A difficult dichotomy, looking for other views

[Sarah]

Well, we know the Father and the Son came down and organized Adam. So fathers creating children. So no, you don't participate in all the pain and feeding of a baby on this earth, but we won't have the same set of circumstances in the hereafter. Celestial parents are creating spirit children. You'd think that a resurrected couple would birth children like themselves. So I think that the creative process will be different in the CK. Women will not spend 9 months pregnant, get big and fat etc, and birth babies out of their bottoms. If they do it wouldn't be painful at least! But I think that the reality is that the father has just as much participation in the creation of a new spirit as the mother. And a woman without the constraints of pregnancy and nursing, won't be dependent upon men working to feed her to keep her alive. The roles we play will be balanced out, and both will be working together, creating, nurturing, teaching, presiding, providing etc. That's my guess anyway. And that's actually how it is now, only we are made to be better suited for one job over that other on this earth. Just because your wife is good at nurturing your children, doesn't mean that you are left off the hook for nurturing them for example. We just have different strengths. The Proclamation clarifies that we are equal partners when it comes to these duties, but one gender has more natural responsibility and strength than the other. That responsibility does not limit the extent to which the other can also participate in each of the duties outlined in the proclamation. Your wife can still preside, provide, and protect as much as she can as long as she is also focused on nurturing, or meeting the needs of her children.

I’m not here to argue, I read what you wrote and as always, it’s eloquent and touches our human nature. It doesn’t completely agree with doctrine.

Abraham 3
18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

There are two hard truths here. We have no beginning, we are gnolaum. The other is “some are more intelligent then others”. Our opinion of equality goes out the window with the latter.

And I agree with that doctrine and am only questioning using that point of doctrine to justify the tolerance of disadvantages a certain gender or race faces, which are characteristics that aren't reflective of the type of spirit inside each individual.

I did not bring race into this. Gladiation Slayer thought I did and I replied with a similar scripture showing it isn’t about race.

Women only have a disadvantage if you judge them per the beast, as a man. It’s a very worldly point of view.

The lord did not condemn polygamy and his words are eternal. He does remove it because of the iniquity of men. He did not remove it in 1890, JT and WW were more scared of man then the lord.

Joseph Musser wrote
My God! what have I done," President Woodruff is reported to have said, after placing his signature to the Manifesto. And one of his counselors [Joseph F. Smith] answered, "You have signed a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, that's what you have done.

Jospeh F. Smith knew in that vary moment that they fulfilled Isaiah’s words in chapter 28:

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

I wasn't meaning to accuse you specifically of bringing up race by me bringing it up - just speaking in generalities. What I am getting at is the idea that even though these inequities exist in this life, doesn't mean that we should expect or desire the same set of life circumstances in the Celestial Kingdom. It seems that those of you in the camp that think WW made the wrong decision, and don't believe his testimony have too much of the philosophies of some of the early brethren who theorized why these imbalances will and should last for eternity. You guys have it wrong, for I know that the church was on the wrong path in not living how they should and that is why the Lord was allowing the government to overcome. The Lord did not redeem Zion, as there was no group sanctified to be redeemed. They were left with living a lower law until they could figure out how to live the Laws they were given, including BY, in fact he admitted he and the other brethren should be embarrassed that they were not living the principles of consecration and stewardship. It failed much earlier than WW.

[Sarah]

I knew that Pres. Woodruff stopped the practice, but didn't realize that it was a completely separate ordinance from parent to child.

Here's some interesting quotes I found.

Edward Bunker
I believe it is a correct principle and when it runs in the
lineage it looks consistent but the adoption of one man to
another out of the lineage I do not understand and for that
reason I would not enter into it and adopting the dead to
the living is as adopting the father to the son I dont believe
there is a man on earth that thoroughly understands the
principle if there is I have never heard it taught so that I
could understand it I believe it is permitted more to satisfy
the minds of the people for the present until the lord reveals
more fully the principle
biography of edward bunker holograph


From an article...
"...others had been able to trace their ancestry back several generations
and must have felt that all their ancestors should be
able to be sealed or adopted to someone multitudes of good
people who had no chance to hear the gospel of christ in life
were they felt left out of the family of god
even the general authorities were troubled as is indicated
by their desire to modify policies governing sealings to non
mormon parents and work for distant ancestors 53 their
feeling in this regard led to authorization for several members
of the church to be sealed to parents who had not been mor
mons in other cases adoptions already performed were canceled
so that those involved could be sealed to their parents
apostle marriner W merrill noted in his journal in july 1893
that it had been decided that temple presidents were to use
their own judgment with regard to some of the policies governing
sealing work in essence this meant the church was hesitating
midway between two positions

the problem was solved for the church by president wilford
woodruff s announcement in the april general conference
of 1894 that he had received a revelation on adoption rather
than proclaiming the change in policy as a new departure
lie was careful to point out that the revelation was based
on the foundation laid by joseph smith he began his
discourse by having george Q cannon read section 128 of
the doctrine and covenants in which the prophet teaches the
need for a welding link between the generations of the
human family having so prepared the people to receive what
he might say the president went on

"you have acted up to all the light and knowledge that you
have had but you have now something more to do than
what you have done we have not fully carried out those
principles in fulfillment of the revelations of god to us in
sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children
to the fathers I1 have not felt satisfied neither did
president taylor neither has any man since the prophet
joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the
temples of our god we have felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received and
the duty that I1 want every man who presides over a temple
to see performed from this day henceforth and forever unless
the lord almighty commands otherwise is let every man be
adopted to his father that is the will of god to this
people I1 say let every man be adopted to his father
and then you will do exactly what god said when he declared
he would send elijah the prophet in the last days
we want the latter day saints from this time to trace their
genealogies as far as they can and to be sealed to their
fathers and mothers have children sealed to their parents
and run their chain through as far as you can get it when
you get to the end let the last man be adopted to joseph
smith who stands at the head of this dispensation this is
the will of the lord to this people and I think when you
come to reflect upon it you will find it to be true 55

president woodruff was declaring publicly that not only should
the saints be sealed to their own parents but that henceforth
they had to be sealed to them if they were to be sealed at all
inasmuch as previous church policy had been based on the fear
that many of the dead would not accept the gospel president
woodruff in announcing his revelation also broadened the
latter day saint conception of the preaching of the gospel in
the spirit world referring to joseph smith s teaching that all
who would have received the gospel had they heard it would
go to the celestial kingdom he added so will it be with your
fathers there will be very few if any who will not accept
the gospel 56
the president went to some pains to assure the people that
being sealed to one s parents rather than to one of the apostles
did not lower one at all indeed as president george Q cannon
said when he spoke following president woodruff the
new revelation was seen as protecting the church from being
divided into tribes and clans each man having his own following
the immediate response of the general church membership
appears to have been strongly favorable the only real problem
was what to do about the more than 13000 souls most
of them dead who had already been adopted to persons other
than their natural parents after some consideration the first
presidency and the twelve ruled that these people should be
sealed to their own parents but that the old records should be
left standing any possible problems would be straightened
out in the hereafter 58

Thank you for sharing those quotes. They illustrate that—as with most of the old, deprecated doctrines—the details and distinctions of very important features became blurred over time to where simplified constructions replaced prior understanding. I think the Lord, in his mercy, only lets this go on for so long before he takes the previous light and truth away perchance we bastardize it to our damnation.

As for Woodruff and the United Order (among other doctrines) I don't think you'll find much in the way of authoritative dismissal from him (even with adoption he admitted that when you got as far back as you could you would then seal that ancestor to Joseph Smith) but under his presidency the peculiar commandments saw their sunset for the mainstream church while statehood had its sunrise.

So you don't agree with WW then, but think everything was just as it should have been.

If you’re asking whether I believe that WW’s changes were motivated more by the fear of man than the fear of God, then I would say yes. And the result has been a loss of priesthood power (which I differentiate from priesthood authority). I believe we were closer to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the 1890s than after.

What makes you think they had more priesthood power back then compared to now?

[Bronco73idi]

Thank you for sharing those quotes. They illustrate that—as with most of the old, deprecated doctrines—the details and distinctions of very important features became blurred over time to where simplified constructions replaced prior understanding. I think the Lord, in his mercy, only lets this go on for so long before he takes the previous light and truth away perchance we bastardize it to our damnation.

As for Woodruff and the United Order (among other doctrines) I don't think you'll find much in the way of authoritative dismissal from him (even with adoption he admitted that when you got as far back as you could you would then seal that ancestor to Joseph Smith) but under his presidency the peculiar commandments saw their sunset for the mainstream church while statehood had its sunrise.

So you don't agree with WW then, but think everything was just as it should have been.

If you’re asking whether I believe that WW’s changes were motivated more by the fear of man than the fear of God, then I would say yes. And the result has been a loss of priesthood power (which I differentiate from priesthood authority). I believe we were closer to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the 1890s than after.

What makes you think they had more priesthood power back then compared to now?

Father John Tanner

[Bronco73idi]

I’m not here to argue, I read what you wrote and as always, it’s eloquent and touches our human nature. It doesn’t completely agree with doctrine.

Abraham 3
18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

There are two hard truths here. We have no beginning, we are gnolaum. The other is “some are more intelligent then others”. Our opinion of equality goes out the window with the latter.

And I agree with that doctrine and am only questioning using that point of doctrine to justify the tolerance of disadvantages a certain gender or race faces, which are characteristics that aren't reflective of the type of spirit inside each individual.

I did not bring race into this. Gladiation Slayer thought I did and I replied with a similar scripture showing it isn’t about race.

Women only have a disadvantage if you judge them per the beast, as a man. It’s a very worldly point of view.

The lord did not condemn polygamy and his words are eternal. He does remove it because of the iniquity of men. He did not remove it in 1890, JT and WW were more scared of man then the lord.

Joseph Musser wrote
My God! what have I done," President Woodruff is reported to have said, after placing his signature to the Manifesto. And one of his counselors [Joseph F. Smith] answered, "You have signed a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, that's what you have done.

