LDS Freedom Forum

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 10:58 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:30 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:18 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 7:47 pm


Sure, other people have been dismissive and not open minded... Your problem, Matthias, is that you seem to believe that you aren't guilty of the same thing. Your post right here proves it.. You've constantly shown that you believe your points are the only valid ones when it comes to this topic. You accuse others of dismissing any evidence you provide but you are guilty of the same exact thing. I can't think of one time that I've provided information on this topic that you didn't shrug off as totally inconsequential.

Stop acting like this is a settled matter and at least admit that there is plenty of room to question and even doubt the mainstream narrative. Then real dialogue can ensue.

My head's not in the sand, as you say... I know you have valid points, even believable ones, as I've believed as you do for my entire adult life, up until about three years ago... So you really shouldn't be so insulting...

Cab,

I don't think I've ever dismissed any evidence you have presented out of hand. I have gone to great lengths to carefully look at each and every point you and others have brought up and have then compared that to what the scriptures say, other known evidence, and logic.

For example I carefully looked at the spiritual wivery of the Cochranites and John C. Bennett to see what connection, if any, there was to the practice of Celestial plural marriage and could find virtually none.

I looked at the cherry picked quote you and others have shared where Joseph supposedly denied plural marriage. I put it back in context and showed that Joseph didn't say what you insist he said and that his public denials would not have made him a liar if he was in fact secretly teaching and practicing plural marriage.

That's not waving evidence away. That's weighing the evidence and proving a logical counterargument.

That's honest debate.

My position does not require a conspiracy theory, circumstantial evidence, cherry picking quotes, twisting certain scriptures, and accusing dozens and dozens of witnesses of being liars.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage have no choice but to do this.

I don't say that to offend. I say that because it's the truth.

I've had this "debate" on quite a few occasions outside this forum. The arguments and outcome are always the same.

So the "debate" really is pointless.

However discussing the issues and reasoning them out together is absolutely worth while, because as you pointed out there are reasons someone might question the traditional narrative on plural marriage in the church.

That's what should be done. There should be open and honest dialogue about the evidence. Questions and concerns should be addressed. And above all else the scriptures ought to have the final word.

That means no waving away 2 Samuel 12, Jacob 2 (including vs 30), and any and all other scriptures (including D&C 132) that might shed light on plural marriage.

So I say let's discuss it.

There's really only a couple of possibilities.

1) D&C 132 is a completely legit revelation from God and Joseph Smith secretly taught and practiced plural marriage per God's command and those who he introduced to where justified in entering into and teaching plural marriage themselves.

2) D&C 132 is of the Devil and Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet who deceived people and wrongfully seduced a bunch of naive women.

3) D&C 132 is of the Devil and Joseph Smith was a false prophet through and through and deceived people and seduced a bunch of naive women.

4) D&C 132 is a made up revelation by Brigham Young and a host of other conspirators so they could justify their abominable practice of spiritual wivery.

5) Part of D&C 132 is legit, but Brigham Young and a host of conspirators tampered with it and added the plural marriage parts so they could justify their abominable practice of spiritual wivery.

If I'm missing another option let me know.

I say we go down each of these rabbit holes and see where the evidence leads us. Then the one that is the most logical based on all of the available evidence is the truth.

I've been down each of these rabbit holes and have carefully considered and studied out each one. I have determined that option 1 is correct, but I'm happy to go down them all again to settle this issue.

Oh please... You're not only dissmissmive, you are condescending... Once you even called 132 deniers to be blasphemous....

The fact that there are zero contemporary accounts of Joseph showing any support of plural marriage shows that you cherry pick and take things out of context.

The fact you use the conspiracy theory dismissal also shows a lazy dismissal of any dialogue... There is conspiracy. It's all theory... That doesn't mean there's no truth there...

What's your THEORY of William Marks statement in 1845 of what Joseph told him weeks prior to his death? Conspiracy? Lies?

What's your THEORY of Emma and William denying polygamy to their graves? Conspiracy? Mental illness?

What's your THEORY of others who didn't follow the twelve and their denials of Joseph's authorship and polygamy being a wicked practice? All conspirators? Unfaithful? Unable to withstand the fire?

You think it's ok that the majority of the Church didn't even know that polygamy was a practice until they had passed the point of no return and left their homes to follow the Twelve into the desert? Then when it was sprung on them,
now 1000 miles away, what choice did they have? Especially when Brigham taught a doctrine of blood atonement for dissenters?

You conveniently ignore a great deal. So much so that I find it very hard to believe you ever made an honest inquiry on the subject.... If you had, you wouldn't claim it's such a settled matter.

Cab you can believe whatever you want to about me. You have no way of knowing what I have or haven't considered or studied out before reaching my current conclusions on plural marriage. I have indeed wrestled with every issue you and other plural marriage deniers have brought up.

How do you think I always have an answer to them? I'm not making this stuff up on the spot. These are conclusions I have reached as I have wrestled over these issues.

As for my statement about D&C 132 deniers and Jacob 2:30 twisters speaking blasphemy against God, let me explain it again.

Suggesting that God allowed or even tolerated his holy patriarchs and servants to commit whoredoms and abominations and to break the hearts of his pure and righteous daughters by allowing them to wrongfully have more than one wife is blasphemy. The idea mocks God.

The idea that God gave David wives per 2 Samuel 12 and then called this very thing an abomination is also blasphemy against God, who has declared that he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and enticeth no man to do evil.

As for your other points.

I believe Emma snapped. Her marriage to the unbelieving, hard drinking, adulterer Lewis Bidamon by a Methodist circut preacher is strong evidence that she didn't have it all together anymore or had departed from the faith.

William Smith was very unstable and his character was questionable. He had several falling outs with Joseph. One time he severely beat Joseph. Later he had a falling out in the RLDS church and lost his credibility there, too.

William Marks is an enigma. He rejected plural marriage in Nauvoo but at least twice went on record that Joseph had taught and practiced it. This was rejected by the RLDS, yet he was still called to their first presidency. He had previously followed Rigdon and then Strang. If Brigham was the one called of God to lead the church, then clearly Marks' mind had been darkened.

If anything Marks' testimony fits Joseph being deceived and perhaps a fallen prophet not that he was a strict monogamist.

It's also possible that Marks didn't recall his conversation with Joseph perfectly. Ever tried relaying a conversation from a year ago or longer? Direct quotes are impossible. Only a summary of your recollection of what you understood is possible.

Marks' disdain for plural marriage but love for Joseph could have caused him to lie, too.

Either way it's Marks' words against pretty much everyone else.

There's a great counter argument to Brigham Young introducing plural marriage to most of the Saints in Utah for nefarious reasons.

Brigham Young could have simply been waiting until the Saints were safely out of harms way to introduce this higher law that had led to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum as well as the expulsion of the Saints from Nauvoo.

While I don't consider myself to be an expert on blood atonement, based on what I do know I think you're making way too much out of blood atonement. It's not what the anti-Mormons and Snufferites make it out to be.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:19 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 10:58 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:30 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:18 pm

Cab,

I don't think I've ever dismissed any evidence you have presented out of hand. I have gone to great lengths to carefully look at each and every point you and others have brought up and have then compared that to what the scriptures say, other known evidence, and logic.

For example I carefully looked at the spiritual wivery of the Cochranites and John C. Bennett to see what connection, if any, there was to the practice of Celestial plural marriage and could find virtually none.

I looked at the cherry picked quote you and others have shared where Joseph supposedly denied plural marriage. I put it back in context and showed that Joseph didn't say what you insist he said and that his public denials would not have made him a liar if he was in fact secretly teaching and practicing plural marriage.

