A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

[reese]

If I may let me take a stab at Jacob 2 Bro. I think you might not be taking this verse in its full and proper context. If you look back at the verses just prior to this one you will notice that the Lord is very displeased with those Nephite people who were using David and Solomon to justify committing whoredoms. In other words they were not sanctioned by the Lord to live plural marriage but were just a bunch of whore mongers living in sin.

That "thing" referenced in verse 23 and 24 of using David or Solomon as justification of their immoral behavior was what the Lord said was abominable before him. I know the wording in verse 24 is tricky but if you believe the Lord in verse 38 of section 132 this would be the only explanation to the confusion in Jacob 2.

The Nephites did not receive a command from the Lord to practice plurality of wives at Jacobs time so they were living under gross sin of immoral behavior. Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon did receive such a command so they were justified in doing so by the Lord. Does this make any sense to you?

And yet Jacob STILL says:

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Actually it isn't even Jacob saying it. It is the Lord, as Jacob clarifies. So if we don't wrest the sciptures to fit our paradigm and just take them at face value for what they are saying, then we see that David and Solomon had many wives and concubines and it was abominable to the Lord.

Mark said:
Anything that degrades or calls into question the church's stance with the Lord or its leadership is taken as legitimate. I don't remember the last time you ever said anything positive or complimentary about the church in its state today. Or the current Prophets for that matter.

Why should he say positive things about us Mark? We get enough of that from everywhere else. Since when was a call to repentance a positive or happy message. This is why the Joseph said that a true prophet will always cry repentance and thus be cast out, and false prophets always teach flattering things and are accepted. Anyone saying positive and complimentary things about our church is promoting pride in ourselves. And the scriptures say over and over that we the people desire that. Are you seeing the pattern here or am I missing something vital in this?

[Mark]

If I may let me take a stab at Jacob 2 Bro. I think you might not be taking this verse in its full and proper context. If you look back at the verses just prior to this one you will notice that the Lord is very displeased with those Nephite people who were using David and Solomon to justify committing whoredoms. In other words they were not sanctioned by the Lord to live plural marriage but were just a bunch of whore mongers living in sin.

That "thing" referenced in verse 23 and 24 of using David or Solomon as justification of their immoral behavior was what the Lord said was abominable before him. I know the wording in verse 24 is tricky but if you believe the Lord in verse 38 of section 132 this would be the only explanation to the confusion in Jacob 2.

The Nephites did not receive a command from the Lord to practice plurality of wives at Jacobs time so they were living under gross sin of immoral behavior. Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon did receive such a command so they were justified in doing so by the Lord. Does this make any sense to you?

And yet Jacob STILL says:

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Actually it isn't even Jacob saying it. It is the Lord, as Jacob clarifies. So if we don't wrest the sciptures to fit our paradigm and just take them at face value for what they are saying, then we see that David and Solomon had many wives and concubines and it was abominable to the Lord.

Mark said:
Anything that degrades or calls into question the church's stance with the Lord or its leadership is taken as legitimate. I don't remember the last time you ever said anything positive or complimentary about the church in its state today. Or the current Prophets for that matter.

Why should he say positive things about us Mark? We get enough of that from everywhere else. Since when was a call to repentance a positive or happy message. This is why the Joseph said that a true prophet will always cry repentance and thus be cast out, and false prophets always teach flattering things and are accepted. Anyone saying positive and complimentary things about our church is promoting pride in ourselves. And the scriptures say over and over that we the people desire that. Are you seeing the pattern here or am I missing something vital in this?

I might have missed something Reese but since when did the Lord give ithink the stewardship rights to call the church or its Prophets to repentance and tell them that they have gone astray? And what is wrong with being a little encouraging and recognizing efforts of the members to live the principles of the gospel in their individual lives? You would definitely have had a problem with Pres. Hinckley. He was an optimistic Prophet who tried to bring out the best in those he met through sincere compliments and positive affirmations. In fact all the Prophets today seem to be very loving a kind individuals who try to lift and encourage any chance they can. They don't condemn us all to hell every chance they can. I worship a loving Father who knows my weaknesses but loves me in spite of them. The Savior showed love and compassion and kindness to even the sinners. What gives us the right to do otherwise?

[Matthew.B]

How on earth did another discussion derail into a polygamy debate...?

[gr8ideas]

Jeremiah 5:28
28 They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.
Jeremiah 5:29
29 Shall I not visit for these [things]? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
Jeremiah 5:30
30 A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;
Jeremiah 5:31
31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means;

and my people love [to have it] so

: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

[HeirofNumenor]

So where exactly does this leave us? The Lord will DEFINITELY let his people use their agency to "follow a wrong precedent". Here is the most recent staement by the church concerning the precendent that was stopped in 1978:
"The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

How does this kind of statement get approved as a public statement by the church? Can a "revelator" speak (as did Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and many others in the first presidency and twelve) about this crucial matter for over a hundred years "in the absence of revelation?" How, if this critical issue involving the personal lives of so many faithful church members for generations was wrong and did not represent church doctrine, can we now trust that anything that is said by anyone on any topic represents church doctrine? There were faithful Saints kept out of the temple because of this doctrine. There were heartwrenching discoveries of genealogy issues for people who were previously ordained who were told they could no longer use their ordination to serve in the church. They were turned down because these men at the highest levels were acting "in the absence of revelation?" Why?

