Brigham: Good or Bad?

[Zathura]

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.

People don't even get what blood atonement was about, and yet they still try to defend it for the same reason you staunchly defend polygamy. They are scared to consider what it would mean if Brigham Young taught false doctrine. (because again, they too make an appeal to the extreme when discussing that hypothetical possibility)

It seems half those people conflate it with capitol punishment, when it literally has nothing to do with capitol punishment.

People make an appeal to a single , out of context scripture in the Old Testament in Numbers 25(Just like ya'll do with that one, single word "bosom" in 2 Samuel") of a story about a call called Phineas. If you are ignorant of the context, it might appear to prove Blood Atonement is a true doctrine. With context, it's obvious that Blood Atonement isn't shown to be true at all in that story.

The full story is needed here. I suspect you just read Fairmormon or something. They leave out the full picture. (I like Fairmormon, but they are VERY hit or miss)

The People as a WHOLE had begun to "commit harlotry with women of Moab". They invited people to make sacrifices to their foreign gods, they got people to eat and bow down to their foreign gods and Israel began to worship BAAL.

God became angry with Israel and literally cursed them with a plague that killed 24,000 people for their sins.

SO we have sexual sins and idolatry that the people as a whole are cursed for.
Balaam literally tried to curse israel with witchcraft and failed, so he found a different way to curse Israel. He got them to curse themselves with sin.
Revelation 2:14 clarifies and gives context. He told Balak to convince Israel to practice the aforementioned sins, and he was successful.

After all of that, then an Israelite "Presented to his brethren a woman in the sight of Moses and all the congregation of Israel. (Many bible commentaries point out that they were likely having sex in a tent literally at the door of the tabernacle). Phinease, not accepting that apparently all of the "congregation of the children of Israeal" had witnessed this, went into the tent and killed both of them, signifying to everyone who had witnessed that he(and by extension, GOD) would not accept this abomination.

Then was he rewarded,not because he stopped 2 individuals in the midst of committing adultery, but because his killing of those 2 served to stop widespread sexual sin and idolatry among the entire house of Israel. It was FAR MORE similar to Nephi killing Laban than the nonsense that Brigham was teaching.

[Zathura]

but the legitimacy of the priesthood ban from 1852 to 1978

There was no "legitimacy" behind the beginning of the ban to begin with. The people back then were racist, and no doubt the culture of the time gives Brigham an excuse for it in God's eyes.

[Zathura]

the validity of plural marriage certainly have not been

The validity of plural marriage was disavowed when the Lord commanded the Kings of Israel not to multiply wives.

Deuteronomy 17

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

disavowed again when plural marriage is used as an example of wickedness:

Mosiah 11
2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and aconcubines. And he did bcause his people to commit sin, and do that which was cabominable in the sight of the Lord.

and again

Ether 10

5 And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines,

and of course, the unavoidable Jacob 2, in which God declares there is no loophole(By telling you not to justify these wicked desires by pointing at David and Solomon and "they of old", for it is an abomination).

The only saving grace to this abomination is Section 132, which was supposedly written down by someone who had never before been trusted with such a responsibility, who chose to have a random store clerk copy that copy who had NEVER been involved in any church affairs at all, and then accuse Emma of burning the copy(Coming from the same people who claim Emma tried to murder Joseph TWICE. Yeah, right. Go ahead and believe that one). Then miraculously, 8 years after Joseph died and polygamous marriages and births EXPLODE(Gee, wonder why they didn't do it as much when he was alive?) this section comes forth saying Polygamy is Okay. Except, it has wording that, when analyzed, are nothing like the style of Joseph's writing, and, according to 2 witnesses, was altered to include polygamy, and, the only apparent times Hyrum and Joseph spake of this revelation, it again, had nothing to do with polygamy, only monogamy.

Not a strong case.

Oh, and probably the best of all, there is ZERO examples in any book of scripture in which God commands a man to have more than one wife. Zilch.
Brigham's form of polygamy didn't even involve God. He picked women he wanted whenever he wanted. That's it.

[MMbelieve]

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.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say that BY had no fall outs from his actions.

There is a fair chance that all this stuff is a test for us. Which then making sense of it or even black and white thinking about it is pretty pointless. There are lots of examples of different people in the scriptures and in our more modern histories, I really wouldn’t base my actions today (or my thoughts) on how they lived.

We need to simply learn what God wants of us and do that. I will not stand at the judgement bar and throw a single name out from history. It appears insincere. The examples in scriptures cannot be used as a justification, they are just examples. If God wants you to live polygamy someday then that’s the day you should be pro-polygamy. Until then it seems misplaced.

[MMbelieve]

the validity of plural marriage certainly have not been

The validity of plural marriage was disavowed when the Lord commanded the Kings of Israel not to multiply wives.

