LDS Freedom Forum

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 11:24 am

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

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

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


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...

Of course we can apostatize, I think we have. We just disagree at what point it occurred

I don’t think we’ve ever met, I’m Eliza.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 11:36 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 11:24 am

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

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

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...

Of course we can apostatize, I think we have. We just disagree at what point it occurred

I don’t think we’ve ever met, I’m Eliza.

Perhaps 50% of the active church will apostatize. So what percentage are we at now?
I believe there will always be a core unit of this church that will stay true and faithful to welcome the savior when he returns.

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:52 am Joseph was known to lie, if it was to protect something of value. He lied about the golden plates not being in the barrel of beans, just like he lied about not having more than one wife. Those that state that Joseph never lied are deluding themselves. Just look at his history and you will see that Joseph did often take some extreme steps to protect himself or the saints. He even made the controversial decision to destroy a newspaper for the danger they posed to both the church and the saints. If you think he was above lying about plural marriage and his practicing it, you really dont know Joseph or what he was capable of.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:33 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:52 am Joseph was known to lie, if it was to protect something of value. He lied about the golden plates not being in the barrel of beans, just like he lied about not having more than one wife. Those that state that Joseph never lied are deluding themselves. Just look at his history and you will see that Joseph did often take some extreme steps to protect himself or the saints. He even made the controversial decision to destroy a newspaper for the danger they posed to both the church and the saints. If you think he was above lying about plural marriage and his practicing it, you really dont know Joseph or what he was capable of.

The problem with that approach is where does it end?
Perhaps, for the greater good (take note), he lied about seeing God, or angels etc. Perhaps he thought it would be ok to lie about translating gold plates, or receiving priesthood authority and so on.
You seem to be saying he was justified in lying whenever he thought it expedient. I reject that and I think most right thinking people would too.

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:48 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:33 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:52 am Joseph was known to lie, if it was to protect something of value. He lied about the golden plates not being in the barrel of beans, just like he lied about not having more than one wife. Those that state that Joseph never lied are deluding themselves. Just look at his history and you will see that Joseph did often take some extreme steps to protect himself or the saints. He even made the controversial decision to destroy a newspaper for the danger they posed to both the church and the saints. If you think he was above lying about plural marriage and his practicing it, you really dont know Joseph or what he was capable of.

The problem with that approach is where does it end?
Perhaps, for the greater good (take note), he lied about seeing God, or angels etc. Perhaps he thought it would be ok to lie about translating gold plates, or receiving priesthood authority and so on.
You seem to be saying he was justified in lying whenever he thought it expedient. I reject that and I think most right thinking people would too.

It wasnt just him though. Christ withheld numerous truths from lawyers, pharisees, Roman officials, disciples,etc.... One can argue that this isn't the same as lying, but is it really? Withholding information can be just as bad as lying.
Pres. Hinkley on national television did not agree that exaltation to Godhood was true doctrine. Instead he responded, "I've heard about this doctrine before." And then he led the conversation somewhere else. Did Hinkley lie? Arguably, no, but it certainly wasnt the full truth.

I agree with you though, it does cause concern for when our leaders are being truthful with us, and when they are withholding information from us. I think that happens now, for better or for worse. However, there is precedent for this in that Christ didnt divulge everything to His followers either.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:53 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:48 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:33 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 5:52 am Joseph was known to lie, if it was to protect something of value. He lied about the golden plates not being in the barrel of beans, just like he lied about not having more than one wife. Those that state that Joseph never lied are deluding themselves. Just look at his history and you will see that Joseph did often take some extreme steps to protect himself or the saints. He even made the controversial decision to destroy a newspaper for the danger they posed to both the church and the saints. If you think he was above lying about plural marriage and his practicing it, you really dont know Joseph or what he was capable of.

The problem with that approach is where does it end?
Perhaps, for the greater good (take note), he lied about seeing God, or angels etc. Perhaps he thought it would be ok to lie about translating gold plates, or receiving priesthood authority and so on.
You seem to be saying he was justified in lying whenever he thought it expedient. I reject that and I think most right thinking people would too.

It wasnt just him though. Christ withheld numerous truths from lawyers, pharisees, Roman officials, disciples,etc.... One can argue that this isn't the same as lying, but is it really? Withholding information can be just as bad as lying.
Pres. Hinkley on national television did not agree that exaltation to Godhood was true doctrine. Instead he responded, "I've heard about this doctrine before." And then he led the conversation somewhere else. Did Hinkley lie? Arguably, no, but it certainly wasnt the full truth.

