Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:

Show your proof.

Why? You won't when asked.

I do when I have it, how is one supposed to show proof of converstaions they have with people. (as I'm sure your talking about my talking of temple qaulifications for other faiths)

lol Exactly . . . Oh, and thanks for finally admitting you had no proof. Was it really that difficult?

Your delusional sometimes Betz, I, in no way said I have no proof, I said my proof is people I've spoken with IN REAL life, just as in a court of law, there is testimony of eye witness'.

Ahh, back to your ole "when I'm proven wrong, I must call someone a name or question their intelligence." Typical!

Since you brought up the legal process, I'm sure you know that in a court of law, using the testimony of what someone else said is called "hearsay" and is INADMISSIBLE.

Eyewitness testimony is used in a court of law on a daily basis. And is completly admissible, nice try Betz, but your wrong. I have eyewitness testimony I repeated here, it is testimony that is good.

Prove it.

Here ya go lawyer betz

"People sometimes say that a case is "only circumstantial" to mean that the evidence is weak. A strong case, according to this view, includes the testimony of an eyewitness."


I'm getting tired check mating you and Jaye today. Whew.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html

Here, you missed my edit. You were not an eyewitness. They told you something that you repeated here.

hear·say [heer-sey]

–noun 1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
–adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1525–35; orig. in phrase by hear say, trans. of MF par ouïr dire]


—Synonyms 1. talk, scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.



Information given to me about one's personal religious beliefs is me being an eyewitness to what there telling me, it is up to you to prove it wrong. You can't. And it's pissing you off.

"LOL" you are so wrong Dubss and it's so funny "LOL"

hearsay is information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge Dubbs, "LOL" so do you get it now,

Now you you can be an eyewitness that they talked to you, but you can't use information gained from them because that would be hearsay "LOL"

"Dubbs you lose"

Dubbs can't prove it wrong, so he relies on hearsay and can't post where he found it. Very good, JR, you exposed Dubbs' silliness again.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[As far as Wren being my twin brother...surely you have forgotten that we are ALL brothers and sisters here Kent.


Yes but no one here have quite the same almost exact beliefs as you two do. Makes one wonder if he is your alter ego.

Really? As a matter of fact...quite a number of people have stated that they agree with me on a number of issues.

Wren is his own person Kent. And to be frank...we haven't always seen eye to eye on every issue.

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:

But I remember when polygamy was a prerequisite for Celestial exaltation. That has now changed...the root of that doctrine continues to die out and wither. And I'm glad to see that happening.

You must be over 100 then if you remember things taught about Polygamy.

Fact is, that was never taught about Polygamy, that is was essential, maybe it was a test for those it was asked to practice it, which was a small percentage of the church, so how could most of the church not practice it if they believed it was a requirement for salvation? Everyone would have been doing right? Makes no sense, and proves you are wrong that it was taught as an essential thing.

Oh for the love of PETE, Kent. The Mormons never taught that polygamy was essential for salvation...they taught that it was requisite for EXALTATION.

Show your proof.

Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine & Covenants still states that Polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, Mormons must have multiple wives.

Because Mormons still hold D&C Section 132 as cannon - Mormons still practice "spiritual" polygamy and teach that Polygamy is the only way a Mormon can become a God. Two current Mormon Apostles have more than 1 spiritual wife. Russell M. Nelson On April 6, 2006 married Wendy L. Watson in the temple for "time and all eternity", his second spiritual wife.

The practice of polygamy has never been a requirement to enter the Celestial Kingdom. In D&C 132, it says to achieve exaltation, you must enter into the "new and everlasting covenant", meaning being sealed (married) in the temple for time and eternity. Polygamy is NOT, NOT, NOT the "new and everlasting covenant." (Sorry, Just Reading. . .I still like your ideas for Mother's Day gifts, though.)

