WaynesWorld wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:

But I remember when polygamy was a prerequisite for Celestial exaltation. That has now changed...the root of that doctrine continues to die out and wither. And I'm glad to see that happening.

You must be over 100 then if you remember things taught about Polygamy.

Fact is, that was never taught about Polygamy, that is was essential, maybe it was a test for those it was asked to practice it, which was a small percentage of the church, so how could most of the church not practice it if they believed it was a requirement for salvation? Everyone would have been doing right? Makes no sense, and proves you are wrong that it was taught as an essential thing.

Oh for the love of PETE, Kent. The Mormons never taught that polygamy was essential for salvation...they taught that it was requisite for EXALTATION.

Show your proof.

Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine & Covenants still states that Polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, Mormons must have multiple wives.

Because Mormons still hold D&C Section 132 as cannon - Mormons still practice "spiritual" polygamy and teach that Polygamy is the only way a Mormon can become a God. Two current Mormon Apostles have more than 1 spiritual wife. Russell M. Nelson On April 6, 2006 married Wendy L. Watson in the temple for "time and all eternity", his second spiritual wife.

The practice of polygamy has never been a requirement to enter the Celestial Kingdom. In D&C 132, it says to achieve exaltation, you must enter into the "new and everlasting covenant", meaning being sealed (married) in the temple for time and eternity. Polygamy is NOT, NOT, NOT the "new and everlasting covenant." (Sorry, Just Reading. . .I still like your ideas for Mother's Day gifts, though.)

No where in section 132 does it state you must be a polygamist to become a god. Exaltation is NOT determined by how many wives you have. Read the whole section, please. Yes, worthy priesthood holders (men) can be sealed to more than one woman. For example, my step-dad will have two wives. . .his first wife that died, and then my mother. So, there will be plurality of wives in the Celestial Kingdom.

On to Brigham Young saying blacks would never hold the priesthood "in this life". I say those last three words a lot; for example, when I'm asked if I'll ever let my hair go gray, I answer "Not in this life", referring to MY lifetime. Maybe that's what Brigham Young meant.

After reading all the posts in this forum (and it took forever), I have to agree with JLD. Why is it such an issue with everyone outside the church (non-members, former members) what we believe? Why do you care so much?

About the LDS church making a statement about the FLDS debacle. . .The statement has been made. The Church does not practice polygamy; those that do are excommunicated. The Church has no association with the FLDS. The Church is not responsible for their practices, just as the Church is not responsible for what any other religion practices.

I'll address one of your comments.

What Brigham Young was talking about when he taught that blacks would never receive the priesthood in this life...was in reference to this life...our second estate.

Brigham Young was of the opinion that since the blacks had been 'fence-sitters' in the war in heaven...and since they had not been valiant in keeping their first estate (the pre-existance) they would not receive the blessings of the priesthood and temple marriage in their SECOND estate...or their earthly life.

He taught that if they lived worthy lives...they would receive these blessings in their THIRD estate...or in the next world.

And WHY did he teach this? Joseph Smith certainly never did. As a matter of fact...Joseph Smith had already ordained a number of worthy black males to the priesthood.

And as soon as Brigham took the reigns of leadership...he revoked these blessings and revoked the priesthood blessings from the individuals which had received them from Joseph Smith.

But this was not all regarding Brigham's opinion of blacks. He believed that there were varying degrees in the Celestial kingdom...and that the worthy blacks would have their own positions and duties in the Celestial kingdom...which basically amounted to servitude to the white Saints.

You must understand something about Brigham Young. While he had instructed that worthy white priesthood holding males would possibly be required to take Lamanite women as wives, so that their posterity might become white and delightsome...as per prophecy.

However...when it came to the 'Negro race'...he was of an entirely different opinion.

He taught, from the pulpit, that the fate of any white man or woman who intermarried with Negroes, and mingled their blood and seed with Negroes...ought to be nothing less than being put to death.

I'm going to call you on one word, Jaye. . .OPINION. All the things you wrote above from Brigham Young weren't his opinion. During his time, these were revelations. Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking of the "negro" situation,(and I know a lot of members don't like to quote him), ". . .this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice. . ." Thankfully, we have modern-day revelation. For those of you who don't know what that is, we believe that Heavenly Father still speaks to his prophet(s). Doctrines of the Church don't change on a whim. . ."line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. . .".2 Nephi 28.