Jospeh F. Smith knew in that vary moment that they fulfilled Isaiah’s words in chapter 28:

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

I wasn't meaning to accuse you specifically of bringing up race by me bringing it up - just speaking in generalities. What I am getting at is the idea that even though these inequities exist in this life, doesn't mean that we should expect or desire the same set of life circumstances in the Celestial Kingdom. It seems that those of you in the camp that think WW made the wrong decision, and don't believe his testimony have too much of the philosophies of some of the early brethren who theorized why these imbalances will and should last for eternity. You guys have it wrong, for I know that the church was on the wrong path in not living how they should and that is why the Lord was allowing the government to overcome. The Lord did not redeem Zion, as there was no group sanctified to be redeemed. They were left with living a lower law until they could figure out how to live the Laws they were given, including BY, in fact he admitted he and the other brethren should be embarrassed that they were not living the principles of consecration and stewardship. It failed much earlier than WW.

Did his testimony reflect his words before he signed the manifesto? If he made a covenant with death and hell would he lie? I’ll concentrate on the lord’s words and his example.

[Baurak Ale]

Thank you for sharing those quotes. They illustrate that—as with most of the old, deprecated doctrines—the details and distinctions of very important features became blurred over time to where simplified constructions replaced prior understanding. I think the Lord, in his mercy, only lets this go on for so long before he takes the previous light and truth away perchance we bastardize it to our damnation.

As for Woodruff and the United Order (among other doctrines) I don't think you'll find much in the way of authoritative dismissal from him (even with adoption he admitted that when you got as far back as you could you would then seal that ancestor to Joseph Smith) but under his presidency the peculiar commandments saw their sunset for the mainstream church while statehood had its sunrise.

So you don't agree with WW then, but think everything was just as it should have been.

If you’re asking whether I believe that WW’s changes were motivated more by the fear of man than the fear of God, then I would say yes. And the result has been a loss of priesthood power (which I differentiate from priesthood authority). I believe we were closer to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the 1890s than after.

What makes you think they had more priesthood power back then compared to now?

I had a dream recently where I came out of a home and found two animals in the front yard: a red heifer and a black bison. I shouted "I have the priesthood" at them. The red heifer ran off but the black bison only got angry. The bison then stood up on its hind legs and appeared ready to attack me. Just then, Wilford Woodruff ran out of the same house and shouted "I have the priesthood" at it. But there was no effect, and the bison was now incensed. I threw something at it with my hands, which did have a little effect and I got away.
The next scene I was talking with a man and told him about the heifer and the bison and Wilford Woodruff. He said to me, "Isn't it funny how dreams work; they always portray exactly what is needed for you to understand. Do you not see the lesson of it?"

I woke up feeling rebuked for having taken for granted my power in the priesthood just by claim of having had hands laid on my head:

• D&C 121:36 — 38:

The rights of the priesthood...may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake...any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself....

I draw distinction, however, between authority and power based on my experiences. Whereas the absence of priesthood power seems marked by the withdrawal of heavenly gifts among the saints (charismatic gifts of the spirit, such as speaking in unknown tongues [read: Adamic], interpretation of unknown tongues, prophecy, etc.), my experience going through the temple for my own endowments was marked by manifestations from heaven to me testifying of their truthfulness.

So why did Wilford Woodruff also not have Melchizedek power in my dream like I didn't (neither of us could control the more advanced demonic entity)? First off, it must be noted that the dream was only for me. That said, the result of my study is that during his presidency, the laws were transgressed (the law of consecration, or implementation of the united order), the ordinances were changed (movement away from the law of adoption), and the everlasting covenant was broken (the patriarchal order of marriage, or polygyny). According to the scriptures, this is the conditions needed for a curse to devour the earth producing men who are desolate, meaning absent of priesthood power:

• Isa. 24:5 – 6:

They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

Isaiah says that without this power, which is needed for the sealing ordinances to be efficacious for the establishment of Zion, the earth will be smitten under this curse. That these effects are tied to power in the priesthood seems borne out by Malachi who connects a cursed and smitten earth with the sealing power of Elijah:

• Mal. 4:5 – 6:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Moreover, this seems to be the prophesied state of things in the winding up scenes:

• D&C 112:24 – 26:

Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

• D&C 85:6 – 9:

Thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:
And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;
While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.
And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I had another dream a few years ago that I was in a drab concrete box of a house staring out a window onto a flat, desolate plain. I saw two clouds coming together and by the spirit of prophecy I knew it would form a tornado. I ran and gathered my family and friends together and we left the home in great haste. We descended a steep valley and found a beautiful and comely neighborhood with very beautiful mid-19th century homes. At a junction in the path down there we took a turn, which led us back up out of the valley to a place level with the old, drab home. We could see it in the distance and we beheld, to our astonishment, that a tornado had truly formed and was about to hit the home directly. We watched as the roof was ripped off and all its furnishings were sucked out and strewn about the land.

I have slowly been given the interpretation, but suffice it to say that the drab concrete box of a home is the modern church from the Lord's perspective. Elevation in the dream represents linear history or time, thus descending the valley represents going back in time to how things used to be, when the homes were beautiful to the Lord and the land fruitful. Everything else has meaning too.

But again, this dream was only for me, but as you asked why I believe what I do I thought I'd lay out my thoughts.

[Sarah]

And I agree with that doctrine and am only questioning using that point of doctrine to justify the tolerance of disadvantages a certain gender or race faces, which are characteristics that aren't reflective of the type of spirit inside each individual.

I did not bring race into this. Gladiation Slayer thought I did and I replied with a similar scripture showing it isn’t about race.

Women only have a disadvantage if you judge them per the beast, as a man. It’s a very worldly point of view.

The lord did not condemn polygamy and his words are eternal. He does remove it because of the iniquity of men. He did not remove it in 1890, JT and WW were more scared of man then the lord.

Joseph Musser wrote
My God! what have I done," President Woodruff is reported to have said, after placing his signature to the Manifesto. And one of his counselors [Joseph F. Smith] answered, "You have signed a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, that's what you have done.

Jospeh F. Smith knew in that vary moment that they fulfilled Isaiah’s words in chapter 28:

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

I wasn't meaning to accuse you specifically of bringing up race by me bringing it up - just speaking in generalities. What I am getting at is the idea that even though these inequities exist in this life, doesn't mean that we should expect or desire the same set of life circumstances in the Celestial Kingdom. It seems that those of you in the camp that think WW made the wrong decision, and don't believe his testimony have too much of the philosophies of some of the early brethren who theorized why these imbalances will and should last for eternity. You guys have it wrong, for I know that the church was on the wrong path in not living how they should and that is why the Lord was allowing the government to overcome. The Lord did not redeem Zion, as there was no group sanctified to be redeemed. They were left with living a lower law until they could figure out how to live the Laws they were given, including BY, in fact he admitted he and the other brethren should be embarrassed that they were not living the principles of consecration and stewardship. It failed much earlier than WW.

Did his testimony reflect his words before he signed the manifesto? If he made a covenant with death and hell would he lie? I’ll concentrate on the lord’s words and his example.

If he did make a deal with the devil than yes, it makes sense he would lie. I just don't think he lied. I think he was given a vision of what would really happen to the church on it's present course, and he was commanded to present the case to the saints in the form of a question - either give up the practice of plural wives, or have the government come in and essentially destroy the church. I guess the die-hards would rather be killed than give it up, but in my opinion that is not letting the spirit allow you to see the true nature of the problem. The problem is that zion and the order of Enoch, which was commanded to be established in 1874 (because they hadn't figured it out themselves though the spirit), was not lived. Families were in chaos. I could tell you lots of sad stories from family history of what went on in that period of time. The law of adoption was essentially sealing everyone up to a general authority. Should we still do that today? Anyway, for some reason the people and prophets were too much in darkness to see that there was a major problem and that this was the consequence - to be overcome. Woodruff was given a solution to let the temple work continue, baptism for the dead and all the other ordinances for the living. The Book of Mormon and and missionary work could continue to go forth and be preached. Things wouldn't be perfect - the saints were still in bondage - but they could do some work with the priesthood keys they had. If anyone lied, it was Musser, Wooley, and John W. It is pretty obvious to me.

[Sarah]

So you don't agree with WW then, but think everything was just as it should have been.

If you’re asking whether I believe that WW’s changes were motivated more by the fear of man than the fear of God, then I would say yes. And the result has been a loss of priesthood power (which I differentiate from priesthood authority). I believe we were closer to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the 1890s than after.

What makes you think they had more priesthood power back then compared to now?

Father John Tanner

Can't deny he was a good guy - sacrificed a lot. But I know a lot of good guys in the church who sacrifice a lot. Know a lot of guys that have used Priesthood power to perform miracles.

[Sarah]

So you don't agree with WW then, but think everything was just as it should have been.

If you’re asking whether I believe that WW’s changes were motivated more by the fear of man than the fear of God, then I would say yes. And the result has been a loss of priesthood power (which I differentiate from priesthood authority). I believe we were closer to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the 1890s than after.

What makes you think they had more priesthood power back then compared to now?

I had a dream recently where I came out of a home and found two animals in the front yard: a red heifer and a black bison. I shouted "I have the priesthood" at them. The red heifer ran off but the black bison only got angry. The bison then stood up on its hind legs and appeared ready to attack me. Just then, Wilford Woodruff ran out of the same house and shouted "I have the priesthood" at it. But there was no effect, and the bison was now incensed. I threw something at it with my hands, which did have a little effect and I got away.
The next scene I was talking with a man and told him about the heifer and the bison and Wilford Woodruff. He said to me, "Isn't it funny how dreams work; they always portray exactly what is needed for you to understand. Do you not see the lesson of it?"

I woke up feeling rebuked for having taken for granted my power in the priesthood just by claim of having had hands laid on my head:

• D&C 121:36 — 38:

The rights of the priesthood...may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake...any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself....

I draw distinction, however, between authority and power based on my experiences. Whereas the absence of priesthood power seems marked by the withdrawal of heavenly gifts among the saints (charismatic gifts of the spirit, such as speaking in unknown tongues [read: Adamic], interpretation of unknown tongues, prophecy, etc.), my experience going through the temple for my own endowments was marked by manifestations from heaven to me testifying of their truthfulness.

