Nytimes: "it's Official: Mormon Founder Had Up To 40 Wives"

[rockpond]

I disagree.  There is a false doctrine that many seem to believe that once upon the other side of the veil it will be "Me and Christ and nobody else".

There will always be many people above you on the ladder and many people below you on the ladder.

I firmly believe that just as "no man cometh to the father except by me" also "no man cometh to the son except through his priesthood head".  And for this dispensation that's Joseph Smith.

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this statement so don't consider this a "challenge" or a CFR.  I am just wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing your scriptural justifications for such a conclusion.

 

If JS is there as a gatekeeper when I get to the other side, I have no concerns with how I have upheld him, during my life, as the prophet of the restoration.  And I have no qualms in asking him about his practice of polygamy.  In fact, my first question (on the subject, not necessarily my first question) would be if he did or did not make that statement to William Marks regarding the curse of polygamy.

[JLHPROF]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this statement so don't consider this a "challenge" or a CFR.  I am just wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing your scriptural justifications for such a conclusion.

 

If JS is there as a gatekeeper when I get to the other side, I have no concerns with how I have upheld him, during my life, as the prophet of the restoration.  And I have no qualms in asking him about his practice of polygamy.  In fact, my first question (on the subject, not necessarily my first question) would be if he did or did not make that statement to William Marks regarding the curse of polygamy.

 

Well, the exact doctrine is not taught in scripture, only alluded to.  The exact doctrine was taught by the prophet and apostles.

 

Exact doctrine - esp. Parley P. Pratt quote

 

Also see most of the temple:

""Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell."- Brigham Young

 

We see the example in the Church - your worthiness to enter the temple (the House of God) is first judged by your Bishop (your immediate priesthood head), then by the Stake Presidency (the next level of priesthood).  Why would the actual residence of God be any different?

 

Scriptural Allusions

 

D&C 132:19 "and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

This establishes that there will be multiple angels and gods for us to pass on our way to exaltation.

 

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

This shows one of the steps in this path - we cannot get to God without passing by Christ.

 

Luke 22:30 "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

This shows that the apostles judge Israel before Christ passes final judgement.

 

D&C 78:16 "Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life."

This shows that Michael/Adam also holds the keys to salvation for all men.  This implies he will hold some authority over us pertaining to our receiving salvation.  Yet another sentinel.

 

 

Without any doubt in my mind there will be many judges, sentinels, and stages to pass before we enter the presence of Christ.  And I don't think we will be able to stand before any sentinel, whether Adam, Peter or Joseph Smith and not acknowledge their position and priesthood and expect to walk past them into the presence of Christ and God.

Christ is the final judge - that's scripture.  But you don't get to start at the finale.

[rockpond]

Well, the exact doctrine is not taught in scripture, only alluded to.  The exact doctrine was taught by the prophet and apostles.

 

Exact doctrine - esp. Parley P. Pratt quote

 

Also see most of the temple:

""Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell."- Brigham Young

 

We see the example in the Church - your worthiness to enter the temple (the House of God) is first judged by your Bishop (your immediate priesthood head), then by the Stake Presidency (the next level of priesthood).  Why would the actual residence of God be any different?

 

Scriptural Allusions

 

D&C 132:19 "and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

This establishes that there will be multiple angels and gods for us to pass on our way to exaltation.

 

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

This shows one of the steps in this path - we cannot get to God without passing by Christ.

 

Luke 22:30 "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

This shows that the apostles judge Israel before Christ passes final judgement.

 

D&C 78:16 "Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life."

This shows that Michael/Adam also holds the keys to salvation for all men.  This implies he will hold some authority over us pertaining to our receiving salvation.  Yet another sentinel.

 

 

Without any doubt in my mind there will be many judges, sentinels, and stages to pass before we enter the presence of Christ.  And I don't think we will be able to stand before any sentinel, whether Adam, Peter or Joseph Smith and not acknowledge their position and priesthood and expect to walk past them into the presence of Christ and God.

Christ is the final judge - that's scripture.  But you don't get to start at the finale.

