Petitioner Angry Over "Celestial" Polygamy

TwoDaddies wrote:

Oops! Someone let the hypocricy cat out of the bag. In the Rush for Roberston's and Falwell's approval, the first presidency is caught with their wedding bands on the fingers of multiple celestial wives.
Dang it!!!

Logic please wrote:

<quoted text>
Except for the fact that two concurrent marriages while both wives are still alive is currently not allowed in the LDS church. The protester seems to have forgotten this issue. Nelson and the coalition are attempting to define marriage "in this life" and "in this country" not for the eternities, which is in the realm of an altogether different government.
If the protester wishes to attack the doctrine of eternal marriage, then he might as well start a petition against God, Himself, as Nelson is not the source of the doctrine. Let's not be fooled into thinking that any constitutional amendments or marriage-defining laws will change what deity declares to be true.

Logic please wrote:

<quoted text>
Except for the fact that two concurrent marriages while both wives are still alive is currently not allowed in the LDS church. The protester seems to have forgotten this issue. Nelson and the coalition are attempting to define marriage "in this life" and "in this country" not for the eternities, which is in the realm of an altogether different government.
If the protester wishes to attack the doctrine of eternal marriage, then he might as well start a petition against God, Himself, as Nelson is not the source of the doctrine. Let's not be fooled into thinking that any constitutional amendments or marriage-defining laws will change what deity declares to be true.

dances_with_weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
okay, which god are we talking about here? the god of the isrealites? he ain't the god of mormons, you know. he never heard of them and he certainly isn't the fount of their doctrines. those came out of business meetings held in a boardroom. did you know that joe smith was a small town (palmyra, ny) drunk? he saw his 'vision' while he was laying passed out drunk in a pile of cow shit in his pasture.(btw... that's straight from history.)

Logic please wrote:

<quoted text>
Except for the fact that two concurrent marriages while both wives are still alive is currently not allowed in the LDS church. The protester seems to have forgotten this issue. Nelson and the coalition are attempting to define marriage "in this life" and "in this country" not for the eternities, which is in the realm of an altogether different government.
If the protester wishes to attack the doctrine of eternal marriage, then he might as well start a petition against God, Himself, as Nelson is not the source of the doctrine. Let's not be fooled into thinking that any constitutional amendments or marriage-defining laws will change what deity declares to be true.

Logic please wrote:

<quoted text>
Except for the fact that two concurrent marriages while both wives are still alive is currently not allowed in the LDS church. The protester seems to have forgotten this issue. Nelson and the coalition are attempting to define marriage "in this life" and "in this country" not for the eternities, which is in the realm of an altogether different government.
If the protester wishes to attack the doctrine of eternal marriage, then he might as well start a petition against God, Himself, as Nelson is not the source of the doctrine. Let's not be fooled into thinking that any constitutional amendments or marriage-defining laws will change what deity declares to be true.

Sheryl wrote:

<quoted text>
You claim to follow the teachings of Christ; well, He stated that there are "no marriages in heaven". Care to explain that one?

Ryan B wrote:

<quoted text>
What history are you reading that from?

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
several history books contain this information. the history of palmyra, n.y. is one. the history of the erie canal, the history of the fingerlakes region, and the history of rochester n.y. and outlying areas are a few more. maybe you should study them and then get back to us.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
ah, but they are wrong... the book of mormon clearly states that marriage is for eternity. tyey can't have it both ways and it's too late to change something so fundimental. poor mormons.

Sopot wrote:

<quoted text>
As always, there is no basis for the hate, prejudice, bigotry, and malicious ignorance that you spew against religions that differ with your radical homosexual views.
The Book of Mormon does not mention marriage for eternity at all.
Quite a large number of Joseph Smith's Palmyra contemporaries refuted the malicious lies that were told about the character of Joseph Smith and his family. It is doubtful that your precise fabrications appear in any "history."
It is also obvious that the matter being discussed in national politics did not involve Mormon theology. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been one of the most ardent opponents of plural marriage in the hear and now for over a century.

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Since the BOOK OF MORMON is full of " hate, prejudice, bigotry, and malicious ignorance".......why are you so upset? Isn't that the Mormon way of life? "Hate thy brother if he is different than you?" At least you have something in common with Christians.

Sopot wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps you should read a book before you spew lies about it. Your rant has no basis in reality.

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Since the BOOK OF MORMON is full of " hate, prejudice, bigotry, and malicious ignorance".......why are you so upset? Isn't that the Mormon way of life? "Hate thy brother if he is different than you?" At least you have something in common with Christians.

Truth wrote:

Bill, face it, the Mormon's don't like descendants of slaves and neither does Narth. Your two bastions or should I say bastards of knowledge, which you so happily believe do not like you because of your birth. How does that feel?<quoted text>

Sopot wrote:

<quoted text>
If you check original sources, you'll find that yours lied on both accounts.