What does Isaiah 24:5 mean to you?

[Baurak Ale]

Oh I admit he did teach it and even married as many as 40 wives, but before his martyrdom he changed his mind and did a 180 turn-about.

...And now that we know that polygamy is “not doctrinal”...

We? I don't know that.

You think Hinckley had a revelation that he shared with Larry King but not the church? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Unfortunately, you're right that there's an unsavory history in the church, and that interview is part of it. That particular lesson in the history book taught me that it is not hard to say easy things and have friendship with the world.

Also, I have not heard it said before that Joseph entered into plural marriage, took 40 wives, and then changed his mind and cast them all off. I am very interested in what historical evidence you use to justify his about face; it's easy to say he never did it based on his veiled public comments, and it is very easy to say that he did do it based on his unveiled private comments. Taking a blend between the two is impossible based on my knowledge of his total statements, public or private.

“Absurd”? Why would you say it’s absurd, when I gave proof that Hinckley said it on the Larry King show with video to prove it? Yet Hinckley never said a peek to the members about polygamy being “not doctrinal? Why are you questioning the proof I provided you?

He also said on the Larry King show when questioned about before God became God that he was a mortal man on an earth like this one. Well Hinckley hedged on the question saying in effect “I don’t know that we teach it.” A week after the interview I was teaching it to our High Priest Group and the quote by President Snow was in it that said: “As man now is God once was and as God is man may become.” But even this quote is taken from the false doctrine in the King Follett sermon because the Book of Mormon says and I paraphrase: “God is everlasting to everlasting with no beginning and without end.” So Hinckley outright lied!

William Marks was considered by most to be one of the most honest men of personal integrity in Nauvoo. Apparently the Lord was impressed by Marks. He made Marks the President of the Church in Far West and Nauvoo. Here is the testimony that Marks actually published in 1853 in the Zions Harbinger and Baneemy’s Organ:.

“When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church…
Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks… We are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? He said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow.
I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church.
Now,’ said he,’ Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent and cease the practice of this doctrine.”

Oh, the William Marks argument. I should have guessed. I thought maybe you had a statement or document historically contemporary with Joseph Smith.

Do I need to get into all the problems with the Wiliam Marks statement? You say that the Lord was impressed with him as evidenced by his callings. Can the same be said of William Law, John Bennet, or Brigham Young by you? I would guess you're probably a big fan of the first two, but it must be admitted that according to your logic the Lord called all three of them to great positions because "the Lord was impressed" by them.

What I'm trying to point out is that your reliance upon a person's being called by the Lord makes no bearing on whether they were subsequently chosen by the Lord to become anything of note, for we learn by sad experience that men in such positions often change the course of their characters. It is left for us to examine what has been left and inquire of the Lord about the true history of these things to know who did lose their calling and who did remain faithful to the calling with which they were called. I, for one, believe that Brigham Young stayed true to his calling. He faithfully carried forward the practice and doctrine of all things temple-oriented, which you must have for the fulness of the gospel, such as baptism for the dead, which was an item publicly taught by Joseph Smith. For Marks to side with the RLDS he had to abandon all the covenants he once made in the endowment and lose the ability to perform the most beautiful and sacred rites restored through Joseph Smith for the living and the dead. What a shame!

Anyway, I feel that is tangential to your main ridiculous notion and can be easily dismissed; I thought you had something substantial to bring to my attention.

As for Hinckley, I've seen the video before. Its existence is not proof that Hinckley had a revelation or spoke the truth. I have to give you credit for sticking to your belief that what he said to Larry King constituted a revelation, but that is about the craziest thing I've ever heard. Let me just say that if the principle that animates your zeal in that cause is that the words merely came out of the prophet's mouth, then you have a lot of doctrinal headaches to resolve when you take on the history of Mormonism, let alone trying to resolve statements in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's sermons. Your statements make you out to be a trinitarian, ecumenical, cherry-picking jack Mormon, at best. It's such a crazy notion to stand on that I don't feel much like debating it any further with you. Anyone else reading this thread who has an ounce of practical sense will see that your position is about as reliable as a one-legged man in a butt-kicking competition.