Deuteronomy 17

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

disavowed again when plural marriage is used as an example of wickedness:

Mosiah 11
2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and aconcubines. And he did bcause his people to commit sin, and do that which was cabominable in the sight of the Lord.

and again

Ether 10

5 And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines,

and of course, the unavoidable Jacob 2, in which God declares there is no loophole(By telling you not to justify these wicked desires by pointing at David and Solomon and "they of old", for it is an abomination).

The only saving grace to this abomination is Section 132, which was supposedly written down by someone who had never before been trusted with such a responsibility, who chose to have a random store clerk copy that copy who had NEVER been involved in any church affairs at all, and then accuse Emma of burning the copy(Coming from the same people who claim Emma tried to murder Joseph TWICE. Yeah, right. Go ahead and believe that one). Then miraculously, 8 years after Joseph died and polygamous marriages and births EXPLODE(Gee, wonder why they didn't do it as much when he was alive?) this section comes forth saying Polygamy is Okay. Except, it has wording that, when analyzed, are nothing like the style of Joseph's writing, and, according to 2 witnesses, was altered to include polygamy, and, the only apparent times Hyrum and Joseph spake of this revelation, it again, had nothing to do with polygamy, only monogamy.

Not a strong case.

Oh, and probably the best of all, there is ZERO examples in any book of scripture in which God commands a man to have more than one wife. Zilch.
Brigham's form of polygamy didn't even involve God. He picked women he wanted whenever he wanted. That's it.

I’m agreeing with you.
BY’s form of polygamy is distasteful to say the least. There is no way God (IMO) would run his Kingdom in such a manner. If he does then why would very many care to be there. He allowed women to move up the ranks of men based on priesthood and no divorce was ever needed. Why would any woman want a lesser man than the one who could guarantee her salvation? This teaching seems to have some lasting consequences today as well that is hurting the men who have to deal with it.

I really wish people could view people and actions of an older time as pertinent to the people who lived at that time. BY couldn’t make it in today’s world, he would be removed from leadership and that’s not saying or meaning that today’s people can’t handle the truth - it’s saying his truth doesn’t apply today. We should be progressing not looking back trying to justify staying in the past. Doctrine is what matters and it has been the same since the beginning. Polygamy is certainly not a doctrine of the church or it would be available to those who sought it out and no one would be excommunicated for it. Doctrine stays always and is available always.

[sandman45]

Only Christ is good.

Christ disagrees with you. Only God is good.

[LDS Watchman]

the validity of plural marriage certainly have not been

The validity of plural marriage was disavowed when the Lord commanded the Kings of Israel not to multiply wives.

Deuteronomy 17

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

disavowed again when plural marriage is used as an example of wickedness:

Mosiah 11
2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and aconcubines. And he did bcause his people to commit sin, and do that which was cabominable in the sight of the Lord.

and again

Ether 10

5 And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines,

and of course, the unavoidable Jacob 2, in which God declares there is no loophole(By telling you not to justify these wicked desires by pointing at David and Solomon and "they of old", for it is an abomination).

The only saving grace to this abomination is Section 132, which was supposedly written down by someone who had never before been trusted with such a responsibility, who chose to have a random store clerk copy that copy who had NEVER been involved in any church affairs at all, and then accuse Emma of burning the copy(Coming from the same people who claim Emma tried to murder Joseph TWICE. Yeah, right. Go ahead and believe that one). Then miraculously, 8 years after Joseph died and polygamous marriages and births EXPLODE(Gee, wonder why they didn't do it as much when he was alive?) this section comes forth saying Polygamy is Okay. Except, it has wording that, when analyzed, are nothing like the style of Joseph's writing, and, according to 2 witnesses, was altered to include polygamy, and, the only apparent times Hyrum and Joseph spake of this revelation, it again, had nothing to do with polygamy, only monogamy.

Not a strong case.

Oh, and probably the best of all, there is ZERO examples in any book of scripture in which God commands a man to have more than one wife. Zilch.
Brigham's form of polygamy didn't even involve God. He picked women he wanted whenever he wanted. That's it.

I won't bother making the counter arguments to each of your points again. I've made them mutiple times and there's no need to waste my time again.

Believe it or not I'm not in the least bit afraid of the narrative in which Brigham Young was a lying adulterer who committed whoredoms and led the church to hell.

I have seriously considered this narrative. It honestly makes no difference to me if Brigham Young was a true apostle and a righteousness man or a wicked wolf in sheeps clothing. The truth is what I care about.

After spending countless hours grappling over the issue through study, pondering, and prayer I'm convinced that plural marriage was indeed a command of God and that in the latter days it was started by Joseph Smith.

This is what makes sense to me and I'm at peace with this. I have no reason to defend polygamy other than that I sincerely believe it to be a true principle when commanded by God. My parents are both converts. I have no polygamous heritage to defend. I defend what I believe is the truth.

