John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[ERayR]

The bolded part is what concerns me. Should the church renounce polygamy in the D & C 132?

No but it is not something you teach in primary or scouts or Behives. In fact polygamy is really no longer a relevant issue . If it were to be instituted again then it would become a relevant issue.

If it is afraid of the primary children hearing of it doesn't it make it wrong somewhat?

No. It makes it an issue not relevant to that age group.

Shouldn't we think that JS was flawed and made a mistake, a terrible one?

No. Joseph revealed what God told him to do. Being obedient to God is never a mistake.

Or is polygamy a doctrine and needed for our salvation in the hereafter? Some people believe this and some don't, it's such a division that really needs to be answered by our current prophet, maybe Pres. Monson could go to the Lord in prayer for an answer,

Obviously polygamy is not necessary for our salvation right now or it would be in force, I think if you will stop and think you will realize has answer is already been voiced.

I know it's the total reason I falter in my testimony.

Why do you choose to falter over an issue that is not relevant now? Wait until it is relevant to worry about it.

[Wiki Wonka]

I believe that FAIR should not fear MormonThink. I believe that FAIR (and the church) should look at MormonThink as the tiger in "Life of Pi" -- as the "enemy" that keeps them alive and makes them stronger.

Please consider using MormonThink as a way to sharper your arguments. The issues won't go away...so use MormonThink to make your approaches stronger. Fearing MormonThink or trying to avoid/ignore/suppress it won't help anyone get stronger in faith. In my opinion, FAIR needs to become so good at what it does that MT becomes irrelevant.

Where did you get the impression that FAIR fears MormonThink?

Responding to a website is not the same as fearing them. We even include the http links to the MT pages in the FAIR Wiki, although we don't enable the click-through so that we don't drive their Google results, but the http page address links are all there nonetheless. I'm perfectly happy for people to go look at MormonThink now that the site is well-known to be a critical site.

FAIR's issue with MormonThink was never with their content - only their conclusions, and the way that they presented themselves to members. We actually have many of the original source quotes used by MT in the FAIR Wiki, and we link back to the original sources, not to a critical website which incorporates the source, which is what MT does.

The issue was with their original claims that the site was run by active members who were completely objective, and their consistent negative conclusions to the data presented.

Fortunately, David Twede took care of that when he publicly branded the site as a critical web site in the national media and then began a very public activist campaign to expose corruption in the Church. He accomplished in two weeks what FAIR hoped to accomplish in three years. MormonThink is now branded as a site critical of Mormonism.

FAIR used to receive Ask the Apologist inquiries about a site run by active members called "MormonThink." Now, FAIR receives AtA queries about a critical website called "MormonThink." As far as FAIR is concerned, we don't have to respond further.

However, I had another question for you. You said this:

"But finally, one of the biggest reported problems with the Mormon apologetic resources is that many find the tone and the tactics used by LDS apologists to be un-Christlike. I definitely believe that this is an avoidable problem, and I know that it’s something that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute are currently working on to try and fix."

I'm curious as to where you got the idea that FAIR is working on correcting something related to tone and tactics. It is not an accurate statement. We have worked on removing snark from our online resources for at least five years now, and nothing new has come up related to that. In fact, to members of FAIR, your statement is like saying that FAIR members used to beat their spouses, but thankfully they are now working to correct it.

I suspect that your source for that information might be a bit rusty.

WW

Edited February 13, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[Tacenda]

Here's the thing ERayR, if it is revelant in the hereafter I need to know. Why are we afraid of stating what has been taught in the earlier church if it isn't wrong? We don't think it is revelant? Then is temple worship revelant? How are we to be Gods/Goddesses without it? All those spirit children, JS and BY believed they needed to get started on their worlds, that is their reasoning for them having the extra wives and is the current reason in the fundamental churches that are living it. That's why there is needed clear and consise revelation. It is not only myself who struggles it is the whole reason others say we are not a Christian church because we believe we can be Gods/Goddesses. It would be nice to hear from an authority on the subject. I've even heard from a non LDS Christian, that if we threw out section 132 in D & C, he'd (Shawn McRaney) call us Christian.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

