All Activity

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 is all throughout the NT. None of the post NT authors 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. 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. Bluebell's Fourth you are at liberty to pay no attention to my posts or this thread. Fifth, I find the abject prejudice 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

Abraham had 3 wives/concubines (the last woman is called both a wife and a concubine so not sure which type she would have been). Jacob had 2 wives and 2 concubines. Moses potentially had 2 wives, per the Bible (there is debate on whether the other woman is the same as his first wife or another woman). Solomon's wives/concubines caused him to turn away from God. You could probably argue that David turned away from God because of his lust for Bethsheba as well. How many other people practiced polygamy? Who knows but it was a really common marriage practice. How many were commanded by God? Who knows since we don't have a fully history of the world. I wouldn't say the D&C 132 deals with concubines. It mentions them but I don't see it authorizing any. And your last questions don't make any sense.

My husband and I saw the documentary called, "Brother Joseph Again", last Saturday. Many years of research going into proving the image of Joseph Smith was real was without a doubt to me, the daguerreotype of him. I hope those that can go, will see the movie.

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