DiscussMormonism.com

While speaking in a previous devotional with young single adults in Nairobi, Kenya, Elder Carl B. Cook of the Presidency of the Seventy learned that many of the men felt that women expected them to have a university degree, a car and a home before they would consider marriage. On the other hand, several women said that they were willing to wait for those things if the men were actively working toward them.

During the Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults on Sunday, May 5, Elder Cook asked the young single adult men gathered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle to raise their hands if they were hardworking and of good character but felt unprepared temporally for marriage.

And to the young single adult women, he asked if those who were willing to wait for those temporal blessings with a man of good character, would raise their hands.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-a ... cook-49733

In each case, plenty of hands were raised.

“If any of you looked across the room and saw someone interesting with his or her hand in the air, well ... ” he said, tapering off with a knowing shrug.

The message still seems to be - get married and have children as soon as possible.

The Crooks also managed to squeeze in the message to single members that they are second class citizens...

Eternal marriage is the crowning ordinance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, he taught. “Only through receiving this priesthood ordinance and keeping our covenants can we receive the blessing of continuing as husband and wife, eternal companions after death.”

Because marriage between man and woman is essential to God’s plan...

He is also preaching false doctrine (not a first for Mr Crook). D&C 132:26 makes it clear you don’t need to keep your covenants after being sealed in the temple for the eternal blessings still to be valid.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 2?lang=eng

I have a question wrote:He is also preaching false doctrine (not a first for Mr Crook). D&C 132:26 makes it clear you don’t need to keep your covenants after being sealed in the temple for the eternal blessings still to be valid.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 2?lang=eng

So if I'm reading this right... once you enter into a celestial marriage, even if you sin (as long as it's not murder) you'll be given to Satan in spirit prison but then exalted at the last day?

Talk about an all-time loophole.

It can't be that simple, right? Otherwise I'd get the impression that Joseph Smith made a bit of an error when riffing off D&C 132 off the top of his head even after Hyrum asked him to use the stone to get the revelation.

jfro18 wrote:So if I'm reading this right... once you enter into a celestial marriage, even if you sin (as long as it's not murder) you'll be given to Satan in spirit prison but then exalted at the last day?

Yes, that’s explicitly what it says. That’s the doctrine. Mr Crook is trying to make people believe they need to pay tithing for the rest of their lives in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, but the doctrine is that they can stop paying immediately after getting sealed in the temple and they will still qualify for entry.

I have a question wrote:

jfro18 wrote:So if I'm reading this right... once you enter into a celestial marriage, even if you sin (as long as it's not murder) you'll be given to Satan in spirit prison but then exalted at the last day?

Yes, that’s explicitly what it says. That’s the doctrine. Mr Crook is trying to make people believe they need to pay tithing for the rest of their lives in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, but the doctrine is that they can stop paying immediately after getting sealed in the temple and they will still qualify for entry.

So I'm still going to the Celestial Kingdom then... I am not active but I haven't been exed or resigned yet either.

LOOPHOLE, BABY!

Man Joseph Smith was not good at this.

jfro18 wrote:So I'm still going to the Celestial Kingdom then... I am not active but I haven't been exed or resigned yet either.

LOOPHOLE, BABY!

Man Joseph Smith was not good at this.

The doctrine is that even if you were to resign or be excommunicated (for anything other than murder) you’d still be eligible for the Celestial Kingdom.

I have a question wrote:The doctrine is that even if you were to resign or be excommunicated (for anything other than murder) you’d still be eligible for the Celestial Kingdom.

I thought if you resigned or were exed that it canceled the sealing? That's one area I've never really looked at, but I thought that was part of why resigning could be so painful for families with mixed faith.

jfro18 wrote:

I have a question wrote:The doctrine is that even if you were to resign or be excommunicated (for anything other than murder) you’d still be eligible for the Celestial Kingdom.

I thought if you resigned or were exed that it canceled the sealing? That's one area I've never really looked at, but I thought that was part of why resigning could be so painful for families with mixed faith.

That is what people espouse, it’s what Church officials state, but it’s not what D&C 132:26 states. I suppose if you resigned you are actively rejecting the sealing, whereas excommunication is as a result of not living up to expectations and you’re being forced out.

The Families Forever ‘heartsell’ fails to take into consideration that all extended Mormon family units will have black sheep. So somebody will be missing from every grouping. On that basis everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is going to be eternally sad because one of their family is missing. There will, in theory, also be family members you dislike but with whom you’ll be eternally linked. Who knows what their great great great grandparents were like, or what their great great grandchildren or their in-laws will be like? I can’t see anyone in the Celestial Kingdom being happy with how their “sealed” unit turns out.

Exception to the Loop Hole

Temple Divorce - A civil divorce nullifies the marriage so far as the civil law is concerned, but only by a mandate of the president of the Church can the sealing of the couple be cancelled. A cancellation of the sealing is what we are really referring to when we talk about a temple divorce.

https://www.lds.org/study/new-era/1975/ ... e?lang=eng

Mormonicious wrote:Exception to the Loop Hole

Temple Divorce - A civil divorce nullifies the marriage so far as the civil law is concerned, but only by a mandate of the president of the Church can the sealing of the couple be cancelled. A cancellation of the sealing is what we are really referring to when we talk about a temple divorce.

https://www.LDS.org/study/new-era/1975/ ... e?lang=eng

But if one spouse leaves the church but not their spouse, or both spouses leave the church and never go back to a temple divorce... loophole upheld?

I keep thinking there's got to be some teaching that straightens this out, because it's actually kind of a big deal when you think about it.

And I am going to make so much fun of it if no one can explain why this loophole doesn't work.

ETA: This 'loophole' has to be the second annointing language and not something that applies to all members who are sealed, correct?

jfro18 wrote:

Mormonicious wrote:Exception to the Loop Hole

Temple Divorce - A civil divorce nullifies the marriage so far as the civil law is concerned, but only by a mandate of the president of the Church can the sealing of the couple be cancelled. A cancellation of the sealing is what we are really referring to when we talk about a temple divorce.

https://www.LDS.org/study/new-era/1975/ ... e?lang=eng

But if one spouse leaves the church but not their spouse, or both spouses leave the church and never go back to a temple divorce... loophole upheld?

I keep thinking there's got to be some teaching that straightens this out, because it's actually kind of a big deal when you think about it.

And I am going to make so much fun of it if no one can explain why this loophole doesn't work.

ETA: This 'loophole' has to be the second annointing language and not something that applies to all members who are sealed, correct?

I have a friend who is a Divorce Attorney and he related the following Story. Oh, he's not a Mormon nor has he ever been a Mormon. He grew up in Florida.

He was in a divorce mediation and it was nearing the completion, when suddenly the soon to be ex-Wife Morgbot stood up on the Conference room table and pointing down at her soon to be ex-Husband stated emphatically that SHE WOULD NEVER give him a Temple divorce so he could Marry that SLUT who had destroyed their marriage. And that he might as well get use to the FACT that he was her's for ETERNITY.

My friend asked me latter, WHAT THE HELL? After explaining Morbot doctrine, he asked, "why the Hell would she want to be married to him for eternity? He was the one who broke up the marriage and didn't feel any obligation to her beyond his legal requirements."