Here is news that may have terrible consequences for the LDS church.

[James Banta]

Before I post it I should remind all why the LDS church abandoned polygamy..

D&C Official Declaration 1
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced const itutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

Ok to the meat.. Today U.S. District Court judge for Utah has ruled that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconst itutional. As of today it is no longer illegal to "Cohabitant" with more than one person whether or not you call them your spouse, if such is done for religious reasons.. The reason for the issuance of Official Declaration 1 is over.. Since the 132nd section of the D&C of the LDS church is still in effect it is now the duty of those LDS that would please God to start living by it's commandments.. They should at least conform their minds to the idea that polygamy is God's pattern for marriage as President Brigham Young taught.. Polygamy never really ended in mormonism with the belief that a man would still be married to his first wife if she dies before he did, even though he took a seconds wife in this life.. Both were considered his wives.. Now the resistants are off. Though no second marriage certificate can be issued (that is a matter of man's law anyway), but it is fully legal to have two, three, or more wives you may marry by the law of the church.. I have been waiting for this NEWS YEAH.... IHS jim

[Ma'am]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Before I post it I should remind all why the LDS church abandoned polygamy..

D&C Official Declaration 1
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced const itutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

Ok to the meat.. Today U.S. District Court judge for Utah has ruled that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconst itutional. As of today it is no longer illegal to "Cohabitant" with more than one person whether or not you call them your spouse, if such is done for religious reasons.. The reason for the issuance of Official Declaration 1 is over.. Since the 132nd section of the D&C of the LDS church is still in effect it is now the duty of those LDS that would please God to start living by it's commandments.. They should at least conform their minds to the idea that polygamy is God's pattern for marriage as President Brigham Young taught.. Polygamy never really ended in mormonism with the belief that a man would still be married to his first wife if she dies before he did, even though he took a seconds wife in this life.. Both were considered his wives.. Now the resistants are off. Though no second marriage certificate can be issued (that is a matter of man's law anyway), but it is fully legal to have two, three, or more wives you may marry by the law of the church.. I have been waiting for this NEWS YEAH.... IHS jim

I saw that in the newspaper...I predict a LOT of people in Utah, mostly men, will suddenly become very "religious" and accumulate extra wives for themselves, all in the name of "religion."

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Ma'am

I saw that in the newspaper...I predict a LOT of people in Utah, mostly men, will suddenly become very "religious" and accumulate extra wives for themselves, all in the name of "religion."

If they don't repeal Official Declaration 1 because polygamy for religious reasons has been legalized by the US Federal Courts they are just what the FLDS teach that they are, in apostasy, and have surrendered their authority.. They will not resume polygamy because they want to be seen as a Christian church.. They want the respect of the world and really don't care about keeping the commandments of their god that may show that they are a peculiar people.. Only the FLDS church and of course it's other fundamentalist sister churches will be able to say that they are being obedient to God.. ALL of the LDS church will indeed be in apostasy for the sake of looking right to the world.. I LOVE IT.. Either way this has the potential to destroy mormonism as we know it.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Ma'am

I saw that in the newspaper...I predict a LOT of people in Utah, mostly men, will suddenly become very "religious" and accumulate extra wives for themselves, all in the name of "religion."

Here is the article: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56...uling.html.csp

So now what Mormon men? If you can't get into the Celestial Kingdom without more than one wife, what excuse are you going to use now when you meet up with Joe Smith?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Here is the article: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56...uling.html.csp

So now what Mormon men? If you can't get into the Celestial Kingdom without more than one wife, what excuse are you going to use now when you meet up with Joe Smith?

How can the LDS church keep both the 132nd section of the D&C and Official Declaration1 when all court ordered prohibition against living in spiritual marriages with more than one living wife, have been removed.. The Official Declaration is very specific in why it was issued.

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced cons***utional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise." (D&C Official Declaration1)

If the courts now in this era of "anything goes" in marriage have reversed their position to allow this filthy practice, mormonism has only two choices.
1. To remove Official Declaration1 from the D&C making plural marriage under the authority of the church again part of it's doctrine and practice, OR
2. Concede that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and set all his teaching aside and accept the Bible as all Christians do yes even that traditional Christ they have denued at every turn.. IHS jim

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Apologette

So now what Mormon men? If you can't get into the Celestial Kingdom without more than one wife, what excuse are you going to use now when you meet up with Joe Smith?

No excuse necessary, of course, because we don't need more than one wife to get into the Celestial Kingdom.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Erundur

No excuse necessary, of course, because we don't need more than one wife to get into the Celestial Kingdom.

Oh, really? Then why don't you denounce Brigham Young for saying:


"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be ****ed," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Ma'am

I saw that in the newspaper...I predict a LOT of people in Utah, mostly men, will suddenly become very "religious" and accumulate extra wives for themselves, all in the name of "religion."

I can hear it now, "why, we're only giving a chance to all those poor single women to marry a priesthood holder so that they can become a goddess!

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Oh, really? Then why don't you denounce Brigham Young for saying:

Because Brigham Young doesn't support your false ***ertion.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Because Brigham Young doesn't support your false ***ertion.

We point to statements actually made from Young's own sermons and you deny He said these things.. Your denials have no authority other than you saying "because I say so", but that should be enough right? WRONG! You will have to prove we are misstating Young's teaching in the p***age we have quoted.. That is where Young supports our "False ***ertions. I will go as far as Young teaching that a man must be a polygamists at least in faith, if that faith is missing that man will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. That is salvation by faith, not in Jesus, but in polygamy. But that is a false ***ertion too I imagine..

