What does “Families are forever” even mean?

[ransomme]

What it was during Joseph's life was altered after his death

Multiple people say they saw it themselves when Joseph was alive, and that it taught polygamy. Any changes that anyone thinks happened to the copies are irrelevant if people read the original.

yep, and miraculously they were all after, even years after, Joseph's death. And all materially different that the pieces of the original that we do have from during Joseph's life.

How were they "materially different"?

They changed the words to mean the exact opposite. It's in black and white and in different handwriting...before and after below...

[Niemand]

Wow! The site filtered out the word A-S-S and put in @#$.

What if I was legitimately talking about a donkey?

That's what it means. The real word has an "R in it.

[Artaxerxes]

Ask the eight witnesses.

What do they have to do with what we are talking about? The 8 are Witnesses to the Gold Plates, like they claim. They witnessed what they saw, and they wrote what they saw. How are you stuck on that?

We don't need witnesses that Joseph said something. We need witnesses that what he said was true. Do you see the difference?

In stuck in the fact that you deny that they are witnesses. You made up a definition of witness that doesn't match the scriptural pattern. Very few of the revelations in the D&C were received by more than one person. Your notion of what is necessary to accept a revelation is simply false

[Artaxerxes]

Multiple people say they saw it themselves when Joseph was alive, and that it taught polygamy. Any changes that anyone thinks happened to the copies are irrelevant if people read the original.

yep, and miraculously they were all after, even years after, Joseph's death. And all materially different that the pieces of the original that we do have from during Joseph's life.

How were they "materially different"?

They changed the words to mean the exact opposite. It's in black and white and in different handwriting...before and after below...

My eyesight is not that good. You'll have to tell me what it says, because neither of those entries look like section 132 to me

[FrankOne]

Already your premise is faulty as you’re simply writing off revelations you don’t like.

It’s like a Christian writing off the Book of Mormon and asking you or I where God ever spoke about Lehi or Nephi. It’s practically a trap.

Bull Crap Luke!!! You are full of you know what and you know it. And we have been over this before.

The word of God is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The BoM has two or three witnesses.

Section 132 was not established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. It has zero witnesses.

Technically the scribe claims he is a witness. Awfully convenient that he was already practicing polygamy when Section 132 was added. He also claims that Joseph Smith & Hyrum Smith were witnesses, very convenient that they were already dead.

So, the only supposed witness you have to this whole Section of Doctrine & Covenants at best was compromised and claimed to have 2 other witnesses that were obviously dead (Dead men tell no tales).

Never mind that there is ample proof that 132 was tampered with, and it is believed that BY was the actual author thereof, according to several handwriting expert analyses. The other glaring issue for me is that 132 is counter to the very nature of God. Show me anywhere else in the scriptures where God forces me against my will to do his will instead. He even threatens to kill Joseph if he doesn't do what he is told, exactly what God is this that we are reading about here? This goes against the very nature of the God I have come to know and love.

God threatens to kill lots of people if they don't repent and keep his commandments (e.g., Nephites, Lamanites, Tribes of Israel, etc.) When people behave badly enough, he does kill them (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, Korihor, Nehor, Nephites, Jews, and many of us before the second coming).

yah. He sends them back home for more education. Good news is that we can't die.

[Shawn Henry]

In stuck in the fact that you deny that they are witnesses. You made up a definition of witness that doesn't match the scriptural pattern. Very few of the revelations in the D&C were received by more than one person. Your notion of what is necessary to accept a revelation is simply false

You can't substitute "every word" with revelation. Revelations do not require witnesses unless they are bringing forth more of the word of God. Initially Oliver had some revelations with Joseph, but not many. Once Sidney entered the scene, he had shared a lot of revelations with Joseph, some canonized some not.

Section 76 is a good example of more of the word coming forth. They received more of the word of God regarding heaven which shook some of the saints, simply because it was new doctrine. This is why Sidney had the vision with Joseph in front of members.

[Artaxerxes]

In stuck in the fact that you deny that they are witnesses. You made up a definition of witness that doesn't match the scriptural pattern. Very few of the revelations in the D&C were received by more than one person. Your notion of what is necessary to accept a revelation is simply false

You can't substitute "every word" with revelation. Revelations do not require witnesses unless they are bringing forth more of the word of God. Initially Oliver had some revelations with Joseph, but not many. Once Sidney entered the scene, he had shared a lot of revelations with Joseph, some canonized some not.

Section 76 is a good example of more of the word coming forth. They received more of the word of God regarding heaven which shook some of the saints, simply because it was new doctrine. This is why Sidney had the vision with Joseph in front of members.

