Episcopalians Flounder..Will Lds Follow?

[WalkerW]

Its only ironic if you think the liberal churches made the changes to preserve membership numbers...

Depends on what the change is. However, I found it ironic in light of Libs' initial comment:

Most U.S. Churches have dwindled in membership, including conservative churches, over the past 20-30 years or so. A lot of people feel they can no longer relate to the more conservative churches. These churches are not keeping up with cultural changes and seem archaic to many people, especially the young.

Edited July 16, 2012 by WalkerW

[bu11fr0g]

The excommunicated congregations are hard to find. The two I personally know of were a congregation in Taiwan that joined in totality the church. But they kept doing things there own way and the minister refused to be released. Then he started changing doctrines he didnt like.

Another was a stake president in Louisiana who said it was the second coming and everyone had to move to Jackson Co. He then separated when the apostles did not agree and started making his own commandments.

In Nigeria, the church leaders would demand kickbacks of money and the mission president had to ex the leadership of several congregations.

I have heard of a similar problem in France.

[selek1]

And the blood atonement one I think has been practiced several times in church history. Some men were castrated or put to death on different occasions. And the MMM is one where it was carried out.

These statements are all demonstrably false.

You need better sources, and may begin here, here, and here.

Even a cursory reading of these three links (and none of them are all that long) will demonstrate where you've been lied to.

http://www.truthandg...7castration.htm (Yes, I know it is probably an anti mormon site. But is all anti stuff false?)

Every last word- including the "and"s and "the"s.

Thanks for your honesty. I really believe the church needs to own and not misrepresent the polygamy issue.

Call For References, please.

Please provide factual evidence which demonstrates that the Church is, in fact, hiding or misrepresenting "the polygamy issue".

Since the misunderstanding appears to lie primarily in your interpretation of the concept, I don't think you can. (You may, of course, take that as a challenge, if you like.)

No one told me before I made sacred covenants in the temple that this would occur in the hereafter.

Since any such occurence will take place on a case-by-case basis, there was no need to do so.

Just as there was no need for the nurse to warn you as you left the hospital in your bassinette that you might one day be involved in a car accident.

Let me put your mind at rest: you will not be roped into anything in the eternities. You will not be sealed against your will to anyone. No ordinance performed will have any efficacy without your consent. No choices will be forced upon you. Whether in this life or in the hereafter, you will retain your full agency.

[ERayR]

And the blood atonement one I think has been practiced several times in church history. Some men were castrated or put to death on different occasions. And the MMM is one where it was carried out.

http://www.truthandg...7castration.htm (Yes, I know it is probably an anti mormon site. But is all anti stuff false?)

If you are ever going to salvage your testimony you need to quit giving unquestioned belief in these Anti sites.

[Tacenda]

These statements are all demonstrably false.

You need better sources, and may begin here, here, and here.

Even a cursory reading of these three links (and none of them are all that long) will demonstrate where you've been lied to.

Every last word- including the "and"s and "the"s.

Call For References, please.

Please provide factual evidence which demonstrates that the Church is, in fact, hiding or misrepresenting "the polygamy issue".

Since the misunderstanding appears to lie primarily in your interpretation of the concept, I don't think you can. (You may, of course, take that as a challenge, if you like.)

Since any such occurence will take place on a case-by-case basis, there was no need to do so.

Just as there was no need for the nurse to warn you as you left the hospital in your bassinette that you might one day be involved in a car accident.

Let me put your mind at rest: you will not be roped into anything in the eternities. You will not be sealed against your will to anyone. No ordinance performed will have any efficacy without your consent. No choices will be forced upon you. Whether in this life or in the hereafter, you will retain your full agency.

Please Selek1, tell me where they got it wrong in the statements below. You said every word of it is false. Prove it!

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them....

"And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man."

~~ Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Mormon Church's Deseret News, 1856, page 235.

On another occasion Brigham Young made this chilling statement regarding a person's obligation to spill the blood of those who committed serious sins:

"Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved... and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, 'shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?'

"All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant....

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance... if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the Devil... I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them....

"This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.... if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind."

~~ Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857; printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 219-220

In 1958, Gustive O. Larson, Professor of Church History at the church's Brigham Young University, acknowledged that blood atonement was actually

practiced. He related the following:

"To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his stepdaughter by a bishop's court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] Reformation."

~~ Utah Historical Quarterly, January, 1958, page 62, note 39

This...case [is] spoken of by John D. Lee, who was sealed to Brigham Young and was a member of Young's secret Council of Fifty:

"The most deadly sin among the people was adultery, and many men were killed in Utah for the crime.