I hope to have a detailed theory of this laid out in the next couple days. It takes me forever to type...
But first, I need to get a garden put in this afternoon...

[HeirofNumenor]

How on earth did another discussion derail into a polygamy debate...?

That is my fault.

[HeirofNumenor]

Thank you for your quotes Awake.

IF they are accurate, than that presents another quagmire that will need to be sorted out by the Lord...

“Gave instruction to try those who were preaching, teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives or this law – Joseph forbids it, and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife.” Joseph Smith’s diary, Oct. 5, 1843. Church Historical Dept.(But after Joseph's death this entry was altered to seem to favor polygamy)

What/where is the evidence of the underlined statement?

[HeirofNumenor]

If I may let me take a stab at Jacob 2 Bro. I think you might not be taking this verse in its full and proper context. If you look back at the verses just prior to this one you will notice that the Lord is very displeased with those Nephite people who were using David and Solomon to justify committing whoredoms. In other words they were not sanctioned by the Lord to live plural marriage but were just a bunch of whore mongers living in sin.

That "thing" referenced in verse 23 and 24 of using David or Solomon as justification of their immoral behavior was what the Lord said was abominable before him. I know the wording in verse 24 is tricky but if you believe the Lord in verse 38 of section 132 this would be the only explanation to the confusion in Jacob 2.

The Nephites did not receive a command from the Lord to practice plurality of wives at Jacobs time so they were living under gross sin of immoral behavior. Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon did receive such a command so they were justified in doing so by the Lord. Does this make any sense to you?

Thank you for your response, Mark.

I'm not sure David and Solomon were COMMANDED to take plural wives, as much as the Lord tolerated them...

Obviously David sinned with Bathsheba - no disagreement there.... but I wonder if having many different mothers around became a cause for strife within David's children? So much that at least one son was a fugitive under a death warrant (largely for killing his half-brother who raped his sister).

In Solomon's case - 700 wives and 300 concubines - well:

1 Kings 11
1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.

5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, band went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father.

7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.

9 ¶And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord commanded.

11 Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.

[HeirofNumenor]

Considering your ongoing diatribes and innuendo's aimed at the latter day church and its Prophets I would be considering the parallels of verse 26 long and hard if I were you ithink. You seek to destroy faith in this latter day work of the Lord because of your disgruntlement for whatever reason. Anyone who doesn't see your intent clearly is walking in darkness at noonday. :ymsigh:

Mark -
while I am frequently at odds with iThink, awake, and many others...

In THIS case - please direct your anger at ME. I am the one who started the exploration of "The Lord will remove his prophet" as POSSIBLY applying to Joseph & Hyrum. I was only exploring a logical extension of Pres. Woodruff's statement which has been ratified by nearly all prophets since.

In no way am I attempting to denigrate ANY of our prophets and apostles, early or modern. As I keep saying: we really don't know all that happened (including doctrinal revelation vs inspiration specific to a certain instance or circumstance) - this goes for most of this Church's quandaries of history and doctrine. Similar to the recent Church statement that "the origins [on priesthood availability] are not clear".

This is why I think Pres. Hinckley's approach was best - that whenever he was put on the spot about polygamy, blacks & priesthood, etc...that the reply was always:

"That is in the past. We've moved on" (you should too - please let it go).

[reese]

I might have missed something Reese but since when did the Lord give ithink the stewardship rights to call the church or its Prophets to repentance and tell them that they have gone astray? And what is wrong with being a little encouraging and recognizing efforts of the members to live the principles of the gospel in their individual lives? You would definitely have had a problem with Pres. Hinckley. He was an optimistic Prophet who tried to bring out the best in those he met through sincere compliments and positive affirmations. In fact all the Prophets today seem to be very loving a kind individuals who try to lift and encourage any chance they can. They don't condemn us all to hell every chance they can. I worship a loving Father who knows my weaknesses but loves me in spite of them. The Savior showed love and compassion and kindness to even the sinners. What gives us the right to do otherwise?

Mark this has nothing to do with love and compassion. Of course the Lord has love and compassion for us. Obviously the leaders do, and believe it or not I do too. But is it not compassionate to warn someone about the need for repentance. Does the Lord not warn those whom he loves? The Lord will return and will fulfill all of his promises. Some of those promises are going to be a VERY negative experience for the people experiencing them.

23 And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up dcontinually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction. And after this manner do I write concerning them.

Surely we cannot say that Enos and the many prophets laboring with him were not compassionate towards those they labored in behalf of. You have read the book of mormon. When did any prophet in it try and "break the news gently" to the people? Were they concerned about the peoples self esteem? Every message of repentance I have read in any scripture is a harsh wake up call. It is meant to jolt people into action. Surely you don't think this church has no need of repentance. That we deserve to have feel good, uplifting messages, entertaining messages that make us laugh and feel happy, instead?

