Is Exaltation Really A Thing?

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Here's what the Book of Mormon actually really teaches about polygamy.

Jacob 2:30
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things"

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... t-polygamy

Polygamy is not abominable nor is it adultery when authorized by God.

There is an alternate interpretation of that verse in Jacob: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=03RgMz403Wc

[Good & Global]

OneFour1 yes that is chronology of it. Thank you.

The only issue is do we play apologist and try to mentally make it fit our preconceived notion?
Or do we let the dates and related events speak for themselves.

Yes it could have been a vision where he saw the future but the prophet did not say that in D&C 132 (1836) and he speaks of Abraham being there was that in the future too? So wouldn't that make it present tense like in the presentation of this particular section?

If Alvin was there in the future that assumes predestination of his choices or Alvin did no growth on the other side of the veil or was perfect in a matter of years. The attempt at his "work" being done was 1840 only 4 years later. This seems more heartsell folklore than reality. None of these explanations make any sense.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

There is an alternate interpretation of the raise up seed verse in Jacob: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=03RgMz403Wc

[Good & Global]

Sorry but the youtube link is only a rehash of the same thing anyone who has studied the gospel from LDS perspective has been been trained to think. This is nothng more than a video for people who don't know how to study or use the topical guide.

I am saying if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and can stand on its own as we always constantly say. Then it clearly says polygamy is an abomination and a whoredom. There is no other wording in the BOOK OF MORMON that says differently. When you look at it apart from what could be very well be perhaps apologist relevatory filler, it is very clear on one perspective. Were any of us there when D&C 132 or 137 were received? So can we really say it came from the Lord? Or even by hand of Joseph Smith? No we cannot. We are only going off of the primary classes and traditions of what was taught to us by those older than us.

What if they were wrong? They also believed a lot of erroneous things that the 2013-23 Gospel Topics Essays proved were wrong by this same appeal of this is the way the church says it is thinking.

[nightlight]

So here's a new thought that I just had this very moment.

The Adam and Eve story is really our own premortal existence.

We could freely partake of the Tree of Life, which is partaking of God's Love. And some within the Word maybe had this idea of Life is Good, but would we really BE good if God wasn't around, or are we simply good BECAUSE Father is around?

And Father was like "Kiddos, this is the knowledge of good and evil and don't partake of that fruit, but, hey, you got agency, but remember that I forbid it or you will have to be separated from me, suffer, and eventually die. (mortality)

And then this sly spirit was like "Dudes, we are co-eternal with Father, we CAN'T DIE, and we can either just continue on as we always have, or we can get this party started and check out some new stuff!" and some of us wer like yeah! and there were some that rebelled and got booted, but there were others that were like "We really want to see what we are made of and try out this mortality and be tested. And Father was like "As you wish" which as we know from the Princess Bride is really "I love you."

So I don't agree that we are the third part that followed the serpent and got booted, but we are the part that shouted for joy that there was a p[lan that we could go play in the mud, and there would be a way that we could get all cleaned from the mud we were going to get into. Now I agree with Thinker, I don't think that we would be shouting for joy that our older brother who we all thought and knew was the most awesome was going to come and be slaughtered for us. I think He provided the path, and is our Savior, but it wasn't on the cross. And I know, I know, throw me into Outer Darkness or at least the heretic's sub, I deserve it. And I honestly haven't worked out how I really feel about this. I've had the blood atonement force fed to me for almost 60 years, and God forgive me if I am wrong in musings. I just don't feel right about scapegoating Jesus and shouting for joy about it.

Back to us and Adam and Eve - when we are born into mortality, that's us getting kicked out of the garden of Eden. Since I am hypothesizing like a drunk sailor (I am neither) maybe there are angels that chose never to leave the garden and they are fine with just partaking of the tree of life, and then there are other "post mortal" angels like Moroni for instance that have experienced mortality. idk.

So what do you think of my stream of consciousness post? Any merit?

To dismiss the main theme of the BoM & NT will only bring you further from the things you seek.

Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself because you and I aren't enough. Just our sorry isn't sufficient. Our efforts fall short. We deserve death...this is just a simple fact, regardless of how it makes one feel.

If a man sacrificed himself to save you, would you look at him as a scapegoat for your life?

If you believe Calvary wasn't for you, it won't be for you. Caution brother

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.
(Moroni 10:32-33)

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Joseph smith used the promise of exaltation to coerce young girls and married women to join him in his polygamy or adultery, most of whom viewed it as adultery regardless of how you want to describe the practice these many years later. These women believed it was adultery and Joseph convinced them it was for exaltation. You really can’t separate polygamy from exaltation since the later doctrine grew out of the former practice and is enshrined in the temple rite.

