King Noah sounds like Brigham Young

[Allison]

I believe the story of King Noah may have been included in the Book of Mormon to help us see our way out of the polygamy disaster of our dispensation.

Assuming polygamy really is an abomination in the eyes of God (I think it is), we learn from the Book of Mormon that one who (despite having the authority and keys of God) falls into debauchery and a sinful life, can still repent and re-access the authority and keys to carry out the functions of the gospel, as Alma did. This is why I believe the Church was not entirely derailed by the polygamy era. The Church repented and forsook polygamy, and the keys and authority were there, just as for Alma who was authorized to baptize as soon as he repented of his sinful ways. That might explain why we still see miracles, and feel outpourings of the Spirit at church, and at the temple.

[logonbump]

Will a modern alma come from among our LDS ranks or from among the Jews?

[BuriedTartaria]

Will a modern alma come from among our LDS ranks or from among the Jews?

Probably both. This is something the Snuffer/Remnant crowd focuses on a lot, which I really appreciate about them and their efforts. The Book of Mormon speaks of three remnants (a righteous remnant of the gentiles, a remnant of the Jews, and a remnant of the Lamanites) being involved in work after a pruning of the vineyard. We will probably see enlightened servants among the gentiles, the Jews and Lamanites. The fulness of the gospel is to return to the Jews, after the rejection of this by the gentiles. Among the servants coming from the gentiles, perhaps some or one will come from LDS leadership or at least from the crowd of the LDS. On that point, some would say enlightened messengers from LDS culture have already arrived on the scene.

[Luke]

This is why I believe the Church was not entirely derailed by the polygamy era.

Derailed? They were on track.
Unfortunately they went completely off the rails by forsaking the Principle.

[Allison]

This is why I believe the Church was not entirely derailed by the polygamy era.

Derailed? They were on track.
Unfortunately they went completely off the rails by forsaking the Principle.

[gruden2.0]

- Brigham Young didn't fire some notable portion of authorities and fill all the ranks with his own. A few probably left via disenfranchisement or excommunication, unwilling to cross the plains or out of disagreement with the split in the Church, but it is not the circumstance that seems to be painted in the Book of Mormon.

Brigham Young did change the structure of the church and "fired" people that were put in place under JS.

Thanks, I was going to mention this as well. After Joseph's death Brigham removed anyone in Nauvoo who opposed his ascension to power, many of them by calling them to missions. People like Rigdon were removed by trials which were kangaroo courts that didn't follow procedure.

The idea Brigham planted vineyards for 'cleaning and trading' is... interesting. If you want to clean, you're better off making high-octane moonshine: cheaper, easier, and vastly more effective than wine, which stains. Nobody makes wine to give it all away; for starters you have to have a wine crafter who understands how to properly make it, which means it is tasted.

[gruden2.0]

This is why I believe the Church was not entirely derailed by the polygamy era.

Derailed? They were on track.
Unfortunately they went completely off the rails by forsaking the Principle.

Lots of interesting takes in this thread. I guess Brigham Young's word counts for more than Joseph's among some here.

[innocentoldguy]

Joseph first received the revelation on plural marriage in 1831

That's totally false and you know it! There's no evidence whatsoever, that's just wishful thinking by apologists.

If he had received it then, the 12 would have said as much, but they all say 1842. Matter of fact, BY once said that he received a polygamy revelation in England before Joseph received one.

There's no way JS would have been thinking about polygamy after translating the OT like some speculate, because he made two changes reversing David being justified in the practice. He added the word "not", which made his understanding of the Bible even more against polygamy and more importantly, he had translated the BoM so he knew full well polygamy was an abomination.

The Lord told Jacob "their having many wives and concubines" was abominable. Notice the Lord did not tell Jacob, "their having more wives and concubines than what I gave them" was abominable.

Joseph F. Smith stated this and it was published in the Deseret Evening News on February 18, 1882. I trust his knowledge on the matter more than I trust yours. B. H. Roberts also wrote about it in volume 7 of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then, of course, there are all the well-documented wives of both Joseph and Hyrum. Again, you attempt to use your narrow understanding to condemn things you've obviously not studied.

[Luke]

Joseph first received the revelation on plural marriage in 1831

That's totally false and you know it! There's no evidence whatsoever, that's just wishful thinking by apologists.

