How would you compare Polygamy to Gay Marriage?

[Zathura]

Again, use your head.

Go ahead and think of the endless list of things that we believe to be a sin and yet God does not ever explicitly say such things are a sin.

Abortion? Not mentioned anywhere. You gotta use your head.

There is no flaw in my scriptural based condemnation of polygamy, so you and Matthias have conjured up this adorable little attack to make it sound like I’ve somehow lied. If I’m a liar, then so is every other Christian who claims abortion is a sin.

Good luck with your little world there buddy, you two can high five each other and tell each other how great you are.

It’s also funny because you’re buddy buddy with Matthias and calling ME “anti” , thinking Matthias must also be laughing at these “antis” like Stahura when you don’t even realize Matthias constantly attacks the church from every angle and is set on the idea that the Church is Currently Apostate and spews that all over every thread that talks about the Current state of the church and I’ve never done such a thing or expressed such a belief.

Yeah, good one buddy. You’ve unknowingly partnered up with someone that’s ACTUALLY openly anti-Mormon

Stahura,
I know that Matthias has some real concerns about the church and how we are going. Truth be told, alot of us do. But it's because it hurts our heart to see the beautiful Kingdom of our Lord lose its luster and brilliance of truth and authority when we capitulate to the latest worldly fad such as gay marriage, gender identity, gender roles, etc...

That being said, I have read your own statements and have noticed you have nothing against making accusations against former prophets and apostles all because they don't hold to your version of feminist Mormonism.

As to why I call you an "Anti" is because you are quoting from the anti-mormon drivel that you can find on the internet. The anti mormon Tanners, I'm sure, would be happy to provide further tutelage to you, on any other themes you wish to attack the church on.

Your attacks against plural marriage are not at all scriptural or historically sound. Furthermore, we still practice plural marriage today, just not for this life, but beyond the veil. Unless that is also bunk, you must also accept this as a fact. Plural marriage is indeed allowed by God, when he authorizes it.

I’m a defender of the church in almost every other aspect and topic, while Matthias attacks the church in almost every other aspect . It should REALLY tell you something about yourself if this single topic makes you so emotional that you team up with a proper anti-Mormon like Matthias and justify his actions while at the same time exaggerating mine and demonizing me.
Really. Look inward for a sec there.

It’s adorable that you just can’t get over your emotions and this causes you to make nonsense up about me and call me a feminist.

I’m sorry that you need to stoop down to the level of the actual SJW feminists and start name dropping because you don’t have a proper argument.

Facts don’t care about your feelings .

feel free to keep teaming up with Matthias, who is actively campaigning against the church. It’s actually hilarious how severely you downplayed how anti-Mormon he is while at the same time exaggerating my own posts.

I have defended the church from proper anti/Mormons my whole life. I have defended Nelson and the brethren in countless threads, I have created my own threads in defense of the members of the church who defend the church, but you’re too angry and blinded by this single
Topic to recognize this. You couldn’t be further from the truth about Matthias and Me, and you really just look ridiculous to people who have actually paid attention to anything I or Matthias have said elsewhere.

I'm truly curious why you keep referring to me as an anti-Mormon.

An anti-Mormon is someone who believes that the Church is false, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, that the Book of Mormon is not a true record of an ancient people, that the revelations in the D&C are false, basically that everything to do with the Church is false.

This is not what I believe.

I believe 100% in the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith. I believe that the scriptures he brought forth are true. I believe that the Church is the Lord's church and that we are his people. I believe that Brigham Young was the man God chose to lead the Saints west. I believe in the traditional narrative of the Church in every respect, except for one.

The only issue I have with the Church, and it's a big one, is that I believe the changes made in the Church that contradict previous teachings and the scriptures are wrong. Based on this, and the complete absence of prophecy, revelation, and seership from our modern church leaders, I'm forced to conclude that they, are in serious error in at least some of the things they have done in the past and are doing today.

That doesn't mean that I think there isn't anything good left in the Church. Clearly there is. I'm an active member. I pay a full tithing, serve in two callings, plan on sending my son's on missions for the Church, just like any other member.

The difference again is that I see the corruption in the Church and refuse to put my head in the sand about it and blindly nod along to things I believe are wrong.

I don't believe that makes me an anti-Mormon.

I’ll clarify. I don’t know if you are, if I’m using my own belief of what “anti” means.

In this instance I am using Ricks definition that he propped up here , to show how silly,uninformed,and ignorant his criticism of me is

, I have read your own statements and have noticed you have nothing against making accusations against former prophets and apostles all because they don't hold to your version of feminist Mormonism.

I have made no “accusations”. I have only stated things they have factually said or done. I have never called them fallen, I have only said they CAN fall. I have never said Monson, Nelson etc. are not prophets, I have only ever said I don’t know if they are. You won’t see me criticizing their character,[INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY BRIGHAM YOUNG] calling them names, accusing them, I have only criticized their teachings with scripture, you can see the vast amount of scriptures I’ve quoted on the topic of the Doctrine of Christ for example, it’s not my fault that people don’t read them. I have also spent a great amount of time defending these men as well. Rick simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

On the flip side, you are quoting Isaiah and other scriptures to prove that the church is apostate, that the church leaders are not prophets and misguide us.

By the standard that HE has a established here, it’s laughable that I would be considered anti-Mormon and you not be. By his standard, you are indeed Anti Mormon.

My own definition is different from his. I know plenty of people who have expressed similar things that you have and I don’t consider them anti-Mormon, but I know them better. I don’t know you like I do them, so I don’t know if you are.

In this thread, I’ve only spoken in context of what Rick established to be Anti-Mormon, and again, it’s absolutely bonkers for him to use what he uses as a standard and with that, determine that I, and not you, are anti-Mormon. There’s some real mental gymnastics going on there.

[Rick Grimes]

In this thread, I’ve only spoken in context of what Rick established to be Anti-Mormon, and again, it’s absolutely bonkers for him to use what he uses as a standard and with that, determine that I, and not you, are anti-Mormon. There’s some real mental gymnastics going on there.
[/quote]

I believe in calling it as I see it. If it looks like a duck, quacks, etc....

Stahura, you are literally quoting out of anti mormon literature when you continue to call out previous church leaders for practicing plural marriage. Your argument is a tired one taken out of the most basic of anti mormon websites. Your misunderstanding of Jacob 2 continues to blind you to the truth that plural marriage, when authorized by God, is acceptable. What you fail to grasp is that hy attacking plural marriage, you undermine the entire premise of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and several of the other early leaders all practised it. Now either these men were led by God or they weren't. If plural marriage is indeed a categorical abomination and whoredom, then how could the Lord allow His kingdom to be led by these wicked and perverse men? This is precisely the argument that anti's lay out in their attacks on Mormonism when it comes to plural marriage. So either it was allowed and even commanded of God, or the anti's are right and we were led by wicked men who were only trying to slake their lust. Which are you?

There have been several scriptures shared out of the OT and D&C that establish that the Lord will allow it, but on His terms. Even the BOM includes the "loophole" but this is overlooked by people (often feminists) who just cannot fathom that our God would allow for plural marriage to exist, let alone condone or command it to be done.

I'm sorry if I offended you though. I'm just shocked there are good members that have bought into anti mormon lies about plural marriage.

