LDS Freedom Forum

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 12:00 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:52 am

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:43 am


Um, no there's not. And no he didn't. But I'm not getting into this circular argument again for the 100th time.

Keep telling yourself that buddy.

Ok, why don't you tell me then. Is the section heading scripture? Where did Joseph Smith write down his musings on this topic to prove your point?

Journal, sermon, periodical, anywhere contemporary to his life?...

Please share it with me if you have it. I am willing to change my stance.

But as long as we are limited to someone else (who isn't an enemy of his) saying they heard or saw Joseph say or do so and so, many years after he allegedly did it, I think my current line of thinking is reasonable.

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am

mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:28 am Yeah that thing that even remotely reminds us of polygamy (beards) is evil. But if it is something related to homosexual sex, well, that's okay because we don't want to be ridiculed by the world.

We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.

So yes, Babylon is pleased (but they don't think we have gone far enough) but traditional Christians believe we have sold out to the devil.

Sitting on the fence, lukewarm on homosexuality. That's today's Mormonism. Ooops, I gave Satan another victory.

That's the sad part too. We are looked at as "liberal" now because of Mitt Romney, this whole lukewarm quasi-accepting homosexuality, feminist propaganda spewing church that we have become.

We should be the most conservative and have the highest moral standards. Instead, we are just another church that is ok with today's vices.

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 5:43 pm

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am

mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:28 am Yeah that thing that even remotely reminds us of polygamy (beards) is evil. But if it is something related to homosexual sex, well, that's okay because we don't want to be ridiculed by the world.

We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.

So yes, Babylon is pleased (but they don't think we have gone far enough) but traditional Christians believe we have sold out to the devil.

Sitting on the fence, lukewarm on homosexuality. That's today's Mormonism. Ooops, I gave Satan another victory.

That's the sad part too. We are looked at as "liberal" now because of Mitt Romney, this whole lukewarm quasi-accepting homosexuality, feminist propaganda spewing church that we have become.

We should be the most conservative and have the highest moral standards. Instead, we are just another church that is ok with today's vices.

This should humbly state that being a member of this church doesn’t make a person any better than any other human being, we’re all just mortal people.

Silas wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:42 am

captainfearnot wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:29 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.

So what you're saying is that any pro-LGBT moves by the LDS church are likely to be ridiculed by half the Methodists, and celebrated by the other half. To which Methodists' opinions should the LDS church cater?

We were ridiculed by the rest of mainstream Christianity in 1978 for waiting so long to get on board with racial equality. And we've been trying to shed the image of being a racist church ever since, with limited success. Maybe today's leadership is trying to avoid a similar outcome with regard to the current issue.

I do think it's odd that you condemn LDS leaders for being sensitive to their own members' views and beliefs (through the use of think tanks, surveys, etc.) while at the same time condemning them for not being more sensitive to the views of non-LDS Christians. (Even more strangely, while acknowledging that non-LDS Christians are split on the issue themselves.)

There is a large evangelical church here in Dallas called Wilshire Baptist Church, that voted in 2016 to extend full faith and fellowship to LGBT members. A quarter of their members left the church immediately following the decision, but membership grew to more than replace those lost by the end of the following year. An associate pastor at Wilshire recently wrote an open letter to the UMC to offer insight and advice in light of their current struggles—which the UMC posted to their online forum, United Methodist Insight:

https://um-insight.net/perspectives/adv ... on-anyway/

To whom would you have the LDS leadership pay heed—the Christians that are ridiculing them, or the ones who are trying to address the issue in an informed and conscientious way?

How about we fear God more than man? Let those who agree join us and those who hate that depart from us.

But it's not about you and your club, it's about Jesus and Jesus loves the sinner and would embrace them and keep them close so He can heal them.

Jesus loves the person who is homosexual and views that person as precious and worth His blood. Jesus doesn't care what falsehoods you believe about yourself or what delusional notions you might entertain about how rigthteous you think you are or aren't. Let Jesus be the judge of who is righteous and let Him handle justice. You be the Arm of His Mercy just as you beg for Mercy from Him. And if you aren't or haven't begged for mercy, you most certainly are in the gall of bitterness.

