Is this dishonest or is it okay?

[Chip]

Yesterday, we had a brother speak who gave a great talk in sacrament meeting. He's a good dad and husband and is very willing to do whatever is asked of him by the church. Born and bred, he's ALL IN, without reservations. There was something in his talk that I just found disturbing, though.

He talked about how William Clayton emigrated from Nauvoo to Salt Lake and had left his wife behind for his journey, since she was pregnant and unable to travel at the time. Certainly, they were going to be reunited when circumstances allowed. The brother talked about how William was anxiously concerned for his wife's welfare and was so pleased to receive a letter indicating that she had bore him a son and they were both okay. He was so grateful to Heavenly Father for this blessing. I think it was pretty clear to any listener that William was a dedicated husband, on an errand of the Lord, sacrificing his time with his new wife, and so pleased with the blessing of his new son. Pretty straightforward and certainly faith-promoting.

It occurred to me that there could be more to this story, though, since William had been a contemporary of Joseph Smith and was now looking to Brigham Young as the new leader. I Googled 'William Clayton wives" and found this on a BYU website:

After Joseph Smith introduced to him the principle of plural marriage, the married Clayton took on four additional wives. One soon left him, but when he was forced to leave Nauvoo in February 1846, he was accompanied by three wives, four children, a mother-in-law, and a few other in-laws, while another pregnant wife remained temporarily behind.

(Later)...he increasingly directed much of his personal energy into private business and public service. He needed to, for after marrying five additional wives, he had many mouths to feed. In total, he was the husband of ten women and father of forty-two children, though four of his wives left him for various reasons. When he died at age sixty-five, he left four living widows, thirty-three living children ranging in age from ten to forty-three, and one child on the way.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/preserving ... -history-0

So, the context of the situation was quite a bit different than what was implied. I believe the story was told in a way to engender empathy for the stalwart William Clayton, emphasize the sanctity of marriage and traditional values, and the nobleness of sacrifice for the Lord, all in an effort to make the church look TRUE. That William had OTHER wives, amounting to three in tow, with four kids and in-laws, with six more wives to be wed in the future, no hint was given. I think those details would have seriously undermined the intent of telling the story. The wife in Nauvoo was referred to as 'William's wife", not "one of William's wives, which would have been correct and not misleading.

I texted the brother in the 2nd hour what I had found about William Clayton and after church we talked a bit. He actually knew all these things. I pointed out that the story was misleading and there's a lot of this in church lore. He disagreed and said there was nothing wrong, as he had stated facts. I later vented to our bishop, who's my friend, about our tendency in the church to gloss over things that could create quite a reversal of sentiment. He got a little frustrated with me and said he didn't base his testimony on such trivial things, but just tries to keep the basics in check. My other friend's wife saw no problem with it, since certainly William was concerned about his one wife in Nauvoo, even though other wives and children were with him. Her husband (my friend, convert of three years) thought it was downright deceptive. My own wife said she imagined that most people hearing this story were figuring that there were other wives, since that's what was going on at that time among church leaders. I just don't like the general ease with which this stuff goes down and how almost nobody seems to see any problem with it. Any investigator in that meeting would feel pretty deceived, I think, to learn about what was left out of the story.

Anyway, this stuff doesn't settle well with me, at all. I can't imagine for a second that God would countenance any of this slippery hokery-pokery. Or, DOES HE? As Mormons, we're inclined to suppose that God is QUITE OKAY with a little deceit here and there. I don't like being in a religion where so many people are so comfortable with deception - the men, especially. It's not like modern Mormons have much reason to deceive anyone, anyway, but it's galling how they don't register a problem with this kind of stuff. I suppose it's because they've been so carefully taught that leadership is inerrant in any serious way, and whatever they do is God's will. I don't like it and it makes me feel like our religion is one for people who don't value truth as a vital underpinning.

Now, the brother who spoke and our bishop are better men than me in most ways, lest you suppose I'm "setting myself up as a light" here. I'm not that great, but I do have a lot of love for my ward family, as that comes easily to me.

What do you guys think about all this?

[Matchmaker]

I agree with you that the story, as told, was a little misleading. When I first heard it I felt most sorry for the man having to leave his young pregnant wife behind to go on the Lord's errand alone, but after hearing that he wasn't without female company on the trip, I felt more sorry for the wife he left behind, who had no spousal companionship at all. Leaving out all the extra information probably wasn't a sin of omission on the teacher's part, but it was definitely a manipulation of my emotions.

