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

[LDS Watchman]

Like I have said before and before, anyone here gets a direct revelation on this let me know and we can discuss. But, I am more than confident that Joseph and Hyrum were sealed to multiple females. Call it what you like. they can publicly say what they like. Let's compare to other statements they made about hot topics where publicly they denied (Danites, Orin Porter Rockwell, Masonic statements, on and on and on).

Are we making the differentiation between sealed vs sex?

Some of their marriages/sealings included sex and others didn't. There's a reason Emma was so angry and jealous about some of these marriages. She knew what was going on.

There's also a reason why Joseph and Hyrum practiced plural marriage in secret. If none of these marriages included sex, there would have been nothing to hide.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Like I have said before and before, anyone here gets a direct revelation on this let me know and we can discuss. But, I am more than confident that Joseph and Hyrum were sealed to multiple females. Call it what you like. they can publicly say what they like. Let's compare to other statements they made about hot topics where publicly they denied (Danites, Orin Porter Rockwell, Masonic statements, on and on and on).

Are we making the differentiation between sealed vs sex?

Some of their marriages/sealings included sex and others didn't. There's a reason Emma was so angry and jealous about some of these marriages. She knew what was going on.

There's also a reason why Joseph and Hyrum practiced plural marriage in secret. If none of these marriages included sex, there would have been nothing to hide.

Did someone hide the disagree button?

[Reluctant Watchman]

Like I have said before and before, anyone here gets a direct revelation on this let me know and we can discuss. But, I am more than confident that Joseph and Hyrum were sealed to multiple females. Call it what you like. they can publicly say what they like. Let's compare to other statements they made about hot topics where publicly they denied (Danites, Orin Porter Rockwell, Masonic statements, on and on and on).

Are we making the differentiation between sealed vs sex?

It was both in this instance

Interesting how pretty much all of you anti-polygamists always have to make it about sex (I can pinpoint the main culprits)... it's almost as if your constant mentioning of it is in fact a reflection of yourselves, your mind, your thoughts...

Maybe us pro-polygamists arent so sordid and dirty as you think. Might want to look closer to home though mate.

Haha, this coming from you Luke……..

[Luke]

Interesting how pretty much all of you anti-polygamists always have to make it about sex (I can pinpoint the main culprits)... it's almost as if your constant mentioning of it is in fact a reflection of yourselves, your mind, your thoughts...

Maybe us pro-polygamists arent so sordid and dirty as you think. Might want to look closer to home though mate.

Haha, this coming from you Luke……..

Have you ever seen me try and make something (particularly polygamy) vulgar and sexual? Didn't think so

[Reluctant Watchman]

Ok, I’ve had enough fun on the poly thread. It has been informative. I’m moving on. I hope you guys have fun. I have a lot of other research topics to work on.

[LDS Watchman]

Like I have said before and before, anyone here gets a direct revelation on this let me know and we can discuss. But, I am more than confident that Joseph and Hyrum were sealed to multiple females. Call it what you like. they can publicly say what they like. Let's compare to other statements they made about hot topics where publicly they denied (Danites, Orin Porter Rockwell, Masonic statements, on and on and on).

Are we making the differentiation between sealed vs sex?

Some of their marriages/sealings included sex and others didn't. There's a reason Emma was so angry and jealous about some of these marriages. She knew what was going on.

There's also a reason why Joseph and Hyrum practiced plural marriage in secret. If none of these marriages included sex, there would have been nothing to hide.

Did someone hide the disagree button?

Yeah I know you disagree, but the fact remains that this is what the historical record says happened.

But since you disagree, maybe you can try to explain why Joseph arranged a secret meeting between himself and the Whitneys, warned them about being in danger if Emma found out, and told them to burn the letter?

[LDS Physician]

I read this ages ago. Did you read his comment about a wife in Heaven and one on earth though? He said both will belong to him in the next life

He did, and he's right...but he said also in this life a man should only have one wife.

Why do you think he said that, but secretly did otherwise?

[Luke]

I read this ages ago. Did you read his comment about a wife in Heaven and one on earth though? He said both will belong to him in the next life

He did, and he's right...but he said also in this life a man should only have one wife.

