The question of polygamy sifts the honest from the liars

[I AM]

so with out really wanting to take sides on this, for or against polygamy,
I'm wondering just HOW can we justify all this, and
I just want to know from those that do not believe in it and believe that we shouldn't have lived it,
do you then believe that section 132 is just all bogus, and made up ?

I guess I could understand if God always opposed it, but we know that great men -Abraham - our father,
Isaac, Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon lived it.
Abraham - who the Lord said:
"In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—"

2 Nephi 29
14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever.


We can't dispute that Polygamy was a huge part of our churches history
and that we were told by the lord to live it, and what the consequences would be if we didn't.
And that it was lived and practiced by many members at that time.

So are we going to say that it was just some made up thing, some BIG mistake that the church made in the beginning ?
I"ve heard so many members that believe that.
But we can not just sweep it under the rug.
Or should we accept the fact that it is, what the Lord says it is - "It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”... JS "a new and an everlasting covenant" ;
(that we should still be living.)

It is an everlasting and eternal principal, a " new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned,
saith the Lord God."

I wonder where YOU might be without it ?
"the whole nation of Israel comes from the offspring of the four wives of Jacob.
(2 wives, 2 concubines)"

If you'd like to know how some of us could possibly say such things, I'd suggest starting with the document linked below and/or the book called "Exoneration of Emma Joseph and Hyrum". Don't just believe the author's conclusions but look up the primary sources yourself, then be prayerful and trust the Lord. Allow yourself to be willing to examine your preconceived notions...

Now just because some people have been able to make a good case against polygamy coming from the Lord and Joseph, it doesn't mean it's the whole truth - it'd be foolish to think so... but I do believe there's enough evidence to show that the story behind polygamy may be extremely different than we may have imagined... and if that's true, then scriptures such as 2 Nephi 28, Mormon 8 & 9, Ether 8, D&C 84, D&C 124, and many others that have a voice of warning to us take on a whole new meaning...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Gxhd99PRmS

------------
so let me get this straight.
again, I'm not really defending polygamy,
but just trying to understand how you could be reasoning this.

First, you really didn't address the things that I mentioned.
Like, I guess then that you're not accepting, and throwing out the window
the fact that God allowed great men in the Bible to have more than one wife.
Then, you are also going to completely ignore section 132 and throw that out the window.
Have I got that correct then ?
so then was it a fake revelation that was made up ?

Also, then, are you saying that, with the Lord restoring the gospel through Joseph Smith, and at that time polygamy was not included with the restoration of the church, and Joseph Smith was not practicing it; so later, when the church - prophets and members were living it, they must have been under condemnation from God for making up a revelation to practice it and doing it.
So all during the time that the church was practicing polygamy, the church must have been under condemnation for such a thing, and I would then assume, not receiving revelation from the lord.

Then what, the manifesto was issued ending plural marriage and the church was
again restored to God's grace.
Is that about the gist of it ?

I do apologize, I AM. It appears that you were looking for a different type of response from me than I gave.

I took your original question to be this – how can one possibly justify a belief that polygamy may not have been commanded by God to the early Latter Day Saints despite all the evidence to the contrary?

In response to you, I attempted to share a couple of the resources that began me down that path. This path is not of knowledge, neither even belief, that polygamy was not commanded by God. Rather I now accept that there very well could be a few different scenarios, each of which would certainly shatter our paradigm. For me, this was at first scary and unbelievable – but then it became a process that was both incredibly promoting of my faith in the Lord’s hand in all things, and also aided in taking away some of my stumbling blocks that are keeping me from approaching him and receiving his spirit.

I encourage you to read the link I sent previously, and even the short book. Those authors put the research together better than I can in a message board post…. Obviously...

Now I’ll attempt to quickly address your comments. Your comments are bold and italicized, with my responses following. I don’t intend this to be a back and forth debate. Again, this began by you asking me (and others) HOW and WHY we could possibly doubt the divine origin of the polygamy practiced by Brigham et al… I’m merely attempting to answer that question. I assume that your question was a sincere one, and that you truly are trying to understand those that have a different view point than yours. If you fire back with rebuttals and scriptures, I’ll read them and consider them, but I’m not going to scripture/history bash. That's not my intent, and it probably shouldn't be yours. I hope you’ll understand.

I'm wondering just HOW can we justify all this, and I just want to know from those that do not believe in it and believe that we shouldn't have lived it, do you then believe that section 132 is just all bogus, and made up ?

I believe there is a case to be made that the revelation that became D&C 132 did not entirely come from Joseph. This revelation was not added to the D&C until 1876 (one year prior to Brigham’s death, and 32 years after Joseph’s death). At the same time that this was added to the D&C, the section commanding monogamy was removed. The revelation did not appear until 1852, when it was published in the Deseret News. Until then, this revelation was unknown, because the original was thrown in the fire by Emma, as the story goes. Emma, of course, denied this to her death. What surfaced was admittedly a copy of the original, that was made by a then already practicing polygamist Joseph Kingsbury. The only others who testified of the original were Brigham Young and William Clayton, both already practicing polygamists. Of course Brigham had some… um…. well, let’s just say, un-Christlike things to say about Emma…

The only other person, that I’m aware of that claimed to see the “original revelation” was James Whitehead. This man apparently took over as Joseph’s scribe for William Clayton in 1843. In his testimony in the Temple Lot Case, he said that he had seen the revelation, but that it was much shorter in duration and contained nothing about polygamy and plural marriages, only information on the doctrine of sealings. Furthermore, he testified that he had lived next door to the prophet and saw him almost every day in the early 1840s and that he only ever saw that Joseph had one wife, being Emma.

Of course this is the same Temple Lot case where Joseph Smith III formally disputed the Brighamite church’s claim that polygamy had originated with his father Joseph. All the known evidence was brought forth and a judge ruled in favor of the Reorganized Church, under Joseph III, that their teachings – including no polygamy- more closely resembled the early church teachings, and had an ownership claim to the Independence Missouri temple lot.

I guess I could understand if God always opposed it, but we know that great men -Abraham - our father, Isaac, Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon lived it. Abraham - who the Lord said: "In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—"

There is no disputing that some of these men lived it. Though, Isaac did not appear to have more than one wife, and I question that Moses did either. BUT, the question is, was this provision (known as the Levirate Law, detailed in Genesis 38) a commandment given to man as a Celestial pattern of marriage, and a requirement to obtain the Celestial kingdom to those commanded it? Likewise, did this provision justify the taking of up to dozens of wives, as did David and Solomon's (and Brigham and John Taylor...)? According to the Book of Mormon, this practice of many multitudes of wives done by David and Solomon was abominable and wicked. The Levirate Law seems to have much stricter guidelines of when someone was to take a 2nd wife. Almost always as a charitable act to one’s brother who had left a widow – with no seed. Did God command Abraham to take Hagar? Or did Abraham taking Hagar (at Sara’s beckoning due to her own barrenness) result in a delay of God’s blessing of a birthright son? What were the actual conditions that resulted in Jacob/Israel taking a 2nd wife. Was this a commandment of God? If we are to believe the Book of Mormon, the danger of this practice is that it was almost always abused and resulted in suffering. Did Brigham and the early church so that same pattern of abuse?

Let’s remember that this provision written within the Law of Moses was part of the LESSER LAW. When did any people who obtained Christ’s new covenant (i.e. Book of Mormon and New Testament Church) practice it whatsoever? There were also provisions for slavery, death penalties for breaking the Sabbath, death penalties for not honoring one’s Father and Mother, and strict commandments on haircutting. Obviously none of these practices are candidates of Celestial Law that we should reinstitute. But yet, we are so quick to accept the polygamy is – just because our leaders told us so??? Could it be that such things as slavery and polygamy already pervaded the culture? And if so, isn't it remotely possible that the lesser law of Moses simply put bounds upon these practices? I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone really does...

We can't dispute that Polygamy was a huge part of our churches history and that we were told by the lord to live it, and what the consequences would be if we didn't. And that it was lived and practiced by many members at that time. So are we going to say that it was just some made up thing, some BIG mistake that the church made in the beginning ?... We cannot just sweep it under the rug.

No we cannot ignore that this happened, and sweep it under the rug, though I do question whether or not we were told by the Lord to live it. But let’s also not ignore one very very interesting fact… We weren’t the 1st restorationist sect in that area, and in that time period, to come up with the idea of “spiritual wifery”. Yes, this was the common term for what later became known as “Celestial Plural Marriage”. Please study Jacob Cochran and the Cochranites that were centered in Massachusetts and Maine. I’m not going to be comprehensive here, but yes, it is documented fact that a major tenet of this sect was to restore the practices of David and Solomon and other Old Testament practices. The early Quorum of the Twelve spent a significant amount of time with these people, as evidenced by their journal. It appears Brigham requested return missions to them.

Later a book was written and circulated in the English missions (where the Twelve were all serving missions, separated from the rest of the Kirtand/Nauvoo church) that promoted the virtues of “spiritual wifery”. With these years away, is it possible that some of the Twelve could have set their heart upon this doctrine, and believed it to be a true principle? Is it merely a coincidence that the Twelve all later adopted polygamy, while the 1st Presidency (Joseph, Hyrum, and Syndey) all fought it- at least in public? What contemporary evidence existed (meaning at the time Joseph was alive) that he was teaching or endorsing polygamy versus fighting it and excommunicating those who were actually practicing it in secret? What evidence surfaced many years later (much in preparation for the Temple Lot Case and in efforts to achieve Utah Statehood) in the former of testimonies and claims by then seasoned polygamists? If Joseph and Hyrum were, in deed, fighting polygamy – is there any possibility that some of his brethren ( that had come to believe in the principle) might have considered him a “fallen prophet”? They certainly wouldn’t have been the first of Joseph’s friends to have considered him a fallen prophet…

I believe these to be important issues. Please study those two resources I shared with you. And read the primary resources (much of which is easily found in the Joseph Smith Papers Project).

Or should we accept the fact that it is, what the Lord says it is - "It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”... JS "a new and an everlasting covenant" ; (that we should still be living.) It is an everlasting and eternal principal, a " new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

I don’t consider this fact, as previously stated. These ideas were first proposed in Section 132, which completely revolutionized the Doctrine of Christ and the Eternal Covenant. Do these doctrines conform with the witness of the rest of scripture?

I wonder where YOU might be without it ?

I wonder the same thing. Do I believe that polygamy was the cause of our condemnation? Not really. I have a strong suspicion that we had already incurred the condemnation of God by not seeking his face and living his law. It appears that we lost the fullness of the priesthood, at the very least. This is obviously well documented in Section 84, 124, and other places. Were we "rejected as a church, with our dead" completely? I don't know. I do know we lack most of the spiritual gifts promised to the believers.

Then what, the manifesto was issued ending plural marriage and the church was again restored to God's grace?

Um, I look around and I see a very similar scenario as I read about in 2 Nephi Chapter 28, Alma Chapter 4, Mormon chapter 8, and many other places in the Book of Mormon. I know very few that know the Savior and have been born again spiritually like those of King Benjamin’s people, Alma’s people, and Ammon’s people. We deny great miracles and laugh at the thought of literal ministering angels and speaking in tongues. It seems to me that our current state of unbelief and lack of faith may mean we “are not fit to be numbered among the people of his church.” (Moroni 7:39).

The biggest lasting result I see of the Manifesto is the myth (that has transformed itself into a core doctrine of our church) that we will never ever never ever never in a million years be led astray by our leaders… We have been almost completely lulled into “carnal security”, for “all is well in Zion”. Did Joseph Smith ever teach this doctrine? What did he mean, exactly, when he read the entirety of Ezekiel chapter 14 to a large relief society gathering in 1842 when he said “that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds in consequence…” And yes, as SilverPie just stated.... Brigham never did claim to be a prophet...

