Lonelygirl15

i think you could learn a lesson from the people on these boards who know how to show respect to people. did i include personal attacks at you in my last post here? no. and yet you see fit to unsult my intelligence. anybody who was here to really discuss with people instead of just debateing because they're bored could've gotten my point and moved on, because although you may be afraid to admit it, i'm right on this.

polygamy was a Mormon belief when they first started out- now it is no longer supported by the church even though their leaders in the past practiced it. they don't anymore.

i just don't see how it's hard to understand that these honored people were people nonetheless, they were doing what they felt was right at the time, and just because they did one thing that is now seen as reprehensible doesn't make every contribution they ever made null and void.

ok i'm gonna take a page from Penny's book on this one and not get into this. just because i use "common parlance" and don't feel the need to frame all of my statements as if i'm in a debate club is no reason to assume that they're stupid. you may waste more of your time stubbornly defending your own biases and nitpicking other people's language than i ever would, but hey- maybe that just shows that i have a life. and yes, i was just going off of what i could remember of what i'd learned and i was aware that it might not be all that specific and completely perfect... sue me for only having a few minutes to hash out some kind of response for something i know i'm aware of the general history of. may i also point out that i didn't join this board to have rediculously in-depth religious discussions or to have my intelligence insulted, so i'm outta here.

oh, and you might not want to bother answering this because i won't see it- i'm not coming back to this thread.

Penny wrote:While I was cleaning something came to my mind. There is a point were with any religion people need to let go of "logic" and follow their hearts. My religion rings true to me (right down to my soul). I am not crazy. I am not ignorant (if I am ignorant then anyone who is devoted to a religion is ignorant and crazy as well). I am trying to be Christlike (although JJ has found a way to unleash my "inner latina"...I am not proud of it).

I wouldn't mind if all this was in good fun. I can take a joke. I know how to laugh at myself. I have seen many South Park episodes where mormonism is made fun of (and guess what? I laugh because it is funny). I just want to say that while people have a problem with my beliefs I would appreciate it if they wouldn't take what I hold so dearly and totally piss on it.

I find it interesting that you are being so defensive and insinuating that I am calling you "crazy" or "ignorant" for believing your religion.

I was trying to understand something, and you never provided a real answer. You danced around the answer, you provided me with defenses against things I never brought up, and you attempted to throw me off the questions I asked by making me out to be a "basher" of the Mormon religion.

My problem isn't so much with your beliefs as it is with the fact that you put yourself forward to explain your beliefs, all the while having no way of being able to do so (or perhaps no intention of actually doing so, I don't know). Then, when I press you for answers to questions I have, since you put yourself forward as someone who can provide answers, you get mad and insinuate that I am attacking you.

That's duplicitous, and it's underhanded, and either you're very ignorant and can't understand how to answer a question directly, or you're changing the subject and trying to shift some form of guilt onto me, when all I did was have an open dialog with you.

I'm confident that anyone who reads these posts and has a sense for reason at all can see what I'm talking about and can see how unreasonable you have been.

'Nuff said. This is usually how it goes with Mormon missionaries, too - they run away and give up becasue they can't handle a rational discussion.

C ya.

Hannahbee wrote: i think you could learn a lesson from the people on these boards who know how to show respect to people. did i include personal attacks at you in my last post here? no. and yet you see fit to unsult my intelligence. anybody who was here to really discuss with people instead of just debateing because they're bored could've gotten my point and moved on, because although you may be afraid to admit it, i'm right on this.

I think you need to learn how to show respect for people, and I think you also need to recognize when you're being disrespectful. You did include personal attacks on me, you made presumptions about me and what Church I'm in, and you lied about things in an effort to put forth an argument that would "win". You were more interested in winning your debate than discussing facts, and you threw out whatever opinions you had and passed them off as fact as part of your "proof" for how I was wrong.

I don't mind if you show that I'm wrong legitimately. But when you throw out untruthful information and use that as the basis for your proving me wrong, then you are either extremely ignorant to do so or you're being underhanded. Either way, it's wrong and it's an offense to a person when you do that to him. You're either a liar, or someone who doesn't care whether or not what she says are lies and throws them out there anyway.

Hannahbee wrote: polygamy was a Mormon belief when they first started out- now it is no longer supported by the church even though their leaders in the past practiced it. they don't anymore.

i just don't see how it's hard to understand that these honored people were people nonetheless, they were doing what they felt was right at the time, and just because they did one thing that is now seen as reprehensible doesn't make every contribution they ever made null and void.