No where in section 132 does it state you must be a polygamist to become a god. Exaltation is NOT determined by how many wives you have. Read the whole section, please. Yes, worthy priesthood holders (men) can be sealed to more than one woman. For example, my step-dad will have two wives. . .his first wife that died, and then my mother. So, there will be plurality of wives in the Celestial Kingdom.

On to Brigham Young saying blacks would never hold the priesthood "in this life". I say those last three words a lot; for example, when I'm asked if I'll ever let my hair go gray, I answer "Not in this life", referring to MY lifetime. Maybe that's what Brigham Young meant.

After reading all the posts in this forum (and it took forever), I have to agree with JLD. Why is it such an issue with everyone outside the church (non-members, former members) what we believe? Why do you care so much?

About the LDS church making a statement about the FLDS debacle. . .The statement has been made. The Church does not practice polygamy; those that do are excommunicated. The Church has no association with the FLDS. The Church is not responsible for their practices, just as the Church is not responsible for what any other religion practices.

I'll address one of your comments.

What Brigham Young was talking about when he taught that blacks would never receive the priesthood in this life...was in reference to this life...our second estate.

Brigham Young was of the opinion that since the blacks had been 'fence-sitters' in the war in heaven...and since they had not been valiant in keeping their first estate (the pre-existance) they would not receive the blessings of the priesthood and temple marriage in their SECOND estate...or their earthly life.

He taught that if they lived worthy lives...they would receive these blessings in their THIRD estate...or in the next world.

And WHY did he teach this? Joseph Smith certainly never did. As a matter of fact...Joseph Smith had already ordained a number of worthy black males to the priesthood.

And as soon as Brigham took the reigns of leadership...he revoked these blessings and revoked the priesthood blessings from the individuals which had received them from Joseph Smith.

But this was not all regarding Brigham's opinion of blacks. He believed that there were varying degrees in the Celestial kingdom...and that the worthy blacks would have their own positions and duties in the Celestial kingdom...which basically amounted to servitude to the white Saints.

You must understand something about Brigham Young. While he had instructed that worthy white priesthood holding males would possibly be required to take Lamanite women as wives, so that their posterity might become white and delightsome...as per prophecy.

However...when it came to the 'Negro race'...he was of an entirely different opinion.

He taught, from the pulpit, that the fate of any white man or woman who intermarried with Negroes, and mingled their blood and seed with Negroes...ought to be nothing less than being put to death.

I'm going to call you on one word, Jaye. . .OPINION. All the things you wrote above from Brigham Young weren't his opinion. During his time, these were revelations. Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking of the "negro" situation,(and I know a lot of members don't like to quote him), ". . .this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice. . ." Thankfully, we have modern-day revelation. For those of you who don't know what that is, we believe that Heavenly Father still speaks to his prophet(s). Doctrines of the Church don't change on a whim. . ."line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. . .".2 Nephi 28.

And, again thankfully, modern-day revelation also applies to the practice, or lack thereof, of polygamy.Girl raised in the South. This post is from Boy raised in the West. Rural Utah, that is. I come from a Mormon heritage.

First, polygamy was, during Brigham Young's rule, requesite for Celestial Exaltation. That is clear.

Second, there exists confusion among today's members whether or not the marriage structure in Celestial Exaltation is polygamous, monogamous or both (1). However, clearly LDS doctrine is written that God the Father has multitudes of wives.

Third, to many lds members, predictions and doctrines spoken and written by a PROPHET OF GOD can merely be dismissed as opinion if their words don't come to pass or they seem to be proved wrong later. So, that would make it pretty easy to be a prophet, now, wouldn't it.

HE ISN'T PERFECT some in the membership say.

WELL if he's claiming to be PROPHET OF GOD, the only prophet of God on the face of the whole world, then I'd expect him to act like a prophet of God, don't you?

I've never in all my life heard, until recently in LDS circles, that predictions that don't happen from a prophet are of no real concern. They were merely opinions. After all, they were just men, right?.

I expect more out of someone with the title of PROPHET. LDS members who believe today's prophecies of God are tommorow's opinions of men corrupt the connotation and meaning of that hallowed and holy term, Prophet of God!.