And, again thankfully, modern-day revelation also applies to the practice, or lack thereof, of polygamy.Girl raised in the South. This post is from Boy raised in the West. Rural Utah, that is. I come from a Mormon heritage.

First, polygamy was, during Brigham Young's rule, requesite for Celestial Exaltation. That is clear.

Second, there exists confusion among today's members whether or not the marriage structure in Celestial Exaltation is polygamous, monogamous or both (1). However, clearly LDS doctrine is written that God the Father has multitudes of wives.

Third, to many lds members, predictions and doctrines spoken and written by a PROPHET OF GOD can merely be dismissed as opinion if their words don't come to pass or they seem to be proved wrong later. So, that would make it pretty easy to be a prophet, now, wouldn't it.

HE ISN'T PERFECT some in the membership say.

WELL if he's claiming to be PROPHET OF GOD, the only prophet of God on the face of the whole world, then I'd expect him to act like a prophet of God, don't you?

I've never in all my life heard, until recently in LDS circles, that predictions that don't happen from a prophet are of no real concern. They were merely opinions. After all, they were just men, right?.

I expect more out of someone with the title of PROPHET. LDS members who believe today's prophecies of God are tommorow's opinions of men corrupt the connotation and meaning of that hallowed and holy term, Prophet of God!.


It makes me very leary of some true-blue lds people who yet seem altogether wholesome on the outside. I don't think I want to trust them unless they trust BY's writing that the moon is populated with people AND American Indians are primarily of Jewish descent.

See, it would be OK for me if they stuck to their original convictions or plead ignorance; at least then they would have retain their integrity. But to openly come out and conclude that a prophet's words are opinion only, well, that doesn't wash for me. Better to not call yourself a true-blue Mormon if you can't support your past Prophet's words as fact.



(1) Try reconciling that with Christ's words as recorded in Luke 20: 34-35; Matt. 22: 30; Mark 12: 25

If I may ask, if you were God what would be the point of having a prophet that couldn't make mistakes and had every answer at his disposal - who was essentially omnipotent where matters of the church were concerned? Wouldn't this pretty much negate the need for individual faith, prayer and study? If someone is just standing there with all the answers for you then where is the room for personal growth? Is it wrong for some to believe that maybe God intends for his followers to find the path to him without someone holding their hand every step of the way? Also, how is the prophet himself supposed to learn and grow if God just hands him all the answers and prevents him from ever making a mistake?

JLD wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:

But I remember when polygamy was a prerequisite for Celestial exaltation. That has now changed...the root of that doctrine continues to die out and wither. And I'm glad to see that happening.

You must be over 100 then if you remember things taught about Polygamy.

Fact is, that was never taught about Polygamy, that is was essential, maybe it was a test for those it was asked to practice it, which was a small percentage of the church, so how could most of the church not practice it if they believed it was a requirement for salvation? Everyone would have been doing right? Makes no sense, and proves you are wrong that it was taught as an essential thing.

Oh for the love of PETE, Kent. The Mormons never taught that polygamy was essential for salvation...they taught that it was requisite for EXALTATION.

Show your proof.

Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine & Covenants still states that Polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, Mormons must have multiple wives.

Because Mormons still hold D&C Section 132 as cannon - Mormons still practice "spiritual" polygamy and teach that Polygamy is the only way a Mormon can become a God. Two current Mormon Apostles have more than 1 spiritual wife. Russell M. Nelson On April 6, 2006 married Wendy L. Watson in the temple for "time and all eternity", his second spiritual wife.

The practice of polygamy has never been a requirement to enter the Celestial Kingdom. In D&C 132, it says to achieve exaltation, you must enter into the "new and everlasting covenant", meaning being sealed (married) in the temple for time and eternity. Polygamy is NOT, NOT, NOT the "new and everlasting covenant." (Sorry, Just Reading. . .I still like your ideas for Mother's Day gifts, though.)

