Cleansing of the Church

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3623

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Bronco73idi »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 2:37 pm Luke, to think that lust didn't play a small part through the ages is missing the obvious. And to claim that someone who opposes polygamy, and citing the obvious lustful aspect, is themselves "lustful" in their heart, is a bit of a stretch IMO.
I think, all Luke is trying to convey is that Paul didn’t condemn Peter and his polygamist ways for a reason.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15311
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 3:15 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 2:37 pm Luke, to think that lust didn't play a small part through the ages is missing the obvious. And to claim that someone who opposes polygamy, and citing the obvious lustful aspect, is themselves "lustful" in their heart, is a bit of a stretch IMO.
I think, all Luke is trying to convey is that Paul didn’t condemn Peter and his polygamist ways for a reason.
Peter was’t a polygamist, neither was Jesus.

BUT, what we do know is that these men did take a dance for the outward appearance of their child brides. “Save the pretty ones until you get home from your missions so we can all have a fair shake.”

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 2:37 pm Luke, to think that lust didn't play a small part through the ages is missing the obvious. And to claim that someone who opposes polygamy, and citing the obvious lustful aspect, is themselves "lustful" in their heart, is a bit of a stretch IMO.
It’s not a stretch. Out of the abundance of the heart, the tongue speaketh. You are quick to give that as the only reason (in your mind) for polygamy, because it’s all your heart can muster up.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:20 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 3:15 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 2:37 pm Luke, to think that lust didn't play a small part through the ages is missing the obvious. And to claim that someone who opposes polygamy, and citing the obvious lustful aspect, is themselves "lustful" in their heart, is a bit of a stretch IMO.
I think, all Luke is trying to convey is that Paul didn’t condemn Peter and his polygamist ways for a reason.
Peter was’t a polygamist, neither was Jesus.

BUT, what we do know is that these men did take a dance for the outward appearance of their child brides. “Save the pretty ones until you get home from your missions so we can all have a fair shake.”
No proof HCK said this. The only source is an anti-Mormon publication.

He is on record saying that he wished the young men of Israel would take more wives, and not leave them for everyone else.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15311
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:54 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 2:37 pm Luke, to think that lust didn't play a small part through the ages is missing the obvious. And to claim that someone who opposes polygamy, and citing the obvious lustful aspect, is themselves "lustful" in their heart, is a bit of a stretch IMO.
It’s not a stretch. Out of the abundance of the heart, the tongue speaketh. You are quick to give that as the only reason (in your mind) for polygamy, because it’s all your heart can muster up.
My “only reason”? Really? SMH. I have LOTS of reasons.

You can’t deny that these men chose brides that were pretty. They were lustful. They said they wanted their pick of the “pretty” young girls.

BTW, according to your faulty logic, whatever the reason I chose to condemn the sin, you’d say that I must have those same feelings deep down in my heart. Condemning homosexuals for their lust doesn’t make me a lustful person. Really screwed up logic there.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15311
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:55 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:20 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 3:15 pm

I think, all Luke is trying to convey is that Paul didn’t condemn Peter and his polygamist ways for a reason.
Peter was’t a polygamist, neither was Jesus.

BUT, what we do know is that these men did take a dance for the outward appearance of their child brides. “Save the pretty ones until you get home from your missions so we can all have a fair shake.”
No proof HCK said this. The only source is an anti-Mormon publication.

He is on record saying that he wished the young men of Israel would take more wives, and not leave them for everyone else.
There’s “no proof” Joseph was a polygamist either, according to what sources you choose to listen to. Often “anti-Mormon” just means something you don’t agree with.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:58 pm My “only reason”? Really? SMH. I have LOTS of reasons.
OK then… what do you believe people’s reasons for being polygamists are then.
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:58 pm You can’t deny that these men chose brides that were pretty. They were lustful.
It doesn’t make someone lustful to have a sexual preference to someone they are attracted to. Do you think that you should have married someone you weren’t attracted to out of obligation, force, or whatever the case might have been?
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:58 pm They said they wanted their pick of the “pretty” young girls.
No they didn’t. Did you not read my previous comment. If you can prove otherwise, the floor is yours.
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:58 pm BTW, according to your faulty logic, whatever the reason I chose to condemn the sin, you’d say that I must have those same feelings deep down in my heart. Condemning homosexuals for their lust doesn’t make me a lustful person. Really screwed up logic there.
Not the same thing, and you know it. We are talking about your condemnation of a certain behaviour and you assuming motives. Not disagreeing with sin.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:59 pm
Luke wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:55 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:20 pm
Peter was’t a polygamist, neither was Jesus.

BUT, what we do know is that these men did take a dance for the outward appearance of their child brides. “Save the pretty ones until you get home from your missions so we can all have a fair shake.”
No proof HCK said this. The only source is an anti-Mormon publication.

