When will the first temple be sold?

31 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 28, 2003, 9:18:46 PM9/28/03
to
Mormonism's growth rate is slowing a lot. Activity rates are really low.
The church isn't in trouble, but it could be before long.

Over the centuries, lots of churches were turned into Mosques and so forth.
Their value as churches dwindled with changes in demographics, wars, and so
forth. The population changed, and the buildings were repurposed.

It may be that the Mormon church has overextended itself by building 100
temples. If active, tithing members fall off, if church investments don't
return what's needed, and if ownership of so much real estate becomes a
problem, some of these temples might have to sell.

Anyone care to make a prediction? I'll go ahead and make one: the first
temple will sell before Art Bulla gathers the saints unto Zion. ;-)

- Scott

exmo

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 3:00:35 AM9/29/03
to
Scott Marquardt wrote:

> It may be that the Mormon church has overextended itself by building 100
> temples.

115 completed, 7 more under construction and 6 more announced. It's a
regular franchise fer cryin' out loud.


> If active, tithing members fall off, if church investments don't
> return what's needed, and if ownership of so much real estate becomes a
> problem, some of these temples might have to sell.

I think it would be too embarrassing for them to sell off a temple these
days, and the critics would be all over the story. They'd hang onto it
as long as possible, even if it meant reducing hours of operation
drastically. Many of the new smaller regional temples are only operative
a few days a week.

Andrew R

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 5:14:39 AM9/29/03
to

"Scott Marquardt" <not...@notdoot.com> wrote in message
news:v22fnvol1m8jkga4d...@4ax.com...

>
> Anyone care to make a prediction? I'll go ahead and make one: the first
> temple will sell before Art Bulla gathers the saints unto Zion. ;-)
>

Well I agree with you there, since Hell will Freeze over before that
happens.

Andrew R.


Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 11:25:14 AM9/29/03
to
Andrew R wrote:

LOL

- Scott

TheJordan6

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 11:15:03 PM9/29/03
to
>From: Scott Marquardt not...@notdoot.com
>Date: 9/28/2003 8:18 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <v22fnvol1m8jkga4d...@4ax.com>

GBH wanted his legacy to be achieving 10 million membership and 100 temples
under construction by the year 2000.

He spent untold millions of dollars, and who knows how many bogus "convert
baptisms" in third-world countries were effected to meet those goals.

But with the apparent severe downturn in donations, the high bankruptcy and
foreclosure rates in Utah, and the exodus of thousands of former active
tithepayers from the church, GBH's successor's biggest job may be drastic
downsizing.

I doubt that they'll actually sell any temples anytime soon; since most of them
are so new, it would be a PR disaster to dump any after having recently built
them. But if they do have to close some of them, rest assured that the Mormon
PR machine will spin it to appear as a positive.

Randy J.

Stormin Mormon

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 10:55:21 PM9/29/03
to
Well, I reject your first several premises. The convert and activity rate is
just fine, thank you.

But it opens up intersting questions. What could one do with a used temple?

Well, with the couple movie rooms, it would make sense for exclusive
showings of pre release movies for celebs. The baptistry could have the
temperature bumped up a couple degrees to make a hot tub. And some of the
other rooms for meetings.

Might make a good executive office perk for the folks from Exxon, Fuji Film,
or maybe heads of state?

I think you're on to something.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.org
.
.

"Scott Marquardt" <not...@notdoot.com> wrote in message
news:v22fnvol1m8jkga4d...@4ax.com...

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 11:50:20 PM9/29/03
to
Stormin Mormon wrote:

>Well, I reject your first several premises. The convert and activity rate is
>just fine, thank you.

</head in sand>

LDS growth has declined progressively from over 5% annually in the late
1980s to less than 3% in 2000 and 2001. There were 292,612 LDS convert
baptisms reported for 2001.32 This is up from a many-year low of 273,973
in 2000. However, this number of convert baptisms is still lower than
the number of converts baptized in 9 of 10 years during the 1990s. Only
1992 had fewer convert baptisms. Following several years of declining
missionary productivity and little increase of congregations or stakes,
2002 brought a further decline with 283,138 convert baptisms, the lowest
number in a decade, as well as the first decline in total stakes (minus
five) since 1857 and the lowest increase in wards and branches (+59)
since 1950.

