Degrees Of Glory

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 16 2005, 08:00 PM

BS meter just went redline.

I imagine that you have already been called on your BS but suffice it to say that according you your illogic, we don't really have to get baptised, care for the needy, feed the sick, partake of the sacrament, and obey God... we just have to believe that God thinks it's a good idea.

Next time you get a temple reccomend interview - let me know what the Bishop says when you tell you you don't actually practice the Word of Wisdom but you remind yourself that God ordains it - while smoking  your crack pipe.

Reel it in Opie - looks like a whooper!

←

Such sad responses, I kind of feel sorry for you. Nothing among your rambling here has anything to do with what I stated. You have said nothing here, but rather make a bunch of silly and irrelevant comments. Do you always have conversations like this?

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 16 2005, 08:28 PM

Whoops! There's nothing in the manifesto or the then current thinking to make us believe that it was a revelation, but plenty of others made that assumption later.

"Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith did not specifically identify the Manifesto as a revelation in 1922, but affirmed that "the word of the Lord came to him [Wilford Woodruff] in a revelation suspending the practice of plural marriage," Apostle John A. Widtsoe wrote in 1940 that the Manifesto "was the product of revelation," Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine has asserted since 1958 that the Manifesto "is a revelation in the sense that the Lord both commanded President Woodruff to write it and told him what to write," President Spencer W. Kimball said in 1974 that the Manifesto was a "revelation," and historians Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton described it as "a divine revelation" in 1979." (Quinn)

←

Again, speaking before reading further. Even in my post that you quoted, I stated I had not researched it indepth, so the 'whoops' remark is just plain, well, foolish. I also told Jason that I would research it further, which he stated was not necessary, but I will do so for you if you would like.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 16 2005, 08:32 PM

Uh, yeah. What I'm gonna need in order to accept this latest bit of reasoning is some sort of authoritative statement that while we can eat bacon, we have to accept that God commanded Moses not to.

What happens if we don't believe that? Can we get our fast offering money back?

←

I'm now beginning to wonder if your outrageous and irrelevant remarks are your way of masking your complete lack of ability to have intelligent conversations. Your way of 'schooling' me is to make foolish comments without actually defending your position. You have failed to provide any semblance of a logical argument.

Do you accept that the Law of Moses was ordained of G-d? Was Moses a prophet?

[huma17]

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 16 2005, 08:48 PM

Actually, I think that the early leaders of the Church had a unique understanding of the law of plural marriage; one that is obviously not being taught today. But pehaps this quote will shed some light:

   The following is an extract from the journal of Wilford Woodruff, dated October 13, 1882:

    October 13, 1882. We met in council at President Taylor's office. We heard the revelation read in which George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant were called to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Seymour B. Young to fill the vacancy in the First Presidency of Seventies. October 14, 1882, we held a meeting with the Presidency, Twelve Apostles and the Presidents of Stakes. Remarks were made by President Taylor. Then the revelation was read. George Q. Cannon spoke to us and said, "How can we teach the people any law or principle that we do not keep ourselves?"

Joseph F. Smith spoke upon several subjects upon the Patriarchal Order of Marriage. President Taylor told what Joseph Smith said to him upon the subject, and said, "If we do not embrace that principle soon the keys will be turned against us, for if we do not keep the same law our Heavenly Father has we cannot go with Him. The word of the Lord to us was that if we did not obey that law we could not go where our Heavenly Father dwelt. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law." W. Woodruff said he was glad the Quorum of the Twelve and Seventies were now to be filled, and said that the reason why the Church and Kingdom of God could not progress if we did not receive the Patriarchal Law of Marriage is that it belonged to this dispensation as well as the Baptism for the dead, and any law or ordinance that belongs to this dispensation must be received by the members of the Church, or it cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over Stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to stop.

Note the part where it says "Will have to OBEY the law" and not merely "Believe in the law."

And there will be no picking it apart. It means what it says. It does not have some secret interpretation that requires a college degree to find out what it is.

