Thursday, June 27, 2019

The End, Part 1: Without Foundation

And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation, that when the Devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless woe because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build, they cannot fall.
—Helaman 2:17 RE


Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7

One hundred seventy five years ago today, two saints were murdered in Carthage jail by the conspiracy of those who once had been, and still should have been, their friends. This event encompassed not only tragedy, but also intent. The killers killed for a purpose.

Unfortunately, this murderous offense to God and man was not an isolated incident, but rather is renewed and continues even today by those who were once their friends, and still should be their friends. It is still done with intent, to fulfill the purposes of those who yet carry on the murderous combination of Carthage. 

Ignorance

Before the blood of the prophets had even dried on the ground, the sinister combination that sought their deaths began the machinations required to rewrite history, seize power, and capture the loyalty of deceived followers—all while using the name and reputation of Joseph Smith as their primary claim to legitimacy. The ruse worked remarkably well, taking in a solid half of those who believed Joseph’s words, and spiriting them off to Brigham’s desolate kingdom in the Rocky Mountains. 

As Joseph and Hyrum’s blood cries from the ground for vengeance, the burning questions remain: How could this have happened? How is it even possible that half of Joseph’s followers so quickly believed exactly the opposite of what Joseph believed, taught, lived for, and died for? Why did they thereafter sacrifice so much in the service of a hollow relic? How could they accept Brigham’s invented doctrines and foolish errors when they had once been so enlightened?

The simple answer is ignorance. 

The more complete answer is this: Those who control the information, control the population. In the 1840’s and 1850’s, information was hard to get, but easy to control. Brigham had the records doctored and re-written. Journal pages were left blank and filled in years later. Journals were completely re-manufactured to teach the opposite of true events. Affidavits were sworn decades after the fact, purporting to represent true events, yet contradicting earlier records. Even Joseph’s revelations were re-written and presented as genuine, commanding adultery as a sacrament, and threatening those who refused. 

My point is that Brigham and his successors created a false narrative, which stood up pretty well in the information vacuum of the 19th century. By the 20th century, the lies were so well established that nobody even questioned them. With all who had known Joseph dead, Brigham’s version of history stood as “gospel.” 

Polygamy. Blood atonement. Adam-God. Endless work for the dead. Blood oaths. Sealings. Word of Wisdom. Adoption. Garments. Priesthood. Home teaching. Worthiness interviews. Temple recommends. All these ideas were invented or distorted after Joseph died, yet blamed on him as their originator. And though the distortions couldn’t darken all the light in what Joseph taught, the vestiges that remained became twisted, weakened, and nearly powerless.

Lies and the Lying Liars who Lie Them

And now the largest branch of Mormonism has a problem. The information age has caught the conspirators with their pants down, and parts of the truth have begun to emerge. The tampering, perhaps adequate for the 19th century, cannot withstand 21st century scrutiny. Scholars, temporarily allowed in the secret archives, revealed in shocking detail a much different narrative than the one that made Brigham rich. So the LDS church quickly closed them again and doubled down on the pretend narrative. But it was too late. More historical records have emerged, telling an ugly story of lies and deceit by the church. Tens of thousands have left, and the departures accelerate. Many remain for social or family reasons, but no longer believe. It’s painfully obvious to anyone who cares to study the issues, that the LDS church lied for decades, then lied about lying. (Ask yourself why historical records must be hidden, never to see the light of day…?)

In desperation, the powers that be continued and magnified the one lie that people still bought—namely, that it is all the fault of Joseph Smith. The horrors of polygamy, the control, the lies, the wealth, the exploitation. Yep, all Joseph, and he was a prophet, so everything is fine. Nothing to see here. Move along.

The Toxic Problem with Joseph Smith


So now, having duly blamed Joseph, and taught millions to do the same, the LDS church has painted itself into one hell of a corner. It’s become increasingly clear that Joseph Smith did not practice plural marriage or have sexual relations with multiple women. In fact, the undoctored and contemporary historical records indicate the opposite. DNA evidence has destroyed all claims of offspring. Joseph fought polygamy, and did all he could to stamp it out. He publicly railed against it. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants of Joseph’s lifetime unitedly and unequivocally call polygamy a crime. Joseph publicly declared that he neither approved nor practiced this wickedness, and he excommunicated any who did. He rallied others to help him root polygamy out of the church, which crusade cost him his life.

And now the LDS church repeats the lie that Joseph publicly declared and taught against polygamy, but privately practiced it. They call their founding prophet a liar, a hypocrite, and a base deceiver. And so they’re stuck. Without the unique contributions that came through Joseph, the LDS church is the same as any other typical denomination of apostate Christianity. 

The LDS church claims every shred of their priesthood, unique scripture, and legitimacy in God’s eyes, came directly from Joseph Smith—even as they call him a liar and deceiver. They say he told the truth about the first vision, the angel, the gold plates, the Book of Mormon, the revelations, the priesthood, and the church, but lied about secret adultery and sexual wickedness. Trouble is, people just aren’t buying it any more. Anyone with two brain cells simply can’t base their entire religious structure on the teachings of a man their own church tells them is, unequivocally, a liar and a fraud. What insanity! How ridiculous! How could anyone believe such foolishness?


This brings us to the point of this post. The LDS church has destroyed their own foundation. They’ve jackhammered away at it for years until they’ve finally succeeded in completely destroying it. Their false caricature paints their founder, and therefore their entire kingdom, as a fraud. In repeating the Carthage murders, they’ve killed themselves in the crossfire. The massive building, great and spacious though it is, floats precariously in the air, in much the same way that bricks dont.
And I also cast my eyes around about and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building. And it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth. And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female, and their manner of dress was exceeding fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come up and were partaking of the fruit. And after they had tasted of the fruit, they were ashamed because of those that were a scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost…And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building, they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also. But we heeded them not — thus are the words of my father — for as many as heeded them had fallen away. And Laman and Lemuel partook not of the fruit, said my father. (1 Nephi 2:11-12, RE)
Let’s analyze what Lehi saw.

First, the building, great and spacious, has no foundation. It floats in the air and is built not upon a rock, not even upon a sandy foundation, but actually upon nothing at all. Though the LDS church is massive, powerful, and inconceivably wealthy, there is nothing whatsoever holding it up. The idea of a floating building defies the natural laws that govern buildings; the idea is illogical and impossible—just like the notions they now teach about Joseph Smith.

Next, note the well-dressed people inside. Their manner of dress is “exceedingly fine”—the old and young, men and women, all dressed in their Sunday best. As I’ve noted before, no other church dresses as well as the LDS church. Next Sunday, drop in on the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and non-denominational Christians, and you’ll find jeans, T-shirts, even shorts. But at the LDS church you’ll find people who dress in a way that is quite remarkable and worth noting for its uniqueness. 

Further, consider the pointing and mocking. You can’t point and mock unless you’re better than others, right? So claiming to be the Lord’s one and only true church is required if you want to mock those on other paths. Also note the effect of the mocking; it drives even believers off into false paths where they are lost. Anyone who gives heed to the LDS church and its toxic teachings will conclude Joseph was a fraud, reject his teachings entirely, and will wander away to seek something else. The LDS church is the greatest, most powerful anti-Mormon organization in existence today, bar none. “For as many as heeded them had fallen away.” The mass exodus is being caused by the church itself, and not by its “enemies.” 

Let’s look some more at this strange building with no foundation:
And the large and spacious building which thy father saw is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God and Messiah who is the Lamb of God, of whom the holy ghost beareth record from the beginning of the world until this time, and from this time henceforth and for ever. (1 Nephi 3:17 RE)
Note that sword of justice. It will become important in a minute. But first, let’s hear more from Nephi about our day, as well as a word or two about foundations:
And the gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and the miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor. And there are many churches built up which causeth envyings, and strifes, and malice; and there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the Devil. For he is the foundation of all these things, yea, the foundation of murder and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord until he bindeth them with his strong cords for ever. (2 Nephi 11:15 RE)
It turns out that great and spacious building has a foundation after all! It’s founded on murder and works of darkness! Or in this case, on killing the prophets, 175 years ago today, then perverting their teachings to get gain.

But it won’t last.
And the righteous need not fear, for they are those who shall not be confounded, but it is the kingdom of the Devil, which shall be built up among the children of men, which kingdom is established among them which are in the flesh. For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world and to do all manner of iniquity — yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the Devil — are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake. They are those who must be brought low in the dust, they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet. (1 Nephi 7:5 RE)
Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble. And they that kill the prophets and the saints, the depths of the earth shall swallow them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, and mountains shall cover them, and whirlwinds shall carry them away, and buildings shall fall upon them, and crush them to pieces, and grind them to powder. (2 Nephi 11:10 RE)
This is clearly NOT the sort of building you want to “get above you” (you know, like...floating in the air!) The cry for vengeance will eventually be heard, and the building will fall, crushing all, even the very nation, that upheld it.
And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints which shall be shed by them shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avengeth them not. Wherefore, O ye gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shewn unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you — which are built up to get power and gain — and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the eternal God shall fall upon you to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be. Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you, that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or woe be unto it because of the blood of them who have been slain, for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who build it up. (Ether 3:18 RE)
Photo by Brecon Bennett
If you look closely at that last paragraph, you’ll see it is a chiasmus, reflecting that what once was, will be again, and that the destruction will certainly come. The sword of justice is the central theme, in flashing neon letters! Will you awaken to a sense of your awful situation? The blood of the murdered prophets demands vengeance! All who participate in and build up that secret combination of lies and deception will be destroyed. 

I’m not trying to be overly dramatic, but this is a most serious warning. If you support such a combination with your time, money, talents, loyalty, or labor, you are participating in the conspiracy against Joseph Smith. The sword of justice hangs over you; the building will fall and grind you to powder. Flee while you yet can, and get your name off the passenger manifest of the hell-bound ship of fools. 

Harsh?

I realize this isn’t my normal tone. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t write things like this. But the cry of the blood compels me to raise the warning voice and add my witness: God will hold to account all those who have called his prophet a liar and rejected the very words of Christ sent into the world through Joseph Smith. I beg you not to make that mistake.

Years ago, I wrote that the building was burning. Today, I warn that it is falling. God’s patience, tempering his wrath for 175 years, will find its limit; the sword bathed in heaven will come down upon the wicked. If you reject the one God sent, it will fall on you. Even as the building occupants double down on claiming Christs name in vain, the condemnation of 1832 and the banishment of 1844 remain in full force. 

Killing the prophets is serious business, requiring three and four generations before God will even attempt His work again. But as awful as it is, the anti-Joseph conspiracy, then and now, isn’t the fiercest wickedness practiced by the occupants of the great and spacious building. I have further warnings left to raise before this portion of the blog is complete, which I will do in the rest of this series. 

Until then, I’ll raise my voice in crying unto heaven with the blood of the prophets, slain 175 years ago today.

And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel, then will the Father shew forth his own works in it. But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men or upon the works of the Devil, verily I say unto you, they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire from whence there is no return, for their works do follow them. For it is because of their works that they are hewn down. Therefore, remember the things that I have told you. 
—3 Nephi 12:4 RE

115 comments:

  1. Fantastic summary of where we are and how the board is set. I *love* the link you point out between Lehi's dream and NC 2 Ne 11:10 & NC Ether 3:18.

    I would only add that I believe there will likely be a very literal physical fulfillment, too, of that NC 2 Ne 11:10 prophecy. One that may not be entirely unlike the earlier fulfillment in NC 3 Ne 4:1-5. (http://scriptures.info/scriptures/bofm/3nephi/4.1-5#1) The rest of the descriptions in that paragraph are all the result of electrical events--"sharp lightnings", as the Book of Mormon calls it. Large earthquakes (and thus falling buildings) and tornadoes ("whirlwinds") are electrically triggered & driven. The "sword bathed in Heaven" that shall fall may be as a bolt of lightning, surrounded by a bright plasma sheath (as they normally are), which falls on surprised inhabitants below.

    We had a massive electrical storm pass over North Idaho last night at sunset (marking the beginning of the anniversary), and we got to see that symbol multiple times.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When Nephi appeared to Joseph he prophesied that, "[Joseph's] name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people." (T&C, Section 1, JSH Part 3:3) The LDS Church, and many other factions that stemmed from the 1844 succession crisis, that teach and uphold a history claiming polygamy originated from Joseph, have fulfilled in part that prophesy that his name should be had for evil. The greatest purveyor of the evil falsehood being the LDS Church itself, based in part on their access to marketing resources, reach, and wealth. As of today, they have successfully defamed Joseph and Hyrum's good names for 175 years.

    Many people with enough interest to care, still can't imagine why there would be a sizeable amount of supposed "evidence" (nearly zero contemporary evidence and all of it subject to impeachment based on motive) that Joseph did practice polygamy and uphold it in secret. They fail to realize that as a true messenger sent from the presence of God, Joseph posed a very real threat to the kingdom of the Devil. Therefore, in simple terms, Joseph and Hyrum had wolves circling around them.

    The truth is, the John C. Bennett's and the Brigham Young's would have stopped at nothing to supplant Joseph and Hyrum, in order to gain control over the people, to be lauded and praised, and to fulfill their lusts, as they engaged in secret adultery while in Nauvoo. In the case of Brigham Young, that's exactly what did happen. He feared being discovered and excommunicated publicly, as Joseph was trying to root the polygamy practitioners out of Nauvoo. The full account has likely yet to come forward. It remains in the historical documents held tight by the LDS Church.

    Adrian, what you've stated above is entirely true in my view. After 175 years of Joseph's good name being derided by the institutions that claim him as their foundation, it's time that more voices be heard that have Joseph's name for good. He was a man of God, faithful to his charge from God, and faithful to his only wife, Emma, to his dying breath. The Lord stated this about Joseph while he was shut up in the Liberty Jail:

    "The ends of the earth shall inquire after your name, and fools shall have you in derision, and hell shall rage against you, while the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under your hand. And your people shall never be turned against you by the testimony of traitors, and although their influence shall cast you into trouble, and into bars and walls, you shall be had in honor. And but for a small moment, and your voice shall be more terrible in the midst of your enemies than the fierce lion, because of your righteousness, and your God shall stand by you for ever and ever." (Teachings and Commandments 139:7)

    For those who refuse and continue to have his name for evil, woe to Ariel.

    Russ Ellersick

    ReplyDelete
  3. And what do we hear from the LDS Church on this, the 175 anniversary of Joseph and Hyrum's Martyrdom? Do we hear anything from them about Joseph or Hyrum? No. Instead today we hear about them increasing the cost for missionary service.

    https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900077168/church-announces-mormon-mission-lds-cost-increase.html?utm_source=ksl&utm_medium=referrer

    ReplyDelete
  4. On this very day 175 years ago Joseph was murdered, along with his brother. The 175th anniversary is one of those milestones typically worthy of a mention or recognition, like a 25th wedding anniversary for example. You'd think that the Church would give some type of acknowledgement of his death and contributions, and perhaps honor his life, and even use Joseph Smith as a PR tool to advertise itself.

    But they do not even mention him today at the official Church website, on the very day of martyrdom. Instead, we DO find the announcement of the 95th birthday of Pres Nelson, with a very elaborate celebration planned honoring his contributions, none of which include any evidence of being a P, S, or R, or T(ranslator).

    Doesn't the lack of even a nod to Joseph Smith on this anniversary date speak volumes about the Church's view of Joseph? He's not worthy of even a mention. Not even a talk? Conspicuous omission if you ask me.

    Quick question...The 2 Nephi quote in the LDS BoM uses the word "founder", not "foundation." I couldn't find the online manuscript of the BoM to verify what the original was. Either word is rich in meaning to me. How did that edit come about?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Underdog2, it was a correction Joseph Smith made in the 1840 Nauvoo printing of the Book of Mormon. You'll find it here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1840/110

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! And why isn't the LDS Church using that corrected version? It's not like it hasn't had the time.