Keep tugging on that polygamy thread and sooner than later the binding in your Bible will come undone and out will fall the law and the prophets.

[Luke]

A week after the interview I was teaching it to our High Priest Group and the quote by President Snow was in it that said: “As man now is God once was and as God is man may become.” But even this quote is taken from the false doctrine in the King Follett sermon because the Book of Mormon says and I paraphrase: “God is everlasting to everlasting with no beginning and without end.”

There is no contradiction whatsoever. Pieces of truth are relative, and come line upon line. The Scripture says:

• D&C 93
  30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

God is everlasting, but He was also once a man like us.

He is everlasting, simply because with Him, time does not exist (as stated in the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses).

This in no way negates the fact that He was once a man like us.

When you get to where God is, and become a God like Him, you will also be everlasting, because there will be no time with you either!

Quantum physics has already given you these answers on a plate.

[GeeR]

Oh I admit he did teach it and even married as many as 40 wives, but before his martyrdom he changed his mind and did a 180 turn-about.

...And now that we know that polygamy is “not doctrinal”...

We? I don't know that.

You think Hinckley had a revelation that he shared with Larry King but not the church? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Unfortunately, you're right that there's an unsavory history in the church, and that interview is part of it. That particular lesson in the history book taught me that it is not hard to say easy things and have friendship with the world.

Also, I have not heard it said before that Joseph entered into plural marriage, took 40 wives, and then changed his mind and cast them all off. I am very interested in what historical evidence you use to justify his about face; it's easy to say he never did it based on his veiled public comments, and it is very easy to say that he did do it based on his unveiled private comments. Taking a blend between the two is impossible based on my knowledge of his total statements, public or private.

“Absurd”? Why would you say it’s absurd, when I gave proof that Hinckley said it on the Larry King show with video to prove it? Yet Hinckley never said a peek to the members about polygamy being “not doctrinal? Why are you questioning the proof I provided you?

He also said on the Larry King show when questioned about before God became God that he was a mortal man on an earth like this one. Well Hinckley hedged on the question saying in effect “I don’t know that we teach it.” A week after the interview I was teaching it to our High Priest Group and the quote by President Snow was in it that said: “As man now is God once was and as God is man may become.” But even this quote is taken from the false doctrine in the King Follett sermon because the Book of Mormon says and I paraphrase: “God is everlasting to everlasting with no beginning and without end.” So Hinckley outright lied!

William Marks was considered by most to be one of the most honest men of personal integrity in Nauvoo. Apparently the Lord was impressed by Marks. He made Marks the President of the Church in Far West and Nauvoo. Here is the testimony that Marks actually published in 1853 in the Zions Harbinger and Baneemy’s Organ:.

“When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church…
Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks… We are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? He said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow.
I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church.
Now,’ said he,’ Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent and cease the practice of this doctrine.”

Oh, the William Marks argument. I should have guessed. I thought maybe you had a statement or document historically contemporary with Joseph Smith.

Do I need to get into all the problems with the Wiliam Marks statement? You say that the Lord was impressed with him as evidenced by his callings. Can the same be said of William Law, John Bennet, or Brigham Young by you? I would guess you're probably a big fan of the first two, but it must be admitted that according to your logic the Lord called all three of them to great positions because "the Lord was impressed" by them.

What I'm trying to point out is that your reliance upon a person's being called by the Lord makes no bearing on whether they were subsequently chosen by the Lord to become anything of note, for we learn by sad experience that men in such positions often change the course of their characters. It is left for us to examine what has been left and inquire of the Lord about the true history of these things to know who did lose their calling and who did remain faithful to the calling with which they were called. I, for one, believe that Brigham Young stayed true to his calling. He faithfully carried forward the practice and doctrine of all things temple-oriented, which you must have for the fulness of the gospel, such as baptism for the dead, which was an item publicly taught by Joseph Smith. For Marks to side with the RLDS he had to abandon all the covenants he once made in the endowment and lose the ability to perform the most beautiful and sacred rites restored through Joseph Smith for the living and the dead. What a shame!

