All Activity

The above quote was published in the Deseret News though, in addition to the Journal of Discourses. The publication date is above. Then I would consider Brigham Young to have contradicted himself on that point too: Feb. 23, 1862 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:289 “The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.” Aug. 31, 1873 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 16th Volume, p. 161, reported by George Q. Cannon "If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, October 1897, 22-23.

Does it distinguish that it is the first infants of a first wife, and that it is while they are infants, that the mortality rates for her are high? Because if it is just, "children of a first wife" in general, then such figures could suggest that a first wife and the children of a first wife become more proportionately neglected than other plural wives after a second, third, or fourth wife are added. If it's an average of 11 years after first marriage that a man gets a second wife, then the children of his first marriage are still under the 15-year-age benchmark used to determine child mortality in the 2012 meta analysis study. So it would potentially be possible that it is when a man gets a subsequent wife that the mortality rates for his current and future children from his first wife rise higher.

I just did a word count check on the Historical Monogamy Doctrine main page, and it's over 25,000 words long, which is as long or longer than some graduate thesis papers are. That wouldn't be including the text on any of the graphic inserts. I then counted the Denunciations page and there were several thousand words' worth of quotes on there as well. Maybe the writer didn't think it necessary to rewrite what has already been written. The LDS church's argued narrative of events can be found on several sites and publications already, there have already been hundreds-of-pages-long books written on the monogamy-only topic (which the writer herself recommends for more in-depth study) and there are literally hundreds of hours of YouTube videos going in depth on it as well, which are also on the Further Study page. Obviously, the website is an apologetic argument towards a non-polygamous Book of Mormon, D&C, and Joseph Smith, so like other apologetics, it's arguing things from the standpoint of their own stance being a valid stance. I went ahead and checked the word count on Monogamy as Divine Design too, and it's even longer -- nearly 27,000 words (26,800-something).