..

http://barerecord.blogspot.com

This is an excellent post on this subject. Most of it is a letter sent by a BYU student to BYU Pres Worthen. He includes some paragraphs from the textbook for his Sociality of Gender class, as well as some student comments from an online discussion.

Trucker wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 12:26 am I think maybe there is a wrong emphasis at BYU regarding what is important. They are straining at gnats. They obsess over the small, minor laws, and ignore the weightier ones.

Who cares what hand we take the sacrament if we endorse sin. Who cares what student's facial hair is. Our priorities are out of whack.

Now that's some funny stuff right there...

You just can't make this stuff up.

Great post!

-----------------------------
[/quote]
But it's not about you and your club, it's about Jesus and Jesus loves the sinner and would embrace them and keep them close so He can heal them.

Jesus loves the person who is homosexual and views that person as precious and worth His blood. Jesus doesn't care what falsehoods you believe about yourself or what delusional notions you might entertain about how rigthteous you think you are or aren't. Let Jesus be the judge of who is righteous and let Him handle justice. You be the Arm of His Mercy just as you beg for Mercy from Him. And if you aren't or haven't begged for mercy, you most certainly are in the gall of bitterness. ..
[/quote]
---------------------------

Yes, Jesus loves the sinner, and we are all sinners. Yes, He wants to heal all of us.

However, what the pro-LGBTQ members are demanding is that we no longer classify homosexual marriage, and homosexual sexual activity as a SIN. They are teaching that it's as divine and holy as heterosexual sexual activity in a marriage.

If we are going to open the doors to everyone, including the temple doors, then adulterers, child abusers, abortion promoters, and every other evil and unclean thing will be welcome, adored, loved, accepted, and approved.

The Mormons Building Bridges state that gays are NOT broken. They do not need to repent of gay activity (sex if married). They do not need to be fixed in the hereafter. They are perfectly made by God.

This is a far cry from what the church used to teach about homosexuality (thoughts and actions, not the person). The MMB folks also hate, hate, hate the "hate the sin, love the sinner" idea, which is what you are saying (and I agree) is Christlike. They want to be totally celebrated for their homosexuality, not in spite of it.

And BYU is caving into their madness.

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 12:00 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:52 am

Keep telling yourself that buddy.

Ok, why don't you tell me then. Is the section heading scripture? Where did Joseph Smith write down his musings on this topic to prove your point?

Journal, sermon, periodical, anywhere contemporary to his life?...

Please share it with me if you have it. I am willing to change my stance.

But as long as we are limited to someone else (who isn't an enemy of his) saying they heard or saw Joseph say or do so and so, many years after he allegedly did it, I think my current line of thinking is reasonable.

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

Sure, you just mentioned section 132, which is scripture. Which correlates with and gives more insight on such individuals as, Abraham, his son and grandson. Specifically their involvement with having multiple wives. It correlates with the message in Jacob of what happens when this is undertaken without God's approval. You may not like it, and therefore wish to disregard sec 132, but the Church has established it as scripture and found to be true. You can know of it's truthfulness through the power of the Holy Ghost. So I'll tell you again, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe this truth is all throughout the scriptures, and that Joseph wasn't the one to reveal this in more detail in these last days.

darknesstolight wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:21 pm

Silas wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:42 am

captainfearnot wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:29 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.

So what you're saying is that any pro-LGBT moves by the LDS church are likely to be ridiculed by half the Methodists, and celebrated by the other half. To which Methodists' opinions should the LDS church cater?

We were ridiculed by the rest of mainstream Christianity in 1978 for waiting so long to get on board with racial equality. And we've been trying to shed the image of being a racist church ever since, with limited success. Maybe today's leadership is trying to avoid a similar outcome with regard to the current issue.

I do think it's odd that you condemn LDS leaders for being sensitive to their own members' views and beliefs (through the use of think tanks, surveys, etc.) while at the same time condemning them for not being more sensitive to the views of non-LDS Christians. (Even more strangely, while acknowledging that non-LDS Christians are split on the issue themselves.)