Why do you think he said that, but secretly did otherwise?

Because this:

• “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Brigham Young, JD 11:269, 19 August 1866)

• “The doctrine of polygamy within the ‘Mormons’ is not one of that kind that in the religious world is classed with ‘non-essentials’. It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remain. . . . It stands in the category of ‘Mormon’ belief, not as a principle of inclination or mere license, but one of heavenly requisition.” (Brigham Young, Millennial Star 27:673, October 1865)

[LDS Physician]

I read this ages ago. Did you read his comment about a wife in Heaven and one on earth though? He said both will belong to him in the next life

He did, and he's right...but he said also in this life a man should only have one wife.

Why do you think he said that, but secretly did otherwise?

Because this:

• “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Brigham Young, JD 11:269, 19 August 1866)

• “The doctrine of polygamy within the ‘Mormons’ is not one of that kind that in the religious world is classed with ‘non-essentials’. It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remain. . . . It stands in the category of ‘Mormon’ belief, not as a principle of inclination or mere license, but one of heavenly requisition.” (Brigham Young, Millennial Star 27:673, October 1865)

So one prophet and his brother say PM is reprehensible and the next prophet says that it is not.

Who to believe?

[cab]

I read this ages ago. Did you read his comment about a wife in Heaven and one on earth though? He said both will belong to him in the next life

He did, and he's right...but he said also in this life a man should only have one wife.

Why do you think he said that, but secretly did otherwise?

Because this:

• “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Brigham Young, JD 11:269, 19 August 1866)

• “The doctrine of polygamy within the ‘Mormons’ is not one of that kind that in the religious world is classed with ‘non-essentials’. It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remain. . . . It stands in the category of ‘Mormon’ belief, not as a principle of inclination or mere license, but one of heavenly requisition.” (Brigham Young, Millennial Star 27:673, October 1865)

So one prophet and his brother say PM is reprehensible and the next prophet says that it is not.

Who to believe?

Man that’s tough… if only the Book of Mormon writers gave us a hint of what to do when a righteous leader dies and then polygamy pops up out of nowhere…

Oh wait…

Jacob 1:12-19
Mosiah 11:1-5
Ether 10:2-7

[Luke]

I read this ages ago. Did you read his comment about a wife in Heaven and one on earth though? He said both will belong to him in the next life

He did, and he's right...but he said also in this life a man should only have one wife.

Why do you think he said that, but secretly did otherwise?

Because this:

• “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Brigham Young, JD 11:269, 19 August 1866)

• “The doctrine of polygamy within the ‘Mormons’ is not one of that kind that in the religious world is classed with ‘non-essentials’. It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remain. . . . It stands in the category of ‘Mormon’ belief, not as a principle of inclination or mere license, but one of heavenly requisition.” (Brigham Young, Millennial Star 27:673, October 1865)

So one prophet and his brother say PM is reprehensible and the next prophet says that it is not.

Who to believe?

Except that Joseph AND Hyrum both taught in private that it was necessary for exaltation. Some further evidence coming tomorrow which I have been gathering

So no contradiction at all

[LDS Physician]

He did, and he's right...but he said also in this life a man should only have one wife.

Why do you think he said that, but secretly did otherwise?

Because this:

• “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Brigham Young, JD 11:269, 19 August 1866)

• “The doctrine of polygamy within the ‘Mormons’ is not one of that kind that in the religious world is classed with ‘non-essentials’. It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remain. . . . It stands in the category of ‘Mormon’ belief, not as a principle of inclination or mere license, but one of heavenly requisition.” (Brigham Young, Millennial Star 27:673, October 1865)

So one prophet and his brother say PM is reprehensible and the next prophet says that it is not.

Who to believe?

Except that Joseph AND Hyrum both taught in private that it was necessary for exaltation. Some further evidence coming tomorrow which I have been gathering

So no contradiction at all

I'm looking forward to seeing it ... I'd love to see the private teachings of JS and HS with sources. Thank you!

[Mindfields]

I'm not twisting their words at all. I simply view these carefully worded public denials of spiritual wivery and adultery...

Look, if you believe that Joseph and Hyrum were justified in saying one thing in public, while saying (and doing) another thing in private, because God had commanded them to do so, I get that. It is not something that can be argued with.