      Delete
  6. This assertion of Joseph Smith not practicing polygamy got annihilated by Brian Hales two years ago. You seriously need to stop affirming this. It just looks bad for you and your movement.

    https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-smith-monogamist-or-polygamist/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian's evidence is weak and his conclusions are faulty. The evidence of the conspiracy to change history and blame Joseph for Brigham’s actions is actually much stronger. But that's not the point.

      Actually, you make my point for me. Joseph is on record denying, opposing, and fighting polygamy. That is undisputed. Yet, Brian Hales and the LDS church both participate in the conspiracy to call Joseph a liar. Rather than believing Joseph and seeking to exonerate him of these charges, they are actually the ones bringing the charges!! Shouldn't they seek to defend, rather than destroy, their founder?

      Convicting a man of lying, committing adultery, marrying other men's wives, and all the rest is serious business, requiring evidence beyond any shadow of doubt, and doubly so when God vouches for the man you foolishly accuse. They do not meet the required standard of evidence. Yet they choose accuse him anyway.

      Brian’s work did "annihilate" something, but not the truth.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      Have you read the link you provided? Truly what looks bad is quoting the link and then publicly stating the article annihilates the assertion Joseph was a monogamist.

      But I see these strongly-worded statements all the time by TBM's. I see them from all sides. It goes to show how confirmation bias colors everything, or how belief trumps evidence.

      But if I may, I'll quote from the article:

      "Few contemporaneous manuscripts from the Nauvoo period exist that link Joseph Smith and plural marriage. Most of the supportive evidence was penned years later by polygamists in the West who experienced life in Nauvoo and understandably had strong biases."

      This is the crux of the matter right there. He annihilates his own argument right in his own article! And "strong bias" they indeed had! They were trying to justify to the government their religious "sacraments" (lots of sex) to avoid prison, on the one hand, and on the other, they were trying to stay in Brigham's good graces. You didn't want to cross Brigham. If Brigham came calling for an affidavit pinning polygamy on Joseph, you darn well provided it. You were no doubt handsomely rewarded for your "testimony", albeit decades after Joseph's death.

      One more quote. Let's see who Brian Hales trots out who lived during Joseph's time to accuse Joseph...well....it's none other than... the despicable serial adulterer, scandalous, deceiving, corrupt politician, John C. Bennett!

      "The earliest [evidence] is from then excommunicated John C. Bennett, who, in October 1842, identified several women who he claimed were sealed to Joseph Smith"

      Yes, Brian does admit Bennett was ex'ed [by Joseph, and for adultery/ polygamy, IIRC], but think about this...if you're going to attempt to prove your opinion, do you really want to be quoting a disgusting and vile creature who would have great motive to lie about Joseph?

      The very fact Brian quotes Bennett causes Brian Hales to lose 100% credibility as an author, wouldn't you agree? I mean, either he's ignorant of Bennett's character, or he's pushing the official narrative onto TBM chumps who won't bother to investigate who Bennett was. With either option, quoting Bennett absolutely destroys one's own credibility.

      Not to mention that the quote conflates sealings with sex. Could it be that perhaps the sealings were factual, but no sex was involved? If that is the case, then Hales is guilty of intentional conflation, i.e., trying to deceive the reader.

      I stopped reading the article right there.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      I will add this. What astonishes me is this: the amount of evil surrounding Joseph Smith.

      It's as if the very jaws of hell gaped open the mouth wide after him. It's as if demons surrounded him on every side. But wouldn't you expect Satan to brutally attack? If Joseph couldn't be brought down, then the people around him, ESPECIALLY those close to him, would be targeted for corrupting.

      It makes perfect sense that Satan would use every means possible to destroy Joseph, and if he failed to corrupt Joseph, he would destroy his reputation.

      I bring up all of this for the anonymous TBM's to consider the following FACT. And is this not a fact? Here it is: If the LDS Church had a true prophet today, why wouldn't Satan be pulling out all the stops to destroy him or and ESPECIALLY those around him, i.e., his counselors, the twelve apostles, the 70?

      Wouldn't you expect a turmoil in the ranks of the LDS hierarchy ROUTINELY, as "friends" of the president were actively accusing Pres Nelson, and otherwise doing everything within their means to destroy him? And not just today, but the same logic applies to every president going back to Brigham.

      You must ask yourself, why all the kumbaya among the top LDS leadership? How can it be that Satan's forays are now non-existent, when in Joseph's day he was continually beset by sex-crazed men accusing Joseph of THEIR indulgences!? Quite the miracle!

      Delete
    4. That is a very astute point, Underdog. And I would say that NOTHING has helped me understand the early restoration period like participating in this movement has. Before, so many of the things that happened in 1830-1844 made no sense at all, but now the lights have been turned on. History may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme!

      Marcia

      Delete
  7. I can see where you are coming from with this. Sometimes plain, hard truths need to be set out clearly and boldly. If we had a chance to take a long walk together, I'd offer some of my experiences learning about Joseph Smith's thoughts against sectarianism to enrich the discussion.

    I’ll only say briefly that it's odd that refusing to fellowship with certain sects can be similar to excluding people unjustly from your own, even though I believe God can and does command individuals to not belong to certain sects for important reasons (take God’s command to Joseph to join none of the 19th century religious organizations).

    Today we do have good counsel to learn and serve in any religious community we want, but I also believe God could say it's time to leave them. It depends on the context and on individual situations, I believe. You have carefully worded language above that I think still allows for that possibility, but it bears mentioning.

    That being said, I think it is wise to not give money to the LDS church and to give it to the poor instead.

    I also don't think serving people (in the service of your God) is always equated to serving the institution, so happily, serving LDS people can and should continue.

    My hope is that when you say the source of your post here--"I realize this isn’t my normal tone. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t write things like this. But the cry of the blood compels me to raise the warning voice and add my witness."--that people don’t read too much into the "cry of the blood" motivating you. I think Brigham made a similar appeal with his oath of vengeance. I won't make you an offender for a word, though. Let’s hope the warning has the desired effect. God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points, Brian. My hope is that all who submit to the institution will consider carefully what they believe and why they believe it. Obviously, serving and blessing our fellow man, and fellowshipping together can be done with pure intent. But I don't believe it is possible to serve and support the institution with pure intent, if you have been made aware of these truths.

      I've spoken to LDS people who are aware of these facts and simply do not care. I hope they will start to care.

      That said, vengeance is the Lord's, of course. The cry of the blood is to God for an end to wickedness. My purpose is to awaken any who may still be reached before the building comes crashing down. Even those who now actively accuse and defame Joseph may yet have time to repent if they act quickly.

      Delete
  8. Adrian,

    You make some pretty bold accusations.
    I'm curious, what evidence can you provide that Brigham Young conspired with William Law, the Higbees, and others to have Joseph and Hyrum murdered?

    You didn't provide any.

    Furthermore all this talk of Joseph's polygamy accusers coming from polygamous Utah years after the fact is not telling the whole truth.

    It is a fact that the Nauvoo Expositor declared that Joseph was a polygamist as well as claiming he was teaching other heresies such as God once being a mortal man (which he in fact did teach in the King Follett discourse).

    It is also a fact that Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and William Marks all believed Joseph was a secret polygamist, as did Sarah Pratt.

    Denver Snuffer is another Joseph Smith polygamy accuser, as is Christ apparently, since Denver declared in his 40 years in Mormonism series that Fanny Alger was married to Joseph Smith in Kirtland. Didn't Denver state that the content of the Lectures was given to him by Christ?

    Or was Denver just confused and Christ played along?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Watchman,

      I don't recall claiming that "Brigham Young conspired with William Law, the Higbees, and others to have Joseph and Hyrum murdered." I said there was a conspiracy; I didn't name names.

      As for Denver, he has clearly maintained that Joseph's sealings were not marriages and were not sexual in nature, including the incident with Fanny Alger he spoke of in the lecture. It is disingenuous to attempt to put words in his mouth he did not say.

      Delete
    2. In your article you said,

      "Before the blood of the prophets had even dried on the ground, the sinister combination that sought their deaths began the machinations required to rewrite history, seize power, and capture the loyalty of deceived followers—all while using the name and reputation of Joseph Smith as their primary claim to legitimacy. The ruse worked remarkably well, taking in a solid half of those who believed Joseph’s words, and spiriting them off to Brigham’s desolate kingdom in the Rocky Mountains."

      You then go on to claim that Brigham doctors the history including have fake journals written as part of his power grab to control those ignorant deceived saints.

      If your not saying that Brigham Young was part of the conspiracy to murder Joseph and Hyrum, what are you saying?

      As for Denver, it is a fact that he not only defended the traditional narrative of Joseph being a polygamist in PTHG, his blog, and the 40 years in Mormonism series he also defended the early Utah saints in their practice of it.

      He did all of this long after he declared that he had received the second comforter and had had an audience not only with Christ, but also with God the Father.

      I don't know if Denver ever outright stated that Joseph had sex with his plural wives. I doubt he did.

      Several of Joseph's plural wives, whose accounts Denver defended, including their angel with the drawn sword accounts, declared that they had had sexual relations with Joseph.

      1+1=2 doesn't it?

      Delete
    3. Watchman, I would invite you to read Jeremy Hoop's responses further down, and then bring the level of evidence that he brings. If you have thoroughly reviewed the original documents, please cite them.

      But in a larger sense, answer me this: Why is it so important to you to slander Joseph Smith and call him a liar? Why are you siding with John Bennet and William Law, rather than Joseph Smith? Why is it so important to you that Joseph be an adulterer? Why have you become an accuser rather than a defender? Seriously. Why?

      Delete
    4. Watcher,

      Please provide the sources for the women who declared they had sexual relations with Joseph.

      You can't. There is only one. Emily Partridge. Her
      Temple Lot case affidavit in 1892 is highly contradictory both internally and with her previous writings (which never mention marital relations or anything of an intimate nature with Joseph). She had plenty of motivation to lie and yes, I believe she did. By the way, the judge in the Temple Lot case also thought she was not telling the truth. No other woman gave testimony of sexual relations. If you have a source, please provide it.

      The story of the angel with the drawn sword has no contemporaneous source and was told mostly as hearsay. The supposed first-hand accounts are as problematic as the stories of Brigham transfiguring into Joseph. Mormon history is replete with myths that have become "fact" through sheer repetition.

      Delete
    5. Watcher,

      As relates to women lying, you and all other apologists are perfectly comfortable with asserting that Emma and Lucy Mack were liars, but not Emily Partridge. Why is that?

      Delete
  9. Adrian,

    You say to flee and get your name off the passenger manifest.

    We have not been active in the LDS church for almost 2 years but have not removed our names. I would like your thoughts on initiating this action and how vital it is. We know many who have been excommunicated and others who have had their names removed. (Not that the names are really removed either way, just noted on their records).

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is possible to fellowship, serve, worship and so forth with pure intent in the LDS church. But serving and supporting the institution itself is, in my opinion, contributing to evil speaking of the Lord's anointed. I believe that everyone who recognizes what the church stands for should take this into account when considering their course of action. But I am not suggesting a specific course of action for anyone. That should be between each person and the Lord.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Adrian.

      I appreciate all you do!

      Delete
  10. Adrain, I appreciate your comments as usual. I will need to ponder them for a while. I have never felt impressed to leave the institution as it is the place that I worship with my family. If and when I cut all ties it will make my marriage and family situation much worse and that conflicts with my responsibility to my family who are not even close to understanding my re-baptism and covenant. Even though what you say I find logical and true, I have not felt impressed by the Lord to leave my family to worship alone or that it is time to be ostracized any further than I am now. Denver said in a talk long ago that it didn't matter what church you belonged to or where you paid your tithes, you were still invited to come unto Christ through re-baptism and the covenant that HE has now offered. Denver's words hasn't moved me to consider what you have suggested, but I believe you are right. But if we are to stop aiding and abetting institutions that are false or evil, then we should stop paying taxes too. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack, you make good points. The difference between taxes and tithing is that you are compelled to pay taxes, whereas you are not compelled to financially support an institution that slanders Joseph Smith. Whether you remain a member or not, whether you worship at the church or not, these are all deeply personal decisions and not mine to make for anyone else. I simply hope to give people accurate information with which to make their decisions.

      Delete
  11. Watcher,

    Your characterization of Denver’s position is simply inaccurate. Here’s what he’s said on the subject:

    "Hales has completed and is now out with a three volume set. In his books he gathers together every single one of the existing source materials involving Fanny Alger. In the account dealing with Fanny Algerand the incident in the barn, which some people have blown up into Emma Smith catchingJoseph Smith in the very act of intercourse with Fanny Alger, he tracks down. When all the source material is gathered what you learn is that Emma Smith witnessed "the transaction." The "transaction" consisted of Levi Hancock performing a wedding ceremony in the barn, with Joseph Smith telling Levi the words to use and Levi performing the ceremony. Emma was at the door listening, or witnessing “the transaction” in the barn. This is the "transaction" which has become subsequently embellished into all sorts oflibido-driven license for those who would like a less virtuous prophet than the one we actually had. We want more weaknesses in him to allow us to enjoy greater weaknesses.As Joseph put it: "No one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature."

    “Fanny Alger may have been Joseph Smith’s first plural wife. She subsequently married a man. Between her and her husband she bore nine children. Joseph Smith fathered with Emma Smith eight children. But in the prime of their reproductive years, Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger produced no children.”

    “I’m willing to say that, from the totality of the circumstances, I do not believe that Joseph Smith was ever involved in adultery. I do not believe that Joseph Smith was ever involved in bigamy. It would be bigamous to marry another woman for this life when you have an existing wife. Joseph Smith had a wife. When he looked around in Nauvoo and said, “There are people here who say I am married to numerous women, and I look around the crowd and I can see but one.” (Meaning Emma.) I think he was telling the truth.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeremy,

      Denver has of course changed his position on Joseph's practice of plural marriage.

      Originally he defended both Joseph and the early Utah saints in regards to this practice. I won't dig up the quotes. Go read the chapter on plural marriage in PTHG and his original blog series on D&C 132.

      This was just prior to his excommunication, but well after he wrote the Second Comforter.

      My point was not so much about Denver as it was that Adrian failed to provide any evidence that Brigham Young was part of a conspiracy to murder Joseph Smith so he could take power and have lots of sex with young women.

      I'm assuming Adrian didn't provide this evidence because it doesn't exist.

      There is absolutely no link between those traitors who murdered Joseph and Hyrum and Brigham Young.

      Having more than one wife is not always adultery. Therefore it doesn't make any sense to try and "defend Joseph's honor" against the charge of adultary by insisting that he couldn't have had more than one wife because that would have made him an adulterer.

      Was Abraham an adulterer? Was Jacob an adulterer? How about Moses, Gideon, or David prior to the Bathsheba incident?

      Could Joseph have been commanded by the Lord to tell a deceptive half truth by declaring that he had no (legal) wife besides Emma, much like God told Abraham to tell people that Sarah was his sister?

      Of course.

      Would this make Joseph a liar?

      No.

      Now if women say that they were married to Joseph and had sexual relations with him, but didn't, that would be lying.

      I'm assuming you believe these women were liars?

      Well I don't.





      Delete
    2. Watcher

      Abraham didn't have more than one wife at a time. Sarah, his wife, gave Hagar to him to bare her a child, Abraham did not choose to take Hagar himself or even suggest it. This was all Sarah's idea.

      Jacob did not want to marry Leah, he was tricked into marrying her. He only wanted to marry Rachel. His heart was pure. Both Leah and Rachel GAVE their handmaids to Jacob because they wanted more children. Rachel was barren before she gave her handmaid and needed a surrogate. It was the only way back then to have a child when a woman is barren. Jacob did not suggest or ask Leah or Rachel to give him their handmaids. This was the women's decisions, not the mans.

      David and Solomon, according to the Book of Mormon, committed whoredoms because of their many wives and this was an abomination to the Lord. Are we going to believe the Lord's word through the Book of Mormon, which was not influenced by Babylon? Or the Bible, which has been corrupted by the Deuteronomists as well as the Babylonians? And has had many precious truths removed?