But if we do separate them, why did Jesus never teach exaltation if it’s the crowning objective of a believer and disciple of Christ?

[Original_Intent]

So here's a new thought that I just had this very moment.

The Adam and Eve story is really our own premortal existence.

We could freely partake of the Tree of Life, which is partaking of God's Love. And some within the Word maybe had this idea of Life is Good, but would we really BE good if God wasn't around, or are we simply good BECAUSE Father is around?

And Father was like "Kiddos, this is the knowledge of good and evil and don't partake of that fruit, but, hey, you got agency, but remember that I forbid it or you will have to be separated from me, suffer, and eventually die. (mortality)

And then this sly spirit was like "Dudes, we are co-eternal with Father, we CAN'T DIE, and we can either just continue on as we always have, or we can get this party started and check out some new stuff!" and some of us wer like yeah! and there were some that rebelled and got booted, but there were others that were like "We really want to see what we are made of and try out this mortality and be tested. And Father was like "As you wish" which as we know from the Princess Bride is really "I love you."

So I don't agree that we are the third part that followed the serpent and got booted, but we are the part that shouted for joy that there was a p[lan that we could go play in the mud, and there would be a way that we could get all cleaned from the mud we were going to get into. Now I agree with Thinker, I don't think that we would be shouting for joy that our older brother who we all thought and knew was the most awesome was going to come and be slaughtered for us. I think He provided the path, and is our Savior, but it wasn't on the cross. And I know, I know, throw me into Outer Darkness or at least the heretic's sub, I deserve it. And I honestly haven't worked out how I really feel about this. I've had the blood atonement force fed to me for almost 60 years, and God forgive me if I am wrong in musings. I just don't feel right about scapegoating Jesus and shouting for joy about it.

Back to us and Adam and Eve - when we are born into mortality, that's us getting kicked out of the garden of Eden. Since I am hypothesizing like a drunk sailor (I am neither) maybe there are angels that chose never to leave the garden and they are fine with just partaking of the tree of life, and then there are other "post mortal" angels like Moroni for instance that have experienced mortality. idk.

So what do you think of my stream of consciousness post? Any merit?

To dismiss the main theme of the BoM & NT will only bring you further from the things you seek.

Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself because you and I aren't enough. Just our sorry isn't sufficient. Our efforts fall short. We deserve death...this is just a simple fact, regardless of how it makes one feel.

If a man sacrificed himself to save you, would you look at him as a scapegoat for your life?

If you believe Calvary wasn't for you, it won't be for you. Caution brother

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.
(Moroni 10:32-33)

The main theme I read is be ye therefore perfect. And if you think that is an impossible command, then you have no faith.
maybe partaking of the sacrament really is supposed to transmute into the body of Christ? Maybe Christ meant what he said, and said what He meant, that you can be faithful 100%! (But to do so you must continually repent)

[Atrasado]

To be honest I didn't take time to read the whole post but I think people sometimes get caught up on things or principles they may not fully understand. There were men of God in the Bible with great faith with more than one wife so this was not a new thing with Joseph Smith. (Jacob, David, Solomon, Abraham for example)
Polygamy when practiced righteously and under Gods authorization and adultery are not even close to the same thing.

The only problem with that view is the book of
Mormon names those men of faith as having practiced an abominable practice.

I have a real hard time with the “we don’t understand” argument. That’s been a ploy of religionists through the ages. The doctrine is above your pay grade. So just go along. Jesus simplified things instead of complicating them. He was about the only religion leader to do that. All the others gloried in making things so complex they made themselves indispensable for interpretation purposes. spiritual job security.

I’m not buying the “some things we don’t understand” doctrine. It runs counter to the loving god doctrine or the god as our father teacher doctrine.

Jacob is talking about the "many wives and concubines" that David and Solomon had, which is really talking about the political marriages that they had. Those marriages were an abomination because they weren't really marriages. The husband and wife couldn't love each other, because they didn't know each other.

I was just reading in Genesis and it is clear that having multiple wives was not a son for Abraham, Jacob, or Moses. I'm fact, levirate marriages with your brother's wife was a Mosaic commandment!

That said, there are some inexplicable things concerning the Church and plural marriage. I would really like to know what the Lord thought of Brigham Young, because I've read both sides and neither side make sense to me.

[Good & Global]

One point if exaltation is really a thing.

Why is it not mentioned in the most correct book on earth that was written for our day?
Not one temple ordinance event in the lives of the people, not one mention of it being salvational at any point in the entire book?

They make plain the path of salvation but conveniently leave out everything after baptism, holy ghost, etc.
Nothing about the temple ordinances except there was a temple as part of the scenery but it was almost like none of them were aware of anything important about the structure. No talk of getting their endowments, doing baptisms for the dead in the entire almost 1000 years BC to after Christ came time period.