Interesting stuff. Thank you for sharing it. That's a delicate and well-stated position. He is not saying the Church is an "anti-LGBTQIA+ institution," and is instead attributing that sentiment to others. That's a nice thought. Would that he could extend it to other topics, such as elective abortion. As it is, and based on his statements on this board, he seems unable or unwilling to grant that there are "thoughtful, insightful, and well-meaning folks on all sides of" that issue. In a sense, I agree with him on this point. In the end, we much each do what we think is right. That said, Latter-day Saints who are "advocating for others" to leave the Church are being, well, subversive. I agree with him on this point. He goes on to endorse the use of tithing to support "initiatives the Church is involved in in developing nations around the world" and subsidizing education Very sensible, this. Particularly the bit about "purity tests." I am curious what these "ideas for the future" involve relative to the Church. These folks stay because, in their view, the Church "is just as much their community as anyone else's." I would like to better understand what this means. Same goes for staying the Church "to provide safe spaces for others." "{A}nd they want to try to effect whatever change they are able to from the inside." I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. For me, the fundamental reason I stay in the Church is because I believe it is what it claims to be. That it also does all sorts of wonderful things to improve society is a natural and intrinsic "by their fruits"-style outgrowth of that fundamental reason. I too want to effect positive change within the Church, but not in an adversarial or subversive or "loyal opposition" sort of way. "{M}ore outspoken within church settings about the harm facilitated by the Church." I would like to better understand what he means by this. That he correlates this outspokenness with people concluding he is "will hold space for them," I more or less infer some things about that. I am currently my ward's Sunday School teacher (one of them, I teach ever other week). I have been in the ward a long time, so I think I'm a known quantity. I would be troubled if I had said things or behaved in ways "within church settings" that would alienate people from attending Sunday School. Then again, I would be troubled-but-still-okay-with-it if I had this effect while teaching the doctrines of the Restored Gospel in a representative capacity for the Church, and not in my personal capacity. There are, I think, instances in which Christ was not "safe," when He said things that people disliked, but which were nevertheless true and therefore needed to be said. The Rich Young Ruler listened and "went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions" (Matthew 19:22). Jesus was not, it seems, "safe" in that instance. In John 6, Jesus preached the Bread of Life sermon, and "{f}rom that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (John 6:66). Again, not "safe" (subjectively, anyway). Christ's healing on the Sabbath and defending it (e.g., the man with the withered hand in Mark 3:1–6; the woman bent double in Luke 13:10–17; the man born blind in John 9). The response in Mark 3 is that the Pharisees immediately began plotting with the Herodians how to destroy Him. Not "safe." Driving out the money-changers and overturning tables in the Temple (Mark 11:15–18; John 2:13–22). Not "safe." Declaring “I and the Father are one” and accepting the charge of making himself equal with God (John 10:30–33; John 5:18). The response was an attempt to stone him for blasphemy. Not "safe." That what Jesus was doing was right was not, in the moment, as important as whether observers/listeners subjectively felt. I have long had qualms with the concept of "safety" to the extent it is used in the context of "Person X saying something that I don't like or don't want to hear." It excuses the listener from evaluating whether what Person X is saying is valid, and instead adjudicates Person X's message on its subjective and individualized impact. I think the prophets and apostles have spent many years working very hard to be as kind and compassionate and accommodating as possible as to matters for which there is substantial social and political disagreement (re-defining marriage, the Law of Chastity, abortion, etc.). But in the end, they are bound to teach and propound the revelations, some of which are not popular, and some of which can cause some to feel not "safe," or even feel resentments, even anger and hatred. Life would be so much easier if the tension and pressures imposed on the Church and its members over these issues were eased. No more ugly disparagements and slanders. Estrangements and hard feelings, some of them, might begin to resolve. I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept. Perhaps this is why Christ said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words." Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me." I think that the Latter-day Saints are being called upon to live out-of-step with some of their neighbors on some issues, such issues pertaining to doctrines and beliefs regarding marriage and the Law of Chastity. Affirming that God commands that sex be kept within the bounds of marriage between a husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the marital union, is going to make some people - including some Latter-day Saints - not feel "safe" if they do not agree with those principles. I think it is incumbent on the Latter-day Saints to discern the Lord's will and follow it, even if it means regularly getting raked across the proverbial coals for it. Even if doing things like supporting and endorsing the Law of Chastity makes some others feel "not safe." Christ had warnings for us along these lines. Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail." I'd like to think that Dan believes that the Church is what it claims to be. I'd like to think that Dan accepts the Law of Chastity and endorses it, and encourages others to live according to it, including its constraints against same-sex behavior. I'd like to think that Dan believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'd like to think that Dan believes that abortion, electively killing in utero babies, is a terrible thing. Dan acknowledges that the Church is doing a lot of good things, but he apparently does not include within those things (A) teachings about the Law of Chastity which contravene broad sociopolitical trends involving re-defining marriage and endorsing same-sex behavior, and (B) teachings against abortion. To the contrary, it seems fairly clear that he is putting (A) and (B) into the following characterizations of the Church: He refers to “an institution that still harms marginalized, minoritized, and oppressed groups in a variety of ways.” He states: “This doesn’t remotely mean I am blind or in any way indifferent to the harm that the Church has done and continues to do with those dollars, and I have spoken out against that repeatedly and consistently in public and private for over 20 years now.” He writes: “I particularly abhor the more recent contributions and messaging the Church has made to oppose a citizen-led ballot measure aimed at legislating reproductive freedom in Idaho.” He refers to “the Church’s anti-LGBTQIA+ agenda,” which “has bothered me for more than 20 years.” He speaks of “the harm facilitated by the Church.” He describes people “who are in the crosshairs of the Church’s oppressive heteronormativity and misogyny.” "I can utilize my presence in the Church and my growing platform for the benefit of those inside and outside the institution." I would hope he could also use his "growing platform" to benefit . . . the Church. Thanks, -Smac

I think you and I may have different standards about first century historical standards! Doesn't mean either of us is wrong or that either of us has a better grasp on the truth. I am more interested in historical standards, whether of a religious nature or not. My perspective in that regard is that of a historian, not a person of faith. I often have to keep the two separate in my work.

We don't have eye witness testimony to that effect. That comes from John, written last in the 90s CE, the least historical of the four gospels. We have no eye witness testimony in regards to any of the teachings of Jesus, but the self-exalting sayings in John are the least likely to be historical. Otherwise one has to explain why that kind of language doesn't appear in our earliest gospels. If the authors of Mark/Matthew/Luke knew that Jesus was saying those kinds of things, why didn't they report it? And why do the sayings in John match the writing style of the author of John's gospel? By historical standards only a small percentage of the reported sayings of Jesus are likely to have been something Jesus actually said in life. Those historically likely sayings include some of the memorable aphorisms and parables, and other sayings that align with historical criteria.

