Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31996 comments on the CNN story from Oct 12, 2011, titled Who says Mormons aren't Christians?. In it, CNN reports that:

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CNN.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12394 Jul 21, 2012
"In the mean time Betsey and I were undressing the children; and hearing sounds of heavy footsteps and muttering undertones of strange voices and persons struggling in the passage, we looked at each other, and rushed to the door, each with a child in our arms. I succeeded in pulling open the room door in the passage, but I had no sooner done so than a man who was holding the door knocked me back into the room, flat upon the floor, with the baby in my arms, and, shutting the door again, held it fast. Instantly I laid the baby on the carpet, and, with all my strength, forced open the door, and found myself surrounded by a number of ruffians.- I believe five or six,- who were all in time dark, for they had extinguished the candle, and I calling aloud for Mr. Jarvis several minutes. In the end he, gasping for breath, answered me.

When I found where he was, I made a desperate rush at the man who was holding him, and the fellow, lifting up his hand, let go his hold of him, and he darted out of the open door like lightning, across the street, and round the corner to a neighbor's house to obtain assistance. He got to the door almost exhausted, and begged for help; but no one dared come until the master of the house, who was absent, returned. They fetched him, and when he heard the particulars of the attack made upon us, he said,`Sir, you must leave my house instantly. I have no sympathy for you. I would not protect my own father under the same circumstances.' Mr. Jarvis said,`What have I done?' The man replied,`You have done plenty; you covenanted to serve the Lord, and you are serving the devil, and I should not be surprised to see you with your throat cut.'

"After Mr. Jarvis had made his escape from the fiends, I turned to enter the house again, firmly believing that some of them were in pursuit of him, and begged to know of the men on the spot what they wanted. On. stepping forward to enter the door, I found it guarded by a man on each side, who pushed me backward into the snow. I rose and again attempted to enter the house, but was prevented in like manner, when I saw Mrs. M. coming out with the babies in their night-gowns, one under each arm, to carry them to a place of safety. When I found I could not, after several such attempts, force an entrance, I ran round to the back door and got in, but no sooner was I in than out again. I was tossed by the same ruthless hands as before. Many a time I was knocked down in the way I have described; and one of my front teeth was loosened, and my limbs most mercilessly bruised.

"Finding I could not enter to ascertain the state of affairs in the house, I determined to let the neighborhood know, and for many minutes stood shouting for help, until I was exhausted. I could hear that the windows were all being broken, and the furniture destroyed; when I was appalled by hearing Mrs. M. shriek out,`0, Mrs. Jarvis. the house is on fire!' I instantly ran in desperation, and got in at the back part of the shop,- and 0, my dear sister, what a scene! Flames and smoke up to the ceiling; the goods in the store, or shop, burning; and two men, almost suffocated, still intent upon the work of destruction - carrying lighted paper, and setting fire to everything that would burn!

To be continued...

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12395 Jul 21, 2012
"The thoughts of my three boys sleeping up stairs; my husband, I knew not where,- perhaps murdered,- and seeing no hope of saving the house - for three rooms were then burning; the thought that to-morrow I and my children would have no home, no shelter, and be penniless, with the snow two feet deep, and not a friend that dare open the door to us,- they dare not do it, however much disposed they might be; for they were threatened with the same, and were told that if they heard the cry of fire they were to take no notice; all these things rushing into my mind at once, I grew desperate, and forced my way in at the front door, and implored the ruffians to let me fetch my children clown stairs. They muttered,`There's none of them there.' I said,`Yes, they are asleep in bed.' Then he said,`Go.' On passing Up stairs, I saw on one side the shop in flames, and the room, the furniture and windows broken, and our clothes scattered about, on fire. I shrieked out, when a man caught me by the throat, and I had to gasp for breath. I saved my children in their night-dresses, and the oldest had to run out with the snow up to his hips.

"When we found that the villains were gone, we put out the fire, throwing water upon it; and on one shelf was a large canister of gunpowder, within six inches of the flame, of which I did not know. I saved the house from being blown up, but I got my hands severely burned. Four large windows were broken out, one dozen chairs and a table destroyed; a stove and three tables broken; carpets, clothes, and goods burned in the store; and many silver watches and other substantial things stolen. making the damage sustained amount to nearly eight hundred dollars. Every day after was a living death,- a dying daily. We were never safe for an hour. When we appealed to the authorities, they advised us to be quiet about it, and `let it slide.' And so we did; for we could obtain no redress.