That's not waving evidence away. That's weighing the evidence and proving a logical counterargument.

That's honest debate.

My position does not require a conspiracy theory, circumstantial evidence, cherry picking quotes, twisting certain scriptures, and accusing dozens and dozens of witnesses of being liars.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage have no choice but to do this.

I don't say that to offend. I say that because it's the truth.

I've had this "debate" on quite a few occasions outside this forum. The arguments and outcome are always the same.

So the "debate" really is pointless.

However discussing the issues and reasoning them out together is absolutely worth while, because as you pointed out there are reasons someone might question the traditional narrative on plural marriage in the church.

That's what should be done. There should be open and honest dialogue about the evidence. Questions and concerns should be addressed. And above all else the scriptures ought to have the final word.

That means no waving away 2 Samuel 12, Jacob 2 (including vs 30), and any and all other scriptures (including D&C 132) that might shed light on plural marriage.

So I say let's discuss it.

There's really only a couple of possibilities.

1) D&C 132 is a completely legit revelation from God and Joseph Smith secretly taught and practiced plural marriage per God's command and those who he introduced to where justified in entering into and teaching plural marriage themselves.

2) D&C 132 is of the Devil and Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet who deceived people and wrongfully seduced a bunch of naive women.

3) D&C 132 is of the Devil and Joseph Smith was a false prophet through and through and deceived people and seduced a bunch of naive women.

4) D&C 132 is a made up revelation by Brigham Young and a host of other conspirators so they could justify their abominable practice of spiritual wivery.

5) Part of D&C 132 is legit, but Brigham Young and a host of conspirators tampered with it and added the plural marriage parts so they could justify their abominable practice of spiritual wivery.

If I'm missing another option let me know.

I say we go down each of these rabbit holes and see where the evidence leads us. Then the one that is the most logical based on all of the available evidence is the truth.

I've been down each of these rabbit holes and have carefully considered and studied out each one. I have determined that option 1 is correct, but I'm happy to go down them all again to settle this issue.

Oh please... You're not only dissmissmive, you are condescending... Once you even called 132 deniers to be blasphemous....

The fact that there are zero contemporary accounts of Joseph showing any support of plural marriage shows that you cherry pick and take things out of context.

The fact you use the conspiracy theory dismissal also shows a lazy dismissal of any dialogue... There is conspiracy. It's all theory... That doesn't mean there's no truth there...

What's your THEORY of William Marks statement in 1845 of what Joseph told him weeks prior to his death? Conspiracy? Lies?

What's your THEORY of Emma and William denying polygamy to their graves? Conspiracy? Mental illness?

What's your THEORY of others who didn't follow the twelve and their denials of Joseph's authorship and polygamy being a wicked practice? All conspirators? Unfaithful? Unable to withstand the fire?

You think it's ok that the majority of the Church didn't even know that polygamy was a practice until they had passed the point of no return and left their homes to follow the Twelve into the desert? Then when it was sprung on them,
now 1000 miles away, what choice did they have? Especially when Brigham taught a doctrine of blood atonement for dissenters?

You conveniently ignore a great deal. So much so that I find it very hard to believe you ever made an honest inquiry on the subject.... If you had, you wouldn't claim it's such a settled matter.

Cab you can believe whatever you want to about me. You have no way of knowing what I have or haven't considered or studied out before reaching my current conclusions on plural marriage. I have indeed wrestled with every issue you and other plural marriage deniers have brought up.

How do you think I always have an answer to them? I'm not making this stuff up on the spot. These are conclusions I have reached as I have wrestled over these issues.

As for my statement about D&C 132 deniers and Jacob 2:30 twisters speaking blasphemy against God, let me explain it again.

Suggesting that God allowed or even tolerated his holy patriarchs and servants to commit whoredoms and abominations and to break the hearts of his pure and righteous daughters by allowing them to wrongfully have more than one wife is blasphemy. The idea mocks God.

The idea that God gave David wives per 2 Samuel 12 and then called this very thing an abomination is also blasphemy against God, who has declared that he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and enticeth no man to do evil.

As for your other points.

I believe Emma snapped. Her marriage to the unbelieving, hard drinking, adulterer Lewis Bidamon by a Methodist circut preacher is strong evidence that she didn't have it all together anymore or had departed from the faith.

William Smith was very unstable and his character was questionable. He had several falling outs with Joseph. One time he severely beat Joseph. Later he had a falling out in the RLDS church and lost his credibility there, too.

William Marks is an enigma. He rejected plural marriage in Nauvoo but at least twice went on record that Joseph had taught and practiced it. This was rejected by the RLDS, yet he was still called to their first presidency. He had previously followed Rigdon and then Strang. If Brigham was the one called of God to lead the church, then clearly Marks' mind had been darkened.

If anything Marks' testimony fits Joseph being deceived and perhaps a fallen prophet not that he was a strict monogamist.

It's also possible that Marks didn't recall his conversation with Joseph perfectly. Ever tried relaying a conversation from a year ago or longer? Direct quotes are impossible. Only a summary of your recollection of what you understood is possible.

Marks' disdain for plural marriage but love for Joseph could have caused him to lie, too.

Either way it's Marks' words against pretty much everyone else.

There's a great counter argument to Brigham Young introducing plural marriage to most of the Saints in Utah for nefarious reasons.

Brigham Young could have simply been waiting until the Saints were safely out of harms way to introduce this higher law that had led to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum as well as the expulsion of the Saints from Nauvoo.

While I don't consider myself to be an expert on blood atonement, based on what I do know I think you're making way too much out of blood atonement. It's not what the anti-Mormons and Snufferites make it out to be.

I don't mean to question your honesty... I just find it baffling that you treat so many matters as "settled"... It does seem to me you assume that other people couldn't possibly have made an honest inquiry themselves and reached a different conclusion than you have, so you treat their conclusions like rubbish... But, yes, I honestly can't see how anyone who has taken a deep dive into this subject can have such an extreme view as thinking the matter is settled, whether for or against, or anywhere in between. The evidence shows it's far from settled, in my view...

Anyone that says that anything is a settled matter (as you have), is them-self - by very definition - not open to alternative viewpoints... But then you go and accuse others of burying their heads in the sand...

Others have reached "counter arguments" too in order to try to explain all the apparent contradictions. And it doesn't mean they're just trying to bury their heads in the sand... As for your counter argument of waiting until they were out of danger before letting the people know that God's way is polygamy... Boy oh boy, I'd be pretty upset if I had followed the Twelve in good faith to then discover half way to the Rocky Mountains that this whole business of polygamy (THAT THEY'D BEEN DENYING ALL ALONG) was, in fact, true... That'd be a tough pill to swallow...

Just go study the case of Richard Hewitt, who believed Hyrum's words in 1844 (found here : https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... l-1844/303) but then later, during the trek west, Brigham allegedly takes a pass at his daughter...To which Brother Hewitt is said to reply saying that before giving Brigham his daughter to marry : "I would give you a bullet through your black heart first"... I'd maybe have a similar reaction if I were put in that situation.....

The reality is, there are so many possibilities here given how muddy the history is.... To think any amount of study has allowed anyone to figure it all out, or that the matter is settled, is foolish, in my opinion... But this seems to be your position - and you constantly polarize it to two different "sides"...

Likewise, you somehow feel it necessary to belittle those who can't seem to be able to reconcile the way polygamy was practiced in our church with the scriptures, God's nature, or the contemporary historical evidence... I believe that people's misgivings and questions and uneasiness are well founded....

