Brother Crockett vs...?

[_Droopy]

What year were you born? Are you a convert?

There absolutely was a teaching that there were less valiant in the pre-existence. Oh, I know, history is being re-written constantly in the LDS world, but I know what was taught and what wasn't.

Of course there were different levels of "valiance", faith, commitment, and focus on individual progression and development in the preexistence. But "fence sitting" implies neutrality, not varying degrees of obedience and commitment. That idea is Mormon folk doctrine, and nothing more.

Oh, and if you're going to try to argue the "official doctrine" line, I'll remind you there is absolutely no official doctrine in the church, never has been.

I now revise my original observation. You're knowledge of LDS doctrine is not marginal, it is sub-marginal, about where Scratch resides on the continuum of knowledge of Church teachings.

Either that, or you're just another in a long line of tendentious provocateurs that congregate in forums such as this.

Official doctrine is easily discerned, and true doctrine, even if not official, can be discerned from other kinds of teachings in several ways, one of which is decisive.

You and harmony really should take this whole dog and pony show over to RFM where the roads are paved with tin foil.

[_the road to hana]

Serious reading on LDS history? Please. Every time I distill this argument to its essence, the two of you avoid answering the most basic questions.

All you've insisted on doing, for the most part, is studiously avoiding the clear inferential implications of the confession within the context of LDS Temple theology relative to the doctrine of eternal marriage. You have shown, again and again, that your actual knowledge of LDS doctrine is fairly marginal, so this should not be any surprise.

I assure you, I have extremely prominent LDS relatives in high leadership positions who would be more than happy to defend both my knowledge and understanding of LDS doctrine and history. As I said, it's awfully convenient for your argument (or lack thereof) if I'm ignorant. But it ain't the case.

The fact is, you can't figure out which is worse--Joseph Smith actually having sex with his wives, as he was entitled by gift from God, or being celibate.

You, see, you're not even having the same argument. I could care less whether or not Joseph had sex with his lawful plural wives. Those among them who were legally married for time to other men, however, would present a problem could it be shown that sexual relations took place.

And what problem is that, pray tell? Either God gave Joseph those wives to be plural wives, or he didn't. Doesn't it just gall you that some of those men got sent on "missions" to be out of the way? I mean, really.

The confession Beastie posted is a good example--until you see its full form and correct punctuation. Then, if you understand LDS theology to a substantive degree, the likely implications of Sylvia's statements pose no problem at all.

Only if you have absolutely no understanding of women, which might be the case with you. But I expect you'd prefer I not paint you with that broad a brush.

If you do not and refuse to understand it, other conclusions are, of course, possible.

Possible? Anything's possible. It's possible that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with hundreds of women, although I don't know when he would have found the time. It's possible someone lied and made up a list of women to whom he'd been plurally married or even sealed. It's possible the LDS Church is disavowing polygamy publicly today because it makes sense to do it, but fully expects it to return in both principle and practice.

Anything's possible.

[_Droopy]

are they the reason you stay in the Church under false pretenses of faithful devotion to the Gospel?

False pretenses of faithful devotion to the Gospel?

Yes, that's what she's doing. Otherwise, she'd "come out of the closet" as an enemy of the Church and the Brethren, and openly clarify her positions to her leaders and fellow Ward and Stake members.

But the pose goes on, doesn't it?

[_harmony]

What year were you born? Are you a convert?

There absolutely was a teaching that there were less valiant in the pre-existence. Oh, I know, history is being re-written constantly in the LDS world, but I know what was taught and what wasn't.

Of course there were different levels of "valiance", faith, commitment, and focus on individual progression and development in the preexistence. But "fence sitting" implies neutrality, not varying degrees of obedience and commitment. That idea is Mormon folk doctrine, and nothing more.

Oh, and if you're going to try to argue the "official doctrine" line, I'll remind you there is absolutely no official doctrine in the church, never has been.

I now revise my original observation. You're knowledge of LDS doctrine is not marginal, it is sub-marginal, about where Scratch resides on the continuum of knowledge of Church teachings.

Wow, hana. You're almost at the lowest level of hell.

Either that, or you're just another in a long line of tendentious provocateurs that congregate in forums such as this.

Loran says this kind of thing when he realizes his argument is full of holes.

Official doctrine is easily discerned, and true doctrine, even if not official, can be discerned from other kinds of teachings in several ways, one of which is decisive.

And we're all waiting with bated breath for you to show us the true way, Loran. Forge ahead!

You and harmony really should take this whole dog and pony show over to RFM where the roads are paved with tin foil.

On RfM, I'm one of the TBM's, you silly man.

[Guest]

What year were you born? Are you a convert?

There absolutely was a teaching that there were less valiant in the pre-existence. Oh, I know, history is being re-written constantly in the LDS world, but I know what was taught and what wasn't.

Of course there were different levels of "valiance", faith, commitment, and focus on individual progression and development in the preexistence. But "fence sitting" implies neutrality, not varying degrees of obedience and commitment. That idea is Mormon folk doctrine, and nothing more.

Everything in Mormonism is "Mormon folk doctrine," including apparently now, plural marriage. What's de riguer one year is yesterday's news the next.