So why did Wilford Woodruff also not have Melchizedek power in my dream like I didn't (neither of us could control the more advanced demonic entity)? First off, it must be noted that the dream was only for me. That said, the result of my study is that during his presidency, the laws were transgressed (the law of consecration, or implementation of the united order), the ordinances were changed (movement away from the law of adoption), and the everlasting covenant was broken (the patriarchal order of marriage, or polygyny). According to the scriptures, this is the conditions needed for a curse to devour the earth producing men who are desolate, meaning absent of priesthood power:

• Isa. 24:5 – 6:

They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

Isaiah says that without this power, which is needed for the sealing ordinances to be efficacious for the establishment of Zion, the earth will be smitten under this curse. That these effects are tied to power in the priesthood seems borne out by Malachi who connects a cursed and smitten earth with the sealing power of Elijah:

• Mal. 4:5 – 6:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Moreover, this seems to be the prophesied state of things in the winding up scenes:

• D&C 112:24 – 26:

Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

• D&C 85:6 – 9:

Thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:
And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;
While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.
And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I had another dream a few years ago that I was in a drab concrete box of a house staring out a window onto a flat, desolate plain. I saw two clouds coming together and by the spirit of prophecy I knew it would form a tornado. I ran and gathered my family and friends together and we left the home in great haste. We descended a steep valley and found a beautiful and comely neighborhood with very beautiful mid-19th century homes. At a junction in the path down there we took a turn, which led us back up out of the valley to a place level with the old, drab home. We could see it in the distance and we beheld, to our astonishment, that a tornado had truly formed and was about to hit the home directly. We watched as the roof was ripped off and all its furnishings were sucked out and strewn about the land.

I have slowly been given the interpretation, but suffice it to say that the drab concrete box of a home is the modern church from the Lord's perspective. Elevation in the dream represents linear history or time, thus descending the valley represents going back in time to how things used to be, when the homes were beautiful to the Lord and the land fruitful. Everything else has meaning too.

But again, this dream was only for me, but as you asked why I believe what I do I thought I'd lay out my thoughts.

I see why you believe what you do and appreciate the explanation, and agree that the church is not what it is meant to be and needs to be set in order. We just interpret the events and scriptures you present differently. I do think there is a lack of priesthood power in the church today, but I also know there is real power within many of the members. I know of many miracles, those who say they have spoken in the Adamic language, Priesthood healings and sacred things relating to the temple and temple garment. I have a testimony of temple work. So this is still the Lord's church, and he is directing it. I've had lots of dreams of my own that confirm it. So the first dream you described, it is concerning that you felt the black bull was an evil entity. It is common to have dreams from Satan or evil spirits. And I don't recall anyone in history or the scriptures shouting "I have the priesthood." Something just seems off about that one. And the other dream, you obviously have interpreted it to mean we will go back to living as the days of old, and in many ways we will. I just think it's sad that you think WW was motivated by fear of man (especially when he received so much push-back from some the apostles and saints), you don't trust his story, and you don't see any problems with how the early saints were conducting themselves. It's wasn't as rosy as you think.

[Sarah]

I referenced in one of my previous posts a quote by BY so thought I would provide it:

(The following if from the article, "An Economic Analysis of the United Order" and lots of interesting info in there.)

...Brigham Young himself was not immune to this reluctance.
Although he had always stressed the importance of going
wholeheartedly into the order and had indicated his desire to do
so, in August 1874 speaking in Lehi Young was forced to admit
that
I am laboring under a certain embarrassment and so are many others
with regard to deeding property and that is to find men who
know what to do with property when it is in their hands. When
this factory at Provo can go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will go. When my factory in Salt Lake County can
go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will
go 24
When Brigham Young died three years later such men still had
not been found...

[Bronco73idi]

I referenced in one of my previous posts a quote by BY so thought I would provide it:

(The following if from the article, "An Economic Analysis of the United Order" and lots of interesting info in there.)

...Brigham Young himself was not immune to this reluctance.
Although he had always stressed the importance of going
wholeheartedly into the order and had indicated his desire to do
so, in August 1874 speaking in Lehi Young was forced to admit
that
I am laboring under a certain embarrassment and so are many others
with regard to deeding property and that is to find men who
know what to do with property when it is in their hands. When
this factory at Provo can go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will go. When my factory in Salt Lake County can
go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will
go 24
When Brigham Young died three years later such men still had
not been found...

Proving true equality doesn’t work because of weak men.

I believe this is the lord’s church and the temples are his houses. Look how he treated the 2nd temple in his day. He didn’t fire everyone who worked there, he did cleanse it. Did the temple workers see the son of god and repent (change) when they saw him? If they didn’t, then their hearts were hard. Will they be damned just like the citizens of Capernaum?

The story of John Tanner reminds me of the story of the blind man. The lord healed the blind man to testify of himself. John Tanner was healed to testify that this is the lord’s church, then John was told if he would harken unto the spirit and follow the prophet that his children would be blessed. He had to choose, to stay or go to Utah. He followed BY, his children who followed his council were blessed. Thus testifying of Brigham Young as the lord’s prophet. Then we have the lord’s third servant, John Taylor, what did the lord say about the 3rd servant in the parable of Talents?

[Atrasado]

My opinion is this:

1. There were people in Nauvoo practicing spiritual wivery which was little more than adultery as there was no commitment.
2. Joseph had enemies who wanted any reason to kill him and plural marriage was something they would kill him for.
3. So God told him to fight spiritual wivery and practice plural marriage. This was a difficult position to be in but Joseph did the best he could with it, especially considering Emma's hurt feelings.

[Sarah]

I referenced in one of my previous posts a quote by BY so thought I would provide it:

(The following if from the article, "An Economic Analysis of the United Order" and lots of interesting info in there.)

...Brigham Young himself was not immune to this reluctance.
Although he had always stressed the importance of going
wholeheartedly into the order and had indicated his desire to do
so, in August 1874 speaking in Lehi Young was forced to admit
that
I am laboring under a certain embarrassment and so are many others
with regard to deeding property and that is to find men who
know what to do with property when it is in their hands. When
this factory at Provo can go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will go. When my factory in Salt Lake County can
go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will
go 24
When Brigham Young died three years later such men still had
not been found...

Proving true equality doesn’t work because of weak men.

I believe this is the lord’s church and the temples are his houses. Look how he treated the 2nd temple in his day. He didn’t fire everyone who worked there, he did cleanse it. Did the temple workers see the son of god and repent (change) when they saw him? If they didn’t, then their hearts were hard. Will they be damned just like the citizens of Capernaum?

The story of John Tanner reminds me of the story of the blind man. The lord healed the blind man to testify of himself. John Tanner was healed to testify that this is the lord’s church, then John was told if he would harken unto the spirit and follow the prophet that his children would be blessed. He had to choose, to stay or go to Utah. He followed BY, his children who followed his council were blessed. Thus testifying of Brigham Young as the lord’s prophet. Then we have the lord’s third servant, John Taylor, what did the lord say about the 3rd servant in the parable of Talents?

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

[Baurak Ale]

If you’re asking whether I believe that WW’s changes were motivated more by the fear of man than the fear of God, then I would say yes. And the result has been a loss of priesthood power (which I differentiate from priesthood authority). I believe we were closer to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the 1890s than after.

What makes you think they had more priesthood power back then compared to now?

I had a dream recently where I came out of a home and found two animals in the front yard: a red heifer and a black bison. I shouted "I have the priesthood" at them. The red heifer ran off but the black bison only got angry. The bison then stood up on its hind legs and appeared ready to attack me. Just then, Wilford Woodruff ran out of the same house and shouted "I have the priesthood" at it. But there was no effect, and the bison was now incensed. I threw something at it with my hands, which did have a little effect and I got away.
The next scene I was talking with a man and told him about the heifer and the bison and Wilford Woodruff. He said to me, "Isn't it funny how dreams work; they always portray exactly what is needed for you to understand. Do you not see the lesson of it?"

I woke up feeling rebuked for having taken for granted my power in the priesthood just by claim of having had hands laid on my head:

• D&C 121:36 — 38:

The rights of the priesthood...may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake...any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself....

I draw distinction, however, between authority and power based on my experiences. Whereas the absence of priesthood power seems marked by the withdrawal of heavenly gifts among the saints (charismatic gifts of the spirit, such as speaking in unknown tongues [read: Adamic], interpretation of unknown tongues, prophecy, etc.), my experience going through the temple for my own endowments was marked by manifestations from heaven to me testifying of their truthfulness.

So why did Wilford Woodruff also not have Melchizedek power in my dream like I didn't (neither of us could control the more advanced demonic entity)? First off, it must be noted that the dream was only for me. That said, the result of my study is that during his presidency, the laws were transgressed (the law of consecration, or implementation of the united order), the ordinances were changed (movement away from the law of adoption), and the everlasting covenant was broken (the patriarchal order of marriage, or polygyny). According to the scriptures, this is the conditions needed for a curse to devour the earth producing men who are desolate, meaning absent of priesthood power:

• Isa. 24:5 – 6:

They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

Isaiah says that without this power, which is needed for the sealing ordinances to be efficacious for the establishment of Zion, the earth will be smitten under this curse. That these effects are tied to power in the priesthood seems borne out by Malachi who connects a cursed and smitten earth with the sealing power of Elijah:

• Mal. 4:5 – 6:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Moreover, this seems to be the prophesied state of things in the winding up scenes:

• D&C 112:24 – 26:

Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

• D&C 85:6 – 9:

Thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:
And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;
While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.
And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I had another dream a few years ago that I was in a drab concrete box of a house staring out a window onto a flat, desolate plain. I saw two clouds coming together and by the spirit of prophecy I knew it would form a tornado. I ran and gathered my family and friends together and we left the home in great haste. We descended a steep valley and found a beautiful and comely neighborhood with very beautiful mid-19th century homes. At a junction in the path down there we took a turn, which led us back up out of the valley to a place level with the old, drab home. We could see it in the distance and we beheld, to our astonishment, that a tornado had truly formed and was about to hit the home directly. We watched as the roof was ripped off and all its furnishings were sucked out and strewn about the land.

I have slowly been given the interpretation, but suffice it to say that the drab concrete box of a home is the modern church from the Lord's perspective. Elevation in the dream represents linear history or time, thus descending the valley represents going back in time to how things used to be, when the homes were beautiful to the Lord and the land fruitful. Everything else has meaning too.

But again, this dream was only for me, but as you asked why I believe what I do I thought I'd lay out my thoughts.