They were not "honored people", they were Prophets, according to the Mormons. Prophets who communicated only that which is true and good to the entire Church. They practiced polygamy, it was communicated to the church that polygamy was true and good.

Later, a "revelation" by another prophet declared that polygamy was no longer to be practiced. That's fine. They changed their minds by virtue of a "revelation" from their new "prophet". So it would stand to follow that the practice of polygamy, while being wrong for mormons today, is not something so sick and evil. So why do they criticize Warren Jeffs as sick and evil for being a polygamist? I know why non-mormons see him as sick and evil, and that's because non-mormons mostly think polygamy is sick and evil. But why do Mormons feel that way about polygamy? If they feel so strongly about it that they criticize Jeffs for it, then shouldn't they be speaking out against JS and BY?

Furthermore, I brought up as part of the issue the marriage of young girls. I didn't mention that many of the 14 and 15 year olds that JS and BY married were the daughters of other women they married also, and many of the women these men married were the wives of other men to begin with.

And you think it's perfectly natural to accept men like JS and BY doing such things but at the same time criticizing another man as "sick" and "evil" for doing the same thing? You're flat out nuts, then.

Hannahbee wrote: ok i'm gonna take a page from Penny's book on this one and not get into this. just because i use "common parlance" and don't feel the need to frame all of my statements as if i'm in a debate club is no reason to assume that they're stupid. you may waste more of your time stubbornly defending your own biases and nitpicking other people's language than i ever would, but hey- maybe that just shows that i have a life.

No, it shows that you can't handle a rational discussion, and it shows that you know you're wrong and feel cornered, and it shows that you want to post dopey posts elsewhere. It's not like you're going to not post a response here so you can do something PRODUCTIVE in your real life, LOL. You're just going to go post elsewhere. So don't lie, it doesn't help.

Hannahbee wrote: and yes, i was just going off of what i could remember of what i'd learned and i was aware that it might not be all that specific and completely perfect... sue me for only having a few minutes to hash out some kind of response for something i know i'm aware of the general history of. may i also point out that i didn't join this board to have rediculously in-depth religious discussions or to have my intelligence insulted, so i'm outta here.

You CHOSE to put up a response. If you don't know what you're talking about and you choose to respond anyway, why would you expect anything less than to get flamed for saying something ignorant? If you didn't join this board to have "rediculously [sic] in-depth religious discussions" then out of ALL the threads and ALL the topics and ALL the posts on this forum did you choose to post a response in this one??? That's your own stupidity then, to post a post that you didn't want to post. Heck it even sounds stupid when you type it out. And if you don't want your intelligence insulted, then don't demonstrate your complete lack of intelligence. Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Hannahbee wrote: oh, and you might not want to bother answering this because i won't see it- i'm not coming back to this thread.

Gee, what a surprise, you're copping out and running away, LOL!!! Shocker!!

C ya.

JerseyJohnny wrote:

Penny wrote:While I was cleaning something came to my mind. There is a point were with any religion people need to let go of "logic" and follow their hearts. My religion rings true to me (right down to my soul). I am not crazy. I am not ignorant (if I am ignorant then anyone who is devoted to a religion is ignorant and crazy as well). I am trying to be Christlike (although JJ has found a way to unleash my "inner latina"...I am not proud of it).

I wouldn't mind if all this was in good fun. I can take a joke. I know how to laugh at myself. I have seen many South Park episodes where mormonism is made fun of (and guess what? I laugh because it is funny). I just want to say that while people have a problem with my beliefs I would appreciate it if they wouldn't take what I hold so dearly and totally piss on it.

I find it interesting that you are being so defensive and insinuating that I am calling you "crazy" or "ignorant" for believing your religion.

I was trying to understand something, and you never provided a real answer. You danced around the answer, you provided me with defenses against things I never brought up, and you attempted to throw me off the questions I asked by making me out to be a "basher" of the Mormon religion.

My problem isn't so much with your beliefs as it is with the fact that you put yourself forward to explain your beliefs, all the while having no way of being able to do so (or perhaps no intention of actually doing so, I don't know). Then, when I press you for answers to questions I have, since you put yourself forward as someone who can provide answers, you get mad and insinuate that I am attacking you.