The thing I noticed about the testimonials that John included in his email copied to Daniel, is that none of the testimonials about how terrible Daniel and FARMS is included any specific evidence. What we get is assertion without evidence. We get generalization without any concrete foundation. It takes specific information, a fair representation and broad perspective to justify sweeping assertions about character, not just of Dan and Lou but of FAIR and FARMS as a whole. I also get the impression that John doesn't see that the lack of specifics is a problem. Unsupported assertion becomes unexamined evidence. We can trust our case to the objectivity of the prosecution. No need to "prove contraries" that truth might be "made manifest." No need for a broadly based survey to see what really is typical and what is exceptional. For the record, I have read all 40 volumes of the Review and think that gives me some claim have personally considered the evidence, and that my opinions are based on a personal broad survey, rather than vicarious cherry picking summaries, without the actual cherries.

The survey did not allow room to provide multiple examples of why some thought the apologetic approach was a problem. If you check out the board that is not named here there was a thread at one point where people provided examples of what they viewed as problematic apologetics.

But here is a thought. You have a survey of around 3000 people. They all gave varying reasons as to why they are where they are at. Why seek to dismiss their comments out right. They are what they are. Man if I had 3000 people taking a survey of my business and many them said we were providing horrible service, slow response times, had staff that treated customers poorly I would not poo pah it all like so many hear do. Sure I might go back to the customer and ask for specifics. But I sure would work at correcting it rather than complaining the the respondent must be in error.

[awyatt]

I believe that FAIR/M.I. deserve criticism until they change their tactics and renounce Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley-like approaches. My advice to FAIR/M.I. -- If it isn't charitable/Christlike/loving....step away from it. DP and LM's tactics are driving people away from the church. I promise you they are. It's hard feedback to hear...but it's true. That's why I made the criticisms of FAIR...because you are hurting yourselves with your associations to DP and LM (at least with regards to their tactics in the past). I think they're both good, smart, well-meaning men...just very, very flawed in their approaches to LDS apologetics. That was CLEAR feedback from our survey, and it's very, very common feedback with disaffected Mormon folks. When FAIR is associated with thuggish tactics....it's a clear sign that they do not have confidence in their own arguments....and it reflects poorly on an organization which claims to follow Christ.

This is quite interesting, to me. In his podcast where he had himself interviewed (John Dehlin and Faith Reconstruction), John recognized that some people leave the Church over the content of his podcasts, but explicitly refused to take responsibility for any negative fallout related to the material he produces. He said that people doubting their testimonies (i.e., being driven from the Church) after listening to his podcast were not his fault. After all, he is just the messenger.

Yet here (and in other places) John demands that FAIR/MI be held accountable for driving people from the Church. (Actually, this call, above, is quite a bit more demanding and strident than past similar demands.) He takes the responses of disaffected people in his survey as "gospel truth," assuming that they are telling the truth--even though it is possible that they are citing after-the-fact justification for their choices.

If FAIR/MI must, according to John, take responsibility for the effect on people of their approaches to apologetics, shouldn't John also take the same responsibility? If not, what is the reasoning behind such a double standard?

-Allen

[awyatt]

But here is a thought. You have a survey of around 3000 people. They all gave varying reasons as to why they are where they are at. Why seek to dismiss their comments out right. They are what they are. Man if I had 3000 people taking a survey of my business and many them said we were providing horrible service, slow response times, had staff that treated customers poorly I would not poo pah it all like so many hear do. Sure I might go back to the customer and ask for specifics. But I sure would work at correcting it rather than complaining the the respondent must be in error.

Do you think that John would provide the customer contact information so we could go back to them and ask for specifics?

Part of the problem is that John believes almost everything he is told by the disaffected and almost nothing he is told by the faithful.

-Allen

[ERayR]

Here's the thing ERayR, if it is revelant in the hereafter I need to know.

If and when it becomes relevant, whether next week, next month, in ten years or in the hereafter, it will be known. Right now it seems a more pressing issue is to be prepared for the coming economic chaos.

Why are we afraid of stating what has been taught in the earlier church if it isn't wrong? We don't think it is revelant?

I see no fear from anybody of stating what has been taught in the earlier church. It is found all over the place. In journals, in church history, in current sermons. I am baffled at the continued insistance of fear and hiding of information. It just isn't so. With the internet and any passable search engine you can turn up reams of information. WARNING some of it needs be approached with caution as it comes from questionable sources.