I see why you believe what you do and appreciate the explanation, and agree that the church is not what it is meant to be and needs to be set in order. We just interpret the events and scriptures you present differently. I do think there is a lack of priesthood power in the church today, but I also know there is real power within many of the members. I know of many miracles, those who say they have spoken in the Adamic language, Priesthood healings and sacred things relating to the temple and temple garment. I have a testimony of temple work. So this is still the Lord's church, and he is directing it. I've had lots of dreams of my own that confirm it. So the first dream you described, it is concerning that you felt the black bull was an evil entity. It is common to have dreams from Satan or evil spirits. And I don't recall anyone in history or the scriptures shouting "I have the priesthood." Something just seems off about that one. And the other dream, you obviously have interpreted it to mean we will go back to living as the days of old, and in many ways we will. I just think it's sad that you think WW was motivated by fear of man (especially when he received so much push-back from some the apostles and saints), you don't trust his story, and you don't see any problems with how the early saints were conducting themselves. It's wasn't as rosy as you think.

I know people who exercise the gifts too, and yes I also believe this to still be the Lord's church that he will set in order in due time (I don't know that his directions are being implemented fully at this time). I have also had lots of dreams to confirm it. When I say the church looks like a drab house from the Lord's perspective, that doesn't mean that God will abandon it; it just means that he will cleanse it so that he can make it beautiful again. My belief is that the church—in terms of the laws, covenants, and ordinances—was at its peak pre-Wilford Woodruff, but I look forward to the day when it will return to that closer-to-Zion state (though this time around the people chosen to live it will be more able to carry it out faithfully). I do trust his story, including his vision as recorded after the manifesto in the D&C, but I think the Lord showed him what the faithlessness of the saints would result in. Just as in Joseph Smith's day, most of the saints went about their duties rather blithely, but among the leading men where doubters and sympathizers with the gentiles. I'm not sure what you mean by the rosy statement, but I do not believe I am under any false pretenses relative to those trying scenes. The leadership got pressured into "beating the devil at his own game" but the game was rigged.

As for the dream I shared, which you posit came from an evil spirit because something 'seems off' to you: this type of judgement from third-parties is what I believe the scriptures mean, at least in part, when they warn against casting your pearls and being rent by those who disagree. I do believe that your feedback is genuine and motivated out of a desire to help, but I would like to know by what criteria you judge the origin of a dream, especially a dream given to another person. I have become accustomed to recognizing when a dream that comes to me is from the Lord: the manner of waking, remembering, and feeling all play a part. But I could never tell you how to judge another's dream. Also, I really don't see the relevance of criticizing the words shouted by myself and WW in the dream. Have I ever seen that in the scriptures? No. Do I believe that it is a valid way to cast out spirits? No! Does that mean the symbols employed in the dream were false? No. I have never had a dream that depicted anything literal. The communication is always symbolic and to the point.

To my knowledge in the scriptures the only gifts given to third-parties relative to other people's dreams is the gift of interpreting, but the interpretation must come from God. Does the Bible say that there can be false dreams? Yes. But often times true dreams from God interpreted in the Bible are quite troubling from the outside, but this has never indicated that they are not true. I can think of no instances of someone's dream being judged by a third-party as being from Satan. If you can find one then let's discuss that and see if we can discover any principles or criteria we can learn and apply.

[Baurak Ale]

I referenced in one of my previous posts a quote by BY so thought I would provide it:

(The following if from the article, "An Economic Analysis of the United Order" and lots of interesting info in there.)

...Brigham Young himself was not immune to this reluctance.
Although he had always stressed the importance of going
wholeheartedly into the order and had indicated his desire to do
so, in August 1874 speaking in Lehi Young was forced to admit
that
I am laboring under a certain embarrassment and so are many others
with regard to deeding property and that is to find men who
know what to do with property when it is in their hands. When
this factory at Provo can go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will go. When my factory in Salt Lake County can
go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will
go 24
When Brigham Young died three years later such men still had
not been found...

Proving true equality doesn’t work because of weak men.

I believe this is the lord’s church and the temples are his houses. Look how he treated the 2nd temple in his day. He didn’t fire everyone who worked there, he did cleanse it. Did the temple workers see the son of god and repent (change) when they saw him? If they didn’t, then their hearts were hard. Will they be damned just like the citizens of Capernaum?

The story of John Tanner reminds me of the story of the blind man. The lord healed the blind man to testify of himself. John Tanner was healed to testify that this is the lord’s church, then John was told if he would harken unto the spirit and follow the prophet that his children would be blessed. He had to choose, to stay or go to Utah. He followed BY, his children who followed his council were blessed. Thus testifying of Brigham Young as the lord’s prophet. Then we have the lord’s third servant, John Taylor, what did the lord say about the 3rd servant in the parable of Talents?

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

We've talked about this before. You take a very singular stance regarding possessing all things in common and receiving all the father hath.

Here are some additional points to ponder:

Your extrapolations overlooks the fact that God's kingdom has many mansions and Jesus goes to prepare a place among them severally for God's children (not one giant playpen for the heirs of salvation). Joseph Smith taught that God is glorified through posterity, and as each world he makes is redeemed by a savior, it is given to the father and his kingdom and exalted posterity increases. Joseph Smith also taught that the savior of a world then increases in his station and each god goes on in the footsteps of those who went before, going from one capacity to another, increasing over time. When we inherit all that God has, it is to become enrolled in this process to eventually become glorified by our own posterity just as the Father does now and just as Jesus will do. Brigham Young said that there is no God in heaven but that which rules over his own posterity.

When a man inherits "wives, fathers, mothers, children," etc., it is the fathers and mothers of his additional wives that he gains, as well as the children that will be born of these wives. The man is not being told that every familial connection on earth will become his to partake of at will. Brigham Young explained that when we get back to God and we present our families to him that we will see that we are not fathers, mothers, children, aunts, uncles, etc., but all just brothers and sisters, males and females, connected and defined solely through covenant bonds (father-son, husband-wife, parents-children, etc.)—those outside covenant terms are single angels. But those covenant relationships will be orderly, and those who have 5 talents will have more wives, fathers, mothers, etc., than those who have 3, etc.

I'm sorry but I cannot reconcile your views to the teachings and insights of Joseph Smith and the early brethren whom he taught.

[Bronco73idi]

I referenced in one of my previous posts a quote by BY so thought I would provide it:

(The following if from the article, "An Economic Analysis of the United Order" and lots of interesting info in there.)

...Brigham Young himself was not immune to this reluctance.
Although he had always stressed the importance of going
wholeheartedly into the order and had indicated his desire to do
so, in August 1874 speaking in Lehi Young was forced to admit
that
I am laboring under a certain embarrassment and so are many others
with regard to deeding property and that is to find men who
know what to do with property when it is in their hands. When
this factory at Provo can go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will go. When my factory in Salt Lake County can
go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will
go 24
When Brigham Young died three years later such men still had
not been found...

Proving true equality doesn’t work because of weak men.

I believe this is the lord’s church and the temples are his houses. Look how he treated the 2nd temple in his day. He didn’t fire everyone who worked there, he did cleanse it. Did the temple workers see the son of god and repent (change) when they saw him? If they didn’t, then their hearts were hard. Will they be damned just like the citizens of Capernaum?

The story of John Tanner reminds me of the story of the blind man. The lord healed the blind man to testify of himself. John Tanner was healed to testify that this is the lord’s church, then John was told if he would harken unto the spirit and follow the prophet that his children would be blessed. He had to choose, to stay or go to Utah. He followed BY, his children who followed his council were blessed. Thus testifying of Brigham Young as the lord’s prophet. Then we have the lord’s third servant, John Taylor, what did the lord say about the 3rd servant in the parable of Talents?

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

The lord is our brother and savior, we are not equal to him. John Taylor buried his talent, Jospeh Smith got the most and did the most with them. I have no issues with him, I think he was scared of being martyred.

[Sarah]

I referenced in one of my previous posts a quote by BY so thought I would provide it:

(The following if from the article, "An Economic Analysis of the United Order" and lots of interesting info in there.)

...Brigham Young himself was not immune to this reluctance.
Although he had always stressed the importance of going
wholeheartedly into the order and had indicated his desire to do
so, in August 1874 speaking in Lehi Young was forced to admit
that
I am laboring under a certain embarrassment and so are many others
with regard to deeding property and that is to find men who
know what to do with property when it is in their hands. When
this factory at Provo can go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will go. When my factory in Salt Lake County can
go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will
go 24
When Brigham Young died three years later such men still had
not been found...

Proving true equality doesn’t work because of weak men.

I believe this is the lord’s church and the temples are his houses. Look how he treated the 2nd temple in his day. He didn’t fire everyone who worked there, he did cleanse it. Did the temple workers see the son of god and repent (change) when they saw him? If they didn’t, then their hearts were hard. Will they be damned just like the citizens of Capernaum?

The story of John Tanner reminds me of the story of the blind man. The lord healed the blind man to testify of himself. John Tanner was healed to testify that this is the lord’s church, then John was told if he would harken unto the spirit and follow the prophet that his children would be blessed. He had to choose, to stay or go to Utah. He followed BY, his children who followed his council were blessed. Thus testifying of Brigham Young as the lord’s prophet. Then we have the lord’s third servant, John Taylor, what did the lord say about the 3rd servant in the parable of Talents?

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

The lord is our brother and savior, we are not equal to him. John Taylor buried his talent, Jospeh Smith got the most and did the most with them. I have no issues with him, I think he was scared of being martyred.

I assure you that I don't consider myself "equal" to the Savior.
That interpretation makes more sense, although I don't know if it's a valid application of the parable. I do think that these prophets buried their talents inasmuch as they did not fully participate in a united order and bring forth the Order of Enoch.

[Bronco73idi]

Proving true equality doesn’t work because of weak men.

I believe this is the lord’s church and the temples are his houses. Look how he treated the 2nd temple in his day. He didn’t fire everyone who worked there, he did cleanse it. Did the temple workers see the son of god and repent (change) when they saw him? If they didn’t, then their hearts were hard. Will they be damned just like the citizens of Capernaum?

The story of John Tanner reminds me of the story of the blind man. The lord healed the blind man to testify of himself. John Tanner was healed to testify that this is the lord’s church, then John was told if he would harken unto the spirit and follow the prophet that his children would be blessed. He had to choose, to stay or go to Utah. He followed BY, his children who followed his council were blessed. Thus testifying of Brigham Young as the lord’s prophet. Then we have the lord’s third servant, John Taylor, what did the lord say about the 3rd servant in the parable of Talents?

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

The lord is our brother and savior, we are not equal to him. John Taylor buried his talent, Jospeh Smith got the most and did the most with them. I have no issues with him, I think he was scared of being martyred.

