At the very heart of the position that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a polygamist is the Plural Marriage section of Historical Record 6 and Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. This part of Historical Record 6 contains statements of individuals attesting to Joseph's involvement in polygamy. It was edited and published by Andrew Jenson in 1889. Section 132 is purported by the LDS Church to be a revelation on celestial marriage (polygamy) given by God through Joseph Smith, Jr. It was allegedly recorded July 12, 1843, by William Clayton “sentence by sentence, as he [Joseph Smith, Jr.] dictated” (Historical Record 6, 226). This document was first made public in 1852 by the LDS Church.
Recently, I re-read this section of Historical Record 6 and found that the statements of Eliza M. Partridge, Emily Dow Partridge, Eliza R. Snow (alleged plural wives of Joseph), Lovina Walker (Hyrum Smith's daughter and Joseph F. Smith's sister), and William Clayton (Joseph's scribe) regarding Emma Smith were in conflict with parts of Section 132. I wish to discuss these discrepancies because I believe they cast serious doubt about the entire truthfulness of both the statements and Section 132.
Evaluation Criteria for the Truthfulness of Witness Statements and Revelation
Because of these discrepancies I had to evaluate both the statements and the revelation to determine if they were true about Emma. And more importantly, if they were false about Emma, were they also false about Joseph?
By my way of thinking, witness statements or affidavits made in a court of law have a much higher probability of truth because of cross-examination by the opposition and an enforceable penalty for perjury. However, if they are made outside of a court of law, as is the case of the statements in the Plural Marriage section of Historical Record 6, there is no cross-examination by the opposition and no penalty for perjury. Thus, they may or may not be true. In addition, if part of a statement or affidavit which is made outside of a court of law is false, the other part may be false because it is possible they also lied about that part. So, the credibility of the entire statement becomes suspect.
On the other hand, revelations, as I look at it, have a more strict requirement for being truthful. While I have never received a revelation from the Lord and probably never will, the revelations of the type that Joseph received were, as alleged in them, supposed to be the mind and will of God. Most, if not all, of Joseph's revelations begin "Behold, thus saith the Lord" or something of a similar nature to indicate that Deity is speaking through His servant the prophet. While the revelations may be in the language of Joseph, they are not supposed to be his words put together by him to express the leadings of the Spirit. They should be more than that. They should be the word of God--the spoken mind and will of Deity, who does not lie. If the author of the revelation is God, I do not believe the prophet is given the power to pick and choose what parts of the revelation are delivered or what words are used to deliver the message. As a result, I do not believe that part of a revelation can be from God and part from man or Satan. If God is the author of the revelation, then all of the revelation is of Him and is true. Thus, I believe that if part of a revelation can be proved to be false, the entire revelation is not of God and is false.
So, using these criteria, if the witness statements about Emma are false, there is a high probability that they are also false about Joseph. In addition, if the statements about Emma in Section 132 are false, then the entire revelation is false. However, before I discuss these issues in depth, I wish to quote the statements along with Section 132 and analyze the content of the discrepant portions.
The Witness Statements
As background, the statements below from Historical Record 6 indicate that Emma Smith supported polygamist marriages of Joseph prior to July 12, 1843—the date which the celestial marriage document (Section 132) was allegedly first recorded and read to Emma by Hyrum Smith. These statements were made from 26 to 36 years after the events. According to Andrew Jenson, they were all published in the Historical Record to prove Joseph Smith introduced plural marriage to the Latter-day Saints (ibid., 219). Also, prior to being published in the Historical Record, all but William Clayton's statement were published in the Deseret News in October, 1879, to refute an article in the Saints' Advocate. According to Joseph F. Smith, that article was entitled "'Last Testimony of Sister Emma,' in which that lady is made responsible for a statement to the effect that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, never in his lifetime taught nor practiced the principle of plural marriage" (ibid., 220-224).
Eliza M. Partridge Lyman's statement:
"Be it remembered that on the first day of July, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, Edward Partridge, probate Judge in and for said county, Eliza M. (Partridge) Lyman, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith, that on the 11th day of May, 1843, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by James Adams, a High Priest in said Church, ... in the presence of Emma (Hale) Smith and Emily D. Partridge." (ibid., 223, italics added)
Emily Dow Partridge Young's statement:
"Be it remembered that on this the first day of May, A.D. 1869, personally before me, Elias Smith, probate judge for said county, Emily Dow (P.) Young, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath said, that on the 11th day of May, A.D. 1843, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by James Adams, a High Priest in said Church, ... in presence of Emma (Hale) Smith, (now Emma Bidamon) and Eliza M. Partridge Smith, (now Eliza M. Lyman)." (ibid., italics added)
(Sister Young, in her autobiography published in the Woman's Exponent Vol. 14, page 38, says: "The first intimation I had from Brother Joseph that there was a pure and holy order of plural marriage, was in the spring of 1842, but I was not married until 1843. I was married to him on the 11th of May, 1843, by Elder James Adams. Emma was present. She gave her free and full consent. She had always, up to this time, been very kind to me and my sister Eliza, who was also married to the Prophet Joseph with Emma's consent. Emma, about this time, gave her husband two other wives—Maria and Sarah Lawrence.") (ibid., italics added)
It should be noted that the statements of both Eliza and Emily Partridge included the phrase, "who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath said [or saith]...." I presume this phrase was included to assure the reader that the statement was true because it was made under oath to a judge. However, there is no indication on the statement or elsewhere that they were made in a court of law. In addition, it is important to remember that the judges were probate judges. Since the statements did not concern probate matters, it is highly unlikely that they were made before the judge in a court of law. Thus, there would have been no cross-examination and no penalty for perjury. As a result, even though these two statements were made to a judge under oath, I do not believe that they have a higher probability of truth than any other statements made outside a court of law.
Lovina Walker’s statement, given June 16, 1869:
"I Lovina Walker (eldest daughter of Hyrum Smith), hereby certify, that while I was living with Aunt Emma Smith, in Fulton City, Fulton County, Illinois, in the year 1846, she told me that she, Emma Smith, was present and witnessed the marrying or sealing of Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Maria Lawrence and Sarah Lawrence to her husband, Joseph Smith, and that she gave her consent thereto." (ibid., italics added)
Eliza R. Snow’s statement, in part, first published in the Deseret News, October 22, 1879:
"It is a fact that Sister Emma, of her own free will and choice, gave her husband four wives, two of whom are now living, and ready to testify that she, not only gave them to her husband, but that she taught them the doctrine of plural marriage and urged them to accept it." (ibid., 224, italics added)
William Clayton’s statement given February 16, 1874:
"On the 1st day of May, 1843, I officiated in the office of an Elder by marrying Lucy Walker to the Prophet Joseph Smith, at his own residence.
"During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other wives. Amongst the number I well remember Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according to the celestial order. His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of some, if not all, of these being his wives, and she generally treated them very kindly.
"On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the 'brick store,' on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum ... remarked, 'The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,' or words to their effect. Joseph then said, 'Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.' He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.
"Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present." (ibid., 225-226, italics added)
Analyzing the Witness Statements
All of the above statements agree that just prior to Joseph dictating the celestial marriage revelation (now Section 132 of the LDS D&C), Emma was very supportive of Joseph teaching and practicing this new doctrine. According to the above accounts, she attended the weddings, gave her complete consent to the plural marriages, taught the principle, and even gave from two to four wives to Joseph. From their statements, she appeared to not only be a willing participant in polygamy but an enthusiastic one. And she maintained this attitude toward the four to eight additional wives Joseph allegedly married during the period from May to July, 1843. There is nothing in their observations of Emma to indicate that she did not accept this doctrine or was antagonistic toward the plural wives or Joseph during this time. She was observed by them to be a model plural wife. The position of these statements definitely reflects the reason for which they were collected and published—to refute Emma's statement published in the Saints' Advocate and prove Joseph Smith introduced polygamy to the Latter-day Saints.
Section 132
The above statements indicating that Emma was a model plural wife seems to be in direct conflict with the celestial marriage revelation allegedly dictated by Joseph on July 12, 1843. This document brings stern warnings to Emma if she does not embrace this new doctrine. LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132:51-56 states:
51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice. (italics added)
Analyzing Section 132
According to this part of the alleged revelation on celestial marriage, God told Emma to "receive all those that have been given" to Joseph. He commanded her "to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else." And He warned her that if she did not "abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law." If this revelation is true, it was a stern reprimand from God to Emma to accept the principle, support it, and support Joseph's practice of it. If she did not do this, God threatened to destroy her. Since it is not stated whether this destruction would be temporal or eternal, I assume it means a complete destruction which would be both temporal and eternal. According to this document, God was telling Emma that He would destroy her both physically and eternally (cast into outer darkness) if she disobeyed His command. Thus, this document was a warning to Emma of gravest consequences if disobeyed.
