An angel with a drawn sword...

[_Paracelsus]

Ask ldsfaq.BYU.edu !
They are THE experts.

Hmmmmmm? With all due respect to Ron Esplin (and Co.) and while I would say he is well versed on LDS history (expert) I would say that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism response on polygamy (http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/viewQuestion.aspx ... 7e72cfb683) is not on expert level. It is for the beginner in my opinion. Definitely milk and not meat and does not do justice to the complicated events and relationships that were LDS polygamy and polyandry.

For a more complete view of plural marriage I prefer Compton, Van Wagoner and George Smith's books. I have yet to read Carmon Hardy's book but hope to soon.

They are THE experts. Period.
All others who disagree are enemy of thechurch and will be burned forever.

You should ask HG for thetruth.

You and your pets Compton and Van Wagoner and all lies of antis was refuted many times long ago. And we don't read them. We don't know what did they say but they've said lies.


[/apologetic mode]

[_badseed]

They are THE experts. Period.
All others who disagree are enemy of thechurch and will be burned forever.

You should ask HG for thetruth.

You and your pets Compton and Van Wagoner and all lies of antis was refuted many times long ago. And we don't read them. We don't know what did they say but they've said lies.


[/apologetic mode]

With all due repsect, are you for real? I 'm guessing you are joking. Like I said, I respect Esplin but think the site you referenced does not deal adequately with much to do with polygamy. For example, I searched polyandry and it returned 0 results.

To say that anyone who disagrees with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism will burn is utterly ridiculous. I don't know much about Bachman but I do know that neither he nor Esplin (or you for that matter) make doctrine for the Church. Even if they did I would still feel completely free to consider all sources.

And how exactly do call Compton "anti"— he's an active faithful member of the Church from the interviews I have heard. Maybe you know him personally and have some inside information that the rest of us don't. Please share. As for Van Wagoner, I don't know of his belief status but his work is well documented. Until I see otherwise I am inclined to follow the evidence.

Do you call people "anti" or liars if you don't like their conclusions— o, as I said before, was your post intended to be humorous? You talk about arguments being refuted but I have seen nothing yet that supports this. Perhaps you can share your findings. In any event, it appears you have read neither Compton or Van Wagoner so I really don't see how you could realistically comment on either for the time being.

[_Paracelsus]

I 'm guessing you are joking.

As usual.