What does “Families are forever” even mean?

[ransomme]

Show me these testimonies/witnesses.

Are they from years after the fact, and years after Joseph's death?

Here are a few things off the top of my head...How do you explain how the would-be/should-be pinnacle of modern revelation...

a) was changed/doctored from the parts of the original text that existed during Joseph's life?
b) had been treated so carelessly by Joseph that he never talked about it, published it, etc?
c) was left out of the D&C that Joseph prepared in 1844?
d) was so important that they waited 32 years until 1876 to add it even though BY published it in '52?
e) contains false doctrine and factual errors that conflict with the scriptures?
f) contains repeated odd phrasing found nowhere else in scripture?
g) goes against, "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else" (D&C 42:22)?
h) goes against, "Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;" (D&C 49:16)?
i) goes against B0M/Jacob?
j) creates an incongruent (with scripture) exhalation doctrine?
k) that somehow promises more "Fulness"?
and last but not least...
l) redefines "Everlasting Covenant" & "Fulness" into foreign and unrecognizable concepts?

"Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this (referring to baptism) is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." (D&C 22:1)

"Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old." (D&C 66:2)

"And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity" (D&C 133:57)

"Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;" (D&C 93:1)

"15 Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you—yea, when ye shall call upon the Father in my name, with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then shall ye know that the Father hath remembered the covenant which he made unto your fathers, O house of Israel.
16 And then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember, when ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed.
17 Therefore, when ye shall receive this record ye may know that the work of the Father has commenced upon all the face of the land.
18 Therefore, repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and believe in my gospel, and be baptized in my name; for he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned; and signs shall follow them that believe in my name" (Ether 4)

Some were contemporaneous, some were later.

For example, Austin Cowles's contemporaneous account:
"In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah.""

There were also later recollections that corroborate the earlier ones.

From Thomas Grover:

"The High Council, of Nauvoo, was called together by the
Prophet Joseph Smith, to know whether they would accept the
Revelation on celestial marriage or not. The presidency of the Stake, Wm. Marks, Father Coles and
the late Apostle Charles C. Rich, were there present. The
following are the names of the High Council that were present,
in their order, viz : Samuel Bent, William Huntington, Alpheus
Cutler, Thomas Grover, Lewis D. Wilson, David Fullmer, Aaron
Johnson, Newel Knight, Leonard Soby, Isaac Allred, Henry G.
Sherwood and, I think, Samuel Smith.

"Brother Hyrum Smith was called upon to read the revelation. He did so, and after reading it said: "Now, you that believe this revelation and go forth and obey the same shall be
saved, and you that reject it shall be damned."

"We saw this prediction verified in less than one week. Of the
Presidency of the Stake, William Marks and Father Coles rejected the revelation; of the Council that were present, Leonard
Soby rejected it. From that time forward there was a very
strong division in the High Council. These three men greatly
diminished in spirit day after day, so that there was a great
difference in the line of their conduct, which was perceivable
to every member that kept the faith."

Leonard Soby:
"Leonard Soby,
who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon oath
saith, that on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, in the city
of Nauvoo, in the State of Illinois, in the county of Hancock,
before the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints, of which body and council aforesaid he was a member, personally appeared one Hyrum Smith, of the first presidency of said church, and brother to Joseph Smith, the president and prophet of the same, and presented to said council the
Revelation on Polygamy, enjoining its observance and declaring it came from God; unto which a large majority of the council
agreed and assented believing it to be of a celestial order,
though no vote was taken upon it, for the reason that the voice
of the prophet, in such matters, was understood by us to be the
voice of God to the church, and that said revelation was presented to said council, as before stated, as coming from Joseph
Smith, the prophet of the Lord, and was received by us as other revelations had been."

David Fullmer:

"On or about the
12th day of August, A. D. 1843, while in meeting with the High
Council, (he being a member thereof), in Hyrum Smith's brick
office, in the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of
llinois, Dunbar Wilson made inquiry in relation to the subject of
a plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those remarks, and
he wanted to know what it was, upon which Hyrum Smith
stepped across the road to his residence, and soon returned,
bringing with him a copy of the revelation on celestial marriage,
given to Joseph Smith, July 12, A. D. 1843, and read the same
to the High Council, and bore testimony of its truth. The said
David Fullmer further said that to the best of his memory and
belief, the following named persons were present: William
Marks, Austin A. Cowles, Samuel Bent, George W. Harris, Dunbar Wilson, Wm. Huntington, Levi Jackman, Aaron Johnson,
Thomas Grover, David Fullmer, Phineas Richards, James Allred
and Leonard Soby. And the said David Fullmer further saith that Wm. Marks, Austin A. Cowles and Leonard Soby were
the only persons present who did not receive the testimony of
Hyrum Smith, and that all the others did receive it from the
teaching and testimony of the said Hyrum Smith. And further, that the copy of said revelation on Celestial Marriage, published
in the Deseret News extra of September fourteenth, A. D. 1852,
is a true copy of the same."


How is it possible for so many people, some Brighamite, some not, to remember the same meeting if it weren't true?

