Pyreaux

Hmmm, a search on Jared Livesey says he participated in detailed theological debates. For example, he argued about repentance, spiritual perfection, and salvation in a 2019 discussion on the Mormon blog By Common Consent. Other online discussions suggests that his online absence had already attracted attention years ago. A 2026 Covenant Christian Conference website lists Jared Livesey as a speaker in the Denver Snuffer-associated religious community. He seem to be applying our own standards of repentance and truthfulness to his claims of spiritual knowledge. And uses exceptionally absolute language, "utter and complete ignorance," "I acknowledge I am a fool," and the repeated "if spirits even exist." That intensity makes the post feel like a major rupture rather than an ordinary change of opinion. It may be sincere, performative, or both. Whether it is a sincere confession, a dramatic exit, or a pointed piece of religious criticism remains uncertain.

Brigham Young claiming his sermons were "as good as scripture" (JD 13:95, 264), things "copied and approved by me," he was referring specifically to sermons that were transcribed from shorthand by his secretaries, like George D. Watt, read back to him, corrected, and then officially published in Church publications like the Deseret News or Millennial Star. The Journal of Discourses was not that. He also acknowledged that he spoke as a man, gave personal opinions, and made mistakes. Hence in 1862, he famously said, "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him." (JD 9:150) The 1873 "Paris, Idaho" Sermon was addressing a specific group of men who explicitly said, "I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one." Brigham Young in his 1869 School of the Prophets instruction "a man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife, and be justified", the defining issue was whether a man rejected God's revelations in his heart, not whether he was physically capable of marrying multiple women. The quote starting with 'Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding...' cited from historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com as Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p. 167 seems incorrect. Volume 16, page 167 of the Journal of Discourses, is the end of a sermon about tithing. Historically, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both entered sealings with older women and widows past childbearing age (Zina D. H. Young, Agnes Coolbrith). If the requirement were strictly young, fertile women for procreation, these older sealings would make no sense. They served to form eternal, family connections across the covenant structure. Brigham Young didn't 'wildly contradict' himself, you can harmonize his statements. In 1866, Brigham says be "polygamists at least in your faith" (Journal of Discourses Vol 11, p 269). In 1869, Brigham says "a man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife, and be justified before the Lord" (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Sept 25, 1869). In 1873, he condemned men who actively rejected God's revelations or dodged priesthood callings out of selfish convenience or fear. It seems to align.

Lorena wrote, "We were taught in those days that there was no way to get to the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom, only by plural marriage." Sure, small southern Utah towns during the 1870s and 1880s (St. George, Monroe, Orderville), leaders heavily emphasized plural marriage as the pinnacle of devotion, local speakers simplified the message down, and many Saints may have believed plural marriage was necessary for the highest exaltation, because that was the dominant local cultural narrative preached from the rural pulpits. However, official clarifications by the Church, even Brigham Young himself, Joseph F. Smith and Wilford Woodruff, at that time affirmed that faithful monogamous couples inherit exaltation. Once, Apostle John Holman argued that no one could achieve Celestial glory without taking multiple wives and Brigham Young directly corrected him and shut the debate down (Recorded in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Sept 25, 1869). Brigham did feel it was sin to entertain feelings against the doctrine, meaning rebellion against God's revelations, or refusing a priesthood calling for selfish reasons. A monogamous man who lived faithfully and accepted the restoration, including the revelation "in his heart" was completely acceptable, a man who rejected the revelation or refused an assignment out of rebellion was the one under condemnation. The Discourse by Joseph F. Smith July 1878, "We are not under the necessity of practicing polygamy because God gave laws and commandments for its observance and regulation in ancient times... [I think referring to Section 132]" Let's not conflate what local Utah Saints felt and understood in 1880 with either Section 132 nor what 1880 official doctrine of the Church actually required. Lorena Washburn Larsen’s autobiography is an incredible historical document. Lorena’s accounts do actually demonstrate the historical dynamics I have been outlining. Lorena repeatedly turned down proposals, and her father supported her right to do so. Lorena didn't seem obligated into sealings. The men proposing to Lorena were prominent local figures, a bishop, a Co-op store president, a merchant who had plenty of means, and a future county judge. This fits the precise pattern of established, financially stable men who weren't necessarily proposing spontaneously, someone was suggesting specific women to men in the ward whom they believed could provide for them.