      The Lord also said regarding the Nephites who started taking multiple wives, that the people began to wax in iniquity because they didn't understand the scriptures, and thus excused themselves in committing whoredoms like unto David and Solomon.

      But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

      If you look closely all of the instances in the Bible where men might start thinking that God approves of polygamy, you might want to look again and ask the Lord what the real story is. You also might also ask why women are never the ones purporting polygamy and looking for any allowance for its practice. For women, it is degrading and enslaving. It seems to only be men who fight so hard to show how God approves. I personally believe God loves and respects women and wants them to be equal with their husbands and not subservient slaves.

      Delete
    3. Watchman,

      Though Denver hasn’t changed his position nearly so much as you might think, I don’t find such a change problematic. In fact, many, many people have changed their position about polygamy once they have carefully looked at the actual evidence. I have. I suggest you try it.

      You’ve twice brought up receiving the Second Comforter as if that event makes you an authority on everything. What on earth does Denver’s receipt of the Second Comforter have to do with his statements about polygamy? If you met the Lord face to face, would you insist, first thing, that he answer your questions about polygamy? Is that really the top of the agenda?

      I’ll say it again: I never said Brigham Young was part of a conspiracy to kill the Smith brothers. But if you’re that interested, you should investigate what was actually happening. William Smith’s letter to his cousin stating that Joseph found out that Brigham and others had multiple wives and he planned to have them charged with adultery as soon as he got through the Nauvoo Expositor trouble. The warning to the Smith family of a plot to kill them all. The suspicious circumstances of Samuel Smith’s death a month after Joseph and Hyrum. The demonstrably, provably false narratives provided by John Taylor and Willard Richards about the events inside Carthage jail. There’s quite a bit more. Go do some research. The false narratives alone are enough to call the whole situation into question. And yes, remember it all came to a head over charges of polygamy in the Nauvoo Expositor, when Joseph was not practicing it, and other apostles were. The publication at the time he was crusading against it, the encouragement by others that he destroy the press in response, and the complicity of Governor Ford. This is such a large topic, you could investigate it for years. Or you could simply believe the official (false) account and move on.

      Before you invoke Abraham, Jacob, etc., you should investigate a bit more about what the records actually say. Wives were at liberty to give their husbands concubines for the purpose of bearing them children. These were not wives. In Jacob’s case, he was tricked in to actually marrying Leah, but had the right to Rachel because of the deception.)

      I assume you believe the Book of Mormon: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” (Jacob 2:24) So…do you want to walk back your assessment of David? And being that the Old Testament was demonstrably altered to approve polygamy (just like section 132) are you going to trust it in other statements about polygamy in the Old Testament?

      Anonymous Watchman, you’re clearly in way over your head at this point. So I’ll make it simple. You can choose who you believe. That’s your right. Believe Joseph’s clear and forceful statements, or believe the clearly altered records and affidavits produced many years after his death. Believe the Book of Mormon (most correct of any book on earth) or the Bible (which has been corrupted with the intent of blinding and leading into darkness.) Pick your sources.

      If you want to keep slandering Joseph Smith, that’s between you, him, and God. But be aware there’s clearly a lot of evidence you have not examined, and now that you’re aware of it, a plea of ignorance will not protect you in the day of judgment. Not even kidding. Please, for your sake, consider that you may be wrong when you speak evil of the Lord’s messenger.

      Delete
    4. Watchman (apologies for referring to you as Watcher)

      Regarding Abraham, he did not lie as Sarai, or Sarah was also his half-sister. Therefore telling Pharaoh and Abimelech that she was his sister was telling the truth. To withhold partial information is not the same as lying. God does this with us all the time...He only tells us portions of His "mysteries" until we are prepared to know them in full.

      See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah

      Delete
  12. Watcher,

    I can provide you with extensive sourcing for all of the following assertions, but for brevity sake, I’ll simply assert them. If you want the source, just ask.

    The fact that Rigdon, Marks and Sarah Pratt believed Joseph was a polygamist means nothing. None of them provide first hand testimony of those assertions. Marks is highly conflicted because of the denials Joseph made to him personally and is relying on post-martyrdom reports to piece it all together. Sarah Pratt had been credibly accused of having an affair with John Bennet, yet later told Joseph Smith III that his father had never been inappropriate toward her. Oliver Cowdery believed Joseph had committed adultery based on what he thought Joseph was doing with Fanny Alger but admitted that he had no first-hand knowledge of that assumption. Rigdon gives no first-hand proof of any belief either and also appears to lay the blame on Brigham and some of the twelve. If belief is proof, then we also need to look to others belief to exonerate Joseph, for example: William Smith, Emma, Lucy, James Whitehead and many others.

    Here is what Brian Hales, the foremost compiler of pro-Joseph-polygamy sources, says on the nature of the “evidence” against Joseph:

    “If we didn’t have the RLDS Church saying Joseph wasn’t a polygamist, we wouldn’t have the 1869 affidavits, we wouldn’t have the 1877 collection by Andrew Jensen, and we wouldn’t have the additional information from the Temple Lot Case. Together those three are 75% of what we know, and it’s scary for researchers on polygamy to think about what we would know about Nauvoo polygamy if the RLDS Church had not taken the stance that they did. It’s really scary. You’d have John C. Bennett. You’d have William Law, and you would not know even a fraction of what we think we know about it today.”

    According to Hales, 75% of “what we know” comes from those Utah Polygamists. I believe the number is much higher than 75% but we’ll go with that. The other 25% of the “evidence” Hales classifies as the following:

    D&C 132
    Purported 1842 revelation to Newel K Whitney regarding plural marriage ceremonies (I would add to this the letter that Joseph wrote to the Whitney’s in August 1842)
    John C Bennett
    William Law and the Expositor contingent
    1844 Joseph Jackson letters
    Oliver Olney
    Purported 1842 letter from Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon
    William Clayton’s Journal

    Cont’d...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Several people have reached out, troubled by the admittedly harsh warning I published against supporting the institution. I want to make it clear that I believe it is possible to be a member of the church, worship there, serve your fellow believers, and still honor God. But I do hope my warning will cause people to be circumspect in how they approach this situation.

    Along with slandering Joseph Smith, the LDS church is distancing itself from the Book of Mormon and Joseph's revelations, while publishing endless policy and program changes as revelations. The institution is rapidly evolving in what they stand for. Take a look around their new websites and notice how things are worded and what is emphasized. Consider the star-studded 95th birthday gala celebration for Russell Nelson and what that entails and implies.

    I simply implore everyone to keep their eyes open and recognize what the institution is doing and becoming, then consider carefully their level of support and association with the institution itself (not with fellow believers/ward members). If you choose to remain active in the church, you can still do much good by your example, by loving others, by standing for truth, and by speaking up in defense of what you believe.

    Keeping marriages intact and families together is, as always, of paramount importance. You are in your own personal situation because it is where God placed you for very good reasons. Please be prayerful in navigating church membership, family obligations, and marital unity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting perspective. It's the church of the devil but its okay to worship there?

      Delete
    2. It's not ok to worship the church. It's wrong to worship the leaders. If those are what you worship, you will come to disappointment. But it is possible to worship the Lord anywhere.

      "And Alma said unto them, Behold, ye have said that ye could not worship your God because ye are cast out of your synagogues. But behold, I say unto you, if ye suppose that ye cannot worship your God, ye do greatly err, and ye ought to search the scriptures; for if ye suppose that they have taught you this, ye do not understand them. Do ye remember to have read what Zenos, the prophet of old, has said concerning prayer or worship? For he said, Thou art merciful, O God, for thou hast heard my prayer, even when I was in the wilderness. Yea, thou wast merciful when I prayed concerning those who were mine enemies, and thou didst turn them to me. Yea, O God, and thou wast merciful unto me when I did cry unto thee in my field, when I did cry unto thee in my prayer, and thou didst hear me. And again, O God, when I did turn to my house, thou didst hear me in my prayer. And when I did turn unto my closet, O Lord, and prayed unto thee, thou didst hear me. Yea, thou art merciful unto thy children when they cry unto thee to be heard of thee and not of men, and thou wilt hear them. Yea, O God, thou hast been merciful unto me and heard my cries in the midst of thy congregations. Yea, and thou hast also heard me when I have been cast out and have been despised by mine enemies; yea, thou didst hear my cries and wast angry with mine enemies, and thou didst visit them in thine anger, with speedy destruction. And thou didst hear me because of mine afflictions and my sincerity; and it is because of thy Son that thou hast been thus merciful unto me. Therefore, I will cry unto thee in all mine afflictions, for in thee is my joy; for thou hast turned thy judgments away from me because of thy Son." (Alma 16:31 RE)

      Delete
  14. Cont’d...

    Despite the claims of apologists, D&C 132 cannot be linked in any way to Joseph Smith. The only “copy” that exists emerged many years later (we actually don’t know when because even Wilford Woodruff stated in 1892 that he’d never seen the copy and didn’t even know if it existed) and is in the hand of Joseph Kingsbury who was the store clerk of Newel Whitney. Kingsbury was not a clerk or secretary of Joseph Smith and had never recorded any previous revelations or kept any records for Joseph. In his Temple Lot testimony, he refuses to “tell the whole” truth on grounds that he doesn’t want to be in jeopardy of perjury. His Temple Lot testimony is highly dubious. He gets the date wrong. He gets the number of pages of the document wrong--he says that he recorded 2 pages when there are 8. He says it took him about half an hour to copy it. If you look at the copy, it’s very neat, like a finished product, with hardly any mistakes. He makes the claim that Hyrum let the document out to Whitney to be copied. This assertion is absurd on its face. Clayton says that Emma was so furious she burned the original that he wrote down (curious that Clayton had never before recorded a revelation and was not one of Joseph’s personal secretaries; James Whitehead, Joseph’s personal secretary, said he knew Clayton and that Clayton was at one time a secretary but had been removed for stealing money). This purported revelation would be a major piece of what gets Joseph and Hyrum killed and yet, Joseph and Hyrum are that cavalier with this explosive revelation that they are just letting it be taken, out of their presence, by Whitney to be copied? Joseph and Hyrum were supposedly showing it to people like the Laws (I’ll get to them) and others, discussing it all the time, and yet they were simultaneously trying to keep it secret? Joseph and Hyrum both told the Nauvoo High Council there was a revelation, but it had to do with sealings and the eternity of the marriage covenant and not plural marriage. Whitehead said he saw the “copy” that Whitney had in 1848 and that it was nothing like the one that became D&C132, that it had to do with sealings and not polygamy. It is just a plausible that Brigham (who said that he learned of polygamy before Joseph told him, and who claimed in 1865 that the revelation was given to him [Brigham] and not Joseph) had “received” the revelation and then had it doctored to make it look like it came from Joseph.

    It is also highly curious that the only other “revelation” ever recorded related to polygamy also is in the handwriting of Kingsbury. This is the supposed July 27 1842 “revelation” given to Newel Whitney. However, the first mention of it is in 1885 at a time when Utah polygamists are fighting vigorously to defend the practice against the government. It cannot be proven to have come from Joseph. Also, the ceremony described in the revelation is drastically different from the one that Orson Pratt wrote down in “The Seer” in 1853 and drastically different from the marriage ceremony in LDS Temples today. Given that Joseph said emphatically that ordinances are not to be changed, this is curious to say the least. Also Elizabeth Whitney, Newel’s wife and a proud polygamist, makes no mention of this “revelation” in her writings years earlier. If this were a real revelation, Elizabeth surely would have mentioned the only existing revelation to any individual sanctioning plural marriage.

    The fact that Kingsbury is involved in the only two known “revelations” on plural marriage, and that those revelations were only known to the public many years after Joseph’s death casts serious doubt on their provenance and veracity.

    Cont'd....

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cont'd...

    The letter Joseph wrote to the Newel and Elizabeth in August 1842 is used to prove Joseph was having sex with Sarah their daughter, and that he was hiding this from Emma, a rank absurdity. The letter from Joseph, while in hiding, wants the Whitney’s to come to him to have the “fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads”. He has a room to himself in the home where he is hiding where Newel and Elizabeth and Sarah (presumably because she isn’t mentioned) can attend to this sealing. He wants them to be careful not to come when Emma does because it’s not safe because Emma and their home are being watched and so he asks them to be careful and even burn the letter because his “life depends on it”.

    Allegations from three hostile and dubious witnesses (Bennett, Law, Jackson) are hardly proof. These men were enemies to Joseph Smith and all three of them had dubious characters. Joseph spent considerable effort trying to prove their claims false. William Law said later that the “revelation” he claimed to have seen was much shorter than section 132. William and his wife refused to testify in the Temple Lot case.

    A letter to Nancy Rigdon that no longer exists, was unsigned, and written in another man’s handwriting and that Nancy herself denied was from Joseph.

    Oliver Olney’s never claimed first hand knowledge and was reporting hearsay.

    William Clayton is a highly conflicted witness. The trouble with Clayton is Clayton. He kept a double set of journals. The second journal is the only one that directly implicates Joseph in polygamy and there is not way to verify if Clayton, a devoted Brighamite, wrote the second one in Nauvoo or later. Journal 2 is actually three separate notebooks. The first notebook goes until April 27, 1843, which is coincidentally the first date that Clayton makes an entry that may reference plural marriage. The record then switches to a second note book wherein there are several explicit entries about plural marriage. This continues until Sep 24,1844 (three months after Joseph’s murder) at which point Clayton switches back to the first notebook. We only have about 25% of Clayton’s journals and there is no way to verify if what we have is accurate because the LDS Church won’t release them. The LDS Church said they would release the Clayton journals to the public, but they still have not. We are left to wonder why.

    Clayton was also told by Richards to copy Joseph’s journals and leave blank spaces and pages, which he did and later, other copyists would write additions and corrections to the journals. Joseph’s journals and the history of the church were systematically doctored under the orders of Brigham Young, a fact that is well established.

    There’s much more to say on Clayton’s character and contradictory testimony, but this will suffice for now.

    This is the bulk of the “contemporary evidence” proving Joseph a polygamist. It’s highly suspect at best and deserves thorough scrutiny which very few apologists or antagonists have been willing to apply.

    All of the remaining “evidence” comes from Utah polygamists many years, mostly decades later. Their motives and lifestyle bring their testimony into question. The who, what, where, when, why of all of their statements should be carefully examined. In the end the whole subject comes down the testimony of one woman: Emily Dow Partridge Young. She’s the ONLY woman EVER to claim she had sexual relations with Joseph and she did so in 1892, 49 years after she supposed had relations with him. Her testimony is so HIGHLY inconsistent both internally and with her other writings as to cast serious doubt on her truthfulness. It should be noted that the Judge in the case thought she had not been truthful about the question of intercourse.

    There’s so much to be said, but this is too long. It’s high time that people reconsider what they think they “know” on this subject. We should all be willing to accept the truth, no matter how hard and whatever consequences may come.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am still an active member. I am not offended by Adrian's warning.

    I have not been paying tithing for quite a while now. The reason is I find it not only distasteful, but immoral to support priestcraft. Alma 1 (LDS version) reads as an apples to apples comparison of Nehor to the LDS Church of today. "Enforcing priestcraft by the sword" equates to the unjust excommunications happening to any who openly oppose Nehor.

    Attending Church is increasingly disgusting spiritually. I have to deprogram my kids every so often from the false precepts being taught. Virtually EVERY week our leaders dutifully follow the SLC-correlated mandate to have speakers or teachers teach from a recent GC talk, which correlation Pres McKay predicted would lead the Church into apostasy. Mission accomplished.

    Listening to rerun talks is making church attendance painful and about as rewarding spiritually as attending a Zoramite meeting where they repeat the selfsame priestcraft (Alma 31).

    Liberty of thought has been all but stamped out by SLC. We are a congregation of zombies. A cult following has been crafted by the SLC social engineers and this is how I may suggest a warning be framed. Cult behavior is now openly exhibited.

    Scientific mind conditioning IS and has been happening. As one freed from this evil LDS priestcraft spell, I see the effect on many good and unsuspecting people, but they have their agency.

