www.lds-awakening.information

[_j-bug]

I was searching the web looking for any indication of an LDS awakening taking form to address the alarming dangers that seem to be creeping up around us. I have had a growing uneasiness for years that my fellow LDS brothers and sisters and I are not measuring up to what the Lord requires for His divine protection. I want to do more to live up to my responsibilities in the eyes of the Lord but there appears to be much resistance even within my circle of LDS friends. Attention to worldly pursuits, apathy or "oooh, we shouldn't talk about those subjects" and the conversation is derailed somehow are commonplace. I feel like if I press too much simply wanting to get real about being a true latter-day Saint that I will just find myself branded a nut-case fringe whacko who is heading to apostasy.

My testimony of the restoration is built rock solid on the bedrock of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I know that Jesus is my Redeemer but what I am confronting is the questioning in my mind that His Church is far more full of tares than I had ever imagined and that I am very likely one of them if I continue to just "go with the flow".

I realize from observation that people are excommunicated these days for crying out that they want the church to go in a certain direction. I realize if I were to be excommunicated that I would be denied the Holy Ghost and that I would essentially be spiritually put to death. But, at the same time, the scriptures say that we must be willing to lose our lives for the Gospel's sake.

I am to the point that I am willing to start crying out for us as a body of saints to quit this game of pleasing the world and to start petitioning to have all of our rights restored, just as the scriptures tell us to do, so that we can qualify for the Lord's protection. Anyway, in my searching I found this web-site that I found very interesting. I would like to hear other's impressions about this web-site. Please go here: http://www.lds-awakening.information

Thanks

[_Joseph]

As one GA said in his conference talk: If you are asking questions you are on the road to apostacy.

It was edited out in the talk posted on LDS.org

[_Wisdom Seeker]

As one GA said in his conference talk: If you are asking questions you are on the road to apostacy.

It was edited out in the talk posted on LDS.org

Was this the most recent conference? Can you tell me who and when?

[_Joseph]

I got a call from one person I home teach, an attorney. Very disturbed at the talk. We looked the next day on LDS.org and the words were different. Don't remember which it was so will have to get to this one when they get back from out of town for a couple weeks.

They were major league pissed though, at that and at packers lunacy.

[_moksha]

Joseph, I apologize for asking you on another thread what your status was in regards to the Church. Anyone who takes the time to do home teaching (especially to an attorney) is entitled to a wide variance of opinion.

[_just me]

j-bug, I believe you are in error in your belief that the "tares" represent people.

Darn it! Why do you believe that Polygamy is commanded by God? Why is God so bent on destroying Emma and other women in D&C 132? Have you read the so-called Law of Sarah? It is offensive on a deep level! The man has to ask for his wifes "permission" to "marry" another woman and if she says NO then she is damned. Uh, that is not a real choice! Why are concubines okay by God? A concubine was basically a slave wife, at worst. At best she had no legal rights to the husband for herself or her children. Why is that okay? Does God just hate his daughters?

There are also several doctrinal contradictions within D&C 132. God is not supposed to be the author of confusion.

Welcome to the forum. :)

[_j-bug]

j-bug, I believe you are in error in your belief that the "tares" represent people.

Darn it! Why do you believe that Polygamy is commanded by God? Why is God so bent on destroying Emma and other women in D&C 132? Have you read the so-called Law of Sarah? It is offensive on a deep level! The man has to ask for his wifes "permission" to "marry" another woman and if she says NO then she is damned. Uh, that is not a real choice! Why are concubines okay by God? A concubine was basically a slave wife, at worst. At best she had no legal rights to the husband for herself or her children. Why is that okay? Does God just hate his daughters?

There are also several doctrinal contradictions within D&C 132. God is not supposed to be the author of confusion.

Welcome to the forum. :)

The tares are actually not from all people in general. They are specifically those who are gathered into the church who make covenants with God and then turn aside and begin to choke out those who are trying to honor their covenants. The tares think they have a better plan than what the Father gave them and they arrogantly set about to implement it.

People who do not join the church or who honorably withdraw their names from the records of the church because they were hustled into it without a proper understanding are NOT tares.

I look at polygamy from a couple of different aspects.

First of all, I am 100% opposed to how the FLDS implement plural marriage. It is demeaning and destructive to women and they are in far worse trouble than the Nephites were in back in their day. What they are doing is multiplying wives, which is an abomination in the eyes of God.

The biggest reason plural marriage is an important tenet is because in God's political kingdom there won't be income taxes and property taxes and all sorts of other taxes to fund state and federal agencies that supply the bare subsistance welfare needs of widows and orphans. Under God's Laws the family structure is the welfare structure. If a woman's husband is killed or commits adultery she should be able to be given to a good and solid man who can provide for her and her children's needs. All of them. In the case of her husband dying, the children she bears from the new husband are actually accorded to her and her deceased husband in the eternities, which is a great blessing to her. Now days if such a woman marries a single man he is raising up seed to her deceased husband and unable to have another wife with which he can raise up seed for himself.