And let me be clear, once again, that David's couple of wives (at the beginning) or Abraham's situation I don't see as comparable to the polygamy practiced in our Church. Go read the account of Martha Brotherton (http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/mo/miscstl2.htm -- just search Martha Brotherton on the page to find her affidavit)... Even if her account is half-way true, then it is the worst form of unrighteous dominion imaginable... And I would reject such behavior with everything I have.

I find William Smith's October 1845 "Proclamation", printed in the Warsaw Signal to be fascinating and plausible, if not credible. I think everyone should read it and form their own opinion... And it's just one of several places where someone close to Joseph claims that Brigham and others of the Twelve were the originators of the spiritual wife/polygamy doctrine...

And there's all sorts of evidence that any dissenters were being "widdled" out of Nauvoo by threat of force on orders from Brigham and the Twelve... William Smith and others were legitimately afraid for their lives. But you just brush him off as unstable? And Emma as mentally unhinged? Was this the mental condition of everyone who found the doctrine of Celestial polygamy to be evil?

Do you have source that Marks later said Joseph taught plural marriage? I know Sidney Rigdon later did, though his original claim in October 1844 was that it was the Twelve that was responsible... If Marks ever did say this, then is it not possible that Marks and Rigdon simply began to believe the widely circulated rumors?

Again, any way you look at it, lots of people lied.... There are several plausible arguments to be made as to why, perhaps, any group of them may have lied...

But you so readily discount those you don't agree with. You have shown clear disdain for opposing viewpoints. For example, when I posted an article by Richard and Pamela Price you called it "BS" and "anti-Mormon trash" and told me to stop posting it...

Why do you think that other members of the Church shouldn't read and study these alternative viewpoints, and decide for themselves, as you claim to have? I have studied and prayed on such things and seen my testimony of the restoration, and of the prophet Joseph, and of the Savior grow!

When you dismiss this all as "conspiracy theory" it's just not sincere.

I feel like I'm just trying to debate climate change with someone who just keeps screaming: "IT'S A CONSENSUS!!! Science has proven that global warming is manmade!!! 97% of scientists agree!!!!!!" To which my reply is, "Yes, I agree that there's a study out there that concludes that 97% of scientists agree about man made global warming... Problem is, if you actually examine that study that everyone cites (which I have), it is completely full of selection bias, affirmation bias, and all types of bias, was done by a graduate student, and is anything from scientific... And nowhere proves a consensus of anything..." Same goes here, with the so-called consensus opinion of Joseph's polygamy.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 5:30 pm

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:12 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

But Joseph himself never said he did, and denied that he did. So what do we do?

Joseph Smith never denied that he had received a revelation on Celestial plural marriage or that he was practicing it. In fact according to many witnesses he told them that he had received a revelation on it and had had more than one wife sealed to him.

What he denied was the charge of adultery and spiritual wivery.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:23 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 5:30 pm

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:12 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

But Joseph himself never said he did, and denied that he did. So what do we do?

Joseph Smith never denied that he had received a revelation on Celestial plural marriage or that he was practicing it. In fact according to many witnesses he told them that he had received a revelation on it and had had more than one wife sealed to him.

What he denied was the charge of adultery and spiritual wivery.

Not true.
He denied having more than one wife and categorically stated that he had "only one".
He went further and claimed that he could prove all who said otherwise to be liars.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:31 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:23 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 5:30 pm

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:12 pm

But Joseph himself never said he did, and denied that he did. So what do we do?

Joseph Smith never denied that he had received a revelation on Celestial plural marriage or that he was practicing it. In fact according to many witnesses he told them that he had received a revelation on it and had had more than one wife sealed to him.

What he denied was the charge of adultery and spiritual wivery.

Not true.
He denied having more than one wife and categorically stated that he had "only one".
He went further and claimed that he could prove all who said otherwise to be liars.

That's not what he said. He said that he could prove all those who said he was guilty of adultery, spiritual wivery, and being a fallen prophet liars.

He never categorically denied having received a revelation on Celestial plural marriage or that he was secretly practicing it.

He did tell a lie or at least a half truth in regards to only having one wife. However he was no more evasive than Abraham who said Sarah was his sister instead of his wife in order to save his life.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:26 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

Dozens of witnesses attest to him having sexual relations with these women? Really?
Into voyeurism were they?

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:38 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:31 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:23 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 5:30 pm

Joseph Smith never denied that he had received a revelation on Celestial plural marriage or that he was practicing it. In fact according to many witnesses he told them that he had received a revelation on it and had had more than one wife sealed to him.

What he denied was the charge of adultery and spiritual wivery.

Not true.
He denied having more than one wife and categorically stated that he had "only one".
He went further and claimed that he could prove all who said otherwise to be liars.

That's not what he said. He said that he could prove all those who said he was guilty of adultery, spiritual wivery, and being a fallen prophet liars.

He never categorically denied having received a revelation on Celestial plural marriage or that he was secretly practicing it.

He did tell a lie or at least a half truth in regards to only having one wife. However he was no more evasive than Abraham who said Sarah was his sister instead of his wife in order to save his life.

No Matthias, you are mistaken in this.
He clearly said that he had only one wife and had only ever had one wife.
Go back and read it. It is nothing but a categorical denial of any involvement in adultery or polygamy, either then or previously.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:46 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:38 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:31 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:23 am

Not true.
He denied having more than one wife and categorically stated that he had "only one".
He went further and claimed that he could prove all who said otherwise to be liars.

That's not what he said. He said that he could prove all those who said he was guilty of adultery, spiritual wivery, and being a fallen prophet liars.

He never categorically denied having received a revelation on Celestial plural marriage or that he was secretly practicing it.

He did tell a lie or at least a half truth in regards to only having one wife. However he was no more evasive than Abraham who said Sarah was his sister instead of his wife in order to save his life.

No Matthias, you are mistaken in this.
He clearly said that he had only one wife and had only ever had one wife.
Go back and read it. It is nothing but a categorical denial of any involvement in adultery or polygamy, either then or previously.

I just read the entire quote you speak of very recently. He denied adultery, spiritual wivery, and being a fallen prophet. He did not categorically deny the revelation on Celestial plural marriage or that he had wives besides Emma (who would not have technically been his legal wives in the eyes of the law).

He was deceptive but so was Abraham.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:20 am

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:19 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 10:58 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:30 pm


Oh please... You're not only dissmissmive, you are condescending... Once you even called 132 deniers to be blasphemous....

The fact that there are zero contemporary accounts of Joseph showing any support of plural marriage shows that you cherry pick and take things out of context.

The fact you use the conspiracy theory dismissal also shows a lazy dismissal of any dialogue... There is conspiracy. It's all theory... That doesn't mean there's no truth there...

What's your THEORY of William Marks statement in 1845 of what Joseph told him weeks prior to his death? Conspiracy? Lies?

What's your THEORY of Emma and William denying polygamy to their graves? Conspiracy? Mental illness?

What's your THEORY of others who didn't follow the twelve and their denials of Joseph's authorship and polygamy being a wicked practice? All conspirators? Unfaithful? Unable to withstand the fire?

You think it's ok that the majority of the Church didn't even know that polygamy was a practice until they had passed the point of no return and left their homes to follow the Twelve into the desert? Then when it was sprung on them,
now 1000 miles away, what choice did they have? Especially when Brigham taught a doctrine of blood atonement for dissenters?

You conveniently ignore a great deal. So much so that I find it very hard to believe you ever made an honest inquiry on the subject.... If you had, you wouldn't claim it's such a settled matter.

Cab you can believe whatever you want to about me. You have no way of knowing what I have or haven't considered or studied out before reaching my current conclusions on plural marriage. I have indeed wrestled with every issue you and other plural marriage deniers have brought up.

How do you think I always have an answer to them? I'm not making this stuff up on the spot. These are conclusions I have reached as I have wrestled over these issues.