[...]

"75 percent of foreign [LDS] converts are not attending church within a
year of conversion. In the United States, 50 percent of the converts
fail to attend after a year."

[...]

If we examine the actual growth rates of the Seventh-day Adventist church
-- 2.5 to 3 times that of the LDS Church -- and the convert retention
rates, also 2.5 to 3 times LDS convert retention rates, we find that the
"real growth" rate of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are six to nine
times that of the LDS Church.

[...]

The average missionary in 1989 brought 8 people into the church, while
in 2000 the average missionary brought 4.6 people into the church. When
one accounts for actual activity and retention rates, with the great
majority of LDS convert growth occurring in Latin America and other
areas with low retention and only 20-25% of convert growth occurring in
North America, it can be determined that of the 4.6 persons baptized by
the average missionary each year, approximately 1.3 will remain active.
The average time spent by missionaries in the field (80% Elders, 20%
Sisters) is approximately 22.8 months, so an average of approximately
2.47 converts remain active from the entire mission service of each
missionary.

[...]

Researchers interviewed over 6,000 adults in the United States by
telephone and asked a battery of questions about religious beliefs and
practices. Only 26% of Latter-day Saint reported making any attempt to
share their faith within the past year, compared to 61% of Pentecostals,
61% of Assemblies of God members, and 57% of non-denominational
Christians. In fact, the 26% figure for Latter-day Saints is not
significantly different from the 24% of all adults nationwide who report
making some attempt to share faith.12 These other groups all report
annual worldwide growth rates two to three times higher (6-10%) than LDS
growth rates (2.6-3.0%), paralleling their higher rates of
member-missionary involvement. The above study does not include groups
the Jehovah's Witnesses, among whom almost every member proselytes for
ten or more hours a month, and over 800,000 of the six million members
put in fifty or more proselyting hours each month!

http://snurl.com/2if4

Read the whole bloomin' report before you claim that all is well in Zion.

- Scott

Bubba

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 12:12:05 AM9/30/03
to
What is your source for numbers?

"Scott Marquardt" <not...@notdoot.com> wrote in message

news:4duhnvk3qfpvqhl31...@4ax.com...

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 12:21:30 AM9/30/03
to
Look at bottom of post.

Goner

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 12:24:40 AM9/30/03
to
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:12:05 -0600, Bubba wrote
(in message <po7eb.4$YP7.4...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):

> What is your source for numbers?


http://www.cumorah.com/report.html

Probably.


--
Cheers,
don marchant

dangerous1.com
I was only joking..... Really

exmo

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 2:35:07 AM9/30/03
to
ancient_lights_and_perf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I would make the Celestial Room into the Master Bed Room. ;-)
>
> Nah, come to think of it, the whole place would be too costly to heat.

Dunno 'bout that. I've seen mansions considerably larger than the
standard new "smaller" LDS Temples (which only average 10-15 thousand
sq.ft.)

John Lemings

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 4:35:26 AM9/30/03
to
Scott Marquardt wrote:

Excellent facts that are well supported, Scott. However, Christopher is
the proverbial LDS member with his denial mechanism in full swing. In
fact, his denial mechanism is so powerful, that I often wonder if he
truly is LDS.

> - Scott

John Lemings

John Lemings

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 4:37:25 AM9/30/03
to
Scott Marquardt wrote:

> Look at bottom of post.

Reading is truly fundamental, is it not, Scott?

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 8:41:32 AM9/30/03
to
John Lemings wrote:
>Scott sez:

>> http://snurl.com/2if4
>>
>> Read the whole bloomin' report before you claim that all is well in Zion.
>
>Excellent facts that are well supported, Scott. However, Christopher is
>the proverbial LDS member with his denial mechanism in full swing. In
>fact, his denial mechanism is so powerful, that I often wonder if he
>truly is LDS.

