Is this dishonest or is it okay?

[brlenox]

Let's also not forget the 2nd witness in the Book of Mormon... When King Noah took over from his righteous father, he turned immediately to this type of practice. This was clearly and sharply condemned by Abinidi. This was similar to what the Nephites did immediately after the death of Nephi, which Jacob clearly condemned... How do we not see the comparisons in these 2 examples and what we did immediately after the death of Joseph Smith? Is it too crazy to think that when Mormon and Moroni saw our day (Mormon 8:30), that they may have abridged the stories that would be included to warn us accordingly?

Maybe we should start over...What is plural marriage and how was it properly practiced. What conditions justified someone entering into the state?

[Chip]

So, Brlenox, did you ever answer my question about whether or not Jacob 2:30 allows for polygamy? Or, do you just not want to go there?

[topcat]

So I ask you again, to cut to the chase:

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

I am always willing to accept truth. Let's see your compelling evidences. If you think that you have found something that I have not already considered multiple times over then present your case. I will give you an honest evaluation.

Edit: One more thought spiritual wifery was not, never will be, plural marriage. Of course it was denounced. It was Bennetts concoction to justify his own adulterous behavior.

BrLenox,

I'm happy to see that you at least can hypothetically answer YES to my question. That is to your credit.

I was sharing the gospel with a hardcore Baptist the other day who was refusing to consider the Son and the Father were different personages, clinging to his idea of the Trinity.

I asked him if he had seen God, thus able to know for sure the nature of God. He said NO. I said NO as well, to the same question. I told him that he was putting God in a box, and not allowing for truths outside that box. My perspective was that I could be wrong, that I didn't know, but was open to new ideas. I tried to persuade him to not put God in a box. This conversation went on for about an hour. It was very hard for him to dismantle the box, but toward the end, he seems to agree that it was a better idea to remove the blinders, the remove the box, and to be open to ideas that he hadn't considered before. That admission didn't make his ideas right, or my ideas right, it just allowed for a truth to exist outside of each of our minds, which truth we ultimately can know.

I like that humble approach and mentality. It's what Christ means, I believe, when He teaches His doctrine is to become as a little child.

I gave you my "compelling evidences" already. To review:

1) We know virtually nothing about the OT so-called "polygamy".
2) We know clearly what Brigham Young and his associates engaged in. Sex to the Nth degree.
3) #1 and #2 above are not in any way analogous and should not be equated.
4) You did in fact attempt to equate them. This is my evidence (your quotes above). You attempted to equate two things which are not equal.
5) By equating the two, if that logic were true and accurate (which it isn't), then you could "logically" excuse what Brigham was doing and "logically" lay claim to Brigham's polygamy as being part of a restoration of all things.
6) Thus, by proving they are not equal, your entire argument is rendered invalid. No hard feelings. It's just the way it is.
7) And there is still the hardcore REBUKE of polygamy in Jacob 2. Unmistakable that rebuke it. But we don't even need that rebuke; based on the previous logic above in 1-6.
8) The practice of lots of sex by Brigham and crew raises the question or (I think) obvious conclusion... Some credit can be given them for some temporal or even spiritual accomplishments. But ALL credit should be properly given to Jesus who is long-suffering and who seeks to gather His people, as His hand is outstretched still. For centuries, God has always worked through corrupt institutions to accomplish His will. The modern Mormon Church is no exception.

[topcat]

BrLenox,

I do appreciate your research and approach because your approach is exactly the approach I embrace and practice, which I believe leads to truth and wisdom.

And when faced with scriptures and logic and sound reasoning, it requires the honest truth-seeker to do some homework and digging, which takes time and effort.

So that's what I'm doing now.

You said earlier to someone else: "If you have any scriptural refutes, that is the exchange that would be of most value to me. I am willing to look at genuine sincere efforts but most often all we hear on this topic are far from any form of legitimate analysis."

I accept the challenge. My response amounts to an important concession (if you will, though your train of logic is what I too have used for almost 30 years), and a legitimate analysis, which is the pointing out of a conflation, something that we all do because we're not asking the right question(s).

Based on the apparent scriptural facts you've quoted (which I see no rebuttal for, and therefore accept as an apparent fact of history, assuming the translation is correct and the text hasn't been tampered with), there appears to be loopholes built into the Israelite culture whereby a "form" of plural marriage is practiced. Abraham's case is illustrative, isn't it? Perhaps the perfect case study.

My quick and "intermediate" conclusion on this complicated topic is expressed in this question:

Is the loophole form of plural marriage evidenced by the OT scriptures you have quoted what Brigham Young and his associates were practicing?

I don't believe so. Were they quoting the verses you quoted and the logic you've offered to justify themselves? Please answer.

Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form. What Abraham practiced was a legitimate form of plural marriage for his day. It was sanctioned of God and it served a specific purpose for Abraham - that of providing offspring. It did not provide him an heir or not the heir that God intended he should have.

Did modern day prophets recognize these Old Testament sources? Did they find justification through them? I've said several times we claim to be a restoration vehicle. Joseph was directed to restore the bits and pieces of the Gospel that could be pulled from every dispensation and gather the pieces together into a cohesive and collective whole that we now consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you want one of the best articles discussing the ideology which was extolled by early leaders so much that a copy was placed in a time capsule in the Salt Lake Temple then you should dig up a copy of Spencer's Letters. He does a beautiful job of using Old Testament sources to validate the practice.

I'm not aware of such justification.

Secondly, did BY claim to be commanded by Jesus to practice this loophole form of plural marriage by pointing to said and dated revelation?

We know HE said he was not a prophet like Joseph was, just a "Yankee guesser", I think was his phrase. So BY would logically then have attempted to tie his polygamy and world renown libido to Joseph Smith's teachings, which would provide motive to do some massive rewriting of Joseph's quotes and history on the subject.

I'm compelled, for the present moment, to concede there was a fairly rare loophole for plural marriage to be practiced back in OT times. What this means is that God might have given some allowance for the practice in a very limited way with specific conditions.

But I ask you to consider the recklessness of painting with broad strokes by asking, Do the limited scriptures you've quoted translate into what unfolded in Brigham's day?

I think the answer is hell to the no. Do you agree?

And if you agree?

I'm trying to be courteous just by giving you moments of my life without just writing you off as one more smart person who thinks he can build a cohesive argument that sustains his preconceived notions and pass it off as truth. You have already tipped your hand that you can make up logical titles for polygamy, titles completely unique to you, then insinuate and slander prophets as if that makes any sense at all accusing of licentious behavior because they have the same libido that you probably have. Do you think that you even have an inking of sounding objective - no you sound like you are trying to be sly and careful to build a preconceived notion that you cannot understand. Sure there are men who were just like you describe. Not everyone can practice polygamy without it being their death knell for eternal life because they cannot manage it properly - David in the Old Testament surely qualifies (Read 2 Samuel 12:7-...) However, Brigham Young is not your man. Nor Heber C. Kimball or dozens of others who practice an honest God sanctioned form of the doctrine.

That puts you back on the hot seat, doesn't it?

What I mean is you have correctly (apparently) -- and this reasoning (the official rebuttal taught by the Church) is the line of reasoning I too have used for 30 years -- you have pointed out that if people today are going to "absolutely" condemn BY and his polygamous gang as criminals, apostate from God, then that means you'd have to similarly convict the ancients as apostate, rogue, criminal, sexual predators too.

I do not believe you have intentionally conflated a narrowly-allowed, ad hoc form of plural marriage with what Brigham Young engaged in.

But how do you respond now that I point out the distinction?

Furthermore, here's the million dollar question that most people don't ever get past:

Stated generally, are you willing to consider the possibility you may be wrong?

I can't even make heads or tails of the distinction you think you are making. However, you are still painting with your insinuative brush of bias. I can't accuse the ancients of error except where the scriptures indicate some erred. Where they indicate they did not err then it would be silly for me to claim they did.

A believing Christian would answer NO to an atheist who asked them if they could be wrong about the existence of God.

A typical Mormon would answer NO if questioned "Could the Church be in a state of apostasy?"

Despite history demonstrating apostasy almost always follows restoration.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was a true prophet who condemned spiritual wifery/ polygamy and that the angel with a drawn sword and all the other "evidence" of him secretly practicing and teaching polygamy was made up by a criminal cabal, even secret combination (to borrow the BoM's word) who sought for power, gain, and vainglory?

That's the million dollar question I invite you to answer publicly, if you don't mind.

Oh my goodness it is a Chip Scenario all over again. Your problem is when you used to hear that in the last days the very elect would be deceived you thought you were going to be so smart that you could sit on the sidelines and poke holes in all of the arguments that might be used to lead people out of the church 'cause I'm the smartest guy in the room. You didn't realize that it would be compelling arguments that the adversary would weave. You thought he was too stupid to get by your defenses and keen insight for recognizing truth. You didn' t realize that you would get sucked in by rewritten histories, or even accurate histories twisted. You didn't realize that the stories would pull on your testimony and challenge everything you thought you believed. Now here you are seduced and deceived becoming the apostate in the state of apostasy you accuse the church of being in spite of the scriptures that speak to you and yours.

I don't know why you would waste a moment doing any further research - you have already made your bed and are sleeping in it with your first or second or third wife or husband, whichever the case maybe.