I agree with you as long as you accept oral tradition as historically valuable to the researcher. All history is spun through a degree of belief and desire. That doesn't mean we reject it. If it did, we would have no history, not even of yesterday!

Hmmmm. I would suggest it is from a historical and linguistic studies perspective (view), correlating the Hebrew concept of truth with that of the Greek. There is eyewitness testimony (primary source material) to the exclamation of Jesus that he claimed to be "the way the truth and the life." One can believe that in so doing he spoke the truth or not; his was a revealed truth that he in turn revealed to others. It was, in the the modern concept of truth he was correct or incorrect. His claim is knowledge by the rules of what we accept as first century history. Whether it is truth by modern standards is obviously debatable. But that is applying presentism to the event, not the historiography of first century history which does not require belief to be accurate in the context.

I suppose if the desire to be harmless is not sufficient, there is always the argument from self-interest.

The Book of Mormon does not explicitly say Sam was disqualified from leadership or priesthood because he was less righteous than Nephi. There is a difference between saying that leadership was associated with Nephi's line and asserting that every subsequent leader was his biological descendant. The text does not establish an unbroken genealogical succession of rulers or priests. Nor does it clearly state that priesthood authority was exclusively hereditary. Jacob 1:9–11 says that the people wanted to preserve Nephi's name, so his successors were called Second Nephi, Third Nephi, and so forth. It does not identify the second king's personal name or whether he was a biological son of Nephi. See Val Larsen's discussion in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, which proposes Nephi's unnamed successor may have been Sam or Sam's oldest son. In 2 Nephi 3:23–24, Lehi promises that Joseph's descendants will not be destroyed, that they will hearken to the words of a book, and that a mighty person will arise among them to accomplish a great work and help restore the house of Israel. In the Church's interpretation, the passage points to Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. So Joseph, Lehi's youngest son, received the greater blessing.

That's a Christian theological view. From a historical perspective Jesus was a law-observant apocalyptic Jewish wisdom teacher who, like many other Jewish thinkers, had his own interpretation of Torah.

Nope, It is likely that the writers of the Gospels were relying on each other and oral traditions or scattered written documents that relied on oral tradition. Did they spin what Jesus said to match their own beliefs? Sure, hence you have Matthew saying that the Law of Moses will continue until the End of Days while the other gospel writers do now. That is not fraud though. It is the normal human impulse to read things through the lens of your own beliefs and desires combined with not having much in the way of hard data on the life of Jesus. Also the gospel writers don’t all agree on what the meaning of Jesus even was. It takes a lot of tortured rationalizations to make them match up. Particular trying to make the Gospel attributed to John have the same message as the synoptic gospels. Not fraud.

Somebody can claim revelation and not be lying. My mother-in-law had a revelation that I was supposed to have another baby. According to her anyway. I believe wholeheartedly that she believed it. She just wanted it so bad.

And Blacks being not blessed with the priesthood because they weren’t as righteous in the preexistence is true or not in your belief? Because it was taught by many, including Bruce R. McConkie. If somehow in the future the original Mormon Doctrine was mistaken for scripture and canonized by future church members, would that make that belief truth or fraud?

1) Just because God lifted the ban doesn’t require he put it into place. Why he left it in place is unknown. Whether it was because he approved of it or because we had rejected the higher law for the lesser like the ancient Israelites at Sinai or something else, it will be interesting to find out. 2) lots of teachings attached to the ban…such as Blacks are the Children of Cain…that were taught as doctrine. I was referring to those. The fan fiction mistaken for canon more or less.