Surely the words of Samuel the Lamanite are meant for us, just as much as they were meant for the people he first delivered them to.

25 And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out.

26 Behold ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he ftestifieth that your deeds are evil.

27 But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.

28 Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him.

29 O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?

Is there ever a message of repentance in the BofM, that is not harsh and scary? I can't think of one. And I am not talking about messages about the gospel plan, which is joyfull, and availiblbe AFTER someone has repented. I am talking about the repent or be destroyed message. And since when does someone have to have a stewardship to cry repentance?

[Mark]

Considering your ongoing diatribes and innuendo's aimed at the latter day church and its Prophets I would be considering the parallels of verse 26 long and hard if I were you ithink. You seek to destroy faith in this latter day work of the Lord because of your disgruntlement for whatever reason. Anyone who doesn't see your intent clearly is walking in darkness at noonday. :ymsigh:

Mark -
while I am frequently at odds with iThink, awake, and many others...

In THIS case - please direct your anger at ME. I am the one who started the exploration of "The Lord will remove his prophet" as POSSIBLY applying to Joseph & Hyrum. I was only exploring a logical extension of Pres. Woodruff's statement which has been ratified by nearly all prophets since.

In no way am I attempting to denigrate ANY of our prophets and apostles, early or modern. As I keep saying: we really don't know all that happened (including doctrinal revelation vs inspiration specific to a certain instance or circumstance) - this goes for most of this Church's quandaries of history and doctrine. Similar to the recent Church statement that "the origins [on priesthood availability] are not clear".

This is why I think Pres. Hinckley's approach was best - that whenever he was put on the spot about polygamy, blacks & priesthood, etc...that the reply was always:

"That is in the past. We've moved on" (you should too - please let it go).

I am not angry at anyone Heir. I am only concerned for ithink because I have seen a pattern of disgruntlement aimed at the church and the Brethren for the last couple of years in his posts. I have not seen that same pattern in you. Quite the contrary actually.

I am not emotionally invested in this forum. Far from it. It is only an outlet to express my thoughts and opinions to people I will most likely never meet in my life. I'm sure most here breathe a sigh of relief for that assurance. )

I rather enjoy it when people do not agree with me. It gives me an opportunity to lay out my reasoning and hopefully better clarify my own positions about any topic. I have tried to do so best I could through written communication but sometimes I'm sure it doesn't come across in a favorable way to many here. Such is life.

I see those like ithink much the same way as I saw those back in the early 90's who began to question whether or not the church was falling into a state of apostasy and began to question whether the leaders like Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Monson were just taking the church in a direction that was contrary to the establishment of Zion.

I found in every instance that I came across that the people who began to publicly stone these prophets deriding them as fallen and deceived eventually fell away from the church and frankly never prospered in any positive way. A good example would be the TLC bunch. Many others are out there to verify this observation.

If a man takes it upon himself to publicly correct the Lords chosen mouthpieces in a derogatory or condemning fashion they will eventually reap what they sow. You can take that to the bank. The powers of heaven withdraw themselves when that type of pride is exhibited in an individual. If my concerns and warnings are taken as uncaring or mean I guess thats the cross I will bear. I hope people will recognize the dangers of that kind of ill speaking and turn from that path before they follow those who have rebelled against the Kingdom and fallen into the adversaries trap.

[Mark]

I might have missed something Reese but since when did the Lord give ithink the stewardship rights to call the church or its Prophets to repentance and tell them that they have gone astray? And what is wrong with being a little encouraging and recognizing efforts of the members to live the principles of the gospel in their individual lives? You would definitely have had a problem with Pres. Hinckley. He was an optimistic Prophet who tried to bring out the best in those he met through sincere compliments and positive affirmations. In fact all the Prophets today seem to be very loving a kind individuals who try to lift and encourage any chance they can. They don't condemn us all to hell every chance they can. I worship a loving Father who knows my weaknesses but loves me in spite of them. The Savior showed love and compassion and kindness to even the sinners. What gives us the right to do otherwise?

Mark this has nothing to do with love and compassion. Of course the Lord has love and compassion for us. Obviously the leaders do, and believe it or not I do too. But is it not compassionate to warn someone about the need for repentance. Does the Lord not warn those whom he loves? The Lord will return and will fulfill all of his promises. Some of those promises are going to be a VERY negative experience for the people experiencing them.

23 And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up dcontinually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction. And after this manner do I write concerning them.

Surely we cannot say that Enos and the many prophets laboring with him were not compassionate towards those they labored in behalf of. You have read the book of mormon. When did any prophet in it try and "break the news gently" to the people? Were they concerned about the peoples self esteem? Every message of repentance I have read in any scripture is a harsh wake up call. It is meant to jolt people into action. Surely you don't think this church has no need of repentance. That we deserve to have feel good, uplifting messages, entertaining messages that make us laugh and feel happy, instead?

Surely the words of Samuel the Lamanite are meant for us, just as much as they were meant for the people he first delivered them to.

25 And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out.

26 Behold ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he ftestifieth that your deeds are evil.

27 But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.

28 Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him.