I agree with you though, it does cause concern for when our leaders are being truthful with us, and when they are withholding information from us. I think that happens now, for better or for worse. However, there is precedent for this in that Christ didnt divulge everything to His followers either.

I get the impression you're already fully aware that this is an extremely weak argument... so I won't say it.

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 1:50 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:53 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:48 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:33 pm


The problem with that approach is where does it end?
Perhaps, for the greater good (take note), he lied about seeing God, or angels etc. Perhaps he thought it would be ok to lie about translating gold plates, or receiving priesthood authority and so on.
You seem to be saying he was justified in lying whenever he thought it expedient. I reject that and I think most right thinking people would too.

It wasnt just him though. Christ withheld numerous truths from lawyers, pharisees, Roman officials, disciples,etc.... One can argue that this isn't the same as lying, but is it really? Withholding information can be just as bad as lying.
Pres. Hinkley on national television did not agree that exaltation to Godhood was true doctrine. Instead he responded, "I've heard about this doctrine before." And then he led the conversation somewhere else. Did Hinkley lie? Arguably, no, but it certainly wasnt the full truth.

I agree with you though, it does cause concern for when our leaders are being truthful with us, and when they are withholding information from us. I think that happens now, for better or for worse. However, there is precedent for this in that Christ didnt divulge everything to His followers either.

I get the impression you're already fully aware that this is an extremely weak argument... so I won't say it.

So weak because it's TRUE? You might get squeamish about it but there it is. You may not like the truth of Joseph having practised plural marriage, nor him lying about things in public to protect both himself and the early saints. Others have pointed out others who have also obfuscated the truth but you have tried to explain those away too.

I could go on, but I figure it'd be a waste of time doing so, in that you refuse to acknowledge that other leaders have withheld or even distorted truth to protect the work of God. But go on, keep believing that Joseph never practised plural marriage. The RLDS will agree with you.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 1:58 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 1:50 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:53 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:48 pm

It wasnt just him though. Christ withheld numerous truths from lawyers, pharisees, Roman officials, disciples,etc.... One can argue that this isn't the same as lying, but is it really? Withholding information can be just as bad as lying.
Pres. Hinkley on national television did not agree that exaltation to Godhood was true doctrine. Instead he responded, "I've heard about this doctrine before." And then he led the conversation somewhere else. Did Hinkley lie? Arguably, no, but it certainly wasnt the full truth.

I agree with you though, it does cause concern for when our leaders are being truthful with us, and when they are withholding information from us. I think that happens now, for better or for worse. However, there is precedent for this in that Christ didnt divulge everything to His followers either.

I get the impression you're already fully aware that this is an extremely weak argument... so I won't say it.

So weak because it's TRUE? You might get squeamish about it but there it is. You may not like the truth of Joseph having practised plural marriage, nor him lying about things in public to protect both himself and the early saints. Others have pointed out others who have also obfuscated the truth but you have tried to explain those away too.

I could go on, but I figure it'd be a waste of time doing so, in that you refuse to acknowledge that other leaders have withheld or even distorted truth to protect the work of God. But go on, keep believing that Joseph never practised plural marriage. The RLDS will agree with you.

When you're in a hole... stop digging!
You know full well that being economical with the truth is not the same as telling a lie.
And if you don't, you should.

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 11:48 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 11:36 am

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 11:24 am

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


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...

Of course we can apostatize, I think we have. We just disagree at what point it occurred

I don’t think we’ve ever met, I’m Eliza.

Perhaps 50% of the active church will apostatize. So what percentage are we at now?
I believe there will always be a core unit of this church that will stay true and faithful to welcome the savior when he returns.

The whole church is in apostasy since the time we failed to establish Zion when it was offered

cab wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 6:47 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?

Thanks for your response... We're probably pretty similar at the end of the day... We both get passionate, even heated, and are extreme haha.

I see what you're saying too. I get it.