I assure you that I don't consider myself "equal" to the Savior.
That interpretation makes more sense, although I don't know if it's a valid application of the parable. I do think that these prophets buried their talents inasmuch as they did not fully participate in a united order and bring forth the Order of Enoch.

Matthew 21:33-41. If the lord didn’t tell us what that parable meant, would we be clueless about it? All of the lord’s parables have a literal meaning.

[Bronco73idi]

Proving true equality doesn’t work because of weak men.

I believe this is the lord’s church and the temples are his houses. Look how he treated the 2nd temple in his day. He didn’t fire everyone who worked there, he did cleanse it. Did the temple workers see the son of god and repent (change) when they saw him? If they didn’t, then their hearts were hard. Will they be damned just like the citizens of Capernaum?

The story of John Tanner reminds me of the story of the blind man. The lord healed the blind man to testify of himself. John Tanner was healed to testify that this is the lord’s church, then John was told if he would harken unto the spirit and follow the prophet that his children would be blessed. He had to choose, to stay or go to Utah. He followed BY, his children who followed his council were blessed. Thus testifying of Brigham Young as the lord’s prophet. Then we have the lord’s third servant, John Taylor, what did the lord say about the 3rd servant in the parable of Talents?

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

The lord is our brother and savior, we are not equal to him. John Taylor buried his talent, Jospeh Smith got the most and did the most with them. I have no issues with him, I think he was scared of being martyred.

I assure you that I don't consider myself "equal" to the Savior.
That interpretation makes more sense, although I don't know if it's a valid application of the parable. I do think that these prophets buried their talents inasmuch as they did not fully participate in a united order and bring forth the Order of Enoch.

Matthew 13
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

I’m not condemning anyone with these verses, I would condemn myself as much as anyone else if so. We need to ponder and ask for understanding of his words. They are hundredfold in meaning with the Holy Ghost helping us.

[Sarah]

What makes you think they had more priesthood power back then compared to now?

I had a dream recently where I came out of a home and found two animals in the front yard: a red heifer and a black bison. I shouted "I have the priesthood" at them. The red heifer ran off but the black bison only got angry. The bison then stood up on its hind legs and appeared ready to attack me. Just then, Wilford Woodruff ran out of the same house and shouted "I have the priesthood" at it. But there was no effect, and the bison was now incensed. I threw something at it with my hands, which did have a little effect and I got away.
The next scene I was talking with a man and told him about the heifer and the bison and Wilford Woodruff. He said to me, "Isn't it funny how dreams work; they always portray exactly what is needed for you to understand. Do you not see the lesson of it?"

I woke up feeling rebuked for having taken for granted my power in the priesthood just by claim of having had hands laid on my head:

• D&C 121:36 — 38:

The rights of the priesthood...may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake...any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself....

I draw distinction, however, between authority and power based on my experiences. Whereas the absence of priesthood power seems marked by the withdrawal of heavenly gifts among the saints (charismatic gifts of the spirit, such as speaking in unknown tongues [read: Adamic], interpretation of unknown tongues, prophecy, etc.), my experience going through the temple for my own endowments was marked by manifestations from heaven to me testifying of their truthfulness.

So why did Wilford Woodruff also not have Melchizedek power in my dream like I didn't (neither of us could control the more advanced demonic entity)? First off, it must be noted that the dream was only for me. That said, the result of my study is that during his presidency, the laws were transgressed (the law of consecration, or implementation of the united order), the ordinances were changed (movement away from the law of adoption), and the everlasting covenant was broken (the patriarchal order of marriage, or polygyny). According to the scriptures, this is the conditions needed for a curse to devour the earth producing men who are desolate, meaning absent of priesthood power:

• Isa. 24:5 – 6:

They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

Isaiah says that without this power, which is needed for the sealing ordinances to be efficacious for the establishment of Zion, the earth will be smitten under this curse. That these effects are tied to power in the priesthood seems borne out by Malachi who connects a cursed and smitten earth with the sealing power of Elijah:

• Mal. 4:5 – 6:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Moreover, this seems to be the prophesied state of things in the winding up scenes:

• D&C 112:24 – 26:

Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

• D&C 85:6 – 9:

Thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:
And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;
While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.
And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I had another dream a few years ago that I was in a drab concrete box of a house staring out a window onto a flat, desolate plain. I saw two clouds coming together and by the spirit of prophecy I knew it would form a tornado. I ran and gathered my family and friends together and we left the home in great haste. We descended a steep valley and found a beautiful and comely neighborhood with very beautiful mid-19th century homes. At a junction in the path down there we took a turn, which led us back up out of the valley to a place level with the old, drab home. We could see it in the distance and we beheld, to our astonishment, that a tornado had truly formed and was about to hit the home directly. We watched as the roof was ripped off and all its furnishings were sucked out and strewn about the land.

I have slowly been given the interpretation, but suffice it to say that the drab concrete box of a home is the modern church from the Lord's perspective. Elevation in the dream represents linear history or time, thus descending the valley represents going back in time to how things used to be, when the homes were beautiful to the Lord and the land fruitful. Everything else has meaning too.

But again, this dream was only for me, but as you asked why I believe what I do I thought I'd lay out my thoughts.

I see why you believe what you do and appreciate the explanation, and agree that the church is not what it is meant to be and needs to be set in order. We just interpret the events and scriptures you present differently. I do think there is a lack of priesthood power in the church today, but I also know there is real power within many of the members. I know of many miracles, those who say they have spoken in the Adamic language, Priesthood healings and sacred things relating to the temple and temple garment. I have a testimony of temple work. So this is still the Lord's church, and he is directing it. I've had lots of dreams of my own that confirm it. So the first dream you described, it is concerning that you felt the black bull was an evil entity. It is common to have dreams from Satan or evil spirits. And I don't recall anyone in history or the scriptures shouting "I have the priesthood." Something just seems off about that one. And the other dream, you obviously have interpreted it to mean we will go back to living as the days of old, and in many ways we will. I just think it's sad that you think WW was motivated by fear of man (especially when he received so much push-back from some the apostles and saints), you don't trust his story, and you don't see any problems with how the early saints were conducting themselves. It's wasn't as rosy as you think.

I know people who exercise the gifts too, and yes I also believe this to still be the Lord's church that he will set in order in due time (I don't know that his directions are being implemented fully at this time). I have also had lots of dreams to confirm it. When I say the church looks like a drab house from the Lord's perspective, that doesn't mean that God will abandon it; it just means that he will cleanse it so that he can make it beautiful again. My belief is that the church—in terms of the laws, covenants, and ordinances—was at its peak pre-Wilford Woodruff, but I look forward to the day when it will return to that closer-to-Zion state (though this time around the people chosen to live it will be more able to carry it out faithfully). I do trust his story, including his vision as recorded after the manifesto in the D&C, but I think the Lord showed him what the faithlessness of the saints would result in. Just as in Joseph Smith's day, most of the saints went about their duties rather blithely, but among the leading men where doubters and sympathizers with the gentiles. I'm not sure what you mean by the rosy statement, but I do not believe I am under any false pretenses relative to those trying scenes. The leadership got pressured into "beating the devil at his own game" but the game was rigged.

As for the dream I shared, which you posit came from an evil spirit because something 'seems off' to you: this type of judgement from third-parties is what I believe the scriptures mean, at least in part, when they warn against casting your pearls and being rent by those who disagree. I do believe that your feedback is genuine and motivated out of a desire to help, but I would like to know by what criteria you judge the origin of a dream, especially a dream given to another person. I have become accustomed to recognizing when a dream that comes to me is from the Lord: the manner of waking, remembering, and feeling all play a part. But I could never tell you how to judge another's dream. Also, I really don't see the relevance of criticizing the words shouted by myself and WW in the dream. Have I ever seen that in the scriptures? No. Do I believe that it is a valid way to cast out spirits? No! Does that mean the symbols employed in the dream were false? No. I have never had a dream that depicted anything literal. The communication is always symbolic and to the point.

To my knowledge in the scriptures the only gifts given to third-parties relative to other people's dreams is the gift of interpreting, but the interpretation must come from God. Does the Bible say that there can be false dreams? Yes. But often times true dreams from God interpreted in the Bible are quite troubling from the outside, but this has never indicated that they are not true. I can think of no instances of someone's dream being judged by a third-party as being from Satan. If you can find one then let's discuss that and see if we can discover any principles or criteria we can learn and apply.

I didn't mean to make a final judgment on your dream. It very well may have been inspired. I just thought I would say what I said because I've had many, what I call "evil spirit dreams" where there often is a scary individual, but sometimes it has been an animal, or animals. If there is anything scary or threatening, at least for me personally, that is a sign that it could have been influenced by an evil spirit. The dreams I know were from God, I may feel chastened, as you mentioned you felt, but I don't think I've had a spiritual dream where I felt my person was threatened by a scary beast for example. And if I do feel threatened, I rebuke or start praying, which is similar also to what you did. Anyway, no worries. It may be just as you said. Of course I'm also suspicious because I assume that you already felt some distrust or disappointment with WW before the dream? It seemed strange to me that you could conclude from the dream that WW is the cause of no Priesthood power to repel Satan or evil, when you and I both know priesthood holders and endowed members (I hold the matriarchal priesthood ) may exercise priesthood power. (I've rebuked evil spirits).

But it does sound like at least you believe WW, you just think he took the wrong course after seeing the vision. What do you think he should have done?

I've copied below some commentary from the Church for context, and then some of his words. What do think of all this? Which parts do you believe or not, and what do you think the Lord wanted them to do?