←

And who, exactly, was supposed to obey the law in that quote? It is refering to the elders of the church, not all of the members. The Patriarchal Law is a higher law meant for the 'leading men of Israel'. It is refering to those who are to 'preside over those who keep a higher law'. They were commanded to obey the Patriarchal Law, and if they didn't, they couldn't follow our Heavenly Father and how could they teach the doctrine of plural marriage if they weren't following it. They refer to baptism for the dead, which is a must for this dispensation, and we must accept it, yet, will we be denied exaltation if we do not go to the temple to do baptism's for the dead?

I don't have to pick anything apart, it is clearly refering to the elders of the church: 'If we do not embrace that principle soon the keys will be turned against us'. The members do not hold those keys.

[LionHeart]

You just did pick it apart. It doesn't even come close to saying that those who obey the law of plural marriage are to preside over those who keep a higher law. It simply says those who obey a lesser law cannot preside over those who obey a higher law.

You say he was clearly referring to the elders of Israel, but who was he referring to when he said "If we did not obey that law we could not go where our Heavenly Father dwelt." Was he saying that the elders of Israel would be denied the privelidge of going where our Heavenly Father was if they didn't obey that law, but the generel membership gets a free ride? If this is the case, keep me as far away from eldership as possible. I want the free ride.

When you talk to someone, do you talk in riddles so that people have to closely examine what you say to get your true meaning? Or do you directly speak your point?

When you read the quote, the general idea you get is that these men believed and taught that plural marriage was essential to exaltaion. It is foolish to argue otherwise. They didn't talk in some secret code so that people would have to carefully note where they said "WE" and "I" and "They" in order to get what they were really saying. Something like this would have been the downfall of the Church because the opposition would have jumped all over these indirect statements and used them against the Church. The leaders would have then had to say "No no that's not what I meant. Notice I said 'We' here and 'I' there and if you put it all together, you'll see I was saying something completely different."

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 16 2005, 08:48 PM

First off, Snow, I was sarcastic with Jason due to his strong remarks to me - which, by the way, we have worked out.  You might want to read further before making such ignorant comments.  Second, suggesting that you know what I don't when you don't know me at all is rather silly.  Stop telling me what you know, and just come out with it - why are you stalling?  I told you I was waiting for you to 'school' me - quite some time ago - and am still waiting.  Stop with your hot air superiority, and back something up.

You continue to suggest that I will look foolish, when so far you are the only one that is fitting that bill.

←

First - You're using the word "ignorant incorrectly."

Second - "President Joseph F. Smith (Journal of Discourses 20:28-29)

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.

President Brigham Young (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Typescript 7:152)

...[men] who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [will be] taken from him and given to another. President Wilford Woodruff (Utah Stake Historical Record #64904/CH0/1877-1888. Quarterly Conference held March 3rd and 4th, 1883; Sunday, 2 PM, p.271) The new and everlasting Covenant is marriage, plural marriage - men may say that with their single marriage the same promises and blessings had been granted, why cannot I attain to as much as with three or four, many question me in this manner I suppose they are afraid of Edmunds, what is the Covenant?

It is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and includes a plurality of wives and takes both to make the law...Joseph Smith declared that all who became heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ must obey his law or they cannot enter into the fullness and if they do not they may loose the one talent, when men are offered knowledge and they refuse it they will be damned and there is not a man that is sealed by this priesthood by covenants to enter into the fullness of the law and the same with the woman she says she will observe all that pertains to the new and everlasting Covenant both are under the Covenant - and must obey if they wish to enter into a continuation of the lives or of the seeds.

President Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 9:322) (Deseret News, 14 November 1855)

If any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.

President Brigham Young:

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men.

President Joseph F. Smith (Journal of Discourses 21:10)

This doctrine of plural marriage is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become Gods, neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase.

President John Taylor (Matthew Cowley, Life of Wilford Woodruff, p.542 -- as quoted in MHP 1:311-312)

If we do not embrace that principle soon (plural marriage), the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our heavenly father has kept, we cannot go with him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law.

