All Activity

So you are ok with polygamy? And you do accept that Joseph did teach polygamy?

Notice how your source cites 0 sources? How do I know that the website just made this all up?

We don't have doctrinal precedence for the idea of God "changing" an oath someone has made, especially not to the point of it being such a complete contradiction that the initial oath is broken — and remember, a marital vow wasn't an oath just made to your wife and to God, but was also a legal contract to the state itself, which polygamy was an irreconcilable violation of. There's this point made in Historical Monogamy Doctrine: HMD 36 ~ The 'angel with a drawn sword' story is contradicted by both the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price ~ Polygamy, whether called spiritual wifery, plural marriage, or by any other term, was not lawful during Joseph Smith's life and fell under the legal definition of adultery or bigamy, which in some cases was a serious enough offense to lead to legal charges and fines. The Lord in D&C 58:21 states, Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. Joseph Smith included Section 58 in both the first and the second edition selections of the Doctrine and Covenants. In The Articles of Faith, the list of twelve basic tenets of church doctrine which is included in the Pearl of Great Price, he wrote as number twelve, We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine Me again: Even if you want to argue that God was okay with men disregarding their marital vow to God in order to practice polygamy, the law was definitely not okay with men disregarding their legally contractual marital vows made to the state in order to practice polygamy, to the point that they enforced real legal punishment for doing so. Monogamists: "Grooms' marital vows were made to their wife, to God, and to the State." Polygamists: "God was okay with them not following those vows made to Him, in order to adopt polygamy." Monogamists: "What about the other two?"

If Brigham Young, John Taylor, or many of the other men who we knew practiced polygamy in Nauvoo had also died in Carthage, we would be having this same argument over whether or not they practiced polygamy. Because they also denounced polygamy. Many of them put out statements or signed documents that denounced polygamy. Joseph was better recorded than them so we have more of his statements (and he probably does more denials because he is actively teaching polygamy, unlike the others who aren't actively teaching it). But we have pretty much the same amount of contemporaneous documentation for all of the men involved. So, basing the argument on just what is contemporaneously recorded isn't good enough or else we would all have to say that there was no polygamy in Nauvoo, which is obviously false. You say there are no verified records during his life. I'm guessing you are on the side that says Clayton's journals are not contemporaneous (I sure hope the Yale printing has photographs of the actual journals so we can really know this). What do you make of Hyrum publicly stating that he is sealed to 2 women (one dead and one living)? D&C 84 was received in 1832. Long before any polygamy was introduced. It was added to the D&C as section 4 in 1835, which is still before polygamy. I find Bradley's recent research in the start of the Alger relationship to be pretty strong and he dates it to shortly after the Kirtland Temple dedication in 1836. I don't see how D&C 84 has anything to do with polygamy.

I find it noteworthy that so many of the systemic issues we see in modern polygamy were also seen in higher rates in Mormon polygamy, even during the years that it was supposedly approved by God: MDD 56. 'Doesn't polygamy produce different outcomes if it's sanctioned by God?" There are those who have argued that data from polygamous or polyamorous groups outside of early Mormonism should never be applied to the polygamy of early Mormonism. They argue that polygyny as practiced by Muslims, FLDS, or non-religious individuals is unsanctioned polygamy, and so ought never to be compared to the polygamy that was supposedly commanded by God to the early Mormons. They argue that God blessed the early Mormons with divine strength, understanding, and purity of heart, and so any polygamy figures from groups outside early Mormonism is therefore misapplied data. But with the early-Mormon-isolated data that young children of polygamous Mormons had higher mortality rates, that polygamous Mormons had higher divorce rates, and that polygamous Mormon women and children suffered under greater levels of neglect, we can see that the level of suffering and dysfunction experienced by early Mormons in polygamy refutes such an argument. Whatever it was that God still blessed early Mormon polygamous family members with, they were not blessed to be as demographically healthy, secure, prosperous, or functional as their monogamous counterparts. Early Mormon monogamous families fared better than Mormon polygamous families during every period in which Mormon church leaders practiced polygamy. It is significant that so many of the exact same societal issues of present day polygamous societies — higher rates of neglect, poverty, contention, and death itself — were found in early Mormon polygamy as well. Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