"Both President John Taylor and President Wilford Woodruff felt the Lord directing them to stay the course and not renounce plural marriage.14

This inspiration came when paths for legal redress were still open. The last of the paths closed in May 1890, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, allowing the confiscation of Church property to proceed. President Woodruff saw that the Church’s temples and its ordinances were now at risk. Burdened by this threat, he prayed intensely over the matter. “The Lord showed me by vision and revelation,” he later said, “exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice,” referring to plural marriage. “All the temples [would] go out of our hands.” God “has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it.”15

On September 25, 1890, President Woodruff wrote in his journal that he was “under the necessity of acting for the Temporal Salvation of the Church.” He stated, “After Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit I have issued … [a] Proclamation.”16 This proclamation, now published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1, was released to the public on September 25 and became known as the Manifesto.17"

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise." (Official Declaration 1)


Oct 25 1891
I made the following remarks. I wish to make the following remarks upon the principle of revelation. Some had thought that revelation had ceased, but this is not the case the Lord is with us and gives us revelation. But I will say for myself that I wish to avoid saying, "Thus saith the Lord," as far as I can when I give the will of the Lord to the people. In the days of Joseph Smith it was "Thus saith the Lord" almost daily until the revelations embodied in the Doctrine and Covenants had been given. Since that day President Brigham Young, John Taylor, and myself have seldom said the words "Thus saith the Lord" when giving the word of the Lord to the people. In the 68th Section of the Book of D & C we are informed that when men speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost it is the word of the Lord and revelation. I have received a revelation and commandment from the Lord which I had not revealed unto any man which I shall reveal to this assembly and the command of the Lord I shall give to this people which is this: The Lord has revealed unto me that there are many in the Church who feel badly tried about the Manifesto and about the testimony of the Presidency and the Apostles before the Master in Chancery. The Lord has commanded me to put the following question to the saints and to those who will give attention to it shall have the Holy Ghost to be with them to inspire them to answer that question for the meek, and the Lord has promised that the answer will be to all alike. The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-Day-Saints to pursue, to continue to attempt to practise plural marriage with the laws of the Nation against us and some 60,000,000 of people, and at the cost of confiscation and loss of all the temples and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the leaders, or heads of family in the church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice) or after ------ and suffering what we through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law and through doing so have prophets, apostles and fathers at home so they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church. Also leave the temples in the hands of the Saints so they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead. Now the inspiration of the Lord will reveal to any person which course wisdom would dictate us to pursue. And the Latter-Day-Saints throughout Israel should understand that the First Presidency of the Church and the Twelve Apostles are led and guided by the inspiration of the Lord, and the Lord will not permit me nor any other man to lead the people astray.

[Sarah]

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

The lord is our brother and savior, we are not equal to him. John Taylor buried his talent, Jospeh Smith got the most and did the most with them. I have no issues with him, I think he was scared of being martyred.

I assure you that I don't consider myself "equal" to the Savior.
That interpretation makes more sense, although I don't know if it's a valid application of the parable. I do think that these prophets buried their talents inasmuch as they did not fully participate in a united order and bring forth the Order of Enoch.

Matthew 21:33-41. If the lord didn’t tell us what that parable meant, would we be clueless about it? All of the lord’s parables have a literal meaning.

Okay let's take things literally then. Joseph said wives were like talents. What did the men need to do with their talents to get an increase? They needed to give them to the exchangers

[Sarah]

I referenced in one of my previous posts a quote by BY so thought I would provide it:

(The following if from the article, "An Economic Analysis of the United Order" and lots of interesting info in there.)

...Brigham Young himself was not immune to this reluctance.
Although he had always stressed the importance of going
wholeheartedly into the order and had indicated his desire to do
so, in August 1874 speaking in Lehi Young was forced to admit
that
I am laboring under a certain embarrassment and so are many others
with regard to deeding property and that is to find men who
know what to do with property when it is in their hands. When
this factory at Provo can go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will go. When my factory in Salt Lake County can
go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will
go 24
When Brigham Young died three years later such men still had
not been found...

Proving true equality doesn’t work because of weak men.

I believe this is the lord’s church and the temples are his houses. Look how he treated the 2nd temple in his day. He didn’t fire everyone who worked there, he did cleanse it. Did the temple workers see the son of god and repent (change) when they saw him? If they didn’t, then their hearts were hard. Will they be damned just like the citizens of Capernaum?

The story of John Tanner reminds me of the story of the blind man. The lord healed the blind man to testify of himself. John Tanner was healed to testify that this is the lord’s church, then John was told if he would harken unto the spirit and follow the prophet that his children would be blessed. He had to choose, to stay or go to Utah. He followed BY, his children who followed his council were blessed. Thus testifying of Brigham Young as the lord’s prophet. Then we have the lord’s third servant, John Taylor, what did the lord say about the 3rd servant in the parable of Talents?

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

We've talked about this before. You take a very singular stance regarding possessing all things in common and receiving all the father hath.

Here are some additional points to ponder:

Your extrapolations overlooks the fact that God's kingdom has many mansions and Jesus goes to prepare a place among them severally for God's children (not one giant playpen for the heirs of salvation). Joseph Smith taught that God is glorified through posterity, and as each world he makes is redeemed by a savior, it is given to the father and his kingdom and exalted posterity increases. Joseph Smith also taught that the savior of a world then increases in his station and each god goes on in the footsteps of those who went before, going from one capacity to another, increasing over time. When we inherit all that God has, it is to become enrolled in this process to eventually become glorified by our own posterity just as the Father does now and just as Jesus will do. Brigham Young said that there is no God in heaven but that which rules over his own posterity.

When a man inherits "wives, fathers, mothers, children," etc., it is the fathers and mothers of his additional wives that he gains, as well as the children that will be born of these wives. The man is not being told that every familial connection on earth will become his to partake of at will. Brigham Young explained that when we get back to God and we present our families to him that we will see that we are not fathers, mothers, children, aunts, uncles, etc., but all just brothers and sisters, males and females, connected and defined solely through covenant bonds (father-son, husband-wife, parents-children, etc.)—those outside covenant terms are single angels. But those covenant relationships will be orderly, and those who have 5 talents will have more wives, fathers, mothers, etc., than those who have 3, etc.

I'm sorry but I cannot reconcile your views to the teachings and insights of Joseph Smith and the early brethren whom he taught.

I think you misunderstand my stance. Just because I believe relationships can be plural in more ways than you believe, doesn't mean I am throwing out the order that must and should exist. It is just like the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. Someone who doesn't understand how it should work would think it chaos to have individual stewardship, but also say that all have equal claim on the properties. How do you reconcile this idea? You just have to operate on the principles and laws of giving, receiving, and requesting, or borrowing. These are all principles found in the scriptures. I don't see it as a giant playpen, and I also recognize that there will be an inequality in the individual stewardship. Each stewardship is not exactly the same, but it also is not yours alone for you to horde. What you posses may be requested or borrowed for another so that he may increase his own talent or stewardship, or children or glory. Yes there are many mansions and some may be big and some may be small. The important part is that every steward has his eye single to the glory of God, which is creating an increase for everyone of God's children and not just for him or herself.

A wife could have all the same blessings as a husband if you would lift up the stakes you've placed down, and I don't blame you for having them because every prophet and man who has thought upon the issue has put up stakes or bounds on what a goddess can or cannot have. They've but bounds on their fellow brethren and on themselves. You will have the right to give your wife to another. Heavenly Father did it with Mary apparently. At the very least he let her borrow her, you have to admit that.

You wonder how I reconcile all of this. Here is how I would rewrite your words:

"Joseph Smith taught that God (husband and wife) is glorified through posterity, and as each world he (and she) makes is redeemed by a savior, it is given to the father (and mother) and his (their) kingdom and exalted posterity increases. Joseph Smith also taught that the savior of a world then increases in his station and each god (and goddess) goes on in the footsteps of those who went before, going from one capacity to another, increasing over time. When we inherit all that God has, it is to become enrolled in this process to eventually become glorified by our own posterity just as the Father (and Mother) does (do) now and just as Jesus will do. Brigham Young said that there is no God in heaven but that which rules over his (or her) own posterity.

What is your wife # 1 going to be doing while you are creating, consulting, and working with wife #10. The more chaotic view, is that we have a bunch of women not doing anything with a mate, but waiting for their turn. It would be much more efficient and productive, if your wives had other husbands who were your brethren, that they could work with while you were working with or creating with an individual wife. Wives will not have the limitation as they do now. All the traditional thinking bases their assumptions on the earthly reality that a woman is limited in how many children she can have. In the Celestial realm, she has no limitations on child bearing. She is under the curse of these limitations so that the curse can be lifted and her reward amazingly glorious in comparison to what she has in mortality.

[Bronco73idi]

The lord is our brother and savior, we are not equal to him. John Taylor buried his talent, Jospeh Smith got the most and did the most with them. I have no issues with him, I think he was scared of being martyred.

I assure you that I don't consider myself "equal" to the Savior.
That interpretation makes more sense, although I don't know if it's a valid application of the parable. I do think that these prophets buried their talents inasmuch as they did not fully participate in a united order and bring forth the Order of Enoch.

Matthew 21:33-41. If the lord didn’t tell us what that parable meant, would we be clueless about it? All of the lord’s parables have a literal meaning.

Okay let's take things literally then. Joseph said wives were like talents. What did the men need to do with their talents to get an increase? They needed to give them to the exchangers

you forgot “thus saith the lord”

I take the lord’s words literally, not a servant of his.

Look at Paul, excellent servant. A lot of complaints out there of his contradictions to the teachings of the lord. Men need to quit judging other men so harshly, do they judge themselves with the same standard? I try to judge myself harder then my neighbor. I might say something out of context and would hope someone would correct me so I can change (repent)

Most people like to divide “love thy neighbor as thyself”.

If the statement is kept complete as the lord intended then you have to judge your neighbor the same or as you would judge yourself. Does that mean you need to condemn them, no. But if they ask you to accept them in sin you should stand up for your beliefs.

If you have only “love thy neighbor” then you can justify the lord telling us to accept our neighbor in sin and not to judge.

How are we supposed to preach the gospel of repentance if we don’t judge? It isn’t possible, but here we are…..

[Baurak Ale]

Proving true equality doesn’t work because of weak men.

I believe this is the lord’s church and the temples are his houses. Look how he treated the 2nd temple in his day. He didn’t fire everyone who worked there, he did cleanse it. Did the temple workers see the son of god and repent (change) when they saw him? If they didn’t, then their hearts were hard. Will they be damned just like the citizens of Capernaum?

The story of John Tanner reminds me of the story of the blind man. The lord healed the blind man to testify of himself. John Tanner was healed to testify that this is the lord’s church, then John was told if he would harken unto the spirit and follow the prophet that his children would be blessed. He had to choose, to stay or go to Utah. He followed BY, his children who followed his council were blessed. Thus testifying of Brigham Young as the lord’s prophet. Then we have the lord’s third servant, John Taylor, what did the lord say about the 3rd servant in the parable of Talents?

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

We've talked about this before. You take a very singular stance regarding possessing all things in common and receiving all the father hath.

