John Dehlin spanks Mitt on Good Morning America!

[_Jason Bourne]

As much as I really hate to admit it, PP has Jason on this one, petard and all.

Perhaps, if one sees things one dimensional. Evidence is there however that Joseph himself felt it ended up being a mistake and he consdidered ending it. Alas, he was murdered before we could see how it all would have played out.

Polygamy cannot be surgically removed from the entire corpus of Gospel teaching without maiming other core principles, such as some of the central purposes of eternal marriage (eternal increase),

Eternal marriage and enternal increase is possibel without polygamy. It does seem though that 19th century Mormons tied it together. However, 20th and 21st century Mormons do not, including a very prominent one name Gordon B. Hinckley.

the principle of continuing revelation,

Continuing revelation existed before and in spite of polygamy. The question remains whether D&C 132 was divine.

and the fact that polygamy was clearly a divinely sanctioned practice among Old Testament prophets and patriarchs whom the Lord considered as righteous and upright in his estimation as any other. At least, that's what the Old Testament texts themselves indicate.

A study of the Old Testament reveals the polygamy was more tolerated then divinely sanctioned. Also, Old Testament polygamy was not a mandate for exaltation. On top of that the Book of Mormon condemns Old Testament polygamy especially David's and Solomon's. Interestingly D&C 132 directly contradicts Jacob 30's condemnation. There is no way around that contradiction. This is one of the reasons I question D&C 132.

The fact that we, in our particular cultural condition, cannot accept polygamy at all, even if commanded of the Lord and done in his way, is simply a statement about us culturally, not about what the truth of the matter may or may not be. None of the Brethren, either singly or collectively, have ever renounced or overturned the core concept, or that it was divine in origin as it existed among the early Saints.

Our Church President has said it is not doctrine and we have nothing to do with it what so ever, though technically he is wrong since it is still available if a man's wife has died.

The idea that polygamy was a mistake simply won't hold water. Although the practice was ended, the principle has never been altered as a core concept. Indeed, if you don't accept at least the possibility of legitimate plural marriage, you cannot, with any degree of philosophical rigor, accept the concept of sealing per se. The two are interconnected in such a way that, while we may never practice plural marriage while in this life, the concept of sealing and eternal family simply precludes plural marriage from being a possibility, or even a requirement for some.

Personally I think the mistake continues to be perpatuated. It will be corrected someday just as the restriction on the priesthood mistake was.

[_Jason Bourne]

I made no statement that I objected to Jason going to Church. Where did I imply that? My point is philosophical; I don't think you can separate our plural marriage from the rest of the Gospel. But this is pedestrian, and holds for any fundamental Gospel concept. You couldn't have taken the animal sacrifice out of the Mosaic Gospel and just eaten the shew bread. You accept all of what the Lord reveals, at a given time or place, or you treat it as a cafeteria. The cafeteria is partly your Gospel, and partly the Lord's.

That's how the Great Apostasy began and was maintained until the entire system had been lost. I'm not saying Jason is following such a course, but that is the manner in which it occurred; substituting other concepts for aspects of early Christianity certain people found to have been "a mistake". Certainly, many felt that Peter, James, John, or Paul were acting as prophets when they said such and such, but not when they said this, that, or the other. Macaroni and cheese here, and a little salad on the side there.

And the Church simply fell to pieces when this reached critical mass.

Just so you know, I do hold to the possibility that I am you are right about this and I am wrong. My views are my personal views on this and perhap I come to them to reconcile some things for me personally in order to make other things work. It may not be the best course but it has helped me avoid a more drastic course which I do not want to take.

[_Jersey Girl]

Loran

And the Church simply fell to pieces when this reached critical mass.

I want to know exactly when you think the falling apart of the church reached "critical mass".

[_Coggins7]

I want to know exactly when you think the falling apart of the church reached "critical mass".

By roughly the middle of the Second Century, but perhaps even earlier. The primitive Church was essentially dead by the beginning of the Third (even though there were still pockets of believers in rural areas, as late as the early Fourth Century, who, according to Augustine, still clung to some of the old ideas, such as the Anthropomorphic form of God etc.).

The early Church Fathers retained a number of primitive beliefs, even if not in complete form, but were already far too steeped in Alexandrian philosophy to be considered to have any real continuity with the First Century Saints. The Clementines, Hermes, and The Pearl as as close as you get (and The Pearl could have been, with a little reworking, written by Joseph Smith himself, or Parley Pratt). Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, Irenaeus, and a few others retain some interesting concepts as well, later completely dropped from Christianity.

Very interesting are the Five Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem (around 350 A.D.) in which the incomplete and modified endowment enjoyed a brief resurgence. The manner in which this compliments the modern Endowment is startling, but the form is clearly corrupt. The entire thing disappeared after Cyril.

[_Brackite]

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3293104

John spank Mitt for his comment about "I just cannot imagine anything more AWFUL than POLYGAMY"... I guess the deceived Mormon masses that had the misfortune of being descendants of Mormon polygamist took offense at his statement which got their magic undies in a bunch. touuchy touchy!!

They follow up with chasing down Mitt for denying established Mormon doctrine that Jesus will return to the "new"(and improved) Jerusalem in Missouri.

Why are some of the LDS People, who are descended from Mormon People who Practiced Polygamy, upset about Mitt Romney's comments about Polygamy being so awful, when the Book of Mormon Proclaims that Polygamy is an abomination? The following is from Jacob 2:23-24:

Jacob 2:23-24:

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[_Seven]

Was John Dehlin personally offended by the comment or was he just playing the spokesman for the TBMs out there who hypocritically condemn modern day polygamy but praise 19th century adultery/polygamy?