You said, "Let's not start by coining an entirely new category of plural marriage called "loophole polygamy." It makes it sound like there is some caveat that someone might sneak through but it is an invalid or accidental form."

I agree my chosen phrase "loophole polygamy" may not be the best term. What would be better?

The point beyond a possibly-less-than-ideal phrase is that God may very well have sanctioned such relationships. It APPEARS He did in fact do that. From a court of law's perspective in TODAY's world, if somebody caught you on video chopping off a man's head, stealing his clothes, impersonating him for the purpose of stealing his personal and valuable belongings, how would the jury rule on the charge of murder, plus the other crimes? You'd probably be found guilty. But maybe avoid the death sentence if you convinced the court that God told you to do it, i.e., you were insane.

God did tell Nephi to kill Laban and take his property.

God may have commanded people to practice some version of polygamy. It APPEARS so. And what details do we have of how He commanded it? What form? What was it like? Was it widespread? We have virtually ZERO answers to these questions. Mostly we just have our imaginations to fill in the blanks. Anthropologically speaking, what do we know about the context? Very, very little. Agreed?

And yet you are wanting to grossly over-simply and say, "Look, those ancient guys did it. So Brigham was justified in what he did."

But what is "it"? We don't know exactly. Looks like polygamy, sort of. Is the Bible accurate on the scant records we do have? Who knows? At best, BrLenox, all you have is some nebulous idea of what "it" was. It is clear as mud.

Now contrast that clear as mud state of "polygamy" back in the OT with what Brigham was doing, and what God clearly described as an abomination in Jacob 2.

Well, we KNOW what Brigham did. Sex, sex, sex, and more sex. And more sex. Sex, sex, sex. With teenagers, and with LOTS of DIFFERENT women. We also know he was all about money, money, money, and more money. On sex alone, Brigham indisputably accomplished more than most any red-blooded, carnal man who's ever lived on earth could hope for.

What you are doing is CONFLATING. You are equating the clear-as-mud, hardly-know-anything-about polygamy of the OT with the known sexual escapades of Brigham and his cohorts. Is that a fair equating? Let the reader judge. And you are totally avoiding the sharp rebuke the Prophet Jacob (in Jacob 2) gave of the practice.

At best, all you could say is what I'm reasonably saying, "There IS some apparently condoned, albeit UNKNOWN form of polygamy in OT times. We know virtually nothing about it. We do know God called it an abomination in Nephi/ Jacob's day (570 BC let's say) in Jacob 2:24 ("which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord"). We do know people in Brigham's day wholeheartedly practiced it openly as a religious sacrament, but there is no unchallenged evidence that it was condoned or commanded by God. Every bit of evidence points to a dead man who couldn't defend himself other than his living wife (at the time) who solemnly declared (even to her death) that Joseph condemned the practice and only wedded her."

Interestingly enough, She also remarried a man, who if I remember correctly, was a serial adulterer - and even with that, she still maintained Joseph did not practice polygamy. She was known for her integrity and claimed, if I remember correctly she hadn't even heard of a revelation about polygamy until 1853.

I didn't know any of that. That's why I come here, to hear new perspectives that challenge me to think, and to learn new stuff like the 1853 tidbit. Thanks.

[shadow]

Interestingly enough, She also remarried a man, who if I remember correctly, was a serial adulterer - and even with that, she still maintained Joseph did not practice polygamy. She was known for her integrity and claimed, if I remember correctly she hadn't even heard of a revelation about polygamy until 1853.

Well, that's what her son the 3rd said she claimed. He also admits that he was trying to delete polygamy from his fathers history. Oh, he also admits his father was a polygamist. He tried so hard to rewrite history. His lies simply don't stand the test. CNN would hire him in a second.

To his Uncle, Joseph the 3rd wrote-
"I have long been engaged in removing from Father’s memory and from the Early church, the stigma and blame thrown upon them because of Polygamy; and have at last lived to see the cloud rapidly lifting. And I would not consent to see further blame attached, by a blunder now. Therefore uncle, bear in mind our standing today before the world as defenders of Mormonism free from Polygamy and go ahead with your personal recollections of Joseph & Hyrum" And the fun kicker- “If you are the wise man I take you to be, You will fail to remember anything contrary to the lofty standard of character by which we esteem those good men. You can do the Cause great good; you can injure it by injudicious sayings.”


No wonder he gave the world his mothers last interview in which she denied polygamy. But did she? I doubt it.

