Nothing

I see. Thank you for the clarification. My only problem is the sarcastic reaction to Zarahemla. NeedleinA wrote:

Duplicate.

How do I know Brigham Young gave that sermon in the capacity of prophet? What other capacity could it have been? The quote comes from A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, September 21, 1856. It can be found here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/4/10 It was a congregation of saints and the prophet preached a sermon to them. The prophet ended with “in the name of Jesus. Amen”. Also consider this:

Is there anything anti-Mormon about the arrangement? The commentary is stuff like: “At Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife's funeral in 2007, Gordon B Hinckley testified that President Hunter would be with both his wives in heaven:” And "Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the LDS Church, remarried twice after the death of his first wife, and in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 67, he remarked:” Is there anything anti-Mormon there?

Zarahemla, I am also sorry that some are being unkind toward you.

NeedleinA said: "Oh, Yoda strikes again. Each time you try to shock us with non-doctrinal Brigham quotes (especially from another "message board"), the FORCE will rise up!" Brigham Young gave this address (I'm referring to the quote beginning with "Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters...") in the capacity of the prophet and president of the Church. I understand this doesn't make it official doctrine, but does it mean President Young was leading people astray? The list of quotes posted by Zarahemla that begins with "At Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife's funeral in 2007" may have been copied from an anti-Mormon website (I don’t know for sure), but none of the quotes are anti-Mormon. The sources are Deseret News, Doctrines of Salvation, and a speech delivered at BYU.

Okay, Lehi. You can judge me all you want.

Lehi, I did not say Joseph Smith was an adulterer or that he gave false revelations. Please don't make assumptions about my meaning or intent. That quote does not mention scripture specifically, but one might say I am finding fault with the Church for keeping section 132 in the D&C. That would be a fair assessment. I accept that I might be “in the high road to apostasy”, but that does is not “tantamount to wholesale, personal apostasy”. It seems to me that you are rising up to condemn me, but I don’t know and I could be wrong.

My only point is that I can choose to reject some scriptures - and some doctrines, as well - and still be a member of the church. Others can do the same. I don't have to explain my reasoning or justify myself. I bet all of you know active members who reject some scriptures and doctrines and you are not aware of it. I don't want to be contentious about it. That's all.

Carborendum: "So, you can pick and chose what parts of a section of the D&C you're going to believe was or was not inspired? " Yes, I can choose which parts I BELIEVE are inspired.

Carborendum, I don't want to open that can right now. I want to talk about whether rejecting a scripture constitutes wholesale apostasy. Also, I don't think we have to throw out eternal marriage if section 132 is thrown out. D&C 131:1-3 says "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it." So that refers to eternal marriage. No, it doesn't have details, but we also have no details about the endowment in the scriptures.

LeSellers, do you an authoritative source saying that someone who rejects a part of scripture is an apostate? I think not. I think you are giving your own opinion. I think it's not as black and white as you think.

NeedeinA, I commented because I disagree with this comment from LeSellers: “One might say that rejecting the revelation of Plural Marriage is tantamount to wholesale, personal apostasy.” I also disagree with “But to reject a clear revelation is to reject the prophet who received it. One cannot reject Joseph the Prophet of the Restoration without rejecting the Restoration.” I reject D&C 132. I do not believe it’s a revelation from God. This does not mean I reject Joseph Smith and the Restoration. Please believe me when I say there are many members fulfilling callings and attending the temple who also reject section 132. I hope this is of value to someone. zil, I do believe I am correctly applying that quote. I do not have to believe in section 132 to be a member of the Church. Many others would agree with me.

Kidnapping and torturing someone is worse than two unmarried adults having consensual sex.

I do not believe D&C 132 is inspired by God. It's of dubious origin. It does not seem like a "clear revelation" to me. I can still believe in the restoration. More importantly, I can still believe in Christ. “I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” -Joseph Smith in The Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184

You all are way off if you think the atonement of Jesus Christ did anything to save the Father.

"My DH is more or less crushed and I dont think he has strength to give a good fight any more, but he is doing what he can, like templework." Maya, what do you mean about your husband being crushed? What has crushed him? That sounds sad! If he is going to the temple, though, that is something.

HEtheprimate, I am familiar with dual diagnoses. In fact, I was a data analyst for the State Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health. I believe I had some depression as a young teenager and when I first used pot at age 15 it was a panacea. Of course, it only made things worse in the long run.

Finrock, you totally owned me! It's totally true that there are many weeknesses that don't go away. I probably engage in self-pity when I think about these things. I want to throw this out anyway. Thinks like being blind, deaf, paralyzed, or many other such things do not necessary affect the mind so people generally have the ability to choose how they handle the situation. With depression, the brain itself can be out of whack so a person has less emotional control over the situation. That seems pretty crappy. I would absolutely give both of my legs to get rid of depression. EDIT: I would like to mention that it's really my fault because my drug use as a teenager messed me up.

Yeah, that's true. And I am sorry for sounding like I was shutting you down. This could help some guys I reckon.

I heard this kind of stuff years ago.

That's interesting, Soul_Searcher. It's odd that the PB wouldn't go beyond marriage. I can say that mine does. I confess that it would be really cool to get another PB. Would I get more info and direction for my life? It seems EASIER than fasting, praying, and studying.

Nice! I should totally get a light box. I love the blog showing how to make your own. At the end he says "Yes, it is bright. Flee, oh demons of depression! Flee the holy light!" Letters from Lausanne: Lightbox Construction

I am with georgia2 on this. Why should it change if your life is different than you expected or if you were very young when the PB was given? Heavenly Father knows you and your life and a PB is inspired.

Hemidakota, Elders McConkie and Ballard basically said we don't know all the circumstances surrounding a suicide and we don't know how people will be judged. Loudmouth, I totally have the SAD business going on. The lamps that are really effective are hundreds of dollars I think.