He is on record saying that he wished the young men of Israel would take more wives, and not leave them for everyone else.
There’s “no proof” Joseph was a polygamist either, according to what sources you choose to listen to. Often “anti-Mormon” just means something you don’t agree with.
There’s so much proof. Everybody in Nauvoo said he was a polygamist. His friends, his enemies, and neutral people. You cling onto Joseph and Emma’s public statements, yet the abundance of evidence shows that JS was practising it in secret, and that Emma privately admitted it, and pursued a course of lying to her children. And that latter accusation came from none other than JS’ niece.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15311
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Ok, Luke, I’m done with the discussion. We don’t agree, that’s ok. We’ve done this rodeo over and over again.

Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3623

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Bronco73idi »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 4:20 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 3:15 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 2:37 pm Luke, to think that lust didn't play a small part through the ages is missing the obvious. And to claim that someone who opposes polygamy, and citing the obvious lustful aspect, is themselves "lustful" in their heart, is a bit of a stretch IMO.
I think, all Luke is trying to convey is that Paul didn’t condemn Peter and his polygamist ways for a reason.
Peter was’t a polygamist, neither was Jesus.

BUT, what we do know is that these men did take a dance for the outward appearance of their child brides. “Save the pretty ones until you get home from your missions so we can all have a fair shake.”
How do you know Peter, Jesus and his step father Jospeh wasn’t a polygamist?

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15311
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:17 pm How do you know Peter, Jesus and his step father Jospeh wasn’t a polygamist?
Because they were manly men.

Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3623

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Bronco73idi »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:21 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:17 pm How do you know Peter, Jesus and his step father Jospeh wasn’t a polygamist?
Because they were manly men.
Nope, I bet the church has Celsus “The True Word” archived.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15311
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:26 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:21 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:17 pm How do you know Peter, Jesus and his step father Jospeh wasn’t a polygamist?
Because they were manly men.
Nope, I bet the church has Celsus “The True Word” archived.
Maybe they weren’t hypocrites.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by FrankOne »

Luke wrote: March 19th, 2023, 9:32 am
edavid wrote: March 18th, 2023, 9:50 pm Take the Holy spirit as your guide, or you will be deceived, even the very elect.
You fighting against polygamy has proved that you are deceived.

If I might be so bold—everyone who fights against polygamy (including you) will never receive their exaltation, and will find themselves soon very quickly outside of God’s favour. They can never be part of the remnant who will build Zion and usher in the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ unless they repent of their opposition to that principle. That is the truth. So continue fighting against the truth at your own peril.

Anti-polygamists will soon be “cleansed”.
I'm leaning toward the future cleansing us all. Then... we might start to come together. Pain and suffering works wonders.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by FrankOne »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:21 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:17 pm How do you know Peter, Jesus and his step father Jospeh wasn’t a polygamist?
Because they were manly men.
thanks for the chuckle, I needed it, even if it wasn't intended.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15311
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

FrankOne wrote: March 20th, 2023, 7:18 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:21 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: March 20th, 2023, 6:17 pm How do you know Peter, Jesus and his step father Jospeh wasn’t a polygamist?
Because they were manly men.
thanks for the chuckle, I needed it, even if it wasn't intended.
That was my intent. :)

User avatar
Being There
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2868

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Being There »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 10:23 am
mikewoodings wrote: March 20th, 2023, 10:21 am
Being There wrote: March 19th, 2023, 4:55 pm lol.
always always turns into a polygamy debate.
SMH
as if polygamy - is all that matters. :roll:

and the funny thing is - is that -
whether those that are for it - or those that are against,
always use Joseph Smith to prove they're right.
lol.
This isn't the thread for it but the Bible alone could be used to prove that plural marriage is of God, not a sin, and the standard for marriage for those seeking exaltation in the highest Kingdom of God.
Hello, Jacobite Nephite.

The only thing the Bible can prove is that a few dispensational heads lived polygamy and were seemingly sanctioned by God. And that a few were not sanctioned and were condemned. NOTHING in the Bible supports it as an exalting doctrine. Monogamy is highly support in all canon of scripture.
what I don't seem to understand about you, ( and actually many others here in the forum)
is simply - WHY AREN'T YOU LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH ! ?

Why do you only care so much about your own opinion and what YOU want to believe ?
“People say they love truth, but in reality they want to believe that which they love is true.”
Why do you want the truth to be what YOU want it to be ?

The foundation of truth and what is true, is The Word of God;
which our beliefs and opinions compared to - ARE NOTHING.

God's WORD is our standard of truth - in which we measure everything by.

So with that being said -
WHY DON'T YOU USE IT ?
Why aren't you using the scriptures - to prove what you're saying is true ?
Do you just want to be right ? and could care less about the truth and what the scriptures say ?


It doesn't take a genius -
A 3rd grader can even tell you what the Bible says.about this.
And mikewoodings has already told you what the Bible says.
viewtopic.php?p=1368396#p1368396

but to reduce - such a great man and prophet of the Lord - Abraham - our father -
who the Lord said:
"In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—",
saying "a few dispensational heads lived polygamy",
seems to me just a tiny bit disrespectful don't you think;
not really wanting to acknowledge him and his role in God's plan,
and that God allowed him - and Jacob to have more than one wife.
That alone - as mikewoodings said "the Bible alone could be used to prove that plural marriage is of God, not a sin"


I wonder where YOU might be without it ?
"the whole nation of Israel comes from the offspring of the four wives of Jacob.
(2 wives, 2 concubines)"

User avatar
Being There
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2868

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Being There »

my comments some years ago on this.