Anyone who would deny that page's statistics, though, would be denying the
passionate work of people who care very much about LdS growth. It's a tough
one to deny!

- Scott

Tyler Waite

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 11:47:18 AM9/30/03
to

>But if they do have to close some of them, rest assured that the Mormon
> PR machine will spin it to appear as a positive.

Yeah it will be used to lay a massive guilt trip on the members the temple
serves.

>
> Randy J.


TheJordan6

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 1:02:17 PM9/30/03
to
>From: Scott Marquardt not...@notdoot.com
>Date: 9/30/2003 7:41 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <0euinv406pf5810vn...@4ax.com>

Naaaaahhh. Irrational fanatics can and do deny any facts which conflict with
their predetermined conclusions or worldviews. A few examples from ARM:

Guy Briggs is in denial that John Taylor lied about polygamy in his 1850 debate
in France.

Woody Brison is in denial of the fact that Joseph Smith's polygamy practice was
illegal, that he Smith denied practicing polygamy, and that Smith "plural
married" other men's wives and had sex with them.

Guy Briggs is also in denial that Joseph Smith had sex with his "plural wives."

Red Davis is in denial that Brigham Young planned and approved the attack on
the Baker-Fancher emigrant train.

Charles Dowis is in denial of the fact that the "haplogroup X" DNA strain does
not support the idea of Semites migrating to the Americas during "Book of
Mormon times."

Jason Hardy is in denial of the fact that Gordon B. Hinckley lied about the
"God is an exalted man" teaching in media interviews.

Examples like these show us that belief in Mormonism is in essence, an exercise
in denial of demonstrable facts.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 1:10:47 PM9/30/03
to
>From: "Tyler Waite" twa...@iindiana.edu
>Date: 9/30/2003 10:47 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <blc8io$ssg$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>

From reports I hear, that's already being done. Poor GBH thought that building
more temples would increase overall attendance (and revenues), but apparently,
attendance is about the same overall. Meaning, that they are having to finance
and maintain two temples instead of one, while getting no increase in
attendance or revenues. The attendance numbers at the new temples are
apparently being drawn away from the old ones.

Randy J.

somedude

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 2:19:24 PM9/30/03
to

Lucky for them that, as a church, they don't have to pay property tax on
all those temple lots.

garydw

unread,
Oct 1, 2003, 7:54:56 AM10/1/03
to

"exmo" <ex...@freeatlast.com> wrote in message
news:3F7923...@freeatlast.com...

I have already sent a letter to Gordon, and told him I would be glad to take
the Memphis, TN temple off their hands.

Dave

unread,
Oct 1, 2003, 3:03:22 PM10/1/03
to
It really doesn't surprise me and I'm active. Somewhat.
Dave

"Scott Marquardt" <not...@notdoot.com> wrote in message
news:0euinv406pf5810vn...@4ax.com...

Woody Brison

unread,
Oct 1, 2003, 8:33:34 PM10/1/03
to
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030930130217...@mb-m16.aol.com>...

> Naaaaahhh. Irrational fanatics can and do deny any facts which conflict with
> their predetermined conclusions or worldviews. A few examples from ARM:
>
> Guy Briggs is in denial that John Taylor lied about polygamy in his 1850 debate
> in France.
>
> Woody Brison is in denial of the fact that Joseph Smith's polygamy practice was
> illegal, that he Smith denied practicing polygamy, and that Smith "plural
> married" other men's wives and had sex with them.
>
> Guy Briggs is also in denial that Joseph Smith had sex with his "plural wives."
>
> Red Davis is in denial that Brigham Young planned and approved the attack on
> the Baker-Fancher emigrant train.
>
> Charles Dowis is in denial of the fact that the "haplogroup X" DNA strain does
> not support the idea of Semites migrating to the Americas during "Book of
> Mormon times."
>
> Jason Hardy is in denial of the fact that Gordon B. Hinckley lied about the
> "God is an exalted man" teaching in media interviews.
>
> Examples like these show us that belief in Mormonism is in essence, an exercise
> in denial of demonstrable facts.

