What they NEVER tell you when they bring up Oliver's return to "the church"

[AGoodGlobalCitizen]

This brings up an interesting point. If the doctrine of polygamy was false doctrine... then what did the Lord command us to continue doing in his revelation to W.W. in the 1889 revelation? What did the Lord command us not to concede to government about?

And what of the revelation received previously by President Taylor (1886) ?

If you believe Brigham Young carried the torch on after Joseph, you most likely accept the writings attributed as revelations by Brigham Young and the following prophets and from that perspective, it looks like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fell into apostasy and out of God's favor with stuff like abandoning polygamy and mingling with the lovely people at the Bohemian Grove.

But many believers in the Book of Mormon don't think Brigham Young was a successor to Joseph, and people with those views probably don't accept any writings labeled as revelation from Brigham, Taylor, etc as honest revelation from God.

There are many writings alleged to be revelations by Mormon break-offs, including a branch of the Temple Lot church. That branch was called The Church of Christ With The Elijah Message and they claimed to received a large amount of revelation over a period of decades. The original Temple Lot church and the break off that believes in the Elijah Message (I think there is another break off of this break off that believes in even more writings that they feel are revelation) were against polygamy, and held David Whitmer in high esteem. The original Temple Lot church, as far as I've read believes in just the Bible and Book of Mormon. From what I understand they are not entirely convinced one way or the other on Joseph and polygamy but they don't view the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture like the Bible and Book of Mormon. They have not sold the Temple Lot to anyone. Good on them.

You can read the Temple Lot's break off church (Church of Christ With The Elijah Message) writings they claim to be revelation here: https://www.elijahmessage.net/files/message1.html


My opinion isn't better than anyone's. I just don't think Brigham Young was a prophet, nor any of his successors.

At this point, I don't really think Joseph was in a prophetic standing with God leading up to his death, so I'm not sure Joseph was part of any divine leadership that could have been passed on to a successor.

[Luke]

I understand that but Joseph was accusing Oliver of adultery when Oliver confronted Joseph about adultery;
"had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself."


That's 1838 when the Three Witnesses are on their way out.

As the polygamist secret combination in Mormonism grew more public, David never had a "moment of clarity" and realized a need to "repent and return to the fold and live the holy law of Celestial Plural Marriage, partaking of eternal blessings at the hands of the Lord's Anointed, even Joseph Smith" once the polygamist secret combination in Mormonism became more public. Which was something right there for him to partake of. Regardless of whether or not it was from God or Satan, his role as one of the three witnesses would have been huge for him to live it up in polygamist Mormonism.

If polygamy came from God, are we really deluded enough to think Joseph wouldn't welcome David back with open arms and help him partake of the beauty of secret plural marriages?

If polygamy was a man made philosophy, doesn't it boost Joseph's claim to practice it if one of the three witnesses realizes their mistake and returns to the fold to live it alongside him and the other leaders? That gives Joseph or Brigham more than enough incentive to let any of the three witnesses come back to bolster the polygamy argument (which Oliver did not do when he briefly returned, and Whitmer says Oliver's daughter expressed sadness to her over the abomination being practiced among the leaders of the church). This was an opportunity for power and considerable sexual gratification for any of the three witnesses to be a part of.

The polygamy pot was brewing as the three witnesses were on their way out the door. David never looked back or lusted to return to have the worldly power and carnal pleasure he could have had.

It is nothing short of definitively documented how close Oliver and his brother-in-law David were. Oliver was excommunicated for telling the truth (for the pro-polygamy crowd) about Joseph's affair with Fanny. For the "Joseph is innocent crowd", Oliver was lying for.... some.. reason (power? jealousy? pride? Lack of faith?)

Just because polygamy was extremely hushed down at that point (essentially just affairs without the celestial plural marriage framing) in the church does not mean that David was not aware of what Oliver knew as they both were leaving


There is a pattern of Joseph pursuing girls in the middle of their teenage years and his closest peers (in terms of leadership in the church) leaving him over it (Oliver and Sydney).


This power and pleasure was at the fingertips of all three witnesses and none of them partook. Regardless of whether or not it was of God or Satan. This is huge self control. This is moral character. And this isn't something pointed out much about the Three Witnesses.