If he had received it then, the 12 would have said as much, but they all say 1842. Matter of fact, BY once said that he received a polygamy revelation in England before Joseph received one.

The apostles didn’t say 1842, they said that he first received it in 1831. Lyman Johnson (one of the original Twelve who apostatised in Kirtland) confirmed it.

[SJR3t2]

Joseph first received the revelation on plural marriage in 1831

That's totally false and you know it! There's no evidence whatsoever, that's just wishful thinking by apologists.

If he had received it then, the 12 would have said as much, but they all say 1842. Matter of fact, BY once said that he received a polygamy revelation in England before Joseph received one.

There's no way JS would have been thinking about polygamy after translating the OT like some speculate, because he made two changes reversing David being justified in the practice. He added the word "not", which made his understanding of the Bible even more against polygamy and more importantly, he had translated the BoM so he knew full well polygamy was an abomination.

The Lord told Jacob "their having many wives and concubines" was abominable. Notice the Lord did not tell Jacob, "their having more wives and concubines than what I gave them" was abominable.

Joseph F. Smith stated this and it was published in the Deseret Evening News on February 18, 1882. I trust his knowledge on the matter more than I trust yours. B. H. Roberts also wrote about it in volume 7 of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then, of course, there are all the well-documented wives of both Joseph and Hyrum. Again, you attempt to use your narrow understanding to condemn things you've obviously not studied.

You are destroyed for your lack of knowledge of truth.

JS only fought against polygamy
1835 D&C section 101, last edition while Joseph Smith was alive. The only major church that removed it was the LDS church. It states one man and one wife, to marry in public where everyone can see it, and that polygamy is a crime.
https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/marriage/

[Shawn Henry]

The apostles didn’t say 1842, they said that he first received it in 1831. Lyman Johnson (one of the original Twelve who apostatised in Kirtland) confirmed it.

And it's a non-contemporary claim, right? After he apostatized? And how exactly does one man equate to "they". You said, "they said".

1831, after he finished the BoM calling it an abomination and still called it a crime in the D&C in 1835. God does not walk in crooked paths.

You can't turn an abomination into a higher law, it's like putting a steak on a dog turd.

[Shawn Henry]

Joseph F. Smith stated this and it was published in the Deseret Evening News on February 18, 1882. I trust his knowledge on the matter more than I trust yours. B. H. Roberts also wrote about it in volume 7 of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then, of course, there are all the well-documented wives of both Joseph and Hyrum. Again, you attempt to use your narrow understanding to condemn things you've obviously not studied.

Joseph's wives don't claim the Kirtland era.

BH Roberts simply speculated 1831 because of Joseph's working on the New Translation and here are some problems with that.
1. Joseph has just learned from the Lord that he referred to polygamy as an abomination. That would have ended any questions in his mind.
2. The New Translation actually has two changes that change David being justified to him not being justified. Joseph inserts the word "not".
3. The 1835 D&C declares polygamy a crime, something Joseph wouldn't canonize if he had just found out it wasn't.

You omitting the fact that it was his speculation is dishonest.

Joseph F. Smith Sr was born in 1838. What knowledge are you trusting there brother? Are you claiming his Uncle told him himself on his sixth birthday that he had a revelation on polygamy in 1831? And you say it's obvious I haven't studied. We'll let your reasoning stand on its own.

[gruden2.0]

1. Joseph has just learned from the Lord that he referred to polygamy as an abomination. That would have ended any questions in his mind.

Which revelation said that? Having a bit of trouble locating that.

[Shawn Henry]

1. Joseph has just learned from the Lord that he referred to polygamy as an abomination. That would have ended any questions in his mind.

Which revelation said that? Having a bit of trouble locating that.

That's a BoM reference. Sorry for not being clearer.

[innocentoldguy]

Joseph F. Smith stated this and it was published in the Deseret Evening News on February 18, 1882. I trust his knowledge on the matter more than I trust yours. B. H. Roberts also wrote about it in volume 7 of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then, of course, there are all the well-documented wives of both Joseph and Hyrum. Again, you attempt to use your narrow understanding to condemn things you've obviously not studied.

Joseph's wives don't claim the Kirtland era.