Oh, and if you're going to try to argue the "official doctrine" line, I'll remind you there is absolutely no official doctrine in the church, never has been.

I now revise my original observation. You're knowledge of LDS doctrine is not marginal, it is sub-marginal, about where Scratch resides on the continuum of knowledge of Church teachings.

Either that, or you're just another in a long line of tendentious provocateurs that congregate in forums such as this.

Official doctrine is easily discerned, and true doctrine, even if not official, can be discerned from other kinds of teachings in several ways, one of which is decisive.

Like D&C 132, which cites both the Old Testament and Jesus Christ in its teachings on eternal marriage, and promises Joseph Smith wives for this life as well as the next?

You and harmony really should take this whole dog and pony show over to RFM where the roads are paved with tin foil.

Good God, you have got to be kidding.

[_the road to hana]

Yes, that's what she's doing. Otherwise, she'd "come out of the closet" as an enemy of the Church and the Brethren, and openly clarify her positions to her leaders and fellow Ward and Stake members.

But the pose goes on, doesn't it?

It seems to me that you're the true enemy of the Church, denying its history, rewriting its doctrine to fit your own comfort, and publicly professing the same on openly viewed message boards.

[_Droopy]

I assure you, I have extremely prominent LDS relatives in high leadership positions who would be more than happy to defend both my knowledge and understanding of LDS doctrine and history. As I said, it's awfully convenient for your argument (or lack thereof) if I'm ignorant. But it ain't the case.

Bring them on. In the meantime though, as you clearly cannot comprehend the nuance of the doctrine of sealing as related to plural marriages in combination with the doctrinal concept of promises and blessings sealed upon one, but not to be fully enjoyed or fulfilled in this life, You have a lot of convincing to do to those of us who do have a substantive knowledge of such doctrine.

Possible? Anything's possible. It's possible that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with hundreds of women, although I don't know when he would have found the time. It's possible someone lied and made up a list of women to whom he'd been plurally married or even sealed. It's possible the LDS Church is disavowing polygamy publicly today because it makes sense to do it, but fully expects it to return in both principle and practice.

Anything's possible.

Little knowledge of LDS history or doctrine. Almost zero. The LDS Church has never disavowed plural marriage. Oh, it has disavowed the practice of plural marriage, but never the principle. You see, if you had any substantive knowledge of Church history or doctrine, I wouldn't have had to correct you on that just now. But I did have to, didn't I?

Yes, I did, and it very likely won't be the last time.

[_the road to hana]

Loran says this kind of thing when he realizes his argument is full of holes.

I know. I've been watching him do it for years.

On RfM, I'm one of the TBM's, you silly man.

I think the dog-and-pony show that should go on the road to RFM is the rcrocket/droopy routine. They'd last about, what, five minutes before Iron Maiden Susan gave them the royal boot?

[_Droopy]

Yes, that's what she's doing. Otherwise, she'd "come out of the closet" as an enemy of the Church and the Brethren, and openly clarify her positions to her leaders and fellow Ward and Stake members.

But the pose goes on, doesn't it?

It seems to me that you're the true enemy of the Church, denying its history, rewriting its doctrine to fit your own comfort, and publicly professing the same on openly viewed message boards.

You're Ed Decker level material hana. I've got to admit, I never really suspected that until now.

[Guest]

I assure you, I have extremely prominent LDS relatives in high leadership positions who would be more than happy to defend both my knowledge and understanding of LDS doctrine and history. As I said, it's awfully convenient for your argument (or lack thereof) if I'm ignorant. But it ain't the case.

Bring them on. In the meantime though, as you clearly cannot comprehend the nuance of the doctrine of sealing as related to plural marriages in combination with the doctrinal concept of promises and blessings sealed upon one, but not to be fully enjoyed or fulfilled in this life, You have a lot of convincing to do to those of us who do have a substantive knowledge of such doctrine.

Ah, yes, substantive knowledge you got where, AA meetings?

I'm reminded of the scene in "Legally Blonde" where the main character realizes that a witness is gay, because he recognizes her shoes as Prada.

It really is this simple, to anyone who understands the female psyche. A woman does not confess a "godparent" relationship on her deathbed.

Sometimes the simplest explanation really is the most correct.

Possible? Anything's possible. It's possible that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with hundreds of women, although I don't know when he would have found the time. It's possible someone lied and made up a list of women to whom he'd been plurally married or even sealed. It's possible the LDS Church is disavowing polygamy publicly today because it makes sense to do it, but fully expects it to return in both principle and practice.

Anything's possible.

Little knowledge of LDS history or doctrine. Almost zero. The LDS Church has never disavowed plural marriage. Oh, it has disavowed the practice of plural marriage, but never the principle. You see, if you had any substantive knowledge of Church history or doctrine, I wouldn't have had to correct you on that just now. But I did have to, didn't I?

Yes, I did, and it very likely won't be the last time.

It condemns it currently not just as a practice but as a principle. Check your Google ads on this page if you don't believe me.

Here's a question you didn't answer. Are you a convert?

Here's another. What decade were you born?

Here's another. What version of Mormonism are you practicing in South Carolina these days?