Though you could at least drop the Newspeak about "carefully worded denials" and instead use a phrase that's more honest and straightforward, like "Lying for the Lord," as in:

I'm not twisting their words at all. I simply view lying for the Lord about spiritual wifery and adultery in light of all the available evidence...

I'll stick to using the phrase "carefully worded denials," because that's the correct terminology.

"Lying for the Lord" is a charge leveled against the Saints of God by their enemies.

The church that he founded uses lying as its modus operandi and has done so since very near the beginning of its existence. In any other arena "carefully worded denials" is considered nothing but lying.

Contextual lie:
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say "Yeah, that's right, I ate all the white chocolate, by myself," using sarcasm, a form of assertion by ridiculing the fact(s) implying the liar believes it to be preposterous.

Economical with the truth:
Economy with the truth is popularly used as a euphemism for deceit, whether by volunteering false information (i.e., lying) or by deliberately holding back relevant facts. More literally, it describes a careful use of facts so as not to reveal too much information, as in "speaking carefully".

Misleading and dissembling:
A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. "Dissembling" likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading.

[Mindfields]

Do you have any of your own thoughts or do you just copy and paste what the anti-Mormons say?

This laundry list of anti-Mormon grievances does nothing to bolster your case that Joseph Smith didn't teach and practice plural marriage. But I will address these bogus, lest you think I don't have an answer to them.

See my responses in blue.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/defendin ... 261259694/

Doctrinal Fallacies in D&C 132

From Enid DeBarthe’s “Bibliography of Joseph Smith II the Mormon Prophet-Leader .”

1. “. . . I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching this principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines. . . ."
a. Rebekah was Isaac’s only wife. This proves nothing. The bible only provides us with a very short summary of Isaac's life and there are plenty of things in the D&C which add information about the past, which isn't contained in the Bible at present.
b. It cannot be proved that Zipporah had not died before Moses married his second wife, the Cushite woman. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible says, “Zipporah may have died during the preceding year, although her death is not recorded." This again proves nothing. It's much more likely that Moses enterered into a polygamous marriage here. There's a reason why Aaron and Miriam were against this marriage.
2. If polygamy was an ancient order commanded of God, it could not be a "new and an everlasting covenant.” It was a new and everlasting covenant to the Saints in the last days. Just like the restoration of other aspects of the gospel were referred to as a new and everlasting covenant in other parts of the D&C, even though they weren't actually new.
3. The marriage law "instituted before the foundation of the world” was not polygamy, but monogamy.
a. Jesus said, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
While this applied to divorce, it seems to say that another wife shall not separate what "God hath joined." Other scriptures on monogamy are Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18-2; I Corinthians 6:16. There are also passages in the Bible governing polygamy and stating that God gave David many wives and then gave them to someone else.
b. Jacob in the Book of Mormon, speaking for God, said, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord, . , , Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save It be one wife and concubines he shall have none? For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women." (Jacob 2:33-36) There's also 2 Samuel 12 where it says that God gave David his wives and then once he fell from his high station he gave them another. There's also Jacob 2:30.
4. “Mine anointed" referring to Joseph Smith is not consistent with any other use of the term, "Mine anointed" in all Scripture refers to Christ. This is simply not true. David refers to Saul as the Lord's anointed for example. And there was a whole anointed quorum in Nauvoo of those who had been anointed Kings and Priests under the direction of Joseph Smith.
5. Marriage "for time and for all eternity" is in contradiction to Jesus* own teaching concerning the man who had had seven wives. When asked whose husband the man would be in heaven, Jesus said “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor or given in marriage. Neither can they die any more for they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. (Luke 20:35-36) Well it's an undeniable fact that Joseph and Hyrum taught eternal marriage. Even the most ardent polygamy deniers on this forum acknowledge that.
6. ". . . Pass by the angels, and the gods"
None of the scriptures teach a plurality of gods, but rather:
“And there is no God else beside me, a just God, and a Savior, there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth for I am God, and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:21-22)
“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:6) It's again an undeniable fact that Joseph Smith taught plurality of Gods. It's all over the scriptures, too.
7. "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him by the hand of Nathan.”
In II Samuel 12:1-15 is found the story of Nathan’s answer when David was ready to kill the man who had taken the ewe lamb belonging to another. "Thou art the man." And David confessed, "I have sinned against the Lord."
The Pulpit Commentary writes:

“These words probably mean that, as the whole possessions of his predecessor belonged, by Oriental custom, to the next occupant of the throne, David might have claimed the entire household and the wives both of Saul and Ishbosbeth as his own, though apparently he had not done so. As far as we know, Saul had but one wife (1 Samuel 14:50) and one concubine, Rizpah (2 Samuel 3:7). Of Ishbosheth's family arrangements we know little, but his harem, if he had one, would become the property of David...”
Also important to remember is that the Deuteronomistic Historians edited and redacted Samuel over a period of 2-3 centuries. This is a completely false interpretation. In that same chapter, when God says he is taking away David's wives and giving them to his neighbor, he says his neighbor will "lie" with them. These were legitimate wives God gave David.

I love how people throw around the term "anti-mormon." Please, by all means, believe what you will about polygamy. I'm not a fan of D&C 132.

When I use the term anti-mormon, I'm simply calling a spade a spade.

And it really doesn't matter that you aren't a fan of D&C 132. What matters is whether or not it came from God.

It's clear from the historical record that it came from Joseph Smith, who said it was a revelation from God. The contents of the revelation are also corroborated by the testimonies of Joseph and Hyrum, eye witnesses who were intimately acquainted with them, and the rest of the scriptures.

The provenance of section 132 is such a convoluted mess. To say it clearly came from Joseph Smith is conjecture at best.

[JSmith]

I read this ages ago. Did you read his comment about a wife in Heaven and one on earth though? He said both will belong to him in the next life

So? How is that the same as having multiple wives to bed with here?

Twist his words all you want. Hyrum and Joseph consistently and emphatically rejected and denied any practice of having more than one wife at a time.

hence the claims of duplicity levied at them in Nauvoo as their private practices and teachings began to become known to the public.

[TrueFaith]

You can take any revelation of Joseph Smith and claim it isn't true, starting with the First Vision and The Book of Mormon. There are plenty of anti-mormon theories out there that will even make you feel good about it.

The people who don't believe that polygamy is a commandment from God have decided that simply because it doesn't sit well with the modern, world definition of a family.

I have known several members who left the church because they both hated the idea of polygamy and also thought that homosexual marriage should be accepted. These people have thrown out the Scriptures and the commandments in their own minds and have swallowed the philosophies of men.

[TheDuke]

contextual lies are like say. Parables to hide the truth, or teaching non-Jews are like dogs and can get only meat dropped from the table. Or my friends are only those who love me and keep my commandments, but I love everyone. Love everyone and forgive, but destroy every cat, dog, cow, woman, child that lives in Caanan. On and on. God hides deep truths until we are able to bear them. Always has, always will. I guess you could say he is a "jealous god" or you could say he is racist (only letting Jesus teach Israelites), etc... but the truth is that we learn line-upon-line and that is accomplished by repeated small teachings. Which means rolling back larger (what seems like lies) to get to the full truth.

This is an example, as are the others in the list of my first post. There are many, read historical (not church purified) teachings of Joseph, Brigham and others. Or for that matte NT or OT. I love the BoM, but it was sanitized in many regards by Mormon, he did live in a hellish world and was pretty harsh (black and white) on his presentation of the history, but it is a general's take after all. (maybe not the Nephi record, but then I struggle knowing the Nephi was so darned perfect, like Joseph of Jacob, but then he was sold off for being a bit snutty to his brothers, even though he was near perfection).

Of course Joseph and Hyrum hid truths. Funny how it is obvious but others say that prophets cannot lie or tell half truths (does seem like parables are half truths). I know for a fact that everything we know about the gospel in this life is at best a half truth. We cannot abide the truth of God in our fallen state, so we get crumbs from the table. Alas, we agreed to come here and must be happy to "look through the glass darkly".

