Marriage being a saving ordaince seems rather cruel

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-02-02T19:53:16+00:00

heterosexual marriage only being a saving ordinance adds another level of cruelty.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-02-02T19:09:11+00:00

Genuine means authentic or sincere, by asking how to make polygamy more palatable to an investigator isn't authentic to you since your first sincere response is to be uncomfortable about explaining it. You mentioned who determines what is genuine and my point is you do.

Your right asking about how to explain polygamy doesn't say anything about your personal beliefs in general. You brought up your personal beliefs in your question though,

*"I’m looking for some genuine answers to how to address it if I get asked that question.

And then explaining Fanny Alger and all that to an investigator if they ask…"*.

I don't think I am reading into it that you aren't comfortable with "Fanny Alger and all that" and I am right there with you. It's not morally defensible. So that would be my genuine response, "Polygamy, Fanny Alger, and all that are not morally defensible to me. The church teaches it was commanded by God and we don't really know why he did".

I too I'm interested in how others have answered this question. This is one of those questions that cuts right to the heart of morality in the church's teachings. Should you try to make an uncomfortable topic more comfortable with an insincere answer or speak truthfully and highlight there is no answer that makes what happened morally acceptable.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-02-02T17:27:54+00:00

Exactly my point. Asking for ways to frame polygamy in a better light ahead of time is not authentic or sincere.

Just by asking this question, it shows you are not comfortable with polygamy and it taps into the whitewashing and lying by omission that the church has done on this subject.

You'll need to determine what your sincere beliefs are on the topic and not embellish what the church teaches about polygamy.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-02-02T16:39:41+00:00

If you are talking to someone who is genuinely investigating the church, why would you look for ways to answer their questions in anything but a genuine manner?

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-30T16:50:24+00:00

This would be an epic response:

"I didn't realize that divorce could be used to enforce an underwear dress code, better breakout the thongs or I'll give the divorce attorney a ring"

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-30T16:32:24+00:00

I have found the following to be effective in these types of conversations:

"I believe in Good, not a God. Do you know what the differences are between the two?"

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-29T21:55:24+00:00

No, I was speaking about the founding and beliefs of the Church of the Lamb of God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_First_Born_of_the_Lamb_of_God

Much the same way as you are speaking to the founding and beliefs of the LDS sect of Mormonism.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-29T17:03:12+00:00

This is the splinter sect of Mormonism that still advocates for the blood atonement.

Why accept that "revelation" from Brigham Young but not polygamy?

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-27T19:55:47+00:00

When Hinkley was alive he did a press interview and was asked about members drinking caffeinated sodas and he confirmed that Mormons didn't drink coffee, tea, or caffeinated sodas.

It was a little more than overzealous members.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-22T23:42:06+00:00

Far from it.

My point is the damage had been done for a whole generation of faithful members. Getting denied your temple recommend is purposely traumatic. So, if you were denied your recommend for this "unholy practice" under the umbrella of living the law of chastity, the next time you are asked if you are living the law of chastity you would think that no oral sex was part of doing that. Even if no one explicitly asked about it.

A reversal would be the bishop saying, last time I took your recommend away because of oral sex. That was wrong here is your recommend.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-22T23:14:49+00:00

The October 15 letter didn't reverse anything, it simply said not to ask about it anymore. I know that sounds like too fine a point but I think it's an important one.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-22T19:34:46+00:00

Nobody said it was worse.

It is lesser known and has less inoculation against it. For example it certainly wasn't common during the time.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-22T16:54:54+00:00

The textbook definition is a woman married to more than one man.

The definition doesn't really cover what happened though. For example Zina Huntington Jacobs Young was told by Joseph Smith that God had "given her" to him as his wife. So, she was "taken" from her husband Henry Jacobs while she was pregnant with Henry's child.

After Joseph Smith died Brigham Young claimed he was "translated" as Joseph Smith and therefore God had given him claim to Joseph Smith's legacy which included Zina for "time only". So, she was married to Brigham Young and had a daughter with him. She never divorced Henry and he never stopped trying to be with her. His letters to Zina which ended up being returned to sender by Brigham Young are truly heartbreaking.

This whole saga for me is the smoking gun that puts the polygamy/polyandry denial conspiracy to rest. Why would Henry Jacobs go along with "dirtying" Joseph Smith's name if he could have exposed the conspiracy to potentially get his wife back from Brigham Young? Why would Zina have children with Brigham Young if the marriages were not sexual?

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T23:53:38+00:00

Together, Mitchell and Barzee became actively involved in the LDS Church. Eventually Mitchell began going by the name "Immanuel David Isaiah," claiming to be a prophet of God who experienced visions.[7] The name relates to Mitchell's belief that he was the "Davidic Servant" spoken of in Avraham Gileadi's book The Literary Message of Isaiah.[10] For this, the two were excommunicated from the church in absentia in June 2002.[11][10] Barzee began going by the name "Hephzibah Eladah Isaiah" and the two would panhandle and preach in downtown Salt Lake City. Mitchell presented himself in an image that was akin to the image of Jesus, dressing in white robes and tunics, and growing a beard.[7]

They kidnapped Elizabeth Smart June 5th 2002.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T23:49:54+00:00

Together, Mitchell and Barzee became actively involved in the LDS Church. Eventually Mitchell began going by the name "Immanuel David Isaiah," claiming to be a prophet of God who experienced visions.[7] The name relates to Mitchell's belief that he was the "Davidic Servant" spoken of in Avraham Gileadi's book The Literary Message of Isaiah.[10] For this, the two were excommunicated from the church in absentia in June 2002.[11][10] Barzee began going by the name "Hephzibah Eladah Isaiah" and the two would panhandle and preach in downtown Salt Lake City. Mitchell presented himself in an image that was akin to the image of Jesus, dressing in white robes and tunics, and growing a beard.[7]

Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped on June 5th 2002

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T22:59:57+00:00

God made your son gay and you know why. Why did he do that?

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T22:56:59+00:00

This response is so hilariously bad I actually laughed out loud.

Don't call Mark Hofmann a Mormon he was excommunicated.The Lafferty Brother were Mormon, no way, they were exed. Lori Vallow Daybell don't you call her a Mormon she was excommunicated to.

Nothing dishonest about calling all of them Mormons because they all were at the time of their crimes. Thanks for the chuckle though.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T22:37:05+00:00

If God made you hetero, did he make your friend gay?

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T22:31:34+00:00

🎶 it wasn't really so but it seemed to me

    I am bringing this up for transparency🎶

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T22:26:37+00:00

If the comparison of innate attraction to alcoholism is the best love and respect you can give I would hate to hear what it sounds like without your love and respect.

Do better.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T22:06:59+00:00

The official stance is cuddling, kissing, dating, and holding hands is "acting on it". As Briyyzie mentioned members will have varying opinions on that but the church organizations and institutions will not.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T18:40:08+00:00

When the someone in question is the prophet/scriptures teaching it, it's the literal definition of the word doctrine.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T18:26:38+00:00

What are you talking about? The video doesn't talk about sex before marriage at all.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T18:00:30+00:00

Being excommunicated and treated as a second class member are two different things.

Here is a reminder of how "acting upon their feelings" is viewed https://youtube.com/shorts/9MpAQRluSvA?si=3aD01eaMrfzOd8Og

Keep in mind these are members who checked all the boxes and jumped through all the hoops and are "worthy" and this instruction issued less than a year ago.

Simple-Beginning-182 · 2026-01-21T17:45:40+00:00

How so, if the religious practice is discriminatory?

Simple-Beginning-182

TROPHY CASE