"Rasmos Anderson was a Danish man who came to Utah... He had married a widow lady somewhat older than himself... At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery... they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter.

"This Council was composed of Klingensmith and his two counselors; it was the Bishop's Council. Without giving Anderson any chance to defend himself or make a statement, the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections... His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried... she being directed to tell those who should inquire after her husband that he had gone to California.

"Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey Council. Anderson got up... and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the "Almighty God." They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.

"As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash... She obeyed their orders.... Anderson was killed just before the Mountain Meadows massacre. The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act. It was justified by all the people, for they were bound by the same covenants, and the least word of objection to thus treating the man who had broken his covenant would have brought the same fate upon the person who was so foolish as to raise his voice against any act committed by order of the Church authorities."

~~ Confessions of John D. Lee, Photo-reprint of 1877 edition, pages 282-283

In the same book John D. Lee made this startling statement:

"I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo... and I know of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and his Apostles while the Church was there."

~~ Ibid., page 284

Lee also revealed another very cruel practice which took place both in Nauvoo, Illinois, and in early Utah:

"In Utah it has been the custom with the Priesthood to make eunuchs of such men as were obnoxious to the leaders. This was done for a double purpose: first, it gave a perfect revenge, and next, it left the poor victim a living example to others of the dangers of disobeying counsel and not living as ordered by the Priesthood.

"In Nauvoo it was the orders from Joseph Smith and his apostles to beat, wound and castrate all Gentiles that the police could take in the act of entering or leaving a Mormon household under circumstances that led to the belief that they had been there for immoral purposes.... In Utah it was the favorite revenge of old, worn-out members of the Priesthood, who wanted young women sealed to them, and found that the girl preferred some handsome young man. The old priests generally got the girls, and many a young man was unsexed for refusing to give up his sweetheart at the request of an old and failing, but still sensual apostle or member of the Priesthood.

~~ Ibid., pages 284-286

Edited July 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[selek1]

Please Selek1, tell me where they got it wrong in the statements below. You said every word of it is false. Prove it!

I already did.

Have you read the links I offered you?

[Tacenda]

I already did.

Have you read the links I offered you?

Yes, but the links don't have those statements up and point by point refute them!

[Mark Beesley]

Tacenda,

A word of caution. The reference source a lot of folks use for some of the more slanderous claims against the Church is Mormonism Unveiled; or, The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee. This book was not written by John Lee. Lee was in in prison for his role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He signed over the rights to his story to his attorney, and the book was written by his attorney (contrary to the assertion of the publisher), mostly manufactured out of whole cloth. I would not believe anything coming from that publication.

[Tacenda]

These statements are all demonstrably false.

You need better sources, and may begin here, here, and here.

Even a cursory reading of these three links (and none of them are all that long) will demonstrate where you've been lied to.

Every last word- including the "and"s and "the"s.

Call For References, please.

Please provide factual evidence which demonstrates that the Church is, in fact, hiding or misrepresenting "the polygamy issue".

Since the misunderstanding appears to lie primarily in your interpretation of the concept, I don't think you can. (You may, of course, take that as a challenge, if you like.)

Since any such occurence will take place on a case-by-case basis, there was no need to do so.

Just as there was no need for the nurse to warn you as you left the hospital in your bassinette that you might one day be involved in a car accident.

Let me put your mind at rest: you will not be roped into anything in the eternities. You will not be sealed against your will to anyone. No ordinance performed will have any efficacy without your consent. No choices will be forced upon you. Whether in this life or in the hereafter, you will retain your full agency.

You asked me to show where polygamy is hidden. Please check the following church website below for the answer.

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

Now please click on Joseph Smith, Jr. and click Significant Events, it lists a marriage with one wife. Now do the same for Brigham Young and click Significant Events. It doesn't list any marriage. And this continues with several of the presidents up until George A. Smith where it once again lists the marriage with one wife.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

You asked me to show where polygamy is hidden. Please check the following church website below for the answer.

http://www.lds.org/c...nts/leaders.jsp

Now please click on Joseph Smith, Jr. and click Significant Events, it lists a marriage with one wife. Now do the same for Brigham Young and click Significant Events. It doesn't list any marriage. And this continues with several of the presidents up until George A. Smith where it once again lists the marriage with one wife.

Please check the D & C.

[selek1]

I'm sorry- I didn't realize that you wanted me to chew your food as well as spoon feeding it to you.