So a lot of the D&C aren't real revelations just like the eight witnesses aren't real witnesses because they don't meet the standard you made up?

[Shawn Henry]

So a lot of the D&C aren't real revelations just like the eight witnesses aren't real witnesses because they don't meet the standard you made up?

Do you have reading comprehension challenges? If a word of God already has been established, it no longer needs a witness. Witnesses are provided at the establishment of a word. That is how we know it is from God.

Here's an example for you. If section 4 says the field is white and ready for harvest, that does not need to be witnessed because it is already established as the word. The field has been white throughout the ages, and we are always called to the harvest.

[Shawn Henry]

I believe the next stage in our development towards Godhood is telepathic communication

That's weird because I've always thought the opposite. I've always thought that the lesser intelligences naturally start off with telepathic ability as their beginning. Maybe that's just my idea of the Abrahamic intelligences floating out in unorganized matter, like that is all they could do and then after spiritual embodiment they could learn to manipulate energy better. I think once we get better at it, we learn to hide our internal thoughts and don't blast them outward on an open broadcast. This seems like the natural evolution of control. It seems another facet would be to learn how to send a telepathic message to one person while shielding it from others, which, of course, then brings in the option of learning how to intercept a shielded message. Fascinating thoughts.

[Artaxerxes]

So a lot of the D&C aren't real revelations just like the eight witnesses aren't real witnesses because they don't meet the standard you made up?

Do you have reading comprehension challenges? If a word of God already has been established, it no longer needs a witness. Witnesses are provided at the establishment of a word. That is how we know it is from God.

Here's an example for you. If section 4 says the field is white and ready for harvest, that does not need to be witnessed because it is already established as the word. The field has been white throughout the ages, and we are always called to the harvest.

Are you really going to pretend that most of the D&C is "already established" stuff? Do you think that applies to stuff like sections 27, or 124, or 93?

Your version of things, where more than one person receives the same revelation, is clearly the exception. I can only think of sections 76 and 110. Clearly, God doesn't think he needs to follow your pattern.

[Shawn Henry]

I can only think of sections 76 and 110.

Which is why it is a waste of time talking to you.

1. You already show your ignorance of what others already know, indicating you have some catching up to do before we continue.
2. You indicate that you are happy to stay in said ignorance, unless someone spoon feeds you the information.

[Artaxerxes]

I can only think of sections 76 and 110.

Which is why it is a waste of time talking to you.

1. You already show your ignorance of what others already know, indicating you have some catching up to do before we continue.
2. You indicate that you are happy to stay in said ignorance, unless someone spoon feeds you the information.

Which other sections were received by more than one person? Was it the norm or the exception?

[Mamabear]

“And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.
Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.
For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.“ Alma 34:33-35

According to the BOM, there isn’t a need for temple work for the dead because if you die in your sins you’re a lost cause.

[ransomme]

In stuck in the fact that you deny that they are witnesses. You made up a definition of witness that doesn't match the scriptural pattern. Very few of the revelations in the D&C were received by more than one person. Your notion of what is necessary to accept a revelation is simply false

You can't substitute "every word" with revelation. Revelations do not require witnesses unless they are bringing forth more of the word of God. Initially Oliver had some revelations with Joseph, but not many. Once Sidney entered the scene, he had shared a lot of revelations with Joseph, some canonized some not.

Section 76 is a good example of more of the word coming forth. They received more of the word of God regarding heaven which shook some of the saints, simply because it was new doctrine. This is why Sidney had the vision with Joseph in front of members.

So a lot of the D&C aren't real revelations just like the eight witnesses aren't real witnesses because they don't meet the standard you made up?

IDK about a lot, but 132 is bunk, and all those added after Joseph's death are suspect until proven otherwise.

[Luke]

What does “Families are forever” even mean?

It means what it says, but this only exists in people's minds, at least in the sense that this term is used in in contemporary LDS parlance. Joseph Smith did not teach this concept. I've asked before, and will ask again: how does this concept work? If I am sealed to my father and mother, and they are sealed to their father and mother, what do the living arrangements look like? How does this idea work, in a practical sense, since in some way, due to the fact that everyone is related, everyone will be connected to each other? It simply makes no sense. It is illogical to even suggest that we won't have free association in Heaven to mingle with one another.

Joseph Smith taught that a man will have his wives sealed to him (obviously those who don't believe in Plural Marriage will disagree) and from there he will go onto become a God in his own right and there have his own children, who will then go on to tread in his tracks just as he has done in his Father's tracks. There is no room for the contemporary LDS doctrine here. We are all brothers and sisters, and consequently in Heaven we will not see each other as we do now, excepting husband-wives connections.