That's duplicitous, and it's underhanded, and either you're very ignorant and can't understand how to answer a question directly, or you're changing the subject and trying to shift some form of guilt onto me, when all I did was have an open dialog with you.

I'm confident that anyone who reads these posts and has a sense for reason at all can see what I'm talking about and can see how unreasonable you have been.

'Nuff said. This is usually how it goes with Mormon missionaries, too - they run away and give up becasue they can't handle a rational discussion.

C ya.

Wouldn't you get defensive if people bash your religion more often then not? I grew up being mocked because of what I believe (yeah, I am sure you did too but I highly doubt it was at the level I had to endure). So what if I am being defensive? It comes with the territory when some people feel it is their duty to let me know how mislead I am.

I take your questions to be underhanded. I don't directly answer some of your questions for that reason (not because I am too stupid to answer them). I already answered your 'why do you want to be considered christian' question. I have answered it several times. Sorry if I (I am not spokesperson for my church, just for myself) think that we should be considered christian since we follow Christ's teachings. We study the new testiment. By-the-way, I already said that I am over it since you made your point about christians being able to decide who is christian and who isn't.

I already said that I don't like polygamy (for several reasons that I never listed here) but it is not practiced by my religion anymore. If it bothers you that I don't have a problem with that then that's fine...you are entitled to that.

If all we are having is an innocent conversation then why don't you tell me what religion you belong to? I know you are christian but what denomination are you? Why keep that a secret? Is it because you love your religion and don't want it picked apart (I wouldn't do this but perhaps you assume I would)? Anyway, my point is you seem to have your reasons for keeping the name of your christian denomination a secret. I can only assume that it is because you don't want your religion to be pissed on.

The comment I posted and you so kindly quoted here was actually addressed to everyone that is still reading this. I know you never said I was crazy or ignorant (although I suspect you think it but that is not my point). I just wanted to explain myself and why I believe my religion. I believe against all worldly reason because my heart tells me it is true. The LDS religion answers my questions. Its doctrine about families being forever works for me. I don't want to be married until I die and then it's over, I want to be married to my wonderful husband for the rest of eternity (and we are sealed in the temple for that purpose). I want my family to always be with me. I am so happy when I am with my family. I know who I am. I know where I am going. I also know what I am doing here (not the lg15 forum...I mean here on earth). I love my church and it's teachings. If in the end my religion is wrong (which I don't think so but others do) at the very least, I was inspired to live a good life and to be a good person.

[quote="Penny"]Okay, yeah polygamy is part of my churches history. Not a secret. We don't practice it anymore.[/quote]

Just expanding on Penny's quote:

Primarily the reason why polygamy was allowed in the LDS church during the time of thier relocation was because women held no stature value in society.

There's a little thing in American History called the Mormon War when the LDS people were slaughtered by a banned of men sent by this very government. Of course politics were handled differently then; Each state were in charge of their own affairs. (This is the shortened version but I had family that fought in the Mormon War from direct orders from their commanding officers.) Many LDS people were slain including children. My family still has the documents. The LDS people were forced from their land by mobs who disapproved of their beliefs. (Side note: I find it ironic seeing how most that traveled to lived in what we now call the United States fled their lands so that they might be able to freely practice their own religions including the travelers from the Mayflower who were fleeing the Catholic Church in England.)

While they fled from areas of Missouri, Kentucky, New York Territories and surrounding areas the men, women and children faced many difficulties. One of which was the Mexican War. The government asked the Mormons to send their men to help in the war. Bringham Young being the man he was thought the request was out of line. The Mormons were forced from their land by the very people and government that were now asking for the men of the Mormon faith to help fight in the Mexican War. They were still in the midst of traveling with many women and children. However Bringham Young sent the healthy LDS men because they still lived in America and still obeyed the law. Many men didn't return leaving women and children behind with no means. Women didn't have the luxury of getting a job at Macy's or climbing a corperate ladder in those days. It was told that the men must take more than one wife to provide for her and her children. This is the true reason why they had more than one wife.
Obviously this is not true for today or anytime recently.

Penny wrote: Wouldn't you get defensive if people bash your religion more often then not? I grew up being mocked because of what I believe (yeah, I am sure you did too but I highly doubt it was at the level I had to endure). So what if I am being defensive? It comes with the territory when some people feel it is their duty to let me know how mislead I am.