How King Lamoni was converted and got his recommend to be sealed to his faithful wife of many years. Or wayward sons straying from their temple covenants and not wearing their garments.

Heck even Mosiah didn't drop the first covenant path reference. You knew that guy would have been on the ball about building temples to dot the land. Guess it was either that or steel bows and we know who won out.

[Ymarsakar]

"Why is it not mentioned in the most correct book on earth that was written for our day?
Not one temple ordinance event in the lives of the people, not one mention of it being salvational at any point in the entire book?"

Those are not part of the plates JOseph was allowed to translate.

The other words for exaltation would simply be apotheosis and ascension. Although those are not exactly the same either.

[Ymarsakar]

That's not what happened with Joseph Smith. You are bearing false witness testimony against a dead person.

Keep this up if you wish, but you will bear the consequences now that your sins have reached the eyes of heaven.

Exaltation, ascension, apotheosis, none of them are reserved for those that bear false witness. The easiest way to block people from acquiring it is to simply make it incomprehensible to them, similar to the Tower of Babel incident.

There are even/enough vampiric dark lord dark gods and fallen elohim in the heavens that the heavens don't need more ascending from the human planes/realm.

Joseph smith used the promise of exaltation to coerce young girls and married women to join him in his polygamy or adultery, most of whom viewed it as adultery regardless of how you want to describe the practice these many years later. These women believed it was adultery and Joseph convinced them it was for exaltation. You really can’t separate polygamy from exaltation since the later doctrine grew out of the former practice and is enshrined in the temple rite.

But if we do separate them, why did Jesus never teach exaltation if it’s the crowning objective of a believer and disciple of Christ?

[Good & Global]

"Why is it not mentioned in the most correct book on earth that was written for our day?
Not one temple ordinance event in the lives of the people, not one mention of it being salvational at any point in the entire book?"

Those are not part of the plates JOseph was allowed to translate.

The other words for exaltation would simply be apotheosis and ascension. Although those are not exactly the same either.

So inotherwords the temple endowment and other ordinances therein including celestial marriage needed for exaltation wasn't meant for our day? Therefore the Lord knowing these things had the missionaries go out to preach about a book that yet again had the incomplete gospel?

Additionally, God having the foreknowledge to know what would be included on which plates He allowed prophet historian Mormon to compile in such a way to not include the crowning ordinances of the gospel. The ones allowing us to get back to him. That is what we are saying by all of that.

There can't be a "mistake of people" excuse usable on the content of plates portion that was "allowed" to be translated. It makes no sense. Maybe it was to give us more faith is another likley apologist line of reasoning. So again he would leave out the most glorious parts of his gospel like truths taken away from the Bible. I can't see God being an author of all this confusion.

Is it more likely those ordinances were never salvational to begin with and exaltation was a nauvoo or post kirkland construct to make excuses for men having extra marital relationships which might be objected to by the decent folk of the day and defined as whoredoms and abominations? This might even be something some prophet Jacob said in what we now call chapter 2 verse 23 that was allowed to be on the plates that were written for our day.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

That's not what happened with Joseph Smith. You are bearing false witness testimony against a dead person.

Keep this up if you wish, but you will bear the consequences now that your sins have reached the eyes of heaven.

Exaltation, ascension, apotheosis, none of them are reserved for those that bear false witness. The easiest way to block people from acquiring it is to simply make it incomprehensible to them, similar to the Tower of Babel incident.

There are even/enough vampiric dark lord dark gods and fallen elohim in the heavens that the heavens don't need more ascending from the human planes/realm.

Joseph smith used the promise of exaltation to coerce young girls and married women to join him in his polygamy or adultery, most of whom viewed it as adultery regardless of how you want to describe the practice these many years later. These women believed it was adultery and Joseph convinced them it was for exaltation. You really can’t separate polygamy from exaltation since the later doctrine grew out of the former practice and is enshrined in the temple rite.

But if we do separate them, why did Jesus never teach exaltation if it’s the crowning objective of a believer and disciple of Christ?

I'm not trying to rock the boat here or promote any sort of emotional response or argument, but the idea that you lose your exaltation because you are attempting to figure out exactly where these doctrines originate is precisely the sort of manipulation I'm pointing out in the original polygamy game played in Nauvoo. Threaten the salvation of people, and they will do whatever it takes to gain some promised reward that the promiser never has to deliver because it's something that happens in the next life. Is that not one of the most tired, worn out con games that fake religionists have played on faithful, honest, believing followers of Christ. It's a con. Salvation was never meant as a tool of coercion. It's despicable on so many levels.

