Thursday, May 27, 2010


NOTE: After writing this post I realized that there are a lot of terms and doctrines specific to the Mormon faith that our non-Mormon readers may not be familiar with. We created a glossary for our blog here, but there are so many new terms in this post and I am way too lazy to write up a bunch of additional definitions, so if you find yourself a little lost, either: A) Ask a question in the comments and I'm sure someone will answer. B) a good source glossary can be found at this Website. Or C) You can Google it, but the information may not match up with what I was talking about.

One thing I have been seriously failing at lately is my home teaching. I remember being a missionary and looking down on members who failed to complete their home teaching with such disdain. The missionary version of myself would be seriously upset with the now version of myself.

So here I am. Not only am I no good at home teaching, this week when my Elders Quorum Leader called to see how I have done for the month of May, I lied. Actually, I might be able to argue that I "stretched" the truth. After all, I did have a funny text exchange with one of the sisters that I am assigned to, and one of the guys I'm supposed to visit came over with a dozen other people to watch the Champions League final on Saturday. So I counted those as visits... who am I kidding though, I lied.

Tom: So, uh hey Jake, just calling to get your home teaching numbers.
Jake: Um, I got about half.
Tom: Half? So... three?
Jake: Um yeah, I got Nelly (text exchange) and Britney (She is Nelly's roommate, I'm sure Nelly relayed our textersation to her) ...had a good visit with Ryan (soccer game) but just haven't met up with the others.
Tom: Mmm, okay. You know as a Quorum we are trying to get 100% this month.
Jake: Yeah. Yeah, I remember the lesson Scott gave last week.
Tom: Yeah, so, could you (he paused) ...we are calling everyone a little bit early this month--
Jake: Right, good call. Good reminder. I'll get the rest of em' before the end of the month.
Tom: Okay. Good. Well, Um, Brother Halifax, will you finish your home teaching 100% for the month of May. (I recognized the "direct will you question" that they taught us all in the MTC. Right away. I didn't really think I would, I just wanted to get off the phone so I could get back to playing Modern Warfare)
Jake: You bet buddy. (I hate it when I call people buddy, I only do it when I'm uncomfortable.)

As soon as Tom let me go I added his number to my "DON'T ANSWER" profile in my phone. The thought process being, 'If I don't answer I don't have to lie.'

The past few days I have been feeling guilty. Not really guilty. Just a teeny bit guilty, at first... then as I dwelt on it more I started to feel like a real arse. I'm sure you agree if you read the previous paragraphs. First off, home teaching is like the easiest thing in the world to do. Secondly, no matter how I slice it, I lied to Tom. Lies that weren't even necessary. There's no penalty for failing to do home teaching... at least no immediate penalty. There's one later on, the whole failing-to-magnify-your-calling thing could be called into question. I just went, and for no reason, added lying on top of that. It's like getting pulled over for speeding and the officer discovers your insurance is expired.

So, I decided after feeling the weight of guilt, that I would at least get the three people (I hadn't already lied about) before months end.

My home teaching companions name is Steven. I have never seen him in Elders Quorum, and only spoken to him once at the Ward Talent Show, so I tried calling and texting him, but he had probably already changed my number to DON'T ANSWER in his phone months ago. So after getting myriad lame excuses from my roommates, I resolved to fly solo.

The other three people I home teach are girls. Two of them are roommates and the other one lives on her own. Part of the problem with home teaching (which is only going to compound my poor display of character so far) is that none of the girls I am assigned are very attractive.

That's not to say that just because a girl is not seeing her home teachers that she is unattractive. Aaron and Nick teach 4 of the hottest girls I have ever seen, and I am pretty sure they have never once made a home teaching visit.

I do think though that if there was some side flirting available that I would be more likely to want to spend half an hour or so getting to know someone, which, I'll admit, is horrible and far from Christlike... but true. So, I prepared a quick little spiritual thought put on a tie and scheduled appointments for last night. First I went to Erin's house. We visited for about 30 minutes and it was mostly uneventful.

