Short blog posts are the best blog posts. Are you sick of those blogs you follow, where you find something you want to read, and it goes ON AND ON for DAYS? Not here. I'm short and to the point.
According to Brigham Young, (in the Journal of Discourses references the correlated church avoids like the plague) one must be a polygamist at least in your faith.
"It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the (page 269) blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained." {Journal of Discourses volume 11 page 268}
How can you build such faith if you are kept in a box of "approved church materials" (which are actually approved by the centralized corporate correlation committee)?
http://freedom-or-bust.net/what-is-truth-a-critique-of-an-emphasis-on-church-approved-materials/
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Saturday, November 21, 2015
For immediate release:
OPEN LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS including local leaders up to the first presidency, quorum of the 12 apostles, and members of the seventy where applicable:
1. Do scriptures and church law coming from canon law scripture, mean anything in the church?
Do you know the current legal framework in the church regarding plurality of wives? Do you realize that "the manifesto" is NOT established scripture, is not a section of the D&C, and carries zero legal weight in the church due to it's writer not being the prophet? Do you realize that upon the death of president Woodruff, his manifesto that HE HIMSELF did not make into scripture, VANISHED as far as carrying legal weight? Do you know that the same fate became of Joseph F. Smith's manifesto and that it likewise is legally meaningless in the church? Do you realize that president Monson has NEVER issued any manifesto suspending canon law scripture, section 132 and the plurality of wives? Do you realize that handbook 1 does not set forth or establish that plurality of wives as a concept, is "apostasy." That the handbook only mentions polygamy itself in passing, while dealing with other subjects such as baptism. There is no section putting forth any specific procedure for doing anything to a member having plural wives, only referencing ASSUMED discipline AFTER THE FACT, without giving a word of procedure for initiating discipline for this. YOU WOULD THINK this would be clearly set forth and established in the sections for disciplinary councils or apostasy. Handbook 1 leaves this issue to ASSUMPTIONS by bishops, which is absolutely incredible, offensive to canon law scripture, offensive to rule of law and order, and negates the whole purpose of the handbook to clearly guide bishops. Search handbook 1 and show me the section or line dedicated to establishing a foundation that polygamy is apostasy, OR anywhere in handbook 1 saying that desiring multiple wives = apostasy, OR saying that section 132's standing canon law regarding plurality of wives has somehow been suspended or repealed, or that speaking this publicly = apostasy.
The handbook's index contains an entry for "plural marriage" and sort of deals with the issue in passing, on pages 57, 65, 71, 143 and 145. Let's start with page 57's reference. The ONLY reference to plural wives on this very serious page deals with a vague reference to following apostate sects. I am not interested in any "sect." I am interested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and it's unhindered, unsuspended canon law scripture in section 132. By the way, I'm still particularly disgusted at how an ignorant church leader tried to label me as somehow going against church leaders or doctrine (item #2 on page 57) but his attempt was based on his own hysterical reaction to the TOPIC of polygamy (by his own admission). When I pointed out the truth that is explained throughout this open letter, he didn't have a leg to stand on and just went back to being generally hysterical about polygamy and how his wife would negatively react to the subject and how scared he was of this. He even went so far as to tell me that "if polygamy ever came back in the church" he would "leave the church and lose his testimony." Are you shocked yet? Now, to page 65 where plural marriage is referred IN PASSING as a "flagrant transgression" yet absolutely NOWHERE in the handbook is it ever directly established that plural marriage as a concept is a transgression, or "apostasy." Thus, this passing reference is entirely without foundation, even in this secretive handbook that changes like the weather. The handbook section on apostasy is amazingly entirely silent on this issue itself of plural marriage. As we have seen in the last month, the church, specifically the first presidency, has OPENLY ADMITTED that the handbook is A. not scripture and B. contains errors, and is only meant to be a basic guide, and is NOT THE FINAL WORD ON ANYTHING (this is the most important thing to understand). Here is the first presidency publicly altering a section of the handbook in a way that essentially admits they made a mistake with the initial Nov 3 changes to the handbook: https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng
Now to page 71 of the handbook. This contains another AFTER-THE-FACT reference to discipline for polygamy. Where is the procedure for initiating discipline specifically for THIS ISSUE? Where's the foundational criteria and counsel for such discipline? It's just not there. Now to pages 143 and 145. These sections deal with baptizing those who may have been involved in plural marriage, so these pages are utterly irrelevant to members. That section of the handbook (section 16) deals with baptism. These pages contain more passing references implying that plural marriage is a sin or something, but again, the glaring issue is the handbook DOES NOT CONTAIN any section giving actual procedure for a member who wants or has plural wives. It's not there and it's glaring. Bishops are excommunicating and threatening members based on nothing in the handbook, and in full contradiction of canon law scripture. Are there references in the handbook that definitely chill the desire to go near plural marriage? You betcha. Plenty of them. Is plural marriage established as apostasy? Nope. Only spoken of negatively IN PASSING, WHEN OTHER SUBJECTS SUCH AS BAPTISM ARE BROUGHT UP, OR DISCIPLINE FOR THINGS OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL ISSUE OF A MEMBER WITH MULTIPLE WIVES. Here's the link to handbook 1, the most current edition: http://bit.ly/1QvrB75
So what actual legal framework exists in the church regarding plurality of wives? Section 132 returned to being the full legal framework when president Woodruff died. Wilford Woodruff legally suspended portions of section 132 with his "manifesto." President Joseph F. Smith issued a manifesto which again suspended parts of section 132. Why the need for Joseph F. Smith's manifesto if Woodruff's manifesto still had any legal weight whatsoever? Woodruff's manifesto carried zero legal weight and Joseph F. Smith knew it. Now Joseph F. Smith's manifesto was a little different, but the legal landscape defaulted again to section 132 the minute Joseph F. Smith passed away. Because Joseph F. Smith's manifesto was much harsher, people assume that it still carries legal weight after he died, DESPITE him not making it into canon law scripture. If Joseph F. Smith expected his manifesto to carry on after his death, he would have made it canon law scripture, right? Of course.
Since section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants is BINDING AND STANDING LAW UPON THE CHURCH, do you realize that section 132 does NOT say that a man must get permission from the president of the church before the Lord can give that man multiple wives, or even before a man can desire multiple wives? Permission from the president involves temple sealings. Do you realize that legally speaking, concerning church law, plurality of wives, RIGHT NOW, is like a field that no one will go near, but which there is actually no fence or sign telling anyone in the church to avoid that field. Current incorrect and legally baseless assumptions by the members are that going onto that field = apostasy. I walked onto the field and a few members had a conniption (understatement). I pointed to the lack of any fence or signage and they pretty much ignored that fact. It is legal fact in the church that there absolutely MUST be an ongoing STATED and LEGAL suspension of section 132 (or any canon law scripture for that matter), otherwise section 132 is still valid and legal upon the church. Right? Canon law is in force unless suspended or repealed, right? WHERE is the legal and/or scriptural suspension of section 132 from president Monson? He has done no such thing, so section 132 is binding upon the saints. This church is led by the Lord otherwise section 132 would not even BE there anymore. A church of man would have repealed it years ago due to the inconveniences of that section. Since the current prophet Thomas S. Monson has not made any kind of a manifesto or OPEN SIGNED POLICY suspending scripture, and any previous president's manifesto is meaningless, section 132 is ENTIRELY IN FORCE until he does. Church materials that routinely point to the 1890 manifesto, are legally meaningless for church law and neither suspend nor repeal section 132.