The Witness Statements Conflict with Section 132
If this revelation is true, why was God being so stern with Emma? According to the above statements in Historical Record 6, prior to the date the revelation was given she had received "all those that have been given" to Joseph with open and supportive arms. Not only this, but she had willingly given wives to Joseph, attended some of their weddings, taught them the principle, and by her actions was showing them how to obey it. And she was doing this with faith in her husband as a prophet of God and belief that the principle of celestial marriage taught by him was of divine origin. To me, this sounds like a very obedient handmaiden of the Lord. However, instead of recognizing and praising Emma for her faith and obedience, the Lord threatened her with both physical and eternal destruction if she was not faithful to the principle.
So, how can the above testimonies be reconciled with the Lord threatening Emma in Section 132? The truth is, they cannot be. If the testimonies are true, certainly the Lord would have observed the same and commended Emma in the revelation for her faith and obedience to the new celestial principle. However, He did not do this. Instead, He threatened her with total destruction. This indicates she was reluctant or disobedient in accepting and living the principle, which is in direct opposition to the testimonies.
In regards to Emma, the above statements and Section 132 are in opposition to each other. Thus, one or the other must be false about her. Logically they both cannot be true.
Either the Witness Statements or Section 132 Are Entirely False
If the revelation is true, the witness statements about Emma are false. And if the statements about Emma are false, I believe that the statements which these individuals also made about Joseph have no credibility for being true. As I stated previously, if part of a statement or affidavit is false, I believe the credibility of the entire statement becomes suspect. On the other hand, if the witness statements about Emma are true, the part about Emma in the celestial marriage revelation is false. And, as I stated earlier about revelation, if part of the revelation is false, I believe the entire revelation is false. So logically, either the entire revelation is true and the entire witness statements are false or the entire revelation is false and the entire witness statements are true. If the revelation is false, Joseph did not give it as purported by William Clayton. If the witness statements are false, they cannot prove Joseph's involvement in polygamy. Whichever the case, both the witness statements and Section 132 cannot be used together as proof that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy.
Emma's and Joseph's Lives Prove Both Are False
While both the statements and Section 132 can be in opposition to each other and one be true, they can also be in opposition to each other and both be false. It is my opinion that both are false. All statements made by Emma throughout her life opposed polygamy and supported the position that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. Since she was accepted in her community throughout her life as a person of honor and integrity, we have to assume her statements truly reflected her position on polygamy. In addition, her strong opposition to Brigham Young's leadership and her refusal to go West with her family and friends are also good indications of her opposition to polygamy. Thus, the probability of the truth of the above statements in Historical Record 6 regarding Emma is very low. This is especially true considering that the statements were made from 26 to 36 years after the events, these individuals were heavily involved with polygamy in Utah, and the purpose of their statements was to refute Emma by proving that Joseph was a polygamist and that she supported the principle. And I believe that if these statements were not true about Emma, they were also not true that Joseph was a polygamist..
Actually, Emma's stand against polygamy in her life is more reflective of the position taken in Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Yet, the prophetic nature of this document comes short of fulfillment. Verse 54 states, "But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law." As stated earlier, since the type of destruction was not specified, we can assume it was intended to be a total destruction—both physical and spiritual. However, after July 12, 1843 (the date this revelation was allegedly given), Emma lived another 35 years—to the age of 74—in opposition to polygamy.** Obviously, this part of the alleged revelation was not fulfilled.
In addition, according to verse 55, the Lord stated about Joseph that if he is faithful to the principle, "I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of ... houses and lands, wives and children...." This means the Lord promised to give Joseph 100 times the number of "houses and lands, wives and children...." that he possessed on July 12, 1843. However, within a year Joseph was dead and this blessing, I believe, was unfulfilled as follows:
- At the time of his death, he had not received a "hundredfold ... of ... houses and lands...." He left Emma with very little financial means to support herself and their children.
- Since July 12, 1843, Joseph had not received a "hundredfold ... of ... children...." In 1843, all of his children with Emma had been born except for David Hyrum. In addition, it is alleged that he had twelve children by plural marriages, which if true is hardly a "hundredfold" increase. However, DNA studies have proved that five of these children (almost half) were not his children and may eventually prove that the remaining seven children were also not his.
- While many claim that Joseph had over 30 plural wives, they do not claim he had a "hundredfold" increase in them since July 12, 1843. In addition, Joseph's involvement in polygamy is not a proven fact. There is too much evidence against it to be a proven fact. Throughout Joseph's life, he denied his involvement. Emma and his immediate family—those that should know—always denied his involvement. His sons pursued allegations of his involvement but never found credible evidence to support the allegations. The statements of alleged plural wives did not withstand cross-examination in court during the Temple Lot Case and the judge ruled that there was no credible evidence that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy.
Since God is all knowing and always speaks the truth, why did He promise these "hundredfold" blessings to Joseph knowing that he would not live long enough to receive them? And why did He promise to physically destroy Emma but did not do so? These promises to both Joseph and Emma in Section 132 were not fulfilled because they were not God's promises, but man's.
We must remember that this revelation was first made public in 1852, approximately eight years after Joseph's death, by those heavily involved in polygamy. Thus, Joseph had no opportunity to acknowledge or deny it as true. Its authenticity was never voted upon by the Church, which was the final authority prior to Joseph's death to decide if a revelation was the mind and will of God. Throughout Emma's life she denied that Joseph gave this revelation and that he taught or practiced polygamy. Those who did not go west with Brigham Young did not embrace this revelation as God-given through Joseph. In addition, the judge's ruling in the Temple Lot Case found there was not sufficient evidence to prove Joseph gave this revelation. Considering the dubious circumstances surrounding this revelation and the fact that the promises to both Emma and Joseph were not fulfilled, I can only conclude that it was not of God and was not given by Joseph. As such, I do not believe it is credible evidence that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy.
Summary
When the above testimonies are compared to Section 132, it is obvious to me that either one or the other is false. And when they are analyzed separately according to known facts, they both appear to be false. In my opinion, neither one is credible proof that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy.
** According to http://pages.uoregon.edu/maphist/english/US/US39-01.html, U. S. women who reached age 40 in 1850 had an average life expectancy of age 68. Emma was age 39 (date of birth 7/10/1804) in July, 1843, and lived until the age of 74 (date of death 4/30/1979). Thus, her age exceeded her life expectancy. This would certainly indicate that her life was not cut short by God because of her disobedience to the principle as section 132 stated it would be.
Addendum (2/6/15): Authorship of LDS D&C Section 132 Determined by Writing Style Analysis
The following was posted on 12/31/14 anonymously as a comment to my “The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement” blog post: “Have you ever read Enid DeBarthe's thesis paper on an analysis of the writing style of the author of Section 132 MDC? She proves incontrovertibly that Brigham Young was its author. I have had a physical copy of it for almost 30 years, but didn't take the time to digitize it until a couple of weeks ago. I have never heard anybody mention it in any polygamy discussions. It is quite lengthy and technical, but if you would be interested in reading it, I can send it to your email.”
I responded that I was interested in getting a digital copy and gave my email address. However, I never received a copy of this document. Since this post, I asked around locally if any of my contacts knew of this document and where I could get a copy to digitize. I soon found out that Enid DeBarthe’s sister had recently begun attending our church. Her sister put me in contact with Enid’s son who had a copy of the document. It is a 348 page book which he allowed be to digitize. There are only three in existence.
According to the title page, the book is entitled, “A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON JOSEPH SMITH II THE MORMON PROPHET-LEADER.” Enid DeBarthe wrote this book as a “Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Library Science” for the “Faculty of the Graduate School Northern Illinois University” in July 1969. The major portion of the book is about Joseph Smith (his teachings and writings), the movement of the Church from New York to eventually Illinois, and the disbursement of the Church after Joseph’s death. It is the appendix of the book (oddly not listed in the table of contents) which analyzes the writing styles of both LDS D&C 132 and the King Follett sermon and compares them to the writing styles of several men, including Joseph and Brigham Young, to determine the likely author of these documents. It is her conclusion that “Brigham Young wrote Section 132 and rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon” (p. 315).