People do bash my religion. I mostly don't get defensive with such people if they are just bashing and being unreasonable. But when someone asks me questions about my beliefs in a rational manner, I respond with reasonable answers, wihout being defensive. I don't fly off the handle and then say "well I have the right to fly off the handle, poor me, I'm always bashed, our religion is always bashed, poor persecuted us!" But that's what you're basically saying here, is that because you have been bashed by others you have the right to be defensive against me when all I have done is asked you questions in a reasonable discussion. Then when I point that out to you you get more angry. I'm at a loss as to what to tell you, it seems you have your mind made up to respond to reason with defensiveness and nothing will change that. But I do have the right to point out to you that your choice is very irrational and unreasonable.

Penny wrote: I take your questions to be underhanded. I don't directly answer some of your questions for that reason (not because I am too stupid to answer them).

Why do you take my questions to be underhanded? I have a feeling that you don't directly answer some of my questions because you don't have a good answer, honestly. That doesn't mean you're "stupid", but it does mean you don't have or want to state the answer for some reason. If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. Give me a good, reasonable answer. But you're just avoiding things and copping out.

Penny wrote: I already answered your 'why do you want to be considered christian' question. I have answered it several times. Sorry if I (I am not spokesperson for my church, just for myself) think that we should be considered christian since we follow Christ's teachings. We study the new testiment. By-the-way, I already said that I am over it since you made your point about christians being able to decide who is christian and who isn't.

I find this interesting because if we consider anyone who follows Christ's teachings and the New Testament to be Christians, then Muslims are Christians. Most Muslims will tell you that they are Christians, but Christians who have a more complete knowledge of Christianity since they also have the Quran (just as Mormons claim to have a complete knowledge of Christianity because they have their additional scripture).

Surah 5:82:
“Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. This is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.”

I find it funny also that you don't like that Christianity can decide what groups are real Christians or not, but you have no problem with the LDS Church deciding what groups are real LDS or not. In other words, you don't like that the Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox, etc. reject the Mormons and consider them to not be part of Christianity, but at the same time you don't care that the FLDS or other LDS splinter groups resent your LDS Church from declaring that those groups are not really LDS. In fact, you yourself said that Warren Jeffs is "not LDS". So apparently you do believe that certain groups have the right to define who is part of their religion. You just don't like it when it works against what you want, and you're all for it when it works for what you want.

Penny wrote: I already said that I don't like polygamy (for several reasons that I never listed here) but it is not practiced by my religion anymore. If it bothers you that I don't have a problem with that then that's fine...you are entitled to that.

You said the following:

forcing young girls into marriages to old men (sometimes their own uncles) in the name of religion is wrong. TOTALLY WRONG.

So, in response to you saying that, I pointed out that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did precisely that. I asked if you feel the same way about them that you do about Warren Jeffs. You didn't directly answer me, but you seem to make it clear that you still respect JS and BY. So again, it's the double standard, where something is WRONG for anyone else to do, but it's OK and good for the LDS Church to do. That's not rational at all.

Penny wrote: If all we are having is an innocent conversation then why don't you tell me what religion you belong to? I know you are christian but what denomination are you? Why keep that a secret? Is it because you love your religion and don't want it picked apart (I wouldn't do this but perhaps you assume I would)? Anyway, my point is you seem to have your reasons for keeping the name of your christian denomination a secret. I can only assume that it is because you don't want your religion to be pissed on.

No secrets here. Funny that you would imply as such. The only reason I never provided you with the name of my Church is because you never asked. I'm Armenian Apostolic. Go ahead and pick it apart. Of course, I say that realizing that you know absolutely nothing about my Church. Even after you google it you'll most likely be relatively ignorant about it, since there are so many sources on the internet you will have a hard time knowing which one gives a truthful synopsis on it. But I'll be impressed if you find some good information on it. Or you can ask me, I'll be happy to tell you more. And it's not a religion, it's a Church in the Christian Faith; that concept might not make sense to you, but, in Christianity, "religion" is actually minimized in favor of Faith.

Penny wrote: The comment I posted and you so kindly quoted here was actually addressed to everyone that is still reading this. I know you never said I was crazy or ignorant (although I suspect you think it but that is not my point). I just wanted to explain myself and why I believe my religion. I believe against all worldly reason because my heart tells me it is true. The LDS religion answers my questions. Its doctrine about families being forever works for me. I don't want to be married until I die and then it's over, I want to be married to my wonderful husband for the rest of eternity (and we are sealed in the temple for that purpose). I want my family to always be with me. I am so happy when I am with my family. I know who I am. I know where I am going. I also know what I am doing here (not the lg15 forum...I mean here on earth). I love my church and it's teachings. If in the end my religion is wrong (which I don't think so but others do) at the very least, I was inspired to live a good life and to be a good person.

