Brigham: Good or Bad?

[BruceRGilbert]

I don't rate prophets as if they are a toaster I purchased on Amazon.

Evidently, Mark, you've come to the wrong forum and got burnt toast.

[Trucker]

I don't think we should be judging people. Actions, yes. People, no.

[nightlight]

Just addressing the list of accusations you made against Brigham Young and calling a spade a spade

Matthias, I would prefer to characterize the things that I have pointed as something other than accusations. They are "identifications" of where the "train left the tracks" and have to do with some of the things which have had to be "reformed" in the Church by General Authorities later on. Adam-God has been refuted. Blood Atonement has been refuted. Polygamy has been refuted. Things have been removed from the Endowment . . . and more is to come. The ban on Priesthood has been revoked . . . and so, you see, these aren't necessarily new things that find their origination with me. I concur, that things need to be taken further . . . I am hopeful that they will.

I question what possible motive you would have to suggest that these are "accusations" when you, yourself, know that "reformation" has had to take place to remedy these things. I find it very curious. I would invite you to examine yourself in this regard.

Finally . . . and this is taking specific aim at a falsehood that continues to raise it's ugly head. POLYGAMY is NOT a requirement of exaltation in the Highest of the Celestial Realms.

I agree with you on much of what you said,
but....hell is much worse than being here on earth, just ask Alma the younger. He was sent to hell and described it.

When did the church refute polygamy?

You are a gifted writer&thinker...I do appreciate your posts, and i also appreciate the kindness/respect you show everyone

[sandman45]

That it would be easy to categorically classify someone as entirely good or entirely bad! Brigham Young, as well as each one of us, is a composite of both good and bad. He had weaknesses as a human being, as we all do. As a leader, he was chosen by God because of his "quirks." Brigham was a very stalwart and "determined" leader. It was this attribute that qualified him to hold the Church together after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He had clear ideas as to how things ought to be done and was quite "stubborn" in insisting that they be so. For this reason he was referred to as "The Lion." Controversy surrounds his demise. There was a time when it was suspect that he was poisoned.

Brigham got many things right, but, too, he got some things wrong:
1.) Adam-God Theory
2.) Blood Atonement
3.) The Endowment "Additions:" viz a viz: Oath of Vengeance, Penalties, *Entrapment (Pre-swearing and Suppression of Agency: "Bow your head and say "yes.")
4.) Polygamy
5.) Suppression of "minorities:" Native and African Americans.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Emma ... gham_Young

*Agency is an eternal principle with Heavenly Father. He respects the freedom to choose. He is "forthright" and explains the conditions of any covenant He requests BEFORE an answer is solicited. As in all things, the intelligence who is invited to enter into a covenant agreement with Him is given the choice to refuse. He offers no "small print" nor does He amend additional clauses without approval of BOTH parties. The Law of Common Consent is a practice originating from this attribute. Further "revelation" is needed to "fix" the Endowment.

He didn’t start the Adam God theory. But he did teach the Doctrine that Joseph taught. And that was the Adam God Doctrine which is true. Joseph was the one who taught it openly when he said that the “Ancient of days” was Father Adam. Remember all of christiandom believes the ancient of days is God the father.

[sandman45]

Thank you, Stahura. I believe that Brigham was sincere. He did the things that he believed; however, I do think that he, like us, was subject to "misunderstanding" of some of the "advanced" topics that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught. I believe it had to do with somewhat of a "confirmation bias" of hearing only those things that he was presupposed to without understanding the "deeper" significance of what Joseph Smith intended.

It is very reasonable to assume that Micha_EL was a god on the Council of the Gods; however, He was not the Head God who convened the Council or chose the councilors. This was based on Heavenly Father's foreknowledge. Gabri_EL or Noah, was, also, present - as were others who would later "come down" and become "Dispensation Heads." I think that Brigham kinda got confused because Micha_EL was chosen to be "Adam" or the first.

Brigham kinda got obsessed with this "shedding of blood" to make atonement, thing. He, because of his strict view of "black and white," gave little platitude to "grace" and "mercy." He was an "eye for an eye" type of fellow. His boundaries were always very rigid and well defined. I would tend to think that he heard the Prophet Joseph say the following and took it to mean that Brigham was "sufficient" in his, sometimes, "not prone to correction" state:

The nearer man approaches perfection, the clearer are his views, and the greater his enjoyments, till he has overcome the evils of his life and lost every desire for sin. . . . But we consider that this is a station to which no man ever arrived in a moment: he must have been instructed in the government and laws of that kingdom by proper degrees, until his mind is capable in some measure of comprehending the propriety, justice, equality, and consistency of the same.

Certainly, Brigham could be characterized as "stalwart" and "tenacious," but I don't believe that the terms "considerate, meek, and humble" find a great deal of pronouncement in other's description of him.

The "Polygamy" idea has several roots. Certainly it is appealing to the "natural man" because of a "carnal base" toward "conquest" and "dominion." It was aggravated by the Cochranites and John C. Bennett with the characterization of "Spiritual Wifery." I can understand a gross misinterpretation of the power of "sealing" through the Priesthood and something else that the Prophet Joseph Smith said:

Again: The doctrine or sealing power of Elijah is as follows:—If you have power to seal on earth and in heaven, then we should be wise. The first thing you do, go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself, and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory, and go ahead, and not go back, but use a little wisdom, and seal all you can, and when you get to heaven tell your Father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven, according to his promise. I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal, and those that follow me and my counsel.

It was Joseph's desire to constitute an "Eternal Family." He advocated the "eternal chain" so that many would have opportunity to breach the "veils." If this were not understood in proper context, then it could be made into something very damning in the progression of many people; being a stumbling block of "self-gratification." This was NOT what Heavenly Father, nor Joseph intended. What ensued was neigh unto disaster for the Church because of the idea that it was a condition of exaltation . . . and, of course, man took it upon himself to make haste.

Joseph commissioned Brigham to record the Endowment. We did not receive it without additions. We know that . . . the early endowment included the "Oath of Vengeance" which was added to avenge the death of Joseph Smith. We do not know if there were other embellishments, because we only have Brigham's rendition, at this juncture. I suspect that other things were "added" and I am not privy at this time to know of any "omissions." I have further suspicions; however, I am to hold my tongue at this time.

Brigham would justify Brigham for his choices and actions. I find Brigham's character to be very rigid and uncompromising with regard to his viewpoints. He was not someone who could be easily taught, especially by someone that he considered his inferior. I love the man for what he did in being a "rock" upon which to accomplish an arduous task of uniting a broken, bewildered and frightened people after the death of the Prophet. He; however, was, also, a rough stone rolling that merited some polishing.

Lol all of this is “Your” speculation.

[BruceRGilbert]

Larry King Live at about the 14:30 time frame - President Hinckley as "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" speaking to the media makes it fairly clear:

I do appreciate your posts, and i also appreciate the kindness/respect you show everyone

Thank you, Nightlight. Please understand that, like any human being, I have frailties and weaknesses of which I am keenly aware . . . more so than most and I know that, (putting it in 'Country Terms',) by feeding me the whole "bale," it might make me bloat. I prefer to be thanked rather than praised.

I think that it is important to treat others as you would have them treat you. Further, it is my intent, insofar as Heavenly Father allows, to enlighten and share the "revelations" that He has given to me by whatever means He has gifted me with so that people wake up. I am very concerned about "course of least resistance" that has been generally taken by the Saints, as they are carefully, methodically and apathetically rocked; lulled to sleep. All is well in Zion, until it is made evident that waves are increasing in frequency and duration with casualties. The "Watchmen" need to be awakened from their slumber. The "bailing out" that needs to take place is in the vacating of holes and not wholes.

