Skip to comments.The Latter-day Saint Concept of Marriage [Unmarrieds 'not whole...complete' - per Mitt's profs]
Posted on 08/05/2012 9:01:28 AM PDT by Colofornian
...Latter-day Saints believe that in order to attain the best in life and the greatest happiness in this world and for the next, men and women must be married in the temple for time and eternity. Without the sealing ordinances of temple marriage, man cannot achieve a godlike stature or receive a fulness of joy.
...to enjoy the privileges and advantages...as...husbands and wives, parents and children, the ordinance that authorizes and sanctifies this most beautiful of all relationships is not acceptable if it contains the limitation until death do you part. For family relationships and conjugal associations to be eternal, the marriage contract must authoritatively state, for time and for all eternity.
...We cannot be held responsible for the sins...of our ancestors, but He has warned that in case of failure on the part of our posterity, if it can be attributed to our failure in our duty to them, then the sins will be upon our heads.
The Latter-day Saint concept of eternal progression includes eternal development, eternal increase of knowledge, power, intelligence, awareness, and all the characteristics and capacities that make for godhood. But in the economy of God, man cannot attain this state of continuing perfection in his unfinished or unmarried state...
When one accepts the conditions and obligations of this eternal partnership, he must realize that failure here is almost total failure. Whatever his successes may be in other fields of activity, if a man fails to discharge the obligations imposed by the eternal covenant, the appalling penalty will be the loss of celestial glory, accompanied by responsibility for the losses sustained by those with whom he made the contract and for whom he is responsible.
Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh...
(Excerpt) Read more at lds.org ...
Mitt Romney: Enrolled @ BYU February 1969; was there through Spring 1971 (How a reluctant Mitt Romney found his footing at BYU:As a student at a chaotic time for the Mormon school, the future candidate focused on family and his church)
As the author of this article, Hugh B. Brown, was NOT one of Mitt Romney's profs...BUT this article WAS included in a book which I'm sure WAS on the BYU campus during Mitt's years there -- in fact, I'm sure it was a BYU textbook for Dr. Blaine R. Porter's BYU courses he taught at the time of Mitt's student years. (It'd be interesting to find out if Mitt took a Dr. Porter course)
Dr. Blaine R. Porter WAS a BYU Professor of Child Development and Family Relationships during Mitt's years there. In 1966, three years before Mitt came on the BYU campus, Deseret Book Company (owned by the Lds church) published The Latter-day Saint Family: A Book of Selected Readings -- compiled (and probably edited) by Dr. Porter. Chapter 17 of this book was this Ensign article by Brown...plus a dozen words which failed to make the content of this Ensign article. (I have a copy of a re-published version of this Dr. Porter compiled book, published in 1968)
"...Latter-day Saints believe that in order to attain the best in life and the greatest happiness in this world and for the next, men and women MUST be married in the temple for time and eternity. Without the sealing ordinances of temple marriage, man cannot achieve a godlike stature or receive a fulness of joy. "
But, "Wait," you say...where is Brown specifically addressing "unmarrieds" in this graph as part of the Brown/Ensign article above? Well, that's the interesting part of THIS (above) version of Hugh B. Brown's writings. You see, while the above ran in the June 2011 official Lds church publication, Ensign Magazine, what is distinct about it from the book version that no doubt roamed around on the BYU campus during Mitt's years there?
Well, you see those "elipses" after the word "joy" at the END of the first graph of the excerpted version published above? I didn't place them there...the 2011 Mormon church editors edited in those elipses there...
The ORIGINAL paragraph was published by Bookcraft, Inc. (Salt Lake City) in 1960, when Brown wrote "You and Your Marriage"...One chapter (pp. 12-19 of that book) focused on "The Latter-Day Saint Concept of Marriage." This chapter was later lifted to be included as a chapter in the 1966/1968 book published by Deseret Book Company, owned by the Mormon church.
