Why no concubines today?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Joey, you really do come across as a jibbering, juvenile buffoon with a chip on his shoulder.

I'm not surprised that your wife's bishop appears to have decided that he has better things to do than respond to you.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Joey, you really do come across as a jibbering, juvenile buffoon with a chip on his shoulder.

I'm not surprised that your wife's bishop appears to have decided that he has better things to do than respond to you.

Does that mean you don't? ;)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Does that mean you don't?

If you can't distinguish my posting from Joey's, that may mean that I'm just like him. Or it may say something about your judgment. I know what I think.

It seems, though, that you grant the truth of what I said about Joey. That's a good sign.

I know that this is a jaundiced place, and that some here are so hostile to Mormonism, Mormons, and/or those who advocate or defend Mormonism that they'll endorse just about anything, no matter how stupid or transparently false it may be, if it casts Mormonism, Mormons, and/or those who advocate or defend Mormonism in a negative light. But I don't for a moment think that that's true of everybody here. In fact, I know it's not. And those more rational and fair-minded people are the only reason I still post on this board.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Does that mean you don't?

If you can't distinguish my posting from Joey's, that may mean that I'm just like him. Or it may say something about your judgment. I know what I think.

It seems, though, that you grant the truth of what I said about Joey. That's a good sign.

I know that this is a jaundiced place, and that some here are so hostile to Mormonism, Mormons, and/or those who advocate or defend Mormonism that they'll endorse just about anything, no matter how stupid or transparently false it may be, if it casts Mormonism, Mormons, and/or those who advocate or defend Mormonism in a negative light. But I don't for a moment think that that's true of everybody here. In fact, I know it's not. And those people are the only reason I still post on this board.

I think you may have a point. It is fruitless to combine people into an inaccurate group identity. I think it would be better to be as respectful as possible to each individual. I think when we get behind the 'board we forget there is another person reading your words. Best to reserve polemics for the individual than for the group. I can think of Mormons that grate, others that entice. Doesn't matter what side, be nice to the group but poke the individual. How does that sound?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It sounds very good. I have to admit that I'm pleasantly surprised.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

It sounds very good. I have to admit that I'm pleasantly surprised.

Don't get all comfy. I want to poke YOU. :D







(oh, grow up, people!)

[_Joey]

Joey, you really do come across as a jibbering, juvenile buffoon with a chip on his shoulder.

I always take heed in a statement like that coming from one with a stellar, objective, non-arrogant, un-biased, and industrial lifestyle on this board. When you achieve those standards, post your comments again. But frankly, if you COULD achieve such standards, you wouldn't live your life here.

I'm not surprised that your wife's bishop appears to have decided that he has better things to do than respond to you.

And I'm not surprised you could get a Saturday morning booking in a ballroom at Ballys in Las Vegas to speak about the Book of Mormon! Want to take bets on the attendance (if not already shilled by some local ward there?). by the way, I will be staying at MGM that weekend for UFC 100. Maybe I can pop in with a camera if I have nothing else to do! If I had nothing else to do!!!!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

And I'm not surprised you could get a Saturday morning booking in a ballroom at Ballys in Las Vegas to speak about the Book of Mormon! Want to take bets on the attendance (if not already shilled by some local ward there?).

I didn't book it, and the Church isn't involved.

Other than that, your notion that I might have booked it and that the Church might be involved is right on target.

[_Brackite]

First, for Joey:

The OP asked about concubines. Mormonism has never recognized a separate class of marriage which has been called concubinage - hence the question in the Subject.

Section 132 has a lot of stuff in it. Most of it is entirely unrelated to this question. You are simply using this as an excuse to try and get in your juvenile kicks. Actually, you will find that I do not turn away and run as you suggest. I think, if you ask TD and some of the other posters here, I tend to be as straight forward as I can with all of the issues I address. I have a long posting history with many of the posters here.

I don't live in Provo (I did actually for a short time), rather on the other side of the country. I don't come from the Mormon cultural environment. There is no history of polygamy in my family (well my Dad has been married three times, but consecutively, and only one of them after he converted to Mormonism some years ago).

The bigger issue is that I don't think there is any relevance to your comments. Maybe if they had something to say about the topic of concubines, I might engage them. But they don't.

Hi Ben,

I have at least one Ancestor, who was a Polygamist. However, I Myself Am Anti-Polygamy. I think and believe that You already know that I am Anti-Polygamy.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The idea that a local Las Vegas ward might have set up a discussion between me and Michael Shermer, on the Book of Mormon, at Bally's Resort Hotel and Casino is pretty funny, though.

Only in Dogpatch!