Lamps need be lit and "Spiritual Batteries" charged so that we can be "Die-Hards, Energizers and Ever-Readies." WE don't have much time.

[nightlight]

Larry King Live at about the 14:30 time frame - President Hinckley as "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" speaking to the media makes it fairly clear:

I do appreciate your posts, and i also appreciate the kindness/respect you show everyone

Thank you, Nightlight. Please understand that, like any human being, I have frailties and weaknesses of which I am keenly aware . . . more so than most and I know that, (putting it in 'Country Terms',) by feeding me the whole "bale," it might make me bloat. I prefer to be thanked rather than praised.

I think that it is important to treat others as you would have them treat you. Further, it is my intent, insofar as Heavenly Father allows, to enlighten and share the "revelations" that He has given to me by whatever means He has gifted me with so that people wake up. I am very concerned about "course of least resistance" that has been generally taken by the Saints, as they are carefully, methodically and apathetically rocked; lulled to sleep. All is well in Zion, until it is made evident that waves are increasing in frequency and duration with casualties. The "Watchmen" need to be awakened from their slumber. The "bailing out" that needs to take place is in the vacating of holes and not wholes.

Lamps need be lit and "Spiritual Batteries" charged so that we can be "Die-Hards, Energizers and Ever-Readies." WE don't have much time.

Lol I was complementing you.. call it praising if you'd like. I'll make sure to feed you with thanks instead.

You are taking Hinkley out of context. He said the current practice of polygamy in not doctrinal

Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?
GBH: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.
LK: You could have a certain amount of...
GBH: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.
LK: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?
GBH: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.
LK: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?
GBH: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.
LK: Should there be arrests?
GBH: It's matter of civil procedure. The church can't do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever.
LK: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it?
GBH: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It's a civil offense. It's in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We're totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that's a responsibility of civil officers.
LK: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?
GBH: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It's outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.
LK: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying -- they told "The Salt Lake Tribune" -- that it's difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?
GBH: Well, it's secretive. There's a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty -- they say they do, in gathering evidence.
LK: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you're forceful here tonight, but maybe -- they've been saying that it's rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.
GBH: I don't know. We'll consider it.
LK: I'm giving you an idea.
GBH: Yes.
LK: Would you look better if you were...
GBH: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.
LK: You condemn it.
GBH: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law

[BruceRGilbert]

LK: You condemn it.
GBH: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal.

I believe that we can both concur?? on the following synopsis: "The practice of polygamy is not doctrinal."

If we can agree on that premise, then we are in agreement. If there is a conditional relative to that statement, I should like to hear it.

You are taking Hinkley out of context. He said the current practice of polygamy in not doctrinal

If you are saying that the "conditional" is based upon the time-wise reference: "current," then I shall have to ask if you believe that the practice of polygamy is necessary for exaltation in the Highest Glory of the Celestial Kingdom?

[Durzan]

LK: You condemn it.
GBH: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal.

I believe that we can both concur?? on the following synopsis: "The practice of polygamy is not doctrinal."

If we can agree on that premise, then we are in agreement. If there is a conditional relative to that statement, I should like to hear it.

You are taking Hinkley out of context. He said the current practice of polygamy in not doctrinal

If you are saying that the "conditional" is based upon the time-wise reference: "current," then I shall have to ask if you believe that the practice of polygamy is necessary for exaltation in the Highest Glory of the Celestial Kingdom?

Polygamy is conditional upon God’s commandment of it.


It is NOT required for exaltation, but.. . In the CK, It is a necessity that the Plural Marriage is a part of celestial law. It is necessary for some to achieve exaltation, particularly those few who would otherwise not have the opportunity to be sealed or exalted without it.

[BruceRGilbert]

Polygamy is conditional upon God’s commandment of it.

Which is worshiped more, the gift or the Giver of the gift?

It is NOT required for exaltation, but.. . In the CK, It is a necessity that the Plural Marriage is a part of celestial law. It is necessary for some to achieve exaltation, particularly those few who would otherwise not have the opportunity to be sealed or exalted without it.

Is God a respecter of persons? If this gift were extended to others, and you have qualified those as being without opportunity, otherwise, when, in your opinion, would this happen?

If you say before the resurrection, then we need further qualification. If you say after the resurrection, we have to contend with the following:

Matthew 22: 23-30

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

[nightlight]

LK: You condemn it.
GBH: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal.

I believe that we can both concur?? on the following synopsis: "The practice of polygamy is not doctrinal."

If we can agree on that premise, then we are in agreement. If there is a conditional relative to that statement, I should like to hear it.

You are taking Hinkley out of context. He said the current practice of polygamy in not doctrinal

If you are saying that the "conditional" is based upon the time-wise reference: "current," then I shall have to ask if you believe that the practice of polygamy is necessary for exaltation in the Highest Glory of the Celestial Kingdom?

Context is key. King was asking Hinckley to condem those still practicing polygamy...he then did.

He clearly said that it was permitted...and then he saud God told them it was time to stop.

What kind of leaders would disavow/condem his predecessors conduct to CNN and not to the membership?
No, bro...imo you are clearly taking his words completely out of context.

Anyone can take two words out of a conversation and make it seem whatever they wish....like today's media

I do believe God has multiple wives. I hinge nothing on this belief though. It is what it is. I dont want multiple wives now or in heaven. I can't imagine having to deal with splitting my time with someone other than my wife. My ways are not God though...my thoughts are not God's thoughts. If you tear everything back...it seems, to my mind, God has multiple wives. I don't feel comfortable definitively declaring what's is or isn't required to enter the celestial(besides become one with Christ)
----
This is what our current prophets endorse


How can we explain polygamy when someone asks about it?
We believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is God’s standing law of marriage. But at various times throughout history, God has commanded certain people to practice plural marriage. In the Bible, for instance, we read about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others who were told to take multiple wives. Though we don’t know all of the reasons God might command people to practice plural marriage, one reason mentioned in the Book of Mormon is to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30)—or to increase the number of children born in the covenant.

It’s important to understand that plural marriage in the Church in the 19th century was revealed through the Lord’s prophets (see D&C 132), that it was regulated (people entered into it only by invitation or approval of Church leaders), and that women could choose freely whether to be in a plural marriage or not. Also, it’s worth mentioning that Church members’ acceptance of this practice was a great trial of their faith. It was never easy. It went against cultural norms, laws, and, often, their own personal desires.

Through revelation, the Church ended plural marriage around the turn of the 20th century (see Official Declaration 1). Nobody is authorized to practice it today.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng
----------

I don't believe it good practice to say the church refutes polygamy.

If you could have ask Hinckley what he meant...and he told you he meant what i just explained he said, would that change your views?
Im guessing it wouldn't.

[BruceRGilbert]

Joseph Smith did not practice Polygamy. He was not a liar. Your analysis is correct, Nightlight. Thank you for "thinking."

http://elliaison.org/forum/index.php?t= ... 3&start=0&

[Zathura]

LK: You condemn it.
GBH: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal.

I believe that we can both concur?? on the following synopsis: "The practice of polygamy is not doctrinal."

If we can agree on that premise, then we are in agreement. If there is a conditional relative to that statement, I should like to hear it.