Additional quotes by Church authorities that practicing polygamy is necessary for exaltation can be found: Orson Pratt 1852 (JD 1:54), Brigham Young 1866 (JD 11:268-69), 1870 (Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 12 Feb 1870), and 1873 George Q. Cannon JD 16:166, and Wodruff, Diary, 31 Aug. 1873)

Hmmm... while I'm at it, here's a couple more:

"The ONLY men who become Gods, even the Sons of God are those who ENTER INTO polygamy." Brigham Young (JD 11:268-69)

and from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

"We formerly taught our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right, that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come." Statement on 19 December 1891 in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 3:230 (note this is more than a year following the 1890 Manifesto).

Of course the informed reader will note that the emphasis here is in practicing plural marriage, not just agreeing that it comes from God. In fact I doubt that you could find any sort of authoritative statement that supports such a silly notion Huma.

[Snow]

Again, speaking before reading further. Even in my post that you quoted, I stated I had not researched it indepth...

←

Really?

Golly, we hardly would have noticed had you not pointed it out, but all the more reason for you to not pretend, as you did in your first post to me, that you knew what you were talking about while accusing me of being factually wrong.

I am often wrong but I don't think the day will come soon when you might catch me at it.

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 16 2005, 09:05 PM

I'm now beginning to wonder if your outrageous and irrelevant remarks are your way of masking your complete lack of ability to have intelligent conversations.  Your way of 'schooling' me is to make foolish comments without actually defending your position.  You have failed to provide any semblance of a logical argument.

Do you accept that the Law of Moses was ordained of G-d?  Was Moses a prophet?

←

Now Huma, here's the problem with you calling my post outrageous and irrelevant... you are the one who used the analogy of the Law of Moses being of God though we are not required to follow it as being similar to the law of polygamy being of God though we are not required to follow it. So - my remarks, while possibly outrageous, certainly were not irrelevant but specifically germane to your comparison.

Whether I believe that the Mosaic law was of God is not germane to your point that we need only believe in certain commandments, not actually obey them.

However, if you are asking whether I think that God commanded that mixed crops should not be planted in the same field, that it was a sin to wear clothes made of two fabrics or for a woman to wear a man's shirt or that it a sin to eat rock badger, then my answer would have to be that I am not the type of guy that believes in the following:

If a man suspects that the Mrs has been sleeping around, Numbers 5:11-30 tells us the following:

"The husband brings his wife (and an offering of barley) to the priest, who has the woman stand in front of the altar. He pours some holy water into a bowl and takes some of the dirt from the floor of the Tent of the Lord's presence and mixes it in with the water. Then he loosens the woman's hair and puts the barley flour in her hands while he holds the bowl of bitter water that has the power to curse. The woman recites an oath attesting to her innocence. This same oath (containing a curse) is written down by the priest who washes the ink into the bowl of bitter water. The priest then takes the barley flour from the woman's hands and dedicates it to the Lord, burning a small portion on the altar. The poor woman then gets to drink the water with the ink and dirt in it. If she is guilty, the water will cause bitter pain, her genital organs will shrink away, and her stomach will bloat out! She will become barren." (Dave Matson)

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 16 2005, 09:19 PM

I don't have to pick anything apart, it is clearly refering to the elders of the church: 'If we do not embrace that principle soon the keys will be turned against us'.  The members do not hold those keys.

←

Apologist Alert!!!

Jeff Lindsay just called and he wants his stretching maching back.

Say - can anybody lend me a cup of tumbaga?

[glindakc]

Oye. Snow, are you LDS?

[Snow]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 17 2005, 09:28 AM

Oye. Snow, are you LDS?

←

Why - is there anything I have said that isn't true or in keeping with LDS principles?

[glindakc]

not particularly. it just seemed to me at first like you were trying to deface it. im sorry for thinking that way, and i was just wondering what exactly your stance was. i do not want to bring any argument into this, by the way. and i love your signature. good quote.

[Snow]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 18 2005, 01:02 PM

not particularly. it just seemed to me at first like you were trying to deface it. im sorry for thinking that way, and i was just wondering what exactly your stance was. i do not want to bring any argument into this, by the way. and i love your signature. good quote.

←

I am the board's officially designated Devil's Advocate. I take positions for and against my Church in order to get to a better understanding; not that I argue for things that I don't believe in, just that I am willing to criticize where criticism seems warranted.

The quote is from an critc who used to post here - still posts every couple of months - He was talking about me as pathetic. I use it as my signature to annoy him.