Section 132 doesn't disagree with any of these things. It doesn't contradict anything. People can always manufacture conflicts between scriptures, whether it's about faith vs works or whatever. We can make up conflicts or see how they can both be true together.

Joseph was good at keeping a secret, as he said he was. But tons of people were brought into the secret and talked about it.

So much for no unhallowed hand can stop the work. Or does it mean that unhallowed hands can still reverse the work, but just not stop it?

I suppose the Church only lost the principle of exaltation...

Perhaps it's a classic trial of faith. Just enough for people to believe either way. Good luck with your choice.

Although if you had true faith in the principle you'd live it, because if you don't then you won't make it to the highest level of the Celestial kingdom You know since polygamy didn't really end by revelation:

"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."

No work was stopped. God requires things at times and not at others. So what?

What in the world are you talking about? I believe the Lord instituted animal sacrifices. I'm not gonna be doing that either. And you know why I'm not going to do either. What does any of this have to do with Section 132? And again, how can Brighamites and non -Brighamites (Austin Cowles later joined the Reorgs) all remember the same event?

The work of exaltation stopped, aka plural marriage, aka polygamy. And this wasn't a different time, it's still the same dispensation.

God says, "roll it out....no wait, I take that back. This really isn't the dispensation of the fullness of times."

Either it was wrong from the beginning, or it was wrong to stop... No mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.


And BTW, wow, you pulled that whole animal sacrifice thing out from before Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Bravo awesome non sequitur.


Because women are possessions, "62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Because women don't have a choice in the matter other than to be damned and somehow giving a man more wives glorifies God's name....? What?
"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

[Artaxerxes]

Some were contemporaneous, some were later.

For example, Austin Cowles's contemporaneous account:
"In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah.""

There were also later recollections that corroborate the earlier ones.

From Thomas Grover:

"The High Council, of Nauvoo, was called together by the
Prophet Joseph Smith, to know whether they would accept the
Revelation on celestial marriage or not. The presidency of the Stake, Wm. Marks, Father Coles and
the late Apostle Charles C. Rich, were there present. The
following are the names of the High Council that were present,
in their order, viz : Samuel Bent, William Huntington, Alpheus
Cutler, Thomas Grover, Lewis D. Wilson, David Fullmer, Aaron
Johnson, Newel Knight, Leonard Soby, Isaac Allred, Henry G.
Sherwood and, I think, Samuel Smith.

"Brother Hyrum Smith was called upon to read the revelation. He did so, and after reading it said: "Now, you that believe this revelation and go forth and obey the same shall be
saved, and you that reject it shall be damned."

"We saw this prediction verified in less than one week. Of the
Presidency of the Stake, William Marks and Father Coles rejected the revelation; of the Council that were present, Leonard
Soby rejected it. From that time forward there was a very
strong division in the High Council. These three men greatly
diminished in spirit day after day, so that there was a great
difference in the line of their conduct, which was perceivable
to every member that kept the faith."

Leonard Soby:
"Leonard Soby,
who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon oath
saith, that on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, in the city
of Nauvoo, in the State of Illinois, in the county of Hancock,
before the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints, of which body and council aforesaid he was a member, personally appeared one Hyrum Smith, of the first presidency of said church, and brother to Joseph Smith, the president and prophet of the same, and presented to said council the
Revelation on Polygamy, enjoining its observance and declaring it came from God; unto which a large majority of the council
agreed and assented believing it to be of a celestial order,
though no vote was taken upon it, for the reason that the voice
of the prophet, in such matters, was understood by us to be the
voice of God to the church, and that said revelation was presented to said council, as before stated, as coming from Joseph
Smith, the prophet of the Lord, and was received by us as other revelations had been."

David Fullmer:

"On or about the
12th day of August, A. D. 1843, while in meeting with the High
Council, (he being a member thereof), in Hyrum Smith's brick
office, in the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of
llinois, Dunbar Wilson made inquiry in relation to the subject of
a plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those remarks, and
he wanted to know what it was, upon which Hyrum Smith
stepped across the road to his residence, and soon returned,
bringing with him a copy of the revelation on celestial marriage,
given to Joseph Smith, July 12, A. D. 1843, and read the same
to the High Council, and bore testimony of its truth. The said
David Fullmer further said that to the best of his memory and
belief, the following named persons were present: William
Marks, Austin A. Cowles, Samuel Bent, George W. Harris, Dunbar Wilson, Wm. Huntington, Levi Jackman, Aaron Johnson,
Thomas Grover, David Fullmer, Phineas Richards, James Allred
and Leonard Soby. And the said David Fullmer further saith that Wm. Marks, Austin A. Cowles and Leonard Soby were
the only persons present who did not receive the testimony of
Hyrum Smith, and that all the others did receive it from the
teaching and testimony of the said Hyrum Smith. And further, that the copy of said revelation on Celestial Marriage, published
in the Deseret News extra of September fourteenth, A. D. 1852,
is a true copy of the same."


How is it possible for so many people, some Brighamite, some not, to remember the same meeting if it weren't true?