[brlenox]

I gave you my "compelling evidences" already. To review:

1) We know virtually nothing about the OT so-called "polygamy".
2) We know clearly what Brigham Young and his associates engaged in. Sex to the Nth degree.
3) #1 and #2 above are not in any way analogous and should not be equated.
4) You did in fact attempt to equate them. This is my evidence (your quotes above). You attempted to equate two things which are not equal.
5) By equating the two, if that logic were true and accurate (which it isn't), then you could "logically" excuse what Brigham was doing and "logically" lay claim to Brigham's polygamy as being part of a restoration of all things.
6) Thus, by proving they are not equal, your entire argument is rendered invalid. No hard feelings. It's just the way it is.
7) And there is still the hardcore REBUKE of polygamy in Jacob 2. Unmistakable that rebuke it. But we don't even need that rebuke; based on the previous logic above in 1-6.
8) The practice of lots of sex by Brigham and crew raises the question or (I think) obvious conclusion, that they went rogue and were completely apostate from the Lord Jesus Christ. Some credit can be given them for some temporal or even spiritual accomplishments. But ALL credit should be properly given to Jesus who is long-suffering and who seeks to gather His people, as His hand is outstretched still. For centuries, God has always worked through corrupt institutions to accomplish His will. The modern Mormon Church is no exception.

Let's just take these one at a time. You have provided no evidence that you even know what the Old Testament says about polygamy. So show me the evidences in the Old Testament that speak to the subject of plural marriage and let's analyze them for what they do indicate or do not. I also have no interest in hearing further of your inferences concerning Brigham Young and his associates. You accuse a man you do not even know.

[topcat]

Interestingly enough, She also remarried a man, who if I remember correctly, was a serial adulterer - and even with that, she still maintained Joseph did not practice polygamy. She was known for her integrity and claimed, if I remember correctly she hadn't even heard of a revelation about polygamy until 1853.

Well, that's what her son the 3rd said she claimed. He also admits that he was trying to delete polygamy from his fathers history. Oh, he also admits his father was a polygamist. He tried so hard to rewrite history. His lies simply don't stand the test. CNN would hire him in a second.

To his Uncle, Joseph the 3rd wrote-
"I have long been engaged in removing from Father’s memory and from the Early church, the stigma and blame thrown upon them because of Polygamy; and have at last lived to see the cloud rapidly lifting. And I would not consent to see further blame attached, by a blunder now. Therefore uncle, bear in mind our standing today before the world as defenders of Mormonism free from Polygamy and go ahead with your personal recollections of Joseph & Hyrum" And the fun kicker- “If you are the wise man I take you to be, You will fail to remember anything contrary to the lofty standard of character by which we esteem those good men. You can do the Cause great good; you can injure it by injudicious sayings.”


No wonder he gave the world his mothers last interview in which she denied polygamy. But did she? I doubt it.

That quote is easily interpreted as follows:

"I have long been engaged in removing from Father’s memory and from the Early church, the stigma and blame thrown upon them (by Brigham Young and his ilk) because of Polygamy; and have at last lived to see the cloud rapidly lifting. And I would not consent to see further blame attached, by a blunder now."

[topcat]

Let's just take these one at a time. ..

Sure thing.

I'm happy to respond to the evidences you want to quote from the OT. The Deut 21 and Numbers 12 quotations don't yield much insight at all, do they? Do you have any other evidence you want to bring to the table for analysis?

[John Tavner]

Interestingly enough, She also remarried a man, who if I remember correctly, was a serial adulterer - and even with that, she still maintained Joseph did not practice polygamy. She was known for her integrity and claimed, if I remember correctly she hadn't even heard of a revelation about polygamy until 1853.

Well, that's what her son the 3rd said she claimed. He also admits that he was trying to delete polygamy from his fathers history. Oh, he also admits his father was a polygamist. He tried so hard to rewrite history. His lies simply don't stand the test. CNN would hire him in a second.

To his Uncle, Joseph the 3rd wrote-
"I have long been engaged in removing from Father’s memory and from the Early church, the stigma and blame thrown upon them because of Polygamy; and have at last lived to see the cloud rapidly lifting. And I would not consent to see further blame attached, by a blunder now. Therefore uncle, bear in mind our standing today before the world as defenders of Mormonism free from Polygamy and go ahead with your personal recollections of Joseph & Hyrum" And the fun kicker- “If you are the wise man I take you to be, You will fail to remember anything contrary to the lofty standard of character by which we esteem those good men. You can do the Cause great good; you can injure it by injudicious sayings.”


No wonder he gave the world his mothers last interview in which she denied polygamy. But did she? I doubt it.