[Good & Global]

I'm not trying to rock the boat here or promote any sort of emotional response or argument, but the idea that you lose your exaltation because you are attempting to figure out exactly where these doctrines originate is precisely the sort of manipulation I'm pointing out in the original polygamy game played in Nauvoo. Threaten the salvation of people, and they will do whatever it takes to gain some promised reward that the promiser never has to deliver because it's something that happens in the next life. Is that not one of the most tired, worn out con games that fake religionists have played on faithful, honest, believing followers of Christ. It's a con. Salvation was never meant as a tool of coercion. It's despicable on so many levels.

Bingo!

This is exactly what I am getting at if we can't ever be wrong because our salvation or living stipend depends on it then how we will ever know truth from error. Either we love the truth or we love not knowing it.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Double Bingo.

[Ymarsakar]

"I am saying if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and can stand on its own as we always constantly say. Then it clearly says polygamy is an abomination and a whoredom."

None of it was meant for people that can't figure out the difference between the book of mormon and what jacob thought his god thought of Solomon and David.

The Hebrew torah/OT clearly spelled out that one version of YHVH did not like Solomon hooking up with Bathesheba or other foreign wives, not because of any concubine issue but simply because it was messing up the DNA somehow. Jacob is reiterating the same Hebrew interpretation and the Torah.

But there are two YHVH. Or even 3 versions.

One of the fake YHVH is Baal, aka LORD. The other YHVH would be when Jeshua called himself the cloud rider. There are pieces of the meeting between Moses and God, as Heiser worked it out, that there is YHVH and also an angel of YHVH which is given the same standing as YHVH.

The BOM is one of the most correctly translated books that is aided by psi/channeling skills, aka crystals like the Urim tools.

The people writing the books are still mortal, just like you are, and they are not omnipresent or omniscient. All their knowledge only led to them destroying each other in a civil war. Where they went wrong is hard to say, but the Torah may have contributed to their slight misunderstandings.

"for they shall not lead away captive, the daughters of my people, because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction: for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto they of old, saith the Lord of Hosts."

In this sense, it doesn't matter if you use polygamy. Because you are already guilty due to America's hookup culture, and this has been the case for decades.

See the problem when reasons like this are given is that it doesn't actually matter if you adhere to the letter of the law in the Mormon civilization of Nephites. Because if the concern of this god is that men are dominating women and leading them away captive (as sex slaves), then your sexually promiscuous culture is already condemned and guilty. And you and your ancestral line, because it tolerated or helped bring this about, is also involved and thus part of the collective punishment.

And this extends to the West and Australia too, unless this god is simply limited to the americas.

The more you dig into these things and the more things you find out that is wrong, it never stops there. YOu can always go further, and also end up destroying your own faith and works.

"I'm not trying to rock the boat here or promote any sort of emotional response or argument, but the idea that you lose your exaltation because you are attempting to figure out exactly where these doctrines originate is precisely the sort of manipulation I'm pointing out in the original polygamy game played in Nauvoo."

People never "had" their exaltations to begin with. Thus there is nothing to lose.

Ironically a lot of people are using exaltation in the sense that BY taught of it as. That if you just do these secret mason handshakes and the temple occult knowledge, somehow this transforms you into a divine being. That's not how it works. Magicians have been trying to achieve immortality this way for a long time now, and that kind of stuff is simply not allowed and DNA blocks are specifically used to prevent that kind of alchemy from creating immortal races.

You never "had exaltation", thus there is no way you can "lose it".

"Why is it not mentioned in the most correct book on earth that was written for our day?
Not one temple ordinance event in the lives of the people, not one mention of it being salvational at any point in the entire book?"

Those are not part of the plates JOseph was allowed to translate.

The other words for exaltation would simply be apotheosis and ascension. Although those are not exactly the same either.

So inotherwords the temple endowment and other ordinances therein including celestial marriage needed for exaltation wasn't meant for our day? Therefore the Lord knowing these things had the missionaries go out to preach about a book that yet again had the incomplete gospel?

Or is it more likely those ordinances were never salvational to begin with and exaltation was a nauvoo or post kirkland construct to make excuses for extra marital relationship which might be objected to by the decent folk of the day and defined as whoredoms and abominations?

[Ymarsakar]

This game you are playing here bearing false witness against dead people in a time you were never born nor do you have living witnesses in, is not resulting in your salvation but your damnation.

It is not despicable but sad that you are destroying your soul progress in this fashion. And for what, so you can feel righteous about something you are doing with your hands...

That's not what happened with Joseph Smith. You are bearing false witness testimony against a dead person.

Keep this up if you wish, but you will bear the consequences now that your sins have reached the eyes of heaven.

Exaltation, ascension, apotheosis, none of them are reserved for those that bear false witness. The easiest way to block people from acquiring it is to simply make it incomprehensible to them, similar to the Tower of Babel incident.