When it comes to polygamy in the church there are only 3 possibilities.

1) The narrative of the church is more or less true (D&C 132 is true and the early saints were justified in practicing it because God commanded them to).

2) Brigham made up or altered D&C 132. BY was a liar, adulterer, and whoremonger. Those who follower him west were led astray and the church has been in apostasy ever since or alternatively the RLDS have the truth and we don't.

3) Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and the church was in apostasy since Nauvoo. Alternatively the Rigdonites, Whitmerites, or some other group who didn't fall for polygamy has the truth and we don't.

This hybrid theory of yours, where the church could be committing whoredoms and be led by adulterers, whoremongers, and liars and still remain the Lord's just doesn't work. It is a dream. It can't be true.

I choose door number 1. You choose door number 2. Others choose door number 3.

Door number 1 has the most support from the scriptures and historical evidence in my opinion.

Door number 2 and 3 can also be supported by evidence and the scriptures, but it would require a conspiracy theory that is very hard to believe, one that includes Abraham and Jacob having committed whoredoms and abominations without a single word of rebuke from God in the scriptures.

Door number 3 can likewise be supported by the scriptures and evidence, but is again a major stretch in my opinion when the scriptures and historical evidence are taken as a whole.

[Silas]

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.

Okay so I see I got a direct call out.

Let me clarify a few things. There are a lot of ad hominems going on against anyone who doesn’t hate polygamy enough. And Stahura to be fair this isn’t directly responding to just what you’ve said here but the general extreme anti-polygamy crowd on here. I’m getting it all out here so I can just refer people back in the future.

I’m not a polygamist. I’m not even a monogamist for that matter. I don’t fantasize about one day becoming a polygamist. I’m still working myself up to try and become a monogamist again. What I fantasize about is living in a small house in the woods a million miles away from all human beings where I can fish and garden and read books all day and maybe one day when I’m old get eaten by a bear. Celibacy (voluntary thank you very much) is actually a wonderful thing in many ways. Unfortunately, the scriptures don’t support that lifestyle either.

All mainstream historians friendly anti or indifferent agree that Joseph Smith was a polygamist based on the overwhelming abundance of evidence to that fact. Journal entries from people who knew him, testimony of women married to him, testimony of people who were verifiably close to him who both loved and hated him. Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Oh but there aren’t any kids that we know of! Sorry using a lack of evidence to support a conclusion is fallacious reasoning. Oh but Joseph denied it! Yeah well he was obviously engaged in deception. Because of the mountains of evidence that he was doing it and teaching it. This is my final engagement with that debate.

I’m not the one who is scared of questioning the restoration. Because I’m not the one who says that polygamist always equals evil lecherous adulterer and servant of Satan. I don’t think that makes them evil. I don’t think that deception is always wrong in every instance. If I had to lie to save my own life or the lives of my family members I will. I’ll lie I’ll steal I’ll kill and I’ll go down with a clear conscience before God for it so long as I am legitimately protecting the innocent.

It’s the polygamy always equals evil crowd that is terrified that their logic forces them to bring Joseph under condemnation and that is why they ignore all contradictory evidence to force a conclusion that absolutely no serious scholar supports. If a source comes from a polygamist they are obviously lying (fallacious reasoning) if it comes from an anti they are lying. The only way to tell if they are being honest is if they agree with your position.

Here is the key take away for why this idea of me being scared is nonsense. If it could somehow be proved that Joseph was actually a monogamist (I don’t believe it can be) then I’m still good with the restoration. Book of Mormon is still true. Faith and Repentance still works for me. I’m still good with the restoration either way. But if the anti polygamist were capable of actually looking at the evidence that everyone else has that obviously proves them wrong then they would have to denounce Joseph and call him an adulterer and everything else.

Maybe instead of saying that the only reason I disagree is because of a secret sexual fantasy (no reason to be secret. I would actually gain social status by not practicing chastity. Leaving the church and having multiple sexual partners would be the easiest thing in the world to do. They’ve got apps for that now.) Or saying that I reject the scriptures (I don’t, just your interpretation of them) you could have a tiny bit of charity and just say that we disagree.

Here is what I believe. Section 132 is scripture. I’ve heard your arguments thanks I don’t accept them. Plural marriage is very clearly practiced throughout the Bible by many godly men held up as examples and the Bible speaks not one word of condemnation against these men for it. Section 132 is also our scriptural source for eternal monogamist marriage sealings and hence the doctrine of eternal marriage and families.