So what now? We must come to Christ and believe his doctrine, and fully submit to Him until we are born again of the spirit. That is the only way out of whatever “awful situation” we currently find ourselves.

-------------
so that was great !
and thank you for taking all that time to answer my questions and express what you believe.
To me, sincerity is everything, so thank you.
I can see you have spent a lot of time studying this and seeking the Lord for answers and the truth.

like I said, I'm probably not as interested in this as you are, because I have other things I'm studying that i'm more interested in.
And I'm more just interested in finding the simple truth, right or wrong kind of logic than the specifics of all of this.

Again I'm not defending polygamy. I'm just trying to find out how it was accepted by God in the Bible.
And if it was accepted, to me that would open the door to why it was given to live in the church.
I guess for me my simple logic is that having more than one wife has to be right, or very wrong.
And even though we know what the Book of Mormon says about this,
(and believe me, the Book of Mormon means everything to me), if this is wrong, and an abomination before God, then why would God allow (no matter why or what the circumstance were) such great prophets - Abraham and Jacob,
to have more than one wife and also concubines ? Would God allow this if it really was an abomination ?
Or are we just going to say that (these are), and there are exceptions.
Seems to me that it would have to be the right thing to do, or very very wrong.
I mean, if it was wrong, (and again, no matter what the circumstances were), how could God approve of it and not condemn these men for doing it ?

[cab]

Yes, I AM, those are all very great questions, and I'm not certainly not trying to answer them all, but rather just coming to realize that maybe the matter isn't quite as settled as we've always assumed. As I'm sure you've found in your search, some unexpected and uncomfortable things end up getting put on the alter of truth... Honestly, I'm much much more concerned about Christ's doctrine than this stuff... But yes, all this does is drive me further into his arms as I realize how little I am and how little I know, compared to what I've thought, and the urgency to submit everything to him.

[John Tavner]

If you'd like to know how some of us could possibly say such things, I'd suggest starting with the document linked below and/or the book called "Exoneration of Emma Joseph and Hyrum". Don't just believe the author's conclusions but look up the primary sources yourself, then be prayerful and trust the Lord. Allow yourself to be willing to examine your preconceived notions...

Now just because some people have been able to make a good case against polygamy coming from the Lord and Joseph, it doesn't mean it's the whole truth - it'd be foolish to think so... but I do believe there's enough evidence to show that the story behind polygamy may be extremely different than we may have imagined... and if that's true, then scriptures such as 2 Nephi 28, Mormon 8 & 9, Ether 8, D&C 84, D&C 124, and many others that have a voice of warning to us take on a whole new meaning...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Gxhd99PRmS

------------
so let me get this straight.
again, I'm not really defending polygamy,
but just trying to understand how you could be reasoning this.

First, you really didn't address the things that I mentioned.
Like, I guess then that you're not accepting, and throwing out the window
the fact that God allowed great men in the Bible to have more than one wife.
Then, you are also going to completely ignore section 132 and throw that out the window.
Have I got that correct then ?
so then was it a fake revelation that was made up ?

Also, then, are you saying that, with the Lord restoring the gospel through Joseph Smith, and at that time polygamy was not included with the restoration of the church, and Joseph Smith was not practicing it; so later, when the church - prophets and members were living it, they must have been under condemnation from God for making up a revelation to practice it and doing it.
So all during the time that the church was practicing polygamy, the church must have been under condemnation for such a thing, and I would then assume, not receiving revelation from the lord.

Then what, the manifesto was issued ending plural marriage and the church was
again restored to God's grace.
Is that about the gist of it ?

I do apologize, I AM. It appears that you were looking for a different type of response from me than I gave.

I took your original question to be this – how can one possibly justify a belief that polygamy may not have been commanded by God to the early Latter Day Saints despite all the evidence to the contrary?

In response to you, I attempted to share a couple of the resources that began me down that path. This path is not of knowledge, neither even belief, that polygamy was not commanded by God. Rather I now accept that there very well could be a few different scenarios, each of which would certainly shatter our paradigm. For me, this was at first scary and unbelievable – but then it became a process that was both incredibly promoting of my faith in the Lord’s hand in all things, and also aided in taking away some of my stumbling blocks that are keeping me from approaching him and receiving his spirit.

I encourage you to read the link I sent previously, and even the short book. Those authors put the research together better than I can in a message board post…. Obviously...

Now I’ll attempt to quickly address your comments. Your comments are bold and italicized, with my responses following. I don’t intend this to be a back and forth debate. Again, this began by you asking me (and others) HOW and WHY we could possibly doubt the divine origin of the polygamy practiced by Brigham et al… I’m merely attempting to answer that question. I assume that your question was a sincere one, and that you truly are trying to understand those that have a different view point than yours. If you fire back with rebuttals and scriptures, I’ll read them and consider them, but I’m not going to scripture/history bash. That's not my intent, and it probably shouldn't be yours. I hope you’ll understand.

I'm wondering just HOW can we justify all this, and I just want to know from those that do not believe in it and believe that we shouldn't have lived it, do you then believe that section 132 is just all bogus, and made up ?

I believe there is a case to be made that the revelation that became D&C 132 did not entirely come from Joseph. This revelation was not added to the D&C until 1876 (one year prior to Brigham’s death, and 32 years after Joseph’s death). At the same time that this was added to the D&C, the section commanding monogamy was removed. The revelation did not appear until 1852, when it was published in the Deseret News. Until then, this revelation was unknown, because the original was thrown in the fire by Emma, as the story goes. Emma, of course, denied this to her death. What surfaced was admittedly a copy of the original, that was made by a then already practicing polygamist Joseph Kingsbury. The only others who testified of the original were Brigham Young and William Clayton, both already practicing polygamists. Of course Brigham had some… um…. well, let’s just say, un-Christlike things to say about Emma…

The only other person, that I’m aware of that claimed to see the “original revelation” was James Whitehead. This man apparently took over as Joseph’s scribe for William Clayton in 1843. In his testimony in the Temple Lot Case, he said that he had seen the revelation, but that it was much shorter in duration and contained nothing about polygamy and plural marriages, only information on the doctrine of sealings. Furthermore, he testified that he had lived next door to the prophet and saw him almost every day in the early 1840s and that he only ever saw that Joseph had one wife, being Emma.

Of course this is the same Temple Lot case where Joseph Smith III formally disputed the Brighamite church’s claim that polygamy had originated with his father Joseph. All the known evidence was brought forth and a judge ruled in favor of the Reorganized Church, under Joseph III, that their teachings – including no polygamy- more closely resembled the early church teachings, and had an ownership claim to the Independence Missouri temple lot.

I guess I could understand if God always opposed it, but we know that great men -Abraham - our father, Isaac, Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon lived it. Abraham - who the Lord said: "In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—"

There is no disputing that some of these men lived it. Though, Isaac did not appear to have more than one wife, and I question that Moses did either. BUT, the question is, was this provision (known as the Levirate Law, detailed in Genesis 38) a commandment given to man as a Celestial pattern of marriage, and a requirement to obtain the Celestial kingdom to those commanded it? Likewise, did this provision justify the taking of up to dozens of wives, as did David and Solomon's (and Brigham and John Taylor...)? According to the Book of Mormon, this practice of many multitudes of wives done by David and Solomon was abominable and wicked. The Levirate Law seems to have much stricter guidelines of when someone was to take a 2nd wife. Almost always as a charitable act to one’s brother who had left a widow – with no seed. Did God command Abraham to take Hagar? Or did Abraham taking Hagar (at Sara’s beckoning due to her own barrenness) result in a delay of God’s blessing of a birthright son? What were the actual conditions that resulted in Jacob/Israel taking a 2nd wife. Was this a commandment of God? If we are to believe the Book of Mormon, the danger of this practice is that it was almost always abused and resulted in suffering. Did Brigham and the early church so that same pattern of abuse?

Let’s remember that this provision written within the Law of Moses was part of the LESSER LAW. When did any people who obtained Christ’s new covenant (i.e. Book of Mormon and New Testament Church) practice it whatsoever? There were also provisions for slavery, death penalties for breaking the Sabbath, death penalties for not honoring one’s Father and Mother, and strict commandments on haircutting. Obviously none of these practices are candidates of Celestial Law that we should reinstitute. But yet, we are so quick to accept the polygamy is – just because our leaders told us so??? Could it be that such things as slavery and polygamy already pervaded the culture? And if so, isn't it remotely possible that the lesser law of Moses simply put bounds upon these practices? I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone really does...

We can't dispute that Polygamy was a huge part of our churches history and that we were told by the lord to live it, and what the consequences would be if we didn't. And that it was lived and practiced by many members at that time. So are we going to say that it was just some made up thing, some BIG mistake that the church made in the beginning ?... We cannot just sweep it under the rug.

No we cannot ignore that this happened, and sweep it under the rug, though I do question whether or not we were told by the Lord to live it. But let’s also not ignore one very very interesting fact… We weren’t the 1st restorationist sect in that area, and in that time period, to come up with the idea of “spiritual wifery”. Yes, this was the common term for what later became known as “Celestial Plural Marriage”. Please study Jacob Cochran and the Cochranites that were centered in Massachusetts and Maine. I’m not going to be comprehensive here, but yes, it is documented fact that a major tenet of this sect was to restore the practices of David and Solomon and other Old Testament practices. The early Quorum of the Twelve spent a significant amount of time with these people, as evidenced by their journal. It appears Brigham requested return missions to them.

Later a book was written and circulated in the English missions (where the Twelve were all serving missions, separated from the rest of the Kirtand/Nauvoo church) that promoted the virtues of “spiritual wifery”. With these years away, is it possible that some of the Twelve could have set their heart upon this doctrine, and believed it to be a true principle? Is it merely a coincidence that the Twelve all later adopted polygamy, while the 1st Presidency (Joseph, Hyrum, and Syndey) all fought it- at least in public? What contemporary evidence existed (meaning at the time Joseph was alive) that he was teaching or endorsing polygamy versus fighting it and excommunicating those who were actually practicing it in secret? What evidence surfaced many years later (much in preparation for the Temple Lot Case and in efforts to achieve Utah Statehood) in the former of testimonies and claims by then seasoned polygamists? If Joseph and Hyrum were, in deed, fighting polygamy – is there any possibility that some of his brethren ( that had come to believe in the principle) might have considered him a “fallen prophet”? They certainly wouldn’t have been the first of Joseph’s friends to have considered him a fallen prophet…

I believe these to be important issues. Please study those two resources I shared with you. And read the primary resources (much of which is easily found in the Joseph Smith Papers Project).

Or should we accept the fact that it is, what the Lord says it is - "It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”... JS "a new and an everlasting covenant" ; (that we should still be living.) It is an everlasting and eternal principal, a " new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

I don’t consider this fact, as previously stated. These ideas were first proposed in Section 132, which completely revolutionized the Doctrine of Christ and the Eternal Covenant. Do these doctrines conform with the witness of the rest of scripture?

I wonder where YOU might be without it ?

I wonder the same thing. Do I believe that polygamy was the cause of our condemnation? Not really. I have a strong suspicion that we had already incurred the condemnation of God by not seeking his face and living his law. It appears that we lost the fullness of the priesthood, at the very least. This is obviously well documented in Section 84, 124, and other places. Were we "rejected as a church, with our dead" completely? I don't know. I do know we lack most of the spiritual gifts promised to the believers.

Then what, the manifesto was issued ending plural marriage and the church was again restored to God's grace?