As for my statement about D&C 132 deniers and Jacob 2:30 twisters speaking blasphemy against God, let me explain it again.

Suggesting that God allowed or even tolerated his holy patriarchs and servants to commit whoredoms and abominations and to break the hearts of his pure and righteous daughters by allowing them to wrongfully have more than one wife is blasphemy. The idea mocks God.

The idea that God gave David wives per 2 Samuel 12 and then called this very thing an abomination is also blasphemy against God, who has declared that he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and enticeth no man to do evil.

As for your other points.

I believe Emma snapped. Her marriage to the unbelieving, hard drinking, adulterer Lewis Bidamon by a Methodist circut preacher is strong evidence that she didn't have it all together anymore or had departed from the faith.

William Smith was very unstable and his character was questionable. He had several falling outs with Joseph. One time he severely beat Joseph. Later he had a falling out in the RLDS church and lost his credibility there, too.

William Marks is an enigma. He rejected plural marriage in Nauvoo but at least twice went on record that Joseph had taught and practiced it. This was rejected by the RLDS, yet he was still called to their first presidency. He had previously followed Rigdon and then Strang. If Brigham was the one called of God to lead the church, then clearly Marks' mind had been darkened.

If anything Marks' testimony fits Joseph being deceived and perhaps a fallen prophet not that he was a strict monogamist.

It's also possible that Marks didn't recall his conversation with Joseph perfectly. Ever tried relaying a conversation from a year ago or longer? Direct quotes are impossible. Only a summary of your recollection of what you understood is possible.

Marks' disdain for plural marriage but love for Joseph could have caused him to lie, too.

Either way it's Marks' words against pretty much everyone else.

There's a great counter argument to Brigham Young introducing plural marriage to most of the Saints in Utah for nefarious reasons.

Brigham Young could have simply been waiting until the Saints were safely out of harms way to introduce this higher law that had led to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum as well as the expulsion of the Saints from Nauvoo.

While I don't consider myself to be an expert on blood atonement, based on what I do know I think you're making way too much out of blood atonement. It's not what the anti-Mormons and Snufferites make it out to be.

I don't mean to question your honesty... I just find it baffling that you treat so many matters as "settled"... It does seem to me you assume that other people couldn't possibly have made an honest inquiry themselves and reached a different conclusion than you have, so you treat their conclusions like rubbish... But, yes, I honestly can't see how anyone who has taken a deep dive into this subject can have such an extreme view as thinking the matter is settled, whether for or against, or anywhere in between. The evidence shows it's far from settled, in my view...

Anyone that says that anything is a settled matter (as you have), is them-self - by very definition - not open to alternative viewpoints... But then you go and accuse others of burying their heads in the sand...

Others have reached "counter arguments" too in order to try to explain all the apparent contradictions. And it doesn't mean they're just trying to bury their heads in the sand... As for your counter argument of waiting until they were out of danger before letting the people know that God's way is polygamy... Boy oh boy, I'd be pretty upset if I had followed the Twelve in good faith to then discover half way to the Rocky Mountains that this whole business of polygamy (THAT THEY'D BEEN DENYING ALL ALONG) was, in fact, true... That'd be a tough pill to swallow...

Just go study the case of Richard Hewitt, who believed Hyrum's words in 1844 (found here : https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... l-1844/303) but then later, during the trek west, Brigham allegedly takes a pass at his daughter...To which Brother Hewitt is said to reply saying that before giving Brigham his daughter to marry : "I would give you a bullet through your black heart first"... I'd maybe have a similar reaction if I were put in that situation.....

The reality is, there are so many possibilities here given how muddy the history is.... To think any amount of study has allowed anyone to figure it all out, or that the matter is settled, is foolish, in my opinion... But this seems to be your position - and you constantly polarize it to two different "sides"...

Likewise, you somehow feel it necessary to belittle those who can't seem to be able to reconcile the way polygamy was practiced in our church with the scriptures, God's nature, or the contemporary historical evidence... I believe that people's misgivings and questions and uneasiness are well founded....

And let me be clear, once again, that David's couple of wives (at the beginning) or Abraham's situation I don't see as comparable to the polygamy practiced in our Church. Go read the account of Martha Brotherton (http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/mo/miscstl2.htm -- just search Martha Brotherton on the page to find her affidavit)... Even if her account is half-way true, then it is the worst form of unrighteous dominion imaginable... And I would reject such behavior with everything I have.

I find William Smith's October 1845 "Proclamation", printed in the Warsaw Signal to be fascinating and plausible, if not credible. I think everyone should read it and form their own opinion... And it's just one of several places where someone close to Joseph claims that Brigham and others of the Twelve were the originators of the spiritual wife/polygamy doctrine...

And there's all sorts of evidence that any dissenters were being "widdled" out of Nauvoo by threat of force on orders from Brigham and the Twelve... William Smith and others were legitimately afraid for their lives. But you just brush him off as unstable? And Emma as mentally unhinged? Was this the mental condition of everyone who found the doctrine of Celestial polygamy to be evil?

Do you have source that Marks later said Joseph taught plural marriage? I know Sidney Rigdon later did, though his original claim in October 1844 was that it was the Twelve that was responsible... If Marks ever did say this, then is it not possible that Marks and Rigdon simply began to believe the widely circulated rumors?

Again, any way you look at it, lots of people lied.... There are several plausible arguments to be made as to why, perhaps, any group of them may have lied...

But you so readily discount those you don't agree with. You have shown clear disdain for opposing viewpoints. For example, when I posted an article by Richard and Pamela Price you called it "BS" and "anti-Mormon trash" and told me to stop posting it...

Why do you think that other members of the Church shouldn't read and study these alternative viewpoints, and decide for themselves, as you claim to have? I have studied and prayed on such things and seen my testimony of the restoration, and of the prophet Joseph, and of the Savior grow!

When you dismiss this all as "conspiracy theory" it's just not sincere.

I feel like I'm just trying to debate climate change with someone who just keeps screaming: "IT'S A CONSENSUS!!! Science has proven that global warming is manmade!!! 97% of scientists agree!!!!!!" To which my reply is, "Yes, I agree that there's a study out there that concludes that 97% of scientists agree about man made global warming... Problem is, if you actually examine that study that everyone cites (which I have), it is completely full of selection bias, affirmation bias, and all types of bias, was done by a graduate student, and is anything from scientific... And nowhere proves a consensus of anything..." Same goes here, with the so-called consensus opinion of Joseph's polygamy.

Cab believe it or not I completely understand your viewpoint.

Perhaps the matter is not completely settled.

Shouldn't our goal be to arrive at the truth, though instead of remaining in limbo and just spinning our wheels about how the mattered is not settled and should therefore be endlessly debated?

I'll admit that I've been too harsh with you, like when I called the Price's work anti-Mormon trash or said you're putting your head in the sand.

The Price's work is extremely biased and full of cherry picked quotes.

Do you honestly see Cochranite spiritual wivery as being even remotely the same thing as Celestial plural marriage?

They are completely different in my opinion.

Anyway I don't want to rehash the debate. I don't see a point to spinning our wheels and going around circles about how there's all these reasons to question the plural marriage narrative.

The discussion should be leading to the truth and not confusion. Confusion is of the Devil not God.

You know the truth is that the traditional narrative of the church that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God is not settled either.

There's plenty of reasons to question that, too. Should we endlessly debate that, too, and insist that anyone who doesn't question this or refutes the arguments of the exmormon anti-Mormons hasn't investigated their claims?

I did investigate their claims and it almost cost me my testimony. After a lot of soul searching and intense struggle I took a side.

