Ready to Take the Joseph Smith was NOT a Polygamist Challenge??

[The Red Pill]

For those of you following this thread, I want to illustrate how EASY it is to FALSELY ACCUSE Joseph Smith of something he didn't do.

It's happening right here on this thread.

With no reference, source or anything concrete at all...Atticus writes:

"Brigham Young was not the originator of any of these three teachings. (Blood atonement, Black's can't hold the priesthood and polygamy) All three were taught by Joseph Smith and are plainly laid out in the scriptures."

When I asked for his sources of information to back up these claims, he gets childish and says you first. In other words...HE DOESN'T HAVE THEM AND THEREFORE CAN'T PRODUCE THEM.

He just pulls it out of a hat, writes it down and says it's true. Now, I'm sure nobody in the 1800s would do such things...

Readers in the future, looking at this legacy thread, would stumble upon the Atticus claim....and declare....see, I told you so. Right here on LDSFF. It says Joseph taught the blood atonement. It's in writing, and why would anyone on LDSFF lie about such things? Furthur, Larsonb, a man of sound mind and a desire for the truth, didn't call Atticus out on the claim....so this absolutely proves that Joseph was guilty of these things!!

In your search for truth, consider what's happening to Joseph right here on this thread!!

[Baurak Ale]

The BOM hasn't gone out to the world because Joseph was murdered?

Hmm... I guess some should tell that to the hundreds of millions of people around the world who have come in contact with the Book of Mormon and the millions who have received a witness that it is true.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. The book of Mormon would have gone to the world either way.

Still waiting on those sources that prove Joseph gave us the blood atonement and withholding the priesthood from blacks....

Waiting...

Waiting...

Still waiting for you to show us that it didn't come from Joseph and the scriptures...

Waiting...

Waiting...

YOU MADE THE CLAIM, BACK IT UP....or I call BS!!

People are going to cry because each of these evidences are not explicit as to Joseph's meaning regarding these three teachings, but an honest historical assessment requires the wisdom to analyze these statements from the context of future statements from those who claimed to have received these teachings from Joseph (a la Brigham Young & co.). If they claim that Joseph taught these things, and if their teachings can be applied retrospectively to Joseph's somewhat veiled references with perfect harmony, it is evidence in support of Brigham & co.'s claims.

There are many people these days who want to defend Joseph from these teachings by simply axing all future claimants to his teachings, which future teachings have been recorded more explicitly than anything we have from Joseph (think of the chant "firsthand, firsthand!" so common around here). But it has to be remembered that when Joseph was president, the church was navigating within the United States and among a people beset with western tradition and therefore many things had to be kept quiet; when Brigham was president, the church was in an environment where all could be declared without much risk of mobocracy, the church being separated from the United States. If you ignore this context, you are willfully ignorant and a poor historian.

• As for blood atonement (goes across to the next page):
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... h-1843/276
• As for withholding the priesthood (also see Abraham 1:21 – 27 and Genesis 9:29 – 30, JST):
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ril-1836/2
• As for polygamy:
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1843/51
• As for Adam-God (goes across to next page):
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ch-1845/86

Hopefully that will help some of you who are academically honest and who are looking for some sources to dig into.

[IcedKoffee]

Im trying to be as fair as I possibly can on this issue. If you can produce anything by Joseph written in his own words where he is condemning Brigham and the rest of the twelve by name. I will gladly change my position.

But but but....just a few short days ago you were the poster child of neutrality. You made this claim yourself.

But now...you are so firmly cemented on one side that you say if you can provide evidence that has not surfaced since 1844, and probably will not at this point...I will change my position????

You have to HAVE A POSITION in order to change it. GOTCHA!!!!

Correct, my position has changed based on the lack of evidence that Joseph made any attempt to warn the people within his stewardship that the most powerful people within his church are secretly living polygamy.

But you can easily change it if you can produce anything written by his own hand showing that he did indeed make an effort.

Analyze what you just said....

I claimed to be neutral...but because I can't find anything specific by Joseph... fingering individuals by name...he MUST be guilty of practicing polygamy.

Presumption of innocence...Innocent until proven guilty are the bedrock of our judicial system.

Please do the defendants in your area a favor...and find a way to decline jury duty if you get notified.

Neutral meaning, I no longer believe that Joseph was a prophet. So therefore I’m no longer emotionally invested in wether he was or wasn’t a polygamist. Joseph being a polygamist had nothing to do with why I left.