Anyway, I feel that is tangential to your main ridiculous notion and can be easily dismissed; I thought you had something substantial to bring to my attention.

As for Hinckley, I've seen the video before. Its existence is not proof that Hinckley had a revelation or spoke the truth. I have to give you credit for sticking to your belief that what he said to Larry King constituted a revelation, but that is about the craziest thing I've ever heard. Let me just say that if the principle that animates your zeal in that cause is that the words merely came out of the prophet's mouth, then you have a lot of doctrinal headaches to resolve when you take on the history of Mormonism, let alone trying to resolve statements in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's sermons. Your statements make you out to be a trinitarian, ecumenical, cherry-picking jack Mormon, at best. It's such a crazy notion to stand on that I don't feel much like debating it any further with you. Anyone else reading this thread who has an ounce of practical sense will see that your position is about as reliable as a one-legged man in a butt-kicking competition.

Keep tugging on that polygamy thread and sooner than later the binding in your Bible will come undone and out will fall the law and the prophets.

I was somewhat surprised that you made a big issue out of an incidental opinion I made about Marks being a good guy for the church because of the high positions he once held when introducing an experience he had with Joseph Smith. I will admit I could be wrong on his character and he could be a Judas, who knows for sure?You implied that you do know! But what I find interesting is you made a mountain out of a molehill with my incidental opinion of Marks whilst ignoring and dismissing the discussion he had with Joseph Smith that answers the evil in polygamy. And what do you mean he is “not contemporary” with Joseph Smith? If they discussed the subject of pologamy on the streets of Nauvoo then I’d say that is as contemporary as you can get.

Since you dismissed Marks statements out of hand by referring to him as RLDS, hence apostate I think you evidenced your biased position so there is no need for me to try to convince you otherwise, you’ve already got your mind made up--end of discussion.

But for those forum members reading this thread I will say that the divisiveness that separated the saints in Nauvoo is the same divisiveness that separates me from Baurak Ale. The big contravsory in Nauvoo was where people were compelled to chose sides was over polygamy. If you were for polygamy then you sided with Brigham Young and his cronies and were welcome to participate in the practice but if you were against pologamy then you were run out of town by young hooligans known as the “whittling whistlers” that Brigham Young sent out to intimidate leading members of the church that believed polygamy to be wrong. These young thugs would follow someone around
like William Marks or William Law and torment their victims by insulting them and their families all the while whittling a stick with their bowie knives and cutting these brethren clothes and saying: “Oops, the knife slipped, sorry about that, now where was I, oh yea, it would be well for you and your family to get out of town before something major happens to you or them, if you know what I mean.”

Well these men left the church alright because they valued their safety. But Mormon Brighamite history has villainized and disparage them as apostates.

[GeeR]

A week after the interview I was teaching it to our High Priest Group and the quote by President Snow was in it that said: “As man now is God once was and as God is man may become.” But even this quote is taken from the false doctrine in the King Follett sermon because the Book of Mormon says and I paraphrase: “God is everlasting to everlasting with no beginning and without end.”

There is no contradiction whatsoever. Pieces of truth are relative, and come line upon line. The Scripture says:

• D&C 93
  30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

God is everlasting, but He was also once a man like us.

He is everlasting, simply because with Him, time does not exist (as stated in the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses).

This in no way negates the fact that He was once a man like us.

When you get to where God is, and become a God like Him, you will also be everlasting, because there will be no time with you either!

Quantum physics has already given you these answers on a plate.

I believe you have rationalized or done mental gymnastics on this issue. Do you realize in the Lectures on Faith which were canonized in with the Doctrine & Covenants in the 19th century that it says that “God is a spirit” not having a body of flesh and bone? If so then I doubt that God was once a boy or man working out his salvation on another earth without a body. This is why the church yanked the Lectures on Faith out of the Doctrine & Covenants!