It makes me very leary of some true-blue lds people who yet seem altogether wholesome on the outside. I don't think I want to trust them unless they trust BY's writing that the moon is populated with people AND American Indians are primarily of Jewish descent.

See, it would be OK for me if they stuck to their original convictions or plead ignorance; at least then they would have retain their integrity. But to openly come out and conclude that a prophet's words are opinion only, well, that doesn't wash for me. Better to not call yourself a true-blue Mormon if you can't support your past Prophet's words as fact.



(1) Try reconciling that with Christ's words as recorded in Luke 20: 34-35; Matt. 22: 30; Mark 12: 25

WaynesWorld wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:

But I remember when polygamy was a prerequisite for Celestial exaltation. That has now changed...the root of that doctrine continues to die out and wither. And I'm glad to see that happening.

You must be over 100 then if you remember things taught about Polygamy.

Fact is, that was never taught about Polygamy, that is was essential, maybe it was a test for those it was asked to practice it, which was a small percentage of the church, so how could most of the church not practice it if they believed it was a requirement for salvation? Everyone would have been doing right? Makes no sense, and proves you are wrong that it was taught as an essential thing.

Oh for the love of PETE, Kent. The Mormons never taught that polygamy was essential for salvation...they taught that it was requisite for EXALTATION.

Show your proof.

Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine & Covenants still states that Polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, Mormons must have multiple wives.

Because Mormons still hold D&C Section 132 as cannon - Mormons still practice "spiritual" polygamy and teach that Polygamy is the only way a Mormon can become a God. Two current Mormon Apostles have more than 1 spiritual wife. Russell M. Nelson On April 6, 2006 married Wendy L. Watson in the temple for "time and all eternity", his second spiritual wife.

The practice of polygamy has never been a requirement to enter the Celestial Kingdom. In D&C 132, it says to achieve exaltation, you must enter into the "new and everlasting covenant", meaning being sealed (married) in the temple for time and eternity. Polygamy is NOT, NOT, NOT the "new and everlasting covenant." (Sorry, Just Reading. . .I still like your ideas for Mother's Day gifts, though.)

No where in section 132 does it state you must be a polygamist to become a god. Exaltation is NOT determined by how many wives you have. Read the whole section, please. Yes, worthy priesthood holders (men) can be sealed to more than one woman. For example, my step-dad will have two wives. . .his first wife that died, and then my mother. So, there will be plurality of wives in the Celestial Kingdom.

On to Brigham Young saying blacks would never hold the priesthood "in this life". I say those last three words a lot; for example, when I'm asked if I'll ever let my hair go gray, I answer "Not in this life", referring to MY lifetime. Maybe that's what Brigham Young meant.

After reading all the posts in this forum (and it took forever), I have to agree with JLD. Why is it such an issue with everyone outside the church (non-members, former members) what we believe? Why do you care so much?

About the LDS church making a statement about the FLDS debacle. . .The statement has been made. The Church does not practice polygamy; those that do are excommunicated. The Church has no association with the FLDS. The Church is not responsible for their practices, just as the Church is not responsible for what any other religion practices.

I'll address one of your comments.

What Brigham Young was talking about when he taught that blacks would never receive the priesthood in this life...was in reference to this life...our second estate.

Brigham Young was of the opinion that since the blacks had been 'fence-sitters' in the war in heaven...and since they had not been valiant in keeping their first estate (the pre-existance) they would not receive the blessings of the priesthood and temple marriage in their SECOND estate...or their earthly life.

He taught that if they lived worthy lives...they would receive these blessings in their THIRD estate...or in the next world.

And WHY did he teach this? Joseph Smith certainly never did. As a matter of fact...Joseph Smith had already ordained a number of worthy black males to the priesthood.

And as soon as Brigham took the reigns of leadership...he revoked these blessings and revoked the priesthood blessings from the individuals which had received them from Joseph Smith.

