Brigham Young?

[Alan]

 

Alan, I would love to see any actual evidence that this all occurred.

 

Why? Would it change your mind?

[K-2]

Could you at least provide a link to the thread you mentioned above?

[ALarson]

CFR Alan.

 

I want to see the proof you have that all records and journals were altered (most especially William Clayton's).

[KevinG]

What's interesting is while our leaders still claim they desire this, the membership at large doesn't do this and there are teachings against this too:

 

We can't have it both ways.  Do we trust our eternal destiny to our leaders who have done the thinking already or do we think for ourselves and inquire of God?  What if we get a different answer?  Do we assume it's wrong? 

 

There is a lot of pavement between the curbs of "think for yourself" and "speak against".

 

In leadership positions I try to seek counsel and encourage others to come to me with concerns, especially the sisters who are often reticent to speak up.  

 

As long as the members understand we are each a voice among many and don't get our egos wrapped up in our own revelations and opinions being the final word, there is great power in counsels.  This is the way the Priesthood works.  I have often communicated an idea to a Bishop or Quorum president, then sustained their final decision knowing I had a voice, but also understanding it was their place to make the final call.

[Alan]

 

CFR Alan.

 

I want to see the proof you have that all records and journals were altered (most especially William Clayton's).

 

I'm sure you do.

Proof would solve everything and there would be no need to debate these issues.

Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world. However, the fact that history revision was so rife at this time at least opens the possibility that it occured. Therefore, it creates a possible doubt or weakness in the argument and opens up other considerations.

We know for a fact that there are statements in the History Of The Church which were changed to alter meaning. One statement by Joseph Smith denouncing polygamy for example was altered to read as if he was supporting it! But you will likely know that if you have studied this subject.

If there was proof my friend, it would have been exploited by now, on both sides of the debate.

In a previous thread I was challenged to prove Joseph was not a polygamist. I cannot and I never claimed I could. And it is notoriously difficult to prove a negative. When I counter-challenged participants to prove he was a polygamist they couldn't do it either. Especially when the requirement for proof was limited to contemporary (ie. Nauvoo up to 1844) sources. However, there are well known contemporary sources detailing Joseph's public opposition to polygamy, flatly denying that he had anything to do with it, and proclaiming he would go to court to prove all those who claimed otherwise liars and purjurers.

So for me this distills down to a very simple question. Was Joseph a liar or a truth-teller? If he was lying on this and other occasions then I/we have a problem. Perhaps he was also lying about the priesthood, or the plates, the first vision and so on. How do we know when and where he was telling the truth and when he wasn't?

However, if I/we take the view that he can be trusted to be truthful, then I/we have to admit that he did not practice polygamy - for that is what he publicly claimed.

Unless I am missing something, these two positions are the only ones available without creating all kinds of mental gymnastics or cognitive dissonance.

Therefore, having weighed the evidence I have come to the belief that Joseph was not a practicing polygamist (this position is contrary to my original view). I believe that is an honourable position and one that I have arrived at honestly and with an open mind.

I don't understand why it rattles so many cages.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Alan

[ALarson]

 

 

I'm sure you do.

Proof would solve everything and there would be no need to debate these issues.

Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world. 

Hey Alan, thanks for the honest response.  I sincerely would have enjoyed looking at any evidence you have that William Clayton's diaries (or other records and journals) have been altered or back written.  

 

You have every right to believe that Joseph Smith did not live polygamy but as proof you state there are no contemporary writings that discussed his polygamy.  Then when you're supplied with many examples of actual contemporary writings, you claim that they've been altered.  Now you admit no evidence exists that this happened.  I'm sorry, but that's not very convincing.

 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  But, thanks again for your reply.

[Coreyb]

If he wasn't a polygamist than he was an adulterer with Fanny Alger. You cant dismiss those accounts as being later doctored, especially the accusation by Oliver Cowdery and the admission of it by Emma. So if he was a "truth teller" by denouncing polygamy, he was also an adulterer, and the two don't seem to go hand in hand.   pick

Edited February 7, 2014 by Coreyb

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[ALarson]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61120-contemporary-evidence-of-josephs-polygamy/

 

Alan's only "evidence" that Clayton fabricated diary entries years after-the-fact is that Alan did this to his own missionary journals and thinks this was common practice among nineteenth-century diarists.

Exactly. And as Alan stated above, no evidence exists that Clayton's (and other's) diaries or journals have been altered.

[Lachoneus]

It wasn't just an opinion held by Brigham, nor a misquote because he had one of the Apostles disciplined and thrown out of the church for refusing to believe it.

 

 

CFR that Brigham Young ever had any Apostle "disciplined and thrown out of the church" for refusing to believe Adam-God.

[JLHPROF]

CFR that Brigham Young ever had any Apostle "disciplined and thrown out of the church" for refusing to believe Adam-God.