"The outrage upon us was never mentioned in the newspaper. We had to pocket the insult, and bear the loss; and now we are thankful we are out of it. We exchanged our property for land in the States, hired conveyances, and left on the 22d of April. We are now at Weston, eight miles from Leavenworth, where we arrived without any interruption; but we suffered greatly from the heat. We shall remain here till Mr. Jarvis makes arrangements for our future abode."

My father knew these people well in England; they were from Leeds, where they were highly respected. I have met them quite recently in Burlington, Iowa, where they are living in very comfortable circumstances. They have outgrown all tendencies towards Mormonism, and are now among its bitterest opponents.

This outrage is somewhat remarkable, because it was unattended by bloodshed,- a most extraordinary circumstance, when so many were killed outright who had sinned as Mr. Jarvis had. Innocent people suffered, and at that time, no Gentile was safe in the Mormon territory.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#12396 Jul 22, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to validate that Smith was a sexual predator. The facts are there. If he wasn't screwing his "wives" he wouldn't have had to hide it from Emma. That is a fact. But you keep pretending, I don't care what hissy fits you throw.
The truth is there are no facts whatsoever that prove Smith to be a sexual predator. It is merely a fantasy you've created in your own mind. Most likely due to your own struggle with perversion.

That you are so obsessed with the sex life of a guy who's been dead for well over a century and a half is an indication.

I've long believed you need professional help. The more I read of your "interests", the more convinced I am that I am correct.
Chris

United States

#12397 Jul 22, 2012
fedupwiththemess wrote:
I do. They do not go by the bible nor does the bible mention mormonism it it. They have created a so called "extension" or another book of the bible calling it the book of mormon. Mormonism was created by a horny man wanting to screw more than one woman so he made it up saying GOD told him to do so. Women fell for it.
IF you believe in Christ and his word you ARE without doubt a Christian. Mormons believe in Christ. His sinless life. His eternal selfless sacrifice that is the only way to Heaven. Mormons believe in all of Christs teachings and recognize Christ as THE authority of divinity and any teacher who teaches by his Holy Spirit is only a mouth piece to the public in his Holy behalf. Mormons teach all of the ten commandments and have a study class each Sunday to expound verses and chapters from the bible. Part of being Christian is to act and speak in holiness before the Lord. Please do so about our fellow Christians who claim to strive to be Latter-day Saints. The Christians in the Bible were called saints as well. We need to come together in the unity of the faith. This is what the Bible teaches.
TruthHere

Rochester, KY

#12398 Jul 22, 2012
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth is there are no facts whatsoever that prove Smith to be a sexual predator. It is merely a fantasy you've created in your own mind. Most likely due to your own struggle with perversion.
That you are so obsessed with the sex life of a guy who's been dead for well over a century and a half is an indication.
I've long believed you need professional help. The more I read of your "interests", the more convinced I am that I am correct.
Warren Jeffs could have used you as a lawyer. All cults have some type of sexual perversion in them.
The first thing Jim Jones did when he got his followers to Jonestown, Guyana was to dissolve all marriages an pair off different ones to different people.
David Koresh, Branch Davidian, started having sex with all the little girls in his cult saying God wanted him to fill the world with his offspring.
ALL cults ALWAYS have some type of sexual perversion.
TruthHere

Rochester, KY

#12399 Jul 22, 2012
I well say one thing. If all you Morons would go back to having all the sex with many wives or girlfriends you wanted in the church, you would get many more members.
Oh, that's right God told you to stop it. Funny how God told you to stop it at the exact same time Utah was trying to become a state and wouldn't be allowed to unless the Morons promised to stop with all the group sex.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#12401 Jul 22, 2012
Again...

