Polygamy Killed Honesty, Rob F.

[onefour1]

I'm glad we can now include "loud laughter."

It's funny he uses the word "facts" when discussing church history.

So you don't believe they held a council or that they didn't discuss section 132 topics in that 1843 high council meeting?

I’ve heard about that council meeting, whatever was discussed it wasn’t what Brigham rolled out later on. Subsequent discourses by the Smiths would suggest otherwise.

Can you provide references? The argument is that they would have had to have been keeping a very close secret. Joseph did denounce the practice in public. But if it try was read by Hyrum Smith in the council, maybe there is something to it.

[CuriousThinker]

Here is additional evidence that Joseph did reveal section 132 back in 1843.

I'm glad we can now include "loud laughter."

It's funny he uses the word "facts" when discussing church history.

So you don't believe they held a council or that they didn't discuss section 132 topics in that 1843 high council meeting?

I thought that I heard that after 132 was revealed by BY all those years later that a brother there said the revelation hadn't been that long.
Do you think it possible some was revealed and BY added to it?

[Reluctant Watchman]

So you don't believe they held a council or that they didn't discuss section 132 topics in that 1843 high council meeting?

I’ve heard about that council meeting, whatever was discussed it wasn’t what Brigham rolled out later on. Subsequent discourses by the Smiths would suggest otherwise.

Can you provide references? The argument is that they would have had to have been keeping a very close secret. Joseph did denounce the practice in public. But if it try was read by Hyrum Smith in the council, maybe there is something to it.

I’ve read the brief quotes from Hyrum and what he said. It could have been interpreted many different ways. I don’t know where to find the quote… nor do I have much desire to keep going down the poly rabbit hole. Whatever the heck happened in the early church, it was wrong. Men were taking away women from married men. Brigham was “married” to a married woman, essentially living polyamory (one woman, two husbands). And then the subsequent stories of other church leaders meeting privately with married women and shaming them into leaving their husbands. I mean, these were horrific events in the early part of the church.

You can read Hyrum’s last conference discourse on polygamy here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... l-1844/357

You can read Emmas discourse to the Relief Society here: https://salemthoughts.com/Topics/A_Voic ... ocence.pdf

If these people believe polygamy was preached as Brigham did, and aligned with 132, they were the greatest hypocrites known in the religious world. They were condemning the practice in the harshest language, right up to the time when the Smiths were murdered.

[onefour1]

I'm glad we can now include "loud laughter."

It's funny he uses the word "facts" when discussing church history.

So you don't believe they held a council or that they didn't discuss section 132 topics in that 1843 high council meeting?

I thought that I heard that after 132 was revealed by BY all those years later that a brother there said the revelation hadn't been that long.
Do you think it possible some was revealed and BY added to it?

Yes, this the crux of the debate. Monogamous Joseph Smith believers say that section 132 was given well after Joseph died and was made up by other that say it was from Joseph. Polygamous Joseph Smith believers say, as in this video, that the doctrine of section 132 was kept secret but was brought up in a High Council meeting in August of 1843. I am a bit on the fence since there are good arguments on both sides but I do realize that this puts the Church is a very precarious position if Joseph truly was monogamous all his life. See my previous other posted videos on "Joseph wasn't a polygamist" for a good argument on the monogamous side and this video for evidence that he may have actually been keeping it secret but revealed after receiving section 132 in 1843.

[onefour1]

I’ve heard about that council meeting, whatever was discussed it wasn’t what Brigham rolled out later on. Subsequent discourses by the Smiths would suggest otherwise.

Can you provide references? The argument is that they would have had to have been keeping a very close secret. Joseph did denounce the practice in public. But if it try was read by Hyrum Smith in the council, maybe there is something to it.

I’ve read the brief quotes from Hyrum and what he said. It could have been interpreted many different ways. I don’t know where to find the quote… nor do I have much desire to keep going down the poly rabbit hole. Whatever the heck happened in the early church, it was wrong. Men were taking away women from married men. Brigham was “married” to a married woman, essentially living polyamory (one woman, two husbands). And then the subsequent stories of other church leaders meeting privately with married women and shaming them into leaving their husbands. I mean, these were horrific events in the early part of the church.