Of course I could instead keeping screaming about the View of the Hebrews, poor grammar in the BOM, failed prophecies in the D&C, the Kinderhook plates, the Book of Abraham controversy, and add 100+ other things.

Then when someone asks me to go on record as saying that I believe Joseph was either a liar, deceived, or both I could refuse to take a side and just keep saying that there's a reason to question that he was truthful and a true prophet.

Where does it end?

Matthias wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:20 am

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:19 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 10:58 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:30 pm


Oh please... You're not only dissmissmive, you are condescending... Once you even called 132 deniers to be blasphemous....

The fact that there are zero contemporary accounts of Joseph showing any support of plural marriage shows that you cherry pick and take things out of context.

The fact you use the conspiracy theory dismissal also shows a lazy dismissal of any dialogue... There is conspiracy. It's all theory... That doesn't mean there's no truth there...

What's your THEORY of William Marks statement in 1845 of what Joseph told him weeks prior to his death? Conspiracy? Lies?

What's your THEORY of Emma and William denying polygamy to their graves? Conspiracy? Mental illness?

What's your THEORY of others who didn't follow the twelve and their denials of Joseph's authorship and polygamy being a wicked practice? All conspirators? Unfaithful? Unable to withstand the fire?

You think it's ok that the majority of the Church didn't even know that polygamy was a practice until they had passed the point of no return and left their homes to follow the Twelve into the desert? Then when it was sprung on them,
now 1000 miles away, what choice did they have? Especially when Brigham taught a doctrine of blood atonement for dissenters?

You conveniently ignore a great deal. So much so that I find it very hard to believe you ever made an honest inquiry on the subject.... If you had, you wouldn't claim it's such a settled matter.

Cab you can believe whatever you want to about me. You have no way of knowing what I have or haven't considered or studied out before reaching my current conclusions on plural marriage. I have indeed wrestled with every issue you and other plural marriage deniers have brought up.

How do you think I always have an answer to them? I'm not making this stuff up on the spot. These are conclusions I have reached as I have wrestled over these issues.

As for my statement about D&C 132 deniers and Jacob 2:30 twisters speaking blasphemy against God, let me explain it again.

Suggesting that God allowed or even tolerated his holy patriarchs and servants to commit whoredoms and abominations and to break the hearts of his pure and righteous daughters by allowing them to wrongfully have more than one wife is blasphemy. The idea mocks God.

The idea that God gave David wives per 2 Samuel 12 and then called this very thing an abomination is also blasphemy against God, who has declared that he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and enticeth no man to do evil.

As for your other points.

I believe Emma snapped. Her marriage to the unbelieving, hard drinking, adulterer Lewis Bidamon by a Methodist circut preacher is strong evidence that she didn't have it all together anymore or had departed from the faith.

William Smith was very unstable and his character was questionable. He had several falling outs with Joseph. One time he severely beat Joseph. Later he had a falling out in the RLDS church and lost his credibility there, too.

William Marks is an enigma. He rejected plural marriage in Nauvoo but at least twice went on record that Joseph had taught and practiced it. This was rejected by the RLDS, yet he was still called to their first presidency. He had previously followed Rigdon and then Strang. If Brigham was the one called of God to lead the church, then clearly Marks' mind had been darkened.

If anything Marks' testimony fits Joseph being deceived and perhaps a fallen prophet not that he was a strict monogamist.

It's also possible that Marks didn't recall his conversation with Joseph perfectly. Ever tried relaying a conversation from a year ago or longer? Direct quotes are impossible. Only a summary of your recollection of what you understood is possible.

Marks' disdain for plural marriage but love for Joseph could have caused him to lie, too.

Either way it's Marks' words against pretty much everyone else.

There's a great counter argument to Brigham Young introducing plural marriage to most of the Saints in Utah for nefarious reasons.

Brigham Young could have simply been waiting until the Saints were safely out of harms way to introduce this higher law that had led to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum as well as the expulsion of the Saints from Nauvoo.

While I don't consider myself to be an expert on blood atonement, based on what I do know I think you're making way too much out of blood atonement. It's not what the anti-Mormons and Snufferites make it out to be.

I don't mean to question your honesty... I just find it baffling that you treat so many matters as "settled"... It does seem to me you assume that other people couldn't possibly have made an honest inquiry themselves and reached a different conclusion than you have, so you treat their conclusions like rubbish... But, yes, I honestly can't see how anyone who has taken a deep dive into this subject can have such an extreme view as thinking the matter is settled, whether for or against, or anywhere in between. The evidence shows it's far from settled, in my view...

Anyone that says that anything is a settled matter (as you have), is them-self - by very definition - not open to alternative viewpoints... But then you go and accuse others of burying their heads in the sand...

Others have reached "counter arguments" too in order to try to explain all the apparent contradictions. And it doesn't mean they're just trying to bury their heads in the sand... As for your counter argument of waiting until they were out of danger before letting the people know that God's way is polygamy... Boy oh boy, I'd be pretty upset if I had followed the Twelve in good faith to then discover half way to the Rocky Mountains that this whole business of polygamy (THAT THEY'D BEEN DENYING ALL ALONG) was, in fact, true... That'd be a tough pill to swallow...

Just go study the case of Richard Hewitt, who believed Hyrum's words in 1844 (found here : https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... l-1844/303) but then later, during the trek west, Brigham allegedly takes a pass at his daughter...To which Brother Hewitt is said to reply saying that before giving Brigham his daughter to marry : "I would give you a bullet through your black heart first"... I'd maybe have a similar reaction if I were put in that situation.....

The reality is, there are so many possibilities here given how muddy the history is.... To think any amount of study has allowed anyone to figure it all out, or that the matter is settled, is foolish, in my opinion... But this seems to be your position - and you constantly polarize it to two different "sides"...

Likewise, you somehow feel it necessary to belittle those who can't seem to be able to reconcile the way polygamy was practiced in our church with the scriptures, God's nature, or the contemporary historical evidence... I believe that people's misgivings and questions and uneasiness are well founded....

And let me be clear, once again, that David's couple of wives (at the beginning) or Abraham's situation I don't see as comparable to the polygamy practiced in our Church. Go read the account of Martha Brotherton (http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/mo/miscstl2.htm -- just search Martha Brotherton on the page to find her affidavit)... Even if her account is half-way true, then it is the worst form of unrighteous dominion imaginable... And I would reject such behavior with everything I have.

I find William Smith's October 1845 "Proclamation", printed in the Warsaw Signal to be fascinating and plausible, if not credible. I think everyone should read it and form their own opinion... And it's just one of several places where someone close to Joseph claims that Brigham and others of the Twelve were the originators of the spiritual wife/polygamy doctrine...

And there's all sorts of evidence that any dissenters were being "widdled" out of Nauvoo by threat of force on orders from Brigham and the Twelve... William Smith and others were legitimately afraid for their lives. But you just brush him off as unstable? And Emma as mentally unhinged? Was this the mental condition of everyone who found the doctrine of Celestial polygamy to be evil?

Do you have source that Marks later said Joseph taught plural marriage? I know Sidney Rigdon later did, though his original claim in October 1844 was that it was the Twelve that was responsible... If Marks ever did say this, then is it not possible that Marks and Rigdon simply began to believe the widely circulated rumors?

Again, any way you look at it, lots of people lied.... There are several plausible arguments to be made as to why, perhaps, any group of them may have lied...

But you so readily discount those you don't agree with. You have shown clear disdain for opposing viewpoints. For example, when I posted an article by Richard and Pamela Price you called it "BS" and "anti-Mormon trash" and told me to stop posting it...