29 O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?

Is there ever a message of repentance in the BofM, that is not harsh and scary? I can't think of one. And I am not talking about messages about the gospel plan, which is joyfull, and availiblbe AFTER someone has repented. I am talking about the repent or be destroyed message. And since when does someone have to have a stewardship to cry repentance?

You obviously do not understand how Priesthood govt works in the church Reese. It is NEVER appropriate for any member of the church to publicly condemn or deride in any derogatory manner any living Prophet or Apostle who holds the Priesthood keys of the kingdom in their hands. I will guaranty you that if ithink were to go to his Bishop or Stake President or Regional Rep and make the same charges he has made here multiple times on this forum concerning the church and the Brethren as being in a state of Apostasy just trying to please the world by dumbing down the doctrine that he would be up for disciplinary action and would be in the need of repentance for doing so. If you don't believe me just go ask your Stake President if that is acceptable public behavior for members of the church to display publicly.

[reese]

You obviously do not understand how Priesthood govt works in the church Reese. It is NEVER appropriate for any member of the church to publicly condemn or deride in any derogatory manner any living Prophet or Apostle who holds the Priesthood keys of the kingdom in their hands.Your right it is not appropriate. Just as it is not appropriate for anyone to publicly condemn or deride anyone. But I don't understand what that has to do with priesthood government. I will guaranty you that if ithink were to go to his Bishop or Stake President or Regional Rep and make the same charges he has made here multiple times on this forum concerning the church and the Brethren as being in a state of Apostasy just trying to please the world by dumbing down the doctrine that he would be up for disciplinary action and would be in the need of repentance for doing so. If you don't believe me just go ask your Stake President if that is acceptable public behavior for members of the church to display publicly.

I have no doubt that if ithink or anyone else went to their SP or bishop and said the brethren were in a state of apostacy they would be in trouble. What I am interested in knowing is if that would be because of false traditions, or if there is a scripture somewhere that states no common member may bring any complaint against one of the leaders. Is there? Etherial Blue posted something to this effect a week or so ago. I'm sure you read it. What are you saying, that the scripture in D&C that tells how to conduct a disciplinary court for the president of the church means something else? Here is etherial blues post:

Etherial Blue wrote:
...It is really interesting to see people on one side of the debate always talking about finding safety in following the "brethren" and staying true to the "church" while the people on the other side of the debate speak of "following the Holy Ghost" and being true to the "gospel".

It was corrected and restored to it's original statement in the JST

"Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment."

Why did the Lord provide specific instructions on how to hold a church court for the President of the Church?

Was he being facetious or disingenuous when he gave us that protocol or was he being serious?

If it is really a cardinal sin to ever be critical of the Prophet of the Church and if we are to turn and look the other way and leave it up to the Lord to correct the situation whenever the president of the Church does something that is potentially harmful to the church or his own personal spiritual well being, WHY DID THE LORD GIVE US INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH CAN BE DISCIPLINED OR EXCOMMUNICATED?

I would suggest that it is because the Lord, in his infinite foreknowledge and wisdom knew that Presidents of the church are human beings that are subject to making serious mistakes just like everyone else.

I would suggest that He knew that there would (or at least could) be future circumstances when a president of the church might do something wrong for which he would need to be corrected, if not cut off.

Interestingly, there are people in this forum who seem to believe that it would be a mortal sin to ever be critical of the president of the church and other general authorities.

The very belief that nobody should ever be critical of the president of the church completely negates the Lords instructions on how to hold a church court on the president of the church.

If church members have no right or responsibility to make righteous judgments about how the church is being governed then it appears as if the Lord made a very serious error in providing a protocol for holding a disciplinary counsil concerning the conduct of the president of the church.

It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith was actually brought before a disciplinary court as a result of a complaint by a fellow saint stemming from issues that took place during Zions Camp.

The brother who filed the charges was named Sylvester Smith, one of the captains who served in the Zion's Camp expedition. The charges had to do with "criminal conduct" along with the fact that Sylvester felt that Joseph had used "insulting and abusive language" towards him.

One can only imagine what was going on in the minds of the council members who tried the case. Perhaps they were wondering what would ever happen to the church in the event that the Lord's prophet seer and revelator was ever excommunicated from the church.

The court ultimately rendered a verdict in favor of Joseph.

To the credit of Sylvester Smith, who was reprimanded as a result of the church council that he caused to be held, he did not leave the church because of that incident.

To the credit of Joseph Smith who was deeply humiliated in front of the entire church by the court proceedings and some of the testimony that was given by other witnesses that sided with Sylvester, he did not seek retribution of any kind.

Within a year after Sylvester brought charges against the Prophet, he was called to serve on the Kirtland High Council and shortly after that, he was called and ordained as one of the inaugural presidents of the Seventies which would indicate to me that neither Joseph Smith or the Lord harbored ill will against him for bringing the critical charges against the prophet.

There are obviously some disagreements between members of this forum as to whether there are serious problems within the church.

