Farewell Tao!

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:51 pm

Farewell Tao! I hope that you enjoy whatever it is that you are off to do!

You have been a great Board Writer.

NerdGirl · Post by **NerdGirl** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:27 pm

Bye Tao! You're awesome!

Damasta · Post by **Damasta** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:58 am

Bye, (name).

(Edited by Admin- Not sure if that is Tao's real name or something else, but figured I would delete it, just to be safe.)

Post by **C is for** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:18 pm

At the risk of being a Copier,

Bye, Tao! You're awesome.

P.S.: I thought TINMAN was awesome too.
P.P.S.: This was my favorite Tao Te Ching quote. I don't know if you did it on purpose, but if you did, it was brilliant.

Tao · Post by **Tao** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:39 pm

Thanks for the thoughts, all. I had hoped to be able to continue for a couple more years, but hadn't been pulling my weight recently, and figured it best that I make room for someone else. I'll still lurk the forum, and perhaps put my .02 in when appropriate but for the most part, I've probably said my piece, and best stick to lurking.

@ C is for, Thanks! TINMAN was an interesting facet of myself to write from, it was interesting to give him a life of his own. Laconic came somewhat as a result of my propensity for taking waaay too many words to get a point across. (I was severely tempted to name him Linus, the kid's got class!) As for that quote, I had hoped to be able to use it with that meaning at some point, though I didn't really answer many relationship questions. That question seemed to fit well enough.

@ everyone: thanks again for your thoughts and feedback. It means a lot each time someone does something to let a writer know what they have done was noticed. At one party a newer writer mentioned their reaction to one of my responses and I was blown away to be reminded that people actually read what gets written! I had gotten too focused on the only side I could see. Feel free to fire off an e-mail or note of some sort when you appreciate a response, it'll make a writer's day.

vorpal blade · Post by **vorpal blade** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:16 am

Tao,

You'll be missed on the 100 hour board. Hopefully you'll continue to contribute to this forum.

Cuddles · Post by **Cuddles** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:33 pm

Tao I have been told you might have some information gathered from a Stake President about women being sealed in the temple to more than one man. Can you give me some more info on this subject? Anywhere I can read up on this concept of the Gospel that was not mentioned in DC 132?

Damasta · Post by **Damasta** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:50 pm

I'm not Tao, but once while I was on my mission my companion and I were waiting for the bishop in the clerk's office and I noticed a copy of The Church Handbook of Instructions, Vol. 2 sitting out, so I thumbed through it (I didn't know, at the time, that I had no business doing so). I learned a few things. Such as Sunday School shouldn't have an opening exercises (which they did in that wardâ€”I pointed it out to the Bishop and he terminated that practice). I learned that post-operative transsexuals can still be baptized, but they forfeit the right to receive the priesthood or be sealed in the temple (at least while in mortality, though it doesn't say whether that stricture holds if they have the operation reversed). And I learned that in some cases women can be sealed to more than one man and that "it will all be worked out in the hereafter." Unfortunately, that was almost ten years ago and I don't remember what the exact circumstances were where such a practice would be allowed.

But knowing that, you should be able to ask your bishop about it and he can look up the relevant passage in his copy of The Church Handbook of Instructions, Vol. 2. You shouldn't need to go all the way up to your Stake President.

Damasta · Post by **Damasta** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:43 am

Also, depending on how you read D&C 132:41

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

it could mean that there are cases where the Lord allows a woman to have more than one husband. But that passage is kind of vague; who knows what is meant there by the "holy anointing".

And it looks like FAIR and the FAIR wiki have some articles about polyandry as it was or was not practiced in the early days of the Church.