For the most part I’ve only listened to one side of the argument. And I’ve agreed that most of the evidence against Joseph is weak. But in light of this new revelation that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Joseph called out the most powerful men in his organization by name and charged them with polygamy. I’m now having to go back and re-examine things in a new light. I get that you are extremely passionate about this topic but I would appreciate it if we could keep the personal attacks out it. We both profess to be followers of Christ. So let’s try our best not to bring shame to the name that we have both taken upon ourselves. I’ve made my mistakes in the past but I am trying my best to repent. At this point I’m willing to respectfully agree to disagree.

[The Red Pill]

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. The book of Mormon would have gone to the world either way.

Still waiting on those sources that prove Joseph gave us the blood atonement and withholding the priesthood from blacks....

Waiting...

Waiting...

Still waiting for you to show us that it didn't come from Joseph and the scriptures...

Waiting...

Waiting...

YOU MADE THE CLAIM, BACK IT UP....or I call BS!!

People are going to cry because each of these evidences are not explicit as to Joseph's meaning regarding these three teachings, but an honest historical assessment requires the wisdom to analyze these statements from the context of future statements from those who claimed to have received these teachings from Joseph (a la Brigham Young & co.). If they claim that Joseph taught these things, and if their teachings can be applied retrospectively to Joseph's somewhat veiled references with perfect harmony, it is evidence in support of Brigham & co.'s claims.

There are many people these days who want to defend Joseph from these teachings by simply axing all future claimants to his teachings, which future teachings have been recorded more explicitly than anything we have from Joseph (think of the chant "firsthand, firsthand!" so common around here). But it has to be remembered that when Joseph was president, the church was navigating within the United States and among a people beset with western tradition and therefore many things had to be kept quiet; when Brigham was president, the church was in an environment where all could be declared without much risk of mobocracy, the church being separated from the United States. If you ignore this context, you are willfully ignorant and a poor historian.

• As for blood atonement (goes across to the next page):
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... h-1843/276
• As for withholding the priesthood (also see Abraham 1:21 – 27 and Genesis 9:29 – 30, JST):
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ril-1836/2
• As for polygamy:
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1843/51
• As for Adam-God (goes across to next page):
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ch-1845/86

Hopefully that will help some of you who are academically honest and who are looking for some sources to dig into.

That's a lot of words amd mumbo-jumbo...to basically say...we don't have squat in Joseph's own handwriting to prove anything.

[Baurak Ale]

For those of you following this thread, I want to illustrate how EASY it is to FALSELY ACCUSE Joseph Smith of something he didn't do.

It's happening right here on this thread.

With no reference, source or anything concrete at all...Atticus writes:

"Brigham Young was not the originator of any of these three teachings. (Blood atonement, Black's can't hold the priesthood and polygamy) All three were taught by Joseph Smith and are plainly laid out in the scriptures."

When I asked for his sources of information to back up these claims, he gets childish and says you first. In other words...HE DOESN'T HAVE THEM AND THEREFORE CAN'T PRODUCE THEM.

He just pulls it out of a hat, writes it down and says it's true. Now, I'm sure nobody in the 1800s would do such things...

Readers in the future, looking at this legacy thread, would stumble upon the Atticus claim....and declare....see, I told you so. Right here on LDSFF. It says Joseph taught the blood atonement. It's in writing, and why would anyone on LDSFF lie about such things? Furthur, Larsonb, a man of sound mind and a desire for the truth, didn't call Atticus out on the claim....so this absolutely proves that Joseph was guilty of these things!!

In your search for truth, consider what's happening to Joseph right here on this thread!!

Meh, failing to comply with your request on your timeline seems more like bullying. See my above post for responses. Atticus may have more, but I don't blame him for not wanting to waste the effort on here with people who fly apart like glass (or is it snowflakes?).

[Baurak Ale]

Still waiting for you to show us that it didn't come from Joseph and the scriptures...

Waiting...

Waiting...

YOU MADE THE CLAIM, BACK IT UP....or I call BS!!

People are going to cry because each of these evidences are not explicit as to Joseph's meaning regarding these three teachings, but an honest historical assessment requires the wisdom to analyze these statements from the context of future statements from those who claimed to have received these teachings from Joseph (a la Brigham Young & co.). If they claim that Joseph taught these things, and if their teachings can be applied retrospectively to Joseph's somewhat veiled references with perfect harmony, it is evidence in support of Brigham & co.'s claims.