[sandman45]

I have seen so many heartbreaking problems come out of polygamy. I believe it reduces women to objects more than other arrangements and promotes an unnatural state that isn't upheld by birth statistics. Many women in these relationships have been taught throughout their lives some pretty damaging mentalities that allow them to accept this demeaning organization, otherwise, I doubt many would.

As for homosexuality, I don't know that I have enough information to make an assessment. I personally think that there are worse things that happen than homosexuals having sex with one another. In fact, I'm not sure homosexual sex is wrong at all. Who does it hurt? On the other hand, the homosexual population seems to be filled with people who were abused terribly in childhood and who struggle with serious mental health issues. Do they suffer these problems because they are homosexual or are they homosexual because they suffer from these problems?

With homosexuality or any LGBTQ+ it is damning to eternal progression. No offspring is damning your progression that is the end of your increase!

Polygamy is a higher more pure law because it’s bringing in more offspring and increase. The only way I see it as evil is when young girls are taken into marriage before they are 18 or if they are forced into it.

*edit* forgot to add that it must be commanded of God before it’s ok

I reject the idea that no offspring is damning to progression. I would also suggest you look into the lost boys.

It’s in the scriptures. It’s in D&C. It’s doctrine and eternal truth. Is lost boys scripture? Doubt it

[Zathura]

I have seen so many heartbreaking problems come out of polygamy. I believe it reduces women to objects more than other arrangements and promotes an unnatural state that isn't upheld by birth statistics. Many women in these relationships have been taught throughout their lives some pretty damaging mentalities that allow them to accept this demeaning organization, otherwise, I doubt many would.

As for homosexuality, I don't know that I have enough information to make an assessment. I personally think that there are worse things that happen than homosexuals having sex with one another. In fact, I'm not sure homosexual sex is wrong at all. Who does it hurt? On the other hand, the homosexual population seems to be filled with people who were abused terribly in childhood and who struggle with serious mental health issues. Do they suffer these problems because they are homosexual or are they homosexual because they suffer from these problems?

With homosexuality or any LGBTQ+ it is damning to eternal progression. No offspring is damning your progression that is the end of your increase!

Polygamy is a higher more pure law because it’s bringing in more offspring and increase. The only way I see it as evil is when young girls are taken into marriage before they are 18 or if they are forced into it.

*edit* forgot to add that it must be commanded of God before it’s ok

In which world does it bring in more offspring? In that era, Mormon women in monogamous relationships had more children than polygamist women . Had they all remained in monogamous relationships, more offspring would have been born to glorify God.

Facts. Statistics.

[BruceRGilbert]

No womb in the inn, Silly Wabbit.

Sodomy is a form of domination.

[Zathura]

I believe in calling it as I see it. If it looks like a duck, quacks, etc....

Stahura, you are literally quoting out of anti mormon literature when you continue to call out previous church leaders for practicing plural marriage. Your argument is a tired one taken out of the most basic of anti mormon websites. Your misunderstanding of Jacob 2 continues to blind you to the truth that plural marriage, when authorized by God, is acceptable. What you fail to grasp is that hy attacking plural marriage, you undermine the entire premise of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and several of the other early leaders all practised it. Now either these men were led by God or they weren't. If plural marriage is indeed a categorical abomination and whoredom, then how could the Lord allow His kingdom to be led by these wicked and perverse men? This is precisely the argument that anti's lay out in their attacks on Mormonism when it comes to plural marriage. So either it was allowed and even commanded of God, or the anti's are right and we were led by wicked men who were only trying to slake their lust. Which are you?

There have been several scriptures shared out of the OT and D&C that establish that the Lord will allow it, but on His terms. Even the BOM includes the "loophole" but this is overlooked by people (often feminists) who just cannot fathom that our God would allow for plural marriage to exist, let alone condone or command it to be done.

I'm sorry if I offended you though. I'm just shocked there are good members that have bought into anti mormon lies about plural marriage.

Are you still regurgitating the same nonsense? You’ve made yourself look foolish. You don’t provide the scriptures you reference, you don’t provide the anti material I’m supposedly quoting.

You fit right in with liberal sjw’s and politicians . Make claims, toss them out here and there, facts don’t matter, people won’t remember anyway. Keep tossing Nonsense out there . Again, you set up a standard for what “anti” is, I literally don’t even meet that standard while at the same time supporting Matthias who more than meets your standard.

Stand up, have a proper discussion, or just stop . It’s embarrasing.

Joseph literally would have taken you to court and forced you to make your claims under oath, he would have had you disciplined or excommunicated for accusing him of adultery. He would have called you all manner of names for the nonsense you're arguing for . This is what he did to those who made the argument you and supporters of this whoredom make. There is no support for polygamy in the scriptures, 2 Samuel 2 does not support it, the Old Testament does not, the Book of Mormon does not, the New Testament does not, D&C expressly forbid it until 8 years after Joseph died and BY and co had practiced it for almost a decade. There is literally 0 instances where God instructed a prophet to have more than one wife, there are only instances where a prophet HAD more that one wife, and one instance of God condemning that practice. Irrefutable, verifiable facts. You have only the teachings from polygamists who tell you that God made a magical loophole .

You've already lost when you have to result to name calling and insults because you don't like the facts presented before you. Feel free to backtrack anytime.

[Zathura]

Here's a fun exercise.

Take everything the church says about marriage today. How to treat your wife, how to serve her, love her, be one with her.

Now try to imagine how any of these teachings could possibly be applied in a plural marriage.

It can't. It's unnatural, it's an abomination.

I'm really not even stating my opinion, I'm just going off of what God literally said. He literally called these things a whoredom and an abomination, and there exists nowhere where God says the opposite.

Facts don't care about your feelings

[Zathura]

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

Supporters of polygamy might want think about why Joseph excommunicated, attacked, and demonized people who practiced and preached plural marriage.

Supporters of polygamy might want to imagine the following scenario:

Homosexuality is evil. Bad. Sinful.
In 2020, Russell M Nelson says

"It's okay, Thomas Monson told me secretly through the last years of his life that homosexuality is okay".

In spite of the fact that all existing scripture and church documentation condemns homosexuality, the church begins to support it. Not until 2030 does Russell M Nelson reveal a wonderful revelation that Thomas Monson had 10 years earlier to say "SEE GUYS! It wasn't just a secret, he had this grand revelation saying it's okay!"

That's what happened with polygamy.

Ya'll would leave the church over the crap, just like Joseph's entire family and closest friends did.

[Thinker]

As far as homosexuality and polygamy? The scriptures condemn both. Ironically, the scriptures are only really explicit and clear about the condemnation about one of them. Care to guess?
POLYGAMY. Which is why it's weird that most Mormons describe homosexuality as being several levels worse than fornication and adultery...

Again, use your head.

Please, use your head too.
Homosexuality is worse. It proves to be harmful in multiple ways.

Even if scripture didn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality by stating, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” - if you USE YOUR HEAD, you’d realize that people who engage in homosexuality are punished by that sin. Those who engage in homosexuality - especially men - have much higher rates of STDs, HIV/AIDS, mental illness and anal sex complications (because the anus is anatomically designed as an exit, not entrance - another thing you’d realize if you actually used that God-given brain of yours.) Reproductive parts of the same sex do not fit together, but those of the opposite sex do. And it is also obvious that each and every human being on this planet bares testimony of heterosexuality as the natural order - with homosexuality being a disorder (not of the order of nature). It’s also clear that children need a mother and father not only to exist but to be raised under ideal conditions.