You are taking Hinkley out of context. He said the current practice of polygamy in not doctrinal

If you are saying that the "conditional" is based upon the time-wise reference: "current," then I shall have to ask if you believe that the practice of polygamy is necessary for exaltation in the Highest Glory of the Celestial Kingdom?

Context is key. King was asking Hinckley to condem those still practicing polygamy...he then did.

He clearly said that it was permitted...and then he saud God told them it was time to stop.

What kind of leaders would disavow/condem his predecessors conduct to CNN and not to the membership?
No, bro...imo you are clearly taking his words completely out of context.

Anyone can take two words out of a conversation and make it seem whatever they wish....like today's media

I do believe God has multiple wives. I hinge nothing on this belief though. It is what it is. I dont want multiple wives now or in heaven. I can't imagine having to deal with splitting my time with someone other than my wife. My ways are not God though...my thoughts are not God's thoughts. If you tear everything back...it seems, to my mind, God has multiple wives. I don't feel comfortable definitively declaring what's is or isn't required to enter the celestial(besides become one with Christ)
----
This is what our current prophets endorse


How can we explain polygamy when someone asks about it?
We believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is God’s standing law of marriage. But at various times throughout history, God has commanded certain people to practice plural marriage. In the Bible, for instance, we read about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others who were told to take multiple wives. Though we don’t know all of the reasons God might command people to practice plural marriage, one reason mentioned in the Book of Mormon is to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30)—or to increase the number of children born in the covenant.

It’s important to understand that plural marriage in the Church in the 19th century was revealed through the Lord’s prophets (see D&C 132), that it was regulated (people entered into it only by invitation or approval of Church leaders), and that women could choose freely whether to be in a plural marriage or not. Also, it’s worth mentioning that Church members’ acceptance of this practice was a great trial of their faith. It was never easy. It went against cultural norms, laws, and, often, their own personal desires.

Through revelation, the Church ended plural marriage around the turn of the 20th century (see Official Declaration 1). Nobody is authorized to practice it today.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng
----------

I don't believe it good practice to say the church refutes polygamy.

If you could have ask Hinckley what he meant...and he told you he meant what i just explained he said, would that change your views?
Im guessing it wouldn't.

This is what we SHOULD say in regards to polygamy:

You won’t find anyone in the Bible that was told by God to take on other wives. Abraham was told to by his wife. Isaac had one wife, Jacob was not told by God to take on a wife, and after his covenant with God he had but one wife, his original, and had no children with anyone else after . David, Solomon were also not told to take on extra wives, in fact the Kings of Israel were instructed not to multiply wives and David, Solomon, and “they of old” displeased God with these practices.

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

It wasn’t just a cure little denial and a wink. They insulted and attacked and destroyed any soul who dared slander the names of Joseph and Hyrum and dare try to steal the innocence of their daughters and their widows.

At the direction of Joseph and Hyrum and under the supervision of Emma, Elder Phelps was directed to write the “Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo”. Polygamist men who were guilty of these sins acted like they supported this. Joseph talked about traitors around him, God warned him of adulterers in his midst, somehow it escapes people that God and Joseph are constantly referring to people who accuse him and Hyrum of sin and spread this sexual deviancy.

The corruption of wickedness which manifested itself in such horrible deformity on the trial of Orsemus F. Bostwick last week for slandering President Hyrum Smith and the widows of the city of Nauvoo, has awakened all the kindly feelings of female benevolence, compassion and pity, for the softer sex to spread forth the mantle of charity to shield the characters of the virtuous mothers, wives, and daughters of Nauvoo from the blasting breath and poisonous touch of debauchers, vagabonds and rakes, who have jammed themselves into our city to offer strange fire at the shrine of infamy, disgrace, and degradation: as they and their kindred spirits have done in all the great cities throughout the world, corrupting their ways on the earth, and bringing women, poor defenceless women, in wretchedness and ruin.

As such ignoble blood now begins to stain the peacable habitants of the saints, and taint the free air of the only city in the world that pretends to work righteousness in union, as the sine qua non, for happiness, joy, and salvation: and as such ungodly wretches, burning or smarting with the sting of their own shame, have doubtless, transported with them, some of the miserable dupes of their licentousness, for the purpose of defiling the fame of this godly city: mildewing the honesty of our mothers, blasting the chastity of widows and wives, and corrupting the virtue of our unsuspecting daughters, it becomes us, in defence of our rights, for the glory of our fathers, for the honor of our mothers, for the happiness of our husbands, and for the welfare of our dear children, to rebuke such an outrage on the chastity of society: to thwart such a death blow at the hallowed marriage covenant: and to ward off such poisoned daggers from the hearts of our innocent daughters, for the honor of Nauvoo: and write with indellible ink upon every such villain: virtue perditorus! Beware of the wretch! and, so put in every virtuous woman's hand a rod, to scourge such tormentors of domestic felicity, with vengeance through the world: curse the man that preys upon female virtue! curse the man that slanders a woman! Let the righteous indignation of insulted innocence and virtue, spurn him from society: Let the dignity of the mothers of Israel kick the blood thirsty pimp from the pale of social communion. Let the widows and wives who tread in the footsteps of their queenly

mother Eve, drive such fag ends of creation, as was Cain, to the land of Nod, and let the timid daughters of Nauvoo dread such CANKER WORMS more than the pestillence that walketh in darkness, and shun them as the serpent on the land and the shark in the sea. My God! My God! is there not female virtue and valor enough in this city to let such men die of the rot:-that the sexton may carry their putrid bodies beyond the limits of the city for food, for vultures, eagles and wolves. Refuse them female courtesy; deny them the pleasure of family correspondence and family intercourse; curse the woman that speaks to such rotten flesh, if she knows who they are; curse the man that will harbor them; and curse the lawyer that will stoop from the dignity of his profession to plead for them; The apologizer is as mean as the murderer! Female virtue is a pearl of great price, and should glitter in the abodes of men, as in the mansions of bliss, for the glory and honor of him, whose image she bears and whose help meet she is, and every attempt of man to seduce that virtue, is, next to murder, a robbery that cannot be restored. If woman swerves from the rules of righteousness ‘Ruin ensues, reproach and shame; And one false step bedims her fame; In vain the loss she may deplore, In vain renew her life before’ With tears she must in anguish be ‘Till God says, ‘set that captive free’‘ Many of the distinguished females of Nauvoo, have waded to their present habituations through persecution, sorrow, and

death, robbed and insulted and bereaved of husbands and children by the combined powers, of priests, and spiritual wickedness in high places, but none of these piercing calamities of man touch the heart of woman with such severe poignancy, as the envenomed slander of O.F. Bostwick, that he could take a half bushel of meal, obtain his vile purpose, and get what accommodation he wanted with almost any woman in the city. Wo to the wretch that can thus follow the blood stained mobbers of Missouri, in their hellish career, and deal his slander about the streets of Nauvoo, as he may imagine with impunity. Wo to the man or lawyer that filthifies himself by advocating such rotten hearted raven’s rights, or recommends him to any but the sympathies of Satan. Has any man a mother in this city? honor says clear such rubbish from her door. Has any many a wife? benevolence whispers, trap such beasts of the field that they may not worry the flock, nor kill the lambs. Has any man a widowed mother? Humanity seems to caution him-thy mother is in danger, protect her, from the stench of such carrion. Has any man, daughters? the voice of reason compels him to exclaim: There is a wolf in the path, beware! Has any man, sisters? the blood of his kindred says, evil be to him that evil thinks: and let the whole virtuous female population of the city, with one voice, declare that the seducer of female chastity, the slanderer of female character, or the defamer of the character of the heads