Then I went to Nancy and Stephanie's apartment. I didn't know these two very well. I said hi to them in sacrament occasionally. Neither is very cute, though they're not at all ugly either. Nancy is short and fat. She has one of those faces, that makes me wish she'd lose 50 lbs because then Calvin would want to date her. Her face was really cute it was just shrouded with the blubber of years of over-indulgence. Stephanie was her opposite. She was tall and skinny but broad with big features like her eyes and forehead. She basically looks like Andre Kirilenko would if he were two feet shorter, a woman with long dark hair. The could have made a comic pair the likes of Chris Farley and David Spade... but I can joke about that another time.

The first thing I noticed as I walked into their living room was a large life-sized cardboard cut-out of Jacob from Twilight. I said, "Hey, it's Shark Boy!" Nancy scowled at me and then laughed and rolled her eyes, "Haven't heard that one before Jake." She lightly slapped my arm and continued as she led me into the living room, "We are both total twi-hards, and we don't care who knows it." I wanted to roll my eyes and make my usual "twi-tard" comment, but decided to wait till we knew each other better.

We spent a little bit of time getting to know each other. I found out where they worked and they did likewise. Discovered that they had met down at Snow College 6 years ago and had lived together ever since. We chatted about the ward a bit and then I gave my thought.I finished with my usual "I'm your home teacher speech" (that I stole from a guy on my mission, I liked it so much) it goes something like, "I'm not going to say 'Is there anything I can do for you or anything you need?' at the end of every visit. I am yours, you can call me or text me whenever you need anything."

When I was done Nancy said, "Well, I do have a question for you?" I said, "Of course." She said, "Do you believe in polygamy?" I was a little thrown and most likely made a stupid face. They both laughed and Stephanie said, "That's a way to general way to ask Nance... What she means is, do you think that Polygamy will ever come back?" I expected these kinds of questions from non-members usually looking to start a fight, not from two seeming "Molly's".

"Well, (I laughed nervously) Um, I'm not really sure." Nancy recreated the look she gave me at my Shark Boy joke earlier and said, "Oh come on Jake, you're one of the most blunt guys in the ward. Now that we are friends Just Give it to us?" Stephanie grinned and said, Just pretend Calvin or Aaron asked you the same question, what would you say to them?" We just want to know what you think."

I would say to Calvin something like, "I hope not because if it did I would always feel like I had to have exactly the same number of wives as you." And to Aaron, I would probably say something like, "Don't worry about it dude, but, if it does make a come back I'll send any of the wives that aren't cutting it your way."

I decided regardless of their intention I couldn't very well say anything like that. I stuttered, "I think tha-, well, I, I, Hmph..." I paused and looked at both of their faces. I was searching for some kind of context. What was the purpose of this question? Their faces looked slightly mischievous but leaned more towards serious intent. It didn't feel like this was a joke. So I decided to just do like they said and tell them what I really thought.

I finally said, "No. I don't think we will see it as a practiced principle again in this life." I expected them to be happy, as most girls get nauseous at the mere mention of plural marriage, but their faces looked more like I had just told them Santa Clause wasn't real. Nancy said, "Don't you think that it is part of a higher law that we will someday get to live when we are ready." I replied, "Uh, I'm no scriptorian, but if I remember in 2nd Nephi or Jacob somewhere it says that the Lord could command polygamy in order to raise up seed unto him, but that otherwise, one man, one woman, was the law." They stared at each other and back at me, I continued, "I just don't see the Lord needing to command polygamy again anytime soon. Missionary work is abound, and--" Nancy cut me off, "So you don't think that when we have to live the law of consecration that Polygamy will just be reimplemented?" I said simply, "No."

Stephanie grabbed her scriptures and started thumbing through them. Nancy watched her as though her friend would find some scripture saying,"verily I say unto you polygamy will be the way of the future." While she was looking through I asked, "What is this about?" Nancy looked at me and just said, "Its just a topic we talk about a lot and want to know more about, but everyone we talk to gets all weird about it." I felt flattered that my lack of weirdness got me into this uncomfortable conversation.

Stephanie pulled out some scripture from Doctrine and Covenant 132 and cited it as their reasons for thinking polygamy was imminent in the Church. I vehemently disagreed, though I honestly haven't put loads of study into the topic, I still feel like I have a pretty good grasp on things, and that just didn't seem right.