Hyrum Smith's entire address was an anti-polygamy sermon, stating that Joseph's marriage revelation was about eternal marriage, not plural marriage, and Hyrum specifically included the detail of himself being sealed to his deceased wife and his current wife to emphasize to the men that being sealed to more than one woman *isn't* justification for any of the men to start thinking there to be polygamy being practiced or taught in the church. The Historical Monogamy Doctrine sites themselves, while arguing against the idea of mass polygamy in the afterlife (see HMD section 32) nevertheless don't outright protest against the idea of selective cases of it, they rather argue that it wouldn't be a necessity for anyone. But they also suggest that it's not unreasonable to ask whether a spouse might only be eternally matched to progress in exaltation with whichever one spouse they are most compatible to be eternally paired with: MDD 67. "Even if there isn't mass polygamy in Heaven, there would still have to be some polygamy. What about widowers who remarry? They have to be polygamists in heaven." Widowers who remarry do not have to have two wives for all eternity any more than widows who remarry have to have two husbands for all eternity. It is just as reasonable to suggest that we may only be eternally paired with the one spouse to whom we are most mutually compatible with, and that any other remaining spouse will be paired with someone else who is more mutually and eternally suitable for them. If God doesn't allow for any polygamy exceptions in this life, it is reasonable to discuss whether there might not be any polygamy exceptions in the next life. Heber C. Kimball, even while asserting that, "The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away" also divulged, "some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself". Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

You can listen to the 7 minutes he talks about it at 2:36:00 — It wasn't through his visions that he first became convinced Joseph didn't practice polygamy, but through his online reading of others who were making that claim and the info they shared. He thought they were "crazy" at first (that was the same as me actually, I thought it was a super delulu idea when I first heard it) and then it was afterwards that the Spirit ordered him (he didn't want to) to do a verse-by-verse analysis of Section 132 and make note of all of the problems with it. Once he was done, the Spirit ordered him to share it with his polygamist family members, which he again really didn't want to do.

Such promising young men.... Judging a rape accusation by focusing on the woman's past (such as how drunk she was or what kind of girl she was to be where she was when the assault happened, etc) while focusing on the man's (men's) future is the epitome of rape culture in this country. Has what won't be restored to Jane Doe if she was actually raped been discussed yet? Or do only the men's futures matter.

Or the whole patriarchal lineage for Adam to Noah is cobbled together. I mean look at this comparison. Here is the line from Adam to Noah: Adam Seth Enosh Kenan Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah Here is the lineage of Adam through Cain with names that are obviously similar: Adam Cain (Kenan) Enoch (in both lists and Enosh is similar) Irad (Jared) Mehujael (Mahalelel) Methushael (Methusaleh) Lamech Some of them are swapped around some but they are the same or obviously similar names. It is the same list. Cain’s list also doesn’t work with the flood account. In there we get names where the person is supposed to be the progenitor of certain kinds of people. Those that dwell in tents, those that make music, etc. If they all died in the flood that story makes no sense. Most biblical scholars think two diverging accounts were stitched together. The editor appears to favor the Seth to Noah account as they get the heroic stuff and Cain’s line gets the secular stuff. You get a similar stitching with the two incompatible creation accounts at the beginning of Genesis. It is also possible that one of these literary lines didn’t have Adam and Eve as the only humans avoiding the plot hole of how Cain ran off and got a wife.

Dr. Judith Curry? The Dr. Judith Curry who has said the Earth is warming and that human produced CO2 is the primary cause? She says it is all a hoax? You’ve been lied to again. Stop believing the people feeding you this swill. Oh, and she is being ignored? She has testified before Congress at least six times now, is quoted (usually in a misleading way) regularly by people in power to justify doing nothing to mitigate climate change when she does advocate for climate change mitigation measures. The measures she suggests are more moderate but she does suggest that mitigation measures should be taken. So that is another lie from your lying friends. She is a contrarian about how severe climate change’s effect will be but in no way suggests that it is a hoax. She is also somehow ignored while being called before Congress repeatedly and used as a source to justify not doing anything about climate change? Do you realize how stupid that makes your silly little meme created by idiots who are either willfully and deliberately stupid or are malicious deceiving those that listen to them. And you just slurp up that misinformation and pass it along like a good little drone? Why do you do this? Do you not have any sense of dignity? Why aren’t you livid with these people who are lying to you repeatedly? I would be. Do you prefer comforting lies to reality? What is the problem here?

