One Nation Under Gods

[Tsuzuki]

Why, thank you kind sir!

No problem.

[Bernard Gui]

You waste my time. I was not a blatant misuse. I explained the nuances of the statement and why one aspect of it doesn't utterly cancel out the other part of it. You don't care to listen. That's fine. You have the truth in your hands. I wish you the best. You'll be held accountable.

Gee. And just a while ago you were so happy to get this correction.

If you can't handle the criticism, don't write abysmal books.

My question still stands...

Did you see this reference and read the entire talk yourself, or

did you just crib it from the Tanners? I suspect I know the answer.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Poltgamy as a PRACTICE was prohibited by "The Manifesto" in 1890 (although initially, IMHO, it was likely a ruse to simply get Utah statehood, but afterward, when LDS leadership couldn't figure out a way to re-impose polygamy, it just sort of stuck).

Then you know nothing about the Manifesto.

Very interesting, BTW, is how even after the so-called revelation from God on polygamy that prohibited it (i.e., "The Manifesto"), numerous Mormons, including high ranking leaders continued to practice it and lied about it to the government.

As strongly as they believed in the principle, this should surprise no one, nor do I fault them for it.

Now, as for today, Mormons still condone and honor polygmay as a PRINCIPLE -- not only as a godly practice in the past, but one that will likely be praCticed in spirit realm. For example, Harold B. Lee (d. 1973), LDS 11th president, who remarried after the death of his wife, seemed to look forward to a polygamous life in "heaven." I love this poem he wrote -- its not very subtle, that's for sure:

Knowing Harold B. Lee as our prophet, and having been acquainted with members of his immediate family, I can rightly confirm

that love abounded and your statement that love between partners was absent is false.

My lovely Joan was sent to me:

So Joan joins fern

That three my be,

more fitted for eternity.

"O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee."

You know, I could say so much more here, but I'll stop.....

And just as well. Since I was able to see Pres. Lee and his family up close and personal, any attempt

to besmirch him or his family would reduce your credibility from its current zero into negative numbers.

So, let me just add that for the here and now on earth, well, today's Mormon males are just out of luck. They only get one, , but there are some ways of getting more for the afterlife, as we can see from Lee's little poem. And also as LDS president, Joseph Fielding Smith (d. 1972), remarked after he, too, remarried: "my wives will be mine in eternity."

Your implication that Mormon men want to have sex with multiple women and that that is what polygamy

is all about is both puerile and defamatory. You should think twice before making such scurrilous comments.

This all, of course, relates to the whole issue of continuing procreation in the afterlife as a God....and that, of course, is another matter worthy of a completely new thread.

Please, spare us the agony.

For an in-depth look at LDS polygamy, from its inception during Mormonism's early days (c. 1840-ish to 1843), to its public LDS acknowledgment of it out of the closet, so to speak (c. 1851), through the years immediately following "The Manifesto" (c. 1890 - 1920s), see One Nation Under Gods, chapters 13 & 14 & 15 (pp. 281-328, paperback).

Included in the so-called in-depth look, be prepared to search long and hard for kernels of truth amid the heaps

of garbage Abanes dumped on the chapter. Start with the name of the chapter, "Unholy Matrimony," and it only

get worse from there.

Abanes' quote following the chapter title is:

"We shall pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and make them swallow Mormonism, polygamy and all."

Brigham Young (1875)

Here is FAIR's response:

FAIR has been unable to find a legitimate source for this purported quotation from Brigham Young. It was quoted at the Reed Smoot hearing report, but the source is only given as E.A. Folk, editor of the Baptist and Reflector, a Nashville, Tennessee paper published by the Tennessee Baptist association.[1]

A citation generally given for Brigham Young's remarks is from the Church's English publication: "The Manifesto," Millennial Star 52 (24 Nov. 1890): 744.

However, an examination of this reference shows no sign of the quote in question—see PDF scan of the original here.

Later authors have continued to repeat the "quotation" from Brigham, and provide the citation to the Millenial Star in their footnotes. However, these authors do not seem to have verified the original. They are likely simply repeating the claim from previous authors without checking:

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003), 281. Dan Erickson, "As a Thief in the Night": The Mormon Quest for Millennial Deliverance (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1998), chapter 8, footnote 118.