Um, I look around and I see a very similar scenario as I read about in 2 Nephi Chapter 28, Alma Chapter 4, Mormon chapter 8, and many other places in the Book of Mormon. I know very few that know the Savior and have been born again spiritually like those of King Benjamin’s people, Alma’s people, and Ammon’s people. We deny great miracles and laugh at the thought of literal ministering angels and speaking in tongues. It seems to me that our current state of unbelief and lack of faith may mean we “are not fit to be numbered among the people of his church.” (Moroni 7:39).

The biggest lasting result I see of the Manifesto is the myth (that has transformed itself into a core doctrine of our church) that we will never ever never ever never in a million years be led astray by our leaders… We have been almost completely lulled into “carnal security”, for “all is well in Zion”. Did Joseph Smith ever teach this doctrine? What did he mean, exactly, when he read the entirety of Ezekiel chapter 14 to a large relief society gathering in 1842 when he said “that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds in consequence…” And yes, as SilverPie just stated.... Brigham never did claim to be a prophet...

So what now? We must come to Christ and believe his doctrine, and fully submit to Him until we are born again of the spirit. That is the only way out of whatever “awful situation” we currently find ourselves.

-------------
so that was great !
and thank you for taking all that time to answer my questions and express what you believe.
To me, sincerity is everything, so thank you.
I can see you have spent a lot of time studying this and seeking the Lord for answers and the truth.

like I said, I'm probably not as interested in this as you are, because I have other things I'm studying that i'm more interested in.
And I'm more just interested in finding the simple truth, right or wrong kind of logic than the specifics of all of this.

Again I'm not defending polygamy. I'm just trying to find out how it was accepted by God in the Bible.
And if it was accepted, to me that would open the door to why it was given to live in the church.
I guess for me my simple logic is that having more than one wife has to be right, or very wrong.
And even though we know what the Book of Mormon says about this,
(and believe me, the Book of Mormon means everything to me), if this is wrong, and an abomination before God, then why would God allow (no matter why or what the circumstance were) such great prophets - Abraham and Jacob,
to have more than one wife and also concubines ? Would God allow this if it really was an abomination ?
Or are we just going to say that (these are), and there are exceptions.
Seems to me that it would have to be the right thing to do, or very very wrong.
I mean, if it was wrong, (and again, no matter what the circumstances were), how could God approve of it and not condemn these men for doing it ?

My personal view is that God often allows custom and works within people and their customs and he won't judge people for their customs. I do not believe that God commanded either Abraham or Jacob to marry other women. The only time in the scriptures that I'm aware of that God commanded Polygamy was never to "raise up seed" rather it was to take care of the widow so she wasn't destitute. I'm not at all condemning Abraham or Jacob. My issue deals more with the command then the actual action itself. I believe very similarly to Caburnha. I do not believe that it is an eternal doctrine - that is where I take issue with it. I do not believe Joseph Smith taught it as an eternal Doctrine. I do believe however, that he taught Sealing as an eternal doctrine, but sealing is different than CPM. That being said, if for some reason I am wrong, I am fine with accepting the Lord's will concerning the matter. However, what me having learned by rejecting the idea of polygamy as an eternal doctrine has done for me is that it has provided a path by which i do not covet or lust after women. Too many men do so. They hope for a prettier or better wife. How do I know this, look at the prevalence of porn among the men. Whether they have admitted it or not, they are looking for something more than what they want- this is covetousness and lust. Deep down in many of their souls they want it for the lusts of the flesh rather than a righteous reason. While I'm sure there are some exceptions KoZ appears to be one of them from how he describes his experience with it, he, I think truly is trying or has tried to dedicate his life to God. As an aside, I believe "raise up seed" means something different, I think the Lord was saying if the people didn't give up polygamy, then he would destroy them off the face of the land, for the Lord will command (in the same way he commanded Lehi) and raise up seed to Him in America - dedicated to Him and not the lusts of the flesh.

Again, for me, the biggest clincher was after so much research, I realized that I personally could not speak evil against the Lord's anointed, the man who said this "Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same."

I do not believe that man, Joseph Smith, would be the same one who would excommunicate, and lie repeatedly about "truth" if it really was truth. As He once said " You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born in the world. My voice is always for peace.” I don't know if we will know the truth until the secrets are made manifest as is testified in Isaiah.

So, after looking at the history as caburnha said, it isn't as clear as we'd like it and some things don't add up. Like all things, sometimes the truth is complicated. That being said, I also just try to focus solely on the Doctrine of Christ for that is what saves us all and without it we are nothing

[I AM]

------------
so let me get this straight.
again, I'm not really defending polygamy,
but just trying to understand how you could be reasoning this.

First, you really didn't address the things that I mentioned.
Like, I guess then that you're not accepting, and throwing out the window
the fact that God allowed great men in the Bible to have more than one wife.
Then, you are also going to completely ignore section 132 and throw that out the window.
Have I got that correct then ?
so then was it a fake revelation that was made up ?

Also, then, are you saying that, with the Lord restoring the gospel through Joseph Smith, and at that time polygamy was not included with the restoration of the church, and Joseph Smith was not practicing it; so later, when the church - prophets and members were living it, they must have been under condemnation from God for making up a revelation to practice it and doing it.
So all during the time that the church was practicing polygamy, the church must have been under condemnation for such a thing, and I would then assume, not receiving revelation from the lord.

Then what, the manifesto was issued ending plural marriage and the church was
again restored to God's grace.
Is that about the gist of it ?

I do apologize, I AM. It appears that you were looking for a different type of response from me than I gave.

I took your original question to be this – how can one possibly justify a belief that polygamy may not have been commanded by God to the early Latter Day Saints despite all the evidence to the contrary?

In response to you, I attempted to share a couple of the resources that began me down that path. This path is not of knowledge, neither even belief, that polygamy was not commanded by God. Rather I now accept that there very well could be a few different scenarios, each of which would certainly shatter our paradigm. For me, this was at first scary and unbelievable – but then it became a process that was both incredibly promoting of my faith in the Lord’s hand in all things, and also aided in taking away some of my stumbling blocks that are keeping me from approaching him and receiving his spirit.

I encourage you to read the link I sent previously, and even the short book. Those authors put the research together better than I can in a message board post…. Obviously...

Now I’ll attempt to quickly address your comments. Your comments are bold and italicized, with my responses following. I don’t intend this to be a back and forth debate. Again, this began by you asking me (and others) HOW and WHY we could possibly doubt the divine origin of the polygamy practiced by Brigham et al… I’m merely attempting to answer that question. I assume that your question was a sincere one, and that you truly are trying to understand those that have a different view point than yours. If you fire back with rebuttals and scriptures, I’ll read them and consider them, but I’m not going to scripture/history bash. That's not my intent, and it probably shouldn't be yours. I hope you’ll understand.

I'm wondering just HOW can we justify all this, and I just want to know from those that do not believe in it and believe that we shouldn't have lived it, do you then believe that section 132 is just all bogus, and made up ?

I believe there is a case to be made that the revelation that became D&C 132 did not entirely come from Joseph. This revelation was not added to the D&C until 1876 (one year prior to Brigham’s death, and 32 years after Joseph’s death). At the same time that this was added to the D&C, the section commanding monogamy was removed. The revelation did not appear until 1852, when it was published in the Deseret News. Until then, this revelation was unknown, because the original was thrown in the fire by Emma, as the story goes. Emma, of course, denied this to her death. What surfaced was admittedly a copy of the original, that was made by a then already practicing polygamist Joseph Kingsbury. The only others who testified of the original were Brigham Young and William Clayton, both already practicing polygamists. Of course Brigham had some… um…. well, let’s just say, un-Christlike things to say about Emma…

The only other person, that I’m aware of that claimed to see the “original revelation” was James Whitehead. This man apparently took over as Joseph’s scribe for William Clayton in 1843. In his testimony in the Temple Lot Case, he said that he had seen the revelation, but that it was much shorter in duration and contained nothing about polygamy and plural marriages, only information on the doctrine of sealings. Furthermore, he testified that he had lived next door to the prophet and saw him almost every day in the early 1840s and that he only ever saw that Joseph had one wife, being Emma.

Of course this is the same Temple Lot case where Joseph Smith III formally disputed the Brighamite church’s claim that polygamy had originated with his father Joseph. All the known evidence was brought forth and a judge ruled in favor of the Reorganized Church, under Joseph III, that their teachings – including no polygamy- more closely resembled the early church teachings, and had an ownership claim to the Independence Missouri temple lot.

I guess I could understand if God always opposed it, but we know that great men -Abraham - our father, Isaac, Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon lived it. Abraham - who the Lord said: "In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—"

There is no disputing that some of these men lived it. Though, Isaac did not appear to have more than one wife, and I question that Moses did either. BUT, the question is, was this provision (known as the Levirate Law, detailed in Genesis 38) a commandment given to man as a Celestial pattern of marriage, and a requirement to obtain the Celestial kingdom to those commanded it? Likewise, did this provision justify the taking of up to dozens of wives, as did David and Solomon's (and Brigham and John Taylor...)? According to the Book of Mormon, this practice of many multitudes of wives done by David and Solomon was abominable and wicked. The Levirate Law seems to have much stricter guidelines of when someone was to take a 2nd wife. Almost always as a charitable act to one’s brother who had left a widow – with no seed. Did God command Abraham to take Hagar? Or did Abraham taking Hagar (at Sara’s beckoning due to her own barrenness) result in a delay of God’s blessing of a birthright son? What were the actual conditions that resulted in Jacob/Israel taking a 2nd wife. Was this a commandment of God? If we are to believe the Book of Mormon, the danger of this practice is that it was almost always abused and resulted in suffering. Did Brigham and the early church so that same pattern of abuse?

Let’s remember that this provision written within the Law of Moses was part of the LESSER LAW. When did any people who obtained Christ’s new covenant (i.e. Book of Mormon and New Testament Church) practice it whatsoever? There were also provisions for slavery, death penalties for breaking the Sabbath, death penalties for not honoring one’s Father and Mother, and strict commandments on haircutting. Obviously none of these practices are candidates of Celestial Law that we should reinstitute. But yet, we are so quick to accept the polygamy is – just because our leaders told us so??? Could it be that such things as slavery and polygamy already pervaded the culture? And if so, isn't it remotely possible that the lesser law of Moses simply put bounds upon these practices? I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone really does...

We can't dispute that Polygamy was a huge part of our churches history and that we were told by the lord to live it, and what the consequences would be if we didn't. And that it was lived and practiced by many members at that time. So are we going to say that it was just some made up thing, some BIG mistake that the church made in the beginning ?... We cannot just sweep it under the rug.

No we cannot ignore that this happened, and sweep it under the rug, though I do question whether or not we were told by the Lord to live it. But let’s also not ignore one very very interesting fact… We weren’t the 1st restorationist sect in that area, and in that time period, to come up with the idea of “spiritual wifery”. Yes, this was the common term for what later became known as “Celestial Plural Marriage”. Please study Jacob Cochran and the Cochranites that were centered in Massachusetts and Maine. I’m not going to be comprehensive here, but yes, it is documented fact that a major tenet of this sect was to restore the practices of David and Solomon and other Old Testament practices. The early Quorum of the Twelve spent a significant amount of time with these people, as evidenced by their journal. It appears Brigham requested return missions to them.