No where in section 132 does it state you must be a polygamist to become a god. Exaltation is NOT determined by how many wives you have. Read the whole section, please. Yes, worthy priesthood holders (men) can be sealed to more than one woman. For example, my step-dad will have two wives. . .his first wife that died, and then my mother. So, there will be plurality of wives in the Celestial Kingdom.

On to Brigham Young saying blacks would never hold the priesthood "in this life". I say those last three words a lot; for example, when I'm asked if I'll ever let my hair go gray, I answer "Not in this life", referring to MY lifetime. Maybe that's what Brigham Young meant.

After reading all the posts in this forum (and it took forever), I have to agree with JLD. Why is it such an issue with everyone outside the church (non-members, former members) what we believe? Why do you care so much?

About the LDS church making a statement about the FLDS debacle. . .The statement has been made. The Church does not practice polygamy; those that do are excommunicated. The Church has no association with the FLDS. The Church is not responsible for their practices, just as the Church is not responsible for what any other religion practices.

I'll address one of your comments.

What Brigham Young was talking about when he taught that blacks would never receive the priesthood in this life...was in reference to this life...our second estate.

Brigham Young was of the opinion that since the blacks had been 'fence-sitters' in the war in heaven...and since they had not been valiant in keeping their first estate (the pre-existance) they would not receive the blessings of the priesthood and temple marriage in their SECOND estate...or their earthly life.

He taught that if they lived worthy lives...they would receive these blessings in their THIRD estate...or in the next world.

And WHY did he teach this? Joseph Smith certainly never did. As a matter of fact...Joseph Smith had already ordained a number of worthy black males to the priesthood.

And as soon as Brigham took the reigns of leadership...he revoked these blessings and revoked the priesthood blessings from the individuals which had received them from Joseph Smith.

But this was not all regarding Brigham's opinion of blacks. He believed that there were varying degrees in the Celestial kingdom...and that the worthy blacks would have their own positions and duties in the Celestial kingdom...which basically amounted to servitude to the white Saints.

You must understand something about Brigham Young. While he had instructed that worthy white priesthood holding males would possibly be required to take Lamanite women as wives, so that their posterity might become white and delightsome...as per prophecy.

However...when it came to the 'Negro race'...he was of an entirely different opinion.

He taught, from the pulpit, that the fate of any white man or woman who intermarried with Negroes, and mingled their blood and seed with Negroes...ought to be nothing less than being put to death.

I'm going to call you on one word, Jaye. . .OPINION. All the things you wrote above from Brigham Young weren't his opinion. During his time, these were revelations. Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking of the "negro" situation,(and I know a lot of members don't like to quote him), ". . .this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice. . ." Thankfully, we have modern-day revelation. For those of you who don't know what that is, we believe that Heavenly Father still speaks to his prophet(s). Doctrines of the Church don't change on a whim. . ."line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. . .".2 Nephi 28.

And, again thankfully, modern-day revelation also applies to the practice, or lack thereof, of polygamy.Girl raised in the South. This post is from Boy raised in the West. Rural Utah, that is. I come from a Mormon heritage.

First, polygamy was, during Brigham Young's rule, requesite for Celestial Exaltation. That is clear.

Second, there exists confusion among today's members whether or not the marriage structure in Celestial Exaltation is polygamous, monogamous or both (1). However, clearly LDS doctrine is written that God the Father has multitudes of wives.

Third, to many lds members, predictions and doctrines spoken and written by a PROPHET OF GOD can merely be dismissed as opinion if their words don't come to pass or they seem to be proved wrong later. So, that would make it pretty easy to be a prophet, now, wouldn't it.

HE ISN'T PERFECT some in the membership say.

WELL if he's claiming to be PROPHET OF GOD, the only prophet of God on the face of the whole world, then I'd expect him to act like a prophet of God, don't you?

I've never in all my life heard, until recently in LDS circles, that predictions that don't happen from a prophet are of no real concern. They were merely opinions. After all, they were just men, right?.

I expect more out of someone with the title of PROPHET. LDS members who believe today's prophecies of God are tommorow's opinions of men corrupt the connotation and meaning of that hallowed and holy term, Prophet of God!.