When you turn to p. 198 of the book published by Deseret and edited by BYU prof Porter, we see the dozen words that the Ensign editors edited out in 2011: Allow me to cite the graph as published by Brown in 1960 and by Deseret Book Company in 1968 [the missing dozen words are bold-faced]:
The Latter-day Saints believe that in order to attain the best in life and the greatest happiness in this world and for the next, men and women must be married in the temple for time and eternity. Without the sealing ordinances of temple marriage, man cannot achieve a godlike stature or receive a fulness of joy because the unmarried person is NOT a whole person, is NOT complete."
Do you hear that unmarrieds? Do you hear that singles?
The Mormon church was teaching throughout the 1960s (1960-1968) that unmarrieds were NOT whole people...NOT complete people!!!! Wow! What an open Mormon church condemnation of singles!!!!
And do you realize from a Mormon doctrinal view what this is teaching? It's not just that never-marrieds cannot -- in the eyes of the Mormon church -- achieve "a godlike stature" (a phrase which simply means "becoming a god")...if an unmarried cannot be in the Mormon "celestial kingdom" -- that means he/she can NEVER live in the presence of Heavenly Father...[documentation on that next post].
Allow me to repeat what Mitt Romney's profs were teaching him and other students like him in the late 1960s/early 1970s:
The LDS Church in 2011 realized how deeply offensive those dozen words were when they republished Hugh Brown's chapter in the 2011 official magazine, Ensign; and thus, edited them out. But Brown was one of the three highest-ranking Mormons throughout the 1960s; and his chapter was specifically chosen to be published and re-published for BYU students in the latter-1960s to be indoctrinated in...
From the article: The Latter-day Saint concept of eternal progression includes eternal development, eternal increase of knowledge, power, intelligence, awareness, and ALL the characteristics and capacities that make for godhood. But in the economy of God, man CANNOT attain this state of continuing perfection in his unfinished or unmarried state...
Brown is simply saying here that while the Mormons can promise all temple Lds even "godhood" -- in which you share "all the character & capacities which make for godhood" -- godhood doesn't apply for you unmarrieds...(More Mormon nonsense -- BOTH about becoming gods...and "singling" out singles as an "imperfect" status)
If you want to learn what else Mitt's profs were teaching him, see: The Reflections of Brigham Young on the Nature of Man and the State [What Mitt's profs taught him]
* "To be exalted in the highest degree and continue eternally in family relationships, we MUST enter into 'the new and everlasting covenant of marriage' and be true to that covenant. In other words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of celestial glory." (True to the Faith, p. 93, 2004)
* "Brethren, please remember: The highest degree of glory is available to you only through that order of the priesthood linked to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (Lds "apostle" Russell M. Nelson, "Honoring the Priesthood" Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1993, p. 40
* "LDS doctrine teaches that there is a Mother in Heaven as well as a Father, that Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit furthered God's Plan of Salvation (see Fall of Adam), that women must perform certain essential priesthood ordinances in the temple, and that the highest order of the priesthood and the complete blessings of exaltation are available only to the married couple; neither can enter exaltation without the other" (Encylopedia of Mormonism 2:490)
In other words, being that "exaltation" & the "celestial" kingdom are the ONLY degrees of glory in which a person can live together with Heavenly Father
Source: "Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What!--my husband to be my lord?' I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom without the aid of your husband...No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant" (Lds "apostle" Erastus Snow, Oct. 4, 1857, JoD 5:291)
Lds prophet Joseph F. Smith: ...this doctrine of the eternal union of the husband and wife and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become gods neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase... (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 21, pp. 9-10)
Lds 'scripture' Doctrines & Covenants excerpted verses from chapter 76:
Note as you read about "church of the Firstborn": Lds says this title applies ONLY to the mainstream Lds church...Per both D&C 1:30 and this note by a BYU professor:
Exaltation is the greatest of all the gifts and attainments possible. It is available ONLY in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom and is RESERVED for members of the Church of the Firstborn. This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and a wife. It means not only living in Gods presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:479)
Doctrines & Covenants 76:
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christs, and Christ is Gods.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
...62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
... 92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all thingswhere God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;
...94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn
...95 And he makes them equal [to Himself] in power, and in might, and in dominion
NOTE: Clarification: The following verses are about the so-called Mormon "Terrestrial" world -- the supposed "middle" degree of glory where honest Christians and the like are supposed to be able to go...note that they won't receive "the fulness of the Father" -- which Mormon general authorities teach means "never" being able to live in Heavenly Father's presence:
...71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father
...77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.