Since the Smoot Committee hearings "quotation" of Brigham came from an apostate Mormon, it's possible that this witness provided false testimony (either unwittingly or intentionally). The prestige of a U.S. Congressional document has led subsequent writers to trust this witnesses' account without verifying the source for themselves.

Conclusion

As far as FAIR's researchers can determine, this quotation is a fabrication. We cannot locate it in any LDS source, and those non-LDS sources who provide a reference are in error.

If any reader has further information, please contact us. At present, however, the best assumption seems to be that the quote is a fabrication or distortion.

Endnotes [back] See "Baptist and Reflector," rootsweb.com (accessed 15 December 2007). off-site The Smoot Hearing report cites this author with his editorial title in volume 1, page 15.

Richard, please produce the source of this quote for all to see. If you can't, then retract it.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

1. I know what ameliorate means.

2. For all practical purposes, what it ultimately ends up meaning (when used as Bernard used it) is that polygamy was/is just fine, hence, effectiively canceling out the horrors of polygamy that Kimball begrudgingly touched upon -- because, well, someone had to bring it up and say sometihng to address the problem (read what was going on back then).

This is absolute and irrefutable proof that you have not read Kimball's discourse. You just cribbed it from

the Tanners. Is this true about the rest of your book? Sadly, it appears to be so.

I did not use ameliorate as you falsely suggest, but as per its true meaning. I chose it very carefully

because it fit the situation perfectly.

Bernard

[Somebodyz]

Oh, I see. So in order to prove that one is not a hateful "anti-Mormon," they must vanish -- never to be heard from again. Hmmm, that might be a job for the Danites. Too bad it's still not the 1800s in Nauvoo.

RA

wow you are rude.

Personally,I wouldn't complain if you vanished, your posts are so insulting and hate filled. But I wouldn't wish you harm.

[rabanes]

The analogy still doesn't fit ...unless you are trying to draw a connection between occultism and fornication and alcohol. Is this what you're trying to do, ****?

Uncalled for......no more. How rude and childish. And why exactly did the moderators censor this quote by me of Tsuzuki, while Tsuzuki's original offensive dig is left untouched? Odd.

[rabanes]

Did you see this reference and read the entire talk yourself, or

did you just crib it from the Tanners? I suspect I know the answer.

I suspect you didn't even bother reading my reply. I answered this. Yes. I often wonder what in the world......oh, nevermind.

RA

[Tsuzuki]

Uncalled for......no more.

I accept your apology.

[Somebodyz]

I accept your apology.

[Tsuzuki]

How rude and childish. And why exactly did the moderators censor this quote by me of Tsuzuki, while Tsuzuki's original offensive dig is left untouched? Odd.

You should be proud of your name. It's a good name.

[rabanes]

You should be proud of your name. It's a good name.

It's not my name. And you know it. Stop being silly, rude, and juvenile. C'mon T.

RA

[Tsuzuki]

It's not my name. And you know it. Stop being silly, rude, and juvenile. C'mon T.

RA

Does this mean you apologize for accusing me of drunken fornication by proxy?

[rabanes]

Does this mean you apologize for accusing me of drunken fornication by proxy

I never accused you of that. Can you really not see what I did. You seem like a sharp guy, and I can't believe you'd miss it.

I was simply drawing an analogy-illustration between one type of sin/behavior/practice that a church member might ignore (fornication/excessive drinking) and another type of sin/behavior that a church member might ignore (prohibitions against the occult/magick). In both instances such sin/behavior should not excused, justified, allowed.

It's the LDS church that is always taking so much about obedience to the gospel, clean living, and good works/right living. My point was -- Why treat any specific sins (prohibited behavior) differently than other sins (prohibited behavior)? The response here to a person who says what you've said about occult/magick should be the same the response given to a person who might come to this board and say similar things about fornication/getting drunk. It was an illustration of an apparent inconsistency.

Seriously, did I really need to explain all that?

RA

[Tsuzuki]

I never accused you of that. Can you really not see what I did. You seem like a sharp guy, and I can't believe you'd miss it.

