Kamenraider's Posting Privileges Revoked At MADB!

[_Alter Idem]

The post that caused this to happen:

juliann wrote:

QUOTE(juliann @ Jul 10 2008, 08:59 PM)
We went through this in the last thread. You weren't looking at the most recent version. It no longer says a woman must choose one husband. Why do we have to keep going over the same things?

...

kamenraider replied:

How do we know that it's not either you or one of your UMW friends posting as a mod, that forbade quoting from the Church Handbook so you wouldn't have to prove this?

a mod soon replied:

We have never allowed quoting from the CHI and insulting mods is never a good idea. You are out. ~ Mods

I don't remember seeing anything at all about not quoting from the Church Handbook in the MADB Board Guidelines, in fact I've quoted from it a number of times at MADB without ever being told not to.

So anyway, I squeezed in one last post to the mod:

You consider it an insult to be identified as juliann?

Was I really that insulting? Did I break some rule that I'm not aware of? Should juliann be allowed to use mods to bully people when she's losing arguments? What do you folks think?

It's "iffy" on giving an exact quote from the handbook. Better to just paraphrase--unless you are of the "privileged class" at MADB, you may get dinged for doing it.

I believe K, that you are banned from that particular thread--have you tried to post on other threads? Otherwise, you are just suspended. As Runtu said, you aren't listed as banned. However, the mods threatened to ban NoTouch from all polygamy threads if he didn't straighten up, and they can do the same thing to you.

You've got to be careful when arguing with Juliann on any thread. If you push her, she'll retaliate--especially when you question her like you did--and you are disrespectful.

FYI, she is correct. Your handbook statement is outdated. What she said is correct for the most recent handbook.

[_harmony]

What I want to know is why the idea that women won't have to choose between husbands such a big deal to her?

You'd think the 2nd coming had just been announced. Instead, very little has changed. Joseph doctrine is still canonized; according to him, men will still have multiple wives, which is reason enough to pass on his vision of the CK.

[_Seven]

What I want to know is why the idea that women won't have to choose between husbands such a big deal to her?

You'd think the 2nd coming had just been announced. Instead, very little has changed. Joseph doctrine is still canonized; according to him, men will still have multiple wives, which is reason enough to pass on his vision of the CK.

Exactly. If something significant had changed, why are women still only allowed to be sealed to one husband while living?

The only reason they seal the deceased wife to all her husbands by proxy is because the church has no idea which husband will be worthy of her in the CK. They do the work to cover all their bases. I have several family members and friends who married a second husband after the first passed away or through divorce. They are only sealed to the first husband and had to marry the second for "time" in the temple.

[_Seven]

You've got to be careful when arguing with Juliann on any thread. If you push her, she'll retaliate--especially when you question her like you did--and you are disrespectful.

FYI, she is correct. Your handbook statement is outdated. What she said is correct for the most recent handbook.

Kamenraider wasn't disrespectful in my opinion. He is right about the doctrine of exaltation and it makes those who are sensitive about plural marriage very upset. If I received confirmation that 132 was from God, I would take the position of Kamenraider, BC Space, No Touch, Her Amun, Matthew G, etc. To believe otherwise is not being honest with the knowledge I have.

[_Seven]

I am glad to see you here Kamenraider. :)

[_kamenraider]

As of right now, I'm not allowed to view the thread that got me in trouble (although I can still view it when I'm not signed in, which makes it pointless to try to prevent me from viewing it anyway). I'm also not allowed to post in any thread -- when I try, it says "Your posting permissions have been removed."

The mod Nemesis recently posted over there that "The CHI is a copyrighted book not intended for public distribution. Posting it/or in part would be a copyright violation, and it would not follow under fair use in my opinion." I disagree with this as far as fair use goes, and I also don't think that Intellectual Reserve is as uptight about it being not intended for public use as Nemesis seems to believe they are. They have a bunch of different old versions available to the public at the Church History Library and Archives, and photocopy machines available to use there. What gets Intellectual Reserve upset is when EV's distribute complete copies of the CHI via the internet in order to teach members how to resign from the Church.