 

Thanks for sharing that.  Very interesting.

[cinepro]

This Is the Place Heritage Park is not a Church-operated facility.

 

The Lion House is not a place where you go to learn about history. It is essentially a restaurant and reception center. I'm not surprised nobody mentions polygamy there, or anything about history, for that matter. Who would you expect to do it? Food servers? Cashiers?

 

I've actually learned quite a bit about the history of Mexico from eating at El Torito.  Just last week, my server gave me a quick lecture on the influence of the Catholic Church during the Mexican pre-colonial period as I was ordering some chicken nachos.  My kids were also given a fun placemat with a word-search for all the Mexican Presidents from 1940-1988.  We never did find Portillo.

Edited November 14, 2014 by cinepro

[KevinG]

Yes.  She agrees.  We study together and have a testimony that plural marriage came from God by revelation.

Doesn't mean she (or I) would look forward to the difficulties of living it.  Just means we know it came from God.

 

Ditto here.  I'm really amazed at the assumption that supporting the idea that plural marriage was instituted by God implies I don't talk about it with my wife.  That's really insulting, but even more insulting to our sisters, to imply that they cannot conceive of such things.  

 

I talk about everything with my wife.  In fact it was she that taught me many of the details of the principle through the writings and journals of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Young (Smith), as well as other sisters in Zion during that period.  She is the one who revealed to me that she thinks I will be called upon to provide for other women who did not have a chance to have a righteous priesthood holder in their lives.  And she is the one who revealed to me that if we were to be called to live the principle that way again, it would be difficult for her to reconcile the intimacy issues, but quite obvious that it could be a blessing to her in other ways.

 

I did not initiate the discussion about polygamy my wife did.  It was something I had reconciled (or thought I had) when I joined the church.  My wife is the one who pointed out the need for it, and the blessings and sacrifice required of the early Saints.  I was content to remain ignorant of the details, but my testimony of the sacrifice and faith of the early Saints has been strengthened thanks to her research and teaching.

[KevinG]

I find this quite offensive as it poses it as an either or.  Either you live happily with polygamy or be satisfied with not being exalted.  That too me is offensive binary thinking when this issue is way more complicated.

 

Either you accept and live the commandments of God, or be satisfied with not being exalted.

 

I have no qualms with modern Saints who lack a testimony of plural wives.  They are not asked to live it, or required to sustain the principle.

 

I do have issues with modern Saints who are determined to claim the pioneers and prophets were mistaken, wrong or liars about it.  Just as I don't judge my peers for not knowing with certainty about a law that does not apply to them, I don't judge my predecessors harshly knowing nothing about their revelations and conditions for exaltation.  Accusing the first prophet of this dispensation (or first five prophets) of sexual sins cannot be pleasing to God.

[KevinG]

If a restaurant is themed after a family who used to live in its building, it would seem appropriate to both recognize the details of the family that are both interesting and important.  I’d be inclined to honor the wife (wives) of that family on the menu.  The inside-front page could have a couple of paragraphs describing the family, and then menu items could include things like:

 

Miriam’s Meatloaf

Mary Ann’s Angel-Haired Posta

Lucy’s Lasagna

Augusta’s Short Ribs

Harriet’s Halibut

Etc.

 

That would amuse even me, a proponent of plural wives as living a commandment of God.  We ate at this restaurant in West Jordan one time that had a booth dedicated to each of the plural wives of the original owner of the farm where the restaurant was located.  Great bread and good times.

 

Edited- ahh here it is. http://www.gardnervillage.com/archibalds-restaurant

Edited November 14, 2014 by KevinG

[JLHPROF]

I find this quite offensive as it poses it as an either or.  Either you live happily with polygamy or be satisfied with not being exalted.  That too me is offensive binary thinking when this issue is way more complicated.

 

It is not "live happily with polygamy".  It is "accept the laws and commandments of God".

Either you accept the laws and commandments of God and live all you are required to OR you cannot achieve exaltation.

 

You cannot fight God or eternal laws and be exalted - Lucifer proved that pretty well.