We just feel bad for poor, picked on Joseph for being betrayed.


Maybe thinking yourself above free speech isn't a grand idea. Maybe God doesn't really have the back of your movement if a newspaper is enough to ruin your movement. Who can stop the hand of God?


In the mouth of two or three witnesses, right? Who are the two or three witnesses most attached to the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith? And what do they say about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith?

Do you believe in the story William Marks told? I.e. before Joseph’s death he renounced polygamy and tried to turn things around but it was too late

This brings up an interesting point. If the doctrine of polygamy was false doctrine... then what did the Lord command us to continue doing in his revelation to W.W. in the 1889 revelation? What did the Lord command us not to concede to government about?

And what of the revelation received previously by President Taylor (1886) ?

My belief is that Celestial Plural Marriage is a true doctrine and I accept all of the unpublished revelations on it by JS and JT (who both had at least two each)

It's quite obvious what the Lord told us not to concede on. There was pretty much only one thing the US was trying to get us to stop doing

[TheDuke]

I don't think Joseph was a fallen prophet. I don't even know what that means. No one is perfect. I think he did things that were wrong (like we all do) but his revelations are true. I never saw him accuse Oliver of adultery. He accused Oliver of falsely accusing him of adultery. Joseph kept all of god's commands his way. It seems that sometimes his way was not what god intended. But, I don't think he ever intentionally broke gods commandments, he just got a little pride at times. That said I feel Joseph's greatest gift was true repentance, which allowed him to regain his standing with god and continue as the prophet.

I believe god allows polygamy. I'm not sure that Joseph or Brigham implemented as the Lord would want. Both seemed to have spins. Joseph kept it private (likely commanded so) as he was in US and watched closely. BY seemed to shift to openness when he left the US behind, but it caught up with them later. I don't like how BY mandated it or used it as a carrot. If allowed plural wives can only be successful if the Lord commands it and those involved are all righteous, if you use it for carnal as many here suggest, then it is wrong and implemented incorrectly (IMO).

There was much that changed in the early years, those with Joseph all had their minds on how it should go, it went differently than any one thought, some adapted, others didn't. I don't think leaving the church and not becoming bitter and denying the part of the testimony they had will be held against them (Oliver, David Whitmer, etc..) not so sure about those who reached out to destroy the church however.

[larsenb]

. . . . . Sorry larsenb, the facts show that the Manifesto was a political ploy, a sham, which went completely against the will of the Lord. The Lord said He would fight our battles, we didn’t have enough faith, we gave up the Most Holy Principle, and we came under condemnation for it. End of story.

Nope. Your assertion is based on your selection of what you call facts and your interpretation of them. They aren't stand-alone and explicit. I gave an alternative explanation of the Manifesto, the points of which you choose to ignore.

You're choice, of course.

My sense of where you are coming, based on what you've said, is that you used to fight against the concept/practice of polygamy, but then after a lot of research, came to see that Joseph did institute it and that it was/is a true principle. But regarding the Manifesto, you seem to have gone to the other extreme.

The Manifesto did not abrogate the principle of polygamy. It did not mean we "gave up the Most Holy Principle", it meant we stopped practicing it under threat of almost total destruction of the church by the power of SCOTUS withe the people of the US behind it.

The escape clause (in my view) from the Lord and contained in WW's 1889 revelation, was where the Lord said: "“I the Lord hold the destiny of the courts in your midst . . . in mine own hands” and "will hold the courts . . . . responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion”. SCOTUS upheld the Edmunds-Tucker Act and the damage it would do to the church if totally implemented. Church counselors lost their arguments and appeal to abrogate it.

The damage was done, which means the Lord will hold the courts, etc., responsible for what they did . . . . according to His time table and way. This makes sense to me, and it apparently did to the Presidency and the Twelve at the time, who approved WW's Manifesto.

[larsenb]

. . . . . How old is the "Cremation of Care" ritual? Do you know? At least since the 1880's. This is indeed satanic, wouldn't you say? The group that W.W. went to go meet with were certainly Gadiantons. Probably thanking him for "coming to his senses" and letting go of such silly things commanded him by the Lord.

It matters not if there is documentation regarding us joining with the gadiantons, because... we have joined with them. "Officially" or not, we are following their commands. Proudly and openly at that!