I can see your interpretation of Jacob 2. I understand it. But because I put it in the context of other revelations I see that it doesn’t fit. We have a disagreement about what that scripture means. That’s fine. Have your opinion. I really don’t care. But don’t anyone bother me with calling me afraid or unfaithful or perverted because I don’t agree with how you interpret the scriptures. This is not how you win friends or influence people. Maybe I am those things. Maybe I’m not. Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with your argument or mine and that’s why it’s ad hominem and logically fallacious and why all thinking people should reject it as nonsense.

If you want to come at me just remember I’m okay with the Old Testament. You aren’t going to guilt trip or scandalize me into agreeing with you. I support Moses destroying the midianites. I think that was a good thing he did. If God says kill them all then kill them all. Even though they were forbidden from killing previously and the women and children probably hadn’t really done anything wrong. I get that the scriptures appear to have some contradictions. I still believe them. I’ve figured out some of those contradictions to my own satisfaction and I assume I will sort out the rest in time.

The revelations teach plural marriage. The Book of Mormon condemns it. I understand that looks like a contradiction. But I’m good with it.

I believe that Brigham and Joseph were both polygamist and both holy men called of God. We can disagree on that. I don’t care. But so far everyone who has attempted to get me to dislike Brigham has only made me love him more. All you anti polygamy people can take your fallacious reasoning, your name calling, and your holier than thou scriptural interpretations somewhere else, cause I’m just throwing you on my foe list after this.

Disagree with me if you want. But once you try to get in my head and question my motives for disagreeing with you then I’m done with it. I demand basic respect if you wish to engage in conversation with me. If you wouldn’t say it to me at my dinner table in my home then I won’t tolerate it here. I’ll just ban you from my view and never worry about it again.

[LDS Watchman]

but the legitimacy of the priesthood ban from 1852 to 1978

There was no "legitimacy" behind the beginning of the ban to begin with. The people back then were racist, and no doubt the culture of the time gives Brigham an excuse for it in God's eyes.

Abraham 1 and Moses 7

Joseph Smith supported slavery during the Missouri days, taught that blacks were descendants of Ham and Cain, and that blacks should be strictly confined to their own species.

Two eye witnesses later attested that Joseph had told them that it was wrong for blacks to have the priesthood.

[Sirius]

Only Christ is good.

That's not true at all.

[nightlight]

Only Christ is good.

That's not true at all.

Yes, the Second Comforter makes this thing possible.
Though, imo, BY didn't achieve this apex in this life.

If you really think a women can leave her husband for one higher in the Priesthood.....................................if you think we should have our black brothers and sisters as slaves...............etc etc etc etc

BY began to err in doctrine; hence, the decline of the saints....hence, today....

Lol i get you guys say, " it was misunderstood, what he was saying, if a women was ment for certian man and she was led into a marriage not of god...blah blah blah " , or "Abraham had slaves!!!??, blah blah blah"....or " the blood atonment is throughout the OT, blahs blah blah"

No bro....the fruit of a apex apostle is
" Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. "

In our world...the blind still don't see, the lame still don't walk, the possesed still lay in bondage.

Yet all I hear...is "hush hush child, only the wicked seek the fruit that Kingdom has come, these thing are done, but only in the secret chambers...."

Or they claim its because the world is not enough for the "secret&holy " events. This is false, it is us who are not enough.

We look to chemotherapy and therapist to heal our sick and cast out the unclean spirit

[Zathura]

but the legitimacy of the priesthood ban from 1852 to 1978

There was no "legitimacy" behind the beginning of the ban to begin with. The people back then were racist, and no doubt the culture of the time gives Brigham an excuse for it in God's eyes.

Abraham 1 and Moses 7

Joseph Smith supported slavery during the Missouri days, taught that blacks were descendants of Ham and Cain, and that blacks should be strictly confined to their own species.

Two eye witnesses later attested that Joseph had told them that it was wrong for blacks to have the priesthood.

And inconveniently for you, there are even more witnesses showing that Joseph had the opposite stance, was an abolitionist, and was proven to have ordained the first black man in Church History. For awhile, it was only an unproven claim, then, once proven, defenders of Brigham shifted goalposts by trying to claim Mr. Abel isn't even black, even though Brigham's racist announcement initially challenged Elijah's "right to the priesthood", was limited in the tasks he could reform because of his skin color, and was discriminated against by society everywhere he went because he was a quarter black man.

Always shifting goal posts, always adjusting stances, refusing to give in.

It was a racist ban, and trying to shift responsibility for who initiated it or trying to remove all blame on Brigham by claiming it was Joseph who started everything doesn't change a thing. It was a racist ban, no revelation EVER came to start the ban, but proper revelation DID come to end the ban.

Church leaders were so stubborn to accept that Brigham was wrong.

You know the funniest part? One of the main catalysts for the reversal of the ban was when Mark E Peterson approached the President of the Church and said that it appeared that there was a strong argument that BRIGHAM YOUNG, and NOT JOSEPH SMITH had started the ban, and apparently that was grounds for revisiting the topic.