One thing is for sure, if there ever are serious problems with the leaders of this church, the problem can never be corrected based on the absurd notion that members of the church never have the right to ever be critical of church leaders and that only the leadership of the church have the right to be critical of their own sins.

The truth is that church leaders need to have the positive burden and tension of knowing that they are being watched by loving members who understand sound doctrine and want to accept their responsibility of participating in keeping the church on the right path.

I believe the Lord originally put two very important measures for a checks and balances between the leadership and the lay membership of this church. I believe those two measures are as follows:

1- He made members of the church responsible for bringing anyone, including church authorities into a church court anytime they commit a grievous sin.

2- He put in place the law of common consent giving the membership the right to reject new doctrines, commandments or church callings that is presented before the church

I believe both of those checks and balances have been negated by false teachings and perceptions currently held in the church.

Members have been brainwashed to believe that they can never be justified in bringing criticism against a general authority and they have been brain washed into believing that refusing to sustain the brethren in any doctrine, commandment or new leadership calling is categorically wrong and sinful.

If the church was running the way the Lord meant for it to run, someone would request that the Church look into the allegations and associated evidence that has been publicly provided regarding the use of paid employees to sway public opinion and to lie about who they actually represent.

After all, two separate witnesses who probably don't even know each other have obtained evidence and made allegations. One has actually provided compelling information which the church has made no attempt to refute or explain. (and you can be sure there are people in high places that know about the post that started this discussion.

"in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established"

If the allegations turn out to me wrong, everyone including the general authority over the strengthening the church members committee will feel much better after having the truth be brought to light and the authorities vindicated.

If in fact the allegations are true, an investigation needs to be held to see just how far up the chain of command the responsibility goes and the necessary disciplinary action needs to take place even if it goes all the way up to an Apostle or President. By that holy process given to us by the Lord we can correct the problem and move forward.

[awake]

Thank you for your quotes Awake.

IF they are accurate, than that presents another quagmire that will need to be sorted out by the Lord...

“Gave instruction to try those who were preaching, teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives or this law – Joseph forbids it, and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife.” Joseph Smith’s diary, Oct. 5, 1843. Church Historical Dept.(But after Joseph's death this entry was altered to seem to favor polygamy)

What/where is the evidence of the underlined statement?

I agree the Lord will sort this all out when he comes again, but I believe it is vital we come to learn truth from error regarding these things, which I know is possible with Heavenly Father's help and some sincere study of this issue, especially of the Prophet Joseph's words and testimony about it.

For the 'true' teachings of all church leaders who came after Joseph, could not contradict with his teachings and the scriptures he gave us. Thus we need to know where Joseph Smith stood on the matter and I believe he was very clear and consistent about it all, and what he thought about polygamy.

Here is a good explanation of the evidence you requested. It came from Rock Waterman's website, who is one of our members here on LDSFF:

“The Prophet’s most pointed denial of plural marriage occurred on Oct. 5, 1843 in instructions pronounced publicly in the streets of Nauvoo. Willard Richards wrote in Smith’s diary that Joseph “GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO TRY THOSE WHO WERE PREACHING, TEACHING OR PRACTICING THE DOCTRINES OF PLURALITY OF WIVES… JOSEPH FORBIDS IT & THE PRACTICE THEREOF. NO MAN SHALL HAVE BUT ONE WIFE.”

“When incorporating Smith's journal into the History of the Church, church leaders, under Brigham Young’s direction, deleted 10 key words from this significant passage & added 49 others so that it now reads: “Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives, FOR ACCORDING TO THE LAW, I HOLD THE KEYS OF THIS POWER IN THE LAST DAYS; FOR THERE IS NEVER BUT ONE ON THE EARTH AT A TIME ON WHOM THE POWER & IT’S KEYS ARE CONFERRED & I HAVE CONSTANTLY SAID, “no man shall have but one wife at a time, UNLESS THE LORD DIRECTS OTHERWISE.”

It is not commonly known that the seven volume History of the Church, which purports to have been written by Joseph Smith himself, was substantially added to & edited after the Prophet’s death. Editions of the massive work were still being tweaked by B.H. Roberts as late as 1912. The passage above had been so substantially doctored so as to completely change it’s meaning. It put words into the Prophet’s mouth that he simply had not spoken, words that in fact contradicted what he had said. This is not editing for clarification. This is prevarication, a lie; a calculated attempt to change church history.

From Rock Waterman's, puremormonism.blogspot.com, "Why I’m abandoning polygamy". (He is a member here on LDSFF)

[HeirofNumenor]

Thank you, Awake.

I have seen Waterman's blog on this subject a few months ago. He lays out a case that Brigham Young was predominantly at fault for introducing Polygamy and ensuring it was accepted by the Saints, as well as Sec 132 written by him and not Joseph or Hyrum, as well as decades after the fact concocted testimony by the women who we view historically as having been plural wives to Joseph or Hyrum (e.g Eliza R. Snow)- whose involvement with plural marriage allegedly began in Utah with Brigham, Heber, etc, and therefore made false statements in order to establish polygamy as being restored by Joseph.


Ironically, it appears that Waterman also (inadvertently?) makes the case the keys of authority should have passed to Sidney - or even to the Reorganized Church, as his blog definitely supports their view on who started polygamy.


