Warts and all kind of history

[e=mc2]

But that's only a "pea" compared to the "mountain" that Dr. Tarski has on his side of the argument...don't forget that.

In Tarski's mind, I have no doubt. The writings of Dr. Peterson on precisely this issue Tarski brings up is the Everest of which critics continually ignore. None of them have climbed it, many have apparently tried a smidgin and promptly petered out. If critics ever legitimately, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word, legitimately attempted to truly get the mass of these writings, that alone wold take them a few years to simply read them. Refute them? Ha! I mean HA! I speak with impeccible authority on this, it has taken me a few years to read what this man has written, and not a wasted moment in the process, not one wasted moment.....pure hedonism and pleasure.

[JLFuller]

For me, at least, the faith plays a part in the things I cannot see - i.e. God the Father, Jesus Christ, Heaven. I have faith that those exist. It took great faith for me to make the leap from Catholocism to Mormonism after much study, but now I no longer have the faith I did that Joseph Smith is a prophet, because there is too much evidence against it, that for me no amount of faith could overcome.

I understand what you are saying about Joseph. I disagree with your conclusions though. Someday we will have the whole story. Right now we don't. All we have is half the story and that isn't enough to make me give up anyway. I wouldn't give up because Joseph Smith is not the foundation of my faith. I cannot deny the manifestations of the Holy Ghost any more than I can deny my mothers love. In fact I would doubt her love before I would doubt the Holy Ghost. I am truly sorry you never had that confirmation.

[Tabitha]

I think that the skeptics and persecutors of the Church, if they are going to demand that the Church "come clean" on its history, need to also "come clean" on theirs.

Do you want to know my history? I attended seminary faithfully. I refused to marry my high school boyfriend until he went on a mission. Then, after getting my heart broken at BYU, I went on my own mission. I married in the temple, followed the prophet to stay home with my children, even though we had no other income at the time than from my job. I took names to the temple. I prepared casseroles for new mothers, sewed quilts and baby blankets for the people of Kosovo. I've cleaned the church, taught lessons, spent a year teaching the Sunbeams (that alone qualifies me for the CK), organized and directed monthly enrichment meetings, knocked on doors and taught lessons as a ward missionary, played the piano and organ in addition to three other callings, did daily scripture study my whole adult life- not to mention prayer, fasting, tithing, fast offerings, ward council meetings, stake leadership meetings.... I could go on.

What gives you the right to judge someone's spirituality? We all draw different conclusions based on many factors- our life experiences, our personalities- the inner yearnings of our hearts that only God knows. I'm just grateful it is God that will judge us and not you.

But I hate to get into all this. Frankly, I hate to admit, even in the anonymity of this forum, that I don't believe. It's not that I'm ashamed of what I think, it's that I realize what a tender, emotional issue this is for all of us. I don't want to be the one to throw doubt or confusion into anyone else's life. But, I admit I have used this forum for selfish reasons- because it is the only place I have to share what I really feel. There is not one person in my immediate circle that I can talk to about it- only God, and it feels kind of lonely sometimes. I can't share how I feel on other apostate websites- because they don't tend to reflect (at all usually) the other beliefs I have. So there really is no place for people like me- maybe there's only a few of us in the whole church. I suppose I won't get any sympathy for this, but when everyone has such a vested interest in these things, I really can't expect to.

I just want you to understand that, even though I am what you call "apostate," I am still a good person. If you prick us, do we not bleed? I am not perfect, none of us are. Perhaps you can look at me the same way I look at my liberal mother- well-meaning but hopelessly deceived.

Tabitha

[Tarski]

My good holy loving hell dude, he has been doing so for over 20 years.... years(!), and has well over 20,000 pages written, published, and processed on precisely this. and yes, I really have actually read what he writes, and continue to do so.......truly.

20,000 pages of material--all good evidence. That's 50 to 100 big books. Volumes and volumes of evidence--right? And, yet he will not talk about it online. I can't get one example, to DISCUSS, beyond the eight witnesses (I am assuming it isn't just 20,000 pages of hints, types and shadows). The problem is that I have specific questions, obstacles, to the truth of the church. I have for a long time. I asked them desperately when I was struggling to be a believer. They involve scientific matters, philosophical matters and questions even about common sense. It was always fun to be blown off, or have my worthiness or motives questioned.