    The floating building will crash. Casualties will be and are catastrophic. Alma 1 predicts that because "priestcraft [is being] enforced among this people it [will] prove their entire destruction."

    It's sad, but "I know that [God] allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

    5 Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death..." (Alma 29).

    If the majority want to have a king/"prophet" who can't lead them astray, they got one!

    The people want security over liberty, just as Americans have rejected liberty in favor of supposed safety.

    "Follow me, not one soul on Old Ship Zion will be lost! There's safety in following the prophets!" O, the cunning plan of the evil one! (2 Nephi 9).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remnant of JosephJuly 13, 2019 at 11:12 AM

      Underdog2,

      I find it ironic, that the church is "Nehor" or as Adrian constantly tries to demonstrate how the church is the Church of the Devil and the very thing warned about in the Book of Mormon, yet, you are hurt by those who are excommunicated? You're offended that they no longer can attend such "increasingly disgusting spiritual" meetings with mindless zombies and think that it would be healthy to invite all types of critical divisive behavior into the church thinking that this type of restructuring would occur by the voice of the people? In essence you're proposing what you accuse Brigham and others of doing to gain and maintain control except you'd be in the same situation as the Remnant movement now, without any true leadership or direction, without the fruits you claim are missing anyway, and not preaching to the world, but instead destroying faith and fighting against the Saints. The great majority of the people that come across content like that on these blogs and other anti-material, don't end up joining with your movement, they lose their faith altogether. They've fallen into the pit digged to ensare the people of the Lord. Yet, somehow you think this is the right way.

      Delete
    2. R of J,

      You said that I "think that it would be healthy to invite all types of critical divisive behavior into the church thinking that this type of restructuring would occur by the voice of the people?"

      What I do believe is that "legalizing freedom" of thought, as Ron Paul was fond of preaching, would be a good idea in the Church.

      Contrast the current oppressive 'thought control' culture in the Church with this fair and bold statement of Denver's:

      "Feel free to disagree, and make your contrary arguments. If you believe I err, then expose the error and denounce it."

      What is stunning to me in an almost surreal way, is that defending Joseph Smith with his own words and Emma's own words has become cause for excommunication.

      Daring to challenge what the institution says is true (like polygamy started with Brigham) is a "sin". Such historical views quickly becomes "speaking ill" of the leaders. And dictators don't allow criticism, do they?

      Censorship is a hallmark of tyranny.

      Do you hear the leaders saying, "Feel free to disagree, and make your contrary arguments. If you believe [we] err, then expose the error and denounce it"? No! They officially teach, (paraphrased) "Read only from Church-approved sources. Beware of other publications out of the mainstream."

      How do you justify the way the Brethren dominate those who express contrary ideas?

      The Church wasn't always so cowardly, beating up (ex'ing) members who ask inconvenient questions. It once gave stage to men of character who had this spirit and strength of character, "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." (J. Reuben Clark).

      This is spirit which Denver possesses now. He says: Bring it. If there's error, expose it. Harm it. Otherwise, FOLLOW the truth. Not me, but Christ who is officially speaking through me at times.

      Which sounds and feels like Christ? The certainty and boldness of Brothers Clark and Denver, or the pathetic, weak nature of those in hierarchical power who persecute those who challenge their ideas and official story line?

      Delete
  17. Watcher,

    To Simply characterize Joseph denials as telling a half-truth is absurd. He was vociferous, he was Ardent in his denials, and extremely public. Over and over and over again. The times and seasons are full of it. The Nauvoo High Council minutes are full of his statements and proceedings against people practicing spiritual wifery and polygamy. Excommunicated a number of people very publicly for those offenses. It wasn't a white lie of any sort. If Joseph was a polygamist he was also a bold-faced liar. But more than that he was also an adulterer. He supposedly married Fanny Alger and sent her away to marry another man and have nine children by that man. He also supposedly married Sara and Whitney and send her away to supposedly mary Joseph Kingsbury while he, Joseph Smith was still alive, and then marry Heber C Kimball and have seven children with him. Sending Fanny and Sarah off to marry other men violates both the Lord's own statements on divorce and section 132 itself. Brigham Young violated section 132 and the Lord's own commands on divorce. He practice polyandry, which is also the accusation against Joseph.

    The cases of Abraham and Jacob hardly resemble anything related to Joseph Smith perhaps that's why Hyrum stated that the Revelation that Joseph received had to do with things in ancient times and had nothing to do with modern times. We'll never know what that Revelation said because we don't have it. The situation with Abraham and Sarah has very little to do with Joseph Smith.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Watcher,

    You: "My point was not so much about Denver as it was that Adrian failed to provide any evidence that Brigham Young was part of a conspiracy to murder Joseph Smith so he could take power and have lots of sex with young women."

    Bringing forth evidence in 2019 of a murder that happened in 1844 is a tall order. But proving that BY lusted after power and women is an easy conclusion based on historical facts of his scheming to concentrate power under his sole control.

    You simply have to deny history and facts to maintain the unbelief Brigham had pure motives.

    How does it feel to intellectually grasp at trying to defend Joseph as a liar?

    Instead of believing he was truthful and virtuous, you are compelled, by loyalty to the institution, to labor strenuously to defame him. How does that feel?

    The so-called "wives" of Abraham and Jacob were surrogates, save Leah whose marriage Jacob honored after being tricked by her father.

    The results of those messy relationships speak volumes, don't they? Envy and jealousy. Murderous jealousy at that.

    Surely there's a lesson for us!


    Look at what you are arguing for! Why?

    Nevermind that in 1890 polygamy was reversed by LDS leadership. That reversal should speak to you as a clear indication that the Brigham era of polygamy was a lie.

    But the diehard institution defender then must concoct a rationale to explain the reversal. It's plainly transparent that both positions couldn't be right and "of God".

    Pick a position.

    The embarrassing middle ground position is what the Church takes, which is "God changed His mind."

    Just as the Church blames Joseph for the list of things Adrian listed above, the Church "blames" God for reversing Himself on polygamy.

    Is THAT the position you want to take to your grave?

    For what? To defend the institution?

    Here's your position:

    * God told Joseph to lie publicly.
    * He told Joseph to lie to Emma.
    * He told Joseph to privately practice polygamy, behind Emma's back and WHILE Joseph was excommunicating those who practiced it.
    * He told Brigham to go public with it.
    * At purely the coincidental time the government was pressuring the Church to cease the practice, God told WW to tell the people to cease the practice.
    * WW said, Trust me, because I can't lead you astray. Wink wink.
    * BONUS: Then in 1981, the "can't lead you astray" teaching was secretly added to our canon, coincidental to the time when LDS leaders reversed their policy of racism in 1978.

    Will you feel confident in arguing this line of thought at Judgement Day? Christ may ask you: Why? Why would you choose to defend an institution, when an institution can't save you anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you Jeremy for breaking all of that evidence down. You make a compelling case and have given me something to chew on for a while.

    On a different note, I'm a little bit puzzled that some of insist that I am accusing Joseph Smith of wrong doing. I'm not pointing the finger at him at all.

    The fact is that if he was commanded by God to secretly institute and practice plural marriage as an Abrahamic test, then he was not a vile sinner.

    I know this is an incredibly difficult idea for our 21st century brains to come to peace with.

    Denver originally taught the Abrahamic test angle on plural marriage.

    The church has actually done far more in the past 130 years to make us believe plural marriage is evil than to defend it. It wasn't until the church began publishing the historical essays on polygamy, race and the priesthood, etc in 2014 that one could find any information about plural marriage on lds.org other than a short statement that it was briefly practiced long ago, but is now forbidden and considered a serious sin.

    I'm not defending the church as an institution. Not at all. Obviously an institution can not save us.

    The truth is what I'm after.

    God didn't change his mind in 1890 and 1978, nor the countless other times the church has changed its doctrines and policies. These are the changes of men and not God in my opinion.

    If God commanded those early saints to practice plural marriage as an Abrahamic test or to raise up seed unto himself then who am I to accuse them of adultery?

    Who am I to accuse Brigham Young and other Utah saints of committing a conspiracy against Joseph Smith in so that I can paint a rosy 21st century picture of a strictly monogamous Joseph Smith.

    I prefer to let the chips fall we're they may. Since it is obviously impossible to link Brigham Young and the apostles to Joseph's murder then how are we justified in insinuating such a thing?

    How dare we throw Brigham Young and others under the bus like that with nothing but speculation.

    I suppose it's pretty easy to speak evil of the dead. We didn't live in those times. We don't know what God told Brigham Young to do.

    There are two sides to every coin. Brigham Young's name is also had for both good and evil. That he did a lot of good is easily verifiable from history. That he constantly admonished the saints to keep the commandments and stay faithful to God is a fact.

    Brigham Young wasn't perfect (neither was Joseph Smith). I don't believe Brigham and the twelve we're adulterers. If you want to accuse them of that without any concrete evidence go right ahead.

    I won't do it.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watchman,

      The case against Brigham Young is beyond speculation, it's based entirely on his own words and actions from the historical record. Again, I can provide sourcing but here's a very partial list:

      BY taught openly and often about blood atonement. This has no connection to Joseph. The abominable teaching created a pervasive culture violence that began in Nauvoo and led the Mountain Meadows massacre. According to John D. Lee (his statements should be viewed prejudicially), Brigham approved the massacre. Brigham acted like a king, was anointed as such, governed as such, traveled as such (traveled with 75 carriages, hundreds of people, more than 50 armed men in his contingent). Joseph always sued for peace.

      Brigham taught in general conference that married women could leave faithful husbands without divorcing them so long as they could find another man with higher priesthood keys who would take them. Brigham countenanced divorce and the outright "exchange of wives". You find nothing of these sorts from Joseph.

      Brigham stole millions of dollars in assets from the Church and used the Church coffers as his own piggy bank. Joseph died in bankruptcy court.

      Brigham was a blatant racist who said the Church would lose all priesthood if it ever gave priesthood to anyone with one drop of African Blood. Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood.

      Brigham taught the erroneous Adam-God Doctrine and said he got it from Joseph. You find nothing like that in JS teachings and from the lectures on Faith, JS teaches that unless we have clear understanding of the character, perfections and attributes of God, we can't even have faith. By extension, JS was stating that BY didn't have faith.

      BY was not well loved among his people generally...only by his close cronies like Heber. Joseph was well loved by all who knew him but his enemies. Brigham would openly berate others publicly, including members of the 12 and even his own wives. Joseph was generally much more loving and generous in his public pronouncements. His harsh words were reserved for defending his honor against false accusations.

      Joseph said the ordinances are not to be changed. Brigham immediately began to change the ordinances (all of which, baptism, sacrament and temple ordinances have continued to be changed.)

      The LDS Church today is unfortunately, Brigham's church, not Joseph's. Joseph revealed, preached and practiced a fundamentally different faith than what the LDS Church or any of the branches of the restoration claim today, and that schism began most notable with BY. Joseph's final 3 dreams allude to why that has occurred.

      Delete
    2. Jeremy,

      I get what you're saying.

      However even you have to admit that I could find many quotes from Joseph's enemies that make him look like a really bad guy, too. He was accused of murder, or at least complicity in murder. He was accused of adultery.

      He also taught things in Nauvoo that contradict the Lectures on Faith. This is all well documented.

      In fact I'd be happy to show you the proof that Brigham did get his Adam-God teachings from Joseph.

      Joseph never ordained a black man to the priesthood. A couple of black men were ordained during his lifetime and he was aware of at least one of them. Joseph made a number of racist remarks about blacks including that they were descendents of Cain through Ham. It was Joseph, not Brigham, who translated the book of Abraham which proves that blacks are not to have the priesthood based solely on their racial lineage.

      The evidence for what happened to Elijah Abel's priesthood once Joseph became aware of this doctrine is not clear. Some evidence suggests that he was stripped of the priesthood and removed from working on the temple. Other evidence suggests this never happened.

      We don't know the whole story.

      BTW there is scriptural support for most of Brigham,s now disavowed doctrines. That's not to say that everything he taught was correct. He was not a prophet like Joseph Smith. He did know him well and was tutored by him though.

      I have studied the Mtn Meadows massacre extensively and the evidence is clear that Brigham told the men to let them go and did not order the attack.

      I'm not trying to defend Brigham no matter what. There are things he did and said that I think were absolutely wrong.

      Like I said he wasn't perfect and the apostasy of the church began under his leadership.

      That doesn't give us a right to throw him under the bus and speak evil of him. We didn't walk in his shoes. We can judge his actions and statements but we have no right to cast a blanket judgement on him. He was a complex person who did both good and bad, same goes for all of us.

      Brigham's character is not the issue here anyway. The issue is whether or not Joseph practiced plural marriage and whether or not plural marriage is always adultery.

      If God commanded Joseph to secretly teach and practice plural marriage, while publicly fighting it, there was no wrong in it. Insisting that this is not a possibility is nonsense.

      Delete
    3. Watchman,

      According to Brigham, Joseph knew him well. Not according to Emma and William Smith. Emma said that Joseph said Brigham was a licentious man and would lead the church to hell if he were ever to lead it.

      If God commanded it, I get your point. But there is ZERO proof that God did command it, other than the word of highly biased sources without first-hand contemporaneous support. Very thin evidence to put your beliefs on.

      Now on the charitable side...I used to hold your views and argue for them vehemently, so I understand where you're coming from. It's simply that the more I dig into this issue, the more I'm convicted of my former folly and that JS told the truth.

      PS, BY is VERY hard to defend. You can try, as I used to. But I think in the end you'll see, as William Marks put it, BY was much closer to King Noah from the BofM than to Joseph Smith and the God he worshipped.

      Delete
  20. The Old Testament does support plural marriage.

    We can sit back in our chair in 2019 and say to ourselves "we that's because the Bible has been corrupted."

    Are we forgetting the Joseph Smith translation?

    Joseph Smith did not change a single verse that supports plural marriage in his inspired translation.

    Funny isn't it.

    He changed several passages about King David to show that David did not remain in God's grace, but didn't change the passage about God having given David wives by the hand of Nathan prior to David taking Bathsheba and having her husband killed.

    2Sam 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

    2Sam 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would, moreover, have given unto thee such and such things.

    2Sam 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? Thou hast killed Uriah, the Hittite, with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

    2Sam 12:10 Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from thine house because thou hast despised me and hast taken the wife of Uriah, the Hittite, to be thy wife.

    2Sam 12:11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes and give them unto thy neighbor; and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

    Why would God not have inspired Joseph to make a change to these verses to show that David had taken his wives against God's commandments instead of God having given him those wives?

    It would have been an easy revision so why wasn't it made?

    You can't claim Brigham Young for tampering with it either. The manuscript was in the possession of Emma and later the RLDS.

    Those verses in the JST of 2 Samuel match D&C 132 perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Watchman,

      To the best of my knowledge, Joseph never claimed to have fully, completely corrected the bible. The old "Joseph didn't change it" argument holds no water because you are claiming for Joseph what he never claimed for himself.

      You still have to account for the fact that the Book of Mormon calls David's polygamy abominable. You can't simply dismiss that with a wave of your hand.

      Delete
    2. Watchman,

      In his public talks, JS said at times "I could have rendered this passage more plainly" referring to the Bible. It's clear that the JS translation of the Bible is not a complete and perfect work, but a far better rendering. It appears to be God's wisdom to allow us to still struggle with some of the anomalies of the incomplete and bastardized record of the Jews. To use the Bible to say God sanctions polygamy is to ignore the Book of Mormon and the fruits of polygamy in the Bible (all of which are bitter). To say unequivocally that God sanctions polygamy based on the Bible is to assert confidence in a text about which we ought to be cautious. Again, Hyrum and Joseph may have asked God about these former practices and may have received an answer (although we don't have that revelation) but that the answer they received had nothing to do with our day--as they both told the Nauvoo High Council. We should be very cautious in assigning meaning to things we don't now understand especially when they have to do with something as serious as the nature of the marriage covenant--the highest ordinance.

      Delete
    3. Adrian,

      I'm not dismissing Jacob 2 with the wave of my hand.