So just WHAT IS the actual legal situation on the ground in the church, regarding this issue? I.E. what is actually enabling this unseen, baseless, and illegal suspension of canon law scripture section 132? Section 132 is an active foundational legal document and is STANDING REVELATION (as opposed to suspended or repealed law). Section 132 stands proudly and is unhindered by any semblance of a manifesto from president Monson. The problem is we have unseen mists of darkness against polygamy, resulting in threats of church discipline upon anyone who stands upon section 132, but what is giving this unseen attitude LEGAL POWER IN THE CHURCH to excommunicate a member with a second wife? In practice, there is an unseen, undocumentable, and actually illegal habit of treating canon law scripture, specifically section 132 as if it were suspended in some way, with no scripture or current manifesto from the prophet enacting or enabling this suspension of canon law scripture. People ignorantly point to Woodruff's manifesto as if it has legal weight. Parts of semi meaningless and secretive handbook 1 imply the existence of this unseen suspension of canon law scripture but president Monson has issued no manifesto legally accomplishing this suspension of section 132. He hasn't even put anything in handbook 1 setting forth that plural wives = apostasy, let alone declaring a suspension to canon law scripture. If he did that, I would accept it as legally binding on the church, but he has done no such thing. Thus we have actions by local church leaders, that are going on based on illegal ASSUMPTION of scripture being suspended, and this assumption is not under-girded by legal scripture, or even handbook policy (as if a secret handbook could repeal or suspend scripture that is binding upon the church). If there were some section of the secret handbook dedicated to calling plural wives "apostasy," not just passing implications that are anti polygamy, which hint to some unseen, undocumentable suspension of section 132, I would call such a section the equivalent of a manifesto from president Monson, equivalent to Woodruff's/Joseph F's manifestos. But no such section exists in the handbook suspending section 132. There are plenty of church publications that essentially say "we don't do that anymore" but for these to overpower section 132 as canon law scripture, section 132 first needs to be suspended as canon law scripture, and there's only one way that can be accomplished, otherwise section 132 stands and is in force: A manifesto from the CURRENT president of the church suspending a part of canon law scripture. Until that happens, all the church publications saying "we don't practice polygamy anymore" are legally meaningless in the church and amount to nothing but idle chatter instead of being legally binding. Bottom line: President Thomas S. Monson would have to openly declare like Wilford Woodruff did, a suspension to section 132. President Monson has done no such thing. If he had, it would be on lds.org. No such thing signed by president Monson exists, so section 132 is unhindered and fully in force upon the church. Let's say president Monson did that. Upon his death, section 132 would return to full unhindered canon law, unless president Monson added something to canon law scripture (an extreme action that even Woodruff and Joseph F. did not do, yet their manifestos are repeated referenced by ignorant people, as having legal weight upon the church).
2. Do you know that two apostles are practicing polygamy as we speak? Just because Elder Nelson's and Elder Oaks' first wives are in the spirit world, does not change the fact that according to church doctrine and law, they are STILL MARRIED TO THEM, ergo they are polygamists. I personally know for certain that there are men in the church who are sealed to multiple wives RIGHT NOW, where both wives are actually still living.
3. Saying "we don't do that anymore" is a meaningless statement borne of shocking ignorance. See item #2.
4. Intentionally trying to convince people that "the church does not teach polygamy" is a flat out lie and needs to stop. If someone tries this lie on me, it's a direct insult to my intelligence and will not be tolerated.
5. I am happy to sit down with any member of church leadership, up to the seventy, quorum of the 12, or first presidency, anytime, anywhere, but this should not be required. Elder Oaks understands law very well and I believe would applaud the clear and airtight nature of what I'm saying (see his talk on "Love and Law"). I do not seek any new revelation for the church. I do not claim any new revelation for the church. I have merely attempted to walk onto that field that is lacking so much as a real fence, and have seen my membership in the church threatened by a very very uninformed bishop (and a better conversation from an affable stake president). I will not tolerate this injustice for a millisecond, and invite all members of the church who read this, to corroborate and stand upon every word here, assuming they dare to have faith in the Lord's truth and laws, the Lord's scriptures, and the Lord's spirit of truth.
6. The most common tactic of evasion is to avoid everything and say "just follow the brethren" (as if I'm not doing that, which is deeply insulting). The brethren correctly hold forth the scriptures as CANON LAW IN THE CHURCH, and they keep handbook 1 secret so it certainly carries no weight to tear down scripture. Thus, as a member, the scriptures are paramount for law. If the current prophet had issued some sort of a manifesto that acted as a legal foundation for the suspension of canon law scripture and plurality of wives, I wouldn't need to say any of this because there would be a legal foundation for threatening members.
7. Summary: The threatening of members by local leaders over this specific issue, when no legal foundation exists, is what infuriates me the most. Scripture is on my side, there is no current manifesto suspending scripture that would be legally binding, and there are no handbook sections that countermand/suspend/repeal section 132 (and the handbook is meaningless anyway A. because it's secret from the members, and B. the first presidency has already admitted that it is more or less a scratch pad that can be changed twice in a month). Frankly, if handbook 1 were worth a darn thing on this issue, there would be a section dedicated to suspending section 132, explaining the suspension and what to do with anyone violating the suspension. Right?