You can read Hyrum’s last conference discourse on polygamy here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... l-1844/357

You can read Emmas discourse to the Relief Society here: https://salemthoughts.com/Topics/A_Voic ... ocence.pdf

If these people believe polygamy was preached as Brigham did, and aligned with 132, they were the greatest hypocrites known in the religious world. They were condemning the practice in the harshest language, right up to the time when the Smiths were murdered.

thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

[Durzan]

So you don't believe they held a council or that they didn't discuss section 132 topics in that 1843 high council meeting?

I thought that I heard that after 132 was revealed by BY all those years later that a brother there said the revelation hadn't been that long.
Do you think it possible some was revealed and BY added to it?

Yes, this the crux of the debate. Monogamous Joseph Smith believers say that section 132 was given well after Joseph died and was made up by other that say it was from Joseph. Polygamous Joseph Smith believers say, as in this video, that the doctrine of section 132 was kept secret but was brought up in a High Council meeting in August of 1843. I am a bit on the fence since there are good arguments on both sides but I do realize that this puts the Church is a very precarious position if Joseph truly was monogamous all his life. See my previous other posted videos on "Joseph wasn't a polygamist for a good argument on the monogamous side and this video for evidence that he may have actually been keeping it secret but revealed after receiving section 132 in 1843.

If you read 132 closely, you’d realize it actually looks like it was two revelations compiled into one text. This isn’t new however, as there was at least one or two other sections in the D&C that actually were comprised of two or three revelations addressed to different individuals.

[Robin Hood]

I think the claim that Joseph kept it secret but revealed it to the High Council, is contradictory.

[Luke]

I think the claim that Joseph kept it secret but revealed it to the High Council, is contradictory.

Keep it secret from the main body of the Church, but not from his inner circle. I think we’ve just become too accustomed to throwing the word “secret” around aimlessly.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Yes, this the crux of the debate. Monogamous Joseph Smith believers say that section 132 was given well after Joseph died and was made up by other that say it was from Joseph. Polygamous Joseph Smith believers say, as in this video, that the doctrine of section 132 was kept secret but was brought up in a High Council meeting in August of 1843. I am a bit on the fence since there are good arguments on both sides but I do realize that this puts the Church is a very precarious position if Joseph truly was monogamous all his life. See my previous other posted videos on "Joseph wasn't a polygamist for a good argument on the monogamous side and this video for evidence that he may have actually been keeping it secret but revealed after receiving section 132 in 1843.

While I do believe there are “sacred” things the Lord reveals to His people, I fully believe he would simply be silent on the matter and not have a servant blatantly lie. And I mean doing so in one of the most hypocritical ways possible. Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma were not silent on the matter. They were extremely vocal. If they said nothing…. Maybe we could have a discussion, but they weren’t. To believe the LDS narrative, you’d have to believe that these people were damned liars… and that the Lord uses “lying” to teach truth.

To believe 132 you have to believe that Emma took the original and burned it and William Clayton magically reproduced it in a very short amount of time, and then they magically produce it years later in general conference. To which many saints left the church afterward. And D&C 132 directly contradicts Jacob 2. It’s a flawed and questionable document all around.

[investigator]

Yes, this the crux of the debate. Monogamous Joseph Smith believers say that section 132 was given well after Joseph died and was made up by other that say it was from Joseph. Polygamous Joseph Smith believers say, as in this video, that the doctrine of section 132 was kept secret but was brought up in a High Council meeting in August of 1843. I am a bit on the fence since there are good arguments on both sides but I do realize that this puts the Church is a very precarious position if Joseph truly was monogamous all his life. See my previous other posted videos on "Joseph wasn't a polygamist for a good argument on the monogamous side and this video for evidence that he may have actually been keeping it secret but revealed after receiving section 132 in 1843.

While I do believe there are “sacred” things the Lord reveals to His people, I fully believe he would simply be silent on the matter and not have a servant blatantly lie. And I mean doing so in one of the most hypocritical ways possible. Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma were not silent on the matter. They were extremely vocal. If they said nothing…. Maybe we could have a discussion, but they weren’t. To believe the LDS narrative, you’d have to believe that these people were damned liars… and that the Lord uses “lying” to teach truth.

To believe 132 you have to believe that Emma took the original and burned it and William Clayton magically reproduced it in a very short amount of time, and then they magically produce it years later in general conference. To which many saints left the church afterward. And D&C 132 directly contradicts Jacob 2. It’s a flawed and questionable document all around.