      I'm suggesting that Jacob was referring to David's unauthorized polygamy, beginnong with Bathsheba, being abominable.

      The standard works are what they are. Joseph made a lot of revisions to the verses about King David and didn't change any of the ones who defend him in his early practice of polygamy.

      We can dismiss that fact with the wave of the hand, or we can study it out and determine if both Jacob 2, 2 Samuel 12, and D&C 132 can all be true at the same time.

      The only way they can't all be true is if polygamy is always adultery, which is something the scriptures do not say.

      Delete
    4. @LDS Watchman -

      There is plenty of interesting conversation here, but you're unlikely to convert any of these folks to your way of thinking. While I agree that there are serious problems with the LDS Church (score a bucket for Satan there due to using the wrong name), I also think there are problems with the Denver Snuffer "cult".

      Most likely: you're going to have to figure things out using a variety of sources and rely on faith to get through the tough times ahead.

      Delete
  21. Watchman,

    To say that 2 Samuel aligns with D&C 132 does not prove anything coming from God through Joseph. As I said previously, 132 cannot be connected in any way to Joseph. It simply can't. The more compelling evidence in my view is that is was an invention of Brigham Young at least using Joseph Kingsbury as the patsy "copyist". Brigham obviously knew (and taught) of the versus in the Bible that would support his doctrine and took advantage.

    Raising up seed in the Book of Mormon is not exclusive to having children from marriage. It can and does refer to spiritual adoptions...as in King Benjamin declaring those believers as: this day He has begotten you His sons and daughters. And Isaiah declaring Christ would see his "seed" when he suffered. If "seed" meant offspring, then Mormon polygamists failed to rear more children through those unions as data clearly shows. Joseph would have failed spectacularly had he been practicing polygamy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Watchman,

    I wasn't aware that Denver had speculated (I assume it was speculation) that perhaps Joseph's supposed private practice of polygamy was an Abrahamic test. Do you have a reference for that?

    That's interesting.

    Perhaps Denver was trying to explain his cognitive dissonance? I assume that speculation must have been contemplated when Denver believed Joseph Smith had actually practice polygamy, because he had been influenced by mainline LDS tradition.

    I must say as I ponder your hypothesis that I find it very difficult to even conceive that a pure and holy God would ask a holy man to go have private sex with a woman other than his wife, and not tell his wife.


    If that is the Abrahamic test you are supposing occurred, that really stretches one's imagination. If a gun was pointed to my head and I had to get the answer correct or be shot dead, and the question was: Which unseen power would ask a man to do that, I would be compelled to say that I believed 100% or shall we say 99.999% that the voice that would ask a holy man to do that would be the voice of Satan.

    If my wife found out that I was secretly having sexual intercourse with other women and I insisted it was commanded by God, she would think I was absolutely crazy. Not that obedience to God doesn't get that type of reaction, but I just find it nearly impossible to believe such a scenario. In fact, my opinion is that you have to be pretty damn gullible to think Joseph Smith was asked by God to have secret sex with other women, IE practice polygamy.

    To be clear, is that what you believe happened? Is that how you defend the institution's position, even though you say you are not defending the institution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Underdog2,

      If I took my son up to the mountain, built an altar, tied him up, killed him with a knife, and burned him up and then told my wife that God told me to do it what woukd she say?

      This after I had already been saved twice from a similar fate where I was nearly sacrificed to false gods and had been preaching to the people against such wicked practices.

      Tell me that isn't every bit as crazy as Joseph being commanded to secrety take more wives.

      Here's the source you asked for:

      http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/04/d-c-132-part-3.html?m=1

      I seem to recall that he elaborated on this further in PTHG but I don't have a copy. You'll have to look at yours I guess.

      Delete
  23. Watchman,

    You said: If God commanded those early saints to practice plural marriage as an Abrahamic test or to raise up seed unto himself then who am I to accuse them of adultery? 

    Being that we have our own testimonies, yes me and even you I presume, that God is a just and holy being; and being that we have the scriptures which exclusively teach us that God is just, holy, and pure, while Satan is just the opposite, I find it impossible to conceive that God would ask a man who is married to have secret sex with other women. That sounds utterly foolish and preposterous to me.

    However, it is a universal truth for believers to concede that Satan WOULD tempt a man to do that. Satan would command it Satan would endorse that behavior. Satan would inspire it.

    The scriptures back up that assertion.

    But NOWHERE can we find evidence that God would ever inspire such behavior.

    You:

    Who am I to accuse Brigham Young and other Utah saints of committing a conspiracy against Joseph Smith in so that I can paint a rosy 21st century picture of a strictly monogamous Joseph Smith. 

    Me: I think your true colors are showing here. Joseph Smith's holy calling and virtuous and righteous life are completely separate from any conspiracy Brigham Young was involved in against Joseph. Joseph is what he is, and Brigham is what he is. The question I would ask you, is why are you seemingly opposed to the idea, to the historical narrative which makes sense, to Joseph and Emma's own testimony, that Joseph was monogamous?

    You:
    I prefer to let the chips fall we're they may. Since it is obviously impossible to link Brigham Young and the apostles to Joseph's murder then how are we justified in insinuating such a thing?

    Me: Again, Joseph's monogamy has nothing to do with Brigham Young murdering or not murdering Joseph. These are totally independent investigations. Proving one true or false doesn't affect the truth of the other.

    You:
    How dare we throw Brigham Young and others under the bus like that with nothing but speculation. 

    I suppose it's pretty easy to speak evil of the dead. We didn't live in those times. We don't know what God told Brigham Young to do. (End quote).

    Me: BY's own sermons condemn him. There is no speculation. His words and actions are testimony against him.


    Instead of virtue signaling, can't we let Brigham's sermons and actions speak for him?

    Alma 12:14:

    "For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence."


    I guess my question for you is, what is persuasive to you, as far as a scriptural argument, that proves God asked Joseph to secretly have sex with other women?

    Or if you changed your mind, please make it known.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Underdog2,

    Of course there is no way that I can "prove" to you from the scriptures that God commanded Joseph to have sex with other women behind Emma's back.

    I already referred you to any equally troubling and contradictory situation with Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac.

    You failed to respond.

    I also provided you with the source of Denver's previous teachings.

    Again you failed to respond.

    So I'm not really sure what you want me to say at this point.

    I would also like to point out that it is a fact that not all of Joseph's plural marriages included sexual relations, nor were they all done behind Emma's back. Evidence suggests that she went back and forth between approving Joseph's plural marriages (and even picking some of his wives) and fighting the practice.

    So the whole Joseph had sex with other women behind Emma's back so he's an adulterer argument doesn't quite work the way you want it to.

    Denver addressed all these issues on his blog and in PTHG (remember the book he claimed was the most correct version of LDS history written).

    You can say he was only speculating.

    I say that he had it pretty much right originally.

    I agree that we shouldn't connect the baseless accusation of conspiracy to commit murder by Brigham Young with whether or not Joseph secretly practiced plural marriage.

    Adrian is the one who was insinuating that the two are connected in this post, which I took issue with.

    Jeremy,

    Actually the raising up seed angle is not nearly as weak as you think.

    Don't the scriptures say that after a husband dies, when his widow gets remarried she and the new husband are to raise up seed to the first husband?

    Didn't many of Joseph's wives later marry other men and have children with them? Would this not be seed raised up to Joseph Smith and his righteous patriarchal line?

    Assuming Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and others were righteous, wouldn't the fact that they had more children by living plural marriage be raising up seed unto the Lord?

    It's not about more children being born overall. The seed refers to children being raised up in a righteous patriarchal line with a righteous father who is going to be exalted.

    The reference to Christ seeing his seed likely refers to the fact that the righteous become his children in a way by accepting him as their savior.

    Then again, if the Savior truly did live every commandment then he would also have had to have been literally married and had children at some point. The commandment to marry and multiply and replenish the earth is the first commandment God gave to man.



    ReplyDelete
  25. "Wherefore, thus saith the Lord: I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
    For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people. Otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things: for behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction. For they shall not commit whoredoms like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts." Jacob 2:7-8 NC

    Its apparent to anyone who read the paragraphs before and after the “seed” comment that the Lord is commanding the Lehites NOT to practice polygamy.

    The Lord led them out of Jerusalem
    "I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem. . ."

    So that the Lehites would conduct themselves differently.
    "that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch..."

    If he's going to raise up a new People they doing things differently.
    "Wherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old."
    and "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me,"

    He wants them to listen and pay attention OTHERWISE means do things differently than before.
    1828 Websters dictionary:
    Otherwise
    OTH'ERWISE, adverb [other and wise, manner.]
    1. In a different manner.

    "Otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things"

    Because the Lord is tired of the suffering of the women.
    "for behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem,"

    He wants the people in the Promised Land to not do things like in the Old World.
    "For they shall not commit whoredoms like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts."

    Jacob 2 preaches against all the dysfunctional family dynamics in the Old Testament. Children do better in families with a dad and a mom. Period. The OT is an example of how NOT to raise your families, and further, the Book of Mormon testifies of such and trumps the Old Testament and Joseph preached against Polygamy.

    Lena M Hansen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Polygamy is only a whoredom when God forbids it.

      If he commands polygamy it is accounted unto those living it as righteousness, just like Abraham killing his son Isaac was counted unto him as righteousness and not murder.

      Jacob 2 can be understood to support God commanding polygamy to raise up seed unto Himself. In fact Denver taught this very thing in PTHG (which he claimed is the most correct LDS history ever written).

      I guess if a man who has declared that he has been in God's presence and has passed every test and received his calling and election made sure can read Jacob 2 and declare that God is talking about commanding polygamy then you can forgive me for understanding it the same way.

      Delete
    2. Lena,

      Thanks for an articulate argument.

      Watchman,

      You apparently are very familiar with and very well-read on Denver's writings. Agreed?

      If so, I hope you agree it's fair for me to call you out for quoting Denver's old and dated opinions from that 2010 blog post to his 2011-published book, PTHG. Will you cease quoting Denver's previous position to win your argument?

      Sans Denver's abandoned position, what is your argument? What else do you have?

      As a side note, I love the fact that Denver has documented examples of him being wrong in his opinion. That makes him more of a real, normal, fallible person because normally his positions are so solid as to be unassailable.

      In the instances you quoted, I see a lot of confirmation bias. That really shows how faithful he was to the Church's records. He WANTED to trust the Church. Such trust we all have placed in the institution which is what makes the betrayal of our trust more sinister with each passing year the institution refuses to repent and come clean.

      Delete
  26. Watchman,

    I've been working today and not glued to the computer. I hope you can exercise some patience as I find time to respond. I'm usually pretty quick.

    It's late in the Eastern Time zone, but I did read the link from 2010 on Denver's blog. Thanks for sharing. Yes, he believed 9 years ago the official narrative of the Church. He was forcing things to fit that narrative. He would disagree now with that blog post, I'd say. He's evolved based on new info.

    There was a brave commenter at that link which disagreed with Denver. Denver may agree with that comment now which was that it would be no sacrifice for a red-blooded man to take on more sex partners. It's a frequent jest for a Mormon male to exclaim, "If called to take more wives, I'll step up and make the sacrifice. Somebody has to do it."

    I agree with most of this 2010 comment:

    I disagree. Polygamy is not even close to the sacrifice women make by pregnancy & giving birth & caring for babies & children or the sacrifice women make in even going along with polygamy when forced.

    Polygamy, or at least having multiple women, is the natural man's carnel lustful desire that most all men have had throughout the history of the world & thus the men in many, if not most, societies have created that perk for themselves, even when not commanded by God to live it.

    The reality is, the more evil a man is the more women he usually desires to have. Polygamy is no sacrifice to most men, in fact God must command men to NOT DO IT unless he commands it, for it is so alluring to the carnel minds of men.

    To consider it a sacrifice for men, is like thinking it's a sacrifice for children to eat candy.

    But, a rare 'righteous men' who has True Love for his wife, would be repulsed at the idea of polygamy, even more than his wife would be. He would rather die than live it or do anything to injure his wife's feelings. He would not desire to look around at women & date & try to get women to marry him.

    If a righteous man was forced to live polygamy by his wife & God, he would let his wife do all the choosing & looking around, while he kept his eyes, mind & heart on his wife, like Abraham did.

    And Monogamy is actually the 'grand test' to see if a man could even be worthy of another wife. For men also 'give up their life' to the wife at the altar, just as women 'give up their life' to the man. Men must give the same sacrifice at marriage as women, even before women do. Not childbearing, but instead, total submission to the wife.

    The test for men is to see if he will continue to love & serve his wife the rest of his life & put her needs & desires & wishes 1st above his own & all else, no matter what.

    Having True Love for 'one wife' is the test a man must pass to recieve Exaltation, let alone become worthy of more than his one wife.

    But a man with True Love for his wife is so rare in this world, that most people never witness it, let alone pass the test of Monogamy & True Love. Thus, plural marriage will probably be rare in the Celestial Kingdom, at least for men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Underdog2,

      Do you have any scriptures which show that monogamy is the true Abrahamic test for all men?

      According to several accounts Joseph was repulsed by polygamy and an angel with a drawn sword had to command him to do it or else.

      Sounds like he was a righteous man who didn't lust after other women.

      This might also explain why he kept this commandment of the Lord by going behind Emma's back at times. He loved her and didn't want to hurt her, yet he had to do what the Lord commanded him.

      You see the test is not whether a man will put his wife first. The test is whether a man will put God first before anything and everyone else (and this includes his wife, kids, parents, everybody).

      Mark 10

      29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
      30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

      Delete
    2. Watchman,

      I didn't say monogamy was a Abrahamic test. Perhaps you got that idea from the person I quoted above from Denver's 2010 blog?

      Again, as I've tried to articulate to you already, on it's face, the idea that a man would be "sacrificing" by having sex with different men is outlandish, or a dream come true.

      But such a commandment WOULD make perfect sense coming from Satan.

      Delete
  27. Just had another thought.

    An accusation was made against Brigham Young because he stated that a man with a higher priesthood office could theoretically take the wife of a man of a lower priesthood office.

    Where do we think Brigham got this idea?

    It would have to be from Joseph Smith who was sealed to other men's wives, who all would have had a lower priesthood office than himself.

    While we're at it wasn't Joseph declared King in the council of fifty?

    Brigham Young obviously got that one from Joseph, too.

    The revisionist history being peddled here just doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Watchman,

    Sealing does not equal marriage does not equal conjugal relations. When you are sealed to your children in the temple do you have sex with them? We have no actual record of anyone to whom Joseph was sealed. I presume that sealings occurred. However we don't actually know with whom he performed those ceremonies how, when, in what fashion, what the language. We have no idea and the records from the Utah polygamists are wholly insufficient because of their inconsistencies and contradictions , as well as the fact that their practices changed over time.

    For you to presume that Joseph did as you accuse him is based on absolutely no proof, is blatant slander and speaking evil of the Lord's anointed because you cannot establish these things as fact. How would you feel if someone accused your father of having sex with multiple women without any proof to establish it? How would you feel if someone accused Russell M Nelson of those things without proof? Don't give me the argument that if God commands it then it's okay. You're making assumptions and that whole premise is something Joseph never actually taught, it comes from a letter that John C Bennett published claiming it to be Joseph. Believe it or not, in my heart I am concerned for your welfare and your soul, because speaking evil of the Lord's anointed is a dire sin. Do you really want to stand in Joseph's presence and state to his face the things you are now accusing him of? I'm sorry to be so harsh, but you should look in the mirror and ask yourself am I speaking truth about the Lord's anointed? The angel Nephi said that Joseph's name would be spoken both Good and Evil. I'm trying to help you to speak good of the man. To call the man a liar, an adulterer, a ployanderer, and a man willing to sleep with young girls, what worse can you say other than to call him a murderer or child molester?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Watchman,

    Is your argument is that simply because Joseph did something or had the right, power, or authority to do something that means that Brigham who usurped the authority of the church simply has that right as well? Elijah said that Elisha would have the mantle fall on him if Heaven did it. Elijah couldn't give him the power, Heaven had to give him the mantle. Brigham used every Earthly means to wrest control of the church. Emma Smith was right when she said without Joseph there is no church. Brigham hated Emma because she opposed his overthrow of the church. He changed everything in the church, he overthrew the governance of the church, he changed the ordinances, he instituted doctrines that find no tie to Joseph Smith. You keep stating these things that he obviously got these things from Joseph Smith, but you offered no proof. Joseph had the right to choose his successor. He chose Hyrum. There is considerable evidence that he also chose Samuel, and that he also anointed his son Joseph Smith III. Brigham knew these things and didn't care. The kingship that Joseph was exercising was not in any way like the kingship that Brigham Young exercised. We don't really know much about the kingship that Joseph Smith exercised, but it most likely would look more like King Benjamin. Again Brigham Young resembled very closely King Noah. There's a reason why I believe that the Book of Mormon has those stories by the way.