There are many people these days who want to defend Joseph from these teachings by simply axing all future claimants to his teachings, which future teachings have been recorded more explicitly than anything we have from Joseph (think of the chant "firsthand, firsthand!" so common around here). But it has to be remembered that when Joseph was president, the church was navigating within the United States and among a people beset with western tradition and therefore many things had to be kept quiet; when Brigham was president, the church was in an environment where all could be declared without much risk of mobocracy, the church being separated from the United States. If you ignore this context, you are willfully ignorant and a poor historian.

• As for blood atonement (goes across to the next page):
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... h-1843/276
• As for withholding the priesthood (also see Abraham 1:21 – 27 and Genesis 9:29 – 30, JST):
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ril-1836/2
• As for polygamy:
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1843/51
• As for Adam-God (goes across to next page):
  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ch-1845/86

Hopefully that will help some of you who are academically honest and who are looking for some sources to dig into.

That's a lot of words amd mumbo-jumbo...to basically say...we don't have squat in Joseph's own handwriting to prove anything.

SMH

[Reluctant Watchman]

[*]As for polygamy:
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1843/51

This link has nothing to do w/ polygamy. Might want to check your "academically honest" sources before posting.

And don't tell me you're going to use this to justify polygamy:

"What is the meaning of the scriptures. he that is faithful over a few thi[n]gs shall be made ruler over many? & he that is faithful over many shall be made ruler over many more?"

[BuriedTartaria]

Neutral meaning, I no longer believe that Joseph was a prophet.

What are your thoughts on the Book of Mormon? I’m not looking to contend or argue (or put a target on your back). I’m just curious

[IcedKoffee]

Neutral meaning, I no longer believe that Joseph was a prophet.

What are your thoughts on the Book of Mormon? I’m not looking to contend or argue. I’m just curious

As someone who’s no longer a believer some might think my perspective is a little odd or somewhat interesting. I’m actually very found of the BOM and I still talk about many of the stories written in it with my friends who are a part of the remnant movement. If the Book of Mormon helps you to develop a personal relationship with your Savior then I’m all fort it.

[The Red Pill]

For those of you following this thread, I want to illustrate how EASY it is to FALSELY ACCUSE Joseph Smith of something he didn't do.

It's happening right here on this thread.

With no reference, source or anything concrete at all...Atticus writes:

"Brigham Young was not the originator of any of these three teachings. (Blood atonement, Black's can't hold the priesthood and polygamy) All three were taught by Joseph Smith and are plainly laid out in the scriptures."

When I asked for his sources of information to back up these claims, he gets childish and says you first. In other words...HE DOESN'T HAVE THEM AND THEREFORE CAN'T PRODUCE THEM.

He just pulls it out of a hat, writes it down and says it's true. Now, I'm sure nobody in the 1800s would do such things...

Readers in the future, looking at this legacy thread, would stumble upon the Atticus claim....and declare....see, I told you so. Right here on LDSFF. It says Joseph taught the blood atonement. It's in writing, and why would anyone on LDSFF lie about such things? Furthur, Larsonb, a man of sound mind and a desire for the truth, didn't call Atticus out on the claim....so this absolutely proves that Joseph was guilty of these things!!

In your search for truth, consider what's happening to Joseph right here on this thread!!

Meh, failing to comply with your request on your timeline seems more like bullying. See my above post for responses. Atticus may have more, but I don't blame him for not wanting to waste the effort on here with people who fly apart like glass (or is it snowflakes?).

Waste of time and effort???

Seriously????

Now when you make a claim such as Joseph taught these things, and someone has the audacity to say they want to see your sources....I can see how you would feel bullied and abused by such requests. I will gladly pay for your time in counseling to recover from such trauma and emotional distress...

If you had ANYTHING you would trot it out like a parade horse....and you know it!!! You guys are so full of it.

[larsenb]

And not only has the Book of Mormon been promulgated throughout the world by the organization that Brigham led, but also his other scriptural productions to included the Doctrine and Covenants have been as well, which of course was the powerful course set by the Lord in D&C Section 1. I.e., the COJCOLDS has been the organization that has accomplished a good portion of the injunctions laid out by the Lord in Section 1.

The Lord, in His great wisdom, used even the pride of a gentile church to spread the message of His gospel. BUT, that doesn’t mean He’ll continue to sustain or guide that church in all things. If the past two years hasn’t made you aware of that, then I don’t know what will.

