Really? Where?
I forgot to answer a question from TokyoPlayer. Which religions? Well, I’ve heard quite a few people from a number of “mainstream” Christian denominations (Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, etc.) saying they’re looking forward to being reunited with their spouses.
Matthew 22:23-33, and parallels (Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40).
The Sadducees tried to trap him with a trick question that tries to find an embarrassing glitch in the doctrine of the ressurection. Essentially, Jesus teaches that couples who die are no longer “married” in the next life when they are raised from the dead, but are unmarried, as the angels also are.
For Jesus and the early disciples, the whole point is not so much about “going to heaven” but being raised from the dead at the end of time.
Interesting interpretation. Note that I used the word interpretation.
I’m not sure why that interpretation is “interesting.” The text is quite clear and unambiguous. There’s pretty much no controversy on what Jesus’ view on the resurrection is in this passage. The view I presented is the standard one.
Are you aware of any other interpretations? How would you understand this passage?
Of course, there is the other debate as whether the Jesus of history said those things, but that is not my point. I’m talking only about the Jesus according to the Gospels.
Of course, there is the other debate as whether the Jesus of history said those things, but that is not my point. I’m talking only about the Jesus according to the Gospels.
Probably not.
To paraphrase an episode from Around The World In Eighty Days (the novel, not the movie):
On a train in Utah a Mormon passenger gives a lecture on his faith. Passepartout decides to attend. At the end he asks the Mormon how many wives he had, and the answer is, “Just one, and that was enough!” 
is the church of lds helping texas with the women and children? they are rather obviously going through a culture shock. it would seem somewhat helpful if the church groups that are helping were mormon. in the news it just says church groups and doesn’t give denominations.
I have a question about the D&C 132. In one part it says:
In the books “Under the banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer (which I know some LDS members think is not very good) he explains this passage as follows (I’m going by memory here because my copy is not readily available - if someone wants I can verify what I am saying):
Joseph Smith decided he wanted multiple wives.
His wife Emma Smith was not too pleased with that idea and told him “Well if you can have multiple wives why don’t I take multiple husband? So there.”
The revelation from God to Joseph Smith, conveniently enough, singled out Emma Smith saying that she should in no way think that this multiple spouse business could apply to her.
What is the official interpretation of this passage according to LDS doctrine?
From my meager readings on the subject, I got the idea that women’s suffrage was not uncommon amongst territories or states in the USA, being used as a tool to encourage immigration by women: Wyoming, Washington, Montana, Colorado also allowed women to vote pretty early IIRC. Which doesn’t mean, of course, that we shouldn’t give full credit to those governments that gave women the right to vote before it was common practice in the rest of the Union.
Nope. It wasn’t rescinded by the Manifesto, not even close.
Let’s look at the language of the two sections.
This is from the revelation [del]allowing[/del] commanding polygamy. Note that the voice is of God.
Then let’s look at the section which you cited as the “end” of polygamy, in the words of the then current leader of the church.
On one hand, we have God commanding polygamy, and then on the other hand we have a leader who gives a personal view suggesting people don’t cross legal lines in the sand. Is it any wonder that the practice continued?
Which would be an interesting question if WW received a commandment which reversed JS’s one. OTOH, if WW were only to release a public statement which urged people, as a personal stance and not in the name of God, to not cross legal lines then there may not be as clear a message. I’d be confused, and I’m not nearly as smart as the rest of the crowd.
And are these offical doctrines of the churches in questions or simply members speaking of their wishes?
Please, Monty, cite me another Christian denomination which teaches that people can become gods in the next life, and that men can have multiple wives therein. If you will so kindly do so, I’ll look into the differences.
Suggesting that Mormons still believe in polygamy is very different from trying to prove that Mormons still practice polygamy.