    Just because Brigham heard something from Joseph didn't mean that he understood it, or that he had the right to practice it. Whatever it was. Brigham admitted on number of occasions during his life he had never seen an angel never seen the Lord and that if he lived as long as Moses that he might have that privilege. He didn't live that long. He never enjoyed the revelations of Heaven. He called himself a Yankee guesser, he called himself an apostle of Joseph. And yet he governed like a tyrannical King.

    We have the Book of Mormon for a reason because it tells us of the sad state of our day. It says awake to our awful situation. Our awful situation was and is that after the two prophets that the Lord raised up, Joseph and Hyrum, were murdered by a conspiracy of their followers, the church fell into the hands of wicked men. The Book of Mormon prophesies about this, see 3rd Nephi 16 20 and 21. See 2nd Nephi 28. See Mormon chapter 8. See the story of the zoramites, see the story of King Noah and abinadi. See the stories the Be more. All of those things have to do with the LDS church today and the various branches that broke off from original Mormonism.

    I beg you to stop apologizing for the institution and consider the sources of your accusations before you make them. I used to do the same thing. I'm ashamed of it. I don't care how many Richard bushman's, D Michael Quinn's, Brian Hales, or LDS Apostles Proclaim these things, they can't back it up with actual facts.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Watchman,

    It is a provable fact and I can provide you with extensive sourcing, that the revisionist history started with Brigham Young and has continued in the LDS church and the various branches of Mormonism up to today. I and a growing number of other people are in the process of uncovering what actually happened based on the historical record, not based on fables, hearsay, slander, myth. I have many ancestors who go back to the very beginning of the church. I'm the great great great grandson of erastus snow, I have eight great great great grandfather's who had multiple wives as many as 16. I care more for the truth than I do for my traditions, my ancestry, and the institution that I was raised in. As Joseph so often pointed out, Mormonism is truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeremy, when will your pdf from your talk at the Joseph Smith conference be available. You did a great job in presenting it, as Denver said, via a fire hose. I am quite looking forward to it. Jack

      Delete
  31. I'm truly baffled that I'm being accused of being a Joseph Smith accuser.

    Can someone please point out where I have accused Joseph Smith of wrong doing?

    I have done nothing of the sort. I have stated that Joseph Smith was a righteous and moral man who loved his wife Emma dearly. He was commanded by God to do enter plural marriage against his will, much like Abraham was asked to kill his son Isaac.

    Both of these righteous men had learned to listen to the voice of God no matter what He told them to do. They proved this by passing the Abrahamic test that was designed specifically for them.

    I would gladly tell Joseph that I believed he was a righteous man who passed his Abrahamic test and will therefore inherit the same glory as Abraham.

    How anyone can seriously believe that by saying this I am a Joseph Smith accuser is beyond me.

    Now perhaps I am defending Brigham a bit and that is rubbing some of you the wrong way, because it is obvious that in this circle hating a bashing Brigham Young is the trend.

    So let me clarify my position on Brigham Young.

    Brigham Young was called by revelation to be an apostle of Jesus Christ and preach his gospel. He did this with power in England.

    He also sacrificed a great deal for the gospel's sake in the early years of the church.

    He was called by God to be the president of the quorum of the 12 apostles.

    In Nauvoo he was told by revelation that the Lord had accepted his sacrifice and that he was no longer required to travel preaching the gospel.

    Yet Brigham retained his office as president of the quorum of the 12.

    Brigham was loyal to Joseph Smith. He was part of Joseph's inner circle. He was a member of the council of fifty. He and the other 12 apostles were groomed by Joseph Smith to take over the leadership of the church (whether or not Joseph and the 12 knew this was happening at the time is unclear).

    Brigham received his endowments and even his second anointing by Joseph Smith.

    There is zero, and I repeat zero, evidence that Brigham Young conspired behind Joseph's back to take over the church, let alone have him killed. To insinuate that he did is truly speaking evil of the dead.

    After Joseph died there was a succession crisis.

    Brigham (together with the quorum of the 12) was called by common consent to lead the church.

    You can argue that the saints were duped. I would argue that they were led by the spirit of revelation to select Brigham.

    Brigham Young worked hard to led the church west. He worked hard to keep the saints faithful and righteous.

    Now of course he wasn't perfect. He never claimed to be.

    There are things he said and did that don't sit well with me either.

    The church, slowly drifted into apostasy beginning in the days of Brigham Young. He fought it on one hand, but also led it along on the other.

    He did make changes that I believe were wrong.

    I don't believe he was an adulterer and certainly not a murderer.

    I would take Brigham over the current leadership of the church every day of the week. At least Brigham gave it to you straight and didn't feed you politically correct propaganda and tell you that all is well in Zion. He told you to repent, do your duty, and be faithful to God or you would go to hell. The church woukd be much better off if Brother Brigham were still around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watchman,

      I appreciate your presence here. Echo chambers are boring and often fail to stimulate. So welcome.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position on Joseph stands or falls with a certain keystone. That keystone is the unscriptural assertion that Joseph's individual Abrahamic test was to practice polygamy, and that secretly. You liken that test to the command to kill your own son, as Abraham was commanded. Will you stand by that statement, and reply to this request for clarification by saying that it would be a daunting "sacrifice" for you to be required by God to engage in lots of "authorized" sex with different women, and that such a "sacrifice" equates somehow to plunging a knife into the heart of your son? That is what you are attempting to equate Joseph's test to, isn't it?

      As for your opinion about Brigham being a good guy essentially, RFM does a great job of laying out in lawyerly detail the corruption of Brigham and his fellow apostolic conspirators in the aftermath of the martyrdom. It's a valuable presentation that flows from beginning to end.

      Perhaps this audio may convince you that Brigham was by no means a virtuous and righteous man, albeit he was a successful leader in many ways by gentile standards.

      https://radiofreemormon.org/2017/07/radio-free-mormon-014-apostolic-coup-d-etat/

      Delete
    2. Underdog2,

      The comparison between Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and Joseph's practice of plural marriage is straight from D&C 132, so it is in the scriptures.

      I may have misspoke a little when I said that this test was individualized just for Joseph Smith. It appears others were given a similar test.

      I think in the hypersexualized society we live in it is hard to see that Joseph secretly practicing plural marriage and Abraham murdering his son would be equally tempting.

      To a pure and righteous man who had put off the natural man either act would be repulsive.

      I remind you that Denver, a very well read and smart lawyer who knows the scriptures inside and out, originally had this exact same argument, so why you insist that it is ridiculous is puzzling.

      RFM has zero accountability in my book. He is a liberal apostate who supports gay marriage in the church.

      I don't trust a word that comes from the tongue of that snake.

      Delete
    3. I meant to say that RFM has zero credibility not accountability.

      Delete
    4. Watchman,

      Is it puzzling that someone can change his mind? I rejoice in the fact that here is an example that I can point to where Denver got it wrong, apparently.

      The easiest explanation as to how he got it wrong is the thing we are all beset by which is called confirmation bias. He's no exception. He likely had never considered the possibility of the decades-long coordinated misinformation campaign against Joseph Smith back in pre 2011. That type of conspiracy sort of boggles the mind, to be honest with you. Brigham Young never could have envisioned the age of the internet information age. The genie has been let out of the bottle and there is no going back.

      Imagine the evil that you could accomplish if you had complete control of the church's historical records and then you could bribe and intimidate witnesses to give basically unlimited false testimonies against Joseph Smith. That's what Brigham Young did.

      I don't agree with some of Radio Free Mormon material, but like Joseph Smith, I try to keep an open mind and find truth from all sources and definitely accept truth from any source. Mormonism embraces all truth, no matter where it is found. Right?

      So since you and I may be in agreement about Radio Free Mormon's liberal tendencies, and since I have vetted the podcast I am recommending to you, perhaps, for my sake, you will give it a listen?

      And for the record, there is a typo error above somewhere, where I said men instead of women.

      Delete
  32. LDS Watchman,

    You say " Polygamy is only a whoredom when God forbids it."

    That statement can only be made with a severe and complete ignorance of "God". God, by His very image and nature, perpetually testifies against it. The introduction of the man Jesus Christ into this world IS God's testimony of this very subject.

    You said earlier "The Truth is what I'm after".

    Well the Truth about Joseph Smith and what he knew and understood about God, along with his regard for Emma, will be brought to light relatively soon. I say brought to light, because we already have the Truth in our scriptures and words from Joseph, but simply refuse to look or see. You will then get to prove your statement "The Truth is what I'm after" as authentic or not.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jay,

      Can you provide any scriptures which show that "God, by His very image and nature, perpetually testifies against it [polygamy]"?

      I can show quite a few that show that God has at times approved polygamy.

      There is not one scripture of which I am aware that condemns polygamy in all cases. The closest one is in Jacob 2, but even that one leaves the door open for God to command it.

      Delete
    2. LDS Watchman,

      I could provide hundreds, but like I said, soon. The amount of material is well beyond the scope of a blog response, and must be made more public.

      But since you asked and are here to speak evil of Joseph Smith, I'll share but one scripture using that prophet's own words.

      Teachings and Commandments, Joseph Smith History Part 2, 3-6

      "In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself, What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or are they all wrong together? And if any one of them be right, which is it? And how shall I know it? While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse [Epistle of Jacob 1:2], which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did. For how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, would never know, for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs — that is, ask of God. I at last came to the determination to ask of God, concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally and not upbraid, I might venture. So in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties, I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally." ...

      Delete
    3. Jay,

      You'll have to explain what you're getting at.

      I don't have a clue.

      Can you please show me how I'm speaking evil of Joseph Smith?

      I haven't said one bad thing about him, but have continually defended his character.

      Delete
    4. Watchman,

      It's well documented that Joseph proclaimed against polygamy by his words and deeds, and that he denied practicing it and taught it was an abomination. Was he lying or telling the truth when he said or did these things? Was he deceiving the saints or was he not?

      He didn't leave you room for so-called nuanced answers. Either he was guilty of the very sins he railed against and denied committing, which makes him a base hypocrite and deceiver, or he was not.

      If you call him a liar, then you are indeed speaking evil of Joseph Smith.

      Further, if you insist God commanded him to lie, deceive, commit adultery, and become a sexual predator, you graduate to speaking evil of God.

      All in the name of being RIGHT about your insistence that, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, Joseph had to have been guilty.

      It begins to reek of a lust for polygamy. I've encountered plenty of men who really like the idea of polygamy and therefore insist it MUST be right and good when God commands it. The logical next step, seen all too often, is "Hey, guess what! God commanded ME!"

      What if the image of God really is One Man and One Woman, and the scriptural indications to the contrary were added by lustful men who want to dominate women, treat them as property, and consume their lusts upon them. As you know, the first instance of polygamy in scripture occurred among Cain's wicked descendants...

      At this point, the best possible thing you could be is wrong.

      Delete
    5. Adrian,

      As I have tried to explain it is not a matter of Joseph being "guilty" or "innocent" of deceiving the Saints.

      Abraham was told by God to use deception when it came to Sarah his wife. He lied and said she was his sister and even allowed other men to take her as their wife.

      After killing a defenseless Laban in the dark of night, Nephi used deception to get the brass plates from Zoram.

      Jacob used deception twice to get Esau'a birthright and blessing. Later he used deception to gain more flocks from his father-in-law.

      I can produce more examples like these, but chose these because these three men were some of the most righteous who ever lived.

      God judges differently than we do.

      Again, if God commanded Joseph to secretly practice and introduce plural marriage while publicly condemning and fighting unauthorized plural marriage and denying he had more than one wife (which was technically true since Emma was his only legal wife), then he was not guilty of anything.

      Just like the above three righteous men would not be guilty of what would otherwise be serious sin.

      It would have been an incredibly difficult test for him, though.

      Again, this is more or less what Denver taught both before and after he claimed to have had his calling and election made sure, so are you suggesting that he was an accuser of Joseph Smith and lusting after polygamy as you have accused me of?

      I find it hard to believe that he could have been slandering the Lord's anointed seer while simultaneously lusting after more spiritual wives and at the same time received his calling and election made sure by receiving the second comforter.

      So which is it? Is your accusation against me completely unfounded or are you pulling the rug out from Denver's claims to have received the second comforter?

      Wouldn't Denver have been speaking evil of God at the same time he received the second comforter? How is that possible?

      Or are you somehow suggesting that Denver could hold the same views I do, while still defending Joseph's honor and not lusting after spiritual wives and speaking evil of God but I can't?

      Lastly, please show me one scripture that proves that God's law is strictly monogamy in all cases?

      You won't find one.

      Delete
    6. LDS Watchman,

      The scripture was too long and I posted in two parts, but the second part, and the most important, didn't get posted. So I'll try again..

      "After I had retired into the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me and had such astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction — not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world who had such a marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being — just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me, I saw two personages (whose brightness and glory defy all description) standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said (pointing to the other), This is my beloved Son; hear him.
      My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner therefore did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt, that, They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof. He again forbade me to join with any of them, and many other things did he say unto me which I cannot write at this time.
      When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength, but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fire piece, Mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, Never mind, all is well; I am well enough off. I then told my mother, I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true."

      Delete
    7. Anonymous Watchman:

      All the cases you cite of deception were private, personal, necessary for the purposes of God, and not fully explained.

      These aren't anywhere or in any way close to Joseph publicly teaching thousands of saints and canonizing two scriptural statements, soliciting affidavits, statements from the relief society, and publicly denying polygamy AS A MATTER OF DOCTRINE if it was, in fact, as Brigham taught, absolutely necessary for exaltation.

      You are saying Joseph taught false doctrine, making him a false prophet. That's very different than Nephi using a ruse to get the plates from Zoram, or Jacob (who had been properly, legally chosen by his mother whose right it was to choose) using a ruse to obtain the birthright.

      These are not in any way comparable. Joseph taught one thing, Brigham taught the opposite. One of them was wrong.

      I realize you will blame it all on God, who allegedly told Joseph to take other women, told Joseph to deceive Emma, told Joseph to teach false doctrine and mislead thousands of believers, and who ,secretly sanctions polygamy for certain people, like Brigham who once married 4 women in a single day. It's an interesting God you've dreamed up for yourself.

      Delete
    8. Well, I guess Denver dreamed up the same God I have dreamed up for myself at the time he declared that the same God I believe in appeared to him and made his calling and election sure.

      Hard to believe a man in such a state of delusion could have had his calling and election made sure, but I guess with God all things are possible.

      Except of course commanding Joseph to secretly practice plural marriage while fighting it at the same time. That is apparently impossible for God.

      The same God mind you who used the polygamist Gideon to save Israel from the Midianites, or who declared that David, who already had at least two wives at that point, was a man after his own heart. This same God also blessed Abraham, who had taken Hagar as a second wife and Moses who had taken an Ethiopian woman as a second wife.

      You'll have to forgive me for believing in the God of the scriptures, whose ways are not our ways, who works in mysterious ways, and whose wisdom is foolishness to the world.

      This same God also ordered the wholesale slaughter of every man, women, and child in several cities in Canaan. This same God cursed an entire race and prohibited them from having the priesthood. He then cursed a second race with a skin of darkness so that they would not be appealing to the pure white race.