Regarding polygamy, as mentioned, there have been times when it was right, and times when it was wrong. Generally, I think marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the ideal foundation to raise a family. Still, up to 60% of (US) married people cheat at some time - which could be seen as a form of polygamy or polyandry. A non-lds childhood friend teases me about Joseph Smith & all his wives, yet this friend is married but has a girlfriend and kids with her in another area - so I tease him that he emulates well, the old Mormon way.

I never justified or played down the severity of homosexuality. I only pointed out the FACT that polygamy is explicitly condemned much more clearly AND more often than homosexuality in the scriptures , making it incredibly ironic that the same people that fawn over polygamy and can’t wait for it to return and claim the church is fallen because polygamy ended are almost obsessed with the harm homosexuality has/will cause to the church.

This entire post is pointless, you’re preaching to the choir, responding to a phantom post.

In regards to what you said about polygamy, no, it was never right. You can’t find a single instance of Gods approval or command to practice it without wresting the scripture and twisting it to mean something other than what it was intended to mean.

Is it right that many people live because of polygamy? It’s not all or nothing. Polygamy has right and wrong aspects. I personally want nothing to do with it. Yet again, I’d say based on how people are punished for sins, homosexuality is far worse.

[Zathura]

As far as homosexuality and polygamy? The scriptures condemn both. Ironically, the scriptures are only really explicit and clear about the condemnation about one of them. Care to guess?
POLYGAMY. Which is why it's weird that most Mormons describe homosexuality as being several levels worse than fornication and adultery...

Again, use your head.

Please, use your head too.
Homosexuality is worse. It proves to be harmful in multiple ways.

Even if scripture didn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality by stating, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” - if you USE YOUR HEAD, you’d realize that people who engage in homosexuality are punished by that sin. Those who engage in homosexuality - especially men - have much higher rates of STDs, HIV/AIDS, mental illness and anal sex complications (because the anus is anatomically designed as an exit, not entrance - another thing you’d realize if you actually used that God-given brain of yours.) Reproductive parts of the same sex do not fit together, but those of the opposite sex do. And it is also obvious that each and every human being on this planet bares testimony of heterosexuality as the natural order - with homosexuality being a disorder (not of the order of nature). It’s also clear that children need a mother and father not only to exist but to be raised under ideal conditions.


Regarding polygamy, as mentioned, there have been times when it was right, and times when it was wrong. Generally, I think marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the ideal foundation to raise a family. Still, up to 60% of (US) married people cheat at some time - which could be seen as a form of polygamy or polyandry. A non-lds childhood friend teases me about Joseph Smith & all his wives, yet this friend is married but has a girlfriend and kids with her in another area - so I tease him that he emulates well, the old Mormon way.

I never justified or played down the severity of homosexuality. I only pointed out the FACT that polygamy is explicitly condemned much more clearly AND more often than homosexuality in the scriptures , making it incredibly ironic that the same people that fawn over polygamy and can’t wait for it to return and claim the church is fallen because polygamy ended are almost obsessed with the harm homosexuality has/will cause to the church.

This entire post is pointless, you’re preaching to the choir, responding to a phantom post.

In regards to what you said about polygamy, no, it was never right. You can’t find a single instance of Gods approval or command to practice it without wresting the scripture and twisting it to mean something other than what it was intended to mean.

Is it right that many people live because of polygamy? It’s not all or nothing. Polygamy has right and wrong aspects. I personally want nothing to do with it. Yet again, I’d say based on how people are punished for sins, homosexuality is far worse.

I mean, does anybody really think those souls wouldn’t have been born in some other way had polygamy not existed? Poor argument imo.

“God said don’t do polygamy, but since babies were born it’s okay”

I’m not interested in ranking sin.If you are teaching youth, it makes sense to discuss the gravity of it, it a discussion like this I see no point. It’s all sin, it all separates us from God, and all of us have to sacrifice the same exact thing to God in order to be saved. I’d prefer to talk about how we can be lifted above the effects of sin than argue about which sin is worse.

If people properly learn the doctrine of Christ, and become Sons and Daughters of Christ, there will be a decrease in all of these sins, regardless of “rank” because of their mighty change of heart.

All that matters.

[Thinker]

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

Supporters of polygamy might want think about why Joseph excommunicated, attacked, and demonized people who practiced and preached plural marriage.

Lol It’s kind of funny how those who live long enough to get a turn at the throne, throw others under the bus. Before it was Joseph Smith having revelations canonized about polygamy then trying not to scare off new converts, distanced himself from it by calling names to any polygamists (like Brigham Young)... then more recently we had “I’m a Mormon ad campaign” followed by Nelson saying Mormon is a word of the devil. Lol. Insane!

[Thinker]

Please, use your head too.
Homosexuality is worse. It proves to be harmful in multiple ways.

Even if scripture didn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality by stating, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” - if you USE YOUR HEAD, you’d realize that people who engage in homosexuality are punished by that sin. Those who engage in homosexuality - especially men - have much higher rates of STDs, HIV/AIDS, mental illness and anal sex complications (because the anus is anatomically designed as an exit, not entrance - another thing you’d realize if you actually used that God-given brain of yours.) Reproductive parts of the same sex do not fit together, but those of the opposite sex do. And it is also obvious that each and every human being on this planet bares testimony of heterosexuality as the natural order - with homosexuality being a disorder (not of the order of nature). It’s also clear that children need a mother and father not only to exist but to be raised under ideal conditions.


Regarding polygamy, as mentioned, there have been times when it was right, and times when it was wrong. Generally, I think marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the ideal foundation to raise a family. Still, up to 60% of (US) married people cheat at some time - which could be seen as a form of polygamy or polyandry. A non-lds childhood friend teases me about Joseph Smith & all his wives, yet this friend is married but has a girlfriend and kids with her in another area - so I tease him that he emulates well, the old Mormon way.

I never justified or played down the severity of homosexuality. I only pointed out the FACT that polygamy is explicitly condemned much more clearly AND more often than homosexuality in the scriptures , making it incredibly ironic that the same people that fawn over polygamy and can’t wait for it to return and claim the church is fallen because polygamy ended are almost obsessed with the harm homosexuality has/will cause to the church.

This entire post is pointless, you’re preaching to the choir, responding to a phantom post.

In regards to what you said about polygamy, no, it was never right. You can’t find a single instance of Gods approval or command to practice it without wresting the scripture and twisting it to mean something other than what it was intended to mean.

Is it right that many people live because of polygamy? It’s not all or nothing. Polygamy has right and wrong aspects. I personally want nothing to do with it. Yet again, I’d say based on how people are punished for sins, homosexuality is far worse.

I mean, does anybody really think those souls wouldn’t have been born in some other way had polygamy not existed? Poor argument imo.