No I absolutely don't see Cochranite practices as the same thing... At all... Just a potential area where a seed may have been planted in some men's hearts, and if allowed to grow, could have possibly grown (?while the Twelve were separated from the main body of the church in England? (???) - especially when introduced to the idea of sealing by Joseph later on.... Satan always has a counterfeit.... But I don't know. To me these are just plausible explanations to the mess we can see that later ensued, while trying to reconcile it all with past scripture and end times prophesy, and my current observation of where our Church is today....

And I don't think it helped that some of this alternative evidence has been shielded... But what's the Church supposed to do at this point??? I don't know?

I guess I feel for all kids, kind of like you almost losing your testimony.... I fear for the many kids that leave home at 18 all juiced up with the "Rosey Colored" gospel they were taught all growing up to then be confronted by the internet and the confusion of Joseph's polygamy and other aspects of church history... I'm just glad you and I both found our way out the other side (somewhat) intact

As for the Book of Mormon being "not settled"... I guess for me, it kind of is... I guess in that area, I'm not open to much debate. I'll engage in some conversation, but my head's kinda in the sand on that one... That's a decision I've made in the past, based on my experiences with the book. That's the one thing I can say that I will be anchored to, outside of my testimony of Christ... Perhaps you feel that strongly about plural marriage, but I'd hope it's different... Clearly much more good can be found in the Book of Mormon, than the latter... I imagine that most members of the forum agree, and the moderators will allow attacks on the institution of polygamy all day, but would likely not tolerate attacks on the Book of Mormon's authenticity for very long...

NewEliza wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 11:24 am

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

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

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


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...

Of course we can apostatize, I think we have. We just disagree at what point it occurred

I don’t think we’ve ever met, I’m Eliza.

simpleton wrote: ↑February 7th, 2020, 8:21 am REVELATION RECEIVED WEST OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, ON 17 JULY 1831

In July 1831 after the arrival of Joseph Smith, Jr., and others in Jackson County, Missouri, plans were made to preach to the Native Americans. Smith received a directive on intermarriage with the Indians. At a later date William W. Phelps wrote, evidently from memory, what he claimed was part or the substance of this revelation:

Part — of a revelation by Joseph Smith Jun. given over the boundary, west of Jackson Co. Missouri, on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, when Seven Elders, viz: Joseph Smith Jun. Oliver Cowdery, W.W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Ziba Peterson and Joshua Lewis united their hearts in prayer, in a private place, to inquire of the Lord who should preach the first sermon to the remnants of the Lamanites and Nephites, and the people of that Section, that should assemble that day in the Indian country, to hear the gospel, and the revelations according to the Book of Mormon.

Among the company, there being neither pen, ink or paper, Joseph [Smith, Jr.] remarked that the Lord could preserve his words as he had ever done, till the time appointed, and proceeded:

Verily, verily, saith the Lord your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, ye can not discerne [discern] with your natural eyes, the design and the purpose of your Lord and your God, in bringing you thus far into the wilderness for a trial of your faith, and to be especial witnesses, to bear testimony of this land, upon which the zion of God shall be built up in the last days, when it is redeemed.

Verily, inasmuch as ye are united in calling upon my name to know my will concerning who shall preach to the inhabitants that shall assemble this day to learn what new doctrine you have to teach them, you have done wisely, for so did the prophets anciently, even Enoch, and Abraham, and others: and therefore, it is my will that my servant Oliver Cowdery should open the meeting with prayer; that my servant W. W. Phelps should preach the discourse; and that my servants Joseph Coe and Ziba Peterson should bear testimony as they shall be moved by the Holy Spirit. This will be pleasing in the sight of your Lord.

Verily I say unto you, ye are laying the foundation of a great work for the salvation of as many as will believe and repent, and obey the ordinances of the gospel, and continue faithful to the end: For, as I live, saith the Lord, so shall they live.

Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

Gird up your loins and be prepared for the mighty work of the Lord to prepare the world for my second coming to meet the tribes of Israel according to the predictions of all the holy prophets since the beginning; For the final desolation, and decrees upon Babylon: For, as the everlasting gospel is carried from this land, in love for peace, to gather mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, for Zion,— even so shall rebellion follow after speedily, with hatred for war until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all the kingdoms and nations that strive to govern themselves by the laws and precepts, and force and powers of men under the curse of sin, in all the world.

Verily I say unto you, that the day of vexation and vengeance is nigh at the doors of this nation, when wicked, ungodly and daring men will rise up in wrath and might, and go forth in anger, like as the dust is driven by [a] terrible wind; and they will be the means of the destruction of the government, and cause the death and misery of man[y] souls, but the faithful among my people shall be preserved in holy places, during all these tribulations.