      This same God has promised to return to earth wearing a red robe symbolizing that he has killed all of the wicked and died his garments with their blood in his great vengeance and fury.

      This same God placed the man before the women in the garden of Eden.

      The God I believe in does not fit the wicked and corrupted 21st century morals and standards. I believe in the one true God, the God of Israel, and make no excuses for it.

      What God do you believe in?

      Delete
  33. I have been watching this back and forth discussion of Joseph was a polygamist or Joseph only had one wife. The doctrine and covenants discuss in Section 38 that there were those in secret chambers that sought the life of the Prophet. Did this secret chamber kill Joseph and Hyrum? Who were members of this chamber? The chamber operated within the Church. You need to read a book on Amazon called "The Secret Chamber". It outlines much of what really happened in the day of the Prophet Joseph Smith and who his enemies within the LDS Church.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Underdog2,

    I'm sorry that it bothers you that I keep bringing up Denver's previous teachings.

    My point in using them is not to win the argument.

    The point is that the man all of you believe is a prophet once held the same views I did and he held these views after he claimed to have had his calling and election made sure.

    So obviously, if Denver could have his calling and election made sure while "accusing Joseph of being an adulterer" as you guys have accused me of, then believing that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage as an Abrahamic test is not a problem in God's eyes.

    Brian Hales, the number one LDS expert on plural marriage has taken Denver's recent changed teachings on plural marriage to task.

    Take a look for yourself.

    http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/response-to-denver-snuffer/

    https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-response-to-denver-snuffers-essay-on-plural-marriage-adoption-and-the-supposed-falling-away-of-the-church-part-1-ignoring-inconvenient-evidence/

    Truth is what I'm after. I do not follow the opinions of man.

    The problem is that you believe Denver speaks for God and that his most recent teachings are the truth.

    Because of this you are forced to accept and believe whatever he says, even of it contradicts the scriptures and reality.

    I, on the other hand, do not believe Denver speaks for God and that everything he teaches is truth.

    I look at what he says from time to time. If what he says can be supported by the scriptures and actual history I accept that it might be true.

    If, on the other hand, it is obvious right from the get go that what he is saying contradicts the scriptures and history I reject it.

    Simple as that.

    The Savior said that the truth will set you free.

    Nephi warned us not to put our trust in man or the arm of flesh.

    We are told to hold fats to the iron rod (the word of God in the scriptures).

    I try very hard to live by this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watchman,

      To me, the "case closed" evidence about Brigham being corrupt can be articulated by the fact that he labored to wrest control from the many to the few, even himself.

      Being that you're studied on the matter, do you agree that he personally assaulted the checks on power that Joseph put up (and it's scriptural, DC 107) to prevent lusts for power being carried out?

      Do you agree that the equality of the many, was replaced with the dictatorship of one? RFM carefully outlines these historical facts, all provable, and even outlined in scripture. Which facts about this centralization of power do you want to rebut?

      If you have no rebuttal, then this evidence alone convicts Brigham of treachery against the principles of equality that spring forth from a pure and just Mind. Brigham lusted after power, and his actions clearly prove what he was all about.

      You: "The point is that the man all of you believe is a prophet once held the same views I did and he held these views after he claimed to have had his calling and election made sure."

      Having one's calling and election made sure guarantees no perfect understanding, omniscience, or unimpeachable wisdom, does it? Does C&E abrogate the need to "study it out in yours" before asking God to reveal the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost? Oliver was chastised for his methodology. No, the methodology is still there.

      Denver, and the rest of us, must still walk by faith, we must still struggle in this empire of lies and deceit, with the hope and goal of discerning truth.

      The fact that you are still arguing your belief that being a TRUE prophet somehow makes you inerrant is a significant point.

      Such a belief is a remnant of Brigham Young (LDS Branch) Mormonism. You are a victim. Most here were. Denver was.

      One of the greatest miracles of Satan, in my view, is this: Most intelligent, active, faithful Mormon members of the faith who were heavily engaged in missionary work ALL (I've not met an exception) MIRACULOUSLY got this wrong...they believed this logic was flawless up until the last few years..."if the BoM is true, then Jesus lives, Joseph was a true prophet, and the Church is true (we're led by a true prophet today)." That's LDS missionary technique 101. It's the #1 tool to convince people to be baptized into the Church.

      The trouble is, it's a logical fallacy!

      I used this "flawless" logic easily over a thousand times and not ONCE (not.one.time) did somebody wiser than me correct the false logic!!! It wasn't a matter of not being courageous to correct me. It's that people couldn't/ didn't see the truth. RFM, a big-time apologist for the Church years ago, and trained in the skills of logic from law school (as was Denver), didn't figure it out either.

      I am truly amazed at how this logical fallacy could endure for decades. How?? It's as if Satan was granted power over the world groaning in sin to perform a global mind trick where he could deceive the people. It's like a sleight-of-hand trick where really it's not hard to see the object moving in plain view from hand to pocket (or wherever) but NOBODY was ever able to see the deception until just recently. Something has happened. And all signs point to the arrival of a true prophet on the scene to rend that veil that Satan had used to cover the inhabitants of the earth with.

      (part 2 next)

      Delete
    2. (part 2)

      My point is this: you are so steeped in false LDS tradition that "the prophet can't lead us astray" that even when I use plain language that Denver isn't right about everything and makes errors (with his beliefs on polygamy being an example) to rebut your unbelief, you come back a 3rd time incredulous, not being able to accept that Denver could be a prophet if he was wrong about polygamy in the past.

      Is this your hangup?

      You said, "So obviously, if Denver could have his calling and election made sure while "accusing Joseph of being an adulterer" as you guys have accused me of, then believing that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage as an Abrahamic test is not a problem in God's eyes."

      See? You're trying to justify a carnal argument for "approved" sex with lots of women not your wife by saying Denver isn't inerrant because he's had his C&E made sure. Again, these are two SEPARATE things. They're independent of each other. The question of Denver's C&E has nothing to do with Joseph practicing or not practicing polygamy. Agreed?

      Delete
    3. Underdog2,

      Not really sure what's happening here. Either we're not speaking the same language and somehow misunderstanding each other, or no matter what I say you will find some reason to accuse me of something.

      By jumping into the fact that most LDS have put their blind trust in those they sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators you are just changing the subject.

      I do not believe that a prophet is infallible and cannot err in doctrine. Joseph Smith said that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. If he gives his private opinion about something, it could be wrong.

      As much as you'd like to make Denver claiming to have had his calling and election made sure prior to, and at the same time as, he defended Joseph's practice of plural marriage in a nearly identical manner as I am a non issue, it is a huge issue.

      Could Denver have been wrong about doctrine and history after having had his calling and election made sure? Yes he could have.

      However, could he have had his calling and election made sure while defending and supporting adultery and lies? What about while he was speaking evil of the Lord's anointed and even speaking evil of God as Adrian has suggested?

      I say no. What do you say?

      If you agree that the answer is no, then defending the stance that Joseph secretly practiced and introduced plural marriage as a commandment of the Lord is not a sin that would prohibit one from having one's calling and election made sure.

      I'm not saying that Denver's claim to have had his calling and election made sure has anything to do with whether or not Joseph practiced plural marriage.

      Again, what I'm saying is that if you accept Denver's claims that he had his calling and election made sure, then you must also accept that defending the belief that Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a sin and does not constitute lusting after sex with women besides one's wife or falsely accusing the Lord's anointed.

      Does this make sense now?

      Now of course if Denver was deceived or lied about having his calling and election made sure then then this is all a mute point.

      Since I know you believe Denver's claims, the point I'm making should matter to you.

      I will state for the record that I am not defending that Joseph practiced plural marriage because I have a desire for more wives.

      Furthermore, at this point in my spiritual progression I do not believe for a second that God would entrust with more wives and children to care for, nor am I to a point where I believe God would test me with something like that, so it is a mute point.

      Lastly, if you want to keep on bashing Brigham, go right ahead. David wouldn't bash Saul, no matter how wicked Saul had become. David had respect for the calling God had given Saul. I have the same respect for Brigham Young and the calling the Lord gave him. I do not defend everything he said or did. I have already stated that I believe that he both fought against the apostasy and helped it along at the same time. How much of that was Brigham's fault, only God knows.

      I am grateful for the good things he did and will praise him for that. Brigham was a complex man and I believe that only the Lord knows his heart and is worthy to judge him. We can judge some of his actions, perhaps, that is if we are willing to judge them objectively and not with 21st century morality bias. However, we have no right to judge his character or speak evil of him.

      Didn't Jesus warn us about judging others, lest we judge them falsely, as we will be judged with the same judgement we judge others by?

      The same thing goes for your judgement of me. Will you continue to judge me of having a heart filled with lust and accusation, without knowing my heart, just because I am sincerely defending what I belief is the truth and you don't agree with it?

      You haven't been able to show me from the scriptures that I am in error, so why continue to accuse me?




      Delete
    4. Watchman,

      You: ...what I'm saying is that if you accept Denver's claims that he had his calling and election made sure, then you must also accept that defending the belief that Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a sin and does not constitute lusting after sex with women besides one's wife or falsely accusing the Lord's anointed.

      Does this make sense now?

      Me: Yes it does. I agree with your statement above.

      I don't think there's a point to judge you or accuse you, nor is that wise or needed.

      Is it possible Denver was deceived about Joseph's practicing or not practicing polygamy pre and post Denver's C&E?

      Yes, I think so.

      I personally cannot buy that God would require secret sex with women not your wife.

      That sounds like Satan's idea, not God's.

      Do you agree on this stand-alone point?

      Delete
    5. Underdog2,

      We seem to finally be getting somewhere. That's great.

      I fully agree that God requiring a man to have sex with women who are not his wife is absolutely Satan's idea and not God's.

      In fact I would suggest that requiring a man to marry women besides his wife and then having sex with them, at the expense of hurting his dear wife certainly sounds like Satan's idea, too.

      Having said that, God requiring a man to murder his son on an altar sure sounds like Satan's idea and not God's to me, too.

      Wouldn't you agree?

      Delete
  35. Underdog2,

    I have listened to that podcast by RFM. I don't agree with the narrative he presents.

    The evidence he presents is extremely one-sided. He basically handpicked evidence that supported his preconceived that Brigham Young was evil and then puts the worst possible spin on it, without addressing any counter position.

    I just can't take him seriously. Anti-Mormons try to pull the same garbage on Joseph Smith.

    RFM is actually an anti-Mormon in my book.

    You are grasping at straws with your insinuations against Brigham.

    There is no evidence of this conspiracy you claim happened.

    Brigham oversaw how the compilation of the history. He did order a few minor changes to it.

    To say that the history has been doctored and that Brigham Young was intentionally peddling some false narrative has no basis in fact.

    Considering the tiny amount of changes that were made to the history I chalk it off to Brigham Young sincerely believing that those changes were an improvement and more accurately presented what happened and what Joseph had meant when he said such and such.

    I don't see the intent to deceive that you do apparently.

    I certainly see no whole sale conspiracy.

    Funny how no evidence of such a conspiracy has actually been presented here, just some sweeping accusations and insinuations.

    Just because you want to believe something that doesn't make it true.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous Watchman,

    In response to my question, you've clearly declared what you believe about God, and in turn, what you think God expects of us. This, more than anything, reveals what is in your heart.

    In this thread, you've also stated, many times, that Denver Snuffer claims to have had his calling and election made sure. You've stated it enough times as a given that it has simply become part of the conversation. People accept it as truth through sheer repetition. Kind of like how people accept as truth the idea that Joseph Smith was secretly practicing polygamy and lying about it.

    Yet, if you care to look, Denver has never declared anywhere that his calling and election were made sure. That's something you made up, and repeated enough to be believed. If you go look at the record, you'll find it's not there. (You have assumed receiving the Second Comforter and having your calling and election made sure are the same thing. They are not. This was an assumption on your part.)

    Similarly, if you look at the contemporary record, meaning all first-hand evidence while Joseph Smith was alive, you simply can't find evidence that he was practicing polygamy or lying about it. Every shred of that came about after he was dead--usually decades after.

    This is an excellent illustration of the sorts of processes that invented the Joseph Polygamy myth and got it so ingrained as fact that folks like you will spend hours and hours claiming it is true, even in the face of the actual evidence provided by the likes of Jeremy, who has actually taken the time to study the original documents.

    If you can make demonstrably false, assumption-based, statements about someone who is still alive and whose record is readily available, you can, and do, surely do the same with Joseph Smith.

    I believe at this point, this thread has run its course, and adds nothing profitable, so I'm going to close it down. Thanks to all who have participated. Other comments that don't continue this argument will be welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "The massive building, great and spacious though it is, floats precariously in the air, in much the same way that bricks don’t" Nice channeling of Douglas Adams. : )

    ReplyDelete
  38. Adrian, I certainly agree that all is not well in the LDS Zion.

    However, who should I trust? Should I not trust that the Lord will bring forth more of His Word after Joseph died? So I can "hold to the rod" as Nephi showed us?

    Or was the gift of Word of the Lord Oracles taken again from the earth after the Prophet Joseph died?

    Am I to believe that after taking away the gift of revelation from the earth after having restored it, the Lord a century later inspired a lawyer to figure everything out for us? (Speaking of Snuffer)

    You apparently reject D&C 136. And all other Oracles by Brigham. And you then must reject the Oracles of John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and other early Mormons.

    Instead you want us to "hold to the rod" of what a lawyer and his friends have figured out.

    I don't buy it.

    ★ Salvation cannot come without revelation; it is in vain for anyone to minister without it (August 8, 1839).

    ★ Where there is a prophet, a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives His oracles, there is the Kingdom of God; and where the oracles of God are not, there the Kingdom of God is not (January 22, 1843).

    ★ Jesus in his teaching says, “Upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What rock? Revelation (January 22, 1843).

    ★ A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge; for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge — and consequently more power — than many men who are on the earth. Hence, it needs revelation to assist us and give us knowledge of the things of God (April 10, 1844).

    ★ We must have revelations then, and we can see that the doctrine of revelation, as far, transcends the doctrine of no revelation, as knowledge is above ignorance; for one truth revealed from heaven is worth all the sectarian notions in existence (March 10, 1844).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George,

      Your first question was the most important: "However, who should I trust?"

      The Lord gave us the answer: "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits."

      You've named Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilfred Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow as having oracles. Therefore you should have plenty to use to know whether to trust them. In particular, you might look at which of their teachings agree with verifiable teachings of Joseph Smith and which were later reversed by later “prophets”.

      You also have available to you thousands of pages, audio recordings, video recordings, and blog posts, totaling millions of words by “the lawyer” whom you obviously prefer to cite by occupation rather than name.

      Therefore, with all these materials available to you from a variety of sources, it is given to you to make the call. You are accountable and left without excuse. Don’t get it wrong. And whatever you do, don’t substitute another standard for the one Christ gave. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

      Delete
    2. What about Orson Hyde? Was this revelation he claimed all of the Twelve received a true revelation?

      This is from JD 8:233-234

      "In the month of February, 1848, the Twelve Apostles met at Hyde Park, Pottawattamie County, Iowa, where a small Branch of the Church was established; and I must say that I feel not a little proud of the circumstance, and also very thankful, on account of its happening in my own little retired and sequestered hamlet, bearing my own name.

      We were in prayer and council, communing together; and what took place on that occasion? The voice of God came from on high, and spake to the Council. Every latent feeling was aroused, and every heart melted. What did it say unto us?

      "Let my servant Brigham step forth and receive the full power of the presiding Priesthood in my Church and kingdom."

      This was the voice of the Almighty unto us at Council Bluffs, before I removed to what was called Kanesville.

      It has been said by some that Brigham was appointed by the people, and not by the voice of God. I do not know that this testimony has often, if ever, been given to the masses of the people before; but I am one that was present, and there are others here that were also present on that occasion, and did hear and feel the voice from heaven, and we were filled with the power of God.