It makes me very leary of some true-blue lds people who yet seem altogether wholesome on the outside. I don't think I want to trust them unless they trust BY's writing that the moon is populated with people AND American Indians are primarily of Jewish descent.

See, it would be OK for me if they stuck to their original convictions or plead ignorance; at least then they would have retain their integrity. But to openly come out and conclude that a prophet's words are opinion only, well, that doesn't wash for me. Better to not call yourself a true-blue Mormon if you can't support your past Prophet's words as fact.



(1) Try reconciling that with Christ's words as recorded in Luke 20: 34-35; Matt. 22: 30; Mark 12: 25

If I may ask, if you were God what would be the point of having a prophet that couldn't make mistakes and had every answer at his disposal - who was essentially omnipotent where matters of the church were concerned? Wouldn't this pretty much negate the need for individual faith, prayer and study? If someone is just standing there with all the answers for you then where is the room for personal growth? Is it wrong for some to believe that maybe God intends for his followers to find the path to him without someone holding their hand every step of the way? Also, how is the prophet himself supposed to learn and grow if God just hands him all the answers and prevents him from ever making a mistake?No, no and no. A true prophet makes no mistakes or errors when he prophesies. He may speak in what seems like riddles or in symbolic and metaphoric language but that is never an excuse for those who sustain him to flake him off and claim he is/was wrong and/or what he said was only "opinion".

WaynesWorld wrote:
JLD wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:

But I remember when polygamy was a prerequisite for Celestial exaltation. That has now changed...the root of that doctrine continues to die out and wither. And I'm glad to see that happening.

You must be over 100 then if you remember things taught about Polygamy.

Fact is, that was never taught about Polygamy, that is was essential, maybe it was a test for those it was asked to practice it, which was a small percentage of the church, so how could most of the church not practice it if they believed it was a requirement for salvation? Everyone would have been doing right? Makes no sense, and proves you are wrong that it was taught as an essential thing.

Oh for the love of PETE, Kent. The Mormons never taught that polygamy was essential for salvation...they taught that it was requisite for EXALTATION.

Show your proof.

Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine & Covenants still states that Polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, Mormons must have multiple wives.

Because Mormons still hold D&C Section 132 as cannon - Mormons still practice "spiritual" polygamy and teach that Polygamy is the only way a Mormon can become a God. Two current Mormon Apostles have more than 1 spiritual wife. Russell M. Nelson On April 6, 2006 married Wendy L. Watson in the temple for "time and all eternity", his second spiritual wife.

The practice of polygamy has never been a requirement to enter the Celestial Kingdom. In D&C 132, it says to achieve exaltation, you must enter into the "new and everlasting covenant", meaning being sealed (married) in the temple for time and eternity. Polygamy is NOT, NOT, NOT the "new and everlasting covenant." (Sorry, Just Reading. . .I still like your ideas for Mother's Day gifts, though.)

No where in section 132 does it state you must be a polygamist to become a god. Exaltation is NOT determined by how many wives you have. Read the whole section, please. Yes, worthy priesthood holders (men) can be sealed to more than one woman. For example, my step-dad will have two wives. . .his first wife that died, and then my mother. So, there will be plurality of wives in the Celestial Kingdom.

On to Brigham Young saying blacks would never hold the priesthood "in this life". I say those last three words a lot; for example, when I'm asked if I'll ever let my hair go gray, I answer "Not in this life", referring to MY lifetime. Maybe that's what Brigham Young meant.

After reading all the posts in this forum (and it took forever), I have to agree with JLD. Why is it such an issue with everyone outside the church (non-members, former members) what we believe? Why do you care so much?

About the LDS church making a statement about the FLDS debacle. . .The statement has been made. The Church does not practice polygamy; those that do are excommunicated. The Church has no association with the FLDS. The Church is not responsible for their practices, just as the Church is not responsible for what any other religion practices.

I'll address one of your comments.

What Brigham Young was talking about when he taught that blacks would never receive the priesthood in this life...was in reference to this life...our second estate.

Brigham Young was of the opinion that since the blacks had been 'fence-sitters' in the war in heaven...and since they had not been valiant in keeping their first estate (the pre-existance) they would not receive the blessings of the priesthood and temple marriage in their SECOND estate...or their earthly life.