Very well:

This first few quotes of the hit pieces you cite come from the Journal of Discourses, primarily "Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4 ".

First and foremost, the Journal of Discourses is NOT an authoritative source of Church doctrine. It was neither compiled nor published by the Church, let alone sustained as doctrinal by any of the Church leadership, let alone by the membership.

More significantly, that particular sermon and the concept of Blood Atonement were repudiated by name by the First Presidency.

From the second link I offered:

In 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote: Question 9: Do you believe in "blood-atonement," or in other words, do you accept and believe in the principles taught in Brigham Young's sermon of 8th of February, 1857, Journal of Discourses, volume 4, pages 219, 220? Answer: We believe in "blood atonement" by the sacrifice of the Savior, also that which is declared in Genesis 9:6. A capital sin committed by a man who has entered into the everlasting covenant merits capital punishment, which is the only atonement he can offer. But the penalty must be executed by an officer legally appointed under the law of the land.^[1]

In 1958, Gustive O. Larson, Professor of Church History at the church's Brigham Young University, acknowledged that blood atonement was actually practiced.

He did nothing of the sort.

He related the following:

"To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement MAY have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his stepdaughter by a bishop's court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] Reformation."

~~ Utah Historical Quarterly, January, 1958, page 62, note 39

Note the emphasis. Professor Larson was offering a speculation- not a statement of fact. Note that the case of Mr. Johnson of Cedar City is "verbally reported"- not documented.

It is, in fact, mere hearsay.

Nowhere, if fact, does Professor Larson state that this was an operative case of "blood atonement"- only that it might have fit into his understanding of that framework.

The second series of hit pieces purports to address testimony and incidents witnessed by John D. Lee- the only man convicted and executed for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

What is important to note is that Lee's diary is not a reliable historical document. As payment of his legal fees, Lee willed the journal to his lawyer- who subsequently embellished a great number of details to increase its resale value.

It is- historically speaking- every bit as valuable and reliable as the Ben Affleck "Pearl Harbor" movie- (in other words, factually and historically worthless).

More specifically, here is an official declaration made by the First Presidency in 1889 (from the second link I gave you).

This declaration reads, in part:

Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury. We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.^[6]

...a member of Young's secret Council of Fifty:

So secret, in fact, that I have not been able to find any reputable record of it. In fact, I haven't been able to find a single reputable source to corroborate any of the details of the Rasmos Anderson account.

Every available source defaults back to Lee's diary.

What do you call a person who exists only in a single source of questionable authenticity?

We know that the three other accounts mentioned in the diary excerpt are either demonstrably false or unlikely at best.

We have no reason to suspect the Anderson account to be any more reliable.

Edited July 17, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

You asked me to show where polygamy is hidden. Please check the following church website below for the answer.

http://www.lds.org/c...nts/leaders.jsp

Now please click on Joseph Smith, Jr. and click Significant Events, it lists a marriage with one wife. Now do the same for Brigham Young and click Significant Events. It doesn't list any marriage. And this continues with several of the presidents up until George A. Smith where it once again lists the marriage with one wife.

Now you're just trolling.

I notice that the same website only mentions the birth of a very few children. Yet only a pernicious fool would insist that we are somehow hiding the fact that these men were in fact fathers and patriarchs.

In point of fact, going to the LDS.org website and typing in "polygamy" produces 99 hits, including the following link:

http://www.mormonnew...my-then-and-now

The Neal A Maxwell institute generates 156 hits.

FAIRLDS generates over a thousand.

On Google, "LDS polygamy history" generates 509,000 hits.

"LDS polygamy in heaven" generates 913,000 hits.

I really am tired of lazy would-be Saints who complain that the Church doesn't deliver history in suppository format.

Your salvation is your responsibility.

It is an active process. Like exercise and diet, you have to get off your couch and do things for yourself instead of expecting them to simply be delivered on a platter.

To pretend otherwise is to be a lazy, slothful servant.

You either choose to be exalted, or you choose a lesser fate. Either way, the choice- and the consequences thereof- are yours.

I offer you an immutable truth: there will be no "passive victims" in the Celestial Kingdom.

There will be no check-valves or idle reposers who inherit the fullness of the Kingdom of God.

Edited July 17, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

Now you're just trolling.

I notice that the same website only mentions the birth of a very few children. Yet only a pernicious fool would insist that we are somehow hiding the fact that these men were in fact fathers and patriarchs.

In point of fact, going to the LDS.org website and typing in "polygamy" produces 99 hits, including the following link:

http://www.mormonnew...my-then-and-now

The Neal A Maxwell institute generates 156 hits.