Later a book was written and circulated in the English missions (where the Twelve were all serving missions, separated from the rest of the Kirtand/Nauvoo church) that promoted the virtues of “spiritual wifery”. With these years away, is it possible that some of the Twelve could have set their heart upon this doctrine, and believed it to be a true principle? Is it merely a coincidence that the Twelve all later adopted polygamy, while the 1st Presidency (Joseph, Hyrum, and Syndey) all fought it- at least in public? What contemporary evidence existed (meaning at the time Joseph was alive) that he was teaching or endorsing polygamy versus fighting it and excommunicating those who were actually practicing it in secret? What evidence surfaced many years later (much in preparation for the Temple Lot Case and in efforts to achieve Utah Statehood) in the former of testimonies and claims by then seasoned polygamists? If Joseph and Hyrum were, in deed, fighting polygamy – is there any possibility that some of his brethren ( that had come to believe in the principle) might have considered him a “fallen prophet”? They certainly wouldn’t have been the first of Joseph’s friends to have considered him a fallen prophet…

I believe these to be important issues. Please study those two resources I shared with you. And read the primary resources (much of which is easily found in the Joseph Smith Papers Project).

Or should we accept the fact that it is, what the Lord says it is - "It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”... JS "a new and an everlasting covenant" ; (that we should still be living.) It is an everlasting and eternal principal, a " new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

I don’t consider this fact, as previously stated. These ideas were first proposed in Section 132, which completely revolutionized the Doctrine of Christ and the Eternal Covenant. Do these doctrines conform with the witness of the rest of scripture?

I wonder where YOU might be without it ?

I wonder the same thing. Do I believe that polygamy was the cause of our condemnation? Not really. I have a strong suspicion that we had already incurred the condemnation of God by not seeking his face and living his law. It appears that we lost the fullness of the priesthood, at the very least. This is obviously well documented in Section 84, 124, and other places. Were we "rejected as a church, with our dead" completely? I don't know. I do know we lack most of the spiritual gifts promised to the believers.

Then what, the manifesto was issued ending plural marriage and the church was again restored to God's grace?

Um, I look around and I see a very similar scenario as I read about in 2 Nephi Chapter 28, Alma Chapter 4, Mormon chapter 8, and many other places in the Book of Mormon. I know very few that know the Savior and have been born again spiritually like those of King Benjamin’s people, Alma’s people, and Ammon’s people. We deny great miracles and laugh at the thought of literal ministering angels and speaking in tongues. It seems to me that our current state of unbelief and lack of faith may mean we “are not fit to be numbered among the people of his church.” (Moroni 7:39).

The biggest lasting result I see of the Manifesto is the myth (that has transformed itself into a core doctrine of our church) that we will never ever never ever never in a million years be led astray by our leaders… We have been almost completely lulled into “carnal security”, for “all is well in Zion”. Did Joseph Smith ever teach this doctrine? What did he mean, exactly, when he read the entirety of Ezekiel chapter 14 to a large relief society gathering in 1842 when he said “that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds in consequence…” And yes, as SilverPie just stated.... Brigham never did claim to be a prophet...

So what now? We must come to Christ and believe his doctrine, and fully submit to Him until we are born again of the spirit. That is the only way out of whatever “awful situation” we currently find ourselves.

-------------
so that was great !
and thank you for taking all that time to answer my questions and express what you believe.
To me, sincerity is everything, so thank you.
I can see you have spent a lot of time studying this and seeking the Lord for answers and the truth.

like I said, I'm probably not as interested in this as you are, because I have other things I'm studying that i'm more interested in.
And I'm more just interested in finding the simple truth, right or wrong kind of logic than the specifics of all of this.

Again I'm not defending polygamy. I'm just trying to find out how it was accepted by God in the Bible.
And if it was accepted, to me that would open the door to why it was given to live in the church.
I guess for me my simple logic is that having more than one wife has to be right, or very wrong.
And even though we know what the Book of Mormon says about this,
(and believe me, the Book of Mormon means everything to me), if this is wrong, and an abomination before God, then why would God allow (no matter why or what the circumstance were) such great prophets - Abraham and Jacob,
to have more than one wife and also concubines ? Would God allow this if it really was an abomination ?
Or are we just going to say that (these are), and there are exceptions.
Seems to me that it would have to be the right thing to do, or very very wrong.
I mean, if it was wrong, (and again, no matter what the circumstances were), how could God approve of it and not condemn these men for doing it ?

My personal view is that God often allows custom and works within people and their customs and he won't judge people for their customs. I do not believe that God commanded either Abraham or Jacob to marry other women. The only time in the scriptures that I'm aware of that God commanded Polygamy was never to "raise up seed" rather it was to take care of the widow so she wasn't destitute. I'm not at all condemning Abraham or Jacob. My issue deals more with the command then the actual action itself. I believe very similarly to Caburnha. I do not believe that it is an eternal doctrine - that is where I take issue with it. I do not believe Joseph Smith taught it as an eternal Doctrine. That being said, if for some reason I am wrong, I am fine with accepting the Lord's will concerning the matter. However, what me having learned by rejecting the idea of polygamy as an eternal doctrine has done for me is that it has provided a path by which i do not covet or lust after women. Too many men do so. They hope for a prettier or better wife. How do I know this, look at the prevalence of porn among the men. Whether they have admitted it or not, they are looking for something more than what they want- this is covetousness and lust. Deep down in many of their souls they want it for the lusts of the flesh rather than a righteous reason. While I'm sure there are some exceptions KoZ appears to be one of them from how he describes his experience with it, he, I think truly is trying or has tried to dedicate his life to God. As an aside, I believe "raise up seed" means something different, I think the Lord was saying if the people didn't give up polygamy, then he would destroy them off the face of the land, for the Lord will command (in the same way he commanded Lehi) and raise up seed to Him in America - dedicated to Him and not the lusts of the flesh.

Again, for me, the biggest clincher was after so much research, I realized that I personally could not speak evil against the Lord's anointed, the man who said this "Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same." I do not believe that man, Joseph Smith would be the same one who would excommunicate, and lie repeatedly about "truth" if it really was truth. As He once said " You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born in the world. My voice is always for peace.”

--------------
thank you for opinion, I value it greatly.

To tell you the truth, this topic about polygamy is not what really matters that much to me.
I'm not trying to defend polygamy at all.
I mean, it's not like I want to go out and get 5 more wives.
I guess what I'm really wanting to defend, if anything, is the truth. the simple truth.

What I find so inconsistent with finding truth, and seems to be so contradictive ,
is how can most all members that believe that the prophet is leading the church according to God's will, and is receiving revelation,
yet they can say that this particular revelation, section 132
was not a revelation.

[John Tavner]

I do apologize, I AM. It appears that you were looking for a different type of response from me than I gave.

I took your original question to be this – how can one possibly justify a belief that polygamy may not have been commanded by God to the early Latter Day Saints despite all the evidence to the contrary?

In response to you, I attempted to share a couple of the resources that began me down that path. This path is not of knowledge, neither even belief, that polygamy was not commanded by God. Rather I now accept that there very well could be a few different scenarios, each of which would certainly shatter our paradigm. For me, this was at first scary and unbelievable – but then it became a process that was both incredibly promoting of my faith in the Lord’s hand in all things, and also aided in taking away some of my stumbling blocks that are keeping me from approaching him and receiving his spirit.

I encourage you to read the link I sent previously, and even the short book. Those authors put the research together better than I can in a message board post…. Obviously...

Now I’ll attempt to quickly address your comments. Your comments are bold and italicized, with my responses following. I don’t intend this to be a back and forth debate. Again, this began by you asking me (and others) HOW and WHY we could possibly doubt the divine origin of the polygamy practiced by Brigham et al… I’m merely attempting to answer that question. I assume that your question was a sincere one, and that you truly are trying to understand those that have a different view point than yours. If you fire back with rebuttals and scriptures, I’ll read them and consider them, but I’m not going to scripture/history bash. That's not my intent, and it probably shouldn't be yours. I hope you’ll understand.

I'm wondering just HOW can we justify all this, and I just want to know from those that do not believe in it and believe that we shouldn't have lived it, do you then believe that section 132 is just all bogus, and made up ?

I believe there is a case to be made that the revelation that became D&C 132 did not entirely come from Joseph. This revelation was not added to the D&C until 1876 (one year prior to Brigham’s death, and 32 years after Joseph’s death). At the same time that this was added to the D&C, the section commanding monogamy was removed. The revelation did not appear until 1852, when it was published in the Deseret News. Until then, this revelation was unknown, because the original was thrown in the fire by Emma, as the story goes. Emma, of course, denied this to her death. What surfaced was admittedly a copy of the original, that was made by a then already practicing polygamist Joseph Kingsbury. The only others who testified of the original were Brigham Young and William Clayton, both already practicing polygamists. Of course Brigham had some… um…. well, let’s just say, un-Christlike things to say about Emma…

The only other person, that I’m aware of that claimed to see the “original revelation” was James Whitehead. This man apparently took over as Joseph’s scribe for William Clayton in 1843. In his testimony in the Temple Lot Case, he said that he had seen the revelation, but that it was much shorter in duration and contained nothing about polygamy and plural marriages, only information on the doctrine of sealings. Furthermore, he testified that he had lived next door to the prophet and saw him almost every day in the early 1840s and that he only ever saw that Joseph had one wife, being Emma.

Of course this is the same Temple Lot case where Joseph Smith III formally disputed the Brighamite church’s claim that polygamy had originated with his father Joseph. All the known evidence was brought forth and a judge ruled in favor of the Reorganized Church, under Joseph III, that their teachings – including no polygamy- more closely resembled the early church teachings, and had an ownership claim to the Independence Missouri temple lot.

I guess I could understand if God always opposed it, but we know that great men -Abraham - our father, Isaac, Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon lived it. Abraham - who the Lord said: "In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—"

There is no disputing that some of these men lived it. Though, Isaac did not appear to have more than one wife, and I question that Moses did either. BUT, the question is, was this provision (known as the Levirate Law, detailed in Genesis 38) a commandment given to man as a Celestial pattern of marriage, and a requirement to obtain the Celestial kingdom to those commanded it? Likewise, did this provision justify the taking of up to dozens of wives, as did David and Solomon's (and Brigham and John Taylor...)? According to the Book of Mormon, this practice of many multitudes of wives done by David and Solomon was abominable and wicked. The Levirate Law seems to have much stricter guidelines of when someone was to take a 2nd wife. Almost always as a charitable act to one’s brother who had left a widow – with no seed. Did God command Abraham to take Hagar? Or did Abraham taking Hagar (at Sara’s beckoning due to her own barrenness) result in a delay of God’s blessing of a birthright son? What were the actual conditions that resulted in Jacob/Israel taking a 2nd wife. Was this a commandment of God? If we are to believe the Book of Mormon, the danger of this practice is that it was almost always abused and resulted in suffering. Did Brigham and the early church so that same pattern of abuse?

Let’s remember that this provision written within the Law of Moses was part of the LESSER LAW. When did any people who obtained Christ’s new covenant (i.e. Book of Mormon and New Testament Church) practice it whatsoever? There were also provisions for slavery, death penalties for breaking the Sabbath, death penalties for not honoring one’s Father and Mother, and strict commandments on haircutting. Obviously none of these practices are candidates of Celestial Law that we should reinstitute. But yet, we are so quick to accept the polygamy is – just because our leaders told us so??? Could it be that such things as slavery and polygamy already pervaded the culture? And if so, isn't it remotely possible that the lesser law of Moses simply put bounds upon these practices? I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone really does...

We can't dispute that Polygamy was a huge part of our churches history and that we were told by the lord to live it, and what the consequences would be if we didn't. And that it was lived and practiced by many members at that time. So are we going to say that it was just some made up thing, some BIG mistake that the church made in the beginning ?... We cannot just sweep it under the rug.