Today, the type of writing analysis she used is called stylometry, which compares the writing style, using various criteria, of a document with unknown or disputed authorship to the writing styles of various authors to determine correct authorship. Presently, there are several computer programs which are used to do this task. However, Enid DeBarthe, in 1969, had to do this manually by counting words as well as comparing sentence structure and phraseology. The study and analysis she did was very detailed and remarkable for her time.
Since there has been so much interest expressed to read this analysis, I have made a PDF file of it available for you to download. If you have trouble downloading it, you may contact me at jsdefender1@gmail.com and I will email it to you.
Just get government out marriage already. Why do we want government in control of marriage anyways? True equality can only come through government free marriage.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. You sound like an anarchist.
DeleteThe state controls not only marriage, but also divorce. Only with the development of technology, filing for divorce has become less troublesome and time-consuming. I filed for divorce here https://onlinedivorcer.com
DeleteChurch historian D. Michael Quinn wrote a book entitled "Origins of Power" wherein he notes that Joseph burned the revelation that became Section 132 before he died.
ReplyDeleteHi Dave P.--
ReplyDeleteGood to hear from you. Hope you are doing OK. I'm interested in Quinn's research. Do you know what references he used to conclude Joseph burned the revelation?
Also, I read your post on Rock's site and am very interested in your statement, "Willard Richards pulled the trigger on the shot that killed Hyrum Smith...." Do you have any information or research on this subject? I've studied the testimonies of Richards and Taylor and after having visited Carthage Jail several times have concluded that the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum couldn't have happened they way they said.
Defender, the cite Dave mentions (Hi again, Dave!)is on page 147 of Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, but the footnote cites Joseph F. Smith as claiming that Joseph instructed Emma to burn the manuscript. So that puts us right back in circles. I don't give Joseph F. a lot of credibility on this, as it was mentioned long after the fact and only seems an effort to validate the claims to the counterfeit's legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of Wilard Richards pulling the trigger at the assassination, another reader at Pure Mormonism provided this fascinating account of a vision on it, as well as a careful investigation as to the credibility of Richard's version. Richards doesn't look good:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/np/potai/carthageconspiracy-99.htm
I've been stumped lately regarding a question regarding Fanny Alger that perhaps you can help with. Apparently she was interviewed late in life and declined to confirm or deny the rumors about her and Joseph. Any idea why she wouldn't be willing to deny them?
Rock—
ReplyDeleteThanks for the references. I’ll check them out.
I just purchased “The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy,” edited by Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster. There is a chapter in it about Fanny Alger. It looks detailed. I’ll see what it has to say about any late-in-life interviews.
JSDefnder, I read most off your examine and it could hold true but it still only deals with one of the 4 rules God gave to practice polygamy. You may have gained some goround on one but what about the rest? D&C 132 gives 4 rules: 1-first wife must give her consent, 2-second wife must be a virgin, 3-no married women and 4-“multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men”.
DeleteIt seems you have your work cut out for you if you are going to defend JS on all of these counts.
JSDefender,
ReplyDeleteI know Joseph was a true Prophet & Christ said that we will know true Prophets & disciples by the pure love of Christ they will possess. Such love is the true test & proof of any righteous man.
Such love will be mostly visible in righteous individuals by how they love & serve & respect their spouse. They will have the true love of Christ for their spouse & thus would rather die than hurt their spouse in any way.
Joseph was a true Prophet with true love for Emma. And a man with true love for his wife would be repulsed at the thought of polygamy & would rather die than hurt his wife by living it. A righteous woman would have great self-respect & would also be repulsed by polygamy & if single would not marry & inter into it. For God never makes women marry unless the woman desires to & feels assured the man & the marriage will bring her great happiness.
It must be understood that polygamy is & always has been, one of the most vile forms of spouse abuse known to women, one men throughout the ages have allowed themselves to indulge in at the expense of women' hearts.
Thus, no righteous man, let alone a Prophet, or even God would abuse a woman with polygamy against her will or by threat. God's 1st desire is to protect women & their hearts from the abuse of men.
If there has ever been or ever will be a righteous form of polygamy, it will be completely decided upon & directed by the wife, who would choose the additional wife, someone she was close to & could get along with. A righteous man would have it no other way, for he would ever want to hurt her by running around after other women or letting his eyes & desires wonder. He would be repulsed at the thought of being with anyone other than his wife.
The fact that early church men eagerly practiced polygamy, usually disregarding the pain & suffering of their 1st wife, is proof that these men did not possess true love for their wife & thus did not pass the test for being righteous men.
It really is that simple to prove if they were right in living polygamy.
It is impossible for God to go against eternal law & 'true love for a wife' is an absolute 1st requirement of righteous men & Prophets. Nothing comes before the wife, not other wives or even having many children.
For God does not 'raise up seed' on the backs of depressed, heartbroken, abused & neglect women. He know such mothers cannot raise righteous children & thus it wouldn't work. Only happy, protected women who are loved & served by righteous husbands can raise & nurture children enough to be strong & righteous. And most women who were threatened to live polygamy were just such 'unhappy' women.
There were some women who did claim to enjoy & like polygamy back then, as many do today, but I believe these women did not have self-respect & like most single women of today even, would do anything & suffer anything just to have a man, especially if he had money or power, etc.
Polygamy is so vile,thats why Abraham did it as did many of God's chosen, Read your Bible man or ignore the parts you don't like as most churches do today.
DeleteSteve,
DeleteAbraham was wrong to give into Sarah's desperate request to take Hagar to wife. And it appears he lost the Spirit because of that adultery and never fully repented even though he eventually sent Hagar away (in a very abusive way which a righteous man wouldn't have done) and then he went on to commit other sins like trying to sacrifice Issac (while claiming God told him to which is impossible for God does not command contrary to his laws, so it was the Adversary's promptings he fell for as people do when they have lost the Spirit) and he went on to live more polygamy later in life, with more concubines.
It appears you are the one who is ignoring that Christ condemned polygamy in every instance, by his words in Matt 19:9 and in his teachings of the Golden Rule (for men would not want done to them what they make women suffer in polygamy) and in Christ's teachings of love, for polygamy is the opposite of love and how a righteous man treats his wife.
Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God. This has been made known to me personally as I have served as a stake president and in other capacities.
ReplyDeleteStake Pres. --
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting. I certainly agree that Joseph was a prophet of God. I just don't agree that Section 132 was a revelation from God and that Joseph brought it forth.
Anonymous--
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I think Jacob 2 sums it up best:
"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."
JSDefender,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. Jacob 2 says it all so plain doesn't it.
It seems that it all comes down to whether Joseph & Emma Smith lied over & over or not to all the Saints back then about polygamy.
ReplyDeleteI thought our Church believes Prophets can never lead the members astray? If Joseph lied, then he lead many astray who later refused to follow BY because of how strongly Joseph preached & warned against falling for polygamy.
Do we believe Joseph's & Emma's words that polygamy was one of the most vile of evils & that he never lived it, or other people, who liked & lived polygamy, & who 'said' Joseph instigated it?
When we die, do we want people to believe our own words we leave behind or what others claim we said & did?
Anonymous—
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I was raised in the RLDS Church and still believe in the original doctrines of that church. I don’t remember ever being taught that the Prophet was infallible and would never lead us astray. However, many in my church unquestioningly followed the leadership, including the Prophet, and traded the restored gospel for mainstream Christianity offered by the Community of Christ.
Joseph was a man and I’m sure he made mistakes like all men do. However, I believe they were the mistakes of a good, honorable man—not an evil one. To say that Joseph introduced polygamy into the LDS Church and then lied about it makes him an evil man. Because if he lied about that, who is to say he didn’t lie about the Book of Mormon, the revelations he received, the Inspired Version of the Bible, the first vision, etc. And if he lied about these, our whole belief is a fraud based on his lies. When we begin to unwind this ball of twine it only leads to unbelief in the truth of the restored gospel.
What amazes me is that the authors of articles and books supporting the position that Joseph was a polygamist always presume Joseph and his family lied and everyone else told the truth. These writings aren’t about whether he was a polygamist but about how big of one he was. Why is this? I thought we lived in a country that presumes a person’s innocence until proven guilty and considers all the evidence before making the decision. This is why I appreciate the documentation presented by Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy at http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm. The authors present the issue from Joseph’s point of view, respect him as a true prophet of God, and provide evidence supporting the presumption of his innocence. And why is it that most of the evidence they present has not been considered by the other authors? I believe it is because the other authors are intent upon proving his guilt, not the truth. It is interesting to me that in a court of law (The Temple Lot Case) where statements were made under oath (with penalty for perjury) and cross-examination of testimony was allowed, the evidence presented by the LDS Church was not sufficient to prove Joseph was a polygamist.