One thing you have failed to respond to is the fact that W.W. was indeed the final president of the Church to receive the literal words of Jesus Christ. Why do you skirt around this fact? This is the nail in the coffin and supports all my other points insisting that the Lord was displeased with him.

The Cremation of Care ceremony (?) was introduced byJoseph D. Redding in the 1880's. He was a prominent lawyer, with strong interest and accomplishment in music and the theater. He was a rather amazing 'Renaissance Man'-type of fellow and could probably be regarded as a cross-over between the artists who originally established the club and the elite professional class who took it over.

See: https://isgp-studies.com/Bohemian_Grove_symbolism, which I've offered before (giving a lot of speculation regarding what may have been the sources for the ritual, etc.), and the article on Redding, here: http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~npmelton ... fbred2.htm l.

The 'ritual' was redone as a play in the 1920's, apparently, which is the time the stone/cement owl became part of it. It's not clear just how the two versions differ. Was the original as ominous and 'satanic' as the later version? Tough to say w/out doing more research.

Your assertion that the octogenerians he had dinner with at the BC "were certainly Gadiantons", is, once again, a big stretch in my view.

And I just don't see that the church is "following their commands" (i.e., of the modern-day Gadiantons). We do seem to be voluntarily joining in with some of their agendas, which could be regarded as rather benign at surface value: 17 goals of Agenda 30; vaccines to stop COVID. Joining in with COVID vaccines will have its own recoil, however, if the claims for dangerous reactions come to full fruition. I.e., self-correcting.

And if the church goes along with how the elites' plan to enforce their goals, to include the 17 'benign; ones, this will certainly support your thesis.

[AGoodGlobalCitizen]

I received a book in the mail today that I ordered. It is the William E McLellin Papers (1854-1880). I'm going to share some stuff from the book that I think relates to the original post of this thread. McLellin was one of the original 12 Mormon apostles. He left the church in 1936 but he always believed in the divinity and historicity of the Book of Mormon. He just didn't believe what Joseph founded was God's church and he believed Joseph fell into sin after not being content with leaving his role at translating the Book of Mormon.

Anyways, as I mentioned in the original post, McLellin was rumored to be working on "righting the ship" with Oliver when Oliver returned to the Joseph/Brighamite church. I'll see if this book touches on that at all. Skimming through the book I see that McLellin was fond of David Whitmer and Oliver but didn't think they were perfect and didn't agree with them on everything.

I made a thread recently about a story where McLellin was new to the church and he was along with David and Oliver and their lives were in danger to anti-Mormon mobs. McLellin asked if they were serious about seeing the angel and the plates and David and Oliver affirmed they were serious and had seen the angel and the plates


An interesting quote from McLellin in a letter he wrote James T. Cobb in 1880 (taken from the book mentioned at the beginning of this post):

"P.S. Like you I want to add a few words. I never had but one letter from you until this one. You seem to think S. Rigdon the bottom of all M.ism. Many people know better. He never heard of the work of Smith and Cowdery, until C[owdery]. and P.P. Pratt brought the Book to him in Mentor, O. True enough, I have but little confidence in S. Rigdon, but I know he was more the tool of J. Smith than his Teacher and director. He was docile in J. S. hands to my knowledge ~

I left the church in Aug. 1836, not because I disbelieved the Book [of Mormon] or the (then) doctrine preached or held by the Church but because the Leading men to a great extent left their religion and run into and after speculation, pride and popularity! Just like the Israelites and the Nephites often did. I quit because I could not uphold the Presidency as men of God; and I never united with Joseph and party afterward!! I have often examined all the reasons You assign, but they have but little bearing on my mind. ~ I know a man can sit down and find crookedness in almost anything by prying closely into it. In that light you are to work at the Book, and M.ism. Your life like all other exposers will be spent in vain and worse than in vain. Then spend your time and energies at something more worthy of a lover of truth. Great events are just a little ahead of us. Great things are on hand today, but they will increase. Again I say I have no faith in any party or faction of L.D.S.ism anywhere in the world. I live alone outside all churches. I most firmly believe that the Lord will establish the Church of Christ shortly, and then (if they will accept of me) I'll unite with them!!! Thus I look for power from God to be displayed among his mini(s)ters. And then the Book of M. will b a kind of standard for the faithful. But I'll close hoping you may yet come to see the truth.