of the church, or the canker worms of our husband’s peace: the prostitute, their pimps, whether in the character of elite, lawyer, doctor, or cicisbeo, shall have no place in our houses, in our affections, or in our society. Wherefore, Resolved unanimous, That Joseph Smith, the Mayor of the city, be tendered our thanks for the able and manly manner in which he defended injured innocence in the late trial of O.F. Bostwick for slandering President Hyrum Smith, and almost all the women of the city. Resolved unanimously, That we view with unequaled disapprobation and scorn the conduct of any man or woman, whether in word or deed, that reflects dishonor upon the poor persecuted mothers, widows, wives and daughters of the Saints of Nauvoo; they have borne aspersions, slander and hardships enough; forbearance has ceased to be a virtue and retaliation, like the dagger or the bowl, ought to close the lips of such cowardly assassins. Resolved unanimously, That while we render credence to the doctrines of Paul, that neither the man is without the woman; neither is the woman without the man in the Lord, yet we raise our voices and hands against John C. Bennett’s “spiritual wife system,” as a grand scheme of profligates to seduce women; and they that harp upon it, wish to make it popular for the convenience of their own cupidity; wherefore, while the marriage bed, undefiled is honorable,

And most importantly

let polygamy, bigamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop into the gulf of fallen nature, ‘where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched! And let all the saints say, Amen!

So it’s hilarious when people get offended when I equate polygamy to adultery. I’m only saying what Joseph and Hyrum said and supported, and what I say is far milder that what they had to say about the people who accused them of having sex with other women and taking on other wives.

[Ferrisbueller]

Definitely a prophet of God but was tempted and took advantage of his position when it came to materialistic things and stretched the truth to his advantage. Got things done by taking advantage of his powerful position. Kind of like a righteous tyrant. lol. A lot got done under his direction in building up Utah and surrounding areas.

[Thinker]

Joseph Smith did not practice Polygamy. He was not a liar. Your analysis is correct, Nightlight. Thank you for "thinking."

http://elliaison.org/forum/index.php?t= ... 3&start=0&

Who really knows?
A few posts...

“I was talking to a close friend the other day who believes in the Restoration, the Book of Mormon, etc. He is very disillusioned with the modern Church for various reasons. As I mentioned my difficulty reconciling plural marriage, he said "but there is no proof Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. There are affidavits in which he denied it. There are no contemporary documents from his lifetime." I didn't wish to argue the point, but I think he is wrong. To my thinking, his belief requires a conspiracy of epic proportions. Dozens of early Saints would have to have been in on the lie.

Still, let's just assume for a moment that he is correct. What are the implications for the modern Church? Would not Brigham Young and his successors have been adulterers, and thus unworthy to hold the Priesthood? What about eternal marriage? How do we separate the idea of eternal marriage from section 132, which clearly teaches plural marriage? Any other implications?”

“There is contemporary evidence to support Joseph's practice of polygamy. Not as much as some people would like, but the William Clayton journals are one piece, Cowdery's accusation in the Fanny Alger affair, Hyrum Smith comments. There are other evidences as well. All reputable historians that I'm aware of agree that Joseph practiced polygamy, I can't think of any reputable historians who don't agree that he practiced it.”

“If Joseph himself never practiced polygamy but we still had D&C 132 as a revelation from God as you state, then something would change...Joseph would have disobeyed God. And the results for him personally would be truly terrible. To receive a revelation from God a refuse to follow it? Bad results.”

[SmallFarm]

Only Christ is good.

[nightlight]

LK: You condemn it.
GBH: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal.

I believe that we can both concur?? on the following synopsis: "The practice of polygamy is not doctrinal."

If we can agree on that premise, then we are in agreement. If there is a conditional relative to that statement, I should like to hear it.

You are taking Hinkley out of context. He said the current practice of polygamy in not doctrinal

If you are saying that the "conditional" is based upon the time-wise reference: "current," then I shall have to ask if you believe that the practice of polygamy is necessary for exaltation in the Highest Glory of the Celestial Kingdom?

Context is key. King was asking Hinckley to condem those still practicing polygamy...he then did.

He clearly said that it was permitted...and then he saud God told them it was time to stop.

What kind of leaders would disavow/condem his predecessors conduct to CNN and not to the membership?
No, bro...imo you are clearly taking his words completely out of context.

Anyone can take two words out of a conversation and make it seem whatever they wish....like today's media

I do believe God has multiple wives. I hinge nothing on this belief though. It is what it is. I dont want multiple wives now or in heaven. I can't imagine having to deal with splitting my time with someone other than my wife. My ways are not God though...my thoughts are not God's thoughts. If you tear everything back...it seems, to my mind, God has multiple wives. I don't feel comfortable definitively declaring what's is or isn't required to enter the celestial(besides become one with Christ)
----
This is what our current prophets endorse


How can we explain polygamy when someone asks about it?
We believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is God’s standing law of marriage. But at various times throughout history, God has commanded certain people to practice plural marriage. In the Bible, for instance, we read about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others who were told to take multiple wives. Though we don’t know all of the reasons God might command people to practice plural marriage, one reason mentioned in the Book of Mormon is to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30)—or to increase the number of children born in the covenant.

It’s important to understand that plural marriage in the Church in the 19th century was revealed through the Lord’s prophets (see D&C 132), that it was regulated (people entered into it only by invitation or approval of Church leaders), and that women could choose freely whether to be in a plural marriage or not. Also, it’s worth mentioning that Church members’ acceptance of this practice was a great trial of their faith. It was never easy. It went against cultural norms, laws, and, often, their own personal desires.

Through revelation, the Church ended plural marriage around the turn of the 20th century (see Official Declaration 1). Nobody is authorized to practice it today.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng
----------

I don't believe it good practice to say the church refutes polygamy.

If you could have ask Hinckley what he meant...and he told you he meant what i just explained he said, would that change your views?
Im guessing it wouldn't.

This is what we SHOULD say in regards to polygamy:

You won’t find anyone in the Bible that was told by God to take on other wives. Abraham was told to by his wife. Isaac had one wife, Jacob was not told by God to take on a wife, and after his covenant with God he had but one wife, his original, and had no children with anyone else after . David, Solomon were also not told to take on extra wives, in fact the Kings of Israel were instructed not to multiply wives and David, Solomon, and “they of old” displeased God with these practices.

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

It wasn’t just a cure little denial and a wink. They insulted and attacked and destroyed any soul who dared slander the names of Joseph and Hyrum and dare try to steal the innocence of their daughters and their widows.

At the direction of Joseph and Hyrum and under the supervision of Emma, Elder Phelps was directed to write the “Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo”. Polygamist men who were guilty of these sins acted like they supported this. Joseph talked about traitors around him, God warned him of adulterers in his midst, somehow it escapes people that God and Joseph are constantly referring to people who accuse him and Hyrum of sin and spread this sexual deviancy.

The corruption of wickedness which manifested itself in such horrible deformity on the trial of Orsemus F. Bostwick last week for slandering President Hyrum Smith and the widows of the city of Nauvoo, has awakened all the kindly feelings of female benevolence, compassion and pity, for the softer sex to spread forth the mantle of charity to shield the characters of the virtuous mothers, wives, and daughters of Nauvoo from the blasting breath and poisonous touch of debauchers, vagabonds and rakes, who have jammed themselves into our city to offer strange fire at the shrine of infamy, disgrace, and degradation: as they and their kindred spirits have done in all the great cities throughout the world, corrupting their ways on the earth, and bringing women, poor defenceless women, in wretchedness and ruin.