He taught that if they lived worthy lives...they would receive these blessings in their THIRD estate...or in the next world.

And WHY did he teach this? Joseph Smith certainly never did. As a matter of fact...Joseph Smith had already ordained a number of worthy black males to the priesthood.

And as soon as Brigham took the reigns of leadership...he revoked these blessings and revoked the priesthood blessings from the individuals which had received them from Joseph Smith.

But this was not all regarding Brigham's opinion of blacks. He believed that there were varying degrees in the Celestial kingdom...and that the worthy blacks would have their own positions and duties in the Celestial kingdom...which basically amounted to servitude to the white Saints.

You must understand something about Brigham Young. While he had instructed that worthy white priesthood holding males would possibly be required to take Lamanite women as wives, so that their posterity might become white and delightsome...as per prophecy.

However...when it came to the 'Negro race'...he was of an entirely different opinion.

He taught, from the pulpit, that the fate of any white man or woman who intermarried with Negroes, and mingled their blood and seed with Negroes...ought to be nothing less than being put to death.

I'm going to call you on one word, Jaye. . .OPINION. All the things you wrote above from Brigham Young weren't his opinion. During his time, these were revelations. Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking of the "negro" situation,(and I know a lot of members don't like to quote him), ". . .this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice. . ." Thankfully, we have modern-day revelation. For those of you who don't know what that is, we believe that Heavenly Father still speaks to his prophet(s). Doctrines of the Church don't change on a whim. . ."line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. . .".2 Nephi 28.

And, again thankfully, modern-day revelation also applies to the practice, or lack thereof, of polygamy.Girl raised in the South. This post is from Boy raised in the West. Rural Utah, that is. I come from a Mormon heritage.

First, polygamy was, during Brigham Young's rule, requesite for Celestial Exaltation. That is clear.

Second, there exists confusion among today's members whether or not the marriage structure in Celestial Exaltation is polygamous, monogamous or both (1). However, clearly LDS doctrine is written that God the Father has multitudes of wives.

Third, to many lds members, predictions and doctrines spoken and written by a PROPHET OF GOD can merely be dismissed as opinion if their words don't come to pass or they seem to be proved wrong later. So, that would make it pretty easy to be a prophet, now, wouldn't it.

HE ISN'T PERFECT some in the membership say.

WELL if he's claiming to be PROPHET OF GOD, the only prophet of God on the face of the whole world, then I'd expect him to act like a prophet of God, don't you?

I've never in all my life heard, until recently in LDS circles, that predictions that don't happen from a prophet are of no real concern. They were merely opinions. After all, they were just men, right?.

I expect more out of someone with the title of PROPHET. LDS members who believe today's prophecies of God are tommorow's opinions of men corrupt the connotation and meaning of that hallowed and holy term, Prophet of God!.


It makes me very leary of some true-blue lds people who yet seem altogether wholesome on the outside. I don't think I want to trust them unless they trust BY's writing that the moon is populated with people AND American Indians are primarily of Jewish descent.

See, it would be OK for me if they stuck to their original convictions or plead ignorance; at least then they would have retain their integrity. But to openly come out and conclude that a prophet's words are opinion only, well, that doesn't wash for me. Better to not call yourself a true-blue Mormon if you can't support your past Prophet's words as fact.



(1) Try reconciling that with Christ's words as recorded in Luke 20: 34-35; Matt. 22: 30; Mark 12: 25

If I may ask, if you were God what would be the point of having a prophet that couldn't make mistakes and had every answer at his disposal - who was essentially omnipotent where matters of the church were concerned? Wouldn't this pretty much negate the need for individual faith, prayer and study? If someone is just standing there with all the answers for you then where is the room for personal growth? Is it wrong for some to believe that maybe God intends for his followers to find the path to him without someone holding their hand every step of the way? Also, how is the prophet himself supposed to learn and grow if God just hands him all the answers and prevents him from ever making a mistake?No, no and no. A true prophet makes no mistakes or errors when he prophesies. He may speak in what seems like riddles or in symbolic and metaphoric language but that is never an excuse for those who sustain him to flake him off and claim he is/was wrong and/or what he said was only "opinion".