Here are some additional points to ponder:

Your extrapolations overlooks the fact that God's kingdom has many mansions and Jesus goes to prepare a place among them severally for God's children (not one giant playpen for the heirs of salvation). Joseph Smith taught that God is glorified through posterity, and as each world he makes is redeemed by a savior, it is given to the father and his kingdom and exalted posterity increases. Joseph Smith also taught that the savior of a world then increases in his station and each god goes on in the footsteps of those who went before, going from one capacity to another, increasing over time. When we inherit all that God has, it is to become enrolled in this process to eventually become glorified by our own posterity just as the Father does now and just as Jesus will do. Brigham Young said that there is no God in heaven but that which rules over his own posterity.

When a man inherits "wives, fathers, mothers, children," etc., it is the fathers and mothers of his additional wives that he gains, as well as the children that will be born of these wives. The man is not being told that every familial connection on earth will become his to partake of at will. Brigham Young explained that when we get back to God and we present our families to him that we will see that we are not fathers, mothers, children, aunts, uncles, etc., but all just brothers and sisters, males and females, connected and defined solely through covenant bonds (father-son, husband-wife, parents-children, etc.)—those outside covenant terms are single angels. But those covenant relationships will be orderly, and those who have 5 talents will have more wives, fathers, mothers, etc., than those who have 3, etc.

I'm sorry but I cannot reconcile your views to the teachings and insights of Joseph Smith and the early brethren whom he taught.

I think you misunderstand my stance. Just because I believe relationships can be plural in more ways than you believe, doesn't mean I am throwing out the order that must and should exist. It is just like the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. Someone who doesn't understand how it should work would think it chaos to have individual stewardship, but also say that all have equal claim on the properties. How do you reconcile this idea? You just have to operate on the principles and laws of giving, receiving, and requesting, or borrowing. These are all principles found in the scriptures. I don't see it as a giant playpen, and I also recognize that there will be an inequality in the individual stewardship. Each stewardship is not exactly the same, but it also is not yours alone for you to horde. What you posses may be requested or borrowed for another so that he may increase his own talent or stewardship, or children or glory. Yes there are many mansions and some may be big and some may be small. The important part is that every steward has his eye single to the glory of God, which is creating an increase for everyone of God's children and not just for him or herself.

A wife could have all the same blessings as a husband if you would lift up the stakes you've placed down, and I don't blame you for having them because every prophet and man who has thought upon the issue has put up stakes or bounds on what a goddess can or cannot have. They've but bounds on their fellow brethren and on themselves. You will have the right to give your wife to another. Heavenly Father did it with Mary apparently. At the very least he let her borrow her, you have to admit that.

You wonder how I reconcile all of this. Here is how I would rewrite your words:

"Joseph Smith taught that God (husband and wife) is glorified through posterity, and as each world he (and she) makes is redeemed by a savior, it is given to the father (and mother) and his (their) kingdom and exalted posterity increases. Joseph Smith also taught that the savior of a world then increases in his station and each god (and goddess) goes on in the footsteps of those who went before, going from one capacity to another, increasing over time. When we inherit all that God has, it is to become enrolled in this process to eventually become glorified by our own posterity just as the Father (and Mother) does (do) now and just as Jesus will do. Brigham Young said that there is no God in heaven but that which rules over his (or her) own posterity.

What is your wife # 1 going to be doing while you are creating, consulting, and working with wife #10. The more chaotic view, is that we have a bunch of women not doing anything with a mate, but waiting for their turn. It would be much more efficient and productive, if your wives had other husbands who were your brethren, that they could work with while you were working with or creating with an individual wife. Wives will not have the limitation as they do now. All the traditional thinking bases their assumptions on the earthly reality that a woman is limited in how many children she can have. In the Celestial realm, she has no limitations on child bearing. She is under the curse of these limitations so that the curse can be lifted and her reward amazingly glorious in comparison to what she has in mortality.

Do you know how consecration worked in Jackson county when the saints first tried it? I’ve never come across any notion of equal claims on property. Perhaps you’ve stretched some scriptural wording to the historic account that isn’t factual?

In any event, here are my responses to your questions:

(1) Did the father give Mary as his wife to Joseph per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132?

No. I believe it was the reverse: Mary was sealed to Joseph and, by way of the holy anointing, she was permitted to conceive of Jesus Christ. If Mary had been sealed to God the Father, then per the Levirite marriage laws, all other children conceived through Joseph would have been considered the children of God the Father as well. Also per Mosaic restrictions, engagement of a woman was equivalent to marriage of a woman when defining the bounds of adultery, meaning that God the Father could not have first claim on the virgin that she might belong to Him and none else. In other words, going back to our conversation distinguishing the sealing of offspring to parents versus the sealing of men to men, Jesus was legally the offspring of Joseph and inherited his lineage (backed up in the gospels) and was “born in the covenant” of his marriage to Mary; later, Jesus was sealed directly to God the Father as his only begotten covenant son, a covenant between married men.
Does any of that imply eternal wife swapping? No, but there is an exception reserved in the marriage seals for raising up seed. Legally and eternally, Mary is the wife of Joseph (probably his second wife, according to apocryphal tradition) and she belongs to him and none else.

2. What will wife #1 be doing while I’m ‘creating, consulting, and working’ with wife #10?

She will engaged in the same work beside the other wives. Speaking of putting up stakes, I don’t subscribe to the notion that each world only has one mother. I believe God the Father peoples each world by multiple wives at the same time, first spiritually and then physically. Our Adam and Eve story is an allegory to be applied to ourselves but is not a literal depiction of the state of things in the beginning.
So for me there’s no departing from and leaving wives to languish while one particular wife is engaged in a world project.

[Sarah]

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

We've talked about this before. You take a very singular stance regarding possessing all things in common and receiving all the father hath.

Here are some additional points to ponder:

Your extrapolations overlooks the fact that God's kingdom has many mansions and Jesus goes to prepare a place among them severally for God's children (not one giant playpen for the heirs of salvation). Joseph Smith taught that God is glorified through posterity, and as each world he makes is redeemed by a savior, it is given to the father and his kingdom and exalted posterity increases. Joseph Smith also taught that the savior of a world then increases in his station and each god goes on in the footsteps of those who went before, going from one capacity to another, increasing over time. When we inherit all that God has, it is to become enrolled in this process to eventually become glorified by our own posterity just as the Father does now and just as Jesus will do. Brigham Young said that there is no God in heaven but that which rules over his own posterity.

When a man inherits "wives, fathers, mothers, children," etc., it is the fathers and mothers of his additional wives that he gains, as well as the children that will be born of these wives. The man is not being told that every familial connection on earth will become his to partake of at will. Brigham Young explained that when we get back to God and we present our families to him that we will see that we are not fathers, mothers, children, aunts, uncles, etc., but all just brothers and sisters, males and females, connected and defined solely through covenant bonds (father-son, husband-wife, parents-children, etc.)—those outside covenant terms are single angels. But those covenant relationships will be orderly, and those who have 5 talents will have more wives, fathers, mothers, etc., than those who have 3, etc.

I'm sorry but I cannot reconcile your views to the teachings and insights of Joseph Smith and the early brethren whom he taught.

I think you misunderstand my stance. Just because I believe relationships can be plural in more ways than you believe, doesn't mean I am throwing out the order that must and should exist. It is just like the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. Someone who doesn't understand how it should work would think it chaos to have individual stewardship, but also say that all have equal claim on the properties. How do you reconcile this idea? You just have to operate on the principles and laws of giving, receiving, and requesting, or borrowing. These are all principles found in the scriptures. I don't see it as a giant playpen, and I also recognize that there will be an inequality in the individual stewardship. Each stewardship is not exactly the same, but it also is not yours alone for you to horde. What you posses may be requested or borrowed for another so that he may increase his own talent or stewardship, or children or glory. Yes there are many mansions and some may be big and some may be small. The important part is that every steward has his eye single to the glory of God, which is creating an increase for everyone of God's children and not just for him or herself.

A wife could have all the same blessings as a husband if you would lift up the stakes you've placed down, and I don't blame you for having them because every prophet and man who has thought upon the issue has put up stakes or bounds on what a goddess can or cannot have. They've but bounds on their fellow brethren and on themselves. You will have the right to give your wife to another. Heavenly Father did it with Mary apparently. At the very least he let her borrow her, you have to admit that.

You wonder how I reconcile all of this. Here is how I would rewrite your words:

"Joseph Smith taught that God (husband and wife) is glorified through posterity, and as each world he (and she) makes is redeemed by a savior, it is given to the father (and mother) and his (their) kingdom and exalted posterity increases. Joseph Smith also taught that the savior of a world then increases in his station and each god (and goddess) goes on in the footsteps of those who went before, going from one capacity to another, increasing over time. When we inherit all that God has, it is to become enrolled in this process to eventually become glorified by our own posterity just as the Father (and Mother) does (do) now and just as Jesus will do. Brigham Young said that there is no God in heaven but that which rules over his (or her) own posterity.

What is your wife # 1 going to be doing while you are creating, consulting, and working with wife #10. The more chaotic view, is that we have a bunch of women not doing anything with a mate, but waiting for their turn. It would be much more efficient and productive, if your wives had other husbands who were your brethren, that they could work with while you were working with or creating with an individual wife. Wives will not have the limitation as they do now. All the traditional thinking bases their assumptions on the earthly reality that a woman is limited in how many children she can have. In the Celestial realm, she has no limitations on child bearing. She is under the curse of these limitations so that the curse can be lifted and her reward amazingly glorious in comparison to what she has in mortality.

Do you know how consecration worked in Jackson county when the saints first tried it? I’ve never come across any notion of equal claims on property. Perhaps you’ve stretched some scriptural wording to the historic account that isn’t factual?

In any event, here are my responses to your questions:

(1) Did the father give Mary as his wife to Joseph per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132?

No. I believe it was the reverse: Mary was sealed to Joseph and, by way of the holy anointing, she was permitted to conceive of Jesus Christ. If Mary had been sealed to God the Father, then per the Levirite marriage laws, all other children conceived through Joseph would have been considered the children of God the Father as well. Also per Mosaic restrictions, engagement of a woman was equivalent to marriage of a woman when defining the bounds of adultery, meaning that God the Father could not have first claim on the virgin that she might belong to Him and none else. In other words, going back to our conversation distinguishing the sealing of offspring to parents versus the sealing of men to men, Jesus was legally the offspring of Joseph and inherited his lineage (backed up in the gospels) and was “born in the covenant” of his marriage to Mary; later, Jesus was sealed directly to God the Father as his only begotten covenant son, a covenant between married men.
Does any of that imply eternal wife swapping? No, but there is an exception reserved in the marriage seals for raising up seed. Legally and eternally, Mary is the wife of Joseph (probably his second wife, according to apocryphal tradition) and she belongs to him and none else.