FAIRLDS generates over a thousand.

On Google, "LDS polygamy history" generates 509,000 hits.

"LDS polygamy in heaven" generates 913,000 hits.

I really am tired of lazy would-be Saints who complain that the Church doesn't deliver history in suppository format.

Your salvation is your responsibility.

It is an active process. Like exercise and diet, you have to get off your couch and do things for yourself instead of expecting them to simply be delivered on a platter.

To pretend otherwise is to be a lazy, slothful servant.

You either choose to be exalted, or you choose a lesser fate. Either way, the choice- and the consequences thereof- are yours.

I offer you an immutable truth: there will be no "passive victims" in the Celestial Kingdom.

There will be no check-valves or idle reposers who inherit the fullness of the Kingdom of God.

I'm sorry but you never address anything I have to say but I'm expected to heel at your every whim.

[Tacenda]

Now you're just trolling.

I notice that the same website only mentions the birth of a very few children. Yet only a pernicious fool would insist that we are somehow hiding the fact that these men were in fact fathers and patriarchs.

In point of fact, going to the LDS.org website and typing in "polygamy" produces 99 hits, including the following link:

http://www.mormonnew...my-then-and-now

The Neal A Maxwell institute generates 156 hits.

FAIRLDS generates over a thousand.

On Google, "LDS polygamy history" generates 509,000 hits.

"LDS polygamy in heaven" generates 913,000 hits.

I really am tired of lazy would-be Saints who complain that the Church doesn't deliver history in suppository format.

Your salvation is your responsibility.

It is an active process. Like exercise and diet, you have to get off your couch and do things for yourself instead of expecting them to simply be delivered on a platter.

To pretend otherwise is to be a lazy, slothful servant.

You either choose to be exalted, or you choose a lesser fate. Either way, the choice- and the consequences thereof- are yours.

I offer you an immutable truth: there will be no "passive victims" in the Celestial Kingdom.

There will be no check-valves or idle reposers who inherit the fullness of the Kingdom of God.

I believe it is my responsibility to turn every stone and look around every corner before I succomb to any authority or church system that asks for all my time, talents and everything of which I own, to the them. Therefore I need to scrutinize it and fact find everything I can. You don't need to respond to my lazy approach any longer, you can move on to people that know the church is true without the facts, just faith.

[selek1]

I'm sorry but you never address anything I have to say but I'm expected to heel at your every whim.

First and foremost, I have addressed your complaints. Several times. As have many others here.

Yet in every case, you reject evidence that does not reinforce what you have heard from anti-Mormon sources out of hand.

Your favorite response is some variation on "Yeah, but...."

That is, of course, your prerogative- but after the fiftieth iteration, we are under no obligation to pretend that you are asking good faith or are truly interested in our responses.

Second, I never use the word "heel" in relation to any female of my acquaintance.

Perhaps its an artifact of my Mormon egalitarianism, my Southern-bred impulse towards chivalry, or the fact that my mother and grandmother would've washed my mouth out with soap and whipped my hide with a hickory switch.

Whatever the case, I've learned to be respectful and admiring of strong and intelligent women- and have little patience for any other kind.

I believe it is my responsibility to turn every stone and look around every corner before I succomb to any authority or church system that asks for all my time, talents and everything of which I own, to the them.

Ironically, this characterization of the Church is neither fair nor accurate- it is, in fact, an anti-Mormon talking point.

Of greater irony, of course, is the fact that no one here has asked you to do otherwise.

In fact, the worst thing we have demanded of you is that you exercise a little less credulousness.

Therefore I need to scrutinize it and fact find everything I can. You don't need to respond to my lazy approach any longer, you can move on to people that know the church is true without the facts, just faith.

There is a vast difference between "scrutinizing and examining every fact you find" and "demanding that the Saints teach you all the truths of the Universe whilst standing on one foot."

The former is laudible. The latter is tendentious, assinine, and tiresome.

Your final characterization- as with so many others- is simply false, and designed to stroke your facade of victimhood.

I- and so many others- have responded with facts. We have made every effort to respond to your queries in good faith, with demonstrable evidence, documented fact, and verifiable truths.

You simply refuse to acknowledge them.

Edited July 17, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

First and foremost, I have addressed your complaints. Several times.

Second, I never use the word "heel" in relation to any female of my acquaintance.