And D&C is a wild card. Some good, some bad. Anything I’ve found good came from Joseph…

Funny story. I was hiking this past weekend and met a husband/wife. The topic of religion came up. The wife said she’s been to Utah and didn’t agree with the way the church worshipped Joseph. I had to agree with her. The church does worship Joseph, and they have to, because he was the only true prophet this church has had.

Oh, and btw, I’m sure Joseph himself would chastise the church for idolizing him the way they have. The Lord will continue His work, but as He prophesied (and Moroni as well), the fullness of the gospel will be taken from them.

Now I like your admission represented by your first two sentences. This is rather the way I would look at it, especially if I were to take your anti-polygamy position. This acknowledges that it simply isn't a black-and-white situation in terms of the Church accomplishing or trying to accomplish its D&C Section 1 mission. A powerful, powerful section which in my view, clearly came from the Lord via JS's mind and voice.

And you've probably missed most of my posts on the what's been going on the past 2 years (and more), if you think I'm unaware of these circumstances.

That being said there are many, many reported incidents regarding things said and done by Brigham Young that simply don't fit the idea that he is the arch, immoral villain RP would like him to be. One could start with Nibley's: Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, for starters

[larsenb]

But was he revising history as a man or was he revising history as a prophet of God?

Important distinction, ya know.

He was revising history as God.

Theres no doubt that Brigham revised a bunch of history. But did he revise all of the other defectors as well?

What about Emma Smith’s history?

Emma was one of the main people claiming that Joseph was innocent of polygamy. If she had anything written by Joseph in his own words condemning Brigham and the twelve, wouldn’t she have been waiving it from the rooftops?

I don’t care what Brigham said. He was a narcissist.

There is a reason almost none of the Smith family migrated to Utah.

You may want to be a bit more cautious in throwing out modern, psychological buzz words in an attempt to provide definitive explanations for someone's behavior, past or present.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Now I like your admission represented by your first two sentences. This is rather the way I would look at it, especially if I were to take your anti-polygamy position. This acknowledges that it simply isn't a black-and-white situation in terms of the Church accomplishing or trying to accomplish its D&C Section 1 mission. A powerful, powerful section which in my view, clearly came from the Lord via JS's mind and voice.

And you've probably missed most of my posts on the what's been going on the past 2 years (and more), if you think I'm unaware of these circumstances.

That being said there are many, many reported incidents regarding things said and done by Brigham Young that simply don't fit the idea that he is the arch, immoral villain RP would like him to be. One could start with Nibley's: Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, for starters

I don't care to read much of anything BY said. I think he conspired with other men to kill Joseph, Hyrum, and Samuel. So yeah, I don't put much stock into much of what he said.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You may want to be a bit more cautious in throwing out modern, psychological buzz words in an attempt to provide definitive explanations for someone's behavior, past or present.

Ok, BY was a conspiring murderer, sexual predator, and pedophile. That better?

[larsenb]

Now I like your admission represented by your first two sentences. This is rather the way I would look at it, especially if I were to take your anti-polygamy position. This acknowledges that it simply isn't a black-and-white situation in terms of the Church accomplishing or trying to accomplish its D&C Section 1 mission. A powerful, powerful section which in my view, clearly came from the Lord via JS's mind and voice.

And you've probably missed most of my posts on the what's been going on the past 2 years (and more), if you think I'm unaware of these circumstances.

That being said there are many, many reported incidents regarding things said and done by Brigham Young that simply don't fit the idea that he is the arch, immoral villain RP would like him to be. One could start with Nibley's: Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, for starters

I don't care to read much of anything BY said. I think he conspired with other men to kill Joseph, Hyrum, and Samuel. So yeah, I don't put much stock into much of what he said.

Ah, you're in that camp. I forgot. Does some of the men BY conspired with include John Taylor and Willard Richard? And have you ever read Nibley's book?

[larsenb]

You may want to be a bit more cautious in throwing out modern, psychological buzz words in an attempt to provide definitive explanations for someone's behavior, past or present.

Ok, BY was a conspiring murderer, sexual predator, and pedophile. That better?

Yes, a very clear-cut accusation, and greatly clarifies where you are coming from.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You may want to be a bit more cautious in throwing out modern, psychological buzz words in an attempt to provide definitive explanations for someone's behavior, past or present.

Ok, BY was a conspiring murderer, sexual predator, and pedophile. That better?