2. What will wife #1 be doing while I’m ‘creating, consulting, and working’ with wife #10?

She will engaged in the same work beside the other wives. Speaking of putting up stakes, I don’t subscribe to the notion that each world only has one mother. I believe God the Father peoples each world by multiple wives at the same time, first spiritually and then physically. Our Adam and Eve story is an allegory to be applied to ourselves but is not a literal depiction of the state of things in the beginning.
So for me there’s no departing from and leaving wives to languish while one particular wife is engaged in a world project.

I don't have a "stake" that says only one couple or one man or one wife is assigned to each earth. I don't know the answer to the question of who all populates each earth, but each earth could very well be populated by more than one couple. You said that while you are with one wife your other wives will be working together creating. What do you imagine them doing? How do you imagine women working together vs. men working together? My impression is that you are tied up with the few examples we have in history, that your mind doesn't allow you to see any further.

We are no longer commanded to live the Mosaic Law, or how David lived, but we're commanded to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, and the Order of Enoch, which BY never revealed because he sensed the Elders weren't ready for it. We also have the beginnings of what is called the Law of the Priesthood, which outlines who is able to give and receive spouses.

A wife can't be creating other spirit children with other women, she would therefore be limited in what she could do. Your scenario also requires there to be at a minimum three times as many females in the CK as men. I don't see that happening. How many women did Joseph have sealed to him? And we are told in section 49, "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” So please explain how is it that this verse can come to pass in the CK?

Brigham Young June 21, 1874
"I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch."

Regarding Mary and Joseph, It doesn't matter to me if Joseph had her first or Heavenly Father, and who gets her in the Celestial Kingdom. What matters is that part of the law, whether it was Mosaic in the past, or the Law of the Priesthood in all times, allows a wife to go to more than one husband. If it is allowed in one case, it is allowed in infinite cases when considering eternity. Yes, in old times it was allowed to raise up seed to another man, and that is part of the greatness of the Law. There are provisions for lots of things, just like a driver's manual. We just don't have that all revealed yet as the Lord stated multiple times in section 132. Joseph said women would have their choice, so it really doesn't matter who she "belongs" to. Which brings us to the first issue you brought up in your comment about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The fact is that she belongs to the Lord, and he is able to direct what happens to her.

You asked if I knew how consecration worked in those early days and I was trying to read about it this morning, and came across this article https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-covenants- ... -covenants It summarizes the principles pretty well. Also points out that they only have record of about a dozen deeds that were given through consecration. So only a few saints ever participated fully, and the principles and practices were never lived very long. The revelations say that you consecrate all your property to the Lord, then the Lord gives you back a portion of what is now his or the church's, as your stewardship and inheritance. Then, any further increase or "talents" you acquire after the first consecration, are cast into the storehouse for the use of giving inheritances to the poor. So what you have is a case that the giving, receiving, and requesting, are done through the Lord (Bishop). So perhaps I gave the wrong impression or understanding in that any man could walk up to any man in the covenant as ask for his wife. It seems apparent that in any giving/receiving transaction, it is always done through the Lord's approval. If we choose to apply these principles to spouses, you are going to the Lord for the privilege of taking another wife, and he alone is able to give, as all belong to him. The Lord told Joseph that he had given Emma to him as his wife for example, so our spouses are gifts from the Lord. It's obvious that the Lord has "given" all mankind the privilege of marrying one spouse under his law, but that plural spouses are only permitted by commandment and through the one with the keys of this power.

So, when you consecrate everything with a covenant, the Lord's covenant is that you will receive all that the Father hath in return. In this way, everyone becomes a giver and receiver, according to your needs and wants. What is worth pondering is that through the Law of Sarah, the Lord is giving the first wife the same role he has, as the steward of someone, who is able to give that person away. Just as the Lord gives you a wife or wives, the wife is able to give other wives who she has stewardship over (at least in ancient days. In the early days of the church is simply represented a wife giving another woman of lower status (poor) to a husband.) The fact that a wife becomes a giver should make you pause, as we are told that it is better to give than to receive. The fact that the first wife is consecrating her husband and woman servant to the Lord, then means that she will also receive all that the Father hath, and that includes basically anything she desires, including any marriage to any man she desires and whom the Lord approves. But the Lord must also command her husband to give her another man or give her to another so that he can fulfill the Law of Consecration as well and become a giver, in order that he may receive all that the Father hath. He can't just keep accumulating wives, as we see in history that that path always leads to selfishness and heartache, as he is fulfilling the parable of the servant who buries his talent. He is therefore stuck and is not progressing. That is why Joseph was commanded to offer Emma another husband, and why Joseph asked his apostles and other men for their wives. There is even a quote that I cannot find, that was quoted by a disaffected wife as I recall, but she quoted one of the apostles wives saying that she was taught that all of the apostles wives were consecrated to the Lord (Joseph).

Here's some more quotes for your consideration...

Emmeline B. Wells was a prominent campaigner for suffrage, having first been sent with Zina Williams to attend the National Suffrage Convention in 1879, and was long-time editor of The Exponent magazine. Madsen writes (quoting Emmeline) as follows:

“Appraising the broadened opportunities for women that had occurred during her lifetime, she linked those achievements with the purposes God had for his children. “The inspiring influences that have been causing this uplifting,” she wrote in a 1902 Relief Society handbook, “are all in the program marked out for the children of our Father in Heaven; let those who dare, deny it! but as sure as the Scriptures are true, and they are true, so sure woman must be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of that equality which existed when the world was created. . . . Perfect equality then and so it must be when all things are restored as they were in the beginning.””

Emmeline: “Do you not see the morning star of woman’s destiny in the ascendant? Why the whole civilized world is becoming enlightened with its beams. . . . There are some wise men who recognize the star, and who even say “peace and good will” to woman, and take her by the hand and welcome her to their circle, and would fain assign to her all that nature gave her intelligence and capacity to do, would lift her up to their level . . . and say there is room for us both, let us walk side by side.”

George Q Cannon:“In a sermon on celestial marriage given in 1869, George Q. Cannon confirmed the principle as the route to redemption. Plural marriage, he said, “will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning.” On another occasion he prophesied that “as the generations roll by nobler types of womanhood will be developed, until the penalty that was laid upon woman in the beginning, that ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,’ will be repealed, and she will stand side by side with man, full of that queenly dignity and self control which will make her his suitable companion rather than his inferior.”… Subscribing to at least part of his argument, Emmeline Wells urged women to educate themselves for that day. “The very genius and spirit of the age is in keeping with the cry of woman, for recognition of her position by the side of man,” she wrote. “It is the consciousness in woman everywhere, if even a latent spark of her inherent divinity lingers, that the hour is hastening when the curse will be removed.”


Eliza R Snow
1872
I was very much pleased with the conference. In speaking of the people living so far beneath their privileges, President Young has said at three different times, “Yet out from this people the Lord will call a people that will do his will.” I have wondered how, when, and to whom is this call to be made. In his remarks one day during conference, President Young spoke of establishing a colony composed of those who had sufficient confidence in each other to bind themselves in an indissoluble band.14 Those that cannot see the order of Enoch will think it an excitement caused by the brethren. It rejoices my heart to see that God is working in our midst, and who are prepared to enter in? Those who have abided the whole law. When we all come to examine ourselves, we shall find the weaknesses of the flesh.

1873
You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God.


Brigham Young

Conference, April 6th 1862
I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven, but I cannot do it while so much selfishness and wickedness reign in the Elders of Israel. Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives—the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. How long it will be before they are prepared to enjoy the blessings God has in store for them, I know not—it has not been revealed to me. I know the Lord wants to pour blessings upon this people, but were he to do so in their present ignorance, they would not know what to do with them. They can receive only a very little and that must be administered to them with great care.

Aug. 1874

1. Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham,
2. Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.


Brigham Young 1876

You Elders of Israel, do you not see the necessity of an advance? Do you not see that we have traveled just as far as we can, without adopting the revelation the Lord gave at Independence, Jackson County, namely, that “the property of the Saints should be laid at the feet of the Bishops, etc., and unless this was done a curse would befall them?” They refused to do it, and the consequence was, they were driven from their homes. Unless we obey these first revelations, the people will decline in their faith, and they will leave the faith of the holy Gospel. Do the Elders sense this? Yes, a great many of them do—also a great many of the sisters. Were it not for the faith and prayers of the faithful ones, this Church would have been given into the hands of our enemies. It is the faith of the Priesthood, who cling to the commandments of the Lord, that holds the people where they are.

[Sarah]

Were these "men to men" sealings only a son being sealed to a father? Seems like a child being sealed to a father would also need a mother there as part of that sealing. If that's the case it wouldn't be men to men but child to parents.

Just father to son. Only one person lets you through the veil.

So what mother would you be sealed to if you were only sealed to a father? In the scriptures, it was the mother who mattered. Did they also seal living children to the father only? Seems like if all that matters is who is going to bring you through the veil ( if this is really a correct understanding of the principle) we only need to seal children to the father.

'What mother would you be sealed to if you were only sealed to a father?' I'm not sure I understand your question. Some Biblical cultures, such as Egypt, placed special emphasis on an individual's maternity, but the Israelites and antediluvians—as far as I know—placed their emphasis on paternity. I'm not sure where you get the idea that in the scriptures it was the mother who mattered more than the father.

Children born in the covenant or "sealed" to parents (after legal adoption) inherit certain blessings depending on their faithfulness, but they are not the same blessings as the sealing between man and woman (husband to wife) or the sealing of a man to man (father to son). In other words, the sealing of children to parents and the sealing of men and women to one another are two different categories of sealing: the former vouchsafes salvation for the children in the lowest level of the Celestial Kingdom predicated on the faithfulness of the parents; the latter vouchsafes exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom predicated on the faithfulness of the individuals in the covenant themselves (husbands, wives, and married "sons").

It's important to realize that the law of adoption only applies to married men!

Hope that helps.

In regards to the Law of Adoption, you make it sound like in this post that a married man today, even if he is already sealed to his father and mother, will still need to be sealed to another man as his father. Do you think that?