Reorganized LDS
 

I never knew before that one of their central tenets was that Joseph Smith never introduced polygamy. They held this position until very recently, apparently. Now their historians grudgingly admit that Joseph Smith introduced it and practiced it.

Imagine the gyrations and mental gymnastics they carried out for all those years.

I think the amazing thing is that RLDS exists at all, even its present pathetic watered down form.

Yes, indeed. In fact, at one point there was a big battle between the LDS and RLDS about whether or not JS practiced polygamy (late 1800's I believe). The LDS folks kept having people in Utah (typically former JS wives) write up avidavits swearing that JS taught polygamy. Kind of ironic that we now downplay that fact. I certainly don't recally any significant mention of polygamy in my tour of Nauvoo a couple of years ago.

They are the same kind of gyrations and mental gymnastics we do now concerning our history, polygamy, etc.

The RLDS are good people who I believe will receive a just reward.

I view them the same way I view 'Fundamentalist Mormons,' as they all have 'doctrinal' support endorsing their way of lifestyle.

I think in the end we'll all be hanging out together.

Have you ever spoke with a current RLDS? I can introduce you to an RLDS scholar who will show you that Joseph never had a polygamous wife, that the 'evidence' brought up against him is stretched at best, and that it was Brigham who introduced this way of living.

Unfortunately the RLDS sold themselves out a while back just to say afloat.

any different than the Book of Abraham?
 

How many gymnastics are the LDS leaders and FARMS going to go through defending the Book of Abraham as an accurate translation when the rest of the world knows the three facsimiles have actual explanations which are entirely different than J. Smiths "translation"?

Splinter meet beam.

You might have a case if there were only three explainations for the three facsimiles.

Point me to an article where a General Authority talks about the Book of Abraham and its relation to the papyri.

In general GA's don't speak to such things, so I am surprised to hear someone assert that they have.

So you think the facsimiles are depictions of Abraham's life?

why would anyone who acknowledges that Joseph Smith did not literally learn an ancient language and translate words he saw written down (plates) into the Book of Mormon (i.e. one argues he did it through inspiration) get bent out of shape over Joseph Smith using papyri as a source for further revelation?

it seems like such an assinine thing to argue. You either have faith or you don't. I'm don't understand why the PoGP changes anything, as compared to the BoM. Is there this contingent of people that have full faith in the BoM but doubt the PoGP?

For a non-believer, it serves as 'evidence' that Joseph was a fraud.

For a believer, it, IMO, calls into question the translation of the BOM. How authentic was the translation of the BOM when Joseph was unable to translate a different text?

I wouldn't think so. I would think though, that there is a contingent of people who lose faith in the BOA and subsequently lose faith in the BOM.