I was simply drawing an analogy-illustration between one type of sin/behavior/practice that a church member might ignore (fornication/excessive drinking) and another type of sin/behavior that a church member might ignore (prohibitions against the occult/magick). In both instances such sin/behavior should not excused, justified, allowed.

It's the LDS church that is always taking so much about obedience to the gospel, clean living, and good works/right living. My point was -- Why treat any specific sins (prohibited behavior) differently than other sins (prohibited behavior)? The response here to a person who says what you've said about occult/magick should be the same the response given to a person who might come to this board and say similar things about fornication/getting drunk. It was an illustration of an apparent inconsistency.

Seriously, did I really need to explain all that?

RA

You have yet to show that everything under the umbrella term, "occultism", is sinful. You have also not addressed any of my arguments in favor of it in fact being connected to righteousness. Furthermore, your use of my user name, even in a modified form, for your fictional character can be taken as an accusation.

[rabanes]

... your use of my user name, even in a modified form, for your fictional character can be taken as an accusation.

No, not really. That'd be ridiculous. The fictional illustration/analogy was clear.

RA

[Tsuzuki]

No, not really. That'd be ridiculous. The fictional illustration/analogy was clear.

RA

Much like my use of the nick name, then.

Regardless, you have still not addressed my points. How long are you going to ignore them in favor of false premises?

"To magnetize without danger, it is essential to have within oneself the light of life, that is to say it is necessary to be wise and righteous."

- Eliphas Levi,

The Great Secret

"God in the world means order and authority; it is Satan who stands for disorder and anarchy. Why is it not only permissible but even glorious to resist a tyrant? It is because the tyrant is an anarchist who has usurped power. Do you wish to fight victoriously against evil? Be the personification of what is good. Do you want to conquer anarchy? Be the arm of authority. Do you want to chain up Satan? Be the power of God."

- Eliphas Levi,

The Great Secret

"To magnetize without danger, it is essential to have within oneself the light of life, that is to say it is necessary to be wise and righteous."

- Eliphas Levi,

The Great Secret

"Everything that is true is beautiful. The only vanity under the sun is error and falsehood. Even pain and death are beautiful, because they are the work which purifies and the transfiguration which delivers. The fleeting forms are true because they are manifestations of the power and beauty of the eternal. Love is true. Woman is holy and her conception is immaculate. True knowledge never deceives; reasonable faith is not an illusion. A cheerful, sympathetic laugh is an act of faith, hope and charity. To go in dread of God is to fail to recognize Him; it is only error which should be dreaded. A man may do anything he wants to do when all he wants to do is justice. He may even, if he so wishes, rush into wrongdoing but he will be dashed to pieces if he does. God reveals Himself to man, in man and by man. His true worship is Charity. Dogmas and rites alter and succeed one another; charity does not change and its power is eternal.

There is only one sole and veritable power on earth as there is in Heaven: it is that of goodness. The righteous are the only masters of the world. The world is in upheaval when they suffer. It is transformed when they die. The oppression of justice is the compression of a force far more terrible than that of high explosives. It is not the masses who raise revolutions, but the kings. The just person is inviolable, woe to him who would touch him! The Caesars have fallen to cinders, burnt by the blood of the martyrs. Whatever a righteous man wishes is approved by God. Whatever a righteous man writes, God signs, and it is an everlasting testament."

- Eliphas Levi,

The Great Secret

"By the Waters of Babylon we have sat down and wept, but we have ever remembered Zion, and that Memorial is a Witness testifying that we shall yet return with exultation into the House of our Father. [. . .] Let us work, therefore, my Brethren and effect righteousness, because the Night cometh. Wherein no man shall labour."

- Golden Dawn ceremony of the Equinox

These are all ideas found in occultism.

What is it exactly you are fighting against? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you are fighting against righteousness in favor of self-righteousness, but it would be nice to hear it from you.

I'm not saying you have to embrace anything from occultism, and a belief that the Bible forbids it (which I do not share, by the way) is a legitimate reason not to, but that is no excuse for demonizing it as a body of knowledge or those those who wish to pursue it. Believe it or not, but it is possible to be an honest Christian occultist.

[Tsuzuki]

Hello? I see you posting stuff. Why are you ignoring this?