I find it odd that you felt compelled to explain that you are not "crazy" nor "ignorant" to everyone who might be reading this, when neither I nor anyone else even suggested as such. There is a line from MacBeth, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much", which was uttered after Lady MacBeth protested an accusation of her committing murder, although she never was accused. Do you see what I'm saying? For example, if you said to your child "What are you doing up in the attic?" and your kid said "Um, I'm not playing with matches or fireworks up here!", what would you think?

So it's odd that you come out and say "I'm not crazy or ignorant" and intend that message for everyone although nobody ever mentioned that you might be crazy or ignorant.

And you don't have faith "above all worldly reason", you do use at least a little worldly reason. But anyway, I'm not trying to have a discussion with you about why you believe Mormonism is right. In fact, never were any of my questions dealing with why you believe mormonism or whether it's right or wrong. This whole time, I simply meant to describe Mormonism for what it actually is. Whether it's True or not is up to each person to decide. But, the facts about the religion which are open cannot be changed. The facts about having more than one god. The facts about polygamy being part of the past of the religion, including marrying 14 year old girls to 40 and 50 something year old men. The fact that there are splinter groups from the original LDS Church which call themselves LDS and still practice polygamy. It was those facts which you had called into question, and which I defended as being facts, and which you then turned around and created a defense for your beliefs, which was never really the point to begin with.

The whole thing and your whole overraction and defensiveness is highly irrational and just plain weird. It's a shame you can't just have a decent, reasonable conversation without getting worked up and upset.

I have been called Crazy and ignorant by people for believing (because their reasoning is that only crazy or ignorant people would be a member of my faith) what I do, thus my reason for mentioning it in my comment. I suppose I am too defensive but I have delt with people like you my whole life.

I never asked your religion but you tiptoed around what your religion is to someone else by saying something to the effect of 'I am not catholic but I am christian, my church has nothing to do with the catholic faith...etc...' You weren't asked what your religion was but in making your point you could have said that you were armenian apostalic thus making your point hit home.

Anyway, you are right, I don't know a whole lot about the Armenian Apostalic church. I do know that there is a big beautiful Armenian apostalic church (or maybe it's a temple? I don't know) near where I live. A lot of people in my area are Armenian Apostalic. I have no gripe with them and they all seem nice enough. Even if I knew all the truth about your religion and I had a problem with it, I wouldn't go after it (unless you eat babies or something like that...hmm maybe thats why there are so many bad things said about your church on the internet, you eat babies! okay kidding! really I am). I like learning about other religions because I find it interesting. Just because I don't believe in other religions I don't have the right to rip those religions to shreads. My point here is, I think everyone should make an effort to be more respectful to other peoples beliefs.

As far as christians being able to define who is christian or not, I NEVER SAID I HATE IT! I said you made a point and I moved on.

As far as polygamy goes, fine, you are right, these men did have more then one wife. As far as how many were actually 14, 15, 16, 17...I really don't know but I think there was about 4-7 that were that young. Women did marry as young as 15, 16, 17 back then. The average age of a married woman back then was it was in the late teens.

Whatever, even then, no one was ever forced into marriage in my religion. I don't condone the marriage of young women to old men but none of these wives were ever forced to marry. It is out of accordence with our beliefs. I really could go into detail as to why polygamy was practiced...there are several reasons. Someone posted earlier that it was done so women would have the support of a husband and father to their children(if their husbands had died during the pioneer trek out to Utah or whatever) this is one of the reasons. Also, it was done to "build up the kingdom" basicly, to make our church stronger...more people. Only about 3% of the men were asked to enter into a polygamist marriage (this wasn't because they were favored or anything... it was for other reasons that I really don't want to go into on a public board, not because it is a secret but because of reasons I don't want to go into here). Not all polygamist wives consimated the marriage with their husbands. Like I said earlier, in most cases the marriage was done so that some women who lost their husbands could have the support of a husband and a father for their children (there were more women then men).

Anyway, I think I have made myself clear here, I don't like polygamy but I do acknowledge that it is part of my churches history.

