All Activity

Hello, just wanted to say that this was an excellent documentary! I think it's almost a done deal that the image is Joseph. The documentary showed the due diligence to prove it was real. Hopefully you all can go see it, or maybe one day it will be streamed somewhere. Here's the backstory: https://brotherjosephagain.com/

IN THE SPOTLIGHT What happens next in Cornell 7? Exact evidence needed for charges, haunting texts, & loophole that could bring case down That the "difficult task" in view is determining whether there is sufficient evidence to bring charges at all (as opposed to there being sufficient evidence to create a likelihood of a conviction) is a notable point. I am not adept at criminal law, but the evidentiary issues in this case are pretty clear to anyone with experience in the law. That Knight saying she is "looking at this case" and "trying to see" if it is viable "based on the evidence" is, to me, an indicator that she presently thinks that the case is not I wonder what the "previously undisclosed evidence" is. I think it may be Jane Doe's affirmative statements to the police that she had been sexually assaulted. "Serious challenges." I agree. So far. A solid point, this. I think the text messages, both from the frat members to each other and the texts from Jane Doe, "cut both ways." Yes, quite a bit of conflicting evidence. This is a difficult point. It sort of comes across as a "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" environment. Jane Doe's statements that she was raped are taken at face value, but her statements indicating consent are not. Ambiguous evidence does not bode well for a conviction. This has been my assessment so far as well. The depositions will likely be important. Thanks, -Smac

@Calm @webbles The so-called revelation doesn't only deal with wives; concubines are there too. "I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines ... David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me". Jacob 2:24 said the opposite. "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord". I am not aware of any wives and concubines that did not turn their heart away from God. Do you believe Abraham, Jacob and Moses really had MANY wives and concubines? Which MANY others of my servants from Adam all the way down to our time also participated? If talents really means "many wives" as the Welsh Saints Project records, why must they be virgins? Is there a minimum age for the virgins?

I find the history behind section 132 really fascinating. I loved these podcasts from the Church History Matters guys (faithful institute teachers) because they are very light on editorializing and heavy on giving us the sources whether faith promoting or not. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/church-history-matters/id1676164770?i=1000735385039 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/church-history-matters/id1676164770?i=1000616792568

I see your point after you provided the other materials.

And an assumption that they can do good in other areas of life even if not church leaders, otherwise even if he applauded his principled stand, he would have likely expressed sorrow, regret, etc for the guy losing out on essential blessings. It doesn’t seem leaders were shy of doing that when they believed it was happening.

We teach that if you don't get sealed to your spouse, then you won't have your spouse in the hereafter. But if you are never taught about the sealing and then later learn about it in the spirit world and accept it, then you can be sealed to your spouse. This is the same rhetoric. Yes, it feels harsh when you I'm not sure why you wrote this. I was talking about the covenant of obeying the commandments and then learning about said commandment. But for item 62 itself, I don't really see what it is trying to argue. They were making new vows with each other that replaced the previous marriage vows. These new marriage vows were being done by proper priesthood authority and superseded any previous vows done. That's kind of the problem I have with the historical monogamy site. For many of its sections, it is not arguing that polygamy is wrong but instead showing the consequences of what would happen if polygamy wasn't revealed from God. Because if polygamy is from God, then arguing that the men broke their vows with God is a silly because God is the one changing the vows. Some of its sections are valid arguments on why polygamy isn't from God, but 62 isn't one of those.

