harmony wrote:Live in a bubble, do ya?
Manifestly, I don't.
Yet I haven't experienced what you claim to be effectively universal.
harmony wrote:Now, Dan. You know my response to this accusation.
Yup. And you know my response to your response.
harmony wrote:I am not required to follow a man who lost his prophetic mantle, especially one who lost it because he couldn't keep his pants up.
You opt out of Mormonism somewhere in the early 1830s. You're something like a Bickertonite, or perhaps a kind of fellow-traveler of the Community of Christ.
harmony wrote:Dubious.
Not.
Dubious at
best.harmony wrote:Not even close, Dan. Garments had long sleeves and long legs, from wrist to ankle. Those who were in the know could use the handshakes from the temple to feel the end of the sleeve or to see the end of the leg. This is not rocket science, Dan.
You're right. It's
fantasy, with a kind of quirky conspiratorial flavor.
harmony wrote:Absolute garbage on every level.
But not false. Were it not so, things would be much different.
False on every level.
harmony wrote:Not my fault you have gaps in your knowledge.
LOL. Right.
Liz, I'm trying to figure out which question of yours it is that I'm supposed to answer.
liz3564 wrote: Why would Christ's crucifixion and resurrection only fulfill a portion of Abraham's law?
I know nothing about Christ's fulfilling any law of Abraham. When Christ is said to have "fulfilled the law," the reference is always to the law of
Moses, which, of course, postdates Abraham.
liz3564 wrote:This, coupled with the graphic details of how the hearts of God's daughters were broken by polygamy in Jacob 2 leads me to believe that there has been some gross misrepresentation concerning polygamy from the beginning.
There is no question that polygamy can cause heartbreak. Has it always? It seems not. Ordinary monogamous marriage can cause heartbreak, too, and, today, many such marriages fail.
Morrissey wrote:Not so true in 20th century onward as Mormonism begins to leave polygamy behind. . . . Largely true, however, in 19th century among the rutting Mormon male hierarchy.
I don't believe that Mormon men were any more disdainful of women in the nineteenth century than other nineteenth-century men were. Do you have any actual evidence to demonstrate otherwise?
In fact, the very early grant of the franchise to women in Utah might suggest the opposite.
Incidentally, the
rutting Mormon male hierarchy insult is duly noted.
Morrissey wrote:Although women continue to this day to occupy lower status than men in Mormon Inc.
Yes and no. They certainly have a
different status.
Incidentally, the
Mormon Inc. sneer is duly noted.
Morrissey wrote:I'm disappointed Dan to see you pop up and defend this abhorrent practice. I expect as much from Will and Nehor.
Like them, I'm a believer. You shouldn't be surprised.
Morrissey wrote:The FLDS today is Mormonism in the 19th century.
Not true. The differences are substantial and deep.
Morrissey wrote:For you males who defend this garbage, I'd wish it on your daughters, except I would never want to consign any female to this barbarity that you defend.
Your contempt and ill will are duly noted.
Morrissey wrote:Polygamy is a curious thing; watch it how it warps the otherwise fine moral sensibilities of those who are so desperate to defend it.
"Desperate"? I'm not desperate. Nor have I really done much "defending." I've simply questioned certain dogmatic assertions.
I believe that God leads the Church. That's all.