[Lizzy60]

If your teenager came home from a party at his friend's house and told you that he had played board games, watched a PG movie, and the parents of his friend had provided potato chips and root beer for the teens, BUT didn't tell you that someone also brought real beer, that there were scantily-clad girls flirting with the guys all night, and some raunchy movies were played, and that the parents weren't home......

Half-truths, told to make the hearer feel comfortable, are still half-lies. This is easy, if you take the church quotient out of the equation.

[ElizaRSkousen]

The church actually does this very thing all the time in the manuals. They leave out key parts of quotes or stories to focus on the uplifting message instead of the historical accuracies of the event.

I have personally found several of these instances in manuals and church books.

Regarding the Clayton’s I don’t have a problem with it, it sounds like it was probably a very hard thing to go though for all involved, but I have no reason to believe William was an evil or dishonest man based on what I’ve read from his writings. He happens to be an ancestor

That wife sure had a good strong faith in the lord.

[Mindfields]

It's unfortunate that many times the "historical accuracies" were material for a true understanding of the event.

“When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Anonymous

[Rand]

If you shifted the story from centering on William and replaced him with a mother and the wives with children, would you still be offended?

[Chip]

The church actually does this very thing all the time in the manuals. They leave out key parts of quotes or stories to focus on the uplifting message instead of the historical accuracies of the event.

I have personally found several of these instances in manuals and church books.

Regarding the Clayton’s I don’t have a problem with it, it sounds like it was probably a very hard thing to go though for all involved, but I have no reason to believe William was an evil or dishonest man based on what I’ve read from his writings. He happens to be an ancestor

That wife sure had a good strong faith in the lord.

Hey, I don't suppose there was anything bad about William, either. He was just folllowing what he had been taught. So were his wives..

[Chip]

If you shifted the story from centering on William and replaced him with a mother and the wives with children, would you still be offended?

I can't really picture this context. Do you mean if the story were about the wife in Nauvoo and the wives on the trek? You need to give me a little more framework.

[Chip]

It's unfortunate that many times the "historical accuracies" were material for a true understanding of the event.

“When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Anonymous

Who is the honest man being faced with the choice in this case?

[Col. Flagg]

The church isn't doing itself any favors by obfuscating additional information and the real truth with most of its history and own literature. As far as I'm concerned, the church has a moral obligation to inform and educate members from the pulpit regarding all of the information contained in the 12 essays on lds.org, not to mention all of the dozens of other shorter essays found on the site as well. It is dishonest and instills a feeling of betrayal and distrust when someone finds out about the essays or other unpleasant and disturbing events and info pertaining to church history that they were never aware of, especially new converts who wonder why they weren't told any of it while investigating the church and receiving discussions. The info in all of the 12 essays and shorter essays needs to be disclosed to the entire membership of the church and not buried on the church's website where only those who know they are there can read them, otherwise, any talks from the pulpit on honesty, truth, integrity and transparency become meaningless and hypicritical. The church does not practice what it preaches in terms of integrity and other key character attributes it emphasizes are necessary for becoming Christ-like when it is hiding key elements of it's own history from members.

[Rand]

If you shifted the story from centering on William and replaced him with a mother and the wives with children, would you still be offended?

I can't really picture this context. Do you mean if the story were about the wife in Nauvoo and the wives on the trek? You need to give me a little more framework.

If the story were of a woman in Nauvoo with 4 children, and had to leave one behind because it was not well. Would you feel similar outrage as you seem to with the current story?

[Chip]

If you shifted the story from centering on William and replaced him with a mother and the wives with children, would you still be offended?

I can't really picture this context. Do you mean if the story were about the wife in Nauvoo and the wives on the trek? You need to give me a little more framework.

If the story were of a woman in Nauvoo with 4 children, and had to leave one behind because it was not well. Would you feel similar outrage as you seem to with the current story?

So, in both circumstances someone was temporarily left behind because they weren't able to go. That is the only overlap I see.

Your case lacks the added dimension of an audience being knowingly misled to suppose that an additional polygamous wife was actually the sole wife of an historical church leader.

WHY this was presented as it was is more significant than the deception, itself.

[captainfearnot]

He actually knew all these things. I pointed out that the story was misleading and there's a lot of this in church lore. He disagreed and said there was nothing wrong, as he had stated facts.