There are even/enough vampiric dark lord dark gods and fallen elohim in the heavens that the heavens don't need more ascending from the human planes/realm.

Joseph smith used the promise of exaltation to coerce young girls and married women to join him in his polygamy or adultery, most of whom viewed it as adultery regardless of how you want to describe the practice these many years later. These women believed it was adultery and Joseph convinced them it was for exaltation. You really can’t separate polygamy from exaltation since the later doctrine grew out of the former practice and is enshrined in the temple rite.

But if we do separate them, why did Jesus never teach exaltation if it’s the crowning objective of a believer and disciple of Christ?

I'm not trying to rock the boat here or promote any sort of emotional response or argument, but the idea that you lose your exaltation because you are attempting to figure out exactly where these doctrines originate is precisely the sort of manipulation I'm pointing out in the original polygamy game played in Nauvoo. Threaten the salvation of people, and they will do whatever it takes to gain some promised reward that the promiser never has to deliver because it's something that happens in the next life. Is that not one of the most tired, worn out con games that fake religionists have played on faithful, honest, believing followers of Christ. It's a con. Salvation was never meant as a tool of coercion. It's despicable on so many levels.

[Good & Global]

Touche'

I never saw the Exaltation Come Exaltation Go setup coming after a double bingo.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

The Happiness Letter, written by Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon, explains why Joseph's proposal of marriage the previous evening wasn't really adultery, but a commandment of God because God gives commandments that contradict diametrically other commandments and polygamy just happens to fall into that category.

In order to appreciate the coercive nature of the Happiness Letter written by Jospeh Smith you need to understand the reason it was written. The opening lines of the letter have been quoted repeatedly in general conference due, likely, to the fact that those quoting the letter had no clue that it was written to justify Joseph's invitation to Nancy to participate in polygamy. Here's the back story that caused Joseph to write the letter followed by the actual text of the Happiness Letter. It was dictated by Joseph Smith to his scribe and then delivered the next day after the episode in Nauvoo.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

The prophet [Joseph Smith] was . . . at odds with his long-time friend and counselor Sidney Rigdon over a reputed polygamous proposal on 9 April 1842 to Rigdon's unmarried daughter Nancy.

George W. Robinson, a prominent Nauvoo citizen married to another of Rigdon's daughters, wrote to James A. Bennett, a New York friend to the church, on 22 July 1842, that 'Smith sent for Miss Rigdon to come to the house of Mrs. [Orson] Hyde, who lived in the under-rooms of the printing- office. . . . According to Robinson, Nancy 'inquired of the messenger . . . what was wanting, and the only reply was, that Smith wanted to see her.' Robinson claimed that Smith took her into a room, 'locked the door, and then stated to her that he had had an affection for her for several years, and wished that she should be his; that the Lord was well pleased with this matter, for he had got a revelation on the subject, and God had given him all the blessings of Jacob, etc., etc., and that there was no sin whatever.' Robinson reported that Nancy 'repulsed him and was about to raise the neighbors if he did not unlock the door and let her out' . . . .

"Nancy's brother, John, recounting the incident later, remembered that 'Nancy refused him, saying if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all, and took her bonnet and went home, leaving Joseph . . . .' Nancy withheld details of the situation from her family until a day or two later, when a letter from the prophet was delivered by Smith's personal secretary, Willard Richards. 'Happiness is the object and design of our existence,' the letter began. 'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right uner another.' The letter went ont to teach that 'whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof til long after the events transpire. . . . Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive.'

"Nancy showed the prophet's letter to her father and told him of the incident at the Hyde residence. Rigdon demanded an audience with Smith. George W. Robinson reported that when Smith came to Rigdon's home, the enraged father asked for an explanation. The prophet 'attempted to deny it at first,' Robinson said, 'and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so much earnestness, and the fact of a letter being present, which he had caused to be written to her on the same subject, the day after the attempt made on her virtue,' that ultimately 'he could not withstand the testimony; he then and there acknowledged that every word of Miss Rigdon's testimony was true' . . . . Much later, John Rigdon elaborated that 'Nancy was one of those excitable women and she went into the room and said, "Joseph Smith, you are telling that which is not true. You did make such a proposition to me and you know it [crossed out in the original]: 'The woman who was there said to Nancy, "Are you not afraid to call the Lord's anointed a cursed liar?" "No," she replied, "I am not for he does lie and he knows it"]' . . . .