When you said that I [Calm] “just can't and therefore don't believe He believes in me [Navidad] as the same”…”a true believer in Christ” in the here and now and/or the future to God as I believe I am, you are requiring me to deny part of the core of my own faith, which has mostly to do with the relationship of God to each of us and the eternal relationship we have to each other. It reminds me of another here using “definitely” to categorize another community’s beliefs. Draws in walls that aren’t actually there. And since how God accepts us is the largest part of my conceptualization of God, you saying “can’t believe…” is probably pretty close to me saying “Navidad can’t believe in God given he is evangelical and believes…”…which I would never do because it’s absolute nonsense. My point with my leaders not correcting me (and I have lived in 3 countries and lost count of the number of wards and stakes where they rotate through leaders every few years with temple recommend interviews every year since I was married until a few years ago when it switched to every other year, so that’s a lot of leaders of all different types, experiences and personalities) is that there is no official doctrine that requires me to believe other than I do on this…even if there are members or leaders out there who judge you in that way because they have chosen to infer from scriptures and teachings those beliefs. Their choice, not mine (some may have been taught that and not yet have a clue it isn’t something they have to believe, speaking generally here). “The little one thing”…are you seeing me thinking I am older and wiser than you spiritually speaking (as in “you are 16 going on 17…I am 17, going on 18”; what a patronizing song, btw)? If so, you need to go back and reread what I wrote because as far as I am concerned every last mortal is currently a very little one of indeterminate age playing in the sandbox and we must all be vastly more mature to receive all the gifts God has prepared. I cannot somehow judge who is more or less mature than the other just because I am familiar with some of the gifts some of us have received because there are plenty of other gifts I will not be familiar with or even if I am, would need to be a soul reader to know if something was received and how much understood and put to use (the latter being much more important for maturity than simple possession). There are no doubt members out there who spend their time creating hierarchies of who is more saved, more progressed than the others. I have seen them do it with members as much as nonmembers, maybe even more; but I think such systems are a load of crap and the only thing they show to me is that person needs a lot of spiritual maturing. Iow, such judgment is juvenile and worthless imo. I am not going to waste a moment of my time on such meaningless efforts. The idea that I frame my beliefs with that idea embedded somewhere in it is laughable to me and to be told repeatedly that it’s there (and you are not the only one in my experience, either nonLDS or LDS, who appears to believe LDS must think that way if they are devout members and believe in covenants and ordinances, but it’s a baggaged understanding of the purpose of such imo, attaching a lot of ideas that are not official doctrine and don’t belong there) and I view nonmembers as spiritually less mature, gifted, or somehow deprived simply because they haven’t received some ordinances….that person hasn’t been listening to me. And it’s frustrating. I can understand why nonLDS might believe that way if they first encountered members and/or leaders who promoted such, but why stay locked into that view when one doesn’t have to? How does it help in understanding who we are to generalize behaviour and beliefs that are not general. I am not asking you in the least to change your views of the local members or their interactions with you. You know them and I don’t. I am simply asking you don’t burden me with their hangups and sins. I have enough of my own to carry, I don’t need extra. Let me be me. I am not a stand in for the local members. You won’t hear all the same words and beliefs from me as you would from them…and that is not contrary to official doctrine as there is a pretty limited set of doctrines one must believe to be considered a member in good standing. As far as the family analogy…I used it because treating the Christian community as family is not uncommon. And since we in the analogy are the children, I thought you would understand it even if it didn’t resonate with you. Perhaps you are an only child and your parents never gave gifts and you don’t view God as having any similar behaviour. Most of us are part of an extended family and even if we are not, there are so many around I assumed it was behaviour all would be acquainted with. If it leaves you mystified, not sure how I can come up with a better one since I don’t know what your life is like outside of what you shared here. I am not demanding you understand me, but I would appreciate less certainty expressed about my necessary beliefs and views and judgement of others.

Given your past includes zealous support for Tim Ballard, setting yourself up as the right-divider of what constitutes "fraud" is a non-starter.