No we cannot ignore that this happened, and sweep it under the rug, though I do question whether or not we were told by the Lord to live it. But let’s also not ignore one very very interesting fact… We weren’t the 1st restorationist sect in that area, and in that time period, to come up with the idea of “spiritual wifery”. Yes, this was the common term for what later became known as “Celestial Plural Marriage”. Please study Jacob Cochran and the Cochranites that were centered in Massachusetts and Maine. I’m not going to be comprehensive here, but yes, it is documented fact that a major tenet of this sect was to restore the practices of David and Solomon and other Old Testament practices. The early Quorum of the Twelve spent a significant amount of time with these people, as evidenced by their journal. It appears Brigham requested return missions to them.

Later a book was written and circulated in the English missions (where the Twelve were all serving missions, separated from the rest of the Kirtand/Nauvoo church) that promoted the virtues of “spiritual wifery”. With these years away, is it possible that some of the Twelve could have set their heart upon this doctrine, and believed it to be a true principle? Is it merely a coincidence that the Twelve all later adopted polygamy, while the 1st Presidency (Joseph, Hyrum, and Syndey) all fought it- at least in public? What contemporary evidence existed (meaning at the time Joseph was alive) that he was teaching or endorsing polygamy versus fighting it and excommunicating those who were actually practicing it in secret? What evidence surfaced many years later (much in preparation for the Temple Lot Case and in efforts to achieve Utah Statehood) in the former of testimonies and claims by then seasoned polygamists? If Joseph and Hyrum were, in deed, fighting polygamy – is there any possibility that some of his brethren ( that had come to believe in the principle) might have considered him a “fallen prophet”? They certainly wouldn’t have been the first of Joseph’s friends to have considered him a fallen prophet…

I believe these to be important issues. Please study those two resources I shared with you. And read the primary resources (much of which is easily found in the Joseph Smith Papers Project).

Or should we accept the fact that it is, what the Lord says it is - "It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”... JS "a new and an everlasting covenant" ; (that we should still be living.) It is an everlasting and eternal principal, a " new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

I don’t consider this fact, as previously stated. These ideas were first proposed in Section 132, which completely revolutionized the Doctrine of Christ and the Eternal Covenant. Do these doctrines conform with the witness of the rest of scripture?

I wonder where YOU might be without it ?

I wonder the same thing. Do I believe that polygamy was the cause of our condemnation? Not really. I have a strong suspicion that we had already incurred the condemnation of God by not seeking his face and living his law. It appears that we lost the fullness of the priesthood, at the very least. This is obviously well documented in Section 84, 124, and other places. Were we "rejected as a church, with our dead" completely? I don't know. I do know we lack most of the spiritual gifts promised to the believers.

Then what, the manifesto was issued ending plural marriage and the church was again restored to God's grace?

Um, I look around and I see a very similar scenario as I read about in 2 Nephi Chapter 28, Alma Chapter 4, Mormon chapter 8, and many other places in the Book of Mormon. I know very few that know the Savior and have been born again spiritually like those of King Benjamin’s people, Alma’s people, and Ammon’s people. We deny great miracles and laugh at the thought of literal ministering angels and speaking in tongues. It seems to me that our current state of unbelief and lack of faith may mean we “are not fit to be numbered among the people of his church.” (Moroni 7:39).

The biggest lasting result I see of the Manifesto is the myth (that has transformed itself into a core doctrine of our church) that we will never ever never ever never in a million years be led astray by our leaders… We have been almost completely lulled into “carnal security”, for “all is well in Zion”. Did Joseph Smith ever teach this doctrine? What did he mean, exactly, when he read the entirety of Ezekiel chapter 14 to a large relief society gathering in 1842 when he said “that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds in consequence…” And yes, as SilverPie just stated.... Brigham never did claim to be a prophet...

So what now? We must come to Christ and believe his doctrine, and fully submit to Him until we are born again of the spirit. That is the only way out of whatever “awful situation” we currently find ourselves.

-------------
so that was great !
and thank you for taking all that time to answer my questions and express what you believe.
To me, sincerity is everything, so thank you.
I can see you have spent a lot of time studying this and seeking the Lord for answers and the truth.

like I said, I'm probably not as interested in this as you are, because I have other things I'm studying that i'm more interested in.
And I'm more just interested in finding the simple truth, right or wrong kind of logic than the specifics of all of this.

Again I'm not defending polygamy. I'm just trying to find out how it was accepted by God in the Bible.
And if it was accepted, to me that would open the door to why it was given to live in the church.
I guess for me my simple logic is that having more than one wife has to be right, or very wrong.
And even though we know what the Book of Mormon says about this,
(and believe me, the Book of Mormon means everything to me), if this is wrong, and an abomination before God, then why would God allow (no matter why or what the circumstance were) such great prophets - Abraham and Jacob,
to have more than one wife and also concubines ? Would God allow this if it really was an abomination ?
Or are we just going to say that (these are), and there are exceptions.
Seems to me that it would have to be the right thing to do, or very very wrong.
I mean, if it was wrong, (and again, no matter what the circumstances were), how could God approve of it and not condemn these men for doing it ?

My personal view is that God often allows custom and works within people and their customs and he won't judge people for their customs. I do not believe that God commanded either Abraham or Jacob to marry other women. The only time in the scriptures that I'm aware of that God commanded Polygamy was never to "raise up seed" rather it was to take care of the widow so she wasn't destitute. I'm not at all condemning Abraham or Jacob. My issue deals more with the command then the actual action itself. I believe very similarly to Caburnha. I do not believe that it is an eternal doctrine - that is where I take issue with it. I do not believe Joseph Smith taught it as an eternal Doctrine. That being said, if for some reason I am wrong, I am fine with accepting the Lord's will concerning the matter. However, what me having learned by rejecting the idea of polygamy as an eternal doctrine has done for me is that it has provided a path by which i do not covet or lust after women. Too many men do so. They hope for a prettier or better wife. How do I know this, look at the prevalence of porn among the men. Whether they have admitted it or not, they are looking for something more than what they want- this is covetousness and lust. Deep down in many of their souls they want it for the lusts of the flesh rather than a righteous reason. While I'm sure there are some exceptions KoZ appears to be one of them from how he describes his experience with it, he, I think truly is trying or has tried to dedicate his life to God. As an aside, I believe "raise up seed" means something different, I think the Lord was saying if the people didn't give up polygamy, then he would destroy them off the face of the land, for the Lord will command (in the same way he commanded Lehi) and raise up seed to Him in America - dedicated to Him and not the lusts of the flesh.

Again, for me, the biggest clincher was after so much research, I realized that I personally could not speak evil against the Lord's anointed, the man who said this "Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same." I do not believe that man, Joseph Smith would be the same one who would excommunicate, and lie repeatedly about "truth" if it really was truth. As He once said " You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born in the world. My voice is always for peace.”

--------------
thank you for opinion, I value it greatly.

To tell you the truth, this topic about polygamy is not what really matters that much to me.
I'm not trying to defend polygamy at all.
I mean, it's not like I want to go out and get 5 more wives.
I guess what I'm really wanting to defend, if anything, is the truth. the simple truth.

What I find so inconsistent with finding truth, and seems to be so contradictive ,
is how can most all members that believe that the prophet is leading the church according to God's will,
and is receiving revelation, yet they can say that this particular revelation, section 132
was not a revelation.

I think most of us (perhaps I'm putting words in their mouth) who believe that D&C 132 wasn't revelation or at least the entirety of it likely wasn't don't have a problem separating the differences. I judge a prophet by their fruits, are they what a prophet is in the scriptures? I don't judge them by the title they have. I truly believe Pres. Nelson is working hard to right the church (personally I think it is too little too late) and I think many of his changes are inspired by God, but I believe most of us will be surprised at how the Lord works and those changes will not turn out how many expect That being said, the Lord hasn't told me through His Spirit to condemn the President or the 12, that isn't my job, I'm not to judge them I seek out truth wherever I can find it. What He has given me to do now is to teach the Doctrine of Christ to sow as much as possible before the great culling. So I don't worry about that, I don't tell most people about what I believe because in reality the only thing that is going to save anyone is believing, understanding and following the Doctrine of Christ not polygamy. If someone truly learns to submit to Christ as we are taught in His doctrine, then we will submit if it is or isn't a law, it doesn't matter. This institution was merely created to help people to find His Doctrine and implement the aaronic priesthood functions that I believe we hold. That being said, I also believe God can call and has called other preachers of other faiths to have the authority to baptize, but again, that is not something I teach. I am not trying to destroy anyone's belief in an institution because the time isn't right - at least for me. I can warn and instruct, but the time for separating the wheat from the tares is not yet and it is dangerous to destroy the tares before the wheat is ready and strong enough to be harvested. All I am told to do right now is to strengthen and strive under the direction of God to bring more people to the knowledge of the true doctrine of Christ as found in the Book of Mormon - my personal views and beliefs don't matter. I will introduce Isaiah to them when inspired, I will have them read Moroni 8 when inspired, but mostly my job is to help them actually create a relationship with Christ who when fully submitted to will change their lives in ways they have never understood before That being said, that is my mission, you may have another one and perhaps yours is to warn and teach about Isaiah. That is what is great is that the Lord has different plans for all of us and uses each of us in the capacity he can. The Key is to listen to the Holy Spirit always and do as it speaks to us and not get carried away by my own passions (as I am wont to do from time to time).

[Chip]

This is something I wrote a while ago about the wresting of Jacob 2:30...

Wresting The Book of Mormon To Support Polygamy

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” (History of the Church, 4:461).

Italicized heading of Jacob, Chapter 2, as of 1981:
"Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellow men—Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage—The Lord delights in the chastity of women. About 544–421 B.C."

Italicized heading of Jacob, Chapter 2, as of 2016:
"Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellowmen—The Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife—The Lord delights in the chastity of women. About 544–421 B.C."

In 1981, the reader would deduce that, in some circumstance, "plural marriage" may be "authorized", while in 2016 the matter is much more veiled and it's unclear what the actual point is, with Nephites being commanded to have only one wife.

Why this prevarication in the most correct of any book on earth? The answer is, simply, that these headings are not part of the original Book of Mormon text, but are additions placed by men, which are changed from time to time. In almost all cases, these editorial chapter headings are useful for understanding the actual Book of Mormon text, but they can also be a subtle form of propaganda. Such is the case, regarding Jacob's condemnation of the Nephite whoredoms, where a particular verse has been wrested to support the narrative of God having commanded polygamy in the early modern church.

Just as chapter headings are not part of the original Book of Mormon, neither are the footnotes. Both can be abused to misdirect the reader's understanding of what scripture is actually telling us.

In Jacob 2:22-35, Jacob gives a strong talk to the Nephites against the emergence of whoredoms among them.

23: "...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."
So, the men had begun to commit whoredoms and were validating it by a licentious reading of the Old Testament.
25: "Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph."
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."

The Lord had led the Nephites out of the mire of Jerusalem, in order to raise up a righteous group of people, and now they are messing it up by commiting whoredoms. If the Nephites won't keep His commandments, the land will be cursed for their sakes. Pretty serious.

Next comes verse 30, which has been wrested to support polygamy in the early modern church.

Jacob 2:30 "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."

Did you see that, in verse 25, the Lord led the Nephites out of Jerusalem for the express purpose of raising up seed for Himself? And what are "these things" that the people will hearken to, if not commanded? Wait! Scratch that! That's not how you're supposed to think.

From the church's narrative, aided by the italicized chapter heading and numerous footnote references which aim to legitimize the history of polygamy in the early modern church, this verse is supposed to mean something like this:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people to engage in polygamy; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things, meaning they shall follow all these rules about not engaging in polygamy.

I propose to you that there is no possible way that anyone could come to such a disjointed interpretation by actually reading the Book of Mormon, itself, sans chapter headings and footnotes.

