All Activity

And what fate is that?

It is really strange that you and Seeking and Mustard Seed think this given there is obviously only one plain and ordinary meaning this phrase can mean for anyone.

Yes, please tell me what I think, feel, and believe because I can’t know that for myself. Of course I must think the same as you as that’s the only reasonable interpretation. (I am not insulted here, just trying to make a point that gets paid attention to.) ”I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Because language is only allowed to have one “plain and ordinary” meaning for everyone and of course everyone will always agree on it. Reminds me of how in some people’s view scripture can have only one “plain and ordinary meaning” and everyone would obviously interpret it that way…except they don’t. So they must have agendas in those who think this way. It couldn’t be that they bring different experiences and therefore different context to words and therefore meaning varies.

For sure. Unfortunately we find incidents where our comfort is granted prematurely but we all have to exist somehow!

I think, maybe it is a matter, that a woman may have to be on the defensive, until she can lower her guard when feeling a bit more comfortable, or confident.

It’s interesting how you interpret things this way. I think you are assuming that “ all men are potential rapists” means that every single man including you has a budding rapist within. Try to listen to this statement(”all men”) again with a different point of view: situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody. IMPORTANT: this statement is not a description of a specific man. It is not a description of you. What it is, is a description of the state of mind of a woman that she must carry around every day, as situations that require awareness can pop up at any time. We do not have the luxury of retiring our conscientiousness. It’s not about you. It’s about the state of mind of women’s vigilance.

Beating a dead horse here, but... A Jewish survivor of the October 7th attack, survives kidnapping and abuse, lives with PTSD every time she sees a Muslim in public and says that in her lived experience "all muslims are potential terrorists" A native of the West Bank area is continually harassed by masked Jewish settlers, beaten and threatened with violence while just trying to live their lives says that in her lived experience "all settlers are potential terrorists". A woman, that time after time is harrassed, threatened, assaulted by men both strangers and friends says that in her lived experience, "all men are potential rapists". For me, I recognize that I don't worry when I run alone five days a week. My heart rate doesn't go up with a woman approaches me. I don't stack chairs by the door of my hotel room to prevent someone from entering. I don't worry about my personal safety. That position however is a position of privilege. You don't listen and don't care, so you don't care to hear that woman aren't saying every man has a latent rapist waiting to escape in the right situation. Rather, they are explaining their lived, shared, traumatic experience that every experience with a man alone is like being alone with a potential rapist. That they have to take precautions, have thoughts, and worries every single time a man approaches. And for good reason.

I am, in this, speaking according to my beliefs. For those who acknowledge Denver Snuffer to be a messenger sent from Heaven, and have signified their belief in that before God and men by submitting to authorized re-baptism, and have said "yes" to the Boise Covenant, "Covenant Christians" are what the Lord has commanded them to refer to each other as, as per this revelation. The Boise Covenant is found here: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/158 "All the words of the Lord which have been read to you this day" refers to this: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/157 That was in answer to this prayer: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/156 As I understand it, Covenant Christians are Christians who are distinguished from other Christians in the sight of the Lord by the Boise Covenant. If they fail to yield obedience to its terms, then there is nothing dividing them from any other Christians, and they shall suffer the same fate as them when the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

I'm glad you think that, but this comment is better directed at folks like Calm and Bluebell, who do think I am a "potential rapist," as are all men everywhere. That's what "all men are potential rapists" means. Situational awareness is a good idea. "All men are potential rapists." I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning. "All {black} men are potential rapists." Same thing. "All {Muslims} are potential {terrorists}." Same thing. And so on. Thanks, -Smac

Well, I'll ask another question: What is a Covenant Christian in your use of that term? I spoke once at Covenant College. I have been to several churches with Covenant in their name. I consider myself a covenantal Christian. So I am uncertain as to what exactly you are referring. Thanks, Navidad

They have subsequently restored it to the record.

First, I actually agree with 43. I think Joseph did use the same terms for both unauthorized and authorized. I've read the attempts by Hale and others to show that Joseph did make a difference and I don't find it to be really strong. I just accept that Joseph lied as that makes the most sense with the evidence. But, 43 is also misspeaking what Hale and others say. They are very specific that Joseph used words in specific ways. Others who he taught absolutely could have picked up different meanings but that doesn't change the fact that Joseph, himself, was very particular. Check out https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Hales-JMH-7-2018-Denying-the-Undeniable.pdf for how Hale deals with some of the statements. But there was definitely a difference between unauthorized and authorized polygamy. Even under Brigham, there was unauthorized polygamy that could get you excommunicated (see W. W. Phelps being excommunicating for practicing polygamy in 1848). Then you have the story from Brigham about a monogamous couple who was sealed by Hyrum and Joseph got after Hyrum for misusing the sealing power (in the Denying the Undeniable article above). Even today, you could do unauthorized sealings and probably be excommunicated for it (or at least talked to harshly). So, if Joseph practiced polygamy, he would have had authorized vs unauthorized. An obvious example of unauthorized is John C. Bennet. Have you read his "expose"? He talks about how the women were in 3 tiers (based on the veil they wore) and certain men had access to certain tiers. It isn't even close to what was happening.