The doctrine of "having many wives and concubines", as contained in Section 132, is not put forward as a way for (certain, if you want to argue it to only be certain) women to "progress" at whatever point that she feels able to progress, but 'she must do this or I will destroy her, saith the Lord.' Moreover, put forward to (certain, if you want to argue it to only be certain) men outside of Section 132 rhetoric, it was not,"Do this to progress" but, 'Do this or your family will cease to exist as your family.' The husbands of the church who had made vows of faithfulness at their one legal marriage and were later commanded to enter into polygamy were being told by their leaders to break their marriage vow: 62 ~ Vows to God, to man, and to the State ~ In the 1800s, the legal marriage vows taken by grooms were traditionally the following words, I [Groom's name], do take thee, [Bride's name] to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; and I promise to be faithful to thee until death do us part. The promise to be "faithful to thee until death do us part" is a vow of complete monogamy to one's wife until either she or yourself dies. Open sexual affairs (including bigamy) were regarded in the eyes of the law as breaking the legally binding marital contract, and in the eyes of Christianity as breaking a vow to God. Mormon husbands who had made such vows at marriage (either previous to polygamy being practiced by Mormons or previous to a family converting to Mormonism) were breaking the vows they had made when married. In the Book of Mormon, the Anti-Nephi-Lehi men, having vowed to never kill again, later considered breaking their oath in order to assist the Nephites, who were dying in their wars with the Lamanites. Our record says that Helaman and his brethren persuaded them to keep their oath, out of fear that "lest by so doing [breaking the oath] they should lose their souls". (Alma 53:13-15) Despite it being a life-or-death situation for Nephite men, the Nephite leaders instructed the Anti-Nephi-Lehi men to not make any exception to break their oath. The LDS church leaders who directed Mormon husbands to break their vows of monogamy were not following after the instruction of our Book of Mormon leaders when they taught to never break one's oaths. The Mormon husbands who broke their marital vows of monogamy by entering into polygamy were violating oaths made to God and to their wife, and were not following the teachings of the importance of honoring solemn oaths found in the Book of Mormon. 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World' reads, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

Hi, The historical question of when and how the idea of a Heavenly Mother entered Latter-day Saint teaching is important. The Church History Topics essay notes that there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on the doctrine, and the earliest published references appear after his death. A related question is how the idea functions doctrinally. The papers I’ve posted elsewhere use a simple hierarchy drawn from patterns already in the scriptures (Christ’s own distinctions among the Nephites in 3 Nephi 23–24 and 27, and Joseph F. Smith’s 1897 standard): Divine Words (Class 1): the Lord’s own voice. Inspired Words (Class 2): accounts of visions or revelations. Human Words (Class 3): later commentary and synthesis. On that reading, the claim that all human spirits are the literal offspring of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother is Class 3. It is not found in the canonized revelations. What the canon does emphasize is becoming sons and daughters of Christ through the covenant (Mosiah 5:7; D&C 25:1; Romans 8:15–17). The Church of the Firstborn is associative brotherhood of the redeemed, not universal premortal biological siblinghood. That does not require denying that God is a father, or that there may be a Mother in Heaven in some sense. It does mean the stronger biological claims about universal spirit birth are later interpretive developments rather than Class 1 or Class 2 canon. When those claims are treated as foundational, they create tensions the canon itself does not require. The longer treatment is here if anyone wants the sources: https://write.as/quietcanon/the-adam-contradiction https://write.as/quietcanon/the-foundations-of-divine-sonship I’m happy to look at specific passages if that would be useful.

I think this specific episode is related to the 1842 revelation to John Taylor (https://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15999coll24/id/42491) that said (along with a bunch of other things): At least one Stake President resigned because he wouldn't practice polygamy. There is an April 1844 conference that talks about this resignation and also has similar wording as what Peder recorded in his document. https://welshsaints.byu.edu/Resource_Info.aspx?id=4081 You can see Joseph F. Smith basically saying you have to practice polygamy or be damned. Then honoring Brother Peely for resigning because he wouldn't practice polygamy and pointing out that Brother Shetliff still hasn't entered polygamy and will be asked to resign if he doesn't get to it. I find it interesting that Joseph F. Smith doesn't condemn Peely for not entering polygamy but instead honors him for resigning. Kind of makes me think that it isn't a strictly "you must practice polygamy or you are damned" but more like "if you want to be a leader in the church, you must practice polygamy". Peder's story is 1843 which is right in the middle of this.