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

Did Section 132 then make plural marriage mandatory for everyone who heard it? No, it didn't. Even under Brigham Young, the majority of active Latter-day Saints were monogamous, and could never be polygamists if they wanted to. If plural marriage were the sole requirement to enter exaltation, the overwhelming majority of Saints, including bishops, stake leaders, and faithful members and every member not in the US would have been excluded. The quotes from Brigham Young in 1873 are historical footnotes, they don't define the universal doctrine of the Church, and ignores both the specific historical context of the 1870s and subsequent clarification by Church leaders. Brigham was not talking to those who simply lived faithful monogamous lives because they were never called to take additional wives. Men were typically called and vetted by local bishops or First Presidency leaders who deliberately targeted men of means who were financially, socially, and spiritually stable enough to provide housing, food, and protection for additional families, especially single immigrant women, widows, and young women who lacked financial support on the frontier. When Brigham Young made statements like the one in 1873, he was speaking directly to men who had been extended specific callings to care for women in the community and shrank back from that responsibility. Brigham Young believed that backing down or choosing monogamy out of cowardice or social pressure was a failure of faith. It was harsh rhetoric preached to push men who had been called. In the very same August 19, 1866 discourse in which Brigham Young you partially quoted, he explicitly softened his speech, "Now, we as a people will be polygamists, at least in our faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:269) Leaders both during and after Brigham Young's era clarified that plural marriage was never a universal command. Wilford Woodruff explicitly stated that monogamous men and women could attain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Joseph F. Smith taught in 1878 that plural marriage was only required of those to whom it was specifically commanded or given as a personal law by God, not an absolute blanket mandate for every individual in all eras. D&C 132:19 explicitly states that a man and one wife sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise will inherit exaltation. Claiming Saints only entered polygamy out of 'fear of damnation' oversimplifies history.

The revelation sets out broader teachings about eternal marriage and plural marriage. But has a personal context involving Joseph and Emma. The passage is describing one category of authorized plural marriage, while other arrangements may have involved different circumstances. Verse 64 is specifically about a wife in a particular situation "If any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things…" The verse then says she must "believe and administer unto him." The verse describes a husband who holds the relevant keys and teaches his wife the law. It is not phrased as a general instruction to every woman or every married couple. It doesn't establish a universal command for every Church member to practice it.

In scriptural idioms, a "virgin" in the context of marriage simply referred to her status at the time she entered the covenant (as opposed to a widow or divorcee). The descriptor applies when she is espoused (betrothed/married). If a law said, "If a man marry a maiden, and she bear him children..." nobody interprets that to mean she remained a literal "maiden" after childbirth. Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language a "virgin" can be an unattached woman. The main point of verse 61 is stating that if a man marries a woman who is not bound to another husband, and then enters a subsequent marriage with another unattached woman under priesthood authority, he is not committing adultery. It is addressing covenant legalities, not demanding that previous wives remain perpetually untouched.

Section 132 is not a restatement of the Levitical law codes. Leviticus 21:13-14 and Ezekiel 44:22 restrict the High Priest exclusively to virgins of Israel. Joseph Smith’s later plural sealing included non-virgin widows, the same for many other early LDS polygamists. It seems 132 is a copy of a letter to Emma concerning Joseph’s marriages to Emily and Eliza Partridge specifically who were indeed virgins, but also sisters which is against Levitical law, 132 is not a rule book for all plural marriages in the future.