There is a large evangelical church here in Dallas called Wilshire Baptist Church, that voted in 2016 to extend full faith and fellowship to LGBT members. A quarter of their members left the church immediately following the decision, but membership grew to more than replace those lost by the end of the following year. An associate pastor at Wilshire recently wrote an open letter to the UMC to offer insight and advice in light of their current struggles—which the UMC posted to their online forum, United Methodist Insight:

https://um-insight.net/perspectives/adv ... on-anyway/

To whom would you have the LDS leadership pay heed—the Christians that are ridiculing them, or the ones who are trying to address the issue in an informed and conscientious way?

How about we fear God more than man? Let those who agree join us and those who hate that depart from us.

But it's not about you and your club, it's about Jesus and Jesus loves the sinner and would embrace them and keep them close so He can heal them.

Jesus loves the person who is homosexual and views that person as precious and worth His blood. Jesus doesn't care what falsehoods you believe about yourself or what delusional notions you might entertain about how rigthteous you think you are or aren't. Let Jesus be the judge of who is righteous and let Him handle justice. You be the Arm of His Mercy just as you beg for Mercy from Him. And if you aren't or haven't begged for mercy, you most certainly are in the gall of bitterness.

..

Yeah I didn’t make this up. There really are standards. We are commanded not to administer baptism to the unrepentant and to cut off church members who sin and do not repent. This is all in the revelations. People don’t hate homosexuals. We just aren’t willing to deny the teachings of the gospel in order to make them like us.

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:56 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 12:00 pm


Ok, why don't you tell me then. Is the section heading scripture? Where did Joseph Smith write down his musings on this topic to prove your point?

Journal, sermon, periodical, anywhere contemporary to his life?...

Please share it with me if you have it. I am willing to change my stance.

But as long as we are limited to someone else (who isn't an enemy of his) saying they heard or saw Joseph say or do so and so, many years after he allegedly did it, I think my current line of thinking is reasonable.

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

Sure, you just mentioned section 132, which is scripture. Which correlates with and gives more insight on such individuals as, Abraham, his son and grandson. Specifically their involvement with having multiple wives. It correlates with the message in Jacob of what happens when this is undertaken without God's approval. You may not like it, and therefore wish to disregard sec 132, but the Church has established it as scripture and found to be true. You can know of it's truthfulness through the power of the Holy Ghost. So I'll tell you again, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe this truth is all throughout the scriptures, and that Joseph wasn't the one to reveal this in more detail in these last days.

Ok. You're citing section 132, which didn't see the light of day until 8 years after Joseph's death, and wasn't canonized for another 25 years. Got it. That's all I wanted to know.

Maybe I'm kidding myself. Maybe you are. But I've believed like you my whole life until a few years ago.

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 7:59 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:56 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

Sure, you just mentioned section 132, which is scripture. Which correlates with and gives more insight on such individuals as, Abraham, his son and grandson. Specifically their involvement with having multiple wives. It correlates with the message in Jacob of what happens when this is undertaken without God's approval. You may not like it, and therefore wish to disregard sec 132, but the Church has established it as scripture and found to be true. You can know of it's truthfulness through the power of the Holy Ghost. So I'll tell you again, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe this truth is all throughout the scriptures, and that Joseph wasn't the one to reveal this in more detail in these last days.

Ok. You're citing section 132, which didn't see the light of day until 8 years after Joseph's death, and wasn't canonized for another 25 years. Got it. That's all I wanted to know.

Maybe I'm kidding myself. Maybe you are. But I've believed like you my whole life until a few years ago.

Whether it was canonized while Joseph was alive, or Oct. General Conference 2019, it doesn't matter. You can play your game with any book of scripture, as it was written or recorded by another hand many years after the fact. None of which changes whether it's true or not. Only the Holy Ghost can witness the truth.

Silas wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:42 am

captainfearnot wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:29 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.