Why I have a problem with Warren Jeffs?...let me see...because he still practices polygamy. He takes whole families away from men if he doesn't like them. He kicks all young men (some as young as 12. All of which are unable to take care of themselves, don't know anything about the outside world, lack in education, social skills, etc ) out of the community so he and his favorite men can have all the young women. Young women are FORCED into these marriages (some having to marry their own uncles), They do not put their children in public schools (they home school them but do a horrible job of it. The children don't know anything about the outside world), there is a high incidence of child abuse, spousal abuse, sexual abuse, mental abuse etc...I could go on and on and on and on...Anyway, these are the reason I don't like Warren Jeffs...

The flds church is a splinter group but we are in no way affiliated with them. WE have our prophet and THEY have their prophet. They don't even claim us or acknowledge us. They feel that we are in the wrong and that we should still be practicing polygamy. They don't call themselves LDS they call themselves FLDS (they are the fundamental latter day saints). THOSE ARE THE FACTS! I have stated them before.

EDIT: http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jay/Brigham_You ... Young.html

Penny wrote: I have been called Crazy and ignorant by people for believing (because their reasoning is that only crazy or ignorant people would be a member of my faith) what I do, thus my reason for mentioning it in my comment. I suppose I am too defensive but I have delt with people like you my whole life.

People like me? When did I call you "Crazy and ignorant...for believing (because [my] reasoning is that only crazy or ignorant people would be a member of [your]faith) what [you] do"??? Never. Yet, you categorize me as such. That's bearing false witness. You're accusing me of something I did not do, and I resent that. Luckily, I'm not the same as you, and I won't hold it against every mormon that you have made false accusations against me, and then use that as a reason to be irrational and overly defensive against them.

Penny wrote: I never asked your religion but you tiptoed around what your religion is to someone else by saying something to the effect of 'I am not catholic but I am christian, my church has nothing to do with the catholic faith...etc...' You weren't asked what your religion was but in making your point you could have said that you were armenian apostalic thus making your point hit home.

I recall mentioning in my reply to Hannahbee's post that I am not Roman catholic and that my Church never was part of Roman Catholicism. In my discussion with you, it never came up what Church I belong to. It wasn't part of the discussion. It was irrelevant. If you had a desire to know, all you had to do was ask. When you asked in the last post, I was more than happy to share it with you. So now you know. And it still has no bearing on our discussion, because it really is still irrelevant.

Penny wrote: Anyway, you are right, I don't know a whole lot about the Armenian Apostalic church. I do know that there is a big beautiful Armenian apostalic church (or maybe it's a temple? I don't know) near where I live. A lot of people in my area are Armenian Apostalic. I have no gripe with them and they all seem nice enough. Even if I knew all the truth about your religion and I had a problem with it, I wouldn't go after it (unless you eat babies or something like that...hmm maybe thats why there are so many bad things said about your church on the internet, you eat babies! okay kidding! really I am). I like learning about other religions because I find it interesting. Just because I don't believe in other religions I don't have the right to rip those religions to shreads. My point here is, I think everyone should make an effort to be more respectful to other peoples beliefs.

It would be a Church, we are Christians so we wouldn't have a Temple. We don't have "so many bad things said about [our] church on the internet", but we have a lot of inaccurate things said about it. I wouldn't say that all the inaccuracies are "bad", they're mostly just not true, not accurate. We don't eat babies; we eat older children, ages 5 thru 8. (OK kidding! I really am! )

You are going back to talking about being respectful of other people's religions. This implies, yet again, that I was not respectful of your religion. The fact is I have not been disrespectful of your religion. You CONTINUE to accuse me of that, and it's not true. Why do you continue to make false accusations towards me? My discussion with you is not about the Mormon religion, it's about certain facts in regards to the Mormon religion. I made certain statements about the Mormon religion, you told me I was wrong, I showed you that I wasn't wrong, I gave you quotes from your Church's leaders, and you got angry and have ever since accused me of attacking and bashing your religion. You're wrong, Penny. What you're doing is wrong, whether it's intentional or not.

Penny wrote: As far as christians being able to define who is christian or not, I NEVER SAID I HATE IT! I said you made a point and I moved on.

