Another historical revision – Hyrum Smith’s missing anti-polygamy discourse from April 1844

[Gadianton Slayer]

I believe that “polygamy” is a real thing, simply because of the concept of multiple probations. We can obviously be sealed to more than one person, but it’s not the perverted version that Brigham brought about. Please explain to me that quote from him about a woman being able to leave her husband for a man of “higher authority”, him knowing full well he was at the top. Or him slandering other men saying he could get more women than them like it was some kind of sick and twisted competition.

I find it hilarious how you can believe in some form of polygamy and yet still hate BY. Brigham Young derangement syndrome at its finest. Just quit clutching at straws

This is really two questions in one. First off, I am of the opinion that Brigham Young either misspoke, was misquoted, or explained the situation poorly with that statement about a women leaving her husband for a man higher up in authority. I believe what he was trying to say is that a woman in a bad relationship could choose to leave her husband and be married to a more righteous man. I'm not aware of what Brigham Young said in that quote actually happening, where a woman left her husband for another man without being divorced first.

No, Brigham Young was right. Joseph said this:

• "He [Joseph Smith] often referred to the feelings that should exist between husband and wives, that they, his wives, should be his bosom companions, the nearest and dearest objects on earth in every sense of the word. He said men must beware how they treat their wives. They were given them for a holy purpose that the myriads of spirits waiting for tabernacles might have pure and healthy bodies. He also said many would awake in the morning of the resurrection sadly disappointed; for they, by transgression, would have neither wives nor children, for they surely would be taken from them, and given to those who should prove themselves worthy. Again he said, a woman would have her choice; this was a privilege that could not be denied her." (Lucy Walker Kimball Autobiography)
  

In CPM, women get quality, men get quantity. Look at this as well from Brigham:

• "A woman who is sealed to a good man who bears the Priesthood if that man honors that Priesthood if that woman leaves him of her own accord & she is sealed to a dozen other men the first man will hold her in the resurrection if he wants her unless she should be sealed to a Man of a Higher Priesthood. Then he would have her. But Even A man Holding the office of a deacon may magnify that Calling so that he would be more worthy & have a higher Exaltation than many High Priest. It is not so much the office a Man Holds as it is of the magnifying of that portion of the office He does hold." (Brigham Young, as quoted in Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 11 December 1869)

So it is not a man being "higher in the Priesthood", i.e. Church Pres. is top dog, as everyone accuses Brigham of meaning by this quote (i.e. him setting himself up), but instead whether you magnify your Priesthood - it's based on your personal righteousness. As Brigham said, you could be a Deacon and take the wife of a High Priest! - if you are more righteous. It's interesting how that links back to this Scripture:

• D&C 84
  
  33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
  34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

In other words, the deciding factor is how much of the Spirit of the Lord you possess, or in other words, relationship with Him (which is true Priesthood).

Also, look at the revelation on CPM:

• D&C 132
  
  44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.

This is exactly how Joseph tried to preach CPM from the beginning - the parable of the talents. Use your talents wisely, or you will lose them and be given to someone else more righteous

Your statement from Joseph is not credible, I need a direct quote which you know doesn’t exist.

[Gadianton Slayer]

I find it hilarious how you can believe in some form of polygamy and yet still hate BY. Brigham Young derangement syndrome at its finest. Just quit clutching at straws

You've got to be kidding, right? This is the same logic the church uses all the time, you are either "all in" or you are "all out." Ever heard of the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?

No it's not even on the same page mate. I'm talking about the desperate attempts to cling onto this hatred of BY, yet still retaining a belief in Plural Marriage. Good grief.

You don’t see the distinction I make between “celestial polygamy” and Brigham’s polygamy. You can believe in one without the other.

[Luke]

Your statement from Joseph is not credible, I need a direct quote which you know doesn’t exist.

Ignore it then if you don't like it.

[Luke]

You don’t see the distinction I make between “celestial polygamy” and Brigham’s polygamy. You can believe in one without the other.

They are one and the same (when lived righteously)...

[darknesstolight]

Lol. There we go, the crux of this issue. I believe that anyone saying Joseph practiced polygamy either misspoke, was misquoted, or spoke poorly.

This is your excuse when something goes against your narrative, hence the self-righteous countenance Cab is talking about.

We’re done here, thanks for the talk.

Matthias is incapable of being wrong. The reasons why these discussions devolve is because Matthias is a dogmatic idealoge.

You can't reason with someone like that. Matthias keeps blaming others for attacking him and can't see past his ideology and dogma to know that truth.

Matthias will never be wrong because whatever idea he thinks is good he has internally decided that it is the same as God. To Matthias his opinion IS God's opinion, always.

Any counter arguments will be dismissed or explained away. Like when his reasoning is brought to its logical conclusion he will claim he didn't mean to say that or he will claim that the words don't really mean what you think. Like he dismissed the whole BY quote about putting away women. He just says no, BY didn't really mean that, and ipso facto it's not a problem anymore!

That's what Matthias has produced in his posts over and over.

...

[Gadianton Slayer]

You don’t see the distinction I make between “celestial polygamy” and Brigham’s polygamy. You can believe in one without the other.

They are one and the same (when lived righteously)...

I disagree but that’s fine.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Lol. There we go, the crux of this issue. I believe that anyone saying Joseph practiced polygamy either misspoke, was misquoted, or spoke poorly.

This is your excuse when something goes against your narrative, hence the self-righteous countenance Cab is talking about.

We’re done here, thanks for the talk.

Matthias is incapable of being wrong. The reasons why these discussions devolve is because Matthias is a dogmatic idealoge.

You can't reason with someone like that. Matthias keeps blaming others for attacking him and can't see past his ideology and dogma to know that truth.

