Jump to content

Alan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

628 Excellent

6 Followers

About Alan

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    England

Recent Profile Visitors

1,691 profile views
  1. This happens regularly in Greece too.
  2. Very interesting. Perhaps Elder Bednar will be the church president who implements these massive changes. President Nelson probably doesn't have enough time left and if you look at the next few in line I think Elder Bednar could rise to the top of the pile quite rapidly.
  3. Yes it is. I suggest you read the link on the OP. I mean... why participate in this thread if you haven't? Seems a bit bizarre.
  4. Decision of John F. Philips, Judge in Temple Lot Case. p.42 If you had actually read the link in the OP that this thread is named after, you would have known this. That is why your CFR is so annoying. You are essentially arguing about a document you haven't taken the time to read. But apparently I'm the one in denial.
  5. Oh come on! The Temple Lot case. How can you not know about that, but still think you've got the low-down on Joseph's marital status? That's the problem with so many people on here... they have only ever read one side of the story.
  6. It's ok Investigator, those who have ears to hear will listen. The rest.... well let's just say those who are convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.
  7. Whereas you believe that Joseph Smith, the Prophet of God, was a liar, while all of those who succeeded him in church leadership were better than him because they weren't liars. As for your "forced good women to lie" remark, I already explained how that could have happened... you obviously didn't read it. Shame, you might have learned something. Mind you, you will no doubt be aware that a US judge did indeed find that women who testified in his court that they were married to Joseph Smith were lying. So Joseph was a liar, the women who lied told the truth, Brigham changed a lot of doctrine and practice in the church... but not this one. Strange world you live in.
  8. So when we get down to it, the main difference between you and I is that you believe that all of our PSR's are liars, whereas I don't.
  9. Move on my friend, clearly you are uncomfortable with the question. In your world both Joseph AND Brigham were liars. Joseph lied about his position regarding polygamy and Brigham lied to cover up the lie. How many more of our prophets, seers and revelators are economical with the truth?
  10. My claim about known doctoring was actually referring to the official Church History. So, come on then, why would Bro. Brigham et al have the account doctored in order for it to say the opposite of what Joseph actually said? Why put words into Joseph's mouth that he didn't say? What could have been BY's motive if not to justify something of which Joseph did not approve? Why did Brigham & Co lie?
  11. "They discuss the Brotherton sealing that Hyrum performed while Joseph was out of town". So, it was a "sealing" and Joseph wasn't even there. Is that it? Seriously? I stand corrected.... totally proves Joseph was involved. 😉 So the tall and the short of it is, you believe Joseph was a liar.
  12. Who lied under oath? I just explained that, considering the conflated order of things in Utah, those women really believed they were married to Joseph. They even claimed their children were his, which DNA analysis has proved false. Were they lying about their children? If they were, they probably lied about Joseph too. However, if they were sealed to Joseph they could, in their minds at least, legitimately claim the children were Joseph's, even if the biological father was someone else. Think of the story in the NT about the seven brothers who all married the same woman. Surely you don't need a CFR for the doctoring of Church History to make Joseph say something positive about polygamy when he in fact said the opposite. I thought everyone knew about that! What contemporary letters? CFR please.
  13. Brigham has admitted that the idea of plural marriage in the church came to him while serving as a missionary in England, long before he ever heard it spoken of in the church. He considered it a personal revelation on the subject. So irrespective of Joseph, I think he was very keen on the idea. He became aware that Joseph was being sealed to multiple people and conflated the two. It is a known fact that journals and even the official church history was doctored after the martyrdom. In fact, no historian disputes it. The motivation for the changes is where the controversy lies. Some claim that it was to "clarify", while others, even at the time the changes were made, say it was to alter the facts to align them with the new order of things. It wasn't a huge conspiracy. It was tweeking. A bit like Pres. Hinckley's sermon about railway tracks. Just moving them a couple of inches at the junction can send a train thousands of miles in another direction. Imagine you are an old woman in Utah. You remember being sealed to Joseph in Nauvoo many years earlier. Through repetition, marriage and sealing have become so conflated that they are considered one and the same thing They are indistinguishable, as they still are in US temples to this very day. Sealing, marriage.... it's all the same thing. So when someone asks her whether she was married to Joseph Smith, she's going to say she was. She'll even sign an affidavit. But of course there were people who claimed at the time that there was no heaven sanctioned polygamy in the church, not least Joseph Smith himself. To claim that Brigham wouldn't have superimposed his understanding upon a previous practice is simply ignoring the facts. For example, priesthood and race, or Adam/God. In fact, those two things alone should cause us to suspect Brigham was very much inclined to do this.
  14. It's not as simple as that. It is my belief that sealing and marriage became conflated quite early on. This remains the case today. In the US and Canada a wedding/marriage can be performed in the temple. It is not distinguishable from sealing. Whereas here in the UK and most other countries, the wedding/marriage is performed separately in a church, government or other authorized building, and the sealing is performed later in the temple. I have been to both and can confirm that the two ordinances (temple wedding and temple sealing) are identical in every way. In England it is a sealing only, in the US it doubles as a wedding. So for me it is easy to understand how the sealing morphed into a marriage very quickly when they were the same ordinance. I believe Joseph was sealed to a number of people for family/dynastical reasons, but he was married only to Emma.
×
×
  • Create New...