Give my [re]spects to J. F. Smith. W.EM. ~"


The bolding and underlining is from how it is in the letter. Another example of a Book of Mormon believer feeling like the work Joseph was doing was not the great and marvelous work, (the work of the Father? The work the Choice Seer will be used in?) prophesied of in the Book of Mormon.

There's another great explanation in this book from McLellin on how the gathering for Zion described in the Book of Mormon not matching at all what Joseph was trying to do. Some Gentiles may be brought in to help the Lamanite remnant in establishing Zion, but this was not what Joseph was doing. This is pointed out by a number of people (including D. Whitmer)


Almost seems like for 200 years we're watching men try and make the prophecies of the Book of Mormon come true through their uninspired and Godless hands (if he is not who he says he is, we're seeing this happen again with D. Snuffer's remnant movement), and we see these things going nowhere, and someday we will see God do his work and our mouths will shut and that which we hadn't considered, we will consider.

[Claymore]

I received a book in the mail today that I ordered. It is the William E McLellin Papers (1854-1880). I'm going to share some stuff from the book that I think relates to the original post of this thread. McLellin was one of the original 12 Mormon apostles. He left the church in 1936 but he always believed in the divinity and historicity of the Book of Mormon. He just didn't believe what Joseph founded was God's church and he believed Joseph fell into sin after not being content with leaving his role at translating the Book of Mormon.

Anyways, as I mentioned in the original post, McLellin was rumored to be working on "righting the ship" with Oliver when Oliver returned to the Joseph/Brighamite church. I'll see if this book touches on that at all. Skimming through the book I see that McLellin was fond of David Whitmer and Oliver but didn't think they were perfect and didn't agree with them on everything.

I made a thread recently about a story where McLellin was new to the church and he was along with David and Oliver and their lives were in danger to anti-Mormon mobs. McLellin asked if they were serious about seeing the angel and the plates and David and Oliver affirmed they were serious and had seen the angel and the plates


An interesting quote from McLellin in a letter he wrote James T. Cobb in 1880 (taken from the book mentioned at the beginning of this post):

"P.S. Like you I want to add a few words. I never had but one letter from you until this one. You seem to think S. Rigdon the bottom of all M.ism. Many people know better. He never heard of the work of Smith and Cowdery, until C[owdery]. and P.P. Pratt brought the Book to him in Mentor, O. True enough, I have but little confidence in S. Rigdon, but I know he was more the tool of J. Smith than his Teacher and director. He was docile in J. S. hands to my knowledge ~

I left the church in Aug. 1836, not because I disbelieved the Book [of Mormon] or the (then) doctrine preached or held by the Church but because the Leading men to a great extent left their religion and run into and after speculation, pride and popularity! Just like the Israelites and the Nephites often did. I quit because I could not uphold the Presidency as men of God; and I never united with Joseph and party afterward!! I have often examined all the reasons You assign, but they have but little bearing on my mind. ~ I know a man can sit down and find crookedness in almost anything by prying closely into it. In that light you are to work at the Book, and M.ism. Your life like all other exposers will be spent in vain and worse than in vain. Then spend your time and energies at something more worthy of a lover of truth. Great events are just a little ahead of us. Great things are on hand today, but they will increase. Again I say I have no faith in any party or faction of L.D.S.ism anywhere in the world. I live alone outside all churches. I most firmly believe that the Lord will establish the Church of Christ shortly, and then (if they will accept of me) I'll unite with them!!! Thus I look for power from God to be displayed among his mini(s)ters. And then the Book of M. will b a kind of standard for the faithful. But I'll close hoping you may yet come to see the truth.

Give my [re]spects to J. F. Smith. W.EM. ~"


The bolding and underlining is from how it is in the letter. Another example of a Book of Mormon believer feeling like the work Joseph was doing was not the great and marvelous work, (the work of the Father? The work the Choice Seer will be used in?) prophesied of in the Book of Mormon.