As such ignoble blood now begins to stain the peacable habitants of the saints, and taint the free air of the only city in the world that pretends to work righteousness in union, as the sine qua non, for happiness, joy, and salvation: and as such ungodly wretches, burning or smarting with the sting of their own shame, have doubtless, transported with them, some of the miserable dupes of their licentousness, for the purpose of defiling the fame of this godly city: mildewing the honesty of our mothers, blasting the chastity of widows and wives, and corrupting the virtue of our unsuspecting daughters, it becomes us, in defence of our rights, for the glory of our fathers, for the honor of our mothers, for the happiness of our husbands, and for the welfare of our dear children, to rebuke such an outrage on the chastity of society: to thwart such a death blow at the hallowed marriage covenant: and to ward off such poisoned daggers from the hearts of our innocent daughters, for the honor of Nauvoo: and write with indellible ink upon every such villain: virtue perditorus! Beware of the wretch! and, so put in every virtuous woman's hand a rod, to scourge such tormentors of domestic felicity, with vengeance through the world: curse the man that preys upon female virtue! curse the man that slanders a woman! Let the righteous indignation of insulted innocence and virtue, spurn him from society: Let the dignity of the mothers of Israel kick the blood thirsty pimp from the pale of social communion. Let the widows and wives who tread in the footsteps of their queenly

mother Eve, drive such fag ends of creation, as was Cain, to the land of Nod, and let the timid daughters of Nauvoo dread such CANKER WORMS more than the pestillence that walketh in darkness, and shun them as the serpent on the land and the shark in the sea. My God! My God! is there not female virtue and valor enough in this city to let such men die of the rot:-that the sexton may carry their putrid bodies beyond the limits of the city for food, for vultures, eagles and wolves. Refuse them female courtesy; deny them the pleasure of family correspondence and family intercourse; curse the woman that speaks to such rotten flesh, if she knows who they are; curse the man that will harbor them; and curse the lawyer that will stoop from the dignity of his profession to plead for them; The apologizer is as mean as the murderer! Female virtue is a pearl of great price, and should glitter in the abodes of men, as in the mansions of bliss, for the glory and honor of him, whose image she bears and whose help meet she is, and every attempt of man to seduce that virtue, is, next to murder, a robbery that cannot be restored. If woman swerves from the rules of righteousness ‘Ruin ensues, reproach and shame; And one false step bedims her fame; In vain the loss she may deplore, In vain renew her life before’ With tears she must in anguish be ‘Till God says, ‘set that captive free’‘ Many of the distinguished females of Nauvoo, have waded to their present habituations through persecution, sorrow, and

death, robbed and insulted and bereaved of husbands and children by the combined powers, of priests, and spiritual wickedness in high places, but none of these piercing calamities of man touch the heart of woman with such severe poignancy, as the envenomed slander of O.F. Bostwick, that he could take a half bushel of meal, obtain his vile purpose, and get what accommodation he wanted with almost any woman in the city. Wo to the wretch that can thus follow the blood stained mobbers of Missouri, in their hellish career, and deal his slander about the streets of Nauvoo, as he may imagine with impunity. Wo to the man or lawyer that filthifies himself by advocating such rotten hearted raven’s rights, or recommends him to any but the sympathies of Satan. Has any man a mother in this city? honor says clear such rubbish from her door. Has any many a wife? benevolence whispers, trap such beasts of the field that they may not worry the flock, nor kill the lambs. Has any man a widowed mother? Humanity seems to caution him-thy mother is in danger, protect her, from the stench of such carrion. Has any man, daughters? the voice of reason compels him to exclaim: There is a wolf in the path, beware! Has any man, sisters? the blood of his kindred says, evil be to him that evil thinks: and let the whole virtuous female population of the city, with one voice, declare that the seducer of female chastity, the slanderer of female character, or the defamer of the character of the heads

of the church, or the canker worms of our husband’s peace: the prostitute, their pimps, whether in the character of elite, lawyer, doctor, or cicisbeo, shall have no place in our houses, in our affections, or in our society. Wherefore, Resolved unanimous, That Joseph Smith, the Mayor of the city, be tendered our thanks for the able and manly manner in which he defended injured innocence in the late trial of O.F. Bostwick for slandering President Hyrum Smith, and almost all the women of the city. Resolved unanimously, That we view with unequaled disapprobation and scorn the conduct of any man or woman, whether in word or deed, that reflects dishonor upon the poor persecuted mothers, widows, wives and daughters of the Saints of Nauvoo; they have borne aspersions, slander and hardships enough; forbearance has ceased to be a virtue and retaliation, like the dagger or the bowl, ought to close the lips of such cowardly assassins. Resolved unanimously, That while we render credence to the doctrines of Paul, that neither the man is without the woman; neither is the woman without the man in the Lord, yet we raise our voices and hands against John C. Bennett’s “spiritual wife system,” as a grand scheme of profligates to seduce women; and they that harp upon it, wish to make it popular for the convenience of their own cupidity; wherefore, while the marriage bed, undefiled is honorable,

And most importantly

let polygamy, bigamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop into the gulf of fallen nature, ‘where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched! And let all the saints say, Amen!

So it’s hilarious when people get offended when I equate polygamy to adultery. I’m only saying what Joseph and Hyrum said and supported, and what I say is far milder that what they had to say about the people who accused them of having sex with other women and taking on other wives.

Yes, those are good points that make me roll back my old thoughts of surety

I honestly don't know

[Zathura]

I believe that we can both concur?? on the following synopsis: "The practice of polygamy is not doctrinal."

If we can agree on that premise, then we are in agreement. If there is a conditional relative to that statement, I should like to hear it.



If you are saying that the "conditional" is based upon the time-wise reference: "current," then I shall have to ask if you believe that the practice of polygamy is necessary for exaltation in the Highest Glory of the Celestial Kingdom?

Context is key. King was asking Hinckley to condem those still practicing polygamy...he then did.

He clearly said that it was permitted...and then he saud God told them it was time to stop.

What kind of leaders would disavow/condem his predecessors conduct to CNN and not to the membership?
No, bro...imo you are clearly taking his words completely out of context.

Anyone can take two words out of a conversation and make it seem whatever they wish....like today's media

I do believe God has multiple wives. I hinge nothing on this belief though. It is what it is. I dont want multiple wives now or in heaven. I can't imagine having to deal with splitting my time with someone other than my wife. My ways are not God though...my thoughts are not God's thoughts. If you tear everything back...it seems, to my mind, God has multiple wives. I don't feel comfortable definitively declaring what's is or isn't required to enter the celestial(besides become one with Christ)
----
This is what our current prophets endorse


How can we explain polygamy when someone asks about it?
We believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is God’s standing law of marriage. But at various times throughout history, God has commanded certain people to practice plural marriage. In the Bible, for instance, we read about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others who were told to take multiple wives. Though we don’t know all of the reasons God might command people to practice plural marriage, one reason mentioned in the Book of Mormon is to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30)—or to increase the number of children born in the covenant.