Yes, a very clear-cut accusation, and greatly clarifies where you are coming from.

No need to beat around the bush, right?

[Reluctant Watchman]

Keep in mind, these things were prophesied:

3 Nephi 16

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

All the boxes were checked after Joseph was murdered.

[larsenb]

Keep in mind, these things were prophesied:

3 Nephi 16

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

All the boxes were checked after Joseph was murdered.

And yet you admit that "The Lord, in His great wisdom, used even the pride of a gentile church to spread the message of His gospel. BUT, that doesn’t mean He’ll continue to sustain or guide that church in all things."

From my point of view, your post doesn't quite fit with the "day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel". For one thing, they were a very small group greatly immersed in pioneer struggling for many decades involving just trying to survive. Both sets of my grandparents parents were still struggling with pioneer-type circumstances and poverty to include the tragedy of early death into the 20th Century.

Hardly circumstances where you could accuse them (the saints of this period) of being "lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, etc., etc.

I think your time-line is waaaay off.

[LDS Watchman]

You may want to be a bit more cautious in throwing out modern, psychological buzz words in an attempt to provide definitive explanations for someone's behavior, past or present.

Ok, BY was a conspiring murderer, sexual predator, and pedophile. That better?

You have zero proof of any of that. This is just the standard case of Brigham Young derangement syndrome.

[LDS Watchman]

For those of you following this thread, I want to illustrate how EASY it is to FALSELY ACCUSE Joseph Smith of something he didn't do.

It's happening right here on this thread.

With no reference, source or anything concrete at all...Atticus writes:

"Brigham Young was not the originator of any of these three teachings. (Blood atonement, Black's can't hold the priesthood and polygamy) All three were taught by Joseph Smith and are plainly laid out in the scriptures."

When I asked for his sources of information to back up these claims, he gets childish and says you first. In other words...HE DOESN'T HAVE THEM AND THEREFORE CAN'T PRODUCE THEM.

He just pulls it out of a hat, writes it down and says it's true. Now, I'm sure nobody in the 1800s would do such things...

Readers in the future, looking at this legacy thread, would stumble upon the Atticus claim....and declare....see, I told you so. Right here on LDSFF. It says Joseph taught the blood atonement. It's in writing, and why would anyone on LDSFF lie about such things? Furthur, Larsonb, a man of sound mind and a desire for the truth, didn't call Atticus out on the claim....so this absolutely proves that Joseph was guilty of these things!!

In your search for truth, consider what's happening to Joseph right here on this thread!!

Meh, failing to comply with your request on your timeline seems more like bullying. See my above post for responses. Atticus may have more, but I don't blame him for not wanting to waste the effort on here with people who fly apart like glass (or is it snowflakes?).

Waste of time and effort???

Seriously????

Now when you make a claim such as Joseph taught these things, and someone has the audacity to say they want to see your sources....I can see how you would feel bullied and abused by such requests. I will gladly pay for your time in counseling to recover from such trauma and emotional distress...

If you had ANYTHING you would trot it out like a parade horse....and you know it!!! You guys are so full of it.

I have plenty of sources. But in your delusion you will just reject them. You clearly couldn't care less about the truth.

Don't have time to dig up all the sources right now, but it's a fact of history that Joseph repeatedly taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Canaan and under the divine curse put on this race in the scriptures. He even preached against freeing the slaves for this reason. Joseph Smith also published Abraham 1, which states that this race has no right to the priesthood and is cursed as to the priesthood. Several witnesses who knew Joseph testified that he taught that Blacks couldn't have the priesthood.

Joseph said that he would cut a murderers head off so the blood would ascend as insense to plead for mercy. He also taught that Peter executed Judas as punishment for his betrayel.
In the Book of Mormon it speaks of a murderer having his blood shed to atone for his own sin. Blood atonement is all over the scriptures.

But none of this will matter to you, because you are suffering from Brigham Young derangement syndrome.

You are also a major hypocrite. You sit here and piss and moan about the presumption of "innocence" in regards to Joseph, and yet you refuse to make even the slightest effort to prove your accusations against Brigham. Standard anti-mormon tactic. Hurl baseless accusations, refuse to back them up, and then demand that those who challenge your baseless accusations prove you wrong. It's total BS.

[The Red Pill]

For those of you following this thread, I want to illustrate how EASY it is to FALSELY ACCUSE Joseph Smith of something he didn't do.