God gave four rules if you wanted to practice polygamy and Joseph Smith broke each one over and over. That is not making a mistake but being a habitual covenant breaker.
DeleteIn case you are unaware of the four rules for the practice of polygamy here is the break down.
1- First wife must consent.
2- Second wife must be a virgin.
3- No married women.
4- “multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men”
Joseph Smith wrote doctrine he himself could not keep. That is a CON-MAN.
You have been con into doing something that he is not going to do.
JSDefender,
ReplyDeleteI an LDS & I really enjoy your writings & thinking. You ask some vital & valid questions. I have read Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy & found it very enlightening & answered many questions I have had over the years about Joseph.
I think it is finally time for the world & especially the LDS people to know that Joseph fought against polygamy.
I have always known he was a true Prophet & thus could not understand how he could ever have lived polygamy & do such an abusive thing as that to his wife, who I know he loved, valued & protected more than his own life.
Polygamy always is & always has been one of the most vilest of abuses of women ever known, even if some weak & desperate women may go along with it & say they like it.
Women with self-respect are repulsed by polygamy, as are righteous men who truly love their wife.
Even if it were to ever be commanded by God, that would not change the abusiveness of it for women.
But I have never found any person or people in all the scriptures to ever be commanded to live polygamy. The only thing that calls for it is what Brigham Young said was scripture in D&C 132.
Even Abraham & Jacob weren't commanded to live polygamy & seemed to only do it because their wives pressured them into it but then they regretted it & seemed to repent from it.
Abraham was so against polygamy that he went almost 100 years childless with one wife without living it, thinking he may never have children. If he knew or thought it was a righteous commandment or option, he would have done it.
Hagar was not something he wanted to do, he only had a child by her because of his love for his wife & her happiness & doing whatever she asked him to do.
Anonymous--
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your kind words. They mean a lot to me. It takes time to do this blog and sometimes the comments aren't the kindest, but your words have made it all worth it. I forwarded your comments to the Prices. I know they will greatly appreciate what you said about Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy.
Is this the next step in Mormonism, to deny facts? Since so much light has been shinned on the doctrine and shows the errors in it the next best thing for a Mormon to do is deny? Man, where will it end. Tossed to and fro? How many times did you preach this to main stream Christians and now Mormons cant agree with each other and deny thier own doctrine. How is that going to help your uncorrupted Mormonism? Mormonism trusted only as much as we want it to be. Mormonims is backsliding.
DeleteJSDefender,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you sending my posts to the Prices. I am very grateful for the hard work they have done.
If it's true their writings are going to be a most vital & important work in the coming years to help the pure in heart to more fully understand Joseph & Emma's true character, which has been largely hidden from the world all these years.
I have always known that Emma too, was one of the greatest persons to ever have walked the earth. And for those who study her life, she proves her incredible strength, wisdom & charity over & over during her life.
Thank you for writing this blog. You seem to possess the Spirit, for it comes through your words & that is rare to find these days.
I think it's obvious Emma was against polygamy. But if you ask me, the Lord wasn't angry with her, but with Joseph. Just read the section carefully. It seems to me that the Lord had told Joseph to offer Emma a divorce, but note that the Lord is against it. He sounds pretty mad that Joseph made Emma feel the need for separation. The Lord advises Emma to "forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses," reminding her that she isn't perfect, either. It seems to me that the Lord was angered because he had specifically put Emma and Joseph together and he didn't want them to part.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Having multiple wives is man's idea, not the Lord's, or Adam would have had more than just Eve as his eternal mate.
whitehusky—
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading my blog. If you haven’t already, feel free to read my other posts.
I agree with you that “having multiple wives is man’s idea, not the Lord’s….” The purpose of this article was to show just that. If LDS D&C 132 was given by God and the statements in the Plural Marriage section of Historical Record 6 were truthful, then section 132 and the statements would agree in all things. But since they didn’t agree about Emma, one or the other or both are false. And for the reasons stated above I believe both to be false.
I don't understand why the LDS can't accept Joseph Smith's own words of warning & testimony about polygamy over anyone else's.
ReplyDeleteIt seems most members have the carnal desire to 'want' to believe in & live polygamy some day, especially most men, & so they won't even consider what Joseph said publically that can be proven. They give far more credence to heresay or say Joseph was lying.
Why is it so scary for most people to consider that he just may have been telling the truth!
If it all happened today would we believe the words of a Prophet or the words of an Apostle? The LDS are told to alwats listen to a Prophet over an Apostle. (Joseph over Brigham, etc.)
It don't see any evidence Joseph ever did anything to hurt Emma & cause her to want a divorce. It appears Joseph was just as disgusted & revolted with polygamy as Emma was, probably more so & thus he preached it to be one of the vilest of evils.
Just a few weeks before he died, one of his last testimonies to the Saints was to not believe anyone who preaches anything different than what the Bible, Book of Mormon & D&C teach, which of course only preached 'one husband & one wife'.
Joseph knew that polygamy was a huge problem in the Church & left those last words as a warning for what he surely knew would happen in respect with polygamy if he died.
If he believed polygamy was a true principle & that the Saints would eventually have to come to accept it, I don't believe he would have ever have said that & lead the Church astray to believe falsehoods.
Anonymous (March 21)--
ReplyDeleteWell said!
"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." - Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259
ReplyDeleteThis statement was fabricated by Brigham Young's polygamist society to pull Joseph Smith's name into the pro-polygamy camp. It is a lie. (The Contributor LDS Church was published between 1879 and 1896). Joseph Smith NEVER fell into the polygamy doctrine but preached against it all his life.
DeleteI have a hand written letter from prophet John Taylor testifying that polygamy is a commandment and covenant from God. I have a copy of the manifesto. Why you all think Joseph did not practice polygamy! Tay2079@Yahoo.com
ReplyDeleteAnonymous--
DeleteThank you so much for your comment. The letter you own from John Taylor is certainly an historical treasure and something to be very proud of.
The position that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy is based on several points. While many of these are discussed in this blog, I will briefly recite some of the major ones below.
First, Joseph's recorded statements always taught against polygamy. Emma and their sons (those closest to Joseph) always testified that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. If Joseph lied about polygamy, then he was evil and probably lied about the Book of Mormon, the revelations, and the truth of the Restoration Movement. I believe Joseph was a true prophet of God and did not lie about these things. Thus, he also did not lie about polygamy.
Second, the evidence supporting Joseph as a polygamist is mainly unsubstantiated allegations recorded many years after Joseph's death giving him no opportunity to defend himself against them. While the John Taylor letter which you own is an important historical document, it is merely his opinion that polygamy is a commandment of God. And opinions are not facts. Only facts--not allegations or opinions--prove someone guilty of something.
Third, the polygamy revelation--LDS D&C 132--became public about 8 years after Joseph's death. Since Joseph had no opportunity to defend against it, it could have been written by anyone.
Fourth, In the Temple Lot Suit in the 1890s, the LDS Church attempted to prove Joseph taught and practiced polygamy. However, the evidence submitted was not sufficient to prove him guilty.
These are a few of the reasons I believe Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. If you want a further understanding of this position, please read all the articles in this blog as well as the book Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, which is free to read at restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm.
I cannot take the time to write out a full post on the subject right now, but will at a future date. I would consider these POSSIBILITIES (for I cannot present evidence right now):
ReplyDelete-Emma was not faithful to Joseph because of her knowledge of plural marriage. She tried to kill him at least twice towards the end of his life via poisoning.
-Brigham et al did not practice plural marriage as it was revealed to Joseph (as a component of the fullness of the priesthood). Nevertheless, he and the others practiced it inasmuch as they understood it.
-The Jacob scripture is overly emphasized. Is it not possible that "many" could be abominable and "few" could be not only acceptable, but ordained?
-One poster above, and many in other posts elsewhere, have ascertained that God could not possibly subscribe to the idea of plural marriage, because (fill in the blank). Are you aware of the many scriptures/sermons that specifically warn against limiting God's mind to what is on our mind? Or his vision of what is right and good with ours?
-Joseph Smith did publicly preach against plural marriage. However, this is not hard to justify given the scriptures and other factors.
-PS - I have read Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. I will have to come up with a full post sooner or later. There are a lot of people out there who are becoming convinced that he did not practice plural marriage. The implications for that false notion are bigger than historical correctness. Until then, I encourage each of you who feels differently to prayerfully ask God if D&C 132 is correct, or if there are portions that are not correct, etc. as well as keep studying the scriptures and church history.