20,000 pages of evidence for the truthfulness of the Mormon church? That ought to be more than enough to settle it really.

But why can't anyone tell me what it boils down to? What is the most important part? (20,000 pages of important convincing stuff to choose from!)

Why can't I get his answers to my questions? Surely he knows the answers if anyone does.

Give me a sample, get me started Kerry. I am ready to start on this 20,000 pages of evidence now! Tell me where to start---with that much, I would need to be told.

Wow, after 500 pages of evidence I will have only just started? Is there a chapter on the metaphysics of evolution and the morphology of the body of the Supreme Being?

Really, where do I start?? Link please.

[Greg Smith]

I need to say, again, that I find the double standard -- Grant Palmer, paragon of objectivity, to be taken at face value v. FARMS reviewers, too untrustworthy in their biases to even bother reading -- positively astonishing. Really stunning. I'm speechless. And that doesn't happen often.

My favorite part is this:

I can only go with what my gut tells me at this point while I continue to read the endless literature existing on this topic.

Now, if a Mormon appealed to a witness of the spirit or (heaven help them) what their "gut tells" them, the pouncing from the ex-Mos, never-Mos, secularists, and various hangers on would be a sight to behold.

It is especially ironic given Palmer's disdain for what a witness of the spirit can tell you that someone who finds him appealing would then turn around and rely on their 'gut.'

[e=mc2]

20,000 pages of material--all good evidence. That's 50 to 100 big books. Volumes and volumes of evidence--right? And, yet he will not talk about it online. I can't get one example, to DISCUSS, beyond the eight witnesses (I am assuming it isn't just 20,000 pages of hints, types and shadows). The problem is that I have specific questions, obstacles, to the truth of the church. I have for a long time. I asked them desperately when I was struggling to be a believer. They involve scientific matters, philosophical matters and questions even about common sense. It was always fun to be blown off, or have my worthiness or motives questioned.

20,000 pages of evidence for the truthfulness of the Mormon church? That ought to be more than enough to settle it really.

But why can't anyone tell me what it boils down to? What is the most important part? (20,000 pages of important convincing stuff to choose from!)

Why can't I get his answers to my questions? Surely he knows the answers if anyone does.

Give me a sample, get me started Kerry. I am ready to start on this 20,000 pages of evidence now! Tell me where to start---with that much, I would need to be told.

Wow, after 500 pages of evidence I will have only just started? Is there a chapter on the metaphysics of evolution and the morphology of the body of the Supreme Being?

Really, where do I start?? Link please.

Assuming you are being sincere........here is your link. When you finish these, we can talk intelligently. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/

[e=mc2]

20,000 pages of material--all good evidence. That's 50 to 100 big books. Volumes and volumes of evidence--right? And, yet he will not talk about it online. I can't get one example, to DISCUSS, beyond the eight witnesses (I am assuming it isn't just 20,000 pages of hints, types and shadows). The problem is that I have specific questions, obstacles, to the truth of the church. I have for a long time. I asked them desperately when I was struggling to be a believer. They involve scientific matters, philosophical matters and questions even about common sense. It was always fun to be blown off, or have my worthiness or motives questioned.

20,000 pages of evidence for the truthfulness of the Mormon church? That ought to be more than enough to settle it really.

But why can't anyone tell me what it boils down to? What is the most important part? (20,000 pages of important convincing stuff to choose from!)

Why can't I get his answers to my questions? Surely he knows the answers if anyone does.

Give me a sample, get me started Kerry. I am ready to start on this 20,000 pages of evidence now! Tell me where to start---with that much, I would need to be told.

Wow, after 500 pages of evidence I will have only just started? Is there a chapter on the metaphysics of evolution and the morphology of the body of the Supreme Being?

Really, where do I start?? Link please.

