LDS Freedom Forum

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:00 am

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

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

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?

Matthias wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:11 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:00 am

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

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

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?

I think the main purpose of establishing that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage is to vindicate Brigham Young and the early saints who said Joseph taught and practiced it.

That's kind of a big deal.

Whether or not Brigham and the apostles were lying whoremongers or faithful servants of God is huge.

The truth on this matters. It matters a lot.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:11 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:00 am

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

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

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?

I think the main purpose of establishing that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage is to vindicate Brigham Young and the early saints who said Joseph taught and practiced it.

That's kind of a big deal.

Whether or not Brigham and the apostles were lying whoremongers or faithful servants of God is huge.

The truth on this matters. It matters a lot.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:21 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:11 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:00 am

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

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?

I think the main purpose of establishing that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage is to vindicate Brigham Young and the early saints who said Joseph taught and practiced it.

That's kind of a big deal.

Whether or not Brigham and the apostles were lying whoremongers or faithful servants of God is huge.

The truth on this matters. It matters a lot.

Yes, I understand the quest to prove Joseph practiced it validates everyone else practicing it after but the truth is, it was announced after Joseph’s death to the church membership. The credit should be BY’s as he was the prophet at the time, right?
Is it not cowardice (possible a better word needed) on his part to not receive an approval from the Lord to introduce a foreign practice to an entire church as its prophet, seer and revelator and instead remove himself of responsibility and cite Joseph who had long been dead?

This alone concerns me.

darknesstolight wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:48 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:11 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:00 am

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

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?

I think the main purpose of establishing that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage is to vindicate Brigham Young and the early saints who said Joseph taught and practiced it.

That's kind of a big deal.

Whether or not Brigham and the apostles were lying whoremongers or faithful servants of God is huge.

The truth on this matters. It matters a lot.

This belies your bias. It isn't truth you are after. It's vindication. If BY falls, then your faith in his beliefs fall too. He is the Father of your Faith. You must Defend Your Father so that Your Faith Doesn't Fall.

...

Matthias wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:55 am

darknesstolight wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:48 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:11 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 12:00 am

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?

I think the main purpose of establishing that Joseph really did teach and practice plural marriage is to vindicate Brigham Young and the early saints who said Joseph taught and practiced it.

That's kind of a big deal.

Whether or not Brigham and the apostles were lying whoremongers or faithful servants of God is huge.

The truth on this matters. It matters a lot.

This belies your bias. It isn't truth you are after. It's vindication. If BY falls, then your faith in his beliefs fall too. He is the Father of your Faith. You must Defend Your Father so that Your Faith Doesn't Fall.

...

The truth is all I care about, not vindication.

If Brigham and the others are proven to be lying, murdering, whoremongers like the RLDS claim, then so be it.

If however they are proven to have been truthful and faithful then so be it.

The truth of this matter is very important.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:36 pm

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

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

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


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.

cab wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 6:43 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:36 pm

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

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

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.

Absolutely nothing points towards dishonesty? Are you conveniently forgetting the fact that every time it's about to get juicy between him and Sarah Crooks full passages are scribbled out to be indiscernible?

Matthias wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 6:53 am

cab wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 6:43 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:36 pm

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


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.

Absolutely nothing points towards dishonesty? Are you conveniently forgetting the fact that every time it's about to get juicy between him and Sarah Crooks full passages are scribbled out to be indiscernible?

I wasn't aware of that. Do you have any proof of this?

cab wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 6:58 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 6:53 am

cab wrote: ↑February 28th, 2020, 6:43 am

Matthias wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:36 pm

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.

Absolutely nothing points towards dishonesty? Are you conveniently forgetting the fact that every time it's about to get juicy between him and Sarah Crooks full passages are scribbled out to be indiscernible?

I wasn't aware of that. Do you have any proof of this?

I thought you've looked at all the primary evidence yourself? This is why it's so hard to talk to you about this stuff.