Why do you think that other members of the Church shouldn't read and study these alternative viewpoints, and decide for themselves, as you claim to have? I have studied and prayed on such things and seen my testimony of the restoration, and of the prophet Joseph, and of the Savior grow!

When you dismiss this all as "conspiracy theory" it's just not sincere.

I feel like I'm just trying to debate climate change with someone who just keeps screaming: "IT'S A CONSENSUS!!! Science has proven that global warming is manmade!!! 97% of scientists agree!!!!!!" To which my reply is, "Yes, I agree that there's a study out there that concludes that 97% of scientists agree about man made global warming... Problem is, if you actually examine that study that everyone cites (which I have), it is completely full of selection bias, affirmation bias, and all types of bias, was done by a graduate student, and is anything from scientific... And nowhere proves a consensus of anything..." Same goes here, with the so-called consensus opinion of Joseph's polygamy.

Cab believe it or not I completely understand your viewpoint.

Perhaps the matter is not completely settled.

Shouldn't our goal be to arrive at the truth, though instead of remaining in limbo and just spinning our wheels about how the mattered is not settled and should therefore be endlessly debated?

I'll admit that I've been too harsh with you, like when I called the Price's work anti-Mormon trash or said you're putting your head in the sand.

The Price's work is extremely biased and full of cherry picked quotes.

Do you honestly see Cochranite spiritual wivery as being even remotely the same thing as Celestial plural marriage?

They are completely different in my opinion.

Anyway I don't want to rehash the debate. I don't see a point to spinning our wheels and going around circles about how there's all these reasons to question the plural marriage narrative.

The discussion should be leading to the truth and not confusion. Confusion is of the Devil not God.

You know the truth is that the traditional narrative of the church that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God is not settled either.

There's plenty of reasons to question that, too. Should we endlessly debate that, too, and insist that anyone who doesn't question this or refutes the arguments of the exmormon anti-Mormons hasn't investigated their claims?

I did investigate their claims and it almost cost me my testimony. After a lot of soul searching and intense struggle I took a side.

Of course I could instead keeping screaming about the View of the Hebrews, poor grammar in the BOM, failed prophecies in the D&C, the Kinderhook plates, the Book of Abraham controversy, and add 100+ other things.

Then when someone asks me to go on record as saying that I believe Joseph was either a liar, deceived, or both I could refuse to take a side and just keep saying that there's a reason to question that he was truthful and a true prophet.

Where does it end?

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:38 am Didn’t read any other posts,

But Eliza r snow said she was as much Joseph’s bed fellow as any wife is to their husband.

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:38 am Didn’t read any other posts,

But Eliza r snow said she was as much oJoseph’s bed fellow as any wife is to their husband.

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:59 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:38 am Didn’t read any other posts,

But Eliza r snow said she was as much oJoseph’s bed fellow as any wife is to their husband.

Right, decades later... But during the time she later claimed to have been sleeping with Joseph, she was actually signing documents like the "Voice Innocence from Nauvoo" saying there was no polygamy whatsoever.... So something doesn't fit.... Which time was she lying?

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:57 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:38 am Didn’t read any other posts,

But Eliza r snow said she was as much Joseph’s bed fellow as any wife is to their husband.

She could have lied

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:43 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:20 am

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:19 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 10:58 pm

Cab you can believe whatever you want to about me. You have no way of knowing what I have or haven't considered or studied out before reaching my current conclusions on plural marriage. I have indeed wrestled with every issue you and other plural marriage deniers have brought up.

How do you think I always have an answer to them? I'm not making this stuff up on the spot. These are conclusions I have reached as I have wrestled over these issues.

As for my statement about D&C 132 deniers and Jacob 2:30 twisters speaking blasphemy against God, let me explain it again.

Suggesting that God allowed or even tolerated his holy patriarchs and servants to commit whoredoms and abominations and to break the hearts of his pure and righteous daughters by allowing them to wrongfully have more than one wife is blasphemy. The idea mocks God.

The idea that God gave David wives per 2 Samuel 12 and then called this very thing an abomination is also blasphemy against God, who has declared that he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and enticeth no man to do evil.

As for your other points.

I believe Emma snapped. Her marriage to the unbelieving, hard drinking, adulterer Lewis Bidamon by a Methodist circut preacher is strong evidence that she didn't have it all together anymore or had departed from the faith.

William Smith was very unstable and his character was questionable. He had several falling outs with Joseph. One time he severely beat Joseph. Later he had a falling out in the RLDS church and lost his credibility there, too.

William Marks is an enigma. He rejected plural marriage in Nauvoo but at least twice went on record that Joseph had taught and practiced it. This was rejected by the RLDS, yet he was still called to their first presidency. He had previously followed Rigdon and then Strang. If Brigham was the one called of God to lead the church, then clearly Marks' mind had been darkened.

If anything Marks' testimony fits Joseph being deceived and perhaps a fallen prophet not that he was a strict monogamist.

It's also possible that Marks didn't recall his conversation with Joseph perfectly. Ever tried relaying a conversation from a year ago or longer? Direct quotes are impossible. Only a summary of your recollection of what you understood is possible.

Marks' disdain for plural marriage but love for Joseph could have caused him to lie, too.

Either way it's Marks' words against pretty much everyone else.

There's a great counter argument to Brigham Young introducing plural marriage to most of the Saints in Utah for nefarious reasons.

Brigham Young could have simply been waiting until the Saints were safely out of harms way to introduce this higher law that had led to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum as well as the expulsion of the Saints from Nauvoo.

While I don't consider myself to be an expert on blood atonement, based on what I do know I think you're making way too much out of blood atonement. It's not what the anti-Mormons and Snufferites make it out to be.

I don't mean to question your honesty... I just find it baffling that you treat so many matters as "settled"... It does seem to me you assume that other people couldn't possibly have made an honest inquiry themselves and reached a different conclusion than you have, so you treat their conclusions like rubbish... But, yes, I honestly can't see how anyone who has taken a deep dive into this subject can have such an extreme view as thinking the matter is settled, whether for or against, or anywhere in between. The evidence shows it's far from settled, in my view...

Anyone that says that anything is a settled matter (as you have), is them-self - by very definition - not open to alternative viewpoints... But then you go and accuse others of burying their heads in the sand...

Others have reached "counter arguments" too in order to try to explain all the apparent contradictions. And it doesn't mean they're just trying to bury their heads in the sand... As for your counter argument of waiting until they were out of danger before letting the people know that God's way is polygamy... Boy oh boy, I'd be pretty upset if I had followed the Twelve in good faith to then discover half way to the Rocky Mountains that this whole business of polygamy (THAT THEY'D BEEN DENYING ALL ALONG) was, in fact, true... That'd be a tough pill to swallow...

Just go study the case of Richard Hewitt, who believed Hyrum's words in 1844 (found here : https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... l-1844/303) but then later, during the trek west, Brigham allegedly takes a pass at his daughter...To which Brother Hewitt is said to reply saying that before giving Brigham his daughter to marry : "I would give you a bullet through your black heart first"... I'd maybe have a similar reaction if I were put in that situation.....

The reality is, there are so many possibilities here given how muddy the history is.... To think any amount of study has allowed anyone to figure it all out, or that the matter is settled, is foolish, in my opinion... But this seems to be your position - and you constantly polarize it to two different "sides"...

Likewise, you somehow feel it necessary to belittle those who can't seem to be able to reconcile the way polygamy was practiced in our church with the scriptures, God's nature, or the contemporary historical evidence... I believe that people's misgivings and questions and uneasiness are well founded....