It would be noteworthy to add that the Lord in D&C says the Saints are to be following the "Book of Mormon and the former commandments": 106 ~ The Lord in D&C confirms that members in Joseph Smith's time were under condemnation ~ Section 84 of the Doctrine & Covenants reads, And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written— That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion. D&C 84:57-58 The Lord here states explicitly that church members will be under condemnation for not following the "former commandments" and the Book of Mormon, and that this condemnation will follow us until we both do and say according to that which the Lord has written. The Book of Mormon was written for Joseph Smith's day, for our day, and for the day of our future generations. We have never had any valid doctrinal excuse to dismiss the Lord's commandments to the Nephites through Jacob as only being for the Nephites Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign Me again: (This was received from the Lord by Joseph and added to the D&C during the years that Joseph was supposedly practicing polygamy himself, but it was in fact other men who were practicing it behind Joseph's back. Arguing that polygamy was a higher commandment that the Lord wanted the Saints to follow doesn't align with D&C 84.)

If it were only that we have no verified contemporaneous records of him speaking in favor of polygamy, then it would indeed be a weaker argument than it is, but the fact that we have no verified records (during his life) of him teaching polygamy while *also* having a very long page of verified, first-hand words of him specifically denouncing polygamy makes it a much, much stronger case. These quotes are words that are predominantly either from him or that he approved for publication, many of them being said during the same years that polygamy apologists argue he was practicing polygamy himself: Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/timeline

But Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I mean, if your visions contradict reality which is wrong? Your visions or reality?

The Nauvoo Expositor made this claim too, and Joseph Smith is contemporaneously recorded in the High Council minutes notes as publicly refuting it: 67 ~ The traditional Section 132 revelation story contradicts Joseph Smith's statement of his marriage revelation ~ LDS historians have stated Joseph Smith received a revelation on marriage in answer to a question asked by Joseph during his translation of the Bible. They have stated plural marriage as being the question and the doctrine received in this case, citing Section 132 where it says, ...inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein 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 - The Nauvoo Expositor also made this claim. However, Joseph's testimony to the Nauvoo City Council against the Expositor states his revelation on marriage to have been from his inquiry on an altogether different passage of the Bible (specifically Matthew 22:30), and was in reference to eternal marriage, not plural marriage, Mayor [Joseph Smith] said he had never preached the revelation in private as he had in public - had not taught it to the annointed in the church in private which many confirmed. - On enquiry the passage in the resurrection they neither mary & I received for answer. Men in this life must be married in view of eternity, was the amount of the revelation, otherwise they must remain as angels - in heaven, and spoke at considerable length in explanation of this principle..." Nauvoo City Council, 10 June 1844; published in "EXTRA," Nauvoo Neighbor 2:8, published 19 June 1844 historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

Or we could act to effect social and cultural change so that women do not have to operate on the presupposition that all men are potential rapists? Just a thunk. And no, your analysis is not dispassionate. You clearly favor the perpetrators over the victim. It is all over your posts here.

Talking about how the Cornell case relates to rape culture and not all men is not the same topic that needs one to analyze timelines, etc, to prove truth or falseness of accusations. In fact, it comes across as avoiding the original topics to me at this point, though I suspect the reality is people just got distracted. True. I am just curious why you see this as a thread topic that holds any relevance to the board. Yeah….somehow that feels like this is justifying gossip, etc. Do we really need to know the timelines, texts, minute details, opinions of numerous people on who did what, etc before and after to comment on how this relates to the Law of Chastity and WoW or can we settle that connection with one sentence: “Another example of why choosing not to drink, not to do recreational drugs, and not engage in premarital sex is wise.” And I am at liberty to comment on the relevance as well. But that doesn’t lead to a need to actually demonstrate what you think is a dispassionate assessment of evidence. That’s a different topic. Like talking about the need to maintain your car or it will break down sooner (the why) does not mean you must also talk about how to maintain it to be thorough.

No, JUST NO! Also it has not been established that everyone was equally ‘blotto’. The guys were still snorting the stuff off of her. There is no reason to think they weren’t sober when they walked in. Nor should it. They went on to lead successful lives in high paying professions? Oh, the AGONY!!!!!!! This is likely to be the result for these guys too no matter how this shakes out. One of them is pretty closely related to powerful people in South Korea too and the big guns lawyers are crawling in. More will follow. It is amazing how depraved the whole thing was to you in general when you were talking about the victim and suggesting it was still debased even if consent was involved. Now when talking about the alleged perpetrators you are wishing that they could have their reputations restored to some kind of pristine state? What happened to the bit about how depraved and debased the whole situation was no matter how it happened? Why shouldn’t people think less of them? I thought this was all very serious sin. Are we back to it counting less because they are rich white guys with bright futures that could be harmed by this?