I’d suggest reading Brigham’s discourse he gave in general conference, right before Parley introduced 132 to the members. It was an awful talk demeaning women.

Do you have a link to that talk?

[Reluctant Watchman]

Yes, this the crux of the debate. Monogamous Joseph Smith believers say that section 132 was given well after Joseph died and was made up by other that say it was from Joseph. Polygamous Joseph Smith believers say, as in this video, that the doctrine of section 132 was kept secret but was brought up in a High Council meeting in August of 1843. I am a bit on the fence since there are good arguments on both sides but I do realize that this puts the Church is a very precarious position if Joseph truly was monogamous all his life. See my previous other posted videos on "Joseph wasn't a polygamist for a good argument on the monogamous side and this video for evidence that he may have actually been keeping it secret but revealed after receiving section 132 in 1843.

While I do believe there are “sacred” things the Lord reveals to His people, I fully believe he would simply be silent on the matter and not have a servant blatantly lie. And I mean doing so in one of the most hypocritical ways possible. Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma were not silent on the matter. They were extremely vocal. If they said nothing…. Maybe we could have a discussion, but they weren’t. To believe the LDS narrative, you’d have to believe that these people were damned liars… and that the Lord uses “lying” to teach truth.

To believe 132 you have to believe that Emma took the original and burned it and William Clayton magically reproduced it in a very short amount of time, and then they magically produce it years later in general conference. To which many saints left the church afterward. And D&C 132 directly contradicts Jacob 2. It’s a flawed and questionable document all around.

I’d suggest reading Brigham’s discourse he gave in general conference, right before Parley introduced 132 to the members. It was an awful talk demeaning women.

Do you have a link to that talk?

You know… I spent some time digging for it and I think I confused it with a talk given by another leader. I did find the talk by Brigham in 1852, but it did not include a reference to women. I have other quotes from Brigham about women, but not in this discourse.

[onefour1]

Brian C. Hales is a person in the church who has done a great deal of study into the doctrine and history of polygamy in the church and has written the following article which he has meticulously referenced. I give it a thumbs up for a good read.

Joseph Smith: Monogamist or Polygamist

[Reluctant Watchman]

Brian C. Hales is a person in the church who has done a great deal of study into the doctrine and history of polygamy in the church and has written the following article which he has meticulously referenced. I give it a thumbs up for a good read.

Joseph Smith: Monogamist or Polygamist

Hale’s has also stated that his “research” ends when the brethren say it does. He cannot contradict or disagree w/ the PSRs. That’s not a historian, that’s a propagandist.

[onefour1]

Brian C. Hales is a person in the church who has done a great deal of study into the doctrine and history of polygamy in the church and has written the following article which he has meticulously referenced. I give it a thumbs up for a good read.

Joseph Smith: Monogamist or Polygamist

Hale’s has also stated that his “research” ends when the brethren say it does. He cannot contradict or disagree w/ the PSRs. That’s not a historian, that’s a propagandist.

Again, if you could provide a reference that would be great.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Brian C. Hales is a person in the church who has done a great deal of study into the doctrine and history of polygamy in the church and has written the following article which he has meticulously referenced. I give it a thumbs up for a good read.

Joseph Smith: Monogamist or Polygamist

Hale’s has also stated that his “research” ends when the brethren say it does. He cannot contradict or disagree w/ the PSRs. That’s not a historian, that’s a propagandist.

Again, if you could provide a reference that would be great.

Michelle Stone interview w/ Brian Hales.

[onefour1]

I recently came upon this video which I thought was well done that supports the church's position on polygamy. It is about an hour and a half long, so if you are interested in the current debate on this topic, I recommend it.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I recently came upon this video which I thought was well done that supports the church's position on polygamy. It is about an hour and a half long, so if you are interested in the current debate on this topic, I recommend it.

Is this the “Kimberley Watson Smith”? If this is the gal on FB, she’s crazy. If you question the LDS narrative she constantly uses ad hominem attacks.

[onefour1]

I recently came upon this video which I thought was well done that supports the church's position on polygamy. It is about an hour and a half long, so if you are interested in the current debate on this topic, I recommend it.

Is this the “Kimberley Watson Smith”? If this is the gal on FB, she’s crazy. If you question the LDS narrative she constantly uses ad hominem attacks.

Not sure who it is.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Not sure who it is.