It's happening right here on this thread.

With no reference, source or anything concrete at all...Atticus writes:

"Brigham Young was not the originator of any of these three teachings. (Blood atonement, Black's can't hold the priesthood and polygamy) All three were taught by Joseph Smith and are plainly laid out in the scriptures."

When I asked for his sources of information to back up these claims, he gets childish and says you first. In other words...HE DOESN'T HAVE THEM AND THEREFORE CAN'T PRODUCE THEM.

He just pulls it out of a hat, writes it down and says it's true. Now, I'm sure nobody in the 1800s would do such things...

Readers in the future, looking at this legacy thread, would stumble upon the Atticus claim....and declare....see, I told you so. Right here on LDSFF. It says Joseph taught the blood atonement. It's in writing, and why would anyone on LDSFF lie about such things? Furthur, Larsonb, a man of sound mind and a desire for the truth, didn't call Atticus out on the claim....so this absolutely proves that Joseph was guilty of these things!!

In your search for truth, consider what's happening to Joseph right here on this thread!!

Meh, failing to comply with your request on your timeline seems more like bullying. See my above post for responses. Atticus may have more, but I don't blame him for not wanting to waste the effort on here with people who fly apart like glass (or is it snowflakes?).

Waste of time and effort???

Seriously????

Now when you make a claim such as Joseph taught these things, and someone has the audacity to say they want to see your sources....I can see how you would feel bullied and abused by such requests. I will gladly pay for your time in counseling to recover from such trauma and emotional distress...

If you had ANYTHING you would trot it out like a parade horse....and you know it!!! You guys are so full of it.

I have plenty of sources. But in your delusion you will just reject them. You clearly couldn't care less about the truth.

Don't have time to dig up all the sources right now, but it's a fact of history that Joseph repeatedly taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Canaan and under the divine curse put on this race in the scriptures. He even preached against freeing the slaves for this reason. Joseph Smith also published Abraham 1, which states that this race has no right to the priesthood and is cursed as to the priesthood. Several witnesses who knew Joseph testified that he taught that Blacks couldn't have the priesthood.

Joseph said that he would cut a murderers head off so the blood would ascend as insense to plead for mercy. He also taught that Peter executed Judas as punishment for his betrayel.
In the Book of Mormon it speaks of a murderer having his blood shed to atone for his own sin. Blood atonement is all over the scriptures.

But none of this will matter to you, because you are suffering from Brigham Young derangement syndrome.

You are also a major hypocrite. You sit here and piss and moan about the presumption of "innocence" in regards to Joseph, and yet you refuse to make even the slightest effort to prove your accusations against Brigham. Standard anti-mormon tactic. Hurl baseless accusations, refuse to back them up, and then demand that those who challenge your baseless accusations prove you wrong. It's total BS.

Wow...possibly the best example of projection I have seen for awhile.

With a straight face...you have the gall to say:

"Hurl baseless accusations, refuse to back them up, and then demand that those who challenge your baseless accusations prove you wrong"

THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT YOU DID!

Do you happen to know the Clinton's? Obama's?

[Reluctant Watchman]

Keep in mind, these things were prophesied:

3 Nephi 16

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

All the boxes were checked after Joseph was murdered.

And yet you admit that "The Lord, in His great wisdom, used even the pride of a gentile church to spread the message of His gospel. BUT, that doesn’t mean He’ll continue to sustain or guide that church in all things."

From my point of view, your post doesn't quite fit with the "day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel". For one thing, they were a very small group greatly immersed in pioneer struggling for many decades involving just trying to survive. Both sets of my grandparents parents were still struggling with pioneer-type circumstances and poverty to include the tragedy of early death into the 20th Century.

Hardly circumstances where you could accuse them (the saints of this period) of being "lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, etc., etc.

I think your time-line is waaaay off.

I'm glad you have an opinion I don't agree with.