First off, I never said you said you "hate" it. I said you "don't like it". Are you trying to make my words harsher than they were? I don't know... As far as you saying that you "moved on" - not exactly. You were duplicitous. You said two things that contradict each other. That's not a fair thing to do. Here is what you said:

Sorry if I (I am not spokesperson for my church, just for myself) think that we should be considered christian since we follow Christ's teachings. We study the new testiment. By-the-way, I already said that I am over it since you made your point about christians being able to decide who is christian and who isn't.

So basically you reiterated your previous statement that you think mormons should be considered christian since you follow Christ's teachings. You then said you follow the new testament. Then you turn around and say "I already said that I am over it..." Well if you're over it you wouldn't reiterate your contention that you should be called Christians. It's like if you were trying to convince me that the sky is blue, and I insist that it's green, and you prove to me it's blue, and then I say "Fine, I'm over it. So I believe the sky is green, it looks green to me. It's a green color, the sky. Anyway, I TOLD you I'm over it". Well when you insist on your point and reiterate it, that's not showing you're over it, no matter what you say.

In any case, I'm over it, it seems clear that you just want Mormons to be called Christians "just because". Just because you have a feeling, just because you want to, just because your church wants to. There is no logical reason for it. That's fine, but it would have been a lot better for you to just come out and say "I want the LDS Church to be categorized Christian for no good reason other than we want to." At least admit when you have beliefs that you choose to have with no logic to them.

Penny wrote: As far as polygamy goes, fine, you are right, these men did have more then one wife. As far as how many were actually 14, 15, 16, 17...I really don't know. As far as I know there weren't any that were as young as 14-16 whatsoever. For all I know someone made that up (see thats what we have in common, there are a lot of people who go out of their way and publish lies about our religions). Even if this is true, women did marry as young as 15, 16, 17 back then. The average age of a married woman back then was definatly not 20 it was younger and more like 16-17. Many young women were basicly "spinsters" if they hadn't married by 20.

Whatever, even then, no one was ever forced into marriage in my religion. I don't condone the marriage of young women to old men but none of these wives were ever forced to marry. It is out of accordence with our beliefs.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Look at the marriage records for those days. Also, 14 year old girls back then did not start to menstruate. Today, most girls start by age 13. Back then they didn't start till age 16 or 17, some not till 18. This is all proven, and if you are SERIOUS about discussing this, if you are SERIOUS about knowing the Truth, I can provide you with proof. I get the feeling that this is just another one of those things you want to accept what you've been taught, bury your head in the sand and repeat the "company line" about Joseph Smith's plural wives. Too bad, because history shows otherwise. Fanny Alger and Nancy Winchester were only 14 when they married Joseph Smith, who was over 40 when he married them. You think 14 year old girls marry of their own free will? If so, then who's to say Warren Jeffs is "forcing" girls to marry? Maybe people are making up lies about Warren Jeffs and you're believing those lies.

You are a master at the double standard. And, that's fine if you want to choose to live your faith as a double standard. Just stop pretending that it's not, because it is.

Penny wrote: I really could go into detail as to why polygamy was practiced...there are several reasons....

The issue isn't polygamy, the issue, that YOU brought up, was specifically the polygamy with young girls and forced marriages. It's clear by now that your earlier criticism of polygamy was part of the double standard that you follow in your religion.

Anyway, if you want an interesting perspective on Polygamy, read the writings of Emma Smith, Joseph's first wife. She hated polygamy. She left the LDS Church with Joseph's son after Brigham Young took it over. They formed the RLDS Church in Missouri. Oh yeah, that's right, she and JS's son are apostates, you don't care what "lies" they have to say. Brigham Young had some choice words for them and all other apostates, let me tell you...for example, he says "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife and conquer or die." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 83 (1853)). I wonder if he would have bowie knifed JS's son and Emma Smith had they gone to Utah???

Penny wrote: Anyway, I think I have made myself clear here, I don't like polygamy but I do acknowledge that it is part of my churches history.

You have not made yourself clear at all, throughout any of this discussion, but you seem to think that saying "I have made myself clear" is some kind of evidence that you have made yourself clear. Well, it isn't.

Penny wrote: Why I have a problem with Warren Jeffs?...let me see...because he still practices polygamy. He takes whole families away from men if he doesn't like them. He kicks all young men (some as young as 12. All of which are unable to take care of themselves, don't know anything about the outside world, lack in education, social skills, etc ) out of the community so he and his favorite men can have all the young women. Young women are FORCED into these marriages (some having to marry their own uncles), They do not put their children in public schools (they home school them but do a horrible job of it. The children don't know anything about the outside world), there is a high incidence of child abuse, spousal abuse, sexual abuse, mental abuse etc...I could go on and on and on and on...Anyway, these are the reason I don't like Warren Jeffs...

