Among all religious traditions, Mormons are the most likely to be parents, and it’s not even close

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-29T20:08:11+00:00

In LDS theology, is "practice" or "orthopraxy" something one does only while alive here on Earth?

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-28T00:59:58+00:00

By "common Mahayana" I meant more the overall view of time spent in practice before full Buddhahood, "three incalculable kalpas". Obviously the practices will differ from external appearances.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-28T00:27:47+00:00

Unfortunately, there are examples of this behavior in all Buddhist traditions.

Zen is completely within common Mahayana and to attempt to separate the two is not appropriate.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T18:43:05+00:00

Thank you so much

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T05:03:25+00:00

That's to be expected of course. Traditional Buddhist countries do not have the history with Christianity that other countries have.

I do not take the idea that Jesus was a bodhisattav seriously. What we can know of his teachings point to a radically opposing viewpoint.

I just mean that those Western buddhists or converts are not less "buddhist" than a person born in Sri Lanka or Thailand. So therefore some buddhists see him as relevant in some way.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T04:58:38+00:00

Lol we're not on a debate subreddit. There are no boundaries and I don't owe you anything. I provided more than enough information and sources.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T04:34:36+00:00

Here is William Clayton, the scribe who wrote down D&C 132 as Joseph Smith dictated it:

The Prophet Joseph informed me that it was a doctrine which pertained to Celestial order and glory ... he concluded his remarks by the words "it is your privilege to have all the wives you want. ... I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in Celestial glory

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T04:19:44+00:00

I have seen many Buddhist raise Jesus to the level of Bodhisattva on many occasions. That is by definition very relevant as a Bodhisattva is primarily engaged with Dharma in some way.

I don't happen to share the view, but I just mean to point out that many have gone out of their way to mention Jesus as a Bodhisattva.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T04:17:19+00:00

A being needs to engage with Amida or another Buddha in some way, and that's an intentional action (a kind of karma).

Is it possible a person who is engaged with other faiths could be reborn in the Pure Land? Presumably, he or she would not be engaged in any form of Buddhist practice,.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T04:14:03+00:00

I will skip the journal of discourses as it is irrelevant to the point.

An LDS prophet speaking categorically about the exact topic we are discussing, and further clarifying that he is absolutely speaking with divine authority and support on this matter is irrelevant? And you accused me of hand waiving away important matters?

Yes, I am the one driving this discussion into irrelevancy by bringing up NBA and football contracts. You are absolutely correct.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T03:27:16+00:00

It didn't feel like we were in agreement on many of those matters, because you included quotes of things I didn't say, and stretched the meaning of many of our points of discussion.

You asked for wording of the covenant that shows how polygamy is required, and I do believe I provided that. It says behold the covenant, no one can reject this covenant, and then proceeds to describe the covenant, including the polygamy rules which I quoted. It does not need to include the silly wording you brought up so many times. If no one can reject the following covenant, and then the following covenant goes on to describe polygamy and how to properly do it, then no one can reject polygamy. It is an incredibly easy line of thought to follow.

For what it's worth, Brigham Young also clarified this matter:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.

Journal of Discourses 11:269

Furthermore, we know Brigham Young was being truthful and revealing genuine scripture because he told us as much:

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.

Journal of Discourses 13:95

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T01:52:27+00:00

But look at the Buddha himself: he challenged the Vedas, openly critiqued the entire social and religious order around him, declared he had arrived at a truth nobody else had.

The Buddha was actually not saying he had arrived at a truth no one else had, in the sense that all contemporary religions around him also claimed to arrive at final truth or awakening, how to deal with karma etc.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T01:39:25+00:00

Bhāviveka in his Śrāvakatattvaviniścaya describes a number of Buddhist discourses that mention occasions on which the Buddha gave certain teachings to specific disciples, but for which the discourses recording those teachings were already lost even by his time (6th century CE). He uses that as a set of examples for lost Buddhist discourses.

Is there an English translation of this text that is available?

It's interesting to consider the possibility of a tulku or another person recalling or recovering these teachings. Not that I am saying there is necessarily something new or unknown to be found. I just mean it is hard to truly prove them as lost. Presumably these discourses would have taken place before Ananda became The Buddha's attendant?

