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

[_Polygamy-Porter]

This was the canonized scripture which both denied and forbade the practice of plural wives.

This was in their canon until 1876.

http://www.irr.org/mit/d&c/1835dc-p251.html

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

[_sock puppet]

This was the canonized scripture which both denied and forbade the practice of plural wives.

This was in their canon until 1876.

http://www.irr.org/mit/d&c/1835dc-p251.html

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

The SAVE JOSEPH on the Article on Marriage is (a) it's not a 'revelation', and (b) that it was Oliver Cowdery, not JSJr, who got a GC of members to approve it's inclusion in the Book of Commandments in August 1835 when JSJr was away (in Michigan). What is unexplained it why JSJr, if the Article on Marriage was not from god, allowed it to be continued into the D&C published in 1844. It did not get removed until 1876 when the D&C was next published.

[_harmony]

What is unexplained it why JSJr, if the Article on Marriage was not from god, allowed it to be continued into the D&C published in 1844.

It was cover for his lies.

[_Simon Belmont]

You're really asking this question, here, where almost everyone is hostile toward the Church?

[_harmony]

You're really asking this question, here, where almost everyone is hostile toward the Church?

I am not hostile towards the church. I am hostile towards lying adultering abusers of power. Nothing wrong with that.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

You're really asking this question, here, where almost everyone is hostile toward the Church?

Am I hostile toward your church?

No.

I just call BS when I see it.

You should see the JW's when they come to my door..

At least they still come by! The Mormon missionaries seem to have me blacklisted as I see them actually skip my home on the rare occasion I see them tracting in my 'hood

[_Joseph]

Lies, damn lies and LDS 'revelations'.

[_Simon Belmont]

Lies, damn lies and LDS 'revelations'.

You have outstanding questions in the threads you actually start. Why don't you answer them?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18172

[_sock puppet]

What is unexplained it why JSJr, if the Article on Marriage was not from god, allowed it to be continued into the D&C published in 1844.

It was cover for his lies.

You should let FAIR/NAMIRS know. They don't grasp that.

[_harmony]

It was cover for his lies.

You should let FAIR/NAMIRS know. They don't grasp that.

That's because they're very smart, clueless people.