And again, much of what Warren Jeffs has done was done by Joseph Smith and/or Brigham Young. And if you think it's OK for JS and BY, then that's fine. But it's a double standard because while you accept it as fine for your church's prophets, you criticize strongly Warren Jeffs for precisely the same type of behavior.

Penny wrote: The flds church is a splinter group but we are in no way affiliated with them. WE have our prophet and THEY have their prophet. They don't even claim us or acknowledge us. They feel that we are in the wrong and that we should still be practicing polygamy. They don't call themselves LDS they call themselves FLDS (they are the fundamental latter day saints). THOSE ARE THE FACTS! I have stated them before.

The fact is also that they are of the same core beliefs as the LDS Church. That's why they also call themselves LDS. They are different from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the sense that they protested and reformed from the mother church, but they did come from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That's a fact, no matter how much either church denounces the other today.

Ya this is my first post. Yes I am a plant who is here to let you in on the secrets of Lonelygirl. I figure I ought to get that out of the way before we started.

Seeings as I know more than you all, I thought I would let you all in on a little secret about this post. Are you all ready??? Here it goes. The original poster is an idiot. He has no basis in reality on the Mormon Church and simply makes himself look like an idiot every time he opens his mouth. That is the not so secret secret that I was sent to let you know about.

How would a mormon wedding be performed in a feild? See a mormon wedding must be completed (at least the sealing) in a room in a temple known as the "Holy of Holys" much like in Amish or Menanite traditions. In fact said room must be inside stone walls and have specific dimensions.

Putting all that temple stuff aside with the mormon church, Mormons dont use Enochian.

I want you two to remember the words of a very wise man. "Aruging on the internet is like running the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded"

jersey john get over it get a life, a girlfriend a dog get a hobbie get something for real man.so you made a wrong predicition about what the ceremony would be and you were kind of a jerk about it toward lds religon you cant argue that. so guess what now that we have found out its not a morman wedding then lets put our time an energy into something more constructive rather than having a pissing contest on the internet. please do us all a favor and drop it. if you read this thread you are the only one that sees in from your point of view while there are a bunch of people that are accucally being rational about lds religion. so there just forget about it and lets talk about something else. like you know what i think daniel is gonna be kidnapped and bree will have to go against her faith to save him. isint what this message board is suppose to be about plot discussion???

what the heck does this have to do with lonelygirl? jerseyjohnny, are you lucy in disguise?

tucsontim wrote:jersey john get over it get a life, a girlfriend a dog get a hobbie get something for real man.so you made a wrong predicition about what the ceremony would be and you were kind of a jerk about it toward lds religon you cant argue that. so guess what now that we have found out its not a morman wedding then lets put our time an energy into something more constructive rather than having a pissing contest on the internet. please do us all a favor and drop it. if you read this thread you are the only one that sees in from your point of view while there are a bunch of people that are accucally being rational about lds religion. so there just forget about it and lets talk about something else. like you know what i think daniel is gonna be kidnapped and bree will have to go against her faith to save him. isint what this message board is suppose to be about plot discussion???

Hey tucsontim...

If you look up towards the top of the screen, you'll see a link that says "Lonelygirl15 Forum Index". If you click that link, it gives you a whole list of topics, and then each topic will give you many threads. I'm pretty sure that there is no rule that says you have to click on every thread in every topic, so that means you're free to read and respond to those threads that interest you, and also to ignore those threads that don't.

Just to let you in on a little secret, here's what I do...

I look at the topics, then I look at the threads under each topic, and when I see one that interests me, I read some of the posts there. If I'm still interested, I respond. But if it doesn't interest me, I move on. Isn't that clever of me??? You might want to try that out, it works pretty well for me!!! And I never have to bitch and moan at someone else for taking part in a thread that I think is "dumb"!!!

Try it, you might enjoy your own life better!

are you forgetting that you started this thread? real smart of ya

Yep, seven pages and this thread's still boring and pointless.

Where are the moderators?

tucsontim wrote:are you forgetting that you started this thread? real smart of ya

That's why I still post in it. Why do you still post in it??? real smart of ya