And for a very specific Daniel C. Peterson piece that I found quite strong. Read with an honest open heart and desire to really understand there is little else that will match this. Don't just skim, don't try to read with the intent of being skeptical, doubtful, negative, simply read it. Understand his points. It is a very worthy piece to get you started on a Peterson piece of writing, sincerely. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?b...8&chapid=46

[e=mc2]

And for a very specific Daniel C. Peterson piece that I found quite strong. Read with an honest open heart and desire to really understand there is little else that will match this. Don't just skim, don't try to read with the intent of being skeptical, doubtful, negative, simply read it. Understand his points. It is a very worthy piece to get you started on a Peterson piece of writing, sincerely. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?b...8&chapid=46

The other Peterson article that I have found seriously well researched, reasonably argued, logically fecund, and quite frankly a nightmare to anti-Mormons who argue with this evidence is this one: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=37

No, it does NOT prove the Book of Mormon true. Nothing any of we Mormons write do that. What it does do is shows we are serious that it is possible to show the Book of Mormon is serious. We are serious when we say there really *IS* a serious possibility that the Book of Mormon is true. And we are absolutely serious when we say if you are serious about learning it, understanding it, then you can.

Sincerely Tarski, all egoism aside. These two articles by Dr. Peterson can be a decent start to learning more. Are you actually willing, finally, to learn about the Book of Mormon from one who has spent a lifetime in it? If so these two are the two I would start you at.

[Free Agent]

I need to say, again, that I find the double standard -- Grant Palmer, paragon of objectivity, to be taken at face value v. FARMS reviewers, too untrustworthy in their biases to even bother reading -- positively astonishing. Really stunning. I'm speechless. And that doesn't happen often.

Please don't mistake my silence of the last several hours as cowering in the corner because your words struck home. My how you like to twist things. Whatever makes you feel better. I am glad I made you speechless, perhaps we will get a break from your snide, unthoughtful, condescending remarks directed at people who have come to a different conclusion as you.

If you reread my posts I offered up Grant Palmer as a place to start tipping the scale, or at least making it uneven. I've read many books, and early on many Farms and Fair articles and truthfully I have grown weary of the "he said, she said" of all of it. I am coming out of the period of the last two years just getting over the realization that something that I once held dear is not what I believed to my core it was. My witness of the Holy Spirit was valid when it witnessed the truth to me years ago that I was joining the true Church, based on the knowledge I had at that point. I now see differently.

Pity the poor person who happens upon this site and asks a well meaning question because they are struggling and is met by the likes of you. Such compassion!

[Daniel Peterson]

Please don't mistake my silence of the last several hours as cowering in the corner because your words struck home. My how you like to twist things. Whatever makes you feel better. I am glad I made you speechless, perhaps we will get a break from your snide, unthoughtful, condescending remarks directed at people who have come to a different conclusion as you. . . .

Pity the poor person who happens upon this site and asks a well meaning question because they are struggling and is met by the likes of you. Such compassion!

Let's just stipulate the fact that I'm a heartless, brutal, arrogant, vicious person, okay?

That way, we can actually discuss issues.

If you reread my posts I offered up Grant Palmer as a place to start tipping the scale, or at least making it uneven.

And I unthoughtfully, condescendingly, snidely, and cruelly pointed out that your prime exhibit from Grant Palmer, the supposed parallel between E. T. A. Hofmann's Der goldne Topf and the story of Joseph Smith and Moroni, is extraordinarily weak and hasn't been accepted by a single serious scholar, believer or unbeliever.

I viciously asked you whether you had actually read Hofmann's tale yourself, or whether, instead, you were relying entirely upon Mr. Palmer's carefully spun and selected summary of the story. You said that you had not actually read Hofmann's tale yourself. This was very thoughtless of me, not to say condescending, and I have clearly twisted what you said in some way, somehow. (Can you please clarify how?)

I arrogantly suggested that you read Hofmann's story for yourself, and even, with appalling viciousness, mentioned some reviews of Mr. Palmer's book -- including two that specifically critique his use of the Hofmann novella -- that it might be useful for you to read. You dismissed the suggested reviews as too biased for you to read, which I (heartless brute that I am!) thought a bit strange.

That's the plot so far, I think.

[dude]

If anyone expects the members of the Church to be perfect. They ARE going to be disappointed.

I say its the opposite:

If anyone expects the members of the Church to be imperfect, they are going to be disappointed.