And let me be clear, once again, that David's couple of wives (at the beginning) or Abraham's situation I don't see as comparable to the polygamy practiced in our Church. Go read the account of Martha Brotherton (http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/mo/miscstl2.htm -- just search Martha Brotherton on the page to find her affidavit)... Even if her account is half-way true, then it is the worst form of unrighteous dominion imaginable... And I would reject such behavior with everything I have.

I find William Smith's October 1845 "Proclamation", printed in the Warsaw Signal to be fascinating and plausible, if not credible. I think everyone should read it and form their own opinion... And it's just one of several places where someone close to Joseph claims that Brigham and others of the Twelve were the originators of the spiritual wife/polygamy doctrine...

And there's all sorts of evidence that any dissenters were being "widdled" out of Nauvoo by threat of force on orders from Brigham and the Twelve... William Smith and others were legitimately afraid for their lives. But you just brush him off as unstable? And Emma as mentally unhinged? Was this the mental condition of everyone who found the doctrine of Celestial polygamy to be evil?

Do you have source that Marks later said Joseph taught plural marriage? I know Sidney Rigdon later did, though his original claim in October 1844 was that it was the Twelve that was responsible... If Marks ever did say this, then is it not possible that Marks and Rigdon simply began to believe the widely circulated rumors?

Again, any way you look at it, lots of people lied.... There are several plausible arguments to be made as to why, perhaps, any group of them may have lied...

But you so readily discount those you don't agree with. You have shown clear disdain for opposing viewpoints. For example, when I posted an article by Richard and Pamela Price you called it "BS" and "anti-Mormon trash" and told me to stop posting it...

Why do you think that other members of the Church shouldn't read and study these alternative viewpoints, and decide for themselves, as you claim to have? I have studied and prayed on such things and seen my testimony of the restoration, and of the prophet Joseph, and of the Savior grow!

When you dismiss this all as "conspiracy theory" it's just not sincere.

I feel like I'm just trying to debate climate change with someone who just keeps screaming: "IT'S A CONSENSUS!!! Science has proven that global warming is manmade!!! 97% of scientists agree!!!!!!" To which my reply is, "Yes, I agree that there's a study out there that concludes that 97% of scientists agree about man made global warming... Problem is, if you actually examine that study that everyone cites (which I have), it is completely full of selection bias, affirmation bias, and all types of bias, was done by a graduate student, and is anything from scientific... And nowhere proves a consensus of anything..." Same goes here, with the so-called consensus opinion of Joseph's polygamy.

Cab believe it or not I completely understand your viewpoint.

Perhaps the matter is not completely settled.

Shouldn't our goal be to arrive at the truth, though instead of remaining in limbo and just spinning our wheels about how the mattered is not settled and should therefore be endlessly debated?

I'll admit that I've been too harsh with you, like when I called the Price's work anti-Mormon trash or said you're putting your head in the sand.

The Price's work is extremely biased and full of cherry picked quotes.

Do you honestly see Cochranite spiritual wivery as being even remotely the same thing as Celestial plural marriage?

They are completely different in my opinion.

Anyway I don't want to rehash the debate. I don't see a point to spinning our wheels and going around circles about how there's all these reasons to question the plural marriage narrative.

The discussion should be leading to the truth and not confusion. Confusion is of the Devil not God.

You know the truth is that the traditional narrative of the church that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God is not settled either.

There's plenty of reasons to question that, too. Should we endlessly debate that, too, and insist that anyone who doesn't question this or refutes the arguments of the exmormon anti-Mormons hasn't investigated their claims?

I did investigate their claims and it almost cost me my testimony. After a lot of soul searching and intense struggle I took a side.

Of course I could instead keeping screaming about the View of the Hebrews, poor grammar in the BOM, failed prophecies in the D&C, the Kinderhook plates, the Book of Abraham controversy, and add 100+ other things.

Then when someone asks me to go on record as saying that I believe Joseph was either a liar, deceived, or both I could refuse to take a side and just keep saying that there's a reason to question that he was truthful and a true prophet.

Where does it end?

And just one more thought that I have about what you said about confusion not being of God...

Same with secrecy and secret chambers.

I guess that's one of the reasons why I have a general disdain for polygamy. It seems to me, polygamy is almost always associated with confusion and secrecy. It seems to me that the Book of Mormon shows several examples of this...

Our church history is certainly an example of this.

But I get it that you may have a different interpretation.

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 9:23 am

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:59 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:38 am Didn’t read any other posts,

But Eliza r snow said she was as much oJoseph’s bed fellow as any wife is to their husband.

Right, decades later... But during the time she later claimed to have been sleeping with Joseph, she was actually signing documents like the "Voice Innocence from Nauvoo" saying there was no polygamy whatsoever.... So something doesn't fit.... Which time was she lying?

Wow well, what else did she lie about then?

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 9:25 am

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:57 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:38 am Didn’t read any other posts,

But Eliza r snow said she was as much Joseph’s bed fellow as any wife is to their husband.

She could have lied

What other leaders lied then? Any current ones? Or is lying and deceiving just reserved for older leaders who you don’t happen to like?

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 9:23 am

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:59 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:38 am Didn’t read any other posts,

But Eliza r snow said she was as much oJoseph’s bed fellow as any wife is to their husband.

Right, decades later... But during the time she later claimed to have been sleeping with Joseph, she was actually signing documents like the "Voice Innocence from Nauvoo" saying there was no polygamy whatsoever.... So something doesn't fit.... Which time was she lying?

Wow well, what else did she lie about then? Why did anyone follow any of the original church leaders at all if they were all liars? Why didn’t god “remove them”? Why do we even exist as a current church if we are based on lies and horrible people.

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 9:28 am

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:43 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:20 am

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:19 pm



I don't mean to question your honesty... I just find it baffling that you treat so many matters as "settled"... It does seem to me you assume that other people couldn't possibly have made an honest inquiry themselves and reached a different conclusion than you have, so you treat their conclusions like rubbish... But, yes, I honestly can't see how anyone who has taken a deep dive into this subject can have such an extreme view as thinking the matter is settled, whether for or against, or anywhere in between. The evidence shows it's far from settled, in my view...

Anyone that says that anything is a settled matter (as you have), is them-self - by very definition - not open to alternative viewpoints... But then you go and accuse others of burying their heads in the sand...

Others have reached "counter arguments" too in order to try to explain all the apparent contradictions. And it doesn't mean they're just trying to bury their heads in the sand... As for your counter argument of waiting until they were out of danger before letting the people know that God's way is polygamy... Boy oh boy, I'd be pretty upset if I had followed the Twelve in good faith to then discover half way to the Rocky Mountains that this whole business of polygamy (THAT THEY'D BEEN DENYING ALL ALONG) was, in fact, true... That'd be a tough pill to swallow...

Just go study the case of Richard Hewitt, who believed Hyrum's words in 1844 (found here : https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... l-1844/303) but then later, during the trek west, Brigham allegedly takes a pass at his daughter...To which Brother Hewitt is said to reply saying that before giving Brigham his daughter to marry : "I would give you a bullet through your black heart first"... I'd maybe have a similar reaction if I were put in that situation.....

The reality is, there are so many possibilities here given how muddy the history is.... To think any amount of study has allowed anyone to figure it all out, or that the matter is settled, is foolish, in my opinion... But this seems to be your position - and you constantly polarize it to two different "sides"...

Likewise, you somehow feel it necessary to belittle those who can't seem to be able to reconcile the way polygamy was practiced in our church with the scriptures, God's nature, or the contemporary historical evidence... I believe that people's misgivings and questions and uneasiness are well founded....

And let me be clear, once again, that David's couple of wives (at the beginning) or Abraham's situation I don't see as comparable to the polygamy practiced in our Church. Go read the account of Martha Brotherton (http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/mo/miscstl2.htm -- just search Martha Brotherton on the page to find her affidavit)... Even if her account is half-way true, then it is the worst form of unrighteous dominion imaginable... And I would reject such behavior with everything I have.