But this was not all regarding Brigham's opinion of blacks. He believed that there were varying degrees in the Celestial kingdom...and that the worthy blacks would have their own positions and duties in the Celestial kingdom...which basically amounted to servitude to the white Saints.

You must understand something about Brigham Young. While he had instructed that worthy white priesthood holding males would possibly be required to take Lamanite women as wives, so that their posterity might become white and delightsome...as per prophecy.

However...when it came to the 'Negro race'...he was of an entirely different opinion.

He taught, from the pulpit, that the fate of any white man or woman who intermarried with Negroes, and mingled their blood and seed with Negroes...ought to be nothing less than being put to death.

I'm going to call you on one word, Jaye. . .OPINION. All the things you wrote above from Brigham Young weren't his opinion. During his time, these were revelations. Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking of the "negro" situation,(and I know a lot of members don't like to quote him), ". . .this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice. . ." Thankfully, we have modern-day revelation. For those of you who don't know what that is, we believe that Heavenly Father still speaks to his prophet(s). Doctrines of the Church don't change on a whim. . ."line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. . .".2 Nephi 28.

And, again thankfully, modern-day revelation also applies to the practice, or lack thereof, of polygamy.Girl raised in the South. This post is from Boy raised in the West. Rural Utah, that is. I come from a Mormon heritage.

First, polygamy was, during Brigham Young's rule, requesite for Celestial Exaltation. That is clear.

Second, there exists confusion among today's members whether or not the marriage structure in Celestial Exaltation is polygamous, monogamous or both (1). However, clearly LDS doctrine is written that God the Father has multitudes of wives.
Third, to many lds members, predictions and doctrines spoken and written by a PROPHET OF GOD can merely be dismissed as opinion if their words don't come to pass or they seem to be proved wrong later. So, that would make it pretty easy to be a prophet, now, wouldn't it.

HE ISN'T PERFECT some in the membership say.

WELL if he's claiming to be PROPHET OF GOD, the only prophet of God on the face of the whole world, then I'd expect him to act like a prophet of God, don't you?

I've never in all my life heard, until recently in LDS circles, that predictions that don't happen from a prophet are of no real concern. They were merely opinions. After all, they were just men, right?.

I expect more out of someone with the title of PROPHET. LDS members who believe today's prophecies of God are tommorow's opinions of men corrupt the connotation and meaning of that hallowed and holy term, Prophet of God!.


It makes me very leary of some true-blue lds people who yet seem altogether wholesome on the outside. I don't think I want to trust them unless they trust BY's writing that the moon is populated with people AND American Indians are primarily of Jewish descent.

See, it would be OK for me if they stuck to their original convictions or plead ignorance; at least then they would have retain their integrity. But to openly come out and conclude that a prophet's words are opinion only, well, that doesn't wash for me. Better not call yourself a true-blue Mormon if you can't support your past Prophet's words as fact.



(1) Try reconciling that with Christ's words as recorded in Luke 20: 34-35; Matt. 22: 30; Mark 12: 25
I guess you'll have to label me a renegade then..

KitKat wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:

But I remember when polygamy was a prerequisite for Celestial exaltation. That has now changed...the root of that doctrine continues to die out and wither. And I'm glad to see that happening.

You must be over 100 then if you remember things taught about Polygamy.

Fact is, that was never taught about Polygamy, that is was essential, maybe it was a test for those it was asked to practice it, which was a small percentage of the church, so how could most of the church not practice it if they believed it was a requirement for salvation? Everyone would have been doing right? Makes no sense, and proves you are wrong that it was taught as an essential thing.

Oh for the love of PETE, Kent. The Mormons never taught that polygamy was essential for salvation...they taught that it was requisite for EXALTATION.

Show your proof.

Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine & Covenants still states that Polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, Mormons must have multiple wives.