As for my view - it is an interesting study of ONE alternative possibility - but that does not establish it as the truth. It is nothing to reject the Gospel nor the LDS Church over.

The same goes for my exploration of the possibility that the Lord had Joseph and Hyrum taken out (and possibly Parley P. Pratt).

[HeirofNumenor]

Just to ask a clarifying question:

Was the Stake President in Nauvoo named STEPHEN marks, or WILLIAM marks?

I have seen two different names listed in response to my comments.

[awake]

Was the Stake President in Nauvoo named STEPHEN marks, or WILLIAM marks?

His name was William Marks.

[HeirofNumenor]

“The Prophet’s most pointed denial of plural marriage occurred on Oct. 5, 1843 in instructions pronounced publicly in the streets of Nauvoo. Willard Richards wrote in Smith’s diary that Joseph “GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO TRY THOSE WHO WERE PREACHING, TEACHING OR PRACTICING THE DOCTRINES OF PLURALITY OF WIVES… JOSEPH FORBIDS IT & THE PRACTICE THEREOF. NO MAN SHALL HAVE BUT ONE WIFE.”

“When incorporating Smith's journal into the History of the Church, church leaders, under Brigham Young’s direction, deleted 10 key words from this significant passage & added 49 others so that it now reads: “Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives, FOR ACCORDING TO THE LAW, I HOLD THE KEYS OF THIS POWER IN THE LAST DAYS; FOR THERE IS NEVER BUT ONE ON THE EARTH AT A TIME ON WHOM THE POWER & IT’S KEYS ARE CONFERRED & I HAVE CONSTANTLY SAID, “no man shall have but one wife at a time, UNLESS THE LORD DIRECTS OTHERWISE.”

Awake,

Thank you for providing the info I requested.


Not dismissing the implication of did Brigham alter the account, but do you think it is POSSIBLE, that Willard Richards failed to record accurately EVERY WORD of Joseph's statement? Do you know of any OTHER journal entries that would corroborate Bro. Richard's version?

We see this same issue with the Adam-God statements (differences between the words of the recorder, and the words of an apostle in the audience).

[HeirofNumenor]

Was the Stake President in Nauvoo named STEPHEN marks, or WILLIAM marks?

His name was William Marks.

Thank you.

[HeirofNumenor]

Regarding William Marks:
(from Wikipedia.org)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ma ... _Saints%29
Although a close friend of Joseph Smith, Marks occasionally found himself at odds with the prophet. Smith presented evidence of why Sidney Rigdon should be rejected as first counselor in the First Presidency of the church during the October 1843 General Conference. He accused Rigdon, the long-time friend of Marks, as having lost his "integrity and steadfastness" and stated that he had no confidence in Rigdon’s abilities as a leader in the church or as his counselor. Regardless of these accusations Marks motioned that Rigdon remain in his station as a counselor in the First Presidency. Rigdon was sustained to the position by the membership of the church. After the vote, Smith stood and stated, "I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. You may carry him, but I will not."[citation needed] Because Rigdon was rejected by Smith, most of the core leadership of the church, including members of the Council of Fifty and Anointed Quorum, questioned Rigdon's standing and authority and later, his claim to succeed Smith as head of the church. Rigdon and Marks were also known opponents of plural marriage. Those who supported this controversial practice instituted by Smith saw such dissent as disloyal.

In the weeks before Joseph Smith's death, Marks claimed that Joseph came to him and told him that plural marriage had proved a curse rather than a blessing to the church. Smith wanted to take decisive steps to end the practice, but time ran out, related Marks. Other pieces of evidence, such as Joseph's burning of the polygamy revelation and destroying his temple garments, seem to support Marks's story (Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 146). Not all members of the church hierarchy believed Marks's testimony, though Quinn believes that Brigham Young gave credence to it by declaring that Joseph "did not have one particle of spiritual light in him" in the days before his death (as quoted in Quinn, p. 145). In addition, Young would also state that Smith had wearied of polygamous marriage by the time of his death (Quinn, p. 146-147). Ironically, Joseph Smith III later would not believe Marks, either, since Marks implicated Joseph Smith III's father in polygamy. (Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, pp. 145-148; Launius, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet, p. 199)

According to William Clayton's diary, Emma Smith supported Marks as the successor to her husband, the now deceased Joseph Smith, Jr.. According to Emma, Marks had a right to church succession as the High Council President, which she asserted was equal in authority to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. Furthermore, she felt that while apostles had authority in unorganized parts of the church, they did not have authority in the stake of Zion, Nauvoo. This reasoning was one of many interpretations put forward by various factions in the months after Smith's death. (Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 1994, pp. 160)

Historian D. Michael Quinn claims that despite the foregoing, church succession in Nauvoo revolved around one central issue: plural marriage. Quinn maintains that Marks' known opposition to plural marriage was a crucial issue, and that although a small group of church leaders almost approved Marks as the next church president by July 10, 1844, Elder Willard Richards—one the Church's Twelve Apostles—delayed all action until Quorum President Brigham Young returned from the presidential campaign. Young and the majority of the Quorum of the Twelve, Quinn asserts, feared that Marks would end plural marriage and other ordinances that they saw as crucial to exaltation in the afterlife (Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy, 1994, pp. 151-160).