Luke wrote:
Spirit, what are your thoughts on polygamy? Do you agree with it or not?


yes, I agree with it.
but I would almost immediately say no, if the Lord had never previously allowed it -
with great men such as our father Abraham.

Again, if it's wrong, how was it accepted by God in the Bible.
And if it was accepted, to me that would open the door to why it was given to live in the church.
I guess for me my simple logic is that having more than one wife has to be right, or very wrong.
And even though we know what the Book of Mormon says about this,
(and believe me, the Book of Mormon means everything to me), if this is wrong, and an abomination before God, then why would God allow (no matter why or what the circumstance were) such great prophets - Abraham and Jacob,
to have more than one wife and also concubines ? Would God allow this if it really was an abomination ?
Or are we just going to say that (these are), and there are exceptions.
Seems to me that it would have to be the right thing to do, or very very wrong.
I mean, if it was wrong, (and again, no matter what the circumstances were), how could God approve of it and not condemn these men for doing it ?


I don't really want to take a lot of time on this, so I will just copy and put here my thoughts
and things on this that I have kept.


The Manifesto

The Manifesto of 1890 to end plural marriage
was totally man made.
Church leaders were being persecuted by the legislature for following their faith.
They feared man more than God. Hence The Manifesto.
There is much evidence that marriages were performed by the
church even after the Manifesto had been issued.
WHY ? If it really was a revelation.
In fact, prior to the Manifesto, the attorney prosecuting Elder Lorenzo Snow
for polygamy “predicted that if Snow and others were found guilty
and sent to prison church leaders would find it convenient
to have a revelation setting aside the commandment on polygamy.

The Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact
by J. Max Anderson
http://www.shields-research.org/Books/P ... ry-c09.htm

(in part)
THE WOODRUFF MANIFESTO

President Taylor said that the time would come when many of the Saints would apostatize because of this principle. He said, "one-half of this people will apostatize over the principle for which we are now in hiding, yea, and possibly one-half of the other half" (rising off the floor while making the statement). He also said the day will come when a document similar to that (Manifesto) then under consideration would be adopted by the Church, following which "apostasy and whoredom would be rampant in the Church."

The issuance of the Manifesto came in response to the demands of the people; President Woodruff signed it under a permissive grant. That he did not subscribe to it in spirit was well known by his intimates at the time. He did what he said he "felt inspired" to do; he doubtless did the best he knew how under the circumstances. But all the childish babble and prattle about the Manifesto being a revelation from God and putting an end to the practice of the patriarchal order of marriage [polygamy] is pure buncombe.

Joseph Musser wrote
My God! what have I done," President Woodruff is reported to have said, after placing his signature to the Manifesto. And one of his counselors [Joseph F. Smith] answered, "You have signed a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, that's what you have done.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And your covenant with death" - (the manifesto) man made
"shall be disannulled"
ISAIAH Chapter 28 is talking about us, the Mormons,
the "drunkards of Ephraim."

Isaiah 28
18"And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it."
15 "Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves"

Isaiah 24:5
5 "The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants:
they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances,
set at nought the ancient covenant."

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith declared that;
“It is the L. D. Saints who have transgressed the laws, change the ordinance, broke the everlasting covenant.”
Joseph Fielding Smith (Deseret News, Church Section, Oct. 17, 1936)

explanation: Avraham Gileadi
"Causing these curses is the wickedness of Jehovah’s people, who have altered his “ordinances” or “ritual” and perverted his “laws” or “doctrine” , thereby violating Jehovah’s covenant and rendering it void. Jehovah’s servant, who personifies Jehovah’s covenant (Isaiah 42:6; 49:8), they likewise set at nought (Isaiah 49:7; 50:5-11; 52:14)."

------------------------------
J.D.25:355-6
Discourse by President John Taylor, delivered at Ogden, Sunday, October 19th, 1884.
Reported by John Irvine.

"I was asked if certain ordinances could be performed in different places. I told them, yes, under certain circumstances. “Where,” I was asked—“Anywhere besides in temples?” Yes. Anywhere besides the Endowment House? Yes. “Where, in some other house?” In another house or out of doors, as the circumstances might be. Why did I say that?"
"Thus under such circumstances we perceive that our operations elsewhere will be all correct; it makes no difference. It is the authority of the Priesthood, not the place, that validates and sanctifies the ordinance. I was asked if people could be sealed outside. Yes. I could have told them I was sealed outside, and lots of others."

Many plural marriages were performed in Mexico and other places where there were no temples.
Wilford Woodroff discontinued plural marriage within the church, but set Anthony W. Ivins apart to continue to perform plural marriages in Mexico.