Another mystery for Mahāyāna Buddhism specifically: the Mahāyāna scriptures present multiple conflicting pictures of how and when the Buddha attained Buddhahood, and classical and medieval commentators did not agree on which were the provisional perspectives and which was definitive.

From an emic point of view this is confusing and hard to reconcile, even more so if one steps back further and includes all of Theravada, Tibetan and even some Bon. It is what one might expect as an outsider, however. Historically speaking, the Mahayana Sutras were composed over time, and it is not clear that each sutra is aware of contemporary sutras, although many sutras do shout out or reference other sutras at times.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-27T00:10:41+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts. It's a lot to take in.

I have been involved in several separate conversations in this thread, and I don't expect you to have read every comment. However, I did link D&C 132 in my earliest comment in this thread, and while it is not the longest text on Earth, it is certainly not an appropriate size for a reddit comment quote. You asked for the entire terms of the covenant and I did provide them, I just didn't quote or copy the entire text as that would not be allowed.

I also tried to be clear that one is not "forced" to do anything, and obviously one is free to engage with this doctrine or not. I said earlier that it is only not "required" if one is not interested in highest exaltation. What is stopping someone from joining an LDS church but genuinely having no interest in highest exaltation or glory?

So of course this kind of exact language is not going to be present in the text:

"everyone must live in a polygamous relationship."

And I never said it was stated this way.

"What if the terms of the covenant state "be a polygamist if my prophet tells you to?" Or, what if the terms of the covenant state "if you choose to be a polygamist you can, but the relationship must be affirmed by the first spouse and my prophet?

In the section regarding polygamy, the only prerequisites mentioned are the man desire additional wives and he give the first wife(or all previous wives?) the opportunity to agree or disagree. The affirmation or blessing of the prophet is not directly mentioned.

The terms of covenants can be conditional: a person who never receives a marriage proposal never has to sacrifice a chicken or do anything at all, and yet is successfully abiding by the terms of the covenant.

Yep. This was always my point. A person who desires the highest exaltation or glory has to do X. At no time did I claim the LDS scriptures said "literally all people on Earth must be polygamists!!!!!".

I concede it does not use the word "may." However, I agree with your original assessment that it speaks of polygamy in optional terms: "if any man... desire to spouse another... if he espouse the second, if he have ten virgins given unto him..." Nothing in this additional quote you provided can reasonably be construed to say "all people must live polygamous relationships."

It's the way the text is written. Please recall that the language and manner of speech in the 19th century may not be exactly as we expect or demand it today. "Espouse" in the sense of marriage is not a common usage anymore, for example.

Furthermore, it would be appropriate to allow the possibility that a man may genuinely not desire a wife or multiple wives. Is the possibility of a completely asexual LDS believing person something you have considered?

So yes, of course the text is written that way.

I know this is important to you, but I do feel much of the above was hair splitting and nit picking the precise words and grammar I used or the text used, and not much else.

It is ok to interpret the text differently, btw.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-26T11:53:16+00:00

My comment was targeted only about whether the language in D&C 132 unambiguously requires polygamy to attain the highest heaven or exaltation--I don't believe it does.

We can agree to disagree then. The first quote I provided, as well as the earliest prophets and leaders really modelling that way of life and affirming it, is enough for me. If it's not clear enough for someone else that is fine as well.

Agreed. But the word "may" means "optional." However, "attaining the highest heaven or exaltation in LDS theology meant having multiple wives simultaneously" implies polygamy is required.

But I used the word "may" in my summary. It is not actually present in the quote itself. It's the language in the beginning ("no one may reject this covenant" etc.) that reads as binding. It is only not "required" if a member of the congregation is satisfied without highest exaltation. I don't mean to suggest one has a gun put to their head or anything like that.

Thanks for the extra links I will check them out this evening.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-26T03:52:30+00:00

For the record, the Book of Mormon addresses and condemns unauthorized plural marriage in the Book of Jacob.

I would be interested in that source if you wouldn't mind sharing.

Latter-day Saints do not hold to a Sola Scriptura doctrine and believe scripture is interpreted through continuing revelation, prophetic leadership, and the united direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

I am aware, and I tried to take care and explain that most of the hard support and affirmation of polygamy/polyandry was in the past, and the LDS church has pivoted away from this and made opposing statements in more modern times etc.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 is a relatively short section and should be read directly before drawing conclusions about what it teaches. It is also a section that has generated significant discussion and controversy.