Then is temple worship revelant? How are we to be Gods/Goddesses without it?

Very relevant and temple attendance is stressed and encouraged. Polygamy is not.

All those spirit children, JS and BY believed they needed to get started on their worlds that is their reasoning for them having the extra wives and is the current reason in the fundamental churches that are living it.

You are listening to critical information again. The start their own worlds rhetoric comes right out of anti-Mormon literature.

That's why there is needed clear and consise revelation.

We have a clear and concise revelation on polygamy. Don't Do It. To know what is relevant at any given time listen to what the brethren are currently talking about. Preparation for what is just over the horizon seems to be very relevant now.

It is not only myself who struggles it is the whole reason others say we are not a Christian church because we believe we can be Gods/Godesses. It would be nice to hear from an authority on the subject. I've even heard from a non LDS Christian, that if we threw out section 132 in D & C, he'd (Shawn McRaney) call us Christian.

The Lord said to Paul And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. I for one am not seeking Shawn McRaney's approbation. I am seeking God's approbation and I'm not sure he would take kindly to throwing out D&C 132. I am not trying to reserve a place in the great and spacious building.

[Brian 2.0]

Part of the problem is that John believes almost everything he is told by the disaffected and almost nothing he is told by the faithful.

-Allen

Nice overstatement. And completely untrue if you listened to his podcast where he talks about meeting with his Stake President weekly, which was integral in this process of returning to activity.

Give me a break.

[ERayR]

The survey did not allow room to provide multiple examples of why some thought the apologetic approach was a problem. If you check out the board that is not named here there was a thread at one point where people provided examples of what they viewed as problematic apologetics.

But here is a thought. You have a survey of around 3000 people. They all gave varying reasons as to why they are where they are at. Why seek to dismiss their comments out right. They are what they are. Man if I had 3000 people taking a survey of my business and many them said we were providing horrible service, slow response times, had staff that treated customers poorly I would not poo pah it all like so many hear do. Sure I might go back to the customer and ask for specifics. But I sure would work at correcting it rather than complaining the the respondent must be in error.

One question: Do you think the board that shall not be named and others of their ilk will change their approach?

[ERayR]

Nice overstatement. And completely untrue if you listened to his podcast where he talks about meeting with his Stake President weekly, which was integral in this process of returning to activity.

Give me a break.

It is a reasonable conclusion because that is where the evidence points.

[awyatt]

Nice overstatement. And completely untrue if you listened to his podcast where he talks about meeting with his Stake President weekly, which was integral in this process of returning to activity.

Perhaps a bit of overstatement, but not much. I did listen to the podcast -- all 3+ hours of it. The one thing I was impressed most about was the patience, wisdom, and concern of John's stake president. It was truly heartening, but it didn't make my statement "untrue."

-Allen

[Teancum]

One question: Do you think the board that shall not be named and others of their ilk will change their approach?

No I don't think so at all. But I would not want to run my operation based the bad practices of others.

[ERayR]

No I don't think so at all. But I would not want to run my operation based the bad practices of others.

Lets try a football analogy. What do you think would happen if one team decided to forgo defense?

[Darren10]

I believe that FAIR should not fear MormonThink. I believe that FAIR (and the church) should look at MormonThink as the tiger in "Life of Pi" -- as the "enemy" that keeps them alive and makes them stronger.

Please consider using MormonThink as a way to sharper your arguments. The issues won't go away...so use MormonThink to make your approaches stronger. Fearing MormonThink or trying to avoid/ignore/suppress it won't help anyone get stronger in faith. In my opinion, FAIR needs to become so good at what it does that MT becomes irrelevant.

I don't fear Mormon Think in the least, I only find it highly disinformative and so does FAIR. First off, the mockery of its editorial board is obscene. If you knew doubting Jews would you promote a website to them whose editorial board mocks their rituals and sacred clothing? How about if it promoted them as greedy businessmen out to control societies? Mormon think's leadership do both: mock LDS rituals and sacred clothing and uphold Mormons are something they are not morally or intellectually. So much for your devotion that everybody remains comfortable. But I'm OK if you take sides. That allows me to assess who you are and what you stand for.