There is only one path to exaltation (despite what others may teach).  The path God laid out.

[KevinG]

Context context context...

 

Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character, and office, etc." The man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.  - Brigham Young

 

Read the whole sermon here:  http://www.journalofdiscourses.com/11/41 before you accuse Brigham or any Saint of binary thinking on the matter of accepting polygamy.

Edited November 14, 2014 by KevinG

[JLHPROF]

 

 Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.  - Brigham Young

 

This statement (even ignoring polygamy) is one of the most interesting teachings.  Which blessings can we not deny/refuse if we want our exaltation with the Gods?

I had the opportunity to take out my endowments when I was 19.  My Bishop actually said he felt I should and wanted to arrange it.  I didn't feel ready so I declined.

I went through MANY years of difficulties, struggles, faith issues, before I came put my faith back together and sought out my endowments.

 

I have learned to NEVER refuse a blessing offered from God or one of his servants.  If God or the Prophet asked me to live plural marriage, consecration, or any other law with blessings attached I would no longer think twice.  I have learned what happens when I refuse a blessing the Lord wants me to have.

[KevinG]

This statement (even ignoring polygamy) is one of the most interesting teachings.  Which blessings can we not deny/refuse if we want our exaltation with the Gods?

I had the opportunity to take out my endowments when I was 19.  My Bishop actually said he felt I should and wanted to arrange it.  I didn't feel ready so I declined.

I went through MANY years of difficulties, struggles, faith issues, before I came put my faith back together and sought out my endowments.

 

I have learned to NEVER refuse a blessing offered from God or one of his servants.  If God or the Prophet asked me to live plural marriage, consecration, or any other law with blessings attached I would no longer think twice.  I have learned what happens when I refuse a blessing the Lord wants me to have.

 

I too have demurred when a blessing came with a great price.  I also learned that obedience and sacrifice are a better path than denial and struggle against the Lord.  The righteous will always be tested, even like unto Abraham.  And this is what separates the Saints from the herd. 

[theplains]

Read the whole sermon here:  http://www.journalofdiscourses.com/11/41 before you accuse Brigham or any Saint of binary thinking on the matter of accepting polygamy.

 

I don't think the current LDS Church views all of the JOD as God-inspired.   It seems to

be a pick and choose what you want and deny the rest as opinion or falsehood.

 

Regards,

Jim

[DBMormon]

Either you accept and live the commandments of God, or be satisfied with not being exalted.

 

I have no qualms with modern Saints who lack a testimony of plural wives.  They are not asked to live it, or required to sustain the principle.

 

I do have issues with modern Saints who are determined to claim the pioneers and prophets were mistaken, wrong or liars about it.  Just as I don't judge my peers for not knowing with certainty about a law that does not apply to them, I don't judge my predecessors harshly knowing nothing about their revelations and conditions for exaltation.  Accusing the first prophet of this dispensation (or first five prophets) of sexual sins cannot be pleasing to God.

Have I accused them of sexual sin... just want to be clear?

[JLHPROF]

I don't think the current LDS Church views all of the JOD as God-inspired.   It seems to

be a pick and choose what you want and deny the rest as opinion or falsehood.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Which is utterly ridiculous.  There is no difference between the JOD and the Ensign or the Conference Report.  Both are recorded transcripts of sermons.

True, the stenographer is more capable of error than the video, but any mistakes in shorthand would be unlikely to change a doctrine.

 

No, the Journal of Discourses ARE Church doctrine despite what people argue.  They just aren't currently recognized as such and weren't subject to correlation (thank goodness).

Edited November 15, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Pahoran]

I don't think the current LDS Church views all of the JOD as God-inspired.   It seems to

be a pick and choose what you want and deny the rest as opinion or falsehood.

OTOH, I don't think that current -- or previous -- anti-Mormons have any real idea about what most of the JoD is about; nor, I think, do they care to. The JoD is a very large work of literature -- 26 volumes each of 360 pages -- but the Church's critics are aware of less than 1% of what is in it. They cherry-pick only those excerpts that they can exploit for polemical purposes, and even then, they invariably rip them from their immediate textual context, as well as studiously ignoring -- or actively suppressing -- the relevant historical context.