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim,
“I will be to this generation a second MOHAMMED , whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’”

And as you can see, Piratefighting's tactics and reasoning and excuses... sound like the rantings of a Muslim extremist.
piratefighting wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU HAVE NO CASE...
if your walking down an alley and people start burning your house... raping your wife... killing the men you associate with
I KNOW I SURE WOULD DEFEND MYSELF AND...
DON'T FORGET WE ARE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE... AMERICA...
where we have:
FREEDOM to CHOOSE the RELIGION of our CHOICE...
A RIGHT to DEFEND our property...
Even an ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY to DEFEND THOSE WHO CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES...
from being being raped,molested,killed, having their homes burned down for what?
BECAUSE PEOPLE FORCE THEMSELVES ON OTHERS...
They are called:
CRIMINOPATHS.......SOCIOPATHS. ......PHYSOCOPATHS
These people WILL DO ANYTHING TO BRAINWASH Innoscent people... to force them... and control them... to believe stupid crap people FICTITIOUS POST ON THE INTERNET... or MANIPULATE THEM PERSONALLY...!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12402 Jul 22, 2012
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth is there are no facts whatsoever that prove Smith to be a sexual predator. It is merely a fantasy you've created in your own mind. Most likely due to your own struggle with perversion.
That you are so obsessed with the sex life of a guy who's been dead for well over a century and a half is an indication.
I've long believed you need professional help. The more I read of your "interests", the more convinced I am that I am correct.
It is Mormonism that promotes Smith as a holy man, a prophet of God, someone who claimed to have had a direct visit from God the Father and Jesus Christ. Now I could blindly buy the BS, or I can look at the character of this person to see if he is the kind of person God would used to restore his church, if indeed it needed restoration. His sexual perversions are an indication he was anything but a prophet. And if you want to play No Surprises game of pretending that people get married to not have sex, that makes the fool, you. If he wasn't having sex with them, he wouldn't have had to hide his activities from Emma or even the law. And just what right did he have to marry women who were already married? For what purpose? Those were women that had husband who were members and where serving missions at Smith's orders. Maybe you think it is alright for other men to claim your wife as their own, even if they are not having sex. Me? I would never tolerate it, and most normal people wouldn't either. And to top it off by claiming it was the will of the Lord just shows how deep the perversion runs in the man.

Anyone buying that BS are the ones who need the professional help. I refuse to be a fool for the LDS church.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12403 Jul 22, 2012
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>
IF you believe in Christ and his word you ARE without doubt a Christian. Mormons believe in Christ. His sinless life. His eternal selfless sacrifice that is the only way to Heaven. Mormons believe in all of Christs teachings and recognize Christ as THE authority of divinity and any teacher who teaches by his Holy Spirit is only a mouth piece to the public in his Holy behalf. Mormons teach all of the ten commandments and have a study class each Sunday to expound verses and chapters from the bible. Part of being Christian is to act and speak in holiness before the Lord. Please do so about our fellow Christians who claim to strive to be Latter-day Saints. The Christians in the Bible were called saints as well. We need to come together in the unity of the faith. This is what the Bible teaches.
You claim to believe in Christ yet you reject his saving grace and replace it with a Gospel of works. People who truly believe in Christ put the hope of their salvation in the blood of Christ.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12404 Jul 22, 2012
osirica wrote:
Again...
In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim,
“I will be to this generation a second MOHAMMED , whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’”
And as you can see, Piratefighting's tactics and reasoning and excuses... sound like the rantings of a Muslim extremist.
<quoted text>
He/she/it is a special kind of whacko.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12405 Jul 22, 2012
osirica wrote:
Again...
In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim,
“I will be to this generation a second MOHAMMED , whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’”
And as you can see, Piratefighting's tactics and reasoning and excuses... sound like the rantings of a Muslim extremist.
<quoted text>
Brigham Young made that prophecy come true after the Mormons settled in Utah.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12406 Jul 22, 2012
TruthHere wrote:
I well say one thing. If all you Morons would go back to having all the sex with many wives or girlfriends you wanted in the church, you would get many more members.
Oh, that's right God told you to stop it. Funny how God told you to stop it at the exact same time Utah was trying to become a state and wouldn't be allowed to unless the Morons promised to stop with all the group sex.
It wasn't just the desire to become a state that changed their policy. It was after Federal troops came into SLC and had taken control of all the church's assets and the leaders were hiding in Hawaii like gutless cowards that they all of a sudden had a "revelation".