“God said don’t do polygamy, but since babies were born it’s okay”

I’m not interested in ranking sin.If you are teaching youth, it makes sense to discuss the gravity of it, it a discussion like this I see no point. It’s all sin, it all separates us from God, and all of us have to sacrifice the same exact thing to God in order to be saved. I’d prefer to talk about how we can be lifted above the effects of sin than argue about which sin is worse.

If people properly learn the doctrine of Christ, and become Sons and Daughters of Christ, there will be a decrease in all of these sins, regardless of “rank” because of their mighty change of heart.

All that matters.

All that matters may be being BORN of water (amniotic fluid) and the spirit. A big percentage of people in our church would not exist if it weren’t for polygamy. That doesn’t mean it’s something we should do now. But some good came from it. And how would you like someone talking trash about your mom, grandma etc?

A good friend of mine came from a Mormon polygamy family - had like +70 siblings and multiple mothers & was kicked out (like the “lost boys”). While he doesn’t practice polygamy, he appreciates his life, and helped me see the good that came from it.

[Rick Grimes]

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

Supporters of polygamy might want think about why Joseph excommunicated, attacked, and demonized people who practiced and preached plural marriage.

Supporters of polygamy might want to imagine the following scenario:

Homosexuality is evil. Bad. Sinful.
In 2020, Russell M Nelson says

"It's okay, Thomas Monson told me secretly through the last years of his life that homosexuality is okay".

In spite of the fact that all existing scripture and church documentation condemns homosexuality, the church begins to support it. Not until 2030 does Russell M Nelson reveal a wonderful revelation that Thomas Monson had 10 years earlier to say "SEE GUYS! It wasn't just a secret, he had this grand revelation saying it's okay!"

That's what happened with polygamy.

Ya'll would leave the church over the crap, just like Joseph's entire family and closest friends did.

Yeah, the RLDS had it right, huh? Smh, and you wonder why I called you an anti?

Your myopic view of the scriptures is why you believe the way you do. You think there was some sort of cabal of lecherous and lusty men that perverted the gospel of Christ with plural marriage??? again, I would call that "anti talk". But go ahead, keep kicking against the pricks. I love how you avoided the fact that we as a church still practise plural marriage as men can still be sealed to multiple wives so long as they are no longer legally married. (I.e. widower or divorced from previous wife) your argument absolutely falls apart that we never were supposed to practice plural marriage when all the revealed revelations both ancient and modern scripture shows us it is accepted by the Lord, when allowed by revelation by those who are in authority.

Merry Christmas btw.

[Zathura]

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

Supporters of polygamy might want think about why Joseph excommunicated, attacked, and demonized people who practiced and preached plural marriage.

Supporters of polygamy might want to imagine the following scenario:

Homosexuality is evil. Bad. Sinful.
In 2020, Russell M Nelson says

"It's okay, Thomas Monson told me secretly through the last years of his life that homosexuality is okay".

In spite of the fact that all existing scripture and church documentation condemns homosexuality, the church begins to support it. Not until 2030 does Russell M Nelson reveal a wonderful revelation that Thomas Monson had 10 years earlier to say "SEE GUYS! It wasn't just a secret, he had this grand revelation saying it's okay!"

That's what happened with polygamy.

Ya'll would leave the church over the crap, just like Joseph's entire family and closest friends did.

Yeah, the RLDS had it right, huh? Smh, and you wonder why I called you an anti?

Your myopic view of the scriptures is why you believe the way you do. You think there was some sort of cabal of lecherous and lusty men that perverted the gospel of Christ with plural marriage??? again, I would call that "anti talk". But go ahead, keep kicking against the pricks. I love how you avoided the fact that we as a church still practise plural marriage as men can still be sealed to multiple wives so long as they are no longer legally married. (I.e. widower or divorced from previous wife) your argument absolutely falls apart that we never were supposed to practice plural marriage when all the revealed revelations both ancient and modern scripture shows us it is accepted by the Lord, when allowed by revelation by those who are in authority.

Merry Christmas btw.

You think there was some sort of cabal of lecherous and lusty men that perverted the gospel of Christ with plural marriage???

As y'all are prone to do, You accuse me of things I've never said. I have never used such adjectives to describe Brigham Young and Co, but you'll continue to attribute such accusations to me anyway. As shown, Joseph and Hyrum weren't afraid to use such adjectives for people making the same claims you are making here. I , however, don't know Brigham, or you, or anyone here or in church leadership in the way Joseph knew the people he attacked, so you'll never see me call Brigham Young names and call into question his place before God.That's between him and God.

There is no "ancient" revelation showing it's accepted by the Lord. It is either ignorance or dishonesty that causes any Mormon to make this claim.

The only "modern" "scripture" that does is section 132. It's origin is incredibly suspect.I I've created a thread on it, I've discussed it many times. Feel free to do your own homework.

again, I would call that "anti talk". But go ahead, keep kicking against the pricks.

Yep, I'm a recommend holding, tithe paying, call fulfilling, Nelson-sustaining, conference watching, ensign reading, garment-wearing, gospel sharing, youth teaching, ministring, returned missionary anti-mormon. I'm thinking some day I'll do a reddit AMA to answer questions as to how hard and difficult it is being a faithful anti-mormon-mormon.

Please , some day, show me the way. Show me the mental gymnastics training you do to somehow convince yourself I am anti-mormon and somehow Matthias is not.

Merry Christmas btw.

And a happy new year

[Elizabeth]

No comparison at all.

[Rick Grimes]

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

Supporters of polygamy might want think about why Joseph excommunicated, attacked, and demonized people who practiced and preached plural marriage.

Supporters of polygamy might want to imagine the following scenario:

Homosexuality is evil. Bad. Sinful.
In 2020, Russell M Nelson says

"It's okay, Thomas Monson told me secretly through the last years of his life that homosexuality is okay".

In spite of the fact that all existing scripture and church documentation condemns homosexuality, the church begins to support it. Not until 2030 does Russell M Nelson reveal a wonderful revelation that Thomas Monson had 10 years earlier to say "SEE GUYS! It wasn't just a secret, he had this grand revelation saying it's okay!"

That's what happened with polygamy.

Ya'll would leave the church over the crap, just like Joseph's entire family and closest friends did.

Yeah, the RLDS had it right, huh? Smh, and you wonder why I called you an anti?

Your myopic view of the scriptures is why you believe the way you do. You think there was some sort of cabal of lecherous and lusty men that perverted the gospel of Christ with plural marriage??? again, I would call that "anti talk". But go ahead, keep kicking against the pricks. I love how you avoided the fact that we as a church still practise plural marriage as men can still be sealed to multiple wives so long as they are no longer legally married. (I.e. widower or divorced from previous wife) your argument absolutely falls apart that we never were supposed to practice plural marriage when all the revealed revelations both ancient and modern scripture shows us it is accepted by the Lord, when allowed by revelation by those who are in authority.

Merry Christmas btw.

You think there was some sort of cabal of lecherous and lusty men that perverted the gospel of Christ with plural marriage???

As y'all are prone to do, You accuse me of things I've never said. I have never used such adjectives to describe Brigham Young and Co, but you'll continue to attribute such accusations to me anyway. As shown, Joseph and Hyrum weren't afraid to use such adjectives for people making the same claims you are making here. I , however, don't know Brigham, or you, or anyone here or in church leadership in the way Joseph knew the people he attacked, so you'll never see me call Brigham Young names and call into question his place before God.That's between him and God.