Remember, this is the most true and correct of all books, and contains God's word, which is plain and precious and easy to the understanding of all men.

How could there be, amid a barrage of condemnations toward what amounts to polygamy, an escape hatch that magically permits some men to have more than one wife?

As you will see, the Book of Mormon actually presents a perfectly complete and congruous picture, on its own, while the subterfuge of polygamy has been injected from without.


The Wresting of Jacob 2:30

Jacob 2:30 has two parts, which each refer to different matters:

First part:
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;"

Second part:
"otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Exploration of the First Part of Jacob 2:30

In the first part of Jacob 2:30, the Lord states that when he wants to raise up righteous people, he will command them.

Five verses earlier, Jacob 2:25 explained how he commanded the Nephites:

25: "Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph."

Notably, 1 Nephi 7:1-2 shows exactly when and how this was done.

1: "And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise."

2: "And it came to pass that the Lord commanded him that I, Nephi, and my brethren, should again return unto the land of Jerusalem, and bring down Ishmael and his family into the wilderness."

Again, reviewing first part of verse 30:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;"

You can see that those 1 Nephi 7:1-2 verses absolutely relate to Jacob 2:25, and they all answer the first part of Jacob 2:30.

I don't think it's a mere oversight that there are no footnotes connecting Jacob 2:25 and 1 Nephi 7:1-2, and, especially, that there are no footnotes tying either section back to Jacob 2:30. Such connections would undermine the narrative of polygamy having been commanded by the Lord in the early modern church.

Tellingly, In 1 Nephi 7:1 ("...that they might raise up seed..."), there is a footnote on the word "seed" that points to this verse:
Psalms 127:3 "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward."

...While in Jacob 2:30 ("...raise up seed unto me..."), there is also a footnote on the word "seed" which points here:

D&C 132:61 "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

Hello, Polygamy!

Certainly, the word "seed" means the same thing in 1 Nephi 7:1 as it does in Jacob 2:30, since these verses all tie together, even if the footnotes don't.

And if there's any confusion about whether or not the Lord commands polygamy when he wants to raise up seed, see what he reminded the Nephites of in Jacob's talk:

Jacob 2:34 "And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

No multiple wives. It's not the Lord's way.

There is absolutely no way that Jacob 2:30 can be honestly said to legitimize polygamy. Even if the Lord did instruct Joseph Smith and others to engage in it, the Book of Mormon certainly does not support it.

Now, onto the second half of Jacob 2:30. It gets even clearer.

Exploration of the Second Part of Jacob 2:30

Consider the second half of verse 30 (bold):

Jacob 2:30 "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."

So, if the Lord's people are not commanded, they will hearken unto some "things".

The word "things" is a reference to, well... things. Where is the word "thing" used elsewhere in Jacob's talk, that would give it some definition?
Here are all the verses which contain the word "thing" or "things" in Jacob's talk against the Nephite whoredoms:

Jacob 2:23 "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."
Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."
Jacob 2:34 "And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done."

And, lastly verse 30:

Jacob 2:30 "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."

Do you see?


Conclusion

The real meaning of Jacob 2:30 is this:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people by leading them out of the mire and instructing them anew on having only one wife and no concubines; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things written about David and his son Solomon and errantly suppose themselves justified in commiting whoredoms."

Or, more simply:

When I, the Lord, want a righteous people, I will lead them out of trouble and instruct them in my ways; otherwise, their carnal states will take over and they will only go deeper into error.

This brings up the really big question: "Why has the Book of Mormon been made to look like it supports polygamy, when it doesn't?" And if we are to “liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning”, as Nephi taught, how can we dismiss such a basic warning against whoredoms, as given in the Book of Mormon?

The bible warns us of the human condition:

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

God and man are naturally at odds with one another. God gives commandments and men are inclined to break them. Sometimes, men even try to weasel around the meanings of commandments to grant themselves the desires of their unknowably wicked hearts. Did I say "sometimes"? I should say "often".

Our hearts are desparately wicked, and we are inclined to do evil, even believing we are doing good:

Proverbs 16:25 "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

This is the human condition and why we need to acquiesce to God's ways, and not our own - which are certain to lead to death.

And even Jesus said not to call him "good", as only the Father is good:

Luke 18:19 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."


Final Thoughts

It seems to me that with the advent of polygamy in the early modern church, men had to be elevated above scripture and scriptural truth had to be devalued, in order for things to remain glued together under such circumstances.

There are some aspects of church polygamy that are not widely known, which afford some context for how it might have arisen in the church:

Among the early converts to the church were members of a polygamous Christian sect in Maine led by a man named Joseph Cochran. These Cochranites practiced "spiritual wifery", which sanctioned multiple wives for each of its men. Many Cochranites converted to Mormonism and Brigham Young married a women from the group, after having served a solo mission among them. When they came into the church, they were not leaving polygamy behind.

At one point in 1835, amid rumours that the church leaders were practicing polygamy, a formal denial was made in the original D&C section 101, which read:

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

Fourty-one years later, in 1876, that section was removed and Section 132 was inserted, which codified polygamy. Note that Section 132 came thirty-two years after Joseph Smith's death, while being attributed directly to him.

Some say Joseph was always against polygamy, but was unsuccessful in routing it from the church. Today, the church attributes polygamy to Joseph Smith. It seems clear, at least, that Joseph died due to intrigues surrounding polygamy, with the advent of William Law's Nauvoo Expositor and his subsequent reaction to it, in which he ordered men to destroy Law's printing press. For that, he was called to Carthage Jail, where he was killed by a mob, shooting two men, himself, before dying.

The church has made it very difficult to parse these matters, as Joseph Smith is presented as an all-or-nothing prospect. What seems clear to me is that the Book of Mormon was God's work, and was completed to God's satisfaction through Joseph Smith. What came after, involving things like polygamy and Freemasonry, seem suspect. And I don't know that a modern prophet can't take a left turn. Certainly, many biblical prophets made grave mistakes. It seems God grants each man his agency, as well as each institution, and the gamut of possibilities is wider than we might suppose. The modern notion of prophetic infallibility in the church began with Wilford Woodruff proclaiming his own inerrancy, as he initiated the official end of the practice of polygamy in 1890. This notion of inerrancy has since been hammered into members minds through numerous conference talks.

Unfortunately, for the welfare of greater Christendom, this undue conflation with polygamy has deterred many from reading the Book of Mormon. David Whitmer, in Joseph Smith's time, appealed to greater Christendom to read the Book of Mormon and not discount it because of the polygamy the church was practicing. This conflation has been tragic, as we are now inundated with the evil works of secret combinations, which the Book of Mormon explicitly warns about and explains. The Book of Mormon cathartically validates what people only suspect regarding secret combinations and their motivations, patterns, and behaviors. It is a vital guidepost to understanding our times.

I don't know what will happen in the future, but I believe that one over-arching truth is that knowledge will be increased and all secrets will be shouted from rooftops. The advent of the internet is very significant to this end. Do those who hate the internet understand that it is the only venue through which the people can widely communicate, as the print and broadcast media are almost wholly owned by Latter Day Gadiantons? To deride the internet is to scoff at what God has done to increase knowledge in the last days for the benefit of the human family and to bring about his "strange work".

As a Mormon, I'm aware that our doctrine states that it's impossible that a lay member, like myself, could detect an error such as I have proposed here. It is outside the scope of my stewardship to be able to know such a thing. If polygamy was, indeed, an error, and the church is not interested in addressing it, I believe God will not force them, but will keep doing his works, which will eventually overshadow all error. Along the way, man's agency will not be undermined, either individually or at the institutional level. God's will is going to be done, whether or not any particular person or group is on board with his program.

[cab]

This is something I wrote a while ago about the wresting of Jacob 2:30...

Wresting The Book of Mormon To Support Polygamy

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” (History of the Church, 4:461).

Italicized heading of Jacob, Chapter 2, as of 1981:
"Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellow men—Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage—The Lord delights in the chastity of women. About 544–421 B.C."

Italicized heading of Jacob, Chapter 2, as of 2016:
"Jacob denounces the love of riches, pride, and unchastity—Men may seek riches to help their fellowmen—The Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife—The Lord delights in the chastity of women. About 544–421 B.C."

In 1981, the reader would deduce that, in some circumstance, "plural marriage" may be "authorized", while in 2016 the matter is much more veiled and it's unclear what the actual point is, with Nephites being commanded to have only one wife.

Why this prevarication in the most correct of any book on earth? The answer is, simply, that these headings are not part of the original Book of Mormon text, but are additions placed by men, which are changed from time to time. In almost all cases, these editorial chapter headings are useful for understanding the actual Book of Mormon text, but they can also be a subtle form of propaganda. Such is the case, regarding Jacob's condemnation of the Nephite whoredoms, where a particular verse has been wrested to support the narrative of God having commanded polygamy in the early modern church.

Just as chapter headings are not part of the original Book of Mormon, neither are the footnotes. Both can be abused to misdirect the reader's understanding of what scripture is actually telling us.

In Jacob 2:22-35, Jacob gives a strong talk to the Nephites against the emergence of whoredoms among them.

23: "...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."
So, the men had begun to commit whoredoms and were validating it by a licentious reading of the Old Testament.
25: "Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph."
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."

The Lord had led the Nephites out of the mire of Jerusalem, in order to raise up a righteous group of people, and now they are messing it up by commiting whoredoms. If the Nephites won't keep His commandments, the land will be cursed for their sakes. Pretty serious.

Next comes verse 30, which has been wrested to support polygamy in the early modern church.

Jacob 2:30 "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."

Did you see that, in verse 25, the Lord led the Nephites out of Jerusalem for the express purpose of raising up seed for Himself? And what are "these things" that the people will hearken to, if not commanded? Wait! Scratch that! That's not how you're supposed to think.

From the church's narrative, aided by the italicized chapter heading and numerous footnote references which aim to legitimize the history of polygamy in the early modern church, this verse is supposed to mean something like this:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people to engage in polygamy; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things, meaning they shall follow all these rules about not engaging in polygamy.

I propose to you that there is no possible way that anyone could come to such a disjointed interpretation by actually reading the Book of Mormon, itself, sans chapter headings and footnotes.

Remember, this is the most true and correct of all books, and contains God's word, which is plain and precious and easy to the understanding of all men.

How could there be, amid a barrage of condemnations toward what amounts to polygamy, an escape hatch that magically permits some men to have more than one wife?

As you will see, the Book of Mormon actually presents a perfectly complete and congruous picture, on its own, while the subterfuge of polygamy has been injected from without.


The Wresting of Jacob 2:30

Jacob 2:30 has two parts, which each refer to different matters:

First part:
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;"

Second part:
"otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Exploration of the First Part of Jacob 2:30

In the first part of Jacob 2:30, the Lord states that when he wants to raise up righteous people, he will command them.

Five verses earlier, Jacob 2:25 explained how he commanded the Nephites:

25: "Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph."

Notably, 1 Nephi 7:1-2 shows exactly when and how this was done.

1: "And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise."

2: "And it came to pass that the Lord commanded him that I, Nephi, and my brethren, should again return unto the land of Jerusalem, and bring down Ishmael and his family into the wilderness."

Again, reviewing first part of verse 30:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;"

You can see that those 1 Nephi 7:1-2 verses absolutely relate to Jacob 2:25, and they all answer the first part of Jacob 2:30.

I don't think it's a mere oversight that there are no footnotes connecting Jacob 2:25 and 1 Nephi 7:1-2, and, especially, that there are no footnotes tying either section back to Jacob 2:30. Such connections would undermine the narrative of polygamy having been commanded by the Lord in the early modern church.