It’s important to understand that plural marriage in the Church in the 19th century was revealed through the Lord’s prophets (see D&C 132), that it was regulated (people entered into it only by invitation or approval of Church leaders), and that women could choose freely whether to be in a plural marriage or not. Also, it’s worth mentioning that Church members’ acceptance of this practice was a great trial of their faith. It was never easy. It went against cultural norms, laws, and, often, their own personal desires.

Through revelation, the Church ended plural marriage around the turn of the 20th century (see Official Declaration 1). Nobody is authorized to practice it today.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng
----------

I don't believe it good practice to say the church refutes polygamy.

If you could have ask Hinckley what he meant...and he told you he meant what i just explained he said, would that change your views?
Im guessing it wouldn't.

This is what we SHOULD say in regards to polygamy:

You won’t find anyone in the Bible that was told by God to take on other wives. Abraham was told to by his wife. Isaac had one wife, Jacob was not told by God to take on a wife, and after his covenant with God he had but one wife, his original, and had no children with anyone else after . David, Solomon were also not told to take on extra wives, in fact the Kings of Israel were instructed not to multiply wives and David, Solomon, and “they of old” displeased God with these practices.

Supporters of polygamy might want to look up the various harsh names and adjectives used by Joseph and any Hyrum to describe those who accused them of polygamy. They told families to cut off men who taught such things, urged men not to house them, women not to be in their presence.

Called them wretches, “ignoble blood”, villain, bloodthirsty pimp, “fag ends of creation “, “let their putrid bodies be taken for food by vultures “.

It wasn’t just a cure little denial and a wink. They insulted and attacked and destroyed any soul who dared slander the names of Joseph and Hyrum and dare try to steal the innocence of their daughters and their widows.

At the direction of Joseph and Hyrum and under the supervision of Emma, Elder Phelps was directed to write the “Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo”. Polygamist men who were guilty of these sins acted like they supported this. Joseph talked about traitors around him, God warned him of adulterers in his midst, somehow it escapes people that God and Joseph are constantly referring to people who accuse him and Hyrum of sin and spread this sexual deviancy.

The corruption of wickedness which manifested itself in such horrible deformity on the trial of Orsemus F. Bostwick last week for slandering President Hyrum Smith and the widows of the city of Nauvoo, has awakened all the kindly feelings of female benevolence, compassion and pity, for the softer sex to spread forth the mantle of charity to shield the characters of the virtuous mothers, wives, and daughters of Nauvoo from the blasting breath and poisonous touch of debauchers, vagabonds and rakes, who have jammed themselves into our city to offer strange fire at the shrine of infamy, disgrace, and degradation: as they and their kindred spirits have done in all the great cities throughout the world, corrupting their ways on the earth, and bringing women, poor defenceless women, in wretchedness and ruin.

As such ignoble blood now begins to stain the peacable habitants of the saints, and taint the free air of the only city in the world that pretends to work righteousness in union, as the sine qua non, for happiness, joy, and salvation: and as such ungodly wretches, burning or smarting with the sting of their own shame, have doubtless, transported with them, some of the miserable dupes of their licentousness, for the purpose of defiling the fame of this godly city: mildewing the honesty of our mothers, blasting the chastity of widows and wives, and corrupting the virtue of our unsuspecting daughters, it becomes us, in defence of our rights, for the glory of our fathers, for the honor of our mothers, for the happiness of our husbands, and for the welfare of our dear children, to rebuke such an outrage on the chastity of society: to thwart such a death blow at the hallowed marriage covenant: and to ward off such poisoned daggers from the hearts of our innocent daughters, for the honor of Nauvoo: and write with indellible ink upon every such villain: virtue perditorus! Beware of the wretch! and, so put in every virtuous woman's hand a rod, to scourge such tormentors of domestic felicity, with vengeance through the world: curse the man that preys upon female virtue! curse the man that slanders a woman! Let the righteous indignation of insulted innocence and virtue, spurn him from society: Let the dignity of the mothers of Israel kick the blood thirsty pimp from the pale of social communion. Let the widows and wives who tread in the footsteps of their queenly

mother Eve, drive such fag ends of creation, as was Cain, to the land of Nod, and let the timid daughters of Nauvoo dread such CANKER WORMS more than the pestillence that walketh in darkness, and shun them as the serpent on the land and the shark in the sea. My God! My God! is there not female virtue and valor enough in this city to let such men die of the rot:-that the sexton may carry their putrid bodies beyond the limits of the city for food, for vultures, eagles and wolves. Refuse them female courtesy; deny them the pleasure of family correspondence and family intercourse; curse the woman that speaks to such rotten flesh, if she knows who they are; curse the man that will harbor them; and curse the lawyer that will stoop from the dignity of his profession to plead for them; The apologizer is as mean as the murderer! Female virtue is a pearl of great price, and should glitter in the abodes of men, as in the mansions of bliss, for the glory and honor of him, whose image she bears and whose help meet she is, and every attempt of man to seduce that virtue, is, next to murder, a robbery that cannot be restored. If woman swerves from the rules of righteousness ‘Ruin ensues, reproach and shame; And one false step bedims her fame; In vain the loss she may deplore, In vain renew her life before’ With tears she must in anguish be ‘Till God says, ‘set that captive free’‘ Many of the distinguished females of Nauvoo, have waded to their present habituations through persecution, sorrow, and

death, robbed and insulted and bereaved of husbands and children by the combined powers, of priests, and spiritual wickedness in high places, but none of these piercing calamities of man touch the heart of woman with such severe poignancy, as the envenomed slander of O.F. Bostwick, that he could take a half bushel of meal, obtain his vile purpose, and get what accommodation he wanted with almost any woman in the city. Wo to the wretch that can thus follow the blood stained mobbers of Missouri, in their hellish career, and deal his slander about the streets of Nauvoo, as he may imagine with impunity. Wo to the man or lawyer that filthifies himself by advocating such rotten hearted raven’s rights, or recommends him to any but the sympathies of Satan. Has any man a mother in this city? honor says clear such rubbish from her door. Has any many a wife? benevolence whispers, trap such beasts of the field that they may not worry the flock, nor kill the lambs. Has any man a widowed mother? Humanity seems to caution him-thy mother is in danger, protect her, from the stench of such carrion. Has any man, daughters? the voice of reason compels him to exclaim: There is a wolf in the path, beware! Has any man, sisters? the blood of his kindred says, evil be to him that evil thinks: and let the whole virtuous female population of the city, with one voice, declare that the seducer of female chastity, the slanderer of female character, or the defamer of the character of the heads

of the church, or the canker worms of our husband’s peace: the prostitute, their pimps, whether in the character of elite, lawyer, doctor, or cicisbeo, shall have no place in our houses, in our affections, or in our society. Wherefore, Resolved unanimous, That Joseph Smith, the Mayor of the city, be tendered our thanks for the able and manly manner in which he defended injured innocence in the late trial of O.F. Bostwick for slandering President Hyrum Smith, and almost all the women of the city. Resolved unanimously, That we view with unequaled disapprobation and scorn the conduct of any man or woman, whether in word or deed, that reflects dishonor upon the poor persecuted mothers, widows, wives and daughters of the Saints of Nauvoo; they have borne aspersions, slander and hardships enough; forbearance has ceased to be a virtue and retaliation, like the dagger or the bowl, ought to close the lips of such cowardly assassins. Resolved unanimously, That while we render credence to the doctrines of Paul, that neither the man is without the woman; neither is the woman without the man in the Lord, yet we raise our voices and hands against John C. Bennett’s “spiritual wife system,” as a grand scheme of profligates to seduce women; and they that harp upon it, wish to make it popular for the convenience of their own cupidity; wherefore, while the marriage bed, undefiled is honorable,

And most importantly

let polygamy, bigamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop into the gulf of fallen nature, ‘where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched! And let all the saints say, Amen!