BTW welcome back.. This time you should have no problem avoiding punishment for disobeying the rules. There is no enforcement.. I imagine that it is too much to ask for you to follow the rules anyway right? IHS jim

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by James Banta

We point to statements actually made from Young's own sermons and you deny He said these things..

No I don't. You're just making stuff up now, James.

BTW welcome back.. This time you should have no problem avoiding punishment for disobeying the rules. There is no enforcement.. I imagine that it is too much to ask for you to follow the rules anyway right?

BTW I've never posted here before.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Erundur

No I don't. You're just making stuff up now, James.


BTW I've never posted here before.

Just what do you think the Journal of Discourses are? It was a record of the sermons given by the GAs of the LDS church and sent to the membership in England. Hey I even find reference to this sermon by FAIR. Go check it out (http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_a...ctice_polygamy). You do know what FAIR is don't you.. Maybe I am giving you to much credit for even having a little knowledge.. IHS jim

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Maybe I am giving you to much credit for even having a little knowledge..

Well, let's find out how much credit I should give you. Show me where I denied that Brigham Young said something that he said. That should be really easy, since I now have a grand total of 4 posts.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Because Brigham Young doesn't support your false ***ertion.

Mormons always have to twist words, even of their own prophet, to rationalize away their meanings.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Well, let's find out how much credit I should give you. Show me where I denied that Brigham Young said something that he said. That should be really easy, since I now have a grand total of 4 posts.

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be ****ed," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).
Because Brigham Young doesn't support your false ***ertion.

What the Heck?

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Well, let's find out how much credit I should give you. Show me where I denied that Brigham Young said something that he said. That should be really easy, since I now have a grand total of 4 posts.

Not sure who you are but I will tell you that coming here and making sarcastic comments is not what this site is about. We would be happy to discuss things in an adult manner. So, to refresh you memory of Post #9, "Because Brigham Young doesn't support your false ***ertion." What kind of answer was this? Maybe you're not denying something BY said but you're not admitting anything either. Why be evasive? Another issue. BY has long been dead, is now dust so the only things we have are his sermons that were compiled and made into, "The Journal of Discourses." Now, BY was very careful about his sermons. He had a scribe if you want to call him that, to write down every word that BY spoke. After everything was written down, BY would edit, making sure spelling was correct etc. Afterwards, the sermon was given to the Deseret News where it was printed in their next edition. Hard to say there were mistakes made within any sermon when there was such a process to transcribe them.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Well, let's find out how much credit I should give you. Show me where I denied that Brigham Young said something that he said. That should be really easy, since I now have a grand total of 4 posts.

Oh, really? Only four posts and you've already managed to say nothing? Just denial? Tell us why you renounce Young's teachings? Tell us how you can become a "son of god," even "a god," without polygamy?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Well, let's find out how much credit I should give you. Show me where I denied that Brigham Young said something that he said. That should be really easy, since I now have a grand total of 4 posts.

You have been told several times now but I will still add my own.. You said "Because Brigham Young doesn't support your false ***ertion." And that you said after a quote was given, not from some anti-mormon site but directly from the LDS church owned, LDS church controlled JofD.. If you have the reference why would you deny that BY said what is recorded of him by his own church.. Now you deny your denial? This is why Christians have so much trouble with mormons as we try to communicate. You say things and then deny that statements were ever made.. Ok, you know so much tell us why Joseph Smith went totally against the teachings of the Bible to tell us that God became God (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305).. The Bible teaches us that God has been God from everlasting and will to be the one and only true and living God to everlasting (Psalm 90:2).. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Oh, really? Only four posts and you've already managed to say nothing? Just denial? Tell us why you renounce Young's teachings? Tell us how you can become a "son of god," even "a god," without polygamy?

never fear sister.. The courts have now reversed themselves.. Polygamy has been decriminalized in Utah.. That will force the LDS church to remove the Manifesto or the 132nd section of the D&C.. If they remove the Manifesto the women of the church will have a FIT (and rightly so), If they remove the 132nd section of the D&C they confess that Smith was a sexual deviant and not a true prophet of God in giving a revelation ***igned to God teaching a false doctrine.. This is why I have been waiting for this day.. It will destroy the LDS church no matter which way they move.. Oh and if they do nothing WE WILL CHOP THEM UP.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Erundur

No I don't. You're just making stuff up now, James.


BTW I've never posted here before.

Haven't you posted on CARM, however?

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Mormons always have to twist words, even of their own prophet, to rationalize away their meanings.

Apologette has given up defending her position; anyone else want to try?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Apologette has given up defending her position; anyone else want to try?

I see you, like all the LDS here, won't even try.. IHS jim

[Erundur]

What kind of answer was this?

A direct answer to the question I was asked.

Maybe you're not denying something BY said but you're not admitting anything either.

What do you think I was supposed to admit?

Why be evasive?

I don't think you know what "evasive" means. Would you be happier if I had answered the question she should have asked?

Hard to say there were mistakes made within any sermon when there was such a process to transcribe them.

I haven't said anything about mistakes. Why are you bringing them up?

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Oh, really? Only four posts and you've already managed to say nothing?

It only took one post to get you to abandon your position.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Apologette has given up defending her position; anyone else want to try?

Actually, pal, when all the opposition has is "denial," why bother? It's useless to beat the senseless as the saying goes.