Attempted derail from "But I'm a good Mormon wife"

[_aussieguy55]

Ray, a while back you said you were leaving the board, said you good byes and now u r back. U remind me of the singer John Farnham, who keeps having final concerts and then coming back. Good grief let it go or go over to the other board. Your new persona (whatever that is) will get a better reception there. You sound like an exmormon who can't let go. Do you still hum LDS hymns. I use to for a while. No longer. Have a VB and foreget whether Smith was bonking the teenagers.

[_GR33N]

‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.

Ray,

It would help me to understand your assertion that this episode was not one of Smith manipulating Kimball if you could explain which Gospel ordinances offer salvation to third parties.

Kimball was told that, through her actions, the exaltation of her immediate and extended family could be 'ensured'. Yet, according to my understanding of Christianity, the only proxy through which one person's sins can be absolved is the Messiah himself.

Again, what ordinances are available to me wherein the actions I take can guarantee the exaltation of any other person?

Infinite Atonement
In preparatory times of the Old Testament, the practice of atonement was finite—meaning it had an end. It was a symbolic forecast of the definitive Atonement of Jesus the Christ. His Atonement is infinite—without an end. 29 It was also infinite in that all humankind would be saved from never-ending death. It was infinite in terms of His immense suffering. It was infinite in time, putting an end to the preceding prototype of animal sacrifice. It was infinite in scope—it was to be done once for all. 30 And the mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him. 31 It was infinite beyond any human scale of measurement or mortal comprehension.

Jesus was the only one who could offer such an infinite atonement, since He was born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. Because of that unique birthright, Jesus was an infinite Being.

http://www.LDS.org/general-conference/1996/10/the-atonement?lang=eng

[

Smith claimed to have restored the true church to the earth. His justification of polygamy, If I recall correctly, was rooted in the Old Testament. As you well know, polygamy is still a doctrine of the LDS church, as outlined in D&C section 132. What is the modern, LDS equivalent of this 'everlasting statute' of atonement? After four decades as a Mormon, I have no recollection of participating in such an ordinance. If you are saying that Smith did indeed restore this Old Testament practice, with regard to Helen Mar Kimball, it seems safe to conclude that the church is now in a state of apostasy, given that these yearly atonement-for-all festivals seem not to have been practiced since the early days of the church. Am I missing something?

Here is some suggested reading on the concept of salvation to third parties.:

http://institute.LDS.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/a-c-covenants-1c.asp

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

http://institute.LDS.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/a-c-covenants-1c.asp

What does that have to do with a 38 year-old man marrying a 14 year-old girl to ensure her parents' salvation?

- VRDRC

[_beefcalf]

GR33N,

Thanks for your reply and the link you provided. I did notice however that the first two quotes at your link are contradicted by the third quote. Take a quick look and tell me if you don't agree.

[_GR33N]

GR33N,

Thanks for your reply and the link you provided. I did notice however that the first two quotes at your link are contradicted by the third quote. Take a quick look and tell me if you don't agree.

Please clarify the contradiction your referring to.

Thanks

[_The Mighty Builder]

You don't know that, Nobody knows for sure, You weren't there.

[_beefcalf]

Please clarify the contradiction your referring to.

Thanks

The Prophet Joseph Smith

“When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother” (in History of the Church, 5:530).

President Brigham Young

“Let the father and mother, who are members of this Church and Kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers, I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang” (in Discourses of Brigham Young, 208).

First Presidency—Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney

“In a day when the sanctity of the home is being invaded and where the care of children has been regarded lightly, we, by means of the family home evening manual, have endeavored to impress upon the parents the importance of developing a love in the home so that in the future, should those children thus taught stray away, they would eventually return again, lest they lose their place in the eternal family circle” ( Family Home Evening: Love Makes Our House a Home, 2).

The third quote, by the FP, makes it clear that a child might actually lose his place with his eternal family if he doesn't return to the fold. This is in direct opposition to the two preceding quotes by Smith and Young.

[_GR33N]

Please clarify the contradiction your referring to.

Thanks

First Presidency—Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney

“In a day when the sanctity of the home is being invaded and where the care of children has been regarded lightly, we, by means of the family home evening manual, have endeavored to impress upon the parents the importance of developing a love in the home so that in the future, should those children thus taught stray away, they would eventually return again, lest they lose their place in the eternal family circle” ( Family Home Evening: Love Makes Our House a Home, 2).

The third quote, by the FP, makes it clear that a child might actually lose his place with his eternal family if he doesn't return to the fold. This is in direct opposition to the two preceding quotes by Smith and Young.

Thanks for clarifying. When I read this quote it doesn't appear to contradict to me. It does make it clear that the child might actually lose his place with his eternal family if the parents do not develop a love in the home based upon gospel principles taught in the family home evening manual.

[_harmony]

It does make it clear that the child might actually lose his place with his eternal family if the parents do not develop a love in the home based upon gospel principles taught in the family home evening manual.

Blame it on good old mom and dad. After all... the child never becomes an adult, with all teh adult responsibilities for decisions and consequences.

Right.

[_beefcalf]

Thanks for clarifying. When I read this quote it doesn't appear to contradict to me. It does make it clear that the child might actually lose his place with his eternal family if the parents do not develop a love in the home based upon gospel principles taught in the family home evening manual.

The reason there is a contradiction is this: Smith and Young both stated in their respective quotes that if the parents are sealed, there is an unconditional guarantee that the children will be saved:

“When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother”

Please take careful note that there is no mention of any requirements on the part of the child, his behavior or beliefs.

Young made the unconditional nature explicit:

...I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity...

Now... fast forward 100 years...

The church has now forsaken these clear proclamations. If you grew up in the same LDS church I grew up in, you will know right off the bat that there is nothing a parent can do to unconditionally secure the exaltation of their children. It is up to the children to keep to the strait and narrow path and hold fast to the iron rod.

This is quite similar to the contradiction where some LDS apostles claim Christ's love for his children is "unconditional" and other LDS apostles who claim that, yup, Christ's love is, in fact, conditional upon you not sinning. (A curious side-note to this observation is that an LDS apostle who taught that Jesus' love is 'conditional' denounces as 'anti-Christs' those who teach that Jesus' love is 'unconditional', apparently to include other LDS apostles.)

I didn't leave the church for this precise reason, but it makes it clear in my mind why my decision to separate myself from these ongoing contradictions was the correct one.