Also, the excerpts they choose are always a very few, and almost always the same. This rather strongly suggests that they're merely borrowing the same little snippings from each other.

Nor are they above brazenly inventing passages which they then attribute to the JoD, as the late lamented "Reverend" "Dr" Walter R. Martin, the father of the "Christian" countercult, so aptly demonstrated.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited November 15, 2014 by Pahoran

[Calm]

 

 

2.) Joseph Smith - I don't think my acceptance of Moses, Joseph Smith, Noah directly affects my relationship with Christ.  I simply don't think in the next life Christ will say do you accept me as your redeemer?  "yes"  well I can't let you pass unless we get your acceptance on all those I sent.  Do you believe in moses as a prophet? Nope.  Well sorry.  You can't be exalted.  Personally I think it is a non issue.  In that I don't see the periphery issues even being made important in the next life.  Do you accept Christ, are you willing to change, are you willing to press forward? great interview done

 

 

How can someone become one with Christ and all of his family if they refuse to accept some of them as who they are?

 

I am willing to be one with everyone but Joseph Smith, Moses, and Noah….just doesn't sound like something that someone who has his mind on becoming one with God and all that are one with God for exaltation would say.

 

I embrace all who you would have me embrace, God…now that does.

Edited November 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I've actually learned quite a bit about the history of Mexico from eating at El Torito.  Just last week, my server gave me a quick lecture on the influence of the Catholic Church during the Mexican pre-colonial period as I was ordering some chicken nachos.  My kids were also given a fun placemat with a word-search for all the Mexican Presidents from 1940-1988.  We never did find Portillo.

Where is this joint?  Sounds like the best place ever to get Mexican that I've ever heard of.

[Calm]

 

I did not initiate the discussion about polygamy my wife did.  It was something I had reconciled (or thought I had) when I joined the church.  My wife is the one who pointed out the need for it, and the blessings and sacrifice required of the early Saints.  

I was the one who pointed  out to my husband that there may (and that is a big "maybe") be a woman or two out there that need him as well (I highly doubt there will be more than 2 or three spouse if plural marriage does occur, even with eternity, I don't think that would be appropriate…there should be more balance in the relationships and the man not overpowered by 50 women and never having a chance to come within ten feet of another man, let alone hang out with him given both are in the company of all those wives surrounding them, etc.  Plus I just don't see it as likely there are that many more of one gender there.  We talk about it from time to time, a few times ago he asked me if I would be okay if a few men needed me as a wife.  I'm good if he's good.  We make a good team now, I don't see why that would change if we manage to become perfect.

 

I don't see it as likely, I have a hard time imagining how either scenarios work…it is easier for me to imagine it in mortality where there is need for physical and financial support and marriage allows for a way to contribute and not just be a charity case, but the Lord provides a way when he commands something so…..

[Scott Lloyd]

Where is this joint?  Sounds like the best place ever to get Mexican that I've ever heard of.

I think cinepro was cleverly engaging in one of his favorite pastimes, satire (or, as USU78 calls it, "spoofery"). He was referring to my pointing out to JLHPROF that a restaurant -- such as the Lion House -- is not typically a place where one would expect to get an education about history.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Which is utterly ridiculous.  There is no difference between the JOD and the Ensign or the Conference Report.  Both are recorded transcripts of sermons.

True, the stenographer is more capable of error than the video, but any mistakes in shorthand would be unlikely to change a doctrine.

 

No, the Journal of Discourses ARE Church doctrine despite what people argue.  They just aren't currently recognized as such and weren't subject to correlation (thank goodness).

I think Journal of Discourses is a very good illustration of why we do indeed need Correlation.

 

There is quite a bit in there that amounts to nothing more than the individual speaker's own personal ruminations, what might be characterized in Terryl Givens phrasing as "doctrinal dead ends." This would, of course include the stuff about blood atonement and the Adam-God theory, which, in more modern times, has been utterly repudiated by President Spencer W. Kimball.