"Robinson wrote that Smith, after acknowledging the incident, claimed he had propositioned Nancy because he 'wished to ascertain whether she was virtuous or not, and took that course to learn the facts!' . . . But the Rigdon family would not accept such an explanation. They were persuaded that the rumors about the prophet's polygamy doctrine had been confirmed. The issue continued to be a serious source of contention between the two church leaders until Smith's death in 1844. According to John Rigdon, Sidney told the family that Smith 'could never be sealed to one of his daughters with his consent as he did not believe in the doctrine' . . . . Rigdon preferred to keep his difficulties with the prophet private, but John C. Bennet's detailed disclosures made this impossible. . . .

"There is no solid evidence that Rigdon ever advocated polygamy. His son John maintained that Rigdon 'took the ground no matter from what source it came, whether from [the] Prophet, seer [and] revelator or angels from heaven, [that] it was a false doctrine and should be rejected' . . . . Yet accusations linking Ridgon to polygamy and insinuating that his daughter Nancy was a prostitute undermined his status as the only surviving member of the First Presidency [following the assassination of Smith]."

(Richard S. Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polygamy: A History" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1986], pp. 30-31, 73)
_____

--"In mid-April [1844] Joseph had asked Sidney Rigdon's nineteen-year-old daughter Nancy to become his plural wife. Bennett had his own eye on the girl and forewarned her, so she refused Joseph. The following day Joseph dictated a letter to her with Willard Richards acting as scribe. It read in part, 'Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. . . . That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. . . . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason therof til long after the events transpire.'

"Nancy Rigdon showed the letter to her father. Rigdon immediately sent for Joseph, who reportedly denied everything until Sidney thrust the letter in his face. George W. Robinson, Nancy's brother-in-law, claimed he witnessed the encounter and said Joseph admitted that he spoken with Nancy but that he had only been testing her virtue."

(Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith--Prophet's Wife, 'Elect Lady,' Polygamy's Foe" [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Compmany, Inc., 1984] pp. 111-12)
_____

--"John C. Bennett . . . accused Joseph of trying to seduce Nancy Rigdon, nineteen-year-old daughter of Sidney Rigdon . . . .

"That Joseph attempted to persuade Nancy to marry him was recorded by others besides Bennett, including Nancy's brother John. John said that until that incident the Rigdons had been unaware of polygamy in the church. Sidney was profoundly shocked and upset by ensuing gossip among neighbors. According to John, Joseph denied having proposed to Nancy, but Sidney later got an admission from him that it was true."

(Donna Hill, "Joseph Smith--The First Mormon" [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977], p. 301)
_____

--"Joseph Smith's wives, after their marriage to him, often figured in the marriage arrangements of new wives, as messengers or counselors or witnesses. According to John Bennett, Smith used [Nancy] Marinda [Hyde] as a go-between in his attempt to woo Nancy Rigdon, Sidney's nineteen-year-old daughter. Bennett is not always reliable, but he did have early first-hand knowledge of the Mormon leader's polygamous activites, as his short list of Smith's plural wives shows. In this case, accounts of the same events by Nancy's brother, J. Wickliffe, and her brother-in-law, George W. Robinson, show that Bennet was not merely spinning a fictitious story.

"Bennett relates that in early April [1844], Smith decided he wanted to marry Nancy Rigdon, so on April 9 he asked Marinda to arrange a meeting between him and the teenager. Marinda met Nancy at the funeral of Ephraim Marks and told her that Joseph wanted to see her at the printing office, Marinda's residence. When Nancy arrived, she was ushered into a private room where Joseph soon proposed to her. She was outraged and demanded that he let her out of the locked room immediately. Smith did so, but, 'as she was much agitated, he requested Mrs. Hyde to explain matters to her; and, after agreeing to write her a doctrinal letter, left the house. Mrs. Hyde told her that these things looked strange to her at first, but that she would become more reconciled on mature reflection. Miss Rigdon replied, "I never shall," left the house, and returned home.' Nancy did hold her ground, and when she told her father of the experience, it drove a firm wedge between him and Joseph, just as Joseph's earlier relationship with Fanny Alger had caused another high church leader, Oliver Cowdery, to lose respect for him."

(Todd Compton, "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1997], pp. 239-40)
_____

More on the damning details relating to Smith's sexual stalking of Nancy Rigdon, the attempted lies and cover-up, the subsequent justifications and the personal smearing of Nancy Rigdon (provided previously by RfM poster Jim Huston):

--Predator Joseph Smith, Alone in a Locked Room with Nancy Rigdon, Makes his Move

"'Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess,' by Van Wagoner, p. 295, from letter George W. Robinson to James Arlington Bennett July 27,1842, cited in Bennett, pp. 245-47:

"'Smith greeted her, ushered her into a private room, then locked the door. After swearing her to secrecy, Smith announced his "affection for her for several years and wished that she would be his….the Lord was well pleased with the matter. There was no sin it it whatever… but if she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her privately.'"
_____

[Ymarsakar]

If you feel righteous enough to attempt bearing false witness testimony against dead people, you will find out what "truth" that leads you to soon enough.