OPEN LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS including local leaders up to the first presidency, quorum of the 12 apostles, and members of the seventy where applicable:
1. Do scriptures and church law coming from canon law scripture, mean anything in the church?
Do you know the current legal framework in the church regarding plurality of wives? Do you realize that "the manifesto" is NOT established scripture, is not a section of the D&C, and carries zero legal weight in the church due to it's writer not being the prophet? Do you realize that upon the death of president Woodruff, his manifesto that HE HIMSELF did not make into scripture, VANISHED as far as carrying legal weight? Do you know that the same fate became of Joseph F. Smith's manifesto and that it likewise is legally meaningless in the church? Do you realize that president Monson has NEVER issued any manifesto suspending canon law scripture, section 132 and the plurality of wives? Do you realize that handbook 1 does not set forth or establish that plurality of wives as a concept, is "apostasy." That the handbook only mentions polygamy itself in passing, while dealing with other subjects such as baptism. There is no section putting forth any specific procedure for doing anything to a member having plural wives, only referencing ASSUMED discipline AFTER THE FACT, without giving a word of procedure for initiating discipline for this. YOU WOULD THINK this would be clearly set forth and established in the sections for disciplinary councils or apostasy. Handbook 1 leaves this issue to ASSUMPTIONS by bishops, which is absolutely incredible, offensive to canon law scripture, offensive to rule of law and order, and negates the whole purpose of the handbook to clearly guide bishops. Search handbook 1 and show me the section or line dedicated to establishing a foundation that polygamy is apostasy, OR anywhere in handbook 1 saying that desiring multiple wives = apostasy, OR saying that section 132's standing canon law regarding plurality of wives has somehow been suspended or repealed, or that speaking this publicly = apostasy.
The handbook's index contains an entry for "plural marriage" and sort of deals with the issue in passing, on pages 57, 65, 71, 143 and 145. Let's start with page 57's reference. The ONLY reference to plural wives on this very serious page deals with a vague reference to following apostate sects. I am not interested in any "sect." I am interested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and it's unhindered, unsuspended canon law scripture in section 132. By the way, I'm still particularly disgusted at how an ignorant church leader tried to label me as somehow going against church leaders or doctrine (item #2 on page 57) but his attempt was based on his own hysterical reaction to the TOPIC of polygamy (by his own admission). When I pointed out the truth that is explained throughout this open letter, he didn't have a leg to stand on and just went back to being generally hysterical about polygamy and how his wife would negatively react to the subject and how scared he was of this. He even went so far as to tell me that "if polygamy ever came back in the church" he would "leave the church and lose his testimony." Are you shocked yet? Now, to page 65 where plural marriage is referred IN PASSING as a "flagrant transgression" yet absolutely NOWHERE in the handbook is it ever directly established that plural marriage as a concept is a transgression, or "apostasy." Thus, this passing reference is entirely without foundation, even in this secretive handbook that changes like the weather. The handbook section on apostasy is amazingly entirely silent on this issue itself of plural marriage. As we have seen in the last month, the church, specifically the first presidency, has OPENLY ADMITTED that the handbook is A. not scripture and B. contains errors, and is only meant to be a basic guide, and is NOT THE FINAL WORD ON ANYTHING (this is the most important thing to understand). Here is the first presidency publicly altering a section of the handbook in a way that essentially admits they made a mistake with the initial Nov 3 changes to the handbook: https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng
Now to page 71 of the handbook. This contains another AFTER-THE-FACT reference to discipline for polygamy. Where is the procedure for initiating discipline specifically for THIS ISSUE? Where's the foundational criteria and counsel for such discipline? It's just not there. Now to pages 143 and 145. These sections deal with baptizing those who may have been involved in plural marriage, so these pages are utterly irrelevant to members. That section of the handbook (section 16) deals with baptism. These pages contain more passing references implying that plural marriage is a sin or something, but again, the glaring issue is the handbook DOES NOT CONTAIN any section giving actual procedure for a member who wants or has plural wives. It's not there and it's glaring. Bishops are excommunicating and threatening members based on nothing in the handbook, and in full contradiction of canon law scripture. Are there references in the handbook that definitely chill the desire to go near plural marriage? You betcha. Plenty of them. Is plural marriage established as apostasy? Nope. Only spoken of negatively IN PASSING, WHEN OTHER SUBJECTS SUCH AS BAPTISM ARE BROUGHT UP, OR DISCIPLINE FOR THINGS OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL ISSUE OF A MEMBER WITH MULTIPLE WIVES. Here's the link to handbook 1, the most current edition: http://bit.ly/1QvrB75
So what actual legal framework exists in the church regarding plurality of wives? Section 132 returned to being the full legal framework when president Woodruff died. Wilford Woodruff legally suspended portions of section 132 with his "manifesto." President Joseph F. Smith issued a manifesto which again suspended parts of section 132. Why the need for Joseph F. Smith's manifesto if Woodruff's manifesto still had any legal weight whatsoever? Woodruff's manifesto carried zero legal weight and Joseph F. Smith knew it. Now Joseph F. Smith's manifesto was a little different, but the legal landscape defaulted again to section 132 the minute Joseph F. Smith passed away. Because Joseph F. Smith's manifesto was much harsher, people assume that it still carries legal weight after he died, DESPITE him not making it into canon law scripture. If Joseph F. Smith expected his manifesto to carry on after his death, he would have made it canon law scripture, right? Of course.