If plural marriage does not exist then women and children shall suffer tremendously unless we are put right back into a statist society with a heavy tax burder, etc. that will quickly progress to more and more socialistic devices until everyone is in bondage again. Plural marriage is essential to maintaining our liberties.

I also look at Celestial Plural Marriage in a way that very few seem to share. Celestial Plural Marriage is a process that works as follows:

(Please take it as a given that all in society understand it from childhood to know their individual rights and duties. Transitioning into this type of marriage process will obviously not be entirely easy as many people have the traditions of men firmly rooted in their habits. I speak of the Millennial ideal here that shall exist in the Celestial Kingdom. This is what Joseph Smith Jun. was trying to implement back in his day.)

1) It is the woman who receives the signs and witnesses for herself, independently with no outside intervention (unless she requests it), in regard to whom she gives herself to in marriage.

(Note: She is the one giving herself to the husband and he receives her. Because she gives herself in submission to him, it is her prerogative to be responsible to identify the man to which she gives herself. She must do so with the approbation of Christ so that she knows He will back her up as she submits to her husband. If he gets out of line and the wife maintains her submissive posture, he is then going to be dealt with by Christ directly. She can rely upon her husband being corrected by his Lord and not have to take the matter into her own hands. If she does take matters into her own hands then she is putting herself on very dangerous ground because she is not being pure in her heart toward him. She will lose Christ's sponsorship and be left to her own devices, which shall likely cause both her and her husband's destruction.)

2) Any man who thinks a woman belongs to him should simply put his trust in God that she will receive sufficient promptings to come to that understanding on her own. If he tries to directly intervene he will muddy the waters. For a man to "look upon a woman to lust after her" is to commit adultery in his heart and shall be treated accordingly. He could find himself booted out of the Kingdom if he doesn't cross himself.

3) When the woman has received what she believes are signs and witnesses that she belongs to a particular man she needs to submit these to the Lord's Anointed who will receive a revelation from the Lord confirming or denying the validity of her signs and witnesses. Thus, she and the potential husband have a safety check against a woman receiving or reporting false signs and witnesses.

4) If a man is in the millennium and a woman never receives a sign and a witness for him then he remains single his entire life. This means that there was no woman to which he had an eternal sealing with that was worthy to come forth into that society.

5) If a woman comes to full age and she has not yet received a sign and a witness for a man then she will be allowed to be given to a man who already has a wife or wives. Women shall not be single if they make it to the Celestial Kingdom. She will not go to a single man (as an eternal wife) because if he was not worthy of one wife and buried his talent then it would be unwise of a woman to be given to such a man. It is in her best interest to be given to a man proven to properly care for his wife or wives. See the parable of the talents. She may also only be given as a concubine and not as a wife in such a case. It depends upon what the Lord's Anointed receives on her behalf.

6) The woman's father is highly respected in this process and he is rendered a dowry appropriate for the level of rearing, teaching and training he has invested into his daughter in preparation for her duties as a wife and mother. He is also the daughter's direct support and counsel to help her to know how to receive her own revelation and to relay the signs and witnesses to the Lord's Anointed for confirmation. If any authorities try to dictate to him about who his daughter should go to, he is not bound to obey them without he and his daughter both receiving a confirmation of their own. Tyranny shall not exist in the Celestial Kingdom.


Anyway, I don't blame many women for feeling like God hates them when they see how many corrupt men try to take and abuse something that was actually ordained for the benefit of women and their children's welfare.

I would agree a God imposing what is being foisted upon women by the FLDS and others like them could legitimately be viewed as a hateful God. However, as I have sincerely contemplated things and put it all together, I see something wonderful and beautiful when put into the context of a society of people truly dedicating themselves to God's Law and seeking for the best good of all.

It also stands to reason that some men have much greater capacities than others to provide for their women and children and there is no reason, other than people who are envious, to shame whatever level of glory a man and his wives have accumulated to themselves. When it comes down to things being made real in the Celestial Kingdom, the only people there are those who accomplished in accordance to the free will and choice of all involved. All the FLDS men who used coercive devices to acquire their harems will not be there. Most likely their wives shall be if they desire to be and shall be given to a good man who shall love and cherish them.

[_Dr. Shades]

j-bug:

1. Where did you learn all that? I don't recall any scriptures or General Conference talks that outline a scenario anywhere similar to what you describe.
2. I didn't think God liked women being concubines.
3. A woman needs signs that she should be with a man? So men shouldn't ask women to marry them, like what happens nowadays?
4. What's the difference between the way the FLDS do polygamy vs. the way Brigham Young and the early Mormons did polygamy?
5. You use variants of the phrase "women shall be given" quite often. Women are "given" by whom? And do the women have any say in the matter?

[_j-bug]

j-bug:

[*]Where did you learn all that? I don't recall any scriptures or General Conference talks that outline a scenario anywhere similar to what you describe.