 

In an age of Correlation, that sort of stuff is more likely to be filtered out, and deservingly so.

[why me]

Which is utterly ridiculous.  There is no difference between the JOD and the Ensign or the Conference Report.  Both are recorded transcripts of sermons.

True, the stenographer is more capable of error than the video, but any mistakes in shorthand would be unlikely to change a doctrine.

 

No, the Journal of Discourses ARE Church doctrine despite what people argue.  They just aren't currently recognized as such and weren't subject to correlation (thank goodness).

I think that you may be wrong, Back in the good ole' days when I was a young adult we knew about the JoD but never considered it to be doctrine. Many member had BYs jounrals in their own libraries. The church needed to set the record straight in the ensign:

 

I’ve been reading the Journal of Discourses with a great deal of interest and pleasure, but I notice that they are not printed by the Church. Can you tell me how authoritative I should consider them to be?

Gerald E. Jones, director, LDS Institute of Religion, Berkeley, California

 

Many queries come from students concerning these twenty-six volumes first published in England between 1853 and 1886. The original intent of their publication was to provide income for George D. Watt, their stenographer and publisher. Many Church members in England desired to read the sermons delivered by the General Authorities of the Church in Utah, and Brother Watt’s books filled that need. He obtained clearance from the First Presidency 1 June 1853. Addressed to Elder Samuel Richards, missionary printer in England, and to “the Saints abroad” this statement introduced volume one:

“Dear Brethren—It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography [shorthand], which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your cooperation in the purchase and sale of the above named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.” (Signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards.)

The first four volumes were reported by Elder Watt, but after that other reporters are included—one a sister, Julia Young. Brother Watt reported through volume twelve, when David W. Evans became the prime reporter. He was followed by George W. Gibbs, a secretary to the First Presidency.

In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.

Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication.

We should remember that the times were different then. A major concern of the early Saints was physical survival. Sermons often dealt with the practical problems of the time and so may seem quaint in our day, even if much of the advice is still valid.

Doctrinally, members of the Church were growing and learning. Most adults were converts who had to unlearn and relearn many doctrines. They were learning things which our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited informal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines which have since been determined unimportant or even misleading.

The general membership of the Church has progressed in knowledge of gospel principles, which is as it should be. In our organizations, we have been taught the gospel for more than one hundred years now. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we have answers that were not yet given when the Journal of Discourses was published.

We also should be aware of priorities in our studies. It seems to me that we should first become very familiar with the four books of Scripture accepted as standard works. The words of our current living prophet are also most valuable for us in our time. The official statements of the First Presidency are standards for doctrine and practice in the Church. We should be familiar with the manuals and courses of study provided for us in our day. For further inspiration and instruction by the General Authorities, we can study general conference addresses, beginning with the most current and moving back in time.

Even after digesting these materials, some persons may still have time and inclination to peruse the Journal of Discourses. We can be grateful that records of the early sermons were kept to help us understand the growth of the Church and the testimonies of our early leaders. If we find the time to read them, however, we should avoid getting caught up in their uniqueness and should concentrate on the inspiring thoughts and experiences related to us by choice men.

Having taught seminary and institute classes for more than twenty years, I have tried to follow my own advice. Because I also love to read, I have read the scriptures many times, all of the general conference reports, and finally, all volumes of the Journal of Discourses.

Frankly, one of the main reasons I read the Journal of Discourses was so I could answer students’ questions about them with some knowledge of what they were about. Though I enjoyed reading them, gained some new insights, and was inspired by the spirit of the early brethren, except for the needs of students, there was no practical benefit that I could not have obtained from current conference talks with less effort, much greater clarity and more economy.

For me, the most pertinent discussion of gospel doctrines and answers to life’s problems and source of spiritual inspiration in today’s world comes from the standard works and our living prophets.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

We knew much back then because the ensign was different. It covered controversial topics. And we all benefitted.

Edited November 15, 2014 by why me