Question for mormons: There seems to be much confusion over D&C 132, Jsmith polyandry and mormons being...?

Joshy said "You've mistaken about the status of those who aren't in the new and everlasting covenant. Please show me one single instance in which it states that they will be servants others - that's not our doctrine at all."

Joshy is wrong about his religion's doctrine. Here is "one single instance".

D&C 132:16

Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132...

Here is another instance:

Jane Elizabeth Manning James was "attached as a Servitor for eternity to the prophet Joseph Smith and in this capacity be connected with his family and be obedient to him in all things in the Lord as a faithful Servitor".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elizabeth_Mannin...

And some Mormons are in denial that other men's wives were married to Joseph Smith (and later also Brigham Young). Even FAIR discusses it, it did happen.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-...

First, it was polygyny, not polyandry; plural wives, not plural husbands. ]

Second, what Joseph did was according to the Lord's instructions to Him and many women were sealed to him according to instructions from the Lord. If the husbands of those women were and are worthy, they will be granted wives in the eternities as well.

Third, yes, those who enter and keep the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage will be exalted and rule over those who were not exalted. That placement will be according to the justice and mercy of God and Christ. We may not understand it now but we will see that His judgments are just.

Finally, there is no misunderstanding for those who study and ponder these principles with the bestowal of the Holy Ghost for the Holy Ghost gives understanding.

Actually I'm not confused about it at all, but you seem to be confused on many levels.

I believe that you are confused on the following:

1 - You've mistakenly associated polygamy with polyandry - the two are NOT the same at all.

2 - You've mistakenly associated the "new and everlasting covenant" with polygamy - while polygamy can be part of the "new and everlasting covenant" in times where it's permitted, when commanded by God, and when the rules are followed - but that's not to say that all instances of the covenant involve polygamy.

3 - You've mistaken about the status of those who aren't in the new and everlasting covenant. Please show me one single instance in which it states that they will be servants others - that's not our doctrine at all.

4 - You're mistaken about what it means to be a "god", Christ declared to the Pharisees "ye are gods", do you think that's the same thing or different?

5 - You don't understand the promises made to others - no worthy individual is left without a promise or reward in heaven.

6 - You don't seem to get that a lot of sealings, in fact most of them, are dynastic rather than literal. You equated polyandry with temple marriage, through genealogy there are millions of us sealed to each other. I'm sealed to my siblings, my cousins, my ancestors, their ancestors and kin which include thousands of people who I don't even know - that's not to suggest that there is something sexual among us at all.

Perhaps that's your biggest issue of confusion, you're trying to turn sealings into something dirty and filthy - you seem bent on making the actions of Joseph Smith out to be the actions of some sex crazed pervert when there is a reason that your assumptions aren't backed by hard facts - because all you have are some accusations from his enemies but nothing factual at all.

What your doing is akin to the old notion that the "apple" in the garden of Eden was actually some euphemism for sexual activity - when in reality the fruit was just a fruit. Sealings are just sealings, your confusion will stop when you stop trying to believe that it's all about sex for us because it's not.

It's not like that. Joseph didn't prevent any worthy couple from being sealed. People like to assume the worst, but the worst is rarely the truth. About 10 of Joseph's "sealed" wives were married to faithful LDS husbands. They could have been sealed to their husbands, but chose Joseph Smith instead. I do think it is odd that none of their husbands ever complained.

There's no evidence that Joseph Smith ever "took" other men's wives. If the husband wasn't a member, there could have been a "dynastic sealing", maybe.

The words are those of Jesus Christ as revealed through Joseph Smith. Either you accept that or you don't. From your question, you don't, but us, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they are the words of Jesus Christ.

The "new and everlasting covenant" is celestial marriage and it is sealed in the temples under the proper authority. If the sealing is not done by a living person, they may still be sealed by proxy. Then, it is up to them to accept the work -- and be worthy -- of the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant.

As to plural marriage -- as in the case brought before Jesus during his ministry -- the first husband is the one to whom the wife is sealed. Under certain circumstances, the wife may be sealed to a later husband _also_, but the sealing is not valid unless certified by God (Heavenly Father). That will not take place on earth. And, we have no knowledge of those decisions.

There is no confusion among the Mormons, only among the ex-Mormons. Joseph Smith did not do what you claim he did. He did not take from other men their wives.

My answer is "ditto" to what joshsy said.

My question is: How many times are you going to ask this question?