Since section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants is BINDING AND STANDING LAW UPON THE CHURCH, do you realize that section 132 does NOT say that a man must get permission from the president of the church before the Lord can give that man multiple wives, or even before a man can desire multiple wives? Permission from the president involves temple sealings. Do you realize that legally speaking, concerning church law, plurality of wives, RIGHT NOW, is like a field that no one will go near, but which there is actually no fence or sign telling anyone in the church to avoid that field. Current incorrect and legally baseless assumptions by the members are that going onto that field = apostasy. I walked onto the field and a few members had a conniption (understatement). I pointed to the lack of any fence or signage and they pretty much ignored that fact. It is legal fact in the church that there absolutely MUST be an ongoing STATED and LEGAL suspension of section 132 (or any canon law scripture for that matter), otherwise section 132 is still valid and legal upon the church. Right? Canon law is in force unless suspended or repealed, right? WHERE is the legal and/or scriptural suspension of section 132 from president Monson? He has done no such thing, so section 132 is binding upon the saints. This church is led by the Lord otherwise section 132 would not even BE there anymore. A church of man would have repealed it years ago due to the inconveniences of that section. Since the current prophet Thomas S. Monson has not made any kind of a manifesto or OPEN SIGNED POLICY suspending scripture, and any previous president's manifesto is meaningless, section 132 is ENTIRELY IN FORCE until he does. Church materials that routinely point to the 1890 manifesto, are legally meaningless for church law and neither suspend nor repeal section 132.
So just WHAT IS the actual legal situation on the ground in the church, regarding this issue? I.E. what is actually enabling this unseen, baseless, and illegal suspension of canon law scripture section 132? Section 132 is an active foundational legal document and is STANDING REVELATION (as opposed to suspended or repealed law). Section 132 stands proudly and is unhindered by any semblance of a manifesto from president Monson. The problem is we have unseen mists of darkness against polygamy, resulting in threats of church discipline upon anyone who stands upon section 132, but what is giving this unseen attitude LEGAL POWER IN THE CHURCH to excommunicate a member with a second wife? In practice, there is an unseen, undocumentable, and actually illegal habit of treating canon law scripture, specifically section 132 as if it were suspended in some way, with no scripture or current manifesto from the prophet enacting or enabling this suspension of canon law scripture. People ignorantly point to Woodruff's manifesto as if it has legal weight. Parts of semi meaningless and secretive handbook 1 imply the existence of this unseen suspension of canon law scripture but president Monson has issued no manifesto legally accomplishing this suspension of section 132. He hasn't even put anything in handbook 1 setting forth that plural wives = apostasy, let alone declaring a suspension to canon law scripture. If he did that, I would accept it as legally binding on the church, but he has done no such thing. Thus we have actions by local church leaders, that are going on based on illegal ASSUMPTION of scripture being suspended, and this assumption is not under-girded by legal scripture, or even handbook policy (as if a secret handbook could repeal or suspend scripture that is binding upon the church). If there were some section of the secret handbook dedicated to calling plural wives "apostasy," not just passing implications that are anti polygamy, which hint to some unseen, undocumentable suspension of section 132, I would call such a section the equivalent of a manifesto from president Monson, equivalent to Woodruff's/Joseph F's manifestos. But no such section exists in the handbook suspending section 132. There are plenty of church publications that essentially say "we don't do that anymore" but for these to overpower section 132 as canon law scripture, section 132 first needs to be suspended as canon law scripture, and there's only one way that can be accomplished, otherwise section 132 stands and is in force: A manifesto from the CURRENT president of the church suspending a part of canon law scripture. Until that happens, all the church publications saying "we don't practice polygamy anymore" are legally meaningless in the church and amount to nothing but idle chatter instead of being legally binding. Bottom line: President Thomas S. Monson would have to openly declare like Wilford Woodruff did, a suspension to section 132. President Monson has done no such thing. If he had, it would be on lds.org. No such thing signed by president Monson exists, so section 132 is unhindered and fully in force upon the church. Let's say president Monson did that. Upon his death, section 132 would return to full unhindered canon law, unless president Monson added something to canon law scripture (an extreme action that even Woodruff and Joseph F. did not do, yet their manifestos are repeated referenced by ignorant people, as having legal weight upon the church).
