DiscussMormonism.com

Below is a link to the belief.net article in the 9/3/07 issue of Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20439107/site/newsweek/

I found it interesting how the LDS spokesperson was awfully coy about what the Church really believes concerning polygamy in the afterlife. Fortunately, Apostle Dallin Oaks knows the real deal, as he explained:

When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later--a year and a half ago--I married Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side.

Ensign, October 2003, p. 10 (emphasis added).

I'm sure Mitt will have fun with this one ....

Interesting article, Rollo.

I doubt that this would ever even pique interest, particularly by MSNBC if Mitt Romney wasn't running for President.

If he wins the nomination, I won't vote for him.

I would rather have Hillary for President. LOL

liz3564 wrote:I doubt that this would ever even pique interest, particularly by MSNBC if Mitt Romney wasn't running for President.

Perhaps. I'm just dumbfounded that the Church (well, at least the Church's spokesperson) seems to be throwing post-life polygamy into the "we don't know much about that" trash heap (along with the "God is ..." couplet). At one time both were settled "doctrines" of the LDS Church. Does the Church even have doctrine anymore? It seems like Mitt's campaign is the catalyst for the Church's doing some serious spring cleaning on embarrassing doctrines/teachings/beliefs. Will there be anything left when they are done?

From the article:

LDS Church officials decline to answer specifically, saying only that "the Lord has not given answers to all the details of life after death. There are some things we simply don't know."

Yeah, nice dodge there. I guess when it comes time to make a statement to the public about the religion, all of a sudden it would appear that the church has no doctrine and has no clue as to what it believes. Niiiiice.

skippy the dead wrote:From the article:

LDS Church officials decline to answer specifically, saying only that "the Lord has not given answers to all the details of life after death. There are some things we simply don't know."

Yeah, nice dodge there. I guess when it comes time to make a statement to the public about the religion, all of a sudden it would appear that the church has no doctrine and has no clue as to what it believes. Niiiiice.

The days of LDS church leaders boldly declaring the gospel are gone. The only bold-declaring members at all are the missionaries, who don't know any better. We live in the days of the spin, the PR dept, the PC soundbite. Our leaders admonish us to be scupulously honest, to declare the gospel to our friends and neighbors, the same as always, but they themselves prevaricate, dodge, and spin. It's embarrassing.

Where are the brave leaders, who took on the world? Where are the believing leaders who boldly declared the gospel from street corners and in newspapers? What we've got now is a bunch of spinning, prevaricating, lukewarm old men who are more concerned with political correctness than they are with saving the eternal souls of the rest of the world.

My advice: either lead this church out of spiritual darkness into which you have plunged it or get out of the way of someone who will. Our leaders are holding up the work, with their wimpy declarations and toothless prevarications.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Below is a link to the belief.net article in the 9/3/07 issue of Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20439107/site/newsweek/

I found it interesting how the LDS spokesperson was awfully coy about what the Church really believes concerning polygamy in the afterlife. Fortunately, Apostle Dallin Oaks knows the real deal, as he explained:

When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later--a year and a half ago--I married Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side.

Ensign, October 2003, p. 10 (emphasis added).

I'm sure Mitt will have fun with this one ....

It's interesting that before my wife and I got married, we discussed this whole idea of eternal marriage.

Seems in her first marriage, she was married in the temple.

So, my question was "So, does that mean when we both die, and go to heaven, you'll be his wife?"

She indicated that she didn't really think so, but she couldn't be sure. as far as I know, the temple marriage was never dissolved.

I guess I'll be all alone in the afterlife! :)

On a side note .... my father (God rest his soul) outlived two wives, and ended up being buried between them.

I've always thought that they've had some interesting conversations about that!

ozemc wrote:Seems in her first marriage, she was married in the temple.

So, my question was "So, does that mean when we both die, and go to heaven, you'll be his wife?"

She indicated that she didn't really think so, but she couldn't be sure. as far as I know, the temple marriage was never dissolved.

Under current LDS Church policy, she will indeed go to the first husband in the hereafter. PLUS, one very scary byproduct of all this: any children born to this second marriage will also go with her to the first husband in the hereafter.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

ozemc wrote:Seems in her first marriage, she was married in the temple.

So, my question was "So, does that mean when we both die, and go to heaven, you'll be his wife?"

She indicated that she didn't really think so, but she couldn't be sure. as far as I know, the temple marriage was never dissolved.

Under current LDS Church policy, she will indeed go to the first husband in the hereafter. PLUS, one very scary byproduct of all this: any children born to this second marriage will also go with her to the first husband in the hereafter.

Well, neither one of us can have any more children, so that's not an issue.

Still, having two teenagers is quite enough! Plus my (almost) 21 year old!

I saw this on a kitchen towel once ....

"Teenagers are nature's way of explaining why some animals eat their young".

ozemc wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

ozemc wrote:Seems in her first marriage, she was married in the temple.

So, my question was "So, does that mean when we both die, and go to heaven, you'll be his wife?"

She indicated that she didn't really think so, but she couldn't be sure. as far as I know, the temple marriage was never dissolved.

Under current LDS Church policy, she will indeed go to the first husband in the hereafter. PLUS, one very scary byproduct of all this: any children born to this second marriage will also go with her to the first husband in the hereafter.

Well, neither one of us can have any more children, so that's not an issue.

Still, having two teenagers is quite enough! Plus my (almost) 21 year old!

I saw this on a kitchen towel once ....

"Teenagers are nature's way of explaining why some animals eat their young".

OH ... and just to add, I have two by my first marriage, and she has one. So, we never had any together.

harmony wrote:

skippy the dead wrote:From the article:

LDS Church officials decline to answer specifically, saying only that "the Lord has not given answers to all the details of life after death. There are some things we simply don't know."

Yeah, nice dodge there. I guess when it comes time to make a statement to the public about the religion, all of a sudden it would appear that the church has no doctrine and has no clue as to what it believes. Niiiiice.

The days of LDS church leaders boldly declaring the gospel are gone. The only bold-declaring members at all are the missionaries, who don't know any better. We live in the days of the spin, the PR dept, the PC soundbite. Our leaders admonish us to be scupulously honest, to declare the gospel to our friends and neighbors, the same as always, but they themselves prevaricate, dodge, and spin. It's embarrassing.

Where are the brave leaders, who took on the world? Where are the believing leaders who boldly declared the gospel from street corners and in newspapers? What we've got now is a bunch of spinning, prevaricating, lukewarm old men who are more concerned with political correctness than they are with saving the eternal souls of the rest of the world.

My advice: either lead this church out of spiritual darkness into which you have plunged it or get out of the way of someone who will. Our leaders are holding up the work, with their wimpy declarations and toothless prevarications.

Agreed. There seems to have been some major efforts of late to make the church appear more "bland" than it has in the past. I miss the days of the proud declaration of being a "peculiar people." It would appear that the leaders want to distance themselves from those very doctrines that distinguish the church from other religions. Pity. It all comes down to "I don't know that we teach that" now doesn't it?