 

 

Orson Pratt, an apostle, was almost excommunicated for opposing Adam-God doctrine: Minutes of Meeting of Council of the Twelve in Historian’s Office; April 5, 1860, Brigham Young Papers, Church Historian’s office.

http://www.adamgod.com/evidence/1860-04-04-minutes.html (would have been an awesome meeting to witness)

http://www.adamgod.com/evidence/1860-04-05-minutes.html

and

In late 1890, 1891, 1892, Bishop Edward Bunker Jr. and his father, Edward Bunker Sr. of Bunkerville, Utah, and his counselor Myron Abbot were before church courts. The Bunkers denied Adam-God doctrine; Abbott accepted it. The final High Council Court was held June 11, 1892, and was attended by President Wilford Woodruff and his first counselor, George Q. Cannon. In summary, the Bunkers had their hands slapped for advancing false doctrine and “indulging in mysteries.” Bunker Sr. was advised “to let these things alone.” Abbott, who supported Adam-God doctrine, was cautioned to not become “puffed up in pride” over the victory. See Adam-God Maze, pp. 215-238

 

and of course Brigham did threaten to "box Orson's ears" till he accepted the doctrine. 

Edited February 7, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Stone holm]

I have seen people make this statement repeatedly, but have never heard an explanation for why they believe this. It just appears as though they are parroting a statement they have heard somewhere (usually for political reasons).

Incidentally I disagree, the failure comes from people's actions while in a cooperative environment and not from the actions that placed them in that environment.

As an example let's suppose that the prophet wishes to reinstitute the united order (on a limited basis). People are extended a call to enter into it. None of them would have voluntarily done so otherwise. Regardless of their views beforehand if they all buy in and work hard together it will be successful.

The same would be true if a secular government mandated its practice. Even if it wasn't voluntary if everyone buys in and does their part it will be successful.

Success and failure is not measured by the situations we are placed in, but by how we respond to those situations.

-guerreiro9

I believe that the cooperative colonies were in some cases a lot more successful than we give them credit for, but had to be dissolved because of the federal persecution of polygamy. You don't hear a lot of bad mouthing of the Israeli Kibbutz movement. I do not see any reason why the Church should refrain from starting to experiment again with small colonies.

[Coreyb]

I believe that the cooperative colonies were in some cases a lot more successful than we give them credit for, but had to be dissolved because of the federal persecution of polygamy. You don't hear a lot of bad things mouthing of the Israeli Kibbutz movement. I do not see any reason why the Church should refrain from starting to experiment again with small colonies.

I think that it would be hard to convince the church's conservative base to go for that. It's to communist

[Calm]

I think that it would be hard to convince the church's conservative base to go for that. It's to communist

The ones I knew so committed to the idea that they were joining a community based on a particular interpretation of the United Order and the Constitution were actually among some of the most conservative members I've known. I suspect a little research on those who are preparing for tent cities would bear this out.

[Stone holm]

I think that it would be hard to convince the church's conservative base to go for that. It's to communist

We are kind of into deferring any attempts until the Millenium. Its kind of what would you call it an inconvenient truth. But I believe that certain parts of this country are sort of already primed for another colony attempt, we certainly have enough bright young people who are graduating to no particularly good economic future right now and we have whole swathes of urban areas ripe for the plucking to start urban colonies. Detroit for one, let alone some stable third world countries. Interesting that the Israelis would be the best example right now.

[K-2]

From the Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844, page 2:

 

Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many other official characters in the Church of Jesus Christ, (conceiving it a duty incumbent upon us so to bear,) and having labored with them repeatedly with all Christian love, meekness and humility, yet to no effect, feel as if forbearance has ceased to be a virtue, and hope of reformation vain; and inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe, and his liability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity, the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of sheding innocent blood....

 

[Stone holm]

From the Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844, page 2:

Point being?

[K-2]

Stone holm, point being that here is evidence that Joseph Smith taught not only polygamy but that "the God of this universe" is liable "to fall with all his creations." That sounds a bit more like the Fall of Adam to me than just teaching that God can cease to be God through disobedience to law.

[K-2]

In the Warsaw Message, Vol. 1, No. 47, February 7, 1844, in the poem "Buckey's Lamentations for the Want of More Wives" we find this:

 

                   5.
A TENFOLD glory -- that's the prize!
    Without it you're undone!
But with it you will shine as bright
    As the bright shining sun.
There you may shine like mighty Gods,
    Creating worlds so fair --
At least a WORLD for every WIFE
    That you take with you there.

                   6.
The man that has got ten fair wives,
    TEN worlds may create;
And he that has got less than this,
    Will find a bitter fate.
The one or two that he might have,
    He'll be deprived of then;
And they'll be given as TALENTS were
    To him who has got TEN.

 

The idea of creating a world, then taking a wife there with you is very similar to the Adam-God idea, if not exactly the same. This shows that the idea was understood to be taught in Nauvoo by Joseph Smith. Brigham Young, a close associate of Joseph Smith, would later teach that people in his audience would be Adams and Eves to other worlds. Not that they would go to other worlds and have physical children who would fill those roles, but that they themselves would fill them. This is not incompatible with the teachings attributed to Joseph Smith in the above poem.