Saying that the church has disavowed a previously accepted belief isn’t the same thing as asserting that the former belief isn’t actually true. From Google: “To disavow something is to deny responsibility for, connection to, or approval of something. It is an act of repudiation or alignment, not a factual verification. Whether the disavowed statement, action, or belief is true or false depends entirely on the context. For instance, a politician might disavow a controversial statement made by a supporter to protect their reputation, even if the statement contains factual truths.” (Google AI) In this regard, a perfect case in point is how the Prophet Joseph Smith continued to publicly disavow his practice plural marriage throughput his lifetime. The practice of disavowing a belief or doctrine that’s actually true is a way of preventing the casting of pearls before swine. And disavowing something is also a way to assert that the thing in question has not yet been factually proven, which is not the same thing as saying it’s not true. Again, it’s inaccurate to equate a disavowal with an official assertion that something isn’t true. And unless you’re willing to call President Spencer W Kimball a liar, why would he solemnly testify the Lord revealed to him that the long promised day of the lifting of the ban had finally arrived? The problem with modern sensibilities is that many of today’s church members refuse to believe that God often asks us to do very hard and unpopular things, and that his curses often prove to be great blessings in disguise. “Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.” (Official Declaration 2) P.S. Wouldn’t it be interesting if someday some of the inheritors of the telestial kingdom of glory begin to assert that the claim that they were relegated to a lower kingdom as a direct consequence of their actions while on earth is a false and unjust doctrine? As the scriptures teach, our works in the pre-earth life followed us here, and our works while here on this fallen world will follow us into eternity. There’s nothing at all controversial about this perfectly reasonable example of the law of the harvest in action.

Do you believe it was fraud when our church leaders shared from the pulpit their ideas about the priesthood ban that turned out not to be accurate?

Whether it was the actual writers of the books of the New Testament who perpetrated the fraud, or if it was the creators of the original source material who’s dishonest narratives deceived the writers into reporting a fantastic pack of lies as solemn truth, fraud would necessarily have to have been involved in the creation of a New Testament that totally misrepresents the supposed actual beliefs, teachings and acts of Eschaton’s Jesus who didn’t believe that he was the atoning Savior of the world.

Of note, John's (who's life had a few parallels to those of the Essene's) preaching of baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins wasn't done in Jesus' name (or in the name of a triune deity/godhead, for that matter). While not the overwhelming standard practice, proselyte baptism for Judaic conversion wasn't unheard of in 1st Century CE, and the utilization of immersion (or other water purification rituals) to cleanse away sin or to signify a rebirth wasn't exactly innovative in Judea or within the overall sphere of places touched by Roman/Greek influence (Pythagoreans and Eleusinians [sp?] come to mind).

"Why should they be virgins and how young would these virgins be?" The first part of that question still makes no sense to me. "Why should they be virgins?" Are you asking about why D&C 132 talks about virgins? What does this have to do with the Joseph F Smith's talk? I don't see any thing in there about him using the term virgin. The second part of that question is weird. There's no mention in Joseph F. Smith about youth. He says "Young men" but that isn't the same term we use today in the church. It wasn't until 1906 before it became normal for boys to be regularly ordained to the Aaronic priesthood (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/adjustments-to-priesthood-organization?lang=eng). Before then, it was sporadic. Most holders of the Aaronic priesthood would be 20+. So, the "young men" would probably be men in the 20s or 30s (Joseph F Smith would be ~50 at this time so someone in their 20s and 30s would be young to him). I would assume the wives that these young men would marry would also be in the 20s. That was the average age. It sometimes went lower (usually when the husband was also young).

You do know that something can be inaccurate without being deliberately fraudulent right? The Essenes had a baptism ritual. It is a fair bet other Jewish groups did too. It was not something Christians invented or rediscovered.

If by that you mean you didn’t understand the need to be there with someone rather than observing from a distance while deciding how to help, I don’t think it’s uncommon for people not to realize that all their lives, so good on you for figuring that out. Sympathy isn’t just telling someone how sorry you are without action. It can also be action, very well intended charity and love and important and meaningful. Too often we are treating sympathy as empty and meaningless, but it isn’t always that way…but even in exercising love and charity, it’s not empathy unless we try to understand from the other’s POV and address their needs from that standpoint rather than from our own perspective alone. In one sense, treating or loving another as we would want to be treated or loved could end up just as sympathy in that we give someone the charity and support we would want to get….which may not be what they actually need or want. I think it is more likely that we want to be loved with empathy, the other taking the time to learn who we are so we are given what we need and not what they think we need before they make the effort to know us. In that sense, the treating the other as we would be treated is treating them with empathy. God’s love is inherently empathetic since he knows us and our needs better than we know ourselves, so if we are trying to emulate godly love, using empathy is an important part of that.

I appreciate your honest opinion Calm. As always you are a lot like my mother, very wise. So I think of her with some of your comments. It was several years ago when I found out about the differences of empathy and sympathy, I was most likely in my 40's before knowing the difference. Sad huh? So I appreciate any insight because I'm learning every day!