I get it that those who don't think Joseph practiced polygamy have to hang their hat on the "no contemporaneous records" but I think it is a really weak hat to hang on. We have contemporaneous record that Joseph did teach about the parable of the 10 talents while he was staying with Benjamin Johnson. See https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-2-april-1843-as-reported-by-willard-richards-dc-130/7. Yes, there is no smoking gun (I personally think Hyrum's public preaching about being sealed to his dead wife and his living wife to be pretty smoking gun, but that's just me), but when you look at all the evidence together, it is really hard to overcome for me. No, at this time, men didn't automatically receive the priesthood. You could also pick and choose which office you started at. The idea of progressing from Deacon to High Priest wasn't yet there. And it is possible that Peder was talking about the Melchezidek priesthood when he said those without the priesthood were asked to withdraw. Hyrum Smith, in that exact same discourse, says he is sealed to both his dead wife and his living wife. I don't know how else to reconcile that than to say that Hyrum will be practicing polygamy in the here after. Here's Thomas Bullock's record of it https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/daa151c4-7bae-49d0-8cef-d281a70f1d32/0/33. The part I'm referring to is Only if that priesthood man has been taught to practice polygamy and denies it (which would mean that he wasn't actually living righteously). I understand you don't believe that Joseph taught polygamy, but set that aside and think of how we, as a church, believe obeying commandments and progressing. Because I'm taught about the Word of Wisdom and have covenanted to obey it, then by not keeping the Word of Wisdom, I will be in trouble. But someone who hasn't made that covenant, they don't have the same trouble. This includes both those who don't follow Christ as well as those who do. Joseph, Brigham, and other early saints never covenanted to follow the Word of Wisdom so they are not in trouble for not following it. Christ and the early saints didn't even have the Word of Wisdom so they are not in trouble for following it. This teaching about polygamy is no more different. The only difference is that you don't believe it was from God while I do.

I recognized it as a joke, but only because you wrote it. I guess I've been reading your comments with their own special sarcasm filter 🙃

So, if every man in the whole world was righteous and had a wife, there would be no need for polygamy, but because they are not all righteous, Mormon priesthood holders therefore have to practice polygamy? And if the priesthood men only live righteously with one wife, they will have her taken away and given to a polygamist man? Even though there weren't enough single women for all the priesthood holders to have two wives? Remember that from my viewpoint, polygamy is an abominable false doctrine that Brigham Young created as a commandment all on his own (and lied about to do so), and so cannot be 'swapped out' in principle with tithing or the word of wisdom.

We have no contemporaneous records of Joseph Smith teaching of the ten talents in such a way, he was alleged to have said so from polygamists after his death (and not shortly after his death either.) Were not all men in the church (except for African American men) intended to receive the priesthood during their life, even if they didn't have it initially? Was the priesthood not given to every man in the church who was deemed worthy of it (except Africans), and they were all meant to live in a worthy way to receive it? But such semantics being debated does not fundamentally change the ethics of the topic for myself, as I consider it to be unethical (and ultimately wrong) for any man or woman to have been told by leaders that God commands them to practice polygamy. Arguing that only *some* people had to be polygamist to receive exaltation does not in any way make it a moral situation. It is not a God-given requirement for any man to have more than one wife. You may think that to be a too-unfounded assertion on my part, but Hyrum Smith’s own recorded words, less than three months before he died, in a conference of priesthood holders, were that God has not commanded anyone to have more than one wife.

Doesn’t sound like it was taught or shared much if so.

If anyone wants to read the full piece, it can be found on familysearch.org - https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/memories/KWJ2-X4G is the person (transcribed version is at https://www.familysearch.org/memories/memory/141515625?cid=mem_copy and original version is at https://www.familysearch.org/memories/memory/18585578?cid=mem_copy). It is titled "Religious Life of Christian Wallentine". This statement was really impactful to him. There was a priesthood conference that Joseph F Smith attended in 1883. In that conference, Smith asked that all non-priesthood holders leave. He then talked about D&C 132 and about what Joseph Smith had taught (including the Parable of the Talents). He then made those remarks (which is just rephrasing what Joseph Smith had said decades earlier back in Nauvoo). Peder was surprised to hear it as it was the first time he had ever heard anything like it (he was baptized at age 10 so he has been a member for almost 30 years at this point). He didn't agree with the teachings and stopped paying tithing. That triggered an excommunication court and he argued that the teaching must be false. The bishop's court and the high council court basically said that they don't have jurisdiction over the teachings and so excommunicated him. He ends his statement by saying that "not one percent of them ever believed that God was the author of any such interpretation" but they didn't have the courage to stand up to it. An interesting thing that comes out of this is that Joseph F Smith explicitly asked for non-priesthood holders to leave. Similar to what Brigham said in the discourse I've quoted earlier, the teachings that you need to have another wife is only valid for those that have been taught about it and are progressing. It is not a requirement for all men. Edited to fix the links to the actual FamilySearch memories