Because Mormons still hold D&C Section 132 as cannon - Mormons still practice "spiritual" polygamy and teach that Polygamy is the only way a Mormon can become a God. Two current Mormon Apostles have more than 1 spiritual wife. Russell M. Nelson On April 6, 2006 married Wendy L. Watson in the temple for "time and all eternity", his second spiritual wife.

The practice of polygamy has never been a requirement to enter the Celestial Kingdom. In D&C 132, it says to achieve exaltation, you must enter into the "new and everlasting covenant", meaning being sealed (married) in the temple for time and eternity. Polygamy is NOT, NOT, NOT the "new and everlasting covenant." (Sorry, Just Reading. . .I still like your ideas for Mother's Day gifts, though.)

No where in section 132 does it state you must be a polygamist to become a god. Exaltation is NOT determined by how many wives you have. Read the whole section, please. Yes, worthy priesthood holders (men) can be sealed to more than one woman. For example, my step-dad will have two wives. . .his first wife that died, and then my mother. So, there will be plurality of wives in the Celestial Kingdom.

On to Brigham Young saying blacks would never hold the priesthood "in this life". I say those last three words a lot; for example, when I'm asked if I'll ever let my hair go gray, I answer "Not in this life", referring to MY lifetime. Maybe that's what Brigham Young meant.

After reading all the posts in this forum (and it took forever), I have to agree with JLD. Why is it such an issue with everyone outside the church (non-members, former members) what we believe? Why do you care so much?

About the LDS church making a statement about the FLDS debacle. . .The statement has been made. The Church does not practice polygamy; those that do are excommunicated. The Church has no association with the FLDS. The Church is not responsible for their practices, just as the Church is not responsible for what any other religion practices.

I'll address one of your comments.

What Brigham Young was talking about when he taught that blacks would never receive the priesthood in this life...was in reference to this life...our second estate.

Brigham Young was of the opinion that since the blacks had been 'fence-sitters' in the war in heaven...and since they had not been valiant in keeping their first estate (the pre-existance) they would not receive the blessings of the priesthood and temple marriage in their SECOND estate...or their earthly life.

He taught that if they lived worthy lives...they would receive these blessings in their THIRD estate...or in the next world.

And WHY did he teach this? Joseph Smith certainly never did. As a matter of fact...Joseph Smith had already ordained a number of worthy black males to the priesthood.

And as soon as Brigham took the reigns of leadership...he revoked these blessings and revoked the priesthood blessings from the individuals which had received them from Joseph Smith.

But this was not all regarding Brigham's opinion of blacks. He believed that there were varying degrees in the Celestial kingdom...and that the worthy blacks would have their own positions and duties in the Celestial kingdom...which basically amounted to servitude to the white Saints.

You must understand something about Brigham Young. While he had instructed that worthy white priesthood holding males would possibly be required to take Lamanite women as wives, so that their posterity might become white and delightsome...as per prophecy.

However...when it came to the 'Negro race'...he was of an entirely different opinion.

He taught, from the pulpit, that the fate of any white man or woman who intermarried with Negroes, and mingled their blood and seed with Negroes...ought to be nothing less than being put to death.

I'm going to call you on one word, Jaye. . .OPINION. All the things you wrote above from Brigham Young weren't his opinion. During his time, these were revelations. Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking of the "negro" situation,(and I know a lot of members don't like to quote him), ". . .this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice. . ." Thankfully, we have modern-day revelation. For those of you who don't know what that is, we believe that Heavenly Father still speaks to his prophet(s). Doctrines of the Church don't change on a whim. . ."line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. . .".2 Nephi 28.

And, again thankfully, modern-day revelation also applies to the practice, or lack thereof, of polygamy.Girl raised in the South. This post is from Boy raised in the West. Rural Utah, that is. I come from a Mormon heritage.

First, polygamy was, during Brigham Young's rule, requesite for Celestial Exaltation. That is clear.