[Alexander]

Before the "Whitney letter", of the same year:

"Shall the credulity, good faith, and stedfast feelings of our sisters, for the cause of God or truth, be impos’d upon by believing such men, because they say they have authority from Joseph, or the First Presidency, or any other Presidency of the Church; and thus, with a lie in their mouth, deceive and debauch the innocent, under the assumption that they are authoriz’d from these sources? May God Forbid!
A knowledge of some such things having come to our ears, we improve this favorable opportunity, wherein so goodly a number of you may be inform’d that no such authority ever has, ever can, or ever will be given to any man, and if any man has been guilty of any such thing, let him be treated with utter contempt, and let the curse of God fall on his head, and let him be turned out of Society as unworthy of a place among men, & denounced as the blackest & the most unprincipled wretch; and finally let him be damned!
We have been informed that some unprincipled men, whose names we will not mention at present, have been guilty of such crimes. We do not mention their names, not knowing but what there may be some among you who are not sufficiently skill’d in Masonry as to keep a secret, therefore, suffice it to say, there are those, and we therefore warn you, & forewarn you, in the name of the Lord, to check & destroy any faith that any innocent person may have in any such character; for we do not want any one to believe any thing as coming from us, contrary to the old established morals & virtues & scriptural laws, regulating the habits, customs & conduct of society; and all persons pretending to be authoriz’d by us, or having any permit, or sanction from us, are & will be liars & base impostors, & you are authoriz’d on the very first intimation of the kind, to denounce them as such, & shun them as the flying fiery serpent, whether they are prophets, Seers, or revelators; Patriarchs, twelve Apostles, Elders, Priests, Mayers, Generals, City Councillors, Aldermen, Marshalls, Police, Lord Mayors or the Devil, are alike culpable & shall be damned for such evil practices; and if you yourselves adhere to anything of the kind, you also shall be damned.
Now beloved Sisters, do not believe for a moment, that we wish to impose upon you, we actually do know that such things have existed in the church, and are sorry to say that we are obliged to make mention of any such thing, and we want a stop put to them, and we desire you to do your part, and we will do ours, for we wish to keep the commandments of God in all things, as given directly from heav’n to us, living by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.
May God add his blessing upon your heads and lead you in all the paths of virtue, piety & peace, that you may be an ornament unto those to whom you belong, and rise up and crown them with honors, & by so doing, you shall be crown’d with honor in heav’n and shall sit upon thrones, judging those over whom you are plac’d in authority, and shall be judg’d of God for all the responsibilities that we confer’d upon you."
-Joseph Smith, Epistle to the Relief Society, March 31, 1842



After the "Whitney letter", of the same year:

"Inasmuch as the public mind has been unjustly abused through the fallacy of Dr. [John C.] Bennett’s letters, we make an extract on the subject of marriage, showing the rule of the church on this important matter. The extract is from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and is the only rule allowed by the church.
“All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. 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. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband.”"
-Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, September 1, 1842




You are an actual clown.

So no answer to the actual contents of the letter then? Just the standard hand wringing and pointing to public denials of adultery and illict sex under the guise of spiritual wivery?

Who's the clown?

You moke. Joseph was in hiding due to the deranged accusations of him orchestrating an assassination attempt upon former Governor Boggs since August 8th.

Your grandeur assumptions of Joseph, that he had to hide from his wife a clandestine polygamous marriage, and did so by letter to the Whitneys actuating a time in which their secret ceremony could take place kept from the eyes of Emma, is an absolute imbecilic abusive and slanderous epithet.

"He [Bennett] had recourse to a more influential and desperately wicked course; and that was, to persuade them that myself [Joseph] and others of the authorities of the church not only sanctioned, but practiced the same wicked acts; and when asked why I publicly preached so much against it, said that it was because of the prejudice of the public, and that it would cause trouble in my own house [with Emma, Joseph’s wife]."
(Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons 3 [July 1, 1842]: 839–840)

Your name calling and personal attacks are pathetic. What are you 12?

Why did Joseph warn of danger if Emma found out? Was Emma going to turn him in to the authorities? Or was she mad about Joseph's secret polygamy, like multiple other first hand accounts corroborate?

The purpose of the meeting was not to perform the marriage ceremony. The marriage ceremony between Joseph and Sarah Ann Whitney had already been performed on July 27th.

Verily thus saith the Lord unto my se[r]vant N. K. Whitney the thing that my se[r]vant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your Famely [Family] and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old & young because of the lineage of my Preast [Pirest] Hood saith the Lord it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation By virtue of the Holy promise which I now make unto you saith the Lord.

these are the words which you shall pronounce upon my se[r]vant Joseph [Smith] and your Daughter S. A. [Sarah Ann] Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say:

you both mutu[al]ly agree calling them by name to be each others companion so long as you both shall live presser[v]ing yourselv[es] for each other and from all others and also through out all eternity reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph [Smith] by revelation and commandment and by legal Authority in times passed [past].

