FLDS compound

Not in this case, and YOU WERE THE ONE WHO JUST LIED.
Exhibit-A
The above is an OBVIOUS ATTEMPT AT GUILT-BY-ASSOCIATION.

I'm sorry that you lack reading comprehension skills. Luckily, you've proven your intelligence by using Caps Lock. So, you're saving face. :cool:
 
There were different Mormon Churches? I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by that.

Technically, they are not Mormons at all. That would be like saying all Bible based faiths are Catholic because they use the same book. Not true at all. The FLDS 'faith' thinks that because they use the Book of Mormon also that means they are Mormon. It doesn't. It means they are a bunch of abusive men operating on the premise of religious based culture.

Technically, regardless of their official recognition within the Mormon faith, they ARE a branch of the Mormon church. I grew up in a much more liberal, mainstream branch of Mormonism. Just because we didn't associate ourselves with the Mormons, and spent an enormous amount of time and energy explaining why we weren't Mormons, it didn't change the fact that we came from the same ideological tree.

In this case, the FLDS are a branch of Mormonism, whether the Latter Day Saints Church wants to agree or not.

Comparing them to Catholics isn't the same. They didn't break away to create a 'new' religion, they broke away to reinstate their interpretation of Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's vision of Mormonism.
 
:eek: RoryN knows all the secrets of the Mormon church because years ago, his mother was a Mormon until she left when she was very young. it all makes sense.

You might not like what I have to say, but that doesn't make it untrue.

And you have no idea how my family has been involved with the Mormons throughout my life and my mother's life.
 
You might not like what I have to say, but that doesn't make it untrue.

And you have no idea how my family has been involved with the Mormons throughout my life and my mother's life.

they secretly forced her into a polygamous relationship? if not, it doesn't back up what you say at all.
 
Be real. It's a cornerstone of their doctrine.
Official Mormon doctrine clearly rescinded polygamy in the Second Manifesto of 1904. Those found practicing polygamy following that declaration were excommunicated.
 
Technically, regardless of their official recognition within the Mormon faith, they ARE a branch of the Mormon church. I grew up in a much more liberal, mainstream branch of Mormonism. Just because we didn't associate ourselves with the Mormons, and spent an enormous amount of time and energy explaining why we weren't Mormons, it didn't change the fact that we came from the same ideological tree.

In this case, the FLDS are a branch of Mormonism, whether the Latter Day Saints Church wants to agree or not.

Comparing them to Catholics isn't the same. They didn't break away to create a 'new' religion, they broke away to reinstate their interpretation of Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's vision of Mormonism.

an established church like the Latter Day Saints can't denounce a break off group as outside the realm of Mormon doctrine? of course it can.
 
I'm sorry that you lack reading comprehension skills. Luckily, you've proven your intelligence by using Caps Lock. So, you're saving face. :cool:

No, you're sorry that you got caught in a lie, and that my reading comprehension skills are better than your bullshit shovelling skills in denial spinning.

You've proven your lack of intelligence by denials of the blindingly obvious.

So you play Walter Mitty and pretend a victory which you never had. Next time, why not post some big memorials around in the same way as Hammurabi for a war that you didn't win either.
 
they secretly forced her into a polygamous relationship? if not, it doesn't back up what you say at all.

Why does my mother have to be involved with polygamy for her and myself to know truths about how the Mormon Church operates? That makes no sense at all.

I understand why an individual who is, at least, understanding of how Mormons operate would get very defensive and huffy when someone challenges them. There's a lot to be defensive about. *shrug* Nothing new - my family has been up against it most of our lives.

Your best hope at winning such arguments is the ignorance of the masses.

breakwall said:
Official Mormon doctrine clearly rescinded polygamy in the Second Manifesto of 1904. Those found practicing polygamy following that declaration were excommunicated.

Right. And they "officially" don't allow prostitution in Vegas. And none of the casinos / cab drivers / etc. support escorts with underhand $$.
 
Last edited:
Why does my mother have to be involved with polygamy for her and myself to know truths about how the Mormon Church operates? That makes no sense at all.