Meh, same could be said of Brigham and those who magically recollected things during the Temple Lot case. Also I agree with what Topcat said, that is how I interpreted it initially. The truth is neither of us "knows" anything. We can only believe. So I take the evidences I have seen, read and heard and believe waht I do, while you choose to accept the evidences you hear, read, and see and believe what you want. I choose to believe the word of God as it is written. Regardless, I can tell you unequivocally that I choose to believe that she was an elect lady, just like I choose to believe that Joseph was not a hypocrite or a liar. So either way, one can look at history and interpret it both ways. 2 years ago I saw it your way, now I see it mine. It began about the time I began to desire to follow God above all things rather than an institution. None of this was brought on by anyone or any person. In fact almost all of my conclusions have come from me seeking the Lord. I don't adhere to any person or group. I seek out and accept truth wherever I can find it. So whether you agree wiht me or not doesn't matter, what does matter is that you can see that there is a possibility you are wrong - just like there is a possibility I am wrong.

[Chip]

Brlenox, I'm probably not the only one here who is interested in hearing what you believe the meaning of Jacob 2:30 is.

[brlenox]

Brlenox, I'm probably not the only one here who is interested in hearing what you believe the meaning of Jacob 2:30 is.

Chip the only way to be clear on the meaning is to marry the statement with the other scriptures that speak to the subject. I shouldn't have to do all the work here. In both cases, you and tophat, I ask you to defend your position and by doing just a modicum, a tiny smidgen of effort and you toss it back to me to do the work. Lay the verses out side by side and let them point the direction for meaning...just as the Lord instructed Oliver Cowdery ... do the work then, I will tell you in your heart and in your mind. I have already done these things...if you are sincere it is your turn to do the same.

[brlenox]

Sure thing.

I'm happy to respond to the evidences you want to quote from the OT. The Deut 21 and Numbers 12 quotations don't yield much insight at all, do they? Do you have any other evidence you want to bring to the table for analysis?

See response to Chip...

[topcat]

Sure thing.

I'm happy to respond to the evidences you want to quote from the OT. The Deut 21 and Numbers 12 quotations don't yield much insight at all, do they? Do you have any other evidence you want to bring to the table for analysis?

See response to Chip...

Thanks. Okay. I'll put together a list of Old Testament polygamy scriptures. I just can't right now. I'm working and don't have the time.

[shadow]

Interestingly enough, She also remarried a man, who if I remember correctly, was a serial adulterer - and even with that, she still maintained Joseph did not practice polygamy. She was known for her integrity and claimed, if I remember correctly she hadn't even heard of a revelation about polygamy until 1853.

Well, that's what her son the 3rd said she claimed. He also admits that he was trying to delete polygamy from his fathers history. Oh, he also admits his father was a polygamist. He tried so hard to rewrite history. His lies simply don't stand the test. CNN would hire him in a second.

To his Uncle, Joseph the 3rd wrote-
"I have long been engaged in removing from Father’s memory and from the Early church, the stigma and blame thrown upon them because of Polygamy; and have at last lived to see the cloud rapidly lifting. And I would not consent to see further blame attached, by a blunder now. Therefore uncle, bear in mind our standing today before the world as defenders of Mormonism free from Polygamy and go ahead with your personal recollections of Joseph & Hyrum" And the fun kicker- “If you are the wise man I take you to be, You will fail to remember anything contrary to the lofty standard of character by which we esteem those good men. You can do the Cause great good; you can injure it by injudicious sayings.”


No wonder he gave the world his mothers last interview in which she denied polygamy. But did she? I doubt it.

Meh, same could be said of Brigham and those who magically recollected things during the Temple Lot case. Also I agree with what Topcat said, that is how I interpreted it initially. The truth is neither of us "knows" anything. We can only believe. So I take the evidences I have seen, read and heard and believe waht I do, while you choose to accept the evidences you hear, read, and see and believe what you want. I choose to believe the word of God as it is written. Regardless, I can tell you unequivocally that I choose to believe that she was an elect lady, just like I choose to believe that Joseph was not a hypocrite or a liar. So either way, one can look at history and interpret it both ways. 2 years ago I saw it your way, now I see it mine. It began about the time I began to desire to follow God above all things rather than an institution. None of this was brought on by anyone or any person. In fact almost all of my conclusions have come from me seeking the Lord. I don't adhere to any person or group. I seek out and accept truth wherever I can find it. So whether you agree with me or not doesn't matter, what does matter is that you can see that there is a possibility you are wrong - just like there is a possibility I am wrong.

It's established that Joseph the 3rd, the one who claims Emma denied polygamy, showed motive to whitewash polygamy from his fathers history. He failed, by the way. In his writings, Joseph III actually admits to having step-mothers. But clearly he's asking his uncle to "fail to remember" Joseph's polygamy. There's no way around it. I know topcat thinks he's good at re-interpreting what's being said, but in full context it is exactly what it is- Joseph III wanted to delete polygamy from his Fathers biography. He hated it and wanted it gone. He twists and turns and lies and obstructs to change history and it simply doesn't work, at least for reasonable people. Some people's heels are dug so far in that nothing will change their point of view, no matter how much they claim they're only searching for the truth. Fact is they just can't handle the truth. And that's fine, this isn't a salvation issue. If someone can't handle that polygamy existed, that it was part of the plan and that Joseph practiced it then that's OK for them at this time. Line upon line. What does get them in trouble is bad-mouthing those who practiced it. Throwing Brigham under the bus, or throwing any of God's Prophets under the bus is a downward road that will only lead to apostasy unless corrected. We can see this plain as day even on this thread.