BH Roberts simply speculated 1831 because of Joseph's working on the New Translation and here are some problems with that.
1. Joseph has just learned from the Lord that he referred to polygamy as an abomination. That would have ended any questions in his mind.
2. The New Translation actually has two changes that change David being justified to him not being justified. Joseph inserts the word "not".
3. The 1835 D&C declares polygamy a crime, something Joseph wouldn't canonize if he had just found out it wasn't.

You omitting the fact that it was his speculation is dishonest.

Joseph F. Smith Sr was born in 1838. What knowledge are you trusting there brother? Are you claiming his Uncle told him himself on his sixth birthday that he had a revelation on polygamy in 1831? And you say it's obvious I haven't studied. We'll let your reasoning stand on its own.

And your omitting the fact that both Joseph and Hyrum had multiple wives and that Joseph Smith's mother wrote about it is dishonest, as are all your arguments and condemnations against the church, its prophets, and its saints.

Regarding Joseph F. Smith's birthday and familial relationships, remind me of when your were born and what family members of yours restored the gospel again?

[Mamabear]

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?

[BuriedTartaria]

You are destroyed for your lack of knowledge of truth.

JS only fought against polygamy
1835 D&C section 101, last edition while Joseph Smith was alive. The only major church that removed it was the LDS church. It states one man and one wife, to marry in public where everyone can see it, and that polygamy is a crime.
https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/marriage/

This is interesting information. Obviously, like with everyone, I don't always agree with the conclusions you reach but I respect your hunt for truth and how you've channeled that into your writing and your website. Very impressive and admirable.

[LDS Watchman]

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?

Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.

[Mamabear]

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?

Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.

She probably was. Jesus always taught about temple work and how people couldn’t be exalted without it. He even said Joseph would restore this lost teaching that most of humanity would miss out on and still less than 1% of the population have today. And if people commit adultery after temple covenants they should just kill each other because it’s loving.

[LDS Watchman]

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?

Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.

She probably was. Jesus always taught about temple work and how people couldn’t be exalted without it. He even said Joseph would restore this lost teaching that most of humanity would miss out on and still less than 1% of the population have today.

No, there's no way that she was endowed. The Jews were operating under the Aaronic Priesthood at that time.

[Bronco73idi]

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering on the altar...and there are sins that the blood of a lamb...cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man" (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53-54, also published in Deseret News, p.235, 1856). Brigham Young also said: "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants [fidelity in marriage] made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" (Journal of Discourses,vol.3, p.247)

Brigham, a “prophet,” knew the scriptures so well.
Remember when Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery there was no hope for her and her own blood must atone for that sin?

Was the woman taken in adultery in Jesus' day endowed? Had she made a solemn covenant with God in his holy house to never commit adultery?

If not, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.

She probably was. Jesus always taught about temple work and how people couldn’t be exalted without it. He even said Joseph would restore this lost teaching that most of humanity would miss out on and still less than 1% of the population have today.

No, there's no way that she was endowed. The Jews were operating under the Aaronic Priesthood at that time.

You are saying John the Baptist had less authority then we do today?

Maybe we don’t know the whole story, maybe the church that buried everything, did an excellent job at it.

[LDS Watchman]

You are saying John the Baptist had less authority then we do today?

That's not what I said.

[SJR3t2]

You are destroyed for your lack of knowledge of truth.

JS only fought against polygamy
1835 D&C section 101, last edition while Joseph Smith was alive. The only major church that removed it was the LDS church. It states one man and one wife, to marry in public where everyone can see it, and that polygamy is a crime.
https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/marriage/

This is interesting information. Obviously, like with everyone, I don't always agree with the conclusions you reach but I respect your hunt for truth and how you've channeled that into your writing and your website. Very impressive and admirable.

Thanks. even though we don't agree I'm glad you can see I put effort into it.

[Bronco73idi]

You are saying John the Baptist had less authority then we do today?

That's not what I said.

Please elaborate.

[LDS Watchman]

You are saying John the Baptist had less authority then we do today?

That's not what I said.

Please elaborate.

What do you want me to elaborate on? I didn't mention John the Baptist.

The Jews were operating under the Aaronic priesthood at that time. The endowment and other ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthhood were not being adminstered to most people.

Peter, James, and John had to receive their endowment on the Mount of Transfiguration. So unless the woman taken in adultery had had a similar experience, which is extremely unlikely, she wouldn't have made the same covenant not to commit adultery endowed members make.