NOTE: Clarification: The following verses are about the so-called Mormon 'Telestial' world -- the supposed "lowest" degree of glory...in which consists people sent to a temporary "hell" -- a sort of spirit prison...these people will supposedly be offered the Mormon "gospel" by spirit missionaries as a sort of "get out of eternal jail" card: D&C 76:
...102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.
103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet...
...109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore...
...112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end. .
8th Lds 'prophet' George Albert Smith:
"There are some people who have supposed that if we are quickened telestial bodies that eventually, throughout the ages of eternity, we will continue to progress until we will find our place in the celestial kingdom, but the scriptures and revelations of God have said that those who are quickened telestial bodies CANNOT COME where God and Christ dwell, worlds without end." (Conference Report, October 1945, p.172)
BYU Prof Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the New Testament, p. 311:
"There are, of course, three kingdoms of glory to which resurrected persons will go--the celstial, terrestrial, and telestial...Of these three, ONLY the celestial is the kingdom of God; it is the kingdom RESERVED for the saints who obey the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Great hosts of persons will go to the other kingdoms and hence will not attain salvation in the full gospel sense."
Ludlow also addressed this in editing the Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:368: "The Celestial Kingdom is RESERVED for those who receive a testimony of...
...Jesus and fully embrace the [Mormon] gospel; that is, they have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of their sins, are baptized by immersion by one having authority
[only in the Mormon church],
receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands
[only Mormon priesthood hands],
and endure in righteousness. All who attain this kingdom 'shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever (D&C 76:62)."
Since D&C 49 was a supposed March 1831 revelation..."it is lawful that he should have one wife" -- why was Joseph Smith introducing polygamy that year?
How do we know Joseph introduced polygamy that year?
Well, a group of Lds apologists that defend Mormonism is FAIR. On Aug. 7, 2009, held its annual apologetics conference. One of the presenters (Greg Smith) gave a boldly-titled workshop: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage* (*but were afraid to ask) [Original url source: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_Everything_You_Always_Wanted_to_Know_About_Plural_Marriage.html]
Greg Smith was wrapping up his workshop when he took one last question: "I am a woman and NOT a fan of polygamy, although I and my husband are both descendants of it. Is the text of D&C 132-58-66 the origin of the practice?" Answer (by Greg Smith): "The best historical evidence suggests that plural marriage was revealed to Joseph by 1831, and that he was teaching it to a limited circle by that year.28" (Footnote #28 of original transcript of this workshop went to: See discussion here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice)
So, let's put all this sequentially, shall we?
* Feb. 9, 1831: Joseph Smith writes as a "revelation" in D&C 42:22: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."
* March, 1831: Joseph Smith writes another "revelation," D&C 49:15: Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have ONE wife, and they twain shall be one flesh...Now, the obvious question arises here: If these were revelations from the Mormon god, apparently the Mormon god changed his mind that very year: Per the admission of Lds apologists, by later 1831, Smith is embracing polygamy. What happened that changed Smith's -- or the Mormon god's mind?
Answer: 14 year-old neighbor Fanny Alger comes around. Hence, Joseph gets this sudden urge to establish polygamy so quickly after writing D&C 42 & D&C 49..
By 1833, 16 yo Fanny Alger has conveniently moved from her neighbors' home from parents into the Smith household to help with housekeeping. (For more on Fanny Alger, see: Alger History and Ancestry: Fanny W. Alger 1817-1879 [Mormon - Open]
My question to Mormons: Do you REALLY want to look the other way here? Is your God that fickle to change His mind so quickly in His revelations???