What I mean by that is I see in the church a similar "white-washing" of people's past, especially if they were members when they went prodigal for awhile. It's only "kinda" taboo to talk about your wayward past before you joined the church, but its majorly taboo in the church to talk about your sinful past after your baptism, (and maybe before your true conversion). Its as if we worry the faithful ones will get jealous or something and decide to give it a whirl.

When was the last time you heard somebody's inspiring story about their journey thru excommunication and re-baptism from the pulpit, or even at a fireside, or as a comment in sunday school? Probably never. But there are gold-mines of wisdom stuck in the goofy tradition of never letting people know you weren't perfect. If its presented without glorification, I believe our past "bad" experiences can be very worthy for even youth to hear. Its part of who we are, its led to the final product. This is on my mind right now because I currently have a new bishop who just chastized a great YW leader in our ward (TWO hours with her in his office), who dared to tell the girls her story of teen pregnancy years ago. She's an awesome example of turning your life around. Its part of who she is. Most other christian churches believe such stories of "real conversion" are inspiring. Not ours. We worry the kids will think they can get away with it. We think our kids are stupid. Here's the deal, ALL those girls already knew that leader had that in her past. We just never talk about it, but all KNOW IT, so we might as well make something constructive out of it. Its how I feel about church history too.

I believe the jacked-up past of both the church and its members can be useful to know and learn from. It can keep people from making the same mistakes.

[Tarski]

Assuming you are being sincere........here is your link. When you finish these, we can talk intelligently. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/

Is this the right link? These seem to be book reviews. Is this what was intended?

I guess I can read these, but I was expecting some sort of magnum opus of evidence and philosophical clarification.

Is this really the right place to start?

[Ray Agostini]

I believe the jacked-up past of both the church and its members can be useful to know and learn from. It can keep people from making the same mistakes.

It's always nice to have an admission about the abomination that polygamy was. And perhaps the Church is learning. Just too bad, Mc Conkie-like, it hasn't yet fully learned its lessons from Jacob 2. I'm waiting for the announcement that "we overlooked this". The Book of Mormon was right all along - that polygamy is offensive to God, and a total abomination. And where, in the BoM, were the "exceptions" made? Did Nephi have 33 secret wives?

Jacob 2:

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old....

35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

Jacob 3:

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fatherâ??that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

Maybe an appropriate question is in order here: Are Mormons Mormon?

[Pahoran]

It's always nice to have an admission about the abomination that polygamy was.

I must have missed that "admission." Where is it?

Mormon polygamy was not an "abomination." Anyone who says it was is a false accuser.

And perhaps the Church is learning. Just too bad, Mc Conkie-like, it hasn't yet fully learned its lessons from Jacob 2. I'm waiting for the announcement that "we overlooked this". The Book of Mormon was right all along - that polygamy is offensive to God, and a total abomination.

The interpretive community that actually holds the Book of Mormon to be scripture rejects your tendentious and vicious misinterpretation. Almost unanimously.

And where, in the BoM, were the "exceptions" made? Did Nephi have 33 secret wives?

The exception, as you perfectly well know, is made in the verse you so pointedly omitted:

Jacob 2:

Jacob 3:

Where's Jacob 2:30, Ray?

Maybe an appropriate question is in order here: Are Mormons Mormon?

Perhaps you should start another thread, rather than derailing this one. Then we can see your self-righteous fanatacism and holy zealotry fully on display.

Regards,

Pahoran

[gitxsanartist]

Truth isn't subjective at all, only our interpretations of what it means are.

Your absolutely right and that is why GBH said that the restoration was either true or the biggest falsehood the world has ever seen. On most of this stuff there is not a whole lot of middle ground or grey area. Its just hard digging through all the posturing, rhetoric and obfuscation to get to the bottom of the whatever you are investigating. Unfortunately, most historian whether for or against will take a biased view of something such as religion, so it is hard to get to the facts. I don't mind that the church has warts so to speak or even that JS wasn't really a prophet, I can deal with that. So he started a religion and 180 years later it has become a mainstream christian denomination that teaches good family values and other mostly reasonable doctrine that serves to enrich our lives. The problem is when leaders try to cover the past, and change the history. I find that very distasteful and IMO quite dishonest. I say let the chips fall where they may. Honesty has and always will be the best policy.