So what you're saying is that any pro-LGBT moves by the LDS church are likely to be ridiculed by half the Methodists, and celebrated by the other half. To which Methodists' opinions should the LDS church cater?

We were ridiculed by the rest of mainstream Christianity in 1978 for waiting so long to get on board with racial equality. And we've been trying to shed the image of being a racist church ever since, with limited success. Maybe today's leadership is trying to avoid a similar outcome with regard to the current issue.

I do think it's odd that you condemn LDS leaders for being sensitive to their own members' views and beliefs (through the use of think tanks, surveys, etc.) while at the same time condemning them for not being more sensitive to the views of non-LDS Christians. (Even more strangely, while acknowledging that non-LDS Christians are split on the issue themselves.)

There is a large evangelical church here in Dallas called Wilshire Baptist Church, that voted in 2016 to extend full faith and fellowship to LGBT members. A quarter of their members left the church immediately following the decision, but membership grew to more than replace those lost by the end of the following year. An associate pastor at Wilshire recently wrote an open letter to the UMC to offer insight and advice in light of their current struggles—which the UMC posted to their online forum, United Methodist Insight:

https://um-insight.net/perspectives/adv ... on-anyway/

To whom would you have the LDS leadership pay heed—the Christians that are ridiculing them, or the ones who are trying to address the issue in an informed and conscientious way?

How about we fear God more than man? Let those who agree join us and those who hate that depart from us.

Yep, if God be for us who can be against us.

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.

If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours"

abijah` wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:08 pm “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.

If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours"

Yeah, you poor persecuted people who are just trying to defend the right. All these people who have homosexual tendencies have it so easy. They aren't being persecuted by you guys. You're just defending the truth by calling them sodomites and other such terms. No persecution at all towards gay people. They've felt loved, and they have been treated with such loving kindness over the years. They've never been called fags, or queers, or worse. They've never been ridiculed, or made to feel inferior, or made to feel less than, or ostracized, or hated, or scorned, or mocked, or nothing like that. We as a religion have treated them exactly how they ought to be treated and there is nothing that we need to do to improve as a people in this area. Our past behavior has been so Christ like and it shows. Our past efforts have really brought us all together and so many homosexuals repented and joined the Church and just changed their hearts due to the past ideas, methods, teachings, and policies of the Church. The gay people in the Church have always and forever been treated with respect, all of their lives.

So, I get it. You poor, poor, defenders of the faith. After treating the gay people so lovingly and with so much respect, this is how you get treated in return? Such persecution, such woe and misery is upon you guys. All you want to do is just live in a world where there are no black people, no Jews, and definitely, 100% no gays. That's all you ever wanted and you've had to endure such horrible mockery and hatred because of this pure and wholesome and peaceful desires of your hearts. Oh, it is hard to even speak to it because the injustice is so great.

Ah, well, life sucks, then you die

...

darknesstolight wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:27 pmYeah, you poor persecuted people who are just trying to defend the right. All these people who have homosexual tendencies have it so easy. They aren't being persecuted by you guys. You're just defending the truth by calling them sodomites and other such terms. No persecution at all towards gay people. They've felt loved, and they have been treated with such loving kindness over the years. They've never been called fags, or queers, or worse. They've never been ridiculed, or made to feel inferior, or made to feel less than, or ostracized, or hated, or scorned, or mocked, or nothing like that. We as a religion have treated them exactly how they ought to be treated and there is nothing that we need to do to improve as a people in this area. Our past behavior has been so Christ like and it shows. Our past efforts have really brought us all together and so many homosexuals repented and joined the Church and just changed their hearts due to the past ideas, methods, teachings, and policies of the Church. The gay people in the Church have always and forever been treated with respect, all of their lives.

So, I get it. You poor, poor, defenders of the faith. After treating the gay people so lovingly and with so much respect, this is how you get treated in return? Such persecution, such woe and misery is upon you guys. All you want to do is just live in a world where there are no black people, no Jews, and definitely, 100% no gays. That's all you ever wanted and you've had to endure such horrible mockery and hatred because of this pure and wholesome and peaceful desires of your hearts. Oh, it is hard to even speak to it because the injustice is so great.