Edited February 10, 2014 by K-2

[K-2]

From Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 158, also JD 6:238:

 

Our Savior speaks of children and says, “Their angels always stand before my Father.” The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others.

 

 

From Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 157:

 

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

 

 

Another interesting quote from Joseph Smith that sounds similar to Adam-God:

 

HOW WAS THE WORLD INHABITED?

On one occasion when Brother Joseph [smith] was cutting wood, there came to him some brethren and I was among them. We said, ‘Brother Joseph, we have some questions to ask, and we will cut your wood while you answer them’ ‘all right’, said Joseph, and we went into the house. Joseph placed his arms across his knees, bent over as if in meditation, and then said, ‘now for your questions.’ We said to him; ‘what about the creation of the world; how was it inhabited?’ Joseph answered and said; ‘I will tell you how it was. You and I were in the spirit world at the grand council, and there we were spirits together. We saw and heard that council, and heard them talk of formation of the world and we were among those when the morning stars sang together and when the sons of God shouted for joy. We were among those who had more courage than others and therefore we came down here and took bodies. Some who did not have the courage said, ‘Father, we have fought Satan face to face here in the spirit world and helped to cast him down there and now to go down and fight him again face to face, we are afraid we shall never return to thy presence and would prefer a less degree of glory and go some other of your creations where we are sure of returning.’ ‘Yes, you and I had more courage and came down here of our own agency and choice.’ Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet – an immortalized being and brought his wife, eve, with him, and by eating of the fruits of this earth became subject to death and decay and he became of the earth earthly, was made mortal and subject to death. 12th Ch. Rev. 7 and on.

(Reflections of John M. Whitaker, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU, Call # Mar. M270.1 W58r, also J. Willard Marriott Library, Special Collections, University of Utah, John M. Whitaker Papers, Box 27, folder 11)

 

Edited February 10, 2014 by K-2

[Alan]

If he wasn't a polygamist than he was an adulterer with Fanny Alger. You cant dismiss those accounts as being later doctored, especially the accusation by Oliver Cowdery and the admission of it by Emma. So if he was a "truth teller" by denouncing polygamy, he was also an adulterer, and the two don't seem to go hand in hand.   pick

 

You are obviously unaware that the accusation regarding Fanny Algar has been seriously brought into question.

Incidently, just as an aside, why is it impossible for Joseph to have been adulterer? Moses was a killer and so was Nephi, as was Paul to a certain degree. David was both, the list goes on; so why do we apply a standard to Joseph which is clearly at variance with the scriptural record?

It won't surprise you to learn that I don't believe that Joseph was married to Fanny. She was sent away pregnant (she was living with Emma and Joseph at the time) and it has long been claimed that her child was Joseph's. DNA examination has now proved that this is not the case. So who was the father? Well, I can't find the reference right now (and I am in a hurry) but church records indicate there was a young man disciplined for the sin of fornication with a young girl at the time. Coincidence? Maybe.......... or maybe not.

 

The other issue of course is that the so-called marriage occured before the restoration of the sealing keys.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Alan

[Alan]

From the Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844, page 2:

 

 

I just think it's ironic that those of the view that Joseph practiced polygamy use anti-Mormon and and anti-Joseph documents to support their point.

In years to come perhaps Tom Phillips statements will be used to "prove" Pres. Monson was a fraudster.

[Stone holm]

I just think it's ironic that those of the view that Joseph practiced polygamy use anti-Mormon and and anti-Joseph documents to support their point.

In years to come perhaps Tom Phillips statements will be used to "prove" Pres. Monson was a fraudster.

Why would you believe that Joseph didn't practice what he preached? Are you that intent on throwing Brigham under the bus?

[K-2]

We [Emily and Eliza Partridge] were sealed in her [Emma Smith’s] presence with her full and free consent.  It was the 11th of May, but before the day was over she turned around or repented of what she had done and kept Joseph up till very late in the night talking to him.  She kept close watch of us.  If we were missing for a few minutes, and Joseph was not at home, the house was searched from top to bottom and from one end to the other, and if we were not found, the neighborhood was searched until we were found.

(Emily Dow Partridge Young, “Incidents in the early life of Emily Dow partridge,” MS d 2845, fd 1, pg. 5, LDS Church Archives; also in J. Willard Marriott Library, Univ of Utah, Special Collections)

 

[Coreyb]

You are obviously unaware that the accusation regarding Fanny Algar has been seriously brought into question.

Incidently, just as an aside, why is it impossible for Joseph to have been adulterer? Moses was a killer and so was Nephi, as was Paul to a certain degree. David was both, the list goes on; so why do we apply a standard to Joseph which is clearly at variance with the scriptural record?

How has it been brought into question? Joseph iii remembered his mother admit that it happened. I am not saying that the could not be an adulterer, just that truth teller and adulterer usually aren't compatible. And what is worse, an adulterous prophet or a polygamous prophet? Adultery seems to be the greater sin. Your idea that he was not a polygamist just gets you into a harder position.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Coreyb