You obviously have not studied the personality and traits of a Prophet in scripture, they have made many mistakes and errors and downright sinned mightily at times. Doesn't negate their teachings, just proves that JLD is right, they are not perfect, never meant to be, if they were, it would be like God was standing next to us, and we'd need no faith. Not what God wants, clearly.

WaynesWorld wrote:
JLD wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:

But I remember when polygamy was a prerequisite for Celestial exaltation. That has now changed...the root of that doctrine continues to die out and wither. And I'm glad to see that happening.

You must be over 100 then if you remember things taught about Polygamy.

Fact is, that was never taught about Polygamy, that is was essential, maybe it was a test for those it was asked to practice it, which was a small percentage of the church, so how could most of the church not practice it if they believed it was a requirement for salvation? Everyone would have been doing right? Makes no sense, and proves you are wrong that it was taught as an essential thing.

Oh for the love of PETE, Kent. The Mormons never taught that polygamy was essential for salvation...they taught that it was requisite for EXALTATION.

Show your proof.

Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine & Covenants still states that Polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, Mormons must have multiple wives.

Because Mormons still hold D&C Section 132 as cannon - Mormons still practice "spiritual" polygamy and teach that Polygamy is the only way a Mormon can become a God. Two current Mormon Apostles have more than 1 spiritual wife. Russell M. Nelson On April 6, 2006 married Wendy L. Watson in the temple for "time and all eternity", his second spiritual wife.

The practice of polygamy has never been a requirement to enter the Celestial Kingdom. In D&C 132, it says to achieve exaltation, you must enter into the "new and everlasting covenant", meaning being sealed (married) in the temple for time and eternity. Polygamy is NOT, NOT, NOT the "new and everlasting covenant." (Sorry, Just Reading. . .I still like your ideas for Mother's Day gifts, though.)

No where in section 132 does it state you must be a polygamist to become a god. Exaltation is NOT determined by how many wives you have. Read the whole section, please. Yes, worthy priesthood holders (men) can be sealed to more than one woman. For example, my step-dad will have two wives. . .his first wife that died, and then my mother. So, there will be plurality of wives in the Celestial Kingdom.

On to Brigham Young saying blacks would never hold the priesthood "in this life". I say those last three words a lot; for example, when I'm asked if I'll ever let my hair go gray, I answer "Not in this life", referring to MY lifetime. Maybe that's what Brigham Young meant.

After reading all the posts in this forum (and it took forever), I have to agree with JLD. Why is it such an issue with everyone outside the church (non-members, former members) what we believe? Why do you care so much?

About the LDS church making a statement about the FLDS debacle. . .The statement has been made. The Church does not practice polygamy; those that do are excommunicated. The Church has no association with the FLDS. The Church is not responsible for their practices, just as the Church is not responsible for what any other religion practices.

I'll address one of your comments.

What Brigham Young was talking about when he taught that blacks would never receive the priesthood in this life...was in reference to this life...our second estate.

Brigham Young was of the opinion that since the blacks had been 'fence-sitters' in the war in heaven...and since they had not been valiant in keeping their first estate (the pre-existance) they would not receive the blessings of the priesthood and temple marriage in their SECOND estate...or their earthly life.

He taught that if they lived worthy lives...they would receive these blessings in their THIRD estate...or in the next world.

And WHY did he teach this? Joseph Smith certainly never did. As a matter of fact...Joseph Smith had already ordained a number of worthy black males to the priesthood.

And as soon as Brigham took the reigns of leadership...he revoked these blessings and revoked the priesthood blessings from the individuals which had received them from Joseph Smith.

But this was not all regarding Brigham's opinion of blacks. He believed that there were varying degrees in the Celestial kingdom...and that the worthy blacks would have their own positions and duties in the Celestial kingdom...which basically amounted to servitude to the white Saints.

You must understand something about Brigham Young. While he had instructed that worthy white priesthood holding males would possibly be required to take Lamanite women as wives, so that their posterity might become white and delightsome...as per prophecy.

However...when it came to the 'Negro race'...he was of an entirely different opinion.

