Hey Allen, Your Mormon site . I lost it, please send it when you can.they will be like(as the ANGELS(aggelos,32) in heaven.(Mt 22:30) .Versse2, Praise him, all his angels (aggelos ,32); 5, Let them praise the name
of the LORD(YHWH), for at his command they were Created,( Psalm 148 2,5 NIV) .
In heaven Christians will be like angels who both are created spiritual beings
by God. No procreation or death. For by(Jesus/YWHW)] him all things
were created(aggelos), in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things were created through him
and for him.And the angels who did not keep their positions of
authority but abandoned their own home(Jude 1:6), Bad angels (devils)nothing to
do with a pre mortal estate.
Hi sharrona, nice to hear from you again! Jesus' comments as
recorded in Matthew are discussed in detail in my Mormon site, so I won't use up
my 200 words repeating my comments here. For those interested, my Mormon site
can easily be found via Google.You said Christians want to be with
God. As Christians, we Mormons also want to be with God. There is one
difference, though, between our desire and your desire. We want to be with God
as families. You seem to want to be with God as an individual. This
is the last comment that I'm allowed in this thread, so I won't be able to
discuss this further. You're welcome, sharrona, to visit my Mormon site and
discuss this further, if you'd like.
Allen:At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage;
they will be like(as) the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30 NIV). This was Jesus
answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married
multiple times in her life whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew
22:23-28)There will be marriage in heaven our marriage to the Son of God.
It is then that our love for Jesus will be consummated in eternal bliss,
bringing us to realms of exquisite joy and never-ending fulfillment.Christians want to be with God Mormons want to be god.
@Mike LIt is important that we realize polygamy is a policy or
practice and not an eternal principle, because if polygamy is an eternal
principle, it can't be discontinued, and we all should leave the church and join
one of the fundamentalist groups that believe in polygamy. However, since
polygamy is a policy or practice, it can be started or stopped anytime the Lord
wants to do that. Thus, the statement in Jacob 2:30 that the Lord will command
it when he wants the people to practice it, otherwise we should have one
wife.I do believe we will have polygamy in the afterlife, but we
can't say who will and who won't have it. You mentioned your father. He was
"sealed" to his first wife and later had a civil divorce from her. He
was "sealed" to his second wife. These sealings were just promises of
what might happen in the future. Maybe, in the next life, he will be actually
sealed to both women. Maybe only to the first or only to the second, or to none.
We don't know. The LORD WILL decide who is actually sealed to whom.
@Mike LIf polygamy is an eternal principle, then it can't be banned
or temporally discontinued due to political pressure. It is a fact that the
church did stop the practice of polygamy in 1890 and again a few years later,
and that tells me polygamy is a policy or practice and not an eternal principle.
In addition, in the BoM, Jacob 2:28-30, the Lord said that if he wants polygamy,
he will command it; otherwise they should have one wife. It seems pretty clear
that polygamy is a policy or practice and not an eternal principle.I'm not saying that there will be no polygamy in the afterlife. I'm just
saying that polygamy is a practice that was discontinued 1890. When the church
discontinued polygamy, and today when it excommunicates people who practice
polygamy, I don't think the church is saying anything about polygamy in the
afterlife. It is dealing with a policy about marriage that was changed in 1890
and is not in effect today.
D&C 132 is all about the eternal covenant of plural marriage.In
1966 Bruce R McConkie also said that polygamy will commence again after the
Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium. Talk to
your Stake President or a Temple Worker. They will not deny plural marriage is
an eternal principle.. because it is!
Although your explanations are rational, they are not factual. If you read
Joseph Smith's own writings, in addition to the writings of Brigham Young, John
Taylor, even apostles in the 1960s and 70's spoke (and wrote) about polygamy
being the "new and everlasting covenant" that was spoken of by Joseph
Smith, and that for now, it means "Eternal Marriage".. which INCLUDES
polygamous marriages in the afterlife.To deny this fact is denying
Joseph Smith and the aforementioned prophets, as a unified voice, are wrong.Do some reading beyond your Gospel Essentials book.
I hope the efforts continue to shut down these religious sex encampments.
Go ahead and argue over semantics. The fact remains that the LDS Church does
not sanction plural marriage here on earth and excommunicates anybody who enters
into or performs plural marriage as well as anybody who supports polygamists.
This is a churchwide policy. Mormons who live in countries where plural
marriage is legal may not enter into such a marriage, or they will lose their
membership in the church.The media does a disservice to society by
referring to Warren Jeffs as a Mormon fundamentalist. Some people confuse the
LDS Church, commonly known as the Mormon Church, with various organizations of
polygamists who reject the LDS Church. I believe the attorney
general of Utah also does a disservice by refusing to prosecute those who enter
into plural marriages. I suspect it's because he believes the government never
should have persecuted 19th century Mormons who practiced their religion.
Mitt, John, and Harry just have got to be loving these discussions. Such a feast
for the voters!