[Ray Agostini]

Perhaps you should start another thread, rather than derailing this one. Then we can see your self-righteous fanatacism and holy zealotry fully on display.

My full and "self-righteous fanatism" is duly revealed in your BoM. If you don't abide by it, nor understand it as it was plainly written, then that would not surprise me, because not a single Mormon soul here abides by the Book of Mormon's counsel to avoid contention, either.

You serve God with your lips.

[Pahoran]

My full and "self-righteous fanatism" is duly revealed in your BoM.

Where's Jacob 2:30, Ray?

If you don't abide by it, nor understand it as it was plainly written,

Except that we do. We abide by all of it, as it was plainly written. Including Jacob 2:30, which plainly allows for God to command his people to do other than "these things" to raise up seed unto him.

then that would not surprise me, because not a single Mormon soul here abides by the Book of Mormon's counsel to avoid contention, either.

That's right, Ray. That's why we're all hanging out on a web forum dedicated to your belief system, telling you what's wrong with what you believe.

You serve God with your lips.

Among other things. The day after tomorrow is national "Mormon Helping Hands" day. I'll be serving God with my paintbrush then.

This is a discussion forum, Ray. Arrogating to your arrogant self the role of judging another's Christian walk from how he defends his faith against spiteful attacks is not your prerogative, and does not fall within the purview of this forum.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[gitxsanartist]

You know if you really want to find something against the church it's not hard to do. I find it amusing how people like to name all these sources and then you either find out they never even read them or they haven't bothered to look at the critiques of such sources. People gravitate toward that which they want to believe. I just happen to choose to believe in the church's claims. I'm with BCSpace in wanting to know what evidence the critics think is so overwhelming that I should reject the doctrine and teachings of the church and somehow re-frame the spiritual testimony I have.

polygamy-I actually accepted this back in college when I had a dear friend whose wife died and he was struggling with the problem of women who didn't want to be number 2 wife even when the first one was deceased.

14 year olds married-please get real. 14 in the 1800's is not comparable to 14 in todays society which promotes extended childhood.

Blacks and the Priesthood- a moot point now, but even before the ban was lifted I knew black members of the church whose faith was very strong; and the story of the blacks in Africa who found the church before the revelation should put any critics to shame.

BOA- just read the text. I don't care if the prophet dreamed the whole thing; it's an amazing and beautiful scripture. And the arguments about the fascimile and scraps left is just too questionable to give any credulity.

The BOM-an amazing work, a prophetic statement of our time. I am astounded when I read some of the passages and see our day. The sermons on the Atonement are profound and how anyone can read those and not get a thrill just blows my mind. Plus the idea that God actually spoke to other people is so reasonable that I never questioned it.

I'm glad you accept Polygamy and I suppose Polyandry however there are many in the church who are not so eager. In fact, my wife and I have come to the conclusion that polygamy was one of those instances where JS was acting as a man and not as a prophet. Not everything JS did or said is gospel, he even stated this himself when early converts where dismayed at his playful antics and conduct unbecoming a prophet. I think the entire church tends to deify at little too much, a more realistic view of the man is probably more accurate, warts and all. Rough Stone Rolling is a foot in the right direction.

I agree the argument is probably still out on the BOA and the BOM. The lack of any solid physical evidence for the BOM after all these years though is a bit puzzling. I think we can be quite certain that the BOA did not come directly from the papyrus that we have in our possesion to day, in fact the restored facsimile showing Abraham on the alter is obviously incorrect and I often wonder why it is not stricken from the cannon, since it is such a blatant error. The true source of the BOA is definately an unanswered question.

The ban on blacks was pure racism, pure and simple. I'll say it like it is on that one. This garbage about blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence is also non-doctrinal.

[Pahoran]

I'm glad you accept Polygamy and I suppose Polyandry however there are many in the church who are not so eager. In fact, my wife and I have come to the conclusion that polygamy was one of those instances where JS was acting as a man and not as a prophet.

Just as Abraham was, when he married four more women in his old age and had children with them, I suppose.