Kinda when Talmage went to compile a book with ONLY the doctrine of the Church revealed through Joseph Smith in D&C and he left out Section 132.... literally because there was an actual belief that it may have come from BY instead of JosephSmith. Inconvenient truths that are ignored. Angry Brigham fanboys freaked out and got Heber J Grant to ask Talmage to pull back the book.

That one is REALLY inconvenient, eh? Sorry man. I look forward to where the goal post shifts next. Some obscure Old Testament scripture perhaps?

[Zathura]

The most ironic thing about all of this, is that defenders of Brigham Young refuse to consider that he may have been wrong on so many things because that would mean that potentially he and others misguided the church, and yet, it seems half of these staunch defenders of Brigham have no problem claiming that modern Church leaders are misguiding the Church?

I'm missing the logic. It's a world breaking thought that maybe Presidents 2-6 misguided the church, but Presidents 6+ misleading us isn't a big deal?

It's beyond me how easily one can think that modern Church leaders are apostate false prophets and then freak out at the mention that Brigham might be wrong, claiming that such a belief would mean that Brigham might be an apostate false prophet. Such a possibility doesn't bother you in 2019.. but the possibility of that being true in 1850 bothers you? I just.. I don't get it. Beyond anything else, inconsistency bothers me.

[SmallFarm]

Only Christ is good.

That's not true at all.

We all fall short and require redemption

[Mindfields]

The idea that the church completely went off the rails after the traitorous murder of Joseph and Hyrum is hard to fathom. How could God allow such a thing? Well the truth is he allows us to do as we please in small things and great things. That's what free agency means. And no, he didn't help you find your car keys.

[Silas]

The most ironic thing about all of this, is that defenders of Brigham Young refuse to consider that he may have been wrong on so many things because that would mean that potentially he and others misguided the church, and yet, it seems half of these staunch defenders of Brigham have no problem claiming that modern Church leaders are misguiding the Church?

I'm missing the logic. It's a world breaking thought that maybe Presidents 2-6 misguided the church, but Presidents 6+ misleading us isn't a big deal?

It's beyond me how easily one can think that modern Church leaders are apostate false prophets and then freak out at the mention that Brigham might be wrong, claiming that such a belief would mean that Brigham might be an apostate false prophet. Such a possibility doesn't bother you in 2019.. but the possibility of that being true in 1850 bothers you? I just.. I don't get it. Beyond anything else, inconsistency bothers me.

Because someone comes to a different conclusion than you do doesn’t mean they haven’t considered the same question. I’m actually quite comfortable with the idea that Brigham got some things wrong. Although i likely disagree about what those things are specifically.

The relative position in time between myself and another man has absolutely no bearing on whether they are right or wrong. If Brigham was wrong he was wrong. If Nelson is wrong he is wrong.

Given that people who accept Brigham as a legitimate prophet of God and not an adulterous servant of Satan includes all other modern prophets and apostles since him it’s not like we are actually at odds with the modern church.

Just a friendly reminder that liking Brigham Young doesn’t mean you are a fundamentalist. That is still very accepted in the church.

[nightlight]

The idea that the church completely went off the rails after the traitorous murder of Joseph and Hyrum is hard to fathom. How could God allow such a thing? Well the truth is he allows us to do as we please in small things and great things. That's what free agency means. And no, he didn't help you find your car keys.

Duh bro....that was my dead Grammy who found my keys

[Allison]

but the legitimacy of the priesthood ban from 1852 to 1978

There was no "legitimacy" behind the beginning of the ban to begin with. The people back then were racist, and no doubt the culture of the time gives Brigham an excuse for it in God's eyes.

Abraham 1 and Moses 7

Joseph Smith supported slavery during the Missouri days, taught that blacks were descendants of Ham and Cain, and that blacks should be strictly confined to their own species.

Two eye witnesses later attested that Joseph had told them that it was wrong for blacks to have the priesthood.

And inconveniently for you, there are even more witnesses showing that Joseph had the opposite stance, was an abolitionist, and was proven to have ordained the first black man in Church History. For awhile, it was only an unproven claim, then, once proven, defenders of Brigham shifted goalposts by trying to claim Mr. Abel isn't even black, even though Brigham's racist announcement initially challenged Elijah's "right to the priesthood", was limited in the tasks he could reform because of his skin color, and was discriminated against by society everywhere he went because he was a quarter black man.

Always shifting goal posts, always adjusting stances, refusing to give in.

It was a racist ban, and trying to shift responsibility for who initiated it or trying to remove all blame on Brigham by claiming it was Joseph who started everything doesn't change a thing. It was a racist ban, no revelation EVER came to start the ban, but proper revelation DID come to end the ban.

Church leaders were so stubborn to accept that Brigham was wrong.

