The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is and always was, the new and everlasting covenant of PLURAL marriage. There is no room for any other interpretation of this. Go read it!

How can members not see this? How could I not see this? I'm sure many of you sharper individuals already knew this, but I only found it today. It literally says you can't go to the Celestial kingdom if you're not a polygamist. AND IT'S STILL CANNON SCRIPTURE!

Header: "Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant..."

"Abraham received concubines and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness."

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses..."

"Let mine handmaid, Emma Smith receive all those that have been given to Joseph."

"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him..."

"I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant then ye are damned."

That's right. It says if you're not a polygamist you are damned. and it's sitting right there IN PLAIN SIGHT!

In his official manifesto on polygamy Wilford Woodruff stated, "As president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, [I] do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage." (October 6 1890, General Conference).

There are only two possible conclusions. If the Church really is true then all of it's members are damned for not abiding the new and everlasting covenant of boning ten hot virgins. Or, that the Church ceased to be true in 1890. I see no other possible conclusions.

Don't show your T.B.M acquaintances anti-Mormon anything. Make them read section 132 of the D&C from start to finish and ask them to define "new and everlasting covenant."

Your reasoning is exactly what the polygs use to argue for their position. Mormons could simply argue that God will provide them with more wives in the next life.

ain't that a bitch?

I remember my first time reading that. Dissonance in the Cog and then some. I figured maybe I was just reading it wrong. I read it again. I remember thinking of telling my TBM parents that I believe in TSCC EXCEPT D&C 132. There was no way I could ever support that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2011 09:49PM by Freevolved.

Marriage of Joseph Smith and Emma Hale

Joseph Smith and Emma Hale: The Binder and the Bound

http://www.exmormon.org/pattern/josemma.htm

I'm not making excuses for Mormonism, but you know religions are full of scripture that isn't taken literally. That's why it's nearly impossible to get people out. They've learned to adapt.

As for D & C 134, Mormons believe it's ment for the "next life". They believe in a Prophet who speaks to God, and that God gave his followers what they need in their lives in this day and age. Unlike other churchs that only have the Bible.

People don't leave for logical reasons.

That's all good and well, but who wants to live it in the next life??? I'm sure most molly mormons do not have being surrounded by a gaggle of their husband's harem in mind when they think about eternal glory in the CK.

> People don't leave for logical reasons.

I did.

There's a verse in Timothy that says "all scripture is God-breathed."
Thing is, that was written long before the BOM, and JS deciding he was the one next to God.
Meaning, Adam and Eve were rather naive to buy into a story told by a talking snake... And they paid a high price for that naivete, if one takes the scriptures literally.
Meaning, JS was waaaay out of line accusing God of screwing things up and needing to have JS save His bacon!
Polygamy=barf.

What part of "New and EVERLASTING" don't they understand? Yes, women structured in harems are an eternal law. Isn't it marvelous?

Well, except the concept and practice wasn't that new. Maybe for Mormon salvation it was new.

I like how they can say 132 is optional depending on the law of the land at the time. God hates it when his saints can't follow the law of the land so he makes his laws vague and subject to the times. Isn't that convenient? Everlasting except when it's not.

Just like how Eternal punishment is not really eternal according to Mormons.

Yes, and how the fark can it be 'New' when it's been the law since 'from the beginning of creation until this time'?


D&C 132:38

David also received amany wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

As far as I know, mormons still believe that it's God's law. They were forced to put a stop to it for a time, but it's still an eternal law to be practiced in the eternities.

Yep, I knew that, but they've tried to change its meaning in recent years. They sneaky that way, or perhaps I should say devious.

That is why the FLDS are right and the mo's wrong, hahaha!

And, anyway, mo's love their church, not their doctrine. They study very little, and only hear what they want to hear.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2011 09:49PM by think4u.

the only way to get to the CK is if his wife dies before him and then he gets sealed to another in this life. That is, IF DC132 is a true revelation...

When the Bishop tried to tell me I was forfeiting my eternal family, I pointed this out to him.

By the way, am I the only one who thinks Brigham wrote or had this written, cuz it sure doesn't read like the typical Joseph Smith revelation.

JoD3:360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the only way to get to the CK is if his wife dies
> before him and then he gets sealed to another in
> this life. That is, IF DC132 is a true
> revelation...
>
> When the Bishop tried to tell me I was forfeiting
> my eternal family, I pointed this out to him.

Haha! Sweetness. Teaching the bish how things really work in his church.

> By the way, am I the only one who thinks Brigham
> wrote or had this written, cuz it sure doesn't
> read like the typical Joseph Smith revelation.