I find William Smith's October 1845 "Proclamation", printed in the Warsaw Signal to be fascinating and plausible, if not credible. I think everyone should read it and form their own opinion... And it's just one of several places where someone close to Joseph claims that Brigham and others of the Twelve were the originators of the spiritual wife/polygamy doctrine...

And there's all sorts of evidence that any dissenters were being "widdled" out of Nauvoo by threat of force on orders from Brigham and the Twelve... William Smith and others were legitimately afraid for their lives. But you just brush him off as unstable? And Emma as mentally unhinged? Was this the mental condition of everyone who found the doctrine of Celestial polygamy to be evil?

Do you have source that Marks later said Joseph taught plural marriage? I know Sidney Rigdon later did, though his original claim in October 1844 was that it was the Twelve that was responsible... If Marks ever did say this, then is it not possible that Marks and Rigdon simply began to believe the widely circulated rumors?

Again, any way you look at it, lots of people lied.... There are several plausible arguments to be made as to why, perhaps, any group of them may have lied...

But you so readily discount those you don't agree with. You have shown clear disdain for opposing viewpoints. For example, when I posted an article by Richard and Pamela Price you called it "BS" and "anti-Mormon trash" and told me to stop posting it...

Why do you think that other members of the Church shouldn't read and study these alternative viewpoints, and decide for themselves, as you claim to have? I have studied and prayed on such things and seen my testimony of the restoration, and of the prophet Joseph, and of the Savior grow!

When you dismiss this all as "conspiracy theory" it's just not sincere.

I feel like I'm just trying to debate climate change with someone who just keeps screaming: "IT'S A CONSENSUS!!! Science has proven that global warming is manmade!!! 97% of scientists agree!!!!!!" To which my reply is, "Yes, I agree that there's a study out there that concludes that 97% of scientists agree about man made global warming... Problem is, if you actually examine that study that everyone cites (which I have), it is completely full of selection bias, affirmation bias, and all types of bias, was done by a graduate student, and is anything from scientific... And nowhere proves a consensus of anything..." Same goes here, with the so-called consensus opinion of Joseph's polygamy.

Cab believe it or not I completely understand your viewpoint.

Perhaps the matter is not completely settled.

Shouldn't our goal be to arrive at the truth, though instead of remaining in limbo and just spinning our wheels about how the mattered is not settled and should therefore be endlessly debated?

I'll admit that I've been too harsh with you, like when I called the Price's work anti-Mormon trash or said you're putting your head in the sand.

The Price's work is extremely biased and full of cherry picked quotes.

Do you honestly see Cochranite spiritual wivery as being even remotely the same thing as Celestial plural marriage?

They are completely different in my opinion.

Anyway I don't want to rehash the debate. I don't see a point to spinning our wheels and going around circles about how there's all these reasons to question the plural marriage narrative.

The discussion should be leading to the truth and not confusion. Confusion is of the Devil not God.

You know the truth is that the traditional narrative of the church that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God is not settled either.

There's plenty of reasons to question that, too. Should we endlessly debate that, too, and insist that anyone who doesn't question this or refutes the arguments of the exmormon anti-Mormons hasn't investigated their claims?

I did investigate their claims and it almost cost me my testimony. After a lot of soul searching and intense struggle I took a side.

Of course I could instead keeping screaming about the View of the Hebrews, poor grammar in the BOM, failed prophecies in the D&C, the Kinderhook plates, the Book of Abraham controversy, and add 100+ other things.

Then when someone asks me to go on record as saying that I believe Joseph was either a liar, deceived, or both I could refuse to take a side and just keep saying that there's a reason to question that he was truthful and a true prophet.

Where does it end?

And just one more thought that I have about what you said about confusion not being of God...

Same with secrecy and secret chambers.

I guess that's one of the reasons why I have a general disdain for polygamy. It seems to me, polygamy is almost always associated with confusion and secrecy. It seems to me that the Book of Mormon shows several examples of this...

Our church history is certainly an example of this.

But I get it that you may have a different interpretation.

There’s plenty of confusion and secrecy in the current church.

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 10:20 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 9:23 am

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:59 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:38 am Didn’t read any other posts,

But Eliza r snow said she was as much oJoseph’s bed fellow as any wife is to their husband.

Right, decades later... But during the time she later claimed to have been sleeping with Joseph, she was actually signing documents like the "Voice Innocence from Nauvoo" saying there was no polygamy whatsoever.... So something doesn't fit.... Which time was she lying?

Wow well, what else did she lie about then? Why did anyone follow any of the original church leaders at all if they were all liars? Why didn’t god “remove them”? Why do we even exist as a current church if we are based on lies and horrible people.

I don't know what else she lied about. All I know is that she signed the "Voice of Innocence" declarimg that polygamy was not taught or practiced... but then later, as Brigham's top wife, backtracked and said she was married to Joseph before Brigham... Similar stories emerged from many of the top leaders' wives saying they were first married to Joseph. I question all these decades later statements by already entrenched polygamists... Not saying they are terrible people, just saying it is very questionable.

We are a church because Joseph was a prophet and restored many truths. Did God guarantee that organization would never go apostate? I don't believe we, nor anyone received such a guarantee...

So why would we exist as a current Church? Perhaps just as the Lord says of those who would receive the Book of Mormon in the Latter Days, because "I will try the faith of my people" (3 Nephi 26:7-11). We clearly aren't passing that test though, as we haven't yet received the "greater things" spoken of in these verses and elsewhere...

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 10:22 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 9:28 am

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:43 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:20 am

Cab believe it or not I completely understand your viewpoint.

Perhaps the matter is not completely settled.

Shouldn't our goal be to arrive at the truth, though instead of remaining in limbo and just spinning our wheels about how the mattered is not settled and should therefore be endlessly debated?

I'll admit that I've been too harsh with you, like when I called the Price's work anti-Mormon trash or said you're putting your head in the sand.

The Price's work is extremely biased and full of cherry picked quotes.

Do you honestly see Cochranite spiritual wivery as being even remotely the same thing as Celestial plural marriage?

They are completely different in my opinion.

Anyway I don't want to rehash the debate. I don't see a point to spinning our wheels and going around circles about how there's all these reasons to question the plural marriage narrative.

The discussion should be leading to the truth and not confusion. Confusion is of the Devil not God.

You know the truth is that the traditional narrative of the church that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God is not settled either.

There's plenty of reasons to question that, too. Should we endlessly debate that, too, and insist that anyone who doesn't question this or refutes the arguments of the exmormon anti-Mormons hasn't investigated their claims?

I did investigate their claims and it almost cost me my testimony. After a lot of soul searching and intense struggle I took a side.

Of course I could instead keeping screaming about the View of the Hebrews, poor grammar in the BOM, failed prophecies in the D&C, the Kinderhook plates, the Book of Abraham controversy, and add 100+ other things.

Then when someone asks me to go on record as saying that I believe Joseph was either a liar, deceived, or both I could refuse to take a side and just keep saying that there's a reason to question that he was truthful and a true prophet.

Where does it end?

And just one more thought that I have about what you said about confusion not being of God...

Same with secrecy and secret chambers.

I guess that's one of the reasons why I have a general disdain for polygamy. It seems to me, polygamy is almost always associated with confusion and secrecy. It seems to me that the Book of Mormon shows several examples of this...

Our church history is certainly an example of this.

But I get it that you may have a different interpretation.

There’s plenty of confusion and secrecy in the current church.

Agreed. It's almost like it's woven right into the fabric of our culture.