*** (there is a lot of information here for those interested)

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=8X ... o.&f=false
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-c ... MF0039.pdf

User avatar
Being There
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2868

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Being There »

quote

Let's just call a spade a spade. Just because the church was under condemnation back in Joseph Smith's day didn't mean that it prevented the highest authority (Kings and Priests) to be bestowed upon men under the hands of Joseph Smith. However, without question, the church fell under condemnation again when they did away with the sacred principle of plural marriage. (Let's agree to disagree over the importance of living this "law")

Jesus Christ to President John Taylor September 27, 1886:

"My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant (plural marriage) how far it is binding upon my people. Thus saith the Lord: ALL commandments that I give MUST be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and HOW can I revoke an everlasting covenant? For I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.
Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my LAW do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my "law". And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have NOT revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen."

The idea that this revelation merely pertained to the saints being sealed in the temple by the Holy Spirit of Promise is incredibly ridiculous! The Saints were doing that already and have continued that practice without fail since it was established, and even since the Manifesto in 1890. John Taylor went to the Lord because of plural marriage; not whether the people needed to be sealed in the temple.

"I would be surprised if ten per cent of those who claim to hold the Melchisedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel...at the time of the seventh president, and that there would be thousands that think they hold the Priesthood, but would not have it properly conferred upon them." John Taylor

I know the above statement is true because my grandfather, who left the church in 1935, told me that they were ordaining men to offices without conferring the priesthood first.

So the absurdity over people believing the church lost their authority because they excommunicated one man is simply baffling to me. They've excommunicated people by the hundreds over the years, unjustly! Furthermore, I believe they gave up their lesser priesthood rights (if they even had it to give) in 1978 when they welcomed in the black race and having called it a revelation from the Lord.

end quote

User avatar
Being There
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2868

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Being There »

continued


so I'm wondering just HOW can we justify all this, and
I just want to know from those that do not believe in it and believe that we shouldn't have lived it,
do you then believe that section 132 is just all bogus, and made up ?

I guess I could understand if God always opposed it, but we know that great men -Abraham - our father,
Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon lived it.
Abraham - who the Lord said:
"In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—"

2 Nephi 29
14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever.

We can't dispute that Polygamy was a huge part of our churches history
and that we were told by the lord to live it, and what the consequences would be if we didn't.
And that it was lived and practiced by many members at that time.

So are we going to say that it was just some made up thing, some BIG mistake that the church made in the beginning ?
I"ve heard so many members that believe that.
But we can not just sweep it under the rug.
Or should we accept the fact that it is, what the Lord says it is - "It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”... JS "a new and an everlasting covenant" ;
(that we should still be living.)

It is an everlasting and eternal principal, a " new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned,
saith the Lord God."

I wonder where YOU might be without it ?
"the whole nation of Israel comes from the offspring of the four wives of Jacob.
(2 wives, 2 concubines)"

User avatar
Being There
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2868

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Being There »

quotes

From him (Joseph Smith) I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle, no man can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory. (William Clayton, Historical Record 6:226)

. . . the great question is this-will we unite with the plurality Order of the Ancient Patriarchs, or will we consent voluntarily to be doomed to eternal celibacy? This is the true division of the question. One or the other we must choose. We cannot be married to our husbands for eternity, without subscribing to the law that admits a plurality of wives. (Samuel Richards, Mill. Star 15:226)

He showed that the revelation that had been the subject of attention (Section 132) was only one published on Celestial Marriage, and if the doctrine of plural marriage was repudiated, so must be the glorious principle of marriage for eternity, the two being indissolubly interwoven with each other. (C. W. Penrose, Mill. Star 45:454)

[184] The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. (Brigham Young, JD 11:268)

If we do not embrace that principle (of plural marriage) soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we cannot go with Him. (Life of Wilford Woodruff, Cowley, p. 542)

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. . . . The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part . . . . But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it . . . . it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law (polygamy) or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful. Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations. . . . Man . . . cannot receive the fullness of the blessings unless he fulfills the law, any more than he can claim the gift of the Holy Ghost after he is baptized without the laying on of hands by the proper authority, or the remission of sins without baptism. I understand the law of Celestial Marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness, and will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to [185] mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. (Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:23-31)

Joseph Smith (1843)

The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time hence forth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me. O, what shall I do? If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction. (Contributor 5:259)

Heber C. Kimball (1856)

You might as well deny “Mormonism”, and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. (JD 5:203-204)

Brigham Young (1865)

There is no half-way house. The childish babble about another revelation is only evidence of how half-informed men can talk. The “Mormons” have either to spurn their religion and their God, and sink self-damned in the eyes of all civilization at a moment when most blessed in the practice of their faith, or go calmly on to the same issue which they have always had. * * *