There is no "ancient" revelation showing it's accepted by the Lord. It is either ignorance or dishonesty that causes any Mormon to make this claim.

The only "modern" "scripture" that does is section 132. It's origin is incredibly suspect.I I've created a thread on it, I've discussed it many times. Feel free to do your own homework.

again, I would call that "anti talk". But go ahead, keep kicking against the pricks.

Yep, I'm a recommend holding, tithe paying, call fulfilling, Nelson-sustaining, conference watching, ensign reading, garment-wearing, gospel sharing, youth teaching, ministring, returned missionary anti-mormon. I'm thinking some day I'll do a reddit AMA to answer questions as to how hard and difficult it is being a faithful anti-mormon-mormon.

Please , some day, show me the way. Show me the mental gymnastics training you do to somehow convince yourself I am anti-mormon and somehow Matthias is not.

Merry Christmas btw.

And a happy new year

Please dont tout your temple recommend as some qualification for doctrinal aptitude or even adherence to the true heart of the gospel of Christ. Plenty of mormons with temple recommends parade around in gay pride parades, are pro choice, are involved in ponzi money schemes, disavow plural marriage, are lobbying for women to hold the priesthood, pray to heavenly mother, etc.....

That being said, I did want to share just one link of an anti letter that basically agrees with your position that the BOM outlaws plural marriage, and the D&C is made up. It besmirches Brigham and the other leaders who helped with the restoration. The letter is clearly anti mormon literature that showcases the shortsideness of this individual for not understanding scriptures and cherry picking what he wanted to believe. So either the D&C are wrong, the church prophets were wrong, and this whole church is built on a lie, or plural marriage is and was commanded of God or the church is true and there is no contradiction between the BOM and the rest of Holy Writ. You really cant have it both ways. This Anti who wrote this understands this, but you seem to cling to some weird version of the gospel where Joseph Smith was lied upon by not just Brigham but also several of his most trusted friends who knew him, but yet, despite the lies, the fabrications that these men would have had to do, the church would somehow still be true??!

As to your quotes about Joseph not having practised plural marriage himself; numerous friends and associates all testified that Joseph lived plural marriage and taught it to them. Whatever Joseph may have said in public is of no account. He wouldnt be the first prophet or apostle to say something different in a public setting. Paul changed his delivery method depending on his audience. Abraham told Sarah to lie to the Egyptians and claim he was her brother. Nephi put on Labon's armor and impersonated him. I ve seen it myself with many of the things coming out of SLC with the gay mormon stuff lately too. I also saw when President Hinkley was interviewed by 60 Mins, they specifically asked him if we could become Gods. His answer was "I've heard that before." And he went on to say something about us just worshiping God and Christ. Many of us who saw the interview wished he would have just said "yes" because it's the truth. However, Pres. Hinkley knew there are evil forces that would twist his words and hurt the work of the Lord in bringing souls to Christ. Is is any wonder Joseph would deny he was practicing plural marriage when he was the target of so much persecution already? It would have been one more thing to attack both the church and him about. The doctrine couldn't readily be taught openly until they left the USA and went to Utah.

Again, I urge you to reconsider what you are advocating, that our founding leaders were liars, perverts, and usurpers of the gospel. Your assertion that D&C 132 is nothing but a fabrication portends much more than just plural marriage being wrong. It means our entire church is built on a lie. It means that we were already apostatized when Joseph was martyred because Brigham and company thought to rack up some wives by spinning a false tale about Joseph teaching and living this higher law. If you are not anti, then please reconsider your position as it is truly a wedge issue for you. The church does still indeed practice "spiritual plural marriage" but the doctrine remains the same. If this is all false, and the church is perpetuating a lie about plural marriage, then what claim do we have that we are the restored gospel of our Lord? I speak this not to make "mental gymnastics" but to urge you to reconsider your beliefs that line up with other prominent anti's out there.

http://unveilingmormonism.com/letter_to ... _polygamy/

[Zathura]

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

Supporters of polygamy might want think about why Joseph excommunicated, attacked, and demonized people who practiced and preached plural marriage.

Supporters of polygamy might want to imagine the following scenario:

Homosexuality is evil. Bad. Sinful.
In 2020, Russell M Nelson says

"It's okay, Thomas Monson told me secretly through the last years of his life that homosexuality is okay".

In spite of the fact that all existing scripture and church documentation condemns homosexuality, the church begins to support it. Not until 2030 does Russell M Nelson reveal a wonderful revelation that Thomas Monson had 10 years earlier to say "SEE GUYS! It wasn't just a secret, he had this grand revelation saying it's okay!"

That's what happened with polygamy.

Ya'll would leave the church over the crap, just like Joseph's entire family and closest friends did.

Yeah, the RLDS had it right, huh? Smh, and you wonder why I called you an anti?

Your myopic view of the scriptures is why you believe the way you do. You think there was some sort of cabal of lecherous and lusty men that perverted the gospel of Christ with plural marriage??? again, I would call that "anti talk". But go ahead, keep kicking against the pricks. I love how you avoided the fact that we as a church still practise plural marriage as men can still be sealed to multiple wives so long as they are no longer legally married. (I.e. widower or divorced from previous wife) your argument absolutely falls apart that we never were supposed to practice plural marriage when all the revealed revelations both ancient and modern scripture shows us it is accepted by the Lord, when allowed by revelation by those who are in authority.

Merry Christmas btw.

You think there was some sort of cabal of lecherous and lusty men that perverted the gospel of Christ with plural marriage???

As y'all are prone to do, You accuse me of things I've never said. I have never used such adjectives to describe Brigham Young and Co, but you'll continue to attribute such accusations to me anyway. As shown, Joseph and Hyrum weren't afraid to use such adjectives for people making the same claims you are making here. I , however, don't know Brigham, or you, or anyone here or in church leadership in the way Joseph knew the people he attacked, so you'll never see me call Brigham Young names and call into question his place before God.That's between him and God.

There is no "ancient" revelation showing it's accepted by the Lord. It is either ignorance or dishonesty that causes any Mormon to make this claim.

The only "modern" "scripture" that does is section 132. It's origin is incredibly suspect.I I've created a thread on it, I've discussed it many times. Feel free to do your own homework.

again, I would call that "anti talk". But go ahead, keep kicking against the pricks.

Yep, I'm a recommend holding, tithe paying, call fulfilling, Nelson-sustaining, conference watching, ensign reading, garment-wearing, gospel sharing, youth teaching, ministring, returned missionary anti-mormon. I'm thinking some day I'll do a reddit AMA to answer questions as to how hard and difficult it is being a faithful anti-mormon-mormon.

Please , some day, show me the way. Show me the mental gymnastics training you do to somehow convince yourself I am anti-mormon and somehow Matthias is not.

Merry Christmas btw.

And a happy new year

Please dont tout your temple recommend as some qualification for doctrinal aptitude or even adherence to the true heart of the gospel of Christ. Plenty of mormons with temple recommends parade around in gay pride parades, are pro choice, are involved in ponzi money schemes, disavow plural marriage, are lobbying for women to hold the priesthood, pray to heavenly mother, etc.....