You know, Randy, you are a giant. With one post you have
epitomized all of antimormonism, the negative religion.
For NOT ONE of the "facts" you refer to above is real.

We went over the John Taylor debate thoroughly and the
antis were unable to show that he lied, in refering to
John Bennett's mischaracterizations of LDS life.

You yourself were unable to refute my defense of the
legality of plural marriage. For instance, we're still
waiting for you to explain, if it was illegal, why
Congress had to pass laws against it.

I've yet to see a real example of where Joseph Smith
clearly denied practicing polygamy after he had begun
to practice it, but maybe if you antis keep puffing long
enough you can find one, or make one.

Funny how a man can father several children by his first
wife, but be unable to beget any with all the many women
the antis imagine he slept with. Could it be the antis
are kind of frustrated sexually?

Brigham Young's order was that the wagon train be left
alone. But, antimormonism posits that he ordered the
attack anyway.

If there were anything in the Book of Mormon to prove
that the Lehites were the only ancestors of the modern
native Americans, I'm sure the antis would be pouncing
on it, but as it is we just have to be content with them
stalking around the issue.

And I have no doubt that Gordon B. Hinckley has told
the truth to one and all. Of course, by subtle
manipulation the antis can make it appear not so, but
so what -- street magicians do more than that everyday.

So, is that the essence of antimormonism? positing
of imaginary facts? A real paradox, something 100%
negative made from positing.

Wood

Clovis Lark

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 12:33:03 AM10/2/03
to
Woody Brison <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote:

Yo Woody, my main man! Long time no hear! how's the viola coming?

Drop me a line!

Goner

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 1:02:26 AM10/2/03
to
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:33:34 -0600, Woody Brison wrote
(in message <f36171a3.03100...@posting.google.com>):


LOL

> Wood


Indeed


--
Best,
don m
Goner at Dangerous1.com

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having
to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
[Douglas Adams]

GRaleigh345

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 8:10:14 AM10/2/03
to
Hey, Randy, you can add another to that list:

Ray McIntyre is in denial that Community of Christ rules and regulations
prohibit performing same sex marriages and ordaining practicing homosexuals.

He is also in denial about the fact that the leadership of the church don't
ever obey the rules, they just hold them up as a smokescreen.

The complete text of the wedding bulletin for the gay wedding at the Community
of Christ in Eugene Oregon is posted on the Centerplace.org discussion board.

The bride (or is it groom?} was Sharon Troyer, a World Church appointee. (But
the main office is like Seargent Schultz--"It knows NOTHING.")

Raleigh


Christianity isn't an "ism." "Isms" are counterproductive to Christianity, be
they Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Calvinism, Unitarianism, or whatnot. The
only "ism" that is a legitimate part of Christianity is baptism.

Guy R. Briggs

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 12:29:48 PM10/2/03
to
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> not...@notdoot.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:

<snip>

>> Anyone who would deny that page's statistics, though, would
>> be denying the passionate work of people who care very much
>> about LdS growth. It's a tough one to deny!
>

> Naaaaahhh. Irrational fanatics can and do deny any facts
> which conflict with their predetermined conclusions or
> worldviews. A few examples from ARM:
>
> Guy Briggs is in denial that John Taylor lied about polygamy
> in his 1850 debate in France.
>

Borrowing a page from Woody, if polygamy was Mormon doctrine in
1850 when Taylor supposedly lied about it, why did it have to
presented to the Saints in conference - and voted on, which is what
turned it into Mormon doctrine - a year or so later?

<snip>

> Guy Briggs is also in denial that Joseph Smith had sex with
> his "plural wives."
>

Never ONCE have I made that argument, and you and I have discussed
this before if memory serves. What I HAVE written is that you have
precious little evidence of Smith's sexual activities, and even less
evidence that Smith's unbridled lust was the motivating factor for
polygamy (as opposed to procreation as motivating factor).


bestRegards, Guy.

Clovis Lark

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 2:27:08 PM10/2/03
to

Let us not forget that the burning of the Nauvoo temple was in response to
a failure to sell it by a nonholder of title who resided in Deseret.