The "Gods" of 4:1 are "them" of 3:24. For some reason, you want "the Gods" to be one exclusive group of non-human, infinite deities, while completely separating them from the noble and great spirits. I imagine it's because you are stuck in a theological box where a being is either a 100% immutable God or a 100% non-divine being, with zero overlap or trajectory in between them. You claim Abraham 4 excludes the noble spirits. But look at the textual chain. Abraham 3:22-23: God stands among the "intelligences that were organized... among all these...the noble and great ones... God... said: These I will make my rulers... Abraham, thou art one of them..." Abraham 3:24: "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down... and we will make an earth..." Abraham 4:1: "And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down... and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens..." Who is "with Him", the noble and great spirit who was like God in 3:24? The other noble and great spirits. When Abraham 4:1 says "and they, that is the Gods," the text is not introducing a mystery third party; it is giving the title ("the Gods" elohim) to Jehovah and the noble spirit leaders executing the creation. Abraham 4 is not in isolation, it does not invent a foreign concept here. In the first Genesis Creation account, Genesis 1:1 "Bereshit bara Elohim... [the Gods created]" the earth, who are also the same "us" of Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image", which already depicts that Creation was a collaborative, plural endeavor involving the divine council. The first Creation account concludes in Genesis 2:4, "these are the generations [toledot] of the heavens" toledot denotes begettings, genealogy, and family, refers directly to the progeny of God and the bene Elohim were begotten [or adopted] at some point during Creation or before it. In the Psalms Creation, Psalm 104:1-4, Day One the Lord wrapped Himself in a robe of divine light, establishes His court, and "make the winds [spirits] your messengers, fire and flame [glorious angels] your ministers", a verse that Hebrews 1:7 explicitly applies to the organization of heavenly beings at Creation. In the Job Creation, Job 38:4-7 the "sons of God" [bene Elohim] shouted for joy to see the foundation of the earth laid and Job 15:7-8 where the "First Man" Adam stood in the council before the hills. While Michael isn't spelled out in Abraham 4, D&C 27:11 and D&C 107:54-55 has Michael the Archangel placed under Christ in the heavenly hierarchy as far as great spirits go, and Michael became Adam, "the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel." The great spirits that God made "rulers", aka the celestial princes of the nations. It's a position, they only have as much power and authority they were portioned and justifies the title of god. Lackluster gods, but gods. Exodus 22:28 "You shall not curse the gods, and you shall not curse the ruler [prince] of your people". The word "gods" in this biblical context is a title given to the celestial princes of several nations. The "prince of Persia" in the Bible (Daniel 10) is a celestial patron assigned to the kingdom of Persia, while the "prince of Tyre" (Ezekiel 28) refers to the celestial patron assigned to Tyre, who is distingushed from the "king of Tyre" the human ruler. Like in the Jewish Christian text Clementine Recognitions 3:42, "Thus the princes of the several nations are called gods. But Christ is God of princes".

Though not mutually exclusive, the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah could still exist and belong in the theology while still being wrong to worship her instead of the Lord of Israel. When King Hezekiah took out Nehushtan the Brazen Serpent of Moses (and Asherah which was there for 2/3rds of the temple's existence) because people were burning incense to it instead of the Lord has not much to do with whether Nehushtan had a rightful place in the theology of the temple when they first put it in there.

Yet the council and "gods" are in Abraham 3. To claim there is no "council" in Abraham 3 ignores what the chapter actually depicts. Abraham 3:22–23 is a gathered assembly of premortal spirits under God, by definition, is a council in Heaven. Abraham 3:24 is the decree and Abraham 4:1 records the execution of this decree. Grammatically, "they" who went down in Abraham 4:1 is directly referring back to the "we" who agreed to go down in Abraham 3:24. The text explicitly defines the antecedent. When Abraham 4:26–27 describes the formation of Adam, "And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness... So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image..." In Latter-day Saint scripture, doctrine, and temple theology, who specifically makes up "the Gods" in this creation council includes God the Father as the Head of the Council, standing in their midst, who directs the plan, Jesus Christ as the Creator and "One like unto God" who leads the execution of the creation, and noble spirits under Jesus' direction, which would include folk such as Michael, Gabriel, Raphiel, Uriel and others who'd be born eventually as important figures, prophets and kings. How and what they did to help I'm not sure, but it's merely foreign Greek concept that spirits can't interact with matter, the Bible says a spirit can interact with matter, like people can get spirited away to mountain tops. Did they help craft the clay golem of Adam or did they spiritually guide pre-Adamites to birth an Adam naturally, I'm not so certain.