[MormonMason]

Uncalled for......no more. How rude and childish. And why exactly did the moderators censor this quote by me of Tsuzuki, while Tsuzuki's original offensive dig is left untouched? Odd.

There is an autobot in the message board software that censors certain words based upon their context. However, the software is not fool-proof. The mods had nothing to do with it, so far as I am aware.

By the way, the name, Dick, is the short form of Richard. It is colloquial in usage but I am sure that there are those who can assure you that it is a short form of your name. Blame English culture, not Tzusuki.

By the way, I know a fellow named Richard who also is called Dick as a nickname, and has no problem with it. Then there is Dick Baer, whose actual given name is Richard Baer. For some reason he has been referred to in various publications as Dick Baer, and seems to have preferred the name rather than his own given name. There is nothing wrong with that name. It is a legitimate shortform nickname for one named Richard.

Oh, I see. Did you take it the wrong way. If so, I think that you need to keep your mind out of the gutter. Too many chapters like the one you wrote on plural marriage starting to affect you, perhaps? I suggest that you leave off from that subject for a while.

[Tsuzuki]

There is an autobot in the message board software that censors certain words based upon their context.

[MormonMason]

Yeah, that's one of them...

[rabanes]

By the way, the name, ****, is the short form of Richard. It is colloquial in usage but I am sure that there are those who can assure you that it is a short form of your name. Blame English culture, not Tzusuki. By the way, I know a fellow named Richard who also is called **** as a nickname, and has no problem with it. Then there is **** Baer, whose actual given name is Richard Baer.

You must think I am an absolute, total, certified idiot. Either that, or you think you are terrifically funny and clever. Hmmmm, sorry, but in reality, it's no on both counts. But enjoy your game. And Happy Thanksgiving.

RA

Pahoran = ignore button

Tsuzuki = ignore button

[Nemesis]

Oh, yeah. Thanks for the reminder. I absolutely apologize. I should have typed, and meant to type, "ttribefictionaltoon," but I accidentally left it just ttribe. It was supposed to match my Tsuzkifictiontoon rewrite for illustration purposes. I tried to go back into that thread and change things, but the thread was locked. Here is the updated version:

RA:

I actually assumed that if you as LDS in good standing saw someone delving into an area as dark as the occult, which church leaders have warned its members about, you'd WANT to offer correction and bring back an erring brother who is seemingly going in a very troublesome and potentially spiritually dangerous direction. Would you say the same of fornication? Would you say the same of using God's name in vain? How about R-rated, oh heck, X-rated movies? What about breaking the Word of Wisdom if someone were a temple Mormon? Let's change the specifics a bit and see what we come up with

Tsuzkifictiontoon:

I am a Mormon in good standing, and while I have not yet been through the temple, that is one of my immediate goals. . . . And yes, I do watch pornography, embrace premarital sex, and usually practice sex while drunk (but only beer/wine). It should also be noted that there are other Mormon fornicators who watch porn and get drunk, who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them.

ttribefictionaltoon:

Tsuzkifictiontoon is a known quantity as an outlier around here in terms of his broad interpretation of sexual practice (whatever the conditions). However, it is not our place to start "correcting" him for his interpretations. First, like I said before, it is between him, God, and his leadership (i.e. Bishop and Stake President). Second, this board has rules against "calls for repentance."

There, feel better????

RA

Knock it off, we do not allow posters to one name call, two to misquote on this board.

[rabanes]

Knock it off, we do not allow posters to one name call, two to misquote on this board.

Sorry of this illlustration makes a point you don't like. Moreover, allow me to say:

1. I have called no one a name. Although others here have called me names, and oddly, it's remained unedited, last I looked.

2. I have misquoted no one since the names associated with the mock-dialogue are fictitious, as is the dialogue. And it is used to make a point.

In other words, there is nothing to "knock" off.

RA

[Somebodyz]

You must think I am an absolute, total, certified idiot.

Well now that you mention it.

[Tsuzuki]

Since our good friend is officially sticking his fingers in his ears in regard to me, could someone else relay this message?

2. I have misquoted no one since the names associated with the mock-dialogue are fictitious,

Then why are mine and ttribe's names a part of them?

By the way, you have still yet to address any of my points, which I suspect is the real reason why you've put me on ignore. Imagine someone doing this in a live debate.