Kamenraider's Posting Privileges Revoked At MADB!

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:26 am

BC, my point is this: Why don't the Church leaders speak as openly and apologetically as you do about plural marriage, to the public?

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:27 am

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

Why? Woodruff said (quoted in the same reference)...

“I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write”

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:31 am

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

Why? Woodruff said (quoted in the same reference)...

“I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write”

This is 2008. Not 1890. Where do the leaders say what you do, that polygamy is still believed "in principle"?

References needed.

Post by **_Seven** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:38 am

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

??

Wasn't GBH condemning the "practice" in the context of the FLDS? If I recall correctly, in the interview Larry King had just been discussing the FLDS with him and the response was referring to their practice of UNAUTHORIZED polygamy.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:45 am

This is 2008. Not 1890. Where do the leaders say what you do, that polygamy is still believed "in principle"?

References needed.

Where have they contradicted what was said? I've already given you more modern references as well. We have a doctrine on plural marriage, when to practice, when not to etc.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:48 am

BC, my point is this: Why don't the Church leaders speak as openly and apologetically as you do about plural marriage, to the public?

Because it's the general public, most not even fairly introduced to the subject as you and I are and not in a situation that would allow them all to have their questions answered immediately and appropriately as can be done here.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:49 am

Seven wrote:Wasn't GBH condemning the "practice" in the context of the FLDS? If I recall correctly, in the interview Larry King had just been discussing the FLDS with him and the response was referring to their practice of UNAUTHORIZED polygamy.

He was. His words were "we condemn it as a practice" (in FLDS, and LDS, the punishment being excommunication). And yes, it appears to be legal if "authorised", which includes the "we believe it in principle" idea. But none of this is mentioned. So in short, President Hinckley was covering Larry King's eyes with a thick wool jumper knitted from Kiwi sheep. And that's the point I'm addressing. What's so shameful about polygamy? It's only shameful if non or excommunicated Mormons "practice" it without heaven's consent? Or was this just more "media spin". All I would like to see is this: "We believe it in principle". Is this too tall an order? Think of the end of rainbows here.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:01 am

All I would like to see is this: "We believe it in principle". Is this too tall an order?

In the sense you want it, yes. Society is not prepared. It would be a stumblingblock and hinder the work. Be at peace. I have given plenty of official references that answer the question in the affirmative. They are available to all who seek. Sometimes, doctrines are esoteric only to those who refuse to look.

Post by **_Runtu** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:04 am

bcspace wrote:
All I would like to see is this: "We believe it in principle". Is this too tall an order?

In the sense you want it, yes. Society is not prepared. It would be a stumblingblock and hinder the work. Be at peace. I have given plenty of official references that answer the question in the affirmative. They are available to all who seek. Sometimes, doctrines are esoteric only to those who refuse to look.

That is exactly right. Publicly reaffirming belief in polygamy would be a huge "stumbling block," which is why the church has gone to such lengths to distance itself from the practice.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:06 am

In the sense you want it, yes. Society is not prepared. It would be a stumblingblock and hinder the work. Be at peace. I have given plenty of official references that answer the question in the affirmative. They are available to all who seek. Sometimes, doctrines are esoteric only to those who refuse to look.

That is exactly right.

Similar to Jesus saying "Tell no man".