That being said, I did want to share just one link of an anti letter that basically agrees with your position that the BOM outlaws plural marriage, and the D&C is made up. It besmirches Brigham and the other leaders who helped with the restoration. The letter is clearly anti mormon literature that showcases the shortsideness of this individual for not understanding scriptures and cherry picking what he wanted to believe. So either the D&C are wrong, the church prophets were wrong, and this whole church is built on a lie, or plural marriage is and was commanded of God or the church is true and there is no contradiction between the BOM and the rest of Holy Writ. You really cant have it both ways. This Anti who wrote this understands this, but you seem to cling to some weird version of the gospel where Joseph Smith was lied upon by not just Brigham but also several of his most trusted friends who knew him, but yet, despite the lies, the fabrications that these men would have had to do, the church would somehow still be true??!

As to your quotes about Joseph not having practised plural marriage himself; numerous friends and associates all testified that Joseph lived plural marriage and taught it to them. Whatever Joseph may have said in public is of no account. He wouldnt be the first prophet or apostle to say something different in a public setting. Paul changed his delivery method depending on his audience. Abraham told Sarah to lie to the Egyptians and claim he was her brother. Nephi put on Labon's armor and impersonated him. I ve seen it myself with many of the things coming out of SLC with the gay mormon stuff lately too. I also saw when President Hinkley was interviewed by 60 Mins, they specifically asked him if we could become Gods. His answer was "I've heard that before." And he went on to say something about us just worshiping God and Christ. Many of us who saw the interview wished he would have just said "yes" because it's the truth. However, Pres. Hinkley knew there are evil forces that would twist his words and hurt the work of the Lord in bringing souls to Christ. Is is any wonder Joseph would deny he was practicing plural marriage when he was the target of so much persecution already? It would have been one more thing to attack both the church and him about. The doctrine couldn't readily be taught openly until they left the USA and went to Utah.

Again, I urge you to reconsider what you are advocating, that our founding leaders were liars, perverts, and usurpers of the gospel. Your assertion that D&C 132 is nothing but a fabrication portends much more than just plural marriage being wrong. It means our entire church is built on a lie. It means that we were already apostatized when Joseph was martyred because Brigham and company thought to rack up some wives by spinning a false tale about Joseph teaching and living this higher law. If you are not anti, then please reconsider your position as it is truly a wedge issue for you. The church does still indeed practice "spiritual plural marriage" but the doctrine remains the same. If this is all false, and the church is perpetuating a lie about plural marriage, then what claim do we have that we are the restored gospel of our Lord? I speak this not to make "mental gymnastics" but to urge you to reconsider your beliefs that line up with other prominent anti's out there.

http://unveilingmormonism.com/letter_to ... _polygamy/

I really don’t get why you think it matters what the church does or did or what Joseph ultimately did or didn’t do.

I don’t support adultery, I don’t support fornication, I don’t support Polygamy. It’s all condemned in the scriptures . The LDS church fell into the same trap the Nephites did. Whether or not Joseph participated isn’t going to persuade me. Their actions and teachings must adhere to the scriptures, not the other way around. It’d be anti-Mormon for me to ignore the scriptures and wrest them to match my beliefs. I won’t.

And your claim that that section 132 being wrong would mean the church is in apostasy is but one possible outcome out of any number of possibilities , you just choose the worst possible hypothetical outcome in order to more easily demonize my stance(which, by the way, is what libtards do with climate change. They look at the array of possible predictions and they choose the worst case scenario with 0.000001% chance of occurring and that’s the one they report on), this is of course a common debate fallacy, but people love those around this forum. God did not abandon David in spite of the fact that he was displeased with his wives and concubines, calling it an abomination and a whoredom, I don’t imagine he did Brigham either.


Spare me the stupid “lie for the Lord” bit. Joseph went beyond that. He insulted people, condemned them, had them kicked out of church and their society for practicing and preaching something that according to you, was of God all along, he took them to court, had people sign affidavits . For the space of 5-6 years and never stopped .This is so far beyond these stupid examples you guys use like Abraham telling Sarah to claim he’s his sister . Either he did it in secret when he wasn’t supposed to and sinned, or he told the truth all along.

When I have all of canon scripture supporting MY argument to your single flawed section 132 supporting yours, you’re the one that’s cherry picking scriptures, and I’m sorry you can’t see that. When you make a statement like “ancient revelation shows that God approved polygamy” but can literally show no such scripture, you’ve tricked your brain into believing something that you’ve truly got no clue about.

You believe whatever helps you sleep at night. I believe in an unchanging God, I believe in the scriptures. I’m not going to change my mind because you bully me by calling me an anti-Mormon for my beliefs, which is yet another action that Joseph condemned .

You do you.

I’m feeling good about everything, I’ll do me.I’m done talking about this.

[LDS Watchman]

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

Supporters of polygamy might want think about why Joseph excommunicated, attacked, and demonized people who practiced and preached plural marriage.

Supporters of polygamy might want to imagine the following scenario:

Homosexuality is evil. Bad. Sinful.
In 2020, Russell M Nelson says

"It's okay, Thomas Monson told me secretly through the last years of his life that homosexuality is okay".

In spite of the fact that all existing scripture and church documentation condemns homosexuality, the church begins to support it. Not until 2030 does Russell M Nelson reveal a wonderful revelation that Thomas Monson had 10 years earlier to say "SEE GUYS! It wasn't just a secret, he had this grand revelation saying it's okay!"

That's what happened with polygamy.

Ya'll would leave the church over the crap, just like Joseph's entire family and closest friends did.

This comparison is so full of holes that its not even worth addressing.

One point alone destroys the entire premise of what your saying.

Abraham, Jabob, Moses, and I'm sure lots of other very righteous men in ancient times, had more than one wife without a single word of rebuke from God.

The only rebuke from God against plural marriage is wicked men doing it without the express command of God.

This is the ONLY way to harmonize the various scriptures about plural marriage, and that's not even including D&C 132.

On the flip side, homosexuality has always been called a most abominable practice and never under any circumstances did righteousness men participate in the filthy disgusting practice of sodomy.

In fact Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed over it.

[LDS Watchman]

Stahura,
I know that Matthias has some real concerns about the church and how we are going. Truth be told, alot of us do. But it's because it hurts our heart to see the beautiful Kingdom of our Lord lose its luster and brilliance of truth and authority when we capitulate to the latest worldly fad such as gay marriage, gender identity, gender roles, etc...

That being said, I have read your own statements and have noticed you have nothing against making accusations against former prophets and apostles all because they don't hold to your version of feminist Mormonism.

As to why I call you an "Anti" is because you are quoting from the anti-mormon drivel that you can find on the internet. The anti mormon Tanners, I'm sure, would be happy to provide further tutelage to you, on any other themes you wish to attack the church on.

Your attacks against plural marriage are not at all scriptural or historically sound. Furthermore, we still practice plural marriage today, just not for this life, but beyond the veil. Unless that is also bunk, you must also accept this as a fact. Plural marriage is indeed allowed by God, when he authorizes it.

I’m a defender of the church in almost every other aspect and topic, while Matthias attacks the church in almost every other aspect . It should REALLY tell you something about yourself if this single topic makes you so emotional that you team up with a proper anti-Mormon like Matthias and justify his actions while at the same time exaggerating mine and demonizing me.
Really. Look inward for a sec there.