I cannot take credit for this. I owe my thanks to many fine men who have been dear friends to me over the years who are much more in tune with the Lord than I am. Thanks to their help I have been able to put together all the scriptures on the subject. Each scripture that touches upon the subject is like a single brush stroke but you don't see the whole picture until you fit it all together. This is the same thing Joseph Smith Jun. was able to do too. Though obviously he had some special tutoring from the angel Moroni and other heavenly beings. Fortunately Joseph Smith shared enough of what he learned that it was much easier for me to assemble than it was for him. I am certain much of this was lost and lost rather quickly in the hasty hustle out west and the lack of the School of the Prophets being regularly organized and functioning as it was under Joseph Smith that would have safeguarded these things better. This priesthood organization was never reorganized until John Taylor's time as Prophet.

[*]I didn't think God liked women being concubines.

I should probably clarify what I mean by a concubine. It is exactly the same as a wife except that the children she bears are not accorded as her eternal posterity or not accorded as her husband's eternal posterity. In the case where the children are not hers, the children are accorded to the wife that she is connected to the husband by. For example, Leah and Rachel's handmaids were concubines to Jacob. The wives were able to increase their eternal seed without having to bear the children themselves. A concubine can also be in the case where a husband dies and his wife is given to his brother. The brother doesn't receive her as a wife but as a concubine. This is because his seed through her is not his own but his deceased brother's seed.

The thing God doesn't like is when men use concubines as a means for sexual gratification. This should not be taken as a slur against the legitimate and lawful status of a concubine. It is true that it is of lesser status and not as ideal as a full blown marriage would be, but it is the way it is to accommodate necessities due to less than ideal circumstances.

[*]A woman needs signs that she should be with a man? So men shouldn't ask women to marry them, like what happens nowadays?

Yes, I am saying that during the time the Celestial Kingdom is established here on earth that men shall not pursue women as marriage partners as the world now does.

Any marriage they enjoy there will already have been established prior to that time as an eternal marriage. This is the meaning of the scripture that says they are not given in marriage in heaven. For example, if a man doesn't have a wife as a part of his eternal inheritance, he remains separate and single in heaven. He falls short of receiving exaltation, which requires a marriage partner and depending on who you ask at least 3 marriage partners to receive the highest level of exaltation.

[*]What's the difference between the way the FLDS do polygamy vs. the way Brigham Young and the early Mormons did polygamy?

Frankly, I have not made an exhaustive study of how Brigham Young did things. I suspect the purity of Celestial Marriage principles were quickly lost if they were ever very firmly established to start with. This loss is a major contributing factor to the saints being so opposed to the practise in general. Plural Marriage was removed from the Saints because the vast majority of them loathed it. I think they loathed it because they didn't understand it and also because they didn't understand avoiding statism required it.

When it is not practised in purity it breaks the hearts of existing wives and children to see their husband and father "on the move", if you know what I mean. This is where Jacob was coming from when he was chastising the Nephite men telling them they were breaking the hearts of their wives and children.

[*]You use variants of the phrase "women shall be given" quite often. Women are "given" by whom? And do the women have any say in the matter?

I say women give themselves in marriage because that is the explicit verbiage of the sealing ceremony. In the world the verbiage for a wedding ceremony is quite different. The world's way is each person is asked "Do you TAKE this man to be your..." or "Do you TAKE this woman to be your..." In the world it is a take-take arrangement.

In the Celestial Order of things the woman is asked "Do you GIVE yourself to be..." and the man is asked "Do you RECEIVE this woman to be..." The energy of this is very distinct from the way the world does it.

If the energy of LDS members' temple marriages do not match up with the energy of these pronouncements in their sealing then they are not honoring their marital vows properly. If your marriage was not built upon a foundation with this energy then the questions were not answered honestly. Can a man say he "received" a woman when he was the one who chased her and wooed her and used devices to garner her attention and affections? This is NOT receiving. This is TAKING, just as the world does it and just as their ceremony pronounces. Such a couple has no business kneeling across an alter in the temple.

It highly irritates me that the church seems to have hardly a clue as to how Celestial Marriages are to be put together. LDS kids are doing just the same as the world does to TAKE-TAKE, only they think somehow they are going to get something better out of it when the foundation is just the same as the worlds. Not so! It is solemn mockery before God.

Also, few women are giving themselves in complete submission to their husbands anymore. That's what it means when they say they GIVE themselves. They must be pure and come with no agenda to work him into but truly be his helpmeet and companion. No more blubbering to mom and running her husband down to friends and trying to jack things around and judging and accusing and requiring your full agreement and support for things, etc. or he shall have hell to pay. Behaving this way to any degree is a wife violating her sealing vows.

Sarah called Abraham Lord and LDS wives ought to do the same. If they cannot bring themselves to honor the man they wish to marry to call him that then they really ought to question themselves on why they want to marry him to start with. If they are opposed to this then they should realize a Mormon temple marriage is NOT for them and have enough honesty to honorably opt out and have their names removed from the records of the church.

[_Dr. Shades]

j-bug:

A) Are you married?
B) If so, did you follow the same methodology that you idealize here?
C) If not, why not?