I'm not trying to rock the boat here or promote any sort of emotional response or argument, but the idea that you lose your exaltation because you are attempting to figure out exactly where these doctrines originate is precisely the sort of manipulation I'm pointing out in the original polygamy game played in Nauvoo. Threaten the salvation of people, and they will do whatever it takes to gain some promised reward that the promiser never has to deliver because it's something that happens in the next life. Is that not one of the most tired, worn out con games that fake religionists have played on faithful, honest, believing followers of Christ. It's a con. Salvation was never meant as a tool of coercion. It's despicable on so many levels.

Bingo!

This is exactly what I am getting at if we can't ever be wrong because our salvation or living stipend depends on it then how we will ever know truth from error. Either we love the truth or we love not knowing it.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Here's the Text of the Happiness Letter (am I the only one who thinks this is religious coercion?). Particularly egregious is the veiled reference to polygamy:

"So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."

Here's the letter two posts down.

[Ymarsakar]

Satans have had centuries to fool you mortals with this story of theirs. It means very little in the Divine Courts.

If you wish to sign on this notary here that your life and future soul growth for half of eternity will rest upon your confidence that you have not been deceived by satans smarter than your gggggg grand parents have been alive in total aggregate, keep it up.

The prophet [Joseph Smith] was . . . at odds with his long-time friend and counselor Sidney Rigdon over a reputed polygamous proposal on 9 April 1842 to Rigdon's unmarried daughter Nancy.

George W. Robinson, a prominent Nauvoo citizen married to another of Rigdon's daughters, wrote to James A. Bennett, a New York friend to the church, on 22 July 1842, that 'Smith sent for Miss Rigdon to come to the house of Mrs. [Orson] Hyde, who lived in the under-rooms of the printing- office. . . . According to Robinson, Nancy 'inquired of the messenger . . . what was wanting, and the only reply was, that Smith wanted to see her.' Robinson claimed that Smith took her into a room, 'locked the door, and then stated to her that he had had an affection for her for several years, and wished that she should be his; that the Lord was well pleased with this matter, for he had got a revelation on the subject, and God had given him all the blessings of Jacob, etc., etc., and that there was no sin whatever.' Robinson reported that Nancy 'repulsed him and was about to raise the neighbors if he did not unlock the door and let her out' . . . .

"Nancy's brother, John, recounting the incident later, remembered that 'Nancy refused him, saying if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all, and took her bonnet and went home, leaving Joseph . . . .' Nancy withheld details of the situation from her family until a day or two later, when a letter from the prophet was delivered by Smith's personal secretary, Willard Richards. 'Happiness is the object and design of our existence,' the letter began. 'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right uner another.' The letter went ont to teach that 'whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof til long after the events transpire. . . . Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive.'

"Nancy showed the prophet's letter to her father and told him of the incident at the Hyde residence. Rigdon demanded an audience with Smith. George W. Robinson reported that when Smith came to Rigdon's home, the enraged father asked for an explanation. The prophet 'attempted to deny it at first,' Robinson said, 'and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so much earnestness, and the fact of a letter being present, which he had caused to be written to her on the same subject, the day after the attempt made on her virtue,' that ultimately 'he could not withstand the testimony; he then and there acknowledged that every word of Miss Rigdon's testimony was true' . . . . Much later, John Rigdon elaborated that 'Nancy was one of those excitable women and she went into the room and said, "Joseph Smith, you are telling that which is not true. You did make such a proposition to me and you know it [crossed out in the original]: 'The woman who was there said to Nancy, "Are you not afraid to call the Lord's anointed a cursed liar?" "No," she replied, "I am not for he does lie and he knows it"]' . . . .

"Robinson wrote that Smith, after acknowledging the incident, claimed he had propositioned Nancy because he 'wished to ascertain whether she was virtuous or not, and took that course to learn the facts!' . . . But the Rigdon family would not accept such an explanation. They were persuaded that the rumors about the prophet's polygamy doctrine had been confirmed. The issue continued to be a serious source of contention between the two church leaders until Smith's death in 1844. According to John Rigdon, Sidney told the family that Smith 'could never be sealed to one of his daughters with his consent as he did not believe in the doctrine' . . . . Rigdon preferred to keep his difficulties with the prophet private, but John C. Bennet's detailed disclosures made this impossible. . . .

"There is no solid evidence that Rigdon ever advocated polygamy. His son John maintained that Rigdon 'took the ground no matter from what source it came, whether from [the] Prophet, seer [and] revelator or angels from heaven, [that] it was a false doctrine and should be rejected' . . . . Yet accusations linking Ridgon to polygamy and insinuating that his daughter Nancy was a prostitute undermined his status as the only surviving member of the First Presidency [following the assassination of Smith]."