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 4:54:22 PM10/2/03
to
wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote in message news:<f36171a3.03100...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>

> If there were anything in the Book of Mormon to prove
> that the Lehites were the only ancestors of the modern
> native Americans, I'm sure the antis would be pouncing
> on it, but as it is we just have to be content with them
> stalking around the issue.

According to the Book of Mormon, the "Promised Land" was "reserved" as
an "inheritance" for Lehi and his "seed," and the land had been "kept
from other nations" so it would not be "overrun," leaving Lehi's
"seed" with out their promised "inheritance." Here's the reference:

7 Wherefore, this aland• is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.
And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the
commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of bliberty• unto
them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if
so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound
ccursed• shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it
shall be blessed forever.

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be akept• as yet from
the knowledge of other bnations; for behold, many nations would
overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a apromise•, that binasmuch• as
those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall
keep his commandments, they shall cprosper• upon the face of this
land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may
possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall
dkeep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this
land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the
land of their einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

Read it at the official LDS Internet Site, at
http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/1

So, Woody, how do you propose getting the Promised Land full of
pre-Lehites -- enough to wash out any expectation of the Hebrews that
the Book of Mormon describes as populating ancient America?

Oh, and by the way. Did you ever come to grips with the manner in
which your fellow apologist (Charles Dowis) misrepresented the Book of
Mormon by claiming it does not mention swine in an ancient-American
context? I (and others) have asked you to comment on Charles'
misrepresentation, and it seems you've simply ignored the issue.

Since you seem unfamiliar with what the Book of Mormon says, here's
the reference on the swine:

16 And the Lord began again to take the curse from off the land, and
the house of Emer did prosper exceedingly under the reign of Emer; and
in the space of sixty and two years they had become exceedingly
strong, insomuch that they became exceedingly rich—

17 Having aall• manner of fruit, and of grain, and of bsilks•, and of
fine linen, and of cgold•, and of silver, and of precious things;

18 And also aall• manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep,
and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which
were useful for the food of man.

19 And they also had ahorses•, and asses, and there were elephants and
cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more
especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

Read it on the official LDS Internet site at
http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/9/18#18

> And I have no doubt that Gordon B. Hinckley has told
> the truth to one and all. Of course, by subtle
> manipulation the antis can make it appear not so, but
> so what -- street magicians do more than that everyday.

Let's look at what your prophet, seer, and revelator said:

In an interview with Time magazine (TIME Aug. 4, 1997) Gordon B.
Hinckley was asked "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God
the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley replied: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we
emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public
discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under
which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical
background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know
that others know a lot about it."

You can see a transcript of the entire interview at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/04/13/SC36289.DTL

Now look at Hinckley's lies:

1) Lie number one: "I don't know that we teach it [the doctrine that
God the Father was once a man.]

In fact, the LDS Church DOES teach that doctrine. Here's what was
taught in the unified 1997 LDS priesthood/Relief Society lesson manual
"The Teachings of Brigham Young", p. 34, it
says:

"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a
God is unique to this church."

2) Lie number 2: "I don't know that we emphasize it."

Here's what the founder of Mormonism taught:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits
enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of
the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God....yea, that
God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as
Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible....
[Joseph Smith, quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345-346.]

Would Gordon B. Hinckley (prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints) have us believe that the church does NOT teach "THE
FIRST PRINCIPLE OF THE GOSPEL?" That's what founder Joseph Smith
called it. How is it that Hinckley thinks he can lie about the "FIRST
PRINCIPLE OF THE GOSPEL" by implying that it's not taught or
emphasized?

What is it about Mormons and their leaders that they feel this
apparent obligation to lie about what the Church teaches?

3) Lie number 3: I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in
public discourse.

Again. Here's what was taught in the unified 1997 LDS
priesthood/Relief
Society lesson manual "The Teachings of Brigham Young", p. 34, it
says:

"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a
God is unique to this church."

