Are there any moral absolutes?

Post by **_karl61** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:42 am

JAK wrote:

'Consider the women (and men of course) who appear regularly on national television. Is it a “lie” as a man wears a black suit and tie with French cuffed shirts? He would rather be dressed down in more comfortable clothing. Is he lying? Most would say “no.” '

French cuffs would be nice - and a pocket square and small carnation in the lapel that echoes your shirt, a fedora and a cane. Oh, I forgot the black and white spectator shoes. And that is just for the Dodger game.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:30 am

harmony wrote:The letter to Nancy Rigdon is neither doctrine nor canon. I'm wondering why any believing member would follow it.

Nancy Rigdon was supposed to follow it into bed with Joseph Smith.

Really, either Joseph Smith really did get it from God, in which case a TBM has to accept it and follow it, or else they have to believe that Joseph Smith was receiving his revelations from his dick, and not from God, in which case the TBM is faced with quite a quandary.

Post by **_harmony** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:42 pm

Sethbag wrote:
harmony wrote:The letter to Nancy Rigdon is neither doctrine nor canon. I'm wondering why any believing member would follow it.

Nancy Rigdon was supposed to follow it into bed with Joseph Smith.

Really, either Joseph Smith really did get it from God, in which case a TBM has to accept it and follow it, or else they have to believe that Joseph Smith was receiving his revelations from his dick, and not from God, in which case the TBM is faced with quite a quandary.

I guess my point was that it's not in the canon, so the membership has not agreed to its precepts. Very few members, relatively speaking, even know it exists. It's not used in teaching materials because it has no authority. Yet apologists and critics debate it endlessly, as if it had some significance (which, of course, it doesn't).

Post by **_Runtu** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:35 pm

harmony wrote:I guess my point was that it's not in the canon, so the membership has not agreed to its precepts. Very few members, relatively speaking, even know it exists. It's not used in teaching materials because it has no authority. Yet apologists and critics debate it endlessly, as if it had some significance (which, of course, it doesn't).

Not so, harmony.

Here are a few of the places it's cited in the teaching materials:

Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, lesson 35

Gospel Art Picture Kit, picture 400

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith

Young Women Manual 3, Lesson 25: Obedience

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:59 pm

Sethbag wrote:Really, either Joseph Smith really did get it from God, in which case a TBM has to accept it and follow it, or else they have to believe that Joseph Smith was receiving his revelations from his dick, and not from God, in which case the TBM is faced with quite a quandary.

LOL! I nearly choked on my Pepsi when I read this!

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:46 pm

liz3564 wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Really, either Joseph Smith really did get it from God, in which case a TBM has to accept it and follow it, or else they have to believe that Joseph Smith was receiving his revelations from his dick, and not from God, in which case the TBM is faced with quite a quandary.

LOL! I nearly choked on my Pepsi when I read this!

You sure drink a lot of Pepsi, Liz;) It was funny though, and I'm amazed that more LDS women don't see the pathetic attempts at sex in Joseph's polygamy proposals.