Ah, well, life sucks, then you die

...

aaarrgghh!

stop persecuting me

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:44 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 7:59 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:56 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

Sure, you just mentioned section 132, which is scripture. Which correlates with and gives more insight on such individuals as, Abraham, his son and grandson. Specifically their involvement with having multiple wives. It correlates with the message in Jacob of what happens when this is undertaken without God's approval. You may not like it, and therefore wish to disregard sec 132, but the Church has established it as scripture and found to be true. You can know of it's truthfulness through the power of the Holy Ghost. So I'll tell you again, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe this truth is all throughout the scriptures, and that Joseph wasn't the one to reveal this in more detail in these last days.

Ok. You're citing section 132, which didn't see the light of day until 8 years after Joseph's death, and wasn't canonized for another 25 years. Got it. That's all I wanted to know.

Maybe I'm kidding myself. Maybe you are. But I've believed like you my whole life until a few years ago.

Whether it was canonized while Joseph was alive, or Oct. General Conference 2019, it doesn't matter. You can play your game with any book of scripture, as it was written or recorded by another hand many years after the fact. None of which changes whether it's true or not. Only the Holy Ghost can witness the truth.

I don't know what game you think I'm playing. But you're right, the Holy Ghost is what witnesses truth, not what a supposedly infallible council of men decides to canonize. Yes, in 1876, section 132 was added to the D&C and section 101 (which contained the commandment of monogamy) was removed without a vote of common consent by the church.

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 12:00 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:52 am

Keep telling yourself that buddy.

Ok, why don't you tell me then. Is the section heading scripture? Where did Joseph Smith write down his musings on this topic to prove your point?

Journal, sermon, periodical, anywhere contemporary to his life?...

Please share it with me if you have it. I am willing to change my stance.

But as long as we are limited to someone else (who isn't an enemy of his) saying they heard or saw Joseph say or do so and so, many years after he allegedly did it, I think my current line of thinking is reasonable.

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

I'm in the process of providing the contemporary evidence you are asking for by posting all of the entries from William Clayton's Nauvoo journal that show that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage.

Part 1 is up already.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:44 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 12:00 pm


Ok, why don't you tell me then. Is the section heading scripture? Where did Joseph Smith write down his musings on this topic to prove your point?

Journal, sermon, periodical, anywhere contemporary to his life?...

Please share it with me if you have it. I am willing to change my stance.

But as long as we are limited to someone else (who isn't an enemy of his) saying they heard or saw Joseph say or do so and so, many years after he allegedly did it, I think my current line of thinking is reasonable.

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

I'm in the process of providing the contemporary evidence you are asking for by posting all of the entries from William Clayton's Nauvoo journal that show that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage.

Part 1 is up already.

And I've given my only response I'll give. You've shown time and again little willingness to engage in any meaningful dialogue about the sketchy aspects of William Clayton's journals. Sorry, but we've been down this road.

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:05 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:44 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

I'm in the process of providing the contemporary evidence you are asking for by posting all of the entries from William Clayton's Nauvoo journal that show that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage.

Part 1 is up already.

And I've given my only response I'll give. You've shown time and again little willingness to engage in any meaningful dialogue about the sketchy aspects of William Clayton's journals. Sorry, but we've been down this road.

I understand why you insist that William's journals are sketchy. It's really the only position that one can take if one believes Emma's later version on plural marriage.

Emma's later stories and William's journal are pretty incompatible.

Why not look at the evidence I'm presenting for yourself and decide whether or not his journal is sketchy?

I think if you give it an honest look, you'll be surprised at how reliable it is.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:15 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:05 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:44 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

I'm in the process of providing the contemporary evidence you are asking for by posting all of the entries from William Clayton's Nauvoo journal that show that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage.

Part 1 is up already.

And I've given my only response I'll give. You've shown time and again little willingness to engage in any meaningful dialogue about the sketchy aspects of William Clayton's journals. Sorry, but we've been down this road.