Be patient, therefore, possessing your souls in peace and love, and keep the faith that is now delivered unto you for the gathering of scattered Israel, and lo, I am with you, though ye cannot see me, till I come: even so. Amen.

Reported by W.W.P. [William W. Phelps]

About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph [Smith, Jr.] privately, how "we," that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the "natives"—as we were all married men? He replied instantly "In th[e] same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah [Keturah]; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah and Zilpah: by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.

Hmmm 1831... of course the naysayers and the haters will discount it as it is not in the D&C and not acknowledged by the church, but I am just ignorant enough to believe it is genuine.

simpleton wrote: ↑February 7th, 2020, 8:21 am REVELATION RECEIVED WEST OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, ON 17 JULY 1831

In July 1831 after the arrival of Joseph Smith, Jr., and others in Jackson County, Missouri, plans were made to preach to the Native Americans. Smith received a directive on intermarriage with the Indians. At a later date William W. Phelps wrote, evidently from memory, what he claimed was part or the substance of this revelation:

Part — of a revelation by Joseph Smith Jun. given over the boundary, west of Jackson Co. Missouri, on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, when Seven Elders, viz: Joseph Smith Jun. Oliver Cowdery, W.W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Ziba Peterson and Joshua Lewis united their hearts in prayer, in a private place, to inquire of the Lord who should preach the first sermon to the remnants of the Lamanites and Nephites, and the people of that Section, that should assemble that day in the Indian country, to hear the gospel, and the revelations according to the Book of Mormon.

Among the company, there being neither pen, ink or paper, Joseph [Smith, Jr.] remarked that the Lord could preserve his words as he had ever done, till the time appointed, and proceeded:

Verily, verily, saith the Lord your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, ye can not discerne [discern] with your natural eyes, the design and the purpose of your Lord and your God, in bringing you thus far into the wilderness for a trial of your faith, and to be especial witnesses, to bear testimony of this land, upon which the zion of God shall be built up in the last days, when it is redeemed.

Verily, inasmuch as ye are united in calling upon my name to know my will concerning who shall preach to the inhabitants that shall assemble this day to learn what new doctrine you have to teach them, you have done wisely, for so did the prophets anciently, even Enoch, and Abraham, and others: and therefore, it is my will that my servant Oliver Cowdery should open the meeting with prayer; that my servant W. W. Phelps should preach the discourse; and that my servants Joseph Coe and Ziba Peterson should bear testimony as they shall be moved by the Holy Spirit. This will be pleasing in the sight of your Lord.

Verily I say unto you, ye are laying the foundation of a great work for the salvation of as many as will believe and repent, and obey the ordinances of the gospel, and continue faithful to the end: For, as I live, saith the Lord, so shall they live.

Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

Gird up your loins and be prepared for the mighty work of the Lord to prepare the world for my second coming to meet the tribes of Israel according to the predictions of all the holy prophets since the beginning; For the final desolation, and decrees upon Babylon: For, as the everlasting gospel is carried from this land, in love for peace, to gather mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, for Zion,— even so shall rebellion follow after speedily, with hatred for war until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all the kingdoms and nations that strive to govern themselves by the laws and precepts, and force and powers of men under the curse of sin, in all the world.

Verily I say unto you, that the day of vexation and vengeance is nigh at the doors of this nation, when wicked, ungodly and daring men will rise up in wrath and might, and go forth in anger, like as the dust is driven by [a] terrible wind; and they will be the means of the destruction of the government, and cause the death and misery of man[y] souls, but the faithful among my people shall be preserved in holy places, during all these tribulations.

Be patient, therefore, possessing your souls in peace and love, and keep the faith that is now delivered unto you for the gathering of scattered Israel, and lo, I am with you, though ye cannot see me, till I come: even so. Amen.

Reported by W.W.P. [William W. Phelps]

About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph [Smith, Jr.] privately, how "we," that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the "natives"—as we were all married men? He replied instantly "In th[e] same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah [Keturah]; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah and Zilpah: by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.

Hmmm 1831... of course the naysayers and the haters will discount it as it is not in the D&C and not acknowledged by the church, but I am just ignorant enough to believe it is genuine.