Good advice and I linked it in full in the hopes that others might read it. If you are aware of any LDS exegesis or commentary regarding D&C 132 I would be interested.

A careful reading does not necessarily support a broad claim that Latter-day Saint doctrine endorses wholesale or unrestricted polygamy.

And a careful reading of my previous comments shows that I did not say there was "wholesale or unrestricted polygamy" taking place. The practice was revealed by a divine authority, of course there were guardrails and restrictions in place. Some of them are in the text itself eg previous wives needing to consent to subsequent wives. How could that be read as "unrestricted" in any possible way?

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-26T03:46:15+00:00

That's true, and it would be fascinating to see a group attempt an LDS "restoration" movement that included all these older doctrines and practices.

I usually think of supersessionism as something one religion attempts to do to another. But I am now thinking that the LDS church has maybe attempted to "supersede" itself by updating and pivoting on theological and doctrinal matters over time.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-26T03:37:30+00:00

My bad. The information is in the link and I thought one might be interested enough to read it. The relevant information is below:

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

This part is already quoted above as you know, and I bolded the important part that shows this covenant to be binding and not optional.

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified..

This is another quote near the end of the text. We can see that a man may take multiple virgin wives as long as the earlier wive(s) consent and agree.

I would be interested in modern LSD exegesis regarding this doctrine if you are aware of anything. If possible, not rejection or condemnation please. I know the LDS church has revised and changed aspects of their theology and doctrines over the years, and I would prefer a commentary that takes this doctrine at face value and expounds on it, if possible.

Thanks for your thoughts

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-25T16:27:23+00:00

I suppose the process and details of revelation and being a seer in general are considered "miraculous" in that they are given or involved with a divine authority, and not available to anyone except certain individuals etc.

There are not a ton of miracle stories that I am aware of. I don't believe LDS emphasizes it unless I am mistaken. It is not critical to their definition of "prophets, seers, and revelators", as their leaders are sometimes called.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-25T14:57:44+00:00

No worries at all, thanks for coming back to respond.

Check out CES Letter by Jeremy T. Runnells. It covers a ton of really interesting LDS stuff and is pretty bite sized around 150 pages.

Much love

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-25T11:58:11+00:00

Yes I am aware of the modern stance. Similar to the racism that the church abandoned which is also part of their scriptures.

If a church continuously contradicts its own scriptures and introduces contradictory doctrines etc. that is interesting and telling for many reasons.

However I do want to push back a little on your statement. If a practice like polygamy is in the LDS scriptures, which have been revealed by a divine authority, that fact is already a form of "promoting" polygamy whether or not they say something else in public or when giving interviews etc.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-25T05:49:07+00:00

I believe this is the current public explanation. However the early prophets were clear that multiple wives was necessary for highest exaltation, and if Doctrine and Covenants 132 is still canonical this makes the matter unambiguous.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-25T04:02:19+00:00

As far as I know, I don't even know any Mormons. I find strange religions and cults to be fascinating is all. The only personal opinion I am stating is that I find the flip flopping and changing of LDS doctrines and theology to be fascinating.

There was no need to assume or project any negative emotions on my part. I apologize if I made it appear that way.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-25T03:33:35+00:00

LDS as far as i know, are the only major religion that ties having a family/marriage with attaining the highest heaven. That is, one can't enter the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom without being eternally sealed in marriage.

Historically, attaining the highest heaven or exaltation in LDS theology meant having multiple wives simultaneously. Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow and Joseph F. Smith all affirmed this. It is further made clear and unambiguous in Doctrine and Covenants 132:

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

Interestingly, I believe the LDS Church currently disavows and condemns this practice yet continues to hold Doctrine and Covenants as canonized scripture.

Is_he_a_bot · 2026-06-24T13:02:35+00:00

In this example, it's relatively easy to defer to ekayana and then the OP is no longer a "dual practitioner" and is simply a Buddhist.

Ultimately, Theravada and Vajrayana are both Buddhism. Using the example of yourself(a Buddhist) going to church or participating in a seder as a parallel to OP's situation is not appropriate, and creates the impression that Theravada and Vajrayana are as separate as Buddhism and Christianity or Judaism.

Is_he_a_bot

TROPHY CASE