I understand why you insist that William's journals are sketchy. It's really the only position that one can take if one believes Emma's later version on plural marriage.

Emma's later stories and William's journal are pretty incompatible.

Why not look at the evidence I'm presenting for yourself and decide whether or not his journal is sketchy?

I think if you give it an honest look, you'll be surprised at how reliable it is.

I'll be honest, his activities with Sarah Crooks while in England make me have a hard time trusting anything from his pen. Do you have a reason to believe that it would be impossible for the entries in this journal to be backdated?
That's my concern. Not as much the content.

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:05 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:44 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

I'm in the process of providing the contemporary evidence you are asking for by posting all of the entries from William Clayton's Nauvoo journal that show that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage.

Part 1 is up already.

And I've given my only response I'll give. You've shown time and again little willingness to engage in any meaningful dialogue about the sketchy aspects of William Clayton's journals. Sorry, but we've been down this road.

I'll also add that the reason I don't put much stock into the arguments of those who attempt to discredit William's Nauvoo journals is because I have actually carefully read them multiple times.

Nothing that I have read even remotely rings like a fabrication to me. And being a history major I've read my fair share of journals, memoirs, letters, affidavits, etc. It's actually not that hard to tell what is and isn't authentic of you know what you're looking for.

But like I said, why not look at the evidence and decide for yourself instead of making this about my unwillingness to consider William's journal to be suspect?

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:21 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:15 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:05 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:44 pm

I'm in the process of providing the contemporary evidence you are asking for by posting all of the entries from William Clayton's Nauvoo journal that show that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage.

Part 1 is up already.

And I've given my only response I'll give. You've shown time and again little willingness to engage in any meaningful dialogue about the sketchy aspects of William Clayton's journals. Sorry, but we've been down this road.

I understand why you insist that William's journals are sketchy. It's really the only position that one can take if one believes Emma's later version on plural marriage.

Emma's later stories and William's journal are pretty incompatible.

Why not look at the evidence I'm presenting for yourself and decide whether or not his journal is sketchy?

I think if you give it an honest look, you'll be surprised at how reliable it is.

I'll be honest, his activities with Sarah Crooks while in England make me have a hard time trusting anything from his pen. Do you have a reason to believe that it would be impossible for the entries in this journal to be backdated?
That's my concern. Not as much the content.

Why would his activities with Sarah Crooks in England make you distrust anything from his pen?

If anything, I consider his honesty about these things to be very strong evidence that his journal is completely reliable and authentic. He certainly didn't hide this, and based on what he wrote in his journal, he obviously recognized that his feelings for Sarah in England were inappropriate.

I'm not saying that's it impossible for him to have backdated journal entries. It's just not at all likely. There just isn't ANY evidence that he did this. Not even the slightest hint.

His entries all read about the same, whether he's recording things having to do with plural marriage or not.

They appear to be completely authentic.

His later affidavit, letter, and even temple history read differently. One can tell that they were written later.

It's worth noting that the only mention of Brigham Young in regards to plural marriage in William's journal is Joseph telling William that he thought that Brigham had broken his covenant.

There are no accounts of Joseph sealing a wife to Brigham or teaching Brigham about it. These types of accounts would surely be in there if William had gone back and rewritten his journal or added entries here or there per Brigham's instructions.

I mean shoot, if it was all a lie, then why didn't they say that Brigham was in the room when Joseph dictated the revelation on plural marriage to William?

Absolutely nothing in William's journal has the appearance of later fabrication or dishonesty.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:44 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 12:00 pm


Ok, why don't you tell me then. Is the section heading scripture? Where did Joseph Smith write down his musings on this topic to prove your point?

Journal, sermon, periodical, anywhere contemporary to his life?...

Please share it with me if you have it. I am willing to change my stance.

But as long as we are limited to someone else (who isn't an enemy of his) saying they heard or saw Joseph say or do so and so, many years after he allegedly did it, I think my current line of thinking is reasonable.

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

I'm in the process of providing the contemporary evidence you are asking for by posting all of the entries from William Clayton's Nauvoo journal that show that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage.