[Artaxerxes]

In stuck in the fact that you deny that they are witnesses. You made up a definition of witness that doesn't match the scriptural pattern. Very few of the revelations in the D&C were received by more than one person. Your notion of what is necessary to accept a revelation is simply false

You can't substitute "every word" with revelation. Revelations do not require witnesses unless they are bringing forth more of the word of God. Initially Oliver had some revelations with Joseph, but not many. Once Sidney entered the scene, he had shared a lot of revelations with Joseph, some canonized some not.

Section 76 is a good example of more of the word coming forth. They received more of the word of God regarding heaven which shook some of the saints, simply because it was new doctrine. This is why Sidney had the vision with Joseph in front of members.

So a lot of the D&C aren't real revelations just like the eight witnesses aren't real witnesses because they don't meet the standard you made up?

IDK about a lot, but 132 is bunk, and all those added after Joseph's death are suspect until proven otherwise.

Again, there are about a dozen people who said that they read the original Section 132, Brighamites and non-Brighamites. How is it possible for all these disparate sources to agree if it weren't true?

[ransomme]

You can't substitute "every word" with revelation. Revelations do not require witnesses unless they are bringing forth more of the word of God. Initially Oliver had some revelations with Joseph, but not many. Once Sidney entered the scene, he had shared a lot of revelations with Joseph, some canonized some not.

Section 76 is a good example of more of the word coming forth. They received more of the word of God regarding heaven which shook some of the saints, simply because it was new doctrine. This is why Sidney had the vision with Joseph in front of members.

So a lot of the D&C aren't real revelations just like the eight witnesses aren't real witnesses because they don't meet the standard you made up?

IDK about a lot, but 132 is bunk, and all those added after Joseph's death are suspect until proven otherwise.

Again, there are about a dozen people who said that they read the original Section 132, Brighamites and non-Brighamites. How is it possible for all these disparate sources to agree if it weren't true?

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)

[Artaxerxes]

So a lot of the D&C aren't real revelations just like the eight witnesses aren't real witnesses because they don't meet the standard you made up?

IDK about a lot, but 132 is bunk, and all those added after Joseph's death are suspect until proven otherwise.

Again, there are about a dozen people who said that they read the original Section 132, Brighamites and non-Brighamites. How is it possible for all these disparate sources to agree if it weren't true?

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.

[Shawn Henry]

Austin Cowles's contemporaneous account:
"In the latter part of the summer, 1843

You do realize that this makes it non-contemporary, right?

All of your quotes that say "In 1843" are not written in 1843. That's why they are clarifying "in 1843" because they are dating their recollections.

These are past recollections, who knows when they were written, unless we see the date it was written.

A contemporary account would read something like, "On this day, June 1st, 1843, I caught Art in the barn with Fanny". Or there would be journal dates on the page.

It's fair to point out that most of these early leaders were guilty of the sketchy practice of leaving spaces blank between entries so they could add things later.

[ransomme]

IDK about a lot, but 132 is bunk, and all those added after Joseph's death are suspect until proven otherwise.

Again, there are about a dozen people who said that they read the original Section 132, Brighamites and non-Brighamites. How is it possible for all these disparate sources to agree if it weren't true?

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."

[Elizabeth]

Sounds good.

[Artaxerxes]

Austin Cowles's contemporaneous account:
"In the latter part of the summer, 1843

You do realize that this makes it non-contemporary, right?

All of your quotes that say "In 1843" are not written in 1843. That's why they are clarifying "in 1843" because they are dating their recollections.

These are past recollections, who knows when they were written, unless we see the date it was written.

A contemporary account would read something like, "On this day, June 1st, 1843, I caught Art in the barn with Fanny". Or there would be journal dates on the page.

It's fair to point out that most of these early leaders were guilty of the sketchy practice of leaving spaces blank between entries so they could add things later.

It was written in 1844 while Joseph was alive.

[Artaxerxes]

Again, there are about a dozen people who said that they read the original Section 132, Brighamites and non-Brighamites. How is it possible for all these disparate sources to agree if it weren't true?

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?

[Luke]

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?

God didn’t stop the practise of Plural Marriage. Men did. Otherwise the Church wouldn’t have continued the practise in secret for another 25-odd years after the Manifesto was released.

[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?

God didn’t stop the practise of Plural Marriage. Men did. Otherwise the Church wouldn’t have continued the practise in secret for another 25-odd years after the Manifesto was released.

I don't follow the logic. The first century church had trouble getting away from the law of Moses. Did that mean it hadn't been fulfilled?