[glindakc]

lol.

in that case, i take everything back, and i think that it is very useful to have a devil's advocate on the board, i honestly like debates. and like you said, it brings a better understanding.

[huma17]

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 16 2005, 11:54 PM

You just did pick it apart. It doesn't even come close to saying that those who obey the law of plural marriage are to preside over those who keep a higher law. It simply says those who obey a lesser law cannot preside over those who obey a higher law.

First, let me apologize for not replying sooner, I have been a bit busy - sorry.

Now, let me respond to your comments:

I'm a little confused to your remark here. The quote you gave is clearly referring to the elders of the church, and there obedience to the Law of Plural Marriage. It states that if they do not keep that law, how can they expect to preside over those that keep a higher law when they keep the lesser law. I don't know why you can't see the correlation here. They are not keeping the Law of Plural Marriage - which is the higher law, so they are only keeping the lower law(s). As for the members, the higher law - for them - could be a number of things; such as the New and Everlasting convenant of marriage - being sealed by the priesthood of G-d for time and eternity. The members would be keeping the higher law - the highest law given to them - while the elders of the church would not be keeping their highest law - Patriarchal Marriage. Are you even going to suggest that you do not realize that the elders of the church are held to higher laws/standards than the lay member?

You say he was clearly referring to the elders of Israel, but who was he referring to when he said "If we did not obey that law we could not go where our Heavenly Father dwelt." Was he saying that the elders of Israel would be denied the privelidge of going where our Heavenly Father was if they didn't obey that law, but the generel membership gets a free ride? If this is the case, keep me as far away from eldership as possible. I want the free ride.

To tell you the truth, I'm a little suprised by your remarks here. Yes, he was saying that if the elders of the church didn't obey the higher law of plural marriage that they could not go where our Father dwells. The members of the church do not get a 'free ride', because they must obey all the laws that they have been given to follow. What I'm pointing out here, is that the laws given to the elders don't always apply to the rest of the membership.

When you talk to someone, do you talk in riddles so that people have to closely examine what you say to get your true meaning? Or do you directly speak your point?

I always directly speak my point. I will admit that sometimes I do not make myself clear enough, or that others do not always understand what I am trying to get across. I do feel that what I am trying to point out is clear as the noon sky.

When you read the quote, the general idea you get is that these men believed and taught that plural marriage was essential to exaltaion. It is foolish to argue otherwise. They didn't talk in some secret code so that people would have to carefully note where they said "WE" and "I" and "They" in order to get what they were really saying. Something like this would have been the downfall of the Church because the opposition would have jumped all over these indirect statements and used them against the Church. The leaders would have then had to say "No no that's not what I meant. Notice I said 'We' here and 'I' there and if you put it all together, you'll see I was saying something completely different."

←

Yes, plural marriage IS essential for the exaltation of MANKIND. I don't know how to make this any clearer...many things are essential for the exaltation of Mankind, but not all are required for all men. As I pointed out earlier, the Atonement was a must, but are we all supposed to atone for sin? The elders weren't speaking in riddles either, the quote is CLEARLY amongst, and to, the elders of the church - how can you not see this? I thought I had pointed it out as clear as can be. There is no indirect speech here, the quote talks about the elders of the church and states 'we' in that manner. Read it! Do you need an english/speech professor to help you with this - it is as simple as can be!

[huma17]

First - You're using the word "ignorant incorrectly."

←

Let me help you with this:

ig·no·rant (gnr-nt)

adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.

2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.

3. Unaware or uninformed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English ignoraunt, from Old French ignorant, from Latin ignrns, ignrant-, present participle of ignrre, to be ignorant, not to know; see gn- in Indo-European roots.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

igno·rant·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorant

Now, let me spell it out for you: You went off on me in regards to my sarcasm towards Jason, even though Jason (to whom the sarcasm was aimed at) and I had worked out and discussed our differences. Your ignorance (see #3) in this matter was quite apparent, or else you would not have made such remarks. Tell me, again, how I used this term incorrectly?

And if we are being so correct in our grammar usage, let me inform you that the word 'get' is spelled G - E - T, not G - I - T...