[abijah`]

Just to provide some literary context:

Isaiah 24:3
The earth shall be utterly empty and utterly plundered; for the LORD has spoken this word.

^"Empty" refers to the empty state of pre-creation before God said let there be light. It's literally the same exact word, its the "void" part of "formless and void".

Isaiah 24:4
The earth mourns and withers; the world languishes and withers; the highest people of the earth languish.

Multiple stuff being referred to here. One is the pre-creation state of Genesis 2 (as opposed to Genesis 1 in the previous verse) where God orders and creates the world by bringing springs of water to give life to the barren desert wasteland:

No water.

This is the significance of the "rivers in the desert" thing I talked about in this here post.

Also, no rainwater. As in when Elijah held back the rain for three years causing a famine.

How do we know Elijah factors in? Because the "wasted"/"withered"/"uninhabited" terminology gets specifically employed:

Malachi 4
“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.
And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a curse and a decree of utter destruction.”

"curse" = hebrew term "herem". Same word used in name of mount Hermon - where the watchers took their forbidden oaths.

No rivers of water. No rain.

Isaiah 24:5
The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant.

So this is the broken everlasting covenant verse.

First thing to understand is that it is referring to the days of Noah. How do we know? Because just like here in Isaiah, the transgressions leading up to the Flood specifically defiled "the land":

Genesis 6
Now the land was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
And God saw the land, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the land.

Cursing the land like he did for Adam, like he did for Cain etc:

Tim: Death, and the death of the innocent. God announces the plan to purify the land from the blood of the innocent. We call it the flood narrative. But the introduction to the flood narrative is about the staining of all the land with the blood of the innocent because of the violence of people like Cain, and then the violence of those giant warrior kings.


Jon: The Nephilim.


Tim: So what God does is He selects one person, one righteous, blameless one out of all because he's the only one. He's Noah. Noah. And when his dad names him in Genesis 5, his dad, Lamech names him and he says, "Let's call him Noach." This is Genesis 5:29. "Let's call him Noach," which is the Hebrew word for "rest."


Jon: Oh, that's right. That's right.


Tim: And then he rhymes. He says, "Let's call him Noach because he will nakham - bring us comfort." From what? "From our work and from the pain of our hands arising from the ground the Yahweh's cursed." So our hands have stained the land with blood. Yahweh's going to work it. Because it's stained with blood, it also is cursed land. That's hostile to us now.


Jon: We need to be rescued from it.

Tim: Now, why do God bring the flood? Few reasons. To wash the land. And why is the land...Well, we've heard narratively about the bloodshed.

Isaiah 24:6
Therefore a curse consumes the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left.

Not a reference to the aqua`Flood of Noah's day, but rather a reference to the pyro`Flood of the endtimes:

2 Peter 3
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The ^"consumed" terminology not only harks back to the angel-in-the-burning-thornbush who was "not consumed", but also to the nephilimic appetite for unbridled consumption of the endtime perditionites:

Isaiah 9
For wickedness burns like a fire; it consumes briers and thorns; it kindles the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke.
Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts the land is scorched, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no one spares another.
They slice meat on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied; each consumes the flesh of his own arm (unable to be quenched)

Isaiah 24:7
The new wine mourns, the vine languishes, all the merry-hearted sigh.

Isaiah makes it abundantly clear that the endtime perditionites are rabid winebibbers. And wine being associated with blood, it carries other connotations, including the blasphemous perversion of the sacramental cup:

Isaiah 5
Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink

^nephilim reference, "those who are gibborim at drinking wine"

Same exact word. Carries heavier implications when taking into consideration...

Spoiler

Nephilim cannibalism references:

1 Enoch 7
And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the land laid accusation against the lawless ones.

Isaiah 49
I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

^the "mighty one", El`Gibbor, "mighty" as in the "mighty men of old".

Genesis 9
"But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast and living thing I will require it. And from man, and his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
But as for you, be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it.”

^God talks about this (just after the flood) right off the bat because its why he destroyed/renewed the world in the first place.