Tellingly, In 1 Nephi 7:1 ("...that they might raise up seed..."), there is a footnote on the word "seed" that points to this verse:
Psalms 127:3 "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward."

...While in Jacob 2:30 ("...raise up seed unto me..."), there is also a footnote on the word "seed" which points here:

D&C 132:61 "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

Hello, Polygamy!

Certainly, the word "seed" means the same thing in 1 Nephi 7:1 as it does in Jacob 2:30, since these verses all tie together, even if the footnotes don't.

And if there's any confusion about whether or not the Lord commands polygamy when he wants to raise up seed, see what he reminded the Nephites of in Jacob's talk:

Jacob 2:34 "And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

No multiple wives. It's not the Lord's way.

There is absolutely no way that Jacob 2:30 can be honestly said to legitimize polygamy. Even if the Lord did instruct Joseph Smith and others to engage in it, the Book of Mormon certainly does not support it.

Now, onto the second half of Jacob 2:30. It gets even clearer.

Exploration of the Second Part of Jacob 2:30

Consider the second half of verse 30 (bold):

Jacob 2:30 "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."

So, if the Lord's people are not commanded, they will hearken unto some "things".

The word "things" is a reference to, well... things. Where is the word "thing" used elsewhere in Jacob's talk, that would give it some definition?
Here are all the verses which contain the word "thing" or "things" in Jacob's talk against the Nephite whoredoms:

Jacob 2:23 "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."
Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."
Jacob 2:34 "And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done."

And, lastly verse 30:

Jacob 2:30 "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."

Do you see?


Conclusion

The real meaning of Jacob 2:30 is this:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people by leading them out of the mire and instructing them anew on having only one wife and no concubines; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things written about David and his son Solomon and errantly suppose themselves justified in commiting whoredoms."

Or, more simply:

When I, the Lord, want a righteous people, I will lead them out of trouble and instruct them in my ways; otherwise, their carnal states will take over and they will only go deeper into error.

This brings up the really big question: "Why has the Book of Mormon been made to look like it supports polygamy, when it doesn't?" And if we are to “liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning”, as Nephi taught, how can we dismiss such a basic warning against whoredoms, as given in the Book of Mormon?

The bible warns us of the human condition:

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

God and man are naturally at odds with one another. God gives commandments and men are inclined to break them. Sometimes, men even try to weasel around the meanings of commandments to grant themselves the desires of their unknowably wicked hearts. Did I say "sometimes"? I should say "often".

Our hearts are desparately wicked, and we are inclined to do evil, even believing we are doing good:

Proverbs 16:25 "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

This is the human condition and why we need to acquiesce to God's ways, and not our own - which are certain to lead to death.

And even Jesus said not to call him "good", as only the Father is good:

Luke 18:19 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."


Final Thoughts

It seems to me that with the advent of polygamy in the early modern church, men had to be elevated above scripture and scriptural truth had to be devalued, in order for things to remain glued together under such circumstances.

There are some aspects of church polygamy that are not widely known, which afford some context for how it might have arisen in the church:

Among the early converts to the church were members of a polygamous Christian sect in Maine led by a man named Joseph Cochran. These Cochranites practiced "spiritual wifery", which sanctioned multiple wives for each of its men. Many Cochranites converted to Mormonism and Brigham Young married a women from the group, after having served a solo mission among them. When they came into the church, they were not leaving polygamy behind.

At one point in 1835, amid rumours that the church leaders were practicing polygamy, a formal denial was made in the original D&C section 101, which read:

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

Fourty-one years later, in 1876, that section was removed and Section 132 was inserted, which codified polygamy. Note that Section 132 came thirty-two years after Joseph Smith's death, while being attributed directly to him.

Some say Joseph was always against polygamy, but was unsuccessful in routing it from the church. Today, the church attributes polygamy to Joseph Smith. It seems clear, at least, that Joseph died due to intrigues surrounding polygamy, with the advent of William Law's Nauvoo Expositor and his subsequent reaction to it, in which he ordered men to destroy Law's printing press. For that, he was called to Carthage Jail, where he was killed by a mob, shooting two men, himself, before dying.

The church has made it very difficult to parse these matters, as Joseph Smith is presented as an all-or-nothing prospect. What seems clear to me is that the Book of Mormon was God's work, and was completed to God's satisfaction through Joseph Smith. What came after, involving things like polygamy and Freemasonry, seem suspect. And I don't know that a modern prophet can't take a left turn. Certainly, many biblical prophets made grave mistakes. It seems God grants each man his agency, as well as each institution, and the gamut of possibilities is wider than we might suppose. The modern notion of prophetic infallibility in the church began with Wilford Woodruff proclaiming his own inerrancy, as he initiated the official end of the practice of polygamy in 1890. This notion of inerrancy has since been hammered into members minds through numerous conference talks.

Unfortunately, for the welfare of greater Christendom, this undue conflation with polygamy has deterred many from reading the Book of Mormon. David Whitmer, in Joseph Smith's time, appealed to greater Christendom to read the Book of Mormon and not discount it because of the polygamy the church was practicing. This conflation has been tragic, as we are now inundated with the evil works of secret combinations, which the Book of Mormon explicitly warns about and explains. The Book of Mormon cathartically validates what people only suspect regarding secret combinations and their motivations, patterns, and behaviors. It is a vital guidepost to understanding our times.

I don't know what will happen in the future, but I believe that one over-arching truth is that knowledge will be increased and all secrets will be shouted from rooftops. The advent of the internet is very significant to this end. Do those who hate the internet understand that it is the only venue through which the people can widely communicate, as the print and broadcast media are almost wholly owned by Latter Day Gadiantons? To deride the internet is to scoff at what God has done to increase knowledge in the last days for the benefit of the human family and to bring about his "strange work".

As a Mormon, I'm aware that our doctrine states that it's impossible that a lay member, like myself, could detect an error such as I have proposed here. It is outside the scope of my stewardship to be able to know such a thing. If polygamy was, indeed, an error, and the church is not interested in addressing it, I believe God will not force them, but will keep doing his works, which will eventually overshadow all error. Along the way, man's agency will not be undermined, either individually or at the institutional level. God's will is going to be done, whether or not any particular person or group is on board with his program.

Yes. Wrested. Proof texted. Mingled. Precepted.

It's amazing to me how Jacob chapter 2 and 3, read in context, has been understood as giving license for polygamy... Especially when read along side the additional stories of King Noah and his priests and the wickedness of Jaredite polygamy... Sure seems like the Book of Mormon's message was clear in it's prophetic warning to us.

Here's an additional take I also posted on Jacob 2:30 a while ago... Either interpretation has 1000x more merit than somehow "justifying" the act - in my opinion...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50775&hilit=Jacob+Webster%27s

[Chip]

...

Yes. Wrested. Proof texted. Mingled. Precepted.

It's amazing to me how Jacob chapter 2 and 3, read in context, has been understood as giving license for polygamy... Especially when read along side the additional stories of King Noah and his priests and the wickedness of Jaredite polygamy... Sure seems like the Book of Mormon's message was clear in it's prophetic warning to us.

Here's an additional take I also posted on Jacob 2:30 a while ago... Either interpretation has 1000x more merit than somehow "justifying" the act - in my opinion...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50775&hilit=Jacob+Webster%27s

I remember reading your post.

On Sunday, I was talking to a stalwart member in my ward and she said about Joseph Smith and polygamy, "He had to do it. He had no choice." Now, otherwise, she would tell you all about how God gives people agency to accept or reject his will.

It's ludicrous how irrational church members become when feeling compelled to maintain the "All Is Well" head fix. It's like the church has thwarted people's God-given Intelligence and made them selectively retarded.

I am utterly conviced that polygamy was never directed by God, but by men ascribing their selfish will to God. God affords man the agency to do such things. To install safeguards against such possibilities would undermine The Plan. Wolves understand and exploit this. Sheep are happy to be told otherwise.

[I AM]

ran across this.
don't know how accurate or true it is.
nor am I saying that I agree with it.


https://www.apnews.com/9ff27da5c3a848c39b4dbce716860eed

Mormon founder had teen bride during polygamy days
BRADY McCOMBS
October 24, 2014

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Mormon church acknowledges in a new essay that founder Joseph Smith had a teenage bride and was married to other men’s wives during the faith’s early polygamous days, a recognition of an unflattering part of its roots that historians have chronicled for years.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says most of Smith’s wives were between 20 and 40 years old. One of them, however, was a 14-year-old girl who was the daughter of Smith’s close friends.

The essay posted this week on the church’s website marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based religion has officially acknowledged those facts, though it also has not denied them.

The article is part of a recent push by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to open up about sensitive issues within the faith, many of which are uncomfortable to discuss.

Other writings posted in the past couple of years have addressed sacred undergarments worn by devout members; a past ban on black men in the lay clergy; and the misconception that Mormons are taught they’ll get their own planet in the afterlife.

The new article about Smith’s wives during the 1830s and 1840s in Kirtland, Ohio, and Nauvoo, Illinois, comes about 10 months after the church acknowledged polygamy was widely practiced among its members in the late 19th century.

“As a collection, these are remarkably revealing articles, continuing the new open and transparent philosophy of historical writing,” said Armand Mauss, a retired professor of sociology and religious studies at Washington State University.

The information will be surprising to many Latter-day Saints who either didn’t know or were encouraged to dismiss speculation as anti-Mormon propaganda, Mauss said.

Mormons don’t practice polygamy today. Splinter groups who call themselves fundamentalist Mormons still practice plural marriage, including Warren Jeffs’ sect on the Utah-Arizona border.

Latter-day Saints began practicing polygamy after Smith received a revelation from God. He took his first plural wife in 1830 in Ohio, three years after he married his first wife, Emma, the article shows. He and his first plural wife separated, but he renewed the practice a decade later in Illinois. That’s where he married the teenager.

The essay noted that while inappropriate by today’s standards, marriage among teen girls was legal and somewhat common during that time.

The article acknowledges that many details about polygamy in early Mormonism are hazy because members were taught to keep their actions confidential. But, research has indicated that Smith’s marriage to the young girl might not have involved sex.

Some plural marriages were designed to seal the man to the woman for eternity only, and not life and eternity as Mormons believe, the article says. Those types of marriages didn’t seem to involve sex.

Little is known about Smith’s marriages to the already-married women, the article says. They also might have been the type of unions that didn’t involve sex.

Plural marriage was an “excruciating ordeal” for Emma Smith and confounding for some men, too, the article says. Some people left the faith, and others refused to take multiple wives while remaining Latter-day Saints.

When Latter-day Saints trekked cross-country to Utah in 1847, nearly 200 men and more than 500 women were in plural marriage, it says.

“Difficult as it was, the introduction of plural marriage in Nauvoo did indeed ‘raise up seed’ unto God,” the article says. “A substantial number of today’s members descend through faithful Latter-day Saints who practiced plural marriage.”

---------------------------------------------

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... gamy-days/

[edavid]

Are we waking up this? Time to repent if we have not received a witness of the error, even the greatest error of the restoration, namely, polygamy.

[Luke]

Are we waking up this? Time to repent if we have not received a witness of the error, even the greatest error of the restoration, namely, polygamy.

I have a witness that it is not an error, and that it is of God.

[JLHPROF]

Are we waking up this? Time to repent if we have not received a witness of the error, even the greatest error of the restoration, namely, polygamy.

I don't believe there is any error in this Celestial law except in those things received without correct priesthood authority. Just as scripture says.

[edavid]

Are we waking up this? Time to repent if we have not received a witness of the error, even the greatest error of the restoration, namely, polygamy.