It’s adorable that you just can’t get over your emotions and this causes you to make nonsense up about me and call me a feminist.

I’m sorry that you need to stoop down to the level of the actual SJW feminists and start name dropping because you don’t have a proper argument.

Facts don’t care about your feelings .

feel free to keep teaming up with Matthias, who is actively campaigning against the church. It’s actually hilarious how severely you downplayed how anti-Mormon he is while at the same time exaggerating my own posts.

I have defended the church from proper anti/Mormons my whole life. I have defended Nelson and the brethren in countless threads, I have created my own threads in defense of the members of the church who defend the church, but you’re too angry and blinded by this single
Topic to recognize this. You couldn’t be further from the truth about Matthias and Me, and you really just look ridiculous to people who have actually paid attention to anything I or Matthias have said elsewhere.

I'm truly curious why you keep referring to me as an anti-Mormon.

An anti-Mormon is someone who believes that the Church is false, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, that the Book of Mormon is not a true record of an ancient people, that the revelations in the D&C are false, basically that everything to do with the Church is false.

This is not what I believe.

I believe 100% in the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith. I believe that the scriptures he brought forth are true. I believe that the Church is the Lord's church and that we are his people. I believe that Brigham Young was the man God chose to lead the Saints west. I believe in the traditional narrative of the Church in every respect, except for one.

The only issue I have with the Church, and it's a big one, is that I believe the changes made in the Church that contradict previous teachings and the scriptures are wrong. Based on this, and the complete absence of prophecy, revelation, and seership from our modern church leaders, I'm forced to conclude that they, are in serious error in at least some of the things they have done in the past and are doing today.

That doesn't mean that I think there isn't anything good left in the Church. Clearly there is. I'm an active member. I pay a full tithing, serve in two callings, plan on sending my son's on missions for the Church, just like any other member.

The difference again is that I see the corruption in the Church and refuse to put my head in the sand about it and blindly nod along to things I believe are wrong.

I don't believe that makes me an anti-Mormon.

I’ll clarify. I don’t know if you are, if I’m using my own belief of what “anti” means.

In this instance I am using Ricks definition that he propped up here , to show how silly,uninformed,and ignorant his criticism of me is

, I have read your own statements and have noticed you have nothing against making accusations against former prophets and apostles all because they don't hold to your version of feminist Mormonism.

I have made no “accusations”. I have only stated things they have factually said or done. I have never called them fallen, I have only said they CAN fall. I have never said Monson, Nelson etc. are not prophets, I have only ever said I don’t know if they are. You won’t see me criticizing their character,[INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY BRIGHAM YOUNG] calling them names, accusing them, I have only criticized their teachings with scripture, you can see the vast amount of scriptures I’ve quoted on the topic of the Doctrine of Christ for example, it’s not my fault that people don’t read them. I have also spent a great amount of time defending these men as well. Rick simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

On the flip side, you are quoting Isaiah and other scriptures to prove that the church is apostate, that the church leaders are not prophets and misguide us.

By the standard that HE has a established here, it’s laughable that I would be considered anti-Mormon and you not be. By his standard, you are indeed Anti Mormon.

My own definition is different from his. I know plenty of people who have expressed similar things that you have and I don’t consider them anti-Mormon, but I know them better. I don’t know you like I do them, so I don’t know if you are.

In this thread, I’ve only spoken in context of what Rick established to be Anti-Mormon, and again, it’s absolutely bonkers for him to use what he uses as a standard and with that, determine that I, and not you, are anti-Mormon. There’s some real mental gymnastics going on there.

Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you didn't slander me while arguing with Rick or anyone else.

I understand your frustration though. You obviously believe very strongly in your narrative of plural marriage being false and D&C 132 a lie and it's obviously pretty irritating that Rick and I keep challenging you on it.

[Zathura]

I’m a defender of the church in almost every other aspect and topic, while Matthias attacks the church in almost every other aspect . It should REALLY tell you something about yourself if this single topic makes you so emotional that you team up with a proper anti-Mormon like Matthias and justify his actions while at the same time exaggerating mine and demonizing me.
Really. Look inward for a sec there.

It’s adorable that you just can’t get over your emotions and this causes you to make nonsense up about me and call me a feminist.

I’m sorry that you need to stoop down to the level of the actual SJW feminists and start name dropping because you don’t have a proper argument.

Facts don’t care about your feelings .

feel free to keep teaming up with Matthias, who is actively campaigning against the church. It’s actually hilarious how severely you downplayed how anti-Mormon he is while at the same time exaggerating my own posts.

I have defended the church from proper anti/Mormons my whole life. I have defended Nelson and the brethren in countless threads, I have created my own threads in defense of the members of the church who defend the church, but you’re too angry and blinded by this single
Topic to recognize this. You couldn’t be further from the truth about Matthias and Me, and you really just look ridiculous to people who have actually paid attention to anything I or Matthias have said elsewhere.

I'm truly curious why you keep referring to me as an anti-Mormon.

An anti-Mormon is someone who believes that the Church is false, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, that the Book of Mormon is not a true record of an ancient people, that the revelations in the D&C are false, basically that everything to do with the Church is false.

This is not what I believe.

I believe 100% in the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith. I believe that the scriptures he brought forth are true. I believe that the Church is the Lord's church and that we are his people. I believe that Brigham Young was the man God chose to lead the Saints west. I believe in the traditional narrative of the Church in every respect, except for one.

The only issue I have with the Church, and it's a big one, is that I believe the changes made in the Church that contradict previous teachings and the scriptures are wrong. Based on this, and the complete absence of prophecy, revelation, and seership from our modern church leaders, I'm forced to conclude that they, are in serious error in at least some of the things they have done in the past and are doing today.

That doesn't mean that I think there isn't anything good left in the Church. Clearly there is. I'm an active member. I pay a full tithing, serve in two callings, plan on sending my son's on missions for the Church, just like any other member.

The difference again is that I see the corruption in the Church and refuse to put my head in the sand about it and blindly nod along to things I believe are wrong.

I don't believe that makes me an anti-Mormon.

I’ll clarify. I don’t know if you are, if I’m using my own belief of what “anti” means.

In this instance I am using Ricks definition that he propped up here , to show how silly,uninformed,and ignorant his criticism of me is

, I have read your own statements and have noticed you have nothing against making accusations against former prophets and apostles all because they don't hold to your version of feminist Mormonism.

I have made no “accusations”. I have only stated things they have factually said or done. I have never called them fallen, I have only said they CAN fall. I have never said Monson, Nelson etc. are not prophets, I have only ever said I don’t know if they are. You won’t see me criticizing their character,[INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY BRIGHAM YOUNG] calling them names, accusing them, I have only criticized their teachings with scripture, you can see the vast amount of scriptures I’ve quoted on the topic of the Doctrine of Christ for example, it’s not my fault that people don’t read them. I have also spent a great amount of time defending these men as well. Rick simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

On the flip side, you are quoting Isaiah and other scriptures to prove that the church is apostate, that the church leaders are not prophets and misguide us.

By the standard that HE has a established here, it’s laughable that I would be considered anti-Mormon and you not be. By his standard, you are indeed Anti Mormon.