The doctrine of polygamy with the “Mormons” is not one of the kind that in the religious world is classed with “non-essentials.” It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remain. . . . The whole question, therefore, narrows itself to this in the “Mormon” mind. Polygamy was revealed by God, or the entire fabric of their faith is false. To ask them [187] to give up such an item of belief is to ask them to relinquish the whole, to acknowledge their Priesthood a lie, their ordinances a deception, and all they have toiled for, lived for, bled for, prayed for, or hoped for, a miserable failure and a waste of life. (Mill. Star 27:673)

John Taylor (1880)

. . . when they enact tyrannical laws, forbidding us the free exercise of our religion, we cannot submit. God is greater than the United States. And when the Government conflicts with Heaven, we will be ranged under the banner of heaven and against the Government. The United States says we cannot marry more than one wife. God says different. . . . when adulterers and libertines pass a law forbidding polygamy, the Saints cannot obey it. Polygamy is a divine institution. It has been handed down direct from God. The United States cannot abolish it. No nation on earth can prevent it, nor all the nations of the earth combined. I defy the United States. I will obey God. These are my sentiments, and all of you who sympathize with me in this position raise your right hands. (All hands went up sustaining his position.) (S.L. Tribune, Jan. 6, 1880)
-------------

Wilford Woodruff (1880 Revelation)

And I say again, woe unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the Patriarchal law of Abraham, which leadeth to Celestial Glory, which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall be damned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted away from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and which shall not return unto me void. (Journal of W. Woodruff, Jan. 25, 1880)

John Taylor (1882 Revelation)

You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law (celestial/plural marriage), for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall [188] preside over my Priesthood. (Messages of F.P. 2:345) (Note: Wilford Woodruff said what was meant by “my law” was plural marriage.)

John Taylor (1882)

We have been told that, “It is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood,” and yet some people would like very much to do it. Well, they cannot do it. If God has introduced something for our glory and exaltation, we are not going to have that kicked over by improper influences, either inside or outside of the Church of the living God. I see sometimes a disposition to try to ignore some of the laws which God has introduced, and this is one of them. (JD 25:309)

Wilford Woodruff (1882)

The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance without the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is that it belongs to this dispensation, just as baptism for the dead does, or any law or ordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it the Church cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham or they will have to resign. (Life of Wilford Woodruff, Cowley, p. 542)

John Taylor (1884)

God has given us a revelation in regard to celestial marriage. I did not make it, . . . they would like us to tone that principle down and change it and make it applicable to the views of the day. This we cannot do; nor can we interfere with any of the commands of God to meet the persuasions or behests of men. I cannot do it and will not do it.

I find some men try to twist round the principle in any way and every way they can. They want to sneak out of it in some way. Now God don’t (sic) want any kind of sycophancy like that. He expects that we will be true to Him, and to the principles He has developed, and to feel as Job did-“Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” Though other folks would slay us, yet we will [189] trust in the living God and be true to our covenants and to our God. (JD 25:309)

Lorenzo Snow (1885)

The severest prosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a Divine law, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom.

Though I go to prison, God will not change His law of celestial marriage, but the man, the people, the nation, that oppose and fight against this doctrine and the Church of God, will be overthrown. (Whitney’s History of the Church 3:471)

Heber J. Grant (1885)

No matter what restrictions we may be placed under by men, our only consistent course is to keep the commandments for God. We should in this regard, place ourselves in the same position as that of the three Hebrews who were cast into the fiery furnace. . . . we have but one choice, that is to abide in the law of God, no matter as to the consequence. (Des. News, Apr. 6, 1885)

First Presidency (1885)

While hiding from the Government officers, in order to avoid arrest for plural marriage, the First Presidency sent an epistle to the Saints on this issue:

“Well-meaning friends of ours have said that our refusal to renounce the principle of celestial marriage invites destruction. They warn us and implore us to yield. But they perceive not the hand of the Almighty God, Lord of heaven and earth, who has made promises to us and who has never failed to fulfill all His words.

We cannot withdraw or renounce it. God has revealed it, and He has promised to maintain it, and to bless those who obey it. . . . Whether it be life or death, we must trust in God.” (Mill. Star 47:707, Oct. 6, 1885)

[190]

John Taylor (1886 Revelation)

My son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant;

For I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated, nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject?

Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my laws and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regards to these matters.

Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law.

And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham?

I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; Even so, Amen.

(Revelations 1880-1890, Pioneer Press, pp. 30-31; referred to in Abraham Cannon’s Journal (p. 24) and Douglas M. Todd, Sr.,’s Journal (pp. 10-13); also in the trial of John W. Taylor)
-----------

Apostle John W Taylor ( son of the Prophet John Taylor ) Swore that the 1886 revelation is a true and legit ' Thus Saith the Lord ' revelation that he found among his father's papers shortly after his father's death.

( His father the Prophet John Taylor died while hiding in the underground )

Wilford Woodruff had Apostle John W Taylor excommunicated cuz Apostle John W Taylor brought his father's revelation to Wilford Woodruff and would not submit!

Finally the church grew a conscience and reinstated Apostle John W Taylor's name back into the church along with all his 'former blessings ' ...AFTER Apostle John W Taylor died. - SMH

* see excerpts from Apostle John W Taylors excommunication trial.