Next, FAIR justifiably has taken Mormon Think to task on a whole number of their statements. Mormon Think's thinking is superficial if not completely shallow. Much of their issues are not issues at all. There is no grave concern over not finding metal weapons archeologically. There's lots of voids in archeology confirming what man has a records of having happened. I once read through Mormon Think's arguments regarding Book of Mormon names and similar names found in northeastern United States. FAIR poignantly showed how most of these names came after the publication of the Book of Mormon and it is absurd to think Joseph Smith heard of tiny towns hundreds of miles away from him in order to steal those names and create the Book of Mormon story. Furthermore, according to Mormon Think's arguments, the lack of historical record showing Joseph Smith's access to a wide variety of names circunferencing him, should discredit the critique of him using those names to make up the Book of Mormon. Mormon Think's arguments implode on themselves. Yet you care for Mormon Think and hit hard on the LDS apologists.

Responding to the other question -- I believe that FAIR/M.I. deserve criticism until they change their tactics and renounce Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley-like approaches.

Allow me to focus on Daniel Peterson since most of the disaffection shown towards LDS apologists that I know are about him as opposed to knowing next to nothing about the others. Though focused on Dr. Peterson you may properly interpret what I say about your crticism of him to apply to all the other aoplogists. Your remark to denounce Daniel Peterson is total and utter rubbish and shows hypocracy on your part. First off, you cannot cite in context one single time Daniel Peterson was over the top of over bearing on anyone else. He is mocked , ridiculed, defiled, liabled (including by yourself), and if I recall correctly in context, has had his home broken into likely by a detractor, and yet I've found nothing from him which degrades anyone. Nothing at all.

Here's from Mormon Think's leadership:

I fantasize about a full-blown faith-destroying session. In real life, I did put the bishop in his place over polygamy. He kept saying I was wrong about Joseph having other wives and being illegal and such. I proved him wrong and he ate crow.

—MormonThink's first managing editor, posting as "SpongeBob SquareGarments" on Recovery from Mormonism, Feb. 21, 2012 ^[1]

The person admits to openly and actively desire to destory one's faith. He prides himsef is proving a bishop wrong, causing the bishop to "eat crow". The username is an open mockery of something sacred to active LDS members. The sacredness traces directly back to ancient Israeli times.

By directing to Mormon Think, you do so to a website dedicated to destroy the doubting Mormon's faith, prides itself on proving Mormon leadership wrong, and openly mocks that which held to be sacred to the LDS.

My dream and hope and aspiration: Members of the 1stP and the Q12 are walked out of the [Church Office Building] or their homes in handcuffs for tax evasion, racketeering, money-laundering,...Add the gender discrimination and fraud suits that many will pile onto the criminal charges, and I think 2013-14 just might be a banner moment. Maybe I'm dreaming. But some of us are working on it.

—MormonThink's second managing editor, posting as "Jesus Smith" on Recovery from Mormonism, December 26, 2012. ^[2]

This second editor openly advocates for the forced removal First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles by the power of the state. LDS members consider all of them to be living prophets, seers, and revelators, and who hold keys tothe Priesthood of God which traces its origin to ancient Israeli worship. Yet to this editor they are nothing more than white collar criminals. Tax evasion? Since when do churches need to pay taxes? Do you honestly advocate that these 15 men are financially benefitting from their service to the LDS Church? Yes, I know of the living expenses and the value ofthe condos tey live in but yet I still say they are meger living especially compared to the hours of service they render. Racketeering and money-laundering? Please. You will not find a more thoroughly fiscal responsible organization than that of the LDS Church and its leaders. (You, however, seem to have run out of money for your endeavors).

How has Daniel Peterson's writings, or even more precise, his rebuttals, approached the low level of disdain and shamless mockery of other's and their faith? (On a slight side note, has Dr. Peterson ever gone ot e general authority to reprove you or any others who follow your lead?) Mormon Think is bigotted at its core. You express sadness when others are trodden upon yet you seem to have no quarrells for a website like Mormon Think who treads upon faithful LDS members and their leaders. Where's the saddness? Where's the hurt?

My advice to FAIR/M.I. -- If it isn't charitable/Christlike/loving....step away from it.

That's based off of ??????? I showed you Mormon Think's mockery and shallow denial of Christ's love for others. Where's your substance to say the same for FAIR?