You know the funniest part? One of the main catalysts for the reversal of the ban was when Mark E Peterson approached the President of the Church and said that it appeared that there was a strong argument that BRIGHAM YOUNG, and NOT JOSEPH SMITH had started the ban, and apparently that was grounds for revisiting the topic.

Kinda when Talmage went to compile a book with ONLY the doctrine of the Church revealed through Joseph Smith in D&C and he left out Section 132.... literally because there was an actual belief that it may have come from BY instead of JosephSmith. Inconvenient truths that are ignored. Angry Brigham fanboys freaked out and got Heber J Grant to ask Talmage to pull back the book.

That one is REALLY inconvenient, eh? Sorry man. I look forward to where the goal post shifts next. Some obscure Old Testament scripture perhaps?

What’s the book? I want to get it!

[Zathura]

There was no "legitimacy" behind the beginning of the ban to begin with. The people back then were racist, and no doubt the culture of the time gives Brigham an excuse for it in God's eyes.

Abraham 1 and Moses 7

Joseph Smith supported slavery during the Missouri days, taught that blacks were descendants of Ham and Cain, and that blacks should be strictly confined to their own species.

Two eye witnesses later attested that Joseph had told them that it was wrong for blacks to have the priesthood.

And inconveniently for you, there are even more witnesses showing that Joseph had the opposite stance, was an abolitionist, and was proven to have ordained the first black man in Church History. For awhile, it was only an unproven claim, then, once proven, defenders of Brigham shifted goalposts by trying to claim Mr. Abel isn't even black, even though Brigham's racist announcement initially challenged Elijah's "right to the priesthood", was limited in the tasks he could reform because of his skin color, and was discriminated against by society everywhere he went because he was a quarter black man.

Always shifting goal posts, always adjusting stances, refusing to give in.

It was a racist ban, and trying to shift responsibility for who initiated it or trying to remove all blame on Brigham by claiming it was Joseph who started everything doesn't change a thing. It was a racist ban, no revelation EVER came to start the ban, but proper revelation DID come to end the ban.

Church leaders were so stubborn to accept that Brigham was wrong.

You know the funniest part? One of the main catalysts for the reversal of the ban was when Mark E Peterson approached the President of the Church and said that it appeared that there was a strong argument that BRIGHAM YOUNG, and NOT JOSEPH SMITH had started the ban, and apparently that was grounds for revisiting the topic.

Kinda when Talmage went to compile a book with ONLY the doctrine of the Church revealed through Joseph Smith in D&C and he left out Section 132.... literally because there was an actual belief that it may have come from BY instead of JosephSmith. Inconvenient truths that are ignored. Angry Brigham fanboys freaked out and got Heber J Grant to ask Talmage to pull back the book.

That one is REALLY inconvenient, eh? Sorry man. I look forward to where the goal post shifts next. Some obscure Old Testament scripture perhaps?

What’s the book? I want to get it!

Far as I can tell, any copy you find will be $100+

It's called:
Latter-Day Revelation: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants - 1930

Under the Direction of the First Presidency authored a book called "Latter-day Revelation", in which they included only sections that were the "Word of the Lord" given through the First Elder and Prophet in this present dispensation.. The point I am making is that the exclusion of 132 would indicate that it was not regarded as being "Word of the Lord" given through Joseph Smith.

Anyways, if you get your hands one one let me know what you think lol.

[Art Vandelay]

Polygamy was a big no-no in 1914 thus any relevance in 1930 wouldn't really be doctrinal as it was excommunicable. The story is the same today. It's in the scriptures, just like it's in the scriptures that the Prophet Nathan gave David polygamous relationships but if you practiced it right now you'd get a big hefty boot to your backside from the church flinging you far away.

[Zathura]

Polygamy was a big no-no in 1914 thus any relevance in 1930 wouldn't really be doctrinal as it was excommunicable. The story is the same today. It's in the scriptures, just like it's in the scriptures that the Prophet Nathan gave David polygamous relationships but if you practiced it right now you'd get a big hefty boot to your backside from the church flinging you far away.

The Book wasn’t including just “currently doctrinal” stuff .besides I thought polygamy was an “Eternal Principle”. It was including revelations that came through Joseph. 132 was excluded. Good for them.

And no, David was not given polygamous relationships. The women were delivered into his care. God did not take the actual wives of one man and give them to David to have sex with.

W
R
E
S
T
I
N
G

[LDS Watchman]

but the legitimacy of the priesthood ban from 1852 to 1978

There was no "legitimacy" behind the beginning of the ban to begin with. The people back then were racist, and no doubt the culture of the time gives Brigham an excuse for it in God's eyes.

Abraham 1 and Moses 7

Joseph Smith supported slavery during the Missouri days, taught that blacks were descendants of Ham and Cain, and that blacks should be strictly confined to their own species.

