How many LDS members in here

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by T Blue

You are going to have a melt down of epic proportions coming from others in your congregation, when they see the purple CR bags being rolled out by the young un's.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when the gossip starts rolling around some of the premier gossipers in your ward.

DDD is the premier gossiper in his ward.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

DDD is the premier gossiper in his ward.

It isn't gossip. It is PEC.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

It isn't gossip. It is PEC.

Semantics, but a fair answer.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I don't want to say more about it than what I just said. Depending on your level of comfort I would read some accounts about "second anointing." I think it is fair to say that is was an important idea in the 19th century (at least to some prominent 19th century leaders) when second annointings were much more common than they are today.

Yes, I'm familiar with what the Second Anointing was. It was interesting to see that the floor plan of the Alberta Temple actually had a "Second Anointing Room".

I don't really have a desire to get into it either.

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Where the hell do you get that families are the "heart of the gospel"? When you refer to the "gospel", are you talking about Christ's teachings or about prevailing Mormon culture?

Christ's teachings.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, I'm familiar with what the Second Anointing was. It was interesting to see that the floor plan of the Alberta Temple actually had a "Second Anointing Room".

Sorry, Tex. I didn't mean to imply you weren't aware the SA. I would have been quite surprised if you hadn't. I wanted to suggest if you want to understand better why some 19th century Mormon leaders believed Jesus was married then you should read 19th century journal entries that discuss the SA. In a earlier comment you said, "I'm not aware of the historical reasoning/precedent for such an opinion." If you want to know about why some 19th century leaders made exactly such connections, then that is the place to look. (My apologies if I am answering a question you don't really have).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Sorry, Tex. I didn't mean to imply you weren't aware the SA. I would have been quite surprised if you hadn't. I wanted to suggest if you want to understand better why some 19th century Mormon leaders believed Jesus was married then you should read 19th century journal entries that discuss the SA. In a earlier comment you said, "I'm not aware of the historical reasoning/precedent for such an opinion." If you want to know about why some 19th century leaders made exactly such connections, then that is the place to look. (My apologies if I am answering a question you don't really have).

Gotcha. I'll have to put that on my list. To tell you the truth, I hadn't given much thought to the "married Jesus" question, or to why early leaders may have taught that. I've always just kind of accepted that he had to have that ordinance sometime or another, ala baptism.

Thanks for the heads up.