Quinn states that despite Emma's support, and despite receiving his endowments and anointings before any other successor claimants (including every member of the Quorum of Twelve), Marks did not advance his own claims to church leadership (Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 1994, pp. 184). Instead, Marks sympathized with Sidney Rigdon and supported his bid to become "guardian" of the church. Because of this and because he did not support the Twelve Apostles, Marks was removed from the High Council at the October General Conference in 1844, and also rejected as president of the Nauvoo Stake of Zion. Patriarch John Smith, an uncle of Joseph's, was chosen as Marks's successor. Despite Brigham Young's desire to see Marks excommunicated, the Nauvoo High Council refused his request. Marks remained unexcommunicated for the remainder of his life. After several opponents of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles were terrorized by Nauvoo policemen (Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 176-177), William Marks left Nauvoo in February 1845. Brigham Young observed that "Bro. Marks had gone without being whittled out"—a reference to a tactic of surrounding an opponent with adult men who whistled and whittled without saying a word to the opponent (Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, pp. 176-177). Young and Marks would never be reconciled after this.

After the exodus of Young's followers to Utah, Marks became convinced that Sidney Rigdon’s claims of leadership were unfounded and he joined the Strangite movement, later becoming a counselor to James Strang in the Strangite First Presidency.

Marks left the Strangites between 1853 and 1855, loosely affiliating himself with other Latter Day Saint denominations. During this time he associated with Zenas H. Gurley, Jason W. Briggs and William W. Blair. The four were convinced that succession in the presidency of the church must be lineal, descending from father to son, and promoted the idea of a Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Between 1853 and 1859 they approached Joseph Smith III dozens of times to convince him to take leadership of the RLDS movement, which Smith III eventually did.

In 1859 Marks was formally admitted as a member of the RLDS movement without re-baptism. With Gurley he presided over the conference in April 1860 where he aided Gurley in ordaining Joseph Smith III as president of the high priesthood in the newly-incorporated Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Marks was ordained a counselor to Joseph Smith III in April 1863, serving with Briggs and Smith in the First Presidency.

In 1866, Marks was appointed to the committee to receive manuscripts from the Joseph Smith’s widow—Emma Smith Bidamon—and print the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

Marks was first counselor in the First Presidency of the Reorganized Church when he died in Plano, Illinois on May 22, 1872. A marked grave bearing his name is located in the Shabbona Grove Cemetery at Shabbona Grove, DeKalb, Illinois, adjacent to that of his wife Rosannah Robinson Marks, who died on October 18, 1862. Marks had married a second time in 1866 to Julia Ann Durfee, who survived him.

[HeirofNumenor]

Sorry for derailing this thread.

I was simply looking for possible examples in scripture and Church history where God may have taken out a prophet for disobedience/leading His people astray, even if there is not scriptural utterance that this will happen, prior to Wilford Woodruff's statements (or Brigham Young's either).

[awake]

Not dismissing the implication of did Brigham alter the account, but do you think it is POSSIBLE, that Willard Richards failed to record accurately EVERY WORD of Joseph's statement? Do you know of any OTHER journal entries that would corroborate Bro. Richard's version?

I myself believe the original version, just because it is completely in harmony with everything else Joseph Smith publicly said and published about polygamy his whole life. When you read all of his testimony against polygamy, it seems highly unlikely that he would have supported polygamy in some other moment, for that would have meant that he lied to the Church his entire life, and led them astray to 'not' believe in polygamy if it was really a true principle.

For after Joseph died, many of the Saints would not believe in or follow Brigham Young and his preaching and practicing of polygamy, because of all the warnings Joseph constantly gave about not falling for polygamy and how evil it was.

Joseph had many people take turns following and documenting his every move, especially the last few years, just because he was being accused of polygamy so much and he wanted to be able to prove his whereabouts and actions in court if needed.

“Many scribes and clerks were employed in keeping Smith’s diaries, letters, books and accounts... This accounts well with what Joseph Smith said in the above account, that he had kept many men busy for the last 3 years, recording what he had been saying and doing, so no court could hang him. He had many witnesses, hence the false affidavits were shown to be such.” Words of Joseph Smith, by Cook & Ehat, p. 406. (under date: May 26, 1844)

"In the last three years of his life Joseph took the precaution of having scribes and male companions with him at all times recording his actions and whereabouts in order to make it impossible for his enemies to continue to contrive illicit affairs where none existed. There are absolutely no contemporary records of any woman being married to Joseph Smith except one: Emma Hale Smith. Virtually no one came forward during Joseph Smith’s lifetime claiming to be married to him. As Joseph said in mocking reference to these phantom wives, “I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are.”
Rock Waterman, puremormonism.blogspot.com, "Why I'm Abandoning Polygamy."

