Comments on: Video: Church’s stance on “Mormon” https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/04/15/video-churchs-stance-on-mormon/ Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:20:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/04/15/video-churchs-stance-on-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-48391 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:20:20 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1322#comment-48391 Otterson didn’t say the church didn’t believe it.

]]> By: Jeff Milner https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/04/15/video-churchs-stance-on-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-48389 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:43:57 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1322#comment-48389 Let’s not kid ourselves. The church STILL believes in the practise of polygamy. It’s not uncommon for men to be sealed to another wife if they live longer than their first spouse. As far as I know, from the church’s point of view, the man is considered to be married to both of them.

]]> By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/04/15/video-churchs-stance-on-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-48388 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:06:53 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1322#comment-48388 Or maybe what Otterson meant to say was that the church officially discontinued polygamy in the continental United States in 1890.

:)

]]> By: Nick Literski https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/04/15/video-churchs-stance-on-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-48387 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:03:05 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1322#comment-48387 Maybe because the “official” end was a political game by leaders who fully expected the Second Coming to occur within a year or two, setting things right? Maybe because Woodruff had his counsellors handle all post 1890 requests for plural sealings, so he could have plausible deniability?

The 1904 manifesto was the direct result of the Smoot hearings, after all.

]]> By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/04/15/video-churchs-stance-on-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-48383 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:47:45 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1322#comment-48383 Then why was there a need for a second manifesto?

]]> By: Nick Literski https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/04/15/video-churchs-stance-on-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-48382 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:41:55 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1322#comment-48382 Well, note that he says “officially” discontinued in 1890. It’s a bit of subtle wordplay—technically not false, but certainly misleading.

]]> By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/04/15/video-churchs-stance-on-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-48335 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:52:05 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1322#comment-48335 To say nothing of the fact that the church didn’t discontinue polygamy in 1890.

Although he does have a point regarding the French news agency running the FLDS story with a shot of the SLC temple.

]]> By: Nick Literski https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/04/15/video-churchs-stance-on-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-48334 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:47:55 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1322#comment-48334 “We don’t like to be called ‘Mormons,’ so the media must refer to us as ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!!”

“We don’t like you referring to anybody as ‘Mormons,’ unless it’s us, so the media must stop calling anyone ‘Mormon’ who isn’t The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!!”

Pathetic.

]]>