Section 132 doesn't disagree with any of these things. It doesn't contradict anything. People can always manufacture conflicts between scriptures, whether it's about faith vs works or whatever. We can make up conflicts or see how they can both be true together.

Joseph was good at keeping a secret, as he said he was. But tons of people were brought into the secret and talked about it.

So much for no unhallowed hand can stop the work. Or does it mean that unhallowed hands can still reverse the work, but just not stop it?

I suppose the Church only lost the principle of exaltation...

Perhaps it's a classic trial of faith. Just enough for people to believe either way. Good luck with your choice.

Although if you had true faith in the principle you'd live it, because if you don't then you won't make it to the highest level of the Celestial kingdom You know since polygamy didn't really end by revelation:

"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."

No work was stopped. God requires things at times and not at others. So what?

What in the world are you talking about? I believe the Lord instituted animal sacrifices. I'm not gonna be doing that either. And you know why I'm not going to do either. What does any of this have to do with Section 132? And again, how can Brighamites and non -Brighamites (Austin Cowles later joined the Reorgs) all remember the same event?

The work of exaltation stopped, aka plural marriage, aka polygamy. And this wasn't a different time, it's still the same dispensation.

God says, "roll it out....no wait, I take that back. This really isn't the dispensation of the fullness of times."

Either it was wrong from the beginning, or it was wrong to stop... No mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.


And BTW, wow, you pulled that whole animal sacrifice thing out from before Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Bravo awesome non sequitur.


Because women are possessions, "62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Because women don't have a choice in the matter other than to be damned and somehow giving a man more wives glorifies God's name....? What?
"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

I don't understand your argument at all. God commands things at one time, but not at another. Why is that so difficult? "He told Noah to build an ark, but not Abraham? Why is He doing this start and stop routine? Why the mental gymnastics?"

[anonymous91]

Some were contemporaneous, some were later.

For example, Austin Cowles's contemporaneous account:
"In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah.""

There were also later recollections that corroborate the earlier ones.

From Thomas Grover:

"The High Council, of Nauvoo, was called together by the
Prophet Joseph Smith, to know whether they would accept the
Revelation on celestial marriage or not. The presidency of the Stake, Wm. Marks, Father Coles and
the late Apostle Charles C. Rich, were there present. The
following are the names of the High Council that were present,
in their order, viz : Samuel Bent, William Huntington, Alpheus
Cutler, Thomas Grover, Lewis D. Wilson, David Fullmer, Aaron
Johnson, Newel Knight, Leonard Soby, Isaac Allred, Henry G.
Sherwood and, I think, Samuel Smith.

"Brother Hyrum Smith was called upon to read the revelation. He did so, and after reading it said: "Now, you that believe this revelation and go forth and obey the same shall be
saved, and you that reject it shall be damned."

"We saw this prediction verified in less than one week. Of the
Presidency of the Stake, William Marks and Father Coles rejected the revelation; of the Council that were present, Leonard
Soby rejected it. From that time forward there was a very
strong division in the High Council. These three men greatly
diminished in spirit day after day, so that there was a great
difference in the line of their conduct, which was perceivable
to every member that kept the faith."

Leonard Soby:
"Leonard Soby,
who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon oath
saith, that on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, in the city
of Nauvoo, in the State of Illinois, in the county of Hancock,
before the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints, of which body and council aforesaid he was a member, personally appeared one Hyrum Smith, of the first presidency of said church, and brother to Joseph Smith, the president and prophet of the same, and presented to said council the
Revelation on Polygamy, enjoining its observance and declaring it came from God; unto which a large majority of the council
agreed and assented believing it to be of a celestial order,
though no vote was taken upon it, for the reason that the voice
of the prophet, in such matters, was understood by us to be the
voice of God to the church, and that said revelation was presented to said council, as before stated, as coming from Joseph
Smith, the prophet of the Lord, and was received by us as other revelations had been."

David Fullmer:

"On or about the
12th day of August, A. D. 1843, while in meeting with the High
Council, (he being a member thereof), in Hyrum Smith's brick
office, in the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of
llinois, Dunbar Wilson made inquiry in relation to the subject of
a plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those remarks, and
he wanted to know what it was, upon which Hyrum Smith
stepped across the road to his residence, and soon returned,
bringing with him a copy of the revelation on celestial marriage,
given to Joseph Smith, July 12, A. D. 1843, and read the same
to the High Council, and bore testimony of its truth. The said
David Fullmer further said that to the best of his memory and
belief, the following named persons were present: William
Marks, Austin A. Cowles, Samuel Bent, George W. Harris, Dunbar Wilson, Wm. Huntington, Levi Jackman, Aaron Johnson,
Thomas Grover, David Fullmer, Phineas Richards, James Allred
and Leonard Soby. And the said David Fullmer further saith that Wm. Marks, Austin A. Cowles and Leonard Soby were
the only persons present who did not receive the testimony of
Hyrum Smith, and that all the others did receive it from the
teaching and testimony of the said Hyrum Smith. And further, that the copy of said revelation on Celestial Marriage, published
in the Deseret News extra of September fourteenth, A. D. 1852,
is a true copy of the same."