I understand why an individual who is, at least, understanding of how Mormons operate would get very defensive and huffy when someone challenges them. There's a lot to be defensive about. *shrug* Nothing new - my family has been up against it most of our lives.

Your best hope at winning such arguments is the ignorance of the masses.

provide one shred of proof for what you say and maybe people would listen to you.
 
an established church like the Latter Day Saints can't denounce a break off group as outside the realm of Mormon doctrine? of course it can.

As I said, regardless of The LDS Church's feelings about a breakaway church, a group like FLDS are a branch of Mormonism.

If Mr. Smith has a son Jim, and Jim goes off to become a drug dealer, Mr. Smith can say whatever he pleases about his son, but genetically speaking, Jim will always be Mr. Smith's son.
 
As I said, regardless of The LDS Church's feelings about a breakaway church, a group like FLDS are a branch of Mormonism.

If Mr. Smith has a son Jim, and Jim goes off to become a drug dealer, Mr. Smith can say whatever he pleases about his son, but genetically speaking, Jim will always be Mr. Smith's son.

eh, I don't buy that. they can claim Mormonism, but Mormonism doesn't have to claim them. they're out of good standing with the church.

if the Catholics can kick out the boy-touchers, why can't the Mormons kick out the crazies too?
 
provide one shred of proof for what you say and maybe people would listen to you.

Why should I? If I point to a text like Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer, you'll just dispute whatever doesn't suit your view as not being true - same with anything else one could point to. I know how folks like you operate. Wasn't born yesterday.
 
Right. And they "officially" don't allow prostitution in Vegas. And none of the casinos / cab drivers / etc. support escorts with underhand $$.

I'm not going to dispute the underhanded dealings of the Mormons or of any organized religion. But the official and legal stance of the Mormon church is that Polygamy is prohibited and punished by immediate excommunication.

You may choose not to believe it, and that's certainly your right, but that is the LDS Church's official statement on the matter.
 
Why should I? If I point to a text like Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer, you'll just dispute whatever doesn't suit your view as not being true - same with anything else one could point to. I know how folks like you operate. Wasn't born yesterday.

you are ridiculous. "I'm not going to prove anything cause it won't prove anything."
ok.
:rolleyes:
 
eh, I don't buy that. they can claim Mormonism, but Mormonism doesn't have to claim them. they're out of good standing with the church.

if the Catholics can kick out the boy-touchers, why can't the Mormons kick out the crazies too?

I'm not trying to point out the guilt of the Mormon church, far from it. I'm merely stating that the FLDS is, by it's very statement of faith, a Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints. To say that it's not a branch of Mormonism (sanctioned or not) would be erroneous.
 
I'm not trying to point out the guilt of the Mormon church, far from it. I'm merely stating that the FLDS is, by it's very statement of faith, a Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints. To say that it's not a branch of Mormonism (sanctioned or not) would be erroneous.

eh. semantics. but I get what you're saying.
 
you are ridiculous. "I'm not going to prove anything cause it won't prove anything in the eyes of someone who'd refuse to see, anyhow.

Fixed.

I'm not going to dispute the underhanded dealings of the Mormons or of any organized religion. But the official and legal stance of the Mormon church is that Polygamy is prohibited and punished by immediate excommunication.

You may choose not to believe it, and that's certainly your right, but that is the LDS Church's official statement on the matter.

Yes, it is. And my opinion is that the Mormon Church's "official statement" on any matter is meaningless. (Unless you believe things like Hitler really being Mormon, thanks to a posthumous baptism. That's another one of their "official statements".)
 
Fixed.



Yes, it is. And my opinion is that the Mormon Church's "official statement" on any matter is meaningless. (Unless you believe things like Hitler really being Mormon, thanks to a posthumous baptism. That's another one of their "official statements".)

you're an idiot. I said prove something and I'll listen. how much more clear can I be? you've just decided you don't believe me? like you've just decided the Mormons "secretly" encourage polygamy? you do that a lot, huh?
 
Back
Top