You know...Lds teach that if, say, a temple recommend Mormon man gets married in the temple "for eternity." And his wife dies; and he remarries another in the temple "for eternity," that man -- upon death -- becomes an eternal polygamist. (There's even a few Lds "apostles" who have done this). This paragraph yet concedes this "eternal polygamist" angle. If it's "not acceptable" for Mormon couples to ever include "until death do you part" -- then this Lds general authority was reinforcing this notion of eternal Mormon polygamy. (And yet mainstream Mormons deny they practice polygamy)
Allow me to explain what the Mormon church is currently teaching here: Not only does the Mormon church openly condemn unmarrieds, but this graph soundly condemns the divorced. If you review all the quotes in post #2, you'll see that when Brown says that a divorce = an "appaling penalty" of "the loss of celestial glory," the Mormon church is legalistically claiming that the divorced CANNOT live forever in the presence of Heavenly Father. Oh sure, Lds say, they can still live in heaven under a "lesser" degree of glory. But what they don't seem to understand is, that if you're not in the general presence of Heavenly Father, that IS NOT HEAVEN!!!
From the article: ...We cannot be held responsible for the sins...of our ancestors, but He has warned that in case of failure on the part of our posterity, if it can be attributed to our failure in our duty to them, then the sins will be upon our heads.
For those who argue that intergenerational guilt isn't possible, well, Mormons think otherwise.
Anyone but Obama.
Rather have Romney than an anti-American Communist running our country into the ground.
Romney is the candidate. Posting attacks on Mormonism is pointless and also has nothing to do with a political website.
I am single and a Catholic, therefore I do not care what the LDS description of marriage is.
The New Testament tells us what a marriage is, and how to behave within the married state. As for being single, in no place does Jesus state that persons who remain single are less in the eyes of God. Instead, Jesus makes it clear that those who do the will of the Father are “his brothers and sisters.” He also says that those who give up parents, brothers and sisters, and marriage for the sake of the Kingdom are great in heaven.
My Mom, who had 7 children, told me that once she was speaking to an elderly nun who was viewed as a holy and very spiritual person. My Mom told her how much she admired her, and the nun responded, “Yes, it is a good thing to be a religious person, but being a good parent to children is, in my opinion just a great or perhaps even a higher calling than entering a religious community.” Now, that nun was not only wise, but she was also humble.
It’s a good thing that we mortals are not the judges of mankind. We would be lousy in that role.
Who cares besides you? He isn’t Obama!!
I love the Christian religion and early/scholastic Catholic Theology. Faith and Reason is perfectly combined with Natural Law Theory and creates the most harmonic, natural, civil society possible for all people (if practiced).
God, your posts have become banal and boring.
And btw: “’...the unmarried person is NOT a whole person, is NOT complete’” is a concept that’s wide-spread and often a standard sermon.
Build a bridge and get over yourself.
This is in the religious area of the forum. It’s open season, even though you feel the urge to cover up the truth for political reasons.
“God, your posts have become banal and boring.
And btw: ...the unmarried person is NOT a whole person, is NOT complete is a concept thats wide-spread and often a standard sermon.
Build a bridge and get over yourself.”
What heathen church preaches that? The one you invented in your head since you’ve never been in Church your whole life?A man or woman is complete the moment he puts his faith in Jesus Christ. Maybe someone might argue that it is GOOD to Marry, yet even the scriptures recommend not marrying in times of tribulation, and also states that after death we will be “as the angels in heaven” neither marrying or being given in marriage.
You really shouldn’t pimp for a religious cult just because one of their leaders happens to be running for POTUS. There is a higher authority than the Republican Party.
Then tell us: Why did the Lds church editors edit out these dozen words -- and ONLY these dozen words -- from the June 2011 Ensign magazine article?
Why didn't they leave it as is -- as was originally published in 1960...and as originally re-published in 1966, 1968 -- to be used as a "textbook" for the likes of Mitt Romney?
The Lds church -- in 2011 -- obviously realized the offense of this statement...and deleted it...
Ya know, when you quote in-depth (like I do)...
...men who pretend to be Mormon "prophets" and "apostles"...
-- men who can order around THE next leader of the free world (if it's Mitt Romney) --
...then, I admit it: These in-depth quotations from Mitt's potential puppeteer-types are indeed "banal and boring."