Abraham H. Cannon’s journal gives a few quotations about concubines. Both Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow say that concubinage will be practiced. ‘I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines.' - President Snow ‘If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it‘ - President Woodruff

You read wisely then. Well done.

It's 100% strawman. You're trying to say that mainstream historical critical scholarships is just "positivism" which is absolutely false. The textual/literary dependence on the BOM on the NT is all throughout the book. None of the post-NT authors in the BOM would have had access to the NT anyway, so this is moot. You've already gone away from history here and into theology. History doesn't have access to the risen Jesus, so appealing to your religious beliefs as a way of fixing historical anachronisms is just a non-starter. Let me make it easy for you. Here is a pretty comprehensive list of early Christian documents from the first several centuries of Christianity. Can you locate the Book of Mormon in this list? https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ If not, why not? Is it a positivist conspiracy? The parts of Barker's scholarship that LDS apologists seem to like don't actually get you to a historical Book of Mormon and they don't address the many problems with the Book. If you think that other historical critical Biblical scholars are taking up the mantle of Barker's temple theology, I would invite you to name them. I'm not referring to theologians but actual Biblical scholars doing historical critical work. Barker's more quixotic ideas support her particular theological views, but they haven't found any purchase in the larger historical landscape. Of course not all of her ideas are crazy. Her reconstructions of Christian-like Judaism based on post-Christian texts hundreds of years after the fact has most definitely not caught on among other scholars. No amount of apologetic wishcasting can change that. Biblical scholarship does change over time as new arguments and evidence are seen as being stronger, but it doesn't change with a single outlier scholar whose career is almost over. No one has taken up the mantle of Barker, and even if they did, it wouldn't get you to a historical BOM

Good to know that The Sun is seen in some quarters as unreliable. That said, I think the article was at least somewhat useful for its citations to comments made by Nana Knight (a former prosecutor) and Megan Thomas (a "New York sexual assault attorney"). Feel free to disregard. First, Bluebell brought this topic into the thread in relation to the "not all men" topic. IIRC, she and you have both amply commentated on that topic in various threads. Second, my recollection is that the originator of the thread gets to generally determine its scope. I started this thread. Third, allegations of sexual misconduct intersect with, at a minimum, the Law of Chastity, and often the Word of Wisdom. "And thus we see" and all that. Fourth you are at liberty to pay no attention to my posts or this thread. Fifth, I find the abject prejudice and ugliness inherent in public declarations that "all men are potential rapists" to be quite problematic. This concern extends to situations such as the Cornell matter, where mobocratic rage and rush to judgment overruns reasoned and evidence-based analysis, the presumption of innocence is inverted or set aside or destroyed, and where efforts to dispassionately assess the evidence are shouted down as "defending rapists" and similar calumnies. Thanks, -Smac