      This is my testimony; these are my declarations unto the Saints—unto the members of the kingdom of God in the last days, and to all people."

      Link https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_8/Testimonies_of_the_Truth

      Delete
    3. Hello Fake George Washington,

      Interesting that you would choose Orson Hyde for the oracle test. He is known to be tremendously unreliable, given to embellishment, and at times, a bald-faced liar.

      For example, he wrote two elaborate personal reminiscences of the transfiguration of Brigham Young, appearing as Joseph Smith in Nauvoo on August 8, 1844. But he was not in Nauvoo on the 8th, and in fact did not arrive there until the 13th of that month. The stories he told about witnessing Brigham’s transfiguration were complete fabrications, told decades after the fact.

      He is also known for manufacturing other spurious historical recollections, like, “Joseph the Prophet … said, 'Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray; and as long as you keep with the majority you are sure to enter the celestial kingdom.’” This statement is unscriptural and cannot be attributed to Joseph at all. He “quoted” Joseph Smith word for word 26 years after Joseph died, without any written record, which is absurd on its face.

      Orson Hyde was twice removed from the Quorum of the Twelve and once excommunicated while Joseph Smith was alive. He also signed the affidavit against Joseph Smith that resulted in Joseph’s imprisonment in Liberty Jail and contributed to the Mormon War of 1838. He bore false witness against Joseph.

      Regarding the statement you brought up, though Hyde was “proud” to have the town named after him, his recollection has not been corroborated by any other source or apostle who was present at the time. You also left out the part of the story where the ground shook and people came running in fear because all the houses shook at God’s voice, and everyone wondered what happened. But the poor, confused masses were calmed by Brigham Young who told them not to fear, it was just the voice of God whispering to his chosen leaders. (Incidentally, the apostles didn't feel the shaking. Only the unwashed masses felt that.)

      Great story and all. It was investigated by Tullidge, who asked both Wilford Woodruff and Orson Pratt, after finding no such story in Woodruff’s extensive journal. They both denied the event ever happened. Further, Woodruff’s journal showed Brigham Young had already had himself voted president of the church in 1847, prior to this alleged event.

      After Hyde made up this story, Brigham Young repeated and embellished it further. But no other apostle ever verified it. When it was published that Woodruff and Pratt both denied it, neither of them made any opposition to the publication of their denial.

      Anyway…I’ll leave the rest of the homework to you. I’ll simply close with an examination of the statement itself: God supposedly offered Brigham the full “power” of the “presiding priesthood” in his “church and kingdom.” There are a number of doctrinal problems with these statements. Whoever said it obviously did not know what the kingdom of God is, and equated it with the church, while equating "priesthood" with power to “preside.” Sorry, but God didn’t say those things. Hyde made them up, as he made up other “faith promoting” events and quotes to bolster Brigham Young’s position.

      Delete
    4. Hey, while we're enjoying the entertainment of watching Orson kiss Brigham's backside, let's continue with the same talk:

      On the 6th day of April following, at our Annual Conference, held in the Log Tabernacle at Kanesville, the propriety of choosing a man to preside over the Church was investigated. In a very few minutes it was agreed to, and Brigham Young was chosen to fill that place without a dissenting voice, the people not knowing that there had been any revelation touching the matter. They ignorantly seconded the voice of the Lord from on high in his appointment. (Voice from the stand: "That is Vox Dei, vox populi.") Yes, the voice of God was the voice of the people. Brigham went right ahead, silently, to do the work of the Lord, and to feed his sheep, and take care of them like a faithful shepherd, leaving all vain aspirants to quarrel and contend about lineal descent, right, power, and authority.

      Some persons say that Brigham does not give revelations as did Joseph Smith. But let me tell you, that Brigham's voice has been the voice of God from the time he was chosen to preside, and even before. Who that has heard him speak, or that has read his testimonies, or that is acquainted with his instructions, does not know that God is with him? Who does not know, Jew or Gentile, that has come in contact with his policy, that he possesses a power with which they are unable to compete. He possesses skill, wisdom, and power that trouble wise men and rulers. God will make him a greater terror to nations than he ever has been.

      Delete
    5. @George Washington -

      Adrian is really only interested in pushing his agenda, which is that the world should follow Denver Snuffer the latest of the Lord's "Prophets". Likewise, he's using the same threats the LDS Church uses to get people to comply. ("You are accountable and left without excuse. Don’t get it wrong.")

      Classy.

      Sadly, you're probably going to have to figure things out on your own, or with your own family because you probably won't find anything here other than more claims to follow a new prophet that the Lord has allegedly provided. Since the "false prophets" claim can be thrown to either side, I've just decided that I have to figure it out on my own.

      You're unlikely to find the fullness of truth HERE or in the LDS Church.

      And, yes, trust me, it sucks, but that seems to be life as it is at the time.

      Delete
    6. "Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becomes every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor. Therefore, they are left without excuse and their sins are upon their own heads. He that seeks me early shall find me, and shall not be forsaken."

      Classy.

      Delete
  39. Part 1: I know the thread has been closed, and don’t intend to open up that can of worms again, but I thought it useful to have some more context to Denver’s writings on polygamy.

    The case with Denver’s position on D&C 132 has a history including him saying he didn’t think through the issue of polygamy much before (reference needed…someone can look it up, I just remember from being there online when he said it). And understanding D&C 132 is treated as a problematic issue with Denver giving one possible reconciliation with the church’s position in his blog posts (see D&C 132 posts for the tone of writing).

    It is one thing to offer an apologetic explanation to try and be useful than it is to state belief in a position and have faith in it. When more evidence came out, or when it seems Denver looked into the historical record more deeply, Denver’s tone switched from imperfect scholarly analysis to stated belief in Joseph Smith not being a deceiver and not being a polygamist. The arc from analysis to conviction is palpably obvious in Denver’s writings and presentations.

    Saying something is the most accurate history of the LDS religion is to include all the caveats that imperfect historical analysis has, even if the Book of Mormon is used as a prophetic tool to inform that history. In PTHG, Denver uses the historical approach but adds one prophetic tool to the analysis. The Book of Mormon speaks only briefly on polygamy. In the polygamy chapter (chapter 6), Denver uses mainly D&C 132 with an imperfect historical analysis approach of the then-current evidence.

    Before the provenance of D&C 132 was called into question, it is interesting to note how Denver handled the resources then available. First, in the beginning of the chapter, he immediately prefaces everything he says with “The entire discussion within the revelation about ‘obeying the law once it is revealed’ is referring only of marriage between a man and one woman” (147). Then, the analysis proceeds on the assumption that D&C 132 and other later anecdotal evidence is accurate. It is not necessary to question them for Denver’s stated purposes for the text. With those assumptions, Denver proceeds to build a case for his only main point with the chapter: “Brigham Young would later conflate [the concepts of eternal marriage and the idea of plural wives], making plural marriage a required part of eternal marriage itself. In the first phase of Mormonism, this practice was secret, closely guarded, and involved only a handful of the trusted inner circle. No public teaching, or general practice of plural marriage was begun. Things changed dramatically in the second phase” (160).

    ReplyDelete
  40. Part 2: Denver does say, “Even though plural marriage was lived in secret, and denied publicly, as a subplot, it had significant effects on early Mormonism” (154), so he does concede to a public denial which infers deception. However, regarding what was done in private, Denver focuses on evidence that suggests that “it is also clear Joseph’s plural wives were contracted as part of a plan for eternity, and not as a sexual indulgence in this life. Indeed, it appears Joseph did not have marital relations with most of his plural wives” and he cites Rough Stone Rolling, pp. 439-442, leaving the thesis that some of the wives may have also been sexual consorts unchallenged. It wasn’t until after PTHG that publications began to synthesize the extent of Joseph’s public denials and scrutinize the alleged sexual consummation of sealings and reject that idea as untenable (like Jeremy Hoop’s analysis).

    Also, Denver is drawn to evidence that suggests Joseph used plurality of wives to test the faithful without requiring it to be lived. “If they agreed to give their wife to Joseph, they passed the test. Then Joseph rejoiced at their faithfulness, sealed the faithful husband to his wife in an eternal covenant, and explained it had only been a test of their willingness to obey God” (159). Even that evidence, I believe, being anecdotal and possibly years after the fact or doctored into William Clayton’s journal (I don’t remember which source that incident is from), has since been called into question. However, one might guess Joseph would wish in retrospect to have used a different subject than plurality of wives to test the faithful with (if the incident even occurred).

    In the conclusion, Denver summarizes what PTHG is intended to do: “Now that we have reached the end of this account of Mormonism, I offer it as the story of how a believer in Mormonism reconciles the problems with the traditional explanation of our history. It is, to the best of my ability to explain it, how Mormonism was originally established, then changed in phases until today it has assumed a form almost completely different from the original” (496). Obviously, despite using the Book of Mormon as a prophetic lens in which to view the history of the LDS, that history is still presented through an imperfect historical analysis as a best attempt and offer to be helpful. We now have Denver’s decided beliefs stated emphatically that the records are clear enough to show that the prior analysis was based on faulty understandings, and that Joseph was not polygamous, nor a liar. But Denver’s early attempt to explain things in PTHG tellingly show that

    1. Denver’s biases towards one man and one wife eternal marriage were long-standing,
    2. A suspicion that Joseph was doing something ceremonial and not sexual was present in PTHG, and
    3. Any number of historical possibilities narrating what might have happened with polygamy amongst early Mormons still clearly shows Denver’s main point that there were largescale changes between first phase (Joseph Smith) and second phase (Brigham Young) Mormonism’s treatment of the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Part 3: All of that being said, I would not fault Watchman for considering the plausibility of views Denver himself outlined earlier to be helpful, but I would caution against settling on those views, believing in them, and allowing them to enter into our hearts. It cannot be proved that Denver held those views in his heart and believed in them. If anything, his writings show a decided preference for monogamy and a hope that Joseph Smith’s efforts were merely ceremonial and not sexual. What is at stake here is developing an adulterous and lying spirit. It has been demonstrably shown that even the narrow boundaries outlined for polygamy in PTHG are too weak to guard against succumbing to such a lying spirit in our hearts. It is one thing to study things out. It is another thing to base our faith on premature studies. I have not taken the best historical analysis to date (PTHG) as an unqualified guide for my faith. Only asking God, seeking, and knocking bring fruit worthy for faith, after study informs the quest. We often leap from study to unbelief and false practice without any long, ponderous, prayer to God on such matters to our peril.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I'm not ignorant of the topics at hand nor many many other "controversial" topics that have and continue to derail the faith of so many at the hand of the adversary- all according to prophecy.

    I have some questions for you:

    1) If your message is so great, why don't you preach that message? What is the message? That God has a new "servant"? Great, why don't you preach that to the world? Or is the message only for the 16 million of us that are lost and not the 7.5 billion that are lost? You preach more against the LDS Church than you do at all of the wonderful message you seem to have.

    2) Is the LDS Church preaching to ALL the World?

    3) Why is your message not resonating with anyone outside of the disaffected members of the LDS Church?

    4) How are you playing into the hands of the adversary and fulfilling Book of Mormon prophecy?

    5) Why do your countenances witness against you? Just look at yourselves vs "pre-enlightenment" falling away photos, apart from age.

    6) If the LDS Church is the Church of the Devil, then who are referenced as "the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth;" that they're fighting against? (1 Nephi 14)

    7) Is the "Remnant" "Snuffer" movement upon all the face of the earth? Is the LDS Church?

    8) Are all the nations of the Gentiles fighting against the Remnant/Snuffer Movement? (obviously rhetorical) or do they often target the LDS Church? Do they even know anything about the "Remnant" or "Snuffer" groups? Do most of the members even know enough about the R&S groups to fight against it? (is there a difference in defending vs fighting against?)

    9) Does the R&S groups fight against the Saints that are upon all the face of the earth? Does this blog post (and blog) demonstrate that?

    10) Has the LDS Church written or spoken publicly to fight the R&S movements vs defend?

    11) which parties truly fill which prophetic roles according to the Book of Mormon?

    12) how can we tell if you are trustworthy? Is there a prophetic pattern we can use?

    "D&C 52: 16 He that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances.

    17 And again, he that trembleth under my power shall be made strong, and shall bring forth fruits of praise and wisdom, according to the revelations and truths which I have given you.

    18 And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

    19 Wherefore, by this pattern ye shall know the spirits in all cases under the whole heavens."

    Again, if you have a message, let's hear it. The critical and divisive spirit seems to have taken over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remnant of Joseph,

      I hope that was cathartic for you.

      --Adrian

      Delete
  44. Adrian, This false narrative that the church is distancing itself from Joseph and the Book of Mormon is manipulative and deceitful and completely not true. I don't hear or see anyone else preaching and sharing the Book of Mormon or the message of Joseph more than the church. The missionaries share both with every investigator and still sing preach and teach it at church that I attend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet, the church still remains under condemnation (and has been since 1832) for taking the Book of Mormon lightly. The wording and narrative about the book and about Joseph Smith has begun to change. Like saying "The Bible is the Word of God" first thing under the Bible topic, then saying, "Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is scripture" under the Book of Mormon topic on their public-facing recruiting efforts. Or destroying the career of any BYU professor who asserts that the Book of Mormon is an actual, historical record, rather than a metaphorical 19th-century creation. Or pushing the narrative that the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the Egyptian records in Joseph's possession, then withholding the rest of the Book of Abraham, as well as the Book of Joseph, which they still refuse to release. Or the massive decrease of mentions of Joseph Smith in General Conference. (I've documented many of the above in various blog posts.)

      Man, I could keep going, but this is getting tedious. Believe what you want. I've got evidence for all of the above and more.

      Yes, the LDS church still claims to preach the Book of Mormon, and yet misuses, ignores, and utterly fails to understand its message and purpose. It has become little more than a source of sound bites. My next post will detail more about this.

      Pretending the ship is not sinking is the most frequent, and most comfortable response. The alternative is terrifying.

      Delete
  45. Fascinating comment Adrian. I want to know more.
    "Or destroying the career of any BYU professor who asserts that the Book of Mormon is an actual, historical record, rather than a metaphorical 19th-century creation"
    Please elaborate or do you have a source I could go to read?

    "withholding the rest of the Book of Abraham, as well as the Book of Joseph, which they still refuse to release."
    Do you have a source, or how do you know this?
    I look forward to your response.
    Thanks,
    Lena H

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lena,

      Here is an article by a BYU professor about the situation with the Book of Mormon at BYU:

      https://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/09/08/how-byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/

      And here is Bruce Porter talking about the Book of Joseph as well as the final chapter of the Book of Abraham (Start at 47:22):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F19d5ClZMWo&t=340s

      Delete
    2. Thanks so much for taking the time to provide links. I truly appreciate your help. This make a lot of sense.

      Delete
    3. Wow. Thanks for the links, Adrian. Reminds me so much of the Savior's words written in the entire chapter of Matthew 23. All are noteworthy, but verse 13 is particularly telling: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

      Delete
  46. Adrian, you allude to the Church withholding these things for some conspiratorially reason. (Start at the 7:45 mark)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I understand how Bruce Porter presented it. I think in his situation he has no choice. "Not prepared for release" is a fine enough excuse I suppose. Others who have seen the records tell a different story.

      The point is, if the church has the records, why do they not release them? Why withhold sacred scripture? Since they have the records, and they are prophets, seers, and revelators, it shouldn't be a problem to "prepare" them for publication.

      Delete
  47. I wonder if you noticed that the picture of lightening seems to be an unintentional prophecy considering the Nauvoo temple was struck by lightening the very next day. Was it there originally or did you add it after the fact?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone sent me that picture on the evening of the 27th. I don't recall if I posted it that night or the next day. At any rate I do believe I posted it before learning of the lightning strike at Nauvoo.

      Delete

Hey everyone,

It's been brought to my attention that comments from mobile phones might not come through in some situations. If you commented and it hasn't appeared, try sending from a computer or other device, or use the "Contact Me" tool to reach out to me personally. Sorry for the problems! The blogger platform, though free, seems to have problems.