[zionssuburb]

My personal take on the 'lie' is that conveniently, though horrifically, the John C. Bennett gang of Spiritual Wifery exploiters gave Joseph and Hyrum a way to cage their answers in terms of no, that stuff that was going on is not of God and no, Joseph and Hyrum were not practicing it.

Being careful with words is the lesson learned from Missouri, God is giving us this land didn't make for good neighbors and thrice bitten....

[cab]

You can take any revelation of Joseph Smith and claim it isn't true, starting with the First Vision and The Book of Mormon. There are plenty of anti-mormon theories out there that will even make you feel good about it.

The people who don't believe that polygamy is a commandment from God have decided that simply because it doesn't sit well with the modern, world definition of a family.

I have known several members who left the church because they both hated the idea of polygamy and also thought that homosexual marriage should be accepted. These people have thrown out the Scriptures and the commandments in their own minds and have swallowed the philosophies of men.

Except Joseph didn’t vociferously deny and reject the 1st vision and The Book of Mormon at every turn during his life the way he did polygamy. He never shied away from the truth.

You, my friend, are guilty of precisely what you accuse. You have a narrative you need to be true and have swallowed all sorts of twisted logical fallacies to allow yourself to feel good about it. I did too, until a few years ago. But then I decided to put my traditions on the altar for truth’s sake.

[Luke]

But then I decided to put my traditions on the altar for truth’s sake.

No you didn’t.

[cab]

But then I decided to put my traditions on the altar for truth’s sake.

No you didn’t.

You did for a while there

[Luke]

But then I decided to put my traditions on the altar for truth’s sake.

No you didn’t.

You did for a while there

No I didn’t

There is literally nothing more contrary to our traditions than Celestial Plural Marriage. As if a belief in monogamy requires laying your traditions on the altar. Lmao

[cab]

But then I decided to put my traditions on the altar for truth’s sake.

No you didn’t.

You did for a while there

No I didn’t

There is literally nothing more contrary to our traditions than Celestial Plural Marriage. As if a belief in monogamy requires laying your traditions on the altar. Lmao

We were born in this church. We were born into this tradition. We have a narrative that has to be upheld which is one of polygamy. If it’s not upheld then our claim of an unbroken line of prophets is broken.

To question the validity of polygamy is to question the validity of our inherited faith tradition. You would agree with this statement, right?

[darknesstolight]

Like I have said before and before, anyone here gets a direct revelation on this let me know and we can discuss. But, I am more than confident that Joseph and Hyrum were sealed to multiple females. Call it what you like. they can publicly say what they like. Let's compare to other statements they made about hot topics where publicly they denied (Danites, Orin Porter Rockwell, Masonic statements, on and on and on).

Already told you weeks ago and repeatedly.

I heard God's voice speak to me and tell me BY was dead wrong on his practice of polygamy. I have direct revelation that the polygamy idea taught by BY and practiced by BY is a horrible mistake and it was never God who gave those revelations to BY.

God told me from His own mouth that BY created a whoredom with his many wives and concubines and it was an abomination just like what David and Solomon did was an abomination.

These were spoken by God's voice to me, which voice is Spirit. It is pure revelation because before this revelation I agreed with and supported BY polygamy.

...

[Luke]

No you didn’t.

You did for a while there

No I didn’t

There is literally nothing more contrary to our traditions than Celestial Plural Marriage. As if a belief in monogamy requires laying your traditions on the altar. Lmao

We were born in this church. We were born into this tradition. We have a narrative that has to be upheld which is one of polygamy. If it’s not upheld then our claim of an unbroken line of prophets is broken.

To question the validity of polygamy is to question the validity of our inherited faith tradition. You would agree with this statement, right?

Yes I would partially agree. But let’s face it. The Church rails against polygamy. It kicks polygamists out its ranks, it calls them wicked apostates, it tells people NEVER to associate with them or believe what they believe. It denies the teachings of Brigham Young and John Taylor. It literally makes polygamy out to be the worst thing in the world

So no, I don’t think that to question polygamy is to look past our traditions, because the Church hates polygamy. It’s much easier to believe in the Church that polygamy is wrong than to believe what BY taught on the subject

Combine that with the West’s thousands of years of monogamy and it shows that your statement is simply laughable. Going against CPM is not going against the grain in any way, shape, fashion, or form.