you go. (After the Second Coming.)
If you do not accept them, then you have to pay for your own sins in what my Seminary teacher affectionately called “Hotel Hell”. It’s certainly not an Eternal Torment thing–hence the “hotel” part. Once those sins are paid for, you are sent to one of the Levels of Heaven–Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial. They are all levels of Heaven, and all of them are heavenline, none are equal to Hell–they are just different levels of Glory.
There is Outer Darkness, but that’s for the Sons of Perdition. The chanes that you are guilty of this sin is slim to none—unless you’ve personally talked to Jesus Christ yourself that is.

Sorry if I’m stepping on any toes, but this is my favorite part of the LDS religion. If I were to ever believe in God again, I would become a Mormon again. I didn’t leave the Church—I just couldn’t accept the basic premise–that is, God exists.

Oh, and I could be very wrong. Seminary was several years ago, and I was pretty young. If I did misunderstand the whole process, I apologize.

The more I think about it, the more I think we covered this when I started ditching class to uh…spend time wiht my BF, so I really may not be the best source.

You nailed it pepperlandgirl… a perfect 10!

The only thing I’d add, is we are also taught that if we knew what the lowest level is like, we’d be anxious to get there. I’m sorry, I don’t remember the exact wording of the that, but I’m sure that says the same thing…just in my words.

Kathy

There have been many changes in the BoM since its original publication. The most notable one was versifying it. Additionally, when Joseph dictated the translation, his scribes pretty much had to guess at punctuation, etc. Most of the changes are trivial. There are some instances in which the word “God” was changed to “Son of God”. Some have accused Smith of making those changes as his theology changed from Trinitarian to the modern Mormon view. Those arguments are specious however–“God” is a perfectly correct, but imprecise label for Christ–changing it introduces specificity, but no doctrinal changes. Additionally, this argument ignores the fact that there are more trinitarian-sounding phrases still in the BoM.

That’s the skinny. An absurdly detailed analysis can be found here.

As for errors in the BoM, we make no claims that it is perfect. The title page itself states:

There you go. pepperlandgirl, a devout (except for the God stuff) Mormon, knocking on heaven’s door. :wink: Will it open?

Yeah, and they campare it to the Sun (Celestial) Moon(Terrestrial) and Stars (Telestial) in terms of glory. And Joseph Smith said that he saw each kingdom, but he couldn’t give away the details because if we knew, we would kill ourselves to get there…