[John Tavner]

Interestingly enough, She also remarried a man, who if I remember correctly, was a serial adulterer - and even with that, she still maintained Joseph did not practice polygamy. She was known for her integrity and claimed, if I remember correctly she hadn't even heard of a revelation about polygamy until 1853.

Well, that's what her son the 3rd said she claimed. He also admits that he was trying to delete polygamy from his fathers history. Oh, he also admits his father was a polygamist. He tried so hard to rewrite history. His lies simply don't stand the test. CNN would hire him in a second.

To his Uncle, Joseph the 3rd wrote-
"I have long been engaged in removing from Father’s memory and from the Early church, the stigma and blame thrown upon them because of Polygamy; and have at last lived to see the cloud rapidly lifting. And I would not consent to see further blame attached, by a blunder now. Therefore uncle, bear in mind our standing today before the world as defenders of Mormonism free from Polygamy and go ahead with your personal recollections of Joseph & Hyrum" And the fun kicker- “If you are the wise man I take you to be, You will fail to remember anything contrary to the lofty standard of character by which we esteem those good men. You can do the Cause great good; you can injure it by injudicious sayings.”


No wonder he gave the world his mothers last interview in which she denied polygamy. But did she? I doubt it.

Meh, same could be said of Brigham and those who magically recollected things during the Temple Lot case. Also I agree with what Topcat said, that is how I interpreted it initially. The truth is neither of us "knows" anything. We can only believe. So I take the evidences I have seen, read and heard and believe waht I do, while you choose to accept the evidences you hear, read, and see and believe what you want. I choose to believe the word of God as it is written. Regardless, I can tell you unequivocally that I choose to believe that she was an elect lady, just like I choose to believe that Joseph was not a hypocrite or a liar. So either way, one can look at history and interpret it both ways. 2 years ago I saw it your way, now I see it mine. It began about the time I began to desire to follow God above all things rather than an institution. None of this was brought on by anyone or any person. In fact almost all of my conclusions have come from me seeking the Lord. I don't adhere to any person or group. I seek out and accept truth wherever I can find it. So whether you agree with me or not doesn't matter, what does matter is that you can see that there is a possibility you are wrong - just like there is a possibility I am wrong.

It's established that Joseph the 3rd, the one who claims Emma denied polygamy, showed motive to whitewash polygamy from his fathers history. He failed, by the way. In his writings, Joseph III actually admits to having step-mothers. But clearly he's asking his uncle to "fail to remember" Joseph's polygamy. There's no way around it. I know topcat thinks he's good at re-interpreting what's being said, but in full context it is exactly what it is- Joseph III wanted to delete polygamy from his Fathers biography. He hated it and wanted it gone. He twists and turns and lies and obstructs to change history and it simply doesn't work, at least for reasonable people. Some people's heels are dug so far in that nothing will change their point of view, no matter how much they claim they're only searching for the truth. Fact is they just can't handle the truth. And that's fine, this isn't a salvation issue. If someone can't handle that polygamy existed, that it was part of the plan and that Joseph practiced it then that's OK for them at this time. Line upon line. What does get them in trouble is bad-mouthing those who practiced it. Throwing Brigham under the bus, or throwing any of God's Prophets under the bus is a downward road that will only lead to apostasy unless corrected. We can see this plain as day even on this thread.

I wonder if those during the Savior's time said the same thing about Caiphus.... Or if during Abinidi's time they said the same about King Noah... wait...

You are right, it isn't a salvation issue (though it was taught as such for many years - but I guess you have to figure out who to believe). Additionally rumors were ABOUNDING about Joseph Smith during his time in Nauvoo - he is basically telling HIm to remember the truth and not the lies/rumors - but it all depends on the lens you want to look through. I choose to believe Joseph Smith wasn't a liar nor was Emma. Nor do I believe he was "lying for the Lord." Like I said, you can look at the history how you want. We won't know until we die, but we can perceive it the way we want.

[shadow]

he is basically telling HIm to remember the truth and not the lies/rumors - but it all depends on the lens you want to look through.

Except Joseph III wrote that he had step mother's. How's that lens looking now?

[John Tavner]

he is basically telling HIm to remember the truth and not the lies/rumors - but it all depends on the lens you want to look through.

Except Joseph III wrote that he had step mother's. How's that lens looking now?