(Richard S. Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polygamy: A History" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1986], pp. 30-31, 73)
_____

--"In mid-April [1844] Joseph had asked Sidney Rigdon's nineteen-year-old daughter Nancy to become his plural wife. Bennett had his own eye on the girl and forewarned her, so she refused Joseph. The following day Joseph dictated a letter to her with Willard Richards acting as scribe. It read in part, 'Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. . . . That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. . . . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason therof til long after the events transpire.'

"Nancy Rigdon showed the letter to her father. Rigdon immediately sent for Joseph, who reportedly denied everything until Sidney thrust the letter in his face. George W. Robinson, Nancy's brother-in-law, claimed he witnessed the encounter and said Joseph admitted that he spoken with Nancy but that he had only been testing her virtue."

(Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith--Prophet's Wife, 'Elect Lady,' Polygamy's Foe" [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Compmany, Inc., 1984] pp. 111-12)
_____

--"John C. Bennett . . . accused Joseph of trying to seduce Nancy Rigdon, nineteen-year-old daughter of Sidney Rigdon . . . .

"That Joseph attempted to persuade Nancy to marry him was recorded by others besides Bennett, including Nancy's brother John. John said that until that incident the Rigdons had been unaware of polygamy in the church. Sidney was profoundly shocked and upset by ensuing gossip among neighbors. According to John, Joseph denied having proposed to Nancy, but Sidney later got an admission from him that it was true."

(Donna Hill, "Joseph Smith--The First Mormon" [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977], p. 301)
_____

--"Joseph Smith's wives, after their marriage to him, often figured in the marriage arrangements of new wives, as messengers or counselors or witnesses. According to John Bennett, Smith used [Nancy] Marinda [Hyde] as a go-between in his attempt to woo Nancy Rigdon, Sidney's nineteen-year-old daughter. Bennett is not always reliable, but he did have early first-hand knowledge of the Mormon leader's polygamous activites, as his short list of Smith's plural wives shows. In this case, accounts of the same events by Nancy's brother, J. Wickliffe, and her brother-in-law, George W. Robinson, show that Bennet was not merely spinning a fictitious story.

"Bennett relates that in early April [1844], Smith decided he wanted to marry Nancy Rigdon, so on April 9 he asked Marinda to arrange a meeting between him and the teenager. Marinda met Nancy at the funeral of Ephraim Marks and told her that Joseph wanted to see her at the printing office, Marinda's residence. When Nancy arrived, she was ushered into a private room where Joseph soon proposed to her. She was outraged and demanded that he let her out of the locked room immediately. Smith did so, but, 'as she was much agitated, he requested Mrs. Hyde to explain matters to her; and, after agreeing to write her a doctrinal letter, left the house. Mrs. Hyde told her that these things looked strange to her at first, but that she would become more reconciled on mature reflection. Miss Rigdon replied, "I never shall," left the house, and returned home.' Nancy did hold her ground, and when she told her father of the experience, it drove a firm wedge between him and Joseph, just as Joseph's earlier relationship with Fanny Alger had caused another high church leader, Oliver Cowdery, to lose respect for him."

(Todd Compton, "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1997], pp. 239-40)
_____

More on the damning details relating to Smith's sexual stalking of Nancy Rigdon, the attempted lies and cover-up, the subsequent justifications and the personal smearing of Nancy Rigdon (provided previously by RfM poster Jim Huston):

--Predator Joseph Smith, Alone in a Locked Room with Nancy Rigdon, Makes his Move

"'Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess,' by Van Wagoner, p. 295, from letter George W. Robinson to James Arlington Bennett July 27,1842, cited in Bennett, pp. 245-47:

"'Smith greeted her, ushered her into a private room, then locked the door. After swearing her to secrecy, Smith announced his "affection for her for several years and wished that she would be his….the Lord was well pleased with the matter. There was no sin it it whatever… but if she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her privately.'"
_____

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon, 11 April 1842, "History of the Church," Vol. 5, pp.134-36; see also, "The Letter of the Prophet, Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon," in "Joseph Smith Collection," LDS archives:

"'Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

"'God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.

"'A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.

"'This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.

"'Be wise today; 'tis madness to defer: Next day the fatal precedent may plead. Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time
Into eternity.

"'Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says: "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;" but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.'"

[Good & Global]

I am sorry. Come again? Bearing false witness against dead people?

Please explain. Are we not talking about what is and is not contained directly in the Book of Mormon?

This is the point that is being made is any of us can be deceived at anytime into thinking a particular way.
So why not actually think about the things that we think are how it really was or is?