2. Do you know that two apostles are practicing polygamy as we speak? Just because Elder Nelson's and Elder Oaks' first wives are in the spirit world, does not change the fact that according to church doctrine and law, they are STILL MARRIED TO THEM, ergo they are polygamists. I personally know for certain that there are men in the church who are sealed to multiple wives RIGHT NOW, where both wives are actually still living.
3. Saying "we don't do that anymore" is a meaningless statement borne of shocking ignorance. See item #2.
4. Intentionally trying to convince people that "the church does not teach polygamy" is a flat out lie and needs to stop. If someone tries this lie on me, it's a direct insult to my intelligence and will not be tolerated.
5. I am happy to sit down with any member of church leadership, up to the seventy, quorum of the 12, or first presidency, anytime, anywhere, but this should not be required. Elder Oaks understands law very well and I believe would applaud the clear and airtight nature of what I'm saying (see his talk on "Love and Law"). I do not seek any new revelation for the church. I do not claim any new revelation for the church. I have merely attempted to walk onto that field that is lacking so much as a real fence, and have seen my membership in the church threatened by a very very uninformed bishop (and a better conversation from an affable stake president). I will not tolerate this injustice for a millisecond, and invite all members of the church who read this, to corroborate and stand upon every word here, assuming they dare to have faith in the Lord's truth and laws, the Lord's scriptures, and the Lord's spirit of truth.
6. The most common tactic of evasion is to avoid everything and say "just follow the brethren" (as if I'm not doing that, which is deeply insulting). The brethren correctly hold forth the scriptures as CANON LAW IN THE CHURCH, and they keep handbook 1 secret so it certainly carries no weight to tear down scripture. Thus, as a member, the scriptures are paramount for law. If the current prophet had issued some sort of a manifesto that acted as a legal foundation for the suspension of canon law scripture and plurality of wives, I wouldn't need to say any of this because there would be a legal foundation for threatening members.
7. Summary: The threatening of members by local leaders over this specific issue, when no legal foundation exists, is what infuriates me the most. Scripture is on my side, there is no current manifesto suspending scripture that would be legally binding, and there are no handbook sections that countermand/suspend/repeal section 132 (and the handbook is meaningless anyway A. because it's secret from the members, and B. the first presidency has already admitted that it is more or less a scratch pad that can be changed twice in a month). Frankly, if handbook 1 were worth a darn thing on this issue, there would be a section dedicated to suspending section 132, explaining the suspension and what to do with anyone violating the suspension. Right?
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Mormons are Polygamists (whether they admit it or not)
Polygamy and Mormons, oh that has SOOOOO been talked about. NEXT!
That is most mormon's reaction, right? This is written to mormons.
Mormons ARE polygamists. They deny it but they are. The church DOES teach polygamy. The church DOES live polygamy. Get used to it. Deal with it. Admit it. Your mormon neighbors are living it, whether they realize it or not.
The LDS church culture eats, sleeps, breathes, lives, farts, chews, coughs, walks, talks one thing: DENIAL and shut up.
That is most mormon's reaction, right? This is written to mormons.
Mormons ARE polygamists. They deny it but they are. The church DOES teach polygamy. The church DOES live polygamy. Get used to it. Deal with it. Admit it. Your mormon neighbors are living it, whether they realize it or not.
The LDS church culture eats, sleeps, breathes, lives, farts, chews, coughs, walks, talks one thing: DENIAL and shut up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)