And as Jacob was, when he married four women, including two sisters, and the divinely given birthright descended to a son of the second of his polygamous wives.

And as Moses was, when he gave laws requiring already-married men to marry their dead brothers' widows.

Evidently your opinions--based upon uncritically accepting the shifting mores and politically correct platitudes of the dominant culture--are the unfailing guide to modern revelation.

Not everything JS did or said is gospel, he even stated this himself when early converts where dismayed at his playful antics and conduct unbecoming a prophet. I think the entire church tends to deify at little too much, a more realistic view of the man is probably more accurate, warts and all. Rough Stone Rolling is a foot in the right direction.

I must have missed the bit where it tells us that he came up with unpopular and dangerous revelations purely for fun.

I agree the argument is probably still out on the BOA and the BOM. The lack of any solid physical evidence for the BOM after all these years though is a bit puzzling.

The lack of any "smoking gun" proving it a forgery is vastly more puzzling, if it is not what it claims to be.

I think we can be quite certain that the BOA did not come directly from the papyrus that we have in our possesion to day,

As indeed the Church has been ever since it obtained the papyri in question.

in fact the restored facsimile showing Abraham on the alter is obviously incorrect and I often wonder why it is not stricken from the cannon, since it is such a blatant error.

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the post where you told us of your qualifications in egyptology. People with considerable training in that discipline disagree with you.

The true source of the BOA is definately an unanswered question.

You got that one right.

The ban on blacks was pure racism, pure and simple. I'll say it like it is on that one.

Well no, you won't. You'll say it as you see it, which is the best any of us can do anyhow; but it's a little arrogant to assume that how you see it is just the way it is. That isn't true of anything, including your own reflection in the mirror.

This garbage about blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence is also non-doctrinal.

You got that one right as well.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

My witness of the Holy Spirit was valid when it witnessed the truth to me years ago that I was joining the true Church, based on the knowledge I had at that point. I now see differently.

This is my dilemma: how do you invalidate the witness of the Holy Spirit once you have had it, particularly based on incomplete or faulty evidence?

[e=mc2]

Is this the right link? These seem to be book reviews. Is this what was intended?

I guess I can read these, but I was expecting some sort of magnum opus of evidence and philosophical clarification.

Is this really the right place to start?

Yes. It is in the book reviews, among many other places, that a lot of the philosophy and understanding of our understanding of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. is. The book reivew sort of mix philosophy with history and a religious viewpoint.

[Scott26.2]

because not a single Mormon soul here abides by the Book of Mormon's counsel to avoid contention, either.

The only contention I see Ray is from your acerbic accusations and short-sighted interpretations.

Scott26.2

[LifeOnaPlate]

My respect for Ray just plummeted. Proof of his penchant for proof-texting is provided in his purposefully pilfering portions of Jacob.

Poor form.

[e=mc2]

My respect for Ray just plummeted. Proof of his penchant for proof-texting is provided in his purposefully pilfering portions of Jacob.

Poor form.

Ray is not alone in this. I have ***never*** seen critics honestly explore the entire chapter in Jacob. They ***ALWAYS*** fall short, as Pahoran has so masterfully noted of Ray not giving full context. If there is an exception to this, I would gladly like to see it. When it comes to polygamy and the Book of Mormon Not one single critic has ever been honest about it, ever.

[Ray Agostini]

Ray is not alone in this. I have ***never*** seen critics honestly explore the entire chapter in Jacob. They ***ALWAYS*** fall short, as Pahoran has so masterfully noted of Ray not giving full context. If there is an exception to this, I would gladly like to see it. When it comes to polygamy and the Book of Mormon Not one single critic has ever been honest about it, ever.

I previously had a lengthy discussion about this with Ben Mc Guire, and my recollection is that he was in two minds about the implications.

So what are you saying, that the Book of Mormon gives the green light for Celestial plural marriage, as a requirement for exaltation? Do you except that Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132 contradict one another? I think I already know your answer, because I also had this debate with Eugene England, who, incidentally, believed that plural marriage was only a "one off", part of the restoration, but unjustified as a continuing practice. Those odious Dialogue intellectuals.