Ha, ha. At least he acknowledges there’s a lot of ugly information to be discovered; he just fails to mention that 95% of it is completely true. “Hey guys, apparently a bunch of you are drawing incorrect conclusions about the church just because you found out Joseph Smith was a confidence man who pretended he could find buried treasure and nailed every woman in sight. Please stop doing this. KTHNXBAI.”
It look like I may have been wrong. We had a tread about this a couple of years ago and dangermom said it wasn’t being taught at the time, and that she wouldn’t be surprised if someone was making it up. Let’s see, let me try and dig that quote up.
(My bolding) As I pointed out in that thread, the person who would been speculating a little too much would have been this guy, although it doesn’t surprise me that active Mormons aren’t aware of who taught that concept.
The reason that Young’s teachings on the nature of Adam is fascinating to me is that when I was coming of age in the 70s, the teachings were very much that the prophets knew the truth. Here is a fairly typical article from that era.
I would have been a junior in high school when that came out. There were repeated messages that the prophets wouldn’t lead people astray. That it required a correct understanding of God’s plan or we were toast on Judgment Day. Then it comes out that Brigham had been teaching a doctrine which later leaders clearly labeled false. How do reconcile this difference?
I guess we’ve come a long ways, baby, in that devote members are willing to throw Joseph Smith under the bus to preserve the current leaders’ decision to place conformity with ordinary Christianity over what had been cherished beliefs.
You are at fault for having questions. Any time I went to church leaders when I had legitimate questions concerning the inconsistencies in the teachings, the first thing they would do would be to try to make it about me and my “worthiness.” I guess the question of why Joseph Smith was screwing other men’s wives can only be answered if the person who is asking the question isn’t screwing anyone he shouldn’t be. Or even thinking of screwing someone or perhaps watching porn because it may tempt him to want to screw someone. So, we can have prophets of the Lord fuck fourteen-year-olds; pressure married women into marrying him, while sending the husband on missions; and the problem isn’t them, but you? 'm OK.
How about this from the current Gospel Principles manual? (Bolding mine).
[QUOTE=Gospel Principles Manual]
Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:
[ol]
[li]They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).[/li][li]They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).[/li][li]They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.[/li][li]They will receive a fulness of joy.[/li][li]They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20).[/li][/ol]
[/QUOTE]
This is a dangerous cultic attitude. Many people who left the CoJCoLDS left for a reason. How do you know whether that reason is valid or not except by investigating it? Paul the Apostle was an ex-Jew. Should Jews today avoid reading his Letter to the Romans because it was written by an apostate and thus can’t possibly help them understand God? What about the writings of ex-Muslims who became Christians? Are their writings utter trash that cannot be used?
The truth is the truth, right? If the CoJCoLDS is true, then it should eventually be vindicated by sincere and honest research, right?
…unless the man happened to be named Tiresias, perhaps.
And to give April R her due, he might be motivated to be less-than-reliable with any answer he were to give. 
As the originator of the thread, I will honestly say this:
I have heard reference to the following paraphrase being among Mormon beliefs:
Now I’ve been sure ever since I first heard about this that it would be a distortion to suggest that Mormons believe that on Judgement Day they stand in line like at a commencement ceremony, get their hands shaken, and an angel says, “Congratulations. Here’s your harp, here’s your halo, here’s your planet.” But I’ve also been sure that the concept didn’t arise out of a total vacuum. I really was interested in getting information about the actual Church Doctrine concerning it.
You may ask, “Then why don’t you ask at a Church-sponsored source, such as the website, or from a missionary?” If that is your question, my answer is that I don’t have any interest in becoming a Mormon, and I didn’t want the answer to be given exclusively by a source that has a vested interest in persuading me to join. I figured that at the SDMB, at least some of the responders won’t care whether I do or whether I don’t (join, that is).
Is that honestly revelatory enough for your purposes?
Are you SURE? What about Rule 34?
People keep asking, and you keep not drilling down to this statement
Why is that? Why can the teaching not be permitted to evolve to a point where a marriage between two women or between two men can take place in the temple?