I don't believe there is any error in this Celestial law except in those things received without correct priesthood authority. Just as scripture says.

Did the high priests, sadducees and Pharisees have the correct priesthood passed down from the true church of their time? Is it a matter of priesthood or authority, or is it a matter of the heart?

[JLHPROF]

Are we waking up this? Time to repent if we have not received a witness of the error, even the greatest error of the restoration, namely, polygamy.

I don't believe there is any error in this Celestial law except in those things received without correct priesthood authority. Just as scripture says.

Did the high priests, sadducees and Pharisees have the correct priesthood passed down from the true church of their time? Is it a matter of priesthood or authority, or is it a matter of the heart?

It's a matter of priesthood authority, authority that can be lost from a corrupt heart, but that is required nonetheless.
No man takes this honor to himself except he who is called of God as Aaron. How was Aaron called? Anointed and ordained.
Sorry, I'm a firm believer that God only authorizes ordinances performed by those holding properly ordained keys tracing that authority back to the prophet Joseph. None else will be accepted on the records of heaven or be sealed in heaven.

[Pazooka]

Yes, I have had a witness also that Celestial Plural Marriage is of God. It took a minute to get there, though - lots of inner conflict and some hurt. I gave equal time to the proponents as I did to the detractors.

But what really did it was the fact that, at the time, I couldn’t be sure that Mr P was going to pull out of a spiritually dark place he was in for a good long while. I began wondering what my ultimate fate may be and, looking around I wasn’t that impressed with too many of his peers, either. I definitely saw a place for CPM.

Now that Mr P has pulled through and is on the right track, I can’t forget what a desperate position I might have been in, therefore I see no other way than to have compassion on any deserving woman who may be in that same position and in need of a husband.

Men may have quantity but women get quality.

[holzie58]

...

Yes. Wrested. Proof texted. Mingled. Precepted.

It's amazing to me how Jacob chapter 2 and 3, read in context, has been understood as giving license for polygamy... Especially when read along side the additional stories of King Noah and his priests and the wickedness of Jaredite polygamy... Sure seems like the Book of Mormon's message was clear in it's prophetic warning to us.

Here's an additional take I also posted on Jacob 2:30 a while ago... Either interpretation has 1000x more merit than somehow "justifying" the act - in my opinion...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50775&hilit=Jacob+Webster%27s

I remember reading your post.

On Sunday, I was talking to a stalwart member in my ward and she said about Joseph Smith and polygamy, "He had to do it. He had no choice." Now, otherwise, she would tell you all about how God gives people agency to accept or reject his will.

It's ludicrous how irrational church members become when feeling compelled to maintain the "All Is Well" head fix. It's like the church has thwarted people's God-given Intelligence and made them selectively retarded.

I am utterly conviced that polygamy was never directed by God, but by men ascribing their selfish will to God. God affords man the agency to do such things. To install safeguards against such possibilities would undermine The Plan. Wolves understand and exploit this. Sheep are happy to be told otherwise.

The Abrahamic Covenant relied on polygamy in order to fulfill the promise of Abraham being the father of many nations. Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar. His grandson, Jacob, was married to Leah, Racheal, Bilhah and Zilpah. Just sayin

[Luke]

...

Yes. Wrested. Proof texted. Mingled. Precepted.

It's amazing to me how Jacob chapter 2 and 3, read in context, has been understood as giving license for polygamy... Especially when read along side the additional stories of King Noah and his priests and the wickedness of Jaredite polygamy... Sure seems like the Book of Mormon's message was clear in it's prophetic warning to us.

Here's an additional take I also posted on Jacob 2:30 a while ago... Either interpretation has 1000x more merit than somehow "justifying" the act - in my opinion...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50775&hilit=Jacob+Webster%27s

I remember reading your post.

On Sunday, I was talking to a stalwart member in my ward and she said about Joseph Smith and polygamy, "He had to do it. He had no choice." Now, otherwise, she would tell you all about how God gives people agency to accept or reject his will.

It's ludicrous how irrational church members become when feeling compelled to maintain the "All Is Well" head fix. It's like the church has thwarted people's God-given Intelligence and made them selectively retarded.

I am utterly conviced that polygamy was never directed by God, but by men ascribing their selfish will to God. God affords man the agency to do such things. To install safeguards against such possibilities would undermine The Plan. Wolves understand and exploit this. Sheep are happy to be told otherwise.

The Abrahamic Covenant relied on polygamy in order to fulfill the promise of Abraham being the father of many nations. Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar. His grandson, Jacob, was married to Leah, Racheal, Bilhah and Zilpah. Just sayin

Obviously Scriptural, but that’s heresy on this forum. In no form is polygamy acceptable here.

[Baurak Ale]

...

Yes. Wrested. Proof texted. Mingled. Precepted.

It's amazing to me how Jacob chapter 2 and 3, read in context, has been understood as giving license for polygamy... Especially when read along side the additional stories of King Noah and his priests and the wickedness of Jaredite polygamy... Sure seems like the Book of Mormon's message was clear in it's prophetic warning to us.

Here's an additional take I also posted on Jacob 2:30 a while ago... Either interpretation has 1000x more merit than somehow "justifying" the act - in my opinion...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50775&hilit=Jacob+Webster%27s

I remember reading your post.

On Sunday, I was talking to a stalwart member in my ward and she said about Joseph Smith and polygamy, "He had to do it. He had no choice." Now, otherwise, she would tell you all about how God gives people agency to accept or reject his will.

It's ludicrous how irrational church members become when feeling compelled to maintain the "All Is Well" head fix. It's like the church has thwarted people's God-given Intelligence and made them selectively retarded.

I am utterly conviced that polygamy was never directed by God, but by men ascribing their selfish will to God. God affords man the agency to do such things. To install safeguards against such possibilities would undermine The Plan. Wolves understand and exploit this. Sheep are happy to be told otherwise.

The Abrahamic Covenant relied on polygamy in order to fulfill the promise of Abraham being the father of many nations. Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar. His grandson, Jacob, was married to Leah, Racheal, Bilhah and Zilpah. Just sayin

Let's not forget Keturah! Her son Midian was a priest-king as with the rest of Abraham's sons in the Horite kingship tradition (Melchizedek order), and it was through Midian's descendant, Jethro, that Moses obtained the Melchizedek priesthood, which fulness also required him to take a plural wife according to the pattern.

[diligently seeking]

...

Yes. Wrested. Proof texted. Mingled. Precepted.

It's amazing to me how Jacob chapter 2 and 3, read in context, has been understood as giving license for polygamy... Especially when read along side the additional stories of King Noah and his priests and the wickedness of Jaredite polygamy... Sure seems like the Book of Mormon's message was clear in it's prophetic warning to us.

Here's an additional take I also posted on Jacob 2:30 a while ago... Either interpretation has 1000x more merit than somehow "justifying" the act - in my opinion...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50775&hilit=Jacob+Webster%27s

I remember reading your post.

On Sunday, I was talking to a stalwart member in my ward and she said about Joseph Smith and polygamy, "He had to do it. He had no choice." Now, otherwise, she would tell you all about how God gives people agency to accept or reject his will.

It's ludicrous how irrational church members become when feeling compelled to maintain the "All Is Well" head fix. It's like the church has thwarted people's God-given Intelligence and made them selectively retarded.

I am utterly conviced that polygamy was never directed by God, but by men ascribing their selfish will to God. God affords man the agency to do such things. To install safeguards against such possibilities would undermine The Plan. Wolves understand and exploit this. Sheep are happy to be told otherwise.

The Abrahamic Covenant relied on polygamy in order to fulfill the promise of Abraham being the father of many nations. Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar. His grandson, Jacob, was married to Leah, Racheal, Bilhah and Zilpah. Just sayin

Obviously Scriptural, but that’s heresy on this forum. In no form is polygamy acceptable here.

Chuckle, at least not section 132 plural marriage. The Patriarchs above referenced and their plural female companions lived sanctioned BoM polygamy. Besides granting the seed it brought forth / the only authorized reason— their polygamy spelled heart ache and difficulty. I think a clear message was meant to be taught by those optics being revealed to us. No?

[TheDuke]

It is quite interesting that whether or nor you feel D&C 132 is authentic (I do as much as any scripture anyway), that it has been intact since BY's days and was used to claim polygamy, yet it is still read for celestial marriage w/o need to embrace polygamy or even allow it. Strange that those who are anti-all forms of polygamy are anti-132, but it is just how you would read it.

Seems when JS got the celestial marriage revelation(s) which talked of many things of marriage including: eternity, parenting child gods, and at the time polygamy, it was the basis for the later and people mostly seemed to ignore all the rest. I wonder if that is because the temple concepts for eternity had not yet been developed or at least shared.

I mean how much doctrine do we read about eternal life before late 1830s? Very little. Like other Christians it seemed the best you could hope for was to sing in choirs of angels (sounds like pure hell to me), let alone be married and have eternal children and become a god. Without that later context, it just leaves all that spirit for plural wives. A total misunderstanding of the entire marriage principles.

[diligently seeking]

It is quite interesting that whether or nor you feel D&C 132 is authentic (I do as much as any scripture anyway), that it has been intact since BY's days and was used to claim polygamy, yet it is still read for celestial marriage w/o need to embrace polygamy or even allow it. Strange that those who are anti-all forms of polygamy are anti-132, but it is just how you would read it.

Seems when JS got the celestial marriage revelation(s) which talked of many things of marriage including: eternity, parenting child gods, and at the time polygamy, it was the basis for the later and people mostly seemed to ignore all the rest. I wonder if that is because the temple concepts for eternity had not yet been developed or at least shared.

I mean how much doctrine do we read about eternal life before late 1830s? Very little. Like other Christians it seemed the best you could hope for was to sing in choirs of angels (sounds like pure hell to me), let alone be married and have eternal children and become a god. Without that later context, it just leaves all that spirit for plural wives. A total misunderstanding of the entire marriage principles.

What Joseph “taught about polygamy” certainly does not fit your convictions, Duke. The traditions of the church do, though. I can assure you a person who has gained a “brightness of hope through Jesus, they begin to comprehend the incomparable joy that awaits those who love and and are sanctified by Jesus...

[TheDuke]

agree to disagree, but neither of us will ever convince the other what Joseph really believed as you get his words from either the BY camp or the anti-polygamy (Emma) camp, and only the spirit can reconcile it. I understand eternal progression as Joseph taught in KFD, just before he was taken.

[diligently seeking]

agree to disagree, but neither of us will ever convince the other what Joseph really believed as you get his words from either the BY camp or the anti-polygamy (Emma) camp, and only the spirit can reconcile it. I understand eternal progression as Joseph taught in KFD, just before he was taken.

Emma, no doubt certainly believed in polygamy—just not the 132 version. I couldn’t agree more about the Spirit confirming truth aspect. I’m dismayed by how quick 132 advocates can so quickly dismiss the large editing of Joseph’s words / history and how 132 advocates also can dismiss his beyond clear and numerous condemnations of it —even doing such (condemning it) days before he was killed…. I am confident Joseph feared God more than he did Man, and that he was not full of guile / duplicity.

[TheDuke]

No Emma is the source (via those left in Nauvoo) for initial anti-polygamy and the source of Josephs statements.

[diligently seeking]

No Emma is the source (via those left in Nauvoo) for initial anti-polygamy and the source of Josephs statements.

Duke, there are plenty of Joseph’s denunciations I’ve read all my life straight from the churches vault of approved literature. And what of the large editing of his Journal after his death where he writes against it? All this editing done “to suit the new order of things” through Brigham’s iteration of the Restoration. Joseph was just fine in your mind and heart to —-with great emphasis lie about polygamy?