How is it possible for so many people, some Brighamite, some not, to remember the same meeting if it weren't true?

Section 132 doesn't disagree with any of these things. It doesn't contradict anything. People can always manufacture conflicts between scriptures, whether it's about faith vs works or whatever. We can make up conflicts or see how they can both be true together.

Joseph was good at keeping a secret, as he said he was. But tons of people were brought into the secret and talked about it.

So much for no unhallowed hand can stop the work. Or does it mean that unhallowed hands can still reverse the work, but just not stop it?

I suppose the Church only lost the principle of exaltation...

Perhaps it's a classic trial of faith. Just enough for people to believe either way. Good luck with your choice.

Although if you had true faith in the principle you'd live it, because if you don't then you won't make it to the highest level of the Celestial kingdom You know since polygamy didn't really end by revelation:

"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."

No work was stopped. God requires things at times and not at others. So what?

What in the world are you talking about? I believe the Lord instituted animal sacrifices. I'm not gonna be doing that either. And you know why I'm not going to do either. What does any of this have to do with Section 132? And again, how can Brighamites and non -Brighamites (Austin Cowles later joined the Reorgs) all remember the same event?

The work of exaltation stopped, aka plural marriage, aka polygamy. And this wasn't a different time, it's still the same dispensation.

God says, "roll it out....no wait, I take that back. This really isn't the dispensation of the fullness of times."

Either it was wrong from the beginning, or it was wrong to stop... No mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.


And BTW, wow, you pulled that whole animal sacrifice thing out from before Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Bravo awesome non sequitur.


Because women are possessions, "62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Because women don't have a choice in the matter other than to be damned and somehow giving a man more wives glorifies God's name....? What?
"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

Let's not forget about polyandry either. Where is any doctrinal support for that practice?

[anonymous91]

So much for no unhallowed hand can stop the work. Or does it mean that unhallowed hands can still reverse the work, but just not stop it?

I suppose the Church only lost the principle of exaltation...

Perhaps it's a classic trial of faith. Just enough for people to believe either way. Good luck with your choice.

Although if you had true faith in the principle you'd live it, because if you don't then you won't make it to the highest level of the Celestial kingdom You know since polygamy didn't really end by revelation:

"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."

No work was stopped. God requires things at times and not at others. So what?

What in the world are you talking about? I believe the Lord instituted animal sacrifices. I'm not gonna be doing that either. And you know why I'm not going to do either. What does any of this have to do with Section 132? And again, how can Brighamites and non -Brighamites (Austin Cowles later joined the Reorgs) all remember the same event?

The work of exaltation stopped, aka plural marriage, aka polygamy. And this wasn't a different time, it's still the same dispensation.

God says, "roll it out....no wait, I take that back. This really isn't the dispensation of the fullness of times."

Either it was wrong from the beginning, or it was wrong to stop... No mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.


And BTW, wow, you pulled that whole animal sacrifice thing out from before Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Bravo awesome non sequitur.


Because women are possessions, "62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Because women don't have a choice in the matter other than to be damned and somehow giving a man more wives glorifies God's name....? What?
"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

I don't understand your argument at all. God commands things at one time, but not at another. Why is that so difficult? "He told Noah to build an ark, but not Abraham? Why is He doing this start and stop routine? Why the mental gymnastics?"

Where exactly does God command Abraham to take another wife?

[Artaxerxes]

No work was stopped. God requires things at times and not at others. So what?

What in the world are you talking about? I believe the Lord instituted animal sacrifices. I'm not gonna be doing that either. And you know why I'm not going to do either. What does any of this have to do with Section 132? And again, how can Brighamites and non -Brighamites (Austin Cowles later joined the Reorgs) all remember the same event?

The work of exaltation stopped, aka plural marriage, aka polygamy. And this wasn't a different time, it's still the same dispensation.

God says, "roll it out....no wait, I take that back. This really isn't the dispensation of the fullness of times."

Either it was wrong from the beginning, or it was wrong to stop... No mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.


And BTW, wow, you pulled that whole animal sacrifice thing out from before Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Bravo awesome non sequitur.


Because women are possessions, "62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Because women don't have a choice in the matter other than to be damned and somehow giving a man more wives glorifies God's name....? What?
"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

I don't understand your argument at all. God commands things at one time, but not at another. Why is that so difficult? "He told Noah to build an ark, but not Abraham? Why is He doing this start and stop routine? Why the mental gymnastics?"

Where exactly does God command Abraham to take another wife?

The bible doesn't say. Section 132 is the only source for that, that I know of.

[ransomme]

So much for no unhallowed hand can stop the work. Or does it mean that unhallowed hands can still reverse the work, but just not stop it?

I suppose the Church only lost the principle of exaltation...

Perhaps it's a classic trial of faith. Just enough for people to believe either way. Good luck with your choice.

Although if you had true faith in the principle you'd live it, because if you don't then you won't make it to the highest level of the Celestial kingdom You know since polygamy didn't really end by revelation:

"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."

No work was stopped. God requires things at times and not at others. So what?