I'm confused on why you think Wilford's journal entry has anything to do with Brigham believing that every man must be polygamists. The journal entry just says that at some point, a lot of men will die and so women will not have men available to marry and they will turn to men of the Church. Nothing to do with how men must be a polygamist.

30 doesn't respond to what Brigham said. First, it doesn't even attempt to answer its own question: "But what if there are more righteous women than men?". It solely discusses the question about higher number of Mormon women. But Brigham isn't even talking about what 30 is talking about. He isn't talking about the number of righteous women or the number of women in Utah. He is saying that if every man in the whole world (not Mormons, not Utahns) was righteous and had a wife, then there would be no need for polygamy. And he is correct. Because if every single person born on Earth made it to the Celestial Kingdom, there would be more men than women there. At birth, there is a few more boys born than girls (about 105 boys to 100 girls - see page 6 at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/downloads/WorldsWomen2015_chapter1_t.pdf). That means we actually need polyandry in the Celestial Kingdom, not polygyny if every one made it and we didn't want single people. So, if every single man on Earth was righteous and had a wife, no woman would be left out. As for the rest of what you said, have you read his talk? Here's an online version - https://journalofdiscourses.com/16/22. He is talking about a pretty normal idea that we believe. Here's a quote that I suspect you would agree with: As we receive more light and knowledge, we need to keep progressing. We can't just stop or go backwards. This fits with the Parable of the Talents. Brigham continued in the talk about polygamy. If someone has learned about polygamy and doesn't actually believe it (they have a wife and don't want another wife), then, just like if someone hears about baptism and doesn't act on it, they might loose out. If you swapped out the polygamy teaching and used a different aspect (such as endowment, tithing, word of wisdom, etc), the teaching is fairly normal. So I don't see any issue with it just because he is talking about polygamy (which was a commandment in his day). I also don't see him "arguing both ways". Because it seems like you misread him.

That was a joke.

Section 132 states, "any man who has this law revealed unto him must obey the same" -- not 'believe' this law, but 'obey' this law, so I don't consider a belief-only interpretation as aligning with an exegetical reading of it. I consider Brigham Young's words on the matter, not just his words in selective instances, as indicating that he believed "living" polygamy (not just believing in it) to be necessary for exaltation. Peder Wellentine's contemporaneous written words, heard first-hand, were from a conference attended by hundreds of priesthood holders. Joseph F. Smith was then here giving blanket teaching to all men present that they have to practice polygamy under threat of being separated from their loved ones by God. My argument doesn't really have to do with what "is" or "isn't" Latter-day Saint theology or canonized theology. Even the "canonized theology" has had 180⁰ changes, as the monogamous Section 101 was replaced with the polygamous Section 132. My core argument is that Brigham Young changed certain doctrines of God as taught by Joseph Smith and introduced false doctrines, like polygamy. I hope that clarifies my position to you more, I realize that I didn't explicitly explain that first. A much larger compilation of stories of women in polygamy than Carol Lynn Pearson's book would be Jennie Anderson Froiseth's volume of interviews, which is hundreds of pages long and was written contemporaneously. It's free to read online and I would recommend doing so if you think that women in polygamy were generally satisfied or content, or that they somehow had not actually been taught that polygamy was the "highest principle" (Monogamy as Divine Design makes reference to Froiseth in a couple of the sections, I don't know which ones and can't look it up now as I'm on my phone.) But it seems from your responses that you haven't yet ventured to read the Historical Monogamy Doctrine or Monogamy as Divine Design sites, which is perhaps why we've not had a proper baseline of understanding in our back-and-forth together. I'd encourage you to read them as there is expounding of thought in them that I haven't seen elsewhere and that I feel very grateful to have learned. At the very least, by reading them you can come back after and convince me why they're all wrong: Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

So 132:61 is speaking of unmarried (unattached) women who are not virgins?