She says "Kim Smith", so I'm guessing it's the one and only. She's hellbent on defending the church and polygamy. She has several FB groups that like to trash anything that doesn't align w/ the official position of the church. And I mean pretty ruthlessly, way more over the top than a lot of what I see here on LDSFF, and that's saying something.

[ransomme]

Correction: Abram and Jacob were.

Did they get rid of their wives after being renamed?

They did not have any more children with them.

Why get rid of handmaids, who were only doing what their respective masters commanded them to do? How would that recompense them?

In Jacob's case, Leah did go away. Though, it's unclear if that was simply due to irreconcilable contentions in the household. Sad situation.

Yeah very sad, considering how she named her children

[Dusty Wanderer]

Did they get rid of their wives after being renamed?

They did not have any more children with them.

Why get rid of handmaids, who were only doing what their respective masters commanded them to do? How would that recompense them?

In Jacob's case, Leah did go away. Though, it's unclear if that was simply due to irreconcilable contentions in the household. Sad situation.

Yeah very sad, considering how she named her children

That was a good video. Thanks.

I also find it interesting that Leah was buried with Jacob in the family tomb, not Rachel.

[BuriedTartaria]

I also find it interesting that Leah was buried with Jacob in the family tomb, not Rachel.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the burial situation was partly (mostly?) because of geographical circumstance and I think there is a theory about Rachel being buried alone having some sort of symbolism/foreshadowing with Mary, Christ's mother.

[Ymarsakar]

Is it shocking to anyone that these men lied, repeatedly?

Plural marriage and polygamy are not wrong. In fact, they are often used as tools in the war against satan. Of course, satan also is free to use them as well.

As for lies, that depends on the context. Are you willing to take on the responsibility of having the United States outlaw and persecute the entirety of the saints in return for admission that plural marriage is not being practiced?

It is much akin to whether stealing bread/food is wrong and shocking. Or in other threads, whether divorce is wrong when being abused.

There will always be sexual perversions on Earth so long as humanity adheres to satanic laws and principles. That hasn't changed in many thousands of years, nor will it change except the end of the apocalypse.

From their point of view, God has commanded them to do one thing, and the US government has commanded them to do another. It is a similar moral dilemma as those right now on taking the wax mrna genocide shot. Somebody in authority says to take it. Something else says don't do it.

Who you agree with or not, is due to your personal filters and biases. For example, who lied about their waxination status? Shocking that they would lie, right. And that level of persecution in no way equals the threat of the US Army coming in and slaughtering you all.

I hope you realize, R, that the way you judge other people will also be used against you. It is kind of like God's Miranda right disclosure. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. Well God's Court also functions on something similar like the Karma action reaction system. If you give little to no leeway to the actions of others when it comes to telling the absolute truth when authorities threaten you with death or comply, then when the beast system takes over in certain timelines and you are put up against the wall, remember that it was simply as you judged others, so shall you be judged.

This is no one's fault except the individual's own responsibility. Eventually they will learn compassion and empathy, but perhaps not just yet. Remember that an eternal spirit has an eternity in which to learn their lessons. In that sense, there are no mistakes, there are just hard and easy paths to take.

[John Tavner]

Is it shocking to anyone that these men lied, repeatedly?

As for lies, that depends on the context. Are you willing to take on the responsibility of having the United States outlaw and persecute the entirety of the saints in return for admission that plural marriage is not being practiced?

Acts 5: 28“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us responsible for this man’s blood.” 29But Peter and the other apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than men.

It's amazing how much we always say we believe but don't really. IF they really believed God, they ought to have trusted God- being the supposed light on the hill. Again can God not stop Assyrians surrounding Jerusalem? David and Goliath? Gideon? For a church that prescribes laws in a very old testament way, it sure struggles to believe the Old Testament- it smells of hypocrisy to me.

No the lies are not of God, they are born from the fear of men, an attribute opposite of what God gives, which is of POWER, love and a sound mind.

This supposed principle is for the exaltation of man, to have them be like GOd and His supposed people hide this principle because they are afraid, rather than being a living example.

I used to wonder why Christians said we believed in a different God... our excuses show why we do.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Is it shocking to anyone that these men lied, repeatedly?

Plural marriage and polygamy are not wrong.

It is an abomination when the Lord doesn't sanction it. It's that simple. And, IMO, the Lord never sanction the early LDS saints to do it. In fact, it was heavily condemned repeatedly by the prophet and his brother.