We chatted about it for another 20 minutes or so. If we had been arguing I think I would have won. I think however that they had already decided what they thought was right and just wanted someone to agree with them. I wanted to end the conversation so I decided to fall back onto my old standby... humor. I jokingly said, "If polygamy does make a comeback that would be good for you two, you could figure out a way to marry the same guy and just keep living together."

Nancy and Stephanie looked like they just got caught stealing from the cookie jar. Stephanie's pale complexion changed at least three shades darker. In a nervous reaction they both looked around nervously and twice in the 20 seconds their eyes rested on the cardboard cut-out of Jacob Black. They both scoffed at the idea and laughed it off, but their body language and reactions were pretty damning evidence to the contrary.

I'm not going to state this as a fact. However, I am pretty sure that Nancy and Stephanie's secret fantasy is for polygamy to be practiced again in the church so they can be sister wives to Jacob Black or Taylor whatever-his-name-is...

I'm so glad that my guilt led me to do my home teaching this month. Think of the revelation I might have missed out on. I look forward to delving into the oddities these girls might have to offer me later on. And by association, offer you.



Anonymous said...

Wow. Well-written story, Jake.

Way to do your home teaching this month. I go through the same thought process with visiting teaching sometime... It's always best if you don't have to stretch the truth or screen calls...

Melissa said...

Might be mean... but these girls are freaks. Straight up.

Ryan @ thesinglesward said...

Glad it was you on point. Most hometeachers We know wouldn't spend 20 minutes talking about two girls marrying the same fictional characters.

megan said...

Wow... They sound like really... special spirits :) haha. I hope they end up happily sharing a husband.

Anonymous said...

Ummmm wierdos.

Anonymous said...

We thank you for your offerings of the strange and crazy things in your life.

Mariele said...

Wow. I'm pretty much speechless.
I do have to admit that I'm usually one of the ones that gets nauseous at the mention of polygamy.

ginger said...

Blech....weird. They have a better chance of marrying eachother. It's a good thing they don't know that you are the "Jake" from MBP or they may start barking up your tree :)

c a n d a c e said...

I'm not gonna lie - this is a creepy & weird post. Due to the crazy women, of course.

Jade said...

Wow, those two girls are well I guess interestingly weird. But nice post Jake, it was pretty funny and entertaining.

nicole said...

oooo i hope next time they have a cardboard cut-out of YOU! that would be fun!

Claire said...

That is quite possibly the most pathetic thing I have EVER heard.

Masked McKenna said...

Wow....that's wrong on so many levels. Gross.

Paily said...

I feel very disturbed, and somewhat ashamed to be a woman. Sad, sad day.

But ignoring that, wow, crazies! Fun to read about though.

Confessions from a Mormon Maxi-Pad said...

Higher Law? WOW. The Mormon unicorn ride again.

Anonymous said...

What faggots.

Anonymous1 said...

The life size cut out, the weird conversations... WEIRD. GROSS. CREEPY.

Rachael said...

"Hey, it's Shark Boy!"
Hahaha, I remember watching Shark Boy & Lava Girl! Didn't Lava Girl have like pink hair or something? Anyways, those girls sound... entertaining?

Che said...

Everyone is leaving out the obvious.. that Polygamy is still doctrine in the lds faith. Read D&C 132 all the way through.
You can say these girls are weird, but in reality, they are far more realistic than most females in the church. They are only prepping themselves for when either the practice is reinstated, or for when they are in the celestial kingdom where they will be one of many wives to a male priesthood holder.
Either way, this post made me laugh. You know Jake, the more wives you have in the CK, the better off you will be. You may think of adding these two.. Just saying.. ;)

Liz said...

ha ha.... ah... lol
-wipes tear- Oh dear...

Anonymous said...

"What faggots"? Wow, I didn't know people still said that.

Jake, you are not very nice, Nor are any of the comments on this page. I love how mormons pretend they are nice, excepting people, when this post proves the exact opposite.

This is the first and only post I will ever read.

sara said...

yeah, jake, how come you aren't more "excepting" towards people?? YOU'RE JUST SO MEAN!


mixedupdatingfiles said...

i'm bored.

Ingrid said...