This kind of thing really gets my goat. As Lizzy60 demonstrates, it is a childish cop-out to claim that honesty entails only stating true facts, regardless of the overall message. It's sad that members of a church that claims to have the fullness of the gospel would have such a legalistic (and immature) understanding of a basic moral concept like honesty.

I used to work in the investment industry. In that context, omission or non-disclosure of a material fact can be a crime (if deemed to be intentional, and not merely negligent). A material fact is any information that would cause a prudent investor to perhaps make a different decision regarding the investment, had they been informed of it.

I think the principal applies because of another concept that the church has in common with investment advisers, which is that it holds itself out as a kind of fiduciary. We expect salesmen to only tell a version of the truth which casts their product in the best light, so we're on our guard and take everything they say with a grain of salt. But we expect our advisers to tell us the whole truth, and act in our best interests. Which does the church hold itself out to be?

I think most members trust the church and its representatives as they would any other adviser, if not more. I don't think most members are skeptical of church teachings like they would be of something they understand to be a sales pitch. And the church fosters that trust only to betray it by continually presenting a one-sided version of the facts that would violate the fiduciary standard in any other setting.

[brlenox]

Anyway, this stuff doesn't settle well with me, at all. I can't imagine for a second that God would countenance any of this slippery hokery-pokery. Or, DOES HE? As Mormons, we're inclined to suppose that God is QUITE OKAY with a little deceit here and there. I don't like being in a religion where so many people are so comfortable with deception - the men, especially. It's not like modern Mormons have much reason to deceive anyone, anyway, but it's galling how they don't register a problem with this kind of stuff. I suppose it's because they've been so carefully taught that leadership is inerrant in any serious way, and whatever they do is God's will. I don't like it and it makes me feel like our religion is one for people who don't value truth as a vital underpinning.

Now, the brother who spoke and our bishop are better men than me in most ways, lest you suppose I'm "setting myself up as a light" here. I'm not that great, but I do have a lot of love for my ward family, as that comes easily to me.

What do you guys think about all this?

I wonder if a careful and sincere study of D & C 19 verses 4 - 20 might influence your considerations.

[Yahtzee]

I think this is a great example of culture vs. Gospel. My friend and I talk a lot about this and why so many people do this kind of stuff and why others are so bothered by it. It's not just or church either. My friend (from Georgia) says the South is similar. We all have a story we've told ourselves that our testimonies or beliefs are based on. Anything that challenges that story makes most people very uncomfortable. For others, it's the opposite, a lack of challenge makes them uncomfortable. The status quo makes them nervous. People will go to great lengths to avoid discomfort and personally that's how I define culture- avoiding discomfort. Don't fault them too much, we're all victims of our own psychology.

[Zathura]

Omission of historical facts and such has done more to push people out of the church and keep people from coming in than denver Snuffer and all those so “Apostates” combined. For members it creates a feeling of betrayal, for non members it creates a vision of yet another cult that preys on its members.

[Robin Hood]

Yesterday, we had a brother speak who gave a great talk in sacrament meeting. He's a good dad and husband and is very willing to do whatever is asked of him by the church. Born and bred, he's ALL IN, without reservations. There was something in his talk that I just found disturbing, though.

He talked about how William Clayton emigrated from Nauvoo to Salt Lake and had left his wife behind for his journey, since she was pregnant and unable to travel at the time. Certainly, they were going to be reunited when circumstances allowed. The brother talked about how William was anxiously concerned for his wife's welfare and was so pleased to receive a letter indicating that she had bore him a son and they were both okay. He was so grateful to Heavenly Father for this blessing. I think it was pretty clear to any listener that William was a dedicated husband, on an errand of the Lord, sacrificing his time with his new wife, and so pleased with the blessing of his new son. Pretty straightforward and certainly faith-promoting.

It occurred to me that there could be more to this story, though, since William had been a contemporary of Joseph Smith and was now looking to Brigham Young as the new leader. I Googled 'William Clayton wives" and found this on a BYU website:

After Joseph Smith introduced to him the principle of plural marriage, the married Clayton took on four additional wives. One soon left him, but when he was forced to leave Nauvoo in February 1846, he was accompanied by three wives, four children, a mother-in-law, and a few other in-laws, while another pregnant wife remained temporarily behind.