He taught, from the pulpit, that the fate of any white man or woman who intermarried with Negroes, and mingled their blood and seed with Negroes...ought to be nothing less than being put to death.

I'm going to call you on one word, Jaye. . .OPINION. All the things you wrote above from Brigham Young weren't his opinion. During his time, these were revelations. Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking of the "negro" situation,(and I know a lot of members don't like to quote him), ". . .this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice. . ." Thankfully, we have modern-day revelation. For those of you who don't know what that is, we believe that Heavenly Father still speaks to his prophet(s). Doctrines of the Church don't change on a whim. . ."line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. . .".2 Nephi 28.

And, again thankfully, modern-day revelation also applies to the practice, or lack thereof, of polygamy.Girl raised in the South. This post is from Boy raised in the West. Rural Utah, that is. I come from a Mormon heritage.

First, polygamy was, during Brigham Young's rule, requesite for Celestial Exaltation. That is clear.

Second, there exists confusion among today's members whether or not the marriage structure in Celestial Exaltation is polygamous, monogamous or both (1). However, clearly LDS doctrine is written that God the Father has multitudes of wives.

Third, to many lds members, predictions and doctrines spoken and written by a PROPHET OF GOD can merely be dismissed as opinion if their words don't come to pass or they seem to be proved wrong later. So, that would make it pretty easy to be a prophet, now, wouldn't it.

HE ISN'T PERFECT some in the membership say.

WELL if he's claiming to be PROPHET OF GOD, the only prophet of God on the face of the whole world, then I'd expect him to act like a prophet of God, don't you?

I've never in all my life heard, until recently in LDS circles, that predictions that don't happen from a prophet are of no real concern. They were merely opinions. After all, they were just men, right?.

I expect more out of someone with the title of PROPHET. LDS members who believe today's prophecies of God are tommorow's opinions of men corrupt the connotation and meaning of that hallowed and holy term, Prophet of God!.


It makes me very leary of some true-blue lds people who yet seem altogether wholesome on the outside. I don't think I want to trust them unless they trust BY's writing that the moon is populated with people AND American Indians are primarily of Jewish descent.

See, it would be OK for me if they stuck to their original convictions or plead ignorance; at least then they would have retain their integrity. But to openly come out and conclude that a prophet's words are opinion only, well, that doesn't wash for me. Better to not call yourself a true-blue Mormon if you can't support your past Prophet's words as fact.



(1) Try reconciling that with Christ's words as recorded in Luke 20: 34-35; Matt. 22: 30; Mark 12: 25

If I may ask, if you were God what would be the point of having a prophet that couldn't make mistakes and had every answer at his disposal - who was essentially omnipotent where matters of the church were concerned? Wouldn't this pretty much negate the need for individual faith, prayer and study? If someone is just standing there with all the answers for you then where is the room for personal growth? Is it wrong for some to believe that maybe God intends for his followers to find the path to him without someone holding their hand every step of the way? Also, how is the prophet himself supposed to learn and grow if God just hands him all the answers and prevents him from ever making a mistake?No, no and no. A true prophet makes no mistakes or errors when he prophesies. He may speak in what seems like riddles or in symbolic and metaphoric language but that is never an excuse for those who sustain him to flake him off and claim he is/was wrong and/or what he said was only "opinion".

Ok, so when is he speaking what he has prophesied and when is he speaking only what he understands, or perceives, from that prophecy? He can't be under the spell of prophet vision all the time, or even a large percentage of the time, and certainly not likely while he is actually on the pulpit imparting his words to the masses. So the fact of the matter is that the majority of what a prophet would say is likely to only be his understandings and interpretations of what he has prophesied and not actual prophesy...at least that is what it would seem to me.

Also, who is to say what a prophecy consists of? Is it visions, is it just knowledge that pops into your head? If you were shown a vision of a people in another world, another life, even another time period, and then the vision ended never to reappear do you think you could stand there and tell the world what you saw in 100% fact? I'm not so much excusing prophets of their prophecies so much as saying that it seems really unlikely to me that even a prophet could possibly know everything there is to know about something, prophecy or not. I think man is far too inherently fallible to allow that.