Oh, we definitely will speak past each other. You don't believe God can command someone to practice polygamy while I do. And your scriptural sources for it won't convince me just as my scriptural sources won't convince you. That's another reason I don't care much about the historical monogamy site. Because it is trying to convince me that my understanding of God is wrong. So most of the arguments on why D&C 132 is not theologically correct don't work for me because I see God being able to command that. Just like how you find a way to rationalize Nephi's killing of Laban, I can rationalize God's commanding polygamy. So, I like to focus on the actual physical evidence (affidavits, journals, statements, etc) vs the theological debate. What really happened vs what I want to have happened. That could by why I kept not understanding why you were quoting some of those sections.

The graph has 3 lines, one for monogamous wife, first polygamous wife, and subsequent polygamous wives. It then shows the infant mortality of each child position (child 1 to child 9). So the first child of the first wife (and the second child and third) have a much, much higher infant mortality rate than the same child of monogamous wives and later polygamous wives. It is specific on which child position it is and it is solely infant mortality (<1 year of age). So a wife who's husband will later take a second wife has a higher infant mortality than a wife who's husband doesn't end up taking a second wife. That's why it is odd to me. It could be that these men were more likely to go on missions and so would be leaving their wives alone and that is the reason, which would make sense since polygamous husbands were more active in the church, but that would mean that polygamy isn't the cause of higher child mortality but instead it was higher activity in the church (the dissertation also pointed to that as well). What 2012 meta analysis are you talking about?

If Hosea was a priest, it was: https://www.esv.org/Leviticus+21:7;Leviticus+21:13–14/ hThey shall not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled, neithershall they marry a woman divorced from her husband, for the priest is holy to hisGod. Do we know his tribe?

That’s a good list, I’m not familiar with a couple of them so I’d need to look them up. Abraham of course didn’t sacrifice Isaac, so an Abrahamic test is only such if the Lord doesn’t actually intend for you to ever go through with it. And was it against a commandment to marry a prostitute? I understand it was breaking commandments to be one, but I’ve not heard it was to be married to one. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible gives more clarification to the quote of Jesus. The King James Version says, 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. The Joseph Smith Translation says, 26 If anyone come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters or husband, yea and their own life also, or in other words is afraid to lay down their life for my sake, cannot be my disciple. (https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Luke.pdf – page 74) So the clarification is that Jesus is talking about laying down one’s life for Christ. As far as the importance of commandments to God goes, I think Monogamy as Divine Design section 71 to give a valuable viewpoint, 71 ~ Jacob promises destruction to the men over polygamy, even if they are following every other commandment ~ Jacob quotes the Lord as saying, "For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction;" (Jacob 2:33) That the Lord would threaten the Nephite men with destruction for breaking the law of monogamy, even though they were obeying every other commandment, is significant. The Nephite men are even threatened by the Lord with destruction by the Lamanites, who were not following the law of Moses as the Nephites were. This suggests that the Lord considered the law of monogamy to be of greater importance to follow than the Mosaic Law. This also indicates that the Lord considers there to be no level of spiritual obedience to other commandments that can compensate for not obeying the law of monogamy. historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