(Later)...he increasingly directed much of his personal energy into private business and public service. He needed to, for after marrying five additional wives, he had many mouths to feed. In total, he was the husband of ten women and father of forty-two children, though four of his wives left him for various reasons. When he died at age sixty-five, he left four living widows, thirty-three living children ranging in age from ten to forty-three, and one child on the way.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/preserving ... -history-0

So, the context of the situation was quite a bit different than what was implied. I believe the story was told in a way to engender empathy for the stalwart William Clayton, emphasize the sanctity of marriage and traditional values, and the nobleness of sacrifice for the Lord, all in an effort to make the church look TRUE. That William had OTHER wives, amounting to three in tow, with four kids and in-laws, with six more wives to be wed in the future, no hint was given. I think those details would have seriously undermined the intent of telling the story. The wife in Nauvoo was referred to as 'William's wife", not "one of William's wives, which would have been correct and not misleading.

I texted the brother in the 2nd hour what I had found about William Clayton and after church we talked a bit. He actually knew all these things. I pointed out that the story was misleading and there's a lot of this in church lore. He disagreed and said there was nothing wrong, as he had stated facts. I later vented to our bishop, who's my friend, about our tendency in the church to gloss over things that could create quite a reversal of sentiment. He got a little frustrated with me and said he didn't base his testimony on such trivial things, but just tries to keep the basics in check. My other friend's wife saw no problem with it, since certainly William was concerned about his one wife in Nauvoo, even though other wives and children were with him. Her husband (my friend, convert of three years) thought it was downright deceptive. My own wife said she imagined that most people hearing this story were figuring that there were other wives, since that's what was going on at that time among church leaders. I just don't like the general ease with which this stuff goes down and how almost nobody seems to see any problem with it. Any investigator in that meeting would feel pretty deceived, I think, to learn about what was left out of the story.

Anyway, this stuff doesn't settle well with me, at all. I can't imagine for a second that God would countenance any of this slippery hokery-pokery. Or, DOES HE? As Mormons, we're inclined to suppose that God is QUITE OKAY with a little deceit here and there. I don't like being in a religion where so many people are so comfortable with deception - the men, especially. It's not like modern Mormons have much reason to deceive anyone, anyway, but it's galling how they don't register a problem with this kind of stuff. I suppose it's because they've been so carefully taught that leadership is inerrant in any serious way, and whatever they do is God's will. I don't like it and it makes me feel like our religion is one for people who don't value truth as a vital underpinning.

Now, the brother who spoke and our bishop are better men than me in most ways, lest you suppose I'm "setting myself up as a light" here. I'm not that great, but I do have a lot of love for my ward family, as that comes easily to me.

What do you guys think about all this?

It's what I call being economical with the truth.

[Chip]

I wonder if a careful and sincere study of D & C 19 verses 4 - 20 might influence your considerations.

Okay. Here those verses are:

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

.

Those who don't repent receive endless punishment.

I think verse 13, placed right in the middle, is what you are getting at, right? We must repent and obey the commandments given by God to Joseph Smith or we will receive endless punishment. And Joseph received a commandment to institute polygamy.

Here is a list of things that cause me to disbelieve that God commanded polygamy:

1) Never in the Bible is it commanded.
2) The Book of Mormon expressly forbids it, though Jacob 2:30 has been grossly misrepresented to make it seem like God commands it.
3) Joseph Smith had a fling with a young housekeeper behind wife Emma's back long before this doctrine was established.
4) Joseph basically told another young girl that an angel would destroy him if she didn't become an extra wife of his.
5) Joseph propositioned another young girl through a letter and then denied it until confronted by her parents who had the letter.
6) Joseph married many other women behind his wife's back, some of whom were married to other men.
7) Joseph publicly denied and denounced polygamy while secretly practicing and teaching it.
8) Joseph's first wife Emma suffered by his infidelity just as Jacob 2 says women will in such cases, which is highly displeasing to God.
9) That Joseph would be destroyed and, in a D&C revelation, Emma would be destroyed for not going along with polygamy, really undermines the concept of agency, which is so foundational to God's plan that it necessitated a savior for mankind.
10) Claiming that God has commanded people to engage in whoredoms is pretty standard for cult leaders. We all know of instances of this, but hold out that our church is the sole exception, where God REALLY DID command such a thing.