Second - "President Joseph F. Smith (Journal of Discourses 20:28-29)

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false.

I do seem to recall responding to this exact quote...did you miss it?

Anyway, I will give you a brief summation:

Patriarchal Marriage is of a higher law, and therefore has higher rewards (as well as consequences). If one thinks that they can live only a lower law and receive the higher rewards, they are wrong. If you want to hear more on this, it would do you good to go back and read all the previous posts.

There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.

President Brigham Young (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Typescript 7:152)

Call me crazy (which I'm sure you would anyway), but I'm sure I covered this as well...again, see previous posts.

You see, the celestial law of marriage - being sealed for time and eternity by the priesthood power of G-d - is only the beginning, there are more requirements to that law in order to receive all the promised blessings given by the Lord - see D&C 132.

The new and everlasting Covenant is marriage, plural marriage - men may say that with their single marriage the same promises and blessings had been granted, why cannot I attain to as much as with three or four, many question me in this manner I suppose they are afraid of Edmunds, what is the Covenant?

Once more, already covered this...higher law, higher rewards.

It is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and includes a plurality of wives and takes both to make the law...Joseph Smith declared that all who became heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ must obey his law or they cannot enter into the fullness and if they do not they may loose the one talent, when men are offered knowledge and they refuse it they will be damned and there is not a man that is sealed by this priesthood by covenants to enter into the fullness of the law and the same with the woman she says she will observe all that pertains to the new and everlasting Covenant both are under the Covenant - and must obey if they wish to enter into a continuation of the lives or of the seeds.

President Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 9:322) (Deseret News, 14 November 1855)

Did you see the part of your quote that states 'INCLUDES'?? Yes, the marriage covenant includes, not soley comprises of, a plurality of wives! Yes, all must obey his law - which INCLUDES plural marriage - to be joint heirs.

If any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.

President Brigham Young:

Do I even need to respond? Yes, if you deny polygamy you will be damned. Where does that mean that we must ALL practice polygamy?? I rather see it to mean that we must accept it as G-ds law, period.

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men.

President Joseph F. Smith (Journal of Discourses 21:10)

Pretty much a repeat of the above - a restriction to one wife is not of the Lord.

This doctrine of plural marriage is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become Gods, neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase.

President John Taylor (Matthew Cowley, Life of Wilford Woodruff, p.542 -- as quoted in MHP 1:311-312)

And your point is...? The doctrine of plural marriage IS important, but where does this state that ALL must live it? The Lord must reveal all of the Gospel - the Fulness of - for us to follow and live by the knowledge of it. As I have pointed out before, there are more than one aspect of the Gospel that is true, but does not require each of us to participate in. We must follow and accept modern prophet/revelation, yet we are not required to be a prophet, nor receive revelation for Mankind.

If we do not embrace that principle soon (plural marriage), the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our heavenly father has kept, we cannot go with him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law.

Once more, already covered this. This is meant for the elders of the church.

"The ONLY men who become Gods, even the Sons of God are those who ENTER INTO polygamy." Brigham Young (JD 11:268-69)

Now say, this IS a good one...I almost got stumped here!

However, you forgot to include the rest - or prior parts - of the quote.

Let me help you:

It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Notice where BY states 'you will be polygamists at least in your faith'...why did you exclude this?

If we do not embrace that principle soon (plural marriage), the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our heavenly father has kept, we cannot go with him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law.

and from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

How many times do I have to point out that this quote is from dialoge that is meant for - and only for - the elders of the church??

"We formerly taught our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right, that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come." Statement on 19 December 1891 in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 3:230 (note this is more than a year following the 1890 Manifesto).

Yes, polygamy IS right, and of G-d, and it is a necessity to MAN'S highest exaltation. Show me were the term 'Man' refers to each and every man?

Of course the informed reader will note that the emphasis here is in practicing plural marriage, not just agreeing that it comes from God. In fact I doubt that you could find any sort of authoritative statement that supports such a silly notion Huma.

Sorry, Snow, but the emphasis is accepting it, not simply acknowledging that it comes from G-d. 'Silly notion'...you, Snow, have yet to provide any statement that supports that all must practice plural marriage...

[huma17]

---

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 17 2005, 01:54 AM

Really?