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#12408 Jul 22, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to validate that Smith was a sexual predator. The facts are there. If he wasn't screwing his "wives" he wouldn't have had to hide it from Emma. That is a fact. But you keep pretending, I don't care what hissy fits you throw.
lolol....fricking clown! lol. You want to accuse a person of something then provide factual proof that goes beyond what someone claims has happened. And a claim without proof isn't proof, did you know that? If a claim was seen as proof, then the tooth fairy is real and so is the boogy man and monsters hide in closets and under beds etc, etc.
It can be shown by statements that various people claimed to have "watched" and had been part of certain marriages that Smith engaged with certain females. That is called proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? because different people are claiming to have "seen" the same thing.
Unfortunately for you, there was never a single statement whereby one or more witnesses claimed to have "seen" Smith having sex with a single wife. No witnesses, no proof. Get it? Most lawyers would get that fact and judges in a court of law. Most normal thinking individuals also understand the difference of a rumor and something that has been proved true through facts. So get this into your brain if it's possible? A claim/statement even if made before a judge, remains a claim/statement and not a thing of fact if proof doesn't accompany what's been claimed/stated.
Now for you to consider a fact. Smith was pro family. Since your shallow challenged thinking intellect doesn't comprehend the implications of that fact as he proved it with Emma over and over and over by having numerous children, HE WAS AGAINST CONTRACEPTION PRACTICES. Therefore he would have did his best to impregnate his 30+ wives to have as many descendents as possible as past ancient prophets and kings had that he revered and spoke of in support of his polygyny beliefs. Get it? To have sex and prevent the birth of children would have been totally contrary to everything he taught and believed in concerning the family unit and, what the primary purpose of marriage was about for a Mormon.
And you're a liar. People in these threads have recognized you for being an up front liar. Every time you claim he hid is "extra" marriages from Emma you're nothing but a pathetic liar. Emma participated as a witness to his second wife. Emma knew of his other wives. She let some stay at her home. That's a historical fact. So as long as you continue to say Smith hid his marriages from Emma you're nothing but a liar.
And you're nothing but a low down rumormongering lip flapping busy body gossiper. You have not a single fact to show Smith had sex with anyone other then Emma. You claim he screwed 30+ women for over a decade, but you can't explain how not a single "extra" wife had a child. Neither can you explain how many of these 30+ "barrenless" wives he had sex with for over a dozen years, remarried after his death and began to have a few to several or more children.
You postulate a theory and yet you can't explain it's own complications, working against your theory proving what you claim can't actually be as true as you claim it is.
But you have proved you would rather be a prejudicial blithering rumormongering idiot then anything else concerning this matter. So you keep believing in your fairy tale of Smith's sex life and, if you ever actually come up with some real facts that go beyond claims and statements, you let me know :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#12409 Jul 22, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
Now I could blindly buy the BS,
you have bought the BS and you continue to drink it like it has a taste that's sweeter than honey to you!lol. You grab the BS of Smith's sex life with both hands and guzzel it down like a hungry infant, not caring if it's true or false in content. The fact that you do that continually proves what you will do to believe in the shite you believe in as God's truth.
Let's go over the facts you ignore shall we? Hmm?
A. You claim Smith had sex with 30+females for over a dozen years.
Your Problem; 1. Modern science has proven not a single person is related to Smith except through the children he had with Emma. 2. many wives that you claim Smith had sex with for over a dozen years that remained barren of childbirth, remarried after Smith's death and suddenly had children with no problem at all.
B. In spite of the above "facts" that modern science has established, you pathetically and ignorantly refuse to face those factually established points concerning Smith.
Oh well, you prove over and over you enjoy drinking BS then a sip of the actual truth in this matter dude :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#12410 Jul 22, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
Now I could blindly buy the BS,... His sexual perversions are an indication he was anything but a prophet. And if you want to play No Surprises game of pretending that people get married to not have sex, that makes the fool, you. If he wasn't having sex with them, he wouldn't have had to hide his activities from Emma or even the law. And just what right did he have to marry women who were already married?