Part 1 is up already.

We can argue if Joseph practiced plural marriage or not for the rest of our lives the fact still remains that he bore no fruit. So, to me how could we count his plural marriage as even a matter at all compared to BY and others who bore fruit and have that public legacy without any doubt?

So I say, who cares really and does it even matter? a Man is judged by his fruit. The fruit of marriage is children so since he was fertile then he essentially didn’t practice it.

Much like many are judging the prophet today by his fruit of NOT producing a “thus says the lord” so he’s not a real prophet seer and revelator... Those same people MUST judge Joseph’s lack of fruit regarding polygamy the same or they lose their integrity.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:41 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:44 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm

By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

I'm in the process of providing the contemporary evidence you are asking for by posting all of the entries from William Clayton's Nauvoo journal that show that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage.

Part 1 is up already.

We can argue if Joseph practiced plural marriage or not for the rest of our lives the fact still remains that he bore no fruit. So, to me how could we count his plural marriage as even a matter at all compared to BY and others who bore fruit and have that public legacy without any doubt?

So I say, who cares really and does it even matter? a Man is judged by his fruit. The fruit of marriage is children so since he was fertile then he essentially didn’t practice it.

Much like many are judging the prophet today by his fruit of NOT producing a “thus says the lord” so he’s not a real prophet seer and revelator... Those same people MUST judge Joseph’s lack of fruit regarding polygamy the same or they lose their integrity.

I would just say, look at the evidence I'm presenting from William Clayton's journal about Joseph direct involvement with plural marriage and then judge for yourself.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:48 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:41 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:44 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 3:05 pm

You made the claim that Joseph had this specific question while he was translating the Bible. I would just like you to show where Joseph said he had this question... And it doesn't appear that you have it.

Why do we use the scriptures? Because the scriptures are written to convey the power of the Holy Ghost, giving accounts of people who experienced God first hand. What someone has witnessed should collaborate with others' witnesses.

When it comes to Celestial plural marriage, I don't see anyone having an ascension vision, preaching it by the power of the Holy Ghost, or have it correspond to other witnesses in Scripture. For Celestial Plural marriage, all we have is section 132 and dozens of people (most of whom entered into polygamous relationships years prior) telling their version of what they think they thought they heard Joseph say or what they heard someone else say that they think they thought Joseph might have said...

So I'll ask again, do you have any contemporary evidence that shows Joseph did what you said he did? Or just more reasons why such evidence isn't necessary...

I'm in the process of providing the contemporary evidence you are asking for by posting all of the entries from William Clayton's Nauvoo journal that show that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage.

Part 1 is up already.

We can argue if Joseph practiced plural marriage or not for the rest of our lives the fact still remains that he bore no fruit. So, to me how could we count his plural marriage as even a matter at all compared to BY and others who bore fruit and have that public legacy without any doubt?

So I say, who cares really and does it even matter? a Man is judged by his fruit. The fruit of marriage is children so since he was fertile then he essentially didn’t practice it.

Much like many are judging the prophet today by his fruit of NOT producing a “thus says the lord” so he’s not a real prophet seer and revelator... Those same people MUST judge Joseph’s lack of fruit regarding polygamy the same or they lose their integrity.

I would just say, look at the evidence I'm presenting from William Clayton's journal about Joseph direct involvement with plural marriage and then judge for yourself.

Think that’s what I just did.

Even if he practiced it, he bore no fruit.
BY bore fruit. He practiced it. If he was supposed to then he will have received acknowledgement and blessing from heaven for what he produced.

Joseph’s polygamy produced what exactly?

Arguing among the membership until the millennium? Anything else?

Proving someone said Joseph practiced it is easy. But does it matter?

Let’s take the initial quest of saying he did it and agree, now what? Debate the purpose? There was no purpose for Joseph’s polygamy. Can you show a purpose? What was the point? BY could have started it himself and he accomplished it, what in the world was Joseph doing getting mixed up in it?

Judge by the fruit. I believe this is your stance too. Why not apply it to Joseph?