Doesn't effect anything. Lens looks clear to me It all comes down to the defintion of sealing and celestial plural marriage and what others interpreted that as. Joseph did not practice CPM (it wasn't celestial) He did seal women to him, there is no doubt about that - he also sealed men. Sealings to Joseph are not what we think of them now. The problem is the interpretation with how people applied that. It's funny I used to testify of polygamy and try to convince people it was real and JOseph institutied it. Then when I started to change my view and testify how i do now, it was like I felt a change - the fruits changed and I felt joy. For a long time I "knew" polygamy in the way it was instituted was of God. Now I don't and it feels good and tastes good.

[cab]

Let's also not forget the 2nd witness in the Book of Mormon... When King Noah took over from his righteous father, he turned immediately to this type of practice. This was clearly and sharply condemned by Abinidi. This was similar to what the Nephites did immediately after the death of Nephi, which Jacob clearly condemned... How do we not see the comparisons in these 2 examples and what we did immediately after the death of Joseph Smith? Is it too crazy to think that when Mormon and Moroni saw our day (Mormon 8:30), that they may have abridged the stories that would be included to warn us accordingly?

Maybe we should start over...What is plural marriage and how was it properly practiced. What conditions justified someone entering into the state?

I'm not aware of any people who have lived the higher law to have been commanded to live it, with the best documented examples being the New Testament Saints and the Nephites. All others were either living a lesser law or we have so little understanding of their actual history or cultural norms that we end up with speculation upon speculation. I don't know how everyone else feels about last years Gospel Doctrine Old Testament. But I think it was beyond atrocious. Our lack of understanding of Old Testament prophecy was put on full display. Whatever plural marriage was, I don't believe it was 30-50 plus wives. When was this ever sanctioned by the Lord?

But really, I'm not really inclined to go back and forth with you on this. I don't want to argue or be called names or have my intentions questioned.

But you can start by clarifying your statement on John Bennett being the originator of "spiritual wifery". I don't believe that to be the case. I've found the term and practice of "spiritual wifery" to have appeared earlier, through the influence of Jacob Cochran's Cochranites, to whom we sent several waves of missionaries early on.

Also, I'd like an answer from somebody regarding Shadow's claim that Zina Huntington Jacob's married Joseph Smith. We know she was propositioned by Brigham while her husband Henry was on his mission, and then married.him and had several children with him. I see that she them made claims to have first entered plural marriage with Joseph, but the first of these claims I can see was made in 1881. Does anyone know of a more contemporary source for her claim than 1881?

In fact, does anyone know any contemporary and reliable source that showed he did anything but fight against the polygamy that clearly was being practiced by some of the Saints? By contemporary I mean that the source existed when Joseph was still alive (not recollections many years after-the-fact or suddenly appearing drafts of revelations attributed to Joseph). And by reliable I mean not from the likes of nefarious characters such as John Bennett, William Law, Joseph Jackson, Oliver Olney etc ...

[brlenox]

I gave you my "compelling evidences" already. To review:

1) We know virtually nothing about the OT so-called "polygamy".
2) We know clearly what Brigham Young and his associates engaged in. Sex to the Nth degree.
3) #1 and #2 above are not in any way analogous and should not be equated.
4) You did in fact attempt to equate them. This is my evidence (your quotes above). You attempted to equate two things which are not equal.
5) By equating the two, if that logic were true and accurate (which it isn't), then you could "logically" excuse what Brigham was doing and "logically" lay claim to Brigham's polygamy as being part of a restoration of all things.
6) Thus, by proving they are not equal, your entire argument is rendered invalid. No hard feelings. It's just the way it is.
7) And there is still the hardcore REBUKE of polygamy in Jacob 2. Unmistakable that rebuke it. But we don't even need that rebuke; based on the previous logic above in 1-6.
8) The practice of lots of sex by Brigham and crew raises the question or (I think) obvious conclusion, that they went rogue and were completely apostate from the Lord Jesus Christ. Some credit can be given them for some temporal or even spiritual accomplishments. But ALL credit should be properly given to Jesus who is long-suffering and who seeks to gather His people, as His hand is outstretched still. For centuries, God has always worked through corrupt institutions to accomplish His will. The modern Mormon Church is no exception.

Let's just take these one at a time. You have provided no evidence that you even know what the Old Testament says about polygamy. So show me the evidences in the Old Testament that speak to the subject of plural marriage and let's analyze them for what they do indicate or do not. I also have no interest in hearing further of your inferences concerning Brigham Young and his associates. You accuse a man you do not even know.