Hi. About lying about your home teaching. I respect you for being truthful here, at least. I converted to the church about 15 years ago and my current visiting teacher was assigned 2 years later. In all that time she's actually only visit taught me twice. We used to be friends. That's why she was made my VT, but I noticed that she'd ask me over to help her with her yard, her house, or her dad and I'd overhear her reporting it as visiting teaching. I've backed off the friendship, but I haven't said anything in the ward about it. She's still lying about it and she's a counsellor in the RS presidency. I'm single and her high priest husband was made my HT three months ago. He does do his home teaching and she comes with him. She now calls this "visiting teaching."

How has this affected me? Well, I'm not gonna touch the hyprocacy thing. But I will say that I don't understand Relief Society. I don't get the point of it. I'm closer to the people at work than the Relief Society "sisters." I try to be conscientious about my visiting teaching, but I don't get why I'm doing it. They don't need me. They're more well-off than I am. We usually politely chat about stuff that doesn't matter, I ask if I can do anything for them, they say "no" and I leave. I don't do it every month. It's actually seeming more and more pointless as time goes by. I am not about to go inactive or leave the church over this, but Relief Society doesn't mean jack to me. I'm not relieving anyone else's suffering and no one is relieving mine, though as a single parent of a mentally disabled adult son there have been times I've really needed it.

So if you can't do your home teaching, at least don't lie about it. I mean if you feel guilty then decide if you want to toss the guilt out the window, live with it, or do your home teaching. But don't lie about it. You don't know how you might be influencing someone else. Kay?

Katie said...

I haven't commented in awhile, but I read this while I was at work and could not stop laughing. Maybe they should just turn lesbian, move to Massachusetts and then live out their dreams of being forever roommates...Wow. And I thought there were only crazies in Utah County. I personally can't wait to not live with roommates ever again.

Anonymous said...

People get 'nauseated' because the thought of polygamy is 'nausious.'

Saying someone is nausious is saying that they make other people want to throw up... and that's just not nice.

Betsy said...

Can someone explain what a "Molly" is?

Kamaia said...

two things.

1. jacob will always be shark boy to me just like how edward will always be cedric diggory and
2. how strange and stranger that must have been! it kills me when people ask questions with an answer ready to do. why ask in the first place?!

Amy said...

This story is not true.

Anonymous said...

i dont get polygamy. i hope it never comes back!! no way am i sharing my man. its kinda a taboo subject i think, and i dont really understand it, cause its kinda hard to ask anyone about it haha. dang.

Anonymous said...

a "molly" mormon typically just refers to girls who are very by the book when it comes to religion, without actually having a firm understanding of what they believe. It can also mean they are naive, or have very "delicate" constitutions when it comes to any uncomfortable conversations.

your post made me laugh. And I think most of the comments on here are seriously bratty. My husbands likes to say that he heard once that if you follow any judgemental comment with "bless their heart" people think it makes it "all better". for example: she is so werid, bless her heart. I think most of what you wrote here in your post seems to follow that idea. I still think the visit sounds pretty dang funny though. I hate twilight...

Paige said...

I had a roommate my freshman year of college who wasn't a member but thought polygamy sounded like a great idea. She's engaged now... I wonder if she still feels that way.

Anonymous said...

i am mormon but if polygamy comes back i am not following it...sorry. its not necessary.

Amy said...

My philosophy is to just be ready to follow whatever Heavenly Father has in store for us. I really, really hope I'm never asked to practice polygamy, but my goal is to be ready to accept if I have too. I also figure if it does ever happen it won't be in this life. Who knows though really.

I just keep thinking these girls must be very, very close to each other to want to actually share the same guy. I wonder if they will still feel the same when they hear the wallbanging from the other room. ahem.

Good Job on the HT! I find that the sisters I report my VT to are very understanding when I tell them right out that I didn't do it. Maybe that's because sometimes I can say that I did do it. Still doesn't stop the guilt when I don't though. I hate guilt. It's awful.

Oh, and my twilosophy is: Edward please. Bring it people. I can handle it. I want to see some serious Twilight hate. It makes me happy.
Dang this is long. (twss)

Heather said...

I just want to say, to che, that D&C 132 does not mean that either polygamy is going to come back in this life or it will come back in the next life. Polygamy is an eternal principle because it is a principle of God. When people look at the phrase "eternal principle" they think that means "forever" but it actually just means that it came from God and it was needed at that time. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will be brought back either now or in the eternities.