Brigham Young explicitly laid down other essential qualifiers What he "sent out to the children of men" Referring to specific formal, vetted publications produced for public or global circulation. Periodicals like the Millennial Star in Great Britain were edited and compiled by Apostles specifically to present vetted doctrine to investigators and foreign branches. Formal documents signed and issued directly by the First Presidency to the world such as the 1845 Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles or official General Epistles. "Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve" The Deseret News was a weekly newspaper where shorthand reporters sat in the congregation, took rapid shorthand notes of a Sunday sermons given without preparation, and rushed those transcriptions into print to keep the frontier community informed. This was not a meticulous canonical review where Brigham Young could sit down with to carefully vet, rewrite, and officially authorize every single paragraph of his rhetoric as doctrine. The theological mechanism Brigham Young was invoking when he held up the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants was the living oracles are more authoritative to us today than written books. He was championing a foundational pillar of Latter-day Saint theology. The principle of continuous, living revelation, for the immediate, active challenges of the present day, which changes all the time. Brigham had a right to propose new scripture, but if he truly intended a sermon to be officially accepted, it would be first presented and voted on by the body of the Church. What Brigham actually taught about his own preaching, "I have known many times I have preached wrong and spoken false principles, but I am but a human being and I am not perfect... pray to God in the name of Jesus to bind me up from speaking false principles." (Brigham Young, May 1854, speaking in Springville, Utah) If Brigham Young himself explicitly acknowledged that his impromptu pulpit preachings could contain human error, rough edges, or false principles, then he certainly would not view a quick newspaper transcription of a Sunday sermon as an infallible, immutable scripture. God will not suffer the leaders to "lead the Church astray" (JD 9:289), as that has a very specific theological meaning. It refers to a collective institutional apostasy. God will not allow the Church as a whole to lose its priesthood keys, wander into total unauthorized darkness, or break the eternal covenant path to salvation. It does not mean every administrative policy, disciplinary decision, personal opinion, or sermons spoken without preparation made by a Brigham Young is free from error.

Church leadership

“Not”?

"their"? No. The Church has publicly supported legal mechanisms to protect gay rights as to housing and employment and such. Pres. Oaks publicly spoke against a Kentucky county official who announced she would not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Church has specifically and emphatically and publicly spoken against any mistreatment of any person on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Church and some in the LGBT community have divergent and incompatible ideas on some issues. The LGBT "community," to the extent it exists, is not "anti-Mormon" because of that disagreement. I think the same should be said in the reverse. Most people, in the end, favor some constraints on abortion. That said, I'm not sure the Church has an "agenda" about it. Thanks, -Smac

It has been documented that a high percentage of members are Republicans and/or conservative. I haven’t experienced at church the sense that I am required in some members’ view to toe the line of conservative thought because I am a member, but I have certainly experienced it outside the Church in family gatherings (vast majority are LDS) and among my LDS friends. I can understand how some non strong conservatives might feel like they are not seen as proper members of the faith community by those who phrase such things as “you can’t be a good member and be pro choice”. But the Church does not require such rigid membership standards and accepts a very wide range of political positions among its members. In some places, conservatives are not even the most numerous in a congregation (easier to experience outside of the US I believe, was for me). I have also experienced, though in far fewer encounters, that type of push from a liberal position (not in the Church community), so not saying this behaviour is unique to religion or even more common among conservatives than liberals. I do find liberals typically more varied and less centralized, so to speak, in the US, so that might affect the frequency. Don’t know. And for myself, there are several things about the general church culture I would love to see change and I do what I can to promote such change. This does not me I have any inclination to dictate to leadership what the Church’s positions should be. Mostly it means I act in the way I believe we should be acting and if misinformation comes up, I find opportunities to correct such. Mostly this has been in context of trashing other faiths, on a few occasion it was racist comments by kids. I can see someone believing that their faith community should better reflect what they see as discipleship of Christ, especially if it is declared the best way to follow Christ is found within their faith. An LDS member may believe the Church’s ordinances, etc are valid, but also believe the primary purpose of the Church is to be the primary example of discipleship of Christ in the world. And they don’t find such yet in the Church. Doesn’t mean they don’t applaud many of the things the Church does, just that they see certain aspects as inconsistent.*** It wouldn’t surprise me if many members struggle with the financial side of church operations or believe it should be more politically active to promote laws that will better contribute to what they see as a Zion community (not using Christian here because that implies Christian dominance and while some members who want the Church to be more politically active in my experience definitely want Christian dominance, others are thinking more in terms of how Christ told us to treat each others…which is what Zion means to me). ***basing this on what I have read in both liberal and conservative online LDS communities as well as personal experiences. There are areas I would like to see the Church more proactive in, but I also know actually effecting positive change in behavior is extremely complicated and too often what we see as common sense approaches have the opposite of the intended effect. I don’t have the information church leadership does, so I don’t know if they are basing their behaviour on tradition, inspiration, and/or informed wisdom. Very willing to give the benefit of the doubt in these cases given the level of fantastic stuff I see happening and because of how well the Church has nurtured my faith in God over the years even if I get frustrated at times.