Second, there exists confusion among today's members whether or not the marriage structure in Celestial Exaltation is polygamous, monogamous or both (1). However, clearly LDS doctrine is written that God the Father has multitudes of wives.
Third, to many lds members, predictions and doctrines spoken and written by a PROPHET OF GOD can merely be dismissed as opinion if their words don't come to pass or they seem to be proved wrong later. So, that would make it pretty easy to be a prophet, now, wouldn't it.

HE ISN'T PERFECT some in the membership say.

WELL if he's claiming to be PROPHET OF GOD, the only prophet of God on the face of the whole world, then I'd expect him to act like a prophet of God, don't you?

I've never in all my life heard, until recently in LDS circles, that predictions that don't happen from a prophet are of no real concern. They were merely opinions. After all, they were just men, right?.

I expect more out of someone with the title of PROPHET. LDS members who believe today's prophecies of God are tommorow's opinions of men corrupt the connotation and meaning of that hallowed and holy term, Prophet of God!.


It makes me very leary of some true-blue lds people who yet seem altogether wholesome on the outside. I don't think I want to trust them unless they trust BY's writing that the moon is populated with people AND American Indians are primarily of Jewish descent.

See, it would be OK for me if they stuck to their original convictions or plead ignorance; at least then they would have retain their integrity. But to openly come out and conclude that a prophet's words are opinion only, well, that doesn't wash for me. Better not call yourself a true-blue Mormon if you can't support your past Prophet's words as fact.



(1) Try reconciling that with Christ's words as recorded in Luke 20: 34-35; Matt. 22: 30; Mark 12: 25
I guess you'll have to label me a renegade then..Renegades are good, and are kinda' uncommon (and very cool!)

Girl Raised in the South wrote:

I'm going to call you on one word, Jaye. . .OPINION. All the things you wrote above from Brigham Young weren't his opinion. During his time, these were revelations. Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking of the "negro" situation,(and I know a lot of members don't like to quote him), ". . .this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice. . ." Thankfully, we have modern-day revelation. For those of you who don't know what that is, we believe that Heavenly Father still speaks to his prophet(s). Doctrines of the Church don't change on a whim. . ."line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. . .".2 Nephi 28.

And, again thankfully, modern-day revelation also applies to the practice, or lack thereof, of polygamy.



WAYNESWORLD wrote:
Girl raised in the South. This post is from Boy raised in the West. Rural Utah, that is. I come from a Mormon heritage.

First, polygamy was, during Brigham Young's rule, requesite for Celestial Exaltation. That is clear.

Second, there exists confusion among today's members whether or not the marriage structure in Celestial Exaltation is polygamous, monogamous or both (1). However, clearly LDS doctrine is written that God the Father has multitudes of wives.
Third, to many lds members, predictions and doctrines spoken and written by a PROPHET OF GOD can merely be dismissed as opinion if their words don't come to pass or they seem to be proved wrong later. So, that would make it pretty easy to be a prophet, now, wouldn't it.

HE ISN'T PERFECT some in the membership say.

WELL if he's claiming to be PROPHET OF GOD, the only prophet of God on the face of the whole world, then I'd expect him to act like a prophet of God, don't you?

I've never in all my life heard, until recently in LDS circles, that predictions that don't happen from a prophet are of no real concern. They were merely opinions. After all, they were just men, right?.

I expect more out of someone with the title of PROPHET. LDS members who believe today's prophecies of God are tommorow's opinions of men corrupt the connotation and meaning of that hallowed and holy term, Prophet of God!.

It makes me very leary of some true-blue lds people who yet seem altogether wholesome on the outside. I don't think I want to trust them unless they trust BY's writing that the moon is populated with people AND American Indians are primarily of Jewish descent.

See, it would be OK for me if they stuck to their original convictions or plead ignorance; at least then they would have retain their integrity. But to openly come out and conclude that a prophet's words are opinion only, well, that doesn't wash for me. Better not call yourself a true-blue Mormon if you can't support your past Prophet's words as fact."




Well, WaynesWorld from rural Utah with Mormon heritage (not unlike mine). . .I'm not the one who said prophets offer their OPINIONS; that was someone else.