Furthermore, polygamy was only instituted in the church when certain conditions were met. The Lord had to command it specifically for the people involved, and both the husband and the wife had to be okay with it. Like any other calling, they could choose to accept it or not.

Personally, I don't think that polygamy is going to be required of anyone who didn't practice it in this life after we die, and I really don't think it's going to be reinstated in this life. Especially since it's illegal, and the 12th Article of Faith specifically says that we support the laws of the land.

I just feel like there's so much confusion about polygamy so I hope this clears up some of it.

Che said...

Heather, thank you for commenting on my comment. ;) I would encourage you to do more research on the subject. The new and everlasting covenant is plural marriage. In the LDS church it is an eternal principle that regardless of being practiced here on earth will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. There is no way to sugar coat it. Take a look at temple marriage. Men can be sealed to many wives but women can only be sealed to one man.

I would also disagree with you that the wife had to be involved. Joseph Smith had many wives before he even told Emma that he was spiritually married to other men. (Thanks to Brigham Young and the Temple Lot case, there is ample proof that these marriages were consummated). Polygamy was not a calling. To be successful in the church at that time, you were required to practice polygamy.

I do find it interesting that if you look at current church manuals, you would think that Brigham Young was a monogamist. Most new converts and the younger generation would never know that he taught that monogamy was a sin. Not because polygamy “came from God and it was needed at that time”. It was a requirement.

As for your comment on the 12th Article of Faith and the laws of the land. Did you know that throughout the whole time that polygamy was practiced that it was illegal in the US? According to the prophets, gods law trumps the unrighteous laws of the land. Yes, we don’t practice polygamy at this time, but this does not mean that we will not practice it in the after life. As a matter of fact, read Mormon Doctrine on the subject. McConkie could not wait for the day that gods higher law be reinstated.

George Q. Cannon
“To comply with the request of our enemies [and give up polygamy] would be to give up all hope of ever entering into the glory of God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the son. So intently interwoven is this precious doctrine [polygamy] with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory.”

Come good links from members of the church.
Web link:
Web link:
Book: In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith
Book: Mormon Doctrine (Deseret Book has taken the book off the market, but I am sure you can find a copy in a family library)

Heather Guymon said...

This is the most freaking bazare thing I have ever read coming from two Molly mormon gals...

I use to get SO mad thinking I might have to share MY husband with some other "skank" know...girls are psycho. Now, after 8 years of marriage I honestly would just laugh at my husband because he already deals with multiple personalities from his one wife (me) as it is AND that would mean less opportunities for him to wake ME up when he wanted to do it. Seriously...he still hasn't learned...don't wake me UP damnit!

ANY who...yeah this was entertaining to say the least.

cait said...

che you are a psycho. you make mormons look bad...please stop spreading such blasphemy. thank you :)

Heather said...

Che, the reason plural marriage will be practiced in the CK is because those who were righteously involved in a plural marriage in this life have been sealed together for eternity, so it would be totally unfair for some righteous women who shared a husband to just be left out of the blessings they were promised here. That does not mean that people who never were asked to practice polygamy will suddenly be required to do so.

Saying that the wife did not have to be involved is just not true, and it's also really not true that Joseph Smith took other wives before he told Emma. She did have a really hard time accepting it, but she eventually did because it was required of Joseph Smith, since he was the prophet of the church at the time and he needed to set the example for other members of the church who would be asked to practice it.

After Joseph's death, Emma would claim that Joseph had nothing to do with plural marriage, and that it was all Brigham Young. Maybe that's where your confusion is coming from. Wilford Woodruff, however, made a statement on this where he said: "I bear record before God, angels, and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in the congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words." Heavenly Father also spoke directly to Emma about this in D&C 132:52, saying that she should "receive all those that have been given to her husband.'

By the way, in my D&C class last semester we learned that a very small percentage of the church ever practiced plural marriage. I don't remember the exact statistic but it was never ever a blanket requirement that the whole church practice polygamy. Every single plural marriage was commanded specifically by the Lord. Some of my ancestors were early members of the church and they did not practice plural marriage, because it wasn't required of them.

I don't think you're getting all your information from credible Mormon sources. Especially that one....I'm pretty much positive Joseph Smith was not married to a 14-yr-old girl.