I have been warned for calling you foolish for being so bold in your denunciations of one of the Lords anointed. I suspect you were not warned for unnecessary vulgarity or whatever it might be labeled but if so then at least there may be some balance in the world. Either way I wish to restate my observation to a more acceptable less pointed at you observation. There are those who are overly judgmental and cavalier in their judgements about those whom the Lord has chosen to lead his church. Those who engage in such activity are not wise and illustrate imprudence in their efforts and designs. A rose is a rose is a rose....

[brlenox]

Let's also not forget the 2nd witness in the Book of Mormon... When King Noah took over from his righteous father, he turned immediately to this type of practice. This was clearly and sharply condemned by Abinidi. This was similar to what the Nephites did immediately after the death of Nephi, which Jacob clearly condemned... How do we not see the comparisons in these 2 examples and what we did immediately after the death of Joseph Smith? Is it too crazy to think that when Mormon and Moroni saw our day (Mormon 8:30), that they may have abridged the stories that would be included to warn us accordingly?

Maybe we should start over...What is plural marriage and how was it properly practiced. What conditions justified someone entering into the state?

I'm not aware of any people who have lived the higher law to have been commanded to live it, with the best documented examples being the New Testament Saints and the Nephites. All others were either living a lesser law or we have so little understanding of their actual history or cultural norms that we end up with speculation upon speculation. I don't know how everyone else feels about last years Gospel Doctrine Old Testament. But I think it was beyond atrocious. Our lack of understanding of Old Testament prophecy was put on full display. Whatever plural marriage was, I don't believe it was 30-50 plus wives. When was this ever sanctioned by the Lord?

2 Samuel 12 read how Nathan approaches David and what he Says the Lord will do.

But really, I'm not really inclined to go back and forth with you on this. I don't want to argue or be called names or have my intentions questioned.

But...but....but...I do question your sincerity to know correctly.

But you can start by clarifying your statement on John Bennett being the originator of "spiritual wifery". I don't believe that to be the case. I've found the term and practice of "spiritual wifery" to have appeared earlier, through the influence of Jacob Cochran's Cochranites, to whom we sent several waves of missionaries early on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/john-c- ... al-wifery/

In fact, does anyone know any contemporary and reliable source that showed he did anything but fight against the polygamy that clearly was being practiced by some of the Saints? By contemporary I mean that the source existed when Joseph was still alive (not recollections many years after-the-fact or suddenly appearing drafts of revelations attributed to Joseph). And by reliable I mean not from the likes of nefarious characters such as John Bennett, William Law, Joseph Jackson, Oliver Olney etc ...
[/quote]

Start here:
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jose ... h/Polygamy

[Thinker]

...2 years ago I saw it your way, now I see it mine. It began about the time I began to desire to follow God above all things rather than an institution. None of this was brought on by anyone or any person. In fact almost all of my conclusions have come from me seeking the Lord. I don't adhere to any person or group. I seek out and accept truth wherever I can find it. So whether you agree wiht me or not doesn't matter, what does matter is that you can see that there is a possibility you are wrong - just like there is a possibility I am wrong.

Excellent! I love it - this is a great way to look at things - focus on God, but realizing that all of our ideas of God are inherently limited and could always be corrected.

[Thinker]

I ask you to defend your position and by doing just a modicum, a tiny smigen of effort and you toss it back to me to do the work.

Spoiler

You've got the power - the world-wide-web at your finger tips - and still ask for more?

Spoiler

Never enough, BrLenox - NEVER enough!

[cab]

he is basically telling HIm to remember the truth and not the lies/rumors - but it all depends on the lens you want to look through.

Except Joseph III wrote that he had step mother's. How's that lens looking now?

Doesn't effect anything. Lens looks clear to me It all comes down to the defintion of sealing and celestial plural marriage and what others interpreted that as. Joseph did not practice CPM (it wasn't celestial) He did seal women to him, there is no doubt about that - he also sealed men. Sealings to Joseph are not what we think of them now. The problem is the interpretation with how people applied that. It's funny I used to testify of polygamy and try to convince people it was real and JOseph institutied it. Then when I started to change my view and testify how i do, it was like I felt a change - the fruits changed and I felt joy. For a long time I "knew" polygamy in the way it was instituted was of God. Now I don't.

Like you've said John... None of us know much of anything here... We're in the pursuit of truth, not in acquisition of it. But as long as some people believe they're privy to special heavenly knowledge that others aren't, and they know they know (when they don't), it's going to be dificult to have edifying discussions.

[Thinker]

How's that lens looking now?

Shadow, you know what your problem is? You'd rather be cool than see...

Spoiler

[brlenox]

I ask you to defend your position and by doing just a modicum, a tiny smigen of effort and you toss it back to me to do the work.

Spoiler

You've got the power - the world-wide-web at your finger tips - and still ask for more?

Spoiler

Never enough, BrLenox - NEVER enough!

I'm not sure what you are saying....excellent video though.