What in the world are you talking about? I believe the Lord instituted animal sacrifices. I'm not gonna be doing that either. And you know why I'm not going to do either. What does any of this have to do with Section 132? And again, how can Brighamites and non -Brighamites (Austin Cowles later joined the Reorgs) all remember the same event?

The work of exaltation stopped, aka plural marriage, aka polygamy. And this wasn't a different time, it's still the same dispensation.

God says, "roll it out....no wait, I take that back. This really isn't the dispensation of the fullness of times."

Either it was wrong from the beginning, or it was wrong to stop... No mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.


And BTW, wow, you pulled that whole animal sacrifice thing out from before Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Bravo awesome non sequitur.


Because women are possessions, "62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Because women don't have a choice in the matter other than to be damned and somehow giving a man more wives glorifies God's name....? What?
"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

I don't understand your argument at all. God commands things at one time, but not at another. Why is that so difficult? "He told Noah to build an ark, but not Abraham? Why is He doing this start and stop routine? Why the mental gymnastics?"

These are bad examples, the glove don't fit...

The ark was not a standing commandment, it was one and done. Although we are continually reminded to build our proverbial arks like keeping oil in our lamps, food storage, etc.
With polygamy, the Pro side is saying that it is a Celestial principle/law and not a one-time thing. And if it was instituted by commandment, and lived for decades, why would the Lord take it away from the same people who were still living it and in the same dispensation?

So either it's a true principle and we should be living it or it was ended for political purposes and we should reinstitute the practice.

It's obvious though that polygamy causes a man to be unfaithful in his heart to his help meet for him. One woman is the equal to one man. That is the true eternal principle.
Matthew 5
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

[Artaxerxes]

No work was stopped. God requires things at times and not at others. So what?

What in the world are you talking about? I believe the Lord instituted animal sacrifices. I'm not gonna be doing that either. And you know why I'm not going to do either. What does any of this have to do with Section 132? And again, how can Brighamites and non -Brighamites (Austin Cowles later joined the Reorgs) all remember the same event?

The work of exaltation stopped, aka plural marriage, aka polygamy. And this wasn't a different time, it's still the same dispensation.

God says, "roll it out....no wait, I take that back. This really isn't the dispensation of the fullness of times."

Either it was wrong from the beginning, or it was wrong to stop... No mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.


And BTW, wow, you pulled that whole animal sacrifice thing out from before Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Bravo awesome non sequitur.


Because women are possessions, "62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Because women don't have a choice in the matter other than to be damned and somehow giving a man more wives glorifies God's name....? What?
"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

I don't understand your argument at all. God commands things at one time, but not at another. Why is that so difficult? "He told Noah to build an ark, but not Abraham? Why is He doing this start and stop routine? Why the mental gymnastics?"

These are bad examples, the glove don't fit...

The ark was not a standing commandment, it was one and done. Although we are continually reminded to build our proverbial arks like keeping oil in our lamps, food storage, etc.
With polygamy, the Pro side is saying that it is a Celestial principle/law and not a one-time thing. And if it was instituted by commandment, and lived for decades, why would the Lord take it away from the same people who were still living it and in the same dispensation?

So either it's a true principle and we should be living it or it was ended for political purposes and we should reinstitute the practice.

It's obvious though that polygamy causes a man to be unfaithful in his heart to his help meet for him. One woman is the equal to one man. That is the true eternal principle.
Matthew 5
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

They said that the sealing covenant was a standing commandment.

You're obsessing with the why, and the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. Who cares about that? You claimed that Section 132 was obviously a fabrication, and yet we have statements from all these people who say they were in the room when it was read to the Nauvoo High Council. How is that possible? How can Brighamites and non-Brighamites all have this false memory?

[Subcomandante]

We don't have the command anywhere for Abraham or Moses to take upon them a second wife. But it happened that way.

Moses was ragged on by the congregation because he had taken upon himself to wed a Kushite woman. Zipporah was of Madian, nowhere near Kush.

[ransomme]

The work of exaltation stopped, aka plural marriage, aka polygamy. And this wasn't a different time, it's still the same dispensation.

God says, "roll it out....no wait, I take that back. This really isn't the dispensation of the fullness of times."

Either it was wrong from the beginning, or it was wrong to stop... No mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.


And BTW, wow, you pulled that whole animal sacrifice thing out from before Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Bravo awesome non sequitur.


Because women are possessions, "62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Because women don't have a choice in the matter other than to be damned and somehow giving a man more wives glorifies God's name....? What?
"64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

I don't understand your argument at all. God commands things at one time, but not at another. Why is that so difficult? "He told Noah to build an ark, but not Abraham? Why is He doing this start and stop routine? Why the mental gymnastics?"

These are bad examples, the glove don't fit...

The ark was not a standing commandment, it was one and done. Although we are continually reminded to build our proverbial arks like keeping oil in our lamps, food storage, etc.
With polygamy, the Pro side is saying that it is a Celestial principle/law and not a one-time thing. And if it was instituted by commandment, and lived for decades, why would the Lord take it away from the same people who were still living it and in the same dispensation?

