Let's see where we can get with this

[Guest]

Schreech is a penis (D&C 138:79)
Cumoms inhabited the americas 2000 years ago (I suppose you could say there's a potential to disprove that).
coffee is a great a terrible temptation.

Tons of the claims are potentially falsifiable. That's not to say they have been falsified.

Ah, so as usual, you were talking out your ass in order to try to "converse" (something you seem completely incapable of)...Thank you for continually demonstrating your inability to actually have a rational thought and carry on a normal discussion...Your idiocy continues to not surprise anyone as it seems that you really like to be constantly embarrassed...

by the way - did the LDS church claim that me, schreech, is a penis?

What are cumoms? Are you also saying that the Book of Mormon was a load of shiat and that cumomos didn't exist - I AGREE!

Where did the LDS church claim that coffee is a great and terrible temptation? Are you suggesting that the LDS church's stance on coffee is "falsifiable"? Again, I AGREE?

Lol...way to stick your foot all the way down your LDS believing throat....I am seriously thinking you just get off on looking like a complete fool. I guess there is a fetish for everyone.

[_stemelbow]

Can't be sure? Then let's look at likelihood and probabilities. Then let's multiply all those unlikely probabilities about Mormonism, and see how infinitesimally small of a chance Mormonism's truth claims have. That's going to require lots of zeros to the right of the decimal point.

Isn't that sweet? The truth, ultimately, is so unlikely sometimes. Love it. We gots to keep on digging, learning, loving , moving, thinking, reading, figgering...you know.

[_Darth J]

I believe part of the LDS response here is that while the ability to seal may not have been restored, the commandment to practice polygamy was.

That may be but were the specifics of verse 61-63 known pre-1843? That's really the concern of this discussion/thread as it has evolved. I say, "I don't see any reason to think so". I don't know if anyone else cares to weigh in and therefore disabuse Darth J of his false ideas along with me, or get all disabused along with Darth J. We'll see...

Stemelbow:

Please provide us, with supporting, verifiable evidence, what Joseph Smith claimed the Lord told him about practicing polygamy prior to 1843 that was different from the conditions given in D&C 132.

[_sock puppet]

Gee, none of this had occurred to me. I guess this would make us ask ourselves how Joseph Smith could have obeyed an unknown law, since he had been practicing polygamy for years before he received "the LORD’s instructions about how to proceed in terms of plural marriage."

Seriously, Darth J. What do you expect? He was justified for his misdeeds.

And if there is a merciful god, we too will be justified for our misdeeds.

Now, eat, drink and be merry, and stop this silly LDS nonsense.

[_Darth J]

No, your point is that you believe Joseph when he tells you that's what God told him.

uh...that was Darth J's point. But luckily I cured him for having to force upon himself that notion. he doesn't have to believe it at all if he doesn't want to. He seems to feel pretty relieved by that bit of help I offerd him.

Please reconcile D&C 3 with your theory that the Lord will justify Joseph Smith in transgressing the commandments.

[_just me]

I believe part of the LDS response here is that while the ability to seal may not have been restored, the commandment to practice polygamy was.

That may be but were the specifics of verse 61-63 known pre-1843? That's really the concern of this discussion/thread as it has evolved. I say, "I don't see any reason to think so". I don't know if anyone else cares to weigh in and therefore disabuse Darth J of his false ideas along with me, or get all disabused along with Darth J. We'll see...

Which concubines were considered a "sin?" Why did Joseph Smith marry at least one married woman in 1843 if he now knew that was against the rules? Why did Brigham Young follow suit and marry the Huntington woman after Joseph Smith died if she was already and still legally married to another man?
Why did the church not require legal divorce for members seeking out new marriages?

Why did the Lord tell the saints they would not have to break the laws of the land in order to keep his commandments AND later require plural wifery when bigamy was against the law of Illinois? How does that not make God a liar? I am unable to reconcile the conflict.

[_Buffalo]

Notice that Stem can't admit to any falsifiable claims which affect the truth value overall of the corporate church.

What? I can't? Oh yeah, what about the claim that there were Nephite folks in the americas? It can be falsified, potentially. I just served you, Buffalo. Now what you got?

I'm glad I successfully goaded you into admitting a substantive falsifiable claim, assuming Nephite is a concrete concept that doesn't mean "any native group at all which we choose to call Nephite" or "an undetectable species of elf."

This one has been falsified. Now what?

[_sock puppet]

No, that is an irrefutable fact, and good for one's health too.

If its healthy then why is it tempting? I'm so tempted to exercise but i gots to stay strong

So everything that is tempting or desirable is unhealthy?

Heaven forbid, I shall stop eating peaches. I find them tempting and desirable. But now I know that such is the test for unhealthy things, at least so says stemelbow.

[_Darth J]

*mouth wide open*

Darth J, thank you.

I had not connected the dots before your post.

Elijah doesn't restore the Priesthood keys required for sealing until 1836.

Any union between Joseph Smith and any woman other than Emma cannot therefore have been a sealing if it happened prior to that.
It can only have been an affair.

Oh my God. It's SO bloomin' obvious I can't believe I missed it.

I believe part of the LDS response here is that while the ability to seal may not have been restored, the commandment to practice polygamy was.

If D&C 132 represents an eternal law that was the basis for ancient patriarchs and prophets to have been justified in plural marriage (which it is, under D&C 132's own terms), why would we assume that the hypothetical commandment to practice polygamy---which nobody has produced---prior to 1843 would have different terms and conditions than in D&C 132?

Why would Joseph Smith's inquiry about the justification for plural marriage be the impetus for the revelation canonized as D&C 132, if Joseph Smith had been commanded to practice polygamy prior to that time?

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow:

Please explain how the Church can still be true if the Book of Mormon is a fraud.