Notice the distinguishing b/w God's reckoning from both "beast"/"living thing", as well as the "but as for you" in the final verse, as if the preceding one had to do with giants.

Matthew 24
For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark...

Isaiah 9
For every boot of the trampling warrior [nephilim] in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire...
They slice meat on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied; each devours the flesh of his own arm

Monstrous Appetites: Giants, Cannibalism, and Insatiable Eating in Enochic Literature

Matthew 24
For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
and had no understanding until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.


Isa 9
They slice meat on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied

Isaiah 56
The dogs have a mighty appetite; they never have enough. But they are shepherds who have no understanding
“Come,” they say, “let me get wine; let us fill ourselves with strong drink"

[Baurak Ale]

We? I don't know that.

You think Hinckley had a revelation that he shared with Larry King but not the church? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Unfortunately, you're right that there's an unsavory history in the church, and that interview is part of it. That particular lesson in the history book taught me that it is not hard to say easy things and have friendship with the world.

Also, I have not heard it said before that Joseph entered into plural marriage, took 40 wives, and then changed his mind and cast them all off. I am very interested in what historical evidence you use to justify his about face; it's easy to say he never did it based on his veiled public comments, and it is very easy to say that he did do it based on his unveiled private comments. Taking a blend between the two is impossible based on my knowledge of his total statements, public or private.

“Absurd”? Why would you say it’s absurd, when I gave proof that Hinckley said it on the Larry King show with video to prove it? Yet Hinckley never said a peek to the members about polygamy being “not doctrinal? Why are you questioning the proof I provided you?

He also said on the Larry King show when questioned about before God became God that he was a mortal man on an earth like this one. Well Hinckley hedged on the question saying in effect “I don’t know that we teach it.” A week after the interview I was teaching it to our High Priest Group and the quote by President Snow was in it that said: “As man now is God once was and as God is man may become.” But even this quote is taken from the false doctrine in the King Follett sermon because the Book of Mormon says and I paraphrase: “God is everlasting to everlasting with no beginning and without end.” So Hinckley outright lied!

William Marks was considered by most to be one of the most honest men of personal integrity in Nauvoo. Apparently the Lord was impressed by Marks. He made Marks the President of the Church in Far West and Nauvoo. Here is the testimony that Marks actually published in 1853 in the Zions Harbinger and Baneemy’s Organ:.

“When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church…
Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks… We are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? He said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow.
I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church.
Now,’ said he,’ Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent and cease the practice of this doctrine.”

Oh, the William Marks argument. I should have guessed. I thought maybe you had a statement or document historically contemporary with Joseph Smith.

Do I need to get into all the problems with the Wiliam Marks statement? You say that the Lord was impressed with him as evidenced by his callings. Can the same be said of William Law, John Bennet, or Brigham Young by you? I would guess you're probably a big fan of the first two, but it must be admitted that according to your logic the Lord called all three of them to great positions because "the Lord was impressed" by them.

What I'm trying to point out is that your reliance upon a person's being called by the Lord makes no bearing on whether they were subsequently chosen by the Lord to become anything of note, for we learn by sad experience that men in such positions often change the course of their characters. It is left for us to examine what has been left and inquire of the Lord about the true history of these things to know who did lose their calling and who did remain faithful to the calling with which they were called. I, for one, believe that Brigham Young stayed true to his calling. He faithfully carried forward the practice and doctrine of all things temple-oriented, which you must have for the fulness of the gospel, such as baptism for the dead, which was an item publicly taught by Joseph Smith. For Marks to side with the RLDS he had to abandon all the covenants he once made in the endowment and lose the ability to perform the most beautiful and sacred rites restored through Joseph Smith for the living and the dead. What a shame!

Anyway, I feel that is tangential to your main ridiculous notion and can be easily dismissed; I thought you had something substantial to bring to my attention.