The Joseph Smith you have *imagined* is a duplicitous deceiver. You would have him working a secret doctrine in the dark while grossly misleading the entire church publicly, which resulted in the huge turmoil after his death that divided the saints.
DeleteSure, you'll claim that is was commanded of God, so it's de-facto righteous no matter what was involved. NO MATTER WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY DID! Hence, you go in with blinders on. You turn off your brain, turn off your heart, and turn off any possibility that the Holy Spirit could guide you to truth, because you require, a-priori, that God commanded it.
This viewpoint of yours only proves you do not know God nor the scriptures. God is not the coordinator of ANY secret combinations. You better check that you're praying to God and not something else. You have shut down the ability to hear the truth when you apriori can accept any accusation to be consistent with God's commands.
Do you suppose that, had Joseph lived long enough, one day he was just going to pop up to the stand and tell everyone to disregard everything he ever said to them before and say "now rejoice in the blessed cover-up!"??? *Your* image of Joseph Smith is as a fool, taking the people for fools, and jerking them around.
This is not about historical correctness, or applying modern standards to old and distant cultures. You have convinced yourself that's what it is about for us who defend Joseph Smith. But you are sorely deceived. There is no cultural bias going on here. There is no white-washing of history or wishful thinking here. We defend Joseph Smith because that is his testimony, and his testimony is borne out by the evidence for those courageous enough to sift through the uninformed chatter and really treat him as innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around. He testified to the world that he was innocent. His wife testified that he was innocent. You have found a place where you can accept them both as liars and cowards, when there is abundant evidence to the contrary for both of them.
You contort yourself into knots to make Joseph Smith fit into a narrative that impugns his character and insults logic. Polyandry? Seriously, polyandry!? You're going to go to bat for that as God's blessed idea? "Get thee hence Satan!" Say it. At least try.
The real Joseph Smith is not the cretin you have rationalized as holy. Black is white and white is black? Trade holy for that which is unholy? Are you ever going to find the courage to stick by Joseph and defend him against the defamation? Or are you just going to repeat the weasel position of going along with the defamation and finding ways to turn everything moral upside-down to accommodate it?
You prefer to buy into the character assassination of Emma Smith, his wife. You prefer to embrace Brigham's cover-up? Brigham has been shown to have doctored Joseph's personal journal to 180 degree position on the issue. You prefer to accept Brigham and all his foolish and counter-scriptural doctrines as well (Adam-God, blood atonement, no blacks in priesthood, etc.)? Those are "no big deal" I suppose for someone who finds polyandry to be an angelic practice.
this is jus a shot in the dark but im guessin robbys last name is young
Deleteor that the walls of his bedroom r plastered w byu posters, how bout it
Rob, I just wanted to chime in and say I have prayed about it. And the answer that I've received isn't one that the mainstream of the church would like.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few things in it that stand up to comparison with preexisting scripture, but plural marriage isn't one of them. Add to that the contradiction in the section itself: first it states that the first wife's consent must be gained, but then a few verses later that safeguard is nullified by the statement that if a wife doesn't go along with her husband in polygamy that she will be destroyed.
Sorry. I'm a daughter of God. I'm His girl, and He loves me a WHOLE lot more than that. It just doesn't fit with what I know, personally and intimately, of God's love for me.
I try very hard to not limit God, in my own mind, or in what I say. But I do believe what God has said. "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, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts."
Pretty clear. Not "a few". One.
And then Jacob goes on to say that the commandment against polygamy was given to Lehi, and that the Nephites already knew it--had been taught it in the past. It was common doctrine, and they still went contrary to it. And THAT was why they lost the confidence of their children and broke the hearts of their wives. If I was a Nephite's wife back then, that sure would have broken my heart.
God did add a caveat right after that, seeming to reserve the option to command polygamy . . . but then He launches right into a description of what polygamy was like for women in Jerusalem. And considering the end of polygamy here in the US (the church members only ceased under threat of the US Government seizing every last possession if they didn't desist, and the dissolution of the church as an organization), it seems that the Lord's threat of destruction was very, very real. When someone is doing what the Lord wills, He upholds and protects them. It seems clear that He was not upholding his people in polygamy to me.
And on the prophet not being able to lead the church astray:
The idea that God won't allow a prophet to lead the church astray is false doctrine. It was from a talk by Elder Benson in 1980, "14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet." But it contradicts the doctrine of agency. The same agency that God was willing to sacrifice 1/3 of the hosts of heaven to preserve. If the prophet wasn't allowed to lead the church astray, that would mean that the prophet may no longer may exercise his agency fully. (It's kind of like evolutionists arguing for their point of view when it directly contradicts the law of entropy.)
Joseph Smith himself regularly taught that the saints should pray about what he said, that they should never take his word for it, and that they could receive every revelation or vision he had had themselves. Nephi teaches the same thing when he approached God about what his father had seen, and when he asked Laman and Lemuel if they had inquired for themselves.
Add to that the idea that complete reliance on a man (the prophet will never be allowed to lead us astray) is idolatry. We are supposed to rely on Christ and God the Father, who are perfected beings. Everyone else is subject to scrutiny and confirmation.
(The scripture from Jacob is chapter 2:27-28.)
DeleteYou write that "God did add a caveat right after that, seeming to reserve the option to command polygamy"
DeleteNo, God did not add a caveat. That is a gross misinterpretation of Jacob 2:30 used by people who (to quote from Jacob 2:23) "seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms". God unequivocally states that such practices of David and Solomon of old are abominable (2:24).
The false notion of appealing to the events and behavior of those in scripture to excuse evil is nothing new. People do this today in a number of areas, they have done this throughout history, and, as Jacob points out, the Nephites were doing this too. The thought process of rationalization is basic and familiar: "Well, David and Solomon did this or that, and they were great and righteous men, so I can certainly do this or that too. After all, since David and Solomon did it, and they were clearly righteous, so God must have approved of it."
In Jacob chapter 2, God is specifically and unequivocally debunking this faulty notion. In verse 2:30, He is addressing the notion of people appealing to practices of old as an example of behavior and as an excuse for evil. He says that because He is raising a righteous people He will command them in this regard not to do those evil things like they of old, since otherwise, without His direct guidance, they will revert to using such things of old as examples (i.e., they will "hearken unto these things" of old) and seek to make an excuse for their evil desires. Instead, Jacob is telling them to "hearken to the word of the Lord" (2:27) to correct them from otherwise hearkening unto the things of old.
annalea, gr8 point bout needin the wifes consent then consequences of no consent
DeleteAnon of July 5th,
DeleteI'm in total agreement with you. Looking back, I probably should have said that there are those who claim God added a caveat, but His words directly following it show He meant nothing of the sort. He doesn't say, "This is an abomination. I won't have you doing it. Unless I tell you to. But it's really horrible for my daughters, and ends in abuse and heartbreak."
Thanks for the chance to clarify.
LSD D&C 132 is an utter and total fraud. The absurdity starts immediately in verse 1 and digs deep:
ReplyDelete"1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—"
It claims that Isaac had many wives and concubines, but he did not. Isaac had one wife only. He received the covenant with God for mega-blessings and billions of descendants and he only had two children from his one and only wife. Furthermore, God did NOT change Isaac's name to a righteous/spiritual version like he did with Abram (to Abraham) and Jacob (to Israel) when they finally came around to God and made similar covenants. I repeat, they had their names changed as part of the covenant, Isaac did not.
It claims that Abraham had many wives and concubines, but he did not. Abram, not Abraham, had one wife and one concubine. Abraham took to wife one other woman AFTER his first wife Sarah had died and the concubine Hagar had been banished by Sarai. God would have known this given the fact that His covenant with Abram specifically required Abram to change his name to Abraham, and Sarai to Sarah, AFTER both of them turned to God (to solve her barrenness problem instead of trying to solve it themselves using a surrogate mother, AKA concubine, which caused contention and later on countless wars). Abraham took no one else to wife after making this covenant until Sarah had died, when it is lawful and ethical to do so.
It claims that Jacob had many wives and concubines. He did not. He had two wives, and two concubines. First, that is not many, that is two. Second, he was tricked into taking the first wife, and then insisted on taking a second after the trick. These wives then coerced Jacob to take each of their handmaids to wife as they battled with barrenness and jealousy issues (a double repeat of the Abram/Sarai faithlessness combined with jealousy). Jacob, which name means "he who supplants, or leg-puller", cheated his brother out of his father's blessing and took his birthright, and literally had a fist fight with God, eventually, after many years of struggles with the divine and with men, then turned to God, at which point God accepted his repentance and changed his name to Israel as part of a covenant like with Abram/Abraham and Isaac. He took no one else to wife after this covenant.