The church never "banned" the practice of polygamy...it was
"discontinued" which means it may very well be practiced again.
The church had no choice but to ban polygamy, unless it wanted all of its
polygamist members rounded up and sitting in a jail cell.
Mike L:"I believe the Church is half lying when we try to make
good PR by saying we "banned" polygamy."When we talk
of banning polygamy, we are talking about not allowing a man to be married to
more than one wife at the same time. A man cohabitating with more than one wife
at a time is in fact excommunicated, as I am sure a high councilor would know.
There is no lie there. Current church law unequivocally reflects that and
enforces it. Now, as to plural marriage in the eternities, that
is another story. Let me give you an example. My wife's grandfather survived
two spouses, both of whom he is sealed to. In the eternal scheme of things, he
is a polygamist. However, he had only one wife at a time on this side of the
veil. In the eyes of the law, he is not a polygamist. There is no lie.This idea that a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but not
cohabitating with both on this earth is where the anti's accusations of polygamy
against the LDS Church come from.
He who acts as his own lawer has a fool for a client.
Mike L,Church leaders don't make decisions about who will actually
be married to whom in the next life. As a policy, a man can be
"sealed" to more than one woman, but the the "sealing" in
the temple is only a promise. In the case of your father, he has been
"sealed" to two women. In the next life, will he be actually married
to both of them? We don't know. God will decide that.On another
note, polygamy is a policy not a principle. Eternal marriage is the principle.
Polygamy and monogamy are policies that apply the principle to our lives. Yes,
Brigham Young and other church leaders in the 19th century spoke of polygamy as
if it were an eternal principle, but they were trying to justify their practice
of something that was radically different from normal social relationships. If
polygamy is an eternal principle, then LDS had better leave the LDS church and
become active members of a church practicing polygamy. On the other hand, if
polygamy is a policy and eternal marriage is the principle, we should expect
polygamy to be practiced at times and not at other times.
Mike L...to give your story some traction, you might want to use the word
them thar Texan boys will do what gotta be done ! Utah and Arizona need to
watch this so they can learn how to things the right way the first time
Another huge pass along of misinformation that news outlets continue to accept,
that we, the LDS church, don't "practice" polygamy anymore..Our church history in our doctrine that there is an eternal principle of
polygamy. It was put ON hold for Utah to become a state. It is still an eternal
principle and teaching. Any educated mainstream Mormon can affirm that.Fact: my father was allowed to marry another woman in the temple after my
mother divorced him civilly, but remains his wife on church record... and he has
both on his church record that are HIS in the afterlife. And guess what? If my
mother were to come back into the church, she wouldn't be allowed to be
"sealed" to another man.I believe the Church is half lying
when we try to make good PR by saying we "banned" polygamy.I am not anti-Mormon. I am in the high counsel of my stake. I am simply
stating the facts that can't be ignored.
CougarKeith:I'll help you get it. The Constitution states that the
the judge and jury presume the accused innocent unless proven guilty. The rest
of us may believe or assert whatever we want.
Perhaps he thinks he is like Jesus...a lamb being brought to the slaughter...he
opened his mouth not. What a fool. May justice be served by putting you behind
bars for life Mr. Jeffs.
Be careful when you move to Texas to avoid Utah prosecutors.
Fitness Freak | 10:37 a.m. July 28, 2011 Salt Lake City, UT Its embarassing to see Texas having to deal with this guy when Utah and/or
Arizona law enforcement SHOULD have dealt with him 10 yrs. ago.Fitness, Utah seems to have a habit of not dealing with things. The Brian
David Mitchell case comes to mind. Is this a budgetary decision? Let someone
else pay for the trial and incarceration?
Jeffs: "You're all fired! I'm going to represent myself!"Judge: "Why?"Jeffs: "Nobody else is capable of
making a good defense."Judge: "Um....Okay."Jeffs: "Oh, by the way, I'd like to postpone the trial."Judge: "Why?"Jeffs: "Well, I need time to find
somebody to help me make a good defense! Duh!"Judge: *facepalm
The guy claims to be a prophet, then he denounces himself as one, then he claims
it again??? Well let God support him or denounce him, and allow him to defend
himself. Here we go again in the justice system, everyone wants to judge him and
convict him before the trial has even started or finished. VERY SAD!!! You all
want to honor the Constitution of the United States, but nobody wants to follow
it??? I don't get it?
There is the old adage in criminal trials that describes a person who represents
himself at trial: "He has a fool for a client." Now this
trial should really turn interesting! He is going to be asked questions by
prosecutors, and without any legal guidance as to how he should answer, Mr.
Jeffs will defintely prove the accuracy of the above adage!Congratulations to the judical system in Texas for refusing to let Mr. Jeff's
latest stalling attempt to succeed.
And when he loses his case he can claim "incompetent legal
counsel".Its embarassing to see Texas having to deal with this
guy when Utah and/or Arizona law enforcement SHOULD have dealt with him 10 yrs.
ago.Thank you Texas.