Because he was the church president, so it was his name they were using to seduce women, I preached in the grove, and pronounced a curse upon all Adulterers and Fornicators, and unvirtuous persons and those who have made use of my name to carry on their iniquitous designs. (DHC 4:587) The public will perceive the aggravating nature of this case; and will see the propriety of this exposure. Had he only been guilty of adultry, that was sufficient to stamp disgrace upon him because he is a man of better information, and has been held high in the estimation of many. But when it is considered that his mind was so intent upon his cruel, and abominable deeds, and his own reputation not being sufficient to enable him to do it, he must make use of my name in order to effect his purposes, an enlightened public will not be astonished at the course I have pursued. In order that it may be distinctly understood that he wilfully and knowingly lied, in the above insinuations, I will lay before my readers an affidavit taken before an alderman of the city, after I had charged him with these things: (19 May 1842 - Nauvoo City Council) “[A] charge [was] [preferred] against Chauncey L. Higbee by George Miller for unchaste and un-virtuous conduct with the widow [Sarah] Miller, and others.” In the trial, “Three witness[es] testified that he had seduced [several women] and at different times [had] been guilty of unchaste and unvirtuous conduct with them and taught the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women if it was kept secret &c and also taught that Joseph Smith authorised him to practice these things &c” (24, May 1842 -Joseph files charges against Chauncey L. Higbee in court.) 25 May 1842 - Catherine Warren learns that John C. Bennett incorrectly claimed support by the leaders of the church -- The charge was preferred “against Ms. Catherine Warren by George Miller for unchaste and unvirtuous conduct with John C. Bennett and others. The defendant confessed to the charge and gave the names of several other [men] who had been guilty having unlawful intercourse with her[,] stating they taught the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women and that the heads of the Church also taught and practiced it[,] …learning that the heads of the church did not believe of [the] practice [of] such things[,] she was willing to confess her sins and did repent before God for what she had done and desired earnestly that the Council would forgive her.” “...he went to some of the females in the city, who knew nothing of him but as an honorable man, & began to teach them that promiscous [promiscuous] intercourse between the sexes, was a doctrine believed in by the Latter-Day Saints, and that there was no harm in it; but this failing, he had recourse to a more influential and desperately wicked course; and that was, to persuade them that myself and others of the authorities of the church not only sanctioned, but practiced the same wicked acts; and when asked why I publicly preached so much against it, said that it was because of the prejudice of the public, and that it would cause trouble in my own house. (Times and Seasons, July 1, 1842, p. 839-840) 1st for trying to seduce a young girl, living in his house by the name of Phebe Madison. 2nd. For using my name in a blasphemous manner, by saying that I tolerated such things in which he is guilty of lying &c &c. Joseph Smith (Dinger, J. S. (2011). The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, p. 479-480. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books) I was present with several of the Twelve, and gave an address tending to do away with every evil, and exhorting them to practice virtue and holiness before the Lord— told them that the church had not received any permission from me to commit fornication, adultery, or any corrupt action, but my every word and action has been to the contrary... I condemned such actions in toto, and warned the people present against committing such evils, for it will surely bring a curse upon any person who commits such deeds. (25 November 1843 - Joseph gave an address to the Twelve) I know that the LDS church argument to those quotes is, "But none of those instances were authorized polygamy," but I consider HMD section 43 to address that well too, 43. 'Can't polygamy be seen as being different from Celestial plural marriage?' LDS historians have argued that the "plural marriage" commanded by God and supposedly practiced by Joseph Smith was of a different nature than man-made polygamy, and so argue that even when Joseph condemned polygamy by name, he was never condemning "Celestial plural marriage". One significant problem with this theory is that Joseph's denunciations include not just polygamy by name, but also any plurality of wives: ...we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. 1835 - “General Assembly,” Messenger and Advocate 1 (August 1835) 2: 162. Question 7th. Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one. [sic] Answer. No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again. Joseph Smith, July 1838 - [Editorial,] Elder’s Journal, 1 (July 1838), 43. No man shall have but one wife. Joseph Smith's office journal, 5 October 1843. As written by Willard Richards What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. Joseph Smith, LDS History of the Church 6:409-411 Another major issue with this theory is that Joseph never used the terms, "plural marriage" nor "Celestial marriage" in any of his first-hand or contemporaneous records. Yet another significant issue with this theory is that D&C 132:1 does not describe itself as giving the doctrine of "Celestial plural marriage" nor "Celestial plurality of wives" but simply, "the principle and doctrine of... having many wives and concubines." The terminology that church historians use to distinguish between the polygamy they believe Joseph Smith to have been practicing versus the polygamy they argue him to be condemning appears to be anachronistic, as Joseph condemned, by name, polygamy, spiritual wifism, fornication (the legal term in use), and having more than one wife in general. "Celestial marriage", "Celestial plural marriage", or any of their variations were not in recorded use until after Joseph and Hyrum's deaths, and polygamists in later years describe "spiritual wifery" as being the term in common use previous to their trek west, ...Mrs. Durfee invited my sister, Eliza, and me to her house to spend the afternoon. She introduced the subject of spiritual wives, as they called it in that day. Emily Dow Partridge Young, "Incidents in the Life of a Mormon Girl", 1876 Spiritual wives, as we were then termed, were not very numerous in those days... Emily Dow Partridge Young, "Pioneer Day". Women's Exponent, 24 July 1883 At the time [in Nauvoo] 'spiritual wife' was the title by which every woman who entered into the this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order." Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Juvenile Instructor. 1882 Brigham Young in 1844, 1845, 1847, 1849, and 1851 used the terms 'spiritual wife' and 'spiritual wifery' when speaking of polygamy. In 1855 Heber C. Kimball preached, If you oppose any of the works of God you will cultivate a spirit of apostasy. If you oppose what is called the "spiritual wife doctrine," the Patriarchal Order, which is of God, that course will corrode you with a spirit of apostasy, and you will go overboard. Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City. 6 October 1855. Journal of Discourses vol. 3 p. 125