There is a pattern here that is clear. In all cases involving multiple wives and/or surrogate mothers (i.e. marital, fertility problems), the practice occurred before the prophets made the everlasting covenant with God, and their names were changed as part of that deal. Moreover, faithlessness on their part, worries about barrenness, and jealousies, instigated the practice, not any kind of righteous behavior. Isaac did not have those problems with his wife, and did not get a name change as part of the everlasting covenant he made with God.
...
ReplyDeleteMoving on, LSD D&C 132:1 claims that Moses had many wives and concubines, but he did not. In his long life, he had no concubines, he married Zepporah, both late in their lives. We hear a few things about her for a while, and then nothing about her many decades later. Eventually she likely had died, and eventually much later we read that Moses takes to wife "an Ethiopean" not long before he eventually dies of old age. Again, Zepporah was likely dead by then, because she is not mentioned at all.
Moving on (still verse 1!), it claims that Joseph Smith asked the Lord how David and Solomon were justified in the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines. According to the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith had just a bit of familiarity with, they were not justified in "their having many wives and concubines", and in fact, those were an abomination. (I know that later in D&C 132 it tries to talk about some exception in the case of the wife of Uriah, but the Book of Mormon condemns "wives and concubines", plural, not any one-off case.) So this is just foolish.
So, LSD D&C 132 is a total and utter fraud "from the word go" in verse 1. This is just the logical fallacies and scriptural inconsistencies of one verse! It tumbles down into the depths of stupidity thereafter. LSD D&C 132 is a stupid fraud written by someone who does not understand the scriptures and struggles mightily with logic (and obviously morals).
Joseph Smith had nothing to do with absurd "revelation".
Very good points. Hadn't thought of these. Thanks.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteanonymous 8-20-13
Deleteactually theres 2 skools of thot, on zipporah n the ethiopian gal
yers of course, which is totally probable, the other bein that zipporah was the ethiopian gal mentioned by miriam
cuz the word thats in the original bible txt is "cushite"
cushite was used 2 describe a few geographical areas, 2 of which were ethiopia n midian
zipporah n her dad jethro, livd in midian
.
http://www.wacriswell.com/sermons/1958/moses-and-the-ethiopian-woman/
Great blog and very reasonable arguments for your premise which I agree with.
ReplyDeleteI am LDS and am an active member and served a mission also. I have a strong testimony of Joseph Smith being a prophet and the Book of Mormon being the word of God. I don't have a testimony of Brigham Young and see him as just a president of the church but not as a prophet.
Several of his doctrines have since been refuted by the church leaders such as blood atonement, Adam-God, Blacks were inferior and polygamy. Real prophets don't come up with false doctrine. Brigham taught black were inferior and less righteous.
That was a very stupid doctrine to teach concurrently with the doctrine ALL children who die before the age of 8 go to the Celestial kingdom. How many millions of black children have died before the age of 8 since that time? So he taught two opposing doctrine at the same time. One had to be wrong and the latter has never been refuted. Not very logical.
Polygamy is a very unfair practice in this life to women and would be completely illogical in the next. What woman upon becoming a goddess would agree to such a situation? Ridiculous. It is something thought up by men who need an excuse to sleep around and control more than one woman, imho.
Joseph Smith was a man of his word and never failed to publicly proclaim the truth. All the "evidence" claiming he practiced polygamy came long after his death and seems pretty suspect to me. Brigham was the main proponent of it and all the "evidence" supporting it came in his time. He had to justify what he was doing not Joseph. It is sad the church threw Joseph under the bus to cover up for Brigham.
The sworn testimonies of Joseph's supposed plural wives(regardless of how many there were) came way to long after the fact to be credible and their agenda's are suspect. I believe Joseph and Emma over them as they are far more credible. Prophets don't lie over important things(shouldn't lie ever) and If polygamy was revealed to Joseph as mandatory doctrine he would have lived it openly. Brigham was the one who started doing it in secret and then needed to justify it later.
If Hyrum had lived polygamy would have never been an issue and Brigham would have likely been excommunicated.
Hi Greg S. --
DeleteThanks for your response. I couldn't agree with you more!
im w greg
Deletei believe that all the church presidents who practiced polygamy were jus presidents of which the authorative keys were passd dwn but they werent prophets
Lance Cutler,
DeleteI don't believe there were such a thing as 'true keys or Priesthood' given to Joseph Smith, for I believe he lied about that just like I believe he lied about the authorship of the BoM & D&C, BoA, etc, meaning he wrote it with help & none came from God, for it teaches things completely contrary to the teachings of Christ or what true prophets would say & do had it really been written by true ancient prophets. Plus Joseph just got the 'Tree of Life Dream' from his father, who is the one who had that dream and it was handy to include in the BoM and claim Lehi had it.
But, even if he would have had such keys or Priesthood he & all succeeding Presidents & leaders would have lost them for committing evil, like lying, adultery, abuse of women, using tithing for things other then the poor, even pocketing some of it themselves & living off the members and the widows mite, a most evil deed, instead of taking care of those widows. Etc etc. There is no way those men could have maintained the Holy Spirit given what they preached and practiced, let alone a Holy Priesthood or true authority from God. They were one of the least Christian Churches then & now. God would give his Priesthood to the Catholics or Baptist far sooner then any Mormon, for those churches teach far more of Christ's Gospel then the LDS do.
And that's assuming Joseph was innocent of polygamy, if he really did live it, then it is even more ridiculous to think that he or other abusive adulterers could maintain or pass on real authority from God. If you believed they did then you would have to believe all churches & religions have the true Priesthood, no matter how evil they are. For the LDS Church is one of the most evil & blinding of all churches.
hi troll
Deletekno u r a troll cuz posting anomonously is the cowardly troll thing 2 do
also its evident, u didnt even read jsdefenders article but scrolled str8 dwn 2 comments w yer lil agenda
that said, it mattereth not 2 me wut u believe cuz youve an axe 2 grind
---
thats very interestin bout j.smith borrowin the tree of life vision from his pops
of course u can totally prove this conjecture, rite?
its ez peazey..jus copy n paste the link that substantiates this assertion
u kno..so we dont think yer jus a crazy loon, making ridiculous claims
---
also im evva so curious 2 learn which things in the BofM, r contrary 2 the teachings of Christ
again jus copy n paste links or take the time 2 list'em so we can hav a sensible debate, ay pawcha
i do agree w yer assertion that neither the catholics nor baptists, were given the priesthood
---
finally im bout 2 blo yer troll mind by proving the BofM is an authentic ancient record, in its very 1st chptr
1nephi 1: 4..
"For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed"
.
later in 3nephi 1: 1, states that lehis fam left jerusalem 600yrs prior 2 the sign of the sun goin down yet it remained lite as if it was still day, signifyin the birth of Christ
now heres the incredible thing..
the precise dates of zedekiahs reign were unknown 2 the westrn world cuz the OT contained no dates
20th cntry bible scholars could only guestimate these dates w eastern records of reigns of ancient kings coupled w astrological records
of course the farmboy, j.smith had nun of this info at his disposal
it wasnt til 1896 that babylonian tablets were discoverd, containin a precise timeline of nebuchadnezers siege of jerusalem that a precise date of 600bc could b ascribed 2 the commencemnt of king zeds reign
furthermore these chronicles werent even pblshd til 1956, over a cntry afta j.smiths martydom
so do u see where im goin, nacho de burracho?
if j.smith jus made up the BofM, outta the clear blu, then how the honk was he able 2 correctly pin point the begining of old king zeds reign, a cntry b4 it was known 2 the world?
check n mate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_Chronicle
see wut i did there, ace?
---
finally if u had even read jsdefenders article then youd hav no assumption bout j.smiths innocence pertainin 2 polygamy, chief
thereby xposing u as a pathetic troll
ive no tollerance 4 skoosh la dooshes like yerself
jsdefender
ReplyDeletethis blog was xactly wut i was searchin 4 cuz i needed answers 2y theres reports of j.smith bein a polygamist, when this is contrary 2 the book of jacob
as well as wut the deal is bout sction 132
thnx much 4 yer research n xplanations
Why do Mormons only focus on one part of D&C 132? There are four parts to it. God gave four rules if you wanted to practice polygamy and Joseph Smith broke each one over and over. That is not making a mistake but being a habitual covenant breaker.
DeleteIn case you are unaware of the four rules for the practice of polygamy here is the break down.