So either it's a true principle and we should be living it or it was ended for political purposes and we should reinstitute the practice.

It's obvious though that polygamy causes a man to be unfaithful in his heart to his help meet for him. One woman is the equal to one man. That is the true eternal principle.
Matthew 5
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

They said that the sealing covenant was a standing commandment.

You're obsessing with the why, and the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. Who cares about that? You claimed that Section 132 was obviously a fabrication, and yet we have statements from all these people who say they were in the room when it was read to the Nauvoo High Council. How is that possible? How can Brighamites and non-Brighamites all have this false memory?

I am not obsessing. Polygamy is simply incongruent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ from agency to chastity. Section 132 reeks. It comes down to one of two things:
a) Joseph was deceived and repented
b) Joseph was innocent - I believe Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, and more...

August 29, 1852, Brigham Young stated (lies):
"The original copy of this revelation was burned up. William Clayton was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime, it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, which brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:78; Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young," Deseret News Extra, September 14, 1852.)

William Clayton's 1874 account (lies):
"On the morning of 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the "brick store," on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." Hyrum repeated this opinion and further remarked, "The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin," or words to their effect. Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we will see." He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.
Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentance by sentance, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. (Historical Record 6:225–226, italics added) "

Joseph's history refutes Clayton's lie as Joseph didn't have the U&T and Hyrum knew it. William Clayton is a liar:
"... the [Book of Mormon] plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate ... remained safe in my hands until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand, when according to arrangements the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight." (Times and Seasons, May 2, 1842, 3:772)

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

[Artaxerxes]

I don't understand your argument at all. God commands things at one time, but not at another. Why is that so difficult? "He told Noah to build an ark, but not Abraham? Why is He doing this start and stop routine? Why the mental gymnastics?"

These are bad examples, the glove don't fit...

The ark was not a standing commandment, it was one and done. Although we are continually reminded to build our proverbial arks like keeping oil in our lamps, food storage, etc.
With polygamy, the Pro side is saying that it is a Celestial principle/law and not a one-time thing. And if it was instituted by commandment, and lived for decades, why would the Lord take it away from the same people who were still living it and in the same dispensation?

So either it's a true principle and we should be living it or it was ended for political purposes and we should reinstitute the practice.

It's obvious though that polygamy causes a man to be unfaithful in his heart to his help meet for him. One woman is the equal to one man. That is the true eternal principle.
Matthew 5
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

They said that the sealing covenant was a standing commandment.

You're obsessing with the why, and the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. Who cares about that? You claimed that Section 132 was obviously a fabrication, and yet we have statements from all these people who say they were in the room when it was read to the Nauvoo High Council. How is that possible? How can Brighamites and non-Brighamites all have this false memory?

I am not obsessing. Polygamy is simply incongruent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ from agency to chastity. Section 132 reeks. It comes down to one of two things:
a) Joseph was deceived and repented
b) Joseph was innocent - I believe Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, and more...

August 29, 1852, Brigham Young stated (lies):
"The original copy of this revelation was burned up. William Clayton was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime, it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, which brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:78; Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young," Deseret News Extra, September 14, 1852.)

William Clayton's 1874 account (lies):
"On the morning of 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the "brick store," on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." Hyrum repeated this opinion and further remarked, "The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin," or words to their effect. Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we will see." He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.
Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentance by sentance, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. (Historical Record 6:225–226, italics added) "

Joseph's history refutes Clayton's lie as Joseph didn't have the U&T and Hyrum knew it. William Clayton is a liar:
"... the [Book of Mormon] plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate ... remained safe in my hands until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand, when according to arrangements the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight." (Times and Seasons, May 2, 1842, 3:772)

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

You've meticulously avoided my question several times: how can so many people have a false memory of Section 132? You've impeached accounts I haven't relied on it, because there is simply no way to discount the statements of the Nauvoo High Council.

[ransomme]

These are bad examples, the glove don't fit...

The ark was not a standing commandment, it was one and done. Although we are continually reminded to build our proverbial arks like keeping oil in our lamps, food storage, etc.
With polygamy, the Pro side is saying that it is a Celestial principle/law and not a one-time thing. And if it was instituted by commandment, and lived for decades, why would the Lord take it away from the same people who were still living it and in the same dispensation?

So either it's a true principle and we should be living it or it was ended for political purposes and we should reinstitute the practice.

It's obvious though that polygamy causes a man to be unfaithful in his heart to his help meet for him. One woman is the equal to one man. That is the true eternal principle.
Matthew 5
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

They said that the sealing covenant was a standing commandment.

You're obsessing with the why, and the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. Who cares about that? You claimed that Section 132 was obviously a fabrication, and yet we have statements from all these people who say they were in the room when it was read to the Nauvoo High Council. How is that possible? How can Brighamites and non-Brighamites all have this false memory?

I am not obsessing. Polygamy is simply incongruent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ from agency to chastity. Section 132 reeks. It comes down to one of two things:
a) Joseph was deceived and repented
b) Joseph was innocent - I believe Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, and more...