So it’s hilarious when people get offended when I equate polygamy to adultery. I’m only saying what Joseph and Hyrum said and supported, and what I say is far milder that what they had to say about the people who accused them of having sex with other women and taking on other wives.

Yes, those are good points that make me roll back my old thoughts of surety

I honestly don't know

IMO, FEW, if any, actually Know. I don’t know, I just stick with where my investigation pointed .

The vast majority of people claiming they know one way or the other don’t actually know. In my opinion. “The spirit told me”

The Spirit likes to contradict itself on everything apparently.








Or people need to receive actual revelation. This includes myself.

[LukeAir2008]

Thank you, Stahura. I believe that Brigham was sincere. He did the things that he believed; however, I do think that he, like us, was subject to "misunderstanding" of some of the "advanced" topics that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught. I believe it had to do with somewhat of a "confirmation bias" of hearing only those things that he was presupposed to without understanding the "deeper" significance of what Joseph Smith intended.

It is very reasonable to assume that Micha_EL was a god on the Council of the Gods; however, He was not the Head God who convened the Council or chose the councilors. This was based on Heavenly Father's foreknowledge. Gabri_EL or Noah, was, also, present - as were others who would later "come down" and become "Dispensation Heads." I think that Brigham kinda got confused because Micha_EL was chosen to be "Adam" or the first.

Brigham kinda got obsessed with this "shedding of blood" to make atonement, thing. He, because of his strict view of "black and white," gave little platitude to "grace" and "mercy." He was an "eye for an eye" type of fellow. His boundaries were always very rigid and well defined. I would tend to think that he heard the Prophet Joseph say the following and took it to mean that Brigham was "sufficient" in his, sometimes, "not prone to correction" state:

The nearer man approaches perfection, the clearer are his views, and the greater his enjoyments, till he has overcome the evils of his life and lost every desire for sin. . . . But we consider that this is a station to which no man ever arrived in a moment: he must have been instructed in the government and laws of that kingdom by proper degrees, until his mind is capable in some measure of comprehending the propriety, justice, equality, and consistency of the same.

Certainly, Brigham could be characterized as "stalwart" and "tenacious," but I don't believe that the terms "considerate, meek, and humble" find a great deal of pronouncement in other's description of him.

The "Polygamy" idea has several roots. Certainly it is appealing to the "natural man" because of a "carnal base" toward "conquest" and "dominion." It was aggravated by the Cochranites and John C. Bennett with the characterization of "Spiritual Wifery." I can understand a gross misinterpretation of the power of "sealing" through the Priesthood and something else that the Prophet Joseph Smith said:

Again: The doctrine or sealing power of Elijah is as follows:—If you have power to seal on earth and in heaven, then we should be wise. The first thing you do, go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself, and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory, and go ahead, and not go back, but use a little wisdom, and seal all you can, and when you get to heaven tell your Father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven, according to his promise. I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal, and those that follow me and my counsel.

It was Joseph's desire to constitute an "Eternal Family." He advocated the "eternal chain" so that many would have opportunity to breach the "veils." If this were not understood in proper context, then it could be made into something very damning in the progression of many people; being a stumbling block of "self-gratification." This was NOT what Heavenly Father, nor Joseph intended. What ensued was neigh unto disaster for the Church because of the idea that it was a condition of exaltation . . . and, of course, man took it upon himself to make haste.

Joseph commissioned Brigham to record the Endowment. We did not receive it without additions. We know that . . . the early endowment included the "Oath of Vengeance" which was added to avenge the death of Joseph Smith. We do not know if there were other embellishments, because we only have Brigham's rendition, at this juncture. I suspect that other things were "added" and I am not privy at this time to know of any "omissions." I have further suspicions; however, I am to hold my tongue at this time.

Brigham would justify Brigham for his choices and actions. I find Brigham's character to be very rigid and uncompromising with regard to his viewpoints. He was not someone who could be easily taught, especially by someone that he considered his inferior. I love the man for what he did in being a "rock" upon which to accomplish an arduous task of uniting a broken, bewildered and frightened people after the death of the Prophet. He; however, was, also, a rough stone rolling that merited some polishing.

I’m always doubtful of people born nearly two centuries after Joseph claiming that they know more about what he was “really” teaching than Brigham Young who taught by Joseph directly in public meetings, with the twelve, and individually.

It just seems really convenient to put everything you don’t like about Joseph’s teachings on Brigham.

Brigham’s only crime was that he tried to teach and practice openly what Joseph had taught and practiced privately.

[BruceRGilbert]

Good Morning, Merry Christmas and God bless, everyone!

One of the hallmarks of the Savior's life was that He was true to His word. Amazingly, He practiced what He preached and it is resoundingly evident in the most painful chapter of His trial, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do!" Certainly, in great duress and pain, He did not falter to BE who He was in accordance to His WORD and teachings.

To hold up a Prophet that claimed to represent God and be His mouthpiece, on the one hand, and in the same breath advocate that his private "practice" was not aligned with his public "persona" is to condone and advocate "hypocrisy." If he, being the Prophet Joseph Smith, practiced deception and failed in one point, he failed in all - unless repentance was made. It boils down to credibility. How credible is a man who says one thing and does the opposite; says, "I don't have but one wife" and on the other hand has many in "secret?" I would not trust, believe or learn of such a man. I would not teach others that he saw the Father and the Son in vision, because he would have ruined his own credibility and would not have been found true and faithful.

We cannot have it, both ways. We cannot advocate hypocrisy, nor condone it. I find it a mockery before God to hold up a person as the "head of a Dispensation" who is not genuine, through and through. I would have you consider that. Many would take the word of supposed "witnesses" to be more credible than his own word. And so . . . we are left, no, . . . you are left, with a conundrum and paradox, where behavior is not aligned with profession; the words of his own mouth contradicting his "supposed" actions. I hold the Prophet Joseph Smith in higher regards than that. I believe that "an enemy" has sewn seeds of doubt about his persona in an attempt to undermine and ruin his credibility. I have reason to proclaim that this "work" has had heinous opposition from the very beginning and at almost every turn. It is no different, in my view, than what happened at the trial of the Savior, where every effort was made to find "someone" who could find a reason . . . .

I know that Joseph Smith was who he said he was. After going over the evidence of his divine calling and mission, I am astounded at the depths of his understanding, the consistency and "meshing" of his revelations with the "known" Word of God. I am absolutely amazed at the "revelatory" nature that is multiplied through the application of the "definitions" that he provided through scripture. I have found my mind inundated by insight by virtue of the "keys" of knowledge that he has provided FROM GOD. I cannot find it within myself to state that the man lied and practiced deception with respect to his faithfulness to his wife. For the life of me, I cannot and will not accept the word of "others" over his own. I prefer to stand on a firm foundation that he helped establish. I prefer to believe his spouse. I prefer to believe that he was so irate about the falsity of the "press" with regard to accusations of infidelity, that he, as the General of the Nauvoo Legion, had it silenced - ending up as the "germ" that carried him to Carthage.

[Allison]

Good Morning, Merry Christmas and God bless, everyone!