1- First wife must consent.
2- Second wife must be a virgin.
3- No married women.
4- “multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men”
Joseph Smith wrote doctrine he himself could not keep. That is a CON-MAN.
You have been con into doing something that he is not going to do.
wow!!
Deletei see y u chose 2 stay anonymous
cuz its blaringly obvious that u didnt read or comprehend this article
if u had read this article then youd see that jsdefender wrote it 2 sho that our prophet, j.smith was in fact an opponent of polygamy n didnt write section 132
---
so i'd suggest, u sober up n re-read this article
The LDS ignore what the false D&C 132 says for the same reason they ignore Christ's words that condemn all polygamy. For they don't want to admit their adulterous roots for they probably look forward to polygamy themselves one day when they can bring it back or in their 'mormon' heaven, for they still promise polygamy in the next life to all men in the Church and they promote and support 'serial polygamy' today by allowing divorce & remarriage, even though Christ condemned all divorce & remarriage also as adultery, just like he condemned polygamy in the same verses, teaching that married men can't marry again to anyone, even if he divorced his 1st wife 1st, for the divorce is invalid to God and they are still married. Thus God does not allow any 2nd, 3rd or 50th marriages, not after divorce (a man-made evil) or in polygamy. Such things were just born of unfaithful husbands that refused to keep their vows to stay unconditionally exclusively faithful & loving to their one wife for all eternity.
Deletehola, troley troll
Deleteim lds n i dont ignore 132 but acknowledge it as deceit used by b.young, 2 convince the saints that j.smith practiced polygamy
im lds n dont look 4wrd 2 polygamy in this "mormon" heaven, of which u speak
so y dont u layoff the redbull n pixie stix n dial it back a few notches, ay pablito de bandito
Hello, first I want to say I am not LDS, but completely fascinated by Mormonism and have read as many books as I can find on the subject. I recently took my children on a tour of the Kirtland Temple and the obvious love the museum showed between Joseph Smith and his wife Emma brought me to tears. I am so glad I found this article/blog that shows this D&C 132 as possibly not being written by Joseph Smith. I couldn't make sense of the fact a man loved his wife so much that he made her the Queen of Hymns but then would be comfortable cursing her for not accepting his many wives. I never thought to think beyond to open my mind to the idea it wasn't his revelation. Thank you so much!
ReplyDeleteYes, truth is stranger then fiction and usually stares us right in the face & yet we don't see it, cause believing lies that feel good to the natural man (most men) is easier.
DeleteBut though Joseph may not have lied about polygamy & truly was innocent in it & completely faithful to Emma, it appears he lied about almost everything else (origin or BoM,D&C, BoA, etc and his unChristlike deeds & precepts, though he probably was sincere at trying to start a new and better religion, he was just deceived to teach and practice many falsehoods and evils along with the many truths he also tried to teach, as all false prophets do.
But Christ warned us about falling for just such false prophets in sheeps clothing, like Joseph and all subsequent church leaders onto today.
Anonymous 9/6/14--
DeleteEvery time someone comments, I receive an email notification, but I don’t remember seeing yours. My apologies for not responding sooner.
Thank you so much for your wonderful comment. It is one of the nicest ones I have received. Like you, I believe that the love which Joseph and Emma had for each other was very special, which makes it unimaginable for me to even think he was involved in polygamy.
The Kirtland Temple is a very special place to me and I’m glad you had a good experience there. If you notice, my blog is now designed with the Kirtland Temple in the background. In one of my future blogs, I hope to write about the endowment of the Spirit that was received there in 1836. It was one of the most important events that occurred in the Church and will again be received for the establishment of Zion.
Anonymous 11/14/14--
DeleteThank you for your comment. You made a very bold statement that Joseph "lied about almost everything else." How do you back that up? What proof do you have? Enlighten us.
People don't understand why no polygamy in the Book of Mormon. Simply... it was not needed.
ReplyDeleteRaising a righteous people or seed.. was done because those whom God wanted to be a righteous people were in the midst of wickedness of other nations and peoples. In the Book of Mormon.. there were none..
All the people who were in the promised land had already been brought there by the Lord. There was no foreigners on that land.
Remember.. if you really read the Book of Mormon.. you would know that they were upon an island. Surrounded by a sea on the west and east... and north and south. No way off that island until Hagoth built ships for both Lamanites and Nephites to leave on and sail north.
And... as far as Emma goes. Anyone who thinks that Emma had it in her heart to agree to polygamy is sadly mistaken. That is the reason for God's scolding her regarding it even though she did participate in those marriages of other women to Joseph. God knew how she really felt and her acting as if all was ok.. was really not. Her "gift" to Joseph was a very reluctant one and therefore.. not accepted by God as such.
My foundation for the God I worship! Why Polygamy?
ReplyDeleteSince the Church did the essays on polygamy:
https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng
It has caused me to consider what President Gordon B Hinckley said on the Larry King interview that aired September 8, 1998 saying, concerning polygamy:
Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
He said, “I think it is not doctrinal.” I was left to pray and ponder about that statement and search the scriptures that the Prophet Joseph had when he was on the earth and these are my best conclusions regarding polygamy personally without considering any second hand reports or opinions of others and why I came to this conclusion. This would have excluded section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants at that time, since it was put in 8 years after his death by Brigham Young, then acting president of the Church.
We may assume this or that about “God” and how to worship Him. My greatest desire is to see things through “Gods” perspective and not my perspective. All I have right now for my foundation is the scriptures and my interpretation of them and what visions and dreams I have had that help me to understand His perspective. To me there is a huge difference between “believing in God” and “becoming like God.” I know many examples of people who say they “believe in God,” yet there actions show the “natural man” has taken over or is in control of their lifestyle. Some follow the “letter of the law” so rigidly that the “spirit of the law” has fled. The “form and structure” of any law, I believe is there to guide us into the “spirit of the law.” It is my belief that the “spirit of the law” ought to be our foundation back to God through “holiness” of a moral character.
“Under the guidance of the Prophets it was seen that what distinguished Jehovah from the gods of the heathen was His personal character. The word holy therefore came to refer to moral character (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 21:8; Isa. 6:3–8). Israel must be holy in character because the God of Israel was holy (Jer. 7:4–7; see also Matt. 5:48). The Law of Holiness (Lev. 17–26) shows how the attempt was made by means of ceremonial observances to secure this holiness of character. The attempt failed because the later Jews observed the letter and neglected the spirit; they attached more importance to the ceremonial than to the moral; and the result was a lapse into formalism. But in the writings of the Prophets it is clearly laid down that the value of worship in the eyes of God depends upon the personal character of the worshipper.” (See LDS Bible Dictionary, Holiness)
In my desire to receive an answer, I feel the need to establish a “moral foundation” from the teaching of the scriptures.
ReplyDeleteWho Started Polygamy?
It wasn’t until sin made man fall (Gen. 4:15-23) that polygamy occurs. Cain was cursed, Lamech is a descendent of Cain and the first to practice polygamy as far as we know from the scriptues. The first time polygamous relationship is found in the Bible is with a thriving rebellious society in sin; when a murderer named “Lamech [a descendant of Cain] took for himself two wives” (Gen.4:19, 23).
The same Godly pattern of one man and one wife was lived by Noah and his family when the race of man was to start anew again. At the time of the Ark (Gen. 7:7), Noah took his one wife into the ark, all his son’s took one wife; God called Noah’s family righteous and pure. If polygamy were ordained of God, it would have made sense that Noah and his sons would have taken additional wives with them to repopulate the earth faster from the effects of the flood and cataclysm.
It seems to me that polygamy is wrong and never has been “Gods” will from the beginning of creation. It is man in his fallen state who has corrupted the “law.” To me “God” is a moral God and teaches moral concepts, which began with Adam and Eve and then again with Noah.
My wife says she could accept the idea of polygamy. Do you remember the talk by a sister during general conference when she said to the effect: I would rather have 10% of a 100% man than 100% of a 10% man? Interesting implications here... With the way society is going, I can readily see the day when 7 women will want/need to marry 1 man because they want to to be loved by a man and perhaps even have children and there are not enough men who want to to marry because they are not interested in women for one reason or the other
ReplyDeleteWalter,
DeleteThe comment you purport to have been said at GC saddens me greatly... that any women would be willing to accept 10% of a man... that's an awful thing to say in any circumstance. I'm sure the context had to do with church callings, which is still no excuse. Nothing is more important than your spouse.