Alter Idem may be right about me being a bit disrespectful from time to time, but I don't think that accusing someone of something that they are guilty of is an insult.

I also wanted to mention that in one of the last posts of one of the fairly recent polygamy threads that I posted in I wrote that the Church can't teach polygamy now because of the Edmunds-Tucker Act. Juliann said that this was ridiculous, and after rereading my post and finding out that the Edmunds-Tucker Act was repealed in 1978, and the Edmunds Act (If I recall correctly) in 1984, I guess I can see why. This is what I was thinking though: these laws, or at least the Edmunds Act, disenfranchised voters for even believing in polygamy. Hence a political consideration was thereby introduced regarding whether polygamy should be taught in Church, at General Conference, etc. So, although I was technically incorrect about the laws still being in effect, I think their influence is still felt due to the fact that we've had a few generations of new Church leaders called during the time they were still in effect, and by now I think they're in the habit of avoiding giving talks or lessons that overtly teach polygamy as a doctrine of the Church. Just thought I'd make that correction here, since I can't over at MADB right now.

[_bcspace]

I'm not sure what your point is unless you can produce a quote saying it is doctrine now.

If past plural marriages are still valid, it is doctrine now. If the scriptures say that God may at anytime in the future reinstitute the practice of plural marriage, it is doctrine now. If a man may be sealed to multiple women, it is doctrine now.

If Lesson 12 of the Gospel Doctrine Teacher's manual says "Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage", it is doctrine now.

If chapter 8 of Sunday School's "Our Heirtage" refers to it as a doctrine and practice (clearly separating out the two), then it is doctrine now

If it is said in an official publication of the Church (Gospel art kit for Primary childrenin this case) "In obedience to the principle of plural marriage, Lorenzo Snow was sealed to several wives.", it is doctrine now.

etc. etc.

Bottom line: We have a doctrine of plural marriage. Why? Because we recognize it as a gospel principle, we have rules as to when and when not to practice it. We recognize hundreds if not thousands of plural marriages as valid.

Nothing could be simpler and anything else is deception.

[_Ray A]

Bottom line: We have a doctrine of plural marriage. Why? Because we recognize it as a gospel principle, we have rules as to when and when not to practice it. We recognize hundreds if not thousands of plural marriages as valid.

Nothing could be simpler and anything else is deception.

Seems GBH agrees:

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

Not doctrinal as a "practice"? Sure. And the "it's behind us" statement no doubt refers to plural marriage "as a practice".

But where does the Church still publicly admit to believing in plural marriage "in principle"?

References needed.

[_bcspace]

But where does the Church still publicly admit to believing in plural marriage "in principle"?

References needed.

I gave you one above....

While working on the translation of the Bible in the early 1830s, the Prophet Joseph Smith became troubled by the fact that Abraham, Jacob, David, and other Old Testament leaders had more than one wife. The Prophet prayed for understanding and learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God. Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife. A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general conference in Salt Lake City. At that conference, Elder Orson Pratt, as directed by President Brigham Young, announced that the practice of a man having more than one wife was part of the Lord’s restitution of all things (see Acts 3:19–21). “Chapter Eight: A Period of Trials and Testing,” Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 93

This is from a current manual on Church history.

[_Ray A]

While working on the translation of the Bible in the early 1830s, the Prophet Joseph Smith became troubled by the fact that Abraham, Jacob, David, and other Old Testament leaders had more than one wife. The Prophet prayed for understanding and learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God. Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife. A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general conference in Salt Lake City. At that conference, Elder Orson Pratt, as directed by President Brigham Young, announced that the practice of a man having more than one wife was part of the Lord’s restitution of all things (see Acts 3:19–21). “Chapter Eight: A Period of Trials and Testing,” Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 93

This is from a current manual on Church history.

And GBH condemned it as a practice? Should he have specified: "To appease current laws"?

??