“If you both agree to covenant and do this, then I give you S. A. [Sarah Ann] Whitney my Daughter to Joseph Smith to be his wife to observe all the rights betwe[e]n you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife your mother and in the name of my Holy Progenitors by the right of birth which is of Priest Hood vested in me by revelation and commandment and promise of the living God obtained by the Holy Melchizedek Gethrow [Jethro] and other of the Holy Fathers commanding in the name of the Lord all those powers to concentrate in you and through to your posterity for ever

all these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that through this order he may be glorified [glorified] and [that] through the power of anointing Davied [David] may reign King over Iseral [Israel] which shall hereafter be revealed let immortality and eternal life henc[e]forth be sealed upon your heads forever and ever.

"Revelation, 27 July 1842," p. [1]
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... uly-1842/1

A spurious letter brought up a decade later doesn't override contemporaneous appeals by Joseph.

The epistle to the Relief Society directly states, "for we do not want any one to believe any thing as coming from us, contrary to the old established morals & virtues & scriptural laws, regulating the habits, customs & conduct of society; and all persons pretending to be authoriz’d by us, or having any permit, or sanction from us, are & will be liars & base impostors".

Again, Joseph rehashes in the Times in Seasons the law of the church, for marriage was to be "according to the custom of all civilized nations... regulated by laws and ceremonies... [and] should be solemnized in a public meeting", to be celebrated and solemnized only “if there be no legal objections”.

To put it frankly, the marriage was:
-Not to be clandestine or secret; but forthright, apparent, explicit and open
-According to law and ceremony


The idea that he was not on good terms with his own wife, that he had to hide such contrarian practices from his own house, is a lie forged up by none other than Bennett himself. Again, from his letter to his wife, Joseph states, "My safety is with you, if you want to have it so. Any thing more or less than this cometh of evil."


Joseph is a brash hypocrite if in fact any such secret marriage took place between himself and Sarah Whitney.


Newel Whitney perjured himself if there was a secret marriage of Joseph to Sarah.




You are a joke.

[LDS Watchman]

Meh, failing to comply with your request on your timeline seems more like bullying. See my above post for responses. Atticus may have more, but I don't blame him for not wanting to waste the effort on here with people who fly apart like glass (or is it snowflakes?).

Waste of time and effort???

Seriously????

Now when you make a claim such as Joseph taught these things, and someone has the audacity to say they want to see your sources....I can see how you would feel bullied and abused by such requests. I will gladly pay for your time in counseling to recover from such trauma and emotional distress...

If you had ANYTHING you would trot it out like a parade horse....and you know it!!! You guys are so full of it.

I have plenty of sources. But in your delusion you will just reject them. You clearly couldn't care less about the truth.

Don't have time to dig up all the sources right now, but it's a fact of history that Joseph repeatedly taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Canaan and under the divine curse put on this race in the scriptures. He even preached against freeing the slaves for this reason. Joseph Smith also published Abraham 1, which states that this race has no right to the priesthood and is cursed as to the priesthood. Several witnesses who knew Joseph testified that he taught that Blacks couldn't have the priesthood.

Joseph said that he would cut a murderers head off so the blood would ascend as insense to plead for mercy. He also taught that Peter executed Judas as punishment for his betrayel.
In the Book of Mormon it speaks of a murderer having his blood shed to atone for his own sin. Blood atonement is all over the scriptures.

But none of this will matter to you, because you are suffering from Brigham Young derangement syndrome.

You are also a major hypocrite. You sit here and piss and moan about the presumption of "innocence" in regards to Joseph, and yet you refuse to make even the slightest effort to prove your accusations against Brigham. Standard anti-mormon tactic. Hurl baseless accusations, refuse to back them up, and then demand that those who challenge your baseless accusations prove you wrong. It's total BS.

Wow...possibly the best example of projection I have seen for awhile.

With a straight face...you have the gall to say:

"Hurl baseless accusations, refuse to back them up, and then demand that those who challenge your baseless accusations prove you wrong"

THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT YOU DID!

Do you happen to know the Clinton's? Obama's?

We're definitely in the twilight zone...

Did you or did you not make the accusation that Brigham was the originator or polygamy, the priesthood ban, and blood atonement? Yes.

Have you made any attempt to support this accusation with evidence? No.

While I haven't linked any specific sources, I have mentioned several key pieces of evidence to challenge your claims.

You're a hypocrite. End of story.