Anyone buying that BS are the ones who need the professional help. I refuse to be a fool for the LDS church.
You have bought the BS. You drink it and you swim in it as God's truth. You support rumors without facts. You call claims/statements that have no actual evidence "evidence". If you were to present your case against Smith being a sexual predator in an actual court room, the judge would dismiss you hearing you have no actual evidence and your entire case is based on hearsay evidence which isn't evidence. You would protest the judge's decision of course as unfair. So in all fairness the judge would ask what's your evidence beyond the hearsay evidence you have? Do you have eye witnesses who saw the sexual act beside the actual person making the claim? No. Did the person you claim to be the sexual offender make a statement that he had sex with any of these alleged victims? No. Are there any children existing or dead that can be shown to be a product of the sexual offense? No. So all you have are claims and statements made by the alleged victims and claims and statements from third, and fourth, etc parties? Yes.
Well your case is dismissed and you will pay all the court costs in this case for the time you have wasted of this court. Bye :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#12411 Jul 22, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I do understand a pervert using and abusing the good name of the Lord to get his rocks off. But call me "pathetic moron" again if it helps. He didn't marry them to shake their hands. LOL!!!
lol...I call you a pathetic moron when you think like one. I do my best to encourage you to think "out of the box" but it's about as successful as teaching a infant to drive...the comprehension just isn't there you prove over and over.
So for a moment consider these things. It doesn't mean you have to quit being an anti-Mormon, it just means if you give the evidence weight, you're showing an ability to reasoning with a slightly unbiased mind, open for possibilities and or corrections if you're indeed incorrect with present logic concerning something of Smith. Get it?
So consider you believe as others Smith had sex with 30+ wives for over a dozen years. But consider modern science has proved not a single descendent exists other then from Emma. That means something. It should mean something even to you. Consider that Smith believed and spoke of marrying wives for what purpose? For the hereafter. That Smith spoke of how these wives in the hereafter would help him populate his own world. Now consider the fact that we know Smith married many females for the hereafter and not for this life. Consider that we know that the only wife Smith was married to that he had children with for this world was Emma.
That information establishes a theory that many wish not to believe who want to believe HE HAD TO BE HAVING SEX with all these wives, that what both Smith and Emma claimed is true as far as they stated it. That Emma was his ONLY legally bound wife for this world. That though Emma was against his having other wives for any purpose, she did agree to Smith having wives for the next world and not this one.
So what is the actual theory that would be the most correct to believe in? A theory that contains facts and hearsay evidence. Smith had just one legally bound wife in this world. Smith by his own words married other wives for the next world, not this world. What substantiates that is that not a single "extra" wife has ever to be found to have had children by him. That would show his "self did marriages" were for a future purpose and not this life. The absence of children by other wives would establish sex more then likely wasn't a part of those relationships in spite of what anyone wants to believe to the contrary now.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12412 Jul 22, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lolol....fricking clown! lol. You want to accuse a person of something then provide factual proof that goes beyond what someone claims has happened. And a claim without proof isn't proof, did you know that? If a claim was seen as proof, then the tooth fairy is real and so is the boogy man and monsters hide in closets and under beds etc, etc.
It can be shown by statements that various people claimed to have "watched" and had been part of certain marriages that Smith engaged with certain females. That is called proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? because different people are claiming to have "seen" the same thing.
Unfortunately for you, there was never a single statement whereby one or more witnesses claimed to have "seen" Smith having sex with a single wife. No witnesses, no proof. Get it? Most lawyers would get that fact and judges in a court of law. Most normal thinking individuals also understand the difference of a rumor and something that has been proved true through facts. So get this into your brain if it's possible? A claim/statement even if made before a judge, remains a claim/statement and not a thing of fact if proof doesn't accompany what's been claimed/stated.
The proof is the marriage. Try going before a judge and arguing that marriage isn't proof that the couple had sex. See how loud they would laugh you out of court.