User avatar
Being There
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2868

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Being There »

Quote

"The Prophet once said: `So long as there are a few people in the Church
who are living the Fulness of the Gospel, including the Patriarchal order of
marriage, God will acknowledge His Church.' At the same time, said Joseph
Smith, `God will not acknowledge that which He has not called, ordained and
chosen.' We believe this." Truth Mag. Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 6. Joseph the Prophet
also said: The Parable of 1, 2 and 5 talents of Matt. 25:14-30, refers to the
number of wives -- that he who is found with only one will lose her and she
will be given to one more worthy; "Celestial Marriage" by Darter, p. 40-42;
Hist. Rec. 6: 221-222; 7:529; D. & C. 132:44; J. of D. 20:28-31; Life, H.C.K.
p. 331.

The most learned Apostle Orson Pratt says: Fight this plural law "and if
you do not become as dark as midnight, there is no truth in Mormonism." J. of
D. 17:225-226. This rejection is expected. But, when present-day leaders of
the masses teach that: "God is simply the spirit of humanity" (i. e. does not
exist in person or His so-called laws) what can we expect? Answer: extreme
immorality, wickedness, lawlessness, infidelity, divine judgments and
destruction. Due to this appalling condition, which is now here, Jesus Christ
said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword." Matt. 10:34-39.

In Apostle Orson Hyde's Article and drawing per Mill. Star, Vol. 9, pp.
23 and 24, he shows only parents and children of the highest of the 3
celestial glories as having the fulness of the Father's Priesthood and glory,
"a Celestial crown;" that the 2nd, the middle, serves the highest, but without
a crown; and the 3rd or lowest of the celestial glories serves [5] the second.
That there is a family connection and union of spirit children between the
highest and this middle glory, but none between the middle and the lowest, as
those who inherit this lowest of the 3 celestial glories have no spirit
children. They will be eunuchs. (John W. Woolley; T.P.J.S. p. 300-1; D. & C.
131.) But they will be the true saints of all ages -- except having never
lived the plural law.

In the center of this celestial planet, is to come down from heaven
evidently from the sun, after the 1000 year millennial reign, that great and
glorious Holy City, the Celestial New Jerusalem, the City of only Polygamists.
John the Revelator, in Chap. 21, gives us great details as to its glory,
enormous size, and height. It is to be four square, a cube. It is to be 6000
miles around it, 1500 miles from corner to corner. Having a wall great and
high, with 12 gates, named after the 12 polygamist sons of Jacob. It will have
no temples, those gospel ordinances must be done in mortality. This glorious
city will be the eternal inheritance of the saints who have lived God's
marriage law both in a reasonable and in a valiant manner. All spirit children
who are to come to the next mortal world will be born and raised in this most
holy city. Those children born to those not fully valiant polygamist families
in the middle glory will have to adopt themselves to the upper glory to get
into mortality. Their Fathers and Mothers never become Adams and Eves.
Furthermore, they must be born thru a Japheth, as gentile children. From these
facts, it is now evident that Brigham Young knew the divine marriage law. I
briefly quote: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those
who enter into polygamy," (i. e. in a valiant manner.) "Others attain unto a
glory . . . because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to
accept them." J. of D. 11:268-9. The expression: "Sons of God", means they
have qualified and will become Gods in due time.


In Joseph Smith's sermon quoted in Hist. of Church, Vol. 5, pg. 427, he
tells us: "In the resurrection, some are raised to be angels; others are
raised to become Gods." From all of this, and a 100 times more, we can plainly
see the future Terrestrial glory running over with Mormon "angels." Many of
them will be most beautiful--but everyone of them will be a eunuch. But there
are some, not far from here who will be there. From Orson Pratt, we are told
that about 2/3 of the world for ages have approved of plural wives, but not
one mortal man has ever opposed. Why? They are not sealed by God's Priesthood
and therefore it ends at the grave. But you let just one righteous "Mormon"
marry 2 righteous women in obedience of the law of God -- and you will see 2
million "yes" Mormons and 200 million U.S. citizens rise up to destroy them.
Why? Ans: Lucifer and his converts know that they are destined as Gods and
Goddesses to be. His ambition is to destroy God's faithful children. "A man
(says Joseph Smith) is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does
not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the
other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge." H. C. 4:588; 5:510.

We have just been talking about the most important one.
You should know that every mortal child is a spirit child of a polygamist
family from a previous world.
Question: If God's highest and purest type of plural marriage produces this,
our world's average type of spirit and mortal children--then what would we
have if every married couple were resurrected and "given endless lives" to
spirit children? Ans: Hate, Godlessness, Sex and Murder. Pres. Heber J. Grant,
in his early life, preached that we should live polygamy, even if we burn at
the stake. Now: He had a strong testimony, for he truly and most positively
lived [7] that holy law to the last of his life. Many know this to be true,
but his fight against all others destroys his own.