It definitely has a different style, so I see your point, but I think JS changed his style towards the end of his life quite a bit (boldness in sermons went up). It's possible that BY wrote it, but I personally don't believe he did. We know JS (or maybe it was Hyrum) handed some sort of revelation to Emma about polygamy that she threw in the fire. I'm not sure if it was a copy of 132 though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2011 10:02PM by Freevolved.

I remember to this day thinking to myself, "holy shite! BY wrote this! You evil bastard!

The worst thing in 132 to me is the utter destruction of "free agency". The start of all things being the war in heaven and what was supposedly won gets its ass kicked in 132.

I've had many conversations with church leaders on section 132- they have spun it away from plural marriage to focus on celestial marriage. Meaning the new and everlasting covenant = celestial marriage. The stuff a about plural marriage was just incidental because Joe was curious about the patriarchs having concubines, etc.

The church institute manual reflects this as well, also says that celestial marriage is requisite to becoming a God-- but wait, I don't think we teach that... it must be tiresome to try and continue shaping church history and doctrine, but I guess it works for most of the members....

not only Jacob 2.

Check out Jacob 1:15.

15) And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in WICKED PRACTICES, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and ALSO SOLOMON, his son. (emph. mine)
**********
If they were "wicked practices" THEN, wouldn't they be "wicked" at ANY TIME?? But then, God seemed to wink at Lot's incest.

BTW. What the hell are "concubines"??--not for pro-creation?--just fer fun?

My favorite part is to show this from D&C 132:38

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.


And then this from Jacob 2:23-24:

23But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.


I've yet to read any convincing apologist explanation for this inconsistency.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2011 01:02PM by onlyme.

...not only Jacob 2.

Check out Jacob 1:15.

15) And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in WICKED PRACTICES, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and ALSO SOLOMON, his son. (emph. mine)
**********
If they were "wicked practices" THEN, wouldn't they be "wicked" at ANY TIME?? But then, God seemed to wink at Lot's incest.

BTW. What the hell are "concubines"??--not for pro-creation?--just fer fun?

Section 132 also reveals JS as an adulterer. I don't have it handy but doesn't it say that he can't commit adultery if he marries virgins as plural wives? The fact that he married women who were already married makes him an adulterer by his own scripture.

It is damning. And so is The Pearl of Great Price. And the Book of Mormon. And all Mormon doctrine. I've lost half my family to the madness.

Look at this way: is cannibalism a good way of life? Cannibals have children and raise them to eat human flesh. Are they wrong? Hell yes, they some f--ked up savages.

In my opinion, everything that is decent in human culture comes out of Europe and "Western" society. That includes tort law, human rights, democracy, atheism or at least liberal religion, free markets, social programs, art, science without dogma, public education, collective bargaining, community housing, economic distribution of foods and other goods, freedom of the press, freedom from religion, literacy for all, emancipation for women, the abolition of slavery, divided branches of government and cultural tolerance.

Mormonism, and its ilk, such as Islamic Sharia Law, would love to erase all the progress that has been made with the spilling of a million gallons of human blood.

I think there is another interesting point with regards to D&C 132.

The leaders of the Church have often pointed out that the current Prophet trumps older Prophets and even trumps scripture.

If that is truly believed, then when Gordon B Hinkley stated in a public interview that Polygamy 'is not doctrinal' then D&C 132 became null and void.
<HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.> (from Hinkley's Larry King interview 1998)

Also, if it is not doctrinal then Joseph Smith led the Church astray and falsely proclaimed a revelation from God.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2011 04:38AM by jon.

I always like to ask TBMs why gawd changed his mind on polyg. In the BOM (Jacob) he uses david and solomon as examples of unrighteous, unholy acts (polyg), then in D&C he uses them as good examples of righteous living.

No TBM has ever given an adequate reason why gawd changed his mind.

The reason is simple logic.

Only those going to the Celestial Kingdom may enjoy eternal marriage.

Only righteous people after the judgment and resurrection go to the Celestial Kingdom.

After the judgment and resurrection, souls no longer are tempted--they are exalted.

DC 132 says, "if ye abide not that covenant then ye are damned."

Because souls cannot be damned after exaltation, this scripture has no application on those already in the Celestial Kingdom.

Therefore, this scripture can only apply to those still on this earth.

If you point this out to a TBM or molly mo, they will say it is all about temple sealing/marriage.
the polygamy aspect is not relevant to eternal progression or damnation

Its easy to skim over the polygamy/virgins part when you read it.

If you really want to convince someone, have them read it aloud with their own name and spouses name in place of Joseph and Emma.

Then you see how self-serving Sec 132 was for JS.