Apologies if this has been dealt with earlier in the thread. If it has, please disregard it. Otherwise, some attention to it would e appreciated.
This one at least is easy.
It is part of the temple/eternal progression bit. The whole point of a temple marriage (or sealing) is that it is supposed to exist beyond death. Even among Mormons, not all get sealed. Like most other Christian marriages, outside the temple Mormons are married “till death do you part.” However in the temples couples can be sealed together for eternity. Without that sealing they can’t be together forever. And they can’t reach exaltation, that is to become like God. Part of the promise of exaltation, is that you get to have eternal increase… that is you get to procreate and have little spirit children. According to the doctrine, that requires a man and a woman. Two dudes or two ladies won’t be able to bear spirit children (celestial surrogatehood or adoption apparently not being an option). So even if it were ever offered a temple sealing wouldn’t do a gay couple any good.
All that said Mormons can and do get married outside the temple all the time. So it is possible that some day gay couples may get married in Mormon churches. But gay temple marriage will have to wait for the current doctrine to be forgotten.
What?
Spirit children?
Is there birth control in the afterlife, or are you required to make bump-bump with the intent to have little Caspers?
Especially since I just finished reading Jon Krakauer’s Under The Banner of Heaven, about Mommonism, the splintering of sects (when anyone of the devout can have devine revelations, and feels he is “the one sent mighty and strong”.
Watching Mormonism and Scientology being born in the modern age reminds me of the old observation “anyone who likes the law or sausage should never watch either one being made”.
April, in order to keep your faith, don’t read Krakauer’s book (which I’m sure you won’t, anyway).
Thank you.
Yes, spirit children. To explain, you have to take a step back. The idea is that every person ever born or will ever be born on Earth already existed before birth. God and his wives (now changed to singular wife) had billions of spirit children (i.e. you and me and everyone) and they all wait for their turn on Earth. If you are a faithful Mormon and get sealed to your spouse, then you can progress to become a God couple yourselves. You then would have billions of spirit children, create your own version of Earth, and start the process from scratch so those spirit children could get bodies and a chance to live.
So no, no celestial birth control. If you are holy enough to become a God couple, then by definition you will want to continue the cycle and create new spirits and a new planet.
You can’t be single in Heaven?
If you are single, the best you can do is be a “ministering angel.” Like a helper to real god. To attain godhood, you must be a sealed couple (or a man sealed to several women).
There are a lot of jokes inside the church about single older women being consigned to being ministering angels.
Or to becoming a plural wife to a faithful man. Although I don’t know that that ever rose past the level of just a joke.
I always post this, but the difference between men and women in the afterlife is that men get sex forever and the women are constantly pregnant.
Do the spirit children on your version of Earth also have to go through a Lucifer-assisted Fall, and Salvation?
More to the point, perhaps, do you get to hang out with those spirit children, such that they don’t need to accept your existence on faith?
This is a great question. The answer is yes, but with the qualification that Mormons have a different version/understanding of the Fall and Lucifer’s rebellion. (Short version: the Fall in Mormonism is regarded as necessary, unavoidable, and in the long-term good and essential. Lucifer is also one of God’s spirit children, like us, and thus won’t accompany any new Gods to their realms. Presumably, similar rebellions and the universal nature of evil choices will ensure that there is a oppositional figure like Satan in any new universes.)
You can hang with your spirit children BEFORE they come to Earth (or Earth 2.0) but once they have their probationary mortal period, they’ll have to earn their way back into your presence, or in other words, they’ll have to be very good and holy to be able to bear your awesome God presence. Remember, your relationship with them will be exactly the same as all of us and our relationship to God now.
Thank you for the clarification.
A bit more, if it’s not too much trouble. Are you allowed to be explicit regarding your existence (periodically sending down a thunderbolt that carves a mountain range into the words Still here, still waiting for y’all. Love, Dad, or something of that [super]nature*)?
*Did you see what I did there? HAH! I slay me…