DP and LM's tactics are driving people away from the church.

How do you even begin to say such a thing when you promote Mormon Think?

I promise you they are. It's hard feedback to hear...but it's true.

Shallow. No substance or supportive evidence forany such conclusion. But, hey, I got your promise, right?

because you are hurting yourselves with your associations to DP and LM (at least with regards to their tactics in the past)

Such as...???

I think they're both good, smart, well-meaning men...just very, very flawed in their approaches to LDS apologetics.

Well, since drug users and adulterers are good men in your eyes, your patronizing the LDS apologists is meaningless. I showed you Mormon Think's flaws in their approach to LDS issues, what is your bases to denounce DP and FAIR?

That was CLEAR feedback from our survey

Wonderful, any reasons they gave as to why they blame Dr. Peterson and FAIR? Not that they feel mocked. I don't care how they "feel". Feelings are not rational or based on evidence for others assess. Citations are. Thus far the only cataitions provided have been from one side and it wasn't your side which provided them.

When FAIR is associated with thuggish tactics....

Oh, good grief.

it's a clear sign that they do not have confidence in their own arguments....and it reflects poorly on an organization which claims to follow Christ.

FAIR claims to follow scholarship and as individuals claim to follow Christ which I find they do .

My 2 cents.

Sounds about right.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Brian 2.0]

It is a reasonable conclusion because that is where the evidence points.

I guess it's reasonable if you throw out the "evidence" that John has been talking with his Stake President weekly and has returned to full activity partly as a result of those meetings.

I wouldn't jump on you as much about this if you said it before the podcast of him revealing his return to church, but the statement isn't past tense. I just think we should give the guy some credit where credit is due and after listening to his podcast outlining his return to activity I think it's a very poor statement to say he "believes almost everything he is told by the disaffected and almost nothing he is told by the faithful." When the whole crux of his podcast was about meeting with "faithful" and finding his way back.

I agree the Stake President should be praised and he was a great example of a loving leader helping a "lost sheep" if you will. But let's not praise the shepherd while still berating the sheep.

[Kevin Christensen]

The survey did not allow room to provide multiple examples of why some thought the apologetic approach was a problem. If you check out the board that is not named here there was a thread at one point where people provided examples of what they viewed as problematic apologetics.

I've seen the discussion. So there is a starting point of someone's idea of specifics. Once you have specific examples, the next step is broad perspective. How representative are these examples? For a specific example regarding a famous complaint, how many reviews in the 40 volumes and hundreds of authors included a broken or intact acrostic? How typical are the examples?

But here is a thought. You have a survey of around 3000 people. They all gave varying reasons as to why they are where they are at. Why seek to dismiss their comments out right. They are what they are. Man if I had 3000 people taking a survey of my business and many them said we were providing horrible service, slow response times, had staff that treated customers poorly I would not poo pah it all like so many hear do. Sure I might go back to the customer and ask for specifics. But I sure would work at correcting it rather than complaining the the respondent must be in error.

I want to know how representative are these people. Are they randomly selected, or self-selected, and if self selected, from what kind of pool? There is a famous picture of Harry Truman holding up a newspaper with the headline, Dewy beats Truman. The problem in that case was a telephone poll. The problem with the poll was that Democrats were less likely to have phones.

Having read all of the issue of the review, and having had Shirley Ricks tell me to take out cutesy lines now and then, I know that FARMS, and as has been reported, FAIR, takes the issue of complaints about tone and content seriously. I also had the experience of having someone tell me, "I never read anything from FARMS. It makes me mad," followed by the admission that nothing in the essay I knew she had read had made her mad. So if she never read it, what made her mad? Does prejudice and distaste count as evidence?

And what about the experiences of satisfied, happy customers? Does their testimony exist? Does it matter? Do the squeaky wheels get not only the grease but the garage?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited February 13, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Darren10]

rpn #142;

The dissaffected group has the same confirmation bias as the rest of us do....There's plenty of blame to go around.

I understand what you were saying but I categorically refuse to lump myself in with the salivating Korihors who attack Dr. Peterson. They live in a world all of their own and their standards are not to be desired.

[Darren10]

Every teaching manual has to go through correlation, a committee headed by general authorities. If they thought the idea that God was once a man was false doctrine, they wouldn't put it in the manual.

