Gazelam wrote:When Jesus instructed Peter, James, and John to tell no man of what they had seen on the Mount of Transfiguration, he was witholding sacred things from the uninitiated,
One must read your conclusion into the text.
The passage reads (in KJV):
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
There is no mention nor, to my mind, any implication of "withholding sacred things from the uninitiated."
Jesus is not quoted as saying, "Don't tell these things to the uninitiated," but rather, "Don't tell these things until after my resurrection."
The two are not isomorphic.
CKS
Of course none of this was actually recorded but was written years after the fact. What Jesus actually said, or whether he said any of it (and it appears fishy given that the resurrection itself is an ex post fiction) is highly questionable.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
“I shall feel sorry for this young man when the day comes that he faces the Great Judge at the throne and when the Lord asks this boy: ‘Where is your wife?’ All of his excuses which he gave to his fellows on earth will seem very light and senseless when he answers the Judge. ‘I was very busy,’ or ‘I felt I should get my education first,’ or ‘I did not find the right girl’—such answers will be hollow and of little avail. He knew he was commanded to find a wife and marry her and make her happy. He knew it was his duty to become the father of children and provide a rich, full life for them as they grew up. He knew all this, yet postponed his responsibility” (Ensign, Feb. 1975, p. 2).[/b]
Now, brethren, do not expect perfection in your choice of a mate. Do not be so particular that you overlook her most important qualities of having a strong testimony, living the principles of the gospel, loving home, wanting to be a mother in Zion, and supporting you in your priesthood responsibilities.
I find this all incredibly sad. The word "love" wasn't even included in any of those quotes. It's your DUTY. What lucky women we were as Mormons! Someone gets to marry us as their DUTY and after a lifetime of being a companion we get an eternity of being one of many wives, endlessly pregnant. Our ancestors were lucky enough to get it in this lifetime too.
Nehor, I certainly hope you won't settle for anyone other than the love of your life. I feel you probably have higher standards than a marriage out of DUTY. As a woman I would be devestated to find out I was married out of duty, or out of I'll learn to love her. Or out of 'two righteous people can make it work.' I get so sad for my female ancestors that sometimes I can't even bear it. One of my ancestors was the 47th wife of Heber C. Kimball. He married 4 women that day. She bore him one son and was dead by age 23. What a lucky woman she was.
Insert ironic quote from fellow board member here.
“I shall feel sorry for this young man when the day comes that he faces the Great Judge at the throne and when the Lord asks this boy: ‘Where is your wife?’ All of his excuses which he gave to his fellows on earth will seem very light and senseless when he answers the Judge. ‘I was very busy,’ or ‘I felt I should get my education first,’ or ‘I did not find the right girl’—such answers will be hollow and of little avail. He knew he was commanded to find a wife and marry her and make her happy. He knew it was his duty to become the father of children and provide a rich, full life for them as they grew up. He knew all this, yet postponed his responsibility” (Ensign, Feb. 1975, p. 2).[/b]
Now, brethren, do not expect perfection in your choice of a mate. Do not be so particular that you overlook her most important qualities of having a strong testimony, living the principles of the gospel, loving home, wanting to be a mother in Zion, and supporting you in your priesthood responsibilities.
I find this all incredibly sad. The word "love" wasn't even included in any of those quotes. It's your DUTY. What lucky women we were as Mormons! Someone gets to marry us as their DUTY and after a lifetime of being a companion we get an eternity of being one of many wives, endlessly pregnant. Our ancestors were lucky enough to get it in this lifetime too.
Nehor, I certainly hope you won't settle for anyone other than the love of your life. I feel you probably have higher standards than a marriage out of DUTY. As a woman I would be devestated to find out I was married out of duty, or out of I'll learn to love her. Or out of 'two righteous people can make it work.' I get so sad for my female ancestors that sometimes I can't even bear it. One of my ancestors was the 47th wife of Heber C. Kimball. He married 4 women that day. She bore him one son and was dead by age 23. What a lucky woman she was.
I agree. Those kind of statements, which I remember all too well from my youth, still make me ill---especially when I think of all the human misery they've caused and still cause.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
What's love got to do with it? Love was never a requirement for marriage LDS-style. It shows up once in a while, if the spouses are lucky, but it's certainly not required for the CK. All that's required for marriage in the CK is obedience.
“I shall feel sorry for this young man when the day comes that he faces the Great Judge at the throne and when the Lord asks this boy: ‘Where is your wife?’ All of his excuses which he gave to his fellows on earth will seem very light and senseless when he answers the Judge. ‘I was very busy,’ or ‘I felt I should get my education first,’ or ‘I did not find the right girl’—such answers will be hollow and of little avail. He knew he was commanded to find a wife and marry her and make her happy. He knew it was his duty to become the father of children and provide a rich, full life for them as they grew up. He knew all this, yet postponed his responsibility” (Ensign, Feb. 1975, p. 2).[/b]
Now, brethren, do not expect perfection in your choice of a mate. Do not be so particular that you overlook her most important qualities of having a strong testimony, living the principles of the gospel, loving home, wanting to be a mother in Zion, and supporting you in your priesthood responsibilities.
I find this all incredibly sad. The word "love" wasn't even included in any of those quotes. It's your DUTY. What lucky women we were as Mormons! Someone gets to marry us as their DUTY and after a lifetime of being a companion we get an eternity of being one of many wives, endlessly pregnant. Our ancestors were lucky enough to get it in this lifetime too.
Nehor, I certainly hope you won't settle for anyone other than the love of your life. I feel you probably have higher standards than a marriage out of DUTY. As a woman I would be devestated to find out I was married out of duty, or out of I'll learn to love her. Or out of 'two righteous people can make it work.' I get so sad for my female ancestors that sometimes I can't even bear it. One of my ancestors was the 47th wife of Heber C. Kimball. He married 4 women that day. She bore him one son and was dead by age 23. What a lucky woman she was.
I'm sure you guys all remember the pre-1990 wording of the endowment with respect to wives and obedience to their husbands. They were put under covenant to obey the law of their husbands. At least now they're only under covenant to "hearken to the counsel" of their husbands.
I feel for the ancestor who was the 47th wife, one of four married in one day. She didn't even get to have her own freaking honeymoon. It was more like the 47th freaking constituent of Kimball's own little domestic kingdom.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Gazelam wrote:Thanks for posting that Brack, great stuff. [Did you get all that Nehor? : ) ]
And Dancer:
I think the LDS church has to deal with the issues, decide what it actually teaches, what is or is not doctrine,
Gaz, I too thank Brackie for his post. But, I think for different reasons than you do?? If I'm reading you correctly, you endorse & agree with the statements of Benson & Kimball...
I'm not certain how Brackie presented his quotes? Simply as a "reporter" or an endorser? I expected as a "reporter"? Now Gaz has me wondering. What say yee Brackie?
Hi Roger,
I did presented those quotes as reporter, and not as an endorser. Sorry Gaz! I just don’t really Quite endorse those quotes. Take Care!
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
I say with no hesitation, "there is more inspiration, and 'reveal-ation' to be found in the 4 pages of this thread than in all of the so-called inspired writings of those who consider themselves "bearers of the Holy Melchezidek Priesthood" representing "God", and the restoration of all things."
If there is anything abominable it is the leading of innocent folks into a valley of fear and darkness in the guise of leading them into Celestial Life. Makes me wonder, "how accountable are we who know the untruth of LDS claims, and do little to curtail its flow? Other than vent to our dismay on sites such as this?" Roger