August 29, 1852, Brigham Young stated (lies):
"The original copy of this revelation was burned up. William Clayton was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime, it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, which brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:78; Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young," Deseret News Extra, September 14, 1852.)

William Clayton's 1874 account (lies):
"On the morning of 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the "brick store," on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." Hyrum repeated this opinion and further remarked, "The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin," or words to their effect. Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we will see." He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.
Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentance by sentance, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. (Historical Record 6:225–226, italics added) "

Joseph's history refutes Clayton's lie as Joseph didn't have the U&T and Hyrum knew it. William Clayton is a liar:
"... the [Book of Mormon] plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate ... remained safe in my hands until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand, when according to arrangements the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight." (Times and Seasons, May 2, 1842, 3:772)

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

You've meticulously avoided my question several times: how can so many people have a false memory of Section 132? You've impeached accounts I haven't relied on it, because there is simply no way to discount the statements of the Nauvoo High Council.

I'm not, you poorly referenced them, I don't know the dates or sources, or etc.

Despite this, the key witness William Clayton is a proven liar on this very subject. BY as well, with many lies about Joseph, Emma, doctrines, handcart companies, and so on.

[Artaxerxes]

They said that the sealing covenant was a standing commandment.

You're obsessing with the why, and the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. Who cares about that? You claimed that Section 132 was obviously a fabrication, and yet we have statements from all these people who say they were in the room when it was read to the Nauvoo High Council. How is that possible? How can Brighamites and non-Brighamites all have this false memory?

I am not obsessing. Polygamy is simply incongruent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ from agency to chastity. Section 132 reeks. It comes down to one of two things:
a) Joseph was deceived and repented
b) Joseph was innocent - I believe Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, and more...

August 29, 1852, Brigham Young stated (lies):
"The original copy of this revelation was burned up. William Clayton was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime, it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, which brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:78; Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young," Deseret News Extra, September 14, 1852.)

William Clayton's 1874 account (lies):
"On the morning of 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the "brick store," on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." Hyrum repeated this opinion and further remarked, "The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin," or words to their effect. Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we will see." He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.
Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentance by sentance, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. (Historical Record 6:225–226, italics added) "

Joseph's history refutes Clayton's lie as Joseph didn't have the U&T and Hyrum knew it. William Clayton is a liar:
"... the [Book of Mormon] plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate ... remained safe in my hands until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand, when according to arrangements the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight." (Times and Seasons, May 2, 1842, 3:772)

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

You've meticulously avoided my question several times: how can so many people have a false memory of Section 132? You've impeached accounts I haven't relied on it, because there is simply no way to discount the statements of the Nauvoo High Council.

I'm not, you poorly referenced them, I don't know the dates or sources, or etc.

Despite this, the key witness William Clayton is a proven liar on this very subject. BY as well, with many lies about Joseph, Emma, doctrines, handcart companies, and so on.

I assume you have Google..... These are secret sources.

He obviously wasn't lying. They referred to all of the seer stones as U&T. That's why people said that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham with the U&T, even in that late period.

[darknesstolight]

I am not obsessing. Polygamy is simply incongruent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ from agency to chastity. Section 132 reeks. It comes down to one of two things:
a) Joseph was deceived and repented
b) Joseph was innocent - I believe Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, and more...

August 29, 1852, Brigham Young stated (lies):
"The original copy of this revelation was burned up. William Clayton was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime, it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, which brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:78; Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young," Deseret News Extra, September 14, 1852.)

William Clayton's 1874 account (lies):
"On the morning of 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the "brick store," on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." Hyrum repeated this opinion and further remarked, "The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin," or words to their effect. Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we will see." He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.
Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentance by sentance, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. (Historical Record 6:225–226, italics added) "

Joseph's history refutes Clayton's lie as Joseph didn't have the U&T and Hyrum knew it. William Clayton is a liar:
"... the [Book of Mormon] plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate ... remained safe in my hands until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand, when according to arrangements the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight." (Times and Seasons, May 2, 1842, 3:772)

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

You've meticulously avoided my question several times: how can so many people have a false memory of Section 132? You've impeached accounts I haven't relied on it, because there is simply no way to discount the statements of the Nauvoo High Council.

I'm not, you poorly referenced them, I don't know the dates or sources, or etc.

Despite this, the key witness William Clayton is a proven liar on this very subject. BY as well, with many lies about Joseph, Emma, doctrines, handcart companies, and so on.

I assume you have Google..... These are secret sources.

He obviously wasn't lying. They referred to all of the seer stones as U&T. That's why people said that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham with the U&T, even in that late period.

It's your responsibility to prove your assertion. If you know about Google why aren't you using it to properly source and prove your assertion?

...

[Artaxerxes]

You've meticulously avoided my question several times: how can so many people have a false memory of Section 132? You've impeached accounts I haven't relied on it, because there is simply no way to discount the statements of the Nauvoo High Council.

I'm not, you poorly referenced them, I don't know the dates or sources, or etc.

Despite this, the key witness William Clayton is a proven liar on this very subject. BY as well, with many lies about Joseph, Emma, doctrines, handcart companies, and so on.