Perhaps its an artifact of me Mormon egalitarianism, my Southern-bred impulse towards chivalry, or the fact that my mother and grandmother would've washed my mouth out with soap and whip my hide with a hickory switch.

Whatever the case, I've learned to be respectful and admiring of strong and intelligent woman- and have little patience for any other kind.

And that would be me?

[selek1]

And that would be me?

Tacenda- I have made every effort to turn this conversation towards facts, evidence, and a rationale analysis of both.

You seem to be fixated on interpreting everything that is said into a personal attack.

That is a diversion, at best.

The bottom line is that everyone of your insinuations and accusations vis-a-vis blood atonement and cover-up has been refuted.

Can you address that? Or not?

[Carborendum]

Is this the inevitable fate of all orthodox religions during this time of social upheaval?

Can this happen to the LDS Church too?

I was at first having difficulty grasping the motive behind the question. The article was showing how the Episcopal LEADERSHIP became way too liberalized, way too fast. And the membership wouldn't stand for heresy from their own leadership. The leadership of the LDS Church has made minor changes year by year, generation by generation, but no overnight sweeping changes. What would be the justification of the membership falling away from the Church when their leaders have been pretty steadfast for the past 180+ years?

THEN IT DAWNED ON ME. Bernard was HOPING that the liberal membership could fall away from the church and form its own offshoot sect. I can make no other sense of asking this question by referencing the article about the Episcopals.

As for the changes that were "liberalizing" our faith, I give you the philosophy of the reed.

A reed has its roots in the soft soil. But water protects it as well as the roots in the soil. But when the storm blows there are two additional mechanisms that protect it.

1) Reeds bend with the wind.

2) A mass of reeds create a wall against the wind. By joining together, the roots are never removed.

The Church has bent with the wind. But ever since the restoration, the roots have never been removed. Those who do not firmly plant their roots in good soil will be torn away. Also those who refuse to bend with the wind will be destroyed. But those who plant their roots in gospel soil and who band together with others who do likewise, will pass the test.

Those that want too much change have not planted their roots in firm soil. They just like to float on the water. At the same time, those who are too rigid in their thinking about "the old ways" also may find some bending with the wind to be heresy and will be broken.

If we are to pass the test, we must have faith that the Lord will guide us. And we will do what He wants, not what we want.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda- I have made every effort to turn this conversation towards facts, evidence, and a rationale analysis of both.

You seem to be fixated on interpreting everything that is said into a personal attack.

That is a diversion, at best.

The bottom line is that everyone of your insinuations and accusations vis-a-vis blood atonement and cover-up has been refuted.

Can you address that? Or not?

I didn't take anything you said personally. I just don't get how you don't acknowledge the church website that left off wives of several but listed only a few presidents wives. (It would have looked better had they left off all of them instead IMO). It would seem more credible to me if you would say something about a particlar posit of mine. And see where I'm coming from. Edited July 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[cwald]

No sweeping changes? Are you joking? Starting polygamy, and then ending polygamy....were not sweeping changes?

Allowing blacks the priesthood, and admitting female and male blacks into the temple were not sweeping changes?

Edited July 17, 2012 by cwald

[selek1]

I didn't take anything you said personally. I just don't get how you don't acknowledge the church website that left off wives of several but listed only a few presidents wives.( It would have looked better had they left off all of them instead IMO).

Where did I deny it?

Nowhere did I refuse to acknowledge it- my entire point was that it is irrelevant and doesn't support your claim that polygamy is "hidden" or misrepresented.

It would seem more credible to me if you would say something about a particlar posit of mine. And see where I'm coming from.

If direct quotations and personalized responses aren't enough, then I have no idea what would qualify.

[cwald]

Tacenda....even I would not put too much trust in J. Lee's biography. ...but it is still absolutely true that BY taught Blood Oath on the temple. I don't know if it was ever practiced or utilized. But it was certainly part of the temple ceremony.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda....even I would not put too much trust in J. Lee's biography. ...but it is still absolutely true that BY taught BlooYoud Oath on the temple. I don't know if it was ever practiced or utilized. But it was certainly part of the temple ceremony.

I did read a book about J. Lee and that he was the adopted son of BY. Poor fella was the fall guy for all of the others, which included a stake president. I think it looks better for these men if it is blood atonement, instead of just cold blooded killers.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda....even I would not put too much trust in J. Lee's biography. ...but it is still absolutely true that BY taught Blood Oath on the temple. I don't know if it was ever practiced or utilized. But it was certainly part of the temple ceremony.

In my opinion it was practiced, in a meadow somewhere.

[cwald]

Okay.