How do apologists explain the 1835 editon of the D&C 101:4?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Simon Belmont

Re: How do apologists explain the 1835 editon of the D&C 101:4?

Post by _Simon Belmont »

beefcalf wrote:"Were all of the polygamists breaking their own rules as per D&C 101:4 until 1876 when it was removed from the canon?"


Look at the website that PP linked to. It is irr.org, one of the worst anti-Mormon sites out there. Do you really believe you'll get a credible, fair and balanced discussion from that website?

Here is a good discussion on it:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/710 ... -polygamy/
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: How do apologists explain the 1835 editon of the D&C 101:4?

Post by _DrW »

Simon Belmont wrote:
beefcalf wrote:"Were all of the polygamists breaking their own rules as per D&C 101:4 until 1876 when it was removed from the canon?"


Look at the website that PP linked to. It is irr.org, one of the worst anti-Mormon sites out there. Do you really believe you'll get a credible, fair and balanced discussion from that website?

Here is a good discussion on it:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/710 ... -polygamy/


Simon,

Sure you have the right thread here?

From what I can see JLH ate the apologists' lunch by a simple recital of the relevant documented facts. If this is the best you can do on the subject, you are not doing very well.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_beefcalf
_Emeritus
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: How do apologists explain the 1835 editon of the D&C 101:4?

Post by _beefcalf »

Simon Belmont wrote:Look at the website that PP linked to. It is irr.org, one of the worst anti-Mormon sites out there. Do you really believe you'll get a credible, fair and balanced discussion from that website?


Simon,

One can read the entire 'one wife and one husband' thing in the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, Section CI. I have a copy of this very edition, and I've read that section for myself.

I can go to familysearch.org and see a very long list of Joseph Smith's wives, along with their post-1835 marriage dates.

I can also go to the Maxwell Institute and hear their apologist admit that no less than seven of his 'marriages' involved sex.*

So... Help me out here...

Who are the anti-Mormons?

Is it Joseph Smith, Jr.? Callously ripping on Mormons by printing his sleazy anti-Mormon trash-sheet, the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants?

Or is it those slime-ball anti-Mormons over at familysearch.org? You know how they just twist things.

Or perhaps it's that cesspool of anti-Mormon excrement over at the Maxwell Institute? They just can't leave the church alone, can they?

Which of these nasty, hate-filled, anti-Mormon sources fabricated that whole unbelievable story about Mormons practicing polygamy in direct opposition to their own canonized scripture?

*search for the phrase "Sexuality in Joseph's plural marriages"
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
_beefcalf
_Emeritus
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: How do apologists explain the 1835 editon of the D&C 101:4?

Post by _beefcalf »

Simon? Simon?

Anyone seen Simon?
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
Post Reply