BYR

Maybe sometime Brigham Young will get his side of the story out. BYR, I understand your point. However, I have read a number of passages where he discusses his wives in less than flattering terms. In one passage he basically tells them to shape up or get out. Did he not brag about his virility and ability to attract young girls? These comments are really troubling coming from a man I am considering as a godly prophet. I hope you don't take this wrong or get offended. I just really struggle with this episode in the LDS side of the ledger. I am hoping that the RLDS presents a better track record. BTW, I have issues with RLDS, so don't think I am picking on you. Fair enough? AEY Since I see the RLDS as apostate, why would I have a problem? And to your point about BY bragging. I look at that in a couple of ways. He was top dog and he was asserting his position. You see that type of behavior all the time. The other way is something you see in music, Blues for example. He is just talking up his position to entertain. (And pick up a few more chicks.)

In my initial post I answered your question: "Then I read Ann Eliza Young's book (that's where I got my name) and I found myself very sympathetic to her and also to Emma." Here's is her picture. You can find her book by googling "Wife no. 19" ... I'd provide the link but I am not sure that is OK here. Her story is powerful! Here are her dedicatory words... TO THE M O R M O N W I V E S O F U T A H <span style='font-family:Arial'>AEY Maybe sometime Brigham Young will get his side of the story out.

This is pretty cool. And not to gloat too much, but I can't wait for the response from all those antis out there. This should chaff them, but good.

I read the topic title and thougtht this was a mormon bashing thread. Then I read the post. Maybe you need to change the title from "indicted" to "inducted".

I believe you need to understand what they mean by the Gospel. Non-Mormon Christians believe we LDS preach another Gospel. In their opinion what they are talking about then is that because they believe in the Gospel that Jesus taught in the Bible, and since they say that we don't believe that Gospel, we are the other gospel that Paul is warning the Christians about.Not the actual books of the Bible.

How don't they agree with the Nicene Creed? In order to agree with the Nicene Creed, one has to believe in the catholic (universal) church, and one (universal) baptism. Neither one of which is true. The Catholics don't accept the Protestants baptism, and vice versa. If they did, they (the Catholics) would not have closed communion. And if the protestants believed in one universal church, they would not have had to step away from the Catholic church. And the Catholic church doesn't believe in it, either, or the Jesuit order would not be in existence. I thought I read where the RC does accept the Protestant baptisms and vice-versa. I thought the main objection has to do wether or not the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus? Do you have a source for that comment? I'd like to see it. Of course I'll do my own research, but since you mentioned this, I suspect you have what I need. I'm not sure which comment you want a source for, but I am sure you read it on the other board just a while ago, since the same thing was posted there fairly recently (since this morning). What I am saying (except for the Jesuit thing) comes from my own experiences and the experiences of friends. When I have gone to Catholic masses, they made an announcement from the front that if you were not Catholic, you may not take communion there. Discussion about transubstanstiation was not offered as a defense to that practice, and you know what, that would make little difference if someone really wanted or needed to take communion. And I had a friend who wanted to convert from Catholicism to a protestant denomination, and had to be re-baptized. That was 20-odd years ago, maybe times, and practices, have changed. This instance is based on old knowledge, so I am willing to consider new knowledge if someone has some. I've heard of some Baptist churches requiring re-baptism. I had a friend who was baptised as an infant and joined a Baptist church that required re-baptism for joining. I don't recall if it was because that church didn't recognize baptism as an infant, or because of another reason. I had another friend quite recently leave a Luthern church and join a Methodist church and he wasn't required to be re-baptised to join. The Methodist church accepted his baptism. I'll have to ask both of them the reasons.

Here is the comment of the owner of the CF site (ERWIN) ... Breetai: I agree with Serapha and drstevej here. Although there are not too many of them, they(the RLDS/CoC) are posing as 'orthodox Christians'. They refuse to use the Mormon icon because they are not part of the main LDS church. They should at least be using the 'other' icon. They are promoting doctrine that is opposed to the Nicene Creed. Erwin: I agree - it should be Other-church. http://www.christianforum.com/showthread.p...35&postcount=17 Until Serapha and drstevej badgered the owner, I was having quite a good discussion with the moderator about it. We were actually getting to the root of the problem. But, I changed my icon. Mostly because I decided I don't agree with the Nicene Creed completely. Of course, they don't either, they are just lying about it so they can call themselves "Christian" and deny that label to others. How don't they agree with the Nicene Creed? In order to agree with the Nicene Creed, one has to believe in the catholic (universal) church, and one (universal) baptism. Neither one of which is true. The Catholics don't accept the Protestants baptism, and vice versa. If they did, they (the Catholics) would not have closed communion. And if the protestants believed in one universal church, they would not have had to step away from the Catholic church. And the Catholic church doesn't believe in it, either, or the Jesuit order would not be in existence. I thought I read where the RC does accept the Protestant baptisms and vice-versa. I thought the main objection has to do wether or not the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus? Do you have a source for that comment? I'd like to see it. Of course I'll do my own research, but since you mentioned this, I suspect you have what I need.

Here is the comment of the owner of the CF site (ERWIN) ... Breetai: I agree with Serapha and drstevej here. Although there are not too many of them, they(the RLDS/CoC) are posing as 'orthodox Christians'. They refuse to use the Mormon icon because they are not part of the main LDS church. They should at least be using the 'other' icon. They are promoting doctrine that is opposed to the Nicene Creed. Erwin: I agree - it should be Other-church. http://www.christianforum.com/showthread.p...35&postcount=17 Until Serapha and drstevej badgered the owner, I was having quite a good discussion with the moderator about it. We were actually getting to the root of the problem. But, I changed my icon. Mostly because I decided I don't agree with the Nicene Creed completely. Of course, they don't either, they are just lying about it so they can call themselves "Christian" and deny that label to others. How don't they agree with the Nicene Creed?

They are Calvinists. They are predestined to be "anti"'s! LOL You've just have to love determinists.

I'd also add ccwoody, wrigley and drstevej to the list. They are all Calvinists. Enuf said? Someone should tell those clowns that resistance is futile. Is that the drstevej and wrigley who I see when I lurk on Free Republic? They are clearly hostile towards LDS. They need to be put in their place. Probably. The style is the same. Attack the LDS often and early. I can rest assured that they'll see the folly of their ways soon enough. Hopefully sooner.

---Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 309 YEP, they gotta wear their garments to be with Christ in His kingdom. But I'm sure they'll be much more comfortable in heaven.

I'd also add ccwoody, wrigley and drstevej to the list. They are all Calvinists. Enuf said? Someone should tell those clowns that resistance is futile. Ya think they'll ever be singing "Praise to the Man"? Who knows. But the Prophet Joseph Smith had a great comment for their kind. And I quote. ---Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 309

I'd also add ccwoody, wrigley and drstevej to the list. They are all Calvinists. Enuf said? Someone should tell those clowns that resistance is futile.