It took me a while to allow myself to think these thoughts, as doctrines such as D&C 19 are quite impressive on one's mind. Endless punishment is quite a threat. I find the doctrine of plurality of wives, or by any of its other flowery names, to just be discordant with the rest of scripture and God's character. And I think it's the root cause of the dishonesty that persists in the church today. It all traces back to polygamy.

[Chip]

He actually knew all these things. I pointed out that the story was misleading and there's a lot of this in church lore. He disagreed and said there was nothing wrong, as he had stated facts.

This kind of thing really gets my goat. As Lizzy60 demonstrates, it is a childish cop-out to claim that honesty entails only stating true facts, regardless of the overall message. It's sad that members of a church that claims to have the fullness of the gospel would have such a legalistic (and immature) understanding of a basic moral concept like honesty.

I used to work in the investment industry. In that context, omission or non-disclosure of a material fact can be a crime (if deemed to be intentional, and not merely negligent). A material fact is any information that would cause a prudent investor to perhaps make a different decision regarding the investment, had they been informed of it.

I think the principal applies because of another concept that the church has in common with investment advisers, which is that it holds itself out as a kind of fiduciary. We expect salesmen to only tell a version of the truth which casts their product in the best light, so we're on our guard and take everything they say with a grain of salt. But we expect our advisers to tell us the whole truth, and act in our best interests. Which does the church hold itself out to be?

I think most members trust the church and its representatives as they would any other adviser, if not more. I don't think most members are skeptical of church teachings like they would be of something they understand to be a sales pitch. And the church fosters that trust only to betray it by continually presenting a one-sided version of the facts that would violate the fiduciary standard in any other setting.

I think what you said here is SPOT ON.

[Rand]

If you shifted the story from centering on William and replaced him with a mother and the wives with children, would you still be offended?

I can't really picture this context. Do you mean if the story were about the wife in Nauvoo and the wives on the trek? You need to give me a little more framework.

If the story were of a woman in Nauvoo with 4 children, and had to leave one behind because it was not well. Would you feel similar outrage as you seem to with the current story?

So, in both circumstances someone was temporarily left behind because they weren't able to go. That is the only overlap I see.

Your case lacks the added dimension of an audience being knowingly misled to suppose that an additional polygamous wife was actually the sole wife of an historical church leader.

WHY this was presented as it was is more significant than the deception, itself.

Ii apologize for my excessive brevity. Assume the story is told as it was, except that the Brother is replaced by a sister, like the story Pres. Monson told of the mother(https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... d?lang=eng) leaving Russia during WWII, but in this case the child is sick and incapacitated, by say a broken femur, and cannot come, so is left in the care of others to come later. In retelling the story of the Mothers faithfulness, you don't mention the children she brought with her, only the Mothers courage, sacrifice and faithfulness in being willing to leave one of her loved children behind to follow the Lords command to go west.
If this is the story, and instead of being other wives, there are other children, does it change the way you feel about the story?

[Rand]

I can't really picture this context. Do you mean if the story were about the wife in Nauvoo and the wives on the trek? You need to give me a little more framework.

If the story were of a woman in Nauvoo with 4 children, and had to leave one behind because it was not well. Would you feel similar outrage as you seem to with the current story?

So, in both circumstances someone was temporarily left behind because they weren't able to go. That is the only overlap I see.

Your case lacks the added dimension of an audience being knowingly misled to suppose that an additional polygamous wife was actually the sole wife of an historical church leader.

WHY this was presented as it was is more significant than the deception, itself.

Ii apologize for my excessive brevity. Assume the story is told as it was, except that the Brother is replaced by a sister, like the story Pres. Monson told of the mother(https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... d?lang=eng) leaving Russia during WWII, but in this case the child is sick and incapacitated, by say a broken femur, and cannot come, so is left in the care of others to come later. In retelling the story of the Mothers faithfulness, you don't mention the children she brought with her, only the Mothers courage, sacrifice and faithfulness in being willing to leave one of her loved children behind to follow the Lords command to go west.
If this is the story, and instead of being other wives, there are other children, does it change the way you feel about the story?

After reading the above quotes, you have a signifiant amount of preconceived thoughts that go into your original post that certainly brings a slant to your view that isn't included in your post, and to me explains why others see it differently than you do.

[cab]

I wonder if a careful and sincere study of D & C 19 verses 4 - 20 might influence your considerations.