My own definition is different from his. I know plenty of people who have expressed similar things that you have and I don’t consider them anti-Mormon, but I know them better. I don’t know you like I do them, so I don’t know if you are.

In this thread, I’ve only spoken in context of what Rick established to be Anti-Mormon, and again, it’s absolutely bonkers for him to use what he uses as a standard and with that, determine that I, and not you, are anti-Mormon. There’s some real mental gymnastics going on there.

Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you didn't slander me while arguing with Rick or anyone else.

I understand your frustration though. You obviously believe very strongly in your narrative of plural marriage being false and D&C 132 a lie and it's obviously pretty irritating that Rick and I keep challenging you on it.

No problem, I’ll stop talking about you.

[LDS Watchman]

I'm truly curious why you keep referring to me as an anti-Mormon.

An anti-Mormon is someone who believes that the Church is false, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, that the Book of Mormon is not a true record of an ancient people, that the revelations in the D&C are false, basically that everything to do with the Church is false.

This is not what I believe.

I believe 100% in the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith. I believe that the scriptures he brought forth are true. I believe that the Church is the Lord's church and that we are his people. I believe that Brigham Young was the man God chose to lead the Saints west. I believe in the traditional narrative of the Church in every respect, except for one.

The only issue I have with the Church, and it's a big one, is that I believe the changes made in the Church that contradict previous teachings and the scriptures are wrong. Based on this, and the complete absence of prophecy, revelation, and seership from our modern church leaders, I'm forced to conclude that they, are in serious error in at least some of the things they have done in the past and are doing today.

That doesn't mean that I think there isn't anything good left in the Church. Clearly there is. I'm an active member. I pay a full tithing, serve in two callings, plan on sending my son's on missions for the Church, just like any other member.

The difference again is that I see the corruption in the Church and refuse to put my head in the sand about it and blindly nod along to things I believe are wrong.

I don't believe that makes me an anti-Mormon.

I’ll clarify. I don’t know if you are, if I’m using my own belief of what “anti” means.

In this instance I am using Ricks definition that he propped up here , to show how silly,uninformed,and ignorant his criticism of me is

, I have read your own statements and have noticed you have nothing against making accusations against former prophets and apostles all because they don't hold to your version of feminist Mormonism.

I have made no “accusations”. I have only stated things they have factually said or done. I have never called them fallen, I have only said they CAN fall. I have never said Monson, Nelson etc. are not prophets, I have only ever said I don’t know if they are. You won’t see me criticizing their character,[INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY BRIGHAM YOUNG] calling them names, accusing them, I have only criticized their teachings with scripture, you can see the vast amount of scriptures I’ve quoted on the topic of the Doctrine of Christ for example, it’s not my fault that people don’t read them. I have also spent a great amount of time defending these men as well. Rick simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

On the flip side, you are quoting Isaiah and other scriptures to prove that the church is apostate, that the church leaders are not prophets and misguide us.

By the standard that HE has a established here, it’s laughable that I would be considered anti-Mormon and you not be. By his standard, you are indeed Anti Mormon.

My own definition is different from his. I know plenty of people who have expressed similar things that you have and I don’t consider them anti-Mormon, but I know them better. I don’t know you like I do them, so I don’t know if you are.

In this thread, I’ve only spoken in context of what Rick established to be Anti-Mormon, and again, it’s absolutely bonkers for him to use what he uses as a standard and with that, determine that I, and not you, are anti-Mormon. There’s some real mental gymnastics going on there.

Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you didn't slander me while arguing with Rick or anyone else.

I understand your frustration though. You obviously believe very strongly in your narrative of plural marriage being false and D&C 132 a lie and it's obviously pretty irritating that Rick and I keep challenging you on it.

No problem, I’ll stop talking about you.

Thanks

[Rose Garden]

I have seen so many heartbreaking problems come out of polygamy. I believe it reduces women to objects more than other arrangements and promotes an unnatural state that isn't upheld by birth statistics. Many women in these relationships have been taught throughout their lives some pretty damaging mentalities that allow them to accept this demeaning organization, otherwise, I doubt many would.

As for homosexuality, I don't know that I have enough information to make an assessment. I personally think that there are worse things that happen than homosexuals having sex with one another. In fact, I'm not sure homosexual sex is wrong at all. Who does it hurt? On the other hand, the homosexual population seems to be filled with people who were abused terribly in childhood and who struggle with serious mental health issues. Do they suffer these problems because they are homosexual or are they homosexual because they suffer from these problems?

With homosexuality or any LGBTQ+ it is damning to eternal progression. No offspring is damning your progression that is the end of your increase!

Polygamy is a higher more pure law because it’s bringing in more offspring and increase. The only way I see it as evil is when young girls are taken into marriage before they are 18 or if they are forced into it.

*edit* forgot to add that it must be commanded of God before it’s ok

I reject the idea that no offspring is damning to progression. I would also suggest you look into the lost boys.

It’s in the scriptures. It’s in D&C. It’s doctrine and eternal truth. Is lost boys scripture? Doubt it

Uh, . . . er, . . . the lost boys are actual people who you could talk to if you wanted to take the time to do so. So no, not scripture.

[4Joshua8]

So-called "gay marriage" isn't comparable to plural marriage.
1. Plural Marriage is Eternal. The church still practices plural marriage today. Don't believe me? Ask President Nelson and President Oaks who I'm pretty sure are both sealed to two, not one, wives. If we say that plural marriage is no longer practiced, what we're also saying is that we have no faith at all in the sealing. We may not be performing plural marriages today until after a spouse has passed away, but that doesn't change the fact that we still practice it in the Eternal view.
2. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" in God's eyes. Gender (when they used this word in the proclamation it was still synonymous with biological sex) is Eternal. In the Eternal view, marriage is, was, and will continue to be a gendered institution, meaning male with female.

Again, they're not really comparable.

Plural marriage is only a positive when it's practiced upon righteous principles, in which case it would be a very happy form of marriage for all involved who so practice it. It's really hard to do that in Babylon. It's impossible to do that in a church that is hard-hearted and stiff-necked. If not practiced upon righteous principles, it's a scourge and a destroyer. It doesn't surprise me to see plural marriage not being allowed while "gay marriage" is allowed in the end times, since Lucifer reigns at present and since if we practiced it today we'd probably get the "scourge and destroyer" variety.

[MMbelieve]

So-called "gay marriage" isn't comparable to plural marriage.

Plural marriage is only a positive when it's practiced upon righteous principles, in which case it would be a very happy form of marriage for all involved who so practice it. It's really hard to do that in Babylon. It's impossible to do that in a church that is hard-hearted and stiff-necked. If not practiced upon righteous principles, it's a scourge and a destroyer. It doesn't surprise me to see plural marriage not being allowed while "gay marriage" is allowed in the end times, since Lucifer reigns at present and since if we practiced it today we'd probably get the "scourge and destroyer" variety.

Can be said pretty much about everything and anything. Marriage, family, religion...

[hedgehog]

Somebody involved government in the marriage business to make it "stronger" but consenting adults should have always been left alone to perform whatever religious ceremony they wish.

Marriage is a religious ceremony like baptism. Government should lack any say except as arbiter of adults contracting with each other.