There's another great explanation in this book from McLellin on how the gathering for Zion described in the Book of Mormon not matching at all what Joseph was trying to do. Some Gentiles may be brought in to help the Lamanite remnant in establishing Zion, but this was not what Joseph was doing. This is pointed out by a number of people (including D. Whitmer)


Almost seems like for 200 years we're watching men try and make the prophecies of the Book of Mormon come true through their uninspired and Godless hands (if he is not who he says he is, we're seeing this happen again with D. Snuffer's remnant movement), and we see these things going nowhere, and someday we will see God do his work and our mouths will shut and that which we hadn't considered, we will consider.

Awesome find! I am not too familiar William McLellin. I'll have to get a copy. Thanks for sharing.

Claymore

[Mindfields]

Here's McLellin's take on the "miraculous" Kirtland temple day of Pentecost.

"In 1836 when they undertook to get an endowment in the Kirtland Temple. All washed and with oil anointed themselves, and appeared in the Temple at sunrise...and about five hundred ministers took their places, and solem[n]ly prayed. We remained there fasting until sunrise next morning. We however partook of some bread and wine in the evening. And some partook so freely, on their empty stomachs, that they became drunk! I took care of S[amuel] H. Smith in one of the stands so deeply intoxicated that he could not nor did sense anything. I kept him hid from the crowd in the stand, but he vomited the spit-box five times full, and his dear brother [Don] Carlos would empty it out of the window."

McLellin to Joseph Smith III, July 1872; cited in Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey (editors), The William E. McLellin Papers 1854-1880 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2007), p. 493-494.

[Cruiserdude]

Here's McLellin's take on the "miraculous" Kirtland temple day of Pentecost.

"In 1836 when they undertook to get an endowment in the Kirtland Temple. All washed and with oil anointed themselves, and appeared in the Temple at sunrise...and about five hundred ministers took their places, and solem[n]ly prayed. We remained there fasting until sunrise next morning. We however partook of some bread and wine in the evening. And some partook so freely, on their empty stomachs, that they became drunk! I took care of S[amuel] H. Smith in one of the stands so deeply intoxicated that he could not nor did sense anything. I kept him hid from the crowd in the stand, but he vomited the spit-box five times full, and his dear brother [Don] Carlos would empty it out of the window."

McLellin to Joseph Smith III, July 1872; cited in Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey (editors), The William E. McLellin Papers 1854-1880 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2007), p. 493-494.

Boy if this doesn't help you appreciate how human and how 'real' and how 'normal' of men they were....

[TheDuke]

Are these the famous McLellin papers Hoffman was selling to Hinckley? Just curious, watched the mini-serious on Hoffman a couple months back and his big play that landed him in jail was finding the McLellin papers and selling them to the church (via rich proxies).

[Mindfields]

I believe that the church already had the McLellain papers in their possession but didn't know it at that time. Makes you wonder what was really going on back in those days.

[AGoodGlobalCitizen]

Are these the famous McLellin papers Hoffman was selling to Hinckley? Just curious, watched the mini-serious on Hoffman a couple months back and his big play that landed him in jail was finding the McLellin papers and selling them to the church (via rich proxies).

Great catch, and you are partly correct but as Mindfields post points out.....

I believe that the church already had the McLellain papers in their possession but didn't know it at that time. Makes you wonder what was really going on back in those days.

The Church had the McLellin papers but didn't know it. So you are correct, Hoffman was making a forgery of them, but McLellin's papers are legit and the church had some of them already

On top of all this, another McLellin journal was found about 10 years ago. The historian who got it seemed really excited bout it. He seems very pro "official story" LDS. 10 years have come and gone and this excited individual seems like he decided to not let the contents of the journal release. I wonder why

The guy who owns the journal says McLellin wrote that Joseph got what he deserved and then crossed out that line. Interesting nugget of info if that is honest in how it is being presented

[Dusty Wanderer]

3. In revelation, Joseph was told not to publish the revelations. Joseph, with the nudging of others decided to print it anyway and also changed to revelation to give him a loophole for the allowing of such. The line was added (and I paraphrase), " if it be in my wisdom..." David Whitmer was against the printing of the revelations and admonished Joseph not to do so. He says that is when the real persecutions for the church began. What happened to the Book of Commandments and the printing press?

Can you provide some references/sources for this? I would be interested in pursuing it.