Okay. Here those verses are:

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

.

Those who don't repent receive endless punishment.

I think verse 13, placed right in the middle, is what you are getting at, right? We must repent and obey the commandments given by God to Joseph Smith or we will receive endless punishment. And Joseph received a commandment to institute polygamy.

Here is a list of things that cause me to disbelieve that God commanded polygamy:

1) Never in the Bible is it commanded.
2) The Book of Mormon expressly forbids it, though Jacob 2:30 has been grossly misrepresented to make it seem like God commands it.
3) Joseph Smith had a fling with a young housekeeper behind wife Emma's back long before this doctrine was established.
4) Joseph basically told another young girl that an angel would destroy him if she didn't become an extra wife of his.
5) Joseph propositioned another young girl through a letter and then denied it until confronted by her parents who had the letter.
6) Joseph married many other women behind his wife's back, some of whom were married to other men.
7) Joseph publicly denied and denounced polygamy while secretly practicing and teaching it.
8) Joseph's first wife Emma suffered by his infidelity just as Jacob 2 says women will in such cases, which is highly displeasing to God.
9) That Joseph would be destroyed and, in a D&C revelation, Emma would be destroyed for not going along with polygamy, really undermines the concept of agency, which is so foundational to God's plan that it necessitated a savior for mankind.
10) Claiming that God has commanded people to engage in whoredoms is pretty standard for cult leaders. We all know of instances of this, but hold out that our church is the sole exception, where God REALLY DID command such a thing.

It took me a while to allow myself to think these thoughts, as doctrines such as D&C 19 are quite impressive on one's mind. Endless punishment is quite a threat. I find the doctrine of plurality of wives, or by any of its other flowery names, to just be discordant with the rest of scripture and God's character. And I think it's the root cause of the dishonesty that persists in the church today. It all traces back to polygamy.

Just because our official history might lead some to conclude that your numbers 2-10 occurred, it doesn't necessarily mean they occurred they way we're expected to believe they did. I like this little paper. William Clayton probably doesn't....

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

[simpleton]

I wonder if a careful and sincere study of D & C 19 verses 4 - 20 might influence your considerations.

Okay. Here those verses are:

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

.

Those who don't repent receive endless punishment.

I think verse 13, placed right in the middle, is what you are getting at, right? We must repent and obey the commandments given by God to Joseph Smith or we will receive endless punishment. And Joseph received a commandment to institute polygamy.

Here is a list of things that cause me to disbelieve that God commanded polygamy:

1) Never in the Bible is it commanded.
2) The Book of Mormon expressly forbids it, though Jacob 2:30 has been grossly misrepresented to make it seem like God commands it.
3) Joseph Smith had a fling with a young housekeeper behind wife Emma's back long before this doctrine was established.
4) Joseph basically told another young girl that an angel would destroy him if she didn't become an extra wife of his.
5) Joseph propositioned another young girl through a letter and then denied it until confronted by her parents who had the letter.
6) Joseph married many other women behind his wife's back, some of whom were married to other men.
7) Joseph publicly denied and denounced polygamy while secretly practicing and teaching it.
8) Joseph's first wife Emma suffered by his infidelity just as Jacob 2 says women will in such cases, which is highly displeasing to God.
9) That Joseph would be destroyed and, in a D&C revelation, Emma would be destroyed for not going along with polygamy, really undermines the concept of agency, which is so foundational to God's plan that it necessitated a savior for mankind.
10) Claiming that God has commanded people to engage in whoredoms is pretty standard for cult leaders. We all know of instances of this, but hold out that our church is the sole exception, where God REALLY DID command such a thing.

It took me a while to allow myself to think these thoughts, as doctrines such as D&C 19 are quite impressive on one's mind. Endless punishment is quite a threat. I find the doctrine of plurality of wives, or by any of its other flowery names, to just be discordant with the rest of scripture and God's character. And I think it's the root cause of the dishonesty that persists in the church today. It all traces back to polygamy.

Or, how about polygamy is the standard, has always been the standard, has always been the standard in the heavens, and it was revealed to Joseph as such, but we have been ingrained with the false traditions of Rome and Babylon...... just another thought....

[Zathura]

I wonder if a careful and sincere study of D & C 19 verses 4 - 20 might influence your considerations.

Okay. Here those verses are:

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

.

Those who don't repent receive endless punishment.

