Bruce, You say there is no reason to ban gay marriage? A majority if people less than 10 years ago thought so. They thought they were bad for the people in them. What if a majority finds no good reason to ban polygamist marriage? What then?

I've been chuckling at some of the polygamy jabs aimed at Mormons like myself. I've decided to break my silence and make a comment. You know, every now and then, I am tempted to get polygamy legalized just so we can finally be guilty of what we are constantly charged with. The truth is, polygamy is not really a common topic of discussion among Mormons. We only end up talking about it when it becomes a topic in the press. Many here have more of a fixation on it than we do.

Das_Veritas: That revelation applied to priesthood, not to membership. There has never ever been a restriction on membership. In other words, you are wrong.

It is a good thing he is not doing that.

Actually there is. Just say, yes she is. Recognizing beauty is not the problem. It is what you do with it.

It is ironic and sad how a private organization has to justify what it does with money it has acquired by free will donations, while the Federal Government never feels the need to account for what it forcibly takes. Where is the outrage from this lady about the spending of the Federal Government of our money?

loisoo01: (Part 3) The Law of Consecration can work within a free market system, because it doesn’t control the economy. It easily works within it. It is a system of voluntary cooperation by which all are provided with a stewardship that they can improve upon and enjoy the fruits of their labors. Whatever you receive that is in excess of that which you need to improve your stewardship is consecrated to the Church again. I have given you the short answer, which is all I have time for.

loisoo01: (Part 2) It is impossible for the Law of Consecration and Communism to coexist, because the Law of Consecration presupposes that there is private property. Private property is undefined in communism. Another point is that the Law of Consecration is a system of stewardship, voluntarily entered into. Communism is a system of redistribution, forcefully executed.

loisoo01: (Part 1) Probably the best way to answer your question simply is to compare the Law of Consecration (actually United Order) with Communism. Why? Because Communism is recognized to be the most fundamentally inconsistent with Free Market Economics. In communism, you never give anything, because nothing was ever yours to give in the first place. The force of government always can and does take it away. In the Law of Consecration, it is all private property, and there is no force of government that can force you to hand it over. Only you can consecrate your own property. Not only that, but you can’t consecrate another person’s property either.

I am amused that some of you can spend all day long posting your dislike of Mormonism. Your life truly revolves around us. Some of your posts were accurate, but you do so much misrepresenting and obscuring facts, that to go through it all and sort it out would be a big fat waste of time. You aren't worth straightening out. You are willfully ignorant, and you probably deserve to remain so. Obscure quotes, and out of context citations do not make you a Mormon expert. You are more like a National Enquirer Pseudojournalist. You know how to shock and sensationalize with a bunch of disjointed citations, but you don't demonstrate an understanding that I can respect.