Show me where the elders accumulated virgins but remained celibate after each instance. Imagine this conversation ... "Sorry honey, but I'm going to marry up to ten virgins but I promise to remain celibate with each one of them" Did Joseph Smith remain celibate with Emma?

Plucking a 3rd-hand journal recollections or newspaper poems out of context isn't an exegetical reading of LDS doctrine, it's quote-mining. 1856 Deseret News song and similar sermons were produced during the Mormon Reformation of 1856–1857. Jedediah M. Grant and Brigham Young launched a fiery revival campaign characterized by hyperbole, intense calls to repentance, rebaptisms, and heavy pressure to adopt plural marriage as a mark of spiritual devotion. A short-lived revival is not a permanent baseline of Latter-day Saint theology, nor canonized theology. Wilford Woodruff's diary noting that Brigham Young believed the very common Christian and Saint belief the end times were coming soon, and saying that one man might have to 'take thousands' was apocalyptic hyperbole regarding the last days, not a literal domestic mandate. Keep mining databases for the most shocking, extreme quote available, while ignoring how historical documentation and the church canon actually functions. Peder Wallentine's personal, third-party diary entry is not an official published sermon, a transcript, or canonized doctrine. In 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which made "unlawful cohabitation" a crime and stripped polygamists of the right to vote or hold public office. Some leaders did give fiery, defensive talks attempting to rally members against the government pressure. However, when speaking in an official, published capacity, Joseph F. Smith explicitly clarified the exact opposite. In 1878 (published in the Journal of Discourses, 20:28), Joseph F. Smith taught that plural marriage was not a universal condition for exaltation for every individual, but was only required of those who were specifically commanded by God in their circumstances. Using Carol Lynn Pearson's book (The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy) to argue that people entered plural marriage out of fear of losing their families, I don't deny that high-pressure sermons caused intense personal anxiety or that some families suffered heartbreak because of it. But rhetoric and individual decisions do not equate to the overarching doctrine of the Church, the story does not reflect a majority consensus among Latter-day Saints that only polygamists could be exalted. Historical diaries, journals, and official Church teaching you didn't find in your database shows how the majority of the Saints understood polygamy. Most Saints understood that one had to merely accept plural marriage as a divinely restored principle to be a "polygamist in faith," as Brigham Young put it, rather than every single individual physically entering a plural marriage. The Saints understood it was a specific calling or stewardship given to certain individuals, often leaders or men with financial means, not a blanket mandate for every member of the Church. And Saints understood the doctrine of exaltation centered on being sealed by priesthood authority in the temple and applied fully to monogamous couples. Carol Lynn Pearson’s heartbreaking human experiences stand out in historical literature precisely because they represent the extreme examples. While these incidents happened, treating them as representative of the everyday beliefs and lived realities of the majority of Saints is historically inaccurate.

Was it the same Joseph F. Smith who said this: He finally concluded with these striking remarks: to all who have received the priesthood but have never lived with but one wife at a time in this world, it matters not what excuse you may make, you may say you was unable to support any more wives, you may say you have had sealed to you dead women, or you may say you could find none that would have you, suffereth to say [if] you have lived with but one wife, that wife and her children will be taken from you and given to some man who has more than one wife and you will be that man’s servant. --- Journal of Peder Christian Wallentine, 1883 --- The quote, "many may have entered polygamy not due to belief of it being a wonderful, glorious principle of heaven, but out of fear of receiving cursing, eternal damnation, and being eternally separated from one's family" still holds for me, because there were women and men who believed, based on what church leaders said, that they were required of God to be polygamists, even if they didn't want to, and would face eternal consequences if they didn't. The address given by Brigham Young above specifically caused one of Carol Lynn Pearson's ancestors to take a second wife against his first wife's wishes -- the first wife, her great-something grandmother, immediately left him, breaking the family up. She relates the story in her book.