Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: But that is incorrect. The Joseph Smith manual came after the BY manual and it did not cover Joseph's practice of polygamy. I don't believe the other manuals cover those presidents' practice of polygamy either and since you are wrong about the JS manual, I'm not inclined to believe that you are correct on the others Asked and answered. Quote But that was only part of the question I asked: So you would agree that the Teachings of the Presidents manuals did not provide instruction regarding the doctrine of plural marriage (other than to say that it was revealed and practiced), did not mention the plural marriages of those first five prophets, and altered Brigham Young's teachings on plural marriage to make them singular? Asked and answered. Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 43 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Keep telling yourself this Scott and remember that its not a lie if you really believe it Your calling me a liar is highly offensive. I want no further interaction with you until an apology is forthcoming. Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 3 hours ago, JulieM said: The word "since" gives the wrong impression. I'm amazed that you can't see that, but if you can't, okay. "Since the days of Nauvoo" means after the Nauvoo years. Another example: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/air-pollution-has-been-a-problem-since-the-days-of-ancient-rome-3950678/ "since the days of Ancient Rome" does not mean only after Rome died, but while Rome was existing. For example: "That “something else” turned out to be human activity, notably metallurgy and large-scale agriculture starting around 100 B.C. The ancient Romans kept domesticated livestock—cows, sheep and goats—which excrete methane gas, a byproduct of digestion. Around the same time, in China, the Han dynasty expanded its rice fields, which harbor methane-producing bacteria. Also, blacksmiths in both empires produced methane gas when they burned wood to fashion metal weapons. After those civilizations declined, emis- sions briefly decreased."
Calm Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 "Since the days of Ancient Rome" is not intended to mean after the fall of Rome, but starting during the time of Rome as demonstrated by references to Roman practices: "That “something else” turned out to be human activity, notably metallurgy and large-scale agriculture starting around 100 B.C. The ancient Romans kept domesticated livestock—cows, sheep and goats—which excrete methane gas, a byproduct of digestion. Around the same time, in China, the Han dynasty expanded its rice fields, which harbor methane-producing bacteria. Also, blacksmiths in both empires produced methane gas when they burned wood to fashion metal weapons. After those civilizations declined, emis- sions briefly decreased." http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/air-pollution-has-been-a-problem-since-the-days-of-ancient-rome-3950678/ 1
Calm Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Urgg...glitch first didn't show first post as saved, then can't edit. Apologies for dup
JulieM Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Checking a couple of online dictionary sources, I'll have to go with Calm on this. Since means from a certain point in time onward. So, applying that meaning here, we get "from the days of Nauvoo onward." Calm, I see your point, but I agree with Alarson that the way the statement was given in the manual, it gives the impression that polygamy was practiced after rather than during Joseph's life or "days". I guess it could be interpreted differently, but it most definitely could have been more clear or specified that Joseph lived polygamy. Here's what was stated: "Circumstances for the Saints in the United States proved to be a challenge to this love of freedom. Under the direction of the Lord, the Saints had practiced plural marriage in the Church since the days of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo." Edited July 25, 2016 by JulieM
rockpond Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Asked and answered. Asked and answered. The first part wasn't a question, it was a statement that your claim is false. You haven't answered my question. But I know why you are dodging it. 2
JulieM Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Asked and answered. Asked and answered. So you agree with rockpond's statements? Also, I missed your post where you answered all the questions asked of you and where you supplied the references requested. Do you have a link for this post?
rockpond Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Asked and answered. Asked and answered. The first part wasn't a question. It was a statement that your claim is false. The second part contained a question that you haven't answered. But I know why you're dodging it.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 7 minutes ago, JulieM said: So you agree with rockpond's statements? Also, I missed your post where you answered all the questions asked of you and where you supplied the references requested. Do you have a link for this post? After all the copy-and-pastes I'm amazed you missed my responses. But here is yet another copy-and-paste, from a response to rockpond after having asked the same questions that had already been answered: Quote I'm saying that after the uproar over the Brigham Young manual, the books did mention that plural marriage was practiced by those Church presidents who did practice it. And you are asking questions that have been answered. Did you know there is a board policy that prohibits this? Here is another copy-and-paste of my answer: To rockpond, ALarson, california boy and others beating the dead horse: Your questions to me have already been answered. As I said, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals are compendiums of doctrinal writings of these men as they apply to Church members today. Since plural marriage is no longer authorized and ought not be practiced by anyone in the Church, teachings about this principle are beyond the scope of these books, which, I repeat, were never intended as history books or biographies.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, rockpond said: The first part wasn't a question. It was a statement that your claim is false. The second part contained a question that you haven't answered. But I know why you're dodging it. Then the first part is a false accusation. As is your assertion that I am dodging your question.
JulieM Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: After all the copy-and-pastes I'm amazed you missed my responses. But here is yet another copy-and-paste, from a response to rockpond after having asked the same questions that had already been answered: That doesn't answer all the questions you were asked, but of course you can continue to not answer them. No one has to respond to questions or requests (unless a CFR is given, correct?) It's just odd you say they were all answered when they weren't. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 28 minutes ago, JulieM said: Calm, I see your point, but I agree with Alarson that the way the statement was given in the manual, it gives the impression that polygamy was practiced after rather than during Joseph's life or "days". I guess it could be interpreted differently, but it most definitely could have been more clear or specified that Joseph lived polygamy. Here's what was stated: "Circumstances for the Saints in the United States proved to be a challenge to this love of freedom. Under the direction of the Lord, the Saints had practiced plural marriage in the Church since the days of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo." Based on a normative dictionary definition of the word since, Alarson's assertion and your agreement with it are both incoherent. To wit: Quote since sins/ preposition, conjunction, & adverb preposition: since; conjunction: since; adverb: since 1. in the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present. "she has suffered from depression since she was sixteen" Edited July 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
Danzo Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 I find it curious that people here claim to have never heard about the practice of polygamy by the church. It seems that almost everyone that I have met outside the church knows about it. Even if they know nothing else about the church, they seem to know about polygamy. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Just now, Danzo said: I find it curious that people here claim to have never heard about the practice of polygamy by the church. It seems that almost everyone that I have met outside the church knows about it. Even if they know nothing else about the church, they seem to know about polygamy. That's what made the initial uproar about the Brigham Young manual so silly. Anyone who has heard much at all about Brigham Young is apt to know he practiced polygamy. 1
Recommended Posts