As for Hinckley, I've seen the video before. Its existence is not proof that Hinckley had a revelation or spoke the truth. I have to give you credit for sticking to your belief that what he said to Larry King constituted a revelation, but that is about the craziest thing I've ever heard. Let me just say that if the principle that animates your zeal in that cause is that the words merely came out of the prophet's mouth, then you have a lot of doctrinal headaches to resolve when you take on the history of Mormonism, let alone trying to resolve statements in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's sermons. Your statements make you out to be a trinitarian, ecumenical, cherry-picking jack Mormon, at best. It's such a crazy notion to stand on that I don't feel much like debating it any further with you. Anyone else reading this thread who has an ounce of practical sense will see that your position is about as reliable as a one-legged man in a butt-kicking competition.

Keep tugging on that polygamy thread and sooner than later the binding in your Bible will come undone and out will fall the law and the prophets.

I was somewhat surprised that you made a big issue out of an incidental opinion I made about Marks being a good guy for the church because of the high positions he once held when introducing an experience he had with Joseph Smith. I will admit I could be wrong on his character and he could be a Judas, who knows for sure?You implied that you do know! But what I find interesting is you made a mountain out of a molehill with my incidental opinion of Marks whilst ignoring and dismissing the discussion he had with Joseph Smith that answers the evil in polygamy. And what do you mean he is “not contemporary” with Joseph Smith? If they discussed the subject of pologamy on the streets of Nauvoo then I’d say that is as contemporary as you can get.

Since you dismissed Marks statements out of hand by referring to him as RLDS, hence apostate I think you evidenced your biased position so there is no need for me to try to convince you otherwise, you’ve already got your mind made up--end of discussion.

But for those forum members reading this thread I will say that the divisiveness that separated the saints in Nauvoo is the same divisiveness that separates me from Baurak Ale. The big contravsory in Nauvoo was where people were compelled to chose sides was over polygamy. If you were for polygamy then you sided with Brigham Young and his cronies and were welcome to participate in the practice but if you were against pologamy then you were run out of town by young hooligans known as the “whittling whistlers” that Brigham Young sent out to intimidate leading members of the church that believed polygamy to be wrong. These young thugs would follow someone around
like William Marks or William Law and torment their victims by insulting them and their families all the while whittling a stick with their bowie knives and cutting these brethren clothes and saying: “Oops, the knife slipped, sorry about that, now where was I, oh yea, it would be well for you and your family to get out of town before something major happens to you or them, if you know what I mean.”

Well these men left the church alright because they valued their safety. But Mormon Brighamite history has villainized and disparage them as apostates.

Perhaps you interpreted my comments incorrectly. What I am not interested in debating is your claim that Hinckley had a revelation when speaking with Larry King. The William Marks evidence you brought up is easily dismissed but I am willing to continue discussing it.

Now, you say I am biased, but you appear to not know the definition of bias, which is to come to a conclusion without examining all the evidence. This I have not done. Furthermore, when I dispute the evidence on the grounds of it not being contemporary, I am not talking about the context of the things claimed by Marks; I am talking about the time the evidence was produced. A late recollection is always less preferable to something like a journal entry from the actual timeframe.

Now, I have tried to correct you on a couple of your claims and I hope you will receive that in the spirit of honesty and defense in which it is offered.

Now, the spirit of divisiveness is an interesting concept. What is divisiveness? Christ said “be one” but also that he came to send a sword. How do we resolve this contradiction? Christ wants us to contend for the truth, and he wants truth to be the only thing we ally ourselves to. If you want to undermine Joseph’s divine agenda in restoring the temple, work for the dead, and patriarchal order of marriage, etc., then you divide yourself from the truth and I would hope such a character to cut itself off from the body rather than canker the body as a cancer. And if such an one does not separate itself, I would have it “whittled out” if necessary.

So, if you want to talk about Marks, let’s get in the topic of the propriety of the Nauvoo stake high council trying to be called up for a practice that Joseph himself introduced, and let’s contrast that to the proceedings of the 1842 ouster of the mayor, John Bennett.

[Mamabear]

Interesting take on the changes in the temple.
https://ldsendowment.blogspot.com/p/cha ... g.html?m=1