I've never read that statement by George Q. Cannon until now, but it seems to me that he is saying it would be wrong for those few people who were commanded to be apart of a plural marriage.

If you want to look up more on plural marriage, I would suggest you read what the D&C student manual says about section 132. You really can't believe everything you read on the internet.

Che said...

Heather Guymon.Your comment was hilarious.My wife says the same thing.. I do live a plural marriage! ;)
Cait, haha.. thanks. I think. I will take the smiley face as an actual smile. Blasphemy is the “irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred”. I do not think I am speaking blasphemy regarding the doctrine of polygamy. My wife (and I) cant stand the talk of polygamy, but it is what it is. I just found it sad that many of the comments were negative towards these two young women, due to miss-information about the practice and doctrine. I was sitting in a gospel doctrine class a few years ago and found it interesting how many members had their own idea of the doctrine. My wife and I did the research and it cleared a ton of miss information for us.

Heather, this has been fun. Yes, I am an active temple attending priesthood holder. I have been a member of the lds church for 22 years and have been married to a wonder faithful latter-day saint for 18 of those years. Like most lds women, my wife hates this subject and prefers to wait until the millennium for the answers. But, we both agree that what I have shared with you is church doctrine. Seriously, read D&C 132 from start to finish. You may find Bushmans Rough Stone Rolling as a good resource. I understand BYU uses his book for a number of classes.

To answer to a few of your comments.

Yes, plural marriage will be practiced in the millennium and in the CK for all that make it. "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol 11, p. 269. Also Read Mormon Doctrine on this one. LDS source material.

There is ample proof that Joseph Smith had many wives before Emma was aware of the practice. Read Rough Stone Rolling

Your comment of Joseph Smith having to be an example is interesting since up until his death he denied practicing polygamy publicly while at the same time practicing it in secret. As a matter of fact, it was because of his fierce denial in public, that he ordered the destruction of the printing press and subsequently lost his life before the trial at Carthage jail. Read Rough Stone Rolling and other Pro LDS sources for this.

Che said...

Yes, I agree that Wilford Woodruff confirmed the revelation on polygamy, and that Emma agreed with it. But she did not agree with it willingly. D&C 132 does say she should "receive all those that have been given to her husband”. If you also notice it also says that is she does not accept the principle she would be destroyed. “But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.” I understand from this, that she did not really have a choice in the matter. Rough Stone Rolling has info on this as well.

Your D&C class teacher should know better than to say that only a small percentage practiced polygamy. It was more like 20-30% of members. If you expected to be a leader in the church at that time, you were required to live the higher law. Yes, there were some like your ancestors that did not live it. But if you look at the statistics, it is much higher than 2-3%. And, no, it was not a calling. You did not get a call in the mail, or a bishop’s interview. If you look at the population of Utah at the time, it’s more than obvious it was not practiced because there were more women then men either. (I figured I would beat you to the punch on that one ;)

And yes, it is true that Joseph Smith did marry a 14 year old. Helen Mar Kimball. He also was sealed to other men’s wives. (Polyandry) And thanks again to Brigham Young, there is ample proof that these marriages were consummated. (See the Temple Lot Case and Helen Mar Kimballs journals) You can choose not to believe this, but you can read Rough Stone Rolling and find out many of these facts for yourself. See Rough Stone Rolling and take a look at family search on the site. It’s not hidden.

As for your insinuation that I only believe what I read on the internet, you may find the following links/books from faithful active members to your benefit. And yes, they are credible. In my 22 years in the church I have found that members automatically assume that anything that does not come from the church can not be credible, or must be anti-mormon. I would think that a person would want to know the facts for themselves before they pass along half-truths or deny things that actually happened.
I purchased my copy of Mormon Enigma from deseret book years ago.

Amy said...

y'all just got SKOOLED!

Stacie said...

wow is all i gotta say. Those girls are freekin loonies. LOL! I have been born and raised in the church and just wanna say Im so glad I didnt live in the time that plural marriage was acceptable and I hope it never ever comes back.