"Most" likely? You've mapped out a very neat taxonomy, but a faithful Latter-day Saint doesn't need to pick one model. The Church merely affirms that we have a Heavenly Mother. Modern Latter-day Saint thought is entirely comfortable leaving the exact cosmic origin of the Heavenly Mother as an unrevealed mystery, meaning all four of your models can remain fascinating theological theories without any single one being forced as the answer. However, if you want me be a good sport and play the game, I will argue for the simplest model. Model #4, the Co-Eternal Heavenly Mother, as LDS theology has the internal, scriptural space to accommodate a self-existent, fully divine Mother without getting dragged into either infinite regression nor creationism. D&C 93:29 states, "Intelligence... was not created or made, neither indeed can be." So, it's certainly possible for a core divine identity to be self-existent. If God the Father's core essence/intelligence is uncreated and co-eternal with the universe itself, the same principle would apply to the Heavenly Mother. In this model, she did not "become" a God. God is an uncreated Divine Binary, a fundamental cosmic pairing who together embody the full stature of God. And I do favor Ancient Near Eastern literature, in which the origin stories for gods weren't written to satisfy neither modern philosophical demands nor LDS thoughts like "infinite regression". When you look at Ancient Near Eastern mythology and Israelite religion through modern scholarship (like Margaret Barker, Mark S. Smith, Frank Moore Cross), the concept of a co-eternal divine pair has incredible historical resonance. El and Lady Wisdom (Hokhmah) is portrayed as a primordial pair. So, arguing from silence, and ignoring tradition, #4 is "most" likely.

The museum will house a dedicated genealogy center powered by FamilySearch. Tracing black slave genealogy in North America is historically difficult. FamilySearch has spent years digitizing millions of historic records including the Freedmen’s Bureau records, to help African American families discover their ancestral lines. Partnering with the museum it is hoped to expand that research effort.

It looks like you're making an error by trying to artificially sever Abraham 3 from Abraham 4 and ignoring how the literary narrative flows across these chapters. The exact word "gods" appears in Abraham 4, Abraham 4:1 is the direct narrative continuation of Abraham 3:24–28. Who is the "we" in Abraham 3:24? The Lord and "those who were with him" (the noble and great spirits). Who is the "they" in Abraham 4:1? The antecedent to "they" in 4:1 is literally the group that agreed to go down in 3:24. Abraham 4:1 explicitly defines the antecedent, "and they, that is the Gods..." Abraham 4:1 is giving the structural title ("the gods") to the council of spirits ("we") introduced at the end of Abraham 3. You seem to be playing an "all-or-nothing" game by insisting that if a group called elohim in Psalm 82 does not currently possess 100% of the attributes of a fully exalted, perfected, resurrected god in D&C 132, then they cannot be considered real divine beings at all. In ancient Near Eastern Hebrew thought as well as in LDS theology a "god" is simply the category of heavenly/divine status or office, and not an "all-or-nothing" list of attributes. In biblical Hebrew, gods are not all defined as beings who are omnipotent or immutable. When Moses is called an elohim he is not all powerful, yet he is not a false elohim either, is he? D&C 132:19–20 describes the final, perfected state of resurrected exaltation, it is not describing every elohim in scripture. The elohim of Psalm 82 DO possess real divine status and authority, as it explicitly calls them "gods" and "children of the Most High". They are divine sons sitting in the assembly of God in heaven. They were given administrative authority and domain over nations (cf Deut 32:8, LXX/DSS). That is real, delegated authority over lower domains. They lose their status (Psalm 82:7), but you cannot fall from a divine status you never had in the first place. Their loss of permanency is a late judgment, not proof that they were mere mortal humans or non-divine all along. If these beings were just ordinary mortals or non-divine figures with zero real divine standing, saying "ye are gods" and "ye shall die like men" makes no sense. Do any of these possess "all power" or absolute post-resurrection perfection? No. Yet the Hebrew text calls them elohim and sons. D&C 132 outlines the end result, faithful new sons who become new elohim to replace them.

Justice and mercy are connected, because the human idea of justice is often limited or flawed, which is why we might prefer a more perfect and wise Judge untangle it all. True justice isn't just about punishment. After all, what is justice for someone who was wronged or falsely accused, justice is mercy and vindication. It can mean restoring what was lost or fixing what is broken. Earth often seems serendipitous, I think It mostly is serendipitous. Meaning events are not always because God caused it, but because we live in an imperfect world where free will and earthly randomness does happen. Rather than viewing our heartbreak as 'God's plan' and forcing ourselves to call it good, maybe faith is believing the truth that its bad or otherwise not God's will, but rather that God has the ability to ultimately repair, heal, and set right everything that went wrong. That the story isn't finished until both justice and mercy have its day.