Two eye witnesses later attested that Joseph had told them that it was wrong for blacks to have the priesthood.

And inconveniently for you, there are even more witnesses showing that Joseph had the opposite stance, was an abolitionist, and was proven to have ordained the first black man in Church History. For awhile, it was only an unproven claim, then, once proven, defenders of Brigham shifted goalposts by trying to claim Mr. Abel isn't even black, even though Brigham's racist announcement initially challenged Elijah's "right to the priesthood", was limited in the tasks he could reform because of his skin color, and was discriminated against by society everywhere he went because he was a quarter black man.

Always shifting goal posts, always adjusting stances, refusing to give in.

It was a racist ban, and trying to shift responsibility for who initiated it or trying to remove all blame on Brigham by claiming it was Joseph who started everything doesn't change a thing. It was a racist ban, no revelation EVER came to start the ban, but proper revelation DID come to end the ban.

Church leaders were so stubborn to accept that Brigham was wrong.

You know the funniest part? One of the main catalysts for the reversal of the ban was when Mark E Peterson approached the President of the Church and said that it appeared that there was a strong argument that BRIGHAM YOUNG, and NOT JOSEPH SMITH had started the ban, and apparently that was grounds for revisiting the topic.

Kinda when Talmage went to compile a book with ONLY the doctrine of the Church revealed through Joseph Smith in D&C and he left out Section 132.... literally because there was an actual belief that it may have come from BY instead of JosephSmith. Inconvenient truths that are ignored. Angry Brigham fanboys freaked out and got Heber J Grant to ask Talmage to pull back the book.

That one is REALLY inconvenient, eh? Sorry man. I look forward to where the goal post shifts next. Some obscure Old Testament scripture perhaps?

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Joseph Smith did not ordain Elijah Abel to the priesthood. This claim is a lie. Only one second hand source attributes the ordination to Joseph and its very sketchy. Another elder ordained him, not Joseph.

Elijah Abel was 1/8 black. No one has ever said that he wasn't black. People knew he was black, but the fact that he was only 1/8 black does explain why he may have been erroneously ordained to the priesthood. He's not a normal case. That's the point.

Zebedee Coltrin, who had seen God the Father and Jesus Christ in the school of the prophets, testified to John Taylor that Joseph had taken the priesthood from Elijah Abel after receiving the word of the Lord on it through the Holy Ghost after being asked about it by two elders.

Joseph Smith was no abolitionist. He had no problem with keeping the blacks as slaves, and he certainly wouldn't stand for blacks and whites mixing.

Now you can claim Joseph was a racist, too. Fine. Who's next on your list of racists, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Nephi, Isaac, Jacob, Christ? All of them are racists by today's jacked up standards.

You brought up the 1978 "revelation." That actually does more harm than good to your bogus position.

The declaration of the "revelation" actually upholds the priesthood ban as being from God.

Here lets read the relevant parts:

"June 8, 1978

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."

Nothing in here suggests the ban was wrong. In fact it says the opposite. President Kimball declared that the long awaited day had come that the promises made by earlier leaders (aka Brigham Young) had finally come and that blacks would now be permitted by God to receive the priesthood.

As for that little book of edited revelations Heber J. Grant was trying to put together to replace the D&C, you've got it all wrong.

There was a huge backlash to editing the revelations and removing a bunch of them so he was forced to scrap it. He wasn't removing revelations that didn't come from Joseph Smith as you claim. Most of what he was removing absolutely came from Joseph Smith.

You know why he tried to remove D&C 132?

He tried to remove it because he was in the middle of a witch hunt against fundamentalists who were still secretly teaching and/or practicing polygamy and D&C 132 was a thorn in his side.

I have never shifted the goal post. It is you who keep shifting it.

Let me remind you of one such shift real quick.

The other day you got all worked up about someone calling you an anti-Mormon and started ranting and railing about how you defend the church on every point but plural marriage. Sound familiar?

Now it turns out you are attacking the churches narrative on blacks and the priesthood, too.

What's your next goal post buddy?

You've already rejected D&C 132. What's next Abraham 1 and Moses 7? How about Declaration 2? How about the verses in Matthew were Jesus calls a black woman a dog? I can give you lots more scriptures to tear out of your quad, so you can better defend modern feminism and multiculturalism if you want.

How about the verses about husbands ruling over their wives?

How about the verses about two of the most righteous men to walk the earth, Abraham and Jacob, having more than one wife?

How about the verses about God giving David his wives and then taking them away after the Bathsheba and Uriah incident and giving them to his neighbor who would sleep with them under the sun?

If we tear all these out then your narrative actually might work.

I see now why you and I disagree so much. I believe all of the scriptures, while you want to pick and choose which ones you believe.