Matthias will never be wrong because whatever idea he thinks is good he has internally decided that it is the same as God. To Matthias his opinion IS God's opinion, always.

Any counter arguments will be dismissed or explained away. Like when his reasoning is brought to its logical conclusion he will claim he didn't mean to say that or he will claim that the words don't really mean what you think. Like he dismissed the whole BY quote about putting away women. He just says no, BY didn't really mean that, and ipso facto it's not a problem anymore!

That's what Matthias has produced in his posts over and over.

...

If I am interpreting this right, he admitted that he won’t change his mind.

“The truthfulness of the church I'm an active believing member of rest on this issue. “
-Matthias

[LDS Watchman]

Lol. There we go, the crux of this issue. I believe that anyone saying Joseph practiced polygamy either misspoke, was misquoted, or spoke poorly.

This is your excuse when something goes against your narrative, hence the self-righteous countenance Cab is talking about.

We’re done here, thanks for the talk.

Matthias is incapable of being wrong. The reasons why these discussions devolve is because Matthias is a dogmatic idealoge.

You can't reason with someone like that. Matthias keeps blaming others for attacking him and can't see past his ideology and dogma to know that truth.

Matthias will never be wrong because whatever idea he thinks is good he has internally decided that it is the same as God. To Matthias his opinion IS God's opinion, always.

Any counter arguments will be dismissed or explained away. Like when his reasoning is brought to its logical conclusion he will claim he didn't mean to say that or he will claim that the words don't really mean what you think. Like he dismissed the whole BY quote about putting away women. He just says no, BY didn't really mean that, and ipso facto it's not a problem anymore!

That's what Matthias has produced in his posts over and over.

...

Looks like my troll is up to his usual shenanigans.

[darknesstolight]

Lol. There we go, the crux of this issue. I believe that anyone saying Joseph practiced polygamy either misspoke, was misquoted, or spoke poorly.

This is your excuse when something goes against your narrative, hence the self-righteous countenance Cab is talking about.

We’re done here, thanks for the talk.

Matthias is incapable of being wrong. The reasons why these discussions devolve is because Matthias is a dogmatic idealoge.

You can't reason with someone like that. Matthias keeps blaming others for attacking him and can't see past his ideology and dogma to know that truth.

Matthias will never be wrong because whatever idea he thinks is good he has internally decided that it is the same as God. To Matthias his opinion IS God's opinion, always.

Any counter arguments will be dismissed or explained away. Like when his reasoning is brought to its logical conclusion he will claim he didn't mean to say that or he will claim that the words don't really mean what you think. Like he dismissed the whole BY quote about putting away women. He just says no, BY didn't really mean that, and ipso facto it's not a problem anymore!

That's what Matthias has produced in his posts over and over.

...

If I am interpreting this right, he admitted that he won’t change his mind.

“The truthfulness of the church I'm an active believing member of rest on this issue. “
-Matthias

Which is fine. We all can have our views but what that means is that you have to realize that when Mattias responds to any arguments you put forward he is at the moment incapable of being honest in his responses. He can't even consider the notion that he is interpreting. Knowing that a person is a dogmatic idealoge helps you to adjust your expectations appropriately.



...

[Gadianton Slayer]

Lol. There we go, the crux of this issue. I believe that anyone saying Joseph practiced polygamy either misspoke, was misquoted, or spoke poorly.

This is your excuse when something goes against your narrative, hence the self-righteous countenance Cab is talking about.

We’re done here, thanks for the talk.

Matthias is incapable of being wrong. The reasons why these discussions devolve is because Matthias is a dogmatic idealoge.

You can't reason with someone like that. Matthias keeps blaming others for attacking him and can't see past his ideology and dogma to know that truth.

Matthias will never be wrong because whatever idea he thinks is good he has internally decided that it is the same as God. To Matthias his opinion IS God's opinion, always.

Any counter arguments will be dismissed or explained away. Like when his reasoning is brought to its logical conclusion he will claim he didn't mean to say that or he will claim that the words don't really mean what you think. Like he dismissed the whole BY quote about putting away women. He just says no, BY didn't really mean that, and ipso facto it's not a problem anymore!

That's what Matthias has produced in his posts over and over.

...

If I am interpreting this right, he admitted that he won’t change his mind.

“The truthfulness of the church I'm an active believing member of rest on this issue. “
-Matthias

Which is fine. We all can have our views but what that means is that you have to realize that when Mattias responds to any arguments you put forward he is at the moment incapable of being honest in his responses. He can't even consider the notion that he is interpreting. Knowing that a person is a dogmatic idealoge helps you to adjust your expectations appropriately.



...

Yeah, if I wasn’t genuinely curious about understanding what he believes I would have stopped responding long ago. Maybe it’s time.

[iWriteStuff]

*The pause that refreshes*

Personal attacks have pretty much rekt this thread. Locking until y'all cool down.

[iWriteStuff]

Ok y'all should be a bunch of icebergs by now.

Enjoy!

[cab]

Thank you mods. I believe that the various denials of the existence of any multiple wife doctrine by Joseph and Hyrum during the last months of their lives are a valuable piece of the puzzle.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Ok y'all should be a bunch of icebergs by now.

Enjoy!

Way to make me remember this past life

[cab]

Here is a better transcription of this original talk by Hyrum, which was later scrubbed by the “History”.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... bullock/33

[Craig Johnson]

*The pause that refreshes*

Personal attacks have pretty much rekt this thread. Locking until y'all cool down.

Without personal attacks on this forum we will have to endure verbal non-violence.

[Silver Pie]

Without personal attacks on this forum we will have to endure verbal non-violence.