One of the hallmarks of the Savior's life was that He was true to His word. Amazingly, He practiced what He preached and it is resoundingly evident in the most painful chapter of His trial, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do!" Certainly, in great duress and pain, He did not falter to BE who He was in accordance to His WORD and teachings.

To hold up a Prophet that claimed to represent God and be His mouthpiece, on the one hand, and in the same breath advocate that his private "practice" was not aligned with his public "persona" is to condone and advocate "hypocrisy." If he, being the Prophet Joseph Smith, practiced deception and failed in one point, he failed in all - unless repentance was made. It boils down to credibility. How credible is a man who says one thing and does the opposite; says, "I don't have but one wife" and on the other hand has many in "secret?" I would not trust, believe or learn of such a man. I would not teach others that he saw the Father and the Son in vision, because he would have ruined his own credibility and would not have been found true and faithful.

We cannot have it, both ways. We cannot advocate hypocrisy, nor condone it. I find it a mockery before God to hold up a person as the "head of a Dispensation" who is not genuine, through and through. I would have you consider that. Many would take the word of supposed "witnesses" to be more credible than his own word. And so . . . we are left, no, . . . you are left, with a conundrum and paradox, where behavior is not aligned with profession; the words of his own mouth contradicting his "supposed" actions. I hold the Prophet Joseph Smith in higher regards than that. I believe that "an enemy" has sewn seeds of doubt about his persona in an attempt to undermine and ruin his credibility. I have reason to proclaim that this "work" has had heinous opposition from the very beginning and at almost every turn. It is no different, in my view, than what happened at the trial of the Savior, where every effort was made to find "someone" who could find a reason . . . .

I know that Joseph Smith was who he said he was. After going over the evidence of his divine calling and mission, I am astounded at the depths of his understanding, the consistency and "meshing" of his revelations with the "known" Word of God. I am absolutely amazed at the "revelatory" nature that is multiplied through the application of the "definitions" that he provided through scripture. I have found my mind inundated by insight by virtue of the "keys" of knowledge that he has provided FROM GOD. I cannot find it within myself to state that the man lied and practiced deception with respect to his faithfulness to his wife. For the life of me, I cannot and will not accept the word of "others" over his own. I prefer to stand on a firm foundation that he helped establish. I prefer to believe his spouse. I prefer to believe that he was so irate about the falsity of the "press" with regard to accusations of infidelity, that he, as the General of the Nauvoo Legion, had it silenced - ending up as the "germ" that carried him to Carthage.

Profoundly well said. My only disagreement might be that perhaps the claims were not made by some to undermine him, but to cover their own sins. Claiming to others that he had asked some to engage in the practice would have been the only way to legitimize it and get people hooked in. How many were innocently snookered into it, believing erroneously that they were following and supporting the prophet?

[NewEliza]

Both: He was a great leader as far as public relations is concerned. One of the best the church has ever had.
But he was absolutely horrid in his personal life. Let's face it, the widows weren't married to him for their sake, but so that he could acquire their land and property. No reason at all in Utah that he couldn't have pressed for a law saying women could keep their own land upon widowhood. Or did he? Even if one could excuse that part with the argument that the women weren't left destitute, there's no excuse for engaging in intercourse with multiple women and fathering over 50 kids.

His excellence as a father and husband to many has always been one of the things that has caused me to deeply admire him.

I agree, it is clear to me that people who think poorly of his familial relationships may not have read much about them. His children adored him and he was extremely devoted. He was home every night at 7 pm for family devotional. He was very good to his wives.

[NewEliza]

Replying to op:

Brigham was a very good man, not his first time on an earth I would guess, he will be with Joseph when Joseph returns, everything he taught was true.

How’s that

[LDS Watchman]

Just addressing the list of accusations you made against Brigham Young and calling a spade a spade

Matthias, I would prefer to characterize the things that I have pointed as something other than accusations. They are "identifications" of where the "train left the tracks" and have to do with some of the things which have had to be "reformed" in the Church by General Authorities later on. Adam-God has been refuted. Blood Atonement has been refuted. Polygamy has been refuted. Things have been removed from the Endowment . . . and more is to come. The ban on Priesthood has been revoked . . . and so, you see, these aren't necessarily new things that find their origination with me. I concur, that things need to be taken further . . . I am hopeful that they will.

I question what possible motive you would have to suggest that these are "accusations" when you, yourself, know that "reformation" has had to take place to remedy these things. I find it very curious. I would invite you to examine yourself in this regard.

Finally . . . and this is taking specific aim at a falsehood that continues to raise it's ugly head. POLYGAMY is NOT a requirement of exaltation in the Highest of the Celestial Realms.

I think referring to your list as accusations against Brigham Young is correct

ac·cu·sa·tion
noun
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

Just because the church has distanced itself from Adam-God, blood atonement, plural marriage, and the priesthood ban for blacks, doesn't mean that any of these teachings by Brigham Young have been refuted.

Adam-God has been disavowed by later authorities, but the legitimacy of the priesthood ban from 1852 to 1978 as well as the validity of plural marriage certainly have not been. I don't know about blood atonement. I think blood atonement has been explained away as fiery rhetoric that went a little to far, not sure.

I know that I am very direct and paint things pretty black and white. I know that rubs people the wrong way sometimes.

However, the reality is that if Brigham Young is guilty of teaching a completely false narrative of the nature of God, writing a false revelation and falsely attributing it to Joseph Smith so he could commit adultery and whoredoms and lead others to do so, teaching that murder is okay, adding Satanic oaths to the temple, and falsely banning an entire race from the priesthood because he was a racist bigot, then he would not be a true prophet or apostle. He would be a wicked man who led the church to hell.

And no the Lord did not tolerate David's many wives and never abandoned him. God gave David those wives and remained with him, up until he committed adultery and murder at which point David was cut off and ruin and sorrow came upon him and his household.

The same would have happened with Brigham if he did the evil you and many others claim he did.

[Zathura]

God gave David those wives and remained with him

Wrong.

God did not give him these wives, God was displeased with those wives

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

It was his murder that caused God to withdraw from David.

That's your problem to work out why you wrest the scriptures because the many possibilities scare you of what it would mean if Brigham Young made a mistake like David did.

The mere fact that you and Rick and Silas and everyone who defends polygamy constantly say the same thing: -That BY and everyone else would therefore be horrible sick and twisted liars and adulterers and servants of Satan -- Shows that you're all scared of the same thing. You're all scared that, if you accept this truth, then that puts the entire restoration in question for you. Instead of going down that road, you let the fear get to you, and you change the meaning of the scriptures, ignore others to match your own belief, and you let that unbelief rule.

Shed it. Shed the unbelief.

You engage in the exact fallacy that the rest of the world does all the time. Turn CNN on, you see the tactic you continually use over and over
An Appeal to the extreme

Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... o-Extremes

You choose to apply these terms to Brigham in the hypothetical situation in which he was wrong. You choose to say that the freaking world is over and Brigham is actually worse than Hitler and Satan would have control over the whole church.

That's but one possibility.

Again, we have precedence to draw from. You , Matthias, literally cannot claim that God was not displeased with David and Solomon's wives and concubines without lying. You can see the scripture, you can see that it explicitly calls David and Solomon's wives and concubines out. Don't lie, don't be dishonest.
In spite of these abominations(The Lord's words, not mine), the Lord did not abandon David. There's no reason to think he would have abandoned Brigham Young(unless you make an appeal to the extreme, which is what you do time and time again). Consider other possibilities, because there's a whole lot more than the single possibility that your tiny little mortal human mind has come up with.