I assume you have Google..... These are secret sources.

He obviously wasn't lying. They referred to all of the seer stones as U&T. That's why people said that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham with the U&T, even in that late period.

It's your responsibility to prove your assertion. If you know about Google why aren't you using it to properly source and prove your assertion?

...

I provided the sources and the quotes. You can also find them all here:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... olygamist/

[HereWeGo]

I would like to encourage everyone who quotes someone (or says X says this) to put a good source for the statement so others can verify it. Without a specific source (X says this, everybody knows Y said that), people will just assume that it is the posters opinion and will move on without accepting it.

[Luke]

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

Why did Emma tell William E. McLellin in 1847 that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

[Mamabear]

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

Why did Emma tell William E. McLellin in 1847 that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

Because he was.

[Luke]

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

Why did Emma tell William E. McLellin in 1847 that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

Because he was.

Bingo

[Mamabear]

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

Why did Emma tell William E. McLellin in 1847 that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

Because he was.

Bingo

We finally agree, my friend.

[Luke]

Why did Emma tell William E. McLellin in 1847 that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

Because he was.

Bingo

We finally agree, my friend.

I think we agree on quite a lot. I think most people on this forum agree with each other on a majority of things.

I think where we diverge here is that I believe that Plural Marriage is a divine doctrine, whereas you don't, as far as I'm aware.

[ransomme]

Emma also made several statements at different times that consistently refute his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

Why did Emma tell William E. McLellin in 1847 that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

So you are saying that Emma kept in touch with this guy? And gave her only confession in the affirmative to him???

"In the spring of 1838, during the Missouri persecutions, William completely rejected his fellow leaders of the Church and returned to his life of sin.

Following his excommunication, filled with the spirit of bitterness, McLellin joined the mobs that afflicted the Saints. While the Prophet was in a Missouri prison, McLellin and others looted his home and stable. Later the large and physically strong McLellin asked the sheriff holding Joseph Smith in prison for the privilege of flogging the Prophet. The sheriff agreed—if Joseph Smith would fight. Joseph said he would fight if he did not have to wear leg irons. McLellin was not willing under those conditions unless he could use a club and the Prophet be weaponless. Even to this Joseph agreed, but the jailor would not allow such an unfair fight."
https://rsc.byu.edu/prophets-apostles-l ... l-mclellin

McLellin played an active role in mobbing and robbing the Saints. Joseph was taken to Liberty Jail, and Emma returned home to find that she had been robbed of everything. A contemporary journal records that McLellin “went into brother Joseph’s house and commenced searching over his things . . . [and] took all his [jewelry] out of Joseph’s box and took a lot of his cloths [sic] and in fact, plundered the house and took the things off.” When Emma asked McLellin why he did this, McLellin replied, “Because I can.” This theft affected Emma profoundly. She received word that Joseph was suffering greatly from the cold in Liberty Jail, and he asked her to bring quilts and bedding. “Sister Emma cried and said that they had taken all of her bed cloths [sic] except one quilt and blanket and what could she do?” Emma sought legal redress but recovered nothing.

[Niemand]

You've meticulously avoided my question several times: how can so many people have a false memory of Section 132? You've impeached accounts I haven't relied on it, because there is simply no way to discount the statements of the Nauvoo High Council.

I'm not, you poorly referenced them, I don't know the dates or sources, or etc.

Despite this, the key witness William Clayton is a proven liar on this very subject. BY as well, with many lies about Joseph, Emma, doctrines, handcart companies, and so on.

I assume you have Google..... These are secret sources.

He obviously wasn't lying. They referred to all of the seer stones as U&T. That's why people said that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham with the U&T, even in that late period.

It's your responsibility to prove your assertion. If you know about Google why aren't you using it to properly source and prove your assertion?

...

Why would anyone trust Google?

[darknesstolight]

I'm not, you poorly referenced them, I don't know the dates or sources, or etc.

Despite this, the key witness William Clayton is a proven liar on this very subject. BY as well, with many lies about Joseph, Emma, doctrines, handcart companies, and so on.

I assume you have Google..... These are secret sources.

He obviously wasn't lying. They referred to all of the seer stones as U&T. That's why people said that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham with the U&T, even in that late period.

It's your responsibility to prove your assertion. If you know about Google why aren't you using it to properly source and prove your assertion?

...

Why would anyone trust Google?

Loaded question. Break it down to its parts and I might be able to answer unless your question is rhetorical?

...

[Niemand]

Google is a gatekeeper.

[Christianlee]

In Christ we will all be one just as Jesus and His Father are one. We will be completely united not just with our own families but also with all of those Jesus has saved. I don’t think our minds can understand this kind of unity. Of course we will enjoy the fellowship of our earthly families. The conflicts between family members in this life will be healed through our relationship with the Father and the Son.

The LDS add the idea of eternal increase of a sealed husband and wife, but that really has nothing to do with our relationships with our earthly children. While we are completely united with our earthly families we will at the same time maintain our individuality as well. We don’t have to understand it completely to embrace the promise.