I think verse 13, placed right in the middle, is what you are getting at, right? We must repent and obey the commandments given by God to Joseph Smith or we will receive endless punishment. And Joseph received a commandment to institute polygamy.

Here is a list of things that cause me to disbelieve that God commanded polygamy:

1) Never in the Bible is it commanded.
2) The Book of Mormon expressly forbids it, though Jacob 2:30 has been grossly misrepresented to make it seem like God commands it.
3) Joseph Smith had a fling with a young housekeeper behind wife Emma's back long before this doctrine was established.
4) Joseph basically told another young girl that an angel would destroy him if she didn't become an extra wife of his.
5) Joseph propositioned another young girl through a letter and then denied it until confronted by her parents who had the letter.
6) Joseph married many other women behind his wife's back, some of whom were married to other men.
7) Joseph publicly denied and denounced polygamy while secretly practicing and teaching it.
8) Joseph's first wife Emma suffered by his infidelity just as Jacob 2 says women will in such cases, which is highly displeasing to God.
9) That Joseph would be destroyed and, in a D&C revelation, Emma would be destroyed for not going along with polygamy, really undermines the concept of agency, which is so foundational to God's plan that it necessitated a savior for mankind.
10) Claiming that God has commanded people to engage in whoredoms is pretty standard for cult leaders. We all know of instances of this, but hold out that our church is the sole exception, where God REALLY DID command such a thing.

It took me a while to allow myself to think these thoughts, as doctrines such as D&C 19 are quite impressive on one's mind. Endless punishment is quite a threat. I find the doctrine of plurality of wives, or by any of its other flowery names, to just be discordant with the rest of scripture and God's character. And I think it's the root cause of the dishonesty that persists in the church today. It all traces back to polygamy.

Or, how about polygamy is the standard, has always been the standard, has always been the standard in the heavens, and it was revealed to Joseph as such, but we have been ingrained with the false traditions of Rome and Babylon...... just another thought....

Maybe you’ve been ingrained with the false tradition that polygamy is okay. Just a thought ........

[simpleton]

I wonder if a careful and sincere study of D & C 19 verses 4 - 20 might influence your considerations.

Okay. Here those verses are:

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

.

Those who don't repent receive endless punishment.

I think verse 13, placed right in the middle, is what you are getting at, right? We must repent and obey the commandments given by God to Joseph Smith or we will receive endless punishment. And Joseph received a commandment to institute polygamy.

Here is a list of things that cause me to disbelieve that God commanded polygamy:

1) Never in the Bible is it commanded.
2) The Book of Mormon expressly forbids it, though Jacob 2:30 has been grossly misrepresented to make it seem like God commands it.
3) Joseph Smith had a fling with a young housekeeper behind wife Emma's back long before this doctrine was established.
4) Joseph basically told another young girl that an angel would destroy him if she didn't become an extra wife of his.
5) Joseph propositioned another young girl through a letter and then denied it until confronted by her parents who had the letter.
6) Joseph married many other women behind his wife's back, some of whom were married to other men.
7) Joseph publicly denied and denounced polygamy while secretly practicing and teaching it.
8) Joseph's first wife Emma suffered by his infidelity just as Jacob 2 says women will in such cases, which is highly displeasing to God.
9) That Joseph would be destroyed and, in a D&C revelation, Emma would be destroyed for not going along with polygamy, really undermines the concept of agency, which is so foundational to God's plan that it necessitated a savior for mankind.
10) Claiming that God has commanded people to engage in whoredoms is pretty standard for cult leaders. We all know of instances of this, but hold out that our church is the sole exception, where God REALLY DID command such a thing.

It took me a while to allow myself to think these thoughts, as doctrines such as D&C 19 are quite impressive on one's mind. Endless punishment is quite a threat. I find the doctrine of plurality of wives, or by any of its other flowery names, to just be discordant with the rest of scripture and God's character. And I think it's the root cause of the dishonesty that persists in the church today. It all traces back to polygamy.

Or, how about polygamy is the standard, has always been the standard, has always been the standard in the heavens, and it was revealed to Joseph as such, but we have been ingrained with the false traditions of Rome and Babylon...... just another thought....

Maybe you’ve been ingrained with the false tradition that polygamy is okay. Just a thought ........

I think it is the standard marriage of the Gods..... so in my mind it is not a " false tradition ".