But there's just no way to "get around" the charge that we're "misrepresenting" Mormonism -- or that Mormonism is so "misunderstood" -- a VERY common line you find in articles all across this country...unless you cite Lds general authorities firsthand...in-depth.
The reality is that even Christians -- Evangelicals who over 9 out of 10 SAY they consider the religion of a given candidate...
...Evangelicals who were 34% of the ENTIRE 2010 vote --
--don't even know what they might be voting for discernment-wise: See Most Christians Have No Idea What Mormons Believe [LDS truth claims oft' tucked away by Mormons]
So now you’re not even trying to be sneaky with your use of the religion forum to attack the politician. And we thought it would be the vermin media who would take this approach. How naive we were.
I take it you’re not going to keep it a secret that you’ll defend a damnable religious cult to defend a politician.
And then there’s the “you don’t go to the Celestial Kingdom unless you accept ‘the new and everlasting covenant’ (plural marriage). Don’t like that.
Actually, some mortals, here at FR, ARE judging mankind. They are lousy at it, too.
Well, MHG, I'm NOT "naive" about your past posts:
1. Here you are, MHGinTN, commenting on Sept. 24, 2007 in a RELIGION thread on a NON-Romney thread...in fact, almost hijacking colorcountry's thread in a Romneyfied direction (yours was only the SECOND post of the thread)...as Colorcountry's comment in post #1 neither mentioned Romney...nor did the thread content itself: "Can have people intimately familiar with the Mormonism heresies telling others the truth now can they! Weve seen here at FR how the dissembling and deceit runs deep within Mormonism. It will be too easy for the dnc goons to destroy Romney over Mormonism, so the Pubbies cannot afford to nominate that man.
Source: Post #2 Mormon ousted as an apostate [Religion section]
Why was it "OK" for you to bring Romney into the picture of pure "religion" thread in 2007...but now I am somehow "out of bounds" in doing it?
2. I don't even have to go back to '07, MHG. Here you are on Feb. 3, 2012 stating on a RELIGION thread (post #7) stating:
Milt will never be the President. If the establishment pubbies elect the two-faced abortionist, the media will make the LDS porpaganda ads (And Im A Mormon) trying to make MormonISM attractive look like the greatest campaign of evil ever devised. And all the media whoredom need do is keep hammering on the actual things taught in that faux-christianity religion. ... Which is of course yet another very sound reason to vote for Newt Gingrich, warts and all, rather than destroy the comity of this nation over a MormonISM tantrum to get elected president
Source: Post#7, Meet Mitt Romneys cousin (Uh-oh!) [Religion section]
3. Back in December 2007...
December 6 2007 to be exact...you claimed it wasn't simply us placing the focus more on Mormonism (than his liberal history)...but Mitt Romney himself! You said: "Squeal about posts like the one previous to mine demanding replay of doctrine for discussion and someone might, MIGHT think you were being genuine. Is Mittys strategy to make his Mormonism cult more a focal point than his liberal history finally wearing on your Mitt supporters?"
Source: Romney takes leap of faith with religion speech
Now indeed this last one was in the News-Activism section...but still...twas one of those common intersection threads ("faith" stuff being talked about on news section; and "politics" stuff being discussed in the religion forum...because, the world isn't as neatly "compartmentalized" as you would now like to dictate to everybody).
MHG, I found the above all in a quick 10 minutes' search...and I'm sure I could find DOZENS (if not HUNDREDS) of your past comments about Romney on RELIGION threads...Do you want me to do that and list them for you -- and the world -- to see?
What, MHGinTN? Have you had a "de-conversion?"
And worse...not only have you had a likely "de-conversion" -- but ya know...I can understand a FREEPER who simply "changes his mind" about his previous positions...
...that indeed happens...
...but for you to then to go and REPEATEDLY RAIL on others -- as you have now done on about three threads -- for something that you yourself have repeatedly done posting-wise...with no acknowledgment about that...
...Well, the above is the mark of two-faced hypocrisy...to the nth degree...
I quite simply challenge you to repent before the Lord thy God.
I have known and lived with Mormons for years and I am not a Mormon, but the are very good law abiding taxpayers and not Muslim.