I tried to keep my last reply focused more on what can be indicated directly from the textual sources, rather than inferred (by myself or anyone). That said, I think inferring is both valuable in its own right, and certainly do a lot of it on my own, so I wanted to offer my own in response. When I first started pulling these together, I more-or-less had a similar reaction. My original assumption was that you'd have a chain of father-son relationships with each link going through a sequential birth-ordination-blessing before someone further down the genealogical chain could go through the same. Meaning that Seth would, necessarily, be not only ordained before any of his sons or descendants further down the line could be ordained; and likewise receive their blessing before anyone further down the line. Stepping outside the Genesis, Book of Moses, OT2, or Doctrine and Covenants 107 accounts of this patriarchs, however, reveals patterns around ordinations, adoptions, birthrights, and blessings that are far more malleable than a strict genealogical oldest-to-youngest pattern would demand. Here are just a few examples: Jacob adopts Ephraim and Manasseh to be his own sons, and blesses Ephraim as the firsborn, despite Manasseh being the older child of Joseph (something which causes Joseph some consternation in Genesis 48). Jacob himself supplanting Esau for the birthright. The Nephite leadership and priesthood pass through Nephi's line rather than Sam's, who, by all indications, was himself righteous. Joseph Smith being ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood and baptising Oliver Cowdery without himself being baptised. John the Baptist being ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood at eight days old (D&C 84:27–28). Noah is ordained at age ten by Methusaleh. Joseph Smith himself being the prophet of the restoration despite having an older brother in Hyrum who, by all accounts, strove after righteousness too and received all the blessings Joseph received. Even going back to the 'patriarchal source texts' there are some interesting oddities: Mahaleel being ordained by Adam only after his son Jared, grandson Enoch, and great-grandson Methusaleh were ordained. Adam seems to handle *all* ordinations prior to his death. Once you adjust for the births, deaths, ordinations of others, Lamech's ordination occurs after Adam's death, which may explain why Seth was the one who did it With those examples in mind here are some possibilities: The blessings and ordinations in the D&C 107 + OT2 timeline reflect some sort of level-of-readiness for said ordination and blessing. It's possible that Enoch was a highly special individual in that, more than even his predecessors, he was uniquely ready to receive his blessing and walk with God ahead of all the posterity between him and Adam. His establishment of Zion, how the people there are described, and their eventual translation at least support, circumstantially, that Enoch was at a level of righteousness that would qualify him for such an ordination and blessing, perhaps even in advance of those genealogically before him. As counterpoint to #1, maybe individual righteousness isn't the primary rationale for the ordination or blessing versus the needs of the kingdom. There have been plenty of Latter-day Saints who have lived and died in the faith, exercising tremendous righteousness, who were 'only an elder' in the Melchizedek Priesthood, which recalls to mind the words of Elder McConkie: By the same token, we've seen apostles fall not only in this dispensation, but in the Saviour's too. At some point in my own life, the Lord thought it was time for me to be ordained a High Priest, which to me, comprises one of the greater mysteries of the kingdom when I look at how little I've managed to do with the office compared to some of the incredible elders I know. In either case, it may be that God decided that, for His purposes, Enoch should be ordained, and both he and his father Jared blessed, far in advance of others, including Seth. Not because they were better or more righteous than Seth, but because it was simply what needed to be done for a particular purpose in God's plan at the time.

Note on the ages used in the graph I posted: they synthesise D&C 107 and the OT1 Revision, which seems to be the copy with the most extensive edits by Joseph Smith. I'll post a couple other versions I made, which include (from memory, they're stuck on a drive right now that I'll need to dig up and connect): The Genesis alone timeline Genesis + D&C 107 The Book of Moses (i.e., the canonised version of OT2) + D&C 107 The births, lifespans, and ages at various ordinations and blessings all change slightly depending on the version used. As an aside, I'm not asserting that the D&C 107 + OT1 version is the *best* just because it's the one with the latest edits by Joseph Smith. One of the other versions outlined in the list may be more accurate (if taken literally) or more correctly symbolically (i.e., it convey's Joseph's intended meaning behind the edits). Perhaps. I'm just going off D&C 107:42; 53, which indicate that Adam blessed Seth three years prior to Adam's death at Adam-ondi-Ahman: 42 From Adam to Seth, who was ordained by Adam at the age of sixty-nine years, and was blessed by him three years previous to his (Adam’s) death, and received the promise of God by his father, that his posterity should be the chosen of the Lord, and that they should be preserved unto the end of the earth; 53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. D&C 107:47 indicates that Jared was ordained and blessed by Adam at the same time when the former was 200 years old: 47 Jared was two hundred years old when he was ordained under the hand of Adam, who also blessed him. If you have another source that says he was 162-years-old, please share! Seriously! The point of the original doc where my figure comes from isn't to prove anyone right or myself wrong; it was just to help me get the differences in timelines based on the different texts available in my own head correct. Also to try to understand how Joseph Smith understood this particular narrative or history as his thinking evolved over time. So another citation/source would be immensely valuable. Seth being the first ordained by Adam is supported by the text. I think it's reasonable to infer that Adam gave the sorts of blessings that lots of parents give to their children throughout their lives pertaining to comfort and health, but Doctrine and Covenants 107 seems to be talking about a particular type of blessing that occurs maybe once in a lifetime, possibly akin to patriarchal blessings today. The text indicates that Seth received his three years prior to Adam's death. Indeed. I've pondered a lot about this, but the text is silent on the reason why. At most we can assert that his blessing, his beginning to walk with God, and his establishment of Zion do occur in the same year; possibly in the same instance.

FYI, the USSun appears to be a tabloid that is judged unreliable enough it is not to be used as a reference on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun Justification for the ban includes this: Again, what does this case have to do with the thread’s topic or the Church?

A coffee table style book will also be available soon: https://gregkofford.com/products/brother-joseph-again