User avatar
Being There
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2868

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by Being There »

quotes

By December 1842, the end of the first year covered in these journals, Joseph Smith had explained the doctrine of plural marriage to a few of his closest associates and was practicing it himself. Glimpses into the reasons for introducing the practice and his understanding of the doctrine behind it are provided in some of his translations and revelations. The Book of Mormon, for example, taught that monogamy was the rule but that it was permissible for one man to have multiple wives when God commanded. A revelation recorded 12 July 1843—the general outlines of which were reportedly understood much earlier —accordingly taught that Abraham, who was married to Sarah, was under no condemnation for taking Hagar as a second wife because the Lord had commanded him to do so. According to the revelation, other ancient prophets in addition to Abraham had the keys or authority from God to participate in or perform plural marriages, and those who received plural wives under the direction of these prophets stood blameless before God. The stipulation of prophetic direction meant that the practice was carefully controlled, however, and those who took plural wives on their own initiative faced serious consequences. Joseph Smith believed that this ancient authority had been conferred upon him as part of the latter-day restoration of the keys and power of the priesthood and that his authorization of plural marriages was justified before God. With these checks in place, a man might legitimately take plural wives “to multiply & replenish the earth, . . . & for thire exaltation in the eternal worlds,” while plural relationships that were undertaken without Joseph Smith’s direct approval were unauthorized and adulterous.
The nature of the extant sources precludes a thorough understanding of the extent to which Joseph Smith and others practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo and the nature of the relationships between the men and women in these marriages. Most of the information on the practice during this period comes either from later affidavits and reminiscences or from reports of disaffected members of the church at the time—none of which, for a variety of reasons, can be considered entirely reliable historical sources for delineating how plural marriage was understood and practiced by those involved at the time. William Clayton provides the best contemporaneous evidence that at least some plural marriages in Nauvoo during Joseph Smith’s lifetime involved conjugal relations —just as they did later in Utah—and nothing in the 12 July 1843 revelation on plural marriage provides any doctrinal reason for why any authorized plural marriage could not have included such relations. At the same time, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that all Nauvoo plural marriages or sealings were consummated. Although Joseph Smith had many children with Emma, no progeny from any of his plural marriages have been identified.
Given the sensitivity of the topic, it is no surprise that clear references to plural marriage are virtually absent from Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo journals. Some entries, however, may be best understood—or at least partially understood—in light of the practice, although a significant amount of ambiguity remains even after a careful examination of the context and supporting sources. For example, a revelation dated 2 December 1841 for Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde (recorded in a 25 January 1842 entry of Smith’s journal) closes by counseling her to “hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph in all things whatsoever he shall teach unto her, and it shall be a blessing upon her and upon her children after her.” Decades later, Hyde reported that this revelation had been delivered to her shortly after Joseph Smith had taught her the “doctrine of celestial marriage” and that she “followed the council of the prophet Joseph as above instructed” and continued to hope for “the fulfilment of the promises and blessings” contained in the revelation. In addition, a 1 May 1869 affidavit signed by Hyde attests that she was “married or sealed” to Joseph Smith in May 1843. Assuming Hyde’s memory accurately reflects events of 1841–1843 and that the “doctrine of celestial marriage” about which she learned included plural marriage, it would be reasonable to conclude that the revelation’s reference to “all things whatsoever” Smith would teach her included a marriage or sealing to the Mormon leader. But Joseph Smith could have counseled Hyde about many other issues in 1841 as well. Her husband, Orson Hyde of the Quorum of the Twelve, for example, had left on a mission to Europe and the Middle East in April 1840, leaving Hyde and her children to rely on others for much of their support until his return in December 1842.
Several later documents suggest that several women who were already married to other men were, like Marinda Hyde, married or sealed to Joseph Smith. Available evidence indicates that some of these apparent polygynous/polyandrous marriages took place during the years covered by this journal. At least three of the women reportedly involved in these marriages—Patty Bartlett Sessions, Ruth Vose Sayers, and Sylvia Porter Lyon—are mentioned in the journal, though in contexts very much removed from plural marriage. Even fewer sources are extant for these complex relationships than are available for Smith’s marriages to unmarried women, and Smith’s revelations are silent on them. Having surveyed the available sources, historian Richard L. Bushman concludes that these polyandrous marriages—and perhaps other plural marriages of Joseph Smith—were primarily a means of binding other families to his for the spiritual benefit and mutual salvation of all involved.
More definitive echoes of plural marriage are apparent in several journal entries that refer to men attempting to seduce women by telling them that Joseph Smith sanctioned extramarital affairs. In these cases, though, the connection is an indirect one, and reflects an abuse or misrepresentation of the practice as reflected in Smith’s translations and revelations rather than the practice itself. Chief among those who invoked Joseph Smith’s name “to carry on their iniquitous designs” was John C. Bennett. Bennett had helped obtain the charter for the city and was a major general in the Nauvoo Legion, a prominent Mason, the mayor of Nauvoo, and a member of the First Presidency of the church. While the journal and other documents indicate that Joseph Smith initially reproved Bennett privately for his immoral behavior, Bennett was eventually expelled from the Masonic lodge, dishonorably discharged from the Nauvoo Legion, and excommunicated from the church. Faced with censure from many directions, Bennett resigned as mayor, left Nauvoo, and wrote emotionally charged letters to the Sangamo Journal and other newspapers accusing Smith and other church leaders of a variety of crimes and improprieties. Bennett also lectured for pay against Joseph Smith and Mormonism in several eastern cities and eventually published a book attacking the church and its leader.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among the best-documented examples of plural marriage involving Joseph Smith during this period are his marriages to Sarah Ann Whitney and Eliza R. Snow. (Revelation, 27 July 1842, in Revelations Collection, CHL; Blessing, JS to Sarah Ann Whitney, Nauvoo, IL, 23 Mar. 1843, Whitney Family Documents, CHL; Sarah Ann Whitney Kimball, Affidavit, Salt Lake Co., Utah Territory, 19 June 1869, in Joseph F. Smith, Affidavits about Celestial Marriage, 1:36, 4:36; Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, 68; Eliza R. Snow, Affidavit, Salt Lake Co., Utah Territory, 7 June 1869, in Joseph F. Smith, Affidavits about Celestial Marriage, 1:25; Beecher, Personal Writings of Eliza R. Snow, 16–17. For evidence that others were practicing it as well, see Clayton, Journal, 27 Apr. 1843.)
Comprehensive Works CitedRevelations Collection, 1831–ca. 1844, 1847, 1861, ca. 1876. CHL. MS 4583.Whitney Family Documents, 1843–1844, 1912. CHL. MS 17390.Smith, Joseph F. Affidavits about Celestial Marriage, 1869–1915. CHL. MS 3423.Snow, Eliza R. Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1884.Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach, ed. The Personal Writings of Eliza Roxcy Snow. Life Writings of Frontier Women 5. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 2000.Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