There are MANY other references. Some of the best are found at
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/gbh-god.htm
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon140.htm

In the February 1982 issue of The Ensign, the question appeared:

"Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement – 'As man now is,
God once was; as God now is, man may be' – accepted as official
doctrine by the Church?"

In response, Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church
Education System answered, and summarized the situation by saying:

"It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both
acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." [The Ensign,
February 1982.]

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits
enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of
the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God....yea, that
God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as
Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible....
[Joseph Smith, quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345-346.]

"He is our Father – the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in
mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being…. It appears
ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous
traditions, that God has once been a finite being;…[Brigham Young,
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 333-334]

"The Gods who dwell in the Heaven from which our spirits came, are
beings who have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed
before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly
body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state. [Apostle
Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1853-1854, 20.]

"You and I--what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we
have,
and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms!
We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single
line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God
once was; and as God is, man may become." [President Spencer W.
Kimball, Our Great Potential, Ensign, May 1977, page 49.]

Here are several Internet sites that explain in greater detail and
show how Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, lied about Church doctrine:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/gbh.shtml
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon140.htm

It's interesting that Woody thinks Hinckley told the truth -- but
then, being a Mormon apologist isn't about intellectual honesty. It's
about doing/saying what's needed to maintain the corporation of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon).

<snip to end>

Duwayne Anderson

American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 8:32:30 PM10/2/03
to
net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote in message news:<64c46056.03100...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>

> Borrowing a page from Woody, if polygamy was Mormon doctrine in
> 1850 when Taylor supposedly lied about it, why did it have to
> presented to the Saints in conference - and voted on, which is what
> turned it into Mormon doctrine - a year or so later?

In the current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the chapter
heading to section 132 reads:

"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo,
Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting
covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also
plurality of wives. HC 5: 501—507. Although the revelation was
recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the
doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by
the Prophet since 1831."

This clearly illustrates that the church had what it claimed were
revelations that legitimized the practice of plural marriage as early
at 1831. However, as late as 1837, Church representatives were
denying that they practiced or *BELIEVED* in polygamy, and claiming
that they BELIEVED "that one man should have one wife:"

"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime
of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man
should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the
case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. [History of
the Church, vol. 5, page 30 (May 1836). This statement also appeared
in the Doctrine and Covenants, until 1876 when D&C 132 was first
introduced. Similar wording was repeated in Messenger and Advocate
(Aug 1835, pg. 163), and Messenger and Advocate (May 1837), page.
511.]"

Which Doctrine and Covenants was correct? The current one, or the one
prior to 1876?

By the way, Guy. Since you apparently think that voting is how
something becomes doctrine, do you reject the changes that have been
made to the temple ceremony? Specifically, do you still think the
bloody oaths should be in the temple ceremony, since they were removed
without a vote?

Do you also reject as doctrinal the changes that have been made to the
Book of Mormon without a vote? Specifically, do you think the Book of
Mormon should still read "white" instead of "pure?" Do you accept
those chages, even though they were never voted upon?

Here's another example. Nowhere in the LDS scriptures does it say
that women cannot hold the priesthood, yet the LDS Church does not
allow it. However, the practice of not allowing women to hold the
priesthood has never been voted upon. Since it has not been voted
upon, do you agree that women should be allowed to hold the priesthood
in the LDS Church?

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 8:34:59 PM10/2/03
to
wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote in message news:<f36171a3.03100...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> Brigham Young's order was that the wagon train be left
> alone. But, antimormonism posits that he ordered the
> attack anyway.
<snip>

Woody, under what circumstances (if any) would you write the prophet
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and ask him if he
wanted you to murder a busload of people?

Please be specific.

Joshua Gemmell

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 8:45:52 PM10/2/03
to
When we reach perfection and have no need for temples.
Not when Satan want it sold. That's for sure.

I am glad, that with more temples, the less power Satan has over you.

- Joshua Gemmell

someguy

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 11:51:27 AM10/3/03
to

Riiiiiight. <slowing backing away>

TheJordan6

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 5:07:17 PM10/3/03