"In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 581, we pointed out that Michael Marquardt discovered photographs of a letter written by Joseph Smith himself and addressed to Bishop Newel K. Whitney and his wife. The letter is very interesting because Smith asks the "three" of them—presumably Mr. and Mrs. Whitney and their young daughter Sarah Ann, to whom Joseph Smith was secretly married—to come see him by night. In the letter, Joseph Smith makes it very clear that he does not want them to come when Emma, his first wife, would be present: "... all three of you can come and see me in the fore part of the night,... the only thing to be careful of, is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety:... I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come tonight, I subscribe myself your obedient and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith"

Of course Joseph was afraid that Emma would catch Sarah Ann cooking his meal, that is why he didn't want them to come over until Emma was gone. LOL!!

Benjamin F Johnson made the following statement in an affidavit dated March 4, 1870: "After a short period, President Smith ... came again to Macedonia (Ramus), where he remained two days, lodging at my house with my sister as man and wife (and to my certain knowledge he occupied the same bed with her)" (Historical Record, vol. 6, p. 222).

But I'm sure they just held hands the whole time. LOL!!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12413 Jul 22, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You have bought the BS. You drink it and you swim in it as God's truth. You support rumors without facts. You call claims/statements that have no actual evidence "evidence". If you were to present your case against Smith being a sexual predator in an actual court room, the judge would dismiss you hearing you have no actual evidence and your entire case is based on hearsay evidence which isn't evidence. You would protest the judge's decision of course as unfair. So in all fairness the judge would ask what's your evidence beyond the hearsay evidence you have? Do you have eye witnesses who saw the sexual act beside the actual person making the claim? No. Did the person you claim to be the sexual offender make a statement that he had sex with any of these alleged victims? No. Are there any children existing or dead that can be shown to be a product of the sexual offense? No. So all you have are claims and statements made by the alleged victims and claims and statements from third, and fourth, etc parties? Yes.
Well your case is dismissed and you will pay all the court costs in this case for the time you have wasted of this court. Bye :)
No, I have the testimony of the women who had sex with him. You want to eliminate that as real evidence in a court of law, but any judge would let it in. As for the science, it has only shown they haven't found a descendant yet. The testing hasn't been completed. And what legit reason does Smith have to marry women who are already married? What right did he have to marry 14 and 15 yr old's? That alone put before a judge would mark him as a child sexual predator. Brigham Young was no better marrying 16yr olds. The whole bunch should have been taken out and had their brains blown out. But they only got Joseph. Just a bunch of perverts calling themselves Prophets. My dog is more qualified to be a prophet. Your knowledge of the law is greatly lacking.LOL!!!!!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#12414 Jul 22, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't just the desire to become a state that changed their policy. It was after Federal troops came into SLC and had taken control of all the church's assets and the leaders were hiding in Hawaii like gutless cowards that they all of a sudden had a "revelation".
Where in the H*E*L*L do you get your information from??? Do you have a hat that after reading a post, you pull out something that sounds like a good reply and post it? Where does your crap come from? Really I'd like to know! lol
Leaders in Utah had been jailed in the territorial prison for their polygamous wives aside other prisons. And the first revelation came "after" many were housed in their new abodes of iron and cement dwellings. They were continuing the polygamy doctrine in spite of being caught and sent to jail. And yes some did go off to hide! Who in their right mind would welcome a prison sentence? many of the Mormon men took their first wife and children by her to one place and spread the other wives into other Mormon homes. Other Mormon men with other wives did the same. But many were still caught and sent to prison. Woodruff was the one who came forth saying the Lord had told him if polygamy wasn't stopped being practiced, the church would come to it's utter end. So he sent forth a manifesto declaring polygamy wasn't to be practiced any more that the Lord allowed the practice and now was stopping it, that it had served his purposes.
Now this is when divisions in the church happened and "splits" happened and Mormon splinter groups continued who wanted the practice of polygamy to continue. There is some evidence that even in the main church some polygamy continued for a while. If I remember my Mormon history, a second edict was given that spoke against the practice of polygamy, reaffirming the statements of the first manifesto.
You're "gutless cowards" remark is nothing but childish name calling so you can show you know how to speak like an idiot again :)

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#12415 Jul 22, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...I call you a pathetic moron when you think like one. I do my best to encourage you to think "out of the box" but it's about as successful as teaching a infant to drive...the comprehension just isn't there you prove over and over.
You don't want me to "think out of the box", you want me to stop thinking altogether, and deny reality or plain common sense. Sorry, but I refuse to do that so you can whitewash the filth you call a prophet. You would make a good Muslim, they also make all kinds of excuses for Muhammed screwing a 9yr old in the name of marriage also. Two pigs in a poke.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News OPED: Russia's finger on the campaign scale 1 hr Retired SOF 2
News Our Opinion: Prayer rally can open minds, heart... 2 hr Our Opinion 18
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 5 hr Belles Echoes 36,047
News Wellington-Halton Hills MPP Arnott: Wishing eve... 5 hr Fergus gets new hosp 8
News The Republican Party is dead 5 hr WasteWater 2,303
News Gray Matters: Be healthy, avoid geezer jokes (Feb '09) 6 hr Failed Marriages 45
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) 6 hr ghu 8,813
More from around the web