It's my great hope that women would have enough self-love and self-respect to settle for nothing less than what they deserve, instead of feeling incomplete without a partner... being desperate enough to marry someone who they yet know will not have unconditional love for them, who will not give in return their whole mind, body & soul.
Walter, if your wife is warm to the concept of polygamy, I fear you may have not shown her true love. Any one that knows true love will know polygamy (adultery) is the most evil & abominable form of spousal abuse that has ever existed. I pray that you will come to think this over, repent & explain to her the evils of such things. 7 women will cleave to 1 man, yet again in the last day. The women desperate, the men as evil as ever. But the followers of Jesus Christ will be in Zion, where the law of the gospel (D&C 42) will be lived, which mandates monogamy and ONLY monogamy, with the commandment to live in marriage in love.
The Book of Mormon unequivocally condemns the practice of polygamy. Here is a sampling. Jacob 1:15 says, “And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.” Jacob 2:24 says, “David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” Jacob 2:27 says, “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”. Jacob 3:5 says that the Lamanites “have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none”. Mosiah 11:2 says that King Noah “did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.”
ReplyDeleteNever at any point does the Book of Mormon allow polygamy. Many people, including myself on multiple occasions, have been told that Jacob 2:30 is a loophole that allows polygamy under certain circumstances ordained by the Lord. This post is written to disabuse everyone of that notion. The following is what Jacob 2:30 actually says about polygamy when we disregard what we may want it to say about polygamy. We must allow the text and its entire context to inform us.
Jacob 2:25 says, "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."
God uses the terms, “branch”, “fruit”, and “loins”. These are genealogical and familial terms and we ought to anticipate the further use of such terms to describe the righteous branch the Lord wants to “raise up”. God is describing His goal: to raise up the people as a righteous branch of Joseph unto Himself. In other words, God is trying to raise up a righteous seed, even the family of God. This is one of the major themes of Jacob’s ministry, as evidenced by Jacob 5, Zenos’ allegory of the tame olive tree, which Jacob makes his own by declaring that it “must surely come to pass” (Jacob 6:1). Jacob 5 is all about raising up the family of God through covenant Israel.
[continuing]
ReplyDeleteDirectly after discussing God's hope for raising up His family, Jacob 2:26 says, “Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.” God says that to become a righteous branch, the people have to cease doing what the people of old did (the polygamy referenced earlier in the chapter). Jacob 2:27 says, “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none”. Here the Lord gives the commandment and it is very explicit and clear: A man should have a maximum of one wife. Jacob 2:29 says, “Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.” The cursings are described further in Jacob 2:33 and Jacob 3:3-4.
Right after warning the people of potential cursings, in Jacob 2:30 the Lord leaves the people no alternative to obedience if they want to be raised up as His family: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people". Here the Lord restates the goal: raising up the family of God, or the righteous seed He just talked about in verse 25. God tells the people that if they want to become His righteous seed or branch they absolutely need to listen to Him and obey the commandments He is telling them right now. God makes it very clear that the people need to obey all His commandments by saying "I will command my people". Notice He does not say, "I will command my people to disregard previous commandments". He is simply saying that any people who want to be His righteous seed need to listen to all the commandments of the Lord, without exception.
The end of verse 30 says, “...otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” If the people do not obey, God is warning them that they will naturally tend towards “these things”. But what are “these things”? If a verse uses the generic term, “things”, without explicitly defining what those things are, our duty is to examine the full context in order to properly identify those “things” so that we may avoid making unwarranted assumptions. Fortunately for us, “these things” are mentioned multiple times in the chapter. These are the things that have been written concerning polygamy, specifically in regards to David and Solomon. Jacob 2:23-24 says, “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 Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” Verse 34 says, “ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.” So how do the people avoid doing those awful things that have been written about? God told the people that He has to command them if they want to be His seed (and thus avoid evil). Otherwise, if the people don't listen to God's commandments and rebel against Him, they will naturally apostatize and continue to make the same severe mistake of hearkening to the distorted interpretations of scriptures and records - those “things” that have caused so much wickedness and so much heartache among the Nephites.
[continuing]
ReplyDeleteNotice that this “seed” spoken of in verse 30 is the same seed of Christ that Abinadi discusses in Mosiah 15:10-13: “And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed? Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God. For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed? Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed”.
Going back to Jacob 2:30, notice that God says nothing about raising a large quantity of seed, which is what is unfairly inferred by the traditional reading of the verse. The notion that polygamy is required in order to produce a large population is is an unwarranted assumption.
Additionally, the idea that polygamy is sometimes permitted by God in order for righteous people to have lots of offspring is inconsistent with the complete lack of confirmed children of Joseph Smith through alleged polygamous relationships.
Keeping all of this information in mind, read Jacob 2:30 again: “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." If I were to translate it in modern English, I might say, “If I, the Lord, will make you part of my family, my commandments must be obeyed. If my commandments are not obeyed, you will undoubtedly continue in the same pattern of wickedness of previous apostates.”
Jacob preached against polygamy and had a difficult time doing so because the people warped the words of the scriptures and used them to justify their abominable acts. Many Mormons continue in that same wicked tradition by doing the exact same thing - warping the meaning of the scriptures to justify polygamy, even if the polygamy in question is past (and potentially future) and not present. The importance of understanding this chapter correctly should become quite clear, knowing that the Nephites so easily succumbed to false interpretations of scriptures dealing with sexual sin. Diligent prayer and study, independent of tradition, ought to be the tools we use to understand these things.
Regardless of what people believe other books of scripture and historical accounts say about the appropriateness of polygamy, make no mistake that the Book of Mormon is decidedly anti-polygamy and makes no exceptions. Joseph Smith said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” Therefore, the teachings of the Book of Mormon ought to inform our beliefs a great deal.
Dan--
DeleteGreat post! Thanks.
I felt the spirit of Truth in this point, especially the part about God raising up His family. I had never thought of it in those terms. It's a beautiful thought and insight. Thank you.
DeleteGreat post Dan... I think you are right on!
DeleteP.D.
ReplyDeleteThe comments made previously were well thought out and expressed. I commend the study, research and evident spiritual confirmations about this principle which have been delineated herein. Without giving my ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ on the subject, I would like to offer additional information, not to counter what has been said, but to offer all who read this the following: “God has told us through His prophets that we are free to choose between good and evil. “And the right to choose between good and evil and to act for ourselves is called agency.”-- Gospel Principles
In doing this, I am not championing the one or the other. I am doing it partially to help me understand things as I read and study further to amplify my knowledge of the subject, so I can make an informed choice, as I also pray about the truth or falsity of what we have record of being said and written on the subject, and the conclusion that the majority of the comments here are coming to.
With that preface, let me begin.
Jacob: 2
22 And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 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.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 … I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 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.
31 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.
32 …the cries of the fair daughters of this people,… shall come up unto me against the men of my people,
33…they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness…
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have been marveled by 132 as of a year ago, and have suspicion of its origin. Thank you for your analyses here. I also consider myself a loyal LDS member. As D&C 88 states, the church government has a right to enact unrighteousness, which can be appealed by majority of qrms. The Firs Pres and Twelve Apostles holds the authority. So whether 132 is true doctrine or not - they hold the keys, and thats a significant fact personally. At this point I believe they simply just don't know all teh facts and are doing the best they can.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the authenticity of 132, it is a personal pursuit of mine to find out. I def have doubts that Joseph Smith received it in its entirety or practiced it. I hope one day that we can have more light shed on its entirety.
You certainly give a good explanation of your thoughts and logic on the subject. As a seeker of truth you might also be interested in reading the scholarly historian’s book by Compton, Todd M. (1997). In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. ISBN 1-56085-085-X.
ReplyDeletePretty good post. I have just stumbled upon your blog and enjoyed reading your blog posts very much. I am looking for new posts to get more precious info. Big thanks for the useful info. lds dating app
ReplyDeleteWow, excellent post. I'd like to draft like this too - taking time and real hard work to make a great article. This post has encouraged me to write some posts that I am going to write soon. ldssingles
ReplyDeleteRight up 'til today the print business catalog contain a lot of beautiful, one page show advertisements that include legal counselors offering their administrations, and legal advisors pay a ton for these promotions.brooklyn injury lawyer
ReplyDeletePhiladelphia Injury Lawyers P.C.
He'd referred to as the assistance line years in the past and received arrange on the state's 카지노 사이트 self-exclusion lists. Connecticut has worked with its two casinos, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, to allow people with an issue to ban themselves from the establishments. Something like 30% of help line calls are people inquiring concerning the self-exclusion lists.
ReplyDelete