Golly, we hardly would have noticed had you not pointed it out, but all the more reason for you to not pretend, as you did in your first post to me, that you knew what you were talking about while accusing me of being factually wrong.

I am often wrong but I don't think the day will come soon when you might catch me at it.

←

I find this post rather pathetic, because you seem to be trying your hardest to retain the allusion of superiority...sorry, Snow, but it just doesn't exist.

Why would you even try to dis-credit me in my own emission of the lack of knowledge of a particular subject? I have not once tried to suggest a knowledge of the 1890 manifesto and related subject material. I called you on your remarks of plural marriage because I had a knowledge of it. I also remarked on it due to the fact that a 14yr. old came to this MB for the first time asking an innocent question, and you gave some completely irrelevant information...why?

As to me 'catching' you in error...I already have.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 17 2005, 02:29 AM

Now Huma, here's the problem with you calling my post outrageous and irrelevant... you are the one who used the analogy of the Law of Moses being of God though we are not required to follow it as being similar to the law of polygamy being of God though we are not required to follow it. So - my remarks, while possibly outrageous, certainly were not irrelevant but specifically germane to your comparison.

←

I am so glad that you have made the connection that I was trying to point out...yes, not all men are to follow the Law of Moses, as all men are not to follow the Patriarchal Law - even though both laws are of the Lord, and we must accept both as such...very good, Snow.

However, your remarks towards bacon and tithing settlement were a bit 'irrelevant'.

Whether I believe that the Mosaic law was of God is not germane to your point that we need only believe in certain commandments, not actually obey them.

No, not simply 'believe', but accept...big difference.

However, if you are asking whether I think that God commanded that mixed crops should not be planted in the same field, that it was a sin to wear clothes made of two fabrics or for a woman to wear a man's shirt or that it a sin to eat rock badger, then my answer would have to be that I am not the type of guy that believes in the following:

If a man suspects that the Mrs has been sleeping around, Numbers 5:11-30 tells us the following:

"The husband brings his wife (and an offering of barley) to the priest, who has the woman stand in front of the altar. He pours some holy water into a bowl and takes some of the dirt from the floor of the Tent of the Lord's presence and mixes it in with the water. Then he loosens the woman's hair and puts the barley flour in her hands while he holds the bowl of bitter water that has the power to curse. The woman recites an oath attesting to her innocence. This same oath (containing a curse) is written down by the priest who washes the ink into the bowl of bitter water. The priest then takes the barley flour from the woman's hands and dedicates it to the Lord, burning a small portion on the altar. The poor woman then gets to drink the water with the ink and dirt in it. If she is guilty, the water will cause bitter pain, her genital organs will shrink away, and her stomach will bloat out! She will become barren." (Dave Matson)

I almost expected you to use Deut. 25: 5-10 (definately one of my favorites), however, I don't see the relevance here...are you saying that you don't believe in the Bible?

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 17 2005, 02:31 AM

Apologist Alert!!!

Jeff Lindsay just called and he wants his stretching maching back.

Say - can anybody lend me a cup of tumbaga?

←

Why not refer to Daniel Peterson, or Dan Vogel? However, I do not have my own website, so I think Jeff Lindsay will be OK.

Do you think the plates will really fit into your small cup?

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 17 2005, 04:27 PM

Why  - is there anything I have said that isn't true or in keeping with LDS principles?

←

Let's see...well, you suggest that either the Restored Gospel is false, or...it's false...

[Snow]

Huma,

I seriously doubt you believe the bull you are spouting. Either way, you are a very bad, hack apologist.

I won't bother with the rest of your nonsensical posts here.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 20 2005, 01:43 AM

Huma,

I seriously doubt you believe the bull you are spouting. Either way, you are a very bad, hack apologist.

I won't bother with the rest of your nonsensical posts here.

←

Sure, Snow. How very noble of you not to respond with intelligent remarks, but to rather call me a hack and run off...

[Ray]

Well done, huma17.

Those who know the truth can recognize others who know it too.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 18 2005, 03:40 PM

I am the board's officially designated Devil's Advocate.

←

When you advocate the Devil’s position do you realize you are destined for nothing but failure???