Personally, if I want a generic Christian idea of God, there are churches on every corner willing to teach it. But the LDS Church teaches that God was once a man. You shouldn't be ashamed of that.

LoL - I'm not ashamed of teaching god was once a man. I think its's true orat least there's truth to it but it is NOT part of my faith orworship as an LDS member. I do not recognize God having a God, having a God, havng a God but render all my praise and glory to the Father as the first being of all and the Supreme Being of all.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I wonder what would have happened if the human being known as Isaiah had posted his prophecies on the internet, or who would have published them today.

Don't know but Isaiah's event with bringing down fire from heaven would cause many today to denounce him as hurtful and unchrist like.

[Teancum]

Lets try a football analogy. What do you think would happen if one team decided to forgo defense?

Defense is fine. But how the defense from people who claim to be members of the One and Only True Church of Christ should not be a no holds barred or as one proud apologist put it here- a "Dresden" type defense.

Listen I liked FARMS for a lot of years. I read every word of many Reviews. I gave money. At some point though it just did not work for me personally. I do not blame FARMS or any apologist for where I am at now. Heck I used to try to do apologetics. And I think the apologist is at a disadvantage. One critical item can take pages to explained and lay the ground work for. Many are baseless. I recall arguing once with an EV critic about BYs comment that those of this dispensation will be judged by Joseph Smith. He though that blasphemous. I noted the the NT taught that the apostles at Christ's time would stand as judges and indeed all the Saints would judge the world. I then noted that if JS was indeed an apostle and prophet as he claimed that this was no difference than what the Bible teaches about Christ's apostles. JS would assume that role for this dispensation. You think I could get through to this person. Not a chance. So I know the challenge.

That said. I have no bones against Dan Peterson nor FARMS as it was. I think it was a sad turn of events and that he was treated poorly. I take no glee in this. Others who associated with FARMS and or FAIR I may be less positive about. There are self anointed apologists’ here who I think do great damage to the Church and a few of them are posting on this thread.

[why me]

The bolded part is what concerns me. Should the church renounce polygamy in the D & C 132? If it is afraid of the primary children hearing of it doesn't it make it wrong somewhat? Shouldn't we think that JS was flawed and made a mistake, a terrible one? Or is polygamy a doctrine and needed for our salvation in the hereafter?

We have a problem with the flawed idea. Many of the women who agreed to be sealed to Joseph received a very powerful witness that the principle was true, zina was one of these women and was a polyandrous wife. My belief is: the persecution that the saints were about to experience trumped the principle. Without that possible persecution, we may still have polygamy.

[why me]

I believe that FAIR should not fear MormonThink. I believe that FAIR (and the church) should look at MormonThink as the tiger in "Life of Pi" -- as the "enemy" that keeps them alive and makes them stronger.

Please consider using MormonThink as a way to sharper your arguments. The issues won't go away...so use MormonThink to make your approaches stronger. Fearing MormonThink or trying to avoid/ignore/suppress it won't help anyone get stronger in faith. In my opinion, FAIR needs to become so good at what it does that MT becomes irrelevant.

My 2 cents.

This could have been explained in your video. But as I remember it, you did not say this at all. You just recommended the site without a commentary. So, I would think that struggling members who go to that site, will struggle some more.

[ALarson]

We have a problem with the flawed idea. Many of the women who agreed to be sealed to Joseph received a very powerful witness that the principle was true, zina was one of these women and was a polyandrous wife. My belief is: the persecution that the saints were about to experience trumped the principle. Without that possible persecution, we may still have polygamy.

Do you believe we may still have polyandry as well?

Edited February 13, 2013 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

Do you believe we may still have polyandry as well?

It wouldn't go over too well I'm sure.

[Tacenda]

We have a problem with the flawed idea. Many of the women who agreed to be sealed to Joseph received a very powerful witness that the principle was true, zina was one of these women and was a polyandrous wife. My belief is: the persecution that the saints were about to experience trumped the principle. Without that possible persecution, we may still have polygamy.

And so have other women believed charismatic leaders in the more current decades. David Koresh to name one. He also proclaimed to speak to God. Maybe both did in the beginning.

You have been removed from countless threads for comparing others to criminals. You are out and if you do it one more time you will be suspended or banned.