[ithink]

Considering your ongoing diatribes and innuendo's aimed at the latter day church and its Prophets I would be considering the parallels of verse 26 long and hard if I were you ithink. You seek to destroy faith in this latter day work of the Lord because of your disgruntlement for whatever reason. Anyone who doesn't see your intent clearly is walking in darkness at noonday. :ymsigh:

Innuendo? I thought it was clearer than that. I quoted Jeremiah and likened it to ourselves, as we should. And you have a problem with that? Yes you do, because Mark, like Ancient Israel, "loves to have it so". I, like William Marks, do not agree with everything that the prophets say or do, especially when it contradicts the truth.

The lesson to be learned that you love not to, is that nobody is infallible except Jesus Christ. NOBODY. You once again fail to address anything I have said, and you take direct aim at me, the messenger, which btw, is exactly the pattern followed by the wicked when confronted by the bearer of the truth. And anyone who can't see that, is walking in darkness at noon day.

You are always so anxious to agree with anything or anyone that puts the latter day church and its leaders in a compromised apostate leaning state ithink.

If William Marks puts Josephs integrity on trial in some journal entry you are more than happy to believe Marks words and not put into question his own integrity or honesty. That is your pattern here. Has been for years.

Anything that degrades or calls into question the church's stance with the Lord or its leadership is taken as legitimate. I don't remember the last time you ever said anything positive or complimentary about the church in its state today. Or the current Prophets for that matter.

You love to just sit up in your ivory tower and throw stones at the work. Always critical of what the current body of Saints or the leadership are doing. That just seems to be your nature.

It is obviously that you have some kind of axe to grind with the church today but that doesn't mean people like me have no right to call you on it. I am sorry you seem to feel that the church has gone astray and is in an apostate state currently but I don't happen to agree with you on that so I will continue to tell you up front that I think you are misleading people in a very negative and faith destroying way by continuing the path you have chosen to take. I hope you will repent and turn back in faith to this latter day work.

Oh I am not so anxious as you like to believe. I am interested only in what really happened, not what anybody says happened. In this way, I have pieced and am still piecing together what happened. As I do this, I am able to help not just myself, but those around me that are floundering also. As I said before on a different thread, I was met after HP meeting Sunday by a good brother from another province. This young but former bishop and husband, father of four, cannot correlate so far what the church teaches today, with what "really happened". This is the problem Mark, and you still fail to address it because you make yourself incapable of helping good men like yourself who need help that the church seems incapable of providing, and this is what I have against them: just tell it like it is. Otherwise, when it is found out otherwise, it destroys faith.

You claim that a "journal entry" is no good, but in fact a journal entry counts as a witness in a court of law. And of what does it speak? It speaks of great trouble for the church if the practise was not ceased. And was it? No! And did it nearly destroy the church? Yes! And were the saints moved out of their place? Yes!

As for today, when we permit no such behaviour, I am in favor of that. It was not always perfectly so (just read my older posts). But that is because I am flexible enough to bend when new knowledge comes along. Now I understand better Hinckleys statement on Larry King live on polygamy "I don't think there is any doctrinal basis for it". I now don't think there is either. It now believe it is just as permissible to practice polygamy as it was for Nephi to kill Laban, and I don't believe the angel who appeared to Joseph with a drawn sword was of God. It violates section 121: that prohibits coercion in the operations of the priesthood. Therein lies the deception!

Now last Sunday I spend nearly an hour helping a former bishop keep his train on the rails. Is this what you call an axe to grind? You claim I am throw stones, whereas in reality I am clearing stones off the rails. You claim I have an ivory tower, but in reality the ivory tower is currently possessed by other men than I. The very fact that I had to stand there in the chapel and explain how I stay in the church is an indictment of the way the church teaches it's own "history". I admire your zeal Mark, you have enough, but your resistance to the truth puts you in the same boat as the men who stayed behind after Joseph was taken, who refused to listen to reason in William Marks testimony. And they were sorely afflicted for it. And the destruction of faith! Tell me about the destruction of faith when the "official history" fails miserably to match up to what really happened!

William Marks did not put Joseph on trial: Joseph put himself on trial. Joseph messed up, admitted it, repented, and his "offering" was himself, for failing to finish the temple, for polygamy, and for the fact that the saints were not going to be willing to give it up. So their Moses was taken, and they were left with a type of Aaron, for 40 years.

And finally, will you ever be able to take your eyes off me and address the subject material? You behave as if you are a paid astroturfer from church headquarters.

[ithink]

Also from William Mark's statement, it seems that Joseph Smith did not believe in or live polygamy, or else Joseph would have had to excommunicate himself.

But that he was polygamous is without a doubt. That was his error. And I believe he stood ready to backtrack, but he was murdered as Marks said.

[ithink]

Thank you for your quotes Awake.

IF they are accurate, than that presents another quagmire that will need to be sorted out by the Lord...

“Gave instruction to try those who were preaching, teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives or this law – Joseph forbids it, and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife.” Joseph Smith’s diary, Oct. 5, 1843. Church Historical Dept.(But after Joseph's death this entry was altered to seem to favor polygamy)

What/where is the evidence of the underlined statement?

Altered? Do you have more information?