Many accounts about plural marriage in Nauvoo during Joseph Smith’s lifetime were recorded decades after the events they describe. Similarly, most of the affidavits about plural marriage that authors cite were collected decades after the church left Nauvoo. Given the selective and social nature of human memory and its susceptibility to being influenced by more recent events, such reminiscent accounts must be used with caution when attempting to reconstruct past events and practices. Moreover, most of these affidavits were gathered in response to a concerted effort by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to deny that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage and to lay the practice at the feet of Brigham Young after Smith’s death. In response, a number of women who had been sealed to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo prepared formal statements about their marriages. As with the affidavits, personal motives influenced the reports of disaffected members of the church in Nauvoo as well. (See Thelen, “Memory and American History,” 1117–1129.)
Comprehensive Works CitedThelen, David. “Memory and American History.” The Journal of American History 75, no. 4 (Mar. 1989): 1117–1129.

User avatar
JandD6572
captain of 100
Posts: 292

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by JandD6572 »

Luke wrote: March 20th, 2023, 8:21 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: March 20th, 2023, 8:08 am Luke, I’m serious when I asked you to back up your claim w/ scripture about condemning the entire human family for not promoting and accepting polygamy as the only path to salvation. Pick any chapter/verse other than Shady 132.
Section 131 then.

I'm also not going to engage any further in this because I'm not going to have the same old discussion where you dismiss 132 before the conversation even begins. Not happening mate.
So let me ask you, Luke, for those of us who do not accept this practice, just where are we (those who do not accept) damned to? It surely isn't hell, at least not by your church's teachings. and if it isn't hell, then no on is really damned. I always enjoyed my debates during PH class, when some idiot would say how damned one is if they did not attain the celestial kingdom. Oh, is that right, I would say. tell me, you say that those who do not attain the highest kingdom, will receive a lesser kingdom, correct? all three kingdoms are kingdoms of God, yet, by the churches logic, the first two are considered damned? how is this so? dwelling forever in a kingdom of God, and yet being damned. Even dwelling within the second kingdom, where Christ dwells, we are considered "damned" If being able to dwell with Christ for eternity, in the second kingdom, makes us damned, then why accept anything at all? you Mormons logic can be pathetic sometimes. But none of us are a judge, meaning we don't retain the right to set final judgment on where one will be when leaving this earth, but here the Mormons are, placing final judgment on all who do not believe in their false and cult practices.
Last edited by JandD6572 on March 21st, 2023, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JandD6572
captain of 100
Posts: 292

Re: Cleansing of the Church

Post by JandD6572 »

so, halfway through this thread, making a few comments of my own along the way, I just said the hell with it and stopped reading any further. none of us are damned anyway. Why? because the flipping nonstop debate about polygamy isn't even a thing right now. It isn't something legal, we can't just marry more than one wife, so the problem and debate are solved. whatever was in the early days of the church, that salvation or damnation is on them, today, there is no polygamy. therefore, no one is damned whether they believe it or not, because you can't practice it anyway. for heaven's sake, how the hell is anyone damned for something that isn't even legal? either you believe in the church and obey the laws of the land, or you don't. this church is the biggest contradicting religion I know. sheeez.

Post Reply