I have nothing but the highest regard for you. I don't really know how to respond to this last message, so I haven't. I am not requiring you to deny part of the core of your own faith. That would be silly and very innapropriate of me. I am trying to figure out if you deny part of the core of your own faith. Sometimes it seems that you do, but of course, if so, you want to do that on your own terms. Sometimes it seems as if you don't, while sometimes you do support the traditional core tenets of LDS belief. I say that as an observer, nothing more. Dechristianing is something that my LDS friends feel forcefully from certain non-LDS Christians. I don't blame them. At the same time, there appears to be a real blind spot about how the LDS do that to all other non-LDS Christian faiths and individuals. There appears to be no cognitive awareness of the reciprocity of the feelings at the act of de-Christianization at the hands of the Saints. Your missionary work has been explained to me a dozen times as for the purpose of giving me more, not taking anything away from me. But indeed, it does take away the core of my faith. I would rather not burden you with my experience or with my personal soul wounds at the hands of the Saints or at my own hands. Religious conflict is often reciprocal; of course, my blindspots are your arena. Your blindspots are my arena. So we talk past each other. I would rather not do that with you. As a member of this forum, I read the posts where this or that Saint is really mad at the Evangelical (I give up) or Fundamentalist who stands on the corner of Temple Square. I don't blame them. I do fault them for not understanding the reciprocity in the relationship when an LDS Christian informs me of the inadequacy of what is the core and extent of my entire Christian life. To join your faith, in fact, I am required to deny part of the core of my own faith. I heartily believe your doctrine has morphed out of your history and shared culture. Of course I believe the same for the Mennonites. However, when I joined them, they did not suggest that Christ did not approve of my former Baptist faith. That is what is especially toxic for me in listening to my LDS friends/ evangelists. Some have fussed recently on this forum about what is deemed "toxic empathy." I think that toxic empathy is a real thing as practiced by many Christian groups including yours and mine. It reminds of family therapy systems theory where one of the challenges in toxic families, is what is deemed the "go away closer" challenge that abused children face. Best wishes. And once again I celebrate you as a whole and intact Christian, complete with all the gifts, rights, and privileges of eternal life that come with Christ's approval at the judgment seat.

You don’t think their approach to same sex marriage, including political involvement qualifies as antiLGBT+ agenda (I am not condemning that behavior even if at this time I see issues with it because I find the arguments against it poorly constructed, I am open to it has been revealed that God knows something we don’t and that same sex relationships are somehow inherently detrimental to those who participate in them; I am also open to it being similar to the Priesthood Ban where the evidence we now have demonstrates pretty clearly the origin was not revelation, but cultural beliefs imported in)? There are some aspects of the anti-abortion agenda I strongly applaud. Anti-abortion is not seen as a negative term by those who are anti-abortion. If it’s a problem with implying it’s against people rather than relationships, are you okay with describing the Church as having an anti same sex/transgender behaviour agenda?

Then it will be another point that we are speaking past eachother due to not seeing eye-to-eye, as while it’s clear that the Lord had other motivated reasoning, that the conditions were such that it would be justified regardless of what other additional motivation the Lord had. (We also don’t know that Nephi and his family would have definitely been safe if Nephi had only taken his clothes and left an unconscious naked Laban where he found him – Laban likely could have sent his servants outside of the city wall to find them once he awoke and found his stuff gone.) I think it to be significant that the angel only said, “the Lord will deliver Laban into thy hands” once the exact situation of theft/attempted killing had already occurred.