Abby J said...

not really because she was incorrect amy. Mormon doctrine isnt even a credible source, they took it off the shelves because of all the errors in it. There were hundreds btw. And during that time polygamy wasnt illegal so it wasnt breaking the law of the land. You really dont have proof that polygamy will be done in heaven because religion is based on faith and its something that you feel. You really should stop preaching that polygamy will happen in the celestial kingdom when you dont know that.

Che said...

Abby J… Mormon Doctrine is not credible? WTF? (What the Fetch?) Your kidding right? Why then was it still on the market 25 years after McConkies death? It was on my list of approved books for my mission.. (yes, way back when). He is an apostle for crying out loud. So, he was totally wrong? I would think if it really was full of thousands of errors, they would have pulled it years ago. By the way, they say it was because of poor sales, not errors to why it was pulled.
- Yes, polygamy will be practiced in the CK.. see Brigham Young’s comment above.. unless you are going to tell me that all of his writings were not credible.. he was a prophet you know.. ;)
-Yes, polygamy was illegal. The Illinois Anit-bigamy law. 1833. Read it. Illegal. Even in Utah territory is was illegal. Brigham Young new it, and used the fact that it was illegal to get out of paying support to one of his ex wives. (this is fact, not anti mormon BS.. its in the history books)

I do find it interesting how the mind works. This was doctrine taught through out the church. Now you are saying that it never was doctrine? And that we have to watch our sources? Even from apostles and prophets? You really have to be kidding. I am sorry, you can’t have it both ways. It is what it is. Don’t sugar coat it because you don’t like it or disagree with it. Again, it is what it is.

Che said...

By they way, I have spent way to much time on this comment section.. This site makes me laugh. Its like reading my post mission journals.. if I had kept a journal.. ;) Its like watching that awful movie The Best Two Years… I can relate to many of the experiences they have… no matter how cliché or corny they may be.. ;)

I'm New said...

Che - I am new to this conversation and have found it very interesting.

I am not going to get into the debate about polygamy but I will say that yes, Mormon Doctrine is not accepted as "Mormon doctrine".

Look at any book written by an apostle, and it usually says in the front of the book that they take full responsibility for the content and it is not a product of the first presidency or council of the 12 and therefore is not doctrine of the LDS church (for one example see preface to Christ and the New Covenant by Jeffrey R. Holland).

Not to mention that revisions have been made to the book Mormon Doctrine (see preface of the 2nd edition) - it states that there have been "changes, clarifications and additions" That is one example that it's content was not entirely accurate at the time it was first published.

When a book is written by one person, even if that person is a member of the 12 apostles, that does not automatically make it church doctrine. Only if it is accepted by the first presidency and council of the 12 for example the proclamation on the family, the living Christ and all of the standard works are all accepted by all of them which makes them church doctrine.

Just because it is in print either on the internet or in a bound book, does not make it true or church doctrine. Especially if you are quoting one person - that is not the way the church or the first presidency and 12 apostles work.

Heather said...

Ohmygosh. This is just ridiculous. Obbbviously I'm not going to convince you so I'm just going to stop commenting by saying that

1. The book "Mormon Doctrine" had over 1,000 inaccuracies in it. I believe that Bruce R. McConkie is an apostle but no one, besides the President of the church, is allowed to declare that something is church doctrine. And since the Lord has revealed so little about polygamy, all Elder McConkie can do is offer personal revelations, good advice, etc., which is why the title "Mormon Doctrine" was a problem in the first place.

2. I just learned that Joseph Smith actually was sealed to a 14-yr-old girl. My bad.

3. I'm not sure what "ample proof" you're referring to about all the marriages being consummated, but I've heard of both studies that support your opinion and other studies that prove that none of the children of Joseph's other wives (besides Emma) were Joseph's children. I'm no expert on DNA and such, but either way, I don't think it really matters. It doesn't affect my life or my testimony or whatever. The church is still true.

4. Actually the percentage of faithful members who righteously practiced polygamy was more like 3%.

5. Bigamy and polygamy are different, and polygamy was not illegal in Utah. That's part of why the church moved there.

6. I'm not saying polygamy never was doctrine. I don't know where you got that from. I'm saying we don't practice it now and no one really knows if we, ourselves--not those who practiced it in earlier Mormon history--will have to practice it in the Celestial Kingdom.

7. Your wife probably can't stand the talk about polygamy because you are obnoxious and condescending. Please pass along my sympathies.