[LDS Watchman]

The most ironic thing about all of this, is that defenders of Brigham Young refuse to consider that he may have been wrong on so many things because that would mean that potentially he and others misguided the church, and yet, it seems half of these staunch defenders of Brigham have no problem claiming that modern Church leaders are misguiding the Church?

I'm missing the logic. It's a world breaking thought that maybe Presidents 2-6 misguided the church, but Presidents 6+ misleading us isn't a big deal?

It's beyond me how easily one can think that modern Church leaders are apostate false prophets and then freak out at the mention that Brigham might be wrong, claiming that such a belief would mean that Brigham might be an apostate false prophet. Such a possibility doesn't bother you in 2019.. but the possibility of that being true in 1850 bothers you? I just.. I don't get it. Beyond anything else, inconsistency bothers me.

I don't think you understand my views on Brigham Young and the other early church presidents.

I absolutely believe that they not only could make mistakes, but actually did. Serious mistakes even.

I don't believe it was right for them to start taking a salary and exempting themselves from paying tithing.

I don't believe it was right to reduce the Aaronic priesthood quorums to a youth program.

I don't believe it was right to make stained glass depictions of God the Father and Jesus Christ in chapels (or anywhere).

I don't believe some of the things they taught from the pulpit, either.

Just to name a few examples.

The apostasy began under Brigham's watch in my opinion. But in those days it was just the first steps.

The real corruption began in ernest following the capitulation to the US government in the 1890s. No more plural marriage. No more united order. No more church political party. No more temporal kingdom of God.

Then the sealing ordinances were changed. The law of adoption was replaced with "families are forever."

More changes to the temple ordinances would follow in the 1920s and afterwards.

Since that time the church has slowly evolved more and more. Now 100 years later we are were are.

I'm not being inconsistent at all. If Brigham Young was the lying, sex crazed, power hungry, scoundrel people make him out to be then the keys were lost back then.

What's inconsistent is claiming Brigham Young did all this evil and introduced all these heresies into the church and then defending the truthfulness of the church and the legitimacy of his successors today.

[simpleton]

The most ironic thing about all of this, is that defenders of Brigham Young refuse to consider that he may have been wrong on so many things because that would mean that potentially he and others misguided the church, and yet, it seems half of these staunch defenders of Brigham have no problem claiming that modern Church leaders are misguiding the Church?

I'm missing the logic. It's a world breaking thought that maybe Presidents 2-6 misguided the church, but Presidents 6+ misleading us isn't a big deal?

It's beyond me how easily one can think that modern Church leaders are apostate false prophets and then freak out at the mention that Brigham might be wrong, claiming that such a belief would mean that Brigham might be an apostate false prophet. Such a possibility doesn't bother you in 2019.. but the possibility of that being true in 1850 bothers you? I just.. I don't get it. Beyond anything else, inconsistency bothers me.

Very easy to comprehend, BY, JT, WW, LS all knew Joseph Smith personally and studied under him and were taught by him. The BY you talk about and object to, is not the BY I've learned about. But that is your privilege. Your BY does not fit your "politically correct" idea of a prophet today. Brigham Young personally knew more about Joseph Smith and his doctrine and understood Joseph more than you ever will. Because IMO, you have rejected certain requisite gospel doctrines/tenets required to advance in the KofG. BY definitely made mistakes, like all men do, but what you call errors in doctrine, are not errors at all, but rather you have closed your mind to them along with many others.
I'll say it again, BY had more light in an hour than you and I and every single basher of his character will ever have in our lifetime. He was right on CPM, the priesthood ban, the Adam/God doctrine, Blood Atonement etc.
Go ahead make him an "offender for a word", you may not ever find out in this life or even the next, but BY died in the faith, faithful to God, faithful to Joseph, and faithful to the eternal truths of God. He was a man who did more for the cause of God than you and I ever will.
As far as today, look at our fruits, they are disturbing to say the least. We have strayed so far away from what Joseph revealed and taught it is almost unrecognizable. Although the BofM still stands, thank God.
BY was and is still a faithful servant of Jesus Christ, and all those that mock and belittle BY are simply doing the same thing to Jesus Christ Himself. If Jesus Christ was to come among us today, we would rail against Him also, because we hate His laws. And our fruits show it. Just like Jesus told His disciples, if they hated me, they will hate you. And so it is with BY, those that hate BY, also hate Jesus, because they both are "One", and preached the same gospel.
This should bring out some more frothing of the mouth....

[BruceRGilbert]

A Reformation and "pruning" has been in process and must take place in order for the Restoration to continue. It began years, ago and it is continuing; hastening under the direction of President Nelson. The "proper" name of the Church has been restored and the "Endowment" is in process of being "fixed." The Condemnation can be lifted and things can proceed as we get back on course.